Reorienting Cities: Effective Land Use Planning Policies

Policies and Regulations : A Korean Context

Myung-Jin Jun (Professor, Chung-Ang University)

Korean Spatial Policies and Regulations

A half-century history of regulations on the growth of the Capital Region
Concern on overconcentration of population in the capital region and thus on negative externalities such as traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and high housing prices Concern on the growth of the capital region harmful to the non-capital region, leading to aggravating regional disparities between the Capital region and Non-capital region

Key Spatial Policies for Managing the Capital Region

1.The Capital Region Management Plan and Law 2.Greenbelts 3.Suburban New Town Development

The Capital Region Management Plan and Law

After a series of regulative policies on the Capital region since 1960s, the first legislation has been made in 1982 by adopting the Capital Region Management and Planning Law (CRMPL). The 1994 amendment classified the Capital region into three zones and applied different control measures based on the zonal characteristics: Growth Control Zone (GCZ), Growth Management Zone (GMZ), and Environment Preservation Zone (EPZ) The law regards manufacturing factories, universities and colleges, and corporate headquarters as population-inducing facilities and strictly regulates new construction, expansion, and relocation of these facilities within the Seoul Metropolitan Region (SMR) using several control measures

The Capital Region Management Plan (cont)

Strict growth caps on the SMRs manufacturing floor space Industrial development is regulated variably by regulation zone, firm size, and type of products
While any new construction or expansion of the existing factories owned by large firms is strictly prohibited within the entire capital region, the Growth Management Zone and the Growth Control Zone have different size restrictions for factories owned by small and mediumsized firms.

A recent amendment introduced a few exceptions, allowing for the entry and expansion of factories owned by large firms within the Growth Control Zone and Growth Management Zone if they produce high-tech products Strict controls on new establishment and expansion of universities and colleges

Debates on the Capital Region Management Plan and Law

Advocates:
Growth controls on the SMR have contributed to mitigating the SMRs overconcentration by diverting population inducing facilities from the SMR to non-Capital regions. Growth control policies in the SMR made a significant contribution to the reduction of serious traffic congestion and pollution, and helped to relieve the housing shortage problem (Song, 1997)

Debates on the Capital Region Management Plan and Law (cont)

Opponents:
The regulations on the SMR are not successful in achieving the intended objective, which is to reduce the SMRs concentration, arguing that both population size and the proportion of population of the capital region have substantially increased during the last four decades, in spite of the strict regulations.
The SMRs population has increased by 4.4 times over the last 45 years, from 5.2 million in 1960 to 22.8 million in 2005. The share of the SMRs population to the nation has significantly increased, from 20.8% to 48.2% during the same period

The regulations undermine national and local economic competitiveness, because the regulations do not divert the manufacturing firms to the non-capital regions; rather, they drive the firms to foreign countries, mainly China and South-East Asia Others analyze the loss of productivity as the cost of the growth controls (Mills and Kim, 1998), providing empirical evidence of a reduction in manufacturing productivity in the presence of growth controls (Lee and Hong, 2001; GRI, 2004 and 2007). Another serious side effect of the land use controls is the increase in property values and transportation costs, due to the limited urban land supply

Greenbelt Policy
Seouls greenbelt was introduced in 1971 in order to contain urban development within the city of Seoul and to prevent unfettered urban expansion Seouls greenbelt has been rigidly maintained with only a few minor amendments over the last four decades
According to the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs (MLTM), as of 2009, existing greenbelt area in the Seoul metropolitan region is 1,454 Km2, which is 93% of the total greenbelt area originally designated in 1971, with only 7% of Seouls greenbelt (113 Km2) ever having been released for development

Seouls greenbelt policy has been remarkably successful at protecting restricted urban areas from further development Seouls greenbelt, however, has long been at the center of controversy between greenbelt advocates, including general citizens, environmentalists and planners, and greenbelt opponents, such as greenbelt property owners and libertarians supporting economic markets.

Debates on Greenbelts
Advocates:
Emphasize the positive effects of Seouls greenbelt, such as amenity value associated with scenic views and recreational opportunities, and environmental benefits related to air purification, flood control, and bio-diversity protection

Opponents:
Emphasize the adverse consequences of Seouls greenbelt, such as increased land and housing prices, restriction of property rights for greenbelt residents and landowners, and additional transportation costs incurred by leapfrog development

Propositions on the Regulative Policies

Population growth is directly linked with Excessive concentration and negative externalities Korea is an outlier in terms of Capital Regions Concentration Migration from the non-capital region to capital region has contributed to population concentration of the capital region Manufacturing industry is a key sector to attract population into the capital region Prosperity of the capital region is incompatible with non-capital region

Suburban New Town Development

The Korean government developed large-scale new towns in the outskirt of Seoul in the late 1980s primarily to resolve a serious housing shortage problem and to mitigate high development pressure on the city of Seoul Five new towns (Bundang, Ilsan, Pyeongchon, Sanbon, and Joongdong) have been constructed during 1989-1996 period with overall target population of almost 1.2 million in the suburb of the Seoul Metropolitan region

Debates on New Town Development

Supporters
Contributed to mitigating housing shortage problems and to stabilizing real estate market Contributed to population decentralization of the metropolitan region and to mitigate traffic congestion in the central city

Critics:
Development density: the average population density of Seouls new towns is above 20,000 persons per Km2, which is around 5-10 times higher than new town development in England Because Seouls new towns have been developed in the 2028Km range from the Seouls CBD, jumping over the greenbelt, they accelerated urban sprawl and created social costs of sprawl such as longer commuting distance, additional infrastructure construction costs, etc. Bed town community and jobs-housing mismatch

New Challenges for Urban Policies

Globalization
Competition among global cities (Seoul vs. Tokyo or Beijing) Increasing role of the capital region for leading the national economic growth

Urbanization
Urbanization trend will continue up to the near future, probably at a much slower rate than past

Change in Economic Structure

Importance of knowledge-based economy for the national economic competitiveness

Advance in Transportation and Communication Technology

No clear functional boundary of the capital region due to the national freeway and railroad systems including KTX Increasing commuting, shopping, and school trips between the Capital region and adjacent non-capital regions

Change in Migration Pattern to the Capital Region

The Capital Region has experienced net in-migration, but the numbers have fallen off dramatically recently

Decentralization of Population and Employment in Metropolitan Regions Preparation for the Reunification

Obstacles for Reorientation

Political Resistance for Deregulation
Strong demand for regulating the Capital Region from the political parties and within the government Land use controls on the Capital Region have been strongly supported by all other regions and the politicians who have interests in those regions

Belief that the Capital Regions growth is harmful to other regions

About two thirds of the experts surveyed by the Korean Economic Association felt that the Capital Regions growth is harmful to all other regions

Suggestions
Shifting from place-oriented policies to people-oriented policies
Policy goals should be on enhancing citizens quality of life and urban sustainability

Shifting from controls and regulations to deregulations and incentives

Negative externalities need to be resolved directly through marketoriented measures

Shifting spatial policy target from the Capital Region to all the metropolitan Regions in Korea
Competitiveness of the metropolitan regions is critical for the prosperous national economy and for mitigating interregional disparities

Shifting planning and financial power from the central government to regional and local governments
Metropolitan planning agencies need to be made for carrying out long-term metropolitan development and for coordinating urban problems which have cross-border effects such as congestion and pollution

Supplementary Materials

Population Growth and Urbanization in Korea (unit: 000)

1960 Nation Urban 24,979 9,276 37.1% Rural 15,703 62.9% 1970 31,465 15,816 50.3% 15,649 49.7% 1980 37,441 25,903 69.2% 11,538 30.8% 1990 43,411 35,912 82.7% 7,499 17.3% 2000 46,125 40,455 87.7% 5,670 12.3% 2005 47,279 42,459 89.8% 4,820 10.2%

Source: Korea National Statistical Office

Urbanization Trends by Nation

Population Changes in the Capital Region (000)

Year Nation Capital Region % share 1960 24989 5194 20.8% 1970 31466 8791 27.9% 1980 37436 13298 35.5% 1990 43411 18587 42.8% 2000 46136 21354 46.3% 2005 47279 22767 48.2% 2007 50034 24472 48.9%

Source: Korea National Statistical Office

Seouls Growth Control and Management Zones

Seouls Greenbelt

Locations of the Five New Towns

Capital regions share of nation on the selected variables

1990 Land Area Population GRP No. Firms in Manufacturing No. EMP in Manufacturing No. Firms in Service sectors No. EMP in Service sectors No. University Students Hospitals Loans made by commercial banks 11.7% 42.8% 45.6% 58.1% 47.8% 44.0% 49.2% 41.0% 45.0% 62.9% 2000 11.7% 46.3% 48.0% 57.0% 46.6% 44.2% 49.1% 39.2% 46.3% 65.2% 2007 11.8% 48.9% 47.7% 56.9% 46.4% 46.4% 52.2% 37.8% 49.3% 68.3%

Source: Korea National Statistical Office

Is Korea an Outlier in terms of Capital Regions Concentration?

The Population Share of a Metropolitan Region to the National Population: 23 Metropolitan regions with more than 5 Million Population in the OECD countries

Source: OECD Metropolitan Region Data Base (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx)

Is Korea an Outlier in terms of Capital Regions Concentration?

The Land Share of a Metropolitan Region to the National Land

Source: OECD Metropolitan Data Base (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx)

Population Share/Land Share

Population Share Vs. GDP Share

A comparison among 23 OECD Metropolitan Regions with more than 5 Million Population

Source: OECD Metropolitan Region Data Base (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx)

GDP Share POP Share

Net Migration to the Capital Region (000)

Origin Destination 71-7 5 Nation Total City of 1266 Capital Region Seoul -181 Non-Capital 1448 Region Nation Total Incheon CityCapital Region Non-Capital Region Nation Total Kyunggi 520 Capital Region Province 181 Non-Capital 339 Region Nation Total Capital 1787 Capital Region Region 0 Non-Capital 1787 Region 76-80 81-85 86-9 0 1068 585 286 -360 -688 -656 1429 1273 942 754 360 394 1822 0 1822 162 56 106 977 632 345 1725 0 1725 306 172 134 928 484 444 91-95 962000 -883 -652 -1296 -875 413 223 235 165 69 1381 1131 250 75 69 6 947 806 141 371 0 371 01-0 5 -388 -749 361 -5 -42 37 1144 791 353 752 0 752 06-0 9 -200 -387 188 44 43 1 446 345 102 291 0 291

1520 733 0 0 1520 733

Source: Korea National Statistical Office

Migrations Contribution to the Capital Regions Growth

Period 1971-1975 1976-1980 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Changes in population (A) 2035637 2366780 2522337 2770649 1585358 1098767 1363170 Net Migration (B) (B/A)*100 1786686 1822374 1724523 1520296 733091 370599 751755 87.8% 77.0% 68.4% 54.9% 46.2% 33.7% 55.1%

Source: Korea National Statistical Office