Many countries are regarded as crowded, even overdeveloped. This observation is often used in support of the argument that population growth should be controlled: more people use more resources, and population density is a very visible marker of this. But an interesting article on the BBC website – The great myth of urban Britain – sparked my interest in looking at this quantitatively.
According to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, only 6.8% of the total land area is classified as urban, the definition of which includes roads and buildings in the countryside, not just in built-up areas. Allowing for parks, allotments, gardens, rivers, reservoirs etc, the perhaps startling conclusion is that only 2.27% of the UK land area is actually built on.
The UK has a population density of 255 per square kilometre, placing it at number 13 out of 89 territories with a population of more than 9 million (figures from the UN). Bangladesh is top of the list at 964 per km2, while both the Netherlands and Rwanda come in at just over 400, India has 368 and Vietnam 255. Clearly, the stage of development is no guide to how crowded a country is.
But there are other surprises. China, with the world’s largest population, has only 140/ km2, considerably lower than Italy (200/km2). Australia, on the other hand, comes bottom of the list with only 3 people per km2. Taking into account city-states and territories with populations below 9 million, we find that Monaco and Singapore have vastly higher population densities, at 17,929 and 7,148 per km2 respectively. Even the Maldives, with its pristine tropical holiday beaches, has over 1,000 people per square kilometre, with other holiday destinations such as the Channel Islands, Mauritius and Barbados having considerably higher population densities than the UK or the Netherlands. And yet, we don’t generally regard them as crowded.
Of course, it’s all about distribution rather than averages. In the case of the Maldives, for example, islands used for tourism have no native populations. The figure for Singapore gives a better indication of the population density in cities. The southeast of England has many more people in the same area as the north of Scotland, and the Dutch Randstad (the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrech area) is much more densely populated than the agricultural north and east. It’s also about geography. A mountainous country like Switzerland has its population largely in the valleys, and Australia with its arid interior has most of its people on the coastal strip.
Geography as well as population also determines food production capacity. As reported by China Daily in 2010 (Shrinking arable land threatens grain security), the country has managed to feed 22% of the world’s population with just 10% of the arable land, but this is threatened by continued erosion and urbanisation. More recent UN figures show China’s 1.35 billion people now to be just over 19% of the world population, while the country’s land area is 7.1% of the global total (excluding Antarctica).
So China actually has a rather more than average share of the world’s farmland, although an even greater share of population. European countries, with their even higher population densities, have a similar problem with farmland availability, but the challenge seems more pressing in China because of its much greater population. Although both Europe and China must continue to increase their agricultural productivity, it seems likely that they will also need to rely more on the vast output of commodity crops from North and South America (thank heaven for globalisation).
Returning to the issue of urbanisation, it’s only fair to remember that the impact of a city or transport link can extend beyond its immediate boundaries, particularly visually, which partly accounts for our perception of crowding. And major roads through countryside also introduce additional noise. On the other hand, because they have verges which cannot be farmed and have no access for people, they also create wildlife habitats as, for example, the common sight of a hovering kestrel testifies. Even city gardens can be havens for birds.
Similarly the impact of power generation equipment. A modern gas-fired power station is hardly a thing of beauty, but it takes up only a few hectares and can be sited essentially wherever needed, close to demand. Most are in areas with little natural beauty. On the other hand, a wind farm producing a nominally equivalent output (although intermittently and unreliably) would require a far larger area of land and must be erected where the wind blows: usually in empty countryside where views are spoilt, and often far from where the demand is.
The comparison is with cities. In many ways it is more efficient to minimise the overall use of space, leading to a locally highly urbanised and rather crowded environment, while reducing the amount of suburban sprawl and retaining open countryside. In any case, we should remember that England still remains a far greener and more pleasant land than many of us might imagine. If we use our natural resources (including land) sensibly, it is likely to stay that way.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 OWS
______________________________________