area into a certain order of importance based upon the population size of a settlement,

Transcription

1 A settlement hierarchy refers to the arrangement of settlements within a given area into a certain order of importance based upon the population size of a settlement, the range and number of services provided by a settlement, and the sphere of influence or market area of a settlement. Settlements within an area vary greatly in physical size, population, and the number of services that they provide. A settlement hierarchy is when settlements are put into an order based upon their size or the services that they provide for people. The hierarchy of settlements is the product of the centrality of settlements in a region. The centrality of a place is equal to its surplus of importance, that is, equal to the relative importance of this place in regard to region belonging to it 1. It is the outcome of the quality and quantity of central functions performed by a settlement. These central functions are available in few settlements but are availed by a number of settlements. The hierarchy of settlement is closely associated with the hierarchy of central functions. Hence, higher the level of functional hierarchy, higher will be the centrality of the place having that function. Identification of hierarchy of rural settlements helps in regional planning as higher order services are allocated in higher order centres and lower order services are provided in lower order centres. It serves as an essential tool in helping to ensure that new development should take place in the most sustainable locations. In rural areas, development should be focused on settlements that can act as service centres for surrounding areas. Therefore settlement hierarchy is required in order to identify those villages that are capable of accommodating and sustaining growth, and to limit development in those smaller settlements that are not sustainable. The government should also base their rural settlement policies on the existing hierarchy of service centres as a means of reducing regional economic imbalances and distributing 1 Christaller, W., Central Places in Southern Germany, translated by Carlisle W. Baskin, Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey, 1966, p

2 government services in an equitable basis. In the study area, hierarchy of rural settlements has been determined to examine the role of these settlements in the development of the area in terms of the distribution of facilities or the number the services provided by a settlement. A number of studies have been made to identify the hierarchy of settlements in different parts of India and abroad by different scholars like Sen et al., (1971) 2, Singh (1975) 3, Tiwari (1984) 4, Gulberto (2008) 5, and Kharate (2009) 6, etc. Different approaches and Methods are adopted to identify hierarchical arrangement of settlements. They are scalogram technique by L. Guttman, population threshold and ranking of central places and functions by Berry and Garrison, Ranking of settlements on the basis of hierarchy of functions, etc. In this chapter an attempt has been made to determine and identify the level of functional and settlement hierarchy by measuring the functional importance of facilities based on their threshold population and estimating the centrality score or functional importance of settlements. The thresholds have been determined on the basis of Reed Muench Method Median Population Threshold and Weightage Score of Facilities Population threshold is defined as the minimum number of consumers required to support a given services. The concept of population threshold or entry 2 Sen, L.K., et al., Planning Rural Growth Centres for Integrated Area Development, A Study of MaryalgudaTaluka, National Institute of Community Development, Hydrabad, India, Singh, R.Y., Hierarchy of Rural Settlements and identification of locational Functional Gaps in Upper Charmanwati Basin, in Singh, R.L. (ed.), Geographic Dimensions of Rural Settlements, National Geographical Society of India,1975, pp Tiwari, R.C. and Khan, N.V., Spatial Organisation of Rural Service centres in Pratapgarh District, National Geographer, Vol.XIX (2), 1984, pp Gualberto, C.D., An Analysis of the Hierarchy of Functions and Settlements: The Case of Selected Coastal Municipalities in the Province of Zamboanga Del Sur, U.P., School of Urban and Regional Planning, Kharate, V.B., Hierarchical Patterns of Rural Central Places in the Painganga Valley, Shodh, Samiksha aur Mulyankan (International Research Journal), Vol.II, Issue-5, Nov.08-Jan. 09, pp Haggett, P. and Gunwardena, K.A., Determination of Population Thresholds for Settlement Functions by Reed Muench Method, Prof.Geog., Vol.16, 1965, pp

3 Table 6.1 Aligarh District: Median Population Threshold and Weightage Score of Facilities (2001) SI. No. Name of the Facility Number of Facility 221 Number of settlements having the Facility Median Population Threshold (MPT) Functional Weightage 1. Primary School 1,312 1, Middle School , Secondary School , Senior Secondary School , College , Adult Literacy Center , Hospital , Dispensary , Maternity and Child , Welfare Center 10. Health Center , Primary Health Center , Primary Health Sub , Center 13. Nursing Home , Post Office , Telegraph Office , Telephone Connection 1, , Bus Service , Railways Service , Pucca Road * 747 1, Commercial Bank , Co-operative Commercial , Bank 22. Credit Society , Tap Water * 496 1, Tubewell Water * 516 1, Tank Water * 169 4, Electricity for * 528 1, Agricultural purpose 27. Electricity for Domestic * 335 2, Purpose 28. Veterinary Hospital , Artificial Breeding , Center 30. Block Headquarter , Village Development , Center 32. Cold Storage , Seed Storage , Repairing Center of Agri , Equipment 35. Primary Agri. Loan Cooperative , Society 36. Fair Price Shop Government Purchase , Center 38. Local Market , Wholesale Market , Note: * In case of functions SI. No. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are not counted in number, rather counted as the number of settlements having that function.

4 level states that there is a range of population size for each function, below the lower limit of which all settlements lack that function, while above its upper limit all settlements possess it. The median point of the range of population threshold of a given function is taken into account as the median population threshold (MPT) of the function. The population threshold enables to propose that all settlements having higher population than the threshold and yet not having the function, should have it. On the basis of Reed Muench method, MPT of 39 socio-economic facilities have been computed. Table 6.1 reveals that the computed MPT ranges from 588 persons in case of primary school facility being minimum to 12,120 persons as maximum for the facility of wholesale market. Higher order functions have higher value of MPT whereas lower order functions have lower value of MPT. The computed value of 588 persons for the facility of primary school implies that, a settlement containing a population of 588 persons is supposed to sustain the location of a primary school in the existing pattern of distribution of amenities and facilities. The weightage value has been determined by first assigning an arbitrary value of 01 to the facility having lowest threshold, while the weightage value of other functions has been obtained by dividing its MPT by the lowest MPT value in the distribution. In the present study the MPT of primary school (588 persons) has been taken as the unit measure i.e. weightage value of 01 has been assigned to the facility of primary school having lowest MPT. In relation to this unit value, the MPT indices for all the selected 39 facilities have been computed (table 6.1) for the study area. The weightage value of facilities is the indicative of their relative importance which can be used for inter-functional comparison. Highest functional weightage is attained by the facility of wholesale market followed by cold storage facility while lowest functional 222

5 weightage is obtained by the facility of primary school followed by the facility of fair price shop. 6.2 Hierarchy of Socio-Economic Facilities Six hierarchic orders have been observed on the basis of their relative functional weightage of all 39 socio-economic facilities (table 6.2). The hierarchic classification exhibits that 9 (23.08 per cent) out of 39 facilities lie in the lower order of functional hierarchy with the functional weightage below 4.51 having facilities namely primary school, middle school, telephone connection, pucca road, tap water, tube-well water, electricity for agricultural purpose, village development centre and fair price shop. Table 6.2 Aligarh District: Hierarchic Order of Socio-Economic Facilities (2001) Hierarchic Order Functional Weightage Socio-Economic Facilities Name of Facilities No. Percent First order < PS, MS,TC,PR,TW,TWW,EAP,VDC,FPS Second order PO, EDP Third order SS, SSS, Hos., Disp., MCWC,PHSC,BS, CB, CS,Tan.W,VH,ABC,Se.S,PALCS,LM, GPC Fourth order ALC, HC, PHC, RCAE Fifth order NH, TO, RWS, CCB, BHQ Sixth order > Col.,Co.S, WSM Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory) Second level of functional hierarchy show only 2 (5.13 per cent) facilities out of total facilities i.e. post office and electricity for domestic purpose having functional weightage between Maximum 16 (41.03 per cent) facility has been recorded in the third hierarchic order of facilities with functional weightage of Four facilities (adult literacy centre, health centre, primary health centre, and 223

6 repairing centre of agricultural equipment) with functional weightage ranging have been identified in the fourth hierarchic order. Similarly five facilities with functional importance ranging have been observed in the fifth hierarchic order of facilities. Three facilities (7.69 per cent) with functional weightage more than lie in the sixth order of hierarchy rendering high order function in the study area. 6.3 Hierarchy of Rural Service Centres/Central Places Rural service centre is defined as a place, which offers the economic, administrative and social needs of the people of service area as well as of the people of a place itself, through public and private institutions, establishments and organizations 8. The rural service centres/central places are important nodal centres on communication lines enjoying centrality in a given area or a region with respect to a variety of functions or services for its contiguous surrounding areas. Centrality is the measure of importance of a place in the form of its functional capacity to serve the needs of the people in the surrounding areas 9. It depends on the number and types of the existing facilities or the sum of weightage score of all the functions provided by the central place. In order to find out the centrality score of any central place, weightage value assigned to each of the function is multiplied by their number. For example, if a central place has two primary schools (weightage value of 2), one middle school (weightage value of 4.33), two health centre (weightage value of 14.88), one post office (weightage value of 4.99), three telephone connection (weightage value of 3.73), and one fair price shop (weightage value of 1.30), centrality score of that settlement would be, (2 X 1) + (1 X 4.33) + (2 X 14.88) + (1 X 8 Kharate, V. B., Hierarchical Patterns of Rural Central Places in the Painganga Valley, Shodh, Samiksha aur Mulyankan (International Research Journal), Vol. II, Issue-5, Nov.08-Jan.09, pp Kukadapwar, S. R. and Adane, V.S., Regional Planning Through the Development of a Central Place, ITPI Journal, Vol.3, No. 2, 2006, pp

7 Table 6.3: Population and Centrality Score S.No. Name of Settlement Population Centrality Score S.No. Name of Settlement Population Centralit y Score 1. Hetalpur Diwahamidpur Bithana Kaliyanpur Ganiyavali Balukhera Khan Dabthala Alampur 9. Matroi Shahpur Raipur KhediyaKhurd Dalpatpur 13. Usram Bhartri Amamadapur Barautha Tamautiya Madapur Razawal Harautha Bahmati Barhauli Shaharimadan Dhumra Gari 25. Meer Garhi Chapauta Jamau Gahlau Tamkauli Burhaka Chiti Govali Chitrauli Bhojpur Haibatpur Madanpur Jamuna NarupuraKatka Jirollidor Sikandarpur DadarAlupura Golara Ahraula Bhojpur Ta Lohgarh 45. Chakathal Khadava Salarpur SikharnaKhurd Kalan 49. Manipur Karanpur Chhaichhau Subhashgram Tuamai BudhariBuzurg Chhiravali Lehtoi Paharipur Changeri Ainchana Barka Nanau Mathna NagalaSarua Detakhurd Bamoti BhadesiMafi Pusawali Bidhipur Gursiana Bonai BhuriaMajra Chandauli Rampur Buzurg 73. Data Alipur CholiBuzurg 75 Rampur Jakhauta Shahpur 77. Surajpur Raipur Khas Mandanpur Bistauli Ata Alampur Rani Rayat Varanadi Gidaura Naugavan Kochhor Bahadurpur Jartauli Palachand Lahra Simrauthi Salempur 93. Sahara Khurd Panihara (Contd.)

8 (Contd. Table 6.3) 95. Mahgaura Sihavali Kasimpur UdaiGarhi Gadaipur 99. Gahtauli Alahdadpur Nirmal 101. Burhagaon Rampur Chandiyana 103. Baijla Narayanpur Khairabad Gwalra Bhilawali Sahajpura Utara GaonKhera Goraula Ukhlana Mahgavan Aogipur Pahavati Baimbirpur Akbarpur Asroi Arni Baikala Chandaula Kaliyanpur Sujanpur Rani 123. PaliRazapur Keelpur Kajroth Utvara Bhakari BilaunaChitrasi Ahivasi 129. Jarara Payadapur Kasison Shadipur Dari Alawlpur Sunamai Khera Majoopur Suvkara 137. Nah BhankriKhas Bhavigarh Bajidpur Resari Harji Ki GarhiUrfGarhi Suraj 143. Gharvara Sujanpur Bisahuli Pyavali Talesara ChandpurMirza Jujharka Chhabilpur JalupurSigher Alahadadpur Nivry 153. Dabha TarauraUrf PipalKaGaon 155. Rahmapur Bhamori Buzurg 157. JiroliHira Singh Mamiana Ummedpur Kalai Takipur Kaseru Daurau Chandpur 163 Harrampur Lohgarh Dudhma Bharatpura Sahnaul Taharpur Baron Bankner Amrauli Kanaubi Barhsera Rajpur Songra Jiravli Ramgarh Taharpur Panjoopur 179. Hardaspur Majhaula Vijaigarh Jamanka Dehat 183. Rukhala Gazipur (Contd )

9 (Contd. Table 6.3) 185. Bhaiyan Chhalesar Kasimpur Shah Garh Hasona Syaraul Jagmohanpur 191. Visara Bhanauli Talib Nagar AsadpurKayam Madak Umari Karas NaglaDarvar MirpurDahora Jaidpura Dinapur Satha Barauli Pairai Alampur Gopi Fatehpur 207. Nahra KasbaKol Salpur NaglaJujhar Sarsaul Khandeha Chharra Dhatauli Rafatpur 215. Mahrawal Sathini Somna Baina Mandpur NaglaPadam Harnot Chaudhana Bhojpur 223. Malav Tevathu Rajmau Dhansari Keshopur NaraunaAkapur Gadrana 229. Nahal Palsera Bamnoi Shivala Virpura ChheratSudhal Hastpur Harduaganj Chandfari Dehat 237. Datavali Raipur Munzapta 239. Lodha Gorai Kazimabad Godha Tochhigarh Barla Hardoi Dhanipur Palimukimpur Sankra BarauliKhas Gomat Kalua Burhasi Kwarasi NaglaBirkhu JirauliDhoom Madrak Singh 257. Panaithi Andala Pisava Dado Gangiri Gabhana Bijauli Akarabad Tappal Chandaus NaglaSabal UrfGonda Jawan Sikandpur Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory) 227

10 4.99) + (3 X 3.73) + (1 X 1.30) = Similarly centrality score of all the central places were calculated in the same manner. In the district, there are 1180 inhabited rural settlements and all are not considered as the service centre or central place. There are certain criteria which have been adopted for the identification of rural central places. They are, (i) it hold permanent establishment, (ii) it has total population of 1,000 persons and more and (iii) it should have more than five different functions. Based on these three criteria, a rural settlement is termed as a central place. There are as many as 268 rural settlements which have been identified as central places in the district. The list of centrality score and population of rural settlements are given in table 6.3. On the basis of centrality score, the central places have been classified into six hierarchic orders, using the value of mean and standard deviation (table 6.4 and fig. 6.1). The class interval is calculated on the basis of mean value (69.57) and the value of standard deviation (68.89) of total centrality score of all central places (i.e. 268) in the district. Mean value has been taken as lower limit below which all the settlements fall in first order hierarchy and value of standard deviation is added at each hierarchic order. It is observed from the table 6.4 that the number of central places decreases as the centrality score increases at each hierarchic level where as mean spacing increases at each level of hierarchy First Order Central Places A perusal of table 6.4 reveals that 191 rural central places with centrality score of less than lie in the first order hierarchy. In this hierarchy, lowest centrality score has been observed by village Hetalpur located in Tappal block with centrality score (Table 6.3). Mean spacing of the central places of this hierarchy is 4.65 km (Table 6.4). The block headquarter of Lodha block located at Hardaspur with 228

11 centrality score of lies in this hierarchic order Second Order Central Places There are 50 rural settlements with the centrality score ranging from to comes under second hierarchical order of central places (table 6.4). Out of the total central places, nearly 19 percent central places are found in this hierarchy. They are located at the mean spacing of 9.09 km. Hierarchic Order Table 6.4 Aligarh District: Hierarchy of Rural Central Places (2001) Class Interval of Centrality Score Settlements Number Percent Mean Spacing (km.) First order Below Second order Third order Fourth order Fifth order Sixth order Above Total Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory) Third Order Central Places At this hierarchical order, 13 central places have been identified with the centrality score ranging from to Out of the 13 central places, one central place i.e. Dhanipur located in Dhanipur block is a block headquarter with centrality score of Third order central places are located at the mean spacing of km Fourth Order Central Places With the centrality score ranging from to , 8 central places have been identified in the fourth order central places. They are Jirauli Dhoom Singh (Atrauli block), Madrak (Lodha block), Panaithi (Dhanipur block), Andala (Khair block), Pisava (Chandaus block), Dado (Bijauli block), Gangiri (Gangiri block), and Gabhana (Chandaus block). Fourth order central places provide higher order facilities. 229

12 230 Aligarh District Hierarchy of Rural Central Places 2001 Fifth order First order Y Fourth order S Second order Sixth order Third order Urban Centers Rural Central Places N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S KM Fig. 6.1

13 These central places are located at the mean spacing of km Fifth Order Central Places There are only two central places i.e. Bijauli and Akrabad having centrality score of and respectively has been found in this hierarchic level. Both of the central places plays the role of block headquarter. They provide higher order facilities namely health centre, telegraph office, co-operative commercial bank, and repairing centre of agricultural equipment. These central places show the mean spacing of km Sixth Order Central Places Central places having centrality score of more than comes under highest order of hierarchy. Four central places as block headquarter (Tappal, Chandaus, Nagla Sabal Urf Gonda, and Jawan Sikanderpur) has been found in this hierarchy. They have the mean spacing of km. They provide both lower order as well as higher order facilities to the surrounding population Table 6.5 shows the blockwise hierarchic order of rural central places. Maximum number of first order central place has been found in Atrauli block whereas minimum number of first order central place has been recorded in Jawan Sikanderpur and Iglas block. Third order central places are not found in the blocks namely Tappal, Chandaus, Lodha, Atrauli and Akrabad. Only two blocks i.e. Bijauli and Akrabad has been found in the fifth order hierarchy having higher order facilities. Higher order hierarchy (sixth order) has been recorded in Tappal, Chandaus, Jawan Sikanderpur, and Gonda block having one central place in each. 6.4 Relationship between Population and Centrality Score of Central Places To test the hypothesis that centrality score of central places is directly 231

14 S.No Block Total Inhabited rural Settlement Table 6.5 Aligarh District: Blockwise Hierarchic Order of Rural Central Places (2001) First <69.57 order Hierarchic order of rural settlements Second order Third order Fourth order Fifth order Sixth order > Tappal Khair Chandaus Lodha Jawan Atrauli Bijauli Gangiri Dhanipur Akrabad Gonda Iglas Total Source: computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory) 232

15 correlated to its population, Karl Pearson s coefficient of correlation has been used. Taking centrality score as independent variable (X) and population of central places as dependent variable (Y), causal relationship has been calculated for 268 rural central places in the district. The analysis reveals that both the variables are positively correlated with r value which is significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, it may be concluded that the central places having high population show high centrality score and vice-versa. The computed equation, y = x gives the best fit regression line to determine the linear relationship between population and centrality score of the central places (fig. 6.2). ALIGARH DISTRICT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULATION AND CENTRALITY SCORE (2001) CENTRALITY SCORE y = x POPULATION Fig