Spatial Information Research

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 137–149 | Cite as

An evaluation of the relative urbanisation in peri-urban villages affected by industrialisation: the case study of Bhiwandi in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, India

  • Richa KandpalEmail author
  • Izuru Saizen


The Mumbai Metropolitan Region in India has a history of uneven development with a concentration of population and employment in the urban core of Mumbai city. Recently, there has been an increased rate of development in other nodes outside Mumbai city. Evaluating the intra-regional inequalities will facilitate more focused planning based on contextual issues. The peri-urban villages of Bhiwandi Surrounding Notified Area are among the least planned areas within the metropolitan region, witnessing intensive industrial development and a host of other resultant problems. This study focuses on the calculation of a measure of relative urbanisation for these villages in order to identify areas that are at an advanced stage of transition from rural to urban. The measure is based upon demographic, social, economic, spatial and infrastructural parameters. Variables were selected with reference to existing research in the field of indices for urbanity and the definitions of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ in context of India, and comprehensive scores were generated for each village. The results guide the theoretical analysis of the pattern of development in the region and the influence of urbanisation on the socio-economic changes and living conditions in the villages. Further, this study discusses the formulation of customised planning policies for different categories of peri-urban villages in the Indian context. Since the development in these villages is driven primarily by secondary and tertiary sector employment, it can be concluded that the traditional consideration of ‘rural’ as being predominantly agricultural should be reassessed for peri-urban villages.


Peri-urban village Region Socio-economic development Tertiary sector Urbanisation measure 



The authors would like to thank the officials in the Planning Division of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, and the Gram Panchayat officials in the villages of Bhiwandi Surrounding Notified Area for their support in carrying out this study. A special mention to Asst. Prof. Narumasa Tsutsumida (Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University) for his guidance with the methodology.


This work was supported by Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research) Grant Number 16H03311, and the Japanese Government Monbukagakusho Scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41324_2018_221_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Population Reference Bureau. (2017). World population data sheet. Washington, DC. Accessed 10 April 2018.
  2. 2.
    Phadke, A. (2013). Mumbai Metropolitan Region: Impact of recent urban change on the peri-urban areas of Mumbai. Urban Studies, 51(11), 2466–2483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ravetz, J., Fertner, C., & Nielsen, T. S. (2013). The dynamics of peri-urbanization. In K. Nilsson, et al. (Eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe (pp. 13–44). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaw, A. (2005). Peri-urban interface of Indian cities: Growth, governance and local initiatives. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(2), 129–136.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin, J., Cai, J., Han, F., Han, Y., & Liu, J. (2016). Underperformance of planning for peri-urban rural sustainable development: The case of Mentougou District in Beijing. Sustainability, 8(9), 858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Champion, T., & Hugo, G. (2017). Introduction: Moving beyond the urban–rural dichotomy. In T. Champion & G. Hugo (Eds.), New forms of urbanization—Beyond the urban–rural dichotomy (p. 2017). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dupont, V., & Sridharan, N. (2006). Peri-urban dynamics: Case studies in Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai. CSH occasional paper no. 17/2006, Centre des Sciences Humaines, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarkar, S., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2013). Dynamics of the peri urban interface: Issues and perspectives for management. Transactions of the Institute of Indian Geographers, 35(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pradoto, W. (2012). Development patterns and socioeconomic transformation in peri-urban areaThe case of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Doctoral thesis, TU Berlin. Accessed 10 April 2018.
  10. 10.
    United Nations. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. New York: United Nations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Government of India. (2011). Census of India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2016). World cities report 2016. United Nations. Accessed 10 April 2018.
  13. 13.
    Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). (2016). Draft regional plan 2016–2036. Mumbai: MMRDA Planning Division.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). (2012). Draft development plan 20082028 for Bhiwandi surrounding notified area. Report for MMRDA, Mumbai.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGranahan, G., & Satterthwaite, D. (2014). Urbanisation concepts and trends. IIED working paper, IIED, London.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao, K. P., Mishima, Y., Srinivasulu, S., & Rao, B. N. (2016). Identification of urban sprawl—A case study of Vijaywada city, Andhra Pradesh, India. Lowland Technology International, 18(1), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Government of India. (1961). Census of India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta, A. (2013). Measuring urbanization around a regional capital: The case of Bhopal district. USR 3330 “Savoirs et Mondes Indiens” Working papers series no. 6; SUBURBIN Working papers series no. 1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madsen, M. F., Kristensen, S. B. P., Fertner, C., Busck, A. G., & Jorgensen, G. (2010). Urbanisation of rural areas: A case study from Jutland, Denmark. Danish Journal of Geography, 110(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arouri, M. E. H., Youssef, A. B., Nguyen-Viet, C., & Soucat, A. (2014). Effects of urbanization on economic growth and human capital formation in Africa. HAL archives.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Demetriades, J. (2007). Gender indicators: What, why and how? BRIDGE Gender and Indicators Cutting Edge Pack, 2007, UK. Accessed 10 April 2018.
  24. 24.
    Rustagi, P. (2000). Gender development indicators: Issues, debates and ranking of districts. Occasional paper no. 33, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Behera, D. K. (2016). Measuring socio-economic progress in India: Issues and challenges. Revista Galega de Economia, 25(2), 117–132.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tacoli, C. (2012). Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in the city. Urbanization and emerging population issues. Working paper 7, IIED Human Settlements Group.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gong, W., & Lyu, H. (2017). Sustainable city indexing: Towards the creation of an assessment framework for inclusive and sustainable urban-industrial development. BRIDGE for cities issue paper no. 2, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Madhumathi, M. (2014). Challenges of rural urbanisation in Karnataka. In K. Sivachithappa (2014) Equality and sustainable human developmentIssues and policy implications. Proceedings of 1st international conference of ECONO VISION 2014 (pp. 255–263).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krishnankutty, M. (2018). Fragmentary planning and spaces of opportunity in peri-urban Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(12), 68–75.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhagat, R. B., & Jones, G. W. (2013). Population change and migration in Mumbai Metropolitan Region: Implications for planning and Governance. Working paper series no. 201, Asia Research Institute, Singapore.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Adusumilli, U. (2007). Planning for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR). In Conference presentation. Urban age India Conference, 01–03 November 2007, Mumbai.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OCED. ISBN 978-92-64-04345-9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2018). Use and misuse of PCA for measuring well-being. Social Indicators Research. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antony, G. M., & Rao, K. V. (2007). A composite index to explain variations in poverty, health, nutritional status and standard of living: Use of multivariate statistical methods. Public Health, 121(8), 578–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krishnan, V. (2010). Constructing an area-based socioeconomic index: A principal component analysis approach. Accessed 10 April 2018.
  36. 36.
    Razavi, S. (2011). World development report 2012: Gender equality and development—An opportunity both welcome and missed (an extended commentary). Geneva: UNRISD.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (2007). State of world population 2007: Unleashing the potential of urban growth. New York: United Nations Population Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kandpal, R., & Saizen, I. (2018). A study on institutional imbalances of the urban–rural governance framework in Mumbai Metropolitan Region, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science. Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Spatial Information Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Regional Planning, Graduate School of Global Environmental StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations