The Fragmentation of Urban Landscapes: Global Evidence of A Key Attribute of The Spatial Structure of Cities, 1990-2000

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/254087598
The fragmentation of urban landscapes: Global evidence of a

key attribute of the spatial structure of cities, 1990-2000
Article in Environment and Urbanization · April 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0956247811433536
CITATIONS READS
59 277
3 authors, including:
Daniel Civco
University of Connecticut
112 PUBLICATIONS 5,407 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Flood Vulnerability Analysis of Connecticut Inland River Network View project
Investigating the Dynamic properties of trees in the roadside Forests of Southern New England View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jason Parent on 20 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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 June 12, 2012

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
Dr Shlomo Angel ABSTRACT The fragmentation of urban landscapes − or the inter-penetration of

(corresponding author) is the built-up areas of cities and the open spaces in and around them − is a key
Adjunct Professor of Urban attribute of their spatial structure. Analyzing satellite images for 1990 and 2000 for
Planning at the Robert F a global sample of 120 cities, we find that cities typically contain or disturb vast
Wagner Graduate School
quantities of open spaces equal in area, on average, to their built-up areas. We also
of Public Service, New
York University. He is also find that fragmentation, defined as the relative share of open space in the urban
a Lecturer in Public and landscape, is now in decline. Using multiple regression models, we find that larger
International Affairs at The cities are less fragmented, that higher-income cities are more fragmented, that
Woodrow Wilson School, cities with higher levels of car ownership are less fragmented, and that cities that
Princeton University. constrain urban development are less fragmented. We recommend that making
Address: 284 Lafayette
room for urban expansion in rapidly growing cities should take into account their
Street, Apt 3B, New York, expected fragmentation levels.
NY 10012; tel: 212-925-9055;
mobile: 646-578-4821; e-mail: KEYWORDS cities / fragmentation / infill / landscape metrics / leapfrogging /
sangel@princeton.edu
metropolitan areas / open space / sprawl / urban expansion
Jason Parent is a PhD
student and graduate
assistant at the Department I. INTRODUCTION
of Natural Resources and
the Environment, University
of Connecticut. Cities and metropolitan areas the world over are now highly fragmented,
their fringes typically made up of disconnected patches of urban fabric
Address: e-mail: jason. broken up by swathes of vacant land. The fully built-out city of old,
parent@uconn.edu
surrounded by a wall and situated in the open countryside, did not
Dr Daniel L Civco is fragment any open space nor was its built-up area fragmented by open
Professor of Geomatics space. The modern urban landscape is quite different:
at the Department of
Natural Resources and the “Breaking out of the old bounds, walls, boulevards or administrative
Environment, University
of Connecticut. He is also
limits which set it apart, the city has massively invaded the open
Director of the Centre for country, though parts of the countryside may have kept their rural
Land Use Education and appearance.”(1)
Research, University of
Connecticut. Both city and country now inter-penetrate and fragment each other.
A key question that has confronted urban planners, policy makers
Address: e-mail: daniel.
civco@uconn.edu and concerned environmentalists worldwide for some time is whether
the fragmentation of the urban landscape is an inherent feature of
Acknowledgement: The contemporary cities that must be taken into account in planning for and
research for this paper
was made possible by
managing urban expansion, or whether it is a disorderly, wasteful and
grants from the World undesirable form of sprawl that must be brought under control through
Bank, NASA, the National containment or growth management strategies of one type or another.
Science Foundation and
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). 249
Vol 24(1): 249–283. DOI: 10.1177/0956247811433536
Downloadedwww.sagepublications.com
from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N Vol 24 No 1 April 2012
expansion”,(2) and since then many writers have bemoaned the ill-effects the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy. The authors are
of scattered or “leapfrogging” development and the costs it imposes both
grateful to Gregory Ingram,
on the built environment(3) and on the rural fringe of cities: Alejandro Blei, John Volin,
Ralph Gakenheimer, Robert
“[P]arcelization of farmlands leads to a checkerboard distribution of Buckley, Alain Bertaud,
farmlands, i.e. many non-contiguous fields. Farming such scattered Mike de Smith, Claudio
plots is problematic.”(4) Acioly, Michael Teitz,
George Martine, Lucy Gitlin
Landscape ecology studies also maintain that settlements developed near and Daniella Gitlin for their
support, comments and
a forest or prairie affect vegetation and wildlife along their edges, often suggestions; and to Chul Il
in a belt up to 100 metres wide.(5) The fragmentation of urban landscapes Kim for his help with the
is therefore an important concern both in terms of the efficiency of the multiple regression models.
built environment and in terms of the ecology of the open spaces in and 1. Gottmann, J and R A Harper
around cities. (1990), Since Megalopolis:
Discontinuous development has been explained by urban economists The Urban Writings of Jean
as the result of the operation of market forces. Ewing, paraphrasing Gottmann, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore,
Lessinger and Ottensman, explains: page 101.
“Expectations of land appreciation on the urban fringe cause some 2. Clawson, M (1962), “Urban
sprawl and speculation in
landowners to withhold land from the market... The result is a urban land”, Land Economics
discontinuous pattern of development.”(6) Vol 38, May, page 99.
3. Heim, C E (2001),
And some economists have observed that while fragmentation may “Leapfrogging, urban sprawl
be inefficient in the short term, it leads to more efficient development and growth management:
patterns in the long term: Phoenix 1950−2000”, American
Journal of Economics and
“[C]ontrary to conventional wisdom, a freely functioning land market Sociology Vol 60, No 1, pages
245−283; also Carruthers, J
with discontinuous patterns of development inherently promotes
I and G F Ulfarsson (2001),
higher density development.”(7) “Fragmentation and sprawl:
evidence from inter-regional
Such views suggest that fragmentation is indeed an inherent feature of the analysis”, Growth and Change
urban expansion process and that it is not the result of the failure of land 33, Summer, pages 312−340.
markets on the urban fringe, a failure that would have to be addressed by 4. Pfeffer, M J and M B Lapping
ameliorative action on the part of the state. (1995), “Prospects for a
sustainable agriculture in the
While it would be difficult to dispute that some fragmentation on the urban northeast’s rural/urban fringe”,
fringe is necessary for the proper functioning of land markets, and is indeed an Research in Rural Sociology and
inherent feature of the urban landscape, there is a quantitative aspect to this Development Vol 6, page 85.
assertion that is left unexplored: how much fragmentation would be necessary 5. Chen, I, J F Franklin and T
and sufficient for the smooth functioning of the urban development process, A Spies (1992), “Vegetation
responses to edge
and when can we determine that fragmentation is excessive and requires environments in old growth
ameliorative action to reduce it? In fact, we may ask a number of questions Douglas fir forests”, Ecological
regarding fragmentation that require quantitative answers: Applications Vol 2, No 4, pages
387−396; also Winter, M, D H
• How fragmented are cities and metropolitan areas and what is the Johnson and J Faaborg (2000),
“Evidence for edge effects
minimum observed level of fragmentation at the present time? on multiple levels in tallgrass
• Are cities becoming more or less fragmented over time? prairie”, Condor Vol 102, No
• What level of fragmentation needs to be taken as a planning norm 2, pages 256−266, available
at http://www.npwrc.usgs.
when projecting the area needed for urban expansion in a given city,
gov/resource/birds/edgeffct/
say 20−30 years ahead? index.htm; and Brand, L A and
T L George (2001), “Response
We can also ask more specific empirical questions about levels of of Passerine birds to forest
fragmentation in particular countries and cities: edge in coast Redwood forest
fragments”, The Auk Vol 118,
• Are Chinese metropolitan areas, as few observers have suspected,(8) No 3, pages 678−686.
more fragmented than other metropolitan areas and if so, why? 6. Ewing, paraphrasing
• Has urban containment in Portland, Oregon reduced fragmentation Lessinger (1962) and
Ottensman (1977); see Ewing,
within its strictly enforced urban growth boundary over time? R (1994), “Characteristics,
250
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 These are all empirical questions that have not been properly addressed
sprawl: a literature review”,
in the literature, be it in landscape ecology or in urban studies, and it is
Environmental and Urban
Issues Vol 21, No 2, page 2; also precisely those questions that we seek to address here.
Lessinger, J (1962), “The case Analyzing satellite images for 1990 and 2000 for a global sample of
for scatteration”, Journal of the 120 cities, we find that cities typically contain or disturb vast quantities of
American Institute of Planners
Vol 28, No 3, pages 159−169; open space equal in area, on average, to their built-up areas. We also find
and Ottensman, J R (1977), that fragmentation, defined as the relative share of open space in the urban
“Urban sprawl, land values and landscape, is now in decline. Using multiple regression models, we find that
the density of development”,
Land Economics Vol 53, No 4,
larger cities are less fragmented, that higher-income cities are more fragmented,
pages 389−400. that higher levels of car ownership tend to reduce fragmentation, and that
7. Peiser, R B (1989), “Density cities that constrain urban development are less fragmented than cities that
and urban sprawl”, Land do not. We recommend that making room for urban expansion in rapidly
Economics Vol 65, No 3, page growing cities should take into account their expected fragmentation levels.
193.
8. Bertaud, A (2007),
“Urbanization in China: land II. DATA AND METRICS
use efficiency issues”, available
at http://www.alain-bertaud.
com/AB_Files/AB_China_land_
The unit of investigation in this study is the metropolitan area, typically a
use_report_6.pdf, page 17. 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
9. See Angel, S, J Parent, D L 1990 and one circa 2000.(9) In an earlier 2005 study,(10) we identified a total
Civco and A M Blei (2011), The of 3,945 large cities with populations of 100,000 or more that were home
Atlas of Urban Expansion, The
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
to a total of 2.12 billion people, or three-quarters of the world’s urban
Cambridge MA, available at population in the year 2000. The global sample of 120 cities (Figure 1 and
http://www.lincolninst.edu/ Table 1 in the Appendix) is a stratified sample from this universe, including
publications/atlas.
cities from nine geographic regions, four population size classes and four
10. Angel, S, S C Sheppard and per capita income classes. The nine region classification approximates
D L Civco, with A Chabaeva,
L Gitlin, A Kraley, J Parent, M that of UN−Habitat,(11) except that developed countries were regrouped
Perlin and R Buckley (2005), into two regions: land-rich developed countries that had more than 0.6
The Dynamics of Global Urban hectares of arable land per capita in 2000 (US, Canada and Australia − 13
Expansion, The World Bank,
Washington DC, Chapter 2, 199
cities in the sample); and Europe and Japan (19 cities in the sample).
pages, available at http://www. For each sample city we obtained two medium-resolution Landsat
worldbank.org/urban. satellite images, one for each time period. These images were classified into
11. See reference 10, Chapter 2. built-up and non-built-up 30×30-metre pixels using a thematic extraction
12. See reference 10, Chapter 3. algorithm.(12) Using 10,000 Google Earth validation sites, Potere et al.(13)
13. Potere, D, A Schneider, S reported that pixels identified as built-up in our sample were found to be
Angel and D L Civco (2009), built-up in Google Earth 91 per cent of the time, and those identified as
“Mapping urban areas on
a global scale: which of the
built-up were identified in our sample 89 per cent of the time, confirming
eight maps now available is a relatively high level of accuracy. This data set allowed us to estimate
more accurate?”, International and explain variations in fragmentation and in the rate of change in
Journal of Remote Sensing Vol
fragmentation during the 1990s. It also allowed us to analyze variations
30, No 24, December, pages
6531−6558. in density(14) and in urban land cover.(15)
14. Angel, S, J Parent, D L Landscape ecology studies have long been concerned with measuring
Civco and A M Blei (2010a), fragmentation.(16) Unfortunately, the measures proposed in the literature
“The persistent decline in proved inappropriate for the comparative study of the fragmentation
urban densities: global and
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_The-
Persistent-Decline-in-Urban-
Densities.
15. Angel, S, J Parent and
D L Civco (2010b), “The
fragmentation of urban
footprints: global evidence of
sprawl 1990−2000”, Lincoln
Institute Working Paper,
Cambridge MA, 114 pages,
available at http://www.
lincolninst.edu/pubs/1835_The-
Fragmentation-of-Urban-
Footprints.
FIGURE 1
16. Riiters, K H, R V O’Neill,
The global sample of 120 cities and nine world regions
C T Hunsaker, J D Wickham,
D H Yankee, S P Timmins,
SOURCE: The authors. K B Jones and B L Jackson
(1995), “A factor analysis
of landscape pattern and
structure metrics”, Landscape
constructed two new fragmentation metrics (the first one following Ecology Vol 10, pages 23–39;
also Haines-Young, R and M
Burchfield et al.(17)) and three subsidiary ones: Chopping (1996), “Quantifying
landscape structure: a review
• the openness index is the average share of open space pixels in the of landscape indices and
walking distance circle around each built-up pixel in the city; their application to forested
• the urban landscape ratio is the ratio of the urban landscape area landscapes”, Progress in
Physical Geography Vol 20, No
and the built-up area in the city; 4, pages 418−445; O’Neill, R
• infill is defined as all new development that occurred between two V, J R Krummel, R H Gardner,
time periods within the urbanized open space of the earlier period, G Sugihara, B Jackson, D
excluding exterior open space; L DeAngelis, B Milne, S W
Christensen, V H Dale and R
• extension is all new development that occurred between two time L Graham (1988), “Indices of
periods in contiguous clusters that contained exterior open space in the landscape pattern”, Landscape
earlier period and that were not infill; and Ecology Vol 1, pages 153−162;
Hargis, C D, J A Bissonette
• leapfrog development is all new construction that occurred between and J L David (1998), “The
two time periods in the open countryside, entirely outside the exterior behaviour of landscape metrics
open space of the earlier period. commonly used in the study
of habitat fragmentation”,
The intermediary metrics used for calculating these fragmentation metrics Landscape Ecology Vol 13,
pages 167−186; Hurd, J D, E H
(shown in italics above) are defined as follows:
Wilson, S G Lammey and D L
Civco (2001), Characterization
• the walking distance circle is a circle with an area of one square
of Forest Fragmentation and
kilometre around a given built-up pixel; Urban Sprawl using Time
• urban built-up pixels are pixels that have a majority of built-up Sequential Landsat Imagery,
pixels within their walking distance circle; Proceedings of the ASPRS
Annual Convention, St Louis
• suburban built-up pixels are pixels that have 10–50 per cent of MO, 23–27 April, 12 pages,
built-up pixels within their walking distance circle; available at http://www.resac.
• rural built-up pixels are pixels that have less than 10 per cent of uconn. edu/publications/tech_
papers/index.html; Brabec, E
built-up pixels within their walking distance circle; and C Smith (2002), “Agricultural
• fringe open space consists of all open space pixels within 100 land fragmentation: the spatial
metres of urban or suburban pixels; effects of three land protection
• captured open space consists of all open space clusters that are strategies in the eastern
United States”, Landscape and
fully surrounded by built-up and fringe open space pixels and are less Urban Planning Vol 58, pages
than 200 hectares in area; 255−268; Civco, D L, J D Hurd,
252
FIGURE 2
E H Wilson, C L Arnold and M The urban landscape of Bandung, 1991 and 2001
Prisloe (2002), “Quantifying
and describing urbanizing
landscapes in the northeast SOURCE: The authors.
United States”, Photogrammetr.
Eng. Remote Sens. Vol 68, No
10, pages 1083–1090; and • exterior open space consists of all fringe open space pixels that are
McGarigal, K, S A Cushman, less than 100 metres from the open countryside;
M C Neel and E Ene (2002),
“FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern • urbanized open space consists of all fringe open space, captured
analysis programme for open space and exterior open space pixels in the city; and
categorical maps”, available • the urban landscape area consists of all the built-up area of the
at http://www.umass.edu/
landeco/research/fragstats/
city and all its urbanized open space.
fragstats.html.
The reader should note that we have given common words such as
17. Burchfield, M, H G Overman,
“urban”, “suburban” and “rural” very specific quantitative meanings
D Puga and M A Turner (2006),
“Causes of sprawl: a portrait here, which − while corresponding to our intuitive understanding of
from space”, Quarterly Journal these terms − do not necessarily correspond to the unique manifestations
of Economics Vol 121, No 2, of these terms within specific cities.
pages 587−633.
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,

1990–2000
Burchfield et al. follow Clawson(18) in perceiving urban sprawl simply as 18. See reference 17; also see
the fragmentation of the urban landscape. They define fragmentation as reference 2.
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 19. See reference 17.
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) 20. Cities can be less sprawled
What, one may ask, is the share of open space in a typical city in terms of built-up area density
and more sprawled in terms
neighbourhood? Our key findings regarding fragmentation in the 1990s of fragmentation at the same
can be summarized as follows: the average value of the openness index time. For example, in 2000,
in the global sample of 120 cities was almost one-half; that is, typical Kolkata in India ranked seventh
in built-up area density in the
neighbourhoods contained as much open space as their built-up areas.
global sample of 120 cities but
Similarly, urban landscapes, on average, were double the size of the had the sixth highest urban
built-up areas of cities; on average, open space added an area to the city landscape ratio. In contrast, Los
equivalent to its built-up area − at a minimum, it added 36 per cent to the Angeles in California ranked
103rd in built-up area density
built-up areas of cities. while its urban landscape ratio
More specifically, urban landscapes circa 2000 added 93±7 per cent,(21) ranked 117th.
on average, to the built-up areas of cities, a surprisingly high figure with 21. ±7 denotes the 95 per
rarely a reference to it in the literature. They added only 40 per cent to cent confidence interval of the
average.
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 0.47±0.02
in 1990 and 0.42±0.02 in 2000, and these values were very similar to the
values found by Burchfield et al.(22) for the United States. They reported a 22. See reference 17, page 602.
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
FIGURE 3
The urban landscapes of Los Angeles, California (2000) (top),
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (1999) (centre) and Zhengzhou,
China (2001) (bottom)
SOURCE: The authors.
had values lower than 0.2 in 2000: São 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
40
2000
35
Number of cities in range
30
25
20
15
10
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
35
1990
30
2000
Number of cities in range
25
20
15
10
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, 1990−2000
countries had average values of 0.48±0.02 in 1990 and 0.43±0.02 in 2000,

which were significantly higher than those found in developed countries,
that is 0.44±0.02 in 1990 and 0.39±0.02 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 2.00±0.07 in 1990 and 1.92±0.07 in 2000, and
there were no significant differences in this ratio between developed and
256
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
23. See reference 17. 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
24. For details, see reference 15. 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) 25. See reference 17, page 611
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
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 Corbusier’s 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 people’s 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 sub-
divisions 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 country’s economy was also
associated with higher levels of fragmentation. A doubling of the share
of the country’s 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 26. Peiser (1989), see reference
Portland, Oregon, for example, has significantly reduced fragmentation 7, pages 201−202, paraphrasing
Knapp (1985) and Nelson
as measured by all indices, including the openness index. More generally, (1986); see Knapp, Gerrit J
limits on the conversion of land from rural to urban use, and zoning (1985), “The price effects of
regulations that prevent urban development in parts of the metropolitan urban growth boundaries
area restrict the possibilities for leapfrog development and thus encourage in metropolitan Portland,
Oregon”, Land Economics No
infill. To the extent that these planning policies are effective, we would 61, February, pages 27−35; and
expect them to increase the share of infill in new development and thus Nelson, Arthur (1986), “Using
reduce fragmentation. land markets to evaluate urban
containment programmes”,
Journal of the American
Planning Association Vol 52,
IV. THE DECLINE IN FRAGMENTATION, 1990–2000 Spring.
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
50.9±1.7 per cent of all new development between the two periods,
extension 26.0±1.3 per cent and leapfrog 23.1±1.4 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 –1.2±0.1 per cent
per annum and that of the urban landscape ratio was –0.04±0.01 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 Portland’s 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
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
27. See reference 15. 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
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
28. Ginsburg, N (1990), 1990s.(28) In this zone, there is a dense scatter of villages with a high share
“Extended metropolitan of non-agricultural activities and a large number of workers who commute
regions in Asia: a new spatial
paradigm”, in N Ginsburg, The to urban jobs in the city proper. As Chinese cities are often located on
Urban Transition: Reflections formerly densely settled agricultural lands, they enclose and incorporate
on the American and Asian many villages as they grow and expand outwards, while villages further
Experiences, Chinese University
of Hong Kong Press, pages
out become more urban in character:
21–42; also McGee, T G (1991),
“The emergence of desakota
“The urbanization process unfolding is thus caused not only by a
regions in Asia: expanding a stream of rural-to-urban migrants but also by urbanization in place;
hypothesis”, in N Ginsburg, B that is, entire districts becoming more urbanized at all levels of the
Koppel and T G McGee (editors), rural−urban continuum.”(29)
The Extended Metropolis:
Settlement Transition in Asia, But the existence of a dense pattern of urban villages on the periphery
University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu, pages 3–26. of Chinese cities does not explain the proliferation of cultivated lands
29. Guldin, G E (1996), within Chinese cities. Indeed, as Bertaud has noted:
“Desakotas and beyond:
urbanization in southern “…[t]he result of sample land use surveys conducted in suburban
China”, Ethnology Vol 35, No 4, areas in Chengdu, Tianjin and Zhengzhou shows that on average
page 278. about 34 per cent of the land within existing ring roads remains
30. See reference 8, page 17. under agricultural use while urban development expands much
31. Angel, S, M I Valdivia and farther away from the city centre.”(30)
R M Lutzy (2009), “Urban
expansion, land conversion and Angel et al.,(31) following Bertaud, attributed this persistence of agriculture,
affordable housing in China: much of it of a subsistence nature, to central government policies that
the case of Zhengzhou”, Paper
261
FIGURE 5
Dense affordable housing in urban villages demolished to
make way for urban expansion, while cultivated land remains
vacant − Tianjin, China, 2004−2009
SOURCE: Google Earth.
limit the conversion of cultivated land to urban use, in line with China’s presented at the Workshop
food security policies: on China Housing Policy,
“The Chinese government has given a high priority to agricultural Cambridge MA, 18 May, 19
pages.
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) 32. Angel et al. (2009),
see reference 31, page 7,
They also estimated that fragmented cultivated land in Zhengzhou, paraphrasing Lichtenberg and
for example, is only half as productive as land in larger fields in the Ding (2008); see Lichtenberg, E
and C Ding (2008), “Assessing
surrounding Henan province, as most farming families have other farmland protection policy in
sources of income (e.g. from the rental of rooms or city jobs). They China”, Land Use Policy Vol 25,
observed that strict central government limitations on land conversion No 1, January, pages 59−68.
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 33. Reuters (2010), “China’s
government does not take effective action to address rising public forced evictions cause
anger about forced evictions and demolitions.”(33) instability”, 28 March, available
at http://www.reuters.com/
article/idustre62r13u20100328.
262
b. Case study 2: Decline in fragmentation in Portland and

Houston
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
34. Cox, Wendell (2004), times. If it does not, as some observers(34) suspect, there is good reason to
“Portland: economic growth expect that land supply in Portland will eventually be constrained, with
noose loosened: Portland
concomitant effects on housing affordability.
backtracks on urban growth
boundary”, The Public Purpose The chief aim of the boundary was to contain urban sprawl and to
Vol 74, February, 3 pages. 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 Portland’s urban growth boundary
was associated with a rapid decline in fragmentation. Figure 6 shows
the increase in the built-up area within Portland’s urban growth
boundary between 1973 and 2005. During this period, Portland’s 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 city’s 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 Portland’s urban growth
boundary, 1973−2005
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
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,
20−30 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 20−30 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
35. United Nations Population expected to double between 2000 and 2030,(35) from two to four billion.
Division (2008), World As we reported elsewhere,(36) given the persistent decline in densities
Urbanization Prospects − The
2007 Revision, United Nations,
during the last century, their built-up areas and urban landscape areas
New York, File 3. can be expected to triple. In preparing their rapidly growing cities for
36. See reference 14. expansion, while ensuring the smooth functioning of their land markets,
we must be willing to designate ample room for 20−30 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
266
A P P E N D I X TA B L E 1
Basic data on the global sample of cities, 1999−2000
City Country Region T1 Date T2 Date Time CBD CBD

elapsed Latitude Longitude
(years)
Accra Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa 6-Mar-1985 4-Feb-2000 14.92 5.5548 –0.2005

Addis Ababa Ethiopia Sub-Saharan Africa 21-Jan-1986 5-Dec-2000 14.87 9.0339 38.7378
Ahvaz Iran South and Central Asia 24-May-1989 22-May-2000 11.00 31.3236 48.6880
Akashi Japan Europe & Japan 31-May-1989 15-Oct-2001 12.38 34.6472 134.9919
Alexandria Egypt Northern Africa 11-Sep-1984 2-Dec-1999 15.22 31.1947 29.8921
Algiers Algeria Northern Africa 21-Jun-1987 25-Feb-2000 12.68 36.7722 3.0568
Anqing China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 15-Jul-1989 10-Dec-1999 10.40 30.5096 117.0302
E N V I R O N M E N T & U R B A N I Z AT I O N
Ansan Korea, Republic of Eastern Asia & the Pacific 17-May-1989 23-Sep-2001 12.35 37.3145 126.8389
Astrakhan Russian Federation Europe & Japan 8-Aug-1989 20-Aug-1999 10.03 46.3612 48.0565
Aswan Egypt Northern Africa 15-Nov-1986 10-Sep-2000 13.82 24.0945 32.9098
Bacolod Philippines Southeast Asia 21-Dec-1992 22-Sep-2000 7.75 10.6698 122.9504
Baku Azerbaijan Western Asia 31-Jul-1988 15-Aug-1999 11.04 40.3762 49.8325
Bamako Mali Sub-Saharan Africa 14-Nov-1986 25-Oct-1999 12.94 12.6387 –7.9992
Bandung Indonesia Southeast Asia 28-Jul-1991 12-May-2001 9.79 -6.9208 107.6043
Bangkok Thailand Southeast Asia 25-Oct-1994 8-Jan-2002 7.21 13.7432 100.5435
Banjul Gambia Sub-Saharan Africa 9-Feb-1986 6-Nov-2000 14.74 13.4371 –16.6811
Beijing China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 25-Dec-1988 1-Jul-1999 10.51 39.9044 116.3807

Budapest Hungary Europe & Japan 11-Nov-1990 21-Apr-2000 9.44 47.4955 19.0589
Buenos Aires Argentina Latin America & the Caribbean 13-Apr-1987 20-Dec-2000 13.69 –34.5947 –58.4023
Cairo Egypt Northern Africa 20-Sep-1984 11-Nov-2000 16.14 30.0446 31.2367
Caracas Venezuela Latin America & the Caribbean 14-May-1991 14-Mar-2001 9.83 10.5072 –66.9052
Casablanca Morocco Northern Africa 6-Jan-1987 20-Jan-2001 14.04 33.5964 –7.6173
Castellon Spain Europe & Japan 20-Apr-1992 8-Aug-2000 8.30 39.9860 –0.0374
Cebu Philippines Southeast Asia 29-Jun-1992 26-Dec-2002 10.49 10.2963 123.8985
Changzhi China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 19-Oct-1993 7-May-2000 6.55 36.1870 113.1020
Chicago United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 30-Jun-1989 11-Sep-2001 12.20 41.8821 –87.6283
Chinju Korea, Republic of Eastern Asia & the Pacific 28-Aug-1991 8-May-2000 8.70 35.1921 128.0843
Vol 24 No 1 April 2012
A P P E N D I X TA B L E 1 ( C O N T I N U E D )

(years)
Chonan Korea, Republic of Eastern Asia & the Pacific 2-May-1992 8-May-2000 8.02 36.8160 127.1382
Cincinnati United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 6-Jun-1988 16-Aug-1999 11.19 39.1101 –84.5126
Coimbatore India South and Central Asia 21-Nov-1989 9-Nov-1999 9.97 11.0193 76.9624
Dhaka Bangladesh South and Central Asia 4-Nov-1989 24-Nov-1999 10.05 23.7131 90.4038
Fukuoka Japan Europe & Japan 15-May-1993 13-May-2001 7.99 33.5903 130.4195
Gorgan Iran South and Central Asia 16-Jul-1987 30-Jul-2001 14.04 36.8368 54.4376
Guadalajara Mexico Latin America & the Caribbean 7-Mar-1990 3-Nov-1999 9.66 20.6763 –103.3469
Guangzhou China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 13-Oct-1990 14-Sep-2000 9.92 23.1355 113.3191
Guaruja Brazil Latin America & the Caribbean 22-Jun-1993 20-Apr-2002 8.83 –23.9989 –46.2623
Guatemala City Guatemala Latin America & the Caribbean 12-Feb-1993 23-Jan-2000 6.94 14.6126 –90.5165
Harare Zimbabwe Sub-Saharan Africa 19-May-1989 30-Sep-2000 11.37 –17.8300 31.0469
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam Southeast Asia 16-Jan-1989 22-Dec-1999 10.93 10.8016 106.7113
Hong Kong China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 20-Nov-1989 31-Dec-2001 12.11 22.1710 114.0932
Houston United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 8-Dec-1990 6-Oct-1999 8.83 29.7576 –95.3567
Hyderabad India South and Central Asia 21-Nov-1989 29-Oct-2001 11.94 17.3850 78.4843
Ibadan Nigeria Sub-Saharan Africa 18-Dec-1984 6-Feb-2000 15.13 7.3761 3.8967
Ilheus Brazil Latin America & the Caribbean 11-Sep-1986 23-May-2001 14.70 –14.7980 –39.0366
Ipoh Malaysia Southeast Asia 23-Apr-1990 20-Sep-2001 11.41 4.5970 101.0748
Istanbul Turkey Western Asia 5-Jun-1987 2-Jul-2000 13.08 41.0090 28.9520
Jaipur India South and Central Asia 9-Oct-1989 13-Sep-2000 10.93 26.9206 75.7945

Jalna India South and Central Asia 18-Oct-1989 24-Oct-2000 11.02 19.8409 75.8864
Jequie Brazil Latin America & the Caribbean 22-Aug-1988 12-Apr-2001 12.64 –13.8615 –40.0810
Johannesburg South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa 7-Apr-1991 23-Apr-2000 9.05 –26.2029 28.0462
Kampala Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa 19-Jan-1995 27-Nov-2001 6.86 0.3111 32.5859
Kanpur India South and Central Asia 21-Nov-1989 11-Nov-2000 10.97 26.4624 80.3117
Kigali Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa 20-Jun-1984 8-Jul-1999 15.05 –1.9439 30.0615
Kingston Jamaica Latin America & the Caribbean 12-Mar-1991 13-Jan-2002 10.84 17.9687 –76.7885
Kolkata India South and Central Asia 14-Nov-1990 17-Nov-2000 10.01 22.5701 88.3579
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Southeast Asia 15-Jun-1989 20-Sep-2001 12.27 3.1561 101.7141
Kuwait City Kuwait Western Asia 12-Jun-1990 25-May-2001 10.95 29.3411 47.9435
Le Mans France Europe & Japan 13-May-1992 13-Aug-1999 7.25 48.0088 0.1973
Leipzig Germany Europe & Japan 7-Jul-1989 13-Sep-1999 10.18 51.3442 12.3767
Leshan China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 10-Jul-1990 14-Jun-2001 10.93 29.5703 103.7585
267
268

(years)
London United Kingdom Europe & Japan 28-May-1989 19-Jun-2000 11.06 51.5070 –0.1274
Los Angeles United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 28-Jun-1989 1-May-2000 10.84 34.0508 –118.2536
Madrid Spain Europe & Japan 25-May-1989 22-Aug-2000 11.24 40.4328 –3.6865
Malatya Turkey Western Asia 31-Aug-1990 17-Jul-2000 9.88 38.3513 38.3147
Manila Philippines Southeast Asia 2-Apr-1993 3-Apr-2002 9.00 14.5922 120.9731
Marrakech Morocco Northern Africa 6-Jan-1987 3-Feb-2000 13.08 31.6228 –8.0044
Medan Indonesia Southeast Asia 13-Jun-1989 22-Feb-2001 11.70 3.5929 98.6688
Mexico City Mexico Latin America & the Caribbean 7-Mar-1989 21-Mar-2000 11.04 19.4326 –99.1333
Milano Italy Europe & Japan 31-Aug-1989 21-Jun-2001 11.81 45.4438 9.1787
Minneapolis United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 22-Sep-1992 5-Jul-2001 8.78 44.9751 –93.2705
Modesto United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 20-Jul-1992 18-Jul-2000 7.99 37.6382 –121.0000
Montevideo Uruguay Latin America & the Caribbean 19-Mar-1989 6-Dec-2000 11.72 –34.9062 –56.2243
Moscow Russian Federation Europe & Japan 8-Oct-1991 14-Oct-2002 11.02 55.4502 37.3742
Mumbai India South and Central Asia 9-Nov-1992 25-Oct-2001 8.96 18.9577 72.8319
Ndola Zambia Sub-Saharan Africa 2-Jun-1989 13-May-2002 12.94 –12.9691 28.6512
Oktyabrsky Russian Federation Europe & Japan 29-May-1986 19-Sep-2001 15.31 54.4891 53.4724
Ouagadougou Burkina Faso Sub-Saharan Africa 18-Nov-1986 14-Jul-2001 14.65 12.3694 –1.5233
Palembang Indonesia Southeast Asia 15-Apr-1989 13-Jul-2001 12.24 –2.9796 104.7475
Palermo Italy Europe & Japan 4-Jun-1987 1-May-2001 13.91 38.1153 13.3622

Paris France Europe & Japan 9-May-1987 24-Aug-2000 13.30 48.8659 2.3114
Philadelphia United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 28-Jun-1988 23-Sep-1999 11.24 39.9539 –75.1650
Pittsburgh United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 5-Oct-1987 12-Sep-1999 11.94 40.4407 –80.0026
Port Sudan Sudan Northern Africa 13-Jun-1984 4-Jun-2001 16.97 19.6217 37.2231
Pretoria South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa 7-Apr-1991 23-Apr-2000 9.05 –25.7480 28.1921
Puna India South and Central Asia 4-Dec-1992 14-Nov-1999 6.94 18.5185 73.8595
Pusan Korea, Republic of Eastern Asia & the Pacific 31-Aug-1989 27-Feb-2000 10.49 35.1042 129.0387
Rajshahi Bangladesh South and Central Asia 11-Nov-1989 17-Nov-2000 11.02 24.3685 88.5811
Ribeirao Preto Brazil Latin America & the Caribbean 27-Sep-1988 23-Mar-2001 12.48 –21.1776 –47.8053
Saidpur Bangladesh South and Central Asia 14-Nov-1990 20-Nov-2001 11.02 25.7781 88.8977

(years)
San Salvador El Salvador Latin America & the Caribbean 12-Jan-1990 28-Oct-1999 9.79 13.6980 –89.1914
Sanaa Yemen Western Asia 20-Sep-1989 13-May-2000 10.64 15.3473 44.2063
Santiago Chile Latin America & the Caribbean 17-Mar-1989 31-Mar-2000 11.04 –33.4382 –70.6507
Sao Paulo Brazil Latin America & the Caribbean 12-Sep-1988 17-Jun-2000 11.76 –23.5330 –46.6330
Seoul Korea, Republic of Eastern Asia & the Pacific 17-May-1989 23-Sep-2001 12.35 37.5534 126.9745
Shanghai China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 11-Aug-1989 3-Jul-2001 11.89 31.2378 121.4850
Sheffield United Kingdom Europe & Japan 18-May-1992 11-Sep-2002 10.32 53.3809 –1.4702
Shimkent Kazakhstan South and Central Asia 26-Oct-1989 14-Sep-2000 10.89 42.3206 69.5884
Singapore Singapore Southeast Asia 17-Apr-1990 11-Nov-2002 12.57 1.2824 103.8461
Songkhla Thailand Southeast Asia 1-Jun-1990 20-Apr-2001 10.89 7.1989 100.5906
Springfield United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 28-Sep-1989 8-Sep-2002 12.94 42.1046 –72.5943
St. Catharines Canada Land-Rich Developed Countries 12-Jun-1992 12-Sep-1999 7.25 43.1795 –79.2486
Sydney Australia Land-Rich Developed Countries 25-Jul-1993 7-May-2002 8.78 –33.7981 151.0706
Tacoma United States Land-Rich Developed Countries 22-Sep-1990 25-Sep-2000 10.01 47.2553 –122.4407
Tebessa Algeria Northern Africa 5-Mar-1987 7-Jun-2001 14.26 35.4007 8.1172
Teheran Iran South and Central Asia 19-Sep-1988 18-Jul-2000 11.83 35.7013 51.4194
Tel Aviv Israel Western Asia 14-Aug-1987 21-May-2000 12.77 32.0798 34.7740
Thessaloniki Greece Europe & Japan 19-Jul-1987 30-May-2001 13.86 40.6456 22.9361
Tijuana Mexico Latin America & the Caribbean 2-Apr-1989 24-Apr-2000 11.06 32.5349 –117.0417
Tokyo Japan Europe & Japan 21-May-1987 24-Sep-2001 14.35 35.6752 139.7719

Ulan Bator Mongolia Eastern Asia & the Pacific 30-Aug-1989 31-Aug-2001 12.00 47.9130 106.8954
Valledupar Colombia Latin America & the Caribbean 30-Dec-1989 4-Oct-2001 11.76 10.4732 –73.2501
Victoria Canada Land-Rich Developed Countries 15-Aug-1991 30-Jul-2000 8.96 48.4271 –123.3639
Vijayawada India South and Central Asia 10-Nov-1990 28-Oct-2000 9.97 16.5282 80.5912
Warsaw Poland Europe & Japan 25-May-1992 17-Aug-2002 10.23 52.2342 21.0060
Wien Austria Europe & Japan 10-Sep-1991 24-May-2001 9.70 48.2129 16.3687
Yerevan Armenia Western Asia 31-Aug-1989 13-Aug-2000 10.95 40.1774 44.5121
Yiyang China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 2-Jul-1994 10-Sep-1999 5.19 28.5862 112.3445
Yulin China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 30-Oct-1991 30-Oct-2000 9.00 22.6366 110.1453
Zhengzhou China Eastern Asia & the Pacific 14-May-1988 10-May-2001 12.99 34.7480 113.6192
Zugdidi Georgia Western Asia 16-Aug-1987 10-Jul-2000 12.90 42.5037 41.8691
269
270
City Built-Up Built-Up Urban Built-Up Urban Built-Up Suburban Suburban Rural Built-Up Rural Built-Up
Area T1 Area T2 Area T1 Area T2 Built-Up Area T1 Built-Up Area T2 Area T1 Area T2
Accra 12,973 32,834 10,900 29,029 1,783 3,565 290 240

Addis Ababa 8,193 11,865 5,354 8,383 2,622 3,209 216 273
Ahvaz 15,106 21,945 6,050 8,629 4,600 7,251 4,455 6,065
Akashi 2,077 3,572 803 3,298 1,270 273 3 1
Alexandria 11,342 18,780 7,552 13,717 2,859 3,596 930 1,467
Algiers 13,946 22,913 5,307 12,181 7,146 9,359 1,493 1,372
Anqing 2,948 3,552 1,541 1,770 1,041 1,465 366 318
Ansan 4,677 8,864 3,215 6,342 1,358 2,404 104 118
Astrakhan 15,303 16,153 7,567 7,979 5,862 6,261 1,874 1,914

Aswan 1,260 1,579 461 669 770 888 29 22
Bacolod 1,344 3,294 446 2,336 749 861 149 97
Baku 6,664 9,015 1,666 2,911 3,876 4,912 1,122 1,193
Bamako 6,884 12,992 4,222 7,797 1,736 2,895 926 2,300
Bandung 10,872 15,382 6,968 10,819 3,714 4,305 191 258
Bangkok 68,303 102,593 30,178 58,906 35,042 41,253 3,083 2,434
Banjul 3,124 4,949 1,582 3,315 1,334 1,419 208 216
Beijing 124,578 157,638 62,845 89,188 54,569 62,444 7,164 6,006
Budapest 30,683 36,977 24,306 29,740 5,976 6,749 401 488
Buenos Aires 120,595 135,722 101,810 114,595 16,975 18,944 1,810 2,184

Cairo 36,605 56,917 24,753 40,015 10,273 14,642 1,578 2,260
Caracas 11,938 15,673 6,566 9,435 4,660 5,358 711 879
Casablanca 8,054 11,431 5,360 8,650 2,401 2,491 293 290
Castellon 6,960 8,203 2,751 3,605 3,794 4,195 415 404
Cebu 5,277 6,365 3,475 4,317 1,676 1,975 125 73
Changzhi 7,825 11,500 3,353 5,564 3,918 5,429 554 506
Chicago 373,224 425,126 297,001 342,052 68,129 77,793 8,095 5,281
Chinju 3,247 5,208 1,392 1,791 1,190 2,762 665 655
Chonan 2,388 5,898 754 1,812 1,196 3,598 438 488
Cincinnati 59,268 77,225 28,664 39,022 26,522 34,981 4,082 3,221
Coimbatore 7,125 10,479 2,478 4,463 3,242 4,480 1,404 1,536
Dhaka 10,209 16,563 4,897 8,277 4,579 7,135 733 1,150

Fukuoka 27,288 37,203 20,476 29,116 6,412 7,631 399 456
Gorgan 6,935 10,711 1,551 3,079 3,988 5,996 1,396 1,636
Guadalajara 30,935 40,518 23,264 31,760 6,781 7,642 890 1,117
Guangzhou 32,188 64,106 11,730 27,179 15,170 30,692 5,289 6,234
Guaruja 3,102 3,664 2,017 2,725 1,017 885 68 55
Guatemala City 14,436 18,903 9,991 14,485 4,195 4,145 251 272
Harare 16,506 24,310 5,681 10,213 7,778 10,674 3,047 3,422
Ho Chi Minh City 7,283 21,033 4,298 13,144 2,295 7,170 690 719
Hong Kong 7,490 9,763 5,273 7,228 2,111 2,450 105 86
Houston 130,325 182,374 76,955 136,689 50,621 43,725 2,750 1,961
Hyderabad 17,336 31,754 9,197 20,579 6,451 9,024 1,688 2,152
Ibadan 20,921 29,996 16,199 24,542 3,653 4,116 1,069 1,338
Ilheus 2,877 4,970 426 871 1,623 2,718 828 1,381
Ipoh 14,517 21,906 6,370 14,147 7,901 7,443 246 315
Istanbul 30,632 53,269 18,803 37,245 10,108 13,741 1,721 2,282
Jaipur 5,869 14,084 3,166 11,306 1,743 1,865 960 913
Jalna 919 1,952 239 763 477 926 202 263
Jequie 1,824 3,655 1,062 2,829 468 535 293 292

Johannesburg 87,163 99,279 51,483 63,277 31,378 31,978 4,303 4,025
Kampala 13,156 20,169 5,690 11,377 6,213 7,566 1,254 1,226
Kanpur 12,355 17,668 6,440 9,891 4,509 6,064 1,405 1,713
Kigali 1,517 4,502 253 3,097 1,048 1,210 216 195
Kingston 10,888 11,945 7,092 8,042 3,352 3,442 445 461
Kolkata 28,816 48,344 11,900 21,599 10,881 20,044 6,034 6,700
Kuala Lumpur 38,329 80,529 22,925 61,699 13,822 17,719 1,582 1,111
Kuwait City 32,434 39,562 21,624 28,204 7,840 8,161 2,970 3,197
Le Mans 6,805 7,444 4,310 4,726 2,101 2,331 395 387
Leipzig 9,820 19,580 4,385 11,248 4,537 7,614 899 719
Leshan 5,263 9,944 1,194 3,047 3,253 5,985 815 912
271
272
London 157,323 185,551 115,200 139,373 37,507 40,539 4,616 5,638

Los Angeles 342,194 385,089 295,765 341,678 44,419 41,392 2,010 2,018
Madrid 27,647 36,979 17,002 23,993 9,570 11,946 1,075 1,040
Malatya 9,125 13,747 1,361 2,973 5,407 7,871 2,356 2,903
Manila 42,784 63,317 26,653 44,944 13,796 16,247 2,335 2,125
Marrakech 9,706 16,475 4,010 6,047 4,871 7,586 826 2,843
Medan 9,858 14,559 6,002 9,792 3,408 4,577 449 189
Mexico City 78,030 105,853 60,669 87,802 15,273 15,744 2,088 2,307
Milano 53,905 63,517 34,110 45,192 18,815 17,596 980 729

Minneapolis 88,564 109,971 51,226 75,046 34,261 33,044 3,077 1,882
Modesto 12,483 16,892 7,768 11,288 3,555 4,600 1,160 1,004
Montevideo 25,310 35,725 13,185 20,415 9,580 11,665 2,545 3,646
Moscow 72,378 104,632 36,988 67,062 29,883 31,870 5,507 5,699
Mumbai 28,898 37,090 23,810 29,977 4,542 6,157 545 956
Ndola 4,133 5,390 1,120 2,161 1,589 1,724 138 155
Oktyabrsky 7,557 9,786 2,550 3,684 3,407 4,341 1,601 1,762
Ouagadougou 6,027 13,746 4,888 11,862 1,028 1,464 111 421
Palembang 6,760 17,504 2,805 10,966 3,364 5,957 591 580
Palermo 7,264 8,087 4,415 5,165 2,587 2,652 261 270

Paris 128,735 148,208 98,635 120,895 27,730 25,342 2,369 1,972
Philadelphia 189,402 233,491 114,374 152,938 70,074 77,245 4,954 3,308
Pittsburgh 41,303 47,213 16,503 22,016 23,198 23,857 1,602 1,339
Port Sudan 2,673 4,104 1,906 3,182 637 770 129 151
Pretoria 15,011 17,004 9,421 11,757 5,200 4,886 390 361
Puna 9,279 19,149 4,675 13,731 3,782 4,968 823 449
Pusan 14,658 19,686 10,386 14,633 3,831 4,619 441 433
Rajshahi 1,086 2,026 0 44 437 1,188 649 794
Ribeirao Preto 8,505 10,034 7,045 7,962 1,188 1,734 273 337
Saidpur 517 759 145 202 148 209 224 348
San Salvador 9,813 12,862 6,795 9,700 2,637 2,801 381 361
Sanaa 10,751 15,528 7,290 12,414 3,176 2,869 285 245
Santiago 33,740 43,851 26,833 35,650 5,935 7,103 971 1,098

Sao Paulo 126,354 155,418 107,349 135,970 16,701 16,906 2,304 2,542
Seoul 51,285 70,614 38,800 54,234 11,421 15,384 1,064 996
Shanghai 65,117 116,186 38,923 77,055 19,978 37,849 6,217 1,282
Sheffield 14,732 15,880 9,993 11,123 4,413 4,415 326 343
Shimkent 12,324 14,565 7,650 9,251 3,923 4,386 750 928
Singapore 17,594 24,524 9,168 16,833 8,042 7,288 384 404
Songkhla 1,381 1,899 554 678 543 774 284 446
Springfield 13,586 23,770 5,591 13,408 6,985 9,917 1,010 444
St. Catharines 8,887 11,418 5,379 6,823 2,578 3,949 929 647
Sydney 64,062 75,951 45,922 58,892 16,288 15,474 1,853 1,585
Tacoma 34,606 44,526 18,025 31,045 15,271 12,359 1,310 1,122
Tebessa 5,091 7,537 1,015 2,235 1,627 2,390 2,449 2,912
Teheran 36,160 47,170 27,881 38,124 7,299 7,887 980 1,159
Tel Aviv 16,648 34,022 8,390 19,181 6,872 13,847 1,386 994
Thessaloniki 5,172 7,144 3,438 5,047 1,552 1,975 182 122
Tijuana 12,161 20,808 9,576 17,654 2,421 2,935 164 219
Tokyo 231,865 256,425 200,220 231,789 31,281 24,330 364 306
Ulan Bator 9,336 12,857 6,508 9,057 2,127 2,904 701 896

Valledupar 2,003 2,704 1,374 1,816 255 475 374 413
Victoria 8,160 10,735 5,060 7,869 2,878 2,712 223 154
Vijayawada 4,030 6,234 2,140 3,401 1,350 2,054 540 778
Warsaw 24,899 33,217 14,309 22,110 10,073 10,533 516 574
Wien 26,516 39,450 11,350 22,926 12,739 14,665 2,427 1,859
Yerevan 32,369 41,569 11,809 15,374 14,955 20,843 5,605 5,351
Yiyang 4,840 9,562 1,082 2,600 1,701 5,031 2,057 1,931
Yulin 14,119 25,001 1,475 4,337 6,443 13,285 6,201 7,379
Zhengzhou 45,092 78,954 15,415 31,443 23,634 41,975 6,043 5,535
Zugdidi 2,463 4,134 991 1,628 839 1,687 632 819
273
274
City Population T1 Population T2 Urbanized Urbanized Open Captured Open Captured Open Urban Urban
Open Space T1 Space T2 Space T1 Space T2 landscape T1 landscape T2
Accra 1,818,178 2,693,371 6,368 12,838 94 142 19,341 45,672

Addis Ababa 1,653,379 2,510,904 8,734 10,258 358 270 16,926 22,123
Ahvaz 870,277 1,258,713 9,428 16,527 180 658 24,533 38,472
Akashi 281,127 294,657 2,657 1,293 90 23 4,734 4,865
Alexandria 3,042,907 3,378,392 6,284 9,150 322 679 17,624 27,929
Algiers 2,671,427 3,627,912 18,182 25,688 1,120 1,956 32,128 48,601
Anqing 486,057 578,216 2,831 4,543 117 404 5,778 8,095
Ansan 435,490 993,560 3,390 7,374 240 960 8,067 16,237
Astrakhan 582,813 594,015 17,582 18,435 418 388 32,885 34,588
Aswan 225,969 310,069 959 1,022 0 0 2,218 2,601

Bacolod 461,590 510,321 2,153 2,231 31 17 3,497 5,525
Baku 1,822,524 2,067,017 9,930 12,305 145 113 16,594 21,320
Bamako 829,438 1,239,935 5,040 9,811 123 96 11,924 22,802
Bandung 2,976,681 3,671,064 10,832 13,113 507 768 21,704 28,494
Bangkok 8,238,697 9,761,697 92,113 111,953 7,024 9,751 160,417 214,546
Banjul 235,692 447,985 3,669 4,696 39 82 6,792 9,645
Beijing 9,121,122 11,866,221 155,832 176,915 8,037 11,515 280,410 334,553
Budapest 2,135,175 2,052,781 16,292 20,553 655 1,650 46,976 57,530
Buenos Aires 11,201,993 11,915,543 63,025 69,732 4,236 4,243 183,620 205,454
Cairo 10,161,703 13,083,621 23,918 34,506 916 3,084 60,523 91,424

Caracas 1,218,412 1,308,279 13,718 15,421 510 780 25,656 31,094
Casablanca 2,291,087 3,004,505 7,920 8,869 262 427 15,974 20,300
Castellon 251,102 268,712 9,807 11,962 322 740 16,767 20,165
Cebu 1,117,947 1,524,080 5,042 5,579 247 98 10,319 11,945
Changzhi 852,719 928,518 8,363 13,705 273 971 16,188 25,205
Chicago 7,559,322 8,590,032 258,751 285,616 25,559 29,051 631,975 710,742
Chinju 330,240 342,454 3,025 7,336 67 77 6,272 12,544
Chonan 296,527 424,046 4,007 10,012 45 762 6,395 15,910
Cincinnati 1,442,457 1,517,716 85,906 109,155 7,787 7,980 145,174 186,380
Coimbatore 1,072,865 1,399,225 9,728 14,823 179 427 16,853 25,302
Dhaka 6,488,641 9,196,964 11,992 21,012 227 273 22,201 37,575
Fukuoka 2,385,823 2,598,370 14,705 20,331 703 1,442 41,993 57,535

Gorgan 362,277 455,061 8,638 12,017 219 734 15,573 22,728
Guadalajara 3,004,120 3,669,578 21,397 25,894 1,075 935 52,332 66,412
Guangzhou 3,812,189 7,156,071 38,311 90,831 1,305 7,069 70,500 154,937
Guaruja 221,618 277,993 2,295 2,112 309 348 5,397 5,776
Guatemala City 1,421,625 1,766,093 11,861 13,153 804 1,145 26,298 32,055
Harare 838,775 889,421 23,646 33,810 1,785 1,864 40,153 58,119
Ho Chi Minh City 3,579,382 4,309,449 7,431 18,691 283 1,297 14,714 39,724
Hong Kong 4,751,952 5,179,089 4,355 5,337 222 366 11,844 15,101
Houston 3,023,503 3,656,247 144,177 141,494 16,508 17,026 274,502 323,868
Hyderabad 4,887,789 5,707,677 20,373 29,796 1,104 1,431 37,709 61,550
Ibadan 1,565,805 2,421,369 10,953 13,970 133 268 31,874 43,967
Ilheus 153,323 151,509 3,632 6,132 65 59 6,509 11,102
Ipoh 521,338 655,200 18,586 19,398 1,357 1,882 33,103 41,304
Istanbul 6,090,097 8,826,758 28,902 40,493 1,468 1,776 59,534 93,762
Jaipur 2,115,566 2,779,119 5,846 7,826 288 142 11,715 21,910
Jalna 338,175 424,304 988 2,015 5 1 1,907 3,966
Jequie 135,020 138,216 1,536 1,663 89 140 3,360 5,318
Johannesburg 3,521,614 4,695,165 107,139 110,676 8,754 9,450 194,303 209,955
Kampala 1,314,603 1,761,733 19,934 24,565 677 891 33,091 44,734

Kanpur 1,972,220 2,674,116 13,105 18,243 272 810 25,459 35,910
Kigali 296,879 354,273 2,911 4,642 92 48 4,428 9,144
Kingston 790,037 875,605 10,093 10,647 570 527 20,982 22,592
Kolkata 10,979,222 13,170,280 35,571 72,414 1,032 2,559 64,386 120,758
Kuala Lumpur 2,961,111 5,389,624 37,875 55,290 2,869 4,197 76,204 135,819
Kuwait City 1,863,888 1,999,068 22,376 23,347 3,179 2,952 54,810 62,909
Le Mans 208,970 212,064 6,001 6,565 496 543 12,807 14,009
Leipzig 791,857 664,696 12,881 20,461 562 995 22,701 40,042
Leshan 919,835 966,091 7,640 13,912 260 478 12,903 23,856
275
276
London 9,932,047 10,028,978 118,954 140,287 12,020 14,739 276,276 325,838

Los Angeles 11,982,247 13,218,754 162,105 155,483 10,464 9,229 504,299 540,571
Madrid 4,137,778 4,588,170 27,581 35,099 1,097 2,240 55,228 72,077
Malatya 701,862 852,864 13,383 18,804 415 564 22,507 32,551
Manila 14,044,055 17,335,085 43,427 51,246 2,087 3,237 86,211 114,563
Marrakech 1,328,537 1,722,999 7,889 14,733 13 380 17,595 31,208
Medan 1,918,544 2,239,596 10,923 13,278 490 620 20,781 27,837
Mexico City 14,419,067 17,224,096 55,626 59,941 3,012 2,430 133,655 165,794
Milano 3,776,011 3,708,980 55,682 57,077 5,915 5,963 109,588 120,595

Minneapolis 1,956,479 2,167,795 100,263 106,840 7,571 8,593 188,826 216,811
Modesto 296,090 344,540 11,938 16,078 742 1,684 24,421 32,970
Montevideo 1,712,955 1,838,801 29,215 34,046 1,228 1,110 54,525 69,771
Moscow 9,566,266 9,144,624 87,933 103,149 3,924 5,111 160,311 207,782
Mumbai 13,464,455 16,161,758 13,167 18,405 399 669 42,065 55,496
Ndola 350,512 326,119 1,816 1,786 459 229 3,512 4,549
Oktyabrsky 225,671 228,371 9,963 13,593 154 232 17,520 23,379
Ouagadougou 615,293 874,623 3,723 5,408 180 144 9,750 19,154
Palembang 1,206,169 1,616,527 9,580 15,969 326 804 16,339 33,473

Palermo 828,637 833,992 7,301 7,582 498 358 14,565 15,669
Paris 9,275,994 9,519,527 97,443 92,626 7,479 8,120 226,178 240,834
Philadelphia 5,092,361 5,238,892 210,880 245,378 20,463 21,411 400,282 478,869
Pittsburgh 1,255,475 1,185,877 66,350 69,588 6,862 7,243 107,653 116,801
Port Sudan 155,821 209,154 1,621 1,923 79 68 4,294 6,026
Pretoria 432,031 659,834 17,523 17,780 1,215 1,281 32,534 34,784
Puna 3,508,945 4,041,868 10,966 13,049 533 818 20,245 32,198
Pusan 3,976,052 3,485,359 8,734 12,052 544 1,066 23,391 31,738
Rajshahi 490,564 599,525 2,033 5,160 60 76 3,119 7,186
Ribeirao Preto 411,029 512,239 3,935 5,771 221 570 12,441 15,805
Saidpur 200,427 233,478 436 787 1 8 953 1,546
San Salvador 1,575,826 2,022,047 8,534 9,269 256 370 18,347 22,131
Sanaa 963,065 1,474,635 6,588 5,660 264 338 17,339 21,188

Santiago 4,654,096 5,337,512 21,088 24,682 867 1,012 54,828 68,534
Sao Paulo 12,892,124 15,481,476 57,017 60,873 3,565 4,743 183,371 216,292
Seoul 13,621,399 14,546,082 33,620 49,214 2,780 5,143 84,905 119,828
Shanghai 10,834,643 14,133,931 72,599 122,695 6,016 11,968 137,716 238,881
Sheffield 769,486 764,213 11,931 13,358 933 844 26,662 29,238
Shimkent 599,956 577,753 9,470 12,642 200 405 21,793 27,206
Singapore 3,005,362 4,309,797 20,785 20,322 1,536 877 38,379 44,847
Songkhla 219,751 244,403 1,510 2,089 17 23 2,891 3,987
Springfield 431,026 427,126 24,892 30,079 1,999 2,835 38,478 53,849
St. Catharines 177,727 182,863 7,598 11,576 469 717 16,485 22,994
Sydney 2,634,121 2,754,486 52,630 52,321 2,969 3,465 116,692 128,272
Tacoma 590,266 697,104 44,867 41,306 3,077 2,963 79,472 85,832
Tebessa 366,628 457,364 3,792 5,449 55 157 8,883 12,985
Teheran 5,807,438 7,803,538 22,396 26,210 875 1,567 58,557 73,380
Tel Aviv 2,062,274 2,610,373 18,530 42,585 590 3,206 35,178 76,607
Thessaloniki 770,764 857,935 4,368 6,234 166 305 9,540 13,378
Tijuana 638,376 1,174,193 7,697 9,242 327 571 19,858 30,050

Tokyo 27,401,984 29,615,263 118,041 102,467 5,448 5,005 349,906 358,893
Ulan Bator 632,833 776,538 6,153 8,000 129 149 15,489 20,857
Valledupar 233,819 288,448 815 1,387 1 32 2,818 4,091
Victoria 239,565 255,055 7,784 8,070 319 448 15,944 18,804
Vijayawada 981,395 1,117,042 3,387 5,212 84 124 7,417 11,445
Warsaw 1,984,065 2,002,178 25,412 29,744 1,872 1,718 50,311 62,961
Wien 2,065,478 2,118,871 36,937 40,213 1,005 1,528 63,453 79,663
Yerevan 2,207,409 2,063,290 40,035 50,938 1,107 1,464 72,404 92,506
Yiyang 1,125,056 1,207,164 5,316 14,834 137 1,038 10,156 24,396
Yulin 3,178,605 3,387,078 21,504 42,700 482 1,280 35,623 67,702
Zhengzhou 3,824,517 5,133,266 79,647 142,125 4,600 7,566 124,739 221,079
Zugdidi 115,680 157,008 2,773 5,854 240 240 5,236 9,987
277
278
City Urban landscape Urban landscape Openness Openness New Infill Extension Leapfrog
Ratio T1 Ratio T2 Index T1 Index T2 Development T1– T2 T1–T2 T1–T2 T1–T2
Accra 1.49 1.39 0.27 0.19 19,861 2,094 16,158 1,609

Addis Ababa 2.07 1.86 0.40 0.36 3,672 964 2,160 548
Ahvaz 1.62 1.75 0.60 0.59 6,839 632 4,535 1,672
Akashi 2.28 1.36 0.54 0.25 1,495 685 805 5
Alexandria 1.55 1.49 0.37 0.34 7,438 899 5,419 1,120
Algiers 2.30 2.12 0.59 0.49 8,966 1,557 6,543 867
Anqing 1.96 2.28 0.48 0.49 604 52 414 138
Ansan 1.72 1.83 0.40 0.34 4,187 582 3,181 424
Astrakhan 2.15 2.14 0.53 0.53 850 130 551 169
Aswan 1.76 1.65 0.52 0.48 319 48 244 26

Bacolod 2.60 1.68 0.61 0.38 1,950 265 1,504 182
Baku 2.49 2.36 0.65 0.61 2,351 351 1,547 453
Bamako 1.73 1.76 0.44 0.44 6,108 654 3,257 2,197
Bandung 2.00 1.85 0.41 0.37 4,510 1,033 2,717 760
Bangkok 2.35 2.09 0.54 0.46 34,290 7,832 22,891 3,567
Banjul 2.17 1.95 0.48 0.39 1,825 325 1,277 224
Beijing 2.25 2.12 0.46 0.41 33,060 8,310 22,259 2,491
Budapest 1.53 1.56 0.29 0.28 6,294 1,939 3,338 1,017
Buenos Aires 1.52 1.51 0.23 0.23 15,127 4,917 8,538 1,672
Cairo 1.65 1.61 0.36 0.33 20,312 3,820 13,118 3,375

Caracas 2.15 1.98 0.48 0.43 3,735 1,197 2,047 491
Casablanca 1.98 1.78 0.44 0.33 3,376 1,398 1,641 338
Castellon 2.41 2.46 0.55 0.52 1,243 225 815 204
Cebu 1.96 1.88 0.40 0.37 1,089 342 644 103
Changzhi 2.07 2.19 0.54 0.49 3,674 541 2,483 651
Chicago 1.69 1.67 0.28 0.26 51,902 16,537 33,256 2,109
Chinju 1.93 2.41 0.56 0.59 1,961 94 1,334 533
Chonan 2.68 2.70 0.64 0.59 3,510 170 2,467 873
Cincinnati 2.45 2.41 0.51 0.49 17,957 2,856 12,856 2,244
Coimbatore 2.37 2.41 0.63 0.57 3,354 589 2,007 757
Dhaka 2.17 2.27 0.53 0.51 6,354 1,233 2,639 2,482
Ratio T1 Ratio T2 Index T1 Index T2 Development T1 - T2 T1–T2 T1–T2 T1–T2
Fukuoka 1.54 1.55 0.32 0.30 9,916 2,206 6,283 1,427

Gorgan 2.25 2.12 0.68 0.62 3,776 502 2,579 694
Guadalajara 1.69 1.64 0.30 0.27 9,583 3,062 5,140 1,381
Guangzhou 2.19 2.42 0.58 0.54 31,917 1,726 23,648 6,543
Guaruja 1.74 1.58 0.40 0.35 562 222 323 18
Guatemala City 1.82 1.70 0.37 0.32 4,477 1,244 2,824 410
Harare 2.43 2.39 0.62 0.57 96,069 11,923 64,612 19,534
Ho Chi Minh City 2.02 1.89 0.44 0.38 13,750 1,100 10,451 2,199
Hong Kong 1.58 1.55 0.38 0.34 2,274 427 1,406 441
Houston 2.11 1.78 0.46 0.34 52,049 20,909 28,888 2,251
Hyderabad 2.18 1.94 0.49 0.40 14,418 2,322 9,493 2,603
Ibadan 1.52 1.47 0.28 0.23 9,075 2,206 5,547 1,323
Ilheus 2.26 2.23 0.74 0.72 2,093 168 1,018 907
Ipoh 2.28 1.89 0.53 0.42 7,389 1,338 5,348 703
Istanbul 1.94 1.76 0.45 0.38 22,637 3,924 16,102 2,611
Jaipur 2.00 1.56 0.50 0.32 8,215 736 7,127 352
Jalna 2.08 2.03 0.66 0.59 1,033 74 747 212
Jequie 1.84 1.45 0.50 0.32 1,832 293 1,499 40
Johannesburg 2.23 2.11 0.48 0.44 12,116 4,225 7,154 737

Kampala 2.52 2.22 0.56 0.46 7,013 1,628 4,557 827
Kanpur 2.06 2.03 0.49 0.45 5,313 1,070 3,115 1,128
Kigali 2.92 2.03 0.68 0.41 2,985 178 2,403 404
Kingston 1.93 1.89 0.40 0.38 1,057 469 418 170
Kolkata 2.23 2.50 0.58 0.54 19,528 2,330 12,547 4,651
Kuala Lumpur 1.99 1.69 0.46 0.34 42,200 5,365 34,103 2,732
Kuwait City 1.69 1.59 0.39 0.35 7,128 2,765 3,409 953
Le Mans 1.88 1.88 0.38 0.38 639 126 448 64
Leipzig 2.31 2.04 0.54 0.44 9,761 1,246 7,429 1,086
Leshan 2.45 2.40 0.67 0.61 4,681 279 3,333 1,069
279
280
Ratio T1 Ratio T2 Index T1 Index T2 Development T1 -T2 T1–T2 T1–T2 T1–T2
London 1.76 1.76 0.36 0.34 28,228 11,332 13,120 3,776

Los Angeles 1.47 1.40 0.24 0.21 528,178 268,952 220,897 38,329
Madrid 2.00 1.95 0.41 0.39 9,331 1,903 6,561 867
Malatya 2.47 2.37 0.73 0.68 56,911 4,615 37,080 15,216
Manila 2.02 1.81 0.44 0.35 20,533 6,214 12,609 1,710
Marrakech 1.81 1.89 0.54 0.57 6,769 521 2,681 3,566
Medan 2.11 1.91 0.41 0.35 4,700 927 3,406 367
Mexico City 1.71 1.57 0.31 0.25 27,823 8,657 16,818 2,348
Milano 2.03 1.90 0.41 0.36 9,612 3,676 5,613 322

Minneapolis 2.13 1.97 0.45 0.40 21,408 7,469 13,127 812
Modesto 1.96 1.95 0.47 0.39 4,408 1,664 2,256 489
Montevideo 2.15 1.95 0.46 0.44 10,416 2,003 6,500 1,913
Moscow 2.21 1.99 0.49 0.41 32,254 9,356 18,773 4,125
Mumbai 1.46 1.50 0.27 0.26 8,193 2,076 4,791 1,326
Ndola 0.85 0.84 0.55 0.49 1,193 147 846 200
Oktyabrsky 2.32 2.39 0.63 0.60 2,229 383 1,155 690
Ouagadougou 1.62 1.39 0.30 0.22 7,719 807 6,251 661
Palembang 2.42 1.91 0.56 0.42 10,744 976 8,138 1,631
Palermo 2.01 1.94 0.43 0.40 823 339 393 91

Paris 1.76 1.62 0.33 0.27 19,474 11,364 7,649 461
Philadelphia 2.11 2.05 0.44 0.40 542,798 155,424 316,616 70,758
Pittsburgh 2.61 2.47 0.56 0.52 5,910 1,912 3,632 366
Port Sudan 1.61 1.47 0.39 0.32 1,431 289 1,001 141
Pretoria 2.17 2.05 0.46 0.43 1,993 882 1,017 94
Puna 2.18 1.68 0.50 0.36 9,869 1,637 7,692 541
Pusan 1.60 1.61 0.37 0.34 5,028 1,151 3,578 299
Rajshahi 2.87 3.55 0.89 0.84 940 7 602 331
Ribeirao Preto 1.46 1.58 0.25 0.28 1,528 201 1,035 293
Ratio T1 Ratio T2 Index T1 Index T2 Development T1 -T2 T1–T2 T1–T2 T1–T2
Saidpur 1.84 2.04 0.71 0.72 242 19 91 132

San Salvador 1.87 1.72 0.39 0.33 3,049 897 1,988 164
Sanaa 1.61 1.36 0.37 0.25 4,777 1,638 2,889 250
Santiago 1.63 1.56 0.28 0.25 124,492 33,810 75,949 14,733
Sao Paulo 1.45 1.39 0.22 0.18 29,065 11,142 15,942 1,981
Seoul 1.66 1.70 0.31 0.30 19,330 3,575 13,288 2,466
Shanghai 2.11 2.06 0.41 0.35 51,069 6,007 41,297 3,764
Sheffield 1.81 1.84 0.42 0.41 1,149 387 561 201
Shimkent 1.77 1.87 0.40 0.40 2,241 487 1,281 473
Singapore 2.18 1.83 0.49 0.41 6,930 1,675 4,600 655
Songkhla 2.09 2.10 0.58 0.60 518 50 292 176
Springfield 2.83 2.27 0.55 0.46 10,184 1,112 8,542 530
St. Catharines 1.86 2.01 0.43 0.43 2,531 285 2,066 181
Sydney 1.82 1.69 0.38 0.32 11,888 5,883 5,485 521
Tacoma 2.30 1.93 0.49 0.39 9,920 4,857 4,866 197
Tebessa 1.74 1.72 0.75 0.66 30,111 4,215 20,814 5,082
Teheran 1.62 1.56 0.30 0.27 11,009 3,915 5,767 1,327
Tel Aviv 2.11 2.25 0.49 0.45 17,374 1,825 12,512 3,037
Thessaloniki 1.84 1.87 0.38 0.35 1,973 536 1,197 240
Tijuana 1.63 1.44 0.32 0.23 8,647 2,157 5,665 825
Tokyo 1.51 1.40 0.27 0.22 24,560 17,884 5,801 875
Ulan Bator 1.66 1.62 0.37 0.33 3,520 806 2,339 376

Valledupar 1.41 1.51 0.37 0.37 701 109 497 95
Victoria 1.95 1.75 0.43 0.35 2,575 1,068 1,381 126
Vijayawada 1.84 1.84 0.51 0.48 2,203 428 1,362 413
Warsaw 2.02 1.90 0.46 0.39 8,319 2,929 4,150 1,240
Wien 2.39 2.02 0.54 0.44 12,934 3,830 8,518 587
Yerevan 2.24 2.23 0.59 0.57 9,200 1,204 6,791 1,204
Yiyang 2.10 2.55 0.74 0.66 4,722 334 3,719 668
Yulin 2.52 2.71 0.81 0.74 10,883 473 7,522 2,888
Zhengzhou 2.77 2.80 0.58 0.54 33,862 2,693 22,941 8,228
Zugdidi 2.13 2.42 0.62 0.59 1,671 296 889 485
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 1990−2000 Global Sample
of 120 Urban Areas, The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA, available at http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/atlas-urban-expansion/urban-
281
national-data-tables.aspx.
REFERENCES
Angel, S, J Parent, D L Civco and A M Blei (2010a), “The urbanizing landscapes in the northeast United
persistent decline in urban densities: global and States”, Photogrammetr. Eng. Remote Sens. Vol 68,
historical evidence of sprawl”, Lincoln Institute No 10, pages 1083–1090.
Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Clawson, M (1962), “Urban sprawl and speculation in
Cambridge MA, 151 pages, available at http:// urban land”, Land Economics Vol 38, May, page
www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1834_The-Persistent- 99−111.
Decline-in-Urban-Densities. Cox, Wendell (2004), “Portland: economic growth
Angel, S, J Parent and D L Civco (2010b), “The noose loosened: Portland backtracks on urban
fragmentation of urban footprints: global evidence growth boundary”, The Public Purpose Vol 74,
of sprawl 1990−2000”, Lincoln Institute Working February, 3 pages.
Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge Ewing, R (1994), “Characteristics, causes and effects
MA, 114 pages, available at http://www. of sprawl: a literature review”, Environmental and
lincolninst.edu/pubs/1835_The-Fragmentation- Urban Issues Vol 21, No 2, pages 1−15.
of-Urban-Footprints. Ginsburg, N (1990), “Extended metropolitan regions
Angel, S, J Parent, D L Civco and A M Blei (2011), The in Asia: a new spatial paradigm”, in N Ginsburg,
Atlas of Urban Expansion, The Lincoln Institute of The Urban Transition: Reflections on the American
Land Policy, Cambridge MA, available at http:// and Asian Experiences, Chinese University of Hong
www.lincolninst.edu/publications/atlas. Kong Press, pages 21–42.
Angel, S, S C Sheppard and D L Civco, with A Chabaeva, Gottmann, J and R A Harper (1990), Since Megalopolis:
L Gitlin, A Kraley, J Parent, M Perlin and R Buckley The Urban Writings of Jean Gottmann, Johns
(2005), The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion, Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 294 pages.
The World Bank, Washington DC, Chapter 2, 199 Guldin, G E (1996), “Desakotas and beyond:
pages, available at http://www.worldbank.org/ urbanization in southern China”, Ethnology Vol
urban. 35, No 4, pages 265−283.
Angel, S, M I Valdivia and R M Lutzy (2009), “Urban Haines-Young, R and M Chopping (1996), “Quantifying
expansion, land conversion and affordable landscape structure: a review of landscape indices
housing in China: the case of Zhengzhou”, Paper and their application to forested landscapes”,
presented at the Workshop on China Housing Progress in Physical Geography Vol 20, No 4, pages
Policy, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge 418−445.
MA, 18 May, 19 pages. Hargis, C D, J A Bissonette and J L David (1998), “The
Bertaud, A (2007), “Urbanization in China: land behaviour of landscape metrics commonly used
use efficiency issues”, available at http://www. in the study of habitat fragmentation”, Landscape
alain-bertaud.com/AB_Files/AB_China_land_use_ Ecology Vol 13, pages 167−186.
report_6.pdf, 33 pages. Heim, C E (2001), “Leapfrogging, urban sprawl and
Brabec, E and C Smith (2002), “Agricultural land growth management: Phoenix 1950−2000”, Ameri
fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land can Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol 60, No 1,
protection strategies in the eastern United States”, pages 245−283.
Landscape and Urban Planning Vol 58, pages Hurd, J D, E H Wilson, S G Lammey and D L Civco
255−268. (2001), Characterization of Forest Fragmentation and
Brand, L A and T L George (2001), “Response of Urban Sprawl using Time Sequential Landsat Imagery,
Passerine birds to forest edge in coast Redwood Proceedings of the ASPRS Annual Convention,
forest fragments”, The Auk Vol 118, No 3, pages St Louis MO, 23–27 April, 12 pages, available at
678−686. http://www.resac.uconn. edu/publications/tech_
Burchfield, M, H G Overman, D Puga and M A Turner papers/index.html.
(2006), “Causes of sprawl: a portrait from space”, Knapp, Gerrit J (1985), “The price effects of urban
Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol 121, No 2, pages growth boundaries in metropolitan Portland,
587−633. Oregon”, Land Economics No 61, February, pages
Carruthers, J I and G F Ulfarsson (2001), “Fragmentation 27−35.
and sprawl: evidence from inter-regional analysis”, Lessinger, J (1962), “The case for scatteration”, Journal
Growth and Change 33, Summer, pages 312−340. of the American Institute of Planners Vol 28, No 3,
Chen, I, J F Franklin and T A Spies (1992), “Vegetation pages 159−169.
responses to edge environments in old growth Lichtenberg, E and C Ding (2008), “Assessing farmland
Douglas fir forests”, Ecological Applications Vol 2, protection policy in China”, Land Use Policy Vol
No 4, pages 387−396. 25, No 1, January, pages 59−68.
Civco, D L, J D Hurd, E H Wilson, C L Arnold and McGarigal, K, S A Cushman, M C Neel and E Ene (2002),
M Prisloe (2002), “Quantifying and describing “FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis programme
282
for categorical maps”, available at http://www. urban fringe”, Research in Rural Sociology and
umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats. Development Vol 6, pages 67−93.
html. Potere, D, A Schneider, S Angel and D L Civco (2009),
McGee, T G (1991), “The emergence of desakota regions “Mapping urban areas on a global scale: which of
in Asia: expanding a hypothesis”, in N Ginsburg, the eight maps now available is more accurate?”,
B Koppel and T G McGee (editors), The Extended International Journal of Remote Sensing Vol 30, No
Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia, University 24, December, pages 6531−6558.
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pages 3–26. Reuters (2010), “China’s forced evictions cause
Nelson, Arthur (1986), “Using land markets to evaluate instability”, 28 March, available at http://www.
urban containment programmes”, Journal of the reuters.com/article/idustre62r13u20100328.
American Planning Association Vol 52, Spring, pages Riiters, K H, R V O’Neill, C T Hunsaker, J D Wickham, D
56−71. H Yankee, S P Timmins, K B Jones and B L Jackson
O’Neill, R V, J R Krummel, R H Gardner, G Sugihara, B (1995), “A factor analysis of landscape pattern and
Jackson, D L DeAngelis, B Milne, S W Christensen, V structure metrics”, Landscape Ecology Vol 10, pages
H Dale and R L Graham (1988), “Indices of landscape 23–39.
pattern”, Landscape Ecology Vol 1, pages 153−162. United Nations Population Division (2008), World
Ottensman, J R (1977), “Urban sprawl, land values and Urbanization Prospects − The 2007 Revision, United
the density of development”, Land Economics Vol Nations, New York, File 3.
53, No 4, pages 389−400. Winter, M, D H Johnson and J Faaborg (2000),
Peiser, R B (1989), “Density and urban sprawl”, Land “Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in
Economics Vol 65, No 3, pages 193−204. tallgrass prairie”, Condor Vol 102, No 2, pages
Pfeffer, M J and M B Lapping (1995), “Prospects for a 256−266, available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/
sustainable agriculture in the northeast’s rural/ resource/birds/edgeffct/index.htm.
283
View publication stats

The Fragmentation of Urban Landscapes: Global Evidence of A Key Attribute of The Spatial Structure of Cities, 1990-2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fragmentation of Urban Landscapes: Global Evidence of A Key Attribute of The Spatial Structure of Cities, 1990-2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

The fragmentation of urban landscapes: Global evidence of a

Article in Environment and Urbanization · April 2012

Flood Vulnerability Analysis of Connecticut Inland River Network View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

Email Alerts: http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Apr 30, 2012

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

SHLOMO ANGEL, JASON PARENT AND DANIEL L CIVCO

Dr Shlomo Angel ABSTRACT The fragmentation of urban landscapes − or the inter-penetration of

III. FRAGMENTATION IN THE GLOBAL SAMPLE OF CITIES,

SOURCE: The authors.

SOURCE: The authors.

countries had average values of 0.48±0.02 in 1990 and 0.43±0.02 in 2000,

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

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

Levels of fragmentation measured by both the openness index and the

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

a. Case study 1: Excessive fragmentation in Chinese cities

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

SOURCE: Google Earth.

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

V. CONCLUSIONS: ALLOWING FOR FRAGMENTATION IN

SOURCE: The authors.

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

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

City Country Region T1 Date T2 Date Time CBD CBD

Accra Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa 6-Mar-1985 4-Feb-2000 14.92 5.5548 –0.2005

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

City Country Region T1 Date T2 Date Time CBD CBD

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

City Country Region T1 Date T2 Date Time CBD CBD

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

City Country Region T1 Date T2 Date Time CBD CBD

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Accra 12,973 32,834 10,900 29,029 1,783 3,565 290 240

Astrakhan 15,303 16,153 7,567 7,979 5,862 6,261 1,874 1,914

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Dhaka 10,209 16,563 4,897 8,277 4,579 7,135 733 1,150

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

London 157,323 185,551 115,200 139,373 37,507 40,539 4,616 5,638

Milano 53,905 63,517 34,110 45,192 18,815 17,596 980 729

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Santiago 33,740 43,851 26,833 35,650 5,935 7,103 971 1,098

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Accra 1,818,178 2,693,371 6,368 12,838 94 142 19,341 45,672

Aswan 225,969 310,069 959 1,022 0 0 2,218 2,601

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Fukuoka 2,385,823 2,598,370 14,705 20,331 703 1,442 41,993 57,535

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

London 9,932,047 10,028,978 118,954 140,287 12,020 14,739 276,276 325,838

Milano 3,776,011 3,708,980 55,682 57,077 5,915 5,963 109,588 120,595

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Sanaa 963,065 1,474,635 6,588 5,660 264 338 17,339 21,188

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Accra 1.49 1.39 0.27 0.19 19,861 2,094 16,158 1,609

Aswan 1.76 1.65 0.52 0.48 319 48 244 26

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012

Fukuoka 1.54 1.55 0.32 0.30 9,916 2,206 6,283 1,427

Downloaded from eau.sagepub.com by guest on June 12, 2012