Selected Readings in Quantitative Urban Analysis

291 Pages·1978·7.933 MB·English

by  Samuel J. Bernstein and W. Giles Mellon (Eds.)

Selected Readings in
Quantitative Urban Analysis
EDITED BY
SAMUEL J. BERNSTEIN
and
W. GILES MELLON
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD · NEW YORK · TORONTO · SYDNEY
PARIS · FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 75 The East Mall,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary
Street, Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERALREPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
OF GERMANY Pferdstrasse 1, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright © 1978 Samuel J. Bernstein and W. Giles Mellon
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the
publishers
First edition 1978
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Selected readings in quantitative urban analysis.
1. Municipal research—Addresses, essays, lectures
I. Bernstein, Samuel Joshua. II. Mellon, W. Giles
301.36 HTllO 77-30458
ISBN 0-08-019593-8 (Hard cover)
ISBN 0-08-019592-X (Flexi cover)
Typeset by Cotswold Typesetting Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain by Glevum Press Ltd., Gloucester
Preface
One of the most important developments in recent years has been the evolution of quanti­
tative approaches to the solution of the nation's urban problems. The purpose of this
volume is to introduce the student of urban problems to this development, and to provide
the urban administrator with a review of the most recent advances in urban model building.
The hterature in this area is by now extensive, and it would have been possible to assemble
a traditional book of readings. We have, however, followed an alternative approach. First,
an outline of the major areas of urban life, which have been analyzed in a quantitative
manner, was laid out. The areas chosen for inclusion were:
Overall urban models.
Urban models dealing with the basic economic factors of urban life—workers and jobs,
housing, and transportation.
Urban models dealing with the provision of basic services—education, health care, fire,
police, water, and sanitation.
Urban models dealing with the provision of the luxuries of urban life—the theater,
ballet, symphony.
Urban models, dealing not with a basic factor in urban life, but with how the decisions to
provide these factors are made—the process of policy formulation and the resolution
of conflicting priorities.
Following this outline, a number of distinguished economists, political scientists, and
operations research specialists were commissioned to write new individual chapters on
each topic—chapters which presented the original contributions of each author and/or
reviewed the present state of the art in each speciality. With this format, an individuality
is inevitable which would not be as prevalent in a book of selected readings. But, by the
same token, that individuality imparts a distinctive character which no book of readings
could convey. It is our hope that both the beginning student and the experienced urban
administrator will, after the completion of this volume, come away with a broad apprecia­
tion of where the held of quantitative urban analysis stands in 1975—of what has been
done and of what remains to be done.
vn
A cknowledgements
We would like to thank the authors who cooperated in making this book possible. They
suffered along with us in many ways including the special requests for rewrites, delays, and
other inevitable obstacles related to the production of a multi-authored work. Their
patience with us is acknowledged and appreciated. Mr. Deegan, formerly of Pergamon
Press, was equally encouraging and always reminded us when the going got rough of our
initial objective of producing a first-rate book.
Mr. Harry Starr, President of the Littauer Foundation, stands in a singular position of
importance for our endeavors. His support of our quantitative urban research at Baruch
College of the City University of New York, of which this volume is a part, helped make this
book possible. We are grateful to be associated with the work of this foundation since it
supported some of the earliest and finest quantitative applications in the social sciences:
the Statistics of Deadly Quarrels of the late Professor Lewis Richardson. We hope this
volume continues in the tradition of Richardson and makes a significant contribution to
understanding the scope of quantitative analysis in urban studies.
Last but not least, we thank our respective wives, Deena and Kate, for their patience,
forbearance, and encouragement in the many mutual endeavors which, over the years,
have led to many fruitful outcomes.
New York City SAMUEL J. BERNSTEIN
July 1976 W. GILES MELLON
Vlll
1· Urban Modeling: An Introduction to, and
Critique of, Large-scale Models
SAMUEL J. BERNSTEIN AND W. GILES MELLON
1. Introduction^
Only a few years ago the concept of urban modeling—representation of urban reality
through systems of mathematical relationships—scarcely existed. Now an explosion has
taken place, as quantitatively oriented researchers from such fields as operations research,
economics, and public administration have realized that techniques, long used in business
or in the military, are applicable to urban problems, and conversely, that the need for
efficient techniques to replace traditional means of planning and management in the urban
area is critical, given the crisis atmosphere now prevailing in the nation's cities. The purpose
of this introductory chapter is twofold: first, to serve as an introduction to the basic topic of
model-building; and second, to illustrate the basic principles of urban model-building by
reference to a number of particular models. As the chapters which follow deal exclusively
with appUcations to specific aspects of the urban scene, it was thought appropriate that this
initial chapter consider only large-scale models of the city as an overall, integrated system.
Π. Urban Models: Classification^^>
Urban models may first be classified in terms of the broad functions for which they are
designed. In general, we may discriminate between four broad functional purposes for
these models, although of course, the same model may serve several puφoses. These are:
1. Descriptive-analytical, where the main interest in modeling is to understand how the
urban system works.
2. Projective, where the main purpose is to be able to predict conditions within the urban
area at some future date.
* For general surveys of the field of urban modeling, see: Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O'Block,
and Paul V. Teplitz, Urban Analysis, Boston, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard
University, 1970; Colin Lee, Models in Planning, New York, Pergamon Press, 1973; Samuel J. Bernstein,
Editor f Proceedings of an International Seminar on Urban Planning and Management Information Systems,
Jerusalem, Iltam, 1974; Ira S. Lowry, "Seven models of urban development: a structural comparison",
Santa Monica, The Rand Corporation, 1967; G. C. Hemmens, Editor, Urban Development Models, High­
way Research Board, Special Report No. 97 91968; D. B. Lee, Jr., Models and Techniques for Urban Plan­
ning, Buffalo, Comell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1968; D. Sweet, Models of Urban Structure, New York,
Lexington Books, 1972.
^ Discussion in this section follows the classification scheme developed in: Samuel J. Bernstein, W. Giles
Mellon, and Sigmund Handelman, "Regional stabilization: a model for policy decision". Policy Sciences 4
(1974). See also Ira S. Lowry, "A short course in model design". Journal of the American Institute of Plan­
ning, May 1965.
4 Samuel /. Bernstein and W, Giles Mellon
3. Policy oriented, where the main purpose of the model is to be able to simulate the
effects of alternative policy moves and obtain an accurate read-out of resulting urban
conditions.
4. Gaming, where a main purpose is usually to expose the players to the complexities of
urban decision-making as a learning process.
Secondly within these classes, urban models differ widely in their scope of subjects and
their degree of detail. Thus, some models have attempted to deal with the city or its suburbs
as a whole, while others have concentrated on one area, such as transportation systems.
Within a given scope of subjects, the degree of detail has ranged widely. Some models, for
example, have been pitched at an extreme degree of abstraction, describing urban develop­
ment generally. Others have gone into detail, reaching down as far as block-by-block results
for a particular city.
Thirdly, urban models, once a specific function and scope of coverage have been deter­
mined, differ widely as to their specific mathematical form. Given, however, that we do not
accept anything but a concrete mathematical formulation as being a model, the following
broad classes of models have been developed.
1. Classical and modern theories of location. Having its beginning in the classic
nineteenth-century economic treatise. The Isolated State by Johann von Thunen, location
theory is an attempt to explain the physical position of economic activity, depending
basically on an analysis of transportation costs. The modern classic in this area is August
Losch's, while a comprehensive treatment or location theory is given in the works of
Walter Isard.(^>
2. Physical analogy models, which attempt to explain population behavior in terms of
Newtonian physics. This approach was pioneered by Princeton physicist John Q. Stewart.^'*^
3. Economic-sociological models which attempt to explain location and movement of
population and industry in terms of economic and social factors. A good example of this
type of approach is given in the Lowry model, where each household or business firm is
conceived as having an equation which relates the value of its present location as a function
of its own preferences and the attributes of the site. During a decision period, each estab­
lishment considers all possible sites, prices them, and bids on them with the highest bidder
receiving the location. Owners of sites, on the other hand, may alter the value of their
location by a process of investment.^^^
Fourthly, and finally, models which have been developed differ in the specific type of
mathematics employed—ranging from the use of systems of linear equations with the
coefficients determined by the use of econometric methods^^^ to the continuous mathe­
matics utilized in the models developed by J. W. Forrester.^"^^ Whatever their mathematical
form, however, the models developed to this point have been designed for solution through
the use of electronic computers. To our knowledge, no models have been set up for solution
or demonstration through analog computers.
^ August Losch, The Economics of Location, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954; Walter Isard,
Location and Space-Economy, New York: John Wiley, 1956.
* John Q. Stewart, "Demographic gravitation: evidence and applications". Sociometry (Feb. and May
1948).
Ira S. Lowry, A Model of Metropolis, Santa Monica, The Rand Corporation, 1964; also, William
Goldner, "The Lowry Model heritage". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, (Mar. 1971).
^ David R. Bradford and Harry H. Kelejian, "An econometric model of the flight to the suburbs",
Princeton, Econometric Research Program, Research Memorandum No. 116 (Oct. 1970).
J. W. Forrester, Urban Dynamics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969.
An Introduction to Large-scale Models 5
ffl. Urban Models: Some Examples^^^
To give our discussion of overall urban models some concrete form, a number of such
models were reviewed. As Fig. 1 illustrates, a wide choice of examples are available. From
the available set, five models were chosen to be summarized here: the choice was made in
a manner which would illustrate the current state of the art.
Development
Name of model or author year Area of application
1. Lowry 1963 Pittsburgh Community renewal project (CRP)
2. TOMM (time oriented 1964 Pittsburgh CRP
metropolitan model)
3. Bass I, II, III 1965-1968 Bay Area Simulation Study
4. PLUM (Projective Land 1968 Bay Area Transportation Study Commission
use model)
5. Garin-Lowry 1966 Theoretical extension of Lowry
6. CLUG (Comell land use 1966 Gaming simulation model for educational
game) purposes
7. TOMM II 1968 Extension of TOMM
8. Wilson 1968 Theoretical extension of Lowry
9. Gripps and Foot 1969 Bedford, Reading
10. Batty 1969-1970 Nottingham-Derby, Lancaster
11. SCANCAP 1965-1967 New Haven
12. SCANPED 1968-1969 Denver
13. NUCOMS (New community 1971-1972 Dept. of Housing & Urban Development,
simulator) Park Forest South, Stansbury Park
14. PROMUS 1970-1972 Toronto
15. Nottinghamshire model 1971-1972 City of Nottingham and County of
Nottinghamshire
Fig. 1. List of Urban Models
Taken from Dilip R. Limaye and Donald F. Blumberg, "Systems for urban planning and management",
Sth Annual Urban Symposium, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1972.
1. The Lowry Model—developed by the Rand Corporation.
2. The Detroit Model—hang developed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
3. The Urban Performance Model,
4. The Regional Stabilization Model—Bernstein and Mellon for the City of Newark.
5. The Promus Model—for the City of Toronto.
1. THE LOWRY MODEU^>
A. General description
The Lowry model focuses on three interrelated urban systems: (1) Employment, (2)
Population, and (3) Transportation, which interconnects the previous two. Employment
is segmented into (a) a basic sector corresponding to production industries in the Central
* Material in this section follows that developed in Bernstein, op. cit., note 1.
* Cf. works cited, note 5.
6 Samuel J. Bernstein and W, Giles Mellon
Business District; (b) a service sector corresponding to retail shopping in various neigh­
borhood subareas. Population is considered as an aggregated sector constituted by
household units with one breadwinner per household. The distribution of households in
subareas is carried out by a distribution function based on a gravity model. The transporta­
tion network is similarly homogeneous. Only cost and distance factors are considered as
affecting transport decisions.
B. Listing of variables
Exogenous:
1. Subarea distribution of employment used by the export industry.
2. Amount of usable land in each subarea.
3. Space occupied by export industry in each subarea.
4. Retail production functions: fixed amounts of space and labor required per customer
in each retail line.
5. Air distances between subareas.
6. Labor force participation rates.
Endogenous:
7. Population by subareas.
8. Subarea total employment.
C. Constraints
1. Minimum size required for each retail cluster.
2. Minimum market size for subareas which justify a retail operation.
3. Maximum population densities, in subareas.
D. Procedure
1. The export employment is determined at the subarea level.
2. Labor force participation rates are employed to yield the number of households
needed to produce the employment in export industries.
3. Work-home trip distribution function is used to distribute these households. This is
based on the distances between subareas and subject to the population density
constraint.
4. Number of households in each subarea determines whether retail services will be
opened in that area. If the minimum market size constraint is not met, these house­
holds are reallocated to other places.
5. Production functions of retail services are used to determine space and labor required
for the retail clusters in each subarea.
6. The number of households needed for retail labor is determined by using a similar
procedure to the one described in step 2 above.
7. A work trip distribution function is used again for distributing the households of
retail related employees.
An Introduction to Large-scale Models 7
The iterative procedure begins with step 1 and proceeds through step 7. This is repeated
until sums of retail employment and population per subarea converge to the known totals
for the region or the increments become statistically negligible.
A flow chart of model's procedures is shown in Fig. 2.
Sfarf
Level ond location of
basic employment
Allocation of workers to zones
hi residence by gravity model and
lopplication of population multiplier!
Increment of population
Application of population serving ratio
and allocation of service demand to
(service employment zones by gravity model
Increment of service employment^
Stop when increments become significant
[Sum increments to find total
population and employment
Stop
Fig. 2. Lowry model.*
E. Evaluation
1. The Lowry model is a highly theoretical and abstract formulation, and the prototype
for many subsequent urban models. The model tries to explain city development: it is not
primarily designed for policy analysis.
2. Various externalities are ignored in this model, which seem essential for policy analysis.
For example:
(a) Race.
(b) Income.
(c) Family size.
3. Similarly, significant variables are ignored in this large-scale formulation.
(a) Unemployment. (f) Changes in basic industries.
(b) Property values. (g) Access to recreational centers.
(c) Neighborhood amenities. (h) Government policies.
(d) Job discrimination. (i) Political interaction groups.
(e) Social discrimination. (j) Services (baby sitters, gardening, etc.).
Taken from Colin Lee, Models in planning, op. cit., note 1.
8 Samuel J, Bernstein and W, Giles Mellon
(k) Housing availability. (q) Tendency for social clustering in
(1) Migration of workers. neighborhoods.
(m) More than one employee per house- (r) Access to cultural centers and activities.
hold. (s) Crime rates,
(n) Congestion. (t) Municipal services,
(o) Pollution. (u) Taxes,
(p) Rents. (v) Zonal restrictions.
4. Long-range equilibrium of the urban area is the underlying goal. Consequently, the
variables in the model begin in equilibrium; for example, the allocation of households and
retail businesses to various subareas are made without regard to existing stocks at time IQ,
Similarly, small marginal effects are omitted as being irrelevant to the overall equilibrium.
5. The present supply of houses and services is therefore assumed to satisfy the residential
and employment service submodels.
6. The model is static in that time is not a dimension.
7. Industry and commerce are treated as homogeneous factors and their production
functions are too simplistic.
8. Housing market is represented only as a function of distance and travel cost and
consumer preferences are not considered.
9. Allocation of households to subareas is based on a gravity model distribution function
which is primarily transport oriented. The gravity model is a physical model, borrowed from
the natural sciences. Its application to behavioral phenomena, however, is inadequate in
our opinion, because it ignores the psychological components in choosing a family living
site. A maximum density constraint is built into the Lowry formulation because the gravity
model does not consider population densities.
10. Industry is considered an exogenous factor to the model whereas in reality it may be
endogenous. A city may change basic industry preferences by direct intervention through
taxation or indirect intervention via investments in infrastructure. This leads to a further
inadequacy; that municipal government plays no role.
11. The household has not budget constraint.
12. The objective function of the household is merely to minimize transport costs.
13. Retail businesses are placed within subareas based upon a minimum market size
constraint. The model assumes that this represents the profit maximization goal of busi­
ness. However, these businesses must maximize sales (supplied by the minimum size
constraints) as well as minimize costs. The cost minimization aspect is not considered.
14. The Lowry model produces cross hauUng of workers. Identical workers from the
same industry are placed within entirely different areas. Some workers are allocated to
high-density areas, far from their work. Others are allocated to low-density areas, close to
their work place.
F. Extensions
Extensions of the basic Lowry model are summarized in Table 1. The table presents
chronological data as well as some characterization of the various models and their ex­
tensions. The table is based on Goldner's article "The Lowry Model Heritage".^^^^
Op. cit.,notes.