1. Defining Metropolitan Regions
Working Party on Regional and Urban Statistics
Luxembourg
October 2007
Enrique Garcilazo
RCG/OECD

2. Previous Work “Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions”
27 November 2006 – Paris
Contributions: NSO, International Organisations and field experts
Demand for a comparable definition:
Secretariat (UWP, WPTI)
Other International Organisations, Governmental Agencies
Goal of this Paper:
Summarises main issues presented and debated
Guidance how to proceed

3. Outline of Paper Defining Metropolitan Regions
Review of main approaches
Guiding assumptions
Measuring Metropolitan Regions
Data availability
Defining or Measuring?
Trade-off between a functional definition and administrative based data
Conclusions and Proposal for Future Work

4. 1. Defining MRs – Approaches
Three main approaches:
The administrative approach
The morphological approach
The functional approach
Different definitions suit different purposes
Interest lies in socio-economic perspective
Functional approach
Administrative

5. 1.Defining MRs: Statistical Methods
Two Component Model
Selection of the core:
Administrative
Functional
Expansion around core -- building blocks:
Geographical units
Commuting ratio

6. 1.Defining MRs: Statistical Methods
Advantages -- two component model:
Easy to implement
Existing body of work
Shortcomings -- two component model:
Differences in:
size of building block
criteria to select the core
thresholds to expand the core
Inadequate for polycentric structures

7. 1. Defining MRs: Statistical Methods
Partitioning the National Territory :
Step 1: Partition national territory into:
Strongly self contained economic regions
Interactions of flow (commuting)
Step 2: Determining
Which self-contained regions are MR

8. 1. Defining MRs: Statistical Methods
Advantages -- partitioning method:
No predefined core -- flexibility with building block areas
Compare different urban systems, commuting patterns, datasets, and building blocks
Polycentric structures
Shortcomings -- partitioning method:
Availability of commuting flow data
Dependence on computing algorithms
Existing work lesser developed than 2 component model

9. Outline of Paper Defining Metropolitan Regions
Review of main approaches
Guiding assumptions
Measuring Metropolitan Regions
Data availability
Defining or Measuring?
Trade-off between a functional definition and administrative based data
Conclusions and Proposal for Future Work

10. 2. Measuring MR Availability of Data:
Regional statistics for administrative units
Survey for partitioning method (Table 2):
Census, LFS, national accounts
Survey for two component model (Table 3):
City core – administrative city-boundaries
Hinterlands of functional urban areas

11. Outline of Paper Defining Metropolitan Regions
Review of main approaches
Guiding assumptions
Measuring Metropolitan Regions
Data availability
Defining or Measuring?
Trade-off between a functional definition and administrative based data
Conclusions and Proposal for Future Work

12. 3. Defining or Measuring
Trade-off: Accurateness and Availability of Data

13. 3. Defining or Measuring Functional MR resembles administrativeOK
Administrative regions smaller than MR:
Paris, Athens, Barcelona, Copenhagen, and Milan
Regional data much larger than MR:
Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the US
Apply a rule (i.e. error in measurement):
GEMACA: attach NUTS 3 region if majority of population lives in MR

14. 3. Defining or Measuring
Acceptable error
FUR
NUTS 3

15. 3. Defining or Measuring
Un-acceptable error
FUR
NUTS 3

16. Outline of Paper Defining Metropolitan Regions
Review of main approaches
Guiding assumptions
Measuring Metropolitan Regions
Data availability
Defining or Measuring?
Trade-off between a functional definition and administrative based data
Conclusions and Proposal for Future Work

17. 4. Conclusions and Future Work
Most definitions use two-component model
Limited by differences in size of city-core, building blocks, commuting thresholds
Partitioning approach more comparable
Computational cost
Sensitivity analysis
Size equivalent
Data availability
Reduce cases where results are irreconcilable

18. 4. Conclusions and Future Work
Start with sample of MR irrespective of definition and methodological differences
Select MR that are “size equivalent” using sensitivity analysis
Select MR that are “measurement equivalent” despite different definitions
For remainder, use partitioning method and estimate missing data according to a common set of procedures