Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Spatio-temporal patterns of urbanization in the Kolkata Urban

Agglomeration: A dynamic spatial territory-based approach
Saurav Chakraborty a, *, Indranil Maity b, Priyank Pravin Patel a, Hashem Dadashpoor c,
Suvamoy Pramanik d, Alexander Follmann e, Josef Novotný f, Utpal Roy b
a
Department Geography, Faculty of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Presidency University, Kolkata, India
b
Department of Geography, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India
c
Urban and Regional Planning Department, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
d
Center for Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
e
University of Cologne, Institute of Geography, Cologne, Germany
f
Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Charles University, Prague, Czechia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study analyzes the spatio-temporal patterns of urban growth for the Kolkata Urban Agglomeration (KUA) in
Urbanization eastern India using dynamic spatial territorial extents and compares the results with existing popular hypotheses
Diffusion-coalescence of urbanization patterns (diffusion-coalescence and three-growth-mode). Time series neighborhood-level built-
Urban growth
up densities were extracted and overlain to identify two broad urban spatial extents, inner and outer, which were
Spatial patterns
Urban agglomeration
further categorized into sub-territorial units. Landscape metrics and mode-wise urban growth statistics were
Peripheral spatial territory computed for the above spatial extents. Results reveal a marked increase in the urban land share, from 20 % in
2000 to nearly 50 % in 2018, when about 75 % of the built-up spaces comprised the high-density urban core.
Urban growth patterns in KUA show clear intra-urban variations between inner and outer spatial extents. The
inner city zone underwent coalescence with nearly 90 % of the built-up growth within inner city extents
occurring through infilling, whereas the outer extents showed complex growth patterns with outlying growth
dropping by almost 27 % points, with related increase in both infilling (11 % points) and edge-expansion (16 %
points). Diffusion and coalescence occurred simultaneously, but at varying intensities within the different sub-
territorial units. Examining such complex spatiality of urbanization is crucial to reduce its adverse environ­
mental effects and promote sustainable urban growth.

1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization is the standout socio-ecological phenomenon in
present-day Asia and Africa, with these regions slated to experience
about 90 % of the world’s urban population growth by the middle of this
century (United Nations, 2018). Indian cities are likely to house an
additional 416 million people by 2050 (United Nations, 2018), mostly in
its burgeoning and continually expanding metropolitan cities and large
urban agglomerations (UAs) (which are defined by the Census of India as
a continuous urban spread, constituting of towns [both Statutory and
Census Towns (CTs)], villages and outgrowths)1 . Such swift city growth
adversely impacts the natural environment through loss of fertile agri­
cultural lands (Follmann, Hartmann, & Dannenberg, 2018), forest/­
vegetation cover (Clement, Chi, & Ho, 2015) or water bodies (Mitra &
Banerji, 2018), and its impacts are felt well beyond city boundaries (van
Vliet, 2019). These ultimately cause natural landscape fragmentation
(Dadashpoor, Azizi, & Moghadasi, 2019; Fahey & Casali, 2017) and the
decline/loss of valuable ecosystem services (Su, Xiao, Jiang, & Zhang,
2012). To ameliorate such impacts and foster sustainable urbanization,
enhanced understandings of the spatial patterns of urban growth are
therefore critical (Dadashpoor, Azizi, & Moghadasi, 2019; Liu, He, &
Wu, 2016; Zhu et al., 2019).

* Corresponding author at: Department of Geography, Faculty of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Presidency University, 86/1 College Street, Kolkata, West
Bengal, 700073, India.
E-mail addresses: saurav.kgp1988@gmail.com (S. Chakraborty), indranil.vu16.maity@gmail.com (I. Maity), priyank999@hotmail.com (P.P. Patel), h-
dadashpoor@modares.ac.ir (H. Dadashpoor), suvamoy.vu@gmail.com (S. Pramanik), a.follmann@uni-koeln.de (A. Follmann), pepino@natur.cuni.cz
(J. Novotný), utpalgeovu@gmail.com (U. Roy).
1
As per the 2011 Census, there are 475 UAs in India.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102715
Received 6 August 2020; Received in revised form 29 November 2020; Accepted 8 January 2021
Available online 14 January 2021
2210-6707/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Chakraborty et al.
Spatio-temporal patterns of urban growth generally alternate be­
tween diffusion and coalescence pathways/forms. It is usually assumed
that urbanization proceeds from the diffusion to the coalescence phase,
with the former typified by an increasing number of impervious/built-
up patches and the latter representing their merger into continuous
built-up swathes (Dietzel, Herold, Hemphill, & Clarke, 2005). While
many have deciphered such trends for different cities (Kantakumar,
Kumar, & Schneider, 2016; Liu et al., 2010, 2016; Xu et al., 2007; Yu &
Ng, 2007), exceptions have also been reported (He, Song, Liu, & Yin,
2017; Jenerette & Potere, 2010; Wu, Jenerette, Buyantuyev, & Redman,
2011) and the diffusion-coalescence hypothesis fallacies have been
subsequently highlighted by the three growth modes proposition [i.e.
infill, edge-expansion and outlying urban growth (Li, Li, Zhu, Song, &
Wu, 2013)]. While empirical studies exploring urban growth patterns
and their changes at the city level have frequently verified the
diffusion-coalescence hypotheses (Fei & Zhao, 2019; He et al., 2017; He,
Zeng, Xie, Tan, & Wu, 2019; Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016; Shi,
Sun, Zhu, Li, & Mei, 2012), urban growth patterns can vary greatly
within a single urban entity, depending upon intra-urban variations in
local conditions like the land availability (e.g. Jiao, 2015). However,
existing knowledge on intra-urban variations in urban growth patterns is
still rare as only very few studies have examined in-depth how urban
growth varies across the existent spatial structures and their
sub-divisions (e.g. Bosch, Jaligot, & Chenal, 2020; Dahal, Benner, &
Lindquist, 2017; Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013; Li, Li, & Wu, 2013; Peng, Wang,
Zhou, Zhao, & Yang, 2015). Studies on intra-urban variations can
empirically enhance the understanding of urban growth patterns and
conceptually add new dimensions to the existing urban growth hy­
potheses (e.g. Bosch et al., 2020). By focusing on intra-urban variations
in the Kolkata Urban Agglomeration (KUA), this study addresses this
important research gap.
Urbanization is a complex and varied process (Liu et al., 2016; Yu &
Ng, 2007; Wu et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2019), and thus urban areas should
be considered as multi-level systems. The distinct spatio-temporal pat­
terns that prevail at each level (Bosch et al., 2020; Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013)
are believed to be the primary reason behind the observed deviations
from the diffusion-coalescence hypothesis (Liu et al., 2016) and neces­
sitates the inclusion of spatial extents to characterize the differential
patterns and processes of urbanization that are operational within them.
Both qualitative criteria [i.e. administrative urban hierarchy (Li, Li, Zhu
et al., 2013) and urban-rural transect (Li, Li, Wu et al., 2013)] and
quantitative methods [i.e. bifractal city model- inner and outer zones
(Bosch et al., 2020)] have been used for such areal demarcations to
analyze multi-level/scale dynamic growth patterns. Cities and Urban
Agglomerations (UAs) usually have well-demarcated spatial structures,
comprising of various types of spatial territories, commencing from the
city core, through an in-between space and terminating in rural locales
along the fringes of the territorial boundary limits.
The question of “location and spatial expansion patterns of such
territories” makes their demarcation quite difficult (Dadashpoor &
Ahani, 2019: 03). While the locations can be usually identified from
settlement boundaries, the blurring of rural-urban locales, due to the
unprecedented expansion of built-up areas beyond legally defined urban
boundaries, makes this quite difficult (Jain, 2018; Simwanda & Mur­
ayama, 2018). As a result, many rural areas are now characterized by
built-up spaces similar to those found within denoted urban areas. This
growth of cities into its periphery triggers what Weng (2007:350) has
termed as the “relay-race effect”, wherein core urban areas expand while
pushing rural-urban fringes further outward (Seto & Fragkias, 2005).
Thus, static urban extents or spatial territories rarely exist around such
dynamic cities and therefore their spatial territorial boundaries are dy­
namic due to expansion, relocation and shrinkage, irrespective of what
the demarcated administrative boundaries may be, whose
re-demarcation often lags behind such rapid changes in impervious ex­
tents and space transformations. Urban land density and its distribution
has been widely used to demarcate urban spatial structures and urban
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
form changes (Dong, Jiao, Xu, Yang, & Liu, 2019; Jiao, 2015; Xu et al.,
2019). However, demarcating such dynamic spatial territories on the
basis of neighborhood level built-up land density distribution and
thereafter examining the diverse traces of spatio-temporal patterns of
urban growth therein, remains largely unknown.
The continuous evolution in Remote Sensing (RS)-based applications
for urban areas (Zhu et al., 2019) and its integration with Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and landscape metrics has enabled the
formulation of customized techniques for measuring, monitoring and
mapping the spatio-temporal patterns of urbanization and its changes
(Dadashpoor et al., 2019a; Hu, Qian, Pickett, & Zhou, 2020; Taubenböck
et al., 2019; Tripathy & Kumar, 2019). Among these, Urban Sprawl
Metrics (USM) have been widely used (Angel, Parent, & Civco, 2007;
Kantakumar et al., 2016; Sahana, Hong, & Sajjad, 2018; Sharma & Joshi,
2013), to demarcate the urban landscape into different spatial territories
based on urban land density functions (urbanness) and quantitatively
defined qualitative urban extents (i.e. spatial territorial units delineated
based on neighborhood-level built-up densities- urban core, urban fringe
and scatter development zones). Besides this, multi-temporal analysis of
urban landscapes using USM allows delineation of the changing char­
acter/extents of these spatial entities/territories. Such spatial entities
can also be grouped as inner extents (wherein these territories exist in
both the most recent dataset as well as in previous time period datasets)
and outer extents (when such zones are evident only in the most recent
dataset).
Based on the above theoretical underpinnings, this study utilizes a
dynamic spatial territory-based approach to better examine the spatio-
temporal pattern of urbanization by:
• Analyzing the spatio-temporal pattern of urban expansion in respect
of three spatial urban typologies (urban core, urban fringe and
scatter development) and identifying the dynamic spatial territories
(inner and outer extents),
• Computing the landscape metrics and modes of urban growth for
each of the spatial territories/extents demarcated above (the overall
unit and its components/sub-territories) in the various time periods
examined (2000–2010 and 2010–2018), and
• Analyzing how urbanization trends have varied within each entity
and using this to compare our results with the diffusion-coalescence
and three growth modes hypotheses.
We expect our results to offer additional evidence for inculcating
multi-scalar urbanization studies within the ambit of diffusion-
coalescence and three growth modes hypotheses, which has seldom
been done using such dynamically demarcated urban territories and
their sub-units. As the study area, we have chosen the KUA in eastern
India, for reasons outlined subsequently.
2. Study area
Located in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal, the KUA is the
third-most populous UA in India (Census of India, 2011) and the 14th
largest in the world (United Nations, 2016). It comprises of 4 Municipal
Corporations (MC), 39 Municipalities (MU), 154 CTs (of which 75 were
accorded this status only in the most recent Census of 2011), 367 vil­
lages (of which 41 are expected to be declared as CTs in the next Census
of 2021) and 3 Outgrowths (Fig. 1.a). Its core is comprised by the Kol­
kata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and the Haora Municipal Corpora­
tion (HMC), lying on opposite flanks of the River Hugli. Although, the
historical development of the city has resulted in its present dense
configuration of built-up spaces and congested neighborhoods (Chak­
ravorty, 2000; Haque & Patel, 2018; Haque, Rana, & Patel, 2020), it was
the economic liberalizations of 1991 and the development of an infor­
mation technology hub in the town of Bidhannagar (adjacent to Kolkata)
that has largely spurred on the recent urban growth herein. Given its
long urbanization history, large connurbation extents and marked
S. Chakraborty et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715

Fig. 1. The study area, showing a. Entities within Kolkata Urban Agglomeration; b. Annual growth rate of population from 2001-2011; c: Population density in 2001;
d: Population density in 2011.
Source: Computed and compiled by the authors from Census of India, 2001 and 2011 maps and dataset.
Note: The Indian Census classifies urban areas into two broad categories- Statutory Towns (ST) (urban areas that are under urban governance, i.e. some urban
administrative body like Municipal Corporation and Municipality etc.) and Census Towns (CT) (urban areas that are governed under rural administration i.e. gram
panchayat). Potential CTs are those villages in 2011 that already meet the Census of India stated criteria to be designated as new CTs in the forthcoming Census of
2021. However, in this paper, such entities have been still considered as villages/rural areas. Outgrowths (OG) are a viable unit such as a village or part of a village
contiguous to a ST that possess most urban features in terms of infrastructure and amenities. The OG remains outside the statutory limits of a ST but falls within the
revenue limit of a village or villages contiguous to the town or city (Census of India 2011).

recent developments in and around the city limits that have endangered
adjacent environmentally sensitive zones, the KUA was considered ideal
for the ensuing analysis.
As per the 2011 Census, the KUA has 14.72 million residents and an
average population density of 7950 persons/sq.km. Nearly 83 % of its
total population lives in its legally urban areas (Statutory Towns- STs).
However, during 2001–2011, the population growth rate in these areas
was far lower (0.49 % per annum) than that of the rural areas (2.22 %
per annum) located along the KUA’s periphery (Fig. 1.b). This high
population growth rate in the periphery, particularly within the CTs
therein, has further contributed to the increasing population density
(Fig. 1.c and d) and the subsequent expansion of built-up areas. With
non-existent institutional capacities, lax/seldom enforced contracting/
building regulations and proximity to a major urban centre, such legally
rural areas are hotspots for rapid and unplanned urban expansion,
highlighting the unacknowledged/hidden urbanization occurring in
India. Such urbanization has adversely impacted the ecologically sen­
sitive East Kolkata Wetlands (a designated Ramsar site) situated along
the KUA’s eastern periphery (Fig. 1.a), while fertile arable lands, surface
water bodies and green belts continue to be converted into built-up
surfaces at unprecedented rates (Mondal et al., 2017; Sahana et al.,
2018), thereby impairing the critical balance between natural and
human-made landscapes and reducing the ecosystem health (Das, Das, &
Mandal, 2020). Comprehending the spatio-temporal patterns of KUA’s
expansion is therefore crucial to exploring its trajectories and the
areas/landscape elements most likely to be impacted, which is para­
mount towards fostering sustainable urban growth.
3. Methodology
An integrated remote sensing, geographic information system and
landscape metrics based approach was adopted to prepare and compute
the required datasets and statistics (Fig. 2).

3
S. Chakraborty et al.
Fig. 2. Workflow for dynamic spatial territory based spatio-temporal patterns of urbanization.
3.1. Image classification and accuracy assessment
Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM 4-5) images of 2000 and 2010 and
Landsat-8 OLI images of 2018 have been used in this study (Appendix
Table A.1). Supervised image classification was employed using the
maximum likelihood method (Sahana et al., 2018), and eight broad
LULC classes (built-up area, forest/vegetation, water bodies, river,
wetlands, open lands, agricultural fallow and cropland) were extracted
for each period. High-resolution Google Earth images were used for
validation and the computed Kappa statistics, based on a confusion
matrix, helped confirm the achieved accuracy (Appendix Table A.2).
3.2. Urban Sprawl Metrics
USM is a built-up density classification method (Angel et al., 2007;
Sahana et al., 2018) that accords various urban typologies, and was
employed for demarcating the types of urban growth present and
ascertain its spatial patterns/dynamics. All pixels designated as built-up
areas were accorded a certain urbanness class, based on the proportion
of built-up area present within a radius of 1000 m around them (based
on Angel et al., 2007). Pixels that obtained values more than 50 %, were
considered to constitute the Urban Core (UC), those that had between 30
%–50 % as part of the Urban Fringe (UF), and below this as Scatter
Development (SD) (following Angel et al., 2007. See supplementary A3
and Fig. F1).
3.3. Demarcating dynamic spatial territories
Angel et al. (2007: 02) opine that the above spatial territories/enti­
ties (i.e. USM classes) are “exclusive of each other”. However, continual
built-up growth within and around city cores and the unprecedented
transformations along a city’s peripheral regions make such territorial
boundaries dynamic. Thus, the definitive characteristics of a particular
territory/entity at a certain timestamp can alter due to changes in the
pattern and extent of its impervious cover and thereby metamorphose it
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
into a different spatial entity at a later date (e.g. Kantakumar et al.,
2016).
USM can thus be used to identify different urban typologies and their
exact spatial extents and changes over time, from multiple datasets.
Kantakumar et al. (2016) demonstrated that the urban core expands at
the expense of the urban fringe and low-density scatter development.
These three entities were identified within the KUA for each of the
studied timestamps (i.e. 2000, 2010 and 2018) and overlain on each
other. From the overlays, two broad spatial units were discerned; the
inner extent (which had particularly developed/become built-up during
the earlier study years of 2000 and 2010) and the outer extent (the
portion that had developed only in the current study year of 2018) (see
Supplementary Fig. F2). By comparing the respective boundaries and
their temporal changes for the spatial entities outlined above, we then
categorized the entire urban landscape into six zones- urban core 2000,
urban core expansion 2000–2010, urban fringe of 2010, urban core
expansion 2010–2018, relocated urban fringe of 2018 and reducing
scatter development in 2018 (Supplementary Fig. F3).
The respective landscape metrics in each time period and the asso­
ciated growth mode type (i.e. infill, edge-expansion and outlying
growth) related statistics were subsequently computed for two hierar­
chical spatial units, as follows:
i Overall (i.e. for the entire agglomeration), the inner extent (which
included the urban core 2000, urban core expansion 2000–2010 and
urban fringe 2010) and the outer extent (which included the urban
core expansion 2010–2018, the relocated urban fringe 2018 and the
reducing scatter development 2018).
ii For the individual six sub-territories situated within the KUA and its
inner and outer extents.
Additionally, the areal changes in the existing built-up typologies
from one study year to another (and the possible alterations in their USM
class) and the transformation of formerly non-built-up areas into a
particular urban typology (UC, UF or SD) were also calculated. For the
S. Chakraborty et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715

latter, the existing non-built-up LULC classes were re-categorized using Table 2
the concept of Urbanized Open Space (UOS) and Non-Urbanized Open Descriptions of the enumerated landscape metrics.
Space (NUOS). The UOS was defined as “undeveloped/non-built-up land Metrics Description Category
surrounded by urbanness values of at least 50 %” (Angel et al., 2007),
Percentage of landscape Areal share of a particular land-use Composition
while “undeveloped/non-built-up land surrounded by urbanness values (PLAND) class
less than 50 %” were classified as NUOS (Sahana et al., 2018). The Patch density (PD) Number of patches per unit area Configuration
different LULC to built-up transformations were thereby classified into Euclidean mean nearest Mean patch shortest edge-to-edge Configuration
six categories based on the respective UOS and NUOS attributes neighbor distance distance to the nearest neighboring
(ENN) patch of the same class
(Table 1). Mean patch size (MPS) Total patch area divided by the Configuration
number of patches of the same time
3.4. Urban landscape pattern analysis Area-weighted mean Mean patch fractal dimension Configuration
fractal dimension weighted by relative patch area
(AWMFD)
Landscape metrics have been quite popular in assessing and under­
standing how landscape patterns alter in response to LULC changes Note: Built-up area belonging to different spatial territories were considered for
(whether natural or anthropogenic). Many studies have traced the the calculation of the respective landscape metrics. All metrics were calculated
impact of urbanization on the landscape pattern and its changes over at the landscape level using 8 cell neighborhood window in FRAGSTATS
software.
time (e.g. Dadashpoor et al., 2019a; Li, Peng, Yanxu, & Yi’na, 2017; Su,
Source: FRAGSTATS HELP v4.2.1 (McGarigal, 2015).
Jiang, Zhang, & Zhang, 2011) and deciphered that due to strong
multi-collinearity among the different landscape metrics, only some
selective landscape metrics are particularly useful in enumerating the the edge of a non-circular existing urban patch with landscape expan­
changes (Peng et al., 2010; Su et al., 2012). sion index value >50 %) (see Shi et al., 2012: 427 for details). In this
For assessing urban growth and its dynamics, many studies have used way, we were able to identify four different modes of urban growth:
a range of landscape patch metrics to highlight the composition (areal Infill Type-1, Infill Type-2, Edge-Expansion and Outlying Growth
share) and configuration (aggregation, isolation, edge, shape and frag­ (Fig. 3).
mentation) of urban landscape patterns and its changes (Bosch et al.,
2020; Dadashpoor et al., 2019a; Dietzel, Herold et al., 2005; Dietzel, 4. Results
Oguz, Hemphill, Clarke, & Gazulis, 2005; Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013; Li, Li,
Wu et al., 2013). In this study, a total of five metrics were used for 4.1. Spatial patterns of urban typologies and their growth
quantifying the urbanization pattern in the KUA, allowing our results to
be compared against those elicited from similar studies (see Table 2). The entire built-up area of the KUA was divided into the UC, UF and
SD typologies and their respective areas were calculated and mapped in
3.5. Modes of urban growth each of the three studied years (Fig. 4). High-density UC was dominant
throughout the study period and increased from 56 % to 67 % in Phase-I
Xu et al. (2007) and Liu et al. (2010) have respectively proposed that (2000–2010). While UC’s growth rate was 11.81 % in Phase-I
new urban growth can be identified using common boundary analysis (2000–2010), it slowed down to 8.65 % in Phase-II (2010–2018; see
and the Landscape Expansion Index, but both these methods are limited Supplementary Table A4). Contrarily, the UF and SD typologies’
while distinguishing between particular infilling modes of urban growth respective coverage declined throughout. Interestingly, during Phase-II,
and engender confusions among the edge-expansion and outlying the UF growth rate increased marginally (by appropriating a chunk of
growth modes (Shi et al., 2012). The alternative method of Shi et al. the SD coverage), while the SD growth rate declined markedly (see
(2012) was thus used to overcome such issues and classify the newer Supplementary Table A4). The growth of these three built-up typologies
urban growth occurring within the KUA during the examined study during the entire study period occurred at the expense of different non-
periods. Besides, we have further categorized the infill growth type into built-up open spaces. In particular, the spatial pattern of such open
Infill Type-1 (for all types of infill growth that occurred within the spaces particularly changed due to the unprecedented spatial expansion
boundary of an already existing built-up tract with or without sharing its of the urban core (Fig. 5).
boundary with the existing built-up patches) and Infill Type-2 (growth at During Phase-I, nearly 52.17 sq.km and 18 sq.km of former UF and
SD areas were converted into UC, while this class simultaneously added
Table 1 another 133 sq.km of newly formed built-up area including nearly 69 sq.
Urban sprawl metrics-based classifications of the non built-up LULC classes. km from non-urbanized grey open space, 20 sq.km from urbanized grey
open space and about 4.8 sq.km from the urbanized blue open space
USM based Urbaness value and Non-built LULC USM typified
typology of open definition criteria class non built-up categories. During Phase-II, nearly 82 sq.km and 24 sq.km of the existing
space class UF and SD tracts, respectively, were converted into UC areas, while
Urbanized
about 165 sq.km of newly built-up zones were also added. About 56 sq.
Forest/ km of vegetated areas also got converted into UC, of which 16 sq.km
green open
vegetation
space were urbanized green open spaces and 40 sq.km non-urbanized green
non built-up pixels that
Urbanized Open Open land, open spaces, respectively (Fig. 4.d). Similarly, about 24 sq.km of ur­
are surrounded by > 50 Urbanized grey
Space (UOS) crop and fallow
% of built-up pixels open space banized grey open spaces and 52 sq.km of non-urbanized grey open
land
Water bodies, Urbanized blue spaces were consumed within the UC class by 2018 (Fig. 5.d).
river, wetlands open space Both UF and SD show dynamic territorial changes through the study
Forest/
Non-urbanized period. For example, in Phase II only 4.5 sq.km of existing UF remained
green open unchanged. The spatial growth of UF occurred from the transformation
vegetation
space
Non-Urbanized non built-up pixels that
Open land,
of former SD areas (34.95 sq.km), non-urbanized green open spaces
Open Space are surrounded by < 50 Non-urbanized (32.23 sq.km), non-urbanized grey open spaces (47.78 sq.km) and non-
crop and fallow
(NUOS) % of built-up pixels grey open space
land urbanized blue open spaces (1.9 sq.km). Similarly, 40.72 sq.km of the SD
Water bodies, Non-urbanized built-up typology remained in Phase II, while additions occurred at the
river, wetlands blue open space
expense of non-urbanized grey open spaces (37.11 sq.km), non-
Source: Based on Angel et al. (2007). urbanized green open spaces (27.1 sq.km) and non-urbanized blue

5
S. Chakraborty et al.
Fig. 3. Graphical depiction of growth modes for newly grown urban patches (based on Shi et al., 2012).
Note: Misclassification of infill type 1 (b and c) into edge expansion and outlying may affect the statistics derived for these urban growth modes, which can impact the
results as well.
open spaces (2.09 sq.km).
In summation, spatial expansion and further densification of the
urban core territory result in a densely built urbanscape emerging as the
dominant built-up typology, while at the same time becoming more
homogenous in character. The marked conversion of former open spaces
into high-desity built up areas is connected to multiple ecological bur­
dens, including conversion of urbanized open lands. On the other hand,
the rise in moderate and low-density built-up areas (UF and SD) results
in increasing landscape fragmention beyond the extents of the densely
built locales and is also connected to multiple environmental impacts (e.
g. conversion of wetlands, vegetation and crop lands).
4.2. Landscape patterns in the inner and outer agglomeration zones
Fig. 6 displays the various landscape metrics calculated for the three
different spatial entities- the agglomeration (entire KUA), the previously
demarcated inner and outer extents. The salient aspects noted were:
• The built-up area proportion (PLAND) increased for all three spatial
entities in each time phase- the agglomeration showed an almost
uniform rising trend in both phases though this growth declined
slightly in Phase-II for the inner extent (wherein the PLAND was
almost 90 % in 2018), possibly due to lack of suitable space for
further increase. With space availability not an impediment in the
outer extent, its PLAND rose most sharply by almost 20 % points in
Phase-II.
• For Patch Density (PD), a unimodal trend was found for the
agglomeration and outer extent, with increase during Phase-I and
decline in Phase-II. However, the PD declined in both phases for the
inner extent, albeit to a lesser extent in Phase-II.
• The Mean Patch Size (MPS) increased continuously in each spatial
unit (possibly pointing towards more coalesence), with this being
highest for the inner extent.
• The Mean Euclidean nearest neighbor distance (ENN_MN), denoting
the average distance between built-up patches, also declined for all
three spatial units. However, this was more apparent for the inner
extent during Phase-II, while the other two had monotonic declining
trends throughout the study period.
6
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
• The trends of the shape complexity of the built-up patches, judged
from the area-weighted mean fractal parameter (AWMFD), were
similarly showing- a monotonic decline for the inner extent, while an
increasing trend for the outer extent and the total agglometation.
The above landscape metrics were also calculated for each time-step
for the six sub-territories (three each for the inner and outer extents; see
Fig. 7). The PLAND showed a monotonic increasing trend for all sub-
territories. However, during Phase-II its rate of increase slowed for the
sub-zones within the inner extent while rising for those within the outer
extent. The PLAND for the ’urban core 2000’ situated within the inner
extent reached almost 95 % in 2018. On the other hand, the ’urban core
expansion 2010− 2018’ sub-zone within the outer extent recorded the
highest increase in PLAND during Phase-II (about 40 % points), followed
by that for the ’relocated urban fringe 2018′ and the ’reducing scatter
development 2018′ .
In the case of the inner sub-zones, all the metrics confirmed to a
similar trend, which was also reflected by the inner extent as a whole.
For example, the PD, ENN_MN and AWMFD showed a decreasing trend
for all three sub-zones whereas the MPS increased monotonically in
each. For the ’urban core 2000′ and the ’expanded urban core in 2010′ ,
the increase in their respective MPS was reasonably higher during
Phase-II (Fig. 7).
The outer extents’ sub-territories on the other hand, exhibited a
completely different and mixed trend. For example, the PD followed a
monotonic declining trend for the ’urban core expansion 2010− 2018’
zone, a unimodal pattern for the ’relocated urban fringe 2018′ zone and
an increased monotonic rate for the ’reducing scatter development
2018′ zone. For the MPS, a sharp increasing trend was noticed for the
’urban core expansion 2010− 2018’ zone whereas it increased only
slightly for the other two sub-units. The ENN_MN and the AWMFD were
the only two metrics for which a similar trend was recorded throughout
for all three sub-territories of the outer extent; similar to what had been
observed for the outer extent as a whole, i.e. a decreasing mean
Euclidean urban patch distance and increasing patch shape complexities
(Fig. 7).
The indices presented above clearly indicate that within the inner
extents and its sub-territories, urban growth had almost reached satu­
ration point, forming large continuous built-up patches and there is
S. Chakraborty et al.
Fig. 4. The urban landscape of the KUA.
limited land available for further development. On the contrary, the
outer extent and its sub-territories were the hot spot for urban growth,
with the presence of dense, moderate and low density built-up patches
making this entity a dynamic and complex part of the urban landscape.
Such dynamicity could be read in terms of the increasing patch size,
density and complexities of built-up tracts found in the outer extent
(AWMFD), which was quite opposite to that seen in the inner extent and
its sub-territories (see Fig. 7).
4.3. Modes of urban growth
The different modes of urban growth (infill type-1, infill type-2,
7
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
edge-expansion and outlying growth), were shown to contribute vary­
ingly to city expansion, as per their respective areal shares in the above
spatial territories (Fig. 8).
During Phase-I, both the agglomeration and inner extents displayed
nearly similar patterns in their relative dominance of all four growth
modes. However, differences in their share of the infill type-1 and the
outlying modes were particularly discernible. The outer extent, con­
trastingly, was mainly dominated by edge-expansion and outlying
growth modes, with scant traces of the infilling types.
A very different picture arose during Phase-II. At the agglomeration
extent (i.e. for the entire KUA), the areal share for both infill type-1 and
edge expansion increased (about 5% points for each) at the expense of
S. Chakraborty et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of different non-built-up open spaces for three different study years (a, b and c); d. Transition of different LULC classes into various built-
up typologies, Phase-I (2000–2010) and Phase-II (2010–2018).

Fig. 6. Landscape metrics for the agglomeration, inner and outer extents of the KUA.

outlying growth (which dropped similarly- about 10 % points in total).
During Phase-II, the inner extent was particularly dominated by the
infilling types (that together occupied 89 % of the new urban develop­
ment occurring) and both the edge-expansion and outlying growth
modes declined and the latter became quite insignificant within the
inner extent, as space saturation occurred. Within the outer extents, a
significant drop in the outlying growth mode occurred during Phase-II
(about 27 % points), with a concomitant increase in the dominance of
the edge-expansion category, which contributed 55 % of the total newly
built-up land. Similarly, the dominance of infilling types rose in the

8
S. Chakraborty et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715

Fig. 7. Landscape metrics for the six sub-territories situated within the inner and outer extents of the KUA.

9
S. Chakraborty et al.
Fig. 8. Areal share (in %) under the different modes of urban growth (Phase - I: 2000 - 2010 and Phase - II: 2010–2018) as per the dynamic urban expansion
boundaries- a and b denote these for the respective broader spatial territories; c and d denote these for the sub-territories situated within the inner and outer extents.
outer extent during Phase-II.
Examinations of the relative dominance of growth modes according
to the respective sub-zones, offers further insight into occurring urban
growth patterns. For example, within the inner extent, the ’urban core
2000′ was primarily dominated by infill types with a meager amount of
outlying growth during Phase-I. The other two sub-territories therein
mostly experienced edge-expansion and outlying growth. Contrarily,
infilling and edge-expansion were mostly observed for the ’urban core
expansion 2010− 2018’ and ’relocated urban fringe 2018′ zones in the
outer extent. The ’reducing scatter development 2018′ territory mainly
experienced outlying growth while edge-expansion was dominant for
the ’urban core expansion 2010− 2018’ zone in the outer extent.
During Phase-II, the dominance of infilling types became more
evident in all three sub-zones within the inner extent. In the ’expanded
core in 2010′ sub-territory, the rise of the infill type-1 category occurred
at the expense of both edge-expansion and outlying growth. However,
within the outer extent, both the ’expanded core in 2018′ and the
10
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
’relocated fringe in 2018′ sub-territories witnessed a considerable new
built-up addition via infilling. Edge-expansion was also recorded
simultaneously in these two sub-zones and occurred therein at the
expense of outlying growth. This same trend was evident in the ’existent
fringe since 2010′ sub-territory within the inner extent. The ’shortened
scatter development in 2018′ sub-territory, had a significantly increased
share of edge-expansion alongside a lower increase in infilling, all at the
expense of outlying growth.
The results above documented that the inner extent, which was
primarily dominated by densely built areas, grew mostly through edge-
expansion mode during Phase-I, but experienced more infilling in Phase-
II. This is an expected growth scenaio, with the more developed urban
areas generally experiencing infilling growth. Such growth has mainly
occurred at the expense of existing open spaces, reducing its already
limited amount even further (see Fig. 5). In contrast, the sub-territory
within the outer extent that was adjacent to the inner extent (i.e.
urban core expansion 2010–2018) clearly offered a transition from the
S. Chakraborty et al.
outlying to the infilling growth mode. Besides this, the existence of a
substantial proportion of both edge expansion and outlying growth
within the other two sub-territories in the outer extent reflected the
complexity of the urban growth patterns/trajectories therein.
5. Discussions
5.1. Changing urbanization pattern and dynamic spatial territory
formation
In this study, a neighborhood-level built-up density based approach
was employed to identify the three major spatial territories within the
KUA, i.e. urban core (high density built-up), urban fringe (moderately
dense built-up) and scatter development (low density built-up). The
spatial extents of these different urban typologies in three timestamps
were demarcated and overlapped to identify their temporal dynamics.
Inner and outer extents were suitably identified within the KUA together
with their sub-territories (three within each). Results reveal that with
ongoing urbanization, high density built-up expectedly expands out­
ward, into previously moderate (UF) and low density (SD) zones.
Consequently, the previous UF zone is pushed outward due to the rapid
UC expansion around the pre-existing city center and relocates itself
through occupation, conversion and partial replication of its previous
form within the adjacent countryside. Low-density extents reduce
considerably within/near the expanding city while fostering away from
it, thus reshaping the urban landscape territorially. Thus, the urban-
rural fringe is best considered as a dynamic frontier instead of as a
static zone (e.g. Bosch et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2019), especially for
fast-growing urban agglomerations.
According to Seto and Fragkias (2005: 878), “the boundary of the
urban-rural fringe tends to shift through time as urban land expands
outward from the city centre”. While many have recognized such urban
area restructuring/reorganization (Broitman & Koomen, 2015; Kant­
akumar et al., 2016; Sahana et al., 2018), discussions of the specific
pathways through which this occurs, the morphed nature of the spaces
themselves or how this impacts on urban growth are limited. Based on
the aforementioned UC-UF-SD alterations in the above two phases
(2000–2010 and 2010–2018), six different spatial territories were
categorized. While the baseline UC demarcated in 2000 occupied the
same space in both 2010 and 2018, its boundaries had expanded into
previously UF, SD and non-built areas. The UC could therefore re-classed
as ’urban core 2000′ and ’urban core expansion 2000–2010 and
2010− 2018’. The UF growth in Phase-II (2010–2018) resulted from its
appropriation of former SD zones, thereby enabling its relocation and
outward migration towards the peripheral areas of the KUA. The small
portion of the existing UF of the 2010 dataset that was not merged with
the newly developed UF of 2018 was classed as ’urban fringe 2010′ . The
rapid UC growth and UF migration had led to marked shrinkage in the
SD typology’s coverage in Phase-II, and this remnant zone was catego­
rized as ’reducing scatter development in 2018′ . Such direct trans­
formations of low-density scatter development territories into
high-density urban areas within a small time span (2010–2018)
strongly reflects the peri-urban dynamics of cities and urban agglom­
erations in the global south, particularly in Asia and Africa (Dong et al.,
2019; Fei & Zhao, 2019; Follmann et al., 2018; Jiao, 2015; Xu et al.,
2019).
The economic liberalization of 1991 provided impetus for urbani­
zation in the major metropolitan cities/UAs of India but in West Bengal,
this was primarily manifested by paradigm shifts in the state’s economic
and industrial policies in the year 2000 to attract large-scale investment
in the real estate sector (Shaw & Satish, 2007), leading to urban growth
in the KUA’s south-eastern (Rajpur-Sonarpur and Baruipur) and
north-eastern (Bidhannagar, Barasat and Madhaymgram) tracts (Mon­
dal, Das, & Dolui, 2015). The establishment of large industrial hubs had
promoted such expansions in its south-western (Sankrail-Abada) and
north-western (Dankuni) zones (Vision 2025, KMA). Interestingly, the
11
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
present urban growth in the KUA is significantly higher in settlements
(CTs and villages) under rural administration compared to those situ­
ated within urban administrative units (MCs and MUs- see Fig. 1). This
highlights the existent informal urbanization, wherein the state pro­
motes deregulated growth in the peri-urban areas administered by rural
entities (2011, Roy, 2005; 2016). With available land scarce in the
saturated core city region, which primarily comprises of statutory towns
(Bhatta, 2009; Sengupta, 2006), this newer high-density urban core is
now expanding into its adjoining settlements in an unprecedented
manner (Supplementary Table A5) and transforming ecologically valu­
able lands, i.e. forest/vegetation, crop lands and surface water bodies,
including the East Kolkata Wetlands, at an unprecedented rate (Sup­
plementary Fig. F4). This will futher increase the ecological burden of
city expansion and engender deterioration of the ecosystem health (Das
et al., 2020).
5.2. The KUA’s growth trajectories and different hypotheses of
urbanization
Across the world, the impacts of urban growth are not restricted to
within the city limits, being felt well beyond them (van Vliet, 2019).
Thus, deciphering the ambient spatio-temporal urban growth pattern
and its trajectories is an important step in assessing how urbanization
affects the natural landscape in order to better inform any planning
measures (Dahal et al., 2017; Dietzel, Herold et al., 2005; Liu et al.,
2010). Such studies usually examine whether urban growth follows a
generalized trend over time (i.e. diffusion at first, followed by coales­
cence; e.g. Fei & Zhao, 2019; He et al., 2017, 2019). This idea/concept is
seemingly invalided when urbanization patterns are examined through
a multi-scale perspective (e.g. Bosch et al., 2020; Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013).
Thus not considering such nuances may lead to inconclusive/erroneous
surmises about overall urban growth trajectories.
In this context, our results provide additional insights into how intra-
urban growth patterns vary within broader spatial extents (the demar­
cated inner and outer zones) and in their sub-territories and differ from
the theoretically expected trends. In case of the agglomeration, inner
and outer extents demarcated within the KUA, landscape metrics
confirm that urban growth has mostly occurred through coalescence.
The patch shape complexities (AWMFD) for the agglomeration and outer
extents, which increased during the study period, also indicate a tran­
sition from diffusion to coalescence (Dietzel, Herold et al., 2005; Dietzel,
Oguz et al., 2005). However, the computed sub-territorial multi-­
temporal landscape metrics reveal the fuzzy nature of the overall growth
pattern. For example, all the three sub-territories within the inner extent
conform to the overall pattern (coalescence) observed for the inner
extent, while those within the outer extent deviate from this. The MPS
and ENN_MN values increased and decreased in all three outer extent
sub-territories respectively, indicating coalescence, with decreased PD
values for the ’urban core expansion 2010− 2018’ and ’relocated urban
fringe 2018′ zones. In contrast, patch shape complexities increased for
all three outer extent sub-territories implying transitions from diffusion
to coalescence, with increasing PD values for the ’reducing scatter
development 2018′ zone. Li, Li, Wu et al. (2013) opine that diffusion and
coalescence should not be considered as two separate processes oper­
ating in mutually discrete time periods. Rather, they can occur simul­
taneously and more importantly, ’diffusion rejuvenation’ may be
discerned beyond the urban extents that have completed coalescing.
However, in contrast to Li, Li, Wu et al. (2013), our results reveal that
coalescence may dominate in certain urban zones (within city inner
extents in particular) while within certain zones (e.g. sub-territories of
the outer extent), both diffusion and coalescence can occur simulta­
neously, though at varying intensities. This is primarily begat by the
differing usability, accessibility and price/rent of lands within the con­
fines of already built-up tracts against that offered by relatively
non-built spaces along the periphery. Thus, it may be erroneous to
surmise that renewed diffusion can occur only after complete saturation
S. Chakraborty et al.
(e.g. Li, Li, Wu et al., 2013). This simultaneous diffusion-coalescence
process offers additional challenges to manage ecologically sensitive
land cover (water bodies, open spaces) amid high-density urban growth
on one hand and landscape fragmentation due to low density sprawl
development on the other (Dadashpoor et al., 2019b; Li et al., 2017).
The growth patterns of the overall agglomeration agree with the
theoretical assumptions of the three-growth mode proposition, i.e. the
dominance of edge-expansion and the alternate growth/decline between
the infilling and outlying modes. However, deviations from the idealized
conceptions were noted for the inner and outer extents and in the six
sub-territories within them. For example, during Phase-I, the infilling
types were particularly insignificant in the outer extent whereas, during
Phase-II, outlying growth was negligible within the inner extent. More
interestingly, during Phase-II, the dominance of infill type-1 in the inner
extent occurred at the expense of edge-expansion, while in the outer
extent, edge-expansion gained prominence at the expense of the
outlying growth mode. Additionally, during the entire study period, the
infilling types in the three sub-territories within the inner extent grew at
the cost of both the edge-expansion and outlying growth modes, indi­
cating the dominance of the coalescing processes, while during Phase-II,
these infilling types were significant only in the two sub-territories
within the outer extent, i.e. the ’urban core expansion 2010− 2018’
and the ’relocated urban fringe 2018′ . This implies that infilling was
insignificant only within the outermost sub-territory located in the outer
extent of the KUA, where edge-expansion outweighed the outlying
growth mode. These observations i.e., the nonconcurrent presence and
multi-directional change (e.g. increase dominance of infilling at the
expense of edge expasnion and edge expasnion at the expense of
outlying) of three types of new urban development are thus deviations
from what is considered the norm as per the assumed pathways of urban
growth postulated by the three growth modes hypothesis. Such findings
thus call for the generally accepted pathways of urban growth to be re-
examined, as more and more deviations from the norm become apparent
(e.g. Bosch et al., 2020; Dahal et al., 2017; Li, Li, Wu et al., 2013). The
sub-divisions delineated within the broader spatial extents of the city
offer additional insights to such growth patterns and their
pathways/trajectories.
Therefore, since urbanization is an inherently complex process and
operates differently across various zones/territories (Dadashpoor &
Ahani, 2019; Shi et al., 2012), any interpretations of its temporal growth
pattern also need to be done at/for different spatial extent/entities to
test the validity of the diffusion-coalescence and three growth modes
hypotheses. The differing characters of the sub-zones within the broader
city extents can also skew any generalized/over-arching conclusions.
5.3. Implications for fostering sustainable urbanization
An unprecedented conversion of valuable ecological land resources
into impervious surfaces in KUA poses specific challenges towards
mitigating its adverse impacts on the environment (Das et al., 2020;
Sahana et al., 2018). Apart from simply highlighting the changes in the
natural land cover and its transition to built-up tracts, we show how
USM based re-categorization of the LULC can inform its transformations
in a better way. However, the nature of such transformations differs
from the urban core area to its periphery. In particular, the recent
spill-over of densely built areas into the urban fringe, particularly in the
global south, makes their management further difficult (Follmann et al.,
2018). The identification and inclusion of urbanized and non-urbanized
green and grey open spaces in urban planning can help local authorities
better manage such tracts.
The complexity of growth in an urban agglomeration’s outer extent,
as outlined in the study, provides particular challenges in managing this
entity. Such peripheries are primarily governed under rural adminis­
tration and the absence/poor regulation of construction guidelines
under this governance structure encourages accelerated urban growth
(Jain, 2018; Simwanda & Murayama, 2018), as was evident during
12
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
Phase-II in our study area. This becomes detrimental from the envi­
ronmental health perspective. Therefore, fast urbanizing nations in the
global south, including India, need to devise alternative governance
frameworks for such city peripheral areas as these show the most dy­
namic urban growth, in order to redirect/regulate the occurring land­
scape changes sustainably. Discerning these intra-urban variations in
urban growth patterns is important, since the outer territory primarily
consists of rural settlements (i.e. villages and Census Towns) that hardly
have any ‘urban-administrative authority’ or framed policies to govern
such dynamicity. This allows infomal conversion of ecologically sensi­
tive land and water bodies into built-up tracts, resulting in severe
environmental impacts (Jain, 2018; Roy, 2005; 2016; Simwanda &
Murayama, 2018). Although these peripheral zones should be of a high
concern with respect to territorial planning, they actually typically
receive comparatively low attention. Planning these dynamic urban
peripheral areas can be seen as a key to make urban growth more sus­
tainable in the near future.
5.4. Methodological considerations
Previous studies have examined the spatiality of urban areas using
both administrative (Li, Li, Zhu et al., 2013) and statistical criteria
(Bosch et al., 2020). However, such examinations are limited as they
only consider different spatial territories present within certain pre­
determined extents (as proposed by the bifractal city model) or hierar­
chical levels (administrative divisions), thereby possibly circumscribing
analyses/surmises of how urban growth patterns differ across different
built-up typologies and their evolution.
The dynamic spatial territory extents employed in this study do not
depend on any specific location or any administrative hierarchies to
characterize urban growth spatiality (Supplementary Fig. F5). Instead,
the various spatial typologies demarcated through USM are used to
define such extents and consider the temporal changes in them
accordingly. The rules proposed here for demarcating such units also
enables differentiation of high, moderate and low-density urban devel­
opment zones (Supplementary Figs. F6 and F7). Furthermore, the sub-
territorial classifications enable comprehension of how urban growth
patterns vary even inside such broader spatial territories, i.e. within the
inner and outer city extents. This is particularly true for the outer extent
where admixtures of high, moderate and low-density built-up areas co-
exist. Two distinctive paths of urban growth could also be traced be­
tween the existing/old high-density built-up areas and zones of newer
urban growth. The former reflects infilling growth types causing coa­
lescence, whereas it is edge-expansion which precipitates merging of
built-up patches in the latter. Most importantly, coalescence can
possibly be further typified into two categories: infilling-coalescence (a
patch consumes its enclosed spaces) and expansion-coalescence (multiple
patches together consume the countryside between/separating them).
Furthermore, our results also confirm that diffusion does not commence
only after coalescence ceases, but that both can occur simultaneously,
particularly in the outer extents. This observation is particularly sig­
nificant for cities/UAs in developing nations wherein peri-urbanization
drives land use/land cover changes and is difficult to plan for or regulate
(Asabere et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2012).
This study is limited by the non-consideration of secondary UCs (and
their respective growth trajectories) situated within the KUA (Supple­
mentary Fig. F8). This possibly partially skews the analyses undertaken
and the enumerations obtained. Furthermore, the identified spatial
territories were not continuous, which could have subsequently influ­
enced the calculated landscape metrics statistics. The inculcation of
polycentric/nodal development patterns involving secondary UCs could
further enhance similar studies. Discerning how these limitations may
be overcome can provide avenues for future research in this domain, so
that the spatio-temporal attributes of urban growth may be better
comprehended.
S. Chakraborty et al.
6. Conclusion
This study has proposed an innovative dynamic spatial territory-based
approach to test how far popular hypotheses of urbanization apply to the
KUA’s spatial patterns of growth. Results show that the high-density
urban core became the most significant spatial built-up typology in
the study area in the examined time period. Such growth of the city core,
particularly its expansion towards the periphery, primarily happened at
the expense of both urbanized and non-urbanized open spaces. The
spatial territories present in the periphery were also the most dynamic.
Landscape metrics and mode-wise urban growth statistics computed for
these entities further revealed that urbanization patterns varied mark­
edly across the broad spatial extents demarcated. While on the scale of
the agglomeration we found clear evidence for a shift from diffusion to
coalescence, zooming into the inner and outer extents as well as sub-
territories within these, we have shown that urban growth patterns
remarkedly differ from the theoretically expected trends - the inner city
zone underwent coalescence, the outer extents displayed complex
growth patterns with diffusion and coalescence occurring simulta­
neously, but at varying intensities within the different sub-territorial
units. Thus, we argue that these multi-scale analyses are important to
better understand urban growth trajectories and develop well-adjusted
spatial policies to respond to these intra-urban variations.
In line with previous research, our results also suggest that the nor­
mally accepted theories/modes of urban growth may need to be re-
examined since its dynamicity cuts across spatial and administrative
hierarchies/units. Such deviations likely arise from unplanned/poorly
regulated urban growth, the mushrooming of secondary city centers,
conscious policy decisions to lessen the congestion burden on the central
city and the expected densification of older built-up spaces. Undertaking
such research for a larger number of UAs (and examining variations
according to city size, within and across nations) would thus better
inform urban growth hypotheses and help frame more effective policies
to govern such rapidly morphing locales in order to promote sustainable
urbanization. Future studies must take into account the extent, character
of the dynamic spatial territories and intra-urban variations in growth
patterns present within a city to properly identify its spatiality and
growth trajectory to reduce its adverse impacts on environement.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
No.
Acknowledgements
Saurav Chakraborty and Priyank Pravin Patel are thankful to Presi­
dency University, Kolkata for all supports. The authors are particularly
thankful to the USGS for providing the satellite images freely. We are
particularly thankful to Marti Bosch for his valuable suggestions to un­
derstand the area-radius relationship regarding urban spatial organiza­
tion. Without this we may not able to compare our method with other
popular approaches like area-radius relation. Authors are very grateful
to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments
and suggestions to upgrade the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102715.
13
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
References
Angel, S., Parent, J., & Civco, D. (2007). Urban sprawl metrics: An analysis of global
urban expansion using GIS. May. In Proceedings of ASPRS 2007 Annual Conference
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0003.pdf.
Asabere, S. B., Acheampong, R. A., Ashiagbor, G., Beckers, S. C., Keck, M., Erasmi, S.,
et al. (2020). Urbanization, land use transformation and spatio-environmental
impacts: Analyses of trends and implications in major metropolitan regions of
Ghana. Land Use Policy, 96, Article 104707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2020.104707
Bhatta, B. (2009). Analysis of urban growth pattern using remote sensing and GIS: A case
study of Kolkata, India. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30, 4733–4746.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802651967
Bosch, M., Jaligot, R., & Chenal, J. (2020). Spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization in
three Swiss urban agglomerations: Insights from landscape metrics, growth modes
and fractal analysis. Landscape Ecology, 35, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10980-020-00985-y
Broitman, D., & Koomen, E. (2015). Residential density change: Densification and urban
expansion. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 32–46. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.006
Chakravorty, S. (2000). From colonial city to globalizing city? The far-from-complete
spatial transformation of Calcutta. Globalizing cities: A new spatial order? (pp. 56–77).
Clement, M. T., Chi, G., & Ho, H. C. (2015). Urbanization and land-use change: A human
ecology of deforestation across the United States, 2001–2006. Sociological Inquiry, 85
(4), 628–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12097
Dadashpoor, H., & Ahani, S. (2019). A conceptual typology of the spatial territories of the
peripheral areas of metropolises. Habitat International, 90, Article 102015. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102015
Dadashpoor, H., Azizi, P., & Moghadasi, M. (2019a). Land use change, urbanization, and
change in landscape pattern in a metropolitan area. Science of the Total Environment,
655, 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.267
Dadashpoor, H., Azizi, P., & Moghadasi, M. (2019b). Analyzing spatial patterns, driving
forces and predicting future growth scenarios for supporting sustainable urban
growth: Evidence from Tabriz metropolitan area, Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society,
47, Article 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101502
Dahal, K. R., Benner, S., & Lindquist, E. (2017). Urban hypotheses and spatiotemporal
characterization of urban growth in the Treasure Valley of Idaho, USA. Applied
Geography, 79, 11–25.
Das, M., Das, A., & Mandal, A. (2020). Research note: Ecosystem Health (EH) assessment
of a rapidly urbanizing metropolitan city region of eastern India–A study on Kolkata
Metropolitan Area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, Article 103938.
Dietzel, C., Herold, M., Hemphill, J. J., & Clarke, K. C. (2005). Spatio-temporal dynamics
in California’s central Valley: Empirical links to urban theory. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 19(2), 175–195.
Dietzel, C., Oguz, H., Hemphill, J. J., Clarke, K. C., & Gazulis, N. (2005). Diffusion and
coalescence of the Houston Metropolitan Area: Evidence supporting a new urban
theory. Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design, 32(2), 231–246.
Dong, T., Jiao, L., Xu, G., Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2019). Towards sustainability? Analyzing
changing urban form patterns in the United States, Europe, and China. Science of The
Total Environment, 671, 632–643.
Fahey, R. T., & Casali, M. (2017). Distribution of forest ecosystems over two centuries in
a highly urbanized landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 13–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.008
Fei, W., & Zhao, S. (2019). Urban land expansion in China’s six megacities from 1978 to
2015. Science of the Total Environment, 664, 60–71.
Follmann, A., Hartmann, G., & Dannenberg, P. (2018). Multi-temporal transect analysis
of peri-urban developments in Faridabad, India. Journal of Maps, 14(1), 17–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2018.1424656
Haque, I., & Patel, P. P. (2018). Growth of metro cities in India: Trends, patterns and
determinants. Urban Research & Practice, 11(4), 338–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17535069.2017.1344727
Haque, I., Rana, M.d. J., & Patel, P. P. (2020). Location matters: Unravelling the spatial
dimensions of neighbourhood level housing quality in Kolkata, India. Habitat
International, 99, Article 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102157
He, Q., Song, Y., Liu, Y., & Yin, C. (2017). Diffusion or coalescence? Urban growth
pattern and change in 363 Chinese cities from 1995 to 2015. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 35, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.033
He, Q., Zeng, C., Xie, P., Tan, S., & Wu, J. (2019). Comparison of urban growth patterns
and changes between three urban agglomerations in China and three metropolises in
the USA from 1995 to 2015. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, Article 101649.
Hu, X., Qian, Y., Pickett, S. T. A., & Zhou, W. (2020). Urban mapping needs up-to-date
approaches to provide diverse perspectives of current urbanization: A novel attempt
to map urban areas with nighttime light data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 195,
Article 103709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103709
Jain, M. (2018). Contemporary urbanization as unregulated growth in India: The story of
census towns. Cities, 73(October), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2017.10.017
Jenerette, G. D., & Potere, D. (2010). Global analysis and simulation of land-use change
associated with urbanization. Landscape Ecology, 25, 657–670. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10980-010-9457-2
Jiao, L. (2015). Urban land density function: A new method to characterize urban
expansion. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 26–39.
Kantakumar, L. N., Kumar, S., & Schneider, K. (2016). Spatiotemporal urban expansion
in Pune metropolis, India using remote sensing. Habitat International, 51, 11–22.
S. Chakraborty et al.
Li, H., Peng, J., Yanxu, L., & Yi’na, H. (2017). Urbanization impact on landscape patterns
in Beijing City, China: A spatial heterogeneity perspective. Ecological Indicators, 82,
50–60.
Li, C., Li, J., & Wu, J. (2013). Quantifying the speed, growth modes, and landscape
pattern changes of urbanization: A hierarchical patch dynamics approach. Landscape
Ecology, 28, 1875–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9933-6
Li, J., Li, C., Zhu, F., Song, C., & Wu, J. (2013). Spatiotemporal pattern of urbanization in
Shanghai, China between 1989 and 2005. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1545–1565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9901-1
Liu, X., Li, X., Chen, Y., Tan, Z., Li, S., & Ai, B. (2010). A new landscape index for
quantifying urban expansion using multi-temporal remotely sensed data. Landscape
Ecology, 25(5), 671–682.
Liu, Z., He, C., & Wu, J. (2016). General spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: An
examination of 16 world cities. Sustainability, 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su8010041
McGarigal, K. (2015). FRAGSTATS help. Amherst, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts.
Mitra, D., & Banerji, S. (2018). Urbanisation and changing waterscapes: a case study of
New Town, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Applied Geography, 97, 109–118.
Mondal, B., Das, D. N., & Dolui, G. (2015). Modeling spatial variation of explanatory
factors of urban expansion of Kolkata: A geographically weighted regression
approach. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40808-015-0026-1
Mondal, B., Dolui, G., Pramanik, M., Maity, S., Biswas, S. S., & Pal, R. (2017). Urban
expansion and wetland shrinkage estimation using a GIS-based model in the East
Kolkata Wetland, India. Ecological Indicators, 83, 62–73.
Peng, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness
of landscape metrics in quantifying spatial patterns. Ecological Indicators, 10(2),
217–223.
Peng, W., Wang, G., Zhou, J., Zhao, J., & Yang, C. (2015). Studies on the temporal and
spatial variations of urban expansion in Chengdu, western China, from 1978 to 2010.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 17, 141–150.
Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association American Planning Association, 71, 147–158. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976689
Roy, A. (2011). Re-forming the megacity: Calcutta and the rural-urban interface 93–109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99267-7_5
Roy, A. (2016). What is urban about critical urban theory? Urban Geography, 37(6),
810–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1105485
Sahana, M., Hong, H., & Sajjad, H. (2018). Analyzing urban spatial patterns and trend of
urban growth using urban sprawl matrix: A study on Kolkata urban agglomeration,
India. Science of the Total Environment, 628, 1557–1566.
Sengupta, U. (2006). Government intervention and public-private partnerships in
housing delivery in Kolkata. Habitat International, 30, 448–461. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.12.002
Seto, K. C., & Fragkias, M. (2005). Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land-use
change in four cities of China with time series landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology,
20(7), 871–888.
14
Sustainable Cities and Society 67 (2021) 102715
Sharma, R., & Joshi, P. K. (2013). Monitoring urban landscape dynamics over Delhi
(India) using remote sensing (1998-2011) inputs. Journal of the Indian Society of
Remote Sensing, 41(3), 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-012-0248-x
Shaw, A., & Satish, M. K. (2007). Metropolitan restructuring in post-liberalized India:
Separating the global and the local. Cities, 24, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2006.02.001
Shi, Y., Sun, X., Zhu, X., Li, Y., & Mei, L. (2012). Characterizing growth types and
analyzing growth density distribution in response to urban growth patterns in peri-
urban areas of Lianyungang City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(4), 425–433.
Simwanda, M., & Murayama, Y. (2018). Spatiotemporal patterns of urban land use
change in the rapidly growing city of Lusaka, Zambia: Implications for sustainable
urban development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 262–274.
Su, S., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Transformation of agricultural
landscapes under rapid urbanization: A threat to sustainability in Hang-Jia-Hu
region, China. Applied Geography, 31(2), 439–449.
Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Characterizing landscape pattern and
ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale.
Applied Geography, 34, 295–305.
Taubenböck, H., Weigand, M., Esch, T., Staab, J., Wurm, M., Mast, J., et al. (2019).
A new ranking of the world’s largest cities—Do administrative units obscure
morphological realities? Remote Sensing of Environment, 232, Article 111353.
Tripathy, P., & Kumar, A. (2019). Monitoring and modelling spatio-temporal urban
growth of Delhi using Cellular Automata and geoinformatics. Cities, 90(January),
52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.021
United Nations. (2018). 2018 revision of world urbanization prospects. New York: UNDESA.
United Nations. (2016). The world’s cities in 2016. Data Booklet (ST/ESA/SER. A/392) htt
ps://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanizatio
n/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf.
van Vliet, J. (2019). Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nature
Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0340-0 (Table 1).
Weng, Y. C. (2007). Spatiotemporal changes in landscape pattern in response to
urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(4), 341–353.
Wu, J., Jenerette, G. D., Buyantuyev, A., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Quantifying
spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: The case of the two fastest growing
metropolitan regions in the United States. Ecological Complexity, 8(1), 1–8.
Xu, C., Liu, M., Zhang, C., An, S., Yu, W., & Chen, J. M. (2007). The spatiotemporal
dynamics of rapid urban growth in the Nanjing metropolitan region of China.
Landscape Ecology, 22(6), 925–937.
Xu, G., Dong, T., Cobbinah, P. B., Jiao, L., Sumari, N. S., Chai, B., et al. (2019). Urban
expansion and form changes across African cities with a global outlook:
Spatiotemporal analysis of urban land densities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224,
802–810.
Yu, X. J., & Ng, C. N. (2007). Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban sprawl along two
urban–rural transects: A case study of Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 79(1), 96–109.
Zhu, Z., Zhou, Y., Seto, K. C., Stokes, E. C., Deng, C., Pickett, S. T. A., et al. (2019).
Understanding an urbanizing planet: Strategic directions for remote sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 228(October 2018), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2019.04.020