Bachelors Thesis

Department of Planning
PROJECT REPORT
School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada
Vivek Maddirala
Batch of 2009-13
1
Potential for Vijayawada UDA extension area for recreational, institutional & public/semi-public use
Terminal Project
Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035
Terminal Project
Bachelors in Planning
Potential of Vijayawada UDA extension area
for regional recreational, institutional and
public/semi-public use.
May 2013
By:
Vivek Maddirala
Reg. No. 2090200035
2009 - 2013
Main Guide:
Mr. M V Sarma
Co-Guide:
Mr. Bhaskar Gowd
School of Planning & Architecture, Vijayawada
2
Terminal Project
(To be on Printed on SPAV Letterhead)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titled POTENTIAL OF VIJAYAWADA UDA EXTENSION AREA
FOR REGIONAL RECREATIONAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND PUBLIC/SEMMI-PUBLIC USE, has
been submitted by Mr. Vivek Maddirala (Reg. No. 2090200035, Batch 2009-13) at the
Department of Planning, towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
Bachelors Degree in Planning. This is a bonafide work of the student.
Dr. Ayon K. Tarafdar

Head, Department of Planning
..
Main Guide:
Mr. M V Sarma
Thesis Coordinator B.Planning:

Mr. Valliappan A. L.
Assistant Professor
..
Co-Guide:
Mr. Bhaskar Gowd
Assistant Professor
Date:
Seal:
3
Terminal Project
UNDERTAKING
I, Mr. Vivek Maddirala, the author of the thesis titled Potential of Vijayawada UDA
extensional area for regioan lrecreational, institutional and public/semi-public use.,

hereby declare that this is an independent work of mine, carried out towards partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Bachelors Degree in Planning at
the Department of Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada. The
work has not been submitted to any other organization / institution for the award of
any Degree/Diploma.
..
Vivek Maddirala
Reg. No. 2090200035
2009-2013
Bachelor of Planning
Date: 31st May, 2013
4
Terminal Project
Disclaimer
The content produced in the thesis report is an original piece of work and takes due
acknowledgement of referred content, wherever applicable. The thoughts expressed
herein remain the responsibility of the undersigned author and have no bearing on
or does not represent those of School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada.
..
Vivek Maddirala
Reg. No. 2090200035
2009-2013
Bachelor of Planning
5
Terminal Project
Abstract
Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban Development Authority known as VGTM-UDA
was constituted in December, 1978 under the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975
after the formation of
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and
Vishakhapatnam Development Authority (VUDA) in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Vijayawada City is the 3rd largest urban settlement in the state of Andhra Pradesh and
very well linked by Road, Rail and Air to all urban centres in the State due to its strategic
location on the bank of the River Krishna with Head Quarters of South Centre Railway . As
Vijayawada City, Guntur City, Tenali and Mangalgiri Municipalities are located in a triangular
belt having a lot of interactions and well connected by Circular Rail and Road network; this
urban complex has been proposed to be developed by the Urban Development Authority in
a planned manner according to a plan.
In the first instance, the Master Plan for VGTM-UDA region was prepared and approved in
1986 and subsequently the Development Area under the jurisdiction of the VGTM-UDA has
been divided into 27 planning zones and Zonal Development Plans (ZDPs) for 27 zones were
approved by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2006. Subsequently it has been
realised that the Development Area under the jurisdiction of VGTM-UDA needs further
extension to cater the future needs for urbanisation since the existing area under the
jurisdiction of VGTM UDA is covered by rich agricultural lands under Krishna Delta Irrigation
system and the phylosophy behind this thesis is not to disturb the rich agricultural belt while
making proposals for ubanisation with built up environment.
The Development Area under the jurisdiction of the VGTM-UDA has been further extended
by the Government of Andhra pradesh by including Gudivada and Nuziveed Municipal
Towns; Nandigama and Vuyyuru Nagar Panchayats; 423 villages within Krishna District.
Similarly, the jurisdiction has also been extended in Guntur District.
The present study is confined to Development Area which is extended in Krishna District,
spreading over an extent of 2949 Sq.KM. and it forms 84 % of the total area under UDA
limits in Krishna District with a population of 11.22 lakhs as per 2001 census , which is
estimated to be around 15.58 lakhs by 2021 census with a decadal growth rate of 12.54%
The purpose of the study is to identify the potential areas for regional recreational,
institutional, public/semi-public use within UDA Extension Area in Krishna District.
Keeping view of the 74th Constitutional Amendments Act for creation of Metropolitan
Development Committees (MPCs), it has been thought of linking the present study for the
creation of Vijayawada Metropolitan Region within VGTM UDA for the area under
Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and its suburbs, the jurisdiction of which is same as the
present UDA limits falling under Krishna District, spread over an area of 3171 Sq.KM. with
a population of 23.95 lakhs as per 2001 census, which is estimated to be in the tune of
37.30 lakhs by 2021 census. In terms of comparison, the area under the jurisdiction of
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) is 7,100 sq. Kms. and that of
BMRDA is 8005 sq.kms, which is the largest urban development area in India.
6
Terminal Project
The methodology adopted for identification of Potential Areas was by giving weightage to
various parameters such as cultivable waste, forest cover, built-up area, educational
facilities, etc. and concluded in HIGH and LOW potential areas. Resulting in 97 settlements
to be urbanized without disturbing the rich agricultural belt of the Krishna Delta System in
UDA extended area limits.
The various types of institutional and recreational uses proposed are strictly based upon the
norms and standards stated in the Urban Development Plan Formulation and
Implementation (UDPFI) guidelines i.e. 16 to 18 % of total area under recreational use and
12 to 14 % of total area under institutional and public/semi-public use. Accordingly, the
total requriement of area for institutional and recreational uses for the anticipatede
population of 37.30 lakhs (by 2021census) is measuring an extent of 903 sq.kms., which is
28.47 % of the total land under UDA in Krishna Dist.
The land required for the institutional and recreational need to be located
scoring 97 settlements.
within the top
7
Terminal Project
List of tables
4.1 Scoring logic break-up..................................................................................29
4.2 Population density distribution......................................................................32
4.3 Distance to nearest urban centres................................................................33
4.4 Standards for land use break up of developed areas......................................34
4.5 Population standards for defining settlement hierarchy...................................34
4.6 Proposed land use under ZDPs 2021..............................................................35
List of figures
2.1 Vijayawada City...........................................................................................14
2.2 Old VGTM UDA boundary..............................................................................15
2.3 New VGTM UDA boundary............................................................................17
3.1 Case area region within extension area..........................................................21
4.1 Map showing population above 5000 persons.................................................27
4.2 Map showing population density distribution..................................................31
4.3 Map showing adjacency of settlements to major roads....................................31
4.4 Map showing proximity to urban centres........................................................32
4.5 Map showing final scores..............................................................................33
8
Terminal Project
Contents
CERTIFICATE...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
UNDERTAKING .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
List of figures ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.1.
Need ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
1.1.2.
Objective.................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.3.
Aim .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 2........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
2.1.
Introduction to Vijayawada ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.
Municipal administration and planning ................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 3........................................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.1. Need for a revised delineation ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1. Unauthorised and Accelerated Building Activity ............................................................................ 19
3.1.2. Change in occupational pattern and livelihood characteristics ................................................ 19
3.1.3. Emergence of Economic Activity Nodes.............................................................................................. 20
3.2. Case area region..................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1. Demography ................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2. Geography and land use............................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.3. Road network ................................................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.4. Economic activity.......................................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4........................................................................................................................................................................ 24
4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
4.2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.1. Primary findings ........................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.1. Scoring of settlements ................................................................................................................................ 28
4.2.3. Major findings ................................................................................................................................................ 30
4.2.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
9
Terminal Project
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT
10
Terminal Project
1.1. Introduction
Cities grow beyond imaginable proportions, particularly in the developing nations. India
is a relatively moderate pace of urbanization compared to other developing countries.
Today, India remains largely agricultural nation; the share of agricultural workers in the
workforce has barely decreased from 73% in 1971 to 70% in 1991. Urban sprawl
promotes the spread of urban land utilization pattern into the rural-urban fringe and
draws a larger number of people into the fringe areas (Bentinck 2000, p 13). This
research is a study of recreational, institutional and public/semi-public land utilizing
features.
The paper focuses on the varying patterns and parameters resulting in major change
and urbanization within Vijayawada and its surrounding areas. Unlike most cities in
India, Vijayawada is urbanizing at a very fast rate. Therefore, it is important to view the
effects of so to say unmonitored development on recreational and institutional spaces
within the municipal boundary(s).
1.1.1.
Need
Vijayawada can be divided into 2 parts for easier understanding. First is
the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC) region. Second being the
part of the Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban Development
Authority falling under Krishna district (consisting of 8 planning zones).
The existing land utilization pattern reveals that the Vijayawadas
municipal region has only 2.5% of its total land under public/semipublic/institutional use. Recreational areas within the same region are
less than 0.25% of the total area, highlighting huge shortage for open
spaces. While its urban agglomeration has only 0.15% of its land under
recreational use and less than 1.5% land under institutional use or
public/semi-public use.
According to the norms of Urban Developments Plans Formulation and
Implementation (UDPFI), a large town such as Vijayawada must have at
least 12% of its total land under institutional/public/semi-public use and
18% of the land under recreational use.
1.1.2.
Objective
As said earlier, the study is limited to the institutional and recreational
use. The study is directed towards a set rule of parameters. Such as,
demography in terms of size and population, predominant economic
activity in terms of occupation pattern, proximity to major urban centres
and road network or connectivity.
These parameters shall govern the scope of establishing plans in future. In
other words, the focus is on the word potential.
Potential refers to the probability or prospects or the would be situation
of any activity or object.
11
Terminal Project
1.1.3.
Aim
With an objective to identify areas suitable for development with respect
to recreational and public/semi-public use, such that the future
development plans can further guide the land use and activities within
those areas, the aim is to find the potential for regional recreational,
institutional and public/semi-public use within the region defined as
rural under the Census of India that is currently undergoing speedy
urbanization.
This region is the UDAs extension area falling under Krishna District.
12
Terminal Project
CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION TO VGTM-UDA AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
13
Terminal Project
2.1. Introduction to Vijayawada

The city named after Arjuna as Vijayawada since he was known as Vijaya.
During the British period the town had grown significantly. The most valuable
contribution of English was the construction of Krishna Anicut in 1855 and
Railway Bridge in 1892 across river Krishna. Due to this trade and commerce
flourished in the region and extended up to Madras.
Located on the Northern Bank of the River Krishna at latitude 1631N and
longitude 3037E.
Fig. 2.1 VMC boundary of Vijayawada City (Source; Google images)
The two national highways, namely NH5 and NH9 pass through the city. The city
is the administrative centre of South Central Railway Divisional Headquarters
and several of the State Government Departments like irrigation, revenue,
building, PWD, roads, etc.
The area around Vijayawada city falls in hot humid region of the country and is
situated 72 km away from the sea. At Vijayawada the highest temperature
recorded is 48C. The city receives an average rainfall of 1235mm.
2.2. Municipal administration and planning

The Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted the Vijayawada-Guntur-TenaliMangalgiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM-UDA) under Section 3(1) of the
AP Urban Areas Act, 1975 on 17.12.1978.
The region has an area of 1665sq.km. that consists of 7 urban and 165 rural
settlements falling under 8 mandals of Krishna District and 12 mandals of Guntur
District. Among the settlements 4 Municipal Towns are Vijayawada City, Guntur,
Tenali and Mangalgiri and 3 Panchayat Towns Kondapalli, Gnnavaram and
Tadepalli.
14
Terminal Project
Fig. 2.2. VGTM UDA boundary until 2012 (Source; Research output)
Vijayawada Municipality was constituted on 01.04.1988. The status of the

municipality was upgraded to that of a selection grade on 01.07.1960. During
1981, Gunadala, Patamata and Bhavanipuram Village Panchayats were merged
the municipality. Thus, the total jurisdiction of this urban local body (ULB)
extended upto an area of 51.16 sq.km. During the same time the municipality
was upgraded to a Municipal Corporation and was named Vijayawada Municipal
Corporation. During 1985, the villages Payakapuram and Kundavari Kandrika
were merged with the VMC.
Government Order (GO) 34 dated.13.02.2004 states the addition of 34 villages
within Krishna District to the jurisdiction of VGTM-UDA. On June 21st 2012 the
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department released GO 227
stating the addition of all villages, Nagar Panchayats and Town Municipalities
within Krishna and Guntur District
During 1969 a Master Plan (Outline Development Plan) for Vijayawada was
prepared by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was in force till 2006 where the
Zonal Development Plans (ZDPs) were prepared for the year 2021. All plans
were prepared by VGTM-UDA
The AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 lay down that the Urban
Development Authority should prepare the Master Plans and Zonal Development
Plans of the Development Area under its jurisdiction.
The Regional Master Plan for Vijayawada was prepared in 1969 i.e. before the
constitution of the Authority in 1978. A decade after its birth, the Authority
15
Terminal Project
prepared a new Master Plan 1988 outlining the priorities for the area under its
jurisdiction for the period ending 2001.
The task of preparing the ZDPs for 27 identified clusters villages/towns was
taken up 15years later with a perspective plan ending 2021.
Investment was not envisaged for construction of houses/apartments, altough it
is one of the objectives for setting up the Authority.
Proiority was not accorded for housing schemes/townships in the ZDP budgets.
The major activities proposed during 2006-11 were road network, water supply,
drainage, solid waste management, street lighiting, educational facilities and
medicinal facitilities. A study conducted by the Department Municipal
Administration and Urban Development (MAUD) revealed that:
The Authority projected the investments required sector-wise, identifying the
source for mobilisation of resources. However, it did not coordinate with the
concerned bodies like R&B, NHAI, Railways, Transmission Corporation of Andhra
Pradesh Ltd., AP Tourism Development Corporation, APPGCL, etc. The Master
Plan 1988 proposed development of Sattelite Towns in selected zones of major
towns like Kondapalli, Gannavaram, Tadikonda, Duggirala, Vejendla, Perecherla
and Namburu to decongest residential areas. Of these, first four were proposed
as industrial towns. The proposal of Sattelite towns in 1988 were neither
implemented nor carried on to the ZDPs. Similarly, the projects related to the
establishment of 2 Transport Nagars were never furthered. ZDP Vijayawada
contained proposals for 2 ring roads, 5 flyovers and 8 bridges. However,
construction of only 1 ring road commenced in 2007-08 and is still not
completed.
Although planning was adequate, projects were not implemented effectively as
envisaged in the Master Plans/ZDPs, defeating the purpose of preperation.
The Authority also stated (in 2011) that it could not undertake the development
works in the last 5 years due to fund constraints and that, faliure to shore up its
revenue led to its instability to take up planned development projects.
The Authority has not instituted any Management Information System. It has an
Estate Management Officer, to monitor the progress of various projects and
submit the status to the Board at periodic intervals. While the Board has been
regularly discussing the progress of various projects individually, there is no
evidence of monitoring on its part, of the either follow up action in removing
constraints on account of lack of investment, infrastructure, etc. in individual
projects or in regard to removal of general constraints hamoering its functioning.
Also the absence of a full time Chairman since 2007 till date has been a
contributing factor in the implementation of plans.
The Authority, which was established for planned development of the VGTM area
and to improve the quality of life of its inhabitants, could not achieve its
objectives to a very large extent. Sectoral developments proposed in Master
Plan/Zonal Development Plans were not implemented, as the Authority did not
prioritise its activities and coordinate effectively with the related
16
Terminal Project
departments/agencies (including local bodies) for their successful and timely

completion. While the Authority contended that it had not received adequate
funding for development projects, during the five year period 2006-11 it had
utilised only a fraction of the funds already at its disposal. Consequently, none of
the townships/ projects taken up by the Authority could be completed.
The Authority had not assessed its requirement of land for various infrastructure
facilities and other development related works nor drawn up any specific plan in
this regard. There was no perspective plan with the Authority for acquiring land
for development purposes and no land was acquired by it during the five year
period 2006-11. Approvals for change of land use were given in violation of
Master Plan/ZDPs, vitiating the sanctity of the approved plans. Contract
management in the few projects taken up was ineffective and led to financial loss
to the Authority. The Authority did not also pay adequate attention to provision
of basic amenities in the already established townships. Financial management
was poor and record maintenance was abysmal. Internal controls were
inadequate and lax especially in cash book maintenance, collection of
fees/development charges, disposal of applications for land regularisation and
building penalisation schemes, accountal of demand drafts, etc.
(Reference 2a)
The land prices in Vijayawada are sky-high one of the prime reasons for the
extension is to cater and provide for the required amount of land in better
budgeted format. Apart from this, there are other reasons for the extension of
VGTM-UDA boundary.
Fig. 2.3. VGTMUDA boundary after extension, 2012 (Source; Research output)
17
Terminal Project
CHAPTER 3
NEED FOR EXTENSION SELECTION OF CASE AREA
18
Terminal Project
3.1. Need for a revised delineation

3.1.1. Unauthorised and Accelerated Building Activity
One of the key menaces in the hinterlands of VGTM-UDA in contemporary times
is the rise of unauthorised building activity. Unauthorised development means a
colony / development comprising of contiguous area, where no permission of
concerned agency has been obtained for approval of Layout Plan, and/ or
Building Plan. Unauthorised building activity refers to construction and building
of structures that may not adhere to urban standards and bye-laws and may not
be having the necessary permissions of the urban local regulatory body. This is a
common factor of transformation in many parts of the country as most areas
falling beyond or outside the VGTM UDA region are under the purview of the
contextual village administration or the village Panchayat. The control over
development in such villages is not as stringent as in urban areas and hence
builders tend to stand at an advantage in building structures with features that
may not be permitted in urban areas.
Similarly, large scale building activities are currently happening in the hinterland
of VGTMUDA region on which there is no guidance or control. In the eventuality
of the urban jurisdiction expanding due to natural growth, such areas get
included in the urban limits leading to non-conforming patterns of development.
One of the ways of keeping a guiding control over such haphazard building
activity is to bring the hinterland under the purview of VGTM-UDA, where
building permissions will be sought from VGTM-UDA instead of the Panchayats.
Hence, there is a need to a re-assess the existing boundary in view of the building
activity happening in its surrounding areas in order to develop a rationale for
regulation such activities in a larger societal interest.
3.1.2. Change in occupational pattern and livelihood

characteristics
The common trend in most rural-urban fringe areas undergoing transformation
is a shift of occupational pattern of the households from agriculture based
economic activities to non-agriculture based economic activities.
This indicates growing dependence on secondary and tertiary sources income
rather than the primary sources of income thereby affecting associated activities
in the region. Most of the fringe areas around VGTM-UDA region are having
physical and socio-economic characteristics that suggest strong shift of
occupational pattern from primary to non-primary activities.
Keeping this in view, it is pragmatic to identify those regions where the primary
source of income and occupational pattern has already transformed into urban
forms and then make necessary arrangements to develop amenities to support
such economic and livelihood generation activities rather than continue to
consider them as rural villages.
Hence, there is a need to assess the change in occupational pattern in the
surrounding areas of existing VGTM UDA in order to identify such urbanising
areas and contemplate the rationale of including them into the jurisdiction of
VGTM UDA region.
19
Terminal Project
3.1.3. Emergence of Economic Activity Nodes

The VGTM-UDA region is also witnessing economic activities of particular types
beyond its boundaries. Such economic nodes have a variety of functions ranging
from the emergence of commercial shopping centres and FMCG warehousing to
setting up of small and medium scales manufacturing units and knowledge based
institutions.
These types of economic and institutional activities are derivatives of
agglomeration-of-scale of similar types of investments in the region over a
period of time. It also refers to the existence of a structured investment pattern
by the private sector over a period of time thereby consolidating economic
activities catering to a rising market for urban amenities in these fringe areas.
Such activities also depend on the local workforce and infrastructure available.
Resultantly, these areas have started developing ancillary and supporting
economic activities. Due to the fact that most fringe areas are under the
jurisdiction of village administration or village Panchayats, regulations of VGTMUDA are not applicable.
While, the rise of economic activity is a positive indicator for the region, there is
a need to assess the pattern of such growth in order to identify corridors or
zones of such development and bring it under the jurisdiction of VGTM UDA and
embark upon strategies that benefit the economy without adversely harming the
environment and built form.
(Reference 3a)
3.2. Case area region

The total extended area of the VGTM-UDA consists of 631 villages and
spreads over an extent of 5108.90 KM square, falling under Krishna and
Guntur districts.
The area is too large to carry out the study at a MICRO level and therefore, all the
data collected was VILLAGE-WISE. The study has been carried out
correspondingly. Moreover, for an area this large a Perspective Plan or a Regional
Plan is ideal to design in order to guide the settlements towards urbanization.
Hence, the study has been limited to the
2 Town Municipalities
2 Nagar Panchayats
423 Villages
These fall under Krishna District spreading over 2948.57Sq.Km.

The analysis has a scientific approach. The intention is to categorize the study area
into parts in order to frame directions of future development plans. The study has
been carried out at macro-level with village wise data. Bottlenecks within the
existing ZDPs are found; demand as per the projected population and likewise
conclusions have been discussed.
20
Terminal Project
For simpler understanding, in this study, the case area will be referred as
Vijayawada UDA extension area.
The case area, as said before marks trends of speedy urbanization. In this study, we are
going to discuss the different trends, predisposition, style of parameters such as
population size and density, geographic features and land utilization pattern, nearest
urban centres, etc.
Fig. 3.1. Case area within VGTM UDA boundary after extension, 2012 (Source; Research output)
3.2.1. Demography
Demography in general refers to the study of population. The entire Vijayawada
UDA extension area i.e. falling under both Krishna district (consisting of 423
villages) has a population size of 11.22 lakh persons and its average population
density is 380 persons per kilometre square (or 3.8 persons per hectare).
In this study, the population size and density have been stressed upon. This will
be explained further in Chapter 4.
21
Terminal Project
3.2.2. Geography and land use

It has been realised that the Development Area under the jurisdiction of VGTMUDA needs further extension to cater the future needs for urbanisation since the
existing area under the jurisdiction of VGTM UDA and is covered by rich
agricultural lands under Krishna Delta Irrigation system and the philosophy
behind this thesis is not to disturb the rich agricultural belt while making
proposals for urbanisation with built up environment.
In planning, there are 2 distinct types of landuse patterns; rural and urban or
developed area. The urban land use pattern includes
Under urban or developed areas
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Recreational
Public/semi-public or Institutional
Transport and communication
Agricultural and water bodies
Under rural or agricultural land use
Area under cultivation

Area under forest cover
Land not available (built-up or water body)
Land not under cultivation (cultivable waste, barren land, un-cultivable
land, etc)
The existing land use pattern revels that out of 423 villages 54% area is under
cultivation, 22% of the total area is either un-irrigated (probably under
cultivation) or is not available for development, 1.25% of the total area falls
under forest cover and the remaining 22.75% in not under cultivation.
3.2.3. Road network

Similar to land utilization, road network also can be divided into two types of
hierarchy also known as road hierarchy; rural and urban.
Urban hierarchy
Express way
Arterial roads
Sub-arterial roads
Collector street
Local street
22
Terminal Project
Rural hierarchy
National highway
State highway
Major district roads
Other district roads
BT/pakka roads
Kuchcha roads (paved, cart-tracks, un-paved/footpaths)
The case area has two major national highways and one major district road
passing thorugh its region. Namely, NH5 (connecting Kolkata to Chennai), NH65
(old NH-9 connecting Machilipatnam to Mumbai via Hyderabad)
3.2.4. Economic activity

There have been reports stating the fast and drastic shift of workers from
primary to non-primary activities. The study has been conducted by using the
data substantiated and justified through various references and source and there
is no significant research output concerning the same.
23
Terminal Project
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OUTPUT
24
Terminal Project
After having established a general idea and image of the case area, the methodology
adopted will be easy to understand. Moreover, the reason for opting for such techniques
will also be learnt.
4.1 Methodology
The research is directed towards identifying the potential for regional level
recreational, public/semi-public and institutional uses. Therefore, study of different
types of their uses is necessary. In order to do this, a set rule of parameters will be
decided.
NOTE; the word "potential" here, is for the ' Most Urnbanizable'.
The study area and the different administrative boundaries that it consists will now be
referred as settlements. As said earlier, the research will be carried out on a set rule of
parameters. These parameters are the population size and density, land utilization
pattern, approach to settlement, occupation pattern and order & level of infrastructural
facilities available.
The parameters drawn will be used to design a scoring logic.
There will be 3 major criteria for obtaining scores/points.
1. Demography
2. Land utilization pattern
3. Approach
Each parameter shall carry 5 points.
Apart from this, other aspects of urbanization such as infrastructural facilities and
occupation pattern will also be incorporated (later in the study).
A scoring logic implies that the settlements will be graded / rated. The Census of India
defines urban areas as those having population over 5000 persons with a minimum
density of 4 persons per hectare with 75% of the male population of the workforce in
non-primary activities. Keeping this definition of the Census of India and the limitations
of the research in finding the potential, the logic used is to satisfy 2 out of 3 definitions
of Census in declaring areas as urban. Say for example, a settlement has a population
over 5000, it gets a score x if its population is over 20000, it gets a score y where y is
greater than x. The details will be provided in the analysis part with illustrious
description.
Another logic applied since is that study is limited to the recreational and institutional
use preference should be given to the approach road. Therefore, this has also been
considered as one of the parameters for scoring on the biases of a settlements
adjacency to a major road and its distance from the nearest urban centre.
Finally, based on the scoring logic the settlements will be classified into the 2 categories
of potential high and low. From the final list, all the villages scoring above 50% of the
maximum marks will be considered as settlements highly potential for urbanization.
The Census of India defines urban area as area having:
Population over 5000 persons
Population density at least 4ppha (or) 1000 Persons/Sq.km.
75% or more men engaged in non-primary activity
25
Terminal Project
Out of all the settlements, the ones satisfying the first two criteria of Census of India will
be considered as potential. The population of the existing notified urban areas and the
most urbanizable areas will be identified and projected based on scientific analysis. This
projected population and its resultant density will provide the bases for the urban
standards, norms and regulations that are applicable and that can be implied within the
region or settlement.
The reason in doing so is that there are no standards to define the provisions for rural
areas. The study is of an area undergoing rigorous and fast transitions in the sphere of
urbanization. In this study, only UDPFI norms have been followed. The land demand for;
recreational / open spaces and institutional/public/semi-public will be calculated and
the gap will be identified. Considering the proposals drafted in the Zonal Development
Plans 2021, the gap will further be reduced and the remaining demand shall be catered
for through the final top scoring settlements.
4.2 Analysis
The following analysis provides justification to the above stated methodology.
4.2.1. Primary findings

VMC limits:
Vijayawada Municipal Corporation spread over an area of 6188 Ha with
population size 8,45,217 persons and density 136.58 persons/Ha. The existing
land-use pattern reveals that VMC Limits have 61.88 Ha of land under recreational
use and 742.56 Ha of land under institutional use. This means only 0.22 % and
2.37 % of the total extent has been put to recreational and institutional use.
VGTM-UDA limits (within Krishna Dist.):
Vijayawada Urban Development Authority has an extent of 60366.91 Ha. Its total
population is 427650 persons and its density is 7.08 persons/Ha existing landuse pattern shows, only 85.74 Ha (0.14%) of land is under recreational use and
838.91 Ha (1.38%) of land put to institutional uses.
Clearly, the dire need for recreational and institutional spaces in evident.
The Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) states
that a large town such as Vijayawada should have at least 12% - 18% under
public/semi-public or institutional use and 12% - 14% under recreational
use or as open spaces.
To meet the needs of the urbanizing hour, in 2006 the UDA launched the Zonal
Development Plans 2021. The first development plan to be incorporated after
the 1988 Master Plan by the authority. The region was divided into 9 zones (one
being VMC region). And, the land use proposed was 6793.93 Ha under
recreational 10.20 and 994.61 Ha under institutional 1.49 %
26
Terminal Project
Fig. 4.1. VMC and VGTM UDA boundary within Krishna District (Source; Research output)
As per UDPFI norms and standards, Vijayawada should have at least 11979.88
Ha under recreational use (18% of total area) and 7986.58 Ha under institutional
use (12% of total area). The plans proposed for these zones do not cater for the
existing gap.
VGTM-UDA Extension Area (Limited to Krishna Dist Case Area)
The newly delineated Vijayawada UDA boundary (extension area within Krishna
district) sprawls over 294857.74 Ha. (2948.54 Km.sq.). the entire region consists
of 423 villages. The entire land utilization pattern until now is rural. However the
societys lifestyle graph is speedily tilting towards urbanization.
The population growth rate of the district is 13.19% and the existing population
residing within the 423 villages as per Census of India is 1122156 persons at a
growth rate of 12.45%. To propose a plan that meets the existing gap and the
demand of added of 1122156 persons is neither comprehensive nor practical.
Therefore, the study area will be divided into a hierarchy of its potential to be
urbanized. The criteria set are high potential for urbanization and low potential
for urbanization.
To find highly potential areas, the logic and parameters explained in the
previously, have been implied.
Some of the notable inferences drawn after the primary analysis of the study
area are that 22.75% of the total land within the extension area is available for
27
Terminal Project
development. 36 villages have a National Highway passing through them. Other

villages have access to Pakka roads. Leaving 89 villages with Kachha roads. The other
factor considered for analysis was the distance of the village to its nearest urban
centre. There is a high percentage of non-primary sector occupation in the overall
scenario of the study area of the UDA region. With more than 80% of the occupation
pattern being dedicated to the non-primary sector. Never the less, 214 settlements
lack medical facilities and can avail these facilities in a radius of 5km 10km. While
on the other hand, the education facilities in the same region project a very different
picture. With, only 4 settlements apart from the un-inhabited settlements lack
educational facilities.
4.3.1. Scoring of settlements

Since the parameters and the reasons for choosing them have now been
understood, the scoring logic can be comprehended and the details of scores and
the relevance of the allotted scores can be discussed.
The objective of a regional plan is to provide direction to small sections of a very
large area such that the local governing bodies of the former are provided the
direction and guidance to focus time energy and investments on. A Perspective
or Regional Plan provides the basis and foundation of the future land use of its
region. This paper is focused on the study of 423 villages and 4 urban
settlements and their requirements for recreational, institutional, public and
semi-public use.
Therefore, to find such potential, designing a scoring logic that highlights the
facts required to identify the reasonable areas for such development is not only
essential but also a mean to achieve the ends at ease with maximum accuracy.
The scoring logic uses the basic parameters used in the Census of India for
defining urban.
Population as a criterion consisted of 2 sub-parameters. One being the absolute
number of people and the other being the ratio of the total number of people within
a settlement to its total area. Each settlement shall score between 1 point to 5
points. The lowest (1) for population below 5000 persons (Census definition) and a
maximum of 5 points for population 30000 persons. Likewise for density, 5 points
relate to those settlements that have density above 30 persons per hectare and 1 for
those with density below 4 persons per hectare (Census of India definition).
Under approach, two prime sub-divisions have been made within the study as it was
found that there are only 2 types of rural roads passing through the area apart from
the black top (BT) roads and kuchcha roads. 5 points was for those settlements with
NH passing through them. 3 points was for MDRs and 1 point for all BT/kuchcha
roads. The study reveals that all villages are well connected with either kuchcha or
pukka roads.
28
Terminal Project
Another major criterion for scoring was the existing land utilization pattern. India is
predominantly an agricultural state and therefore, it shall be the primary concern of
any planning project to protect, conserve and cater for its natural agricultural
richness and not harm the soils potential for cultivation under any circumstances.
Keeping this in view, the land use of the site area must critically and carefully
analyzed and articulated for development. Now, the land utilization pattern of rural
areas can broadly be brought down to 3 components; Area not under cultivation
(suitable for development), area under forest cover (strictly to be conserved) and
area not available for development (areas that are cultivable, irrigated, built-up,
etc.).
The detailed scoring logic break-up for each parameter is given in Table 4.1.
PARAMETER
LOGIC
SIZE
POPULATION
DENSITY
NOT UNDER CULTIVATION
LANDUSE
UNDER FOREST COVER
BUILT UP
ADJACENCY TO MAJOR ROADS

APPROACH
DISTANCE TO NEAREST URBAN
CENTRE
SCORE REFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
UI
BELOW 5000
5001-15,000
15,001-30,000
ABOVE 30,000
BELOW 5 ppHa
5-10 ppHa
11-20 ppHa
21-30 ppHa
above 30 ppHa
0
1-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
75-100
50-75
25-50
1-25
0
0
1-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
NONE
MDR
NH
0-5
6-10
11-15
29
Terminal Project
OCCUPATION
PATTERN
% NON PRIMARY WORKERS
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
16-20
ABOVE 20
0
1-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
As justified and explained in the parameters and the scoring logic, it is evident that only
those parameters have been taken into consideration that mark trends of urbanization and
at the same time provide an insight to the land availability. It must be noted that scoring
logic for occupation pattern has been given. However, due to inaccessibility and
unavailability of data the conclusions were directly derived from the analysis made through
literature study (ZDPs 2021, Research documents from various institutes like SPA
Vijayawada and Ministry of Administration and Urban Development, etc.).
The final scoring logic presents 7 parameters for grading and a maximum of 35 points (7x5)
can be scored by a settlement. Out of all the settlements, the ones scoring above 50% (17.5
pts) will be considered as highly potential for development. This logic of scoring 50% has no
specific grounds/bases. It has been considered on a simple logic of above and below
average and is case and planner specific.
4.2.3. Major findings

After arranging all 423 settlements based on the parameters discussed, it was
realized that 76 settlements qualified the population criterion to qualify as urban
under the Census definition. 158 settlements qualify the second criterion i.e.
population density over 4ppHa summing to a whopping 37% of the total
settlements.
22 settlements have a national highway (NH-5 or NH-65) passing through them and
there are 44 settlements with major district roads passing through them (Junction
road).
Occupation pattern as explained before has been shifting at a fast rate. Also, to find the
potential, the criteria have to be close to the definition of urban and not satisfy the
definition of urban areas as per the Census of India. Therefore, this aspect of the study
has not been analysed in depth. Rather, the conclusions of the report drafted by the
School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada Delineation of a new boundary; VGTM
UDA has been taken and directly applied to the case area.
30
Terminal Project
Above; FIG. 4.2. Settlements with population over 5000 persons, Below;Fig. 4.3. Population Density (Source; Research
output)
31
Terminal Project
Fig. 4.4. Map showing adjacency of settlements to major roads (Source; Research output)
Conclusive inferences that can be drawn are that there are 47 settlements that qualify the 2
census criteria required to be deemed potential. Other major inferences have been stated
below in tabular format.
Table 4.2
32
Terminal Project
Table 4.3
Top scores;
Fig. 4.5. Settlements with high potential for development of recreational and institutional use (Source; Research output)
Based on the final scores achieved by each settlement, 97 were found to have scored above
50% of the total scores. The map above shows the 97 settlements.
The study will now be further limited to these 97 settlements. Since the settlements have
high potential for development, UDPFI norms will be implemented and likewise the area
required for recreational, institutional and public/semi-public use will be calculated.
33
Terminal Project
The scope of the study is to identify the shortcomings and bottlenecks existing within the
ZDP notified urban areas and the study area and provide the requirements for recreational
and institutional development. Since the study area spreads over 2947 sq.km. consisting of 423
villages and 4 urban settlements, it is wise to have a regional approach with a perspective plan. Now,
the population in these settlements will be projected and this projection will provide the bases for
establishing the norms and standards applicable. This paper discuses only the UDPFI norms as only
these guidelines have been used throughout the study. The norms followed have been stated below.
UDPFI Standards for % of developed area/region
Land-use Category
Medium Towns
Large Cities
Residential
40-45
35-40
Commercial
2-3
4-5
Industrial
8-10
10-12
Institutional
10-12
12-14
Recreational
18-20
18-20
Transport and Communication
12-14
12-14
Agro and Water Bodies
Balance
Balance
Metro Cities
35-40
4-5
12-14
14-16
20-25
15-18
Balance
Table 4.4, Source; UDPFI
Developed area average population densities (Persons/Ha)

Large Cities
100-150
Metro Cities
125-175
Table 4.5, Source; UDPFI
As shown above, the proposals will be made considering the requirements of large cities. To
put the analysis to an end and arrive at a conclusive inference, the UDPFI norms used will
provide us the land demand or the required amount of land to provide institutional and
recreational facilities. Also, the land demand or the existing gap in the VMC region and the
other 8 zones of the UDA region in Krishna district will be found on the basis of UDPFI
standards. Having done that, the proposals drafted in the ZDPs 2021 will be reduced from
this total demand. The final demand will be compared to the total land available for
development and likewise conclusions shall follow.
The projected population for the year 2021 is 1558041 persons in the case area. 532237 persons in
the 8 zones of UDA region and 1640630 persons in the VMC region. It must be noted that
approximately 30% to 40% of the total area shall fall under residential use. Out of this residential
area, 10 % of it will fall under layout open spaces i.e. 8846Ha, furthering the scope by reducing the
demand. After having reduced all provisions discounting, the final land demand is 80780 Ha of land
for both recreational and institutional use.
34
Terminal Project
4.2.5. Conclusion
Table 4.6, Source; Research analysis
The total institutional and recreational and public/semi-public space required is

67,961 Ha. However, the total land available for development or the total UNCULTIVABLE land is 54,157 Ha.
The only inference that can be drawn is that this major shortage of recreational and
institutional land and space cannot be fully met. While the demand for the extension
area can be catered for, 13803.5 Ha is still required to cater for the gap that exists in
the 9 zones (one being VMC) of VGTM-UDA falling under Krishna district.
35
Terminal Project
References
Public domains Wikipedia.org , Google search engine, vgtmuda.gov.in
Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) guidelines, norms and
standards.
Krishna District Statistical Handbook and VGTMUDA reports; Zonal Development Plans 2021
Volume I and II, Government Order227, Government Order678, Government Order34
Dr. Sonar G and Patil DM. (2011). Planning for Nashik Metropolitan Region: pp; 21-26
Reference 1a; Bentinck J V. (2000). Unruly urbanization on Delhis fringe changing patterns
of land use and livelihood. Doctoral Thesis Report. Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen Department
Rijuksuniversiteit Gronegen University
Reference 2a: Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development. (2009).
Analysis and auditing of bills, VGTMUDA
Reference 3a: School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada. (2011). Proposed Revised
Delineation of Urban Limits VGTM Urban Area. Project Report for VGTMUDA.
36

Bachelors Thesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bachelors Thesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Department of Planning

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

(To be on Printed on SPAV Letterhead)

Dr. Ayon K. Tarafdar

Thesis Coordinator B.Planning:

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

extensional area for regioan lrecreational, institutional and public/semi-public use.,

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

within the top

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Introduction to Vijayawada ........................................................................................................................ 14

Municipal administration and planning ................................................................................................ 14

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

2.1. Introduction to Vijayawada

Fig. 2.1 VMC boundary of Vijayawada City (Source; Google images)

2.2. Municipal administration and planning

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vijayawada Municipality was constituted on 01.04.1988. The status of the

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

departments/agencies (including local bodies) for their successful and timely

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

3.1. Need for a revised delineation

3.1.2. Change in occupational pattern and livelihood

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

3.1.3. Emergence of Economic Activity Nodes

3.2. Case area region

These fall under Krishna District spreading over 2948.57Sq.Km.

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

3.2.2. Geography and land use

Under rural or agricultural land use

Area under cultivation

3.2.3. Road network

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

3.2.4. Economic activity

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

4.2.1. Primary findings

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

development. 36 villages have a National Highway passing through them. Other

4.3.1. Scoring of settlements

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

NOT UNDER CULTIVATION

UNDER FOREST COVER

ADJACENCY TO MAJOR ROADS

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

% NON PRIMARY WORKERS

4.2.3. Major findings

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035

Vivek Maddirala, B.Planning (2009-13) 2090200035