Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Urban villages under China’s rapid urbanization: Unregulated assets

and transitional neighbourhoods
Yuting Liu a, *, Shenjing He b, Fulong Wu c, Chris Webster c
a
School of Architecture, State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, 381 Wushan Road, Guangzhou 510641, China
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
c
School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: China’s rapid urbanization, characterized by large-scale rural–urban migration and radial expansion of
Urban village urban built-up areas, produces a new type of urban neighbourhood, namely the ‘‘urban village’’
Urbanization (chengzhongcun). This paper considers the urban village as a community of interest for urbanized
Transitional neighbourhood
villagers, a migrant settlement with low-rent housing, and an urban self-organized grassroots unit,
China
respectively related to the ambiguous property rights, an informal rental market, and the vacuum of state
regulation. The urban village is therefore viewed as an unregulated asset despite its unruliness and
disorder. Meanwhile, the formation and dynamics of the urban village are understood from the
perspectives of land use transformation and property rights redistribution, with an additional emphasis
on the succession of traditional social norms and networks. In this sense, the urban village can be seen as
a transitional neighbourhood, characterized by unstable land rights and a mixture of rural and urban
society. Drawing from the empirical data of 11 urban villages from six large Chinese cities, this paper
presents the general characteristics of urban villages. This study points out that the vacuum of state
regulation in the urban village makes possible a means of subsistence for landless villagers and provides
low-cost residential space for migrants. The transformation of the urban village under state regulation
would produce complicated results.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction ‘‘new urbanism’’ (Krieger & Lennertz, 1991). A number of principles

China’s urban village (also known as the village in the city or
chengzhongcun in Chinese) is quite different from the western
planning concept of the ‘‘urban village’’, which refers to a village-
style neighbourhood in the urban context of western countries. The
term urban village was coined by Taylor (1973), and was promoted
by the Urban Villagers Forum (UVF). As a response to the bland and
monotonous developments of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the UVF
developed the ‘‘urban village’’ as a concept of an urban settlement
which is small and of neighbourhood size, combines residential
with work, retail and leisure units, aims to be self-sustaining, mixes
different social and economic groups, has efficient transport, and is
well designed and managed (Aldous, 1995). The concept was also
developed in parallel with similar notions in the US such as ‘‘transit
orientated development’’, ‘‘pedestrian pockets’’ (Calthorpe, 1993;
Kelbaugh, 1989) and ‘‘Transitional neighbourhood development’’ or
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 136 62522702.
E-mail addresses: ytliu@scut.edu.cn (Y. Liu), heshenj@mail.sysu.edu.cn (S. He),
wuf@cardiff.ac.uk (F. Wu), webster@cardiff.ac.uk (C. Webster).
as integral elements of the urban village concept were advocated,
including a mix of land uses, a variety of tenures, a high develop-
ment density, a strong sense of place, a pedestrian-friendly envi-
ronment, maximum potential self-sufficiency and a high degree of
community involvement in its design and management (Aldous,
1992; Murray, 2004; Shostak, 1997). Despite criticism of the urban
village concept (Biddulph, 2003; Brindley, 2003; Tait, 2003), it has
been widely recognized as a valuable way to encourage social
interaction, to provide a balanced community, and to unravel the
complexities of urban sustainability from a systemic point of view,
i.e. the relationships between the needs of the people, environ-
mental impact and urban governance (Landman, 2004).
China’s urban villages are developed from rural settlements and
become transitional neighbourhoods under rapid urbanization. The
urban village is called chengzhongcun in Chinese, literally ‘‘village
encircled by the city’’. The rapid expansion of Chinese cities has been
encroaching into surrounding villages since the 1990s. In many cases,
although villagers lose their farmland due to land requisition by the
city government, they maintain property rights over their own houses
and their housing plots (zhaijidi) within the village settlement.
Because their rights are not alienable, they cannot capitalize their

0197-3975/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.08.003
136 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144
assets through land or housing sale, so they redevelop their housing at
high densities. Village housing, typically low quality and high-density
with many closely packed apartment blocks of 2–8 floors, is rented out
to migrant workers and also some urban residents. Without planning
and development control, and stimulated by rental income, every
villager tries to build a house as high and big as possible. Construction
has already lost the aesthetic significance of individual differences, and
the harmonious habitat of the traditional Chinese village no longer
exists. Urban villages become concrete forests up to 20 m in height,
with a radius of several kilometres. They are not produced by devel-
opers or the village collective, but are built by individual villager
households. The urban village is characterized overall by narrow roads,
face-to-face buildings, a thin strip of sky, and inner streets packed with
shops, grocery stores and service outlets. Despite its well-known
unruliness and disorder, in a sense the urban village in China shares
some similarities with the western concept, such as pedestrianisation,
accessibility, self-containment, mixed land use, neighbourhood
interaction, etc.
Due to their crowded and cluttered material landscape,
unhealthy living environment, and the resulting security and social
problems, urban villages in Chinese cities are widely condemned by
the media, the government and even academia. They are usually
associated with unsuitable land use, poor housing construction,
severe infrastructure deficiencies, intensified social disorder and
deteriorated urban environment (Zhang, Zhao, & Tian, 2003). From
the perspective of migrant settlements, existing studies have
provided a basic understanding of urban villages (Liu & Wu, 2006b;
Wang, 2000, 2006; Wu, 2002, 2004; Zhang, 2001). For instance,
Zhang (2001) examined the social networks in migrant settlement
based on migrants’ place of origin. To summarize the typology of
poverty concentration in China, Liu and Wu (2006b) viewed urban
villages as one of three types of urban poverty neighbourhoods. To
study the housing problem for migrants under market transition,
Wu (2002, 2004) and Wang (2000, 2006) examined the housing
and settlement patterns of migrant households.
In fact, the urban village also plays a positive role in China’s
rapid urban development. A few studies have started to pay
attention to the positive effects of the urban village. For instance,
Yan and Wei (2004) point out that as a shelter for low-income
floating population the urban village should be allowed to exist for
a long time. Based on the case study of Guangzhou and Dongguan,
Zhang et al. (2003) and Chan, Yao, and Zhao (2003) signify the
important role that the urban village has played in housing the
temporary population from the perspective of self-help housing
strategy. Zhang (2001) further argues that the urban village not
only provides cheap accommodation for low-income migrants to
live in cities, but also puts less pressure on the government to
develop a costly program to house migrant labourers during the
rural to urban transformation. Although these studies have
addressed some important issues relevant to the urban village, they
fail to examine the nature of the urban village as a transitional
neighbourhood and its dynamics, and ignore the differences
between different types of urban villages.
Through exploring the nature and the functions of the urban
village, this study focuses on assessing its positive effects. The
urban village is a special phenomenon and social form produced in
the Chinese context, and is a transitional neighbourhood produced
by rapid urbanization. While recognized that there are physical and
social problems accompanying neighbourhood transition, it is also
believed that the urban village eases the pressure of socio-
economic development and urban poverty. The urban village is
a major type of settlement for both local landless farmers and
migrants (most of them are rural migrants), which are two groups
with high urban poverty incidence (He, Liu, Webster, & Wu, 2009; Li
& Sato, 2006; Liu & Wu, 2006a). The existence of urban villages in
the city on the one hand substantially increases the income of local
landless farmers, thus easing economic pressure on them from land
deprivation and unemployment. On the other, the urban village
provides low-rent housing and low-cost living space for rural
migrants and also for some urban residents, reducing the cost of
living in the city. The existence of the urban village to some extent
alleviates urban poverty. In this paper, the urban village will be
considered as a community of interest for urbanized villagers,
a migrant settlement with low-rent housing, and an urban self-
organized grassroots unit, respectively related to ambiguous
property rights, an informal rental market and a vacuum of state
regulation. Furthermore, the dynamics of the urban village are
examined from the perspective of land use transformation and
property rights redistribution, with an additional emphasis on the
succession of traditional culture, social norms and social networks
within the village. In this sense, the urban village is viewed as an
unregulated asset and a transitional neighbourhood. Drawing from
recent fieldwork in 11 urban villages in six large Chinese cities, the
paper summarizes the general characteristics of urban villages. This
study also discusses the future transformation of the urban village.
Understanding China’s urban village: ‘‘unregulated’’ asset
Overview on China’s urban village
The urban village is a special phenomenon emerging in China’s
political and economic transition. Urban villages are quite different
from the village-style of neighbourhoods in western cities or
squatter areas in some developing countries (Smart, 1985). They
may also be distinguished from some rural migrant settlements in
some Chinese cities (Gu & Liu, 2002; Ma & Xiang, 1998), such as
‘‘Zhejiang Village’’, a large-scale migrant settlement in suburban
Beijing with the prominent characteristics of folk-based handicraft
economy (Chan et al., 2003; Fan & Taubmann, 2002).
While some urban villages still keep a small amount of agri-
cultural land, the majority of the land in the urban village is non-
agricultural and is mainly for residential land use. After losing their
farmland, villagers maintain property rights over their own houses
and their housing plots within the collective land tenure system. To
capitalize their assets, they redevelop their housing at high densi-
ties. Without planning or design, and stimulated by rental income,
every house is rebuilt or renovated, resulting in high-density,
narrow building distance, and poor ventilation and lighting.
Housing quality and structure vary according to local villagers’
economic capacity and the location of the village. The height of
buildings ranges from 2 to 8 floors. The ground floor of a house with
a good location is most often used for commerce. Buildings higher
than 4 floors are mostly considered as illegal constructions by the
city government.
In the urban village, inner streets are packed with shops, grocery
stores and various service outlets. Except for few elderly clubs and
ancestral temples, there is no public space. Pipelines and drainage
systems are poorly constructed. Waste water flows over the ground,
and garbage can be seen everywhere. All of these have resulted in
an unhealthy living environment. Meanwhile, inhabitants in urban
village are diverse. Lacking efficient management, urban villages
become hotbeds of crime. Because of these negative impacts, the
urban village is condemned as a problematic area by the govern-
ment, the media and even some scholars.
Behind its negative image, the positive effects of the urban
village should be recognized. The formation of the urban village is
a process of transformation from rural village to urban community.
Within this transformation, the urban village is gradually becoming
an urban settlement for migrants, as a result of huge demand for
inexpensive migrant housing and the rent-seeking behaviour of
 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144 137

landless villagers. However, its socio-economic structure is mainly
dominated by local villagers and the village collective. The village-
based organization is the main regulating body of the newly formed
urban community (Fig. 1).
The community of interest for urbanized villagers
China has seen three waves of urban expansion, during the
1980s, around 1992 and in 2003, which are called the three rounds
of Chinese ‘‘enclosure’’ movements. As urban sprawl invades
farmland, farmers lose the most important resource on which they
have lived for generations. According to statistical data, urban
sprawl has resulted in more than 40 million farmers losing their
farmland, while this number is getting larger and larger at an
increasing rate of 2 million per year (Gao, 2004). After losing their
farmland, these people are not offered reasonable compensation or
employment opportunities to maintain their lives in the city. Lack
of entitlement to social security also becomes a great threat to the
future lives of these farmers, particularly elderly farmers. Handi-
caps for landless farmers’ employment come from the limitations of
their education levels and skills, as well as lack of information and
social networks. In sum, the dramatic urban expansion movement
has pushed millions of farmers into fierce market competition for
which they are not ready, while reasonable compensation and
necessary support have not been provided, and a social security
system for them has not yet been developed.
Due to the lack of government intervention and regulation,
informal markets spontaneously form in urban villages. Although
most of the farmland is requisitioned by the city construction,
a certain amount of land is left for the collective, and the villagers
also have the use rights of their housing plots. Due to the
tremendous housing demand from the large number of migrants
and also from some urban residents, the potential rent value of
their housing plots increases substantially, so, coupled with the
comparatively low-cost of housing construction, most villagers
launch a vigorous campaign of housing construction. The livelihood
of villagers has changed from ‘‘growing grain’’ to ‘‘growing house’’.
Meanwhile, the collective economy has also changed from agri-
cultural production or township and village enterprises (TVEs) to
a land and housing rental economy. Using compensation funds
from land requisition, collective properties are built on the retained
land (liuyongdi) and rented to individuals or enterprises. In many
urban villages, shareholding companies are established to manage
the collective economy. Generally, the main source of landless
villagers’ household income can be divided into three parts:
housing rent, stock dividends from the collective economy, and
a small amount of working salary. For the vast majority of
households in urban villages, housing rent contributes a large
proportion of their family income.
After being deprived of their farmland, villagers have to seek
survival and development opportunities. Possessing limited human
capital and skills, they are inevitably marginalized in the urban
labour market. Struggling to cope with the laid-off and the unem-
ployment problems of urban residents, city governments have
failed to make additional efforts to solve the employment problem
of landless villagers. Villagers’ retained property rights together
with housing demand from migrants provide landless villagers
with a temporary survival strategy. Household livelihoods and the
collective economy in the urban village are centred on property
leasing businesses. Although the marginal position of landless
villagers in the urban labour market has not changed, their
economic status is not marginal. They earn much more money than
many urban residents.
Migrant settlement with low-rent housing
In many Chinese cities, urban villages have become migrants’
settlements. In Guangzhou, the majority of 3 million migrants are
actually accommodated in urban villages (Xie, 2005). The relaxa-
tion of the hukou system together with the reform of the urban
welfare system and the employment system has further loosened
the restriction on labour mobility between regions and sectors
(Solinger, 1999). Attracted by more employment opportunities and
better living conditions, a huge number of rural labourers has
migrated into urban areas to seek employment and make a living.
According to the fifth national population census, 88.4 million
people had migrated from rural to urban areas by the end of 2000
(Fan, 2004; NBSC, 2002). A large number of migrants flow into the
cities, producing a huge demand for housing, especially for low-
rent housing, which imposes great pressure on the urban housing
market.
Since housing construction was limited under the centrally
planned economy, a huge housing demand remains, although
large-scale real estate development has been carried out. Moreover,
since low-rent urban housing can only produce little margin, it is
less attractive to real estate developers and relies heavily on
government subsidies. However, since the marketization and
commodification of housing has transformed the primary housing
provider from the government to the market (developer), the city
government makes little effort to provide low-rent housing.
Although the policy of affordable housing was launched several
years ago, the city government has a lack of enthusiasm for
implementing low margin housing construction. Furthermore, no
social housing policies take housing demand from migrants into

Villages Urban villages

1. Collective land (semi-
1. Collective land
2. Collective economy
private) Urban communities
2. Collective economy 1. Stated-owned land
(contracted farming
(collective rental) and 2. Stated economy and
and private poultry)
private economy (private Market economy
3. Rural traditional
rental) 3. Civil culture and
culture and social
3. Mixed culture and urbanism
network
traditional social norms 4. Community committee
4. Villagers’
4. Urban self-organized
committee
grassroots unit

Fig. 1. The plural characteristics of urban village.

138 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144
account (Sato, 2006; Solinger, 1999). Because of the shortage of
low-rent housing, the imbalance between temporary housing
demand and supply occurs. Against this background, the urban
village has played a positive role in providing a large number of
low-rent houses for migrants and some urban residents.
Entitled to the rights to unlimited use of their housing plots
under the collective land ownership framework, local villagers
constantly undertake housing reconstruction and renovation to
meet the great housing demand from migrants. Except for a few
self-occupied houses, the majority of houses are constructed at very
low-cost. The average rent of urban village housing is usually much
cheaper (around 16 RMB Yuan per square metre monthly in
Guangzhou according to our survey) than that of the whole city
(around 32 RMB Yuan per square metre monthly in Guangzhou in
2007) (Zheng, 2009). The low-rent housing attracts a large number
of migrants to rent rooms in urban villages. Meanwhile, the
concentration of migrants creates demands for services, thus
stimulating the formation of low-end business services targeting
migrants themselves and other low-income population. The
extremely high population density results in a shortage of public
facilities and the congestion of public space. Many better-off local
villagers have moved out these villages. In some cases, the village
collective builds ‘‘villagers’ apartments’’ with better housing quality
exclusively for local villagers. Over time, the number of migrants
increases more and more, and comes to greatly exceed the number
of local residents. It is not uncommon for a whole urban village to
become a migrant enclave.
As a semi-urbanized community, the urban village usually
functions as the springboard for migrants to be gradually integrated
into urban society. In fact, urban villages share the city gov-
ernment’s responsibility to provide migrants with housing, and
make it possible for the city to take advantage of cheap and flexible
labour without bearing the extra costs associated with labour
relocation and without risking social instability. As a result, the
process of urbanization occurring in the reform period has been
relatively cheap and painless for the government (Zhang, 2004). In
this sense, the urban village has positive functions not only in terms
of accommodating the large number of rural migrants, but also
through absorbing areas of potential social instability.
The urban self-organized grassroots unit
Few of China’s urban communities are governed and managed
by their own organizations. Most of them lack social cohesion and
a sense of belonging. The urban village not only remains a strong
collective economy, but also inherits the village-style of self-orga-
nization and social and cultural traditions. Urban villages’
economic, social and cultural independence makes them self-
organized grassroots units without the intervention and regulation
of the state. One might assume that, along with the urbanization
process, the units of organization in the urban village, such as party
organization, villagers’ committee, and economic organization
(mainly in the form of the joint-stock company), which are
respectively responsible for the political, social and economic
affairs of villages, should have gone through radical changes. But in
fact, the urban village retains its ‘‘village unit’’ organization and
management model. Remaining a collective organization, and
highly dependent on collective land and other resources, the joint-
stock company acts as the management body of most urban
villages. The joint-stock company controls almost all resources and
power in the urban village, and takes responsibility for everything,
such as land and housing management, shareholders’ dividends,
regulating private housing construction, electricity and water
supply, public utilities and villagers’ social welfare, villagers’
employment, social order and public health.
The joint-stock company of the urban village is not simply an
enterprise. In addition to its corporate management structure and
functions (mainly real estate development and property rental), it
also sets up some non-profit institutions to provide social services.
In some urban villages, joint-stock companies are also responsible
for the construction of village schools, clubs for the elderly, and
some other public facilities. Overall, due to the inherent common
interest and the relationship of mutual trust between joint-stock
companies and villagers, the former become self-organized grass-
roots units that effectively implement community management. In
comparison, party organizations and villagers’ committees tend to
be subordinate or supportive management organizations.
The urban village, as a transitional community from the rural
village to the urban neighbourhood, has a management mode that
is also transitional. Generally, the management of the urban village
includes the regulation of land use and building construction,
healthcare, public security, environmental restoration, housing
rental, small business, social services, and so on. Joint-stock
companies and villagers’ committees, as well as sub-district offices
and some district government departments, together are in charge
of all these management affairs. In general, urban village-based
organizations undertake most of the management responsibility.
Cooperation and conflicts arise between urban villages and urban
government departments. When the vested interests of the urban
villages, e.g. control over housing construction, are affected,
conflicts occur.
The major economic source of the urban village is from family
and collective property rental. Meanwhile, rental income also
provides reliable social security for villagers. Social welfare provi-
sion in urban villages primarily relies on the collective economy,
which includes basic living security, healthcare insurance, security
of life for the elderly, and other forms of social welfare. The social
security services provided by the village collective are timely and
necessarily alleviate the burden of pressure on the city government
to take care of landless farmers.
Dynamics: China’s urban villages as transitional
neighbourhoods
Land use transformation and the absence of state regulation
In China, rural land, which comprises farmland and rural built-
up land (i.e. settlements for villagers), is owned by the village
collective. In order to minimize the total amount of land requisition
compensation and social burden, the city government makes rapid
urban expansion possible through bypassing the village settlement
and only requisitioning the farmland. Therefore, farmland is con-
verted to urban construction land and owned by the state, while
the rural settlement retains its collective ownership. As the process
of urban expansion continues, the remaining rural settlements are
soon encompassed by urban territory, forming a distinctive land-
scape of urban villages (Zhang et al., 2003). Fundamentally, the land
requisition institution of the city government creates islands of
urban villages in the city (He et al., 2009).
Located within the urban built-up area, while retaining collec-
tive land ownership and lacking urban regulation, the urban village
possesses the characteristics of both urban and rural societies. The
peculiar characteristics of the urban village are directly related to
the dichotomy of the rural–urban land system and rapid urban
sprawl. Since the costs of either requisitioning village settlements
or redeveloping urban villages are huge, the city government is not
motivated to requisition or redevelop them, which directly results
in an increasing number of urban villages. Recently, Shenzhen,
Guangzhou and other cities promulgated a policy of ‘‘the retained
land’’ (liuyongdi), which requires a compulsory amount of land to
 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144
be saved for village collectives for commercial/construction
development during land requisition. On the one hand, this policy
protects villagers’ interests by providing a means of survival and
development; on the other hand, it reduces the difficulty of farm-
land requisition to meet the rapidly increasing demand for urban
construction land.
After losing their farmland, landless farmers lose their rural
identities as they no longer partake in agricultural activities. On the
other hand, they remain villagers and are not completely entitled to
official urban identities and the associated benefits. A gap between
the two institutional systems has emerged and resulted in the
rural–urban mixed characteristics of the urban village. Although
villagers no longer engage in any agricultural activities, they still
retain their special identities as villagers of the urban village. The
status of villager is important for them, because it means that they
can retain the ownership of land and gain profit from it (Li, 2004).
The collective ownership of rural land offers every villager an equal
right to use land for building houses. The joint-stock company or
the villagers’ committee is the representative body that exercises
the collective ownership of rural land. Land for housing is allocated
to every local household free of charge or for a nominal fee.
Furthermore, villagers’ rights to constantly use the land are valid as
long as their membership (defined by a local hukou) in the village
remains (Zhang et al., 2003).
The special rural–urban mixed characteristics create a vacuum
of state regulation in the urban village, and the vacuum in turn
makes room for the performance of market forces. Although the
urban village is physically within the urban built-up area, its
construction and management are separate from the rest of the
city. High-density construction in urban villages is technically
illegal but the government has to acquiesce under certain circum-
stances, because government administration in the urban village is
less effective. For instance, housing rental is the major income
source for villagers in many urban villages, while these activities
are less regulated than in the formal urban housing rental market.
Nevertheless, an informal rental market has developed in the
absence of state regulation, although it is characterized by a dis-
torted and unstable nature. In the urban village, most houses are
rented out mainly based on a bilateral (written or even verbal)
agreement between landlords and tenants (Zhang et al., 2003).
Population density in the urban village is also much higher than in
any other places in the city. In Nanjing, a village of 8 hectares can
accommodate more than 6000 migrants (according to our survey).
In the Pearl River Delta, to which millions of rural migrants are
attracted, the population density in the urban village is even higher.
A 10 m2 room could accommodate four or even more adults (Li,
2004). The rental market in the urban village is also very unstable,
due to the high mobility of migrants and the risks of being rede-
veloped by the city government. Without proper regulation and
planning, the urban village inevitably becomes unruly and chaotic,
and even becomes a hotbed for illegal transactions and crimes.
Despite its distorted characteristics, the development of a rental
market in urban villages is prosperous as long as the demand for
inexpensive housing by migrants continues.
Property rights redistribution and fuzzy property rights
Since the urban village is considered an urban community, the
city government is supposed to be responsible for providing
management and infrastructure. However, in urban villages, the
city government on the one hand acquiesces in the fuzzy property
rights from which villagers and the collective benefit, while on the
other, the city government avoids its responsibility for public utility
and social welfare provision under these fuzzy property rights. In
other words, by implicitly acknowledging fuzzy property rights, the
139
government avoids regulatory costs and social responsibility, while
giving up some profits (such as land transfer money, rental tax,
etc.). As a result, the village collective become a self-organized unit
taking care of its own interests, and carrying out the duties for
which the city government should be responsible. However, lacking
support from a wide range of public sectors, the self-organized
management in the urban village is not very efficient. This has led
to various social problems in urban villages.
The generation of the urban village actually involves various
property rights transactions and negotiations between different
interest groups. Accommodating a large number of migrants and
characterized by unplanned construction, the urban village is
comparable to squatter areas in other developing countries.
Although there are many differences between squatter areas and
urban villages, the formation and evolution of both types of
settlement are full of complex transactions and ambiguous rules. In
a study on the squatter property market in Hong Kong, Smart
(1985) argued that the toleration policy by the government created
‘‘informal regulation’’ or a ‘‘vacuum of regulation’’, and enabled an
informal property market to emerge in the squatter area. In this
context, grassroots processes make possible squatter structure
transactions in the absence of state support. Similarly, Zhang et al.
(2003) illustrated how the urban village offers a source of self-help
housing to accommodate migrants in the absence of government
help. Although housing transactions do not exist in the urban
village, various transactions of property rights in the vacuum of
state regulation do happen.
First of all, when the city government requisitions farmland by
paying a certain amount of compensation fee to villagers, a trans-
action of use rights of the farmland occurs, although the villagers
are involuntarily involved in the transaction. Lacking the capital to
compensate and relocate these villagers, the city government
allows the landless farmers to retain their collectively owned
property rights to housing land in the village. As such, the state
regulation in these villages is less effective or absent due to the
different forms of land ownership. Free from state regulation on
housing construction, local villagers densely build up lots of houses
on their collectively owned land. The local villagers take advantage
of the ‘‘vacuum of state regulation’’ by building as many houses as
possible. Through renting housing, they make possible transactions
of use rights/economic rights to housing in the urban village and
harvest windfall profits from the transactions. As the urban village
grows, the cost of redevelopment becomes higher and higher.
Therefore, the city government has to be particularly cautious as to
the issue of urban village redevelopment, and under some
circumstances postpones redevelopment plans. To a great extent,
the acquiescence and toleration policy by the state further
encourages the development of urban villages.
The succession of traditional social norms and networks
Considering the differences between the urban community and
the village, we need to identify not only the regulation system and
land use, but also more importantly the traditional social norms
and networks of the village. The urban village not only represents
a unique physical form (building, infrastructure, etc.) and economic
pattern (land use, economic behaviour), but also a particular type of
social norms and networks (customs, values, behaviour patterns,
social relations). As long as its original place-based and kinship-
based social relations have not been broken, the urban village
remains a special type of community in the city, and a traditional
patriarchal community rather than a modern community based on
contract (Xie, 2005).
It is conventionally recognized that the end of the village and
the end of peasantry coincide, along with the process of
140 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144
de-agriculturalization, industrialization or change in hukou status
(urbanization). In fact, the demise of the village lifestyle and village
social networks is more difficult and slower than changes in
farmers’ hukou status and occupation. The transformation from
village to urban community is not simply a process of de-agri-
culturalization and industrialization, or the change from rural
hukou to urban hukou. More importantly, it is a process of re-
defining property rights and restructuring social networks (Li,
2004). The village and the city have their own sets of social norms
and cultural traditions respectively. They are very different and
even mutually exclusive. Therefore, the end of the village involves
a subversive social change. However, the transformation does not
occur smoothly, and the original village social norms and cultural
traditions often remain for a long time. The urban village provides
an interim space where modern urban identity and traditional rural
identity coexist.
Evolving from the rural village, the urban village retains tradi-
tional kinship-based and place-based social networks. Based on
existing traditional social norms and networks with family ties,
local attachments, local customs, caste groups and social strata,
most villagers do not take part in the modern urban division of
labour. Instead, they form a petty rentier class organized according
to traditional village social norms and traditions. The urban village
remains a traditional society based on primary relationships, which
is quite different from urban society based on contractual rela-
tionships. Villages and work-unit communities under the centrally
planned system are characterized by strong affinity and social
cohesion. To some extent, they can be seen as grassroots organi-
zation units with closely inter-related individual interests. Urban
communities under the market economy, however, often function
purely as a living space, lacking a sense of attachment and social
cohesion. The urban village is a transitional neighbourhood trans-
forming from traditional village society to urban society, and thus
possessing the features of both societies.
China’s traditional culture advocates etiquette, harmony and
friendship, and considers family, relatives and friends as the
primary basis of social networks, thus achieving social cohesion
and a sense of attachment. Historically, associations based on place
of origin (tongxiang hui) and assembly halls (huiguan) were the
basic forms of social organization (Zhang, 2001). Under the modern
market economy, however, economic interest becomes the main
factor maintaining social networks. Lacking close social connection
and traditional values, it is difficult for individuals to generate
a sense of belonging and social cohesion, even though they are
spatially concentrated. Nevertheless, the migrant settlement in the
city, i.e. the urban village, resembles the traditional forms of social
organization. This raises the importance of understanding villagers,
families and their social relations in the urban village. Therefore,
this study not only focuses on the physical form and population
composition of the urban village, but also tries to understand the
succession and transformation of social norms and social networks.
Profiling urban villages: a case study of 6 Chinese cities
Data collection
From December 2006 to June 2007, we conducted a large-scale
household survey in 11 urban villages in 6 large Chinese cities. The
six cities are distributed in the coastal, central and northwest,
northeast, and southwest regions respectively, including Guangz-
hou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi’an, Harbin and Kunming. As provincial
capitals, all of these 6 cities are undergoing rapid urbanization and
urban expansion, and attracting a large number of rural migrants.
Against this background, many urban villages have emerged in
these cities (see Table 1). In comparison, Harbin is less developed
and has a lower level of urbanization, so therefore it has the
smallest number of urban villages.
The survey covers 11 urban villages in both inner city and peri-
urban areas, and includes both local villagers, rural migrants and
some urban residents. Two villages were selected in each city. Since
urban villages exist only in the peri-urban areas of Harbin, only one
village was selected. This is a survey of a purposive sample of urban
villages in 6 representative cities. In each urban village, the local
cadre was interviewed to obtain basic information about the
village. Households were selected based on their address, with
a fixed interval. In this way, we not only cover local households, but
also rural migrants. Questionnaires were distributed to household
heads. Questions include socio-economic information pertaining to
household heads and their household, including hukou status,
income and expenditure, education, occupation, housing status,
and so on. On average, 75 questionnaires were distributed in each
village, yielding 796 valid cases in total.
Overall characteristics
According to their location, the 11 urban villages could be
classified into two groups: inner city and peri-urban. Table 2 shows
the overall characteristics of urban villages. First, the areas of the
urban villages range from 0.5 to 3.6 km2. The area of an urban
village does not depend on its location but on the built-up area of
the original village. Second, building heights in the urban villages
range from 2 floors to 8 floors. There is little difference across the 6
cities, but building heights are very different between inner city
villages and peri-urban villages. Generally, the highest building in
inner city villages could be up to 8 floors, while the highest is only 4
floors in peri-urban villages. Higher demand for low-rent housing
in the inner city is the primary reason for this difference. Third,
there is a higher percentage of rural migrants in inner city urban
village. In most cases, the number of rural migrants in inner city
villages is 3–6 times that of local residents, while the number in
peri-urban villages is only 2–3 times that of local residents.
Accordingly, population density is different in the two groups. In
inner city villages, population density is over 6000 persons/km2; in
contrast, population density in peri-urban villages is mostly below
5000 persons/km2.
Collective economy and grassroots organization
Since the 1990s, rapid urban expansion has invaded suburban
villages in the six cities. A great amount of farmland has been
requisitioned by the city government. There have been two results
from land requisition. One is that the collectively owned farmland
has been completely confiscated by the city government, while only
housing plots were left for local villagers. The other is that while
most collective farmland was transformed into state ownership,
a small quantity was left for the village collective, i.e. the so-called
liuyongdi, and the housing land still belongs to local villagers (see
Table 1
Urban villages in six large cities in China.
Number of Land area Proportion in city Local villagers
urban villages (km2) Built-up areas(%) (thousands)
Guangzhou 138 89 25.7 380
Kunming 288 28 15.6 220
Nanjing 71 67 28.6 100
Wuhan 147 55 25.0 360
Xi’an 72 15 7.9% 90
Harbin 43 – – 80
Source: Household survey in six large Chinese cities, 2006-2007.
 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144 141

Table 2
Overall characteristics of urban villages in six cities.

Villages Location Area Building Local residents Rural Population density

(kilometres) height (thousands) migrants (thousand
(levels) (thousands) persons/
square kilometres)
Guangzhou Sanyuanli Inner city 3.6 3–7 9.0 40.0 13.6
Beiting Peri-urban area 0.6 2–4 4.1 1.7 9.7
Kunming Yuchilu Inner city 3.0 4–6 2.9 16.5 6.5
Gangtou Peri-urban area 1.5 2–4 3.4 5.0 5.6
Nanjing Tengzi Inner city 1.5 2–6 2.0 7.5 6.3
Suojie Peri-urban area 2.5 2–4 3.6 8.0 4.6
Wuhan Tuanjie Inner city 2.5 4–8 5.0 11.0 6.4
Tanghu Peri-urban area 3.0 2–4 3.6 10.0 4.5
Xi’an Renyi Inner city 0.5 2–6 0.8 3.0 7.6
Nanhe Peri-urban area 0.8 2–4 1.2 2.2 4.3
Harbin Hadatun Peri-urban area 2.0 1–3 4.0 6.0 5.0

Source: Household survey in six large Chinese cities, 2006-2007.

Table 3). The result of the land requisition process mainly depends
on the demand for construction land and the village’s location.
Inner city villages, which generally experience appreciation of land
values, often manage to obtain liuyongdi through negotiation with
the city government.
For those urban villages still possessing collective land, the
village collective was converted into a joint-stock company,
running small town and village enterprises (TVEs) or managing
rental businesses. The joint-stock company, as a grassroots orga-
nization, provides some social security and benefits to villagers.
Nevertheless, these are only temporary strategies for the village
collective and for villagers, because the city government can easily
take over property rights by redeveloping the urban village. For
those urban villages without retained collective land and no
collective enterprise, there is no need to develop a joint-stock
company. In these cases, the village committee is in charge of the
management duties. In many urban villages, villagers’ hukou has
transformed from rural to urban, and the villagers’ committee was
accordingly converted into a residents’ committee. Elected by local
villagers, the residents’ committee thus acts as a grassroots orga-
nization, taking care of social affairs in urban villages, including the
built environment, civil affairs, social order, family planning (birth
control), etc. The residents’ committee is supposed to represent the
interests of and be supervised by local villagers.
Local villagers’ income and social welfare
Land and housing rental has become the major income source
for village collectives and villagers. Most villagers affected by land
requisition were offered an urban hukou, and they received a lump
sum cash compensation ranging from 8000 to 35,000 Yuan per
person in the 11 surveyed urban villages (see Table 4). The amount
of cash compensation varies according to time, purpose and loca-
tion of land requisition, as well as local income level. In addition, for
those villages established a shareholding company, local villagers
became shareholders and were offered stock shares according to
their length of service in the village before the land requisition.
Villagers can receive an annual dividend based on their stock shares
and the scale of the collective economy, ranging from 2100 Yuan to
38,900 Yuan per person in different villages (see Table 4).
Besides dividends from the collective entity, most villagers have
built their own houses for rent. Driven by great profits, most
households in villages have built at least one house for rent. In
different cities and different locations in the city, housing rentals
differ, ranging from 8 to 16 Yuan per square metre. Considering the
different number of rooms for rent, the annual rental income also
varies significantly in different villages, ranging from 2000 to
30,000 Yuan per capita (see Table 4). Housing rental has become
the main income source for most villagers. Some of them even
make a windfall profit from their petty rental businesses. Their
income is much higher than the average level of local urban
residents.
Social welfare for local villagers also varies in the 11 surveyed
villages. For some villages such as Gangtou and Tuanjie, the village
collective paid the start-up costs for a comprehensive social security
insurance package for each villager. After that, villagers were
required to pay for themselves. For most urban villages, the majority
of local villagers have participated in pension insurance and
healthcare insurance schemes with a subsidy from the village
collective. Those villagers not covered by social security schemes are
offered a monthly healthcare subsidy. Elderly villagers who are not
covered by a pension insurance scheme are also offered a monthly

Table 3
Collective economy and grassroots organization of urban villages in six cities.

Villages Location Land use Collective economy Management organization

organization
Guangzhou Sanyuanli Inner city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Beiting Outer city Housing plots – Residents’ committee
Kunming Yuchilu Inner city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Gangtou Outer city Housing plots – Residents’ committee
Nanjing Tengzi Inner city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Suojie Outer city Housing plots – Residents’ committee
Wuhan Tuanjie Inner city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Tanghu Outer city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Xi’an Renyi Inner city Housing plots – Residents’ committee
Nanhe Outer city Housing plots and collective property Joint-stock company Residents’ committee
Harbin hadatun Outer city Housing plots and collective property – Residents’ committee

Source: Household survey in six large Chinese cities, 2006-2007.

142 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144

Table 4
Income and welfare of urban village’s local households in six cities.

Villages A lump sum cash A dividend per Capita Private housing Rent Average A comprehensive social
compensation per capita from village collective (Yuan) per capita (Yuan) rent(Yuan/m2) security insurance package
Guangzhou Sanyuanli – 38900 8900 16 Partially
Beiting 20000 – 2000 10 Partially
Kunming Yuchilu 8000 2100 6000 15 Partially
Gangtou 35000 – 3000 8 Yes
Nanjing Tengzi 15000 6000 25000 12 No
Suojie 30000 – 10000 10 No
Wuhan Tuanjie – 15000 30000 15 Yes
Tanghu 20000 – 12000 12 Partially
Xi’an Renyi 25000 – 10000 12 Partially
Nanhe 10000 9600 4000 8 No
Harbin Hadatun 30000 – 2000 8 No

Source: Household survey in six large Chinese cities, 2006-2007.

pension from the village collective. Only in a few villages do villagers and local villagers consume the largest. Living space per capita for
have to pay for the social security insurance package themselves. rural migrant households is only 14.56 m2, and rooms per capita is
Some villagers also chose to quit the insurance scheme initially only 0.62, contrasting with the figures of 43.58 m2 and 1.2
offered or arranged by the collective. In general, villagers in urban respectively for local villagers.
villages are better off, compared with their situation before land In addition, households in peri-urban areas had similar housing
requisition. However, their future is uncertain, especially when conditions to those in the inner city. The housing facilities indexes
their cash compensation has been used up, their housing land has of the two groups of households are 2.48 and 2.711 respectively.
been requisitioned, and they are not covered by social security Housing conditions for rural migrant households are worse off
insurance. compared with the other two groups. The housing facilities index of
rural migrants is only 1.98, while the figure is 3.6 for local villagers
Characteristics of inhabitants in urban villages: descriptive analysis and 3.07 for other urban residents. Only a small number of
surveyed households are unsatisfied with the housing conditions
The overall characteristics of inhabitants in urban villages will and living environment.
be analysed below. In addition, inhabitants in urban villages are
further categorized into three groups by their hukou status,
Discussion and conclusion
respectively local villagers, rural migrants and other urban
residents.
Urban villages are the products of China’s rapid urbanization
First, the average household size in urban villages is 2.88
process since the 1990s. In the urban village, where rules are
persons, which is smaller than the average level of 2.95 persons in
unclear and ambiguous, an unruly and unstable space is inevi-
the Chinese city (NBSC, 2006). Most inhabitants in urban villages
tably emerging, in terms of unplanned and disordered housing
are rural migrants. Compared with local villagers, Table 5 shows
construction, and a distorted housing rental market. First, the
that the average household size of rural migrants is much smaller.
plural characteristics of the urban village are the result of the
This is because many rural migrants moved to the city on their own,
dichotomy of the rural–urban land system and excessive urban
leaving their family at home.
sprawl. The institution of land requisition creates the isolation of
Second, inhabitants’ occupations are mainly self-employed/
the urban village, in terms of physical forms and institutional
small business owner, manual worker/social service worker, and
arrangements. Second, the generation of the urban village actually
informal jobs, which respectively take up 29.2%, 24.6% and 23.7%. In
involves various property rights transactions and negotiation
contrast with the inner city villages, the concentration of lower
between different interests groups under uncertain rules. The
occupational status in peri-urban areas is much more obvious. In
formation of the urban village witnesses how different interest
turn, lower occupational status in peri-urban areas led to their
groups (the city government, the village collective and local
lower monthly income, 1494.86 Yuan, in contrast with 1908.89
villagers) secure their own interests through negotiation and
Yuan in inner city areas. In addition, local villagers generally have
conflicts. The city government on the one hand acquiesces in the
lower occupational status than the other two groups, and so their
existence of fuzzy property rights to allow villagers and the
monthly income is also lower. In fact, the reported monthly income
collective to make profits; on the other hand, the city government
of local villagers was only salary income, not including other income
avoids its responsibility for management and social welfare
sources, such as housing rent. About half of them do not have or do
provision under these fuzzy property rights. Third, the traditional
not want to take formal jobs, because almost all local villagers
social norms and social networks in urban villages do not vanish
manage to make a living from rental businesses. In contrast, urban
immediately after urbanization. The urban village is still a tradi-
residents in the urban village have higher occupational status, and
tional society based on primary relationships, which is quite
their monthly income was also higher than the average level.
different from modern urban society based on contractual rela-
Third, the average housing space in urban villages is smaller
tionships. As transitional neighbourhoods from rural society to
than the Chinese city average. In the total sample, average living
urban society, urban villages are undergoing multiple trans-
space per capita is 22.6 m2, which is much lower than the 26.1 m2
formations in terms of the identity of villagers, social relations,
for the Chinese city as a whole (NBSC, 2006). Furthermore, the
mode of organization and management.
housing space in the inner city is much less than in the peri-urban
areas. Table 5 shows that living space per capita in the inner city
was 20.4 m2, and rooms per capita were 0.71, in contrast to 1
Housing facilities index (a constructed index scaled 0–8 based on the presence
24.44 m2 and 0.82 respectively in peri-urban areas. Contrasting the of private bathroom, private kitchen, private shower bath, bottled gas, piped-in gas,
three groups, rural migrants consume the smallest housing space, air conditioner, heating and internet).
 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144 143

Table 5
Socio-economic characteristics and housing status of residents in urban villages by location and hukou status.

Total Inner city Peri-urban area Local villagers Rural migrants Urban residents

Mean % (N) Mean % (N) Mean % (N) Mean % (N) Mean % (N) Mean % (N)
Household size 2.88 2.89 2.87 3.82 2.58 2.94

Household head’s
Occupation
Manager/director 5.90 (47) 7.50 (27) 4.59 (20) 1.79 (2) 5.34 (22) 8.46 (23)
Professional/civil 8.67 (69) 11.94 (43) 5.96 (26) 7.14 (8) 8.01 (33) 10.29 (28)
servant
Skilled worker/ 7.91 (63) 10.00 (36) 6.19 (27) 2.68 (3) 7.52 (31) 10.66 (29)
technician
Self-employer/small 29.15 (232) 26.94 (97) 30.96 (135) 17.86 (20) 38.59 (159) 19.49 (53)
business owner
Manual worker/social 24.62 (196) 21.94 (79) 26.83 (117) 17.86 (20) 29.61 (122) 19.85 (54)
service worker
Informal job and others 23.74 (189) 21.67 (78) 25.47 (111) 52.68 (59) 10.92 (45) 31.25 (85)

Household head’s 1682.34 1908.89 1494.86 1352.85 1649.59 1867.51

income monthly
Living space per capita 22.61 20.40 24.44 43.58 14.56 26.27
Rooms per capita 0.77 0.71 0.82 1.20 0.62 0.84
Housing facilities index 2.58 2.71 2.48 3.60 1.98 3.07
Valid N (listwise) 796 360 436 112 412 272

Source: Household survey in six large Chinese cities, 2006-2007.

Despite associated social problems, the urban village has
a positive effect on suspending and calming social conflicts under
rapid urbanization, by providing a survival strategy for local land-
less farmers and inexpensive shelter for migrant workers. First, the
urban village is considered as the community of interest for local
villagers. Landless farmers become one of the most vulnerable
groups in the city. To cope with rights deprivation, landless farmers
develop a bottom-up anti-poverty strategy by building and renting
houses to migrant workers in the urban village. Landless farmers
take advantage of their de facto rights over the collectively owned
land to make a living through renting houses. Second, urban
villages are considered as enclaves for rural migrants. As another
vulnerable group in the city having difficulties in getting formal and
stable jobs (Smith, 2000), rural migrants generally have a compar-
atively low socio-economic profile. Meanwhile, their housing
demand is totally ignored by the city government. In this context,
the urban village has played an important role in providing a large
number of low-rent houses for migrants. Urban villages act as
springboards for migrants to be gradually integrated into the urban
society. Third, the urban village not only remains a strong collective
economy, but also inherits village-style organization and social
cultural traditions. These allow urban villages to become self-
organized grassroots units while state intervention and regulation
are lacking. The inherent common interests and relationship of
mutual trusted between the village collective and villagers enable
the former to implement effective economic management and
community governance.
The case study of 11 urban villages in 6 large Chinese cities
confirms the above research findings. At the same time, the case
study also shows some differences among various urban villages. In
contrast with urban villages in peri-urban areas, those in the inner
city are characterized by higher population and building density,
higher socio-economic status and poorer housing status. The
comparisons between local villagers, rural migrants and urban
residents also show distinct features. The group of local villagers
consumes the best housing conditions, and has the highest income;
rural migrants have worse living conditions; and urban residents in
urban villages are characterized by higher socio-economic status.
Essentially, the urban village should not be blamed for creating
an urban pathology, but should be considered as a special form of
neighbourhood. In urban villages, the existence of widespread
illegal construction has created an informal and distorted housing
rental market. In addition, due to the lack of planning and regula-
tion, the urban village has produced a negative image in the city.
Nevertheless, under China’s rapid urbanization, the urban village
has played a positive role and has undertaken some responsibilities
that are supposed to be shouldered by city governments. To a great
extent, urban villages solve the problems of an unbalanced housing
market and the mismatch between housing supply and demand in
many Chinese cities.
To fully understand the urban village, we must focus not only on
its physical form, but also, more importantly, understand its
integration into urban society from the various aspects of social
relations, organization, and management. The vacuum of state
regulation in the urban village provides a means of subsistence for
landless villagers and low-cost housing for migrants. The trans-
formation of the urban village under state regulation would be
complicated. To transform the urban village into the urban
community, demolition and reconstruction would not be workable,
because this would fail to integrate local villagers into urban society.
Meanwhile, how to solve the housing problem for rural migrants is
another important issue. To redevelop urban villages, two impor-
tant points need to be recognized. First, the problems in urban
villages should not be exaggerated. The urban village has played
a large part in easing the pressure of urbanization, and should
therefore be allowed a moderate tolerance of its existing problems.
The rising problems of social order and governance are the costs
that have to be paid for rapid urbanization. In order to reduce these
costs, the key is to promote and guide the existing self-organized
grassroots units in the urban village. Second, the forces of the
market should be fully recognized and introduced to solve the
problems of the urban village. The generation of the urban village is
partially the product of the burgeoning market economy, so it is
appropriate to allow the adoption of market rules to guide the
redevelopment of the urban village, and also to reduce the difficulty
and cost of resolving existing problems.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (50808082 and 40801061, China), and an ESRC
grant (RES-167-25-0005, UK).
144 Y. Liu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 135–144

References Ma, L. J. C., & Xiang, B. (1998). Native place, migration and the emergence of peasant
enclaves in Beijing. China Quarterly, 155, 546–581.
Murray, C. (2004). Rethinking neighbourhoods: from urban villages to cultural
Aldous, T. (1992). Urban villages: A concept for creating mixed-use urban develop-
hubs. In D. Bell, & M. Jayne (Eds.), City of quarters: Urban villages in the
ments on a sustainable scale. London: Urban Villages Group.
contemporary city. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Aldous, T. (Ed.). (1995). Economics of urban villages. London: Urban Villages Forum.
NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). (2002). Chinese statistical yearbook
Biddulph, M. (2003). The limitations of the urban village concept in neighbourhood
2002. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
renewal: a Merseyside case study. Urban Design International, 8, 5–19.
NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). (2006). Chinese statistical yearbook
Brindley, T. (2003). The social dimension of the urban village: a comparison of
2006. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
models for sustainable urban development. Urban Design International, 8,
Sato, H. (2006). Housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late
53–65.
1990s. China Economic Review, 17(1), 37–50.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community and the
Shostak, L. (1997). Making places: A guide to good practice in undertaking mixed
American dream. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
development schemes. London: Urban Villages Forum and English Partnerships.
Chan, R. C. K., Yao, Y. M., & Zhao, S. X. B. (2003). Self-help housing strategy for
Smart, A. (1985). The squatter property market in Hong Kong. Critique of Anthro-
temporary population in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 27, 19–35.
pology, 5(3), 23–40.
Fan, P. (2004). The development situation of China’s peasant in 2003. [2003 nian
Smith, C. J. (2000). The floating population in China’s cities: a new ethnic under-
zhongguo nongmin fazhan de jiben zhuangkuang]. In X. Y. Lu, & P. L. Li (Eds.),
class? In T. Cannon (Ed.), China’s economic growth: The impact on regions,
2004: Analysis and prediction on China’s social situation [2004: zhongguo shehui
migration and the environment London: Macmillan Press.
xingshi fenxi yu yuce]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Solinger, D. J. (1999). Contesting citizenship in urban China: Peasant migrants, the
Fan, J., & Taubmann, W. (2002). Migrant enclaves in large Chinese cities. In
state and the logic of the market. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press.
J. R. Logan (Ed.), The new Chinese city: Globalization and market reform (pp. 183–
Tait, M. (2003). Urban villages as self-sufficient, integrated communities: a case
197). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
study in London’s Docklands. Urban Design International, 8, 37–52.
Gao, Y. (2004). How do landless farmers make a living? [Shiqu tudi de nongmin
Taylor, N. (1973). The village in the city. London: Temple Smith.
ruhe shenghuo] People’s Daily. 2nd February 2004.
Wang, Y. P. (2000). Housing reform and its impacts on the urban poor in China.
Gu, C. L., & Liu, H. Y. (2002). Social polarization and segregation in Beijing. In
Housing Studies, 15(6), 845–864.
J. R. Logan (Ed.), The new Chinese city: Globalization and market reform (pp. 198–
Wang, Y. P. (2006). Migrant intra-urban residential mobility in urban China. Housing
211). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Studies, 21(5), 745–765.
He, S. J., Liu, Y. T., Webster, C., & Wu, F. (2009). Property rights redistribution,
Wu, W. P. (2002). Migrant housing in urban China-choices and constraints. Urban
entitlement failure, and the impoverishment of landless farmers. Urban Studies,
Affairs Review, 38(1), 90–119.
45(9).
Wu, W. P. (2004). Sources of migrant housing disad in urban China. Environment and
Kelbaugh, D. (1989). The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy.
Planning A, 36(7), 1285–1304.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Xie, Z. K. (2005). The transition from village to urban community: A study of institu-
Krieger, A., & Lennertz, W. (1991). Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Towns
tion, policy and the urban village problem during the urbanization in China. Bei-
and town making principles. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Graduate
jing: China Social Sciences Press.
School of Design.
Yan, X. P., & Wei, L. H. (2004). The persistence or transformation of urban village in
Landman, K. (2004). Sustainable ‘‘urban village’’ concept: Mandate, matrix or myth?
urban China. Petermanns Geopraphische Mitteilungen, 148(5), 60–70.
CSIR Building and Construction Technology. http://www.buildnet.co.za/akani/
Zhang, L. (2001). Strangers in the city: Reconfigurations of space, power, and social
2003/jul/07_landman.pdf.
networks within China’s floating population. California: Stanford University
Li, P. L. (2004). The termination of villages. [Cunluo de zhongjie]. Beijing: The
Press.
Commercial Press.
Zhang, L., Zhao, S. X. B., & Tian, J. P. (2003). Self-help in housing and Chengzhongcun
Li, S., & Sato, H. (Eds.). (2006). Unemployment, inequality and poverty in urban China.
in China’s urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
New York: Routledge.
27(4), 912–937.
Liu, Y. T., & Wu, F. L. (2006a). The state, institutional transition and the creation
Zhang, S. F. (2004). Make the landless farmers’ living sustainable. [Rang nongmin de
of new urban poverty in China. Social Policy and Administration, 40(2),
shengji kechixu]. Internal Report Published by the Centre of Social Policy Studies,
121–137.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Liu, Y. T., & Wu, F. L. (2006b). Urban poverty neighbourhoods: typology and spatial
Zheng, J. X. (2009). Housing price in Guangzhou was overestimated. [Guangzhou
concentration under China’s market transition, a case study of Nanjing. Geo-
fangjia you gaogu fengxian]. Nanfang Daily. 10 Mar. 2009.
forum, 37(4), 610–626.