The Fragmentation of Urban

Environment
and Urbanization
http://eau.sagepub.com/
The fragmentation of urban landscapes: global evidence of a key attribute of the

spatial structure of cities, 1990 2000
Shlomo Angel, Jason Parent and Daniel L Civco
Environment and Urbanization 2012 24: 249
DOI: 10.1177/0956247811433536
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://eau.sagepub.com/content/24/1/249
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Institute for Environment and Development
Additional services and information for Environment and Urbanization can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eau.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Apr 30, 2012

What is This?
Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on July 23, 2012
The fragmentation of urban landscapes:

global evidence of a key attribute of the
spatial structure of cities, 19902000
SHLOMO ANGEL, JASON PARENT AND DANIEL L CIVCO
Dr Shlomo Angel
(corresponding author) is
Adjunct Professor of Urban
Planning at the Robert F
Wagner Graduate School
of Public Service, New
York University. He is also
a Lecturer in Public and
International Affairs at The
Woodrow Wilson School,
Princeton University.
Address: 284 Lafayette
Street, Apt 3B, New York,
NY 10012; tel: 212-925-9055;
mobile: 646-578-4821; e-mail:
sangel@princeton.edu
Jason Parent is a PhD
student and graduate
assistant at the Department
of Natural Resources and
the Environment, University
of Connecticut.
Address: e-mail: jason.
parent@uconn.edu
Dr Daniel L Civco is
Professor of Geomatics
at the Department of
Natural Resources and the
Environment, University
of Connecticut. He is also
Director of the Centre for
Land Use Education and
Research, University of
Connecticut.
Address: e-mail: daniel.
civco@uconn.edu
Acknowledgement: The
research for this paper
was made possible by
grants from the World
Bank, NASA, the National
Science Foundation and
ABSTRACT The fragmentation of urban landscapes or the inter-penetration of

the built-up areas of cities and the open spaces in and around them is a key
attribute of their spatial structure. Analyzing satellite images for 1990 and 2000 for
a global sample of 120 cities, we find that cities typically contain or disturb vast
quantities of open spaces equal in area, on average, to their built-up areas. We also
find that fragmentation, defined as the relative share of open space in the urban
landscape, is now in decline. Using multiple regression models, we find that larger
cities are less fragmented, that higher-income cities are more fragmented, that
cities with higher levels of car ownership are less fragmented, and that cities that
constrain urban development are less fragmented. We recommend that making
room for urban expansion in rapidly growing cities should take into account their
expected fragmentation levels.
KEYWORDS cities / fragmentation / infill / landscape metrics / leapfrogging /
metropolitan areas / open space / sprawl / urban expansion
I. INTRODUCTION
Cities and metropolitan areas the world over are now highly fragmented,
their fringes typically made up of disconnected patches of urban fabric
broken up by swathes of vacant land. The fully built-out city of old,
surrounded by a wall and situated in the open countryside, did not
fragment any open space nor was its built-up area fragmented by open
space. The modern urban landscape is quite different:
Breaking out of the old bounds, walls, boulevards or administrative
limits which set it apart, the city has massively invaded the open
country, though parts of the countryside may have kept their rural
appearance.(1)
Both city and country now inter-penetrate and fragment each other.
A key question that has confronted urban planners, policy makers
and concerned environmentalists worldwide for some time is whether
the fragmentation of the urban landscape is an inherent feature of
contemporary cities that must be taken into account in planning for and
managing urban expansion, or whether it is a disorderly, wasteful and
undesirable form of sprawl that must be brought under control through
containment or growth management strategies of one type or another.
Sprawl was indeed defined almost 50 years ago as a lack of continuity in
Environment & Urbanization Copyright 2012 International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Vol 24(1): 249283. DOI: 10.1177/0956247811433536
www.sagepublications.com
Downloaded
from eau.sagepub.com by guest on July 23, 2012
249
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N
expansion,(2) and since then many writers have bemoaned the ill-effects
of scattered or leapfrogging development and the costs it imposes both
on the built environment(3) and on the rural fringe of cities:
[P]arcelization of farmlands leads to a checkerboard distribution of
farmlands, i.e. many non-contiguous fields. Farming such scattered
plots is problematic.(4)
Landscape ecology studies also maintain that settlements developed near
a forest or prairie affect vegetation and wildlife along their edges, often
in a belt up to 100 metres wide.(5) The fragmentation of urban landscapes
is therefore an important concern both in terms of the efficiency of the
built environment and in terms of the ecology of the open spaces in and
around cities.
Discontinuous development has been explained by urban economists
as the result of the operation of market forces. Ewing, paraphrasing
Lessinger and Ottensman, explains:
Expectations of land appreciation on the urban fringe cause some
landowners to withhold land from the market... The result is a
discontinuous pattern of development.(6)
And some economists have observed that while fragmentation may
be inefficient in the short term, it leads to more efficient development
patterns in the long term:
[C]ontrary to conventional wisdom, a freely functioning land market
with discontinuous patterns of development inherently promotes
higher density development.(7)
Such views suggest that fragmentation is indeed an inherent feature of the
urban expansion process and that it is not the result of the failure of land
markets on the urban fringe, a failure that would have to be addressed by
ameliorative action on the part of the state.
While it would be difficult to dispute that some fragmentation on the urban
fringe is necessary for the proper functioning of land markets, and is indeed an
inherent feature of the urban landscape, there is a quantitative aspect to this
assertion that is left unexplored: how much fragmentation would be necessary
and sufficient for the smooth functioning of the urban development process,
and when can we determine that fragmentation is excessive and requires
ameliorative action to reduce it? In fact, we may ask a number of questions
regarding fragmentation that require quantitative answers:

How fragmented are cities and metropolitan areas and what is the
minimum observed level of fragmentation at the present time?
Are cities becoming more or less fragmented over time?
What level of fragmentation needs to be taken as a planning norm
when projecting the area needed for urban expansion in a given city,
say 2030 years ahead?
We can also ask more specific empirical questions about levels of

fragmentation in particular countries and cities:

Are Chinese metropolitan areas, as few observers have suspected,(8)

more fragmented than other metropolitan areas and if so, why?
Has urban containment in Portland, Oregon reduced fragmentation
within its strictly enforced urban growth boundary over time?
250
Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy. The authors are
grateful to Gregory Ingram,
Alejandro Blei, John Volin,
Ralph Gakenheimer, Robert
Buckley, Alain Bertaud,
Mike de Smith, Claudio
Acioly, Michael Teitz,
George Martine, Lucy Gitlin
and Daniella Gitlin for their
support, comments and
suggestions; and to Chul Il
Kim for his help with the
multiple regression models.
1. Gottmann, J and R A Harper
(1990), Since Megalopolis:
The Urban Writings of Jean
Gottmann, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore,
page 101.
2. Clawson, M (1962), Urban
sprawl and speculation in
urban land, Land Economics
Vol 38, May, page 99.
3. Heim, C E (2001),
Leapfrogging, urban sprawl
and growth management:
Phoenix 19502000, American
Journal of Economics and
Sociology Vol 60, No 1, pages
245283; also Carruthers, J
I and G F Ulfarsson (2001),
Fragmentation and sprawl:
evidence from inter-regional
analysis, Growth and Change
33, Summer, pages 312340.
4. Pfeffer, M J and M B Lapping
(1995), Prospects for a
sustainable agriculture in the
northeasts rural/urban fringe,
Research in Rural Sociology and
Development Vol 6, page 85.
5. Chen, I, J F Franklin and T
A Spies (1992), Vegetation
responses to edge
environments in old growth
Douglas fir forests, Ecological
Applications Vol 2, No 4, pages
387396; also Winter, M, D H
Johnson and J Faaborg (2000),
Evidence for edge effects
on multiple levels in tallgrass
prairie, Condor Vol 102, No
2, pages 256266, available
at http://www.npwrc.usgs.
gov/resource/birds/edgeffct/
index.htm; and Brand, L A and
T L George (2001), Response
of Passerine birds to forest
edge in coast Redwood forest
fragments, The Auk Vol 118,
No 3, pages 678686.
6. Ewing, paraphrasing
Lessinger (1962) and
Ottensman (1977); see Ewing,
R (1994), Characteristics,
T H E F R A G M E N TAT I O N O F U R B A N L A N D S C A P E S, 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0
causes and effects of
sprawl: a literature review,
Environmental and Urban
Issues Vol 21, No 2, page 2; also
Lessinger, J (1962), The case
for scatteration, Journal of the
American Institute of Planners
Vol 28, No 3, pages 159169;
and Ottensman, J R (1977),
Urban sprawl, land values and
the density of development,
Land Economics Vol 53, No 4,
pages 389400.
7. Peiser, R B (1989), Density
and urban sprawl, Land
Economics Vol 65, No 3, page
193.
8. Bertaud, A (2007),
Urbanization in China: land
use efficiency issues, available
at http://www.alain-bertaud.
com/AB_Files/AB_China_land_
use_report_6.pdf, page 17.
9. See Angel, S, J Parent, D L

Civco and A M Blei (2011), The
Atlas of Urban Expansion, The
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
Cambridge MA, available at
http://www.lincolninst.edu/
publications/atlas.
10. Angel, S, S C Sheppard and
D L Civco, with A Chabaeva,
L Gitlin, A Kraley, J Parent, M
Perlin and R Buckley (2005),
The Dynamics of Global Urban
Expansion, The World Bank,
Washington DC, Chapter 2, 199
pages, available at http://www.
worldbank.org/urban.
11. See reference 10, Chapter 2.
12. See reference 10, Chapter 3.
13. Potere, D, A Schneider, S
Angel and D L Civco (2009),
Mapping urban areas on
a global scale: which of the
eight maps now available is
more accurate?, International
Journal of Remote Sensing Vol
30, No 24, December, pages
65316558.
14. Angel, S, J Parent, D L
Civco and A M Blei (2010a),
The persistent decline in
urban densities: global and
These are all empirical questions that have not been properly addressed
in the literature, be it in landscape ecology or in urban studies, and it is
precisely those questions that we seek to address here.
Analyzing satellite images for 1990 and 2000 for a global sample of
120 cities, we find that cities typically contain or disturb vast quantities of
open space equal in area, on average, to their built-up areas. We also find
that fragmentation, defined as the relative share of open space in the urban
landscape, is now in decline. Using multiple regression models, we find that
larger cities are less fragmented, that higher-income cities are more fragmented,
that higher levels of car ownership tend to reduce fragmentation, and that
cities that constrain urban development are less fragmented than cities that
do not. We recommend that making room for urban expansion in rapidly
growing cities should take into account their expected fragmentation levels.
II. DATA AND METRICS

The unit of investigation in this study is the metropolitan area, typically a
central city surrounded by suburbs and secondary cities that form a relatively
contiguous whole. The urban landscape in cities and metropolitan areas is
occupied by urban uses that include all land in residential, commercial,
industrial and office use, land used for transport, parks and public facilities,
protected land and vacant land. It does not include cultivated lands, pasture
lands, forests, farms and villages, intercity roads and nature areas that are
not in the immediate vicinity of, or fully contained by, urban built-up
areas. The terms city and metropolitan area are used interchangeably.
The database for the study is a set of digital maps based on satellite
images of 120 cities and metropolitan areas in two time periods, one circa
1990 and one circa 2000.(9) In an earlier 2005 study,(10) we identified a total
of 3,945 large cities with populations of 100,000 or more that were home
to a total of 2.12 billion people, or three-quarters of the worlds urban
population in the year 2000. The global sample of 120 cities (Figure 1 and
Table 1 in the Appendix) is a stratified sample from this universe, including
cities from nine geographic regions, four population size classes and four
per capita income classes. The nine region classification approximates
that of UNHabitat,(11) except that developed countries were regrouped
into two regions: land-rich developed countries that had more than 0.6
hectares of arable land per capita in 2000 (US, Canada and Australia 13
cities in the sample); and Europe and Japan (19 cities in the sample).
For each sample city we obtained two medium-resolution Landsat
satellite images, one for each time period. These images were classified into
built-up and non-built-up 3030-metre pixels using a thematic extraction
algorithm.(12) Using 10,000 Google Earth validation sites, Potere et al.(13)
reported that pixels identified as built-up in our sample were found to be
built-up in Google Earth 91 per cent of the time, and those identified as
built-up were identified in our sample 89 per cent of the time, confirming
a relatively high level of accuracy. This data set allowed us to estimate
and explain variations in fragmentation and in the rate of change in
fragmentation during the 1990s. It also allowed us to analyze variations
in density(14) and in urban land cover.(15)
Landscape ecology studies have long been concerned with measuring
fragmentation.(16) Unfortunately, the measures proposed in the literature
proved inappropriate for the comparative study of the fragmentation
of urban landscapes on a global scale. Thus for this study, we have
251

historical evidence of sprawl,
Lincoln Institute Working
Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, Cambridge MA, 151
pages, available at http://www.
lincolninst.edu/pubs/1834_ThePersistent-Decline-in-UrbanDensities.
FIGURE 1
The global sample of 120 cities and nine world regions

SOURCE: The authors.
constructed two new fragmentation metrics (the first one following

Burchfield et al.(17)) and three subsidiary ones:

the openness index is the average share of open space pixels in the
walking distance circle around each built-up pixel in the city;
the urban landscape ratio is the ratio of the urban landscape area
and the built-up area in the city;
infill is defined as all new development that occurred between two
time periods within the urbanized open space of the earlier period,
excluding exterior open space;
extension is all new development that occurred between two time
periods in contiguous clusters that contained exterior open space in the
earlier period and that were not infill; and
leapfrog development is all new construction that occurred between
two time periods in the open countryside, entirely outside the exterior
open space of the earlier period.
The intermediary metrics used for calculating these fragmentation metrics

(shown in italics above) are defined as follows:

the walking distance circle is a circle with an area of one square

kilometre around a given built-up pixel;
urban built-up pixels are pixels that have a majority of built-up
pixels within their walking distance circle;
suburban built-up pixels are pixels that have 1050 per cent of
built-up pixels within their walking distance circle;
rural built-up pixels are pixels that have less than 10 per cent of
built-up pixels within their walking distance circle;
fringe open space consists of all open space pixels within 100
metres of urban or suburban pixels;
captured open space consists of all open space clusters that are
fully surrounded by built-up and fringe open space pixels and are less
than 200 hectares in area;
252
15. Angel, S, J Parent and

D L Civco (2010b), The
fragmentation of urban
footprints: global evidence of
sprawl 19902000, Lincoln
Institute Working Paper,
Cambridge MA, 114 pages,
available at http://www.
lincolninst.edu/pubs/1835_TheFragmentation-of-UrbanFootprints.
16. Riiters, K H, R V ONeill,
C T Hunsaker, J D Wickham,
D H Yankee, S P Timmins,
K B Jones and B L Jackson
(1995), A factor analysis
of landscape pattern and
structure metrics, Landscape
Ecology Vol 10, pages 2339;
also Haines-Young, R and M
Chopping (1996), Quantifying
landscape structure: a review
of landscape indices and
their application to forested
landscapes, Progress in
Physical Geography Vol 20, No
4, pages 418445; ONeill, R
V, J R Krummel, R H Gardner,
G Sugihara, B Jackson, D
L DeAngelis, B Milne, S W
Christensen, V H Dale and R
L Graham (1988), Indices of
landscape pattern, Landscape
Ecology Vol 1, pages 153162;
Hargis, C D, J A Bissonette
and J L David (1998), The
behaviour of landscape metrics
commonly used in the study
of habitat fragmentation,
Landscape Ecology Vol 13,
pages 167186; Hurd, J D, E H
Wilson, S G Lammey and D L
Civco (2001), Characterization
of Forest Fragmentation and
Urban Sprawl using Time
Sequential Landsat Imagery,
Proceedings of the ASPRS
Annual Convention, St Louis
MO, 2327 April, 12 pages,
available at http://www.resac.
uconn. edu/publications/tech_
papers/index.html; Brabec, E
and C Smith (2002), Agricultural
land fragmentation: the spatial
effects of three land protection
strategies in the eastern
United States, Landscape and
Urban Planning Vol 58, pages
255268; Civco, D L, J D Hurd,
FIGURE 2
E H Wilson, C L Arnold and M

Prisloe (2002), Quantifying
and describing urbanizing
landscapes in the northeast
United States, Photogrammetr.
Eng. Remote Sens. Vol 68, No
10, pages 10831090; and
McGarigal, K, S A Cushman,
M C Neel and E Ene (2002),
FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern
analysis programme for
categorical maps, available
at http://www.umass.edu/
landeco/research/fragstats/
fragstats.html.
17. Burchfield, M, H G Overman,
D Puga and M A Turner (2006),
Causes of sprawl: a portrait
from space, Quarterly Journal
of Economics Vol 121, No 2,
pages 587633.
The urban landscape of Bandung, 1991 and 2001

exterior open space consists of all fringe open space pixels that are
less than 100 metres from the open countryside;
urbanized open space consists of all fringe open space, captured
open space and exterior open space pixels in the city; and
the urban landscape area consists of all the built-up area of the
city and all its urbanized open space.
The reader should note that we have given common words such as
urban, suburban and rural very specific quantitative meanings
here, which while corresponding to our intuitive understanding of
these terms do not necessarily correspond to the unique manifestations
of these terms within specific cities.
The urban landscapes of Bandung in 1991 and 2001 are shown in
Figure 2. In 1991, Bandung had a built-up area of 108.7 square kilometres,
253
of which 64 per cent was urban, 34 per cent was suburban and two
per cent was rural. Fringe open space added 103.2 square kilometres
and captured open space added 5.1 square kilometres, respectively, to its
built-up area. The urban landscape area thus amounted to 217 square
kilometres, roughly double its built-up area. The openness index in the
city was 0.41 and the urban landscape ratio was 2.0. The area of new
development in Bandung between 1991 and 2001 amounted to 45.1
square kilometres, of which 23 per cent was infill, 60 per cent was
extension and 17 per cent was leapfrog. By 2001, the built-up area of
Bandung was 153.8 square kilometres and its urban landscape area was
284.9 square kilometres; its openness index declined to 0.37 and its urban
landscape ratio declined to 1.85 as it became less fragmented.
III. FRAGMENTATION IN THE GLOBAL SAMPLE OF CITIES,

19902000
Burchfield et al. follow Clawson(18) in perceiving urban sprawl simply as
the fragmentation of the urban landscape. They define fragmentation as
the average share of a one-square kilometre urban neighbourhood that
is occupied by open space. This definition does not distinguish between
open space in permanent public or private use and open space that is
vacant land that will be built on eventually. Clearly, the remote sensing
of open space pixels cannot distinguish between these different categories
of open space. As noted earlier, we measure fragmentation with two
complementary metrics: the openness index and the urban landscape
ratio. The first, following Burchfield et al.,(19) measures the average share
of open pixels within the walking distance circle of every built-up pixel
in the city. It is a neighbourhood scale measure of fragmentation. The
second is the urban landscape ratio, which is a citywide measure of
fragmentation. Both are area metrics, not per-person metrics, and are
therefore independent of the density of built-up areas.(20)
What, one may ask, is the share of open space in a typical city
neighbourhood? Our key findings regarding fragmentation in the 1990s
can be summarized as follows: the average value of the openness index
in the global sample of 120 cities was almost one-half; that is, typical
neighbourhoods contained as much open space as their built-up areas.
Similarly, urban landscapes, on average, were double the size of the
built-up areas of cities; on average, open space added an area to the city
equivalent to its built-up area at a minimum, it added 36 per cent to the
built-up areas of cities.
More specifically, urban landscapes circa 2000 added 937 per cent,(21)
on average, to the built-up areas of cities, a surprisingly high figure with
rarely a reference to it in the literature. They added only 40 per cent to
the built-up area of Los Angeles, California (the fourth lowest value),
nearly 90 per cent to the built-up area of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (the
median value) and 180 per cent to the built-up area of Zhengzhou, China
(the second highest value) (Figure 3).
The mean value of the openness index for a typical city was 0.470.02
in 1990 and 0.420.02 in 2000, and these values were very similar to the
values found by Burchfield et al.(22) for the United States. They reported a
value of 0.43 in 1976 and 0.42 in 1992. The openness index values appear
to be normally distributed about their mean (Figure 4, top). Two cities
254
18. See reference 17; also see

reference 2.
19. See reference 17.
20. Cities can be less sprawled

in terms of built-up area density
and more sprawled in terms
of fragmentation at the same
time. For example, in 2000,
Kolkata in India ranked seventh
in built-up area density in the
global sample of 120 cities but
had the sixth highest urban
landscape ratio. In contrast, Los
Angeles in California ranked
103rd in built-up area density
while its urban landscape ratio
ranked 117th.
21. 7 denotes the 95 per
cent confidence interval of the
average.
22. See reference 17, page 602.
FIGURE 3
The urban landscapes of Los Angeles, California (2000) (top),

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (1999) (centre) and Zhengzhou,
China (2001) (bottom)
had values lower than 0.2 in 2000: So Paulo, Brazil and Accra, Ghana.
Four cities had values in excess of 0.7 in 2000: Rajshahi and Saidpur in
Bangladesh; Yulin in China; and Ilheus in Brazil. Cities in developing
255
45
1990
Number of cities in range
40
2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Upper bound of openness index range
Number of cities in range
35
1990
30
2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.4
Upper bound of range of city footprint ratio
FIGURE 4
The frequency distribution of the openness index and urban

landscape ratio for 120 cities, 19902000
countries had average values of 0.480.02 in 1990 and 0.430.02 in 2000,

which were significantly higher than those found in developed countries,
that is 0.440.02 in 1990 and 0.390.02 in 2000. Cities in Europe and
Japan had similar values to cities in land-rich developed countries.
The findings for the urban landscape ratios paralleled those for the
openness index with minor differences, but their distribution appears to
be more skewed (Figure 4, bottom). The mean value of the urban landscape
ratio for a typical city was 2.000.07 in 1990 and 1.920.07 in 2000, and
there were no significant differences in this ratio between developed and
256

24. For details, see reference 15.
developing countries or among the three regional groups. There were no

values below 1.36 in both periods, no values below 1.40 in 1990 and only
three values below 1.40 in 2000.
Why are some cities more fragmented than others? Traditional urban
economic theory does not seek to explain differences in fragmentation
levels in cities, and we are therefore not able to test hypotheses derived
from that theory. We have had to formulate our own hypotheses, largely
based on our intuitive understanding of the phenomenon as well as
on the analysis done by Burchfield et al.(23) Multiple regression models
testing these hypotheses can explain 30 to 50 per cent of the variation
in levels of fragmentation among cities in the global sample.(24) The
fragmentation of urban landscapes can be explained by variations in
such factors as city population size, income, levels of car ownership,
topographical restrictions on expansion, the availability of well water,
the preponderance of informal settlements, and to a small extent by the
presence of restrictions on expansion.
In 2000, larger cities had significantly lower levels of fragmentation
than smaller cities. A doubling of the city population was associated with
an 11 per cent decline in the openness index. We postulated that the
more people there are living in a city, the higher the demand for land and
the higher the prices for that land. The higher the value of vacant lots in
the city, the higher the incentive for landowners to sell them. Also, the
higher the value of vacant lots, the more expensive it is for municipalities
to acquire land for parks and playgrounds. We would therefore expect
that large cities would be less fragmented than smaller ones.
Cities with more buildable land in and around them were more
fragmented. A doubling of the share of buildable land was associated with
a 12 per cent increase in the openness index. It stands to reason that cities
surrounded by unlimited amounts of cheap, developable land would be
more fragmented than cities whose outward development is constrained
in one way or another. Cities with severe geographic constraints on
their expansion, such as water bodies or steep slopes, are likely to be less
fragmented than cities that can readily expand in all directions.
Cities in countries with higher incomes also had higher levels of
fragmentation. A doubling of income per capita was associated with a
12 per cent increase in the openness index. Other things being equal,
cities with higher average incomes would consume more of everything,
including land, and especially land in permanent use as open space in
both public and private ownership. It is also possible that in rich cities,
more capital is available to hold land vacant. If these contentions are true,
then we can expect cities in richer countries to contain more open space
and hence to be more fragmented than cities in poorer countries.
Cities in countries with higher levels of car ownership per capita
were less fragmented. A doubling of the level of car ownership per capita
was associated with an eight per cent decline in the openness index.
The availability of private automobiles can have two quite contradictory
effects on the fragmentation of cities. On the one hand, to the extent that
private automobiles make transport cheaper, they enable people to travel
further and to cover greater distances on their way to work, to market,
to school and to other destinations. If the cost of covering an extra
kilometre of road is relatively low, people would not mind living in more
fragmented cities where they would have to cover the extra distances
involved in crossing the open spaces between their destinations. That
257
would suggest that cities in countries with high levels of car ownership
per capita would be more fragmented than cities in countries with low
levels of car ownership.
On the other hand, private automobiles facilitate door-to-door travel
and can move with great ease along roads both narrow and wide, both
paved and unpaved, in almost all weather conditions. In the absence of
private automobiles, people must combine walking and public transport
to get from place to place. Public transport, especially rail transport in its
variety of forms, involves a much larger investment per kilometre than
is required for a kilometre of road, especially a narrow, unpaved one. It
is more expensive, therefore, to cover an urban area on the urban fringe
with a dense network of public rail transport or with wide arterial roads on
which buses can travel comfortably than it is to cover the area with a dense
network of cheap, narrow, unpaved roads. And this is especially true when
such fringe areas are built at low densities. This suggests that the private
automobile better supports infill development than public transport, and
that it is easier to infill the urban fringe with homes that rely on private
automobiles than with homes that rely on an efficient system of public
transport. If this were the case, then the prevalence of private automobiles
would be associated with higher levels of infill and consequently with
lower levels of fragmentation. It was difficult to determine in advance
which factor would be more powerful in determining whether levels of
automobile ownership and fragmentation would go hand in hand or in
opposite directions. Empirical results suggest that the second effect is
more powerful than the first one.
Access to well water also increased fragmentation: A doubling of the
share of the population that obtained its water from wells was associated
with a 12 per cent increase in the openness index. Burchfield et al. note
that: in places where water-yielding aquifers are pervasive, developers can
sink a well instead of connecting to the municipal or county water supply.(25)
This makes them more footloose and less likely to develop sites that are
immediately adjacent to built-up areas. Hence, we can expect cities where
people can obtain water from wells to be more fragmented than cities where
water can only be obtained by connecting to the municipal water supply.
The density of built-up areas did not affect the spatial fragmentation
of cities one way or another. In principle, the density of built-up areas
and their levels of fragmentation are not necessarily related. Levels of
fragmentation measured, for example, by the urban landscape ratio were
quite independent from built-up area densities. That said, can there be a
causal relationship between density and fragmentation? We can think of
cities or parts of cities, like the Kasbah in Fez, Morocco, for example, with
dense built-up areas that are also contiguous to each other, leaving very
little open space between them. In such places, high density and a low
level of fragmentation go hand in hand. Alternatively, we can think of
cities or parts of cities where land is ample and cheap and where people
live in large plots that are scattered across the land, leaving plots of vacant
open spaces between them. In both these types of cities, density and
fragmentation pull in opposite directions: high density and low levels
of fragmentation go hand in hand, and low density and high levels of
fragmentation go hand in hand. We can hypothesize that in these types
of cities, maturity may be the overpowering factor: it determines both
the average built-up area density and the average level of fragmentation.
When cities are fully mature and have gone through many cycles of
258
25. See reference 17, page 611
building and rebuilding, densities are high and fragmentation is low;

and when cities are not yet mature, densities are low and fragmentation
is high. We can also hypothesize that the price of land may be the
overpowering factor. When land in the city is in short supply, land prices
are high and therefore densities are high and fragmentation is low; when
land is in ample supply, land prices are low and therefore densities are low
and fragmentation is high.
We can also think of high density and open space as substitutes, where
density and fragmentation pull in the same direction. Le Corbusiers 1925
Plan Voisin proposal for Paris, France, for example, combined high
density development in built-up areas with a high level of fragmentation
of these built-up areas by open spaces. High built-up area density was thus
accompanied by a high ratio of open area to built-up area. In this case, we
can say that substantial amounts of open space compensated residents for
high density living. In parallel, we can think of families who seek larger
lots in fully built low density suburbs as internalizing the open space
that is missing from their neighbourhoods. If they cannot ensure that the
ample vacant spaces in their neighbourhood will stay vacant, they want
to make sure that when the neighbourhood is fully built-up they will still
have access to open space on their own plots. In both of these types of
cities the Plan Voisin type city and the low density suburb density
and fragmentation pull in the same direction: high density and high levels
of fragmentation go hand in hand, and low density and low levels of
fragmentation go hand in hand. We can hypothesize that in these types of
cities peoples preferences for proximity to open space is the overpowering
factor. When open space nearby is ample, people do not mind living at
high densities. When it is in short supply, they prefer living at low densities,
where they can internalize open space within their private domains.
The presence of informal settlements was associated with a decline
in fragmentation. A doubling of the share of the population in informal
settlements was associated with an eight per cent decline in the openness
index. Poor families in developing country cities typically do not have
access to the formal housing market, often resorting to the construction
of houses in squatter settlements and informal land sub-divisions. It has
often been remarked that squatter settlements and informal land subdivisions are located on undesirable land that is subject to flooding or
mudslides, on leftover plots of land, on disputed land with unclear title,
or on vacant public land. This suggests that informal settlement is often
infill development, taking advantage of any vacant land that is not used
by the formal sector. This would imply that cities with significant shares of
their population living in informal settlements would be less fragmented
than cities with small shares of their population in informal settlements.
The importance of agriculture to the countrys economy was also
associated with higher levels of fragmentation. A doubling of the share
of the countrys GDP from agriculture was associated with an eight per
cent increase in the openness index. We postulated that cities in countries
that derive a significant share of their national income from agriculture
would have agricultural lands in and around their cities that would still
be cultivated. Cities in these countries are therefore likely to be more
fragmented than cities in countries with smaller shares of their GDP
derived from agriculture.
The availability of large quantities of agricultural land in the country
did not lead to the increased fragmentation of urban areas. We postulated
259
that cities in countries with large amounts of arable land per capita
are likely to be more fragmented than cities in countries with limited
supplies of arable land. In the former, land is more likely to be cheaper
and conversion of agricultural lands to urban use easier than in the latter.
The empirical evidence does not support this contention.
Finally, planning restrictions were associated with a decline in
fragmentation. A doubling of the area of the metropolitan plan where
no development was allowed was associated with a six per cent decline
in the openness index. Several researchers have noted that: urban
growth boundaries are a successful tool in preventing urban incursions into
agricultural areas.(26) As we shall see later, the urban growth boundary in
Portland, Oregon, for example, has significantly reduced fragmentation
as measured by all indices, including the openness index. More generally,
limits on the conversion of land from rural to urban use, and zoning
regulations that prevent urban development in parts of the metropolitan
area restrict the possibilities for leapfrog development and thus encourage
infill. To the extent that these planning policies are effective, we would
expect them to increase the share of infill in new development and thus
reduce fragmentation.
IV. THE DECLINE IN FRAGMENTATION, 19902000

Levels of fragmentation measured by both the openness index and the
urban landscape ratio declined significantly between 1990 and 2000
in the global sample of 120 cities. More than two-thirds of these cities
experienced a decline in the urban landscape ratio, compared to less than
one-third which experienced an increase. On average, infill constituted
50.91.7 per cent of all new development between the two periods,
extension 26.01.3 per cent and leapfrog 23.11.4 per cent.
The average openness index declined from 0.47 to 0.42 and the
average urban landscape ratio declined from 2.01 to 1.93 between 1990
and 2000. The rate of change of the openness index was 1.20.1 per cent
per annum and that of the urban landscape ratio was 0.040.01 per cent
per annum. Both rates were significantly different from zero and did not
vary among the three regional groups or among developing countries and
developed countries. To put the latter rate in perspective, it was one-third
the rate of decline in the urban landscape ratio within Portlands urban
growth boundary between 1973 and 2005, which was -1.2 per cent per
annum (see Case study 2).
Multiple regression models could explain 14 to 43 per cent of the
variation in the annual rate of change of the openness index in the sample
of 120 cities. The models showed that the faster the rate of population
growth in the city, the faster the rate of decline in the openness index. A
10 per cent increase in the population growth rate is associated with a 2.7
decline in the rate of change in the index.
Rapid economic growth, in contrast to rapid population growth,
leads to increased fragmentation. A 10 per cent increase in the rate of
growth of GDP per capita is associated with a one per cent increase in the
rate of growth of the openness index.
The higher the level of car ownership in the country, the faster the
rate of decline in the openness index, but that effect, while significant,
was minimal.
260
26. Peiser (1989), see reference

7, pages 201202, paraphrasing
Knapp (1985) and Nelson
(1986); see Knapp, Gerrit J
(1985), The price effects of
urban growth boundaries
in metropolitan Portland,
Oregon, Land Economics No
61, February, pages 2735; and
Nelson, Arthur (1986), Using
land markets to evaluate urban
containment programmes,
Journal of the American
Planning Association Vol 52,
Spring.
The rate of inflation or restrictions on the conversion of land from

rural to urban use could not be said to effect significant changes in the
rate of change in the openness index.
To conclude, the fragmentation of urban landscapes declined during
the 1990s and cities therefore became less sprawled, if sprawl is seen as
scattered development. This finding contrasts with the evidence reported
elsewhere that average built-up area densities also declined during the
1990s,(27) and cities thus became more sprawled if sprawl is seen as low
density development.
While it has been difficult to obtain comparative data that could be
used to test the effects of policies on urban fragmentation at a global
scale, it was possible to begin to examine these effects in the two case
studies presented below.
a. Case study 1: Excessive fragmentation in Chinese cities
28. Ginsburg, N (1990),

Extended metropolitan
regions in Asia: a new spatial
paradigm, in N Ginsburg, The
Urban Transition: Reflections
on the American and Asian
Experiences, Chinese University
of Hong Kong Press, pages
2142; also McGee, T G (1991),
The emergence of desakota
regions in Asia: expanding a
hypothesis, in N Ginsburg, B
Koppel and T G McGee (editors),
The Extended Metropolis:
Settlement Transition in Asia,
University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu, pages 326.
29. Guldin, G E (1996),
Desakotas and beyond:
urbanization in southern
China, Ethnology Vol 35, No 4,
page 278.
30. See reference 8, page 17.
31. Angel, S, M I Valdivia and
R M Lutzy (2009), Urban
expansion, land conversion and
affordable housing in China:
the case of Zhengzhou, Paper
Although not well-documented, fragmentation in Chinese cities is indeed

excessive and most likely the result of the existence of a dense pattern of
villages villages that are quite urban in terms of their residential and
industrial composition in and around cities, as well as state policies
that prevent cultivated land from being converted to urban use. The
mean value of the urban landscape ratio for the nine Chinese cities
(not including Hong Kong) in our global sample for the year 2000, for
example, was 2.40. For the rest of the cities in the sample it was 1.89.
The Chinese cities in the sample had urban landscape ratios that ranged
from 2.1 in Shanghai and Beijing to 2.8 in Zhengzhou. These values were
significantly higher than those of other countries. Why?
It has often been noted in the academic literature that there is a broad
rural-yet-urban fringe in Chinese cities, a zone termed desakota by
urban geographers who studied Indonesia and later China in the early
1990s.(28) In this zone, there is a dense scatter of villages with a high share
of non-agricultural activities and a large number of workers who commute
to urban jobs in the city proper. As Chinese cities are often located on
formerly densely settled agricultural lands, they enclose and incorporate
many villages as they grow and expand outwards, while villages further
out become more urban in character:
The urbanization process unfolding is thus caused not only by a
stream of rural-to-urban migrants but also by urbanization in place;
that is, entire districts becoming more urbanized at all levels of the
ruralurban continuum.(29)
But the existence of a dense pattern of urban villages on the periphery
of Chinese cities does not explain the proliferation of cultivated lands
within Chinese cities. Indeed, as Bertaud has noted:
[t]he result of sample land use surveys conducted in suburban
areas in Chengdu, Tianjin and Zhengzhou shows that on average
about 34 per cent of the land within existing ring roads remains
under agricultural use while urban development expands much
farther away from the city centre.(30)
Angel et al.,(31) following Bertaud, attributed this persistence of agriculture,
much of it of a subsistence nature, to central government policies that
261
FIGURE 5
Dense affordable housing in urban villages demolished to

make way for urban expansion, while cultivated land remains
vacant Tianjin, China, 20042009
SOURCE: Google Earth.
limit the conversion of cultivated land to urban use, in line with Chinas
food security policies:
The Chinese government has given a high priority to agricultural
land preservation in its food security policies, among them the Basic
Farmland Protection Regulation of 1994, the 1998 Land Management
Law and the New Land Administration Act of 1999.(32)
They also estimated that fragmented cultivated land in Zhengzhou,
for example, is only half as productive as land in larger fields in the
surrounding Henan province, as most farming families have other
sources of income (e.g. from the rental of rooms or city jobs). They
observed that strict central government limitations on land conversion
have forced the municipality of Zhengzhou, for example, to appropriate
the built-up areas of several of its surrounding villages while leaving
their cultivated lands intact, then to demolish dense affordable housing
there and redevelop the areas for urban use (Figure 5). Similar actions
are taking places in other Chinese cities. These policies, they claim,
exacerbate the fragmentation of cities in China, fragmentation that
results in inefficient infrastructure networks, longer commutes, inland
supply bottlenecks that lead to exorbitant land and housing prices
and in unproductive agriculture. What is more, shying away from
cultivated land exacerbates forced evictions from and demolitions
of rural structures.
A report released in March 2010 by the Chinese Urgent Action
Working Group, a China-based rights lobby, claimed that:
China risks growing social instability and even violence if the
government does not take effective action to address rising public

anger about forced evictions and demolitions.(33)
262
presented at the Workshop

on China Housing Policy,
Cambridge MA, 18 May, 19
pages.
32. Angel et al. (2009),

see reference 31, page 7,
paraphrasing Lichtenberg and
Ding (2008); see Lichtenberg, E
and C Ding (2008), Assessing
farmland protection policy in
China, Land Use Policy Vol 25,
No 1, January, pages 5968.
33. Reuters (2010), Chinas

forced evictions cause
instability, 28 March, available
at http://www.reuters.com/
article/idustre62r13u20100328.
b. Case study 2: Decline in fragmentation in Portland and

Houston
34. Cox, Wendell (2004),

Portland: economic growth
noose loosened: Portland
backtracks on urban growth
boundary, The Public Purpose
Vol 74, February, 3 pages.
In 1973, the state of Oregon enacted Senate Bill 100 that mandated
every urban area in the state, including Portland, to create an urban
growth boundary. In 1979, a regional government, Metro, was created by
Portland voters to manage the urban growth boundary in a three-county
metropolitan area. Metro was charged with enforcing the boundary and
with extending it every five years to ensure a 20-year supply of residential
land. It is not at all clear from the available documentation whether this
20-year supply includes all vacant land within the boundary or whether
it assumes that a significant share of urbanized open space, say of the
order of at least 40 per cent of the built-up area, is to remain vacant at all
times. If it does not, as some observers(34) suspect, there is good reason to
expect that land supply in Portland will eventually be constrained, with
concomitant effects on housing affordability.
The chief aim of the boundary was to contain urban sprawl and to
preserve the natural beauty of the surrounding countryside. Sprawl was
not precisely defined, but we can take it to mean sprawl as low density
development as well as sprawl as fragmentation. We have examined the
change in built-up area density and in the urban landscape ratio within
the boundary between 1973, when the boundary was enacted, and 2005.
To our surprise, we found that average built-up area density did not
increase during this period. In fact, it declined from 23.5 to 21.9 persons
per hectare. By comparison, between 1990 and 2000, average built-up
area density declined from 35.0 to 34.3 per hectare in Los Angeles and
from 23.2 to 20.0 persons per hectare in Houston.
Density aside, the creation of Portlands urban growth boundary
was associated with a rapid decline in fragmentation. Figure 6 shows
the increase in the built-up area within Portlands urban growth
boundary between 1973 and 2005. During this period, Portlands urban
landscape ratio declined from 2.20 to 1.51 at an average rate of -1.2 per
cent per annum. If this decline continues, it will soon reach the level
of fragmentation in Los Angeles, the fourth lowest among the cities in
the global sample of 120 cities. The urban landscape ratio of Los Angeles
declined from 1.47 to 1.40 in the 1990s, at an annual rate of 0.5 per cent.
V. CONCLUSIONS: ALLOWING FOR FRAGMENTATION IN

MAKING ROOM FOR URBAN EXPANSION
Given the results of our foregoing analysis, we can begin to answer some of
the questions posed at the outset. On average, the inclusion of open space
in the urban landscape doubles the area of that landscape. If that average
were to be considered a global norm, we would advise urban planners,
policy makers and concerned environmentalists not to be surprised to
find half of their citys landscape occupied by open space; and that they
should be surprised if it varied substantially from that norm. In planning
and preparing for urban expansion, they may assume that in the absence
of active intervention, future urban landscapes can also be expected to
continue to be half empty. They should also be advised that, as a minimum
global norm, they should expect urbanized open space to add no less than
40 per cent to the built-up area of their city unless it was a highly atypical
263
FIGURE 6
The decline in fragmentation within Portlands urban growth

boundary, 19732005
outlier yet to be discovered. In other words, they may assume that as

some vacant spaces closer to the city centre are filled in, new open space
will be incorporated into the urban landscape on the urban periphery, so
that open space continues to add at least 40 per cent to the built-up area
of the city at any one time. That said, without additional information,
we still cannot say whether this would be sufficient to ensure the smooth
functioning of land markets.
In truth, we have insufficient data to determine what range of ratios is
common to cities with an unconstrained supply of urban land, ratios that
264
35. United Nations Population

Division (2008), World
Urbanization Prospects The
2007 Revision, United Nations,
New York, File 3.
ensure that housing remains affordable. It stands to reason that projected

urban landscape ratios in a city with unconstrained land supply should
be higher than the minimum observed in the global sample of cities (1.4)
and in Portland (1.5). If this were the case, then the areas planned for, say,
2030 years of urban expansion must be at least 50 per cent larger than
the areas obtained by simply projecting populations and built-up area
densities. While we cannot apply such an estimate to individual cities
with different topographies (e.g. steep slopes and floodplains), different
historical levels of density and fragmentation, and different amounts
of open space in permanent use, and while we know that expected
fragmentation levels are in global decline, we can only urge planners
to include these in their calculations. This would, of course, result in
preparing substantially larger areas for expansion.
Should cities employ rigorous containment measures to bring
excessive fragmentation under control? There may be sufficient cause
for reining in excessive fragmentation where it appears to be, at least
partially, the result of misguided land policies, as is the case in China.
And a case can be made for reducing ex-urban fragmentation through
policy intervention in areas that, projected 2030 years into the future,
are expected to still be outside urban landscapes, say by postponing the
official designation of lands as urban or by delaying the extension of the
urban infrastructure network into these ex-urban areas.
The urban population in developing countries, for example, is
expected to double between 2000 and 2030,(35) from two to four billion.
As we reported elsewhere,(36) given the persistent decline in densities
during the last century, their built-up areas and urban landscape areas
can be expected to triple. In preparing their rapidly growing cities for
expansion, while ensuring the smooth functioning of their land markets,
we must be willing to designate ample room for 2030 years of projected
expansion allowing for the expected level of fragmentation as well as for
the expected decline in average urban densities and to make minimal
preparations for rendering these areas of expansion accessible and
supplying them with basic urban services. We urge responsible planners,
policy makers, activists and concerned citizens everywhere to make room
to accommodate the expected expansion rather than seek to contain it.
We fear that under the expected population pressures and the limited
abilities of the authorities in many developing countries to regulate land
use, these efforts, noble as they may be, are likely to fail, resulting in
cities and metropolitan areas that are less efficient, less equitable and less
sustainable than they could be if minimal preparations for expansion
were made in a timely manner.
265
Country
Ghana
Ethiopia
Iran
Japan
Egypt
Algeria
China
Korea, Republic of
Russian Federation
Egypt
Philippines
Azerbaijan
Mali
Indonesia
Thailand
Gambia
China
Hungary
Argentina
Egypt
Venezuela
Morocco
Spain
Philippines
China
United States
Korea, Republic of
City
Accra
Addis Ababa
Ahvaz
Akashi
Alexandria
Algiers
Anqing
Ansan
Astrakhan
Aswan
Bacolod
Baku
Bamako
Bandung
Bangkok
Banjul
Beijing
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Caracas
Casablanca
Castellon
Cebu
Changzhi
Chicago
Chinju
Europe & Japan

Northern Africa
Northern Africa
Eastern Asia & the Pacific
Europe & Japan
Northern Africa
Southeast Asia
Western Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southeast Asia
Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Europe & Japan
Latin America & the Caribbean
Northern Africa
Northern Africa
Europe & Japan
Southeast Asia
Land-Rich Developed Countries
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
South and Central Asia
Region
31-May-1989
11-Sep-1984
21-Jun-1987
15-Jul-1989
17-May-1989
8-Aug-1989
15-Nov-1986
21-Dec-1992
31-Jul-1988
14-Nov-1986
28-Jul-1991
25-Oct-1994
9-Feb-1986
25-Dec-1988
11-Nov-1990
13-Apr-1987
20-Sep-1984
14-May-1991
6-Jan-1987
20-Apr-1992
29-Jun-1992
19-Oct-1993
30-Jun-1989
28-Aug-1991
6-Mar-1985
21-Jan-1986
24-May-1989
T1 Date
A P P E N D I X TA B L E 1
15-Oct-2001
2-Dec-1999
25-Feb-2000
10-Dec-1999
23-Sep-2001
20-Aug-1999
10-Sep-2000
22-Sep-2000
15-Aug-1999
25-Oct-1999
12-May-2001
8-Jan-2002
6-Nov-2000
1-Jul-1999
21-Apr-2000
20-Dec-2000
11-Nov-2000
14-Mar-2001
20-Jan-2001
8-Aug-2000
26-Dec-2002
7-May-2000
11-Sep-2001
8-May-2000
4-Feb-2000
5-Dec-2000
22-May-2000
T2 Date
Basic data on the global sample of cities, 19992000
12.38
15.22
12.68
10.40
12.35
10.03
13.82
7.75
11.04
12.94
9.79
7.21
14.74
10.51
9.44
13.69
16.14
9.83
14.04
8.30
10.49
6.55
12.20
8.70
14.92
14.87
11.00
Time
elapsed
(years)
34.6472
31.1947
36.7722
30.5096
37.3145
46.3612
24.0945
10.6698
40.3762
12.6387
-6.9208
13.7432
13.4371
39.9044
47.4955
34.5947
30.0446
10.5072
33.5964
39.9860
10.2963
36.1870
41.8821
35.1921
5.5548
9.0339
31.3236
CBD
Latitude
134.9919
29.8921
3.0568
117.0302
126.8389
48.0565
32.9098
122.9504
49.8325
7.9992
107.6043
100.5435
16.6811
116.3807
19.0589
58.4023
31.2367
66.9052
7.6173
0.0374
123.8985
113.1020
87.6283
128.0843
0.2005
38.7378
48.6880
CBD
Longitude
266
Country
Korea, Republic of
United States
India
Bangladesh
Japan
Iran
Mexico
China
Brazil
Guatemala
Zimbabwe
Vietnam
China
United States
India
Nigeria
Brazil
Malaysia
Turkey
India
India
Brazil
South Africa
Uganda
India
Rwanda
Jamaica
India
Malaysia
Kuwait
France
Germany
China
City
Chonan
Cincinnati
Coimbatore
Dhaka
Fukuoka
Gorgan
Guadalajara
Guangzhou
Guaruja
Guatemala City
Harare
Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Houston
Hyderabad
Ibadan
Ilheus
Ipoh
Istanbul
Jaipur
Jalna
Jequie
Johannesburg
Kampala
Kanpur
Kigali
Kingston
Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Le Mans
Leipzig
Leshan
A P P E N D I X TA B L E 1 ( C O N T I N U E D )

Europe & Japan
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southeast Asia
Western Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southeast Asia
Western Asia
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Region
2-May-1992
6-Jun-1988
21-Nov-1989
4-Nov-1989
15-May-1993
16-Jul-1987
7-Mar-1990
13-Oct-1990
22-Jun-1993
12-Feb-1993
19-May-1989
16-Jan-1989
20-Nov-1989
8-Dec-1990
21-Nov-1989
18-Dec-1984
11-Sep-1986
23-Apr-1990
5-Jun-1987
9-Oct-1989
18-Oct-1989
22-Aug-1988
7-Apr-1991
19-Jan-1995
21-Nov-1989
20-Jun-1984
12-Mar-1991
14-Nov-1990
15-Jun-1989
12-Jun-1990
13-May-1992
7-Jul-1989
10-Jul-1990
T1 Date
8-May-2000
16-Aug-1999
9-Nov-1999
24-Nov-1999
13-May-2001
30-Jul-2001
3-Nov-1999
14-Sep-2000
20-Apr-2002
23-Jan-2000
30-Sep-2000
22-Dec-1999
31-Dec-2001
6-Oct-1999
29-Oct-2001
6-Feb-2000
23-May-2001
20-Sep-2001
2-Jul-2000
13-Sep-2000
24-Oct-2000
12-Apr-2001
23-Apr-2000
27-Nov-2001
11-Nov-2000
8-Jul-1999
13-Jan-2002
17-Nov-2000
20-Sep-2001
25-May-2001
13-Aug-1999
13-Sep-1999
14-Jun-2001
T2 Date
8.02
11.19
9.97
10.05
7.99
14.04
9.66
9.92
8.83
6.94
11.37
10.93
12.11
8.83
11.94
15.13
14.70
11.41
13.08
10.93
11.02
12.64
9.05
6.86
10.97
15.05
10.84
10.01
12.27
10.95
7.25
10.18
10.93
Time
elapsed
(years)
36.8160
39.1101
11.0193
23.7131
33.5903
36.8368
20.6763
23.1355
23.9989
14.6126
17.8300
10.8016
22.1710
29.7576
17.3850
7.3761
14.7980
4.5970
41.0090
26.9206
19.8409
13.8615
26.2029
0.3111
26.4624
1.9439
17.9687
22.5701
3.1561
29.3411
48.0088
51.3442
29.5703
CBD
Latitude
127.1382
84.5126
76.9624
90.4038
130.4195
54.4376
103.3469
113.3191
46.2623
90.5165
31.0469
106.7113
114.0932
95.3567
78.4843
3.8967
39.0366
101.0748
28.9520
75.7945
75.8864
40.0810
28.0462
32.5859
80.3117
30.0615
76.7885
88.3579
101.7141
47.9435
0.1973
12.3767
103.7585
CBD
Longitude
267
Country
United Kingdom
United States
Spain
Turkey
Philippines
Morocco
Indonesia
Mexico
Italy
United States
United States
Uruguay
Russian Federation
India
Zambia
Russian Federation
Burkina Faso
Indonesia
Italy
France
United States
United States
Sudan
South Africa
India
Korea, Republic of
Bangladesh
Brazil
Bangladesh
City
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Malatya
Manila
Marrakech
Medan
Mexico City
Milano
Minneapolis
Modesto
Montevideo
Moscow
Mumbai
Ndola
Oktyabrsky
Ouagadougou
Palembang
Palermo
Paris
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Port Sudan
Pretoria
Puna
Pusan
Rajshahi
Ribeirao Preto
Saidpur
Europe & Japan

Europe & Japan
Western Asia
Southeast Asia
Northern Africa
Southeast Asia
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Sub-Saharan Africa
Europe & Japan
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southeast Asia
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Northern Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Region
28-May-1989
28-Jun-1989
25-May-1989
31-Aug-1990
2-Apr-1993
6-Jan-1987
13-Jun-1989
7-Mar-1989
31-Aug-1989
22-Sep-1992
20-Jul-1992
19-Mar-1989
8-Oct-1991
9-Nov-1992
2-Jun-1989
29-May-1986
18-Nov-1986
15-Apr-1989
4-Jun-1987
9-May-1987
28-Jun-1988
5-Oct-1987
13-Jun-1984
7-Apr-1991
4-Dec-1992
31-Aug-1989
11-Nov-1989
27-Sep-1988
14-Nov-1990
T1 Date
19-Jun-2000
1-May-2000
22-Aug-2000
17-Jul-2000
3-Apr-2002
3-Feb-2000
22-Feb-2001
21-Mar-2000
21-Jun-2001
5-Jul-2001
18-Jul-2000
6-Dec-2000
14-Oct-2002
25-Oct-2001
13-May-2002
19-Sep-2001
14-Jul-2001
13-Jul-2001
1-May-2001
24-Aug-2000
23-Sep-1999
12-Sep-1999
4-Jun-2001
23-Apr-2000
14-Nov-1999
27-Feb-2000
17-Nov-2000
23-Mar-2001
20-Nov-2001
T2 Date
11.06
10.84
11.24
9.88
9.00
13.08
11.70
11.04
11.81
8.78
7.99
11.72
11.02
8.96
12.94
15.31
14.65
12.24
13.91
13.30
11.24
11.94
16.97
9.05
6.94
10.49
11.02
12.48
11.02
Time
elapsed
(years)
51.5070
34.0508
40.4328
38.3513
14.5922
31.6228
3.5929
19.4326
45.4438
44.9751
37.6382
34.9062
55.4502
18.9577
12.9691
54.4891
12.3694
2.9796
38.1153
48.8659
39.9539
40.4407
19.6217
25.7480
18.5185
35.1042
24.3685
21.1776
25.7781
CBD
Latitude
0.1274
118.2536
3.6865
38.3147
120.9731
8.0044
98.6688
99.1333
9.1787
93.2705
121.0000
56.2243
37.3742
72.8319
28.6512
53.4724
1.5233
104.7475
13.3622
2.3114
75.1650
80.0026
37.2231
28.1921
73.8595
129.0387
88.5811
47.8053
88.8977
CBD
Longitude
268
Country
El Salvador
Yemen
Chile
Brazil
Korea, Republic of
China
United Kingdom
Kazakhstan
Singapore
Thailand
United States
Canada
Australia
United States
Algeria
Iran
Israel
Greece
Mexico
Japan
Mongolia
Colombia
Canada
India
Poland
Austria
Armenia
China
China
China
Georgia
City
San Salvador
Sanaa
Santiago
Sao Paulo
Seoul
Shanghai
Sheffield
Shimkent
Singapore
Songkhla
Springfield
St. Catharines
Sydney
Tacoma
Tebessa
Teheran
Tel Aviv
Thessaloniki
Tijuana
Tokyo
Ulan Bator
Valledupar
Victoria
Vijayawada
Warsaw
Wien
Yerevan
Yiyang
Yulin
Zhengzhou
Zugdidi

Western Asia
Europe & Japan
Southeast Asia
Southeast Asia
Northern Africa
Western Asia
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Europe & Japan
Western Asia
Western Asia
Region
12-Jan-1990
20-Sep-1989
17-Mar-1989
12-Sep-1988
17-May-1989
11-Aug-1989
18-May-1992
26-Oct-1989
17-Apr-1990
1-Jun-1990
28-Sep-1989
12-Jun-1992
25-Jul-1993
22-Sep-1990
5-Mar-1987
19-Sep-1988
14-Aug-1987
19-Jul-1987
2-Apr-1989
21-May-1987
30-Aug-1989
30-Dec-1989
15-Aug-1991
10-Nov-1990
25-May-1992
10-Sep-1991
31-Aug-1989
2-Jul-1994
30-Oct-1991
14-May-1988
16-Aug-1987
T1 Date
28-Oct-1999
13-May-2000
31-Mar-2000
17-Jun-2000
23-Sep-2001
3-Jul-2001
11-Sep-2002
14-Sep-2000
11-Nov-2002
20-Apr-2001
8-Sep-2002
12-Sep-1999
7-May-2002
25-Sep-2000
7-Jun-2001
18-Jul-2000
21-May-2000
30-May-2001
24-Apr-2000
24-Sep-2001
31-Aug-2001
4-Oct-2001
30-Jul-2000
28-Oct-2000
17-Aug-2002
24-May-2001
13-Aug-2000
10-Sep-1999
30-Oct-2000
10-May-2001
10-Jul-2000
T2 Date
9.79
10.64
11.04
11.76
12.35
11.89
10.32
10.89
12.57
10.89
12.94
7.25
8.78
10.01
14.26
11.83
12.77
13.86
11.06
14.35
12.00
11.76
8.96
9.97
10.23
9.70
10.95
5.19
9.00
12.99
12.90
Time
elapsed
(years)
13.6980
15.3473
33.4382
23.5330
37.5534
31.2378
53.3809
42.3206
1.2824
7.1989
42.1046
43.1795
33.7981
47.2553
35.4007
35.7013
32.0798
40.6456
32.5349
35.6752
47.9130
10.4732
48.4271
16.5282
52.2342
48.2129
40.1774
28.5862
22.6366
34.7480
42.5037
CBD
Latitude
89.1914
44.2063
70.6507
46.6330
126.9745
121.4850
1.4702
69.5884
103.8461
100.5906
72.5943
79.2486
151.0706
122.4407
8.1172
51.4194
34.7740
22.9361
117.0417
139.7719
106.8954
73.2501
123.3639
80.5912
21.0060
16.3687
44.5121
112.3445
110.1453
113.6192
41.8691
CBD
Longitude
269
Built-Up
Area T1
12,973
8,193
15,106
2,077
11,342
13,946
2,948
4,677
15,303
1,260
1,344
6,664
6,884
10,872
68,303
3,124
124,578
30,683
120,595
36,605
11,938
8,054
6,960
5,277
7,825
373,224
3,247
2,388
59,268
7,125
City
Accra
Addis Ababa
Ahvaz
Akashi
Alexandria
Algiers
Anqing
Ansan
Astrakhan
Aswan
Bacolod
Baku
Bamako
Bandung
Bangkok
Banjul
Beijing
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Caracas
Casablanca
Castellon
Cebu
Changzhi
Chicago
Chinju
Chonan
Cincinnati
Coimbatore
32,834
11,865
21,945
3,572
18,780
22,913
3,552
8,864
16,153
1,579
3,294
9,015
12,992
15,382
102,593
4,949
157,638
36,977
135,722
56,917
15,673
11,431
8,203
6,365
11,500
425,126
5,208
5,898
77,225
10,479
Built-Up
Area T2
10,900
5,354
6,050
803
7,552
5,307
1,541
3,215
7,567
461
446
1,666
4,222
6,968
30,178
1,582
62,845
24,306
101,810
24,753
6,566
5,360
2,751
3,475
3,353
297,001
1,392
754
28,664
2,478
Urban Built-Up
Area T1
29,029
8,383
8,629
3,298
13,717
12,181
1,770
6,342
7,979
669
2,336
2,911
7,797
10,819
58,906
3,315
89,188
29,740
114,595
40,015
9,435
8,650
3,605
4,317
5,564
342,052
1,791
1,812
39,022
4,463
Urban Built-Up
Area T2
1,783
2,622
4,600
1,270
2,859
7,146
1,041
1,358
5,862
770
749
3,876
1,736
3,714
35,042
1,334
54,569
5,976
16,975
10,273
4,660
2,401
3,794
1,676
3,918
68,129
1,190
1,196
26,522
3,242
3,565
3,209
7,251
273
3,596
9,359
1,465
2,404
6,261
888
861
4,912
2,895
4,305
41,253
1,419
62,444
6,749
18,944
14,642
5,358
2,491
4,195
1,975
5,429
77,793
2,762
3,598
34,981
4,480
Suburban
Suburban
Built-Up Area T1 Built-Up Area T2
290
216
4,455
3
930
1,493
366
104
1,874
29
149
1,122
926
191
3,083
208
7,164
401
1,810
1,578
711
293
415
125
554
8,095
665
438
4,082
1,404
240
273
6,065
1
1,467
1,372
318
118
1,914
22
97
1,193
2,300
258
2,434
216
6,006
488
2,184
2,260
879
290
404
73
506
5,281
655
488
3,221
1,536
Rural Built-Up Rural Built-Up

Area T1
Area T2
270
10,209
27,288
6,935
30,935
32,188
3,102
14,436
16,506
7,283
7,490
130,325
17,336
20,921
2,877
14,517
30,632
5,869
919
1,824
87,163
13,156
12,355
1,517
10,888
28,816
38,329
32,434
6,805
9,820
5,263
Dhaka
Fukuoka
Gorgan
Guadalajara
Guangzhou
Guaruja
Guatemala City
Harare
Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Houston
Hyderabad
Ibadan
Ilheus
Ipoh
Istanbul
Jaipur
Jalna
Jequie
Johannesburg
Kampala
Kanpur
Kigali
Kingston
Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Le Mans
Leipzig
Leshan
Built-Up
Area T1
City
16,563
37,203
10,711
40,518
64,106
3,664
18,903
24,310
21,033
9,763
182,374
31,754
29,996
4,970
21,906
53,269
14,084
1,952
3,655
99,279
20,169
17,668
4,502
11,945
48,344
80,529
39,562
7,444
19,580
9,944
Built-Up
Area T2
4,897
20,476
1,551
23,264
11,730
2,017
9,991
5,681
4,298
5,273
76,955
9,197
16,199
426
6,370
18,803
3,166
239
1,062
51,483
5,690
6,440
253
7,092
11,900
22,925
21,624
4,310
4,385
1,194
Urban Built-Up
Area T1
8,277
29,116
3,079
31,760
27,179
2,725
14,485
10,213
13,144
7,228
136,689
20,579
24,542
871
14,147
37,245
11,306
763
2,829
63,277
11,377
9,891
3,097
8,042
21,599
61,699
28,204
4,726
11,248
3,047
Urban Built-Up
Area T2
4,579
6,412
3,988
6,781
15,170
1,017
4,195
7,778
2,295
2,111
50,621
6,451
3,653
1,623
7,901
10,108
1,743
477
468
31,378
6,213
4,509
1,048
3,352
10,881
13,822
7,840
2,101
4,537
3,253
7,135
7,631
5,996
7,642
30,692
885
4,145
10,674
7,170
2,450
43,725
9,024
4,116
2,718
7,443
13,741
1,865
926
535
31,978
7,566
6,064
1,210
3,442
20,044
17,719
8,161
2,331
7,614
5,985
Suburban
Suburban
733
399
1,396
890
5,289
68
251
3,047
690
105
2,750
1,688
1,069
828
246
1,721
960
202
293
4,303
1,254
1,405
216
445
6,034
1,582
2,970
395
899
815
1,150
456
1,636
1,117
6,234
55
272
3,422
719
86
1,961
2,152
1,338
1,381
315
2,282
913
263
292
4,025
1,226
1,713
195
461
6,700
1,111
3,197
387
719
912

Area T1
Area T2
271
Built-Up
Area T1
157,323
342,194
27,647
9,125
42,784
9,706
9,858
78,030
53,905
88,564
12,483
25,310
72,378
28,898
4,133
7,557
6,027
6,760
7,264
128,735
189,402
41,303
2,673
15,011
9,279
14,658
1,086
8,505
517
9,813
10,751
City
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Malatya
Manila
Marrakech
Medan
Mexico City
Milano
Minneapolis
Modesto
Montevideo
Moscow
Mumbai
Ndola
Oktyabrsky
Ouagadougou
Palembang
Palermo
Paris
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Port Sudan
Pretoria
Puna
Pusan
Rajshahi
Ribeirao Preto
Saidpur
San Salvador
Sanaa
185,551
385,089
36,979
13,747
63,317
16,475
14,559
105,853
63,517
109,971
16,892
35,725
104,632
37,090
5,390
9,786
13,746
17,504
8,087
148,208
233,491
47,213
4,104
17,004
19,149
19,686
2,026
10,034
759
12,862
15,528
Built-Up
Area T2
115,200
295,765
17,002
1,361
26,653
4,010
6,002
60,669
34,110
51,226
7,768
13,185
36,988
23,810
1,120
2,550
4,888
2,805
4,415
98,635
114,374
16,503
1,906
9,421
4,675
10,386
0
7,045
145
6,795
7,290
Urban Built-Up
Area T1
139,373
341,678
23,993
2,973
44,944
6,047
9,792
87,802
45,192
75,046
11,288
20,415
67,062
29,977
2,161
3,684
11,862
10,966
5,165
120,895
152,938
22,016
3,182
11,757
13,731
14,633
44
7,962
202
9,700
12,414
Urban Built-Up
Area T2
37,507
44,419
9,570
5,407
13,796
4,871
3,408
15,273
18,815
34,261
3,555
9,580
29,883
4,542
1,589
3,407
1,028
3,364
2,587
27,730
70,074
23,198
637
5,200
3,782
3,831
437
1,188
148
2,637
3,176
40,539
41,392
11,946
7,871
16,247
7,586
4,577
15,744
17,596
33,044
4,600
11,665
31,870
6,157
1,724
4,341
1,464
5,957
2,652
25,342
77,245
23,857
770
4,886
4,968
4,619
1,188
1,734
209
2,801
2,869
Suburban
Suburban
4,616
2,010
1,075
2,356
2,335
826
449
2,088
980
3,077
1,160
2,545
5,507
545
138
1,601
111
591
261
2,369
4,954
1,602
129
390
823
441
649
273
224
381
285
5,638
2,018
1,040
2,903
2,125
2,843
189
2,307
729
1,882
1,004
3,646
5,699
956
155
1,762
421
580
270
1,972
3,308
1,339
151
361
449
433
794
337
348
361
245

Area T1
Area T2
272
Built-Up
Area T1
33,740
126,354
51,285
65,117
14,732
12,324
17,594
1,381
13,586
8,887
64,062
34,606
5,091
36,160
16,648
5,172
12,161
231,865
9,336
2,003
8,160
4,030
24,899
26,516
32,369
4,840
14,119
45,092
2,463
City
Santiago
Sao Paulo
Seoul
Shanghai
Sheffield
Shimkent
Singapore
Songkhla
Springfield
St. Catharines
Sydney
Tacoma
Tebessa
Teheran
Tel Aviv
Thessaloniki
Tijuana
Tokyo
Ulan Bator
Valledupar
Victoria
Vijayawada
Warsaw
Wien
Yerevan
Yiyang
Yulin
Zhengzhou
Zugdidi
43,851
155,418
70,614
116,186
15,880
14,565
24,524
1,899
23,770
11,418
75,951
44,526
7,537
47,170
34,022
7,144
20,808
256,425
12,857
2,704
10,735
6,234
33,217
39,450
41,569
9,562
25,001
78,954
4,134
Built-Up
Area T2
26,833
107,349
38,800
38,923
9,993
7,650
9,168
554
5,591
5,379
45,922
18,025
1,015
27,881
8,390
3,438
9,576
200,220
6,508
1,374
5,060
2,140
14,309
11,350
11,809
1,082
1,475
15,415
991
Urban Built-Up
Area T1
35,650
135,970
54,234
77,055
11,123
9,251
16,833
678
13,408
6,823
58,892
31,045
2,235
38,124
19,181
5,047
17,654
231,789
9,057
1,816
7,869
3,401
22,110
22,926
15,374
2,600
4,337
31,443
1,628
Urban Built-Up
Area T2
5,935
16,701
11,421
19,978
4,413
3,923
8,042
543
6,985
2,578
16,288
15,271
1,627
7,299
6,872
1,552
2,421
31,281
2,127
255
2,878
1,350
10,073
12,739
14,955
1,701
6,443
23,634
839
7,103
16,906
15,384
37,849
4,415
4,386
7,288
774
9,917
3,949
15,474
12,359
2,390
7,887
13,847
1,975
2,935
24,330
2,904
475
2,712
2,054
10,533
14,665
20,843
5,031
13,285
41,975
1,687
Suburban
Suburban
971
2,304
1,064
6,217
326
750
384
284
1,010
929
1,853
1,310
2,449
980
1,386
182
164
364
701
374
223
540
516
2,427
5,605
2,057
6,201
6,043
632
1,098
2,542
996
1,282
343
928
404
446
444
647
1,585
1,122
2,912
1,159
994
122
219
306
896
413
154
778
574
1,859
5,351
1,931
7,379
5,535
819

Area T1
Area T2
273
Population T1
1,818,178
1,653,379
870,277
281,127
3,042,907
2,671,427
486,057
435,490
582,813
225,969
461,590
1,822,524
829,438
2,976,681
8,238,697
235,692
9,121,122
2,135,175
11,201,993
10,161,703
1,218,412
2,291,087
251,102
1,117,947
852,719
7,559,322
330,240
296,527
1,442,457
1,072,865
6,488,641
City
Accra
Addis Ababa
Ahvaz
Akashi
Alexandria
Algiers
Anqing
Ansan
Astrakhan
Aswan
Bacolod
Baku
Bamako
Bandung
Bangkok
Banjul
Beijing
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Caracas
Casablanca
Castellon
Cebu
Changzhi
Chicago
Chinju
Chonan
Cincinnati
Coimbatore
Dhaka
2,693,371
2,510,904
1,258,713
294,657
3,378,392
3,627,912
578,216
993,560
594,015
310,069
510,321
2,067,017
1,239,935
3,671,064
9,761,697
447,985
11,866,221
2,052,781
11,915,543
13,083,621
1,308,279
3,004,505
268,712
1,524,080
928,518
8,590,032
342,454
424,046
1,517,716
1,399,225
9,196,964
Population T2
6,368
8,734
9,428
2,657
6,284
18,182
2,831
3,390
17,582
959
2,153
9,930
5,040
10,832
92,113
3,669
155,832
16,292
63,025
23,918
13,718
7,920
9,807
5,042
8,363
258,751
3,025
4,007
85,906
9,728
11,992
Urbanized
Open Space T1
12,838
10,258
16,527
1,293
9,150
25,688
4,543
7,374
18,435
1,022
2,231
12,305
9,811
13,113
111,953
4,696
176,915
20,553
69,732
34,506
15,421
8,869
11,962
5,579
13,705
285,616
7,336
10,012
109,155
14,823
21,012
94
358
180
90
322
1,120
117
240
418
0
31
145
123
507
7,024
39
8,037
655
4,236
916
510
262
322
247
273
25,559
67
45
7,787
179
227
Urbanized Open Captured Open

Space T2
Space T1
142
270
658
23
679
1,956
404
960
388
0
17
113
96
768
9,751
82
11,515
1,650
4,243
3,084
780
427
740
98
971
29,051
77
762
7,980
427
273
Captured Open
Space T2
19,341
16,926
24,533
4,734
17,624
32,128
5,778
8,067
32,885
2,218
3,497
16,594
11,924
21,704
160,417
6,792
280,410
46,976
183,620
60,523
25,656
15,974
16,767
10,319
16,188
631,975
6,272
6,395
145,174
16,853
22,201
Urban
landscape T1
45,672
22,123
38,472
4,865
27,929
48,601
8,095
16,237
34,588
2,601
5,525
21,320
22,802
28,494
214,546
9,645
334,553
57,530
205,454
91,424
31,094
20,300
20,165
11,945
25,205
710,742
12,544
15,910
186,380
25,302
37,575
Urban
landscape T2
274
Population T1
2,385,823
362,277
3,004,120
3,812,189
221,618
1,421,625
838,775
3,579,382
4,751,952
3,023,503
4,887,789
1,565,805
153,323
521,338
6,090,097
2,115,566
338,175
135,020
3,521,614
1,314,603
1,972,220
296,879
790,037
10,979,222
2,961,111
1,863,888
208,970
791,857
919,835
City
Fukuoka
Gorgan
Guadalajara
Guangzhou
Guaruja
Guatemala City
Harare
Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Houston
Hyderabad
Ibadan
Ilheus
Ipoh
Istanbul
Jaipur
Jalna
Jequie
Johannesburg
Kampala
Kanpur
Kigali
Kingston
Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Le Mans
Leipzig
Leshan
2,598,370
455,061
3,669,578
7,156,071
277,993
1,766,093
889,421
4,309,449
5,179,089
3,656,247
5,707,677
2,421,369
151,509
655,200
8,826,758
2,779,119
424,304
138,216
4,695,165
1,761,733
2,674,116
354,273
875,605
13,170,280
5,389,624
1,999,068
212,064
664,696
966,091
Population T2
14,705
8,638
21,397
38,311
2,295
11,861
23,646
7,431
4,355
144,177
20,373
10,953
3,632
18,586
28,902
5,846
988
1,536
107,139
19,934
13,105
2,911
10,093
35,571
37,875
22,376
6,001
12,881
7,640
Urbanized
Open Space T1
20,331
12,017
25,894
90,831
2,112
13,153
33,810
18,691
5,337
141,494
29,796
13,970
6,132
19,398
40,493
7,826
2,015
1,663
110,676
24,565
18,243
4,642
10,647
72,414
55,290
23,347
6,565
20,461
13,912
703
219
1,075
1,305
309
804
1,785
283
222
16,508
1,104
133
65
1,357
1,468
288
5
89
8,754
677
272
92
570
1,032
2,869
3,179
496
562
260

Space T2
Space T1
1,442
734
935
7,069
348
1,145
1,864
1,297
366
17,026
1,431
268
59
1,882
1,776
142
1
140
9,450
891
810
48
527
2,559
4,197
2,952
543
995
478
Captured Open
Space T2
41,993
15,573
52,332
70,500
5,397
26,298
40,153
14,714
11,844
274,502
37,709
31,874
6,509
33,103
59,534
11,715
1,907
3,360
194,303
33,091
25,459
4,428
20,982
64,386
76,204
54,810
12,807
22,701
12,903
Urban
landscape T1
57,535
22,728
66,412
154,937
5,776
32,055
58,119
39,724
15,101
323,868
61,550
43,967
11,102
41,304
93,762
21,910
3,966
5,318
209,955
44,734
35,910
9,144
22,592
120,758
135,819
62,909
14,009
40,042
23,856
Urban
landscape T2
275
Population T1
9,932,047
11,982,247
4,137,778
701,862
14,044,055
1,328,537
1,918,544
14,419,067
3,776,011
1,956,479
296,090
1,712,955
9,566,266
13,464,455
350,512
225,671
615,293
1,206,169
828,637
9,275,994
5,092,361
1,255,475
155,821
432,031
3,508,945
3,976,052
490,564
411,029
200,427
1,575,826
City
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Malatya
Manila
Marrakech
Medan
Mexico City
Milano
Minneapolis
Modesto
Montevideo
Moscow
Mumbai
Ndola
Oktyabrsky
Ouagadougou
Palembang
Palermo
Paris
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Port Sudan
Pretoria
Puna
Pusan
Rajshahi
Ribeirao Preto
Saidpur
San Salvador
16,161,758
326,119
228,371
874,623
1,616,527
833,992
9,519,527
5,238,892
1,185,877
209,154
659,834
4,041,868
3,485,359
599,525
512,239
233,478
2,022,047
10,028,978
13,218,754
4,588,170
852,864
17,335,085
1,722,999
2,239,596
17,224,096
3,708,980
2,167,795
344,540
1,838,801
9,144,624
Population T2
13,167
1,816
9,963
3,723
9,580
7,301
97,443
210,880
66,350
1,621
17,523
10,966
8,734
2,033
3,935
436
8,534
118,954
162,105
27,581
13,383
43,427
7,889
10,923
55,626
55,682
100,263
11,938
29,215
87,933
Urbanized
Open Space T1
18,405
1,786
13,593
5,408
15,969
7,582
92,626
245,378
69,588
1,923
17,780
13,049
12,052
5,160
5,771
787
9,269
140,287
155,483
35,099
18,804
51,246
14,733
13,278
59,941
57,077
106,840
16,078
34,046
103,149
399
459
154
180
326
498
7,479
20,463
6,862
79
1,215
533
544
60
221
1
256
12,020
10,464
1,097
415
2,087
13
490
3,012
5,915
7,571
742
1,228
3,924

Space T2
Space T1
669
229
232
144
804
358
8,120
21,411
7,243
68
1,281
818
1,066
76
570
8
370
14,739
9,229
2,240
564
3,237
380
620
2,430
5,963
8,593
1,684
1,110
5,111
Captured Open
Space T2
42,065
3,512
17,520
9,750
16,339
14,565
226,178
400,282
107,653
4,294
32,534
20,245
23,391
3,119
12,441
953
18,347
276,276
504,299
55,228
22,507
86,211
17,595
20,781
133,655
109,588
188,826
24,421
54,525
160,311
Urban
landscape T1
55,496
4,549
23,379
19,154
33,473
15,669
240,834
478,869
116,801
6,026
34,784
32,198
31,738
7,186
15,805
1,546
22,131
325,838
540,571
72,077
32,551
114,563
31,208
27,837
165,794
120,595
216,811
32,970
69,771
207,782
Urban
landscape T2
276
Population T1
963,065
4,654,096
12,892,124
13,621,399
10,834,643
769,486
599,956
3,005,362
219,751
431,026
177,727
2,634,121
590,266
366,628
5,807,438
2,062,274
770,764
638,376
27,401,984
632,833
233,819
239,565
981,395
1,984,065
2,065,478
2,207,409
1,125,056
3,178,605
3,824,517
115,680
City
Sanaa
Santiago
Sao Paulo
Seoul
Shanghai
Sheffield
Shimkent
Singapore
Songkhla
Springfield
St. Catharines
Sydney
Tacoma
Tebessa
Teheran
Tel Aviv
Thessaloniki
Tijuana
Tokyo
Ulan Bator
Valledupar
Victoria
Vijayawada
Warsaw
Wien
Yerevan
Yiyang
Yulin
Zhengzhou
Zugdidi
1,474,635
5,337,512
15,481,476
14,546,082
14,133,931
764,213
577,753
4,309,797
244,403
427,126
182,863
2,754,486
697,104
457,364
7,803,538
2,610,373
857,935
1,174,193
29,615,263
776,538
288,448
255,055
1,117,042
2,002,178
2,118,871
2,063,290
1,207,164
3,387,078
5,133,266
157,008
Population T2
6,588
21,088
57,017
33,620
72,599
11,931
9,470
20,785
1,510
24,892
7,598
52,630
44,867
3,792
22,396
18,530
4,368
7,697
118,041
6,153
815
7,784
3,387
25,412
36,937
40,035
5,316
21,504
79,647
2,773
Urbanized
Open Space T1
5,660
24,682
60,873
49,214
122,695
13,358
12,642
20,322
2,089
30,079
11,576
52,321
41,306
5,449
26,210
42,585
6,234
9,242
102,467
8,000
1,387
8,070
5,212
29,744
40,213
50,938
14,834
42,700
142,125
5,854
264
867
3,565
2,780
6,016
933
200
1,536
17
1,999
469
2,969
3,077
55
875
590
166
327
5,448
129
1
319
84
1,872
1,005
1,107
137
482
4,600
240

Space T2
Space T1
338
1,012
4,743
5,143
11,968
844
405
877
23
2,835
717
3,465
2,963
157
1,567
3,206
305
571
5,005
149
32
448
124
1,718
1,528
1,464
1,038
1,280
7,566
240
Captured Open
Space T2
17,339
54,828
183,371
84,905
137,716
26,662
21,793
38,379
2,891
38,478
16,485
116,692
79,472
8,883
58,557
35,178
9,540
19,858
349,906
15,489
2,818
15,944
7,417
50,311
63,453
72,404
10,156
35,623
124,739
5,236
Urban
landscape T1
21,188
68,534
216,292
119,828
238,881
29,238
27,206
44,847
3,987
53,849
22,994
128,272
85,832
12,985
73,380
76,607
13,378
30,050
358,893
20,857
4,091
18,804
11,445
62,961
79,663
92,506
24,396
67,702
221,079
9,987
Urban
landscape T2
277
Urban landscape
Ratio T1
1.49
2.07
1.62
2.28
1.55
2.30
1.96
1.72
2.15
1.76
2.60
2.49
1.73
2.00
2.35
2.17
2.25
1.53
1.52
1.65
2.15
1.98
2.41
1.96
2.07
1.69
1.93
2.68
2.45
2.37
2.17
City
Accra
Addis Ababa
Ahvaz
Akashi
Alexandria
Algiers
Anqing
Ansan
Astrakhan
Aswan
Bacolod
Baku
Bamako
Bandung
Bangkok
Banjul
Beijing
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Caracas
Casablanca
Castellon
Cebu
Changzhi
Chicago
Chinju
Chonan
Cincinnati
Coimbatore
Dhaka
1.39
1.86
1.75
1.36
1.49
2.12
2.28
1.83
2.14
1.65
1.68
2.36
1.76
1.85
2.09
1.95
2.12
1.56
1.51
1.61
1.98
1.78
2.46
1.88
2.19
1.67
2.41
2.70
2.41
2.41
2.27
Urban landscape
Ratio T2
0.27
0.40
0.60
0.54
0.37
0.59
0.48
0.40
0.53
0.52
0.61
0.65
0.44
0.41
0.54
0.48
0.46
0.29
0.23
0.36
0.48
0.44
0.55
0.40
0.54
0.28
0.56
0.64
0.51
0.63
0.53
Openness
Index T1
0.19
0.36
0.59
0.25
0.34
0.49
0.49
0.34
0.53
0.48
0.38
0.61
0.44
0.37
0.46
0.39
0.41
0.28
0.23
0.33
0.43
0.33
0.52
0.37
0.49
0.26
0.59
0.59
0.49
0.57
0.51
Openness
Index T2
19,861
3,672
6,839
1,495
7,438
8,966
604
4,187
850
319
1,950
2,351
6,108
4,510
34,290
1,825
33,060
6,294
15,127
20,312
3,735
3,376
1,243
1,089
3,674
51,902
1,961
3,510
17,957
3,354
6,354
New
Development T1 T2
2,094
964
632
685
899
1,557
52
582
130
48
265
351
654
1,033
7,832
325
8,310
1,939
4,917
3,820
1,197
1,398
225
342
541
16,537
94
170
2,856
589
1,233
Infill
T1T2
16,158
2,160
4,535
805
5,419
6,543
414
3,181
551
244
1,504
1,547
3,257
2,717
22,891
1,277
22,259
3,338
8,538
13,118
2,047
1,641
815
644
2,483
33,256
1,334
2,467
12,856
2,007
2,639
Extension
T1T2
1,609
548
1,672
5
1,120
867
138
424
169
26
182
453
2,197
760
3,567
224
2,491
1,017
1,672
3,375
491
338
204
103
651
2,109
533
873
2,244
757
2,482
Leapfrog
T1T2
278
Urban landscape
Ratio T1
1.54
2.25
1.69
2.19
1.74
1.82
2.43
2.02
1.58
2.11
2.18
1.52
2.26
2.28
1.94
2.00
2.08
1.84
2.23
2.52
2.06
2.92
1.93
2.23
1.99
1.69
1.88
2.31
2.45
City
Fukuoka
Gorgan
Guadalajara
Guangzhou
Guaruja
Guatemala City
Harare
Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Houston
Hyderabad
Ibadan
Ilheus
Ipoh
Istanbul
Jaipur
Jalna
Jequie
Johannesburg
Kampala
Kanpur
Kigali
Kingston
Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Le Mans
Leipzig
Leshan
1.55
2.12
1.64
2.42
1.58
1.70
2.39
1.89
1.55
1.78
1.94
1.47
2.23
1.89
1.76
1.56
2.03
1.45
2.11
2.22
2.03
2.03
1.89
2.50
1.69
1.59
1.88
2.04
2.40
Urban landscape
Ratio T2
0.32
0.68
0.30
0.58
0.40
0.37
0.62
0.44
0.38
0.46
0.49
0.28
0.74
0.53
0.45
0.50
0.66
0.50
0.48
0.56
0.49
0.68
0.40
0.58
0.46
0.39
0.38
0.54
0.67
Openness
Index T1
0.30
0.62
0.27
0.54
0.35
0.32
0.57
0.38
0.34
0.34
0.40
0.23
0.72
0.42
0.38
0.32
0.59
0.32
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.41
0.38
0.54
0.34
0.35
0.38
0.44
0.61
Openness
Index T2
9,916
3,776
9,583
31,917
562
4,477
96,069
13,750
2,274
52,049
14,418
9,075
2,093
7,389
22,637
8,215
1,033
1,832
12,116
7,013
5,313
2,985
1,057
19,528
42,200
7,128
639
9,761
4,681
2,206
502
3,062
1,726
222
1,244
11,923
1,100
427
20,909
2,322
2,206
168
1,338
3,924
736
74
293
4,225
1,628
1,070
178
469
2,330
5,365
2,765
126
1,246
279
New
Infill
Development T1 - T2 T1T2
6,283
2,579
5,140
23,648
323
2,824
64,612
10,451
1,406
28,888
9,493
5,547
1,018
5,348
16,102
7,127
747
1,499
7,154
4,557
3,115
2,403
418
12,547
34,103
3,409
448
7,429
3,333
Extension
T1T2
1,427
694
1,381
6,543
18
410
19,534
2,199
441
2,251
2,603
1,323
907
703
2,611
352
212
40
737
827
1,128
404
170
4,651
2,732
953
64
1,086
1,069
Leapfrog
T1T2
279
Urban landscape
Ratio T1
1.76
1.47
2.00
2.47
2.02
1.81
2.11
1.71
2.03
2.13
1.96
2.15
2.21
1.46
0.85
2.32
1.62
2.42
2.01
1.76
2.11
2.61
1.61
2.17
2.18
1.60
2.87
1.46
City
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Malatya
Manila
Marrakech
Medan
Mexico City
Milano
Minneapolis
Modesto
Montevideo
Moscow
Mumbai
Ndola
Oktyabrsky
Ouagadougou
Palembang
Palermo
Paris
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Port Sudan
Pretoria
Puna
Pusan
Rajshahi
Ribeirao Preto
1.76
1.40
1.95
2.37
1.81
1.89
1.91
1.57
1.90
1.97
1.95
1.95
1.99
1.50
0.84
2.39
1.39
1.91
1.94
1.62
2.05
2.47
1.47
2.05
1.68
1.61
3.55
1.58
Urban landscape
Ratio T2
0.36
0.24
0.41
0.73
0.44
0.54
0.41
0.31
0.41
0.45
0.47
0.46
0.49
0.27
0.55
0.63
0.30
0.56
0.43
0.33
0.44
0.56
0.39
0.46
0.50
0.37
0.89
0.25
Openness
Index T1
0.34
0.21
0.39
0.68
0.35
0.57
0.35
0.25
0.36
0.40
0.39
0.44
0.41
0.26
0.49
0.60
0.22
0.42
0.40
0.27
0.40
0.52
0.32
0.43
0.36
0.34
0.84
0.28
Openness
Index T2
28,228
528,178
9,331
56,911
20,533
6,769
4,700
27,823
9,612
21,408
4,408
10,416
32,254
8,193
1,193
2,229
7,719
10,744
823
19,474
542,798
5,910
1,431
1,993
9,869
5,028
940
1,528
New
Development T1 -T2
11,332
268,952
1,903
4,615
6,214
521
927
8,657
3,676
7,469
1,664
2,003
9,356
2,076
147
383
807
976
339
11,364
155,424
1,912
289
882
1,637
1,151
7
201
Infill
T1T2
13,120
220,897
6,561
37,080
12,609
2,681
3,406
16,818
5,613
13,127
2,256
6,500
18,773
4,791
846
1,155
6,251
8,138
393
7,649
316,616
3,632
1,001
1,017
7,692
3,578
602
1,035
Extension
T1T2
3,776
38,329
867
15,216
1,710
3,566
367
2,348
322
812
489
1,913
4,125
1,326
200
690
661
1,631
91
461
70,758
366
141
94
541
299
331
293
Leapfrog
T1T2
280
1.84
1.87
1.61
1.63
1.45
1.66
2.11
1.81
1.77
2.18
2.09
2.83
1.86
1.82
2.30
1.74
1.62
2.11
1.84
1.63
1.51
1.66
1.41
1.95
1.84
2.02
2.39
2.24
2.10
2.52
2.77
2.13
Saidpur
San Salvador
Sanaa
Santiago
Sao Paulo
Seoul
Shanghai
Sheffield
Shimkent
Singapore
Songkhla
Springfield
St. Catharines
Sydney
Tacoma
Tebessa
Teheran
Tel Aviv
Thessaloniki
Tijuana
Tokyo
Ulan Bator
Valledupar
Victoria
Vijayawada
Warsaw
Wien
Yerevan
Yiyang
Yulin
Zhengzhou
Zugdidi
2.04
1.72
1.36
1.56
1.39
1.70
2.06
1.84
1.87
1.83
2.10
2.27
2.01
1.69
1.93
1.72
1.56
2.25
1.87
1.44
1.40
1.62
1.51
1.75
1.84
1.90
2.02
2.23
2.55
2.71
2.80
2.42
Urban landscape
Ratio T2
0.71
0.39
0.37
0.28
0.22
0.31
0.41
0.42
0.40
0.49
0.58
0.55
0.43
0.38
0.49
0.75
0.30
0.49
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.37
0.37
0.43
0.51
0.46
0.54
0.59
0.74
0.81
0.58
0.62
Openness
Index T1
0.72
0.33
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.30
0.35
0.41
0.40
0.41
0.60
0.46
0.43
0.32
0.39
0.66
0.27
0.45
0.35
0.23
0.22
0.33
0.37
0.35
0.48
0.39
0.44
0.57
0.66
0.74
0.54
0.59
Openness
Index T2
242
3,049
4,777
124,492
29,065
19,330
51,069
1,149
2,241
6,930
518
10,184
2,531
11,888
9,920
30,111
11,009
17,374
1,973
8,647
24,560
3,520
701
2,575
2,203
8,319
12,934
9,200
4,722
10,883
33,862
1,671
New
Development T1 -T2
19
897
1,638
33,810
11,142
3,575
6,007
387
487
1,675
50
1,112
285
5,883
4,857
4,215
3,915
1,825
536
2,157
17,884
806
109
1,068
428
2,929
3,830
1,204
334
473
2,693
296
Infill
T1T2
91
1,988
2,889
75,949
15,942
13,288
41,297
561
1,281
4,600
292
8,542
2,066
5,485
4,866
20,814
5,767
12,512
1,197
5,665
5,801
2,339
497
1,381
1,362
4,150
8,518
6,791
3,719
7,522
22,941
889
Extension
T1T2
132
164
250
14,733
1,981
2,466
3,764
201
473
655
176
530
181
521
197
5,082
1,327
3,037
240
825
875
376
95
126
413
1,240
587
1,204
668
2,888
8,228
485
Leapfrog
T1T2
SOURCE: Angel, S, J Parent, D L Civco and A M Blei (2011), The Atlas of Urban Expansion, Table 1: Spatial Metrics Data for the 19902000 Global Sample
of 120 Urban Areas, The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA, available at http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/atlas-urban-expansion/urbannational-data-tables.aspx.
Urban landscape
Ratio T1
City
281
REFERENCES
Angel, S, J Parent, D L Civco and A M Blei (2010a), The
persistent decline in urban densities: global and
historical evidence of sprawl, Lincoln Institute
Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
Cambridge MA, 151 pages, available at http://
www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1834_The-PersistentDecline-in-Urban-Densities.
Angel, S, J Parent and D L Civco (2010b), The
fragmentation of urban footprints: global evidence
of sprawl 19902000, Lincoln Institute Working
Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge
MA, 114 pages, available at http://www.
lincolninst.edu/pubs/1835_The-Fragmentationof-Urban-Footprints.
Angel, S, J Parent, D L Civco and A M Blei (2011), The
Atlas of Urban Expansion, The Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, Cambridge MA, available at http://
www.lincolninst.edu/publications/atlas.
Angel, S, S C Sheppard and D L Civco, with A Chabaeva,
L Gitlin, A Kraley, J Parent, M Perlin and R Buckley
(2005), The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion,
The World Bank, Washington DC, Chapter 2, 199
pages, available at http://www.worldbank.org/
urban.
Angel, S, M I Valdivia and R M Lutzy (2009), Urban
expansion, land conversion and affordable
housing in China: the case of Zhengzhou, Paper
presented at the Workshop on China Housing
Policy, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge
MA, 18 May, 19 pages.
Bertaud, A (2007), Urbanization in China: land
use efficiency issues, available at http://www.
alain-bertaud.com/AB_Files/AB_China_land_use_
report_6.pdf, 33 pages.
Brabec, E and C Smith (2002), Agricultural land
fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land
protection strategies in the eastern United States,
Landscape and Urban Planning Vol 58, pages
255268.
Brand, L A and T L George (2001), Response of
Passerine birds to forest edge in coast Redwood
forest fragments, The Auk Vol 118, No 3, pages
678686.
Burchfield, M, H G Overman, D Puga and M A Turner
(2006), Causes of sprawl: a portrait from space,
Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol 121, No 2, pages
587633.
Carruthers, J I and G F Ulfarsson (2001), Fragmentation
and sprawl: evidence from inter-regional analysis,
Growth and Change 33, Summer, pages 312340.
Chen, I, J F Franklin and T A Spies (1992), Vegetation
responses to edge environments in old growth
Douglas fir forests, Ecological Applications Vol 2,
No 4, pages 387396.
Civco, D L, J D Hurd, E H Wilson, C L Arnold and
M Prisloe (2002), Quantifying and describing
urbanizing landscapes in the northeast United

States, Photogrammetr. Eng. Remote Sens. Vol 68,
No 10, pages 10831090.
Clawson, M (1962), Urban sprawl and speculation in
urban land, Land Economics Vol 38, May, page
99111.
Cox, Wendell (2004), Portland: economic growth
noose loosened: Portland backtracks on urban
growth boundary, The Public Purpose Vol 74,
February, 3 pages.
Ewing, R (1994), Characteristics, causes and effects
of sprawl: a literature review, Environmental and
Urban Issues Vol 21, No 2, pages 115.
Ginsburg, N (1990), Extended metropolitan regions
in Asia: a new spatial paradigm, in N Ginsburg,
The Urban Transition: Reflections on the American
and Asian Experiences, Chinese University of Hong
Kong Press, pages 2142.
Gottmann, J and R A Harper (1990), Since Megalopolis:
The Urban Writings of Jean Gottmann, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 294 pages.
Guldin, G E (1996), Desakotas and beyond:
urbanization in southern China, Ethnology Vol
35, No 4, pages 265283.
Haines-Young, R and M Chopping (1996), Quantifying
landscape structure: a review of landscape indices
and their application to forested landscapes,
Progress in Physical Geography Vol 20, No 4, pages
418445.
Hargis, C D, J A Bissonette and J L David (1998), The
behaviour of landscape metrics commonly used
in the study of habitat fragmentation, Landscape
Ecology Vol 13, pages 167186.
Heim, C E (2001), Leapfrogging, urban sprawl and
growth management: Phoenix 19502000, Ameri
can Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 60, No 1,
pages 245283.
Hurd, J D, E H Wilson, S G Lammey and D L Civco
(2001), Characterization of Forest Fragmentation and
Urban Sprawl using Time Sequential Landsat Imagery,
Proceedings of the ASPRS Annual Convention,
St Louis MO, 2327 April, 12 pages, available at
http://www.resac.uconn. edu/publications/tech_
papers/index.html.
Knapp, Gerrit J (1985), The price effects of urban
growth boundaries in metropolitan Portland,
Oregon, Land Economics No 61, February, pages
2735.
Lessinger, J (1962), The case for scatteration, Journal
of the American Institute of Planners Vol 28, No 3,
pages 159169.
Lichtenberg, E and C Ding (2008), Assessing farmland
protection policy in China, Land Use Policy Vol
25, No 1, January, pages 5968.
McGarigal, K, S A Cushman, M C Neel and E Ene (2002),
FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis programme
282
for categorical maps, available at http://www.
umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.
html.
McGee, T G (1991), The emergence of desakota regions
in Asia: expanding a hypothesis, in N Ginsburg,
B Koppel and T G McGee (editors), The Extended
Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia, University
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pages 326.
Nelson, Arthur (1986), Using land markets to evaluate
urban containment programmes, Journal of the
American Planning Association Vol 52, Spring, pages
5671.
ONeill, R V, J R Krummel, R H Gardner, G Sugihara, B
Jackson, D L DeAngelis, B Milne, S W Christensen, V
H Dale and R L Graham (1988), Indices of landscape
pattern, Landscape Ecology Vol 1, pages 153162.
Ottensman, J R (1977), Urban sprawl, land values and
the density of development, Land Economics Vol
53, No 4, pages 389400.
Peiser, R B (1989), Density and urban sprawl, Land
Economics Vol 65, No 3, pages 193204.
Pfeffer, M J and M B Lapping (1995), Prospects for a
sustainable agriculture in the northeasts rural/
urban fringe, Research in Rural Sociology and

Development Vol 6, pages 6793.
Potere, D, A Schneider, S Angel and D L Civco (2009),
Mapping urban areas on a global scale: which of
the eight maps now available is more accurate?,
International Journal of Remote Sensing Vol 30, No
24, December, pages 65316558.
Reuters (2010), Chinas forced evictions cause
instability, 28 March, available at http://www.
reuters.com/article/idustre62r13u20100328.
Riiters, K H, R V ONeill, C T Hunsaker, J D Wickham, D
H Yankee, S P Timmins, K B Jones and B L Jackson
(1995), A factor analysis of landscape pattern and
structure metrics, Landscape Ecology Vol 10, pages
2339.
United Nations Population Division (2008), World
Urbanization Prospects The 2007 Revision, United
Nations, New York, File 3.
Winter, M, D H Johnson and J Faaborg (2000),
Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in
tallgrass prairie, Condor Vol 102, No 2, pages
256266, available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/
resource/birds/edgeffct/index.htm.
283

The Fragmentation of Urban

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Fragmentation of Urban

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Environment

The fragmentation of urban landscapes: global evidence of a key attribute of the

The online version of this article can be found at:

International Institute for Environment and Development

>> Version of Record - Apr 30, 2012

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on July 23, 2012

The fragmentation of urban landscapes:

SHLOMO ANGEL, JASON PARENT AND DANIEL L CIVCO

ABSTRACT The fragmentation of urban landscapes or the inter-penetration of

We can also ask more specific empirical questions about levels of

Are Chinese metropolitan areas, as few observers have suspected,(8)

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

9. See Angel, S, J Parent, D L

II. DATA AND METRICS

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

The global sample of 120 cities and nine world regions

constructed two new fragmentation metrics (the first one following

The intermediary metrics used for calculating these fragmentation metrics

the walking distance circle is a circle with an area of one square

15. Angel, S, J Parent and

E H Wilson, C L Arnold and M

The urban landscape of Bandung, 1991 and 2001

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

III. FRAGMENTATION IN THE GLOBAL SAMPLE OF CITIES,

18. See reference 17; also see

19. See reference 17.

20. Cities can be less sprawled

22. See reference 17, page 602.

The urban landscapes of Los Angeles, California (2000) (top),

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

Number of cities in range

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Number of cities in range

Upper bound of range of city footprint ratio

The frequency distribution of the openness index and urban

countries had average values of 0.480.02 in 1990 and 0.430.02 in 2000,

23. See reference 17.

developing countries or among the three regional groups. There were no

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

25. See reference 17, page 611

building and rebuilding, densities are high and fragmentation is low;

IV. THE DECLINE IN FRAGMENTATION, 19902000

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

26. Peiser (1989), see reference

27. See reference 15.

The rate of inflation or restrictions on the conversion of land from

a. Case study 1: Excessive fragmentation in Chinese cities

28. Ginsburg, N (1990),

Although not well-documented, fragmentation in Chinese cities is indeed

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

Dense affordable housing in urban villages demolished to

China risks growing social instability and even violence if the

government does not take effective action to address rising public

presented at the Workshop

32. Angel et al. (2009),

33. Reuters (2010), Chinas

b. Case study 2: Decline in fragmentation in Portland and

34. Cox, Wendell (2004),

V. CONCLUSIONS: ALLOWING FOR FRAGMENTATION IN

The decline in fragmentation within Portlands urban growth

outlier yet to be discovered. In other words, they may assume that as

Vol 24 No 1 April 2012

35. United Nations Population

ensure that housing remains affordable. It stands to reason that projected