Introduction Urban growth can generate jobs, housing, and new economic opportunities. But when development spreads into urban fringes faster than land-use planning and infrastructure provision can respond, the result is urban sprawl: scattered, low-density, and poorly coordinated development that is costly to serve and difficult to manage. The costs extend well beyond the sites of new development. Dispersed development increases the distance and expense involved in providing roads, water, sewerage, and other public services. An analysis covering 152 cities and counties in the Republic of Korea (ROK) found that a 1% expansion in urbanized area was associated with a 0.68% increase in water and sewerage infrastructure project costs. Fragmented development can also divide habitats, alter water flows, increase exposure to floods and landslides, and weaken the environmental and visual quality of urban areas. Managing sprawl is therefore not simply a matter of controlling private construction. It is a public policy challenge involving the efficient use of land, infrastructure financing, environmental protection, and the distribution of development benefits and burdens. The ROK’s experience shows why rapidly urbanizing countries need a policy system that can both restrain harmful development and guide necessary growth. This policy brief is adapted from Managing Urban Sprawl (2025), published by the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements. Why Unplanned Growth Took Hold Rapid industrialization and urbanization sharply increased demand for housing and industrial land in the ROK. Much of that demand shifted toward urban fringes, where land was cheaper and development controls were weaker. Planning systems did not initially provide enough serviced land or effectively coordinate development across urban and non-urban areas. As a result, individual projects could proceed without adequate roads, water, sewerage, or other supporting infrastructure. Economic incentives reinforced this pattern. Lower land prices outside established urban areas made peripheral development attractive, while weaknesses or inconsistencies in regulation created opportunities for piecemeal development. Responsibility was also divided among agencies and levels of government. When land-use, environmental, agricultural, and infrastructure policies were not aligned, gaps in oversight made coherent growth management more difficult. The challenge changed as cities moved through different stages of development. During rapid urbanization, the immediate priority was to distinguish land intended for development from land requiring conservation. With suburbanization, the task shifted to channeling continued development demand toward planned locations and ensuring that infrastructure kept pace with development. More recently, some cities have faced shrinking sprawl: continued outward development alongside population decline, vacant housing, and idle land. A policy suited to one stage of urban growth may therefore become inadequate at another. Policy Design: From Restriction to Planned Growth The Republic of Korea initially relied on strong regulatory instruments. Zoning separated incompatible land uses and controlled the type and density of development. Development restriction zones, often referred to as greenbelts, constrained outward expansion and preserved land around major urban areas. Development permits provided project-level control over construction and land conversion. These measures created an essential legal and spatial foundation, but restrictions alone could not absorb continuing demand for homes, factories, and services. Over time, the policy framework expanded toward instruments that guided where and how development should occur. Land suitability assessments provided a basis for distinguishing areas appropriate for development from those better suited to agriculture, conservation, or other uses. Planned urbanization areas identified the location and scale of future development, allowing land to be supplied when needed. District-unit plans established more detailed standards for particular locations. Infrastructure-levy areas required developers to help finance the infrastructure required by new development. Growth management plans coordinated individual development activities, encouraged projects to cluster in appropriate locations, and linked additional development rights to compliance with planning and infrastructure requirements. The resulting toolkit combined three functions: restricting development where necessary, directing growth toward planned locations, and reducing the public cost of infrastructure required by private development. Its innovative feature was not a single instrument, but the gradual integration of regulatory, planning, and cost-sharing mechanisms as urban conditions changed. Figure 1: Structure and Linkages of Republic of Korea’s Non-Urbanized Area Development Management System Note: The Development Restriction Zone System is not included.Source: Adapted from Koo, 2015, 56. Policy Implementation: Adapt Institutions as well as Instruments Strong central government leadership allowed the ROK to establish land-use controls quickly during rapid urbanization. This top-down approach generated policy momentum and visible short-term results, but it did not always reflect residents' perspectives. Restrictions affecting land values and construction rights generated opposition, conflicts among stakeholders, and constitutional challenges concerning private property rights. Implementation consequently evolved alongside policy design. Local governments gained a larger role in preparing plans, while mechanisms for resident input were expanded. This shift supported more flexible and locally informed decision-making, although effective implementation continued to depend on administrative capacity, coordination among agencies, and consistent enforcement. Frontline implementation is particularly demanding because local governments must evaluate permit applications, monitor development, coordinate infrastructure, mediate conflicts, and respond to illegal development or deliberately fragmented projects. Policy blind spots can emerge when agencies apply different standards or when ministerial responsibilities are unclear. Technical personnel, reliable spatial information, sufficient budgets, and channels for interagency coordination are therefore integral to the policy system rather than secondary implementation concerns. Outcomes: Meaningful Gains, but Persistent Trade-Offs Available evidence indicates that the combined approach produced meaningful gains. Research in Daejeon found that development restriction zones helped curb outward expansion. Regulatory measures also preserved green spaces and controlled development activities that could create negative externalities. Planned urbanization areas helped guide future growth and make land available for development when needed. In Sejong, a study found that the infrastructure cost-sharing rate increased significantly in areas designated as growth management planning zones, indicating a greater share of development-related infrastructure costs being borne by developers. These results should not be read as proof that the policy system eliminated sprawl. The effects were uneven, and strong controls produced unintended consequences. Tightening restrictions in one place could redirect development pressure elsewhere, creating a balloon effect. Regulations could also widen differences in land values, constrain property rights, and intensify conflict among landowners, developers, residents, and civic groups. Some mechanisms faced opposition and implementation challenges, including the calculation and collection of infrastructure charges. The present framework also has unresolved gaps. More cities are entering a stage of shrinking sprawl, but existing instruments do not yet address it adequately. Because the effects of growth-management policies are multidimensional and may take time to appear, performance assessment needs to consider not only whether development was controlled, but also environmental quality, infrastructure efficiency, stakeholder satisfaction, and unintended displacement. Regular evaluation and feedback are needed so instruments can be revised as urban conditions change. Recommendations The Republic of Korea offers a pathway rather than a package for replication. Governments confronting rapid and disorderly urban expansion can draw five lessons from its experience. 1. Establish the legal and spatial foundation first. Zoning, development boundaries, and permit systems can distinguish land for growth from land for conservation. Clear rules are especially important when development pressure is high and planning capacity is still developing. 2. Move from restriction toward planned growth. As demand and institutional capacity grow, governments should add instruments that identify future urbanization areas, coordinate individual projects, and link development with infrastructure. Controls that only prohibit development may redirect pressure without resolving it. 3. Make infrastructure part of the development decision. New development should be accompanied by realistic plans for roads, water, sewerage, and other services. Cost-sharing mechanisms can help reduce the fiscal burden on the public sector, but the basis for calculating them must be transparent and locally appropriate. 4. Strengthen local implementation and participation. Local governments need personnel, spatial data, budgets, monitoring systems, and clear authority. Early engagement with residents, landowners, developers, and civil society can identify potential conflicts and improve the acceptability of decisions affecting land and property rights. 5. Localize, pilot, evaluate, and adjust. Policy instruments should be adapted to the adopting country's land tenure system, legal framework, administrative capacity, social expectations, and stage of urbanization. Pilot projects can generate practical experience and data before wider application. Evaluation should track intended outcomes and unintended effects, allowing the policy mix to evolve over time. Resource Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements. 2025. Managing Urban Sprawl. Ask the Experts Hyeongsu Koo Research Fellow, Urban Policy and Disaster Prevention Research Center, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements Hyeongsu Koo is a research fellow at the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, where he has worked since 2009. His research covers urban shrinkage, growth management, land use, and urban and regional planning. He holds a master’s degree in urban planning and completed Ph.D. coursework in urban planning at Seoul National University. His work examines spatial development challenges and policy approaches for managing urban growth and decline. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS) Established in 1978, KRIHS is committed to enhancing the quality of life and well-being of the Korean people through spatial planning studies and policy suggestions. It has carried out studies on the efficient use, development, and conservation of territorial resources. Its research areas range from sustainable and balanced territorial development and conservation of the territory to the provision of housing and infrastructure. Leave your question or comment in the section below: View the discussion thread.