Whole regions 195
Proportion of total border length of built area in urban region
for different-sized communities (%)
London
Berlin+Rome+Bucharest+Stockholm+Barcelona+Nantes
Chicago+San Diego/Tijuana+Philadelphia+Ottawa•Edmonton
Por
tland
Atlanta
Mexico City
Santiago
Brasilia+Tegucigalpa
Iquitos
- Cairo
*
Nairobi+Bamako+East London
Abeche
Beijing
*
Moscow
Seoul
*
Te h r a n
*
Sapporo+Ulaanbaatar
Erzurum
Kagoshima
Bangkok
Kuala Lumpur+Cuttack
Samarinda
Canberra
Rahimyar Khan•
Europe North
America
Latin
America
Africa West-East
Asia
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M
MM
MM M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M M M M
M
M
M
M
M M
T
S
S
S
S
S
S S
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
SS
S
SS
S
S
S S
S
S
SS
S S
S
SS S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T
T
T TT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
South Asia-
Australia
Avera
ge
Geographic area, with cities from large to small population
0
20
40
60
80
S SS S S
= Metropolitan area
= Satellite cities
= Towns
M
S
T
Figure 7.18Proportion of built-area border length due to metropolitan area,
satellite cities, and towns relative to geography and city size. Border length of the
metro area and all inner and outer satellite cities was directly measured, while
length for towns was estimated from a representative sample. Cities and towns are
differentiated by area (see Color Figures 2--39). See Figure 7.2 caption.
This emphasizes that the border length of metropolitan areas matters, and is
associated with degrading the greatest area of regional greenspace. The metro-
area border plus that of nearby cities (in the inner urban-region ring) provides
about half of the total border length for the region. Greenspace in this area tends
tobe close to the huge metro-area population, which also is likely to expand
outward.
In the outer portion of the urban region, satellite cities and towns provide
theother half of the total border length. In this area many town and small-city
governments with different perspectives, mostly local, make decisions that affect