Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
1. Research context
There is a widespread deem that urbanisation is the outcome of the configuration of modern human society. The 19th century, which assumed to be the era of modernization all over the world, has experienced rapid urbanisation. For instance, urban population has increased from less than 14 percent to more than 50 percent of the world’s population during 1900-2000 and if this growth continues, urban population in the world will arrive at 4.72 -5.00 billion in 2030 (increase of 48.61-57.84 percent comparing to the current population) comparing to 6.835-8.135 billion (18.71 percent) increase in total population and 3.348-3.267 billion (2.42 percent) decrease in rural population. Nevertheless, the devastating situation will be at the developing countries, where the urban population growth is forecasted to be 74.17 percent in 2030 comparing to the current population (Zhang, 2008). Interestingly, maximum of this urban population agglomeration is in largest cities, especially megaciites (Li, 2003) and these megacities are growing at an unprecedented rate. For example, in 1950 there were only 4 megacities, which increase to 28 in 1980, 39 in 2002; and 59 in 2015 (UN 2002).
Then the question arises which criteria define the megacities. Some urban geographers tried to define the megacities based on the global economic power or influence. With the exception of Lo and Yeung’s (1998) ‘Globalization and the World of Large Cities’, which includes Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo and Johannesburg, and more recently systematic work by Taylor (2000), Lo and Marcotullio (2000), Taylor and Walker (2001) and Shin and Timberlake (2000) much of these works (Friedmann, 1986; Sassen, 2004) have either focused on the developed world or merely mentioned ‘megacities’ in the developing world (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002).
However, an extensive debate has still been going on the definition of megacities. United Nations categorize the megacities with population of 8 millions while Asian Development Bank extends the population limit to 10 million along with other characteristics such as complex economy and integrated transport system.
Thus, discussion takes into account the ‘population greater than 10 millions’ as an indicator of megacities. According to the World Population Report 2001 by UNFPA, currently there are 19 megacities such as Tokyo (26.4 millions), Mexico City (18.1 millions), Mumbai (18.1 millions), São Paulo (17.8 millions), Shanghai (17 millions), New York (16.6 millions), Lagos (13.4 millions), Los Angeles (13.1 millions), Calcutta (12.9 millions), Buenos Aires (12.6 millions), Dhaka (12.3 millions), Karachi (11.8 millions), New Delhi (11.7 millions), Jakarta (11 millions), Osaka (11 millions), Metro Manila (10.9 millions), Beijing (10.6 millions), Reo de Janeiro (10.6 millions) and Cairo (10.6 millions). Still there is a controversy about the geographical extent of these megacities.
Even some of these megacities are growing on forming the urban corridors (Tokyo-Yokohama-Nagoya-Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Shinkansen in Japan, Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan in northeastern China; and the Mumbai-Pune development corridor in India) and urban mega-clusters (national capital Region of Delhi, Dhaka, and Metro Manila; Karachi mega-urban region, Bangkok-Thonburi metropolitan region, and Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi region).
This continuing growth of megacities is now the burning research topic of the policy makers as well as international communities (Renaud, 1981; UN, 1993) and different policies are already been applied to counterpart this rapid urbanisations in megacities such as China, Egypt, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and China have promoted different promotional programs (e.g. dual track urban system) for patronizing the medium size cities in their respective country level (Henderson, 2002; Ades and Glaeser, 1995). Still a comprehensive strategy needs to be initiated in order to counterpart the unprecedented rate of urbanisation and urban agglomeration.
2. Overall aim and objectives
The overall aim of the thesis is to determine the economic value of land at the urban fringe of a megacity in developing country. Based on the aim, the objectives are categorised into two broad areas – theoretical objectives and empirical objectives.
To examine the extent of influence of urbanisation process, and land acquisition and speculation, by both the public and private sectors, on the dynamics of urban agglomeration or urban sprawl.
To examine the changing urban spatial patterns of the megacites due to sprawl and to explain them within the framework of different urban growth theories.
To examine the nature, characteristics, and dynamics of urban land and the land market within which land assembles, urban renewal, gentrification and development has taken place.
To identify different spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining land price.
To develop an economic instrument, considering both spatial and temporal aspects of land, for understanding the dynamics of the land price at urban fringe of a megacity in developing country
To determine the extent of influence of environmental attributes on the price of urban-rural interface lands.
In order to attain the objectives, the research will be carried out by following the comprehensive methodology, the structure of which is given below:
The detail of the methodology and structure of the chapters to attain the objectives is given below:
Organizati-on of chapters
Objective 1: Definition of urbanisation and urban agglomeration; reasons; challenges; trend of urbanisation in developed and developing countries; growth pattern of different hierarchy of urban settlements; socio-economic, political and physical characteristics of urban settlements; economic, institutional, and political factors of rural-urban migration; government policies and urban politics in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration; concept, nature, characteristics and dynamics of megacities; spatial pattern of megacities; cases and consequences of rapid urbanisation and urban space challenges especially in megacities.
Literature review of journal, books and reports of different organisations working on urbanisation and urban agglomeration
Objective 2: Urban land economic theories (such as classical theories, neo-classical theories, new economic geographic theories, and new institutional economic theories) in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration
Literature review of journal and books
Objective 3: Dynamics of urban land market, urban land politics, actors of urban land politics, contemporary urban land regulatory mechanisms and their acceptability in different contexts, planning mechanisms for controlling land conversion or development at the urban fringe, land acquisition process, government strategy for land ceiling standard and land speculation, actors controlling the land market, impact of land use change on the wetlands and agricultural lands at urban fringe and challenges for attaining sustainability.
Literature review of journal, books, reports of different organisations, and government policies, strategic plans, rules, and regulations.
Objective 4: Different types of spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining the land price at urban fringe
Literature review of journal and books. Software for Spatio-temporal autoregressive analysis
Objective 5: variables or attributes explaining land market at urban fringe, compatible econometric instrument for drawing the equation of land market at urban fring
Application of spatio-temporal econometric model for regression analysis
Objective 6: economic valuation of environmental attributes and its influence on the land market at urban fringe
4. Theoretical framework
Various factors are attributed to the urbanisation in megacities such as rural-urban migration (Goldstein, 1990; Chan, 1994a,1994b; Rempel, 1996; Ma, 1999), natural population increase and even the government policies (Lo, 1994; Sit, 1995; Lin, 2004; Bloom et al., 2008) on foreign direct investment (Sit and Yang, 1997; Shen, 1999; Shen et al., 2000), expansion of tertiary industries (Lin, 2002) and economic transition (Gu and Wall, 2007). This section explores the reasons behind the urbanisation and urban agglomeration in megacities, and spatial patterns of megacities.
There is a significant positive correlation between the economic development and urbanisation (Henderson, 2003), which can better be explained by the hypothesis of Williamson (1965) (Hansen, 1990). Due to the economic development of the city, the significant amount of industries are concentrated within the city core and this upshots in development of knowledge, skills, and economic infrastructure which leads to development of physical structures such as transport and communications. This physical development make obligatory to the investors or manufacturers to recalculate the cost-benefit analysis of the geographical locations of their industries taking into account the external and internal economies of scale- resulting in urban expansion or deconcentration of industries from the urban core (El-Shakhs, 1972; Alonso, 1980; Wheaton and Shishido, 1981; Junius, 1999; Davis and Henderson, 2003; Barro and Sala-I-Martin, 1991, 1992; Kuznets, 1966; Abramovitz, 1989; Easterlin, 2000). This argument is vivid by reviewing different literatures on the economic growth and urbanisation in megacities (Aguilar and Ward, 2003; Firman, 1997; Fanni, 2006).
However, the basic assumption of urbanisation is the rural-urban migration. According to the western economists, urbanisation/ rural-urban migration is the resultant of increase in the productivity of agricultural sector and the increasing demand for labour needed by an expanding industrial sector. This economic model was adopted for the western economics, which was later tried to adopt in the urbanisation pattern of the third world countries by Lewis (1994). Nevertheless, the increasing rural-urban migration, despite the high unemployment and underemployment situation in urban areas of developing countries, raises the question of its validity. Later on, comparative evaluation of expected wage rates between urban and rural (by Harris-Todaro migration model), and present value of expected benefits and costs (by Sjaasted migration model) were identified as the key economic factors of urbanisation process. Brueckner and Zenou (1999) and Brueckner and Kim (2001) have incorporate the effects of land price escalation due to the migration within the Harris-Todaro model. Furthermore, classical economists (e.g. (Gordon, 1975; Petty, 1683; Yang, 1991; Yang and Rice, 1994; Sun, 2000; Sun and Yang, 2002; Zhang and Zhao, 2004) and neo-classical economists (e.g. Fujita-Krugman, 1995; Helpman, 1998; Lowry, 1966) try to project the ‘division of labor and production’, and ‘economies of scale’ as the basic economic prerequisite of urbanisation respectively.
Government policies and urban politics
After the economic development, the next significant characteristic of urbanisation in megacities is government interventions or policies (Renaud, 1981; Ades and Glaeser, 1995; Moomaw and Shatter, 1996; Henderson and Becker, 2000; Davis and Henderson, 2003) by sometimes prioritizing the megacities over other cities during decisive policymaking (Fujita et al., 1999). This may cause because of their political significance and interest of the elites and bureaucrats (such as in Bangkok, Mexico City, Jakarta, and Paris, São Paulo). For promoting economic development in the megacities, the government (either national or local) of concerned countries sometime has taken promotion strategies such as in Shanghai, China (Cai, 1995; Han, 2000; Fu, 2001); Jakarta, Indonesia (Firman, 2000; Goldblum and Wong, 2000; Henderson and Kuncoro, 1996; Kaiser, 1999); Manila, Philippines (Kelly, 2003; Bankoff, 1996; Sidel, 1999); Mumbai and Delhi, India (Valerie, 1999); Cairo, Egypt (Sutton and Fahmi, 2001); and even in London, Paris and New York (Lever, 1997; Short and Kim, 1999; Tickell, 1998)..
However, the impact of dynamic government polices on urbanisation and urban agglomeration is most acute in China such as ‘Socialist Economic theory’ based urban-biased Hukou system during the ‘pre-reform’ period (Oi, 1993; Naughton, 1996; Zhang and Zhao, 2004; Chan, 1994a, 1996; Gu and Shen, 2003; Sit, 1995; Harrison, 1972; Murphey, 1974; Ma, 1976; Nolan and White, 1984; Prybyla, 1987; Kirkby, 1985; Kang, 1993; Chan, 1994b; Liu, 1999; Ma and Fan, 1994; Buck, 1981; Parish, 1987; Ofer, 1977; Konrad and Szelenyi, 1977; Ronnas and Sjoberg, 1993; Sjoberg, 1999; Kirkby, 1985; Kang, 1993; Chan, 1994b; Solinger, 1999; Lieberthal, 1995; Fallenbuchl, 1977; Zhang and Zhao, 1998; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2000; Konrad and Szelenyi, 1977; Ofer, 1977, 1980; Musil, 1980; Murray and Szelenyi, 1984), especially in China (Cell, 1979; Orleans, 1982; Whyte, 1983; Ran and Berry, 1989; Ebanks and Cheng, 1990; Yu, 1995; Tang, 1997; Song and Timberlake, 1996; Lin, 1998; Dong and Putterman, 2000). Later on, ‘post-reform policy’ also boosted the urbanisation by encouraging the foreign and private investments in megacities (Banister and Taylor, 1989; Shen and Spence, 1995; Shen, 2002; Shen et al., 2006).
However, the national or local government is not solely responsible for urbanisation, urban development as well as urban expansion. Then the question is: Who runs the cities? Government interventions or policies in the urban strategic planning for political significance and interest of the elites and bureaucrats are proverbial in the cities of both developed and developing world (Renaud, 1981; Ades and Glaeser, 1995; Moomaw and Shatter, 1996; Henderson and Becker, 2000; Davis and Henderson, 2003). This is why; urban theorists are focusing on urban politics rather than on economic attributes in formulating state policies for urban development (Sites, 1997; Cockburn, 1977; Castells, 1979; Stone, 1993; 1998). Nevertheless, the influence of urban politics in urban planning priorities in different parts of the world is very complicated because urban politics are viewed from different perspectives. State-centred perspective argued for key role of government, autonomy of the state or the local state and pre-eminence of political attributes in strategic planning (Steinmo, 1989; King, 1995; Thornley, 1998; Evans et al., 1985; Gurr and King, 1987), while coalition politics (Stone, 1987, 1989, 1993; Sites, 1997; Elkin, 1987; Harding, 1994; Gurr and King, 1987; Turner, 1992; DiGaetano and Klemanski, 1993; Orren and Skowronek, 1994) argued for public-private partnership for implementing planning strategies because either for the vulnerability of local government in inter-city economic competition or for the division of labour. This is why; various urban theorists (Park and Burgess, 1925; Dahl; 1967; Wirth, 1969; Jacobs; 1969; 1984; Saunders, 1983; Rae, 2004), who tried to entangle urban politics within their own theories, either failed or misinterpret the urban planning practices.
The basic controversy of urban politics lies within two distinct definitions of community power (Polsby, 1980; Harding, 1995; Judge, 1995) – power within communities and the power of communities (Harding, 1997). The first is concerned with ‘social production’ and ‘power to’ while the latter on is with ‘social control’ and ‘power over’ (Stone, 1989). ‘Power within communities’, also known as ‘urban regime’ prompts integration or political coalition of civic groups and public institutions (Dowding et al. 1999; Shefter, 1985; Elkin, 1987; Stone and Sanders, 1987; Mollenkopf, 1992; Turner, 1992; Di Gaetano and Klemanski, 1993; Davies 2001, 2003; Stone, 1989, 2002, 2005; Peck and Tickell, 1995) at different levels of intensity and clarity (Stone, 2005) for economic development and physical regeneration or gentrification (Harding, 1997; Elkin, 1987; Stone and Sanders, 1987; Stone, 1989) and urban growth machines (Molotch, 1976, 1990; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Molotch and Logan, 1990). On the other hand, ‘power of communities’ is more concerned about the acting power of the actors rather than coalitions and is defined by elite and pluralist theories. Beyond the community power debate, another significant factor of city’s strategic planning is the politics of globalization (Harding, 1997), which strengthens subnational autonomy and declines national importance (Ohmae, 1993).
This can be elucidated by evaluating the role of business sectors on the local civic life of US and European cities. For instance, business-sectors of US cities are remarkably organized, who have strong influence on land ownership and land use planning, taxation and revenue distribution, private credit and public borrowing (Stone, 2005), election campaigns of local as well as national political leaders (Elkin, 1987) and resulting in they are within the governing system. Furthermore, the weaker capital investment by local government has persuaded for effective regime (Davis, 2003). Encouraged by the successful history of urban regime in US, Thatcher government took an ambitious initiative to install this US policy within new dimension of urban regeneration partnerships in UK (Berger and Foster, 1982; Boyle, 1985; Ward, 1996; Wolman, 1992) without resolving three questions – What will be the role of development coalitions in the city politics as a whole? What types of private-sector activities will lead business-sector involvement in the coalitions? How can the activity balance between public and private sector be achieved? (Harding, 1997). Furthermore, some urban scholars attempted to exploit the regime concept in the European contexts (Vicari and Molotch, 1990; Harding, 1994; Kantor et al., 1997; Di Gaetano and Klemanski, 1999; Mossberger and Stoker, 2000; Zhang, 2002). The US policy was not possible to adopt in the UK context because of the powerful role of central government in the urban politics (Thornley, 1998), lack of bargaining power of urban government, reluctance of local business actors in coalitions (Peck and Tickell, 1995; Davis, 2003). This is why; the attempt has been resulted in different collaborative mechanisms, which were explained by different theories such as Rhodes and Marsh (1992) model of policy network analysis by Stoker and Mossberger (1994), integration of regulation and regime theory by Harding (1994) and Lauria (1997).
Urban politics in the context of developing countries (e.g. Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) are almost similar to the politics of UK rather stronger role of national government and local government. Either military government or monarch or autocrats reined most of these countries throughout the major portion of their history after independence and they have a close tie with the business elites and bureaucrats. Eventually, the business elites and bureaucrats are influencing the urban policy agendas behind the scene. Nevertheless, the context of socialist China is quite complicated, which can be categorized within pre-reform era (before 1978) and post-reform era (from 1978 till today). Urban politics during the pre-reform period was solely contracted by the national government. After the reform policy, the national government had decentralize their economic and political powers among the local government and influential actors. However, the interesting thing is that ‘a clever fox is hiding inside the reform policy’ by controlling the property ownership, leaving the economic burden to the local government, strongly linking the vertical tie at the government level.
Locational economies of production and class segregation
The urbanisation of a city can be a consequence of social division of labour and industrial diversification (Harvey, 1973; Henderson, 2002; Scott, 1986; Weber, 1899; Haig, 1927; Allen, 1929; Perrin, 1937; Florence, 1948; Wise, 1949; Lampard, 1955; Hoover and Vernon, 1959; Hall, 1962; Tsuru, 1963; Sjoberg, 1965; Thiry, 1973; Webber, 1984). This can better be conceptualized by considering vertical and horizontal integration and disintegration of production and labor forces. In case of vertical and horizontal disintegration, the industries or firms try to be concentrated within the core region of a city because various economies of scales (Coase, 1937; Holmes, 1986; Richardson, 1972; Scott, 1983; Pye, 1977) and this was obvious at the earier stage of megacities of developed countries such as New York, London and Paris. On the contrary, when the vertical and horizontal integration of firms or products is strong both in spatial and temporal aspects, geographical expansion of city are more likely to be happened because of internal and external economies of scale (Scott, 1980; Brook et al., 1973; Gilmour, 1971; Abernathy et al., 1983; Piore and Sabel, 1984).
Moreover, urbanisation in megacities is dependent on the type of products such as gold and diamond in Rio de Janeiro, coffee in São Paulo, manufacturing industries in Seoul, tertiary activities in London, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo (Duranton and Puga, 2001; Waley, 2009; Mukherjee, 1990; Banerjee, 1985; Glaeser et al., 1995; Lee and Kang, 1989; Lee et al., 2007; Godfrey, 1999).
Most of the megacities are located at the coastal areas because of their strategic geographical location which offer the advantages of trade, communication, and living environment (Godfrey, 1995; Vance 1990). Presently, 60 percent (nearly 3 billion people) or half of the world’s population lives within 100 km or 60km of the shoreline respectively (Yeung, 2001; Hinrichsen, 1990) and it is estimated that this population will be doubled within the upcoming 30 years among which coastal megacities will contribute the lion share of population (Li, 2003). Furthermore, the number of coastal megacities will be increased to 36 from the existing 16 at the year of 2015 of them 30 will be in developing countries and 22 will be in Asia (Kullenberg, 1999). Sometimes policy makers prepare the economic development plans giving prime focus on the coastal cities (Yeung and Hu, 1992) because it is comparatively less perilous to promote economic development plans in coastal cities because of its good and cheap communication and already established structures and physical infrastructures.
On the other hand, capital cities get also locational advantages because of the center of institutions, organizations, information and culture such as Beijing (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002), Metro Manila (Cuervo and Hin, 1998), Delhi, Dhaka, and Jakarta.
Most of the megacities were under the different European colonies such as British, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Historically, European colonials developed these megacities for their defensive and trade functions. For example, apprehension about French incursions, the Portuguese founded Rio de Janeiro in 1565 (Godfrey, 1999); before Spanish era (1521-1898), Manila was the entry-port of Chinese, Indians and Arabian merchants (Cuervo and Hin, 1998); Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are trade oriented port cities due to British colonial legacy; New York was used as commercial center by the Portuguese colonial.
Land speculation and real estate development
Land conversion is a normal part of urban development in both developed and developing world (Pierce, 1981; Lockeretz, 1989; Tsai, 1993; Winoto, 1996; Kustiwan, 1997; Yeh and Li, 1999; Grigg, 1995). Nevertheless, land speculation by real estate developers has been observed at an alarming rate in Mexico City, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Jakarta, Metro Manila and megacities of developing countries (Deng, et al., 2008; Arcadis Euroconsult, 1999; Leaf, 1991, 1993; Akbar and Subroto, 1999; Firman, 2000; Bouteiller and Fouquier, 1995; Goldblum and Wong, 2000).
Spatial pattern of urbanisation in megacities
Megacities had grown to become primate cities at the earlier stage of urbanisation (Parai and Dutt, 1994; McGee and Greenberg, 1992). Megacities now present more polycentric spatial expansion of urban centers and sub-centers following a network pattern that tends to sprawl along major highways and/or railroad lines radiating out from the urban core (Aguilar and Ward, 2003). However, megacities have passed over four stages of urbanisation – urbanisation, suburbanisation, counterurbanisation and reurbanisation (Champion, 2001; Van der Berg et al., 1982; Klaassen et al., 1981; Schweitzer and Steinbrink, 1998) – ‘cyclic model’. In case of ‘urban centre hierarchy’, the consecutive phases of urbanisation can be illustrated as a diffusive wave of differential urbanisation (Pacione, 2001; Geyer and Kontuly, 1993) ( 5).
The first phase (U) explains the concentration of population in the central city due to rapid rural-urban migration, while the second phase (S) shows an increasing population at its urban periphery and decreasing population at the central city. Third phase (D) shows decreasing of population both in central city and urban periphery and the final stage shows increasing of population at both locations.
The first phase (U) explains increasing population in Primary city and intermediate city but decreasing population in the small cities. In the second phase of counterurbanisation (C), reversal situation of first phase is happening after a certain time. In the final, changing rate of net migration is falling down in case of all size of cities. However, the population of primary city will continue to growth for a certain time thereafter it will fall. On the other hand, the population of intermediate city will reach to the optimum level while population of small cities are still growing.
Megacities in Latin America – Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and São Paulo – are in suburbanisation stage because of the continuation of heavy concentration of production activities and population in the urban core and expanding towards sub-urban areas or fringe areas (Faría 1989; Sassen 1994; Pereira 1967; Caldeira 1996; Aguilar and Ward, 2003; Gwynne, 1985; UNCHS, 1996; Aguilar, 1999a and 1999b; Campolina 1994; Parnreiter, 2002; Ward, 1998; Vance, 1990). There is different argument about the urbanisation stage of Latin American megacities such as Townroe and Keene (1984) and Gilbert (1993) claim that megacities of Latin America are in counterurbanisation stage as the secondary city growth is underway with a polycentric urban form suggestive of polarization reversal with the growth of intermediate sized cities leading to a more balanced national urban structure.
Megacities of Southeast Asian are also in suburbanisation stage because of the fusion of urban and rural functions that is a mix of rural and urban activities in peri-urban areas and known as extended metropolitan region (desakota) (Gingsburg et al., 1991; McGee and Robinson, 1995; Firman, 1996; Forbes, 1997; Murakami et al., 2005).
However, Beijing is still quite monocentric, and its CBD continues to contain a large share of the metropolitan area’s total employment, largely because of the centrality of various urban amenities, and because of the concentration of government activities in Beijing (Zheng and Kahn, 2008). On the other hand, other megacities of China – Shanghai and Guangzhou – are shifting their urban spatial pattern from monocentric form to polycentric form.
Lagos of Nigeria is still in urbanisation stage and there are no evidence of meta-urban or peri-urban development (Briggs and Mwamfupe, 2000; Yeboah, 2000) rather city growth is contained within clearly defined boundaries.
Megacities in Western Europe and United States are the stage of reurbanisation (Antrop, 2000, 2004) such as Paris (Sallez and Burgi, 2004; Cavailhes et al., 2004), New York (Godfrey, 1995; Preston and McLafferty, 1993), and London (Bendixson, 2004).
5. Research Timeframe for initial 9 months
Discussion on the context, key features and material sources of the research
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework on the contextual terminologies on urbanisation and agglomeration
Chapter 1: Fixation of aims and objectives, and development of methodology and research structure
Preparation and presentation of 100-days viva
Chapter 2: (objective 1) Literature review
Chapter 3: (objective 2) Literature review
6. Research Timeframe for 3 years
Discussion on the context, key features and material sources of the research
Literature Review stage
Sample size formulation
Primary data collection
Secondary data collection
Data verification, editing and input
Chapter 6: Methodology
Chapter 7: Data analysis
Chapter 8: Objective 5 and 6
Evaluation and conclusion
Chapter 9: Findings
Chapter 10: Recommendations and Implementation guidelines
Chapter 11: Conclusion
Final presentation and submission
Abernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B., and Kantrow, A. M. (1983). Industrial renaissance: Producing a competitive future for America. New York: Basic Books.
Abramovitz, M. (1989). Thinking about Growth: And Other Essays on Economic Growth and Welfare. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ades, A. F., and E. L. Glaeser. (1995). “Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 195-227.
Aguilar, A G (1999a). “Mexico City growth and regional dispersal: the expansion of largest cities and new spatial forms,” Habitat International 23(3), 391-412.
Aguilar, A G (1999b). “La Ciudad de Me´xico en la Region Centro. Nuevas Formas de la Expansio´n Metropolitana”. In: Transiciones. La Nueva Formacio´n Territorial de la Ciudad de México, (eds.) J. Delgado and B. RamÄ±´rez, pp. 147-169. Programa de Investigacion Metropolitana-UAM, Plaza y Valdez, Mexico.
Aguilar, A. G., and Ward, P. M. (2003). “Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: analyzing Mexico city’s peri-urban hinterland,” Cities 20 (1), 3-21.
Akbar, D. B., and Subroto B., 1999. “Northern bandung area development” Unpublished Paper, Department of Regional and City Planning, Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesian.
Alonso, W. (1980). “Five Bell Shapes in Development,” Papers of the Regional Science Associations, 45, 5-16.
Antrop, M., (2000). “Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe,” Landsc. Ecol. 15, 257-270.
Antrop, M. (2004). “Landscape change and the urbanisation process in Europe”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 9-26.
Arcadis Euroconsult, 1999. “Land aquisition and development control” Final Report, National Planning Agency and Land Development Agency, Jakarta.
Banerjee, N. (1985). Women Workers in the Unorganized Sector: The Calcutta Experience. Hyderabad: Sangain Books.
Banister, J., and Taylor, J. R. (1989). “China: surplus rural labour and migration,” Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 4(4), 3-20.
Bankoff, G. (1996). “Legacy of the past, promise of
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: