Population, territory and sustainable development

More documents

Info

143 Box IX.1 (concluded) The national structure is defined by territorial links through central places of varying hierarchy and function. Nationally, six tiers reflect cities’ weight within the national urban system. The major cities of the states in the central area of the country are classified as follows: First tier (18,396,770 inhabitants): The metropolitan region of the Valley of Mexico (ZMCM), which produces around half the country’s manufactured goods and services (by value), is home to one quarter of the economically active population and receives much of the domestic migration flow. This systemic approach identifies the ZMVM as the centre dominating all other Mexican cities directly or indirectly through the principle of transitivity. No city falls outside the national urban system, since each one is subordinate to others. Second tier (9,032,800 inhabitants): Puebla-Tlaxcala falls within this tier, along with Monterrey and Guadalajara (Jalisco). These cities concentrate enormous economic power and are major service centres. This is clearly seen in their influence over cities in neighbouring states in this large region, where they complement Mexico City in some functions. Third tier (14,763,111 inhabitants): Cuernavaca-Jiutepec (Morelos) and Toluca-Lerma (state of Mexico and Querétaro) fall within this tier, along with the cities of Saltillo-Ramos, Arizpe-Arteaga, Torreón-Gómez, Palacio- Lerdo, Tampico-Madero-Altamira, San Luis Potosí- Soledad de Graciano Sánchez, Chihuahua, Ciudad Juárez, Hermosillo, Tijuana, Culiacán, León, Morelia-Tarimbaro, Acapulco, Veracruz-Boca del Río-Alvarado, Mérida- Progreso and Oaxaca de Juárez. These cities show enormous capacity for integrating the surrounding areas, which are usually in the same state; their influence wanes as distance from their own city limits increases. Fourth tier (8,355,171 inhabitants): Pachuca (Hidalgo) is in this tier, as are Reynosa-Río Bravo, Nuevo Laredo, Durango, Ciudad Obregón, Mexicali, Los Mochis, Topolobampo, Mazatlán, Irapuato-Salamanca, Celaya, Aguascalientes-Jesús María, Tepic-Xalisco, Tuxtla-Gutiérrez, Xalapa-Banderillas-Coatepec, Coatzacoalcos, Villahermosa and Cancún. Fifth tier (5,973,507 inhabitants): This tier includes Cuautla (Morelos), Tulancingo (Hidalgo), Tlaxcala (Tlaxcala), Apizaco (Tlaxcala), Tehuacán (Puebla), and another 25 cities. These cities shape population centres and small regions in their own states and are distributed throughout the country. Sixth tier (5,973,507 inhabitants): This tier includes Atlixco (Puebla) and another 51 locations. This group’s small influence is limited to towns nearby. Source: L. Herrera, W. Pecht and F. Olivares, “Crecimiento urbano de América Latina: mapas y planos de ciudades”, serie E, No. 22, Santiago, Chile, Latin American Demographic Centre (CELADE), 1976; Secretariat of Social Development, Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano y Ordenación del Territorio 2001-2006, Mexico City, 2001; G. Garza, “La urbanización metropolitana en México: Normatividad y características socioeconómicas”, Papeles de población, April- June, No. 052, Toluca, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, April-June 2007 [online] http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/ pdf/112/11205204.pdf. In nearly all of the countries in the region, urbanization has significantly increased the number of cities making up urban systems, establishing alternatives and counterweights to the main city. The growing number of cities can be seen in table IX.1, which refers to the period 1950-2000, and in maps IX.1 and IX.2. Table IX.1 shows that in Latin America one third of the population lives in large cities, two thirds in cities of 20,000 inhabitants or more, and almost 80% in urban areas. Thus, most of the region’s urban population lives in cities or towns with fewer than one million inhabitants.
144 Table IX.1 LATIN AMERICA: NUMBER OF CITIES BY POPULATION SIZE, 1950-2000 Size 1950 a 1960 b 1970 c 1980 d 1990 e 2000 f Number Population Number Population Number Population Number Population Number Population Number Population 1,000,000 or more 6 16 121 704 10 30 159 270 19 58 202 286 26 89 629 921 37 119 340 999 47 g 156 219 434 500,000 to 999,999 5 3 209 130 13 9 124 459 17 11 491 650 26 18 049 868 33 22 210 323 44 30 328 031 100,000 to 499,999 51 11 215 663 75 14 939 296 133 26 546 840 191 38 144 478 226 47 659 577 299 62 841 816 50,000 to 99,999 65 4 416 455 106 7 128 145 154 10 772 495 198 13 489 087 292 20 530 868 398 28 165 024 20,000 to 49,999 193 5 816 115 293 8 936 450 450 13 635 695 634 19 423 954 835 25 879 080 1 175 35 874 277 Total 20,000 and over 320 40 779 067 497 70 287 620 773 120 648 966 1 075 178 737 308 1 423 235 620 847 1 963 313 428 582 Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - Population Division of ECLAC on the basis of information from Spatial distribution and urbanization in Latin America and the Caribbean (DEPUALC) database, 2009. a The 1950 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. b The 1960 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. c The 1970 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay. d The 1980 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. e The 1990 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay. f The 2000 figures reflect census data from Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay. g The city that would complete the list of 48 cities with one million or more inhabitants according to estimates made by the United Nations in 2000 (see table VI.2) is Kingston, which is not in the DEPUALC database because data is still lacking for most Caribbean countries (except Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti). Map IX.1 SOUTH AMERICA: NUMBER AND POPULATION SIZE OF CITIES, 1950 AND 2000 a -80 -60 -40 -80 -60 -40 1950 2000 0 0 0 20 20 20 40 40 40 -80 -60 -40 -80 -60 -40 Number of inhabitants 20,000 to 99,999 100,000 to 499,999 500,000 to 999,999 1,000,000 to 3,999,999 4,000,000 or more Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - Population Division of ECLAC, on the basis of information from Spatial distribution and urbanization in Latin America and the Caribbean (DEPUALC) database, 2009. a The boundaries and names shown on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Page 3 and 4:
Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary
Page 5 and 6:
4 Chapter VII Regional inequalities
Page 7 and 8:
6 Table V.3 Latin America (9 countr
Page 9 and 10:
8 Figure IV.10 Latin America (selec
Page 11 and 12:
10 Map VII.5 Plurinational State of
Page 13 and 14:
12 This document is therefore divid
Page 16 and 17:
15 Chapter II CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS
Page 18 and 19:
17 which guarantee comparability. C
Page 20 and 21:
19 social inclusion, with improveme
Page 22:
21 The above description is clearly
Page 25 and 26:
24 Table III.1 LATIN AMERICA AND TH
Page 27 and 28:
26 Table III.3 LATIN AMERICA (19 CO
Page 29 and 30:
28 While the rural population of La
Page 31 and 32:
30 Box IV.1 (concluded) In addition
Page 33 and 34:
32 As a result of the absolute and
Page 35 and 36:
34 The sustained decline in the rur
Page 37 and 38:
36 Country Table IV.2 LATIN AMERICA
Page 39 and 40:
38 Country Table IV.5 LATIN AMERICA
Page 41 and 42:
40 Box IV.3 THE AGEING OF THE RURAL
Page 43 and 44:
42 Rodríguez and Meneses (2011) co
Page 45 and 46:
44 The classification outlined in t
Page 47 and 48:
46 An analysis of the results obtai
Page 49 and 50:
48 Although the inhabitants of some
Page 51 and 52:
50 Non-agricultural employment has
Page 53 and 54:
52 C. PRODUCTION PATTERNS AND THE R
Page 55 and 56:
54 Box IV.5 IMPACTS OF SOYBEAN PROD
Page 57 and 58:
56 A recent study entitled Inserci
Page 59 and 60:
58 Table IV.11 LATIN AMERICA: POOR
Page 61 and 62:
60 Figure IV.7 POVERTY IN RURAL HOU
Page 63 and 64:
62 Box IV.6 (concluded) These and o
Page 65 and 66:
64 combine a number of factors of w
Page 67 and 68:
66 Figure IV.10 LATIN AMERICA (SELE
Page 69 and 70:
68 The data in figure IV.11 also sh
Page 71 and 72:
70 Figure IV.12 LATIN AMERICA: AVER
Page 73 and 74:
72 Box IV.8 ADOLESCENT FERTILITY IN
Page 75 and 76:
74 Map V.1 SOUTH AMERICA: POPULATIO
Page 77 and 78:
76 Prime examples of this include t
Page 79 and 80:
78 Table V.2 LATIN AMERICA (9 COUNT
Page 81 and 82:
80 creation of tax-free zones, the
Page 83 and 84:
82 Box V.2 (concluded) State polici
Page 85 and 86:
84 In any case, only once the infor
Page 87 and 88:
86 It is not possible to draw direc
Page 89 and 90:
88 studies was conducted recently b
Page 91 and 92:
90 C. THE POLITICAL CONTEXT AND MOB
Page 94 and 95: 93 Chapter VII REGIONAL INEQUALITIE
Page 96 and 97: 95 Map VII.2 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
Page 98 and 99: 97 Some of these programmes were su
Page 100 and 101: 99 D. TERRITORIAL EQUITY, REGIONAL
Page 102 and 103: 101 Map VII.3 CHILE: CLASSIFICATION
Page 104 and 105: 103 In Mexico, most of the chronica
Page 106 and 107: 105 Figure VII.3 ECUADOR: POVERTY R
Page 108 and 109: 107 However, internal migration can
Page 110 and 111: 109 Table VII.5 LATIN AMERICA (SELE
Page 112 and 113: 111 Table VII.7 PERU (SIERRA DEPART
Page 114 and 115: 113 Lastly, in the case of Ecuador,
Page 116 and 117: 115 Chapter VIII SUSTAINED URBANIZA
Page 118 and 119: 117 This chapter presents the most
Page 120 and 121: 119 Busso, 2009; and ECLAC-UN-HABIT
Page 122 and 123: 121 estimate of the urban populatio
Page 124 and 125: 123 Figure VIII.2 LATIN AMERICA AND
Page 126 and 127: 125 First, the region’s economy i
Page 128 and 129: 127 urbanized; the rural population
Page 130 and 131: 129 rural areas. According to the s
Page 132 and 133: 131 the absence of a strategic visi
Page 134 and 135: 133 The need to design ad hoc inter
Page 136 and 137: 135 settlements with low-income pop
Page 138 and 139: 137 Figure VIII.4 LATIN AMERICA AND
Page 140: 139 At the same time, decentralizat
Page 143: 142 The rest of the system of citie
Page 147 and 148: 146 First is the demographic scope
Page 149 and 150: 148 Basing the same series on towns
Page 151 and 152: 150 Table IX.2 LATIN AMERICA: PROSP
Page 153 and 154: 152 The data emerging from 2010 cen
Page 155 and 156: 154 City size Table IX.6 LATIN AMER
Page 157 and 158: 156 Figure IX.5 LATIN AMERICA (1,73
Page 159 and 160: 158 For unemployment, the picture i
Page 161 and 162: 160 rate differential among the dif
Page 163 and 164: 162 individuals valued cultural fac
Page 165 and 166: 164 that draw migrants, due precise
Page 167 and 168: 166 Table IX.10 LATIN AMERICA AND T
Page 170 and 171: 169 Chapter X TRENDS, MUTATIONS AND
Page 172 and 173: 171 Table X.2 LATIN AMERICA: EVOLUT
Page 174 and 175: 173 1. Demographic evolution of lar
Page 176 and 177: 175 As table X.4 shows, during the
Page 178 and 179: 177 comparison. But the most convin
Page 180 and 181: 179 in recent years, which are desc
Page 182 and 183: 181 Map X.2 MEXICO: INTERCENSAL GRO
Page 184 and 185: 183 irregular settlements known as
Page 186 and 187: 185 The third argument is based on
Page 188 and 189: 187 Map X.4 MEXICO CITY: EXTENDED M
Page 190 and 191: 189 more general social inequalitie
Page 192: 191 5. Concluding remarks: the grea
Page 195 and 196:
194 In view of lower internal migra
Page 197 and 198:
196 familiarity with surroundings a
Page 199 and 200:
198 connections; (ii) identify the
Page 201 and 202:
200 The report casts light on an is
Page 203 and 204:
202 Box XI.3 PROTECTING THE ECOSYST
Page 205 and 206:
204 In view of the above, the prima
Page 207 and 208:
206 overlap of functions and alloca
Page 209 and 210:
208 Many of the programmes develope
Page 211 and 212:
210 A breakdown of net migration by
Page 213 and 214:
212 Box XI.8 (concluded) Case studi
Page 216 and 217:
215 Bibliography Abba, Artemio Pedr
Page 218 and 219:
217 Cecchini, S. and A. Madariaga (
Page 220 and 221:
219 (2010a), Time for equality: clo
Page 222 and 223:
221 Hiebert, Daniel and David Ley (
Page 224 and 225:
223 Pendall, R., R. Puentes and J.
Page 226 and 227:
225 Rodríguez, J. and M. Villa (19
show all

Population, territory and sustainable development

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?