The criteria of case selection

In China, the different patterns (titles) of sustainable programmes were delivered with similar ideas and visions. Namely, establishing a harmonious relationship between human society and the natural environment (Sun, Liu and Wang, 2013). The research first investigated newly built eco-city programme and thereafter commented on the trend of sustainable development in Chinese urbanization (Chapter 3.5.2). According to the findings of H.L. Li (2012), there had been 58 newly built ecological programmes undertaken by the end of 2011. Unlike ecological tourism programmes, real estate programmes, and industrial parks, these newly built urban areas were usually delivered independently and contained residential areas, infrastructure, and a range of industries. A newly built eco-city programme has less socio-economic constrains than existing urban areas when it comes to implementing the ideas and techniques need to deliver ecological development (Li, X., 2012). It is also different with ecological programmes within existing urban areas which are focused on amending existing living environment, improving energy supply, and re-building existing neighbourhoods to achieve ecological vision (Li, H.L., 2012; Li, X., 2012). Instead of denying the significance of developing existing urban areas ecologically, this research highlights the relevance of new urban areas where growing numbers of urban residents live in a more sustainable urban environment. Secondly, the ecological programmes can, from a developer perspective, be divided into four groups: international collaboration, national

73

departments motivated, local government motivated, and real estate motivated (Li, H.L.

2012). In order to introduce the technology and expertise of delivering newly built eco-city programme, MOHURD has established collaborative relationships with a range of developed countries including Japan, Sweden, the UK, Germany, and Singapore. These collaborations have been realised through signing memorandums of understanding (Table 5.1). These programmes motivated by national developments, including newly built Eco-city and transformed Eco-city, are delivered by local government but under the supervision of national departments, such as MOHURD. Furthermore, Li, H.L. (2012) suggested that the programmes motivated by local government and real estate investors were contested since many of these programme were delivered using the title “Eco-city”.

Table 5.1 The ecological programmes under international collaboration

(Sources: Hainan.gov, 2010; Cfdxc.gov, 2009; United Design Group, 2013; Sino-germanecopark.gov, 2016; Sneco, 2009; Qufu.gov, 2010; H.L. Li, 2012)

Programme Co-developer

Sino-Janpan Hainan Lecheng Sun and Water Pilot Area Japan

Caofeidian New City

Sino-Sweden Wuxi Low Carbon Eco-city

Sweden

Dongtan Eco-city, Chongming UK

Sino-Germany Qiongdao Eco-park Germany

Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city

Sino-Singapore Nanjing Eco Hi-Tech Island Sino-Singapore Qufu Cultural Eco-city

Singapore

The programmes initiated under international collaboration were selected for data collection in this research because they focused on newly built Eco-city projects and gained more financial and political support from national departments than those programmes that were motivated by local government and real estate investors (Li, H.L., 2012). Moreover, the international programmes gained relatively more prominence from international planning professionals than the domestic programmes. This could, therefore, provide this research with more evidence and secondary data, especially with regard to collaboration and communication.

74

Sources: Wang, Zou and Li, 2011; cfdxc.gov, 2017; Wuxi.gov, 2013; Ding, Yu and Lv, 2014; Sneco, 2009; Zhang, 2013)

Although a majority of the 8 programmes provided 10 to 15 years planning of ecological development, the visions of the eco-city projects are divergent due to their different social, political, and economic background. The ecological programmes in Hainan, Caofeidian, Dongtan, Tianjin, and Nanjing have more dynamic and expansive areas with relation to both population and the scale of the cities. The programme in Wuxi, Qingdao, and Qufu were focused ecological investment on a very small area, where ecological principles could be barely embedded in actual development. Moreover, these 8 programmes are different in

75

their dependent city, i.e. Shanghai and Tianjin are Municipality directly administrated under the central government, Qingdao and Nanjing are vice-provincial city, Tangshan and Wuxi are prefecture-level city, and Qionghai and Qufu are county-level city (National Bureau of Statistics, 2016). The difference on the level of dependent city could impact on the government investment in newly built eco-city in China (Wei, 2014). Thus, Tianjin and Dongtan Eco-city could relatively have more investment than other 6 cities. In general, the Tianjin and Dongtan Eco-city were chosen as case studies because they gained comparable financial and political support, and international reputation compared with other eco-city projects in China. Also according to the visions and ecological principles of both eco-cities, Tianjin and Dongtan are relatively more applicable for the discourse of sustainable development in this research. Both Eco-city projects could be considered as representatives or flagships of Chinese newly built eco-cities under an international collaboration (Wang, 2008; Caprotti & Gong, 2017). Figure 5.2 provides an overview of the aggregation relationship between both cases and more than 200 ecological programmes in China.

Figure 5.2 The process of case selection Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city

Tianjin Sino-Singapore Eco-city is located midway between two of China's most historical and bustling cities, Tianjin and Beijing (43 kilometres east to Tianjin and 150 kilometres southeast to Beijing) (Tianjin Eco-city, 2014). The eco-city was to be built on brown field land and would have a population of 350,000. Grogan (2013) suggests that the city was to

76

be built as a vision that would provide a marked contrast from the polluted, overcrowded cities of China's past. It would therefore showcase a proposed future of tranquil living and genuine eco-credentials. The Tianjin Eco-city is located in the coastal area of Bohai Sea and has two rivers, the Yongding New River and the Ji canal, running through it (Figure 5.3).

Since the development agreement was approved at the end of 2007, the programme started construction and it has since become a showcase of leading green facilities (Low, Liu and Wu. 2009). In 2011, Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were established by more than 100 scholars and researchers from China and overseas, their report stated 26 principles (including 22 quantitative targets and 4 qualitative priorities) which became the blueprint of the Tianjin eco-city development. According to the KPIs, the city would achieve several quantitative targets before 2013, such as, achieving 60%

proportion of waste recycling; 50% of employees being from local community, and 20% of housing being affordable housing. The KPIs provided a comprehensive criteria for delivering a modern eco-city in the Chinese context through collaboration between Chinese and international planning professionals. In 2012, the MOHURD identified Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city as one of eight pilot areas of ecological development in China (MOHURD, 2013).

Although the Tianjin Eco-city has been built, to some degree, according to its original plan, there is still some criticism levelled towards it with regard to the urbanisation process (Caprotti, 2014). In terms of local residents, there is concern that the current population is only 12,000 compared to the proposed 350,000, and that the willingness of new migrants to come to the city could be affected by the downturn in China’s property market (BBC, 2014).

However, the success of the eco-city programme is not determined solely by its possession of an insufficient population in the initial development stages. Indeed, many recent studies have argued that the inadequate population occurred in the early stage of all newly built eco-citiesin China (Tan, 2008; Liu, 2014).

77

Figure 5.3 Location of Tianjin Sino-Singapore Eco-city: (a) Location, and (b) Tianjin Eco-city (Sources: Baidu Map, 2017b; edited by author)

(b)

Legend Railway Road River (a)

78

Shanghai Dongtan Eco-city

The Dongtan Eco-city programme is located on the Chongming Island 16 kilometres to the Northeast of Shanghai downtown (Figure 5.4). The idea of developing Dongtan was initiated by the Shanghai Industrial Investment Company (SII) (a Shanghai company listed on Hong Kong’s Exchange). Work to deliver an ecological port of Shanghai began in 2001. 4 years later, the programme was praised as one of the most influential programmes in China by the North American published Business Week (Wang, 2008). Between 2005 and 2007, the project broke ground with work in the south part of the proposed area being undertaken through the collaboration of SII and ARUP (a British planning and engineering firm) (Wang, 2008). The development of Dongtan Eco-city came to prominence and received praise from politicians and planning academia at the beginning of the programme (Wang, 2008).

According to the conceptual plan of Dongtan (ARUP, 2007), the Eco-city programme was initially proposed to be built with 8 development objectives: environmental protection, social and economic benefits, a low ecological footprint, water and flood management, agricultural production, energy issues and emission reductions, waste management, and accessibility and transport. The experiences and lessons of delivering Dongtan Eco-city were extensively discussed, and were used to guide subsequent programmes in China (Cheng and Hu, 2009; Chang and Sheppard, 2013; Wang, 2015).

However, the project was suspended in 2008 and not restarted in 2017. Then, the SII and local government transferred their original goal of delivering an eco-city to that of delivering an ecologically agricultural pilot area. This change was because of a series of complex issues involving political support, land use, environment, and the local economy. Therefore, despite the fact that the Dongtan Eco-city has made limited progress in terms of its actual development, it was selected as a case study because it enabled the author to explore the merits of the programme, especially those relating to the establishment of criteria for delivering eco-city projects. It also worthy of study as it raises questions as to what issues were, and could, critically impact upon the delivery of eco-city projects in China.

79

Figure 5.4 Proposed Area of Dongtan Eco-city: (a) Location, and (b) Dongtan Eco-city (Sources: Baidu Map, 2017b; edited by author)

(b)

Legend Road (a)

80