3. CAPÍTULO 3: MODELO NUMÉRICO Y ECUACIONES DE CONSERVACIÓN 22
3.9. ESTUDIO INDEPENDIENTE DE MALLADO
Following the City Development Index (CDI) calculation method adopted by UN-Habitat, I constructed an Urban Development Index (UDI) on the same lines. Using CDI for this study was not possible for the following reasons. Firstly, CDI is a place specific index, which operates at city level and secondly, a complete set of city level data is required to generate it. While this study inquired the performed practices of the respondents which were not specific to a certain place and the current inquiry generated a dataset that enabled me to ascertain the implicational aspects of the performed practices on the household, or at the most at the neighborhood level. I assume that, with the multiplier effects, these practices at the household and neighbourhood levels exert their impact on the city level as well. While I constructed the UDI on the methodological lines of CDI construction, it principally combines the elements of CDI and HDI. But the main limitation of the constructed UDI is that it is rudimentary, very specific to this study and cannot be generalized. Furthermore, the CDI was constructed by UN-Habitat to give a value between ‘0’ and ‘100’ to compare the development status of different cities across the globe, where ‘100’ is a best possible development level rather an ideal condition for any city while ‘0’ is worst possible
171 development conditions for any city. However, the constructed UDI has no boundary at both ends. CDI is bound to give always a positive value while UDI can give either positive or a negative value. For this study which was not specific to a certain place, a bigger frame was not possible to conceive which could have led me to draw upper and/or lower boundaries.
Without having upper and/or lower boundaries on any index measurement, the calculated values become meaningless in absence of an overall frame, means they can only be used as a comparative tool within certain studies. The added advantages of UDI are the simple way of calculation and its adaptability to different situations and settings with suitable amendments.
I set the broad sectors/markets, where the respondents had performed their practices, as sub-indices for calculating the UDI. For every sector/market, I calculated the impact scores for carried out practices, according to the implicational aspects attached to those performed practices, whose detail is given in following sub-sections. For every attached implicational aspect of a performed practice, I assigned a quantitative value that ranged from ‘-1’ to ‘+1’. The aspects which had positive implications for the urban development was given a value of ‘+1’, those which had negative implications, were given a value of ‘-1’ and the neutral aspects got a value of ‘0’. These values were then added up for accumulative impact scores for every sub-index. At the end, all the impact scores for the sub-indices were weighted according to the impact factors identified for each sector/market in the above section, and then added up to give an accumulative impact score for the performed practices which showed the magnitude and direction of the impacts of the carried out practices on urban development in Pakistan. Statistically, I constructed the following equation to find out the accumulative impact score or more specifically, the UDI of the performed practices.
𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 1 × � 𝑈𝐼 (𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺) + 1.6 × � 𝑈𝐼 (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝑐𝐻𝑐𝐻𝑐𝐺𝑐𝐺𝐺𝑐) + 6.9
× � ±𝑈𝐼 (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐺𝐺𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐺) + 2.4 × � ±𝑈𝐼 (𝐵𝐻𝐺𝐺𝐻𝑚𝐺𝐺 𝐻𝐻𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐺𝐺) + 3.8
× � 𝑈𝐼 (𝐹𝐺𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑐𝐺𝐻𝑐 𝐻𝐻𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐺𝐺) Where;
IA = assigned value to the Implicational Aspects of the performed practices in concerned sector/markets
Sub-index of the practice of sending/carrying gifts
It has been revealed that all the sent/carried gifts were related to the three urban change domains (Table 10.1) i.e. cultural, social and technological. It has been assumed that this practice had positive implications, thus the practice carried out by every respondent got a value of ‘+1’. There was not any negative value assigned for any performed practice of sending/carrying gifts. Only in one instance, a respondent was sending/carrying gifts to his family members living in a rural place, and hence that practice was regarded as neutral for urban development according to the presented definition. As a result, the value of ‘0’ was assigned to his performed practice. Also the respondents got a value of ‘+1’ for sending/carrying gifts for every urban change domain. At the end, the scores for every urban change domain were summed up and a respondent who sent/carried gifts related to all three concerned urban change domains received a sub-index of ‘+3’. Lastly, the summed
Chapter 10 Implications for Urban Development
172 up impact scores, then were multiplied by the impact factor identified for this practice i.e. 1 in order to find out the sub-index. The procedure is summed up in Table 10.3.
This shows that although category B respondents sent/carried gifts having worth almost double of the gifts sent/carried by the category A respondents during the study period, they did not have a greater impact on the urban development as compared to the same practice carried out by the category A respondents. They made slightly more impact in the technological urban change domain through their sent/carried gifts as compared to the category A respondents. In terms of the worth of the gifts, category A respondents constituted 34.9 % of the total worth of the gifts. But in terms of the sub-index, their impact was 45.2 % of the total impact caused by the practice of sending/carrying gifts. Additionally, if we include the value of the sent/carried gifts in the amount of total remittances sent by the respondents, it constituted 9.4 % of the total remittances, but in terms of impact scores, gift index made 7.2 % of the UDI (Table 10.8)
Table 10.3: Sub-index of the practice of sending/carrying gifts by category Implicational
aspects (urban change domain)
Category A respondents Category B respondents Total Impact
score Gifts worth
(Euro) Impact
score Gifts worth
(Euro) Impact
score Gifts worth (Euro)
Cultural 8 10,695
(34.9 %) 8 19,987
(65.1 %) 16 30,682 (100.0 %)
Social 2 3 5
Technological 4 6 10
Impact score 14 - 17 - 31 -
Impact factor 1 - 1 - 1 -
Sub-index 14.0 - 17.0 - 31.0 -
Source: Own construct
Sub-index of the practices for human capability development
It has also been perceived that all the associated aspects of the performed practices for the human capability development had positive implications. All the implicational aspects of the performed practices in this sector got a value of ‘+1’ except in one case, which got a neutral value of ‘0’ because the concerned respondent was performing the relevant practices in a rural place. Only for locational aspect of educational investments, the same respondent’s practice received a value of ‘+1’ as the recipients of his investments were studying in urban places. It has also been revealed that the impact score percentage of category A respondents (42.9 %) was slightly more than their respective remittance percentage (39.7
%) for the human capability development. The category B respondents had more positive impacts in the sector of general consumption of the family and on the aspect of gender inclusion as compared to category A respondents (Table 10.4). Furthermore, the percentage share of the remittances for general consumption and human capability development sector was 35.9 % (see Graph 9.1), but human capability index constituted only 13.1 % of the UDI (Table 10.8). This means that while it was the sector in which most practices were performed with a significantly large share of remittances, its impact on the overall urban development was much less.
Sub-index of the practices in housing market
It has been found that the practices carried out in the housing market/ sector had both
173 Table 10.4: Sub-index of the practices for human capability development by category
Implicational aspects Category A Category B Total
Impact
score Remit.
(Euro) Impact
score Remit.
(Euro) Impact
score Remit.
(Euro)
General consumption 5 41,977
(39.7 %) 8 63,688
(60.3 %) 13 105,665 (100.0 %)
Education 1 2 3
Transport modes 1 1 2
Gender inclusion 4 6 10
Marriages 2 2 4
Religious practices 2 1 3
Impact score 15 - 20 - 35 -
Impact factor 1.6 - 1.6 - 1.6 -
Sub-index 24.0 - 32.0 - 56.0 -
Source: Own construct
positive and negative implicational aspects. And in some instances, the implicational aspects were neutral. Mainly, it was related to the construction of a house in a rural place, which had the value of ‘0’ for all the associated implicational aspects. There were three aspects which got a value of ‘-1’ for only some cases. These aspects were authorized housing/
planning approval, local government revenue and the distance from city center/urban sprawl. When these values were summed up for these aspects, the total impact score came up as ‘0’ reflecting that these respective aspects of some of the performed practices had positive implications while other had negative implications. This balanced out the effects of each other in the total impact score (Table 10.5). For some of the aspects, the assigned value ranged only between ‘0’ and ‘+1’. For example, the aspect of income generation had positive implications and the practices which generated this activity received a value of ‘+1’, but the practices which did not generate this activity, received a value of ‘0’ as non-generation of this activity - by no means a negative development. Similarly, constructing a house with the help of professional persons/firms is also an added positive element, as traditionally, the houses are constructed in Pakistan by skilled labourers working in informal sectors. So if a professionally employed person was hired to construct a house, a value of
‘+1’ was assigned to this activity, while other instances in which informal sector skilled labourers were hired received a value of ‘0’. I did not conceive this activity as a negative development as it is in accordance with the local norms and traditions.
51.1 % of total remittances by the respondents went to the housing sector/markets in Pakistan (Graph 9.1). But the analysis of the sub-index for housing market revealed that it constituted 67.6 % of the UDI (Table 10.8). So, among all the performed practices by the respondents during the study period, the sectorial activity that exerted the majority of impact on the urban development sector in Pakistan was the housing market interactions.
The housing market index percentage share was significantly higher than the percentage remittances sent for performing practices in the housing market. Category-wise, the practices performed by category A respondents had a slightly lesser impact (27.5 % of the total housing market index) on the urban development than the percentage of remittances sent by them for the housing market/sector (30.4 % of the total remittance for housing sector/market). The major difference in exertion of positive impact on the urban development was in construction activity through which category B respondents improved the structural quality of their family houses.
Chapter 10 Implications for Urban Development
174 Table 10.5: Sub-index of the practices in housing market by category
Implicational aspects Category A Category B Total
Impact
score Remit.
(Euro) Impact
score Remit.
(Euro) Impact
score Remit.
(Euro)
Addition of housing unit 1 45,739
(30.4
%)
2 104,625
(69.6 %) 3 150,364 (100.0
Distance from city center/ Urban sprawl -1 1 0 %)
Durability 3 6 9
Hazardous location 1 3 4
Authorized housing/Planning approval 0 0 0
Local government revenue 0 0 0
Overcrowding 1 2 3
Secure tenure 1 3 4
Connection to services 1 2 3
Planned settlements 1 3 4
Income generation 0 1 1
Generation of construction activity 4 7 11
Impact score 12 - 30 - 42 -
Impact factor 6.9 - 6.9 - 6.9 -
Sub-index 82.8 - 207.0 - 289.8 -
Source: Own construct
Sub-index of the practices in business markets
Again, the same range of values i.e. ‘-1 to +1’ were mainly assigned to the associated aspects of the practices performed by considering their implications for urban development.
Table 10.6 shows the aspects which received ‘-1’ value due to their negative implications for overall development in concerned urban places. However, all the associated aspects of a business activity which was located in a rural place received a neutral value of ‘0’ except for one aspect in which family living in an urban place benefitted. Also, the aspects of benefits to families in Pakistan, employment generation, and business registration were assigned either ‘0’ or ‘+1’ only as the non-existence of these aspects did not relate to a negative development. On a whole, 6.0 % share of remittances for business market practices (Graph 9.1) shared 5.0 % of the UDI (Table 10.8). Within business markets, 15.6 % remittance share by category A respondents brought about 33.3 % of the total business sub-index (Table 10.6).
Sub-index of the practices in financial markets
These were mainly the practices which were carried out by the flow of currency, which did not require any material or physical activities to be exercised on the ground. I perceived all the associated aspects that where present, as having positive implications and thus they were assigned a value of either ‘0’ or ‘+1’. Overall, 7.0 % of total remittances for financial markets/institutions (Graph 9.1) constituted 7.1 % of the UDI. While category A respondents remitted significantly more (94.5 %) as compared to category B respondents for carrying out practices in financial markets, they share an equal percentage of sub-index (Table 10.7).
175 Table 10.6: Sub-index of the practices in business markets by category
Implicational aspects Category A Category B Total Impact
New business activity 0 2,745
(15.6
%)
1 14,836
(84.8 %) 1 17,581 (100.0 %)
Business extension/stabilization 1 2 3
Benefit to families in Pakistan 2 2 4
Planning approval 0 -1 -1
Change of land use 0 -1 -1
Generation of construction activity 0 1 1
Nuisances generated 0 -1 -1
Table 10.7: Sub-index of the practices in financial markets by category
Implicational aspects Category A Category B Total Impact Financial capital accumulation 2 19,400
(94.5 %) 1 1,139
(5.5 %) 3 20,539 (100.0 %)
Profit/interest generation 1 1 2
Benefit to families in Pakistan 1 2 3
Table 10.8 summarizes the results of sub-indices and gives a UDI for the practices performed by the respondents. As mentioned earlier, without having boundaries or broad frame, the UDI value of 428.8 is meaningless (Table 10.8). Specifically, it can, by no means, tell that how much impact was generated by the performed practices for the overall urban development in Pakistan or indicate how much these performed practices contributed in the overall urban development of Pakistan. But these index values give some important insights. Firstly, they show that the performed practices of the respondents during the study period contributed positively to the urban development in Pakistan at micro level. Secondly, almost two third of the total impact produced by the micro level contribution was due to the carried out practices in the housing sector/market. Thirdly, although almost one third of the remittances were being sent to the sector of human capability development through remitting for general consumption, education, customary and religious practices, and loan repayments, their impact on the overall development of the relevant urban places was
Chapter 10 Implications for Urban Development
176 significantly less. However, the merging of gifts index with human capability index shows that about one fifth of the total impact was contributed by the practices performed in this sector. Fourthly, the practices performed by the category A respondents had almost four percentage points less impact (33.4 % of the UDI) as compared to the amount of remittances sent by them (37.3 % of total remittances). This means that the practices performed by category B respondents had an even bigger share in the total generated positive impact (66.6 % of the UDI) on the urban development sector in Pakistan. Lastly, In terms of remittances, category A respondents remitted significantly more for practices in financial markets than category B respondents, but there was not any sub-index value where the practices of category A respondents had more impact than the practices carried out by the category B respondents. The detailed UDI matrix is appended (appendix 12).
These summed up findings are also presented in graphical form (Graph 10.1 & 10.2).
Table 10.8: UDI of the performed practices
Index Category A Category B Total
Gifts index 14.0 17.0 31.0 (7.2 %)
Human capability index 24.0 32.0 56.0 (13.1 %)
Housing market index 82.8 207.0 289.8 (67.6 %)
Business markets index 7.2 14.4 21.6 (5.0 %)
Financial markets index 15.2 15.2 30.4 (7.1 %)
Urban Development Index (UDI) 143.2 (33.4 %) 285.6 (66.6 %) 428.8 (100.0 %) Source: Own construct
Graph 10.1: Urban Development Index (UDI) by sub-indices
Source: Own construct