Planning for sustainable cities? A comparative content analysis of the master plans of eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns in China

Of all sustainable city concepts, eco-cities and low-carbon cities have received a national endorsement in China, with such pilot towns under construction nationwide. However, the performance of eco and low carbon cities in China has long been heatedly debated, with many negative arguments delineating them as profit-seeking and image-building projects simply capped with impressive names. In reality, while some projects have not fulfilled expectations, most are still at the first stage of construction, so it is too early to regard eco and low-carbon cities as a failure. In this paper, the question of how eco and low-carbon new towns differ from conventional ones in their social, environmental and economic characteristics is posed. Compared to conventional new town plans, the eco and low-carbon city plans incorporate more of a focus on sustainability principles. We examine such perceptions by comparing the master plans of eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns in various aspects ranging from general principles to specific design. The analysis indicates the master plans of the three groups of new towns vary in different ways. The eco-cities and low-carbon cities reflect two trends to promote urban sustainability. The eco new towns are more concerned with the promotion of a sustainable way of life, with its planning focus evenly distributed among all aspects. They particularly stress the creation of an aesthetically pleasing livable environment. In contrast, low-carbon new towns are concerned with the promotion of a sustainable way of production, with an uneven emphasis on the economic sectors such as industrial integration and transformation. However, the master plans only reveal how eco/low-carbon cities are originally intended to differ from non-eco/low-carbon-cities when they start and more comprehensive studies are needed for it to be possible to predict where they will go in the future. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.