Do plans contain urban sprawl? A comparison of Beijing and Taipei

• The paper questions whether urban plans can contain urban sprawl and the theoretical.
• Empirical results show they cannot and they might even encourage urban sprawl.
• This is particularly the case in Beijing where land control policies are more loosely enforced.
• A theoretical account is provided to explain the phenomenon.
• Policies are suggested that might remedy this situation.

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.