Compact city policies:
a comparative assessment applying a new
definition of “urban”
TADASHI MATSUMOTO
Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD)
Presentation at the RSA European Conference 2012
May 15, 2012, Delft, the Netherlands
Redefining “urban”: a new way
to measure metropolitan areas
The OECD has developed a new approach to
classifying urban areas
3 billion and counting of the world’s population live in some form of
urban area. But around the world we don’t have the same definitions or
understandings of what these urban areas are.
1. The new OECD classification, developed with the European
Commission and member countries, identifies urban areas
beyond city boundaries, as integrated labour market areas.
2. It is applied to 28 countries and identifies 1 148 urban areas of
different size: small urban, medium-sized urban, metropolitan and
large metropolitan
3. It allows comparisons among the different forms that
urbanisation takes (densely populated centres and their
hinterlands, sprawling, polycentric connected cities, etc.)
Urban systems in a country comprise cities of different size
Korea
Old measurement method:
3 Large metropolitan regions
New measurement method:
45 Functional urban areas of different
size
Seoul
Daegu
Busan
Two-thirds of the OECD population live in urban areas,
but the urban experience is very different in each country
•Around 65% of the urban population in Korea live in large metropolitan areas;
•In most European countries around 25% of urban population live in medium-sized areas
Small urban areas
Medium-sized urban areas
Metropolitan areas
Large metropolitan areas
Korea
Denmark
Greece
Japan
United States
Hungary
Austria
Canada
OECD 28
Portugal
Mexico
Italy
Sweden
Belgium
France
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Spain
Germany
Poland
Netherlands
Estonia
Slovenia
Ireland
Switzerland
Norway
Finland
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentage of urban population by city size (2008)
90%
100%
48% of the OECD population live in the 264 urban areas with
a population of at least 500 000 (metro area) and these areas
account for 53% of OECD GDP
80%
OECD (28)
Asia (2)
68.6%
60%
North America (3)
Europe (23)
70.1%
57.9%
53.4%
52.3%
47.9%
42.7%
40%
0%
# of metro areas
264
46
105
Percentage of population and GDP in metro areas
(2008)
113
GDP
POPULATION
GDP
POPULATION
GDP
POPULATION
GDP
POPULATION
20%
35.7%
The urban population keeps growing, particularly in
the hinterlands of large metropolitan areas
2.5%
Functional urban area
Core
Hinterland
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Small urban areas (pop between Medium-sized urban areas (pop Metropolitan areas (pop between Large metropolitan areas (pop
50,000 and 200,000)
between 200,000 and 500,000)
500,000 and 1.5 mln)
above 1.5 mln)
Population growth 2000-2006 by city type and core/hinterland
(average yearly growth rates)
The most dynamic metro areas are driven by different growth models
6%
Centro (MEX)
moderate
population
growth and
high GDP
per capita
growth
moderate
population
and GDP
per capita
growth
Annual average GDP per capita growth rate
(2000-2008)
Praha (CZE)
high
population
and GDP per
capita
growth
Changwon (KOR)
5%
New Orleans (USA)
Budapest (HUN)
Athina (GRC)
4%
Edmunton (CAN)
Veracruz (MEX)
Querétaro (MEX)
Tulsa (USA)
3%
Duisburg (DEU)
San Luis Potosí (MEX)
Calgary (CAN)
Monterrey (MEX)
Portsmouth (GBR)
Edinburgh (GBR)
El Paso (USA)
Hermosillo (MEX)
Baton Rouge (USA)
Helsinki (FIN)
Málaga (ESP)
Essen (DEU)
London (GBR)
Dresden (DEU)
Leipzig (DEU)
2%
Dortmund (DEU)
San Antonio (USA)
Karlsruhe (DEU)
Fort Worth (USA)
Dallas (USA)
Houston (USA)
Münster (DEU)
Tampa (USA)
Paris (FRA)
Tucson (USA)
Palermo (ITA)
Portland (USA) Toulouse (FRA)
Bonn (DEU)
Salt Lake City (USA)
Lyon (FRA) Vancouver (CAN)
Naha (JPN)
Denver (USA)
Rennes (FRA)
1%
Orlando (USA)
Las Vegas (USA)
Austin (USA)
Roma (ITA)
Phoenix (USA)
0%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
high
population
growth and
moderate
GDP per
capita growth
Annual average population growth rate (2000-2008)
Population and GDP per capita growth in the 61 fastest -growing metro areas (with GDP growth
25% higher than the country average GDP growth)
Challenges
• Adapt the definition of urban areas to all
more countries (data availability)
• Develop more indicators with the new
definition (data availability)
• Apply to policy analysis (gap between the
new definition and unit of policy)
Compact city policies: an
application of the new urban
definition
Outline of the study
1. To better understand the compact city concept
and the implications of today’s urban contexts
2. To better understand potential outcomes,
particularly in terms of Green Growth
3. To develop indicators to monitor compact cities
4. To examine current compact city practices in
OECD
5. To propose key compact city strategies
Compact City?
Not at a city scale, but the metropolitan scale:
Dense and proximate
development patterns
Urban areas linked by
public transport systems
Accessibility to local
services and jobs
•Urban land is intensively
utilised
•Urban agglomerations are
contiguous or close
together
•Distinct border between
urban and rural land use
•Public spaces are secured
•Effective use of urban land
•Public transport systems
facilitate mobility in urban
areas
•Land use is mixed
•Most residents have
access to local services
either on foot or using
public transport
Key urban trends: drivers for
compact city
1. Urbanisation and the increasing need to
conserve land resources
2. The threat of climate change to cities
3. The rise in energy prices
4. The challenge of sustainable economic growth
5. Demographic trend: declining population,
ageing and smaller households in cities
Land is consumed at a faster rate…
OECD
700 000
BRICs
Rest of the world
Urban built-up area (in km²)
600 000
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
…than population growth
1.8%
Ireland
Annual average total built-up area growth rate (2000-2050)
1.6%
1.4%
Turkey
Israel
1.2%
Luxembourg
United States
1.0%
Australia
Mexico
0.8%
Canada
Chile
Portugal
Norway
New Zealand
Finland
0.6%
Greece
0.4%
Slovak Republic
0.2%
Hungary
Germany
0.0%
Japan
Poland
-0.2%
-0.6%
-0.4%
France Switzerland
Austria
Spain
Netherlands Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy
Slovenia
Iceland
Denmark
Belgium
Korea
Estonia
-0.2%
Czech Republic
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
Annual average total population growth rate (2000-2050)
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Energy price affects location choice
Coal
150
Real index for industry and household
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
Electricity (kWh)
Oil Products
Total energy
More demands for smaller houses…
Average household size
1980
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2008
…and urban living
Percentage of one-person households
1980
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2008
The contribution of the compact city
to urban sustainability
Sub-characteristics of the
compact city
1. Shorter intra-urban travel
distances
2. Less automobile
dependency
3. More district-wide energy
utilisation and local energy
generation
4. Optimum use of land
resources and more
opportunity for urban-rural
linkage
5. More efficient public
service delivery
Environmental benefits
– Fewer CO2 emissions
– Less pollution from
automobiles
– Fewer CO2 emissions
– Less pollution from
automobiles
– Less energy consumption per
capita, fewer CO2 emissions
– Conservation of farmlands
and natural biodiversity
– Fewer CO2 emissions due to
shorter food travel mileage
–
6. Better access to a diversity
of local services and jobs
–
Contribution to urban sustainability
Social benefits
Economic benefits
– Greater accessibility due to
– Higher productivity due to
lower cost
shorter travel time for workers
– Lower transport costs
– Higher mobility for people
without access to a car
– Improved human health due
to more cycling and walking
–
– Higher quality of life due to
more recreational activities
– Public service level for social
welfare maintained by
improved efficiency
– Higher quality of life due to
access to local services
(shops, hospitals, etc.)
– Development of green jobs/
technologies
– Development of green
jobs/technologies
– More energy independence
– Rural economic development
(urban agriculture, renewable
energy, etc.)
– Lower infrastructure
investments and cost of
maintenance
– Skilled labour force attracted
by high quality of life
– Greater productivity due to
more diversity, vitality,
innovation and creativity
Lower expenditure on public service
Walkability to local service
Distance to
the nearest
medical
facilities
100%
90%
80%
Dwellings within 500m
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Nagoya
Aichi
Gifu
10%
0%
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
Population density (persons/km²)
10 000
Measuring the performance of
compact city: proposed indicators
Category
Indicators related Dense and proximate
to compactness
development patterns
Indicators related
to the impact of
compact city
policies
Indicator
1. Population and urban land growth
2. Population density on urban land
3. Retrofitting existing urban land
4. Intensive use of buildings
5. Housing form
6. Trip distance
7. Urban land cover
Urban areas linked by
8. Trips using public transport
public transport systems 9. Proximity to public transport
Accessibility to local
10. Matching jobs and homes
services and jobs
11. Matching local services and homes
12. Proximity to local services
13. Trips on foot and by bicycle
Environmental
14. Public space and green areas
15. Transport energy use
16. Residential energy use
Social
17. Affordability
Economic
18. Public service
Population and urban land growth, 2000-2006
4.0%
3.5%
Annual average urban land growth rate (2000-2006)
3.0%
2.5%
Madrid
Atlanta
2.0%
Phoenix
Denver
Lisbon
Houston
1.5%
Sendai
1.0%
Tokyo
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Fukuoka
Sapporo
Sacramento/Roseville
Chicago
Dallas
Washington
Nagoya
Kansas City
Osaka
0.5%
Milano
Boston
Lyon
Baltimore
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Detroit
0.0%
-1.0%
-0.5%
Rome
Copenhagen
Cleveland
Orlando
San Antonio
Columbus
Barcelona
Marseilles Seattle
Portland
Paris
Naples
Brussels
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Annual average population growth rate (2000-2006)
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Population density on urban land
Density in urban land based on LandScan (pop/ km²)
Density in total land based on LandScan (pop/ km²)
New York
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Boston
San Francisco
Miami
Baltimore
San Diego
Detroit
Chicago
Sacramento-Roseville
Washington
Phoenix
Denver
Dallas
Houston
Cleveland
Portland
Seattle
Milwaukee
Atlanta
Minneapolis
Orlando
San Antonio
Cincinnati
Saint Louis
Columbus
Kansas City
0
0 500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
Urban land cover as an indicator of
urban development patterns
Athens (3.4 million)
Atlanta (4.6 million)
3-D density map
Density gradient graph
Vancouver (Canada)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-5
5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Distance from the centre (km)
High (>=5000 pop/km2)
Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)
Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)
30-
All
Share of grid cells by density level in urban land
Share of grid cells by density in urban land
Portland (US)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-5
5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
30-
Distance from the centre (km)
High (>=5000 pop/km2)
Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)
Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)
All
Median commute distance
for selected metropolitan areas in Canada, 1996-2006
10
Median commute distance (km)
9
Toronto CMA
8
Calgary CMA
Montreal CMA
7
Edmonton CMA
Vancouver CMA
Victoria CMA
6
Canada
5
4
1996
2006
Population living close to transport
stations/network
Toyama
Within rail service (800 m)
29.8%
Within bus service (400 m)
63.7%
Within bus service (800 m)
Vancouver
Within rapid transit (800 m)
Within FTN (400 m)
Within bus service (400 m)
83.9%
13.8%
42.2%
97.7%
Matching local services and homes
Melbourne
Vancouver
Policy practices in use
Regulatory / informative
Fiscal
 Master plan with explicit compact
city goals / instruments
 Urban design guidelines
 Urban growth boundary / urban
containment boundary
 Greenbelt
 Urban service boundary
 Agricultural / natural land reserve
 Minimum density requirement
 Mixed-use requirement
 Restriction on green-field
development
 Restricting location of facilities
causing high trip frequency
 Taxation of underdensity
 Congestion tax /
fee / charges
 Subsidies for
densification
 Tax incentives for
promoting
development near
transit stations
 Location Efficient
Mortgage
 Split-rate property
tax
Source: OECD compact city survey
Public
investment /
partnership
 Purchasing
land for
natural
reserve
 Development
agreement for
dense/mixeduse
development
The five key policy strategies
1. Set explicit compact
city goals
• Establish a national urban policy framework that includes compact city
policies
• Encourage metropolitan-wide strategic planning
2. Encourage dense
and proximate
development
• Increase effectiveness of regulatory tools
• Target compact urban development in greenfield areas
• Set minimum density requirements for new development
• Establish mechanisms to reconcile conflicts of interests
• Strengthen urban-rural linkage
3. Retrofit existing
built-up areas
• Promote brownfield development
• Harmonise industrial policies with compact city policies
• Regenerate existing residential areas
• Promote transit-oriented development in built-up areas
• Encourage “intensification” of existing urban assets
4. Enhance diversity
and quality of life
• Promote mixed-land use
• Improve the match between residents and local services and jobs
• Encourage focused investment in public space and foster a “sense of
place”
• Promote a walking and cycling environment
5. Minimise adverse
negative effects
• Counteract traffic congestion
• Encourage the provision of afforable housing
• Promote high-quality urban design to lower “perceived” density
• Encourage the greening of built-up areas
Key governance strategies
• A vision: region-wide, integrated, long-term
• Articulate the roles and responsibilities of all
key actors and stakeholders in the vision
• Vertical and horizontal coordination
• Accountability, transparency and reporting
Conclusions
• Importance of finer definition of “urban
areas”, and smarter use of it
• Policy design and implementation at these
metropolitan level - governance is key
(vision, data management, finance, etc.)
• Innovative data collection technique (GIS,
remote sensing tools, etc.) helps
Find out more:
OECD (2012), Redefining urban: a new way to measure
metropolitan areas, OECD Publishing.
www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban
OECD (2012), Compact City Policies: A Comparative
Assessment, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167865-en
For more information on OECD work on regional and metropolitan statistics,
visit: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/statisticsindicators
For more information on OECD work on urban development,
visit: www.oecd.org/gov/urbandevelopment
Thank you
Tadashi.Matsumoto@oecd.org