IamLliw

The increasing rate of urbanization has been accompanied by a corresponding rise in number of urban studies (Wang, et al., 2011). With most of the world’s population now living in urbanized regions, it becomes fair to ask how does living in cities affect society? Are there differences now that did not exist in previous social arrangements when urban life was the exception and not the norm? Along these lines, I wanted to look at a more fundamental assumption about urbanization – that urbanization drives economic growth, leading to better income levels and standards of living. My first question is simply, does urbanization drive economic growth and improve income levels and standards of living? Alternatively, the question could be asked if urbanization truly drives economic development leading to better living standards or are the roles reversed – does economic development precede urbanization? I will be using the urbanization variables from the Gapminder data set for my code book (e.g. income and urban population).

Additionally, if the data proves that urbanization is indeed the driver for better living conditions globally, the next step would be to examine if there is a threshold to that effect. How much effect does a country’s level of urbanization have on its economy (such as income levels and employment) and standard of living (such as inequality, mortality rate, and urban poverty)? Is there a globally uniform degree of urbanization after which gains are marginal? Does it hold true globally or are there countries that are exceptions? Does urbanization affect different populations of people differently? To investigate these secondary questions, I would need to add in variables such as employment rate and economic structure (based on percentage of different industries) and look at the relationships between the original variables differently.

Literature Review:

The rate of urbanization has been accelerating in the last few decades, driving greater and greater portions of the global population into developed areas. In many ways, city building, or more specifically the development of land, has become an economic force at an unprecedented level. The built environment has been identified as part of the process of capital flows, not only as a repository of wealth but also as a generator of it. Broadly speaking, scholars such as David Harvey (1978), Neil Smith (2008), and Andy Merrifield (2014) theorized that investments in the built environment create physical landscape for production, circulation, exchange, and consumption. Others such as John Friedmann (1986) and Saskia Sassen (1991) looked to cities as centers of economic control and examined a hierarchy of cities through data such as corporate headquarter locations.

Though not specifically focused on urbanization, Thomas Piketty’s (2014) latest book, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, looked at longitudinal income distribution and accumulation of capital through analysis of income tax return data from the World’s Top Income Database and national accounts. Grounded in historical data, his research suggests that wealth is accumulated especially through real estate in the period prior to World War II. Post-World War II, where much of the landed assets of the Western Hemisphere were destroyed, there was a redistribution of wealth. However, as the economy reinvests and redevelops landed assets, capital is starting to accumulate once again, especially in cities where the majority of the world now resides. As such, these scholars implicated the centrality of urbanization, especially in land development and the physical built environment, to economic growth and wealth accumulation.

From a more human-center perspective, urban studies have also looked at cities as centers of human capital that generate economic growth. By drawing larger populations of talent together, cities allow for higher levels productivity. For example, Carlino, Chatterjee, and Hunt (2007) related urban employment density with the rate of invention as defined by the number of patents per capita and demonstrated a positive correlation between the two variables. Others such as Abel, Day, and Gabe (2012) utilized urban GDP, population density, and human capital density based on education to demonstrate a positive relationship between productivity and the density of human capital. Furthermore, the geographic proximity of various services and production centers have been demonstrated to be central to economic productivity (Bottazzi and Gragnolati, 2015; Day and Ellis, 2014; Niel, 2008; Sassen, 1991). These findings suggested that urban agglomeration is essential to driving economic development – leading to higher levels of productivity and income.

Another perspective on the relationship between urbanization and economic growth can be gained by looking more specifically at China, the country with one of the highest rates of growth and urbanization. With its meteoric economic rise after the 1990’s, its urbanization policies have been viewed to particularly as a method of development. Land policies become tied to fiscal policies as local governments actively pursue urban development as a means to generate revenue (Lin and Yi, 2011; Sankhe, Vittal, and Mohan, 2011; Turok and McGranahan, 2011). This path taken by China provides strong evidence for urbanization as the driver of economic growth.

Based on these evidence, it can be concluded that there is a strong linkage between urban development and economic growth. The development paths taken by various growth also suggest a global trend to this phenomena. Data analysis based on GDP, income, and urban population from the Gapminder data set can be expected to produce results that demonstrate urbanization as the force behind economic growth.

Here, the literature then begins to diverge in terms of a global trend, optimal levels of urbanization, and the effects on standards of living by urbanization. Generally, research has shown that urbanization consistently reduce poverty and produce income convergence (DiCecio and Gascon, 2010; Martinez-Vazquez, Panudulkitti, and Timofeev, 2014; Ravallion, Chen, and Sangraula, 2007). However, the effect on poverty reduction is variable. There is no consistently quantifiable relationship between degree of urban development and level of poverty – based on income, health outcomes, GDP, and education outcomes. Castells-Quintana and Royuela (2012) suggested that unemployment levels and economic growth in poorer countries are affected differently. In these countries, urbanization is more likely to be correlated with increasing levels of inequality. Along these concerns of standards of living, it has been observed that urbanization actually reduces the quality of the environment based on pollution emissions data (Li and Ma, 2014). Finally, using GIS, demographic, and GDP data from the last three decades, Chen et al. (2014) concluded that though there are close links between levels of urbanization and economic growth, the rates of both urbanization and economic growth has no particular relationship.

Drawing again from Piketty’s (2014) research on capital and wealth accumulation, urbanization can be concluded to have differentiate effects on different income groups within a nation. Historically, wealth and capital tend to be concentrated within the hands of a few. Recent data suggests a trend back towards this accumulation at the top of the economic structure. If urban development is now the driver of economic growth, it can be expected that those without much income will experience less benefits. This particular segment of the population will be unable to derive gains from urban land development without the wealth to invest. Another issue at hand is the rise in income of managers and executives at disproportionate levels relative to the general income. This new class of professionals produce income relative to their education levels and opportunities that the poorer populations have restricted access to. From this perspective of capital flows, it stands to reason that urbanization have differentiate effects on different urban populations.

From this literature, it appears that though urbanization has a link with standards of living, there is not a globally uniform correlation on raising the standards of living. Countries are affected differently by the process of urbanization, with some drawing gains and benefits while others suffer. On a separate note, there are also different effects on different groups of populations within each country – the wealthy should see more gains in standards of living than the poor. The data on income levels, health outcomes, urban poverty provided by Gapminder should reasonably be expected to reveal evidence that support these claims.

Lastly, a quick note on the complications and problems with this research. One of the biggest difficulties in urban studies is defining what it means to be an urbanized region. Different scholarships have different parameters. Depending on the objectives of the research, some look at density (Abel, Dey, and Gabe 2012; Carlino, Chatterjee, and Hunt, 2007) while others look at absolute quantity (Glaeser, 2014; Sankhe, Vittal, and Mohan, 2011). Still others look at geospatial data on the concentration and type of land-use and develop to determine urbanization (Chen et al. 2014).

Another issue is the matter of scale. By using national level data, differences within countries, between cities and regions become obscured. In this present research, this problem is somewhat mitigated as the objective is to compare data nationally and attempt to draw conclusions about the national and global trends and effects of urbanization on economic growth and standards of living. Yet, because the data, especially demographics, is not attributed by cities, it can be problematic to draw correlations since the demographic data also includes rural areas.

Additionally, government policies are a point of interest. It would be naive to assume that because urbanization and land-use development occurs it will benefit the urban population. The saying that “if you built it, they will come” cannot be applied when so much of urban life is affected directly by institutions and governance. This will be an interesting problem to try to overcome.

In conclusion, this is by no means a comprehensive and exhaustive list of research and problems on this topic. As regards to the present research, It can be reasonably expected that the data will show urbanization to be a driver of economic growth though there will not be a global generalization on its effects on economic growth and standards of living. It is also expected that urbanization will have differentiate effects on different populations. 

References:

Abel, J., Dey, I., and Gabe, T. (2012). Productivity and the Density of Human Capital. Journal of Regional Science, 52(4), 562-586.

Bottazzi, G. and Gragnolati, U. (2015). Cities and Clusters: Economy-Wide and Sector-Specific Effects in Corporate Location. Regional Studies, 49(1), 113-129.

Carlino, G., Chatterjee, S., and Hunt, R. (2007). Urban density and the rate of invention. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 389-419.

Chen, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W., and Zhang, W. (2014). The Global Pattern of Urbanization and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Three Decades. Plos One, 9(8), e103799.

Cohen, B. (2004). Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts. World Development, 32(1), 23-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.04.008.

Day, J. and Ellis, P. (2014). Urbanization for Everyone: Benefits of Urbanization in Indonesia’s Rural Regions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 140(3), 04014006.

DiCecio, R. and Gascon, C. (2010). Income convergence in the United States: a tale of migration and urbanization. Annual Regional Science, 45, 365-377. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-008-0284-1.

Friedmann, J. (1986). The World City Hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69-83.

Harvey, D. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1-4), 101-131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1978.tb00738.x.

Hong, J. and Fu, S. (2011). Testing Urbanization Economies in Manufacturing Industries: Urban Density or Urban Size? Journal of Regional Science, 51(3), 585-603. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00702.x.

Kanbur, R. and Zhuang, J. (2013). Urbanization and Inequality in Asia. Asia Development Review, 30(1), 131-147.

Glaeser, E. (2014). A World of Cities: The Causes and Consequences of Urbanization in Poorer Countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1154-1199.

Li, S. and Ma, Y. (2014). Urbanization, Economic Development and Environmental Change. Sustainability, 6, 5143-5161. DOI: 10.3390/su6085143.

Lin, G. and Yi, F. (2011). Urbanization of Capital or Capitalization on Urban Land? Land Development and Local Public Finance in Urbanizing China. Urban Geography, 32(1), 50-79. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.1.50.

Martinez-Vazquez, J., Panudulkitti, P., and Timofeev, A. (2014). Urbanization and the poverty level. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 99, 19-46.

Merrifield, A. (2014). The New Urban Question. London: Pluto Press.

Neal, Z. (2008). The duality of world cities and firms: comparing network, hierarchies, and inequalities in the global economy. Global Networks, 8(1), 94-115.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Ravallion, M., Chen, S., and Sangraula, P. (2007). New Evidence on the Urbanization of Global Poverty. Population and Development Review, 33(4), 667-701.

Sankhe, S., Vittal, I., and Mohan, A. (2011). Urban Giants: India and China, and their Urbanization Paths. Environment and Urbanization, 2(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/097542531000200102.

Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Smith, N. (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press.

Turok, I. and McGranahan, G. (2013). Urbanization and economic growth: the arguments and evidence for Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 465-482. DOI: 10.1777/0956247813490908.

Wang, H., He, Q., Liu, X., Zhuang, Y., and Hong S. (2012). Global urbanization research from 1991 to 2009: A systematic research review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 299-309.

[Image via Gapminder]

The increasing rate of urbanization has been accompanied by a corresponding rise in number of urban studies (Wang, et al., 2011). With most of the world’s population now living in urbanized regions, it becomes fair to ask how does living in cities affect society? Are there differences now that did not exist in previous social arrangements when urban life was the exception and not the norm? Along these lines, I wanted to look at a more fundamental assumption about urbanization – that urbanization drives economic growth, leading to better income levels and standards of living. My first question is simply, does urbanization drive economic growth and improve income levels and standards of living? Alternatively, the question could be asked if urbanization truly drives economic development leading to better living standards or are the roles reversed – does economic development precede urbanization? I will be using the urbanization variables from the Gapminder data set for my code book (e.g. income and urban population).

Additionally, if the data proves that urbanization is indeed the driver for better living conditions globally, the next step would be to examine if there is a threshold to that effect. How much effect does a country’s level of urbanization have on its economy (such as income levels and employment) and standard of living (such as inequality, mortality rate, and urban poverty)? Is there a globally uniform degree of urbanization after which gains are marginal? Does it hold true globally or are there countries that are exceptions? Does urbanization affect different populations of people differently? To investigate these secondary questions, I would need to add in variables such as employment rate and economic structure (based on percentage of different industries) and look at the relationships between the original variables differently.

Literature Review:

The rate of urbanization has been accelerating in the last few decades, driving greater and greater portions of the global population into developed areas. In many ways, city building, or more specifically the development of land, has become an economic force at an unprecedented level. The built environment has been identified as part of the process of capital flows, not only as a repository of wealth but also as a generator of it. Broadly speaking, scholars such as David Harvey (1978), Neil Smith (2008), and Andy Merrifield (2014) theorized that investments in the built environment create physical landscape for production, circulation, exchange, and consumption. Others such as John Friedmann (1986) and Saskia Sassen (1991) looked to cities as centers of economic control and examined a hierarchy of cities through data such as corporate headquarter locations.

Though not specifically focused on urbanization, Thomas Piketty’s (2014) latest book, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, looked at longitudinal income distribution and accumulation of capital through analysis of income tax return data from the World’s Top Income Database and national accounts. Grounded in historical data, his research suggests that wealth is accumulated especially through real estate in the period prior to World War II. Post-World War II, where much of the landed assets of the Western Hemisphere were destroyed, there was a redistribution of wealth. However, as the economy reinvests and redevelops landed assets, capital is starting to accumulate once again, especially in cities where the majority of the world now resides. As such, these scholars implicated the centrality of urbanization, especially in land development and the physical built environment, to economic growth and wealth accumulation.

From a more human-center perspective, urban studies have also looked at cities as centers of human capital that generate economic growth. By drawing larger populations of talent together, cities allow for higher levels productivity. For example, Carlino, Chatterjee, and Hunt (2007) related urban employment density with the rate of invention as defined by the number of patents per capita and demonstrated a positive correlation between the two variables. Others such as Abel, Day, and Gabe (2012) utilized urban GDP, population density, and human capital density based on education to demonstrate a positive relationship between productivity and the density of human capital. Furthermore, the geographic proximity of various services and production centers have been demonstrated to be central to economic productivity (Bottazzi and Gragnolati, 2015; Day and Ellis, 2014; Niel, 2008; Sassen, 1991). These findings suggested that urban agglomeration is essential to driving economic development – leading to higher levels of productivity and income.

Another perspective on the relationship between urbanization and economic growth can be gained by looking more specifically at China, the country with one of the highest rates of growth and urbanization. With its meteoric economic rise after the 1990’s, its urbanization policies have been viewed to particularly as a method of development. Land policies become tied to fiscal policies as local governments actively pursue urban development as a means to generate revenue (Lin and Yi, 2011; Sankhe, Vittal, and Mohan, 2011; Turok and McGranahan, 2011). This path taken by China provides strong evidence for urbanization as the driver of economic growth.

Based on these evidence, it can be concluded that there is a strong linkage between urban development and economic growth. The development paths taken by various growth also suggest a global trend to this phenomena. Data analysis based on GDP, income, and urban population from the Gapminder data set can be expected to produce results that demonstrate urbanization as the force behind economic growth.

Here, the literature then begins to diverge in terms of a global trend, optimal levels of urbanization, and the effects on standards of living by urbanization. Generally, research has shown that urbanization consistently reduce poverty and produce income convergence (DiCecio and Gascon, 2010; Martinez-Vazquez, Panudulkitti, and Timofeev, 2014; Ravallion, Chen, and Sangraula, 2007). However, the effect on poverty reduction is variable. There is no consistently quantifiable relationship between degree of urban development and level of poverty – based on income, health outcomes, GDP, and education outcomes. Castells-Quintana and Royuela (2012) suggested that unemployment levels and economic growth in poorer countries are affected differently. In these countries, urbanization is more likely to be correlated with increasing levels of inequality. Along these concerns of standards of living, it has been observed that urbanization actually reduces the quality of the environment based on pollution emissions data (Li and Ma, 2014). Finally, using GIS, demographic, and GDP data from the last three decades, Chen et al. (2014) concluded that though there are close links between levels of urbanization and economic growth, the rates of both urbanization and economic growth has no particular relationship.

Drawing again from Piketty’s (2014) research on capital and wealth accumulation, urbanization can be concluded to have differentiate effects on different income groups within a nation. Historically, wealth and capital tend to be concentrated within the hands of a few. Recent data suggests a trend back towards this accumulation at the top of the economic structure. If urban development is now the driver of economic growth, it can be expected that those without much income will experience less benefits. This particular segment of the population will be unable to derive gains from urban land development without the wealth to invest. Another issue at hand is the rise in income of managers and executives at disproportionate levels relative to the general income. This new class of professionals produce income relative to their education levels and opportunities that the poorer populations have restricted access to. From this perspective of capital flows, it stands to reason that urbanization have differentiate effects on different urban populations.

From this literature, it appears that though urbanization has a link with standards of living, there is not a globally uniform correlation on raising the standards of living. Countries are affected differently by the process of urbanization, with some drawing gains and benefits while others suffer. On a separate note, there are also different effects on different groups of populations within each country – the wealthy should see more gains in standards of living than the poor. The data on income levels, health outcomes, urban poverty provided by Gapminder should reasonably be expected to reveal evidence that support these claims.

Lastly, a quick note on the complications and problems with this research. One of the biggest difficulties in urban studies is defining what it means to be an urbanized region. Different scholarships have different parameters. Depending on the objectives of the research, some look at density (Abel, Dey, and Gabe 2012; Carlino, Chatterjee, and Hunt, 2007) while others look at absolute quantity (Glaeser, 2014; Sankhe, Vittal, and Mohan, 2011). Still others look at geospatial data on the concentration and type of land-use and develop to determine urbanization (Chen et al. 2014).

Another issue is the matter of scale. By using national level data, differences within countries, between cities and regions become obscured. In this present research, this problem is somewhat mitigated as the objective is to compare data nationally and attempt to draw conclusions about the national and global trends and effects of urbanization on economic growth and standards of living. Yet, because the data, especially demographics, is not attributed by cities, it can be problematic to draw correlations since the demographic data also includes rural areas.

Additionally, government policies are a point of interest. It would be naive to assume that because urbanization and land-use development occurs it will benefit the urban population. The saying that “if you built it, they will come” cannot be applied when so much of urban life is affected directly by institutions and governance. This will be an interesting problem to try to overcome.

In conclusion, this is by no means a comprehensive and exhaustive list of research and problems on this topic. As regards to the present research, It can be reasonably expected that the data will show urbanization to be a driver of economic growth though there will not be a global generalization on its effects on economic growth and standards of living. It is also expected that urbanization will have differentiate effects on different populations. 

References:

Abel, J., Dey, I., and Gabe, T. (2012). Productivity and the Density of Human Capital. Journal of Regional Science, 52(4), 562-586.

Bottazzi, G. and Gragnolati, U. (2015). Cities and Clusters: Economy-Wide and Sector-Specific Effects in Corporate Location. Regional Studies, 49(1), 113-129.

Carlino, G., Chatterjee, S., and Hunt, R. (2007). Urban density and the rate of invention. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 389-419.

Chen, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W., and Zhang, W. (2014). The Global Pattern of Urbanization and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Three Decades. Plos One, 9(8), e103799.

Cohen, B. (2004). Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts. World Development, 32(1), 23-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.04.008.

Day, J. and Ellis, P. (2014). Urbanization for Everyone: Benefits of Urbanization in Indonesia’s Rural Regions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 140(3), 04014006.

DiCecio, R. and Gascon, C. (2010). Income convergence in the United States: a tale of migration and urbanization. Annual Regional Science, 45, 365-377. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-008-0284-1.

Friedmann, J. (1986). The World City Hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69-83.

Harvey, D. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1-4), 101-131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1978.tb00738.x.

Hong, J. and Fu, S. (2011). Testing Urbanization Economies in Manufacturing Industries: Urban Density or Urban Size? Journal of Regional Science, 51(3), 585-603. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00702.x.

Kanbur, R. and Zhuang, J. (2013). Urbanization and Inequality in Asia. Asia Development Review, 30(1), 131-147.

Glaeser, E. (2014). A World of Cities: The Causes and Consequences of Urbanization in Poorer Countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1154-1199.

Li, S. and Ma, Y. (2014). Urbanization, Economic Development and Environmental Change. Sustainability, 6, 5143-5161. DOI: 10.3390/su6085143.

Lin, G. and Yi, F. (2011). Urbanization of Capital or Capitalization on Urban Land? Land Development and Local Public Finance in Urbanizing China. Urban Geography, 32(1), 50-79. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.1.50.

Martinez-Vazquez, J., Panudulkitti, P., and Timofeev, A. (2014). Urbanization and the poverty level. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 99, 19-46.

Merrifield, A. (2014). The New Urban Question. London: Pluto Press.

Neal, Z. (2008). The duality of world cities and firms: comparing network, hierarchies, and inequalities in the global economy. Global Networks, 8(1), 94-115.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Ravallion, M., Chen, S., and Sangraula, P. (2007). New Evidence on the Urbanization of Global Poverty. Population and Development Review, 33(4), 667-701.

Sankhe, S., Vittal, I., and Mohan, A. (2011). Urban Giants: India and China, and their Urbanization Paths. Environment and Urbanization, 2(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/097542531000200102.

Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Smith, N. (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press.

Turok, I. and McGranahan, G. (2013). Urbanization and economic growth: the arguments and evidence for Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 465-482. DOI: 10.1777/0956247813490908.

Wang, H., He, Q., Liu, X., Zhuang, Y., and Hong S. (2012). Global urbanization research from 1991 to 2009: A systematic research review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 299-309.

[Image via Gapminder]

Social Movements and the City is the culmination of my time at Arizona State University – leading to the completion of my M.A. degree. The Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong greatly interests me because I was raised there. Using a political ecology framework, I examined the historical, cultural, political, and social backdrop to the mass occupation and protest that occurred in the financial center of Hong Kong between September and December 2014. I argued that the protests were responses to issues greater than universal suffrage: Hong Kong’s tensions with China started long before the handover in 1997.

However, what interested me the most was the use of physical space and the transformation of the meaning of space. How do urban spaces play in the development of social movements and protests? How did the design of the city affect occupation and the subsequent clashes with law enforcement? How was material and economic flows disrupted or altered? Despite the doomsday prognosis of critics of the blockade, the city’s economy and transportation systems continued to operate, as the citizens found alternative ways to maximize efficiency.

By asking these questions, I bring to the forefront issues that face urban planners and policy makers alike. Environment does not determine but instead it interacts. How do we design spaces that foster positive experiences for urban inhabitants? My interest in this question drives my interest in becoming an urban planner or a geo-spatial analyst.

Excerpt:

“The movement was able to sustain itself with public support that grew with the police violence, despite concerns that the disruptions caused will sour the public opinion (Curran, Yung, and Hunter, 2014). The occupation continued with great organization despite a lack of a clear leadership. Supply stations were set up to accommodate the donated supplies that streamed in daily. Much of the supplies came from donors, many of whom were anonymous. Volunteer groups also bought and donated supplies to the protesters (Ngo, J. et. al, 2014). However, it is unclear where these supplies are coming from and what the logistics are to bringing them into the protest camps. The use of space and the organization of space becomes an interesting point of analysis in how the movement sustained itself and the effectiveness of the disruption resulting from the street blockades.

What makes Occupy Central different from most social movements is its occupation of the streets instead of a square, like Occupy Wall Street or Arab Spring. The concentration of protesters around intersections and dispersion into other areas of the city may be attributed to the lack of a square or an urban space large enough to accommodate the thousands of protestors (Lam, 2014). The geography of Hong Kong itself allowed for major traffic blockades due to scare land availability, restricting the development of infrastructure. Without that type of urban form, would Occupy Central have been as effective in shutting down parts of the city? In contrast to lower density urban forms, such as those found in America dominated by single use zoning and suburban developments, what are the differences in influences on social movements and their strategies?”

Image courtesy of Laurel Chor

The Water, Energy, and Infrastructure Co-benefits of Smart Growth Planning in Phoenix, Arizona was a large-scale project under the guidance of Dr. Mikhail Chester. It spanned several disciplines in Arizona State University and compared impacts from traditional planning and development in Arizona with smart growth planning. The project focused the changing needs and economies of areas identified by The Maricopa Association of Government’s Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study in the urban core. With growing awareness of the increasing costs of roadway maintenance and of climate change, this project is the latest in a series to produce analysis and data to convince policy makers and stakeholders in changing the trajectory of land use and development in the valley.

My team’s role primarily focused on the qualitative analysis of political and socio-economic barriers against implementation of integrated land-use planning in the metropolitan area. With the results from each division of the project, we investigated possible changes to the behavioral patterns of residents. We identified issues such as established institutions against cooperation between the various cities in the region, economic dependence on the home building industry, and a lack of appropriate tax plans for funding such projects. Finally, we presented our findings and recommendations to stakeholders and policy makers who are looking to implement integrated land use planning in their respective jurisdictions.

All Slides from Project Presentation on April 29, 2014

The Maushaus project was the brainchild of Sigma Dolins and her interdisciplinary team: Kayce Flowers, Keith Guiley, Will Hsu, and Jared Stoltzfus. This project was our answer to the lack of affordable housing and alternatives to detached singled family housing in the Phoenix Valley. Maushaus was envisioned as a showcase micro-dwelling building to demonstrate green energy and sustainable living habits. With little more than $6000 from different corporate sponsors and a successful Kickstarter with over 60 donors, Maushaus features a compostable toilet, dual paned windows, an Ikea kitchen and a loft with a queen-sized bed. We designed and built it from recycled structural insulated panels (SIP), which allows for increased energy savings from its high insulation rating. Despite summers in Arizona reaching over 110 F, the inside of Maushaus can reach up to 20 degrees cooler, even without air-conditioning. With our research and design, we realized the energy and financial savings such a house can deliver for its owners. Through this experience, we calculate that a brand new Maushaus will cost around $30,000 – incredibly affordable housing, especially if deployed on a mass scale.

Upon completion, it was displayed on the Arizona State University campus and featured on Good Morning Arizona, a local news station. It is currently touring the Phoenix valley at schools and functions, prompting conversations about sustainability and housing.

With the rise in the popularity of micro dwellings across America and the heightened sensitivity to climate change issues, we believe there is a market for smaller housing: affordable, efficient, and mobile. If you are interested, please contact Sigma Dolins.

Image via Maushaus