A settlement hierarchy refers to the arrangement of settlements within a given
area into a certain order of importance based upon the population size of a settlement,
the range and number of services provided by a settlement, and the sphere of
influence or market area of a settlement. Settlements within an area vary greatly in
physical size, population, and the number of services that they provide. A settlement
hierarchy is when settlements are put into an order based upon their size or the
services that they provide for people. The hierarchy of settlements is the product of
the centrality of settlements in a region. The centrality of a place is equal to its surplus
of importance, that is, equal to the relative importance of this place in regard to region
belonging to it1. It is the outcome of the quality and quantity of central functions
performed by a settlement. These central functions are available in few settlements
but are availed by a number of settlements. The hierarchy of settlement is closely
associated with the hierarchy of central functions. Hence, higher the level of
functional hierarchy, higher will be the centrality of the place having that function.
Identification of hierarchy of rural settlements helps in regional planning as higher
order services are allocated in higher order centres and lower order services are
provided in lower order centres. It serves as an essential tool in helping to ensure that
new development should take place in the most sustainable locations. In rural areas,
development should be focused on settlements that can act as service centres for
surrounding areas. Therefore settlement hierarchy is required in order to identify those
villages that are capable of accommodating and sustaining growth, and to limit
development in those smaller settlements that are not sustainable. The government
should also base their rural settlement policies on the existing hierarchy of service
centres as a means of reducing regional economic imbalances and distributing
1
Christaller, W., Central Places in Southern Germany, translated by Carlisle W. Baskin, Prentice
Hall Inc, New Jersey, 1966, p.147.
219
government services in an equitable basis. In the study area, hierarchy of rural
settlements has been determined to examine the role of these settlements in the
development of the area in terms of the distribution of facilities or the number the
services provided by a settlement.
A number of studies have been made to identify the hierarchy of settlements in
different parts of India and abroad by different scholars like Sen et al., (1971)2, Singh
(1975)3, Tiwari (1984)4, Gulberto (2008)5, and Kharate (2009)6, etc. Different
approaches and Methods are adopted to identify hierarchical arrangement of
settlements. They are scalogram technique by L. Guttman, population threshold and
ranking of central places and functions by Berry and Garrison, Ranking of settlements
on the basis of hierarchy of functions, etc. In this chapter an attempt has been made to
determine and identify the level of functional and settlement hierarchy by measuring
the functional importance of facilities based on their threshold population and
estimating the centrality score or functional importance of settlements. The thresholds
have been determined on the basis of Reed Muench Method7.
6.1 Median Population Threshold and Weightage Score of Facilities
Population threshold is defined as the minimum number of consumers
required to support a given services. The concept of population threshold or entry
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sen, L.K., et al., Planning Rural Growth Centres for Integrated Area Development, A Study of
MaryalgudaTaluka, National Institute of Community Development, Hydrabad, India, 1971.
Singh, R.Y., ‘Hierarchy of Rural Settlements and identification of locational Functional Gaps in
Upper Charmanwati Basin’, in Singh, R.L. (ed.), Geographic Dimensions of Rural Settlements,
National Geographical Society of India,1975, pp.177-183.
Tiwari, R.C. and Khan, N.V., ‘Spatial Organisation of Rural Service centres in Pratapgarh
District’, National Geographer, Vol.XIX (2), 1984, pp.87-104.
Gualberto, C.D., ‘An Analysis of the Hierarchy of Functions and Settlements: The Case of
Selected Coastal Municipalities in the Province of Zamboanga Del Sur, U.P.’, School of Urban
and Regional Planning, 2008.
Kharate, V.B., ‘Hierarchical Patterns of Rural Central Places in the Painganga Valley’, Shodh,
Samiksha aur Mulyankan (International Research Journal), Vol.II, Issue-5, Nov.08-Jan. 09,
pp.471-474.
Haggett, P. and Gunwardena, K.A., ‘Determination of Population Thresholds for Settlement
Functions by Reed Muench Method’, Prof.Geog., Vol.16, 1965, pp.6-9.
220
Table 6.1 Aligarh District: Median Population Threshold and Weightage
Score of Facilities
(2001)
SI.
No.
Name of the Facility
Number of
Facility
Number of
settlements
having the
Facility
1,027
357
94
47
5
15
45
34
114
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Median
Population
Threshold
(MPT)
588
2,415
5,700
7,020
11,737
9,661
6,780
7,839
5,260
Functional
Weightage
Primary School
1,312
1.00
Middle School
401
4.33
Secondary School
97
10.22
Senior Secondary School
49
12.58
College
5
21.03
Adult Literacy Center
16
17.31
Hospital
45
12.15
Dispensary
49
14.05
Maternity and Child
114
9.43
Welfare Center
10. Health Center
29
28
8,305
14.88
11. Primary Health Center
20
20
9,110
16.33
12. Primary Health Sub64
62
6,460
11.58
Center
13. Nursing Home
10
8
10,423
18.68
14. Post Office
307
306
2,782
4.99
15. Telegraph Office
8
8
10,720
19.21
16. Telephone Connection
1,076
410
2,082
3.73
17. Bus Service
138
138
4,980
8.92
18. Railways Service
6
6
11,313
20.27
19. Pucca Road
*
747
1,030
1.85
20. Commercial Bank
60
58
6,580
11.79
21. Co-operative Commercial
9
9
10,254
18.38
Bank
22. Credit Society
73
73
6,100
10.93
23. Tap Water
*
496
1,605
2.88
24. Tubewell Water
*
516
1,560
2.80
25. Tank Water
*
169
4,700
8.42
26. Electricity for
*
528
1,515
2.72
Agricultural purpose
27. Electricity for Domestic
*
335
2,887
5.17
Purpose
28. Veterinary Hospital
152
152
4,700
8.42
29. Artificial Breeding
152
152
4,700
8.42
Center
30. Block Headquarter
8
8
10,169
18.22
31. Village Development
846
846
8,95
1.60
Center
32. Cold Storage
3
3
12,606
22.59
33. Seed Storage
96
96
5,500
9.86
34. Repairing Center of Agri.
25
25
8,559
15.34
Equipment
35. Primary Agri. Loan Co111
111
5,300
9.50
operative Society
36. Fair Price Shop
895
895
723
1.30
37. Government Purchase
52
52
6,740
12.08
Center
38. Local Market
71
71
6,140
11.00
39. Wholesale Market
3
3
12,120
22.72
Note: * In case of functions SI. No. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are not counted in number, rather
counted as the number of settlements having that function.
221
level states that there is a range of population size for each function, below the lower
limit of which all settlements lack that function, while above its upper limit all
settlements possess it. The median point of the range of population threshold of a
given function is taken into account as the median population threshold (MPT) of the
function. The population threshold enables to propose that all settlements having
higher population than the threshold and yet not having the function, should have it.
On the basis of Reed Muench method, MPT of 39 socio-economic facilities have been
computed. Table 6.1 reveals that the computed MPT ranges from 588 persons in case
of primary school facility being minimum to 12,120 persons as maximum for the
facility of wholesale market. Higher order functions have higher value of MPT
whereas lower order functions have lower value of MPT. The computed value of 588
persons for the facility of primary school implies that, a settlement containing a
population of 588 persons is supposed to sustain the location of a primary school in
the existing pattern of distribution of amenities and facilities.
The weightage value has been determined by first assigning an arbitrary value
of 01 to the facility having lowest threshold, while the weightage value of other
functions has been obtained by dividing its MPT by the lowest MPT value in the
distribution. In the present study the MPT of primary school (588 persons) has been
taken as the unit measure i.e. weightage value of 01 has been assigned to the facility
of primary school having lowest MPT. In relation to this unit value, the MPT indices
for all the selected 39 facilities have been computed (table 6.1) for the study area. The
weightage value of facilities is the indicative of their relative importance which can be
used for inter-functional comparison. Highest functional weightage is attained by the
facility of wholesale market followed by cold storage facility while lowest functional
222
weightage is obtained by the facility of primary school followed by the facility of fair
price shop.
6.2 Hierarchy of Socio-Economic Facilities
Six hierarchic orders have been observed on the basis of their relative
functional weightage of all 39 socio-economic facilities (table 6.2). The hierarchic
classification exhibits that 9 (23.08 per cent) out of 39 facilities lie in the lower order
of functional hierarchy with the functional weightage below 4.51 having facilities
namely primary school, middle school, telephone connection, pucca road, tap water,
tube-well water, electricity for agricultural purpose, village development centre and
fair price shop.
Table 6.2 Aligarh District: Hierarchic Order of Socio-Economic Facilities
(2001)
Hierarchic
Order
Functional
Weightage
Socio-Economic
Facilities
No.
Percent
9
23.08
Name of Facilities
First order
< 4.51
Second order
4.51-7.71
2
5.13
Third order
7.71-14.11
16
41.03
Fourth order
14.11-17.31
4
10.26
SS, SSS, Hos., Disp.,
MCWC,PHSC,BS, CB,
CS,Tan.W,VH,ABC,Se.S,PALCS,LM,
GPC
ALC, HC, PHC, RCAE
Fifth order
17.31-20.51
5
12.82
NH, TO, RWS, CCB, BHQ
Sixth order
>20.51
3
7.69
Col.,Co.S, WSM
PS,
MS,TC,PR,TW,TWW,EAP,VDC,FPS
PO, EDP
Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory)
Second level of functional hierarchy show only 2 (5.13 per cent) facilities out
of total facilities i.e. post office and electricity for domestic purpose having functional
weightage between 4.51- 7.71. Maximum 16 (41.03 per cent) facility has been
recorded in the third hierarchic order of facilities with functional weightage of 7.7114.11. Four facilities (adult literacy centre, health centre, primary health centre, and
223
repairing centre of agricultural equipment) with functional weightage ranging 14.1117.31 have been identified in the fourth hierarchic order. Similarly five facilities with
functional importance ranging 17.31-20.51 have been observed in the fifth hierarchic
order of facilities. Three facilities (7.69 per cent) with functional weightage more than
20.15 lie in the sixth order of hierarchy rendering high order function in the study
area.
6.3 Hierarchy of Rural Service Centres/Central Places
Rural service centre is defined as a place, which offers the economic,
administrative and social needs of the people of service area as well as of the people
of a place itself, through public and private institutions, establishments and
organizations8. The rural service centres/central places are important nodal centres on
communication lines enjoying centrality in a given area or a region with respect to a
variety of functions or services for its contiguous surrounding areas. Centrality is the
measure of importance of a place in the form of its functional capacity to serve the
needs of the people in the surrounding areas9. It depends on the number and types of
the existing facilities or the sum of weightage score of all the functions provided by
the central place. In order to find out the centrality score of any central place,
weightage value assigned to each of the function is multiplied by their number. For
example, if a central place has two primary schools (weightage value of 2), one
middle school (weightage value of 4.33), two health centre (weightage value of
14.88), one post office (weightage value of 4.99), three telephone connection
(weightage value of 3.73), and one fair price shop (weightage value of 1.30),
centrality score of that settlement would be, (2 X 1) + (1 X 4.33) + (2 X 14.88) + (1 X
8
9
Kharate, V. B., ‘Hierarchical Patterns of Rural Central Places in the Painganga Valley’, Shodh,
Samiksha aur Mulyankan (International Research Journal), Vol. II, Issue-5, Nov.08-Jan.09,
pp.471-474.
Kukadapwar, S. R. and Adane, V.S., ‘Regional Planning Through the Development of a Central
Place’, ITPI Journal, Vol.3, No. 2, 2006, pp.29-35.
224
Table 6.3: Population and Centrality Score
S.No
.
1.
3.
5.
7.
25.
27.
29.
31.
33.
35.
37.
39.
41.
43.
Name of
Settlement
Hetalpur
Bithana
Ganiyavali
Khan
Alampur
Matroi
Raipur
Dalpatpur
Usram
Amamadapur
Tamautiya
Razawal
Bahmati
Shaharimadan Gari
Meer Garhi
Jamau
Tamkauli
Chiti
Chitrauli
Haibatpur
Jamuna
Jirollidor
DadarAlupura
Ahraula
45.
47.
Chakathal
Salarpur
4665
1556
27.73
28.1
46.
48.
49.
51.
53.
55.
57.
59.
61.
63.
65.
67.
69.
71.
Manipur
Chhaichhau
Tuamai
Chhiravali
Paharipur
Ainchana
Nanau
NagalaSarua
Bamoti
Pusawali
Gursiana
BhuriaMajra
Rampur
Data
CholiBuzurg
Rampur
Shahpur
Surajpur
Mandanpur
Ata
Rayat
Gidaura
Kochhor
Jartauli
Lahra
Salempur
Sahara Khurd
1074
4644
2297
2113
2773
2178
4113
1418
3266
2604
3488
1276
28.61
28.77
28.88
29.14
29.46
29.6
29.8
30.06
30.06
30.06
30.18
31.02
50.
52.
54.
56.
58.
60.
62.
64.
66.
68.
70.
72.
1248
31.03
74.
Chapauta
Gahlau
Burhaka
Govali
Bhojpur
Madanpur
NarupuraKatka
Sikandarpur
Golara
Bhojpur Ta
Lohgarh
Khadava
SikharnaKhurd
Kalan
Karanpur
Subhashgram
BudhariBuzurg
Lehtoi
Changeri
Barka
Mathna
Detakhurd
BhadesiMafi
Bidhipur
Bonai
Chandauli
Buzurg
Alipur
5729
31.59
76.
Jakhauta
2611
31.6
1814
3454
1776
3772
1685
2887
2336
3921
32.43
32.58
33.46
33.79
34.19
34.23
34.5
35.12
78.
80.
82.
84.
86.
88.
90.
92.
Raipur Khas
Bistauli
Alampur Rani
Varanadi
Naugavan
Bahadurpur
Palachand
Simrauthi
3661
1665
1863
2255
3669
1199
2061
1646
32.57
32.58
33.72
34.12
34.23
34.26
34.65
35.59
1355
35.63
94.
Panihara
3312
35.65
9.
11.
13.
15.
17.
19.
21.
23.
73.
75
77.
79.
81.
83.
85.
87.
89.
91.
93.
Population
S.No
.
2.
4.
6.
8.
Name of
Settlement
Diwahamidpur
Kaliyanpur
Balukhera
Dabthala
Population
1983
2530
2747
1493
Centrality
Score
16.95
16.95
16.95
16.95
2350
2204
1394
2686
Centralit
y Score
16.95
16.95
16.95
17.95
1159
1908
20.68
20.88
10.
12.
Shahpur
KhediyaKhurd
1604
1834
20.88
21.39
1872
1102
3475
4555
1813
2751
21.54
22.48
22.65
23.14
24.22
24.44
14.
16.
18.
20.
22.
24.
Bhartri
Barautha
Madapur
Harautha
Barhauli
Dhumra
1404
2635
3008
5771
3888
1027
22.39
22.54
22.96
24.08
24.41
24.47
1529
1485
2368
1874
2122
1617
3350
2258
2953
4267
24.47
24.8
25.01
25.07
25.07
25.47
25.73
25.87
26.65
27.17
26.
28.
30.
32.
34.
36.
38.
40.
42.
44.
1690
3862
2558
1662
1845
1024
4037
2103
1103
1781
24.47
24.8
25.07
25.07
25.12
25.73
25.73
26.41
26.99
27.17
2436
2279
27.88
28.2
1283
4711
5612
1208
1346
4083
2236
2722
2344
3014
3405
2337
28.74
28.77
28.95
29.27
29.51
29.66
30.06
30.06
30.06
30.17
30.9
31.03
1445
31.03
(Contd….)
225
(Contd. Table 6.3)
95.
97.
Mahgaura
Kasimpur
Gadaipur
Gahtauli
Nirmal
Burhagaon
5253
3608
35.65
35.99
96.
98.
Sihavali
UdaiGarhi
3055
1626
35.83
36.15
2789
36.31
100.
Alahdadpur
2882
36.6
4141
36.73
102.
4680
37.02
1299
1900
1321
2723
2771
1146
1701
2157
2528
2722
37.02
37.11
38.52
38.98
39.75
40.1
40.28
40.59
41.17
41.82
104.
106.
108.
110.
112.
114.
116.
118.
120.
122.
1253
1265
2888
2598
6978
1688
2531
2570
4416
2069
37.08
37.52
38.74
39.18
39.91
40.28
40.49
41.13
41.4
41.85
2227
3975
2731
41.86
42.23
42.79
124.
126.
128.
2211
3329
7951
42.14
42.71
43.06
129.
131.
133.
135.
Baijla
Khairabad
Bhilawali
Utara
Goraula
Mahgavan
Pahavati
Akbarpur
Arni
Chandaula
Sujanpur
PaliRazapur
Kajroth
Bhakari
Ahivasi
Jarara
Kasison
Dari Alawlpur
Khera
Rampur
Chandiyana
Narayanpur
Gwalra
Sahajpura
GaonKhera
Ukhlana
Aogipur
Baimbirpur
Asroi
Baikala
Kaliyanpur
Rani
Keelpur
Utvara
BilaunaChitrasi
5384
2124
1448
1706
43.22
44.01
44.25
44.68
130.
132.
134.
136.
5604
1818
4159
7651
43.53
44.08
44.45
44.9
137.
139.
141.
Nah
Bhavigarh
Resari
3031
4291
2132
45.01
45.79
46.73
138.
140.
142.
1735
1635
1849
45.22
46.65
47.2
143.
145.
147.
149.
151.
Gharvara
Bisahuli
Talesara
Jujharka
JalupurSigher
7538
3775
3485
3137
4466
47.37
47.57
48.6
49.37
49.53
144.
146.
148.
150.
152.
4452
1146
3474
1468
2201
47.44
47.75
48.8
49.38
49.71
153.
Dabha
1407
50.56
154.
1202
50.58
155.
Rahmapur
1882
51.03
156.
4198
51.28
157.
JiroliHira
Singh
Kalai
Kaseru
4847
51.47
158.
1791
52.12
3868
3228
52.43
52.86
160.
162.
1846
3016
52.81
53.21
1213
2525
3838
1103
2347
3325
3310
9312
53.45
53.91
55
58.1
59.59
60.35
61.17
61.5
164.
166.
168.
170.
172.
174.
176.
178.
Payadapur
Shadipur
Sunamai
Majoopur
Suvkara
BhankriKhas
Bajidpur
Harji Ki
GarhiUrfGarhi
Suraj
Sujanpur
Pyavali
ChandpurMirza
Chhabilpur
Alahadadpur
Nivry
TarauraUrf
PipalKaGaon
Bhamori
Buzurg
Mamiana
Ummedpur
Takipur
Daurau
Chandpur
Lohgarh
Bharatpura
Taharpur
Bankner
Kanaubi
Rajpur
Jiravli
Taharpur
3873
1192
2731
4737
4288
5271
5679
1338
53.64
54.2
55.58
58.75
60.25
60.9
61.5
61.8
1274
4718
62.87
63.68
180.
182.
Majhaula
Jamanka
4640
5143
63.03
64.72
4057
65.08
184.
Gazipur
3862
66.01
99.
101.
103.
105.
107.
109.
111.
113.
115.
117.
119.
121.
123.
125.
127.
159.
161.
163
165.
167.
169.
171.
173.
175.
177.
179.
181.
183.
Harrampur
Dudhma
Sahnaul
Baron
Amrauli
Barhsera
Songra
Ramgarh
Panjoopur
Hardaspur
Vijaigarh
Dehat
Rukhala
226
(Contd…)
(Contd. Table 6.3)
185.
187.
189.
191.
193.
195.
197.
199.
201.
203.
205.
207.
209.
211.
213.
215.
217.
219.
221.
223.
225.
227.
229.
231.
233.
235.
237.
239.
241.
243.
245.
247.
249.
251.
253.
255.
257.
259.
261.
263.
265.
267.
Bhaiyan
Kasimpur
Hasona
Jagmohanpur
Visara
Talib Nagar
Madak
Karas
MirpurDahora
Dinapur
Barauli
Alampur
Fatehpur
Nahra
Salpur
Sarsaul
Chharra
Rafatpur
Mahrawal
Somna
Mandpur
Harnot
Bhojpur
Malav
Rajmau
Keshopur
Gadrana
Nahal
Bamnoi
Virpura
Hastpur
Chandfari
Datavali
Lodha
Kazimabad
Tochhigarh
Hardoi
Palimukimpur
BarauliKhas
Kalua
Kwarasi
JirauliDhoom
Singh
Panaithi
Pisava
Gangiri
Bijauli
Tappal
NaglaSabal
UrfGonda
3567
1925
2821
66.89
67.04
68.38
186.
188.
190.
Chhalesar
Shah Garh
Syaraul
3212
4568
3988
66.99
67.18
68.38
4249
7590
2424
6430
3466
1873
2091
3025
69.25
71.6
72.58
73.55
74.94
77.5
77.6
78.97
192.
194.
196.
198.
200.
202.
204.
206.
Bhanauli
AsadpurKayam
Umari
NaglaDarvar
Jaidpura
Satha
Pairai
Gopi
1891
3088
4392
3588
2252
5053
1836
6007
70.33
71.61
73.14
73.69
75.08
77.5
77.79
79.38
1294
6135
4789
2593
80.91
82.07
82.79
83.4
208.
210.
212.
214.
KasbaKol
NaglaJujhar
Khandeha
Dhatauli
6631
3293
4724
7214
81.62
82.36
82.83
85.47
3957
1835
1226
3467
88.47
90.05
91.56
96.98
216.
218.
220.
222.
Sathini
Baina
NaglaPadam
Chaudhana
11285
4445
6291
1570
89.79
91.55
92.53
99.53
5441
3844
5918
100.06
100.48
104.22
224.
226.
228.
Tevathu
Dhansari
NaraunaAkapur
1702
6464
1994
100.32
104.16
109.9
3352
2844
2970
3341
113.72
122.21
124.24
127.64
230.
232.
234.
236.
3078
5005
5456
6015
119.53
123.19
125.76
129.05
5478
130.49
238.
2408
130.6
3386
4952
7166
4814
3429
7401
3599
8219
2202
132.39
135.4
155.39
168.84
172.36
182.47
200.48
205.06
215.51
240.
242.
244.
246.
248.
250.
252.
254.
256.
Palsera
Shivala
ChheratSudhal
Harduaganj
Dehat
Raipur
Munzapta
Gorai
Godha
Barla
Dhanipur
Sankra
Gomat
Burhasi
NaglaBirkhu
Madrak
7644
3926
11805
11000
4713
7308
5863
1829
7046
134.4
141.41
157.93
171.81
173.54
186.41
201.65
205.83
221.03
1383
9651
4661
7160
13474
7730
225.37
236.45
258.71
290.27
377.44
447.34
258.
260.
262.
264.
266.
268.
3669
11202
4625
4908
9444
5907
230.57
251.98
275.04
318.68
381.35
460.27
Andala
Dado
Gabhana
Akarabad
Chandaus
Jawan
Sikandpur
Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory)
227
4.99) + (3 X 3.73) + (1 X 1.30) = 53.57. Similarly centrality score of all the central
places were calculated in the same manner.
In the district, there are 1180 inhabited rural settlements and all are not
considered as the service centre or central place. There are certain criteria which have
been adopted for the identification of rural central places. They are, (i) it hold
permanent establishment, (ii) it has total population of 1,000 persons and more and
(iii) it should have more than five different functions. Based on these three criteria, a
rural settlement is termed as a central place. There are as many as 268 rural
settlements which have been identified as central places in the district. The list of
centrality score and population of rural settlements are given in table 6.3. On the basis
of centrality score, the central places have been classified into six hierarchic orders,
using the value of mean and standard deviation (table 6.4 and fig. 6.1). The class
interval is calculated on the basis of mean value (69.57) and the value of standard
deviation (68.89) of total centrality score of all central places (i.e. 268) in the district.
Mean value has been taken as lower limit below which all the settlements fall in first
order hierarchy and value of standard deviation is added at each hierarchic order. It is
observed from the table 6.4 that the number of central places decreases as the
centrality score increases at each hierarchic level where as mean spacing increases at
each level of hierarchy.
6.3.1 First Order Central Places
A perusal of table 6.4 reveals that 191 rural central places with centrality score
of less than 69.57 lie in the first order hierarchy. In this hierarchy, lowest centrality
score has been observed by village Hetalpur located in Tappal block with 16.95
centrality score (Table 6.3). Mean spacing of the central places of this hierarchy is
4.65 km (Table 6.4). The block headquarter of Lodha block located at Hardaspur with
228
centrality score of 62.82 lies in this hierarchic order.
6.3.2 Second Order Central Places
There are 50 rural settlements with the centrality score ranging from 69.57 to
138.46 comes under second hierarchical order of central places (table 6.4). Out of the
total central places, nearly 19 percent central places are found in this hierarchy. They
are located at the mean spacing of 9.09 km.
Table 6.4 Aligarh District: Hierarchy of Rural Central Places
(2001)
Hierarchic
Order
First order
Second order
Third order
Fourth order
Fifth order
Sixth order
Total
Class Interval
of Centrality
Score
Below 69.57
69.57-138.46
138.46-207.35
207.35-276.24
276.24-345.13
Above 345.13
--
Number
Settlements
Percent
191
50
13
8
2
4
268
71.27
18.66
4.85
2.99
0.75
1.49
100
Mean Spacing
(km.)
4.65
9.09
17.83
22.73
45.46
32.14
-
Source: Computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory)
6.3.3 Third Order Central Places
At this hierarchical order, 13 central places have been identified with the
centrality score ranging from 138.46 to 207.35. Out of the 13 central places, one
central place i.e. Dhanipur located in Dhanipur block is a block headquarter with
centrality score of 171.81. Third order central places are located at the mean spacing
of 17.83 km.
6.3.4 Fourth Order Central Places
With the centrality score ranging from 207.35 to 276.24, 8 central places have
been identified in the fourth order central places. They are Jirauli Dhoom Singh
(Atrauli block), Madrak (Lodha block), Panaithi (Dhanipur block), Andala (Khair
block), Pisava (Chandaus block), Dado (Bijauli block), Gangiri (Gangiri block), and
Gabhana (Chandaus block). Fourth order central places provide higher order facilities.
229
Aligarh District
N
Hierarchy of Rural Central Places
2001
#
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
S
#
#
S
#
S
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
#
Y
#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Y
#
#
#
S
#
S
"8
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
#
S
Y
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
·
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
S
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
"8
#
#
S
#
S
#
"8
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
"8
#
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
5
0
5
KM
Fig. 6.1
230
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
#
#
First order
S
#
Second order
"8
Third order
Y Fourth order
#
·# Fifth order
# Sixth order
Urban Centers
#
·
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
"8
#
"8
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
"8
#
#
#
#
#
Rural Central Places
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
#
"8
#
#
S
#
#
S
##
S
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
S
#
#
S
#
#
S
"8
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
"8
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
#
#
#
#
S
"8
#
#
#
#
#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
#
#
10
15
These central places are located at the mean spacing of 22.73 km.
6.3.5 Fifth Order Central Places
There are only two central places i.e. Bijauli and Akrabad having centrality
score of 290.27 and 318.68 respectively has been found in this hierarchic level. Both
of the central places plays the role of block headquarter. They provide higher order
facilities namely health centre, telegraph office, co-operative commercial bank, and
repairing centre of agricultural equipment. These central places show the mean
spacing of 45.46 km.
6.3.6 Sixth Order Central Places
Central places having centrality score of more than 345.13 comes under
highest order of hierarchy. Four central places as block headquarter (Tappal,
Chandaus, Nagla Sabal Urf Gonda, and Jawan Sikanderpur) has been found in this
hierarchy. They have the mean spacing of 32.14 km. They provide both lower order
as well as higher order facilities to the surrounding population
Table 6.5 shows the blockwise hierarchic order of rural central places.
Maximum number of first order central place has been found in Atrauli block whereas
minimum number of first order central place has been recorded in Jawan Sikanderpur
and Iglas block. Third order central places are not found in the blocks namely Tappal,
Chandaus, Lodha, Atrauli and Akrabad. Only two blocks i.e. Bijauli and Akrabad has
been found in the fifth order hierarchy having higher order facilities. Higher order
hierarchy (sixth order) has been recorded in Tappal, Chandaus, Jawan Sikanderpur,
and Gonda block having one central place in each.
6.4 Relationship between Population and Centrality Score of Central Places
To test the hypothesis that centrality score of central places is directly
231
Table 6.5 Aligarh District: Blockwise Hierarchic Order of Rural Central Places
(2001)
S.No
Block
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tappal
Khair
Chandaus
Lodha
Jawan
Atrauli
Bijauli
Gangiri
Dhanipur
Akrabad
Gonda
Iglas
Total
Total
Inhabited
rural
Settlement
87
96
92
133
108
110
85
99
98
86
83
103
1180
Hierarchic order of rural settlements
First
order Second order Third order Fourth order Fifth
order Sixth order >
<69.57
69.57-138.46
138.46-207.35 207.35-276.24 274.24-345.13 345.13
14
22
16
11
10
29
11
25
16
16
11
10
191
7
4
5
5
3
4
4
6
3
2
4
3
50
Source: computed from Census of India 2001(Village Directory)
232
0
1
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
1
1
13
0
1
2
3
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
correlated to its population, Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation has been used.
Taking centrality score as independent variable (X) and population of central places
as dependent variable (Y), causal relationship has been calculated for 268 rural central
places in the district. The analysis reveals that both the variables are positively
correlated with r value 0.541 which is significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, it may be
concluded that the central places having high population show high centrality score
and vice-versa. The computed equation, y = 0.017 x + 9.105 gives the best fit
regression line to determine the linear relationship between population and centrality
score of the central places (fig. 6.2).
ALIGARH DISTRICT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULATION AND
CENTRALITY SCORE
CENTRALITY SCORE
(2001)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
y = 0.0175x + 9.1056
0
5000
10000
POPULATION
Fig. 6.2
233
15000