MODULE-1

Urbanisation: Trends, Causes and Effects

Introduction

More than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. Due to the on-going
urbanisation and growth of the world’s population, there will be about 2.5 billion more
people added to the urban population by 2050, mainly in Africa and Asia. The world’s urban
areas are highly varied, but many cities and towns are facing problems such as a lack of jobs,
homelessness and expanding squatter settlements, inadequate services and infrastructure,
poor health and educational services and high levels of pollution.
In this study session, you will learn about the trends in urbanisation and the causes of urban
growth. You will also learn about the demographic, health, environmental and social
consequences of urbanisation.

Urbanisation trends

The overall trend in global population growth is increase is taking place in urban areas.
Urbanisation is an increase in the number of people living in towns and cities. Urbanisation
occurs mainly because people move from rural areas to urban areas and it results in growth in
the size of the urban population and the extent of urban areas. These changes in population
lead to other changes in land use, economic activity and culture. Historically, urbanisation
has been associated with significant economic and social transformations. For example, urban
living is linked with higher levels of literacy and education, better health, lower fertility and a
longer life expectancy, greater access to social services and enhanced opportunities for
cultural and political participation (UNDESA, 2014). However, urbanisation also has
disadvantages caused by rapid and unplanned urban growth resulting in poor infrastructures
such as inadequate housing, water and sanitation, transport and health care services.

Global trends in urbanisation

In 1960, the global urban population was 34% of the total; however, by 2014 the urban
population accounted for 54% of the total and continues to grow. By 2050 the proportion
living in urban areas is expected to reach 66% (UNDESA, 2014). Figure shows the change in
the rural and urban populations of the world from 1950 through to projected figures up to the
year 2050.
The process of urbanisation affects all sizes of settlements, so villages gradually grow to
become small towns, smaller towns become larger towns, and large towns become cities.
This trend has led to the growth of mega-cities. A mega-city is an urban area of greater than
ten million people. Rapid expansion of city borders, driven by increases in population and
infrastructure development, leads to the expansion of city borders that spread out and
swallow up neighbouring urban areas to form mega-cities. In 1970, there were only three
mega-cities across the globe, but by the year 2000, the number had risen to 17 and by 2030,
24 more mega-cities will be added (see Figure).

The global trend in urbanisation is not the same in all parts of the world. Asia and Africa
currently have the highest rates of urbanisation.

The rapid increase in urban populations has meant that peri-urban (sub-urban) areas are
growing much more quickly than formal urban centres. Peri-urban areas are those areas
immediately around a town or city. They are areas in transition from countryside to city (rural
to urban), often with undeveloped infrastructure, where health and sanitation services are
under pressure and where the natural environment is at risk of degradation.

Defining the boundaries of urban, peri-urban and rural areas is not straightforward. They do
not neatly separate themselves by lines on a map. On the contrary, the sprawling nature of
urban development means that the areas merge into each other. The lack of a clear boundary
can make it difficult to assess the size of towns by their population or geographical area.
However, judgements have to be made and, for planning and administrative purposes, data on
population size are collected

Causes of urbanisation
*Natural increase of population

You will know that the population is increasing in developing countries. This natural increase
is a significant cause of the growing urban population.

As birth rates decline over time, according to the demographic transition model, the role of
natural increase in determining the pace of urban population growth becomes less important
in comparison to migration.

*Rural to urban migration

In developing countries, urbanisation usually occurs when people move from villages to
settle in cities in hope of gaining a better standard of living. The movement of people from
one place to another is called migration. Migration is influenced by economic growth and
development and by technological change (Marshall et al., 2009) and possibly also by
conflict and social disruption. It is driven by pull factors that attract people to urban areas
and push factors that drive people away from the countryside.

Employment opportunities in cities are one of the main pull factors. Many industries are
located in cities and offer opportunities of high urban wages. There are also more educational
institutions providing courses and training in a wide range of subjects and skills. People
are attracted to an urban lifestyle and the ‘bright lights’ of city life. All of these factors result
in both temporary and permanent migration to urban areas.

Poor living conditions and the lack of opportunities for paid employment in rural areas are
push factors. People are moving away from rural areas because of poor health care and
limited educational and economic opportunities as well as environmental changes, droughts,
floods, lack of availability of sufficiently productive land, and other pressures on rural
livelihoods.

Rural to urban migration can be a selective process, as some types of people are more likely
to move than others. One of the factors involved is gender, because employment
opportunities vary greatly with different jobs for men and women. Another factor is age.
Young people are more likely to move to towns, with more elderly people and children left in
rural areas. Selectivity in migration affects the population in both the rural and the urban
areas. If more men move to towns and cities than women, this leaves a predominantly female
society in rural areas.

Impacts of urbanisation
Although people are pulled towards the advantages of cities, the impacts of urbanisation are
mixed. First we will look at the many positive impacts of urbanisation before going on to
describe some of the challenges created by rapid unplanned urban growth.
Thriving towns and cities are an essential element of a prosperous national economy. The
gathering of economic and human resources in one place stimulates innovation and
development in business, science, technology and industry. Access to education, health,
social services and cultural activities is more readily available to people in cities than in
villages. In cities, child survival rates are better than in rural areas because of better access to
health care (Mulholland et al., 2008). The density of urban populations makes it easier and
less costly for the government and utilities to provide essential goods and services
(Brockerhoff, 2000). For example, the supply of basic facilities such as fresh water and
electricity can be achieved with less effort and less cost per person.

Schools, colleges and universities are established in cities to develop human resources. A
variety of educational courses are available, offering students a wide choice for their future
careers. People of many classes and religions live and work together in cities, which creates
better understanding and harmony and helps break down social and cultural barriers. Cities
also have advanced communication and transport networks.

However, these many benefits of urban life do not apply to all. Rapid population increases
and unplanned growth create an urban sprawl with negative economic, social, and
environmental consequences. In Ethiopia, the rate of urban growth often strains the capacity
of local and national government to provide urban residents with even the most basic services
of housing, water supply, sewerage and solid waste disposal

# Housing

In developing countries, about a third of urban inhabitants live in impoverished slums and
squatter settlements (UN-Habitat, 2012). Slums are urban areas that are heavily populated
and have sub-standard housing with very poor living conditions, creating several problems.

Slum areas typically suffer from:

 poor housing with small, overcrowded houses built very close together using
inadequate materials and with uncertain electricity supply

 restricted access to water supplies

 little or no sanitation/latrine facilities and no solid waste disposal, which leads to a

polluted and degraded local environment

 inadequate health care facilities which, coupled with the poor living conditions,
increases sickness and death rates

 insecure living conditions – slum dwellers may be forcibly removed by landowners or

other authorities.
Many low-income families gravitate to these informal settlements that proliferate in and
around towns. Poverty is one of the most critical issues facing urban areas. Urban poverty
degrades both the physical and social environment. This then makes it more difficult for
people to escape from poverty and they fall victim to the ‘vicious cycle’

# Water supply and sanitation

The provision of water and sanitation services to growing urban settlements, peri-urban and
slum areas presents critical challenges. The increased demand for water from the growing
population can place added stress on already stretched resources. In and around cities, water
is commonly in short supply and subject to increasing competition by different users. Urban
growth leads to increasing demand for water for industrial and domestic use, which conflicts
with agricultural demands.

It is especially difficult to provide water and sanitation services to deprived areas and the
poorest people. Many people in these areas live without access to safe drinking water and
proper sanitation. Even where adequate water supplies are available, sanitation and
wastewater disposal are often inadequate or missing. Pit latrines and septic tanks are the usual
methods for human waste disposal but they have limited capacity and are not always
adequate to cope with the quantity of waste produced by many people living close together.
Overflowing latrines and septic tanks contaminate surface water and create a serious health
risk.

The lack of these essential services threatens not only the health and the environment of
people in slum areas, but also that of people living in formal urban areas. In Africa and Asia
most of the urban centres have no sewers at all, which affects rich and poor alike. This is true
of many cities with a million or more inhabitants, as well as smaller cities and towns.

# Wastes and pollution

Urbanisation affects land, water, air and wildlife because of the number of people, the
amount of buildings and construction, and the increased demands on resources. It has impacts
on the physical environment in several ways.

Water quality

In developing countries, including Ethiopia, many rivers in urban areas are more like open
sewers (Figure 5.6). The lack of sanitation and sewerage systems has a dramatic impact on
urban watercourses. People use the rivers to dispose of all their wastes from homes, industries
and commercial businesses. Wastewater from human settlements contains organic material
and nutrients; industrial wastewater contains many different types of toxic pollutant. These
make the water unsafe for humans to use for many purposes including drinking and
irrigation, as well as harming the fish and other animals and plants living in the water. Any
changes to the quality of surface water also affects groundwater because they are linked by
the processes of the water cycle so pollutants from the surface will infiltrate down and
contaminate soil and groundwater as well.

Solid waste
In many towns and cities solid waste management is inefficient or non-existent. Solid waste
management means the proper collection, transfer, recycling and disposal of all the solid
material we throw away, including plastics, paper and cardboard, food wastes, electrical
waste, etc. It also includes industrial, hospital and institutional wastes which often contain
pathogens as well as hazardous and toxic chemicals, which need special care.

Urban waste often ends up in illegal dumps on streets, open spaces, wastelands, drains or
rivers. This is frequently a problem in peri-urban areas, which are convenient for dumping
wastes because of the availability of open space and ease of access from central urban areas.
This can lead to the pollution of groundwater and surface waters which may be used as a
source for drinking water. Sometimes the wastes are collected and taken to legalised waste
disposal sites but these are not always properly managed to protect water bodies and
groundwater.

The combustion of solid waste creates yet another environmental problem. People want to get
rid of the wastes and they will burn them in their backyards if there is no collection system

Air quality

Air quality in towns and cities is frequently very poor as a result of air pollution from many
different sources .These includes:

 vehicle exhausts

 smoke from domestic fires

 outputs from factory chimneys

 diesel-powered generators

 dust from construction works and city streets.

Poor air quality has a significant impact on the health of many urban residents as well as
leaving a damaging and unsightly layer of dust on plants, buildings and other surfaces.

# Health

Urbanisation can have both positive and negative effects on health. The main benefits are
associated with easier access to hospitals, clinics and health services in general. If you live
close to these services you can reach a doctor in minutes rather than hours or days, so this
improves emergency care and general health. There are also benefits from easier access to
sources of information such as radio and television which may be used to communicate
information about health to the general public. For example, women living in towns and cities
are more likely to be informed about family planning, which results in reduction in family
size and less frequent childbirth, with consequent benefits to general health.

However, urban life can also damage your health. Poor environment, housing and living
conditions are the main reasons for poor health in urban areas. Contamination of water
sources can cause epidemics of waterborne disease. Close proximity to other people can
make the spread of many types of infectious disease more likely. The polluted air can also
cause respiratory disease and contribute to premature deaths among more vulnerable sections
of the population such as older people and children.

# Food

Population movements also put pressure on food supplies and on food distribution. As people
migrate to the cities, they tend to use purchased food instead of their own crops and this
makes them more vulnerable to changes in food prices. As the population grows and the
demand for water and land increases, it becomes difficult to increase food production in a
sustainable way. The increase in urban demand, combined with a loss of agricultural land,
means more pressure on rural people to produce food for the growing number of urban
people.

Furthermore, pollution from urban areas can disrupt food supply. For example, fisheries are
often damaged by urban domestic wastes and liquid effluents from city-based industries.
(Effluent is another word for wastewater that flows out from a source.) In several cities,
untreated wastes are dumped into nearby lakes, which can damage the fish stocks 

# Economic and social systems

The process of urbanisation has positive as well as negative economic and social changes.
The positive effects include economic development, and education. However, urbanisation
places stresses on existing social services and infrastructure. Crime, prostitution, drug abuse
and street children are all negative effects of urbanisation. Also there tends to be a lack of
social support for children in school and home by their hard-working, usually poor, parents.
Inadequate income, overcrowded housing and poor living conditions create a fertile ground
for the development of violence. Violent crime is more visible in the cities than in rural areas
and it affects people’s everyday life, their movements and the use of public transport. Crime
in the city can create a sense of insecurity in its inhabitants. This unsafe feeling in city streets
separates residential areas into higher-income and lower-income groups, which reduces the
sense of community and forms areas with dissimilar incomes, costs and security levels.

In the next study session we will look at some of the ways in which these problems and
challenges can be addressed by considering the future demands for urban living and by taking
a planned approach to the development of new urban areas.

To conclude :

Urbanisation is a global trend reflecting the growing population of the world. The urban
populations of less-developed countries are currently increasing at a faster rate than those of
more-developed countries.

Urbanisation results from a natural increase in the population and rural to urban migration.
People migrate to towns and cities in hope of gaining a better standard of living. They are
influenced by pull factors that attract them to urban life, and push factors that make them
dissatisfied with rural living.

Urban living is associated with better employment and education opportunities, better health,
greater access to social services and opportunities for social and cultural activities.

Uncontrolled migration and rapid urban growth are associated with increasing urban poverty
and inequality and rises in slum and squatter populations. These people usually have
inadequate water supply and sanitation services.

Urbanisation affects the physical environment through the impacts of the number of people,
their activities and the increased demands on resources.

Urbanisation has negative consequences on health due mainly to pollution and overcrowded
living conditions. It can also put added pressure on food supply systems.

The pressures of urban living may lead to crime and other consequences of social
deprivation.

THEORIES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

The theories of urban development have evolved over time, with the classical theories having been
followed by the postmodern thoughts.

Classical Theories: The classical theories of urban development include Von Thunen Model,
Concentric Zone Theory, Wedge or Radial Sector Theory and Multiple-Nuclei Theory.

i) The Von Thunen Model : Based on a series of simplifying assumptions, VonThunen described a
model that account for a spatial distribution of sites across a theoretical geographical area that
would have varying rent generating capacities dependent upon transportation costs and distance
from a central site. Von Thunen’s model was highly generalized and was based on a series of
simplifying assumptions (Krugman, 1996):

1. The space in which the model was framed was assumed to be an infinite or boun dless, flat,
and featureless plane, over which climatic conditions and natural resources were uniformly
distributed.
2. The central attracting area was assumed to be a central market.
3. Transportation to this central market was assumed to be by horse and cart.
4. An allowance for the production and sale of different goods was made, but these goods
were regarded as differing in bulk, therefore, having varying costs of transportation from
point of production to the central market.
5. For each of these products, transport costs were assumed to vary with distance from the
point of production to the point of sale at the central market.
6. The profits to be gleaned from the cultivation of one hectare of land were assumed to be the
same for each product.
Based on these assumptions, and operating over the hypothetical space that VonThunen proposed,
he argued that agricultural land uses would segregate into a spatially hierarchic structure akin to
that demonstrated

ii) Concentric Zone Theory : EW Burgess developed the concentric zone theory of urban land use in
the mid-1920s based on an examination of the historical development of Chicago through the 1890s.
It contrasts from the Von Thunen’s approach in being descriptive rather than analytical(Harvey,
1996). The concentric zone theory of urban land use is based on the assumption that a city grows by
expanding outwards from a central area, radially, in concentric rings of development.

Burgess classified the city into five broad zones as shown in. These five broad zones are:

1. The Central Business District (CBD): the focus for urban activity and the confluence of the
city’s transportation infrastructure.
2. The Zone of Transition: generally a manufacturing district with some residential dwellings.
3. The Zone of Factories and Working Men’s Homes: a predominantly working class
population living in older houses and areas that were generally lacking in amenities
characterized this zone.
4. The Residential Zone: this band comprised newer and more spacious housing for the middle
classes.
5. The Outer Commuter Zone: This land use ring was dominated by better quality housing for
upper class residents and boasted of an environment of higher amenity.
 While useful in a descriptive sense for explaining the location of land uses in a mono-centric city,
both the work of Burgess and Von Thunen has (by extrapolation to urban cases), has been criticized
on the grounds that the models are too rigid to ever accurately represent actual land patterns (the
mono-centric city assumption is perhaps the largest flaw). They have also been accused of
overlooking the important influence of topography and transport systems on urban spatial structure
and have been criticized for failing to accommodate the notion of special accessibility and ignoring
the dynamic nature of the urban land use pattern (Harvey, 1996).

iii) Wedge or Radial Sector Theory: Development of the wedge or radial sector theory of urban land
use is generally attributed to the work of Hoyt (1939). Hoyt’s model concerns itself primarily with the
location of residential uses across urban areas; it refers to business location only in an indirect
fashion. The model seeks to explain the tendency for various socio-economic groups to segregate in
terms of their residential location decisions. In appearance, Hoyt’s model owes a great deal to
Burgess’s concentric zone model: Hoyt presents wedge-like sectors of dominant urban land use,
within which he identifies concentric zones of differential rent. The model suggests that, over time,
high quality housing tends to expand outward from an urban centre along the fastest travel routes.
In this way, Hoyt transforms Burgess’s concentric zones into radial or sectoral wedges of land use
 The innovative element in Hoyt’s model was in considering direction, as well as distance, as
a factor in shaping the spatial distribution of urban activity. Hoyt’s model also goes further than its
predecessors in recognizing that the Central Business District is not the sole focus of urban activity
(Kivell, 1993). One major criticism, however, is that the model overlooks the location of
employment, which itself is the major determinant of residential location (Harvey, 1996).

iv) Multiple-NucleiTheory: The work of Harris and Ullmann (1945) in developing a multiple-nuclei
theory of urban land use is amongst the most innovative descriptive or analytical urban models.
Their model is based on the premise that large cities have a spatial structure that is predominantly
cellular. This, they explain, is a consequence of cities’ tendencies to develop as a multitude of nuclei
that serve as the focal point for agglomerative tendencies. Harris and Ullmann proposed that around
these cellular nuclei, dominant land uses and specialized centres may develop over time.

The novelty in multiple-nuclei theory lies in its acknowledgement of several factors that strongly
influence the spatial distribution of urban activity, factors such as topography, historical influences,
and spatial accessibility.The theory is also innovative in its recognition of the city as polycentric, as
shown. In this sense, it moves closer to explaining why urban spatial patterns emerge.

v) Central Place Theory : Central Place Theory is an attempt to explain the spatial arrangement, size,
and number of settlements. A Central Place is a settlement, which provides one or more services for
the population living around it. A German geographer Walter Christaller who studied the settlement
patterns in southern Germany originally published the theory in 1933. In the flat landscape of
southern Germany, Christaller noticed that towns of a certain size were roughly equidistant. By
examining and defining the functions of the settlement structure and the size of the hinterland he
found it possible to model the pattern of settlement locations using geometric shapes.

The theory consists of two basic concepts

i) threshold — the minimum population that is required to bring about the provision of
certain good or services
ii) range of goods or services — the average maximum distance people will travel to
purchase goods and services

From this he deduced that settlements would tend to form in a triangular or hexagonal lattice,
this being the most efficient pattern to serve areas without any overlap. In the orderly arrangement
of an urban hierarchy, Christaller, providing different groups of goods and services, has identified
seven different principal orders of settlement. Settlements are regularly spaced - equidistant spacing
between same order centres, with larger centres farther apart than smaller centres. Settlements
have hexagonal market areas, and are most efficient in number and functions.

vi) Weber’sTheory of Location:

Alfred Weber, published the theoryin 1909 which assumes that industrialists choose a least-cost
location for the development of new industry. The theory is based on a number of assumptions,
among them that: (i) markets are fixed at certain specific points, (ii) transport costs are proportional
to the weight of the goods and the distance covered by a raw material or a finished product, and (iii)
perfect competition exists. Weber postulated that raw materials and markets would exert a ‘pull’ on
the location of an industry through transport costs. Industries with a high material index would be
pulled towards the raw material. Industries with a low material index would be pulled towards the
market. Industrial location may be swayed by agglomeration economies

Modern Theories:
 i) Public Choice Theory Two theories emerged in the 1980s to explain the motivations
and formulae pushing urban development and to comment on the conflicts and pressures
facing modern American cities. These theories superseded the debate between the post-
war theories of democratic pluralism and regime politics that had dominated the field for
two decades. First and most significant of these new ideas was the “public choice theory”
advanced by Paul Peterson in his 1981 book, “City Limits”. Peterson states that urban
politicians and governing regimes are subordinate to the overall economic principles that
force cities to compete to capture new investment and capital. He writes that the
competitive nature of cities encourages the business elite and politicians to favor new
development projects, concluding that successful cities require a local infrastructure that is
supportive of the needs of business and economic development.

In 1987 John Logan and Harvey Molotch published “Urban Fortunes” as the first
substantial criticism of Peterson’s ideas. “Urban Fortunes” describes the combination of
entrepreneurs and urban politicians as a “growth machine” — a powerful, pro-development
network of business interests and local politicians whom favor increased economic
development at the expense of neighborhood residents and other vulnerable stakeholders.
Logan and Molotch argue that the close relationship between City Hall and the business
world creates the growth machine and fuels its ability to overpower weaker forces
attempting to influence the development process. Logan and Molotch also identify the costs
and externalities created by the growth machines drive for economic development that
were absent from Peterson’s theory. The free market and fiscal growth models emphasized
in Peterson’s theory are the guides for city officials and entrepreneurs intent on spurring
economic development within their city. The “public choice theory” of urban development
outlined in City Limits suggests that market values and motivations drive city officials to
pursue economic revitalization with the goal of attracting more private investment. This
economically-based theory is built upon the belief that cities should “seek to upgrade their
economic standing” by competing against other cities to attract new businesses and jobs
through economic development. Cities are successful when they entice new jobs and
development projects inside their boundaries following the logic that what is good for
business becomes good for the city. Framing urban development in strictly economic terms,
Peterson claims the decisions of the city are governed by rational principles designed to
increase public utility.

Planning Theories

i) Traditional Planning Theories : Planning efforts in the field rarely make obvious reference
to philosophical synthesis or organizational development theory, nor are much attention
given to lessons of historical experience based on case studies of past planning efforts.
Planning theory has long been at tension over its normative versus descriptive or predictive
nature. Is planning theory philosophically oriented toward laying out the correct way to
plan, in an ethical sense? Or is it scientifically oriented toward showing the likely
implications of undertaking various planning behaviors? Both traditions have always existed,
but movement seems to be away from philosophy and toward science. The notion of a
contingency use of planning theories has accompanied this trend. In the 1970s, Hudson
(1974) published a widely cited article likening the planning theory universe to an Indian
sitar whose strings represent synoptic, incremental, transactive, advocacy, and radical
planning. The practitioner plays the strings at appropriate times. (Christensen 1985;
Alexander 1996).

The most important of these other traditions include incremental planning, transactive
planning, advocacy planning, and radical planning. These by no means exhaust the range of
contemporary planning traditions, but they cover enough ground to illustrate the major
developments in planning theory and practice since roughly 1960, developments which
have grown up in response to recognized deficiencies in the synoptic approach.

ii) Synoptic Planning Predominant concern has generally centered on the tradition of
rational comprehensive planning, also known as the synoptic tradition. The synoptic
approach has dominated both American planning practice and the planning of development
assistance programs overseas. The approach is well suited to the kind of mandate bestowed
on government agencies: a set of constrained objectives, a budget, and accountability.
There are, however, several other counterpoint schools of thought, most of which differ
from the confines of the synoptic approach. Synoptic planning, or the rational
comprehensive approach, is the dominant tradition, and the point of departure for most
other planning approaches. Synoptic planning typically looks at problems from a systems
viewpoint, using conceptual or mathematical models relating ends (objectives) to means
(resources and constraints) with heavy reliance on numbers and quantitative analysis.
Synoptic planning has roughly four classical elements:

1) Goal-setting,
2) Identification of policy alternatives,
3) Evaluation of means against ends,
4) Implementation of policy. The process is not always undertaken in this sequence,
and each stag permits multiple iterations, feedback loops and elaboration of sub-
processes. For example, evaluation can consist of procedures such as benefit cost
analysis, operations research, systems analysis, and forecasting research.
Forecasting can be broken down into deterministic models (trend extrapolation,
econometric modeling, curve-fitting through multiple regression analysis); or
probabilistic models (Monte Carlo methods, Markov chains, simulation programs,
Bayesian methods) or judgmental approaches (Delphitechnique, scenario writing,
cross-impact matrices).

iii) Incremental Planning: Incremental planning came up as a response to the synoptic

planning approach that has been criticized for its bias toward central control-in the
definition of problems and solutions, in the evaluation of alternatives, and in the
implementation of decisions. The case for incremental planning derives from a series of
criticisms levelled at synoptic rationality, its insensitivity to existing institutional
performances capabilities; its reductionist epistemology; its failure to appreciate the
cognitive limits of decision-makers, who cannot “optimize” but only “satisfies” choices by
successive approximations.

Charles Lindblom is one of the advocates of the theory of ‘Incrementalism’ in policy and
decision-making (also called ‘Gradualism’) in 1959. The approach is to take “baby-steps”, or
“Muddling Through”, in decision-making processes. In it, policy change is, under most
circumstances, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. He stresses that policy decisions are
better understood, and better arrived at, in terms of the push and tug of established
institutions that are adept at getting things done through decentralized bargaining
processes best suited to a free market and a democratic political economy. Incremental
planning adheres more closely to the economic logic of individuals pursuing their own self-
interest. Incrementalists also take issue with the synoptic tradition of expressing social
values (a priori goal-setting; artificial separation of ends from means; presumption of a
general public interest rather than pluralist interests).

IV) Advocacy Planning: The most influential of the 1960s challenges to rational planning
came from a Hunter College professor who had worked with poor communities in
Philadelphia and New York and believed in their lack of representation in the planning
process. Paul Davidoff’s (1965) article, “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,” resonated with
the frustration of many planners in their inability to meaningfully address the social and
economic issues tearing at the fabric of American cities. Davidoff called for the distribution
of planning services into low-income, minority neighborhoods through a cadre of advocate
planners who would be physically located in neighborhoods and would represent the
interests of neighborhood residents in city-level planning processes. Based on analogy with
the legal advocacy system, Davidoff thought that many neighborhoods would arrange their
own advocates. If these were not forthcoming, it was the duty of the city government to
appoint advocates to represent the neighborhood. Debates among the various advocate
planners would take place “in the coin of the public interest”- so that the prevailing
positions would be those showing themselves as the most closely aligned with the broader
needs of the city. The advocacy planning movement grew up in the sixties rooted in
adversary procedures modelled upon the legal profession, and usually applied to defending
the interests of weak against strong-community groups, environmental causes, the poor,
and the disenfranchised against the established powers of business and government.
(Alinsky 1971; Heskin 1977.) Advocacy planning has proven successful as a means of
blocking insensitive plans and challenging traditional views of a unitary public interest. In
theory, advocacy calls for development of plural plans rather than a unit plan (Davidoff
1965). The advocacy planning movement liberated planners from positions labeled as
comprehensive or public interest defined. It quickly spread well beyond the inner city. The
use of publicly supported advocates spread even beyond the realm of planning and they
became common in the service of environmental groups, trade associations, and even
corporations. In practice, however, advocacy planning has been criticized for posing
stumbling blocks without being able to mobilize equally effective support for constructive
alternatives (Peattie 1968). One effect of the advocacy movement has been to shift
formulation of social policy from backroom negotiations out into the open. Particularly in
working through the courts, it has injected a stronger dose of normative principles into
planning, and greater sensitivity to unintended side effects of decisions. A residue of this can
be seen in the increasing requirements for environmental, social, and financial impact
reports to accompany large-scale project proposals, whether originating in the private or
public sector. Another result has been the stronger linkage between social scientists and
judiciary processes in policy decisions. Advocacy planning has both reflected and
contributed to a general trend in planning away from neutral objectivity in definition of
social problems, in favor of applying more explicit principles of social justice. Much of the
previous assumptions of city planners became the subject of conscious discussion and
debate. Reflections from the advocate planners showed their work to be enormously
difficult and conflicted. Critics pointed out tendencies of advocate planners to be
demographically quite different from the residents they served. Advocacy planning seemed
to raise expectations that could not be met in those communities. Ultimately, Davidoff was
moved by the argument that you have to be from a community to effectively advocate in its
behalf. He relocated to the suburbs where his organization, Suburban Action Institute,
became influential in promoting federal fair share housing requirements (Needleman and
Needleman 1974; Mazziotti 1974; Davidoff, Davidoff and Gold 1974).

By the early 1970s, it was normal to distinguish procedural planning theory focusing on
planning process from substantive planning theory focusing on the growth and
development of cities. Andreas Faludi, the Dutch planning theorist labelled these two
subjects, theory-of-planning and theory-in-planning (Faludi 1973). The distinction was and
remains controversial, with many scholars and practitioners arguing that one cannot study
process without an understanding of substance, and vice versa. One aspect of the
controversy is the tendency of the procedural emphasis to separate planning theory from
design approaches to planning which are so rooted in the physical aspects of cities
(Hightower 1969; Fischler 1995). Following the first experiences with advocacy planning,
planning theorists began diverging in many directions. The rational planning model gradually
lost ground. Indeed, in the late 1970s, it was common to talk about a “crisis in planning
theory” resulting from the loss of a center to the field (Goldstein and Rosenberry 1978;
Clavel, Forester and Goldsmith 1980).

v) Radical Planning The criticisms of advocacy led to a wave of radical approaches to

planning for the underpriviledged. Stephen Grabow and Alan Heskin’s (1973) wrote in the
“Foundations for a Radical Concept of Planning,” on the inabilities of the current planning
framework to respond to the needs of the poor. They called for a systemic change including
decentralization, ecological attentiveness, spontaneity, and experimentation. Yet, it
spawned the progressive planning movement seeking out incremental changes that over
time would result in structural changes promoting equality, participation, and legitimacy.
Progressive planners promoted public ownership of land and job generating industries,
worker-managed enterprises, tax reform, community organizations, and leveraging of public
resources through partnerships with private organizations that would agree to serve public
purposes. Notable examples include Berkeley, California; Hartford, Connecticut; and
Burlington, Vermont. Some progressives worked outside the mainstream government doing
opposition planning or organizing community self-help initiatives (Krumholz and Clavel
1994; Friedmann 1987).

vi) Urban Regime Theory Urban regime theory came to prominence with the publication of
Clarence Stone’s study of Atlanta in 1989, although earlier work by Fainstein and Fainstein
(1983) and Elkin (1987) has also been influential. The urban regime theory holds that in
certain places, community leadership has a certain framework, or regime, for examining
issues. Individuals or interest groups that argue from outside that regime will find it very
difficult or even impossible to win decisions. This results in an effective disenfranchisement
of the outsiders. Implications for planners are both descriptive and normative: power lies in
speaking the language of the dominant regime(s). If planners want to influence decisions,
they will have to make arguments in a manner that the dominant regime(s) will understand
and be responsive to (Lauria 1997).

vii) Transactive Planning During the development of the radical critique, other planning
theorists were reconsidering the overtly political directions of planning theory.A series of
new directions emerged; focusing on planners’ facilitative roles in shaping decisions
emerged.Often referred to as social learning theories, these contributions emphasized
planners’ roles in bringing stakeholders together, gathering and sharing information, and
helping social structures to learn from their experiences. John Friedmann’s transactive
planning emphasized that citizens and civic leaders, not planners, had to be at the core of
planning if plans were to be implemented. Others defined a social experimentation process
using elements of incrementalism. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon began to articulate a
theory of action in which the planner, acting as catalyst strives to create a self-correcting
decision structure capable of learning from its own errors (Argyris and Schon 1974;
Friedmann 1987).

The trans active planning approach focuses on the intact experience of people’s lives
revealing policy issues to be addressed. Planning is not carried out with respect to an
anonymous target community of beneficiaries, but in face-to-face contact with the people
affected by decisions. Planning consists less of field surveys and data analyses, and more of
interpersonal dialogue marked by a process of mutual learning trans active planning also
refers to the evolution of decentralized planning institutions that help people take
increasing control over the social processes that govern their welfare. Planning is not seen
as an operation separated from other forms of social action, but rather as a process
embedded in continual evolution of ideas validated through action (Friedmann 1973). In
contrast to incremental planning, more emphasis is given to processes of personal and
organizational development, and not just the achievement of specific functional objectives.
Plans are evaluated not merely in terms of what they do for people through delivery of
goods and services, but in terms of the plans’ effect on people,on their dignity and sense of
effectiveness, their values and behavior, their capacity for growth through cooperation,
their spirit of generosity.

THE POST-MODERN CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE

The postmodern philosophy emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s in the United States. It
evolved in an environment of increasing pressures on poor communities, heightened
awareness of ethnic, racial and gender differences in the society, with multiculturalism
becoming a leading political force and illegal immigration, welfare programs, and affirmative
action taking center stage. Ethnic wars in Africa, Asia, and Europe only reinforced the sense
that differences among subgroups within a country matter much more than collective
interest. In this environment, planners were receptive to the introduction of post-modern
philosophy. This stance highlighted diversity in points of view about social and political
issues, rejected notions of human progress and saw domination of one group by another at
every turn. Despite the French post-modern philosophers’ high pessimism about the
prospects for positive social change, planning theorists who have drawn upon them actively
look for the solutions to this pessimism. They call for acknowledging and respecting diversity
and difference, recognizing the varying forms of evidence persuasive among different
populations, as well as meaningfully involving communities early in planning processes and
sharing both power and theorizing activities with those they plan for. Still, the postmodern
challenge is considerable and planning theorists are not at all clear about meeting them
(Harper and Stein 1995; Mandelbaum 1996; Sandercock 1998).

Theories of social capital are a recent development to capture the imaginations of planning
theorists as a response to the multicultural challenge. They have not yet been applied to
planning settings in a full way.They emphasize the complexity and effectiveness of social
networks and community leadership in moving a community toward an operable response
to new challenges (Briggs 1997; Putnam 1995). Feminist planning theory, comfortable
operating within the post-modem critique, calls planners to task for valuing economic
production while undervaluing or ignoring familial and community re-production, as well as
ignoring the different ways men and women use space. The feminist theorists argue that
economic efficiency measures universally used in planning analyses attach zero value to
home child care, or to volunteer work in community organizations, among others. They also
cite transportation models as oriented around the journey-to-work. Women, in particular,
tend to make more trips other than the conventional journeys from home to workplace
(Moore Milroy 1991; Ritzdorf 1995). While mainstream-planning theory has increasingly
focused on the procedural side of planning, external developments on the substantive side
are increasingly pushing the profession in new directions and demanding responses. The
selfproclaimed new urbanism of Peter Calthorpe (1993) and Andres Duany (Duany and
Plater-Zyberk 1992) has captured the imagination of public officials and homebuyers. They
are essentially physical design oriented proposals justified largely by claims about enhancing
civic life and social capital, entering the procedural realm. The sustainability movement,
which has grown to enormous international proportions since the 1987 Brundtland
Commission Report (Krizek and Power 1996) appears to focus on resource renewability and
preservation, with as much concern for the relationship of rich to poor.The movement
proposes new decision criteria and models based on global cooperation and advancement
of equity. Finally, recent explorations into environmental justice issues have potential to
lead to a new understanding of the nature of social divisions in both rich and poor countries
(Petrikin 1995). Procedural planning theory must respond to these ideas but has not yet
done so.

CHANGING URBAN COMMUNITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

The urban infrastructure is analogous to the internal frame of a building: as the

frame is the underlying structural support for the building, the urban infrastructure is
the underlying structural foundation of a city. Cities from the earliest times have had
infrastructural amenities—roadways and sewers, for example—and all infrastructural
development involves the provision of public services and the use of public spaces
that are deemed essential for the ability of people to live in the city. Over time an
increasingly accepted notion was that circulation of air, sunlight, commerce, vehicles,
water, waste matter, people, and even knowledge was as essential to the healthy
operation of the city as, to employ another analogy, blood circulating through the
human body. What marks the development of the modern infrastructure since the
nineteenth century is its close association with technological development,
industrialization, and the dramatic growth of city populations. While definitions of the
urban infrastructure may include any and all public services, the essential elements of
the urban infrastructure during the nineteenth century, the formative period of the
modern city, consist of new streets and boulevards, mass transit, new sewage systems,
and the provision of gas, water, and electricity. The net effect of these infrastructural
developments is the creation of the modern city as a circulatory system designed to
move people and material products rapidly and efficiently, both above- and
belowground.

THE STREET

Streets are the most basic element of the urban infrastructure. Traditionally they
are designed to carry vehicular and pedestrian traffic, transport merchandise, and
provide public spaces for social interaction. They also function as conduits for waste
matter and, in modern times, house sewage, gas, electrical, and water systems below
their surface. On a more fundamental level, streets are essential for access by city
dwellers to work sites, markets, and homes. Because streets are public spaces,
political, social, and ideological considerations figure in their construction and
control. Government authorities are always concerned with street activities as a
function of public order and safety. The health of the city is closely related to the
street: for example, narrow streets do not permit the circulation of air or the diffusion
of sunlight, and streets without effective drains breed disease from stagnant water and
waste matter.

TECHNOLOGY

Technology will also definitely play a major role in the urban infrastructure
development of the nation. While leading to better and faster construction, technology
has made many things possible - like PEB and precast building solutions, advanced
formwork systems, building materials like glass and steel which can be used for
sustainable construction and newer and more efficient machinery in order to gain a
higher performance.
GROWING HETEROGENITY

Urban areas are heterogeneous. Transitions in architecture and building density,

vegetation, economic activity, and culture can occur at the scale of city blocks.
Ecologists have been criticized for treating the city as homogeneous and urbanization
as one-dimensional. Heterogeneity in urban ecosystems derives from a combination
of natural and engineered landscape features, as well as behavior of human
individuals and institutions. Modern urban regions in North America and elsewhere
are no longer uniformly compact and densely populated but have extended into
surrounding regions and include intricate mixes of residential, commercial, and
residual agricultural, forest, and other managed and unmanaged vegetated areas.
Compared to less developed ecosystems, heterogeneity in water, carbon, nutrient,
and energy cycling may be enhanced, specifically over the short distances associated
with urban development patterns.

MERGING OF FRINGE VILLAGES

Urban fringe of the modern city is a significant area because it signifies both
urban as well as rural characteristics. This should not be treated as two distinct zones
as the city merges perceptibly into rural countryside by way of mixed land uses. In
most of the western cities there is no break in its continuity which is strengthened by
the journey to work. People using automobiles make their daily trips to perform their
jobs, from the rear end of a city to its central area where their offices and economic
institutions are generally located.

Rural-Urban fringe (R-U fringe) is a transitional zone and could be recognized

recently on social grounds by the presence of rural and urban groups. But modern
means of communications as well as means of movement of people and goods are
making the social attitudes between the two groups of rural and urban practically
much diffused. In various parts of Western Europe and North America, urban impact
on social life has been felt well away from the immediate surroundings of cities.
Therefore, it is no longer worthwhile to recognize a rural-urban fringe. Herington
defines R-U fringe more or less in the same context as “an area with distinctive
characteristics which is still partly rural and where many of the residents live in the
country but are not socially and economically of it”.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FRINGE VILLAGE

(a) There is a vast usurpation of agricultural land by residential tracts of the suburbs
including commercial, educational uses, etc.

(b) Industries have sporadically cropped up.

(c) People of the fringe area are overburdened because of the heavy taxes incurred to
manage urban amenities.

(d) Land values have gone too high due to new constructions to be borne by medium-
class population.

(e) One could observe a social shift in the attitudes of people.

GLOBAL CITY

Global city, an urban center that enjoys significant competitive advantages and
that serves as a hub within a globalized economic system. The term has its origins in
research on cities carried out during the 1980s, which examined the common
characteristics of the world’s most important cities. However, with increased attention
being paid to processes of globalization during subsequent years, these world cities
came to be known as global cities. Linked with globalization was the idea of spatial
reorganization and the hypothesis that cities were becoming key loci within global
networks of production, finance, and telecommunications. In some formulations of the
global city thesis, then, such cities are seen as the building blocks of globalization.
Simultaneously, these cities were becoming newly privileged sites of local politics
within the context of a broader project to reconfigure state institutions.

Early research on global cities concentrated on key urban centres such

as London, New York City, and Tokyo. With time, however, research has been
completed on emerging global cities outside of this triad, such
as Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Houston, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Paris, São
Paulo, Sydney, and Zürich. Such cities are said to knit together to form a global city
network serving the requirements of transnational capital across broad swathes of
territory.
CHARACTERISTICS

 Home to major stock exchanges and indexes.

 Influential in international political affairs.
 Home to world-renowned cultural institutions.
 Service a major media hub.
 Large mass transit networks.
 Home to a large international airport.
 Having a prominent skyline.