Search

The inner structure of urban built-up land sprawl (UBLS) is crucial for the level and quality of urbanization. This paper attempts an in-depth analysis of the inner structure of UBLS based on site data of granted built-up land parcels within the Beijing Metropolitan Area from 2001 to 2012. Structure entropy analysis and kernel density estimation (KDE) are employed to characterize the spatial-temporal variation of different types of UBLS and to summarize their patterns. The results reveal that during the sprawl process, residential land expanded rapidly in the first half of the study period while industrial land expanded rapidly in the second half. Residential land sprawl illustrated “radial sprawl”, with a trend of “living suburbanization”; commercial land tended to follow the pattern of “ribbon sprawl along the main roads”; and industrial land sprawl was scattered in a “leapfrog sprawl” pattern. These results reveal the particular characteristics of the coexistence of market mechanisms and government macro-control of the land market in China. The land analysed in this study does not present the high-efficiency circle-layer land-use structure. Driven by top-down power allocations and the GDP-dominated views of local governments, the land supply inclined toward structural imbalance, which generated a disordered urban spatial structure. Hence, we suggest formulating a market-driven land supply mechanism to adjust the land-use supply structure, which has important implications for optimizing urban land-use structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Although the scale and speed of China’s urban and economic transition is well acknowledged, a detailed account of the transformation of a single city’s development in this context is quite rare. This paper provides an insight into the recent dynamics of China’s capital city, Beijing. In the early 1980s, China’s transition process from a planned to a market economy started to deeply affect the urban economy of Beijing, so much so that the city is on its way to become one of the world’s leading cities. This article focuses on this development by looking at Beijing’s institutional context and its economic-spatial dynamics over the past 30years. Economic Clusters (ECs) are also discussed because they have contributed significantly to Beijing’s rapid growth and change. The city’s development is however under increasing pressures of ecological deterioration, limited water resources, high living costs and uncertainties regarding the future urban policy orientation of the city region. These current challenges and responses in planning are assessed and discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Taking Beijing as a case study, this paper analyses new trends in peri-urbanisation and the city’s planning responses after 2000 in China. The results of the analysis show that the percentage of temporary migrant residents continues to grow in the peri-urban region and the social inequalities in relation to quality of life between local people and migrants have increased there. In particular, there is a concentration of thousands of young and well-educated migrants in the peri-urban region, resulting in a new kind of urban slum. Sprawling development still dominates Beijing’s fringe. New planning policies related to an urban–rural integration strategy have played a positive role in improving living conditions in rural areas and reducing the social and economic gaps between urban and rural areas in the peri-urban region. However, planning in the peri-urban region is still facing new challenges due to vertically and horizontally fragmented management, growing market forces, and social discrimination caused by the remnants of the hukou mechanism. This suggests that it will not be easy to achieve the planning goal of urban–rural integration and harmony society unless further actions are taken to enhance political capacity of planning system in Beijing. The capacity-building of planning should be facilitated if institutional innovations can be made in arrangements of power, rights, public resources, accountability, and legitimacy in the planning system. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]