\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.taubcenter.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/F-1-Earth-Day-ENG-2023.jpg\")
<\/p>\nNote: The countries that appear in the graph are (from highest to lowest): Macao (SAR, China), Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong (SAR, China), Gibraltar, Bahrain, Maldives, Malta, Bangladesh, Bermuda, West Bank and Gaza, Barbados, Mauritius, Nauru, Aruba, San Marino, Lebanon, Rwanda, South Korea, Netherlands, Burundi, India, Comoros, Israel. Data do not include San Martin (Fr) and Sint Martin (Neth.).<\/p>\n
High density only in the center? Not necessarily, and not only in Israel <\/span><\/h3>\nSome will probably say that the comparison is unfair, because most of Israel’s population is crammed into the center of the country. This claim is only partially true \u2013 only in southern Israel are there large unpopulated areas. More importantly, it ignores differences in population density in different areas in other countries. Illustration 1 maps settlement patterns in Israel and parts of its close neighbors using data from the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL).[1]<\/a> The red areas indicate high population density, the yellow areas indicate lower population density, and the remainder are sparsely populated. In Israel there are indeed quite a few red areas, with the largest around Tel Aviv. But with the exception of Cyprus, there seem to be similar concentrations in neighboring countries, too.<\/p>\nThe concentrations in Cairo appear particularly large, even though the population density in Egypt as a whole is much lower than in Israel.
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.taubcenter.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/\u05d3\u05e4\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9-\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea-\u05d0\u05e0\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea.png\")
<\/p>\n
In fact, focusing on city-level data and urban sprawl reveals that Israel\u2019s cities are both less densely populated and<\/em> smaller than many others that we admire and enjoy visiting. Figure 2, which compares population density and urban area size in the three largest urban regions in Israel, several major cities in neighboring countries, and other high-income countries illustrates this. Israel\u2019s major urban areas are much less densely populated than most of those of our neighbors (Cairo, Beirut, Amman), or than New York or Seoul\u2014in 2020, there were 11,243 people in New York City per km2<\/sup>, 2.3 times as many as in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area (4,952 people per km2<\/sup>). In Manhattan, there were 28,900 people per km2<\/sup>.<\/p>\nIsraeli cities are also less densely populated than Paris, Madrid and Athens. Even when Israel\u2019s cities have similar density profiles\u2014Tel-Aviv metro area has a similar density to Greater<\/p>\n
London, and Jerusalem to Paris\u2014those two European \u201cglobal cities\u201d sprawl over much larger areas. Metropolitan Seoul is even larger, with 14 times the size of Jerusalem\u2019s population in 9 times the area of Jerusalem. All this implies that it\u2019s more difficult for people living toward the center of those cities to completely escape the density. If they want something other than an urban park, they will need to travel through built-up areas for a lot longer before they reach it.
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.taubcenter.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/F-2-Earth-Day-ENG-2023.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The high population density, which is increasing, is felt in traffic congestion<\/span><\/h3>\nThe bottom line on population density in Israel is that Israel is more densely populated than almost 90% of countries, and it\u2019s becoming more densely populated. That means that in 30 years our larger urban areas will have a less European level of density than they have today. They will be more like New York, Seoul, and Istanbul than like Rome or Berlin. We will also have many smaller densely populated cities.<\/p>\n
There are known advantages<\/em> to this process. Density is a good thing when it\u2019s managed well: urban residents tend to have better access to healthcare and to a variety of food types
\nincluding healthy foods, to a larger range of jobs allowing for a better match to their skillsets, to more cost-effective public transport, and to many other amenities including protected open areas and parks. The challenge is to make sure those services and amenities are supplied, and to avoid some of the potential disadvantages of high density, especially in the context of a rapidly growing population, rising heat indices, urban heat islands, and increasing wealth and consumption.<\/p>\nIn terms of public policy, here is one thing we do need to worry about and that affects us all: traffic congestion. On the one hand, Israel has a relatively low (but constantly growing) number of vehicles per capita relative to other OECD countries\u2014in 2017, there were more than twice as many vehicles per capita in Finland, Greece, Italy, and the US. On the other hand, the use of public transport is relatively low and the traffic density of passenger cars in Israel is three times higher than the OECD average \u2013 2.5 times higher than in the Netherlands, which has a higher population density. The cost of traffic congestion to the economy is about 2% of GDP, double the average cost in OECD countries, and it also has an external cost of another 2% of GDP, mainly related to the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions to health and the ecosystem.<\/p>\n
The concentrations in Cairo appear particularly large, even though the population density in Egypt as a whole is much lower than in Israel.
\n<\/p>\n
In fact, focusing on city-level data and urban sprawl reveals that Israel\u2019s cities are both less densely populated and<\/em> smaller than many others that we admire and enjoy visiting. Figure 2, which compares population density and urban area size in the three largest urban regions in Israel, several major cities in neighboring countries, and other high-income countries illustrates this. Israel\u2019s major urban areas are much less densely populated than most of those of our neighbors (Cairo, Beirut, Amman), or than New York or Seoul\u2014in 2020, there were 11,243 people in New York City per km2<\/sup>, 2.3 times as many as in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area (4,952 people per km2<\/sup>). In Manhattan, there were 28,900 people per km2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n Israeli cities are also less densely populated than Paris, Madrid and Athens. Even when Israel\u2019s cities have similar density profiles\u2014Tel-Aviv metro area has a similar density to Greater<\/p>\n London, and Jerusalem to Paris\u2014those two European \u201cglobal cities\u201d sprawl over much larger areas. Metropolitan Seoul is even larger, with 14 times the size of Jerusalem\u2019s population in 9 times the area of Jerusalem. All this implies that it\u2019s more difficult for people living toward the center of those cities to completely escape the density. If they want something other than an urban park, they will need to travel through built-up areas for a lot longer before they reach it. The bottom line on population density in Israel is that Israel is more densely populated than almost 90% of countries, and it\u2019s becoming more densely populated. That means that in 30 years our larger urban areas will have a less European level of density than they have today. They will be more like New York, Seoul, and Istanbul than like Rome or Berlin. We will also have many smaller densely populated cities.<\/p>\n There are known advantages<\/em> to this process. Density is a good thing when it\u2019s managed well: urban residents tend to have better access to healthcare and to a variety of food types In terms of public policy, here is one thing we do need to worry about and that affects us all: traffic congestion. On the one hand, Israel has a relatively low (but constantly growing) number of vehicles per capita relative to other OECD countries\u2014in 2017, there were more than twice as many vehicles per capita in Finland, Greece, Italy, and the US. On the other hand, the use of public transport is relatively low and the traffic density of passenger cars in Israel is three times higher than the OECD average \u2013 2.5 times higher than in the Netherlands, which has a higher population density. The cost of traffic congestion to the economy is about 2% of GDP, double the average cost in OECD countries, and it also has an external cost of another 2% of GDP, mainly related to the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions to health and the ecosystem.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\nThe high population density, which is increasing, is felt in traffic congestion<\/span><\/h3>\n
\nincluding healthy foods, to a larger range of jobs allowing for a better match to their skillsets, to more cost-effective public transport, and to many other amenities including protected open areas and parks. The challenge is to make sure those services and amenities are supplied, and to avoid some of the potential disadvantages of high density, especially in the context of a rapidly growing population, rising heat indices, urban heat islands, and increasing wealth and consumption.<\/p>\n