This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Is Mexico City Polycentric? A Trip Attraction Capacity Approach
Manuel Suárez and Javier Delgado Urban Stud 2009 46: 2187 DOI: 10.1177/0042098009339429 The online version of this article can be found at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/46/10/2187
On behalf of:
Urban Studies Journal Limited
Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/46/10/2187.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 14, 2009 What is This?
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14, 2011
46(10) 2187–2211, September 2009
Is Mexico City Polycentric? A Trip Attraction Capacity Approach
Manuel Suárez and Javier Delgado
[Paper first received, July 2007; in final form, April 2008]
Abstract The article explores whether Mexico City is a polycentric metropolis. Building upon previous methodologies, an alternative criterion is proposed for identifying employment centres, using a jobs to working residents ratio, while taking into account economic informality. Although a small set of minor sub-centres is traced, it is found that most jobs are concentrated in a large central agglomeration, with a moderate percentage of jobs concentrated in corridor-like shapes. Within this central agglomeration, are found inner nodes and corridor-like structures that had been identiﬁed in previous research as sub-centres. Additionally, economic specialisation is identiﬁed with the use of location quotients and the results are compared with those of previous methodologies. It is concluded that Mexico City has a hybrid, although still predominantly monocentric, urban form.
Recent research suggests that Mexico City is in a period of transformation from a monocentric to a polycentric urban form. With the use of distinct methodologies, Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) found 32 sub-centres using tract-level data, while Graizbord and Acuña (2005) found 14 using municipal-level data. The economic centres found in these two studies do not match.
Other studies suggest contradictory evidence of sub-centre formation. While there is evidence of co-location of jobs and housing in some industrial suburban locations (Cruz Rodriguez and Duhau, 2001), a job accessibility study (Suárez and Delgado, 2007) found that there is high urban structure efﬁciency in the centre, which rapidly decreases as distance to it increases. This study found that low job accessibility in suburban locations had been accentuated between 1990 and 2000.
Manuel Suárez is in the Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito exterior s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, México DF, 04510, México. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Javier Delgado is in the Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito exterior s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, México DF, 04510, México. E-mail: email@example.com.
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online © 2009 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098009339429
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14, 2011
regulations. Finally. determining the urban form of Mexico City may have important implications for public policy. which includes the development of metropolitan sub-centres. It comprises the Federal District and 75 municipalities of two contiguous states. although applied to our study area. have been designed once development occurs. we present a set of conclusions. as well as an outline of urban structure and transport. We describe previous methods used for employment centre identiﬁcation for diverse cities and build upon these to present the criteria upon which we base our methodology. we use a trip attraction capacity approach. among others. In the next section. As in the Downloaded from usj. While most studies in the US have used a combination of employment density and employment volume thresholds to identify sub-centres. That methodology is then described in section 4. 1998). or have constantly fallen behind this process (Ward. we present results and include a comparison with an earlier study of Mexico City. Cervero. In doing so. 2001. through further research. In the early 2000s. Suárez (2007) found that. we present an alternative methodology and criteria for employment centre identiﬁcation that build upon previous methods. given that more than 40 per cent of economic activity in the city is informal. trip attraction capacity and economic specialisation. and the efﬁciency of the urban system and its environmental impacts. along with an alternative methodology used in previous research in the US. Bazant. state and municipal authorities developed a master plan for the metropolitan area [Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial de la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México]. general and partial plans since 1936 to generate employment sub-centres. 2. In a ﬁfth section. for Mexico City. The third section summarises theoretical issues surrounding our study.5 million in 2000. Although there has been a set of legal planning frameworks. It will allow. discussion questions and needs for further research. Most of the plans made for the city have been designed for the Federal District and not for the metropolitan area as whole. Development has been mostly market driven (Cervero. we give a general description of Mexico City. experts would agree that most urban development plans. 2000). Employment and Population Suburbanisation in Mexico City. 1998). For the moment. our method is applied both to formal employment and to the formal and informal sectors combined. The purpose of this article is to research whether Mexico City has evolved into a polycentric metropolis.2188 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO In a historical analysis of population and job suburbanisation.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. 2000. the effects of transport on urban development and growth. or. Additionally. based on both employment and working population concentration dynamics throughout the city. Finally. lacking both physical planning as well as implementation strategies (Ward. However. 1950–2000 Mexico City reached a population of 18. our study area. Basic demographic and economic proﬁles are presented. there was an accelerated rate of population suburbanisation and a slow decentralisation of jobs. The rest of the article is divided into ﬁve sections.sagepub. 2011 . we classify employment areas in the city according to size. between 1950 and 2000. that not being the case. federal. the evaluation of the success of the (admittedly few) metro-wide planning policies. the focus of our research is mainly methodological and exploratory. to identify the present-day urban form of the city.
Iracheta. in absolute terms. in the ﬁrst and second rings. Population and economic census data show that population suburbanisation has been accompanied by some local job growth. 1955. 1950–2000 1950a Central city First ring Second ring Third ring Fringe Total employment Working residents 63:77 24:17 10:3 3:2 1:2 611 082 850 353 1960b 60:61 24:30 12:5 3:3 1:2 839 774 1 551 610 1970 51:40 27:38 17:17 3:4 1:2 1 271 814 2 101 471 1980c 40:21 30:30 23:35 5:11 2:3 1 715 065 2 226 783 1990 39:15 29:34 22:31 8:16 2:4 1 997 467 3 859 133 2000 36:11 27:31 22:30 11:22 3:6 3 135 074 5 306 073 a Simple linear extrapolation of economic data ﬁgures with data from 1965 and 1955 due to data constraints for 1950 and 1945. predominant land uses in the central city and ﬁrst urban ring have shifted towards a service economy (Delgado. Municipalities are not legally bound to fulﬁl the plan directives and. Figure 1 shows Delgado’s (1988) urban ring conﬁguration1 (including main roads and highways). for each urban ring across a period of 50 years. Cruz Rodriguez. because much of the industry. Table 1 shows the ratio of percentages of employment to working residents’ concentrations.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2189 past. 1997). Since the 1980s. 2007). however. Mexico City: formal employment to working residents’ percentage ratios by urban ring. 1994. Downloaded from usj. 1979. 1988. Sources: authors’ calculations using 1950.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. which we use only for the purpose of a general description of the area. there has been a continuing concentration of economic activity in the centre. 1969. In part. has no implementation strategies. 1980. The service jobs agglomeration has displaced residential uses towards the periphery and the central city has shown a decrease in total population. c Simple linear interpolation of population ﬁgures with data from 1970 and 1990 due to data uncertainty for 1980. this is the result of the limitations to local authorities amended in the 115th Constitutional Article. have no institutional capacity to do so. the most important economic sector of the time. This raises doubts as to whether job growth outside the central city has been sufﬁcient for the development of employment sub-centres. 2007). b Simple linear interpolation of economic data ﬁgures with data from 1965 and 1955 due to data constraints for 1960. was located on the outskirts of the city. 1989 and 1999 economic censuses. 2001). which diminishes the capabilities of metropolitan and regional development and planning (Legorreta. the population concentration gradient was steeper than the job gradient. In the 1950s. 1960. although with a slight increase in the number of working residents (Suárez and Delgado. Table 1. in many cases.sagepub. population suburbanisation by far exceeds it (Suárez. this recent metro-wide plan. with the Conurbation Commission in 1979 and the Programme for the Metropolitan Region in 1984. 1990 and 2000 population censuses. 1970. Note: Secondary and tertiary sectors excluding electricity and transport sub-sectors due to data constraints from 1950 to 1980. While there is evidence of job suburbanisation having taken place in the past 50 years. 1965. 2011 .
Mexico City: urban ring conﬁguration. albeit lagged in time.sagepub. Over the course of time. and by more than triple in the Downloaded from usj. since the 1970s. and the fringe. the central city’s share of metropolitan employment has been steadily declining. 2011 . GDF (2000).com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14.2190 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Figure 1. the central city has experienced negative population growth in both absolute and proportional terms. However. The ﬁrst ring shows a similar behaviour to that of the central city. Conversely. Working population growth has increased and has surpassed employment growth by more than double in the ﬁrst and second rings. show a constant increase in the share of both population and employment over the 50-year period. In contrast. main roads and highways Sources: Delgado (1988). overall employment growth has been such that the central city’s percentage share has still consistently equated to the highest absolute growth. rings two and three.
1992). This suggests that the role of the central city. Literature Review Research suggests that the monocentric model is insufﬁcient to explain today’s cities (Anas and Kim. Thus. declining steadily as distance to it increased. the question we look at in the following sections is whether employment suburbanisation has led to sub-centre generation. Evidence of job suburbanisation Downloaded from usj. 2011 . especially since ﬁgures imply that. 3. Song. close to 40 per cent of metropolitan job growth took place in the city centre. the working population shows more of a sprawl-type growth. 1991. between 1990 and 2000. the number of work trips to the central city has steadily increased in both absolute and proportional terms.sagepub. On the one hand. relative to working population growth. While. is far from having been reduced. Figure 3 shows a suburbanisation index of working residents and employment from 1950 to 2000.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. Mexico City: share of formal jobs and working residents growth per urban ring 1990–2000 Sources: authors’ calculations using 1989 and 1999 economic censuses and 1990 and 2000 population censuses. 1996. located (see Appendix). two and three. on average. it was especially high in the second and fourth rings. Although job suburbanisation is evident. especially in the industrial sector. On the other hand. Figure 2 shows employment and working population growth for each urban ring. the proportion of jobs was higher than the proportion of working population in rings one. as the share of metropolitan growth as a whole. Giuliano and Small. in economic terms. this ratio has been deﬁnitely reversed since that time. while working population growth was minimal in the central city.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2191 Figure 2. in the 1950s. third ring and the fringe. expressed as the normalised distance from the centre at which jobs and residents are.
2192 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Figure 3. 1969. The more centres that exist. 1993.sagepub. suburban centres should. If polycentric urban forms are indeed more efﬁcient in terms of travel times. after which a system of cities would tend to emerge. 1960. Gordon et al. Although the tacit consensus is that sub-centres exist. 1991). Mexico City: index of employment and population suburbanisation 1950–2000 Notes: secondary sector excludes electricity. 1989 and 1999 economic censuses. tertiary sector excludes transport due to data constraints from 1950 to 1980. allowing colocation (for example. equilibrium is unattainable. have a direct and moderate impact on a small number of the working population in nearby areas who travel to work. From one point of view. Thus. 3. however. because multiple Downloaded from usj. there is no universally accepted criterion for their detection and classiﬁcation. and an indirect and slight impact on overall metropolitan commuting times and congestion. the efﬁciency of urban polycentrism is in doubt. subject to debate. 1979. Levinson and Kumar. 2011 . This efﬁciency is.1 Theory and Debate According to Fujita et al. due to population growth. 1955. 1990 and 2000 population censuses.. the less proportional impact each will have on the overall urban structure. at the same time.. 1980. 1965. and sprawl has led several scholars to develop different methods for identifying urban sub-centres. urban efﬁciency holds as the cause for the transformation to a polycentric urban form.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. Sources: authors’ calculations using 1950. 1994. Wachs et al. 1970. there is a shift into a non-monocentric economy. (2001). the monocentric economy is only sustainable until the population growth reaches a critical level. When.
1987). thus having an impact on urban form and travel patterns. Cervero and Wu (1998) showed that VMT increased with job suburbanisation. Bogart and Ferry (1999) deﬁne centres as places with both a high density and a high quantity of employment. have used minimum density thresholds (McDonald. Batty (2001) has explored the emergence of polynucleated cities through agent simulation. but criticised from the land market angle (Giuliano and Small 1993). together. changes in production and the dependence on communication networks such as the Internet. 2004). from a global view. It is also unclear what the extent of this inﬂuence should be. the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) has intensively encouraged planned polycentrism. 1994. for a sample of US and Japanese cities. 3). consisting of core and fringe municipalities. Song 1992. While it is intuitive to state that. Policies such as jobs– housing balance have been recommended in order to develop sustainable urban villages (Cervero 1996).IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2193 sub-centres are bound to attract trips from all places in a city. 1986) and volume of employment and job specialisation methods (Dunphy. At the regional level. In any case. The spatial mismatch hypothesis literature would suggest that it is accessibility that makes the urban structure efﬁcient (Cervero et al. Thurstain-Goodwin and Unwin (2000) have located town centres using kernel density estimation and a town centredness index. 2001). In any event. Hamilton (1982) observed that commuting distances would be eight times shorter if cities were completely monocentric.sagepub. Similarly. IT development and global networking could affect the structural and physical changes of cities and regions due to emerging global economic roles (Scott. Indeed. 2001. however.. 1997). research suggests that terciarisation. ESPON research assures that polycentric structures should stimulate the functional division of labour. Cervero and Wu. Graham and Marvin. we start off by identifying current urban form in Mexico City.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. 3.2 Previous Methods for Sub-centre Identiﬁcation Finally. could inﬂuence location choices (Saxenian. as well as ﬂows and level of co-operation between neighbouring cities … promoting the balanced and multiscalar types of urban networks that are the most beneﬁcial … both for the core and for the peripheries (ESPON. the threshold from which the inﬂuence on urban structure becomes signiﬁcant is unclear. according to Song (1992). the likelihood of exerting an inﬂuence on urban structure also increases. p. Most studies. 1996). a density threshold is set and urban tracts that surpass it are Downloaded from usj. 1982). There have been different approaches to identifying urban centres. 1991. Likewise. the number of subcentres that can be found depends on the criteria employed to identify them. From a regional perspective. It consists of two steps. First. At the metropolitan scale. McDonald and Prather. 1997). 2005. ESPON has used the concept of functional urban areas (FUAs) to deﬁne nodes within regions. as employment volumes and densities increase. are large enough to exert a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the urban structure.. New forms of social interaction. Economic sub-centres have been also identiﬁed through the visual inspection of density maps (Gordon et al. 2011 . or minimum density thresholds in addition to a minimum concentration of jobs (Giuliano and Small. urban centres should incorporate adjacent high-density zones that. Giuliano and Small (1991) developed what seems to have been the most widely used methodology to identify sub-centres. to enter these debates from the perspective of a mega-city in a developing country. generating wider dispersion between origins and destinations (Bertraud.
7 jobs/ha [10 jobs/ acre] and a sum of 10 000 jobs for their study of Los Angeles. 3. several scholars have developed alternative methods of identifying density peaks.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. in a ﬁrst stage. Each subset enters the ﬁnal list of sub-centres if the sum of jobs within the set of contiguous tracts meets an employment volume threshold. the choice of a job-volume threshold as an additional criterion for employment centre identiﬁcation remains a subjective issue. 2011 . The issue is one of criterion. Still. sub-centres should also have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the local density gradient (McMillen. since it is precisely because of the difference in land area Downloaded from usj. This is ambiguous. Cervero and Wu (1997) found 22 sub-centres in the San Francisco Bay Area. Sub-centres would be composed of more than one tract if adjacent tracts had high employment concentrations. employment density is regressed with distance to the CBD. Giuliano and Small (1991) used a minimum density threshold of 24. setting the density threshold above the metropolitan average (17. most of these previous methods for sub-centre identiﬁcation require ample local knowledge in order to produce reasonable results. which is modelled in a ﬁrst stage of an LWR. 2001). In a second stage. Taking this approach. Nevertheless. instead of selecting an arbitrary threshold. while Song (1992) established the thresholds at 37 jobs/ha (15 jobs/acre) and a sum of 35 000 jobs. Nevertheless. This hybrid methodology. this method requires an ad hoc knowledge of polycentrism in a given city. Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) determined that tracts that had at least 5500 jobs deﬁned sub-centres. McMillen and McDonald (1997) argue that the job density criterion is more objective if. each would ﬁnd a different number of sub-centres. together. selected tracts are grouped. With this method. due to the differences in the size of tracts. uses LWR to select tracts that show peaks in the density gradient. Thus. McMillen (2003) suggests that using a hybrid methodology that combines the McMillen and McDonald (1997) and McMillen (2001) non-parametric approach with the Giuliano and Small (1991) approach. The ﬁnal list of sub-centres is composed of sets of contiguous tracts that individually meet the density criterion and that. surpass an employment volume threshold. However. based on contiguity. while the number of distant sub-centres will less likely be underestimated. although the authors did not explain what this ‘high concentration’ meant. offers advantages over both methodologies. taking into account the space dynamics that exist in cities. Furthermore.sagepub. It is evident that if these three thresholds were applied to the same city. McDonald and Prather (1994) substantiated that regressing the natural log of employment density on distance provides the best functional form of predicting the density gradient under the assumption of monocentricity. as discussed by McMillen (2001).3 jobs/ha) [7 jobs/acre] and the sum of jobs at 10 000. They argued for the use of number of jobs instead of job density.3 Previous Methods Used For Sub-centre Identiﬁcation in Mexico City For Mexico City. McMillen (2001) and McMillen and McDonald (1997) suggested that density peaks around secondary employment centres in a polycentric city were better modelled using a non-parametric locally weighted regression (LWR) (also known as a geographically weighted regression) than using an OLS regression. whereas a sub-centre is an area with an employment density that is significantly higher than would be expected based on its distance to the CBD. places that are near the CBD will require higher densities to meet the density criterion than those that are further away. into subsets.2194 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO identiﬁed as potential sub-centres. with the question being: how reasonable is reasonable? With this in mind. the number of subcentres close to the CBD is less likely to be overestimated.
as well as into ﬁve economic specialisation groups: industry. at the municipal level. since chi-squared tests. a small shop in the middle of. this study shows. services. say.sagepub. commercialindustrial and service-industrial. and residential density around these. In a parallel study. Additionally. a centre is a place that attracts centripetal forces and from which centrifugal forces emanate. or one for central locations and a slightly lower one for suburban centres (based on local knowledge). especially since. 2011 . While the rest of the aforementioned studies take into account employment data. this option remains impossible due to differences in land use classiﬁcations between the Federal District and the State of Mexico. once the concentration of working residents in nearby areas has been considered. commerce. that some origins and destinations share certain characteristics that raise the number of observed interdestination commuting ﬂows above the expected number of ﬂows. surpassing the density gradient is also a necessary criterion for identifying an employment centre. a concept missing from previous sub-centre identiﬁcation techniques.4 Proposed Approach for Sub-centre Identiﬁcation Although the method used by Graizbord and Acuña (2005) is statistically deﬁcient.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2195 that density is used to determine job concentration differences. Economic activity represents the dominant land use and out-bids residential uses (Alonso 1964). given that. in this study. Downloaded from usj. concentrating 25 per cent of the jobs in the city. Just as the density of employment centres. if there is a higher number of observed trips than of expected trips from another i origin. land use maps could be used to deﬁne sub-centres. In classic location theory. Potentially. but also by their capacity for attracting work trips.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. in any case. otherwise. Using this method. In fact. the municipality with the second-highest job–resident ratio and concentration of jobs in the metropolitan area did not show up as either a primary or a secondary centre. due to the characteristics of contingency tables. Yet. This study found 35 subcentres. the authors classiﬁed centres into ﬁve job-size groups. Graizbord and Acuña (2005) located centres by analysing what they call ‘remarkable ﬂows’ (ﬂujos sobresalientes). They observed the number of trips between pairs of municipalities that exceeded the expected number of trips estimated with the use of contingency tables. by selecting ofﬁce. To our knowledge. suggest that a distribution is not probabilistic. However. the lack of city-wide geo-referenced land use maps and even their sole existence in many municipalities! 3. none of them considers the relationship between employment and residential locations. a destination zone j will have less attraction capability from at least one origin i. that can be set for each location in relation to its capacity for attracting work trips from other places in the city. instead of using a ﬁxed employment volume threshold for a series of contiguous tracts. With this approach. the idea of trip attraction underpinning it is an outstanding contribution. if signiﬁcant. commercial and industrial uses with high employment density. to use a threshold that is dynamic in space. the authors found eight primary centres and six secondary centres. there have been no attempts to identify sub-centres in Mexico City using land use maps. According to Perroux (1950). Our proposition is. should be expected to vary with distance to the CBD. Conforming to these ideas. urban centres and sub-centres should be deﬁned not only by the degree of concentration of jobs. this does not mean that these destinations are actually centres. the volume of employment in each centre cannot be expected to be a ﬁxed number. This is true. At least for Mexico City. residential zones comprise residual lands for which no economic uses have been found.
Additionally. these will be physically separated from the centre. as small tracts are more likely to show peaks of employment density. a product of all economic activity. 4. McMillen (2001) shows that tract size has a direct inﬂuence on sub-centre production. is that employment centres are places that surpass a smoothed density gradient. The ﬁrst assumption in identifying employment centres. the area that is identiﬁed as the centre is the area contiguous to the CBD (see Figure 1) that meets both criteria. Thus. 4. commercial and service jobs. we combine three data sources.2 Second is the Downloaded from usj.sagepub. an area that can attract more work trips than those it is able to generate. we use a different approach. corridors may be identiﬁed and classiﬁed according to their shape. in addition to being delimited with population data and not with economic data. Since there is no convincing argument to prove that Mexico City is a polycentric metro area. However. The ﬁrst problem is that over 40 per cent of the jobs in the city are informal and do not appear in the economic census data. by way of compensation. Therefore. Tracts are artiﬁcial statistical sampling areas with deﬁned limits and have no evident socioeconomic/spatial meaning. would be considered an employment centre. the second assumption of this analysis is that a centre should have the capacity of attracting workers from other places. 2011 . if we were to use economic census data alone. Furthermore. we initially assume that it is still in a monocentric stage.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. we adjust the number of jobs per tract for informal work. This database divides jobs into industrial. This is especially problematic when applying our criterion of jobs to working residents ratio. Based on the work of Graizbord and Acuña (2005). The application of these criteria towards identifying employment centres in Mexico City presents two methodological problems. Methodology The method employed in this article to identify urban sub-centres is based on two concepts used in previous research: job concentration. there is no recent origin–destination survey and the US census transport package equivalent only shows origins and destinations between municipalities. which obviously cannot be true. since there is no reason to assume that urban tracts can be self-contained areas. For this reason it is important to work with areas of equal size.2196 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO a regional park. a given place may only be said to have a ‘real’ attraction capacity if it has a higher concentration of jobs than resident workers. 2005). 2001). Additionally. large enough to attract more work trips than those it is able to generate. and trip attraction capacity. to identify sub-centres in Mexico City. which represent areas that are too large for the purpose of identifying employment centres. we use the following deﬁnition: any point of the city at which there is a peak in the employment density gradient and a concentration of jobs relative to the working population concentration. However. Thus. we run the sub-centre identiﬁcation analysis twice: once for formal jobs alone and a second time having adjusted for the total number of jobs.1 Informality Adjustment To resolve the informality problem. because of the rough nature of our informality adjustment procedure. The same is true of sub-centres. taken from the work of McMillen (2003. within a given distance to it. Although almost any place where there are jobs will show some degree of crosscommuting (Graizbord and Santillan. Since our methodology requires calculating jobs to working resident ratios. which shows the number of established jobs per tract (Et) that can be expected to represent formal employment. we would only analyse formal employment and not the overall urban form of the city. due to the aforementioned data constraints. The second problem is data aggregation at the tract level. In effect. however. The ﬁrst is the 1999 Economic Census.
our task is to estimate the total number of informal and formal jobs by tract Jt. contain surviving residential areas within economic centres. ﬁnance. secondly. as well as place of work at the municipal level (the lowest aggregation level at which personal records are released in Mexico). the proportion of informal and formal workers per municipality was calculated by selecting persons whose type of work was self-employment or day labour. First. education. Some studies have resolved this by using tract proximity instead of tract contiguity (McMillen and McDonald. informal jobs follow the proportional distribution of the formal sector (equation (1)). due to the fact that one or more tracts fail to meet these conditions (for example. tract-level data) 4. although tracts represent the preferred level of aggregation due to their small size. as it represents a 20-minute walk. We cannot expect. tract-level data).3 Since this database contains a place of work variable.4 However. J t = (W − E )⋅ Im E ⋅ t + Et I m + Fm Em (1) where.sagepub. We employed an informal worker identiﬁcation method used previously (Suárez. or comprise warehouse areas that serve the local industry). which contains the number of working residents per tract (Wt). tract-level data). This database presents personal records including: sector of employment. which we subsequently prorated among tracts. The 1. Thus. Population Census). because they hold a large park. and assuming that. government-owned industry or services. we use GISgenerated neighbourhoods of 1. we know that the total number of informal and formal jobs J should equal the total number of working residents W. Im is the number of informal jobs (estimated) in municipality m (10 per cent sample. This method undergoes two assumptions. considering the proportion of informal jobs per municipality. we were able to estimate the number of informal (Im) and formal (Fm) jobs per municipality. This is usually the maximum distance that a person is willing to walk Downloaded from usj. however. Fm is the number of formal jobs (estimated) in municipality m (10 per cent sample. Jt is the total number of jobs in tract t. or economic sub-sectors heavily regulated by government. 1998). that the edge of a given tract is likely to resemble more closely the edge of the adjacent tract than its own opposite edge. this often results in maps that show pockets within the identiﬁed centres or subcentres. Furthermore. E is the total number of formal (established) jobs (Economic Census.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. 2007). they do generate spatial autocorrelation problems.2 Generation of GIS Neighbourhoods such that J = W. tract-level data). assuming that F ≈ E While most studies search for adjacent tracts that meet the density and concentration criteria. telecommunications.6-km (1 mile) radii in order to provide focal statistics for each urban hectare of the city. Population Census). The third is the 10 per cent sample census database (similar to PUMS data in the US). and Em is the number of formal (established) jobs in municipality m (Economic Census. by prorating the difference of W minus E. 2011 . To approach this problem.6-km threshold was selected. within tracts of municipalities. Drawing on the 10 per cent sample census database. although excluding professionals (such as architects and doctors) and those dedicated to health. while others have ignored the issue completely. occupation and type of work. W is the total number of working residents (Population Census.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2197 2000 Population Census. that tracts are not self-contained entities and. the number of formal jobs per municipality estimated from the 10 per cent sample to match perfectly the economic census data. Et is the number of formal (established) jobs in tract t (Economic Census.
Hectares with formal job densities that exceeded the predicted formal density gradient at the 95 per cent conﬁdence level were selected in one map as ‘high formal job concentration areas’.6 km radius of each urban hectare) was calculated using OLS regression. in order to identify economic specialisation. To generate neighbourhoods.5 In using four distance sets. 4. No information of this sort is available for Mexico. or as corridors. to avoid colinearity. Following the analysis by McMillen (2001) to control for urban construction limits. The average density gradient (within a 1. Finally. This resulted in a series of maps that show how many jobs and how many working residents are located within each hectare of the city. all sites that are located to the north-east would have south and west distances coded as zero. commercial and service jobs. each representing the four cardinal bearings to the CBD.3 Centre and Sub-centre Identiﬁcation To identify ‘attraction areas’.6-km-radius neighbourhood sums of working population and jobs. Both a formal employment and total jobs map (formal plus informal) were generated. in general. again in two separate maps: one representing formal job agglomerations and another representing total job agglomerations.6-km radius of each urban hectare. we calculated job and working resident densities (per hectare) for each tract in our study area. according to McDonald and Prather (1994). which we expected to reveal somewhat different urban forms.6 km of each hectare of the city. Given that all our cases represent areas of the same size. while sites located to the south-west would have zero values for north and east distances. gives the best functional form under the assumption of monocentricity. or as corridors. it is not necessary to assign weights to different cases (see McDonald and Prather.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. It is also. hectares with total job densities that exceeded the predicted total jobs density gradient were selected in another map as ‘high total job concentration areas’. The extent of the centre was Downloaded from usj. as sub-centres. we divided the job map by the resident map. The next step was to create 1. Vector information was then converted into onehectare grid cells. Thus. 1978). areas that met both trip attraction and density criteria were considered as part of the centre. the maximum by-law allowable walking distance to schools and the longest walking option between transit points in most Internet trip planners in the US. as sub-centres. For example. 1994. This operation produced base maps that indicate the number of jobs and working residents that are within 1.2198 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO without using alternative forms of transport. Since we performed the analysis for both formal and total jobs. depending upon their contiguity to the CBD and their shape. as well as three other maps indicating the number of industrial. two separate employment density regressions were run. assuming a homogeneous distribution within tracts. The regression used the natural log of employment density as a dependent variable which. 2011 . and Frankena. four distance predictors were used. the distance value to a bearing becomes negative when its opposite bearing is positive. we proceeded to classify them into three types: either as part of the centre. 4. although it is probable that acceptable walking distances are longer in Mexico City than in any US metropolitan area. Hectares with values greater than one (more jobs than working residents) met the ﬁrst criterion and thus were considered attraction areas. due to steep hills and protected natural areas in the south and west of the city.sagepub.4 Classiﬁcation of Sub-centres Once we identiﬁed job agglomeration areas. Their quotient represents the jobs to working residents ratio within a 1. Likewise. all negative distance values were coded as zero.
Corridors were identiﬁed mainly by shape and were classiﬁed into three sub-types. any weighting function can be used without signiﬁcantly altering the results. a 5500 jobs threshold seems adequate in terms of comparing methodologies when using only formal employment data. However. The hybrid methodology consists in running a locally weighted regression (LWR) on the natural log of employment density. we compared our identified centre and sub-centres with those found by Aguilar and Alvarado (2005). According to McMillen (2003). because they provide a higher correlation (more than double) between the smoothed densities surface and the observed surface. are selected to comprise the final list of sub-centres. In a second step. Downloaded from usj. 2001) and McMillen and McDonald (1997) for a complete description of this methodology. Finally. Sites that exceed the predicted density at the 95 per cent conﬁdence level are selected as potential sub-centres. A second difference is that we used four distance to the CBD predictors (as described previously). we classiﬁed job agglomeration areas into industrial. Segmented corridors (SCs) were considered a series of job agglomeration areas having a distance of no more than 1. adjacent segmented corridors (ASCs) are the result of combining the two previous types. without inducing additional colinearity. Additionally. we followed the hybrid methodology. in order to determine the extent to which each explains the overall urban form. we found it necessary to compare our results with those of other methodologies. 2011 . meet an employment volume threshold.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. Our volume of employment threshold criteria involved selecting adjacent tracts that exceeded the predicted density surface at the 95 per cent conﬁdence level and which. Additionally. as it represents the size of a large factory. However. using the X and Y co-ordinates of the tract centroids as predictors. 4. when compared with the model that only uses X and Y distances as predictors.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2199 identiﬁed as the job agglomeration area contiguous to the CBD. These thresholds were chosen since Giuliano and Small (1991) suggest that a 10 000 jobs threshold should be used. one for formal employment and a second one for the combined formal and informal sectors.6-km between them. instead of the tricubic function used in the original methodology. Finally. It is also the threshold used by Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) for Mexico City. commercial or service. contiguous tracts that meet the ﬁrst criterion and that. Interested readers should consult McMillen (2003. which combines the McMillen (2001) and Giuliano and Small (1991) methodologies for identifying employment centres.sagepub. according to the highest location quotient in the area. We ran two separate LWRs. there is an agglomeration through which the centre loses its overall shape. we calculated the proportion of jobs in each type of agglomeration. we ran a separate analysis using the hybrid method proposed by McMillen (2003). along a main road or highway.5 Comparison with Previous Methods Since our methodology differs from previously used methods in the use of GIS-generated neighbourhoods and the trip attraction criterion. Thus. summed more than 5500 jobs for formal employment and 10 000 jobs for total employment. aligned along main roads or highways. In our case. Adjacent corridors (ACs) would be those contiguous to the centre where. since the number of jobs in the economic census represents only 58 per cent of all jobs. together. Sub-centres were identiﬁed as those agglomeration areas having a physical separation from the centre of more than 1. together. in the LWR step. we used a bicubic weighting function on a window size of 50 per cent of the nearest cases.6-km.
Downloaded from usj.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14.sagepub.1 Formal Centre and Sub-centres Figure 4 shows the formal employment centre and sub-centres. in the Iztacalco and Iztapalapa area. Mexico City: formal employment centres and trip attraction capacity in 1. in the Lomas–Santa Fe area. An AC lies to the east. an ASC to the west. Results 5. represented as a job to working resident ratio.2200 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO 5.6-km radius of each hectare. It additionally shows the average trip attraction capacity from areas outside the 1. Results reveal a large Central Agglomeration (CA) that elongates to the north and south of the CBD and which turns into three corridor-like shapes. 2011 . and a second ASC to the north-west. there appear to be areas with higher job density that form inner nodes and Figure 4.6-km radii Sources: authors’ methodology using the 1999 Economic Census and the 2000 Population Census. Within the CA. in the Naucalpan–Tlalnepantla area.
the areas identiﬁed as employment centres and sub-centres account for 13 per cent of the urban area of the city (Table 2).IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2201 corridors that are situated along main roads of the city. not of a sub-centre. The Periférico beltway appears to delimit the overall form of the CA. lies in the segment of the beltway that was built during the 1990s. 5. they hold close to 58 per cent of formal jobs. in the Cuautitlán area. account for the location of only 15 per cent of working residents. a small industrial area along the highway that connects the Ecatepec and Cuautitlán industrial parks. The highest jobs to resident workers ratios appear in the Cuautitlán. along the highway to Puebla. Coacalco. Considering only formal employment. These areas represent 23 per cent of the urban area of the city and hold close to 26 per cent of resident workers. Within the CA. Adjusting for informality. a 50-km road that connects the south of Mexico City with the highway to the city of Pachuca. From north to south. with services along Downloaded from usj. and one more in the Tepotzotlán area. This is probably due to the fact that industrial areas permit mixed uses to a lesser extent than employment centres with tertiary activity. crossing the centre of the city and the Ecatepec area. and these corridors show a smaller job to resident worker resident ratio than the rest of the CA (Table 2). as it practically converges with the Cuautitlán area. which does not show up as an employment centre. The rest of the beltway was built during the 1960s and 1970s. Chiconcuac. depicted in Figure 4. Together. 5. Ecatepec and Naucalpan–Tlalnepantla areas. The southern edges of the formal CA. of which only 5 per cent are concentrated in sub-centres that account for 2. the Naucalpan– Tlalnepantla corridor becomes the Naucalpan– Cuautitlán ASC. the Iztacalco– Iztapalapa formal corridor joins the Periférico corridor and is almost completely integrated into the CA. The CBD elongates from east to west across Reforma Avenue (see main roads in Figure 1) into the Lomas–Santa Fe area and then turns along the highway to Toluca. the area around the Periférico.2 Employment Centres and Sub-centres Adjusting for Informality Figure 5 shows results adjusting for informality. the Iztacalco–Iztapalapa corridor is situated along Zaragoza Avenue. To the west. Similarly. According to the results. the Ecatepec area also appears to have the form of a corridor. Job to resident worker ratios are considerably higher when considering informal jobs in all employment centres as a whole.3 Economic Specialisation Figure 6 shows job specialisation as the highest location quotient in the area. a city located 40 km west of Mexico City. while less than 2 per cent are concentrated in sub-centres (Table 3).com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. only 13 per cent of jobs are concentrated in ACs and ASCs. To the north-east of the CA. connect along the Periférico beltway. Similarly. Four additional sub-centres may be identiﬁed when adjusting for informality: Ixtapaluca and La Paz. 2011 . 70 per cent of all jobs in the metro area are agglomerated in the CA.6 per cent of the urban area. The CA is predominantly tertiary. which then becomes the highway to the city of Puebla. The largest concentration of jobs in these sub-centres is found to the north. Using this approach.sagepub. as a whole. as well as to data aggregation effects. an artisan textiles town. The latter appears to be consolidating into a corridor. an industrial park (see Table 2). These same areas. Within the CA. there are eight areas that may qualify as sub-centres: four of them are very close to the CA and four others are at greater distances from it. including ACs and ASCs. The Coapa and Xochimilco sub-centres actually become nodes within the CA. the CA shows a higher job concentration along Insurgentes Avenue. the inner corridor and node structure are maintained.
3 1.0 2.3 0.5 0.6 52.3 13.5 87. 2011 Central agglomeration (CA) Lomas–Santa Fé Naucalpan–Tlalnepantla Iztacalco–Iztapalapa Cuautitlán Tepozotlán Ecatepec Coapa Xochimilco Texcoco Chalco Atizapán de Z CA without corridors All ACs and ASCs All sub-centres All employment centres Metro area total Centre + ACs and ASCs ASC ASC AC Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centres (2) Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre AC: adjacent corridors as deﬁned in text.0 32.7 22.5 5.6 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Downloaded from usj.7 9.3 13.3 0.4 4.4 2.2 1.0 2 233 802 3 880 420 57.8 1.7 79.6 2.4 75.0 985 826 6 603 811 Typea Working residents Formal job density (jobs/ha) Percentage of working residents of MA Percentage of formal jobs of MA Percentage of area of MA (urban) Jobs:WR 2.0 1. a .5 1.6 100.0 69.2 0.3 0.0 0.9 10.2202 Table 2.0 7.2 0.1 0.6 16.1 0.5 0.3 1. Mexico City: selected characteristics of formal employment centres Denomination Formal jobs 2 053 970 25 868 104 953 362 375 58 609 2 021 29 733 52 944 12 039 10 137 13 515 834 1 560 774 493 196 179 832.5 100.2 0.5 3.6 2.5 17.7 2.5 1.6 13.2 0.3 0.0 9.6 1.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14.0 2. ASC: adjacent segmented corridors as deﬁned in text.8 2.3 0.9 2.3 0.7 33.0 40.2 2. Sources: authors’ calculations using data from the 1999 Economic Census and the 2000 Population Census.7 60.3 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 29.2 12.6 3.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 47.4 14.0 19.3 0.8 52.5 1.0 895 686 13 371 42 303 219 717 20 858 916 11 963 29 684 11 760 6 219 8 327 413 620 295 275 391 90 140.8 2.8 2.4 0.3 0.sagepub.9 100 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.8 44.
6-km radii Sources: authors’ methodology using the 1999 Economic Census and the 2000 Population Census.4 Comparison with Previous Methods A comparison of our results with those of previously used methods is depicted in Figure 7.sagepub. while Texcoco.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. except in the Lomas-Santa Fe area. Insurgentes Avenue and with commercial activity to the sides of the services areas. Industry is concentrated in the corridors. 2011 . the areas of this municipality that show up as part of an employment Downloaded from usj. The sub-centres identiﬁed by Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) are mostly contained within our identiﬁed formal CA. Five of the eight subcentres are essentially manufacturing towns. Tlahuac and Chiconcuac show mainly tertiary activity. which shows tertiary activity. Mexico City: combined formal and informal employment centres and trip attraction capacity in 1.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2203 Figure 5. For the speciﬁc case of Tlalpan. 5.
2 0.1 0.4 36.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 25.5 0.6 1.4 35.0 0.0 0.1 16.5 37.9 49.9 25.9 17. Mexico City: selected characteristics of combined formal and informal employment centres Denomination Typea Working residents Jobs Job density (jobs/ha) Percentage of working residents of MA Percentage of jobs of MA Percentage of urban area of MA MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Central agglomeration 30 902 232 055 54 634 155 636 4 950 2 265 423 4 176 13 805 7 942 9 792 849 10 126 8 734 1 170 845 478 177 58 112 1 707 134 6 603 811 3 505 668 1 108 956 104 676 4 719 300 6 603 811 122.8 4.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0. Primary/ secondary specialisation .7 7.5 Services/Industrial Services/Commercial Industrial Industrial Services Industrial/Commercial Industrial Industrial Commercial Services/Commercial Industrial Services Industrial Industrial/Services Industrial Services/Commercial Industrial/Services Industrial/Services Industrial/Services Downloaded from usj.0 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.5 3.1 27.1 0.4 20.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 100 12.8 23.2204 Table 3.3 0.2 0.8 23.7 49.0 9.1 47.7 27.9 100 53. ASC: adjacent segmented corridors as deﬁned in text.9 21.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14.0 0.0 69.3 100 71 278 622 319 118 495 291 826 5 038 8 496 573 5 990 25 196 17 094 15 905 1 224 14 117 16 081 23.6 71. Sources: authors’ calculations using data from the 1999 Economic Census and the 2000 Population Census.8 2.5 0.1 24.2 85.2 0.4 57.2 0.9 9. 2011 Lomas–Santa Fé Naucalpan–Cuautitlán Ecatepec Periférico Iztapalapa Tepozotlán Coacalco Chiconcuac Texcoco La Paz Tlahuac Ixtapaluca Chalco Atizapán de Z Center plus ACs and ASCs AC ASC ASC AC ASC Sub-centres (2) Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre Sub-centre CA without corridors All ACs and ASCs All sub-centres Total Employment centres Metro area total a AC: adjacent corridors as deﬁned in text.5 0.3 4.8 17.sagepub.5 1.0 0.2 1 649 022 4 614 624 90.4 1.1 0.1 9.2 20.9 21.
since between these points the observed densities surpass the density gradient. we found no signiﬁcant difference between the ﬁnal list of centres produced using the formal and the combined formal and informal employment. Aguilar and Alvarado. 2011 . not sub-centres as such. Mexico City: economic specialisation in employment centres Source: authors’ calculations with data from the 1999 Economic Census.’ The rest of Aguilar and Alvarado’s subcentres are mostly aligned along the higher jobs to resident workers’ ratio areas. Thus.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2205 Figure 6. depicted in Figure 4. Only 10 additional tracts showed up as economic centres when controlling for informality at the edges of the identified formal employment centres. centre are. however.sagepub.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. place the centre further south. in our results. and since the areas around them show similar characteristics in terms of job concentration. we only depict the results of the combined formal plus informal jobs analysis in Figure 7. it is likely that Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) found potential nodes within the bounds of the CA. along Reforma and Insurgentes Avenues. In the case of the results of the hybrid McMillen–Giuliano method. aligned to the south of the Periférico Corridor. They are also mostly contained within the areas that would be identified if using the hybrid McMillen–Giuliano methodology. However. towards the municipality’s administrative centre. This no-dissimilarity result is explained by the fact that the differences between the chosen employment volume thresholds are basically proportional to the ratios of the formal to combined formal and Downloaded from usj. for simplicity.
2206 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Downloaded from usj.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. . 2011 Figure 7.sagepub. Mexico City: comparison of employment centres between three methodologies Sources: Aguilar and Alvarado (2005) and authors’ calculations using data from the 1999 Economic Census and the 2000 Population Census.
the Nezahualcoyotl. to the east. Together. If anything. this reveals an additional limitation to the employment volume threshold approach.1 About the Methodology We have proposed an alternative criterion for identifying employment centres.2 Is Mexico City Polycentric? Based on our criteria. It follows that there will be a high concentration of local services and commerce to meet the local demand–not enough. by more than double.6 Conversely. gardeners.2 km) slightly reduces the number of sub-centres and expands the area of the CA. Chalco areas. we use GIS-generated neighbourhoods of 1. Relative to our methodology. the average gross urban population density of the metro area. Indeed. they hold more than 16 per cent of the city’s population. the hybrid McMillen–Giuliano method would seem to overestimate the extent of the centre. setting the radius at half that distance (800 metres) slightly increases the number of sub-centres (especially at the edges of the CA) and also increases the number and length of ASCs. even if they do show high job concentrations. 6. show up as large employment centres. Iztapalapa and Netzahualcoyotl are among the densest and most populated municipalities of the metropolitan area. However.6-km. Finally. Discussion 6. Due to the nature of this method. However. which we have set at 1. 6. It is based on identifying peaks in the density gradient. by introducing a more objective criterion that also responds to population location dynamics in the city. these areas cannot be considered employment centres.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2207 informal sectors. it remains inconclusive whether using LWR with this form of aggregate data may potentially enhance results. the working residents densities in these areas are so much higher than the job densities that they have higher trip generation rates than attraction rates. the results produced using the three different radii do not reveal material differences that would cause us to re-evaluate our general conclusions on urban form. For this reason. its corridors and sub-centres. Although we have identiﬁed several potential sub-centres. A second question is whether an LWR could be used in predicting the density surface that is already the product of GIS employment neighbourhoods. In our view. Thus. to make sub-centres out of them. Still. Identiﬁcation of such job centres would require a different methodological approach. using that methodology. however. almost connected to the CA. At least for our study area. For example. it is difﬁcult to ascertain whether Mexico City is indeed a polycentric city. In our analysis. chauffeurs).6-km radius. we should add that some highincome residential areas might well be employment centres for some types of informal jobs (domestic service. a proportion of resident workers will end up making work trips to the centre. which our methodology is not able to capture. we used an OLS regression that predicted the log of employment density. polycentrism would have to be in its initial stages. Izatapalapa La Paz and V. at densities that exceed. because there are simply not enough jobs nearby to accommodate them all. these Downloaded from usj. 2011 .7 This form of disaggregated employment represents very low density and dispersed job centres for a very speciﬁc sector of the informal working population. a question arises as to how to establish objectively the self-containment radius.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. using double the distance (3.sagepub. since our initial assumption was that the city was still in a monocentric stage. We consider that we have resolved the issue of arbitrarily setting a volume of employment in contiguous ﬁxed areas present in previous research. in combination with determining the areas that have a trip attraction to trip generation ratio greater than one. For Mexico City.
The rest of the CA accounts for 40 per cent and 53 per cent of these job type divisions respectively. While. 6.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. nearly 60 per cent of formal jobs and over 70 per cent of total jobs are located within what we have denominated the central agglomeration. in turn. who found that low-income workers in the informal sector have shorter trips. economical and political determinants of current urban structure and form. Although the central agglomeration is far from being round. Instead. More research is required in this respect. Corridors account for 13 per cent and 17 per cent of formal and total jobs respectively. at least in part. however.2208 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO only account for less than 5 per cent of formal employment and less than 2 per cent of the total number of jobs in the city when additionally considering informal economic activity. The internal structure of the CA seems to be composed of a subset of inner corridors and nodes that show higher densities and higher trip attraction capacity. when controlling for informality. In any event. what are the historical. Also. or if their development has been market driven. Who beneﬁts from the current urban form? How efﬁcient is the spatial arrangement of the city in terms of transport? Downloaded from usj. subject to discussion. The CA is a dispersed centre. most of which could actually be considered only local centres. nevertheless. it is our hypothesis that the CA evolved from a small centre with a set of corridors that have expanded linearly and concentrically through the years to amass the area that we have now identiﬁed. probably due to location strategies of informal work activities as a function of residential location. and with very small employment sub-centres. the elongated nature of its shape. As regards informality. This area includes a series of corridors along highway exits that connect Mexico City with four other cities of central Mexico. it is worth asking. whether the higher attraction areas within the CA have developed as such because of the effects of planning policies and transport infrastructure. 2011 . Results using the hybrid McMillen–Giuliano methodology would lead to that same conclusion. including the location characteristics of the informal sector? Further research should also look at the effects of urban form on travel time.sagepub. we are aware of the rough nature of our adjustment algorithm. it is still worth noting the differences found between formal employment and total job agglomerations. Results suggest a hybrid urban form. especially if less than 5 per cent of jobs are located within our identiﬁed subcentres. more sub-centres appear. Still. imply that workers in the informal sector have shorter work trips. That is. This would also explain. the percentage of jobs concentrated in the central agglomeration is higher. which includes a very large area contiguous to the CBD that meets our density and employment concentration criteria. This is consistent with the ﬁndings of Suárez (2007).3 Further Research Agenda Our ﬁndings on urban form suggest that any policy intents to generate sub-centres in the Mexico City metro area have not been quite successful. because the proportion of urban areas within municipalities also diminishes with distance. longer corridors and fewer subcentral employment agglomerations. This suggests that job accessibility increases when including informal economic activity and would. but with a larger CA. urban efﬁciency. with strip development characteristics at its edges along main highways. that the efﬁciency of its ﬁt increases with distance to the CBD. the way jobs are agglomerated prompts us to conclude that Mexico City is still in a primarily monocentric stage. the CA that includes informal jobs is larger than the formal CA. economic development and the environment. Our interpretation of maps and ﬁgures is. It is likely. Due to these characteristics.
3254. (2004) The spatial organization of cities: deliberate outcome or unforeseen consequence? Working Paper No. 517. Cervero.sagepub. 222. and Wu. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. MA: MIT Press. A correlation between Economic Census (established) jobs per municipality and our selection of formal jobs in the 10 per cent census database revealed a Pearson’s coefﬁcient of determination of r2 = 0. 221. Rood. among others. and residential location in the San Francisco Bay Area. University of California. Journal of Urban Economics. 482.) Procesos Metropolitanos . Urban Studies . 29. but none that would affect signiﬁcantly the statistics we present. (2001) Polynucleated urban landscapes. what policy measures should be taken to improve access to jobs? Do existing employment agglomerations provide the dynamism needed for the city’s economic development potential? Finally. 7. Bazant. pp. 232–256. in: A. E. 4. and Ferry. R. (2005) La reestructuración del espacio urbano de la Ciudad de México. (1997) Polycentrism. W. J. Cervero.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. 692. G. 635–655. (1998) Sub-centring and commuting: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. 36(12). (1998) The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. 492–511. CA. pp. pp. 481. We thank an anonymous referee for making this point. Cervero. (1996) Jobs–housing balance revisited: trends and impacts from the San Fransisco Bay Area. T. (2001) Los procesos de urbanización periférica y la relación entre vivienda y empleo en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de Mexico.83. Delgado’s urban rings are based on historical stages of conurbation. 35(7). L. Bertaud. pp. (1997) Job accessibility as a performance indicator: analysis of trends and their social policy implications in the San Fransisco Bay Area. (1964) Location and Land Use. R. 123–153. 5. W. CA. Urban Studies. Journal of the American Planning Association. Working Paper No.58. W. K. and Duhau. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. pp. Boston. commuting. Cruz Rodriguez. A. since they add no signiﬁcant insights regarding our main research question. and Wu. 40. with regard to the environment. However. 61 and 62.. 52. Bogart. Cervero. Urban Studies. L. 2. 38(4). 1980–90. R. 265–308. C. All our calculations exclude the agricultural sector. 1059–1076. Anas. Mexico: RID UAM-A. what is the effect of the jobs–housing spatial arrangement on emissions and exposure? These are. pp. México: Trillas. Batty. 3. and Kim. T. and Appleyard. A. questions whose answers will determine what some of the future metropolitan-wide planning needs will be. G. L. R. 865–886. NAICS codes: 211.) Procesos Metropolitanos de Grandes Ciudades: Dinámicas Recientes en México y Otros Países.35 to an R2 of 0.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2209 And. 2011 . C. K. DC: Island Press. I. 2004-01. using four distance predictors increases the ﬁt of the model from an R2 of 0. Cervero. pp. Berkeley. Aguilar (Ed. R. B. A. Hacia la metrópoli multimodal. Washington. Duhau (Ed. Alternative ring conﬁgurations show slight changes of municipalities within rings. Alonso. (1996) General equilibrium models of polycentric urban land use with endogenous congestion and job agglomeration. Mexico: Porrúa. in any case. Notes 1. Downloaded from usj. The cited study originally uses X and Y distances to the CBD as predictors. (2001) Periferias Urbanas . We do not present these results. and Alvarado. in: E. pp. We performed a sensitivity analysis using different distance radii. 6. Berkeley. References Aguilar. 64(4). 2099–2110. 54. Environment and Planning A. (1999) Employment centres in Greater Cleveland: evidence of evolution in a formerly monocentric city. 55. M.
Graizbord. (2005) La estructura polinuclear del área metropolitana. Dunphy.. S. Journal of the American Planning Association. A. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 64. 35–45. B. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mexico: Plaza y Valdez. Urban Studies. B. pp. S. F. Cambridge. University of California. Luxembourg.espon. Gordon. Journal of Urban Economics. pp. D. D. Mexico. J. (1998) Suburban centers and employment density in metropolitan Chicago. pp. Saxenian. G. (1986) The distribution of population and employment in a polycentric city: the case of Los Angeles. in: A. P.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network) (2004) ESPON 1. McDonald. and Venables. D. J. Boston. Delgado. Conference proceedings of the 1st ESPON Scientiﬁc Conference. MA: MIT Press. in: O. Iracheta. 1035–1053. M. and Kumar. S. Graham. pp. 2011 . 13–15. and Marvin. and McDonald. and Santillan. 161–173. 50. W. (1987) The identiﬁcation of urban employment subcenters. (1994) The rational locator: why travel times have remained stable. 30(9). M. B. (1982) Deﬁning regional employment centers in an urban area. A. Terrazas and E.2210 MANUEL SUÁREZ AND JAVIER DELGADO Cruz Rodriguez. Journal of Urban Economics. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Giuliano. (2005) Dinámica demográﬁca y generación de viajes al trabajo en el AMCM: 1994–2000. Centro de Ecología y Desarrollo AC. and McDonald. Journal of Political Economy. J. Mexico: Porrúa. 89–104. Potentials for polycentric development in Europe (http:// www. 43. H. D. McMillen. Puebla. 5. Theory. 31. S.lu. 71–101. pp. 242–258. Estudios Demográﬁcos y Urbanos. 448–473. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Song. 57. (1978) A bias in estimating urban population density functions. and Wong. and Small. L. (Ed. Gordon. Preciat (Eds) Estructura Territorial de la Ciudad de México. A. (2001) Propiedad. 40(1). W. Hamilton.) (2001) Global City Regions: Trends. pp. (2001) The Spatial Economy. Working Paper No. (1982) Wasteful commuting. 1485–1500. 21. Frankena. Mexico: Plaza y Valdes. Legorreta. Perroux. (1988) El patrón de ocupación territorial de la Ciudad de Mexico al año 2000. D. Richardson. K. pp. Mexico. (1950) Economic space: theory and applications. J. 591–612. Urban Studies. 37. (1997) Planeación y Desarrollo: Una Visión del Futuro. (1994) Efectos ambientales de la expansión de la Ciudad de México. Graizbord. McDonald. Journal of the American Planning Association. Scott. and Jun. Downloaded from usj. M.F. (2003) Identifying sub-centres using contiguity matrices. pp. pp. (1997) A nonparametric analysis of employment density in a polycentric city. P. B.sagepub. P. poblamiento y periferia rural en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. pp. Journal of Urban Economics. M. M. G. R. and Small. and Prather. G. Krugman. MA: Harvard University Press. 1485–1500. and Acuña. 21.. (1991) The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. pp. Environment and Planning A. 319–332. (1994) Suburban employment centres: the case of Chicago. 90. D. F. A. P.1. 157–180. 57–69.) Procesos Metropolitanos Grandes Ciudades: Dinámicas Recientes en México y Otros Países. pp. 289–295. pp. P. Pue. J. P. (1996) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. accessed March 2008). F. Giuliano. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures. (1991) Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Levinson. F. Policy. Journal of Regional Science.1. pp. Richardson. Journal of Urban Economics. (2001) Nonparametric employment subcenter identiﬁcation. Programa Editorial de la Red de Investigacion Urbana. Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. pp. H. Fujita. F. 309–328. J. 201–218. 60. A. X. H.. J. A. 117.. 18. October. ESPON (2005) European territorial research in progress. J. (1992) Spatial structure and urban commuting. McMillen. 861. McMillen. pp. Transportation Center. 20(1). Urban Studies. Aguilar (Ed. pp. (1993) Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?. London: Routledge. P. P. McMillen. Transportation Research Record. K.
on average. (2000) De clientelismo a tecnocracia: cambios receintes y nuevos retos de la gobernabilidad municipal en Mexico. Taylor. M. (2007) Mercados de trabajo y 1ocalización residencial en la ZMCM. PhD thesis. Bailon. P. and Ong. 18. pp. and Unwin. Martinez Assad and P. P. P. 2nd edn. Suárez. 2011 . Levine. relative to the centre of the city and its farthest edge. (1998) Mexico City . (1993) The changing commute: a case study of the jobs–housing relationship over time. Ward. University College London. 1ocalización residencial e ingreso en la ZMCM 1990–2000. 6(23).. M. services] of category k [jobs or working population in economic sector i]. Working Paper No. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. and Delgado. Intermediate values may be interpreted as the proportion of the distance between the city’s CBD and its farthest edge where jobs or working population are located. (2007) Estructura y eﬁciencia urbanas: accesibilidad a empleos. Dj is the normalised distance between zone j and the CBD. commerce. Downloaded from usj. Iki is the suburbanisation index of economic sector i [manufacturing. Secretaria de Gobernacion. 1711–1729. M. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis. C. Thurstain-Goodwin.sagepub. on average. M. I ki = ∑ Pj ⋅ D j j where. It varies from zero (all jobs or residents concentrated at the centre) to one (all jobs or residents concentrated at the farthest edge of the city). Economía Sociedad y Territorio. Ward. Serrano (Eds) El Siglo de la Revolucion Mexicana. Mexico. M. (2000) Deﬁning and delineating the central areas of towns for statistical monitoring using continuous surface representations. Appendix The suburbanisation index measures the normalised distance from the centre at which jobs or residents are. in: J. Urban Studies. located in the metropolitan area. B. 30. Wachs. 693–724. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.IS MEXICO CITY POLYCENTRIC? 2211 Suárez.com at DIRECCION GENERAL DE BIBLIO on December 14. N. Pj is the proportion of jobs or working population in economic sector i in zone j relative to the metropolitan area. M.. J. pp. D.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.