International Planning Studies

ISSN: 1356-3475 (Print) 1469-9265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

Urban Growth Management Best Practices:

Towards Implications for the Developing World

Anele Horn

To cite this article: Anele Horn (2015) Urban Growth Management Best Practices: Towards
Implications for the Developing World, International Planning Studies, 20:1-2, 131-145, DOI:
10.1080/13563475.2014.942513

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2014.942513

Published online: 20 Aug 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 643

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cips20
International Planning Studies, 2015
Vol. 20, Nos. 1–2, 131 –145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2014.942513

Urban Growth Management Best Practices:

Towards Implications for the Developing
World

ANELE HORN
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Centre for Regional and Urban Innovation and
Statistical Exploration (CRUISE), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

ABSTRACT The notion of achieving a more compact urban form has gained popularity in the
debate on the most sustainable urban form, and central to this theme, the last century witnessed
an evolution of an urban growth management discourse, as large cities trial different techniques
towards achieving more sustainable urban forms. This paper explores the evolution of the urban
growth management discourse and the lessons learnt thus far to arrive at what is considered to
be current best practices. The objective is to illustrate some of the implications these practices
present to developing countries and whether international urban growth management practice
can offer meaningful solutions to developing governments and economies.

1. Introduction
‘Urban growth management has been amplified in spatial policy since the environmental
and social costs of urban expansion became key issues for urban sustainable development’
(Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 579). A defining feature of twentieth-century metropolitan
urban development in most of the world’s largest cities is the dominance of low-density
suburban and peri-urban landscapes (sometimes referred to as sprawl). A crucial question
is to what extent this conventional market-driven form of urban development is considered
to be sustainable. Until recently, the debate has focused on the implications for infrastruc-
ture services provision, travel and fuel consumption, but the effects of urban forms on
ecology, wildlife, natural resources, social equity, behaviour and economic well-being
are now recognized as equally important to urban sustainability (Williams, Burton, and
Jenks 2000). The notion of achieving a more compact urban form has gained popularity
in the debate on the most sustainable urban form, and central to this theme, the last
century witnessed an evolution of an urban growth management discourse, as large
cities trial different techniques towards achieving more sustainable urban forms. This

Correspondence Address: Anele Horn, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Centre for
Regional and Urban Innovation and Statistical Exploration (CRUISE), Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1,
Matieland 7602, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Tel.: +27 21 808 9181; Email: anelehorn@sun.ac.za
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Corrigendum
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1024980).

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

132 A. Horn

paper explores the evolution of the urban growth management discourse and the lessons
learnt thus far to arrive at what is considered to be current best practices. The objective
is to illustrate some of the implications these practices present to developing countries
and whether international urban growth management practice can offer meaningful sol-
utions to developing governments and economies.

2. The Evolution of Urban Growth Management

Planning systems in developed economies operate within a market framework in which
profit accumulation drives capitalist systems of property relations. ‘The inherent structural
weakness of capitalist economic systems is that it requires some level of state intervention
to secure stability in profit accumulation’ (Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 579). Metropolitan
planning has become increasingly constrained in its ability to influence urban development
in the capital economic climate. Planning authorities have been perceived as an obstacle to
development by growth-oriented governments, and have often been bypassed by central
governments. ‘Still, despite political decentralisation and the entrepreneurial direction
taken by many planning authorities, a certain centralist culture has remained among plan-
ners, aspiring to intervene in order to improve amenity, social justice and environmental
sustainability’ (Razin 1998, 322). Planning authorities in their decisions on urban and sub-
urban development have to facilitate growth management conditions, which are based on
respect for carrying capacity, making human activities more environmentally friendly,
socially responsible and economically sound in the long run (Basse 2010). There has
been a proliferation of regulatory/growth management devices especially in larger
urban concentrations. In order to provide a palatable discussion, the evolution of these
growth management approaches has been categorized in a number of ‘generations’.
This section will provide an overview of three distinguishable generations of urban
growth management discourses as witnessed during the last century.

2.1. The First Generation: Limits to Growth

The first generation of urban growth management marks the earliest attempts at controlling
the post-World War II industrializing city. ‘The most popular tool in achieving said control
was driven primarily by central governments at the time in the form of a demarcated strip of
green/undeveloped land beyond which no further growth would be allowed’ (Horn 2010,
45). The green belt was part of the post-World War II package of English regional policies
that were intended to protect farmland, to separate the major conurbations from surround-
ing settlements and to redistribute population from the south east to other parts of the
country. Greenbelts were usually implemented as tight bands of green space, either for per-
manent open space or for working landscapes around an existing urban area. The earliest
greenbelts were established in the UK in the late nineteenth century as introduced by the
Garden City pioneer — Ebenezer Howard. ‘As part of the UK physical land use planning
system and Town and Country Planning Act, promulgated in 1947, this country formalised
the implementation of greenbelts with the primary aim of urban containment’ (Horn, 2010,
45). The greenbelt approach was often complemented by the construction of ‘new towns’
(Jun and Hur 2001), that is, towns in which all aspects of development were determined
before construction takes place. The emphasis within these towns was the limitation of
size and density, limitation of automobile dependency, and that it had to be surrounded
 Urban growth management best practices 133

by a belt of undeveloped land or open space. The first New Town was established in
England (Letchworth), and later the ideology spread to the USA with the establishment
of Radburn. Some authors note the continued success of the greenbelt approach in the
UK in protecting land, for example, Jones (1975) observed the rate at which agricultural
land was converted to urban use averaging 25,000 hectares per year during the 1930s, as
opposed to 15,000 hectares per year during the 1950s and 1960s, only 60% of the earlier
level, despite the steady intensification of pressures on urban land over this period.
A number of other European cities have also adopted the greenbelt approach
(e.g. London, Copenhagen and Amsterdam). In Korea, a greenbelt was established in
1971 around the entire city of Seoul in which construction was completely prohibited
(Britz and Meyer 2006). In this case five new towns were also constructed between
1989 and 1995 adding 330,000 housing units to the city and accommodating about 1.16
million people. San Francisco, Ottawa, Adelaide and Dunedin (New Zealand) have also
implemented greenbelts in an attempt to curb urban sprawl. The greenbelt in Ontario
covers approximately 730,000 hectares of environmentally sensitive land. This area is
roughly 46% larger than the London Metropolitan Greenbelt (Eidelman 2010, 1212).
These cities have experienced varying degrees of success in curbing urban growth, and
critics point to the fact that the implementation of a greenbelt, in many instances,
encourages leapfrog development. This leads to greenbelts ultimately acting as land
reserves for future highways, where people living in leapfrog developments needs to
commute very long distances to reach the inner city (Harford 2007). Observed by Prior
and Raemaekers (2007, 588) is that

house builders, business and campaigners for affordable housing have long blamed
the greenbelt as the epitome of restrictive planning policy, for a shortage of building
land and resulting high property prices. The UK planning profession has itself
argued that the present policy is too inflexible.

In addition, the experiences of greenbelts in the examples mentioned before were that sat-
ellite communities/new towns located outside greenbelt areas create a range of other inef-
ficiency problems like travelling distances to employment opportunities in city centres
increased drastically (Memon 2003; Harford 2007).
Findings by Prior and Raemaekers (2007) attribute the success of the greenbelt
approach as a tool for containing urban development as very much contingent on the
relationship between central government and the market, as well as on prevailing econ-
omic conditions for land development. ‘This relationship is further complicated by the
consequences of the potential misalignment between spatial planning objectives and the
contemporary scope for planning authorities to intervene in capitalist land markets to
achieve those’ (Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 585).

2.2. The Second Generation: Some Sticks Some Carrots

The second generation of urban growth management witnessed from the early 1970s
onwards introduced a recognition that placing a limit on growth needed to be balanced
with strategies to accommodate or at least deal with future growth. Paramount to this
period was the decentralization of growth management and a shift in planning processes
generally from centrally planned government to more bottom-up planning where local
134 A. Horn

authorities assumed more responsibility for spatial policy and therefore urban growth
management.
Examples of this wave of growth management are seen in urban edges or urban growth
boundaries (UGBs) as deployed in a number of states in the USA (Oregon, Iowa, Califor-
nia, Tennessee, Washington and Boston), cities in the UK, Sydney and Copenhagen (see
Simmie, Olsberg, and Tunnell 1992; Nelson and Moore 1993; Britz and Meyer 2006).
These edges or boundaries can be defined as institutional boundaries with the sole
purpose of containing physical development and sprawl and re-directing growth
towards a more integrated, compact and arguably efficient urban form. Together with
such an edge, strategies to ensure integration and compaction advocated to ensure the
development of quality, well-maintained urban environments (Horn 2010, 45).
Oregon was pioneer among states in formulating, adopting and implementing state-wide
growth management policies. It is arguably the state with the most rigorous implemen-
tation apparatus on the mainland USA. The Senate Bill 100, passed by the state legislature
in 1973, established a mandatory planning programme under the direction of the Land
Conservation and Development Commission. It required every Oregon city and county
to adopt a comprehensive plan that met 14 original state-wide goals, thereby capacitating
cities and counties to assume responsibility for urban growth management. These goals
address, inter alia, forest and farmland protection, housing, economic development,
recreation and transportation. Goal 14, ‘Urbanisation’, seeks to ‘provide for an orderly
transition from rural to urban uses’, and requires every city to adopt an UGB (Britz and
Meyer 2006). In Oregon, UGBs are not permitted to include more land than the locality
‘needs’ for future growth, thereby encouraging compact development within the boundary
and prohibiting the development of land on the fringes of an established community
(Attkisson 2009, 998).
As part of its land use policies and laws, Florida is tying capital improvements to local
land use planning and regulation. This concurrency provides that new development can
occur only when adequate public facilities exist to support such development, and thus
adds timing, sequencing and phasing components to traditional zoning laws. As a
result, Florida’s system incentivizes developers to develop land within the existing
urban core and to maximize the use of currently available public facilities while simul-
taneously discouraging scattered development in rural areas (Attkisson 2009, 998).
Another example of a second generation urban growth management approach is to be
found in the Netherlands (VROM 2001). Using very detailed information regarding occu-
pation, economic development, the quantum of houses built, and so on, over the last
25 years, projections are made by local authorities to accommodate the natural population
and economic growth for the planning horizon of 2030 (Du Plessis 2004). Cities and local
authorities then apply a system of red and green contours: Red contours are boundary lines
that remain in place for 10 years and that demarcate the area around existing towns and
cities within which all future urban development must take place. Local authorities rec-
ommend the location of these lines to provincial governments who have the final say as
to their exact location. It is proposed that red contours should be supported by positive
planning of what is to happen within the demarcated areas. In order to ensure that the prin-
ciple of spatial quality is adhered to in new developments, the quality of development to
take place in the demarcated areas is also specified. Green contours demarcate natural, cul-
tural and heritage areas within which urban development may not take place.
 Urban growth management best practices 135

An Urban Service Boundary as witnessed in Minneapolis – St Paul since the early 1970s
denotes the edges of an urban service area and is typically more flexible than an urban
edge. It denotes a line beyond which a city has decided that its infrastructure, typically
sewer, water and electricity should not extend; this implies that infrastructure must be
in place before development is permitted. In many metropolitan areas in the USA,
urban service areas support a tiered system, a system that directs public infrastructure
into new areas in a particular sequence in order to eliminate leapfrog development, encou-
rage orderly urban expansion, and reduce the cost of public infrastructure (Du Plessis
2004). Urban services are often also tied to tools adopted by municipalities to restrict or
prohibit new urban growth unless that growth is served by roads, public water, public
sewers and other urban infrastructure (Pendall and Martin 2002).
In China, where one of the major reasons for curbing sprawl is to protect valuable
agricultural land, a top-down, centralist approach is followed (Zhang 2000). The central
government attempts to control sprawl both from a supply and a demand side. From the
supply side every person who converts agricultural land to another use has to recreate
an equal amount of land for agricultural purposes. This is typically land that was
previously developed for urban uses and idle land in rural areas. Secondly, in terms of a
land quota system, every municipality is only allowed to convert a certain amount of
land into non-agricultural uses. The central government decides on these quotas and the
provincial governments manage the quotas. Any new conversion for land from agricultural
land to other uses is, however, decided upon by the central government. Finally, by assist-
ing farmers, agricultural land is made more expensive, which makes it ‘harder’ for farmers
to sell their land and also less likely to fall prey to land speculation (Du Plessis 2004).
Because of their success in limiting sprawl, Oregon’s and Florida’s systems have been
noted to ‘provide excellent models for other states to consult when trying to counter sprawl
within their own boundaries’ (Attkisson 2009, 998). A critical success factor cited in
Oregon’s success is the requirement that local governments coordinate with neighbouring
localities and enact policies consistent with both the local and state comprehensive plans,
which were crucial components of the state’s efforts to contain sprawl (National Associ-
ation of Realtors 2001). When an individual local community draws a UGB within its own
borders and constrains future development to within that boundary, and establishes rules
and regulations within the UGB that are designed to slow local growth, the local UGB can
result in higher density and less extensive new growth within that community as long as
neighbouring/adjacent local communities adopt the same ideology. In reality however,
where individual communities adopt UGBs in isolation from their neighbours and
competitors, new growth [and new revenue] is simply accommodated in neighbouring
communities with less stringent spatial policies. One way of circumventing this issue is
through the introduction of a tax-base sharing programme best-known in North
America, specifically Minneapolis – St Paul:

The programme makes provision for inclusion of the net gain in local tax revenues
generated by industrial and commercial property only, since the base year of 1971
(when the programme was initiated). Of this net gain, 40 per cent is allocated into
a pool and distributed among the local authorities according to a formula that
takes into account the population and fiscal capacity of the local authority. This
mechanism reduces the negative implications of competition among local auth-
orities on land uses that pay high municipal taxes. The participating local authorities
136 A. Horn

can be expected to look more favourably on dense residential development, and on

the conservation of open space. (Razin 1998, 329)

Another critical success factor for UGBs is, therefore, how stringently growth is restricted
outside the UGB line. For example in Florida, developers who are willing to pay for the
necessary infrastructure can develop new projects outside the regional UGB (if they
receive local planning commission approval). In Oregon, most development outside the
regional UGB is prohibited, even if developers are willing to pay the costs of all the
additional infrastructure required (American Planning Association 2002).
The results accomplished by the UGB surrounding the Portland (Oregon) metropolitan
area are documented as ‘a dramatic increase in both the volume and proportion of multiple
family and attached single-family housing, as well as an increase in the proportion of
smaller and more affordable developed, single-family lots-all of which indicate an
increase in the density of the region’ (Attkisson 2009, 998). Additionally, the same
source observes a reduction in both total vehicle miles travelled and commuting times.
However, a common critique on Urban Growth Boundaries relate to UGBs that increase
price pressure on land within the boundary, causing home values in inner-city neighbour-
hoods to rise, and ultimately leaving poor households to be displaced from such areas
because they cannot pay required taxes, and forcing them to move further out of the
urban area where affordable housing may or may not be available (National Association
of Realtors 2001). In effect, the UGB confers a market advantage on the owners of land
within the UGB. Outside the UGB, it can be expected that the value of property will decrease
because of the loss of its potential to be developed (National Association of Realtors 2001).

2.3. The Third Generation: Smart(er) Growth

By means of clever marketing, the third generation of urban growth management origi-
nated in the USA. The smart growth movement resembles the main components of the
approaches of the second generation, albeit with a much more sophisticated emphasis
on the creation of sustainable urban environments. Smart growth is the first and foremost,
known as an American growth management theory. Growth is not to be stopped in its
tracks, nor necessarily slowed down. The goal is rather to manage urban sprawl by prior-
itizing intensification and mixed-use development, providing transportation alternatives
and housing choices, and preserving natural heritage features, while still ‘promoting tar-
geted economic growth to reduce per capita consumption of land and energy, lower the
cost of infrastructure and make transit more viable’ (Eidelman 2010, 1220). The goals
of smart growth in the American growth management theory are to:

. Achieve a unique sense of community and place by mixed land uses,

. Establish communities where transportation options include walking, biking and mass
transit,
. Decrease traffic congestion,
. Slow low density sprawl,
. Preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources — protection of open space, wet-
lands and prime agricultural land,
. Promote urban revitalization and public health and
. Decrease taxes and costs of infrastructure.
 Urban growth management best practices 137

Smart and sustainable growth is also a central priority presented in the European Com-
missions’ communication Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive
Growth accepted by the other EU institutions as the new reform policy (Basse 2010). In
this context, the meaning of smart growth goes beyond the containment of urban
growth to include aspects of strengthening knowledge and innovation as drivers of
future growth. The recommended guidelines on smart growth given by the European
Council include:

. addressing the significant needs for investment in infrastructure to comply with environ-
mental legislation in the fields of water, waste, air, nature, and species protection and
biodiversity,
. ensuring that attractive conditions exist for business and their highly skilled staff, which
will be ensured by promoting land use planning, which reduces urban sprawl, and by
rehabilitating the physical environment,
. promoting, in addition to the investment in sustainable energy and transport covered
elsewhere, investments that contribute to the EU-Kyoto (51) commitments and
. undertaking risk prevention measures through improved management of natural
resources, more targeted research and better use of information and communication
technology, and more innovative public management policies including, for example,
preventive monitoring (Basse 2010).

2.4. The Current Generations

A large body of research has developed during the last four decades arguing different
views regarding the desirability of urban sprawl; however, differences of opinion about
sustainable urban form and whether a compact city or market-driven urban development
is preferable prevails (Geyer 2009). The overwhelming majority of research present urban
sprawl unconditionally as bad and unsustainable, while urban densification is generally
viewed as a good, sustainable urban form (Geyer 2009).
The European Commission’s Green Paper on the Urban Environment has broadened the
debate because its advocacy of the compact city rests not just on strictly environmental
criteria of energy consumption and emissions, but also on quality of life grounds. It is
argued that the compact city, at its best, provides a superior culture, social and economic
base for society. Of course other important reasons given for the opposition to urban
sprawl are social inequalities, the consumption of agricultural land, traffic congestion
and social negatives of suburban living. Compact cities are, therefore, promoted for the
sake of protection of the rural landscape, its energy-saving possibilities, its quality-of-
life implications and its revitalization of central city areas (Geyer 2009). Proponents of
a compact urban form see urban containment as the only solution to the problem of
inner city decline. According to them, compact cities bring uses closer together and mix
uses in city centres. It hypothesises that compact urban forms and mixed land uses will
contribute to walking and cycling and therefore impact positively on sustainability
(Neuman 2005). Breheny (2002) cites ‘advocates for a decentralised exurban lifestyle
as being desirable on the very same quality of life considerations addressed by the Euro-
pean Commission’. This debate takes place against the background of continuing decen-
tralization of the world’s large cities, a process viewed by some as so profound as to be
labelled counter-urbanization. The same author remarks that
138 A. Horn

although a few European Cities do have cores which exhibit the desired character-
istics, the large majority do not. Many cities have cores which have been declining
physically, economically and socially. There is abundant evidence that people have
been fleeing these cores, in favour of suburban or exurban living, because of these
problems. The large majority of Europeans live happily in the very kinds of suburbs
that the European Commission denigrates as sprawl. (Breheny 2002, 152)

Breheny (2002, 143) further concludes that perhaps these trends are so powerful that a rea-
listic solution to the sustainability issue might be one that goes with the tide and tries to
reshape rather than one that tries to swim against it.
Parallel to the compact-city discourse, the sentiment for traditional urban centres gained
prominence through the sophistication of urban renewal initiatives or area-based
approaches. As a result of poor neighbourhoods increasingly becoming detached from
other parts of the city, urban renewal and regeneration became popular policy instruments
internationally during the 1990s (Donaldson and Du Plessis 2013, 296). ‘Research in
Europe has shown that though urban renewal policies have been distinctly successful
regarding improving and modernising the physical structure and environment [of urban
centres], social and economic problems (unemployment, difficult living circumstances,
and changing social standards) persisted’ (Donaldson and Du Plessis 2013, 296).
Already gaining momentum during the second generation of urban growth management
and becoming more vociferous during the last decade is the counter-discourse that a
compact urban form is not the only way to nor does it imply sustainability. Beginning
in the 1980s and increasing in popularity are various arguments against the combatants
of urban sprawl and in favour of a more free-market approach to urban growth. At the fore-
front of this discourse is Gordon and Richardson (1997) warning against nostalgia for the
compact city. A paper by the Gordon, Richardson, and Jun (1991) counters the compact
city as ideal based on arguments relating inter alia to the following:

(1) Evidence of a shortage/scarcity of land in the USA is misleading.

(2) Low-density settlement is the overwhelming choice for residential living.
(3) Based on this (low-density) consumer residential choice, high-capacity transit systems
becomes unattractive and wasteful (of all resources utilized, including energy).
(4) The traffic consequences of suburbanization are benign.
(5) The economic and resources efficiency of compact development has never been ade-
quately demonstrated.
(6) High-rise or concentrated settlement is costly and only worthwhile if transport or
communications costs are high.
(7) The equity case for compact cities is weak — poor people are excluded from living in
prime locations because of property prices, not because of urban sprawl.
(8) The major countervailing force to these trends derives from the fact that in an age of
increasingly mobile capital, cities (and their governments) must compete to survive.

Also, in response to the general rural protectionist lobby, there now seems to be a counter-
argument in favour of protecting urban areas. This is as yet poorly articulated, but may
gather force. The concern manifest in complaints about town cramming. ‘Given the
long-standing policy of urban containment in Britain, it is felt that urban intensification
 Urban growth management best practices 139

has produced congestion, loss of amenity, and a general lowering of urban quality of life,
particularly in suburbs’ (Breheny 2002, 140).
Geyer (2009, 168) in arguing different views on the most sustainable urban form con-
cludes that

to get closer to the truth, one would have to concede that not every aspect of urban
sprawl is bad, exploitative, unfair and unsustainable, just as not every aspect of the
compact city . . . is advantageous, its application responsible and its outcome
sustainable.

Some researchers argue that an urban form that may improve matters and is unlikely to
make them worse is decentralized concentration (Rakodi 1997). Appropriate planning pol-
icies would therefore discourage dispersed low density residential areas or any significant
development heavily dependent on car use; some degree of concentration though not
necessarily centralization of activities; integration of development with public transport
facilities and the maintenance of moderately high densities along transport routes.

This approach would promote the development of a number of suburban centres in a

large urban area, which would be the focus of improved public transport systems,
and would help to avoid the congestion, and hence high fuel consumption, associ-
ated with a single core. (Breheny 2002, 148)

An example can be found in Beijing, where, from the 1980s in response to the worsening
environmental and social problems caused by the high density of the city centre and
urban sprawl, the State government and Beijing municipality implemented a decentra-
lized-concentration strategy. The aims of this decentralized-concentration strategy
were to limit population growth and reduce population density in the city centre and
to encourage concentrated developments in suburban planned areas, which are also
called peripheral constellations (Jenks, Kozak, and Takkanon 2008). The emerging plan-
ning strategy for Paris is also based on the development of new growth centres in the
outer suburbs (but well inside the ring of new towns which was the basis of the previous
plan), linked by new circular metro lines and in part by a loop of the train a grande
vitesse network (Breheny 2002, 149).
At a different scale of concentrated decentralization is the spread of the so-called Edge
Cities and edgeless cities and suburbanization and regionalization. Regionalization
includes not only edge city development but also closer relationships between long-time
independent cities to form integrated regions, as in the Frankfurt – Wiesbaden corridor,
the Ruhr, Silicon Alley and Randstad in Netherlands. Edge Cities refers to clusters of resi-
dences, businesses, commerce and recreation on an urban scale, removed from major
central cities but related to them, whose independence in daily life from those central
cities is in large part their reason for being (Jenks, Kozak, and Takkanon 2008, 27).
The concept or phenomenon of polycentrism has become increasingly prominent within
the current urban debate. It can refer to different scales of the built environment whether at
the world, regional or city level, and has been characterized by a varied terminology — for
example, polycentric regions, polycentric urban systems, multimodal urban systems,
urban networks or polycentric networks:
140 A. Horn

At the large, regional scale it has been argued that the polycentric mega city region is
the new phenomenon that is emerging in the most highly urbanised parts of the
world. It has been defined as a series of anything between 10 and 50 cities and
towns, physically separate but functionally networked, clustered around one or
more larger central cities, and drawing enormous economic strength from a new
functional division of labour. (Jenks, Kozak, and Takkanon 2008, 73)

In the light of comparing polycentricism to a form of organized sprawl, Soja reassessed the
concept of urban sprawl. He argues that sprawl today is no longer what it used to be: the
very nature and meaning of both urban sprawl and sustainable development have changed
so dramatically over the past 30 years that even the best conceptualizations and practices
associated with them must be significantly rethought and revised (Soja 2000, 77). From the
literature it appears that Los Angeles, despite the densification of its sprawling suburbs, is
a model of urban fragmentation. In contrast, the Randstad, a form of polycentricism,
attempts to integrate its nodes together in a rational and planned way (Jenks, Kozak,
and Takkanon 2008, 77). Hall (1997) attributes the decentralized spatial structure of the
Randstad which is deeply rooted in the Dutch tradition of local autonomy to persistent
and explicit spatial planning policies, aimed at growth management and preventing the
coalescence of the built-up areas of the various urban centres into an amorphous, continu-
ous, meshing, spill-over blanket (Hall 1997).

3. Towards Implications for the Developing World

In developing countries, despite the lack of basic amenities and infrastructure, human
agglomerations still attract population from the surrounding regions. As a consequence,
the urban population is increasing in developing countries at a much faster rate than in
the rest of the world, contributing to the augmentation of existing problems. In these
immense urban agglomerations, which often show a dramatic sprawl coupled with an
explosive population growth, the environmental and social consequences are disastrous.
Barredo and Demicheli (2003, 298) observe that serious sustainable urban planning
measures are usually not coupled with national, regional and local level policies as sustain-
ability in most cases means survival. ‘Very often, the main cause is imputed to inaccurate
land-use management’ (Barredo and Demicheli 2003, 298). As observed by Jenks, Kozak,
and Takkanon (2008, 29), the mega-cities of the Third World (Mexico City, Sao Paulo and
Mumbai) do not simply follow the development path of cities in the more technologically
developed worlds; they are not simply at an earlier stage in a common path of develop-
ment, but rather are the products of their own specific historical developments coupled
with the strong influence of their positions within the world of globalization, threads of
colonialization, uneven development, competition, division of labour and exploitation.
The current urban transition differs from the experience of Europe and the USA in the
first half of the twentieth century in a number of important respects (see Hall and Pfeiffer
2000; Sassen 2001a). First and most importantly, the scale of change and population
growth is unprecedented (Table 1). Second, urbanization is occurring at a rapid (though
not although unprecedented) pace. Third, urbanization is now occurring more rapidly in
countries that have relatively lower levels of per capita income and in the case of
Africa, urbanization appears to have become partially decoupled from economic develop-
ment (Cohen 2004, 27). The mega-cities in the developing world exhibit population
 Urban growth management best practices 141

Table 1. Urban population size and growth by region (Drakakis-Smith 1995)

Region Mid-year populations Growth rate

1950– 1975 – 2000–

Urban 1950 1975 2000 2030 1975 2000 2030
Total 751 1543 2862 4981 2.9 2.4 1.8
High-income countries 359 562 697 825 1.8 0.9 0.6
Middle and low income 392 981 2165 4156 3.7 3.2 2.2
Europe 287 455 534 540 1.8 0.6 0.04
Latin America and the 70 198 391 608 4.2 2.7 1.5
Caribbean
Northern America 110 180 243 335 2.0 1.2 1.0
East Asia and Pacific 103 258 703 1358 3.7 4.0 2.2
East Asia and Pacific without 33 96 246 474 4.3 3.8 2.2
China
South Asia 72 164 372 849 3.3 3.3 2.7
Central Asia 14 40 77 118 4.3 2.6 1.4
Middle East and North Africa 22 70 177 360 4.6 3.7 2.3
Sub-Saharan Africa 20 67 219 648 4.9 4.7 3.6

figures incomparable to population figures in prominent cities in the developed world

(Rogerson, 1989), that is, Mexico City (26.3 million), Sao Paulo (24 million) and Calcutta
(16.6 million) compared to New York (8.3 million) and London (8.1 million).
Since the 1970s, in developing and transition countries, there has been a transition from
the traditional approach of centralized, top-down decision-making to one in which local
governments are able to make their own decisions when it comes to solving local problems
(Choguill 1994). The transition is characterized by two trends in the governance structure:
decentralization, characterized by increased local autonomy; and the introduction of multi-
stakeholder arrangements in the marketization process (Rakodi 2003). A paper by Roger-
son (1989) highlights a range of issues surrounding the formulation and implementation of
national urban policies in the developing world, as derived from a number of case studies.
In the Columbian and South Korean case studies, the potential dangers of enforcing exces-
sive decentralization planning neglecting locational choice of firms are raised. Further-
more, limitations of explicit spatial interventions in resolving urban management
problems are observed in the Nigerian case study. It appears from this series of case
studies that there is a general ‘veering away from the traditional emphasis upon spatial
strategies’ and that now the ‘new conventional wisdom favours space-blind national
urban strategies integrated with overall economic development planning’ (Rogerson
1989, 131).
At the same time, the growing power of the private sector, combined with the influence
of global investments, feed the marketization process, which in turn affects how govern-
ment is able to manage urban growth. In developing countries with (post-)socialist charac-
teristics, where growth management has previously been dominated by a centrally planned
system, the effects, according to Zhao (2010, 80), reach a revolutionary degree. A lack of
effective development control mechanism for market-led development would limit the
expected performances of metropolitan growth management. The findings suggest that
the disadvantages of decentralization and market forces for metropolitan growth
142 A. Horn

management should not be neglected, although the decentralization and marketization are
widely believed to contribute greatly to local economic growth and social well-being
improvement (Zhao 2010, 91).
From the previous three generations of urban growth management, it appears that a
number of lessons with regards to earlier approaches have at least been noted. Firstly, it
seems critical that policies that guide the form and structure of metropolitan areas
should seek to shape and bend social preferences expressed through the market rather
than change them radically (Memon 2003, 35). Secondly, consistency requirements
appear to play a major role. Requiring communities to plan without also requiring them
to co-ordinate with one another magnifies the effects of fragmentation (Carruthers
2002). A third observation by Carruthers (2002) relates to the role of enforcement in
the effectiveness of planning programmes. ‘Such programmes with strong enforcement
mechanisms hold much promise for reducing urban sprawl, while programmes that do
not require consistency my inadvertently contribute to it’ (Carruthers 2002). Fourthly, pol-
icies that focus on regulative measures and fail to acknowledge the role of local govern-
ment finance are unlikely to be effective in checking powerful market forces of sprawl
(Razin 1998). However, if we turn to specific conditions in the developing world, what
do these approaches and lessons imply for governments and economies in a developing
context, and do they offer any meaningful solutions to their specific problems. The discus-
sion in this paper formed the precursor to a debate on urban growth management in devel-
oping countries. The following realities should form the basis of further research in this
regard, bearing in mind the author’s recognition that this is a generalized list and by no
means exhaustive, given the vast differences and unique contexts of developing countries:

(1) Even though it is noted that the inherent structural weakness of capitalist economic
systems is that it requires some level of state intervention to secure stability in
profit accumulation (Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 579), the reality is that capitalist
economies can survive and provide to its constituents albeit with shortcomings.
Most developing nations, however, have state capitalist economies, where state inter-
vention is not only recommended, but indispensable. An enormous responsibility is
assumed by the state in these countries to ensure an equitable distribution of resources
to its population. Given this reality, as a starting point very limited decision-making
lies with market forces as these ‘market forces’ are usually very few.
(2) Another challenge to many developing countries, specifically in Africa, is the fact that
planning processes adapted from models outside developing countries lead to over-
complex planning processes, often driven by state bureaucracies. Planning is therefore
developed with little or no input from local communities. The implementation of these
processes is also constrained by the resources and delivery capacity of existing plan-
ning structures. It has been noted that government’s ability to enforce rules and regu-
lations is generally very weak, specifically in Africa, especially when these
regulations go against the tide of market forces. ‘In addition, plans and policies are
often not respected by those who approved them in the first place, resulting in the pre-
mature abandonment of or radical changes to plans before given a chance to achieve
their intended objectives’ (Rakodi 1997, 506).
(3) Observed by many authors is the inadequate economic development experienced in
developing countries to adequately cope with the vast growing population; and there-
fore, counter arguments, like the fact that sprawl can be considered by some as
 Urban growth management best practices 143

‘healthy urban growth’ (Zhang 2000) or in other words any economic growth is good
economic growth, gain popularity.
(4) The greenbelt and similar approaches have long been blamed as the epitome of restric-
tive planning policy resulting in a shortage of building land and high property prices
(Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 588). Given the growing numbers of population and
accompanying housing shortages, this may be a risk that governments in developing
countries just are not prepared to take.
(5) Dewar (2000) in Jenks and Burgess alludes to many developing countries already
experiencing exorbitantly high densities in urban centres. In such instances, policy
that aims to increase urban densities would not make sense.
(6) Greenbelts/urban edges have been criticized as contributing to leapfrog development
(Harford 2007) and thereby exacerbating long commuting distances. In developing
countries, where new migrants typically settle informally at the edge of cities,
many of whom later move into formal structures in the same location or in new
towns further away, the consequence of longer commuting distances will be particu-
larly detrimental.
(7) Population growth and urbanization are urban realities that are unlikely to dramati-
cally change in the near future. As a result, governments in developing nations prior-
itize the accommodation of growing urban populations and environmental
conservation often comes second to survival.
(8) Polycentricism has been cited as a potential solution to developing countries (Drakakis-
Smith 1995); however, developing countries are renowned for the primate nature of
their large cities, and despite numerous attempts at decentralization of political and
economic activities, success have been limited (Rakodi 1997). This problem could
potentially also be attributed to local authorities unwilling to share already sparse
investment opportunities. The question also arises as to whether it is possible to
defragment existing fragmented cities. ‘It is unlikely that any manipulation of
urban form will achieve much in solving social and economic problems, and
indeed, polycentric forms may exacerbate them. Nevertheless, the imperative is to
ensure that there is social diversity within the nodes and social mobility between
them: perhaps the Dutch policies of coherence and complementarity point to a poten-
tial solution’ (Jenks, Kozak, and Takkanon 2008, 88). The question, as posed by
Jenks, Kozak, and Takkanon (2008, 88) then becomes how urban form can support
social and economic equity?

4. Conclusion
An alternative vision of growth management is emerging in local planning practice. The
alternative is rooted in a critical understanding of present-day reality; it is conscious of the
power of the planning enterprise in societal evolution; and it is free from the enticements,
self-deceptions and pitfalls that are attendant on the population-limitation approach (Nie-
banck 2007, 403). Urban policies therefore need to shift from containing urban growth to
guiding it (Drakakis-Smith 1995, 660). Yokohari et al. (2000) show that most Asian mega-
cities have attempted to manage metropolitan growth by applying western urban planning
concepts, such as green belt and zoning, in response to the rapid migration of people from
rural to urban areas. They conclude that ‘the application of western urban planning con-
cepts represented by greenbelts and zoning may not be the best solution in the Asian
144 A. Horn

context’ (Prior and Raemaekers 2007, 594). It is suspected that the same conclusion can be
drawn for the application of western urban growth management practices in most devel-
oping country contexts. The paper provided an overview of the evolution of urban growth
management since the earliest forms of growth control (i.e. greenbelts) to the later gener-
ation of smart growth and more recently the debate on polycentricism and regionalization.
It then illustrated how the differences in urban conditions in the first and developing world
could hinder the success of first world urban growth management best practices in the
developing world. The paper concludes firstly that the search for the ultimate sustainable
form perhaps needs to be reoriented to the search for a number of sustainable urban forms
that respond to different settlement patterns and contexts (Williams, Burton, and Jenks
2000) and secondly that it should focus on an urban form that can support social and econ-
omic equity.

Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is hereby given to The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and
the University of Pretoria for the project on residential densities in Tshwane in May 2004
that lead to the compilation of the document: Du Plessis 2004. A Macro Perspective on
Residential Densities and Compaction for Tshwane.

References
American Planning Association. 2002. Growing Smart: Legislative Guide Book. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
Attkisson, L. R. 2009. “Putting a Stop to Sprawl: State Intervention as a Tool for Growth Management.” Vander-
bilt Law Review 62 (3): 979 –1015.
Barredo, J. I., and L. Demicheli. 2003. “Urban Sustainability in Developing Countries’ Megacities: Modelling
and Predicting Future Urban Growth in Lagos.” Cities 20 (5): 297– 310.
Basse, E. M. 2010. “Urbanisation and Growth Management in Europe.” The Urban Lawyer 42 (4): 385– 402.
Breheny, M. 2002. Sustainable Development and Urban Form. London: Pion Limited.
Britz, A., and E. Meyer. 2006. “Whose Line is it Anyway? The Origin and Evolution of the Gauteng Urban
Edge.” The Town Planning Review 77 (2): 205– 219.
Carruthers, J. I. 2002. “The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes: A Comparative Analysis.” Urban
studies 39 (11): 1959– 1982.
Choguill, C. L. 1994. “Crisis, Chaos, Crunch? Planning for Urban Growth in the Developing World.” Urban
Studies 31 (6): 935–945.
Cohen, B. 2004. “Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Trends and a Caution Regarding
Existing Forecasts.” World Development 32 (1): 23– 51.
Dewar, D. 2000. “The Relevance of the Compact City Approach: The Management of Urban Growth in South
African Cities.” In Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries, edited by
M. Jenks and R. Burgess, 209–219. London: Spon Press.
Donaldson, R., and D. Du Plessis. 2013. “The Urban Renewal Programme as an Area-Based Approach to Renew
Townships: The Experience from Khayelitsha’s Central Business District, Cape Town.” Habitat Inter-
national 39 (1): 295–301.
Drakakis-Smith, D. 1995. “Third World Cities: Sustainable Urban Development, 1.” Urban Studies 32 (4, 5):
659–677.
Du Plessis, R. 2004. A Macro Perspective on Residential Densities and Compaction for Tshwane. For: City of
Tshwane.
Eidelman, G. 2010. “Managing Urban Sprawl in Ontario: Good Policy or Good Politics?” Politics & Policy
38 (6): 1211– 1236.
Geyer, H. S. 2009. “The Continuing Urban form Controversy: Towards Bridging the Divide.” In International
Handbook of Urban Policy (2), edited by H. S. Geyer, 152–199. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
 Urban growth management best practices 145

Gordon, P., and H. W. Richardson. 1997. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” Journal of the Amer-
ican Planning Association 63 (1): 95–106.
Gordon, P., H. W. Richardson, and M. J. Jun. 1991. “The Commuting Paradox — Evidence from the Top 20.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (4): 416–420.
Hall, P. 1997. “The Future of the Metropolis and Its Form.” Regional Studies 31 (3): 211– 220.
Hall, P., and U. Pfeiffer. 2000. Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-First Century Cities. London:
E&FN Spon.
Harford, T. 2007. The Undercover Economist. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Horn, A. 2010. “Telling Stories: A History of Growth Management in the Gauteng Province (South Africa).”
European Spatial Research and Policy 17 (2): 41–54.
Jenks, M., D. Kozak, and P. Takkanon. 2008. World Cities and Urban Form. London: Routledge.
Jones, R. 1975. Essays on World Urbanization. London: George Philip and Son Limited.
Jun, M. J., and J. W. Hur. 2001. “Commuting Costs of ‘Leapfrog’ Newtown Development in Seoul.” Cities 18 (3):
151–158.
Memon, P. A. 2003. “Urban Growth Management in Christchurch.” New Zealand Geographer 59 (1): 27–39.
National Association of Realtors. 2001. Growth Management Fact Book. Lake County: Robinson & Cole.
Nelson, A. C., and T. Moore. 1993. “Assessing Urban Growth Management: The Case of Portland, Oregon.”
Land Use Policy 10 (4): 293 –302.
Neuman, M. 2005. “The Compact City Fallacy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (1): 11–26.
Niebanck, P. L. 2007. “Dilemmas in Growth Management: Introduction: Planning for What?” Journal of the
American Planning Association 50 (4): 403–405.
Pendall, R., and J. Martin. 2002. “Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States.” Unpublished.
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Prior, A., and J. Raemaekers. 2007. “Is Green Belt Fit for Purpose in a Post-Fordist Landscape?” Planning Prac-
tice & Research 22 (4): 579– 599.
Rakodi, C. 1997. The Urban Challenge in Africa: Growth and Management of Its Large Cities. New York: United
Nations University Press.
Rakodi, C. 2003. “Politics and Performance: The Implications of Emerging Governance Arrangements for Urban
Management Approaches and Information Systems.” Habitat International 27 (4): 523– 547.
Razin, E. 1998. “Policies to Control Urban Sprawl: Planning Regulations or Changes in the ‘Rules of the
Game’?” Urban Studies 35 (2): 321– 340.
Rogerson, C. M. 1989. “Managing Urban Growth in South Africa: Learning from the International Experience.”
South African Geographical Journal 71 (1): 129–133.
Sassen, S. 2001a. “Cities in the Global Economy.” In Handbook of Urban Studies, edited by R. Paddison, 256–
272. London: Sag Publications.
Simmie, J., S. Olsberg, and C. Tunnell. 1992. “Urban Containment and Land Use Planning.” Land Use Policy
9 (1): 36–46.
Soja, E. 2000. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell.
VROM. 2001. “Vijfde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening 2000/2020. Deel 2. Resultaten van inspraak, bestuurlijk
overleg en advise.” http://www.minvrom.nl
Williams, K., E. Burton, and M. Jenks. 2000. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London: Spon Press.
Yokohari, M., K. Takeuchi, T. Watanabe, and S. Yokota. 2000. “Beyond Greenbelts and Zoning: A New Planning
Concept for the Environment of Asian Mega-Cities.” Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2): 159–171.
Zhang, T. 2000. “Land Market Force and Government’s Role in Sprawl.” Cities 17 (2): 123– 135.
Zhao, P. 2010. “Implementation of the Metropolitan Growth Management in the Transition Era: Evidence from
Beijing.” Planning Practice & Research 25 (1): 77– 93.