Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities City profile Delhi revisited Sohail Ahmad a,b,⇑, Osman Balaban c, Christopher N.H. Doll a, Magali Dreyfus a,d a United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), Yokohama, Japan Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan c City and Regional Planning Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey d National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan b a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 1 June 2012 Received in revised form 16 October 2012 Accepted 27 December 2012 Available online 5 February 2013 Keywords: Urban governance Urban poor Green economy Delhi Planning history a b s t r a c t This paper revisits the City Profile for Delhi, the first article ever published in Cities in 1983 (Datta, 1983). Thirty years later and following the centennial anniversary year of Delhi’s establishment as the capital of India in 2012, this article makes a wide-ranging survey of Delhi in the administrative, socio-economic and environmental arenas. By tracing the history of urban planning in the city to the present and examining the issues facing Delhi, we then critically examine its institutional arrangements with respect to the outcomes of recent developments that have occurred in the city. These aspects are then evaluated in the context of the future development of the city; a city which still faces numerous local challenges but also houses the government of an emerging superpower that will play an increasing role both regionally and globally. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction For a century, Delhi has been the capital of India. It is now one of the top 10 megacities in the world with a growing importance on the global stage. As one of the largest and most prominent cities in the world, this paper profiles the city, its organization and the challenges it faces in the coming years. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part depicts the city with respects to its socio-economic history and environmental issues. The second part of the paper details how the governance of Delhi has developed to the present day and takes examples of recent developments in the city to critically evaluate this structure. The final part takes this structure and considers the barriers and opportunities in addressing the most pressing challenges Delhi faces over the coming years. Background Location The National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) – the capital city of India, is located between 28°-240 -1700 and 28°-530 -0000 North and 76°-500 -2400 and 77°-200 -3700 East. It, borders two other Indian states – Uttar Pradesh to the east and Haryana to the north, west ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 6F, International Organizations Center, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-8502, Japan. Tel.: +81 45 221 2345/2300 (reception); fax: +81 45 221 2302. E-mail address: architectsohail@gmail.com (S. Ahmad). 0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.12.006 and south. It lies in Ganges plain with two prominent geographical features – the Yamuna flood plains and the Delhi ridge. Constituents of Delhi At a larger spatial scale, the NCTD is a part of the National Capital Region (NCR) which came into existence in 1985 after enactment of National Capital Region Planning Board Act by the Parliament, with the concurrence of the participating States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Fig. 1). The key rationale behind its establishment was ‘‘to promote balanced and harmonized development of the region, and to contain haphazard and unplanned urban growth by channelizing the flow and direction of economic growth along more balanced spatially-oriented paths’’ (NCRB, 2012). The NCTD consists of five local bodies – (i) New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), (ii) Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB), (iii) North Delhi Municipal Corporation, (iv) South Delhi Municipal Corporation and (v) East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Prior to enactment of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act 2011, the last three local bodies (corporations) were the parts of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which has recently been trifurcated to bring administrative efficiency in civic functions (GOI, 2011). As per the census of 2001,1 the NDMC spread over an area of 42.74 km2 with 0.29 million population. This is the old imperial part 1 As of now, recent census does not provide disaggregated data at urban local bodies. 642 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Fig. 1. Proposed land use plan of National Capital Region (NCR) – 2021. Source: NCR Board (2005). of Delhi, comprising government offices and residential areas, and commercial hubs. The Cantonment area is spread over an area of 42.97 km2 with a population of 120,000 administered by the DCB. The MCD (jointly the newly formed three local bodies) occupies 1397 km2 of Delhi with a population of 9.81 million. At the administrative level, Delhi has been divided into 9 districts and 27 subdistricts. Fig. 2 maps these administrative units by population density based on 2011 census population. Demography Delhi’s urban population has grown from 1.4 million in 1951 to 16.3 million in 2011 (Table 1). In any urban area, population growth takes place through natural growth, net in-migration and expansion of physical boundary. The estimated annual population growth in Delhi showed that population growth by net in-migration is slightly more than the natural growth. For instance, average 643 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Fig. 2. NCT of Delhi – density of population 2011. Source: Census of India, 2011a. Table 1 Population growth of Delhi, 1951–2011. Source: Data from various censuses of India. a Years Total population Density (person/km2) Total urban population Urban population % Decennial urban growth % Annual urban growth % 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011a 1,744,072 2,658,612 4,065,698 6,220,406 9,420,644 13,782,976 16,752,235 1176 1793 2742 4194 6352 9340 11,297 1,437,134 2,359,408 3,647,023 5,768,200 8,471,625 12,819,761 16,333,915 82.40 88.75 89.70 92.73 89.93 93.01 97.50 – 64.17 54.57 58.16 46.87 51.33 20.96 – 5.08 4.45 4.69 3.92 4.23 2.45 Represents provisional data. 644 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 annual population growth by natural growth and net in-migration was 2.2% and 2.4% respectively between 1995 and 2006 (NCTD, 2009). Migration data in the recent census was not available at the time of writing; however, previous census data showed that net in-migrant population in Delhi during 1981–1991 and 1991– 2001 were 1.76 million and 1.31 million respectively, about 40% of total population growth during that period (Census of India, 2001a). The annual urban population growth rate was remarkably low in last decade 2001–2011, merely 2.45%, whereas the annual urban population growth rate during 1951–2001 was in the range of 3.92–5.08%. This slow growth rate is attributed to declining fertility rate and mass slum demolition during last census. In addition, it could be also due to the population growth in the National Capital Region (NCR) which consists of rapidly growing cities such as Gurgaon and Faridabad in Haryana, and Ghaziabad and Noida in Uttar Pradesh.2 In spatial terms, since 1951, Delhi’s land area has expanded from 201 km2 to 792 km2. Two key historical events in India led to influx of migrants and consequently to major spatial expansions in Delhi: the re-establishment of Delhi as a capital city in 1912 and the partition of India in 1947. By 1961, Delhi expanded to 326.55 km2 with a decennial growth rate of about 62% in response to the planning interventions following the enactment of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Act, 1957. In 1990s, Delhi has reached to a land area of 624.3 km2 and of 702 km2 in 2001. The Master Plan of Delhi (2007) envisages that the entire area under the NCTD will be urbanized by 2021. Notably, Delhi’s gross population density has increased from 1176 persons per km2 to 11,297 persons per km2 during last six decades with certain subdistricts over 40,000 persons per km2 (Fig. 2). Furthermore, Master Plan of Delhi (2007) envisages the densification of built-up areas. Economy Delhi’s economy is primarily based on the tertiary (service) sector, which contributed over 82% of the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) (2.6 billion INR) in 2010–2011. The remaining contributions were made by the secondary sector (17.1%) and the primary sector (0.6%) (NCTD, 2011). The proportion of employment in primary, secondary and tertiary sectors were 1%, 31% and 68% respectively of the city’s labor force in 2004, more or less proportional to the GSDP contributions (NCTD, 2008–2009). According to census data, there were 4.54 million workers in 2001, which included 1.65% marginal3 workers. In addition, a large share of workforce is employed in informal sector; for instance, in the beginning of 2000s, about 1.74 million persons were employed in urban informal4 sectors (NSSO, 2001). Among the urban informal sectors employment, about 633,379 persons were employed in household enterprises and 1.02 million persons in establishments. The urban informal sectors consists in trade (49.17%), manufacturing (23.47%), other services (14.16%), transport, storage etc. (7.45%), hotel and restaurants (5.10%), and construction (0.65%) (NSSO, 2001). Estimates based on 64th round NSS survey showed that in urban Delhi 40% of households were self-employed, 50% were on regular wage/salary, 4% were casual labor and 5% were classified as ‘‘others’’, out of total 3,563,022 estimated urban households in 2 According to Census of India (2011b, 2011c) decadal growth rates were as following during 2001–2011: Gurgaon 74%, Faridabad 31.75%, Noida 54% and Ghaziabad 40.66%. 3 ‘‘Marginal workers were those who worked any time at all in the year precedingthe enumeration but did not work for a major part of the year, i.e., those who workedfor less than 183 days (or 6 months). ’’ 4 ‘‘The informal sector consists of all unincorporated private enterprises owned by individuals or households engaged in the sale and production of goods and services operated on a proprietary or partnership basis and with less than ten total workers.’’ For detailed definition refer to NSSO (2001). 2007–2008.5 The same report also revealed that 5.3% of Delhi’s labor force was unemployed, with high concentration in women labor force (64%) in comparison to men labor force (36%). Poverty Recently, the central government of India accepted a recommendation for the use of implicit prices derived from quantity and value data collected in household consumer expenditure surveys for measurement of poverty. Table 2 presents poverty incidence in Delhi and India by way of comparison. Although urban poverty levels in Delhi are much lower than the national average, urban poverty in Delhi has been increased by 4.6% annually, in contrast to the national trend, which is characterized by an annual decline of 1.24%. The spatial distribution of deprivation (including physical capitals) revealed that deprivation in Delhi is not only limited to the slums (Baud, Sridharan, & Pfeffer, 2008). In other words, other non-slum settlements are also as deprived as slums, although poverty rate and severity are higher in slum areas in terms of both floor area per capita and consumption expenditure (NSSO, 2010). It is also shown that peripheral settlements as opposed to the core of the city are more deprived (Ahmad & Choi, 2010). The reasons for peripheral deprivation are explained by (a) resettlement of JJ clusters6 in 1970s in peripheral areas and (b) proliferation of unauthorized colonies in peripheral areas. Housing and urban amenities Urban Delhi had a housing shortage of 1.13 million homes in 2007, most of which was in low-income households (NBO, 2007). Table 3 provides a comprehensive list of changes to amenities over the period 1991–2011. It should be noted that about three-quarters of the households live in unplanned settlements e.g., unauthorized colonies, regularized unauthorized colonies, urban villages, JJ clusters, notified JJ clusters and resettlement colonies. The quality of housings and public amenities (therefore quality of life) vary from one unplanned settlements to another and even within them (Ahmad, 2011) and demand for different housing characteristics also varies significantly between non-slum and slum households. Whilst there is a general need, only part of this can be expressed as an economic demand (Ahmad, Choi, & Ko, 2013). There are many reasons for poor housing outcomes including land monopoly and inadequate governance for the poor. In fact, following independence, slums emerged as an important issue because of the arrival of a great number of refugees and increasing levels of urbanization. National laws have been enacted, such as the 1956 Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, in order to improve or demolish unsanitary housing. The DDA as well as the Delhi government have developed policies based on the demolition of dilapidated shelters and resettlement of the evacuated people. However in the latter case, slum dwellers were supposed to be registered and be able to provide a title deed stating that they have been occupying the place more than a certain number of years determined by the public authorities. This requirement has prevented many people to get access to the land. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, resettlement colonies were built with access to basic services. At first, generous offers were made with relocation 5 Economic activity in the survey includes (i) all the market activities performed for pay or profit which result in production of goods and services for exchange, (ii) of the non-market activities e.g., activities related to primary sector and activities related to the own-account production of fixed assets. Activity status is the activity situation in which a person is found during a reference period. 6 JJ stands for the Hindi words Jhuggi Jhopdi, a colloquial term for a hut built by the poor. 645 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Table 2 Number and percentage of population below poverty line, 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. Source: Planning Commission, 2012. Year 2004–2005a 2009–2010b % Change Annual % change Delhi India Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total 0.11 (15.6) 0.03 (7.7) 72.73 22.88 1.83 (12.9) 2.29 (14.4) 25.14 4.59 1.93 (13) 2.33 (14.2) 20.73 3.84 3258.1 (42) 2782.1 (33.8) 14.61 3.11 814.1 (25.5) 764.7 (20.9) 6.07 1.24 4072.2 (37.2) 3546.8 (29.8) 12.90 2.72 Notes: Figures are in million, parentheses values are in percentage. For 2004–2005, population as on 1st March 2005 has been used for estimating number of persons below poverty line. (Revised on the basis of 2011 population census) and for 2009–2010 population as on 1st March 2010 has been used for estimating number of persons below poverty line (interpolated between 2001 and 2011 population census). Monthly per capita poverty lines for 2009–2010 for rural and urban Delhi were INR 747.8 and 806.7 respectively. Table 3 Change in characteristics in urban Delhi, 2001–2011 (figures are in millions). Source: Census of India, 1991; Census of India, 2001b; Census of India, 2011d. Indicators 1991 Total household 1.70 Census house Total census house Vacant census house Occupied census house Residential and residential cum others census house Non-residential census house 2.21 0.25 1.96 1.64 0.32 100 11.34 88.66 74.26 14.40 3.13 0.34 2.80 2.56 0.57 100 10.8 89.2 81.8 18.2 4.48 0.49 3.99 3.63 0.81 100 10.90 89.10 81.10 18.00 42.93 44.25 42.77 41.70 41.36 1.13 66.63 47.4 15.2 16.5 21 2.80 0.06 0.07 0.33 86.00 1.70 2.10 10.20 147.94 84.72 82.61 33.62 Latrine WC Pit latrine Other latrine No latrine % 2001 % 2.38 2011 % 3.26 Change in 1991–2001 (%) 36.65 0.57 18.74 1.13 0.36 0.39 0.50 Source of drinking water Tap water Well water Hand pump/tube well water Other sources of water 1.33 0.03 0.30 0.03 71.47 2.02 16.30 1.40 1.84 0.00 0.49 0.05 77 0 20.7 2.2 2.67 0.00 0.44 0.15 81.90 0.10 13.40 4.70 45.35 – 11.54 191.94 Availability of drinking water Within the premises Near the premises Away – – – 1.81 0.43 0.15 75.8 18 6.3 2.57 0.50 0.20 78.80 15.20 6.10 42.06 15.40 32.32 Source of lighting Electricity Kerosene Other sources No lighting 1.38 – – – 2.23 0.14 0.02 0.00 93.4 5.7 0.7 0.2 3.23 0.02 0.01 0.00 99.10 0.60 0.20 0.10 44.99 85.62 60.96 31.67 Transportation Bicycle Two wheeler Four wheeler None of the specified – – – – 0.88 0.68 0.32 1.04 36.8 28.5 13.4 43.4 0.99 1.27 0.68 1.21 30.30 38.90 21.00 37.20 12.52 86.52 114.16 17.13 81.37 (–) Data not available with us. in spaces up to 80 square meters with long-term lease of up to 99 years (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). However, the DDA and the Delhi government could not cope with the demand. This had severe repercussions on the poorest part of the population. Moreover new buildings were built for middle-class citizens according to demanding standards and were therefore not affordable by the poorest (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). This contributed to the further development of numerous illegal settlements. Only a few unauthorized colonies were regularized. However, in spite of these good intentions, slum dwellers in Delhi have often been the victims of violent evictions. As the national capital, Delhi has been treated as the showcase of India. In this context, political leaders and middle-class stakeholders (judges, resident welfare associations) have insisted on the need to clean the city (Baviskar, 2012; Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007; Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). This has often resulted in demolition of slums. Since the Emergency period (1975–1977), hundreds of thousands of people have been evicted. Mega events have also played a significant role in this respect. Since India became an independent nation, Delhi has been the host for several mega events including the Asian Games in 1982 and the Commonwealth Games in 2010. Such events have acted as catalysts for urban beautification schemes, and led to development of large-scale infrastructure and urban development projects (Siemiatycki, 2006). However, large-scale urban infrastructure development led by mega events in Delhi resulted in destruction of poor settlements and displacement of urban poor who cannot afford to live in the modern and beautified urban fabric. In those cases, the huge numbers of people evicted made full relocation impossible. Thus, between 2004 and 2007, about 45,000 homes were destroyed in the area of the Yamuna River but with only less than 25% relocated (Bhan, 2009). This trend has been backed since the 1990s by a hostile attitude of the courts towards slum dwellers (Bhan & Gautam, 2009; 646 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). Decisions were based on environmental concerns or infringement of the master plan. Often inhabitants had no opportunity to access the courts or were even denied the access. Moreover some judicial orders merely banned the public authorities to provide compensation or relocation for evictions (see for instance in the Almitra Patel7 case). As for the current availability of urban amenities in Delhi, between 2001 and 2011, sanitation facilities have improved significantly. The use of water closet (WC) has remarkably increased from 47.4% to 86% and the proportion of household without latrine has decreased by two-thirds from the earlier census. Notably, these changes are both apparent in proportionate and absolute terms. Similarly, better sources of drinking water, such as tap water and availability of drinking water within the premises, have also been enhanced, although at a slow pace (for a discussion on qualitative water supply in Delhi see; Zérah, 1998). Sources of lighting energy are now dominated by electricity (over 99%). In the last decade, urban Delhi became more motorized, with the use of two-wheelers and four-wheelers almost doubling. In the latter half of twentieth century, motorized vehicles have increased tremendously in Delhi, for instance, between 1957 and 2002 car population increased by 60 times, motorcycles about 200, and buses 10, while population increased by seven times (Thynell, Mohan, & Tiwari, 2010). Environmental Issues in Delhi Like many large rapidly growing cities in the developing world, Delhi has to contend with many environmental challenges arising from its activities. Arguably the most pressing of these is air pollution that results from the combustion of fuels in transport, energy supply and industry. Within India Delhi has the highest rates of motorization and consequently the highest levels of both local air pollution and global carbon emissions, with cars emitting three times the amount of carbon dioxide compared to Mumbai (Guttikunda, 2009). This also makes Delhi one of the most polluted cities in the world. Gurjar, Butler, Lawrence, and Lelieveld (2008) found it ranks as the 7th most polluted megacity using a composite multi-pollutant index considering SO2, NO2 and Total Suspended Particulates (TSPs), which are a major cause of respiratory morbidity. TSPs are particularly high in the city, however Delhi’s meteorological setting means that there is an element of air pollution that cannot be simply mitigated with emissions reduction. Guttikunda and Gurjar (2012) note the winter months have persistently higher levels of air pollution (40–80%) than the summer (10–60% lower) when compared to the annual average despite constant emissions over the months. Another major problem is that of water pollution, not only from industrial sources but groundwater pollution in general that is prevalent across India. Water pollution in the Yamuna River comes from both the disposal of raw sewage as well as upstream industrial activities. A recent government report revealed many areas in the city have aquifers where groundwater is variously contaminated with lead, cadmium, chromium (TOI, 2012). In addition, heavy metal contamination fluoride and nitrates have also found to be prevalent. This poses a serious health risk to the residents. As noted in Table 3, 82% of urban households have access to tap water but only 65% of (mainly richer) residents have access to the water supply by Delhi Jal Board (TOI, 2012). On a positive note and somewhat surprisingly for a megacity, Delhi has a large amount of green areas within the city. According to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (GOI, 2010), Delhi has the 8.3% of tree cover ranking it 3rd amongst the states of India. New Delhi in particular has a large green areas owing in part to 7 Almitra H. Patel v. UoI, SCC 2000 (SC WP 888/1996). the planning from the colonial era. The prevalence of such green areas make vital contributions to the city both directly and indirectly from climate regulation (carbon storage and reducing urban heat island effect) to maintaining biodiversity and by association ecosystem services (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011). The Delhi Development Authority set up the Delhi biodiversity foundation (DDA, 2012) to develop nature reserves within the city for this purpose. The Yamuna and Aravali biodiversity parks are owned and maintained by the DDA to conserve the natural resources of the two major ecosystems in the city, that of the river and the Aravali hills. History of urban planning in Delhi As the national capital, Delhi’s urban development has been subjected to many planning interventions. In 1957, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was mandated by the Parliament to prepare a master plan for Delhi in collaboration with the Ford Foundation Consultant Team, which led to the adoption of a North American approach to planning (Priya, 2006). The DDA is now responsible for urban planning and land management such as preparation of master plans and their implementation in coordination with other organizations. One of the main aims of these plans was to deal with the rapid population increase and its associated problems encountered between 1951 and 1961 when Delhi’s population increased from 1.7 to 2.7 million, mainly due to the influx of refugees and immigrants from Pakistan following the partition of India (Datta, 1983; Thynell et al., 2010). In addition, there was a strong political will and commitment behind urban planning attempts to build a modern capital city for independent India (Priya, 2006). The first master plan of the city, which was designed to cover a 20-year period commencing 1961, was approved and put into effect in 1962 (Datta, 1983). Its implementation led slowly to the displacement of the economic centre from Old Delhi, composed of small markets and businesses, to South Delhi, now seat of embassies and multinational companies (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). One of the main principles of the plan with regards to urban development was to limit the growth of the core city by constructing a green belt around it (Datta, 1983; Thynell et al., 2010). In addition to the green belt, the master plan regulated the development of seven neighboring ‘‘ring towns’’ to accommodate the population exceeding the capacity of the core city (Thynell et al., 2010). As per the population projections of the plan, Delhi’s population was assumed to reach 5.6 million by 1981, of which 0.9 million was decided to be diverted to the ‘‘ring towns’’ (Datta, 1983). This principle of the master plan is known to pave the way to Delhi’s current urban spatial pattern, which is characterized by a multicentric layout with no clearly identifiable Central Business District (CBD) and urban sprawl via several low-density satellite towns (Sahai & Bishop, 2010). As satellite towns have been functioning as centers to attract population, Delhi’s urban population growth has recently been declining. For instance, the annual population growth in Delhi has decreased from 4.23% to 2.45% between the decades of 1991–2001 and 2001–2011 (see Table 1). Along with planning of new urbanization, the first master plan also focused on dealing with existing urban environments through various redevelopment strategies like conservation, rehabilitation and slum clearance (Priya, 2006). In this sense, the plan concluded the provision of houses or plots to poor slum households at designated resettlement sites (Kundu, 2004). However, such attempts to relocate slum dwellers on cheaper lands at the periphery of the city are argued to result in ‘‘planned slums’’ (officially known as ‘‘resettlement colonies’’) and have worsened the living conditions of urban poor (Dupont, 2004; Priya, 2006). A tragic example of this is the death of 1500 in 44 of these resettlement colonies during a S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 cholera outbreak in 1988, owing to the ground water contamination from insufficient sanitation measures (Roy, 2005). After expiration of the first master plan period, in the early 1980s, preparation of the second master plan, targeting the year of 2001, started. As a result of the debate among local political elite, the second plan came in the form of a comprehensive revision of the first plan (Roy, 2005). Along with the major principles of the first plan, the second one included recommendations on promoting low-rise high-density urbanization, development of energy-efficient transport modes like a mass transit system and maintenance of ecological balance in city’s main rivers (Datta, 1983; Roy, 2005). The second plan is criticized mainly for having a tentative nature and for lacking coherent objectives, as most of its proposals and provisions were corrections and additions to those of the first plan (Datta, 1983). The current master plan of Delhi, the third one, covers the period from 2001 to 2021 and came into effect in 2007 (Table 5). The current master plan is said not to address the major problems in the city but rather to focus on issues like promoting market competition in land and housing, encouraging tourism and increasing revenues (Roy, 2005). Following important conflicts on land use, where residents associations and local businesses filed cases in front of Courts, the new plan has integrated the principle of mixed land use in residential areas (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). From a transportation planning point of view, Thynell et al. (2010) criticized the third plan for proposing construction of grade-separated junctions and new expressways and for omitting specific provisions to improve and encourage the pedestrian movement and cycling. Despite the existence of several master plans and the authority given to the DDA to acquire the entire land within the city, a significant part of urbanization in Delhi has taken place in an unplanned way (Dupont, 2004). The green belt, which was supposed to contain urban development within the core city, has been subjected to urban development encouraged by land developers including the DDA (Roy, 2005). At present, it is estimated that only 24% of the population actually lives in planned settlements (Ahmad & Choi, 2011). There are several reasons behind the failure of urban planning in Delhi, most of which are in a way or another related to the mindset of planners and decision-makers in the city. Delhi’s planners and administrators are said to have an anti-poor bias and see the urban poor and inhabitants of slums as problems towards the development of the city (Priya, 2006). Besides, the planners’ obsession with giving Delhi a good image as the national capital resulted in lack of sufficient concern for the urban poor in the city (Datta, 1983). It is also argued that inappropriate planning models have been pursued and this had led to serious problems for the whole city (Priya, 2006). Last but not least, the monopoly given to DDA on land management and acquisition has contributed significantly to the problem of housing and land shortage as they have failed to respond to the ever-increasing demand for housing of all sections of the society and end up with only catering to middle classes and above (Pugh, 1991; Sivam, 2003). Urban transportation Among the most serious challenges regarding urban development in Delhi is the transport situation. This is not surprising, as Delhi has passed through the typical urbanization process common to most cities in the developing world. Urban population has been doubled in every couple of decades, leading to massive increase in numbers and use of motor vehicles. Since the late-1950s, the number of motor vehicles in Delhi has grown at higher rates than the urban population, making Delhi by far the most motorized city in India (Badami & Haider, 2007). Automobile-centric solutions like 647 construction of new roads, widening of existing roads and gradeseparated junctions have been the major policies to overcome Delhi’s transportation challenges for a long time (Thynell et al., 2010). The city’s road network grew 3.7 times in the 25 years starting from 1971 (Sahai & Bishop, 2010). Today, urban transportation system in Delhi is predominantly road-based with an extensive road network that corresponds to 21% of city’s total land area, compared to 11% in Mumbai and 5% in Kolkata (Pucher, Korattyswaropam, Mittal, & Ittyerah, 2005; Tiwari, 2002). The vast majority of urban mobility in Delhi takes place on roads by means of various vehicles including cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, rickshaws, auto-rickshaws, bicycles, animal-drawn vehicles and pedestrians (Siemiatycki, 2006; Tiwari, 2002). The increase in motorized transportation and the chaotic traffic situation on Delhi roads resulted in serious problems like air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, road accidents and GHG emissions (Lebel et al., 2007; Sen, Tiwari, & Upadhyay, 2010; Tiwari, 2002). According to the White Paper prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF, 1997), vehicular pollution is the main contributor to worsening of air quality in Delhi, accounting for 67% of total air pollution. The casualties due to accidents on Delhi roads increased from about 500 in early 1970s to over 1000 in 1980s and to over 2000 in 1990s (Sen et al., 2010), most of them being pedestrians and cyclists (Pucher et al., 2005). Moreover, carbon emissions from diesel consumption in Delhi rose fourfold between 1980 and 2000 (Lebel et al., 2007). Since the late-1990s, both national and local governments started to undertake actions to address the transport-related problems in Delhi. The initial actions were in form of ‘‘command-andcontrol measures’’ to reduce vehicular pollution, such as phasing out of commercial vehicles older than 15 years of age and prevention of the use of leaded petrol (Kathuria, 2002). Likewise, in 1998, considering the increasing vehicular pollution, the Supreme Court of India made a decision to dictate CNG as the mandatory fuel in public transportation vehicles and ordered the Delhi government to complete the necessary changes in city’s entire fleet by March 2001 (Goyal & Sidhartha, 2003). After 2000, initiatives were shifted from ‘‘command-and-control measures’’ to mass transit-oriented infrastructure investments, as in the example of construction of a metro network and BRT lines. As of 2012, the first two stages of the metro project with a total route length of 190 km have been put in place.8 Besides, the initial section of the first BRT corridor (6 km of 14.5 km in total) is in operation since April 2008 (Thynell et al., 2010). Despite the recent progress in improving the vehicle fleet and the public transport infrastructure in Delhi, most of the problems arising from urban transportation still prevail. This is mainly because both metro and BRT projects could not attract as much riders as planned and expected. For instance, the maximum daily ridership on the Delhi metro was recorded on 12th August 2011 (when both Phase-I and Phase-II were operating) with slight more than 2 million passengers, which is even below the ridership projections for Phase-I only.9 The limited integration between the Delhi metro and other transport modes as well as the problems in accessing metro stations add to the problem of low-ridership on the metro (Yagi & Nagayama, 2010). The institutional disharmony between the development and implementation of the metro and BRT projects is another factor here (see Section ‘Overlapping competencies and clash of authorities’). Yet, what is promising is the recent development by the Delhi government, of an integrated multimodal 8 Detailed information can be found on the website of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). 9 Please see the following links for detailed data and information: (1) http:// www.delhimetrorail.com/press_reldetails.aspx?id=D56csDWRltIlld, (2) http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/12/slide-show-1-will-delhi-metro-turn-into-awhite-elephant.htm. 648 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Table 4 Major organizations providing urban services in the NCTD as of 2012. Source: Adapted from Kumar (1999) and updated. Service Organization providing the services with level of administrative control Urban planning and development Enforcement of planning controls Slum and JJ improvement Parks Transportation Delhi Development Authority (DDA)a DDA,a Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)c Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB)b DDAa and Urban Local Bodiesc Delhi Transport Corporation (Buses)b Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System (Buses and also other mode)b,d Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (Subway)a,b State Transport Authority (other private and public vehicles)b Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Planning and Engineering Center Urban Local Bodiesc Delhi Jal Board (DJB)b Department of Irrigation and Flood Controlb Several contracted providers on the basis of competitive tenders (such as NDPL and BSES) in supervision of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERA)b State department of Archeological Survey of Indiab; DDAa; Delhi Urban Art Commissionb; ULBsc Solid waste managemente Water and sewerage Storm water drainage Electricity City heritage buildings (management and upkeep) Pollution control and monitoring Police and public order Industries and infrastructure Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)b Delhi Policea Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC)b DDA is under Ministry of Urban Development and Delhi police is under Ministry of Home Affairs of GoI. DMRC has equal equity participation from GoI and NCTD. Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System is a joint venture of the NCTD and the IDFC. a Government of India (GoI). b National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). c Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). d Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC). e Other organizations such as the DDA (for allotment of land for sanitary land filling) and Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) responsible for solid waste utilization projects. strategy in order to increase the modal share of public transport. (Sahai & Bishop, 2010) Governance and public administration The complexity of Delhi’s governance is largely due to its capital status. It is the seat of numerous public institutions of different levels: central, state and local. As a result, coordination and competition problems in policy-making are common. Even today, in spite of the national decentralization process, Delhi’s administration is still largely influenced by the central government (Table 4). As mentioned at the start of the paper, the NCTD has multiple layers of administration with distinctive governance structures. The NCTD has its own elected assembly and a Council of Ministers. The head of NCTD is a governor, appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of the union government. The governor is also the chairman of the DDA. The three local municipalities (after trifurcation of the MCD) are run by the local elected bodies with a mayor at their head. But the key actor in decision-making is actually the Commissioner, who heads the Executive and is designated by the Central government. The NDMC is considered to be the wealthiest part of the city as it hosts most of the buildings of the Government of India. A council, whose chairman is appointed by the central government, rules it. The DCB is a rather small unit, originally reserved to the military administration and managed by the Ministry of Defense. Parallel to these sub-national institutions stands the DDA, which is under the supervision of the Ministry of Urban Development. It is responsible for urban planning and land management such as the preparation of the master plan and its implementation in coordination with other organizations. At present, the management of the provision of services is complex and often involves several authorities. Table 4 shows the major organizations providing urban services in the NCTD as of 2012. The central and state governments dominate both by service provision as well as administrative control, while Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) have very little administrative control. In this context, another key actor is the Judiciary (Supreme Court of India and High Court of Delhi). Its decisions have had significant impacts on two aspects of urban governance: the environment and the land management. But the governance of the city also relies on a series of other private and unofficial actors, which have an influence on the implementation of urban policies. Milbert (2009) lists for instance the slum pradhans, local brokers, NGOs or lobbies and interest groups. Resident Welfare Associations, which represent mostly middle-class groups, also appear to have an important role in the governance of the city by actively bringing cases to the courts and participating in public debates organized under the Bhagidari scheme (see below) (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). Moreover the Delhi government has undertaken some initiatives to implement good governance. In 1997 a public grievance commission was created to hear the complaints of citizens against the ministries of NCTD. In 2000, the Bhagidari scheme was launched to promote partnership between the government’s agencies and the citizens in the provision of public services. In 2005, enactment of the Right to Information Act (RTI) enhanced ‘‘openness and transparency’’ on the activities of administration. The same year a permanent Administrative Reform Commission, unique among Indian states, was set up. Although all these initiatives are widely publicized, their concrete outcomes are unclear and do not appear to have had impact for the poorest part of the population (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). Critical evaluation Overlapping competencies and clash of authorities Delhi’s governance is characterized by the role that central government retains in the management of urban affairs. As Table 4 shows, the Government of India (GoI) is greatly involved in the management of urban services. It usually shares this task with the NCTD. The table also highlights what have been called ‘‘structural’’ and ‘‘legal anomalies’’ (Tawa Lema-Rewal, 2007). In fact, the allocation of some competencies such as land management to na- S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 649 Table 5 Timeline of main events in India and Delhi, 1863–2012. Source: Authors’ compilation from various sources, 2012. Decade Year Main event Impact of main event Before 1929 1863 Municipality Committees were created for several cities in India including Delhi The imperial capital of British India was shifted from Calcutta to Delhi Introduction of urban management to Indian cities including Delhi Decision to build a new capital city at Delhi separate from the existing city 1912 1930–1939 1931 1937 Inauguration of New Delhi Foundation of Delhi Improvement Trust (DIT) as an agent of government to deal with slum clearance, town planning and public health issues The British establishes their new capital next to old Delhi Initiatives to address urban problems in Delhi 1940–1949 1947 India became an independent nation after her partition and creation of Islamic republic of Pakistan Strong political will to develop Delhi as the modern capital city of India Massive influx of migrants and refugees in Delhi 1950–1959 1955 Constitution of the Delhi Development Provisional Authority (DDPA) Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act Arrival of the Ford Foundation Consultant Team at Delhi Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was enacted and came into effect in 1958 DDPA was replaced with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Attempts to prepare the first master plan of Delhi 1956 1956 1957 To upgrade or demolish unsanitary housing International assistance for preparation of the master plan Legal basis to cater civic needs Institutional arrangement to promote and secure planned development of Delhi 1960–1969 1962 The first master plan of Delhi that covers 1961–1981 period was approved and put into effect Planned development era started 1970–1979 1975–1977 State of Emergency in India Several schemes for slum clearance were executed 1978 Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act was enacted An important number of slums were demolished Appearance of planned slums, where low quality of life of the urban poor continued Legal basis for acquisition of land to construct the metro and carry out its associated operations 1982 Asian Games 1982 were held in Delhi 1985 Enactment of National Capital Region (NCR) Planning Board Act 1988 Cholera outbreak in resettlement colonies, also termed planned slums 1990 Promulgation of the second master plan of Delhi that covers 1981–2001 period Enactment of Government of National Capital Territory Act 1980–1989 1990–1999 1991 1992 Adoption of 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution for greater decentralization 1994 1997 The New Delhi Municipal Council Act Election of councilors of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the basis of the 74th amendment On 28 July 1988, the Supreme Court of India imposed the conversion of fuel base of public vehicles in Delhi to single fuel mode (Compressed Natural Gas) by 31 March 2001 1998 2000–2009 2002 2003 2005 2007 Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act was enacted Delhi was awarded the ‘Clean Cities International Partner of the Year Award’ from the U.S. Department of Energy The first phase of the metro project was completed and put into operation Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) launched Delhi metro project was registered with the UNFCCC and became world’s first CDM registered metro rail project National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act was enacted Promulgation of the third master plan of Delhi that covers 2001–2021 period After 2010 2010 2011 The second phase of the metro project was completed and put into operation Commonwealth Games 2010 were held in Delhi Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act Implementation of schemes for urban beautification and infrastructure development Institutional arrangement for achieving balanced and harmonized development of National Capital Region (NCR) with National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) 1500 people died in 44 resettlement colonies planned in the mid1970s Planned development era continues Delhi became a full-fledged state, and strengthens local governance and competence Local authorities, such as panchayats, nagarpalikas and municipalities, were provided with greater autonomy and representation through direct election in local assemblies To perform civic activities in New Delhi areas. Local autonomy strengthens local governance and competence Problem of air pollution is officially recognized and addressed Definition of rules and regulations for management of metro services International acknowledgment and recognition of Delhi’s initiatives to address urban environmental problems Delhi’s transport infrastructure and situation improves City Development Plan for Delhi was prepared with particular focus on urban infrastructure and governance as well as basic services to the urban poor International acknowledgment and recognition of Delhi’s initiatives to address urban and environmental problems Relief to owners of unauthorized constructions in NCTD for a year (till 31 December 2008) and further amendments till December 2014. Planned development era continues Delhi’s transport infrastructure and situation improves Implementation of schemes for urban beautification and infrastructure development Division of MCD into North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations. to bring administrative efficiency in civic functions 650 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 tional level authorities may appear contrary to local autonomy and is prone to problems of coordination and conflict between stakeholders at different levels. For instance, the DDA has to work closely with central, state and/or local authorities to define land use and functions of the service provided. At the local level, ULBs, receive parts of its budget from the NCTD but is accountable only to the central government, which appoints the Municipal Commissioner (Tawa Lema-Rewal, 2007). Even organizations do not (or cannot) effectively use their mandate due to overlapping competencies and clash of authorities. For instance, Agrawal (2010) showed the inefficiency of the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC). A classic example is Delhi’s urban transport sector where the metro and BRT projects have been developed as competing policy initiatives of different intellectual camps in the city. In the late 1990s, when the national and state governments initiated the metro project, the Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme (TRIPP) of the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi produced a report to evaluate the sustainable transport policy options for Delhi based on the request by the Central Pollution Control Board of India (Thynell et al., 2010). One of the main conclusions of this report was that a bus-based transit system was more viable and ideal for Delhi as opposed to metro systems that don’t reduce the vehicular traffic on roads (Thynell et al., 2010). The spatial structure of Delhi that is characterized by a multi-centric pattern without a major CBD is commonly argued to be incompatible with the spatial structure that can best be served by a mass rapid transit system (Mohan, 2008; Siemiatycki, 2006). Despite the attention paid to the TRIPP’s report by some policymakers and technocrats, both BRT and metro projects have been developed and implemented in tandem like competing projects. One year after the completion of the first phase of the metro system, in October 2006, the construction of the initial section of the first BRT corridor was started (Thynell et al., 2010). However, the wide support of the national government and the media as well as public acceptance was with the metro project and this has led to a faster progress in metro’s implementation (Sahai & Bishop, 2010; Siemiatycki, 2006). When the first six km of the BRT corridor was opened to operations in April 2008, more than half of the second phase of the metro was in place and operating. At present, some governmental bodies such as Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Planning and Engineering Center (UTTIPEC) and a government-related company, Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System Ltd. (DIMTS), work to develop an integrated multimodal transport system in Delhi. Nevertheless, the coordination between these attempts and the metro project is yet to be developed, mainly because the metro project and the corporation responsible for it (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) still preserve their autonomy and dominance over all the other policy initiatives and agencies in the city. These institutional pitfalls may have their impact increased by the political configuration in the city. There are three levels of governments, each elected for 5 years periods: the ULBs, the NCTD and the GoI. This provides them with a sound democratic basis and ensures their legitimacy. Two parties are the main political movements in Delhi: the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Table 6 shows the changing political configuration in Delhi in the results of the elections since the establishment of the NCTD. Given the great number of shared or overlapping competencies, the risk is that opposition in political parties at the head of different levels of governments, create more conflicts and deadlocks. This seems particularly true when it comes to the NCTD and GoI as they both share important administrative functions and control powers over the service providers (see Table 4). The three units where ruled by the same party only for about 3 years. However, even when the same party rules the three levels of government, coordination has proved to be difficult (Tawa Lema-Rewal, 2007). Lack of representation of disempowered people The representation of Delhi disempowered people is an important challenge at present. The voice of the workers and slums dwellers often appears to go unheard (Baviskar, 2012; Bhan & Gautam, 2009). At the national level, there have been some initiatives to enhance proximity between citizens and their governing body. The decentralization process is an example of it. In particular, amendment 74th of the Constitution provides that the creation of Wards Committees (WCMs) in the wards of Municipal Corporations with a population of 300,000 or more is mandatory. These committees shall comprise ‘‘persons chosen by direct election from the territorial area of the Ward’’. The Chairman of the Committee is the Councilor elected from the Ward. The committees may also include representatives of the civil society such as NGOs. The objective is to foster participation and improve representation and accountability. It aims at creating forums of discussion where local issues can be exposed in a bottom-up approach. However the enforcement of this measure largely lies in the states and they have done so in a different way from one to another. In Delhi, the legislation regarding Ward Committees was adopted in 1996. However, only twelve WCMs were created, which means that they stand for population of more than 800,000 inhabitants. They only include elected councilors and have no representative from the civil society (De Wit, Nainan, & Paltnikarm, 2009; Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). These two characteristics create a phenomenon of institutional capture by the elites, and undermine the primary objective of the decentralization process. The lack of representation of the poorest section of Delhiites is also true in the judicial arena. This is noteworthy given the role played by the Courts in Delhi’s governance (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). Although the Supreme Court of India has been very active in opening the courts to the people, through a large appreciation of the locus standi (right to stand) and the development of public interest litigation (PIL), the interests of the poor are seldom upheld. These legal mechanisms still require financial and time commitments that disempowered people may not be able to provide. On the contrary middle-class lobbies or associations often have permanent legal advisors to support their actions (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012) and can thus easily access the courts. As a result, decisions on the closure of industries and evictions have been made without hearing workers or local dwellers. This caused a lot of social distress and tensions as manifested by the riots and casualties of Table 6 Political configuration in Delhi 1993–2012. Source: Authors’ compilation using election commissions’ website. Central State Local (ULBs) Election Year a C B C B C B a U B U B a B a B C B a B C B B C B B C B B C a C B a C C a a C C C C C C C C C C C a B C a C B a C C B C C B C C B C C a B 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 a Represents year of election held; C – Congress; U – United Front supported by the congress; B – BJP; Central election stands for central government, state election for NCTD and local election for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) election. In 2012, MCD was trifurcated and BJP won in all. 651 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 Table 7 Main sectors in Delhi, which will affect future development with key challenge and opportunity. Sector Main Issue Governance challenge Opportunity Key outcome Transport Increase in motorization and general transport demand Persistent monopoly of land ownership Multiform pollution Overlapping authorities & conflicting interests Overlapping authorities High human capacity and investment interest at the international level Huge potential of efficient land use Shift to public and non-motorized modes which has equitable access Guaranteed rights of land occupiers Lack of representation High income disparity and growing proportion of poor Lack of representation Increased awareness and activity to combat pollution, city image on the international stage ‘Greening’ of growing economies towards poverty eradication on the international agenda Shift to cleaner urban activities with greater enforcement of regulations Inclusive development in economic and social arenas Land/ Housing Environment Poverty 2000, following a decision of the court to shut down some factories (Baviskar, 2012). Even the embryonic BRT corridor has not escaped a legal petition by an NGO, who claim motorists have a greater right to mobility by virtue that they are the wealth creators of the city.10 Other actors in the city may play an important role in representing citizens and implementing urban policies. Although they do not have clear powers, their role is important as intermediary players, especially towards the poorest part of the population. For instance the slum pradhans or ‘‘slumlords’’ are often the only connection between the most disempowered people and the administration of the city. However these representatives, who are neither elected nor accountable, may also abuse of their position (Milbert, 2009). could see the greatest benefits to the city. Associated with this is the problem of growing inequality, which afflicts many cities in the developing Asian cities. Whilst pro-poor and socially inclusive development have long been suggested, the reality is that such policies are usually given cursory regard with respect to the traditional infrastructure led development paradigm. In this respect, the analysis of sectors highlights the importance of the governance structures for the sustainable development of the city. However the fragmentation of authorities hinders the implementation of sound policies. The definition of new policies should therefore be coupled with reflection on their application and the role of agencies responsible for it. To avoid the lack of action of these authorities, resources must be allocated and/or identified to cover these activities. The way forward Two themes for the future Implications for the future Managing urban development in a rapidly growing city is an unenviable task given the complexity of stakeholders and competing interests for scarce resources. Whilst the aims of sustainable development are widely accepted in word, translating good intentions into concrete plans remains a challenge in all cities around the world. An emerging theme, which is gaining traction in international sustainable development discourse and processes is that of the Green Economy, one of the two major theme of the landmark United Nations Rio + 20 conference in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012. The Green economy aims to integrate the concepts of sustainable development within various economic sectors. Despite the name, a key concept underpinning the Green Economy is that environmental sustainability will also lead to more socially inclusive development pathways and poverty reduction. Puppim de Oliveira et al. (2012) takes a sector specific approach to evaluate how activities in urban sectors can be ‘greened’ not just in terms of their environmental impacts but also in terms of their social benefits. This takes on a particular significance at the city level as the connections between sectors are closer and the linkages more apparent. Although cities tend to be managed by sectors, it is likely that the greatest impacts can occur through integrating sectors, such as transport and land-use, which in turn can help preserve green spaces and ecosystem services in and round the city. Whilst a sector based analysis is both useful and logical to identify the problems, the high-level solutions are to be found ultimately in integrated planning of all these sectors, in order to understand where synergies and efficiencies can be found, as well as which strategies might contain important trade-offs in implementation. As various sectors battle to preserve and extend their spheres of influence in the city, jurisdictions begin to overlap along with administrative conflict. Calling for new modes of thinking and planning is a challenge for any organization. These challenges take on added urgency and are particularly fraught given that multiple environmental impacts are being encountered earlier in the development process than was previously the case for developed countries (Marcotullio & Schulz, 2007). Given the scarce resources of those cities to mitigate its effects, there is a need to reconsider the development pro- This paper has provided an overview of the state of the main sectors in the city and how various governance issues affect their functioning. Given the arrangement and variety of issues Delhi is facing in its effort to develop, we identify four main sectors (Table 7), which will be critical to Delhi’s future development in the coming years. Based on our analysis of each sector, Table 7 presents the main issue and governance challenge facing the sector. We further identify an opportunity and key outcome, which would make progress to improving the sector. The governance challenges are taken from the analysis made in Section ‘Critical evaluation’. The transport situation in the city remains a big hurdle to its efficient operation. Despite recent improvements in public transport, most notably an extensive metro system, Delhi remains the most motorized city in India. However, the city has a high level of human capacity and a good understanding of the transport issues facing the city, this combined with a high level of international interest in funding sustainable transport project gives a relatively optimistic prognosis in this sector. Delhi’s position as the capital of India, a major emerging economy, places it under greater international scrutiny than perhaps other cities in the country. This can be beneficial in driving through initiatives and policies which benefit the environment, as the city, being the seat of government, also to some extent presents the face of India to the world. The areas of land (and housing) and poverty reduction is however a more intractable problem. As has been explained in this paper, Delhi has been reluctant to cede land to its occupiers and now faces a crisis whereby much of the housing stock of the city is illegally developed. The precarious legal situation of land occupiers means that development is implicitly short-sighted. Guaranteeing rights of land occupiers could help resolve this situation and thereby implement the master plan, which is at present conceived with little practical change. The efficient use of land and the rights to develop it is arguably the most pressing issue and one which 10 Delhi row over bus lane reveals class divide, BBC News article. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19572583. 652 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 cess. As climate change remains a pressing issue in the international community; consideration is now turning to how both local and global impacts can be minimized in the urban transition in developing countries. A concept connected to that of the Green Economy is known as urban development with co-benefits. A large part of this discourse is coming from the climate change mitigation community, who see the concept as something that may be useful in considering the future of the Clean Development Mechanism. The co-benefits concept aims to understand how global and local environmental benefits can occur by design at the planning stage rather than being dealt with as ex-post mitigation measures. Currently much work has focused at the sector level, especially in the transport sector, as controlling the combustion of fuels can yield both improvement for the local air quality as well as global carbon emissions. Wider considerations beyond vehicle efficiency and fuel choice include what type of transport people take and strategies that minimize the need to travel (travel demand management). Seen through this lens, it becomes apparent that transport is not just an issue of vehicle technology, but of land use planning and lifestyles, accessibility and safety. Support will be required to help cities understand and plan for co-benefits but also in their implementation. The practical application of such plans remains a challenge and often receives less attention than the formulation of the plans themselves as they are highly localized in character and resist generalization. Such initiatives can help guide rapidly developing cities in their planning process if supported by the right tools and financing mechanisms. Although little general progress was made at the landmark Rio + 20 conference in June 2012, one significant outcome was the decision of the major development banks to contribute $175 billion to the promotion of public transport initiatives over the coming decade (SLoCaT, 2012), which could make serious impact in both Asia and Africa as these regions are projected to grow their urban populations by 500 million in the next 20 years (SLoCaT, 2012). Whilst a multilateral agreement on financing for climate change seems to encounter endless political obstacles, it would seem that funding for sector based initiatives could be easier to obtain if the climate benefits are incorporated into the development ones. Ultimately though, there needs to be a political willingness and organizational capacity at the city level to consider integrated development across sector in order for such concepts to radically alter development patterns and set cities on low carbon and sustainable development pathways. Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to the editor (Andrew Kirby) and 4 anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. All authors were full-time researchers at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) during the period they were working on the manuscript. S. Ahmad was co-affiliated with the Tokyo Institute of Technology and M. Dreyfus with the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) in Tuskuba, Japan. S. Ahmad and M. Dreyfus are grateful to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for supporting their postdoctoral research through JSPS-UNU Postdoctoral Fellowship. O. Balaban is grateful to UNUIAS and The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for funding his postdoctoral research through their fellowship programmes. The article is the sole responsibility to the authors and does not express the views of the institutions authors are affiliated. References Agrawal, S. K. (2010). Design review in a post-colonial city: The Delhi urban art commission. Cities, 27(5), 397–404. Ahmad, S. (2011). Characteristics of uncontrolled urban settlements and housing market in Delhi (p. 106). Graduate School of Environmental Studies. Seoul: Seoul National University. PhD. Ahmad, S., & Choi, M. J. (2010). Identifying and measuring dimensions of urban deprivation in Delhi: A town level analysis. Infrastructure systems and services: Next generation infrastructure systems for eco-cities (INFRA). In 2010 Third international conference on IEEE Xplore digital library (pp. 1–5). http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/INFRA.2010.5679210. Ahmad, S., & Choi, M. J. (2011). The context of uncontrolled urban settlements in Delhi. ASIEN, 118(January), 75–90. Ahmad, S., Choi, M.J., & Ko, J. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative demand for slum and non-slum housing in Delhi: Empirical evidences from household data. Habitat International, 38(0), 90–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint. 2012.02.003. Badami, M. G., & Haider, M. (2007). An analysis of public bus transit performance in Indian cities. Transportation Research Part A, 41, 961–981. Baud, I., Sridharan, N., & Pfeffer, K. (2008). Mapping urban poverty for local governance in an Indian mega-city: The case of Delhi. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1385. Baviskar, A. (2012). Public interest and private compromises: The politics of environmental negotiation in Delhi, India. In J. Eckert, B. Donahoe, C. Strumpell, & Z. O. Biner (Eds.), Law against the state. Ethnographic forays into Law’s transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhan, G. (2009). This is no longer the city I once knew. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 127–142. Census of India (1991). Tables on Houses and Household Amenities: Delhi. CD-ROM. Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. Census of India (2001a). MIGRATION TABLES (D1, D1 (Appendix), D2 and D3 Tables). <http://censusindia.gov.in/Data_Products/Data_Highlights/ Data_Highlights_link/data_highlights_D1D2D3.pdf> Accessed 15.03.12. Census of India (2001b). Tables on Houses, Household Amenities & Assets: Delhi. CDROM. Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. Census of India (2011a). Provisional population totals (districts/Su-districts) NCT of Delhi. <http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2-vol2/ data_files/Delhi/Provisional_Rural_Urban.pdf> Accessed 24.05.12. Census of India (2011b). Provisional population totals paper 2 of 2011: Haryana. <http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/Haryana/ 8-pop-decadal-15-19.pdf> Accessed 18.09.12. Census of India (2011c). Provisional population totals paper 2 of 2011: Uttar Pradesh. <http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/UP/7pop-12-22.pdf> Accessed 18.09.12. Census of India (2011d). House Listing and Housing Census Data Highlights - 2011: NCT of Delhi. <http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/hlo_highlights. html> Accessed 12.10.12. Datta, A. (1983). Delhi. Cities, 1(1), 3–9. DDA (2012). Biodiversity parks of Delhi. <http://www.dda.org.in/greens/biodiv/ index.html> Accessed 12.05.12. De Wit, J., Nainan, N., & Paltnikarm, S. (2009). Urban decentralization in Indian cities: Assessing the performance of neighbourhood level wards committees. In I. S. A. Baud & J. De Wit (Eds.), New forms of urban governance in India: Shifts, models, networks and contestations (pp. 65–83). Sage. Dupont, V. (2004). Socio-spatial differentiation and residential segregation in Delhi: A question of scale? Geoforum, 35(2), 157–175. Dupont, V., & Ramanathan, U. (2007). Du traitement des slums a Delhi. In V. Dupont & D. G. Heuze (Eds.), La ville en Asie du Sud: Analyse et mise en perspective (pp. 91–131). Paris: EHESS. GoI (2010). Annual report of the ministry of environment and forests 2009–2010. Role and mandate of the ministry. <envfor.nic.in/report/0910/Annual_Report_ENG_ 0910.pdf>. GoI (2011). The Delhi municipal corporation (amendment) Bill, 2011 Bill No. 10 of 2011. <http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/c2afb68049fd6fc687facfe4899821f2/ The+Delhi+Municipal+Coporation%28Amendment%29+Bill, 2011.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=1679241624> Accessed 15.03.12. Goyal, P., & Sidhartha (2003). Present scenario of air quality in Delhi: A case study of CNG implementation. Atmospheric Environment, 37(38), 5423–5431. Gurjar, B. R., Butler, T. M., Lawrence, M. G., & Lelieveld, J. (2008). Evaluation of emissions and air quality in megacities. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 1592–1606. Guttikunda, S. K. (2009). Motorized passenger travel in urban India: Emissions and cobenefits analysis. SIM-air working paper series: 24-2009. <www.sim-air.org> Accessed 12.03.12. Guttikunda, S. K., & Gurjar, B. R. (2012). Role of meteorology in seasonality of air pollution in megacity Delhi, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(5), 3199–3211. Kathuria, V. (2002). Vehicular pollution control in Delhi. Transport Research Part D, 7, 373–387. Kumar, A. (1999). Organisations and approaches for the development and provision of infrastructure in the national capital territory of Delhi. In Graham P. Chapman, Ashok K. Dutt, & Robert W. Bradnock (Eds.), Urban growth and development in Asia. v.I making the cities (pp. 455–480). Aldershot, England; Brookfield, USA: Ashgate. Kundu, A. (2004). Provision of tenurial security for the urban poor in Delhi: Recent trends and future perspectives. Habitat International, 28(2), 259–274. Lebel, L., Garden, P., Banaticla, M. R. N., Lasco, R. D., Contreras, A., Mitra, A. P., Sharma, C., Nguyen, H. T., Ooi, G. L., & Sari, A. (2007). Integrating carbon S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia: Implications of urban function, form, and role. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 61–81. Marcotullio, P. J., & Schulz, N. B. (2007). Comparison of energy transitions between the USA and developing and industrializing economies. World Development, 35(10), 1650–1683. Master Plan of Delhi (2007). Master plan for Delhi – 2021. Delhi Development authority. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Milbert, I. (2009). Law, urban policies and the role of intermediaries in Delhi. In I. S. A. Baud & J. De Wit (Eds.), New forms of urban governance in India: Shifts, models, networks and contestations (pp. 178–212). Sage. MOEF (1997). White paper on air pollution in Delhi with an action plan. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. <http://moef.nic.in/divisions/ cpoll/delpolln.html> Accessed 15.03.12. Mohan, D. (2008). Metros, mythologies and future urban transport. TRIPP report, 08.01. New Delhi: Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. NBO (2007). Report of the technical group [11th five year plan: 2007–2012] on estimation of urban housing shortage. New Delhi: Ministry of housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. NCR Board (2005). Master plan for NCR – 2021. National Capital Region Planning Board. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. NCR Board (2012). NCR rationale. National capital region planning board. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. <http://ncrpb.nic.in/ rationale.php> Accessed 15.03.12. NCTD (2009). Economic survey of Delhi, 2008-2009. New Delhi. NCTD. <http:// delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/DoIT_Planning/planning/ economic+survey+of+dehli/economic+survey+of+delhi+2008+-+2009n> Accessed 15.09.12. NCTD (2011). Estimates of state domestic product New Delhi: Directorate of economic & statistics. NCTD. <http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/ 7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc/sdp10-11.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod= 455963647&CACHEID=7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc&lmod=455 Accessed 963647&CACHEID=7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc> 09.05.12. NSSO (2001). Report on informal sector in Delhi – NSS 55th round: Ministry of statistics and programme implementation. Government of India. <http://delhigovt.nic.in/ newdelhi/dept/economic/nss/EMPINFO.htm> Accessed 18.09.12. NSSO (2010). Housing condition and amenities in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. Planning Commission (2012). Press note on poverty estimates, 2009–2010. Planning Commission of India. New Delhi: Government of India. <http:// planningcommission.nic.in/news/press_pov1903.pdf> Accessed 15.03.12. Priya, R. (2006). Town planning, public health and Delhi’s urban poor: A historical view. In S. Patel & K. Deb (Eds.), Urban studies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pucher, J., Korattyswaropam, N., Mittal, N., & Ittyerah, N. (2005). Urban transport crisis in India. Transport Policy, 12, 185–198. 653 Pugh, C. (1991). Housing and land policies in Delhi. Journal of Urban Affairs, 13(3), 367–382. Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Balaban, O., Doll, C. N. H., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., Gasparatos, A., Iossifova, D., & Suwa, A. (2011). Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at the city level. Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1302–1313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.007. Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Suwa, A., Balaban, O., Doll, C. N. H., Moreno-Penaranda, R., & Dirhagayani, P. (2012). The role of cities in promoting green economy and global governance. In Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira (Ed.), Green economy and good governance for sustainable development: Opportunities, promises and concerns. Tokyo: UNU Press. Roy, D. (2005). Urban poor increasingly made homeless in India’s drive for more ‘Beautiful’Cities’. City Mayors. <http://www.citymayors.com/development/ india_urban1.html> Accessed 19.03.12. Sahai, S. N., & Bishop, S. (2010). Multi modal transport in a low carbon future. In India infrastructure report 2010 (pp. 310–330). <http://www.idfc.com/pdf/ report/Chapter-19.pdf> Accessed 15.03.12. Sen, A. K., Tiwari, G., & Upadhyay, V. (2010). Estimating marginal external costs of transport in Delhi. Transport Policy, 17, 27–37. Siemiatycki, M. (2006). Message in a metro: Building urban rail infrastructure and image in Delhi, India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(2), 277–292. Sivam, A. (2003). Housing supply in Delhi. Cities, 20(2), 135–141. Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) (2012). World’s largest development banks join together at Rio+20 to invest $175 billion for the creation of more sustainable transport systems. <http://www.slocat.net/content/world% E2%80%99s-largest-development-banks-join-together-rio20-invest-175-billioncreation-more-susta> Accessed 15.09.12. Tawa Lama-Rewal, Stephanie (2012). Le conflit sur l’usage du sol à Delhi: Un révélateur des enjeux du renouvellement de la participation en Inde. Participations (1), 148–166. Tawa Lema-Rewal, S. (2007). Delhi in the 1990s–2000s: Good governance and bad governability. Paper presented in the seminar on urban actors, policies and governance in four Indian metropolitan cities, Delhi, 23–24 January 2007. Thynell, M., Mohan, D., & Tiwari, G. (2010). Sustainable transport and the modernisation of urban transport in Delhi and Stockholm. Cities, 27(6), 421–429. Times of India (2012). Poison in India’s groundwater posing national health crisis, May 2 2012. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-02/pollution/ 31537647_1_groundwater-nitrates-aquifers> Accessed 15.05.12. Tiwari, G. (2002). Urban transport priorities: Meeting the challenge of socioeconomic diversity in cities, a case study of Delhi, India. Cities, 19(2), 95–103. Yagi, S., & Nagayama, K. (2010). Opinions of intermodal transfer functions of urban railway systems: A case study of Delhi Metro. In Proceedings of the world conference on transport research, July 11–15, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal. Zérah, M. H. (1998). How to assess the quality dimension of urban infrastructure: The case of water supply in Delhi. Cities, 15(4), 285–290.