QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Teriman, Suharto and Yigitcanlar, Tan and Mayere, Severine (2008) Promoting Sustainable Urban Development in Fast Growing City-Regions: Practices from Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. In: Subtropical Cities Conference 2008.

© Copyright 2008 Please consult author(s)

TITLEPROMOTING SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN FAST GROWING CITYREGIONS: PRACTICES FROMKUALA LUMPUR ANDHONG KONG

Suharto Teriman, PhD ResearcherDr Tan Yigitcanlar, Lecturer,Dr Severine Mayere, LecturerQueensland University of Technology

Refereed Paper

ABSTRACTThe Asia Pacific region is characterised by rapid population growth and urbanisation. Thesetrends often result in an increasing consumption of land, which in turn lead to spatiallyexpansive and discontinuous urban development. As a consequence, local communities andthe environment face strong pressures. Many cities in the region have developed policies totackle the issue of rapid growth and its associated consequences, for example climatechange. The broad aim of this paper is to identify the nature, trends and strategies ofgrowthmanagement in major Asia Pacific city regions, and their implications for naturalresource management and infrastructure provision. More specifically, this research seeks toprovide insights on sustainable urban development practice, particularly on the promotionof compact urbanisation within the Asia Pacific’s fastest growing regions. The methodologyof the paper includes a detailed literature review and a comparative analysis of existingstrategies and policies. The literature review focuses on the key concepts related tosustainable urban growth management. It also includes existing applications of urbangrowthmanagement approaches and planning information system in managing growth.Following the literature review, the paper undertakes a comparative analysis of thestrategies of major Asia Pacific city regions of Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong in terms oftheir approaches to sustainable urban development. The findings of the paper provide aclear understanding of the necessity of sustainable urban development practices. Itcontributes to the development of a substantial base for further research. Ultimately, thisresearch aims to shed light on sustainable urban development by providing insights on the

management of growth, natural resources and urban infrastructures.

Keywords: Growth management, sustainable urban development, compacturbanisation, city regions, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong

INTRODUCTIONThe iconic catch phrase of ‘sustainable development’ has become a worldwide green sloganever since the World Commission on Environment and Development came up with itsconcise, albeit general definition in 1980 as a “development that meets the need for thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”(WCED, 1987: 43). Although this rather vaguely descriptive statement raises few questions,it remains as the most adequate definition of sustainable development (Jepson, 2004). Suchwas the aura of the slogan that it immersed in various disciplines, including urban andregional planning. The implementation of growth management approaches since mid1980s has promoted efforts to balance economic and environmental sustainability and put

more emphasis on compact urban forms (DeGrove, 2005). These efforts to create compact,sustainable cities involve containing sprawl with various strategies and techniques, notablythrough urban containment. The research reported here aims to answer the questions ofwhether urban growth management strategies in sub tropical city regions are sustainable.This paper explores the implementation of these efforts in the sub tropical city regions ofKuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. The paper first reviews the nature and trends of urbandevelopment and its consequences. The second section looks at ways of addressingproblems of sprawl by introducing concepts and strategies for promoting compacturbanisation with sustainability issues in mind. The third section explores the urbanisationexperiences of two sub tropical and fast growing Asia Pacific city regions, Kuala Lumpurand Hong Kong, and analyses their approaches in dealing with problems related topromoting compact urbanisation. For each case study, the research identifies thedevelopment pressures affecting their urban environments. It also assesses the strategiesadopted towards achieving sustainable urban growth management by evaluating thesecase studies against a framework of sustainability indicators. The final section summarisesthe findings from the case city regions, discusses implications of growth managementstrategies in the Asia Pacific region, and provides new avenues for further research.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANDURBAN GROWTHMANAGEMENT

The concept of sustainable urban development has a strong presence in planning and hasbecome central in the formulation of spatial plans not only in Europe and North America butalso in the Asia Pacific region. This concept was promoted in response to the problemsassociated with urban sprawl plaguing cities in these regions. Urban sprawl is characterisedby low density suburban development patterns. It takes three main forms: suburbanexpansion into the countryside, commercial expansion along arterial roads, and residentialsprawl outside existing settlements (Daniels, 1999). Sprawl is a by product of citizenaffluence, who could afford private transport and low density suburban lifestyle outside thecity boundary. Other alleged causes of sprawl include increasing cost of infrastructureprovision (Brueckner, 2000; Nelson & Duncan, 1995), local property tax deductions (Daniels,2001), land speculation (Nelson & Duncan, 1995), and fragmentation of local governments(Carruthers, 2002).

The consequences of sprawl have been viewed differently by scholars. Benefits of sprawlinclude private and social benefits to new residents and the community, for example interms of housing costs (Kahn, 2001), and potential for population growth accommodation(Brueckner, 2000). However, looking at the aftermath of widespread urban sprawl in UScities in the 1970s, this phenomenon has been associated with an array of undesirablephysical and socio economic effects (Boyle & Mohamed, 2007; Nelson & Duncan, 1995).These include: scattered development, excessive commuting and transportation costs,infrastructure and services provision costs, socioeconomic segregation through inequitableland and housing markets, increasing consumption of natural open space, and other ‘qualityof life’ problems (Brueckner, 2000; Carruthers, 2002; Carruthers & Ulfarrson, 2001; Knaap &Nelson, 1992). The need to manage urban growth stems from the challenges arising fromurban sprawl. Growth management strategies have gained global appeal since the 1970s(DeGrove, 2005). Growth management refers to the “implementation of governmentregulations that control the type, location, quality, scale, rate, sequence or timing ofdevelopment” (Shultz & Kasen, 1984). It aims to fulfil development needs of various playersin the community with prudent approach by way of coordinated, well planned land use anddevelopment regulation (DeGrove, 2005; Nelson & Dawkins, 2004). In so doing, it aims todiffuse growth pressures, to contain sprawl and to create efficient urban forms.

Growth management is a response to land market imperfections. Brueckner (2000)acknowledged that the free market has failed to address excessive urban growth in threeways: failure to take account of the social value of open space upon land conversion intourban use, failure to recognise the social cost of congestion as a result of excessivecommuting, and failure to recognise the cost of public infrastructure. Land marketintervention avoids excessive land speculations, and ensures that development take placeat the right location, with the right types and density of development, and at the right time.The sustainability argument in favour of growth management is obviously inclined towardssafeguarding scarce resources and promoting social equity and economic development(Lindsey, 2003). The pursuit of development with sustainability in mind became moreprominent since the spread of urban sprawl during those times in the US which wasassociated with unsustainable treatment to scarce resources, notably land. A notableapproach towards satisfying sustainability needs is through the pursuit of compact urbandevelopment initiatives (Elkin et al, 1991).

STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING COMPACT URBANISATION

The pursuit of optimum development patterns has introduced a variety of approaches tourban growth management (Nelson & Duncan, 1995). While it is widely agreed that nosingle approaches can solve the problems of urban sprawl (Nelson & Dawkins, 2004), manybelieved that compact urban development contributes to urban sustainability, which is thekey aims of growthmanagement initiatives (De Roo &Miller, 2000; Wassamer, 2006).

A number of strategies have been developed and employed to achieve compact urbandevelopment (Nelson & Duncan, 1995). Containment based management supported bysustainable urban transport has been one of the most successful compact urbanisationstrategies (Nelson & Dawkins, 2004; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007a). This strategy attempts topromote: compact and contiguous urban development patterns with easy access to publicservices; travel self containment with reliable public transport options and integrated landuse and transport planning, and; preservation of rural and agricultural land and naturalresources (Nelson & Duncan, 1995; Duvarci & Yigitcanlar, 2007; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007b;Yigitcanlar et al., 2008). Compact urbanisation strategies determine the direction of publicinfrastructure investment, execute development regulation and shape the nature andintensity of development. Containment scales vary between sub metropolitan(development shaped to take a specific form), unbounded (development within urbanservice boundary), bounded (development within a designated growth boundary), andnatural containment (development restricted by geographical constraints) (Nelson &Dawkins, 2004). Around the world many cities implemented a variety of containmenttechniques that are ranging from urban growth boundary to urban service area, and fromland taxation to open space preservation. Successful implementation of containmenttechniques and experiences from North America and Europe provide invaluable insights tomany city regions seeking sustainable urban development.

The implementation of strict development regulations associated with containmenttechniques enables authorities to encourage development in existing urban cores anddilapidated inner areas through infill and redevelopment projects, including not onlyprestigious but also affordable residential development. The promotion of higherresidential densities in these infill areas helps to offset the high development costs resultingfrom urban containment and to minimise public infrastructure provision. Zoning iscommonly used for such purpose. It allows for higher density development on the land what

used to accommodate low rise dwelling units, hence making the properties more affordableto a majority of urban dwellers.

COMPACT URBANISATION EXPERIENCES IN SUB TROPICAL CITY REGIONS

The sub tropical Asia Pacific region is home to many fast growing and dynamic cityregions. During the past four decades cities of this region have experienced vibrantpopulation growth, as well as major physical and functional urban transformations. Therapid pace of globalisation and economic restructuring has resulted in these city regionsreceiving the full impact of urbanisation pressures. This paper takes on the case of two subtropical Asia Pacific city regions, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong, and assesses theirexperiences in promoting sustainable patterns of urban development.

Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia has experienced tremendous physical and socioeconomic transformation over thepast three decades. Malaysian governments started to implement new economic policies inthe 1970s, aimed to increase private sector involvement in generating economic growth inthe 1980s, and constructed mega projects and export oriented industries in the 1990s. Theprocess of urbanisation was greatly enhanced by the rural urban migration in the 1980s inline with the industrialisation policy. The nation’s urbanisation rate rose dramatically from34.2% in 1980 to 55.1% in 1995 and then to 66.9% in 2005 (Lee, 1996; Government ofMalaysia, 2005), and it is projected to reach 75% by the year 2020 (Government of Malaysia,2006). Today, more than 67% of the Malaysian population is living in urban areas. Coupledwith strong political stability and people prosperity strategy, the early 1990s have seenrapid urbanisation in the metropolitan areas, particularly in the capital city Kuala Lumpur.

Located within the rapidly growing central region of the Klang Valley (Figure 1), KualaLumpur has transformed itself from a modest tin mining town into the commercial andpolitical core of Malaysia’s primary metropolitan region (Bunnel et al., 2002a). With a totalarea of 243 square kilometres and a population close to 1.4 million, the city has a populationdensity close to 5,700 persons per square kilometres, making it the most urbanised andmost densely populated area in the country (Government of Malaysia, 2005). However, dueto increasing affluence and the changing lifestyle of the city’s dwellers, there was apopulation reduction in this capital city due to out migration of people to the moreprosperous environment and cheaper properties in the urban fringe and suburbs (Syafie,2004). The population growth rate of only 1.39% annually also contributes to populationrate reduction (Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 2003). The continued suburbanisation process hasinevitably led to sprawl of population and industries towards the southern part of KualaLumpur, leaving most parts of the city centre with employment and entertainment centresonly. These patterns of development have led to high travel demand and increasingtransportation cost, worsening congestion and environmental degradation, inner citydilapidation and population decline, and lack of affordable housing. As the problemsworsen, local authorities had to carry the burden of providing for extra infrastructure andpublic facilities, and tackle with the consequences of sprawl.

Figure 1: Kuala Lumpur and its conurbation (KLSP 2000)

Kuala Lumpur’s urban management strategy follows the federal government’s countrywideNational Physical Plan (NPP), and the regional administrative policies and statutoryplanning measures incorporated in the city’s structure plan. The NPP policies related to landuse and development put an emphasis on the planning of economic activities of urban areasbased on the concept of ‘selective concentration’ for strategic urban centres. It alsoemphasises the concentration of urban growth in existing and planned conurbations. Thisincludes the conurbation of Kuala Lumpur, which is to be planned and developed as anintegrated region through the preparation of a regional plan (Government of Malaysia,2007). The City Administration (Kuala Lumpur City Hall), in conjunction with the FederalTown and Country Planning Department, reinforced this policy based growth managementstrategy with statutory planning measures through the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan(KLSP). Zoning is the main mechanism to guide and contain development. Development isencouraged so long as it occurs within the designated zoning plans, and is subjected todetailed proposals outlined in the local plans.

Urbanisation pressures are accommodated through the creation of new towns within thegrowth areas. These growth centres absorbs most of the residential, commercial andindustrial demand as a result of the suburbanisation process of the Kuala Lumpur City.However earlier commercial strip sprawl along major roads leading towards and out of thecity remains a legacy of the consequences of earlier sprawl. This is also evident in other subtropical cities within the Asia Pacific region (i.e. Bangkok, Thailand).

The out migration from the city centre is partly due to the shortage of affordable housing(Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 2003). In KLSP measures are being taken to encourage developersto redevelop dilapidated housing areas with high density and high quality residential

development, and where possible affordable housing. Such infill development is used tocontain urban growth within central areas and counterbalance sprawl. Mixed commercialand residential developments are also encouraged in inner city areas. One successfulexample is the Kuala Lumpur Sentral project (KL Sentral), a mixed residential, commercialand office development as well as a public transit hub.

The Federal government took the growth management a step further by deciding torelocate the government’s administrative centre from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya. Thedecision was made on the basis of decongesting the city centre (Bunnel et al., 2002b), inorder to relieve development pressures, especially in terms of affordable housing for middleclasses. The government also decided to undertake the operations of the air passengerservices in another mega project prepared by the planning authority of the Kuala LumpurInternational Airport (KLIA). This has a profound effect in reducing development pressureson the old airport, and offering opportunities for airport driven urban development to takeplace.

With relatively low construction costs compared to other higher density sub tropical citiesof the Asia Pacific region, Kuala Lumpur has been able to provide an enormous amount oftransport infrastructure for its investment (Bunnel et al., 2002b). The completion of railinfrastructure within the Kuala Lumpur region has been hailed as a milestone for thecountry. The urban and suburban rail network has expanded since 1990 and now coversover 200 km of electrified double tracked service connecting major districts of the cityregion andmany locations in between (Bunnel et al., 2002b).

Kuala Lumpur also benefited from the establishment of the National Urbanisation Policy(NUP) in 2006, which aims at coordinating and guiding the planning and development ofurban areas in a more efficient and systematic way. The NUP also addresses the projectedincrease in urban population over the next 20 years by emphasising a balanced social,economic and physical development within urban areas. In addition, it encourages racialintegration and solidarity for those who will reside in urban areas. The NUP emphasises sixmain directions that outlines strategies for the creation of a city that is safe, efficient,modern and attractive. These include the achievement of an efficient and sustainable urbandevelopment for Kuala Lumpur, based on development plans. Urban economicdevelopment focuses on resilience, dynamism and competitiveness through theimplementation of urban economic clusters. The NUP also addresses the need for anintegrated and efficient urban transportation system, for the provision of quality urbanservices, infrastructure and utility, and for the creation of effective urban governancestructures, all of which will contribute to a more sustainable urban management for KualaLumpur.

In summary, growth management measures in Kuala Lumpur take the form of planningregulations as well as government interventions in key physical decisions. The policiesoutlined for promoting sustainable growth management in the metropolitan area appear tobe incorporated into the central government’s effort to achieve sustainable urbandevelopment, including sustainable transport. However, as far as physical planning isconcerned, the overall effectiveness of these efforts at the moment appears to depend onthe limited opportunities provided by the statutory planning mechanisms. The zoningdirectives of the structure plan, combined with infill redevelopment measures, seem to bethe only tools to direct and contain urban growth, and promote more compact patterns ofdevelopment. Nevertheless, thesemeasures illustrate the government and local authorities’efforts to minimise the negative side effects of urbanisation and to enhance environmental

quality, and liveability (i.e. quality of life, quality of place) of urban areas. It is a significantstep towards a more concerted planning and implementation effort in all institutionallevels. At the moment however, the need to have a more systematic and coherent planningandmanagement framework is all too obvious.

Hong Kong

Located approximately 2,500 kilometres to the northeast of Kuala Lumpur, the sub tropicalcity state of Hong Kong boasts a far more complex urban form that entails a delicatemanagement approach. The city state consists of three districts: the Hong Kong island,Kowloon, and the New Territories on the mainland (Figure 2), which accommodates morethan half of its population in the purposely built new towns. During the last three decades,Hong Kong has seen rapid population growth (mainly due to immigration) which puts agreat pressure on its urbanisation process. The pressures are imminent because unlike anyother sub tropical countries, with an exception of Singapore, planners in Hong Kong do nothave even the option of extending their ability to control urban growth over a large expanseof the countryside (Taylor, 1988). With a total area of 1,108 square kilometres and a currentpopulation of over 6.9 million (Census and Statistics Department, 2007; Hong KongPlanning Department, 2007), of which nearly 90% live in urban areas, Hong Kong has toaccommodate all of its urban and suburban development inside the island and the newterritories, with the mainland border to the north acting as a growth boundary. One notableconsequence is that population densities in Hong Kong are among the highest in the world.Geographical constraints have made only 20% of the land developable, and this hasresulted in densities of slightly over 30,000 people per square kilometre. Urban plannersface challenges to manage the city state in terms of public housing and infrastructureprovision, but also in terms of addressing social and environmental challenges. The influx ofimmigrants during the 1960s has created acute shortages in housing stock, which wasalready depleted by the damage of WWII. The infrastructure provision cannot cope withdemand, and with scarce land available, it poses a huge physical and economic challenge tothe city region and its planners and government.

Figure 2: Hong Kong and its districts (Hong Kong Planning Department, 2008)

Planning policies in Hong Kong started as early as 1939 with the enactment of TownPlanning Ordinance (TPO). In 1972, the Colony Outline Plan (later renamed Hong KongOutline Plan) was created. The plan, which consisted of development strategy and planningstandards, was created to cater for increased urban development pressures, following rapidpopulation growth and urbanisation during the 1960s (Hong Kong Planning Department,2008). Prior to mid 1980s, however, development in Hong Kong was guided mostly by smallscale plans for areas where development pressures were most intense, and by an overallpolicy guideline encouraging the decentralisation of population and employment. It was notuntil 1984 that planning really took shape, with the formulation of a strategic plan entitledthe Territorial Development Strategy (TDS) (Hong Kong Planning Department, 2008). TDSis a comprehensive plan which moves away from previous policy of favouringdecentralisation by promoting the integration of more rural territories with the main urbanareas of Hong Kong. It produces a long term land use and transportation planningframework and forms the basis for more detailed plans and programmes.

During the 1960s, car ownership has outpaced population growth and the city state suffersfrom heavy traffic congestion as well as discontinuous patterns of development. Instead ofallowing for urban sprawl, the government strategically promoted compact developmentand high density neighbourhoods, typically around railway stations. This high density,compact urbanisation is served by an efficient public transit service, which started in 1979.Coupled with transport policy in favour of mass carriers and controlling the growth ofprivate cars through higher tax and fuel prices (introduced in 1982), public transit in HongKong has become very successful, and currently attracts nearly 90% of the city’s daily trips.Such actions have significantly contributed to Hong Kong’s sustainable transportationstrategy.

The provision of affordable housing is another milestone achieved by the government.Public housing initiatives started during in 1953, originally to house squatters madehomeless by the great fire which engulfed their homes. These initiatives were extended intoa resettlement programme during the 1960s. Since 1973 however, a shift occurred towardsbuilding high density public housing in new towns to accommodate increasing urbanpopulation. Currently, 49% of Hong Kong population live in public housing either as tenantsor as subsidised owners (Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2007). The various plans andactions formulated under the TDS are not only concerned with meeting populationrequirements for housing, services and facilities, but also with paying attention tosustaining the growth of key economic activities in Hong Kong. The TDS addresses theneed for additional urban growth whilst conserving rural and marine areas of highlandscape and environmental value. It also aims at providing a multi modal transportationsystem capable of meeting domestic travel demands as well as providing essential facilitiesfor international trade and business activities (Hong Kong Planning Department, 2008).Currently, the Hong Kong Planning Department is preparing a strategic planning studycalled Hong Kong 2030, showcasing the future direction of its development to the year 2030under the overarching goal of sustainable urban development.

In summary, the Hong Kong experience in terms of growth management appears to have astrong foundation, backed by statutory planning regulations. The city’s geographicalconstraints, acting as natural containment, combined with the concerted efforts towardspromoting high frequency public transport, as well as the strict zoning regulations in place,have contributed to create a compact city with high densities. This is a result of a thoughtfulplanning by the central government, in pursuit of optimum land development in aconstrained environment.

Findings of the comparison

Both Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong provide useful examples of compact urbanisation insub tropical city regions of the Asia Pacific region. Table 1 summarises the main features ofthe overall planning framework for both Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong, and assessesstrategic planning orientations and policy features against selected sustainability indicators.The planning systems of both city regions are well regulated with statutory plans. KualaLumpur displays an additional voluntary planning framework at the regional level. Bothcities also employ some form of containment approach through the implementation ofregulatory zoning mechanism. Nevertheless, in terms of planning policies adopted, HongKong shows more concerted efforts towards achieving a compact development. Thesustainability indicators show that Hong Kong’s strategies for sustainable development aresomehow successful in meeting goals of compact development, land use optimisation,sustainable transportation and economic development, social infrastructure and affordablehousing, and environmental protection. Kuala Lumpur is also working on gainingrecognition for its sustainable development efforts, taking advantage of the plans andstrategies formulated at the Federal level to improve its planning framework. Theexperience of both countries is a good indication of continued efforts towards achievingcompact urbanisation and hence sustainable urban development, including sustainabletransport options.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONBoth sub tropical city regions of Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong display their concerns andinitiating efforts towards using their natural resources more sustainably. A number ofparallels and differences can be identified as to how these efforts are executed. These

similarities and differences can be best identified in terms of the environmental, social andeconomical achievements that these sub tropical city regions gained towards urbansustainability.

Table 1: Comparison of the growth management strategies of Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong

In terms of environmental aspects, both Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong have differentgeographical context, with Kuala Lumpur sitting on rather flat area and having moregenerous land for development whereas Hong Kong development are squeezed betweenthe terrain and the sea. Both Asia Pacific city regions are highly urbanised, with no specificdelineation of their urban footprint. Urbanisation is accommodated and where necessary

controlled via the use of statutory zoning plans. However, in terms of urban form, HongKong is a good example of a compact sub tropical city region served by efficient andsustainable public transport services. Kuala Lumpur is less compact, as the development ofthis sub tropical city region is not entirely a government matter, but rather responsive tomarket forces. Kuala Lumpur has no specific containment strategy, except for the use ofstatutory development plans which guide development within a specific area over astipulated period of time. The plan is mandated by the City administration; however actualdevelopment still rests with the market forces. Even with the existence of such plans, theprevention of urban sprawl is not guaranteed. The geographical features of Hong Kong onthe other hand, which consist of islands with challenging topography, in itself containingurban growth naturally.

Looking at the social aspects, both sub tropical Asia Pacific city regions have evolved intohigh rise and high density residential and commercial entities. Social infrastructure andhousing are given high degree of attention with their inclusion in their respectivedevelopment plans. Conventional planning however has also been exercised with a highdegree of success in Hong Kong, with the achievement of high standards of public housing,infrastructure and services. What contributes to this huge success is that Hong Kong statusas a city state permits the nation’s substantial resources to be channelled into urbandevelopment, including regenerating core inner areas. Kuala Lumpur on the other hand hasto rely on funds sourced locally through rates and taxes, plus minimal federal grant tofinance most of its development and regeneration exercises. That is why provisions such asaffordable housing and efficient public transport remain to be solved. It is only recently thatthe idea of transit oriented development starts to gain recognition after its inclusion in theKuala Lumpur Structure Plan and draft Local Plan, the Kuala Lumpur 2020. Hong Kong onthe other hand has had very good track record with its efficient rail based public transportsystem way back since 1980s. Hong Kong residents also have realised the fact that there arevery limited land available for development, and therefore are more willing to accepttougher controls over land development. Hence local authorities are able to manage thescarce resources effectively to ensure a sustainable development. In contrast, apart fromexpensive gated condominiums, a majority of the population in Kuala Lumpur stillassociates high rise living with relatively low incomes. High rise living is still considered as‘have to’ rather than ‘sought after’ phenomenon.

In terms of economic performance, Hong Kong adopts a strategy of enhancing its economiccompetitiveness through its super strong service sector. Its superior economy thus makesurban management a lot easier and effective. The fact that the government owns almost allland in Hong Kong only makes the formulation and implementation of development plans amuch easier task. Land use optimisation has always been the key factor in its planning fordevelopment by always maintaining efficient intensity of land use. The sub tropical cityregion of Kuala Lumpur on the other hand also gearing itself towards the tertiary sectorwith a focus on enhancing its role as a knowledge based economy, taking advantage of theFederal Government’s multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project spaning over 25km fromthe city centre to Cyberjaya. In terms of land use optimisation, there seemed to be limitedsuccess at the moment. However, it is being promoted in the Kuala Lumpur draft local plan.Whilst high density development is a must, and not an option in the land stricken subtropical city state of Hong Kong, developers in Kuala Lumpur find low rise suburbanhousing scheme very attractive, due to the low land prices and higher demand. Thisexplains why compact urbanisation is less successful in Kuala Lumpur than Hong Kong.

Even though the findings of this comparison study seem to favour Hong Kong, this does notmean that lessons from Hong Kong can be directly applied to Kuala Lumpur or vice versa.Because it is important to tailor policies to suit the local socio cultural and economiccircumstances and also environmental sensitivities. Therefore further research is needed toinvestigate both city regions. Additionally further research is also needed in order toincorporate other established sub tropical Asia Pacific city regions such as Singapore andBrisbane to come up with better comparisons and learnings. This will surely provide a muchbroader analytical discussion and a more conclusive research base. In conclusion,sustainable urban development has been a key factor in the adoption of urban growthmanagement initiatives promoting continual and viable use of scarce resources for urbanexpansion whilst at the same time minimising uncontrolled sprawl. Within this context, theuse of a whole range of policies designed to control, guide, or mitigate the effects of growthof urban areas has been seen as a practical way to promote a compact form of development(Nelson & Duncan, 1995). The rapid population growth and urbanisation in sub tropicalAsia Pacific city regions has indeed placed great pressures upon its environment. Whilst afew cities in the region, as discussed in this paper, have adopted some form of urbanmanagement policies towards minimising or alleviating these pressures, many other citieswithin the region (e.g. Ho Chi Minh, Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila) are still without properurban growth management strategies. In these cities, the trends of higher landconsumption, expansive and discontinuous urban development will continue into thefuture. Local authorities and planners in these cities should therefore look into thepossibilities of implementing sustainable urban development management strategies fortheir cities, using environmental, social and economic indicators could be a good startingpoint.

REFERENCESBoyle, R., & Mohamed, R. (2007). State Growth Management, Smart Growth and Urban

Containment: A Review of the US and a Study of the Heartland. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 50(5), 677 697.

Brueckner, J. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional ScienceReview, 23(2), 160 171.

Bunnel, T., Barter, P., & Morshidi, S. (2002a). Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area: Aglobalizing city region. Cities, 19(5), 357 370.

Bunnel, T., Barter, P., & Morshidi, S. (2002b). City profile: Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area;A Globalizing City region. Cities, 19(5), 357 370.

Carruthers, J. (2002). The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes: AComparative Analysis. Urban Studies, 39(11), 1959 1982.

Carruthers, J., & Ulfarrson, G. (2001). Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Public Services, PacificRegional Science Conference Organisation. Portland.

Census and Statistics Department (2007). Hong Kong Statistics, accessed fromwww.censtatd.gov.hk on 20 April 2008.

Daniels, T. (1999). What to do About Rural Sprawl?, American Planning AssociationConference. Seattle, WA.

Daniels, T. (2001). Smart Growth: A New American Approach to Regional Planning.Planning Practice and Research, 16(3), 271 279.

De Roo, G., & Miller, D. (Eds.). (2000). Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development: Acritical assessment of Policies and Plans from an International Perspective. Aldershot:Ashgate.

DeGrove, J. M. (2005). Planning Policy and Politics: Smart Growth and the States.Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Duvarci, Y. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2007). Integrated modeling approach for the transportationdisadvantaged, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(3), 188 200.

Elkin, T., McLaren, D., & Hillman, M. (1991). Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable UrbanDevelopment, London: Friends of the Earth.

Government of Malaysia (2007). National Physical Plan; Federal Town and Country PlanningDepartment, Kuala Lumpur.

Government of Malaysia (2006). National Urbanisation Policy. Federal Town and CountryPlanning Department, Kuala Lumpur.

Government of Malaysia (2005). Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006 2010. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional.

Hong Kong Housing Authority (2007). Public Housing Statistics, accessed fromwww.housingauthority.gov.hk on 20 April 2008.

Hong Kong Planning Department (2007). Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines,accessed from www.pland.gov.hk on 8 April 2008.

Hong Kong Planning Department (2008). Schedule of Plans, accessed fromwww.pland.gov.hk on 20 March 2008.

Jepson, E. (2004). Human Nature and Sustainable Development: A Strategic Challenge forPlanners. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(1), 3 15.

Kahn, M. (2001). Does sprawl reduce the black/white housing consumption gap? HousingPolicy Debate 12(1), 77 86.

Knaap, G., & Nelson, A. (1992). The Regulated Landscape. Cambridge, Mass: LincolnInstitute of Land Policy.

KLSP (2000). Kuala Lumpur Strategic Plan. Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Malaysia.Kuala Lumpur City Hall (2003). Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan (KLSP). Kuala Lumpur: Federal

Town and Country Planning Department.Lee, B. (1996). Emerging Urban Trends and the Globalizing economy in Malaysia. In F. Lo &

Y. Yeung (Eds.), Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia. New York: United NationsUniversity Press.

Lindsey, G. (2003). Sustainability and Urban Greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis. Journalof the American Planning Association, 69(2), 165 180.

Nelson, A., & Dawkins, C. (2004). Urban Containment in the United States: History, Models,and Techniques for Regional and Metropolitan Growth Management. Chicago:American Planning Association.

Nelson, A., & Duncan, J. (1995). Growth Management Principles and Practices Chicago:American Planning Association.

Shultz, M., & Kasen, V. (1984). Encyclopaedia of Community Planning and EnvironmentalManagement. New York: Facts on File Publications.

Syafie, S. (2004). Urbanisation and Housing in Kuala Lumpur City Centre, EAROPH WorldPlanning and Housing Congress. Melbourne.

Taylor, B. (1988). Development by Negotiation: Chinese Territory and the Development ofHong Kong and Macau. In W. Tietze (Ed.), Urbanisation of the Earth (pp. 165).Gebruder Borntraeger: Stuttgart.

Wassamer, R. (2006). The Influence of Local Urban Containment Policies and State wideGrowth Management on the Size of United States Urban Areas. Journal of RegionalScience, 46(1), 25 65.

WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment andDevelopment.

Yigitcanlar, T., Fabian, L. and Coiacetto, E. (2007b). Urban transport sustainability in theGold Coast, Australia, ABACUS Journal – Special Issue on Planning and Sustainability,2(1), 50–66.

Yigitcanlar, T., Dodson, J., Gleeson, B. and Sipe, N. (2007a). Travel self containment inmaster planned estates: analysis of recent Australian trends, Urban Policy andResearch, 25(1), 133–153.

Yigitcanlar, T., Fabian, L. and Coiacetto, E. (2008). Challenges to urban transportsustainability and smart transport in a tourist city: The Gold Coast, Australia, TheOpen Transportation Journal, 2008(2): 19 36.