Advertisement

Direct and Indirect Industrial Pollution Generation: A Field of Influence Approach

  • Oliver Fritz
  • Michael Sonis
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Economic change within regional economies can create significant impacts on a variety of indicators; while attention has been focused on the role that structural change has played in transforming many Midwestern metropolitan and state economies over the last two decades, far too much attention has been directed to one indicator, employment, with the result that some important dimensions of change have been ignored. In the case of the Chicago region, while employment declined by almost 500,000 jobs in manufacturing between 1970 and the early 1990s, this dramatic change was not accompanied by a concomitant decrease in output levels (see Israilevich and Mahidhara, 1990, 1991). In fact, subsequent analysis has revealed that the pattern of transformation is even more complicated, with manufacturing employment declining, manufacturing output increasing slightly and the levels of intermediate transactions declining (see Hewings et al. 1998). In this context, it is important that environmental regulations be tailored to address past and projected future structural changes so as to avoid reducing activity levels beyond those necessary to meet air quality targets.

Keywords

Trade Sector Pollution Generation Order Field Influence Approach Reduce Activity Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bullard, C.W., and A.V. Sebald. 1977. “Effects of parametric uncertainty and technological change in input-output models.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullard, C.W., and A.V. Sebald. 1988. “Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of input-output models.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 705–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fritz, O.M., M. Sonis, and G.J.D. Hewings. 1996. “Forecasting industrial residual pollution generation in the Chicago region, 1992–2006.” Discussion Paper 96-T-8, Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  4. Hewings, G.J.D. and M.C. Romanos. 1981 “Simulating less developed regional economies under conditions of limited information.” Geographical Analysis, 13:373–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hewings, G.J.D., M. Sonis, J. Guo, P.R. Israilevich, and G.R. Schindler, G.R. (1998) “The hollowing out process in the Chicago economy, 1975–2010.” Geographical Analysis, 30, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Israilevich, P.R. and R. Mahidhara. 1990. “Chicago’s economy: twenty years of structural change.” Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 14, 15–23.Google Scholar
  7. Israilevich, P.R. and R. Mahidhara. 1991. “Hog butchers no longer: 20 years of employment change in metropolitan Chicago.” Economic Perspectives 15, 2–13Google Scholar
  8. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, G.R. Schindler, and R. Mahidhara. 1996. “The choice of input-output table embedded in regional econometric input-output models.” Papers in Regional Science, 75, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, M. Sonis, and G.R. Schindler. 1997. “Forecasting Structural Change with a Regional Econometric Input-Output Model.” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 565–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, R.W. 1991. “The relative importance of input coefficients and transactions in input-output structure.” In J.H.D. Dewhurst, G.J.D. Hewings and R.C. Jensen, eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling. Aldershot, Avebury. pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
  11. Sherman, J., and W.J. Morrison. 1949. “Adjustment of an inverse matrix corresponding to changes in the elements of a given column or a given row of the original matrix.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 20, 621.Google Scholar
  12. Sherman, J. and W.J. Morrison. 1950. “Adjustment of an inverse matrix corresponding to a change in an element of a given matrix.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1989. “Error and sensitivity input-output analysis: a new approach.” In R.E. Miller, K.R. Polenske, and A.Z. Rose, eds. Frontiers of Input-Output Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press. pp. 232–244Google Scholar
  14. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1992. “Coefficient change in input-output models: theory and applications.” Economic Systems Research, 4, 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. West, G.R. 1981. “An efficient approach to the estimation of input-output multipliers.” Environment and Planning A, 13, 857–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Xu, Songling and M. Madden. 1991. “The concept of important coefficient in input-output models.” In J.H.D. Dewhurst, G.J.D. Hewings and R.C. Jensen, eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling. Aldershot, Avebury. pp. 66–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Fritz
    • 1
  • Michael Sonis
    • 2
    • 3
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
    • 4
  1. 1.Austrian Institute of Economic ResearchViennaAustria
  2. 2.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of IllinoisUSA
  3. 3.Bar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  4. 4.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations