57

CHAPTER-III

URBANIZATION PATTERN IN KARNATAKA

3. 1. INTRODUCTION:

Urban population had increased almost eleven times with an annual growth of

9.91 per cent. As a result, the share of Karnataka’s urban population was on the much

higher side as compared to the national pattern during 1901-2001. As per the projected

urban population, the same higher growth trend of urban population would continue in

Karnataka till 2016 by reaching an urban population share as high as 39.3 per cent

while, at the national level, it will be just 33.7 per cent (Govt. of India, 1991b). By per

cent annual urban population growth, Karnataka is on the higher growth range along

with the other prominent states. North –Eastern states, Tamil Nadu and Haryana have

recorded the highest growth pattern. The national trend has also exhibited almost a

similar bimodal pattern, but with moderate peaks. As per the projected urban

population trends, by 2016, Karnataka’s growth trend would be on the lower side as

compared to the national pattern. The main implication of projected higher urban

population share and lower growth is that there will be higher concentration of

population in cities and towns in Karnataka as compared to the national pattern. This

has obvious implications on the city and town management in terms of infrastructure

and services. Subsequent urban development policies which encouraged higher size

towns have led to redistribution in concentration of towns by eroding the pyramidal

base. The main purpose of this study is to analyze the urbanization pattern of

Karnataka, an economic analysis. Hence, this chapter covers the analysis in four

different sections as,

i) Issues of Urbanization the State,

ii) Regional Urbanization Pattern,

iii) Urban Growth Trends in the State, and

iv) State Urbanization Policy.

58

3.2. ANALYSIS OF THE URBANIZATION PATTERN IN KARNATAKA:

Urbanization and economic growth are strongly associated, and hence, urban

areas, in general, and cities, in particular, have been identified as the ‘Engines of

Economic Growth’, and ‘Agents of Change’ (Mohan and Dasgupta, 2005). Karnataka,

one of the frontline states of India, ranks 6th by per capita net state domestic product,

per cent share of urban population, life expectancy, infant mortality and maternal

mortality rates, 7th by literacy and 9th by population size (Heitzman, 2001 and Govt. of

India, 2001). Karnataka accounts for almost 6.3 per cent of national urban population

and 5.4 per cent of the total number of towns in the country. By share of urban

population, Karnataka (33.98 per cent) stood much above the national average (27.78

per cent) in 2001. With its conducive location characteristics for industrial and

commercial development, the two engines of economic growth and urbanization,

Karnataka’s urbanization has been consistently progressive with gradual increase in

urban population from 12.59 per cent to 33.98 per cent during 1901 and 2001. In

addition, during 1901-2001, the State’s, favorable climate and primitive policies of the

State Government attracted the people within the country and outside alike leading to

higher growth of urban population and the urban areas (cities). Hence Karnataka with

its urban population at 34 per cent of total population is at present ranked 5th

The main reason for such high urban population growth peak during 1941-51 in

Karnataka was the state’s initiative towards industrialization. This process has

obviously led to rapid increase in city and town sizes in the state. Similarly, to begin

with, the distribution of towns in Karnataka by size class reveals a well balanced

typical pyramidal shape with strong base, with highest concentration of class VI (less

than 5,000 population) and least share of class I towns 8 (more than 100,000

population) at the top. Subsequent urban development policies which encouraged

higher size towns have led to redistribution in concentration of towns by eroding the

pyramidal base. A similar growth pattern is evident at the national level as well. While

the concentration of urban population by size class is concerned, the issue has been

more serious as the population distribution has assumed a perfect inverted pyramid with

highest and least concentration of population in class I and VI towns respectively in

Karnataka as well at the national level during 1901-2001. This implies that both state

and national urban development policies have consistently reinforced each other to

most

urbanized among the Indian states.

59

encourage highest concentration of population in class I cities (Karnataka: 67 per cent;

India: 70 per cent).thus highlighting the’ top heavy’ character of Indian urbanization.

With this background the study proposes to examine Urbanization pattern in Karnataka

– An Economic Analysis.

3.3 EMERGING ISSUES OF ON-GOING URBANISATION IN KARNATAKA:

3.3.1 'Top-Heavy' Character

A crucial issue of urbanization in developing countries is the distribution of

towns by size class in terms of their number and population. In Karnataka, to begin

with, the distribution of towns by size class revealed a well-balanced typical pyramidal

shape with the highest concentration in Class VI (less than 5,000 population) at the

bottom and the least share of Class I towns (more than 100,000 population) at the top.

However, subsequent urban development policies which encouraged higher size towns

have led to redistribution in the concentration of towns by eroding the pyramidal base.

A similar growth pattern is evident at the national level as well. As for the

concentration of urban population by size class, the issue has been much more serious

as the population distribution has assumed a perfect inverted pyramid with the highest

and the least concentrations of population in Class I and VI towns respectively in

Karnataka as well as at the national level during 1901-2001. At the Karnataka level, the

concentration of urban population in Class I cities was so share that the share, which

was just 9.7 per cent in 1901, increased to 67.2 per cent in 2001, thus enhancing the

concentration by almost 7 times during 1901-2001.

A similar pattern is evident at the national level with an increase in

concentration by almost three times. Thus, the "top-heavy" character of urban

population is very much prevalent at both national and state levels and it is more

prominent in Karnataka. Similarly, the "top-heavy" character of urban population at the

regional level of Karnataka (Southern Maidan: 80.69 per cent; Malnad: 62.28 per cent;

Coast: 50.32 per cent; Northern Maidan: 45.33 per cent) is very much evident. In

particular, the concentration of urban population in Class I cities is more pronounced in

the Southern Maidan and Malnad regions of Karnataka and moderate in the other two

regions. Southern Maidan has been identified as the highest urbanized region in the

state followed by the Malnad region (Sastry 2005). Hence, in all these distribution

patterns (national, state and regions of Karnataka), it is clear that:

60

a) Higher concentration of population in Class I cities is mainly associated with

the higher levels of urbanization, and

b) Higher concentration of population in Class I cities is at the expense of both

the medium and small towns.

As a result, towns with a population size of 20,000 and below have declined in

population concentration very significantly in all the said levels. The higher

concentration of urban population in Class I cities of India was also brought out by

Mills and Becker in their study on Indian urban development (1986). Similarly, an

empirical analysis of population concentration at the National (India), the State

(Karnataka) and its regional levels using Lorenz curve and Gini coefficients during

1901, 1951, 1981, 1991 and 2001 has revealed an increase in population concentration

at all levels (Table 3. 1).

Table 3.1: Gini coefficients for urban population concentration in towns: (India, Karnataka and Karnataka regions) 1901, 1951, 1981, 1991 and 2001

Source: Derived based on urban population data from 1901, 1951, 1981, 1991 and 2001 census data

From the above analysis it is evident that both the state and national urban

development policies have consistently reinforced each other to encourage the highest

concentration of population in Class I cities, thus highlighting the 'top-heavy' character

of Indian urbanisation. Such a top-heavy pattern is also evident at the global level with

higher concentration of urban population in the population size group of 1 million to 10

million and more, and the share of concentration is more progressive in developing

countries compared to that in developed countries (UN 2006). Such lop-sided

urbanisation pattern has encouraged primate cities and primate city regions in various

countries, which, in turn, has resulted in another serious urban development issue of

Year India Karnataka Coast Malnad Southern Maidan Northern Maidan

1901 0.53 0.49 - - - -

1951 0.62 0.58 - - - -

1981 - - 0.49 0.61 0.71 0.45

1991 0.65 0.64 0.57 0.62 0.71 0.49

2001 0.69 0.66 0.61 0.64 0.78 0.50

61

urban-rural disparity. In Karnataka, Bangalore has maintained its primacy and it has

increased significantly from 2.4 to 7.2 during 1901-2001 (Sastry 2006). At the national

level, interestingly, while Kolkata had maintained its primacy over Mumbai during

1901-71 (though with a very nominal primacy values ranging from 1.08 to 1.13),

Mumbai overtook Kolkata from 1981 onwards with the primacy values ranging from

1.02 to 1.24 for the years 1981-2001, again reflecting the competition in a progressive

way. Hence, the primacy of Bangalore in Karnataka is more prominent than the

primacy of Mumbai at the national level (Mills and Becker 1986).

3.3.2. Urban-Rural Disparity

From the beginning, social scientists and literary scholars have acknowledged

the distinction that exists between the rural and urban areas. With rapid urbanisation

and its distorted patterns in developing countries, the issue of rural-urban disparity has

become more prominent (DFID 2006; Fan, Kang and Mukherjee 2005; Jain 2005; Lu

2004; Yang and Zhou 1999; Coulter and Ivory 1982; Baker 1986; Moon 1978). As a

result, the "Rural-Urban Continuum Debate" acquired greater significance with several

scholars arguing for or against the theme (McGee 1971). The widening regional as well

as urban-rural disparities in India have been very well brought out by the World Bank

and the UN in their reports on India (World Bank 2003, UN 2003). Similarly, NSSO in

its study on consumer expenditure survey for the year 2000-01 has documented a wide

disparity between the urban and rural areas in average monthly per capita expenditure

and also in terms of expenditure on food and nonfood products. (NSSO. 2004). The

increasing urban-rural gap was also evident in a study by Amitabh Kundu (Kundu et al

2003).In India, the rural-urban dichotomy has been more prevalent especially in all

metros and large cities and has emerged as a major urban development issue. The

problem may be illustrated with reference to Bangalore and its region.

62

Table 3.2: Percentage distribution of households by various Socio-economic and environmental characteristics-Bangalore City and its region, 2002

Source: Sastry (2004) and AusIndia (2002)

Rapid urbanization in the globally known IT city, Bangalore, has led to more

pronounced city-region disparity as revealed by several socio-economic and

environmental characteristics, like education level, income, type of occupation, piped

water supply, toilet facility and solid waste disposal (Table3. 2). By educational

attainment of households, the per cent share of households with illiterates and those

Variable City Conurbation Greenbelt

Education

Illiterates 13 21 30

Primary 4 5 9

Higher Primary 23 25 34

Secondary 32 33 19

Intermediate 7 6 2

Graduation and Post-Graduation 15 9 6

Professionals 7 1 0

Workers

Unskilled 12 23 50

Skilled 32 40 12

Monthly Household Income (Rs)

Less than 2000 10 13 19

2000-6000 56 70 68

More than 6000 29 8 7

Urban Services

Piped water supply 73 8 6

Toilet Facility 66 47 26

Open Defecation 1 35 70

Solid Waste Disposal

House Collection 34 0 0

Dustbin 53 29 2

Open Space 7 64 72

63

with primary and higher primary education has increased significantly from the city to

rural regions. While the secondary, intermediate, graduation, post-graduation and

professional education levels have declined significantly from the city to rural regions,

the per cent share of households with unskilled workers has increased more

prominently from the city to rural regions. The share of skilled workers has shown an

inverse pattern. The per cent share of low and middle income households has shown

gradual increase as we move away from the city, while the high income group has

revealed a reverse pattern.

On the basis of the percentage of households having various facilities and

services, the city is identified with piped water supply, toilet facility, and solid waste

disposal facilities. The rural area is identified with open defecation and disposal of solid

waste in open spaces. From the analysis, it is evident that the rural-urban dichotomy in

the case of Bangalore and its rural region is prominent. While, the city may be

characterised as having higher educational attainments, skilled labour with high

income, and having all the urban facilities, the rural area, on the other hand, is

characterised by low education attainment, unskilled labour with lower income and the

absence of or the least hygienic facilities. From the distribution of various

characteristics, it is evident that their performance would either fade away or change

significantly towards the lower share and service as we move away from the city. The

consequence is that instead of the city-region symbiosis, the rural region has been

experiencing acute problems of environment and underdevelopment. Even at the

national level, a significant gap between the rural and urban areas in terms of income,

expenditure, ownership of assets, and standard of living was well brought out by Mills

and Becker (1986).

3.3.3. Regional Disparity

Physiographically, Karnataka has been divided into Coastal, Malnad, Southern

Maidan and Northern Maidan regions. Here, region-specific development policies have

been adopted to promote regional development, and this, in turn, has led to differential

urbanisation patterns. In the state, Southern Maidan is the highest urbanized region

(50.6 per cent) while the Coastal region (7.4 per cent) is least urbanized. Malnad (21.4

per cent), historically a forest-rich region, and Northern Maidan (20.6 per cent), a less

developed region, have revealed medium levels of urbanisation. Southern Maidan, with

location advantage and better infrastructure and services, has also recorded the highest

64

urban population growth (34.7 per cent) in the state. Southern Maidan, which was with

the erstwhile princely state of Mysore, has cornered all privileges since the beginning in

terms of location of industrial and commercial activities and development of

infrastructure and services. Although Malnad (22.8 per cent) has recorded the least

increase, its magnitude is of very great concern as it has an ecologically fragile forest

resource base. The Malnad region has been identified as one of the 12 biodiversity hot

spots of the world (Sengupta 2001).

The differential urbanisation patterns of Karnataka regions along with their

resource endowment and associated regional economic culture have led to development

of towns with unique economic specialisation. The Coastal region has the highest

concentration of towns which are specialized in the tertiary sector (40 per cent)

followed by the manufacturing sector (26.7 per cent). Similarly, the Malnad region with

its obvious location specificity and rich natural resource endowment has encouraged a

larger share of towns (40.7 per cent) which are specialized in tertiary activities followed

by the primary activities (32.1 per cent). Southern Maidan with its location advantages

for industrial, commercial and service activities along with better infrastructure

facilities has the highest concentration of multi-functional towns, the towns which are

specialized in more than two functions (32.9 per cent), followed by towns which are

specialized in the secondary sector (24.3 per cent) and primary sectors (24.3 per cent).

Northern Maidan with its high agriculture and irrigation potentials has the highest

concentration of towns with specialisation in the primary sector (43.8 per cent)

followed by the tertiary sector (19.2 per cent).

Karnataka's urbanisation has been promoting both functionally and spatially

lop-sided urban development mainly due to higher concentration of population in the

Class I cities (100,000 + population), higher share of tertiary sector-based towns and

higher levels of urbanisation in the Southern Maidan region, and in particular, the

regions adjoining the state capital, Bangalore, which is located almost in the southern

tip of the state boundary. By 2016, the share of urban population in the state would

reach almost 40 per cent which, in all possibility, would extend the existing uneven

urbanization pattern further, unless proper corrective policy measures are taken well in

advance. In addition, the population of Greater Bangalore [recently expanded version

of Bangalore (Sastry 2007b)] would reach about 15 million by 2016, adding to the

existing problem of high concentration of urban population. Such uneven urbanisation

65

pattern in the state has sharpened the city-region as well as inter- region disparities in

terms of availability of infrastructure and services, and would be sharpened further with

the projected population concentration in cities and towns. Regional disparities and

high growth and high density performance of various cities/towns have not only

imposed high pressure on land but also demand more resources and services. In the

absence of planned growth and infrastructure development, cities and towns would

experience unplanned development which would ultimately lead to more serious

environmental problems, like air and water pollution, land degradation, development of

slums, water and sanitation, transportation problems, and high-density living (Sastry

2007a).

Uneven urban development has been well recognized by the state planners and

policy makers and corrective measures have been proposed as early as in the state's

Eighth Five-Year Plan document. According to the proposed corrective measures, the

state urban development policy should focus on:

a) Dispersal of urbanisation and equitable distribution of urban benefits,

b) Development of counter-magnets to slow down the growth of mega cities,

c) Development of areas of special potential like the west coast,

d) Growth of industrial areas and administrative towns,

e) Establishment of proper hierarchy of small, medium and large towns, and

f) Development of urban-rural linkages.

In addition, regional disparities in urban development in Karnataka have been

identified recently, and there is an emphasis on the need for policy direction to

encourage balanced urban development in the state through diverting population

concentration, especially from the mega city region to the emerging potential growth

centers or regions (Govt. of Karnataka 2002: 544).

3.3. 4. Transport Corridor-Based Urbanization

As early as the 1980s, it was predicted, on the basis of transport corridors and

amenity environments that the future urban development patterns of the entire globe

would be on a linear pattern. Accordingly, transport corridors and amenity

environments would become major loci for future urban growth and expansion. In the

process, a few prominent urban transport corridors were globally identified: London-

Manchester, Washington-Boston, Osaka-Tokyo, Melbourne-Sydney, and Delhi-

66

Calcutta. Hence, railways, highways, rivers and coastlines would serve as the impetus

for future horizontal urban settlement pattern in the world (Brunn and Williams 1983).

This model of urban development based on rapid urbanisation is manifesting

itself along the major corridors in Karnataka. Of the three important corridors of the

state, a) Bangalore-Belgaum, b) Mysore-Bangalore-Kolar, and c) Mangalore-Udupi-

Karwar, the Bangalore-Belgaum corridor has emerged as the most prominent one

accommodating almost 62.4 per cent of the state urban population in 2001, followed by

the Mysore-Bangalore-Kolar corridor. Interestingly, due to the on-going hectic urban

development activities, the Mysore-Bangalore-Kolar urban corridor has recorded

higher population change during 1991-2001. As a follow-up of the corridor pattern of

urbanisation, two more urban corridors--Hospet-Bellary-Raichur and Bijapur-

Gulbarga-Bidar are emerging as the potential urban corridors for rapid urbanization

(Table-3.3).

Table 3. 3: Existing and emerging urban corridors of Karnataka, 2001

Corridors

Per cent Urban Population

Percent Urban Population Change

1991 2001 1991-2001

Bangalore- Belgaum 48.1 62.4 67.1

Mysore-Bangalore-Kolar 10.9 16.0 88.8

Mangalore-Udipi-Karwar 5.9 5.9 29.3

Hospet-Bellary-Raichur (Emerging 6.4 6.3 27.0

Bijapur-Gulbarga- Bidar (Emerging) 6.4 7.0 41.6

Source: Shivaramakrishnan

It is evident that all the existing and emerging urban corridors are also the major

transport corridors of the state. A similar emergence of transport corridors-based rapid

urbanization is being experienced at the national level as well. Rapid infrastructure

development along these major corridors in Karnataka has promoted rapid urbanisation,

particularly along the Bangalore-Belgaum corridor which is a part of the 'Golden

Quadrilateral' national road network. Similarly, the Bangalore-Mysore corridor, a

miniature 'golden quadrilateral' being exclusively developed by the state, and the

Mangalore-Karwar corridor, a part of the much longer west coast corridor, have also

developed rapidly. In fact, the importance of these transport corridor-based rapid

67

urbanisation is so significant that almost 84 per cent of the state urban population and

74 per cent of the total urban investment are concentrated in these rapidly urbanizing

corridors (Shivaramakrishan 2001). Hence, like the global and national patterns of

urbanisation, the state is also experiencing transport corridor-based urbanisation, while,

self-induced urbanisation based on these transport corridors is a very good sign of

diffused urban development in the state. However, the main issue in this pattern of

urbanisation is that urban development is restricted to these prominent transport

corridors alone resulting in large gaps of unserved areas or emergence of unserved

islands of urban development. The policy makers should take a serious note of these

emerging problems of urban corridor pattern of urbanisation in Karnataka while

formulating a long-term state urban development policy to ensure balanced distribution

of urban population as well as infrastructure both on and off the corridors.

3.3.5. Distorted Urban Hierarchy

By population size and associated functions, the on-going urbanisation process

has resulted in the following more conspicuous six-tier hierarchy of urban centres in the

state (Table 3.4). However, both spatially and functionally, one can find both gaps and

overlaps in the existing hierarchic order of cities and towns (First order: 1; Second

order: 2; Third order: 8; Fourth order: 13 etc). In particular, the second order centres are

only two (Hubli-Dharwad and Mysore) which are supposed to serve the entire

Karnataka with the required second order functions. Spatially, though each of these

centres is ideally located in two distinct northern and southern regions of Karnataka,

due to infrastructure constraints and huge command area for service delivery of various

functions and services, they may not be able to take the entire service load. Similarly,

one can find several gaps and overlaps in space and functions among the third and the

fourth order centres to promote balanced urban development in the state. With the

proposed rapid urbanisation, distortion in the existing hierarchic structure will be

further intensified as the spatial gaps would widen and the number of overlaps would

increase in the spatial distribution pattern of urban hierarchic centres in the state. This

may ultimately end up in several unserved areas or islands of least urbanisation, thus

demanding reordering of hierarchic structure.

Another prime argument for the distorted hierarchic structure is that the location

of higher order functions and services demand minimum threshold population without

which they cannot function. Hence, a larger population size is essential at higher order

68

centres to promote higher order functions and services. However, in the nested

functional hierarchy, an inclusive function and service concept (Berry 1963), the on-

going urbanisation has been promoting more lower order functions and services than

the required quantity at the higher order centres, instead of shifting them to the next

lower order urban centre. This is happening mainly due to inefficient urban

development policies of the governments, which, in turn, has been promoting higher

population concentration in the higher order centres. This is the crux of the issue of lop-

sided urban development in developing economies.

Table 3.4: Existing hierarchy of urban centers in Karnataka: City and Population

Hierarchic Order Town Population I(1) Bangalore 5,686,844

II(2) Hubli-Dharwad 786,018 Mysore 785,800

III(8)

Mangalore 538,560 Belgaum 506,235 Gulbarga 435,631 Davangere 363,780 Bellary 317,000 Shimoga 274,105 Bijapur 253,307 Tumkur 248,592

IV (13)

Raichur 205,634 Bidar 173,678 Hospet 163,284 Bhadravathi 160,392 Robersonpet 156,961 Gadag-Betigeri 154,849 Mandya 131,211 Chitradurga 125,060 Udupi 112,706 Hassan 113,331 Kolar 113,299 Gangavathi 101,397 Chikmagalur 101,022

V(30) Towns with population 50,000-100,000 VI(59) Towns with population Less than 50,000

Source: Govt. of India, 1991 & 2001

Table No. 3.5 shows the main impact of the said process as the rapid decline in

the number and population of small towns, which is posing a more serious problem to

the entire urban system. In the normal course of balanced urban development, small

69

towns with their required number and population would have maintained the urban

system's balance by providing required lower order urban functions and services to the

town population and its immediate region as per the requirement. But, now with the

distorted urban system, small towns have been reduced to almost a dummy urban entity

with almost inaction in their expected functions and services. Hence, all these

arguments would strongly prescribe a thorough re-ordering of the emerged urban

hierarchy in Karnataka, more specifically at both higher and lowers orders for balanced

urban development.

3.4 A Model of Sustainable Urbanisation:

Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches

To overcome the problems emerging from lop-sided and distorted urbanisation,

a fresh attempt has been made by developing a new model of sustainable urbanisation

to promote a balanced urban development. In the context of rapid growth of large cities

and associated problems, promoting the growth of small and medium towns can be an

appropriate solution. At the same time, just promoting the growth of small and medium

towns without any reference to large cities may also end up in a distorted urbanisation

with "bottom-heavy" character after a few years. Hence, to promote sustainable

urbanisation in the state, a balanced approach is very essential by keeping both small

and medium towns, as well as large cities, in the overall development perspective. Such

a balanced urbanisation may be achieved by promoting two levels of urban

development: a) at the top level by maintaining the growth achievements of large cities

but without any further growth provisions, and b) at the bottom level by promoting the

growth and sustained development of small and medium towns.

3.4. 1. Top-down Approach

Development of Higher Order Urban Centres:

At the top level, the importance of Bangalore as the capital city, globally known

software centre and emerging "Knowledge Capital" of the country needs to be

maintained by encouraging its sustained development as the 'First Order' urban centre

and also as an important national metro along with the other four metros of the country.

This can be achieved by reducing the existing functional gaps between Bangalore and

the other four metros along with appropriate integrated development vision for the city

and its peri-urban and rural regions. At the same time, further population growth of the

70

city should be discouraged through appropriate location and development policies. In

particular, Bangalore's development should be integrated with its region to encourage

an integrated development of the city and its region with proper symbiosis to reduce the

problem of city-region disparity.

At the second hierarchic order, only five cities--Mysore, Hubli-Dharwad,

Mangalore, Belgaum and Gulbarga have emerged with spatial gaps and overlaps.

Hubli-Dharwad and Belgaum are almost adjacent centres with several overlapping

regions. Similarly, the central part of the state is left with a huge unserved area without

any second order centre. To rectify this spatial gap and overlap, the most potential and

promising urban centre of Davangere-Harihar should be upgraded to the second order

level to serve the central area of the state. However, Belgaum with its special location

advantage as a Karnataka-Maharashtra border city will develop as a second order centre

in spite of little development effort by the state which should be carefully monitored for

its overall development. Hence, with the readjustments in the spatial pattern of location

of second order centres, the proposed six 'second order' centres with spatially well-

balanced locations would reduce both functional and spatial gaps in serving the urban

functions for all the regions of the state.

For effective service delivery of urban functions and services, in addition to

Davangere-Harihar, the other second order cities of Mangalore, Belgaum and Gulbarga

need to be brought to the functional levels of Mysore and Hubli-Dharwad through

appropriate development policies. Similarly, it is preferable to have spatially

interspersed fifteen 'Third Order' urban centers which would further reduce both

functional and spatial gaps. These large towns are: Bagalkot, Bellary, Bijapur,

Bhadravati-Shimoga, Bidar, Chitradurga, Chikmagalur, Gadag-Betigeri, Hassan,

Hospet, Kolar Gold Fields, Marcara, Mandya, Raichur and Tumkur. Meanwhile, the

coastal zone, with its rich resource base and dynamic economy, is being served only by

Mangalore, one of the second order centres: the region therefore needs a few lower

order centres to provide urban services. Though potential growth centres like Udupi

and Sirsi have not come up to the level of higher order centres, these need to be

upgraded as third order centres to bridge the spatial gap (Table 3.5). Since the coastal

zone is ecologically fragile, extra care is needed while promoting urban development

activities in the region. Totally seventeen third order centres need to be developed for

balanced urban development. As for the next lower order urban centres, the 'Growth

71

Centers Approach' should be adopted and sustained growth and development of urban

settlements should be monitored carefully.

Table 3. 5: Proposed hierarchy of urban centers in Karnataka

Hierarchic Order

Names of cities and towns

I (1) 1.Bangalore

II (6) 1. Mysore 2. Hubli-Dharwad, 3.Mangalore, 4. Belgaum, 5. Gulbarga, 6. Davangere-Harihar

III (17)

1. Bellary, 2. Bijapur, 3.Shimoga-Bhadravathi, 4. Tumkur, 5. Raichur, 6.Kolar Gold Fields, 7. Hospet, 8. Gadag-Betigeri, 9. Bidar, 10.Mandya, 11.Hassan, 12.Chirtadurga, 13.Gangawati, 14.Bagalkot, 15. Marcara, 16. Udupi, 17. Sirsi.

Source: Govt. of India, 1991 & 2001.

b) Bottom-up Approach: Development of Small and Medium Urban Centres:

At the bottom level, the first task in promoting the growth of small and medium

towns is identification of the eligible potential growth centres among the huge bunch of

small and medium towns by physiographic regions. The main reason for this is

avoiding the gaps and overlaps in their service delivery. Such attempt has been made

on the basis of their a) high growth performance, b) functional specialisation, and c)

regional resource base to confirm their potentialities for sustained growth. High growth

performance of small and medium towns has been identified on the basis of centres

with 60 per cent population growth during 1981-2001 or centres recording 3 per cent

and above population growth per annum. The functional specialisation has been

identified on the basis of the population involved in various occupations, while the

regional resource base is identified on the basis of the available resource endowments.

In the fragile resource-rich Coastal region, four towns (Puttur, Bhatkal, Ankola

and Mudbidri) have been identified as the potential growth centres. Among them,

Puttur, a multifunctional town, has recorded the highest growth (7 per cent) followed

by another multifunctional town, Ankola (5.75 per cent). The other two towns are

specialized in trade (Bhatkal) and manufacture (Mudbidri). In the forest resource-rich

Malnad region, seven towns have emerged as the potential growth centres. Among

them, Channarayanapatna (about 6 per cent) has recorded the highest growth followed

by Heggadadevanakote, Sakleshpur and Kushalnagar, which are specialized in

multifunction. Interestingly, even within the forest-rich region, by location

characteristics, Channarayanapatna, Sakleshpur and Arasikere are located on the

national transport corridor; Kushalnager and Heggadadevanakote are in the deep

72

woods. Because of the location-specificity in terms of fragile forest-resource region,

growth promotion of these emerged potential growth centres needs to be encouraged

with adequate care.

Southern Maidan, a highly urbanised region with comparatively well-equipped

infrastructure facilities, has 21 potential growth centres to initiate urban development

process at the grassroots level. Among them, Bagepally, a market and agriculturally

specialized town in terms of silk production and marketing of agricultural products, has

grown rapidly, followed by Hosakote and Nelamangala, which are in the Greater

Bangalore region and are located in the national transport corridor. Of the remaining

towns, nine have recorded 4.0 to 5.0 per cent annual growth with five of them

specialising in multifunction and others characterised by individual specialisation

(agriculture, manufacture and related). The multifunctional specialisation of towns on

the other hand will provide flexibility in promoting their development. Similarly,

centres with 3.0 to 4.0 per cent growth per annum have a mixture of both unique and

multifunctional specialization.

In the agriculture and irrigation potential region of North Karnataka, 19 small

and medium towns have emerged as potential growth centres. Unlike the Southern

Maidan region, the growth process of this region is not significant. The main reason

could be that North Karnataka has been identified as a backward region with

constraints on the availability of infrastructure and services (as explained already). The

per annum growth of potential growth centres here ranges from 3.0 to 4.9 per cent.

Among them, Sedam, Mudhol, Bhalki and Muddebihal have recorded higher growth

and are of multifunctional specialization. In fact, the issue of under-development of this

region has been in focus since the formation of the state and no sincere attempt has

been made in resolving it. Consequently, regional backwardness has become a ground

reality and resulted in serious protests by many sections of the society (which of late

have assumed higher intensity) seeking to achieve better development goals.

In Karnataka, number of towns increased marginally by 8.2 per cent. The

marginal increase in the number of towns as compared to a big leap in the population

growth, clearly implies that additional urban population that had accrued in the state

through migration and natural growth during 1901- 2001 had by and large, followed the

process of infilling into the existing urban areas.

73

Table- 3.6 Percentage share of Karnataka in Total and Urban Population of India

Year Total Population Urban Population

1901 5.48 6.36

1911 5.37 6.05

1921 5.32 6.57

1931 5.25 6.71

1941 5.10 6.26

1951 5.37 7.13

1961 5.37 6.67

1971 5.34 6.53

1981 5.43 6.73

1991 5.31 6.39

2001 5.14 6.28

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey,

1994-95 & 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance.

The urban population of Karnataka which was about 16 lakhs (12.6 per cent of

state population in 1901) has increased to 1.8 crores (34 per cent) in 2001. And, in

absolute terms it is ranked 7th

Figure-1 Urbanization Ratio in India and Karnataka between 1901 and 2001

most urbanized state in the country .The state accounts

for 6.3 per cent of national urban population and 5.4 per cent of total number of towns

in the country.

It is observed that there was a sudden rise in urbanization between 1901 and

2001 reflecting the imitation of the state towards industrialization and a smaller

increase in growth rates during 1971 and 1981 .Increase indicates the consolidation of

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Urbanization Ratios India Urbanization Ratios Karnataka

74

the state as one of the preferred destinations for Investment and Industry activity

especially in the IT sector. Further the towns are growing at a slower rate and the rate

of growth of urban population is better compared to that of previous century. Post

Independence data show a negative growth rate for Karnataka .The rate of growth of

towns showed a lower trend too but we find a significant growth of urban population

both in the existing towns and increased migration of people from rural areas table-3.7

(compound Annual Growth rates of Demographic variables per cent per annum )

Table-3.7 Compound Annual Growth Rates of Demographic Variables ( per cent p.a.)

Variable 1901-2001 1901-51 1951-2001 India No of towns 1.07 0.94 1.20 Total Population 1.47 0.83 2.12 Urban Population 2.43 1.78 3.09 Karnataka No of towns 0.10 0.57 -0.37 Total Population 1.41 0.80 2.02 Urban Population 2.42 2.01 2.83

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey, 1994-

95 and 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance.

The urban population in the state is likely to continue its growth and increase at

a decadal rate of 9.03 per cent against the Indian rate of 7.62 per cent for the period

2001 -2026 (According to office of Registrar General and Census Commissioner,

India). It is expected to reach 39.3 per cent by 2016. According to the state Planning

Board (2008) the urbanization trend in the state is different from the All India pattern in

terms of the contributory factors resulting in the increase in urban population. The main

reason for the states fast urban growth is the migration of people from other places and

natural increase in the population which is much above the All India average. The rapid

pace of urbanization has clearly enhanced the state’s growth performance increase .This

has also resulted in immense pressure on the local bodies for provision of Urban

Municipal Services (UMS) including water supply, sanitation etc.which has resulted in

a mismatch between the levels of services provided by ULB ‘s ( Urban Local Bodies)

and growing customer expectations i.e., the urban people are facing the problem of

inequilibrium between demand and supply (supply ≠demand ). Hence, Urban policy

and Urban Governance need to form a crucial part of future state development strategy.

75

As the momentum of urbanization needs to be encouraged the social cohesion

integration service delivery and employment are major challenges that need to be taken

care of.

3.5. GROWTH ACROSS SIZE-CLASS OF CITIES:

This part of the Chapter discusses the nature of urban growth in the state along

the size pattern of urban growth across different size class of cities .It is evident that

within the urban settlements ,there is a high degree of concentration, Bangalore city

itself has more than 30 per cent of state’s urban population. The twenty one class I

cities, accounting for 8.27 per cent of the total number. of urban settlements in the state,

accounted for 64.7 per cent of urban population. The new transportation linkage routes

known as ‘Urban Corridors’ reflect the underlying undetermined growth process

encouragingly increased the flow of people. Nearly 65 per cent of urban population of

Karnataka resides within such corridors and is projected and expected to rise to 76 per

cent .Rural to urban migration is seen to be significant with the urban growth rate being

28.85 per cent while the rural growth rate is 12.05 per cent . Another interesting trend is

the “Metropolitanization” phenomenon which is a major cause for Bangalore city to

home nearly 10.5 per cent of the state’s population through Bangalore city area is less

than 0.5 per cent of the state’s total geographical area.

Table-3.8 Size-wise Distribution of Cities/Towns in Karnataka-1901-2001

Year Number Percentage

Large Medium Small All Large Medium Small All

1901 1 10 204 215 0.47 4.65 94.88 100.00

1911 1 10 169 180 0.56 5.56 93.89 100.00

1921 2 9 182 193 1.04 4.66 94.30 100.00

1931 3 11 197 211 1.42 5.21 93.36 100.00

1941 4 13 191 208 1.92 6.25 91.83 100.00

1951 6 28 251 285 2.11 9.82 88.07 100.00

1961 6 41 176 223 2.69 18.39 78.92 100.00

1971 10 53 179 242 4.13 21.90 73.97 100.00

1981 14 87 173 274 5.11 31.75 63.14 100.00

1991 18 125 163 306 5.88 40.85 53.27 100.00

2001 24 128 85 237 10.13 54.01 35.86 100.00

76

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey, 1994- 95 & 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance. For the convenience of analysis the size classes have been grouped into three

size groups viz; large, medium and small. The data reveal a tremendous increase in the

number and proportion of large cities and a substantial decline in that of small cities.

The total number of cities and towns has increased from 200 and above in 1911 to 306

in 1991. However, the number has come down to 237 in 2001 due to fall in the number

of small cities and increased number of large cities. The number of large cities has

increased from 6 in 1951 to 24 in 2001 that is from 2 per cent to 10 per cent of total

cities. Although the number of small cities has increased their proportion to total cities

has come down from nearly 90 per cent in 1951 to about 36 per cent in 2001 .The

decade 1991-2001 saw an almost 50 per cent decline in the number of small cities due

to merging of smaller towns with the nearby cities (large).The no. of medium sized

cities has increased from 28 to 128 during the same period with their share up to 54 per

cent in 2001 from 10 per cent in 1951. Thus, the size pyramid has inverted with the top

becoming large and bottom (base) getting smaller or narrower.

Table -3.9 Size-wise Distribution of Urban Population in Karnataka-1901-2001

Year Population per cent Distribution

Large Medium Small All Large Medium Small All 1901 159046 437800 1046148 1642994 9.68 26.65 63.67 100.00 1911 189485 459940 921145 1570570 12.06 29.28 58.65 100.00 1921 338488 457819 1049512 1845819 18.34 24.80 56.86 100.00 1931 538010 469386 1238288 2245684 23.96 20.90 55.14 100.00 1941 834663 555244 1372954 2762861 30.21 20.10 49.69 100.00 1951 1596757 979089 1877634 4453480 35.85 21.98 42.16 100.00 1961 2075324 1530946 1660223 5266493 39.41 29.07 31.52 100.00 1971 3262340 1958164 1901589 7122093 45.81 27.49 26.70 100.00 1981 5526754 3198605 2004247 10729606 51.51 29.81 18.68 100.00 1991 7500863 4655920 1751005 13907788 53.93 33.48 12.59 100.00 2001 12073393 4834077 1054059 17961529 67.22 26.91 5.87 100.00

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey, 1994- 95 & 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance.

The above figures show a steady increase in the population residing in large

cities from 1911 onwards and a very sharp increase during 1991 to 2001. On the

contrary the population of small cities has continuously decreased and that of medium

cities has remained almost stagnant. The percentage of population residing in large

cities has increased from 10 per cent to more than 67 per cent of population (urban) of

the state between 1901 and 2001 and that of small towns declined from 64 per cent to

77

6 per cent of the total urban population during the same period. The above trends are

further confirmed through the growth rates of population across the size class shown in

the table 3.7. Annual Compound growth rates of population by size-wise class of cities

per cent p.a. The study reveals that the overall urban population of Karnataka has

grown at 2.4 per cent p.a during the past century with the growth being higher during

the latter half of the century. The growth rates have been negative for some small sized

cities for last two decades .The relative decline in the population of the smaller towns

and the increase in that of large sized cities recorded..This, we can say, is the result of

globalization and liberalization policies adopted by the Indian economy.

Figure -4 Growth of Urban Population by City Size Class ( per cent p.a.)

The Growth of Urban population by the city size class per cent p.a. It is

testified that the urban population growth is dominated by growth of large cities and

decline in the growth of small cities. According to the study conducted by Sastry

(2006) both the State and the National urban development policies have consistently

reinforced each other to encourage highest concentration of population in large cities

,thus highlighting the ‘top heavy’ character of Indian urbanization .This urbanization

pattern has in turn encouraged primate(prime/top) cities in the country resulting in

urban regional disparities .Within Karnataka state the growth of urban population is

concentrated in and around Bangalore city that has accentuated the regional disparities

within the State.

3.6. REGIONAL PATTERN OF URBANIZATION:

Karnataka is classified into coastal, southern maiden and northern maiden

regions based on physiographical features (Sastry 2006) .A clear economic divide of

the regions could also be observed on the basis of the policies adopted. In this context,

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Large Medium Small All

78

Karnataka’s urbanization may be characterized with more of rural attributes than at the

national level. As a result, urban – regional disparity in Karnataka has been much

sharper than at the national level. For instance, the rapid urbanization of the globally

known primate city - Bangalore, has led to more pronounced city – region disparity as

revealed by various socio-economic and environmental characteristics like education

level, income, type of occupation, piped water supply, toilet facility and solid waste

disposal.

Table -3.10 Level of Urbanization in Karnataka and its Districts, 1901-2001 Division/Dist 1901 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Bangalore 26.04 42.98 54.20 55.44 64.54 68.68 73.26

Dharwad 21.47 31.26 26.88 31.51 35.25 34.94 37.93

Bellary 17.87 21.86 22.57 27.15 33.05 29.86 34.87

Shimoga 7.73 22.05 25.59 23.61 25.72 26.51 34.76

Mysore 15.12 27.00 24.83 25.47 27.41 29.71 31.34

Dakshina Kannada 5.80 15.04 17.93 20.27 24.47 28.30 31.09

Uttar Kannada 9.83 23.86 17.53 17.72 25.35 24.14 28.66

Gulbarga 7.66 17.94 16.18 17.78 22.86 23.62 27.23

Bijapur 14.06 23.02 18.88 21.21 24.09 23.52 25.29

Chitradurga 10.48 15.66 17.38 20.25 23.50 27.00 24.70

Kolar 12.26 24.70 22.73 20.65 22.45 23.32 24.67

Belgaum 9.51 25.22 18.02 20.54 22.53 23.49 24.03

Bidar 11.53 16.49 12.25 14.46 17.82 19.57 22.96

Raichur 10.29 21.91 14.61 15.36 19.27 20.79 21.60

Tumkur 8.73 9.19 10.16 11.71 13.77 16.57 19.62

Chikamagalur 11.33 15.95 14.98 15.62 17.54 16.89 19.52

Hassan 8.07 12.22 12.00 13.55 14.63 17.37 17.70

Mandya 7.66 10.85 11.13 13.76 15.52 16.23 16.03

Kodagu 8.44 7.09 13.22 15.51 15.52 15.96 13.74

Karnataka 12.56 22.95 22.33 24.31 28.89 30.92 33.99

CV ( per cent) 44.01 41.89 50.03 46.13 46.25 45.79 46.12 Note: The 27 districts, as existent in 2001 are clubbed into earlier 19 for comparison purpose.

The table-3.10 shows a 23 per cent increase in urban population in 1951 from

13 per cent in 1901 and increases further to 34 per cent in 2001 .This indicates

79

accelerated urbanization in the post independence period. The same tendency is noticed

across the districts also .It is only in Kodagu and Mandya districts that the per cent

level of urbanization has declined in the last decade. However, by 2001 only 4 districts

viz, Bangalore,Bellary,Dharwad and Shimoga had higher than the state level per cent

urbanization in all the years indicated .However it gives partial information about the

urbanization pattern and the share of each district in the states urban population.

Table-3.11 Degree of Urbanization in Karnataka, 1901-2001 Division/Dist 1901 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Bangalore 14.03 20.53 25.78 26.20 29.76 32.16 34.34

Dharwad 16.33 11.07 9.96 10.36 9.68 8.80 8.48

Mysore 8.53 8.64 7.88 7.43 6.63 6.76 6.29

Belgaum 6.56 9.32 6.79 6.99 6.26 6.05 5.64

Dakshina Kannada 3.18 4.49 5.32 5.52 5.42 5.48 5.21

Bijapur 7.74 7.22 5.95 5.91 5.39 4.95 4.87

Gulbarga 4.12 4.89 4.30 4.34 4.43 4.38 4.75

Chitradurga 3.26 3.05 3.61 3.97 3.89 4.23 4.55

Bellary 6.63 3.80 3.92 4.28 4.59 4.06 3.94

Kolar 5.42 6.27 5.57 4.40 3.99 3.72 3.48

Raichur 4.59 4.69 3.05 3.05 3.20 3.45 3.45

Shimoga 2.51 3.28 4.94 4.31 3.97 3.64 3.18

Tumkur 3.58 2.37 2.64 2.68 2.54 2.75 2.82

Uttar Kannada 2.72 2.77 2.29 2.11 2.53 2.12 2.16

Bidar 2.51 2.04 1.54 1.67 1.65 1.77 1.92

Hassan 2.80 1.96 2.04 2.10 1.85 1.96 1.70

Mandya 2.26 1.75 1.90 2.23 2.05 1.92 1.57

Chikamagalur 2.48 1.50 1.70 1.62 1.49 1.24 1.24

Kodagu 0.93 0.36 0.81 0.82 0.67 0.56 0.42

Karnataka 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

CV ( per cent) 76.88 89.31 104.72 106.37 120.03 129.74 138.98

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey, 1994- 95 & 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance. According to the above table-3.11, study reveals a substantial concentration of

the urban people in Bangalore City alone than the other districts Gulbarga, Chitradurga,

80

Raichur, Tumkur and Bidar show an increase in urban population. The concentration

of urban population (high degree of) in Bangalore might be due to higher migration of

rural people and faster Industrial and Corporate developments. The figures reveals that

the growth has been consistent whether it is long term (1971 to 2001) or short term

(1991-2001).However, we can notice a few important trends based on deviations

between long term and short term growth rates. Bidar, Chitradurga, Gulbarga, Tumkur,

Uttar Kannada, Bellary, Bijapur, Belgaum, Kolar and Chikkamanglur have witnessed

higher growth in the recent longer period. It is evident that the disparity is widening

between long term and short term growth. The districts were reorganized with creation

of seven more districts in 1997. Hence considering the total twenty seven districts; the

regional spread is shown in table 3.12 for the 2001 census data.

Table-3.12 District wise share of State’s towns and urban population, 2001 ( per cent)

Districts No. of Towns Population Bangalore 2.11 32.07 Belgaum 7.59 5.64 Mysore 3.38 5.47 Dharwad 2.53 4.91 Gulbarga 6.33 4.75 Dakshina Kannada 5.06 4.06 Bellary 4.64 3.94 Kolar 5.06 3.48 Shimoga 3.80 3.18 Davanagere 2.53 3.02 Tumkur 4.64 2.82 Bagalkot 5.06 2.66 Raichur 3.80 2.34 Bangalore Rural 4.22 2.27 Bijapur 2.53 2.21 North Kannada 5.06 2.16 Bidar 2.53 1.92 Gadag 3.80 1.91 Hassan 3.38 1.70 Haveri 3.80 1.66 Mandya 3.38 1.57 Chitradurga 2.53 1.53 Chikmagalur 3.80 1.24 Udupi 2.53 1.15 Koppal 2.11 1.10 Chamarajanagar 1.69 0.82 Kodagu 2.11 0.42 Karnataka 100.00 100.00 CV ( per cent) 38.09 157.76

81

Source: Government of Karnataka (1995 &2004); Economic Survey, 1994-95 & 2003-04, Bangalore: Ministry of Finance. The density of urban population for 20 districts is shown in Figure-6. (District

wise share of states town and urban population 2001 per cent.). The concentration of

urban population in Bangalore district is very high at more than 32 per cent of the

state’s population where as Kodagu and Chamarajnagar do not even have 1 per cent of

the urban population. The CV is very high at 158 per cent. Though the distribution of

towns is more even, too much concentration of people in a few urban centers is leading

to various problems.

Figure 6: Density of urban population, 2001

Bangalore district itself has nearly 10000 people per sq.km of area compared to state

level average of nearly 3500. Further, the southern cities have greater density than the

northern cities.

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

Bangalore

Mandya

Mysore

Hassan

Kolar

Tumkur

Raichur

Chtradurga

Kodagu

Belgaum

Gulburga

Shimoga

Bidar

Chikm

agalur

Bijapur

Dharw

ad

Bellary

Dakshin K

annada

Uttar K

annad

Karnataka

82

Table -13 Composite Index of Urbanization across Districts of Karnataka

Districts 1991 2001

Bangalore 18.40 18.70

Mysore 6.13 5.36

Chitradurga 6.11 4.13

Dharwad 5.76 6.16

Dakshin Kannada 5.60 4.85

Belgaum 4.65 3.98

Tumkur 4.61 3.41

Kolar 4.54 4.07

Shimoga 4.49 3.20

Gulbarga 4.48 4.73

Raichur 4.15 3.27

Hassan 4.11 2.89

Bijapur 3.96 4.12

Bidar 3.94 3.83

Bellary 3.91 5.95

Mandya 3.49 2.68

Uttar Kannada 2.99 3.45

Kodagu 2.60 1.27

Chikmagalur 2.30 3.26

State 5.06 4.70

CV ( per cent) 67.14 76.26

The data reveals the increasing dominance of Bangalore district ,as a prime city

with its rapid growth following the IT boom in the recent years the value of index for

Bangalore is substantially higher than any other district and the state as a whole

83

.Further six more districts viz; Dharwad ,Bijapur, Gulbarga, Bellary, Uttar Kannada

and Chikkamangalur have recorded rise in their value index .Urbanization index value

of Bellary is very significant .At the same time the cities of north Karnataka have

shown greater dynamism with more number of migrants from rural areas preferring

cities for their livelihood. Further inter regional disparity has widened in terms of CV

and CIU.

3.7 MORPHOLOGY OF URBAN GROWTH IN KARNATAKA:

The present section aims at analyzing the distribution of urban population by

size class cities to further explore the nature of urbanization in the state. However the

analysis is restricted to census year 2001 for obvious reasons. Further, regionalization

based on geographic features is also studied. The total population of Karnataka in 2001

was 52.7 million of which the urban population was 17.9 million accounting to 34 per

cent. Karnataka state ranks fourth in the degree of urbanization among the major states

in India after Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat as can be seen from Table 3. 1. The

decadal growth of urban population in Karnataka over the last 100 years is shown in

Table3.2. During the last five decades, urbanization in Karnataka registered rapid

growth except during 1951-61 when the rate of growth was only 18.26 per cent. The

highest growth was recorded during 1941-51 (61.7 per cent) and 1971-81 (50.6 per

cent). However, during the following two decades, the eighties and nineties, the rate of

growth of urban population declined to 29.09 and 28.85 per cent respectively

84

Table -3.14 Regional Distribution of Towns and Cities and Urban Population in Karnataka, 2001( per cent)

Districts Number of Towns/ Cities Population

Large Medium Small All Large Medium Small All

Chitradurga 4.17 2.34 2.35 2.53 1.04 2.49 2.72 1.53

Davanagere 4.17 1.56 3.53 2.53 3.02 2.68 4.63 3.02

Tumkur 4.17 4.69 4.71 4.64 2.06 4.35 4.55 2.82

Kolar 8.33 7.03 1.18 5.06 2.24 7.15 0.84 3.48

Bangalore 4.17 0.78 3.53 2.11 47.22 0.69 2.41 32.07

Bangalore Rural 0.00 7.03 1.18 4.22 0.00 8.30 0.59 2.27

Mandya 4.17 3.13 3.53 3.38 1.09 2.25 4.07 1.57

Chamarajanagar 0.00 2.34 1.18 1.69 0.00 2.89 0.81 0.82

Southern Maidan 29.17 35.16 22.35 26.16 56.67 35.33 21.24 47.59

Bagalkot 0.00 7.03 3.53 5.06 0.00 8.85 4.81 2.66

Belgaum 4.17 7.81 8.24 7.59 4.20 8.27 10.11 5.64

Bellary 8.33 6.25 1.18 4.64 3.98 4.54 0.62 3.94

Bijapur 4.17 3.91 0.00 2.53 2.10 2.94 0.00 2.21

Gulbarga 4.17 6.25 7.06 6.33 3.56 6.96 8.16 4.75

Bidar 4.17 3.13 1.18 2.53 1.44 3.20 1.50 1.92

Raichur 4.17 3.13 4.71 3.80 1.72 3.07 6.19 2.34

Koppal 4.17 1.56 2.35 2.11 0.84 1.60 1.86 1.10

Gadag 4.17 3.91 3.53 3.80 1.28 2.82 4.84 1.91

Haveri 0.00 5.47 2.35 3.80 0.00 5.72 2.14 1.66

Northern Maidan 37.50 42.19 32.94 42.19 19.13 43.42 39.60 28.13

Dharwad 4.17 1.56 3.53 2.53 6.51 0.99 4.54 4.91

Shimoga 8.33 1.56 5.88 3.80 3.60 1.69 5.16 3.18

Chikmagalur 4.17 2.34 5.88 3.80 0.84 1.81 3.22 1.24

Hassan 4.17 3.91 2.35 3.38 1.10 3.11 2.02 1.70

Kodagu 0.00 0.78 4.71 2.11 0.00 0.67 4.07 0.42

Mysore 4.17 3.13 3.53 3.38 6.62 3.02 3.50 5.47

North Kannada 0.00 5.47 5.88 5.06 0.00 6.56 6.72 2.16

Udupi 4.17 1.56 3.53 2.53 1.05 1.11 2.42 1.15

Dakshina Kannada 4.17 2.34 9.41 5.06 4.47 2.29 7.52 4.06

Karnataka 10.13 54.01 35.86 100.00 67.22 26.91 5.87 100.00

The growth of urban areas has vastly outpaced the State's efforts to develop

infrastructure to serve the growing needs of cities. There is now a substantial deficit of

infrastructure in several key areas as roads and transport (both within cities and

between important cities in the State), housing, drinking water supply, domestic

85

sanitation, sewage treatment systems, solid waste collection and management, storm

water drains, lakes in urban areas, and domestic energy. In all these cases, the gap

between demand and supply is very large, affecting millions of families, with negative

consequences affecting the quality of life in urban areas across many measures.

Bangalore Urban with 88 per cent of its population living in urban areas is the most

urbanized district and accounts for 13 per cent of the urban population of the state. The

second most highly urbanized district is Dharwad with an urban population of 55 per

cent. All the other districts have less than 40 per cent of the people living in urban

centres. Urbanization is lower than 30 per cent in ten districts and less than 20 per cent

in nine districts.

Table -3.15 Regional Distribution of Towns and Cities and Urban Population in Karnataka, 2001( per cent)

Size Category Large Medium Small Districts No. Popn. No. Popn. No. Popn. Bagalkot 0.00 0.00 75.00 89.40 25.00 10.60 Bellary 18.18 68.05 72.73 31.02 9.09 0.93 Bangalore 20.00 98.98 20.00 0.58 60.00 0.44 Bangalore Rural 0.00 0.00 90.00 98.49 10.00 1.51 Belgaum 5.56 50.01 55.56 39.47 38.89 10.52 Bidar 16.67 50.53 66.67 44.89 16.67 4.58 Bijapur 16.67 64.10 83.33 35.90 0.00 0.00 Chamarajanagar 0.00 0.00 75.00 94.20 25.00 5.80 Chikmagalur 11.11 45.46 33.33 39.32 55.56 15.22 Chtradurga 16.67 45.64 50.00 43.89 33.33 10.47 Dakshina Kannada 8.33 73.96 25.00 15.17 66.67 10.87 Davanagere 16.67 67.13 33.33 23.88 50.00 8.99 Dharwad 16.67 89.15 33.33 5.43 50.00 5.42 Gadag 11.11 45.29 55.56 39.81 33.33 14.90 Gulbarga 6.67 50.46 53.33 39.45 40.00 10.08 Hassan 12.50 43.74 62.50 49.27 25.00 6.99 Haveri 0.00 0.00 77.78 92.44 22.22 7.56 Kodagu 0.00 0.00 20.00 43.11 80.00 56.89 Kolar 16.67 43.32 75.00 55.27 8.33 1.41 Koppal 20.00 51.13 40.00 39.00 40.00 9.86 Mandya 12.50 46.40 50.00 38.44 37.50 15.16 Mysore 12.50 81.38 50.00 14.87 37.50 3.76 Uttara Kannada 0.00 0.00 58.33 81.74 41.67 18.26 Raichur 11.11 49.29 44.44 35.21 44.44 15.50 Shimoga 22.22 76.18 22.22 14.30 55.56 9.52 Tumkur 9.09 49.08 54.55 41.46 36.36 9.46 Udupi 16.67 61.61 33.33 26.03 50.00 12.37 Karnataka 10.13 67.22 54.01 26.91 35.86 5.87

Source: Economic Survey, Govt of Karnataka, Bangalore

86

Figure-7: Regional distribution of towns and population according to size-class

Source: Table-14.

The above data shows that 10 per cent of the towns in the state belong to the

large category which house more than 67 per cent of urban population of the state

.Similarly 54 per cent of towns belong to medium category which have about 27 per

cent of the urban population and the remaining 6 per cent of population, reside in small

towns that account for 36 per cent of the towns. Region wise northern maiden accounts

for the largest share of towns (33 per cent) covering about 28 per cent of urban

population and southern maidan accounts for 22 per cent of towns housing 48 per cent

of population and coastal and malnad regions have lesser urbanization levels than

others. 61 per cent of urban population resides in large cities, Bangalore (99 per cent)

,Dharwad(89 per cent) ,Mysore(81 per cent) ,Shimoga (76 per cent) , Dakshina

Kannada(74 per cent), Bellary(68 per cent) and Davangere (67 per cent) are the districts

with above state average proportion of population residing in large cities. These are

again dominated by district centres which have emerged to be the hub of economic and

commercial activities forcing people to migrate to these days. Apart from these cities

Belgaum, Bidar, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Kappal and Udupi home 50 per cent urban

population in large sized cities. As far as medium sized cities are concerned, districts of

Bagalkot, Bangalore rural, Chamarajnagar, Haveri, Kolar and Uttar Kannada report

greater than 50 per cent of the urban population .On the other hand, Kodagu was the

only district with greater than 50 per cent of urban population in small cities. Thus

these trends clearly indicate the evolution of larger sized cities with increase in urban

population.

Hence, it is witnessed that the population in small sized cities is growing very

fast and that of medium sized cities is stagnating but growing at par with the rate of

growth of general population. The population in large size cities is growing at almost

29.17

37.50

25.00

8.33

35.16

42.19

13.289.38

22.35

32.94

25.88

18.82

26.16

42.19

18.99

12.66

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

Southern Maidan Northern Maidan Malnad Coastal

Large Medium Small All56.67

19.13 18.68

5.52

35.33

43.42

11.29 9.96

21.24

39.60

22.50

16.66

47.59

28.13

16.91

7.37

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Southern Maidan Northern Maidan Malnad Coastal

Large Medium Small All

87

double the growth of general population .Hence, in the future, most of the urban

population is expected to concentrate and grow in the large sized cities.

3.8. Key Issues and Challenges of Urbanization of Karnataka: (KSPB, 2008):

The kind of urbanization and its growth discussed earlier has thrown vast challenges

and issues of urban governance .The Karnataka state Planning Board has identified the

following issues for better cities in its FiveYearPlan XI ( and KSPB 2008).

1. Urban Poverty

2.

: The dimensions are significant in the cities with 25.2 per cent of

urban population placed below poverty line (BPL).

Emergence of Slums

3.

: the impact of poverty is evident from the mushrooming of

slums in urban areas. The KSCB (Karnataka Slum Clearance Board) has identified

2511 slums in the state with an estimated population of 35.5 lakh.

Poor Drainage

4.

: the slums face very poor in terms of access to latrines and

underground drainage (UGD). About 66 per cent of notified slums in the state

have no latrines against the national average of 17 per cent, while 23 per cent do not

have UGD facilities against the national average of 24 per cent (GOK, 2005).

Solid Waste Management

5.

: Municipal solid waste management (MSW) is another by

product of rapid urbanization in the state .The collection efficiency is very low at

around 40-60 per cent of the total waste generated and disposal is carried out in an

unscientific manner, mainly crude open dumping areas .Lack of proper assessment

of the suitability of the land selected for waste disposal complied (along) with

inefficiency in waste treatment operations pose serious threats to ground water

reserves.

Inadequate Public Transport

Hence state Government needs to give strong attention towards skill

development through vocational training to create a sizeable cadre of trained youth

in small towns and cities and the surrounding rural areas.

: It is a big challenge into urban centers .The absence of

efficient and reliable public transport system in cities and towns has caused a

heavy increase in private vehicles, particularly, two wheelers .Now even

economical cars are also storming the roads. This leads to more air and noise

pollution .The number of two wheelers in the state went up to 48 lakhs ,up by more

than lakhs over the period 2005-06 to 2006-07 .It has further gone up to 53.4 lakhs

in 2007-08 (Gok 2008).

88

3.9. STATE URBANISATION POLICY: A DISCOURSE

The on-going rapid urbanisation process and the resultant characteristics at both

national and state levels have reinforced each other in the emergence of complex issues

of distorted urbanisation such as top-heavy, city-region disparities, regional disparities,

transport corridor-based urbanisation, primacy and distorted urban hierarchy. While

each one of the issues results in serious urban development problems, imposition of all

the issues simultaneously would lead to an 'Urban Tsunami'. Hence, each one of these

issues demands individual attention in terms of meticulous monitoring and regulation

with appropriate policy instruments.

The economic analysis of Indian urbanisation has revealed that the ongoing

process has led to ‘tertiarisation-based urbanization’ instead of ‘factory manufacturing

occupation-based urbanization’ as experienced by developed countries. Hence,

according to McGee, Indian urbanisation is characterised as "pseudo-urbanisation". In

fact, the pseudo-urbanisation has shortened the process of urbanisation by reaching the

stage of tertiarisation straight from the primary occupation, missing an important stage

of occupation called factory manufacturing. Such a double promotion in the process of

occupational mobility has led to pre-mature urbanisation

The crux of the issue here is the development of large cities. The obvious

question is, while the on-going urbanisation has encouraged exclusive development of

large cities leading to several serious urban development issues, should there be any

need for development of large cities again in a planned way? The answer is yes. Here,

which will lead to a more

complex city structure which may be characterised as: a) higher concentration of

unorganised labour, b) heterogeneous educational attainment of the population, c) high

income disparity among the workforce, d) greater chances for development of slums to

meet the demands of the unorganised sector, and e) more complex land use planning

for the location of various heterogeneous tertiary activities. In fact, this is what exactly

we have been experiencing in most of the large cities of India. In the process, small and

medium towns have become non-entities on account of reduction in number and

population, and more specifically, their functional and spatial importance has been

reduced drastically due to the influence of the large cities. Hence, to promote healthy

and balanced urbanisation which is sustainable in Karnataka, it is high time we

implemented the proposed model that includes top-down and bottom-up approaches

through promotion of large cities as well as small and medium towns.

89

the thrust of the development policy for large cities invariably aims to totally arrest the

on-going migration into them, or even reverse the migration patterns if possible through

appropriate development strategies that use some economic instruments and by infusing

elaborate damage-control measures for the problems imposed on them so far on

account of faulty urban and regional development policies. This development approach

makes a large city a livable habitat with adequate infrastructure and services. Similarly,

another equally significant development issue is the promotion of small and medium

towns which have hitherto remained as neglected spatial units. In fact, the problems of

the rapid growth of large cities have been researched by several scholars who propose

their decongestion. One such study by Sridhar (2004) has proposed alternative methods

for the decongestion of large cities in the form of sub-urbanisation, promotion of small

and medium towns, and growth-centres approach for their comparative advantages in

terms of production cost and labour availability. The World Commission on

Environment and Development (WCED), popularly known as the Brundtland

Commission, in its report on the urban development challenges of developing

countries, has also suggested that the government should develop explicit settlement

strategies to guide the process of urbanisation by taking the "pressure off the large

urban centres" and building up smaller towns more closely by integrating them with

their rural hinterlands. This objective may be achieved by avoiding the policy

interventions that increase the attractiveness of the major cities through subsidies on

food and energy, generous provision of urban infrastructure and services, and excessive

concentration of administrative power in the capital and metro cities. The objective of

growth promotion of secondary centres can be achieved through building on the natural

economic advantages of their regions in terms of resource processing and marketing,

and decentralised provision of government services and complementary rural and urban

development policies (WCED 1987). Hence, to promote spatially and functionally

balanced sustainable urban development in Karnataka, the state government should

evolve a comprehensive urban development policy by keeping in view all the suggested

urban development and associated environment and development issues.

3.10. Conclusion:

Though the urban growth in Karnataka state follows similar growth pattern as

that of All India level the urban growth in the state is faster, but is highly concentrated

in Bangalore district, predominantly guided by the population growth in the Bangalore

90

city. However, the cluster of cities seem to be emerging and a few important clusters

are Tumkur, Kolar, Mysore, Hubli, Dharwad, Belgaum, Bellary, Raichur, Chitradurga,

Davangere, Mangalore, Udupi, Karwar and Shimoga –Chikkamangalur. Hence there is

need for the development of such secondary urban clusters and decrease the excessive

burden on Bangalore alone for the equitable and environment friendly growth of the

state. There is a need for policy direction to encourage balanced urban development in

the state through diverting population concentration especially from the mega city

region to the emerging potential growth centres or regions. This uneven urban

development has been well recognized by the state planners and policy makers and

corrective measures have been proposed as early as in the state’s Eighth Five Year Plan

document. Though each one of this centre is located ideally in northern and southern

Karnataka, however, because of infrastructural constraints, they cannot take the entire

load. Similarly, third and fourth order centres are not spatially well distributed to

encourage balanced urban development in the state. At the second hierarchic order,

only five cities: Mysore, Hubli-Dharwad, Mangalore, Belgaum and Gulbarga have

emerged with spatial gaps and overlaps. Hubli-Dharwad and Belgaum are almost

adjacent centres with several overlapping regions, and similarly, the central part of the

state is left with huge unserved area without having any second order centre. Hence, to

put right the spatial gap and overlap, it is preferable to upgrade Davangere-Harihar to

the second order level to serve the central area of the state.