2

Population density is a metric often quoted, however it seems to me not always a useful tool.

The Netherlands for example, has few hills, or in general, gradients, and so most of the country can be built on (of course, they reclaimed some of it, and they could reclaim more!).

Contrast this with Hong Kong, which has got quite a few hills/peaks (compared to something like the Netherlands! They ain't no Mount Everest, but a lot higher than the high point of South Holland of 37m).

I tried to find, but failed, to find a population density measure disregarding, or discounting, mountainous areas or other relevant geographic factors?

Improve this question
3
  • It might be hard to define. Switzerland has significant populations even in its mountainous parts, but do cities on the valley floor of the Rhone Valley count as living in a mountainous area or not?
    – gerrit
    Commented Oct 16 at 11:22
  • @gerrit I agree it's hard to define, but I also think it is a very interesting question, so I was hoping others have tried before.
    – Cryvate
    Commented Oct 16 at 13:15
  • Disregarding lakes an rivers may be more interesting. Some statistics has also Inhabitable area, but I do not think there is something general. -- I would take precise density area, crossing with bioclimatic zones, and "count", so you can select yourself what you will not consider habitable. (note: altitude is not enough, so the climatic or bioregions): on North lower mountain may not be habitable, but on south you can get large cities at 4000m (13,000ft), e.g. La Paz.
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Commented Nov 11 at 16:34

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.