However, settlement density may not be a sufficient criterion in many countries, particularly where there are large areas that are still characterized by a truly rural lifestyle. These countries will find it necessary to use additional criteria to develop classifications that are more pronounced than just urban rural differentiation. Some of the additional criteria that may be useful are the percentage of the labour force in agriculture, the general availability of electricity and/or tap water in residential premises, and easy access to medical care, schools and recreational facilities. For some countries where the above-mentioned facilities are available in certain still rural areas, agriculture being the main source of employment, it may be desirable to apply different criteria in different regions of the country. However, care must be taken not to complicate the definition used for census application and for users to understand the census results. However, an approach to the above could not stand up to the definition of “urbanization”, but as an “urban centre”. For example, the definition of “urbanization” with spatial planning differs from its definition in terms of environmental diseases and control. These also differ from the definition of the concept with structural economic changes and commercial manufacturing. All these definitions seem to illustrate the character of an “urban centre” with its functional diversification. Some of the information required for classification may come from the census results themselves, while other information may come from external sources.

The use of census information (such as location size class or percentage of population employed in agriculture), alone or in combination with information from other sources, means that classification will not be available until the corresponding census results are tabulated. However, if census designs provide for the study of a smaller number of subjects in rural areas than in urban areas or a greater use of samples in rural areas, the classification must be available before the census. In these cases, external sources of information should be used, if only to update an earlier urban-rural classification. Urbanization as a phenomenon should therefore be contextualized in terms of changes that further alter the nature and character of an institution over time. It should be defined historically, rather than being subject to instrumental definitions that could hardly hold the norm in other parts of the world. I think the definition of urban should include population density, size, complexity of the built environment and infrastructure. For census purposes, a place should be defined as a distinct population group (also known as an inhabited place, population centre, settlement, etc.) where residents live in neighbouring neighbourhoods and which has a locally recognized name or status. Thus, it includes fishing villages, mining camps, ranches, farms, towns, villages, towns, towns, and many other populations that meet the above criteria. Any deviations from this definition should be explained in the census report to assist in the interpretation of the data.

Determined by population size and density. Population size is used by more than half of the national definitions of urban and rural areas. The thresholds used in the degree of urbanisation are based on these national definitions. However, two thresholds are used instead of one. For cities, it uses 50,000 inhabitants like Japan. For cities and semi-dense areas, 5,000 are used. Of the 100 countries that use the population size threshold, 85 use the threshold of 5,000 or less. The thresholds used in the degree of urbanisation were also tested to ensure that they provide a valid and robust classification and balanced distribution of the population between the three classes. The traditional distinction between urban and rural areas within a country is based on the assumption that urban areas, whatever their definition, offer a different way of life and generally a higher standard of living than in rural areas. In many developed countries, this distinction is blurred and the main difference between urban and rural areas in terms of living conditions tends to be a question of the degree of population concentration.

Although differences between urban and rural lifestyles and living standards remain significant in developing countries, rapid urbanization in these countries has created a great need for information on different sizes of urban areas. Most definitions of the term are more closely related to what may constitute an “urban centre” rather than “urbanization” in this regard. Indeed, “urbanization” is an ongoing process that continuously explains changes over time, i.e. demographic (most relevant due to migration), residential buildings (associated with housing expansion), institutional (especially educational), commercial/industrial, infrastructure (health, roads, railway lines, waterways, parks, open space, etc.), as well as the development of spatial planning stimulated by all of it. I think the word “urbanization” has to be considered from a historical point of view. It is difficult to be constrained in a certain time, dimension, character or environmental change. Enlightening! Even in India, definitions of “large urban areas”, “small urban areas” and “transitional urban areas” [wording of Article 243Q of the Constitution] differ from state to state. The usefulness of housing census data (e.g. availability of electricity and/or tap water) collected at the same time or shortly before the census should be considered.