Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India: Lessons from Selected Cities (Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements) 9811515018, 9789811515019

Citation preview

Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements

Amit Chatterjee R. N. Chattopadhyay

Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India Lessons from Selected Cities

Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements Series Editor Bharat Dahiya, College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand Editorial Board Andrew Kirby, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA Erhard Friedberg, Sciences Po-Paris, France Rana P. B. Singh, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India Kongjian Yu, Peking University, Beijing, China Mohamed El Sioufi, Monash University, Australia Tim Campbell, Woodrow Wilson Center, USA Yoshitsugu Hayashi, Chubu University, Kasugai, Japan Xuemei Bai, Australian National University, Australia Dagmar Haase, Humboldt University, Germany

Indexed by SCOPUS This Series focuses on the entire spectrum of human settlements – from rural to urban, in different regions of the world, with questions such as: What factors cause and guide the process of change in human settlements from rural to urban in character, from hamlets and villages to towns, cities and megacities? Is this process different across time and space, how and why? Is there a future for rural life? Is it possible or not to have industrial development in rural settlements, and how? Why does ‘urban shrinkage’ occur? Are the rural areas urbanizing or is that urban areas are undergoing ‘ruralisation’ (in form of underserviced slums)? What are the challenges faced by ‘mega urban regions’, and how they can be/are being addressed? What drives economic dynamism in human settlements? Is the urban-based economic growth paradigm the only answer to the quest for sustainable development, or is there an urgent need to balance between economic growth on one hand and ecosystem restoration and conservation on the other – for the future sustainability of human habitats? How and what new technology is helping to achieve sustainable development in human settlements? What sort of changes in the current planning, management and governance of human settlements are needed to face the changing environment including the climate and increasing disaster risks? What is the uniqueness of the new ‘socio-cultural spaces’ that emerge in human settlements, and how they change over time? As rural settlements become urban, are the new ‘urban spaces’ resulting in the loss of rural life and ‘socio-cultural spaces’? What is leading the preservation of rural ‘socio-cultural spaces’ within the urbanizing world, and how? What is the emerging nature of the rural-urban interface, and what factors influence it? What are the emerging perspectives that help understand the human-environment-culture complex through the study of human settlements and the related ecosystems, and how do they transform our understanding of cultural landscapes and ‘waterscapes’ in the 21st Century? What else is and/or likely to be new vis-à-vis human settlements – now and in the future? The Series, therefore, welcomes contributions with fresh cognitive perspectives to understand the new and emerging realities of the 21st Century human settlements. Such perspectives will include a multidisciplinary analysis, constituting of the demographic, spatio-economic, environmental, technological, and planning, management and governance lenses. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this series, please contact the Series Editor, or the Publishing Editor: Bharat Dahiya ([email protected]) or Loyola DSilva ([email protected])

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13196

Amit Chatterjee R. N. Chattopadhyay •

Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India Lessons from Selected Cities

123

Amit Chatterjee Department of Urban and Regional Planning School of Planning and Architecture Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

R. N. Chattopadhyay Department of Architecture and Regional Planning Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

ISSN 2198-2546 ISSN 2198-2554 (electronic) Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements ISBN 978-981-15-1501-9 ISBN 978-981-15-1502-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India: Lessons from Selected Cities, co-authored by Amit Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, is a welcome addition to the international literature on sustainable urbanization. The study focuses on the contemporary dynamics of metropolitan development in India and traces the spatio-economic restructuring of peripheral areas of metropolitan cities within the larger and continuing process of economic liberalization that was initiated in early 1990s. In doing so, the authors link the contemporary metropolitan development in India with global development agendas, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New Urban Agenda, as well as the Government of India’s latest set of national urban missions towards achieving sustainable urbanization, including Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation, Smart Cities Mission, Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana—Housing for All (Urban), Swachh Bharat Mission—Clean India Mission (Urban) and National Urban Livelihood Mission. This book attempts to break new ground with regard to sustainable urbanization by putting forward the idea of ‘Neo-metropolitan Development’, which the authors define as ‘… the process of transformation from the traditional model of metro-satellite development (mother city with few traditional residential satellite towns) to a new form of multifunctional satellite development where, in association with the existing mother metropolis, several satellite towns with more than one million population each, attain metropolitan status. They are expected to grow in complementarity to each other functionally though in the cluster, some towns may not attain the million-city status’ (see Chapter 1 in Chatterjee and Chattopadhyay, 2020). Such an attempt gains significance because the ongoing process of rapid urbanization in India and beyond has now brought forth a plethora of challenges that require policy-makers, planners, scientists, researchers and practitioners to find answers to one fundamental question: How metropolitan cities could be a solution to the challenge of sustainable urbanization? Modern metropolises are the multifaceted arenas that not only pose complex urban problems but also act as urban laboratories that spur us to co-create innovative solutions along the science–policy–practice continuum. In the twenty-first century, such co-creation process, among others, requires: (i) addressing the priorities of global, v

vi

Foreword

regional, national, subnational and local agendas, (ii) building and strengthening the financial-, technical- and governance-related capacity of local governments, (iii) navigating the institutional rungs of multilevel governance and (iv) building new and strengthening existing successful multistakeholder partnerships. All of this is needed since metropolises are seen as: (i) centres of creativity, innovation and employment opportunities that promise higher incomes, (ii) places with better infrastructure, services and amenities featuring higher levels of urban liveability and (iii) dynamic arenas of investment that attract entrepreneurs and investors. Cities, including metropolises, act as ‘magnets of hope’ (see Singh and Gandhiok, 2019; Tibaijuka, 2006) for millions of people who migrate from rural areas and smaller towns. In India, the number of urban agglomerations1 centred around metropolitan cities has increased from one in 1901 to nine in 1971, 35 in 2001 and 53 in 2011. Eighteen new metropolitan cities emerged during the first decade of twenty-first century, the largest number in any decade since 1901. According to the Census of India 2011, there were eight urban agglomerations that had a population of over five million that included Greater Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmadabad and Pune (Census of India, 2011b). Like in many other countries, metropolitan cities in India feature a variety of problems related to sustainable urban development. Some of the key features of Indian metropolises include: (i) rapid population growth and unplanned and often haphazard spatial expansion in their peri-urban and surrounding areas as well as satellite towns often involving residential and industrial areas, (ii) land subdivision by agricultural and other landowners––especially in peri-urban areas, (iii) lack of reservation of land for institutional uses (e.g. for health, education and open spaces) and transport-related uses––causing traffic congestion and bottlenecks and (iv) the resulting, almost irreversible, urban morphology with inefficient land uses that make the provision of urban infrastructure, services and amenities a difficult and often (overly) capital intensive task. These urban features add avoidable complexities to the process of urban governance and the quotidian task of delivering urban services. This continuously unfolding process complicates further the intricacies related to inter-jurisdictional coordination. In this volume, an attempt has been made by Chatterjee and Chattopadhyay to review the planning and development efforts made to create and develop satellite towns around metropolitan cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Bengaluru and to assess their role in sharing the concentrated urban activity load of their metropolitan ‘mother’ cities. The spatio-economic links between a metropolitan city and its satellite towns have become so close that one cannot succeed without the other and both function as a single integrated entity. The study also focuses on the process through which relationships among megacity–satellites– fringe villages have developed in the context of the two Indian megacities and their “An urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths, or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns. An Urban Agglomeration must consist of at least a statutory town and its total population (i.e. all the constituents put together) should not be less than 20,000 as per the 2001 Census” (Census of India, 2011a).

1

Foreword

vii

regions. The authors argue that Indian metropolitan cities and their environs need meticulous planning with regard to the management of their demographic and related spatial growth as well as rational integration of urban space and economy in the coming decades. Thus, the book highlights the importance of planned development of satellite towns around metropolitan cities for sustainable urban development. The authors also make suggestions for policy-based solutions for the development of selected metropolitan regions along with their satellite towns and newly expanded fringe areas. In the post-World War II period, many developing countries experienced rapid urbanization and unplanned growth in their metropolitan peripheral areas. In line with the urban planning and policy-making thought of the times, metropolitan planning and policies intended to limit the growth of metropolitan cities and formulate new town or satellite town policies to disperse the metropolitan growth. In this regard, this review of metropolitan planning and development strategies and the related lessons learnt in India could contribute to developing solutions to the common challenges facing similar major cities and metropolitan areas (see Metropolis, 2019). Therefore, the research, analysis and findings contained in this volume are of immense interest to scientists (academics and researchers), policy-makers, planners and practitioners of sustainable urbanization from around the world. Bharat Dahiya Director Research Center for Integrated Sustainable Development College of Interdisciplinary Studies Thammasat University Bangkok, Thailand

References Census of India (2011a) Provisional Population Totals Urban Agglomerations and Cities. Census of India 2011. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/1.%20Data %20Highlight.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2019 Census of India (2011b) Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 lakh and above (Table 3). Census of India 2011. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/ India2/Table_3_PR_UA_Citiees_1Lakh_and_Above.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2019 Chatterjee, Amit, Chattopadhyay RN (2020) Satellite towns in neo-metropolitan development in India: lessons from selected cities. Springer, Singapore Metropolis (2019) Mission, vision & objectives. Metropolis. https://www.metropolis.org/about-us. Accessed 14 Dec 2019 Singh, Paras, Gandhiok, Jasjeev (2019) City of hope: jobs and education biggest magnets for migrants. Delhi News – Times of India, 11 August. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ delhi/city-of-hope-jobs-and-education-biggest-magnets-for-migrants/articleshow/70626442. cms. Accessed 14 Dec 2019 Tibaijuka, Anna Kajumulo (2006) A Message from the Executive Director. Habitat Debate, vol 12, no 3, p 2. https://issuu.com/unhabitat/docs/2222_alt. Accessed 14 Dec 2019

viii

Foreword Bharat Dahiya is Director of Research Center for Integrated Sustainable Development at the College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok, and Distinguished Professor at Urban Youth Academy, Seoul, Republic of Korea. He is Series Editor for the SCOPUS-indexed Springer book series, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. As an award-winning urbanist, he combines research, policy analysis and development practice aimed at examining and tackling socio-economic, environmental and governance issues in the global urban context. Since early 1990s, Bharat’s research and professional work has focused on sustainable cities and urbanization, strategic urban planning and development, urban environment and infrastructure, and urban resilience. Working with the World Bank, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), the Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), he initiated, led, managed and contributed to international projects on sustainable urban development in a number of countries. Bharat conceptualized and coordinated the preparation of United Nations’ first-ever report on The State of Asian Cities 2010/11 (UN-HABITAT and ESCAP, 2010). At the World Bank headquarters, he conducted the first-ever systematic review of the Bank’s investments for improving urban liveability, published as a co-authored book, Urban Environment and Infrastructure: Toward Livable Cities (2004). For UNU-IAS and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), he co-authored Partnering for Sustainable Development: Guidelines for Multi-stakeholder Partnerships to Implement the 2030 Agenda in Asia and the Pacific (UNU-IAS and ESCAP, 2018). More recently, he co-edited New Urban Agenda for Asia-Pacific: Governance for Sustainable and Inclusive Cities (Springer, 2020). He is a member of the International Advisory Board of the UN-HABITAT’s World Cities Report. He serves on the editorial boards of Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, Environment and Urbanization ASIA, Journal of Urban Culture Research, Jindal Journal of Public Policy and National Geographical Journal of India. Reuters, Inter Press Service, SciDev.Net, Nishi-Nippon, The Korean Economic Daily, China Daily, The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Bangkok Post, The Nation, UB Post, The Sunday Times and Urban Gateway have quoted Bharat’s work. He has held academic positions in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. Bharat completed his M.A. in geography from Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Master of Planning from School of Planning and Architecture, both based in New Delhi. He holds a Ph.D. in urban governance, planning and environment from the University of Cambridge, UK.

Preface

In the first quarter of this Century and the latter half of the previous Century, the metropolises around the world are growing at a very faster rate. Metropolises, particularly in developing countries, are facing several challenges to achieve sustainability. These challenges include unplanned growth, unemployment, poverty, and food crisis, housing shortage, poor traffic management, scarcity of resources, environmental degradation, etc. Nevertheless, metropolises have traditionally been and will continue to be the centres of hopes and dreams for investors, job-seekers, and migrants. Contemporary metropolitan planning had focused on the understanding of region-specific problems and localized solutions. The earlier rate and pattern of growth of population in Indian metropolises indicated that unplanned spatial expansion covering fringe areas and satellite towns around these cities are inevitable. The majority of the Indian metropolises are in economic, spatial, and environmental crises, and rejuvenating them will be the country’s biggest challenge in the years to come. These experiences call for immediate attention to either develop a set of planned satellite towns around these megacities and/or promote the extension of the existing metropolitan jurisdiction over the available fringe areas to share their loads of population and activity concentrations. Only the megacity and its satellites, when appropriately planned for extension and densification, can together mitigate this alarming problem of urban concentration in and around the existing megacities. For comprehension, the book is presented in ten chapters highlighting the metropolitan problems in general and attempting planned development of the existing and extended metropolitan areas through the use of quantitatively and spatially befitting regional allocation models of population and economic activities. Finally, it attempts to offer a policy-based set of solutions for the development of the selected megacities of India along with their satellites, and newly annexed fringe areas. It is expected that these policies and programmes when implemented, will ensure a healthy, equitable, and prospective urban–metropolitan scenario for India in the coming decades. Findings suggest that these new methods

ix

x

Preface

of developing a systematic model encompassing economic growth and spatial sustainability are obviously applicable for Neo-metropolitan Development in the developing world. The study has indicated many clues for further development approaches vis-à-vis the model of metropolitan development through its application in other metropolises in the developing world. The book is perhaps one of the unique documents of this kind, providing comprehensive research on megacity regions of India focusing on models and policies of development. Further, an attempt has been made to link contemporary metropolitan development issues in India with new international commitments like Sustainable Development Goals, New Urban Agenda and recently launched national missions for sustainable urbanization under the Smart Cities Mission, National Rurban Mission, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), Housing for All (Urban), Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban), National Urban Livelihood Mission, etc. We are hopeful that the reader would certainly appreciate the metropolitan problems depicted here with the theory and analytical techniques along with their applications in two megacity regions (Mumbai Metropolitan Region and Bangalore Metropolitan Region) for their healthy growth and policy planning. They are also expected to admit the appropriateness of the methods, tools, and policy sets used as a generalised approach for resolving similar metropolitan problems of the developing countries. We are confident that this book would generate interest among the city managers, policymakers, academicians, researchers and students of City and Regional Planning, Urban and Regional Geography and Economics, Urban Studies and Management, etc. Bhopal, India Kharagpur, India

Dr. Amit Chatterjee Prof. R. N. Chattopadhyay

Acknowledgements

This book entitled Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India— Lessons from Selected Cities is purely based on our research work in the last couple of years. There are numerous organizations and individuals to be appreciated and thanked for the publication of the book. We acknowledge the support received from Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palika (BBMP), City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) officials regarding sharing of data, information and documents. We extend our sincere gratitude to Professor Binayak Choudhury, School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal, and Professor Soumendu Chatterjee, Presidency University, Kolkata, for their valuable inputs and suggestions from time to time. We record our thanks to the libraries of the following institutions: School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), Bhopal, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi and The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), Navi Mumbai. We are also thankful to Mr. Bibek, Mr. Sarthak, Ms. Zinnia, Mr. Prakash, Mr. Sumit, Mr. Adwait, Ms. Vallary, and other alumni students of SPA Bhopal, for helping in information collection and cartographic work. The Springer Nature editors and staff, particularly Professor Bharat Dahiya, Dr. Loyla D’Silva, Mr. Sanjiev Kumar Mathiyazhagan, and Ms. Manopriya Saravanan for encouragement, and providing essential support services. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments. Our special thanks and appreciation are for Mr. A. R. Patharkar, Former Director of Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra, and Former President of Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI), Professor V. Devadas, Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Dr. Malgorzata Hanzl, Associate Professor, Institute of Architecture and Town Planning, Lodz University

xi

xii

Acknowledgements

of Technology, Poland, Ms. Mukta Naik, Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi and Professor Bharat Dahiya, Director, Research Center for Integrated Sustainable Development, College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok and Distinguished Professor, Urban Youth Academy, Seoul, Republic of Korea for their thoughtful comments and endorsements on this book. The readers must forgive us for any errors of omissions and commissions in this manuscript, which are not intentional but solely ours.

Advance praise for Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India: Lessons from Selected Cities

“City planners have always thought that satellite towns, ring towns or counter-magnets are solutions to most problems of metropolitan cities, which constitute a standard planning practice all over the world. Seldom the effects of these policies have been evaluated as comprehensively as has been done in this book. This book has selected Mumbai–Pune and Bangalore–Mysore regions of India, which are India’s new epitome of development and prosperity. Based on the analysis of exhaustive empirical data and observed ground realities, the authors have concluded that the functions of government are metrocentric rather than city satellite towns and dependence on core metropolitan city has created a multitude of associated problems. In order to reduce this dependence on core metro city, the authors try to offer policy-based solutions for the development of selected megacities of India along with their satellites, and this book will generate interest amongst planners and policy makers.” —A. R. Patharkar, Former Director of Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra, Former President of Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI) “It was my pleasure to review this book that is majorly focused on Metropolises, particularly in developing countries, like India, which are growing at a faster rate giving rise to numerous challenges, including haphazard growth and development, scarcity of resources, environmental degradation, etc. In this book, the authors have clearly established the need for addressing the aforesaid challenges and stated the importance of planned development of satellite towns around megacities by considering both, economic growth and spatial sustainability. Authors have successfully presented the complete picture right from the literature on the growth of Metropolises to policy implications for balanced development. The study has been sequenced coherently. The presentation of the study is perspicuous. Especially this book would bring much knowledge to multi-disciplinary professionals like city planners, policymakers, administrators and researchers. It would be very helpful for academicians of various disciplines like urban planning, regional planning, environmental planning, transportation planning, policy planning, and so on.” —Prof. Dr. V. Devadas, Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

xiii

xiv

Advance praise for Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development …

“Chatterjee and Chattopadhyay’s latest work adds its weight to a growing number of recent publications on regional concerns around urbanisation, presenting rich empirical insights from Mumbai and Bangalore that will help scholars rethink development strategies of metropolitan areas in India today. Using the notion of urban carrying capacity as the primary conceptual framework, their robust quantitative models explain connections between spatial and economic patterns in a regional context. The book also sheds lights on how smaller and larger cities relate with each other within a region, and of how balanced development in metropolitan regions can improve outcomes from urbanisation for India. As such, it is will certainly enrich the understanding of students and researchers with an interest in urban processes and outcomes in India, and more generally in the Global South.” —Mukta Naik, Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, India “The current book addresses an essential and challenging topic of the urbanisation in India and, more generally, in the countries of the Global South. In the Global North, related issues have received lots of attention since the studies of Patrick Geddes, the Regional Planning Association of America, Patrick Abercrombie, Bolesław Malisz, to name just a few, including the most recent studies and practice by Peter Cathrophe. In addition to this comprehensive theory and practical know-how, the scale and complexity of contemporary migrations and development make them unique and require extensive research. Further problems raise due to the environmental challenges which overlap with climate change risks and as an outcome of informal urbanisation. The study tackles the physical development and strategies for Indian metropolises and does so in a thorough and thoughtful way. It is compulsory reading for all who intend to explore these topics.” —Dr. Malgorzata Hanzl, Associate Professor, Institute of Architecture and Town Planning, Lodz University of Technology, Poland; International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP): Vice-President Publications

Contents

1

2

3

Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus on Global South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Growth of World’s Metropolises and Megacities . . . . . . . 1.3 Economic and Social Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Global Prospects of Metropolitan Development . . . . . . . . 1.5 The New Urban Agenda for Metropolises and Megacities . 1.6 Urban Theories and Models Focused on Global South . . . 1.7 Growth of Megacities in Global South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Impact of Neoliberal Development in Global South . . . . . 1.9 Key Issues on Satellite Towns in Neo-Metropolitan Development in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 8 12 13 15 16 17

.... .... ....

19 21 23

.... .... ....

29 29 42

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

44 46 46 51 54 54

Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Concept of Garden City, New Town and Satellite Town . . . . . . 3.2 New Town and Satellite Development in Developed Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59

Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India . . . . . 2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration 2.2 Metropolitan Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Urban Development Policies with Focus on Metropolitan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Urban Infrastructure Development in Satellite Towns . . . . 2.5 Contemporary Urban Policies and Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Neoliberal Metropolitan Development in India . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

62

xv

xvi

Contents

3.3

New Town and Satellite Development in Developing Countries and Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

5

........

67

........ ........ ........

69 81 82

Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth, Changing Landuse and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Dimensions of Urban Growth Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Changing Landuse and Landcover Pattern . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Urban Sprawl and Peripheral Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Assessment of Impact of Present Growth Pattern . . . . 4.5 Land Consumption for Urban Development . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case Studies with Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru and their Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Determinants for Selection of Metropolises and their Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Land Utilization Pattern of MMR and BMR . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Population Composition of MMR and BMR . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Population Growth of Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru . . 5.5 Metropolitan Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Overconcentration of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Migrant’s Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Low Floor Space Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Infrastructure Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.5 Real Estate and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.6 Worker’s Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.7 Shortage of Future Developable Land . . . . . . . . 5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Changing Population Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Spatial Details and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Working Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Infrastructure Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

87 87 88 92 96 97 98

. . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

101 103 108 108 113 113 116 118 119 122 123 124

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

125 125 133 140 146 148 148

Contents

6

7

8

9

xvii

Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials of Satellites of MMR and BMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Models and their Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Distribution of Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Population Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model . . . . . . 6.4.1 Review of Existing Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Application of REP Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Carrying Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Review of Assessment Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 SAFE Model for Estimation of Carrying Capacity . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

151 151 152 152 154 154 158 161 161 164 167

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Techniques of Future Population Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Projection of Working Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Population Forecasting Through REP Model-2021 and 2031 . 7.4 Sustainable Spatial Distribution of Model Based Population . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

169 169 170 170 176 180

Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Balanced Development: Criteria and Schemes . . . . . . . 8.2 Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in MMR . . 8.3 Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in BMR . . . 8.4 Industrial Space Requirements: Estimates and Location . 8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

183 183 184 186 190 192 192

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introspection and Retrospection of Previous Regional Plans . 9.1.1 Review of Previous Regional Plans for MMR (1971–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 MMR Draft Regional Plan 2016–2036: Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Review of Previous Regional Plans for BMR (1998–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 BMR Draft Revised Structure Plan-2031: Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Re-densification and Boundary Expansion—An Analysis . . . 9.3 Regional Transport and Infrastructure—A Perspective . . . . . . 9.4 Future Housing Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Maharashtra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 195 . . 195 . . 195 . . 196 . . 197 . . . .

. . . .

197 197 200 201

. . 202

xviii

Contents

9.6

Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Karnataka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 Governance and Plan Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 Policy Zones and Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 Short Term and Long Term Strategy for MMR and BMR . 9.10 Towards Converting BMR and MMR into Smart Regions . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Metropolitan Regions as Human Bodies . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Lessons Learnt and Task Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Emergence of Interconnected Metropolitan Networks 10.4 Metropolitan Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

203 207 207 212 217 218

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

221 221 224 229 231 233 234

About the Authors

Dr. Amit Chatterjee has a combined experience of over thirteen years in teaching, research and industry and presently on the faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), Bhopal, India as Asst. Prof. Dr. Chatterjee obtained his masters in Geography from Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan and further masters in Planning from School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), New Delhi. Dr. Chatterjee wrote his doctoral dissertation on future cities and urban sustainability models from Vidyasagar University, West Bengal. Before joining academics, Dr. Chatterjee served the industry in various capacities and has had the experience for working for mega planning projects in Navi Mumbai SEZ, Maha Mumbai SEZ, Dholera town planning scheme, besides formulating the twin city development plan, city development plan, highway projects in PPP mode slum-free city planning under RAY across various cities in India. Dr. Amit had completed number of international collaborative projects with funding/collaborative agencies like United Nations University-Institute of Advance Studies (UNU-IAS), British Council etc. Dr. Chatterjee is currently engaged in the three research and consultancy projects of SPA: Shelter for All (Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India), National Rurban Mission (Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh), and Development Plan of Saugor Cantonment Area (Saugor Cantonment Board, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India). In academics, his research interest is primarily focused on future cities and urban sustainability models. Besides attending seminars at the national and international level, Dr. Chatterjee reviewed papers to reputed journals in planning. Dr. Chatterjee had edited the peer-reviewed journal ‘SPANDREL’ dedicated to the theme ‘Making Cities Smart and Competitive’. His research articles appeared in publications like Routledge, Springer, ISOCARP, etc. Prof. (Dr.) R. N. Chattopadhyay has been an Emeritus Professor/Fellow in the Department of Architecture and Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. Prof. Chattopadhyay received his M.Sc. in Geography from the University of Calcutta and got his Master of Regional Planning (MRP) and Ph.D. in Planning Degrees from IIT, Kharagpur. He further pursued his Post-Doctoral Research under Fulbright Senior Fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania, xix

xx

About the Authors

USA in Regional Science (1977–78). In academics, Prof. Chattopadhyay taught postgraduate courses in City & Regional Planning, Urban & Regional Geography, Rural Development, etc. for long 33 years at IIT Kharagpur and nearby Universities. He had guided 26 doctoral dissertations awarded with and currently, 5 more are in the pipeline. He supervised more than 100 PG Dissertations submitted in the field of Regional Planning, Urban development and Planning, Rural Development, Technology Dissemination & Management for Rural Economic Development etc. In his over three decades of the academic journey, Prof. Chattopadhyay had successfully completed more than 37 sponsored/ consultancy research projects sponsored by International & National Agencies and Local Bodies, majorly as Principal Investigators. He was the author of 4 Books and Manuals, 9 Chapters in Books, 4 Technologies in Directory of Rural Technologies, 10 Study Series in Participatory Forest Management, about 75 Published Papers in Journals and 68 Papers in Conferences and Workshops Proceedings. He has 4 Patents (jointly) related to rural technology development and dissemination.

Abbreviations

AAGR AMRUT APZs BDA BMA BMR BMRDA BMRPB BPO CBD CDP CIDCO CMA CPCB DCR DP DRDO EKW FAR FDI FSI GDP Ha HIG HRIDAY HUA IBM ICT IDSMT ISRO

Average Annual Growth Rate Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation Area Planning Zones Bengaluru Development Authority Bangalore Metropolitan Area Bangalore Metropolitan Region Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority Bombay Metropolitan Regional Planning Board Business Process Outsourcing Central Business District City Development Plan City and Industrial Development Corporation Chennai Metropolitan Area Central Pollution Control Board Development Control Regulation Development Plan Defence Research and Development Organization East Kolkata Wetland Floor Area Ratio Foreign Direct Investment Floor Space Index Gross Domestic Product Hectare High-Income Group Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration International Business Machines Corporation Information and Communication Technology Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns Indian Space Research Organization

xxi

xxii

IT ITES IZs JNNURM Km2 KMR KSDB LPA LPCD MIG MLD MMR MoHUPA MoUD MPC NCR NCU NLUM NMSEZ PPP REP SAFE SDG SEZ SPA TPS UAs ULBs UN UN-Habitat WPR

Abbreviations

Information Technology Information Technology Enabled Services Interstitial Zones Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Square Kilometre Kolkata Metropolitan Region Karnataka Slum Development Board Local Planning Authority Litre per Capita per Day Middle-Income Group Million Litres per Day Mumbai Metropolitan Region Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Ministry of Urban Development Metropolitan Planning Committee National Capital Region National Commission on Urbanization National Urban Livelihood Missions Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone Public-Private Partnership Relative Employment Potential Sustainable Accommodation through Feedback Evaluation Sustainable Development Goals Special Economic Zone Special Planning Authority Town Planning Scheme Urban Agglomerations Urban Local Bodies United Nations United Nations Human Settlements Programme Workforce Participation Rate

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.2

Fig. 1.3

Fig. 1.4

Fig. 1.5

Fig. 1.6

Fig. 1.7

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

Urban population at mid-year by region (1950–2050). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average annual rate of change of the percentage urban population (1950–2050). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of cities classified by region (1950–2030). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) . . . Percentage of urban population by region (2015). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population of top 15 mega and meta cities in the world (2030 ranking). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 30 urban agglomerations by projected average real GDP growth in 2008–2025. Source Prepared based on data from PricewaterhouseCoopers projections using UN population definitions (Hawksworth et al. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 29 mega-regions around the world and its economic output. Source Prepared based on data from Florida (2019) (City Lab) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . India’s 53 million plus cities-2011. Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (1951). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (1951) .

..

4

..

5

..

6

..

6

..

7

..

9

..

11

..

32

..

33

xxiii

xxiv

Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.4

Fig. 2.5

Fig. 2.6

Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.8

Fig. 2.9

Fig. 2.10

Fig. 2.11

Fig. 2.12

Fig. 2.13

Fig. 2.14

List of Figures

Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (2001). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of towns in different size categories in India (1951–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1951–2001) and Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of urban population in different town size categories in India-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of class I cities in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of cities and towns in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual exponential growth rates across cities and towns in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage share of urban population in metropolises in States (provinces) and National Capital Territory of Delhi. Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . Mega urban corridors with metropolitan urban agglomerations in India. Source Prepared based on population data obtained from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District wise total workers within the selected influence zone (50 km on either side) of mega urban corridors in India. Source Prepared based on workers data from Census of India (2011a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smart cities locations with metropolitan urban agglomerations and emerging mega urban corridors in India. Source Population data from Census of India (2011) and Smart Cities distribution from Ministry of Urban Development (2015e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smart parking near DB City Mall of Bhopal City, India (January, 2019). Picture Credit Sumit Ranjan . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

34

..

34

..

35

..

36

..

37

..

37

..

38

..

39

..

40

..

42

..

48

..

50

List of Figures

Fig. 2.15

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6

Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8

Fig. 3.9 Fig. 3.10

Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12 Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2

SEZ located close to the metropolitan urban agglomerations and emerging mega urban corridors in India. Source Population data from Census of India (2011) and SEZ locations from Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (2019b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ever-changing skyline of the mega-city of London (August 2019). Picture credit Amit Chatterjee . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of 32 new towns in UK. Source Prepared from various sources (Esri, Digital Globe, Geo Eye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo and the GIS user community). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic representation of new town and satellite town development process in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared from CIDCO (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing nodes of Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared from CIDCO (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decadal population growth in Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Note 2001–2011 Navi Mumbai population growth rates were estimated from CIDCO (2010). Source Census of India (1971–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons behind stay in Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location wise last place of residence of Navi Mumbai households. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial employments in Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Year wise tenements constructed by CIDCO for different income groups. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embedded conflicts between various actors in Navi Mumbai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satellite towns located close to Bengaluru city. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land cover analysis of Bengaluru city in 2016. Source Prepared from United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporal change of built-up area and combined natural areas and open spaces at Greater Mumbai (1971–2012). Source Prepared based on data from (i) MMRDA (2008) and (ii) MCGM (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxv

..

52

..

61

..

64

..

70

..

72

..

73

..

74

..

75

..

76

..

77

..

78

..

79

..

80

..

90

..

91

xxvi

Fig. 4.3

Fig. 4.4

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5

Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8

Fig. 5.9

Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13

Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15 Fig. 5.16

List of Figures

Ward level analysis of decadal population growth rate in Bengaluru city (2001–2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ward level analysis of population density in Hyderabad city (2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing land utilization pattern of MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2016. Source Prepared from (i) MMRDA (2005); (ii) MMRDA (2008); and (iii) MMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . Land utilization pattern of MMR (1996–2011). Source MMRDA (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing land utilization of BMR (in percent)—2000 and 2008. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . Land utilization pattern of BMR (in percent)—2008. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporal change of built-up area of Bengaluru City (1973–2016). Source United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1973, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . Urban and rural population share in MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2011. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011), and (ii) MMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban centres within MMR. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of MMR (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011), and (ii) MMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban and rural population share in BMR (in percent)— (1991–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate (in percent) of BMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011) . . . . . . . . Urban centres within BMR. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (2011), and (ii) BMRDA (2016) . . . . . . . . . . Population growth of Bengaluru city (1901–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1901–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of population in Bengaluru city (1901–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1901–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gross population density in Greater Mumbai (1971–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1971–2011) . . . . . . . . Gross density of population of Bengaluru city (1991–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011) . . Percentage composition of population growth in Bengaluru city (1991–2001). Source Prepared from BDA (2015) . . . . . .

..

95

..

96

. . 104 . . 105 . . 106 . . 107

. . 107

. . 110 . . 111

. . 112

. . 112 . . 113 . . 114 . . 115

. . 116 . . 117 . . 118 . . 119

List of Figures

Fig. 5.17

Fig. 5.18 Fig. 5.19

Fig. 5.20 Fig. 5.21

Fig. 5.22

Fig. 5.23

Fig. 5.24 Fig. 5.25 Fig. 5.26

Fig. 5.27

Fig. 5.28 Fig. 5.29 Fig. 5.30 Fig. 5.31

Fig. 5.32 Fig. 5.33 Fig. 5.34

District wise total number of registered vehicles (per 1000 population) in BMR-2016. Source Data collected from RTO office, Bengaluru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicular growth in Bangalore Urban District (2009–2016). Source Data collected from RTO office, Bengaluru . . . . . . . . Bengaluru city zone wise distribution of various budget segments housing-2016. Source Badauria (2016) (Bangalore Insite report (January–March 2016)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land area breakup of Greater Mumbai. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns within MMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) and Google Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of urban components within MMR (2001–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of urban centres within MMR during 2001–2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population of urban centres within MMR (2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population density of urban centres within MMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of urban components within BMR (2001–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual average growth rate of urban centres within BMR during 2001–2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population of urban centres within BMR (2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population density of urban centres within BMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal areas and built-up areas in various urban centres of MMR-2008. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) . . . . . . . Percentage of built-up areas to total municipal areas in various urban centres of MMR 2008. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal area of urban centres within MMR. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land-use distribution of Greater Mumbai-2008. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing municipal areas in various urban areas within BMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxvii

. . 121 . . 122

. . 123 . . 124

. . 126

. . 128

. . 129 . . 130 . . 132

. . 133

. . 134 . . 135 . . 136 . . 137

. . 138 . . 139 . . 140 . . 141

xxviii

Fig. 5.35

Fig. 5.36

Fig. 5.37

Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3

Fig. 7.4 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3 Fig. 10.1

Fig. 10.2

List of Figures

Land use land cover analysis of BMR-2016. Source Prepared from United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology adopted for achieving desirable decentralization of MMR and BMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population projection of MMR through REP Model-2021 . . . Population Projection of MMR through REP Model-2031 . . . City Centre FAR values of different metropolitan cities around the world. Source Prepared from (i) World Bank (2013) and (ii) Shenvi and Slangen (2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum FAR (residential and non-residential) of ten UAs in India. Source Prepared from Sridhar (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic potentiality of various satellite towns within BMR. Source Chatterjee et al. (2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short term (immediate) development strategies for MMR. . . . Long term development strategies for MMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interconnected metropolitan networks in India. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (2011) and (ii) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2013) . . . . . . . . . . Growth of percentage urban population to total population and growth of percentage metropolitan population to total urban population (1961–2011). Source Census of India (1961–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 142

. . 144

. . 146 . . 156 . . 172 . . 173

. . 174 . . 175 . . 214 . . 216 . . 217

. . 230

. . 231

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

Comparison of share of urban population by Asia and India (1990–2050) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total population, urban population and increase in metro cities in India (1961–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average annual growth rate of top five mega cities in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparative demographic analysis of emerging mega-urban corridors in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance of various urban schemes during 2014–2019 . . State-wise distribution of approved SEZs in India (As on 22 January 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demography, housing, health and economic profile of 32 new towns in UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population and population growth of municipal corporations within Mumbai metropolitan region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area wise and plot wise number of industrial units and functioning units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population share and density of selected metropolitan cities in India-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Core-periphery population analysis of metropolitan, non-metropolitan and class-I cities in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporal changes of built-up areas in different zones of Bengaluru city (1991–2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population density and open spaces in metropolitan cities around the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing land utilization pattern of MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population change, urban and rural population share in MMR (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population change, urban and rural population share in BMR (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

16

..

32

..

39

.. ..

41 49

..

51

..

66

..

75

..

77

..

89

..

93

..

94

..

97

. . 104 . . 109 . . 112 xxix

xxx

List of Tables

Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table Table Table Table Table

5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7

Population growth and growth rate of Greater Mumbai (1901–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population share of Greater Mumbai in MMR (1971–2011) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population share of Greater Mumbai in MMR-Urban (1971–2011) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population share of Bengaluru city in BMR (1991–2011) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population share of Bengaluru city in BMR Urban (1991–2011) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total population and total migrants’ of Greater Mumbai (1961–2001) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing shortage of BMR-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workers concentration in Greater Mumbai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workers concentration in Bengaluru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land cover changes of Bengaluru city (1973–2016) . . . . . . Population growth of urban centres within MMR (1971–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population growth of urban centres within BMR (1991–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development areas in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal areas in various urban centres within BMR . . . . . Working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR (2001–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR-2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major workers’ shares in cities and towns within MMR in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major workers share in cities and towns within BMR in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MMR population projection by using various projection methods (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dependency ratio of urban and rural areas of MMR-2001 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dependency ratio of urban and rural areas of BMR-2001 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intra-urban units distance matrix-MMR (distance in km) . . . Population estimates (validation) for MMR-2011 (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 115 . . 116 . . 116 . . 117 . . 117 . . . . .

. . . . .

118 122 123 124 125

. . 127 . . 133 . . 137 . . 140 . . 142 . . 143 . . 145 . . 145 . . 153 . . 154 . . 155 . . 160 . . 160 . . 162 . . 163

List of Tables

Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 9.3 Table 9.4 Table 9.5

xxxi

Population estimates (validation) for BMR-2011 (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land and infrastructure details of MMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carrying capacity assessment based on SAFE model for MMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projected workers of MMR-2021 and 2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projected workers of BMR-2021 and 2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population projection of MMR through REP model-2021 and 2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population projection of BMR through REP model-2021 and 2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land required for 2021 and 2031 in MMR (area in km2) . . Carrying capacity assessment of MMR through SAFE model-1.5 FAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land required for 2031 in BMR (area in km2) . . . . . . . . . . Population estimates based on SAFE model for Bengaluru city and Kanakapura town (population in million) . . . . . . . . Population allocation with various FAR options and policy decisions for MMR (population in million) . . . . Population and density allocation for MMR-2031 . . . . . . . . Additional population and workers for MMR (during 2011–2031) (population in million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population allocation with various FAR options and policy decisions for BMR (population in million). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population and density allocation for BMR-2031. . . . . . . . . Requirement of additional gross industrial space for MMR-2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirement of additional gross industrial space for BMR-2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of proposed extension to Urban Local Bodies of MMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of LPAs area details within BMR . . . . . . . . . . . . New housing demand and tenements proposed for urban centres of MMR in 2031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sector specific industrial policies of Maharashtra and specific targets for MMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sector specific industrial policies of Karnataka and specific targets for BMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 163 . . 165 . . 166 . . 170 . . 171 . . 171 . . 174 . . 177 . . 178 . . 179 . . 180 . . 185 . . 186 . . 187 . . 188 . . 189 . . 191 . . 191 . . 198 . . 199 . . 202 . . 204 . . 206

Chapter 1

Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus on Global South

Abstract We are living in the century of metropolitan development when the majority of the world population resides in the metropolitan regions. Metropolitan regions are prospered in every continent, and they present many profound challenges and opportunities. Also, the emerging world mega-regions are the real powerhouses in today’s global economy. This chapter highlights that the majority of the metropolises and megacities, particularly in the global south, are in crisis stage, and rejuvenating them will be the biggest challenge in the years to come. For almost the last two decades, existing metropolises and megacities in the global south have gone through the neoliberal market-driven local-global interface in metropolitan transformation. The metropolitan management tools, techniques, and policies (spatial planning and management) need to be retrofitted in order for metropolitan cities to become more innovative, planned, sustainable, and equitable in the future. The impact of metropolises and megacities on regional, national and global level and their competitiveness are a new emerging area that requires an integrated regional approach which requires constant professional attention from focus of planners, city managers, and policymakers.













Keywords Urban growth Metropolises Mega cities Global south Neoliberal development

1.1

Background

Historically, all over the world, urbanization and economic growth have gone together. The role and importance of cities and metropolises in the context of population growth, spatial expansion, and economic development are changing rapidly in a global as well as local context over the last several decades. The ‘global city’ (Sassen 1991), ‘global city-region’ (Scott 2001), and ‘mega-urbanization in the global south’ (Datta and Shaban 2017) have been the subject of analysis of urban scholars with the theoretical, empirical and methodological challenges over the past several decades. Metropolitan problems, partly uniform across the world, underlying the effort to lens © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_1

1

2

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

through universal approaches, whereas many issues are localized in nature, which requires an adequate understanding of local knowledge and context. The urban setting in which contemporary metropolitan planning issues differ regionally and country specific needs an understanding of city-specific problems and localized solutions. Coming to India, its urban population reached to 377 million in 2011, which was 31.16% of its total population of 2011 million. With a very fast rise in population growth rate around some of the metropolitan cities in India and its kinetic space (Doxiadis 1970), along with connecting urban corridor, together have raised some of the surrounding satellite towns also to the rank of the metropolis. The entire fast-growing urban dynamism around the mother metropolitan cities of India has caused a different state of an urban explosion in India, which may be termed as new forms of megalopolitan development. This phenomenon of metropolitan expansion and development characteristics around several metropolises are now the new faces of development of several metropolises and their satellites. And in this context, Mumbai and Bengaluru are no exception. According to Blumenfeld (1971), the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century dramatically reversed the distribution of population between the villages and the city and the interaction of powerful centrifugal wave of migration had produced the new settlement form, giving a combination of settlements of different size classes with metropolis at the top. In fact, in combination with several other adjacent urban centres, the total metropolitan functional responsibilities will be discharged, as has been evident from the case of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR). The present century is considered as the century of the metropolitan blooming with more than half of the global population residing in the metropolitan cities and their regions (Kumar 2019). In the present century, if the metropolitan region continues to expand at the current pace, then by the middle of this century, almost all the world’s population could reside in large cities (Angotti 2013) and their catchment areas. Almost all the modern metropolises were born in the last century, and they are still relatively young in nature, but the phenomenon of population growth and resulted problems have been a persistent topic of debate since the previous couple of decades. The metropolises flourished in every region of the world, north and south, east and west, rich and poor, and they present many profound challenges before planners, researchers, and policymakers of the twenty-first century. The metropolis everywhere is a center of economic and political power, controlling capital investment, saving and distribution both nationally and internationally. The modern metropolis is the combination of central cities and suburbs, and both are an integral part of the metropolitan system, and their growth has resulted in a sharp division between urban and rural areas (Bingham and Kalich 1996). Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, several metropolises like Bengaluru, Pune, Hyderabad, etc. are seen to continue with rapid growth, but at the same time, many rapidly growing metropolises like Kolkata, Chennai, etc. are seen to keep sprawling with typical characteristics features like expanding slums, growing poverty, rising inequality, increasing affordability for new migrants and hiking crime rates. On top of these, comes the rich-poor divide, which creates a ‘divided city’ (Calame et al. 2009; Singh and Sethi 2018). Many metropolises all over the world, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, are grossly unprepared for

1.1 Background

3

the multi-faceted urbanization challenges and their consequences (UN-Habitat 2016a). Urbanization has now brought forth a model of unsustanibility in many respects, and this requires modern planners and researchers to find out the answer to one fundamental question, are metropolises a problem or a solution to the problem? Modern metropolises are the urban labs where both problems and solutions are located, and it requires synergy between both theoretical knowledge as well as practical approaches. It needs better coordination among global, regional, and local development agendas. Metropolises are seen to promise higher income, more employment opportunities, better infrastructure qualities, and a place of investment for investors that motivates people to move there. Metropolises are hopes and dreams for millions of new migrants, shifted from rural areas as well as from small and medium-sized towns. In the present world, metropolises emerge as the centre of development, and the economic links between metropolises, its peri-urban areas, and linked satellite towns are so connected that one cannot flourish without others. The task requires undaunted march into the future metropolises with focus on inclusive and equitable growth among metropolises and their associated settlements and thus recognizes the rights of poor, minorities, and vulnerable groups. Historically, in urban research, Africa, Asia, Latin America were largely highlighted as backward, politically unstable, and extremist oriented regions with concerns towards poverty, inequality, social segregation, and lacking a good governance system. In the recent past, the narratives have changed, and the cities and metropolises in the global south are emerging as more prosperous, innovative, and growth-oriented centres of investment and development. National governments are emphasizing on urban research and innovations as one of the priority agendas. The newly launched urban development schemes in India are examples of the national governments’ commitments for building sustainable cities. The rise of four national giants, known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) that represent the global south, has redefined the global economic power with a concomitant shift in the urban research agenda. Also, the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 has the potential to play a transformative role to alter ‘the spatio-economic landscape of the urbanization and other human settlements in Southeast Asia’ (Dahiya 2016, p. 12). There is a need to explore how the metropolises in the global south relate economic development to changing urban realities on the ground and lead towards the process of sustainable metropolitan future.

1.2

Growth of World’s Metropolises and Megacities

Tracking the last twenty years’ demographic trend and development had revealed a state of global transformation that could place cities and metropolises in the core of development agenda. Considering the increasing level of urbanization and demographic connotations, any city with million-plus residents is defined as a

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

4

metropolitan city, and similarly, any ten million-plus urban agglomeration is described as ‘megacity’. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) introduced a new term ‘metacity’ or ‘hypercity’ that refers to large urban conurbations with more than twenty million population (United Nations 2006). These mega conurbations comprise of economic prosperity, dynamism, innovation, and high-end technology dependency in one hand and adverse urbanization issues such as income inequality, constrained transport, political struggle, and environmental degradation, etc. on the other. Managing cities, particularly megacities and megacity regions, have become one of the most crucial challenges in the years to come. According to the UN-Habitat, 30% (751 million) of the world’s population lived in urban settlements in 1950, which had increased to 55% (4.2 billion) in 2018 and the same is further expected to rise to 68% (6.6 billion) by the year 2050 (United Nations 2018b, c). Urbanization rate in more developed regions is quite high (North America with 82%, Latin America and the Caribbean with 81%, Europe with 74%) as in 2018, compared to 48% in less developed regions (Asia with 50%; Africa with 43%). Over the forthcoming decades, the major urban transition is expected to take place in the less developed regions and least developed countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Asia, Western Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America (United Nations 2018d). There are regional variations in the case of urban growth, and Asia happens to be the epicenter of the highest urban living (2.11 billion), followed by Europe, Africa, and Latin America (Fig. 1.1). The growth in the size of the city was initially being initiated by the industrial revolution in the western world, but today, it is by no means a simple western phenomenon. The major urban transition will take place primarily in Asia (48.2% in 2015 to 55.9% in 2050) and Africa (40.4% in 2015 to 55.9% in 2050) as compared 4 000 000

Population in thousands

3 500 000 3 000 000 2 500 000 1950

2 000 000

1980

1 500 000

2015

1 000 000

2030 2050

500 000 0 AFRICA

ASIA

EUROPE

LATIN NORTHERN OCEANIA AMERICA AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Fig. 1.1 Urban population at mid-year by region (1950–2050). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a)

1.2 Growth of World’s Metropolises and Megacities

5

to Europe (73.6% in 2015 to 82% in 2050). Similarly, the average annual rate of change of the urban population in Asia and Africa is quite high. It is 1.47% in Asia and 1.08% in Africa, compared to 0.26% in Europe and 0.21% in North America during 2010–2015. European cities’ growth rate is eleven times lesser than the urban growth rate of Africa (UN-Habitat 2016a). Further, according to UN-Habitat statistics of 2018, the average annual urban rate of change of all continents are in decreasing trend, except for Europe and North America, where it is almost static (United Nations 2018a) (Fig. 1.2). Being historically urbanized, the continents of Europe, North, Central, and South America are reaching the urban saturation stage, and there is much hope that Asia and Africa will gradually catch up. It is interesting to note that currently, the majority of the population in Asia and Africa live in rural areas. In the future, the urban transition in these two continents is expected to receive much attention from researchers, policymakers, and global investors. The rapid urbanization has led to the growth of megacities and metacities around the world. In 2015, there were 501 metropolitan cities, which included 20 cities with a population of 10 million or more. There were 44 cities with a population between 5 and 10 million. Globally, by 2030, an estimated 662 cities will have a million-plus residential population, which includes 41 cities with a population of 10 million or more and 63 cities with a population between 5 and 10 million (United 3.00 2.50

In Percentage

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0

1950-1955 1980-1985 2010-2015 2025-2030 2045-2050

-0.50

Fig. 1.2 Average annual rate of change of the percentage urban population (1950–2050). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a)

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

2030

6

NORTHERN AMERICA EUROPE

2015

AFRICA 300 000 to 500 000

NORTHERN AMERICA

500 000 to 1 million

EUROPE

1 to 5 million

1950

AFRICA

5 to 10 million

NORTHERN AMERICA

10 million or more

EUROPE AFRICA 0

100

200

300

400

500

Number of Cities

Fig. 1.3 Number of cities classified by region (1950–2030). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a)

Urban Population (%)

100 Fewer than 300 000

80

300 000 to 500 000

60

500 000 to 1 million

40 20

1 to 5 million 5 to 10 million 10 million or more

0

Fig. 1.4 Percentage of urban population by region (2015). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a)

Nations 2014a, b). There were only 2 megacities in the world with above 10 million population in 1950, which increased to 29 by 2015, and the projected number is 43 by 2030 (United Nations 2018a) (Fig. 1.3). In 2015, out of the total urban population, 41% resided in million-plus cities. Today, out of the 29 megacities (above 10 million population) in the world, 17 are located in Asia, 4 are in Latin America and the Caribbean, 3 each in Africa and Europe, and 2 in North America. According to UN-Habitat statistics, in Asia, around 43% population resides in million-plus cities, out of which 14% population lives in megacities (United Nations 2018a) (Fig. 1.4). By 2030, out of the total urban population, 48% in Asian cities and 44% in African cities will reside in million-plus cities. In Asia, China and India will play as the significant urban population and economic hubs of the region.

1.2 Growth of World’s Metropolises and Megacities

7

Fig. 1.5 Population of top 15 mega and meta cities in the world (2030 ranking). Source Prepared based on data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a)

There were five metacities, or hyper cities (Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, and Mexico City) in the world with a population above 20 million in 2015 and the predicted number is likely to be twelve by 2030 according to UN-Habitat statistics (United Nations 2018a) (Fig. 1.5). It is interesting to note the rise and fall in the population of megacities since 1950. During 1950, New York-Newark and Tokyo were the only two megacities in the world. During the mid-1960s, Tokyo has achieved metacity or hyper city status, and today Tokyo (38 million population), Delhi (25 million population), and Shanghai (23 million population) are the largest cities in the world. New York falls to 10th position with a population of 18 million. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the worlds’ largest metropolis with the projected population of 38.93 million, followed closely by Tokyo with 36.56 million and Shanghai with 32.86 million inhabitants. New York-Newark, the worlds’ largest megacity in 1950, fell to 9th rank by 2015 (population 18.64 million), and by 2030, its rank will further decline to 14 (population 19.64 million) (United Nations 2018a).

8

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

A significant feature of post-World War II has been the decline of industrial cities and their regions and the emergence of new urban magnets. For example, in Chicago and Detroit in the United States, Manchester in England declined in their positions, and during the post-World War II period, Los Angeles had become the urban magnet with considerable population growth. By 2030, based on UN-Habitat statistics, Los Angeles will become the 26th largest megacity with 13.81 million inhabitants (United Nations 2018a). By 2030, 8 out of the 10 largest megacities in the world will be located in Asia, leaving far behind Europe, Latin America, Northern America, and African cities. The current trend in the growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), information technology revolution, etc. helps the developing world, mainly Asian and African megacities, to grow, and it appears that the future urban boom is shifting towards Asia and Africa from the USA and Europe. So, therefore, managing megacities in Asia and Africa becomes one of the crucial challenges in the years to come.

1.3

Economic and Social Consequences

The Metropolises and Megacities become the giant global supermarket and epicenter of economic power. In metropolitan agglomeration economics, spatial concentration helps in sharing, matching, learning and innovation of products and processes. Jacobs (1984) discussed that cities are real engines of growth and producers of national wealth. The present state of interconnectedness among settlements, the technology and innovation boom, and the sharing of knowledge around the globe virtually ignore national boundaries. Global urban economics has made it possible for business enterprises to look into global markets and global customers. In the transition from city-state model to a decentralized one, World Bank (2009) suggests that deconcentration within a metropolitan region is the most cost-effective way to cut the cost of doing business while reaping the benefits of urbanization economics (Hamer 1994). Two major themes that characterized the metropolises post-World War II are: (i) emerging metropolitan economic boom and (ii) growing inequalities between metropolises and adjucent rural areas and within metropolitan areas. Poverty, social segregation, homelessness, growing informal economy, shortage in food supply etc. are common characteristics of metropolises, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The economic recession that began in 2008 increased the number of jobless and homeless people globally. The gentrification process is prevalent today across the globe. Pull factors operate to draw the population from rural to smaller towns and eventually from smaller towns to metropolises and megacities. The principal determinant to stimulate migration is the pull of capital, oppertunities, infrastructure, hopes and dreams. The initial high rates of population growth in metropolises and megacities due to migration stabilize as the metropolis gets older (Angotti 2013). With the increase of migrants, cities are divided into income inequalities and social inequalities. The past couple of decades have seen the emergence of necessary social changes in urban affairs that may be

1.3 Economic and Social Consequences

9

described as mega-trends. The most important of these are change in social behavior, social inequality, the disconnection between government and communities, increase in social ills and social deviance, social segmentation of space, and changing demographic structures, including a notable increase of aging populations. The mega-trends cited above have had significant impacts on the social and welfare aspects of those living in megacities. As mentioned in the United Nations Human Development Report (1990), the metropolitan governments are to reinforce cities’ creative and productive capabilities and to overcome their various social problems (United Nations Development Programme 1990). Megacities are one of the key contributors to national GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Further, according to Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates in 2008 (ranking by GDP at Purchasing Power Parity), the top 30 agglomerations of the world (using UN definition) contribute around 18% of the world GDP (Hawksworth et al. 2009). Apart from few exceptions of the world’s south-eastern agglomeration, the average real GDP growth (percentage per annum) during 2008–2025 of the top 30 urban agglomerations is seen to be generally low (New York 1.8%, Los Angeles 1.6%, London 2.2%). Further, as Fig. 1.6 shows, the first 30 urban agglomerations exhibiting a Kinshasha Chittagaon Mumbai (Bombay) Kolkata (Calcutta) Nairobi Lagos Delhi Chennai (Madras) Dar es Salaam Hyderabad Bangalore Kabul Ahmedabad Chongqing Pune Tianjin Shanghai Kanpur Shenyang Chengdu Lucknow Jaipur Beijing Surat Xian Addis Ababa Guangzhou Changchun Ho Chi Min City Hanoi 5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

% per annum

Fig. 1.6 Top 30 urban agglomerations by projected average real GDP growth in 2008–2025. Source Prepared based on data from PricewaterhouseCoopers projections using UN population definitions (Hawksworth et al. 2009)

10

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

high GDP growth rate are from Asia and Africa. Surprisingly, the advanced economies megacities from Europe and America are not represented, as compared to 2 cities of Vietnam (Hanoi with 7% GDP growth per annum and Ho Chi Min City with 7% GDP growth per annum in rank 1 and 2), 12 cities from India (with Surat 7th in rank, 6.7% GDP growth per annum) and 9 cities from China (with Changchun 3rd rank, 6.9% GDP growth per annum). It is observed that 21 higher GDP performance cities are from India and China. In the era of Globalization, high GDP growth, the digital revolution, and changing geopolitical scenario with developing countries emerging as the global power, the human development aspect cannot be neglected. It is, therefore, required to understand the positioning of countries based on the Human Development Index (HDI). It focuses on individual’s needs concerning health, education, and the economy. Norway (0.949), Australia (0.939), and Switzerland (0.939) are the first few in position. European countries are better performing based on UN-Habitat statistics (UNDP, 2016). Interestingly, China ranks 90 (0.738), India ranks 131 (0.624) in HDI, and China ranks 79, India ranks 122 in Happiness Ranking during 2014–2016 (Helliwell et al. 2017) and these rankings pose many clues for policymakers to link future urban development agenda with fundamental dimensions of human development. In the era of the global economy, cities, particularly in Europe and the USA, are spatially interconnected by informational, communication, and transportation links and flows (Pain et al. 2016). The idea of nations-states is probably no longer valid with the emergence of world mega-regions—a combination of several megacities— that is the real powerhouse in today’s global economy. These mega-regions are clusters of the knowledge economy, and located in and around global cities and connected with faster modes of transportation. The emergence of mega-regions with associated urban corridors has played a transformative role in the restructuring of urban territorial spaces in Asia and the Asia-Pacific Region (Dahiya 2012a, b; UN-Habitat and ESCAP 2015). Recent research by Florida (2019) has questioned on identifying mega-regions using traditional data sources and identified 29 mega-regions around the globe based on satellite night-light data, developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Out of the 29 mega-regions, 11 are located in Asia, 10 are in North America, 6 are in Europe, one each in Latin America and Africa, and one overlaps in Asia and Africa (Fig. 1.7). Empirical researches on global forecasts highlight a tripling of urban land area by 2030 (Angel et al. 2011: 46–48; Seto et al. 2011, 2012) to manage urban population growth. Unmanaged urban expansion, particularly in the metropolises and megacities in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, resulted in substantial environmental burden, an increase in the per capita cost to provide civic services, an increase in resource consumption, and urban insufficiencies (Brueckner and Sridhar 2012; Libertun de Duren and Compeán 2015). Recent research conducted by World Research Institute on upward and outward growth of 499 cities over time highlights distorted land markets, a deficient supply of public services in growing areas and disjointed informal expansion as the three main equity challenges related with rapid

1.3 Economic and Social Consequences

11

Fig. 1.7 Top 29 mega-regions around the world and its economic output. Source Prepared based on data from Florida (2019) (City Lab)

upward expansion of cities of the global south are facing (Mahendra and Seto 2019). As basic infrastructure and services have failed to serve the rapid population growth and facilitate urban land expansion in the metropolises and megacities in the global south, the residents depend on informal arrangements to obtain those infrastructure and services (Durand-Lasserve and Royston 2002: 3; Libertun de Duren and Compeán 2015; Gilbert and Jong 2015; Biermann and Van Ryneveld 2007; Libertun de Duren 2018). Growing urbanization leading towards increasing social and spatial exclusion (Watson 2002; Ravallion et al. 2007; Beard et al. 2016), land price differential between city core and peripheral areas (Goytia and Dorna 2016: 6), longer trip length hamper productivity (Libertun de Duren and Compeán 2015; Brueckner 2001; Libertun de Duren 2017). Further, Dutta et al. (2013) highlight that the current trend and pattern of urbanization in developing countries point towards an uncertain future and that three different patterns of urbanization are evident: (i) Peri-urbanization or Suburban sprawl and formation of City Regions; (ii) Low-density Urbanism or restrictive residential gated community or enclave; and (iii) Urban compaction and high densities. The recent review by Haase et al. (2018) of global urbanization, raised a concern about the emerging unthinkable scenario of urbanization at the end of the twenty-first century by foreseeing ‘90% urbanities’ with ‘10% global urban land cover’ (p. 35). An empirical research on density pattern of eight megacities (Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru, London, New York, Berlin, and Johannesburg) around the world finds

12

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

Indian megacities having a high-density pattern as compared to London, New York, Berlin or Johannesburg. In Mumbai, average density varies between 27,000 people per km2 to 50,000 people per km2. The capability of Indian metropolises and megacities to accommodate such a high population provokes the questions of urban sustainability and livability (LSC Cities 2008). From the analysis of remote sensing information combined with urban demographic and economic indicators, it is evident that many lower-income cities categorized as struggling and emerging are undergoing the process of rapid outward growth than upward/vertical growth (Beard et al. 2016). The study by Frolking et al. (2013) highlighted that Chinese cities manifested both upward and outward growth, whereas Indian cities exhibited only outward growth and not upward growth. Further, the current land-use arrangements, particularly in the rapid population growth regions, are not efficient in achieving sustainable development (Li and Liu 2008; Demetriou et al. 2013; Caparros-Midwood et al. 2015) and conflicts are evident between population growth, economic growth, and ecological protection. Sustainable development encompasses the betterment of environmental, social, and economic outcomes with equity integration (Yao et al. 2018). Sustainable land-use planning and land management are leading towards achieving long term balanced development (Ligmann-Zielinska et al. 2008; Cao et al. 2012) of a city or a region.

1.4

Global Prospects of Metropolitan Development

Metropolises and Megacities hold all the promises for working through environmental, social, and economic issues and achieving a sustainable future. These metropolises and megacities comprise people striving for better opportunities, prosperities, growth, and at the same time struggling with urban issues and challenges. Global sustainability as a goal is widely agreed to be critical to increase the possibility of a promising quality of life for future generations. The term sustainability is used in varied contexts. What is clear and consistent, however, is that to achieve sustainability, the social, economic, and environmental perspectives must all be addressed, and today’s needs must be met without compromising the needs of future generations (WCED 1987). The traditional view that nature and urbanism are separate is no longer valid, and a new direction is emerging where a symbiotic relationship between humans and nature exists and is essential in attaining a high quality of life in cities. Existing Metropolises and Megacities will need to be retrofitted to become more sustainable, and new urban development will need to follow a different development process that leads to new types of urban form. Two fundamental aspects that exist for most cities and metropolises now in the early stages of the twenty-first century are more advanced technology and global influences. Contemporary cities are working hard to incorporate new technology, but it will be essential to include it wisely (Cook and Lara 2012). One of the most recent trends, which is influencing approaches to sustainable city development, is making

1.4 Global Prospects of Metropolitan Development

13

cities smart. Steinert et al. (2009) outlined a framework for ‘Making Cities Smart and Sustainable’ and focused on six areas: (i) smart governance, (ii) smart people, (iii) smart environment, (iv) smart mobility, (v) smart economy and (vi) smart living. The use of technology in contemporary metropolises and megacities should co-exist with the ecological system. The economy of the future metropolises and megacities will also need to base on a less consumptive and more sustainable foundation that encourages smart investment in people, systems, and knowledge, and the technology will need to be integral to support more informed decision-making.

1.5

The New Urban Agenda for Metropolises and Megacities

The 2016 Habitat III conference held in Quito, Ecuador, was an effort taken by global communities to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It allocates a prominent role to cities and tries to reduce the negative impact of urbanization. The New Urban Agenda discussed and agreed to in Habitat III has been engaged in a negotiated discussion with the national governments on sustainable, inclusive, and resilient urban development. To avoid past mistakes of urbanization, the agenda targeting on new urbanization model focuses on improving quality of life, besides promoting smart, greener cities. The global data revolution, fostering innovation, and target-oriented implementation, as mentioned, are discussed in Habitat III. Urbanization should be put on the highest priority agenda, and therefore the summits include National Urban policies that recognize the proposed indicator for Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in any sustainable urban development (United Nations 2015; UN-Habitat 2016b). The Montréal Declaration on Metropolitan areas highlighted metropolitan cooperation through a partnership between various institutions and civil societies, which may help in the better quality of life for the residents of metropolitan regions. The Global South is coming up with a new type of urbanism, and it is interesting to note how Indian metropolises and mega-cities can implement ‘New Urban Agenda’ and promote compact, mixed, integrated, polycentric and balanced urban development focused on the principles of sustainability and inclusiveness. The New Urban Agenda affirms “promoting equitable growth of regions across the urban–rural continuum” and also endorsing both local and regional development by “the implementation of sustainable urban and territorial planning, including city-region and metropolitan plans” (United Nations 2017, p. 17). The expected scale of urban population growth in India is extraordinary. Accordingly, India recognizes its commitment to implement SDG, particularly (i) goal 11, which states ‘Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (United Nations 2015) and (ii) adoption of New Urban Agenda. Implementation of urban and regional development plans with population and resource integration is one of the

14

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

indicators set for achieving the target of the Sustainable Development Goal 11 (United Nations 2018e). Recent research conducted by Dahiya and Das (2020) on the ‘New Urban Agenda’ with current urban situations of Asia-Pacific region highlights three immediate concerns for sustainable urban development: (i) urban governance, (ii) urban planning and policy, and (iii) service delivery and access for social inclusion. Before Habitat III, there were several summits, and global reports on urbanization focused on problems and broad solutions. At times, most of the solutions were known and required focused approaches, targeted policies and implementation commitments from governments. Most of the reports lack long-term transformative viewpoints of urban and metropolitan issues, contrary to the ‘New Urban Agenda’, which has clear global commitments among the participating countries. Although, the negotiations happened only with the representatives of national governments, but the cities, urban local governments, and non-governmental organizations have not yet been formally assigned or grossly unaware of the responsibilities for the commitments of sustainable urban development. Withincountry it required synergy between national, regional, and local governments to implement ‘New Urban Agenda.’ Further, the agenda is not a legally binding agreement; rather, it is a progressive solution to global urban problems. The main challenge remains as to how to achieve its guiding principles without the blueprint for making a sustainable urban future and a clear role of local governments to implement the agenda. The first step is the measurement of SDG and then implementation strategy of SGD. To achieve the multiple goals of the agenda required country and more especially city-specific strategy to improve human well-being. India is a leading example with regard to preparing the SDG India Index to rank the States and Union Territories (UTs), showed wide disparities across States, and reinstated the approach related to SDG localization (NITI Aayog and United Nations 2019). Recent research on global progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals by United Nations emphasized the fact that urban land areas are increasing at a faster rate than their populations, and as a result, better urban management will be essential to achieve sustainable urbanization. Substantial progress has been made in framing National Urban Policies to combat with urbanization challenges, and as of the beginning of 2019, 150 countries had developed ambitious National Urban Policy, and nearly half are in the execution stage (United Nations 2019, p. 18). The draft National Urban Policy Framework (NUPF) formulated by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, is based on ten sutras or guiding principles of urban management. The sutra (guiding principles) 10 of draft NUPF refers to the ‘cities as engines of regional growth,’ and the objective focuses on promoting spatio-economic planning for ‘creation of harmony and equilibrium among human settlements and a more balanced network of cities in the region’ for ensuring utmost outcome from development programmes and schemes (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2018, p. 17).

1.6 Urban Theories and Models Focused on Global South

1.6

15

Urban Theories and Models Focused on Global South

For many decades, many urban planning theories, models, and practical planning works had been originated from Global North, particularly Euro-American regions, and it is usually taken for granted that these theories, models, ideas, and solutions are also valid in the rest of the world. Cities and their societies, culture, language, economics, governance is not similar, and it requires city-specific ideas. For the new capital city of Nigeria, the ‘Abuja master plan’ was based on modern western city planning approaches of beautification, privatization, and cleaning up criminals. It failed because of demolitions of age-old villages and non-accommodating the need of poor countrymen (COHRE 2008). The Global South is coming up with a new type of urbanism which has hosted many urban cultures and social dialect. The growth of metropolises and megacities in the Global South poses a very pertinent question. The concepts, ideas, and visions developed by urban planners and researchers in the global south are still under the spell of colonial and post-colonial masters. There are many western models of sustainable city development that are often not replicable in global south situations due to the characteristic differences in urban landscapes, urban governance practices, urban financial architecture besides cultural milieu, and overall urbanism pattern. Although these models are quite efficient in the context of western cities, their relevance in developing cities like India and similar situations are indeed questionable. Most often than not, these models are tested empirically using sophisticated quantitative tools to predict pragmatic outcomes in developed western countries. While questioning the application of urban theories developed from Euro-American regions (Storper and Scott 2016; Robinson 2011; Edensor and Jayne 2012; Myers 2014; Ong and Roy 2011; Patel 2014; Sheppard et al. 2013), there are growing academic literatures paying attention to the regions of global south in dealing with the complex problem of southern cities (Benjamin 2008; Roy 2011; Shaktin 2011). Recent research on gentrifying the peri-urban areas of the Indonesian metropolis highlights the shortcomings of the current gentrification literature of the global north and focuses on how local and regional politics, tactics, and strategies play an important role in gentrification particularly in the developing countries (Hudalah et al. 2016). It is wise to accept the global north models with necessary modifications for redressing the wider welfare of the megacities and metropolises of the global south. In the subsequent chapters of this book, it has been argued that household income data, particularly in Indian cities, has always been under-reported because of the fear factor and conservative nature of the society. Accordingly, the REP (Relative Employment Potential) model developed based on Walter Isard’s Relative Income Potential Model (1962), with the necessary modification of the employment variable replaces the principal variable of income. Further, recent research by Capello et al. (2017) highlighted the advances in regional growth forecasting models and the need for region-specific models after the emergence of New Economic Geography (Krugman and Venables 1990; Krugman 1991). Regional growth models can be reinterpreted on the basis of

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

16

factors like local conditions and governance, social capital (Putnam et al. 1993), knowledge assets (Camagni 2004), labour market expertise (Zellner 2003) and endogenous growth, culture and equity in spatial structure (Kourtit et al. 2018). As a result, place-based regional policies (World Bank 2009; Capello et al. 2017) have emerged in regional growth and forecasting models.

1.7

Growth of Megacities in Global South

History has shown that Asia has always been the location of the world’s largest cities. Asia had continuously been undergoing a rapid and intensive urban transition. Table 1.1 demonstrates that around 52% (3313.42 million) of the global urban population will live in cities in Asia by 2050. It is also estimated that by the end of 2050, more than 24% of Asia’s total urban population will be living in India. Of the 10 mega-cities of the world, with urban agglomeration (having more than 5 million inhabitants as of 1 July 2014), 6 namely, Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Mumbai, Osaka, and Beijing are located in Asia (United Nations 2014a). The growth of mega-cities in Asia is not without its challenges. Many of the Asian mega-cities are surviving on colonial infrastructures that have been overloaded beyond the limit. The impressive urbanization in Southeast Asia poses many complex challenges and as well as significant opportunities (Dahiya 2014). Indian cities are still under the influence of master planning, and it often failed to accommodate the growing need and concerns of the majority of its citizens. Present urban issues are complex, and it led to the emergence of ‘strategic spatial planning’ to address many of the problems of traditional master planning in developing regions (UN-Habitat 2009, p. 15). Further, lack of access to current data and the absence of an economic development plan, many Asian cities are struggling with resources and create employment (Asian Development Bank 2015). Further, Sethi and Puppim de Oliveira (2015) analyzed the relationship between the rate of urbanization, GDP, and carbon emissions of more than 200 countries over five decades, and the result shows that the correlation Table 1.1 Comparison of share of urban population by Asia and India (1990–2050) Major area, region, country

Population (in million) 1990 2014 2050

World 5320.81 Asia 4306.62 Percentage in Asia 80.95 as compared to world India 868.89 Percentage in India 20.17 as compared to Asia Source Prepared based on data from

Urban population (in million) 1990 2014 2050

7243.78 5928.91 81.85

9550.94 7189.24 75.27

2285.03 1036.25 45.35

3880.13 2064.21 53.20

6338.61 3313.42 52.27

1267.40 21.37

1620.05 22.53

221.98 21.42

410.20 19.87

814.40 24.58

United Nations (2014a, b)

1.7 Growth of Megacities in Global South

17

between urbanization rate and carbon emissions is more than that of the GDP. In China, the largest 35 cities with a population share of only 18%, contribute 40% of the country’s CO2 emission (Dhakal 2009). Similarly, urban India, with one-third of the country’s population, contributes about two-thirds of its Green House Gas (GHG) emission (Sethi and Mohapatra 2013). The climate governance axis in terms of GHG emissions inequality is shifting from the North-South axis to the Urban-Rural axis (Sethi and Puppim de Oliveira 2015). Rapid urbanization in India that is expected to continue in the forthcoming decades in one hand and on the other, local governments with limited resources to provide services have created a situation that calls for the immediate attention of the local and national governments, non-government organizations, international agencies and civil societies. Supplying sufficient and safe drinking water, food, clean air, housing, employment, health provision, and so on, has become the gigantic task for city managers, particularly in Indian metropolises. Ecological footprints of urban agglomerations are sinking to alarmingly lower levels. Further, the impact of globalization has not been transmitted over the nation evenly. Globalization, though a driver of urban development, has often been detrimental to urban environmental trends. There is a need to develop an international urban system and within nations some intra-urban connected systems that may be based upon flows of goods and services, investments, people’s interaction, and information among major metropolitan centers.

1.8

Impact of Neoliberal Development in Global South

In recent times, neoliberalism and the impact of neoliberal development have been the subjects of greater interest among urban planners, social scientists, and policymakers. Though the definition of neoliberalism varies among the scholars, in general, the neoliberalism thought to promote market forces prevails over political, social, cultural and other factors (Ong 2007; Lim 2014; Lin and Zhang 2017; Lei 2017; Zhou et al. 2019). Many metropolises and megacities in the global south have witnessed urban reform, including economic growth after opening the door to the outside world and integrating with the global economy. The world has witnessed the striking changes in China and the astonishing rate of urbanization after the reform and opening up of policy since the 1980s (Yan and Ding 2007). The urbanization level of China has increased from 17.9% during the year 1978 to 56.1% in 2015 (Zheng et al. 2017). In discussing the impact of globalization on Chinese cities, Wu (2000) focused on integrating local and global forces responsible for the infrastructure boom and gradual transformation of Shanghai into a world city. Zhang (2007) highlights three types of urban space as evident in post-reform Chinese cities: (i) the creation of new urban space because of expansion of urban areas; (ii) the renewed urban space because of gentrification; and (iii) the ignored urban space populated by the low-income rural-to-urban migrants. Wei and Jia (2003), in their research on the Tianjin city of China, emphasized the role of

18

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

government and favorable policies to attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). Indian cities also witnessed significant transformation since the economic reform of the 1990s. Industrial liberalization, privatization, financial deregulation, contract services, etc. led the process of metropolitan restructuring and shifting of decision making powers from central government to local metropolitan governments. In the new era of metropolitan development, political boundaries are no longer relevant, and metropolises play a pivotal role in the world economy. Many new Special Economic Zones have been developed in China (Shenzhen, Xiamen, Zhuhai, etc.) and India (Kandla, Surat, Navi Mumbai, Gurgaon, etc.) and many of these SEZs are located within megacities and their regions. In a recent review of global urbanization and development, UN-Habitat highlighted the fact that globalization has benefited more than secondary cities for the growth and prosperity of megacities and metropolitan regions (UN-Habitat 2016a, p. 141). Metropolises and megacities are emerging as the global power in the post-reform period, and it requires a special focus on metropolitan spatial structure and policy shifts. The bulk of scholarly research on neoliberalism and neoliberal urban transformation in developing countries is focused on metropolises and megacities of China and Southeast Asia (Zhou et al. 2019; Li and Chan 2017; Lin and Zhang 2017) with little research on Indian metropolises and megacities. Neoliberal development has pushed national, regional, and state governments to focus on specific key development sectors like housing, transportation, infrastructure, tourism, and was able to attract foreign investment in megacities. Most of the rapidly growing megacities and metropolises in the global south are pulling the population to the urban core or pushing them out to urban fringe and peri-urban areas, resulting in tremendous pressure on land, infrastructure, and housing. Population growth triggers compact urban form or continuous suburban sprawl at the urban fringe or a combination of both or simply leaves it unrestrained (Bay and Lehmann 2017). From the contemporary urbanization as experienced in the megacities and metropolitan areas of the global south, it is evident that major growth is taking place outside municipal boundaries and these areas are exposed to inadequate infrastructure, rapid land-use change (increasing built-up area and decreasing agricultural land), weak development control regulations and lack of land management policies. This requires an integrated regional approach and suitable policy interventions rather than treating metropolitan city, peri-urban, rural, and other urban centers (new towns or satellite cities) separately. While highlighting the developmental approach followed by Global North, with cities, Burdett (2015) refers that the creation of new cities is much better than the retrofitting approach to solve the urbanization problem. The metropolitan region includes several independent local governments, and as it grows, the need for metropolitan level management increases for better coordination (Andersson 2015). Functional interdependencies among various orders of settlements (both rural and urban) within metropolitan regions are the key elements of metropolitan management. The economic links between the central city and its periphery and surrounding settlements are so close that one component cannot succeed without depending on the other. The urban and rural settlements of megacity regions unvaryingly share many similar characters, although they have

1.8 Impact of Neoliberal Development in Global South

19

their own problems and prospects (Andersson 2018). Further, Angel et al. (2012) refer to the satellite cities that frame the structure of metropolitan regions are secondary cities (p. 146). Today, by taking advantage of located close to the peripheral areas of the metropolitan region, many clustered secondary cities (new towns or satellite towns or spill overgrowth centers) are either collaborating with the metropolitan region or competing against metropolitan region (Cities Alliance 2019). In developing countries, there is an increasing interest in developing a collaborating network between the satellite towns with the metropolitan region. Scenario planning can be seen as a powerful approach to predict urban or metropolitan realities of demographic growth and spatial configuration of urbanization (Chakraborty and McMillan 2015; Haase et al. 2018). Megacity—economic vibrancy will continue in the future, and in this process, other settlements within the region should not be neglected. It is almost impossible to achieve balanced development within the megacity and various scales of settlements with the mega-regions. The development has to be rather integrated, planned, holistic, and equitable. The spatial magnification of neoliberal development requires a neoliberal metropolitan policy that shapes the growing metropolitan regions to be sustainable and accommodate global investments.

1.9

Key Issues on Satellite Towns in Neo-Metropolitan Development in India

In post-independence India, based on ideas imported from the global north, the urban planners and administrators thought of creating satellite or new towns around big metropolitan cities to share loads of population and activity concentration in the mother cities. The satellite towns had been envisaged as independent, self-sufficient, and sustainable cities (Short et al. 2007; TCPO 2007) and received support from the government in policy formulation and implementation. It is observed that the majority of the satellite towns in India failed to achieve their primary role of decongesting the metropolitan city and also remained far away from achieving their vision of self-sufficiency. Many satellite or new towns have primarily helped in expanding further the larger metropolises rather than channelizing their population and growth to satellites and new towns. It required a shift from the traditional model of satellite development to a new path of metropolitan development, keeping in view with the current state of urban growth and government policies. Currently, in association with existing metropolises, many satellite towns have grown tremendously and achieved metropolitan character. In the future, it is not one metropolitan city, but a group of metropolitan cities (mother town with traditional satellite towns) are expected to grow in a region to develop as a mammoth metropolis. In the case of Mumbai metropolis, satellite towns like Thane (1.8 million) Kalyan-Dombivali (1.2 million), Vasai-Virar city (1.2 million), and Navi Mumbai (1.1 million) already achieved metropolitan status according to 2011

20

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

census. It is expected that in the forthcoming census (2021), Mira-Bhayander, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, and Ulhasnagar may also achieve metropolitan status. These satellite towns remained as Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation in the last few decades and recently have achieved metropolitan status. Managing metropolises is always a complex task, and in many cases, the size of many metropolises is more than the size of a State (province) of the country. For example, the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region (8005 km2) is twice the size of the State of Goa (3702 km2). Managing today’s metropolises is always a complex task, and requires synergy among the metropolitan city, its satellite towns and peripheral settlements in terms of population growth, land use, infrastructures, linkage, and administration. In this book, by ‘Neo-metropolitan Development’, we understand the process of transformation from the traditional model of metro-satellite development (mother city with few traditional residential satellite towns) to a new form of multifunctional satellite development where, in association with the existing mother metropolis, several satellite towns with more than one million population each, attain metropolitan status. They are expected to grow in complementarity to each other functionally though in the cluster, some towns may not attain the million-city status. All these million and below-million cities together form a constellation of metropolises and eventually give shape to a long continuous sprawl of urban mosaic close to an “Ecumenopolis” as foresighted by Doxiadis (1970). In the era of neo-metropolitan development, it is evident that significant growth is taking place outside metropolitan boundaries, and these areas are experiencing rapid land-use change, weak development control regulation, and lack of land management policies. The majority of the land around many metropolitan cities is highly fertile agricultural land, and such lands are taken over either for expansion of municipal boundaries or transformed into non-traditional uses because of inevitable market forces. In many cases, large scale land-development projects are planned in the periphery of the large cities or just outside the municipal boundaries. As a result, the rural livelihood and land-use patterns have transformed into haphazard urban landscapes. At times, multiple administrative authorities within one large metropolitan region create problems in decision making and implementation of mega projects where many authorities are involved. This study looks at the changing dynamics of the satellite towns located close to the metropolitan cities and asserts the importance of the planned development programmes of satellite towns around the existing metropolitan cities. As has already been discussed (Sect. 1.8) that there is a dearth of comparative research about the Neo-metropolitan transformation of Indian metropolises and their respective satellite towns. There is a paucity of scholarly literature available for researchers and policymakers to gauge the role of satellite towns, to understand the issues thereof, and to frame the strategies for managing metropolitan growth and development.

1.10

1.10

Structure of the Book

21

Structure of the Book

The approach that frames this book titled “Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India” is both analytical and interdisciplinary. The content of the book includes ten chapters and opens with the first four conceptual chapters (Chaps. 1–4) to understand the current state of satellite town development processes with respect to metropolitan planning and development in India. The next five chapters (Chaps. 5–9) present the analysis of specific cases (Mumbai and Bengaluru) based on the established framework and suggests the required policies. The final chapter (Chap. 10) draws a summary of the main findings and puts forward the lessons learnt thereoffor the scholars, practitioners, and policymakers in India and around the world. Following the introductory issues discussed in this chapter, the authors examine the problems and prospects of neo-metropolitan development in India in the next nine chapters (Chaps. 2–9). Chapter 2, “Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India,” focuses on the process of metropolitan growth in India, highlighting the statistics on demographic growth and its spatial distribution. It indicates the emerging interconnected metropolitan networks in India and provides a comparative analysis of meg urban industrial corridors of India based on demographic and socio-economic indicators. It then highlights metropolitan problems and issues in the context of infrastructure, environment, and un-planned urban development, including neo-liberal conflicts. This chapter also provides an overview of contemporary urban development policies and schemes and comments on their implications in satellite town development processes. Focusing on neo-metropolitan development and economic liberalization, the chapter highlights the process of land management, particularly in the peripheral areas of metropolitan cities and in their satellite towns. Chapter 3, “Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect,” includes a comparative study of the satellite town development processes both with the perspectives of developed and developing countries. A special attempt has also been made to review the satellite town development processes in the context of African cities. This chapter deals with satellite development in retrospect and prospect highlighting the earlier efforts made in the development of satellite towns, particularly around Delhi, Mumbai (previously known as Bombay), Hyderabad, Kolkata (previously known as Calcutta) and Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore). It critically assesses their responsibilities in reducing the population and activity load on each of the metropolitan cities. This chapter also identifies the set of factors responsible for the success and failure of the satellite city development efforts in India. The chapter concludes by indicating the embedded conflicts between various actors of satellite town development processes. Chapter 4, “Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth, Changing Landuse and Challenges,” examines the rapid population growth of metropolitan cityregions of India and its implications on changing land use and land cover pattern, reduction in green and blue spaces, scarcity of resources and the resultant environmental degradation. Focusing on multiple cases, this chapter discusses on the relationship between the compact urban forms and the larger metropolitan areas encompassed by satellite towns. The chapter then provides an overview of

22

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

innovative land pooling and land readjustment models currently being implemented in various parts of the country namely: ‘Delhi Urban Land Pooling Policy’, ‘Amravati-Land Pooling for a State Capital’, ‘Naya Raipur—Negotiated Land Purchase for a New State Capital’, ‘Town Planning Scheme, Gujarat’ and ‘Land Sharing Model of Vijayawada—An Inclusive Expansion’. Chapter 5, “Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe villages Relationship: Case Studies with Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru and their Regions,” discusses the rationale behind the selection of two metropolitan cities and their regions. It then highlights the relationships between megacity and satellites-fringe villages in terms of land utilization, population composition, and population growth. This chapter also describes the present state of metropolitan crisis like overconcentration of population, rampant migration, low floor space index (FSI), inadequate infrastructures, status of real estate and housing, falling working opportunities, shortage of future developable land, etc. also traces demographic growth, land consumption, economic profile and infrastructural conditions of satellite towns in selected metropolitan regions. This chapter remains as vital since it could uncover that “satellite towns are not performing their role in relieving the urban load from metro cities.” Chapter 6, “Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials of Satellites of MMR and BMR,” explains the research methodology adopted for selected case study regions (Mumbai Metropolitan Region and Bengaluru Metropolitan Region). This chapter begins with reviewing existing models and justifying the need for developing a worker-based ‘Relative Employment Potential (REP)’ model in respect of future population allocation. An outline of the scope and limitations of the models is also discussed. It attempts to apply the REP model and its validation procedures for the selected two metropolitan cities and their associated satellite towns. This is followed by a review of carrying capacity models and the need for highlighting the land-based approach for fulfilling the future spatial demand through density and Sustainable Accommodation by applying Feedback Evaluation (SAFE) model. This chapter concludes with the application of the SAFE model associated with the existing carrying capacity for both Mumbai and Bengaluru and their associated satellite towns. Chapter 7, “Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth,” deals with the projection of future population followed by a spatial allocation through the application of REP model for the two forwarding decades (2011– 2021 and 2021–2031) both in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). It further explores the required developable land to cater to the needs of the future population for the two metropolises and their satellite towns. Further, it discusses the maximum permissible FARs in residential and non-residential areas in the metropolitan cities of India. This chapter also discusses population estimates based on the SAFE model with different FAR options for optimum population allocations in these for two major metropolises and their satellite towns. Chapter 8, “Balanced Development across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario,” deal with the proposed FAR to be considered for Mumbai and Bengaluru and their surrounding satellite towns for the year 2031. It further assesses the future population to be allocated in the satellite towns based on capacity assessment for the planned towns and equitable development of both MMR and BMR. This chapter concludes by estimating the requirements of additional gross

References

23

industrial spaces and suggests possibilities of generating such spaces in satellite towns within BMR and MMR. Chapter 9, “Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions,” starts with the critical review of regional plans for MMR and BMR with a focus on land management and the creation of economic opportunities. It then provides a summary of the proposed urban area expansion and highlights the importance of participatory land readjustment tools for the implementation of development plans. This chapter then explores the linkage between employment/livelihood and provisioning of new housing within metropolises and their satellite towns. Based on the review of contemporary industrial and sector-specific policies of Maharashtra and Karnataka states the specific policy targets have been concerned set for the metropolises and their satellite cities. The chapter concludes by recommending the required urban development policies and strategies (both short term and long term) and suggesting a way forward for converting BMR and MMR into Smart Urban Regions. Chapter 10 “Conclusion” synthesizes all the above discussions on the development of satellite towns in neo-metropolitan development, highlighting the significance of findings from two major metropolitan cities of India. This chapter discusses the broad implications of suggested policies in the context of metropolitan transformation, rural-urban linkages, land management, and urban sustainability. It then provides recommendations on further study and research possibilities in many related directions and emphasizes the need for separate metropolitan development policy for India.

References Andersson M (2015) Unpacking metropolitan governance for sustainable development. Discussion paper. UN-Habitat and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). https://unhabitat.org/books/unpacking-metropolitan-governance-for-sustainable-developmentanalysis-of-case-studies-summary-reports-of-case-studies/. Accessed 04 Mar 2019 Andersson M (2018) Metropolitan governance: a framework for capacity assessment. UN-Habitat and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). http:// localizingthesdgs.org/library/242/Metropolitan-Capacity-Assessment-Methodology.pdf. Accessed 04 Mar 2019 Angel S, Parent J, Civco DL, Blei AM (2011) Making room for a planet of cities. Policy focus report. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge. https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/ files/pubfiles/making-room-for-a-planet-of-cities-full_0.pdf. Accessed 07 Sept 2018 Angel S, Parent J, Civco DL, Blei AM (2012) Atlas of urban expansion. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge Angotti T (2013) The new century of the metropolis. Routledge, New York Asian Development Bank (2015) Tool kit for rapid economic assessment, planning, and development of cities in Asia. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. https://www.adb.org/documents/tool-kit-economic-assessment-planning-development-citiesasia. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 Bay HJ, Lehmann S (2017) Growing compact: urban form, density and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon Beard VA, Mahendra A, Westphal MI (2016) Towards a more equal city: framing the challenges and opportunities. Working paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www. wri.org/sites/default/files/WRR_Framing_Paper_Final_Nov4.pdf. Accessed 04 Feb 2018

24

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

Benjamin S (2008) Occupancy urbanism: radicalizing politics and economy beyond policy and programs. Int J Urban Reg Res 32(3):719–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008. 00809.x Biermann SM, Van Ryneveld M (2007) Improving the location of low income housing delivery in South African urban areas. Paper 230. Paper prepared for the tenth international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, July 11–13, 2007. https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/1237/Biermann_2007.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 Bingham RD, Kalich VZ (1996) The tie that binds: downtowns, suburbs, and the dependence hypothesis. J Urban Aff 18:153–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1996.tb00371.x Blumenfeld H (1971) The modern metropolis. MIT Press, Cambridge Brueckner JK (2001) Urban sprawl: lessons from urban economics. In: Gale WG, Pack JR (eds) Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp 65–97 Brueckner JK, Sridhar KS (2012) Measuring welfare gains from relaxation of land-use restrictions: the case of India’s building-height limits. Reg Sci Urban Econ 42(6):1061–1067. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.08.003 Burdett R (2015) Retrofitting London: an Olympic legacy. TedX, Hamburg, 22 June 2015 Calame J, Esther C, Woods L (2009) Divided cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Camagni R (2004) Uncertainty, social capital and community governance: the city as a milieu. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Urban dynamics and growth: advances in urban economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 121–152 Cao K, Huang B, Wang S, Lin H (2012) Sustainable land use optimization using boundary-based fast genetic algorithm. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36:257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compenvurbsys.2011.08.001 Caparros-Midwood D, Barr S, Dawson R (2015) Optimised spatial planning to meet long term urban sustainability objectives. Comput Environ Urban Syst 54:154–164. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.08.003 Capello R, Caragliu A, Fratesi U (2017) Advances in regional growth forecasting models: conceptual challenges and methodological responses. Int Reg Sci Rev 40(1):3–11. https://doi. org/10.1177/0160017615571589 Chakraborty A, McMillan A (2015) Scenario planning for urban planners: towards a practitioner’s guide. J Am Plann Assoc 81(1):18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1038576 Cities Alliance (2019) Connecting systems of secondary cities. Cities Alliance/UNOPS, Brussels. https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/CA_ConnectingSystems_Web_ FINAL%20%281%29_1.pdf. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 COHRE-The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (2008) The myth of master plan: forced evictions as urban planning in Abuja, Nigeria, Geneva, Switzerland. The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and Social and Economic Rights Action Centre. http://abahlali.org/files/ Myth_of_the_Abuja_Master_Plan.pdf. Accessed 03 Feb 2019 Cook AE, Lara JJ (2012) Global dynamics of urban landscapes. In: Cook AE, Lara JJ (eds) Remaking metropolis, 1st edn. Routledge, Oxon, pp 1–17 Dahiya B (2012a) 21st century Asian cities: unique transformation, unprecedented challenges. Global Asia 7(1):96–104 Dahiya B (2012b) Cities in Asia, 2012: demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities 29(2):S44–S61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.013 Dahiya B (2014) Southeast Asia and sustainable urbanization. Global Asia 9(3):84–91 Dahiya B (2016) ASEAN economic integration and sustainable urbanization. J Urban Cult Res 12:8–14. https://doi.org/10.14456/jucr.2016.10 Dahiya B, Das A (2020) New urban agenda in Asia-Pacific: governance for sustainable and inclusive cities. In: Dahiya B, Das A (eds) New urban agenda in Asia-Pacific. Advances in 21st century human settlements. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6709-0_1 . Accessed 02 Aug 2019

References

25

Datta A, Shaban A (eds) (2017) Mega-urbanization in the global south: fast cities and new urban utopias of the postcolonial state. Routledge, London Demetriou D, See L, Stillwell J (2013) A spatial genetic algorithm for automating land partitioning. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27:2391–2409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.819977 Dhakal S (2009) Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and policy implications. Energy Policy 37(11):4208–4219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.020 Doxiadis CA (1970) Man’s movement and his settlements? Ekistics 29(1):173–179 Durand-Lasserve A, Royston L (eds) (2002) Holding their ground: secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries. Earthscan, London Dutta S, Bardhan S, Bhaduri S (2013) Pattern of urbanization and environmental quality in the context of Indian cities. Environ Urbanization Asia 4(2):287–299 Edensor T, Jayne M (2012) Introduction: urban theory beyond the west. In: Edensor T, Jayne M (eds) Urban theory beyond the west: a world of cities. Routledge, London pp 1–24 Florida R (2019) The real powerhouses that drive the world’s economy. City Lab. https://www. citylab.com/life/2019/02/global-megaregions-economic-powerhouse-megalopolis/583729/. Accessed 04 Apr 2019 Frolking S, Milliman T, Seto KC, Friedl MA (2013) A global fingerprint of macro-scale changes in urban structure from 1999 to 2009. Environ Res Lett 8(2):024004. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1748-9326/8/2/024004 Gilbert L, Jong FD (2015) Entanglements of periphery and informality in Mexico city. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(3):518–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12249 Goytia C, Dorna G (2016) What is the role of urban growth on inequality and segregation? The case of urban Argentina’s urban agglomerations. Working paper. Corporación Andina de Fomento (Development Bank of Latin America), Caracas. http://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/ handle/123456789/972/Goytia%20%20Dorna%20%282016%29.pdf?sequence= 10&isAllowed=y. Accessed 03 Apr 2019 Haase D, Guneralp B, Dahiya B, Bai X, Elmqvist T (2018) Global urbanization: perspectives and trends. In: Elmqvist T, Bai X, Frantzeskaki N, Griffith C, Maddox D, McPhearson T, Parnell, S, Romero-Lankao P, Simon D Watkins M (eds) Urban planet: knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781316647554.003. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 Hamer MA (1994) Economic impacts of third world mega-cities: is size the issue? In: Funchs R, Brennan E, Chamie J, Lo F, Uitto J (eds) Mega city growth and the future, 1st edn. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 172–191 Hawksworth J, Hoehn T, Tiwari A (2009) Global city GDP ranking 2008–2025. PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Economic Outlook, Nov 2009. https://pwc.blogs.com/files/ global-city-gdp-rankings-2008-2025.pdf. Accessed 02 Feb 2018 Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J (2017) World happiness report 2017. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York. https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2017/HR17.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018 Hudalah D, Winarso H, Woltjer J (2016) Gentrifying the peri-urban: land use conflicts and institutional dynamics at the frontier of an Indonesian metropolis. Urban Stud 53(3):593–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014557208 Isard W (1962) Methods of regional analysis: an introduction to regional science. MIT Press, Massachusetts, USA Jacobs J (1984) Cities and the wealth of nations: principles of economic life. Random House, New York Kourtit K, Nijkamp P, Stough RR (2018) Modeling regional growth and innovation. Int Reg Sci Rev 41(1):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017617698743 Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Krugman P, Venables A (1990) Integration and the competitiveness of peripheral industry. In: Bliss C, Braga De Macedo J (eds) Unity with diversity in the European economy: the community’s southern frontier. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kumar TMV (ed) (2019) Smart metropolitan regional development—economic and spatial design strategies. Springer, Singapore

26

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

Lei Y (2017) The contentious public sphere: law, media, and authoritarian rule in China. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ Li L, Chan RCK (2017) Contesting China’s engagement with neoliberal urbanism: an overview of the evolving policy and mismatches in urban China. Asian Educ Dev Stud 6(1):44–56. https:// doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-03-2016-0021 Li X, Liu X (2008) Embedding sustainable development strategies in agent-based models for use as a planning tool. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22:21–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701228686 Libertun de Duren NR (2017) The social housing burden: comparing households at the periphery and the centre of cities in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. Int J Hous Policy 18(2):177–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1298366 Libertun de Duren NR (2018) Why there? developers’ rationale for building social housing in the urban periphery in Latin America. Cities 72(B):411–420 Libertun de Duren NR, Compeán RG (2015) Growing resources for growing cities: density and the cost of municipal public services in Latin America. Urban Stud 53(14):3082–3107. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098015601579 Ligmann-Zielinska A, Church RL, Jankowski P (2008) Spatial optimization as a generative technique for sustainable multi objective land-use allocation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22:601–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701587495 Lim KF (2014) Socialism with Chinese characteristics: uneven development, variegated neoliberalization and the dialectical differentiation of state spatiality. Prog Hum Geogr 38 (2):221–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513476822 Lin GCS, Zhang AY (2017) China’s metropolises in transformation: neoliberalizing politics, land commodification, and uneven development in Beijing. Urban Geogr 38(5):643–665. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1139407 LSE Cities (2008) Integrated city making: governance, planning and transport. LSE Cities, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25223/1/__ Libfile_repository_Content_Rode%2C%20P_Rode_Integrated_%20city_%20making_Rode_ Integrated_%20city_%20making_2008.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 Mahendra A, Seto KC (2019) Upward and outward growth: managing urban expansion for more equitable cities in the global south. Working paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/upward-outward-growth.pdf?_ga=2. 74913746.1770614697.1557025841-1944898132.1557025841. Accessed 02 Apr 2019 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2018) National urban policy framework 2018. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/ default/files/resources/nupf_final.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2019 Myers G (2014) From expected to unexpected comparisons. Singap J Trop Geogr 35:104–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12046 NITI-National Institution for Transforming India Aayog and United Nations (2019) Localising SDGs early lessons from India 2019. NITI Aayog and United Nations. https://niti.gov.in/ writereaddata/files/LSDGs_July_8_Web.pdf. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 Ong A (2007) Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Trans Inst Br Geogr 32(1):3–8 Ong A, Roy A (eds) (2011) Worlding cities: Asian experiments in the art of being global. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford Pain K, Hamme GV, Vinciguerra S, David Q (2016) Global networks, cities and economic performance: observations from an analysis of cities in Europe and the USA. Urban Stud 53 (6):1137–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015577303 Patel S (2014) Is there a ‘south’ perspective to urban studies? In: Parnel S, Oldfield S (eds) The Routledge handbook on the cities of the global south. Routledge, London, pp 37–53 Putnam RD, Robert L, Nanetti R (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Ravallion M, Chen S, Sangraula P (2007) New evidence on the urbanization of global poverty. Popul Dev Rev 33(4):667–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00193.x Robinson J (2011) Cities in a world of cities: the comparative gesture. Int J Urban Reg Res 35: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00982.x

References

27

Roy A (2011) Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism. Int J Urban Reg Res 35:223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.x Sassen S (1991) The global city: New York, London. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, Tokyo Scott JA (ed) (2001) Global city regions: trends, theory, policy. Oxford University Press, New York Sethi M, Mohapatra S (2013) Governance framework to mitigate climate change: challenges in urbanizing India. In: Ha H, Dhakal TN (eds) Governance approaches to mitigation of and adoption to climate change in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, pp 200–230 Sethi M, Puppim de Oliveira JA (2015) From global ‘north-south’ to local ‘urban-rural’: a shifting paradigm in climate governance? Urban Clim 14(4):529–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim. 2015.09.009 Seto KC, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 Seto KC, Guneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(40):16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109 Shaktin G (2011) Coping with actually existing urbanisms: the real politics of planning in the global era. Plann Theory 10(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210386068 Sheppard E, Leitner H, Maringanti A (2013) Provincializing global urbanism: a manifesto. Urban Geogr 34(7):893–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.807977 Short JR, Hanlon B, Vicino T (2007) The decline of inner suburbs: the new suburban gothic in the United States. Geogr Compass 1(3):641–656 Singh B, Sethi M (2018) The divided city—ideological and policy contestations in contemporary urban India. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore Steinert K, Marom R, Richard P, Viega G, Witters L (2009) Making cities smart and sustainable. In: Dutta S (ed) The global innovation index 2011. Insead, Fountainebleu Storper M, Scott JA (2016) Current debates in urban theory: a critical assessment. Urban Stud 53 (6):1114–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016634002 TCPO-Town and Country Planning Organization (2007) Evaluation study of DMA towns in National Capital Region (NCR). Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Urban Development Government of India. http://tcpomud.gov.in/divisions/mutp/dma/final_dma_ report.pdf. Accessed on 28 July 2014 UN-Habitat (2009) Planning sustainable cities: global report on human settlements 2009. Earthscan, London. https://unhabitat.org/books/global-report-on-human-settlements-2009planning-sustainable-cities/. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 UN-Habitat (2016a) Urbanization and development: emerging futures. World cities report. United Nations Human Settlement Programme, Nairobi. https://www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/WCR-%20Full-Report-2016.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 UN-Habitat (2016b) Habitat III, zero draft of the new urban agenda. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/ uploads/Habitat-III-Zero-Draft-outcome-document-May-2016.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017 UN-Habitat and ESCAP (2015) The state of Asian and Pacific cities 2015: urban transformations shifting from quantity to quality. UN-Habitat and ESCAP, Nairobi and Bangkok. https:// unhabitat.org/books/the-state-of-asian-and-pacific-cities-2015/. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 United Nations (2006) Urbanizations: mega & meta cities, new city states. UN-HABITAT: State of World’s Cities 2006/7; United Nations, New York, NY, USA. http://mirror.unhabitat.org/ documents/media_centre/sowcr2006/SOWCR%202.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017 United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017 United Nations (2017) The new urban agenda, A/RES/71/256. Habitat III and United Nations. http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 United Nations (2018e) Sustainable development goal 11: make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11. Accessed 02 Aug 2019

28

1 Growth of Metropolises and Megacities with Focus …

United Nations (2019) Special edition: progress towards the sustainable development goals, E/ 2019/68. United Nations Economic and Social Council. https://undocs.org/E/2019/68. Accessed 02 Aug 2019 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014a) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/ wup2014-report.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014b) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, CD-ROM Edition United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018a) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. Online Edition United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018b) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision [key facts]. https://population.un.org/wup/ Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2019 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018c) The speed of urbanization around the world. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/ WUP2018-PopFacts_2018-1.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2019 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018d) Press release of the World urbanization prospects 2018. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/ Files/WUP2018-PressRelease.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2019 United Nations Development Programme (1990) Human development report. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_ complete_nostats.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2018 United Nations Development Programme (2016) Human development report 2016: human development for everyone. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, USA. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2019 Watson V (2002) The usefulness of normative planning theories in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Plann Theory 1(1):27–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100103 WCED-World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Wei YD, Jia Y (2003) The geographical foundations of local state initiatives: globalizing Tianjin China. Cities 20(2):101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00118-X World Bank (2009) World development report 2009. Reshaping Economic Geography, Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5991. Accessed 05 July 2008 Wu F (2000) Place promotion in Shanghai, PRC. Cities 17(5):349–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0264-2751(00)00031-7 Yan S, Ding C (2007) Urbanization in China: critical issues in an era of rapid growth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts Yao J, Zhang X, Murray AT (2018) Spatial optimization for land-use allocation: accounting for sustainability concerns. Int Reg Sci Rev 41(6):579–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0160017617728551 Zellner C (2003) The economic effects of basic research: evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists’ migration. Res Policy 32:1881–1895. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00487333(03)00080-5 Zhang T (2007) Urban development patterns in China: new, renewed, and ignored urban spaces. In: Yan S, Ding C (eds) Urbanization in China: critical issues in an era of rapid growth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 3–27 Zheng Q, Yang X, Wang K, Huang L, Shahtahmassebi AR, Gan M, Weston MV (2017) Delimiting urban growth boundary through combining land suitability evaluation and cellular automata. Sustainability 9:2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122213 Zhou Y, Lin GCS, Zhang J (2019) Urban China through the lens of neoliberalism: is a conceptual twist enough? Urban Stud 56(1):33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018775367

Chapter 2

Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Abstract Contemporary metropolitan planning is a dynamic and evolving process in which population movements, economic fluctuations, and social dynamism play a crucial role. The metropolitan growth of population indicates that unplanned spatial expansion covering fringe areas and the development of satellite towns around these cities is inevitable in the future. Indian metropolises are in a stage of massive urban transition as mega industrial corridors are emerging in a big way. Due to the effect of globalization, liberalization, and privatization, the Indian economy is oriented towards a gradual structural transformation. This chapter gives stresses on Indian metropolitan growth since the last century and analyses their situations in the light of the achievements made under various new government initiatives like Smart Cities Mission, National Rurban Mission, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), Housing for All (Urban), and National Urban Livelihood Missions (NLUM), etc. The study also focuses on the contemporary metropolitan development in India and traces the economic and spatial restructuring of peripheral areas of metropolitan cities as part of economic liberalization.




Keywords Metropolises Growth metropolitan development

2.1


Economy
Urban missions
Contemporary

Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

In Asia, both India and China are experiencing urbanization at a remarkable scale, particularly the rapid growth of metropolitan cities. In 2011, Urban India accounted for 11% (377.2 million) of the World’s urban population. The urbanization trend, pattern, and forecast provide a stable message that Indian society is now moving towards the stage of massive urban transition. There is no uniform definition of urban across the globe. For example, while Nepal uses a population size of more than 9000, Bangladesh follows administrative criteria to determine urban settlement. In Panama, © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_2

29

30

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

along with population (1500 or more inhabitants), essential urban services like water supply system, sewerage system, etc. are considered as a criterion for defining urban. In countries like Angola, Argentina, and Ethiopia, all settlements with population 2000 or more are classified as urban (United Nations 2013). Thus the criteria to determine urban in a country matter. The criteria to define urban generally comprise of one or more factors such as population size, density, workforce, civic status, and urban characteristics like piped water supply, paved road, electricity, rapid mass transport, educational and health facility (United Nations 2013, 2019). Historically in India, the criteria to determine urban changed in different census right from 1872 when the country was under British colonial rule. India currently follows a definition set in 1981 census onwards which is a combination of civic status (municipality, corporation, cantonment board, etc.), demography (at least 5000 population and a density of 400 persons per km2) and economy (75% male main workforce engaged in the non-agricultural sector) (Census of India 2011b). In India, the State (provincial) governments make the decision of municipal status, and the Census of India considers demographic and economic criteria to define a settlement as urban. Although, as per the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) of India, metropolitan committees are recognised as constitutional entities, but the Census of India does not delimit metropolitan regions. Urban growth in India is generally comprised of natural increase in population, net rural to urban migration, net rural to urban classification, and jurisdictional change in municipal boundaries. Several past studies have highlighted that natural growth is a crucial factor in India’s urbanization (Bhagat 1992; Pathak and Mehta 1995; Visaria 1997; Bhagat and Mohanty 2009). While the percentage trend of urban growth due to natural increase has contributed 62.3% during 1981–91, it declined to 43.8% during 2001–2011. The percentage share of net rural to urban migration has been stable during the last four decades. In absolute terms, net rural to urban migration has increased to 8 million from 1981–1991 to 2001–2011 in India (Bhagat 2014). Urban reclassification and boundary change have played a significant role in the recent past. The net rural to urban classification and boundary changes increased from 19% to 35.6% from 1981–1991 to 2001–2011. Together migration, urban reclassification, and boundary change increased from 37.7% to 56.2% during the 2000s compared to the 1980s (Bhagat 2012). In the past, the majority of migrants moved towards small and medium-size towns, but the recent trend shows an increase in metropolitan cities population due to migrants (Sita and Bhagat 2007) mostly settled in fringe areas of metropolises. Therefore, the declining trend of natural increase and the upward trend of reclassification and administrative boundary change pose significant changes in the spatial restructuring and related growth management of urban India. Urbanization in India is not unique and is similar to a worldwide phenomenon as well as an outcome of economic reform and structural changes (Shivaramakrishnan and Singh 2005). In 2011, the level of urbanization in India increased to 31.16%, from 27.86% in 2001. In absolute terms, an increase of 91 million urban population as compared to an increase of 90.5 million rural population had been seen in the 2011 census. It is an unprecedented phenomenon that, for the first time since the 1951

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

31

census, the increase of urban population was higher than the increase in the rural population. During 2001–2011, the average annual growth rate (AAGR) of the population was 3.2% in urban areas and 1.2% in rural areas (Census of India 2011b). Although, the urban population had increased eleven times (25.8 million in 1901 to 285.4 million in 2011), but the level of urbanization had increased only three-fold (10.83% in 1901 to 31.16% in 2011) in more than a century. Urban growth in India offers both an oppertunity for investors and challenges for city managers to manage urban growth and provide essential services. The pattern of urbanization underwent a significant shift in the last decade, characterized by two significant factors: (i) growing number of metropolitan cities and Urban Agglomerations (UAs) and (ii) exceptional rise of small and medium-sized towns. UAs are majorly cluster of cities/urban areas, and in some cases, UAs accommodate population much more than the population of an entire country. The number of metropolitan cities and UAs increased sharply from 1 in 1901 to 9 in 1971, 35 in 2001, and 53 in 2011. The rate of growth has been faster for metropolitan growth compared to total urban growth (Table 2.1). Restructuring of the Indian economy since 1991 has brought about many changes in urban settlement patterns. Thus, 18 new metropolitan cities emerged (5 new million-plus agglomerations in the state of Kerala only) during 2001–2011, maximum in any decade thus far. According to the 2011 census, there are eight megacities/UAs (Mumbai,1 Delhi, Kolkata,2 Chennai,3 Bengaluru,4 Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, and Pune) with a population of more than 5 million. Among these eight megacities, three mammoth UAs have emerged, namely—Greater Mumbai UA (18.4 million), Delhi UA (16.3 million), and Kolkata UA (14.1 million). These megacities and UAs are experiencing a construction boom around large infrastructure projects, particularly in the peripheral areas. In the process, a rapid land-use transformation has been happening mainly in the peripheral areas. Fig. 2.1 presents the population (based on the 2011 census) of 53 metropolitan cities/UAs of India. According to the McKinsey Global Institute Report (2011), by 2030, an estimated 210 million rural population will live in metropolitan cities (Dobbs et al. 2011). Also, the United Nations projected estimate predicts that by 2050, 468 million population will be added in urban India, followed by China 255 million and Nigeria 189 million (United Nations 2018). To keep the pace of development, India has to make a massive investment in urban areas. Accordingly, the Government of India earmarked INR 157,703 crore (23,704.93 million USD) for the urban areas under various urban schemes and missions during 2014–2019. In the last five years, the Government of India 1

Mumbai city name has renamed officially by legislation from Bombay in 1995. In this research, Mumbai and Bombay have used interchangeably depending upon the time frame. 2 Kolkata city name had respelled officially by legislation from Calcutta in 2001. In this research, Kolkata and Calcutta have used interchangeably depending upon the time frame. 3 Chennai city name had renamed officially by legislation from Madras in 1996. In this research, Chennai and Madras have used interchangeably depending upon the time frame. 4 Bengaluru city name had respelled officially by legislation from Bangalore in 2007. In this research, Bengaluru and Bangalore have used interchangeably depending upon the time frame.

32

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Table 2.1 Total population, urban population and increase in metro cities in India (1961–2011) Census year

Total population (in million)

Urban population (in million)

Urban population to total population (in percentage)

Million plus city (No.)

Million plus city population to total urban population (in percentage)

1961 439.2 78.9 17.96 7 23.6 1971 548.1 109.1 19.91 9 26.9 1981 683.3 159.4 23.33 12 27.7 1991 846.3 217.6 25.71 23 32.9 2001 1027.1 285.4 27.78 35 37.8 2011 1210 377 31.16 53 42.6 Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (1961–2001) and Census of India (2011a)

Fig. 2.1 India’s 53 million plus cities-2011. Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a)

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

33

Fig. 2.2 Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (1951). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (1951)

approved INR 48,000 crore (7215.06 million USD) for developing 100 smart cities in the country (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2019a). These urban missions intend to promote green, healthy, and smart cities with a better quality of life for citizens. The rise of megacities both in number and population concentration within them indicates the significant presence of economic opportunities and vibrancy in these cities. Indian urban system is spatially dispersed and not characterized by primacy (Mathur 2003). During colonial rule, Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai, and Chennai emerged as the port city and shaped the regional pattern of urbanization and economic activities. The number of metropolitan cities and their spatial distributions in the years 1951, 2001, and 2011 are shown in Figs. 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, respectively. In India, the regional positioning of the distribution of metropolitan cities and UAs is quite substantial. The emergence of urban growth corridors (Golden Quadrilateral, North-South, and East-West, Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridors), connecting several metropolitan cities, and UAs and gripping new investments is an essential initiative taken by the government considering the urban growth in the

34

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Fig. 2.3 Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (2001). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2001)

Fig. 2.4 Indian metropolis and their spatial distribution (2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a)

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

35

2011 2001 1991

Class VI Class V

1981

Class IV Class III

1971

Class II 1961

Class I

1951 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Number of Towns

Fig. 2.5 Number of towns in different size categories in India (1951–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1951–2001) and Census of India (2011a)

post-liberalization period. In the future, this trend is expected to continue to increase. Figure 2.5 highlights the changing numbers of different categories of towns/ cities in different decades from 1951 to 2011. The class I towns (population of 100,000 or more) and class V towns (population from 5000 to 9999) have shown a higher growth rate than other categories. In the context of class I cities, a sharp increase was observed from only 24 in 1901 to 394 in 2001 and further to 468 in 2011. Class I cities have maintained an advantage over class II (Population from 50,000 to 99,999), class III (population from 20,000 to 49,999), class IV (population from 10,000 to 19,999), and class VI (population below 5000) towns as regards the growth rate. Both in-migration and boundary change played a crucial role in Class I cities higher population growth. The percentage of the urban population in different categories of towns/cities in India is shown in Fig. 2.6. A large number of smaller towns have come up in the vicinity of the metropolitan cities. Many of these have become part of a bigger city agglomeration over a period of time. For managing these gigantic Urban Agglomerations, a separate Urban Development Authority is constituted. Further, to manage the large megacity regions (includes megacity and its periphery, surrounding urban centers and rural areas), an independent Regional Development Authority is constituted. In Karnataka, Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) are examples of the Urban Development Authority and Regional Development Authority, which constituted for planning and development of Bengaluru city and its surrounding areas/regions. Since the peripheral lands of metropolitan cities are quite cheap, and strict development

36

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Fig. 2.6 Percentage of urban population in different town size categories in India-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011a)

1.2 7.04 3.1 Class I

12.4

Class II Class III Class IV

8.3

Class V 70.1

Class VI

regulation on land use is absent, the transformation is quite rapid. Sometimes big industrial units are located in this peripheral land immediately outside the peripheral limit. The poor people mostly live in these ‘degraded peripheries’ (Kundu 1989; Kundu et al. 2002) or satellite towns near metropolitan cities and commute to the metropolitan cities daily for work. In the decade 2001–2011, the number of metropolitan cities and UAs increased sharply, from 35 to 53, while in the same decade, Class-I non-metropolitan cities the number increased from 359 to 416 (Fig. 2.7). Also, the total number of towns have exhibited a maximum increase, from 3984 to 5705 during 2001–2011. The growing population of metropolitan cities has had a direct relationship with the availability of resources. During colonial rule, the majority of these cities grew and obtained benefits from the colonial economy. For example, Kolkata grew on the export of jute, tea, Mumbai on cotton and textile and Chennai on tobacco and cotton. It gave rise to the emergence of major cities, and the economic prosperity remains confined to these major cities. These bigger cities benefitted from agglomeration economies, and as a result, the rising concentration of population was observed in the metropolitan cities in India as compared to non-metropolitan cities and towns between 2001 and 2011 timeframe. In the decade 2001 and 2011, the percentage share of the population in metropolitan cities and UAs increased from 37.8 to 42.3%, but during the same decade, non-metropolitan Class I cities’ percentage share of the population decreased from 30.8 to 27.9% (although the number of cities increased by 57). The proportion of towns also declined from 31.38 to 29.81% during 2001–2011 (although the number of cities increased by 1721). During 2001–2011, 70% of the urban population was concentrated in larger cities, while 42.32% was concentrated in metropolitan cities (Fig. 2.8). The total number of metropolitan cities and the share of their population have shown an increasing trend since 1961. Overall, 45 new metropolises were added with an increasing population share of 19% during 1961–2011 (HSMI-HUDCO ChairNIUA Collaborative Research 2017).

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

37

450 400 350 Number of Cities

300 250

Metropolitan Cities

200

Non-Metropolitan Cities

150 100 50 0 1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 2.7 Number of class I cities in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017)

120 100 80

Towns Non-Metropolitan Cies

60

Metropolitan Cies 40 20 0

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 2.8 Percentage distribution of cities and towns in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017)

While population growth rates of Class I cities in India had been much faster from 1961 but on the whole, a declined growth rate has been observed in Class I towns (both metropolitan cities and non-metropolitan cities). The growth rate of metropolitan cities and UAs during 2001–2011 has been significant at 3.88%

38

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India 6 5

Percentage

4 Metropolitan Cies

3

Non-Metropolitan Cies Towns

2 1 0

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 2.9 Annual exponential growth rates across cities and towns in India (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2001), (ii) Census of India (2011a) and (iii) HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research (2017)

though it showed a decline of 4.22% during 1991–2001. The towns have demonstrated an upward trend of growth during 2001–2011 (Fig. 2.9). It is important to note that although the absolute number of population has increased in most of the metropolitan cities, but their growth rate declined over the decades in several cases. In fact, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Delhi registered a decreasing growth rate during 2001–2011, whereas cities like Chennai and Bengaluru experienced an increasing growth rate because of the boom in the tertiary sector and expansion of municipal boundaries (Table 2.2). The growths of older metropolitan cities were seen to become stagnant or declining, while the newer and smaller metros were noted to grow faster. Among all metropolitan cities and UAs in India, Malappuram was the fastest-growing while Kolkata was the slowest growing in terms of population in the decade 2001–2011. There is an increasing trend of growth towards peripheral or fringe areas of metropolitan cities. In some metropolitan regions, the population growth rate of the satellite towns and fringe villages was much faster than the metropolitan city (similar trend observed in Mumbai Metropolitan Region). The 53 metropolitan cities in India are situated in 17 States (provinces), including Delhi. Delhi became a National Capital Territory in 1992 under the National Capital Territory Act. There are no metropolitan cities in northeastern states, Odisha, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Goa. No union territories have a million-plus city. In 2011, the percentage share of the metropolitan population to total urban population was highest in Kerala (76.2%) and lowest in Haryana (16%) (Fig. 2.10). Out of the 53 million cities and UAs, 7 were located in Kerala.

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

39

Table 2.2 Average annual growth rate of top five mega cities in India Cities (UA)

Population (million) 2011

Average annual growth rate of population (in percent) 2001–2011 1991–2001 1981–1991 1971–1981

Greater Mumbai 18.41 1.25 2.99 2.62 Kolkata 14.11 0.68 1.99 1.82 Delhi 16.19 2.66 5.19 4.18 Chennai 8.69 3.53 1.85 1.7 Bengaluru 8.49 4.95 3.77 3.2 Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (1971–2001) and Census of

4.22 1.72 3.8 2.23 3.36 India (2011a)

120

Percentage

100 80 60 40 20 0

Fig. 2.10 Percentage share of urban population in metropolises in States (provinces) and National Capital Territory of Delhi. Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011a)

Globally, megacities are large urban conurbations and epicenter of economic growth. Megacity transport corridors have been recognized for their immense potential to boost economic growth, prosperity, and population concentration. The same is evident from the Bohai Economic Rim-Pearl River Delta-Yangtze River Delta in China, Boston-New York-Washington in the USA, and Tokyo– Nagoya–Osaka in Japan. The Bohai Economic Rim-Pearl River Delta-Yangtze River Delta in China accounts for 36% GDP and 14% of countries’ population share. In 2007, the Government of India proposed the ambitious Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor as an economic corridor (manufacturing hub) to boost economic growth along the corridor and its influence zones. However, as of 2018, the project has not been completed because of land acquisition, compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation, and governance issues (International Growth Centre 2015). According to McKinsey Global Institute estimates (2011), Indian cities are required

40

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

to invest approximately $1.2 trillion (53.1 trillion rupees) in capital expenditure over the successive 20 years, which is almost eight times higher than the present spending (Dobbs et al. 2011). One of the most noticeable outcomes of contemporary economic growth in India is the emergence of mega-urban industrial corridors connecting several metropolitan cities, towns, and rural areas (Mohan and Dasgupta 2004; UN-Habitat 2011). Currently, Western mega-urban industrial corridor (Ahmedabad-Mumbai-Pune), Southern mega-urban industrial corridor (Chennai-Bengaluru-Coimbatore-Kochi-Madurai) and Northern mega-urban industrial corridor (Ludhiana-Delhi-Jaipur) are emerging in a big way (Fig. 2.11).

Fig. 2.11 Mega urban corridors with metropolitan urban agglomerations in India. Prepared based on population data obtained from Census of India (2011a)

Source

2.1 Metropolitan Growth: Trend and Population Concentration

41

Table 2.3 Comparative demographic analysis of emerging mega-urban corridors in India Parameters

Srinagar– Delhi

Delhi– Mumbai

Mumbai– Bengaluru

Southern side of Bengaluru and Chennai

Kolkata– Chennai

Delhi– Kolkata

Delhi– Bengaluru

Population (million)

107

151

60

29

149

231

158

Population density (per km2)

472

548

461

146

537

837

343

Urban population (percentage)

43.1

45.8

60.7

51.2

35.9

34.0

39.9

Number of metropolitan cities/UAs

8

10

4

12

5

14

10

Source Calculations based on data from Census of India (2011a)

Further, comparative analyses of mega-urban industrial corridors are carried out to find out its demographic and urbanization patterns. Fifty-kilometer influence zones on either side of the mega-urban industrial corridor (covering all districts falling within the influence zone) have been studied to understand the urbanization pattern and development status (Table 2.3). A significant share of countries’ urban population and investments are being directed towards these mega-urban industrial corridors. These mega-urban industrial corridors are predominantly clusters of manufacturing, chemical, processing, and IT activity. Many Special Investment Regions (SIRs), Industrial Clusters, and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are proposed along these mega-urban corridors. India’s demographic and urbanization divide is not just north-south (Tumbe 2016), but it is evident in the east-west also. The western corridor is more urbanized with remarkable industrial growth, whereas the eastern urban industrial corridor is less urbanized but more populous. Eastern and North-Eastern mega-urban corridors are not flourished as compared to other mega-urban corridors. Eastern mega-urban corridor is part of the Ingo-Gangetic plain characterized by highly fertile land, but the region lost its glory in the last almost two hundred years due to imperialism, poor social developments, and lack of investments. The working population is more concentrated in districts falling in the eastern mega-urban industrial corridor as compared to the western mega-urban industrial corridor (Fig. 2.12). For the comprehensive development of the Eastern and North-Eastern regions, the Government of India launched ‘Act East Policy’ in 2014 (a successor to the ‘Look East Policy’ of 1992) and Bangladesh–China–India– Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor in 2017. It is evident that the corridor driven urbanization manifest today in India. The economic development strategy of the government should not neglect highly populous and low- income areas (eastern states) of the nation. In this context, the bigger question is: should the government

42

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Fig. 2.12 District wise total workers within the selected influence zone (50 km on either side) of mega urban corridors in India. Source Prepared based on workers data from Census of India (2011a)

focus more industrial and more productive States (provinces) or more productive mega-urban industrial corridors or include less productive but more populous States to increase development based on equity?

2.2

Metropolitan Problems

Urban India shares 31% of the total population as per records of the 2011 census. According to the UN-Habitat estimate, the attainable urban population in India will be 50% in 2050, which will be about 815 million. This massive increase of the urban

2.2 Metropolitan Problems

43

population may put tremendous stress on the system and also call for economic reform to suit the pace of urbanization (Planning Commission 2012). Management of megacities and metropolises in India remains the primary concern for India’s urban future. Indian cities are nowhere near the 247 water supply scenario. Urban areas are estimated to generate about 0.17 million tonnes of solid waste every day, but of this, only about half is collected, and roughly one-sixth is treated. Out of a total of 78.9 million households in India, 13.7 million are slum-dwelling households. As per estimates, the housing shortage in the country in 2012 was 18.78 million, and almost 98% of houseless families belong to economically weaker sections. The share of public transport, which should have continuously gone up, decreased from 11% in 1951 to 1.1% in 2001 (Ramachandran 2014). In metropolitan cities, 83.6% of households have access to tap water, and 96% of households have access to toilets. In million-plus cities, 37.6% of people reside in just one room (HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research 2017). All these facts confirm the significantly degraded quality of life in metropolitan cities of India. Also, neoliberal conflicts exist between formal and informal spaces, particularly in the periphery of the metropolitan cities. Space is filled with contestation, and there is tension between existing rural residents tied to bazaar economics and the new urban middle-class population tied to shopping malls, designer showrooms, etc. (Banerjee-Guha 2008; Dupont 2007). Further, Chatterji (2017) highlights as to how the roles of local political actors interplay with global forces and how this interplay plays a significant role in peri-urban transformation in the post-liberalized Indian states. Further, many of the government-incentivized development in peri-urban areas had led mainly to economic interests and has resulted in speculative and fragmented development (Mahendra and Seto 2019). In Mumbai, mafia-politicians-bureaucrats-police nexus play an important role in land development and land value speculations (Weinstein 2008; Ujikane 2017; Hasan et al. 2013). There are pieces of evidence of farmers, holding up production and waiting for urban development opportunities to sell land for higher return and thus move faraway from agricultural activities (Ballaney et al. 2013; Dutta 2013; Van den Berg et al. 2003). Government controlled land like cantonment areas, ports, railways, etc. are rarely brought into the land market (Mahendra and Seto 2019), and in many cases, such land is put to suboptimal use, which is located in the heart of the city. The majority of the land around metropolitan cities is highly fertile agricultural land, and when such land is taken over for expansion of municipal boundaries, it results in agricultural loss and creation of ill serviced, informal enclaves (Arha et al. 2014). In many cases, due to the absence of municipal services, residents are dependent on private services (Narain 2009). At times, maximizing economic growth through land and property prices neglect the components of quality of life and the socio-environmental objectives of urban development (McGranahan et al. 2016; Logan and Molotch 2007; Heller 2014; Shatkin 2008). Speculative and unplanned urban development along with social inequity, particularly in megacities, need to be reversed as the priority agenda for sustainable development. Carbon emissions from different economic sectors of Urban India highlight that energy (59.26%), cement (10.70%), iron and steel (9.66%), and transport sector

44

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

(5.85%) are the predominant contributors to GHG emission (Sethi and Mohapatra 2013). The sheer pressure of infrastructure development and industrialization, particularly in metropolitan cities, will exponentially increase GHG emissions. Although there are some early signs of new climate initiatives towards a secure low carbon future (Doll and Puppim de Oliveira 2017; Sethi and Puppim de Oliveira 2018) but synergy between global, national, and local initiatives are grossly lacking in India’s context. Rational determination of the locations of neo-liberal economic investments like SEZ, mega-urban industrial corridor, Special Investment Regions, etc. and the regulation of high GHG ‘locked-in-emissions’ for new infrastructure are crucial challenges for years to come (Sethi and Puppim de Oliveira 2018).

2.3

Urban Development Policies with Focus on Metropolitan Development

It should be remembered that as per the Constitution of India, urban development and planning is a State (a federal unit of India) Subject. After independence, the Government of India adopted a pro-poor approach to rural development, and as a result, urban development got grossly ignored. According to Ramachandran (1989), State (provincial) Governments have rarely made any urban policy, and the existing urban policies followed by States are an offshoot of centrally formulated national five-year approaches and other policies, schemes and programmes. The first two Five-Year plans did engage marginally with urban areas, focusing on refugee housing issues and rising land values. After reviewing urban policy in India, it was evident that the Third Five Year Plan (1961–66) introduced the regional planning concept and strengthened rural-urban linkages for connecting new industries located far from big cities. The Fourth Five Year Plan (1969–74) emphasized balanced metropolitan growth and creation of small towns/satellite towns around big metropolises like Delhi, Bombay, etc. Dispersal of the population from metropolitan cities was the main thrust in the Fourth Five Year Plan (Batra 2009). The Sixth Five Year Plan highlighted on specific consideration of regional problems, triggered investments towards small, medium and intermediate towns, and accordingly, IDSMT (Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns) was launched in 1979. Considering growing concerns about urban development, the National Commission on Urbanization (NCU) was established in the late 1980s by the Planning Commission of India. The NCU published its final Three Volume Report focusing on urban spatial structure, land, urban poverty, urban planning, and a direction towards managing urban and metropolitan settlements in India (Mehta and Mehta 1989). The first Master Plan of Delhi was published in 1962, and the plan proposed to establish six self-contained ring towns around Delhi. Due to proximity to Delhi, ring towns have become the more favorable location for the development of industries with policy backing of the State Governments (TCPO 2007). The 74th

2.3 Urban Development Policies with Focus on Metropolitan Development

45

Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA), 1992, has introduced a new era of urban governance and forced urban local bodies to become vibrant and accountable institutions. According to this Act, a Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) is to be constituted for the preparation of the metropolitan regional plan. In December 2005, during the era of the tenth five-year plan, Central Government launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). A massive urban reform was undertaken under this mission, particularly in the areas of urban infrastructure, governance, and basic services to the urban poor. Indian Constitution in its Seventh Schedule lays down the powers of national and state governments, and the 74th CAA of 1992 offers municipalities to serve as a third-tier government with 18 responsibilities including urban planning listed in the 12th schedule of the Constitution of India. The national government’s role is mainly advisory, whereas state government formulates state-specific urban policies, implementation of programmes, and schemes. The land is a state subject as per the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. As per 74th CAA, it is mandatory for the state government to set-up Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs) in metropolitan areas (with a population of one million and above) for planning and development of metropolitan cities and its peripheral areas. In 2014, the Government of India formulated national guidelines namely ‘Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI)’ guidelines by recognizing the interrelationship between urban and rural areas and by promoting regional approach in future development (Ministry of Urban Development 2015d). Further, in 2016, the Government of India launched the ambitious Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM), aiming at stimulating local economic development, enhancing infrastructure and services by making rurban clusters (Ministry of Rural Development 2016). Many of the Rurban clusters are located in close proximity to metropolitan cities and are boosting regional growth. The draft ‘National Urban Policy Framework, 2018’ suggests a shift from the rigid master plan to an ecosystem approach promoting transit nodes to attract high densities. In the post-liberalization era, cities come to be considered an engine of regional growth with the interconnected urban network (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2018). India is on the cusp of progressive development, and in 2015, the newly elected government of India replaced the erstwhile ‘Planning Commission’ with a newly formed organization called ‘Niti Aayag’ for looking after India’s development model and policies. A recent report says that National Government’s goal is for a USD 4.0 trillion economies by 2022 and also projects an increase in per capita income from about USD 1900 in 2017–18 to around USD 3000 by 2022–23. A balanced regional development strategy has been proposed across all states and sectors through implementing new technologies, promotion of innovation, and upskilling. Balanced regional development with improved regional and interregional equity principles remains at the forefront in the national priority agenda (NITI Aayog 2018).

46

2.4

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Urban Infrastructure Development in Satellite Towns

Satellite town is an independent, self-sufficient, and sustainable city (Short et al. 2007; TCPO 2007) generally located close to the metropolitan cities in India. In 2008, the Ministry of Urban Development5 (MoUD) formulated guidelines for infrastructure development in satellite towns around metropolitan cities in India. As part of this scheme, seven satellite towns were selected as the first phase of development. These satellite towns are Sonepat and Pilakhua (near Delhi), Vasai Virar (near Mumbai), Rajarhat (near Kolkata), Sriperumbudur (near Chennai), Hosekutu (near Bengaluru), Vikarabad (near Hyderabad) and Sanand (near Ahmedabad). The objectives of the scheme have been (i) the development of urban infrastructure facilities in satellite towns; (ii) enhancement of sustainability of urban infrastructure facilities by implementing reforms; (iii) adoption of innovative Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models for development of the towns; (iv) creation of housing sites for urban poor and (v) promotion of Urban Local Bodies (ULB) level reforms (MoUD 2008). This scheme will help in developing many more satellite towns in the near future in India. Amelioration of population pressure on metropolitan cities is considered to be one of the significant achievements of satellite towns or counter magnet development scheme.

2.5

Contemporary Urban Policies and Schemes

Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization policies were initiated in the post-1990s as part of economic reform by the Government of India. As a result, the real estate sector saw a big boom in the large-scale private township in the peripheral areas of metro cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru, Pune, etc. (Chadchan and Shankar 2012). Therefore various acts and policies had been formulated by the Government of India, which includes SEZ Policy of 2000, SEZ Act of 2005, Consolidated FDI Policy of 2017, etc. for neo-liberal economic reform and land management. Government of India, under Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, has launched six flagship urban missions including Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Smart Cities, Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), Housing for All (Urban), Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission) and National Urban Livelihood Missions (NULM) in recent past. All six ongoing missions are being implemented across various towns as well as metropolitan cities in different phases to create/upgrade infrastructure as well as better quality of life for the citizens. The primary purposes of AMRUT mission include assured tap water supply, sewerage connections, 5

Both Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) merged in 2017 and renamed as Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA).

2.5 Contemporary Urban Policies and Schemes

47

developing of greenery and well maintained open space, pedestrian, non-motorized and public transport facilities and parking spaces (MoUD 2015a; p. 6). The AMRUT mission covers about 500 cities besides all metropolitan cities. Smart Cities Mission was launched in 2015. The major thrust of the Smart Cities Mission has been ‘to develop sustainable and inclusive development and create compact and replicable models’ (Ministry of Urban Development 2015b: p. 5). The objectives of smart cities’ mission are to promote city infrastructure, improve the quality of life of its citizens and apply smart solutions in the areas of transportation, waste management, water management, energy management, economy, e-governance, and citizens services. Many metropolitan cities, including Pune, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Bhopal, Bengaluru, Thane (a satellite town of Greater Mumbai), Kalyan-Dombivali (a satellite town of Greater Mumbai), etc. are under Smart cities Mission included in different phases (Fig. 2.12). As per government record, by the mid of 2019, 99.63 million urban populations have been the beneficiaries under this Mission (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2019b). HRIDAY scheme was also launched in 2015 with an emphasis on the holistic development of heritage cities. This Mission will cover 12 heritage cities, including Ajmer, Amravati, Amritsar, Badami, Dwaraka, Gaya, Kanchipuram, Mathura, Puri, Velankanni, Varanasi, and Warangal (MoUD 2015c). In 2015, Housing for All (Urban) Mission was launched focusing on the housing requirements of urban poor, including slum dwellers in all 4304 cities and towns, and 472 Class I cities of 35 states and UTs (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation 2015). Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission) launched in 2014 was dedicated to the construction of toilets, solid waste management, and public awareness (Ministry of Urban Development 2014). NULM was launched in 2013 with an emphasis on creating opportunities for skill development for urban poor (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation 2013). All these Missions are required to be appropriately integrated with urban planning approaches for reaping their benefits to the citizens. Cities under HRIDAY Mission will be needed to prepare a Heritage Management Plan, which is to be part of the overall urban planning process. Similarly, both Housing for All and NLUM missions address the housing requirements of urban poor, including slum dwellers and urban street vendors. Thus the implementation of the Urban Missions will require extensive review of our existing urban planning approach in India (Vaidya 2016). This gives rise to the review of many urban planning approaches and principles, including inclusive planning, participatory integrated planning, and convergence of various urban policies and schemes (Fig. 2.13). Indian cities need to be more livable for all residents irrespective of their economic classes. Urban policies supported by the political will of the Government will have to follow and practice sustainability across urban systems not directed towards a few selected cities only. The urbanization process in India led to polycentric urban agglomeration and the emergence of satellite towns around big cities. Satellite towns are often not prosperous because of a deficit in the quality of urban infrastructure and services. Urban Local Bodies of these satellite towns largely depend on Central and State grants and schemes for infrastructure provision and capacity

48

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Fig. 2.13 Smart cities locations with metropolitan urban agglomerations and emerging mega urban corridors in India. Source Population data from Census of India (2011) and Smart Cities distribution from Ministry of Urban Development (2015e)

augmentation. Further, these contemporary urban missions encourage greater Competition between cities through ‘Ease of Living Index’, ‘Swachhata Ranking Awards’ etc. which increases their performance and investment attractiveness. A recent document published by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs highlighted that overall investment in the urban sector has increased from INR 157,703 crores (23,704.93 Million USD) during 2004–2014 to 920,212 crores (138,320.54 Million USD) during 2014–2019. Table 2.4 shows the performance of

2.5 Contemporary Urban Policies and Schemes

49

Table 2.4 Performance of various urban schemes during 2014–2019 Scheme name

Thrusts

Investments (overall and approveda) INR in crore

Major achievements

Swachh Bharat mission (Urban)

Open defecation free (ODF) and Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSW)

62,000 (overall) 14,600 (approved)

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)

Housing for all by 2022

464,142 (overall) 123,274 (approved)

Smart cities mission

Smart infrastructure solutions for better quality of life to citizens

205,018 (overall) 48,000 (approved)

Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT)

Infrastructure improvement with reform agenda

100,000 (overall) 50,000 (approved)

Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY) National Urban Livelihood Missions

Heritage conservation in an inclusive manner

500 (overall) 500 (approved) 2119 (approved)

– All cities of 23 states/UTs declared ODF – 62.7 lakh individual household toilets and 5.12 lakh community/public toilets constructed – 52% scientific processing of MSW – 79.77 lakh houses sanctioned and 43.83 lakh houses grounded for construction – 18.07 lakh houses completed – Over 5.07 lakh beneficiaries under credit linked subsidy scheme – 5151 projects (worth 2.05 lakh crore) sanctioned and 3423 projects (worth 1.31 lakh crore) tendered – Works worth 86,693 crore grounded – Works worth 14,236 crore completed – 16 smart city centres operationalised – 4758 projects worth over 62,704 crore under implementation/completed – Over 59 lakh street lights replaced with LED – Municipal bonds worth over 3390 crore issued by 8 cities – Online building permission systems implemented in 1668 ULBs – 77 projects worth over 423 crore approved and 31 projects worth over 196 crore completed – Employment generated for over 12.4 lakh beneficiaries and more than (continued)

Reduce poverty and create employment opportunities

50

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Table 2.4 (continued) Scheme name

Thrusts

Investments (overall and approveda) INR in crore

Major achievements

(Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana)

13 lakh urban poor imparted skill training – Over 3.7 lakh self-help groups formed – Over 9 lakh street vendors given ID cards Note (i) 1 USD = 66 INR (approx); (ii) 10 million = 1 crore; 1 lakh = 0.1 million a Total central assistance approved during 2014–2019 Source Prepared from Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2019a)

various urban schemes with investments and achievements during the year 2014– 2019. It indicates an overall increase in investment by 483% in the urban sector under various schemes (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2019a). The launch of new missions helps in meeting the demand for urban sector investments and ensures equitable access to the urban services for the residents in Indian cities and towns. The newly developed smart parking near DB City of Bhopal city is shown in Fig. 2.14.

Fig. 2.14 Smart parking near DB City Mall of Bhopal City, India (January, 2019). Picture Credit Sumit Ranjan

2.6 Neoliberal Metropolitan Development in India

2.6

51

Neoliberal Metropolitan Development in India

Indian metropolises and their surrounding region are going through a massive urban transformation in terms of spatial structure, economy, trade, knowledge, and its function within the global, regional, and national urban system, particularly in the post-economic liberalization after the 1990s. State-wise distribution of approved SEZs is mentioned in Table 2.5, and SEZ located close to metropolitan cities and their urban agglomerations are highlighted in Fig. 2.15. Table 2.5 State-wise distribution of approved SEZs in India (As on 22 January 2019) State/union territory

Formal approvals

Telangana 63 Maharashtra 56 Karnataka 62 Tamil Nadu 51 Andhra 32 Pradesh Gujarat 28 Kerala 29 Uttar 24 Pradesh Haryana 24 Rajasthan 5 West 7 Bengal Madhya 10 Pradesh Odisha 7 Punjab 5 Goa 7 Chandigarh 2 Chhattisgarh 2 Nagaland 2 Delhi 2 Jharkhand 1 Manipur 1 Puducherry 1 Total 421 Source Ministry of Commerce

In-principle approvals

Notified SEZs

Exporting SEZs (Central Govt. + State Govt./Pvt. SEZs + notified SEZs under the SEZ Act, 2005)

Total

0 12 0 3 4

57 50 51 47 27

29 30 31 40 19

149 148 144 141 82

4 0 1

24 25 21

20 19 12

76 73 58

3 1 2

21 4 5

6 2 7

54 12 21

0

5

5

20

0 5 5 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 32 355 231 and Industry, Department of Commerce (2019a)

17 11 10 6 5 4 2 2 2 2 1039

52

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Fig. 2.15 SEZ located close to the metropolitan urban agglomerations and emerging mega urban corridors in India. Source Population data from Census of India (2011) and SEZ locations from Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (2019b)

Several Indian metropolitan cities and their regions like Mumbai city and Mumbai Metropolitan Region; Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore) city and Bangalore Metropolitan Region; Pune Metropolitan city and Pune Metropolitan Region etc. are witnesses to neo-liberal socio-economic restructuring. Contemporary metropolitan development in India can be seen as the local-global interface, and peripheral areas of metropolitan cities are evidence of land-use

2.6 Neoliberal Metropolitan Development in India

53

change and economic restructuring in the form of Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Information Technology (IT) Parks. India is one of the leading global back-office outsourcing markets, accounting for 58% market share (NASSCOM 2012) and IT-BPM (Information Technology—Business Process Management) industry added over USD 11 billion revenue during the financial year 2016–2017 (NASSCOM 2017). Further, India’s outsourcing industry provides direct employment of 3.13 million and an additional 10 million indirect employment (PwC 2014). Webster (2002) highlighted that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Asia is highly concentrated in the fringe areas, within a 200 km radius of the metropolitan cities. To accommodate the growing population in the metropolitan cities, planning agencies focus on rural hinterland through public investments. Haphazard conversion of agricultural land to urban usage, economic dynamism, fragmented, and uncoordinated administrations are evident in fringe areas of Metropolitan cities in Asia (Tacoli 2006; Dupont 2007). In the neoliberal metropolitan development model, the processes of land management with the forces of economic transformation are complex and multidimensional. It creates a challenge as well as an opportunity for government-planning agencies, planners, and policymakers to address population explosion, land conflicts due to market-oriented reforms and suggest sustainable land management policies. A fundamental challenge is to cater to the basic needs of the massive urban population residing in the Indian megacities. India’s future will be majorly reflected by the urban future dominated by metropolitan cities and its regions. It is essential to understand the metropolitan spatial structure, rural-urban linkages, and flows of the commodity, people, money, and wisdom. Both the dynamics of dispersal and centralization dominate the geography of global situations toady. Sassen (2005), while introducing the concept of the global city, highlights the elements of the global city model, which include the geographic dispersal of economic activities, global markets, global networks, and global communications. The current 21st-century thinking is based on the extensive use of information technologybased solutions in the areas of e-Governance, e-Democracy, smart economy, etc. The individual nations must sacrifice some level of economic sovereignty to global institutions, as stated by three times Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman (Friedman 2005). The economic importance of global megacities is beyond countries’ territoriality. UN-Habitat recognized Bengaluru as the global information technology hub and Mumbai as the global financial center (UN-Habitat 2007). According to the Global Cities Index, 2018, which ranks 135 cities based on current global standing influence on the world, New York City ranks first, and seven Indian cities rank within 135 Global cities. Mumbai is in 52nd rank followed by New Delhi (58th rank), Bengaluru (78th rank), Chennai (82nd rank), Hyderabad (84th rank), Ahmedabad (108th rank) and Surat (125th rank) (Peterson et al. 2018). With the advent of America first, Brexit (British exit) some oppose the idea of globalization. Bose (2015), in his research on neoliberal urbanism in multiple sites of Kolkata city and on the rise of middle-class initiatives, highlights that a new form of global gentrification is taking place through which people and places are being

54

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

reorganized. It is true that, in India, only a few megacities qualify to the title of global megacities, but in the future, many more megacities can be eligible to become a global megacity.

2.7

Conclusion

Population growth in Indian megacities and the resultant problems like unplanned spatial expansion, over-concentration of the population, unmanageable situations in industrial growth, poor traffic management, etc. call for immediate attention for developing a set of planned satellite towns around these megacities to share their loads of population and activity concentrations. For most of the metropolitan areas, growth has spilled beyond the city boundary, which is unwanted and unaccounted in the land-use configuration within the city as well as in its surrounding areas and satellite towns. The subsequent chapters in this book an attempt have been made to underscore the importance of planned development of satellite towns around megacities by considering both economic growth and spatial sustainability. What is more important is to develop and debate with a better understanding of how metropolitan regions evolve and change and how the future metropolitan region can, hopefully, become better managed. The policies and programmes in this regard are preventive and curative tools to ensure a healthy, planned, and prospective urban scenario for India in the coming decades.

References Arha A, Audichya R, Pant DC (2014) Challenges in the urban and peri-urban transition zones and strategies for sustainable cities: experiences from selected cities. In: Maheshwari B, Purohit R, Malano H, Singh V, Amerasinghe P (eds) The security of water, food, energy and liveability of cities. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 71. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 71–85 Ballaney S, Bertaud M-A, Annez PC, Koshy CK, Nair B, Patel B, Phatak V, Thawakar V (2013) Inventory of public land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Policy research working paper 6664. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/724551468049195991/pdf/ WPS6664.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 Banerjee-Guha S (2008) Space relations of capital and significance of new economic enclaves: SEZs in India. Econ Polit Wkly 43(47):51–59 Batra L (2009) A review of urbanization and urban policy in post-independent India. Working paper series. Centre for study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. http://www.jnu.ac.in/cslg/workingPaper/12A%20Review%20of%20Urban%20(Lalit% 20Batra).pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018 Bhagat RB (1992) Component of urban growth in India with reference to Haryana: findings from recent censuses. Nagarlok 25(3):10–14 Bhagat RB (2012) A turnaround in India’s urbanization. Asia-Pac Popul J 27(2):23–39. https://doi. org/10.18356/43dd15e8-en Bhagat RB (2014) World migration report 2015. Urban migration trends: challenges and opportunities in India. Background paper. International organization for Migration (IOM).

References

55

https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/our_work/ICP/MPR/WMR-2015-Background-PaperRBhagat.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018 Bhagat RB, Mohanty S (2009) Emerging pattern of urbanization and the contribution of migration in urban growth in India. Asian Popul Stud 5(1):5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17441730902790024 Bose PS (2015) Urban development in India: global Indians in the remaking of Kolkata. Routledge, Oxan Census of India (1951–2001) Primary census abstract. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of India Census of India (2011a) Primary census abstract. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of India Census of India (2011b) Rural urban distribution of population. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011prov-results/paper2/data_files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf. Accessed on 28 July 2014 Chadchan J, Shankar R (2012) An analysis of urban growth trends in the post-economic reforms period in India. Int J Sustain Built Environ 1(1):36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2012.05. 001 Chatterji T (2017) Globalization and peri-urban transformation: a comparative analysis of the governance characteristics of three Indian cities. Copal Publishing Group, Ghaziabad, India Dobbs R, Smit S, Remes J, Manyika J, Roxburgh C, Restrepo A (2011) Urban world: mapping the economic power of cities. McKinsey Global Institute, pp 1–62. https://www.mckinsey.com/*/ media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Urbanization/Urban%20world/MGI_urban_world_ mapping_economic_power_of_cities_full_report.ashx. Accessed 02 Aug 2018 Doll CNH, Puppim de Oliveira JA (2017) Urbanization and climate co-benefits: implementation of win-win interventions in cities. Routledge, Oxan Dupont V (2007) Conflicting stakes and governance in peripheries of large indian metropolises— an introduction. Cities 24(2):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.11.002 Dutta V (2013) Land use dynamics and peri-urban growth characteristics: reflections on master plan and urban suitability from a sprawling north Indian city. Environ Urbanization Asia 3 (2):277–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425312473226 Friedman TL (2005) The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York Hasan A, Ahmed N, Raza M, Sadiq A, Ahmed SD, Sarwar MB (2013) Land ownership, control and contestation in Karachi and implications for low income housing. Working paper 10. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/ 10625IIED.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2017 Heller P (2014) Growth and citizenship in Indian cities. Paper prepared for the urban poverty workshop, Duke University, Durham, NC, Dec 4–5. https://sites.duke.edu/urbanpoverty/files/ 2014/11/Heller_paper.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2017 HSMI-Human Settlement Management Institute HUDCO-Housing and Urban Development Corporation Chair-NIUA-National Institute of Urban Affairs (2017) Urban India: status of demography, economic, social structure, housing and basic infrastructure. HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research. National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi. https:// www.niua.org/sites/default/files/HUDCO-Consolidated.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2017 International Growth Centre (2015) Urban corridors: strategies for economic and urban development, working paper. International Growth Centre, London School of Economic and Political Science, London. pp 1–31. https://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IIHS2015-Working-paper-1.pdf. Accessed 02 Aug 2018 Kundu A (1989) The dynamic of city hinterland relationship: the Indian case. In: Vennetier P (ed) La Peri-urbanization Dans Les Pays Tropicaux. CEGET-CNRS, Talence, pp 306–325 Kundu A, Pradhan BK, Subramanium A (2002) Dichotomy or continuum: analysis of impact of urban centres on their periphery. Econ Polit Wkly 37(14):5039–5046 Logan JR, Molotch HL (2007) Urban fortunes: the political economy of place (20th anniversary edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

56

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Mahendra A, Seto KC (2019) Upward and outward growth: managing urban expansion for more equitable cities in the global south. Working paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/upward-outward-growth.pdf?_ga=2.153003775. 790431251.1557127143-776724570.1557127143. Accessed 05 Apr 2019 Mathur OP (2003) Impact of globalization on cities and city-related policies in India. In: Richardson HW, Bae C-HC (eds) Globalization and urban development. Springer, New York, pp 43–58 McGranahan G, Schensul D, Singh G (2016) Inclusive urbanization: can the 2030 agenda be delivered without it? Environ Urbanization 28(1):13–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815627522 Mehta M, Mehta D (1989) Priorities in urban planning and national commission on urbanization. Econ Polit Wkly 24(21):1178–1184 Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (2019a) State-wise distribution of approved SEZs. http://sezindia.nic.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/State%20%20wise%20distribution %20of%20SEZs.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2019 Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (2019b) Formal approvals granted in the board of approvals after coming into force of SEZ rules as on 22.01.2019. http://sezindia. nic.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Formal%20Approval.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2019 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2018) National urban policy framework. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/ nupf_final.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2019 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2019a) Transforming urban landscape 2014–2019. Government of India, New Delhi. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/5c7faf00eac57UT%20Book1. pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2019 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2019b) Smart cities mission. http://smartcities.gov.in/ content/ Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2013) National urban livelihoods mission: mission document. Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, New Delhi Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2015) Housing for all (urban): scheme guidelines. Ministry of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, New Delhi Ministry of Rural Development (2016) Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban mission: Integrated Cluster Action Plan (ICAP). Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi. http://rurban.gov.in/download/ICAP.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2008) Guidelines for scheme of urban infrastructure development in satellite towns/counter magnets of million plus cities. http://tcpomud.gov.in/Divisions/ MUTP/guideline_satellite.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2014) Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/writereaddata/ SBM_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2015a) AMRUT-mission statement and guidelines. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. http://amrut.gov.in/writereaddata/ AMRUT%20Guidelines%20.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2015b) Smart city mission statement and guidelines. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/ files/resources/smartcityguidelines.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2015c) Operational guidelines for HRIDAY. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. https://www.hridayindia.in/downloads/ Operational_Guidelines_for_HRIDAY_scheme.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2018 Ministry of Urban Development (2015d) Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI) guidelines—volume I. Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/ URDPFI%20Guidelines%20Vol%20I.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2018

References

57

Ministry of Urban Development (2015e) How Many Smart Cities in Each State/UT? Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/ uploadfiles/files/No_%20of%20Smart%20Cities%20in%20each%20State.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2020 Mohan R, Dasgupta S (2004) Urban development in India in the twenty first century: policies for accelerating urban growth. Stanford Center for International Development. Working paper 231. https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/231wp.pdf. Accessed 05 Sept 2018 Narain V (2009) Growing city, shrinking hinterland: land acquisition, transition and conflict in peri-urban Gurgaon, India. Environ Urbanization 21(2):501–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956247809339660 NASSCOM-National Association of Software and Service Company (2012) Strategic review 2012. National Association of Software and Service Company NASSCOM-National Association of Software and Service Company (2017) IT-BPM industry in India: sustaining growth and investing for the future. National Association of Software and Service Company NITI-National Institution for Transforming India Aayog (2018) Strategy for new India @ 75. National Institution for Transforming India, New Delhi. http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/ Strategy_for_New_India.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2019 Pathak P, Mehta D (1995) Recent trend in urbanisation and rural-urban migration in India: some explanations and projections. Urban India 15(1):1–17 Peterson ER, Hales M, Peña AM, Dessibourg-Freer N (2018) Global cities report 2018: learning from the east: insights from China’s urban success. ATKearney, pp 1–16. https://www. atkearney.com/documents/20152/1136372/2018+Global+Cities+Report.pdf/21839da3-223b8cec-a8d2-408285d4bb7c?t=1527106649606. Accessed 02 Aug 2018 Planning Commission (2012) The challenges of urbanization in India. Approach to the 12th plan. http://12thplan.gov.in/12fyp_docs/17.pdf. Accessed on 10 Sept 2014 PwC-Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2014) India—a destination for sourcing of services: PwC perspective. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2014/ india-as-a-destination-for-sourcing-of-services.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2018 Ramachandran M (1989) An alternative translation scheme for counterpart theory. Analysis 49(3):131–141 Ramachandran M (2014) India’s urban confusion: challenges and strategies. COPAL Publishing Group, New Delhi Sassen S (2005) The global city: introducing a concept. Brown J World Aff 11(2):27–43 http:// www.saskiasassen.com/pdfs/publications/the-global-city-brown.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2018 Sethi M, Mohapatra S (2013) Governance framework to mitigate climate change: challenges in urbanizing India. In: Ha H, Dhakal TN (eds) Governance approaches to mitigation of and adoption to climate change in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, pp 200–230 Sethi M, Puppim de Oliveira JA (2018) Mainstreaming climate co-benefits in Indian cities. Springer Nature, Singapore Shatkin G (2008) The city and the bottom line: urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia. Environ Plann A Econ Space 40(2):383–401 Shivaramakrishnan KC, Singh BN (2005) Urbanization. Planning Commission, Government of India. http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/vision2025/urban.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2017 Short JR, Hanlon B, Vicino T (2007) The decline of inner suburbs: the new suburban gothic in the United States. Geogr Compass 1(3):641–656 Sita K, Bhagat RB (2007) Population change and economic restructuring in Indian metropolitan cities: a study of Mumbai. In: Shaw A (ed) Indian cities in transition Orient Longman, Hyderabad, pp 59–82 Tacoli C (ed) (2006) The Earthscan reader in rural urban linkages (Earthscan reader series). Earthscan, Oxfordshire TCPO-Town and Country Planning Organization (2007) Evaluation study of DMA towns in National Capital Region (NCR). Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Urban

58

2 Problems and Policies of Metropolitan Growth in India

Development Government of India. http://tcpomud.gov.in/divisions/mutp/dma/final_dma_ report.pdf. Accessed on 28 July 2014 Tumbe C (2016) Urbanisation, demographic transition, and the growth of cities in India, 1870– 2020. Working paper. C-35205-INC-1. International Growth Centre. https://www.theigc.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tumbe-2016-Working-paper.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018 Ujikane K (2017) Forget NY, Mumbai is among top four most expensive cities in the world. Bloomberg, Jan 19. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/forget-ny-mumbaiis-among-top-four-most-expensive-cities-in-the-world-117011900105_1.html. Accessed 05 Sept 2018 UN-Habitat (2007) Urbanization: mega & meta cities, new city states? State of the World’s Cities 2006–07. United Nations Human Settlement Programme. http://mirror.unhabitat.org/ documents/media_centre/sowcr2006/SOWCR%202.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018 UN-Habitat (2011) Urban trends: urban corridors—shape of things to come? United Nations Human Settlements Programme. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011. http://mirror.unhabitat. org/documents/SOWC10/R3.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2018, Accessed 04 Jan 2019 United Nations (2013) World economic and social survey 2013: sustainable development challenges. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. E/2013/50/Rev. 1 ST/ ESA/344. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/wess2013/ WESS2013.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2019 United Nations (2018) 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/ news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. Accessed 04 Jan 2019 United Nations (2019) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division New York, United Nations. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf. Accessed 09 Sept 2019 Vaidya C (2016) Urban planning approach in Amrut, Smart City, Hriday and housing for all missions in India. Spandrel 11:7–13 Van den Berg LM, Wijk van MS, Hoi van P (2003) The transformation of agriculture and rural life downstream of Hanoi. Environ Urbanization 15(1):35–52 Visaria P (1997) Urbanization in India: an overview. In: Jones GW, Visaria P (eds) Urbanization in large developing countries: China, Indonesia, Brazil and India. Clarendon Press, Oxford Webster D (2002) On the edge: shaping the future of peri-urban East Asia. Asia/Pacific Research Center, Stanford University Stanford, CA. https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Webster2002.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 Weinstein L (2008) Mumbai’s development mafias: globalization, organized crime and land development. Int J Urban Reg Res 32(1):22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008. 00766.x

Chapter 3

Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

Abstract In the latter half of the 20th Century, urban development policies in India focused on growth control strategies of metropolitan cities and megacities, and the idea of satellite town emerged widely. Countries like the UK, USA, and France, during the sixties and seventies, has shown excellent results in satellite development. Between 1960 and 1980, for Asian cities like those of Japan, China, India, etc. attempts were made in developing satellite cities particularly close to capital cities. This chapter reviews the earlier efforts made to create satellite towns around metropolitan cities, particularly around Delhi, Greater Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bengaluru, and also try to find out their role in sharing the concentrated activity load in the main city. This chapter also attempts the experiences of developing satellite towns around metropolitan cities in the UK, USA, Japan, China, Egypt, etc. and also critically assesses their responsibilities in pulling the activity loads of the metropolitan city. This chapter also identifies the set of factors that explain the success and failure of satellite city development. Giving a concise and prolonged account of the Indian satellite development scenario, it also focuses on international trends and practices in this regard. Keywords Satellite development

3.1


Role
Success
Failure
New Bombay

Concept of Garden City, New Town and Satellite Town

The concepts of garden cities, new towns, and satellite towns are the almost hundred-year-old concept. The initial satellite towns around the world were mainly dependent on residential settlements connected with metropolises. People only lived in these satellite towns with basic service facilities, and employment and for other purposes, they were solely reliant on mother cities or metropolises. These experiences can be witnessed from Paris satellite town planning (from 1912 to 1920) and Letchworth garden city and Welwyn garden city of England. Letchworth garden city was founded in 1903, located in the East of England, and is recognized as the first garden city in the UK. Letchworth garden city was the closest to the full realization © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_3

59

60

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

of the Garden city model. Welwyn garden city was founded in 1919, located in the East of England, and became the second garden city in the UK (TCPA 2014a, 2015). Welwyn garden city was later designated as ‘New Town.’ The terms ‘Garden City’, ‘New Town’, and ‘Satellite Town’ are often used interchangeably. These urban units were evolved as visionary concepts in finding better ways of living and today considered as a process on evolving urbanism not only in the UK but also in the USA, China, Japan, India, etc. However, we still a lot to learn in this matter. The modern new town movement was originated in England in 1898 with the publication of the famous book ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ by E. Howard. Letchworth garden city (established in 1903) and Welwyn garden city are examples of cities built in the east of England following Howard’s principles of low density and low-rise housing design, attractive landscaping of main roads, boulevards and residential streets, and the principle of land-use zoning. Separating residential areas from other major categories of contrasting land uses, i.e., industrial and large-scale commercial activities, were planned (TCPA 2015). The term ‘New Town’ has been used to describe a town or urban settlement that is typically newly built on a greenfield site project. In the Post-World War-II period, there was an acute housing shortage in the UK (Town and Country Planning Association 2014a). To overcome housing shortage and to follow a reformed system of legislative development of plan-making, ‘The New Town Act 1946’ was formulated and later ‘New Town Development Corporation’ was established for large-scale construction and rebuilding of post-war New Towns. Howard (1946) is known for his concept of ‘garden city,’ an organic self-contained new city surrounded by the agricultural green belt to contain the spillover from an already overcrowded metropolis. This garden city was later replaced by the term ‘new town’ (Osborn and Whittick 1969). Ultimately, looking into the increasing demand, the Government initiated a post-war programme of New Towns development (Town and Country Planning Association 2015). The Garden cities and New Towns also differed regarding scale and the delivery model. The New Towns typically had a more substantial target population, i.e., 80,000. However, in the case of Milton Keynes, the target population was as high as 250,000 compared to Howard’s suggested 32,000 for Garden Cities (TCPA 2014a). In 1915, Graham Romeyn Taylor introduced the idea of ‘Satellite Cities.’ During that time, large factories were planning to establish in the suburbs of major big cities to relieve the pressure of metropolitan downtown areas (Taylor 1915). Scholars identified some aspects of satellite towns as follows: • The distance between satellite town and metropolis varies depending upon the availability of developable land, availability of water, transportation network, etc. The physical identity of the satellite town should be maintained, and green belt or open spaces needed to segregate satellite town with the metropolitan city (Golany 1976). • Economic dependency on the neighboring urban center for employment opportunities (Fisher-Cassie 1943). • Presence of an independent local government to govern satellite towns (Golany 1976). For example, in 1971, City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was established for the planning and development of New Bombay (also known as Navi Mumbai), a satellite town of Greater Mumbai.

3.1 Concept of Garden City, New Town and Satellite Town

61

Researchers have defined satellite towns based on their functional characteristics. Satellite town is an independent, self-sufficient, and sustainable city and is characterised by a combination of residential and employment mix (TCPO 2007; Short et al. 2007). Chen (2011), in his research, highlighted the stages in the development process from satellite towns to new towns. The initial satellite towns were primarily dependent residential settlements termed as Dormitory towns. During 1912–1920, 28 such residential towns were planned around Paris within 16 km distance. Later semi-dependent satellite towns were planned with some employment opportunities within satellite towns. After post-world war II, the emphasis was building fully independent satellite towns with a higher level of functions, and these towns were called ‘New Towns.’ The functions of new towns vary according to their types. Gliege (1970) described three kinds of new towns as (i) independent new towns, (ii) satellite new towns, and (iii) new towns in-town. Independent new towns are geographically separated from the metropolis and absorb surplus metropolitan population and also maintain self-sufficiency. Satellite new towns are located near any metropolis, have some degree of autonomy, and depend partly on the metropolis for the job, economic activities, and amenities. New towns in-town develops with the application of some new town principles to the large already existing metropolis. Alonso (1970) divided new towns into only two categories: satellite and independent new towns. He indicated that new towns were ‘independent’ if they could employ their residents, or were ‘satellite’ if there were a substantial amount of commuting to other centers. He does not include growth centers in the new town category. Watterson and Watterson (1975) divide new towns into four groupings: satellite, add-on (additions to existing small towns and cities capable of conversion to growth centers), new towns in-town, and free-standing new towns. Pressman (1978) mentions independent new towns, satellite new towns, and expanded new towns. A new town’s type varies, depending on its functions. An attempt also made to review satellite town development mainly in developed and developing countries’ perspectives to share innovative ideas and also to find out retrospect and the prospect of satellite development. The ever-changing skyline of the mega-city of London is shown in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1 Ever-changing skyline of the mega-city of London (August 2019). Picture credit Amit Chatterjee

62

3.2

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

New Town and Satellite Development in Developed Countries

Most of the new towns and Satellite towns in Europe (particularly in the UK and France), USA, were selected in the post-second world war period as an alternative solution to decongest metropolitan cities and achieve balanced regional development. Although each of these countries has its model of satellite development, regulatory mechanism, and financial model to develop new towns and satellite cities, in many cases, it tries to solve a metropolitan problem. Until World War II, only two garden cities, later known as satellite cities of Letchworth and Welwyn, were built with thirty-five thousand inhabitants. After World War II, Stevenage was the first New Town to be designated on 11 November 1946 under New Towns Act, 1946. Apart from the creation of homes, jobs, healthy and sociable environments were part of the new town development programme. The New Town programme designated 33 new towns, but 32 New Towns were built across the UK and targeted homes for over 2.8 million peoples. The separate legislation was used in Scotland and Northern Ireland cases. In the UK, the Central Government plays a vital role in financing new towns. The New Town Act (1946) was the bedrock of further programmes of new towns. The New Towns were developed on a larger scale with government support and reflected the economic, political, and cultural climate of post-war UK. For the success and failure of satellite towns in the UK, 32 New Towns are selected for in-depth study and research (TCPA 2015). Based on chronological order (date of New Town designation) and locations, 32 New Towns are mentioned below: 1. Stevenage was the first New Town selected on 11 November, 1946 under New Towns Act, 1946. Stevenage located 30 km north of London 2. Crawley New Town designated on 9 January, 1947, located 45 km south of London 3. Hemel Hempstead New Town designated on 4 February, 1947, located 42 km north west of London 4. Harlow New Town designated on 25 March, 1947, located 37 km north east of London 5. Newton Aycliffe New Town designated on 19 April, 1947, located 10 km north of Darlington, 14 km south of Durham 6. East Kilbride New Town designated on 6 May, 1947, located 21 km south east of Glasgow 7. Peterle New Town designated on 10 March, 1948, located 14 km east of Durham and 19 km south of Newcastle 8. Welwyn New Town designated on 20 May, 1948, located 32 km north of London 9. Hatfield New Town designated on 20 May, 1948, located 29 km north of London

3.2 New Town and Satellite Development in Developed Countries

63

10. Glenrothes New Town designated on 30 June, 1948, located 27 km from Edinburgh 11. Basildon New Town designated on 04 January, 1949, located 50 km east of London 12. Bracknell New Town designated on 17 June, 1949, located 30 km south-west of London 13. Cwmbran New Town designated on 04 November, 1949, located 08 km north of Newport and 21 km north east of Cardiff 14. Corby New Town designated on 01 April, 1950, located 129 km north of London 15. Cumbernauld New Town designated on 09 December, 1955, located 21 km east of Glasgow 16. Skelmersdale New Town designated on 09 October, 1961, located 21 km north east of Liverpool and 26 km north west of Manchester 17. Livingston New Town designated on 16 April, 1962, located 25 km west of Edinburgh and 50 km east of Glasgow 18. Telford New Town designated on 16 January, 1963, located 37 km north-west of Birmingham 19. Redditch New Town designated on 10 April, 1964, located 23 km south of Birmingham 20. Runcorn New Town designated on 10 April, 1964, located 19 km south-east of Liverpool 21. Washington New Town designated on 24 July, 1964, located 10 km south of Newcastle 22. Craigavon New Town designated on 26 July, 1965, located 34 km south-west of Belfast 23. Antrim New Town designated on 07 July, 1966, located 21 km north-west of Belfast 24. Irvine New Town designated on 07 November, 1966, located 38 km south-west of Glasgow 25. Milton Keynes New Town designated on 23 January, 1967, located 72 km north-west of Birmingham 26. Peterborough New Town designated on 21 July, 1967, located 124 km north of London 27. Ballymena New Town designated on 31 July, 1967, located 40 km north-west of Belfast 28. Newtown New Town designated on 18 December, 1967, located 51 km south-west of Aberystwyth and 51 km south-west of Shrewsbury 29. Northampton New Town designated on 14 February, 1968, located 108 km north-west of London and 16 km north-west of Milton Keynes 30. Warrington New Town designated on 26 April, 1968, located 27 km south-west of Manchester and 26 km east of Liverpool 31. Derry New Town designated on 05 February, 1969, located 120 km north-west of Belfast

64

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

32. Central Lancashire New Town designated on 26 March, 1970, located 38 km north-west of Manchester Each of the 32 New Towns has separate Local Authority to govern and manage the New Towns. Local Authorities have prepared a local area plan for a better environment, economy, and housing demand. For Example, Stevenage was the first New Town governed by Stevenage Borough Council, and in 2004 the Stevenage district local plan was adopted. Locations of each of 32 New Towns in the UK are shown in Fig. 3.2. Further, an attempt has been made to find out objectives and

Fig. 3.2 Location of 32 new towns in UK. Source Prepared from various sources (Esri, Digital Globe, Geo Eye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo and the GIS user community)

3.2 New Town and Satellite Development in Developed Countries

65

purposes for which 32 New Towns were created initially and to ascertain the extent to which those objectives are so far achieved after seven decades of their origin (considering from the origin of Stevenage, the first New Town) (TCPA 2014b, 2015). It has also been required to focus on the demographic, housing, health, and economic aspects of New Towns development experiences (Table 3.1) and to trace the success and failure records of New Towns in the UK. Tidd (1997) was in the opinion that garden cities are a new hope, a new life, and a modern civilization and will be the future of Great Britain’s town planning. Schaffer (1970) pointed out that new towns should provide a new form of life to its residents, and in this process, a self-supporting social city will develop eventually. In the initial period of most of the new towns were established close to the big cities or edge of the big cities, but in a later stage, the growth was fragmented and not so close to the big cities. In the year 1970, the new town development corporation had transferred the new town development project to the local authorities. Many of the new towns become the employment hub of specialized activities, and interdepartmental coordination (such as Department of Industry with Department of Environment) was a crucial factor emerging for a better environment for its residents (Malandi 2005). Although there are many significant lessons to be learned from the Garden Cities and the New Towns programme of UK but with changing time, there are multiple challenges faced by these cities and towns today, which includes unoccupied new homes, dominance of private sector in housing supply, no political consciences, more car dependency, lack of social interaction, different planning systems in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, etc. (TCPA 2014a). In the USA, the majority population lives in urban areas, usually large metropolitan cities like New York, Chicago, etc. The idea of New Towns started in the United States after the garden city movement in the UK, and most of the cities had been created based on political-administrative decisions. In the USA, financing of New Town is a private or public-private partnership venture. The idea of New town in the USA was originated from the Regional Planning Association of America in the year 1920s. Following the examples of garden cities in the UK, Redburn in New Jersey was initiated in 1929. Later many government-sponsored ‘green belt’ towns were built, namely Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. (Insa-Ciriza 2012). In the post Second World War period, the processes of urbanization resulted in rapid urban sprawl, particularly in the Paris metropolitan areas. As a result, the French Government, at the beginning of the 1960s, shifted its monocentric scheme and adopted a new urban policy. Consequently, five new towns were built around Paris and four more suggested in other areas. By the late 1970s, there was large scale construction in the new town development, and as a result, 20,000 housing and 15,000 new employments per year created (Rubenstein 1978, p. 2). New towns projects were considered as projects of national importance and five organizations namely: (i) the Secretariat of Central Group of New Towns, (ii) the New Town Public Development Corporations, (iii) the Association of New Towns Communes, (iv) Greater Paris Regional Authority and (v) New town communes themselves (Chomentowski 2000). New towns have eventually emerged as increasing specialized high skilled professionals linking with the social situation of the Paris city

66

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

Table 3.1 Demography, housing, health and economic profile of 32 new towns in UK Hosing (owner-occupied-in per cent)

Health (very good in per cent)

Economic base

58.2

47

Knowledge industries

59

47.6

Diamond economic area

85,786

58.2

Higher than UK New Town average

Retail

80,000

81,944

56.1

45.1

Hospital, manufacturing

45,000

26,633

Higher than UK New Town average

Bad health is higher than UK average

Car manufacturing

S. No.

New towns

Intended population

Population (2011)

1

Stevenage

80,000

83,957

2

Crawley

70,000

106,597

3

Hemel Hempstead

80,000

4

Harlow

5

Newtown Aycliffe

6

East Kilbride

82,500

76,562

72.3

52.9

Business

7

Peterlee

30,000

20,164

Higher than UK New Towns average

Below UK New Towns average

Car parts making

8

Welwyn Garden City

50,000

46,619

Lower than UK New Town average

49.8

Retail, ware house

9

Hatfield

25,000

39,088

Higher than UK New Towns average

51.7

Business park

10

Glenrothes

45,000

39,277

64.5

48.8

Electronic, high tech industries

11

Basildon

80,000

110,762

57

Similar to the UK New Towns average

Ford motor company

12

Bracknell

60,000

64,135

62.7

Similar to the UK New Towns average

Multimodal IT business

13

Cwmbran

55,000

48,535

65.5

43.5

Retail

14

Corby

55,000

59,563

59.5

Similar to the UK New Towns average

Manufacturing

15

Cumbernauld

70,000

52,270

71

52.5

Business centre

16

Skelmersdale

61,000

40,710

Lower than UK New Towns average

46

Retail and manufacturing

17

Livingston

18

Telford

19

20

70,000

50,296

168,000

166,641

61.8

61.4

Retail

62

45.3

Manufacturing and retail

Redditch

90,000

84,214

65.7

Similar to the UK New Towns average

Manufacturing

Runcorn

45,000

63,684

57

1–2% very good and good health

Logistic, manufacturing

(continued)

3.2 New Town and Satellite Development in Developed Countries

67

Table 3.1 (continued) Hosing (owner-occupied-in per cent)

Health (very good in per cent)

Economic base

55,196

63.5

43.7

Car plant (Nissan)

120,000

61,056

59.4

43.9

Manufacturing, service

30,000

22,926

63.1

45.3

Manufacturing, service

S. No.

New towns

Intended population

Population (2011)

21

Washington

80,000

22

Craigavon

23

Antrim

24

Irvine

116,000

50,297

58.4

45.3

Retail

25

Milton Keynes

250,000

211,062

55

47.6

Administrative, retail

26

Peterborough

188,000

183,631

59.3

44.3

Public sector, service

27

Ballymena

60,000

33,249

64.6

44.2

Retail

28

Newtown

13,000

11,357

52

43.6

Retail

29

Northampton

260,000

212,069

62.7

46.4

Public sector

30

Warrington

210,000

171,840

69.1

49.5

Retail

31

County Derry

94,500

87,820

53.9

47.6

Service

32

Central Lancashire

321,500

313,332

69

47.1

Retail

Note Population, housing and health are based on 2011 census Source TCPA (2014a, b, 2015)

(Berger 2004; Polese et al. 2014). Within a brief span, the population living in these towns got increased due to better urban amenities and employment opportunities (Desponds and Auclair 2017). Transport infrastructure and synergy between the government and the private sector in proper distribution of responsibilities has played a significant role in the success of the French new town development process.

3.3

New Town and Satellite Development in Developing Countries and Africa

There are diversities in terms of economy, social organization, political systems, etc. among the countries in the developing world and Africa. Particularly after the Second World War, the increase of urban population due to better medical facilities, infrastructure, and rural to urban migration has contributed to accelerated

68

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

metropolitan growth in the countries of the developing world and Africa (UNCHS 2001). Alongside economic polarization such as the oil industry in the Middle East, physical and geographical factors such as water availability in the Nile valley, the Mediterranean coast has also contributed to demographic polarization. Coping with the rapid population growth in the metropolitan cities and learning from the new town experiences from the developed world (mainly from the UK), different countries started developing new towns, particularly in the post-1960s. Jubail and Yanbu new towns were constructed in Saudi Arabia on government land during the period 1970–1985 by public sector investment, and these two towns were industrial in nature (Rahmaan and Fadaak 1993). These two new towns were planned to be self-sufficient with a target population of 440,000 by 2010 (Saudi Arabian Information Resource 2001). Jubail new town was designed on an area of 1030 km2 with three distinct parts: residential and community area located in the northern part, an industrial complex located in the southern part, and a colossal buffer zone in between to segregate the industrial part from the residential part. The residential area consists of several neighborhoods with segregated pedestrian and vehicular movements. Both Jubail and Yanbu new towns were connected to the main cities (Jeddah and Dammam city) through roads, railways, airport, and seaport (Mohanna 1993). The national government played an important role in funding and developing the two new towns, and the role of private industrial companies was minimal. In 1962, post-independence, new economic policies in Algeria resulted in a rapid shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial and oil boom that led to the rapid growth of the urban population. As a consequence, housing shortage and growth of informal settlements in the outskirts of major cities of Algeria was evident (Christie 1984). At that time, the government was planning new towns built near factories such as Bouira near Algiers, Arzew near Oran, etc. Post-1974, government policies were more concerned about decentralization and social needs (Tlemcani 1986). In Syria, to overcome the housing problem of the capital city, Damascus, the government built two new towns of Dummar and Kudsaia. Shammot (1993) highlights that after 15 years of building the new towns of Dummar and Kudsaia, the residents kept depending on Damascus for employment and other opportunities. In 1970, Egypt opted for open foreign policy and opened the door to the private sector in national projects resulting in privatization (Abd-Al-Latiff 1998). Cairo, the capital city of Egypt, reached the million-plus population in the 1940s and became the administrative and commercial epicenter of not only Egypt but also of Africa and the Middle East. Population explosion (2.06 million in 1947 to 9.48 million in 1996) in Cairo resulted in a housing shortage and other urban problems (CAPMAS 1996). Also, an estimated 4 million people were living on the outskirts of Cairo as informal and illegal settlements (Yousry and Atta 1997). The 1978–82 Five-Year National Plan approved the development of new towns with a target population of 8 million by the year 2000, and 5% of the national investments were allocated for the new town development (M.H.U.NUC 1979). These ambitious new town

3.3 New Town and Satellite Development in Developing Countries and Africa

69

development programmes were part of a regional planning policy aimed at preserving agricultural land and balanced development. A total of 17 new towns were developed from 1978 to 1995 with the different target populations and varied economic thrusts. Sixth of October town was established in the year 1979, with a target population of 1,500,000, whereas New Tiba town was developed in the year 1995, with a target population of 35,000. Many of these new towns were built for both housing and industry purposes, but many solely housing purpose towns were also developed (Malandi 2005). Both external financial resources in the form of grants, subsidies, loans form companies or individual investors from foreign countries, etc. and local financial resources like government financing, bank, and insurance companies, etc. played an essential role in new town development and finance (Gillespie 1984). In China, satellite towns were developed in Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Shanghai, and other large urban centres, and accordingly, national development shifted its focus from big cities to satellite towns (Fung 1981). In recent times, many new towns were developed to represent diversified models, i.e., airport new towns, seaport new towns, high-speed railway new towns, etc. under the Chinese New Town Development Programme. Initially, the idea of satellite towns in China was borrowed from the development in the post-liberalization era. Many Special Economic Zones, Industrial parks were developed during the post-reform era, and it emerged as a unique spatial form in Chinese metropolises (Chen 2011). In the post Second World War period, many satellite towns were developed around the Tokyo Metropolitan Region (TMR). Tsukuba, Tama, Kohoku, Chiba, etc. were built during that era. In this process, the region became more car-dependent (Ohta 1994) and lost some significant green areas much required for resident’s long-term demands for quality of life (Sorensen 2001).

3.4

Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

Development of New Towns and Satellite Towns in India is a continuous exercise since ancient times, and the experiments continued until recent times. The earliest new towns of Fatehpur Sikri and Jaipur were located close to the capital city. During Britishers’ rule, many railway new towns like Itarsi, Kharagpur, Asansol, Manmad ware planned in different parts of the country. Also, in post-independent India, many refugee new towns like Faridabad near Delhi, Asokenagar in West Bengal, etc. were developed as part of government policy to tackle the massive influx of refugee population (Sivaramakrishnan 1977). The functional bases of new towns are not static. Many refugee settlements or towns later converted into industrial new towns. New towns can vary depending upon population class sizes. Bokaro, Chandigarh, Rourkela, between the years 1961–1971 emerged as class I town. An attempt has

70

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

been made to develop satellite towns around all large metropolitan cities, but only a few like Ghaziabad and Faridabad Ballabgarh near Delhi, the residential township of Bidhannagar (Saltlake) in Kolkata and industrial Satellite of Ramchandrapuram Patancheruva in the case of Hyderabad has been thriving (Date 1994; Rao 1990). The first Master Plan of Delhi (MPD-1962) envisaged a compact growth of Delhi with independent six ring towns to cater to urban load, strengthening economic base and locating government offices in these ring towns (DDA 1961). The NCR Plan-2001 also referred to the ring towns. These new towns later developed as industrial towns with support from national and local governments (TCPO 2007). The National Capital Region Plan-2021 has targeted to promote growth and balanced development of the National Capital Region (NCRPB 2005). Further, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India has promoted seven satellite towns, namely- Sonepat and Pilakhua (near Delhi), Vasai Virar (near Mumbai), Rajarhat (near Kolkata), Sriperumbudur (near Chennai), Hosekutu (near Bengaluru), Vikarabad (near Hyderabad) and Sanand (near Ahmedabad) through urban infrastructure development scheme for satellite towns (Ministry of Urban Development 2008). This scheme will help to finance and development of many more satellite towns in the future. Initial satellite towns were mainly linear settlements, usually located along the major transport corridors connecting cities (Hillier 2002; TCPO 2007). A schematic representation of new town and satellite development is presented in Fig. 3.3. In Mumbai Metropolitan Region, along with Mumbai UA, Vasai-Virar city had also crossed a million-plus population based on the 2011 Census data. In the future, there is a possibility to develop satellite towns around Vasai-Virar city. Shaw (1995) mentioned three sets of factors behind the success of Satellite cities:

Fig. 3.3 Schematic representation of new town and satellite town development process in India

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

71

• Satellite towns located close to the big cities are more successful as compared to other cases of satellite town development. These satellite towns provide feasible alternative solutions to the problems faced by big cities. • For each satellite towns, the economic base needs to be strengthened. It can be agro-based or industry-based or services-oriented or a combination of a mix of activities. • National and State (provincial) Government support in policy formulation and implementation is another crucial factor for the success of satellite towns. New Town (previously known as Rajarhat) is a fast-growing satellite township located in the north-east of the existing city of Kolkata. The New town was developed with the target that it will absorb the excess population burden of Kolkata city. The project spread over 37 km2 of the village and agricultural lands, ponds, and wetlands. The township was initiated in 1993 and has been projected as West Bengal’s first ‘green, eco-friendly, self-sufficient, and smart city’ (WBHIDCL 1999). The New town was planned to be a residential town with an expected residential population of 1.5 million. The township is divided into four action areas and a Central Business District (CBD) and other predominant land use like residential, information technology, public institutions, open spaces, commercial use, and circulation areas present as per master plan. Within the notified New Town planning area, there are 16 village pockets where villagers continue to live. Before 1995, Rajarhat was inhabited by farmers and fishermen, and the locality was connected with the city through the exchange of freshly produced goods and services (Dey et al. 2013). An estimated 130,000 people lost their land and livelihood due to this massive scale of the project (Sengupta 2013). Though villagers agreed that some job opportunities had opened up, these were few and far between and gave them the little dignity. Private developers were central to this transformation and used discursive devices to attract investors to Rajarhat New Town. Large swathes of farmlands and villages were brought into the force of urbanization and ‘world-class’ township (Kundu 2016). The current population of the New town crossed 0.2 million, and it works like an independent, self-sufficient township. Major information technology companies like Infosys, IBM, etc.; developers like Tata group, Bengal Unitech of Unitech Group, etc.; manufacturing companies like Arcelor Mittal, Coal India, etc.; health units like Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Tata medical centre etc.; educational institute like Amity University, Aliah University, etc.; research institute like Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), etc. have their offices in New Town Rajarhat city. The need for metropolitan decentralization from Bombay (currently known as Mumbai) was suggested by a Post War Development Committee in 1945 (Shaw 2004). Bombay Metropolitan Regional Planning Board (BMRPB) proposed the first regional plan for the Bombay region in the early 1970s. The first regional plan of Bombay Metropolitan Region suggested few alternative patterns for future growth: (a) development new commercial complex at Bandra-Kurla, (b) planned expansion of existing small towns and proposed few new towns, (c) Development along linear

72

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

urban road corridor and (d) development of twin city with metro character. Finally, the development of a twin city of metropolitan character, opposite the old city, was adopted (Government of Maharashtra 1974) (Fig. 3.4). Accordingly, in 1971, the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was created by BMRPB to implement the project. New Bombay was planned to be an epicenter of tertiary employment by building twenty residential nodes for housing with an

Fig. 3.4 Location of Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared from CIDCO (1993)

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

73

expected population of 2 million and 750,000 jobs (CIDCO 1973). New Bombay comprises various nodes (township) of activities (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), and each node further segregated into sectors. Initially, only three nodes (Vashi, Nerul, and CBD Belapur) were developed by CIDCO but with the extension of a railway link from Mumbai to Navi Mumbai in the 1990s, other nodes also eventually developed (Fig. 3.5). The new town plan hoped to reduce homelessness

Fig. 3.5 Existing nodes of Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared from CIDCO (1993)

74

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

in Bombay and absorb migration from the countryside (Correa 1989). As mentioned in the draft Development Plan (1973), Navi Mumbai was expected to reduce the population of Greater Mumbai and absorb immigrants. The total project area of Navi Mumbai was spread over approximately 343.7 km2, which consists of 95 villages of Thane and Raigad districts. For Navi Mumbai, the population growth was almost double in every decade whereas in the case of Greater Mumbai metropolis the growth rate has declined over the decades during 1991–2001 and 2001–2011, with the annual average growth rate falling from 2.04 to 0.44% (Fig. 3.6). Also, apart from Navi Mumbai, the six major satellite towns (Municipal Corporations) located adjacent to Greater Mumbai are Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Mira-Bhyander, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Ulhasnagar, and Vasai-Virar. The decelerated growth of the Greater Mumbai population is not only pushing higher growth in Navi Mumbai but also in other six major satellite towns, as shown in Table 3.2. It is evident that Navi Mumbai, Vasai-Virar, Thane, and Mira-Bhyander have significantly absorbed immigrants from Greater Mumbai. Increasing population growth in satellite towns of Greater Mumbai was possible due to the pace of development in better housing, infrastructure, employment opportunity, quality of life, etc. Greater Mumbai has already crossed its carrying capacity, and the government is planning for a higher Floor Space Index (FSI) in selected areas (Mumbai HDR 2009). The increasing real estate price rise of Mumbai has promoted people to look outside Mumbai city for affordable housing (CIDCO 2010). An attempt has been made to understand the average duration of stay in Navi Mumbai and the reasons behind stay in Navi Mumbai. CIDCO Report (2010) mentioned that nearly half of the families (45%) have been staying in the city for 6– 15 years and about 15% have been staying in the city for 16 to 25 years. Around

12

Percentage

10 8 Greater Mumbai

6

Navi Mumbai 4 2 0 1971-1981

1981-1991

1991-2001

2001-2011

Fig. 3.6 Decadal population growth in Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Note 2001–2011 Navi Mumbai population growth rates were estimated from CIDCO (2010). Source Census of India (1971–2011)

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

75

Table 3.2 Population and population growth of municipal corporations within Mumbai metropolitan region S. No.

Municipal corporations within Mumbai metropolitan region

Population 2011 (in million)

Annual average growth rate-1991– 2001 (in per cent)

Annual average growth rate-2001– 2011 (in per cent)

1 Greater Mumbai 12.44 2.00 0.44 10.62 8.13 2 Navi Mumbai 2.05a 3 Thane 1.84 5.70 4.60 4 Kalyan-Dombivali 1.24 4.55 0.45 5 Mira-Bhayander 0.80 19.63 5.56 6 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 0.70 5.79 1.85 7 Ulhasnagar 0.50 2.18 0.70 8 Vasai-Virar City 1.22 10.93 16.03 a Estimated (CIDCO 2010) Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (1991–2011) and CIDCO (2010)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fig. 3.7 Reasons behind stay in Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010)

31% of households in Navi Mumbai is the new settlers, with one to five years of stay in the new city. Further, CIDCO Report (2010) highlighted that 54% of people stay in New Bombay because of housing facilities available, and it followed by a better place to stay (47%) (Fig. 3.7). One of the main objectives of creating Navi Mumbai was to decongest the main city (Greater Mumbai). It would be relevant to find out the proportion of the newly settled households who have shifted from Main Mumbai to Navi Mumbai. The CIDCO Report (2010) mentioned that about 35% of residents who stayed in

76

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect 0.4 0.3 7.1

Main Mumbai

5.3

7.5

34.6

Central Suburbs (Thane/Kalyan/Ambernath) Other Suburbs in MMR Nodes in Navi Mumbai Villages in Navi Mumbai

23.9

Other Districts of Maharashtra 4

16.9

Fig. 3.8 Location wise last place of residence of Navi Mumbai households. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010)

Mumbai have moved to Navi Mumbai, and nearly 21% of people shifted from Central and Other Suburbs of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Availability of houses at reasonable rates as compared to Mumbai, better infrastructure availability, and employment opportunities are the prime factors for attracting immigrants. Location wise the last place of residence of Navi Mumbai households (in percentage) is shown in Fig. 3.8. There was declined work dependency of Mumbai (including suburbs) evident from the survey estimates by CIDCO reports (CIDCO 2005, 2010). According to CIDCO Report (2005), nearly 40% of the residents commuted to Mumbai city (including suburbs) for work, and the same dependency further declined to 32% as per the 2010 survey estimate. CIDCO Report (2010) showed that 19.6% commuted from Navi Mumbai to Greater Mumbai for work, 7.9% worked in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) suburbs, and 4.3% in Thane and Kalyan and the remaining 68% workforce had their jobs in places within Navi Mumbai itself (CIDCO 2010). Declining work dependency on the main city of Mumbai has been a positive and healthy sign of satellite town development at Navi Mumbai. According to CIDCO conducted a survey of Industries for Navi Mumbai (2007), there were five industrial estates present in Navi Mumbai, and out of the total industrial units (3929), about 52% units were functional as furnished in Table 3.3 (CIDCO 2007). In Navi Mumbai, out of the total industrial employment, 57% were from engineering and chemical units, as shown in Fig. 3.9. Navi Mumbai has emerged as a preferred destination for the service Sector (IT and BPO, Real estate) and other office spaces. The growth of the service sector Navi Mumbai can be attributed to prime factors like quality of space with a new office building, ample parking space, quality of infrastructure, and better safety norms. The study of CIDCO (2009) showed that there were 10,856 offices and 151,122 employees in Navi Mumbai. Out of the total offices, 89% were private offices, 7% belonged to IT and BPO, and the remaining 4% were government offices. In private offices, the highest

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

77

Table 3.3 Area wise and plot wise number of industrial units and functioning units S. No.

Industrial area

1 2 3

TTC (Trans Thane Creek) Taloja Industrial Estate Jawahar Cooperative Industrial Estate 4 Panvel Co-operative industrial Estate 5 Uran Industrial Estate Total Source CIDCO (2007)

0.81

1.15

1.25

Area (Ha)

No. of plots

No. of industries

Functioning units (in percent)

2562 900 28

3824 1200 248

2881 841 115

54.59 45.30 56.52

12

103

87

51.72

– 3502

– 5375

4 3928

66.67 52.64

0.22 Engineering

4.7

3.13

Fabricaon Chemical

8.42

34.77

Pharmaceucals Food processing Electronics

15.58

Garments Ice factory 3.17

22.05

4.75

Packaging Prinng

Fig. 3.9 Industrial employments in Navi Mumbai. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2007)

percentage (49%) of employees was in the IT sector, and the case of the government sector, the highest percentage (17%) of the employee was in Central Government offices (CIDCO 2009). To relieve the congestion in the city of Mumbai, CIDCO developed a large number of wholesale Agricultural Product Market (APM) at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, by shifting the APM from the congested areas of south Mumbai. With the shifting of the APM, including wholesale vegetable and fruit markets, nearly 67,888 employees were moved from Mumbai, and around one lakh (0.1 million) customers were diverted to Navi Mumbai (CIDCO 2009). While analyzing the initiatives taken by CIDCO in different sectors, it is evident that the project has been quite successful in the delivery of housing. The residential area accounted for 46.46% of the total area of the nodes (Shaw 1995). By 2010, CIDCO constructed about

78

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

40000 35000 30000 25000

HIG

20000

MIG EWS/LIG

15000 10000 5000 0

Up to 1990 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2000-2010

Fig. 3.10 Year wise tenements constructed by CIDCO for different income groups. Source Prepared based on data from CIDCO (2010)

123,577 housing units in the city, half of which was for lower-income group households (CIDCO 2010) (Fig. 3.10). Navi Mumbai is a planned greenfield satellite town initiated in 1971 with the objective of decongesting old Mumbai. After 40 years from the initiation of Navi Mumbai, it appears that the project is partially successful. With the accomplishment of harbor railway links to the Mumbai city in 1992, the pace of development in Navi Mumbai has been accelerated. The population growth had been almost doubled in every decade, and the same was possible due to the commensurating pace of development in housing, infrastructure, employment opportunity, quality of life, etc. Current New Bombay’s growth has been quite striking, and in the future, after the development of all residential nodes, the growth will be much more impressive (Bhattacharya 1992; Shaw 1995). Declining work dependency on the main city of Mumbai is considered to be a success factor for Navi Mumbai. It is evident that the shifting of Government offices to Navi Mumbai failed because of a policy decision, but Navi Mumbai succeeded in creating significant job opportunities for its residents. Engineering and chemical industries are the two leading sectors. Service sector employment (mainly IT and BPO) increased tremendously during the last few decades. Presently, all nodes of Navi Mumbai are not fully developed, but CIDCO’s role in creating affordable housing and infrastructure in each developed node is appreciated. Each node was planned to accommodate a range of income groups, and accordingly, 51% of the total housing stock belongs to the lower-income group (CIDCO 2010). Presently, Bandra Kurla is one of the significant planned Central Business Districts (CBD) of Mumbai, attracting private and government offices, banks, wholesale establishments, international schools, etc. As per the original policy, these government offices were supposed to be located in

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

79

Fig. 3.11 Embedded conflicts between various actors in Navi Mumbai

the CBD Belapur of Navi Mumbai. Various actors responsible for non-fulfillment of the development of Navi Mumbai is mentioned in Fig. 3.11. It is now evident that the creation of the Bandra-Kurla office complex is one of the significant policy decisions which affected the growth of Navi Mumbai negatively. To avoid Mumbai like a situation of activity concentration, the polycentric nodal pattern of development was adopted for Navi Mumbai. All nodes are not developed until today. Out of 20 nodes, 13 nodes are planned, and some are developed partially. Declining work dependency on the main city of Mumbai has been the most prominent success of Navi Mumbai as a satellite town. Mumbai Trans harbor link (road and rail bridge) and passenger water transport are the two vital projects required for the development of Navi Mumbai with better connectivity with the mainland, i.e., Greater Mumbai. With the development of Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone, IT parks, Navi Mumbai International Airport and Navi Mumbai Metro alongside the large industrial belts (TTC, Taloja, Jawahar, Panvel, and Uran), Navi Mumbai will soon supplement Greater Mumbai, the financial capital of India, in all spheres (Chatterjee and Chatterjee 2015). The transport network was planned to make Navi Mumbai as a transit-oriented city. Also, Navi Mumbai metro project received approval from the government in April 2010, and the project is supposed to commence by 2020. The metro system of Navi Mumbai is planned to cover a total distance of around 106 km spreader across various nodes of Navi Mumbai. The rapid growth of Bengaluru city (previously known as Bangalore) in the last couple of decades resulted in planning for satellite towns. With the development of this township, as suggested in the Bangalore Structure Plan, 2005, the pattern of growth would become ‘hub-and-spoke’ based on decentralized development. The plan recommended strategic policy measures to encourage the concentrated

80

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

Fig. 3.12 Satellite towns located close to Bengaluru city. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2005)

decentralization from the Bangalore Metropolitan Area (BMA) to strategic satellite towns, growth centers, and nodes in the periphery of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) area (Fig. 3.12).

3.4 Satellite Town Development in India: Lessons and Consequences

81

As per Bangalore Structure Plan, 2005, leaving 1.23 million to be deflected or attracted to the Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) satellite towns and growth centers, as well as the South Karnataka Region’s (SKR’s) counter magnet, or its primary and secondary growth centers, through strategically induced growth (BMRDA 2005). Future development oriented towards eastern and northern segments of the city and some of the projects are: • The Bengaluru International Airport near Devanahalli • The Export Promotion Zone, Industrial Park, Exhibition Centre, and the Information Technology Park in the Whitefield area • The eastern segment of the south periphery By-pass road connecting Hosakote, Devanahalli, and Doddaballapur • The second electronics city, adjacent to the present one on the Hosur road. Further, in recent BMR Draft Revised Structure Plan-2031 focused on balanced regional development (BMRDA 2016). Bengaluru has essentially nine satellite towns that lie within Bangalore District are located at a distance between 20 and 40 km from the City Centre. Five development corridors in which the current trend of development is going on: Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor

3.5

1: 2: 3: 4: 5:

Bengaluru-Bidadi Bengaluru-Nelamangala Bengaluru-Devanahalli Bengaluru-Whitefield-Hosakote Bengaluru-Anekal-Sarjapur-Hosur.

Conclusion

Since post-world war II, many of the developing countries experienced rapid urbanization and unplanned growth in peripheral areas in the large metropolises. Therefore, metropolitan policies intended to limit the growth of metropolitan cities and formulate new town or satellite town policies to disperse the metropolitan growth. Satellite towns were created as a self-sufficient urban settlement to reduce the population growth of the mother city. Each of these satellite towns was created with a target population and employment. Employment generation potential creation of housing stock, infrastructure availability, quality of life, etc. helps in judging the success and failure of satellite towns. Counter magnet city is generally developed as an alternative center of growth viewed as an urban continuum. In the case of NCR, India, counter magnets are located sufficiently away from the National Capital Territory of Delhi with the diverse economic base. Five such counter magnet cities identified in the NCR plan are, namely (i) Hissar in Haryana, (ii) Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh, (iii) Patiala in Punjab, (iv) Kota in Rajasthan and (v) Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. In the case of Mumbai, the existing counter magnet

82

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

can be Pune, and similarly, Mysore can be developed as a counter magnet of Bengaluru. The development of these counter magnet cities would require the coordinated effort of the Central and State Government and Regional Planning Authority (NCRPB 2005). Post economic reform and liberalization in India, many special economic zones, technology parks, and industrial parks have been created within metropolitan regions, and it forms a new form of urbanism with work, play, and leisure for its residents. Many satellite towns in India failed to achieve their target because of policy failure. In the case of Navi Mumbai, experts pointed out that fulfilling the demand of different interest groups as the fundamental objective of Navi Mumbai remains unfulfilled, and the best example towards this unfulfillment is the creation of Bandra-Kurla office complex in Greater Mumbai. To meet the demands of various lobbies and interest groups like the large industrial or business groups (Verma 1990), the big real estate construction houses (Bapat 1990; Sebastian 1991; Sharma 1991), an educated and articulated middle class (Punekar 1966; Sheth 1992), the State representing the interest of the poor (Bapat 1990), etc. together culminates into the partial failure of the primary objective behind the creation of Navi Mumbai (Shaw 1995). Similar lobbies/groups play a prominent role in planning and policy formulations in India. Indian megacities are growing at a slower rate, whereas satellite towns are located close to the mega-cities are growing at a much faster rate. Megacities are in a lot of stress, and their problems have to be solved beyond the megacity boundary. Recently, a senior urban planner and international consultant, Mr. Prdro B Ortiz, highlighted that Mumbai needs a new satellite town like Navi Mumbai to decongest Mumbai (Hindustan Time, 29th March 2019). Rather than developing new satellite towns, the focus should be strengthening the economic base of existing satellite towns and create smart infrastructure for the residents. The imperatives of the planned development of satellite towns around megacities need specific policy interventions considering the fact that metropolitan cities will become the leading global power.

References Abd-Al-Lattif A (1998) Greater Cairo region urban growth. Dissertation, Helwan University, Cairo (in Arabic) Alonso W (1970) What are new towns for? Urban Stud 7(1):37–55 Bapat M (1990) Allocation of urban space: rhetoric and reality. Econ Political Wkly 25(28):1502– 1507 Berger M (2004) Les périurbains de Paris. Paris: Editions du CNRS Bhattacharya A (1992) Housing urban poor—New Bombay experience. Nagarlok 24:75–85 BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (2005) Structure plan of Bangalore metropolitan region-2011. Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (2016) Bangalore metropolitan region revised structure plan-2031. Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru

References

83

CAPMAS-Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (1996) Egypt statistical yearbook. Central Agency for Population Mobilization and Statistics, Cairo, Egypt Census of India (1971–2011) Primary census abstract. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India Chatterjee A, Chatterjee S (2015) Satellite town development in India in retrospect and prospect: a case of Navi Mumbai. Spandrel 9:1–10 Chen M (2011) From satellite towns to new towns, evolution and transformation of urban spatial structure in Chinese metropolises. Dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR Chomentowski V (2000) The institutional environment of French new towns since their inception and likely future developments. In: INTA Interreg 2 meeting, 21 Sept 2000. http://www.cdu. urbanisme.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/institutional_environment.pdf. Accessed 02 Jan 2018 Christie IT (1984) Political, economic and social issues: district restructuring in Annaba, Algeria. In: Sevcenko MB (ed) Continuity and change: design strategies for large-scale urban development. The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (1973) The draft development plan. The City and Industrial Development Corporation. Government Press, Bombay CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (1993) New Bombay development plan as modified up to October 1993. The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2005) Socio economic profile of households in planned nodes in Navi Mumbai, 2005. Statistics Department, The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2007) Survey of industries in Navi Mumbai region-2007. Statistics Department, The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2009) Employment in service sector in Navi Mumbai. Statistics Department, The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2010) Socio economic profile of households in planned nodes in Navi Mumbai, 2010. Statistics Department, The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra Correa C (1989) The new landscape: urbanization in the third world. Butterworth Architecture, London Date V (1994) Out of orbit. The Sunday Times of India (Bombay), 21 Aug, p 13 DDA-Delhi Development Authority (1961) Master plan for Delhi. Government of India, New Delhi Desponds D, Auclair E (2017) The new towns around Paris 40 years later: new dynamic centralities or suburbs facing risk of marginalization? Urban Stud 54(4):862–877. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098015624379 Dey I, Samaddar R, Sen SK (2013) Beyond Kolkata: Rajarhat and the dystopia of the urban imagination. Routledge, New Delhi Fisher-Cassie W (1943) The satellite town: a study of problems involved in recentralized development. J Town Plann Inst 29(2):53–62 Fung K (1981) Satellite town development in the Shanghai city region. Town Plann Rev 52(1):26– 46. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.52.1.m566548838268675 Gillespie K (1984) The tripartite relationship: government, foreign investors and local investors during Egypt’s economic opening. Praeger Publishers Inc, New York Gliege GJ (1970), New towns: policy problems in regulating development. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Golany G (1976) New-town planning: principles and practice. Wiley, University of Michigan, USA Government of Maharashtra (1974) Regional plan for Bombay metropolitan region 1970–91. Metropolitan Regional Planning Board, Bombay

84

3 Satellite Town Development in Retrospect and Prospect

Hillier B (2002) A theory of the city as object: or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Des Int 7(3–4):153–179. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000082 Hindustan Times (2019) Need new satellite city to decongest Mumbai, says urban planner. 29th Mar 2019. https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/need-new-satellite-city-to-deco ngest-mumbai-says-urban-planner/story-FxHqZnYNgX5577CrZaJm6O.html. Accessed 05 Apr 2019 Howard E (1898) To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform. Swan Sonnenschein, London Howard E (1946) Garden cities of tomorrow. Edited with a preface by Osborn F J, introductory essay by Lewis Mumford, London, 1902, Reprinted, Faber and Faber, London pp 50–57, 138–147 Insa-Ciriza R (2012) Two ways of new towns development: a tale of two cities. In: Polyzos S (ed) Urban development. In Tech, Croatia Kundu R (2016) Making sense of place in Rajarhat new town—the village in the urban and the urban in the village. Econ Polit Wkly 51(17):93–101 Malandi H (2005) The planning of new towns in developing countries: the gap between aims and achievements. Doctoral Dissertation, Liverpool John Moores University M.H.U.NUC-Ministry of Housing, Utilities and New Urban Communities (1979) Five year plans for development of new communities 1978–1982. Cairo (in Arabic) Ministry of Urban Development (2008) Guidelines for scheme of urban infrastructure development in satellite towns/counter magnets of million plus cities. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. http://tcpomud.gov.in/Divisions/MUTP/guideline_satellite.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015 Mohanna MI (1993) Jubail industrial city: planning and development. In: New towns symposium, vol 2, pp 173–198. Arab Urban Development Institute (in Arabic) Mumbai HDR (2009) Mumbai human development report. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/6Mumbai%20HDR%20Complete.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2015 NCRPB-National Capital Region Planning Board (2005) Regional plan-2021, National Capital Region. National Capital Region Planning Board, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India Ohta K (1994) Transport problems and policies of the Tokyo metropolitan region. Contemporary studies in urban environmental management in Japan. In: Department of Urban Engineering University of Tokyo (ed) Contemporary studies in urban environmental management in Japan. Kajima Institute Publishing, Tokyo, pp 106–127 Osborn FJ, Whittick A (1969) The new towns: the answer to megalopolis. M.I.T Press, Cambridge, Mass Polese M, Shearmur R, Terral L (2014) La France avantagée; Paris et la nouvelle économie des régions. Paris: Odile Jacob Pressman EN (1978) Canadian new town policy. In: Golany G (ed) International urban growth policies. Wiley, New York, pp 301–309 Punekar SD (1966) White collar turns blue. Econ Polit Wkly 1(5):207–208 Rahmaan AU, Fadaak TA (1993) New towns as a strategy for national development of Saudi Arabian-case study. In: New towns symposium, vol 3, pp 39–56, Arab Urban Development Institute (in Arabic) Rao PM (1990) Planning for metropolitan cities: a suggestive approach. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi Rubenstein JM (1978) The French new towns. The John Hopkins Press Limited, London Saudi Arabian Information Resource (2001) Jubail and Yanbu: the industrial cities. http://www. saudinf.com/main/e6.htm. Accessed 05 May 2019 Schaffer F (1970) The new towns story. Richard Clay Limited, England Sebastian PA (1991) Beautifying Bombay at cost of poor. Econ Polit Wkly 26(31and 32):1840–1841 Sengupta U (2013) Inclusive development? A state-led land development model in New Town, Kolkata. Environ Plann C Govern Policy 31(2):357–376. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1103 Shammot MH (1993) The creation of Dummar city in Damascus: the preparatory programme of this city. In: Rabee MK, Al-Atta TAA (eds) In research and practical studies on Arab and

References

85

foreign new towns. In: New towns symposium, vol 4, pp 235–276, Arab Urban Development Institute (in Arabic) Sharma RN (1991) Land grab Bombay style: urban development in Vasai-Virar hinterland of Bombay. Econ Polit Wkly 26(8):413–417 Shaw A (1995) Satellite town development in Asia: the case of New Bombay, India. Urban Geogr 16(3):254–271. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.16.3.254 Shaw A (2004) The making of Navi Mumbai. Orient Blackswan, Hyderabad Sheth DL (1992) Movements, intellectuals and the state, social policy in nation building. Econ Polit Wkly 27(8):425–429 Short J, Hanlon B, Vicino T (2007) The decline of inner suburbs: the new suburban gothic in the United States. Geogr Compass 1(3):641–656 Sivaramakrishnan KC (1977) New towns in India—a report on a study of selected new towns in the eastern region. A Homi Bhava Fellowship Award Project with Support from the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, pp 1–287. http://www.cprindia.org/sites/default/files/books/ NEW%20TOWNS%20IN%20INDIA_1.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018 Sorensen A (2001) Subcentres and satellite cities: Tokyo’s 20th century experience of planned polycentrism. Int J Plann Stud 6(1):9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470120026505 Taylor GR (1915) Satellite cities: a study of industrial suburbs. D. Appleton and Company, New York and London TCPA-Town and Country Planning Association (2014a) New towns and garden cities—lessons for tomorrow. Stage 1: an introduction to the UKs new town and garden cities. TCPA, London, pp 1–32. https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=5bda030e-0b33-42edb4d4-0d4728be4ebd. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 TCPA-Town and Country Planning Association (2014b) New towns and garden cities—lessons for tomorrow. Stage 1: report appendices: the new towns—‘five-minute fact sheets’. TCPA, London, pp 1–32. https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=19cba732-e7044b33-9c3c-43edbcbeca03. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 TCPA-Town and Country Planning Association (2015) New towns and garden cities—lessons for tomorrow. Stage 2: lessons for delivering a new generation of garden cities. TCPA, London, pp 1–64. https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=62a09e12-6a24-4de3973f-f4062e561e0a. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 TCPO-Town and Country Planning Organization (2007) Evaluation study of DMA towns in National Capital Region, Government of India. Ministry of urban development, Government of India The New Town Act (1946) 9 & 10 GEO. 6, CH. 68. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, pp 1–45. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1946/68/pdfs/ukpga_19460068_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018 Tidd M (1997) An enquiry into post-war new towns in Britain: were the new towns of 1940s and 1950s a success or a series of missed opportunities, Chapter 1. Michael Crawley online Tlemcani P (1986) State and revolution in Algeria. Zed Books Limited, London UNCHS-United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (2001) Population of cities to explode in developing countries, vol 3, no 1. Nation’s Health. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Verma HS (1990) The political economy of planning and use of land as a resource in India. Nagarlok 22(3):1–22 Watterson TW, Watterson SR (1975) The politics of new communities: a case study of San Antonio Ranch. Praeger Publishers, New York, p 5 WBHIDCL-West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (1999) New Town Kolkata: project report. Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal Yousry M, Atta ATA (1997) The challenge of urban growth in Cairo. In: Rakodi C (ed) The urban challenge in Africa: growth and management of its large cities. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, New York and Paris, pp 111–149

Chapter 4

Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth, Changing Landuse and Challenges

Abstract This chapter attempts to study the trend in population growth and changes in land use, highlighting the extent to which land under forest, green areas, water bodies, and other vacant spaces are declined over time across mega-city regions in India. Many associated problems like unplanned growth, unemployment, poor traffic management, scarcity of resources, environmental degradation, etc. appear as constraints of development. The emphasis should be on land management in metropolitan cities and its satellite towns, which should reduce over-exploitation of natural resources, accelerate economic viability, assure livability, and promote environmental quality.










Keywords Population density Environmental quality Land use change Urban sprawl Peri-urban




4.1

Dimensions of Urban Growth Trends

Plans for cities and metropolitan areas of India reveal the strict land-use zoning regulations while on ground conditions, they reflect frequent land use violations and rapid land conversions (majorly fertile agricultural land), particularly in urban fringe and peripheral areas. The majority of cities around the world are now shifting the rigid longterm land-use zoning regulations to more flexible ways to accommodate market dynamics and density patterns over time. The current practice of land use planning in Indian cities and metropolises is based on the two-dimensional model focusing on land use and density but miss its temporal dimensions (Toutain and Gopiprasad 2006). Metropolitan density will not be uniformly distributed radially along the line from the city centre to peripheral areas. Satellite towns and New cities will have to be built close to the metropolis to accommodate additional population pressure of the metropolis. Indian urban planning instruments are Master Plans and Development Plans, which generally follow a uniform or quasi-uniform Floor Space Index (FSI). Many cities around the world are following higher FSI, particularly in CBD areas, along transit systems and transit nodes. Higher FSI results in a more compact urban form. In most of © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_4

87

88

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

the Indian cities, average FSI is low and almost uniform for the major part of the city. For example, Chennai permits FSI of 1.5, while Delhi allows FSI in the range from 1.2– 3.5 (Ahluwalia 2011). Further, Mohan and Dasgupta (2004) raising questions on land policy constraints in India. Brueckner (2009) referring that in central areas of major cities like Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore), etc. the maximum FAR values are much lower than free-market values. The rigid development control regulations are not allowing Indian cities to develop in compact urban form. As a visible result, rapid spatial sprawl is growing in major cities of India. There is a wide variation in the population share across top metropolitan cities and their Urban Agglomerations (UA) in India. Table 4.1 highlights that based on the 2011 census data and development plans of the top nine metropolitan city reports, the gross average population density in core city remains as 147 persons/hectare within city limits, and 38 persons/hectare in outside municipal boundary falling within the metropolitan area. The average population share of Core metropolitan city and areas outside municipal limit areas are 73% and 27%, respectively. Also, in the case of the top four metropolitan cities in India (Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai), the average core city share is little more than half (54%) population in comparison to 46% in metropolitan areas outside municipal limit.

4.2

Changing Landuse and Landcover Pattern

Increasing demand for residential land due to population growth and reduction in the cultivable as well as open land has always been a matter of concern for city planners and policymakers. In fact, in urban areas, the scope explored so far in urban agriculture is insufficient, and primarily urban markets depend on rural hinterlands for the supply of food and vegetables. The rapid increase in a built-up area and a decrease in agricultural land, water bodies, and green spaces are very common scenarios of metropolitan cities. In Bengaluru, a reduction in percentage cover of agricultural (pasture) land, land with dense vegetation (tree cover), wetland, water bodies, and an increase of built-up area and barren land has been observed in recent time. Fig. 4.1 shows the land cover classifications of Bengaluru city in 2016. A concurrent growth of population goes with corrosponding increase in built-up area can be a related phenomenon. The percentage of built-up area in Bengaluru city has been increased from 19.61% in 1991 to 48.61% in 2016. Greater Mumbai has also observed the unprecedented growth of the built-up area in the last four decades. The built-up land has grown more than double from being 25% to the total area in 1971 (MMRDA 2008) to 60.59% in 2012 (MCGM 2014) (Fig. 4.2). Out of the total built-up area, 25% comes under residential land uses. Industrial land increased marginally from 4% in 1971 to 5% in 1991 and remained constant from 1991 to 2012. The reasons can be due to the changing composition of Mumbai’s economy from manufacturing to services besides shifting of industries out of Greater Mumbai due to high real estate prices. The proportion of land used for airport and harbor has remained almost constant. Natural areas and open spaces (forest, waterbody, coastal wetlands, etc.) have been rapidly decreasing from 61% of the total land in 1971

City population (in million)

City population density (in persons/ hectares)

Metropolitan UA population (in million)

Metropolitan population density (in persons/ hectares)

Population outside municipal limits (in million)

Mumbai 4.68 284 18.41 43 6.17 Delhi + New 8.42 74 16.31 48 5.31 Delhi Kolkata 6.80 243 14.12 75 9.63 Chennai 5.57 110 8.69 73 4.09 Bengaluru 3.11 114 8.44 71 0.02 Hyderabad 4.46 105 7.74 11 0.94 Ahmadabad 12.24 120 6.35 8 0.85 Pune 11.00 139 5.04 5 1.94 Surat 4.49 136 4.58 11 0.18 Total 60.77 147 (Average) 89.68 38 (Average) 28.91 Source Compiled from Census of India (2011) and Development Plan reports of respective metropolitan cities

Metro city

Table 4.1 Population share and density of selected metropolitan cities in India-2011

31.80 52.93 99.76 87.86 86.61 61.51 96.07 72.67 (Average)

66.49 67.44

Population share of core city to metropolitan UA

4.2 Changing Landuse and Landcover Pattern 89

90

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

Fig. 4.1 Land cover analysis of Bengaluru city in 2016. Source Prepared from United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (2016)

4.2 Changing Landuse and Landcover Pattern

91

70 60

Percentage

50 40 Built-up area 30 Natural Areas and Open Spaces

20 10 0 1971

1991

2001

2012

Years

Fig. 4.2 Temporal change of built-up area and combined natural areas and open spaces at Greater Mumbai (1971–2012). Source Prepared based on data from (i) MMRDA (2008) and (ii) MCGM (2014)

(MMRDA 2008) to 31.5% in 2012 (MCGM 2014). The component of the forest is due to the presence of the reserved Sanjay Gandhi (Borivilli) National Park (87 km2). Agriculture and plantations are mostly concentrated in the Madh Gorai areas. From 1971 to 2012, about 35% of total land got converted to built-up area resulting alarming decreases in natural areas and open spaces category. Kolkata Metropolitan Area is the thirteenth most populated area in the world faces a lot of environmental challenges. Kolkata is confronting with an increase in congestion, pollution, inequality, and other associated problems. The metropolitan area has grown from 144 km2 in 1970 to 633.2 km2 in 2010, resulting in the rampant conversion of marshy wetlands and fertile agricultural areas. As the demand for urban space is increasing to accomodate housing demand, there has been a large-scale reclamation of all kinds of natural lands, which includes the East Kolkata Wetland (EKW) also. The EKW wetland is a designated Ramsar Site and is the home of different species of birds, aquatic reptiles and insects, fishes, trees, and vegetations. As a consequence of such conversion, there has been an alteration in the natural drainage of the area and thereby resulting in unusual flooding in the catchment areas. The Rajarhat New Town, the new planned township of Kolkata has been reclaimed from the wetlands (Rajashekariah 2011). Within the Kolkata metropolitan area, the loss of water bodies has been rapid, and the water bodies are being converted to residential and commercial lands. Satellite image analysis shows that the eastern side of the Kolkata metropolitan region is losing the water bodies more rapidly than the western side in the neighbouring Howrah district. The frequent conversion of many water bodies to agricultural lands are other usage resulted in increasing ecological imbalance, water scarcity, environmental pollution, and change in weather condition (Guha 2016). Like the loss of water bodies in the Kolkata Metropolitan area, the loss of urban green cover (trees) within the city is also severely affecting the metropolitan area ecologically. A research on the loss

92

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

of urban trees highlights that in recent years Kolkata has lost more than 5000 trees for projects and other developmental activities, which have increased the carbon count to 5,500,000 kg per year (Mondal 2013). The rapid urbanization has not only resulted in deterioration of environmental quality, rising inequality, hiking crime rates, etc. but also increased the real estate price hike in the peripheral areas of the city and other smaller towns. As a result, the new slums are being created in peri-urban areas, which have altered the social composition of the region. The demand and increased housing supply have reached to such a situation that even the Middle Income Group (MIG) people find it difficult to afford a house with proper shelter within the Kolkata city and its peripheral areas (Sen 2011). In the case of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration (HUA), the real estate boom had taken place in the peri-urban areas. The urban expansion of Hyderabad city engulfed the fertile agricultural lands and water bodies. Similar cases observed in Delhi where for accommodating 4.2 million population around 60,000 ha of agricultural land had been lost. In the case of the Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA), the urban hinterland has faced a rapid pace of urbanization, and accordingly, CMA has lost agrarian land reducing from 40,991 ha in 1991 to 22,130 ha in 2004 (CMDA 2001; Chadchan and Shankar 2012). Similarly, in Pune city, the built-up land increased from 20.54 to 63.97% during 1973–2011, whereas agricultural land decreased from 10.39 to 6.90% during the same period. The growing built-up area, particularly in the urban fringe of Pune city, had shown an alarming adverse impact on infrastructure and urban environment (Mundhe and Jaybhaye 2014).

4.3

Urban Sprawl and Peripheral Growth

India also has witnessed uncontrolled urbanization in the recent past, which leads to haphazard growth and poor environmental status in the residential areas. Many scholars have worked on Indian city fringes and analysed their structure and characteristics. These fringe areas are classified into two components, namely, urban-inner fringe and rural-outer fringe, which together may be called rural-urban fringe (Proyr 1968). The critical boundaries for fringe areas are between urban inner-fringe and outer rural fringe, which is connecting urban boundary and the adjacent rural areas (Kashem and Hafiz 2006). The land dynamics and development occurs within the urban municipal corporation limits are entirely responsible for whatever happens to its adjoining inner and outer fringe areas (Veronique 2007). The diverse variables of land conversions, such as land value, land productivity, weak regulations, etc. are significantly reshaping the urban fringe areas. Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) tool can help in understanding the spatio-temporal change in fringe areas and also help in policy and decision making of planned development (Potsiou et al. 2010). The urban and natural landforms influenced the urban growth pattern of Indian metropolitan cities and their adjoining fringe areas (Surawar and Kotharkar 2012). Development of SEZs and IT clusters in the metropolitan cities like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune, etc. are responsible in reshaping the socio-economic landscape of the urban fringe and its adjoining rural areas.

4.3 Urban Sprawl and Peripheral Growth

93

There is a growing trend of peripheral development of the metropolitan cities. For metropolitan cities, the population growths in urban peripheries are much higher than their core city population. Core-periphery population analysis of metropolitan, non-metropolitan, and class I cities is shown in Table 4.2. In metropolitan cities, the population of the core city areas as a percentage of the total city population is almost static during 2001–2011. Further, in the case of non-metropolitan cities, the population of the core city areas indicated a decreased decline of 4.5% (from 90.2% in 2001 to 85.7% in 2011). Similarly, a population decline of 2.8% of the core areas as a percentage of the total city population is observed for class I cities (HSMI-HUDCO-NIUA 2017). Many Indian cities like Bengaluru, Nagpur, Hyderabad, Pune, etc. are in a stage of rapid urban transformation. As a result of this transformation, new growth centers (may be in the form of IT cluster or SEZ, etc.) emerge in the peri-urban areas. Low land prices, better infrastructure, healthy environment are some of the critical factors for population growth in peri-urban areas. Bengaluru has grown from the small village that it was when a chieftain called Kempe Gowda established it in 1537 A.D. From an area of hardly 18 km2, in 1537 A.D. it encompassed a total area of 737 km2 in 2016. Bengaluru’s newfound prosperity has spawned a building boom. The population of Bengaluru has increased by an average annual growth rate of 4.73% in the last decade 2001–2011. Primarily, the population growth has taken place in the peri-urban areas of Bengaluru city, especially in the south-east and north-east zones, as evident from the expansions of built-up area during 1991–2016 (Table 4.3). For the temporal analysis of built-up areas, the temporal Landsat imagery of Bengaluru city was acquired for the year 1973 (Landsat multispectral scanner system with 60 m resolution), 1991 (Landsat 4-5 thematic mapper with 30 m spatial resolution), 2001 (Landsat 4-5 thematic mapper with 30 m spatial resolution), 2011 (Landsat 4-5 thematic mapper with 30 m spatial resolution) and 2016 (Landsat 8 operational land imager with 30 m plus 15 m pan spatial resolution) from United States Geological Survey (United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016). The south-east zone, lying immediately towards the south of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) airport, shows maximum population growth when compared to other areas or municipal wards of the Bengaluru city. The ward level decadal population growth rate in the BBMP area

Table 4.2 Core-periphery population analysis of metropolitan, non-metropolitan and class-I cities in India Classes of cities

Core to total (Percentage) 2011 2001

Annual exponential growth rates (2001–2011) Total Core Periphery

Metropolitan cities 71.2 72.7 2.79 2.59 3.33 Non-metropolitan cities 85.7 90.2 2.56 2.04 6.34 Class I cities 76.9 79.7 2.70 2.34 3.99 Source Census of India (2001) and (2011), HSMI-HUDCO-NIUA (2017) Note: Metropolitan cities have a population of 1 million or more, Non-metropolitan cities have a population between 0.1 million and 1 million and Class I cities population 0.1 million or more

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

94

Table 4.3 Temporal changes of built-up areas in different zones of Bengaluru city (1991–2016) Years

Built-up area (in km2) North-East North-West zone zone

South-East zone

1991 41.89 33.40 47.01 2001 64.08 42.80 69.76 2011 78.67 56.71 94.41 2016 111.63 67.56 113.90 Source United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1991,

South-West zone

Bengaluru city

22.23 144.53 36.83 213.47 55.58 285.37 65.21 358.30 2001, 2011, 2016)

(2001–2011) is shown in Fig. 4.3. To meet the shortage of housing and the demand for commercial establishments the real estate boom had taken place in south-east zone (consists of HAL, International Tech Park, Whitefield, Prestige Tech Park, and Kadubeesanahalli, etc.) of Bengaluru city. In the south-east and north-east zone, green cover and water bodies disappeared at a rapid rate and transformed into built-up land mostly with multi-storied high rise apartments. The permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) in the central areas is 1.25 but 2.50 in peripheral areas (Verma et al. 2017). The population density from city core has been observed to be shifting around the south-east periphery due to IT establishments and lower land prices. The total area of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) is 7213.36 km2. The Landsat satellite imageries for Hyderabad city had been acquired from 1975 till 2017 to understand the built-up area growth of the city. The total built-up area in the year 1975 was 34.11 km2, the area increased to 280.86 km2 in 2011, and the area further increased to 393.85 km2 in 2017. The ward level population density distribution for the year 2011 in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) area, as shown in Fig. 4.4 Further, in the case of Nagpur, the population growth of the city has led to rapid peripheral development, which had taken place around the outer ring road areas. The city is seen as one of the emerging centre for goods and services. The urban poor in the city is settled in urban fringe areas primarily because of cheaper land availability. As a result, the zones are having the weaker infrastructure, poor urban services, few amenities and unplanned development with the violation of regulations (Surawar and Kotharkar 2012). To control the haphazard development of Nagpur city and its adjoining areas, Nagpur Metroopolitan Region was notified by the government in July, 1999, and accordingly, Nagpur Metropolitan Region Development Authority (NMRDA) was set up. From different literature sources, various socio-economic impacts are observed in metropolitan cities, particularly in peri-urban areas. In Faridabad and Gurgaon, the influx of migrant labor in peri-urban settlements is seen to have altered the social composition and characteristics of the peri-urban settlements, and as a result, the demand for rental accommodation increased (Narain and Nischal 2007; Narain 2009a). Water conflicts in rural-urban areas have observed in cities like Chennai (Janakarajan et al. 2006) and Gurgaon (Narain 2009b). Economic globalization has created a significant impact on peripheral land and local economies of major cities

4.3 Urban Sprawl and Peripheral Growth

95

Fig. 4.3 Ward level analysis of decadal population growth rate in Bengaluru city (2001–2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2001–2011)

located in South India (Keivani and Mattingly 2007). Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad are the example of such cities where the conflict between IT dominated growth, peri-urban neo-liberal transformation, and disputes with local firms and peoples are evident. In the majority of Indian metropolises, governance and administrative crisis are forefronts among the set of metropolitan issues. Further, Kundu (2008) describes in the absence of access to organised safe sources of drinking water supply in Delhi resulted in the occurence of epidemics and a variety of health issues. In the case of Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), several mega

96

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

Fig. 4.4 Ward level analysis of population density in Hyderabad city (2011). Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011)

infrastructure development projects like Navi Mumbai Airport, Navi Mumbai SEZ plans are being planned on fertile agricultural land and green areas. Rapid land use transformation is observed in the entire MMR and as a result, the livelihood pattern of rural people in the region is changing rapidly (Kim 2012).

4.4

Assessment of Impact of Present Growth Pattern

Rapid metropolitan growth has affected various sectors like urban infrastructure, housing, environment, urban transport etc. There is a rising apprehension among planners, and policymakers is to minimize or eliminate the adverse effects of development. The urban housing shortage in India was estimated at 18.78 million by the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (2012–2017) (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, 2011). Out of this, 0.53 million households were homeless, and 5.49 million urban households in India do not have access to safe drinking water (HSMI-HUDCO-NIUA 2017). Even after nearly four decades of the implementation of environmental rules and guidelines, many cities in India do not have the proper capacity for the treatment of wastewater and its disposal. Out of the total wastewater generated in Class-I cities and Class-II towns, only 35% is treated (CPCB 2009). In most of the Class-I and almost all of the

4.4 Assessment of Impact of Present Growth Pattern

97

Table 4.4 Population density and open spaces in metropolitan cities around the world City

Population (million)2011

Greater Mumbai 12.44 New York city 8.1 Tokyo 8 Hong Kong 7 Singapore 5.18 Source MCGM (2014)

Density (people/ km2)

Open space (people/m2)

27,160 10,630 13,800 6480 7257

1.24 6 4.5 2 7.5

Class-II cities in India cannot handle the generated sewage and its proper disposal after treatment. Further, CPCB has reported that urban India generates 133,760 metric tons of waste daily (CPCB 2013). Regarding open space, many metropolitan cities are facing low per capita open space availability. For example, in Mumbai, the per capita open space, as per Development Plan (DP) 1991, the standard is the 2 m2 per person for the Island city and 6 m2 per person for the suburbs. However, the per capita open space available is only 1.24 m2 in Greater Mumbai (MCGM 2014). Considering the very high population density prevalent in Greater Mumbai city, the low per capita open space availability is an expected outcome (Table 4.4), and if the same trend continues, it will adversely affect the quality of life for the citizen living in Greater Mumbai.

4.5

Land Consumption for Urban Development

Managing metropolises is always a complex task, and it requires an overall understanding of the continuous system and interrelated activities. Jurisdiction of Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) covers 8005 km2—more than twice the size of State (province) of Goa (3702 km2) or more than the area of State of Sikkim (7096 km2). The average gross density for selected nine metropolitan cities varies from 147 persons/hectare and 37 persons/hectare within and outside municipal limits in 2011. According to Ribeiro (2003), the projected urban India population in the year 2051 will be 47.5% (820 million). The additional land needed to accommodate urban demand will be 841,026 ha. This additional demand will be made by (i) extending municipal boundary and annexation of adjoining rural areas within the municipal limit, (ii) increasing FAR, and (iii) optimum utilization of vacant land within the municipal limit (Chadchan and Shankar 2012). The land is a scarce resource, and effort has been made by the State governments to enhance urban land supply through innovative land pooling and land readjustment models. The Ministry of Urban Development approved the Delhi Urban Land Pooling Policy in 2013. This policy aims at pooling land with owners’ consent to give back 40–60% of developed land to landowners and retain the rest for infrastructure projects and

98

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

monetization for a specific purpose. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired land for the new capital city of Amravati (217 km2) through negotiation with the farmers. Farmers, in return, got back 40% of developed land and monetary compensation of INR 75,000–125,000 per hectare for ten years with a price escalation of 10% per year. Similarly, the State of Chhattisgarh developed the new capital city of Naya Raipur through mutual agreement with the landowners and their consent for the value of the land. The Government of Gujarat also resorts to Town Planning Scheme, a land readjustment mechanism based on Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Similarly, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has identified two villages (Gollapudi and Jakkampudi) just outside the city limit and explored the land-sharing model through Public-Private Partnership. These land pooling models are worth mentioning as a successful model of land acquisition for new city development in India (MoHUPA 2016). The rational allocation of future population in any urban area depends upon the future developable land availability. Out of the total developable land available, certain land may be required for industrial use. Redensification of space depends upon maximum permissible FAR, and urban boundary expansion can be a short-term solution for Indian metropolises. For the Metropolitan regions in India (BMR, MMR, KMR, etc.) to accommodate the future urban load, the satellite towns and new cities will have to be promoted as a long-term solution. Developable land available in the existing cities and their peripheries need to be estimated with the help of geospatial tools, and accordingly, the new population of metropolitan cities can be allocated. In the case of Greater Mumbai, only 9.47 km2 land is available for future development, whereas satellite towns like Kalyan-Dombivali, Thane, and Navi-Mumbai have 35.43 km2, 27.27 km2, and 16.98 km2 respectively as developable land (MMRDA 2008). Government support regarding developing infrastructure and suitable policies for potential satellite town’s development is required for sustainable development of the entire metropolitan region.

References Ahluwalia JI (2011) Planning for urban development in India. http://icrier.org/Urbanisation/pdf/ Ahluwalia_Planning_for_Urban_%20Development.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2017 Brueckner JK (2009) Government land use interventions: an economic analysis. In: Lall SV, Freire M, Yuen B, Rajack R, Helluin JJ (eds) Urban land markets. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3– 23 Census of India (2001) Primary census abstract. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of India Census of India (2011) Primary census abstract. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of India Chadchan J, Shankar R (2012) An analysis of urban growth trends in the post-economic reforms period in India. Int J Sustain Built Environ 1(1):36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2012.05. 001 Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (2001) Master plan (2011)—Chennai metropolitan area. Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai

References

99

CPCB-Central Pollution Control Board (2009) Status of water quality in India-2009, monitoring of Indian aquatic resources series, MINARS/2009-10, New Delhi. https://www.indiawaterportal. org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/status%20of%20water%20quality%202009.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 CPCB-Central Pollution Control Board (2013) Status on municipal solid waste management. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/divisionsofheadoffice/pcp/MSW_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2016 Guha S (2016) Recent decline in water bodies in Kolkata and surroundings. Int J Sci Environ Technol 5(3):1083–1091 HSMI-Human Settlement Management Institute HUDCO-Housing and Urban Development Corporation Chair-NIUA-National Institute of Urban Affairs (2017) Urban India—status of demography, economy, social structure, housing and basic infrastructure. HSMI-HUDCO Chair-NIUA Collaborative Research. National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi. https:// www.niua.org/sites/default/files/HUDCO-Consolidated.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018 Janakarajan S, LIorente M, Zerah M-H (2006) Water conflicts in Indian cities: man-made scarcity as a critical factor. UNESCO working series SC-2006/WS/19. In: Barraque B, Tejada Guilbert A (eds) An analysis of the origins and nature of water-related unrest and conflicts in the urban context. UNESCO, Paris, pp 91–111. http://www.chs.ubc.ca/archives/files/Urban% 20Water%20Conflicts%20an%20Analysis%20of%20the%20origins%20and%20….pdf. Accessed 05 Mar 2016 Kashem MSB K, Hafiz R (2006) Sustainability appraisal of development trends in the urban fringe: an MCA approach. In: 42nd ISOCARP congress. http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_ studies/770.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2017 Keivani R, Mattingly M (2007) The interface of globalization and peripheral land in the cities of the south: implications for urban governance and local economic development. Int J Urban Reg Res 31(2):459–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00718.x Kim M (2012) Peri-urbanization and its impacts on rural livelihoods in Mumbai’s urban fringe. In: 48th ISOCARP Congress 2012, pp 1–10. http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2125.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2017 Kundu A (2008) Socio-economic segmentation, inequality in micro environment and process of degradation peri pheralization in New Delhi. In: Singh AL, Fazl S (eds) Urban environmental management. B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp 45–75 MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2014) Greater Mumbai draft development plan (2014–2034). Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2011) Report of the Technical Group on urban housing shortage (TG-12) (2012-17). Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. http://nbo.nic.in/pdf/urban-housing-shortage.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2020 MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2008) Comprehensive transportation study for Mumbai metropolitan region. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai, Maharashtra Mohan R, Dasgupta S (2004) Urban development in India in the twenty first century: policies for accelerating urban growth. Working paper no. 231. Center for International Development, Stanford University, CA. https://globalpoverty.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ 231wp.pdf. Accessed 05 Dec 2016 MoHUPA-Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2016) India habitat III: national report 2016. Government of India. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III_IndiaNational-Report.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2017 Mondal BK (2013) Destruction of urban greenery of Indian cities—a study of the two wards of Kolkata through GIS and remote sensing. J Geogr Inst ‘Jovan Cvijic’ 63(4):93–110. https://doi. org/10.2298/ijgi1304093k Mundhe N, Jaybhaye RG (2014) Impact of urbanization on land use/land covers change using geo-spatial techniques. Int J Geomatics Geosci 5(1):50–60

100

4 Metropolitan Regions of India: Rapid Growth …

Narain V (2009a) Expanding city, shrinking hinterland. Land Acquisition, transition and conflict in periurban Gurgaon. Environ Urbanization 27:501–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956247809339660 Narain V (2009b) Gone land, gone water. Crossing fluid boundaries in periurban Gurgaon and Faridabad, India. South Asian Water Stud 1(2):143–158 Narain V, Nischal S (2007) The periurban interface in Shahpur Khurd and Karnera, India. Environ Urbanization 19(1):261–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247807076905 Potsiou C, Doytsher Y, Kelly P, Khouri R, Mclaren R, Mueller H (2010) Rapid urbanization and mega cities: the need for spatial information management. The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen, Denmark. Paper presented at XXIV FIG International Congress in Sydney, Australia, 11–16 Apr, 2010. https://www.fig.net/resources/monthly_articles/2010/ march_2010/march_2010_potsiou_etal.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2016 Proyr R (1968) Defining the rural-urban fringe. Social Forces 47(2):202 Rajashekariah K (2011) Impact of urbanization on biodiversity: case studies from India. WWF-India, New Delhi. https://d2391rlyg4hwoh.cloudfront.net/downloads/impact_of_ urbanisation_on_biodiversity.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2016 Ribeiro EFN (2003) Urban India in 2051: an emerging transportation cum settlements interface. Paper Presented at the Annual Congress of the Institute of Urban Transport (India), New Delhi on India’s Urban Transport Vision 2050 Sen S (2011) Effect of urban sprawl on human habitation in urban fringe and peri-urban areas in Kolkata metropolitan area. India J 8(4):58–66 Surawar M, Kotharkar R (2012) Environmental impact assessment in urban fringe to achieve urban sustenance. In: Proceedings of international conference on advances in architecture and civil engineering, vol 2, pp 767–774 Toutain O, Gopiprasad S (2006) Planning for urban structure. In: Chapter 4—India infrastructure report. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 59–81 United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1991, 2001, 2011, 2016) Landsat satellite images for Bengaluru city. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ Verma S, Chatterjee A, Mandal NR (2017) Analysing urban sprawl and shifting of urban growth centre of Bengaluru city, India using Shannon’s entropy method. J Settlements Spat Plann 8 (2):89–98. https://doi.org/10.24193/JSSP.2017.2.02 Veronique D (2007) Conflicting stakes and governance in the peripheries of large Indian metropolises—an introduction. Cities 24(2):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.11.002

Chapter 5

Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case Studies with Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru and their Regions

Abstract For most of the metropolitan areas, urban growth is seen to trickle down in areas beyond the city limit, which includes its immediate surrounding areas and satellite towns already developed. Two megacity regions, i.e., Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru have been selected based on contrasting urban population growth rate (positive and negative), variation in economic bases (service-oriented and manufacturing) as well as varied satellite development history in the temporal era (old and comparatively new). This chapter attempts to highlight how relationships among megacity-satellites-fringe villages have developed in the context of these two Indian metros and their regions. These megacities and their environs need meticulous analysis and planning in respect of rational population distribution and allocation of activities by integrating economy and space for the coming decades. This step is necessary to shape a healthy and planned urban mosaic within the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) as well as in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). Keywords Greater Mumbai

5.1


Bengaluru
MMR
BMR
Satellite towns

Determinants for Selection of Metropolises and their Regions

Indian metropolises and their regions are growing at a very fast rate. As a result of this rapid population growth in metropolises and their regions, a rapid land use transformation is observed. This has resulted in city growth which has spreaded beyond its limit and thus resulting in many rapid and detrimental changes in the land-use within the urban fringe of the city as well as in its immediate surrounding rural areas. Agricultural land, water bodies, and the green spaces are seen to be converted into built-up areas. This chapter focuses on two large metropolitan cities and their regions, i.e., Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR), to provide a more in-depth view on the subject. It presents a retrospective and prospective look into the recent past of both metropolitan cities and their regions to © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_5

101

102

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

understand the narratives of metropolitan regional growth, their prospects, metropolitan crisis, and guidelines for future population allocation on a rational basis supported by policy implications. These two metropolitan cities and their regions (MMR and BMR) have several contrasting features, including varying decadal urban growth rate (positive or negative), dissimilarity in economic bases (information-technology based knowledge economy and manufacturing) as well as varied satellite development history in the temporal scale (old and comparatively new). A comparative study can thus indicate the contrasting pattern of future metropolitan regional growth and can establish the need for rational population allocation supported by policy initiatives. In Greater Mumbai, since 1901 with 0.92 million population, there is a continuous growth of the population till 2011 (12.44 million). But since 1961–1971, the annual average growth rate (AAGR) is seen to be falling over the last four decades (1971–2011). In 1991–2001, the AAGR of Greater Mumbai was 2.04%, and the same was further fell to 0.44% in 2001–2011. In the case of Bengaluru, since 1901 (0.1 million), there is a continuous growth of population in the city in absolute number till 2011 (8.4 million). The population of Bengaluru has further from 5.7 million in 2001 to 8.4 million in 2011. In 1991–2001, the AAGR of Bengaluru was 3.77%, and the same further gone up to 4.73% in 2001–2011. The urban economy of Bengaluru is predominantly the IT-based knowledge economy, which had been introduced to this city in the early 1980s. However other sectors like defense and aviation, textile, automobile, biotechnology, etc. have also contributed significantly to the urban and regional economy of Bengaluru. Presence of significant premier national institutes like the Indian Institute of Science (IISC), Indian Institute of Management (IIM), National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), and several other professional institutions have contributed to Bengaluru as one of the prime high-tech education and knowledge hubs in India (BDA 2015). Also, the BMR economy is further hiked due to the large concentration of small and medium industries (Sudhira et al. 2007). Rural areas contribute almost 90% of BMR areas, and rural economy is significantly dependent on agriculture, agro-based products, and handlooms. Further, other service sectors like healthcare, banking, transport logistics services, etc. play an essential promoting role in the overall economy of BMR (Chatterjee et al. 2018). Greater Mumbai, the Financial Capital of the Country, has always been a significant driver for the economic growth of both the State (province) of Maharashtra as well as in India. Mumbai’s share to the Tertiary Sector in MMR has decreased from 73.73% in 1993–94 to 63.31% in 2012–13, while that of Thane has correspondingly increased from 22.59 to 32.14% during the said corresponding period. Communication is growing at the fastest rate (26.14%) in MMR, followed by Banking and Financial Institutes (14.11%) and Real Estate activities (10.18%), which shows higher growth rates of these than other businesses subsectors of the Tertiary Sector. The Secondary Sector shows a slightly lower growth rate (6.27%, 1.25% and 11.17% in 1993–1999, 2000–2004 and 2005–2014 respectively) than the overall growth (7.03%, 11.29% in 1993–1999 and 2005–2014 respectively) in MMR. According to Census 2011, the total number of workers in MMR based on their place of residence is 9.08 million, with a workforce participation rate of 39.83% for MMR. Of these, the majority of the workers are engaged in Other Services (93.45%), while

5.1 Determinants for Selection of Metropolises and their Regions

103

household workers are as low as 3.11% and cultivators and agricultural workers accounting for 3.44% only (MMRDA 2016). Greater Mumbai is one of the oldest metropolises in India. Population growth of Greater Mumbai was always a significant concern among planners and policymakers during the pre-independence period. The need for future urban development across Mumbai island was first officially endorsed in the 1940s, and later in 1945, a Post War Development Commitee recommended further development across the islands (Shaw 2004). Accordingly, the First Regional Plan for MMR 1971–1991 proposed the following two significant suggestions: (i) decentralised growth through the establishment of new growth centres within Greater Mumbai as well as in other parts of MMR like Navi Mumbai, and (ii) dispersal of industries with a goal to reduce migration to MMR. In the early 1970s, Bombay Metropolitan Regional Planning Board (BMRPB) proposed a Regional Plan for the Bombay region and suggested four alternative patterns of future development and finally the proposal of New Bombay to be planned as the satellite city of Greater Mumbai was adopted. During the preparation of Bangalore Regional Plan-1996, on account of economic liberalization of 1991 and the 74th Constitutional amendment of 1992, the policy context of metropolitan planning changed substantially. The revised Regional Plan, therefore, emphasized management of growth as distinct from previous initiatives of planned and controlled growth of BMR (BMRDA 2016). Bengaluru city received metropolitan status four decades ago. In Bangalore Development Plan (1995), emphasis was given to decongest the Bengaluru city. The zoning regulations promoted development intensely in the periphery of Bengaluru city (BDA 1995). Urban development focused not only on the city but on satellite towns within the region. In 1998, the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) undertook the task of preparing the first structure plan of BMR, focusing on balanced development, and the plan was approved in March 2005. Further, the Revised Structure Plan of BMR-2031 (presently at the draft stage) recommended a stable regional growth through economic interdependence and development (BMRDA 2016).

5.2

Land Utilization Pattern of MMR and BMR

The original boundary of the Bombay region (presently known as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region) has undergone a few changes since it was first defined in the year 1967. The area subsequently increased from 3965 km2 in 1967 to 4355 km2 in 2016 as per the recent Draft Regional Plan (2016–2036). Subsequently, the inclusion of two part-tehsils of Alibag and Pen of Raigad district in the south and the deletion of 9.04 km2 from Vasai tehsil eventually formed the jurisdiction of MMR. The MMR area thus consists of five districts, namely Mumbai City district, Mumbai Suburban district, parts of Thane and Raigad district, and newly constituted Palghar district in 2012. A portion of MMR falls within this newly constituted Palghar district of Maharashtra state (province). As per approved Regional Plan 1996–2011, the total area of the region had been 4355 km2, whereas, in draft regional plan (2016–2036),

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

104

the total area is brought down to 4311.75 km2. The two reasons for such changes had been the anomalies concerning the coastal boundaries of MMR and corrections in the village (rural) maps (MMRDA 2016). As per the study of MMR (MMRDA 2008) on land utilization pattern of MMR, the built-up land measuring 574.76 km2 was about 13.6% of the total area of the region. The built-up land was further increased to 18% as per the Draft Regional Plan 2016–2036. This comprises industrial land, seaports and airport, commercial areas, and all other built-up areas. More than 20% of the MMR area was under forest and plantations (19%), while about 52% of region was under agricultural operations and wasteland territories. Mangroves, mud-flats, and salt-pans falling under coastal wetlands, account for 7% of MMR while water bodies cover about 4% of the region. The broad land use distribution is given in Table 5.1 and land utilization pattern in 1971–2016 is shown in Fig. 5.1. The share of the built-up area (including industry, airport, port, and harbor) within the region has steadily increased from 6.6% in 1971 to 12.4% in 1991 Table 5.1 Changing land utilization pattern of MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2016 S. No.

Land utilization category

2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2008

Built up 16 10.41 Airport + port/harbour 0.83 Industry 2 2.42 Forest and recreational 19 27.98 Agriculture and wasteland 52 50.11 Coastal wetland and salt pan 7 6.65 Water body 4 1.6 Total 100 100 Source Prepared from (i) MMRDA (2005); (ii) MMRDA (2008); and (iii)

1991

1971

9.5 0.4 2.5 77.5

3.9 1.5 1.2 81.5

8.3 9.7 1.8 2.2 100 100 MMRDA (2016)

100 90

Water Body

Percentage

80 70

Coastal Wetland & Salt pan

60 50 40

Forest, Recreational, Agriculture and Wasteland

30

Industry

20

Built Up including Airport + Port/ Harbour

10 0

2016

2008

1991

1971

Year Fig. 5.1 Changing land utilization pattern of MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2016. Source Prepared from (i) MMRDA (2005); (ii) MMRDA (2008); and (iii) MMRDA (2016)

5.2 Land Utilization Pattern of MMR and BMR

105

and 13.66% in 2008, and has further reached to 18% in 2016 (Fig. 5.1). The area under industrial land use increased between the decades of 1971–1991 from 1.2 to 2.5%, but it has been decreased in the past couple of years (2008–2016). Forest, recreational zone, agriculture, and wetland have been reduced from 81.5 to 71% from 1971 to 2016. The wetlands are also reduced substantially from 9.7% in 1971 to 7% in 2016. The land utilization pattern of MMR (1996–2011) is shown in Fig. 5.2. Further, in rural MMR, more than 90% area is under the non-built up area, which includes forest, agricultural land, coastal wetland, water bodies, etc. In the

Fig. 5.2 Land utilization pattern of MMR (1996–2011). Source MMRDA (2005)

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

106

case of urban MMR, around 46% area is under the built-up area, and the remaining area is under forest, agriculture, coastal wetland, water bodies, etc. Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) covers an area of 8005 km2, with a population of 11.69 million, according to census 2011. Presently, BMR has created over three districts, namely Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, and Ramanagaram. These three districts of BMR are further divided into 11 Talukas, 11 ULBs, and 284 Gram Panchayats, covering 2551 villages. Also, the BMR Structure Plan 2011, had divided the entire BMR (excluding the planning area of Bengaluru Development Authority) into five Area Planning Zones (APZs) and six Interstitial Zones (IZs). According to the Revised Structure Plan of BMR (2016–2036), APZs are recognized as the development zones, and IZs are categorized as conservation/preservation zone. In BMR, from the year 2000 to 2008, 197 km2 built-up area has been increased while both the areas under water bodies and wasteland reduced by 53 km2 and 91 km2, respectively. Changing land utilization pattern in BMR during 2000–2008 is shown in Fig. 5.3. The area under agricultural land has decreased by 0.65% (34 km2), and grassland/grazing lands are reduced by 74% (16 km2) since 2000. It appears that the area under water bodies, agricultural land, and wetlands have been taken over by the built-up area for residential and industrial uses from 2000 to 2008. Notably, in the core city of Bengaluru, the blue (water bodies) and green spaces are reduced drastically. Land utilization classification for BMR in 2008 is shown in Fig. 5.4 and percentage of built-up area change in Bengaluru city during 1973–2016 is shown in Fig. 5.5.

100

Percentage

90 80

Others

70

Water Bodies and Wetland

60

Waste Land

50

Grass Land, Grazing Land

40

Forest

30

Agricultural Land

20

Built Up

10 0

2008

2000

Years

Fig. 5.3 Changing land utilization of BMR (in percent)—2000 and 2008. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2016)

5.2 Land Utilization Pattern of MMR and BMR 3.58 0.07

7.48

107

0.94 11.49

Built Up Agricultural Land

10.38

Forest Grass Land, Grazing Land Waste Land Water Bodyies and Wetland 66.06

Others

Fig. 5.4 Land utilization pattern of BMR (in percent)—2008. Source Prepared from BMRDA (2016)

Fig. 5.5 Temporal change of built-up area of Bengaluru City (1973–2016). Source United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1973, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016)

108

5.3

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Population Composition of MMR and BMR

It is seen in Table 5.2 and Fig. 5.6 that, MMR population has increased from 7.76 million in 1971 to 22.80 million in the year 2011. The share of MMR (urban) population in the total population of MMR, which was 93.55% in the year 1971, was remained the same during 2011. This indicates that concerning urban share of population, MMR characterized to be predominantly an ‘Urban Region.’ Apart from rural to urban migration, incorporation of several rural areas in the surrounding respective urban local bodies is the prime reason for the rural population declining during the last couple of decades. Urban centres within MMR are shown in Fig. 5.7. The urban population growth rate of MMR was around 4.27% during 1971– 1981 but has decreased to 1.78% during 2001–2011. MMR and MMR (Urban) had followed the same pattern regarding population growth in the last five decades, whereas the rural growth rate was 3.06% during 1971–1981 but decreased to 1.78% during 2001–2011. People migrated from rural areas to nearby urban centres where work centres are located, and better infrastructure facilities are available. Annual Average Growth Rate of MMR (including MMR urban and MMR rural) is shown in Fig. 5.8. It is seen from Table 5.3 and Fig. 5.9 that, during 1991–2011, the population of BMR has increased from 6.51 million to 11.70 million. The share of urban BMR population in the total population of BMR, which was 56.95% in the year 1991, is found to be increased to 78.76% in 2011. It indicates that regarding urban share, BMR is majorly urban, where the urban percentage is continuously increasing, and the rural population share is constantly decreasing during the last few decades. In BMR, the rural population share has from 43.05% in 1991 to 21.24% in 2011. The steady increase in urban population share vis-à-vis declining rural population in both BMR and MMR indicate the rising urban population flow to metropolitan areas over the region and surrounding areas in pulling the population. BMR growth rate has increased by 2.93% during 1991–2001, and the same increased further to 3.89% during 2001–2011. Also, BMR is a highly urbanised area where the growth rate of the urban population was around 3.15% during 1991– 2001 but has increased further to 8.89% during 2001–2011. BMR rural growth rate has decreased drastically from 2.64% in 1991–2011 to −2.99% during 2001– 2011. Annual Average Growth Rate of BMR urban and BMR rural is shown in Fig. 5.10, and urban centres of BMR is shown in Fig. 5.11.

5.4

Population Growth of Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru

Greater Mumbai has become not only the biggest city and prominent urban agglomeration in India but also stands as the world’s third-largest agglomeration after Tokyo and Mexico City (MCGM 2009). It is seen from Table 5.4 that since

1971 Population

Percentage

1981 Population Percentage

1991 Population

MMR urban 7.26 93.55 10.43 94.21 13.72 MMR rural 0.49 6.45 0.64 5.79 0.82 Total MMR 7.76 100 11.07 100 14.55 Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011), and (ii) MMRDA (2016)

Units 94.29 5.71 100

Percentage

Table 5.2 Population change, urban and rural population share in MMR (population in million)

18.21 1.15 19.36

2001 Population

94.05 5.95 100

Percentage

21.33 1.47 22.80

2011 Population

93.55 6.45 100

Percentage

5.4 Population Growth of Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru 109

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

110 100 90 80 70 60 50

MMR Urban

40

MMR Rural

30 20 10 0

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 5.6 Urban and rural population share in MMR (in percent)—1971 to 2011. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011), and (ii) MMRDA (2016)

1901 there is an uninterrupted growth of population in Mumbai in absolute number till recent times (the census year 2011). On the contrary, the annual average growth rate has drastically been reduced from that of 2.37% during 1901–11 to 0.44% during 2001–2011. It is clear that a significant rises in population growth rate (6.62% and 4.28%) had taken place during 1941-1951 and 1961–1971. But after that, the growth rate has indicated a steady falling trend over the last four decades (1981–2011). It is expected that the same decreasing population growth trend may continue for the forthcoming decades also. Bengaluru city population increased from 5.7 million to 8.4 million, with a substantial 4.95% rise in growth rate during the decade 2001–2011 (Figs. 5.12 and 5.13). The drivers of growth for Bengaluru from a small town to a large metropolis has been an outcome of five growth events: (i) post-independence shifting of the State (province) Capital from Mysore to Bengaluru, (ii) merger of the Cantonment area with the Municipal limit in 1949, (iii) setting up large Public Sector Undertakings/ Academic Institutions (since the 1970s), (iv) growth of Textile Industry (1911–31) and (v) development of Information Technology/ITES/Biotech based industries (since the 1980s). In the post-1980s many research and innovation centers, academic and defense institutions, large IT firms like Infosys, Wipro, Satyam, TCS, etc. had established an IT base in the city, and today many of them are becoming export-oriented large global multinationals (Chatterjee et al. 2018).

5.4 Population Growth of Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru

Fig. 5.7 Urban centres within MMR. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2016)

111

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

112 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00

MMR Urban

2.50

MMR Rural

2.00

Total MMR

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

1971-1981

1981-1991

1991-2001

2001-2011

Fig. 5.8 Annual average growth rate of MMR (1971–2011). Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011), and (ii) MMRDA (2016)

Table 5.3 Population change, urban and rural population share in BMR (population in million) Units

1991 Population

Percentage

2001 Population

Percentage

BMR urban 3.71 56.95 4.88 57.93 BMR rural 2.80 43.05 3.54 42.07 Total BMR 6.51 100 8.42 100 Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011)

2011 Population

Percentage

9.21 2.48 11.70

78.76 21.24 100

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00

BMR Urban

40.00

BMR Rural

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 5.9 Urban and rural population share in BMR (in percent)—(1991–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011)

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

113

10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00

BMR Urban

2.00

BMR Rural

0.00 -2.00

1991-2001

2001-2011

-4.00

Fig. 5.10 Annual average growth rate (in percent) of BMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011)

5.5 5.5.1

Metropolitan Crisis Overconcentration of Population

In the year 1971, Greater Mumbai’s population share in MMR was 76.6%, which is found to have been reduced to 54.3% in 2011 (Table 5.5). Also, from Table 5.6, it may be observed that the share of Greater Mumbai’s population in that of MMR (urban), which was 81.9% in the year 1971, is reduced to 58.2% in 2011. This indicates that the metropolis has reached a stage when other satellite towns are capable of attracting more and more migrants, and job-seekers on the one hand, and on the other, MMR might be expanding on new areas where new migrants are concentrating. However within MMR predominance of Greater Mumbai still exists regarding population share. This also shows the possible growth of population in nearby satellite cities of Greater Mumbai like Thane, Navi Mumbai, Mira Bhayander, etc., where population growth has taken place at a faster pace than that in Greater Mumbai. A different change in the spatial distribution of the population is observed within Greater Mumbai in the last four decades. Over the 1971–2011 period, the gross population density of Greater Mumbai has increased from 13,640 to 28,426 (Fig. 5.14). This process generates tremendous pressure on existing land-use, environment, and infrastructure. The average density of MMR and urban MMR are 5361 and 14,116 person/km2 as per census 2011. Within Municipal Corporations, the gross density is highest in Ulhasnagar (38,931 person/km2). The increasing density of population in Greater Mumbai city and some if its linked satellite towns (Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi, etc.) has made terrific pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities. The share of Bengaluru’s population in that of BMR, which was 50.6% in the year 1991, is found to have been increased to 71.7% in 2011 (Table 5.7). It may be observed from Table 5.8 that the share of Bengaluru’s population in that of BMR

114

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.11 Urban centres within BMR. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (2011), and (ii) BMRDA (2016)

(Urban), which was 88.9% in the year 1991, has been increased to 91.3% in 2011. This indicates that the metropolis has maintained its dominance regarding population within the region. Bengaluru can be termed as ‘Primate City’ based on its population status and functional importance within the BMR region. Bengaluru had a population of 8.4 million in 2011, while the population of the next large urban centre (Ramanagaram) within BMR had been 0.09 million in 2011. It indicates that

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

115

Table 5.4 Population growth and growth rate of Greater Mumbai (1901–2011) Year

Population (in million)

Annual average growth rate (in %)

Year

1901 0.92 – 1961 1911 1.14 2.37 1971 1921 1.38 2.03 1981 1931 1.39 0.12 1991 1941 1.80 2.89 2001 1951 2.99 6.62 2011 Source Prepared from Census of India (1901–2011)

Population (in million)

Annual average growth rate (in %)

4.15 5.93 8.24 9.92 11.91 12.44

3.87 4.28 3.90 2.04 2.00 0.44

9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0

Populaon (in million)

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Fig. 5.12 Population growth of Bengaluru city (1901–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1901–2011)

the population overconcentration happened in Bengaluru and nearby satellite cities of Bengaluru like Ramanagaram, Anekal, Hosekote, etc. have not performed their roles in terms of population sharing and decentralization of activities within BMR. Also, within Bengaluru, a significant change in the spatial distribution of population is witnessed during the last three decades. Over the 1991–2011 period, the gross density of population of Bengaluru has increased from 4459 to 11,401 (Fig. 5.15). The increasing population of Bengaluru city has put tremendous pressure on existing land use, environment, infrastructure, and services. The average density of BMR and urban BMR are 1461 and 10,180 person/km2 as per census 2011. After Bengaluru, Hebbagodi has the second-highest gross population i.e. 10,231 person/km2 in 2011.

116

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 AAGR (%)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Fig. 5.13 Annual average growth rate of population in Bengaluru city (1901–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1901–2011)

Table 5.5 Population share of Greater Mumbai in MMR (1971–2011) (population in million)

Table 5.6 Population share of Greater Mumbai in MMR-Urban (1971–2011) (population in million)

5.5.2

Units

1971

1981

MMR 7.7 11.0 Greater 5.9 8.2 Mumbai Percentage 76.6 74.5 share Source Prepared from (i) Census of (ii) MMRDA (2005)

Units

1971

1981

MMR (urban) 7.2 10.4 Greater 5.9 8.2 Mumbai Percentage 81.9 78.8 share Source Prepared from (i) Census of (ii) MMRDA (2005)

1991

2001

2011

14.5 9.9

19.3 11.9

22.8 12.4

68.2

61.6

54.3

India (1971–2011), and

1991

2001

2011

13.7 9.9

18.2 11.9

21.3 12.4

72.2

65.3

58.2

India (1971–2011), and

Migrant’s Population

Investigation into the reasons behind the population growth of Greater Mumbai is interesting. The rural population migrate to towns and cities for their opportunities and bigger dreams—a better life focusing primarily on livelihoods and quality of life. This tendency is actually prompted by labour-market disequilibrium (Wahba 1996).

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

117

Fig. 5.14 Gross population density in Greater Mumbai (1971–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1971–2011)

Table 5.7 Population share of Bengaluru city in BMR (1991–2011) (population in million)

Table 5.8 Population share of Bengaluru city in BMR Urban (1991–2011) (population in million)

Units

1991

BMR 6.51 Bengaluru 3.3 Percentage share 50.6 Source Prepared from Census of India

Units

1991

BMR (urban) 3.71 Bengaluru 3.3 Percentage share 88.9 Source Prepared from Census of India

2001

2011

8.42 11.70 4.3 8.4 51.0 71.7 (1991, 2001, 2011)

2001

2011

4.88 9.21 4.3 8.4 88.1 91.3 (1991, 2001, 2011)

Natural increase (increase in birth rate or decrease in death rate), net rural to urban migration, net rural to urban classification, and jurisdictional change in municipal boundaries are the prime four reasons for which population of an area grows. Natural increase, net rural to urban classification and jurisdictional change in municipal boundaries have not been an issue for Greater Mumbai, which did not have any administrative jurisdictional changes of municipal boundaries during the last 50 years. The pulls of the city are for better employment opportunities and/or aspiration for higher incomes and the hope for assessing better services and modern amenities. Based on the 2001 census, around 43.7% of the population was categorised as migrants in Greater Mumbai. It is also noted that the declining trend of migrant population is observed in percentage terms, but not in absolute numbers, which are quite higher since

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

118 12000 10000 8000 6000

Gross Density (Populaon/sq.km)

4000 2000 0

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 5.15 Gross density of population of Bengaluru city (1991–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (1991, 2001, 2011)

Table 5.9 Total population and total migrants’ of Greater Mumbai (1961–2001) (population in million) States Total population Total migrants Percentage of migrants’ to total population Source MCGM (2009)

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

4.1 2.6 64.24

5.9 3.3 56.48

8.2 4.2 51.30

9.9 3.6 37.24

11.9 5.1 43.30

the post-independence period. There is an increase of 6.05% in migrant population during 1991 to 2001 (MCGM 2009) (Table 5.9). The migration data of BMR reveals that about 3 million migrant population had been recorded in the 2001 census. Out of this 3 million, Bangalore Urban District alone witnessed around 2.5 million. It is also noted that a significant portion of this migrant population migrated from the state of Karnataka itself (BMRDA 2016). Further, as per the Master Plan of BDA (2015), about 45% population increase in BMR is attributed to the fact of in-migration. Around 22% of the net increase in population is due to natural increase, and another 33% could be recognized due to the jurisdictional changes besides the new rural areas were included in the area of Bengaluru’s urban agglomeration (Fig. 5.16).

5.5.3

Low Floor Space Index

A city like Greater Mumbai where geographical constraints exist for horizontal expansion (three sides bounded by sea and in northern side limited expansion

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis Fig. 5.16 Percentage composition of population growth in Bengaluru city (1991–2001). Source Prepared from BDA (2015)

119

22 33 Natural Increase In-migration Jurisdictional change 45

is possible because of hills and reserve forest), the vertical development can be an alternative solution. By comparing Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru with other metropolises in Asia, it appears that FAR restriction is common for both the cities, which have limited building heights in the Central Business District (CBD) area. An unrealistic development control regulations, particularly FAR policies, have restricted vertical expansion. Also, the transfer of development rights mainly through free trading of land and floor space has not been regulated by the municipal administration. In most megacities of the world, from CBD to peripheral areas, FSI is tending to decrease, and as a consequence, population densities also follow the same trend. Job concentration, advancement in technology, improvements in infrastructure, the nature of the land, and commercial opportunities attract higher FAR for CBDs. In the case of Greater Mumbai, particularly for commercial areas as distance increases, FSI remains almost the same (except Bandra-Kurla Complex), and the pattern is different from many other global cities. The similar pattern is followed in case of residential areas except for Dharavi, where higher FSI is permitted for redevelopment purposes. According to Bertaud (2011), in Greater Mumbai, FSI values are low, uniform over vast areas, not differentiated between commercial and residential areas, and not linked to land market values. Also, Bengaluru’s continuous population increase requires redevelopment of the CBD area at higher densities during initial periods. Once the redevelopment process is over, population growth would then occur in the peripheral areas of the city, and the final extension would envisage with the emergence of sub-city centers (Bertaud and Brueckner 2003). It requires immediate attention for both Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru to increase their FSI values. Urban planning experts suggest that the FAR value for both Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru, and other satellite towns of MMR and BMR should be fixed within a 20-year time frame.

5.5.4

Infrastructure Conditions

According to the 2001 census, about 50% of Greater Mumbai’s population resides in slum areas, occupying only 8% of its land area. Their lives are subjected to poor

120

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

health and hygiene, and insufficient civic services. The city is characterised by massive infrastructure deficits, which include 2–6 h of water supply (in some areas alternate days of water supply), 35% of households without proper sanitation facility, old stormwater drainage network, etc. (MCGM 2005). As per the Revised City Development Plan (2012) of Greater Mumbai, there are 361,862 water connections across 376,991 properties in Greater Mumbai, with a coverage of around 96%. At an average, a single domestic water supply connection serves 8 households, whereas slum areas are provided with group connections with a standard provision or norm of single connection for 15 families. Many slums, which developed during the post-1995 period, are not provided with water connections. Only 62% of the total water supplied is billed, while the non-revenue water, consisting of unbilled water consumption and apparent and real water losses, accounts for 38% of the total supply. Inequitable distribution ranging from 2 to 24 h of supply is of significant concern (MCGM 2012). It is an essential function of ULBs to provide basic services that include water supply, sewerage, etc. Currently, 60% of the Greater Mumbai area and 42% population are connected with piped sewer lines (Chitale 2006). In the case of the slum population of Greater Mumbai, about 2% families are connected with piped water supply (MCGM, 2011). Sewer lines in many places are more than 100 years old and are in a dilapidated condition; therefore, there is a concern regarding environmental pollution due to the leaking of sewers (MCGM 2016). The stormwater drainage lines suffer from structural deficiencies. Besides, the structures are of an age-old and partly dilapidated system that functions in the city. The system was designed for the rainfall intensity of 25 mm/h and a runoff coefficient of 0.50, whereas the runoff is steadily increasing due to increased paved areas and further pressurizing the drainage system (Chitale 2006). Solid waste management is one of the significant areas of concern from an environmental sustainability point of view. Only around 50% of the houses are covered under the door to door solid waste collection system by the municipal authorities. About 83% of the municipal solid waste is collected. Lack of segregation of waste causes operational difficulties, and eventually, environmental damage persists at treatment sites. In Greater Mumbai, the number of vehicles registered is growing at a rate of 4–5% per annum. It may be noted that motorcycles have increased at the rate of over 9% per annum, suggesting an increase in the use of personalized vehicles for shorter trips. In the suburban rail system of Greater Mumbai, the total passenger traffic has increased six-fold since its inception, whereas railway capacity has been augmented by only about 2.3 times. As a consequence, each train on an average carries 4500 passengers as against the desired average capacity of 1750 passengers (MCGM 2005). Around 63% of all passenger-vehicle trips in MMR originated and terminated in Greater Mumbai. Also, nearly 40,000 bus passengers arrive or depart from Greater Mumbai daily. Private vehicle ownership increased in Greater Mumbai from 52 per 1000 to 82 per 1000 between 1996 and 2005, and the forecast for 2031 is 197 per 1000. In Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palika (BBMP), around 50% area is covered by stormwater drains and out of which 12% have kutcha drains. Nearly 82% (1763 km) of the total existing road network is with a 2-lane carriageway. Further,

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

121

inadequate carriageway widths and on-street parking are common for most of the roads of Bengaluru city. Most of the major roads in Bengaluru have volumecapacity ratios higher than 1.0, which indicates high congestion, low speeds, and long delays. Presently, BBMP supplies water around 143 litter per capita per day (lpcd) against the norm of 180 lpcd, but supply is not uniform throughout the municipal area (BDA 2008). In BMR, a total of about 6.6 million registered vehicles are available as in the year 2016. Bangalore Urban’s share of the registered vehicles is highest at 92.5%, followed by Ramanagara (4.8%) and a low share of 2.6% by Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore Urban has witnessed the highest average annual growth in registered vehicles (10.01%) in the past three years among the three districts, followed by Bangalore Rural (7.28%) and Ramanagara (5.50%). In BMR, the district-wise comparisons show that the highest number of vehicles per 1000 population is seen in Bangalore Urban (635) followed by Ramanagara (293) and Bangalore Rural (176) (Fig. 5.17). In the Bangalore urban district, the number of vehicles registered has increased from 3.49 million to 6.11 million between 2009 and 2016 (Fig. 5.18). The groundwater resources are already over-exploited and in the critical zone (around 93% of BMR), it will not be sustainable to exploit this resource any further. Currently, the available groundwater resources in all districts of BMR together are 1609 million liters per day (mld), and in the coming decade, the groundwater extraction continues at the same rate, then the situation will be alarming.

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Total Vehicles per 1000 population

Fig. 5.17 District wise total number of registered vehicles (per 1000 population) in BMR-2016. Source Data collected from RTO office, Bengaluru

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

122 7 6 5 4

Vehicles in Million

3 2 1 0

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Fig. 5.18 Vehicular growth in Bangalore Urban District (2009–2016). Source Data collected from RTO office, Bengaluru

5.5.5

Real Estate and Housing

The real estate market of Greater Mumbai is one of the most expensive global markets. A recent report highlights that the median household income of residents is only INR 20,000 per month, whereas the lowest price for even a single bedroom public housing unit starts from INR 1,400,000 (USD 19,646) onwards. Also, it is evident that housing cost is 4–5 times higher than the affordable range of family’s annual gross income; it seems that nearly half of the population is unable to afford to own a house in Greater Mumbai (MCGM 2016). As a result, people are moving towards satellite towns of Greater Mumbai like Navi Mumbai, Thane, etc. where the cost of housing is comparatively cheaper. The maximum number of the housing shortage is observed in Bangalore urban districts, and it is primarily because of the presence of various socio-economic opportunities, high land rates, and a high rate of immigration in the Bangalore urban district. In Ramanagara, maximum number of temporary houses are available as compared to Bangalore urban and Bangalore rural districts (Table 5.10). As per Table 5.10 Housing shortage of BMR-2011 Districts

Total no. of households (million)

Total houses required (million)

Total available houses (dilapidated, temporary and unclassified) (million)

Bangalore 2.39 2.37 0.04 urban Bangalore 0.22 0.22 0.02 Rural Ramanagara 0.26 0.25 0.04 BMR 2.88 2.85 0.11 Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011)

Housing shortage (million)

Housing shortage (%)

0.06

48.62

0.02

18.31

0.04 0.13

33.07 100

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

123

the survey conducted by the Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB) in BMR, there are 668 slum areas and out of which 458 are notified slum areas. Keeping in view with the migration rate, slum populations, and housing stock, the housing affordability is a severe issue in BMR. Out of the total housing units, affordable housing (within 4 million INR) is the highest supply of housing units in Bengaluru city, and Bengaluru south (Banashankari, J. P. Nagar, Basavanagudi, etc.) is leading in this affordable housing supply. Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South are the prime choices for the luxury and ultra-luxury income groups (varies from 10 to 50 million INR). Bangalore east is affordable for MIG, and HIG budget groups who are primarily involved in IT sector work or other services and industrial works. The zone-wise distribution of various budget segments of housing in Bengaluru is mentioned in Fig. 5.19.

5.5.6

Worker’s Concentration

Employment is a critical indicator of economic growth. In Table 5.11, the distribution of resident workers in MMR and Greater Mumbai is presented for 2001 and 2011 census years. It is seen that out of total workers in MMR, almost 65% are concentrated in Greater Mumbai in the year 2001. Bandra-Kurla, Andheri, Powai, and Lower Parel are the new CBDs emerging in Greater Mumbai. According to Ultra Luxury Housing (20-50 million INR)

100%

Luxary Housing (10-20 million INR)

80% 60%

High Income Housing (6-10 million INR)

40% 20%

Middle Income Housing (4-6 million INR)

0%

Affordable Housing (within 4 million INR)

Bengaluru Bengaluru Bengaluru Bengaluru Bengaluru West South North East Central

Fig. 5.19 Bengaluru city zone wise distribution of various budget segments housing-2016. Source Badauria (2016) (Bangalore Insite report (January–March 2016))

Table 5.11 Workers concentration in Greater Mumbai Units

Total workers (2001)

MMR (in million) 6.8 Greater Mumbai (in million) 4.4 Greater Mumbai’s Share (in %) 64.74 Source Prepared from Census of India (2001, 2011)

Total workers (2011) 8.8 5.0 56.78

124

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Table 5.12 Workers concentration in Bengaluru Units

Total workers (2001)

BMR (in million) 3.4 Bengaluru (in million) 1.6 Bengaluru’s Share (in %) 47.05 Source Prepared from Census of India (2001, 2011)

Total workers (2011) 4.2 3.7 88.09

the 2011 census, the same declined to 57%, but still, it shows satellite towns are not playing their role and not able to generate employment, and that is the reason, regarding total workers, a significant share is still held by Greater Mumbai itself. Further, in the case of BMR, it is seen that out of total workers in the region, almost 47% was concentrated in Bengaluru in the year 2001. According to 2011 census, the same has increased by nearly double to 88% which shows that satellite towns are not playing their roles and not able to generate employment and that is the reason for which significant share of total workers is still held by Bengaluru city itself (Table 5.12). Both population and working population (workers) are required to be redistributed among the satellite towns within BMR and MMR on a rational basis.

5.5.7

Shortage of Future Developable Land

On investigating the future developable land potential at Greater Mumbai, it is found that only land area of 9.47 km2 is available for future development (Fig. 5.20). The existing built-up area comprises of 265.04, while 162.87 km2 areas are left as under undeveloped. Greater Mumbai covers 64% of the total urban built-up area of MMR. In the case of BMR, the existing land cover was analysed for the study area using remote sensing and geographic information system. Dataset used was high-resolution Landsat 8 satellite imagery for the year 2016, which was acquired from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Based on the analysis, only 16% of land cover changes observed from 1973 to 2016 has shown in Table 5.13.

Fig. 5.20 Land area breakup of Greater Mumbai. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008)

5.5 Metropolitan Crisis

125

Table 5.13 Land cover changes of Bengaluru city (1973–2016) Land cover

2016 Area (km2)

Percentage

Year wise percentage land cover change 2011 2001 1991 1973

Barren land 109.77 14.92 10.67 4.83 7.17 – Dense vegetation (tree cover) 59.04 8.07 13.36 21.66 23.38 Built up area 358.30 48.61 38.73 28.96 19.61 2.53 Agriculture (pasture land) 186.87 25.39 33.13 36.99 44.92 – Water body 10.38 1.23 1.35 1.53 1.73 2.12 Wetland/healthy vegetation 12.78 1.78 2.76 6.03 3.20 – Total 737.15 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source Prepared from United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1973, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016)

A decreasing percentage of agriculture (pasture) land, dense vegetation (tree cover), wetland, and a sharp increase of built-up area and barren land were observed. Matching with population growth, the built-up area increase is an interconnected aspect. The percent of built-up land has been increasing from 2.53% in 1973 to 48.61% in 2016. Based on the analysis, only 109.77 km2 (14.92%) land is barren land, and this land can be considered as the future potential developable land without disturbing existing blue (water bodies) and green cover.

5.6 5.6.1

Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR Changing Population Pattern

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region, spreading over an area of 4355 km2, comprises of 8 municipal corporations (includes Greater Mumbai, Vasai-Virar, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Navi Mumbai, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Ulhasnagar, and Mira Bhayandar), 9 municipal councils (includes Ambernath, Badlapur, Panvel, Uran, Khopoli, Pen, Matheran, Karjat, and Alibug), several census towns and 12 non-municipal urban centres and 994 villages (Fig. 5.21). MMR is primarily an ‘urban region’ where more than 90% population is urban. Greater Mumbai has experienced rampant economic and demographic growth over time. Initially, the growth was within the island city of Greater Mumbai, and in a later stage, the growth spreaded rapidly towards satellite towns of Thane, Kalyan, Navi Mumbai, Vasai Virar areas. The population growth in the outer areas of MMR has taken place at a faster pace than that of the Island City of Mumbai (MMRDA 2008). For detailed study purposes, MMR is divided into 15 urban units besides considering rural MMR separately. These 15 urban units consist of 8 municipal corporations,

126

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.21 Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns within MMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011) and Google Earth

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

127

Table 5.14 Population growth of urban centres within MMR (1971–2011) S. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Urban centres

Census years 1971 1981

1991

Greater Mumbai 5.9 8.2 9.9 Thane 0.2 0.4 0.8 Kalyan-Dombivali 0.2 0.4 0.8 Navi-Mumbai 0.04 0.08 0.3 Mira-Bhayander 0.03 0.06 0.1 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 0.1 0.2 0.3 Ulhasnagar 0.1 0.2 0.3 Vasai-Virar 0.1 0.2 0.3 Ambernath 0.05 0.09 0.1 Badlapur 0.01 0.03 0.05 Panvel 0.02 0.03 0.05 Uran 0.01 0.01 0.01 Khopoli 0.01 0.02 0.04 Pen 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.5 0.65 Other Urban Centresa 0.48 Total Urban 7.26 10.43 13.72 Total Rural 0.49 0.64 0.82 Total MMR 7.76 11.07 14.55 Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (1971–2011); a Includes 3 Municipal councils and Census towns

2001

2011

AAGR (%) 1991–01 2001–11

11.9 12.4 2 1.2 1.8 5.7 1 1.2 4.55 0.6 1.1 12.11 0.5 0.8 19.63 0.5 0.7 5.79 0.4 0.5 2.81 0.6 1.2 10.00 0.2 0.2 6.2 0.09 0.1 8.77 0.1 0.1 7.64 0.02 0.03 3.08 0.05 0.07 3.03 0.03 0.03 3.99 1.02 1.1 5.7 18.21 21.33 3.3 1.15 1.47 4.0 19.36 22.8 3.3 and (ii) MMRDA (2003)

0.44 4.6 0.45 5.92 5.56 1.85 0.7 10.00 2.44 7.79 7.3 3.09 2.12 2.53 0.8 1.7 2.8 1.8

6 municipal councils (Ambernath, Badlapur, Panvel, Uran, Khopoli, and Pen) and all other urban constituents considered as ‘other urban centres’ (includes 3 municipal councils—Matheran, Karjat, and Alibug and 35 census towns). As per 2011 census, all urban centres within MMR with the population less than 30,000 are included in the ‘other urban centres’ category. It is seen from Table 5.14 that the population of MMR has increased from 7.26 million in 1971 to 21.33 million in the year 2011. However, the Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR) for the urban population in MMR has declined from 3.3% during 1991–2001 to 1.8% in 2001–2011. In the case of Greater Mumbai, AAGR declined from 2% during 1991–2001 to 0.44% during 2001–2011. Satellite towns within MMR are growing at a faster rate. Vasai-Virar city, located in the northern part of Greater Mumbai, shows maximum AAGR (10%) because of low land prices as compared to the rest of the Greater Mumbai. Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation was formed in 2009 by including 4 Municipal Councils (Vasai, Virar, Nallasorara, and Navghar-Manikpur) and 53 Gram Panchayats. Although in Thane, Navi Mumbai, Mira Bhayander, etc. the AAGR declined, but still, they maintained a considerable growth rate of almost 5%. Navi Mumbai, a planned satellite town of Greater Mumbai, shows a declining growth rate, which indicates that it will be saturated in near future. AAGR of urban centres within MMR during 2001–2011

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

128 12 10 8 6 4

AAGR (2001-2011) in per cent

Total Urban

Pen

Others

Uran

Khopoli

Panvel

Badlapur

Vasai-Virar

Ambernath

Ulhasnagar

Bhiwandi-Nizampur

Navi-Mumbai

Thane

Kalyan-Dombivali

Greater Mumbai

0

Mira-Bhayander

2

Fig. 5.22 Annual average growth rate of urban components within MMR (2001–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011)

has been shown in Figs. 5.22 and 5.23. Further population distribution of MMR based on the 2011 census is given in Fig. 5.24. Vasai-Virar city, located very close to Greater Mumbai, is growing in a very faster way for being well-connected by both road network (NH-8) and rail network and also due to its availability of developable lands and water resources. Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation is the only Municipal Corporation located in Palghar district, and because of the presence of Vasai creek, the city is connected with Greater Mumbai and Mira-Bhayandar city for trade and commerce and daily commutation. Mira-Bhyader city, due to its proximity to the western expressway, with planned infrastructure and abundant developable land availability, this Municipal Corporation experienced a very high growth rate of 5.56% during the previous decade. Navi Mumbai is a planned counter magnet aimed to decentralize the pressure of urban development from Greater Mumbai. The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) has 66 census wards, with a population of 1.12 million in the year 2011. Navi Mumbai has experienced a population growth rate of 5.92% over the last decade. The factors such as ample greenery, water bodies, civic and transport infrastructure development, the presence of industrial estates, etc. create favourable conditions for many residents to be relocated to Navi Mumbai from Greater Mumbai. Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation has a population of 1.19 million and has 96 municipal wards according to the 2011 census. Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation has the largest concentration of power looms in the country. As the city is having abundant vacant and urbanisable lands, has experienced rapid growth of 4.55% during 1991–2001, but AAGR further decreased to 0.45% during 2001–2011. The Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation has a total population of 0.79 million and has been divided into 65 census wards in the year 2011.

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

129

Fig. 5.23 Annual average growth rate of urban centres within MMR during 2001–2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011)

130

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.24 Population of urban centres within MMR (2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

Due to its proximity to Greater Mumbai and well connected location through suburban rail and roadways, Thane has experienced a steep growth path of the population during the last few decades. Thane is one of the most important industrial cities in MMR and also the headquarter of Thane district. The population

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

131

of the Thane Municipal Corporation area was 1.84 million in the year 2011, with about 95 census wards. Affordable real estate market in Thane has created a favourable environment for the migrant population. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has experienced a moderate growth rate of 2.40% during the period 2001–2011. The Corporation recorded a population of 0.50 million in 2011 in 69 Census wards. Ambernath Municipal Council is an industrial city and well connected by the central railway to the Greater Mumbai city. The Corporation recorded a population of 0.25 million in 2011 distributed across its 41 Census wards. Panvel municipal council is well connected by rail (via harbour line) with Greater Mumbai. Its population in the year 2011 was 0.18 million distributed in 26 census wards. Khopoli, Uran, and Pen are located far from Mumbai city, and as a result, the population growth rate is low as compared to other cities within MMR. These urban centres could not develop due to poor connectivity and infrastructure facilities. The rural population in MMR is distributed over 968 villages with a population of about 1.47 million in 2011. Further, the population of these villages has decreased over the last two decades (4% in 1991–2001 to 2.8% in 2001–2011). Agriculture is the predominant land use in rural MMR. The population density (population/km2) of Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns within MMR has been shown below in Fig. 5.25. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has the highest population density of 37,769 persons/km2, and the lowest is in Khopoli Municipal Council (2450 persons/km2). Further, in the case of BMR, it is seen from Table 5.15 that, the population of BMR has increased from 6.5 million in 1991 to 11.7 million in the year 2011. However, the Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR) for urban BMR has increased from 3.1% during 1991–2001 to 8.9% in 2001–2011. In the case of Bengaluru, the AAGR has grown from 3.1% during 1991–2001 to 9.6% during 2001–2011. Satellite towns within BMR are growing at an average growth rate except for Hebbagodi, Nelamangala, and Hosakote. Hebbagodi, located close to Bengaluru city, shows a maximum AAGR (18.3%) because of low land prices. AAGR of urban centres within BMR during 2001–2011 has been presented in Figs. 5.26 and 5.27. Further population distribution of BMR based on the 2011 census is given in Fig. 5.28. The density of population of Bengaluru and other satellite towns within BMR has shown in Fig. 5.29. Hebbagodi has the highest population density of 10,213 persons/km2, and the lowest is in Devanahalli (1760 persons/km2). Maximum utilization of existing infrastructure and preservation of natural resources, including agriculture, is the main concept endorsed in the BMR regional plan for Area Planning Zones (APZs). The areas which are not covered in the APZ, the concept of Interstitial Zones (IZs), introduced in the regional plan, are applicable. The major investments are anticipated along major road corridors like Mysore expressway and proposed Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure corridor, Bengaluru core area to Devanahalli corridor, Kanakapura, Ramanagaram, and Bengaluru-Nelamanagala corridor. These road corridors are the fast urbanizing corridors and connecting major satellite towns of BMR.

132

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.25 Population density of urban centres within MMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

133

Table 5.15 Population growth of urban centres within BMR (1991–2011) S. No.

Name of urban centres

Population (million) 1991 2001 2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11

Bengaluru 3.3 4.3 Anekal 0.0 0.0 Hebbagodi 0.0 0.0 Nelamangala 0.0 0.0 Dod Ballapur 0.1 0.1 Vijayapura 0.0 0.0 Hosakote 0.0 0.0 Ramanagaram 0.1 0.1 Channapatna 0.1 0.1 Kanakapura 0.0 0.0 Devanahalli 0.0 0.0 Magadi 0.0 0.0 Others urban centres 0.1 0.1 Total urban (BMR) 3.7 4.9 Total rural (BMR) 2.8 3.5 Total BMR (urban + rural) 6.5 8.4 Source Prepared from Census of India (1991–2011)

8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 9.2 2.5 11.7

Total Urban (BMR)

Others Urban Centres

Magadi

Devanahalli

Kanakapura

Channapatna

Hosakote

Ramanagaram

Vijayapura

Nelamangala

Dod Ballapur

Anekal

Hebbagodi

Bangalore

20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

AAGR (%) 1991–2001

2001–2011

3.1 3.3 11.3 4.4 3.1 2.2 4.2 5.7 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 6.0 3.1 2.6 2.9

9.6 3.3 18.3 4.7 1.8 1.8 5.7 2.0 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 6.9 8.9 −3.0 3.9

AAGR (2001-2011) in percent

Fig. 5.26 Annual average growth rate of urban components within BMR (2001–2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011)

5.6.2

Spatial Details and Land Use

More than one-fourth (27%) of the total land in MMR is within the boundaries of Urban Local Bodies. Out of 1135 km2 of total municipal land, 47% is presently developed urban land, while the remaining 53% constitutes all non-built-up lands,

134

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.27 Annual average growth rate of urban centres within BMR during 2001–2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011)

namely wastelands, agricultural land, forest, wetlands, etc. (MMRDA 2008). Development areas in different Urban Centres and Municipal Areas of MMR are given below in Table 5.16. The total areas under various urban local bodies within MMR are 1135.76 km2 (Fig. 5.30), out of which 417.9 km2 (37%) is built-up area. In Ulhasnagar, 85% of

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

135

Fig. 5.28 Population of urban centres within BMR (2011). Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

the total urban land is under the built-up area and followed by Greater Mumbai (60.54%) and Bhiwandi-Nizampur (41.23%). Thus 95% of the urban built-up area is clustered within the 8 Municipal Corporations (Greater Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Navi Mumbai, Mira-Bhayander, Bhiwandi-Nizampur,

136

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.29 Population density of urban centres within BMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

137

Table 5.16 Development areas in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2008 S. No.

Urban centres

Total area of DP/municipal area (km2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Greater Mumbai 437.81 Thane 125.95 Kalyan-Dombivali 111.39 Navi-Mumbai 130.85 Mira-Bhayander 88.87 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 29.76 Ulhasnagar 13.40 Vasai-Virar City 56.39 Ambernath 35.57 Badlapur 34.24 Panvel 11.89 Uran 5.39 Khopoli 29.04 Pen 5.24 19.97 Other urban centresa Total 1135.76 Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008) a Includes 3 Municipal councils and census towns

Existing built-up area (km2)

Percent of existing built-up area to total municipal area

265.04 26.62 22.38 35.88 14.24 12.27 11.41 8.28 4.44 5.55 4.45 0.88 3.61 0.72 2.13 417.9

60.54 21.14 20.09 27.42 16.02 41.23 85.15 14.68 12.48 16.21 37.43 16.33 12.43 13.74 10.67 36.79

450.00 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00

Municipal Area (sqkm)

Pen

Others

Uran

Khopoli

Panvel

Badlapur

Ambernath

Ulhasnagar

Vasai-Virar City

Mira-Bhayander

Bhiwandi-Nizampur

Navi-Mumbai

Thane

Kalyan-Dombivali

Greater Mumbai

Built-up Area (sqkm)

Fig. 5.30 Municipal areas and built-up areas in various urban centres of MMR-2008. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008)

Ulhasnagar, and Vasai-Virar city) while the remaining other urban centres have just 5% of the total built-up land. Municipal areas and Built-up areas in various Urban Centres/Municipal Areas of MMR are shown in Fig. 5.31 and the percentage of built-up area to the total Municipal area is shown in Fig. 5.32.

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

138

16.33 16.21 12.48 14.68

12.43 13.74 10.67 60.54

37.43

21.14 20.09 27.42

85.15

41.23 16.02

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Others

Fig. 5.31 Percentage of built-up areas to total municipal areas in various urban centres of MMR 2008. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008)

Greater Mumbai currently has about 265 km2 of developed land, of which residential is the dominant land use type covering about 26% of the total land. Industrial land use is also substantial (5%) followed by public/institutional (3%) and then commercial (1%). Transport-related land uses include roads accounting for 15% of the land, while railway (1.4%), truck terminal (0.3%), port (1.6%), and airport (1.4%) also cover together a significant amount of land. Among non-built-up land uses, part of the reserved forest of Sanjay Gandhi National Park spans over 68 km2 i.e., 15.5% of the total land. Coastal wetlands are also considerable (i.e., 17% of the total land) spanning across the eastern coast and the north-western portion. Almost all of the lands (97%) demarcated for development have been finally developed so far. Figure 5.33 shows existing land use in Greater Mumbai. The total areas under various urban local bodies within BMR are 904.81 km2. Municipal areas in various Urban Centres and Municipal areas within BMR are shown in Table 5.17 and Fig. 5.34. The land use and land cover analysis of BMR in 2016 is shown in Fig. 5.35. Around 42% of the area is under fallow land, which suggests that agriculture is majorly monsoon dependent with the significant share of Kharif crops in grain production. The significant built mass is concentrated in the Bangalore district, which indicates the primate character of the BBMP area in the BMR area. The present development in BMR region can be characterized with the following action programmes: 1. Uncontrolled spread of growth in all directions with low population density. Rapid urban sprawl around Bengaluru city. 2. Encroachment of water bodies within Bengaluru city and green belt, which is proposed in the peripheral area of BBMP. 3. Ribbon development along major transport corridors, especially along the Bengaluru and Mysore corridors.

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

139

Fig. 5.32 Municipal area of urban centres within MMR. Source Prepared from MMRDA (2008)

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

140

1% 0.30% 2% 1%

2% 1%

3%

5%

15%

25.80% 17% 17%

6% 2% 1%

Fig. 5.33 Land-use distribution of Greater Mumbai-2008. (2008)

Table 5.17 Municipal areas in various urban centres within BMR

5.6.3

S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11

Commercial Industrial Public/instuonal Residenal Port Rail Recreaon Forest Coastal Wetlands Salt pans water body Truck Termilals Roads Airport Zoned for Development

Source Prepared from MMRDA

Name of urban centres

Bengaluru Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Others urban centres within BMR Total urban (BMR) Total rural (BMR) Total BMR (urban + rural) Source Prepared by authors from Census of India

Area (km2) 740.64 5 3.41 5.4 13.48 14.55 14.28 12.39 8.42 7.2 15.94 4.98 72.6 904.81 7100.19 8005 (2011)

Working Population

Employment is a critical indicator of economic growth. Greater Mumbai is the employment hub of MMR, accounting for about 56% of the total employment as per the 2011 census. Worker’s growth rate in Greater Mumbai is too less as compared to other satellite towns. Satellite towns like Thane, Navi Mumbai, Mira Bhyander,

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

141

Fig. 5.34 Existing municipal areas in various urban areas within BMR. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

Badlapur, Panvel, etc. workers’ growth rates are quite high (more than 5%). Table 5.18 depicts Working Population in different Urban Centres and Municipal Areas of MMR for the Census years 2011 and 2001. In Greater Mumbai, workers’ occupational distribution in the last fifty years shows a clear shift of employment base from the manufacturing industry to the service sector and trade and commerce (Singh 2010; MMR Regional Plan 1991–2011). Satellite

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

142

Landuse Landcover Analysis BMR - 2016 Agriculture - Culvated

Agriculture - Fallow

Barren Land

Built Area

Forest Area

Waterbody

42% 19%

14% 9%

15% 1%

Fig. 5.35 Land use land cover analysis of BMR-2016. Source Prepared from United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (2016)

Table 5.18 Working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR (2001–2011) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Urban centres

2001

Greater Mumbai 4,464,248 Thane 419,827 Kalyan-Dombivali 403,577 Navi-Mumbai 270,692 Mira-Bhayander 193,158 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 250,227 Ulhasnagar 155,791 – Vasai-Virar Citya Ambernath 66,533 Badlapur 34,014 Panvel 36,341 Uran 7881 Khopoli 18,651 Pen (M Cl) 10,136 Other Urban Centres 86,192 Urban MMR 6,426,130 Rural MMR 469,176 Total 6,895,306 Source Prepared from Census of India (2001–2011) a Vasai-Virar Muicipal Corporation formed in 2009

2011

AAGR (%)

5,019,417 699,235 469,306 455,485 316,363 289,828 194,024 490,018 91,407 65,255 67,994 11,197 25,530 13,725 138,650 8,347,434 493,450 8,840,884

1.24 6.66 1.63 6.83 6.38 1.58 2.45 – 3.74 9.18 8.71 4.21 3.69 3.54 6.09 2.99 0.52 2.82

towns within MMR follow a similar pattern regarding employment share. More than 75% of the employment is shared by manufacturing and processing industries, trade and commerce, and other service sectors. In Rural MMR, more than 75% of the employment is provided by mining and quarrying, cultivation, manufacturing, and processing industries, transport, storage, and communication. Working and nonworking populations in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR based on the 2011 census are presented in Table 5.19 and Fig. 5.36.

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

143

Table 5.19 Working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2011 S. No.

Urban centres

Working population

Percentage working population to total population

1 Greater Mumbai 5,019,417 40.34 2 Thane 699,235 37.97 3 Kalyan-Dombivali 469,306 37.62 4 Navi-Mumbai 455,485 40.65 5 Mira-Bhayander 316,363 39.09 6 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 289,828 40.84 7 Ulhasnagar 194,024 38.34 8 Vasai-Virar City 490,018 40.09 9 Ambernath 91,407 36.06 10 Badlapur 65,255 37.45 11 Panvel 67,994 37.77 12 Uran 11,197 36.79 13 Khopoli 25,530 35.89 14 Pen 13,725 36.26 15 Other urban centres 138,650 34.62 Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2011)

Non-working population 7,422,956 1,142,253 778,021 665,062 493,015 419,837 312,074 732,372 162,068 108,971 95 2497 488 938 370,592

Bengaluru city is the growth pole not only in the whole BMR but also in the state (province) of Karnataka. The city accounts for around 87% of the working population. The manufacturing and service sectors together contribute to 75% of the total employment share of Bengaluru city. The workers’ growth rate in Bengaluru city is quite high (12.40%) as compared to other satellite towns and urban centres except for Hebbagodi. In some of the Satellite towns and urban centres like Nelamangala, Hosakote etc., workers’ growth rates are quite high (more than 5%). Table 5.20 depicts the working population in different urban centres and municipal areas of MMR for the census years 2011 and 2001. In BMR, the workforce participation rate (WPR) of rural and urban areas are 22.7% and 77.3%, respectively, in 2011. It indicates that urban BMR contributes more to economic activity as compared to that of the rural areas. In the manufacturing sector, the Bangalore Urban District has the highest contribution in employment and income generation. Around 88% of the total industries are located in Bangalore Urban, while 7.5% and 4.5% are located in Bangalore Rural and Ramanagaram, respectively. The employments generated through these industries are 79%, 12.4%, and 8.7% by Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, and Ramanagaram District respectively. The percentage of the working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR based on the 2011 census are presented in Table 5.21, and their shares of working and non-working population are shown in Fig. 5.37.

144

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.36 Percentage of working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of MMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

145

Table 5.20 Working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR (2001–2011) S. No.

Urban centres

2001

2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Bengaluru city 1,658,911 3,716,788 Anekal 12,508 18,125 Hebbagodi 6461 20,240 Nelamangala 8850 14,600 Dod Ballapur 28,122 35,543 Vijayapura 11,279 14,478 Hosakote 13,297 21,941 Ramanagaram 31,589 38,157 Channapatna 23,704 28,061 Kanakapura 17,613 20,899 Devanahalli 9336 11,177 Magadi 10,481 11,315 Others urban centres 49,075 96,451 Total urban (BMR) 1,881,226 4,047,775 Total rural (BMR) 1,578,219 199,152 Total BMR (urban + rural) 3,459,445 4,246,927 Source Prepared based on data from Census of India (2001–2011)

AAGR (%) 12.40 4.49 21.33 6.50 2.64 2.84 6.50 2.08 1.84 1.87 1.97 0.80 9.65 11.52 −8.74 2.28

Table 5.21 Working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR-2011 S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Urban centres

Working population (2011)

Bengaluru city 3,716,788 Anekal 18,125 Hebbagodi 20,240 Nelamangala 14,600 Dod Ballapur 35,543 Vijayapura 14,478 Hosakote 21,941 Ramanagaram 38,157 Channapatna 28,061 Kanakapura 20,899 Devanahalli 11,177 Magadi 11,315 Others urban 96,451 centres Total urban (BMR) 4,047,775 Total rural (BMR) 199,152 Total BMR 4,246,927 (urban + rural) Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

Percent working population to total population 44.02 40.95 58.12 39.21 41.99 41.52 38.51 40.09 39.01 38.69 39.85 40.99 48.80 43.94 8.01 36.31

146

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Fig. 5.37 Percentage of working and non-working population in various urban centres and municipal areas of BMR-2011. Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

5.6.4

Infrastructure Conditions

In Greater Mumbai as per the draft development plan (2014–2034), 60% area is served with facilities of piped sewer line, and 42% non-slum, and 2% slum households are connected with the piped sewer line. Further, 50% of households are covered under a door to door waste collection system, and thus around 83% of the total municipal solid waste is collected for disposal. Total water demand in Greater Mumbai is 4000 million liters per day (mld), as against the water supply provided by Municipal Corporation is 3350 mld. Presently, in educational front about 1255 primary schools, 109 secondary schools, and 433 private aided primary schools are

5.6 Satellite Towns (Other Urban Centers) Within MMR and BMR

147

functioning in Greater Mumbai. In the Thane municipal area, the existing sewerage network covers only 15% of its geographical area (TMC 2008). In Vasai-Virar city, 70% of the total geographic area is under piped water supply. The current water schemes designed for the total extraction of 130 mld do not meet the current demand of 165 mld. At present, no sewerage network exists in Vasai-Virar city. The total sewage water generated in this city is estimated to be 104 mld (VVMC 2011). In Kalyan-Dombivli, only 5% of the city is served by an underground sewerage network. The city has a sewage treatment capacity of 30 mld against the required capacity of 192 mld. The recent report of Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation highlighted that 66% of the households in the city have access to individual toilets (KDMC 2011). The Census 2001 provides evidence on housing and infrastructure issues at the level of administrative wards in Kalyan-Dombivali (KD), which indicates that a shortage of decent housing is an issue that affects the majority of areas in the city. On an average, around 41% of the households experienced congestion. Lack of sanitation infrastructure also existed in 10% of the households only; the supply of electricity and tap water service was much less in the city (Baud et al. 2013). In Ulhasnagar, due to damage caused by floods only 8 mld (29% of actual design capacity) of sewerage can be treated in the STP, since some sewer lines are not connected with the main lines. Untreated sewerage is discharged into nullahs (watercourse along a steep, narrow valley), which are finally meeting the Ulhas river. This river, however, is also a drinking water source (UMC 2007). In Mira Bhyander Municipal Corporation, presently out of the demanded 68 mld, only 1.2 mld (1.76%) sewerage is treated (MBMC 2011). Taking an overall view, it may be stated that the water supply and sanitation status of the constituents of MMR are not so satisfactory and demand early actions for meeting the deficiencies. Transportation in Bengaluru is one of the significant challenges, especially concerning the city level congestion and traffic disorders. The growth of the city is constrained due to the shortcomings in the existing transportation infrastructure facilities. Some of the identified issues in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region are witnessing a remarkable increase in the numerical strength of vehicles to 3.5 folds in the past 15 years as an impact of rising household incomes. Inadequate road network capacity, lack of freight terminals, the problem of traffic circulation, etc. are some of the transportation management problems faced by BMR region. Due to depleting water resources (both from the surface and underground sources) and rising urbanization, the pressure on the water supply sources have been tremendous in BMR. Concerning groundwater, 7 out of 9 talukas are already identified as over-exploited zones of groundwater. Moreover, the quality of groundwater is also compromised due to chemical and biological contaminations in many locations. In case of dependency on surface water sources, the accessible dams, reservoirs, lakes, etc. have already been constructed to serve extensively for meeting the domestic, industrial, and irrigational demands. Water utilization from River Cauvery is already in its phase V in the Bengaluru water supply programme. This programme is continuing in spite of the source being 100 km away with a source elevation difference of just 500 m and thus making it highly unsustainable,

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

148

both economically and environmentally. However, there is a critical need for alternative and more sustainable sources of water. BBMP has recently come up with the proposal of rainwater harvesting and treated wastewater reuse for non-potable purposes. In the case of satellite towns, no waste segregation is practiced in Devanahalli, Hoskote, Annekal, and Doddaballapur, and no landfill sites are there in Devanahalli, Annekal, and Doddaballapur.

5.7

Conclusion

Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru are considered as the two fastest-growing cities in India, and they contribute significantly to the Indian economy. Greater Mumbai is popularly known as the financial capital of India whereas Bengaluru is known as Silicon Valley of India. Development of these cities needs to be planned, or it will lead to haphazard development, which in turn will lead to urban chaos. The present state of development is over-concentration of the metropolitan cities, giving rise to numerous challenges, and includes scarcity and degradation of resources indicating a shortage of land, environmental degradation, housing shortage, etc. As a result, agricultural land, water bodies, hills, etc. are converted to urban usage spaces within MMR and BMR. Government intervention is the need of the hour as most of the growths are taking place outside the municipal administrative limits. It is also evident that satellite towns are not performing their role in relieving the urban load from metro cities. The notion of carrying capacity required rethinking for the preparation of development models of the MMR and BMR. Metropolitan development policies need to be designed for sustainable growth of metropolitan regions like MMR and BMR.

References Badauria S (2016) Bangalore insite report April–June, 99 acres Insite Report Baud I, Karin P, Tara VD, Neeraj M, Christine R, Berenice B, Sridharan N, Vidya SP, Tara S (2013) The development of Kalyan Dombivili; fringe city in a metropolitan region. Chance 2 sustain. Bonn. http://www.chance2sustain.eu/fileadmin/Website/Dokumente/Dokumente/ Publications/pub_2013/C2S_CR_No02_Development_of_Kaylan_Dombivili__V1-6.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2018 BDA-Bengaluru Development Authority (1995) Revised comprehensive development plan of Bangalore, Bengaluru Development Authority, Government of Karnataka BDA-Bengaluru Development Authority (2008) Revised city development plan of Bangalore, vol. I, Bengaluru Development Authority, Government of Karnataka BDA-Bengaluru Development Authority (2015) Bangalore master plan, Bengaluru Development Authority, Government of Karnataka Bertaud A (2011) Mumbai FAR/FSI conundrum, the perfect storm: the four factors restricting the construction of new floor space in Mumbai. http://alainbertaud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 06/AB-Mumbai-FSI-Conundrun-Revised_June-2013_kk-ab1.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017

References

149

Bertaud A, Brueckner JK (2003) Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts, welfare costs, and a case Study of Bangalore, India. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.198.5316&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2017 BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2016) Bangalore metropolitan region revised structure plan-2031, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Karnataka Census of India (1901–1961) Primary census abstract, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner Govt. of India Census of India (1971–2011) Primary census abstract, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner Govt. of India Chatterjee A, Choudhury B, Dasgupta P, Vaidya G (2018) Design of spatial and economic strategy for smart metropolitan regional development: case of Bangalore metropolitan region. In: Vinod Kumar TM (ed) Smart metropolitan regional development. Springer, Singapore, pp 359–400 Chitale M (2006) Fact finding committee on Mumbai floods, Final Report, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2011) Government of Maharashtra Government of Karnataka (1996) Structure plan of Bangalore metropolitan region KDMC-Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (2011) City sanitation plan, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, vol. I. Government of Maharashtra. http://www.kdmc.gov.in/ uploadpdf/City%20Sanitation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 MBMC-Mira Bhyander Municipal Corporation (2011) City sanitation plan, Mira Bhyander Municipal Corporation, Government of Maharashtra. http://www.indiasanitationportal.org/ sites/default/files/Mira_Bhyaunder_CSP.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2005) Mumbai city development plan (2005– 2025), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2009) Mumbai Human Development Report, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. http://mhupa. gov.in/W_new/Mumbai%20HDR%20Complete.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2011) Report on disaster risk management master plan section on city profile of Greater Mumbai, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2012) Mumbai revised city development plan (2005–2025), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra MCGM-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2016) Draft Development Control Regulations, Greater Mumbai, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2003) Population and employment profile of Mumbai metropolitan region. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority. http://www.mumbaidp24seven.in/reference/MMRDA_Population_and_ Employment_Profile_of_MMR.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2016 MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2005) Regional plan for Mumbai metropolitan area (1996–2011), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Maharashtra MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2008) Comprehensive transportation study for Mumbai metropolitan region. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai, Maharashtra MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2016) Draft Mumbai metropolitan regional plan (2016–2036), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Maharashtra Shaw A (2004) The making of Navi Mumbai. Orient Blackswan, Hyderabad Singh DP (2010) Employment situation in Mumbai: an analysis. Global Labour Conference, Berlin, 14–16 Sept 2010. http://www.global-labour-university.org/fileadmin/GLU_ conference_2010/papers/44._Employment_situation_in_Mumbai_An_analysis.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2017

150

5 Metropolitan City-Satellites-Fringe Villages Relationship: Case …

Sudhira HS, Ramachandra TV, Bala Subrahmanya MH (2007) City profile: Bangalore. http:// wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/bangalore/TVR24_p11_Bangalore.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017 TMC-Thane Municipal Corporation (2008) City development plan, Thane Municipal Corporation. Government of Maharashtra. http://www.thanecity.gov.in/uploadpdf/5-NURM-CDP-341345638666.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 UMC-Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (2007) City development plan, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. Government of Maharashtra. http://www.umc.gov.in:8080/umc/jsp/download/ cdp.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer (1973, 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016) Landsat satellite images for Bengaluru city. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ VVMC-Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation (2011) City sanitation plan—Vasai Virar, Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation, Government of Maharashtra. http://www.accessanitation.org/ fileadmin/accessanitation/Presentation/Final_conference/8_May_2013/5.1_CitySanPlan_ MUN_CORP.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 Wahba J (1996) Urbanization and migration in the third world. Econ Rev 14(2)

Chapter 6

Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials of Satellites of MMR and BMR

Abstract There are many western models of sustainable city development, which are often not replicable in Indian situations due to their unique urban landscape, urban governance, urban fiscal policies besides cultural milieu, and overall face of urbanism. Although these models are quite efficient in the context of western cities, their relevance for application in India and similar situations is questionable. Finding out suitable models applicable to the developing world is a difficult task. This chapter suggests that for successful analysis of the present problem existent in Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru city, the approach should be holistic, where urban compactness and economic sustainability are taken as the two prime pillars of development. The ‘Relative Employment Potential (REP)’ model developed for comparative static analysis could also be applied for projecting a path of growth of the megacity regions over key time points in the future. A validation exercise has also been carried out to judge the statistical significance of the model. Further, the applicability of carrying capacity based ‘Sustainable Accommodation through Feedback Evaluation (SAFE)’ model is also worked out for achieving spatial sustainability. Carrying capacity has been tested with various Floor Area Ratio (FAR) options (with existing FAR and with increased FARs) to find out future FAR requirements for Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru cities and their satellite towns within the megacity region. Keywords REP

6.1


SAFE
Carrying capacity
Population allocation

Models and their Application

This chapter deals with the application of the rational population allocation model on the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) as well as on their satellites. It also goes for validation tests of the model based on past census data. Besides, the Relative Employment Potential (REP) model developed here is not only used for comparative static analysis but also applied for generating and projecting a trail of regional growth by key time points in future. The structure of the model to be developed consists of two elements or two terms. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_6

151

152

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

The first expresses the proportionality effect (as MMR and BMR grow) on market-sensitive activities. In this part, as MMR and BMR grow, due to the proportionality effect, all of its satellite towns will also increase proportionally. The second element or term of the model refers to the urban component’s change in interregional position. This second segment covers the forces that generate improvement or deterioration in a region’s (here any urban component of MMR and BMR) interregional position, such position being relative. If all urban components or satellites are to grow at the same rate as MMR and BMR, there would be neither improvement nor deterioration for any satellite town. In this case, all satellite towns will not grow at the same rate of MMR and BMR. But due to the urban component’s change in interregional position, there will be an improvement or deterioration in its access to the employment markets. The model is further validated with 2011 census data to find whether the model is realistic or not. Population variation and Mean Standard Error have been established for validation purposes. Spatial allocation models, namely the land-based density model and the ‘SAFE’ model (Sarma et al. 2012), have been used for estimating activity-specific spatial demand for the Census year 2011. The same method has been followed for projecting spatial demands for different urban activities in the urban components of MMR and BMR.

6.2

Distribution of Workers

For economic sustenance, it requires a detailed understanding of the economic base of each city and town located within MMR (Table 6.1) and BMR (Table 6.2). In almost all urban centres, significant workers shares are observed in the service sector, trade and commerce, manufacturing and processing industry. In Rural MMR, mining and quarrying, cultivation, manufacturing and processing, transportation, storage, and communication are predominant sectors. This information will help not only in population allocation but also in workers allocation for each of the cities and towns within MMR. In BMR sectoral distribution of workforce between three major economic sectors shows a shift towards the tertiary sector (2001–2011). This is primarily due to concentration of tertiary workers in Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore) and its surrounding areas. But in Rural Bangalore and Ramanagaram district together the primary sector contributes the maximum share of the total workforce. Bengaluru city economy is predominantly depending on the tertiary sector. For the other ULB areas in BMR, the secondary and manufacturing-based economy is dominating. The textile industry and agro-based industries are some of the vital industries in other Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in BMR.

6.3

Population Distribution

Based on the population data (1971–2001), the population for 2011 has been first projected for Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns. This population data is used to validate the population for 2011 in Greater Mumbai and its

6.3 Population Distribution

153

Table 6.1 Major workers’ shares in cities and towns within MMR in 2011 S. No.

Urban centers

1

Workers Working population in million (2011)

Pre-dominant economic base

Greater Mumbai

5.0

Other service sector, trade and commerce and manufacturing and processing industry (tertiary sector dominated)

2

Thane

0.6

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

3

Kalyan-Dombivali

0.4

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

4

Navi-Mumbai

0.4

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

5

Mira-Bhayander

0.3

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

6

Bhiwandi-Nizampur

0.2

Manufacturing and processing industry

7

Ulhasnagar

0.1

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

8

Vasai-Virar City

0.4

Manufacturing and processing industry, trade and commerce and other service sector

9

Ambernath

0.9

Manufacturing and processing industry, service sector, trade and other commerce

10

Badlapur

0.06

Manufacturing and processing industry, other service sector, trade and commerce

11

Panvel

0.06

Manufacturing and processing industry, other service sector, trade and commerce

12

Uran

0.01

Manufacturing and processing industry, other service sector, trade and commerce

13

Khopoli

0.02

Other service sector, trade and commerce and manufacturing

14

Pen

0.01

Other service sector, trade and commerce and manufacturing

15

Other Urban Centres

0.1

Manufacturing and processing industry, other service sector, trade and commerce

16

Rural

0.4

Mining and quarrying, cultivators, manufacturing and processing industry, trans., storage and communication

Total

8.84

Source Prepared from Census of India (2011)

associated satellite towns. For the population forecasting, four population projection methods applied are Arithmetic (I), Geometric (II), Incremental (III), and Exponential (IV) path of growth. An investigation is also made to find out the most suitable projection method giving the closest population shift from Census 2011 population in Greater Mumbai and all its satellite towns (Table 6.3). It appears that none of the commonly used population projection methods could

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

154

Table 6.2 Major workers share in cities and towns within BMR in 2011 S. No.

Urban centres

Working population in million (2011)

Pre-dominant economic base

1

Bengaluru city

3.72

Tertiary (IT, ITES, engineering etc.), manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Textile and agro based Manufacturing Manufacturing

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Others Urban Centres Total Urban (BMR) Total Rural (BMR) Total BMR (Urban + Rural) Source Prepared from Census

0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.10 4.05 0.20 4.25

Tertiary, manufacturing, textile and agro based Primary sector/agriculture, small and medium enterprises Tertiary, manufacturing, textile and agro based

of India (2011)

provide an acceptable estimate of population for the year 2011. This indicates that intra-metropolitan growth and validation of the population over the past few decades could not prove to be an effective instrument for future population distribution. It calls for more modern and efficient tools for rational allocation of population in the case of intra-metropolitan distribution process. For this reason, the worker based Relative Employment Potential (REP) model is adopted for MMR.

6.4 6.4.1

Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model Review of Existing Models

The growth and regional problem of nations is a concern that has appealed to regional scientists and economists for quite a long time. In the era of pre-1950s, there was very little concern related to regional problems and issues, but there emerged a front with peripheral inclination to the enquiry of regional growth aspects. In post-1950s several economists, geographers, regional scientists, and regional planners had been working on regional growth and development models. Initial regional development and growth models include stages of economic growth by Rostow

Total MMR MMR Urban MMR Rural Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other Urban Centres a Census of India (2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Name and population (2011) S. Area/town name No.

22.8 21.3 1.4 12.4 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.03 1.1

Census population (2011)a 19.6 18.7 1.07 12.0 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.2

20.0 19.1 1.2 12.19 1.19 0.86 0.70 0.52 0.79 0.48 0.47 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.19

Population projection (2011) Arithmetical Geometric (I) (II) 19.74 18.90 1.09 12.07 1.18 0.79 1.43 1.70 0.94 0.48 1.68 0.27 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.20

Incremental (III)

Table 6.3 MMR population projection by using various projection methods (population in million)

25.80 25.80 1.11 15.36 2.22 2.78 1.56 1.54 1.31 0.70 1.18 0.33 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.17

Exponential (IV) II (8.54) II (8.88) IV (0.02) II (2.00) IV (20.56) II (30.67) I (4.48) II (35.71) II (10.66) II (4.51) I (28.13) I (0.52) IV (5.51) IV (13.94) IV (9.32) IV (29.91) II (8.50) I (50.50)

Projection method giving closest estimation with % variation

6.4 Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model 155

156

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

(1960), circular and cumulative causation by Myrdal (1966), relative income potential by Isard (1962), modified neoclassical growth model for the regional context by Borts and Stein (1964), change in market potential by Difiglio (1968), etc. Myrdal (1966) illustrates the principles of circular and cumulative causation with the help of the Negro problems in the United States. Rostow (1960) had shown that growth in some sectors spread to other sectors, and thus, the entire economy is charged with spread effects. Isard’s (1962) Relative Income Potential (RIP) Model is not only used for comparative static analysis but also for generating and projecting a path of regional growth by crucial time points in the future. Richardson (1974) discussed the various applications of income potential and gravity models ranging from regional economic projections to spatial price theory and others. More recent empirical studies on the regional economic growth include geographic clustering for national industrial competitiveness by Porter (1990), the relationship between public investment and regional economic growth by Button (1998), interregional convergence by Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1999), etc. In population forecasting some empirical studies on model includes cohort analysis by Wunsch and Termote (1978), an econometric model using cross-sectional data of 131 Dutch cities and villages by Bierens and Hoever (1985), expert-based stochastic population forecasting method by Billari et al. (2012), the Bayesian paradigm by Guimarães (2014) etc. There are always scopes to revisit the existing economy based population forecasting models and to suggest new or modified models applicable to the developing world. This study will thus be centered around two principal approaches (Fig. 6.1): • Worker-based economic forecasting model for future population allocation. Applying this model for 2001 data, the population of 2011 has been validated. After validation and necessary modification scenarios for two forwarding decades, 2021 and 2031 could be forecasted.

Fig. 6.1 Methodology adopted for achieving desirable decentralization of MMR and BMR

6.4 Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model

157

• Land-based approach for fulfilling the future spatial demand through density and Sustainable Accommodation through Feedback Evaluation (SAFE) model. Environmental and ecological factors like water bodies, hills, etc. in the urban area need to be retained while assessing urban carrying capacity based on the SAFE model. Relative Employment Potential (REP) Model has been developed based on principles of W. Isard’s RIP model (1962), which has its foundation in Isard-Reilly law. Since the estimation of income potential at the regional level, especially at the metropolitan level, is quite tricky and unreliable due to information gaps on income, it is considered, in this treatise, that employment of the urban sector can serve the role of a good surrogate for urban income. Also, it is difficult to get reliable data to make a comparison of relative purchasing power. Under-reporting of Income is a common problem while conducting a household survey in developing countries (Hicks 2011). Income data in India has always been a constant issue. There is always a very consistent lying (under-reporting) majorly because of the fear factor and conservative nature of the society when the matter of income—no matter which efficient agency does the survey. In the current treatise, the model is assumed to remain the same structurally as the RIP model presents, but the employment variable replaces the principal variable income, and the modified model is designated in this study as REP (Relative Employment Potential) model. The scope and limitation of the present study are as follows: • Intra Urban rational allocation model is proposed for two forwarding decades (2021 and 2031) because beyond two decades, the model may not be realistic and will need necessary modification to predict with the changing urban development pattern of MMR and BMR. • Though the study concentrates on the allocation of population and space required for 2031 based on employment opportunities estimated, it shows limitations in such allocations by MMR and BMR urban units in 2021 due to lack of rationality on shares of sectors in the intermediate decade. • Municipal boundary expansion in the future is not considered as the scope of the present study. However, if such expansion takes place in any urban unit, the population concentration, workers concentration, and density and FAR will be adjusted accordingly. • Due to the non-availability of more recent data in all urban areas of MMR, land use survey report published in 2008 by MMRDA is considered as a base period source of information for the present treatise. In the case of BMR, the required published datasets available for Bengaluru and Kanakpura. Infrastructure data required for the SAFE model are calculated from city development plans of respective cities/towns • In ‘other’ category of urban units of MMR (includes 3 Municipal Councils and 12 Census towns) though land-use details for 3 Municipal Councils (Matheran, Alibug, and Karjat) are given, the same for Census towns are not available since recorded as villages till 2011 census period. Thus non-availability of detailed land-use data of Census towns has been a limitation in this study.

158

6.4.2

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

Application of REP Model

This model is useful for projecting a path of regional growth at key time points in the future. The hypothesis considers that a region develops because of three sets of factors. One, it develops because it possesses resources to which new plants of existing and new industries are attracted and to which footloose population migrates, or because its market reaches a scale sufficiently large to justify new facilities, or both (situations of both growth and decline). Two, it develops because the nation, of which it is a part, develops; this category of factors include a multitude of political, financial, educational, and other institutional forces, whose effects are not easily quantified, as well as the general growth of the market and productivity of the national economy. Three, it develops or declines because relative to other regions, its access to the several regional markets of the nation improves or deteriorates. In MMR and BMR, the possibilities of setting up of large-scale new industries/ plants, which can change the industrial scenario of MMR and BMR, is challenging because of land constraints. Setting up of new large-scale industries is a significant policy decision, and the same is very tricky to predict. Thus REP model estimates growth by two relevant components namely; i. Proportionality Effect (A) ii. Effect of Region’s Change in Interregional Position (B) Hence, the model to be developed consists of two elements or two terms. The first expresses the proportionality effect on market-sensitive activities (as the nation grows). In this case, as MMR or BMR grows, all of its satellite towns will also grow due to the proportionality effect. Proportionality effect (A) equation is expressed as follows;  tþh  X Er t A¼ f  E ð6:1Þ i Ert where: E f

number of workers factors which converts number of employment into number of population or dependency ratio t + h forecasting year t base year i city i (urban units of MMR or BMR) r specific region (here MMR or BMR) The second element or term of the model refers to a region’s change in interregional position, that is, to an improvement or deterioration in a region’s total access to the employment market. The second set covers the forces that generate improvement or deterioration in a region’s (here any urban component of MMR or BMR) interregional position, such position being relative. If all urban components or satellites are to grow at the same rate as MMR or BMR, there would be neither

6.4 Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model

159

improvement nor deterioration for any satellite town. In this element, all satellite towns will not grow at the same rate of MMR or BMR, but due to urban component’s change in interregional position, there will be an improvement or deterioration in its access to the employment markets. The proportionality effect is not expected to be applicable for any urban component as it overstates or understates growth; hence urban component’s change in interregional position modifies the REP when composed with the Proportionality effect. Thus any urban component’s change in interregional position (B) can be derived from the reconstituted model as follows; B¼b

t þ h i

 V  1 ptr qti V

ð6:2Þ

where: b positive constant q ratio (dependency ratio) t + h forecast period t base year i city i (urban units of MMR or BMR) r specific region (here MMR or BMR) p Population and: tþh V i

¼ t iV

tþh

E1

di1 ¼

t

þ

tþh

E2

di2

þ


þ

tþh

t E1 t E2 En þ þ


þ di1 di2 din

En

din

ð6:3Þ ð6:4Þ

Here, the interacting urban units are designated as (1, 2, …, n), Ei = Employment of urban uniti, j = interacting urban unit with i, dij = physical distance between i and j measured along public transport routes. It is felt necessary to identify the effects of employment changes as these changes are spatially distributed. To do this, it is essential to go for a comparison of the employment potential of a satellite town in a base year with that of the satellite town’s employment potential at the end of the estimation period (typically the year of the projection). The simple ratio requires modification because if the employment remains constant during a period and if shifting happened for some satellite towns, then the ratio will be higher than unity, where as others may be less than unity. Such a ratio will always be positive. It is clear that one must eliminate from this ratio of employment potentials the general effect of regional growth or decline of employment. Such a task is done by multiplying the denominator of the ratio by a factor called dependency ratio. The dependency ratio of various satellite towns are mentioned for MMR in Table 6.4 and BMR in Table 6.5. The distance matrix

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

160

Table 6.4 Dependency ratio of urban and rural areas of MMR-2001 and 2011 S. No.

Area name

Dependency ratio (2001)

1 Greater Mumbai 2.67 2 Thane 3.00 3 Kalyan-Dombivali 2.96 4 Navi-Mumbai 2.60 5 Mira-Bhayander 2.69 6 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 2.39 7 Ulhasnagar 3.04 8 Vasai-Virar City 2.78 9 Ambernath 3.06 10 Badlapur 2.88 11 Panvel 2.86 12 Uran 2.95 13 Khopoli 3.15 14 Pen 2.98 15 Other Urban Centres 2.24 16 Rural MMR 2.46 Source Prepared from Census of India (2001, 2011)

Dependency ratio (2011) 2.48 2.63 2.66 2.46 2.56 2.45 2.61 2.49 2.77 2.67 2.65 2.72 2.79 2.76 2.89 2.40

Table 6.5 Dependency ratio of urban and rural areas of BMR-2001 and 2011 S. No.

Area name

Dependency ratio (2001)

1 Bengaluru 2.60 2 Anekal 2.65 3 Hebbagodi 1.90 4 Nelamangala 2.86 5 Dod Ballapur 2.55 6 Vijayapura 2.62 7 Hosakote 2.73 8 Ramanagaram 2.51 9 Channapatna 2.68 10 Kanakapura 2.67 11 Devanahalli 2.51 12 Magadi 2.39 13 Other Urban Centres 2.38 14 BMR (Rural+Urban) 2.42 Source Prepared from Census of India (2001, 2011)

Dependency ratio (2011) 2.27 2.44 1.72 2.55 2.38 2.41 2.60 2.49 2.56 2.58 2.51 2.44 2.05 2.75

is prepared through the primary survey based on road distance through public transport routes. For ‘others category of satellite towns’, the average distance of all satellite towns has been calculated, and for rural MMR or rural BMR, the distance from Greater Mumbai or Bengaluru in all directions is considered. The distance

6.4 Regional Growth and Population Forecasting Model

161

matrix is presented in Table 6.6 for MMR. A constant value (b = 0.37 for MMR and 0.51 for BMR) could be derived through regression analysis (by least square method) of available existing (2011) information. Finally, Pt þ h ¼ A þ B

ð6:5Þ

where, Pt+h Forecasted Population A Proportionality Effect B Urban Component’s change in inter-regional position. In the above model, the proportionality effect and the factor of urban components change in interregional positions are considered as additive. Since the two terms are additive, each is expressed in the same units, namely population numbers (Chatterjee 2015; Chatterjee et al. 2016). Based on past population trend and REP model developed above, the 2011 population has been validated to find out whether the model works in the real situation or not. In some satellite towns, the model value is higher than the 2011 Census population figure, whereas in other satellite towns, the model estimated populations that are lower than the Census population. This is assumed to be so because of their regional change in interregional positions. These variations can be interpreted in Employment terms as the existence of the unemployed population. Mean Standard Error calculated for the model value is 5.42, and the population variation for MMR is 10.22% (Table 6.7). Similarly, in BMR, Mean Standard Error calculated for the model value is 5.92, and population variation is 2.48% (Table 6.8).

6.5 6.5.1

Carrying Capacity Analysis Review of Assessment Techniques

United Nations report on ‘Our Common Future’ by the World Commission on Environment and Development (United Nations 1987), which was headed by Brundtland, has been one of the earliest global discussions on sustainability focused on ‘the concept of needs’ and ‘the idea of limitation.’ The report focused on improving the human situation by equally emphasizing the economy, ecology, and social goals that are leading to sustainable development. Carrying capacity is a technique to measure sustainable development. In 1978, Thomas Malthus introduced the concept of carrying capacity. Malthus predicted that for a specific time, the earth could only hold a certain amount of human growth, and the critical question is determining the ecosystem quality for the pressures applied by the demands of the dwelling population (Sarma et al. 2012). The Ecological Footprint Atlas (2010) says, “We cannot make meaningful decisions about where we need to

Mira-Bhayander

Bhiwandi-Nizampur

Ulhasnagar

Vasai-Virar City

Ambernath

Badlapur

Panvel

Uran

Khopoli

Pen

Others Urban Centres

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

46

69

87

53

41

58

57

63

50

38

30

22

47

24

0

Greater Mumbai

35

67

82

49

36

39

35

47

50

38

30

22

47

0

24

Thane

37

64

79

57

33

17

15

10

4

16

47

31

0

25

47

KalyanDombivali

Source Prepared considering road distances through shortest path

Kalyan-Dombivali

Navi-Mumbai

Thane

2

4

Greater Mumbai

1

3

Urban centers

S. No.

34

45

60

26

14

40

39

35

33

33

45

0

31

23

22

Navi-Mumbai

51

89

103

71

57

60

60

56

48

35

0

45

46

22

30

MiraBhayander

Table 6.6 Intra-urban units distance matrix-MMR (distance in km)

38

76

91

69

45

26

28

23

17

0

36

37

14

14

38

BhiwandiNizampur

39

68

83

60

36

13

13

6

0

17

48

34

4

26

50

Ulhasnagar

59

113

118

81

82

85

80

0

73

33

40

70

71

47

63

Vasai-Virar City

42

69

74

62

39

6

0

81

6

21

56

35

10

35

57

Ambernath

43

73

58

66

43

0

6

85

13

26

60

40

17

39

58

Badlapur

38

32

38

29

0

42

38

82

36

45

57

14

33

36

41

Panvel

52

37

74

0

29

66

62

95

60

69

71

26

57

49

53

Uran

70

45

0

74

48

70

84

128

83

91

103

60

79

82

87

Khopoli

61

0

33

37

31

73

69

113

68

76

89

45

64

67

69

Pen

0

61

70

52

38

43

42

59

39

38

51

34

37

35

46

Others

162 6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

6.5 Carrying Capacity Analysis

163

Table 6.7 Population estimates (validation) for MMR-2011 (population in million) S. No.

Urban centres

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other Urban Centres 16 Rural MMR Total a Census of India (2011)

Population allocation based on REP model

Census population (2011)a

Variation for each towns with respect to Census (2011)

15.8 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.09 0.5

12.4 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.03 1.1

3.4 −0.6 0.5 −0.4 −0.1 0.5 0.1 −1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.17 0.23 0.06 −0.6

0.3 25.03

1.4 22.8

−1.1 2.23

Table 6.8 Population estimates (validation) for BMR-2011 (population in million) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Urban centres

Bengaluru Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Other Urban Centres 14 Rural BMR 15 Total BMR a Census of India (2011)

Population allocation based on REP model

Census population (2011)a

Variation for each towns with respect to Census (2011)

10.05 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.20

8.44 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19

1.61 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00

0.57 11.98

2.48 11.69

−1.91 0.29

164

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

go before we know where we stand” (Ewing et al. 2010, p. 8). The concept of carrying capacity mainly focused on environmental and human-made physical factors over a long period (Rees 1992; Abernethy 2001; Schneider et al. 1978; Liu 2012; Oh et al. 2005). Researchers worked on other non-environmental factors determining carrying capacity, particularly during the last four decades and accordingly, many factors included in carrying capacity assessment. It included technical, socio-economic, and cultural components by Schroll et al. (2012), human attitudes, values, and behavior by Godschalk and Axler (1977), besides economic, social, environmental, and institutional aspects (Liu 2012; Downs et al. 2008). Several evaluation methods and tools were evolved for assessing carrying capacity such as infrastructure and land use based methods (Oh et al. 2005), Visual threshold carrying capacity tool (Oh 1998), relative carrying capacity based on grey relevant degree (Xu et al. 2010), and also environmental carrying capacity theory and ubiquitous technology (Lee and oh 2012). According to Wei et al. (2015), the carrying capacity is a growing tool for monitoring sustainable development, and there are emerging researches related to the measuring carrying capacity.

6.5.2

SAFE Model for Estimation of Carrying Capacity

Current Carrying Capacity assessment literature mainly focuses on an urban area as one unit, and so far, little progress has been achieved in developing methodology focused on the regional scale for assessing the comprehensive metropolitan regional carrying capacity study. Through this book, an attempt has been made to estimate the carrying capacity of Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru, other urban units of MMR and BMR, and also rural MMR and rural BMR separately by applying the SAFE model. A SAFE model, developed by Center of Excellence for Integrated Landuse Planning and Water Resources Management of IIT, Guwahati, can be readily applied to any urban area (Sarma et al. 2012) and in this book, the same used for assessing the carrying capacity of intra-urban units within the metropolitan region. The carrying capacity in the context of the metropolitan region can be calculated by using the following equation: CC ¼ AU  ðAND þ AIFÞ  FAR=S

ð6:6Þ

where, CC AU AND AIF FAR S

Carrying Capacity total urban area net non-developable area area for infrastructure development Floor Area Ratio Floor area requirement per person.

This model is used here to assess the carrying capacity of all urban units of MMR. Due to the non-availability of more recent data, the land use survey

6.5 Carrying Capacity Analysis

165

Table 6.9 Land and infrastructure details of MMR S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Urban centres

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other Urban Centres 16 MMR Urban 17 MMR Rural Source MMRDA (2008)

Total delineated urban area (in ha)

Non-developable land (in ha)

Total built up area (in ha)

43,781 12,595 11,139 13,085 8887 2976 1340 5639 3557 3424 1189 539 2904 524 1997

16,287 6285 3648 6994 6352 556 51 2241 1115 2078 369 319 1698 319 838

26,504 2662 2238 3588 1424 1227 1141 828 444 555 445 88 361 72 313

113,576 307,238

49,150 296,177

41,790 7988

conducted in 2008 by MMRDA is considered for the present study (Table 6.9). The area under infrastructure development is calculated from city development plans for respective cities and towns. The floor area required per head has been calculated based on the MMRDA report and 2011 census data on population. For Greater Mumbai and the majority of the satellite towns where developable land is limited for future development, the vertical expansion has been considered to be an alternative solution. As per the land use pattern of MMR, the developed/built-up land measuring 574.76 km2 is about 13.6% of the total area of the region. More than one-fourth of the land is under forest and plantations (i.e., 27.9%), while nearly half of the region has been converted as agricultural and open land (50.11%). More than one-fourth (27%) of the total land in MMR is within the boundaries of municipal jurisdiction. Within this total municipal land, which is about 1135 km2, 47% of the area is presently developed as urban land, while the remaining 53% constitutes all non-built-up land uses, namely wastelands, agricultural area, forest cover, wetlands, etc. Around 93% of the urban built-up areas are falling within the 7 Municipal Corporations, while the remaining 13 towns have just 7% of the total built-up land. At the sub-regional level, Greater Mumbai has the maximum share, i.e., 64% of the total urban built-up area in MMR. North Eastern sub-region has the second-largest amount (i.e., 20%) due to the locations of six urban centers, i.e., Thane, Kalyan

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

166

Table 6.10 Carrying capacity assessment based on SAFE model for MMR S. No.

Urban centers

1 Greater Mumbai 2 Thane 3 Kalyan-Dombivali 4 Navi-Mumbai 5 Mira-Bhayander 6 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 7 Ulhasnagar 8 Vasai-Virar City 9 Ambernath 10 Badlapur 11 Panvel 12 Uran 13 Khopoli 14 Pen 15 Other Urban Centres 16 MMR Urban 17 MMR Rurala 18 MMR Total a FAR 0.5 considered for MMR Rural

Carrying capacity (in millions of people)—FAR 1 8.27 3.65 3.48 1.51 1.27 1.02 0.32 4.36 1.23 0.37 0.24 0.06 0.21 0.09 1.18 27.26 0.44 27.70

Dombivili, Bhiwandi, Ulhasnagar, Ambarnath, and Badlapur. Next in order is the Navi Mumbai sub-region (NMMC, Uran, and Panvel) with 10% of the total urban built-up area which is followed by Western Region falling at the fourth rank (5% of the total urban built-up area). Five urban centers located in this part are Mira Bhayandar, Vasai, Navghar Manikpur, Nalasopara, and Virar. Neral Karjat sub-region and Pen Alibag sub-region have together a very small amount of urban built-up area, i.e., just 1.2% and 0.4%, respectively (MMRDA 2008). For Greater Mumbai and the majority of the satellite towns where horizontal expansion and developable land is limited for future development, the vertical expansion will be the only alternative solution. The carrying capacity has been calculated with various FAR options (with existing FAR and with increased FAR) for Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns, and the same is represented in Table 6.10. For Greater Mumbai with FAR 1, the maximum carrying capacity has been estimated to be 8.27 million. In Greater Mumbai, particularly in the island city, the maximum FAR is 1.33, and with 1.33 FAR, the carrying capacity has been estimated to be 11.10 million. Greater Mumbai and Ulhasnagar have already crossed their carrying capacities, and the same situation demands the immediate attention of the policymakers. In the case of Rural MMR, the permissible FAR is only 0.5. With this Permissible FAR, the carrying capacity is estimated to be 0.44 million population, and with FAR 0.75, the carrying capacity is expected to be 0.66 million population. As per the 2011 census, the total population of MMR has been 22.23 million, and with FAR 1 for urban centres and FAR 0.5 for the rural areas, the estimated carrying capacity of MMR is expected to be 27.70 million (Chatterjee

6.5 Carrying Capacity Analysis

167

2015; Chatterjee and Chatterjee 2016). The population allocation for the coming decades has been based on space and floor area requirements for Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns. For applying the SAFE model, the required land and other infrastructure details have been taken from geospatial data and existing city development plans. The floor area required per person has been calculated based on the 2011 census data. The carrying capacity has been calculated with existing average FAR as 1.2 for Bengaluru city (Bertaud and Brueckner 2003). For Bengaluru with FAR 1.2, the maximum carrying capacity has been estimated to be 11.24 million. With 1.5 FAR, the carrying capacity of Bengaluru has been estimated to be at 14.05 million. Although Bengaluru has not crossed its carrying capacity based on the 2011 census population (8.4 million), the alarming population growth in the coming decades demands the immediate attention of the policymakers (Chatterjee and Verma 2016). Due to lack of official published data, like area under infrastructure, non-developable land, built-up area, etc. of the satellite towns of BMR except for Kanakpura, it is difficult to apply the SAFE model there. The ultimate target is to release the population load of Bengaluru city, and the excess population has to be channelized to satellite towns and rural areas of BMR. For this immediate attention of the urban planners and decision-makers is called for.

References Abernethy VD (2001) Carrying capacity: the tradition and policy implications of limits. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 23 Jan 2001, pp 9–18. https://www.int-res.com/articles/ esep/2001/article1.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2017 Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1999) Economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge Bertaud A, Brueckner JK (2003) Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts, welfare costs, and a case Study of Bangalore, India. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.360.2947&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017 Bierens HJ, Hoever R (1985) Population forecasting at the city level: an econometric approach. Urban Stud 22(1):83–90 Billari FC, Graziani R, Melilli E (2012) Stochastic population forecasts based on conditional expert opinions. J R Stat Soc Ser (Stat Soc) 175(2):491–511 Borts G, Stein J (1964) Economic growth in a free market. Columbia University Press, New York Button K (1998) Infrastructure investment, endogenous growth, and economic convergence. Ann Reg Sci 32(1):145–162 Census of India (1971–2001) Primary Census Abstract, UA/Towns. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi Census of India (2011) Primary Census Abstract, UA/Towns. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi Chatterjee A (2015) Decentralization of metropolitan growth through revitalization of satellite towns with a case study of Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Dissertation, Vidyasagar University, India Chatterjee A, Chatterjee S (2016) Sustainable metropolitan development using carrying capacity as a tool: a case of Mumbai metropolitan region, India. Int Adv Res J Sci Eng Technol 3(4):32–35 Chatterjee A, Verma S (2016) Analysing carrying capacity of a metropolis through geo-spatial analysis. Paper presented in 36th Indian National Cartographic Association, Visva-Bharati University, India

168

6 Demographic and Economic Growth Potentials …

Chatterjee A, Chatterjee S, Chattopadhyay RN (2016) Transforming Mumbai city: removing the bottlenecks to achieve future sustainability. Proceedings of the 52nd ISOCARP Congress Difiglio C (1968) A note on the relative income potential model. J Reg Sci 8(2):247–251 Downs JA, Gates RJ, Murray AT (2008) Estimating carrying capacity for Sandhill Cranes using habitat suitability and spatial optimization models. Ecol Model 214:284–292 Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S, Oursler A, Reed A, Wackernagel M (2010) Ecological foot print atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, pp 1–87. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ content/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 Godschalk DR, Axler N (1977) Carrying capacity applications in growth management: a reconnaissance. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC Guimarães R (2014) Uncertainty in population projections: the state of the art. http://www.scielo. br/pdf/rbepop/v31n2/a03v31n2.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015 Hicks NL (2011) The challenges of economic development: a survey of issues and constraints facing developing countries. Author House, Bloomington Isard W (1962) Methods of regional analysis: an introduction to regional science. MIT Press, Massachusetts Lee D, Oh K (2012) A development density allocation model based on environmental carrying capacity. Int J Environ Sci Dev 3(5):486–490. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJESD.2012.V3.272 Liu HM (2012) Comprehensive carrying capacity of the urban agglomeration in the Yangtze river delta, China. Habitat Int 36(4):462–470 MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2008) Comprehensive transportation study for Mumbai metropolitan region (transform). Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai Myrdal G (1966) Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Reprint 1966, Vora and Company Publishers Private Limited, Bombay Oh K (1998) Visual threshold carrying capacity (VTCC) in urban landscape management: a case study of Seoul, Korea. Landsc Urban Plan 39(4):283–294 Oh K, Jeong Y, Lee DK, Lee W, Choi J (2005) Determining development density using the urban carrying capacity assessment system. Landsc Urban Plan 73(1):1–15 Porter M (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New York Rees W (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban 4(2):121–130 Richardson HW (1974) Agglomeration potential: a generalization of the income potential concept. J Reg Sci 14(3):325–336 Rostow WW (1960) The process of economic growth. W.W. Norton & Company, London Schneider DM, Godschalk DR, Axler N (1978) The carrying capacity concept as a planning tool. In: Planning advisory service report 338. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, USA Schroll H, Andersen J, Kjærgård B (2012) Carrying capacity: an approach to local spatial planning in Indonesia. J Transdiscipl Environ Stud 11(1):27–39 Sarma AK, Mahanta C, Bhattacharya R, Dutta S, Kartha S, Kumar B, Sreeja P (2012) Urban carrying capacity: concept and calculation. http://www.iitg.ernet.in/coeiitg/Urban%20Carrying %20Capacity.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017 United Nations (1987) Our common future, World commission on environment and development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2017 Wei Y, Huang C, Lam PTI, Sha Y, Feng Y (2015) Using urban-carrying capacity as a benchmark for sustainable urban development: an empirical study of Beijing. Sustainability 7(3):3244– 3268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033244 Wunsch GJ, Termote MG (1978) Introduction to demographic analysis: principles and methods. Plenum Press, New York Xu L, Kang P, Wei J (2010) Evaluation of urban ecological carrying capacity: a case study of Beijing, China. Procedia Environ Sci 2:1873–1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.10.199

Chapter 7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Abstract This chapter describes the method by which future population can be allocated for Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru city through Relative Employment Potential (REP) and Sustainable Accommodation through Feedback Evaluation (SAFE) models. Allocation of the surplus population could be made to the capable satellite towns. Capacity assessment of Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru city and their satellite towns has to be carried out with a focus on developable land, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and economic opportunities. The ways to fulfill the allocation of land required for future populations of all urban centres of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) are also worked out before assessment of carrying capacities through the application of SAFE Model. Keywords Future population allocation

7.1


REP
SAFE
Carrying capacity
Population

Techniques of Future Population Projection

This chapter deals with projecting the future population allocation through the application of the REP model for two forwarding decades (2011–2021 and 2021–2031). The spatial demands for accommodating the future population in the respective satellites are estimated through density and SAFE model. Intra Urban Relative Employment Potential (REP) model is proposed for only two forwarding decades ending in 2021 and 2031 because beyond two decades the model may not be realistic and will need necessary modification to predict with the changing urban development scenarios of Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). For the same purpose, the past trends of growth of workers have been projected for Census years 2021 and 2031. Spatial allocation models, namely the land-based density model and the ‘SAFE’ model, have been used for estimating the spatial demands for the Census years 2021 and 2031.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_7

169

170

7.2

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Projection of Working Population

Based on the population of the last five decades and workers data (1971–2011), the population and employment for 2021 and 2031 had been projected for MMR (Table 7.1) and BMR (Table 7.2). In MMR, the strength of workers will be increased from 11.03 million to 13.23 million during 2021 and 2031. Similarly, in the case of BMR, the number of workers will be increased from 8.74 million to 13.22 million during 2021 and 2031.

7.3

Population Forecasting Through REP Model-2021 and 2031

In the previous chapter, the REP model had been developed, and the same was validated. After validation, the same method has been applied for projecting 2021 and 2031 population for MMR (Table 7.3, Figs. 7.1, and 7.2) and BMR (Table 7.4, Figs. 7.3, and 7.4). Based on the REP model, the population predicted for Greater Mumbai is seen to be 17.35 million and 17.86 million for 2021 and 2031 census years, respectively (Chatterjee 2015). Similarly, based on the REP model, the population predicted for Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore) is seen to be 13.15 million Table 7.1 Projected workers of MMR-2021 and 2031 S. No.

Urban centers

Workers (2021) in million

Workers (2031) in million

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other urban centres MMR urban MMR rural Total MMR (urban + rural)

5.64 1.16 0.55 0.77 0.52 0.34 0.24 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.22 10.51 0.52 11.03

6.27 1.63 0.62 1.08 0.72 0.38 0.29 0.77 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.31 12.68 0.54 13.23

7.3 Population Forecasting Through REP Model-2021 and 2031

171

Table 7.2 Projected workers of BMR-2021 and 2031 S. No.

Urban centres

Workers (2021) in million

Workers (2031) in million

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bengaluru Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Other urban centres Total urban (BMR) Total rural (BMR) Total BMR (urban + rural)

8.33 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.19 8.71 0.03 8.74

12.94 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.28 13.37 −0.15 13.22

Table 7.3 Population projection of MMR through REP model-2021 and 2031 S. No.

Urban centers

Population in million (2021)

Population in million (2031)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other urban centres Rural MMR Total

17.35 2.01 1.88 1.19 0.89 1.23 0.66 1.68 0.60 0.33 0.50 0.27 0.26 0.02 0.60 0.12 29.58

17.86 3.48 1.94 2.11 1.49 1.20 0.76 1.97 0.58 0.46 0.57 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.82 0.39 34.05

172

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Fig. 7.1 Population projection of MMR through REP Model-2021

7.3 Population Forecasting Through REP Model-2021 and 2031

Fig. 7.2 Population Projection of MMR through REP Model-2031

173

174

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Table 7.4 Population projection of BMR through REP model-2021 and 2031 S. No.

Urban centres

Population in million (2021)

Population in million (2031)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bengaluru Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Others urban centres Total rural (BMR) Total BMR (urban + rural)

13.15 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.49 14.65

17.63 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.09 19.49

and 17.63 million for 2021 and 2031 census years, respectively. It is interesting to note that the region’s (urban unit or urban centre) change in interregional position, such position being relative, includes the forces that generate improvement or deterioration. In the proportionality effect of the REP model, it is assumed that if all regions were to grow at the same rate as the MMR or BMR, there would be neither improvement nor deterioration in the relative position of any region.

20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

FAR

Fig. 7.3 City Centre FAR values of different metropolitan cities around the world. Source Prepared from (i) World Bank (2013) and (ii) Shenvi and Slangen (2018)

7.3 Population Forecasting Through REP Model-2021 and 2031 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

175

Maximum Residenal FAR Maximum Non-Residenal FAR

Fig. 7.4 Maximum FAR (residential and non-residential) of ten UAs in India. Source Prepared from Sridhar (2010)

In the case of MMR, all satellite towns show the positive trend of growth between the census years 2011 and 2021 except Pen. Pen is not only the smallest (5.24 km2) in the area among all satellite towns within MMR but also located quite far from Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns. Pen is a primarily residential town with minimal infrastructure and service facilities. Though most of the urban units show population increase during 2021–2031, a few other smaller units with very meager infrastructure and service facilities, namely, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Ambernath, Uran, Khopoli, and Pen shows the decreasing rate of growth in the long-term perspective. Decreasing rate of growth of population over the decades in some satellite towns may be the effect of interregional change in position as per REP model. The five primarily residential satellite towns are not only small in size, but also they are located quite far from Greater Mumbai and other large satellite towns. In case of BMR, only rural BMR show population decrease (deterioration) during 2021–2031. In the case of MMR and BMR, Population decrease (deterioration in the interregional change in position) can be controlled through Policy measures related to both economic and infrastructure development. Both National and State (provincial) Government intervention is required to strengthen physical and social infrastructure and required economic policy to manage the population decrease. The BMR Revised Structure Plan-2031 also estimated around 18 million populations for BMR in 2031, and the three population share scenarios between core (BBMP) and the rest of BMR suggested (BMRDA 2016).

176

7.4

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Sustainable Spatial Distribution of Model Based Population

Population allocation for Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns should match with spatial sustenance or space availability in respective cities. It is interesting to analyse the developable land available for different urban centres. The broader question is, will this developable land is sufficient to cater to the needs of the future projected population of different urban centres? On analyzing the land potential at the city level, Kalyan Dombivali emerges as the area having the maximum available developable land (35.4 km2) in MMR, followed by Thane having 27.3 km2. The remaining major towns in decreasing order of developable land within MMR are Ambarnath(18 km2), Navi Mumbai (17 km2), Greater Mumbai (9.4 km2), Bhiwandi (9.3 km2) and Mira Bhayandar (8.2 km2). Incidentally, Greater Mumbai has the least amount of available developable land (9.4 km2) within MMR. Maximum developable land in Greater Mumbai is available in the Western Suburbs (about 4.8 km2) followed by Eastern suburbs (3.9 km2) and then the Island City (0.7 km2) (MMRDA 2008). The future developable land will not be adequate to fulfill the additional land requirement in the years 2021 and 2031. The total land required for 2031 for Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns is shown in Table 7.5. City Centre FAR values of major metropolitan cities around the world are shown in Fig. 7.3. According to the Town and Country Planning Organisation, India, the FAR is based on factors like land availability and requirements, parking space availability, household densities, and dwelling sizes (TCPO 1999). Earlier research by Sridhar (2010) highlighted that in monocentric urban structure, the FAR decreases with distance from the CBD. The different pictures observed in Indian cities where FAR is almost the same in CBD and its suburbs or suburbs’ FAR is higher. Land values in the suburbs are much cheaper than that of CBD, and development control regulations are also weak in suburbs. In case of megacities around the world, in CBD area the FAR values vary from 5 to 15 whereas in suburbs the FAR stands about 0.5, or below. In case of Mumbai, the maximum permitted FAR is 1.33 in CBD and 1 in the suburbs (Bertaud and Brueckner 2005). Low FAR in CBD is typical of megacities in India. To fulfill the land demand for future populations of MMR, only vertical increase concerning FAR increase can be considered as the preferable solution. Before taking the suitable decision on FAR increase to a specified maximum limit, it requires a detailed study of maximum residential and non-residential FAR of ten metropolitan cities of India. Sridhar (2010) considered the list of 116 UAs in India and their land-use regulations related to the maximum permissible FARs in residential and non-residential areas. The average maximum residential FAR of 116 UAs in India has been 2.43, whereas the average maximum non-residential FAR has been 2.50. Further average maximum residential FAR of ten metropolitan cities and Urban Agglomerations in India is 2.58 (Fig. 7.4). In planning for the majority of Metropolitan cities, the maximum FAR values considered is 3.0, whereas cities like Greater Mumbai, the overall FAR value is 1.33.

Urban centres

Developable land

Developable areas (residential) Density (per km2) in 2011

Additional land area required in 2021

Additional land area required in 2031

Total land area required by next two decades

1 Greater Mumbai 9.47 5.93 28,420 173 18 191 2 Thane 27.27 15.63 14,621 12 100 112 3 Kalyan-Dombivali 35.43 23.06 11,198 57 5 62 4 Navi-Mumbai 16.98 6.04 8564 8 108 115 5 Mira-Bhayander 8.21 5.52 9107 8 67 75 6 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 9.25 6.23 23,846 22 0 22 7 Ulhasnagar 1.24 0.48 37,769 4 3 7 8 Vasai-Virar City 17.31 12.86 21,677 21 14 35 9 Ambernath 17.94 8.02 7126 48 0 48 10 Badlapur 5.31 4.91 5088 31 25 56 11 Panvel 3.1 1.27 15,140 21 4 26 12 Uran 0.87 0.29 5647 43 0 43 13 Khopoli 6.74 4.21 2450 78 0 78 14 Pen 0.99 0.87 7224 0 0 0 15 Other urban centres 7.42 5.68 20,052 10 11 21 Source Developable land and Residential developable land is taken from transform study (MMRDA 2008); Population density calculated from Census of India (2011)

S. No.

Table 7.5 Land required for 2021 and 2031 in MMR (area in km2)

7.4 Sustainable Spatial Distribution of Model Based Population 177

178

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

It is understood that the FAR needs to be further increased to 1.5 for MMR to accommodate additional population load till 2031. As per the REP model, the total predicted population of MMR by 2031 is 34.05 million, whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1.5, the maximum carrying capacity is 42.33 million population (Table 7.6). In the case of Greater Mumbai, the population in the year 2011 is 12.44 million, and hence the FAR value of 1.5 will be able to take care of the present population. For population projection considering spatial and economic sustenance, it is necessary to go for detailed analysis for each city. In the case of inner satellite towns of MMR (Thane, Navi Mumbai, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar, Kalyan-Dombivali, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, and Ulhasnagar), as per the REP model, the total predicted population by 2031 is expected to be 12.95 million whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1.5 the maximum carrying capacity will be 23.45 million population. For Outer satellite towns of MMR (Ambernath, Badlapur, Panvel, Uran, Khopoli, Pen and Others), as per the REP model, the total predicted population by 2031 is 2.85 million whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1.5 the maximum carrying capacity will lead to accommodate 5.12 million population. In the case of Rural MMR, as per the REP model, the total predicted population by 2031 is expected to be 0.38 million whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1.5, the maximum carrying capacity will be 1.33 million population. Population allocation for Bengaluru and its satellite towns should match with the space availability of respective cities. In the case of BMR, Bengaluru city constitutes 9.25% area of total BMR area with a population share of 72.19% based

Table 7.6 Carrying capacity assessment of MMR through SAFE model-1.5 FAR City

Carrying capacity with FAR 1.5 (population in million)

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Others urban centres MMR urban MMR rural MMR total

12.41 5.48 5.22 2.27 1.91 1.53 0.48 6.54 1.85 0.55 0.37 0.10 0.32 0.14 1.77 40.99 1.33 42.33

7.4 Sustainable Spatial Distribution of Model Based Population

179

on the 2011 census. Among the satellite towns of BMR, Devanahalli has the maximum urban area (15.94 km2), and Hebbagodi has the minimum urban area (3.41 km2). As a result of the minimum urban area within the city limit, Hebbagodi has maximum population density (population 10,213/km2) within BMR (BMRDA 2016). If the same density continues, then by 2031, 5336 km2 additional land will be required in census year 2031. The total land expected for 2031 for Bengaluru and satellite towns is shown in Table 7.7. In BMR, as per the REP model, the total predicted population by 2021 is 14.65 million, and by 2031, it will be 19.49 million. It is understood that the current FAR of Bengaluru city needs to be increased to fulfill the demand of additional population load by 2031. Among the satellite towns of BMR, only in Kanakpura town, the existing land use distribution including area under infrastructure, total built-up area, etc. are available in Master Plan-2031 of Kanakapura LPA (BMRDA 2015). The floor area required per head has been calculated from the 2011 census. An attempt has been made to find the carrying capacity of Bengaluru, Kanakapura town and BMR as a whole (including urban and rural) with existing FAR and increased FAR values of 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 (Table 7.8). Table 7.7 Land required for 2031 in BMR (area in km2) Area (km2)

S. No.

Name of urban centres

1

Bengaluru city (BBMP)

2

Anekal

5

0.04

8852

0.11

12

7

3

Hebbagodi

3.41

0.03

10,213

0.16

16

12

4

Nelamangala

5.4

0.04

6895

0.10

15

10

5

Dod Ballapur

13.48

0.08

6279

0.16

25

12

6

Vijayapura

14.55

0.03

2396

0.09

35

21

7

Hosakote

14.28

0.06

3990

0.14

36

22

8

Ramanagaram

12.39

0.10

7681

0.17

22

10

9

Channapatna

8.42

0.07

8544

0.13

16

7

10

Kanakapura

7.2

0.05

7502

0.07

10

3

11

Devanahalli

15.94

0.03

1760

0.07

41

25

12

Magadi

4.98

0.03

5543

0.07

12

7

11

Others urban centres

72.6

0.20

2722

0.49

181

108

Total urban (BMR)

904.81

9.21

10,180

19.40

1906

1001

Total rural (BMR)

7100.19

2.48

350

0.09

254

0

Total BMR (urban + rural)

8005

11.69

1461

19.49

13341

5336

740.64

Population (2011) in million 8.44

Density (per km2)

Population (2031) in million

11,401

17.63

Source Area and Population from Census of India (2011)

Total area required in 2031 1547

Additional area required in 2031 806

180

7

Regional Allocation of Sustainable Population and Economic Growth

Table 7.8 Population estimates based on SAFE model for Bengaluru city and Kanakapura town (population in million) City/town

Census population in 2011a

Carrying capacity with existing average FARb

Carrying capacity with increased FAR 1.5

Carrying capacity with increased FAR 2.0

Carrying capacity with increased FAR 2.5

Bengaluru 8.4 11.24 14.05 18.74 23.42 Kanakapura 0.054 0.031 0.047 0.063 0.079 BMR 11.69 10.53 15.80 21.07 26.33 a Census of India (2011) b For Bengaluru with average FAR 1.2 considered (Bertaud and Brueckner 2004) and for Kanakapura town and FAR 1 considered

In the context of Bengaluru city, the population in 2011 is 8.4 million, and hence FAR 1.2 will be able to take care of the present population. Further carrying capacity has been worked out with different FAR combinations and accordingly for Bengaluru city with 1.5 FAR, the population is 14.05 million, with FAR 2.0 the population is 18.74 million and further with FAR 2.5 the population is 23.42 million. Also, as per the REP model, the total predicted population in BMR by 2031 is expected to be 19.49 million and based on FAR 1 the population is 10.53 million, with FAR 1.5 the population is 15.80 million, with FAR 2 it is 21.07 million and with FAR 2.5 it is 26.33 million. In the case of Kanakpura, the existing population based on 2011 census was 0.054 million, and as per the REP model its total predicted population by 2031 is expected to be 0.07 million whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1 the maximum carrying capacity will be 0.031 million population and with FAR 2.5 the maximum carrying capacity will be 0.079 million population. In all the three cases of BMR, Bengaluru city, and Kanakapura with increasing FAR, the population carrying capacities have been seen to be justified from the point of land availability. However, the increase in FAR values alone is not the sole solution to the rational metropolitan population allocation.

References Bertaud A, Brueckner JK (2004) Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts, welfare costs, and a case Study of Bangalore, India. World Bank policy research working paper 3290, New Jersey. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/687601468771637710/pdf/WPS3290. pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017 Bertaud A, Brueckner JK (2005) Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts, welfare costs. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35(2):109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.004 BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2015) Master Plan 2031: Kanakapura Local Planning Area. Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority. Government of Karnataka. http://www.kanakapura-pa.in/map/Kanakapura%20LPA%20Final %20Report.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2017

References

181

BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2016) Bangalore metropolitan region revised structure plan-2031, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Karnataka Census of India (1971–2011) Primary Census Abstract, UA/Towns. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi Chatterjee A (2015) Decentralization of metropolitan growth through revitalization of satellite towns with a case study of Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Dissertation, Vidyasagar University, India MMRDA (2008) Comprehensive transport study for Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority. Government of Maharashtra Shenvi A, Slangen RH (2018) Enabling smart urban redevelopment in India through floor area ratio incentives. ABD South Asia working paper series. No. 58. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/ default/files/resources/swp-058-smart-urban-redevelopment-india.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2019 Sridhar SK (2010) Impact of land use regulations: evidence from India’s cities. Urban Stud 47 (7):1541–1569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009353813 TCPO-Town and Country Planning Organization (1999) A study on planning norms, building bye-laws, tariff structure, land assembly and resource mobilization (of nine metropolitan cities). Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India World Bank (2013) Urbanization beyond municipal boundaries: nurturing metropolitan economies and connecting peri-urban areas in India. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/ handle/10986/13105/757340PUB0EPI0001300pubdate02021013.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y Accessed 12 July 2019

Chapter 8

Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

Abstract This chapter highlights the allocation of population, density, workers and industrial space requirements for Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru city, and their satellite towns for creating planned and prospective future metropolitan scenarios. To provide sustainable urban economy and ways of living, some inevitable recommendations are necessary, which include both basic (land and economic base) and supporting infrastructures (physical and social amenities). The provisions for strengthening the regional linkages and upgradation of physical and social infrastructures are felt necessary and accordingly suggested for planned and integrated development across the megacity regions are suggested. Keywords Population allocation

8.1


Density
Workers
Recommendations

Balanced Development: Criteria and Schemes

An attempt has been made here to deal with the future population allocation problem for 2031 based on the economic and spatial sustenance of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). Due to non-availability of information on economic and spatial explanatory factors, the population allocation for the intervening decade, 2011–2021, could not be obtained. The strategic development vision for BMR and MMR recommends a planned and equitable growth perspective without compromising ecological parameters. With the available land and FAR as 1.5, the total estimated population of MMR for 2031 could be well accommodated. However, it requires a detailed introspection of Greater Mumbai and each of its satellite towns. For some satellite towns, the FAR can further be increased to 2.0 to meet the varying demands of certain other satellite towns. Accordingly, some satellite towns will act as ‘population and activity concentration zone’s’ indicating others as ‘population and activity dispersal zone.’ This calls for an exercise of readjustment of population among the urban units of MMR. The final allocation of the population among the urban units of MMR has been decided. For sustainable urban economy and ways of living, some inevitable recommendations © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_8

183

184

8 Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

are necessary, which include both basic (land and economy) and supporting infrastructures (physical and social amenities). The need for the strengthening of regional linkages and upgradation of physical and social infrastructure is felt necessary for this study. The final policy target aims at the decentralization of metropolitan growth (particularly of Greater Mumbai), control of Greater Mumbai’s population growth, and further population allocation for 2031 to the satellite towns for attaining a planned and equitable development of entire MMR.

8.2

Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in MMR

The population allocation of MMR for the year 2031 has been based on space and floor area requirements for Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns. For the same purpose, various FAR options are tested to find out the optimum FAR requirement for each city. Greater Mumbai, as per the 2011 census, had 12.4 million populations and accordingly suggested that it should have FAR 2.0. Mehta (2012), in his research, termed Greater Mumbai as ‘Maximum city.’ With 2.0 FAR the carrying capacity has been worked out to be 16.5 million, and naturally, the prime target remains as to decentralize 1.3 million populations from Greater Mumbai. This calls for channelizing this excess population to satellite towns of MMR (Chatterjee 2015). Table 8.1 depicts population allocation for the census year 2021 and 2031, and accordingly, spatial sustenance has been worked out with various FAR combinations (FAR 1, FAR 1.5, and FAR 2.0). In the cases of Ulhasnagar, Panvel and Uran FAR 2 is suggested as the partial solution. For these urban units, urban expansion beyond the present boundary appears as the ultimate solution. Alternatively, this excess population load can be diverted to the nearby satellite towns with excess capacity. Population decrease of Uran, Pen, and Ambernath due to interregional change in position can be explained by outmigration resulting from the shift of employment opportunities and better living opportunities in neighbouring urban units. Thus particularly for Greater Mumbai, Ulhasnagar, Panvel, and Uran, the dispersal of population growth is suggested. For rural MMR, the recommended FAR should be 1.0. In the case of Greater Mumbai, for 2031, population allocation will be 16.55 million. Additional 1.30 million can be distributed to Thane and Mira-Bhyander, where more space will be available after meeting their own population demands. An additional populations from Ulhasnagar, Panvel, and Uran can be redistributed to the nearby satellite towns. Population allocation and density determination for the census year 2031 is shown in Table 8.2. For rural MMR, FAR 1.0 is suggested, and accordingly, population based space demand could be fulfilled. Additional population and worker’s load from 2011 to 2031 for urban component and rural MMR are highlighted in Table 8.3. The urban centre Pen is not only the smallest in the area (5.24 km2) among all satellite towns within MMR but also located quite far from Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns. Pen is primarily a residential town and possesses meager

8.2 Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in MMR

185

Table 8.1 Population allocation with various FAR options and policy decisions for MMR (population in million) City

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other urban centres MMR urban MMR rural MMR total

Population allocation (REP model) 2021 2031

FAR 1

FAR 1.5

FAR 2

(Concentration/dispersal zone)

17.3 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.59 0.3 0.5 0.27 0.26 0.015 0.5 29.46 0.11 29.57

8.27 3.65 3.48 1.51 1.27 1.02 0.32 4.36 1.23 0.37 0.24 0.06 0.021 0.09 11.82 29.73 0.88 28.22

12.41 5.48 5.22 2.27 1.91 1.53 0.48 6.54 1.85 0.55 0.37 0.10 0.032 0.14 17.73 40.99 1.33 42.33

16.55

Obvious Dispersal Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Dispersal Concentration Concentration Concentration Dispersal Dispersal Concentration Concentration Concentration

17.8 3.4 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.9 0.58 0.4 0.56 0.19 0.21 0.010 0.8 33.66 0.38 34.05

Spatial sustenance

Policy decisions

0.64

0.49 0.13

Concentration

infrastructure and service facilities. With the present level of development, any additional population allocation is not suggested for Pen. However, boundary expansion and economic and infrastructural upliftment through policy planning can change its trend of growth. The rural population of MMR, notably during 1981–2001, recorded declining trend. This decline is accounted for by the incorporation of several villages in the adjacent Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council areas during the last three decades. The share of MMR urban population to the total population of MMR, which was 86.13% in the year 1971, has been increased to 94.66% in 2011. If this trend remains to continue, then by 2031, MMR will become an ‘urban region’ where the entire population will be urban. That is the reason for which no additional population allocation has been suggested for rural MMR. In MMR rural, more than half of the land is currently used for agricultural purposes. This rural economy needs to be sustained for the benefit of the urban economy so that the present supply-chain model of the rural-urban transaction is not disturbed. Rural hinterlands (agricultural), forest, hills, rivers and water bodies need to be conserved for the overall environmental sustenance of the region.

186

8 Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

Table 8.2 Population and density allocation for MMR-2031 City/satellite towns

Population allocation in 2031 (in million)

Density in 2031 (per km2)

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Other urban centres MMR urban MMR rural MMR total

16.55 4.13 1.99 2.39 2.14 1.19 0.64 1.97 0.64 0.46 0.37 0.10 0.21 0.010 0.82 33.66 0.38 34.05

37,819 32,796 17,944 18,292 24,144 40,255 48,394 34,953 17,986 13,464 31,234 18,771 7369 1908 41,212 29,660 127 8094

8.3

Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in BMR

To accommodate the additional population and the associated activities, 5336 km2 additional land has been estimated to be required by the year 2031 (refer Table 7.7 of the Chap. 7). Currently, the BMR area is 8005 km2, and to accommodate the future urban load based on REP model, approximately 66.7% of additional land is required. Due to the non-availability of information needed for analysing carrying capacity of each satellite town (except Kanakapura town), the prime target is to limit population growth of Bengaluru city (previously known as Bangalore), and additional population can be distributed to other satellite towns of BMR including rural BMR. According to Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation Guidelines (URDPFI) issued by Ministry of Urban Development (currently known as Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs), Government of India recommended a gross density of more than 200 persons per hectare or 2 persons per km2 for megapolis and 125–175 PPH persons per hectare or 1.25–1.75 persons per km2 for the metropolitan cities in the plain area (MoUD 2015). In the case of BMR satellite towns, the maximum density observed in Hebbagodi (10,213 person/km2) and minimum density found in Devanahalli (1760 person/km2), and the average density of all satellite towns within BMR is 6032 person/km2 based on 2011 census. It is important to note that the fixation of density is primarily based on

8.3 Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in BMR

187

Table 8.3 Additional population and workers for MMR (during 2011–2031) (population in million) S. No.

Urban centres

Existing population (2011)

Existing workers (2011)

Additional population (2011–2031)

Additional workers (2011– 2031)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen

12.4 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.03

5.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01

15

Other urban centres MMR urban MMR rural

1.1 21.04 1.18

0.1 8.34 0.49

MMR total

22.23

8.84

4.11 1.66 2.28 0.86 0.75 0.28 1.27 0.51 1.33 0.52 0.48 0.19 0.14 0.055 0.74 0.30 0.38 0.13 0.28 0.10 0.19 0.072 0.071 0.026 0.14 0.051 No additional allocation necessary 0.42 0.14 12.64 4.94 No additional allocation necessary 12.64 4.94

carrying capacity analysis and infrastructure availability. It is also done as a settlement specific exercise. Population allocation for the year 2031 has been based on space and floor area requirements for Bengaluru city, Kanakapura, and BMR. For the same, various FAR options are tested to find out the optimum FAR conditions. Bengaluru, as per the 2011 census, had 8.4 million population and accordingly suggested FAR should be 1.5 in 2031 (i.e., for the next 20 years). With 1.5 FAR, the carrying capacity has been worked out to be 14.05 million, and naturally, the prime target remains as to channelizing the remaining population (3.58 million) of BMR to the satellite towns and rural BMR. Table 8.4 depicts population allocation for the census years 2021 and 2031, and accordingly, spatial sustenance has been worked out with various FAR combinations (FAR 1, FAR 1.5, and FAR 2.0). In the case of Kanakpura, the existing population, based on the 2011 census, was 0.054 million, and as per the REP model, the total predicted population by 2031 is expected to be 0.07 million, whereas based on the SAFE model with FAR 1 the maximum carrying capacity will be 0.031 million population. Kanakpura is already saturated based on FAR 1, and accordingly, higher FAR is suggested. Due to the non-availability of officially published data requited for the SAFE model, the carrying capacity of other satellite towns within BMR could not be worked out. For

188

8 Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

Table 8.4 Population allocation with various FAR options and policy decisions for BMR (population in million) S. No.

Urban centres

Population allocation (REP model) Population Population (2021) (2031)

Spatial sustenance FAR 1.2

FAR 1.5

FAR 2

13.15

17.63

11.24

14.05

18.74

1

Bengaluru

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Others urban centres Total rural (BMR)

0.07 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.21

0.11 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49

0.49

0.09

Total BMR (urban + rural)

14.65

19.49

14

15

SAFE model not worked out due to non-availability of authentic data

Policy interventions Concentration/ dispersal Dispersal of population and activities suggested Concentration of population and activities suggested

0.031 0.047 0.063 SAFE model not worked out due to non-availability of authentic data Concentration of population and activities suggested 10.53

15.80

21.07

most of these satellite towns, the town area is very small, and hence the average density is quite high. Boundary increase with FAR 1.5 is suggested for such satellite towns to cater to the demands of the excess population of BMR. Population decrease of rural BMR may be due to the interregional change in position, which can be explained by outmigration resulting from the shift of employment opportunities and better living opportunities in adjoining urban centres. Bengaluru city shows tremendous population growth in future, and accordingly, dispersal of population and shifting of some of the activities to the adjoining satellite towns are suggested. Based on the REP model, by 2031, the estimated population of BMR is expected to be 19.49 million. The same is further validated by the BMR Draft Revised Structure Plan, which forwards a projected population of 18 million for BMR in 2031 (BMRDA 2016). In the case of Bengaluru, by the year 2031, the population is allocated to be 14.05 million. In this case, also the additional 3.58 million population can be distributed to satellite towns of BMR and rural BMR. The average density of all satellite towns within BMR remained as 4673 person/ km2 based on the 2011 census. For the reduction of overconcentration in Bengaluru

8.3 Spatially Sustainable Population Allocation in BMR

189

Table 8.5 Population and density allocation for BMR-2031 Jurisdiction

1991

2001

2011

2031

BMR population (in million) 6.51 8.41 11.69 19.49 814 1052 1461 2435 Density of BMR (persons/km2) Bengaluru city population (in million) 3.30 4.31 8.44 14.05 4459 5824 11,401 18,970 Density of Bengaluru city (persons/km2) Percentage share of Population (Bengaluru city 50.71 51.23 72.20 72.08 with BMR) Population of satellite towns within BMR (in 0.41 0.56 0.77 4.23 million) 2478 3432 4673 25,773 Density of satellite towns within BMR (persons/km2) Percentage share of population of satellite towns with 6.30 6.66 6.59 21.71 BMR Population of rural BMR (in million) 2.80 3.54 2.48 1.21 395 499 350 170 Density of rural BMR (persons/km2) Percentage share of population of rural BMR with 43.01 42.09 21.21 6.21 total BMR Note (a) Density of satellite towns in 2031 is based on present administrative jurisdiction. If boundary expansion happenes, then density will be adjusted accordingly. (b) Population for the year 1991, 2001 and 2011 are taken from the Census of India sources

city, its boundary expansion and FAR 1.5 are suggested for all satellite towns within BMR. Currently, 72.20% population within BMR is urban, and if the same trend continues, it will be an ‘urban region’ where more than 90% population will become urban. For rural BMR, FAR 1.0 is suggested, and accordingly, population space demand could be fulfilled. Population and density allocation of BMR for the census year 2031 is given in Table 8.5. The final population and density allocation of BMR, Bengaluru city and its satellite towns and Rural BMR are based on the past trend of population growth, developable land availability, REP (employment forecasting model) and SAFE (land and FAR-based model). The vision adopted for BMR is to reduce the overconcentration of population and employment from Bengaluru city and planned development of satellite towns in an equitable manner. Bengaluru is one of the fast-growing cities in India, and in the growth process of the city, other satellite towns also need to be planned and integrated with the overall development framework of the BMR. Currently, the Bengaluru city share of the total BMR population is 72.20%, and in 2031 based on REP and SAFE model, the same percentage will be slightly decreased to 72.08%. For achieving the future population, 1.5 FAR suggested for Bengaluru city. Suggested 1.5 FAR is an average FAR, depending upon future need and density provisions. City managers can further work out differential FAR zones. In areas like along transit routes, IT park areas etc. FAR can be higher than the average city FAR based on intensive zoning guidelines. In environmentally sensitive zones, i.e., lake and its buffer area and the rural fringe area dominated by agriculture, green buffer area, etc., the FAR value can be lower than the average city FAR. Out of the total population of BMR, the suggested share

190

8 Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

of the population in Bengaluru city is 72.08%, and for its satellite towns, it is 21.71%, and for Rural BMR it is only 6.21%. After allocating the population of Bengaluru city, the excess population should be channelized to satellite towns of BMR and Rural BMR with a ratio of 78:22. Many of these satellite towns are part of Local Planning Authorities functioning under-provisioning of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (1961) and Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (1961). As per statutory provisions, these planning authorities are required to prepare the detailed master plan to control, monitor, and facilitate urban development. The Government of Karnataka has already approved the master plans of Nelamangala and Magadi in 2017. These plans will ensure sustainable and orderly growth within the respective planning areas. Implementation of these master plans will ensure balanced growth of urban infrastructure, industries, social infrastructure, housing, entertainment, transport, shopping, and encouraging work to reside and play relationships among its residents. Satellite towns within BMR will be planned as self-sustained towns with employment opportunities, planned urban infrastructures, and a conducive environment for living for its residents. Most of these satellite towns are located along urban corridors connecting Bengaluru, and in the present scenario, corridor driven urban development is also observed. The only implementation of the master plan or development plan in the cities is not the optimum solution. It requires integration with BMR’s regional development approach and consistency between urban and rural area plans. Currently, the Rural BMR growth rate is in a decreasing trend (AAGR 2.64% in 1991–2001 changed to AAGR −2.99% in 2001–2011). This is not the desired scenario for BMR, and any fall in the share of the rural farming population will create a long-term impact on food production, food security, and biocapacity of the entire BMR. In 2031, 1.21 million population is proposed to be allocated for Rural BMR, which constitutes 6.21% of the BMR population. The rural economy needs to be sustained for the progress of the urban economy of BMR so that both areas could work in complementary to each other in the supply-chain model. The current trend of urban development has encouraged encroachment of green belts, lakes and its buffer areas, green areas, besides the conversion of prime agricultural lands for non-primary sector development at the regional level. This requires the immediate attention of city managers and policymakers for restraining such transfers.

8.4

Industrial Space Requirements: Estimates and Location

To accommodate the future additional urban load in 2031 for all urban units of MMR and BMR, it is necessary to find out the requirement of extra industrial space for 2031. The present economic base of MMR and BMR is predominantly industrial and manufacturing, and hence the space requirement for workers has been estimated based on per capita space requirement as mentioned in the CIDCO surveyed industries in Navi Mumbai Region for the year 2007 (CIDCO 2007). According to the same report, the per gross worker space required is 74.51 m2.

8.4 Industrial Space Requirements: Estimates and Location

191

Thus, depending upon the additional worker allocation for 2031, the total industrial space needed for Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns are estimated and given in Table 8.6. Following the method, and the gross industrial space required for Bengaluru and other satellite towns is also calculated and given in Table 8.7.

Table 8.6 Requirement of additional gross industrial space for MMR-2031 S. No.

Urban centres

Additional gross industrial space required (km2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Greater Mumbai Thane Kalyan-Dombivali Navi-Mumbai Mira-Bhayander Bhiwandi-Nizampur Ulhasnagar Vasai-Virar City Ambernath Badlapur Panvel Uran Khopoli Pen Others Total urban MMR

123.70 64.77 21.07 38.55 38.92 14.86 4.07 22.36 10.38 8.00 5.39 1.94 3.82 – 10.90 368.72

Table 8.7 Requirement of additional gross industrial space for BMR-2031 S. No.

Urban centres

Additional gross industrial space required (km2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Bengaluru Anekal Hebbagodi Nelamangala Dod Ballapur Vijayapura Hosakote Ramanagaram Channapatna Kanakapura Devanahalli Magadi Others urban centres Total urban

343.54 0.61 3.22 0.71 0.70 0.31 1.06 0.59 0.38 0.29 0.16 0.07 6.94 358.57

192

8.5

8 Balanced Development Across the Megacity Regions: 2031 Scenario

Conclusion

The additional space required in the future for any urban unit can be created depending upon future developable land available for the urban component of MMR and BMR. Out of the total developable land available, a certain percentage of the same must be recommended for industrial use. Bengaluru is known as Silicon Valley as the economy is depending on IT and ITES sector, biotechnology, engineering, and research. The demand for such spaces can be solved through the creation of more co-working spaces or shared offices, as the same gaining momentum in many megacities in India. Indian megacities are struggling with an exclusive industrial zone in high-density urban spaces. With the booming knowledge economy, the demand for shared office space is expected to grow tremendously in near future. The prospective market volume of co-working fragmented across country, and Mumbai and Bengaluru offered the best opportunities for creating co-working space. The co-working segment in India expected to receive 400 million USD by 2018 (Nair and Marwaha 2017). Also, most of the Navi Mumbai railway station buildings are used as a mixed-use development space with retail and office spaces. Currently, Seawoods Station of Navi Mumbai is also planned to be developed as a mixed-use development built over the railway station, which consists of world-class retail space, office space, parking, and support space. Megacities should learn from each other, and their collective intelligence, innovation, and public debates will help in developing future urban India. It may also be noted that the following strategies may be adopted for areas where future developable land is insufficient: (i) Re-densification of space depending upon maximum permissible FAR, or (ii) Urban administrative boundary extension, or (iii) Both re-densification and urban administrative boundary extension (Chatterjee 2015). Allocation of future population suggested for MMR including Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns and also for BMR including Bengaluru city, and its satellite towns are realistic and achievable with supporting policy interventions which include land management policy, industrial location and development policy, transportation policy, housing policy, and governance policy.

References BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2016) Bangalore metropolitan region revised structure plan-2031, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Karnataka Chatterjee A (2015) Decentralization of metropolitan growth through revitalization of satellite towns with a case study of Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Dissertation, Vidyasagar University, India CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2007) Survey of Industries in Navi Mumbai Region-2007, Statistics Department, City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra Mehta S (2012) Maximum city, Bombay lost and found. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

References

193

MoUD-Ministry of Urban Development (2015) Urban and Regional Plans Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI) Guidelines, Volume I, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/URDPFI%20Guidelines% 20Vol%20I.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2017 Nair R, Marwaha J (2017) Future of work-the coworking revolution. JLL. https://realty. economictimes.indiatimes.com/etanalytics/reports/commercial/future-of-work-the-coworkingrevolution/516. Accessed 5 Jan 2019

Chapter 9

Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Abstract Final policy target on the subject aims at decentralization of metropolitan growth (particularly in Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru city), control of megacities population growth and further, future planned population allocation to the satellite towns and fringe areas for planned and equitable development of entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). Suggested recommendations for future directions of development of MMR and BMR are forwarded depending upon policies like urban growth policies, liberalization of economic growth policies, industrial policies, etc. Those policies are depending on the extent of pragmatic roles that the satellite towns can play in megacity regions. It calls for an integrated approach that would facilitate not only increased investments but also an appropriate policy set focused on land use and the region’s economy for the future market potentials of megacity regions. Both short and long term strategies and actions for MMR and BMR are proposed and finally suggest the necessary policy shift towards converting BMR and MMR into Smart and intelligent regions. Keywords Balanced development

9.1 9.1.1


BMR
Decentralization
MMR
Policies

Introspection and Retrospection of Previous Regional Plans Review of Previous Regional Plans for MMR (1971– 2011)

The First Regional Plan for Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) 1971–91 was sanctioned in 1973. The Regional Plan of MMR (1973) was trying to address the uncontrolled growth of Mumbai and its suburbs. Accordingly, Regional Plan-1973 proposed to go for decentralised growth through the establishment of new growth centres within Greater Mumbai as well as in other parts of MMR and dispersal of industries with a goal to reduce migration to MMR. Also, the plan proposed

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_9

195

196

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

restricted industrial growth in Mumbai (deleted 800 ha industrial areas), limiting Mumbai’s population growth to 7 million by 1991 and shifting the state capital complex to satellite town Navi Mumbai (MMRDA 1973). New Bombay was created as the twin city of Greater Mumbai as a result of this plan, but this plan majorly failed because (a) growth occurred predominantly along transportation corridors, (b) FSI in island city was restricted, and (c) investments towards polycentric growth did not materialize. During the preparation of the Second Regional Plan of MMR (1996–2011), the economic liberalization of 1991 and the 74th Constitutional amendment of 1992 had been the two significant phenomena observed and as a consequence, the policy context of metropolitan planning changed substantially. The revised Regional Plan emphasized on the management of growth through promoting and sustaining growth with social justice in an efficient manner. The Regional Plan of MMR (1996–2011) accordingly proposed the creation of Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC), removal of the blanket ban on setting up new industries and offices in the island city, and construction of transit connectivity with focus on the poly-nucleated urban structure of the region. The plan also proposed redeveloping old business areas with environmental improvement through urban renewal and allowing mill lands, cotton godowns land (obsolete use) for planning, and developing the business centers (MMRDA 2005). However, growth had not been occurred in the areas envisaged as per plan. High Peripheral growth has been observed, and also the population growth rate in the island city of Greater Mumbai has been declined. Strong regional imbalances have been observed between the Greater Mumbai and its satellite towns. There was no focus on housing and the inequalities between urban and rural areas regarding the economy, infrastructure and livelihood opportunities appeared as an obvious outcome.

9.1.2

MMR Draft Regional Plan 2016–2036: Objectives and Strategies

The goal of the proposed draft Regional Plan of MMR (2016–2036) has been to a promote more balanced growth of the region. Accordingly, the plan proposed to disperse the employment opportunities across the region, augmentation of public transit, the emergence of MMR as the top spatial unit for planning and implementation, the direction of future urbanization in different areas, the creation of an integrated regional open space network, development of regional infrastructure and framework of governance. Also, a series of strategies suggested by the MMRDA which includes the creation of new growth centres and employment hubs, encouragement of primary sector livelihood opportunities, development of the multimodal corridor, the extension of municipal boundaries to include peri-urban areas, framing housing policy to enable meeting the market demand, etc. (MMRDA 2016).

9.1 Introspection and Retrospection of Previous Regional Plans

9.1.3

197

Review of Previous Regional Plans for BMR (1998– 2011)

Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) structure plan was prepared in 1998 and approved in 2005. Accordingly, the plan suggested decentralization of economic activities to potential satellite towns to relieve excessive development pressure on Bangalore (currently known as Bengaluru), increase efficiency in supply of Municipal services, more optimal public transport system and a better economic return of public investments. The achievements and targets of population and employment restructuring have to be consistent with the South Karnataka Regional (SKR) Concept Plan. The SKR comprises of seven districts around Bengaluru (BMRDA 2005).

9.1.4

BMR Draft Revised Structure Plan-2031: Objectives and Strategies

The objective of the BMR draft revised structure plan is to reduce regional disparities and endorse balanced regional development. Accordingly, the plan suggested a strategic policy framework for planning, management, inclusiveness, progressive sectoral policies, and securing consistency between local plans (urban and rural). The vision adopted has been to promote balanced economic production and inclusive growth and optimum utilization of resources. To fulfill its vision, the suggested strategies include retaining Bengaluru’s supremacy as the prominent industrial and commercial hub, promoting sustainable growth and development, and establishing an effective governance system (BMRDA 2016).

9.2

Re-densification and Boundary Expansion—An Analysis

It is important to note that the supporting policies and strategies have to frame in such a way that the policies and strategies should lead to an overall improvement in the performance of regional growth structure and economy. Policies have to be supportive, and framing of the new policy should not contradict with the development of earlier policy sets. For example, in the case of Navi Mumbai’s growth trajectory, it is evident that the development of the Bandra-Kurla complex as CBD affected the growth of Navi Mumbai negatively. If the future redistribution of population, employment, congestion and unrestricted growth intensify in Bengaluru city, then at some important levels, the policies and strategies will fail. As compared to the majority of global cities in the world, Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru cities are existing with low FAR. Accordingly, in the case of Greater Mumbai, average

198

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

FAR as 2 and Bengaluru city average FAR as 1.5 are suggested for 2031. For areas like transit nodes, high-speed corridors, redevelopment of mill lands (in case of Greater Mumbai), IT park areas (in case of Bengaluru) higher FAR suggested and similarly lake and water bodies and its buffer, green spaces, mangrove, and other eco-sensitive areas low FAR are proposed. In some of the satellite towns of MMR like Ulhasnagar, Panvel, and Uran, the FAR 2 is indicated as the partial solution. For these urban units, urban expansion beyond the present municipal boundary may provide the ultimate solution. Or else this excess population load can be diverted to the nearby capable satellite towns with excess capacity. Other satellite towns of MMR, FAR 1.5, and Rural MMR FAR 1.0 could be suggested for catering to the demands of the future population. In the case of BMR, for most of the satellite towns, higher FAR is recommended. Compact development with mixed uses strategy should be implemented in the core part of the metropolitan cities. Food security and employment generation can be achieved through urban agriculture, focused on both horizontal and vertical farming initiatives. The protection of environmentally sensitive areas within Bengaluru city and BMR are essential for ensuring the future livability of its citizens. Development of wasteland, degraded land, barren land should be directed to explore all possible uses, including the location of industries, processing zones, and Special Economic Zones. Urban sprawl is observed in many cities within MMR and BMR. If the well-planned infrastructure is developed, then these areas may provide opportunities for urban expansion. Considering high densities in the cities, the proposed municipal boundary expansions over such peripheries may help to absorb the additional population better. The Government of Maharashtra has proposed municipal extension within MMR and the same is shown in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Summary of proposed extension to Urban Local Bodies of MMR S. No.

Urban area

1 2 3 4 5 6

Vasai-Virar Bhiwandi-Nizampur Karjat Alibag Panvel Ambernath-Badlapur New Corporation Pen New Nagar panchayat Neral-Mamdapur New Municipal Council Rees-Mohapada New Municipal Council

7 8 9 10

Total Source MMRDA (2016)

No. of villages proposed to be added

Additional area proposed to be annexed (km2)

25 28 3 4 8 7

64.07 64.45 5.11 8.53 90.26 10.68

1 14 6

1.32 24.38 21.10

5

10.40

102

300.30

9.2 Re-densification and Boundary Expansion—An Analysis

199

In BMR, due to population pressure, increasing sprawl areas, and the smaller areas under Municipal limits, it is suggested that boundary extension of existing six Local Planning Areas (LPAs) within BMR may be taken up. In the master plan of LPAs, the objective has been to achieve a self-sustained urban settlement for the residents, and these LPAs would effectively perform as a counter magnet of Bengaluru city. Area details of six LPAs and two urban development authorities have been shown in Table 9.2. If the boundary extension happens, the population and workers can adjust with the facilities depending upon developable land availability, economic opportunities, and quality of infrastructure availability. The Town Planning Scheme (TPS) is a participatory land readjustment tool. In states (provinces) like Gujarat, for quite a long time, TPS has emerged as a quite successful model for fringe area development. In TPS, irregular plots are put together and reconstituted as developed plots with infrastructure and services, and this is followed by a process in which a part of developed land is handed over to the original owner. Both BMRDA and MMRDA can use this TPS as a tool for the implementation of development plans and master plans where lands for public purposes (for raising revenue for the development of infrastructure) are obtained efficiently and quickly. In Karnataka and Maharashtra, the State Town and Country Planning Act has the provision for TPS (Law and Judiciary Department 1966; Legal Department 1976). Land Acquisition Act of 1984 may be used for acquiring lands for essential services and priority Government projects like Airport, Highways, etc. (Ministry of Law and Social Justice 1984). Land use and Development Control Regulations (DCR) of the regional plans in both BMR and MMR (currently in draft stage) are directly applicable to the areas that do not have

Table 9.2 Summary of LPAs area details within BMR S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Name of LPA

Anekal Magadi Hoskote Nelamangala Kanakapura Bangalore Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) 7 Ramanagaram-Channapatna Urban Development Authority (RCUDA) 7 Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) Source BMRDA (2016)

Town name

LPA area (km2)

Town area (km2)

Anekal Magadi Hoskote Nelamangala Kanakapura Doddaballapur, Devanahali, Vijayapura Ramanagara, Channapatna

402.30 478.51 577.73 735 412.78 792

5 4.98 14.28 5.4 7.2 43.97

1.24 1.04 2.47 0.73 1.74 5.55

59.89

20.81

34.74

1307

740.64

56.61

Bengaluru City (BBMP)

Percentage of town area to total LPA area

200

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

sanctioned plans and layouts. Within the jurisdictions of LPAs, SPAs, and other development authorities, the sanctioned land use plans and DCRs prepared by those statutory authorities are applicable for implementation.

9.3

Regional Transport and Infrastructure—A Perspective

For effective implementation of regional plans, intra-regional connectivity has to be promoted both in the BMR and MMR. The sharp rise of private vehicular ownership in Bengaluru and Greater Mumbai is the primary cause of worry for transport planners and policymakers. To sustain the envisaged future urban scenario it requires efficient regional and intra-regional connectivity, i.e., metropolitan cities with its satellite towns and also rural areas. Currently, within Bengaluru city, the metro rail is operational. In the future, metro rail networks need to be extended beyond the city limit to cater to the future inter-settlement travel demands. Bengaluru city, with its satellite towns and interlinking satellite towns through mass transport, requires connectivity among the regional and local growth centres. Areas, where rail network does not exist, the future expansion plans of the same can be included. Greater Mumbai has excellent rail network. Regional linkages through public transportation (bus and rail) need to be improved for better interaction not only for Greater Mumbai with other satellite towns but also among the satellite towns themselves. Accordingly, it is suggested that the development of inner ring and outer ring corridors may be taken as a solution to negotiate with intra-urban and inter-urban mobility demands. The inner ring corridor is expected to connect satellite towns located immediately close to Greater Mumbai, particularly along with the elongated northern and eastern territories. Similarly, building an outer ring corridor may better connect satellite towns like Vasai-Virar city, Bhiwandi-Nizamapur, Kalyan-Dombivali, Matheran, Pen, and Alibag. The transport network must allow commuters to access the global market. The primary aim to create transport policy includes increasing the share of public transport, strengthening regional connectivity through mass rapid transport systems, and linking the airport with major urban centres. The infrastructure policies include protection of water bodies, adequate measures to augment surface water source, augmentation of sewer network, ensuring adequate power supply in rural areas, improved access to sites and quality of education, and improved healthcare in rural areas. This treatise does not include the infrastructure status assessment of individual satellite towns but should uncover the status of the infrastructure conditions of each satellite town as per the set rational target. Employment and space are the two prime factors for the choice of site and location of population concentration rather than physical and social infrastructure. A brief infrastructure assessment

9.3 Regional Transport and Infrastructure—A Perspective

201

made for Greater Mumbai, Bengaluru, and their satellite towns has been discussed previously. Government should provide adequate investable capital for necessary but effective infrastructure development programmes of MMR and BMR.

9.4

Future Housing Stock

In India, there is an active link between the political economy of planning and urban development, and there is a vast gap between the planning and implementation of the plans and projects. At times, the expansion of municipal administrative boundaries is a political process rather than a scientific and market-driven process. An informal urban settlement develops spontaneously and gradually and sometimes exist overages within municipal jurisdiction, often lacking the services and proper land title (Fernandes 2011). In majority cases, residents of this informal settlements represent a crucial political polarization and use political networks for public services provision and gain legality (Chattaraj 2016). Despite government programs to improve public service provision and supply of affordable land and housing, the gaps between demand and supply still propagate urban informality (Smolka and Larangeira 2008). Many metropolitan cities are struggling to meet the demand for housing stock in different economic strata of society. The linkage between employment and livelihood and provisioning of new housing is worth looking for both BMR and MMR. Depending upon the current family sizes of Bengaluru city, the additional (new) housing required is 1.578 million by the year 2031. The ‘Maharashtra New Housing Policy and Action Plan, 2015’ of Maharashtra have set a target to create 1.1 million new homes within MMR and 0.8 million new homes outside MMR by 2022. In the case of Greater Mumbai city, 0.79 million new homes will be created under different schemes, with 0.23 million new homes for five municipal corporations and the rest of 0.075 million new homes for the rest of MMR (Government of Maharashtra 2015a). The detailed break up of new housing demand and tenements proposed within different urban centres of MMR is mentioned in Table 9.3. It may be noted that aggregate housing demand is determined by a large number of factors like size and age distribution of population, family type, educational background, etc. Similarly, individual housing demand is determined by family income, inflation rate, infrastructure availability, safety and security, etc. At times, individual housing demand is based on caste, religion, and community feeling, and as a result, segregated neighbourhoods are evident in Indian cities. While projecting new housing demand, the above factors are also required to take into consideration, and it requires a separate model-based study for MMR and BMR. A survey conducted by CIDCO (2010) highlights that around 35% of the current residents of Navi Mumbai stayed in Mumbai before shifting to Navi Mumbai, followed by 16.9% in the case of Central Suburbs (Thane, Kalyan, and Ambernath, etc.). The survey report also highlights that while 71% of employees are staying and working in Navi Mumbai, around 11% of residents are staying in Greater Mumbai

202

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Table 9.3 New housing demand and tenements proposed for urban centres of MMR in 2031 Urban centers

Average house hold size (2011)

Population allocation in 2031 (in million)

New housing demand for additional population in 2031 (in million)

No. of new tenements proposed as per new housing policy and action Plan (2015) (in million)

Greater Mumbai 4.47 16.55 0.919 0.790 Thane 4.22 4.13 0.541 0.085 Kalyan-Dombivali 4.12 1.99 0.180 – Navi-Mumbai 4.09 2.39 0.310 0.020 Mira-Bhayander 4.32 2.14 0.308 0.055 Bhiwandi-Nizampur 5.06 1.19 0.095 – Ulhasnagar 4.52 0.64 0.030 0.020 Vasai-Virar City 4.19 1.97 0.178 0.055 Ambernath 4.33 0.64 0.089 – Badlapur 4.15 0.46 0.069 – Panvel 4.17 0.37 0.045 – Uran 4.21 0.10 0.017 – Khopoli 4.37 0.21 0.032 – Source (i) Census of India (2011) and (ii) Government of Maharashtra (2015a)

but working in Navi Mumbai (CIDCO 2010). It highlights the self-sustenance of Navi Mumbai in terms of living and working together in the satellite town of Navi Mumbai and partial population decongestion of Greater Mumbai. These population decentralization trends need to continue for other satellite towns of Mumbai in order to reduce the population pressure of Mumbai in the coming days. It requires both short term and long term strategic plans and supportive policies related to regional transport integration, land management, economy, and linkage between employment and housing.

9.5

Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Maharashtra

In 2016–2017, Maharashtra’s Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at current prices was US$336.4 billion, highest among all States (provinces), and contributed 14.8% of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Maharashtra attracted the highest foreign direct investment (FDI) among all States (US$113.82 billion) for the period April 2000 to December 2017. During the last few decades, Greater Mumbai emerged as one of the prominent global financial hubs. Also, the presence of Jawaharlal Nehru Port, the largest container port in India, is an added advantage for the State in import and export through the sea (IBEF 2018a). As per the Economic Survey of Maharashtra, the projected manufacturing sector growth was 7.6% in 2017–18. Greater Mumbai and its

9.5 Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Maharashtra

203

region contributed significantly not only to the industrial growth in Maharashtra but also that of India as a whole. Based on favourable industrial policies, several industrial clusters have been developed within the MMR which includes Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals cluster (Mumbai-Thane), Logistics (Mumbai-Thane), IT and ITES cluster (Mumbai-Thane), etc. Recently, the Government of Maharashtra has formulated ‘Maharashtra Industrial Policy-2019’ with a vision to make ‘Maharashtra as a global investment, manufacturing and technology hub, promoting sustainable development’ (Government of Maharashtra 2019, p. 3). A 700 km long super communication expressway (Samruddhi Mahamarg) connecting Mumbai and Nagpur is planned, which will traverse through 10 major and 14 other influence districts of Maharashtra. Twenty major industrial areas are planned along this expressway. As part of the National Governments Delhi- Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project, the development of the Dighi Port Industrial Area (253 km2) is also planned. Further, the Government of India’s ambitious project, namely ‘Sagarmala and Coastal Economic Zones (CEZ)’, are planned to link port-linked industrialization and coastal community development. As part of the project, two CEZs, namely, North Konkan (JNPT linkage port) and South Konkan (Dighi and Jaigad port), are planned. Maharashtra Industrial Policy also suggests the provision of additional financial incentives for investors to set up industries in the underdeveloped districts (Government of Maharashtra 2019). In the last couple of years, the share of IT exports increased tremendously. According to the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) assessment, Maharashtra rank second in IT export, which accounts for 20% of India’s IT export (Government of Maharashtra 2015b). Further, in recent years, several sector-specific policies have been launched/amended by the Government of Maharashtra with specific policy targets, and a set of projects have been identified for Mumbai and MMR (Table 9.4).

9.6

Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Karnataka

Karnataka is the prime IT hub in India and the world’s fourth-largest technology cluster after Silicon Valley, Boston, and London. During 2016–2017, 38.99% of India’s export share in IT and electronic products were contributed by Karnataka state (province). Currently, there are 19 IT/ITES SEZs and 5 software technology parks functioning in the State. In the cumulative FDI flows from April 2000 to December 2017, Karnataka is in the third-highest position and accounted for 8% of India’s cumulative FDI inflow (IBEF 2018b). Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was established in 1940, and the subsequent years’ many defence public sector undertakings and R&D institutions were set up in Bengaluru (previously known as Bangalore). The Karnataka Industrial Policy 2014–19 targeted to enhance the manufacture sector contribution from 16.87% in 2014 to 20% in 2019. The vision of the policy has been to build a prosperous Karnataka through inclusive, sustainable,

204

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Table 9.4 Sector specific industrial policies of Maharashtra and specific targets for MMR S. No.

Policy name

Broad policy vision

Policy target for Mumbai and MMR

1

Aerospace and Defence Manufacturing Policy-2018

Maharashtra to be the globally competitive investment destination, promote indigenous and modernized technological capabilities, develop a world-class skilled workforce and provide support MSMEs

2

FinTech Policy-2018

In the next five years’ time frame, Mumbai to emerge as one of the world’s top five FinTech centers

3

IT/ITES Policy 2015

Maharashtra to be globally competitive destination and to promote as an intellectual and knowledge capital of the country

(i) Cluster Development of Mazgaon Dock in Mumbai is India’s prime shipyard for manufacturing warships and submarines (ii) Fiscal incentives and reimbursement of Stamp Duty (iii) Development of Industrial Township (i) Setting up of World FinTech Hub in MMR (ii) Additional FSI will be provided for the establishment of Smart FinTech centers (iii) Setting up a co-working space of minimum 10,000 ft2 in one of the central locations of Mumbai (iv) Provide a corpus fund of 250 crores (2.5 billion) (i) Setting up of Data Centers in Mumbai (ii) Additional FSI allotted for the space utilization of IT Parks (ii) Up to 100% additional FSI and above 100–200% additional FSI with a minimum access road of 15 m (with a premium of 30% of the prevailing ready reckoner rate in Greater Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivali, Mira-Bhayandar, Ulhasnagar municipal corporation, and Ambernath Municipal Council) for IT Parks/IT SEZs/AVGC Parks (iii) Establishment of Integrated IT Township (In MMR outside corporation limits of Greater Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivali, Mira Bhayandar, Ulhasnagar municipal corporation, and Ambernath Municipal Council) with a premium of 20% of the (continued)

9.6 Review of Industrial and Sector Specific Policies of Karnataka

205

Table 9.4 (continued) S. No.

4

Policy name

Maharashtra’s Logistics parks Policy-2018

Broad policy vision

Making Maharashtra as part of global supply chain

Policy target for Mumbai and MMR prevailing ready reckoner rate. Permissible FSI shall be 2.5. For the rest of the areas, permissible FSI shall be 2.0 (iv) Creation of an enabling environment for the promotion of Business Process Outsourcing (BPOs) in Rural and Semi-urban areas (i) Develop Logistics Clusters and create at least 25 integrated multi-modal logistics parks across the state (ii) Promote a minimum of 100 logistic parks (iii) Up to 200% additional FSI for Integrated Logistics Parks and Logistics parks with or without Premium. In Greater Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivali, Mira -Bhayandar, Ulhasnagar municipal corporation, and Ambernath Municipal Council, only 15% premium charges for additional FSI (iv) Higher Ground coverage (up to 75%) allowed.

Source Government of Maharashtra (2015b, a, b, c)

and balanced industrial development, thereby creating ample employment opportunities (Government of Karnataka 2014, p. 10). The policy also targeted to decongest concentrated industrial development in Bengaluru besides promoting other areas. Two mega industrial corridors were planned, namely (i) Chennai-Bangalore-Chitradurga Industrial Corridor (CBCIC) and (ii) Bangalore-Mumbai Economic Corridor (BMEC) with the support of Government of India and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Further, the Government of Karnataka is planning for few State Industrial Corridors (SIC) for benefitting regional growth of backward regions in the State. Bangalore-Mandya-Mysore-Chamarajanagar corridor is planned for Knowledge-based industries. Bangalore—Hassan-Mangalore corridor is also planned under State Industrial Policy (Government of Karnataka 2014). Also, in recent years, many sector-specific policies have been launched/amended by the Government of Karnataka with specific policy targets and a set of projects for Bengaluru and BMR (Table 9.5).

206

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Table 9.5 Sector specific industrial policies of Karnataka and specific targets for BMR S. No.

Policy name

Broad policy vision

Policy target for Bengaluru (Bangalore) and BMR

1

Karnataka Aerospace Policy 2013–2023 (with Amendments)

To build the state as a vibrant aerospace hub of Asia and also a worldwide recognized aerospace destination

2

Karnataka Agri-Business and Food Processing Policy, 2015

Develop as one of the promising sectors for creating employment opportunities and increasing the farm returns to farmers by value addition.

3

Karnataka Biotechnology Policy, 2017–2022

To maximize the state’s bio-economy potential

4

Information and Communication Technology Policy, 2011

Popularize Bangalore to be the IT R&D and product hub of the country and retain the state’s position in IT outsourced services

(i) Developing Bengaluru Aerospace Park (BAP) next to the Kempe Gowda International Airport (ii) Bengaluru and Bengaluru Aerospace SEZ (BASEZ) is also available adjacent to the Aerospace Park (iii) Focus on the cluster approach includes proposed Bangalore Aerospace Park at Devanahalli (i) Establishment of a state-of-the-Art Biotechnology Centre at Hulimavu, Bengaluru with a land area of about 42.08 acres (ii) National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Bengaluru and Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (IIHR), Bengaluru is involved in the Research & Development of Karnataka (i) Increased capabilities of The Bangalore Helix Biotechnology Park (ii) Bioinnovation centre at Bengaluru (iii) The new laboratories will be set up in Bengaluru and Bidar animal biotechnology facility (i) Popularize the ‘Bangalore Welcome Mart’ program for talented IT professional working abroad to work in Bangalore and Karnataka (ii) Promoting Bangalore as R&D and Product Technology hub (iii) Setting up of IT Investment region in Devanahalli-Doddaballapur area near Bangalore International Airport (iv) Innovation parks for MSMEs

Source Government of Karnataka (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017)

9.7 Governance and Plan Integration

9.7

207

Governance and Plan Integration

Currently, MMR comprises of 8 municipal corporations, 9 municipal councils, 35 census towns, and 994 villages. Within MMR, there are several Special Planning Authorities (SPAs) like Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA), Khopta, etc. created under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Similarly, BMR consists of one municipal corporation (BBMP), 6 LPAs, Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), Ramanagara-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils, etc. and rural areas. Further, it is MMRDA’s, and BMRDA’s mandate is to prepare a regional plan of MMR and BMR. The issues include multiple plans for multiple jurisdictions, overlapping of functions, and lack of efficient implementation mechanism. These issues need to be discussed with all stakeholders for the benefit of future MMR and BMR. Plans and policies should be more participatory. The collective vision of all plans towards decongesting population and promoting economic activity in the metropolitan city and each satellite town has to achieve a status of self-sustained settlements with quality infrastructure, economic opportunities, housing, transport, and better quality of life for its citizens. So, plan integration and programme/projects convergence of various schemes is required for better implementation of the regional development agenda.

9.8

Policy Zones and Policy Recommendations

At present, in almost all urban centers of MMR, a significant percentage of workers are engaged in the service sector, trade and commerce, manufacturing and processing industry. In Rural MMR, mining and quarrying, cultivation, manufacturing, and processing, transportation, storage, and communication are the predominant sectors. This economic base can further be strengthened, and employment opportunities could be expanded for urban centres of MMR based on the specialization of activities. Depending upon the capacity assessment of urban centres and rural MMR, following broad recommendations are drawn for accommodating the future population load to control Greater Mumbai’s population growth and its redistribution for the planned and equitable development of entire MMR: 1. Greater Mumbai (population 16.55 million and density 37,819 per km2 in 2031) • Proposed FAR to be considered as 2.0. • 12,370 ha additional industrial space be set apart. • Promote hi-tech and high-end services. Greater Mumbai to be made financial and entertainment hub of the country.

208

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

• Redevelopment/Renewal/Densification in the selected pockets and closed mill land areas of Greater Mumbai in view of the limited scope for the horizontal expansion. • Filling in the physical and social infrastructure gap and additional requirement of the same for future demand. • Establishment of regional mass transport network between each urban units of MMR and Greater Mumbai. Public Transport for proposed nine metro corridors, Mumbai Trans Harbour Links, and passenger water transport facilities to be implemented soon. • Encouragement to mixed-use along with transit nodes and selected strategic locations. Metro stations, major bus stops, and its surrounding areas to generate compact urban form and increasing housing stock. Higher FSI (3–5) in transit influence zones as per the National Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Policy (MoHUA 2017). • Preservation of open spaces, greens, landscape, and creation of more recreational areas in view of rapidly decreasing natural areas and open spaces (61% in 1971 to 31.5% in 2012). 2. Other Municipal Corporations in MMR (i) Thane (population 4.13 million and density 32,796 per km2 in 2031). (ii) Kalyan-Dombivali (population 1.99 million and density 17,944 per km2 in 2031). (iii) Navi Mumbai (population 2.39 million and density 18,292 per km2 in 2031). (iv) Mira Bhayander (population 2.14 million and density 24,144 per km2 in 2031). (v) Bhiwandi-Nizampur (population 1.19 million and density 40,255 per km2 in 2031). (vi) Ulhasnagar (population 0.64 million and density 48,394 per km2 in 2031). (vii) Vasai-Virar City (population 1.97 million and density 34,953 per km2 in 2031). • Proposed FAR to be considered as 1.5, except Ulhasnagar, where FAR 2 is suggested. • Required additional gross industrial spaces in other Municipal corporations within MMR as follows: – – – – – – –

Thane—6477 ha Kalyan-Dombivali—2107 ha Navi Mumbai—3855 ha Mira-Bhayander—3892 ha Bhiwandi-Nizampur—1486 ha Ulhasnagar—407 ha Vasai-Virar City—2236 ha.

9.8 Policy Zones and Policy Recommendations

209

This additional space can be generated by increasing FAR, converting non-productive lands like the barren land, wasteland, etc. for developmental purposes and also the use of underground spaces. • Developable land can be used for future urban development. • Some of the bulk industries, wholesale trade, warehousing, storage, etc. which cannot be located in Mumbai, can be located in these satellite towns where lands are available. In the future, it required introducing more specific policy measures for dispersal of existing industries from Mumbai and the development of new industries in these satellite towns (incentives may be regarding tax rebate or cheap land). • Water bodies, green areas, forest lands need to be protected, preserved, and enhanced. It helps in the environment and quality of life for citizens. In 2011, a tree counting exercised conducted by Gujarat Forest Department in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of Gujarat. • Mumbai, in general (except few fringe areas), is not affordable by low and middle-income households. Affordable housing stocks need to be created in other Municipal Corporations of MMR. It will help in the reduction of slum pockets in Mumbai. • Certain Government offices need to be shifted from Greater Mumbai to Thane or Navi Mumbai. • IT parks, International Finance Tech Centers, Entertainment Parks, etc. can be created in Vasai-Virar, Thane, etc. due to its proximity to Greater Mumbai. • Regional Connectivity needs to improve among Greater Mumbai and other satellite towns for attracting more floating population. 3. Other Municipal Councils and Census Towns in MMR (i) Ambernath (population 0.64 million and density 17,986 per km2 in 2031). (ii) Badlapur (population 0.46 million and density 13,464 per km2 in 2031). (iii) Panvel (population 0.37 million and density 31,234 per km2 in 2031). (iv) Uran (population 0.10 million and density 18,771 per km2 in 2031). (v) Khopoli (population 0.21 million and density 7369 per km2 in 2031). (vi) Pen (population 0.001 million and density 1908 per km2 in 2031). (vii) Others (population 0.82 million and density 41,212 per km2 in 2031). • Proposed FAR to be considered as 1.5, except Panvel and Uran where FAR 2 is recommended. In Census towns FAR 1 is suggested • Required additional gross industrial spaces in other Municipal Councils and Census towns within MMR as follows: – Ambernath—1038 ha – Badlapur—800 ha

210

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

– – – –

Panvel—539 ha Uran—194 ha Khopoli—328 ha Other Urban Centres—1090 ha.

• Small and medium scale labour-intensive industries can be promoted. The economic base can be strengthened by supportive industrial and other allied sectors policy formulations and implementations. • Developable land can be used for future developmental purposes. • Hills, water bodies, green areas, forest lands need to be conserved. • Infrastructure gaps need to be fulfilled in these towns. • Ecotourism can be promoted in Matheran and Alibug cities which plays the role of secondary cities within MMR. 4. MMR Rural (population 0.38 million and density 127 per km2 in 2031) • Proposed FAR is 0.75 after 2021, it is suggested to be 1.0. • In Rural MMR, more than half of this land (about 54%) is used for agricultural purposes. Agro-based industries, food processing industries, cold storage etc., can provide additional employment oppertunities. • Household industries and other skill-based industries may be developed. • Tribal villages and forest villages identified separately for coverage under a variety of schemes. • The natural features such as Forest, Hills, Rivers, and other water bodies should be conserved. It will promote environmental sustenance of the entire MMR region. For Bengaluru, the city economy is predominantly depending on the tertiary sector, including the IT and ITES sector, biotechnology, engineering, research, etc. whereas for the other ULBs in BMR, the economy dominated by secondary and manufacturing sector combined with the agriculture in the surrounding rural areas. Broad recommendations are drawn for BMR to accommodate future population load to control Bengaluru’s population growth, and its redistribution for the planned and equitable development of entire BMR mentioned below; 1. Bengaluru city (population 14.05 million and density 18,970 per km2 in 2031) • Proposed FAR to be considered as 1.5. • 2251.23 ha additional industrial space is set apart. • A future hub of IT and ITES sector, biotechnology, engineering, research, and educational institutes. • Encroachment in green belt, lakes and water bodies and green areas need to be stopped. • Higher FAR permitted in IT parks, transit nodes. • Metro rail network should connect peri-urban areas.

9.8 Policy Zones and Policy Recommendations

211

• From Bengaluru international airport all satellite towns need to be connected with a faster and efficient mode of transportation. • Encourage people to use more public transport. • Water harvesting techniques should mandatory for bigger housing societies. 2. Satellite towns of Bengaluru city (population 4.23 million and density 25,773 per km2 in 2031) • Proposed FAR to be considered as 1.5. • The economic base of each satellite towns needs to be strengthened depending upon their economic potentiality. The textile industry and silk products dominate towns in south and south-east of Bengaluru while wooden products and agro-based industries dominate towns in the south-west. The economy of Ramanagaram and Chinnapatana is mainly dominated by the agro-based textile industry, tobacco products, toys, and wooden products. Product-based manufacturing with the textile industry dominates in Neelamangala. The Dodballapur economy depends on the apparel park, and the Devanahalli economy depends on the manufacturing and textile industry with proposed Hardware Park (BMRDA 2016). • Five growth node hub is introduced with the different economic base as follows; – Anekal as the future educational hub. This cluster had already had residential support for surrounding areas and located about 35 km from Bengaluru. – Kanakapura as a future Agro and Agro-processing hub and is located 55 km from Bengaluru. – Magadi as future Agri-processing and textile hub and is located 59 km from Bengaluru. – Vijayapura as future warehousing, storage, and dairy and poultry hub and is located 39 km from Bengaluru. • Better opportunities like employment, supporting infrastructure, and services should be created in these growth centers and satellite towns. • Regional connectivity regarding rail network and expressways need to construct for faster connectivity with Bengaluru city and among satellite towns. • Protection of environmentally sensitive areas, heritage sites, and national parks. • Water resource management and watershed management techniques should be promoted. 3. Rural BMR (population 1.21 million and density 170 per km2 in 2031) • Proposed FAR to be considered as 1.0.

212

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

• Agro-based industries; food processing industries; cold storage etc. need to be promoted in Rural BMR. • Policies should frame in such a way that rapid conversions of land from agriculture to other purposes need to be stopped. • In Rural BMR, more than half of this land is used for agricultural purposes. • The natural features such as forests, hills, rivers, and other water bodies should be conserved for a better future. • DCR needs to be framed in rural areas located immediate surroundings of urban areas to control haphazard development. • Rural infrastructure (both physical and social) needs to be strengthened. • Decreasing share of rural farming populations are the primary cause of worry for the future development of BMR. Incentives, soft loans, minimum support prices for farmers can encourage farmers to depend on farming activities within rural BMR.

9.9

Short Term and Long Term Strategy for MMR and BMR

The prime aim for both MMR and BMR is to decentralize population and economic activities to the satellite towns within the regions. In this process, the primacy and economic vibrancy of both Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru should not be neglected. The development of these two fast-growing cities has to be planned, and the need for the hour is to promote and develop existing satellite towns in a self-sustaining manner. The development has to be planned and equitable. Sustainable development of these two metropolitan cities (Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru) depends upon the planned development of the satellite towns and sharing of future population load by the latter from mother cities. In today’s world, none of the settlement functions stands alone, and the interdependency between the metropolitan cities and satellite towns and amongst satellite town themselves will determine the regional growth and development. Regional transport, both bus rapid transit system (BRTS), and mass rapid transit system (MRTS), play a vital role in inter-connectedness among the settlements. Rather than focusing on the development of new towns as Greenfield projects, the focus should be the strengthening of the economic base and infrastructure development of already existing urban centres/satellite towns. The economic links between the metropolitan city and its satellite towns can become so close that one cannot succeed without others, and both behave like a single entity. In MMR, except Navi Mumbai as planned satellite development, other surrounding urban centres developed as organic growth. The success of the development of satellite towns will eventually share the future population and housing demand of metropolitan cities. Policies and investments have to be channelized for the creation

9.9 Short Term and Long Term Strategy for MMR and BMR

213

of new employment opportunities, an increase in housing stock, and improvement in infrastructure and services. Following are the short term (immediate) actions required for the planned development of MMR and BMR: (i) The suburban railway is the lifeline of Mumbai and its adjoining satellite towns. Existing railway stations in satellite towns can be developed as a transit hub, and commercial and residential development can be planned in line with the transit-oriented development. Vashi railway station in Navi Mumbai planned as integration of commercial and office spaces with transit stations can be replicated to other stations. Sea woods railway station in Navi Mumbai is also being planned in a similar model. Bengaluru Metro is currently in the implementation stage. Bengaluru city and its adjoining urban centres are connected with road links. Recently, the Government of Karnataka approved 161 km long suburban rail services in Bengaluru expected to be completed by 2025 (Economic Times, 4th December 2018). Like Mumbai, suburban railway stations in Bengaluru need to be planned as a transit hub in the future. The success of one city can be replicated in other cities. (ii) Regional transport projects within MMR like Mumbai Trans-harbour link (both road and metro), Navi Mumbai international airport, passenger water transport, etc. need to be developed on a priority basis. Developing east-west connectivity from Mumbai to the adjoining satellite towns hugely boost regional growth. In the case of BMR, regional transport projects like suburban railway services, intermediate ring roads, and peripheral ring roads, integrated multimodal passenger terminals, and freight hubs need to be developed on a priority basis. (iii) The economic base of existing satellite towns has to be enhanced. MMR has a well-developed industrial ecosystem for various industries, including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and logistics bases in Thane and wholesale, retail, and service industry in Navi Mumbai. Already Government of Maharashtra has amended ‘Maharashtra Industrial Policy-2019’, and several sector-specific policies for the industrial development of the State have been announced (Government of Maharashtra 2015b, 2018a, b, c, 2019). Similarly, in BMR, the economy of Ramanagaram and Chinnapatana are mainly dominated by the agro-based textile industry, tobacco products, toys, and wooden products, while the Dodballapur economy depends on the apparel industry. The economic potential of various satellite towns in BMR is proposed in Fig. 9.1, and in the future, it is required to introduce more specific policy measures for supporting the growth of industries in the respective urban centres (Chatterjee et al. 2018). Short term development strategies proposed for MMR is shown in Fig. 9.2. MMR and BMR should take benefits of these policies and attract investors for the establishment of new industrial units to reap the benefits of increased FAR and other financial benefits listed in the policies.

214

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Fig. 9.1 Economic potentiality of various satellite towns within BMR. Source Chatterjee et al. (2018)

9.9 Short Term and Long Term Strategy for MMR and BMR

215

(iv) Along the highways, land can be reserved for industrial development. Already many such industrial corridors have developed with a specialized industrial base. The Mumbai-Thane corridor has developed with pharmaceutical and chemical industries. The pharmaceutical industry has developed along Bengaluru to Hosakote (NH 4) link. (v) Environmentally sensitive areas like hill areas, forests, and water bodies should be retained within Greater Mumbai and Bengaluru city as well as within MMR and BMR. A special green zone (SGZ) can be created to preserve environmentally sensitive areas. Agricultural activities within MMR and BMR need to be promoted. For the development of agribusiness and agro-processing as a promising sector for creating job opportunities, the Government of Karnataka has already launched ‘Karnataka Agri-Business and Food Processing Policy’ in 2015. (vi) Land acquisition can be completed through innovative land pooling policies. Town Planning Scheme or Town Development Scheme can be implemented considering private landowners as a partnership in the development process. Both Maharashtra and Karnataka State Town and Country Planning Act have provisions for such land readjustment scheme. (vii) Both MMRDA and BMRDA can be the nodal agency for the implementation of regional plans and policies. Other agencies like Municipal Corporations or Councils, Housing Board, Industrial Development Corporation, etc. will help the nodal agency for the development of the region. (viii) Financial support can be received from National and State Governments through various projects and schemes, Public-Private Partnership, international funding agencies like Asian Development Bank, World Bank, etc. and floating of municipal and metropolitan bonds. In the long run, both MMR and BMR should include emphasise beyond the regional boundary, and development should be channelized or collaborated with other metropolitan cities located in close vicinity. The establishment of the entrepreneurial mega-urban corridor connecting Mumbai-Pune-Nasik is likely to emerge as mega conurbation. Many new census towns will develop as satellite towns along the corridor close to the respective megacities. Mumbai is emerging as a financial cluster, Pune is emerging as a knowledge cluster focused on IT, and ITES and automobile, and Nasik are emerging as engineering and food processing cluster (Fig. 9.3). Karnataka Industrial policy has identified the Bangalore-Mandya-Mysore-Chamaraj industrial transport corridor suitable for the establishment of Knowledge-based industries. Developing the mega-urban corridors with specialized industrial clusters will be the long term economic growth of MMR and BMR.

216

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Fig. 9.2 Short term (immediate) development strategies for MMR

9.10

Towards Converting BMR and MMR into Smart Regions

217

Fig. 9.3 Long term development strategies for MMR

9.10

Towards Converting BMR and MMR into Smart Regions

Bengaluru city comes under the ‘Smart City Mission’ initiated by the National Government in 2015 (MoUD 2015). The core issue in transforming from a megacity to smart mega-region is not only technology-driven but the capacity to share and collaborate for the welfare of every citizen living in the region. It requires a new approach of integrating the idea of the smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, smart infrastructure, and smart living and restructure and convert the megacity region to a human settlement of the 21st century. The current low level of innovation, non-responsive, and inefficient governance systems will be transformed by e-governance, artificial intelligence, smart communities, use of ecological principles by mixing uses for ecological sustenance, etc. Both MMR and BMR must recognize the fact that the modus operandi of work will be digital and focus on the specialization of the functions offering by various towns and cities within the region. If a smart region is to evolve, the need is to boost the active cooperation between all the local governments, including metropolitan development authority (Chatterjee et al. 2018). The focus of smart-networking between Urban Local Bodies and Rural Local Self-Governments will be incomplete if networking with industry and businesses are not considered. Ultimately it is the smart industrial innovation that is at the heart of the smart region framework and will drive the smart economy. As such, they

218

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

will require complete policy and administrative support from the smart network of local self-government. In this way, a smart local government network should complement the smart economy. Improvement in rural-urban links helps in increasing accessibility for rural people to access urban social services, such as educational institutions, medical facilities, banking facilities, recreation facilities, etc. It would pave the way for smoothening out the rural-urban differences which stand in the form of higher benefits to be accrued to BMR and MMR from a smart economy. The contemporary metropolitan land market now is the favorable ground for local smart innovations, foreign investment, and getting profit in the neoliberal metropolitan landscape. In the case of MMR and BMR, common pathways to ‘smart region’ are as follows: • use of new technologies to augment societies for transmuting life and work. • development of a community network for learning, public debate, and knowledge sharing. • development of a networking platform for shared enterprises between academic and research institutes, corporates using ICT, ULBs, and rural local bodies. • bring ICTs and people together for enhancing human intelligence, innovation, knowledge, and demand—responsive support system. Rather than developing a smart city, the focus of the Government should be on developing intelligent cities in the long run. In an intelligent city, smartness in principles, proposals, and actions can be an embedded component. It required collective intelligence to solve complex system solutions. Cities consist of several systems, and efficient interconnectedness of systems required collective wisdom rather than only focus on technology-driven solutions.

References BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (2005) Structure plan of Bangalore metropolitan region-2011, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Karnataka BMRDA-Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (2016) Bangalore metropolitan region revised structure plan-2031, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Karnataka Chattaraj S (2016) Property markets without property rights: Dharavi’s informal real estate market. In: Birch EL, Chattaraj S, Wachter SL (eds) Slums: how informal real estate markets work. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 94–106 Chatterjee A, Choudhury B, Dasgupta P, Vaidya G (2018) Towards a smart metropolitan region: a roadmap for transforming Bangalore metropolitan region. In: Vinod Kumar TM (ed) Smart metropolitan regional development: economic and spatial design strategies. Springer, Singapore, pp 359–400 CIDCO-City and Industrial Development Corporation (2010) Socio economic profile of households in planned nodes in Navi Mumbai, 2010, Statistics Department, The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra

References

219

Economic Times (December 04, 2018) Rs. 19,500 cr suburban rail likely by 2025. https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/railways/rs-19500-cr-suburban-raillikely-by-2025/articleshow/66932238.cms. Accessed 5 Feb 2019 Fernandes E (2011) Regularization of informal settlements in Latin America. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge Government of Karnataka (2011) Information and communications technology policy-2011. Department of Information Technology, Biotechnology and Science and Technology, Government of Karnataka. https://kum.karnataka.gov.in/KUM/PDFS/Informationand CommunicationsTechnologyPolicy2011.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Karnataka (2013) Karnataka aerospace policy 2013–2023 (with amendments). Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka. https://kum.karnataka.gov. in/KUM/PDFS/AerospacePolicy_Finalwithoutphoto.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Karnataka (2014) Karnataka industrial policy 2014–2019. Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka. http://itbt.karnataka.gov.in/Documents/ karnataka-industrial-policy-2014%20(1).pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Karnataka (2015) Karnataka agri business & food processing policy 2015. Department of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Department of Co-operation. Government of Karnataka. https://kum.karnataka.gov. in/KUM/PDFS/AgriBusiness&FoodProcessingPolicy-2015.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Karnataka (2017) Karnataka biotechnology policy 2017–2022. Department of Information Technology, Biotechnology and Science & Technology, Government of Karnataka. http://itbt.karnataka.gov.in/Documents/KarnatakaBiotechPolicy-III(2017-2022).pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2015a) Maharashtra state new housing policy & action plan, 2015. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Maharashtra%20New%20Housing%20Urban% 20Policy%202015.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2015b) IT/ITES policy. Industries Department, Government of Maharashtra. https://www.midcindia.org/documents/20181/28829/MAHARASHTRA+IT+% 26+ITES+POLICY-2015.pdf/580cc1b5-4578-4ccd-b9c7-3a5f925a2ee0. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2018a) Aerospace & defence manufacturing policy-2018. Department of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. https://di.maharashtra.gov.in/_ layouts/15/doistaticsite/english/pdf/AerospaceandDefence.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2018b) FinTech policy. Department of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. https://di.maharashtra.gov.in/_layouts/15/doistaticsite/english/pdf/FintechPolicy. pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2018c) Maharashtra’s logistics park policy-2018. Department of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. https://di.maharashtra.gov.in/_layouts/15/ DOIStaticSite/English/pdf/MaharashtrasLogisticPolicy.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Government of Maharashtra (2019) Maharashtra industrial policy-2019. Department of Industries, Government of Maharashtra https://www.aipma.net/Industry-Update/Maharashtra%20Industrial %20Policy%20Draft%20Modified%20on%2002.03.2019.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 IBEF-India Brand Equity Foundation (2018a) Maharashtra: gateway to India. India Brand Equity Foundation. https://www.ibef.org/download/Maharashtra-February-2018.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 IBEF-India Brand Equity Foundation (2018b) Karnataka: the silicon valley of India. India Brand Equity Foundation. https://www.ibef.org/download/Karnataka-May-2018.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019 Law and Judiciary Department (1966) The Maharashtra regional and town planning act, Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966, Government of Maharashtra. http://www.lawsofindia. org/pdf/maharashtra/1966/1966MH37.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2018 Legal Department (1976) The Gujarat town planning and urban development act, 1976. Government of Gujarat. https://townplanning.gujarat.gov.in/Documents/Gtpud%20amd1.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

220

9 Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions

Ministry of Law and Social Justice (1984) The land acquisition act, 1984 (1 of 1984), Government of India https://dolr.gov.in/sites/default/files/THE%20LAND%20ACQUISITION%20ACT.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2018 MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (1973) Regional plan of Mumbai metropolitan region (1971–1991), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Maharashtra MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2005) Regional plan of Mumbai metropolitan region (1996–2011), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Maharashtra MMRDA-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2016) Draft Mumbai metropolitan regional plan (2016–2036), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Government of Maharashtra. http://mmrda.maharashtra.gov.in:8080/documents/10180/ 8037279/1.%20Draft%20MMR%20Plan%20Report,%202016-36%20Colour/d107b724-c0394ea1-840f-58a92bb9daf2?version=1.3. Accessed 5 Jun 2018 MoHUA-Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2017) National transit oriented development (TOD) policy. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. http://mohua.gov. in/upload/whatsnew/59a4070e85256Transit_Oriented_Developoment_Policy.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019 MoUD-Ministry of Urban Development (2015) Smart city mission statement and guidelines. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. https://smartnet.niua.org/ sites/default/files/resources/smartcityguidelines.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2018 Smolka MO, Larangeira A (2008) Informality and poverty in Latin American urban policies. In: Martine G, McGranahan G, Montgomery M, Fernandez-Castilla R (eds) The new global frontier: urbanization, poverty and environment in the 21st century. Earthscan, London

Chapter 10

Conclusion

Abstract Indian Metropolises and megacities are in an important phase of transformation, particularly in the neoliberal era. Only the megacity and its satellites, when appropriately planned, can together mitigate this alarming problem of urban concentration in and around the megacities. The policies and programmes in this regard, when implemented will ensure a healthy, equitable, and prospective urban scenario for India in the coming decades. Findings suggest that a new method of developing a systematic model encompassing economic growth and spatial sustainability is applicable for Neo-metropolitan Development in the developing world. Metropolises in India are now seen as part of interconnected networks that dominate economic growth and prosperity. The study has indicated many clues for the further development of the approach vis-à-vis the model itself through its application in metropolises other than the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR). The study also traces the need for separate metropolitan development policies for taking care of managing the spatially dispersed metropolitan system.










Keywords Neo-metropolitan development Sustainability Model Metropolitan policy

10.1

Metropolitan Regions as Human Bodies

The twenty-first century can be termed as the century of metropolises, where a significant share of the population resides. In the last 60–70 years, metropolises have been growing very fast. Metropolitan regions have prospered in every part of the world, i.e., global north, global south, developed and developing countries, etc. and they present many profound challenges and opportunities of urbanization and urban development. To overcome these challenges and to understand the opportunities provided, it is necessary to create a local understanding of each region. Contemporary metropolitan planning recommends knowledge of region-specific problems and localized solutions. Metropolises are more efficient than smaller cities © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. Chatterjee and R. N. Chattopadhyay, Satellite Towns in Neo-metropolitan Development in India, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1502-6_10

221

222

10

Conclusion

or agglomerations because as cities grow larger and larger, the more efficient they become and require fewer resources for more productive activities. We must create cities that can house this kind of population concentration, which is growing at such a rapid rate. Instead, what we are building today is a world of chaos and slums. Since the cost of upgrading a slum to a city level infrastructure is 3–5 times more in the beginning, the urban managers must do it from the start. Metropolises need to manage in a way different from the cities because of their sheer size, demography, etc. Often they are equivalent to some countries. For example, Paris is three times bigger than Peru. Metropolitan management by scale and cost of work falls in between urban management and national management. The two ways of dealing with metropolitan management are the discipline of theory (comprehensive theory approach) and discipline of practice (empirical approach). The discipline of practice is what is adopted while dealing with metropolises. The metropolitan region is like the ‘human body’ where ‘metropolitan city is the heart of the region. If excessive tension or imbalances occurred in the body, then it would have an impact on the vulnerable heart. Similarly, in the case of the metropolitan region, if population growth and economic overconcentration take place in the metropolitan city, then the entire region will have to face a severe crisis. Satellite towns are different organs of the human body and blood vessels, whereas transport links are like veins connecting satellite towns with the metropolitan city. Metropolitan Regional Development Authority remains as the brain of a metropolitan region. Just like bodies without organs is a scenario in which life is defunct, similarly visualizing the city-region without satellite towns is nothing but a population cluster with the concentrated mass of chaotic, unorganized, and malfunctioning entity. For the success in solving the present metropolitan problem existent in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR), the approach should be holistic, where urban compactness and economic sustainability are the two prime pillars of development. Rather than reviewing the issues of individual urban units separately, it is imperative to consider BMR or MMR as a single entity (like a human body) and thus assure the promotion of the balanced development of the whole BMR or MMR. Previous regional plans partially failed because of a lack of holistic approaches. In BMR and MMR, the vision has to be linked with the various statutory plans prepared by different authorities (Local Planning Authorities, Special Planning Authorities, etc.) within the region. The shared vision of all plans for satellite towns and special planning areas, thereby attempts to decongesting population and economic activities from the metropolitan city. Each satellite town will have to achieve a status of self-sustained settlements with quality infrastructure, economic opportunities, housing, transport, and a better quality of life for its residents. In this regard, the integration of various statutory bodies, project integration, and convergence of schemes and projects are required. Contemporary metropolitan planning focuses on planning, building, development, and management of metropolitan regions. It needed to start the link with global agenda and dialogue on creative ways in which planners can build a better

10.1

Metropolitan Regions as Human Bodies

223

metropolitan future, which should be sustainable, smart, green, healthy, inclusive, flexible, safe, and resilient. It required bridging the gap between academicians, researchers, professionals, and policymakers to collaborate and develop new thinking and innovative solutions to make future Indian metropolitan regions more sustainable. Governance generates the components that have to attain the equilibrium among economic, social, and physical elements and are to articulate priorities among those who antagonize sometimes are in conflict, and governance has to make a balance between the elements. The governance component is made up of two parts, the public sector and the private sector, and those needs to keep a dialogue between them, and these two have branches in them that we must understand to make the balance possible. At four places, there would be a pronounced growth of urban centers out of which only in one case metropolitan growth is probable through emerging metropolises: (a) The industrially developing regions like the Mumbai-Pune axis, Surat-Bharuch-Ankleshwar axis, Kanpur-Lucknow axis, Kolkata-Damodar Valley axis, Delhi-Meerut axis, etc. are a few examples where potentially linear and multinuclear metropolises are expected to grow with a number of cities growing in competition with each other and having none of them attained a metropolitan character. It is not the industrial city but a group of cities in a region that are growing to develop as future metropolitan areas. Their form and structure are different from existing metropolises. These would be the corridor of urban development with a strong industrial base in some favored spaces like Damodar Valley region or Raipur-Bhilai-Durg-Rajnandgaon corridor etc. (b) In association with existing metropolises, many cities (over 100,000 population) will grow tremendously as satellite towns, but they would help in extending the magnitude of the existing ones. (c) Intermediate areas of traditional twin cities like Cuttack-Bhubaneshwar, Vizag-Scemachelam, Surat-Navsari, etc. are growing very fast and often for promoting certain fast-growing activities like those of IT city, Flim city, etc. Such urban tracts, in association with the growing twin cities, are expected to promote metropolitan development. (d) Less urbanized and backward areas with all signs of rapid growth should not be taken as an initial stage of metropolitan dispersion. Metropolitan areas, including a number of cities (over 100,000 population), are expected to grow very fast. While urbanization is rapid in less urbanized and industrially backward areas (maybe some effect of regional balance), in such areas, cities are not expected to be of metropolitan character. In other words, urbanization pattern will take shape into metropolitanization or metropolitan development around the existing metropolises and in the fast developing industrial belts/clusters. Thus in India, principally four facts of urbanization are commonly noticed;

224

10

Conclusion

(i) Metropolitanization or urbanization in the very large cities (ii) Industrialization or New Urbanization through industrialization (iii) Changing the scale of urbanization into metropolitanization through the merger of fast-growing twin cities (iv) Modernization or urbanization of the countryside. Bertaud (2018) argued that applying the urban economics theories and tools for the decision-making process of urban planning will improve the urban productivity and welfare of its citizens. The current process of urban planning, there is an active link between the labor market, land use regulations, and infrastructure, and the application of urban planning theories and tools will help in shaping the urban future. Ahlfeldt (2019) highlighted that promoting compact urban form and high-density cities in the developed world is likely to have an overall positive outcome, but in the case of cities in the developing world, the effect is not clear. Also, the compact urban form is economically effective, but it increases the high degree of inequality. Consequences of compact urban form, particularly the cities in the developing world, required a substantial grounded piece of evidence. While promoting a compact urban form particularly in Indian megacities, this book presents methodological guidelines of addressing the current unsustainable megacity situations, sustainable urban form with the rational FAR increase, application of urban economics tools for the future city region, promoting satellite towns based on their capability assessment and metropolitan policies and strategies for future.

10.2

Lessons Learnt and Task Ahead

In the previous chapter on “Urban Development Policies in Metropolitan Regions”, this study has discussed the comprehensive narratives of satellite towns in the neo-metropolitan city: from identifying the issues in metropolitan satellite development of specific cases to spatially befitting regional allocation model of population and economic activities and finally towards the required policies. The narratives, in many ways, also depict the picture of other metropolitan cities in India and the developing world. Asian megacities and megacity regions have been undergoing a rapid and intensive urban transition since the last three decades. According to the United Nations estimate today, more than half of the world population (54%) is residing in urban areas, and the same is expected to increase to 66% in 2050. By that period, about 50% of India’s population is anticipated to live in cities and towns (United Nations 2014). Many Indian large cities, especially the large metropolises, are already facing a host of challenges forced by rapid urbanization. Very tough challenges such as population influx, urban sprawl, poverty and inequality, congestion, etc. are expected to be faced by Indian metropolitan cities and their regions by the middle of the present century. The trajectory of neo-metropolitan development has already been explained (Chap. 1), which deals

10.2

Lessons Learnt and Task Ahead

225

with the present metropolitan growth in Asian mega-cities, and explains how the neo-metropolitan development has exposed the issues of land management, inadequate infrastructure, weak development control regulations particularly in peri-urban areas and satellite towns. In today’s world, metropolises and megacities emerge as the epicenters of development, and the economic links between metropolises, its peripheral areas, and associated satellite towns are so close that one cannot succeed without others. Only the megacity and the satellites around these megacities, when planned properly, can together mitigate the alarming problem of urban concentration in and around the megacities of India. In contemporary metropolitan development, there is a need to revisit the urban and regional planning theories, models, and ideas that primarily originated from Global North. Their relevance in developing countries like India cannot be denied though with necessary modifications due to characteristic differences in urban landscapes, economy, culture, urban governance, etc. Hence it is unwise to accept the Global North models without making essential modifications for the general welfare of the megacities in Global South. The trend of India’s metropolitan growth and its spatial concentration has already been discussed (Chap. 2). The performance of various contemporary urban schemes adopted for the welfare of metropolises and their satellite towns have also been presented there. An understanding of the growth regimes of megacities and metropolises in India since the beginning of the twentieth century has indicated that such a surge of urban growth called for the massive requirements of jobs, services, infrastructures, and facilities incommensurate with the expanding urbanization processes. Experiences suggest that often, there was a mismatch on the above matters due to the crisis of required resources and inputs. India has already several megacities and many million-plus urban agglomerations. Two unprecedented phenomena that were observed for the first time in India’s 2011 census are: (i) the increase of urban population is higher than that of the rural population, and (ii) 18 new metropolitan cities emerged during 2001–2011, the maximum number in any decade thus far. The population growth of older metropolitan cities was seen to become declining or stagnant (Mumbai, Kolkata, and Delhi), whereas the new and smaller metropolitan cities are seen to grow very fast. In India, Urban Corridors have been recognized as the zones of immense potential to boost economic growth and population concentration. The same is evident from the ambitious Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, Mumbai-Bengaluru corridor, etc. This corridor driven urbanization is expected to help in generating economic momentum in its command region. The unlimited growth of metropolitan cities and UAs is not desirable, and it requires overall synergy among metropolises, large cities, small and medium towns, and rural areas located close to the metropolises. Also, the number of ‘census towns’ in India sharply increased with a 32% decadal growth rate during 2001–2011. Recent research by Roy and Pradhan (2018) raised questions regarding the criteria for defining census towns in India and identified 1380 census towns as ‘ignored census towns’ with an overall population of 14.2 million (p. 6). Further, in recent urban missions, the Government of India has focused on

226

10

Conclusion

urban amenities in small and medium-sized towns. AMRUT scheme was initiated three years ago in 2015, with the principal aim to strengthen essential urban amenities (water supply, sewerage, etc.) in cities having more the 0.1 million population. Recently, the Government had reviewed and identified the rest 3500 towns (population less than 0.1 million) to reap the benefit of the AMRUT scheme (renamed as AMRUT-plus) in the second phase (India Today, 10 Jan, 2018). Many government missions can be suitably revised, focusing on metropolitan regional development. All ongoing urban missions need to be integrated and revisited for the infrastructure development of satellite cities closely located to a metropolis. For example, in National Rurban Mission, the National Government intended to develop Rurban clusters in order to stimulate local economic development and enhance infrastructure and services. Peri-urban areas close to the metropolitan cities should be the prime thrust while selecting the Rurban clusters in various states of India. The experiences of developing satellite towns around metropolitan cities in developed countries, as well as in developing countries, have already been reviewed (Chap. 3). The Asian cities experienced the development of satellite towns, particularly close to the capital cities in the late 1960s. In India, too many satellite towns and ring towns were proposed promotion around large metropolitan cities. In the neo-metropolitan era, the majority of the satellite towns in India failed to achieve their primary role of decongesting the population and activities from the metropolitan city. They remained far away from achieving the visions of self-sufficiency. An attempt has been made to study Navi Mumbai satellite development experiences to understand the success and failure of the satellite development model. For Navi Mumbai, the population growth rate was almost double in the last two decades, whereas in Greater Mumbai, the growth rate declined during the same period. It is evident from the survey report of CIDCO (2010) that a majority population staying in Navi Mumbai commutes to Greater Mumbai for work purposes. The creation of the Bandra-Kurla Complex at Mumbai is one of the significant government policy decisions that affect the growth of Navi Mumbai. Also, it is evident that fulfilling the demand of various interest groups, the principal objective of Navi Mumbai has not been fulfilled. Implementation of proposed projects like Mumbai Trans Harbor Link, Navi Mumbai International Airport, Navi Mumbai Metro services, Navi Mumbai SEZ, etc. are supposed to boost the success of Navi Mumbai in future. It is also highlighted that the population growth of Indian megacities has been alarmingly high and indirectly that has resulted in the violation of land use and land conversion (agricultural to urban use) norms, particularly in the peri-urban areas (Chap. 4). FAR values of Indian metropolises are much lower than free-market values, and instead of developing compact cities, Indian planners and policymakers are supporting the idea of urban sprawl to accommodate the excessive population loads. The majority of Indian cities have exhibited unprecedented growth of built-up areas and a decline in blue and green spaces, which have been observed to be alarming in the last few decades. Many innovative land pooling and readjustment models have been developed through mutual agreement with landowners as a successful venture of land acquisition for new city development.

10.2

Lessons Learnt and Task Ahead

227

A set of questions concerning Indian neo-metropolitan development and planning, when analysed could particularly uncover the megacity-satellites-fringe village relationship (Chap. 5). This study had the focus on examining two large metropolitan cities and their regions, i.e. (i) Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and (ii) Bengaluru and Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR), to discuss both retrospective and prospective looks into their temporal and spatial growth. MMR and BMR have several contrasting features, including decadal urban growth rate, variation in their economic bases, and varied satellite development history in the temporal scale. This exercise was necessary to understand the present state of metropolitan crisis like overconcentration of the population, the share of migrants population, low FSI, infrastructure conditions, real estate and housing scenario, working population concentration, shortage of future developable land, etc. It also traced the urban demographic growth, land consumption, economic profile, and infrastructure conditions of satellite towns in MMR and BMR. Greater Mumbai received metropolitan status in 1911, whereas Bengaluru became a metropolitan city in 1961. In Greater Mumbai, the population has reached a saturation stage, and in the last four decades, the growth rate has indicated a steady declining trend. Bengaluru city population increased from 5.7 million to 8.4 million during 2001– 2011, with a considerable 4.73% rise in average annual population growth rate. It is evident from both MMR and BMR studies that satellite towns associated with these megacities are not performing their role in relieving population pressure from their respective megacities. Economic self-sufficiency of satellite towns has not been achieved, and in majority cases, the new settlers have occupied land in these towns because of the cheaper cost of housing and other services, including low-cost travel to workplaces in mother city by daily commuters. From the foregoing studies, it is clear that the state of sustainable metropolitan development can be attained only when the population is optimum, and land available is adequate. This calls for finding out a suitable model for sustainable city development and examining its relevance in India as well as in other countries of the developing world. A comparative study on MMR and BMR indicated the contrasting pattern of their metropolitan regional growth and helped to build the model of population allocation through the application of worker based REP and carrying capacity based SAFE models (Chap. 6). This paves the path of framing developmental policy initiatives to promote metropolitan growth in developing countries. Mumbai has crossed its carrying capacity based on current infrastructure, developable land, and existing FAR. For Bengaluru, the alarming population growth in the last few decades required the immediate attention of the planners and policymakers. There is an immediate need to channelize the urban population of Mumbai and Bengaluru to their respective adjoining satellite towns and rural areas. Hence the primary question arises before the urban planners and administrators is whether the satellite towns are capable of attracting the desired population and activities from these metropolises. The affirmative answer to above query rests with a set of three specific action programmes of governance namely, (i) suitable FAR option, (ii) availability of developable land and (iii) promotion of economic opportunities in the satellite

228

10

Conclusion

towns located close to Mumbai and Bengaluru metropolises (Chap. 7). The future population growth has been forecasted through REP model, and carrying capacity has been tested with changing FAR options (existing and with increased FAR) to find out future FAR requirements for Mumbai and Bengaluru and their satellite towns situated within the megacity region. Estimates for the allocation of population, density, workers, and requirements of industrial space for two megacities and their satellite towns have been made for creating planned and prospective metropolitan future based on equity principles (Chap. 8). With the booming knowledge economy and land policy, additional working spaces in these megacities can be generated through the creation of co-working spaces. Urban boundary expansion and re-densification of space through increased FAR can be only short term strategies, but for the long term, the satellite towns need to be planned for generating economic momentum through supports from governmental policies. A review of the previously sanctioned regional plans of the metropolitan regions shows that these megacities had the focus on satellite development within the regions like MMR, BMR, etc. It also highlights the contemporary industrial and sector-specific policies launched or amended by the State Governments and indicated specific policy targets set for areas like MMR and BMR. A set of urban development policies like urban growth policy, housing policy, industrial policy, etc. has been recommended for indicating the future directions of development of MMR and BMR (Chap. 9). Depending upon the present state of development, broad policy zones have been proposed separately considering megacity, satellite towns and rural settlements within the regions like BMR and MMR. Short term strategies have been proposed focusing on regional transport projects, strengthening the economic potential of each satellite town, preserving environmentally sensitive areas, promoting corridor based development, etc. Both MMR and BMR should adopt a strategic plan for regional level development rather than the stereotype master plan preparation. A metropolis consists of components of several interconnected systems like transport, energy, health, etc. Local area plans and town planning schemes are often quite successful and require active public participation, and therefore, plans and policies of such areas always needed to be more participatory. As long term strategy, a megacity region often expands beyond its regional boundary, and boundaries of current megacity regions will connect among themselves through entrepreneurial mega-urban corridors. The merger of fast-growing potentially connected linear metropolises like Mumbai-Pune-Nasik and Bangalore-Mysore, etc. are expected to form mammoth metropolises, and such mega-metropolises may be called conurbation, will be India’s new epitome of development and prosperity in future. The approach in the present study has been from the destination side, where in-migration from satellite towns and rural areas has been the critical problem to be attended. Its origin side, i.e., the areas of outmigration, which are principally the rural areas and small towns, are seldom considered for analysis and prescription in this regard. In fact, the push factor needs to be analyzed for assessing outmigration in volume, velocity, and target direction. Appropriate steps for reduction of outmigration intensity should be the approach in complementarily to the present

10.2

Lessons Learnt and Task Ahead

229

method of rehabilitation at the destination. Line departments of State (provincial) Government, rural Panchayats, and other concerned agencies are expected to take appropriate steps and programmes for the development of countryside for weakening the push factor in this context. A better metropolitan planning step in this regard requires synergy between perspectives of domain experts (planners, economists, geographers, ecologists, sociologists, etc.), policymakers, and elected representatives. Further many a time the discourse of better metropolitan planning obfuscates the political nature of planning decisions, real issues of plan enforcement, weak efforts at the resolution of the conflict of interests, overlapping of functional jurisdictions, and lack of financial management for the development of such large and complex urban territories. The present treatise has used analytical case-study of multiple cities of India, focusing on models and policies of urban development. This work contributes to the domain of urban growth theory and models developed in the context of Global North and tested its applicability in the wider welfare of the Global South, particularly in the context of its economic growth and spatial sustainability. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) were constituted in 1975 and 1985, respectively. During the initial period, these Authorities majorly focused on metropolitan regional development. Later the post city infrastructure boom, metro, and monorail projects within the city, etc. became the primary foci of these regional development authorities. Their functions appeared to be more metro city-centric rather than the integrated development of metropolitan city-satellite towns-rural areas within the region. This book urges the policymakers and urban development experts to understand the metropolitan crisis of integrated urban-rural development and accordingly frame the urban development policies for metropolitan regions. It calls for a revisit to institutional roles in metropolitan planning. The lessons learnt from this treatise are majorly based on two metropolitan cities and their regions, but the broad narrative of problems is common for other metropolitan cities in India and the developing world too.

10.3

Emergence of Interconnected Metropolitan Networks

Indian urban structure is spatially dispersed, and urban primacy was non-existent in the last couple of decades. Also, Indian urbanization is clearly concentrated over megacities and metropolises. These metropolitan cities are the engines of economic growth and cluster of job-centres not only for their residents but also for a bigger region concentrated around. The Government of India, with support from various State Governments, is planning to develop mega-urban corridors to boost economic growth and prosperity and population concentration. Present metropolitan cities and UAs in India are spatially distributed along proposed mega industrial urban corridors (Fig. 10.1). The development differentials in various states are not only evident from north-south division but also from east-west divisions as evident in recent

230

10

Conclusion

Fig. 10.1 Interconnected metropolitan networks in India. Source Prepared from (i) Census of India (2011) and (ii) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2013)

years. Both national and state governments should focus on 53 metropolitan cities and their rural hinterland for the integrated and planned development of city-regions. The government should think of equitable growth in all mega industrial corridors and metropolitan city-regions within the country since the interconnected metropolitan networks are expected to dominate the economic profile of India in the future.

10.4

10.4

Metropolitan Land Management

231

Metropolitan Land Management

In India, Agricultural land constitutes the highest share of the total geographical area. Non-agricultural land uses like urban settlements, infrastructure, etc. have a relatively small land share as compared to the agricultural land and forests, but in the future, it is most likely that non-agricultural land share will increase rapidly. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare statistics (2016), the area under non-agricultural uses increased from 9.36 million hectares in 1950– 51 to 21.09 million hectares in 1990–91 and in subsequent years, the same further increased to 26.88 million hectares (Directorate of Economics and Statistics 2016). The process of metropolitanisation in India exhibits an undaunted growth trend. Similarly, the process of urbanization is quite rapid. The current area under urbanization is 22.27 million hectares, which is 6.77% of the total geographical area of the country. It indicates that in 2011, about 6.77% area of the country was inhabited by 31.16% urban population of India. The metropolitan area in India is 0.29 million hectares, which is 1.34% of the total urban area. It means the non-metropolitan urban area covers 98.66% of the urban land of India and 6.68% of the country’s geographical area. Since 1961, both urban populations as the percentage of the total population and metropolitan population as the percentage of the total urban population have grown steadily. Figure 10.2 shows that the urban population in India had steadily grown from 17.9% in 1961 to 31.1% in 2011. On the other side, the metropolitan population had steadily increased from 23.6% in 1961 to 42.6% in 2011. Though growth rates in both cases are accelerated, the rate of growth has been faster for the metropolitan growth compared to total urban growth. According to the United Nations (UN) estimate, the attainable urban population in India will be 50% in 2050, which

45 40 35

Urban Population as percentage of total population

30 25 20

Metropolitan population as percentage of total urban population

15 10 5 0 1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Fig. 10.2 Growth of percentage urban population to total population and growth of percentage metropolitan population to total urban population (1961–2011). Source Census of India (1961– 2011)

232

10

Conclusion

will be about 815 million (United Nations 2014). From this and the past trends, India’s estimated metropolitan population by 2050 will be 60–65% of its total urban population. Considering the UN estimate on India’s urban population in 2050 at 815 million, the metropolitan population will be 530 million by the middle of this century. The metropolitan density of the population had been estimated to be 147 person/ ha in 2011. This density will certainly not be uniformly distributed radially along the line from the city center to peripheral areas. A negative exponential density gradient has been an established concept, though often with local ups and downs alignment of the density curve. In the absence of information on the rate of decay in density from the center to peripheral areas for different cities, the density in the newly delineated peripheral urban areas is expected to be half of the average metropolitan density. Taking city density to be 150 person/ha (actually 147 person/ha), the density in the newly urbanized peripheral areas will be approximately three times lower the average density at 50 person/ha (specifically 38 person/ha). Considering this density in 2050, the total land area of the metropolitan cities is expected to be 10.60 million hectares. This means that by 2050, an additional land area of 10.30 million hectares will be required for accommodating the future metropolitan load. The majority of the non-agricultural lands are converted to urban settlements because of the increase in urban administrative boundaries, and this pattern is more evident in metropolitan cities/UAs and metropolitan regions. In the case of MMR, presently, out of the total population share, 94% is urban. In fact, in MMR, urban situations are like ‘metropolises within metropolises.’ Greater Mumbai UA population consists of many metropolises, which include Greater Mumbai (12.4 million), Thane (1.8 million), Kalyan-Dombivali (1.22 million), Navi Mumbai (1.1 million). Vasai-Virar city, with a population of 1.22 million located very close to Mumbai city, is also part of MMR. Mira-Bhayander (0.8 million) and Bhiwandi Nizampur (0.7 million) very soon will receive metropolitan status. The population explosion in Mumbai/MMR requires either an increase of FAR or urban boundary expansion or a combination of both. If any boundary expansion happens in the future, surrounding agricultural land will be converted into urban settlements. In many metropolitan cities and metropolitan regions like Kolkata Metropolitan Region, BMR, these agricultural lands are very fertile, productive, and multi-cropped land. New metropolitanisation cannot afford more productive land. India is gradually improving its position as a food exporting country after meeting its internal demand, and therefore more productive land could not be spared. Underground city spaces should be used for future developmental activities, particularly in metro cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi, etc. Special blue and green zone need to be conserved within the metropolitan regions. The synergy between development and environment is the need of the hour. In India, planners and policymakers have somehow overlooked such potential spaces and have not integrated this into planning processes. Also, the traditional planning and management approach in India requires a fundamental shift from focusing on just one sector to the cross-sectoral integrated resource management approach.

10.5

10.5

Way Forward

233

Way Forward

Being global city-regions, BMR’s and MMR’s strategic vision must commensurate with ground metropolitan realities in one hand and the dynamics of the contemporary world economy on the other. There are many western models of sustainable city development, which are often not applicable to Indian situations due to their differential urban landscape, systems of urban management, municipal budgetary system besides cultural pursuits/traits, and overall urbanism. Although these models are quite efficient in the context of western cities, their relevance in India and similar situations are questionable. The present research on metropolitan regions like MMR and BMR represents an effort of examining the problems of metropolitan growth and hence developing a systematic model encompassing economic growth and spatial sustainability applicable for cities of the developing world. It has indicated many clues for further development of the approach and the model through its application in other metropolises of India and elsewhere. It also calls for the incorporation of other factors like environmental conditions, urbanism, social structure, etc. to make the model more comprehensive and realistic. It provides the future scope of research in many related directions. Some areas may be: • Revising the model structurally and introducing other factors of metropolitan growth and development. • Hybridization of the model by introducing Indian and Western concepts and methods of measuring metropolitan growth etc. Most of the metropolitan cities in the north-south corridor are transforming into multicultural socio-economic entities. While planning for metropolitan cities and its region, one should not ignore the inherent identity of the city and its cultural base. For example, Pune initially developed as cantonment town during British time emerged in the post-colonial era as an IT hub with a strong knowledge-driven economy. Pune has been the epicenter of Maratha culture for a long time. In Karnataka, rather than Bengaluru, Mysore is the main epicenter of Kannada culture and continues to remain so. In contemporary metropolitan planning, the cultural identity of the places should not be neglected. Implementation of metropolitan plans and policies requires better synergy between National, State, and Local administrative authority and division of responsibilities. Cooperative federalism (nation-state and local governments interact collectively for common problems) will help in achieving the metropolitan development agenda in the future. In India, significant issues faced by urban and metropolitan governance systems includes lack of coordination, lack of devolution of finances to local bodies, presence of a large number of Parastatals organization (quasi-government), overlapping of functions, lack of technical staff at local level, etc. (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2018). Metropolitan governance arrangement is mainly a bottom-up process and requires an extensive stakeholder consultation. UN-Habitat highlights some of the Good Governance Principles as part of the metropolitan governance reform process, which includes:

234

10

Conclusion

(i) Sustainability, (ii) Equity, (iii) Efficiency, (iv) Transparency and Accountability, and (v) Civic Engagement and Citizenship. The process of metropolitan arrangements has to be simple, ensuring both horizontal (inter-local bodies) and vertical (multi-level) integration, responsive, accountable with clarity on division of functions, and supported by agreed financial arrangements (Andersson 2015). India requires a separate metropolitan development policy for taking care of managing metropolitan land, infrastructure, water, energy, and innovative institutional mechanisms. Metropolitan growth must be supported by an effective governance mechanism, metropolitan policy formulation, and implementation.

References Ahlfeldt G (2019) High density cities are economically beneficial but lead to greater inequality. LSE News 01 May 2019. http://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2019/05-May-19/ High-density-cities-are-economically-beneficial-but-lead-to-greater-inequality. Accessed 10 Apr 2019 Andersson M (2015) Unpacking metropolitan governance for sustainable development. Discussion Paper. UN-Habitat and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). https://unhabitat.org/books/unpacking-metropolitan-governance-for-sustainable-developmentanalysis-of-case-studies-summary-reports-of-case-studies/. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 Bertaud A (2018) Order without design: how market shape cities. MIT Press, Cambridge Census of India (1961–2011) Primary census abstract, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Government of India Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2016) Pocket book of agricultural statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Government of India India Today (2018) Additional 0.5 FSI in island city of Mumbai, 10 Jan 2018. https://www. indiatoday.in/pti-feed/story/additional-0.5-fsi-in-island-city-of-mumbai-1131443-2018-01-10. Accessed 5 Jan 2019 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2018) National urban policy framework. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/ nupf_final.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2013) Version 4 DMSP-OLS night time lights time series imagery. National Canters for Environmental Information. https://ngdc.noaa.gov/ eog/dmsp/downloadV4composites.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2018 Roy S, Pradhan KC (2018) Census towns in India: current pattern and future discourse, Working Paper, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, pp 1–24. http://www.cprindia.org/research/ papers/census-towns-india-current-patterns-and-future-discourses. Accessed 1 Aug 2018 Times of India (2018) BJP invokes Atal Bihari Vajpayee, plans to expand AMRUT to smaller towns, Lucknow News, Times of India, 27 July 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ lucknow/bjp-invokes-atal-bihari-vajpayee-plans-to-expand-amrut-to-smaller-towns/ articleshow/65162926.cms. Accessed 3 Aug 2018 United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/ files/wup2014-report.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017