Urban Policy and Research

ISSN: 0811-1146 (Print) 1476-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cupr20

Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea

Jaeseong Cho

To cite this article: Jaeseong Cho (2005) Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea, Urban
Policy and Research, 23:2, 203-218, DOI: 10.1080/08111470500143304

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08111470500143304

Published online: 20 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 982

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cupr20
Urban Policy and Research,
Vol. 23, No. 2, 203–218, June 2005

Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea

JAESEONG CHO
Department of Urban Engineering, WonKwang University, IkSan City, South Korea

(Received 1 February 2002; accepted 18 April 2004)

ABSTRACT This research focuses on the issues of urban sprawl in Korea. The urban sprawl
phenomenon began around the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) at the beginning of the 1990 s. The
research reviews the situation in other cities around the country, and analyzes the causes of urban
sprawl, such as population concentrations around the SMA, the failure of planning systems, land
conversion and land prices. In particular, this article attempts to explain the increase in land price
by using empirical data on the areas under investigation. The article also attempts to present
planning alternatives to prevent further urban sprawl.
KEY WORDS: Urban planning, urban sprawl, Seoul Metropolitan Area, planning alternatives,
public residential, land development

Introduction
Rapid social and economic development across Korea since the beginning of the 1990 s
has resulted in the growth of cities characterized by urban sprawl. By ‘urban sprawl’ I am
referring to the disorderly and less regulated expansion of housing, and industrial and
commercial developments in and beyond the periphery of metropolitan areas. Urban
sprawl is widely acknowledged as an undesirable form of development owing to its
economic, social and environmental disadvantages (Nelson & Duncan, 1995). Urban
sprawl often results in inefficient development with poorly serviced public facilities
around the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA). Therefore, the effects of urban sprawl, which
has resulted in an inefficient development pattern with poorly serviced public facilities,
have made planned development an urgent requirement.
Arguably, the most problematic aspect of these kinds of development patterns is the
poor state of basic infrastructure, which has not kept pace with high-intensity land
development. These development patterns have also resulted in traffic jams on major
arterial roads, a lack of public facilities and unplanned single residential land use
developments. Attempts to control urban sprawl have had little success in Korea. This is
despite initiatives that include a networking development measure designed to organize

Correspondence Address: JaeSeong Cho, Department of Urban Engineering, College of Engineering, WonKwang
University, Sinyong-Dong, IkSan City, Chollabuk-Do 570-749, South Korea. Fax: þ82 063 850 6729; Tel.: (cellular
phone) 017 339 2979; Email: cho2979@wonkwang.ac.kr
ISSN 0811-1146(print)/ISSN 1476-7244(online)/05/020203-16 q 2005 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research
DOI: 10.1080/08111470500143304
204 J. Cho

planned development on the basis of both infrastructure capacity and environmental

preservation. In addition, the National Land Basic Law (NLBL) has recently been
established, including the planning measures for Special District Plan provision and
Development Permission. These initiatives, which began in January 2003, are designed to
curb urban sprawl around fast-growing cities.
The main purposes of this article are to investigate the extent of population
concentration, the operation of land use control systems, the effects of land conversion,
and the determination of land prices as the major causes of urban sprawl around the SMA
in Korea. The issues under investigation are closely related to the phenomenon of urban
sprawl in Korea (Cho, 2000, 2001). This research contributes to establishing a new
direction for the design and implementation of land use policies that attempt to control
urban sprawl and redirect metropolitan growth.

(1) What is Urban Sprawl in Korea?

In Korea, the major concern relating to urban sprawl rests with the unplanned spread of
scattered development and the free-riding of public facilities surrounding new towns. This
means that people who move in to the new developments use the existing infrastructure
because public facilities and infrastructure, such as roads, have not yet been provided for
these new residential development areas. Thus, urban sprawl, when broadly described as
the predominance of high-density development and poorly planned development, is
primarily a product of misguided urban land growth policies (Cho, 2001; Korea Land
Development Corporation, 2001).

(2) Background to Urban Sprawl

The negative effects of land conversion from agricultural to urban use have been described
in several research reports (Ministry of Construction and Transportation [MOCT], 1994;
Korea Research Institute for Human Settlement, 1997; KyongGi Development Institute
[KGDI], 2000). Moreover, extremely high agricultural land prices, based on expectations
of conversion to urban use, have allegedly facilitated residential land development around
Korean cities, which has eventually resulted in urban sprawl with unplanned development.
Since the Quasi Agricultural Zone (QAZ), which applies to land developments subject
to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 400 percent and no more than 3 hectares (ha) in size, was
adopted in 1993 when the National Land Use Management Act (NLUMA) was amended,
both the demand for residential land and the land prices in the QAZs have increased
rapidly. Housing demand and prices increased because the new zoning system for QAZs
deregulated residential land development. Residential land development leading to urban
sprawl was fueled by high-density suburban developments that were often produced
without urban infrastructure by frequent rezoning in QAZs (KGDI, 2000). Above all, the
deregulation of the QAZs from 1993 not only stimulated small residential land
developments with lower land prices, but also promoted the ‘leap-frogging’ type
development of small areas of residential land of less than 3 ha around the SMA. The
scattered development of high-rise apartments led to the loss of valuable agricultural land
as well as a lack of public facilities. Small residential land developments and
accompanying arterial roads creating free-riding public facilities surrounding new towns
(Figure 1) have continued to spread out around nearby huge residential land areas.
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 205

Figure 1. The geographical boundary of the Seoul Metropolitan Area

Moreover, in the process of development, urban sprawl is the major factor in the loss of
prime agricultural land, open spaces and wetlands.

Recent Trends in the Debate over Urban Sprawl

Nelson and Duncan (1995) suggested that urban sprawl in the USA is due to public
policies. Although urban sprawl has been blamed for problems, it is suggested that both
national investment policies and generous subsidies have contributed to urban sprawl in
the USA. Moreover, local governments have tended to subsidize new schools, roads,
sewers, libraries and other facilities by floating general obligation bonds funded by higher
property taxes on US residents (Pendall, 1999). Whatever the reasons for urban sprawl, it
has its advantages and disadvantages.
In relation to advantages, the laissez-faire argument supports urban sprawl. The laissez-
faire argument is based on the presumption that people move out of the city into the suburb
almost entirely due to consumer preference for low residential densities (Gordon &
Richardson, 1997). Supporters of urban sprawl also emphasize its contribution to meeting
206 J. Cho

popular demand for low-density housing. Those in favor of urban sprawl have sought
evidence that the resulting decentralized settlement patterns are economically efficient. On
the other hand, there are disadvantages to urban sprawl. Unlike Gordon and Richardson,
Ewing (1997) argued that land markets are fraught with imperfections that induce sprawl.
In addition, the public policy of subsidizing single-family housing primarily benefits
suburban residents. Moreover, public goods tend to be underprovided by the private
market because of the free-rider problem; that is, the inability to charge beneficiaries for
the services they receive.
Although the causes of urban sprawl differ between cities and countries, urban sprawl is
quite common in Korea. Two important urban land use policies implemented around the
SMA, new town development and the Restricted Development Zone (RDZ), have worked
to prevent urban sprawl and have provided new towns. However, the RDZ, contrary to
intentions, has induced leap-frog urban sprawl development. Hence, planning measures,
such as the development of the RDZ and new towns, have failed to prevent urban sprawl in
Korea. The main issues relating to urban sprawl are the concentration of population, land
prices, land conversion that involves the destruction of the natural environment and the
relaxation of development regulations in Korea that differ from the public policies and
financial subsidies implemented by local government in the USA. Therefore, Korea should
develop its own approaches to urban sprawl. New planning measures and land use policies
are needed to deal with urban sprawl in Korea. There is a broad consensus on the need to
curb urban sprawl and to encourage compact forms of urban development that will
contribute to urban sustainability and reduced disparities between regions in Korea. For a
more desirable land use policy, first, it is necessary to analyze the mechanisms behind
urban sprawl in the SMA. Second, it is necessary to explain the relationship between urban
sprawl and factors such as population, land prices, planning systems and land conversion.
It is also suggested that a feasible and effective way of dealing with urban sprawl is to
control these factors. This research should help to adjust the balance of city growth and the
distribution of population and industry around large cities in Korea.

The Main Causes of Urban Sprawl

(1) Trends in Population Concentration and Distribution Around the SMA
Urban sprawl, evident primarily in rural-urban fringe areas, has frequently been viewed as
a source of problems that stem from the unplanned spread of scattered residential
developments, often without public facilities, along existing rural roads. It cannot be
denied that population concentrations around fast-growing regions like the SMA
encourage huge residential land development. As Table 1 clearly shows, the population
continues to concentrate around the SMA, which covers KyongGi province including both
the cities of Seoul and InCheon.
In 1985, the population in the SMA was over 13 000 000, but in 1990 it was 18 500 000.
By 1995, the population had risen to over 20 000 000.
Much of the population continues to accumulate around the SMA, which already
accounts for 12 percent of the national land. By 2000, the population in the SMA had
reached over 21 000 000, or 46.3 percent of the national population. In particular, satellite
cities around Seoul such as BuCheon, GoYang and BunDang, account for only 2.3 percent
of the national land but accommodate one-third of the national population. Between 1985
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 207

Table 1. Distribution of population densities in Seoul Metropolitan Area, 1985– 2000

Area (ha) Population size Population density (persons/ha)

1985
Seoul 60 727 8 364 379 137.74
InCheon 21 014 1 083 906 51.58
KyongGi province 1 086 834 3 849 956 3.54
Seoul Metropolitan Area 1 168 575 13 298 241 11.39
National 9 899 234 37 436 315 3.78
1990
Seoul 60 534 10 612 577 175.3
InCheon 31 719 1 817 919 57.3
KyongGi province 1 077 288 6 155 632 5.71
Seoul Metropolitan Area 1 169 541 18 586 128 15.89
National 9 927 370 43 410 899 4.37
1995
Seoul 60 574 10 759 454 177.63
InCheon 95 436 2 305 825 24.16
KyongGi province 1 016 120 7 332 544 7.22
Seoul Metropolitan Area 1 172 130 20 397 823 17.40
National 9 929 385 45 426 819 4.58
2000
Seoul 66 552 10 321 449 170.46
InCheon 95 861 2 524 251 26.33
KyongGi province 1 013 504 8 982 298 8.86
Seoul Metropolitan Area 1 175 957 21 827 998 18.17
National 9 943 426 46 130 000 4.64
Source: Korea National Statistical Office, Population and Housing Census Report, each year.
Gyeonggi-do in Figure 1 is the same as KyongGi province in Table 1.

and 2000, the redistributed population continued to accumulate around areas within 30 –
50 km of Seoul (Ahn, 1997; Cho, 2001). Residential land development tools such as the
Public Residential Land Development Act (PRLDA, 31 December 1980) and the Housing
Construction Facilitating Act (HCFA, 30 December 1972) were intended to assist the
development of areas necessary for the increased provision of residential land.
As Table 1 illustrates, since 1995, people have moved into the SMA from Seoul and
other parts of the country. Seoul’s population had declined to 10 321 449 by 2000. The
zoning process, which deregulated land development in surrounding areas of Seoul, has
supported the decentralization of population growth to the urban-rural fringe areas
surrounding Seoul to alleviate pressure on population growth in Seoul.
In 1999, Seoul’s share of total Korean housing construction was 71 percent and that of
the SMA was 83 percent. Such statistics suggest a high demand for housing around the
SMA (MOCT, 2000a, b). The size of the housing stock around the SMA, the
projection for housing demand and the predicted population increase indicated that 2 026
000 more residential units would be needed by 2000. This includes 1 390 000 houses at that
part of the SMA outside Seoul city and InCheon city. Therefore, it is necessary to build
new towns to prevent urban sprawl and create orderly urban development in the SMA
(Ohn, 2001).
Urban sprawl indicates that the population redistribution process around the SMA has
made a marked impact on that aspect of the Capital Region Rearrangement Plan that aims
208 J. Cho

for an adequate population and industry as well as balanced development and orderly
growth within the SMA. The Capital Region Rearrangement Plan has had limited success
in affecting the pattern of urban development in the process of huge residential land
development. Despite the policy of restricting population concentration around the SMA,
the proportion of residents in the SMA increased between 1995 and 2000, and by 2000
accounted for 47.3 percent of the total Korean population, compared with 44.9 percent in
1995. The unique spatial development of the population and industry concentrated around
the SMA led to negative external effects, such as high land prices, traffic jams and
environmental problems. In particular, the populations of KyongGi province and Seoul
were forecast to reach 11 000 000 and 10 600 000, respectively, by 2003 (JoongAng Daily,
2001). Thus, the population of KyongGi province is expected to surpass that of Seoul by
2003. This is because people are moving out of Seoul to KyongGi province, where new
residential land developments and new towns such as BunDang and IlSan have provided
more high-rise apartments.

(2) The Planning System and Development Regulation

The planning system. The Korean Government has implemented various kinds of land use
regulations during the process of industrialization. The zoning system for controlling land
use in Korea was designed to achieve a socially desirable allocation between urban and
agricultural use. Korean local government is organized in a two-tier system. In the SMA
for instance, the Seoul and InCheon City Governments, along with that of the KyongGi
province, form the upper tiers of decision making. These upper tiers are served by lower-
tier local administrations. The preparation and design of long-term master plans that
prescribe development objectives within the zones established by the Urban Planning Act
is the responsibility of the upper-tier government. The task of implementing the policy is
delegated to the local administrations. In other words, local government merely ensures
that developers adhere to the rules outlined by the Urban Planning Act and by the city and
provincial administrations. This role extends to the monitoring of compliance with the
Building Code. The planning system in Korea has also sought to achieve planned
development based on the Urban Planning Act (1971), which applies to all urban areas and
provides for the designation of an Urban Planning Area (UPA) corresponding to built-up
areas, and where necessary, its urban fringes across municipal boundaries. It has been the
most important legal instrument for regulating urban growth. The UPA is an area in which
owners are free to develop their land, provided they adhere to zoning control in four
principal use zones, and regulations relating, for example, to building height, setback,
building coverage and FAR.
The National Land Use Management Act (1972) provided for the designation of a
National Land Use Planning Area (NLUPA) to control land use outside the UPA.
However, the effect of land use deregulation since 1993 has been to reduce development
control of the land, which has affected land use and transactions on the urban fringe and
outside the UPA (Cho, 2000). This has resulted in the provision of residential settlements
without basic services. The revision of the NLUMA (1993) adopted a negative list system,
which prohibited particular types of land use in QAZs, in contrast to the previous positive
list system, which permitted particular types of land use. This may have contributed to
land use regulations being relaxed for the outskirts of cities, and therefore, may have
stimulated urban sprawl.
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 209

In January 2003, the Korean Government implemented the NLBL to combat urban
sprawl. The NLBL divides Korea into three types of area: Urban Areas, Management
Areas and Preservation Areas. The designation of Management Areas in the NLBL
includes both a Quasi Urban Zone (QUZ) and a Quasi Agricultural Zone (QAZ).
Therefore, controversial areas, such as QAZs and QUZs, are incorporated into
Management Areas. Moreover, the NLBL introduced new planning measures such as
the Special District Plan and the Development Permission System, which was designed to
prepare urban infrastructure. The Development Permission System requires land
developers to provide urban infrastructure, such as roads, schools and sewer systems, in
exchange for development permission from local governments (Park, 2001). The newly
established NLBL aims to contribute towards limiting urban sprawl and conserving the
countryside while maintaining a desirable mix of activities within the urban area.
Development regulation. In principle, the planning system can affect the supply of land
available for housing by restricting the total quantity of housing land across the country as
a whole. Land use control systems that were relaxed outside UPAs from 1993 have made
rural areas more attractive to residential land developers. Indeed, a change of land use
regulations on the urban-rural fringe has induced urban sprawl. The urbanization of rural
areas occurs if the returns to urban development exceed those of rural land use. Moreover,
the HCFA, which primarily aims to provide affordable housing for non-homeowners
through the private sector rather than the public sector, provides residential housing units
with small residential land areas of less than 3 ha. This is because there are stricter
regulations on residential land development of more than 3 ha in QAZs (see Table 2).
Therefore, the private housing sector generally provides small areas of residential land
of less than 3 ha in order to avoid strict regulations on residential land development in
QAZs. The average size of residential land areas in the private sector is 2.8 ha. The private
sector also provides smaller sizes for less than 500 household units. Consequently,
residential land development by the HCFA has caused urban sprawl by inducing small and
scattered residential land development.
In terms of development intensity, the land use control system allows an FAR of 100
percent and a Building Coverage Ratio (BCR) of 60 percent in QAZs, and an FAR of 200
percent and a BCR of 80 percent are allowed in QUZs (see Table 3).
Private developers want to provide residential land by rezoning QAZs to QUZs at the
fringe of urban areas by obtaining planning permission for land conversion that is

Table 2. Negative List System according to the National Land Use Management Act

Negative List System

National Land Use Planning Act Quasi † Prohibits the building of structures of
more than FAR 200%
Urban
Zone
Quasi † Prohibits land development of more than
3 ha in area
Agricultural † Prohibits high-rise apartments of more than
300 residential units
Zone † Prohibits the building of structures of
more than FAR 100%
210 J. Cho

Table 3. Development intensity outside Urban Planning Areas (percent)

Building Coverage Ratio Floor Area Ratio

Quasi Agricultural Zone 60 100
(40) (80)
Quasi Urban Zone 80 200
(60) (200)
Agricultural Area 60 400
Figures in parentheses relate to the SMA.
Source: MOCT, National Land Use Management Act (2000b).

profitable after rezoning. Most residential land developments have been completed under
both the PRLDA and the HCFA. The average plot size of agricultural land converted to
housing land in the SMA by the HCFA has increased from 13 to 56 ha (KGDI, 2000;
MOCT, 2001).
In terms of development measures, the HCFA does not take responsibility for providing
public facilities within a project area of small residential land development. This is
because residential land development projects by the HCFA are exempt from the planning
process to review a rezoning when apartments are built with fewer than 20 residential
units. The HCFA requires the provision of urban infrastructure, such as roads, schools and
parks, for developments above a certain size. Private developers try to avoid these
requirements to provide urban infrastructure and public facilities. Therefore, residential
land projects carried out by private building developers have involved small residential
groups of fewer than 20 units or communities of less than 1 ha. This has often been done in
private residential land areas to avoid the legal requirements of urban infrastructure
provision (Cho, 2001).
After the PRLDA was established in 1980, it was applied across the country when
residential land was provided. PRLD became a new type of land development instrument,
different from the land readjustment project. The PRLDA has emphasized two main
aspects: promotion of public interests and efficiency of land supply. Since the beginning of
the 1980 s, PRLD has been actively used because it is considered more effective than other
development methods in providing appropriate settlements and planning (Bai & Park,
1995). The PRLDA has adopted a fast reviewing process. In general, the PRLD made it
possible to provide cheaper and speedier residential land development than the HCFA.
However, PRLD also had a significant fault, in that as it didn’t follow the guidance of
master plans drafted by the local government, it was unable to stop the negative effects of
sprawl. Even though the PRLD project often conflicted with the master plan system, it has
become one of the major development measures in providing massive residential land
development by the public authorities since the beginning of 1980s.
The PRLDA was aimed at providing for residential land development under the control
of public authorities. But the development activity initiated by the private construction
sector at the urban fringe, usually of smaller size than the PRLDs, has been carried out
under the HCFA and resulted in the rezoning of QAZs to QUZs under the NLUPA.
Rezoning QAZs to QUZs has produced high-density residential developments, so that
high-rise apartments have been built in rural areas. Because a great deal of residential land
development that lacks basic services has been allowed in QAZs, these areas require costly
urban infrastructure and public services. Although local policies have contributed to urban
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 211

sprawl through their limited provision of facilities such as roads and schools, scattered
development may also be accompanied by poor infrastructure provision and a shortage of
neighborhood public facilities.

(3) Land Conversion from Rural Use to Urban Use

Urban sprawl has occurred primarily around big cities in Korea since the beginning of
the 1990 s because, as already mentioned, land use regulations have been relaxed in
QAZs, most of which are situated around cities for the provision of residential land.
The revision of the NLUMA in 1993 allowed the private sector to participate in land
development with the result that many residential land development projects were
implemented in QAZs across the country. The QAZs occupy 26 percent of Korea (or 2 589
000 ha), which is twice as much as that occupied by urban areas and half of that occupied
by agricultural land.
There has been a strong demand for urban conversion of the urban-rural fringe in the
SMA because of its proximity to Seoul. For example, satellite settlements around Seoul,
such as YongIn, HwaSeong and KwangJu, grew rapidly by converting land from
agricultural to urban use (see Figure 1).
There were 536 land conversions in QAZs, accounting for 576 km2, from 1990 to 1999.
The amount of land conversion between 1990 and 1999 in KyongGi province was
3304.6 km2, representing 17.1 percent of all QAZs and 5.7 percent of the total area in
KyongGi province (KGDI, 2000). In particular, between 1993 and 1998, the conversion
from agricultural land to urban use occurred in surrounding areas such as YongIn
(119 130 ha) and WhaSeong (309 720 ha).
It became apparent that the primary purpose of land conversion was for residential land
development to provide residential apartment units. Therefore, land conversions from
agricultural use to housing land often occurred in QAZs to build high-rise apartments.
The provision of residential land development in QAZs resulted in urban sprawl, and
generated the controversial issue of how to curb urban sprawl around the SMA.
A total 315 991 apartments and 1640 ha of residential land were supplied in the QAZs
between 1994 and 1999 (see Table 4). By 1999, the QAZs in KyongGi represented 31.8
percent of all Korean QAZs and covered 12 840 ha (KGDI, 2000).
However, since the area covered by the NLUPA has no development scheme, residential
land has been provided in rural areas that lack public facilities and urban infrastructure
alongside private sector dwellings, which has also contributed to urban sprawl.
In many parts of Korea, when urbanization takes place, improvements in infrastructure,
such as roads, sewers and schools, are belated and insufficient, particularly in satellite
areas. Costs are expected to be met by taxpayers in the municipality. It has been quite rare
for former landowners, such as farmers, to bear such costs directly. They sell their land as

Table 4. Conversion from agricultural to urban use, KyongGi province, 1994 –99

1994– 96 1997– 99 Total

Number of conversions 203 320 523
Area (km2) 5.1 11.3 16.4
Number of households 112 408 203 583 315 991
212 J. Cho

it is, on the tacit assumption that the local government will undertake investment in the
infrastructure around their land.

(4) Land Prices

Before the deregulation of land use in 1993, government policy for the conversion of land
from rural to urban uses had been to restrict land conversion to such an extent that the land
was worth much more in urban than in rural areas (Hannah et al., 1993). However, after
the revision of the NLUMA (1993), in many parts of the rural areas surrounding the
expanding cities, agricultural land has been converted for urban uses in a piecemeal
fashion.
There is a theoretical assumption that in a free, unregulated market, the land between the
city center and the urban edge will be urbanized and that all other land will be used for
agriculture. However, urban use leads to negative externalities such as pollution and
congestion, and these externalities impose social costs (Evans, 1985). Hence, urban land
prices should be higher than those of agricultural land. In that case, the difference between
land prices for urban use and agricultural use at the urban edge should greatly exceed
agricultural land prices (see Table 5). Moreover, if development were to take place
sporadically, many landowners within the surrounding area would hope to sell their land
for development at a price substantially above its current agricultural value. However,
only a small area of land, relative to the land under development, can actually be used for
development. Thus, development value ‘floats’ over an extensive agricultural area
(Ambrose, 1986; Mori, 1998).
Table 5 shows comparisons of land prices for housing land and agricultural land in a
QAZ, a QUZ and an Agricultural Area, in five locations around the SMA. In each case, the
land was near the urban fringe in the city of PyongTaik, KyongGi province, where part of
the proposed Dongtan new town is to be. In Mabuk-Ri, Osan-Ri and DongCheon-Ri in
Table 5, agricultural land prices reflect what could be expected to be the relevant
opportunity cost of housing land. There is an important difference between agricultural
and housing land in a QAZ (see the column labeled D/E in Table 5). The difference
between the price of housing land and agricultural land in a QAZ reflects the effects of the
development regulations imposed on agricultural land that eventually affect the
determination of land prices. Moreover, the conversion from agricultural land to housing
land in a QAZ to supply additional land is permitted for the provision of housing supply.
Therefore, a rise in agricultural land prices in a QAZ is inevitable (see Table 5).
It is assumed that demand pressures to convert a QAZ to a QUZ have arisen because
QAZs were permitted to shift from agricultural to urban use following the implementation
of the QAZ policy in 1993. The price for farming land in a QAZ is well above the value
derived from the net rental returns from agricultural production in the Agricultural Area. It
has therefore been impossible in an Agricultural Area to obtain planning permission for
development in rural areas because the NLUMA didn’t allow Agricultural Areas to be
available for urban use. Therefore, farmers and landowners in an Agricultural Area have
fewer expectations of success in obtaining permission for development. In other words, the
anticipated value of their land is relatively closer to its current use value than it is in
agricultural land use for a QAZ.
On the other hand, as Table 5 shows, the price of housing land in a QAZ is at least five
times that of agricultural land, according to the cases studied. There is no question that
Table 5. Prices of agricultural land in a Quasi Agricultural Zone, an Agricultural Area and a Quasi Urban Zone around Seoul Metropolitan Area
(units: won/pyong)

Agricultural Quasi Quasi

Urban
Area (A) Agricultural Zone Average (C) Housing (D) Agricultural (E) Zone (B) B/A B/C D/E
Mabuk-Ri
1996 66 420 715 839 1 204 875 226 800 1 157 569 17.43 1.62 5.31
1997 69 660 839 160 1 312 200 418 679 1 231 741 17.68 1.47 3.13
1998 51 840 855 780 1 421 550 457 164 1 307 071 25.21 1.49 3.11
1999 48 600 836 137 1 484 999 403 561 1 403 847 28.89 1.68 3.68
2000 55 080 928 490 1 503 901 496 935 1 425 600 25.88 1.54 3.03
2001 55 080 913 680 1 437 170 390 190 1 490 831 27.07 1.63 3.68
Osan-Ri
1996 32 400 426 465 884 196 99 513 8.89
1997 32 400 481 439 965 844 108 913 8.88
1998 35 640 513 329 966 405 98 010 9.86
1999 32 400 470 785 885 405 90 720 9.76
2000 36 288 491 745 883 224 165 509 5.34
2001 38 232 489 519 883 224 177 931 4.96
DongCheon-Ri
1996 20 966 34 830 92 881 15 481 6.00
1997 21 536 35 640 92 881 16 560 5.61
1998 22 489 38 611 100 440 18 034 5.58
1999 21 154 36 450 95 039 16 919 5.62
2000 23 250 39 110 103 680 21 501 4.82
2001 32 400 299 700 567 000 166 050 1 130 760 34.90 3.77 3.41
SeokJeong-Ri
1996 29 698 144 866 236 925 52 851 1 879 200 63.28 12.97 4.48
1997 25 308 126 697 236 925 60 802 1 879 200 74.25 14.83 3.89
1998 25 521 133 825 243 719 63 180 1 944 000 76.17 14.53 3.86
1999 24 057 120 068 207 720 67 476 1 846 800 76.77 15.38 3.08
Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea

2000 26 040 119 556 207 720 66 657 1 749 600 67.19 14.63 3.12
2001 26 526 121 571 207 720 66 874 1 749 600 65.96 14.39 3.11
213
 214
J. Cho

Table 5. Continued

Agricultural Quasi Quasi

Urban
Area (A) Agricultural Zone Average (C) Housing (D) Agricultural (E) Zone (B) B/A B/C D/E
Jiweol-Ri
1996 19 796 144 562 196 250 104 364 210 600 10.64 1.46 1.88
1997 19 796 145 777 196 250 106 502 210 600 10.64 1.45 1.84
1998 20 879 154 185 208 575 105 841 226 800 10.86 1.47 1.97
1999 20 879 152 280 205 043 111 239 291 600 13.97 1.91 1.84
2000 22 281 155 497 218 467 106 521 324 000 14.54 2.08 2.05
2001 25 473 136 362 236 520 116 241 356 400 13.99 2.61 2.04
Source: Korea Association of Property Appraisers (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) Official Announcement of Land Value (Seoul: Korea Association of
Property Appraisers).
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 215

these ‘floating values’ may have adversely affected Korean agricultural production, not
only in the urban periphery, but also in the predominantly agricultural area. A comparison
of the prices of agricultural land with those of housing land in a QAZ suggests that farmers
and landowners in a QAZ intend to convert from agricultural to urban use, or perhaps to a
QUZ in the future. In other words, the anticipated value of their land is above its value as
an agricultural area.
Eventually, urban sprawl in QAZs encroaches on agricultural land as well as the forests.
Therefore, since farmers are unwilling to cultivate, the agricultural area declines. At the
same time, residents move out of rural areas and rural communities decline in the suburban
areas around rapidly expanding cities. The price multiplier between an Agricultural Area
and a QUZ at the urban-rural fringe is around 20 – 30 (see column B/A in Table 5). In this
context, the land use planning system outside the UPA seems to have affected the
determination of land prices. The relaxation of land use controls at the urban fringe has
resulted in a rapid increase in land prices, and, consequent urban sprawl with unplanned
development.
As the demand for urban land increases, its value and prices are likely to rise in the long
run. Hence, the real issues are how to internalize the external diseconomies that
accompany urban growth, who should pay the costs, and how best to control urban sprawl.

Policy Implications
It is evident that suburban sprawl has affected Korea since the beginning of the 1990 s.
Traffic congestion and pollution are side effects of unplanned development. The threat to
open spaces and rural lands is also an increasingly contentious topic in the debate over the
effects of urban sprawl around the SMA.
Converting agricultural land to urban use often involves investments in infrastructure
such as roads, sewers, utilities, schools, fencing, drainage and landscaping, as well as open
spaces for social use. In addition, there is the controversial issue of who should support
these costs, and when. One of the main sources of urban sprawl in Korea is the
incompatibility between broad ‘zoning’ and the desire to implement development control
as a means of reducing land price differentials, providing flexibility and preventing illegal
development that is inherent in the Korean planning system. On broader economic
grounds, it is important to treat investment goods equitably with respect to government
taxation in order to avoid the misallocation of funds for investment. Hence, the Korean
Government must treat capital gains arising from land development on the same basis as
any other realized capital gain (Town and Country Planning Association, 1999).
Local governments want to bring in new residents because more residents mean a larger
tax base and money to pay for public works and social services. However, problems arise
with migration, such as the dumping of wastewater into previously clear small streams and
the congestion of narrow rural roads. Attending to these problems tends to limit the
financial capability of local governments to provide more schools and other public
facilities. First, the increase in land prices and land speculation due to urban sprawl leads
not only to a high intensity of land use, but also to poor provision of public facilities.
Second, another reason behind urban sprawl in Korea is that development fees are not
collected by local governments. The serious effects of urban sprawl are accentuated
because development fees do not fund public projects, but rather benefit landowners. This
makes planning systems ineffective. A planning system for collecting a development fee
216 J. Cho

from urban developers is necessary to prevent urban sprawl. Third, controversy remains
over how to tax the increase in the value of land due to urban development projects.
Therefore, planning systems must also incorporate a method of using gains in land values
to fund the costs of converting rural land to urban use. Depending on the growth rate of the
economy, urban areas are expected to grow in the long run. However, the rate of increase
might slow if the owners, sellers and buyers of land pay the full social costs of conversion.
Therefore, private building companies should also be responsible for providing urban
infrastructure and public facilities. To curb the declining level of public services caused by
sprawling developments intruding into rural areas, the timing of development should be
coordinated with the provision of public facilities (Cho, 2002). Arguably, most, if not all,
of the difference between land prices for urban and agricultural use at the urban edge
should accrue to the public, not to the owners of the land being developed.

Conclusions
Planning that aims to prevent urban sprawl involves reducing negative externalities that
result from lack of provision of the optimal level of public goods, such as public facilities,
interdependencies among land uses, and reducing the costs of providing public services.
The serious issue of overcrowding around the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) reveals
several problems. First, since the population has accumulated around the SMA, the
demand for housing and the increase in land prices has stimulated residential land
development on the urban-rural fringe. Second, this analysis suggests that the land use
planning system does not prevent urban sprawl, but rather allows urban sprawl to occur
through rezoning from agricultural to urban use. This is reflected both in the prices of
housing land in urban-rural fringes, which far exceed those of agricultural land, and in the
differentials in these ratios between areas. However, planning systems, such as the
deregulation of land development in Quasi Agricultural Zones (QAZs) should be in place
both to offset inefficient development patterns induced by policies that stimulate urban
sprawl, and to take improved but imperfect account of the nature of conflict between
different uses of land.
Third, since the concentration of population and industry around the SMA has raised
land prices, people living on the outskirts of Seoul bear the social costs. In particular,
people living in satellite settlements within the SMA drive greater distances and
experience more congestion, which reduces their quality of life. Fourth, urban sprawl has
encroached upon agricultural land and destroyed natural environments. Fifth, many new
residential land developments are not self-sufficient because they exhibit imbalances
between jobs and housing and have exacerbated traffic congestion on routes into Seoul.
Sixth, satellite settlements far from Seoul increase commuting distances. Moreover,
people living on the outskirts of Seoul account for more than 40 percent of commuters, and
many spend more than 2 hours commuting every day.
Therefore, this research suggests the following directions for the implementation of
land use policies to control urban sprawl and redirect metropolitan growth.
Traffic congestion and travelling delays in Seoul have been worsening since a number
of large-scale settlement developments began. Thus, a comprehensive urban activity
model that integrates traffic demand with a land use model is needed to reduce traffic
congestion, commuting times, pollution and the loss of agricultural land. Moreover,
measures are needed to set capacity prerequisites for infrastructure in new developments
 Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea 217

to make the planning system more efficient. It is recommended that municipalities adopt a
permit system rather than zoning so that they have the flexibility to approve appropriate
development. A large amount of agricultural land in QAZs has been converted to urban
use, but taxation based on housing values should be introduced to reduce housing-land
prices substantially. If these changes are not made, the land use control system will fail to
provide efficient planned development patterns to manage urban growth. Private-property
owners do not fully internalize their marginal social costs and are not aware of their
marginal social benefits. In terms of urban fringe policy, development should be attracted
to existing urban areas to control the growth of out-of-town development. Moreover, urban
regions should be advised to improve sprawling suburban zones by incorporating a mix of
commercial, social and open uses and activities that turn them into vital and viable
communities that are in accord with sustainability objectives. In this way, excessive
movement into population centers can be avoided and population exodus limited (Town
and Country Planning Association, 1999).
It is uncertain whether the rationalization of development patterns in the SMA can be
achieved by regulatory macro-scale regional plans or by comprehensive reforms of the
local government map. Macro-scale zoning regulations that disregard the powerful
economic motivations of agents involved in land development usually do not last for long.
Conversely, large-scale municipal reforms are extremely difficult to implement and
frequently do not produce the intended outcomes (Razin, 1998). The establishment of
large regional or metropolitan municipal authorities, such as a Metropolitan City Region
Strategic Development and Planning Authority, to deal with metropolitan regional
schemes is also considered an option to reduce irrational scattered patterns of land use
development, and to provide public facilities such as roads and schools.

Acknowledgement
This paper was supported by the WonKwang Research Fund, 2004. A part of this paper was presented at the
World Planning Schools Congress, Shanghai, China, 2001.

References
Ahn, G. -H. (1997) A study on the population prediction in the capital region, Korea Planners Association, 32(6),
pp. 7–22.
Ambrose, P. (1986) Whatever Happened to Planning? (London and New York: Methuen).
Anonymous (2001) A forecast of population growth, JoongAng Daily (Seoul), 6, April.
Bai, S. -S. & Park, J. -T. (1995) A Study on the Public Residential Land Development Strategy (Seoul: Korea
Research Institute for Human Settlement).
Cho, C. -J. (2002) The Korean growth-management programs: issues, problems and possible reforms, Land Use
Policy, 19, pp. 13–27.
Cho, J. -S. (2000) Urban planning under deregulation: the Korean experience, 1993–1999, The Journal of Korea
Regional Development Association, 12(3), pp. 83–100.
Cho, J. -S. (2001) A study on the urban sprawl around the SMA, Korea, Korea Planners Association, 36(5),
pp. 167–180.
Evans, A. W. (1985) Urban Economics—An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Ewing, R. (1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1),
pp. 107–126.
Gordon, P. & Richardson, H. W. (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 63(1), pp. 95–106.
Hannah, L., Kim, K. -H. & Mills, E. S. (1993) Land use controls and housing prices in Korea, Urban Studies,
30(1), pp. 147–156.
218 J. Cho

Korea Association of Property Appraisers (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) Official Announcement of Land
Value (Seoul: Korea Association of Property Appraisers). Available at www.kapanet.co.kr
Korea Land Development Corporation (2001) A Study on the WhaSeong Planned Urban Development and its
Spread Effect (Seoul: Korea Land Development Corporation).
Korea Research Institute for Human Settlement (1997) A Study on Land Use Management in the Urban Fringe
(Seoul: Korea Research Institute of Human Settlement).
KyongGi Development Institute (2000) Evaluation of Residential Development in KyongGi-do (SuWon:
KyongGi Development Institute).
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (1994) A Study on the Current Survey on the Land Use and Planned
Development in the Quasi Agricultural Zone (Seoul: MOCT).
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (2000a) A Forecast of Housing Supply (MOCT: Seoul).
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (2000b) National Land Use Management Act (Seoul: MOCT).
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (2001) A Summary of the Designation of Public Residential Land
Development Projects over National Territory (MOCT: Seoul).
Mori, H. (1998) Land conversion at the urban fringe: a comparative study of Japan, Britain and the Netherlands,
Urban Studies, 35(9), pp. 1541–1558.
National Statistical Office (1985, 1990, 1995, 2000) Population and Housing Census Reports (Seoul: Korea).
Nelson, A. C. & Duncan, J. B. (1995) Growth Management Principles and Practices (Chicago: Planner Press).
Ohn, Y. -T. (2001) An Application of the Networking Method to Prevent Urban Sprawl, Report by the Korea
Planners Association (Seoul: Korea Planners Association).
Park, H. -J. (2001) A Report on the Summary of the National Land Basic Law, Seminar of the Land Use Study
Group (Seoul: Land Use Study Group).
Pendall, R. (1999) Do land-use controls cause sprawl?, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26,
pp. 555 –571.
Razin, E. (1998) Policies to control urban sprawl: planning regulations or a change in the Rules of the game?,
Urban Studies, 35(2), pp. 321–340.
Town and Country Planning Association (1999) Commentary on RDZ Policy Reform in Korea (London: TCPA).