Urban Statistical Definitions Research Paper

All developing societies create some model of an information-gathering national census, albeit with great differences in quality and extensiveness of coverage. The impetus for statistical definitions and data stems from a variety of factors, such as the need for knowledge about a nation’s development patterns, the desire to support local and national planning functions, the projection of future development, and the planning and managing of an allocation of resources responsive to the changing location distribution of population need. In addition, in many societies there is a desire to determine the ways in which racial and ethnic differences relate to patterns of settlement and place.

This research paper focuses on ways in which nations have developed urban statistical definitions. It emphasizes the United States experience, the historical evolution of the urban definition, the current assessment of statistical practices and the prospects for change in the statistical definition of urban. But first, it will consider contrasting practices throughout the world in order to develop an understanding and perspective of how different nations have responded to the need to develop urban statistical definitions.

1. Contrasting International Definitions For Urban

No one statistical definition captures the entire story about urban definitions in countries around the world. In fact, the collection of data regarding urban population is perhaps the least standardized and comparable of worldwide census activities. Individual national approaches are highly differentiated and particular in terms of data collection systems and analysis, thereby rendering difficult attempts at cross-national comparisons. These differences stem from contrasting levels of development, diverse cultures, and changing societal needs. They also reflect differing historical traditions, practices inherited from colonial regimes, fiscal and human resources available for census activities, and levels of national integration. The resulting variety of urban definitions rely on such factors as minimum population size, levels of population density, the distinctiveness of a governmental or administrative political unit, the percent of agricultural and nonagricultural working population, and other political, social, and economic factors distinct to particular societies and nations. For example, the meaning of a governmental jurisdiction, such as town or village, is often very different among nations. Or, the difference between de facto and de jure population has a great effect on the classification of urban and rural populations, especially at times of turmoil and instability which result in large movements of population.

A survey of national census practices reveals widely varied definitions of ‘urban’. The Swedish define it as those built-up areas with less than 200 m between houses. Bulgaria uses the term to refer to localities legally established as urban, regardless of size. Denmark employs a minimum population requirement of 200 while Japan has a minimum population requirement of 30,000. France, Nigeria, Iran, and Turkey have definitions of a minimum population of 2,000, 5,000, 5,000, and 10,000 respectively. Many countries, largely concentrated in Africa and Asia, have either not yet developed or made available estimates of urban population in their national censuses.

India presents an interesting example of the complexities involved in urban definitions. It includes towns (places with municipal incorporation, municipal area committee, town committee, notified area committee, or cantonment board), as well as all places having 5,000 or more inhabitants, a density of not less than 1,000 persons per square mile, or 390 persons km− pronounced urban characteristics, and at least three quarters of the male population employed in pursuits other than agriculture. Clearly Indian demographers have recognized the difficulties in developing accurate terminology that reflects the complexity of their country’s economic and social development.

Once established, statistical categories and definitions are increasingly codified and difficult to modify or change. While the goal of consistent comparability of data among different nations is a distant vision, nations are continually expending resources to develop refined population data reflecting their unique patterns of development. We shall now turn our attention to the example of the United States, a nation that has tried to adapt its definitions of urban to dynamic economic and social change.

2. The American Quest For An Urban Definition

The American quest for a statistical definition of urban reflects a tortuous pattern of adaptation to changes in the structure of society over this last century. Demographers of an earlier period could not foresee the dynamic changes that were to affect how Americans live and work. They differentiated between urban and rural by contrasting the preponderance of agriculture or manufacturing, the size and density of the population, and the concentration of commercial activity. These characteristics informed their assessment of urban and rural places. In practice, the distinctions between urban and rural were easily made because the concept urban was applied only to a few large cities that were easily considered as an urban population.

This approach is described with great detail by Adna Weber (Weber 1899) in his statistical study of nineteenth-century cities. He classified rural and urban populations by size of place, specifying rural as ‘scattered’ or ‘agglomerated’ (hamlets and villages with fewer than 2,000 population and towns with from 2,000 to 10,000 population) and urban as ‘cities’ (more than 10,000 population) and ‘great cities’ (more than 100,000 population). The Census Bureau’s current urban and rural classification consists of two different urban categories. One is any area that is part of an Urbanized Area (UA) and those places outside the UA that have a population greater than 2,500. Territory not included in these two categories is classified in the residual category of rural.

The US Bureau of the Census officially adopted the 2,500 level for the 1910 Census, a figure that survives till this very day, but now has a more limited application. Between 1910 and 1940 the decennial censuses had an additional requirement that the urban place be part of an incorporated territory. The Bureau made some allowances for minor civil divisions (MCDs) having large population size and density. The place size definition of urban was soon considered to be inadequate because of its exclusion of many population concentrations located in unincorporated places, resulting in their inappropriate rural classification. To remedy this problem, census demographers continued to grapple with the challenge of modifying the concept to reflect the changing realities of urbanism, especially the increasing spread of the population to new areas. There was a need to create a concept that would be based on additional criteria other than place size and MCD status. This led to the development of the idea of an ‘urbanized area’ (UA) in 1950, a concept that exists, albeit in a modified form, till this very day.

Although first defined in 1950, the Census Bureau has modified the UA concept over time. A UA is a continuously built-up area with a population of 50,000 or more, comprised of one or more places and the adjacent settled surrounding area, the urban fringe. The UA includes only urban populations, consisting of a central city and incorporated places with a minimum population size of 2,500, or unincorporate d places with a population density of at least 1,000/mile². Since 1990, there has been no minimum size stipulated for a central place and the requirement of central city has been changed to central place. A Census Designated Place (CDP) that contains a densely settled unincorporated area of 2,500 or more is now classified as urban, thereby correcting a major gap in previous urban definitions.

3. The Emergence Of The Metropolitan Idea

Even at the time of its formulation, the UA concept failed to provide an accurate measure of contemporary developments. Its focus was on the contiguous connection between the central place and the urban fringe excluded population residing in noncontiguous urban enclaves that were economically and socially related to the center. Demographers searched for a concept to reflect urban relationships in the new era of metropolitan dominance. They developed new terms to refer to the metropolitan concept, beginning with the Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA) in 1950, the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) in 1959, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 1983, and most recently the Metropolitan Area (MA) in 1990.

Their work paralleled what Hans Blumenfeld de-scribed with great insight in 1967 as a new stage in the ‘urban revolution,’ the transition from the ‘modern city’ to the ‘modern metropolis.’ He stated that ‘this change of name reflects the fact that from its long, slow evolution the city has emerged into a revolutionary stage. It has undergone a qualitative change, so that it is no longer merely a larger version of the traditional city but a new and different form of human settlement’ (Blumenfeld 1967). While Blumenfeld’s view of the metropolis was in some ways similar to the ‘conurbation’ idea originally described by Patrick Geddes at the turn of the nineteenth century, and later elaborated by Lewis Mumford, it was distinctly different from the ‘megalopolis’ of Jean Gottmann 1961, and the ‘ecumenopolis’ of Constantinos Doxiadis 1967, which were also conceived in the 1960s. Attempts to portray the realities of contemporary urbanization by referring to an urban settlement that is ‘neither city nor country but a complex of urban districts and open areas’ have much precedence in the development of urban ideas.

The need for a concept that better reflected the spread of the urban population beyond city boundaries dates back to before the Civil War. This perception is evidenced in the New England Gazetteer’s entry on Boston which noted that

owing to the almost insular situation of Boston, and its limited extent, its population appears small. But it must be considered that the neighboring towns of Quincy, Dorchester, Milton, Roxbury, Brookline, Brighton, Watertown, Cambridge, Charlestown, Medford, Malden, and Chelsea, although not included in the city charter, are component parts of the city, and are as much associated with it in all its commercial, manufacturing, literary, and social relations and feelings, as Greenwich, Manhattanville, and Harlem are with the city of New York; or Southwark and the Northern Liberties with Philadelphia (United States Department of Commerce 1994).

By 1905, the Census of Manufacturers utilized a metropolitan concept when it replaced its ‘industrial district’ classification with a ‘metropolitan district’ concept, retaining it with modifications through 1940. Metropolitan districts were defined in terms of minor civil divisions (MCDs), with their boundaries based primarily on population density. In 1950, the Bureau of the Census incorporated the metropolitan concept in its term Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA). The journey to work as measured by commutation patterns is the major characteristic defining the boundaries of the metropolitan area. The SMA includes at its center a city, (or in a few instances a census-designated place or county subdivision with a minimum population of 50,000), and its county and those contiguous counties that meet specified requirements such as the 15 percent commutation rate to the central county. Other characteristics relate to population density, percent of the population classified as urban, percentage of growth in the population between the two previous decennial censuses, and percentage of, or absolute number of, inhabitants within the UA that qualifies for inclusion in the metropolitan area. A contiguous county is included in its entirety or it is not included. This can result in a significant number of rural persons being included in a metropolitan count.

The Metropolitan Area (MA) is meant to capture the high degree of economic and social interdependence among a central city and its surrounding counties. It contrasts with the urbanized area that focuses on the densely settled agglomerations surrounding large cities. The MA concept provides a means of defining a functional area based on the activities of the population while the UA measures the extent of urban agglomeration around a central core. The census demographers viewed metropolitan areas and urbanized areas as complementary. Together they present an accurate depiction of the urbanization process.

Dynamic and new forms of growth often render both the MSA and UA ineffective as measures of the new realities. Population decentralization away from the central city to new centers in outlying areas has resulted in a form of urbanization far different from that envisaged in the original metropolitan concept. As metropolitan areas grow, their boundaries expand to and often overlap the boundaries of other adjacent urban areas. In 1983, the Bureau of the Census responded to these developments by introducing two new designations, the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). An area with a population of one million or more is recognized as a CMSA if it has component parts that are eligible to be PMSAs. These component parts must meet certain statistical criteria that demonstrate strong internal economic and social links as well as ties with the center of the larger area. The support of local public opinion is an additional criterion for inclusion. The boundaries of the CMSA are defined as the area resulting from the aggregation of all of the PMSAs.

After a century of classifying urban data, the Bureau of the Census has formulated a number of statistical definitions, each relevant to different aspects of the urbanization process. Their development reflects the efforts of government statisticians and demographers to describe and understand different patterns of urban development resulting from the dynamics of technological and social change. Together these definitions form a conceptual framework that accounts for population size, density, economic and social interdependence, and jurisdictional units of government in portraying urbanization and metropolitan growth.

This framework incorporates minimum place size, density characteristics, core–periphery relationships involving cities, suburbs, and metropolitan regions, and monitors the increasing decentralization and deconcentration of urban areas. By moving beyond the more limited notion of urban place they provide an accurate picture of a complex and continually evolving reality. Nonetheless, a gap remains between how American urbanization is currently developing and how it is portrayed in statistical concepts. Attempts to remedy this situation are discussed in the final section of this research paper.

4. Prospects For The Future

Cities are no longer the dominant form and entity of urbanization, and suburbs are generally considered to be that part of the urban population residing outside the central city, referred to as the ‘urban fringe.’ While there is no formal census statistical definition of a suburb, there is recognition of the fact that suburbs have been the most rapidly growing part of the urban population. A half a century ago, 60 percent of the residents of metropolitan areas lived in central cities. At the current time, 60 percent live outside the central cities, that is, for the most part in suburbs.

This dramatic change in American life styles led the historian Jon C. Teaford (Teaford 1993) to conclude that traditional concepts of urban have become so outdated that:

at the close of the twentieth century, then, the age of urbanization in the United States had come to a close. The concept was no longer relevant for a nation that was metropolitan but not urban. Unimaginative data collectors in the Bureau of the Census still embraced the outdated concepts of urban and rural, but such concepts masked rather than illuminated reality. The urban frontier had closed, and the term urbanization should have been retired to that conceptual attic frequented primarily by students of the past.

Similarly, Robert Fishman (Fishman 1990) stated that:

for most Americans, the real center of their lives is neither an urban nor a rural nor even a suburban area, as these entities have been traditionally conceived, but rather the ‘technoburb,’ the boundaries of which they can conveniently reach in their own cars. The true center of this new city is not in some downtown business district but in each residential unit. The old central cities have become increasingly marginal, while the technoburb has emerged as the focus of American life.

While in the past dissatisfaction with existing urban definitions led to the introduction of such new statistical measures as the Urbanized Area, and the Metropolitan Statistical Area, many, like Teaford and Fishman, believe that they are not fully adequate in their depiction of contemporary America. The question remains as to what will be the next stage of conceptual change in the statistical definition of urban.

Today’s urban statistical definitions have a strong bias towards interpreting urbanization within the framework of a core-periphery model emphasizing the central city. Critics argue that the emphasis on central city-suburban relationships ignores what is going on in the rest of the metropolitan region, especially the increasing decentralization of population and job location that results in an increase of suburb-tosuburb journeys to work and other functional relationships. They also maintain that dependence on the county as a building block results in the inclusion of non-urban population in the metropolitan count and the neglect of numerous and varied subcounty interrelationships.

Further, advances in computer technology allow for data collection and analysis disaggregated at levels far smaller than the county. This phenomenon allows for additional change, never before contemplated, in the statistical definition of urban. The Bureau of the Census is currently reviewing proposals involving utilization of such alternative geographic building blocks, including the Minor Civil Division (MCD), Census County Division (CCD), Census Tract, Zip Code, and Grid Cell. All involve different levels of consistency, stability across boundaries, accuracy of depiction over time and space, data availability and familiarity, and identifiability. It is expected that the current review will result in a number of modifications in existing practices, but it is as of yet uncertain how extensive these recommendations will be.

The center-core orientation of the definition of urban had great validity in the past, but is inadequate at a time when the percentage of the nation’s urban population living in suburban area continues to increase. Structural factors (such as population size and density) combined with functional factors (patterns of economic and social linkages such as the journey to work) still remain the best indicators for metropolitan inclusion. In addition, the emergence of less expensive telecommunications, and the increasing pervasiveness of the information superhighway associated with the use of the Internet, are changing functional relationships in ways that will lead to the increasing decentralization of the urban population.

To appreciate the significance of these changes, it is not necessary to agree with the views of Adna Ferrin Weber who forecast in the late nineteenth century that suburbanization ‘furnishes the solid basis of a hope that the evils of city life, so far as they result from overcrowding, may be in large part removed. If concentration of population seems destined to continue, it will be a modified concentration which offers the advantages of both city and country life’ (Weber 1968). Much has transpired since Weber predicted the growth of the suburbs and its impact upon cities. Today, urbanists focus on the dynamics of urbanization. Flow and movement and the ‘space of flows’ (Castells 1996) have become a dominant distinguishing urban characteristic of our time. This is true whether one emphasizes the influences of technology upon transportation and production or is more concerned with the impacts of new communications technology on forms of urban development.

Speculations about the future of the city, involving concepts such as ‘edge city,’ ‘technoburb,’ ‘transactional city,’ ‘informational city,’ megalopolis,’ global city,’ or ‘post-suburbia,’ represent attempts to understand how the concept of ‘urban’ is changing. Nevertheless, while these new forms involve an important and broad range of conjecture and imagination, there still remains the central importance of space as human beings construct their lives primarily in relation to where they live and work. While statistical definitions of urban have undergone a complex and changing history, it remains clear that much is yet still to come, as the dynamic facts of economic and social change intrude themselves upon established statistical categories of urban definition. The search for new concepts and definitions continues. The outcome of this struggle will be clearer to the readers of the fourth edition of the International Encyclopedia for the Social Sciences.

Bibliography:

1. Bird J 1977 Centrality and Cities. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
2. Blumenfeld H 1967 The Modern Metropolis: Its Origins, Growth, Characteristics and Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
3. Borgotta E F, Borgotta M L 1992 Encyclopedia of Sociology. Macmillan, New York, Vol. 4
4. Castells M 1996 The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
5. Dahmann D C, Fitzsimmons J D (eds.) Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: New approaches to geographical definition. Population Division, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, Working Paper No. 12, September 1995
6. Doxiadis C A 1967 Ecumenopolis: The Settlement of the Future. Doxiadis Associates, Athens, Greece
7. Fishman R 1990 America’s new city: Megalopolis unbound. The Wilson Quarterly, Winter. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
8. Garreau J 1991 Edge City: Life On the New Frontier. Doubleday, New York
9. Gottman J 1961 Megalopolis. The Twentieth Century Fund, New York
10. Goyer D S, Draaijer G E 1992 The Handbook of National Population Censuses, Europe. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 18–19
11. Gross B 1966 The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting. Tavistock, London
12. Sassen S 2001 The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
13. Teaford J C 1993 The Twentieth-century City. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
14. United Nations 1998/1996 Demographic Yearbook. United Nations, New York
15. United Nations 1997 Statistical Yearbook 1995. United Nations, New York
16. United States Department of Commerce 1994 Geographic Areas Reference Manual Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC
17. Weber A F 1968 The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics. Originally published in 1899. Reissued by Columbia University Press, Ithaca, New York