Population, territory and sustainable development

More documents

Info

171 Table X.2 LATIN AMERICA: EVOLUTION OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF THE POPULATION OF THE METROPOLITAN MADs OR CAPITAL CITIES IN THE NATIONAL POPULATION, 1950-2000 Country Major administrative division 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Argentina Buenos Aires 45.6 48.6 50.3 49.3 47.7 45.8 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) La Paz 31.4 31.8 29.6 28.4 Brazil Rio de Janeiro 9.1 9.4 9.7 9.5 8.7 8.5 8.4 São Paulo 17.7 18.3 19.1 21 21.5 21.8 21.6 Chile Metropolitan Region (Santiago) 28.7 32.1 35.5 38.1 39.4 40.1 Colombia Cundinamarca (Bogota) 19.5 16.2 17.6 19.3 19.9 21.7 Costa Rica San José 35.2 36.5 37.1 36.8 35.3 Cuba Havana 27.8 27 25.9 26.1 Ecuador Pichincha (Quito) 12.1 12.9 15.2 17 18.1 19.8 17.8 Guayas 18.2 21.5 23.2 25.0 25.9 27.4 25.2 El Salvador San Salvador 16 18.4 20.6 29.5 27.3 Guatemala Guatemala City 15.7 18.9 21.5 21.7 21.8 22.6 Department of L’Ouest Haiti (Port-au-Prince) 21.1 27.9 30.7 37 Honduras Francisco Morazán (Tegucigalpa) 13.8 15.1 17.1 18.4 18.1 Federal District and Mexico State of Mexico 17.2 19.4 22.2 24.5 22.2 22.3 21.4 Nicaragua Managua 15.3 20.8 25.9 25.1 24.6 Panama Panama City 30.8 34.6 40.4 44.8 46 48.9 50.3 Paraguay Asunción 27.1 28.5 29.3 31.4 32.9 36.3 Peru Lima 14.6 22.7 28 30.5 31.9 34 Dominican Republic National District (Santo Domingo) 11.2 15.3 20.3 27.6 30.1 31.9 Uruguay Montevideo 56.3 56 56.7 56.5 55.9 Venezuela Capital District, Miranda, (Bolivarian Republic of) Vargas (Caracas) 19.6 23.3 25.3 24.1 22 19.4 Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of Spatial distribution and urbanization in Latin America and the Caribbean (DEPUALC) database. First, according to census data from the 2000s, levels of demographic concentration in these MADs were observed to remain high. In fact, four metropolitan MADs were home to over 40% of the population in their respective countries: Montevideo, Panama City, Buenos Aires and the Metropolitan Region of Santiago. Also high on the list were the Department of L’Ouest (Haiti), Asuncion, San Jose, Lima and the National District (Santo Domingo), which had 30% to 40% of the total national population. In contrast, Pichincha, the Capital District in Venezuela and Francisco Morazán were home to less than 20% of the population of their respective countries. The main conclusion that can be drawn from table X.2 is that —with the exception of the MADs in which La Paz, Río de Janeiro, Havana, Montevideo and Caracas are located— the population in the vast majority of the metropolitan MADs came to represent a larger percentage of the total over the period between 1950 and the most recent census for which data is available. However, an analysis of the trend across the entire period points to a virtual tie between the metropolitan MADs that experienced sustained growth, which suggests that measures taken to reduce concentration, where such measures have been
172 taken, have had little effect, and those that reached a peak level of concentration during the period, but whose relative importance has now started to decline. This means that only some countries are showing signs of a gradual process of demographic deconcentration coupled with sharper growth in nonmetropolitan MADs. The results of the 2010 censuses bear out the unevenness of trends between countries. Panama is the country with the greatest degree of concentration, and the trend is persistent, with the province of Panamá now home, for the first time, to 50% of the country’s population. Meanwhile, Mexico has resumed the process of deconcentration initiated in the 1980s, and for the first time the pattern of concentration in Ecuador has reversed, both in Pichincha and Guayas. Of course, this picture of increasing concentration, no longer uniform according to the figures in table X.2, changes drastically when the relative weight of population of the MADs in the total urban population is analysed inasmuch as there are few metropolitan MADs in which this indicator increased in comparison with 1950 and none in which there was a sustained increase across the entire period. This reflects how geographically indiscriminate the urbanization process has been, extending to every MAD in the region’s countries. Table X.3 LATIN AMERICA: EVOLUTION OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF THE POPULATION OF THE METROPOLITAN MADs OR CAPITAL CITIES IN THE TOTAL URBAN POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY, 1950-2000 Country Major administrative division (MAD) 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Argentina Buenos Aires 73.0 65.9 63.7 59.5 54.7 50.6 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) La Paz 92.7 76.1 51.4 45.5 Río de Janeiro 24.9 21.1 17.3 14.0 11.5 10.4 9.9 Brazil São Paulo 48.6 40.9 34.1 31.1 28.5 26.8 25.6 Chile Metropolitan Region (Santiago) 47.3 47.1 47.3 46.4 47.2 46.3 Colombia Cundinamarca (Bogota) 45.5 31.0 29.8 28.7 28.1 28.6 Costa Rica a San José 105.1 105.9 91.5 82.8 59.8 Cuba Havana 50.5 44.4 37.5 34.4 Pichincha (Quito) 42.3 36.5 36.6 34.6 32.9 32.3 28.3 Ecuador Guayas 63.7 60.7 56.0 51.0 47.0 44.7 40.1 El Salvador San Salvador 43.8 47.9 52.2 58.6 43.5 Guatemala Guatemala City 63.0 56.2 59.0 66.2 62.2 49.0 Haiti a Department of L’Ouest (Port-au-Prince) 172.7 138.0 125.2 90.6 Honduras Francisco Morazán (Tegucigalpa) 44.7 49.6 45.8 47.5 39.7 Mexico Federal District and State of Mexico 40.5 38.2 37.8 37.0 31.1 29.8 27.8 Nicaragua Managua 43.7 50.8 54.2 46.1 43.9 Panama Panama City 85.7 83.5 84.9 88.9 85.7 78.5 77.3 Paraguay Asunción 78.3 79.5 79.0 73.5 65.5 64.0 Peru Lima 41.4 47.8 47.1 46.8 45.5 44.8 Dominican Republic National District (Santo Domingo) 46.9 50.0 51.1 53.2 53.6 50.1 Uruguay Montevideo 69.5 67.2 64.9 62.3 60.9 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Capital District, Miranda, Vargas (Caracas) 40.9 37.2 34.7 30.1 26.0 21.4 Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of Spatial distribution and urbanization in Latin America and the Caribbean (DEPUALC) database. a Percentages over 100% indicate that the total population of the metropolitan MAD is greater than the total urban population of the country.
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?