DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards an Americanization of French Metropolitan Areas ?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards an Americanization of French Metropolitan Areas ? TOWARDS AN AMERICANIZATION OF FRENCH METROPOLITAN AREAS ? Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot Directeur de Recherche au CNRS CERVL-CNRS/ IEP de Bordeaux Domaine universitaire 11, allée Ausone 33607 Pessac Cedex/ France e-mail : [email protected] Paper presented at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, February 2004, and at the International Metropolitan Observatory Meeting, 9-10 January 2004, Bordeaux, Pôle Universitaire de Bordeaux. The author expresses his gratitude to the LASMAS-IdL and to Alexandre Kych for having allowed him to use 1999 census data in application of the data exchange agreement between CNRS and INSEE, as well as to Monique Perronnet-Menault (TEMIBER-CNRS, Bordeaux) for her invaluable help in producing maps of French urban areas. I. Metropolization and urban sprawl in French metropolitan areas There are two main official measures of urbanization defined by the French census, INSEE (Julien 2000): 1. the urban unit (unité urbaine) fits the agglomeration concept. It includes two categories : a. the urban agglomeration : a group of communes whose population is at least 2.000 inhabitants + a continuity of the built environment, i.e. there are no gaps (agricultural land, forest) of more than 200 meters (a criterion also used in Switzerland) b. the isolated city : the same definition applied to a sole commune France had 1.995 urban units at the last census conducted in 1999. 2. officially introduced in 1996 in order to measure in a better way the so-called periurbanization phenomenon (urban sprawl towards distant suburbs), the metropolitan area (aire urbaine) includes : a. an urban pole (pôle urbain) = an urban unit with at least 5.000 jobs b. an exurban ring (couronne périurbaine), composed of rural communes or urban units in which at least 40% of the active members work in the urban center or in a secondary center that is already attached to the urban center by means of this criterion The metropolitan area (see Appendix 1) was selected as our main unit of analysis in order to encompass the core city or cities, suburbs, and exurbs, the latter being often not contiguous to other communes. As in other countries like Sweden, the metropolitan area is defined according to municipal economic and employment interactions rather than by continuity of the built environment. According to the last census conducted in 1999, there are 354 urban areas containing 77% of the population (45 million), compared with 73% in 1990. In 1999, 3.8 additional million inhabitants have been counted in metropolitan areas. This increase results from two changes : there was a population growth of 1.5 million inhabitants within the metropolitan 2 areas’ limits of 1990, and in addition 2.3 million inhabitants came from the territorial extension of the metropolitan areas between 1990 and 1999. Although the category of metropolitan area was just introduced with the last national census in 1999, it is possible to reconstruct metropolitan areas from 1968 onwards through retropolation methods, based in particular on analyses conducted by Julien (2003). It then appears that the number of metropolitan areas has remained relatively stable : 319 in 1968, 347 in 1975, 359 in 1982, 361 in 1990, and 354 in 1999. At a general level, Figure 1 shows that urban sprawl affected urban poles or agglomerations as they are traditionally defined ; their number of communes increased from 48% in thirty years (from 2.098 to 3.100). But the most important increase was registered among the more distant suburbs, the so called periurban communes, whose number increased by 651% during the same period (from 1.440 to 10.808). While the city is usually defined by contiguity of construction, a periurban area is constituted by an outer belt in form of a mixed space inhabited both by urban workers and by farmers. A periurban area is therefore a rural space as most of its land is devoted to agricultural productive activities; but it is also an urban space because the majority of its employed population works in a city and daily migrates in this direction (on the development of periurbans communes: Cavailhès et al. 2002, Péguy 2000). 3 Figure 1. Measuring urban sprawl in all French urban areas: evolution of the number of communes in urban poles and urban belts from 1968 to 1999 1968 1999 1975 10808 2098 1440 3764 3100 2398 2793 2601 5710 7892 1990 1982 Source : data from Julien (2003) N communes in urban poles N communes in urban belts Table 1. The population of the 42 French metropolitan areas over 200.000 inhabitants (1999) METROPOLITAN AREA Population PARIS 11.173.886 LYON 1.647.722 MARSEILLE-AIX-EN-PRO. 1.516.086 LILLE 1.142.887 TOULOUSE 964.914 NICE 933.551 BORDEAUX 925.429 NANTES 711.241 STRASBOURG 611.971 TOULON 564.740 DOUAI-LENS 552.635 RENNES 521.183 ROUEN 518.340 GRENOBLE 514.586 MONTPELLIER 459.946 METZ 429.544 NANCY 410.405 CLERMONT-FERRAND 409.533 VALENCIENNES 399.581 TOURS 376.131 CAEN 370.752 ORLEANS 355.770 ANGERS 332.737 DIJON 326.886 SAINT-ETIENNE 321.953 BREST 303.528 LE HAVRE 296.795 LE MANS 293.094 REIMS 291.701 AVIGNON 290.524 AMIENS 270.809 MULHOUSE 270.752 BETHUNE 268.435 DUNKERQUE 265.906 PERPIGNAN 249.041 LIMOGES 247.881 BESANCON 222.388 NIMES 221.380 PAU 216.868 BAYONNE 214.039 ANNEMASSE 212.451 POITIERS 209.250 MEDIAN 363.261 source : INSEE 5 Most employed people work in the dense agglomeration, but they increasingly live in distant suburbs or exurbs that tend to be more densely populated than before. This trend reflects the declining dynamism of part of the older suburbs : unable to offer new jobs to replace traditional jobs (farmers, craftsmen), older suburbs have become economically more dependent on close poles, leading to a growing mobility of their population. Forty-two metropolitan areas have a population greater than 200.000 inhabitants. These biggest metropolitan areas are represented in Table 1 and Appendix 2. Maps of the metropolitan areas of Paris and Bordeaux are in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. The 1999 census revealed two general evolutions : a stronger polarization around large metropoles and a continuing urban sprawl (Hoffmann-Martinot 2000). Half of the demographic growth between 1990 and 1999 was concentrated in just 11 metropolitan areas, while a same proportion was concentrated by 19 at the beginning of the 1980s. The largest part of demographic growth is due to a few big cities like Paris, Lyon and Toulouse. However the growth rate in the Paris region has decreased (+ 0,32 % per year) and today ranks below the national average level. But other metropolitan areas registered a very strong dynamism as their population grew at least two times more rapidly than in the rest of the country : Montpellier in particular (+ 1,88 % yearly), but also Toulouse, Rennes, and Nantes. On the whole, the most rapid growth is located in the South-East and in the Val de Loire area. While the Paris metropolitan area covered only 22% of the Ile-de-France region in 1968, it forms today a vast area of 14.518 km² (Appendix 3). Twenty-one percent of its territory is now spreading out beyond the Ile-de-France limits to the North-West. It entirely covers seven out of eight Ile-de-France départements (Essonne, Hauts-de-Seine, Paris, Seine- Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne, Val-d’Oise, Yvelines), 79% of the territory of the Seine-et-Marne département, and covers part of six départements belonging to other regions. Ninety-nine percent of the Ile-de-France population lives in the Paris metropolitan area. Today the Paris metropolitan area includes 1.584 communes (Appendix 3), of which about 400 are located out of the the Ile-de-France region. In 1999 its territory covered 429 6 more communes than in 1990. In Ile de France it extended into the two départements that were so far not totally encompassed, Essonne and Seine-et-Marne. In 1999, only 89 communes in Ile-de-France out of 1.281, all located in the South-East part of Seine-et-Marne, are not included in the Paris metropolitan area. This eastwards expansion has now added to the periurban belt of Paris communes in three neighboring départements, 23 communes in the département of Aisne, 3 in Marne, and 10 in Loiret. But it is in the Northern and Western parts of the region, in the départements of Oise, Eure and Eure-et-Loir that the attraction of the Paris agglomeration and its belt is most visible. Between 1990 and 1999, 135 new communes from these three départements have been included into the Paris metropolitan area: 52 communes in Oise, 45 in Eure, and 38 in Eure-et-Loir. Urban sprawl has developed strongly not only in the Paris metropolitan area but also in other large metropolitan areas. From 90 communes in 1968, the Toulouse metroplitan area covered 152 en 1975, 195 in 1982, 255 in 1990, and 342 in 1999. It includes today the largest part of the département Haute-Garonne (308 of its 588 communes, see Appendix 2) and portions of the départements Ariège (6 communes), Aude (2 communes), Gers (7 communes), Tarn (14 communes), and Tarn-et-Garonne (5 communes). A similar global extensive trend is to be observed in the other metropolitan areas with a population of over 200.000 inhabitants : between the last two census periods (1990 and 1999), the number of communes has noticeably increased in the metropolitan areas of Besançon (from 186 to 234), Bordeaux (149 to 191), Clermont-Ferrand (99 to 147), Limoges (53 to 78), Pau (91 to 142), Poitiers (56 to 83), Rouen (142 to 189), Strasbourg (128 to 182).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Biogeochemical Imprint of Human Metabolism in Paris Megacity
    Journal of Hydrology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Hydrology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol Research papers The biogeochemical imprint of human metabolism in Paris Megacity: A regionalized analysis of a water-agro-food system ⇑ Fabien Esculier a,b, , Julia Le Noë b, Sabine Barles c, Gilles Billen b, Benjamin Créno d, Josette Garnier b, Jacques Lesavre e, Léo Petit b, Jean-Pierre Tabuchi f a Laboratoire Eau, Environnement et Systèmes Urbains (LEESU); AgroParisTech, École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC), Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEMLV), Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne (UPEC): UMR MA-102, LEESU, ENPC, 6-8 avenue Blaise Pascal, 77455 Champs sur Marne cedex 2, France b Milieux Environnementaux, Transferts et Interactions dans les hydrosystèmes et les Sols (METIS); École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Sorbonne Université: UMR7619, METIS, UPMC, Case courrier 105, 4 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France c Géographie-Cités; CNRS, Université Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne, Université Paris VII – Paris Diderot: UMR 8504, Géographie-Cités, 13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France d Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), 6-8 avenue Blaise Pascal, 77455 Champs sur Marne cedex 2, France e Agence de l’Eau Seine Normandie (AESN), 51 rue Salvador Allende, 92027 Nanterre Cedex, France f Syndicat Interdépartemental d’Assainissement de l’Agglomération Parisienne (SIAAP), 2 rue Jules César, 75589 Paris Cedex 12, France article info abstract Article history: Megacities are facing a twofold challenge regarding resources: (i) ensure their availability for a growing Available online xxxx urban population and (ii) limit the impact of resource losses to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Connectivity and Accessibility Between Tram Stops and Public Facilities: a Case Study in the Historic Cities of Europe
    Urban Street Design & Planning 73 A study on connectivity and accessibility between tram stops and public facilities: a case study in the historic cities of Europe Y. Kitao1 & K. Hirano2 1Kyoto Women’s University, Japan 2Kei Atelier, Yame, Fukuoka, Japan Abstract The purpose of this paper is to understand urban structures in terms of tram networks by using the examples of historic cities in Europe. We have incorporated the concept of interconnectivity and accessibility between public facilities and tram stops to examine how European cities, which have built world class public transportation systems, use the tram network in relationship to their public facilities. We selected western European tram-type cities which have a bus system, but no subway system, and we focused on 24 historic cities with populations from 100,000 to 200,000, which is the optimum size for a large-scale community. In order to analyze the relationship, we mapped the ‘pedestrian accessible area’ from any tram station in the city, and analyzed how many public facilities and pedestrian streets were in this area. As a result, we were able to compare the urban space structures of these cities in terms of the accessibility and connectivity between their tram stops and their public facilities. Thus we could understand the features which determined the relationship between urban space and urban facilities. This enabled us to evaluate which of our target cities was the most pedestrian orientated city. Finally, we were able to define five categories of tram-type cities. These findings have provided us with a means to recognize the urban space structure of a city, which will help us to improve city planning in Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Landscapes, Heritage and Identity in Peri-Urban Areas in Western Europe
    Europ. Countrys. · 2· 2012 · p. 147-161 DOI: 10.2478/v10091-012-0020-9 European Countryside MENDELU AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES, HERITAGE AND IDENTITY IN PERI-URBAN AREAS IN WESTERN EUROPE Mark Bailoni1, Simon Edelblutte2, Anthony Tchékémian3 Received 9 June 2011; Accepted 23 March 2012 Abstract: This work focuses on particularly sensitive agricultural landscapes, which are visible in peri-urban areas. These territories are indeed fast evolving areas that consist of a “third-area”, both urban and rural. The aim of this paper is to analyze the role played by heritage in agricultural landscapes of peri-urban areas. The paper is built around these following questions: what are the changes in agricultural landscapes in the framework of the fast urban sprawl, and what are their effects on practices, especially around heritage, and on the many stakeholders’ perceptions? With the help of visuals like aerial or ground pictures, maps, diagrams, interviews, this paper uses a panel of specific examples selected in Western Europe. A wide range of peri-urban situations has been chosen to show the different kinds of existing urban pressure on agricultural landscapes. Key words: peri-urban area, agricultural landscape, heritage, territories, stakeholders Résumé: Ce travail est ciblé sur les paysages agricoles périurbains qui sont particulièrement sensibles. Ces territoires périurbains, en évolution rapide, sont considérés comme des « tiers-espaces » à la fois urbains et ruraux. L’objectif de cet article est donc d’analyser la place du patrimoine dans les paysages agricoles des territoires périurbains. L’article est construit autour des questions suivantes : quels sont les changements des paysages agricoles dans le cadre d’une forte croissance périurbaine et quels sont leurs effets sur les pratiques, particulièrement patrimoniales, et sur les perceptions des nombreux acteurs.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Evolution of Residential Segregation in France?
    What is the evolution of residential segregation in France? Residential segregation refers to the unequal distribution in urban space of dierent categories of popu- lation. It can result from individual choices, motivated by the search for a sense of belonging, or from phe- nomena of relegation, linked in particular to the price of housing. How has it evolved over the long term? This note examines the fifty-five “urban units” in metropolitan France with more than 100,000 inhabitants between 1990 and 2015 based on census data. A specially designed visualization tool enables these urban units to be compared among themselves and over time with all their spe- cific features, and for dierent categories of population1. First, managers and professionals are one and a half times more unevenly distributed than industrial and service employees. In the Paris conurbation, this residential segregation has increased for both groups. Elsewhere, it has decreased on average for managers and professionals, but remained stable for industrial and service employees. Fewer of the latter live in a neighborhood, where they represent the majority of the 25-54-year-olds (one out of two in 1990, one out of three in 2015). By contrast, a growing proportion of managers and professionals live in neighborhoods where they represent the majority of the 25-54-year-olds (0.1 percent in 1990, 14% in 2015). The wealthiest 10% households, moreover, are dis- tributed as unevenly as the poorest 10%, except in Paris, where the richest are particularly segregated. Immigrants of European origin have a low and stable segregation index over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Income Segregation and Suburbanization in France: a Discrete Choice Approach
    Income Segregation and Suburbanization in France : a discrete choice approach Florence Goffette-Nagot, Yves Schaeffer To cite this version: Florence Goffette-Nagot, Yves Schaeffer. Income Segregation and Suburbanization in France :adis- crete choice approach. 2011. halshs-00581139 HAL Id: halshs-00581139 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00581139 Submitted on 30 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. GROUPE D’ANALYSE ET DE THÉORIE ÉCONOMIQUE LYON ‐ ST ÉTIENNE W P 1112 Income Segregation and Suburbanization in France: a discrete cHoice approacH Florence Goffette‐Nagot, Yves Schaeffer Mars 2011 Documents de travail | Working Papers GATE Groupe d’Analyse et de Théorie Économique Lyon‐St Étienne 93, chemin des Mouilles 69130 Ecully – France Tel. +33 (0)4 72 86 60 60 Fax +33 (0)4 72 86 60 90 6, rue Basse des Rives 42023 Saint‐Etienne cedex 02 – France Tel. +33 (0)4 77 42 19 60 Fax. +33 (0)4 77 42 19 50 Messagerie électronique / Email : [email protected] Téléchargement / Download : http://www.gate.cnrs.fr – Publications / Working Papers Income Segregation and Suburbanization in France: a discrete choice approach. Florence Goffette-Nagot* +, Yves Schaeffer** Abstract: This paper focuses on residential sorting by social and ethnic status in large French urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing in Four World Cities: London, New York, Paris and Tokyo
    GLA Housing and Land Housing Research Note 3 Housing in four world cities: London, New York, Paris and Tokyo James Gleeson April 2019 Copyright Greater London Authority April 2019 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Software and code used: • The cover image shows 3D visualisations of population density in (clockwise from top left) London, New York, Tokyo and Paris. Created using several R packages, notably ‘rayshader’ (Tyler Morgan-Wall) and ‘raster’ (Robert J. Hijmans et al). The procedure used to produce the plots was adapted from code published by John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times (https://gist.github.com/johnburnmurdoch). • The line charts and bar charts were produced using the R packages ‘ggplot2’ (Hadley Wickham et al) and ‘ggthemes’ (Jeffrey B. Arnold et al) • The population density maps were produced using QGIS (QGIS Development Team) Copies of this report are available from http://data.london.gov.uk 2 1. Introduction 1.1 This report compares housing supply and the characteristics of the housing stock in four ‘world cities’: London, New York, Paris and Tokyo. It sets out how the number of homes in the four cities has grown in recent decades, and highlights similarities and differences in the type, tenure, age, height and size of housing in each of them today. 1.2 The data behind the analysis was collected from a range of public statistical sources (described in detail in the Appendix). This data has been made available as a single file on the London Datastore1, with the intention of updating it over time as new data becomes available.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Codata Focus on the City Centre of Bordeaux
    BORDEAUX August 20, 2018 Focus on the city centre of Bordeaux Both the prefecture of Gironde and the capital of the Nouvelle Aquitaine region, Bordeaux is the ninth largest city in France with more than 240,000 inhabitants. However, the city’s influence is much wider. The agglomeration has more than 850,000 inha- bitants and the urban area more than 1,200,000 inhabitants. Bordeaux has seen a succession of urban development projects over the past 20 years. After the development of the docks started in 1995, the creation of a tram network and the inte- gration into high-speed train lines, urban renewal has been a continuous process. It also integrates sustainable development as an important component of projects. The “Euratlantique 2030” project aims to develop the sur- roundings of the Saint Jean station through several hundred hectares of projects dedicated to housing, offices, shops and urban development. The latest Codata censuses carried out on 30/08/2018 on the Bordeaux urban unit identified 46 Commercial sites, 4 of the «Shopping streets» type, 26 of the «Commercial centre» type and 16 of the «Retail area» type. This report focuses on the city centre of Bordeaux. It is com- posed of documents directly extracted from the Codata Explorer online service. Of course, Codata Explorer allows you to edit the same docu- ments for each of the 7000 Commercial Sites studied. Our sales team is at your disposal for any information on this subject. Wishing you a pleasant discovery of this Codata Focus, With kind regards, The Codata Team Bordeaux - France 2| Contents Urban Unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineating the French Urban Areas Ongoing Thoughts
    Delineating the French urban areas Ongoing thoughts Vincent Loonis, Vianney Costemalle Geographical repositories and methods division French national institute of statistics and economic studies (Insee) EFGS, Manchester, 11th October 2019 Vincent Loonis, Vianney Costemalle Delineating the French urban areas Introduction France has delineated its urban areas at a regular pace for the past 200 years. The current definition has remained unchanged since 1962. For the next delineation, to be published in 2020, Insee has to face new challenges. Easy-to-access geospatial information leads to: scholars and official bodies questioning Insee’s implementation of the definition. increasing the number of urban area definitions (based o, population densities or built-up areas). A solution may consist in studying the robustness of the various definitions, while finding a way to combine them. Vincent Loonis, Vianney Costemalle Delineating the French urban areas Introduction Territorial classifications are classifications. As such, they are subject to statistical conventions. Some of these conventions are: classical: thresholds on population, on density rates... specific to spatial information: distance, reference system, choice of geographical layers, quality of the latter. The question raised by Insee is how to measure the influence of geographical conventions on territorial classifications. We will illustrate our ongoing thoughts with two examples: a density-based definition a built-up-area-based definition Vincent Loonis, Vianney Costemalle Delineating the French urban areas density-based definition Figure: Urban center: a cluster of contiguous 1 km2 grid cells (excluding diagonals) with a population of at least 1 500 inhabitants and a minimum global population of 50 000 inhabitants after gap-filling.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineating Metropolitan Areas Using Building Density
    Delineating urban areas using building density Marie-Pierre de Bellefon* † Pierre-Philippe Combes*§ insee, Paris School of Economics University of Lyon, cnrs, and Sciences Po Gilles Duranton*‡ Laurent Gobillon*¶ University of Pennsylvania Paris School of Economics, cnrs 27 October 2018 Abstract: We develop a new dartboard methodology to delin- eate urban areas using detailed information about building location, which we implement using a map of buildings in France. For each pixel, our approach compares actual building density after smooth- ing to counterfactual smoothed building density computed after ran- domly redistributing buildings. We define as urban any area with statistically significant excess building density. We also define the urban cores of these urban areas in a similar manner. Finally, we develop novel one- and two-sided tests to provide a statistical basis to compare maps with different delineations, which we use to docu- ment the robustness of our approach and large differences between our preferred delineation and the corresponding official one. Key words: urban area definition, dartboard approach, Jaccard indices jel classification: c14, r12, r14 *This work is supported by the Zell Lurie Center for Real Estate at the Wharton School. We appreciate the comments from Miquel-Angel Garcia-Lopez, Tomoya Mori, Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, Elisabet Viladecans, and participants at conferences and seminars. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not of any institution they may be associated with. †insee and Paris School of Economics, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France (email: [email protected]). §University of Lyon, cnrs, gate-lse umr 5824, 93 Chemin des Mouilles, 69131 Ecully, France and Sciences Po, Economics Department, 28, Rue des Saints-Pères, 75007 Paris, France (e-mail: [email protected]; website: https://www.gate.cnrs.fr/ppcombes/).
    [Show full text]
  • Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (HABITAT III) National Report France
    Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (HABITAT III) National report France September 2015 1 This report was written by : Maryse GAUTIER, General Engineer of Bridges, Water and Forests from the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (MEDDE), General Council of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CGEDD) and Jérôme MASCLAUX, Chief Engineer of Bridges, Water and Forests, Ministry of Housing, Regional Equality and Rural Affairs (MLETR), General Directorate for Development, Housing and Nature, Department of Housing, Town Planning and Landscapes (DGALN/DHUP/AD) ; with the participation of Anne Charreyron-Perchet from the National Commission on Sustainable Development, and Delphine Gaudart, Jenny Pankow, Marc Calori and Franck Faucheux from the Directorate of Housing, Town Planning and Landscapes for the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (MEDDE) and the Ministry of Housing, Regional Equality and Rural Affairs (MLETR); with the support of the Department of European and International Affairs (DAEI) of the MEDDE/MLETR. With contributions from : the Prime Minister: the General Commission for Regional Equality (CGET), provided to the MLETR and the Ministry of Cities, Youth Programmes and Sports (MVJS); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (MAEDI): from the Department of Global Public Goods; the MEDDE/MLETR: from the National Commission on Sustainable Development, the General-Directorate for Development, Housing and Nature (DGALN), the General-Directorate for Energy and Climate (DGEC), the General-Directorate for Infrastructure, Transport and the Sea (DGITM), the General-Directorate for Risk Prevention (DGPR); the Ministry of Agriculture, Agribusiness and Forests: the General Directorate for Agricultural, Agribusiness and Regional Policies (DGPAAT); and the Social Union for Housing (USH); with the support of Marseille MIGT.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Urbanisation and Urban Policies in OECD Countries: What Lessons for China?
    Trends in Urbanisation and Urban Policies in OECD Countries: What Lessons for China? FOREWORD This report is a joint OECD-CDRF project. It was undertaken in the context of OECD’s Programme on Regional Development of the OECD Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, under the supervision of Joaquim Oliveira Martins, Head of the OECD Regional Competitiveness and Governance Division (www.oecd.org/regionaldevelopment). The report was produced at the request of Mr. Lu Mai, Secretary General of CDRF, and prepared as a background paper for the 2009-2010 Development Report of the China Development Research Foundation (CDRF) "Urbanisation in China: For a People-Centered Strategy". Ms. Irène Hors, Adviser to the Secretary General, CDRF, and Mr. Du Zhixin, Senior Program Officer, CDRF, put forward the original idea of the project, ensured coordination with the Chinese partners and provided useful background information. Whilst China, as a whole, is less urbanised than OECD countries, it nonetheless has the world’s largest urban population, with over 600 million urban citizens today. Although the scale of China’s urbanisation and the growing number of metropolitan regions where this urbanisation is concentrated are unprecedented globally, issues confronting all levels of government in managing this growth are not unique. Most OECD countries have faced a wide range of urban management challenges, and are continuing to acquire valuable experience in doing so. This report provides a synthesis of trends in urbanisation and urban policies in OECD countries. One of the key messages for China is that a successful urban development strategy should build upon each urban region’s endogenous attributes, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling of the Heat Island Generated by an Urban Unit F
    MODELLING OF THE HEAT ISLAND GENERATED BY AN URBAN UNIT F. Pignolet-Tardan *, P. Depecker**, F. Garde*, L. Adelard*, J.C. Gatina*. * Laboratoire de Génie Industriel, Université de la Réunion, 15 avenue René Cassin, 97715 St DENIS Cédex 9, La Réunion, France. • Tel : 02 62 93 82 21 • Email : [email protected] **Centre de Thermique de l'Insa de Lyon (CETHIL), Bat 307, Insa De Lyon, 20 avenue A. Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne , France. • Tel : 03 72 43 84 61 • Email : [email protected] ABSTRACT Outdoor Meso-climate This paper presents the theoretical modelling work of an elementary urban units (street), thermal Solar radiation Humidity behaviour. The calculation code Codyflow was set up as a way to model the thermal response (structure Radiation surface temperature and ambient air temperature) of Diffusion an urban system to the solicitations of the outside climate. The determination of the air temperature in Conduction an urban unit allows the calculation of the ∆T u-r Convection factor representing the difference between the air temperature in the urban system (u) and the air Advection temperature recorded at the closest meteorological station (r), generally situated in the country side. This factor, introduced by OKE, enables the analysis Air temperature Wind of the heat island generated by an urban system. The Fig 1. Overall external solicitations and internal heat simulation results obtained from the Codyflow code, ∆ flows considered in the evaluation of the urban enable the study of the intensity of the Tu-r factor canyon thermal answer. in relation to various parameters : physical and geometrical configurations, presence of air flow solicitations..
    [Show full text]