where Y {\displaystyle Y} is the urban indicator, Y 0 {\displaystyle Y_{0}} is a constant, N {\displaystyle N} is the population size, and β {\displaystyle \beta } is the scaling exponent.
The key focus of Urban Scaling as a field (in contrast with other fields [see "Economics" and "Sociology" sections below]) is the emphasis on studying the origin and explanation of particular values of the scaling exponents. While other fields have recognized a relationship between size and urban metrics, it is mainly researchers in the field of Urban Scaling who have been interested in the fact that, from all the possible relationships two variables can be related, and all the coefficients that can mediate the strength of the relationship, urban metrics and population size are related through power-laws and the exponents can be slightly below 1 or slightly above 1.
The urban scaling framework mostly focuses on cross-sectional relationships. That is, it describes the power-law relationship between urban metrics across many cities for a particular point in time.
The framework can be extended to understand whether a given city will follow or will deviate from the power-law relationship describing the whole urban system.
Assume c = 1 , … , m {\displaystyle c=1,\ldots ,m} cities in an urban system, and assume their populations grow exponentially with a fixed and constant rate g {\displaystyle g} , N c ( t ) = N c ( 0 ) e g t {\displaystyle N_{c}(t)=N_{c}(0)e^{gt}} . Assume cities generate some type of output Y {\displaystyle Y} , which also grows exponentially, but with another rate h {\displaystyle h} , such that Y c ( t ) = Y c ( 0 ) e h t {\displaystyle Y_{c}(t)=Y_{c}(0)e^{ht}} . Here, N c ( 0 ) {\displaystyle N_{c}(0)} and Y c ( 0 ) {\displaystyle Y_{c}(0)} represent the population and the output at time t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} , respectively. Together, these two assumptions imply that
( Y c ( t ) Y c ( 0 ) ) 1 / h = ( N c ( t ) N c ( 0 ) ) 1 / g . {\displaystyle {\left({\frac {Y_{c}(t)}{Y_{c}(0)}}\right)}^{1/h}={\left({\frac {N_{c}(t)}{N_{c}(0)}}\right)}^{1/g}.}
In turn, this yields the following implicit power-law relationship between output and population:
Y c ( t ) = a c N c ( t ) h / g , {\displaystyle Y_{c}(t)={a_{c}}~{N_{c}(t)}^{h/g},}
where a c = ( Y c ( 0 ) N c ( 0 ) h / g ) {\displaystyle a_{c}=\left({\frac {Y_{c}(0)}{N_{c}(0)^{h/g}}}\right)} .
That is, if population size and output grow exponentially at different rates, they will be longitudinally related through a power-law for any single city c {\displaystyle c} . Furthermore, if the ratio between the initial output and population size is a constant independent of the city, k ≡ a c {\displaystyle k\equiv a_{c}} , then the same power-law will describe the cross-sectional data, since the proportionality factor and the exponent in the power-law will not depend on the subscript c {\displaystyle c} . This is a very simple example in which urban scaling would arise both in time and in space, Y ( N , t ) = k N ( t ) β , {\displaystyle Y(N,t)=k{N(t)}^{\beta },} with a scaling exponent β = h / g {\displaystyle \beta =h/g} equal to the ratio of the growth rates. The relationship between temporal and cross-sectional scaling can be made more general.
The question of whether there is a relationship between temporal scaling and cross-sectional scaling is addressed by noting that the outcome variable is a function of population size and time (with perhaps some random noise), Y = f ( N , t ) {\displaystyle Y=f(N,t)} . There is a certain debate in the published literature on this topic, due to a lack of explicit definitions about what scaling means in time and in space.
Here, the following three relationships and definitions are assumed:
f ˙ ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) = ∂ f ∂ x 1 x ˙ 1 + ∂ f ∂ x 2 x ˙ 2 + … + ∂ f ∂ x n x ˙ n + ∂ f ∂ t {\displaystyle {\dot {f}}(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_{1}}}{\dot {x}}_{1}+{\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_{2}}}{\dot {x}}_{2}+\ldots +{\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_{n}}}{\dot {x}}_{n}+{\frac {\partial f}{\partial t}}}
β L = ∂ ln ( Y ) / ∂ t ∂ ln ( N ) / ∂ t {\displaystyle \beta _{L}={\frac {\partial \ln(Y){\big /}\partial t}{\partial \ln(N){\big /}\partial t}}}
β C = ∂ ln ( Y ) / ∂ N ∂ ln ( N ) / ∂ N . {\displaystyle \beta _{C}={\frac {\partial \ln(Y){\big /}\partial N}{\partial \ln(N){\big /}\partial N}}.}
Note that the longitudinal scaling exponent β L {\displaystyle \beta _{L}} is the ratio of two partial derivatives with respect to time (i.e., holding size constant for Y {\displaystyle Y} ), while the cross-sectional scaling exponent is the ratio of two partial derivatives with respect to size (i.e., holding time constant).
For clarity and convenience, let y ≡ ln ( Y ) {\displaystyle y\equiv \ln(Y)} and n ≡ ln ( N ) {\displaystyle n\equiv \ln(N)} , and drop the city-specific subscript c {\displaystyle c} . Using the above conventions, the total derivative of y ( n , t ) {\displaystyle y(n,t)} with respect to time is
y ˙ = ∂ y ∂ n n ˙ + ∂ y ∂ t {\displaystyle {\dot {y}}={\frac {\partial y}{\partial n}}{\dot {n}}+{\frac {\partial y}{\partial t}}} .
Since n {\displaystyle n} is a function of time only, then n ˙ = ∂ n / ∂ t {\displaystyle {\dot {n}}=\partial n/\partial t} . Hence, dividing on both sides by n ˙ {\displaystyle {\dot {n}}} , we conclude that
y ˙ n ˙ = β C + β L {\displaystyle {\frac {\dot {y}}{\dot {n}}}=\beta _{C}+\beta _{L}} .
Based on this, one can interpret y ˙ n ˙ {\displaystyle {\frac {\dot {y}}{\dot {n}}}} to be a "total" urban scaling exponent, and thus
β T = β C + β L {\displaystyle \beta _{T}=\beta _{C}+\beta _{L}} .
However, since N {\displaystyle N} is a function of time only ( N = N ( t ) {\displaystyle N=N(t)} ), both Y {\displaystyle Y} and N {\displaystyle N} change simultaneously over time. This interdependence makes it impossible to hold N {\displaystyle N} constant while observing changes in Y {\displaystyle Y} , which is necessary to directly estimate the longitudinal exponent β L {\displaystyle \beta _{L}} from empirical data. Consequently, only the total scaling exponent β T {\displaystyle \beta _{T}} and the cross-sectional exponent β C {\displaystyle \beta _{C}} can be empirically estimated, while the longitudinal exponent β L {\displaystyle \beta _{L}} remains unobservable in practice due to the confounding effect of N {\displaystyle N} 's dependency on time.
Some early studies in economics can be seen to have contributed to early stages of the urban scaling literature (unintendedly) by their analyses of how economic outcomes change with population size. One such study is Sveikauskas' 1975 "The productivity of cities",29 in which he reports a positive association between the average productivity or workers and city population size.
Today, the field of urban economics is focused on understanding the causal underpinnings of the benefits that accrue when people come together in physical space. Hence, a big body of literature has been focused on understanding the so-called "urban wage premium", which is the fact that nominal wages tend to be larger in larger cities.
The field of sociology has also investigated the relationship between socioeconomic variables and the size and density of populations.
For example, Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist, highlighted the sociological impacts of population density and growth in his 1893 dissertation, "The Division of Labour in Society." In his work, Durkheim emphasized the collective social effects of population. He proposed that an increase in population leads to more social interactions, resulting in competition, specialization, and eventually conflict, which then necessitates the development of social norms and integration. This concept, known as "dynamic density," was later expanded by American sociologist Louis Wirth, particularly in the context of urban settings. However, it wasn't until the 1970s that these ideas were translated into (sociological) mathematical models, sparking debates among sociologists about the complexities of urban agglomeration.303132
Critics like Claude S. Fischer argued that mathematical models oversimplified the reality of social interactions in cities. Fischer contended that these models assumed urbanites interact randomly, akin to marbles in a jar, which fails to capture the nuanced and localized nature of city life. He pointed out that most city dwellers have limited interactions within their neighborhoods and rarely venture into other parts of the city, contradicting the notion that social interactions scale uniformly with population size. Fischer’s criticism emphasized the need for a deeper understanding of social systems, beyond mere quantitative models.33
Since the formulation of the urban scaling hypothesis, several researchers from the complexity field have criticized the framework and its approach. These criticisms often target the statistical methods used, suggesting that the relationship between economic output and city size may not be a power law. For instance, Shalizi (2011)34 argues that other functions could fit the relationship between urban characteristics and population equally well, challenging the notion of scale invariance. Bettencourt et al. (2013)35 responded that while other models might fit the data, the power-law hypothesis remains robust without a better theoretical alternative.
Other critiques by Leitão et al. (2016)36 and Altmann (2020)37 pointed out potential misspecifications in the statistical analysis, such as incorrect distribution assumptions and the independence of observations. These concerns highlight the need for theory to guide the choice of statistical methods. Additionally, the issue of defining city boundaries raises conceptual challenges. Arcaute et al. (2015)38 and subsequent studies showed that different boundary definitions yield different scaling exponents, questioning the premise of agglomeration economies. They suggest that models should consider the intra-city composition of economic and social activities rather than relying solely on aggregate measures.
Another criticism of the urban scaling approach relates to the over-reliance on averages in measuring individual-level quantities such as average wages, or average number of patents produced. Complex systems, such as cities, exhibit distributions of their individual components that are often heavy-tailed. Heavy-tailed distributions are very different from normal distributions, and tend to generate extremely large values. The presence of extreme outliers can invalidate the Law of Large Numbers, making averages unreliable. Gomez-Lievano et al. (2021)39 showed that in log-normally distributed urban quantities (such as wages), averages only make sense for sufficiently large cities. Otherwise, artificial correlations between city size and productivity can emerge, misleadingly suggesting the appearance of urban scaling.
Bettencourt, Luis; West, Geoffrey (2010). "A unified theory of urban living". Nature. 467 (7318): 912–913. Bibcode:2010Natur.467..912B. doi:10.1038/467912a. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 20962823. https://www.nature.com/articles/467912a ↩
Whitfield, John (2006). In the beat of a heart: life, energy, and the unity of nature. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. ISBN 978-0-309-09681-2. OCLC 67346041. 978-0-309-09681-2 ↩
Schroeder, Manfred Robert (2009). Fractals, chaos, power laws: minutes from an infinite paradise (Dover ed.). Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-47204-1. 978-0-486-47204-1 ↩
Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences. Springer Series in Synergetics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 2006. Bibcode:2006cpns.book.....S. doi:10.1007/3-540-33182-4. ISBN 978-3-540-30882-9. 978-3-540-30882-9 ↩
Sornette, Didier; Sornette, Didier (2006). Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization, and Disorder: Concepts and Tools. Springer series in synergetics (2nd ed.). Berlin New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-33182-7. 978-3-540-33182-7 ↩
Batty, Michael (2017). The new science of cities (First paperback ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-53456-7. 978-0-262-53456-7 ↩
Bettencourt, Luís M. A.; Lobo, José; Helbing, Dirk; Kühnert, Christian; West, Geoffrey B. (2007-04-24). "Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (17): 7301–7306. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.7301B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610172104. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 1852329. PMID 17438298. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852329 ↩
Bettencourt, Luis M.A.; Lobo, José; Strumsky, Deborah (2007). "Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size". Research Policy. 36 (1): 107–120. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.026. ISSN 0048-7333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.026 ↩
Kühnert, Christian; Helbing, Dirk; West, Geoffrey B. (2006). "Scaling laws in urban supply networks". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 363 (1): 96–103. Bibcode:2006PhyA..363...96K. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.01.058. ISSN 0378-4371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2006.01.058 ↩
Ribeiro, Fabiano L.; Rybski, Diego (2023). "Mathematical models to explain the origin of urban scaling laws". Physics Reports. 1012: 1–39. Bibcode:2023PhR..1012....1R. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.02.002. ISSN 0370-1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2023.02.002 ↩
Arbesman, Samuel; Kleinberg, Jon M.; Strogatz, Steven H. (2009-01-30). "Superlinear scaling for innovation in cities". Physical Review E. 79 (1): 016115. arXiv:0809.4994. Bibcode:2009PhRvE..79a6115A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.79.016115. PMID 19257115. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.016115 ↩
Bettencourt, Luís M. A. (2013-06-21). "The Origins of Scaling in Cities". Science. 340 (6139): 1438–1441. Bibcode:2013Sci...340.1438B. doi:10.1126/science.1235823. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 23788793. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1235823 ↩
Gomez-Lievano, Andres; Patterson-Lomba, Oscar; Hausmann, Ricardo (2016-12-22). "Explaining the prevalence, scaling and variance of urban phenomena". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 1–6. arXiv:1604.07876. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0012. ISSN 2397-3374. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0012 ↩
Yang, V. Chuqiao; Papachristos, Andrew V.; Abrams, Daniel M. (2019-09-16). "Modeling the origin of urban-output scaling laws". Physical Review E. 100 (3): 032306. arXiv:1712.00476. Bibcode:2019PhRvE.100c2306Y. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.100.032306. PMID 31639910. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.100.032306 ↩
Gomez-Lievano, Andres; Fragkias, Michail (2024). "The benefits and costs of agglomeration: insights from economics and complexity". arXiv:2404.13178 [physics.soc-ph]. /wiki/ArXiv_(identifier) ↩
Ribeiro, Fabiano L.; Netto, Vinicius M. (2024). "Urban Scaling Laws". arXiv:2404.02642 [physics.soc-ph]. /wiki/ArXiv_(identifier) ↩
"Projects: Cities, scaling, & sustainability | Santa Fe Institute". www.santafe.edu. Retrieved 2024-10-16. https://santafe.edu/research/projects/cities-scaling-sustainability ↩
Pumain, Denise; Paulus, Fabien; Vacchiani-Marcuzzo, Céline; Lobo, José (2006-07-05). "An evolutionary theory for interpreting urban scaling laws". Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. doi:10.4000/cybergeo.2519. ISSN 1278-3366. https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/2519 ↩
Bettencourt, L. M.A.; Lobo, J.; West, G. B. (2008-06-01). "Why are large cities faster? Universal scaling and self-similarity in urban organization and dynamics". The European Physical Journal B. 63 (3): 285–293. Bibcode:2008EPJB...63..285B. doi:10.1140/epjb/e2008-00250-6. ISSN 1434-6036. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2008-00250-6 ↩
West, Geoffrey B. (2017). Scale: the universal laws of growth, innovation, sustainability, and the pace of life in organisms, cities, economies, and companies. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-558-3. 978-1-59420-558-3 ↩
Sveikauskas, Leo (1975). "The Productivity of Cities". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 89 (3): 393–413. doi:10.2307/1885259. JSTOR 1885259. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1885259 ↩
Mayhew, Bruce H.; Levinger, Roger L. (1976). "Size and the Density of Interaction in Human Aggregates". American Journal of Sociology. 82 (1): 86–110. doi:10.1086/226271. ISSN 0002-9602. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226271 ↩
Milgram, Stanley (1970), Korten, Frances F.; Cook, Stuart W.; Lacey, John I. (eds.), "The experience of living in cities: A psychological analysis.", Psychology and the problems of society., Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 152–173, doi:10.1037/10042-011, retrieved 2024-07-24 https://content.apa.org/books/10042-011 ↩
Kasarda, John D. (1974). "The Structural Implications of Social System Size: A Three-Level Analysis". American Sociological Review. 39 (1): 19–28. doi:10.2307/2094273. JSTOR 2094273. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094273 ↩
Fischer, Claude S. (1977). "Comment on Mayhew and Levinger's "Size and the Density of Interaction in Human Aggregates"". American Journal of Sociology. 83 (2): 452–455. doi:10.1086/226556. ISSN 0002-9602. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226556 ↩
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla (2011-04-07). "Scaling and Hierarchy in Urban Economies". arXiv:1102.4101 [stat.AP]. /wiki/ArXiv_(identifier) ↩
Bettencourt, Luis M. A.; Lobo, Jose; Youn, Hyejin (2013-01-24). "The hypothesis of urban scaling: formalization, implications and challenges". arXiv:1301.5919 [physics.soc-ph]. /wiki/ArXiv_(identifier) ↩
Leitão, J. C.; Miotto, J. M.; Gerlach, M.; Altmann, E. G. (2016). "Is this scaling nonlinear?". Royal Society Open Science. 3 (7): 150649. arXiv:1604.02872. Bibcode:2016RSOS....350649L. doi:10.1098/rsos.150649. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 4968456. PMID 27493764. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968456 ↩
Altmann, Eduardo G. (2020-12-07). "Spatial interactions in urban scaling laws". PLOS ONE. 15 (12): e0243390. arXiv:2006.14140. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1543390A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243390. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 7721189. PMID 33284830. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721189 ↩
Arcaute, Elsa; Hatna, Erez; Ferguson, Peter; Youn, Hyejin; Johansson, Anders; Batty, Michael (2015). "Constructing cities, deconstructing scaling laws". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 12 (102): 20140745. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0745. ISSN 1742-5689. PMC 4277074. PMID 25411405. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4277074 ↩
Gomez-Lievano, Andres; Vysotsky, Vladislav; Lobo, José (2021). "Artificial increasing returns to scale and the problem of sampling from lognormals". Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 48 (6): 1574–1590. arXiv:1807.09424. doi:10.1177/2399808320942366. ISSN 2399-8083. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320942366 ↩
West, Geoffrey (2011-07-26). The surprising math of cities and corporations. Retrieved 2024-10-16 – via www.ted.com. https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations?subtitle=en ↩
"Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustai…". Goodreads. Retrieved 2024-10-16. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31670196-scale ↩