Population and Employment Densities: Structure and Change

Small, Kenneth A.; Song, Shunfeng

doi:10.1006/juec.1994.1037

Cited by 193 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this assumption cannot fit reality. When investigating the spatial distribution of employment, many studies assume that employment distribution is similar to population distribution, but more concentrated in the city center [47]. To capture this dynamic, a negative exponential model has been widely used.…”

Section: Identifying Subcentersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monocentric or Polycentric? The Urban Spatial Structure of Employment in Beijing

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The spatial structure of Beijing has changed dramatically since the reforms of the late 1970s. It is not clear, however, whether these changes have been sufficient to transform the city's monocentric spatial structure into a polycentric one. This paper uses 2010 enterprise registered data to investigate the spatial distribution of employment in Beijing. Using a customized grid to increase the spatial resolution of our results, we explore the city's employment density distribution and investigate potential employment subcenters. This leads to several findings. First, Beijing still has strong monocentric characteristics; second, the city has a very large employment center rather than a small central business district; third, five subcenters are identified, including four in the suburbs; and fourth, a polycentric model that includes these subcenters possesses more explanatory power than a simple monocentric model, but by only four percentage. We conclude that the spatial structure of Beijing is still quite monocentric, but may be in transition to a polycentric pattern.

show abstract

Section: Identifying Subcentersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monocentric or Polycentric? The Urban Spatial Structure of Employment in Beijing

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most widely recognized reasons for decentralization relate to suburbanization and the attractiveness of open space and privacy, of lower densities and lower real estate costs and increased auto accessibility perceived to accompany relocation to the suburbs by businesses and résidents alike. As they pertain to North American cities in gênerai, thèse conditions hâve been clearly documented (see, for example, Berry and Kim, 1993;Borchert, 1991;Erickson, 1983;Ford, 1991;Garreau, 1991;Gottdiener, 1994;Gottdiener and Klephart, 1991;Henderson and Slade, 1993;Kling, Olin and Poster, 1991;Lewis, 1983;Rowe, 1991;Small and Song, 1994;Soja, 1989;Vance, 1990;Waddell and Shukla, 1993).…”

Section: Central-area Decline and Revitalization Amidst Overall Trendmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Patterns of Residential Centrality : Population and Household Shift in Large Canadian CMAs, 1971-1996.

Bunting

Filion²,

Priston³

2005

cgq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article se penche sur l'évolution, entre 1971 et 1996, des régions métropolitaines canadiennes dont la population atteint ou excède 500 000 personnes. Il se sert de gradients mesurant la densité résidentielle ainsi que des changements de population dans différentes zones d'urbanisation afin d'illustrer les tendances ayant trait à la centralité résidentielle au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années. Cette recherche indique que toutes les régions métropolitaines analysées ont connu, avec divers degrés d'intensité, une tendance à la décentralisation. Lorsque les changements de population dans le centre-ville et les quartiers centraux sont considérés de pair avec un nivellement des gradients de densité, seule Vancouver montre des signes incontestables de recentralisation. Trois autres régions, Toronto, Victoria et Calgary, jouissent aussi d'une hausse de population dans leurs quartiers centraux. Bien que souffrant d'une forte baisse de population, la densité de ces secteurs demeure élevée à Montréal et Québec. Leur centralité est cependant résiduelle, legs des fortes densités du passé. La prise en compte des ménages plutôt que des résidents montre que toutes les régions métropolitaines examinées dans cette recherche ont fait l'objet de nouvelles constructions dans leurs secteurs centraux. Selon les données employées, nous observons une décentralisation ou une certaine centralisation des régions métropolitaines. La principale conclusion de cet article est que la recentralisation des régions métropolitaines est fortement associée à leur prospérité et à leur taux de croissance.The research focuses on Canadian CMAs with populations of 500 000 or greater over the period 1971-1996. It uses population density gradients and enumeration of population and household shift to assess changing patterns of residential centrality over the twenty-five year period. Results indicate that all of the CMAs examined have experienced continued outward dispersion, some more so than others. When population change in core and inner-city zones is examined in conjunction with reduced density gradients, only one Canadian metropolitan area, Vancouver, shows indisputable signs of strong recentralization. Three other CMAs, Toronto, Victoria and Calgary, also experience some re-population of their central parts, while Montréal and Québec City are shown to maintain what we call "residual" centrality. However, when recentralization is gauged using household enumeration instead of population counts, all of the places studied show evidence of new housing production in the central city. The answer to the central question regarding residential centrality is thus a mixed one, yes and no. Overall, we conclude that there is a direct link between evolutionary patterns within the national urban System and changes observed in residential centrality. Whatever the measure used, highest rates of recentralization accompany strong metropolitan-wide growth over the 25-year period

show abstract

“…The first is a single minimum density cutoff point method (Giuliano and Small, 1991; and Song, 1994;McMillen and McDonald, 1998;Cervero and Wu, 1998;Bogart and Ferry, 1999). The second is a nonparametric method (McMillen, 2001(McMillen, , 2003Craig and Ng, 2001).…”

Section: Employment Center Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Urban Containment Policies on Commuting Patterns

Kwon¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past several decades, most U.S. metropolitan areas have experienced strong suburbanization of housing and jobs (i.e., urban sprawl). The sprawl that arises from urban growth has become a big issue in many metropolitan areas in the U.S. In response, there has been increased interest in urban containment policies. There are contrasting views (planning-oriented vs. market-oriented) of urban sprawl and urban containment policies. Planning-oriented scholars asserted the problems of 'geographic sprawl (GS)' and the positive effects of urban containment polices, while market-oriented scholars asserted the problems of 'economic sprawl (ES)' and the negative or negligible effects of urban containment policies. Therefore, this dissertation analyzed whether urban containment policies affect urban sprawl, employment center formation, and urban commuting.The results of this dissertation indicate that urban containment policies play an important role in affecting urban sprawl, employment center formation, and urban commuting, as well as explaining the contrasting views (planning-oriented vs. marketoriented) of urban containment policies. Implementing urban containment policies can produce positive effects such as compact development, which can promote J-H balance.However, as seen in the relationship between urban containment policies, urban sprawl and housing values, stronger urban containment policies can produce negative effects, such as traffic congestion and an increase in housing prices.ii Acknowledgements

show abstract

Population and Employment Densities: Structure and Change

Cited by 193 publications

References 16 publications

Monocentric or Polycentric? The Urban Spatial Structure of Employment in Beijing

Monocentric or Polycentric? The Urban Spatial Structure of Employment in Beijing

Changing Patterns of Residential Centrality : Population and Household Shift in Large Canadian CMAs, 1971-1996.

The Effects of Urban Containment Policies on Commuting Patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About