Keywords

3.1 Introduction on Planning Systems

Planning is a regulation for the government to guide and coordinate spatial development in terms of policy, strategies and projects; at regional level such targets are achieved by establishing spatial structure and principles in development and setting locations of regional infrastructure (Healey et al., 1997). Since the 1990s, the European Union (EU) has employed planning to cooperate between different spatial levels from social, economic and environmental dimensions. This type of cooperation aims to reduce spatial conflicts and uneven development within the EU and inspire other regions to develop a better interaction between nations, cities and communities (European Commission, 1999; Nadin, 2007). Hengqin is the site for Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone, its planning system has the potential to guide and coordinate its spatial development, particularly to ensure cooperation between two planning systems, namely Mainland China and Macao. Within the background of ‘One Country, Two Systems’, the cooperation between Guangdong and Macao in Hengqin may be distinct from other parts of the world. The left part of this chapter will be organised as follows: the second part is case studies to provide experience for cross-border planning coordination; the third part concerns history and background for Hengqin–Macao coordination; the fourth part will introduce two planning systems and their potential conflicts; the fifth part employs the master plan as an example to illustrate the differences between two systems; the last part is suggestions for future coordination in planning.

3.2 Case Studies

3.2.1 Cross-Border Planning Coordination Within the EU

Given the significant disparity in development levels amongst EU member states and the gathering of multiple cultures in the region, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is issued to avoid an increase in spatial development imbalances. Instead, the EU wants to form a common goal to guide the spatial development of each member state. Therefore, the ESDP was adopted in May 1999 due to the need for clear and forward-looking development guidelines at different spatial levels, as countries complement each other in their development.

The basic goal of ESDP is to strengthen the EU’s socioeconomic cohesion and achieve balanced, sustainable development by means of coordinating economic, social, natural and cultural purposes. However, ESDP does not have a legal effect and is a guideline within the EU, which adopts a multi-level governance mechanism to break through the overall limits of the region. The core of its implementation is cooperation (European Spatial Planning Observation Network, 2007).

ESDP is led by the EU and implemented by means of sectoral and thematic areas, such as structural funds and grants, European transport network planning, aid programmes for cross-border regional cooperation and environmental policy. Cooperation projects are carried out voluntarily at the EU, transnational and local levels. The focus is on transnational cooperation, mainly via the Regional Cooperation Programme named INTRTTREG, which promotes project-oriented transnational cooperation (Zhang, 2011). ESDP, therefore, proposes a polycentric and balanced spatial development strategy, which is taking advantage of the coastal location, establishing a global economic integration region and an integrated transportation network, increasing accessibility, improving national/local connections and developing a polycentric urbanisation system and city clusters. Besides, ESDP proposes to promote the transformation of the rural economy from single to diversified, stimulate the potential of renewable energy, establish urban–rural partnerships, strengthen the cooperation between urban and rural areas and fully exploit the potential of local resources to reflect the uniqueness of the region and not to copy the development strategies of other regions.

3.2.2 Cross-Border Planning Coordination Between Germany and Poland

In this case, Germany is a long-established EU member state with a mature national planning system; and Poland emerges as a new EU accession country. Several cities are located on the border between the two countries: Oder–Neisse line, which has close historical and geographical ties, developed as ‘laboratories’ for German–Polish cross-border cooperation. In terms of the planning system, Germany is divided into two areas: the ‘spatial order’ system, which includes the national and state plans, and the ‘building development directive planning’, which consists of the plans of the local communities. When the two conflicts arise, the spatial order system has higher priorities. In Poland, the planning system is divided into three levels, namely the national, regional (voivodeship) and local (communal) levels, whilst the ‘national spatial management concept’ has a very vague function at the national and regional levels of territorial planning. Consistency is determined by mutual agreement in the cooperation between local planning and higher-level planning, and local governments are allowed to practise flexibly. In practice, Polish jurisdiction does not allow any plan provisions other than the commune’s ‘local spatial management plan’ to be taken into account when granting or denying planning permission. Therefore, the local commune has a prominent position in the planning system.

In the ‘European Garden 2003’ cross-border planning concept proposed by Frankfurt-upon-Oder and Slubice, both cities wanted to create a public space on the banks of the Oder River to connect their urban green space networks. Nonetheless, such a concept did not define specific parameters or characteristics of the public space and was finally approved by both city councils as a conceptual strategy document. In practice, differences in the planning system and understanding of planning created a conflict in cooperation: as the project involved public land, the logic of the Polish planning system did not require preparing a ‘local space management plan’. As for the informal concept document approved by the city council, the Polish planners would consider it as a guiding document without compulsory forces. So, the Polish side treated the joint plan area as a street-space upgrading project and distributed it to multiple contractors without concerted design and joint planning. In the German planning system, however, such documents are bound to the planner’s practice. Thus, they have conducted joint planning for the whole project and updated their city master plan accordingly. The lack of joint planning of the public space on the Polish side led to strong dissatisfaction and concerns about the future on the German side. In this cross-border collaboration, the conflicts mainly stemmed from differences in planning systems and understanding. In a subsequent round of cooperation, the two sides defined the objectives and specific contents of the plan more precisely. They strengthened the communication between officials, local groups and individuals to reduce conflicts in cross-border planning (Tölle, 2013).

3.2.3 U.S.–Mexico Cross-Border Planning Coordination

A typical example of a transfrontier urban space is the border between the U.S. and Mexico. This area covers 2000 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border from Matamoros–Brownsville to Tijuana–San Diego, and more than 12 million people live in these cross-border cities. Both cities’ social systems and ecosystems are integrated, and the First Worlds and Third Worlds intertwine here. The U.S.–Mexico border is addressed via the Border Liaison Mechanism, State Alliances and the Councils of Government, which brings national, state and city officials from both sides to address border issues here.

In the cross-border collaboration between Tijuana and San Diego, the two sides share a standard hydrological system (Tijuana River). However, their management systems and regulatory requirements are not the same, which led to sewage spills from Tijuana to San Diego, and this spilling has plagued the region for decades. This conflict was eventually resolved by the two sides working together to create an independent management authority. A successful example of cross-border cooperation in the region comes from Laredo–Nuevo Laredo, where a joint municipal plan for the Joint Urban Plan (La Carta Urbana de Los Dos Laredos) was developed by the U.S. and Mexican federal governments. Subsequently, the two sides conducted a joint environmental management plan and a joint historic preservation plan. Furthermore, joint actions in environmental protection, tourism development, transportation management and historical and cultural preservation successfully create a favourable political climate for cross-border plans and environmental management. Another conflict stems from the differences in legal systems and institutions between the two sides. Planning officials of the U.S. border cities claim that the six-year change in sessions of the Mexican government affects the planning of the border cities, hindering the two sides to continue the last round of collaborative events. At the local level, Mexican officials mostly come from political appointments and move on after accomplishing their own goals. These frequent changes in the collaboration between the two sides similarly affect the durability of collaborative planning. Two sides resolved such conflicts by establishing an independent administrative sector and developing joint urban plans. In addition, officials on both sides noted that informal, face-to-face and one-on-one interactions between the parties were the most effective approach of coordination. Many innovative local and informal arrangements in collaborative practice have been successfully applied in familiarising the parties with project issues and in implementing various tasks (Herzog, 2020).

3.2.4 Transboundary Planning Coordination Between Singapore and Johor, Malaysia

Since Singapore was independent of Malaysia in 1965, it has experienced rapid growth. However, its geographical location, in the south of a much larger country than itself—Malaysia, leads to a sensitive relationship with Malaysia (Zhou, 2004). Given the lack of space and resources, Singapore has shifted its investments to Johor, Malaysia, which is close to the territory and possesses abundant water resources and relatively cheap land. For instance, the Johor River is known as one of Singapore’s ‘Four National Taps’ and accounts for 60% of Singapore’s total water consumption (Chuah et al., 2018), South Johor is a fertile ground for Singapore to develop its business (semiconductor and other manufacturing activities) (Rizzo & Glasson, 2011). These factors have led to a strong transboundary relationship between Singapore and Johor. approximately 30,000–50,000 individuals cross the Straits of Johor to Singapore on weekdays to enjoy higher wages; conversely, on weekends, Singaporeans prefer to enjoy low-cost goods and entertainment in Malaysia in Singapore dollars. These cross-border dynamics have influenced many levels of local society, making Johor–Singapore a rapidly emerging transnational metropolitan area in Southeast Asia (Rizzo & Glasson, 2011).

The awkward challenge facing Johor in its transboundary collaboration with Singapore is lacking efficient public transportation, which can improve the daily commuting efficiency from Johor to Singapore. Johor’s private bus-dominated transport is based on the idea of the ‘most profitable route only’ (i.e. from the centre of Johor to the causeway connecting Singapore to Johor). As a result, Johor residents employ a car or motorcycle-based transport system due to the lack of buses. In addition, the dual checkpoints in Malaysia and Singapore and the poor organisation on both sides of the Straits of Johor result in a 1.5–2 h of journey from Johor to downtown Singapore which is only 30 kms away. Commuting by car from Johor is also inconvenient because of Singapore’s extremely high road user fees. Meanwhile, Singapore is well developed in terms of public transport within its borders, and the transport system in Johor does not cater to the needs of Singaporeans. This makes the series of transboundary development plans between Johor and Singapore incompatible with its transportation facilities.

To address this issue, the Johor government is replanning its public transportation in terms of improving accessibility, safety and comfort by building more overpasses or underpasses to help people cross the highway; improving public spaces to increase commuters’ comfort whilst waiting for public transportation; and adding multiple public routes, aiming to improve the connectivity of cross-border areas and ensure a coordinated development on both sides (Rizzo & Glasson, 2011).

3.2.5 Spatial Coordination Between Guangzhou and Foshan in China

In Guangdong Province, China, the ‘Guangzhou–Foshan Cooperation’ officially started in 2009, aiming to break the administrative barriers between Guangzhou and Foshan for regional integration. In cooperation, the conflict mainly comes from the lack of cost–benefit sharing, reliable guaranteeing and coordinative mechanisms. In the Heshun interchange and toll station project, its Guangzhou side (West Second Ring Road) was tolled, whilst the Foshan side of the same project (First Ring Road) was free of charge. This conflict of interest resulted in the delay of opening on the Guangzhou side, which led to the postponement of the interchange toll station project. In the Nanzhou water plant project, Shunde (an administrative district in Foshan City), as the water provider, is not allowed to set up industries around the water source and has to pay for the expenses of water protection projects. By contrast, Guangzhou, as the project initiator and the largest beneficiary, did not provide corresponding compensation to Shunde, which led to complaints from Shunde and affected the cooperation at a later stage. The conflict is mainly due to the lack of policy resources and voice in Foshan, and there is no qualified cooperative mechanism. In the Jinshazhou area, both sides plan according to specific events and projects with their own needs, and there are some differences in planning objectives. Given the different planning and approval bodies, the Guangzhou side of the Jinshazhou area has achieved full coverage of the control plan, whilst the Foshan side is only at the planning study stage, resulting in a gap in planning collaboration between the two sides. In addition, the lack of a unified technical dialogue platform also has a technical impact on the collaboration: the coordinated planning system of the two cities is not uniform, and it is not easy to convert. In Guangzhou–Foshan Cooperation, the conflict erupts before it is addressed. In the whole process, from collaboration to implementation, there is no stable, independent department to coordinate and protect the interests of both sides (Chen et al., 2012).

3.3 History and Background of Cooperation Schemes

3.3.1 Development History and Relationship Amongst Guangdong, Macao, Zhuhai and Hengqin

In the 2021 General Plan for Building Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin, Hengqin is the subordinate of Guangdong Province. Furthermore, Macao is also a provincial level administration. Thus, there are briefly three possibilities for the relationship between Guangdong, Macao and Hengqin:

  • Guangdong holds the dominance.

  • Macao has dominance.

  • Both sides cooperate and share governance.

Before 2021, Guangdong Province was the leading partner in Hengqin cooperation, whilst Zhuhai was the actual implementer and executor and fiscal income in Hengqin was included in Zhuhai’s statistics. Therefore, Macao has worried that ‘Macao loses the right to speak in developmental issues in Hengqin (Yin, 2020), and the Guangdong side believes that ‘Hengqin development must adhere to Guangdong’s leadership (Fan, 2009)’. However, in the new stage of cooperation after 2021, Macao has one more executive deputy director in the top management committee than Guangdong has, which may mean more voices on developmental issues (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, State Council, 2021). In terms of the tax income distribution, all fiscal income from the cooperation zone before 2024 will go to the government of the cooperation zone. As for the attribution of income afterwards, Macao’s Chief Executive said in a press conference: ‘Although it is challenging to incorporate GDP into the scope of Macao, Macao also can derive a share of the fiscal income after the establishment of the interest-sharing mechanism in the future’ (Ou, 2021). In addition, the central government plays a leading, organising and coordinating role in the Guangdong–Macao cooperation. The Zhuhai Municipal Government, as the actual implementer in previous cooperation, does not have a seat as the chairman/vice director in the Management Committee of the cooperation zone this time but has a position as the relevant head in the subordinate executive committee. In the past Zhuhai–Macao cooperation, there was also a phenomenon that Macao paid more attention to the interaction with the central government and ignored Zhuhai. Therefore, Zhuhai, as the actual executor of the cooperation, has a complex relationship with the Macao government as a non-subordinate and non-equivalent local government, perhaps making it the most complex pair of relations in the cooperation (Yin, 2020).

3.3.2 Analysis of the Structural Function of Planning in Hengqin (As a City in Mainland China)

Urban planning is a crucial tool for the government to manage spatial resources, and land utilisation is the core. Planning can suppress negative impacts of development, enhance positive results and induce harmonious development of social and ecological aspects. China’s urban planning operation implements the ‘two permissions and one submission (liangzhengyishu)’ system, which includes ‘Site Submission’, ‘Planning Permission for Construction Land’ and ‘Planning Permission for Construction Project’. Such a system has been designed to control the locations of projects, land functions, the density of development, impacts of constructions and so on (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security in China, 2019). As a developing city in the process of urbanisation, the main objective of planning in Hengqin is to promote economic and urban development by constructing focused areas. This also forms the target for planning Hengqin–Macao cooperation, such as the planning for industrial diversification (Hengqin New District Management Committee, 2016).

3.3.3 Analysis of the Structural Function of Planning in Macao

For Macao, which has primarily completed its urban growth process, planning aims to improve and renew the existing urban space to create a happy, intelligent, sustainable and resilient city. In the past, Macao did not have a macrolevel urban master plan but primarily small-plot implementation designs generated by the city’s specific needs. The ‘General Statute of Urban Architecture’ and related regulations involving land and building management, such as parking and fire regulations, were the primary basis for planning and management. These documents mainly were administrative guidelines within the government. After implementing the ‘Town Planning Law’ in 2004, this was used as the basis for urban planning, and in 2021, the ‘Urban Building Legal System’ was published to control the urban construction process. However, it was not until 2022 that Macao’s urban master plan was formally completed for the first time.

3.4 Characteristics of Two Systems and Cooperation Schemes

3.4.1 Legal System of Planning

The current system of urban planning regulations in Macao consists of the Legal System of Urban Architecture, the Urban Planning Law and its accompanying administrative regulations, such as the Rules for the Implementation of the Urban Planning Law and the Urban Planning Commission. The Town Planning Law and its accompanying rules prepare, approve, implement, review and revise town planning; they specify the definition, types and levels of planning, the composition of planning documents and the establishment and duties of town planning committees and interdepartmental committees. It also strengthens the implementation of urban planning by providing punishments for violating planning controls’. The Legal System of Urban Architecture is used in the urban construction process, such as construction permits, inspections of construction and punishment for violations (Legal System of Urban Construction, 2021).

Urban planning in Hengqin depends on a more comprehensive and complex legal system than in Macao. The existing planning system is based on a dozens of regulations from the central government, Guangdong Province, Zhuhai City and Hengqin In-Depth Cooperation Zone, ranging from the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Urban and Rural Planning to the General Plan for Building Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin. For example, in 2016, the Detailed Plan of Hengqin New Area is relevant to up to twenty regulations. More regulations mean more constraints. The future cooperation zone, as an area under the direct supervision of Guangdong Province rather than under Zhuhai City, will be subject to fewer restrictions. Nonetheless, it may run in conflict with the Zhuhai city planning regulations system.

The cooperation between Hengqin and Macao is grounded in two completely independent regulatory systems, which inevitably lead to differences and overlaps in the content and binding force of the regulations, which then lead to conflicts and problems in practice, such as which law to follow, who to judge and enforce the planning of the zone, how to punish violations of the law and other aspects of practice based on which regulation, will be applied the two sides. Besides, when the same issue is required differently between the two systems, coordination is a challenge for the in-depth cooperation zone. For example, the Macao side believes that there is an excellent risk of directly terminating the existing urban planning according to Article 26 of the Urban Planning Law. By contrast, the Guangdong side does not have relevant regulations.

3.4.2 System of Plan Formulation

Macao’s urban planning is divided into two parts: a master plan and detailed plans. The process of plan formulation is divided into six parts: the Chief Executive’s approval to start the formulation process; the preparation of the draft plan by the Land and Urban Construction Bureau, this part should gather opinions from an interdepartmental committee; a 60-day public consultation for the master plan and 100-day public consultations for detailed plans and the collection of the opinions of the powerful stakeholders and the public on the draft plan; publication of the analytic report of public opinions within 180 days after finishing consultation; the collection of the opinion from the Urban Planning Commission (within 60 days); submitting the final report to the Chief Executive, who will make the final decision. After the draft is finalised, it is approved by the administrative regulations published in the Official Bulletin of the Macao SAR. If significant changes are required, then public consultation should be conducted again after the changes are made. During the formulation of the detailed draft plan, it is necessary to collect the opinions and suggestions from stakeholders of private land and the grantees of state-owned land who may be affected by the implementation of detailed plans. In such a case, the Land and Urban Construction Bureau will hold a briefing session. In addition, the Urban Planning Commission has established an auditing system for some planning-related meetings, allowing city residents to observe the meetings upon application (Government Printing Bureau, 2014b; Urban Planning Commission, 2014).

Hengqin’s urban planning is divided into two parts: a master plan and detailed control plans. The planning process consists of the following five sections: the preliminary preparation stage, including the groundwork of the project and the collection of basic information; the preparing stage requires consultation with relevant departments and expert meetings; the stage of reviewing by the planning committee, includes steps, such as the public announcement of the draft and the normative review of the planning committee; the successful submission and approval stage, which embraces the announcement of the post-approval results after the submission of documents to the higher government and inputting approval results; in the final stage, the approved files will be issued to all relevant departments, and the results will be archived whilst the quality assessment of the results is conducted (Government Printing Bureau, 2012; Government Printing Bureau, 2014b; Urban Planning Commission, 2014). As for public participation, the previous practice includes pre-approval consultation and post-approval publication, but there are unclear objects, times, formulas, population types and consultation locations.

Planning systems in Hengqin and Macao both contain a master plan and detailed control plans and have departmental synergy steps. However, there is a significant difference in the planning approval process, as the final decision on the preparation of the plan for the Macao side is made by the Chief Executive, whilst the plan for Hengqin needs to be submitted to a higher-level government for approval. Additionally, the discrepancy in public participation is obvious. Explanation of details about public participation in Hengqin during its planning process is obscure, whilst Macao provides clear and specific regulations of public engagement. In addition, the presence of a large number of properties purchased by Macao residents and some communities created specifically for Macao residents (e.g. Macao New Neighbourhood) in the Hengqin In-Depth Cooperation Zone will raise other problems in the future, including which group is the main target of public consultation when different stakeholders have a conflict. Such a case becomes more complicated for Macao residents who do not live in Hengqin but own Hengqin properties, Macao residents who live in Hengqin, transboundary commuters who rent in Hengqin or Hengqin indigenous residents.

3.4.3 System of Planning Management

The Land and Urban Construction Bureau is the core coordinator of planning matters in the urban planning process of Macao. The Interdepartmental Committee coordinates the relationship between the various departments and the various plans (the committee includes the Cultural Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Bureau, Transport Bureau, Construction Development Office, Transport Infrastructure Office, Environmental Protection Bureau, Housing Bureau, Tourism Bureau) and has the relevant administrative and legal support. The Land and Urban Construction Bureau is responsible for providing technical and administrative support to the Intersectoral Committee and for covering the related financial expenses. The Urban Planning Committee coordinates the public interest; such a commission is composed of representatives of the public administration, professionals in the field of urban planning and other areas related to it and persons recognised as outstanding in communities. In this Committee, there is a chairman and up to 34 members. Within these members, there will be up to 27 distinguished persons from communities. These two committees have the power to make recommendations on the plan, and the Land and Urban Construction Bureau is required to prepare and submit a final report to the Chief Executive within ninety days of receiving the Committee’s comments, who will make the final decision. This formal and public system of multi-departmental coordination means that the synergistic departments also bind the planning body in the planning process (Government Printing Bureau, 2012; Government Printing Bureau, 2014b; Urban Planning Commission, 2014).

Hengqin’s current participating departments are mainly the Management Committee and the Executive Committee of Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin. The Urban planning and Construction Bureau is the leader in urban planning and design and is mainly responsible for the preparation and implementation of master plans, detailed control planning, special planning, urban design, land resource management, construction project management, administrative approval and services, including other planning-related content in the cooperation zone (Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin, 2021). In terms of sectoral collaboration, it is common practice to conduct horizontal consultation with relevant sectors during the plan-formulation phase, which often only serves as suggestions and does not create solid constraints and changes to the planning process.

The differences between the two planning management systems are mainly reflected in the depth of involvement of the relevant coordinating departments in the planning and in who are the final decision makers in the planning. The level of participation of departments in the interdepartmental committee in Macao is relatively higher than in the participation model of Hengqin. Whilst the planning participation department under the Macao model acts as a degree of constraint on the Land and Urban Construction Bureau in the planning preparation process, the planning participation department under the Hengqin model does not have a solid binding effect on the Urban Planning and Construction Bureau. In future planning, when planning-related departments object to the plan, actors in Macao and Hengqin systems may give different importance to the objections, which may lead to certain conflicts. In addition, the Chief Executive has decision-making power in the planning management system of Macao. Although the in-depth cooperation zone has been promoted to be directly under Guangdong Province, planning approval still needs to be submitted to the higher authorities for approval.

3.4.4 System of Planning Practice

The responsible department for the approval of registered urban planners in Macao is the Professional Council of Architecture, Engineering and Urban Planning. The requirements to apply for registration are a person who has obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in urban planning, completed an internship (two years of full-time internship and five years of part-time internship) and is a resident of the Macao SAR; by contrast, a public administration staff member who has obtained a bachelor’s degree in urban planning and has worked for three consecutive years in the field of urban architecture or urban planning. After passing the examination, they can become registered urban planners (Legislation for Urban Architecture and Town Planning in Macao Special Administrative Region, 2015). In addition, Macao has no qualification classification for urban planning preparation units as restrictions in operating professional planning issues.

Hengqin complies with the policy of Mainland China that the responsible department for the approval of registered urban and rural planners is led by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development and Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, and the local Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and Planning Bureau. The requirements to apply for registration are to obtain a degree in urban and rural planning or architecture, engage in urban and rural planning for a certain number of years and pass the professional qualification examination for registered urban and rural planners. Amongst them, a specialist degree requires six years of practice; a bachelor’s degree requires three years of practice (three years to attend an institution that has passed professional assessment); a master’s degree requires two years of practice, and the number of years of practice in other professions increases by one year according to the academic requirements (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security in China, 2019). From the perspective of urban and rural planning preparation units, urban and rural planning preparation units in Mainland China are divided into classes A (jiaji), B (yiji) and C (binji). Class A urban and rural planning preparation units are not restricted in their scope of undertaking urban and rural planning preparation business. At the same time, the other levels are subject to corresponding restrictions.

Regarding the planning practice system, the relevant responsible authorities for the registration of planning practitioners are different between Hengqin and Macao, and the requirements for practitioners to apply for registration are also different between the two sides, with Mainland China’s requirements being more stringent in comparison. Whether the planning hierarchy in Mainland China applies to the Macao planning system is also an issue in collaborative planning. In 2012, Guangdong and Macao started the interchange of registered architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture design services. However, the relevant bill emphasises that the Comprehensive Urban Plan is not included (Government Printing Bureau, 2012).

3.5 Differences Between the Masterplans of Hengqin and Macao

Macao decided to prepare a draft city master plan in 2018 promulgated in 2011. The process of preparation includes the city planning relevant officials, the city planning coordination meeting (composed of representatives of government departments), the city planning committee (composed of experts, scholars, public representatives and government representatives), the divisional authorities in Macao government (Land and Urban Construction Bureau, 2010). The latest plan, the Developmental Master Plan of Hengqin New Area, was promulgated in 2021, and the preparation process is the same as that of other cities in Mainland China. The main bodies involved in formulating the plan are Guangdong–Macao In-Depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin Management Committee and Executive Committee, which are leading urban planning and design. Another important body is the Urban Planning and Construction Bureau, which is mainly responsible for the preparation and implementation of spatial planning, urban design, land resource management, construction project management, administrative approval and services, and other planning-related contents in the cooperation zone.

In particular, in their different masterplans, Macao is committed to building a world-class tourism and leisure centre. At the same time, Hengqin is a new platform to promote the moderate and diversified development of Macao’s economy, and there is a massive difference in the general positioning of the two. Regarding disaster prevention, Macao’s master plan mentions the design of infrastructure with disaster prevention elements to enhance its response capability. At the same time, Hengqin proposes to adhere to the policy of ‘combining prevention, resistance, avoidance and rescue’ and to improve flood storage areas and rainwater utilisation facilities, which are also slightly different in terms of relevance. Macao proposes to build a transportation network that combines a slow-moving system, light rail, public buses and other public transport and optimise parking resources. By contrast, Hengqin proposes in its development master plan to establish a high-standard, modern and comprehensive transportation system led by public transport. In terms of the environment, Macao focuses on green, low-carbon and sustainable development. By contrast, Hengqin focuses on building an ecological city with a circular economy as the primary construction mode.

Although the formulation of Macao’s master plan started later than that of Hengqin, and there are many differences in many aspects, such as the general positioning, Macao remains to be a role model for other Chinese cities in terms of public participation. For example, in the Urban Planning Law in Macao, it is clearly stated that the ‘Land and Urban Construction Bureau shall establish a mechanism to promote public participation in the preparation of the draft urban plan’ and explain its content to the public during the public consultation period, in which a distinction is made between the general public and stakeholders. More importance is attached to the views of stakeholders. These established mechanisms in a public hearing in the meetings and the system in protecting individual interests also provide more guarantees of transparency and fairness in the establishment of the system (Wen, 2014).

3.6 Strategies of Cooperation Planning Systems for Hengqin and Macao

Hengqin and Macao have distinct institutional environments, including different planning systems. To coordinate two planning systems to achieve concerted planning and development, five aspects of cooperation may be helpful.

Firstly, a clear and reasonable route map to future changes should be discussed and established. In such a map, the core question is, who is the leader of future development? Macao or Hengqin (Guangdong Province). The leader will have more institutional features to be reflected in future Hengqin. From a gradual perspective, a three steps route map may be suggested. In the next three to five years, it is the first stage of coordination in which it is better to maintain the existing planning system, a Mainland China one, to support rapid growth, which is quite similar to other Chinese cities in the last few decades. After fast-growing, there are some advantages in the Macao system that may be introduced in the second stage for another three to five years. For instance, public participation is a good choice for Hengqin to learn from Macao in formulating planning. Besides, interdepartmental coordination in Macao is another point that can be learnt by Hengqin. In this stage, a gradual systemic transformation from Mainland China to Macao may occur. The third stage is suggested as a Macao-led development phase. Macao will be the leader in building a more international planning system to support a new economic system opening to the world.

Secondly, joint plans, joint investment and joint construction can be applied as core strategies in developing cross-border areas. High-quality construction needs better coordination in the whole process of development. Joint planning with planners and planning officials from both sides will be the first step to start building new urban spaces.

Thirdly, communication between two planning systems is crucial to building trust and mutual understanding. Such communication should be frequent on multiple levels and require both formal and informal channels. It is communication between persons, information, values and experiences.

Fourthly, the role of the central government should be emphasised to resolve possible conflicts between the two systems. As the central government is superior to both sides, therefore, its authority is helpful in dealing with problems when Macao and Hengqin cannot stop quarrelling and be cooperative themselves.

Finally, planning is only one aspect of cross-border cooperation; therefore, planning needs to coordinate with other aspects of social and economic development. For instance, economic diversity is a crucial target for Macao to involve Hengqin in its economic development. Therefore, urban planning in Hengqin should support economic diversity in terms of providing industrial space, research sites, transport facilities and a qualified environment.