Population, territory and sustainable development

More documents

Info

147 Third, the complexity and diversity of the system of cities have grown, as the number of cities in each category increased. For example, the number of cities with 20,000 and more inhabitants rose from 320 in 1950 to 2,000 in 1963. Fourth, since 1980 the percentage of cities in the lowest segment of the urban hierarchy has stabilized. These are places with between 2,000 and 19,999 inhabitants where living conditions may be more like those of the countryside than the city. Because there are so many (and because the DEPUALC database groups them in a single category), it is difficult to provide a more detailed profile of their diverse characteristics. Taking as the universe the population living in towns with 2,000 or more inhabitants yields a more exact idea of how urban structure has changed. 3 The most significant finding shown in figure IX.2 is the rapid growth of medium-sized cities, especially in the past 30 years. The weight of large cities within the urban system has remained virtually constant since 1980. The percentage of towns with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants has also tended to remain at around 18%, after strong declines posted during the first two decades (in 1950 they accounted for 28.6% of the urban population). Together, these trends suggest that 41.2% of the urban population lives in medium-sized cities (20,000 to 999,999 inhabitants), making this the most populous segment of the system of human settlements. Figure IX.2 LATIN AMERICA: BREAKDOWN OF THE POPULATION LIVING IN LOCALITIES WITH 2,000 OR MORE INHABITANTS, 1950-2000 (Percentages) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2,000 to 19,999 20,000 to 49,999 100,000 to 499,999 500,000 to 999,999 50,000 to 99,999 One million 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, 2010. 3 These criteria are used for comparative purposes because (a) the chapter on urbanization notes that this leads to figures and realities very similar to those obtained from the data using the census definition of urban; (b) in operational terms, it provides for relative structures that always add up to exactly 100%.
148 Basing the same series on towns with 2,000 or more inhabitants (and not the total population or official urban population, as done traditionally) provides new insight into demographic patterns in categories of cities according to population size. The proportion of a broad range of medium-tier cities has remained rather constant over the past 50 years, peaking in 1960 at 43.8% (versus 41.2% in 2000). This finding contradicts the dominant view, cited at the start of this chapter, concerning the rapid growth of medium-sized cities. Although this segment increased slightly within the overall system between 1980 and the present, the general trend is towards stability. Previous censuses (1950 to 1970) had shown a marked increase in the proportion of big cities, so subsequent stabilization might have exaggerated the rapid growth of middle-sized cities. There is another explanation for these figures. Reclassification has pushed the portion living in the top segment (large cities) up by adding cities that pass the threshold of one million inhabitants. Since this reclassification applies to the other segments of the system, and in both directions (entering and exiting, not just entering as occurs with the top segment), the overall shift in the relative structure of the system of human settlements presented in figures IX.1 and IX.2 could be biased. That is, it is real but does not distinguish between the growth of large cities at the start of the period and the inclusion of new cities at the end. In fact, and in contradiction to the conclusions derived from the overall analysis, figure IX.3 shows that there is a negative correlation between city size in 1950 and the pace of growth during 1950- 2000. On average, then, in 1950 the smaller cities grew the fastest. So, they did not remain small but rather became medium-sized and large cities and showed as such in cross-cutting measurements. This pattern has two explanations (one substantive, the other statistical), which prevents identifying any causal relationship between initial size and growth. The substantive explanation is that high growth is usually hard to sustain once a certain size threshold has been reached, because diseconomies of scale and diverse types of congestion appear. The second explanation, which is more useful from a methodology perspective, is the large and significant bias in the 1950 small city sample, since by definition they grew to over 20,000 inhabitants in the second half of the twentieth century. In other words, they were small in 1950 but already rapidly growing. Thus, this analysis does not take in the large majority of small cities with low growth in 1950 that did not cross the threshold of 20,000 inhabitants. Tables IX.2 and IX.3 use prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies according to sizebased cohorts of cities in a final effort to separate the effect of cities’ own growth from growth derived from adding more cities. The main finding arising from table IX.2 (prospective approach, that is, for cities according to their size in 1950) is that cities with one million or more inhabitants in 1950 4 grew the least in 1950-2000, while cities in the other size categories grew at very similar rates, about 3.7% annually, on average. The figures for relative distribution confirm this point, revealing that this is the only group of cities whose share of the total urban population fell sharply (from 26.1% to 17.0%). Table IX.3 (retrospective longitudinal approach, that is, taking all cities according to their size in 2000, keeping them in that size category, and tracking them backwards) yields different results: the similarity and slightly higher growth rate of middle-sized cities ranging from 50,000 to fewer than one million inhabitants. 4 There are only six such cities: Mexico City, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago and Havana. Montevideo should be included, but the censuses conducted by Uruguay in the 1950s are not in the DEPUALC database.
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 and 144: 142 The rest of the system of citie
Page 145 and 146: 144 Table IX.1 LATIN AMERICA: NUMBE
Page 147: 146 First is the demographic scope
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?