Suburbanization of India’s Cities

1

Kala Seetharam SridharPublic Affairs Centre

Bangalore

Conference on the 21st Century Indian City:Towns, Metros and the Indian Economy

University of California Berkeley and

Indian Institute of Human SettlementsBangalore

March 26, 2013

2

Presentation Overview General and b-suburbanization Theory Bangalore and other cities’ suburbanization Estimated and calculated density gradients for

India’s cities Determinants of population and employment

suburbanization Policy implications

Suburbanization of Population and Jobs in India, 1981-2001

3

% 1981 Population suburban

% 1991 Population suburban

%2001 Population suburban

% 1991 Jobs Suburban

% 2001 Jobs Suburban

Average 20.67 21.33 17.52% 21.76 17.94%Maximum 92.52 92.31 87.19% 92.85 88.20%Minimum 0.18 0.05 0.19% 0.12 0.17%Std.Dev 20.08 20.14 0.18 20.11 0.18Observations 233 374 336 374 336

Sources: Sridhar (2007), 2001 Census PCA and author’s analyses

Population Suburbanization in India’s Metropolitan Areas, 1981-01

4

% Population suburban, 1981

% Population suburban, 1991

% Population suburban, 2001

Delhi 10 11 21

Kolkata 64 60 65

Mumbai NA* 21 27

Chennai 24 29 34

Sources: Sridhar (2007), 2001 Census PCA and author’s analyses

5

Suburbanization: Theoretical Framework

Standard exponential population density function Gradient

Bangalore: Density Function, 1991

61991 municipal area: 126 sq km

Bangalore: Density Function, 2001

71991 municipal area: 226 sq km

Estimates of Population Density Functions for Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, Conventional

City Center

8

Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991 

 Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio

  Intercept 9.17*** 0.28 33.21

 Gradient (with conventional city center), 1991

0.10*** 0.03 3.49

  R2 0.18

  Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001  

 Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio

  Intercept 10.75*** 0.18 59.92

 Gradient (with conventional city center), 2001

-0.05*** 0.01 3.64

  R2 0.12

Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions 

Source: Sridhar (2007)

Estimates of Population Density Functions for Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, New

City Center

9

Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991

Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratioIntercept 10.77*** 0.20 54.68Gradient (with (ward 20) center)

-0.06*** 0.02 -3.94

R2 0.22Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001

Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratioIntercept 10.79*** 0.11 97.82Gradient (with (ward 32) center)

-0.05*** 0.01 -6.83

R2 0.33

Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions Source: Sridhar (2007)

10

Two-Point Gradient Technique

Rc

R

Lc

L

]ebRe[b

DerDdr)r(rDL CC

C C

bRC

bRR R

brC

12

220

20

0

0

]ebRe[b

DerDdr)r(rDL

bRbRR R

br 12

220

20

0

0

bRbR

bRc

bRc

ebRe

ebRe

L

L cc

1

1

Summary of Population Density Gradients (Calculated)

11

1981 1991 (Same subset as in 1981)

% Change (Same subset of UAs) 1981-91

1981 (All UAs)

1991 (All UAs)

% Change (all UAs) 1981-91

Average, all 0.4783 0.4303 -10.04% 0.4933 0.4669 -5.35%

Maximum 0.9910 0.9780 -1.31% 0.9910 0.9983 0.74%Minimum 0.0117 0.0262 123.93% 0.0102 0.0072 -29.41%

Std.Dev 0.2414 0.2397 -0.70% 0.2649 0.2697 1.79%Observations 80 80 80 94 154 77

Average, metros*

0.2467 0.1963

-20.43%

NA NA -20.44%

Max, metros 0.3475 0.2995 -13.81% NA NA -13.81%Min, metros 0.1870 0.1244 -33.48% NA NA -33.48%

Std.dev, metros

0.0878 0.0745-15.15%

NA NA -15.08%

Source: Sridhar (2007)

12

The Impact of Land Use Regulations on Population Suburbanization

Dependent variable mean= 0.44R-squared= 0.57 Adjusted R-squared = 0.50Number of observations= 68

Variable Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio Variable mean Constant 0.5539** 0.2807 1.9737 Population (in thousands) 0.0000 0.0000 -0.6657 869.04 Income (in thousands) -0.0040 0.0028 -1.4326 63.88 Proportion jobs suburbanized -0.1176 0.1275 -0.9224 0.30 Number of local governments, 1981 0.0026 0.0038 0.6803 6.60 Ratio of unemployment rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.0031 0.0079 0.3951 1.58 Ratio of literacy rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.1639 0.1702 0.9631 1.03 Ratio of SC/STs in central city to that in suburbs -0.1340* 0.0752 -1.7825 0.81 Lagged (1981) value of population gradient 0.5705*** 0.0966 5.9032 0.47 Maximum permissible residential FAR -0.0745** 0.0349 -2.1355 2.34 ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No) 0.0521 0.0475 1.0969 0.40

Source: Sridhar (2007)

13

The Impact of Land Use Regulations on Employment Suburbanization

Dependent variable mean= 0.43R-squared= 0.48 Adjusted R-squared = 0.38Number of observations= 68

Variable Coeff. Std.Err. t-ratio Variable mean Constant 0.2429 0.2524 0.9623 Population (in thousands) -0.0001** 0.0000 -2.1372 865.32 Number of local governments, 1981 0.0060 0.0038 1.5710 6.60 Worker emoluments as a proportion of value of output for state 1.7022 2.1510 0.7914 0.06 Proportion in labor force -0.3128 0.6001 -0.5213 0.30 Ratio of literacy rate in central city to that in suburbs 0.1034 0.1779 0.5810 1.02 Ratio of SC/STs in central city to that in suburbs -0.0675 0.0714 -0.9452 0.81 Lagged (1981) value of population gradient 0.4876*** 0.1038 4.6967 0.48 Proportion population suburbanized -0.2771** 0.1342 -2.0655 0.30 Maximum permissible non-residential FAR 0.0005 0.0438 0.0113 2.55 ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No) -0.0198 0.0664 -0.2983 0.38

Source: Sridhar (2007)

Estimation of Welfare Gains

14

Source: Brueckner & Sridhar 2012

Policy Implications

Impact of various factors on suburbanization and spatial area of Indian cities Suburbanization of population and jobs

Data limitations Conflict between suburban development

and rural land uses

15

Thank you for your attention!Questions? You can write to me at

kala@pacindia.org

16