IB Geography (Dip...
Follow
Find tag "urban"
4.4K views | +0 today
IB Geography (Diploma Programme)
Resources for IBDP geography
Curated by Tony Burton
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Stunning Satellite Images of Earth

Stunning Satellite Images of Earth | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
Exclusive timelapse: See climate change, deforestation and urban sprawl unfold as Earth evolves over 30 years.

Via Seth Dixon
more...
Tracy Young's curator insight, May 12, 2013 6:12 PM

Very useful visual tool for exploring patterns of change

oyndrila's curator insight, May 17, 2013 1:24 PM

Exciting!!

Ishola Adebayo's comment, July 31, 2013 9:07 AM
good day Sir, pls need help on fixing scan line errors on lansat7 ETM images from 2003 using for example ArcMap9.3 or ENVI4.5 or.........thank you so much
Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Big U.S. Cities Growing Faster than Suburbs

Big U.S. Cities Growing Faster than Suburbs | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs.

 

"As young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers," this profoundly is changing the demographic processes that create our major urban areas.  "Driving the resurgence are young adults, who are delaying careers, marriage and having children amid persistently high unemployment. Burdened with college debt or toiling in temporary, lower-wage positions, they are spurning homeownership in the suburbs for shorter-term, no-strings-attached apartment living, public transit and proximity to potential jobs in larger cities."  With home ownership no longer the goal and the suburbs the destination of choice, how with this affect the urban structure of or major metropolitan areas? 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Kim Vignale's comment, July 30, 2012 10:33 PM
It is logical for many single people to live in urban areas due to job availability, convenience of location, and small affordable apartments. Established families resides in suburban areas because houses are bigger and land is vast for young children to grow up in. However, a typical college graduate would find it difficult to find employment right after college; once employed, wages are not high enough for these young adults to buy a house. I would find it more convenient to live in the city because public transportation is available and more jobs are offered in large cities. Once i get established with a career, it would be more logical to buy a house in the suburbs.
Seth Dixon's comment, August 2, 2012 2:39 PM
It is a logical shift in urban processes, especially when you consider that in the United States, fewer and fewer people are 1) getting married young and 2) having children. Both of these makes the suburbs less of an ideal spot young Americans that are leaving college and their parents homes.
Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Satellite Images of Urban Sprawl

Satellite Images of Urban Sprawl | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
The past century has been defined by an epic migration of people from rural areas to the city. In 2008, for the first time in history, more of the Earth's population was living in cities than in the countryside.

 

This image gallery is designed "to present images from space [that] track the relentless spread of humanity."  The 'slide bar' in the middle allows the viewer to scroll between before and after images of major metropolitan areas that have experienced dramatic growth in the last 10-30 years.  The attached images is on Dubai, UAE.  Notice the man-made islands, especially the 'archipelago' in the shape of the world that is 2.5 miles off the coast of Dubai.


Via Seth Dixon
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

How the rise of the megacity is changing the way we live

How the rise of the megacity is changing the way we live | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
The rapid increase in the number of cities home to more than 10 million people will bring huge challenges … and opportunities... 

 

It's not just that more people now live in cities than in the rural countryside (for the first time in human history).  It's not just that major cities are growing increasingly more important to the global economy.  The rise of the megacities (cities over 10 million inhabitants) is a startling new phenomenon that really is something we've only seen in the last 50 years or so with the expectation that the number of megacities will double in the next 10 to 20 years (currently there are 23).  This reorganization of population entails wholesale restructuring of the economic, environmental, cultural and political networks.  The urban challenges that we face today are only going to become increasingly important in the future.        

 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Seth Dixon's curator insight, September 30, 2013 7:40 AM

 It's not just that more people now live in cities than in the rural countryside (for the first time in human history).  It's not just that major cities are growing increasingly more important to the global economy.  The rise of the megacities (cities over 10 million inhabitants) is a startling new phenomenon that really is something we've only seen in the last 50 years or so with the expectation that the number of megacities will double in the next 10 to 20 years (currently there are 23).  This reorganization of population entails wholesale restructuring of the economic, environmental, cultural and political networks.  The urban challenges that we face today are only going to become increasingly important in the future.       

Kenny Dominguez's curator insight, December 12, 2013 12:26 AM

It is a good thing that there is more megacities being created because you can see more people move in which will help the city function better economics wise. When it comes down to the population that is a different story because there is more people to worry and deal with. The increase of people could go both ways because it can be good but at the same time it can go bad because people will start arguing in which it can get physical which means city ratings going down.

Bec Seeto's curator insight, October 30, 5:58 PM

Great info graphic on mega cities. 

Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Rise of Residential Segregation by Income

Rise of Residential Segregation by Income | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it

"Residential segregation by income has increased during the past three decades across the United States and in 27 of the nation’s 30 largest major metropolitan area, according to a new analysis of census tract and household income data by the Pew Research Center.  The analysis finds that 28% of lower-income households in 2010 were located in a majority lower-income census tract, up from 23% in 1980, and that 18% of upper- income households were located in a majority upper-income census tract, up from 9% in 1980."  This interactive map allows the user to explore the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. To read the article associated with this map, see: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/01/the-rise-of-residential-segregation-by-income/


Via Seth Dixon
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Urban Trees Reveal Income Inequality

Urban Trees Reveal Income Inequality | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
Wealthy cities seem to have it all. Expansive, well-manicured parks. Fine dining. Renowned orchestras and theaters. More trees. Wait, trees?

 

I certainly wouldn't argue that trees create economic inequality, but there appears to be a strong correlation in between high income neighborhoods and large mature trees in cities throughout the world (for a scholarly reference from the Journal, Landscape and Urban Planning, see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204607002174 ). Why is there such a connection? In terms of landscape analysis, what does this say about those who have created these environments? Why do societies value trees in cities? How does the presence of trees change the sense of place of a particular neighborhood? For more Google images that show the correlation between income and trees (and to share your own), see: http://persquaremile.com/2012/05/24/income-inequality-seen-from-space/


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Donald Dane's comment, December 10, 2013 10:00 AM
this short article explains the evidence supporting tree to rich cities ratio. it goes to show that if I'm going to pay big bucks for location I would want the scenery to be beautiful hands down. they mention the per capita increase to tree ratio and how its only a dollar that influences such a high quantity of trees in city. bottom line is that it makes sense for the more trees in wealthier neighborhoods of the city because when your in the heart of the city you tend to see quantity of quality of homes and being jammed packed into small square footage doesn't leave much room for nature. but go just outside the city where the real estate is high and more spacious and you will find more trees the further and further from the center.
megan b clement's comment, December 16, 2013 1:04 AM
Like a previous article it explains how if viewing a neighborhood with lush grass and huge yards with landscaped grounds it is associated with big money. People pay top dollar for houses that have huge back yards and privacy of trees. You would not see yards like this is the city though so these neighborhoods on the outskirts of the citylines.
Shaun Scallan's curator insight, January 27, 11:48 PM

Interesting the value, in the broadest sense, that trees can bring in an urban setting

Rescooped by Tony Burton from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

One billion slum dwellers

One billion slum dwellers | IB Geography (Diploma Programme) | Scoop.it
One billion people worldwide live in slums, a number that will likely double by 2030. The characteristics of slum life vary greatly between geographic regions, but they are generally inhabited by the very poor or socially disadvantaged.

 

There was significant publicity last year when the world population reached 7 billion.  Barely a whisper was heard when the global population of slum dwellers exceeded 1 billion.  When the world's population reached 7 billion, it was used as a moment to reflect on sustainable growth, resources and the common good for humanity.  This 'milestone' of 1 billion slum dwellers needs to also serve as a teaching moment to reflect on urbanization, migration, human development and the underlying causes that have lead to this explosive growth primarily in the developing world. 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Nasry Says Hi's curator insight, January 17, 7:49 AM

So, by 2030, its likely that there will be 2 billion people living in slums.

 

Wonderful.

 

What I find most peculiar is, that no matter how much the first world nations insinuate that they are doing their best to solve the problem, work together to end world hunger, blah blah blah. The fact is, according to a video I recently watched, that no matter how much money in alms are given to those in poverty, the country will almost always include taxes, pay deductions, etcetera, and this amount is more than the amount that they had given to them. So technically, the situation is getting worse.

 

Fantastic.

 

I understand that money is a sensitive matter, but really, if you think about it, the government of poorer countries would be overrun by corruption. All because the richer nations care about making money and put that priority over everything else. And here in the fourth richest nation in the world (as of now), our ministers are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly to prevent corruption, but we're still rolling in seas of money.So why not help these less privileged countries?

 

I can think of only one reason, and that reason i have mentioned earlier: Corruption. We might be donating to the people of a country, but before that money goes to the people, it would have to go through the government. And there it begins. Say we donate 2 Million Dollars. A lot of money, right? Well, say that Country X has a hundred members of parliament. And to shut everyone up, everyone gets ten thousand dollars. Common sense tells us that they will not get the full amount. Count the authorities the money has to pass through, how many hands the money has exchanged with, the number of pockets that amount of money has filled, and you get only a fraction of what we gave. Considering Country X is a fairly large country, the amount of money will get further divided and the people will only get probably a millionth of what they were supposed to get.

 

Now I have lived in Singapore all my life, and I know I am not in the right position to say this, because i probably will never know how the poorest of the poor survive. But I'm gonna say it anyway.

 

WHY SO MATERIALISTIC???????

 

The money you have is only temporary. Its just a piece of paper. If you have been corrupted, please stop. Because the poorest people in your country are probably farmers. And farmers make food. More money for them,  more incentive for them to work. More work done, more food you get. The more food you get, the less starved you are, the better your country will improve, and eventually, Country X could be a powerful nation.

 

Singapore is a perfect example. Back when it gained independence in 1965, the entire country was practically a slum. But now, less then half a century later, we are now the fourth richest nation in the world.

 

And for the record, I have no idea why I sounded so angry at the beginning.

 

Sean Lim Lin Yuan's comment, January 27, 11:15 PM
Hi wow
Jung Dohun's comment, January 27, 11:43 PM
It is not so easy as you think. There are many countries that does not have land suitable for farming. Also, farming requires water and many countries does not even have water for people to drink. If it was so easy for a country to be wealthy, there might not even be a poor country at all. There must be a good reason behind it and we, for now should not interfere. At most we can do is to donate :)