Localising urbanisation trajectories: comparing the emergence of second-tier urban regions in Europe (1890–2011)

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of urban regions (ESPON 2007) and number/average area of LAU2 units in the analysis.

Urban region	No. of MUAs	Surface area (km^2)	Population (2011)	No. of LAU2 units^a	Average area (km^2)
PORTO	5	2468	1,964,944	352	7.01
ANTWERP	2	1831	1,452,793	58 (49 + 9^b)	31.57
BRISTOL	4	1579	1,094,957	153	10.32

Notes: ^aDue to the lack of individual data for all periods, some LAU2 units were removed from the analysis of density change as a function to distance to core city (Section 4.4). Naturally, the LAU2 units belonging to the core city itself were also removed in this case. This indicator considers 274 units for Porto, 49 for Antwerp and 103 for Bristol.

^bThe LAU2 unit corresponding to the municipality of Antwerp is larger than the other units, as its boundaries were changed in 1983 by the annexation by the core city of several municipalities. Therefore, to keep the consistency of the analysis, population data were calculated and mapped individually for the city’s nine districts.

Figure 1. Porto, Bristol and Antwerp urban regions, as defined by ESPON (2007). Dark colour: morphological urban regions (MUAs); light colour: functional urban region (FUA).

Figure 2. Rank-size population distribution per LAU2 unit in Porto, Antwerp and Bristol, 1890–2011.

Figure 3. (a) Population density variation per LAU2 unit in Porto 1890–2011; (b) population density variation as per LAU2 unit in Antwerp 1890–2011; (c) population density variation as per LAU2 unit in Bristol 1890–2011.

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 4. Population change in Porto, Antwerp and Bristol, 1890–2011 according to geographical areas (core city, remaining core MUA, other MUAs, remaining FUA).

Figure 5. (a) Population density variation as a function of distance to the core city in Porto: (1) for the whole urban region, 1890–1951/1951–2011; (2, 3) by geographical area (FUA/MUAs). (b) Population density variation as a function of distance to the core city in Antwerp: (1) for the whole urban region, 1890–1951/1951–2011; (2, 3) by geographical area (FUA/MUAs). (c) Population density variation as a function of distance to the core city in Bristol: (1) for the whole urban region, 1890–1951/1951–2011; (2, 3) by geographical area (FUA/MUAs).

Figure 5. (Continued).

Figure 5. (Continued).

ESPON. 2007. 1.4.3 - Study on Urban Functions. Final Report. Brussels: ESPON and IGEAT.

 Google Scholar