4.7 Article

How to perceive the impacts of land supply on urban management efficiency: Evidence from China's 315 cities

Journal

HABITAT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 98, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102145

Keywords

Sustainability; Urban management efficiency; Land supply; Production factors; Geographically weighted regression; China

Funding

  1. Outstanding Innovative Talents Cultivation Funded Programs 2019 of Renmin University of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sustainable urban development requires that attention be paid to building capacity for urban management. Based on production factor theories, this study proposes the concept of urban management efficiency (UME), and constructs a new analysis framework to perceive UME from the perspective of land supply (LS). UME comprises a city's comprehensive management ability in terms of primary production factors (PPFs) and expanded production factors (EPFs). LS refers to the supply of four land types: industrial and mining storage land (IMSL), commercial and business facilities land (CBFL), residential land (RL), and other land (OL). This study reveals that (1) LS is uneven in China, but the most uneven land supply types differ in four economic districts; (2) spatial agglomeration of UME is significant, but the number, scale, and spatial location of high-value clusters and low-value clusters also differ. In short, the number and scale of low-value clusters are large, with most distributed in the western and northeastern districts. However, the number and scale of high-value clusters are small, with most concentrated in the eastern district; (3) the relationship between LS and UME is not coordinated; therefore, improving UME requires different land allocation plans. To formulate an effective urban policy, the government should value land use types and regions with unbalanced supply.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available