# Land use and population

###
#1
Posted 08 February 2008 - 12:06 PM

Quick q for you land planners and environmentalists out there... I saw this post in the comments of a blog entry, where people were arguing back and forth about impact of urban vs. rural living, and I was wondering, given a theoretical world where anything is possible (i.e. re-locating 6 billion people), is it true?? It doesn't seem possible. And if it is true, even just technically, what are some examples of places that have about 10,000 people per square kilometer?

It's the last post on this page: http://noimpactman.t...o_impact_e.html

"

World Population - 6.5 Billion

Area of Texas - 695,000 square kilometers

So, if we put the whole world into Texas, the population density would be...

= 6.5 Billion / 695 Thousand

= 9,352 people per square kilometer

Population Density of Paris = 24,775 people per square kilometer

"

###
#2
Posted 08 February 2008 - 01:27 PM

Hi all, just popping my head in for a sec... I haven't had any time to work on maps since last summer, and for the moment I've stopped consulting. But I hope that will change by the end of this summer.

Quick q for you land planners and environmentalists out there... I saw this post in the comments of a blog entry, where people were arguing back and forth about impact of urban vs. rural living, and I was wondering, given a theoretical world where anything is possible (i.e. re-locating 6 billion people), is it true?? It doesn't seem possible. And if it is true, even just technically, what are some examples of places that have about 10,000 people per square kilometer?

It's the last post on this page: http://noimpactman.t...o_impact_e.html

"

World Population - 6.5 Billion

Area of Texas - 695,000 square kilometers

So, if we put the whole world into Texas, the population density would be...

= 6.5 Billion / 695 Thousand

= 9,352 people per square kilometer

Population Density of Paris = 24,775 people per square kilometer

"

Well, the math checks out. It would give everybody a spacious 107 sq. meters (coincidentally, that's more sq. footage than my apartment... go figure...)

In fact, and these calculations are always boggling my mind, we could get everybody to cram into Delaware. If we'd make sure everybody was standing straight, arms down their sides, nobody would be touching. We'd have a little less than 1 sq. meter each (disclaimer, based on Wikipedia numbers and not counting the fact that 21% of Delaware is water... then again, the Dutch can easily fix that...)

The population density in your Texas example would be comparable to Monaco (23660 per sq. km)

**Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor**

**Red Geographics**

**Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics**

###
#3
Posted 08 February 2008 - 02:55 PM

Well, the math checks out. It would give everybody a spacious 107 sq. meters (coincidentally, that's more sq. footage than my apartment... go figure...)

In fact, and these calculations are always boggling my mind, we could get everybody to cram into Delaware. If we'd make sure everybody was standing straight, arms down their sides, nobody would be touching. We'd have a little less than 1 sq. meter each (disclaimer, based on Wikipedia numbers and not counting the fact that 21% of Delaware is water... then again, the Dutch can easily fix that...)

The population density in your Texas example would be comparable to Monaco (23660 per sq. km)

Wow Hans, that Delaware fact is pretty interesting! As for Monaco, I'm curious how "crammed" it is there. Maybe I'll take a peek on Google Earth or something.

Now of course, these calculations don't take into account buildings, roadways, transportation, etc. So I wonder what a more "realistic" estimate would be for relocating the entire planet into one "city", which of course would be so mega it would have to have a new name... how about "hive"?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users