pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.30021 · v2 · pith:RMNS5ZQYnew · submitted 2026-03-31 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cond-mat.dis-nn· cond-mat.stat-mech

On the Meaning of Urban Scaling

Ulysse Marquis , Marc Barthelemy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords urban scaling lawscross-sectional analysiscity growth trajectoriespower-law exponentsurban systemsstatistical patterns
0
0 comments X

The pith

An exponent from comparing many cities at one time does not describe how any individual city grows.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that urban scaling laws, which relate population size to infrastructure, economic activity, or environmental impacts through power-law relations, are commonly read as rules for what happens when one city grows. A sympathetic reader cares because this reading shapes urban theory, planning, and policy decisions. The authors demonstrate instead that a scaling exponent measured across many cities at a single date arises as a statistical pattern from cities that differ in history, institutions, constraints, and growth paths. Apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can therefore appear even when each city follows simpler dynamics, as illustrated for the area-population relation. Cross-sectional laws can still reveal broad regularities across the system, but they cannot be used by themselves to infer growth mechanisms or to prescribe policy for any particular city.

Core claim

An exponent measured by comparing many cities at one date does not, in general, describe the trajectory of any individual city. Instead, it reflects a statistical pattern produced by cities with different histories, constraints, institutions, and growth paths. Apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can therefore arise even when individual cities follow simpler dynamics, as we show for the area--population relation. Cross-sectional scaling laws can reveal system-level regularities, but should not be used alone to infer growth mechanisms or guide policy for a given city.

What carries the argument

Cross-sectional scaling, the statistical pattern generated when cities with heterogeneous histories and growth paths are compared at one fixed time.

If this is right

  • Scaling laws can still identify system-level regularities across the urban system.
  • They cannot be used by themselves to infer the growth mechanisms operating inside any one city.
  • Apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can emerge from simpler individual-city dynamics, as in the area-population case.
  • Policy or planning that relies on the exponent alone risks misapplying a statistical snapshot to a specific city's trajectory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Studies of urban growth should prioritize repeated observations of the same cities over time rather than one-time snapshots.
  • The same caution about cross-sectional versus longitudinal interpretations may apply to scaling analyses in other complex systems.
  • City-specific constraints and histories need to be modeled explicitly before scaling exponents can inform targeted interventions.

Load-bearing premise

That the scaling exponent matters for urban theory and policy because it describes the effect of growth on an individual city.

What would settle it

Track the same set of cities over multiple decades and test whether each city's observed growth exponent matches the cross-sectional exponent obtained at any single date; consistent mismatch across cities would show the cross-sectional exponent does not describe individual trajectories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.30021 by Marc Barthelemy, Ulysse Marquis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: b). Density-breaking situations, for which the re￾lation between area and population is piecewise linear, are discussed in [37]. These results therefore support the interpretation that, to a good approximation, popula￾tion growth and spatial expansion remain linearly cou￾pled over time. Although in both datasets (1800–2000 and 1985–2015) the longitudinal behavior of individual cities is well de￾scribed by … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cities are often compared through scaling laws, usually expressed as power-law relations between population size and aggregate urban quantities related to infrastructure, socioeconomic activity, or environmental impacts. These laws are influential because their exponent is often interpreted as describing what happens when a city grows, with implications for urban theory, planning, and policy. Here, we show that this interpretation is generally misleading. An exponent measured by comparing many cities at one date does not, in general, describe the trajectory of any individual city. Instead, it reflects a statistical pattern produced by cities with different histories, constraints, institutions, and growth paths. Apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can therefore arise even when individual cities follow simpler dynamics, as we show for the area--population relation. Cross-sectional scaling laws can reveal system-level regularities, but should not be used alone to infer growth mechanisms or guide policy for a given city.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that urban scaling laws—power-law relations between city population and quantities like infrastructure, socioeconomic activity, or environmental impacts—are frequently misinterpreted. Their exponents, measured cross-sectionally across many cities at one time, do not in general describe the growth trajectory of any individual city. Instead, they reflect statistical patterns arising from heterogeneity in cities' histories, constraints, institutions, and growth paths. The authors illustrate this possibility with a model for the area-population relation in which apparent scaling emerges even when each city obeys simpler, non-power-law dynamics. They conclude that cross-sectional scaling can reveal system-level regularities but should not be used alone to infer growth mechanisms or guide policy for a given city.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would be significant for urban science and complex-systems research. It supplies a concrete statistical counterexample to the widespread practice of reading cross-sectional exponents as longitudinal growth rules, with direct implications for theory, planning, and policy. The manuscript correctly invokes the standard distinction between cross-sectional and longitudinal data and applies it to a domain where that distinction has often been overlooked. Credit is due for the clear separation of these statistical perspectives and for the explicit modeling counterexample, even though the demonstration is limited to one relation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the cross-sectional interpretation is 'generally misleading' and 'does not, in general, describe the trajectory of any individual city' is supported only by an illustrative model for the area-population case. No demonstration or argument is given that the same statistical artifact arises, or dominates, for the socioeconomic or infrastructure quantities whose scaling exponents are most commonly interpreted as growth rules. This leaves the generality qualifier as an extrapolation from a single relation.
  2. [Demonstration section] Demonstration section: The manuscript states that apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can arise even when individual cities follow simpler dynamics, but does not supply the explicit model equations, parameter values, or simulation protocol used to generate the counterexample. Without these details the reader cannot verify that no individual trajectory obeys a power law or assess how sensitive the result is to the assumed heterogeneity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's opening paragraph could more precisely locate the source of the influential interpretation (e.g., specific papers or policy documents) rather than stating it as a general premise.
  2. Notation for the scaling exponent and the quantities being scaled should be introduced consistently in the main text and used uniformly in any figures or tables that display the illustrative model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the work's significance and for highlighting the important distinction between cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. We address the two major comments below and have made revisions where they strengthen the manuscript without altering its core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the cross-sectional interpretation is 'generally misleading' and 'does not, in general, describe the trajectory of any individual city' is supported only by an illustrative model for the area-population case. No demonstration or argument is given that the same statistical artifact arises, or dominates, for the socioeconomic or infrastructure quantities whose scaling exponents are most commonly interpreted as growth rules. This leaves the generality qualifier as an extrapolation from a single relation.

    Authors: The paper's central claim is methodological: cross-sectional exponents emerge from statistical aggregation over heterogeneous city histories and constraints, rather than from any individual city's growth rule. The area-population model provides a transparent, verifiable counterexample because the individual-level dynamics (e.g., area expansion constrained by geography or regulation) are independently known not to be power-law. The same aggregation mechanism applies to socioeconomic and infrastructure quantities whenever cities differ in their historical development paths, institutions, or resource constraints; explicit modeling of every quantity is not required to establish the general statistical point. We have revised the abstract and discussion to clarify that the area case illustrates a broadly applicable principle rather than serving as the sole empirical support. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Demonstration section] Demonstration section: The manuscript states that apparent sublinear or superlinear scaling can arise even when individual cities follow simpler dynamics, but does not supply the explicit model equations, parameter values, or simulation protocol used to generate the counterexample. Without these details the reader cannot verify that no individual trajectory obeys a power law or assess how sensitive the result is to the assumed heterogeneity.

    Authors: We agree that reproducibility requires these details. The revised manuscript now includes the full set of model equations, the specific parameter values and distributions used to generate heterogeneous city histories, and the simulation protocol. These additions allow readers to confirm that no individual trajectory follows a power law and to test sensitivity to the degree of heterogeneity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; argument uses independent counterexample model to distinguish cross-sectional from longitudinal scaling

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds by first stating the common interpretive assumption (cross-sectional exponents describe individual growth), then constructing an explicit heterogeneous-growth model for the area-population relation that produces an apparent power-law cross-section even though each city follows a simpler non-power-law rule. This counterexample is built from stated initial conditions and growth paths that are independent of the target claim; the output (apparent scaling) is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the same data or by redefining the input. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and the distinction between cross-sectional and longitudinal data is a standard statistical point rather than a self-referential definition. The central result therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the conceptual distinction between cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis together with the domain assumption that cities possess heterogeneous histories and constraints; no free parameters or new postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cities possess different histories, constraints, institutions, and growth paths that produce statistical patterns when aggregated cross-sectionally.
    Invoked in the abstract to explain why cross-sectional exponents need not match any individual city's trajectory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1500 out tokens · 46120 ms · 2026-05-21T09:51:40.079201+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    In this case, we obtain yi(t) =α i +β ixi(t) (11) 4 whereα i = lna i

    Individual power-law case We start with the simplest case (although probably not the most common) where individual cities behave as power laws with various exponents Yi(t) =a iPi(t)βi (10) where the prefactora i could depend on time or popula- tion, and the exponentβ i varies from a city to another. In this case, we obtain yi(t) =α i +β ixi(t) (11) 4 wher...

    work page

  2. [2]

    fundamental allometry

    General case To connect in the general case the cross-sectional scal- ing exponent to the longitudinal evolution of individual cities, we estimate for each cityiand yearta local lon- gitudinal relation in logarithmic variables, yi(t)≈α i(t) +β i(t)xi(t),(13) Hereβ i(t) is the local longitudinal elasticity of cityi, esti- mated from a rolling regression of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Understanding how the built areaAincreases with populationPis a crucial com- ponent for describing the spatial dynamics of cities

    Area-population relation In this part we discuss the important case of the area–population relation. Understanding how the built areaAincreases with populationPis a crucial com- ponent for describing the spatial dynamics of cities. This specific urban scaling was discussed in many pa- pers [16, 39–44]. Early results reportedβ T ≈3/4 [39], andβ T ≈2/3 [40]...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    fictitious city

    Wages A prototypical example of urban scaling concerns the total wages produced in a city. It was reported that wages grow superlinearly with population size [8], a re- sult often interpreted as a consequence of enhanced social and economic interactions in larger cities. In particu- lar, interaction-based theories predict a scaling exponent β= 7/6≃1.17 [2...

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    City size and the urban heat island,

    T. Oke, “City size and the urban heat island,” Atmospheric Environment (1967), vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 769–779, 1973. [Online]. Available: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698173901406

    work page arXiv 1967

  6. [6]

    The productivity of cities,

    L. Sveikauskas, “The productivity of cities,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 393–413, 1975. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor. org/stable/1885259

    work page arXiv 1975

  7. [7]

    Why is there more crime in cities?

    E. L. Glaeser and B. Sacerdote, “Why is there more crime in cities?”Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, no. S6, pp. S225–S258, 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/250109

    work page doi:10.1086/250109 1999

  8. [8]

    Scaling laws and urban systems,

    D. Pumain, “Scaling laws and urban systems,” Santa Fe Institute, Working Paper 2004-02-002, 2004

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    An evolutionary theory for interpreting urban scaling laws,

    D. Pumain, F. Paulus, C. Vacchiani-Marcuzzo, and J. Lobo, “An evolutionary theory for interpreting urban scaling laws,”Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, vol. 343, 2006

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Scaling laws in urban supply networks,

    C. Kuhnert, D. Helbing, and G. B. West, “Scaling laws in urban supply networks,”Physica A, vol. 363, no. 1, pp. 96–103, 2006

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    In- vention in the city: increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size,

    L. M. A. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, and D. Strumsky, “In- vention in the city: increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size,”Research Policy, vol. 36, pp. 107–120, 2007

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities,

    L. M. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. K¨ uhnert, and G. B. West, “Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities,”Proceedings of the national academy of 9 sciences, vol. 104, no. 17, pp. 7301–7306, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Cities as organisms: Allometric scaling of urban road networks,

    H. Samaniego and M. E. Moses, “Cities as organisms: Allometric scaling of urban road networks,”Journal of Transport and Land Use, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 21–39, 2008

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Superlinear scaling for innovation in cities,

    S. Arbesman, J. M. Kleinberg, and S. H. Strogatz, “Superlinear scaling for innovation in cities,”Phys. Rev. E, vol. 79, p. 016115, Jan 2009. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.016115

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.79.016115 2009

  15. [15]

    Does size matter? scaling of co2 emissions and us urban areas,

    M. Fragkias, J. Lobo, D. Strumsky, and K. C. Seto, “Does size matter? scaling of co2 emissions and us urban areas,” Plos one, vol. 8, no. 6, p. e64727, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Scaling: Lost in the smog.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(5):767–769, 2014

    R. Louf and M. Barthelemy, “Scaling: Lost in the smog,”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 41, no. 5, p. 767–769, Oct. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b4105c

    work page doi:10.1068/b4105c 2014

  17. [17]

    Urban Skylines: building heights and shapes as measures of city size

    M. Schl¨ apfer, J. Lee, and L. M. A. Bettencourt, “Urban skylines: building heights and shapes as measures of city size,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00946

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development,

    E. L. Glaeser and M. E. Kahn, “The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development,”Jour- nal of urban economics, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 404–418, 2010

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Large cities are less green,

    E. A. Oliveira, J. S. Andrade, and H. A. Makse, “Large cities are less green,”Scientific Reports, vol. 4, p. 4235, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Cities as nuclei of sustain- ability?

    D. Rybski, D. E. Reusser, A.-L. Winz, C. Fichtner, T. Sterzel, and J. P. Kropp, “Cities as nuclei of sustain- ability?”Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 425–440, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Uncovering the behaviour of road accidents in urban areas,

    C. Cabrera-Arnau, R. Prieto Curiel, and S. R. Bishop, “Uncovering the behaviour of road accidents in urban areas,”Royal Society Open Science, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 191739, 04 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191739

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.191739 2020

  22. [22]

    Evidence and theory for lower rates of depression in larger us urban areas,

    A. J. Stier, K. E. Schertz, N. W. Rim, C. Cardenas- Iniguez, B. B. Lahey, L. M. A. Bettencourt, and M. G. Berman, “Evidence and theory for lower rates of depression in larger us urban areas,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 31, p. e2022472118, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2022472118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2022472118 2021

  23. [23]

    Larger cities, more commuters, more crime? the role of inter-city commuting in the scaling of urban crime,

    S. Puttock, U. Barros, D. Pinheiro, and M. Oliveira, “Larger cities, more commuters, more crime? the role of inter-city commuting in the scaling of urban crime,” Crime Science, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 19, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    The origins of scaling in cities,

    L. M. A. Bettencourt, “The origins of scaling in cities,” Science, vol. 340, pp. 1438–1441, 2013

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    How congestion shapes cities: From mobility patterns to scaling,

    R. Louf and M. Barthelemy, “How congestion shapes cities: From mobility patterns to scaling,”Scientific Re- ports, vol. 4, p. 5561, 2014

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Critical factors for mitigating car traffic in cities,

    V. Verbavatz and M. Barthelemy, “Critical factors for mitigating car traffic in cities,”PLoS ONE, vol. 14, p. e0219559, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Mathematical models to explain the origin of urban scaling laws,

    F. L. Ribeiro and D. Rybski, “Mathematical models to explain the origin of urban scaling laws,”Physics Re- ports, vol. 1012, pp. 1–39, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Explaining the prevalence, scaling and vari- ance of urban phenomena,

    A. Gomez-Lievano, O. Patterson-Lomba, and R. Haus- mann, “Explaining the prevalence, scaling and vari- ance of urban phenomena,”Nature Human Be- haviour, vol. 1, no. 1, Dec. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0012

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0012 2016

  29. [29]

    Modeling the origin of urban-output scaling laws,

    V. C. Yang, A. V. Papachristos, and D. M. Abrams, “Modeling the origin of urban-output scaling laws,”Physical Review E, vol. 100, no. 3, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.100.032306

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.100.032306 2019

  30. [30]

    Constructing cities, deconstruct- ing scaling laws,

    E. Arcaute, E. Hatna, P. Ferguson, H. Youn, A. Johans- son, and M. Batty, “Constructing cities, deconstruct- ing scaling laws,”Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 12, p. 20140745, 2015

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Scaling and hierarchy in urban economies,

    C. R. Shalizi, “Scaling and hierarchy in urban economies,”arXiv, 2011

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Is this scaling nonlinear?

    J. C. Leitao, J. M. Miotto, M. Gerlach, and E. G. Alt- mann, “Is this scaling nonlinear?”Royal Society Open Science, vol. 3, p. 150649, 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Tomography of scaling,

    M. Barthelemy, “Tomography of scaling,”Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 16, no. 160, 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    From global scaling to the dynamics of individual cities,

    J. Depersin and M. Barthelemy, “From global scaling to the dynamics of individual cities,”Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 10, pp. 2317– 2322, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Scaling trajectories of cities,

    M. Keuschnigg, “Scaling trajectories of cities,”Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 28, pp. 13 759–13 761, 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Frontier workers and the seedbeds of inequality and prosperity,

    D. S. Connor, T. Kemeny, and M. Storper, “Frontier workers and the seedbeds of inequality and prosperity,” Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 393– 414, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Big cities fuel inequal- ity within and across generations,

    D. S. Connor, S. Xie, J. Jang, A. E. Frazier, P. Kedron, G. Jain, Y. Yu, and T. Kemeny, “Big cities fuel inequal- ity within and across generations,”PNAS nexus, vol. 4, no. 2, p. pgae587, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    The interpretation of urban scaling analysis in time,

    L. Bettencourt, V. C. Yang, J. Lobo, C. P. Kempes, D. Rybski, and M. J. Hamilton, “The interpretation of urban scaling analysis in time,”Journal of the Royal So- ciety Interface, vol. 17, no. 163, 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Urban scal- ing theory: Answers to frequent questions,

    J. Lobo, L. Bettencourt, and S. G. Ortman, “Urban scal- ing theory: Answers to frequent questions,”Environ- ment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1701–1716, 2025

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities,

    F. L. Ribeiro, J. Meirelles, V. M. Netto, C. R. Neto, and A. Baronchelli, “On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities,”PloS one, vol. 15, no. 5, p. e0233003, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Universal roughness and the dynamics of urban expan- sion,

    U. Marquis, O. Artime, R. Gallotti, and M. Barthelemy, “Universal roughness and the dynamics of urban expan- sion,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 135, no. 18, p. 187403, 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    The universal pathway to innovative urban economies,

    I. Hong, M. R. Frank, I. Rahwan, W.-S. Jung, and H. Youn, “The universal pathway to innovative urban economies,”Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 34, p. eaba4934, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www. science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aba4934

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba4934 2020

  43. [43]

    Suggested principles of “social physics

    J. Q. Stewart, “Suggested principles of “social physics”,” Science, vol. 106, no. 2748, pp. 179–180, 1947

    work page 1947

  44. [44]

    Urban allometric growth,

    S. Nordbeck, “Urban allometric growth,”Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 54–67, 1971

    work page 1971

  45. [45]

    Defining city size,

    M. Batty and P. Ferguson, “Defining city size,”Envi- ronment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 753–756, 2011

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    The pre-history of urban scal- ing,

    S. G. Ortman, A. H. F. Cabaniss, J. O. Sturm, and L. M. A. Bettencourt, “The pre-history of urban scal- ing,”PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 2, p. e87902, 2014

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter– gatherers,

    M. J. Hamilton, B. T. Milne, R. S. Walker, and J. H. Brown, “Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter– gatherers,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, vol. 104, no. 111, pp. 4765–4769, 2007. 10

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    Global city densities: re-examining urban scaling theory,

    J. R. Burger, J. G. Okie, I. Hatton, V. P. Weinberger, M. Shrestha, K. J. Liedtke, T. Be, A. R. Cruz, X. Feng, C. Hinojo-Hinojo, A. S. M. G. Kibria, K. C. Ernst, and B. J. Enquist, “Global city densities: re-examining urban scaling theory,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08067, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Angel, J

    S. Angel, J. Parent, D. L. Civco, and A. Blei,Atlas of Urban Expansion – 2012 Edition, Volume 1: Areas and Densities. New York; Nairobi; Cambridge, MA: New York University; UN-Habitat; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    World settlement footprint evolution (wsf evolution),

    DLR - German Aerospace Center, “World settlement footprint evolution (wsf evolution),” https://download. geoservice.dlr.de/WSF EVO/, n.d., accessed: 2026

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    His- torical population (1950–2025) for urban areas,

    World Population Review and Macrotrends, “His- torical population (1950–2025) for urban areas,” https://worldpopulationreview.com/ and https://www. macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities, n.d., accessed: 2026

    work page 1950

  52. [52]

    Body size and metabolism,

    M. Kleiber, “Body size and metabolism,”Hilgardia, vol. 6, no. 11, 1932

    work page 1932

  53. [53]

    Body size and metabolic rate,

    ——, “Body size and metabolic rate,”Physiological Re- views, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 511–541, 1947

    work page 1947

  54. [54]

    Allomet- ric scaling of plant energetics and population density,

    B. J. Enquist, J. H. Brown, and G. B. West, “Allomet- ric scaling of plant energetics and population density,” Nature, vol. 395, no. 6698, pp. 163–165, Sep. 1998

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology,

    G. B. West, J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist, “A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology,” Science, vol. 276, no. 5309, pp. 122–126, Apr. 1997. Supplementary Material for: On the Meaning of Urban Scaling Ulysse Marquis 1,2∗ and Marc Barthelemy 3,4,5† 1 Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Via Sommarive 18, 38123 Povo (TN), Italy 2 Department...

    work page 1997

  56. [56]

    Defining city size,

    M. Batty and P. Ferguson, “Defining city size,”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 753–756, 2011

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    From global scaling to the dynamics of individual cities,

    J. Depersin and M. Barthelemy, “From global scaling to the dynamics of individual cities,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 10, pp. 2317–2322, 2018

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    2015 urban mobility scorecard,

    Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX, “2015 urban mobility scorecard,” Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Technical Report, 2015, accessed: 2026-03-25. [Online]. Available: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ umr/archive/mobility-scorecard-2015-wappx.pdf

    work page 2015