Spatial-temporal Analysis of Land Market in Urban Fringe

Spatial- lay Analysis of Land Market in Urban Fringe1. investigate setting at that place is a widespread deem that urbanisation is the result of the configuration of modern human society. The 19th century, which assumed to be the geological season of modernization every over the world, has experienced rapid urbanisation. For instance, urban nation has increased from less than 14 part to more than 50 pct of the worlds tribe during 1900-2000 and if this yield continues, urban existence in the world exit arrive at 4.72 -5.00 one thousand thousand in 2030 (increase of 48.61-57.84 percent comparing to the flow universe of discourse) comparing to 6.835-8.135 billion (18.71 percent) increase in total nation and 3.348-3.267 billion (2.42 percent) decrease in country-bred creation. Nevertheless, the devastating situation will be at the create countries, where the urban population growth is forecasted to be 74.17 percent in 2030 comparing to the current population (Zhang, 2 008). Interestingly, maximum of this urban population agglomeration is in largest cities, especially megaciites (Li, 2003) and these megacities are growing at an unprecedented commit. 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 promontory arises which criteria define the megacities. whatsoever urban geographers assay to define the megacities found on the global sparing power or influence. With the exception of Lo and Yeungs (1998) Globalization and the World of Large Cities, which includes Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, expectant of Egypt and Johannesburg, and more recently systematic work by Taylor (2000), Lo and Marcotullio (2000), Taylor and Walker (2001) and fight and Timberlake (2000) much of these works (Friedmann, 1986 Sassen, 2004) run through either focused on the develop world or merely mentioned megacities in the developing world (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002).However, an capacious debat e has still been going on the definition of megacities. United Nations reason the megacities with population of 8 millions epoch Asian Development Bank extends the population limit to 10 million along with strivinger(a) characteristics much(prenominal) as complex economy and integ set outd transport system.Thus, discussion takes into accounting the population greater than 10 millions as an indicator of megacities. agree to the World nation Report 2001 by UNFPA, currently there are 19 megacities such as Tokyo (26.4 millions), Mexico City (18.1 millions), Mumbai (18.1 millions), So Paulo (17.8 millions), Shanghai (17 millions), pertly 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), innovative 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 capital of Egypt (10.6 millions). Still there is a controversy approximately the geographical intent 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 increase corridor in India) and urban mega-clusters ( internal capital Region of Delhi, Dhaka, and Metro Manila Karachi mega-urban neighborhood, Bangkok-Thonburi metropolitan region, and Jakarta-Bogor-Tangerang-Bekasi region).This continuing growth of megacities is presently the burning explore topic of the policy gather inrs as well as international communities (Renaud, 1981 UN, 1993) and unalike policies are already been applied to counterpart this rapid urbanisations in megacities such as China, Egypt, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and China have promoted varied promotional programs (e.g. dual track urban system) for patronizing the medium size cities in their respective coun decide direct (Henderson, 2002 Ades and Glaeser, 1995). Still a comprehensive system needs to be initiated in order to counterpart the unprecedented rate of urbanisation and urban agglomeration.2. Overall aim and objectivesThe overall aim of the dissertation is to determine the economicalal value of flat coat at the urban adorn of a mega urban center in developing country. Based on the aim, the objectives are categorize into two broad subject fields theoretical objectives and empirical objectives.Theoretical objectivesTo attempt the expiration of influence of urbanisation process, and work acquisition and meditation, by both the everyday and private firmaments, on the kinetics of urban agglomeration or urban sprawl. To examine the changing urban spatial configurations of the megacites ascribable to sprawl and to explain them indoors the framework of different urban growth theories. To examine the nature, characteristics, and slashings of urban commonwealth and the inflict market indoors which province assembles, urban re virginal, gentrification and instruction has taken place. To identify different spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining land price.empirical objectivesTo 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 megametropolis in developing country To determine the extent of influence of environmental attributes on the price of urban-rural interface lands.3. MethodologyIn order to attain the objectives, the research will be carried out by following the comprehensive methodology, the social organization of which is devoted belowThe detail of the methodology and complex body part of the chapters to attain the objectives is given below marksMethodologyOrganizati-on of chaptersObjective 1 Definition of urbanisation and urban agglomeration reasons challenges trend of urbanisation in create an d developing countries growth pattern of different hierarchy of urban settlements socio-economic, semi semipolitical and somatogenic characteristics of urban settlements economic, institutional, and political factors of rural-urban migration government policies and urban governance in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration belief, nature, characteristics and dynamics of megacities spatial pattern of megacities cases and consequences of rapid urbanisation and urban distance challenges especially in megacities. publications review of journal, books and reports of different organisations working on urbanisation and urban agglomerationChapter 2Objective 2 Urban land economic theories (such as conformationical theories, neo-classical theories, spick-and-span economic geographic theories, and new institutional economic theories) in the context of urbanisation and urban agglomeration literary productions review of journal and booksChapter 3Objective 3 Dynamics of urban land market, urban land political sympathies, actors of urban land politics, contemporary urban land regulatory mechanisms and their acceptability in different contexts, cooking mechanisms for imperious land conversion or growing 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 countrified 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 regularisations.Chapter 4Objective 4 Different types of spatio-temporal econometric methods for determining the land price at urban fringeLiterature review of journal and books. Software for Spatio-temporal autoregressive epitomeChapter 5Objective 5 variables or attributes explaining land market at urban fringe, compatible econometric instrument for drawing the equation of land market at urban fringApplication of spatio-temporal econometric pretense for regression analysisChapter 8Objective 6 economic valuation of environmental attributes and its influence on the land market at urban fringe4. Theoretical framework confused 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 say 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 buttocks the urbanisation and urban agglomeration in megacities, and spatial patterns of megacities.Economic studyThere is a significant positive correlation amidst the economic victimisation and urbanisation (Henderson, 2003), which can better be explained by the hypothesis of Williamson (1965) (Hansen, 1990). receivable to the economic development of the city, the significant amount of industries are concentrated at heart the city nerve center and this upshots in development of knowledge, skills, and economic infrastructure which leads to development of bodily 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 Firm an, 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 increase demand for labour needed by an expanding industrial sector. This economic model was rented for the western economics, which was later tried to take up 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 headland 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 determine as the key economic factors of urbanisation process. Brueckner and Zenou (1999) and Brueckner and Kim (2001) have incorporate the set up 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 politicsAfter 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 early(a)(a) cities during decisive policymaking (Fujita et al., 1999). This may exercise because of their political significance and interest of the elites and bureaucrats (such as in Bangkok, Mexico City, Jakarta, and Paris, So Paulo). For promoting economic development in the megacities, the government (either national or topical anesthetic) 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 as well as 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 develop 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 instead than on economic attributes in formulating present 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 complex because urban politics are viewed from different perspectives. State-centred perspective argued for key fibre 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 arguing or for the division of labour. This is why divers(a) 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 offshootly is concerned with social production and power to while the latter on is with social control and power over (Stone, 1989). ability within communities, also known as urban authorities prompts integrating 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 flowerpot 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 rough the acting power of the actors rather than coalitions and is defined by elite and pluralist theories. Beyond the community power debate, another(prenominal) significant factor of citys 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 th e office staff of commerce sectors on the local civic life of US and atomic number 63an cities. For instance, dividing line-sectors of US cities are remarkably organized, who have strong influence on land ownership and land use planning, taxation and revenue distribution, private quotation and public borrowing (Stone, 2005), election campaigns of local as well as national political leaders (Elkin, 1987) and resulting in they are within the organisation 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 activitie s 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, falter 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 study 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 state-controlled 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 contract by the national government. After the reform policy, the national government had alter their economic and political powers among the local government and influential actors. However, the interesting issue 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 segregationThe 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 make clean and Vernon, 1959 Hall, 1962 Tsuru, 1963 Sjoberg, 1965 Thiry, 1973 Webber, 1984). This can better be conceptualized by considering vertical and plain integration and disintegration of production and labor forces. In case of vertical and crosswise 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 pe ak 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 drug-addicted on the type of products such as gold and diamond in Rio de Janeiro, coffee in So 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).Locational preferenceMost of the megacities are set at the coastal areas1 because of their strategic geographical location which offer the advantages of trade, communication, and nutriment environment (Godfre y, 1995 Vance 1990). Presently, 60 percent (nearly 3 billion people) or fractional of the worlds 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 historic period among which coastal megacities will contribute the lion share of population (Li, 2003). Furthermore, the identification 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 bushel 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 becau se of the fondness of institutions, organizations, information and culture such as Beijing (Yulong and Hamnett, 2002), Metro Manila (Cuervo and Hin, 1998), Delhi, Dhaka, and Jakarta. colonial influenceMost 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 developmentLand conversion is a normal part of urban development in both developed and developing world (Pierce, 1981 Lockeretz, 1989 Tsai, 1993 Winoto, 1 996 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 megacitiesMegacities 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. troika 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 quill 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 So Paulo are in suburbanisation stage because of the continuance of heavy concentration of production activities and population in the urban core and expanding towards sub-urban areas or fringe areas (Fara 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 gigabit (1993) claim that megacities of Latin America are in counterurbanisation stage as the secondary city growth is underway with a polycentric urban form su ggestive of polarization reversal with the growth of intermediate sized cities steer 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 adjudge a large share of the metropolitan areas 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 p eri-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 sequenceframe for initial 9 monthsActivity documentTime FrameOct- 09Nov- 09Dec- 09Jan- 10Feb-10Mar-10Apr-10May-10June-10ConceptualizationDiscussion on the context, key features and framework sources of the researchChapter 1 Theoretical framework on the contextual terminologies on urbanisation and agglomerationChapter 1 Fixation of aims and objectives, and development of methodology and research structurePreparation and presentation of 100-days vivaChapter 2 (objective 1) Literature reviewChapter 3 (objective 2) Literature review6. Research Timeframe for 3 yearsActivity scheduleTime Frame200920102011 2012Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3ConceptualizationDiscussion on the context, key features and tangible sources of the researchLiterature Review stageChapter 1Chapter 2Chapter 3Chapter 4Chapter 5Empirical stageSample size readinessPrimary data collectionSecondary data collection info verification, editing and inputChapter 6 MethodologyChapter 7 Data analysisChapter 8 Objective 5 and 6Evaluation and conclusionChapter 9 FindingsChapter 10 Recommendations and Implementation guidelinesChapter 11 Conclusion concluding presentation and compliance7. ReferencesAbernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B., and Kantrow, A. M. (1983). Industrial renaissance Producing a competitive future for America. New York sanctioned Books.Abramovitz, M. (1989). Thinking about gain 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 Cit y 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 Mexico en la Region Centro. Nuevas Formas de la Expansion Metropolitana. In Transiciones. La Nueva Formacion Territorial de la Ciudad de Mxico, (eds.) J. Delgado and B. Ramrez, 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 citys 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). fin 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.An trop, 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 unorganised 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