Suburbanization of India ’ s Cities
-
Upload
florrie-morris -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Suburbanization of India ’ s Cities
Suburbanization of India’s Cities
1
Kala Seetharam SridharPublic Affairs Centre
Bangalore
Conference on the 21st Century Indian City:Towns, Metros and the Indian Economy
University of California Berkeley and
Indian Institute of Human SettlementsBangalore
March 26, 2013
2
Presentation Overview General and b-suburbanization Theory Bangalore and other cities’ suburbanization Estimated and calculated density gradients for
India’s cities Determinants of population and employment
suburbanization Policy implications
Suburbanization of Population and Jobs in India, 1981-2001
3
% 1981 Population suburban
% 1991 Population suburban
%2001 Population suburban
% 1991 Jobs Suburban
% 2001 Jobs Suburban
Average 20.67 21.33 17.52% 21.76 17.94%Maximum 92.52 92.31 87.19% 92.85 88.20%Minimum 0.18 0.05 0.19% 0.12 0.17%Std.Dev 20.08 20.14 0.18 20.11 0.18Observations 233 374 336 374 336
Sources: Sridhar (2007), 2001 Census PCA and author’s analyses
Population Suburbanization in India’s Metropolitan Areas, 1981-01
4
% Population suburban, 1981
% Population suburban, 1991
% Population suburban, 2001
Delhi 10 11 21
Kolkata 64 60 65
Mumbai NA* 21 27
Chennai 24 29 34
Sources: Sridhar (2007), 2001 Census PCA and author’s analyses
5
Suburbanization: Theoretical Framework
Standard exponential population density function Gradient
Bangalore: Density Function, 1991
61991 municipal area: 126 sq km
Bangalore: Density Function, 2001
71991 municipal area: 226 sq km
Estimates of Population Density Functions for Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, Conventional
City Center
8
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991
Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio
Intercept 9.17*** 0.28 33.21
Gradient (with conventional city center), 1991
0.10*** 0.03 3.49
R2 0.18
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001
Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio
Intercept 10.75*** 0.18 59.92
Gradient (with conventional city center), 2001
-0.05*** 0.01 3.64
R2 0.12
Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions
Source: Sridhar (2007)
Estimates of Population Density Functions for Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, New
City Center
9
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991
Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratioIntercept 10.77*** 0.20 54.68Gradient (with (ward 20) center)
-0.06*** 0.02 -3.94
R2 0.22Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001
Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratioIntercept 10.79*** 0.11 97.82Gradient (with (ward 32) center)
-0.05*** 0.01 -6.83
R2 0.33
Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions Source: Sridhar (2007)
10
Two-Point Gradient Technique
Rc
R
Lc
L
]ebRe[b
DerDdr)r(rDL CC
C C
bRC
bRR R
brC
12
220
20
0
0
]ebRe[b
DerDdr)r(rDL
bRbRR R
br 12
220
20
0
0
bRbR
bRc
bRc
ebRe
ebRe
L
L cc
1
1
Summary of Population Density Gradients (Calculated)
11
1981 1991 (Same subset as in 1981)
% Change (Same subset of UAs) 1981-91
1981 (All UAs)
1991 (All UAs)
% Change (all UAs) 1981-91
Average, all 0.4783 0.4303 -10.04% 0.4933 0.4669 -5.35%
Maximum 0.9910 0.9780 -1.31% 0.9910 0.9983 0.74%Minimum 0.0117 0.0262 123.93% 0.0102 0.0072 -29.41%
Std.Dev 0.2414 0.2397 -0.70% 0.2649 0.2697 1.79%Observations 80 80 80 94 154 77
Average, metros*
0.2467 0.1963
-20.43%
NA NA -20.44%
Max, metros 0.3475 0.2995 -13.81% NA NA -13.81%Min, metros 0.1870 0.1244 -33.48% NA NA -33.48%
Std.dev, metros
0.0878 0.0745-15.15%
NA NA -15.08%
Source: Sridhar (2007)
12
The Impact of Land Use Regulations on Population Suburbanization
Dependent variable mean= 0.44R-squared= 0.57 Adjusted R-squared = 0.50Number of observations= 68
Variable Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio Variable mean Constant 0.5539** 0.2807 1.9737 Population (in thousands) 0.0000 0.0000 -0.6657 869.04 Income (in thousands) -0.0040 0.0028 -1.4326 63.88 Proportion jobs suburbanized -0.1176 0.1275 -0.9224 0.30 Number of local governments, 1981 0.0026 0.0038 0.6803 6.60 Ratio of unemployment rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.0031 0.0079 0.3951 1.58 Ratio of literacy rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.1639 0.1702 0.9631 1.03 Ratio of SC/STs in central city to that in suburbs -0.1340* 0.0752 -1.7825 0.81 Lagged (1981) value of population gradient 0.5705*** 0.0966 5.9032 0.47 Maximum permissible residential FAR -0.0745** 0.0349 -2.1355 2.34 ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No) 0.0521 0.0475 1.0969 0.40
Source: Sridhar (2007)
13
The Impact of Land Use Regulations on Employment Suburbanization
Dependent variable mean= 0.43R-squared= 0.48 Adjusted R-squared = 0.38Number of observations= 68
Variable Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio Variable mean Constant 0.2429 0.2524 0.9623 Population (in thousands) -0.0001** 0.0000 -2.1372 865.32 Number of local governments, 1981 0.0060 0.0038 1.5710 6.60 Worker emoluments as a proportion of value of output for state 1.7022 2.1510 0.7914 0.06 Proportion in labor force -0.3128 0.6001 -0.5213 0.30 Ratio of literacy rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.1034 0.1779 0.5810 1.02 Ratio of SC/STs in central city to that in suburbs -0.0675 0.0714 -0.9452 0.81 Lagged (1981) value of population gradient 0.4876*** 0.1038 4.6967 0.48 Proportion population suburbanized -0.2771** 0.1342 -2.0655 0.30 Maximum permissible non-residential FAR 0.0005 0.0438 0.0113 2.55 ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No) -0.0198 0.0664 -0.2983 0.38
Source: Sridhar (2007)
Estimation of Welfare Gains
14
Source: Brueckner & Sridhar 2012
Policy Implications
Impact of various factors on suburbanization and spatial area of Indian cities Suburbanization of population and jobs
Data limitations Conflict between suburban development
and rural land uses
15