Diverse cities or the systematic paradox of Urban Scaling Laws

Scaling laws are powerful summaries of the variations of urban attributes with city size. However, the validity of their universal meaning for cities is hampered by the observation that different scaling regimes can be encountered for the same territory, time and attribute, depending on the criteria used to delineate cities. The aim of this paper is to present new insights concerning this variation, coupled with a sensitivity analysis of urban scaling in France, for several socio-economic and infrastructural attributes from data collected exhaustively at the local level. The sensitivity analysis considers different aggregations of local units for which data are given by the Population Census. We produce a large variety of definitions of cities (approximatively 5000) by aggregating local Census units corresponding to the systematic combination of three definitional criteria: density, commuting flows and population cutoffs. We then measure the magnitude of scaling estimations and their sensitivity to city definitions for several urban indicators, showing for example that simple population cutoffs impact dramatically on the results obtained for a given system and attribute. Variations are interpreted with respect to the meaning of the attributes (socio-economic descriptors as well as infrastructure) and the urban definitions used (understood as the combination of the three criteria). Because of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) and of the heterogeneous morphologies and social landscapes in the cities' internal space, scaling estimations are subject to large variations, distorting many of the conclusions on which generative models are based. We conclude that examining scaling variations might be an opportunity to understand better the inner composition of cities with regard to their size, i.e. to link the scales of the city-system with the system of cities.

[1]  R'emi Louf,et al.  Scaling: Lost in the Smog , 2014, 1410.4964.

[2]  E J Malecki.  Growth and Change in the Analysis of Rank—Size Distributions: Empirical Findings , 1980 .

[3]  D. Pumain,et al.  An evolutionary theory for interpreting urban scaling laws Une théorie évolutive pour expliquer les lois d'échelle dans les systèmes de villes , 2006 .

[4]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The scaling of green space coverage in European cities , 2009, Biology Letters.

[5]  M. Barthelemy,et al.  How congestion shapes cities: from mobility patterns to scaling , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[6]  Samuel Arbesman,et al.  Scaling of Prosocial Behavior in Cities. , 2011, Physica A.

[7]  Michael Batty,et al.  Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function , 1996 .

[8]  L. Bettencourt,et al.  Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size , 2007 .

[9]  W. Tobler,et al.  Allometric relationships in the structure of street-level databases , 1997 .

[10]  Matthew W. Wilson,et al.  Big Data, social physics, and spatial analysis: The early years , 2014 .

[11]  M. Batty,et al.  Scaling and allometry in the building geometries of Greater London , 2008, 0804.2442.

[12]  Dominik E. Reusser,et al.  Cities as nuclei of sustainability? , 2013, 1304.4406.

[13]  F. Bos.  Three Centuries of Macro-Economic Statistics , 2011 .

[14]  J. B. Parr,et al.  Spatial Definitions of the City: Four Perspectives , 2007 .

[15]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Scaling and Hierarchy in Urban Economies , 2011, 1102.4101.

[16]  Marianne Guérois,et al.  Commune centre, agglomération, aire urbaine : quelle pertinence pour l’étude des villes ? , 2002 .

[17]  L. Bettencourt,et al.  Urban Scaling and the Production Function for Cities , 2013, PloS one.

[18]  Michael Batty,et al.  There is More than a Power Law in Zipf , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Alan Penn,et al.  Scaling and universality in the micro-structure ofurban space , 2003 .

[20]  Ralph Schroeder,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Emerging practices and perspectives on Big Data analysis in economics : Bigger and better or more of the same ? , 2014 .

[21]  P. Longley,et al.  Measurement of density gradients and space-filling in urban systems , 2002 .

[22]  L. Bettencourt,et al.  Supplementary Materials for The Origins of Scaling in Cities , 2013 .

[23]  F. Néchet.  De la forme urbaine à la structure métropolitaine : une typologie de la configuration interne des densités pour les principales métropoles européennes de l’Audit Urbain , 2015 .

[24]  Michael Batty,et al.  On the problem of boundaries and scaling for urban street networks , 2015, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[25]  Lucien Benguigui,et al.  The fractal structure of Seoul’s public transportation system , 2003 .

[26]  Michael Batty,et al.  Defining City Size , 2011 .

[27]  F. Guerin-pace,et al.  Rank-Size Distribution and the Process of Urban Growth , 1995 .

[28]  M. Batty,et al.  Constructing cities, deconstructing scaling laws , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[29]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  The Pre-History of Urban Scaling , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  K. Seto,et al.  Does Size Matter? Scaling of CO2 Emissions and U.S. Urban Areas , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  Ningchuan Xiao,et al.  Analyzing scale independence in jobs-housing and commute efficiency metrics , 2013 .

[32]  Paul A. Longley,et al.  Measurement of density gradients and space-filling in urban systems , 2002 .

[33]  D. Levinson.  Network Structure and City Size , 2012, PloS one.

[34]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Scaling laws in urban supply networks , 2006 .

[35]  Brian J. L. Berry,et al.  Cities as systems within systems of cities , 1964 .