IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/growch/v49y2018i3p512-531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the Land Use Master Plan Control Urban Expansion and Protect Farmland in China? A Case Study of Nanjing

Author

Listed:
  • Zinan Shao
  • Tejo Spit
  • Zhifeng Jin
  • Martha Bakker
  • Qun Wu

Abstract

Urbanization represents a challenge for plans aimed at controlling urban expansion and protecting farmland, such as the land use master plan (LUMP) instituted by the Chinese national government. This paper studies the effectiveness of such top–down plans under the authoritarian regime through the case study of Nanjing. In contrast to previous studies that compare actual and planned land‐use maps, we compare actual and planned land‐use patterns. We use land‐use change data to examine spatio‐temporal land‐use change between the years 1997 and 2014. The results indicate that the actual amount of urban‐rural built‐up land exceeded planned regulatory amount by 50,185 ha and the total farmland was 70,541 ha less than the target outlined in the LUMP (1997–2010). Based on these results, and the fact that the allowed total urban‐rural built‐up land had already been surpassed in 2014, it is to be expected that the target of farmland protection outlined in the LUMP (2006–2020) will be broken, signaling the ineffectiveness of the plan to control urban expansion and protect farmland. Plan‐led developments (e.g., new towns, development zones) and market forces (e.g., housing market, foreign direct investment) explain these developments. This study indicates that when cities embrace “growth‐led” development and entrepreneurial governance, the ability of plans to control urban expansion and protect farmland is severely limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Zinan Shao & Tejo Spit & Zhifeng Jin & Martha Bakker & Qun Wu, 2018. "Can the Land Use Master Plan Control Urban Expansion and Protect Farmland in China? A Case Study of Nanjing," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 512-531, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:growch:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:512-531
    DOI: 10.1111/grow.12240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12240
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/grow.12240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ding, Liang & Huang, Ziqian & Xiao, Chaowei, 2023. "Are human activities consistent with planning? A big data evaluation of master plan implementation in Changchun," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Gyourko, Joseph & Shen, Yang & Wu, Jing & Zhang, Rongjie, 2022. "Land finance in China: Analysis and review," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Zhou, Tianxiao & Tan, Rong & Shu, Xianfan, 2022. "Rigidity with partial elasticity: Local government adaptation under the centralized land quota system in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Jianbo Zhou & Wanqing Liu, 2022. "Monitoring and Evaluation of Eco-Environment Quality Based on Remote Sensing-Based Ecological Index (RSEI) in Taihu Lake Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Wang, Jian & Wu, Qun & Yan, Siqi & Guo, Guancheng & Peng, Shangui, 2020. "China’s local governments breaking the land use planning quota: A strategic interaction perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Liping Shan & Chuyi Zhang & Tianxiao Zhou & Yuzhe Wu & Liang Zhang & Jiaming Shan, 2024. "Fixability–Flexibility Relations in Sustainable Territorial Spatial Planning in China: A Review from the Food–Energy–Water Nexus Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Qu, Shijin & Hu, Shougeng & Li, Weidong & Wang, Hui & Zhang, Chuanrong & Li, Quanfeng, 2020. "Interaction between urban land expansion and land use policy: An analysis using the DPSIR framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:growch:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:512-531. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0017-4815 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.