Abstract
Human civilization reached a milestone in the first decade of the 21st century, when the global urban population became higher than rural for the first time. However, the process of urbanisation is not uniform across the globe, and striking differences exist in the spatial structure and trends of urbanisation in developed and developing regions because of varying rates of demographic and economic growth. The success of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) depends on addressing urbanisation challenges with comparative knowledge of the spatial structure and growth pattern of the cities across regions. In this context, the present study examines the spatial structures and urbanisation trends of cities in Asia and Europe through standardised data and visualisation, with particular reference to India and Germany. The results show that ‘shrinking cities’ are more common in Europe and particularly in Germany. In contrast, Indian cities have registered an overall increase in population of cities, although at a slower growth rate. Also, the rate of growth of the built-up areas is relatively higher in India than Europe. However, both these geographies are experiencing higher growth of built-up areas as compared to population. A detailed analysis of the built-up areas in select cities of Europe and India in different time-periods reveals the cities’ growth pattern to be aligned with transport routes. The study concludes that developing a common methodological approach to study the spatial structures and trends of different geographies is a crucial prerequisite for achieving the goals set under SDGs and the New Urban Agenda.
Keywords
Introduction
The twenty-first century world is predominantly urban. According to the revised World Urbanization Prospects 2018, 55 per cent of the global population lives in urban areas, which is estimated to increase to 68 per cent by 2050. The percentage of the urban population in the European Union (EU) is estimated to rise from 76 per cent in 2018 to 85 per cent in 2050. Asia, as a whole would report an increase from the current 50 per cent to 76 per cent in 2050 (UNDESA, 2018). In Germany, the percentage would rise from the current 77 per cent to 84 per cent in 2050; and in India from 35 per cent to 53 per cent. The respective figures in China are 59 per cent and 80 per cent. These estimates show that the urban population will increase significantly in Asia as compared to the EU, and India and China would contribute significantly to this increment 1 .
The varying rates of demographic and economic growth of Europe and Asia throws up various challenges. Both Europe and the EU exhibit high levels of urbanization, but lower growth rates of population. A steady reduction in the rate of urbanization in this region began in the 1970s, and has been referred to as a process of ‘counter-urbanization’ (UNDESA, 2018). European cities which are in the later stage of demographic transition have been experiencing population ageing and a shortage of labour. ‘Shrinking cities’ with negative net growth rate are also high in this region (Haase, 2014). Asia, however, with a comparatively low level of urbanization, has been experiencing a higher rate of urbanization in the last few decades. The urban challenges in Asian cities are different from the European cities as the majority of its cities are experiencing high demographic growth without proper urban planning and adequate infrastructural investment, leading to a higher concentration of slum population and informal settlements. As a result, Asian cities are grappling with multiple challenges including shortage of housing stock, inadequate provisioning of basic services and other social infrastructures, food insecurity, climate change and clean environment (Muggah & Khanna, 2018).
In 2015, the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations signalled a major shift in the global agenda towards addressing the challenges of urbanization explicitly recognizing the latter as a transformative force for development, and cities as agent of change (UN-Habitat, 2018 as cited in United Nations, 2019). Importantly, the SDGs replaced the Millennium Development Goals, which had a comparatively limited urban focus to achieve substantial improvement in the lives of a minimum of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. In contrast, the SDGs not only include a goal dedicated to making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (SDG-11), but most of the other SDGs and their related indicators have an urban dimension (United Nations, 2015).
The existing literature in urban studies show that there have been limited attempts to study the cities of Asia and Europe through a comparative lens considering the broader goals mentioned in New Urban Agenda (see United Nations, 2017) and SDGs (see United Nations, 2015). The present study tries to fill this gap by analyzing the spatial structures and trends of cities in Asia and Europe through standardized data and visualization, with particular reference to India and Germany.
India and Germany both show polycentric urban and spatial structures. In India, there are 7,933 cities and towns amongst which 4,041 are statutory towns and 3,892 census towns. As urban development is a state subject in India, statutory towns are declared by state governments. Census towns, on the other hand, are declared by the Registrar General of India on the basis of sectoral diversification when rural settlements qualify the census definition according to the following criteria:
A minimum population of 5,000 people. About 75 per cent of all male main workers engaged in non-agricultural pursuits. A density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre (Census, 2011; Pradhan, 2017).
The period 2001–2011 witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of census towns in India by 2,530. In contrast, the number of statutory towns increased by only 242. A total of 322.8 million people, accounted for 86 per cent of the entire urban population of India, lived in statutory towns in 2011. At the same time, census towns housing 54.3 million urban dwellers accounted for the remaining 14 per cent of the total urban population.
In Europe, there are altogether 113,216 cities, towns and municipalities of which 108,517 are located in the EU. However, the total number of cities with 20,000 and more inhabitants sums up to 4,866 and 4,057 in Europe and the EU, respectively. The spatial situation is almost balanced between urban and rural regions. A long-term comparison (1961–2011) of the development of cities, towns and municipalities according to settlement type and size, as based on NUTS 3 settlement types and historic population numbers of EUROSTAT, confirms this. Approximately, 262 million people—the equivalent of 52 per cent of the entire population—lived in urbanized regions in 2011. At the same time, the remaining 48 per cent, constituting 240 million people, called rural regions their home. Metropolises and large cities contribute to about the same share of population as those of medium-sized towns. Around 28 per cent of the EU population lived in large cities in 2011, an amount that is similar to the one of those living in medium-sized towns. A total of 24 per cent of the total population of the EU were residents in small towns, whereas 20 per cent lived in rural municipalities in 2011.
The paper is structured in six sections. Following the introduction and methodology sections, the third section discusses the system of cities in which an attempt has been made to show the spatial pattern of cities through the city-size hierarchy. The fourth section analyzes the expansion of cities and urban sprawl in Europe and India, showing the growth of built-up area and the relationship between built-up area and population. The fifth section examines the development of built-up area in selected urban areas over a particular time period. The final section provides a summary of the major findings and concludes the study.
Methodology
The delineation of cities by population size and built-up area follows certain national administrative definitions. In India, these are represented by statutory and census towns and in Europe, by the respective Local Administrative Units (LAUs) or their merger to urban areas according to national definitions. The Census is the primary source of data for both the geographical units. The degree of urbanization and urban sprawl beyond administrative boundaries has been investigated on the basis of the Global Human Settlement Layer (European Commission, 2016) and a grid structure of 250 m. This allows for an analysis across a wider time span of data in the case of India as well as Europe and Germany, a period from 1990 to 2014. The study attempts to present a comparable cartographic picture, which entails the use of the Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection (Šavrič & Jenny, 2014) with respective mid-continentally oriented centring points. This method considers that these two geographical settings are in fact, similar to continents (The Economist, 2017). The chosen methodology has been used to generate a spatial picture on the population size and the development of cities in China also. This approach has been adopted for the sake of comparability of the geographical settings enabling the analytical outcomes into a powerful support system for decision-making.
The following sections visualize the analysis. Figures illustrate the spatial structures and trends in India and Europe/Germany. A comparative analysis of China has been attempted in some cases to illustrate the situation of Asian cities. Due to variations in the approach, stemming from a difference across cultures and cartographic schools in India and Europe/Germany, the visualization and contextual language may nonetheless, differ between maps and texts. The sequence of maps and accompanying texts comprises all relevant methodological elements of collection; compatibility, analysis and the visualization of data. It alternates, predominantly between India and Europe/Germany, in an attempt to pursue a balance and harmony across the data analysis—an approach that may be seen as truly an intercultural one.
Systems of Cities
Cities in Europe have grown at an average growth rate of 3.5 per cent during 2001–2011—a fact that applies at least from a pan-European perspective. According to the 2011 census results, 277 million people live in cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants. At that point of time, this represents 55 per cent of the EU population. The number has increased between 2001 and 2011 by 9 million people, that is, around 4 million in small- and medium-sized towns and around 5 million in large cities.
During 2001–2011, the urban population decreased in many eastern European countries, for example, in Romania by around 8 per cent and in Lithuania and Latvia by 12 per cent. In comparison to that, the number of urban inhabitants increased in the same period by 3.7 million in Spain (14 per cent) and by 1 million people in France (4.3 per cent). Medium-sized cities lost inhabitants in a number of countries, especially in the eastern European countries and Germany. In Germany, these cities have lost around 500,000 people between 2001 and 2011.
Regional variations can be identified within the general trend of growing cities. In Eastern Europe, where growth has occurred, it has been clearly concentrated in large metropolises. In Western Europe, population decline is particularly notable in medium-sized cities. In Western Spain, these cities are shrinking at the same time as others along the coast in the eastern and southern parts are growing. In France, similar differences can be found between the northern and the southern regions of the country.
In Germany, on the other hand, medium-sized cities are mainly shrinking in the central and eastern parts, while they are growing in the north and south. Large cities with over 500,000 inhabitants had been shrinking in the western parts until 2011. In some cities in East Germany, the trends of the last years towards shrinking have been reversed. This is a development that can also be observed in Northern Italy as well (Figure-1).
Unlike European cities, cities in Asia have exhibited a more rapid growth of urban population. This trend is noticed in both India and China, the two most populous countries in the Asian continent. Indian cities have registered an overall increase in population although some cities have registered negative growth. The overall growth rate of urbanization increased slightly from 2.4 to 2.7 per cent over the last two decades. The city hierarchy in India as part of its overall polycentric structure is defined by the size classes of cities and towns according to their population size. In India, there are six size classes of towns and cities: Class-I (100,000 and above), Class-II (50,000–99,999), Class-III (20,000–49,999), Class-IV (10,000–19,999), Class-V (5,000–9,999) and Class-VI (less than 5,000). A total of 70.19 per cent of the urban population lived in large cities (class-I UAs/Towns), and nearly half lived in non-metropolitan class-I cities according to the 2011 Census. However, the share of metropolitan cities with a population of 1–5 million people as well as 5 million and above in class-I cities was 32 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively. The number of metropolitan cities in India increased during the period of 2001–2011 from 35 to 52. As a part of this, the state Kerala witnessed the highest increase in the number of metropolitan cities. Out of the 18 new metropolitan cities, six were located in Kerala in 2011. Additionally, a large number of metropolitan cities are also found in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. One of the noticeable trends in the last decade has been the stagnation in growth rate of pre-existing metropolitan cities and a relatively higher growth rate of new metropolitan cities (HSMI-NIUA, 2017). The latter is to be accounted to the merger of new census towns and the expansion of municipal boundaries. In fact, the New Delhi Municipal Council and the Mumbai Central District both registered negative growth rates. However, cities like Hyderabad and Bangalore experienced growth rates above the national average due to the expansion of their municipal boundaries. In 2011, there were altogether 505 cities with over 100,000 inhabitants in India, out of which 485 were statutory towns and 20 were census towns.
In urban India, the number of cities and towns increased in each size class between 2001 and 2011. The highest increase was registered in class-V towns (20,000–50,000 population) followed by class-IV and class-III towns, mainly owing to new census towns emerging in these classes. Overall, the size class distribution of statutory towns shows an upward shift from lower classes to higher ones. The percentage share of population of medium-sized towns (class-II) and large cities (class-I) in the total urban population declined during 2001–2011. In contrast, the share of small towns, which have come up as new census towns, has increased. States with the highest number of new census towns are West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Tamil Nadu reported the highest number of statutory towns followed by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. The distribution of statutory towns in India shows a high concentration in the Indo-Gangetic Plain in North India and in the southeast coastal regions of South India (Figure-2).
As a comparison, China, the most populous country in Asia, exhibits a polycentric urban spatial structure. Metropolises and large cities are particularly located in the eastern and southeastern part of the country along the coast. Another stretches of cities are seen parallel to rivers and their deltas as well as ancient trade routes. Chongqing, at the confluence of Yangtze River and Jialing River in the southwestern part of the country, together with its surrounding cities, constitutes another urbanized belt. In general, cities in China are growing at an annual rate of 1.5 per cent due to an ongoing rural exodus. Migration to cities has now become easier for most people in China, as the traditional registration system for urban dwellers, also known as hukou, is undergoing a reform that is planned to be implemented by 2020. In Beijing and Shanghai, the registration system is handled differently as compared to other cities, due to the prominent role and economic function these two metropolises play in the context of the country. At the same time, China too, is experiencing a decline in the growth of certain cities. These shrinking cities, some of which show a negative annual growth rate of 1.5 per cent, are either located near larger growing cities, or in remote areas of the northwestern and northeastern parts of China (Figure-3) (The State Council, 2014; Chen et al., 2017).
Expansion of Cities and Urban Sprawl
General Picture of Built-Up Area
India is a country predominantly made up of villages. With only one-third of the population living in urban areas (UNDESA, 2018), this accounts for a low share of built-up cover. The spatial pattern of built-up areas shows that the Union Territory of Chandigarh had an exceptionally high level of built-up area in 2014, followed by Delhi, Daman & Diu and Puducherry. This is linked to the high level of urbanization in these Union Territories. In Chandigarh and Delhi, 97 per cent of the population lives in urban areas. States like Kerala and Goa exhibit a high share of built-up areas. In Kerala, this is linked to emergence of new metropolitan cities and census towns during 2001–2011, as well as increasing housing construction due to the flow of remittances from the Gulf Region.
In 2014, the share of built-up area in developed states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra was above the national average but below 10 per cent. However, states with a low level of urbanization and low GDP, such as Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Odisha reported built-up area lower than national average ranging from 2 per cent to 4 per cent. The lowest share of built-up areas was found in the northeastern and mountainous states such as Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.
The spatial pattern of built-up areas at the district level in 2014 shows that Kolkata had the highest built-up area density, followed by Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mahe, Chandigarh, Mumbai, Yanam and Bangalore. The districts with the lowest built-up area density are mainly located in the northern region: Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. The central part of India, including several districts in Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, experienced a low level of built-up area density due to high level of forest cover and low level of urbanization. The districts in South India show a higher built-up area density compared to the districts in North India, possibly attributable to their high level of urbanization and economic development (Figure-4).
Europe provides, at a first glance, the impression of being a largely unsettled area—only 4 per cent of its territory is classified as a built-up area. The respective national shares range from 0.3 per cent in Finland to 33 per cent in Malta. The Netherlands and Belgium, as larger countries with a higher population density, show a share of around 16 per cent each, whereas the share in the United Kingdom and Germany is 6 per cent and 8 per cent, respectively.
The axis stretching from Mid-England via the Netherlands, Belgium and the Rhine Valley to Lombardy—Brunet’s so-called Blue Banana (Brunet, 2002)—illustrates the core and intensely interconnected settlement area of Europe, extended by built-up areas towards Paris via Lille, to Hamburg and Copenhagen as well as towards the southern part of Poland and including the Leipzig–Dresden area. The share of built-up area in the respective entire city reaches 95 per cent in London and 86 per cent in Paris. The highest equivalent value in Germany amounts to 76 per cent in Oberhausen and Gelsenkirchen in the Ruhr Area and just half of the city area in Berlin (Figure-5).
Outside the denser built-up areas in the core of Europe, the coastlines of France, Spain, Portugal and Italy also reveal a respective higher share of built-up areas up to 10 per cent outside city regions.
There are around 25,000 people living per square kilometre of built-up area in a city like Paris, whereas up to 13,000 people share the same space in London—a city where the occupation of buildings is more related to business and office purposes, rather than housing. In general, it can be stated that building density is not necessarily linked to the population density of the respective area. Against the background of a comparable or even higher number of persons living per square kilometre than in Paris, quite a lot of sparsely populated rural areas all over Europe show a high concentration of population. Covering less than 1 per cent of the respective built-up area, the number of inhabitants in the region of Corum in Turkey hit around 27,000, and in the Swedish region of Jämtlands, around 50,000—which corresponds to almost the entire population of its city of Östersund (Figure-5).
Development of Built-Up Area
It is not surprising that the growth of built-up areas mainly takes place outside metropolitan and urban centres. Built-up areas increased in all the EU Member States between 1990 and 2014 on an average by 1.2 per cent per year. This rate is around 1.3 per cent higher when the countries of the European Freed Trade Association, West Balkan countries and Turkey are included. The growth rate was about 0.4 per cent in the urban centres of the EU, 1.1 per cent in more densely populated regions, and 1.5 per cent in more rural areas.
Growth differs between countries as well as between the categories of regionalized building density. The growth rates in Austria and Belgium lie within the range of the European annual average of 1.3 per cent, with almost two-thirds of this rate occurring in less densely settled regions, and regions in Belgium that have a large share of built-up area outside of larger cities. Considering that the growth rates in Germany and Greece are 1 per cent lower than the EU-28 average, growth is concentrated in medium densely built-up areas, with a share of 65 per cent in the first case, and in the latter case, 80 per cent of new buildings are located in rural areas. In Spain and Portugal, the increase of 2 per cent in both cases is significantly above the average, whereas in the Netherlands this rate even amounts to 2.5 per cent. The built-up areas in Spain and Portugal have mainly increased in rural areas, taking into account a higher portion in medium densely built-up regions in Portugal. More than half of the new building sites in the Netherlands are built in highly dense settlement areas, amounting to a growth rate of 1.3 per cent. Out of all the EU Member States, the Netherlands exhibits the highest growth rate in urban area overall (Figure-6).
The territorial pattern captures the concentration of building activities in the surroundings of capital cities and major urban centres. Hotspots of this development include the Dublin area in Ireland, the wider rings around Paris and Madrid, as well as the South of the Netherlands, which has shown 6 per cent annual increase in built-up area (Figure-6).
During 1990 and 2014, built-up areas increased at an annual rate of 4.45 per cent in India. The Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli witnessed the highest annual change of built-up areas (18.69 per cent) followed by Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and Chhattisgarh. These states experienced an annual change in built-up areas of 6 per cent and above. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu are states in which built-up areas increased at an annual rate of 5 per cent to 6 per cent. In contrast, the lowest annual percentage change of built-up areas was found in the Union Territories of Chandigarh, Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands during the same period. Amongst the states, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland had the lowest annual percentage change of built-up areas. The spatial pattern of the annual percentage change of built-up areas indicates that states in North India experienced a higher annual change as compared to states in the South. The regions with a very low change in built-up areas earlier experienced a higher change between 1990 and 2014.
A high variation in the annual percentage change in built-up areas exists at district level. About 40 districts experienced an annual change below 1 per cent. Several of these districts are located in the northern states, Jammu & Kashmir and Delhi, while some of them are also located in Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Daman & Diu and Mizoram. About 464 districts experienced an annual change of 1–10 per cent in built-up areas. However, a total of 117 districts reported an annual change of 11–50 per cent. Narayanpur District of Chhattisgarh and Supaul District of Bihar saw the highest annual change of built-up areas. Likewise, there are 13 other districts, of which seven districts are located in Uttar Pradesh, which experienced an annual change in built-up areas of 50 per cent and above. Districts in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha experienced higher annual percentage changes (Figure-7).
Relation of Built-Up Area and Population Development
Built-up areas and population increased across all states of India between 1990 and 2014. However, the relationship between population growth and the change in built-up areas differs from one state to the other. As part of this, the ratio between land consumption by building activities and the population increase indicates the demands for space in different regions.
According to the relation between the annual percentage change of built-up areas and population increase in India, three different groups of regions emerge. The first includes those districts which experienced an increase in built-up areas and a decline in population growth between 1990 and 2014. This group comprises a total of 1.07 per cent of the population and 1.43 per cent of all built-up areas in the country. In these districts, the population shrank by −0.46 per cent, whereas built-up areas increased at an annual rate of 2.23 per cent. There is no spatial clustering of these districts, yet the majority of them are located in the northeastern states. Sikkim, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Daman & Diu are other states where districts of this group are located (Figure-8). Out of a total of 640 districts in India, only 25 fall into this category.
The second group consists of those districts in which the population growth is higher than the development of built-up areas. Altogether, 63 districts are part of this group covering 10.6 per cent of the population and 6.96 per cent of the entire built-up area of India. In these districts, the population grew at an annual rate of 2.06 per cent, in the same way as the built-up areas increased at an annual rate of 1.17 per cent. The districts are mainly located in the northeastern states and in Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Jharkhand, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Thane District of Maharashtra and Bangalore District of Karnataka also fall in this group (Figure-8). Provision of housing and infrastructure is likely to constitute the main urban challenges in these districts.
Those districts which have experienced a higher annual percentage change of built-up areas compared to population growth constitute the third group. This is the largest group in India and contains 553 districts. These comprise a total of 88.3 per cent of the entire population and 91.6 per cent of all built-up areas in the country. In these districts, built-up areas grew at an annual rate of 4.92 per cent. However, the population grew only at an annual rate of 1.64 per cent. The increase in population and the built-up areas in these districts can be explained by the economic progress of most states since the 1990s. In the last two decades, infrastructure has improved due to economic development. However, population growth has stabilized in most of the districts.
Built-up areas grew in most of the regions in Europe between 1990 and 2014. The ratio of land consumption by building activities and the population increase divides regions in three groups. The first includes regions with an increase in built-up area and a shrinking number of inhabitants. This category comprises 36 per cent of the EU-28 NUTS3 regions and 29 per cent of their population. The population here decreases on an average by 0.6 per cent per year, whereas built-up areas grow at a rate of 1.2 per cent annually. Eastern European regions, central and eastern parts of Germany and almost the entire eastern part of Spain and southern Italy dominate this territorial picture (Figure-9).
The second group includes regions in which the development of built-up areas lags behind population increase. These are mainly metropolitan regions in Western Europe and capital regions in Eastern Europe in which around 18 per cent of the EU population inhabits (Figure-9). The average population growth rate of 1.2 per cent meets an annual increase of built-up areas by 0.4 per cent in these regions. It is possible that this mismatch leads to challenges in housing supply and the adjustment of infrastructure.
Those regions in which the increase of built-up areas is higher than the increase in population increase constitute the third group. More than half of the EU population lives in these regions. The number of inhabitants increases by 0.4 per cent annually, whereas built-up areas grow with an annual rate of 1.4 per cent. These regions surround metropolitan regions in the more prosperous parts of the EU and connect them (Figure-9).
Development of Built-Up Area in Selected Urban Areas
The growth of the built environment of metropolitan cities and areas in Europe is inevitable, regardless of which path demographic and economic development takes. Metropolitan regions in Poland, Italy and France show the fastest percentage increase of built-up areas from 1975 to 2014 outside the respective capital regions; for example, in Krakow, Padova and Montpellier, the built-up areas tripled in size.
The grand metropolitan regions of Paris, followed by Madrid, Amsterdam, London and Warsaw, as well as the non-capital regions of Marseille and Katowice are characterized by the highest absolute increase. About 770 km2 of un-built land in Paris was developed into a built environment, as was 430 km2 in Warszawa.
The metropolitan areas of Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden and Frankfurt/Main are the regions in Germany with the highest absolute growth of built-up areas. The amount of land claimed for the purposes of developing built-up areas summed up to 370 km2 in Berlin and 230 km2 in Frankfurt/Main, respectively. The highest percentage change can be found in larger cities of Germany located outside metropolitan areas, such as Regensburg, Münster and Rostock.
The morphology of urban sprawl depends on the overall structure of the respective urban system, be it more mono- or polycentric. Visualizing built-up area development against various time periods, from 1975 to 2014, and on the basis of a distinct above-average share of the built-up area of more than 25 per cent by LAU, reveals different types of urban sprawl.
The metropolitan region of Paris, with a more monocentric appearance in the wider regional perspective, grows from the edges of its dense built-up areas into the surrounding areas following the main infrastructure lines. In the region of London, growth islands appear to be connected to cities through a point-by-point structure, forming a broader ring which joins public transport systems (Figure-10).
Urban sprawl takes place in more polycentric urban structures in between cities that connect dense built-up area nuclei, as in the area of Rhein/Main–Rhein/Neckar in Germany. Against the intensified development of built-up areas, particularly after the year 2000, a single multi-centre urban area started to take shape in Belgium in the areas of Bruxelles/Brussels–Antwerpen/Anvers and Gent (Figure-10).
Many cities in India are expanding their boundaries alongside their growth in population and built-up areas. The growth pattern of select Indian cites based on the expansion of their built-up areas is discussed briefly. Ahmedabad is the fifth largest metropolitan city of India, home to a population of 5.6 million people and characterized by a density of 10,858 persons per square kilometre in 2011. The core of the city is highly dense with an average share of over 25 per cent built-up area since 1975. The first development plan of Ahmedabad prepared by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) in 1987 spurred the share of built-up areas in the northwestern and southwestern suburban parts of the city. The increase in the built-up area in these parts may be attributed to residential development and the construction of international airport in 1992. The AUDA adopted a polycentric growth approach in 2007 and declared its four growth centres—Kalol, Dahegam, Sanand and Mahemdabad as planning areas (Figure-11).
Dubbed as Silicon Valley of India, Bangalore is one of the fastest expanding cities in the country with higher number of information-technology-based industries. In 2011, Bangalore had a population of 8.5 million people with a population density of 11,470 persons per square kilometre. Its built-up area largely developed through a radial expansion of the city and around its ring roads as well as in its peripheries due to the increasing demand of residential areas for workers in the service sector. The new residential township Kalyan Nagar, thus, developed in North Bangalore a well as the Keneri Satellite Town evolved in the southwest periphery of Bangalore during the period of 1990–2000, resulting in an increase in the built-area of above 25 per cent in both the areas (Figure-11).
Delhi, the Capital City of India is the second largest metropolitan city after Mumbai. The city was home to 16.4 million people with a density of 14,153 persons per square kilometre in 2011. As a historic city, its core is densely built. More than 25 per cent of the city was already covered as built-up area in 1975. Its expansion occurred in the peripheral northwest and southwest during 1975–1990 due to emerging unplanned residential colonies. In the period of 1990–2000, the Delhi Development Authority developed Dwarka in its southwest as a planned residential area, resulting in an increase in the built-up area of more than 25 per cent (Figure-11).
Madurai has been a major city in the South for two millennia and holds prominence till date as the second largest city in Tamil Nadu by area covered, and the third largest city by population. In 2011, Madurai had a population of 1.47 million people with a population density of 9,903 persons per square kilometre. As an ancient city, its core already consisted of over 25 per cent a built-up area in 1975. From 1975 to 1990, the built-up area increased in its eastern and western peripheries, registering a rise of above 25 per cent. Between 2000 and 2014, urban sprawls were visible in the northeast, southeast as well as in southern parts, with the Uthangudi Area and the Chinna Anuppanadi Area as prominent examples (Figure-11).
Conclusion
Cities in Asia and Europe exhibit different patterns of spatial and demographic growth. In the present study, Census data has been used as a common database to ensure comparability. Considering the methodological approaches for India and Germany, similarities and dissimilarities may not be immediately obvious. However, in principle, the process of data sourcing and data analysis is same for the analysis of spatial structures and trends of cities of Europe and Asia. Also, due to a common layout, the visual elements are similar for India and EU/Germany. What is certainly different is the status of cities: the statistical units of LAU and/or their aggregations to cities according to national delineations had been selected as a common basis for producing the spatial picture of Europe; whereas classes of statutory towns and census towns have been used in India along with states and districts..
The results from the present study show that the pattern of shrinking cities is more common in both Europe and Germany. However, Indian cities have registered an overall increase in population with few exceptions. The built-up area is relatively higher in the core and intensely interconnected settlement area of Europe, and along the coastlines of France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. In India, Union Territories and states with higher economic development have higher built-up areas. The rate of growth of the built-up areas during 1990–2014 is relatively higher in India as compared to Europe. An annual increase of the built-up area generally correlates with an annual increase of the respective population. However, the present study shows the relationship between built-up areas and population development follows diverse patterns:
Increase in built-up areas associated with decline in population. Population growth is higher than the development of built-up areas. Development of built-up areas is higher than the population growth.
What are the reasons and the respective driving forces in either geographical setting for this type of land consumption and ratio dichotomy?
Zooming in on territories and constructing a time series on the basis of annual percentage changes, thus, enabling a comparison of urban structures, might lead to a possible answer. Land consumption usually takes place along the site of transport routes—whether they are radial as in Paris and Bangalore, point-shaped like in London and Delhi or reticular as in Bruxelles/Brussel–Antwerpen/Anvers and Ahmedabad.
Visualizing the spatial structures and trends of different geographies is a crucial prerequisite for understanding possible implications for its territories, urbanized areas and cities. The challenges deriving from these implications are similar in various countries. Urbanization partnerships could be an appropriate setting for addressing this visualization. In pursuing an approach that is orientated towards the compatability of data sets across India and Germany, the present paper can be seen laying the groundwork for further bilateral activities in the field of urban and spatial research at a global scale. The initial steps towards this have also been initiated in this paper through the inclusion of a cartographic visualization of the population development of cities in China, as another eminent part of Asia.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This article is an outcome of a research cooperation between the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) in Berlin/Bonn (Germany) and the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) in New Delhi (India). The authors are grateful to Dr Aparajita Ghatak (NIUA), Dr Biswajit Mandol and Ms. Aksheyta Gupta for preparing the GIS based maps and Mr T. C. Sharma for data handling.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.