Where are the world's largest cities?

An astronaut's eye view of urbanisation. Image: Getty.

Every year or so, Demographia, the St. Louis-based consultancy, publishes the World Urban Areas Report – a sort of bumper book of city population stats.

The report is a veritable treasure trove of demographic stats for city nerds. If you want to know whether, say, Edinburgh is one of the 1,000 biggest cities in the world, then Demographia will tell you. (It's not, it's just outside at joint 1017th). And if you want to know whether Paris covers a bigger land area than London, it'll tell you that, too. (It does: 2,845km2, as opposed to 1,738 km2.)

It even includes estimates for the size and density of hundreds of towns so tiny that you're slightly surprised to find that anyone on the other side of the Atlantic has even noticed they exist. (Favourite example: Kidderminster*.)

But the most fun is to be found in the first half of the report. Table 1 includes the 1,022 built-up areas in the world that house 500,000 people or more, ranked in order of population; Table 2 ranks the same cities in order of land area.

I don’t know about you guys, but we are stoked.

via GIPHY

(*55,000 people in 16 km2, giving a population density of 3,400 per km2, since you ask.)

Understanding the numbers

Explanations first. The report defines urban areas as

...a continuously built up land mass of urban development that is within a labour market (metropolitan area or metropolitan region)... [and] contains no rural land.

We should probably also note the reports caveat, about the limits of its own methodology:

Revisions are made as more accurate satellite photographs and population estimates become available. As a result, Demographia World Urban Areas is not intended for trend analysis.

Year-to-year changes indicated in population and land area may merely reflect better data that was not used before and may not, therefore indicate a trend.

In other words, if this year's report has a larger estimate for a city's population than last year's report, that might mean the city has grown. Then again, it might just mean that new, more accurate data has appeared.

Moreover, nearly all of the data is estimated. Appropriate caution is therefore advised.

Spoilsports.

The biggest cities, by counting people

Anyway, let’s get to the fun bit. Here are the 10 largest cities in the world by population:

It’s pretty familiar stuff. The top 10 is dominated by Asian cities, with a strong showing from New York City. Tokyo is far in the lead, with Jakarta and Delhi coming up behind. For anyone who pays any attention to this stuff, there aren't at first glance any massive surprises.

We're not supposed to compare with last year's figures for all the reasons laid out above, but what the hell, here's the 2015 top 10:

There are two big differences worth noting. One is that only one Chinese city is now in the top 10, down from three last year. (Beijing and Guangzhou are now ranked 11th and 13th.) All three have seen their populations revised downwards: this seems to the result of previous over-estimates, rather than mass evacuations.

The other noteworthy trend is the sudden appearance in the top 10 of Mumbai, with nearly 23m people. Last year, it ranked 13th with 17.7m. In a section headed "Revised data: highlights", the report notes:

The Mumbai built-up urban area has been expanded to incorporate the Bhiwandi, Kalyan and Vasai-Virar urban areas.

In other words, it isn't that a population the size of Madrid has moved to Mumbai over the last year. Rather, it's become clearer that the megacity has expanded to swallow surrounding areas.

You can see why ranking cities is a complicated business.

The biggest cities, by measuring land

As noted, most of the biggest cities in the world by population are in Asia. Most of the biggest cities in the world by physical size are, well, somewhere else.

Suddenly, with the single exception of Tokyo, Asia doesn’t even feature. Eight out of 10 are in the US. Atlanta has an estimated 5.1m residents, so measured by population it’s the 79th largest city in the world. Measured by land area, though, it ranks fourth.


I guess this is what happens when you build your cities around the car.

Incidentally, the report estimates Atlanta's population density to be 700 people per km2. The comparable figure for Dhaka in Bangladesh – 16.2m people, the 16th largest city in the world - is 44,100.

Dhaka is 63 times more crowded than Atlanta.

All the megacities

One more chart: this is the top 36 by population.

The reason we've stopped at that arbitrary point is not to get London into the rankings (well, not only for that reason). It's because the common definition of megacity is that with a population over 10m.

This is all of them. We've colour coded them by continent:

That's three each in North America, South America, Europe and Africa.

But the remaining 24 – two thirds of all the world's megacities – are in Asia. Five of them are in China alone.

Here, because we love you, is the data used in that graph. Enjoy.



Rank City Population
1 Tokyo-Yokohama 37,750,000
2 Jakarta 31,320,000
3 Delhi 25,735,000
4 Seoul-Incheon 23,575,000
5 Manila 22,930,000
6 Mumbai 22,885,000
7 Karachi 22,825,000
8 Shanghai 22,685,000
9 New York City 20,685,000
10 Sao Paulo 20,605,000
11 Beijing 20,390,000
12 MexicoCity 20,230,000
13 Guangzhou-Foshan 18,760,000
14 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto 16,985,000
15 Moscow 16,570,000
16 Dhaka 16,235,000
17 Cairo 15,910,000
18 Bangkok 15,315,000
19 Los Angeles 15,135,000
20 Kolkata 14,810,000
21 Buenos Aires 14,280,000
22 Tehran 13,670,000
23 Istanbul 13,520,000
24 Lagos 12,830,000
25 Shenzhen 12,240,000
26 Rio de Janeiro 11,815,000
27 Kinshasa 11,380,000
28 Tianjin 11,260,000
29 Lima 10,950,000
30 Paris 10,870,000
31 Chengdu 10,680,000
32 Lahore 10,355,000
33 London 10,350,000
34 Bangalore 10,165,000
35 Ho Chi Minh City 10,075,000
36 Nagoya 10,035,000

 

And if you want more of this stuff, here’s our report on the 2015 edition of the Demographia World Urban Areas Atlas.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Covid-19 is highlighting cities' unequal access to green space

In the UK, Londoners are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

As coronavirus lockdowns ease, people are flooding back to parks – but not everyone has easy access to green space in their city.

Statistics from Google show that park attendance in countries across the globe has shot up as people have been allowed to move around their cities again.

This is especially true in urban areas, where densely populated neighbourhoods limit the size of private green space – meaning residents have to go to the park to get in touch with nature. Readers from England can use our interactive tool below to find out how much green space people have access to in their area, and how it compares to the rest of the country.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement Monday that people are allowed to mingle in parks and gardens with groups of up to six people was partially following what people were doing already.

Data from mobile phones show people have been returning to parks across the UK, and also across Europe, as weather improves and lockdown eases.

People have been returning to parks across the world

Stay-at-home requirements were eased in Italy on 4 May, which led to a flood of people returning to parks.

France eased restrictions on 1 May, and the UK eased up slightly on 13 May, allowing people to sit down in public places so long as they remain socially distanced.

Other countries have seen park attendance rise without major easing of lockdown – including Canada, Spain, and the US (although states there have individual rules and some have eased restrictions).

In some countries, people never really stopped going to parks.

Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany were not as strict as other countries about their citizens visiting local parks during lockdown, while Sweden has famously been avoiding placing many restrictions on people’s daily lives.


There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that access to green space has major benefits for public health.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Exeter found that spending time in the garden is linked to similar benefits for health and wellbeing as living in wealthy areas.

People with access to a private garden also had higher psychological wellbeing, and those with an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those without access to outdoor space. 

Separate UK research has found that living with a regular view of a green space provides health benefits worth £300 per person per year.

Access is not shared equally, however, which has important implications for equality under lockdown, and the spread of disease.

Statistics from the UK show that one in eight households has no garden, making access to parks more important.

There is a geographic inequality here. Londoners, who have the least access to private gardens, are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. 

However the high population in the capital means that on the whole, green space per person is lower – an issue for people living in densely populated cities everywhere.

There is also an occupational inequality.

Those on low pay – including in what are statistically classed as “semi-skilled” and “unskilled” manual occupations, casual workers and those who are unemployed – are almost three times as likely as those in managerial, administrative, professional occupations to be without a garden, meaning they rely more heavily on their local park.

Britain’s parks and fields are also at significant risk of development, according to new research by the Fields in Trust charity, which shows the number of people living further than a 10-minute walk from a public park rising by 5% over the next five years. That loss of green spaces is likely to impact disadvantaged communities the most, the researchers say.

This is borne out by looking at the parts of the country that have private gardens.

The least deprived areas have the largest gardens

Though the relationship is not crystal clear, it shows at the top end: Those living in the least deprived areas have the largest private green space.

Although the risk of catching coronavirus is lower outdoors, spending time in parks among other people is undoubtedly more risky when it comes to transmitting or catching the virus than spending time in your own outdoor space. 

Access to green space is therefore another example – along with the ability to work from home and death rates – of how the burden of the pandemic has not been equally shouldered by all.

Michael Goodier is a data reporter at New Statesman Media Group, and Josh Rayman is a graphics and data visualisation developer at New Statesman Media Group.