Search

As economic growth centres, the Southeast Asian cities feature high population pressure, unsustainable land use, environmental degradation, and large ecological footprints. It is difficult to manage environmental health and basic services for urban dwellers, and ensure optimum flow of ecosystem services in the context of rapid, unplanned, and haphazard urbanization. These challenges are particularly multifaceted in the developing countries of Southeast Asian region. This study, based on secondary sources, adopted multidisciplinary lenses, such as geographical information systems, socio‐economic perspective, and sustainability science to examine the population situation, land use change pattern, and drivers of environmental degradation in the Southeast Asian cities as well as the Dhaka megacity, and brought forth a fresh perspective to look into contemporary urban ecosystems, population dynamics, environmental health, and sustainability. It also focused on identifying the commonalities among the cities under study to create a common understanding towards promoting collaborative urban development. This study shows that the urbanization process in the Southeast Asia region is taking place mostly in an unplanned and haphazard manner. With little concern for nature, life‐supporting ecological systems, and the environment, urban spatial growth continues unabated. The data surveyed and discussed in this paper shows that the current style of urbanization in Southeast Asia can best be called unsustainable. The findings also suggest that the general wellbeing and welfare of the current and future generations in Southeast Asian cities as well as in Dhaka is at risk. The paper recommends concerted efforts towards making the urbanization process sustainable, including better urban planning, policymaking, and international and regional cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Policy makers and academics frequently emphasize a positive link between city size and economic growth. The empirical literature on the relationship, however, is scarce and uses rough indicators for the size of a country's cities, while ignoring factors that are increasingly considered to shape this relationship. In this paper, we employ a panel of 113 countries between 1980 and 2010 to explore whether 1) there are certain city sizes that are growth enhancing and 2) how additional factors highlighted in the literature impact the city size/growth relationship. The results suggest a nonlinear relationship which is dependent on the country's size. In contrast to the prevailing view that large cities are growth‐inducing, for a majority of countries relatively small cities of up to 3 million inhabitants are more conducive to economic growth. A large share of the urban population in cities of more than 10 million inhabitants is only growth promoting in countries with an urban population of 28.5 million and more. In addition, the relationship is highly context‐dependent: a high share of industries that benefit from agglomeration economies, a well‐developed urban infrastructure, and an adequate level of governance effectiveness allow countries to take advantage of agglomeration benefits from larger cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Public sector activities are often neglected in the economic approaches used to analyze the driving forces behind urban growth. The institutional status of a regional capital is a crucial aspect of public sector activities. This paper reports on a quasi‐natural experiment on county towns in East Germany. Since 1990, East German cities have demonstrated remarkable differences in population development. During this same period, many towns have lost their status as a county seat due to several administrative reforms. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach, we compare the annual population development of former county capitals to population change in towns that have successfully held on to their capital status throughout the observed period. The estimations show that losing county capital status has a statistically significant negative effect on annual changes in population. This effect continues to increase over time after the respective reforms have been implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]