IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i11p2018-d1274483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban Development Boundary Setting Versus Ecological Security and Internal Urban Demand: Evidence from Haikou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Luoman Pu

    (School of Public Administration, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China)

  • Qi Xia

    (School of Public Administration, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China)

Abstract

Amidst rapid urbanization, the conflict between urban population and land is intensifying due to ecological degradation and imbalanced supply and demand of land resources in and around cities. Demarcating the urban development boundary is a specific measure to regulate the scale and form of urban expansion while considering internal urban demand as well as ecological security. This study took Haikou City, China, as the study area, exploring a new way to take into account the external constraints and endogenous mechanisms of urban expansion, constructing a comprehensive ecological security pattern (ESP) using the MCR model, demarcating recent rigid development boundaries, and demarcating future elastic development boundaries using the CA–Markov model. The results were the following: (1) By identifying the current urban boundary in 2020, the urban land area of Haikou City was found to be 261.64 km 2 . (2) Using the MCR model to construct comprehensive ESP and demarcate a rigid development boundary revealed that the total area within the boundary was 398.37 km 2 , with an additional growth potential of up to 136.73 km 2 . (3) Demarcating elastic boundaries for Haikou City in 2030, 2040 and 2050 using the CA–Markov model while considering natural and socio-economic driving factors and constraints showed the internal areas within these boundaries to be calculated at 451.80, 489.46 and 523.37 km 2 , respectively, which were higher than that in 2020 by 190.16, 227.82 and 261.73 km 2 . (4) Some suggestions, such as establishing a comprehensive technical system, ensuring robust policy support and legal protection, and improving the responsibility management system, were proposed in the implementation of urban development boundaries. Scientifically and reasonably demarcating the recent rigid urban development boundary and future elastic urban development boundaries can ensure sustainable urban development while preserving the ecological environment and satisfying urban development demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Luoman Pu & Qi Xia, 2023. "Urban Development Boundary Setting Versus Ecological Security and Internal Urban Demand: Evidence from Haikou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:2018-:d:1274483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/11/2018/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/11/2018/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ding, Chengri & Knaap, Gerrit J. & Hopkins, Lewis D., 1999. "Managing Urban Growth with Urban Growth Boundaries: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 53-68, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dong Chen & Rongrong Liu & Maoxian Zhou, 2023. "Delineation of Urban Growth Boundary Based on Habitat Quality and Carbon Storage: A Case Study of Weiyuan County in Gansu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Jeon, Jae Sik, 2019. "How housing market responds to greenbelt relaxation: Case of Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 328-334.
    3. Satyajit Chatterjee & Burcu Eyigungor, 2017. "A Tractable City Model For Aggregative Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 127-155, February.
    4. Langpap, Christian & Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Predicting The Effect Of Local Land Use Regulations On Biodiversity In The Western United States," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20038, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Siyu Miao & Yang Xiao & Ling Tang, 2022. "Urban Growth Simulation Based on a Multi-Dimension Classification of Growth Types: Implications for China’s Territory Spatial Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Cheol-Joo Cho, 2011. "Paying for expansion versus replacement costs: infrastructure provision for efficient urban growth," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(1), pages 59-81, February.
    7. Jianxin Yang & Jian Gong & Wenwu Tang & Yang Shen & Chunyan Liu & Jing Gao, 2019. "Delineation of Urban Growth Boundaries Using a Patch-Based Cellular Automata Model under Multiple Spatial and Socio-Economic Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-27, November.
    8. Satyajit Chatterjee & Burcu Eyigungor, 2013. "Do supply restrictions raise the value of urban land? The (neglected) role of production externalities," Working Papers 13-37, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    9. Matthias Cinyabuguma & Virginia McConnell, 2013. "Urban Growth Externalities And Neighborhood Incentives: Another Cause Of Urban Sprawl?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 332-348, May.
    10. Myungje Woo & Jean-Michel Guldmann, 2011. "Impacts of Urban Containment Policies on the Spatial Structure of US Metropolitan Areas," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(16), pages 3511-3536, December.
    11. Jiaying Zhang & Yi Chen & Xuhong Yang & Wenyi Qiao & Danyang Wang, 2022. "The Demarcation of Urban Development Boundary Based on the Maxent-CA Model: A Case Study of Wuxi in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Harry W. Richardson & Peter Gordon, 2000. "Compactness or Sprawl: America's Future vs. the Present," Working Paper 8645, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    13. Jie Lu & Chaojie Liu & Michael Buxton, 2021. "The Impact Of Urban Growth Boundaries In Melbourne On Urban Sustainable Development," Engineering Heritage Journal (GWK), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 34-41, June.
    14. John I. Carruthers & Selma Lewis & Gerrit‐Jan Knaap & Robert N. Renner, 2010. "Coming undone: A spatial hazard analysis of urban form in American metropolitan areas," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 65-88, March.
    15. Huang, Daquan & Huang, Jing & Liu, Tao, 2019. "Delimiting urban growth boundaries using the CLUE-S model with village administrative boundaries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 422-435.
    16. Brueckner, Jan K., 2007. "Urban growth boundaries: An effective second-best remedy for unpriced traffic congestion?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 263-273, November.
    17. Dan Yi & Xi Guo & Yi Han & Jie Guo & Minghao Ou & Xiaomin Zhao, 2022. "Coupling Ecological Security Pattern Establishment and Construction Land Expansion Simulation for Urban Growth Boundary Delineation: Framework and Application," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Zhuzhou Zhuang & Kaiyuan Li & Jiaxun Liu & Qianwen Cheng & Yu Gao & Jinxia Shan & Lingyan Cai & Qiuhao Huang & Yanming Chen & Dong Chen, 2016. "China’s New Urban Space Regulation Policies: A Study of Urban Development Boundary Delineations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Myung-Jin Jun, 2004. "The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Urban Development Patterns and Commuting," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(7), pages 1333-1348, June.
    20. Tan, Ronghui & Liu, Pengcheng & Zhou, Kehao & He, Qingsong, 2022. "Evaluating the effectiveness of development-limiting boundary control policy: Spatial difference-in-difference analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:2018-:d:1274483. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.