about janaagraha centre for citizenship and … the wood for the trees #ùc Ì @ yc?s wc tcc...

About Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy

About Jana Urban Space Foundation (Jana USP)

About IDFC FoundationSupported by:

Annual Survey of India’s City-Systems 2016: Shaping India’s Urban Agenda,

2016

Missing The Wood For The Trees

CITY-SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

SYMPTOMSAPPARENT CAUSES

ROOT CAUSES

Garbageon the street

Bad qualityroads

Landfills are not scientificallydesigned and located

There are no codified design specificationsthat guide urban road projects

The city does not have a decentralised systeminvolving local communities and water

sources to create an efficientdistribution network

The city may not have adequate funds, staff and equipment to ensure 100% waste collection

The city does not spend enough on roadconstruction and maintenance

City Councillors do not need to disclose conflicts of interest, such as owning stakes in SWM agencies employed by their city

The city government is not empowered to make informed discussions on the issue of poor water supply

There are no mechanisms to recover water supply costs adequately thereby affecting maintenance of the city’s water distribution network

Major city road infrastructure projects often require state government approval

Citizens do not have access to formal platformsto hold Solid Waste Management (SWM)

contractors accountable

There is no system to adequately monitorwater usage and leakage

SYMPTOMS ofurban governancefailure

APPARENT CAUSES(What we think it is)

ROOT CAUSES(What it actually is?)

Unaccounted waterloss in distribution

Urban Planning & Design

Transparency, Accountability &

Participation

Empowered & Legitimate Political

Representation

Urban Capacities & Resources

The city does not provide data on road works and projects in ‘open data format’ for citizens

to see and use

Pipeline

LeakagesLong distance

to source

of water

Delay in major

road works

Foreword

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

3

Key Insights1

4

6

9

ExecutiveSummary

Sizing Up The Urban Challenge

Annual Survey Of India’s City-Systems

The Size Of India’s Urban Challenge : An Unknown

The Challenge Of Poor Service Delivery In Urban India10

9

5

11

Table Of Contents

Reforms To City-Systems: A Roadmap

Methodology

33

38

Data Sources41

Annexures43

Overall City-System Scores And Rankings57

Data Tables58

13 Rankings & Scores

Urban Planning & Design (UPD)

Urban Capacities & Resources (UCR)

Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation (ELPR)

Transparency, Accountability & Participation (TAP)

17

23

29

13

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

Overall Score Urban Planning& Design

Urban Capacities& Resources

Empowered & LegitimatePolitical

Representation

Transparency,Accountability& Participation

Average Score

Maximum Score

Legend

Minimum Score

London

New York

2.1

3.5

4.4

9.39.8

0.6

2.5

3.7

9.69.9

1.42.2

4.0

6.2

2.6

4.4

6.4

10.010.0

8.2

9.6

3.0

5.2

9.7 9.8

ASI

CS

Scor

es 2

016

IndianCities

Key Insights

Urban Planning & Design is the weakest of the 4 City-Systems in India’s cities.

India’s cities face a severe systems problem as none of the cities fare well across all four City-Systems, key components that together are popularly referred to as urban governance.

and levels of devolution. This is the opposite in smaller cities.

OVERALL SCORE : 4.4 OVERALL SCORE : 4.1OVERALL SCORE : 4.2

UPD UCR

ELPRTAP

2.4 2.6

UPD UCR

ELPRTAP

UPD UCR

ELPRTAP

Thiruvananthapuram KolkataPune

6.46.2

3.0 3.4

4.1 6.0

1.9 4.6

5.1 5.1

TOP

3 R

AN

KIN

G C

ITIE

S

th

2

Rs. 33,168 Cr. Total Expenditure

MUMBAI

Population12.4 million

Expenditure Per-Capita

Rs. 26,657Expenditure Per-Capita

Expenditure Per-CapitaRs. 6,157 Rs. 3,708

Rs. 33,132 Cr. Total Expenditure

Population54.4 million Rs. 4,505 Cr.

Total Expenditure

Population13.1 million

OTHER 10 ASICS CITIESNEXT 10 MOST POPULOUSASICS CITIES

Smaller cities, which will be at the forefront of future urbanisation, invest

quality of life.

3

Abbreviations

2

th

_________________ 4

Acknowledgements

5

Foreword

Anil Nair

th

Srikanth Viswanathan

Swati Ramanathan & Ramesh Ramanathan

6

Executive Summary

Delhi

Bhopal

Mumbai

Pune

Chennai

Hyderabad

Bhubaneswar

Kolkata

Kanpur

Score : 3.6

Score : 3.6

Score : 4.1

Score : 3.5

Score : 3.7

Score : 3.9

Score : 3.6

Score : 4.4

Score : 4.1

Score : 4.2

Thiruvananthapuram

9

7

4

8

6

10

5

2

2

1

82

1

2

Rank

Change in Rankover 2015

No Change in Rankover 2015

2016 Rank

Legend

0

0

Rank

2

Rank

3

00

1112

+1+2

2021

TOP 10 CITIES 2016

Other 11 Cities

7

A1. DOES YOUR CITY HAVE A DECENTRALISED SYSTEM OF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING?

1 0

2 2

A2. CAN YOUR CITY IMPLEMENT SDPs SUCCESSFULLY? 1 0

2

2

A3. DOES YOUR CITY HAVE EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS TO DETER PLAN VIOLATIONS

A4. DOES YOUR CITY ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATORY PLANNING?

B1. DOES YOUR CITY INVEST ADEQUATE FUNDS IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES?

1 1

2 1

1

WHAT LIES BEHIND THE RANKING

8

B3. DOES YOUR CITY MAKE OPTIMUM USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)?

1

2

B2. DOES YOUR CITY HAVE ADEQUATE NUMBER OF SKILLED HUMAN RESOURCES?

1 0

2 0

0

D1. DOES YOUR CITY PUT OUT ADEQUATE INFORMATION AND FACILITATE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION?

1 0

2 0

0

D2. HOW WELL DOES YOUR CITY ADDRESS CITIZEN COMPLAINTS? 1 0

2 0

C1. DO YOUR CITY LEADERS HAVE ADEQUATE POWER?th

1 0

2 0

0

C2. IS YOUR CITY TRULY DEMOCRATIC? 1 0

2 0

0

th th

9

The Size Of India’s Urban Challenge : An Unknown

ESTIMATES FOR HOW ‘URBAN’ INDIA IS, DIFFER VASTLY

Bihar

Tripura

Chattisgarh

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Telangana

Madhyapradesh

Uttar Pradesh

MaharashtraOdisha

Punjab

Rajasthan

Utharakhand

Kerala

Haryana

JharkhandWest Bengal

Goa

Gujarat

Area

Population size

Population Density

Occupation

ULB Revenue

Economic importance

Pace of urbanisation

Demand for progressive services

Sikkim

Legend

Statutorydefinition

Censusdefinition

5000+ Population(Ghana’s definition)

2500+ Population(Mexico’s definition)

26% 31%

47%*

65%*

STATES IN INDIA HAVE VARYING DEFINITIONS FOR STATUTORY TOWNS

Number of parameters that

across States

10

Coverage of IndividualWater Supply Connections

Cost Recovery in Water Supply Services Non-Revenue Water

Per CapitaSupply of Water

Serv

ice

Leve

l Be

nchm

ark*

Curr

ent S

tatu

s Se

rvic

e Le

vel

Benc

hmar

k*Cu

rren

t Sta

tus

Serv

ice

Leve

l Be

nchm

ark*

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

100%

71%1

135

LPCPD**

2981

LPCPD371

LPCPD**

100%

39%3

20%

33%3

Households Resortingto Open Defecation

Coverage of Sewer Network

Households with Drainage Connectivity

Road Network Covered by Storm Water Drain Network

Household Coverageof SWM Services

Waste CollectionEfficiency

100% 100%

<30%4

35%3

Households living in slums : 17%1 Shortage of housing (units) : 19.8 million5 Share of public transport in mobility: 27%2

Water Supply

Sewerage and Sanitation

Solid Waste Management

Slums Affordable Housing Mobility

12%1

0%

12%3

45%1

100% 100%100%

<20%1

Extent of WasteSegregation

1. Census 20112. 12th

in larger cities

in smaller cities

in larger cities in smaller cities

100%

70-90%4

<50%4

The Challenge Of Poor Service Delivery In Urban India

Service Delivery: Benchmarks vs. Current Status

This uniformly poor state of service delivery across cities points to a failure of urban governance. ASICS uses the City-Systems framework to help identify the root causes of such failures.

11

‘City-Systems’

QUALITY OF LIFE

Urban Capacities& Resources

Empowered &Legitimate Political

Representation

Transparency,Accountability &

Participation

Urban Planning& Design

Annual Survey Of India’s City-Systems

12

A


Urban Capacities & Resources

Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation

Transparency, Accountability & Participation

B

C

D

13


A

Socrates

Jane Jacobs

The ASICS report scores cities

on 33 parameters that help

us answer the following key

questions around

Urban Planning & Design.

A1.

A3.

A4.

A2.

13 14

Key Highlights 2016

Delhi

Jaipur

Ahmedabad Bhopal

Surat

MumbaiPune

Bengaluru Chennai

Bhubaneswar

Kolkata

Patna

Lucknow

Dehradun

Thiruvananthapuram

9

11

21

5

14

14

10

7

11

18

6

11

4


Kanpur

8 1

1

22

16

3


Ludhiana

Chandigarh

Rank

2016 Rank

Legend

00

00

0

0

0

0

00

0

0

Key High

baneswa

4

Rank

2

ta1

Le

0

ar Rank

3

Poor urban planning can cost a country 3%* of its GDP. No Indian city looks prepared to implement Spatial Development Plans successfully or deter plan violations –

UPD - Overall Ranks 2016

14

15

A1

A2

A3

A4

Does your city have a decentralised system of Spatial Development Planning?

Can your city implement SDPs successfully?

Does your city encourage participatory planning?

1 2 12 12 21 _ _

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ _

_ _

Assessing City-Systems : Urban Planning & Design

16

India

1 per400,000

South Africa

4 per400,000

United Kingdom

148 per400,000

United States

48 per400,000

ThiruvananthapuramPatnaLudhiana

Dehradun

LucknowBhopal KanpurHyderabad

RaipurSurat

Ahmedabad

Pune

KolkataJaipur

SU MO TU WE TH FR SA

APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


PPAPRILRAPRILPR

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


PPAPRILRAPRILPR

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

GreenRevolution

Bengaluru Mumbai

G1967

Chandigarh

19791982

1995 2012

Ranchi Bhubaneswar Delhi

197319751976

19661954 1956 1957 1961

2016

Chennai

1952


APRILAPRIL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

EconomicLiberalisation

1991


APRILRAPRILPR

1

22 33 44 55 66 77 88

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

1971

APRILAPRIL

India’sIndependence

1947

Enabling cities to make the best of their land - Rajasthan shows the way

Number of planners in India compared with other countries

Is India trying to build 21st century cities with outdated planning laws?

Timeline : Enactment of Town and Country Planning Acts

And, do we have enough people to build these cities?

CASE STUDY

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

5 key elements of the bill:

17

B Urban CapacitiesAnd Resources

The ASICS report scores cities on 20 parameters that help

us answer the following key questions around Urban Capacities & Resources.

N R Narayana Murthy

B1.

B3.

B2.

17 18



2016 Rank

Legend

Mumbai

Patna

9

18

5

421

10

158

12

147 6

3

5

3

2

3

1

1

2

11 5

19

Rank

Pa

M

Raipur

Jaipur

Ahmedabad Bhopal

Surat

MumbaiPune

BengaluruChennai

Hyderabad

Bhubaneswar

KolkataRanchi

Patna

Lucknow

Dehradun

Thiruvananthapuram

Ludhiana

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Rank

2

88pur

Bhopal

adun

0

0

Rank

3

Key Highlights 2016th

ASICS cities generate just 37% of the money that they spend. Barring Delhi and Mumbai, cities only have an

UCR - Overall Ranks 2016

18

19

1 2 10 11 12 20 21 _ _

B1

B2

B3

Does your city invest adequate funds in public infrastructure and services?

Does your city have adequate number of skilled human resources?

Does your city make optimum use of Information Technology?

1 2 10 11 12 20 21 _ _

1 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 21 _ _

Assessing City-Systems : Urban Capacities & Resources

20


13.7 1.3

1.31.3

1.0

1.7

3.6

1.0

1.3

0.6

1.0

0.8

1.7

1.3

2.5

0.7

1.3

2.5

0.7

0.7

0.8

1.0

7.35.5

4.1

3.93.4

3.02.8

2.72.4

1.8

1.1

0.70.60.6

0.5

0.50.0

0.0NANA

Years of experience of current Commissioner in urban departments

Average term of Commissioner over the last 5 years

Mumbai

Hyderabad

Ahmedabad

Pune

Chennai

Kolkata

Bhubaneswar

Ludhiana

Delhi

Surat

Bhopal

Ranchi

Kanpur

Jaipur

Raipur

Bengaluru

Patna

Chandigarh

Thiruvanantapuram

Dehradun

Lucknow

How robust are our city budget estimates?

Are we ignoring small cities?

1,444 Cr.

Actuals of Lucknow

Bengaluru’s2015 estimateovershoot

1,821 Cr.

244 Cr.

Actuals of Bhubaneswar

+

21

Ahmedabad7,503(41%)

Mumbai 26,658

(66%)

Chandigarh 5,381(29%)

Delhi6,289(67%)

Jaipur 1,834 (25%)

Bengaluru4,474(47%)

Thiruvanantapuram 11,668

(24%)

Bhopal5,246 (27%)

Dehradun1,015 (28%)

Ludhiana3,814 (32%)

Kanpur2,526(22%)

Lucknow3,859 (18%)

Patna1,114 (17%)

Bhubaneswar1,901 (39%)

Kolkata6,844 (40%)

Chennai8,948(28%)

Hyderabad4,207(77%)

Pune10,227 (60%)

Surat7,386 (28%)

Raipur3,009(33%)

Ranchi1,403(24%)

London

Per capita expenditure in Rs.

City

Proportion of own revenue to total expenditure (%)

New York

Johannesburg

46% Own Revenue

68% Own Revenue

68% Own Revenue

Legend

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS Are our cities sustainable and independent economic units?

2222

23

Empowered & Legitimate PoliticalRepresentation

c

The ASICS report scores cities on 11 parameters that help

us answer the following key questions around Empowered

& Legitimate Political Representation.

Dr Shashi Tharoor,

th

C1.

C2.

23 24

Patna

6

16

11

12

20

17

14

15

95

7

8 4

18

19

213

1

1

1

13

Rank



2016 Rank

Legend

Pa

Raipur

Delhi

Jaipur

Ahmedabad Bhopal

Surat

MumbaiPune

Bengaluru Chennai

Hyderabad

Bhubaneswar

KolkataRanchi

Patna

Lucknow

Dehradun

Thiruvananthapuram

Ludhiana

Chandigarh

Kanpur

0

0

0

00

0

0

0

00

0

0

0

0

00

0

Le

r

olkataKoKo

0

0

Rank

2

Rank

3

Key Highlights 2016

Of the 80 million residents in the ASICS cities, 46 million are governed by an indirectly elected

ELPR - Overall Ranks 2016

24

25

th

C1

C2

Do your city leaders have adequate power?

Is your city truly democratic?

1 2 10 11 12 20 21 _ _

1 2 10 10 12 21 _ _

Assessing City-Systems : Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation

26

Thiruvanan-thapuram Bhopal Bengaluru

Sl.N

o. Functions to be devolved as per the 12th schedule of the 74 th CAA

Cla

imed

*

Rea

lity*

Cla

imed

*

Rea

lity*

Cla

imed

*

Rea

lity*

1 Urban planning including town planning

2 Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings

3 Planning for economic and social development

4 Roads and bridges

5 Water supply for domestic, industrial and, commercial purposes

6 Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management

7 Fire services

8Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological

aspects

9Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the

handicapped and mentally retarded

10 Slum improvement and upgradation

11 Poverty alleviation

12Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens,

playgrounds

13 Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects

14Burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds and electric

crematoriums

15 Cattle ponds; prevention of cruelty to animals

16 Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths

17Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and

public conveniences

18 Regulation of slaughterhouses and tanneries

Even 25 years after the passing of the 74th

INTERESTING NUGGETS

27

Gender representation in city leadership -

Bhu

(50%

)

Thi (

50%

)

Mum

(50%

)

Hyd

(50%

)

Del

* (5

0%)

Ahd

(50%

)

Blr

(50%

)

Pat (

50%

)

Sur

(50%

)

Kol

(33%

)

Deh

(33%

)

Lud

(33%

)

Kan

(33%

)

Lck

(33%

)

Jai (

33%

)

Chd

(33%

)

50%

33%

55% 54%52% 51% 51% 51% 51% 50% 50%

46.5% 45%41%

36% 36% 36%34%

Cit

y (r

eser

vati

on)

Lege

nd

�

�

Axi

s

Municipal Election Turnout - LatestCompared withState Assembly

Compared withLok Sabha

-5%

-14%

-8%

-8%

-10%

-7%

-13%

-7%

-8%

-4%

-26%

-9%

-5%

-24%

2%

-8%

-6%

-13%

-30%

-27%

5%

1%

-8%

-14%

-7%

-9%

-10%

-7%

-1%

-6%

-14%

-6%

-5%

-23%

-13%

-8%

-10%

-11%

-24%

-26%

0% =

NA

72%

69%

63%

60%

58%

58%

57%

56%

55%

53%

49%

48%

47%

47%

46%

45%

45%

45%

41%

40%

38%

Thiruvananthapuram

Kolkata

Ludhiana

Chandigarh

Delhi

Raipur

Bhopal

Jaipur

Dehradun

Pune

Bengaluru

Chennai

Lucknow

Patna

Ahmedabad

Bhubaneswar

Hyderabad

Mumbai

Kanpur

Surat

Ranchi

INTERESTING NUGGETS All cities see a lower voter turnout in Municipal elections

Proportion of women in Municipal Council

28


CASE STUDY

How empowered are our cities and their leaders?

th th

th

th

th

Political Leadership

‘may’ th ‘shall’

Citizen Participation

No timelines2 years

‘Area Sabha’

SFC

without any time limit.

6 months

MPC/DPC No timelines 2 years

A constitutional bid for better cities : Stronger cities with an empowered Mayor

Political Empowerment Resources

CITY Population (Census 2011 Mn)

Is Mayor Directly Elected

Tenure of Mayor

(years)

Critical Functions Devolved*

Power over Taxation**(out of 10)

Power over Employees***

(out of 10)

Bhopal 1.8 Yes 5 30% 2.5 8.3

Dehradun 0.6 Yes 5 10% 7.5 8.3

Kanpur 2.8 Yes 5 20% 7.5 8.3

Lucknow 2.8 Yes 5 20% 7.5 8.3

Raipur 1.0 Yes 5 30% 2.5 8.3

Ranchi 1.1 Yes 5 30% 7.5 6.7

Bhubaneswar 0.8 No 5 10% 5 1.7

Chennai 4.6 No 5 30% 7.5 0

Hyderabad 6.7 No 5 10% 7.5 0

Jaipur 3.0 No 5 20% 7.5 0

Kolkata 4.5 No 5 50% 5 8.3

Ludhiana 1.6 No 5 30% 7.5 0

Patna 1.7 No 5 40% 7.5 10

Thiruvananthapuram 0.7 No 5 20% 10 5

Ahmedabad 5.6 No 2.5 50% 5 8.3

Mumbai 12.4 No 2.5 60% 5 8.3

Pune 3.1 No 2.5 60% 5 8.3

Surat 4.5 No 2.5 50% 5 8.3

Bengaluru 8.4 No 1 30% 5 1.7

Chandigarh 1.0 No 1 30% 7.5 0

Delhi 11.0 No 1 30% 7.5 10

29

Transparency,Accountability &Participation

D

Barack Obama,

The ASICS report scores cities on 11 parameters that help us

answer the following key questions around Transparency,

Accountability & Participation.

D1.

D2.

29 30

16

20

10

135

7

19

21

15

17

12

8

4

14

518

11 1

2

2

5

5

1

1

4

1

9

1

2

Rank



2016 Rank

Legend

Raipur

Delhi

Jaipur

Ahmedabad Bhopal

Surat

MumbaiPune

Bhubaneswar

KolkataRanchi

Patna

Lucknow

Dehradun

Thiruvananthapuram

Ludhiana

Chandigarh

Kanpur

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

114 2

2

Rank

3

Key Highlights 2016Key Highlights 2016

TAP - Overall Ranks 2016

Indian cities lack in both :- formal platforms of participation that give its people a sense of ownership over the city, and democratising information which facilitates interested and informed participation by enabling its people to get a true image of what ails their city.

30

31

1 2 10 10 12 20 20 _ _

th

D1

D2

Does your city put out adequate information and facilitate citizen participation?

How well does your city address citizen complaints?

1 2 11 12 12 20 20 _ _

Assessing City-Systems : Transparency,Accountability & Participation

32

Mohalla Sabha

Implementation of the work usingCitizen-Local Area Development Funds

or through Agencies

Work Completed Discussion on important issues in the Mohalla

Voting and selection of priority issues

�

�

�

�

�

Life Cycle of Mohalla Sabhas

Mohalla Sabhas in Delhi: A decision making process close to communities

CASE STUDY

33

URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Amend Planning Act:

i.e.

Reforms Timeline

Immediate Medium-Term

Reforms to City-Systems: A Roadmap

33 34

URBAN CAPACITIES & RESOURCES Reforms Timeline

Medium-TermImmediate

34

35

EMPOWERED & LEGITIMATE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Amend Municipal Corporation Act to :

Reforms Timeline

Stat

eSt

ate

Stat

e

Cent

re

Cent

re


35 36

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY & PARTICIPATION Reforms Timeline


36

37

SuratSuratRaipur

Delhi

Jaipur

AhmedabadBhopal

Surat

MumbaiPune

Bangalore Chennai

Hyderabad

Bhubaneswar

KolkataRanchi

Patna

Lucknow

Dehradun

Thiruvananthapuram

LudhianaChandigarh

Kanpur

Medium City0.5 million - 1 million

Large City1 million - 5 million

Mega/Emerging Mega City>5 million

1.60.9 0.5

11

3.0 2.82.7

1.6

4.41.0

1.7

1.0

5.5

4.4

0.8

3.1

6.7

4.6

0.7

12.4

8.4

ASICS 2016Geographical Distribution of Cities

Figure 1.0 source census of India 2011*All population in millions

37 38

Methodology

THE APPROACH

Components of City-Systems framework Number of Questions

20

11

SELECTION OF CITIES

39

SELECTION OF CATEGORIES AND QUESTIONS

th th

DATA COLLECTION

SCORING & WEIGHTAGE

40

EXPLANATORY SCHEDULE

Urban Capacities & ResourcesQ1.

Q2.

Q3. th

Empowered & Legitimate Political RepresentationQ1.

th

Transparency, Accountability & ParticipationQ1. Does the ULB have single-window civic service centres?

ADDITIONAL POINTS

th

41

Data Sources

42

2012

43


1

2

10

11

12

Annexures

44

45


20

21

22

46

47

URBAN CAPACITIES & RESOURCES

1

2

10

11

48

49

12

20

URBAN CAPACITIES & RESOURCES

50

51

1

2

10

11

EMPOWERED & LEGITIMATE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

52

53

1

2

10

11

12

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY & PARTICIPATION

54

55

Seri

al N

o.

Questions

Ahm

edab

ad

Ben

galu

ru

Bho

pal

Bhu

bane

swar

Cha

ndig

arh

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY & PARTICIPATION

56

Che

nnai

Deh

radu

n

Del

hi

Hyd

erab

ad

Jaip

ur

Kan

pur

Kol

kata

Luck

now

Ludh

iana

Mum

bai

Patn

a

Pun

e

Rai

pur

Ran

chi

Sura

t

Thi

ruva

nant

ha-

pura

m

Lon

don

New

Yor

k

57

City UPD UCR ELPR TAP AVERAGE SCORE RANK 2015

RANK

12

10

21 21

20 20

12 10

2

11 11

2

1 1

_ _

_ _ _

Overall City-System Scores And Rankings

58

1

2 110

10

11

12

2011

Data Tables

59 60

202

101

211

61 62

100

12

110

110

100

63

64

about janaagraha centre for citizenship and … the wood for the trees #ùc Ì @ yc?s wc tcc...

Documents