Method of implementation evaluation on general land use planning and its application based on spatial concordance

The planning and implementation stages are crucial parts of the whole research process. Monitoring implementation effects can provide necessary evidence for planning adjustment and revision. Degree of spatial goodness is an effective way to monitor implementation effects of the overall land plan. This paper defines the concept of implementation evaluation on general land use planning using the spatial goodness method to find an effective and quantitative method,. The general idea is to make an objective evaluation and summary of the spatial and temporal effects of the planning implementation process and results in an evaluation year. This concept has two parts, 1) evaluation of planning implementation process in a year and 2) evaluation of planning implementation outcome in the same year. Spatial goodness in the planning process is the level of agreement between land use spatial variation and planning objectives. Spatial goodness in planning implementation results refers to the degree of agreement between the current situation and planning. A spatial goodness model was constructed in three levels: land class spot, functional areas, and region. Spatial goodness was positive between 0-1 (the closer to 1, the higher the agreement). Furthermore, a grading scale of spatial goodness was specified. In evaluating the planning implementation process, a spatial goodness of 1 means spatial change met with planning, otherwise it did not meet. For evaluation of planning implementation outcome, the standard of spatial goodness was divided into five classes of spaces varied from consistent with the degree of spatial goodness=1 to not fully comply with planning objectives (which was a ideal state achieved in the end of planning implementation). When the degree of spatial goodness is less than 1, there is distance between planning implementation outcome and planning objectives, and it was then divided into four grades. To examine this method’s practical applicability, Tongzhou district in Nantong city, Jiangsu Province, was used as an example for an empirical research. Results in different levels and different objects were very different. From the planning and implementation process, land adjustment of cultivated land, garden plot and other agricultural land did not meet the planning scheme because their spatial goodness was less than 1. In functional areas, land adjustment in agricultural land was not complying with planning because the spatial goodness of agricultural regions was less than 1. In the regional category, the spatial goodness was 0.9995, less than 1, which meant the implementation outcome was not in line with the planning, which was also related to the adjust in agricultural areas not meet with planning. From planning implementation outcomes, spatial goodness in land class diagrams spot level varied widely. In functional areas, only scenery tourist spatial goodness fit with the planning, when its spatial goodness was 1, the other four functional areas were all in lower grades 4-5. It also meant that there was still a large gap between outcome and ultimate goal. Parts planned but unimplemented were still more. With the continuous process of planning implementation, outcomes of various functional areas needed further study. In the regional level, spatial goodness between status and planning was 0.7739, at a lower level 5. Further monitoring was needed on planning implementation outcomes with the development of planning implementation. The results showed that this model can better evaluate spatial goodness between implementation result and planning goal during the implementation progress of general land use planning. Not only quantity and space non-goodness but also reasons could be found timely, which is a good guide for further implementation.