Search

We use worldwide gridded satellite data to analyse how population size and density affect urban PM 2. 5 pollution. We find that more populated and denser grid cells are more exposed to pollution. However, across urban areas, exposure increases with cities' population size but decreases with density. Moreover, the population effect is driven mostly by population commuting to core cities rather than the core city population itself. We analyse heterogeneity by geography and income levels. A counterfactual simulation shows that PM 2. 5 exposure could fall by up to 40% if population size were equalized across all cities within countries, but the relocation of population from large to small cities that maximizes welfare would be small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is urbanization good for the environment? This paper establishes a simple core–periphery model with monocentric cities, which comprises key forces that shape the structure and interrelation of cities to study the impact of the urban evolution on the environment. We focus on global warming and the potential of unfettered market forces to economize on emissions. The model parameters are chosen to match the dichotomy between average "large" and "small" cities in the urban geography of the United States, and the sectoral greenhouse gas emissions recorded for the United States. Based on numerical analyzes we find that a forced switch to a system with equally sized cities reduces total emissions. Second, any city driver which pronounces the asymmetry between the core and the periphery drives up emissions in the total city system, too, and the endogenous adjustment of the urban system accounts for the bulk of the change in emissions. Third, none of the city drivers gives rise to an urban environmental Kuznets curve according to our numerical simulations. Finally, the welfare‐maximizing allocation tends to involve dispersion of cities and the more so the higher is the marginal damage from pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper analyzes the relationship between spatial mobility and social mobility. It develops a two‐skill‐type spatial equilibrium model of two regions with location preferences where each region consists of an urban area that is home to workplaces and residences and an exclusively residential suburban area. The paper demonstrates that relative regional social mobility is negatively correlated with segregation and inequality. In the model, segregation, income inequality, and social mobility are driven by differences between urban and residential areas in commuting cost differences between high‐skilled and low‐skilled workers, and also by the magnitude of taste heterogeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]