Do plans contain urban sprawl? A comparison of Beijing and Taipei
Do plans contain urban sprawl? A comparison of Beijing and Taipei
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.11.001
复制
发表时间：
2014-04
影响因子：
6.8
通讯作者：
Li-Guo Wang;Haoying Han;S. Lai
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li-Guo Wang;Haoying Han;S. Lai
通过实施总体规划来确定城市建设边界在中国大陆和台湾地区是一种普遍的做法。然而，城市中心区在遏制城市扩张方面的有效性受到了挑战。本文从产权的角度，首先从理论和概念上解释了为什么一般的城市建设会导致城市扩张，而不是阻止城市扩张。特别是以北京和台北为例，我们进一步检验了城市建设政策的有效性，并得出结论，正如我们的分析所预测的那样，在1983年至2005年的两个规划期内，北京的城市扩张主要发生在城市中心区之外。与北京相反，台北的城市中心区，一个与我们的假设相反的例子，从1958年到1991年，在控制城市扩张方面相当有效。我们认为，北京和台北之间的不同结果在于法规设置的有效性。在台北，这些规定有效地限制了开发商在中央商务区以外寻找土地，但在北京没有发现这样的证据。因此，我们认为，一个成功的土地控制措施，如城市建设银行，应该考虑到开发商的行为反应的计划和法规，以有效地阻止城市蔓延。
The setting of urban construction boundaries (UCBs) through the imposition of master plans (MPs) is commonly practiced in China and Taiwan. However, the effectiveness of UCBs in containing urban sprawl has been challenged. In this paper, from a property rights perspective, we first explain, theoretically and conceptually, why UCBs in general could cause urban sprawl, rather than stop it. Using the case of Beijing and Taipei in particular, we further examine the effectiveness of the UCBs policy and conclude, as predicted by our analysis, that the urban sprawl in Beijing during the two planning periods from 1983 to 2005 took place mostly outside the UCBs. In contrast to Beijing, the UCBs in Taipei, a counter example for our hypothesis, from 1958 to 1991 were quite effective in containing urban sprawl. The different results between Beijing and Taipei, we argue, lie in the effectiveness of regulations setting. In Taipei, the regulations were effective in restricting developers from searching for land outside the UCBs, but no such evidence was found in Beijing. We argue, therefore, that a successful land control measure, such as UCBs, should take into account developers' behavioral reaction to plans and regulations in order to stop effectively urban sprawl.