<p>The main reason why people move to some area or multiply more or less in some area is the already existent distribution and the way of living of the existent population. For example, if there is a cross of two roads, the first one connects large cities A and B and the second one connects also large cities C and D, obviously a new town appears on the cross. The speed of growth of the town depends on the importance of the cities A, B, C, and D in comparison to other cities of the land, the character of goods, transported along the roads, and so on. Naturally, the geographic information is also important.</p>
<p>So, the derivations of the population and industries' densities depend on more or less static geographic factors and the researched densities in the wide area. <strong>The dependency on geography alone simply does not exist.</strong></p>
<p>We know that complex dependency exists, but we can only guess about its character and make some applications that can model the development, but with great mistakes.</p>
<p>For example, in the early Middle Ages in the lands of Eastern Europe, Slavs settled between rivers, on hills, and Ugrofinnish tribes settled along rivers. According to geography alone, they should try to settle in the same places and fight for them. But they had different economic processes, and different customs and could easily coexist, striving for different points in the same area.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-14T21:34:31.757Z
2024-01-14T21:34:31.757Z
Gangnus
<p>Humans don't move to places based on the availability of water and food. They bring these things to them as necessary, and that has enabled big cities in places that are otherwise quite dry (say, Las Vegas or Denver) or that do not lend themselves much to agriculture (Fairbanks).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T09:27:43.963Z
I'd suggest that's only in very recent times, the last century or so mostly.  Part of the reason technology is so important to the question for people.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T19:07:51.360Z
Nah, long-distance trade networks are vastly older than just the last century. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel . Here is an even older one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road . Long-distance water transport in canals is also ancient. The Romans built aqueducts, with the longest 240 km long. The first agricultural irrigation canals date back to 6000 BC.
Wolfgang Bangerth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-12T00:16:22.050Z
Trade networks indeed existed, but pretty convinced they generally weren't efficient enough to support large populations devoid of significant local agriculture?  And the technology to bring in water was also more limited?
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-13T05:23:12.620Z
You're not giving our forefathers and foremothers enough credit. The Greeks built canals because they found that horses can only carry a few 100 kg, but they can pull a boat of 10+ tons. They transported a *lot* of material. The Romans transported millions of cubic meters of water. Ancient Rome had a population of 1 million people. When the Spanish arrived, Mexico City had a population in the range of 100,000 to 200,000. Cities of this size cannot support themselves without the ability to transport food and water over long distances, and so they did.
Wolfgang Bangerth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-10T23:04:47.647Z
2024-01-10T23:04:47.647Z
Wolfgang Bangerth
<p>Population density is equal to the total population divided by the area it takes up.  The area would likely be held constant when calculating change in population density, so I think a population formula would be all you need.  That being said, I don't think a single formula would be sufficient.  Instead, you would need several formulas that relate population factors and a model that can test various assumptions.  At a minimum, you need birth rates and death rates, but those should probably be made dynamic and based on other factors.  You could use the &quot;<a href="https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/complexsystems/stella.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stella</a>&quot; program to build such a model.  There are trainings and examples available <a href="https://www.gaininginsight.org/learn-do/stella-online-population-modeling" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-29T21:27:15.093Z
2023-12-29T21:27:15.093Z
f.thorpe
<p>Are there any formulas to predict population density of a geography based on known geographic factors like water, food etc. in the vicinity. Either for humans or any living organisms.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-22T23:02:25.963Z
Of course for intelligent species this will be heavily dependent on whether the society has reached full evolution maturity (like has their population increased long enough, their choices been made long enough, so they are using the land in fully optimal way... something I'm not sure most places in our world can claim even today)... plus technology levels, whether they source their food from elsewhere, the characteristic of the people (how important is space to them), their economy/government setup, etc.  It's an interesting question, but I'd think there's no easy answer for us
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-22T23:04:45.023Z
For for more basic organisms, I'd think it's more straightforward and more heavily studied.  Though it'll still have some complexity (gotta be intimately connected to predators, for one... and also related to the specifics of the organism [do they need more or less space, do they hibernate, what types of foods can they eat, etc]).
JeopardyTempest
<geography>
Population density formulas
Happyman74
# Population density formulas

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-12-22)

Are there any formulas to predict population density of a geography based on known geographic factors like water, food etc. in the vicinity. Either for humans or any living organisms.

**Tags:** geography

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Of course for intelligent species this will be heavily dependent on whether the society has reached full evolution maturity (like has their population increased long enough, their choices been made long enough, so they are using the land in fully optimal way... something I'm not sure most places in our world can claim even today)... plus technology levels, whether they source their food from elsewhere, the characteristic of the people (how important is space to them), their economy/government setup, etc.  It's an interesting question, but I'd think there's no easy answer for us  
> **username_1**: For for more basic organisms, I'd think it's more straightforward and more heavily studied.  Though it'll still have some complexity (gotta be intimately connected to predators, for one... and also related to the specifics of the organism [do they need more or less space, do they hibernate, what types of foods can they eat, etc]).  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-01-14. Score: 1

The main reason why people move to some area or multiply more or less in some area is the already existent distribution and the way of living of the existent population. For example, if there is a cross of two roads, the first one connects large cities A and B and the second one connects also large cities C and D, obviously a new town appears on the cross. The speed of growth of the town depends on the importance of the cities A, B, C, and D in comparison to other cities of the land, the character of goods, transported along the roads, and so on. Naturally, the geographic information is also important.

So, the derivations of the population and industries' densities depend on more or less static geographic factors and the researched densities in the wide area. **The dependency on geography alone simply does not exist.**

We know that complex dependency exists, but we can only guess about its character and make some applications that can model the development, but with great mistakes.

For example, in the early Middle Ages in the lands of Eastern Europe, Slavs settled between rivers, on hills, and Ugrofinnish tribes settled along rivers. According to geography alone, they should try to settle in the same places and fight for them. But they had different economic processes, and different customs and could easily coexist, striving for different points in the same area.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-01-10. Score: 0

Humans don't move to places based on the availability of water and food. They bring these things to them as necessary, and that has enabled big cities in places that are otherwise quite dry (say, Las Vegas or Denver) or that do not lend themselves much to agriculture (Fairbanks).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'd suggest that's only in very recent times, the last century or so mostly.  Part of the reason technology is so important to the question for people.  
> **username_3**: Nah, long-distance trade networks are vastly older than just the last century. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel . Here is an even older one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road . Long-distance water transport in canals is also ancient. The Romans built aqueducts, with the longest 240 km long. The first agricultural irrigation canals date back to 6000 BC.  
> **username_1**: Trade networks indeed existed, but pretty convinced they generally weren't efficient enough to support large populations devoid of significant local agriculture?  And the technology to bring in water was also more limited?  
> **username_3**: You're not giving our forefathers and foremothers enough credit. The Greeks built canals because they found that horses can only carry a few 100 kg, but they can pull a boat of 10+ tons. They transported a *lot* of material. The Romans transported millions of cubic meters of water. Ancient Rome had a population of 1 million people. When the Spanish arrived, Mexico City had a population in the range of 100,000 to 200,000. Cities of this size cannot support themselves without the ability to transport food and water over long distances, and so they did.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2023-12-29. Score: 0

Population density is equal to the total population divided by the area it takes up. The area would likely be held constant when calculating change in population density, so I think a population formula would be all you need. That being said, I don't think a single formula would be sufficient. Instead, you would need several formulas that relate population factors and a model that can test various assumptions. At a minimum, you need birth rates and death rates, but those should probably be made dynamic and based on other factors. You could use the "[Stella](https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/complexsystems/stella.html)" program to build such a model. There are trainings and examples available [here](https://www.gaininginsight.org/learn-do/stella-online-population-modeling).


---

