Chapter 4

Urbanization and Urban Sprawl

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Cities in India are experiencing massive urbanization apart from economic
growth, a direct result of globalization, bringing about drastic changes in population,
ecology, social and economic aspects (Ramachandra and Sowmyashree, 2012).
Aristotle once said that people come together in cities to live, however they remain
together to live the good life. Cities have become junctions in the flows of people,
freight, finance and information and no longer a conducive place for people to live and
work (Ellis and Harris, 2004). The topic of urbanization has evinced a lot of interest
among researchers including experts in the field of ecology, sociology, civil
engineering apart from city planners, policy makers and administrators. Urbanization
results in sprawl which is the scattered development of peripheral rural areas of the
city (Theobald, 2001; Bugliarello, 2003). Uneven development usually alongside the
highways or in the peri-urban region surrounding the city resulting in destruction of
farm lands and eco-sensitive habitats is referred to as sprawl (McGarigal and Marks,
1994). Sprawl may also be characterized as fragmented spaces consuming excess land,
lower densities with less choice of transport and types of housing. Urban sprawl being
a complex phenomenon has no measurable or specific definition (Sutton, 2003).
Sprawl being a multi-dimensional phenomenon can cause a lot of confusion. Urban
expansion or spatial growth exceeding growth in population in metropolitan areas may
also be considered as sprawl (Burgess, 1998).
Urban sprawl is however considered a negative outcome of urban growth,
which is nothing but the increase in population and size of an urban area (Bhargav,
2011). The prominent effect of urban sprawl is felt on water bodies, agricultural land
that is productive and thereby changing and creating a new hydrological environment
(Alberti et al. 2000; Banzhaf et al. 2009; Grimm et al. 2000). Urban sprawl can be
mapped in order to identify areas facing threats in the form of degradation of
environmental and natural resources and also to suggest possible directions of future
growth (Simmons, 2007).
As a phenomenon of land use, American literatures have characterized sprawl as
 Consuming excess land

23
  Lesser choice in ways to travel
 Lower peripheral densities as compared to city centres
 Scattered appearance due to wide open spaces and gaps in development
 Single storey development
 Very few community centres and public spaces
 Shortage of choice in housing types
With people moving to cities in search of better opportunities, especially in
developing countries, sprawl happens largely out of necessity (Menon, 2004). Urban
ecosystems are intrinsically linked to humans living in a group as social beings, which
eventually led to the initial settlements, forming villages, towns and finally cities.
Urban ecosystems, a result of unprecedented growth in population, migration and
rapid industrialization have been transformed into a social, political, cultural and
economic hub. A holistic approach is needed while dealing with the various processes
involved in the formation of these ecosystems. Scientific and technological
innovations play a major role in driving the urban ecosystems and hence need to be
considered in the prevailing conditions. Rapid urbanization coupled with changes in
lifestyle influence material and energy cycles in the urban ecosystem. Sustainable
development is the need of the hour and it can be defined as "the development that
meets current needs, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

4.2 GIS, REMOTE SENSING AND IMAGE PROCESSING IN URBAN

STUDIES
An important application of Geographic Information System (GIS) is in urban
planning. GIS being user friendly and affordable, finds extensive application in
different functions and sectors of urban planning. It is used as a spatial database and
also as a tool for analysis and modeling. GIS works with two types of models i.e.,
raster model and vector model, each with a separate set of advantages. The vector
model uses less storage space while supporting better precision in computing. The
raster model represents continuous surfaces in a better form, apart from efficiently
processing map overlays. Urban management to be sustainable and effective requires
certain advanced techniques in order to obtain the latest information regarding the

24
pattern, characteristics, state and development of urban environment (Esch et al.
2010).
Satellites with sensors onboard help in capturing data by absorbing energy
reflected from the earth's surface. Remote sensing systems are a very important source
of information for GIS, as they provide access to spatio-temporal information on
surface processes ranging from regional scales to global scales. Remotely sensed
imagery is ideal for providing information on land cover features and hence can be
effectively used as a data source for analyzing the urban environment (Barnsley and
Barr, 1997; Gamba and Herold, 2009; Mesev, 1997; Lo et al. 1997; Phinn et al.
2002). During the last few decades remote sensing has been extensively used for
extraction of urban structure, change detection and monitoring urbanization (Gamba
and Herold, 2009; Wilson et al. 2003; Dell’Acqua and Gamba, 2003; Weng and
Quattrochi, 2007; Weng, 2009; Rashed, 2010; Yang, 2011; Liang and Weng, 2011).

4.3 URBAN SPRAWL AND SPATIAL INDICES

4.3.1 URBANIZATION INDEX
The magnitude of urbanization, its patterns and the changes it brings about to urban
regions have been investigated by several researchers (Durieux et al. 2008; Haack et
al. 1987; Masek et al. 2000; Ji et al. 2001; Seto et al. 2002). The demographic
researchers usually describe the level of urbanization in terms of ratio between the
urban population and total population. This method is however difficult to adopt due
to lack of availability of precise population data, especially in developing countries.
However urbanization process is dependent not only on the increase in population but
relies equally on the expansion of urbanized areas (Hu et al. 2009). Hence the
urbanization index (UI) may be expressed as the ratio between urbanized area (Ua) to
total area (Ta) as given in equation (4.1).

Ua
𝑈𝐼 = ∗ 100% .............. Equation (4.1)
Ta

Where UI is the urbanization index (%), Ua is the urban built-up area in a particular
zone, and Ta is the total area of that particular zone. UI can represent two different
scales of data i.e., UI may be used to represent a part of the study area which has been
divided into four quadrants and 1km radial circular segments (figure 4.1) or the study

25
region as a whole. For precise statistical evaluation, the UI on a per kilometre basis
would be useful, while it may also be applied to regions such as a city, district or a
state as a whole. The UI computed on a per kilometre basis in different directions i.e.,
north east (NE), north west (NW), south east (SE) and south west (SW) is given in
figure 4.2 and 4.3. The UI in different directions over the study period are tabulated in
table 4.1. Urbanization index, an indicator of the level of urbanization process, also
indicates the status of economic development of the region as the two are highly
interdependent. Higher UI is indicative of more development and vice-versa.

Figure 4.1: Study area divided into 1km segments for evaluation of Urbanization
Index

26
Figure 4.2a: Urbanization Index from centre to outskirts of city

27
Figure 4.2b: Urbanization Index from centre to outskirts of city

28
Figure 4.3: Various classified images segments used in the study

29
Figure 4.3: Various classified images segments used in the study
30
Figure 4.3: Various classified images segments used in the study

31
 Table 4.1: Urbanization Indices for the years 1989, 1999, 2009, 2014

Urbanization Index (%)

1989 1999 2009 2014
SE 33.33 38.55 45.2 50.11
SW 31.62 37.96 48.71 50.35
NE 7.96 12.04 27.43 30.03
NW 15.06 23..25 34.11 36.00

4.3.2 URBAN SPRAWL INDEX

Urban growth may be well planned and controlled or haphazard and
uncontrolled. Haphazard and uncontrolled growth of urban fringe areas may be termed
as urban sprawl or dispersed development. This results in a complex phenomenon that
could have social as well as environmental impacts (Barnes et al. 2001). Some of the
key areas of impact may include loss of agricultural areas and water bodies apart from
changing the hydrology of the region (Alberti et al. 2000; Grimm et al. 2000; Banzhaf
et al. 2009). Urban sprawl occurs when urban land expands much faster than urban
population, straining urban efficiencies and promoting slum formation. Urban
compaction occurs when the urban population grows much faster than urban land
expansion. Hence USI is dependent on two other indices, i.e., the urban expansion
index (UeI) and the urban population growth index (UpgI). The urban expansion index
explains the swiftness of growth of urban landscapes and is determined using the
equation (4.2).

Uaj−Uai
UeI = ..............Equation (4.2)
𝑇

Where UeI is measured in km2/year, Uaj is the urban built-up area in period j, Uai is the
urban built-up area in period i and T is the time period elapsed in years between period
i and j.
The urban population growth index explains the swiftness of growth of urban
population. UpgI is measured in number of people added per year and expressed as in
equation (4.3).

Upj−Upi
UpgI = .................Equation (4.3)
T

32
Where Upj is the urban population in period j and Upi is the urban population in period
i, the population being expressed in lakhs and T is the time period elapsed in years
between period i and j.
The Urban Sprawl Index is expressed as equation (4.4).
UpgI
𝑈𝑆𝐼 = [ UeI ] ∗ 100....................................Equation (4.4)

The Urban Sprawl Index is a measure of sprawl during a particular period. As

sprawl is a relative phenomenon, there is no standard value, and a lower value
indicates sprawl while a higher value is an indication of more compact development
during the period of evaluation.
USI (2011– 2015) = 48.18
USI (2001-2011) = 15.77
USI (1991-2001) = 8.28

Sprawling cities have values below 100 whereas the more compact cities have
values above 100 (Measuring Sprawl, 2014). Higher the USI, more compact is the
city, lower the USI, greater is the sprawl. The USI will reach a value of 100, when the
UpgI equals UeI. The USI will be higher when UpgI exceeds UeI. The USI was
validated using two existing methods i.e., the Shannon's entropy method and the
Polsby Popper Compaction Index and is also compared to the method developed in the
USA and presented in the report: Measuring Sprawl, 2014, as the Sprawl Index score.
The values determined for USI was found to be in agreement with all these methods
and can be effectively used to determine sprawl in all cities, especially cities in less
developed countries, where accurate statistical data is hard to come by.

4.3.3 SHANNON'S ENTROPY

Urbanization is inevitable and unavoidable; however urban land use planning
can help protect the rights of the people and the natural resources, while meeting the
needs of the people (Soffianian et al. 2010). Regular surveillance of urban growth
through precise mapping is becoming inevitable at global level (Guindon and Zhang,
2009). Urban growth studies using statistical techniques together with RS and GIS has
gained preference over conventional methods of surveying and mapping (Sudhira et al.
2004; Yeh and Li, 2001; Punia and Singh, 2011). Significant research on measurement
of patterns of urban growth using the approach of Shannon's entropy has been carried
33
out using satellite data and GIS (Sun et al. 2007; Joshi et al. 2006; Sarvestani et al.
2011; Sudhira et al. 2004). Shannon's entropy is actually based on the mathematical
study of coding of information, called information theory and it may be used as
indicator of spatial dispersion or concentration (Jyothishman et al. 2012).

The studies on urban sprawl use the most efficient approach of integrating
Shannon’s Entropy with GIS tools. The uncertainty in a random variable is measured
by Shannon’s entropy. It is a measure of surprise when looking at an outcome of the
random variable. In this study, the spatial expansion of three time periods is examined
by reclassifying the LULC maps into built-up and non-built-up areas. The sprawl in
the study period was measured by applying Shannon's entropy along with GIS tools.
The degree of spatial concentration or dispersion of geographical features over the
surface area was measured. Various kinds of urban growth patterns can be
differentiated using the entropy values. The Shannon entropy (H) can be computed to
understand the phenomenon of urban growth by following Yeh and Li (2001) as in
equation 4.5,

H = - ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖 (log 𝑃𝑖) ..................... Equation (4.5)

i) Where, H is the value of Shannon’s entropy, Pi the ratio of built-up area to

total area in a particular zone, and n the total number of zones into which the
study area is divided.
ii) The entire area was divided into concentric circles of incrementing radii of
5km (figure 4.4 a, b, c) from the centre of the city so as to visualize changes at
neighborhood levels and forms of urban sprawl. The temporal built-up density
in each circle is monitored using time series analysis.
iii) Shannon’s Entropy can be computed to detect the urban sprawl phenomenon.

4.3.3.1 Shannon’s Entropy Analysis

Shannon’s entropy is computed for Hyderabad and its fringe areas. The study
area is divided into five concentric zones, each having a radial width of 5km (figure
4.4). This gives the value of n (number of zones) as 5. Hence the maximum value of
entropy is Ln (5) = 1.6094. Taking these five zones into account the Shannon’s
entropy is calculated for the years 1989, 1999, 2009 and 2014 respectively. The
entropy value so obtained for the years is compared with the maximum value Ln (5)

34
i.e., 1.6094, which gives us the urban growth pattern of that particular year. Tables
4.2.a presents the Urban built-up class area in different zones in the year 1989, 1999,
2009, 2014 and table 4.2.b computes the ratio of built-up area to total area.

Figure 4.4.a: Study area 0-5 km segment

35
Figure 4.4.b: Study area 5-10 km and 10-15 km segments

36
Figure 4.4.c: Study area 15-20 km and 20-25 km segments

37
 Table 4.2.a: Urban built-up class area in different zones in 1989, 1999, 2009, 2014

1989 1999 2009 2014

Zone Area (km2) Area (km2) Area (km2) Area (km2)
1 48.48 55.91 62.73 67.09
2 60.72 79.82 127.48 148.82
3 26.07 40.51 119.33 135.41
4 13.52 32.27 82.13 99.68
5 9.91 20.00 38.01 48.08
158.70 228.51 429.68 499.08

Table 4.2.b: Pi and Ln (Pi) values for 1989 to 2014

1989 1999 2009 2014

Zone Pi Ln(Pi) Pi Ln(Pi) Pi Ln(Pi) Pi Ln(Pi)
1 0.306 -1.184 0.245 -1.407 0.146 -1.924 0.134 -2.010
2 0.383 -0.960 0.349 -1.053 0.297 -1.214 0.298 -1.211
3 0.164 -1.808 0.177 -1.732 0.278 -1.280 0.271 -1.306
4 0.085 -2.465 0.141 -1.959 0.191 -1.656 0.200 -1.609
5 0.063 -2.765 0.088 -2.430 0.089 -2.419 0.096 -2.343

The Shannon entropy (H) is computed as

H1989 = - ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖 (log 𝑃𝑖)= -( -1.411) = 1.411

Table 4.2.c: Shannon’s entropy of Hyderabad & its fringe areas

Study Year Shannon’s Difference in Ln(5)

Area Entropy (H) Shannon's
Entropy
Hyderabad City 1989 1.411 1.6094
1999 1.510 0.099
2009 1.529 0.019
2014 1.531 0.002

The values of entropy for the years 1989 to 2014 (Table 4.2.c) are closer to the
upper limit of Ln (5) = 1.6094 and hence it means that urban growth during the study
period has been highly dispersed. The Shannon's entropy values are continuously

38
increasing from 1989 to 2014, which is indicative of increasing sprawl. The values
start dropping once the sprawl stops and compaction begins. There is a temporal drop
in values of difference in Shannon's entropy, which is an indication that there is a
reduction in levels of sprawl and this is in agreement with the USI that has been
arrived at in 4.3.1.

4.3.4 POLSBY POPPER COMPACTNESS MEASURE

The Polsby Popper test computes the ratio of the district area to the area of a
circle with the same perimeter. The estimation of compactness of land development is
done according to the average comparison between the perimeter of each developed
zone/cluster and that of a circle having the same area (Phanindra et al. 2014). The
compactness index (CI) is calculated by using
‘Polsby-Popper compactness measure’, which is given by equation (4.6).

CI= (4π * Area)/ Perimeter2…………Equation (4.6)

It is convenient to calculate the index because the total area and perimeter of
developed clusters/zones can be automatically obtained by using GIS functions. The
measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 representing most compact.

Table 4.3: Compactness Index of Hyderabad & its fringe areas in 1989, 1999, 2009,
2014

Zone CI(1989) CI(1999) CI(2009) CI(2014)

1 0.617 0.712 0.799 0.854
2 0.086 0.113 0.180 0.211
3 0.013 0.021 0.061 0.069
4 0.004 0.008 0.021 0.026
5 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.008

The zone wise compactness index indicates whether land development is

compact or not. Larger the value of CI, more compact the development. A perusal of
the above table 4.3 reveals that the central part of Hyderabad is most compact with a
value of 0.854 for the year 2014, while the outer fringe is least compact with a value of
0.008. The city is reasonably compact within the first 10km radii. Compactness index
can be used as an indicator of compactness of land development, however urban
morphology is better measured using the concept of entropy as it can be related to the

39
dispersion or concentration of a phenomenon. The overall compactness index for the
city for 2014 is 23.4% up from 21.34% in 2009, 17.14% in 1999 and 14.44% in 1989.

4.4 PER CAPITA BUILT-UP AREA

While evaluating sprawl of cities, an important factor that needs to be
measured is the urban footprint in terms of land being utilized, and the per capita built-
up area is a method by which this can be measured. The urban sprawl index, the
number of people per square kilometre and the built-up area per person are all
indicators of the level of sprawl of a city. Hyderabad has to go a real long way to reach
the level of compaction of New York City which may be considered an ideally
developed and truly compact city. The city has to grow vertically, in order to reduce
sprawl and thereby lower its "human footprint" in terms of land usage. The current per
capita built-up land usage averaging 50m2 per person (table 4.4) has to reduce further.

Table 4.4: Built-up area to population ratio of Hyderabad city (Actual and Predicted)

Year Population in Built-up Area (A) / (B) Area per

millions (A) in km2 (B) millions/km2 person (m2)
1989 2.957 158.7 0.0186 53.68
1999 3.522 228.51 0.0154 64.88
2009 6.176 429.68 0.0144 69.58
2014 8.75 499.08 0.0175 57.06
2020 (Projected) 11.50 519.30 0.0222 45.156
2030 (Projected) 12.77 681.99 0.0187 53.7

4.5 USI MODEL VALIDATION

The USI is a logical model and hence requires no external validation as such.
Smart Growth America is the one and only national organization in the United States
of America (USA) committed to research and spread of smart growth practices to
communities all over the nation. Development in various counties across America was
evaluated based on four factors: 1. Development density; 2. Land use mix; 3.Activity
centering and 4. Street accessibility.
Researchers made use of these factors in order to evaluate the Sprawl Index
score of each area or county. The arrived average index was 100, which meant areas

40
with scores above 100 were more compact and connected, while those with scores less
than 100 tended to be more sprawling. According to this study the metro area that was
most connected and most compact in the United States was New York with an index
score of 203.4 and the area with most sprawl was Hickory with a score of 24.9
(Measuring Sprawl, 2014). New York City is arguably the best model for balancing
urban development with good public transport and access to open spaces. New York is
the only city in the United States of America where majority of households do not own
a car. Somewhat unexpectedly, however due to the many outlying suburbs, it has the
least population density as compared to any megacity (Reuters, 11.07.2014). As of
2013, the population of New York City was 8,405,837 in an area of 786 km2 whereby
the density of population is 10,695 per square kilometre. In comparison the population
of Hyderabad city is 9,507,434 in an area of 1905 km2 (Hyderabad population, 2015),
with a density of 4991 as of July, 2015. The Urban Sprawl Index for Hyderabad City
works out to 48.14 during the period 2011-2015, as compared to 203.4, the sprawl
index score of New York City, which may be considered as an ideally developed, most
compact and well connected, mega-city (Measuring Sprawl, 2014). The USI of
Hyderabad is about 23.7% of that of New York City. The advantage of the developed
model is that it can be applied on any city for which the level of temporal expansion
and growth in population is known.

41