Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Planning for sustainable cities? A comparative content analysis of the

master plans of eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns in China
Yang Fu, Xiaoling Zhang*
Urban Research Group, Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Of all sustainable city concepts, eco-cities and low-carbon cities have received a national endorsement in
Received 10 December 2016 China, with such pilot towns under construction nationwide. However, the performance of eco and low-
Received in revised form carbon cities in China has long been heatedly debated, with many negative arguments delineating them
8 March 2017
as profit-seeking and image-building projects simply capped with impressive names. In reality, while
Accepted 13 March 2017
some projects have not fulfilled expectations, most are still at the first stage of construction, so it is too
Available online 26 March 2017
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 charac-
Keywords:
Eco-cities
teristics is posed. Compared to conventional new town plans, the eco and low-carbon city plans incor-
Low-carbon cities porate more of a focus on sustainability principles. We examine such perceptions by comparing the
Master plan master plans of eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns in various aspects ranging from general
Content analysis principles to specific design. The analysis indicates the master plans of the three groups of new towns
Nvivo vary in different ways. The eco-cities and low-carbon cities reflect two trends to promote urban sus-
Sustainability tainability. The eco new towns are more concerned with the promotion of a sustainable way of life, with
New town development 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.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since their early days, eco and low-carbon cities in China have
been burdened with expectations of solving the environmental
problems (Chang & Sheppard, 2013). Some cases, particularly the
flagship projects, have been intensively studied by academia and
highlighted in policy discourse (Chang, Leitner, & Sheppard, 2016).
Eco and low-carbon cities are much the results of “policy mobility”
(or “policy transfer”), a learning and borrowing process in which
policy tools are dissembled in exporting countries and reassembled
in importing countries. This has been considered by the central
government of China as a shortcut to improving environmental and
* Corresponding author. City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Research
Institute, Shenzhen, PR China.
E-mail addresses: yangfu6-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (Y. Fu), xiaoling.zhang@cityu.edu.
hk (X. Zhang).
ecological quality (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996; Rose, 1993). In fact,
most flagship projects are jointly developed by the Chinese local/
central governments and foreign governments/business partners.
However, although it is certainly laudable to present the sustain-
able cities emerging from these projects as a panacea for environ-
mental degradation, the realization is less so. The performance of
eco and low-carbon new towns has long been heatedly debated,
with many negative arguments delineating them as profit-seeking
and image-building new town developments simply capped with
impressive names (Miao & Lang, 2015; Pow & Neo, 2015). It is too
early to regard them as a failure, however, as many projects are still
in the construction stage.
Since it is too early to judge the outcomes and performance of
these eco and low-carbon cities, their master plans provide useful
information, revealing how they differ from ordinary development
projects in the early stages. As the master plan prescribes and un-
derpins all subsequent developments, a summary of the charac-
teristics of their master plans will shed light on the differences

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.008
0197-3975/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66
between eco-cities, low-carbon cities and conventional cases in
their subsequent stages, indicating the extent to which these pro-
jects are image-building and profit-making projects. In effect, it
would be premature to argue that the projects provide a capitalist
“spatial fix” or “sustainability fix” at the current stage (Harvey,
2001, 2007).1 However, it might be argued that sustainable prin-
ciples are integrated into the plans, whereas their effects remain to
be seen in the future. Prior to the discourse analysis, it needs to be
highlighted that the conventional perspective assumes that eco-
cities and low-carbon cities incorporate more sustainable plan-
ning principles. That is, they particularly promote green economic
sectors, spotlight the design of green landscapes and emphasis on
greener transportation. This assumption is tested in the study by
providing an answer to the question: How do eco-cities and low-
carbon cities differ from non-eco/low-carbon cities in their very
early stages of development?
The following section discusses the current literature on eco-city
and low-carbon city development in China. Also, literature on con-
tent analysis and its application to the master plans is introduced in
this section. A framework is also proposed, showing the factors that
may influence the future realization of the master plans. Twelve
master plans (four of eco-cities, four of low-carbon cities and four of
conventional new towns) are selected for content analysis in section
three along with a summary of the data processing methods. In
section four, the results of the discourse analysis is illustrated in
figures, tables and charts to reveal the differences between eco/low-
carbon and conventional new towns at the planning stage.
Concluding remarks are provided in section five.
2. Theoretical framing: eco/low-carbon cities and content
analysis
The eco-city and low-carbon cities have been gradually growing
in salience in academic and policy discourse since the 1990s (Fu &
Zhang, 2017; de Jong, Joss, Schraven, Zhan, & Weijnen, 2015).
Research into eco-cities was initiated by the 1985 report: Our
Common Future. However, eco-city and low-carbon city practice in
China did not gain momentum until the turn of the new century,
with the massive construction of eco and low-carbon cities in the
country. Meanwhile, research into eco/low-carbon cities reached a
peak in the first decade of the new millennium. As a result, several
case studies in China have been made, with the Tianjin Sino-
Singapore Eco-city, Dongtan eco-city in Shanghai and Caofeidian
in Tangshan attracting the most attention. These studies provide
insightful criticisms on their construction and operation (Hult,
2013; Joss & Molella, 2013; Qiang, 2009; de Jong et al., 2016). The
majority of the case studies conclude that the projects have failed,
at least partially, to fulfill a more sustainable urban future. Never-
theless, as mentioned already, their construction was carried out
less than a decade ago and it is too early to judge their performance.
Therefore, studying the master plans of these projects is more
germane in assessing their likely social and economic outcomes.
As a result, we need to select the cases that fare well in their
implementation as the target of our content analysis since it is
meaningless to analyze the plans of those that have been aban-
doned. But first we need to know what is the relationship between
the master plans and the operation of these projects and what
1
David Harvey uses the word “spatial fix” to define urban space, meaning that
this space is created as a “fix” for surplus capitalist production. He uses the met-
aphor “a drug addict needs to get a fix” to explain what the “spatial fix” means here.
In a world addicted to capitalist production, new urban space, eco-cities for
instance, need to be created so that surplus capital can find a vent to be released for
a new round of capitalist production.
factors may influence the performance of the new town develop-
ment projects. This is the gap between the master plans and reality.
These issues have been extensively studied by researchers.
Although the purpose of this paper is to analyze the differences
between the master plans of conventional and “sustainable” new
towns, it should be made clear that the differences in planning do
not necessarily prescribe an environmentally friendlier future for
the new towns. The criticisms on these projects are far from
groundless (de Jong, Wang, & Yu, 2013; de Jong, Yu, Chen, Wang, &
Weijnen, 2013). The planning of eco-cities and low carbon cities is
one thing but its realization is another, requiring precise and subtle
coordinating mechanisms between various participants in the
construction and operation stages. Fig. 1 is a conceptual framework
of the relationship between the master plans and the actual reality
of the new towns.
The implementation of the master plans, as shown in Fig. 1, is a
very complicated process involving various stakeholders (Flynn, Yu,
Feindt, & Chen, 2016). Even if the master plans of eco and low-
carbon cities aim to provide a more sustainable future, much
work is still needed for this to be realized. The suggested frame-
work is a typical model for the eco and low-carbon city projects in
China, although not applicable to each individual case. Most cases,
especially joint projects involving foreign investors, adopt a similar
development model (de Jong, 2013). The master plan plays a pivotal
role in the overall operation of the project and lays the foundation
for the regulations and rules in the operation stage.
In general, the implementation of the master plans is divided
into three distinctive stages. The making of the master plan is
usually the result of a governmental initiative for new town
development (Liu, Zhou, Wennersten, & Frostell, 2014). This might
either be a model project set up by the central government or direct
cooperation between local governments and foreign partners. The
master plans made at this stage prescribe the subsequent devel-
opment details and operating models (Li & Qiu, 2015). In order to
realize the plans, professional evaluation and local government
departments serve as the basic regulating and monitoring body.
Actually, (green) building institutes and policies have been well-
integrated in the development of these “sustainable” new towns
(Zuo & Zhao, 2014; Zuo et al., 2015, 2017). Development companies,
often invested by the government and foreign partners, is respon-
sible for the overall development. The professional evaluation in-
stitutes, the various departments of local governments and
development corporations all play significant roles in the operation
of eco-cities and the realization of the master plans (Yu, 2014).
The operation stage is the most complex, as many different
parties are involved at this level and many efficient mechanisms are
required for their interactions with the higher level regulating and
monitoring bodies. In some cases, good interaction mechanisms
between the various parties might presage a real sustainable future
for these projects, but the outcome is still to be evaluated in the
coming years and more practical studies are needed (de Jong, 2013).
Operation and performance are also closely related to the outside
environment. In China, political support from a higher level is
crucial in attracting resources for the development of the “sus-
tainable” new towns. Personnel changes at a higher level some-
times have a severe influence on the operation of the projects. In
addition, many projects are faced with ferocious competition from
surrounding regions, which causes great difficulties in attracting
sufficient investment to promote the industries. In short, the real-
ization of the master plans depends heavily on the cooperative
mechanisms between the various parties involved as well a sup-
portive outside environment (Caprotti, 2014a, 2014b; Chang et al.,
2016).
Intensive studies of various factors influencing these new town
developing projects help fill the gap between the original master
 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66 57

The ini a on may start Influences

Government at different levels of
ini a on from the
the government outside
Economic
Planning Local Investment/develo environemn
Making of ins tute government pment companies
the master t
plan
Master plans
Na onal
policies
Planning Landscape Economy and Transportat
principles designing industries ion and etc.

Personnel
stability

Implemeta Professional Specific

Development
on of the evalua on governmental
companies
plan ins tutes departments Compe on
s from
surrounding
regions

Building
Opera on U li es Enterprises
companies
of Eco and
Con nuous
low-carbon
poli cal
new towns Public service Other
Residents support
ins tu ons organiza ons

Fig. 1. Framework for the implementation of the master plan.

plans and the final outcome. It further indicates that, at the pre-
liminary stage, the study of their master plans is of special impor-
tance to the research on eco and low-carbon cities in China. As an
efficient and useful tool to analyze documents and graphs, content
analysis contributes significantly to qualitative studies as it easily
organizes the materials in a systematic manner, spotlighting the
differences, similarities and connections among a large amount of
materials (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005;
Stemler, 2001). Therefore, the method of content analysis is adop-
ted in this study to illuminate the differences and similarities of the
master plans of the eco/low-carbon new towns and the conven-
tional ones.
To distinguish sustainable development plans from conven-
tional ones, the basic principles of sustainability need to be defined
at the outset. Sustainable principles before 2000 were unclear and
amorphous, with scholars (Campbell, 1996; Jo € rgens, J€
anicke, &
Weidner, 2012), for instance, defining such principles as laudable
but vague. Other scholars argue that such concepts are in need of
definition and elaboration. (Beatley & Manning, 1997). Berke and
Conroy's (Berke & Conroy, 2000) response was the development of
six principles of sustainability used in their content analysis of the
development plans of 30 local U.S. communities to show that
“sustainable plans” are not necessarily different from conventional
plans.
More recently, with the emergence of eco-cities and low-carbon
cities as new branches of the traditional “sustainable city”
discourse, various specific dimensions in the planning of eco/low-
carbon cities have been explored to identify the principles under-
lying eco-friendliness. It makes the principles of sustainability
more specific and concrete in the context of eco/low-carbon cities.
Conroy and Berke (Conroy & Berke, 2004), for example, carry out an
in-depth investigation into the factors that might influence the
principles of sustainable development, examining “three di-
mensions of the planning process”, the organization of the plans
and underpinning state mandates; while Kenworthy (Kenworthy,
2006) investigate ten dimensions of the transport and planning
of these sustainable new towns.
However, the proliferation of studies following Berke and Con-
roy, involving more detailed principles used in the evaluation of
plans, has yet to include a systematic treatment of such new towns
in China. Sporadic analysis of master plans has been taken in a case
by case manner, with Yang and Dong (Yang & Dong, 2008), for
instance, probing into the master plan of Tianjin Sino-Singapore
Eco-city; Cheng and Hu (Cheng & Hu, 2010) taking Dongtan in
Shanghai as their case study focus; and Qiang's (Qiang, 2009) sys-
tematic analysis of the master plan of Caofeidian in Tangshan.
However, no systematic and comparative studies on the master
plans of eco/low-carbon cities in China have yet been made.
In short, therefore, there have already been many attempts by the
academics to analyze the master plans of sustainable cities to
ascertain how “sustainable principles” have influenced their overall
planning and how these plans contribute to sustainable or ecolog-
ical friendly development. That is, to what extent do they really
make a difference? In response to the lack of such work in China, this
paper provides a comprehensive and comparative content analysis
of the master plans of the country's eco/low-carbon and conven-
tional new towns. Many themes (63 nodes) are created as the
standards for evaluation, providing a clearer qualitative as well as
quantitative understanding of the master plans of these projects.
3. Methods
Of all the sustainable city concepts promoted, eco-cities and
low-carbon cities are the two major types that have been adopted
into new town development practice in China. Various national
government departments, for example, the National Development
and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development (MHURD) and the Ministry of Environ-
mental Protection, list many cities as pilot cities for low-carbon and
eco-city development. However, it should be noted that, for most of
58 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66

the listed cities, the eco/low-carbon strategy is aimed at a broader/
whole city level, or even regional level. Large scale eco or low-
carbon new towns are much fewer in number. To enhance the
representativeness and generalizability of this study, the content
analysis pivots on the eco/low-carbon new towns, rather than all
eco/low-carbon cities in China. One additional credit is that the
master plans of new towns have a much more profound influence
on the subsequent city developments, since the whole project
starts from scratch. Nonetheless, the eco/low-carbon development
plans/guidelines at the whole city level exert much less influence
compared with new town cases. There are also other sustainable
city concepts, such as smart cities, sponge cities and resilient cities,
but they are almost all at the broader whole city level and so far,
there are no such master plans for new towns. As a result, we take 4
master plans from eco, low-carbon and conventional new towns
respectively, collecting 4*3 ¼ 12 samples for the content analysis. To
further increase the reliability and representativeness of the anal-
ysis, we develop the following principles to choose our cases.
First, we select the most representative cases as the target for
the content analysis so as to reflect the differences in eco-cities,
low-carbon cities and conventional new towns (non-eco/low-car-
bon ones) as accurately as possible. Of all the new town initiatives,
firm endorsements from national/local governments are crucial for
the development of these projects, as most cases without enough
support do not fare well in the following stages. As a result, it is less
meaningful to analyze the master plans of the less successful cases,
which to a great extent fail to reflect the real situation. Thus, we
choose the master plans of the projects that are endorsed by the
governments and are operating smoothly in the current stage. To
make the comparison reliable, all the cases chosen from the E
groups (eco-cities), L groups (low-carbon cities) and N groups
(conventional new towns) are the key projects that receive firm
endorsement from the central/local government.
Moreover, economic, social and institutional conditions are very
different throughout the vast territory of China, and therefore we
choose typical cases of each new town group in every typical
economic/geographical region in China (from north to south and
from east to west) to better reflect the overall conditions. In like
vein, we try to seek cases of eco/low-carbon and conventional new
towns in similar economic regions in pairs so as to increase the
reliability of the analysis. In addition, all the master plans are
initiated from around the year 2010, so they are developed in a
similar period, which is also important for comparative analysis. All
the cases chosen are also large development projects (construction
of a whole new city area that accommodates at least 100 thousand
population) to ensure that they are comparable in scale. The twelve
master plans with their own features are illustrated in Table 1.
All the materials related to the themes and sub-themes is coded
into corresponding nodes. The texts and number of texts coded are
used for qualitative analysis and quantitative visualization. The sum
of the data from four E, L and N cases maps out the general dif-
ferences between the characteristics of eco-cities, low-carbon cities
and conventional new towns. The node structure and definitions
are based on the overall review of all 12 master plans, interviews
with 4 professional planners (two from Tsinghua University, one
from Shenzhen Planning institute and one from City University of
Hong Kong) from leading urban planning institutes in China, as well
as a review of the current literature (Conroy & Berke, 2004). To
facilitate readers' understanding, some of the important nodes (and
their definitions are summarized in Table 2. They reflect all the
essential aspects of the master plans, and at the same time, reveal
the characteristics of the new town projects in China.
The Nvivo software has the capacity to analyze massive amounts
of data. With the average length of each master plan being around
100 pages, the software is adopted in this study. To structure the
data in a consistent and clear manner, the master plans are divided
into three groups: the eco-cities group with the initial letter (E), the
low-carbon cities group with the initial letter L and the conven-
tional group with the letter (N). Twelve nodes (themes) are created
at the top level, with multiple “child nodes” (the term used in
Nvivo) developed at a lower level. These nodes are developed after
reviewing the master plans to ensure that all the materials are
covered in the 12 aspects. One more sub-layer is created out of
necessity due to the complexity and number of concepts involved.
The full table (with 63 themes/nodes) is listed in Table 3 in the
Annexes. A more detailed matrix of the 63 nodes and 8 master
plans is shown in Table 4 in the annexes. For instance, to identify
the planning principles that are particularly promoted in the plans,
every specific principle mentioned is classified into five child nodes
as listed in Table 2. A comparative analysis of these selected cases
will reveal whether the master plans of eco/low-carbon cities
incorporate more sustainable elements and how it is achieved.
Moreover, this may also shed light on the future development and
sustainability performance of these cases.
4. Analysis
The coding of the master plans reveals that, of the 12 major
themes (top-level nodes), economy and industry, planning princi-
ples, landscape, safe and livable environment, social and cultural
targets as well as transportation are the most important themes.
Fig. 2 shows the percentage of each theme in the master plans of
the E, L and N groups. Surprisingly, of all the 12 top-level themes,
the percentages for the three groups differ dramatically in the

Table 1
Materials for discourse and content analysis.

Name and number of the master plans locations endorsement stages

(E1) The conceptual master plan of Singapore-Nanjing eco hi-tech island East China (Yangtze River Delta region) Both from In progression
central/local gov.
(E2) Master Plan (2007e2020) of Guanming Eco New Town (Shenzhen) South China (Pearl River Delta region) Both In progression
(E3) The master plan of Caofeidian eco-city North China Both In progression
(E4) The master plan of Sino-Singapore eco-city (Tianjin) North China (Jing-Jin-Ji region) Both In progression

(L1) Master Plan (2010e2020) of Jiangmen Low-carbon City South China (Pearl River Delta region) Both In progression
(L2) Master Plan (2011e2015) of Hanan (Haerbin) Northeast China Both In progression
low-carbon Industrial New Town
(L3) Master Plan of Huabin (Hubei Province) Low-carbon city Middle China (the Middle reach Both In progression
of the Yangtze River)
(L4) Master plan of international low carbon city (Shenzhen) South China (Pearl River Delta region) Both In progression

(N1) Master plan (2005e2020) of Binhai new district (Tianjin) North China (Jing-Jin-Ji region) Both In progression
(N2) Master plan (2010e2030) of Tianfu new district (Chengdu) West China Both In progression
(N3) Master plan of Nansha new district (Guangzhou) South China (Pearl River Delta region) Both In progression
(N4) Master plan of Suzhou Industrial park East China (Yangtze River Delta region) Both In progression
 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66 59

Table 2
Definition of some important nodes.

Major nodes Definition

Buildings and infrastructure The promotion of green buildings, green and modern infrastructure, basic facilities that are required for modern cities
Economy and industries The blueprint for industry development; strategies, locations and orientation of important economic sectors in the new town
Education and research Primary, secondary, tertiary education and other research institutes
Landscape The overall design of views and urban landscape, including natural views of parks, green land, rivers,
lakes and other built environment
Planning models Methods and approaches adopted in the planning methods
Planning principles The fundamental planning guidelines for the project: 5 aspects
Balanced development Coordinated development of the rural and urban areas, balanced development of different economic sectors
and functioning zones
Eco- friendliness Reducing environmental impact; ecologically friendly design, preservation of the natural ecological system;
greener industrial strategy, etc.
Human-oriented Creation of livable environment, convenient services for residents, sustainable development of communities and way of life
Land & resources saving Compact design, new technologies to save land and resources use, including water, electricity, energy etc.;
efficient use of space
Technological innovating New technologies in the industries to reduce environmental impact; new technologies in public services and
governance; updating the industries
Safe and livable environment Environmental protection measures including garbage collection, waste water treatment, red lines for development
and other measures
Transportation All kinds of transportation including both public and private ones

aspects of economy, industry and landscape. There are also differ-
ences in other aspects, such as transportation and social & cultural
targets, although not substantially. These aspects are highly
correlated with conventional assumptions. Quantitatively, the
planning principles of the three types of cities receive a similar level
of attention and therefore a more precise qualitative investigation
is needed to examine the extent to which the descriptions in their
sub-themes differ. In like vein, the conventional assumptions con-
cerning eco/low-carbon cities also need more in-depth investiga-
tion into the specific contexts involved, although they have already
shown some quantitative differences in Fig. 2. It should be high-
lighted that the E group stresses planning principles most, with a
more evenly distributed share on the other aspects. The L group is
the most imbalanced, with over 35% of all the coded materials
devoted to the development of the economy and industries. The
conventional new towns, although with a similar priority in the
planning of economy and industry, pays more attention to other
aspects compared with the low-carbon new towns.
4.1. Planning principles
almost 17% of the coded materials classified into this category. In
comparison, less space is given to planning principles in the master
plans of the N group (16.4%). Although that of L group is around 18%,
it does not rank first of all the L nodes. Five distinctive planning
principles are found in the 12 master plans, namely, “balanced
development”, “eco-friendliness”, “human-oriented development”,
“land and resources-saving development” and “technological
innovation”. As listed in Fig. 3, each of the eight projects covers
some or all of the five principles. In their master plans, each prin-
ciple is allocated with different levels of attention. For instance,
Caofeidian, a typical eco-city, particularly highlights the principle of
land and resource saving, which accounts for almost 80% of the
description of planning principles. In five separate places in the
master plan, it is reiterated that
Land should be used in a collective and highly efficient manner
… energy conservation, carbon emission reduction, together
with water conservation should be the fundamental principle to
adhere to … It is the priority to develop renewable energy and
make it a complementary section to the regular energy supplies
(“The Master Plan of Caofeidian Eco-city,” 2009)

Despite the proportion of planning principles being second to

It is clear that the four cases in group E all make more efforts to
the economy in the master plans, this aspect is discussed first as it is
promote the principle of “land and resources-saving development”
the guideline for the overall planning. In the E group, “planning
(represented by the dark blue color in Fig. 3).
principles” is the most deliberated theme of all the nodes, with

12 : Transporta on
11 : Social and cultral tragets
10 : Smart city (IT)
9 : Safe and livable environment
8 : Planning principles
7 : Planning models
6 : Na onal and interna onal role models
5 : Landscape
4 : Innova ons in governance
3 : Educa on and research
2 : Economy and industries
1 : Buildings and infrastructure

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%

N ci es L ci es E ci es

Fig. 2. Percentage that each top level theme covers in the eco and non-eco-cities master plans.
60 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
E1 E2 E3 E4
1 : Balanced development
3 : Human-oriented development
5 : Technological innova on
Fig. 3. Planning principles in the master plan of each project.
In contrast, all L new towns stress the principle of “technological
innovation”. It ranks first in three of the four L cases. Taking into
consideration that the economy takes 35% of all the planning ma-
terials, it can be concluded that the focus of the L master plans is on
upgrading the industries with innovative technologies. Of the four
master plans of group N, materials advocating a balanced devel-
opment account for 20%e40% of all the references concerning
planning principles. As most of the traditional plans cover a wide
region, encompassing both rural and urban areas, the balanced
development of regions, industries and different social sectors are
of special significance to the planners. “Cooperation must be pro-
moted to realize a balanced development in the greater Bohai [a sea
in north China] region as the economies of the nearby regions are
highly complementary” states the master plan of N1 (“The master
plan (2005e2020) of Binhai New District (Tianjin),” 2004), and
“the development of the rural and urban areas should be taken into
consideration as a whole and a balanced rural-urban spatial
structure should be maintained”. The other plans in group N
contain similar statements.
Fig. 4 provides a general picture of the overall difference in
planning principles of the three groups obtained by summing the
data. Generally speaking, the N group has over three times more
statements promoting balanced development than the E group. In
contrast, the E group advocates more principles relating to land and
resource saving, while the L group is keener on technological
innovation. Therefore, both the numbers and detailed examination
of the contexts of the master plans validate the conventional
assumption, that is, eco-cities and low carbon cities differ clearly
from conventional new towns in terms of planning principles. The
results show that the low-carbon cities, as some scholars argue, are
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
E ci es L ci es N ci es
1 : Balanced development 2 : Eco- friendliness
3 : Human-oriented development 4 : Land and resources saving
5 : Technological innova on
Fig. 4. Planning principles.
L1 L2 L3 L4 N1 N2 N3 N4
2 : Eco- friendliness
4 : Land and resources saving
the technological response to the national initiative for promoting
urban sustainability, upgrading the pollution-intensive industries
and neutralizing their serious environmental impact (de Jong, Yu,
et al., 2013; Hu, Wu, & Shih, 2015). The E group, on the other
hand, adopts a different socio-technical approach with more
emphasis on efficient and compact development, creating a
convenient environment not only for the economy, but also for the
residents (Caprotti, 2014a).
4.2. Economy and industries
Superficially, it is easy to conclude that low-carbon and con-
ventional new towns are more devoted to the development of the
economy, with almost 35% and 25% of the coded statements dedi-
cated to the promotion of multiple industries (Fig. 2), while this
comprises only 15% in the eco-city master plans. Does this mean
that eco-cities comparatively understate the priority of economic
development? Of all the 12 top-level themes, the node of “economy
and industries” ranks second only to the planning principles in
group E. However, although the E cities are still orientated, to some
extent, toward the economy development, it is reasonable to argue
that their focus on the economy is slightly shifted to other aspects
of the master plans. Fig. 5 dissembles the economic and industrial
composition of the eco/low-carbon and conventional new towns,
showing how the master plans of the three groups promote
different sectors of the economy.
There are 10 child nodes under the theme of economy and in-
dustries, in which “3: circulating and eco-friendly economy” and
“8: industrial integration and transformation” do not particularly
target at one specific industry, with both stressing the greener way
of production and the integration of different industries to improve
efficiency. Although all the data are in percentages, it should be
noted that the L group actually devotes much more effort to the
planning of economy and industry, particularly in item 3 and 8,
which is seldom mentioned by the other two groups. This again
indicates that low-carbon cities are initiatives endorsed by the
government to integrate pollution-intensive industries. Its focus is
to create smart and green stimuli for the nation's economic growth
(Hult, 2013). From Fig. 5, it can be concluded that the three groups
promote different sectors of industries. Group L actually has
development plans in all the industries, and highlights the pro-
motion of industrial efficiency and reduction of pollution. Group N
is heavily dedicated to the development of hi-tech industry,
tourism and manufacturing (23%, 16% and 18% respectively). For
example, the statements “… establishing a high-end
manufacturing base to promote car and machinery
manufacturing industries” and “A high-end manufacturing center
 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
E ci es L ci es N ci es
Fig. 5. Industrial composition.
will be established for new energy automobiles” occur in two
master plans (“The master plan (2010e2030) of Tianfu New District
(Chengdu),” 2011; “The master plan of Nansha New District
(Guangzhou),” (2012) - recurring themes in all the conventional
new town master plans.
For group E, on the other hand, “financial and service industry”
as well as “circulating and eco-friendly economy” are the most
popular, with each accounting for over 20% of the statements
relevant to the economy. All the eco-cities master plans make
commitments to build comprehensive commercial, financial and
service sectors that are convenient for local residents. For example,
In the centers and sub-centers of the city, comprehensive
financial and service industries will be established [and] the
commercial sectors, generally speaking, should be arranged
within a 400-m walking distance for the local residents (“The
master plan of Caofeidian Eco-city,” 2009)
and that
The service and financial locations, as well as commercial sec-
tors, should be arranged in line with the metro line and they
should be properly settled in the residential and commercial
regions so that citizens can reach them by walking (“The master
plan of Sino-Singapore Eco-city (Tianjin),” (2008)
The blocks in residential areas are also defined as cells in most
eco-city plans, which sounds more organic and perhaps eco-
friendlier, and they all promote a convenience-oriented planning
model in terms of the distribution of the commercial, service and
financial sectors.
However, the three groups of master plans do share a common
factor, i.e., the dedication to boosting hi-tech industries. This in-
cludes the innovation industry and information technology in-
dustry. For example, with the national support for the development
of the animation industry, many plans, regardless of which group
they belong, share a similar tone, such as the statement that
Nanjing's “animation industries will be located in the innovation
park, which will be the center of innovation industry of Nanjing and
61
even of whole China” (“The conceptual masterplan of Singapore-
Nanjing eco hi-tech island,” written time not specified). Hi-tech
and innovation industries have become a popular development
advocated throughout the country due to the national industrial
upgrading strategy. In addition, all the master plans of eco-cities
make general proclamations to develop a circulating and eco-
friendly economy, although most descriptions are quite general.
Therefore, the conventional assumption that eco-cities place
greater emphasis on the green economy is largely supported by the
results, because the E group selectively develops certain industries
and tries to avoid more conventional industries. However, it should
also be noted that screening out other less “eco-friendly” industries
might jeopardize the future of the eco-cities themselves, as some
projects have difficulty in attracting investments and an “unbal-
anced” development strategy may also cause severe social injustice.
While as the other “sustainable city” concept, low-carbon cities
essentially plan similar economic sectors with the N group, but
spotlight industrial integration and cleaner production. However, it
is clear that improving industrial efficiency and coordination
among different sectors is not an easy task. It can be argued that
low-carbon cities plan for a more efficient economy, but not
necessarily greener. However, considering that low-carbon new
towns are heavily biased towards economic planning, it implies
that low-carbon cities, unlike the eco-cities, are more concerned
with promoting a sustainable form of economic production.
4.3. Landscape and transportation
As discussed at the beginning of this section, the landscape is
one of the main distinguishing themes. The materials in landscape
planning constitute animals, an integrated landscape, the modern
view and the proper design of plants and water views. Fig. 6 shows
the number of statements concerning landscape design made in
the group E, L and N plans, with the eco-city numbers being the
highest in all four sub-categories. The number has not been con-
verted to a percentage to demonstrate the sharp contrast of the
landscape design of the three groups.
All the three groups place green and blue (plants and water)
views at the core of their landscape design, with each group having
19, 11 and 10 descriptions respectively. Obviously, those in the E
group almost double their efforts in their landscape planning. One
significant difference is that the design for green views in eco-cities
is closely related to transportation, especially the greening of
walking and cycling lanes. The general aim of the master plans in
group E is to create ecological aesthetics. For example,
Three areas with distinctive views will be developed on the is-
land. One is a wetland along the Yangtze River, one is the
ecological agriculture area and one is an ecological tourism area.
The eco-city will integrate the pastoral rural views with the
modern urban views. It will be a harmonious picture of the blue
waters and green plants (“The conceptual masterplan of
Singapore-Nanjing eco hi-tech island,” written time not
specified)
C. P. Pow from the National Singapore University holds that eco-
cities concentrate more on designing an aesthetically beautiful eco-
environment.2 This resonates with the findings of the content
2
This argument originates from a discussion with Professor C. P. Pow during a
Q&A session at the 2016 American Association of Geographers Conference, San
Francisco. He argued that eco cities in China adopt aesthetic ecology as a planning
and designing principle. The views of these new towns tend to be very good but
this does little to help with their overall performance.
62 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 : Animal 2 : Integrated 3 : Modern eco view 4 : Plants and water
landscape (general
descrip on)

E ci es L ci es N ci es

Fig. 6. Number of descriptions of landscapes.

9 : Water transporta on
8 : Trains
7 : Smart transporta on
6 : Parking lots
5 : General descrip on
4 : Cable cars
3 : Bus
2 : BRTs
1 : Bicycling and walking

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

E ci es L ci es N ci es

Fig. 7. Transportation modes promoted in the master plans.

analysis. The E group makes more effort to create a livable envi-
ronment, which covers the preservation of natural animal and plant
resources and integration of nature and built environment in an
aesthetically pleasing way. However, the N and L plans also provide
many descriptions concerning the design of green landscapes,
particularly those relating to plants and water. “All the waterways,
canals and rivers in the planned area will be kept, they will form the
typical view of a water town in southern China” (“The master plan
of Suzhou Industrial Park,” written time not specified). However,
the eco-city plans mention the protection of animals and their
habitat, together with creating a modern view. Thus, even though
the conventional assumption: “Compared to conventional new
towns, eco-cities highlight the development of green/natural
landscape more” is supported in a broad sense, the low-carbon
cities and conventional cities are not particularly different from
each other. Their landscape design is more from a utility perspec-
tive than aesthetical perspective, which is also supported by our
interviews with the professional planners.
The master plans of the three groups contain 10% (E and N
groups) and 6% (L group) respectively of materials relating to
transportation. Fig. 7 divides these into 9 sub-categories, with item
1 being a slow transportation mode and the other eight being
modes of public transport. Item 1 is specifically concerned with
cycling and walking, which are enthusiastically encouraged in eco-
cities. They are also believed to be more sustainable ways of
transportation (Sengers & Raven, 2014; Sengers, Raven, & Van
Venrooij, 2010). It should be noted that this is in accordance with
the economy and landscape planning in their master plans. The
commercial, service and financial sectors, as already discussed, are
arranged within the walking distance of local residents in eco-
cities. The walking and cycling lanes are also greened and usually
constructed alongside waterways, providing a pleasant view and
comfortable environment for people to walk and cycle.
Green transportation is encouraged. Within a distance of 200 m
of all developed areas, special walking and cycling lanes will be
constructed. The clustering design will reduce the traffic de-
mand in the city and therefore walking and cycling will become
two of the major transportation modes on the eco-island (“The
conceptual masterplan of Singapore-Nanjing eco hi-tech is-
land,” written time not specified)
However, it should be noted that some of the new towns may
distract from the original plans and the slow traffic may not be as
convenient as they proposed. During a site visit to Tianjin Eco-city,
we find that the transportation relies heavily on automobiles,
rather than the planned slow traffic. Yet with its population moving
in and new light rails under construction, following-up in-
vestigations is required. It is still in question to what extent will the
sustainable traffic mode in the plans be realized. We also need to
examine whether remedies will be made to such deviations from
the original plans in the future. Although walking and cycling have
also been proposed in some low-carbon and conventional new
towns, they are not important components of their overall trans-
portation plans.
In terms of public/private transportation, note that from Type 2
 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66
to Type 9, there are eight transportation modes (including one type
of general description), all of which are a form of public transport.
Bus transport, second only to general descriptions of transportation
planning, is the most prominent public transportation option
suggested in the master plans of eco-cities. To promote a leisurely
lifestyle, cable cars are also proposed as a model of green public
transportation. In contrast, public transportation in conventional
new towns is heavily concentrated on trains (including metros,
railway and light rail) and waterborne transportation (most of the
eight projects are located in the coastal region or alongside major
rivers such as the Yangtze). The ratios of the E and N cities for these
two modes are 1:6 and 1:3 respectively.
Moreover, the ports and railway stations proposed for the N
group serve not only the needs of citizens but also the demands of
business. “Upon the completion of the port, Binhai New district will
become the logistics and transportation center of North China,”
states the master plan of N1 (“The master plan (2005e2020) of
Binhai New District (Tianjin),” 2004). The four N cities all hope to
construct a regional/national logistic center that satisfies the de-
mands of people and goods.
There are 5 level-8 waterways and 2 level-5 waterways in the
planned area. When completed, one level-8 waterway will be
promoted to level-5 (the level created by the Chinese govern-
ment to regulate waterborne transportation, the smaller the
number, the greater the transportation capacity). It will
strengthen the connections between Suzhou and Shanghai. It is
also a complementary transportation mode within the Indus-
trial Park (“The master plan of Suzhou Industrial Park,” written
time not specified).
Low-carbon cities, generally speaking, do not differ significantly
from the N group in terms of transportation. However, they do not
deliberate on transportation as much as the other two types. It is
clear, therefore, that all three groups advocate public transportation
modes with distinctive foci. Although walking and cycling are
recommended more in the master plans of eco-cities, it cannot be
concluded that eco-cities promote public transportation more,
contradicting the conventional perception of the transportation in
eco-cities. However, it seems they do encourage slower, environ-
mentally friendlier, transportation modes in the plans. The reali-
zation of such plans needs much concert efforts.
5. Conclusion
Eco-cities and low-carbon cities are the two major concepts that
have been promoted in new town development practice in China.
However, as most of the projects are still under construction, it is too
early to form a firm opinion. In response, this paper conducts a
comparative content analysis of 12 master plans of Chinese eco, low-
carbon and conventional new towns. It indicates that the three
groups differ greatly in several major aspects (planning principles,
economy and industry, landscape and transportation etc.) from each
other. It has answered, although partially, the question: will the
eco//low-carbon cities be fundamentally different from conven-
tional new towns? However, these groups also share many common
themes, such as “planning models”, “social and cultural targets” and
“the application of information technology in local governance”.
The analysis also reveals that, although eco-cities and low-
carbon cities are both terms under the umbrella concept of “sus-
tainable city”, their practice in new town planning has distinctive
foci. The master plans of eco-cities indeed incorporate more sus-
tainable principles, highlighting the importance of “saving land and
resources” as well as “eco-friendliness”, while that of low-carbon
cities is more concerned with “technological innovation” to
63
upgrade the pollution-intensive growth model. In contrast, the
most outstanding principle of the conventional new towns is
“balanced development”. Furthermore, the four eco-cities selec-
tively advocate industries such as commercial, service, financial
and hi-tech industries as an approach to advocating sustainable
economy. But the master plans of low-carbon cities are not
fundamentally different from those of conventional new towns in
terms of economic sector planning. To boost sustainable economic
growth, the two types of “sustainable” new towns diverge on their
track, one by selective development, the other through industrial
integration and transformation.
Nevertheless, other conventional perceptions are supported
only in a broad sense. For example, there are more landscape-
related descriptions in the master plans of eco-cities. They spot-
light the need for ecological aesthetics and stress the importance of
contriving distinctive views with plants and waters. Another
characteristic of the landscape in eco-cities is the emphasis on the
integration of modern and ecological views. Yet the low-carbon and
conventional new towns resemble each other regarding their
landscape design. Similarly, the conventional perception of trans-
portation in eco-cities has been invalidated by the result of the
content analysis. Both the E and N cases encourage public trans-
portation modes, although with different foci. But the L cases
generally pay less attention to aspects other than the economy.
In short, the eco-cities and low-carbon cities reflect two trends
in the process of promoting urban sustainability. Eco-cities are
more concerned with the promotion of a sustainable way of life,
with their planning focus evenly distributed over all aspects. They
particularly emphasis the creation of an aesthetically pleasing
livable environment. In contrast, the low-carbon new towns are
more concerned with the promotion of a sustainable means of
production, with its attention based towards the economic sectors.
However, the master plans of these two types of new town devel-
opment may reflect the intention of the Chinese government to
deal with the problems arising in a period of great environmental
pressure and transformation. At least verbally, they reveal two
trajectories deviating from the conventional urbanization model.
Due to the limitation of the length of the paper, several minor
aspects have been left undiscussed. For example, the planning
models of the three groups are closely linked to the planning of the
economy, transportation and other public facilities. Also, despite
social and cultural targets receiving similar attention in the master
plans, the sub-themes are slightly different for the E, L and N groups.
Moreover, the promotion of certain economic sectors, while poten-
tially benefitting the ecosystem, may also jeopardize economic
prospects and cause severe social injustice. Most importantly, we call
for future research to investigate, to what extent and by what means,
the words in planning will be translated into built and lived reality.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation (Project No: 71303203; 71673232), the Early Career
Scheme of Hong Kong Research grant council (Project No:
9048039),the General Research Funding of Hong Kong Research
grant council (Project No: 9042363), the Environment and Con-
servation Fund (Project No: 92110732) funded by HKSAR Depts, the
Research Writing Grant from the College of Liberal Arts and Social
Sciences, City University of Hong Kong (Project No: 9618005). The
work described in this paper was also substantially supported by
the Matching fund for NSFC (Project No: 9680114 and 7004309);
Contract fund on ’Community Eco-transformation in the new-type
urbanization era: modes, trend and influence’ (R-IND6606) and the
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Foundation project, (USA & China)
(project no: R-IND6604).
64 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66

Annex

Table 3
Summary of the hierarchy of nodes.

Name Sources References

Buildings and infrastructure 8 15

General description 1 1
Green building 5 8
Infrastructure 5 6
Economy and industries 12 174
Agriculture 6 10
Bio and health industry 3 6
Circulating and eco-friendly economy 8 16
Commercial sectors 10 14
Financial and service industry 10 19
First class business environment 6 13
Hi-tech (innovation and IT) industry 12 33
Industrial integration & transformation 4 11
Manufacturing 9 27
Tourism 8 25
Education and research 10 23
Basic education 6 6
Higher education center 4 5
Research and traning center 6 11
Innovations in governance 4 10
Landscape 11 60
Animal 1 2
Integrated landscape (general description) 5 12
Modern eco view 3 5
Plants and water 11 40
National and international role models 7 22
A national model 6 10
Education, hi-tech and research model 1 1
Green model 1 1
International exchange (eco development) 4 12
Planning models 9 20
Blocks as cells 5 6
Cores, chains and clusters 8 14
Planning principles 12 110
Balanced development 9 22
Eco- friendliness 10 18
Human-oriented 8 10
Land and resources saving 11 41
Technological innovating 7 18
Safe and livable environment 12 73
Environmental safety and reparing 11 45
Livable environment 10 28
Better living environment 4 6
Eco residence 5 9
Low carbon or eco friendly lifestyle 5 11
Smart city & governance efficiency 7 14
Social and cultral tragets 11 68
Access to public services 10 41
Harmonious society 3 5
Preservation of (traditional) culture 6 9
Recreational service and facilities 8 12
Social equity 1 1
Transportation 11 67
Bicycling and walking 7 10
Public transportation 11 57
BRTs 1 1
Bus 7 11
Cable cars 2 2
General description 7 13
Parking lots 4 4
Smart transportation 4 7
Trains 7 11
Water transportation 5 8
 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66 65

Table 4
Matrix of nodes and the eight master plans.

E1 E2 E3 E4 L1 L2 L3 L4 N1 N2 N3 N4

1: Buildings and infrastructure 2 1 1 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 2 0

2: General description 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3: Green building 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
4: Infrastructure 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0
5: Economy and industries 12 14 3 2 16 29 11 13 18 15 12 3
6: Agriculture 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 1 1 0 0
7: Bio and health industry 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
8: Circulating and eco-friendly economy 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 0 3 1 0
9: Commercial sectors 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2
10: Financial and service industry 3 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 3 0
11: First class business environment 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 2 0
12: Hi-tech (innovation and IT) industry 1 4 1 1 3 5 2 3 5 4 3 1
13: Industrial integration & transformation 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 1 1 0 0 0
14: Manufacturing 0 1 0 0 6 8 1 1 4 4 1 1
15: Tourism 3 3 0 0 1 3 6 0 5 3 1 0
16: Education and research 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 2 4 4 3 0
17: Basic education 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
18: Higher education center 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
19: Research and traning center 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 0
20: Innovations in governance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0
21: Landscape 7 15 3 7 4 1 7 0 2 4 3 4
22: Animal 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23: Integrated landscape (general description) 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
24: Modern eco view 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25: Plants and water 5 8 2 4 3 1 7 0 2 4 2 2
26: National and international role models 1 2 0 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 7 0
27: A national model 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0
28: Education, hi-tech and research model 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29: Green model 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30: International exchange (eco development) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 4 0
31: Planning models 2 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 2 3 1 2
32: Blocks as cells 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
33: Cores, chains and clusters 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0
34: Planning principles 11 9 5 11 10 8 10 7 11 7 9 5
35: Balanced development 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 5 3 4 2
36: Eco- friendliness 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 2
37: Human-oriented 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1
38: Land and resources saving 4 7 4 5 4 0 3 4 5 2 2 1
39: Technological innovating 2 0 0 1 5 5 3 1 0 0 1 0
40: Safe and livable environment 10 11 5 4 10 2 4 3 6 5 6 6
41: Environmental safety and reparing 6 5 3 3 5 1 4 0 6 4 4 4
42: Livable environment 4 6 2 1 5 1 0 3 0 1 2 2
43: Better living environment 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
44: Eco residence 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
45: Low carbon or eco friendly lifestyle 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0
46: Smart city & governance efficiency 0 2 0 1 3 5 0 1 1 0 1 0
47: Social and cultral tragets 3 6 7 8 2 6 6 0 6 8 7 3
48: Access to public services 0 6 7 5 1 4 5 0 2 3 6 2
49: Harmonious society 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0
50: Preservation of (traditional) culture 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 0
51: Recreational service and facilities 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2
52: Social equity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
53: Transportation 11 5 4 3 3 0 8 2 6 4 5 5
54: Bicycling and walking 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
55: Public transportation 8 4 4 2 3 0 7 1 6 3 5 5
56: BRTs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
57: Bus 2 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0
58: Cable cars 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59: General description 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2
60: Parking lots 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
61: Smart transportation 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
62: Trains 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1
63: Water transportation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 2

References Association, 62(3), 296e312.

Caprotti, F. (2014a). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-
Singapore Tianjin eco-city, China. Cities, 36, 10e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for environment,
j.cities.2013.08.005.
economy, and community. Island Press.
Caprotti, F. (2014b). Eco-urbanism and the eco-city, or, denying the right to the city?
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development?
Antipode, 46(5), 1285e1303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.12087.
An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning
Chang, I.-C. C., Leitner, H., & Sheppard, E. (2016). A green leap forward? Eco-state
Association, 66(1), 21e33.
restructuring and the TianjineBinhai eco-city model. Regional Studies, 50(6),
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and
929e943.
the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
66 Y. Fu, X. Zhang / Habitat International 63 (2017) 55e66
Chang, I. C. C., & Sheppard, E. (2013). China's eco-cities as Variegated1 urban Sus-
tainability: Dongtan eco-city and Chongming eco-island. Journal of Urban
Technology, 20(1), 57e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735104.
Cheng, H., & Hu, Y. (2010). Planning for sustainability in China's urban develop-
ment: Status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. Journal of Environ-
mental Monitoring, 12(1), 119e126.
Conroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development
plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable develop-
ment. Environment and Planning A, 36(8), 1381e1396.
Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the
policy transfer literature. Political studies, 44(2), 343e357.
Flynn, A., Yu, L., Feindt, P., & Chen, C. (2016). Eco-cities, governance and sustainable
lifestyles: The case of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City. Habitat International,
53, 78e86.
Fu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2017). Trajectory of urban sustainability concepts: A 35-year
bibliometric analysis. Cities, 60, 113e123.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing
research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse
education today, 24(2), 105e112.
Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the spatial fix. Geographische Revue, 2(3),
23e31.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277e1288.
Hult, A. (2013). Swedish production of sustainable urban imaginaries in China.
Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1), 77e94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10630732.2012.735405.
Hu, M.-C., Wu, C.-Y., & Shih, T. (2015). Creating a new socio-technical regime in
China: Evidence from the Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city. Futures, 70, 1e12.
de Jong, M. (2013). China's art of institutional bricolage: Selectiveness and gradu-
alism in the policy transfer style of a nation. Policy and Society, 32(2), 89e101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.05.007.
de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C. J., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable-
smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude
of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production,
109, 25e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004.
de Jong, M., Wang, D., & Yu, C. (2013). Exploring the relevance of the eco-city
concept in China: The case of Shenzhen Sino-Dutch low carbon city. Journal
of Urban Technology, 20(1), 95e113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10630732.2012.756202.
de Jong, M., Yu, C., Chen, X. T., Wang, D., & Weijnen, M. (2013). Developing robust
organizational frameworks for Sino-foreign eco-cities: Comparing Sino-Dutch
Shenzhen low carbon city with other initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production,
57, 209e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.036.
de Jong, M., Yu, C., Joss, S., Wennersten, R., Yu, L., Zhang, X. L., et al. (2016). Eco city
development in China: Addressing the policy implementation challenge. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 134, 31e41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.03.083.
€rgens, H., J€
Jo anicke, M., & Weidner, H. (2012). National environmental policies: A
comparative study of capacity-building. Springer Science & Business Media.
Joss, S., & Molella, A. P. (2013). The eco-city as urban Technology: Perspectives on
Caofeidian international eco-city (China). Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1),
115e137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735411.
Kenworthy, J. R. (2006). The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions
for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 67e85.
Li, Y., & Qiu, L. (2015). A comparative study on the quality of China's eco-city:
Suzhou vs Kitakyushu. Habitat International, 50, 57e64.
Liu, H., Zhou, G., Wennersten, R., & Frostell, B. (2014). Analysis of sustainable urban
development approaches in China. Habitat International, 41, 24e32.
Miao, B., & Lang, G. (2015). A tale of two eco-cities: Experimentation under hier-
archy in Shanghai and Tianjin. Urban Policy and Research, 33(2), 247e263.
Pow, C., & Neo, H. (2015). Modelling green urbanism in China. Area, 47(2), 132e140.
Qiang, M. (2009). Eco-city and eco-planning in China: Taking an example for
Caofeidian eco-city. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th international
conference of the international forum on urbanism.
Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and
space (Vol. 91). Chatham House Publishers Chatam^ eNJ NJ.
Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2014). Metering motorbike mobility: Informal transport in
transition? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 453e468.
Sengers, F., Raven, R. P., & Van Venrooij, A. (2010). From riches to rags: Biofuels,
media discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies. Energy
Policy, 38(9), 5013e5027.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research &
evaluation, 7(17), 137e146.
The master plan (2005e2020) of Binhai New District (Tianjin). (2004). Retrieved
from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/07e81c5f0066f5335a8121a5.html?
from¼search. on 5th, Mar. 2016.
The master plan (2010e2030) of Tianfu New District (Chengdu). (2011). Retrieved
from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/eb03b50c79563c1ec5da71bb.html?
from¼search. on 22th, March, 2016.
The master plan of Caofeidian Eco-city. (2009). Retrieved from http://wenku.baidu.
com/view/d5e5f2e60975f46527d3e17e.html. on 7th March, 2016.
The master plan of Nansha New District (Guangzhou). (2012). Retrieved from
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/1d0353765acfa1c7aa00cc53.html?from¼search.
on 25th, March, 2016.
The conceptual masterplan of Singapore-Nanjing eco hi-tech island (written time
not specified). Retrieved from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/
07e81c5f0066f5335a8121a5.html?from¼search. on 26th, March, 2016.
The master plan of Sino-Singapore Eco-city (Tianjin). (2008). Retrieved from http://
wenku.baidu.com/view/67fd385980eb6294dc886c7c.html?from¼search. on
27th March, 2016.
The master plan of Suzhou Industrial Park (written time not specified). Retrieved
from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/95cab2f90975f46527d3e170.html?
from¼search. on 29th, March, 2016.
Yang, B., & Dong, K. (2008). Theories and practices of eco city planning with master
plan of Sinosingapore eco city in Tianjin as an example. City Planning Review, 8,
010.
Yu, L. (2014). Low carbon eco-city: New approach for Chinese urbanisation. Habitat
International, 44, 102e110.
Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Palmer, J., Bennetts, H., Chileshe, N., & Ma, T. (2015). Impacts of
heat waves and corresponding measures: A review. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 92, 1e12.
Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Rameezdeen, R., Bennetts, H., Wang, Y., Mao, G., … Duan, H. (2017).
Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 358e368.
Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z.-Y. (2014). Green building researchecurrent status and future
agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271e281.