Exploring Missing Linkages between the Changing Land … of economic and industrial development that...

indiastat.com June - July, 2013 1 socio - economic voices

Exploring Missing Linkages between the Changing Land Uses and Urbanization and Economic Growth in the Developing Economy of India: An

Inter-state comparative overview (Yogesh Kumar, Joint Director, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Govt of India)

Introduction

Land use is an important component in understanding the interactions of the human activities with the environment.

Land cover / land use changes are very dynamic in nature and have to be monitored at regular intervals for

sustainable environment development. Land use refers to man’s activities and the varied uses which are carried on

over land and land cover refers to natural vegetation, water bodies, rock/soil, artificial cover and others noticed on

the land (NRSA, 1989). Land cover is that which covers the surface of the earth and land use describes how the

land cover is modified. (Prakasam,2010)i. Land Cover includes: water, snow, grassland, forest and bare Soil. Land

use includes: agricultural land, built up area, recreation area, wildlife management area etc. (Das, 2002)ii. In this

paper an attempt is made to study the changes in land use and land cover in different regions of India.

Human population growth changed in character and form in the twentieth century. These unprecedented rates of

population growth have sparked alarm about their impact on the environment and future prospects of human

species. All human activities since antiquity have disturbed a ‘pristine’ nature. Thus it is not surprising that the high

rates of economic and industrial development that accompanied population growth in the twentieth century resulted

in the depletion of natural resources and fouling of the land, air, biota and water in many regions of the globe.

The intense modern debate over the relationships between numbers of people and use of available land has

resurrected both Malthu’s hypothesis and its critics. A critical aspect of these debates is the relation of increasing

population to changes in land use. The magnitude of the relationship is linked to human population size and

resource use per person. Resource use, waste production, and environmental degradation are accelerated by

population growth. As such, the relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural

environment are complex.

The complexity gets still intensified in countries having experienced non-consistent and uneven growth across the

states. Differentials lie not only in economic growth measured vide per capita SDP but also the paths traversed and

strategies adopted by the different states.

The present study emphasizes on land use planning as an essential tool for sustainable development studying

correlations between land-use changes, urbanization levels, and growth and pace of urbanization in the different

states.


Objectives The main objectives of the study were as follows:

To analyze the land cover in different states and land use changes over decades; To examine the urbanization impact on the land cover / land use changes;

The paper initially looks into the changing characteristics of different categories of land covers and land uses but concentrates mainly on two major categories of Lands – 1. Forest Land Covers and 2. Lands Not Available for Cultivation (LNAC): This is carried out over different states (only major states considered). The changes over the period 1970-71 to 2006-07 are listed and decadal change picture is attempted.

1.1 Characteristics of Change in Land Uses and Land Covers Over Years: States wise Scenario: States Decade under

consideration Trends* over years

Forests

Not available for cultivation

Permanent Pastures & other grazing lands

Land under misc. tree crops& groves

Culturable waste land

Fallow land Net area sown

Area sown more than once

Other than Current

Current

Andhra

60-61 to 70-71 ↑ ↔ ↓

N

↓↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↑ ↑↑↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↔

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↑↑↑

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↓↓ ↓ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↓ ↑

70-71 to 06-07 ↔ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↑↑↑

Assam

60-61 to 70-71 ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓

N N N

↔ ↑↑↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ 70-71 to 06-07 ↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↓ ↑↑ ↑↑↑

Bihar

60-61 to 70-71 ↓↓ ↑

N N N

↔ ↑ ↑ ↓ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↓ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↓

70-71 to 06-07 ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓

Gujarat

60-61 to 70-71 ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↓

N

↑↑↑

N

↔ ↔ ↑↑↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑

90-91 to 00-01 ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↓

00-01 to 01-07 ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↔ ↑↑↑

70-71 to 06-07 ↑ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

*↑ : Rise by 5- 20 per cent ↓↓ : Fall by 20-40 per cent ↑↑ : Rise by 20-40 per cent ↓↓↓ : Fall by more than 40 per cent ↑↑↑ : Rise by more than 40 per cent ↔ : Varying between (-) 5 and 5 percent ↓ : Fall by 5- 20 per cent Red inked land uses (N) indicate that at no point of time, the particular land category had even up to 3 per cent share, the particular land use has no significant role in the state


Haryana

60-61 to 70-71 ↑ ↔

N N N N

↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

H P

60-61 to 70-71 ↓ ↓↓↓ ↑

N

↑↑↑

N N

↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑ ↔ ↓ ↑↑ ↔ ↔

80-81 to 90-91 ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↑

90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

70-71 to 06-07 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ ↑

J & K

60-61 to 70-71 ↓ ↔ ↔

N

↓

N N

↔ ↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↓↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

70-71 to 06-07 ↓↓ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑↑

Karnataka

60-61 to 70-71 ↑ ↔ ↓

N

↓ ↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↓ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↑ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

Kerala

60-61 to 70-71 ↔ ↔

N

↓↓

N N N

↑ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↓

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↔

70-71 to 06-07 ↔ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↑

M.P.

60-61 to 70-71 ↔ ↔ ↓

N

↓↓

N N

↑ ↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓ ↑↑↑

Maharashtra

60-61 to 70-71 ↔ ↑ ↑

N

↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↔ ↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

*↑ : Rise by 5- 20 per cent ↓↓ : Fall by 10-25 per cent ↑↑ : Rise by 20-40 per cent ↓↓↓ : Fall by more than 25 per cent ↑↑↑ : Rise by more than 40 per cent ↔ : Varying between (-) 5 and 5 percent ↓ : Fall by 5- 20 per cent

Orissa

60-61 to 70-71 ↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ ↓ ↓↓↓

N

↓↓ ↑ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↓↓ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↑ ↔ ↓↓ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↑↑↑

Punjab

60-61 to 70-71 ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓

N N N N N

↓↓↓ ↓↓ 70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑↑ ↓ ↔ ↑↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↓ ↔ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔

70-71 to 06-07 ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ ↑↑↑


Rajasthan

60-61 to 70-71 ↑↑↑ ↓ ↑

N

↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑ ↑↑↑

70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ 4.9 ↓ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↑ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 06-07 ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑↑

T N

60-61 to 70-71 ↑ ↔

N N

↓↓ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↓ 80-81 to 90-91 ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ ↓ 90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↓ ↔ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↓↓ ↔ ↓↓ 70-71 to 06-07 ↔ ↑ ↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↓ ↓ ↓↓↓

U P

60-61 to 70-71 ↑↑ ↓↓

N

↑↑ ↓

N

↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↔ ↓↓↓ ↓ ↑↑ ↔ ↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑

90-91 to 00-01 ↓↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↔ ↔ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑↑ ↔ ↑

70-71 to 06-07 ↓↓↓ ↓ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑

WB

60-61 to 70-71 ↔ ↔

N

↓ - ↓ - ↔ ↑↑↑ 70-71 to 80-81 ↑ ↑ ↓↓↓ - ↓↓↓ - ↔ ↑↑ 80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓ ↑↑↑ ↔ ↑↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↓ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↓ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑ ↔ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↔ ↑

70-71 to 06-07 ↑ ↑↑ ↓↓↓ - ↓↓↓ - ↔ ↑↑↑ *↑ : Rise by 5- 20 per cent ↓↓ : Fall by 10-25 per cent ↑↑ : Rise by 20-40 per cent ↓↓↓ : Fall by more than 25 per cent ↑↑↑ : Rise by more than 40 per cent ↔ : Varying between (-)5 and 5 percent ↓ : Fall by 5- 20 per cent The table above brings present salient features of changes in land uses across states over the period 1960-61 to 2006-07.Some key observation are:

1. Despite having green revolution in some states, there are large differentials not only in types of land use prevailing but also into how the land under cultivation has had atypical patterns of uses. Haryana had no major change in net sown area, but land cultivated more than once had a major boast during 60-61 till date. Punjab rather had a negative growth in 1960-61 to 1970-71 era in both types, but then an increase in area sown more than once.

2. The rise in net sown area in Punjab, Haryana and for that matter in UP also had differing trends in all these periods 3. Himachal and Kerala had not much encouraging growth of agriculture. Moreover, Kerala, UP (this cannot be

attributed to bifurcation of the state, as the decline was noticed even in 80s), West Bengal had a major fall in the land under miscellaneous trees, groves etc.

4. The most worrisome cases have been Bihar and Tamil Nadu having a literal fall in NSA as well as area sown more than once. 1.2 Detailed Analysis of Prominent Lands Categorization The two most prominent land uses, other than those for cultivation, are 1. Land under Forests, and 2. Lands, that is

not available for cultivation purposes. These two also are the lands atypically living abodes of the habitat, flora, and

fauna as also the human species. It is hence basic to ensuring survival of the living beings and thus the

environment and ecology. The changes in these two types of land-uses over time have been indicative of

comparative growth and declines of the living spaces assigned to two – biotic and a-biotic species. Another

significant analysis pertains to whether these changes are complementary or conflicting to each other (the growth

and declines moving in the same or opposite directions).


Forest Covers: The trends of change in forest land covers over the years, state wise:


The changes in forest land covers in different states may well be understood from the above graphs. The summary

of these changes have in a tabular form is depicted below, indicating the states lying in different percent ranges of

forest land in 2006-07, and whether there is a rise or decline in the land percentage. Further the states have been

classified and grouped in terms of quantum of differential in the land percentage under forests during 1970-71 to

2006-07.


Table1: States with same levels, declines, or rise in Percentage of Land Cover under Forests since 1970-71 Change Classifications

States in Different Classifications of Percentage of Land under Forest in the States in 2006-07

0-5 percent 5-10 10-15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 More than

30

Major Decline

Haryana (2.3 to 0.9)

Bihar (16.9 to 6.8)

UP (16.6 to 6.8)

J & K

(61.3 to 53.5)

Slight Decline

Maharashtra (17.6 to

16.9)

Assam (26.9 to 24.9)

M.P. (32.7 to 28.3)

Same Level

Karnataka (15.3 to

16.1) Tamil Nadu

(15.5 to 16.2)

Andhra (23.1 to 22.6)

Kerala (27.3 to 27.8)

Slight Rise Gujarat (8.4 to 9.8)

W Bung (12.4 to 13.5)

H.P. (21.8 to 24.2)

Major Rise

Punjab (2.4 to 6.1) Rajasthan (4.0 to 7.5)

Orissa (32.0 to

37.3) LNAC :

The most prominent type of Land Uses related to human intervention being Lands Not Available for Cultivation.

Most of the states had an increase in LNAC, though cannot be attributed to lands for residential or industrial

purposes, but are significant in terms of man-made uses. (These lands may very well also be unfit for any such

purposes too).

1. It is worth noticing that in as many as six states there was a sharp or noticeable rise in such lands. Bihar,

Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal had significant rise.

2. Gentle rise was noticed in five states viz., Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar

Pradesh.

3. Four states were having almost same percentage of lands :

- Assam and Orissa with major declines initially have recovered more or less and the percentage in 2006-07 is

almost at same level as that in 1970-71, while Haryana did not have much dwindling during all these years, while

had slight recovery over such lands

4. Only the two states namely, Punjab, and Rajasthan had notice worthy declines.

The trends of change in LNAC over the years, state wise, is graphically depicted below:


Table2: States with same levels, declines, rise in Percent of LNAC

Change Classifications

States in Different Classifications of Percentage of Land under Forest in the States in 2006-07 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 26 – 30 More than 30

Major Rise (>5.0)

W Bengal

(14.4 to 20.2)

Bihar (15.0 to 22.3)

H.P.(9.9 to 24.9)

Good Rise (2.5 to 5.0) Kerala

(9.0 to 12.2) J & K

(12.1 to 15.4) Tamil Nadu (17.8 to 20.4)

Slight Rise (1.0 to 2.5)

Karnataka (9.4 to 11.3)

M.P. (9.9 to 11.0) Maharashtra (8.7 to 10.2)

UP(11.6 to 13.3)

Andhra (15.4 to 17.4)

Same Level (-1.0 to 1.0) Haryana

(11.1 to 12.0) Gujarat

(20.5 to 19.9) Assam (32.3 to 32.0)

Major Decline (<-2.5)

Punjab (12.4 to 9.0)

Rajasthan (17.2 to 12.4) Orissa

(32.0 to 37.3) Assam and Orissa having maximum lands under the category either declined or maintained their level Kerala,

Karnataka, M P, Maharashtra, UP and Haryana had slight to good rise, yet the lands percentage remained between

9 and 13 only. The states with significant fall were Rajasthan, while West Bung, Bihar and HP recorded major rise.

1.3 Are the Two Lands (Forests and LNAC) Correlated?

Recognizing the importance of Rural-Urban synergy in development processes, one is bound to find the

correlations ways and means how scarce land could be and should be put to alternative uses to lead to balanced

growth and development.

Changes in Land Uses and Land Covers over years in the States have bear any are :

States Decade under consideration

Trends* over years Trends* over years Forests

LNAC Remarks Forests LNAC Remarks

Andhra

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ Forests remaining static, but LNAC showing trends of increasing in one decade, stabilizing in next decade and so on

Kerala

↔ ↔

Stabilized more or less at the

same level as in 1970-71

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑

Assam

70-71 to 80-81 ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ Positively related but had a decline initially, later stabilized

M.P.

↔ ↔ Only during 1990s, both had

declines, otherwise both

stable

80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↓↓ 00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

Bihar

70-71 to 80-81 ↓↓ ↑ Contradictory (decline in forest land , but rise in LNAC till 2000, but since then both falling

Maharashtra

↔ ↔

No change since 1970s

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↓↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↑


Gujarat

70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑ ↓

Contradictory initially (no change in LNAC since 1980s)

Orissa

↑↑ ↓↓↓ Contradictory only initially up

to 1990s

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↓ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↓ ↔ ↑ ↑↑↑ 00-01 to 01-07 ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔

Haryana

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ Forests remaining static, but LNAC

showing trends of increasing in one

decade, stabilizing in next decade and so

on

Punjab

↑↑↑ ↓

Forests increasing all

through, LNAC fell initially

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔

H.P.

70-71 to 80-81 ↑↑ ↔

Both rising but LNAC with a lag Rajasthan

↑↑↑ ↓↓ Forest rising, LNAC fell initially, and was stable

later

80-81 to 90-91 ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↑↑↑ ↑ ↔

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

J & K

70-71 to 80-81 ↑ ↔

Forest declining but LNAC stable T N

↔ ↔ Initially LNAC following forest

land use changes with a

lag

80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↔ ↑ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↓↓ ↔ ↔ ↑

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑

Karnataka

70-71 to 80-81 ↔ ↑ Forests remaining static, but LNAC

showing trends of increasing in one

decade, stabilizing in next decade and so on

U P

↔ ↔

Initially stable but declining in

1990s

80-81 to 90-91 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

90-91 to 00-01 ↔ ↑ ↓↓↓ ↓

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑

States Decade under consideration

Trends* over years Forests Not available

for cultivation Remarks

West Bengal

70-71 to 80-81 ↑ ↑

Contradictory post 1980-81

80-81 to 90-91 ↓ ↑↑ 90-91 to 00-01 ↑ ↓

00-01 to 01-07 ↔ ↑

*↑ : Rise by 5- 20 per cent ↑↑ : Rise by 20-40 per cent ↑↑↑ : Rise by more than 40 per cent ↔ : Varying between (-)5 and 5 percent ↓ : Fall by 5- 20 per cent ↓↓ : Fall by 10-25 per cent ↓↓↓ : Fall by more than 25 per cent 2.0 Linkages between the Changing Land Uses and Urbanization and Economic Growth It is argued (Lo, 1981; Mukherjee, 1987; and Quarmby & Cushine, 1989)1 that the urbanization and urban growth

have caused changes not only on economic fronts but has impacted on the use of lands through urban spreads

encroaching upon the rural areas. Many new economic and residential and commercial complexes have come up

encroaching upon the rural hinterlands. There is then communication and transport networks, infrastructure and

other super structures having come up on the lands once available for various conventional uses like grazing and

pasture lands, lands under trees, groves and other miscellaneous purposes, forest and other lands not currently

under cultivation. In a way, due to urbanization the impacts on conventional land uses are on many fronts, which

are attempted to be analyzed below:

1 The data on various land cover / land use categories helps monitoring urban expansion and change (Lo, 1981; Mukherjee, 1987; and Quarmby & Cushine, 1989).


Plotting Forest Land vs. Urbanization level in the states: 1980-81 vs. 2006-07 1980-81 Urbanization level Forest Land %

Highest More than Average

Average Less than average

Least

Highest Jammu & Kashmir Orissa More than Average Madhya Pradesh

Himachal

Pradesh Average Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu Karnataka Kerala

Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh

Assam Bihar Haryana

Less than average Gujarat West Bengal Least Punjab Rajasthan 2006-07 Urbanization level Forest Land%



Least

Highest Jammu & Kashmir Orissa More than Average

Kerala Madhya Pradesh

Average Maharashtra Tamil Nadu

Karnataka Andhra Pradesh West Bengal

Assam Himachal Pradesh

Less than average

Gujarat Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh

Least Punjab Bihar Haryana

States lying below the diagonal cells are having more Forest lands than Urbanization level and vice versa (those above the diagonal cells have less Forest lands and more Urbanization level), farther the distance, more severe is the difference. Changing Forest Land Cover vs. Urbanization Levels – 1980-81 vs.2006-07 Relative Positions of the states States having Forest Land less than Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81

States having Forest Land more than Balanced Level of Urbanization in 1980-81

States having Forest Land equal to Balanced Level of Urbanization

in 1980-81 States 1980-81

position2006-07 Position

Net difference

States 1980-81 position

2006-07 Position

Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference

Maharashtra 31 31 - J & K 13 13 - A.P. 33 33 -

Tamil Nadu 31 31 - M. P. 23 23 - U. P. 33 43 (-)1

Gujarat 41 41 - Orissa 15 14 (-)1 Karnataka 32 32 - H.P. 25 35 (-)1 Kerala 32 23 2 Assam 35 35 - West Bengal 42 33 2 Bihar 35 55 (-)2

Punjab 52 42 1 Haryana 35 55 (-)2 Rajasthan 53 43 1 5 states are virtually worse off (those with negative net difference), while four states are better off while forest lands vs. level of urbanization at two times 1980-81 vis-à-vis 2006-07 are compared, i.e., as urbanization level has gone up in 2006-07 compared to 1980-81, comparative forest lands position has gone down in case of five states, while improvements in relative forest lands positions are seen in the states Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab and Rajasthan.


Plotting Forest Land vs. Growth of Urban Population:

1980-81 Urban Pop Growth Forest Land%



Least

Highest Orissa Jammu & Kashmir

More than Average Madhya Pradesh Kerala Himachal Pradesh Average Haryana

Uttar Pradesh Bihar

Andhra Pradesh Karnataka

Assam Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu

Less than average Gujarat West Bengal Least Rajasthan Punjab 2006-07 Urban Pop Growth Forest Land %



Least

Highest Jammu & Kashmir Orissa

More than Average

Madhya Pradesh Kerala

Average Assam Tamil Nadu

Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra

Andhra Pradesh

Less than average Rajasthan West Bengal

Gujarat

Least Haryana

Punjab Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

States lying below the diagonal cells are having more Forest lands than Growth of Urban Population and vice versa (those above the diagonal cells have less Forest lands and more Growth of Urban Population), farther the distance, more severe is the difference

Changing Forest Land Cover vs. Growth of Urban Population - 1980-81 vs.2006-07 Relative Positions of the states

States having Forest Land less than Balanced Growth of Urban

Population in 1980-81

States having Forest Land more than Balanced Growth of Urban Population in

1980-81

States having Forest Land equal to Balanced Growth of Urban

Population in 1980-81 States 1980-

81 position

2006-07 Position

Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference

Haryana 31 51 (-)2 J & K 14 13 (-)1 Orissa 11 13 2 U. P. 31 52 (-)1 Kerala 24 25 1 M. P. 22 23 1 Bihar 32 54 - Assam 34 31 (-)3 A.P. 33 35 2 Rajasthan 52 43 2 Maharashtr

a 34 33 (-)1 Karnataka 33 33 -

Punjab 53 52 (-)1 H.P. 25 33 (-)3 Gujarat 44 44 - Tamil Nadu 35 31 (-)4 West

Bengal 45 43 (-)2 Nine states are virtually worse off (those with negative net difference), while five states are better off while Forest Lands vs. Growth Rate of Urban Population at two times 1980-81 vis-à-vis 2006-07 are compared, i.e., as Growth Rate of Urban Population has gone up in 2006-07 compared to 1980-81, comparative Forest Lands position has gone down in case of nine states, while improvements in relative Forest Lands positions are seen in the states Rajasthan, Kerala, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.


Forest Land vs. SDP per Capita: 1980-81 SDP per Capita Forest Land %



Least

Highest Jammu & Kashmir Orissa More than Average

Madhya Pradesh

Average Maharashtra Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Tamil Nadu West Bengal

Andhra Pradesh Assam Uttar Pradesh

Less than average Gujarat Bihar Least Haryana

Punjab Rajasthan

Per capita SDP level varies mostly inversely to the Percentage land available for forest. On the one hand, states with average land area under forests have either average or less than average per capita SDP; those with high SDP have least or less than average land under forests. Those with higher land areas under forests necessarily have low per capita SDP. 2006-07 SDP per Capita Vs. Forest Land %



Least

Highest Jammu & Kashmir Orissa

More than Average Kerala Madhya Pradesh Average Himachal

Pradesh Karnataka West Bengal

Assam

Less than average Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu Gujarat Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

Least Haryana Punjab Andhra Pradesh In 2006-07 highest per capita states have least lands for forests, but for other categories the relationship is not as

clear. A downward trend seen in the graphs do not seem to correspond with forest land percentage going up as per

Govt. of India (Min of Agriculture and Cooperation, 2011). There are some more noticeable deviations in 2006-07

which deserve concerns:

1. Compared to three states in highest SDP per capita in 1980-81, only two states in 2006-07 lie in this category.

2. More number of states in least and less than average forest land category (nine in 2006-07) compared to five in

1980-81 poses a serious threat to natural habitat in the states.

In fact, the Correlation coefficient values between various land uses and urbanization levels and economy could

provide better understanding of changing scenario of development. In order to see the impacts of land use changes

in the country over economy and changing rural-urban dichotomy, a number of correlations are carried out. The

Matrix below presents the various correlations attempted. Besides the absolute levels under various land use

categories, the changes over time in land uses and overall growth in different land uses are tested against

urbanization levels, growth in urban population over years, as well as per capita NSDP, and changes in per capita

NSDP over across states.


Plotting LNAC vs. Urbanization Level 1980-81 Urbanization Level Vs. LNAC %



Least

Highest Assam More than Average Tamil Nadu

Gujarat Andhra Pradesh

Average Karnataka West Bengal

Jammu & Kashmir Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

Less than average Maharashtra Kerala Punjab

Madhya Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh Haryana

Least Orissa 2006-07 Urbanization Level LNAC %



Least

Highest Assam Himachal Pradesh

More than Average Gujarat Tamil Nadu

West Bengal Bihar

Average Jammu & Kashmir Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh

Less than average Maharashtra Karnataka

Kerala Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan

Orissa Haryana

Least Punjab States lying below the diagonal cells are having more LNAC than Urbanization level and vice versa (those above the diagonal cells have less Forest lands and more Urbanization level), farther the distance, more severe is the difference. Changing LNAC vs. Urbanization Levels - 1980-81 vs.2006-07 Relative Positions of the states

States having LNAC less than Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81

States having LNAC more than Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81

States having LNAC equal to Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81 States 1980-81


Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference

Tamil Nadu 21 21 - Assam 15 15 - J & K 33 33 -

Gujarat 21 21 - A.P. 23 33 (-)1 Rajasthan 33 43 (-)1 Maharashtra 41 41 - Bihar 35 25 1 U. P. 33 33 -

Karnataka 32 42 (-)1 H.P. 45 15 3 Orissa 55 44 - West Bengal 32 23 2 Haryana 45 45 -

Kerala 42 43 1 Punjab 42 52 (-)1 M. P. 43 43 -

Four states are virtually worse off (those with negative net difference – Karnataka, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan), while same number of states (four) are better off while LNAC vs. level of urbanization at two times 1980-81 vis-à-vis 2006-07 are compared, i.e., as urbanization level has gone up in 2006-07 compared to 1980-81, comparative LNAC position has gone down in case of five states, while improvements in relative LNAC positions are perceptible in the states Kerala, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh.


Plotting LNAC vs. Urban Population Growth 1980-81 Urban Population Growth VsLNAC %



Least

Highest Assam More than Average Andhra Pradesh

Gujarat

Tamil Nadu

Average Uttar Pradesh

Bihar Rajasthan

Jammu & Kashmir West Bengal

Less than average Haryana Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Punjab

Kerala Maharashtra

Himachal Pradesh

Least Orissa 2006-07 Urban Population Growth LNAC %



Least

Highest Assam Himachal Pradesh More than Average Tamil Nadu

West Bengal Gujarat

Bihar

Average Uttar Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Andhra Pradesh

Less than average Haryana

Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Rajasthan

Kerala

Least Punjab States lying below the diagonal cells are having more LNAC than Growth of Urban Population and vice versa (those above the diagonal cells have less LNAC and more Growth of Urban Population), farther the distance, more severe is the difference Changing Forest Land Cover vs. Urbanization Levels - 1980-81 vs.2006-07 Relative Positions of the states States having Forest Land less than Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81

States having Forest Land more than Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81

States having Forest Land equal to Balanced Level of Urbanization in

1980-81 States 1980-81


Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference


2006-07 Position

Net difference

U. P. 31 32 1 Assam 14 11 (-)3 Kerala 44 45 1 Haryana 41 41 - A.P. 23 35 1 Maharashtr

a 44 43 (-)1

Orissa 51 43 3 Gujarat 24 24 - Bihar 32 24 3 Tamil

Nadu 25 21 (-)4

Rajasthan 32 43 - J & K 34 33 (-)1 M. P. 42 43 1 West

Bengal 35 23 (-)1

Karnataka 43 43 - H.P. 45 13 1 Punjab 43 52 (-)2


Six states have virtually been worse off (those with negative net difference), while there are seven states better off while LNAC position of states vs. Growth Rate of Urban Population at two times 1980-81 vis-à-vis 2006-07 are compared, i.e., as Growth Rate of Urban Population has gone up in 2006-07 compared to 1980-81, comparative LNAC position has gone down in case of six states (Punjab, Tamil Nadu, J & K, West Bengal and Maharashtra) while improvements in relative LNAC positions are seen in case of Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. LNAC vs. SDP per Capita: 1980-81 SDP per Capita LNAC %



Least

Highest Assam More than Average

Gujarat

Tamil Nadu West Bengal

Andhra Pradesh

Average Punjab Jammu & Kashmir Rajasthan

Uttar Pradesh Bihar

Less than average Haryana Maharashtra

Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Least Orissa 2006-07 SDP per Capita LNAC %

Highest More than Average Average Less than average Least

Highest Himachal Pradesh Assam More than Average

Gujarat Tamil Nadu West Bengal

Bihar

Average Jammu & Kashmir

Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh

Less than average

Maharashtra Haryana Kerala

Karnataka Orissa

Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan

Least Punjab

There is a virtual shift ( could be termed as a deterioration) in the concentration of states from SDP per capita zone

(almost a circle) of ‘high, more than average and average’ in 1980-81 to SDP per capita zone (almost a triangle) of

‘more than average, average and less than average’. This depicts a virtual fall of the states in their respective

rankings in 2006-07 vis-à-vis 1980-81. This is despite the fact that the states have maintained their positions, more

or less with respect to positions in terms of Land Not Available for Cultivation.

Other points worth noticing in the context are:

It is found that the coefficient of variations, signifying inter-state disparity in the LNAC has gone up between

1980-81 and 2006-07.


Next, overall percentage of LNAC has also moved up from 13.04 per cent in 1980-81 to 13.95 per cent in

2006-07.

3.0 A Brief Account of Environmental Safeguarding (1970-71 to 2006-07)?

It is imperative to look into the varying pattern of uses of lands and make an assessment of what have been the

repercussions, if any, of changes in percentage of land under one use vis-à-vis another. The table below depict the

changes and then purviews what net impact of the same could be on habitat system as a whole in any state.

Impacts of land use changes on Ecological Fronts: State-wise:

∆ Position in LNAC land during 1970-71 to 2006-07

∆ Position in Forest land during 1970-71 to 2006-07

States Status with respect of

Mankind Flora, Fauna

With more LNAC Stable Kerala, Andhra, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu

Good Cannot say

Less Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh Good Dangerous More H.P., Karnataka, Haryana, West

Bengal Good Good

With Less LNAC Less Madhya Pradesh, Bihar Dangerous Dangerous More Punjab, Rajasthan Dangerous Good

With Stable LNAC Less Assam Cannot say Bad More Orissa, Gujarat Cannot say Good

Change- positive and negative in accordance with the degree clearly establishes that Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar

despite lying in dangerous situation, but situation of flora and fauna in particular, in Bihar is far more precarious

than in Madhya Pradesh. Similarly HP has a very healthy environmental situation for mankind as well as flora and

fauna, while for Karnataka, Haryana, and West Bengal it is only slightly more favourable in 2006-07 compared to

1970-71 for both. In case of Kerala too, the conditions are slightly more favourable compared to Andhra,

Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, where the conditions are marginally better in 2006-07 compared to 1970-71 for mankind.


Plotting Changes in LNAC against Forest Land during 1970-71 to 2006-07

Very High ΘH.P.

↑LNAC West Bengal High Θ Kerala HaryΘana Karnataka Θ_+ve

Tamil Nadu UttarΘ Pradesh J Θ& K Andhra Maharashtra Very High High -ve +ve High very high І І Θ І І Θ І І ←Forest Assam Orissa Forest→ Gujarat _ -ve Θ Bihar Θ M.P. _High Θ Punjab Rajasthan

↓LNAC Vertical Column depicts LNAC changes – positive or negative Horizontal Row depicts Forest land Changes – positive or negative How the Land Use Percentage in different decades is related with 1. Urbanization Tendencies (Urban Population

percentage and Growth in Urban Population in the decade) and 2. Per capita income in the states is correlated is

vividly brought out in the correlation matrix presented below:


Correlation Matrix 1: Land Use in different land use categories vs Urbanization Levels across states : A

temporal overview

Particulars Urbanization & PSDP Land Uses

Year Correlation values and its significance Urban Population % Growth in Urban

Population %

Per capita SDP at 1999-2000 prices

r Remarks r Remarks r Remarks

Absolute percentage of Land under

miscellaneous Uses

Forest 1980-81 Insignificant

0.093* Positive Insignificant 1990-91 Insignificant 2000-01 (-)0.100* }negative (-)0.148* 2006-07 (-)0.074* (-)0.113*

LNAC 1970-71 (-)0.108* } } Negative }

Insignificant Insignificant

1980-81 (-)0.090* 1990-91 (-)0.188* 2000-01 Insignificant 0.010* Positive 2006-07 (-)0.004 Negative

Permanent Pastures

1980-81

Insignificant

(-)0.173* Negative 0.019* Positive through-out

1990-91 0.008* Positive and more positive later

0.081* 2000-01 0.056* 0.104* 2006-07 0.057* 0.046*

Culturable Waste Lands CWA

1970-71 0.096* Positive

and more positive

later

Insignificant Insignificant 1980-81 0.028* 0.040* }Positive (-)0.045* Negative

through-out

1990-91 0.078* 0.072* (-)0.062* 2000-01 0.149* (-)0.083* } Negative (-)0.047* 2006-07 0.181* (-)0.083* (-)0.036*

Net Area Sown 1980-81 Insignificant

0.113* Negative only in 1990-91, otherwise positive

Insignificant 1990-91 (-)0.038* 2000-01 0.047* 0.220*

}Positive 2006-07 0.142* 0.087* 0.128*

Area Sown More than Once

1970-71 (-)0.063* }Negative Insignificant Insignificant 1980-81 (-)0.027* 0.144* Positive

1990-91 0.006* }Positive (-)0.625* Negative 2000-01 0.050* Insignificant 0.103* Positive 2006-07 (-)0.111* Negative (-)0.019* Negative

*Only those having significant relationships considered Three particular relationships attempted are: 1. change in land uses vs. percentage of urban population, 2. change

in land uses vs. growth in urban population, and 3. change in land uses vs. per capita income in the states. The

correlation matrix presents below the correlation values:


Correlation Matrix 2: Changes in Land Uses vs. Urbanization Levels across states : A temporal overview Particulars Urbanization

& PSDP Land Uses

Decade Correlation values and its significance Urban Population

% Growth in Urban Population %

Per capita SDP at 1999-2000 prices

r Remarks r Remarks r Remarks

Decadal variation in the percentage of Land under

miscellaneous Uses

Forest

1971-81 Insignificant Insignificant (-)0.014* Negative 1981-91 0.078* Positive 0.001* Positive Insignificant 1991-01 Insignificant (-)0.175* Negative 2001-07 Insignificant (-)0.032* Negative

LNAC

1971-81

Insignificant Insignificant (-)0.513* Inverse but

reducing 1981-91 (-)0.368* 1991-01 0.114* Positive (-)0.047* 2001-07 (-)0.130* Negative 0.191* Positive

Permanent Pastures

1971-81

Insignificant Insignificant (-)0.002* Negative

1981-91 Insignificant 1991-01 0.177* Positive 0.173* Positive 2001-07 0.001* Insignificant

CWA

1971-81 (-)0.185* Negative Insignificant Insignificant

1981-91 0.145* Positive 0.019* Positive (-)0.126* Negative 1991-01 Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant 2001-07 0.043* Positive

NAS

1971-81 Insignificant

0.103* Positive 0.172* Positive 1981-91 0.177* 0.155* 1991-01 (-)0.054* Negative Insignificant 2001-07 (-)0.156* Negativ

e Insignificant (-)0.095* Negative

Area Sown More than

Once

1971-81 0.017*

Positive

Insignificant Insignificant 1981-91 0.112* (-)0.081* Negative 1991-01 0.136* Insignificant 0.101* Positive 2001-07 0.152* 0.173*

*Only those having significant relationships considered, Those having positive highlighted Hypothesis 1: ‘Land degradation results mainly due to population pressure which leads to intense land use without proper management practices’: A positive correlation between changing culturable waste lands and

growth in urban population as also changing urbanization levels during 1980s and 1990s seem to reinforce the

hypothesis.

Relationships Computations Period of Consideration Remarks 1981-91 1991-2001 2001-07

Percentage Changes in CWA to % Change in Urban Population

r 0.148833 0.683583 -0.63644 Positive during 1980s and 1990s t test values 1.25E-05 0.000136 0.946622

Percentage Changes in CWA to Urban Population Growth

r 0.019089 0.29367 0.037525 Positive all through t test values 1.75E-08 1.96E-10 2.68E-08

Percentage Changes in CWA to Absolute change in SDP

r -0.2191 0.151151 0.397733 Positive t test values 3.49E-06 0.002131 4.74E-05


Hypothesis 2: ‘Urban Population Growth of late has caused more intensive use of land with better and proper management practices’: However the current statistics, and moreover the differentials in growth levels across states do not obviously lead to

concrete results leading to whether the said hypothesis holds true or not. Negative values of ‘r’ in case of ‘Changing

levels of Area Sown more than once’ correlated with ‘changing urbanization levels’ mark to uneven growth patterns

across states in different decades.

Relationships Computations

Period of Consideration Remarks 1981-91 1991-2001 2001-07

Percentage Lands under NAS to Percentage Change in Urban Population

r 0.270883 -0.46046 -0.30151 Negative as Lands under NAC is less in 1990s and 2000s, while urban population is up t test values 0.000549 0.723354 0.616882

Percentage Lands under NAS to Change in Urban Population Growth

r 0.177013 -0.05431 0.54623 While both were positive in 1980s, both were negative in 2000s

t test values 4.91E-06 0.407743 0.000456

Percentage Lands under NAS to Change in per capita SDP

r 0.252601 -0.33962 -0.08069 Negative as Lands under NAC is less in 1990s and 2000s

t test values 3.48E-06 0.002134 4.74E-05

2 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS: Forests: This includes all lands classed as forest under any legal enactment dealing with forests or administered as forests, whether state-owned or private, and whether wooded or maintained as potential forest land. The area of crops raised in the forest and grazing lands or areas open for grazing within the forests remain included under the forest area. Area under Non-agricultural Uses: This includes all lands occupied by buildings, roads and railways or under water, e.g. rivers and canals and other lands put to uses other than agriculture. Culturable Waste Land: This includes lands available for cultivation, whether not taken up for cultivation or taken up for cultivation once but not cultivated during the current year and the last five years or more in succession for one reason or other. Such lands may be either fallow or covered with shrubs and jungles which are not put to any use. They may be assessed or unassessed and may lie in isolated blocks or within cultivated holdings. Land once cultivated but not cultivated for five years in succession is also included in this category at the end of the five years. Net Area Sown: This represents the total area sown with crops and orchards. Area sown more than once; in the same year is counted only once. Area Sown more than once: This is obtained by deducting ‘Net Area Sown’ from ‘Total Cropped Area’. DATA SOURCES

1. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Deptt of Agriculture and Cooperation, Min of Agriculture

Year Book of Agro-Economic Research studies Land Use Statistics at a Glance Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2. Projected Urban Population by Sex as on 1st March 2001-2026, India , States and Union Territories, Table 9, pp44-55, National

Commission of Population, May 2006, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, Govt of India, New Delhi

3. Proportion (percent) of Projected Urban Population to Total Population by Sex as on 1st March 2001-2026, India , States and Union Territories, Table 10, pp55-66, National Commission of Population, May 2006, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, Govt of India, New Delhi

4. Population Census : 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, Census of India, RG office, New Delhi


Annexure

States Urban Population Percentage Urban Population Growth Rate SDP at 1999-00 prices 1971 1981 1991 2001 2001 1971-81 1981-

91 1991-01 2001-07 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2006-07

Andhra Pradesh 19.31 23.25 26.84 27.08 27.5 3.94 3.55 1.37 1.01 6803 10156 15904 47407 Assam 8.82 9.88 11.09 12.72 14 3.29 3.29 3.09 1.03 6330 7612 9271 27424 Bihar 10 12.46 13.17 10.47 10.5 4.34 2.65 2.57 1.02 3971 5183 5976 16688 Gujarat 28.08 31.08 34.4 37.35 38.9 3.42 2.9 2.08 1.02 13020 19483 34204 93081 Haryana 17.66 21.96 24.79 29 11.4 4.65 3.58 4.11 1.03 17299 21603 49819 160794 Himachal Pradesh 6.99 7.72 8.7 9.79 10.4 3.02 3.11 2.81 1.02 11048 17293 41068 124370 Jammu & Kashmir 18.59 21.05 22.76 24.88 25.9 3.8 3.44 3.44 1.02 8795 11521 24050 68647 Karnataka 24.31 28.91 30.91 33.98 35.7 4.08 2.55 2.53 1.02 10052 18492 33622 88282 Kerala 16.24 18.74 26.44 25.97 25.7 3.19 4.76 0.74 1.01 8948 16714 40258 138245 Madhya Pradesh 16.29 20.31 23.21 26.67 27.1 4.45 3.71 2.71 1.02 8361 11224 16373 31532 Maharashtra 31.17 35.03 38.73 42.4 44.5 3.35 3.27 2.95 1.02 17171 22203 112358 898320 Orissa 8.41 11.82 13.43 14.97 15.9 5.21 3.08 2.61 1.02 6818 8656 20066 65365 Punjab 23.73 27.72 29.72 33.95 36.4 3.62 2.55 3.19 1.03 18389 23511 44302 106866 Rajasthan 17.63 20.93 22.88 23.38 23.7 4.52 3.31 2.71 1.02 9574 12753 22223 50106 Tamil Nadu 30.26 32.98 34.2 43.86 49.6 2.45 1.76 3.57 1.03 11028 20271 38278 109793 Uttar Pradesh 14.02 18.01 19.89 20.78 21.4 4.78 3.27 2.84 1.02 8144 8697 15970 37432 West Bengal 24.75 26.49 27.39 28.03 28.2 2.75 2.54 1.84 1.01 10575 15282 31756 84963

Source: CSO Website as on 08.03.2011

References

1. Central Statistical Organization (CSO) Website as on 08.03.2011 2. Das, P (2002), Cropping Pattern (Agricultural and Horticultural) in Different Zones, their Average Yields in

Comparison to National Average/ Critical Gaps/ Reasons Identified and Yield Potential’, in Status of Farm Mechanization in India , ICAR

3. Land Use Statistics, of Min of Agriculture and Cooperation, Govt of India 4. Lo, C.P. (1981) “Land Use Mapping of Hong Kong From Landsat Images: An Evaluation”, International Journal of

Remote Sensing, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 231-251 5. Mukherjee, S. (1987) “Landuse Maps for Conservation of Ecosystems”, Geographical Review of India, Vol. XLIX,

No. 3, pp. 23-28. 6. Quarmby, N.A. and Cushine, J.L. (1989) “Monitoring Urban Land Cover Changes at the Urban Fringe From SPOT

HRV Imagery in South East England” International Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 231-251. 7. Population Projections for India and States, 2002-2026 (revised Dec, 2006), National Commission of Population,

May 2006, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, Govt of India, New Delhi 8. Prakasam, C. (2010), ‘Land Use and land cover change detection through remote sensing approach: A case study

of Kodaikanal taluk’, International Journal of Geometrics and Geosciences, Vol. n 1, No.10, 2010 9. Trehan, D.K., Economic and Statistical Adviser , Deptt of Staatistics, M/o Agriculture and Cooperation, Govt of India

Exploring Missing Linkages between the Changing Land … of economic and industrial development that...

Documents

Transcript of Exploring Missing Linkages between the Changing Land … of economic and industrial development that...