Delimiting the Physical City: Disparities Between Various Methods of Calculating Population Densities∗

Buckwalter, Donald W.; Rugg, Dean S.

doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1986.00258.x

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that case the changes in population density depend solely on the number of inhabitants since the administrative area of the city usually remains more or less stable over time. The traditional population density figure is very sensitive to the size of the city (Buckwalter and Rugg, 1986) and one must be cautions when comparing the net population densities in various cities, since the administrative areas of cities vary so considerably. In some cases administrative cities are large and they comprise broad forest and/or agricultural areas in the border zones.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are European cities becoming dispersed?

Kasanko

Barredo

Lavalle

et al. 2006

Landscape and Urban Planning

555

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are European cities becoming dispersed?

Kasanko

Barredo

Lavalle

et al. 2006

Landscape and Urban Planning

555

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For geographers, the validity of methods for distinguishing among rural, suburban, and urban places is a function of the extent to which political boundaries (i.e., city limits or county lines) “reflect the actual spatial extent” (Buckwalter and Rugg :258) of places such that the physical landscape is truly divided into settlement types. A mismatch between political boundaries and settlement types can be characterized as involving either “overbounding” or “underbounding.” Overbounding occurs when the political boundaries around one type of settlement capture spaces characteristic of an alternative type of settlement (Feldt ).…”

Section: Limitations Of the Ncvs Settlement Type Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate Partner Violence in Small Towns, Dispersed Rural Areas, and Other Locations: Estimates Using a Reconception of Settlement Type

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current understanding of victimization of those in rural settlements compared to other types of settlements is limited by inadequate classifications of settlement types. The typical approach—one based on the incorrect use of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s classification of metropolitan areas—may mask important variations in the incidence of violent victimization, and in part explain mixed results related to this issue. To investigate this, we detail problems with following the typical approach, and then describe an alternative measure of settlement type. We next use this alternative settlement type measure to estimate the incidence of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women from 1992–2015 National Crime Victimization Survey data. Over the period examined, the incidence of IPV was highest for women living in small towns (11.4 per 1,000). In contrast, women living in dispersed rural settlements (7.9 per 1,000) shared rates with those in suburbs (7.9 per 1,000) and exurbs (7.1 per 1,000) while reporting rates lower than those of women residing in the urban core (9.7 per 1,000). These results provide clarity to earlier research on the incidence of IPV across settlement types and they call into question the salience of geographic isolation as a determinant of IPV in nonmetropolitan locales.

show abstract

“…1 National differences in classifying areas as urban are likely to cause substantial variation in the percentage of the land area in urban designated areas. The choice of geographic unit of analysis and definitional criteria and methodology can result in varying degrees of 'overbounding' or 'underbounding,' sometimes within the same area (Buckwalter and Rugg 1986). Social scientists interested in analyzing demographic characteristics of the urban population often use measures based larger administrative units, for which a greater amount of data exist.…”

Section: Urbanizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring population pressure on the landscape: comparative GIS studies in China, India, and the United States

Rain

Long²,

Ratcliffe

2007

Popul Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures of the effects of population pressure on the landscape using traditional methods for classifying urban territory are inadequate. The crude scale at which population densities are calculated and dependence on country-specific administration divisions hinder their ability to address such questions as the environmental impacts of cities and suburbs and make cross-national comparisons particularly difficult. This paper examines comparative urbanization measures among three case studies: the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong Province of China, the Indian state of Kerala, and the southern part of Florida in the United States. It proposes a measure based on the distribution of local population densities, taking advantage of the detailed data on small area populations and land area available in modern censuses and model-derived population databases such as LandScan, and the increasing potential of spatial analysis using geographic information systems (GIS). Examined with a similar set of thresholds, the resulting density distributions offer the potential to show better the ecological effects of population than do traditional measures.

show abstract

Delimiting the Physical City: Disparities Between Various Methods of Calculating Population Densities∗

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Are European cities becoming dispersed?

Are European cities becoming dispersed?

Intimate Partner Violence in Small Towns, Dispersed Rural Areas, and Other Locations: Estimates Using a Reconception of Settlement Type

Measuring population pressure on the landscape: comparative GIS studies in China, India, and the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About