10 visualizações

Enviado por Maira Khan

- Simple Regression With SPSS
- Assignment 1 Masih
- STAT 125-HK. Business Statistics Midterm Exam
- uestion 1.docx
- statistical evaluation of the linearity in assay validation
- Time Series Analysis
- Paper-1 Published IJTRD3877
- Anjini Kochar - Smoothing Consumption by Smoothing Income
- Desmos User Guide
- Assessing Experimental Uncertainty - Supplement
- Assessing CorFinance and accounting Corporate social responsibility and financial performanceporate Social Performance From a Contingency
- Eviews Tutorial
- Confidence Interval
- Wood, Russell, Macgill, _ Summers 2014.pdf
- Forecasting FX Rates
- Kelly 2006
- Gpaand Sat
- Analisi Regresi Linear
- Output Project 2
- Out Put Head Way

Você está na página 1de 7

2, 107-113, 2010

ISSN: 1814-8085

Shaheen Abbas and Muhammad Rashid Kamal Ansari Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science & Technology, Karachi Abstract The paper discusses the process of urbanization of Karachi considering population as a parameter. In the process of conversion from a little village to a mega-polis the city of Karachi has undergone abrupt increase in population in different eras ranging from 18th to 21st century. Since the factors influencing the population growth during the period ranging from 1729 to 2008 are different in various eras the whole range cannot follow a single pattern. In this study we intend to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of the population growth of Karachi (PGK) in different eras and in this context causes of variations in PGK in different eras are set. We have constructed Linear regression model (LRM), Saturated growth rate model(SGRM ) and Exponential growth rate model(EGRM) for PGK in different eras. Using these models the best fitted model for each era is ascertained. The information obtained from such analyses can be further employed to vary possible parameters and variables in the system to achieve an optimal performance. Keywords: Urbanization, Population Growth, Karachi 1. INTRODUCTION The term urbanization can be explained in a variety of ways. However, an ultimate consequence of urbanization appears as an increase in population. This includes urban growth, sprawl and expansion. Urbanization is a burning global scale issue of modern times irrespective of cultures, economies, and sizes of the cities. It has been estimated that the half of the world population is now living in urban areas. In developing countries the rate of urbanization is very rapid. It is now one of the dominant factors causing changes in the spatial distribution of world population. An ultimate consequence of urbanization is an increase in population. It occurs due to various factors including natural increase, migration and re-classification of rural areas, fringes and cantonments as urban or the annexation of these to some urban area. There may be many reasons for the population explosion but the declining land productivity, rising expectations for higher wages, and a search for better living conditions are the prominent motivations for migration from less developed areas towards developed areas. We consider population as the main parameter to study urbanization. In case of Pakistan census records show that the rate of urban population increase has risen from 17.7 percent in 1951 to 32.5 percent in 1998. Karachi, the most populated city of Pakistan has sufficient worth to be considered as a case study because of two reasons. Firstly, large spatial expansion and enormous increase in population in a short span of time, secondly, the bizarre appearance of Katchi Abadies (temporary settlements) and their amalgamation in the urban areas. In view of the past records one can easily observe that from 1729 to 2008 the population of the city of Karachi has undergone different stages, some Corresponding author: E-mail: mathscfuuast@yahoo.com regular and peacefully stagnant and some irregular and hasty. Also, in different eras the reason and rate of increase in population has been sufficiently different. The situation tempts to model the population in each era differently. The first available census data of Karachi is that of 1846 however, various archives, gazetteers and references provide the population data of Karachi as early as from 1729 [B. Maneck and Pithawala (1976), H.J. Rustomji and S.Behram(1951)] The first census after independence (in 1947) was in March 1951 in the background of flooding refugees from all over the Indian border. We consider the census data from 1951 to 2008 as regular and the remaining as irregular. So we will work on two data sets, one, from 1729 to 1947 and the other from 1951 to 2008. In section 2 we will apply LRM, SGRM and EGRM on these two data sets and will determine the most appropriate one in each case. Section 3 concludes the study. 2. LRM, EGRM, SGM MODELS This section deals with the modeling aspects of our study. Now we come to our models for our study of the PGK. As mentioned earlier we have divided the PGK data in two sets, from 1729 to 1947 and from 1951 to 2008. The former data being irregular while the later being regular. The construction and detail of LRM, EGRM and SGRM is given below. 2.1 Linear Regression Model (LRM) The model is described by the equation Pn a0 + b0 Yn (1.1)

108

J. basic appl. sci. above the models prediction. Negative intercepts and positive gradients in the residual plots are due to the presence of three outliers. Population versus year scatter plots (Fig. 1.1 and 1.3) confirm that the years 1798, 1872, 1947 and1960 are responsible for the haphazard increase. Finally, the residuals are not normally distributed. So we do not consider this model satisfactory. Tables. 1.1 and 1.2 depict results obtained from the mentioned tests. The high values of the residuals also confirm the inadequacy of the linear model. 2.2 Saturation Growth-Rate Model (SGRM) SGRM model is represented by the equation Yn =

The parameters a0, b0 are the slope/gradient and intercept respectively. a0, b0 represents the growth rate of the population per year. Pn is yearly population and Yn represents the year under consideration. A plot of Y versus P is given in (Figs. 1.1 and 1.3) corresponding to the intervals (1729-1947) and (19512008). Both these plots appear to be fluctuated straight lines. These fluctuations represent sudden changes in population. The first one observed between 1837 to1855 and1872 to1881 [Karachi Handbook and Directory(1934) and Karachi Municipal Commission Report]. This was because of the development of a port, Karachi became the nearest port of the British India from Europe after the completion of the Suez Canal and railway track was opened between Karachi and Kotri causing a nonlinear increase in population. The first census in the subcontinent took place providing the first reliable population data. The other prominent changes can be observed in 1947 at the time of independence and in 1960 when the capital shifted from Karachi to Islamabad following a subsequent shift of many offices and employees.However, these changes show a marked linear trend in general. In this perspective we can use the model equation (1.1) to make linear estimates. The error term is computed with the help of the following equation en = Pn a0 b0 Yn (1.2)

a 0 Pn (b0 + Pn )

(1.5)

where Yn and Pn are the year and population respectively, a0 and b0 are the parameters. (Fig. 1.5 and 1.7) represent the plot of Y versus P for the intervals (1729-1947) and (1951-2008). The computed values of the parameters a0 and b0 come out to be 4.47709 and 0.003438 for the interval (17291947). The SGRM equation in this case appears as Yn =

For the data from 1729 to1947 the computed values of a0 and b0 come out to be 1.9894 and 3596.93 respectively. Table 1.1 illustrate the Least square(LS) solution of LRM equation Pn = 1.9894 3596.93 Yn (1.3)

4.47709 Pn 0.003438 + Pn

(1.6)

Similarly for the interval (1951-2008) the computed values of a0 and b0 come out to be 2.3989 and 40.905 respectively and the SGRM equation appears as Yn =

Similarly for the data from 1951 to 2008 the computed values of a0 and b0 come out to be 0.3259 and 640.475 respectively. Table 1.2 illustrate the LS solution of the following LRM equation Pn = 0.3259 640.475 Yn (1.4)

2.3989 Pn 40.905 + Pn

(1.7)

The correlation r and standard error S corresponding to equation 1.3 are 0.84566 and 49.971 respectively whereas, corresponding to equation 1.4 these values are 0.9765 and 0.16543. These values indicate a uncertainty correlation. For the interval (1729-1947) the residual plot (Fig.1.2) exhibits numbers of run which shows a disturbing pattern. For the interval (1951-2008) residual plot (Fig.1.4) exhibits numbers of runs which show a less disturbing pattern. The residual plot graphically depicts the difference between the data points and the model evaluated at the data points. A larger number of runs indicate that the data systematically deviates from the curve. The residual is positive, and the data points are

Standard error (S) and correlation coefficient (r) for equation 1.6 are respectively. 0.3123 and 0.97972. Whereas, corresponding to equation 1.7 these values are 0.14639 and 0.9798. This shows a disturbing pattern of both of the data sets. Tables. 1.3 to 1.4 gives an analysis for the model for the interval (1729-1947) the residual plot (Fig.1.6) exhibits numbers of run and for the interval (1951-2008) the residual plot (Fig. 1.8) exhibits numbers of run which represents a worse performance of the data set. The residual plot shows that the growth rate was faster than the predicted values by the model prior to 1729. It was slower than the predicted value in the interval (1729-1798). Again it was faster than the predicted value in the years 1872, 1947 and 1960. The residual plots indicate vagueness patterns for the data sets. For the Regression analysis tables also indicate the not adequacy of SGRM.

Abbas and Ansari Table 1.1. Regression Variable Results for LRM (1729-1947) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination(R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 -1.02 Average Residuals 60.681% F -Ratio 0.6061 Multiple Determination Adjusted(Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 0.441 1.547 826.09 - 4423.02 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 0.754 1.234 1411.11 - 5008.04 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 0.9191 1.070 1718.36 - 5315.29 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 1.275 0.7137 2384.9 - 5981.87 -2.453 21.18 0.5780

109

Upper Limit 2.207 - 2770.83 Upper Limit 3.529 - 2185.82 Upper Limit 2.908 - 1878.56 Upper Limit 3.265 - 1211.99

Table 1.2 Regression Variable Results for LRM (1951-2008) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination(R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 -1.286 Average Residuals 94.316% F -Ratio 0.94316 Multiple Determination Adjusted(Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 1.364 0.312 27.154 - 667.62 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 2.285 0.303 45.479 - 685.95 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 2.745 0.298 54.644 - 693.116 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 3.684 0.289 73.317 - 713.789 Pn = 0 e (1Yn) -3.475 580.84 0.9415 Upper Limit 0.339 - 613.317 Upper Limit 0.348 - 594.99 Upper Limit 0.353 - 585.827 Upper Limit 0.362 - 567.15 (1.8)

2.3 Exponential Growth Rate Model (EGRM) Now we come to the EGRM which assumes the relationship between year and population as an exponential function. This model is a non linear model and is described by the equation

Where 0, 1 are parameters, Pn is yearly population of the year Yn. (Fig. 1.9 and 1.11) show the population versus year plots of the forecast values for the intervals (1729-1947) and (1951-2008). The haphazard population

110

Table 1.3 Regression Variable Results for SGRM (1729-1947) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination(R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 - 3.298 Average Residuals 87.49% F -Ratio 0.87490 Multiple Determination Adjusted(Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 11.727 - 44.71 1.141 2.265 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 11.727 - 44.7 1.141 2.265 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 14.307 - 47.296 1.392 2.014 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 19.948 - 52.937 8.135 1.4650 - 2.061 45.473 0.8556 Upper Limit - 21.26 4.547 Upper Limit - 21.26 4.547 Upper Limit - 18.681 4.798 Upper Limit - 13.039 5.347

Table 1.4 Regression Variable Results for SGRM (1951-2008) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination(R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 -1.845 Average Residuals 94.12% F -Ratio 0.9412 Multiple Determination Adjusted(Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 27.611 628.65 54943.84 - 1344478 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 46.244 610.022 12023.31 - 1381557.69 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 55.56 600.702 110568.49 - 1400102.87 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 74.55 581.716 148350.55 - 1437884.94 -4.987 - 4.987 0.9393 Upper Limit 683.87 - 1117511.54 Upper Limit 702.512 - 1197511.07 Upper Limit 711.83 - 1178965.08 Upper Limit 730.818 - 1141183.82

growth in the ears 1798, 1837, 1846, 1872, 1891, 1947 and1960 is obvious from the overlap of the points and presence of fluctuations in the exponential plot. Tables. 1.5 to 1.6 gives the usual statistical analysis associated with the model.

The computed values of the parameters 0 and 1 come out to be 1.1874 and 0.02909 for the interval (1729-1947) and the EGRM equation appears to be Pn = 1.1874 e 0.02909 Yn (1.9)

Abbas and Ansari Table 1.5 Regression Variable Results for EGRM (1729-1947) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination (R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 -34.6121 Average Residuals 96.12% F -Ratio 0.9612 Multiple Determination Adjusted (Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 1.8656 -1.5342 2.8180 2.691 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 3.186 -2.844 4.817 0.0249 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 3.880 -3.538 5.861 2.387 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 5.836 -5.043 8.135 2.160 -2.1632 347.18 0.9584

111

Upper Limit 2.207 0.0325 Upper Limit 3.529 3.455 Upper Limit 4.222 3.559 Upper Limit 5.728 3.787

Table 1.6 Regression Variable Results for EGRM(1951-2008) Sum of Residuals Proportion of Variance Multiple Determination(R^2) Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 Variable 0 1 0.1596 Average Residuals 98.64% F -Ratio 0.9864 Multiple Determination Adjusted(Ra^2) 68% Confidence Intervals 68% (+/-) Lower Limit 2.7054 -1.2208 9.1194 0.0403 90% Confidence Intervals 90% (+/-) Lower Limit 4.5312 -3.0466 1.5274 3.9783 95% Confidence Intervals 95% (+/-) Lower Limit 5.443 -3.9595 1.8352 3.9478 99% Confidence Intervals 99% (+/-) Lower Limit 7.3048 -5.8201 2.4623 3.8842 4.313 2548.5 0.9860 Upper Limit 4.1902 4.2223 Upper Limit 6.0159 4.2838 Upper Limit 6.9292 4.3146 Upper Limit 8.7892 0.0437

Similarly, for the interval (1951-2008) the computed values of 0 and 1 come out to be 6.995 and 7.0186 respectively and the EGRM equation appears as Pn = 6.995e7.0186Yn (1.10)

Standard error (S) and correlation coefficient (r) for equation 1.9 are respectively 0.15114 and 0.98053 whereas; corresponding to equation 1.10 these values are 0.13986 and 0.98854 which indicate that the two sample data set are satisfactory. The standard error S is a bit high

112

LR M(1729-1947)

0 2 .4 30 2 2 .0 25 3 1 .6 20 5 1 .2 15 7 0 .8 10 5 8 0 .4 0 1729 1747 1765 1783 1801 1819 1837 1855 1873 1891 1909 1927 1945

4 4 .0 11

57

.02

0 .0

.02 -57

0 .1

4 4 .0 -11 172 9 1747 1765 1783 1801 1 819 1837 1 855 1873 18 91 1909 192 7 1945

Fig.1.1

LR M (1 951 -2 008 )

1 0 7 .1 .6 5

Fig.1.2

R e s id u a ls P lo t o f L R M ( 1 9 5 1 -2 0 0 8 )

3 .8

14 12

1 .9 .2 0 4 9 9 -1 . 4 8 1 9 51 8 -3 . 1951 0 .0

9 .7 7 .2 4 .8 2 .3

19 6 1

1 97 1

1 9 81

1 99 1

2 0 01

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

20

Fig.1.3

SG R M(1729-1947)

8 58 0 49 2 39 4 29 6 19 98 0 1729 1747 1765 1783 1801 1819 1837 1855 1873 1891 1909 1927 1945

Fig.1.4

Res idua ls P lot of SG R M (17 29-1 947)

47 .57

23

.7 9

n o i t a l u p o P

0 -0 .

.7 -23

.57 -47 1 7 29 1 74 7 17 6 5 1 7 83 1 80 1 18 1 9 1 8 3 7 1 8 55 1 87 3 18 9 1 1 9 0 9 1 9 27 1 94 5

Y EAR

Fig.1.5 for both the models, correlation coefficient (r) is better, and the forecasted values are fitting well except at the above mentioned four points viz. 1798, 1872, 1947 and 1960. For the interval (1729-1947) the residual plot (Fig.1.10) exhibits numbers of run which represents a disturbing pattern. For the interval (1951-2008) the residual plot (Fig.1.12) exhibits numbers of run. The residual plot shows that the actual growth was faster than that predicted by the model. These show a reasonably solution also indicates that the exponential model is most adequate. In view of the Explorer Data Analysis (EDA) it is found that (EGRM) is most adequate to predict the (PGRK).

Fig.1.6 3. CONCLUSION We have explored the quantitative aspects of the population growth rate of Karachi (PGRK) from 1729 to 2008 dividing the whole interval into two subintervals (1729-1947) and (1951-2008) having the view that the nature of data during these intervals is irregular and regular respectively. After performing the usual exploratory data analysis, the descriptive statistical analysis and the preliminary regression analysis we have modeled the population growth of Karachi (PGK) using (LRM), (SGRM) and (EGRM) models. Using each model we have studied the fluctuations in the data. These

113

SGRM(1951-2008)

16 .9 .5 15 14 12 11 .0 .6 .1

2 .3 2

1 .1

0 .0

1 -1 .

32 -2 . 1951

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

Fig.1.7

Fig.1.8

EG RM(1729-1947)

0 2 .4 30 2 2 .0 25 3 1 .6 20 5 1 .2 15 7 0 .8 10 .4 50 0 .1 8

44 .2 4

22

.1 2

0 .0

.12 -22

0 1729 1747 1765 1783 1801 1819 1837 1855 1873 1891 1909 1927 1945

.24 -44 1729 1747 1765 1783 1801 1819 1837 1855 1873 1891 1909 1927 1945

Fig.1.9

E G RM (1951-2008)

17 14 12 .1 0 .6 5

Fig.1.10

Residuals P lot of EG R M (1951-20 08)

2 .9 7

1 .4

n o i t a l u p o P

.2 0 4 9 4 8 1 95 1 4 -1 . 9 0 -0 . 0

9 .7 7 .2 4 .8 2 .3

19 61

1 97 1

19 81

1 9 91

2 00 1

97 -2 . 19 51 1 95 6 1 9 61 1 96 6 19 71 1 9 76 19 81 1 98 6 1 99 1 1 99 6 2 00 1 2 0 06

Fig.1.11 fluctuations are interpreted accordingly and possible reasons of these fluctuations are pointed out. In view of the error analysis it is found that (EGRM) is most adequate to predict (PGRK). REFERENCES Karachi Handbook and Directory. 1934. 1915-16,192124,1931-32.3: 29, 36, 67, 102.

Fig.1.12 Karachi Municipal Commission Report for the year 185556, 1856-57, 1857-58: 12, 18, 21, 24. Maneck B. and Pithawala. 1976. Introduction to Karachi. The Times Press, Karachi. Government of Pakistan Population Census Organization. 1998. Census Report of Pakistan 1951, 1961, 1972, 1981, 1998, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Rustomji H.J. and Behram S. 1951. Karachi 1839-1947. Indus Publication.

- Simple Regression With SPSSEnviado poryazid_mrsmbp2000
- Assignment 1 MasihEnviado porMas Kh
- STAT 125-HK. Business Statistics Midterm ExamEnviado porjuliagreen
- uestion 1.docxEnviado porJohn Elmer Loretizo
- statistical evaluation of the linearity in assay validationEnviado porBala
- Time Series AnalysisEnviado porrushdapearl
- Paper-1 Published IJTRD3877Enviado porVineet Chouhan
- Anjini Kochar - Smoothing Consumption by Smoothing IncomeEnviado pormpbh91
- Desmos User GuideEnviado porvarun
- Assessing Experimental Uncertainty - SupplementEnviado porSam Kasper
- Assessing CorFinance and accounting Corporate social responsibility and financial performanceporate Social Performance From a ContingencyEnviado porAlexandra Nenu
- Eviews TutorialEnviado porlifeblue2
- Confidence IntervalEnviado porfrankescuadro
- Wood, Russell, Macgill, _ Summers 2014.pdfEnviado poratjoeross
- Forecasting FX RatesEnviado porBer Nanke
- Kelly 2006Enviado porĐạt Nguyễn
- Gpaand SatEnviado porJason Xie
- Analisi Regresi LinearEnviado porniqi
- Output Project 2Enviado porAbhishek Rathod
- Out Put Head WayEnviado porErniNoraMardianaSiahaan
- Gdp DependentvarEnviado porvijay
- An Algorithm for Identifying Nonsystematic Delay-DEnviado porhsvm1989
- influence of leadership style on students performanceEnviado porHenry Micheal
- 10.1080@1941658X.2014.984880Enviado porAgus Kusnayat
- model in REnviado porsarvesh_mishra
- Durbin WatsonEnviado porHeru Budianto
- paper1Enviado poradhitya Julyan
- fhwasa10032 CRF.pdfEnviado porSafetyhusna Pangestika
- USNewsfEnviado porAkshay Mall
- bal fix.docEnviado porwinda wahyuni

- Probability Practice QuestionEnviado porNavin Rai
- Dobson F 2007 Gait Classification in Children With CP_a Systematic ReviewEnviado porDavid Sugiarto
- 2018 mbaschsyllEnviado porpradeep
- # Risk and Uncertainty (2009)Enviado porTAHER AMMAR
- Topic 1Enviado porYustian Al Fariz
- Thomas Et Al Distance SamplingEnviado porhugo256
- Stock Repurchases and Bank Holding Company PerformanceEnviado porblacksmithMG
- bstat2010Enviado porMohar Sen
- CIMMYTEnviado porLiliana Anailil Alfaro Martìnez
- Antioxidant Activities of Aquilaria MalacenssisEnviado porNicklaus Ho
- iso_16140_validation_by_afnor_on_tvc_tc_and_ec_adria-2.pdfEnviado porJuliet Romero
- introduction to spatial data analysisEnviado porapi-3773283
- Anomaly detection.pdfEnviado porKAmila
- Assignment 1 (Descriptive Analysis)Enviado porAnum Solehah
- Service QualityEnviado porarabianlight
- ch12Enviado porAnubha Shahi
- Effect Size WikipediaEnviado porrahacse
- researchmethodsinpsychology-120520232714-phpapp02Enviado porMuhammad Noor
- Risk TheoryEnviado porankitag612
- wp0704Enviado porp anupam
- Local VolatilityEnviado porClaudio Cuevas Pazos
- Journal.pone.0089482Enviado porMonica Lauretta Sembiring II
- Seeing Through Statistical StudiesEnviado porpkk7777
- Lecture 1 - Measurement UncertaintyEnviado porWong Mei Juan
- 1-s2.0-S0167865508002687-mainEnviado porRaja Muhammad Basharat
- Output Spss Prak 9Enviado porHeri Prasetio
- Spatial-Model-Approach-on-Deforestation-of-Java-Island.pdfEnviado porNini
- Calculation and Modelling of Radar Performance 9 Clutter Simulation TechniquesEnviado pormmhorii
- MB0024Enviado poryfisseha
- PROJECT 1 STA 108 baru.docxEnviado porwani