One Size Does Not Fit All

---

Nagpur and Shimla may both be Tier-I cities, but that label tells us little about their unique challenges. India’s cities vary vastly in size, climate, and function. So urban diversity can’t be captured by population alone, but that’s how cities are often categorised. Could a better system help craft smarter policies? Rethinking city classification might just be the key to unlocking more effective urban planning.

Source: Pixabay

In terms of population, Nagpur is almost 14 times the size of Shimla. Nagpur is known for oranges, and Shimla is known for apples. Shimla is a hill city, and Nagpur has a tropical climate. Yet both are municipal corporations and will be classified as Tier-1 cities as per definitions classifying 1 lakh and above as Tier-1. Why is that so?

Not all cities are equal. Cities have different structures, different demographic make-up, different competitive advantages, and different sizes. Yet, the salient features of these cities – a system of production, distribution and consumption; infrastructure for connecting people, resources and markets; and economies of scale they create – may be similar.

All cities provide a reason for people to be in that city, but the reasons are different.

To make meaningful policy decisions, then, it is important to classify these cities in a way that can allow for such varying reasons to be recognised as well as the ability of the government to provide for these reasons and needs. Having a logical classification of cities then can also help better design or modify policy to best suit the purposes and needs of a group of cities.

Why is it important to categorise places?

Source: GEO Facts

A system of classification provides a method for efficient communication, a set of definitions, and a system of relationships among these definitions (Atchley, 1967). Classification of urban centres through typologies meets multiple objectives under different contexts. Governments typically use such hierarchies or typologies to allocate resources, undertake planning and strategise regional development. 

Classifying helps recall the most common characteristics of the group. In the case of a city, a detailed classification could potentially help predict the characteristics of a city belonging to that group. It would also provide a unique nomenclature, making it easier to refer to a group of cities with common characteristics. 

Currently, in India, the classification used by the government mainly refers to a population-based classification, also known as a hierarchy classification. However, given the diversity in cities, some of the city’s characteristics, such as age, location, morphological (spatial configuration), and function, get left out when classifying cities on the basis of their population. 

Classification and categories are used to signal to the world that a particular place exhibits particular characteristics – so one might know what to expect from that place. A category might elicit an image of what a city might be, for example, a geographical categorisation as a coastal town, hill station, or landlocked city, or functional characteristics such as a tourist city or industrial centre. Yet, in policy terms, we tend to categorise cities as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III or X, Y, and Z cities.

It is important to look at a range of factors when trying to work out policies for a city or a group of cities. Making policy decisions based only on population is not likely to be efficient or effective. One potential way around this is to consider population as a super category.

Population helps get a sense of the magnitude of challenges and the administrative and political boundaries. Then compare various cities by age, location, morphological configuration and function in each population bracket. Using a mix of population and other characteristics could be an intermediate approach between cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all policies and individualised city-specific solutions.