Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Perfect, this kind of points us in the right direction. That was exactly what we were trying to measure. We defined the ideal ratio as being 1, this is the rate of urbanization (new buildings this is) is perfectly accompanying the population growth. Thus, there is no unjustified urban sprawl, but also no more population density. This is a particularly problem in Portugal, in which the study is being developed, and the optimal ratio had already been defined between our team and the city councils - I was just trying to interpret what the results meant, which you explained to me perfectly
Of course, understandable. We only have this data, we really need to calculate "sustainable city urbanization"; we are a group of psychologists trying to make sense of our data - this is all that we have. As the time span coincides, we are trying to figure out how to use this.
by dividing the proportion of new buildings and population growth of one city - thus, there are more new buildings than "new people". Perhaps, you can read the following post: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/342235/… I suppose I make it more clear there
Thank you for your answer @Nick Cox. Urban construction can't go down because my data focuses on only the new buildings (i.e. it doesnt count demolished buildings). I think I might have a problem there, as I was now interpreting my results. But I guess it is better to formulate it in a different question.
