Eco-cities in China

Eco-Cities in China are ambitious, planned urban development projects that serve as a key component of China’s climate change and urbanization strategies, which aim to integrate environmental sustainability with urban planning and design. These cities are envisioned as models of sustainable development, seeking to address the pressing challenges of rapid urbanization, environmental degradation, and resource constraints in China. With their emphasis on green technologies, low-carbon infrastructure, and eco-friendly practices, Chinese eco-cities strive to create livable, harmonious, and ecologically conscious urban environments.

The concept of eco-cities in China gained significant attention and support from the government in the early 2000s, driven by the need to address the country's urbanization challenges, and combat pollution and resource depletion. The Chinese government, through various initiatives and policies, has encouraged the development of eco-cities across the country, promoting them as showcases of sustainable urban development and engines of economic growth. China now boasts the largest eco-city development program in the world.

Most Chinese eco-city projects remain under construction, limiting the ability to assess the overall efficacy of these programs. While proponents argue these cities represent innovative solutions to urban sustainability with the potential to reduce carbon emissions, enhance resource efficiency, and improve the quality of life for urban residents, some critics have raised concerns about the efficacy, funding, implementation gaps, and environmental impact of these projects.

Concepts and trends
There is no singular, official definition of an eco-city; however, these developments generally strive to reduce fossil fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and dependence on natural resources while emphasizing the preservation of local ecosystems.

The creation of eco-cities in China parallels a global trend in urban sustainable development. However, these Chinese eco-cities also promote unique characteristics rooted in traditional Chinese cultural values that emphasize harmony with nature, similar to concepts like feng shui. The government has promoted eco-cities as a means of achieving the goals of creating a harmonious society and an ecological civilization.

Common features
Chinese eco-cities are typically initiated as pilot projects led by local governments, often with sponsorship from the central government. This approach has resulted in a diverse patchwork of development strategies across different cities. Chinese eco-city development has generally favored the construction of new developments rather than retrofitting existing urban spaces.

Urban design in Chinese eco-cities frequently emphasizes compact, mixed-use layouts to reduce urban sprawl. These designs often aim to conserve farmland for increased food security and to encourage sustainable transportation by prioritizing walkability, implementing bike-share programs, and expanding public transit options.

Renewable energy usage is a key priority in eco-city development, with a focus on solar, wind, bioenergy, and hydropower. Efforts to improve energy efficiency encompass various initiatives, such as recycled heat systems, smart grids, and green buildings. Recycling programs are also commonly integrated into Chinese eco-cities.

These cities often seek to attract low-carbon industries and experiment with innovative approaches including circular economies, low-carbon ports and food production, and ecotourism. Environmental technology is often the primary means of meeting city sustainability goals, with eco-cities serving as testing grounds for new urban technologies.

Funding
Construction is typically managed through local pilot projects with central government sponsorship. As a result, funding mechanisms vary significantly, with some projects receiving robust national support and substantial foreign investment, while others rely on local funding or a combination of funding sources. Disparate funding sources have resulted in a wide range of characteristics among eco-cities, as local governments are encouraged to innovate and adopt different strategies.

Many eco-city projects engage international partners to secure funding. International collaboration allows eco-cities to tap into additional resources, leverage international knowledge and experience, and enhance brand value.

Comparison with global eco-cities
One key distinction between Chinese eco-city development and global programs lies in the level of central government involvement. While global eco-city projects are typically fragmented, singular projects initiated by local governments, Chinese eco-city development is actively encouraged and promoted by the national government, resulting in a large volume of projects. Unlike the bottom-up model commonly found in global projects, where local governments lobby for national recognition, Chinese projects follow a top-down approach by implementing local-level projects that respond to existing national targets and policies.

As a consequence, Chinese eco-city projects tend to be larger in scale. While global eco-city development often focuses on retrofitting existing urban spaces, China's initiatives predominantly involve building new cities from scratch. This approach is primarily driven by the need to address the challenges of rapid urbanization in the country. Due to their ambitious scale, Chinese eco-city projects typically have longer construction timelines and require larger investment and funding streams. Reliance on external investment, especially for long-term and large-scale funding, has presented challenges in completing many projects.

History
Rapid changes in the Chinese economy and population have led to the adoption of eco-city construction as the primary strategy for urban development in China.

Background
Beginning in the late 1970s, economic reforms in China triggered a massive wave of urbanization, considered the largest migration in human history, with over 500 million people relocating from rural areas to cities since the 1980s. These reforms transformed China from a predominantly rural society to an urban one, resulting in significant environmental challenges and exacerbating climate change.

The country’s rapid industrialization, driven by the expansion of heavy industries and manufacturing, has also had detrimental environmental consequences. Industrialization has resulted in high pollution and a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions which have made China the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses globally. The country’s transition to a market-based economy further fueled urbanization, as the Chinese government has actively promoted urban migration to boost domestic demand and stimulate economic growth.

The construction of cities to accommodate the growing urban population has had adverse environmental impacts. The conversion of natural land into urban centers has led to the formation of heat islands and increased pollution. The construction of urban infrastructure, including roads and buildings, has also contributed to increased carbon emissions.

Supporting the burgeoning urban population has also contributed to increased carbon emissions, with cities accounting for the majority of Chinese emissions. Despite urban buildings typically being more energy-efficient, per capita emissions in urban areas surpass those in rural areas. Urbanization has further heightened China’s energy demand. Construction and energy requirements for buildings alone account for approximately half of China’s energy-related emissions. The rise of consumerism in China has also contributed to increased environmental impacts, with urbanization and consumer culture driving greater natural resource consumption, sedentary lifestyles, and changing diets which have also resulted in rising obesity rates and lifestyle diseases. The expansion of urban infrastructure and services to meet the needs of city residents has also intensified energy consumption and emissions.

These factors have encouraged the adoption of eco-city construction as a response to the ecological and social challenges stemming from China’s rapid urbanization, industrial development, and economic growth. Eco-cities now serve as an official method for mitigating the impacts of urbanization and in China’s climate change strategy.

Policies
Rapid urbanization in China has led to social and environmental challenges, but it has also provided an opportunity to embrace eco-cities to support urban growth and promote sustainable new cities that can cater to the expanding urban population for generations. Recognizing the need to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change, the Chinese government has embraced the concept of eco-cities as a means of achieving these national goals.

In 2006, the Chinese government announced its commitment to climate issues through the 11th Five-Year Plan, which introduced a renewable energy plan, new regulations, and incentives for local governments. In 2007, the government officially endorsed the concept of an “ecological civilization” and promoted the eco-city model for urban development.

The Ministry of Ecology and Environment initiated the first eco-city program in 2008, followed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development’s introduction of the low-carbon eco-city program in 2009 and the National Development and Reform Commission’s low-carbon city program in 2010.

The commitment to eco-city development was reinforced in the 13th Five-Year Plan, which included requirements to increase green building construction and the incorporation of eco-city demonstration projects.

Government regulation restricts land-use changes to only state-approved development projects. Eco-cities provide a means to repurpose rural farmland abandoned due to urbanization, thereby promoting more local migration and reducing migration to Chinese mega-cities.

Eco-cities have become a cornerstone of China’s environmental sustainability policies and also serve as a model for urban development for other cities in the country. They are also a crucial component of China’s strategy to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement. As a result of policy implementation, China now hosts the largest scale eco-city program in the world.

Development
The first Chinese eco-city project was announced in 2004. The proposed Dongtan Eco-City in Shanghai was canceled before construction began, but the project’s publicity inspired other cities to initiate their own eco-city projects.

By 2009, more than 100 Chinese eco-city projects had been announced. More than 90% of cities in China have revealed plans for eco-city projects, amounting to more than 250 eco-city projects. Construction remains ongoing for most Chinese eco-city projects.

Programs
While several eco-city programs exist in China, there is currently no unified approach to managing eco-cities, nor an official definition of an eco-city. The absence of a centralized policy or guidelines from the central Chinese government has resulted in a diverse range of programs and projects. Three government agencies have introduced eco-city programs, which review applications from local governments and endorse projects as nationally recognized demonstration projects. However, these agency programs operate independently and often in competition with each other, rather than forming a cohesive national policy. Additionally, some local governments initiate their own eco-city projects without support or recognition from national agencies.

Each agency’s program focuses on different priorities. The Ministry of Environmental Protection’s eco-city program aligns with the agency’s mission of overseeing environmental protection policies, with a primary emphasis on environmental preservation rather than energy and carbon efficiency. The National Development and Reform Commission’s low carbon city program is driven by the agency’s mandate to implement Five-Year Plans, with a strong emphasis on reducing carbon emissions to meet the targets set in these plans. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development’s low carbon eco-city program combines elements from the other programs, placing a higher priority on carbon and energy efficiency while also considering pollution reduction and social implications. As the agency responsible for urban and rural settlement, their low carbon eco-city program only recognizes new developments.

Each eco-city project has its own set of measurement and assessment criteria. For example, the Tianjin Eco-City project established its own specific measurement criteria, including 26 Key Performance Indicators that assess factors such as wetland preservation, water quality, and green building standards. However, some local governments do not meet their own stated sustainability metrics, and in some cases, performance may not be measured at all.

Dongtan
Dongtan, located in Shanghai, was announced in 2004 as the world’s first planned carbon-neutral city. The city aimed to achieve a 60% reduction in carbon emissions and a 66% reduction in energy consumption compared to traditional Chinese cities. Dongtan was planned to rely entirely on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, as well as utilizing rice husks for electricity generation. The city was designed with a compact, mixed-use urban layout, featuring low-energy buildings and green spaces, meant to provide a sanctuary for migratory birds, preserve existing neighboring agricultural spaces, and promote green transportation. Additional plans included recycled water systems, reducing landfill waste, and the encouragement of sustainable industry including ecotourism, environmental education institutions, and research facilities. The project was an international collaboration between China and the United Kingdom, with a projected population of 400,000 residents by 2050.

However, construction of Dongtan never commenced, and the project was officially canceled within a few years of its announcement. The ambitious nature of the plans, particularly a proposed ban on fossil-fuel transportation, likely discouraged investors. Additionally, concerns were raised about the city’s ability to generate sufficient jobs and economic self-sufficiency. The project faced further setbacks after the imprisonment of Shanghai’s mayor on corruption charges, which impacted its political momentum.

Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City
The Tianjin eco-city is a joint venture between China and Singapore, with construction starting in 2008 and an expected completion date in the early-to-mid 2020s.

City plans incorporate 26 performance assessment factors based on Chinese, Singaporean, and international standards. Sustainable materials and building designs are utilized in the construction, and the city aims to fulfill at least 20% of its energy needs through renewable sources, recycle 60% of waste, meet half of water demand through desalination and recycled water, and reduce car usage by 90%. The location of the city was chosen as an example of ecological transformation by constructing a city that could withstand the water-related challenges in the arid region.

The Tianjin Eco-City is one of the most well-known and high-profile eco-city projects in China. It has received significant support from the central government, has been adequately funded, and is touted by the government as an example of the successful implementation of an eco-city. However, construction and population growth have fallen short of the projected targets, and there have been some criticisms questioning the city’s adherence to principles of sustainability. While it was expected to accommodate 350,000 residents by 2020, as of 2017, the population had only reached 70,000. Insufficient public transportation and job opportunities have likely contributed to the lower-than anticipated growth of the city.

Caofeidian Eco-City
The Caofeidian Eco-City, located in Tangshan, is a planned joint venture with Swedish urban design firms. The project began in 2007 with the aim of accommodating the relocation of heavy industry into the region from Beijing by providing housing for the necessary workforce and creating a circular economy to offset industrial pollution and emissions. However, the project has faced challenges in securing investment to cover high construction costs, earning the city a reputation as a “ghost city.”

Chenggong District
The Chenggong District in Kunming is a development planned to incorporate low-carbon industries, renewable energy production, and green architecture and technologies. While the district was initially expected to house one million residents, it has earned a reputation as a large ghost city due to high vacancy rates and the prevalence of unfinished construction sites. However, city activity has reportedly begun to pick up in 2022.

Chengdu Tianfu New Area
The Tianfu New Area is a sustainable development initiative designed to integrate the rural agricultural areas surrounding Chengdu with the city’s urban core. City plans include a reduction in carbon intensity, utilization of green energy sources, industrial pollution reduction, and recycling of sewage and waste. The area has been marketed as a “car-free city” due to the creation of a public transit network which is intended to account for half of travel, although cars are not banned. Furthermore, the Tianfu New Area is designed as a sponge city to mitigate flooding and recycle rainwater. It is expected to house 80,000 residents.

Other

 * Nanhui New City
 * Sino-French Wuhan Ecological Demonstration City
 * Sino-Swedish Wuxi Eco-City
 * Baoding low carbon city
 * Xiong’an New Area
 * Qingdao Sino-German Eco-Park
 * Shenzhen International Low Carbon City

Efficacy and criticism
The scale and duration of construction in eco-city projects have left many still in development. Proponents argue that these cities are long-term investments and their success will take decades to measure. However, according to early reports from the Chinese government, carbon intensity in eco-cities has been decreasing at a faster rate than the national average.

Challenges
Several Chinese eco-cities have faced challenges in fully realizing their goals. The first planned eco-city in Dongtan was ultimately canceled, the Caofeidian Eco-City has been described as "essentially bankrupt", and the Chenggong District has been labeled a ghost city. Even the Tianjin Eco-City, which has been hailed as a success by the Chinese government, has fallen short of growth targets.

Funding has been a barrier to successful implementation for many cities. Eco-city developments typically require substantial upfront costs, making it challenging for many cities to secure the necessary capital investment. The long construction timelines, high investment costs, uncertainty about generating sufficient returns on investment to sustain the cities, and lofty plans have deterred investors, rendering some projects economically infeasible.

However, more than 250 Chinese eco-city projects remain ongoing.

Greenwashing
The funding mechanisms and government incentives associated with eco-city projects have been criticized for encouraging greenwashing. These projects often align with government economic goals, and the performance of local leaders is often evaluated based on economic growth, leading to concerns that projects prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

Eco-city projects have also been accused of using sustainability as a marketing tactic to secure funding. As new developments without an existing residential population or established industries, these projects have been criticized for promoting themselves as sustainable while not fully committing to more expensive and effective measures that could conflict with economic growth. The lack of a uniform standard for designating a project as an "eco-city" has been seen as enabling the use of the label as a marketing tool for real estate interests. The large number of eco-city and urbanization initiatives across the country has created competition between cities to attract residents, employers, and investments, leading to a focus on measures that maximize competitiveness rather than sustainability.

As a result, many eco-city targets have been criticized for prioritizing economic goals over environmental objectives, with eco-targets sometimes resembling the targets set for traditional cities. The construction of eco-cities has also been criticized for relying on conventional land development methods rather than adopting sustainable strategies. Some eco-cities have been accused of relying too heavily on technological fixes and green capitalism to promote economic development rather than addressing underlying social factors that inhibit sustainability.

Ecological harm
Some studies examining the environmental impact of eco-cities have criticized them for producing more harm than the benefits they confer, often prioritizing political rather than ecological considerations.

Eco-cities have been seen as symptomatic of urbanization rather than a solution, perpetuating harmful urbanization and development practices. The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from new construction have been cited as potentially offsetting the benefits of these projects, especially when compared to retrofitting existing urban spaces. In some projects, emissions from construction were not even included in performance assessments, with reviews only conducted after construction was completed.

New construction has also been associated with the creation of sparsely populated, sprawling cities that are challenging for public transportation systems to serve and decrease walkability, resulting in low adoption of sustainable transportation.

Several projects have been accused of utilizing environmentally disruptive planning. Land reclamation in certain projects has been cited as disrupting coastal ecosystems. The construction of cities like Chenzhou has faced criticism for bulldozing local mountains, while the construction of Pingliang City has been accused of polluting local ecosystems. The selection of certain locations has also been questioned, with Tianjin and Caofeidian’s placement in a water-stressed region potentially exacerbating groundwater depletion, and Dongtan's proposed location potentially disrupting a sensitive wetland ecosystem.

Insufficiency
Critics argue that many eco-city developments only represent marginal improvements over existing cities. For instance, the Tianjin Eco-City's target of a 20% renewable energy mix has been criticized as only a slight improvement over national plans, which require 15% renewable energy generation by 2015. Another critique argued that the Tianjin Eco-City set such low targets that even the city of London would have exceeded city goals without any additional sustainable development required.

Additionally, the implementation of some projects have fallen short of stated sustainability goals. Some projects have been accused of prioritizing superficial changes like tree planting or the incorporation of technology that could be counterproductive to the principles of sustainability. The lack of standardized guidelines combined with implementation gaps have resulted in discrepancies between goals and outcomes. For example, the city of Tianjin was criticized for only including a single light rail line to support the city’s transportation needs, despite setting a target of 90% green transportation adoption. Mandates for minimum green space have also been seen as counterintuitively reducing walkability and hindering the implementation of efficient green transportation, therefore promoting automobile use and offsetting many of the benefits of other sustainability measures. Many cities additionally lack institutional monitoring mechanisms or have no regular performance assessments.

Eco-enclaves
Chinese eco-cities have been labeled by some critics as "eco-enclaves" due to their disconnect from the surrounding areas and local conditions, often functioning as self-contained sustainability islands. The physical locations of these eco-cities often clash with the surrounding environment, where continued development of heavy industry and urbanization often outpace the benefits from eco-city construction. Many cities are situated in Special Economic Zones that encourage heavy industry and promote consumption of consumer goods. Consequently, eco-cities have been criticized for representing exceptions to the impacts of surrounding urbanization and industrialization, rather than as solutions that promote sustainability in nearby cities.

Top-down city planning has been criticized as disconnected from the realities of local conditions, disregarding the needs of future inhabitants and hindering the success of eco-city projects. City development is often led by government officials and state-owned corporations, with plans often lacking social mobilization and public participation. Performance targets often prioritize technical performance rather than considering sustainability from the perspective of city residents. Many residents may lack the motivation or technical knowledge to adopt sustainable technologies. For example, low energy prices sometimes lead residents to engage in energy-intensive activities, and the promotion of green transit in Dongtan and Tianjin has faced challenges due to the prevalence of the automobile as a status symbol in Chinese culture.

Eco-city planning often overlooks local community concerns such as affordable housing. While eco-cities are often presented as a means of supporting rural-to-urban migration, housing costs are often prohibitive for former farmers. Similarly, city locations are often selected without community input, leading to the construction of cities in inappropriate areas, resulting in empty cities that struggle to attract residents. The focus on marketability has led to the creation of expensive residential areas suitable only for elites, creating enclaves that exclude the majority of the population from benefitting. The involvement of foreign design firms has also been criticized for relying on Western building practices that may not be suitable for Chinese cities and for emphasizing Western architecture that does not incorporate Chinese aesthetics and culture.

Over-ambitiousness
It has been estimated that only one-fifth of eco-city projects meet their sustainability targets, with a high number never reaching completion. Many plans have been criticized as overly ambitious, resulting in the failure to achieve their aims or secure adequate funding. The high costs required for construction have also been seen as feasible only for the most prosperous cities capable of attracting substantial investment, making the projects impractical and non-scalable for all but the largest and richest cities.