Study Area: The study area is located in the central-eastern part of Haryana state. At present, this area consists of five districts namely Rohtak, Karnal, Panipat, Sonipat, and Jhajjar. The division extends between 28°15’ to 30˚ North latitude and 76°10’ to 77°15’ east longitude (Map-1).
The total geographical area is 9,467 Sq. Kms comprising 25 urban centres of various sizes. The total population of the division is 5,341,007, out of which 71.38 percent (3,812,534 persons) is rural and 28.62 percent 528,473 persons) is urban.There are 11 sub Divisions, 17 Tahsils, 8 Sub Tahsils, 27 Blocks and 1394 settlements in the study area. Rohtak division is surrounded by Delhi and Uttar Pradesh on its eastern side; Kaithal, Jind, Hisar and Bhiwani on its western side, Kurukshetra and Yamunanagar on its northern side, Gurgaon and Rewari on its southern side. The selected area is unique due to its central geographical location in Haryana. Many important roads, highways radiate and pass from here, which link this area to National Capital of India, Delhi. Because of the geographical location of its four districts namely Rohtak, Panipat, Sonipat, and Jhajjar in National Capital Region, preferably, it can be proposed as region of state headquarters/capital.
Metholodogy: Different geometric analysis methods such as connectivity index, nodal accessibility index are incorporated with this study to find out the degree and levels of road connectivity of urban centres with other selected centres in Rohtak division. Simple Carl Pearson Co-efficient method has been used to analyze the degree and direction between the association of levels of road connectivity and accessibility of urban centres with the indicators of urban process. There are 1394 settlements in Rohtak division including 1369 villages and 25 urban centres. The study of connectivity and accessibility of each settlement in a pin- point way is not easy as well as desirable. One another important fact in concern to research is that the small villages do not suddenly transform into urban centres. On the other hand villages having population 5,000 and above are interacted with the near by settlements, after a long time period they transformed into the suburb area of that urban settlement.
The settlements which have been highly interactive for various functional and service purposes are obviously selected out for the study of connectivity and accessibility analysis. Spatial structure of road network is analyzed in term of topological and geometric components (graph-theoretic measures). In the present study all the urban centres, administrative centres and settlements having population more than 5,000 have been taken as vertices constituting a total of 212 nodes. The National and State Highways, major district roads and other district roads are considered as edges and total number of edges are 333 in Rohtak division. Following geometric and theoretic measures have been applied:
1) Connectivity Index (2) Nodal Accessibility (3) Local Degree Road (4) Road Capacity
The centres or nodes related to road transport network study have been identified on the basis of the following characteristics:
1. Urban and Industrial Centres.
2. Villages with 5,000 and Above Population.
3. Administrative Headquarters of Block, Tahsil and District.
DISCUSSION:
(1). Connectivity Index: Road network of an area can be represented as a set of points and lines, such that each point is an origin, an intersection, or a terminal, or a major settlement located on the road and each lines correspond to existing roads. The set of points and lines (the graph) is a simplified representation of the road network. The graph thus can be analysed using the graph theory techniques and theorems that suggest structure of transport network (Ramachandaran, 1975).
For the connectivity analysis of the road system, area has been transformed into topological diagram or graph (Map-2) consisting of nodes and edges, which is very useful in deriving the appropriate structural information. For the sake of convenience the settlements and metalled roads have been considered for the topological transformation. Further it becomes inevitable to store the information in the binary matrix form containing 212 columns and rows for further analysis. The connectivity of each settlement is the number of paths incident at that point and it is computed by summing each row and column. In this matrix the existence of a direct connection between pair of places is indicated by 1 and absence by 0. (Table-1 and Fig-1), gives information regarding the direct connections of the urban centres with each other and its surrounding settlements.
Table-1: Rohtak Division
connectivity of Urban Centres (2001)
|
Rank |
C. value |
No. of towns |
Name of Urban Centres |
|
1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
16 13 12 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 |
1 1 4 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 |
Rohtak Karnal Panipat, Sonipat, Gohana, Beri Ganaur, Kharkhoda Samalkha Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Kalanaur, Gharaunda Meham, Assandh, Tarori, Nilokheri Indri, Panipat Taraf Rajputan Panipat Taraf Ansar, Uncha Siwana Ladrawan, Sankol Panipat Taraf Makdum, Asan Khurd. |
(Fig – 1)
A place is considered to be more connected and accessible if it has more direct road connection with other places. The location in relation to other places therefore plays a remarkable role in determining the degree of connectivity and accessibility. All the towns have been ranked according to their connectivity (C) values. Out of twenty five urban centres; the divisional headquarter ranks first having a C value of 16. The road development has kept pace with the urban and industrial growth in and around the cities claiming high connectivity values. Karnal ranks second with C value 13 and third ranking towns are Panipat, Sonipat, Gohana, and Beri with a C value 12. Bahadurgarh and Jhajjar are important centres of the division which are showing not very high but medium connectivity value (8) in comparison to small centres like Beri, Ganaur and Kharkhoda (Table-1 and Fig-1). This is the indication of location advantages as well as higher connectivity. Here after, the number of urban centres increases as we go down to the lower order of connectivity groups.
It is interesting to note that hierarchical order of towns and other settlements as per population size and connectivity value are having more or less same trend. An average connectivity value for the towns is 3.68 and two towns namely Panipat Taraf Makdum and Asan Khurd are below this average. The towns which are located in the central part of the division show high connectivity value. On the other hand towns located in the periphery zone show low connectivity values. Rohtak is the nerve centre of the entire southern part of the division whereas Karnal and Panipat are main nodal place in the northern part.
A careful observation of the connectivity values with respect to the spatial distribution of urban centres indicates that the peripheral towns have low level of connectivity. The study regarding the connectivity evaluation yields good results. The study area namely Rohtak division is a suitable region with good network of roads and 25 urban centres. Some of them such as Rohtak, Karnal and Panipat have more connectivity due to certain causes like locational, commercial, agricultural and industrial aspects. Such studies provide a yardstick to measure the connectivity values of the urban centres and also give some preliminary information for the future transport planning and facilities of urban centres in the region.
(2) Nodal Accessibility: Accessibility of road is one of the most important indicator of the degree and efficiency of transport system of an area. The concept of road accessibility is quite different from the concept of railway accessibility. Because, railway lines mainly connect important and major places of the country. On the other hand, roads connect any part of the country with another region irrespective of the importance of the places. Hence, for the socio- economic development of an area, a high degree of road accessibility is much essential (Behera, 1993).
Levels of nodal accessibility have been taken up for 25 urban settlements of the study area. The measurement of nodal accessibility is based on graph theory. The indices of nodal accessibility have been calculated with local degree (road) and weighted road capacity. Two indices of road have been selected because the local degree (road) is not enough to explain the status of accessibility since entire roads have been considered of the same status. The weighted road capacity is an improved index in which importance is given to different types of roads. Through this we find out the regional variation in the level of nodal accessibility. (Mondal, 2004)
Table-2: Rohtak Division
Local Degree road and Weighted Road Capacity of Urban centres (2001)
|
Sr. No. |
Name |
L.D.R |
N.HX 4 |
S.H X 2 |
MDR X 1 |
ODRX .5 |
|
1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. |
Nilokheri Tarori Indri Karnal Uncha Siwana Assandh Gharaunda Panipat Panipat T.A Panipat T.M Panipat T.R Asan Khurd Samalkha Gohana Ganaur Sonipat Kharkhoda Meham Kalanaur Rohtak Beri Ladrawan Bahadurgarh Sankol Jhajjar |
3 4 4 9 2 7 5 8 3 3 3 3 4 8 5 9 7 6 3 8 5 2 8 3 7 |
1X4=4 0X4=0 0X4=0 1X4=4 1X4=4 0X4=0 1X4=4 2X4=8 1X4=4 1X4=4 1X4=4 0X4=0 1X4=4 1X4=4 0X4=0 0X4=0 0X4=0 1X4=1 0X4=0 3X4=12 0X4=0 0X4=0 1X4=4 1X4=4 1X4=4 |
0X2=0 0X2=0 1X2=2 4X2=8 0X2=0 2X2=4 0X2=0 1X2=2 1X2=2 1X2=2 1X2=2 1X2=2 0X2=0 3X2=6 0X2=0 2X2=4 2X2=4 1X2=2 1X2=2 2X2=4 0X2=0 0X2=0 1X2=2 0X2=0 3X2=6 |
1X1=1 0X1=0 0X1=0 1X1=1 0X1=0 1X1=1 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 1X1=1 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 0X1=0 1X1=1 1X1=1 3X1=3 0X1=0 1X1=1 |
1X.5=0.5 4X.5=2.0 3X.5=1.5 3X.5=1.5 1X.5=0.5 4X.5=2.0 4X.5=2.0 5X.5=2.5 1X.5=0.5 1X.5=0.5 1X.5=0.5 2X.5=1.0 3X.5=1.5 4X.5=2.0 4X.5=2.0 7X.5=3.5 4X.5=2.0 4X.5=2.0 2X.5=1.0 3X.5=1.5 4X.5=2.0 2X.5=1.0 3X.5=1.5 2X.5=1.0 2X.5=1.0 |
To find out the levels of nodal accessibility, first of all the values of local degree (road) have been calculated for each nodal point (urban centres) and then every type of road such as National Highways, State Highways, major district road and other district roads have been given weightage on the basis of their importance. The weightage for National Highways, State highways, major district road and other district road are 4, 2, 1 and 0.5 respectively. These weightage values have been multiplied with the number (local degree) of each type of roads (i.e. N.H., S.H., MDR, ODR,) and then all the multiplied values are added to give weighted road capacity. To express the level of nodal accessibility in the Table-3 the following technique has been used:
X value of local degree in urban center
W =
Mean value of local degree (road) in the study area
Where, W = Weighted on local degree (road) in large settlement.
Finally local (road) and weighted road capacity are added for deriving the composite index (Used by Mondal, 2004).
Table-3: Rohtak division
Nodal Accessibility of Urban Centres (2001)
|
Sr. no. |
Name |
W.R.C |
Nodal Accessibility |
Composite index |
|
|
L.D.R |
W. R.C |
||||
|
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. |
Nilokheri Tarori Indri Karnal Uncha Siwana Assandh Gharaunda Panipat Panipat T.A Panipat T.M Panipat T.R Asan Khurd Samlakha Gohana Ganaur Sonipat Kharkhoda Meham Kalanaur Rohtak Beri Ladrawan Bahadurgarh Sankol Jhajjar |
5.50 2.00 3.50 14.50 4.50 7.00 6.00 12.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 3.00 5.50 12.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 8.00 3.00 17.50 3.00 2.00 10.50 5.00 12.00 |
0.60 0.79 0.79 1.78 0.40 1.38 0.98 1.57 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.79 1.57 0.98 1.78 1.38 1.19 0.59 1.57 0.98 0.40 1.57 0.59 1.38 |
0.80 0.29 0.51 2.09 0.65 1.01 0.87 1.81 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.43 0.79 1.74 0.44 1.09 0.87 1.16 0.44 2.53 0.43 0.28 1.52 0.73 1.73 |
1.40 1.08 1.30 3.87 1.05 2.39 1.85 3.38 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.02 2.53 3.31 1.42 2.87 2.25 2.35 1.03 4.10 1.41 0.68 3.09 1.32 3.11 |
(L.D.R*-Local degree road, N.H*-National highway, S.H*- State highway, MDR*-Major district road, ODR*- Other district road, W.R.C*-Weighted road Capacity).
Local Degree of Road: Table-4 and Map-3 represent the local degree value, i.e. the number of routes (edges) joining a vertex or the number of routes crossing or terminating at a vertex is called the local degree. Taaffee explained that local degree as the number of routes converging at a node.
The local degree is high for Karnal, Panipat, Sonipat, Rohtak, Bahadurgarh and Gohana, Meham, Jhajjar, Kharkhoda, Assandh. It means that these centres are very well connected and act as junction places for different types of roads, where as with low local degree Ladrawan, Sankol, Uncha Siwana, Asan Khurd, Nilokheri, Panipat Taraf Ansar, Panipat Taraf Makdum, Panipat Taraf Rajputan and Kalanaur are less connected.
Table-4: Rohtak division
Levels of Local Degree Road of Urban Centres (2001)
|
Sr. No |
Categories |
Level |
Name of Urban Centres |
|
1.
2. 3.
|
(Above -1.09)
(0.74 - 1.09) (Below 0.74)
|
High
Medium Low
|
Sonipat, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Karnal, Panipat, Gohana Meham, Jhajjar, Kharkhoda, Assandh, Tarori, Indri, Gharaunda, Samalkha, Beri, Ganaur Nilokheri, Sankol, Uncha Siwana, Panipat Taraf Ansar, Panipat Taraf Rajputan, Kalanaur, Asan Kurd, Panipat Taraf Makdum, Ladrawan |
Weighted Road Capacity:
The road network system of the area consists of different types of roads. The roads are having different lanes, with different width and also have different type of surfaces. Due to these differences, the speed and quantum of the commodity movement are different. National, state, district and other roads have different capacities. It is accepted that National Highways have highest capacity, and then comes State Highways, district and other roads have least.
Table-5: Rohtak division
Levels of Road Capacity of Urban Centres (2001)
|
Sr. No |
Categories |
Level |
Name of Urban Centres |
|
1.
2.
3.
|
(Above 1.40)
(0.84 - 1.40)
(Below 0.84)
|
High
Medium
Low
|
Rohtak, Karnal, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Panipat, Gohana Meham, Gharaunda, Kharkhoda, Assandh, Sonipat, Panipat Taraf Ansar, Panipat Taraf Rajputan, Panipat Taraf Makdum Tarori, Indri, Nilokheri, Sankol, Uncha Siwana, Samalkha, Beri, Ganaur, Kalanaur, Asan Kurd, Ladrawan |
Rohtak and Karnal, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Panipat, Gohana show high road capacity above than 1.40. It means that these are the base centres for the movement of commodities in the division. On the other hand, Sonipat has medium level of road capacity because of the absence of National Highway through its core or centre. Out of twenty five urban centres eleven have low level (Below 0.84) of road capacity.
Levels of Nodal Accessibility:
In order to find out the general levels of nodal accessibility for 2001, the results have plotted on the map-5. On the basis of this indicator all towns have classified into three distinct classes (Table – 6 and Map – 5).The following table shows the three classes with the names of towns and their values. After nodal accessibility it can be considered that the Rohtak town is on the highest rank with 4.10, trailed by Karnal, Panipat, Bahadurgarh and Jhajjar respectively. Above all conclude that all Class I towns and district headquarters have high levels of nodal accessibility. It means that all the above centres enjoy good position in terms of road connections. The principal reason behind the above high nodality is initialization of industries. Industrialization had considerably enhanced the transport connectivity. Great numbers of markets, service centres, industrial and agricultural development are the basic factors which affected the levels of nodal accessibility and transport development in these towns.
Table-6: Rohtak division
Levels of Nodal Accessibility of Urban Centres
|
Sr. No |
Categories |
Level |
Name of Urban Centres |
|
1. 2. 3. |
(Above 2.39) (1.53 - 2.39) (Below 1.53) |
High Medium Low |
Rohtak, Karnal, Panipat, Gohana Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Samlakha,Sonipat Meham, Gharaunda, Kharkhoda, Assandh Tarori, Indri, Nilokheri, Sankol, Uncha Siwana,Beri, Ganaur, Panipat Taraf Ansar, Panipat Taraf Rajputan, Kalanaur, Asan Kurd,Panipat Taraf Makdum, Ladrawan |
Only one Class I town, Sonipat varies in second level of accessibility because of its location which is not on any National Highways. Gohana varies in high level category due to its strategic location. Most of the National Highways and State Highways of the division pass through it. Ladrawan shows low level of accessibility because it is located in the peripheral zone i.e. near outer boundary of the division.
Growth of Urban Centres and Its Relationship with Network Geometry Indexes:
The population and town growth is determined by a number of historical and political factors. But degree of connectivity and nodal accessibility are the important factors which affect the expansion of urban centres. Greater accessibility enhances the strength of urban magnetism and helps to acquire a multi – functional character. This naturally encourages rapid population growth in the urban areas. Therefore, there is possibility of having certain positive relationship between the variables of accessibility and town’s population (Bhagpati, 1984).
Hullur and Sinha (1974) also worked on this relationship in case of Karnataka but could not find out any such relationship. But when Bhagpati (1984) worked in the context of Assam state and found that there is significant positive relationship (r =0.62) between the population size of the selected towns and their connectivity values. Here we have analysed the urban centres size and its relation with geometry indexes. Five transport oriented variables have been selected as below:
P1: Metalled Road per Sq. Kms of urban centres.
P2: Local Degree Road.
P3: Weighted Road Capacity.
P4: Nodal Accessibility.
P5: Connectivity.
Three variables of urban processes have been selected as below:
P6: Urban Population Size.
P7: Urban Population Density.
P8: Urban Area in Sq Kms.
Table-7: Correlation Matrix
|
|
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
|
P1 |
1 |
0.65 |
0.77* |
0.76 |
0.73 |
0.85* |
0.50 |
0.70 |
|
P2 |
|
1 |
0.75 |
0.89* |
0.77* |
0.71 |
0.47 |
0.65 |
|
P3 |
|
|
1 |
0.93* |
0.62 |
0.71 |
0.47 |
0.62 |
|
P4 |
|
|
|
1 |
0.51 |
0.78* |
0.48 |
0.70 |
|
P5 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
0.70 |
0.44 |
0.55 |
|
P6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
0.38 |
0.86* |
|
P7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
0.05 |
|
P8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
* significant at 0.05 level of t-test
The Table-7 shows relationship between the various indices of transport geometry of urban centres and urban process variables. The relationship of metalled road per Sq. Kms in urban centres (P1) and population size (P6) shows a highly positive correlation and ‘r’ value is 0.85. Also population size (P6) shows same relationship with the local degree roads (P2, r =0.71), weighted road capacity (P3, r =0.71), level of nodal accessibility (P4, r =0.78) and connectivity values (P5, r =0.70). All above described values in (Table-7) are significant at 0.05 levels. It means that population size of urban centres is directly influenced by the accessibility and connectivity of that centre with other centres. Roads are the main source of transport in Rohtak division in comparison to railway lines. Most of the industrial material is transported with help of metalled roads in various areas. The relationship between metalled road per Sq. Kms of urban centres (P1) and urban population density (P7) is positive but weak in relationship in comparison of above described relationship and ‘r’ value is 0.50. Also urban population density (P7) shows same relationship with the local degree road (P2, r =0.47), weighted road capacity (P3, r =0.47), nodal accessibility (P4, r =0.48) and connectivity values (P5, r =0.44). It means that population size of urban centres (P6) is correlated and influenced with these indices.
A strong relationship is found between metalled road per Sq. Kms of urban centres (P1) and its urban area (P8) which is shown by ‘r’ value 0.70. Also urban area (P8) shows same relationship with the local degree roads (P2, r =0.65), weighted road capacity (P3, r =0.62), nodal accessibility (P4, r =0.70) and connectivity values (P5, r =0.55). Nodal accessibility (P4) and weighted road capacity (P3) show the capacity of traffic flow and movement of commodities between urban centres. Traffic flow means simply the volume of movement of goods, people and messages. It is an important element of transport system which reflects the complex nature of economic interdependence. The capacity of roads in urban centre always affects urban growth.
CONCLUSION:
It conclude that urban centres are main focal points as centres of economic activities and roads are the main arteries which serve it varies services. The size of urban centre and its population is directly linked with degree of efficiency in road transport network. Gohana town is located on National Highway No. 71A, connecting National Highway No. 10 and National Highway No. 1. The town is located almost in the middle part of Rohtak division and has high level of connectivity and accessibility with other towns. This is a very suitable site for industrial development in order to ease out population pressure on Rohtak, Panipat and Sonipat.
REFERENCES:
1. Behera, M. (1993), “Block Level Planning: Concept And Methodology”, Southern Economist, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 5-8.
2. Bhagbati, et al. (1984), “Urban Centres and Spatial Pattern of Their Road Accessibility in Assam”, Geographical Review of India, Vol. 46, No. 2 and 3, pp. 44-46.
3. Census of India (2001), Haryana, District Census Hand Book, Rohtak, Sonipat, Panipat, Karnal, Jhajjar Districts.
4. Hullur, S. and Sinha, B.N (1974), “Urban Selletlements and Their Accessibility of Roads in mysore State”, Journal of NEIGS, Vol. XI, No.1and2, pp. 74-82.
5. Jana, M.M. (1995), “Markets and their Characteristics in West Dinajpur District of West Bengal”, Indian Journal of Landscape System and Ecological Studies. Vol. 18, No.2.
6. Mondal, S. (2004). “Transportation Accessibility and Non-Primary Activities - A Case Study of Mewat Region”, Indian Journal of Regional Sciences, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, pp. 59-67.
7. Ramachandran, H. (1975), “analysis of Network Geometry – An Evaluation of Connectivity Indices”, Geographical Review of India, Vol. 37, No.1, pp. 81-86.
8. Robinson, H. and Banford, C.G. (1978), Geography of Transport, McDonald and Evans, Plymouth quoted by Saxena, 1991.
9. Saxena, H.M. (2005), Transport Geography, Rawat Publication, New Delhi. Taafee,E.J., Morrill, R.L. and Gould, P.R. (1963), “Transport Expansion in Under Developed Countries : A Comparative Analysis” Geographical Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 529- 530.