Inclusive urban development policy
Generally speaking, there are no articles about urban sprawl and the loss of agricultural land abroad, and the loss of agricultural land and open space is basically mentioned when analyzing the negative effects of urban sprawl. In order to cope with these negative effects, growth management strategies are more or less directly or indirectly related to cultivated land protection. Among them, the typical urban development policy is to accommodate the number.
There are three main forms of inclusive urban development policies: green belt, urban growth boundary and urban service boundary (Pendall et al., 2002). Among the three, green belt and urban growth boundary mainly restrict urban growth to open space, important agricultural land and ecologically sensitive land by "pushing"; On the other hand, the urban service boundary uses "pull" to "attract" urban growth into the boundary through infrastructure construction to avoid it appearing in areas without infrastructure investment. For the effectiveness of regulation, Pendall and Bengston and others think that the strictness of the restrictions on urban development by green belts, urban growth boundaries and urban service boundaries is gradually decreasing (Bengston et al., 2009) (as shown in Table 6-3).
Table 6-3 Control Characteristics of Inclusive City Development Policy
(According to Han et al., 2009)
Specifically, the green belt mainly refers to the open space around the city, including farmland, forests and other green spaces, and its purpose is to permanently limit the expansion of the city. Urban Growth Boundary By delineating the boundary between urban areas and rural areas, legal urban development is controlled within the boundary by land use control means such as zoning and controlling development permits. On the other hand, by refusing to extend municipal services (such as water supply system, drainage system, roads, schools and parks) to areas outside the service boundary, the urban service boundary keeps the development of facilities that depend on municipal services within the boundary, which is more flexible than the urban growth boundary (Olyshavin Arthur, 2003). They all try to limit the future urban growth form to a certain urban boundary, so as to promote the filling development and save and intensively use land resources. Of course, there are some differences among the three modes of operation, but there are four similarities: ① protecting agricultural land; (2) Promote the effective utilization of infrastructure and reduce the cost of public investment; ③ Promoting the redevelopment of central cities; ④ Form high-density land use types and encourage efficient land use. The most important thing is the first point: protecting agricultural land, while the last three points actually indirectly protect agricultural land.
1. Green belt model
"Green belt model" is one of the most prominent features of British urban planning policy, which occupies an important position in the history of modern urban construction and urban planning in the world and is imitated by many countries (such as South Korea) and cities (such as Guangzhou) in the world.
The idea of green belt can be traced back to 1580. King Elizabeth issued an announcement to set up a 48-kilometer-wide quarantine zone around London, and no new houses should be built in this area to prevent the spread of plague and infectious diseases. After several changes, scholars such as En Wen also put forward specific ideas one after another. In the Great London Plan compiled by Abucrombie in 1944, a green circle with a width of about 1 1 ~ 16 km was set. Until 1988, the British government promulgated "Green Belt Planning Policy Guide" (PPG2), which specified the function, land use, boundary division and development control requirements of green belts in detail.
The most important attribute of green belt is openness. The purpose of green belt policy is to prevent the spread of the city and limit and adjust the spatial scale and mode of urban development by maintaining the permanent openness of green belt; Protection of rural, forestry and other related uses; Promote urban renewal and sustainable development. The basic feature of green belt is permanence. Their protection must be considered as long as possible (beyond the planning period). PPG2 clearly pointed out that the basic principle of green belt construction and development control is to refuse "unsuitable development". Control of visual landscape. Although some development activities meet the goal of green belt use, these development activities may still cause damage to landscape quality. Therefore, we should ensure that the visual landscape value of the green belt will not be destroyed by development activities.
Since the formulation and implementation of the green belt policy in Britain, it has been widely affirmed and positively evaluated, which is embodied in the following aspects: ① The green belt policy is a national basic planning policy determined by law, which has been clearly stipulated in the previous urban planning laws and has strong legal authority. (2) Permanence of the boundary of green belt, and strict control of development and construction. When the local government determined the boundary of the green belt, there were few large-scale changes, which ensured the permanence of the green belt. ③ Ensure the net growth of the total amount of green belts. Under special circumstances, the change of green belt boundary is inevitable. Therefore, the British government has always insisted on the dynamic balance of the total amount of green belts to ensure the net increase of green belt area. ④ Promote urban renewal and guide the spatial layout of regional economic investment. After 1970, with the decline of the inner city, urban renewal has become an important task of the British urban planning department, and the green belt policy has objectively promoted the process of urban renewal.
2. Urban growth boundary
The concept of urban growth boundary was first put forward by Salem in the United States in 1976. At that time, the city clashed with Marion County and Polk County on the management of Salem's urban development, which produced the first urban growth boundary in the United States. It sets a boundary for the development of urban areas. The land in UGB can be developed into urban land, while the land outside UGB should not be urbanized in a certain period of time. This boundary is not only the core and key component of land use planning, but also the basis of the whole planning. Specifically, UGB was established based on the following objectives (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2003):① The need of urban population growth; ② Meet the needs of housing, employment opportunities and quality of life; (3) Providing public facilities and services through economic means; ④ Make the most effective use of the land in the existing urban areas and marginal areas; ⑤ Pay attention to the impact of development activities on environment, energy, economy and society; ⑥ Reserve agricultural land according to land classification standards; ⑦ Coordinate urban land use with nearby agricultural activities. The establishment of UGB should make it meet the needs of all urban land such as residence, industry, commerce, entertainment and open space within the planning period of 20 years. In addition, every five years, it is necessary to test the land supply capacity of UGB to determine whether it is necessary to expand the existing UGB, and the time and scope of expansion.
So far, the most famous UGB is located in Portland, Oregon, USA. According to the authorization of the Land Protection and Development Act (LCDA) issued by Oregon 1973, in 1978, the residents of Portland Metropolitan Area established the Portland Metropolitan Area Service Area and established the corresponding State Land Protection and Development Committee (LCDC). The Committee provides transportation and land use planning services and is responsible for formulating and revising UGB. 1979, UGB was established in portland metropolitan area. The border includes 24 cities, more than 60 special service areas, and the urban parts of Martenoma, Clark Mas and Washington County. At the beginning of demarcation, UGB covered an area of * * * 932.4km2 ... of which 336.7km2 was vacant and uncultivated land. At present, UGB area has expanded to about 1036km2. In February 2000, its population was 6.5438+300,000 (Metro, 2008).
Throughout the 1990s, there was much discussion about whether and how much UGB in Portland should be changed. The research in 1997 shows that the undeveloped land in UGB in Portland metropolitan area is only 15 1.52km2, which cannot meet the 20-year land demand stipulated by national laws. After a long debate, the Portland Metropolitan Service Area Committee did not agree to use the regional land reserve, that is, 75.3km2 of planned land as rural residential land, but decided to expand UGB 16.2 km2, only occupying the urban reserve land on the first floor, which was relatively easy to provide infrastructure (Pendall et al., 2002).
Usually, UGB controls sprawl by delineating the boundaries that allow urban development, and delineates several "quasi-development zones" for the development of development companies. Various new development areas are separated by permanent green belts, which are connected by public transportation. Then, different development densities are selected according to needs, giving the boundary some flexibility and allowing adjustment when necessary (Zhang Tingwei, 1999). UGB is different from the management measures taken to control development in the early 1970s (such as intensive zoning, suspension of development and population control). It is not to restrict development, but to manage the process and position of development, and it is a multi-objective management model. By limiting urban development to a clearly defined and geographically connected area-the area of this area is determined according to the most detailed available information about urban development trends-UGB can meet the needs of urban development while preventing urban sprawl. Compared with the "green belt" policy, it is more flexible and can be expanded with the needs of social and economic development. In addition, UGB should not only set up barriers and boundaries, but also provide reasonable guidance for the potential development of the city in the future. According to the national land use objectives and guidelines, local governments can use tax incentives and tax restrictions, fee and rate reductions, zoning and urban service plans to guide UGB urban development activities within their jurisdiction (Feng Ke et al., 2008).
Of course, any policy has two sides, and UGB is no exception. First of all, it is difficult for planners to correctly determine the speed of urban development, so it is difficult to accurately define the supply of land, which often leads to the excessive scope of UGB; Second, the implementation of UGB has also caused political problems. Although the state government hopes to demarcate the border through cooperation, there are frequent conflicts between cities and counties and between cities in the metropolitan area for land.
3. Urban service boundary
In order to cope with the "leapfrog" and "low-density" urban development model brought about by the spread, many States and metropolitan areas in the United States have established urban service boundaries and adopted pull policies instead of push restrictive policies to guide urban development. Within the scope of urban services, the government provides funds to build infrastructure; Outside this boundary, no public funds are provided to support the construction of urban services and infrastructure. Compared with the urban growth boundary, the urban service boundary is more flexible, more oriented and more widely used. The driving force of the implementation of urban service boundary is economic incentive-reducing the supporting cost of infrastructure as much as possible. Therefore, in addition to clear and flexible boundary demarcation, its implementation depends to a great extent on the measures and hierarchical system (APFO) of laws and regulations on providing adequate public facilities.
APFO stipulates that any plot must have supporting infrastructure before development, otherwise no license will be issued. This can encourage cities to develop cohesively on the original basis, increase land use density and reduce the cost of infrastructure construction. The implementation scope of APFO project is mainly concentrated in cities or counties, and its typical representative is Ramapo Town, New York, USA. Subsequently, in 1985 and 1990, the APFO policy was adopted by Florida and Washington respectively.
As for the grading system, it is a method between infrastructure guidance and green belt control. It is mainly based on the carrying capacity of infrastructure, current development level, agricultural land quality evaluation and other factors to delimit developed areas, prohibited areas and areas in urgent need of development. For example, the "urban hierarchy system" used to control urban growth in Lamabo Town, new york, USA. The typical "urbanization hierarchy" applicable to metropolitan areas includes level 1 (central city), level 2 (inner suburban ring), level 3 (active urban growth area) and level 4 (rural protection area). These levels are set according to their functions rather than administrative boundaries.
In the process of practical application, the two are always closely combined. 65438-0975, Minneapolis-Sao Paulo, USA established the Metropolitan Service Area (MUSA). It includes three urbanization levels (I-III), with a total area of 233 1 km2 and an estimated population of 1 10,000. Among them, 47% of the land (about 1093km2) has been developed, 20% (about 473km2) is under development or idle, and the remaining 766km2 is undeveloped due to environmental protection restrictions. In addition, in order to avoid the shortage of land supply, the land area designated by Moussa can support economic development for 25 years, exceeding the 20-year development period in the planning framework. From 1976 to 1993, Moussa * * * revised it 60 times. By the end of 1993, the developed land was 1287km2, an increase of 17.8 percentage points over 1976; 194km2 land is under development or idle. In order to meet the expected demand of 330,000 houses in the future (by 2020), the Parliament adopted a new regional development plan at 1996, which expanded the original Musa border and added 324km2 of land. Outside the border of Musa, the plan also demarcates 486 square kilometers of spare land to meet the urban development after 2020.
Generally speaking, although the urban service boundary has great flexibility, its implementation effect is not optimistic compared with the urban growth boundary. Contrary to the role of Portland's urban growth boundary, the population density within the twin-city boundary has not increased, but it has greatly decreased after the adoption of the urban service boundary. At the same time, the area of urban service boundary is also increasing.
(B) regional differences adjustment policy: transfer the right to development
The adjustment policy of regional differences mainly covers two aspects: ① the right to purchase development. The government or non-profit organization buys the land development right from the landowner, who can continue to engage in the current use. Since the land development right has been bought, the landowner can trade other land ownership, but land development will never happen. (2) Transfer of development right or development right of tradable land. The transfer of land development rights is similar to the purchase of land development rights, except that developers buy land development rights and use the purchased land development rights to build higher or denser buildings in other areas. In practice, compared with the two, the former has a huge cost, which leads to the effect is not obvious. For example, in 2002, the federal government of the United States passed the Farm Safety and Rural Investment Act, which provided state governments, local governments and non-profit organizations with $985 million in financial support for farmland protection. About 2 million acres of cultivated land in the United States are protected by purchasing development rights. State and local governments spent $6,543.8+5 billion on the purchase of development rights. It is precisely because of this that the transfer of land development rights has been widely concerned and valued.
1. Interpretation of the concept of land development right transfer
Transfer of Development Right (TDR) is a voluntary land use management mechanism based on market mechanism, which promotes the protection of land with high agricultural value, environmentally sensitive areas and strategic open space by guiding land development to areas more suitable for land development. The essence of development right transfer is to establish a transferable development right trading market. Land users in sending areas sell their rights to land developers in receiving areas. As long as the ecological environment effect does not reach the best state or the resources are not fully utilized, the transaction can continue. Once all the rights in the sending area are transferred, the environment will reach the best level. The most important principle of TDR is the separation of development right from other ownership rights. In practice, it sets up a series of land development rights, and then allows these rights to be separated from the land itself, just like water rights, mineral rights and land separation. There are four ways to apply this concept: protecting agricultural land, open land and scenic spots, protecting historical sites and buildings, increasing density and building area, and zoning substitution (Qin Mingzhou et al., 2004). The transfer of land development rights can not only better coordinate the contradiction between economic development and environmental protection, but also greatly reduce transaction costs and management costs (Liu Xinping, 2004).
Generally speaking, the spatial geographical scope of "injection zone" should be defined according to the direction of urban development, urban infrastructure construction and the degree of urban economic spatial agglomeration. The "development area" can only transfer the land development right in this area, but can't buy it. The purpose of protecting land is to completely avoid the development of land plots in this area or reduce the total amount of land development in this area. The "injection area" is the opposite, because it is the future urban development direction guided by policies, so we can only buy land development rights, but not sell land development rights. Developers (investors or investors who will be engaged in land development in the "injection area") and landowners in the "sending area" of land development rights conduct land development rights transactions voluntarily or directly, and the government basically does not interfere in the transaction process of land development rights (Ding Chengri, 2008).
2. Operating mechanism of land development right transfer
Land development rights include agricultural land development rights and urban land development rights. Because this chapter focuses on the application of the transfer of development right in farmland protection, the land development right involved in this paper mainly refers to the agricultural land development right. The core of applying the transfer of development right to the protection of cultivated land resources is to transfer the land development right of cultivated land protection areas (such as basic farmland) to non-agricultural areas. In this way, once the land development right of cultivated land protection area is transferred, the land will never be developed.
As shown in Figure 6-2, A represents two homogeneous cultivated lands located in urban-rural fringe and rural area respectively before agricultural land conversion (due to homogeneity, it is assumed that the two lands have the same development rights, that is, eight building units are allowed to be built). After the implementation of the policy, the cultivated land in rural areas was classified as basic farmland protection areas, while the cultivated land in the urban-rural fringe was converted into construction and development land after being requisitioned by the state for the needs of national economic development. Before the land development right transfer policy (as shown in Figure B), according to the land use function zoning, the land in the "basic farmland protection zone" can only be used for agriculture, and it is not allowed to change its use (with little or no compensation); After the requisitioned cultivated land is sold by the state, eight construction units can be built per unit area. Obviously, the rural farmland development right has been "suppressed" to a great extent (that is, the eight construction units shown by the dotted line). This system and policy arrangement can not bring too much economic incentives to the protection of rural basic farmland, which leads to the indifference and lack of enthusiasm of farmers for farmland protection. After the transfer of land development rights, the cultivated land development rights of eight rural units will be transferred to the expropriated plots in the urban-rural fringe (that is, the construction of 16 building unit is allowed). In this way, developers can internalize the leasing of land development rights and farmers can get fairer compensation.
3. Transfer of land development rights driven by interests
There are four main types of stakeholders involved in the transfer of land development rights: government, developers, residents in "development areas" and residents in "injection areas".
First of all, for the government, they will actively promote the transfer of land development rights. There are two reasons: first, compared with the current farmland protection policy, the transfer of land development rights is basically to protect land or farmland at low cost. Regulatory costs are not considered here. Even if there is no land development right transfer policy, the supervision cost is objective, so the transfer of land development right does not increase the extra burden and cost for land development supervision. Secondly, the land development right transfer system provides a policy of allocating, managing and protecting cultivated land based on market mechanism, which can minimize or avoid the social welfare loss and economic efficiency reduction caused by rigid administrative imperative land protection (such as land use zoning). This is consistent with the overall goal of deepening and perfecting the market mechanism and developing the market economy with China characteristics.
Figure 6-2 Schematic Diagram of Land Development Right Transfer in Cultivated Land Protection
Secondly, developers will generally actively support the policy of transferring land development rights. Although their land development costs will increase (the transfer price of land development rights), they can improve the density and intensity of land development. For example, by increasing the floor area ratio, building density and land construction rate (the proportion of allowable land area in a piece of land to the total land area), developers can realize the economic scale benefits of housing construction and thus obtain higher land development profits.
Third, the house owners in the "sending area" will basically support the land development right transfer policy, because the undeveloped or undeveloped cultivated land brought by the land development right transfer policy will make the area maintain a good natural ecological landscape, avoid the environmental and urban problems brought by development, and thus improve the quality of life in the area. At the same time, the cultivated land owners in the "developed areas" will also support this policy because they can get corresponding compensation while continuing to engage in farming.
However, residents of the "injection zone" will oppose the land development and transfer policy, because this policy will increase the development density of the "injection zone", on the one hand, it will worsen the living environment, on the other hand, it will attract residents of low-income cities to move in. However, it should be pointed out that the introduction of the development right transfer policy can promote the more intensive use of land in the "injection area".