Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care

By 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to be living in cities and towns, a marked increase from today’s level of 55 percent. If the general trend is unmistakable, efforts to measure it precisely have been beset with difficulties: the criteria defining urban areas, cities and towns...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Deborah Balk, Stefan Leyk, Mark R. Montgomery, Hasim Engin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-12-01
Series:Remote Sensing
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/24/4973
_version_ 1797501077919105024
author Deborah Balk
Stefan Leyk
Mark R. Montgomery
Hasim Engin
author_facet Deborah Balk
Stefan Leyk
Mark R. Montgomery
Hasim Engin
author_sort Deborah Balk
collection DOAJ
description By 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to be living in cities and towns, a marked increase from today’s level of 55 percent. If the general trend is unmistakable, efforts to measure it precisely have been beset with difficulties: the criteria defining urban areas, cities and towns differ from one country to the next and can also change over time for any given country. The past decade has seen great progress toward the long-awaited goal of scientifically comparable urbanization measures, thanks to the combined efforts of multiple disciplines. These efforts have been organized around what is termed the “statistical urbanization” concept, whereby urban areas are defined by population density, contiguity and total population size. Data derived from remote-sensing methods can now supply a variety of spatial proxies for urban areas defined in this way. However, it remains to be understood how such proxies complement, or depart from, meaningful country-specific alternatives. In this paper, we investigate finely resolved population census and satellite-derived data for the United States, Mexico and India, three countries with widely varying conceptions of urban places and long histories of debate and refinement of their national criteria. At the extremes of the urban–rural continuum, we find evidence of generally good agreement between the national and remote sensing-derived measures (albeit with variation by country), but identify significant disagreements in the middle ranges where today’s urban policies are often focused.
first_indexed 2024-03-10T03:13:09Z
format Article
id doaj.art-f0a991abb87f45748101072c6eb11a04
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2072-4292
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T03:13:09Z
publishDate 2021-12-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Remote Sensing
spelling doaj.art-f0a991abb87f45748101072c6eb11a042023-11-23T10:23:06ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922021-12-011324497310.3390/rs13244973Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with CareDeborah Balk0Stefan Leyk1Mark R. Montgomery2Hasim Engin3CUNY Institute for Demographic Research (CIDR), City University of New York, New York, NY 10010, USADepartment of Geography, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USADepartment of Economics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USACUNY Institute for Demographic Research (CIDR), City University of New York, New York, NY 10010, USABy 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to be living in cities and towns, a marked increase from today’s level of 55 percent. If the general trend is unmistakable, efforts to measure it precisely have been beset with difficulties: the criteria defining urban areas, cities and towns differ from one country to the next and can also change over time for any given country. The past decade has seen great progress toward the long-awaited goal of scientifically comparable urbanization measures, thanks to the combined efforts of multiple disciplines. These efforts have been organized around what is termed the “statistical urbanization” concept, whereby urban areas are defined by population density, contiguity and total population size. Data derived from remote-sensing methods can now supply a variety of spatial proxies for urban areas defined in this way. However, it remains to be understood how such proxies complement, or depart from, meaningful country-specific alternatives. In this paper, we investigate finely resolved population census and satellite-derived data for the United States, Mexico and India, three countries with widely varying conceptions of urban places and long histories of debate and refinement of their national criteria. At the extremes of the urban–rural continuum, we find evidence of generally good agreement between the national and remote sensing-derived measures (albeit with variation by country), but identify significant disagreements in the middle ranges where today’s urban policies are often focused.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/24/4973demographicsspatialeconomic geographyurban economicsspatial demographyurbanness
spellingShingle Deborah Balk
Stefan Leyk
Mark R. Montgomery
Hasim Engin
Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
Remote Sensing
demographics
spatial
economic geography
urban economics
spatial demography
urbanness
title Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
title_full Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
title_fullStr Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
title_full_unstemmed Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
title_short Global Harmonization of Urbanization Measures: Proceed with Care
title_sort global harmonization of urbanization measures proceed with care
topic demographics
spatial
economic geography
urban economics
spatial demography
urbanness
url https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/24/4973
work_keys_str_mv AT deborahbalk globalharmonizationofurbanizationmeasuresproceedwithcare
AT stefanleyk globalharmonizationofurbanizationmeasuresproceedwithcare
AT markrmontgomery globalharmonizationofurbanizationmeasuresproceedwithcare
AT hasimengin globalharmonizationofurbanizationmeasuresproceedwithcare