Compact city policies:a comparative assessment applying a new

definition of “urban”

TADASHI MATSUMOTOOrganisation for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD)

Presentation at the RSA European Conference 2012May 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

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.)

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.

Urban systems in a country comprise cities of different size

Old measurement method:3 Large metropolitan regions

New measurement method: 45 Functional urban areas of different size

Seoul

Busan

Daegu

Korea

Two-thirds of the OECD population live in urban areas, but the urban experience is very different in each country

Percentage of urban population by city size (2008)

•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

Percentage of population and GDP in metro areas (2008)

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

The urban population keeps growing, particularly in the hinterlands of large metropolitan areas

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

Population and GDP per capita growth in the 61 fastest -growing metro areas (with GDP growth 25% higher than the country average GDP growth)

high population and GDP per capita growth

moderate population growth and high GDP per capita growth

high population growth and moderate GDP per capita growth

moderate population and GDP per capita 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 cities4. 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 land is intensively utilised

•Urban agglomerations are contiguous or close together

•Distinct border between urban and rural land use

•Public spaces are secured

Urban areas linked by public transport systems

•Effective use of urban land•Public transport systems facilitate mobility in urban areas

Accessibility to local services and jobs

•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 cities3. The rise in energy prices4. The challenge of sustainable economic growth5. Demographic trend: declining population,

ageing and smaller households in cities

Land is consumed at a faster rate…

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Urb

an

bu

ilt-u

p a

rea

(in

km

²)

OECD BRICs Rest of the world

…than population growth

Australia

Austria

Belgium

CanadaChile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

FinlandFrance

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

JapanKorea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New ZealandNorway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

SpainSweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

-0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%

An

nu

al a

vera

ge

tota

l bu

ilt-u

p a

rea

gro

wth

rate

(2

00

0-2

05

0)

Annual average total population growth rate (2000-2050)

Energy price affects location choice

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Re

al i

nd

ex

for i

nd

ust

ry a

nd

ho

use

ho

ld

Coal Electricity (kWh) Oil Products Total energy

More demands for smaller houses…Average household size

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.001980 2008

…and urban livingPercentage of one-person households

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%1980 2008

The contribution of the compact city to urban sustainability

Sub-characteristics of the compact city

Contribution to urban sustainability

Environmental benefits Social benefits Economic benefits

1. Shorter intra-urban travel distances

– Fewer CO2 emissions– Less pollution from automobiles

– Greater accessibility due to lower cost

– Higher productivity due to shorter travel time for workers

2. Less automobile dependency

– Fewer CO2 emissions– Less pollution from automobiles

– Lower transport costs– Higher mobility for people without access to a car – Improved human health due to more cycling and walking

– Development of green jobs/ technologies

3. More district-wide energy utilisation and local energy generation

– Less energy consumption per capita, fewer CO2 emissions –

– Development of green jobs/technologies

– More energy independence4. Optimum use of land resources and more opportunity for urban-rural linkage

– Conservation of farmlands and natural biodiversity

– Fewer CO2 emissions due to shorter food travel mileage

– Higher quality of life due to more recreational activities

– Rural economic development (urban agriculture, renewable energy, etc.)

5. More efficient public service delivery –

– Public service level for social welfare maintained by improved efficiency

– Lower infrastructure investments and cost of maintenance

6. Better access to a diversity of local services and jobs

–

– Higher quality of life due to access to local services (shops, hospitals, etc.)

– 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 serviceDistance to the nearest medical facilities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000

Dw

elli

ng

s w

ithin

50

0m

Population density (persons/km²)

NagoyaAichiGifu

Measuring the performance of compact city: proposed indicators

Category IndicatorIndicators related to compactness

Dense and proximate development patterns

1. Population and urban land growth2. Population density on urban land3. Retrofitting existing urban land4. Intensive use of buildings5. Housing form6. Trip distance7. Urban land cover

Urban areas linked by public transport systems

8. Trips using public transport9. Proximity to public transport

Accessibility to local services and jobs

10. Matching jobs and homes 11. Matching local services and homes12. Proximity to local services13. Trips on foot and by bicycle

Indicators related to the impact of compact city policies

Environmental 14. Public space and green areas15. Transport energy use 16. Residential energy use

Social 17. AffordabilityEconomic 18. Public service

Population and urban land growth, 2000-2006

Brussels

Copenhagen

Paris

Lyon

Marseilles

Rome

Milano

Naples

Sendai SapporoFukuoka

Nagoya

Osaka

Tokyo

Lisbon

Madrid

Barcelona

Milwaukee

Columbus

Orlando

San Antonio

Sacramento/Roseville

Kansas City

Cleveland

Portland

Baltimore

Denver

Seattle

Minneapolis

Boston

Phoenix

Philadelphia

Atlanta

Detroit

Dallas

Houston

Washington

San Francisco

Chicago

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

-1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%

An

nu

al a

vera

ge

urb

an

lan

d g

row

th ra

te (2

00

0-2

00

6)

Annual average population growth rate (2000-2006)

Population density on urban land

0 0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000

Kansas City

Columbus

Saint Louis

Cincinnati

San Antonio

Orlando

Minneapolis

Atlanta

Milwaukee

Seattle

Portland

Cleveland

Houston

Dallas

Denver

Phoenix

Washington

Sacramento-Roseville

Chicago

Detroit

San Diego

Baltimore

Miami

San Francisco

Boston

Philadelphia

Los Angeles

New York

Density in urban land based on LandScan (pop/ km²) Density in total land based on LandScan (pop/ km²)

Urban land cover as an indicator of urban development patterns

Athens (3.4 million) Atlanta (4.6 million)

3-D density map

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30- AllSh

are

of g

rid

ce

lls b

y d

en

sit

y le

vel i

n u

rba

n la

nd

Distance from the centre (km)

High (>=5000 pop/km2)Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)

Density gradient graphVancouver (Canada)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30- All

Sh

are

of g

rid

cel

ls b

y d

ensi

ty in

urb

an la

nd

Distance from the centre (km)

High (>=5000 pop/km2)Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)

Portland (US)

Median commute distance

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1996 2006

Me

dia

n c

om

mu

te d

ista

nce

(km

)

Toronto CMA

Calgary CMA

Montreal CMA

Edmonton CMA

Vancouver CMA

Victoria CMA

Canada

for selected metropolitan areas in Canada, 1996-2006

Population living close to transport stations/network

97.7%

42.2%

13.8%

83.9%

63.7%

29.8%

Within bus service (400 m)

Within FTN (400 m)

Within rapid transit (800 m)

Within bus service (800 m)

Within bus service (400 m)

Within rail service (800 m)

Va

nco

uve

rT

oya

ma

Matching local services and homes

Melbourne Vancouver

Policy practices in use

Regulatory / informative FiscalPublic

investment / partnership

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 under-density

Congestion tax / fee / charges

Subsidies for densification

Tax incentives for promoting development near transit stations

Location Efficient Mortgage

Split-rate property tax

Purchasing land for natural reserve

Development agreement for dense/mixed-use development

Source: OECD compact city survey

The five key policy strategies1. Set explicit compact

city goals

2. Encourage dense and proximate development

3. Retrofit existing built-up areas

4. Enhance diversity and quality of life

5. Minimise adverse negative effects

• Establish a national urban policy framework that includes compact city policies

• Encourage metropolitan-wide strategic planning

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

OECD (2012), Redefining urban: a new way to measure metropolitan areas, OECD Publishing.www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban

Find out more:

For more information on OECD work on regional and metropolitan statistics, visit: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/statisticsindicatorsFor more information on OECD work on urban development, visit: www.oecd.org/gov/urbandevelopment 

OECD (2012), Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167865-en

Thank you

Tadashi.Matsumoto@oecd.org