Experiences and issues of using cellular automata for assisting urban and regional planning in China

Since the late 1990s, there are growing studies on the development of cellular automata (CA) as a simulation tool for assisting urban and regional planning in China. Rapid urban development is the main reason that this country has become one of the best places to test the methodology of CA and analyze the effectiveness of using these models. This paper attempts to summarize the experiences and issues of using CA to solve various environmental and planning problems in China. The analysis is based on the literature review using the search engines of ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. These experiences could be important for those who want to apply CA in developing countries. For example, which environmental and ecological problems can be solved by using this bottom-up approach? What are the data inputs to these models and how can they be calibrated? Our analyses indicate that CA have the great potential to support land-use planning and policy analysis for fast-growing regions. Some specific features of using CA in China are also identified in the literature review, including delineation of urban growth boundary, prevention of illegal development and formulating zoning schemes. The CA studies in this fast-growing country provided valuable experiences for other developing countries to solve a series of simulation and planning problems by using this bottom-up approach.     

“多元信息供水勘查模式”的研究与应用

以数学中的集合理论（交集）为基础，采用“多元信息理论”逐步逼近，建立镇江地区缺水丘陵山区找水的逻辑推理模式。利用遥感、水文地质与构造地质勘查以及地球物理综合勘察技术，由区域→块段→点的逐步“聚焦”获取富水块段、贮水地质体和贮水构造、布井具体位置的信息，此即为“多元信息供水勘查模式”。通过供水勘查实践，验证了该模式在构造复杂的缺水山区供水勘查中的优越性，同时也指出了其应用过程中应注意的具体问题。     

Future mitigation commitments: differentiating among non-Annex I countries

Abstract

In the long term, any definition of adequacy consistent with UNFCCC Article 2 will require increased mitigation efforts from almost all countries. Therefore, an expansion of emission limitation commitments will form a central element of any future architecture of the climate regime. This expansion has two elements: deepening of quantitative commitments for Annex B countries and the adoption of commitments for those countries outside of the current limitation regime. This article seeks to provide a more analytical basis for further differentiation among non-Annex I countries. To be both fair and reflective of national circumstances, it is based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate. Altogether, non-Annex I countries were differentiated in four groups, each including countries with similar national circumstances: newly industrialized countries (NICs), rapidly industrializing countries (RIDCs), ‘other developing countries’, and least developed countries (LDCs). Based on the same criteria that were used for differentiating among non-Annex I countries, a set of decision rules was developed to assign mitigation and financial transfer commitments to each group of countries (including Annex I countries). Applying these decision rules results in (strict) reduction commitments for Annex I countries, but also implies quantifiable mitigation obligations for NICs and RIDCs, assisted by financial transfers from the North. Other developing countries are obliged to take qualitative commitments, but quantifiable mitigation commitments for these countries and the LDC group would be not justifiable. As national circumstances in countries evolve over time, the composition of the groups will change according to agreed triggers.