See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226210432

Threshold Analysis and Urban Development: An Evaluation

Article  in  The Annals of Regional Science · November 1975

DOI: 10.1007/BF01295835

CITATIONS READS

2 2,726

1 author:

Geoffrey J.D. Hewings

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
444 PUBLICATIONS   7,887 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Time and cross-sectional dependence in frontier models View project

Regional Economics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Geoffrey J.D. Hewings on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THRESHOLD ANALYSIS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
AN EVALUATION 1

Geoffrey J . D. Hewings 2

Abstract

T h r e s h o l d Analysis has become an i m p o r t a n t planning tool in

the g e n e r a l planning p r o c e s s reLa~ed to urban development in E u r o p e .
In this p a p e r , the p r o c e d u r e s of Threshold Analysis a r e examined
and s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e applications a r e c o n s i d e r e d within a g e n e r a l
f r a m e w o r k of urban development. F i n a l l y , T h r e s h o l d Analysis is
evaluated and found to have a number of s e r i o u s shortcomings as an
independent planning tool. Its main contribution to the urban d e v e l o p -
ment p r o c e s s is shown to be its insights into aspects of the optimal
t i m e - c o s t sequence of Land development.

1. Introduction

The s t i m u l i for urban growth take on many f o r m s and produce effects

which often defy a c c u r a t e prediction. Urban growth is a p r o c e s s which r e q u i r e s
us to Look eventually at its impact upon urban s p a c e . Richardson [12] hinted at
t h i s , in the context of a d i s c u s s i o n of optimal city s i z e , when he suggested that
the level of population within a city is much l e s s important than the s p a t i a l d i s -
tribution of population within a city. Threshold Analysis is d i r e c t e d towards
this concern with the spatial e x p r e s s i o n of urban growth: it deals d i r e c t l y with
r e a l i t y r a t h e r than an a r t i f i c i a l l y contrived uniform plain, and is conceptualized
within a f r a m e w o r k developed f r o m the goals and objectives articulated by the
urban community. The p r o c e d u r e is d i r e c t l y analytical and r a i s e s important
questions which r e l a t e to urban policy p r e s c r i p t i o n s : this close liaison between
methodology and policy p r o v i d e s one of the attractions of the a n a l y s i s ,
In this p a p e r , an attempt will be made to d i s c u s s the t h e o r y , c o n s i d e r p o s
sible applications and finally an evaluation will be made of the t h e o r y in an u r -
ban development context.

2. T h r e s h o l d Analysis: The Theory

Kozlowski [4], one of the main p r o g e n i t o r s of the t h e o r y , has stated that

1Research for this p a p e r was p a r t i a l l y supported by the Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation, Ottawa. The opinions e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n are those of
the author and not CMHC.

2Associate P r o f e s s o r of Geography and m e m b e r , Regional Science and

Analysis Group, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

21
 the main aim of Threshold Analysis is the rationalization of planning t h i n k i n g - -
a process which will hopefully r e s u l t in the i n c r e a s i n g r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of deci-
sions in situations in which less than complete information is available. At
this time, the theory is still in a nascent stage of development: in fact, the era-
p i r i e a l procedures are much more developed than their theoretical u n d e r p i n -
nings.
B a s i c a l l y , Threshold Analysis operates in an u r b a n growth situation in
which there exists an i n c r e a s e in demand for public s e r v i c e s : these s e r v i c e s
are assumed to exhibit no externalities either positive or negative~ The nature
of growth or its s t i m u l i are not considered. Malisz [10] documents four g e n s r a i
p r o b l e m areas for development: (1) the diversity of the n a t u r a l environment; (2)
the existing land use pattern; (3) the technology of the existing i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
s y s t e m s ; and (4) the i n e r t i a r e p r e s e n t e d by the existing s t r u c t u r a l units of the
u r b a n area. It is assumed that u r b a n development is not a p r o c e s s which i n -
volves the mere addition of m a r g i n a l (=average) costs for the increased p r o v i -
sion of public s e r v i c e s . Rather, it is assumed that there exist thresholds which
r e s u l t in sharp i n c r e a s e s in marginal costs as a r e s u l t of capacity limitations.
Expansion costs are divided into location-independent or n o r m a l costs and
threshold or location specific costs which are a function of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of the land, the s e r v i c e s required and the f o r m and scale of development. The
i n c r e a s e d demand for public s e r v i c e s will r e q u i r e additional costs, the s t r u c -
ture of which may take on one of two f o r m s shown i n F i g u r e 1. F i g u r e s l(a)
and {b) show total and average costs in a situation in which costs i n c r e a s e u n i -
formly to X and then i n c r e a s e at a g r e a t e r rate. In the context of the i n c r e a s e
in the provision of a water supply system, the i n c r e a s e in the costs may be due
to m a r s h y or hilly land now being developed. Stepped threshold costs are
shown in Figure 1(c) and (d): at point X', new lump s u m investment is required
before any f u r t h e r provision of even one more unit of the good (for example, the
water t r e a t m e n t plant has to be fully completed before it can serve even one
household). Thus, for every p a r a m e t e r associated with development, the
water supply s y s t e m , sewage system, educational s y s t e m , e t c . , there exists a
threshold curve which can be characterized by its steepness and the n u m b e r
and level of step-llke outlays or thresholds.
The contribution of Threshold Analysis is then mainly, though not e x c l u -
sively, in the a r e a of information input to u r b a n s t r u c t u r e plans. It enables the
identification of areas suitable for development and constraints to that develop-
ment. It can also be used to test the advisability of a p r e f e r r e d development
strategy.
Five stages in the application of Threshold Analysis may be discerned:
before this, the study area is delimited through the use of community of i n t e r e s t
or commuting fields. The analysis is confined to r e s i d e n t i a l development and
excludes considerationof industrial land, or land which will not be developed.
The final study area is rationalized to conform to existing or future a d m i n i s t r a -
tive units.

22
 Grade Thresholds

' total I average

costs I costs
I
I

i/
/
number of r number of
(~) f 1 units (b) I units
x

Stepped Thresholds
total { I average
casts I 1 costs
I I

(~)
'5
X' X"
number of
units (d)
I
I
I
I
X'
I

X"
number of
units

Figure 1 - THRESHOLD COSTS

3. Threshold Analysis: Summary P r o c e d u r e

Objectives

The aim is the evaluation of all reasonable p o ssi b i l i t i es for t e r r i t o r i a l

expansion of a town and the s e l e c ti o n of the most efficient alternative for spatial
growth. The assumption is made that the town's population will g r o w - - w h e t h e r
through i n - m i g r a t i o n or a change in societal standards r e q u i r i n g more space to
house the existing population.

Delimitation of study a r e a

The a r e a is limited to that which will s e r v e the r esi d en t i al development

functions r a t h e r than the total a r e a p e r se (it does not include industrial land).
Delimitation of the a r e a may be made by using commuting sheds or ar eas r e ,
fleeting a community of i n t e r e s t and excluding blocks of land which will not be
developed. The final a r e a is rationalized to conform to existing or future ad-
m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a s . The work then proceeds in five main stages.

Stage 1

The objective of this stage is to identify the capacity of the study a r e a in

t e r m s of the additional numbers of units that may be accommodated. Involved,

23
at this stage, will be s u r v e y s of natural f e a t u r e s with r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r n e c e s -
s a r y adjustment to development purposes, land use studies and the p o ssi b i l i t i es
of providing n e c e s s a r y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e network to all land as yet undeve loped.
F r o m these s u r v e y s , three c a t e g o r i e s of land may be identified: (1) land al-
ready suitable for development, i . e . , Land that may be developed without i n c u r -
ring t h r es h o l d costs; (2) land that may be developed but at some threshold cost
and (3) land that is unsuitable f o r development. The dividing line between (1)
and (2) may be thought of as a function of what causes threshold costs (it may be
a function of the size of the r e s id e n ti a l units, o r the n e c e s s a r y site conditions)
w h e r e a s the dividing line between (2) and (3) is a function of objectives and
goals. Obviously, these are c r i t i c a l determinants since it is conceivable that
any land (within reason) could be developed at some finite cost.
The areas d e li m it e d in this part of the analysis will thus be a composite
of varying thresholds for i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and social s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s : some
areas will r e q u i r e no new s e r v i c e s whatsoever; others will r e q u i r e threshold
costs. Hence a boundary may be drawn on a map delimiting these two a r e a s .

Stage 2

The aim here is to define intermediate thresholds (those that Lie between
the f i r s t boundary (division between category of land (1) and (2) in Stage 1) and
the absolute boundary. F r o m this analysis, the main groupings of i n t e r m e d i a t e
thresholds are identified--those thresholds that must now be o v e r c o m e to d e v e l -
op the ar eas identified in (2) in Stage 1.
Stage 3

In this stage, the v a r io u s groupings of threshold areas are compared on

the basis of t h e i r d i r e c t threshold costs using average cost p er person. In the
previous stage, the position and size of each investment needed to o v e r c o m e a
stepped threshold and the a r e a s affected were d et er m i n ed . Now, graded t h r e s -
hold costs are introduced and an e s t i m a t e made of the total costs of development.

S.tage 4

Alternate groupings of thresholds are now s e l e c t e d and the total costs

compared. Given the large number of potential t h r e s h o l d s , a Large number of
possible combinations is possible. This number is narrowed down by using the
r e s u l t s of other planning studies.

Stage 5

The time dimension is included in this stage. F o r a s e l e c t e d number of

alternative combinations (chosen in Stage 4), s e v e r a l aspects of the t i m e -
incidence of costs are now considered. F o r example, the possibility of d i f f e r -
ing incidence of costs through time may affect the r e l a t i v e cheapness of a t h r e s -
hold a r e a due to the f r e e z i n g of a s s e t s . * In addition, the effects of exploitation
9See Appendix f o r a discussion of the concept of f r o z e n asset s.

24
or running costs are now considered in t e r m s of the effect they may have on the
choice of threshold a r e a s . Finally, the optimal p r o g r a m m i n g of the threshold
areas is undertaken to determine the most efficient sequencing for incorporating
portions of land.

4. Threshold Analysis: An Application

A short fable would be useful at this stage in illustrating the potential u t i l -

ity of Threshold Analysis. Assume that a city has grown to 50,000 population:
f u r t h e r growth will r e q u i r e the installation of a new sewage t r e a t m e n t plant.
Assume, too, that the city d e s i r e s to i n c r e a s e population or that the province in
which the city is located has designated the city as a growth c e n t r e . F i n a l l y , it
is assumed that the indivisibitities p r e s e n t in the sewage t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m s are
such that only two types are available (1) one which will accommodate 10,000
population (assuming some function relating population to sewage capacity) and
(2) one which will be capable of handling an e x t r a 50,000 p e r s o n s . The p r o v i n -
cial plan has a population i n c r e a s e in mind which is more in line with the
second level of population (an i n c r e a s e of 50,000 persons).
Having committed itself to the l a r g e r projected population figure, the city
undertakes the construction of a sewage t r e a t m e n t plant. Let the total cost be
$30 m i l l i o n dollars and let us assume a discount rate of 5 percent. Table 1
shows the allocation of total costs over an eleven y e a r period: it is assumed
that construction of the plant takes four y e a r s and only in the fourth y e a r is the
plant capable of providing any s e r v i c e s to the community and then only up to 20
p e r c e n t of its eventual capacity. Three alternative s t r e a m s of utilization are
Table 1

THE CITY FABLE

Utilization Annual F r o z e n
(% of capacity) Capital Costs
Year (millions $) (1) (2) .....!3) (1) (2) (3)
1 4 0 0 0 .2 .2 .2
2 8 0 0 0 .4 .4 .4
3 16 0 0 0 .8 .8 .8
4 3O 0 20 20 1.5 1.fi 1.2
5 30 10 40 40 1.35 .9 ,9
6 30 20 60 80 1.2 .6 .3
7 30 30 80 100 1.05 .3 0
8 30 40 100] 100 .9 0 0
9 30 60 100 100 .6 0 0
10 30 80 100 100 .3 0 0
11 30 100 100 100 0 0 0

Total 8.3 4.4 3.8

As % of Total C o s t s 28% 15% 13%

25
 explored: (1) no utilization until the year after the plant is completed and t h e r e -
after a slow r i s e in utilization through to the eleventh year; (2) a more a c c e l e r -
ated form of utilization, with completion of the housing stock by the end of the
eighth year and (3) a still more rapid utilization over time with full utilization
scheduled one year e a r l i e r . The associated frozen costs are shown: note that
the more gradual p r o c e s s of utilization r e s u l t s in frozen costs amounting to 28
p e r c e n t of total construction costs whereas utilization scheme (3) reduces these
frozen capital costs to 13 percent of the total capital outlays.
The g e n e r a l implication to be drawn f r o m this fable are two-fold: (1) if
the investment period is extended, frozen costs will i n c r e a s e because this will
delay the f i r s t y e a r of entry of utilization (=returns), and (2) if the period of
time through which the utilization is increased to 100 percent is decreased,
there will accrue a reduction in frozen capital costs. What are these costs ?
Hughes [3] suggests that they may be regarded as an opportunity cost equal to
the value of other goods and s e r v i c e s forgone by having these r e s o u r c e s tied up
but unproductive (partially speaking, since some of the r e s o u r c e s will be in use
after the fourth or fifth year). Obviously, by the very nature of the s y s t e m b e -
ing constructed, frozen costs are u n a v o i d a b l e - - a t least in the f i r s t three y e a r s .
The m o r a l of the fable could suggest that the faster the city grows, the better
off it will be, especially when running or exploitation costs are taken into
consideration. Thus, the average cost of operation will fall as population ex-
pands up to the next threshold level. There are a n u m b e r of inherent dangers
in too liberal an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of this fable. Recall that only the sewage s y s -
t e m was assumed to p r e s e n t the obstacle to further growth of the city: in r e a l -
ity, additional threshold costs will occur as growth from 50,000 to 100,000 is
effected. F o r some of these s e r v i c e s or i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , the optimum levels
may be g r e a t e r or less than 100,000. There may be a danger of a community
compromising standards to allow new facilities to be b u i l t - - f o r example lower-
ing the quality of development that will be permitted in o r d e r to hasten the
m a r c h towards full utilization of the sewage t r e a t m e n t plant.
The fable i l l u s t r a t e s a c l e a r need to rationalize objectives between p r o -
vincial, municipal and federal governments to avoid p r e s s u r e s from one level
causing disruptions to the objectives and procedures adopted at another level.
P a r t of the p r o b l e m r e l a t e s to the indivisibilities in the technology of some of
the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s y s t e m s . While planning may evidence procedures designed
to achieve g r e a t e r r e a s o n a b l e n e s s from decisions, there is a r e c u r r i n g danger
of objectives being subject to too much tehnologically-induced p r e s s u r e . It
seems an invidious choice to p r e s e n t a city with the alternative of r e m a i n i n g at
a population of say 2,000 with a s u b - s t a n d a r d i n f r a s t r u c t u r e or growing to
10,000 population to make it ,,worthwhile" having a better sewage t r e a t m e n t
plant or piped-water system. Clearly, here is an area where the technological
thrust should be in the Uirection of reducing the indivisibility of c a p i t a l - - i n
other words, reducing the n u m b e r of stepped-like thresholds, or better, p r o -
viding a structure that is capable of i n c r e m e n t a l expansion so that the p r e s s u r e s
for expansion relate to the goals of that community and not the technSlogy of the
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s y s t e m s . The problem of towns adapting to procedures of cost
m i n i m i z a t i o n has been the subject of a n u m b e r of exchanges in the literature

26
(Lean [6], F a m e l i s [1]) p a r t i c u l a r l y with reference to the lowering of standards
and/or subjecting the community to some form of environmental degradation
through iU-conceived sub-divisioning.
Taking this point a little further, the problem of the multiplicity of t h r e s -
holds is one which Threshold Analysis recognizes (viz. the procedures of i n t e r -
mediate threshold identification) but provides little in the way of useful guidance.
Simple aggregation of spatial threshold costs may not be appropriate: applying
weights implies some social welfare function has been identified and one faces
up to a problem of deciding the magnitude of the various weights. This becomes
c r i t i c a l l y important in situations where costs may not be m e a s u r e d in monetary
t e r m s : in these cases, Hughes [3] has suggested the use of indifference curve
analysis. The contribution of Threshold Analysis would be in the f o r m of p r o -
riding information on sets of alternatives yielding s i m i l a r benefits r a t h e r than
on sets yielding different b e n e f i t s - - i , e . , projects that would be located along
one of the indifference curves r a t h e r on different c u r v e s . This begs the q u e s -
tion about the m e a s u r e m e n t of benefits and the distributional effects of projects.
The alternative would be to s t r u c t u r e the use of Threshold Analysis v e r y c a r e -
fully within the context of a general planning model so that the sensitivity of
various alternative least cost plans may be gauged in t e r m s of their c o n t r i b u -
tions to the benefit side of the accounts. These may be articulated in t e r m s of
a Planning Balance Sheet [7] or a Goals Achievement Matrix [2].
An area in which Threshold Analysis could make a significant c o n t r i b u -
tion would be in the case of allocating investment for i n f r a s t r u c t u r e among cities
to achieve some state or provincially defined goal for the spatial distribution of
population. In conjunction with this focus, a s u b s i d i a r y focus would involve op-
t i m i z i n g this allocation over t i m e . Thus, f r o m a careful study of existing cities,
could we identify (1) those cities for whom expansion could be encouraged at no
threshold investment and (2) those cities for whom expansion could be e n c o u r -
aged at no threshold costs ? Perhaps a third category of cities could be identi-
fied--those for whom expansion should not be encouraged. The c o s t - m i n i m i z a -
tion approach would be just one of the many inputs into the calculus of d e c i s i o n -
making. With reference to Figure 2, we may see that one city may be p r e f e r -
able for the allocation of new growth than any others (Figure 2(a)) or it may be
that the total costs may change significantly with the level of input of new inhab-
itants (Figure 2 (b)). This point obviously relates to the opportunity cost issue
r a i s e d in the analysis of frozen capital costs. Threshold Analysis may assist
then in the identification of those communities which may be better able to ab-
sorb l a r g e r n u m b e r s of units at cheaper per unit costs over t i m e - - p r o v i d e d
other established standards ar_e no___tcompromised. A principle to be followed
here is that opening up a new a r e a for development should always be followed by
a planned increase in population in that area alone [8]. The way in which this is
effected, and the time horizon over which this is c a r r i e d out will have i m p o r -
tant implications.
Land banking has become, once again, a topic of heated d i s c u s s i o n in the
planning l i t e r a t u r e and in the popular p r e s s . If a land banking policy becomes
an accepted part of the m e c h a n i s m of planning within a province or municipality,
Threshold Analysis may provide, through its categorization of land into the

27
 totat __ ICommunityI
cosi~

[ ' ~ Community2

..... Community
3

numberof
new inhtlbitartt$

Iot~l
F Community4
cost5
" Community5

- Community6

II
numberof
newinhabitants
(b)
F i g u r e 2 - E X P A N S I O N COSTS FOB A SET O F C O M M U N I T I E S

three components identified in Stage 1, an indication of those areas most suit-

able (from the standpoint of the community) for development. It is possible that
the prior identification of such areas may provide more time for adequate r e -
flection and community involvement in designing the type of urban development
that would contribute most to that community's set of goals.

5. Threshold Analysis: Evaluation

In attempting an evaluation of Threshold Analysis, it is difficult, as

Hughes has noted to distinguish criticisms of the analysis which:

. . . stem from difficulties faced by all appraisal techniques in the

field of social investment...from the particular imperfections of the
individual technique [3].

Nevertheless, there are a number of shortcomings to Threshold Analysis, some

of which stern from the nature of the analysis itself and others which would arise
through misapplication.
It is difficult to criticize Threshold Analysis as one would perhaps criti-
cize an economic model. The biggest drawback to the model is the exclusive
reliance upon costs, there is constant recognition of this in the literature. The
incorporation of benefits is not denied but rather left to a later stage in the
planning process. However, there is a danger that exclusive reliance on costs
may lead to the rejection of alternative development strategies which, according

28
to some other c r i t e r i a , may have provided a more favorable return in moving
society towards some chosen goals. Consider two alternative prograrnmes,
one involving lower total costs than the other. If all benefits could be identified
and expressed in monetary t e r m s , it is possible that the project yielding the
higher discounted s t r e a m of net benefits would also be the one which was the
more costly. Wright [15] has argued that there is a problem with Threshold
Analysis in that its reliance on costs alone may result in the possible omission
of factors (or at least their undervaluation) such that some options may be r e -
jected at an e a r l y stage in the proceedings.
A more important c r i t i c i s m relates to the fact that one must consider the
opportunity cost of the investment in a b r o a d e r context than the purely cost side.
Optimally, one would wish to strive for a situation in which the town is de -
vetoped until such point that the difference between marginal product and m a r -
ginal cost r e p r e s e n t s the opportunity cost of siting the population in alternative
cities [12]o Thus, it is possible to consider situations in which a city is e x -
panded along a Threshold Analysis minimum cost sequence whereas returns to
society may have been b e t t e r had another city developed.
In most social planning, an assumption is made to the effect that various
forms of social investment are independent whereas interdependence is by f a r
the most striking c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In many cases, it may be difficult to ascribe
the costs of a public service purely to that service. Development of land does
not involve a decision about a sewage treatment plant taken in vacuo. The a l -
ternative uses of that system (for example, by industry) may be such that v a r i -
ations in cost may occur: these variations will be a function of the land use
plan for that area, and the degree of success the community has in completing .
the plan.
Operationally, the methodology is not as convenient as some of the l o c a -
tion~atloeatton systems suggested in Scott [13] and Teltz [14]. This might be
an area of possible fruitful extension, for example, the effect of different loca-
tions for the central facility (sewage system, water supply, police station) on
the delimitation of the threshold area for that facility. There needs to be more
r e s e a r c h in the general a r e a of overlap between industrial and residential d e -
velopment: it is quite unrealistic to assume that the type of industrial growth
which will take place in the city will have no impact upon residential develop-
ment. F u r t h e r m o r e , the quality of jobs to be created through that growth will
have a direct bearing on the quality of residential services demanded. The p r o -
vision of these services will themselves depend upon the availability of labor:
in some situations, with alternative capital and labor intensive techniques avail-
able for the provision of a service, the labor supply may condition the choice of
technique and hence the threshold level.
Clearly, too many claims must not be made for Threshold Analysis as an
independent tool for planning residential urban development. Integration of the
technique within a broad-based approach to development may provide useful i n -
sights into the optimal t i m e - c o a t sequencing of land development.

29
 APPENDIX: CONCEPT OF FROZEN COST
[This section draws heavily f r o m Hughes [3]. ]

While most social investment will incur costs f r o m the inception of the
p r o j e c t , the t i m e s t r e a m of benefits may not be r e a l i z e d f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . In
some c a s e s , the benefits may not begin until the total p r o j ect is completed: in
other c a s e s , only a c e r t a i n proportion of the total benefits may be disbursed in
any given t i m e period. The p r o b l e m b e c o m e s one of evaluating the r e a l r a t h e r
than the monetary burden of costs through t i m e . The c r i t i c a l issue here is the
choice of an appropriate discount rate so that during the investment period
(where t h ere is no utilization of facilities) and during the e a r l y part of the p r o -
ductive period (when the utilization l e v e l may be well below capacity) a " s u r -
c har g e" may be made to r e f l e c t the opportunity cost of capital tied up in this
project.
Assume a sewage s y s t e m is built to s e r v e a new community: during the
five y e a r s of construction t h e r e is no utilization: subsequently houses are built
at a rate such that within 10 y e a r s the s y s t e m is used to capacity.

Table 2

FROZEN COSTS

(5%DiscountRate)
Year Total Costs Utilization(%) F r o z e n Costs
1 5,000 0 5000x0.05 = 250
2 10000 0 10000x0.05 = 500
3 15 000 0 15000x0.05 = 750
4 20.000 0 20000x0.05 = i000
5 20.000 10 18000x0.05 = 900
6 20 000 20 16000x0.05 = 800
7 20 000 40 12000x0.05 = 600
8 20 000 60 8000x0.05 = 400
9 20.000 80 4000x0.05 = 200
10 20 000 100 0 0

Total = 5400
27% total costs

Table 2 shows how the F r o z e n Costs are computed at each t i m e period. These
F r o z e n Costs are i n c u r r e d by the total society. It is conceivable that p r o j e c t s
with considerable economies of scale average lower p e r capita costs may incur
g r e a t e r F r o z e n Costs because of the length of t i m e n e c e s s a r y for the s y s t e m to
be fully utilized (if full utilization is equated with lowest p er unit cost).

30
 REFERENCES

1. Famelis, N., "On the Validity of Urban Threshold Theory: Further Corn-
Comment," Journal Town Planning Institute (1970).
2. Hill, M., ,,A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans,"
Journal American Institute Planners (1968).
3. Hughes, J. T., "Threshold Analysis: Economics of Town Planning,"
Papers from the Seminar on Threshold Analysis, C. E. S. London (May
1970).
4. Kozlowski, J . , "Towards an Integrated Planning P r o c e s s , " Papers from
the Seminar on Threshold Analysis, C, E. S. London (May 1970).
5. Kozlowski, J. and Hughes, J. T., Threshold Analysis, London 1972.
6. Lean, W., "An EconomistTs Note on the Validity of Urban Threshold
Theory," Journal Town planning Institute (1969).
7. Lichfield, N., "Cost Benefit Analysis in Urban Redevelopment. A Case
Study - Swanley," Urban Studies (1966).
8. Malisz, B., "Implications of Threshold Theory for Urban and Regional
Planning," Journal Town Planning Institute (1969).
9. Malisz, B., '~Direct Application of Threshold Analysis to Regional Plan-
ning," Papers from the Seminar on Threshold Analysis, C. E. S. London,
(May 1970).
10. Malisz, B., "Threshold Analysis as a Tool in Urban and Regional Plan-
ning," Papers Regional Science Association (1972).
Ii. Plunkett, T. J. The Financial Structure and Decision-Making Process of
Canadian Municipal Government, C.M.H.C. 1972.
12. Richardson, H. W., "Optimality in City Size, Systems of Cities and Urban
Policy: A Sceptic's View, " Urban Studies (1972).
13. Scott, A. J., "Location-Allocation Systems: A Review, " Geographical
Analysis (April 1970).
14. Teitz, M. G., "Toward a Theory of Urban Public Facility Location,"
Papers Regional Science Association (1968).
15. Wright, W. D. C., "A Comparison Between Cost-Effectiveness and
Threshold Analysis," Journal Town Planning Institute (1979).

31

View publication stats