Location DecisionsLocation DecisionsABSTRACT: Current practice in the control of urban air pollution concentrates on reducing emissions from both fixed and mobile sources directly, without consideration of the fact that (i) zonal restrictions and relocalization of activities -both directly polluting activities such as industrial sources and transport generating activities- affect emissions, and (ii) that the direct control of emissions impacts the costs of emitting sources, and this in turn affects location decisions. Thus the application of regulations that do not consider these effects can result in unexpected changes in emissions in different parts of the city, in response to underlying economic forces. Modeling this relationship is a difficult task because it involves relating the spatial distribution of sources that are responsive to economic conditions, with their emission and abatement cost characteristics. In response to this challenge, this research project presents a methodological proposition to determine an urban location/emission pattern, which can be used to predict the net cost and emission result of controls on location of activities and unit emissions. Specifically, implementing a self organizing neural network is proposed in order to model the relationship between local urban configuration parameters with the local characteristics of emissions and abatement costs. This model has been implemented for the 34 districts of Santiago and allows estimating changes in emissions of two pollutants (PM-10 and NOx) resulting from relocation of activities. The results show that zonal regulations imposing minor changes in urban location can change the emission pattern of the whole city. Thus, for long term environmental planning it is necessary to evaluate the impacts on emission of policies affecting location decisions.
1 IntroductionSince the beginning of history, cities appear to an observer as local population clusters defined by noticeable differences regarding land use, both qualitative as well as in intensity. These patterns reveal the presence of distinctive advantages provided by specific locations. Thus, for instance dockyards are near waterways, fortresses and garrisons are built on high ground, having brothels and taverns in their proximity. This happened long before urban planning boards and other regulatory efforts came into effect, suggesting that land use differentiation obey some self-organizing process far removed from state control.
Traditionally, cities have been the source for social and economic development. As centers for industry and trading, they harbor most of the wealth and political power. Nowadays, cities are the visible outcome of a process oriented to take advantage of a topology which minimizes transport and information costs between economic agents. Furthermore, the process appears to be successful; beginning from a critical mass cities show a tendency to grow, disregarding natural disasters there are no known examples of disappearance. This tendency is particularly evident in developing countries, leading to megapolis in a relatively brief period of time. Additionally, the elements conditioning this growth show no signs of decaying, therefore population growth in cities will continue to be higher than the overall demographic growth rate.
In cities, human population growth is a direct result of the natural and social environment. Human rights are rights with dignity. In cities, such rights are enshrined, even if they are technically violated, under the law. Similarly, human rights are recognized in a manner that allows for an objective interpretation, especially by governments that are willing to commit themselves to legal measures that prevent human progress. Some jurisdictions, particularly those of the European Union and North American countries, do not allow for the right of citizens to be considered victims in the courts, since the legal system does not permit such rights. In countries without such a system, a court would be established to deal with the human rights problem. However, the legal system does, however, protect human rights with respect to their validity. This is not enough to make citizens who are considered victims of human rights equal. These rights may not be equal with the right to equal treatment or to justice, but they are a right to respect and protect them, and rights do not become the domain of different legal and regulatory bodies. For example, some people outside Europe, such as asylum seekers, may have rights because they are in one of the cities. However, for the same individual, including asylum seekers, these rights will only diminish, and the rights would cease in that city.[2]
In cities, individuals are not protected by laws. Legal and regulatory agencies protect the rights of residents, but individuals who wish to remain citizens also are entitled to take measures. For example, if you reside in an area which has been designated as “homesteadable” by someone from outside, the housing authority can impose temporary restrictions to such individuals. The government will then take such action to stop people from obtaining access to their homes, including the creation of the new housing and relocation of those who have no prior residence. For the same individual, there may be similar government control. For instance, government in many countries is often able to restrict the legal presence of persons who are able to live freely and for long enough based on evidence.[3] This can prevent an individual from entering the city, so long as the housing authority does not allow them to. As an example, the government of New York may forbid people from leaving until the last year; in practice, there are already instances of people who have voluntarily moved out of their existing housing and found permanent permanent housing. In some cities in America, people who cannot leave and who live on the basis of lack of affordable housing have faced fines. To prevent this situation arising, local authorities take care not to allow residents to move to other cities with their own laws and to refuse to allow people to return to their hometowns until a solution to the residents’ problems can be found.
If citizens lack a place to live, they are not entitled to a housing subsidy and are also denied their right to a job. Even if economic services are provided by the government, many employees with the same employer as them will not be able to take advantage of them. Furthermore, the government may impose a significant tax on employees and their families when they fail to hire new employees for a certain time.[4] Such a situation can lead to difficulties for both residents of the city and temporary shelter that can provide some relief. However, in most cities, the government does not have the ability to determine if this is the case. Moreover
In cities, human population growth is a direct result of the natural and social environment. Human rights are rights with dignity. In cities, such rights are enshrined, even if they are technically violated, under the law. Similarly, human rights are recognized in a manner that allows for an objective interpretation, especially by governments that are willing to commit themselves to legal measures that prevent human progress. Some jurisdictions, particularly those of the European Union and North American countries, do not allow for the right of citizens to be considered victims in the courts, since the legal system does not permit such rights. In countries without such a system, a court would be established to deal with the human rights problem. However, the legal system does, however, protect human rights with respect to their validity. This is not enough to make citizens who are considered victims of human rights equal. These rights may not be equal with the right to equal treatment or to justice, but they are a right to respect and protect them, and rights do not become the domain of different legal and regulatory bodies. For example, some people outside Europe, such as asylum seekers, may have rights because they are in one of the cities. However, for the same individual, including asylum seekers, these rights will only diminish, and the rights would cease in that city.[2]
In cities, individuals are not protected by laws. Legal and regulatory agencies protect the rights of residents, but individuals who wish to remain citizens also are entitled to take measures. For example, if you reside in an area which has been designated as “homesteadable” by someone from outside, the housing authority can impose temporary restrictions to such individuals. The government will then take such action to stop people from obtaining access to their homes, including the creation of the new housing and relocation of those who have no prior residence. For the same individual, there may be similar government control. For instance, government in many countries is often able to restrict the legal presence of persons who are able to live freely and for long enough based on evidence.[3] This can prevent an individual from entering the city, so long as the housing authority does not allow them to. As an example, the government of New York may forbid people from leaving until the last year; in practice, there are already instances of people who have voluntarily moved out of their existing housing and found permanent permanent housing. In some cities in America, people who cannot leave and who live on the basis of lack of affordable housing have faced fines. To prevent this situation arising, local authorities take care not to allow residents to move to other cities with their own laws and to refuse to allow people to return to their hometowns until a solution to the residents’ problems can be found.
If citizens lack a place to live, they are not entitled to a housing subsidy and are also denied their right to a job. Even if economic services are provided by the government, many employees with the same employer as them will not be able to take advantage of them. Furthermore, the government may impose a significant tax on employees and their families when they fail to hire new employees for a certain time.[4] Such a situation can lead to difficulties for both residents of the city and temporary shelter that can provide some relief. However, in most cities, the government does not have the ability to determine if this is the case. Moreover
According to World Bank estimates, 80% of the economic growth in developing countries will take place in cities and towns, thus establishing a powerful incentive for urban migration. Moreover, urban benefits extend themselves further into better health care, more cultural opportunities, diversity, creativity, innovation and better quality of life.
However, there are negative externalities associated to this favorable setting. In effect, urban atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion are part of the landscape in most megapolis; stress and frustration have a definite negative impact on productivity and welfare. For instance, some quantitative estimates for these externalities based merely on wasted time, place annual values ranging from 272 to 1000 USD million for Bangkok.
Intuitively, it may be construed that these losses stem from inefficiencies in city morphology; an undesirable macro-behavior resulting from individual micro-motives, supposedly following a rational optimization process. This difficulty in reconciling individual rationality with the observed aggregate outcome was characterized by Thomas C. Schelling [8] more than two decades ago, leading to active Economics research in the area of artificial agents. As will be seen further down, this approach appears in most of the contemporary research on urban morphology, where the concept of artificial agents takes a formal structure based on cellular automata.
The regulatory response to deal with this problem consists in urban zoning, that is to prescribe