Abstract
Livability is pivotal when planning human habitations. Sustainable planning strategies have been gradually adopted to enhance the livability of built environments, especially in the context of developing countries with a continuously improving planning system. Unlike other spontaneously developed low-income housing estates (e.g., urban villages) in China, subsidized housing estates (SHEs) are entirely planned and dictated by local governments and that may be significantly affected by urban planning policies and practices. However, the role of urban planning in achieving the livability of SHEs has yet to be fully investigated. By focusing on a pilot project of SHEs in Guangzhou, this study attempts to identify the extent and rationale of planning impacts on the livability of the SHEs. The study concludes that, although the updated planning policies and schemes encouraged public participation and livability, their achievements still hinged on the institutional environment in Socialist Marketized China. Consequently, the implementation of SHE plans encountered several challenges, resulting in insignificant improvements in livability from planning. This study provides an in-depth understanding of urban planning and its impacts on livability in the context of developing countries with a continuously developing planning system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, E. R. (1992). Approaches to planning: Introducing current planning theories, concepts, and issues. London, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975926
Blanco H (2012). Public participation in neighborhood planning: A neglected aspect of community livability: The case of seattle. In: FARC Wagner (Ed.), Community Livability: Issues and Approaches to Sustaining the Well-Being of People and Communities (pp. 183-197). London: Routledge
Bockstael, E., Bahia, N. C., Seixas, C. S., & Berkes, F. (2016). Participation in protected area management planning in coastal Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy, 60, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.02.014
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978018
Burton, E. (2000). The compact city: Just or just compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1969–2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050162184
Calkins, H. W. (1979). The planning monitor: an accountability theory of plan evaluation. Environment and Planning A, 11(7), 745–758.
Chiu, R. L. (2003). Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development. In: RAY, F., Lee, J. Housing and social change: East-west perspectives, London, Routledge
Cilliers, E. J., & Timmermans, W. (2014). The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 41(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1068/b39098
Le Corbusier. (1935). La ville radieuse, éléments d'une doctrine d'urbanisme pour l'équipement de la civilisation machiniste. Éditions de l'architecture d'aujourd'hui.
Dalton, L. C., & Burby, R. J. (1994). Mandates, plans, and planners: Building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975604
Dalton, L. C., Conover, M., Rudholm, G., Tsuda, R., & Baer, W. C. (1989). The limits of regulation evidence from local plan implementation in California. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368908976015
Daniere, A. G. (1995). Transportation planning and implementation in cities of the Third World: The case of Bangkok. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 13(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1068/c130025
Dantzig G. B., & Saaty T. L. (1973). Compact city. A plan for a livable urban environment. Contemporary Sociology, 4(4), 447–448. https://doi.org/10.2307/2062417.
Davoudi, S., & Healey, P. (1995). City Challenge: Sustainable process or temporary gesture? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 13(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1068/c130079
Friedmann, J. (2005). China's urban transition: U of Minnesota Press.
Friedmann, J. R. (1973). Retracking America;: A theory of transactive planning. Anchor Press.
Friedmann, J. R. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Blackwell.
Friedmann, J. (2003). Why do planning theory? Planning Theory London, 2(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001002
Gil, A., Calado, H., & Bentz, J. (2011). Public participation in municipal transport planning processes-the case of the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada, Azores. Portugal. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1309–1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.06.010
Golobic, M., & Marusic, I. (2007). Developing an integrated approach for public participation: A case of land-use planning in Slovenia. Environment & Planning B Planning & Design, 34(6), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32080
Goodfellow, T. (2013). Planning and development regulation amid rapid urban growth: Explaining divergent trajectories in Africa. Geoforum, 48(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.007
Gunder, M. (2011). Commentary: Is urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10393358
Guo, S. J. (2009). Reflections on China’s Institutional Reform on Urban Planning Decision-making: A Case Study on Shenzhen Urban Planning Committee. China City Planning Review, 18(3), 8–16. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-CSGY200903003.htm
Hall, P. (1974). The containment of urban England. Geographical Journal, 386–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/1796533
Han, H., Lai, S., Dang, A., Tan, Z., & Wu, C. (2009). Effectiveness of urban construction boundaries in Beijing: An assessment. Journal of Zhejiang University - Science, 10(9), 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0920317
Hasselaar, E. (2011). Market Dominance and Participatory Planning in New Housing Developments. In L. Qu & E. Hasselaar (Eds.), Making Room for People: Choice, Voice and Liveability in Residential Places (pp. 75–101). Techne Press.
Healey, P. (1997). Situating communicative practices: Moving beyond urban political economy. Planning Theory, 17, 65–79. https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-UBICO/frontdoor/index/index/docId/60
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A., & Needham, B., eds. 2006. Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe. Edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library
Hoek-Smit, M. C. (2002). Implementing Indonesia’s new housing policy: the way forward. Draft paper for government of Indonesia and the World Bank.
Hopkins, L. D. (2012). Plan assessment: Making and using plans well. In R. Crane & R. Weber (Eds.), The oxford handbook of urban planning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083798
Kashef, M. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Collection of Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOAR.2016.03.003
Larice, M. A. (2005). Great Neighborhoods: The Livabililtly and Morphology of High Density Neighborhoods in Urban North America. Berkeley: University of California.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Day, M., et al. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: Theory, practice, and methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35051
Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., et al. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation e a conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976395
Leccese, M., & McCormick, K. (2000). Charter of the new urbanism. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Leftwich, A. (1996). Democracy and development: Theory and practice. Polity Press.
Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216667433
Legacy, C., & Nouwelant, R. (2015). Negotiating strategic planning’s transitional spaces: The case of “guerrilla governance” in infrastructure planning. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 47(1), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a140124p
Li, W., Feng, T., Timmermans, H. J., Li, Z., Zhang, M., & Li, B. (2020). Analysis of citizens’ motivation and participation intention in urban planning. Cities, 106, 102921. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2020.102921
Liu, X., Liu, H. L., Chen, W., et al. (2017). Spatiotemporal Fragmentation of urban residential land use: A case study from China. Sustainability, 9(7), 0196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071096
Loh, C. G. (2011). Assessing and interpreting non-conformance in land-use planning implementation. Planning Practice & Research, 26, 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.580111
Long, Y., Han, H., Lai, S. K., et al. (2020). Evaluation of urban planning implementation from spatial dimension: An analytical framework for Chinese cities and case study of Beijing. Habitat International, 101, 102–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102197
Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. P. (2016). Local plan implementation: Assessing conformance and influence of local plans in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604071
Myers, K. L. (1998). Towards a framework for continuous planning and execution. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Distributed Continual Planning,
Myers, D. (1987). Community-relevant measurement of quality of life a focus on local trends. Urban Affairs Review, 23(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208168702300107
Namatama, N. (2020). An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority. Land Use Policy, 97, 104735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104735
Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04270466
Norton, R. K. (2005). More and better local planning: State-mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976405
Office, G. H. S. (2018). Guangzhou public housing development report. Unpublished document.
Oliveira, E., & Hersperger, A. M. (2018). Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation. Land Use Policy, 76, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.042
Pandey, R. U., Garg, Y. K., & Bharat, A. (2013). Understanding qualitative conceptions of livability: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(12), 374–380.
Pendall, R. (2001). Municipal plans, state mandates, and property rights: Lessons from maine. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/073945601128993139
Rudolf, S. C., & Grădinaru, S. R. (2019). The quality and implementation of local plans: An integrated evaluation. Environment & Planning B Urban Analytics & City Science, 46(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317737070
Ruth, M., & Franklin, R. S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG.2013.09.018
Rydin, Y. (1993). The British planning system: An introduction. Macmillan.
Squires, C., & Gurran, N. (2005). Planning for affordable housing in coastal sea change communities. Paper presented at the National Housing Conference, Perth.
Talen, E. (1996). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601600201
Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure, and conformance: An alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240573
Tian, L., & Shen, T. (2011). Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: A case of Guangzhou city master plan. Cities, 28, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.002
Tolfo, G., & Doucet, B. (2022). Livability for whom?: Planning for livability and the gentrification of memory in Vancouver. Cities. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103564
Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3
Verdini, G. (2015). Is the incipient Chinese civil society playing a role in regenerating historic urban areas? Evidence from Nanjing, Suzhou and Shanghai. Habitat International, 50, 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HABITATINT.2015.09.008
Wagner, F., Caves, R. W. (Eds.). (2012). Community livability: Issues and approaches to sustaining the well-being of people and communities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148204
Walsh, C. (2012). Spatial planning and territorial governance: Managing urban development in a rapid growth context. Urban Research & Practice, 5(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.656451
Watson, V. (2013). African urban fantasies: Dreams or nightmares? Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813513705
Wei, Z. C., Chen, T. T., Rebecca, C., et al. (2017). Policy Transferability on Public Housing at the City Level: Singapore to Guangzhou in China. Journal of Urban Planning & Development, 3, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000392
Wei, Z. C., Liu, Y. T., He, S. J., et al. (2020). Housing differentiation in transitional urban China. Cities, 96, 102469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102469
Wei, Z. C., & Rebecca, C. (2018). Livability of subsidized housing estates in socialist marketized China: An institutional interpretation. Cities, 83, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.013
Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405729
Wu, F. (2015). Planning for growth: Urban and regional planning in China. Routledge.
Xu, J. (1999). Development concepts and land use planning mechanisms in China: a case study of Guangzhou. (PhD), The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong.
Xu, J. (2016). Bargaining for nature: treating the environment in China’s urban planning practice. Urban Geography. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1139414
Yeh, A. G., & Yuen, B. (2011). Tall building living in high density cities: A comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. In: B. Y. YUEN, A. G. O. (Ed.), High-Rise Living in Asian Cities, London, Springer.
Zhou, K. (2021). Diverging standpoints in the spiral of change: A survey on the values of social justice among students of planning in China. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X21989789
Zhou, S., Wu, Z., & Cheng, L. (2013). The impact of spatial mismatch on residents in low-income housing neighbourhoods: A study of the Guangzhou metropolis. China. Urban Studies, 50(9), 1817–1835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012465906
Zhu, J. (1999). Local growth coalition: The context and implications of China’s gradualist urban land reforms. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00211
Funding
The Funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China, (42271206), Zongcai Wei, National Natural Science Foundation of China, (41971157), Tingting Chen, Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, (2021A1515011073), Zongcai Wei, Guangdong Philosophy and Social Science Foundation, (GD22XGL08) Zongcai Wei.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical approval
This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal for simultaneous consideration. The submitted work is original and have not been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full). The study is not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and not submitted to various journals or to one journal over time. The research results are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors are adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgement to other works are given, quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wei, Z., Chen, T. Dilemma of pursuing livability in China’s urban planning: the case of Longguicheng housing estate in Guangzhou. J Hous and the Built Environ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10091-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10091-5