STATE URBANISATION REPORT...

STATE URBANISATION REPORTKERALA

STATE URBANISATION REPORTKERALA

DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING - GOVERNMENT OF KERALAMarch 2012

A STUDY ON THE SCATTERED HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF KERALA AND ITS DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

MARCH 2012

STATE URBANISATION REPORTDEPARTMENT OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNINGGOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Any part of this document can be reproduced by giving acknowledgement.

iv

FOREWORD

Urbanization is inevitable, when pressure on land is high, agricultural income is low, and populationincrease is excessive. Even where rural jobs are available, drift to cities occurs, as it offers a promise ofeconomic opportunity and social mobility. It should be recognized that urbanization is not a calamity buta necessity. Urbanisation is a positive force and urban growth is an impetus to development. Both accelerateindustrialization to some extent, they permit change in the social structure by raising the level of humanaspiration, facilitate the provision of public services to a large sector of the population, and make possibleincreased economic opportunities and improve living conditions for those people who remains in the ruralareas. The positive role of urbanisation can be materialized only if the cities are economically viable andcapable of generating economic growth in a sustained manner.

Coming to Kerala, urbanisation as well as settlement pattern of the state shows marked peculiarities.In this context, the Department of Town and Country Planning undertook a detailed study on urbanisationin the state and has now come up with a State Urbanisation Report. I must appreciate the Department forundertaking such an innovative and timely study.

The State Urbanisation Report (SUR) explores the capabilities and implications of the urbanisationin the state, in the context of its unique settlement pattern. The report identifies a rapid increase in urbanshare of population in the state from 25.96% to 47.72% during last 10 years. The SUR assesses that thepresent urbanisation of Kerala is an urban spread rather than the result of the structural changes in theeconomy of the state and that it poses a major and herculean challenge in urbanization, relationshipbetween urban and rural areas and the economic bases of both urban and rural settlements. SUR putsforward various recommendations meant for planned interventions for selective concentration of urbanand rural economic activities, streamlined through balancing spatial order of the settlements/nodes. Thefindings and recommendations of the report require wider discussions in the interest of planned developmentof the State, among development departments, decision makers, planners, experts etc.

I firmly believe that the State Urbanisation Report will pave way for necessary policy interventionswith regard to settlement planning and development in the state, and in turn to planned development ofthe state as a whole.

Thiruvananthapuram James Varghese IAS14.03.2012 Principal Secretary

Local Self Government DepartmentGovernment of Kerala

III

iv

PREFACEKerala Model of Development gained attention in the international arena due to the presence of

the ‘paradox’ of high indicators of social development and comparatively low economic growth. Butunique human settlement pattern of the state, its capabilities and implications are seldom discussed.

Kerala is characterised by diversified human habitat. The human settlement pattern of the Stateis characterised with dwellings made in individual plots, scattered all over the habitable area. Almostall other parts in India have nucleated built–up area in a settlement surrounded by rural hinter land. ButKerala shows an urban and rural settlement pattern manifested with an urban–rural continuum havinga fairly uniform spread of dwelling units. In other words the population is distributed more or lessevenly over the entire state. Thus comparing with other parts of India, Kerala is distinguished withcomparatively low population density development in urban areas and high population density in ruralareas. This distinctive pattern of human habitat has got many development issues. State UrbanisationReport (SUR) discusses these issues in detail.

2011 census shows that Kerala has undergone the highest level of urbanisation (47.71%) during2001-11, with a percentage increase of 83.20 over the previous decade. The analysis shows that arealreclassification of a hitherto rural area as urban, due to the shift in the occupational structure fromagriculture to other categories of employment causes such a huge urbanisation in the state. The reportobserves that in a state like Kerala marked by scattered settlement, physical dimension also should betaken into account while designating an area as urban. The SUR identifies the present urbanisation ofKerala as an urban spread rather than the result of the structural changes in the economy of the state.The report envisages a compact urban form and visualizes urban areas as instrument for the developmentof rural hinterland, besides being engines of development of Kerala. The report traces a strategy ofurban clusters in 2021 and urban corridors in 2031. The report recommends that this urban profileshall be refined as an integral part of a regulated spatial structure of the state defined throughspatio – economic plans at the state, district as well as local levels. The report also chalks out strategiesfor the compaction of different kind of urban areas up to the limit prescribed.

The SUR is an attempt of the Department of Town and Country Planning to place the developmentissues intrinsic to the unique human settlement pattern of the State before the people. The findings andsuggestions of the report require wider discussions in the interest of development of the State, amongthe decision makers, planners, experts etc.

The task was performed by the State Project Cell of Department of Town and Country Planningunder the guidance of Sri. Jacob Easow, Senior Town Planner and Smt. Ushakumari P.R., Town Planner.Sri. Baiju. K, Deputy Town Planner was responsible for putting all the ideas together, designing themethodology, performing systematic studies and putting the outcomes together into this report. Wehope this document will provide guidance for a better Kerala.

Thiruvananthapuram Eapen Varughese14.03.2012 Chief Town Planner

V

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A plan is a prerequisite for scientific development of an area. Such development plans are neededat national, state, regional and local levels, further broken down to long term, mid term and short termplans.

Department of Town and Country Planning is committed for the preparation of spatio- economicplans at state/regional/local levels. Giving priority, the department has prepared development plansfor various towns, cities, urban regions etc. Consequent to the enactment of 73rd & 74th ConstitutionAmendment Acts, the state is committed in the preparation of draft district development plan fordistricts in line with Article 243 ZD of the Constitution. In this respect, the department takes the roleas nodal agency in the preparation of Development Plan for Districts in our state and supportedDistrict Planning Committee of Kollam District in the preparation of Integrated District DevelopmentPlan (IDDP) for the District- the first District Development Plan in the country in line with theconstitutional requirements. Besides, the draft plans for the districts of Thrissur, Palakkad and Idukkiwill be released in a couple of months. As an opening towards IDDP, the department has preparedDistrict Spatial Plans (DSPs) for the districts of Thrissur and Palakkad and District UrbanisationReports (DURs) for the districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha, Idukki,Kottayam, Ernakulam, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wayanad, Kannur and Kasaragod. State UrbanisationReport (SUR) is the natural progression of the avowed commitment of the Department for thepreparation of State Perspective Plan(SPP).

The outcomes of DUR/DSP/IDDP as well as the revelations of 2011 census necessitatesplanned intervention aiming at selective concentration of urban and rural economic activities,streamlined through balancing spatial order of the settlements/nodes. The State Urbanisation Reportis part of the attempt towards this direction. The SUR defines future urban profile of the state for2021 and 2031. To be realistic, the urban profile shall be derived as part of the general strategy for thecomprehensive development of the state. Thus, the attempt of State Urbanisation Report is only aforerunner of State Perspective Plan (SPP). The preparation of State Perspective Plan needs inputsfrom all sectors of development and thus involves decisions and commitment at various levels andconcerted efforts of various agencies. It is hoped that the State Urbanisation Report will be followedeventually with a State Perspective Plan, which again is a missing link in our multi level planning system.

Sri.S.M.Vijayanand IAS, Additional Chief Secretary, was always keen on the progress of the taskand gave invaluable support in making available the Natural Resources and Environmental Data Baseof Kerala, without which the SUR could not get into its present form. I must acknowledge with gratitudethe timely supports extended by him.

The guidance and leadership provided by Sri. James Varghese IAS, Principal Secretary, LocalSelf Government Department has been immense. It is in the fitness of things to acknowledge the same.

The day-to-day guidance and support provided and the inputs given by Sri. Eapen Varughese,Chief Town Planner was of immense help. I thankfully acknowledge the supports rendered bythe Chief Town Planner.

VII

As already mentioned the Natural Resources and Environmental Data Base of Kerala, jointlydeveloped by Kerala State Land Use Board and Center for Earth Sciences Studies, was made use of inthe study for land use analysis. I thankfully acknowledge these institutions for making available thenecessary data. I must also acknowledge the Department of Economics and Statistics and theDirectorate of Census Operations, Kerala for supporting us with necessary data.

The suggestions of the two-day workshop organised to vet the study on SUR by senior levelplanners of the department has also greatly assisted in enhancing the quality of the document. I am toacknowledge the valuable suggestions offered by them. The district level studies on urbanisation,documented as District Spatial Plans/District Urbanisation Reports were major inputs for this statelevel study. In this respect, I thankfully acknowledge the officials of the district offices of the department.

The preparation of SUR is a direct task undertaken by the State Project Cell for LDP-IDDP-SPP. The concerted efforts of officials of the State Project Cell need special mention. In this respect,I appreciate the supports given by Smt. Ushakumari.P.R, Town Planner during the course of the study,especially in vetting and finalisation of the report. The untiring efforts made by Sri. Baiju.K, DeputyTown Planner, despite all odds, ensured that the document is prepared meticulously, without anycompromise on quality or content, in time. Sri. Baiju has been able to enrich the report with his innovativethinking and laudable work. Special acknowledgements are due to him. I also acknowledge the untiringefforts made by officials of the State Project Cell for LDP-IDDP-SPP, especially the Planning AssistantsSri. Krishnend.G.K, Sri. K.P. Shimod, Ms Gayatri Rajan and Smt. Sreeja.K who were directly involvedin the task. The earnest efforts put in by Smt. Sajitha Kumari.O, Computer Assistant is also appreciated.I also acknowledge the support rendered by the consultant firm M/s. Geotrans Technologies in GISapplications pertaining to the task.

Thiruvananthapuram Jacob Easow14.03.2012 Senior Town Planner

State Project Cell for LDP-IDDP-SPPOffice of the Chief Town PlannerThiruvananthapuram

VIII

Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala

STATE URBANISATION REPORT CONTENTS

CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... XIII

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................. XV

List of Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................... XIX

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................... XXI

CHAPTER 1PROFILE OF KERALA ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Geography ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1Administrative History ................................................................................................................................................................... 2South Canara ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2Malabar Region .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2Cochin Region ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2Travancore Region ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2Settlement Pattern ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3Demography .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3Socio – Economic Profile ................................................................................................................................................................. 4Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4Cultural Life .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5Climatic Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6Overall Development ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Population Trends ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9Population Density ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12Demographic transition ................................................................................................................................................................. 13Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PATTERN ............................................................. 17

Functional character ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17Economic Activity Pattern ............................................................................................................................................................ 19Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

IX


STATE URBANISATION REPORTCONTENTS

X

CHAPTER 4URBANISATION TREND ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

Urbanisation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21History of Urbanisation ............................................................................................................................................................... 21Urbanisation in the Indian context ................................................................................................................................................ 23Degree of urbanisation .................................................................................................................................................................. 24Trend of Urbanisation ................................................................................................................................................................. 26Spatial Distribution of Urban Population & Urban Content in Kerala ..................................................................................... 28Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 5URBAN AREAS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS .................................................................................................. 31

Statutory Urban Areas ............................................................................................................................................................... 33Urban agglomerations in Kerala .................................................................................................................................................... 33Degree of urban primacy ................................................................................................................................................................ 35Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 6URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND PACE OF URBANISATION ..................................................................................... 39

Urban Morphology ........................................................................................................................................................................ 39Million -Plus cities .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41Pace of urbanisation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 7POPULATION DENSITY......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Population density ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45Density of urban agglomerations ................................................................................................................................................... 46Population density variation between core and fringe of urban agglomeration .................................................................................. 47Population density variation within the core of urban agglomeration .............................................................................................. 49Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER 8URBAN-RURAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATEGORY OF WORKERS......................................................................... 51

Category of workers ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51Category of workers - Urban-Rural Distribution ........................................................................................................................ 53Major urban industry class in the rural areas of Kerala ............................................................................................................... 57Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER 9PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF URBANISATION ...................................................................................................................... 63


STATE URBANISATION REPORT CONTENTS

Distribution of urban areas among different topographical regions .................................................................................................. 63Urban area in physical terms ........................................................................................................................................................ 64Coverage of built up within the urban area ................................................................................................................................... 66Census urban area and activity pattern ......................................................................................................................................... 67Hierarchy of urban settlements ..................................................................................................................................................... 68Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 10ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF URBANISATION IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRONT ............................. 71

GDP and Per capita Income ........................................................................................................................................................ 71Human Development Index .......................................................................................................................................................... 73Work Participation Rate and occupational structure ...................................................................................................................... 75Land utilization pattern and cropping pattern .............................................................................................................................. 75Size of Land Holdings ................................................................................................................................................................. 77Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER 11FUTURE URBANISATION IN KERALA ............................................................................................................................ 79

Urban vision ................................................................................................................................................................................. 79Estimation of urban population .................................................................................................................................................... 80Hierarchy and spatial pattern of urban areas ............................................................................................................................... 82Delineation of future urban areas and future urban profile of the state .......................................................................................... 88District wise urban profile ........................................................................................................................................................... 102Towards achieving the urban profile ............................................................................................................................................. 102

CHAPTER 12RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................................... 105

Summary of findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 105Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 108

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 113

XI


STATE URBANISATION REPORT LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 World population and growth rate (1951 to 2011) ........................................................................................................... 9Table 2.2 Population in India .......................................................................................................................................................... 9Table 2.3 Population in Kerala ...................................................................................................................................................... 10Table 2.4 District wise Population Details in Kerala 1951-2011. ................................................................................................... 10Table 2.5 District wise Population Details in Kerala 2001-2011. ................................................................................................... 11Table 3.1 Combinations of functional character, land use concentration and urban profile and resultant activity ................................... 19Table 4.1 Urban and rural population in the world scenario ............................................................................................................ 24Table 4.2 Urban and rural Population in the more developed region and less developed region ............................................................. 24Table 4.3 District wise Urban and Rural population– Kerala ....................................................................................................... 29Table 4.4 Comparison of the level of urbanisation of districts of Kerala,Karnataka and Tamilnadu ............................................... 29Table 4.5 Districtwise urban content and its change ......................................................................................................................... 29Table 5.1 Number of towns in India ............................................................................................................................................ 32Table 5.2 Number of towns in Kerala ......................................................................................................................................... 32Table 5.3 Category wise break up of urban area in Kerala ............................................................................................................. 32Table 5.4 Urban areas in Kerala- Districtwise details .................................................................................................................... 33Table 5.5 Urban agglomerations in Kerala .................................................................................................................................... 34Table 5.6 Urban Agglomerations 2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 34Table 5.7 Population in Urban Agglomeration ............................................................................................................................... 34Table 5.8 Ranking of Urban Agglomeration of Kerala based on population (2011) ........................................................................ 35Table 5.9 Primacy ratio of urban agglomerations ........................................................................................................................... 35Table 5.10 Number of UA’s per 10 lakh population ..................................................................................................................... 37Table 6.1 Classification of urban areas based on population ............................................................................................................. 39Table 6.2 Categorization of Statutory Urban areas of 2001 in to size class of Kerala ................................................................ 40Table 6.3 Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 million and above ............................................................................... 42Table 6.4 Number of Million plus urban agglomerations–Comparison with neighboring States ........................................................ 42Table 6.5 Average pace of urbanisation (District wise) in 50 years (1961-2011) ............................................................................ 43Table 6.6 District wise pace of urbanisation and change in urban population density ......................................................................... 43Table 7.1 Rural Population Density ............................................................................................................................................... 45Table 7.2 Urban population density and general population density of Kerala .................................................................................. 46Table 7.3 Ranking of urban agglomeration based on population density ........................................................................................... 46

XIII


STATE URBANISATION REPORTLIST OF TABLES

XIV

Table 7.4 Population density .......................................................................................................................................................... 47Table 7.5 Population, Area and Density of Urban Agglomeration (2001) in Kerala ...................................................................... 49Table 7.6 Population density variation within the core of urban agglomerations ................................................................................. 49Table 8.1 Table: 8.1 Sector wise distribution of workers under three sectors-2001 ............................................................................ 53Table 8.2 Major class of industrial type other than cultivators and agricultural labourers in Rural area ............................................ 57Table 9.1 Ranking of urban agglomeration based on builtup and urban population .......................................................................... 66Table 9.2 Percentage builtup coverage ............................................................................................................................................. 66Table 9.3 Number of agricultural potential local bodies which are urban as per census classifications ................................................... 67Table 9.4 Hierarchy of Urban Settlements .................................................................................................................................... 69Table 10.1 Estimated contribution of urban area to national income (%) ....................................................................................... 71Table 10.2 Contribution of different districts to GDP (2008-09) vis-a-vis Urban Content of the districts ........................................ 73Table 10.3 Number of land holdings under various size categories .................................................................................................... 77Table 11.1 Estimation of urban population (trend based) ............................................................................................................... 80Table 11.2 Estimation of urban population assuming annual growth rate remains the same ............................................................... 80Table 11.3 States/UT s with highest urban content ....................................................................................................................... 81Table 11.4 Selected States/UT s with highest urban content and agricultural base ........................................................................... 81Table 11.5 Estimation of Urban population based on urban content ................................................................................................ 81Table 11.6 Hierarchy of urban area ............................................................................................................................................. 83Table 11.7 Second order urban centres with service population ......................................................................................................... 84Table 11.8 Third order urban with service population ..................................................................................................................... 85Table 11.9 Future Hierarchy of Urban centres .............................................................................................................................. 87Table 11.10 Urban profile 2021 ................................................................................................................................................... 92Table 11.11 Urban profile 2031 ................................................................................................................................................... 98


STATE URBANISATION REPORT LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1.1 Geographic regions of Kerala ................................................................................................................................................ 1Fig 1.2 Formation of the state to its present form .............................................................................................................................. 2Fig 1.3 District of Kerala as on 2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 3Fig 1.4 Kochi City ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3Fig 1.5 Golden sandy beaches of Kerala ............................................................................................................................................ 4Fig 1.6 Sabarimala Temple .............................................................................................................................................................. 5Fig 1.7 Kathakali ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5Fig 1.8 Seasonal heavy rains of southwest monsoon ............................................................................................................................ 7Fig 2.1 Districtwise decadal growth rate-Kerala. .............................................................................................................................. 11Fig 2.2 District wise population growth rate, comparison between 1951-61 and 2001-2011 ............................................................ 12Fig 2.3 State wise population density ............................................................................................................................................... 12Fig 2.4 District wise population density ........................................................................................................................................... 13Fig 2.5 Local government wise population density ............................................................................................................................. 13Fig 3.1 Functional character of LSGs of Kerala ......................................................................................................................... 18Fig 3.2 Activity pattern ................................................................................................................................................................ 20Fig 4.1 Urban content -2011 ........................................................................................................................................................ 25Fig 4.2 Urban content of Kerala- Comparison with Nation and the World ...................................................................................... 25Fig 4.3 Total population & Urban population growth rate – world scenario .................................................................................... 26Fig 4.4 Percent Urban and Rural population– world scenario ......................................................................................................... 26Fig 4.5 Total population & Urban population growth rate – India ................................................................................................. 26Fig 4.6 Percent Urban and Rural population– National scenario .................................................................................................. 26Fig 4.7 Total population & Urban population growth rate – Kerala ............................................................................................... 27Fig 4.8 Decadal Urban population growth rate of Kerala , comparison with India and World ........................................................ 27Fig 4.9 Percent Urban and Rural population–Kerala .................................................................................................................... 28Fig 4.10(a) Urban content of the States & Urban Population of India (2001) .............................................................................. 28Fig 4.10 (b) Urban content of the States & Urban Population of India (2011) ............................................................................ 28Fig 4.11 District wise urban content– Kerala (2011) ...................................................................................................................... 30Fig 5.1 Number of urban areas of Kerala (1961-2001) ................................................................................................................ 33Fig 5.2 Extent of urban areas of Kerala (1961-2001) ................................................................................................................. 33Fig 5.3 Urban population density (1961-2001) .............................................................................................................................. 33Fig 5.4 Urban Agglomeration 2011 .............................................................................................................................................. 34Fig 5.6 Primacy ratio for Kerala, Karnataka and Tamilnadu ......................................................................................................... 36

XV


STATE URBANISATION REPORTLIST OF FIGURES

Fig 5.5 Primacy of UAs in Kerala ................................................................................................................................................ 36Fig 5.6 Primacy ratio for Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu ............................................................................................................ 36Fig 6.1 Percentage of Urban population by size class of towns India ......................................................................................................... 39Fig 6.2 Percentage of Urban population by size class of towns Kerala........................................................................................................ 40Fig 6.3 Number of Urban areas by size class- Kerala ................................................................................................................... 40Fig 6.4 Number of statutory urban areas & others by size class- Kerala ...................................................................................... 41Fig 6.5 Distribution of urban population among different size classes of towns (statutory urban and others) ........................................ 41Fig 6.6 Location of the Class III towns with respect to class I and II towns .................................................................................... 41Fig 6.7 Average pace of urbanisation in 50 years (1961-2011) ...................................................................................................... 42Fig 7.1 Temporal variation of population density (urban), Kerala ..................................................................................................... 45Fig 7.2 Population density of UAs (Million Plus) ........................................................................................................................... 47Fig 7.3 Population density variation between the core and fringe of urban agglomerations .................................................................. 47Fig 7.4 Temporal variation in the areas of Urban Agglomerations and Core ................................................................................... 47Fig 7.5 Population density of the core, fringe and Urban Agglomerations ............................................................................................ 48Fig 7.6 Population density change within the core of Urban Agglomerations ..................................................................................... 48Fig 8.1 10 fold classification of workers by industry group-1971 .................................................................................................... 52Fig 8.2. 10 fold classification of workers by industry group-2001 .................................................................................................... 52Fig 8.3 Temporal variation of workers under three sectors of production .......................................................................................... 53Fig 8.4 Temporal variation of constituent categories of workers under primary sector of production in rural areas ............................. 54Fig 8.5 10 fold classification of workers, 1971-Rural ................................................................................................................... 54Fig 8.6 10 fold classification of workers, 2001-Rural ................................................................................................................... 54Fig 8.7 10 fold classification of workers, 1971-Urban ....................................................................................................................... 55Fig 8.8 10 fold classification of workers, 2001-Urban ....................................................................................................................... 55Fig 8.9 10 fold classification of workers by industry group-2001 of selected urban areas .................................................................. 56Fig 9.1 Percent distribution of urban area within the three topographical division of Kerala .............................................................. 63Fig 9.2 Spatial distribution of urban areas 2011 ........................................................................................................................... 63Fig 9.3 Distribution of the urban area of Kerala among different topographical regions ..................................................................... 64Fig 9.4 Coverage of cluster of built up of Kerala -2011 .......................................................................................................................... 65Fig 9.5 Urban area based on builtup nature and census urban - 2001 ............................................................................................. 65Fig 9.6 Census urban area -2011 overlaid in the built-up map ....................................................................................................... 66Fig 9.7 Activity Pattern and Urban Area 2001 ............................................................................................................................ 67Fig 9.8 Activity Pattern and Urban Area 2011 ............................................................................................................................ 67Fig 10.1 SDP of Kerala (at factor cost by industry of origin)- at Current price, Base year 1999-00 .............................................. 71Fig 10.2 Contribution of different sectors to the GDP................................................................................................................... 72Fig 10.3 Comparison of the change in level of urbanisation with the change in GDP of Kerala ........................................................ 72Fig 10.4 Per capita income of Kerala ( base year -1999-00) .......................................................................................................... 73Fig 10.5 Human Development Index of Kerala and India ............................................................................................................ 74Fig 10.6 Human Development Index – District wise variation .......................................................................................................... 74

XVI


STATE URBANISATION REPORT LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 10.7 Urban content 2001 ..................................................................................................................................................... 74Fig 10.8 Work Participation Rate –India and Kerala ........................................................................................................................ 75Fig 10.9 Occupational structure of Kerala-1971 and 2001 ............................................................................................................ 75Fig 10.10 Land Utilisation Pattern-Kerala .................................................................................................................................... 76Fig 10.11 Cropping pattern of Kerala-1960 and 2008 ................................................................................................................ 76Fig 10.12 Change in the area under cultivation of major crops ......................................................................................................... 76Fig 11.1Percent urban & rural population- Kerala ......................................................................................................................... 82Fig 11.2 First order urban settlement ............................................................................................................................................. 84Fig 11.3 second order urban area .................................................................................................................................................. 84Fig 11.4 Third order urban centres with service zone and service population ...................................................................................... 85Fig 11.5 final 3rd order Urban centres .......................................................................................................................................... 85Fig 11.6 Fourth order urban centres ............................................................................................................................................... 86Fig 11.7 Fourth order urban centres vis-a-vis population distribution ............................................................................................... 86Fig 11.8 Fourth order urban settlements vis-a-vis environmentally sensitive areas ............................................................................... 86Fig: 11.9 Spatial Distribution of Urban Settlements with hierarchy ............................................................................................... 88Fig 11.10 Zones of urban area ...................................................................................................................................................... 88Fig 11.11 Delineation of urban clusters .......................................................................................................................................... 89Fig 11.12 Urban Cluster & other urban areas vis-a-vis 2/3 population distribution ...................................................................... 90Fig 11.13 Urban cluster and other urban area vis-a-vis environmentally sensitive areas ..................................................................... 90Fig 11.14 Activity pattern vis-a-vis urban areas 2021 ................................................................................................................... 90Fig 11.15 Urban profile 2021- Urban Clusters and other urban areas ........................................................................................... 91Fig 11.16 Delineation of urban corridors ....................................................................................................................................... 95Fig 11.17 Urban Corridors and other urban area vis-a-vis 2/3 population distribution .................................................................... 96Fig 11.18 Urban corridors and other urban area vis-a-vis environmentally sensitive areas. ................................................................ 96Fig 11.19 Activity pattern vis-a-vis urban areas 2031 .................................................................................................................... 96Fig 11.20 Urban profile 2031 - Urban Corridors and other urban areas ........................................................................................ 97

XVII


STATE URBANISATION REPORT ANNEXES

ANNEXES

Annexe 1 Procedure to identify functional character ........................................................................................................... 113

Annexe 2 List of Statutory Urba Areas (2011) in Kerala ............................................................................................ 117

Annexe 3 The average plot size in grids of different percentage of built-up ...................................................................... 119

Annexe 4 Combined hierarchy of urban area. .................................................................................................................. 121

Annexe 5 Districtwise Urban Development Projects (Combined from DURs) .................................................................. 123

Annexe 6(a) Detailed Urban Profile of Kerala 2021 .......................................................................................................... 127

Annexe 6(b) Detailed Urban Profile of Kerala 2031 .......................................................................................................... 139

XIX


STATE URBANISATION REPORT ABBREVIATIONS

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

DPC - District Planning Committee

DSP - District Spatial Plan

DUR - District Urbanisation Report

GIS - Geographical Information System

IDDP - Integrated District Development Plan

LDP - Local Development Plan

LSG - Local Self Government

OG - Out Growth

Ppn - Population

SPP - State Perspective Plan

SUR - State Urbanisation Report

XXI


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 1

PROFILE OF KERALA

1

CHAPTER 1

Profile of Kerala

Kerala, lovingly called “God’s own country” istruly a land of eternal bliss and a tropical Eden withthe mesmerizing beauty of its sun bathed goldenseashores edged with abundant coconut trees, therocky terrain of the Western Ghats, stragglingplantations and paddy fields, the cerulean lagoons andthe bountiful rivers and mighty waterfalls, fascinatingbio-diversity of its flora and fauna.

Geography

Kerala is located on the southernmost tip ofIndia and embraces the coast of Lekshadweep Sea onthe west and is bounded by the Western Ghats in theeast. Lying within east longitudes 74o 52' and 72o 22'and north latitudes 8o 18' and 12o 48' this idyllic landof eternal beauty embraces less than 1.58 % area ofthe country of India. Tamil Nadu state is in east andKarnataka state is in north-east of Kerala. Due to theterrain and physical features, it is divided in east westcross-section into three distinct regions - hills & valleysmidland plains and coastal region. Forests cover almost30 per cent of the whole of Kerala. Some of theforests are so dense that their flora and fauna, in placessuch as Silent Valley, have not yet been completely

assessed and recorded. Medicinal herbs, abundant inthese forests, are used in Ayurveda.

Fig 1.1 Geographic regions of Kerala

Kerala is located on the southernmost tip of India and embraces the coast of Lakshadweep Sea on the west and is boundedby the Western Ghats in the east. In many aspects of socio economic development it is in par with the developed world. Keralaexperiences high level of urbanisation as against low population growth rate. The settlement pattern of Kerala is unique inthe sense that it is having urban-rural continuum. This chapter look into the peculiarities of the socio-economical and physicalprofile of Kerala.

Source: District Level National Hazard Zonation Map 2009, CESS, Trivandrum

LAK

SHA

DW

EE

P SE

A

2 Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala

STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 1PROFILE OF KERALA

Ecology plays an important role in the Keralaeconomy by providing a diversified natural resourcebase, enabling a large degree of occupationaldiversification. The topography and the geographicalrelief features are marked by distinct changes fromeast to west. Geographically, Kerala is divided intothree regions comprising three zones i.e. lowlands,midlands & highlands.

The low land, where the population density isthe highest, consists of sandy and fertile soils of theriver valleys, lakes and backwaters, providing the basisfor fishing, rice and coconut cultivation andhorticulture. In the mid land region, coconut, rice,cassava, areca nut and cashew, along with rubber,pepper, and ginger on the slope predominate. The highranges, where the population density is the lowest,and which once consisted almost wholly of naturalevergreen tropical forests, gave way to plantations oftea, coffee and rubber during the colonial times. Overthe past century, the high ranges have also receivedmigrant peasants, big and small, from the midland andcoastal tracts.

Kerala enclosed within the Western Ghatsseparates itself from the rest of India, however thegap in the western ghat, provides the link betweenKerala to other neighboring states. The mountainsappear thrown back and heaped up, as if someoverwhelming deluge had burst through, sweepingthem left and right. On either hand tower the giantNilgiris and Anamalas, overtopping the chain of ghatsby several thousand feet, while through the gap, thesouthwest winds bring pleasant moist air and gratefulshowers to the thirsty plains of Coimbatore, and roadsand railways link the Carnatic to Kerala. The uniquecharacter of this Palghat gap, in the Western Ghats isonly equaled by its great economic value to the stateslying on either hand of it .

In addition to the Palghat Gap, there are otherslike the Perambadi Ghat linking Kerala and Coorg,the Perlya and Thamarasseri Gaps linking Wynad andMysore, and Bodinayikannur, Kambam, Aryankavu,

and Aramboli Passes connecting Kerala and TamilNadu.

Administrative History

The State of Kerala, located in the south-westpart of India, in its present form, was formed in 1956as part of the linguistic reorganization of the IndianStates by merging the three Malayalam-speakingregions - the princely states of Travancore, Cochinand Malabar district of the Madras Presidency.

Its land area is 38,863 sq. km and stretches fromNorth to South along the coast line of 580 km in lengthwith breadth of 30 - 130 km. While in terms of area,Kerala forms only 1.1 per cent of India, its populationduring its formation (in 1956) was 13.55 millionand it has increased to 33.38 million in 2011,which accounts for 3.01 per cent of India’spopulation.

Population density in Kerala is 859 persons persq. km as per 2011 census, one of the highest in the

Fig 1.2 Formation of the state to its present form

South Canara

Malabar Region

Cochin Region

Travancore Region



PROFILE OF KERALA

3

country. The first Kerala Legislative Assembly wasformed on April 1, 1957. Kerala during 1950s’ haveonly 8 number of districts. Alleppey district was carvedout of erstwhile Kottayam and Kollam (Quilon) districtson 17 August 1957. The name of the district Alleppeywas changed as ‘Alappuzha’ in 1990. MalappuramDistricts have formed taking portions from Kozhikkodeand Malappuram. Then Wayanad and Idukki Districtwere formed. In 1982, Pathanamthitta district was newlyconstituted taking portions from the then Alappuzha,Kollam and Idukki districts. As on today Kerala Statehas 14 revenue districts, 21 revenue divisions, 63Taluks, 1478 revenue villages. Politically Kerala isdivided into 14 District Panchayats, 152 BlockPanchayats, 978 Gram Panchayats, 5 MunicipalCorporations and 60 Municipal Councils.

century, such statistics are deceptive because of theclose proximity of rural houses, especially in thecoastal plain. Kerala is known for its unique settlementpattern with independent houses on individual plotsscattered across the habitable areas. The dispersedsettlement pattern, a result of historical trends, a likingfor homestead type development, comparativelydeveloped infrastructure in urban and rural areas,geographical reasons, availability of sub-soil water etccan be considered as both a prospect and a problem.

Fig 1.3 Districts of Kerala as on 2011

Settlement Pattern

Kerala is one of the most densely populatedstates in India. While only about one-fourth of thepopulation was reported as urban in the early 21st

A clear distinction exists between the rural andurban areas else where in India. One can visually feelthe difference of urban and rural area. A rural areamainly consists of vast areas of agricultural land withhamlets distributed sporadically whereas an urban areawill have multistoried buildings, high road density, highvolume of vehicular traffic etc.

But here in Kerala, one cannot clearly distinguisha rural area from an urban area. All over Kerala, it islike a large number of small and medium townsdistributed in the village background. It is very difficultto demarcate the end or beginning of a town and avillage.

Demography

Population of Kerala as per Census 2011(provisional) is 33387677 persons comprising16021290 males & 17366387 females with a decadalgrowth rate of 4.86 percent which is lowest among

Fig 1.4 Kochi City

Kasaragod

Kannur

Wayanad

Kozhikode

Malappuram

Palakkad

Thrissur

Ernakulam

Kottayam

Idukki

Alappuzha

Pathanamthitta

Kollam

Thiruvananthapuram



the states of India. The decline in growth rate isobserved, partly by decline in fertility and partly bynet out-migration. It has unique sex ratio feature 1084females per thousand males against 940 females per1000 males in the country. Kerala’s demographictrends have taken remarkable and much complexchanges since late 1940s. The demographic peculiarityobserved in the State with respect to its populationdensity is that the highest population density isobserved on the coastal area i.e. in the low land areas,the lowest density in the high land regions and amoderate density is observed in the mid land regions.Of the 14 Districts, Malappuram has the highestpopulation with 41,10,956 persons followed byThiruvananthapuram with 33,07,284 persons &Wayanad District has the least population with8,16,558 followed by Idukki with 11,07,453 persons.It should be noted that the highest and lowestpopulation comprises to 12.3% and 2.45% of the totalpopulation of the State. It is to be noted that the twodistricts Wayanad & Idukki are situated in the hillyregions (upper land) of Kerala. Malappuram districtis not only the highest with respect to population size,but has also experienced higher population growthamong all districts in Kerala. However, the decadalpopulation growth rates have declined significantly.The population density with respect to land is thehighest in Alappuzha followed byThiruvananthapuram district as per the Census. Thelowest population density is in Idukki followed byWayanad district.

Socio – Economic Profile

Kerala has a good socio – economic statuscompared to other states in India. It has the highestquality of life index in the country with a high literacyrate at 93.91% against country’s literacy rate of74.04% according to the provisional data of Census2011 with the male literacy rate 96.0 per cent and thefemale literacy rate 92.0 per cent. Kerala State, insouth India, is an exception within the Indiansubcontinent. Despite having a poor per-capita

income, Kerala’s health indicators and life expectancyare close to those of developed countries. The statehas good health infrastructure comprising 835 PrimaryHealth Centres, 24 Dispensaries, 237 CommunityHealth Centres and 5403 Sub-Centres. Health statusgenerally measured in terms of mortality indicationslike Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate, LifeExpectancy etc. Mortality indicators show that healthstatus of Kerala is far advanced and higher than theall India average and even comparable with developedcountries. Needless to state, achievements on thehealth and education fronts were to a large extentpossible through investments in infrastructure. Keralahas had an edge over many other States in social andeconomic infrastructure, such as road transport, postoffices, telecommunication, banking, schools, medicalinstitutions, number of hospital beds and so forth buthas remained below the all-India average in irrigationand electricity generation.

Natural Resources

Kerala lacks major reserves of fossil fuels.However, the state is rich in various mineral resources.

There are moderate deposits of Ilmenite (theprincipal ore of titanium), Rutile (titanium dioxide),Monazite (a mineral consisting of cerium and thoriumphosphates), Zircon and Sillimanite all of which arefound in the golden beach sands.

Though not plenteous Kerala has a variety ofmineral deposits including limestone, iron ores, and

Fig 1.5 Golden sandy beaches of Kerala



PROFILE OF KERALA

5

bauxite (the principal ore of aluminum). The state isespecially known for its high-quality kaolin (chinaclay/ white clay), which forms an important rawmaterial for the manufacture of porcelain. Silica andquartz are also found abundantly and are used in themanufacture of glass and lenses. It has also beenproven that certain areas in Kerala have deposits ofgold at certain places of Wayanad, Kozhikode andMalappuram; though mining is yet to start. State alsohas abundant deposits of graphite which is used inmaking variety of products along with substantialdeposits of granite.

Kerala has great hydroelectric potential, withsome two dozen hydroelectric stations operating withinthe state. Several thermal plants supply additionalenergy, and in the late 20th century the state began toestablish wind farms. Despite its wealth of renewableresources for power generation, Kerala has continuedto import some of its electricity from elsewhere in India.

Cultural Life

The cultural heritage of Kerala reflectsextensive interaction with diverse communities fromantiquity to the present. With an array of ancientHindu temples with copper-clad roofs, later, mosqueswith “Malabar gables” (triangular projections at therooftops), and Baroque churches from the Portuguesecolonial era, the state’s architecture offers a chronicleof the social, spiritual, and political history of the area.

Fig 1.6 Sabarimala Temple

Other characteristically Kerala art forms includeintricate paintings on wood, thematic murals, and aremarkable variety of indoor and outdoor lamps (fromwhich the state has earned the sobriquet “Land ofLamps”).

Literature and learning, in both Tamil andSanskrit, have flourished since the 2nd century;meanwhile, the Malayalam language, though anoffshoot of Tamil, has absorbed much from Sanskritand also has a prolific literature. Most traditionaldances of Kerala pertain to the great Indian epics —the Mahabharata and the Ramayana — or to thehonoring of specific Hindu deities.

Kathakali, the classical martial dance-drama ofKerala, is one of the oldest theatre forms in the world.is a highly stylized classical Indian dance-drama notedfor the attractive make-up of characters, elaboratecostumes, detailed gestures and well-defined bodymovements presented in tune with the anchorplayback music and complementary percussion.

Fig 1.7 Kathakali

Other dance forms of Kerala areKrishnanattom, Mohiniyattom, Thullal, Koodiyattom,Kolkkali, Thiruvathirakali, Kakkarishi Natakom,Oppanna and Chavittunatakom. Panchavadyam,



Nadanpattu and many more music forms have evolvedover the centuries in Kerala.

Climatic ConditionsThe coastal state of Kerala has commonly been

called the tropical paradise of India. Kerala has anequable and tropical climate offering a pleasingatmosphere throughout the entire year. The state hashot and humid climate during April-May and pleasant,cold climate in December-January. Summer extendsfrom the month of April to June when the temperaturereaches to a maximum of 33 degrees centigrade.Summer is followed by South West Monsoon thatstarts pouring in the month of June and continues tillSeptember. With the arrival of winter there is certaindrop in the temperature and you can feel a slight chilldue to the cold wind. Winter in Kerala lasts fromNovember to January or February.

With 120–140 rainy days per year, Kerala has awet and maritime tropical climate influenced by theseasonal heavy rains of the southwest summermonsoon. In eastern Kerala, a drier tropical wet anddry climate prevails.

Kerala’s rainfall averages 3,107 mm (122 in.)annually. Some of Kerala’s drier lowland regionsaverage only 1,250 mm (49 in.); the mountains ofeastern Idukki district receive more than 5,000 mm

(197 in.) of orographic precipitation, the highest inthe state.

During summer, Kerala is prone to gale forcewinds, storm surges, cyclone-related torrentialdownpours, occasional droughts, and rises in sea level.The mean daily temperatures range from 19.8 °C to36.7 °C. Mean annual temperatures range from 25.0°C– 27.5 °C in the coastal lowlands to 20.0 °C – 22.5 °Cin the eastern highlands. Rising temperature has beenreported in Kerala.

The agro-climatic conditions in Kerala suit thecultivation of both cash crops and food crops. Underthe colonial initiative, however, given an enablinglegislative framework and market conditions, cashcrops came to predominate. Agriculture forms the rawmaterial base for a number of agro-processingindustries, such as coir, cashew, wood and edible oil.These industries continue to occupy an importantplace, especially in terms of employment. A smallsegment of large modern industries based on minerals,chemicals and engineering have also come up, alongwith an increasing segment of small and : mediumindustries, some based on modern technology andmanagement.

Overall Development

Since the formation of the state in 1956, Keralahas striven consistently to bring down the interregionaldisparities, gone ahead with the progressivelegislations on land tenures and agrarian relations,brought down mortality and fertility rates and arrestedpopulation growth rate, promoted educational growthwith significant support to private sector initiativesand modernized the healthcare sector. In the materiallyproductive sectors of agriculture and industry, Kerala’sperformance has not been remarkable. It is the processof large scale emigration that began in the early 1970sthat has kept the Kerala economy on an even keeland promoted near – revolutionary changes inconsumption patterns, housing conditions, educationallevels and health status.Fig 1.8 Seasonal heavy rains of southwest monsoon



PROFILE OF KERALA

7

Kerala attracts many foreign and domestictourists and the tourism industry contributes in largemeasure to the state’s Gross State Domestic Product(GSDP). A major part of the state’s income accruesfrom remittances sent by migrants working abroad,mostly in countries in the Persian Gulf. The economyof the state is highly dependent on the tertiary sector,and the trade, hotels and restaurants segments of thissector are growing rapidly as the tourism industrydevelops.

Agriculture is dominated by rice and otherplantation crops. Kerala produces over 90 per centof India’s natural rubber, more than half of India’scardamom, and 30 per cent of coconuts and tapioca.Traditional industries like coir, handloomsand handicrafts also employ a large number ofpeople.

The state has a 590 km long coastline, and hasone major and 17 intermediate and minor ports. Theprimary articles traded via these ports are petrol, oiland other lubricants and containers. Kerala is one ofthe highest ranked states in India in terms of HumanDevelopment Index.

At current prices, the Gross State DomesticProduct (GSDP) of Kerala was about US$ 48.5 billionin 2009 – 10. The state’s GSDP grew at a CompoundAnnual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.8 per centbetween 2004-05 and 2009-10

Distribution of GSDP

In 2009-10, the tertiary sector contributed 61.5per cent to the state’s GSDP at current prices. It wasfollowed by the secondary sector at 23.1 per cent. The

tertiary sector grew at an average rate of 14.7 per centbetween 2004-05 and 2009-10; driven by trade, hotels,real estate, finance, insurance, transport,communications and other ser vices. The secondarysector grew at an average rate of 14.6 per cent duringthe period 2004-05 and 2009-10. Its growth was drivenby manufacturing, construction, electricity, gas andwater supply. The primary sector grew at an averagerate of 10.6 per cent between 2004 – 05 and 2009 –10.

Its been observed that Kerala’s economy isdriven by the secondary and tertiary sectors, of whichthe secondary sector being the fastest growing sectoralong with tertiary sector, the largest contributor toKerala’s economy whereas the primary sector’s sharein GSDP has been declining with the mining andquarrying segment in this sector registered a highgrowth rate.

CONCLUSION:

Kerala is an abode of peculiarities. It has richcultural heritage, high achievement in socialdevelopment indicators (life expectancy, infantmortality, literacy rate and so on) even comparableto the developed nation but with comparatively lowper capita income. The plotted development in almostall part of the State facilitated to the urban – ruralcontinuum, a settlement pattern unique to Kerala.Kerala is undergoing high level of urbanisation withoutphysical manifestation in tune to it, which is anotherpeculiarity. The 2011 census puts the urban content ofKerala at 47.71% with a decadal growth rate of 82. 23%. A study on the intricacies of the urbanisation ofKerala is inevitable in this context.



DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION

9

CHAPTER 2

Demographic Transition

Population Trends

The world population is estimated by the UnitedNations to be 690 crores in 2011. The world populationhas been growing continuously and the fastest growth ofpopulation (above 20 % per decade) were seen brieflyduring the 1970’s and 80’s. Since then population growthrate is seen decreasing continuously and now it is at 12.8%(table 2.1). World birth have leveled off at about 134 millionper year and are expected to remain constant, but the deathsare only about at 57 million per year and are expected toreach 90 million by the year 2050. Because births out numberdeaths world population is expected to increasecontinuously and reach 9 billion in 2050. (Source:Economic review 2010, Planning Board, Kerala State)

India, the second most populous country in theworld, have 121 crores of population (2011 censusdata) contributing about 17.5% of the worldpopulation. Presently population of India is growingwith a decadal growth rate of 17.8%. But during 1961-71, the decadal population growth rate was 36.2%,the highest growth rate recorded ever in the historyof India. Since then the population growth rate ofIndia started declining.

The population of Kerala is 3.34 crorespresently (according to 2011 census) which constituteabout 2.7 % of the total population of India. With anannual population growth rate of 0.5, Kerala is having

Urbanisation is often considered as a demographic phenomenon. The demographic transition that has undergone in the statehas thus become an integral part of the study on urbanisation. Kerala is having high population density since its formation in1956. But due to the rich cultural heritage and high level of socio-economic development that the state has achieved, thepopulation growth rate is spontaneously controlled and is now the state is gearing towards zero population growth rate. Thischapter explains the demographic transition in the state.

Table 2.2 Population in India

Source: Census data

Table 2.1 World population and growth rate(1951 to 2011)

%

Source: World urbanisation prospects, revision, United Nations.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 2DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION

a very low population growth rate among the State’s /Union territories of India according to 2011 census.The variation of the annual population growth rate ofKerala from 1951 on wards is shown in the table 2.3.

and the rate of net out-migration reached its peakduring 1981-91. It is projected that Kerala is likely toachieve zero population growth (ZPG) in 25 to 30years (Source: Kerala Development Report.2010).

With regard to regional variations, the size ofthe population is the highest in Malappuram district(41 lakh) followed by Thiruvanthapuram (33 lakh),as per the 2011 Census (Table 2.4). The lowestpopulation size was seen in Wayanad district ( 8 lakh)followed by Idukki district (11 lakh). It is to be notedthat these two districts are situated in the hillyregions (upper land) of Kerala. Malappuram districthas not only the highest population size, but has alsoexperienced rapid population growth among alldistricts in Kerala. The population data from 1951 to2011, shows that population of Malappuram hasincreased by 250% in a period of 60 years with anaverage decadal growth rate of 42%. The populationgrowth rate of Malappuram district during2001-2011 is 13.39%, the highest among the districtsof Kerala.

The table shows that historically Kerala isexperiencing very low population growth rate, whencompared with the population growth rate of India.The decline in growth rate was contributed to partlyby decline in fertility and partly by out-migration.Kerala has been an out-migration State from the 1930s,

Table 2.4 District wise Population Details in Kerala 1951-2011

Source: Census data

Table 2.3 Population in Kerala

Source: Census Data




11

has experienced the highest populationgrowth rate (13.39%) during this period,whereas all the southern districts shows verylow population growth rate, withPathanamthitta (-1.93%) and Idukki(-3.12%) recording negative populationgrowth rate.

The comparison of the populationgrowth rate during fifties and during presentcentury shows that there is a spatial shift inthe region of high population growth rate fromthe southern districts to the central andnorthern districts of Kerala. During fifties, thesouthern districts of Kerala experiencedhighest population growth rate, but at presentthe highest population growth rate is seen inthe central and northern Kerala.

At the other end of the spectrum, Alappuzhadistricts recorded the lowest average decadal growth

rate of population (13%). The population growth rateduring 2001- 2011 ( fig 2.1) shows that Malappuram

Fig 2.1 Districtwise decadal growth rate-Kerala.Source: Census 2011

Table 2.5 District wise Population Details in Kerala 2001-2011.

(%)

Source: Census data



Population Density

The average population density of Indiaas per 2011 census is 382 person per squarekm, with the highest population density of11297 PPSq.km in NCT of Delhi and thelowest (42 PPSq.km) in Anadaman andNocobar Islands. The spatial distribution ofgross population density of the States/Unionterritories of India is shown in fig 2.3.Kerala and Tamilnadu, two southern mostStates shows high population density, whereasmajority of the States in India belongs to thelow population density category.

The population density in Kerala at 859persons per sq km is comparatively higherwhen compared with other States in India. Thelow population growth rate and comparativelyhigher population density are factors deciding

Fig 2.2 District wise population growth rate, comparison between 1951-61 and 2001-2011

Fig 2.3 State wise population density




13

rate as typically associated with economicdevelopment.

First Stage of Demographic Transition:- According to thetheory, death rates are high in the first stage of anagrarian economy on account of poor diets, primitivesanitation and absence of effective medical aid. Birthrates are also high in this stage as a consequence ofwidespread prevalence of illiteracy, absence ofknowledge about family planning techniques, earlyage of marriage and, last but not the least, as aconsequence of deep-rooted social beliefs andcustoms about the size of the family, attitude towardschildren, etc. Moreover, in a primitive society thereare economic advantages of large family size.“Children contribute at an early age and are thetraditional source of security in the old age of parents.The prevalent high death rates, especially in infancy,

Fig 2.5 Local government wise population densityFig 2.4 District wise population density

the future growth of the State. The regional variationin gross population density is shown in Fig 2.4. Whenthe districts belonging to high land region show lowpopulation density, remaining districts show highpopulation density.

The local government wise population densitydistribution is shown in Fig 2.5. The figure shows thatall the coastal local bodies and those adjacent to themare in the highest population density range (above 1500persons/sqkm), local governments in the midlandregion generally have population density in the rangeof 1000-1500 PPSq.Km and the local government inthe highland region have less population density (lessthan 500 persons per sqkm.)

Demographic transitionThe theory of “demographic transition”

postulates a three stage sequence of birth and death



imply that such security can be attained only whenmany children are born.” In such a society the actualrate of growth of population is not high since highbirth rate is balanced by high death rate. It is a stageof high growth potential but of low actual growth.

Second stage of Demographic Transition:- Rise in incomelevels enables the people to improve their diet.Economic development also brings about all-roundimprovement including the improvement in transportwhich makes the supply of food regular. All thesefactors tend to reduce death rate. Thus in the secondstage, birth rate remains high but death rate beginsto decline rapidly. This accelerates the growth ofpopulation. High growth potential of the first stageis realized in the high actual growth in the secondstage as a consequence of decline in death rate. Highbirth rate falling death rate contribute to the growthof the average size of the family in the second stage.

The Third Stage of Demographic Transition:- Economicdevelopment further changes the character of theeconomy from an agrarian to a partially industrializedone. With the growth of industrialization, populationtends to shift away from rural areas towards industrialand commercial centres. Growth of urban population,“with the development of economic roles for womenoutside the home, tends to increase the possibilityof economic ability that can better be achieved withsmall families, and tends to decrease the economicadvantage of a large family. One of the features ofeconomic development is typically increasingurbanisation, and children are usually more of aburden and less of an asset in an urban setting thanin a rural.” The consciousness to maintain reasonablestandard of living tends to reduce the size of familyin an industrialized economy; since the death rate isalready low, this is possible only if birth rate falls.Thus, the characteristics of the third stage are lowgrowth rate of population. This is the stage ofincipient decline of population.

These three stages reveal the transformationof a primitive high birth and high death rate economyinto a low birth and low death rate economy.

Kerala made a remarkable achievement inthe demographic transition within a short period oftime. The crude birth rate (CBR) which was 44 per1,000 population in 1951-61 had declined to 14.70per 1,000 population in 2009, a decline of around66.5 percent. Similarly, the crude death rate (CDR)was 20 per 1,000 population in 1951-61, whichdeclined to around 6.80 per 1,000 population in2009. India's crude birth rate (47) was just 3points above Kerala's CBR in 1951-61 which declinedonly to 22.51 in 2009. The crude death rate of thecountry declined from 28 to 7.3 between these twoperiods. In both Kerala and India, the birth rate andthe death rate declined rapidly until 1971-75.However, for Kerala, as the death rate remained stableduring the 1980s and 1990s, the birth rate continuedto decline. As a result the rate of natural increase ofthe population also declined. The natural increase inpopulation in Kerala is only 7.9 per 1000 populationas against 15.2 per 1000 population of India. The TotalFertility Rate (TFR) in Kerala, started declining fromthe 1960s. TFR for Kerala in 2009 is 1.70 which isthe lowest among states in India.

In Kerala, the total fertility rate (TFR), whichwas 5.6 per woman in the 1950s, declined to 3.7 inthe 1970s, and reached 1.7 in 2009. The fertility ratedeclined in both rural and urban areas, and there isvirtually no difference between the two. By contrast,in India, the TFR was 6.3 in the 1950s that declinedto 2.6 in the 2009s. Though Kerala and India had adifference in TFR of only 0.7 during the 1950s, the




15

difference has widened to 0.9 in the 2009s, indicatinga faster decline of TFR in Kerala than in India as awhole. As Kerala's TFR approached the replacementlevel (i.e. 2.1 children per woman), the rate of declinenaturally slowed down from the late 1980s. It isgenerally agreed that one of the most importantfactors behind Kerala's remarkable performance inreducing fertility is the high level of female education(Source: Human development report, 2005, Websiteof Planning Commission of India).

A significant role in the dramatic decline infertility in Kerala in the 1970s was played by the sharpdecline in infant mortality rates. Among the majorIndian States, Kerala's infant mortality rate is thelowest (12) as per the latest available estimates givenby Demographic Indicators published by PlanningCommission of India. In Kerala, out of every 1,000children born, only 12 die (2009) before attaining theirfirst birthday. In India as a whole, the infant mortalityrate in 2009 is 50. Kerala has performed remarkablyin reducing the infant mortality rate from 120 in the1950s to 12 in 2009. For India as a whole, it hasdeclined from 139 to 50 during the same period. Thedifference in' IMR was only 19 points between Keralaand India in the 1950s, which widened to 78 in 1976-80, but came down to 38 in 2009. Since Kerala hasalready achieved a lower level of IMR, further declineis expected to be slower due to the non-linear natureof the relationship.

The decline in IMR in Kerala almost ceased bythe 1990s. For several years, IMR has remained around14-15 per 1,000 live births, with virtually no change.Early neonatal (under one-week) deaths contributearound 65 per cent; and late neonatal mortality sharesaround 10 per cent of the infant deaths under oneyear. Biological factors and health care use duringpregnancy are likely to influence early neonatal

mortality and therefore, further reduction in IMR maybe possible by identifying those factors and makingspecific interventions during pregnancy. Further,infant mortality seems to be still higher among childrenborn in the households of SC/ST, fishing communityand the poor (Human Development Report, 2005,Centre for Development Studies, Kerala). Theabsence of the rural-urban gap in Kerala is due towidespread infrastructure and health care facilities inthe rural areas as well.

The very low natural increase in population, lowfertility rate, stabilized death rate all leads to 3rd stageof demographic transition in Kerala. Kerala is nowmoving towards achieving zero population growth ratein future. It is projected that Kerala is likely to achieveZero Population Growth (ZPG) within 25-30 years(Source: Kerala Development Report 2010, PlanningCommission, Government of Kerala)

CONCLUSION:

Historically, Kerala is experiencing very lowpopulation growth rate as against comparatively highgross population density. The decline in growth rateis contributed partly by decline in fertility and partlyby out-migration. The growth pattern of populationshows regional variation within the State. The 2011census data indicates that almost all the southerndistricts of the State shows very low populationgrowth (less than 2% decadal growth) with districtsof Pathanamthitta and Idukki recorded negativepopulation growth rate. A spatial shift in the regionof high population growth rate from the southerndistricts to the central and northern districts of Keralais noted over a period of 60 years. With very lowfertility rate and stabilized death rate, Kerala isexpected to achieve zero population growth ratewithin the next 25 to 30 years.



FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PATTERN

17

CHAPTER 3

Functional Character and Economic Activity Pattern

Functional character

The function of a settlement is the majoractivity that can be brought in to the settlement, be itagricultural allied activity, secondary sector activity,tertiary sector activities or a combination of the two,determined based on the type of land use concentratedand the average plot size within the settlement. Thefunctional character of an area may be urban, rural,semi urban or semi rural in the Kerala context.

In spatial planning, an urban area is defined asan area where the predominant livelihood activitiesare those other than primary economic activities ofextractive nature. This includes all government,administration, legal, health, educational and otherservices, the transport, communication, storageactivities; any and every form of trade and commerceand exchange of goods, thoughts, ideas, culture,recreation, entertainment and similar activities.(Source: Pp 2, Reading material on city andmetropolitan planning and development, readervolume, ITPI, India). Rural area is an area wherepeople thrive on agriculture and similar extractiveactivities. As far as the general Indian scenario isconcerned it is easy to identify the urban or rural area

based on the definition as a clear distinction exists inphysical term between the rural and urban areas elsewhere in India. One can visually feel the differenceof urban and rural area. A rural area mainly consistsof vast area of agricultural land with hamletsdistributed sporadically whereas an urban area willhave multistoried buildings, high road density, highvolume of vehicular traffic etc. But the situation inKerala is different. Here in Kerala, one cannot clearlydistinguish a rural area from an urban area. All overKerala, it is like a large number of small and mediumtowns distributed in the village background. It is verydifficult to demarcate the end or beginning of a townand a village. Here exists urban rural continuum. Aclose examination of the land use pattern existing in

Urban functions are those urban activities expected to be delivered by an urban area. Besides other factors, the extent of plotsub division, the population density, the existing land use etc are some of the limiting factors that determine the function of anarea. Determination of the functional character of an area based on these factors is essential to find out the desirable functionof an area, be it urban or non urban. The urban-rural continuum in Kerala makes it difficult to delineate an area as urbanor rural. In this respect, in connection with preparation of IDDP-Kollam, a new methodology for the delineation of an areaas urban or rural in Kerala context is derived. The chapter details out the local body wise functional character and activitypattern of Kerala based on this new methodology.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 3FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PATTERN

Kerala will reveal that there is only a few areas in theState which are pucca urban or rural. A large chunkof land, can be seen in between the pucca urban orrural area which consist of mixed land use – a mixtureof residential and agricultural land use. The puccaurban or rural area is only a minor share of the totalarea; the remaining area being mixed land use areas.Hence it is imperative to ascertain the character ofthe mixed land use area before determining the totalcharacter of the area.

This necessitates a new approach suitable to theState in classifying an area in to urban or rural basedon physical development.

In connection with preparation of IDDP forKollam district a new methodology for the delineationof an area as urban or rural or otherwise has beendeveloped. This methodology is replicated toremaining districts also. Average plot size within themixed land use area is taken as the criterion forclassifying the mixed land use area because, in mostof the cases it is a limiting factor which determinestype of activity to be introduced there andconsequently the character of the area having mixedland use. The average plot size in the mixed land usearea may vary from too big a size to small in size. It isfound that if the plot size of the mixed land use isgreater than or equal to 70 cents (refer : IDDP, VolumeI, Kollam Dist) a family can depend on agriculture andallied activities alone for their lively hood. That is, ifthe average plot size in the mixed land use is greaterthan or equal to 70 cents, that area can be classified asrural. If the plot size is less than 25 cents, thenagricultural activity can’t be taken as an economicactivity of the area and hence this area can becategorized as urban.

The categorization of the mixed land use basedon the plot size necessitates the introduction of twomore categories in between rural and urban, viz. semirural and semi urban. If the average plot size is suchthat a family can earn their livelihood only partiallyfrom the agricultural activity, the area can be termedas semi urban or semi rural. The share between the

agricultural and non agricultural activity determineswhether the area is semi urban or semi rural. If theplot size is such that a family can earn major share oftheir livelihood from rural activity but has to resort tosome urban activity also to fill the gap (in the earnings)the area can be termed as semi rural. A reversesituation indicates a semi urban area. (Detailedprocedure is given in Annexe 1).

As per the procedure the functional character ofthe Local Governments (LSGs) of Kerala are foundout and the same is shown in Fig 3.1. DistrictUrbanisation Report (DUR)/District Spatial Plan (DSP)has been prepared for 13 districts of Kerala and IDDPprepared for Kollam district. As a part of preparationof DUR LSG wise functional character has beendetermined. The LSG wise functional character of eachdistrict is compiled to get the State Map. Accordingly76 local governments of Kerala shows urban character,63 local governments show semi urban character, 103local governments show semi rural character and 805

Fig : 3.1 Functional character of LSGs of Kerala



FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PATTERN

19

local governments show rural character. The list of localgovernments with their functional character is given inthe District Urbanisation Reports/District Spatial Plan/IDDP of respective districts.

Economic Activity Pattern

The determination of economic activity patternis considered as an extension of the determination offunctional character. While determining the economicactivity pattern of an area, in addition to the functionalcharacter, the land use concentration pattern andurban profile as per census classification is also takenin to account.

The major economic activity that ischaracteristic of an LSG or that can be brought therein future is indicated by the term “Activity”. Thepattern evolved in a Region/District by plotting theactivity of constituent LSGs gives the activity patternof the District/Region.

The major activity of a settlement (LSG) isdetermined taking in to account the following three

3.1 Determination of Economic Activity MatrixEconomic

determining factors.A. Functional characterB. Land use concentrationC. Urban profile

Concentration of a particular land use is assessedby land use concentration index, a value of whichabove 1 indicates the concentration of the particularland use in the study area (Refer: IDDP, Volume - I,Kollam District). Urban profile determines whether thearea is census urban or not. Different possibilities ofeach of these factors is shown in Table 3.1

The major economic activity of an LSG isdetermined taking in to account the variouscombinations of the results of the three factors, whichmay be (related to Kerala) Agriculture, Plantation,Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Industries-Agriculture-Animal Husbandry and SSI or ServiceActivities (Tertiary Activity).

The resultant Economic activity of an LSGthrough possible combinations of the three factors isas given in table 3.1.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 3FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY PATTERN

Fig 3.2 Activity pattern

The activity pattern of the state so derived isshown in the Fig 3.2.

As per the economic activity pattern of Kerala717 LSGs have the potential for agriculture and alliedsector development (including plantation andhomestead agricultural activity) and 82 LSGs showurban nature.

The potential activity of each LSG so derivedis available in the DUR/DSP/IDDP of districts.

CONCLUSION:

The analysis of the functional character of LSGsof Kerala reveals that majority of the LSGs exhibitrural character and as per the economic activitypattern majority of the area of Kerala, except for theforest cover in the high land and high densitysettlements in the coastal belt, all other areas aresuitable for homestead agriculture and alliedactivities



URBANISATION TREND

21

CHAPTER 4

Urbanisation Trend

Urbanisation

The word urbanisation is derived from the Latinword ‘Urbs’ known as a city. As defined by UnitedNations, Urbanisation is the movement of people fromrural to urban areas with population growth equatingto urban migration.

Urbanisation has taken various forms at variousperiods. It is the process by which an area, a town orany place becoming urban, with an increasedconcentration of the people in that area leading to itsdevelopment.

Urbanisation is an index of transformationfrom traditional rural economies to modern industrialone. It is progressive long-term process ofconcentration of population in urban areas. It is thepopulation migration from rural area to an urban areathat results in its expansion at the cost of rural ornatural land.

Urbanisation is often considered as ademographic phenomenon; urban places are thosewhich exceed the thresholds of population size and/or population density .

Urbanisation process at different points in timeshow different factors leading to urbanisation overtime. In the pre historic period, urbanisation wassynonymous with the origin and rise of civilization,thus manifesting itself essentially as a cultural process.In the historic periods, from ancient times to theBritish period, urbanisation was exclusively related tothe rise and fall of kingdoms, dynasties and empiresand in effect, urbanisation during this period wasessentially a political process. In recent times,urbanisation has been associated with industrializationand economic development.

History of Urbanisation

Around 10,000 years back people lived in treetops, tree holes and in caves and fed on naturallyavailable food without much effort from his part. Butwhen his number increased he started moving out offorests and started living in plains and startedcultivation. He lived in places that offered him naturalprotections like in hill tops and near rivers which hedepended on for water and also for fishing. Forprotection from animals he started living in groups.This led to the formation of settlements or so called

When analysed in the world scenario, the urbanisation in India is comparatively low but it is ‘massive’ due to the enormity ofpopulation. Within India, the level of urbanisation varies among various states/union territories. Kerala is one of the stateswhich shows high level of urbanisation. This chapter explores the level of urbanisation and its trend in Kerala. Areaclassified as urban by Census of India is taken for the study.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 4URBANISATION TREND

villages. The formation of permanent villages datedback to the Neolithic times.

When all land did not respond to agriculture,people began to diverse themselves from foodproduction to other occupations. The land that didnot respond to agriculture was utilised for otherpurposes like housing etc. The cultivation of plantsenabled men to change their economy, to producefood and to live in permanent settlements. Thedevelopment of permanent settlements originated inEgypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, China and CentralAmerica. In these entire cases peasant communitiesgave rise to urban communities and urban settlements.

The emergence of the town from the village wasby the improvements in agriculture and allied activitieslike stock-breeding which was a Neolithic culture. Thescattered population of Neolithic times, dwelling inhamlets of from ten to fifty houses, were concentratedforming cities in due course of time. These early citiesresembled their village origins, transforming them toagricultural towns with the main source of food supplyin the land around them.

The town developed as a focus of a producingregion, and as a centre for exchange of goods fromoutside the region; the rise of artisans and manufactures;the division of labour and the division of society intoclasses and each with its special task; and all thisreflection of complex organization makes the town asingle unit, closely connected with its region.

This urban growth with food productiongoverned the relation of the city with its neighbouringland with the improvement in the transportationlinkages. The grains were transported over longdistances. E.g.: Cities like Rome had their food supplymainly from the distant granaries of Africa. The citiestended to grow along rivers or near accessible harboursnot only for easy transportation but also for the aquaticsources of food to supplement those produced by the soil.

The number of cites continued to increaseduring the Middle Ages. The sizes of the cities were

limited to the size of castles with the fort walls andthe availability of natural resources. Poor livingconditions started to take root within the cities-withan increase in population density due to influx ofpeople in search of jobs and shelter-with poor airquality, environmental and health problems due thelack of infrastructures.

The invention of gun powder led to the fall ofthe fort walls, which eventually led to thedecentralization of people from the congested walledcity to other areas. But the living condition of thepeople continued to detoriate. People continued tomove to improve their living conditions.

The dawn of Industrial Revolution saw anumber of changes in the cities. There was a transitionfrom a traditional agricultural and rural economy toan urban and industrialized economy, as a result ofinvention of new technologies and production processwhich made dramatic changes in them.

The technological innovations in machinerypaved a new route in the development process withnew discoveries and innovations in all fields startingfrom agriculture, textiles, coal and iron which resultedin the establishment of factories and assembly plants.These developments and inventions acted as a pullfactor for the people in rural areas, resulting in themigration to cities in search of jobs.

The cities became the engines of growth leadingto the concentration of people around the factoriesforming congested environments leading to theformation of slums with unhealthy living conditions,lack of basic infrastructures like electricity, sewerage,drinking water, sanitation system etc.

This mass migration of people to the cities isreferred to as urbanisation during the industrialrevolution. The migration of people resulted inadverse effects in both rural and urban areas. Ruralareas became devastated. The urban areas became thefocus of the growth paving way for factory towns.

During the early beginning of Industrial



URBANISATION TREND

23

revolution, a large number of people were living inthe rural areas, when compared to the urban areas.But the advancement in science and technology, jobopportunities in urban areas started attracting morepeople to them. This stage continues till the presentdate and leads to Urbanisation

The twentieth century witnessed rapidurbanisation of world’s population. The globalproportion of urban population increased from 13percent in 1900 to 29 percent in 1950 and 49 per centin 2005 to 50.5 percent in 2011.

At a global level, the trend of urban populationdiffers between the more developed regions and theless developed regions. While a majority of theinhabitants of the less developed regions live in ruralareas, in the more developed regions the populationis highly urbanized. Urbanisation tends to increase asthe level of development increases.

United Nations have projected that for the nextfew decades, the urban areas of the less developedregions will have the maximum population growth inall countries. Population growth in urban areas of theless developed regions is projected at an average of2.2 percent annually during 2011-2030. As a resultof this the urban population in the less developedregions will increase from 2300 million to 3900million over the next 25 years.

Urbanisation in the Indian contextThe history of Urbanisation in India goes back

to ancient India. Cities were formed at a stage whenhistory was ever documented and recorded. The firstknown city originated in India was the Harappa andMohenjo-Daro in ancient India. This urbanisation isknown as the Indus or Harappan civilization whichflourished during 3500-1500 B.C. The rest of Indiaduring this period was inhabited by farmers andhunters. With the introduction of iron technologyabout 3000 years ago, the focus of developmentshifted eastward into the Indo-Gangetic divide and

the Ganga valley. Iron technology enabled pioneeringfarmers to clear the dense and tangled forests of themiddle and lower Ganga plains. The focus ofdevelopment shifted further eastward to eastern UttarPradesh and western Bihar. The second phase ofurbanisation of India, marked by trade, coinage, scriptand birth of the first Indian empire, namely Magadha,with its capital at Pataliputra (Patna) also took place inthis region in the sixth century B.C. As a consequenceof the expansion of agriculture and loss of forests andwildlife, Stone Age hunter-gatherers were forced toassimilate themselves into larger agriculture-based rural.

In the traditional period the Indian socialstructure was predominantly a rural based agrariansociety. However, during the British period, changesbegan to take place. Significant changes in the socialstructure like the introduction of Ryotwari system inMaharashtra (The ryotwari system, instituted in someparts of British India, used to collect revenues fromthe cultivators of agricultural land), caused anincreasing income from the land revenue; change inthe legal framework regulating the relationshipbetween the money-lender and the farmer,introduction of the railway with a view to facilitatingtransport of raw-material, and introduction of postand telegraph. With the introduction of the railway(1853), process of urbanisation grew rapidly.

These developments contributed to the declineof the rural society and the growth of the urbansociety. In British period the population living in cities,and also the total number of cities increased, andcomparatively the rural population and the numberof villages in India declined.

During British rule, urban area was defined asincluding every municipality of what ever size, everycantonment, all civil lines that are not included inmunicipal limits, and every other collection of housespermanently inhabited by not less than 5000 personswhich is of an urban character though not undermunicipal government. This definition, continued until1961 census, left the scope for state census



superintendents to apply their judgments in declaringthe settlements as urban.

Since 1961 census, urban areas are defined onthe basis of two important criteria namely:i. Statutory administration: includes civic status

of towns. The towns identified on the basis ofstatutory administration are known as statutoryor municipal towns.

ii. Economic and demographic aspects: criterialike population size, density of population andpercentage of work force in non agriculturalsector. The towns defined on the basis ofeconomic and demographic aspects are termedas census or non-municipal towns.

Census of India classify an area in to urban if ithas a minimum population of 5000 , with a densityof population of at least 400 persons per sq.km andat least 75 per cent of male working population

engaged in non-agricultural pursuits.

Degree of urbanisationThe degree or level of urbanisation is defined

as relative number of people who live in urban areas.Percent urban [(U/P)*100] and percent rural [(R/P)*100 and urban-rural ratio [(U/R)*100 ] are mostcommonly used to measure degree of urbanisation.Percent urban population in a place is often termedas its urban content.

The urban content of the world population hasjust exceeded the 50% mark by 2011 indicating thelevel of urbanisation the world has undergone so far.Though the urban content of the world populationhas crossed 50% mark, the distribution of urbanpopulation is not uniform across the world. On theother hand it shows significant drastic variationbetween developed countries and developing countries.When the urban content of the developed regions stands

Table 4.1 Urban and rural population in the world scenario

Table 4.2 Urban and Rural Population-Comparision between developed regions and less developed regions

00



URBANISATION TREND

25

at 74.8% on an average, the less developed regions havean urban content of only 45.2%.

Among the less developed regions, LatinAmerica and the Caribbea have an exceptionally highlevel of urbanisation (79 per cent), higher than thatof Europe. Africa and Asia, in contrast, remain mostlyrural, with urban content of 40 per cent and 42 percent, respectively. (Source: World UrbanisationProspects, 2009, United Nations)

Though the average urban content of the Asiancontinent is 42 %, the urban content of India, thesecond largest country in the world, is 31.16% as perthe 2011 census which proclaims the general ruralnature of the country. In south Asia, India has an edgeover some of its neighbors in urbanisation. Thecountries like Bangladesh (18 per cent) Sri Lanka (21per cent), Bhutan (16 per cent) and Nepal (10 percent) have lower level of urbanisation than India. ButPakistan has higher level of urbanisation (32 per cent)than India. With a total population of 1.21 billion, anincrease of 1% urban content in India means anaddition of 12 crores of population in to the urban

category. It is not the percentage increase that isnotable as per urbanisation in India is concerned, butits total number added to urban category. It is howeverimportant to note that the comparison of the level ofurbanisation at the world level is affected by varieddefinition of urban areas in each country. For example,in Bangladesh places having a municipality(Pourashava), a town committee (Shahar Committee) orcantonment board are defined as urban; in Nepal, alllocalities of 9000 or more inhabitants are declaredurban; in Pakistan places with municipal corporation,town committee or cantonment are declared urban;in Sri Lanka also Municipalities, urban councils andtowns are treated as urban. On the other hand in Indiaboth civic status as well as demographic aspect aretaken as criteria for declaring a settlement as urban.

Data on urban population shows that the urbancontent within the country varies from a low of 10%to a high of 90% between the constituent States andunion territories. While Himachal Pradesh has thelowest urban content of 10.04%, National CapitalTerritory (NCT), Delhi records the highest urbancontent of 97.49% as per the census 2011. Variationof urban content among various States of India isshown in Fig 4.1. When southern India shows highurban content, Central India and Northern Indiapossess lower urban content in general.

Among the southern States of India, Tamilnaduhas the highest urban content at 48.5%. Kerala hasan urban content of 47.2%.

A comparison of the urban content of Kerala,with that of the Nation and the World is shown inFig-4.2. Kerala also has higher level of urbanisation.

Fig 4.2 Urban content of Kerala- Comparison with Nationand the WorldFig 4.1 India-urban content of states/UTs-2011



Trend of UrbanisationData shows that World wide growth rate of urban

population is always higher than the population growthindicating a higher pace in the urbanisation. Fig-4.3displays the world urban population growth rate againstthe total population growth rate. Present value of worldurban population decadal growth rate is 22.4 as againstthe total population growth rate of 12.78. That is worldurban population grows at a rate, 1.75 times higher thanthe total population.

Fig 4.3 Total population & Urban population growth rate –world scenario

Fig 4.4 Percent Urban and Rural population–world scenario

Fig 4.4 shows the variation of the percent urbanand rural population in world scenario from 1951 onwards. During 1950’s, if 70 percent of total populationof world was rural by 2011 the rural componentreduced to 49%. With the urban population growingtwo and a half times faster than its rural counterpart,

the level of urbanisation is projected to cross the 70per cent mark in 2050

In conformity with the pattern shown betweenthe growth rate of total and urban world population,urban population in India also grows at a higher pacethan the growth rate of its total population (Fig-4.5).But contrary to the world scenario, urban populationgrowth rate of India shows a slight increase during2001-11 when compared with the urban populationgrowth rate during 1991 to 2001.

Fig 4.5 Total population & Urban population growth rate –India

Fig 4.6 Percent Urban and Rural population– Nationalscenario

The variation of the urban content of India from1951 to 2011 is shown in Fig-4.6. The rural base thatIndia keeps for a long time, is evident from the figure.The rural content of the Indian population is stillhovering around at a whopping 68%. The figure alsoshows that it will take another 4 or 5 decades time to



URBANISATION TREND

27

have an urban content of 50%, which the world hasreached by now.

Kingsley Davis, an American sociologist anddemographer in the year 1962, explained urbanisationas a finite process, a cycle through which a nationpass as they evolve from agrarian to industrial society.He has mentioned three stages in the process ofurbanisation. Stage one is the initial stage characterizedby rural traditional society with predominance inagriculture and dispersed pattern of settlements. Stagetwo refers to acceleration stage where basicrestructuring of the economy and investments insocial overhead capitals including transportation,communication take place. Proportion of urbanpopulation gradually increases from 25% to 40%,50%, 60% and so on. Dependence on primarysector gradually dwindles. Third stage is known asterminal stage where urban population exceeds70% or more. At this stage level of urbanisationremains more or less same or constant. Rate of growthof urban population and total population becomessame at this terminal stage. According to this postulate,India now goes through an accelerated urbanisationstage.

The growth rate of total population and urbanpopulation of Kerala from 1961 to 2011 is shown inFig-4.7

Fig 4.7 Total population &Urban population growth rate – Kerala

Though the decadal population growth rate ofKerala is very less (as per 2011 it is only 4.86) whencompared with the National population growth rate(of 17.84), its growth of urban population isphenomenon. During 2001-2011, Kerala experiencedan urban population growth rate of 92.72. But during1991-2001, the urban population growth actuallydeclined from 61.65 to 7.64. Since the first two criteriawill be satisfied for almost all parts of Kerala, it canbe presumed that it is due to the third criteria by whichKerala shows such a variation in growth of urbanpopulation.

Shifting of workforce from agriculture sectorto tertiary sector is the reason for the high urbanisationin Kerala. The dispersed settlement pattern, the likingfor homestead type development, comparativelydeveloped infrastructure in urban and rural areas,geographical reasons, availability of sub-soil water etcall set for the easy conversion of the agriculture landand thus facilitating the shift from primary to tertiarysector.

When compared to the World and Nationalscenario, where urban population growth rate isshowing a decreasing tendency, Kerala shows anincreasing tendency in the urban population growthrate (Fig-4.8). Urban population growth rate of Keralashows an increase by 83.82% within a decade between2001 and 2011.

Fig 4.8 Decadal Urban population growth rate of Kerala ,comparison with India and World



During 2001, the level of urbanisation of Keralawas the lowest among the southern States (Karnatakaand Tamilnadu), but it has overtaken Karnataka by2011.

The Urban population content is about to cross50% mark with high rate of urbanisation. If this trendis continued Kerala will become 100% urban in thefuture. The high level of urbanisation and its highurban population growth rate is to be analyzed againstthe socio-economic development, the State hasachieved over a period, to ascertain whether thispattern of urbanisation is suitable to the State or not.The low population growth rate with high level ofurbanisation will increase the scarcity in labour force,especially agricultural and related activities.

Spatial Distribution of Urban Population& Urban Content in Kerala

As per 2011 census data total urban populationof Kerala is 15932171. The distribution of urban

Fig 4.9 Percent Urban and Rural population–Kerala

Fig 4.10 (b) Urban content of the States & Urban Population of India (2011)

Fig 4.10(a) Urban content of the States & Urban Population of India (2001)

The variation of urban and rural content ofKerala from 1961 (Fig-4.9) shows that urban contenthas reached 47.72 % in 2011 from a value of 13.48%in 1961. The present pattern of distribution of urbanand rural content of Kerala resembles to that of theworld population.

Kerala was positioned in the 19th rank in thelevel of urbanisation among the States of India as perthe 2001 census. 2011 census data shows that Keralahas improved its position to 9th rank.



URBANISATION TREND

29

population among the fourteen districts of the stateis shown in table-4.3. Ernakulum is the most urbanizeddistrict of Kerala and Wayanad is the least urbanizeddistrict. Six districts (Ernakulam, Thrissur, Kozhikkod,Kannur, Alappuzha and Thiruvananthapuram) arehaving urban content more than 50%.

Four out of the 14 districts of Kerala show lowlevel of urbanisation (urban content less than 25%),another 4 districts show medium level of urbanisation(urban content between 25% and 50%) and theremaining 6 districts show high level of urbanisation(table-4.4). In other words 56 % of the Districts inKerala belongs to the low to medium levelurbanisation category, whereas 42% falls under thehigh level of urbanisation category. When categorizingthe districts of Tamilnadu and Karnataka based on

Table 4.3 District wise Urban and Rural population– Kerala

Source: Census 2011

the level of urbanisation (see table 4.4), it is seen thatthere is contrast between the Districts. When 92% ofthe total districts of Karnataka belongs to low ormedium category, 8% belongs to high or very highlevel of urbanisation. In the case of Tamilnadu, thecorresponding figures are 59 and 41 respectively.

The table 4.5 compares district wise urban content

Table 4.5 Districtwise urban content and its change

Source: Census

Table 4.4 Comparison of the level of urbanisationof districts of Kerala,Karnataka and Tamilnadu

Source : Census



in Kerala between 2001 and 2011. The data shows thatbetween 2001 & 2011 districts of Thrissur &Malappuram are subjected to the maximum urbanisation(based on urban content).

District of Idukki, Wayanad and Pathanamthittaare showing the lowest Urbanisation in both 2001 and2011. Central and northern Kerala are subjected to highlevel urbanisation during 2001-2011, whereas the easternpart of Kerala with forest cover is experiencing low levelof urbanisation during 2001 and as also during 2011.

Mapping of the district wise urban contentshows that all the coastal district of Kerala arerelatively highly urbanized.

It can be concluded that Kerala is experiencinghigh level of urbanisation all over the State except inthe high range region. It can be attributed to thescattered settlement pattern of Kerala.

CONCLUSION:

India is in an accelerated stage of urbanisation.Regarding the growth rate of total population andurban population, India shows the similar pattern ofthe world, both are decreasing with urban populationgrowth rate higher than the total population growthrate. As far India is considered, it is not the percentageincrease in urban population that matters, but thequantum of population added to urban category foreach percentage increase in urban population. Thehistory of population growth rate in Kerala shows thatthe growth rate of urban population has always beengreater than that of the total population, indicatingthe very high pace of urbanisation the state isexperiencing. Kerala has undergone highest level ofurbanisation in its history during 2001-2011 (with apercentage increase of 83.82 over the previous

decade). Areal reclassification (the declaration of ahitherto rural area in to urban due to the shift inoccupational structure) is the main reason for the highlevel of urbanisation noted here. Low population growthrate with high urbanisation in Kerala will get its reflectionin the life style of the society also. Quality service in allaspects will be a demand for the society. High qualityrequirements in housing, commercial establishments,public utilities, social infrastructures etc will be the futurerequirement in Kerala. The spreading of such type ofdevelopment utilizing the potential rural lands is notjustifiable in the context low population growth rate.These point towards the containment of urban area fromfurther spreading.

Fig 4.11 District wise urban content– Kerala (2011)



URBAN AREAS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS

31

CHAPTER 5

Urban Areas and Urban Agglomerations

An urban area can be defined in a number ofways – taking criteria under social, physical oreconomical aspects but all the towns have the basiccharacteristics of being spatial concentrations ofpeople and economic activities. As per the census ofIndia, urban area constitutes Statutory Towns, CensusTowns and Outgrowths.

All places under a municipal council, municipalcorporation, cantonment board or notified town areacommittee are the Statutory Towns. The criteria fordesignating an area into urban as per the census isexplained in Chapter 4.

An Out Growth should be a viable unit such asa village or part of a village contiguous to a statutorytown and possess the urban features in terms ofinfrastructure and amenities such as pucca roads,electricity, taps, drainage system, educationinstitutions, post offices, medical facilities, banks, etc.Examples of OGs are Railway colonies, Universitycampuses, Port areas, that may come up near a city orstatutory town outside its statutory limits but within

the revenue limit of a village or villages contiguousto the town or city.

Urban agglomeration is a continuous urbanspread constituting a town and its adjoining UrbanOutgrowths (OGs) or two or more physical contiguoustowns together and any adjoining urban out growthsof such towns. One of the constituent towns of anurban agglomeration should necessarily be a statutorytown and the total population of all the constituentsshould not be less than 20,000. With these two basiccriteria having been met the following are the possibledifferent situations in which urban agglomerationscould be constituted.

i) a city or town with one or more contiguousoutgrowths;

ii) two or more adjoining towns with or withouttheir outgrowths;

iii) a city or one or more adjoining towns withtheir out growths all of which form acontinuous spread

The census of India designates an area in to urban, based on demographic aspects. This chapter explores the censusurban areas for their number, size, primacy etc to assess the extent of urbanisation that has happened inKerala.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 5URBAN AREAS AND URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS

to 536 during the same period (Table 5.3) ie a 6 foldincrease.

The category wise break up of the urban areasof Kerala shows that the increase in the number ofstatutory towns is nominal whereas the increase innumber of census towns and out growths are highwhich throws light in to the kind of urbanisation(spreading rather concentration) happening in theState.

The number of towns in India has risen from2363 in 1961 to 7935 in 2011.

During the same period urban population ofIndia increased to 3,77,105,760 from 7,89,366,03 andthe level of urbanisation has increased to 31.16% from17.97%

India now (2011) has 3 metropolitan cities(cities with more than 10 million population) and 53metros (cities with population more than 1 million).Though the Urban content of 31.10% of India aswhole is comparatively low when viewed from worldscenario, India has cities of Bombay & Calcuttabelonging to the category of worlds most populuscities.

The state scenario shows that, the number oftowns (consisting of municipal councils/municipalcorporations) in Kerala has increased from 27 to 59(2 times increase) within a period of 50 years.(Table 5.2). But the increase in total number ofurban areas (including the census towns) is from 93

Table 5.2 Number of towns in Kerala

Source: Census of India, 1961-2011

Table 5.3 Category wise break up of urban areain Kerala

Source: Census of India 1961-2011

Table 5.1 Number of towns in India

Source: Census of India, 1961-2011

The number of Towns/Urban agglomerationsin India is continuously increasing (Table 5.1), thenumber has doubled within 50 years (1951-2011)




33

The temporal variation of the number of urbanareas, extent of urban areas and urban populationdensity are shown in figures 5.1, 5.2 & 5.3 respectively.When the Urban population has increased by 89%during 1961 to 2001, urban area increased by 184%.But the increase in urban population density is onlyby 15%. The striking feature is the maintenance of aconstant value of urban population density which iscontrary to the general belief of urbanisation thaturban areas attracts more and more population in toit. This again, is an indication of the peculiar patternof urbanisation occurring in Kerala, viz spreadingrather than concentration.

Category wise break up of urban areas in variousdistricts of Kerala as per census 2011 is shown intable 5.4.

Fig 5.2 Extent of urban areas of Kerala (1961-2001)

Fig 5.1 Number of urban areas of Kerala (1961-2001)

The presence of large number of census townsin Ernakulam, Thrissur, Kannur and Kozhikkoddistricts is an indication of the extent of spreadingof urban areas within these districts.

Statutory Urban AreasThe Kerala Municipalities Act do not prescribe

any criteria for constitution of Municipalities.However Government as per G.O MS 108/67/HLDdt. 2nd March 1967 had laid down the followingstandards for the constitution of new Municipalities.

(i) The locality should predominantly be urbani.e. at least 3/4th of the adult population of the areashould be engaged in pursuits other than agriculture.

(ii) The population of the locality should not beless than 20,000 and the density of population should notbe less than 4000 per 2.59 sq.km. except in hilly areas.

(iii) Per capita revenue resources of the localityshould not be less than Rs.5.

Kerala is now having 5 Municipal Corporations, 12number of Ist grade Municipal Councils, 22 number of IInd

grade Municipal Councils, 26 number of IIIrd grade MunicipalCouncils. The detailed list is annexed (Annexe-2).

Urban agglomerations in KeralaCensus of India introduced the concept of urban

Table 5.4 Urban areas in Kerala- Districtwise details

Source: Census 2011

Fig 5.3 Urban population density (1961-2001)



Fig 5.4 and table 5.6 Shows urban agglomerationsof Kerala in 2011

The constituent local bodies of each of theseurban agglomeration is shown in Annexe 4.

The total population in each of the urbanagglomerations is shown in table 5.7

Table 5.6 Urban Agglomerations 2011Fig 5.4 Urban Agglomeration 2011

Source: Census 2011

As per 2001 census, Cochin urbanagglomeration was the only one million plusagglomeration in Kerala but now the state has 7million plus urban agglomerations (as per 2011census). There are 18 urban agglomerations withpopulation one million plus in Kerala. It is to be notedthat neighbouring states of Karnataka and Tamilnadhave 1 and 4 number of million plus urbanagglomerations respectively.

All the Urban agglomerations are assigned rankbased on population (table 5.8).

agglomerations in 1981. There were 9 urbanagglomerations in Kerala during 1981, whichincreased to 19 as per census 2011. The number ofurban agglomerations in Kerala in different censusyears is shown in the table 5.5 below.

Table 5.5 Urban agglomerations in Kerala

Source: Census

Table 5.7 Population in Urban Agglomeration

Source: Census of India 2011




35

Table 5.8 Ranking of Urban Agglomeration ofKerala based on population (2011)

Accordingly there are two agglomerations,Kochin Urban agglomeration and Kozhikode UrbanAgglomeration with population more than 20 lakhs.Trivandrum, Thrissur, Malappuram and Kannur UrbanAgglomeration comes in the population range of15-20 lakhs. Kollam is the only one Urban Agglomerationbelonging to population range of 10-15 lakhs. Thereis no Urban Agglomerations in the population rangeof 5-10 lakhs. There are 12 Urban Agglomerationswith population less than 5 lakhs.

Degree of urban primacy

Urban primacy indicates the largest city in aregion, disproportionately larger than any others in theurban hierarchy. Such a city is called a primate city.Urban primacy indicates the share of the urbanpopulation in an urban area, out of the total urbanpopulation in the region and it indicates the dominanceof the urban area over others. Urban primacy, i.e., theconcentration of the urban population in only 1 or 2centers, is characteristic of many developing countriesand is viewed by many social scientists as detrimentalto the balanced development of the country as awhole. Political power is frequently concentrated in

these large urban complexes. Consequently, the urbancenters receive a larger and disproportionate share ofthe resources of the nation. In addition, the primatecities are overburdened and unable to meet theincreasing demand for housing and others services.

Primacy of an urban area can be assessed basedon the primacy ratio. Its value ranges between 0 toinfinity, If the Primacy of an urban area is above 1, itindicates more than 50% the total urban populationin the region is concentrated in that particular urbanarea and if it is 0, the area selected is no longer anurban( zero urban population there).

Primacy ratio of an urban area = (populationof the urban area)/(total urban population of theregion –population of the urban area)

Table 5.9 Primacy ratio of urban agglomerations

The primacy ratio of urban agglomerations ofKerala in 2011 is shown in the table 5.9 and Fig 5.5The six urban agglomerations, Kochi, Kozhikkode,



Fig 5.5 Primacy of UAs in Kerala

Thrissur, Malappuram, Thiruvananthapuram andKannur shows comparatively higher primacy amongthe urban agglomerations in the State.

The real extent of primacy that the urbanagglomerations in Kerala possess will be revealed onlyby comparing the primacy of urban agglomerationsin other states. Bangalore is having a primacy ratiogreater than one (1.08) in Karnataka state (indicatingmore than 50% of the urban population of Karnataka

state is concentrated in Bangalore urbanagglomeration), and Chennai has a primacy ratio equalto 0.7 in TamilNadu State. This indicates the extentof concentration of urban population in these twourban agglomerations.

It can be concluded that on comparison withthe neighboring States of Karnataka and Tamilnadu,Kerala does not have a primate city like Bangalore orChennai (Fig 5.6)

Fig 5.6 Primacy ratio for Kerala, Karnataka and Tamilnadu

Kerala Karnataka Tamil Nadu




37

CONCLUSION:

Urbanisation in the state of Kerala shows markedpeculiarities. Generally, increase in urban populationgrowth rate is the result of over concentration in theexisting cities especially metropolitan cities. This is truein the case of urbanisation in the other states of India.In Kerala, the main reason for urban population growthis not by the concentration of population in to theexisting urban areas, but the increase in the number ofurban areas and also urbanisation of the peripheral areasof the existing major urban centers. Kerala isexperiencing urban spread rather than concentration.Though Kerala is having high urban content in total, itdoes not have a single primate city but have 6 nos. ofmedium sized urban agglomerations which are foundto be fairly well distributed when analyzed in the contextof population distribution.

Though there is no primacy for the urbansettlements in Kerala, the ratio of numberof UAs/10 lakh ppn (Table 5.10) is the highest inKerala indicating UAs in Kerala are more distributedcompared to Tamilnadu & Karnataka. It can beconcluded that the urban areas in Kerala arecomparatively smaller but fairly well distributed withinthe State.

Table 5.10 Number of UA’s per 10 lakh population



URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND PACE OF URBANISATION

39

CHAPTER 6

Urban morphology and pace of urbanisation

Urban Morphology

Urban morphology is the study of the form of urbansettlement, process of their formation & transformation.Census of India classifies the urban places into following6 categories depending upon the population.

of urban population being concentrated in class I cities.According to 2001 Census, more than two third (69%)of the countries’ urban population lived in Class-Icities with more than 100, 000 population. Over theyears there has been continuous concentration ofpopulation in class I towns (24% during 1901 to 69%during 2001). It may be observed that in 1901 therewere only 24 class I cities, its number has gone up to393 in 2001 which explains largely the increase in theshare of population in this size category over the years.The graduation of number of urban centers from lowerpopulation size categories to class I cities has resultedtop heavy structure of urban population in India.(Source Urbanisation in India, Prasanati Datta).

The Fig 6.1 shows the concentration of populationin different classes of towns in India from 1961 onwards.

The census 2001 further classifies the class Itowns into 7 categories based on population size viz,M7 - 50 lakhs and above, M6 - 20 to 49.99 lakhs, M5 -10 to 19.99 lakhs, M4 - 5 to 9.99 lakhs, M3 - 3 to 4.99lakhs, M2 - 2 to 2.99 lakhs, M1 - 1 to 1.99 lakhs. Thepattern of urbanisation in India is characterized bycontinuous concentration of population and activitiesin large cities. This is manifested in a high percentage

The concentration of population in to urban areas of different classes will give an idea about the kind of urban patternthat is evolving. The study on urban morphology is all about this. Pace of urbanisation gives an indication on how fasturban population concentration is taking place in an urban area. This chapter probes in to the urban morphology ofKerala and its comparison with the general scenario in India.

Table 6.1 Classification of urban areas based on population

Fig 6.1 Percentage of Urban population by size class of towns India

Source:: Census of India


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 6URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND PACE OF URBANISATION

The graph indicates more and more concentrationof population in Class-I towns in India. The conceptof urban agglomerations has been introduced in Indiain 1981 only. The graph in fig 6.1 shows that evenbefore 1981, there was concentration of population inClass-I towns of India, avoiding formation of urbanagglomeration as the reason for the high concentrationof population in the Class-I urban areas.

In the case of Kerala also, it is seen that majorityof the urban population (more than 68%) isconcentrated in the class 1 towns. (fig 6.2). Butcontrary to what have seen in the case of India, thepopulation concentration in Class I Towns of Keralais significantly increasing after 1981 when the conceptof urban agglomerations has been introduced by theCensus of India, indicating that in the case of Keralathe formulation of urban agglomeration is the reasonfor high concentration of population in the categoryof class I towns.

towns to become large UAs( the concept UA begins in1981).

Categorization of urban areas of 2001 in todifferent size classes taking their statutory status(Municipal council, Municipal corporation,Cantonment board, Outgrowth, Census Town,Town ship) in to account is shown in table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Categorization of Statutory Urbanareas of 2001 in to size class of Kerala

Source: Census 2001

Fig 6.3 Number of Urban areas by size class- Kerala

The total population size in Class I towns ismuch higher than total population in Class III sincetown 1981. This is because Class III towns arebecoming part of urban agglomerations of Class Itowns (evident from the decrease in number of classIII towns in Fig 6.3)

Fig 6.3 shows the number of towns by sizeclass in Kerala. Number of Class III Towns is alwayshigher than number of other classes of towns. Butnumber of Class III towns decreases since 1981. This isdue to amalgamation of class III towns with higher class

Fig 6.2 Percentage of Urban population by size class of towns Kerala




41

are located adjacent to the class I and II townsindicating spreading urban areas rather thanconcentration (Fig 6.6).

Though the number of class I towns remainsthe same, the share of population in these townsdecreases. And the change in urban population in ClassI and III towns are inversely proportional to each other,indicating possible population out flow from Class Itowns in to the adjacent Class III towns.

All the Municipal Corporations fall underClass I Towns. But Municipal Councils mostly fallunder either in Class II or Class III towns (except 2Municipal Councils which fall under Class I Towns).Majority of the urban areas fall under the Class IIITowns.

The temporal variation of the number of townsunder different size classes when categorized takingthe status of towns in to account is shown in fig 6.4.

Fig 6.5 Distribution of urban population among different sizeclasses of towns (statutory urban and others)

Million -Plus cities

Number of million plus cities in India (table 6.3)have increased from 5 in 1951 to 35 in 2001 and to53 in 2011. About 42% of the total urban populationlives in these million plus UA/cities as per 2011census.

Fig 6.4 Number of statutory urban areas & others by sizeclass- Kerala

The figure shows that when the number ofclass I towns remains the same, class II towns showsa slight increase. Whereas the number of class III townsshows significant increase.

The distribution of urban population amongdifferent size classes of towns is shown in fig 6.5

The spatial distribution of class III towns againstthat of Class I and II towns shows that class III towns

Fig 6.6 Location of the Class III towns with respect toclass I and II towns



Kochi Urban Agglomeration is the first millionplus urban agglomeration in Kerala. The population ofKochi Urban Agglomeration exceeded 10 lakhs in 1991census it self and remained as the only one million plusurban agglomeration during 2001 also. But data in census2011 shows that Kerala is having 7 million plus urbanagglomerations (table 6.4). About 76 % of the totalurban population of Kerala lives in these million plus

Table 6.3 Urban Agglomerations/Cities havingpopulation 1 million and above

Source: Census 2011

UAs as per 2011 census.

When compared to the neighboring states,Kerala is having the highest number of million plusurban agglomerations (table 6.4), but 5 out of 7 UrbanAgglomerations belongs to the M5 category and thereis no Urban Agglomerations in the M7 category.

Pace of urbanisationPace of urbanisation refers to the speed of

urbanisation and is measured as change registered inthe level or degree of urbanisation over the years.Urbanisation in India has been relatively slowcompared to many developing countries. India hasadded 298169157 number of urban population withina period of fifty years (1961-2011) whereas the totalpopulation added during this period is 770958651.Thus the average pace of urbanisation of India is 7.7%during this period. The average pace of urbanisationof Kerala during the same period is 16.2%.Kerala hasadded urban population at an average pace more thandouble that of the Nation. (fig 6.7)

Fig 6.7 Average pace of urbanisation in 50 years (1961-2011)

Table 6.4 Number of Million plus urbanagglomerations–Comparison with neighboring States

Source: Census of India 2011




43

District wise increase in total population & urbanpopulation in 50 years (1961-2011) and the average paceof urbanisation so calculated is shown in table 6.5.

Districts of Ernakulam, Kozhikode, Kannur,Thrissur, Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha showsthe maximum pace in Urbanisation. Districts of Idukki,Wayanad and Pathanamthitta show the lowest pacein urbanisation. The spatial distribution shows thatthe Central & Northern Kerala shows the maximumpace in Urbanisation.

The higher pace in urbanisation means additionof more urban population in a specific time period, itdoes not indicate the extent of concentration of theurban population in the space. Change in density ofthe population over the time period, in the urban areagives the extent of concentration of the urbanpopulation during the period.

Table 6.6 shows the change in populationdensity with pace of urbanisation (1961-2001). Thestudy shows that Kannur district is having maximumpace in urbanisation, but the change in urbanpopulation density is negative indicating spreading ofurban area rather than concentration.

Thiruvananthapuram district, showscomparatively lower pace in Urbanisation, but changein density is the maximum, indicating comparativelyconcentrated form of urbanisation in the district.

Table 6.5 Average pace of urbanisation (District wise)in 50 years (1961-2011)

Source: Census 2011

Table 6.6 District wise pace of urbanisation and change in urban population density

Source: Census data



CONCLUSION:

The Class I and Class II towns of Kerala showa decline in population growth whereas the lower ordertowns (Class III towns) located mainly in fringe areaof Class I and Class II towns are growing. Majority ofthe urban population in Kerala is concentrated in classI towns. The higher order towns of Kerala grow notby attracting more people, but by amalgamating

surrounding fringe areas showing the spreading naturein urbanisation. A shift in the pace of urbanisation isnoted between south and north of Kerala . During60’s and 70’s the pace of urbanisation was high insouthern parts of Kerala. But now the central andnorthern part of the State have high pace ofurbanisation. Malappuram shows the highest increasein urban content within a decade (2001-2010), followedby Kozhikkode and Kannur districts.



POPULATION DENSITY

45

CHAPTER 7

Population Density

Population density

The analysis of change in population densityover a time often gives an insight in to the ability ofan area to attract people in to it. The common reasonsfor increase of population in an area are either naturalincrease in population or net migration in to thatarea. The natural increase in population is attributedto the demographic momentum while the in-migrationin to an area is caused due to the economic momentumcreated by the area.

Analysis of census data (Fig 7.1) shows thaturban areas of Kerala have more or less the samepopulation density (at around 2500 persons per sqkm)over a period of time (Population density 1961 to2001). Significant population concentration in to theurban areas is not occurring. It can be seen that theurban population density of the state is comparativelyless when analyzed in the context of high averageoverall population density of Kerala, second only toWest Bengal. The rural population density of Keralais also high when compared to the neighbouring states(Table 7.1). The rural population density of Kerala is662 Ppn/Sq.Km. When that of Tamil Nadu &

Fig 7.1 Temporal variation of population density (Ppn/Sqkm)(urban), Kerala

The study on the urban population density in general and its temporal variation in particular gives an idea on the patternof urbanisation, whether it is concentrated or spreaded. This chapter explores the urban population density variation ofthe state in general and that of urban agglomerations in particular. The density variations in the core and fringe ofurban agglomerations are also studied.

Karnataka are 273 Ppn/Sq.Km and 186 Ppn/Sq.Kmrespectively.

State Rural Population Density(Ppn/Sq.Km)

Kerala 662

Tamil Nadu 273

Karnataka 186Source: Census 2001

Table 7.1 Rural Population Density

The temporal variation of urban populationdensity and total population density shows that during


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 7POPULATION DENSITY

The analysis of the components of urban growthwill shed light in to the reasons for the comparativelylow urban population density prevailing in Kerala.Urban growth can be attributed to three components(R.B. Bhagat, 1992, Dept. of Geography, MaharshiDayanand University, Rohtak) viz. Natural increase,in migration and aerial reclassification (i.e., additionof new towns minus declassification of existingtowns). Natural increase of population in the state isvery low (Ref: chapter-2 of the report), the inmigration is also comparatively less.

This indicates that,

• Concentration of population in to urban areas isnot taking place.

• The high value of urban population growth withpractically zero increase in population densityshows that urban area grows because of urbanspread (more and more area becomes urban).

• Dilution in the function of urban areas simultaneouslydiluting the rural character of rural areas.

It can be concluded that the urban areas ofKerala often fail to create economic momentumneeded to attract more people in to it. It is a reason

for the kind of urban spread experiencing in Kerala.The urban spread demands more investment in infra-structure development. This trend may also increasein transportation cost and energy consumption.

Density of urban agglomerations

As per 2001 census data, the populationdensity of urban agglomerations in Kerala is rangingbetween 1500 to 6000 persons per sq.km (table 7.3).

Table 7.2 Urban population density and general population density of Kerala

a span of 40 yrs, urban population density of Keralaincreased by 15.4% whereas the general populationdensity increased by 88.7%. (Table 7.2)

Million plus urban agglomerations elsewhere inIndia have a higher value of population density in therange 12000-24000 persons per sqkm. (table 7.4) Thelow value of population density of urban agglomerationsin Kerala, shows the absence of concentration ofpopulation into these urban agglomerations and theirscope for further densification.

Table 7.3 Ranking of urban agglomerationbased on population density

Kochi

Source: Census data



POPULATION DENSITY

47

Fig 7.2 Population density of UAs (Million Plus)

Fig 7.3 Population density variation between the core and fringeof urban agglomerations

Fig 7.4 Temporal variation in the areas of UrbanAgglomerations and Core

Population density variation of UAs in Indiashows an increasing tendency (fig 7.2) whereas it isdecreasing in the case of urban agglomerations ofKerala. This is an indication of the existing low growthof urban centers of Kerala.

On comparing figures 7.3 and 7.4, it can be seenthat the extent of urban agglomeration is increasingbut population density in the urban agglomeration isdecreasing. It shows that the growth of urbanpopulation in Kerala is due to urban spread caused byamalgamation of outgrowths in to the core, ratherthan concentration of population.

Analysis of the population density in the coreand fringe of the urban agglomerations shows that

UAs (Million plus) Population density (2001)

Chennai 24676

Bangalore 11574

Hyderabad 16988

Kolkata 12886

Table 7.4 Population density

Population density variation between coreand fringe of urban agglomeration

Urban agglomeration is a continuous urbanspread constituting a town and its adjoining urbanoutgrowths (OGs). The town in general will be either aMunicipal Council or Municipal Corporation can betermed as core of the urban agglomeration whereasthe outgrowth can be termed as the fringe. Thepopulation density variation between the urbanagglomeration as a whole and its core is shown in fig7.3.

It shows that in the case of Kerala, density ofpopulation of the Urban agglomeration as a whole isdecreasing whereas that of the core shows slightincrease. It is because of the addition of more andmore out growths with less population density to thecore to form the urban agglomerations. As a resultthe population density of the urban agglomerationsin total is decreasing.

The variation in the area of core and the urbanagglomeration as a whole is shown in fig 7.4. Whenthe area of the core remains almost the same, the totalarea of agglomerations is increasing.



the population density of the core is always higherthan that of the fringe, but the rate of increase of thedensity of the fringe is higher than that of the core,resulting in lower density urban agglomerationsaltogether. Population density variation of the core,out growth and urban agglomeration as a whole ofsome of selected UAs is given in Fig 7.5. The slopeof the graph indicates the rate of growth of thepopulation density. Comparison of the growthbetween the core & fringe shows that fringe is growingat a faster rate than its core.

A study on the density variation between thecore and fringe of urban agglomerations in Kerala isshown in the table 7.5. The fringe is considered tothe in the pre transitional stage if density is less thanthe mean density of fringes taken together, transitionalstage if density is between mean density and sum ofmean density & Standard deviation, post transitionalstage if the density is above the sum of mean densityand Standard deviation. (The concept is taken fromthe study: “Recognizing Stages of transformation inthe process of peri urban growth” by Maitrey Maiti,Research Scholar IIT, Khargpur. Technical Paper 56thNational Town & Country Planners Congress).

Fig 7.6 Population density change within the core of UrbanAgglomerations

The temporal variation of population densitywithin the core of the urban agglomerations of Kerala(fig 7.6) shows that population density within the Core(3000- 6000 ppn/sq.Km) is always higher than that inout growths (2000-3000). Whenever the populationdensity within the core reaches a value in between6000- 7500 ppns/sqkm, there is a tendency ofdecreasing the population density (by the addition ofmore outgrowths with less population density intothe core and thus to achieve a low density altogether).The population density range between 6000-7500ppn/sqkm seems to be a maximum density that canhave in a place present scenario of Kerala. The rateof increase of population density in the out growths isvery high compared to the core.

Fig 7.5 Population density of the core, fringeand Urban Agglomerations

Kochi UA

Thiruvananthapuram UA

Alappuzha UA

Fringe

Fringe

Fringe



POPULATION DENSITY

49

The analysis shows that the fringe area of mostof the urban settlements of Kerala is in thetransitional stage and hence there is scope for furtherdensification. The study of density in the urbanagglomerations shows that the density of the coreremains the same or even decreasing, but in thefringes the population density is increasing at a muchhigher pace than the core. This indicates that Urbanareas of Kerala is going through a phase of suburbanisation where fastest growth is seen in the fringe.

Table 7.5 Population, Area and Density of Urban Agglomeration (2001) in Kerala

Source: Estimated based on Census 2001 data.Stage 1 - Pre-transitional Stage Stage 2 - Transitional Stage Stage 3 - Post-transitional Stage

Population density variation within thecore of urban agglomeration

Core of Urban agglomerations can be furtherdivided in to older core and younger core, youngercore being the area attached to the older core recently.The change in density between the older core andyounger core shows that the population within theolder core is decreasing whereas it is increasing in theyounger core. The table 7.6 shows the density

Table 7.6 Population density variation within the core of urban agglomerations

Source: Census data

(ppn/sqkm)



variation between the older core and younger core ofThrissur Corporation, ThiruvananthapuramCorporation and Kollam Corportaion. The analysisreveal that the density of the older core of the of theurban agglomerations is decreasing.

CONCLUSION

The population density of urban areas of Keralais higher than that of its rural areas. When comparedto other states population density of urban areas ofKerala is less. At the same time the rural Kerala showscomparatively higher population density. The urbanpopulation density of the state shows not muchincrease over a period of time. The high value of urban

population growth rate with practically nil increase inpopulation density of the urban areas of the stateshows that state is experiencing urban spread ratherthan its concentration. Population density variationis seen within the urban agglomeration also. Theanalysis of the core and fringe of the urbanagglomeration in Kerala shows that the core is eitherin stagnation stage with respect to increase inpopulation, where as increase in population in thefringes occurs at a higher rate. The fringe area of theurban agglomeration is having lower density than thecore and the fringe areas are in a transitional stage (into the density of the core). This indicates the scopefor further densification of the urban agglomerationsin total as well as even the core of urban agglomeration,of the State.



URBAN-RURAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATEGORY OF WORKERS

51

Category of workers

The category of workers (employment byindustry group by census of India) gives an indicationon the economic base prevailing in an area. One ofthe criteria census adopts to classify an area in to urbanis the percentage of non agricultural male workers.So in a census urban area, the majority of the workerswill be engaged in non agricultural activities, but in aplace like Kerala characterised by urban ruralcontinuum, overlapping of agricultural activities andnon agricultural activities is expected in both censusurban and rural areas. Hence the study on the spatialdistribution of employment by industry is very muchrelevant in Kerala, especially while formulating adesirable urban development strategy. This analysisis done using census data. The census 2001 gives dataregarding the district wise, urban- rural area wiseclassification of workers under the following category

A – Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry;B – FishingC – Mining and QuarryingD – ManufacturingE – Electricity, Gas and Water Supply

CHAPTER 8

Urban-Rural Distribution of Category of Workers

F – ConstructionG – Wholesale and Retail TradeH – Hotels and RestaurantsI – Transport, Storage and CommunicationsJ – Financial IntermediationK – Real Estate, Renting and Business ActivitiesL – Public Administration and Defense,Compulsory Social Security;M – EducationN – Health and Social WorkO – Other Community, Social and PersonalService ActivitiesP – Private Households with Employed PersonsQ – Extra-Territorial Organizations and Bodies.

The above categories of workers are furtherclubbed in to 13 as per census 2001

1. Cultivators ( A & B)2. Agricultural labourers ( A&B)3. Plantation, Livestock, Forestry, Fishing,

Hunting and allied activities ( A&B)4. Mining and Quarrying (C)5. HHI (D)

The employment classification by category with in the urban and non-urban area of Kerala is studied to understand theeconomic base prevailing in both urban and rural areas of Kerala. The data on classification of workers by industrialgroup by the census is used for the study.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 8URBAN-RURAL DISTRIBUTION OF CATEGORY OF WORKERS

6. Non HHI (D)7. Electricity, Gas and Water Supply (E)8. Construction (F)9. Wholesale and Retail Trade (G)10. Hotels and Restaurants (H)11. Transport, Storage and Communications(I)12. Financial Intermediation & Real Estate

(J &K)13. Other services (L to Q)

The above 13 categories are further grouped into 10 to have comparison with 1971 and 1991 censusdata. The 10 categories are shown below.

1. Cultivators ( A & B)2. Agricultural labourers ( A&B)3. Plantation,Livestock,Forestry,Fishing,

Hunting and allied activities ( A&B)4. Mining and Quarrying (C)5. HHI (D)6. Non HHI (D)7. Construction (F)8. Wholesale and Retail Trade (H&G)9. Transport, Storage and Communications(I)10. Other services (E, J&K,L to Q)

The Fig 8.1 shows the percentage of workersunder the ten categories. As per the figure, agricultureand allied sectors workers contribute to about 42%

of the total workers and the number of workers undermanufacturing industries constitute 18% of the totalworkers. This data reiterates that the major economicbase in Kerala during 1970,s was agriculture and alliedsectors.

Fig 8.2 shows that during 2001, the agricultureand allied sector workers has reduced to 25 % of thetotal workers indicating a decline in agriculturalactivity. But the percentage of workers in plantation,live stock, fisheries etc have increased to 11% from avalue of 6% in 1971. While the percentage of workersunder manufacturing industries remains almost thesame at about 16-17%, the workers under the categoryof trade and commerce and transportation sector hasincreased during the period 1971 -2001. This indicatesa shift in economic base from agriculture & alliedsector to trade & commerce and transportation sectorin Kerala during the period 1971-2001. This shift inthe category workers in the rural area of Kerala is notthat much manifested physically in the land use. Thefunctional character and activity pattern (Refer:chapter 3) indicates the predominant rural nature ofKerala because of the plotted development and mixedland use of the State. Another fact revealed fromstudy of the pattern of shift in the category of workersin the rural areas of Kerala is the significant increasein the category workers in live stock and fisheries from1971 to 2001.

Fig :8.2. 10 fold classification of workers byindustry group-2001

Fig : 8.1 10 fold classification of workers - 1971

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)(10)

plantation etc., (3)




53

Category of workersUrban-Rural Distribution

The study of Urban-Rural distribution ofworkers will give an insight in to the differencebetween the economy thriving within the rural andurban areas of the State. Such a study assumes morerelevance in the State of Kerala where urban-ruralcontinuum persist and it is the criteria of nonagricultural male workers which play a crucial role inclassifying an area in to urban or non urban.

a. Sectorwise distribution of workers-urban and rural

In order to get an overview on the emergingSpatial (urban-rural) pattern of distribution ofworkers, the 10 fold classification of workers arefurther grouped in to Primary, Secondary and Tertiary(As per International Labour Organization (ILO),economic activity is to be classified in to primary,secondary or tertiary sectors of production. Theprimary production consists of agriculture & mining,secondary production consists of manufacturing &construction and services consists of transport,commerce, administration etc) as shown below.

Primary : Cultivators, Agricultural labours, Mining andquarrying, livestock, fishing, plantation, etc.

Secondary: Household manufacturing, Non-householdmanufacturing

Tertiar y: Trade and commerce, transport andcommunication and other services

The sector wise distribution of workers, bothfor the urban and rural areas of Kerala, for the year2001 is given in table 8.1.

tertiary activities, indicates the poor performance ofprimary sector in the State in general and rural areasin particular.

Comparitive analysis of workers under the threesectors of production, in rural and urban areas ofKerala (Fig 8.3.) from 1971 to 2001, shows that theworkers under the primary sector of production isdecreasing significantly. At the same time, that intertiary sector is increasing even in the rural areas ofthe State. But the percentage of workers in thesecondary sector, though comparatively less, remainsalmost constant during the same period.

It is clear evidence on the process ofurbanisation taking place in the rural areas of Kerala.

The fact that majority of workers (59 %) in therural area of Kerala is engaged on secondary and

Table: 8.1 Sector wise distribution of workersunder three sectors-2001

Fig : 8.3 Temporal variation of workers under three sectorsof production

Source: Census 2001

Source: Census 2001



Though the total percentage share of workersin the primary sector of production in the rural areasis decreasing from 1971 to 2001 period, all theconstituent categories of workers under thesector are not declining (Fig 8.4). The percentage ofworkers under the category of cultivators andagricultural labourers are decreasing that under thelive stock and fisheries sector is increasing.

economies, given the failure of the industrialization-led development strategies of the fifties to “trickledown” to the rural poor. The latter failed mostobviously in their inability to absorb rural labour intothe process of industrialization as also to elicit thenecessary supplies of food from the agricultural sector,required for it. A need was felt therefore for arestructuring of the development strategy with a moredirect intervention in the agricultural sector. Whilethe labour absorption capacity of agriculture in theaggregate appeared to be limited, it was the creationof non-agricultural activities, in particular rural small-scale manufacturing enterprises, that was more crucial

b. Tenfold category of workers-rural

The analysis of the 10 fold category of workersin the rural areas will give a more focused idea on theshift in the category of workers in the rural area ofKerala. Figures 8.5 and 8.6 show the 10 fold categoryof workers during 1971 and 2001 respectively.Between 1971 and 2001, phenomenal increase in theshare of workers under the category of construction,trade and commerce and transportation &communication and a drastic decline in the share ofcultivators and agriculture labourers is noted in therural areas of Kerala. This is a clear indication of thedeclining rural base of Kerala. At the same time italso indicates the diversification of economic baseof rural areas of the State.

The issue of rural economic diversification hasassumed considerable importance in the developmentdialogue since the seventies. It is regarded as a criticalcomponent of rural transformation in less developed

Fig : 8.5 10 fold classification of workers by industry group,1971-Rural

Fig : 8.4 Temporal variation of constituent categories of workersunder primary sector of production in rural areas

plantation etc.,

Fig : 8.6 10 fold classification of workers 2001-Rural

Source: Census 2001

Source: Census 2001

Source: Census 2001




55

in the restructured strategy. (Source: “Economicdiversification in Kerala”, Mridul Eapen, Centre forDevelopment Studies, Thiruvananthapuram). Thisfactor indicates the necessity of urban area in ruralpockets but its growth has to be controlled to curburban evasion in to the rural area.

c. Tenfold category of workers-urban

The 10 fold category of workers in theurban area of the State in 1971 and 2001 are shownin the figures 8.7 and 8.8 respectively.

The category wise break up of workers in theurban areas for 2001 ( fig 8.8) shows that along withworkers in the category of other services, trade &commerce and house hold industries, workers in theconstruction industries and transport andcommunication show significant share of the totalworkers. The rural base with a share of 19.30% oftotal workers in 1971 reduced significantly to only4.31% in 2001.The data shows that workers in urbanareas of Kerala no more consider agriculture as theireconomic activity. At least in terms of occupationstructure the urban areas of Kerala show more andmore urban nature contrary to the general belief ofrural–urban mixed nature for even in the urban areas.At the same time, workers category of live stock,fisheries and plantation shows significant increase inthe urban area from 1971.

The 10 fold classification of workers in the fiveMunicipal Corporations and two MunicipalCouncils are analyzed to get a clearer picture on thetype of economic activity in the urban area ofKerala. (Fig 8.9)

The analysis of the ten fold category of workersunequivocally reveals that the workers in theMunicipal corporations of Kerala are not all engagedin agricultural activity whatsoever (except inAlappuzha and Palakkad Municipal Councils), but asmall portion of them are engaged in livestock andfisheries activities etc. But in the case of the twoMunicipalities under study viz Palakkad andAlappuzha comparatively more share of workers isseen in agricultural pursuits. In a study conducted byCDS, Thiruvananthapuram (Source: Economicdiversification in Kerala-Spatial analysis by M/sMridul Eapen, 1991), it is revealed that in the caseof class 3 and less towns of Kerala more than 50%of the workers were engaged in agricultural activitiesthus minimizing the function wise difference betweenthe small towns and rural areas.

Barring the category of workers under otherservices, category of workers in trade & commerceand house hold industries constitute the majorshare of urban workers in the State in 1971.

Fig : 8.7 :10 fold classification of workers, 1971-UrbanSource: Census 2001

Fig :8.8 10 fold classification of workers, 2001-UrbanSource: Census 2001



Fig :8.9 10 fold classification of workers - 2001 of selected urban areas

Thrissur (Municipal Corporation) Kozhikkode (Municipal Corporation)

Cochin (Municipal Corporation) Kottayam (Municipal Corporation)

Thiruvananthapuram (Municipal Corporation) Palakkad (Municipal Corporation)

Alappuzha (Municipal Corporation)

Source: Census 2001




57

Major urban industry class in the ruralareas of Kerala

The district wise data on the five major sectors inwhich the workers, other than workers engaged inagriculture (cultivators and agricultural labourers), areengaged in the rural areas (according to census 2001)are is shown in table 8.2. The table give an idea aboutthe major non agricultural pursuit existing in the ruralarea of each district of the State.

The data shows that, in six districts(Thiruvananthpuram, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Palakkad,

Kozhikkode and Malappuram) construction activityis the major industrial type (other than cultivators andagriculture labourers) that engages workers in ruralarea. The major non agricultural activity in the ruralarea of the remaining eight districts are related toagriculture product processing industries (nutprocessing in Kollam District, rubber latex processingin Pathanamthitta, Kottayam & Kannur, bidi inKasargod, Plantation workers in Idukki & Wayanad,coir in Alappuzha). This dictates the functions of theurban centers in the rural area of the Districts.

Table 8.2 Major class of industrial type other than cultivators and agricultural labourers in Rural area




59



Kozhikkod




61

CONCLUSION:

The analysis of the category of workers showsthe shift in employment of Kerala from primary sectorto tertiary sector. In Kerala, even in rural areas, thatmajority of workers (58 %) are engaged in secondaryand tertiary activities, which indicates the poorperformance of primary sector in the State in generaland rural areas in particular. It is clear evidence onthe process of urbanisation taking place in the ruralareas of Kerala and dilution of the rural economy. At

the same time it indicates the rural economicdiversification in the State. The urban areas of Keralashow more and more urban nature, at least in termsof the category workers, contrary to the general beliefof rural –urban mixed category even in the urban areasof Kerala. However, the important aspects to be notedhere is that the workers engaged in secondary sectorof production is comparatively less in our urban areasand their share remaining almost constant.

Source: Census 2001



PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF URBANISATION

63

CHAPTER 9

Physical Aspects Of Urbanisation

Distribution of urban areas amongdifferent topographical regions

We have seen that, in Kerala 47.72 % of the totalpopulation lives in urban area as per census 2011 and morethan 70% of the urban population lives in seven millionplus urban agglomerations of Kerala. In order tounderstand the difference between the distribution patternof urban area among the three topographical divisions viz,low land (coastal area), mid land and high land, of Kerala,the spatial distribution (fig 9.2) of the urban areas isanalysed. It is seen that majority of the urban areas fallwithin low land and mid land region of Kerala.

Census of India usually classify an area in to urban based on data on population and category of employment. Thephysical aspects are not often considered. But in some of the western countries, the physical development is also takenin to account while designating an area in to urban. Here an attempt is made to designate urban areas of the statebased on physical development also.

Fig 9.2 Spatial distribution of urban areas 2011Fig 9.1 Percent distribution of urban area within the three

topographical division of Kerala


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 9PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF URBANISATION

Spatial distribution of urban area as per 2001census shows that 50% of urban areas are in lowlandregion (the costal belt of Kerala), 43% of urban areasin mid land region. The agriculture belt of Kerala and7% of the urban areas are in high land region-thewestern ghat belt consisting of environmentallysensitive forest cover of Kerala.

The distribution of urban population amongdifferent topographical divisions of Kerala shows that49% is in low land region, 45% in mid land region,and 6% in high land region.

The temporal variation of the distribution ofthe urban areas of Kerala among differenttopographical divisions from 1961 to 2001 is shownin Fig 9.3. The urbanisation in Kerala has taken a fasterpace since 1981. This increased pace in urbanisationtakes place in the low land and mid land region and isreflected by rapid increase in urban area in theseregions. The urbanisation has spared environmentallysensitive high land but the fertile agricultural land inthe mid land has been under threat.

Urban area in physical terms

In India, an area is designated into urban basedon the criteria suggested by census, which is purely

demographical and the physical development is notgiven any importance. This often results in a falsenotion about the urbanisation, especially, in a statelike Kerala where urban-rural continuum exists dueto scattered settlement pattern. In the western world,they consider the extent of physical development alsoto designate an area as urban. In United Kingdom,the concept of a Primary Urban Area has beenintroduced to take in to account the physicaldevelopment also in designating an urban area. Theconcept of a Primary Urban Area was created in anattempt to enable economic and social comparisonsbetween cities using definitions less arbitrary than theadministrative boundaries of local authorities, butavoiding problem of using the Urban Areas definedby the Office for National Statistics. Primary UrbanAreas are defined as areas of continuous built-up landcontaining urban structures that are within 50 metresof each other and the built-up area must have apopulation in excess of 125,000 .

On this basis England had 56 Primary UrbanAreas in 2007. A large number of these areas do nothold official city status in the UK . Using this definitiona "city" is defined as a Primary Urban Area, which isdistinct from the Urban Area agglomeration definedby Office for the National Statistics.

Fig 9.3 distribution of the urban area of Kerala among different topographical regions




65

In an attempt to assess the physicaldevelopment of Kerala, the entire State is divided into grids of size 2.5 km x 2.5 km, and the coverage ofcluster of built up in these grids is observed. (Googlemap is used for assessing the coverage of cluster ofbuilt up in the grids). Coverage of cluster of built upin five ranges (0 % built up, 0-25% built up, 25-50%built up, 50- 75% built up and 75- 100% built up) aretaken for the study. The result of the study is shownin Fig 9.4. Each of the grid is further analysed withthe number of building foot prints in it to assess theurban nature.

Building footprint map of Thiruvananthapuramcorporation is taken as the case study for accessingthe nature of each grid based on the percentagecoverage of the cluster of built up. TheThiruvananthapuram corporation is divided into grids

of size 2.5 km x 2.5 km and their percentage coverageof cluster of built up and the number of footprint ineach grid is taken to calculate the average plot size.The average plot size in each grid is calculated bydividing the grid area by the number of building footprints in it. The result (in Annexe 3) shows that forgrids having coverage of cluster of built up above50%, the average plot size is less than 50 cents makingagricultural activity uneconomical there. A plot withan extent of 50 cents or less is not vaible to bringagricultural and allied activity as the main source ofincome for livelyhood(Ref: Volume -I, IDDP, KollamDistrict). It implies that those grids with coverage ofcluster of built up above 50% represents an urban areabased on the physical development.

Fig 9.5, shows is the urban areas of Kerala basedon the built-up nature/physical development

Fig 9.5 Urban area based on builtup nature and census urban - 2001Fig 9.4 Coverage of cluster of built up of Kerala -2011

Coverage of clusterof Builtup (%)



determined through the above methodology. Thecensus urban area-2001 is also overlaid in the samemap. It can be seen that the census urban area - 2001more or less coincides with the urban area based onbuilt-up nature. But when census urban area -2011 isoverlaid on the built up map, (Fig 9.6) it can be foundthat there is mismatch. In true sense an urban area isto be delineated taking in to account the physicaldevelopment also.

The Urban Agglomerations of Kerala 2011 areranked based on the built-up nature & population(Table 9.1).

The mismatch between the rank assigned to theUrban Agglomerations based on built-up nature andtheir rank based on population indicates that thephysical development also is to be given due respectwhile designating an area as urban.

Table 9.1 Ranking of urban agglomerationbased on builtup and urban population

Coverage of built up within the urban areaCoverage of built up of an area indicates the

percentage of built up in the selected area. In order tostudy the coverage of built up area in each of thegrids, the building foot print map ofThiruvananthapuram Corporation is analysed. Theresult of the analysis (Table 9.2) is that even in a gridwith the cluster coverage (indicates the coverage bythe cluster of buildings in the grid) of 75-100%, the

Fig 9.6 census urban area -2011 overlaid in the built-up map

Table 9.2 Percentage builtup coverage % cluster coverage of a grid % built up coverage

0-25 0.7625-50 850-75 850-75 1275-100 28

Source: Calculated from the building foot print map of Trivandrum




67

Table 9.3 Number of agricultural potential localbodies which are urban as per census classifications

actual built up area is only 28%. This is an indicationof the presence of under utilised pockets within theurban areas of Kerala. Due to the organic way ofgrowth, ribbon development is predominant even inthe core of urban area where under utilised landpockets are there in the interior of highly densifiedribbon development.

Census urban area and activity pattern

Activity pattern specifies the most suitableeconomic activity (primary, secondary, tertiary) that asettlement (local government) can perform. Activitypattern is assessed based on the functional character ofthe settlement, the existing land use concentration thereand the prospect of future urbanisation there(ref: Chapter 3). The census urban area -2001 and 2011are overlaid in the activity pattern map of the State(figures 9.7 & 9.8) and it is found that in 2001, 63 localgovernments and in 2011, 179 local governments havingagricultural potential (assessed based the study on activity

patern)are designated as census urban (table 9.3). Sucha situation of urbanisation will further deteriorate thealready worsened food security of the State.

Fig 9.7 Activity Pattern and Urban Area 2001 Fig 9.8 Activity Pattern and Urban Area 2011



Hierarchy of urban settlements

Hierarchy of a settlement is an indication onthe availability and hierarchy of various facilities inthe settlement. It is a reflection on the size ofpopulation depending that settlement for facilities.Data from Panchayat Level Statistics for the year 2005published by Economics and Statistics Departmentis used for the study.Facilities taken for hierarchy calculationI Education

HSSVHSSHSS & VHSSITIArts & Science CollegeBEd CollegeTeachers Training InstituteEngineering College/College of Scienceand Technology/Poly Technic

II HealthAllopathic

Govt. HospitalPvt. HospitalGovt. DispensaryPvt. Dispensary

HomeoGovt. HospitalPvt. HospitalGovt. DispensaryPvt. Dispensary

AyurvedicGovt. HospitalPvt. HospitalGovt. DispensaryPvt. Dispensary

III TransportationNH/SHRailway StationBus standAirport

IV CommunicationHPOSOEDSOBO

EDBOTelephone ExchangeTelegraphic Exchange

V Community FacilitiesLibraryCommunity HallMarket

VI Public OfficesCivil station/Mini Civil stationBlock Panchayat officePolice StationBanks (National/Scheduled/Cooperativebank)

VII OthersGas AgencyPetrol pump

The composite functional index method is used forcalculating the hierarchy of settlements. While calculatingthe hierarchy of urban agglomerations facilities in theconstituent local bodies together are considered. (Sincethe urban builtup is more or less matching with the censusurban 2001, urban agglomerations in 2001 are taken forthe study). The hierarchy of urban settlements soobtained is shown in table 9.4.




69

CONCLUSION

The spatial distribution of the urban area withinthe State shows that urban area of Kerala isconcentrated in coastal area and mid land region. Themid land and high land region is being subjected to thelevel of urbanisation with increased pace. Theagricultural potential area of Kerala is located in themidland region of Kerala and forest land is concentratedin the high land to mid land region adjacent o the highland. As per present urbanisation pattern of Kerala theenvironmentally sensitive high land is spared but thefertile agricultural land in the mid land has beenconverting for non agricultural purposes.

Analysis of the built up in urban areas of Keralashows that even the maximum coverage within the

Table 9.4 Hierarchy of Urban Settlements

high density built up is only 32% indicating that thereare under utilized pockets within the urban areas ofKerala. Due to its organic way of growth, ribbondevelopment is predominant even in the core of urbanarea where underutilized land pockets are there in theinterior of highly densified ribbon development. Thespatial distribution of the higher density built up ofKerala ( 2011) is matching with urban area as percensus 2001, but the census 2011 declares much morearea as urban and it doesn’t match with the highdensity built up. The points towards adopting amodified criteria (while consider physical developmentalso) to define an urban area which is very relevant inthe case of states like Kerala where urban-ruralcontinuum exists.



ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF URBANISATION IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRONT

71

CHAPTER 10

Assessment of Impact of Urbanisationin the Socio-Economic Front

GDP and Per capita IncomeUrbanisation has direct impact on income

generation. Urban areas are considered as generatorsof economic momentum. The table 10.1 shows thecontribution of urban areas to National Incomeduring 1951-2001 period. When the urban content ofthe nation doubled the contribution of urban areas tothe national income also increased proportionately.

In Kerala also significant economic growth hastaken place. The GDP of Kerala has increased by

almost 10 times within a period of 40 years. Animportant feature of the Kerala’s economy in ninetiesis the significant growth rate of the economy while inthe 70’s and 80’s the economy was relatively stagnant(fig 10.1). The growth rate in the 90’s is estimated at5.99 percent. (Economic review 2003)

In relative terms, primary and secondary sectorshave languished, meanwhile tertiary sector has leaped.During 1970’s, the contribution of the primary sectortowards GDP was 33%, which has drastically declined

Table:10.1 Estimated contribution of urbanarea to national income (%)

Source: National commission on urbanisation (2001)

Kerala has been experiencing high pace of urbanisation since its formation in 1951. Resultant changes in the socio-economic front of the state, need to be explored. In this chapter the changes in GDP, Per capita income, humandevelopment index, cropping pattern and land holding size are studied against the pace ofurbanisation.

Fig 10.1 SDP of Kerala (at factor cost by industry of origin)- atCurrent price, Base year 1999-00


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 10ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF URBANISATION IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRONT

to 14% during 2008. Whereas during the same periodthe contribution of tertiary sector has increased from54% to 61%. The secondary sector also showedsignificant increase (from 13% to 25%) during the sameperiod. (fig 10.2)

of the state is compared against its urban content in2011 (table 10.2) to ascertain whether urbanisationhas any direct influence in generating income in thecase of Kerala. Though the data in the table doesn’texplicitly correlate urbanisation with incomegeneration, the coincidence of both can be seen in afew districts, like Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam,Thrissur ( both contribution towards GDP and urbancontent high) and Pathanamthitta, Idukki, Wayanad(both contribution towards GDP and urban contentlow).

Per capita income is another indicator ofeconomic development, the temporal variation of the

A comparison of the growth of GDP withchange in Urban content during 1971- 2008 period isshown in figure 10.3. Though both level ofurbanisation and GDP of the State are increasing, therates in increase do not match. Higher growth rate ofGDP is seen from 1990 - 91 onwards, where as sucha growth in urban population is seen only during theperiod 2000-2010.

The percent share of each district in the GDP

Fig 10.3 Comparison of the change in level of urbanisation withthe change in GDP of Kerala

Fig 10.2 Contribution of different sectors to the GDP

1970

2008

(%)

GDP




73

same is shown in fig 10.4. Similar to the pattern ofvariation of GDP, the per capita income also startedincreasing from nineties and has gone beyond thenational average for the first time in 1991. The patternof variation of urbanisation, however shows adifferent picture. The growth of urban content wasalmost stagnant until 1991-2001, but it increasedphenomenally during 2001-2011. So it can beconcluded that though the contribution to the stateincome increases with more urbanisation, a direct linkof both urbanisation and income generation cannotbe established specifically in the case of Kerala.Kerala’s urbanisation does not have a direct correlationwith the economic development.

Human Development Index

The Human Development Index (HDI) is acomparative measure of life expectancy, literacy,education and standard of living for countriesworldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being of the society. It measures the averageachievements in three basic dimensions, long andhealthy life – indicated by life expectancy at birth,knowledge – measured by adult literacy rate (2/3rdweightage) and the combined primary, secondary andtertiary gross enrolment ratio (1/3rd weightage).

Table : 10.2 Contribution of different districts to GDP(2008-09) vis-a-vis Urban Content of the districts

Fig : 10.4 Per capita income of Kerala ( base year -1999-00)

Am

ount

in R

s



Kerala has the highest Human DevelopmentIndex (0.814) in India which is actually comparablewith that of the Developed Nations. The variation ofthe human development index (ref: HumanDevelopment Index report – Kerala, 2005) betweenKerala and India is shown in fig 10.6.

In Kerala the HDI varies from 0.749 to 0.801among the Districts. Maximum value of HDI is inErnakulam District (0.801) whereas the minimumvalue is seen in Malappuram District (0.749). 8 outof the 10 coastal districts have higher humandevelopment index. Districts in the highland regionsof Kerala viz, Wayanad, Palakkad and Idukki havelower HDI.

Fig 10.6 shows the distribution of humandevelopment index among the districts of Kerala. Thiswhen compared with the distribution of urban contentof districts (fig 10.7). It is seen that generally highlyurbanized Districts have higher HDI.

(Since data on district wise human developmentindex available is for the year 2005, the urban contentfor the year 2001 is taken for the comparison).

Fig : 10.6 Human Development Index – District wise variation Fig : 10.7 Urban content 2001

Fig : 10.5 Human Development Index of Keralaand India

HD

I Va

lue




75

Work Participation Rate and occupationalstructure

Work participation rate is an indication of thenumber of employment created in an area which inturn indicates the quantum of economic activity takingplace. Historically, Kerala is having comparatively lowwork participation rate than that of the country as awhole (fig 10.8) indicating the low pace of economicactivities in the State.

When Tamilnadu and Karnataka have high workparticipation rate at 44.78% and 44.60% respectivelyin 2001, Kerala has a work participation rate of only32.30%. It is a paradoxical situation in the context ofhigh urbanisation that Kerala has undergone in theState. General expectation that the employmentopportunities increases with high level of urbanisation,did not come true in the case of Kerala. The Statealso showed low GDP till nineties. But after ninetiesthe GDP of the State showed significant increase butthis has not reflected in the change of workparticipation rate. The temporal variation in the shareof major contributing sector towards GDP shows ashift from primary sector to tertiary sector. It impliesthat it is due to this shift high level of urbanisationhas taken place in the State. Even if it resulted inincrease in GDP, it failed to create proportionateemployment opportunities.

The occupational structure of Kerala for 1971and 2001 is shown in fig 10.9

Reduction of employment in agricultural sectorwith corresponding increase in other workers categorycan be seen between 1971 and 2001. Cultivators andagricultural labourers together constituted 49% of thetotal workers in 1971, it has reduced to 19% within aperiod of 40 years. The other workers categoryincreased to 78% from 51% during this period. It isfor sure that the low population growth rate with highlevel of urbanisation will further reduce the numberof workers engaged in agriculture and allied sector.This demand for a change in the present practice ofagriculture from a family centered affair to more of aprofessionally managed one. Mechanisation suitableto the State is an inevitable impetus to it.

Land utilization pattern andcropping pattern

The changes that has happened in the generalland utilization pattern of Kerala, within a period of60 years, is analysed through comparing the generalland utilization pattern of Kerala in 1957 and that in2002 (shown in fig 10.10).

Fig 10.8 Work Participation Rate –India and Kerala

WPR

- %

Fig 10.9 Occupational structure of Kerala-1971 and 2001

1971

2001



The figure shows that total cropped area hasincreased from 52% to 64% during this period.It is not reflected by corresponding increase in thecontribution to GDP by the primary sector.

Fig 10.10 Land Utilisation Pattern-Kerala

Though the general land utilization pattern doesn’tshow much difference in Kerala during the citedperiod, the cropping pattern has undergone a seachange as revealed from Fig 10.11.

A shift is noted in the cropping pattern, fromfood crops to cash crops. When the area under rice isreduced to 11% from 38% of the total cropped area,the area under rubber plantation has increased from6% to 24%. In fact the area under rubber cultivationhas surpassed that under paddy cultivation duringnineties (fig 10.12) in Kerala.

Source: Statistics for planning 2005, Economics and Statistics Department

1957 2002

Fig 10.11 Cropping pattern of Kerala-1960 and 2008

Fig 10.12 Change in the area under cultivation of major crops

This change in cropping pattern is very muchreflected in the level of urbanisation that has




77

happened in Kerala over the same period of time.When the workers under paddy cultivation is reduced,the category of workers under agricultural labourersand cultivators will in turn be reduced as (plantationworkers are not taken as agricultural labourers as perthe census classification of workers). This in turn willlead to increased urbanisation when the census criteriafor urban is applied.

Size of Land Holdings

Land holding size is a factor determining thetype of development suitable for an area.

The temporal variation of the land holding sizein Kerala indicated by the change in number of landholdings under various size categories (table 10.3)

homestead agriculture and allied activities. The dataon GDP also show that the contribution of primarysector to the economy of the state is significant,though not high. Occupational structure of bothurban and rural indicate that the animal husbandrysector and fisheries sector are intact over a period oftime. The Economic Review -2010 of Keralaunequivocally says the need for giving importance toagriculture, especially food crops, and animal husbandrysector in the economy of Kerala. The urban areas shouldfunction complementary with the rural areas.

The draft approach paper for 12th five year planof the State focus on raising income of farmersthrough increasing productivity, subsidiaryoccupations, better marketing and through promotionof value added products. Special projects for foodsecurity targeting to increase rice production by 25percent and vegetable production by 50 percent fromthe base level and homestead farming are mooted inthis context. The conversion of the potentialagricultural land for non agricultural purposes thusresulting in uncontrolled urban spread is against thepolicy of achieving food security.

The priority areas identified for developmentas per the medium term vision of development forthe state for 2006 - 2010 period (as reported in theKerala Development Report, Planning Commission,Government of India) were (1) tourism (2) inland-waterways; (3) marketing infrastructure; (4)pharmaceutical products; (5) training of paramedicalpersonnel, (6) establishment of exclusive economiczones for NRIs and other investors; (7) fishing, fish-processing and marketing (8) processing of and valueaddition to agricultural products; (9) utilization ofspace technology for connectivity improvement; (11)watershed development, organic farming and creditmarketing and provision of technological facilities forpromotion of agriculture; (12) encouragement oftraditional industries; and (13) measures for povertyreduction in general. All these point towards the need

Table 10.3 :Number of land holdingsunder various size categories

shows enhanced plot subdivision indicated by increasein number of marginal holdings. It can be presumedthat this is a reflection of the speedy urbanisation ofKerala .

The dearth of large land holdings limits thedevelopment prospects of the State by way of limitingland intensive developments.

The study of the functional character andactivity pattern (Ref: Chapter 3) reveals that majorityof the LSGs except in forest cover in high land regionand high density residential colonies in the coastal beltof Kerala shows rural character and have scope for

Source: Agriculture Census 2001, Dept. of Economics & Statistics



and scope for strengthening of the rural economy ofthe State. So the urbanisation should be an impetusto this.

CONCLUSION

Due to nonavailability of data a direct relationbetween urbanisation and socio- economic andphysical parameters like GDP, human developmentindex, Work force participation rate, change in landuse pattern, changes in cropping pattern, land holding

size etc cannot be established. However by studyingthe variation of the above parameters against thechange in urbanisation over a period of time, it is seenthat all these parameters have relation with the patternof urbanisation. Kerala’s urbanisation has no directcorrelation with the economic development, ie., GDPand per capita income. But the human developmentindex and urbanisation trend coincide with high valueof human development index observed in areas withhigh urban content.



FUTURE URBANISATION IN KERALA

79

CHAPTER 11

Future Urbanisation in Kerala

Urban vision

The urban vision of the State is formulatedbased on the following directives based on the findingsof the analysis

Since very low population growth isanticipated, the ‘quantum of urban functions’to be delivered by urban areas in future isexpected to remain the same as present, butquality wise change is expected towards thehigher side. Significant increase in the aerialextent of the urban area from the presentlevel is not necessary.Comparatively low urban population densityand low built up intensity in the existing urbanareas make possible the compaction ofexisting urban areas both in terms ofpopulation and built-up.High level of urbanisation and its spreadingnature may lead to conversion of potentialagricultural land for non agricultural purpose,depletion of forest cover and water bodies.Urban development has to be streamlined for

a sustainable development.Comparatively high rural population densityand spurt in household manufacturingindustries there necessitates small to mediumurban centers in rural areas. At the same time,higher order urban centers are needed to caterhigher order urban functions at regional andState level. This necessitates assigningproper hierarchy and ensuring balanceddistribution of urban areas within the State.Large scale plotted development withscattered settlements dictate a differentapproach, more of a homestead type butprofessionally managed and marketeddevelopment, as a more suitable model to theState. Urban areas have to facilitate such arural oriented development. This requires theurban rural integration as inevitable process.

So the urban vision is “Revitalized urban areasof compact urban form, distributed in a balancedand orderly manner in the entire Kerala, thatperform urban functions complimentary to the ruralhinter land and act as engines of development”.

The state need to have a vision on the desirable future urban profile. The urban profile is to be quantified and designatedspatially as a manifestation of the vision. Consequent to this, a suitable strategy is to be designed to attain the desirablefuture urbanisation pattern. This chapter details out the urbanisation vision, future urban profile, and urban strategy forthe state.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 11FUTURE URBANISATION IN KERALA

Transferring of this vision on ground has twoaspects in it, the quantitative aspect as well as thespatial aspect. The quantitative aspects involves theestimation of future urban population and the spatialaspects involves formulation of a desirable spatialpattern of urban area.

Estimation of urban population

The estimation of future urban population isperformed considering three scenarios.

In the first scenario the existing trend of urbanpopulation growth is assumed to continue.In scenario two the average growth rate of urbanpopulation is assumed to remain as such in thenext two decades.In the third scenario the likely future urbancontent is projected taking in to account overallfuture development of the State.

First Scenario: The exiting trend of urbanpopulation growth is assumed to continue. If theexisting trend of urban population growth is continuedcent percentage of the future population (table 11.1)will become urban in the next 20 years period ie, by2031. It is an extreme situation and is not likely to bematerialized.

Second scenario: The annual urban populationgrowth rate of Kerala is 4.58% which higher than theannual urban population growth rate of the country2.98% and that of the world 2.97%. If the same trendin urbanisation continues, 4.58% per annum is themaximum annual urban population growth rate thatcan be expected in Kerala. Assuming an annual urbanpopulation growth rate of 4.5%, the urban populationis projected (table 11.2).

Table 11.2 Estimation of urban population assuming annual growth rate remains the same

Table 11.1 Estimation of urban population (trend based)




81

In this scenario the projected urban populationcomes to 94.48% in the next 20 years (by 2031) whichis not desirable.

Third scenario: Though Kerala is having highurban content and comparatively higher pace ofurbanisation, analysis shows that agriculture and alliedsector is still a major economic base of the State andis expected to remain so in the future also. The likelyfuture urban content of the State is arrived at takingthis in to account. If we look at the States/UnionTerritories with highest urban content in the Nation,it can be seen that these are areas havingcomparatively low geographical area and populationwith limited scope for primary activity. As per thecensus 2011, the highest urban content (urban contentgreater than 50%) is noted in 7 union territories (table11.3) where primary activity is practically nil and havevery low population ( less than 15lakhs except in thecase of NCT of Delhi).

So in a State like Kerala where primary sectorshare to the GDP of the State is still at 15.6% and inthe context of States policy for more development inagriculture sector, one cannot expect a much higherurban content than the present value of 47.71%.However a trend reversal from the state of high urbancontent cannot be expected. Hence the desirable levelof urbanisation of the State is fixed in the range 48-51% within the next two decades. The urbanpopulation of Kerala, so estimated is shown in Table11.5.

Table 11.3 States/UT s with highest urbancontent

Tamilnadu and Maharashtra are the two Stateswith high urban content but with comparativelysignificant contribution of primary sector to the Stateseconomy (table 11.4). It can be assumed that theIndian scenario put a cap on urban content in anaround 50% for a State/UT having a rural base.

Source: Census of India 2011 and inter state comparison of GSDP ofmajor states and gross domestic product of all India 2005-06,directorate of Economics & Statistics Government of AndhraPradesh Hyderabad

Table 11.5 Estimation of Urban populationbased on urban content

States/UTs Total UrbanPopulation Content

NCT of Delhi 16753235 97.49

Chandigarh 1054686 97.24

Lakshadweep 64429 78.08

Daman & Diu 242911 75.16

Puducherry 1244464 68.31

Goa 1457723 62.17

Mizoram 1091014 51.5

Source: Census 2011

Table 11.4 Selected States/UT s with highesturban content and agricultural base

States/UTs Urban Content contribution ofin percent primary sector

to the GDPin percent

Karnataka 38.57 19.98Tamilnadu 48.44 13.71Maharashtra 45.24 13.18Andra Pradesh 33.50 28.96Kerala 47.71 15.6



Hierarchy and spatial pattern of urbanareas

The future spatial pattern of urban area isderived with the main objective of assigning properhierarchy and ensuring balance distribution of urbanareas within the State, in accordance with the urbanvision.

The factors considered for the assessment ofthe future spatial pattern of urban area are

Population concentration pattern

Generally, in Kerala urban centres have two mainfunctions to perform, ie, to support rural hinterland with higher order facilities needed for theirrural functions and to produce higher order urbanfunctions to the people within the urban area andits service zone. This necessitates properdistribution of urban centres within the rural areaand also in accordance with the distribution ofpopulation.Distribution of environmentally sensitive areasNearly 30% of the geographical area of the stateis covered with forest and the concentration ofthe forest area is seen in the high land region ofthe State. Besides, the coastal plains have a numberof estuaries and lagoons including the Ramsarsites of Vembanadu and Ashtamudi lakes. Thespatial distribution of the urban areas should be

in such a way that the environmentally sensitiveareas are spared.Distribution of built-up areaGrids with high density built up, with coverageof built up clusters greater than 50%, indicatesan urban area. Agriculture activity is normally notviable in such area for a family to sustain onagricultural income. This is a factor to beconsidered for the delineation of the future urbanareas.

Hierarchy of settlementsHierarchy of settlements based on theconcentration and hierarchy of various facilitiesis another factor to be considered for theassessment of the future urban area, because theconcentration of facilities often accelerate theprocess of urbanisation in an area.

On going and committed urban developmentprojects

The development projects which promote urbandevelopment are also considered for deciding thefuture urban area. DUR of each district have thedata regarding the on going and committedproject.

Census urban areaCensus urban area should be given weightage. Bytaking the census urban area the criteria of highpopulation density and concentration of nonagricultural workers will automatically get satisfied.

The future spatial pattern of urban is derivedin two steps.

1. Assigning hierarchy to the urban centre2. Ensuring equity in distribution

Step1: Assigning hierarchy to the urban area.

All statutory urban local bodies as on 2011,Urban Agglomerations as per census 2001 and 2011and Class I & II towns (in 2001) are taken for thecalculation of the hierarchy.

Fig 11.1Percent urban & rural population- Kerala




83

Table 11.6 Hierarchy of urban areas

Hierarchy of these selected urban areas (basedon population, facilities, built up nature andadministrative set up) are separately assessed and acombined hierarchy (Annexe-4)is arrived at.

Those urban centres with the entire State or evenbeyond as service area are the first order urban centres.Urban centres with a region consisting of 3 or 4 districtsas service area are the second order and those with

the district and adjacent districts as their service areaare the third order urban centres. Urban centres withservice area as the parent district only are taken asfourth order urban centres. Other lower order urbancentres are considered as the fifth order and sixth orderurban centres.

The assigned hierarchy to the urban centresaccording to the above priorities is shown in Table 11.6

Vazhathoppu



Step2: Ensuring equity in distribution.

The spatial distribution of urban centres ofdifferent hierarchy are studied againstpopulation distribution (bisection method isused to delineate the service area and serviceinturn) and identified the gaps or necessityof elevation of the hierarchy of an existingurban centres.

A modified hierarchy is obtained taking into account the spatial aspects also.

Detailed procedure is explained here under:

Kochi Urban Agglomeration stands as the firstorder urban centre of the State (Table 11.6). Beingthe first order settlement in the State, it has to caterto the entire population of the State. Hence both areawise and population wise this will be biggest urbanarea in the State.

Thiruvananthapuram urban agglomeration andKozhikkode urban agglomeration are as the secondorder urban areas in the State. While delineating theservice population of the second order urban areas,the first order urban area is also considered as a secondorder urban area. Also the influence of cities likeCoimbatore, Mangalore and Nagercovil in theneighbouring states also to be taken in to account.The service area of the second order urban settlementsso delineated and their population is shown inFig 11.3.

Second order urban centre Service population

Kozhikode 10239000Kochi 11328000Thiruvananthapuram 6738000

Table 11.7 Second order urban centres withservice population

Fig 11.2 First order urban settlement

Fig 11.3 second order urban area




85

The distribution of the 3rd order urban centresshows that the service area and service population ofAlappuzha district is comparatively lower than theother 3rd order urban centres. But since the urbancontent as well as urbanisation pace of AlappuzhaDistrict is noted high, Alappuzha urban agglomerationis retained as a 3rd order urban centres. The final thirdorder urban centres is shown in Fig 11.5

Table 11.8 Third order urban with servicepopulation

Fig 11.4 Third order urban centres with service zone andservice population Fig 11.5 final 3rd order Urban centres

If the service population of an urban centre ofa particular hierarchy deviates less than 30% from theaverage service population of urban centres of thathierarchy it indicates a fairly well distribution of urbancentres of that hierarchy. Here variation of servicepopulation of the three third order settlements fromthe average service population is less than 30%,indicating a fairly well distribution of the second orderurban centres.

In a similar way the third order urban centresare spatially distributed and their service zones andpopulation are assessed. The spatial distribution ofthe third order urban centres along with higher orderurban centres and their service area delineation isshown in Fig 11.4.

Third order urban Service populationsettlementKannur 3123000Kozhikode 3335900Malappuram 3868600Palakkad 19282300Thrissur 3132600Kochi 3417800Allappuzha 1204800Kottayam 4140700Kollam 3683300Thiruvananthapuram 3255000



Distribution of the fourth order centres ischecked against the population distribution( fig 11.7). Since both are tallying there is no scopefor a new 4th order centres.

The spatial distribution of 4th order urbansettlements is further checked against the distributionof water body and forest cover within the State toassess proximity to the environmentally sensitive area.It is found that the 4th order settlements are not causingmuch problem to the environmentally sensitive areas(fig 11.8).

The fourth order urban centres along with thehigher order centres is shown in fig 11.6.

Fig 11.7 Fourth order urban centres vis-a-vis population distribution

Fig 11.8 Fourth order urban settlements vis-a-vis environmentallysensitive areas

Fig 11.6 Fourth order urban centres




87

The urban areas belonging to the other twohierarchies (5 and 6) are assigned the same hierarchies.Being their service area limited to 3 or 4 local selfgovernments within a district, the hierarchy of theseare not further modified. The urban centres with finalhierarchy is given in table 11.9 and the spatialdistribution of these centres is shown in Fig 11.9.

There is close proximity between urban centresof different hierarchy indicating the chances ofmerging together of some of these centres in nearbyfuture. This necessiates the delineation of each ofthe future urban areas to understand the possibilityof merging of urban areas in future.

Table 11.9 Future Hierarchy of Urban centres

Vazhathoppu



Fig 11.10 Zones of urban area

CORE

INTER MEDIARY URBAN

PERIURBAN DEVELOPMENTGUIDED THROUGH A CORRIDOR

Large Urban areas (upto 4th order)

Medium level Urban areas(5th order & some 4th order)

CORE

INTER MEDIARY URBAN

PERIURBAN

CORE

INTER MEDIARY URBAN

Lower order urban centres

Delineation of future urban areas andfuture urban profile of the state

Future urban area has to be delineated takinginto account the urban vision, and also differentstrategies to be adopted for determination of urbanarea of different hierarchy. The urban vision specifiesfor a compact urban form for our urban areas. Theanalysis of the population density within the core areaof census urban agglomerations reveals scopefor further densification of population. Analysis ofthe physical development in the core and surroundingsalso indicates the possibility of further densificationin and around the existing urban areas. At the sametime, the delineated urban area shall accommodateland intensive developments which, of course, willhave to be located outside the core. So less developedfringes of existing urban areas also to be included inthe future urban area to be delineated. Accordingly, itis proposed to have three zones for the urban areas –core urban, intermediary urban and peri- urban. Butgenerally the development of peri urban area arounda large city is guided through corridors along majorhighways. With ribbon type development this is veryrelevant to the higher order urban areas of the State.Hence for higher order urban centres (up to 4th order),Fig: 11.9 Spatial Distribution of Urban Settlements

with hierarchy

& 6




89

corridor type peri-urban developmentcan be expected. For lower orderurban centres (5th order or evensome of the 4th order) extensiveribbon type of development maynot be encouraged. For small urbancenters which cater to the urbanfunctions supportive to the ruralhinter land, peri-urban developmentis often not required and to belimited, to protect the agriculturalland in the hinter land. Takingthese into account, urban profileof the state is arrived at for twoperiods viz 2021 and 2031.

Urban profile 2021

Urban profile for 2021 isderived taking in to account thehigh density physical developmentand mutual proximity betweenurban areas of different hierarchy.Thus areas with high densityphysical development and withmore than two closely locatedhigher order (up to 5th order) urbancentres are delineated into a urbancluster.

The following are the urbanclusters delineated accordingly :(Fig 11.11)

(1)Thiruvananthapuram cluster(2)Kollam Cluster(3)Alappuzha Cluster(4)Kochi Cluster(5)Thrissur Cluster(6)Palakkad Cluster(7)Kozhikkod- Malappuram Cluster(8)Kottayam-Pathanamthitta cluster(9)Kannur Cluster and(10) Guruvayoor cluster.

Remaining urban areas as per table 11.9 falloutside these clusters. The urban profile for 2021 isthen finalised after checking against followingscenarios viz. Population distribution pattern (Fig 11.12)committed major development projects (Annexe 5)as well as the environmentally sensitive areas of thestate (Fig 11.13).

Fig 11.11 Delineation of urban clusters

& 6

Grid with coverageof cluster 50-75Grid with coverageof cluster 75-100



During derivation of future urban areas itselfthe population concentration pattern is taken intoaccount. Hence, naturally the urban profile 2021 is inconformity with the population distribution.

Annexe 5 reveals that the urban profile for 2021and major development projects in pipeline are alsocoinciding.

The future urban areas as per urban profile 2021also excludes the environmentally sensive areas of thestate. The activity pattern of the state is checkedagainst the delineated urban profile and found thatboth tallies. Since the urban profile delineated tallieswith the population concentration pattern, distributionof urban development projects and activity patternthis profile is finalised as the urban profile 2021. Urbanprofile-2021 is shown in Fig 11.15 and Table 11.10.(urban areas outside the clusters are shown separately)

Fig 11.12 Urban Cluster & other urban areas vis-a-vis 2/3population distribution

& 6

Fig 11.14 Activity pattern vis-a-vis urban areas 2021

& 6

Fig 11.13 Urban cluster and other urban area vis-a-visenvironmentally sensitive areas

& 6




91

Fig 11.15 Urban profile 2021- Urban Clusters and other urban areas

th Hierarchyth Hierarchy



Table 11.10 Urban profile 2021




93




95

Urban profile 2031It is assumed that urban clusters identified as per

urban profile for 2021 further grow along corridors andfinally form urban corridors, by clubbing nearest clustersalong major national highways. Physical development aswell as proximity of urban clusters and other urban areasare taken in to account while delineating the urbancorridors. The delineation is shown in fig 11.16

Higher order urban LSGs outside clusterAttingal municipalityNedumangadu municipalityVarkalaPunalur municipalityKarunagappallyAdoorPathanamthittaKayamkulam(M)Chengannur (M)Mavelikara(M)Vaikom municipalityPala municipalityThodupuzha municipalityVazhathopeKothamangalamNelliduzhyMuvattupuzha municipality

Chalakudy(M)Irinjalakkuda (M)Chittoor-thathamangalamPattambiShornurOttapalamPerintalmannaPonnaniNilamburVadakaraVilliappallyPalayadKoylandy municipalityKalpattaMattannurKasaragodKanhangad

Fig 11.16 Delineation of urban corridors

& 6

Grid with coverageof cluster 50-75Grid with coverageof cluster 75-100



The following five urban corridors are delineatedaccordingly

(1)Thiruvananthapuram – Kollam Corridor

(2) Pathanamthitta - Kottayam Corridor

(3)Alappuzha -Ernakulam-Thrissur-PalakkadCorridor

(4)Malappuram-Kozhikkod Corridor

(5)Kannur- Kasargod Corridor.

The urban profile 2031 is also finalised afterchecking against following scenarios viz. populationdistribution pattern of the state (Fig 11.17), committedmajor development projects (Annexe 5) as well as theenvironmentally sensitive areas of the state (Fig 11.18).

Fig 11.18 Urban corridors and other urban area vis-a-visenvironmentally sensitive areas.

& 6

Fig 11.19 Activity pattern vis-a-vis urban areas 2031

& 6

Fig 11.17 Urban Corridors and other urban areavis-a-vis 2/3 population distribution

& 6




97

The activity pattern of the state is also checkedagainst the delineated urban profile 2031 and foundthat it tallies (Fig 11.19).

Here again, the urban profile 2031 is found tobe in conformity with population distribution andmajor development projects in pipeline. Also, urban

profile 2031 excludes the environmentally sensitiveareas of the state.

The final urban profile is shown in fig 11.20and Table 11.11 (urban areas outside the corridor isshown separately)

Fig 11.20 Urban profile 2031 - Urban Corridors and other urban areas

th Hierarchyth Hierarchy



Table 11.11 Urban profile 2031




99




101

Urban areas outside the corridor

Nedumangad municipalityPunalurKarunagappallyAdoorPala municipalityVaikom municipalityKayamkulam (M)Mavelikara (M)KothamangalamNelliduzhyMuvattupuzhaChittoor-thathamangalam

Thodupuzha municipalityVazhathopePerintalmannaPonnaniNilamburVadakaraVilliappallyPalayadKoyilandi muncipalityKalpatta municipalityMattannur



District wise urban profile

The district urbanisation reports/district spatialplans for various districts/IDDP Kollam describe thefuture urban profile of respective districts. In thedistrict level study, the future urban profile of thedistrict is arrived at based on the proposed hierarchyof settlements (after correction of its spatialdistribution in conformity with the populationdistribution), influence of urban development projects,administrative hierarchy of settlements and theapplication of census criteria. Thus at district levelurban settlements up to fourth order are identified ineach of the districts.

Now, that the urban profile of the State as awhole is derived, the district level future urban profilehas to be suitably modified by integrating the resultof study on urbanisation at the State level. The statelevel study identifies urban areas up to 6th order.Subsequently urban clusters and urban corridors arealso delineated.

The district level urban profiles are obtained bytransferring the state urban profile pertaining to aparticular District and then assigning the lowesthierarchy to those urban areas in the respective districtwhich are not accounted in the state urban profile.

Two scenarios, one with urban clusters for 2021& the other with urban corridors for 2031, areevolved.

The final district level urban profile is given inannexes 6(a) and 6(b).

It can be concluded that Kerala is to have threecategories of urban areas namely urban clusters/urbancorridors, medium sized isolated urban areas (up to5th hierarchy) and isolated small urban areas to caterto the urban needs of the rural areas. Special purposeurban centres (as a part of tourism related activity,religious related activity etc) also belongs to eitherisolated higher order urban area or to the third category.

Towards achieving the urban profile

In order to materialise the urban profile it shallbe a component of planned regulated spatial structureof the state defined through plans at local, districtand state level. The actual sequence of thesemultilevel plans starts with the State Perspective Plan,then the Integrated District Development Plan andfinally the Local Development Plan. Often thissequence is not strictly adhered to in practice. Urbanprofile is an integral part of a Development Plan foran urban local governments. The Urban profile of theplan has to be prepared taking into account thefollowing factors.

Three urban zones are to be considered forhigher order urban area.

1. Core urban2. Intermediary urban3. Peri Urban

Urban clusters/urban corridors will have all thementioned urban zones viz core urban, intermediaryurban and peri urban. Often the isolated higher orderurban areas will have only two zones, core urban andintermediary urban. Small urban centres will have onlythe core urban.

Strategies for the development of core urban areas:

Area development plan shall be prepared for thecore urban areas within the frame work ofdevelopment plan. In this regard those part of theurban area with more than 75% average built-up-cluster can be delineated as the core urban area. AreaDevelopment Plan for the core urban may beformulated, taking into account the followingfactors:

Revival of the core urban area of higher ordersettlements with maximum possible density(population and built up density) with necessaryinfrastructure to have a compact urban form is thestrategy for the development of the core urban area.




103

Techniques like mixed land use, mixed building use,plot reconstitution, TDR etc can be applied in thecore to have a compact urban form. EnablingDevelopment Control Rules (DCRs) shall be framedspecially suited to the core urban areas. Thecompaction of the core is suggested not to have amore congested core but to have well planned corewith more open spaces and wider roads. Deliberateattempt is necessary to discourage the practice ofleaving a plot unutilized within the core.

Strategies for development of intermediary urban areas: As the name indicates it is an intermediary area

both in terms of the intensity of development andlocation (located in-between the core and peri urban).Those part of the urban areas with coverage of50-75% built-up-cluster can be delineated as theintermediary urban area. A planned comparatively low

intensity development, is the general strategy for theintermediary urban area. Intensive residential activity,both plotted development and high rise buildings, issuggested for this area. Good connectivity is to beensured between the intermediary urban area and coreurban.

Strategies for development of peri-urban area:Those parts of the urban areas with 25-50%

coverage of built-up-cluster can be delineated as thecore urban area. In the peri urban area low density isproposed. New developments/new generationdevelopments which need large extent of land is tobe located in these areas. Controlled organic growthwith in the peri-urban area may be the objective. Inorder to contain the urban sprawl further possibility of abuffer zone between the peri-urban and rural area is tobe explored.



RECOMMENDATIONS

105

CHAPTER 12

Recommendations

Summary of findings

(1) World is witnessing an increasing urbanpopulation and the increase is noticed visibly in thedeveloping countries. Half of the world populationnow resides in urban area. World wide, the growthrate of both urban population and total populationare decreasing but urban population growth rate isalways higher than that of the total population growthrate indicating the shift of the world populationtowards urban.

(2) With an urban content of 31.1% and decadalgrowth rate of urban population of 32%, in 2001-2011, India is in an accelerated stage of urbanisation.Regarding the growth rate of total population andurban population, India too shows the similar patternas that of the world viz. both are decreasing but urbanpopulation growth rate is higher than the growth rateof total population with a total population 1.21 billion,it is not the percent increase in urban population thatis to be counted, but the total population added tothe urban category even for small increase inpercentage.

(3) In Kerala growth rate of total population isdecreasing but the urban population growth rate isshowing a dwindling nature since 1981, with sharp

increase during 1981-91 decade followed by a sharpdecline in 1991-2001 decade and again sharp increaseduring 2001-2011 decade. The history of populationgrowth rate in Kerala shows that the growth rate ofurban population has always been higher than that ofthe total population, indicating the high pace ofurbanisation the state is experiencing. 2011 Censusdata shows that during 2001-2011, Kerala hasundergone highest level of urbanisation in its historywith a percentage increase of 83.82 over the previousdecade.

(4) Analysis of the population growth rateindicates that Kerala is likely to achieve zeropopulation growth (ZPG) in 25 to 30 years. The lowpopulation growth rate with high level ofurbanisation, will increase the scarcity in labour force,especially in agriculture and related activities. Thisdemand for a change in the present practice ofagriculture from a family affair to more of aprofessionally managed affair. Mechanization suitableto the State is an inevitable impetus to it.

(5) The analysis of the components of urbangrowth, namely, natural increase, net migration andareal reclassification, reveals that urbanisation inKerala is mainly due to areal reclassification and thatthe other two factors are comparatively insignificant

This chapter summarises the findings of the study and puts forward recommendations regarding materialization of thesuggested urban profile and also the future course of actions needed.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 12RECOMMENDATIONS

in Kerala scenario. Areal reclassification is thedeclaration of a hitherto rural area as urban mainlydue to the shift in occupational structure there fromagriculture to other categories of employment makingthe percentage of non agricultural male workersgreater than 75, thus satisfying the census criteria todeclare an area as urban. This may not have reflectionin the physical development, but for presence of nodeswith significant built up to cater the population in thisarea.

(6) Urbanisation in the state of Kerala showsmarked peculiarities. Generally, increase in urbanpopulation growth rate is the result of overconcentration in the existing cities especially millionplus urban agglomerations. This is true in the case ofurbanisation in the other states of India. However, inKerala, the main reason for urban population growthis the increase in the number of urban areas as well asurbanisation of the peripheral areas of existing majorurban centers. The existence of more census towns(class3 & 4 towns) shows higher degree of dispersionof urban settlements.

(7) The spatial distribution of urban areas withinthe State shows that urban areas of Kerala areconcentrated in coastal and mid land regions. The midland and high land regions are being subjected tourbanisation with increased pace. The agriculturalpotential areas of Kerala is located in the midlandregion of Kerala and forest land is concentrated mostlyin the high land and also in mid land region adjacentto the high land. As per present urbanisation patternof Kerala, the environmentally sensitive high land isspared but the fertile agricultural land in the mid landis being converted for non agricultural purposes.

(8) A shift in the pace of urbanisation is notedbetween south and north of Kerala. During 60’s and70’s the pace of urbanisation was high in southernparts of Kerala. But now the central and northern partsof the State has high pace of urbanisation.Malappuram district shows the highest increase inurban content within a decade (2001-2011), followed

by Kozhikkode district. Kannur district shows highesturban content from 1971 onwards.

(9) Though Kerala is having high urban contentin total, it does not have a single primate city. Insteadthese are 6 medium sized urban agglomerations whichare found to be fairly well distributed when analyzedin the context of population distribution.

(10) Though the population density of the Stateas a whole is high among Indian states, the populationdensity of urban agglomerations in Kerala is less whencompared to UAs of other States. Population densityvariation is seen within the urban agglomeration also.The analysis of change of population of the core andfringe of urban agglomerations in Kerala shows thatthe core is either in stagnation stage or even exhibitnegative growth, where as fringes grow at a higherrate. The fringe areas of the urban agglomerations arehaving lower density than the core and the fringe areasare in a transitional stage (in to the density of thecore). This indicates the scope for further densificationof the urban agglomerations of the State.

(11) The temporal variation of populationdensity within the core of the urban agglomerationsof Kerala shows that whenever the population densitywithin the core reaches a value in between 6000- 7500persons/sqkm , there is a tendency of decreasing thepopulation density (by the addition of moreoutgrowths with less population density in to the UAand thus achieving a low density altogether). Thepopulation density range between 6000-7500persons/sqkm seems to be a maximum achievabledensity in the present scenario in the State.

(12) The higher order towns (Class I and II) inKerala show a decline in growth of population whereasthe lower order towns (Class III towns located mainlyin fringe areas of higher order towns) are growing.Analysis shows that the outgrowths of Class I townsand Class II towns show more growth (in population)than their core indicating a stage of suburbanisationin Kerala.



RECOMMENDATIONS

107

(13) The analysis of the occupation structureshows the presence of non agricultural activities,mainly manufacturing industries and trade andcommerce, significantly in the rural areas of Kerala.This along with the high population density acrossthe State demand small urban centers in the rural areasto cater the rural population. But the strategy for suchcenters shall be such that they should not grow beyondthe carrying capacity of the rural economy.

(14) The analysis of occupation structurereveals a shift in employment of Kerala from primarysector to tertiary sector. In rural areas of Keralamajority of workers (58 %) are engaged in secondaryand tertiary activities, which is an indication of thepoor performance of primary sector in the State ingeneral and the rural areas in particular. It indicatesthe urbanising nature of rural areas of Kerala andinturn points towards a dilution of the rural economy.

(15) Analysis of the built up nature of urbanareas of Kerala shows that even within the highdensity grids maximum coverage is only 32% indicatingthat there are under utilized pockets within the urbanareas of Kerala. Due to organic way of growth, ribbondevelopment is predominant even in the core of oururban areas and there are underutilized land pocketsin their interiors.

(16) Comparatively low urban populationdensity and low built up intensity in the existing urbanareas make possible compaction of existing urbanareas both in terms of population and built-up.

(17) The temporal variation of the land holdingsize in Kerala shows enhanced plot subdivisionindicated by increase in the number of marginalholdings. It is an impact of the speedy urbanizationof Kerala. It limits the development prospects of theState by imposing constraints to land intensivedevelopments.

(18) The functional characters of majority ofLSGs are rural. 77% of the total number of LSGs ofKerala shows rural nature. In Kerala 76 LSGs showurban character, 63 LSGs are of semi urban character,

106 LSGs are of semi rural nature and a vast majorityof 805 LSGs are of rural characters.

(19) The spatial distribution of the higherdensity grids in 2011 is matching with urban areas asper census 2001. But census 2011 declares much moreareas as urban and these added areas do not matchwith the distribution of high density grids. This pointstowards need for adopting a modified criteria whichconsider physical development aspects also to definean urban area which is very relevant in the case ofstates like Kerala where urban-rural continuum exists.

(20) With respect to GDP, Kerala is positioned9th in the National scenario. Temporal data of percapita income and GDP shows a constant increase inboth the parameter in the case of Kerala. However,analysis shows that the increase in GDP of the Statedoes not have a direct correlation with urbanization.

(21) Contribution of different sectors to GDPof the State over a period of time shows a shift in themajor contributor to tertiary sector from primarysector. The change in occupation structure alsocorresponds to this with the tertiary sector showinggrowth both in urban and rural areas. The pace ofgrowth of tertiary sector is higher in rural areas.

(22) The urban spread that is happening in thestate causes dilution in the economic base of boththe urban and rural areas. At the same time, even thecore of the existing urban areas have the scope forfurther densification both in terms of population andbuilt-up. What is needed is selective concentration ofurban functions and rural functions with a sincereattempt to have compact urban form so as to achievemore meaningful integrated development of urban andrural areas of the State

(23) Increase in per capita income at theNational level is in proportion to the growth of urbancontent. But in the case of Kerala, the rate of increaseof per capita income is at a higher rate than the rateof urbanisation indicating weakness of urban area ofKerala in delivering the urban functions.


STATE URBANISATION REPORTChapter 12RECOMMENDATIONS

(24) The Economic Review -2010 of Keralaunequivocally says the need for giving importance toagriculture, especially food crops, and animal husbandrysector in the economy of Kerala. The urban areas shouldfunction complementary with the rural area.

(25) The draft approach paper for 12th five yearplan of the State focus on raising income of farmersthrough increasing productivity, subsidiaryoccupations, better marketing and through promotionof value added products. Special projects for foodsecurity targeting to increase rice production by 25percent and vegetable production by 50 percent fromthe base level and homestead farming are mooted inthis context. The conversion of the potentialagricultural land for non agricultural purposes thusresulting in uncontrolled urban spread is against thepolicy of achieving food security. All these pointtowards the scope for strengthening of the ruraleconomy of the State. So the urbanisation in the stateshould be an impetus to this.

RecommendationsWith an urban content of nearly 50%, Kerala

has under gone high level of urbanization during theprevious decade which is not manifested eitherphysically or economically in the State. The high levelof urbanization that has occurred in Kerala is moreof the nature of an urban spread and has causeddilution in the economic base of both the urban andrural areas of the State. Even within the core of theexisting urban areas, there is scope for furtherdensification both in terms of population and built-up.Despite of this the urban area spreads in to the potentialagricultural land of the State. What is needed is theselective concentration of urban functions and ruralfunctions through deliberate planning and to havecompact urban form for the urban areas so as to containthe urban spread. In other words the state has to thrivefor integrated development of its urban and rural areas.

Since very low population growth is anticipatedfor the State, it is not the quantum of urban functions,but quality of functions delivered by urban areas is

going to matter. High quality housing, commercialestablishments, public utilities, social infrastructureetc will be the future requirements in Kerala. Furtherspreading of developments at the cost of the potentialrural lands is not justifiable in the context lowpopulation growth rate. This reiterates the need forcontainment of urban development.

With this in view the future urban content ofthe State for the next two decades is limited within arange 50- 52%. Also significant increase in the aerialextent of the urban areas from the present level is notenvisaged. The urban vision of the State coined inthe above considerations is “Revitalized urban areasof compact urban form, distributed in a balanced andorderly manner in the entire Kerala, that performurban functions complimentary to the rural hinter landand act as engines of development”. With this visionin mind the future urban areas are delineated and theurban profiles for 2021 and 2031 are descirbed alongwith recommendations to achieve the same.

As per the urban profile of the state delineatedfor 2021 and 2031, (The urban profile is derived takingin to account both the demographic criteria (as percensus) and the extent of physical development-Refer: Chapter 11 of the Report), Kerala is proposedto have three categories of urban areas namely-Urbanclusters/urban corridors, isolated higher order urbanareas and small urban areas. Future investments inthe state shall be streamlined supportive to the urbanprofile delineated.

It is proposed to have 3 zones within an urbanarea (except for small urban areas) - namely coreurban, intermediary urban and peri-urban. Remouldingto compact urban form with high intensitydevelopment supported with necessary infrastructureis the strategy for the development of core urban. Aplanned, comparatively low intensity development, isthe general strategy suggested for the intermediaryurban area. Intensive residential activity, both plotteddevelopment, and high rise buildings, is suggested forthis area. Good connectivity is to be ensured betweenthe intermediary urban and core urban. In the peri



RECOMMENDATIONS

109

urban area low density is proposed. Newdevelopments/new generation developments whichneed large extent of land are to be located in theseareas. Controlled organic growth within the peri-urbanarea may be the objective. In order to contain the urbansprawl further, possibility of a buffer zone betweenthe peri-urban and rural area is to be explored.

Limiting of the urban spread in Kerala within thedelineated urban profile is a must for the conservationof agricultural land, prevention of dilution of ruraleconomy and protection of the fragile eco system ofKerala. The land area left over after accommodatingour urban areas, forest cover and water bodies is ourrural areas where in our potential agricultural tractsare located. It is recommended to put this rural landto optimum utilization.

In order to achieve the above urban profilefollowing strategy options are suggested:

To be realistic urban profile shall be a part of thegeneral strategy for the comprehensive developmentof the State. Hence it is recommended to prepare theState Perspective Plan with inputs from all sectors ofdevelopment and modification, if necessary, may bemade in the urban profile formulated.

The urban profile of the state shall be made anintegral part of the component of regulated spatialstructure of the state defined through a StatePerspective Plan. Within the purview of the StatePerspective Plan, each of the urban cluster/corridoris to be further detailed out through regional plans/inter district plan with planning area as the respectivecluster/corridor with its influence area. IntegratedDistrict Development Plan is to be prepared within

this regional frame work for each of the District. Atlower tier settlement level plans ie, LocalDevelopment Plans for each of the rural and urbanlocal governments shall be prepared.

With comparatively higher population densitywithin the entire State and enhanced plot subdivisionindicated by increase in the number of marginalholdings, there is dearth of large land parcels in Kerala.So a policy backing and planning tools are necessaryto conserve such existing lands and to pool such landsfor future development.

A settlement policy for the State encompassingthe above factors is an immediate necessity. Urbanpolicy, rural policy and land use policy shall be integralpart of this settlement policy.

The maximum population density that has beenachieved even in the core of urban area in the presenthuman settlement pattern in Kerala is in the rangebetween 6000- 7500 persons/sqkm. This is low whencompared to urban areas elsewhere in the country andindicates under utilization of the scarce but valuablecommodity, the land in the State. A detailed study isrecommended to assess the reasons for the same andto come out with the limiting density that can have inour urban areas and the desirable density for our ruralareas as well.

In a State like Kerala marked by scatteredsettlement, physical development shall also be takeninto account while designating an area as urban. Theurban profile of the district defined spatially in thisreport is to be further refined taking in to account theactual intensity of physical development onground.

ANNEXES


STATE URBANISATION REPORT

113

Annexe 1PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER

ANNEXE 1

Procedure to Identify Functional Character

The function of a settlement is the majoractivity within the settlement, be it agricultural andallied activity (pucca rural) or secondary sector andtertiary sector activities ( pucca urban activities) or acombination of the two( semi urban or semi rural).The criteria taken here for identification of thefunctional character of a settlement are land use andpopulation distribution and the average plot sizewithin the settlement.

The procedure for determining the functionalcharacter is explained in the Annaxure 6 of IDDP ofKollam. LSG wise land use map, number ofhouseholds, populations etc are required for thedetermination of the functional character based onthis procedure. LSGI wise land use map of all thedistrict of Kerala is not available. But the generalutilization map of the districts of Kerala with LSGboundaries ( Source: Natural resources andEnvironmental Data Base by land use board ofKerala) are available This land utilization map cannotbe utilized as such in determining the functionalcharacter since it mainly gives agricultural orientedland use .The following procedure is adopted forgetting the LSGI wise functional character from theland utilization map. It is a modification of the originalmethod for the determination of functional character.

1. Find out the land use wise area break up(using GIS). 48 different land uses ( it may vary districtwise) are there in the Land utilization map (See table).

2. Categorize the land use in to the major heads– Neutral land use, Urban Land Use, Rural Land Use,and Residential- Agriculture (Res/Agri) mixed landuse. (See table)


STATE URBANISATION REPORTAnnexe 1PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER

3. Find out the percentage of pucca urban landuse share using the following formula.

Pucca Urban Land Use Share =

(Total Urban Land use share- area of residentialzone)*100/ (Total area – area of neutral zone)

If it is more than 25 %, then the charcter of theLSGI will be urban.

(The analysis of the land use of various urban localbodies & the share of various land uses of an urban areaas specified in the UDPFI guide lines shows that an urbanarea is having a residential land use of the same percentageas that of pucca urban land use (commercial, industrial, public& semi public etc. This is actually the residential land useattached to the urban land use. So if the pucca urban landuse is 25% then by adding the residential share of 25% thetotal urban land use share becomes 50%)

4. Find out the percentage of urban land useshare and rural land use share (excluding the area ofneutral land use). In case the land use share soobtained- urban land use share or rural land use share-exceeds or equal to 50%, character of the Local SelfGovernment Institutions (LSGI) will be that character(urban/rural).

For example , if the % of urban land use shareis 53 %, then character of that LSGI will be urban.

If urban lands use share and rural land use sharedo not exceeds or equal to 50 %, categorize res/agrland use as in step 5

5. The Res/Agr mixed land use is categorizedas either agricultural land use or residential land use

based on the population density (denoted bypopulation concentration category in which the LSGIfalls- this has done in the urbanisation study of theDistricts ) and the workers engaged in non agriculturalactivity ( denoted by % of other workers +HHindustrial workers).

Two clear situations will arise:

In situation 1, the LSGI belongs to 1/3rd

population (ppn) concentration category and the %of workers engaged in non agricultural activity isgreater than or equal to 90%. Now, the res/agr mix istaken as purely Residential.

In situation 2, the LSGI belongs to 2/3rd to 1ppn concentration category and the % of workersengaged in non agricultural activity is less than orequal to 70%.The res/agr mix is taken as purelyAgricultural.

SituationPPn Conc category % of other workers+HH industrial workers Category of Res/Agr mix

1 1/3rd ppn category >= 90%Residential

2 2/3 to 1 ppn category <=70 Agricultural

Repeat step 4 and find the character of the LSGI.

If the res/agr mix cannot be categorized underthe above situations go to step 5.

6. If the two situations are not occurring,categorize the res / agr mix land use category basedon the average plot size. This necessitates the numberof Houses within this area. In the absence of primarydata, the following procedure is adopted to find outthe number of houses.N

* Net population density of the LSGI (X) = TotalPopulation of the LSGI/ (Area of mixed built



115

Annexe 1PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL CHARACTER

up +area of res zone + area of res/agr mix).

* Population density in the residential zone (netresidential density) and that of res/mix zone( net mixed zone density) will not be uniform.

The ratio between these two densities is:

Net residential density: Net mixed zonedensity = 2.25 :1 ( deduced from the land use mapand population distribution of Kollam District )

Therefore,* Net residential density =1.4 * X and Net mixed

zone density =0.6 *X* Population in the mixed zone = Net mixed

zone density * area of res/agr mix zone.·* Number of Houses in the res/agr mix zone =Population in the mixed zone / Average HH size

6.1 Avr plot size in the res/agr mix =

Area of res- agr mix zone/ Number of Housesin the res-agr mix zone

6.2. Categorize the res/agr mix land use categorybased on the average plot size as below.

7. If the character of the res/agr mix zone isurban or rural, step 4 is repeated to find out thecharacter of the LSGI.

8 If the res/agr mix zone is classified as semiurban, find out the sum of the area of urbanland use and res/ agr mix zone ( which is semi urban). If this area is greater than or equal to 50 % of thetotal area (excluding the area of neutral land use ),the character of the LSGI can be taken as Semiurban .

9. If the res/agr mix zone is classified as semirural, find out the sum of the area of rural land useand res/ agr mix zone ( which is semi rural ). If thisarea is greater than or equal to 50 % of the total area(excluding the area of neutral land use ), the characterof the LSGI can be taken as Semi rural.

Note: . If Step 6 is used for identification ofthe character of an LSGI, it is suggested that theres/agr land use in 25 % of such LSGI is to beverified at site for any pucca agricultural area. Thenthe table in step 2 is to be reworked and repeat step 2to 5.But in the case of IDDP District , res/agr landuse in all such LSGIs are to be verified at site for anypucca agricultural area and then steps 2 to 5 area tobe repeated.

Average plot size ( cents) Category of Res/Agr mixPlot size less than 25 UrbanPlot size 25-50 semi urbanPlot size 50-75 semi ruralPlot size >75 Rural



117

Annexe 2LIST OF STATUTORY URBAN AREAS (2011) IN KERALA

ANNEXE 2

List of Statutory Urban Areas (2011) in Kerala



119

Annexe 3THE AVERAGE PLOT SIZE IN GRIDS OF DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE OF BUILT-UP

ANNEXE 3

The average plot size in grids of differentPercentage of built-up

Average Plot Area in grids of different % of built up in Thiruvananthapuram corporation



121

Annexe 4COMBINED HIERARCHY OF URBAN AREA

ANNEXE 4

Combined hierarchy of urban area



123

Annexe 5DISTRICTWISE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (COMBINED FROM DURS)

ANNEXE 5

Districtwise Urban Development Projects(Combined from DURs)


STATE URBANISATION REPORTAnnexe 5DISTRICTWISE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (COMBINED FROM DURS)



125

Annexe 5DISTRICTWISE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (COMBINED FROM DURS)



127

Annexe 6(a)DETAILED URBAN PROFILE OF KERALA 2021

ANNEXE 6(a)

Detailed Urban Profile of Kerala 2021

URBAN PROFILE (2021) - URBAN CLUSTER AND OTHER URBAN AREAS


STATE URBANISATION REPORTAnnexe 6(a)DETAILED URBAN PROFILE OF KERALA 2021



129




131




133




135




137




139

Annexe 6(b)DETAILED URBAN PROFILE OF KERALA 2031

ANNEXE 6(b)

Detailed Urban Profile of Kerala 2031

URBAN PROFILE (2031) - URBAN CORRIDOR AND OTHER URBAN AREAS


STATE URBANISATION REPORTAnnexe 6(b)DETAILED URBAN PROFILE OF KERALA 2031



141




143


Kochi UA



145




147




149




151




153


STATE URBANISATION REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of STATE URBANISATION REPORT...