Settlements are the visible imprint made by the man upon the physical

Settlements are the visible imprint made by the man upon the physical landscape through the process of cultural occupancy. It is manmade colony of human being in which they live, work, and move to pursue their socio-economic activities for sustaining their livelihood. Spatial organization of rural settlements is the logical outgrowth of man s cognition, interactions with their surroundings. The nature of surroundings has direct bearing on the distinct shape, size, distribution, growth, and function of rural settlements. Spatial organization, in fact is an aggregate pattern of use of space by a society 1, which determines the movement phenomena of men, material and ideas 2. Therefore, the study of spatial organization of rural settlement is of prime importance to understand the nature of the space with the relationship of human occupancy and functional activities. Besides inter settlement and service centre spacing, dispersion gives true ground reality of existing distributional system of settlement and service centre for further allocation of new rural growth centre to achieve balance regional development at micro level. Therefore, in the present study an attempt has been made to examine the spatial organization of rural settlements in terms of their distribution, growth, density, size (in terms of area and population), spacing and its dispersion for understanding the existing position of rural settlement system in the study area to propose a diagnostic planning for balanced regional development. The methodological principle adopted for the present analysis is based on the qualitative and quantitative approach. The qualitative approach refers to the analysis based on empirical observations and the quantitative approach is based on the use of statistical techniques which are as follows. For the analysis of inter spacing of 1 Morrill, R.L., The Spatial Organisation of Society, 2nd edition, Duxburg press, Belmont, 1974, p.26. 2 Hermansen, T., Spatial organization and Economic Development, Development Studies, No.1, Institute of Development Studies, University of Mysore, Mysore, 1971, p.7. 114

services and settlement, the Mather s model of spacing, randomness of settlement distribution has been examined taking into consideration of nearest neighbour techniques supplemented with Gini s Coefficient of correlation for further clarifications. Mather s model of Mean Spacing : D = 1.746 A/N Where, D = theoretical distance between points or settlements in hexagonal arrangement, or mean spacing in unit length. A = area of given region N = number of settlements in a given region 1.746 = Spacing constant. Nearest Neighbour Index: Rn = do/de and de = 2 1 N/A Where, Rn = Nearest Neighbour Index, do = mean observed distance of nearest neighbor settlements, de = mean expected distance of settlements, N = total number of settlements, A= total area of the concerned region. The rule of computing Gini s Coefficient of Concentration is as follows: 1 N Gi = (x i.y i +1) (x i +1.y i ) 1, i=1 Where, x i = the cumulative percentage distribution of attribute x. y i = the cumulative percentage distribution of attribute y. N = the number of observations 115

Gi = Gini s Coefficient Ratio (the relation between the area of triangle formed between the line of equal distribution and the y axis, and the area lying between the curve and the line of equal distribution). 3.1 GROWTH OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS Growth of rural settlements refers to the change in the number of settlement between two consecutive time periods. As per available and computed statistics (table 3.1and fig. 3.1) of the rural settlements of Aligarh district, it has been observed that there is fluctuating trend of growth of rural settlements from 191 to 21. Percent decadal growth since 191 has never been more than 3.19 per cent. Positive growth of rural settlements i.e., 1.2, 3.19,.6,.17 and.12 per cent has been observed during 191-1911, 1921-1931, 1941-1951, 1961-1971, and 1981-1991 respectively. Whereas negative growth of rural settlements i.e., -2.82, -1.91, -1.83,-.76, and -3.83 has been observed during 1911-1921, 1931-1941, 1951-1961, and 1971-1981, 1991-21 respectively. Fluctuating trend of growth of rural settlement is because of the territorial reorganizations in the study area from time to time. Highest negative Table 3.1 Aligarh District: Growth of Rural Settlements (191-21) Census Year Number of Rural Settlements Decadal Growth in (%) 191 1753-1911 1774 1.2 1921 1724-2.82 1931 1779 3.19 1941 1745-1.91 1951 1746.6 1961 1714-1.83 1971 1717.17 1981 174 -.76 1991 176.12 21 118-3.83 Source: District Statistical Bulletin (21) 116

ALIGARH DISTRICT GROWTH OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS 191-21 35 3 25 2 DECADAL GROWTH IN (%) 15 1 5-5 -1-15 CENSUS YEAR -2-25 -3-35 Fig. 3.1 117

growth of rural settlements has been observed during 1991-21(-3.83 per cent) which is attributed to the fact that 526 villages have been carved out when the new district emerged in the name of Hathras in the year 1997. 3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS AND POPULATION A perusal of table 3.2 and fig. 3.2 shows the block wise distribution of rural settlements in different population size group. Out of the total blocks maximum number of rural settlements (11.3 per cent) has been found in Lodha block followed by Atrauli block (9.3 per cent) which accounts 9.43 per cent and 8.5 per cent of population respectively while minimum number of rural settlements (7. per cent) has been found in Gonda block with 7.85 per cent of total population in the district. It has been found that, Bijauli and Iglas block is not having very small size of settlements with population less than 2 persons. While only Atrauli block do not have overgrowth villages with population more than 5 persons. The proportion of rural settlements of very small villages varies from zero in Bijauli and Iglas block to 4.6 per cent in Tappal block. Similarly the share of rural settlements of overgrowth villages varies from zero in Atrauli block to 7.2 per cent in Gonda block. Similarly variation between different categories has also been observed among different blocks of the district. Thus it is clear that the distribution of villages in different population size group as well as in different blocks has been found uneven in the district. Table 3.3 shows the distribution of rural settlements and population in different population size group in the district. Table reveals that out of the total villages in the district there are 17 very small villages (1.44 per cent) which are inhabited by less than 2 persons in each, and accounts for.8 per cent of the total population. About 5 overgrowth villages (.42 per cent) are found with their size of population more than 1, persons in each and share 2.76 per cent of total 118

Blocks Table 3.2 Aligarh District: Block Wise Distribution of Rural Settlements in Different Population Size Group (21) Total no. of village % of the district no. of population population % of the district Very small villages below 2 persons no. of villages % of block Small villages 2-499 persons no. of villages % of block Medium villages 5-999 persons no. of villages % of block Large villages 1-1999 persons no. of villages % of block Very large villages 2-4999 persons no. of villages % of block Overgrowth villages above 5 persons no. of villages Tappal 87 7.4 16975 7.98 4 4.6 1 11.5 12 13.79 33 37.93 24 27.59 4 4.6 Khair 96 8.1 16615 7.8 1 1.4 7 7.29 24 25 37 38.54 22 22.92 5 5.2 Chandaus 92 7.8 174333 8.19 2 2.17 4 4.35 24 26.9 35 38.4 22 23.91 5 5.4 Lodha 133 11.3 2642 9.43 1.75 14 1.5 4 3.8 38 28.57 26 19.55 4 3 JawanSikanderpur 18 9.2 21139 9.94 2 1.85 4 3.7 26 24.7 43 39.81 26 24.7 7 6.5 Atrauli 11 9.3 18899 8.5 2 1.82 7 6.36 31 28.18 37 33.64 33 3 - - Bijauli 85 7.2 155285 7.3 - - 6 7.6 24 28.24 33 38.82 2 23.53 2 2.4 Gangiri 99 8.4 227328 1.68 1 1.1 4 4.4 17 17.17 35 35.35 35 35.35 7 7.1 Dhanipur 98 8.3 1758 8.23 1 1.2 6 6.12 33 33.67 28 28.57 24 24.49 6 6.1 Akrabad 86 7.3 1454 6.82 2 2.33 7 8.14 24 27.91 28 32.56 24 27.91 1 1.2 Gonda 83 7. 166915 7.85 1 1.2 8 9.64 2 24.1 35 42.17 23 27.71 6 7.2 Iglas 13 8.7 15532 7.28 - - 1 9.71 37 35.92 41 39.81 11 1.68 4 3.9 Total 118 1 2127592 1 17 1.44 87 7.37 312 26.44 423 35.85 29 24.58 51 4.3 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) % of block 119

Aligarh District Block wise distribution of rural settlements in different population size groups (21) N 4 3 2 1 Tappal 5 5 1 15 KM 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Chandaus Khair Gonda 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Iglas 5 4 3 2 1 Lodha Jawan 4 3 2 1 12 Fig. 3.2 Dhanipur 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Atrauli Akrabad Gangiri 5 4 3 2 1 Index Bijauli < 2 persons 2-499 persons 5-999 persons 1-1999 persons 2-4999 persons >5 persons

Table 3.3 Aligarh District: Distribution of Rural Settlements and Population according to population size group (21) Settlements Population No. Per cent cumulative Per cent No. Per cent Below 2 17 1.44 1.44 174.8.8 2-499 87 7.37 8.81 3264 1.54 1.62 5-999 312 26.44 35.25 237129 11.15 12.77 1-1499 247 2.93 56.18 37514 14.45 27.22 15-1999 176 14.92 71.1 3759 14.43 41.65 2-4999 29 24.58 95.68 883565 41.53 83.18 5-9999 46 3.9 99.58 299179 14.6 97.24 1 & above 5.42 1 58766 2.76 1 Total 118 1 2127592 1 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) Population size group (persons) Cumulative Per cent Cumulative Percentage 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 Aligarh District Cumulative Percentage of Settlements and Population in Different Population Size Group (21) 3 cumulative percentage of settlements 2 1 Cumulative percentage of population < 2 2-499 5-999 1-1499 15-1999 2-4999 5-9999 > 1 Population Size Group Fig. 3.3 121

population. Most of the rural settlements (26.44 per cent) belong to medium size villages having 5 to 999 persons, and accommodate 11.15 percent population of the district. Moreover, 29 settlements (24.58 per cent) with population size group 2-4999 accommodate 41.53 per cent of total population. The analysis also reveals that 56.18 per cent of the rural settlements with population size group less than 15 persons in each accommodate only 27.22 per cent of total population. However, 16.72 per cent of population resides in only 4.32 per cent of rural settlements with population size group of more than 5 in each. Figure 3.3 shows the cumulative percentage of rural settlements and population in different population size group in Aligarh district. It exhibits that rural settlements and population are distributed disproportionately in terms of population size group. 3.3DENSITY AND SIZE OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS (in terms of area and population) The density and size (in terms of area and population) of rural settlements is closely related to spacing. With an increase in distance between settlements, the density of settlements tends to decrease. They are the important indicators that explain the nature of spatial organization of settlements. Table 3.4 and fig. 3.4 focus on the density of rural settlements at per 1 sq. km. It reveals that average density of villages in the study area is 3.3 settlements per 1 sq.km. Highest density of rural settlement has been recorded in Lodha block (4.54 settlements) followed by Iglas (4.6 settlements), and Atrauli (4.3 settlements) whereas the lowest density of rural settlements has been found in Tappal block where only 2.11 villages are located per 1 sq.km. Medium density of rural settlements has been observed in Jawan Sikanderpur block (3.63 settlements), Dhanipur block (3.51 settlements), and Gonda block (3.9 settlements). 122

Table 3.4 Aligarh District: Density of Rural Settlements (21) Density of Blocks Area (sq.km) Number of settlements settlements (settlements/1sq.km) Tappal 413.25 87 2.11 Khair 317.9 96 3.2 Chandaus 318.93 92 2.88 Lodha 293.15 133 4.54 JawanSikanderpur 297.88 18 3.63 Atrauli 272.79 11 4.3 Bijauli 223.19 85 3.81 Gangiri 35.48 99 2.82 Dhanipur 279.41 98 3.51 Akrabad 289.9 86 2.97 Gonda 268.83 83 3.9 Iglas 253.5 13 4.6 Total district 3579.21 118 3.3 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) Table 3.5 and fig. 3.5 reveals the block wise distribution of average area per village (sq.km). The average areal size of villages in the district is 3.3 (sq.km). It (average area per village) ranges between 2.2 to 4.75 (sq.km) in Lodha and Tappal Table 3.5 Aligarh District: Block Wise Distribution of Average Area per Village (Sq. Km.) (21) Blocks Area (sq. km) No. of settlements Average per village (sq. km) Tappal 413.25 87 4.75 Khair 317.9 96 3.31 Chandaus 318.93 92 3.47 Lodha 293.15 133 2.2 JawanSikanderpur 297.88 18 2.76 Atrauli 272.79 11 2.48 Bijauli 223.19 85 2.63 Gangiri 35.48 99 3.54 Dhanipur 279.41 98 2.85 Akrabad 289.9 86 3.37 Gonda 268.83 83 3.24 Iglas 253.5 13 2.46 Total 3579.21 118 3.3 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) 123

Aligarh District Density of Rural Settlements 21 N 5 5 1 15 Km Settlements/1 sq.km. High >3.71 Medium 3.71-3.3 Low <3.3 Fig. 3.4 124

Aligarh District Distribution of Average Area per Village (sq.km.) 21 N Average area per village (sq.km.) High >3.43 5 5 1 15 Km Medium Low 3.43-2.75 <2.75 Fig. 3.5 125

block respectively. Tappal block records the highest average area per village with 4.75 sq.km followed by Gangiri (3.54 sq.km.) and Chandaus (3.47 sq.km.),while the lowest has been recorded in Lodha block (2.2 sq.km) followed by Iglas (2.46 sq.km.) and Atrauli (2.48 sq.km.).table 3.6 and fig. 3.6 reveals that the average population of a village in the area is 183 persons. The highest per village population (2296 persons) has been found in Gangiri block followed by Gonda (211 persons) and Jawan Sikanderpur (1957 persons), whereas lowest per village population has been recorded in Iglas block (155 persons) followed by Lodha (159 persons) and Atrauli (1645 persons). Table 3.6 Aligarh District: Block Wise Distribution of Average Population per Village (persons) (21) Blocks Population No. of settlements Average per village population Tappal 16975 87 1951 Khair 16615 96 1729 Chandaus 174333 92 1895 Lodha 2642 133 159 JawanSikanderpur 21139 18 1957 Atrauli 18899 11 1645 Bijauli 155285 85 1827 Gangiri 227328 99 2296 Dhanipur 1758 98 1786 Akrabad 1454 86 1687 Gonda 166915 83 211 Iglas 15532 13 155 Total 2127592 118 183 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) 3.3.1 Relationship between Density and Size of Rural Settlements Using the Karl Pearson s correlation technique, the analysis reveals that there is high degree of negative correlation (-.968) between density and average space size of settlements by area which is significant at 1 percent level. The computed equation, Y= -.979x +6.381 gives the best fit regression line (fig. 3.7) to determine their linear relationship. Likewise there is negative correlation (-.652) between 126

Aligarh District Distribution of Average Population per Village ( persons) 21 N 5 5 1 15 Km Average population /village High >193 Medium 193-174 Low <174 Fig. 3.6 127

Aligarh District Relationship between Density and Space Size of Rural Settlements (21) Average Space Size per Settlement (sq. km) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 y = -.9793x + 6.3812.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Settlement Density (per 1 sq. km) Average Space Size per Settlement (' persons) 25 2 15 1 5 y = -216.67x + 2547.2 1 2 3 4 5 Settlement Density (per 1 sq. km) Fig. 3.7 128

density and average space size of settlements by population that is significant at 5 percent level. The equation, Y= -216.6x +2547 gives the best fit regression line to determine their linear relationship (fig. 3.7). The analysis reveals there is inverse relationship between size of settlement and density. 3.4 DISPERSION OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS Dispersion of rural settlements has been examined using nearest neighbour analysis. Dacey (1958) 3 introduced into geography the technique of nearest neighbour analysis, which was developed originally by Clark and Evans (1954) 4 for measuring spatial relationships among biological populations. In this analysis it is assumed that points are distributed randomly in accordance with a poisson probability function, which assumes that each location has an equal chance of containing a point, while in the real world settlements are neither always evenly spaced, nor they are spaced in a strictly random pattern. Rn value is the measure of the degree of departure from randomness in either of two directions: towards clustering or towards uniformity that ranges from (clustered pattern) through 1 (random pattern) to 2.15 (uniform pattern). For the present analysis, development block has been taken as the standard areal unit for measuring of Rn values. Table 3.7 shows that Rn values range from 1.422 (khair block) to 1.854 (Atrauli block) reveals a clear tendency toward uniformity. On the basis of the results obtained, three regions can be delineated: (i). Low uniformity (Rn value <1.613): It covers three development blocks i.e., Tapple, Khair and Lodha (fig. 3.8). The observed inter village distance (do) of Tappal, 3 Dacey, Michael F., Analysis of Map Distributions by Nearest Neighbor Methods, Discussion paper No.1 Seattle: Department of Geography, University of Washington, 1958. 4 Clark, Philip J. and Francis C. Evans., Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations, Ecology, 35, 1954, pp.445-452. 129

Khair and Lodha block is 1.78 km, 1.294 km, and 1.132 km respectively. While the expected mean distance (de) of Tappal block is 1.9 km, Khair block is.91 km and that of Lodha block is.742 km. These three block covers 316 villages (26.78 % of the total), and area i.e. 124.3 sq.km (28.62 % of the total area). The density of the villages per 1 km 2 of Tappal, Khair and Lodha block is 2.11, 3.2 and 4.54 respectively. Table 3.7 Aligarh District: Nature of Dispersion of Rural Settlements (21) Block (N) (A) (do) (de) Rn Tappal 87 413.25 1.78 1.9 1.567 Khair 96 317.9 1.294.91 1.422 Chandaus 92 318.93 1.612.931 1.732 Lodha 133 293.15 1.132.742 1.525 Jawan Sikanderpur 18 297.88 1.35.83 1.626 Atrauli 11 272.79 1.46.787 1.854 Bijauli 85 223.19 1.484.81 1.832 Gangiri 99 35.48 1.72.941 1.89 Dhanipur 98 279.41 1.482.844 1.755 Akrabad 86 289.9 1.586.918 1.728 Gonda 83 268.83 1.514.9 1.683 Iglas 13 253.5 1.116.784 1.423 Total 118 3579.21 1.466.871 1.683 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) (ii) Medium Uniformity (Rn value 1.613-1.745): This group includes five blocks i.e., Chandaus, Jawan Sikanderpur, Akrabad, Gonda, and Iglas having (Fig. 3.8) Rn value 1.732, 1.626, 1.728, 1.683, and 1.617 respectively. They cover 39.93 % (1429.4 sq.km) of the total area, 4 % of the total number of villages and 4.8 % of its total rural population. The observed inter village distance (do) ranges from 1.268 km (Iglas block) to 1.612 km (Chandaus block). While expected mean distance (de) ranges from.784 km (Iglas block) to.931 km (Chandaus block). (iii). High Uniformity (Rn value > 1.745): This group includes four development blocks i.e. Atrauli, Bijauli, Gangiri, and Dhanipur (fig. 3.8). They cover 1125.87 13

Aligarh District Dispersion of Rural Settlements 21 N 5 5 1 15 Km High Uniformity Medium Uniformity Low Uniformity RN VALUE >1.745 1.745-1.613 < 1.613 Fig. 3.8 131

sq.km of the total area of the district and 34.71 % of the total rural population. Number of villages per 1 sq.km ranges from 2.82 (Gangiri block) to 4.3 (Atrauli Block). 3.5 COEFFICIENT OF CONCENTRATION OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS Gini s model of coefficient of concentration ratio has been used to analyze the nature of rural settlements in the study area. The overall concentration is measured numerically in terms of ratio. The principle of the technique explains when the entire settlement is concentrated at a point the ratio becomes unity i.e. 1 and moving of this ratio from unity to zero explains the distribution pattern as approaching to uniform. When the ratio is zero the distribution pattern is completely uniform. Table 3.8 shows the concentration ratio i.e. G i value of rural settlements is.42 in the study area. This analysis reveals that the existing system of block wise rural settlements of the district with respect to their area has been found towards approaching uniformity. However the table 3.9 reveals the pattern of population concentration among the size group of settlements. The Gi value of.588 shows that the population is unevenly distributed among different size group of rural settlements. 3.6 SPACING OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS The spacing of settlement denotes the relative locational arrangement of villages in a given space. The variation in the spacing of rural settlements is the outcome of variation in existing system of physico-cultural determinant of the region. The theory of transformation of settlement density into spacing was firstly initiated by Barnes and Robinson 5 in 194 for the analysis of dispersed rural population of the 5 Robinson, A.H. and Barnes, J.A., A New Method for the representation of Dispersed Rural Population, Geographical Review, vol.3, 194, pp.134-137. 132

Table 3.8 Aligarh District: Coefficient of Concentration of Rural Settlements (21) Block No. of settlements Area of settlements in sq.km. Total settlements (x) Percent to Cumulative percentage x i.y i +1 x i +1.y i Total area x y (y) Tappal 87 413.25 7.37 11.55 7.37 11.55 15.58 179.9 Khair 96 317.9 8.14 8.88 15.51 2.43 454.97 476.11 Chandaus 92 318.93 7.8 8.91 23.31 29.34 874.6 114.47 Lodha 133 293.15 11.27 8.19 34.58 37.53 1585.37 1641.16 JawanSikanderpur 18 297.88 9.15 8.32 43.73 45.86 2338.33 2432.53 Atrauli 11 272.79 9.32 7.62 53.5 53.48 3167.63 3222.5 Bijauli 85 223.19 7.2 6.24 6.25 59.71 4187.75 498.74 Gangiri 99 35.48 8.39 9.79 68.64 69.5 536.73 5348.13 Dhanipur 98 279.41 8.31 7.81 76.95 77.31 6572.4 6512.26 Akrabad 86 289.9 7.29 8.1 84.24 85.41 7827.19 7795.29 Gonda 83 268.83 7.3 7.51 91.27 92.92 9127.21 9291.89 Iglas 13 253.5 8.73 7.8 1 1. - - Total 118 3579.21 1 1 - - 41592.41 4211.72 1 N Gi = (x i.y i +1) (x i +1.y i ) =.42 1, i=1 Source: Computed from Census of India, Village Directory (21) 133

Table 3.9 Aligarh District: Coefficient of Concentration of Population by size group of Rural Settlements (21) Population Size Group of Settlements Number of Settlements Total Population Percent to total Settlements (X) Percent to total Population (Y) Cumulative percentage x i.y i +1 x i +1.y i x y Below 2 17 174 1.44.8 1.44.8 2.33.7 2-499 87 3264 7.37 1.54 8.81 1.62 112.5 57.11 5-999 312 237129 26.44 11.15 35.25 12.77 411.83 717.42 1-1499 247 37514 2.93 14.45 56.18 27.22 2339.9 1935.34 15-1999 176 3759 14.92 14.43 71.1 41.65 5914.1 3985.7 2-4999 29 883565 24.58 41.53 95.68 83.18 933.92 8283.6 5-9999 46 299179 3.9 14.6 99.58 97.24 9958. 9724. 1 & above 5 58766.42 2.76 1 1 - - Total 118 2127592 1 1 - - - - 1 N Gi = (x i.y i +1) (x i +1.y i ) =.588 1, i=1 Source: Computed from Census of India, Village Directory (21) 134

Midwest, U.S.A. and Antario. It was in1944 that Mather 6 devised the corrected equation who studied the Linear-Distance Map of farm population in the United States. The computed mean spacing of rural settlements in each areal unit (block) and in the district as a whole have been given in table 3.1. The analysis shows that the mean spacing of settlements in blocks ranges from 1.6 km to 2.34 km and in the district as a whole is 1.87 km. On the basis of mean spacing of rural settlements of the district, blocks can be grouped into three categories i.e., low spacing, moderate spacing and high spacing (Fig. 3.9). Table 3.1 Aligarh District: Mean Spacing of Rural Settlements (21) Number of Blocks Area (sq. km) settlements Mean spacing Tappal 413.25 87 2.34 Khair 317.9 96 1.96 Chandaus 318.93 92 2. Lodha 293.15 133 1.6 JawanSikanderpur 297.88 18 1.78 Atrauli 272.79 11 1.69 Bijauli 223.19 85 1.74 Gangiri 35.48 99 2.2 Dhanipur 279.41 98 1.81 Akrabad 289.9 86 1.97 Gonda 268.83 83 1.93 Iglas 253.5 13 1.69 Total 3579.21 118 1.87 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) (i). Low Spacing (< 1.78 km): Four development blocks of the district registered low spacing of settlements. The lowest mean spacing in this group has been recorded by Lodha block (1.6 km) while others in this group are Atrauli block (1.69 km), Bijauli block (1.74 km) and Iglas block (1.69 km). This region covers an area of 29.13 % of the total area of district and 36.53 % rural settlements of the district. The development of transport, communication, irrigational facilities and fertile soils are responsible for 6 Mather, E.C., A Linear Distance Map of Farm Population in the U.S., Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol.34, 1944, pp.173-18. 135

Aligarh District Mean Spacing of Rural Settlements 21 N Kilometer 5 5 1 15 Km High Medium Low >1.98 1.98-1.78 < 1.78 Fig. 3.9 136

the low spacing of settlements. (ii). Moderate Spacing (1.78-1.98 km): Moderate spacing of settlement has been recorded in 5 blocks. They are Khair block (1.96 km), Jawan Sikanderpur Block (1.78 km), Dhanipur block (1.81 km), Akrabad block (1.97 km), and Gonda block (1.93 km). It covers an area 23.42 % of the total area of district and 39.92 % of rural settlements of the district. The areal size of village in these blocks ranges from 2.76 sq.km (Jawan Sikanderpur block) to 3.37 sq.km (Akrabad block). The number of villages per 1 sq.km ranges from 2.97 villages to 3.63 villages. (iii). High Spacing (> 1.98 km): High spacing of settlement has been recorded in three blocks i.e. Tappal (2.34 km), Chandaus (2. km), and Gangiri (2.2 km). It covers 3.25 % of the total area of the district, 23.56 % of rural settlements of the district and 26.86 % of district s population. Tappal block which lies in the Yamuna Khadar i.e. the western part of the district is inundated by floods during the rainy season. Besides poor irrigation, lack of transportation and communication attributes high spacing in the blocks. Since spacing of rural settlements in these blocks is high, the areal coverage of settlement is also high and average population per village is also high. Relationship between Spacing and Size of Rural Settlements Regression and correlation analysis is used for the verification of hypothesis that spacing is a function of the size of the settlements. The causal relationship of mean spacing of settlements (in km) independent variable being the X, while the dependent variable i.e. mean size of settlements by area being Y 1 and mean size of settlements by population being Y 2 has been examined taking blocks as the unit of study. Table 3.11 exhibits that both independent variable (X) and dependent variable (Y 1 ) shows high degree of positive correlation (r =.998) at 1 per cent level of 137

significance. However, the association between X and Y 2 is positively correlated (r =.588) at 1 percent level of significance. The computed equation, y = 3.398x-3.293 (fig.3.1) gives the best fit regression line to determine the relationship between mean spacing and mean size of settlements in terms of area in sq.km., while y = 6.569x+5.834 (fig.3.1) determine the linear relationship between mean spacing and mean size of settlements in terms of population in the district. After going through the above analysis it is revealed that where spacing is high the settlements are of big sizes in terms of both area and population whereas low spacing with small size of settlements shows the scattered pattern of distribution. Table 3.11 Aligarh District: Correlation (r) between Mean Spacing and Mean Size of Rural Settlements (21) Mean size of settlements(sq.km) (Y 1 ) Mean size of settlements (' persons) (Y 2 ) Mean spacing Blocks (X) Tappal 2.34 4.75 19.51 Khair 1.96 3.31 17.29 Chandaus 2. 3.47 18.95 Lodha 1.6 2.2 15.9 JawanSikanderpur 1.78 2.76 19.57 Atrauli 1.69 2.48 16.45 Bijauli 1.74 2.63 18.27 Gangiri 2.2 3.54 22.96 Dhanipur 1.81 2.85 17.86 Akrabad 1.97 3.37 16.87 Gonda 1.93 3.24 2.11 Iglas 1.69 2.46 15.5 Total X=22.53 Y 1 =37.6 Y 2 =217.98 Computed r =.998 r =.588 Source: Computed from Census of India (21), Village Directory (21) 138

Aligarh District Relationship between Mean Spacing and Mean Size of Rural Settlements (21) Mean Size of Settlements (in sq. km.) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 y = 3.3989x - 3.2932.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Mean Spacing of Settlements Mean Size of Settlements (' persons) 25 2 15 1 5 y = 6.5674x + 5.8346.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Mean Spacing of Settleemnts Fig. 3.1 139