UN: Bangladesh urban population will overtake rural population by 2030

[Black_cats]

UN: Bangladesh urban population will overtake rural population by 2030
Tribune Desk

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangla...lation-will-overtake-rural-population-by-2030

• Published at 11:31 pm May 17th, 2018

By 2030, Dhaka’s population growth estimates the number of inhabitants to double

A study published by the United Nations’ Population Division estimates more than half the world will be living in urban areas by 2050. And by 2030, the Bangladesh population shifting towards urban from rural areas will become evident.

More people will leave rural areas for urban areas for reasons including, but not limited to job prospects and access to utility services. The existing urban areas will become even more concentrated, towns will become cities, and cities will become megacities.

The report, titled “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision” predicts the Bangladesh population distribution to lean more towards urban areas than rural areas to accommodate the increasing population.

As such, other cities and urban centres of population will also boom. Chattogram is expected to grow into Bangladesh’s next megacity with a population of between 5-10 million people by 2030.

By 2030, Dhaka’s population growth estimates the number of inhabitants to double.

Other major industrial cities like Narayanganj, Gazipur, Sylhet, Rajshahi could also see major growth in their population, followed by various other urban centres which will grow in prominence as the double-edged swords of urbanization and industrialization alters internal migration patterns.

Although China currently is the most populated country, it will be overtaken by India in 10 years. Delhi will also overtake Tokyo as the most populated city around the same time.

Although the study does not caution that widespread urbanization will be the future, it stops short of it. More and more population centres will develop into urban areas in order to provide better civic amenities to people.

Experts believe it will have a remarkable positive impact in cities having to figure out how to be sustainable for vast growing populations.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangla...lation-will-overtake-rural-population-by-2030

UN: Bangladesh urban population will overtake rural population by 2030
Tribune Desk

• Published at 11:31 pm May 17th, 2018

By 2030, Dhaka’s population growth estimates the number of inhabitants to double

A study published by the United Nations’ Population Division estimates more than half the world will be living in urban areas by 2050. And by 2030, the Bangladesh population shifting towards urban from rural areas will become evident.

More people will leave rural areas for urban areas for reasons including, but not limited to job prospects and access to utility services. The existing urban areas will become even more concentrated, towns will become cities, and cities will become megacities.

The report, titled “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision” predicts the Bangladesh population distribution to lean more towards urban areas than rural areas to accommodate the increasing population.

As such, other cities and urban centres of population will also boom. Chattogram is expected to grow into Bangladesh’s next megacity with a population of between 5-10 million people by 2030.

By 2030, Dhaka’s population growth estimates the number of inhabitants to double.

Other major industrial cities like Narayanganj, Gazipur, Sylhet, Rajshahi could also see major growth in their population, followed by various other urban centres which will grow in prominence as the double-edged swords of urbanization and industrialization alters internal migration patterns.

Although China currently is the most populated country, it will be overtaken by India in 10 years. Delhi will also overtake Tokyo as the most populated city around the same time.

Although the study does not caution that widespread urbanization will be the future, it stops short of it. More and more population centres will develop into urban areas in order to provide better civic amenities to people.

Experts believe it will have a remarkable positive impact in cities having to figure out how to be sustainable for vast growing populations.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

In 1960, only 5 percent people lived in urban areas. Now it has risen to more than 35 percent. Bangladesh was much more rural compared to regional countries.Now it has closed the gap very well.

View attachment 475143

 

[Nilgiri]

In 1960, only 5 percent people lived in urban areas. Now it has risen to more than 35 percent. Bangladesh was much more rural compared to regional countries.Now it has closed the gap very well.

View attachment 475143

The fact Sri Lanka has 18 % urbanised rate and is pretty much infinitely more developed than you lot...should tell you something about the standards regarding "urbanisation" that varies between countries in the first place (and I have brought up differing standards between countries, even in the region, in both definition and quality many times much to your chagrin and desperation to project they are all identical).

Who's to know if Bangladesh counts a 5000 population swamp village as "urban"...because it stopped being a 1,000-ish level one?...and the rest of the region doesn't?....and Sri Lanka conversely is quite strict at what level it counts as urban?

@Gibbs @Godman @Saradiel

 

[Nike]

Its a surprise given how sparse land in South Asian region compared to total population but the rate of urbanization is unexpectedly low. Much of aspac countries (China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam) is trying to provide jobs and Security toward its people by urbanization programme and giving license to forming farms estates toward a few companies who is better at managerial level, logistic issue and infrastructure resources to secure enough foods production and commodities exports.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

 

[Godman]

The fact Sri Lanka has 18 % urbanised rate and is pretty much infinitely more developed than you lot...should tell you something about the standards regarding "urbanisation" that varies between countries in the first place (and I have brought up differing standards between countries, even in the region, in both definition and quality many times much to your chagrin and desperation to project they are all identical).

Who's to know if Bangladesh counts a 5000 population swamp village as "urban"...because it stopped being a 1,000-ish level one?...and the rest of the region doesn't?....and Sri Lanka conversely is quite strict at what level it counts as urban?

@Gibbs @Godman @Saradiel

Sri Lanka is strict with what it calls urban and then there is also this

• As elsewhere in South Asia, Sri Lanka’s cities appear unattractive to potential migrants from rural areas. However, unlike the rest of the region, in Sri Lanka this is not so much because of poor urban living conditions as because of the country’s impressive progress in achieving spatial equity between rural and urban areas in the provision of basic public services and living standards. As a result, the impetus for “push” migration – rural residents moving to a city more out of distress than, say, for higher wages – is generally weaker in Sri Lanka than it is for other countries in the region, which may help explain the stability of the country’s urban share.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/brief/leveraging-urbanization-sri-lanka

So moving to the city is not always necessary as relatively rural areas has all the basic necessities.
Even then Sri Lanka has many issues related to urbanization that needs to solved. GoSL has invested a lot in social housing for slum dwellers and the vast majority has been relocated to commie block-like complexes.

Transportation is probably the next biggest issue than needs to be solved in SL as public transport is behind even other developing countries

Its hard to say how fast urbanization will affect BD. Large scale migrations to urban areas could end up creating more problems than it solves if there are no policies to deal with them.

 

[Gibbs]

Yes as @Godman mentioned there are few factors that contribute to Sri Lanka's urbanization.. Or the lack of large migrations seen from rural to urban areas's like it's neighbors in the sub continent

Mainly because the wealth gap between the urban and rural populace is not as wide as seen in other developing nations in the region

It's not a large land mass, Hence it's not that difficult for the rural population to travel to and from rural and urban area's

Sri Lanka is still very much a agrarian society, Hence populations are widespread

Basic necessities such as Health and Educational institutions of relative good standards are spread throughout the island and access to those are free to all, Since Universal health care and education (Even tertiary) are free for every Lankan citizen

Since the early 80's successive govts have made it a point to take industries to the villages and towns throughout the island creating FTZ's and Industrial parks etc.., Thus creating service and manufacturing jobs for residents in their own are's of habitation, Without the necessity to migrate to cities

These are a few main reasons why you dont see massive migrations to urban are's by the population in Sri Lanka

And ofcause a manageable population

and Sri Lanka conversely is quite strict at what level it counts as urban?

Yes, They use a clear distinction on consensus

 

[TopCat]

Yes as @Godman mentioned there are few factors that contribute to Sri Lanka's urbanization.. Or the lack of large migrations seen from rural to urban areas's like it's neighbors in the sub continent

Mainly because the wealth gap between the urban and rural populace is not as wide as seen in other developing nations in the region

It's not a large land mass, Hence it's not that difficult for the rural population to travel to and from rural and urban area's

Sri Lanka is still very much a agrarian society, Hence populations are widespread

Basic necessities such as Health and Educational institutions of relative good standards are spread throughout the island and access to those are free to all, Since Universal health care and education (Even tertiary) are free for every Lankan citizen

Since the early 80's successive govts have made it a point to take industries to the villages and towns throughout the island creating FTZ's and Industrial parks etc.., Thus creating service and manufacturing jobs for residents in their own are's of habitation, Without the necessity to migrate to cities

These are a few main reasons why you dont see massive migrations to urban are's by the population in Sri Lanka

And ofcause a manageable population



Yes, They use a clear distinction on consensus

Urbanization does not mean coming to the megacity but to the urban centers to avail the utility and municipal services. The only way to provide those services is through urbanisation. The more urban means more developed the population is. If your urbanization rate is low that means your people are not living in those FTZs and industrial parks rather living in the remote villages or up in the mountains.

 

[UKBengali]

The fact Sri Lanka has 18 % urbanised rate and is pretty much infinitely more developed than you lot...should tell you something about the standards regarding "urbanisation" that varies between countries in the first place (and I have brought up differing standards between countries, even in the region, in both definition and quality many times much to your chagrin and desperation to project they are all identical).

Who's to know if Bangladesh counts a 5000 population swamp village as "urban"...because it stopped being a 1,000-ish level one?...and the rest of the region doesn't?....and Sri Lanka conversely is quite strict at what level it counts as urban?

@Gibbs @Godman @Saradiel

Are you retard or butt-hurt or both?

Dhaka contains 11% of BD population, Chittagong 3%, Comilla over 1% and Khulna nearly 1%.
Just these 4 cities make up 16% of BD population.

The increase in the rate of urbanisation is a good indicator of economic development.

 

[Gibbs]

Urbanization does not mean coming to the megacity but to the urban centers to avail the utility and municipal services. The only way to provide those services is through urbanisation. The more urban means more developed the population is. If your urbanization rate is low that means your people are not living in those FTZs and industrial parks rather living in the remote villages or up in the mountains.

Nope it means industrialization and services are widespread, And not concentrated in cities,

Take a look at this report from the World bank which highlights the less urbanization numbers in Sri Lanka than making generic statements..

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/brief/leveraging-urbanization-sri-lanka

Here are some key findings for Sri Lanka made in the report:

• As elsewhere in South Asia, Sri Lanka’s cities appear unattractive to potential migrants from rural areas. However, unlike the rest of the region, in Sri Lanka this is not so much because of poor urban living conditions as because of the country’s impressive progress in achieving spatial equity between rural and urban areas in the provision of basic public services and living standards. As a result, the impetus for “push” migration – rural residents moving to a city more out of distress than, say, for higher wages – is generally weaker in Sri Lanka than it is for other countries in the region, which may help explain the stability of the country’s urban share.

• Sri Lanka’s “messy” urbanization is reflected in patterns of sprawl and ribbon development with evidence of rapid growth on the periphery of, in particular, the Colombo metropolitan region and along major transport arteries. This differs from most of the rest of South Asia where messy urbanization is also associated with large slum populations and a high incidence of extreme urban poverty. The share of Sri Lanka’s urban population living below the national poverty line in 2012 was only 2.1 percent, while the share of the urban population living in slums is among the lowest in the region.

• Sri Lanka was the country in the region with the fastest expansion of urban area, as measured using nighttime lights data, relative to urban population, with a ratio of more than seven. While the country’s total urban area grew at a rate close to that for the region overall, its urban population growth rate was much slower than for the region overall. The rapid expansion of urban area relative to urban population reflects the sprawl and ribbon development that are characteristic of Sri Lanka’s urban development.

• Beyond differing definitions of “urban,” complicating cross-country comparisons is the fact that definitions of “urban” within a country can change over time. For example, in 1987 Sri Lanka tightened its definition by reclassifying town councils as rural areas (pradeshiya sabha). This contributed to a fall in the country’s official urban share to fall from 21.5 percent in the 1981 census to 14.6 percent in 2001.

@Nilgiri @Godman

 

[TopCat]

Nope it means industrialization and services are widespread, And not concentrated in cities,

Take a look at this report from the World bank which highlights the less urbanization numbers in Sri Lanka than making generic statements..

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/brief/leveraging-urbanization-sri-lanka

Here are some key findings for Sri Lanka made in the report:

• As elsewhere in South Asia, Sri Lanka’s cities appear unattractive to potential migrants from rural areas. However, unlike the rest of the region, in Sri Lanka this is not so much because of poor urban living conditions as because of the country’s impressive progress in achieving spatial equity between rural and urban areas in the provision of basic public services and living standards. As a result, the impetus for “push” migration – rural residents moving to a city more out of distress than, say, for higher wages – is generally weaker in Sri Lanka than it is for other countries in the region, which may help explain the stability of the country’s urban share.

• Sri Lanka’s “messy” urbanization is reflected in patterns of sprawl and ribbon development with evidence of rapid growth on the periphery of, in particular, the Colombo metropolitan region and along major transport arteries. This differs from most of the rest of South Asia where messy urbanization is also associated with large slum populations and a high incidence of extreme urban poverty. The share of Sri Lanka’s urban population living below the national poverty line in 2012 was only 2.1 percent, while the share of the urban population living in slums is among the lowest in the region.

• Sri Lanka was the country in the region with the fastest expansion of urban area, as measured using nighttime lights data, relative to urban population, with a ratio of more than seven. While the country’s total urban area grew at a rate close to that for the region overall, its urban population growth rate was much slower than for the region overall. The rapid expansion of urban area relative to urban population reflects the sprawl and ribbon development that are characteristic of Sri Lanka’s urban development.

• Beyond differing definitions of “urban,” complicating cross-country comparisons is the fact that definitions of “urban” within a country can change over time. For example, in 1987 Sri Lanka tightened its definition by reclassifying town councils as rural areas (pradeshiya sabha). This contributed to a fall in the country’s official urban share to fall from 21.5 percent in the 1981 census to 14.6 percent in 2001.

@Nilgiri @Godman

What is your current urban population?
Definition of urban does not mean electrified area but under municipality where you have some sort of planned services like running water centralised waste management etc available. We call them municipal area or urban areas.

 

[Gibbs]

What is your current urban population?
Definition of urban does not mean electrified area but under municipality where you have some sort of planned services like running water centralised waste management etc available. We call them municipal area or urban areas.

Do you even read the thread or posts what ever pops in to your head ? The OP himself have posted the urban population of the 4 South Asian nations

As the WB and many other multi lateral agencies have pointed out Sri Lanka has very strict criteria for what it considers Urban or rural, It does not consider every little township with a streetlight and a lavatory as urban.. Dont know about Bangladesh but that certainly doesn't happen in Sri Lanka

Infact even what other countries consider towns are classified as rural area's.. So what you call municipal area's in Bangladesh are not considered as such in Sri Lanka with good reason

Beyond differing definitions of “urban,” complicating cross-country comparisons is the fact that definitions of “urban” within a country can change over time. For example, in 1987 Sri Lanka tightened its definition by reclassifying town councils as rural areas (pradeshiya sabha). This contributed to a fall in the country’s official urban share to fall from 21.5 percent in the 1981 census to 14.6 percent in 2001.

 

[TopCat]

Do you even read the thread or posts what ever pops in to your head ? The OP himself have posted the urban population of the 4 South Asian nations

As the WB and many other multi lateral agencies have pointed out Sri Lanka has very strict criteria for what it considers Urban or rural, It does not consider every little township with a streetlight and a lavatory as urban.. Dont know about Bangladesh but that certainly doesn't happen in Sri Lanka

Infact even what other countries consider towns are classified as rural area's.. So what you call municipal area's in Bangladesh are not considered as such in Sri Lanka with good reason

Ya whatever

 

[Species]

Do you even read the thread or posts what ever pops in to your head ? The OP himself have posted the urban population of the 4 South Asian nations

As the WB and many other multi lateral agencies have pointed out Sri Lanka has very strict criteria for what it considers Urban or rural, It does not consider every little township with a streetlight and a lavatory as urban.. Dont know about Bangladesh but that certainly doesn't happen in Sri Lanka

Infact even what other countries consider towns are classified as rural area's.. So what you call municipal area's in Bangladesh are not considered as such in Sri Lanka with good reason

Well, you can't really blame it on the difference of definitions without comparing the actual definitions. Personally, I don't think definition is an issue here, considering the history of administrative origin of South Asia is more or less the same i.e. British rule, the definitions ought to be more or less similar.

@Godman's post to determine the reason behind Sri Lanka's low rate of urbanisation seems to be more convincing than yours. Good living conditions in the rural areas make the Sri Lankans to stay at villages than migrating to cities.

Even in Bangladesh's case, our urbanisation rate seems to be lower than expected, considering how densely populated we are, in comparison with India and Pakistan. That's perhaps, because the living standard in the rural areas of Bangladesh is higher than that in India and Pakistan. (Consider the sanitation rate for example)

 

[Gibbs]

Well, you can't really blame it on the difference of definitions without comparing the actual definitions. Personally, I don't think definition is an issue here, considering the history of administrative origin of South Asia is more or less the same i.e. British rule, the definitions ought to be more or less similar.

@Godman's post to determine the reason behind Sri Lanka's low rate of urbanisation seems to be more convincing than yours. Good living conditions in the rural areas make the Sri Lankans to stay at villages than migrating to cities.

Even in Bangladesh's case, our urbanisation rate seems to be lower than expected, considering how densely populated we are, in comparison with India and Pakistan. That's perhaps, because the living standard in the rural areas of Bangladesh is higher than that in India and Pakistan. (Consider the sanitation rate for example)

@Godman 's definition and reasons given by me are from the same study done by the World bank, He just highlighted one aspect, I just highlighted other facts mentioned in that study.. And refer to my first post where i do mention the relative lesser gap of standard of living of rural and urban populations of the island compared to to it's neighborhood

Also Sri Lankan redefined it's classifications of long after post independence so colonial administrative origins doesn't apply, Certainly not in it's robust consensus

Pls refer to this article posted by @Godman

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/brief/leveraging-urbanization-sri-lanka