Suburbanization of India’s Cities
Kala Seetharam Sridhar
Public 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 Settlements
Bangalore
March 26, 2013
1
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
2
Suburbanization of Population
and Jobs in India, 1981-2001
% 1981
% 1991
%2001
% 1991 % 2001
Population Population Population Jobs
Jobs
suburban suburban suburban Suburban Suburban
Average
20.67
21.33
Maximum
92.52
92.31
Minimum
0.18
0.05
Std.Dev
20.08
20.14
Observations 233
374
17.52%
87.19%
0.19%
0.18
336
21.76
92.85
0.12
20.11
374
17.94%
88.20%
0.17%
0.18
336
Sources: Sridhar (2007), 2001 Census PCA and author’s analyses
3
Population Suburbanization in India’s
Metropolitan Areas, 1981-01
% Population % Population % Population
suburban,
suburban,
suburban,
1981
1991
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
4
Suburbanization: Theoretical
Framework
Standard exponential population density function
 Gradient
D(r) = D0e-br
D(r)

14.0000
12.0000
10.0000
8.0000
6.0000
4.0000
2.0000
0.0000
CBD
b1 = 0.4, D2(r)
b2 = 0.8 D1(r)
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19
R
x (Distance from the CBD)
D1(r)
D2(r)
5
Bangalore: Density Function,
1991
1991 density
140000
120000
100000
80000
1991 density
60000
40000
20000
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1991 municipal area: 126 sq km
6
Bangalore: Density Function,
2001
2001 density
120000
100000
80000
60000
2001 density
40000
20000
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1991 municipal area: 226 sq km
7
Estimates of Population Density Functions for
Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, Conventional
City Center
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991
Coeff.
Std.Err.
Intercept
9.17***
0.28
Gradient (with conventional city
0.10***
0.03
center), 1991
R2
0.18
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001
Coeff.
Intercept
10.75***
Gradient (with conventional city center), -0.05***
2001
R2
0.12
t-ratio
33.21
3.49
Std.Err.
t-ratio
0.18
0.01
59.92
3.64
Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions
Source: Sridhar (2007)
8
Estimates of Population Density Functions
for Bangalore, India, 1991 and 2001, New
City Center
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 1991
Coeff.
10.77***
-0.06***
Std.Err.
0.20
0.02
t-ratio
54.68
-3.94
Coeff.
10.79***
-0.05***
Std.Err.
0.11
0.01
t-ratio
97.82
-6.83
Intercept
Gradient (with (ward 20)
center)
R2
0.22
Dependent Variable: Natural logarithm of population density, 2001
Intercept
Gradient (with (ward 32)
center)
R2
0.33
Number of observations=57 (wards) for 1991 regressions and 97 for 2001 regressions
Source: Sridhar (2007)
9
Two-Point Gradient Technique
Lc
L
RC
RC
0
0
Rc
R
LC   2rD( r )dr   2rD0 e br 
R
R
0
0
L   2rD( r )dr   2rD0 e br 
2D0
bRC
bRC
[
1

e

bR
e
]
C
2
b
2D0
 bR
bR
[
1

e

bR
e
]
2
b
Lc 1  e  bRc  bRc e  bRc

L 1  e bR  bR e bR
10
Summary of Population Density
Gradients (Calculated)
1981
Average, all
Maximum
Minimum
Std.Dev
Observations
Average,
metros*
Max, metros
Min, metros
Std.dev,
metros
0.4783
0.9910
0.0117
0.2414
80
0.2467
0.3475
0.1870
0.0878
1991 (Same % Change 1981 (All
subset as in (Same
UAs)
1981)
subset of
UAs)
1981-91
0.4303
-10.04% 0.4933
0.9780
0.9910
-1.31%
0.0262
123.93% 0.0102
0.2397
0.2649
-0.70%
80
80
94
0.1963
NA
-20.43%
0.2995
-13.81% NA
0.1244
-33.48% NA
0.0745
NA
-15.15%
Source: Sridhar (2007)
1991 (All % Change
UAs)
(all UAs)
1981-91
0.4669
0.9983
0.0072
0.2697
154
NA
-5.35%
0.74%
-29.41%
1.79%
77
-20.44%
NA
NA
NA
-13.81%
-33.48%
-15.08%
11
The Impact of Land Use Regulations on
Population Suburbanization
Variable
Constant
Population (in thousands)
Income (in thousands)
Proportion jobs suburbanized
Number of local governments, 1981
Ratio of unemployment rate in
central city to that in suburbs
Ratio of literacy rate in central city
to that in suburbs
Ratio of SC/STs in central city to
that in suburbs
Lagged (1981) value of population
gradient
Maximum permissible residential
FAR
ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No)
Coeff.
0.5539**
0.0000
-0.0040
-0.1176
0.0026
Std.Err.
0.2807
0.0000
0.0028
0.1275
0.0038
t-ratio
1.9737
-0.6657
-1.4326
-0.9224
0.6803
Variable mean
0.0031
0.0079
0.3951
1.58
0.1639
0.1702
0.9631
1.03
-0.1340*
0.0752
-1.7825
0.81
0.5705***
0.0966
5.9032
0.47
-0.0745**
0.0521
0.0349
0.0475
-2.1355
1.0969
2.34
0.40
Dependent variable mean= 0.44
R-squared= 0.57
Adjusted R-squared = 0.50
Number of observations= 68
869.04
63.88
0.30
6.60
Source: Sridhar (2007)
12
The Impact of Land Use Regulations on
Employment Suburbanization
Variable
Constant
Population (in thousands)
Number of local governments, 1981
Worker emoluments as a proportion of
value of output for state
Proportion in labor force
Ratio of literacy rate in central city to
that in suburbs
Ratio of SC/STs in central city to that in
suburbs
Lagged (1981) value of population
gradient
Proportion population suburbanized
Maximum permissible non-residential
FAR
ULCRA (1=Yes; 0=No)
Coeff.
0.2429
-0.0001**
0.0060
Std.Err.
0.2524
0.0000
0.0038
t-ratio
0.9623
-2.1372
1.5710
Variable mean
1.7022
-0.3128
2.1510
0.6001
0.7914
-0.5213
0.06
0.30
0.1034
0.1779
0.5810
1.02
-0.0675
0.0714
-0.9452
0.81
0.4876***
-0.2771**
0.1038
0.1342
4.6967
-2.0655
0.48
0.30
0.0005
-0.0198
0.0438
0.0664
0.0113
-0.2983
2.55
0.38
Dependent variable mean= 0.43
R-squared= 0.48
Adjusted R-squared = 0.38
Number of observations= 68
865.32
6.60
Source: Sridhar (2007)
13
Estimation of Welfare Gains
Source: Brueckner &
Sridhar 2012
Component
Magnitude
Percentage reduction in
city area (average of
linear and semilog
effects)
20%
Area reduction in square
km (0.20 × 81.65)
16.33
Reduction in city's radius
in km
0.54
Reduction in edge
household's commuting
cost (0.54 × 969 Rs
(1.08×2×6×44×1.7) per
year per km)
523 Rs
Aggregate annual welfare 106.0 million
gain (523 × 750,000/3.7) Rs.
14
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