Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

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, Japanb Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japanc City and Regional Planning Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkeyd National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 1 June 2012Received in revised form 16 October 2012Accepted 27 December 2012Available online 5 February 2013

Keywords:Urban governanceUrban poorGreen economyDelhiPlanning history

0264-2751/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.12.006

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 6F, Internationalico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokoham45 221 2345/2300 (reception); fax: +81 45 221 2302

E-mail address: architectsohail@gmail.com (S. Ahm

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 ofIndia in 2012, this article makes a wide-ranging survey of Delhi in the administrative, socio-economic andenvironmental arenas. By tracing the history of urban planning in the city to the present and examiningthe issues facing Delhi, we then critically examine its institutional arrangements with respect to the out-comes of recent developments that have occurred in the city. These aspects are then evaluated in the con-text of the future development of the city; a city which still faces numerous local challenges but alsohouses the government of an emerging superpower that will play an increasing role both regionallyand globally.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

For a century, Delhi has been the capital of India. It is now one ofthe top 10 megacities in the world with a growing importance onthe global stage. As one of the largest and most prominent cities inthe world, this paper profiles the city, its organization and the chal-lenges it faces in the coming years. The paper is divided into threeparts. The first part depicts the city with respects to its socio-eco-nomic history and environmental issues. The second part of the pa-per details how the governance of Delhi has developed to thepresent day and takes examples of recent developments in the cityto critically evaluate this structure. The final part takes this struc-ture and considers the barriers and opportunities in addressing themost pressing challenges Delhi faces over the coming years.

Background

Location

The National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) – the capital cityof India, is located between 28�-240-1700 and 28�-530-0000 North and76�-500-2400 and 77�-200-3700 East. It, borders two other Indianstates – Uttar Pradesh to the east and Haryana to the north, west

ll rights reserved.

Organizations Center, Pacif-a 220-8502, Japan. Tel.: +81

.ad).

and south. It lies in Ganges plain with two prominent geographicalfeatures – the Yamuna flood plains and the Delhi ridge.

Constituents of Delhi

At a larger spatial scale, the NCTD is a part of the National Cap-ital Region (NCR) which came into existence in 1985 after enact-ment of National Capital Region Planning Board Act by theParliament, with the concurrence of the participating States of Har-yana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Fig. 1). The key rationale be-hind its establishment was ‘‘to promote balanced andharmonized development of the region, and to contain haphazardand unplanned urban growth by channelizing the flow and direc-tion of economic growth along more balanced spatially-orientedpaths’’ (NCRB, 2012).

The NCTD consists of five local bodies – (i) New Delhi MunicipalCouncil (NDMC), (ii) Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB), (iii) NorthDelhi Municipal Corporation, (iv) South Delhi Municipal Corpora-tion and (v) East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Prior to enactmentof Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act 2011, the lastthree local bodies (corporations) were the parts of the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi (MCD), which has recently been trifurcatedto bring administrative efficiency in civic functions (GOI, 2011).

As per the census of 2001,1 the NDMC spread over an area of42.74 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 localbodies.

Fig. 1. Proposed land use plan of National Capital Region (NCR) – 2021. Source: NCR Board (2005).

642 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

of Delhi, comprising government offices and residential areas, andcommercial hubs. The Cantonment area is spread over an area of42.97 km2 with a population of 120,000 administered by the DCB.The MCD (jointly the newly formed three local bodies) occupies1397 km2 of Delhi with a population of 9.81 million. At the adminis-trative level, Delhi has been divided into 9 districts and 27 sub-districts. Fig. 2 maps these administrative units by populationdensity based on 2011 census population.

Demography

Delhi’s urban population has grown from 1.4 million in 1951 to16.3 million in 2011 (Table 1). In any urban area, populationgrowth takes place through natural growth, net in-migration andexpansion of physical boundary. The estimated annual populationgrowth in Delhi showed that population growth by net in-migra-tion is slightly more than the natural growth. For instance, average

Fig. 2. NCT of Delhi – density of population 2011. Source: Census of India, 2011a.

Table 1Population growth of Delhi, 1951–2011. Source: Data from various censuses of India.

Years Total population Density (person/km2) Total urban population Urban population % Decennial urban growth % Annual urban growth %

1951 1,744,072 1176 1,437,134 82.40 – –1961 2,658,612 1793 2,359,408 88.75 64.17 5.081971 4,065,698 2742 3,647,023 89.70 54.57 4.451981 6,220,406 4194 5,768,200 92.73 58.16 4.691991 9,420,644 6352 8,471,625 89.93 46.87 3.922001 13,782,976 9340 12,819,761 93.01 51.33 4.232011a 16,752,235 11,297 16,333,915 97.50 20.96 2.45

a Represents provisional data.

S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 643

644 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

annual population growth by natural growth and net in-migrationwas 2.2% and 2.4% respectively between 1995 and 2006 (NCTD,2009). Migration data in the recent census was not available atthe time of writing; however, previous census data showed thatnet 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 remarkablylow in last decade 2001–2011, merely 2.45%, whereas the annualurban population growth rate during 1951–2001 was in the rangeof 3.92–5.08%. This slow growth rate is attributed to declining fer-tility rate and mass slum demolition during last census. In addi-tion, it could be also due to the population growth in theNational Capital Region (NCR) which consists of rapidly growingcities such as Gurgaon and Faridabad in Haryana, and Ghaziabadand Noida in Uttar Pradesh.2

In spatial terms, since 1951, Delhi’s land area has expandedfrom 201 km2 to 792 km2. Two key historical events in India ledto influx of migrants and consequently to major spatial expansionsin Delhi: the re-establishment of Delhi as a capital city in 1912 andthe partition of India in 1947. By 1961, Delhi expanded to326.55 km2 with a decennial growth rate of about 62% in responseto the planning interventions following the enactment of the DelhiDevelopment Authority (DDA) Act, 1957. In 1990s, Delhi hasreached to a land area of 624.3 km2 and of 702 km2 in 2001. TheMaster Plan of Delhi (2007) envisages that the entire area underthe NCTD will be urbanized by 2021. Notably, Delhi’s gross popu-lation density has increased from 1176 persons per km2 to11,297 persons per km2 during last six decades with certain sub-districts over 40,000 persons per km2 (Fig. 2). Furthermore, MasterPlan of Delhi (2007) envisages the densification of built-up areas.

Economy

Delhi’s economy is primarily based on the tertiary (service) sec-tor, which contributed over 82% of the Gross State Domestic Prod-uct (GSDP) (2.6 billion INR) in 2010–2011. The remainingcontributions were made by the secondary sector (17.1%) and theprimary sector (0.6%) (NCTD, 2011). The proportion of employmentin primary, secondary and tertiary sectors were 1%, 31% and 68%respectively of the city’s labor force in 2004, more or less propor-tional to the GSDP contributions (NCTD, 2008–2009). Accordingto census data, there were 4.54 million workers in 2001, which in-cluded 1.65% marginal3 workers. In addition, a large share of work-force is employed in informal sector; for instance, in the beginning of2000s, about 1.74 million persons were employed in urban informal4

sectors (NSSO, 2001). Among the urban informal sectors employ-ment, about 633,379 persons were employed in household enter-prises and 1.02 million persons in establishments. The urbaninformal sectors consists in trade (49.17%), manufacturing(23.47%), other services (14.16%), transport, storage etc. (7.45%), ho-tel and restaurants (5.10%), and construction (0.65%) (NSSO, 2001).

Estimates based on 64th round NSS survey showed that in ur-ban Delhi 40% of households were self-employed, 50% were on reg-ular 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 asfollowing during 2001–2011: Gurgaon 74%, Faridabad 31.75%, Noida 54% andGhaziabad 40.66%.

3 ‘‘Marginal workers were those who worked any time at all in the yearprecedingthe enumeration but did not work for a major part of the year, i.e., thosewho workedfor less than 183 days (or 6 months). ’’

4 ‘‘The informal sector consists of all unincorporated private enterprises owned byindividuals or households engaged in the sale and production of goods and servicesoperated 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 laborforce was unemployed, with high concentration in women laborforce (64%) in comparison to men labor force (36%).

Poverty

Recently, the central government of India accepted a recom-mendation for the use of implicit prices derived from quantityand value data collected in household consumer expenditure sur-veys for measurement of poverty. Table 2 presents poverty inci-dence in Delhi and India by way of comparison. Although urbanpoverty levels in Delhi are much lower than the national average,urban poverty in Delhi has been increased by 4.6% annually, in con-trast to the national trend, which is characterized by an annual de-cline of 1.24%.

The spatial distribution of deprivation (including physical capi-tals) revealed that deprivation in Delhi is not only limited to theslums (Baud, Sridharan, & Pfeffer, 2008). In other words, othernon-slum settlements are also as deprived as slums, although pov-erty rate and severity are higher in slum areas in terms of bothfloor area per capita and consumption expenditure (NSSO, 2010).It is also shown that peripheral settlements as opposed to the coreof the city are more deprived (Ahmad & Choi, 2010). The reasonsfor peripheral deprivation are explained by (a) resettlement of JJclusters6 in 1970s in peripheral areas and (b) proliferation of unau-thorized colonies in peripheral areas.

Housing and urban amenities

Urban Delhi had a housing shortage of 1.13 million homes in2007, most of which was in low-income households (NBO, 2007).Table 3 provides a comprehensive list of changes to amenities overthe period 1991–2011. It should be noted that about three-quar-ters of the households live in unplanned settlements e.g., unautho-rized colonies, regularized unauthorized colonies, urban villages, JJclusters, notified JJ clusters and resettlement colonies. The qualityof housings and public amenities (therefore quality of life) varyfrom one unplanned settlements to another and even within them(Ahmad, 2011) and demand for different housing characteristicsalso varies significantly between non-slum and slum households.Whilst there is a general need, only part of this can be expressedas an economic demand (Ahmad, Choi, & Ko, 2013).

There are many reasons for poor housing outcomes includingland monopoly and inadequate governance for the poor. In fact,following independence, slums emerged as an important issue be-cause of the arrival of a great number of refugees and increasinglevels of urbanization. National laws have been enacted, such asthe 1956 Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, in orderto improve or demolish unsanitary housing. The DDA as well asthe Delhi government have developed policies based on the demo-lition of dilapidated shelters and resettlement of the evacuatedpeople. However in the latter case, slum dwellers were supposedto be registered and be able to provide a title deed stating that theyhave been occupying the place more than a certain number ofyears determined by the public authorities. This requirement hasprevented many people to get access to the land. Throughout the1960s and 1970s, resettlement colonies were built with access tobasic services. At first, generous offers were made with relocation

5 Economic activity in the survey includes (i) all the market activities performed forpay or profit which result in production of goods and services for exchange, (ii) of thenon-market activities e.g., activities related to primary sector and activities related tothe own-account production of fixed assets. Activity status is the activity situation inwhich 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 thepoor.

Table 2Number and percentage of population below poverty line, 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. Source: Planning Commission, 2012.

Year Delhi India

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

2004–2005a 0.11 (15.6) 1.83 (12.9) 1.93 (13) 3258.1 (42) 814.1 (25.5) 4072.2 (37.2)2009–2010b 0.03 (7.7) 2.29 (14.4) 2.33 (14.2) 2782.1 (33.8) 764.7 (20.9) 3546.8 (29.8)% Change �72.73 25.14 20.73 �14.61 �6.07 �12.90Annual % change �22.88 4.59 3.84 �3.11 �1.24 �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 for2009–2010 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 3Change 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 % 2001 % 2011 % Change in 1991–2001 (%)

Total household 1.70 2.38 3.26 36.65

Census houseTotal census house 2.21 100 3.13 100 4.48 100 42.93Vacant census house 0.25 11.34 0.34 10.8 0.49 10.90 44.25Occupied census house 1.96 88.66 2.80 89.2 3.99 89.10 42.77Residential and residential cum others census house 1.64 74.26 2.56 81.8 3.63 81.10 41.70Non-residential census house 0.32 14.40 0.57 18.2 0.81 18.00 41.36

LatrineWC 1.13 66.63 1.13 47.4 2.80 86.00 147.94Pit latrine 0.36 15.2 0.06 1.70 �84.72Other latrine 0.39 16.5 0.07 2.10 �82.61No latrine 0.57 18.74 0.50 21 0.33 10.20 �33.62

Source of drinking waterTap water 1.33 71.47 1.84 77 2.67 81.90 45.35Well water 0.03 2.02 0.00 0 0.00 0.10 –Hand pump/tube well water 0.30 16.30 0.49 20.7 0.44 13.40 �11.54Other sources of water 0.03 1.40 0.05 2.2 0.15 4.70 191.94

Availability of drinking waterWithin the premises – 1.81 75.8 2.57 78.80 42.06Near the premises – 0.43 18 0.50 15.20 15.40Away – 0.15 6.3 0.20 6.10 32.32

Source of lightingElectricity 1.38 81.37 2.23 93.4 3.23 99.10 44.99Kerosene – 0.14 5.7 0.02 0.60 �85.62Other sources – 0.02 0.7 0.01 0.20 �60.96No lighting – 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.10 �31.67

TransportationBicycle – 0.88 36.8 0.99 30.30 12.52Two wheeler – 0.68 28.5 1.27 38.90 86.52Four wheeler – 0.32 13.4 0.68 21.00 114.16None of the specified – 1.04 43.4 1.21 37.20 17.13

(–) Data not available with us.

S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 645

in spaces up to 80 square meters with long-term lease of up to99 years (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). However, the DDA andthe Delhi government could not cope with the demand. This hadsevere repercussions on the poorest part of the population. More-over new buildings were built for middle-class citizens accordingto demanding standards and were therefore not affordable by thepoorest (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007). This contributed to the fur-ther development of numerous illegal settlements. Only a fewunauthorized colonies were regularized.

However, in spite of these good intentions, slum dwellers inDelhi have often been the victims of violent evictions. As the na-tional capital, Delhi has been treated as the showcase of India. Inthis context, political leaders and middle-class stakeholders(judges, resident welfare associations) have insisted on the needto clean the city (Baviskar, 2012; Dupont & Ramanathan, 2007;Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). This has often resulted in demolition ofslums. Since the Emergency period (1975–1977), hundreds of

thousands of people have been evicted. Mega events have alsoplayed a significant role in this respect. Since India became anindependent nation, Delhi has been the host for several megaevents including the Asian Games in 1982 and the CommonwealthGames in 2010. Such events have acted as catalysts for urbanbeautification schemes, and led to development of large-scaleinfrastructure and urban development projects (Siemiatycki,2006). However, large-scale urban infrastructure developmentled by mega events in Delhi resulted in destruction of poor settle-ments and displacement of urban poor who cannot afford to live inthe modern and beautified urban fabric. In those cases, the hugenumbers of people evicted made full relocation impossible. Thus,between 2004 and 2007, about 45,000 homes were destroyed inthe 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 attitudeof 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 environ-mental concerns or infringement of the master plan. Often inhab-itants had no opportunity to access the courts or were evendenied the access. Moreover some judicial orders merely bannedthe public authorities to provide compensation or relocation forevictions (see for instance in the Almitra Patel7 case).

As for the current availability of urban amenities in Delhi, be-tween 2001 and 2011, sanitation facilities have improved signifi-cantly. The use of water closet (WC) has remarkably increasedfrom 47.4% to 86% and the proportion of household without latrinehas decreased by two-thirds from the earlier census. Notably, thesechanges are both apparent in proportionate and absolute terms.Similarly, better sources of drinking water, such as tap water andavailability of drinking water within the premises, have also beenenhanced, although at a slow pace (for a discussion on qualitativewater supply in Delhi see; Zérah, 1998). Sources of lighting energyare now dominated by electricity (over 99%). In the last decade,urban Delhi became more motorized, with the use of two-wheelersand four-wheelers almost doubling. In the latter half of twentiethcentury, motorized vehicles have increased tremendously in Delhi,for instance, between 1957 and 2002 car population increased by60 times, motorcycles about 200, and buses 10, while populationincreased 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 arisingfrom its activities. Arguably the most pressing of these is air pollu-tion that results from the combustion of fuels in transport, energysupply and industry. Within India Delhi has the highest rates ofmotorization and consequently the highest levels of both localair pollution and global carbon emissions, with cars emitting threetimes the amount of carbon dioxide compared to Mumbai (Guttik-unda, 2009). This also makes Delhi one of the most polluted citiesin the world. Gurjar, Butler, Lawrence, and Lelieveld (2008) foundit ranks as the 7th most polluted megacity using a compositemulti-pollutant index considering SO2, NO2 and Total SuspendedParticulates (TSPs), which are a major cause of respiratory morbid-ity. TSPs are particularly high in the city, however Delhi’s meteoro-logical setting means that there is an element of air pollution thatcannot be simply mitigated with emissions reduction. Guttikundaand Gurjar (2012) note the winter months have persistently higherlevels of air pollution (40–80%) than the summer (10–60% lower)when compared to the annual average despite constant emissionsover the months.

Another major problem is that of water pollution, not only fromindustrial sources but groundwater pollution in general that is pre-valent across India. Water pollution in the Yamuna River comesfrom both the disposal of raw sewage as well as upstream indus-trial activities. A recent government report revealed many areasin the city have aquifers where groundwater is variously contam-inated with lead, cadmium, chromium (TOI, 2012). In addition,heavy metal contamination fluoride and nitrates have also foundto be prevalent. This poses a serious health risk to the residents.As noted in Table 3, 82% of urban households have access to tapwater but only 65% of (mainly richer) residents have access tothe 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. Accordingto the Ministry of Environment and Forests (GOI, 2010), Delhi hasthe 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 greenareas make vital contributions to the city both directly and indi-rectly from climate regulation (carbon storage and reducing urbanheat island effect) to maintaining biodiversity and by associationecosystem services (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011). The DelhiDevelopment Authority set up the Delhi biodiversity foundation(DDA, 2012) to develop nature reserves within the city for this pur-pose. The Yamuna and Aravali biodiversity parks are owned andmaintained by the DDA to conserve the natural resources of thetwo major ecosystems in the city, that of the river and the Aravalihills.

History of urban planning in Delhi

As the national capital, Delhi’s urban development has beensubjected to many planning interventions. In 1957, the DelhiDevelopment Authority (DDA) was mandated by the Parliamentto prepare a master plan for Delhi in collaboration with the FordFoundation Consultant Team, which led to the adoption of a NorthAmerican approach to planning (Priya, 2006). The DDA is nowresponsible for urban planning and land management such aspreparation of master plans and their implementation in coordina-tion with other organizations. One of the main aims of these planswas to deal with the rapid population increase and its associatedproblems encountered between 1951 and 1961 when Delhi’s pop-ulation increased from 1.7 to 2.7 million, mainly due to the influxof refugees and immigrants from Pakistan following the partitionof India (Datta, 1983; Thynell et al., 2010). In addition, there wasa strong political will and commitment behind urban planning at-tempts to build a modern capital city for independent India (Priya,2006).

The first master plan of the city, which was designed to cover a20-year period commencing 1961, was approved and put intoeffect in 1962 (Datta, 1983). Its implementation led slowly to thedisplacement of the economic centre from Old Delhi, composedof small markets and businesses, to South Delhi, now seat ofembassies and multinational companies (Tawa Lama-Rewal,2012). One of the main principles of the plan with regards to urbandevelopment was to limit the growth of the core city by construct-ing a green belt around it (Datta, 1983; Thynell et al., 2010). Inaddition to the green belt, the master plan regulated the develop-ment of seven neighboring ‘‘ring towns’’ to accommodate the pop-ulation exceeding the capacity of the core city (Thynell et al., 2010).As per the population projections of the plan, Delhi’s populationwas assumed to reach 5.6 million by 1981, of which 0.9 millionwas decided to be diverted to the ‘‘ring towns’’ (Datta, 1983). Thisprinciple of the master plan is known to pave the way to Delhi’scurrent urban spatial pattern, which is characterized by a multi-centric 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 functioningas centers to attract population, Delhi’s urban population growthhas recently been declining. For instance, the annual populationgrowth in Delhi has decreased from 4.23% to 2.45% between thedecades of 1991–2001 and 2001–2011 (see Table 1).

Along with planning of new urbanization, the first master planalso focused on dealing with existing urban environments throughvarious redevelopment strategies like conservation, rehabilitationand slum clearance (Priya, 2006). In this sense, the plan concludedthe provision of houses or plots to poor slum households at desig-nated resettlement sites (Kundu, 2004). However, such attempts torelocate slum dwellers on cheaper lands at the periphery of the cityare argued to result in ‘‘planned slums’’ (officially known as ‘‘reset-tlement colonies’’) and have worsened the living conditions ofurban poor (Dupont, 2004; Priya, 2006). A tragic example of thisis the death of 1500 in 44 of these resettlement colonies during a

8 Detailed information can be found on the website of the Delhi Metro RailCorporation (DMRC).

9 Please see the following links for detailed data and information: (1) http://www.delhimetrorail.com/press_reldetails.aspx?id=D56csDWRltIlld, (2) http://busi-ness.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/12/slide-show-1-will-delhi-metro-turn-into-a-white-elephant.htm.

S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 647

cholera outbreak in 1988, owing to the ground water contamina-tion from insufficient sanitation measures (Roy, 2005).

After expiration of the first master plan period, in the early1980s, preparation of the second master plan, targeting the yearof 2001, started. As a result of the debate among local politicalelite, the second plan came in the form of a comprehensive revisionof the first plan (Roy, 2005). Along with the major principles of thefirst plan, the second one included recommendations on promotinglow-rise high-density urbanization, development of energy-effi-cient transport modes like a mass transit system and maintenanceof ecological balance in city’s main rivers (Datta, 1983; Roy, 2005).The second plan is criticized mainly for having a tentative natureand for lacking coherent objectives, as most of its proposals andprovisions were corrections and additions to those of the first plan(Datta, 1983).

The current master plan of Delhi, the third one, covers the per-iod from 2001 to 2021 and came into effect in 2007 (Table 5). Thecurrent master plan is said not to address the major problems inthe city but rather to focus on issues like promoting market com-petition in land and housing, encouraging tourism and increasingrevenues (Roy, 2005). Following important conflicts on land use,where residents associations and local businesses filed cases infront of Courts, the new plan has integrated the principle of mixedland use in residential areas (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). From atransportation planning point of view, Thynell et al. (2010) criti-cized the third plan for proposing construction of grade-separatedjunctions and new expressways and for omitting specific provi-sions to improve and encourage the pedestrian movement andcycling.

Despite the existence of several master plans and the authoritygiven to the DDA to acquire the entire land within the city, a signif-icant part of urbanization in Delhi has taken place in an unplannedway (Dupont, 2004). The green belt, which was supposed to con-tain urban development within the core city, has been subjectedto urban development encouraged by land developers includingthe DDA (Roy, 2005). At present, it is estimated that only 24% ofthe population actually lives in planned settlements (Ahmad &Choi, 2011).

There are several reasons behind the failure of urban planningin Delhi, most of which are in a way or another related to the mind-set of planners and decision-makers in the city. Delhi’s plannersand administrators are said to have an anti-poor bias and see theurban poor and inhabitants of slums as problems towards thedevelopment of the city (Priya, 2006). Besides, the planners’ obses-sion with giving Delhi a good image as the national capital resultedin lack of sufficient concern for the urban poor in the city (Datta,1983). It is also argued that inappropriate planning models havebeen pursued and this had led to serious problems for the wholecity (Priya, 2006). Last but not least, the monopoly given to DDAon land management and acquisition has contributed significantlyto the problem of housing and land shortage as they have failed torespond to the ever-increasing demand for housing of all sectionsof the society and end up with only catering to middle classesand above (Pugh, 1991; Sivam, 2003).

Urban transportation

Among the most serious challenges regarding urban develop-ment in Delhi is the transport situation. This is not surprising, asDelhi has passed through the typical urbanization process commonto most cities in the developing world. Urban population has beendoubled in every couple of decades, leading to massive increase innumbers and use of motor vehicles. Since the late-1950s, the num-ber of motor vehicles in Delhi has grown at higher rates than theurban population, making Delhi by far the most motorized city inIndia (Badami & Haider, 2007). Automobile-centric solutions like

construction of new roads, widening of existing roads and grade-separated junctions have been the major policies to overcome Del-hi’s transportation challenges for a long time (Thynell et al., 2010).The city’s road network grew 3.7 times in the 25 years startingfrom 1971 (Sahai & Bishop, 2010). Today, urban transportation sys-tem in Delhi is predominantly road-based with an extensive roadnetwork that corresponds to 21% of city’s total land area, comparedto 11% in Mumbai and 5% in Kolkata (Pucher, Korattyswaropam,Mittal, & Ittyerah, 2005; Tiwari, 2002). The vast majority of urbanmobility in Delhi takes place on roads by means of various vehiclesincluding cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, rickshaws, auto-rick-shaws, bicycles, animal-drawn vehicles and pedestrians (Sie-miatycki, 2006; Tiwari, 2002).

The increase in motorized transportation and the chaotic trafficsituation on Delhi roads resulted in serious problems like air andnoise pollution, traffic congestion, road accidents and GHG emis-sions (Lebel et al., 2007; Sen, Tiwari, & Upadhyay, 2010; Tiwari,2002). According to the White Paper prepared by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MOEF, 1997), vehicular pollution is themain contributor to worsening of air quality in Delhi, accountingfor 67% of total air pollution. The casualties due to accidents onDelhi roads increased from about 500 in early 1970s to over1000 in 1980s and to over 2000 in 1990s (Sen et al., 2010), mostof them being pedestrians and cyclists (Pucher et al., 2005). More-over, carbon emissions from diesel consumption in Delhi rose four-fold between 1980 and 2000 (Lebel et al., 2007).

Since the late-1990s, both national and local governmentsstarted to undertake actions to address the transport-related prob-lems in Delhi. The initial actions were in form of ‘‘command-and-control measures’’ to reduce vehicular pollution, such as phasingout of commercial vehicles older than 15 years of age and preven-tion of the use of leaded petrol (Kathuria, 2002). Likewise, in 1998,considering the increasing vehicular pollution, the Supreme Courtof India made a decision to dictate CNG as the mandatory fuel inpublic transportation vehicles and ordered the Delhi governmentto complete the necessary changes in city’s entire fleet by March2001 (Goyal & Sidhartha, 2003). After 2000, initiatives were shiftedfrom ‘‘command-and-control measures’’ to mass transit-orientedinfrastructure investments, as in the example of construction of ametro network and BRT lines. As of 2012, the first two stages ofthe metro project with a total route length of 190 km have beenput 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 (Thynellet al., 2010). Despite the recent progress in improving the vehiclefleet and the public transport infrastructure in Delhi, most of theproblems arising from urban transportation still prevail. This ismainly because both metro and BRT projects could not attract asmuch riders as planned and expected. For instance, the maximumdaily ridership on the Delhi metro was recorded on 12th August2011 (when both Phase-I and Phase-II were operating) with slightmore than 2 million passengers, which is even below the ridershipprojections for Phase-I only.9 The limited integration between theDelhi metro and other transport modes as well as the problems inaccessing metro stations add to the problem of low-ridership onthe metro (Yagi & Nagayama, 2010). The institutional disharmonybetween the development and implementation of the metro andBRT projects is another factor here (see Section ‘Overlapping compe-tencies and clash of authorities’). Yet, what is promising is the recentdevelopment by the Delhi government, of an integrated multimodal

Table 4Major 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA)a

Enforcement of planning controls DDA,a Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)c

Slum and JJ improvement Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB)b

Parks DDAa and Urban Local Bodiesc

Transportation 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 CenterSolid waste managemente Urban Local Bodiesc

Water and sewerage Delhi Jal Board (DJB)b

Storm water drainage Department of Irrigation and Flood Controlb

Electricity Several contracted providers on the basis of competitive tenders (such as NDPL and BSES) in supervision of Delhi ElectricityRegulatory Commission (DERA)b

City heritage buildings (managementand upkeep)

State department of Archeological Survey of Indiab; DDAa; Delhi Urban Art Commissionb; ULBsc

Pollution control and monitoring Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)b

Police and public order Delhi Policea

Industries and infrastructure 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. DelhiIntegrated 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.

648 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

strategy in order to increase the modal share of public transport. (Sa-hai & Bishop, 2010)

Governance and public administration

The complexity of Delhi’s governance is largely due to its capitalstatus. It is the seat of numerous public institutions of different lev-els: central, state and local. As a result, coordination and competi-tion problems in policy-making are common. Even today, in spiteof the national decentralization process, Delhi’s administration isstill largely influenced by the central government (Table 4). Asmentioned at the start of the paper, the NCTD has multiple layersof administration with distinctive governance structures.

The NCTD has its own elected assembly and a Council of Minis-ters. The head of NCTD is a governor, appointed by the President ofIndia on the recommendation of the union government. The gover-nor is also the chairman of the DDA. The three local municipalities(after trifurcation of the MCD) are run by the local elected bodieswith a mayor at their head. But the key actor in decision-makingis actually the Commissioner, who heads the Executive and is des-ignated by the Central government.

The NDMC is considered to be the wealthiest part of the city asit 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 militaryadministration and managed by the Ministry of Defense. Parallelto these sub-national institutions stands the DDA, which is underthe supervision of the Ministry of Urban Development. It is respon-sible for urban planning and land management such as the prepa-ration of the master plan and its implementation in coordinationwith other organizations.

At present, the management of the provision of services is com-plex and often involves several authorities. Table 4 shows the ma-jor organizations providing urban services in the NCTD as of 2012.The central and state governments dominate both by service pro-vision as well as administrative control, while Urban Local Bodies(ULBs) have very little administrative control.

In this context, another key actor is the Judiciary (SupremeCourt of India and High Court of Delhi). Its decisions have had sig-nificant impacts on two aspects of urban governance: the environ-ment and the land management. But the governance of the cityalso relies on a series of other private and unofficial actors, whichhave an influence on the implementation of urban policies. Milbert(2009) lists for instance the slum pradhans, local brokers, NGOs orlobbies and interest groups. Resident Welfare Associations, whichrepresent mostly middle-class groups, also appear to have animportant role in the governance of the city by actively bringingcases to the courts and participating in public debates organizedunder the Bhagidari scheme (see below) (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012).

Moreover the Delhi government has undertaken some initia-tives to implement good governance. In 1997 a public grievancecommission was created to hear the complaints of citizens againstthe ministries of NCTD. In 2000, the Bhagidari scheme waslaunched to promote partnership between the government’s agen-cies and the citizens in the provision of public services. In 2005,enactment of the Right to Information Act (RTI) enhanced ‘‘open-ness and transparency’’ on the activities of administration. Thesame year a permanent Administrative Reform Commission, un-ique among Indian states, was set up. Although all these initiativesare widely publicized, their concrete outcomes are unclear and donot appear to have had impact for the poorest part of the popula-tion (Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012).

Critical evaluation

Overlapping competencies and clash of authorities

Delhi’s governance is characterized by the role that central gov-ernment retains in the management of urban affairs. As Table 4shows, the Government of India (GoI) is greatly involved in themanagement of urban services. It usually shares this task withthe NCTD. The table also highlights what have been called ‘‘struc-tural’’ and ‘‘legal anomalies’’ (Tawa Lema-Rewal, 2007). In fact, theallocation of some competencies such as land management to na-

Table 5Timeline 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 Indiaincluding Delhi

Introduction of urban management to Indian cities includingDelhi

1912 The imperial capital of British India was shifted from Calcutta toDelhi

Decision to build a new capital city at Delhi separate from theexisting city

1930–1939 1931 Inauguration of New Delhi The British establishes their new capital next to old Delhi1937 Foundation of Delhi Improvement Trust (DIT) as an agent of

government to deal with slum clearance, town planning andpublic health issues

Initiatives to address urban problems in Delhi

1940–1949 1947 India became an independent nation after her partition andcreation of Islamic republic of Pakistan

Strong political will to develop Delhi as the modern capital cityof IndiaMassive influx of migrants and refugees in Delhi

1950–1959 1955 Constitution of the Delhi Development Provisional Authority(DDPA)

Attempts to prepare the first master plan of Delhi

1956 Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act To upgrade or demolish unsanitary housing1956 Arrival of the Ford Foundation Consultant Team at Delhi International assistance for preparation of the master plan1957 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was enacted and came into

effect in 1958Legal basis to cater civic needs

DDPA was replaced with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Institutional arrangement to promote and secure planneddevelopment of Delhi

1960–1969 1962 The first master plan of Delhi that covers 1961–1981 period wasapproved and put into effect

Planned development era started

1970–1979 1975–1977 State of Emergency in India An important number of slums were demolishedSeveral schemes for slum clearance were executed Appearance of planned slums, where low quality of life of the

urban poor continued1978 Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act was enacted Legal basis for acquisition of land to construct the metro and

carry out its associated operations

1980–1989 1982 Asian Games 1982 were held in Delhi Implementation of schemes for urban beautification andinfrastructure development

1985 Enactment of National Capital Region (NCR) Planning Board Act Institutional arrangement for achieving balanced andharmonized development of National Capital Region (NCR) withNational Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD)

1988 Cholera outbreak in resettlement colonies, also termed plannedslums

1500 people died in 44 resettlement colonies planned in the mid-1970s

1990–1999 1990 Promulgation of the second master plan of Delhi that covers1981–2001 period

Planned development era continues

1991 Enactment of Government of National Capital Territory Act Delhi became a full-fledged state, and strengthens localgovernance and competence

1992 Adoption of 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution forgreater decentralization

Local authorities, such as panchayats, nagarpalikas andmunicipalities, were provided with greater autonomy andrepresentation through direct election in local assemblies

1994 The New Delhi Municipal Council Act To perform civic activities in New Delhi areas.1997 Election of councilors of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(MCD) on the basis of the 74th amendmentLocal autonomy strengthens local governance and competence

1998 On 28 July 1988, the Supreme Court of India imposed theconversion of fuel base of public vehicles in Delhi to single fuelmode (Compressed Natural Gas) by 31 March 2001

Problem of air pollution is officially recognized and addressed

2000–2009 2002 Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act wasenacted

Definition of rules and regulations for management of metroservices

2003 Delhi was awarded the ‘Clean Cities International Partner of theYear Award’ from the U.S. Department of Energy

International acknowledgment and recognition of Delhi’sinitiatives to address urban environmental problems

2005 The first phase of the metro project was completed and put intooperation

Delhi’s transport infrastructure and situation improves

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)launched

City Development Plan for Delhi was prepared with particularfocus on urban infrastructure and governance as well as basicservices to the urban poor

2007 Delhi metro project was registered with the UNFCCC andbecame world’s first CDM registered metro rail project

International acknowledgment and recognition of Delhi’sinitiatives to address urban and environmental problems

National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Actwas enacted

Relief to owners of unauthorized constructions in NCTD for ayear (till 31 December 2008) and further amendments tillDecember 2014.

Promulgation of the third master plan of Delhi that covers2001–2021 period

Planned development era continues

After 2010 2010 The second phase of the metro project was completed and putinto operation

Delhi’s transport infrastructure and situation improves

Commonwealth Games 2010 were held in Delhi Implementation of schemes for urban beautification andinfrastructure development

2011 Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act Division of MCD into North, South and East Delhi MunicipalCorporations. to bring administrative efficiency in civicfunctions

S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 649

650 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

tional level authorities may appear contrary to local autonomy andis prone to problems of coordination and conflict between stake-holders at different levels. For instance, the DDA has to work clo-sely with central, state and/or local authorities to define land useand functions of the service provided. At the local level, ULBs, re-ceive parts of its budget from the NCTD but is accountable onlyto the central government, which appoints the Municipal Commis-sioner (Tawa Lema-Rewal, 2007). Even organizations do not (orcannot) effectively use their mandate due to overlapping compe-tencies 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 themetro and BRT projects have been developed as competing policyinitiatives of different intellectual camps in the city. In the late1990s, when the national and state governments initiated the me-tro project, the Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Pro-gramme (TRIPP) of the Indian Institute of Technology Delhiproduced a report to evaluate the sustainable transport policy op-tions for Delhi based on the request by the Central Pollution Con-trol Board of India (Thynell et al., 2010). One of the mainconclusions of this report was that a bus-based transit systemwas more viable and ideal for Delhi as opposed to metro systemsthat don’t reduce the vehicular traffic on roads (Thynell et al.,2010). The spatial structure of Delhi that is characterized by a mul-ti-centric pattern without a major CBD is commonly argued to beincompatible with the spatial structure that can best be servedby a mass rapid transit system (Mohan, 2008; Siemiatycki, 2006).Despite the attention paid to the TRIPP’s report by some policy-makers and technocrats, both BRT and metro projects have beendeveloped and implemented in tandem like competing projects.One year after the completion of the first phase of the metro sys-tem, in October 2006, the construction of the initial section ofthe first BRT corridor was started (Thynell et al., 2010). However,the wide support of the national government and the media as wellas public acceptance was with the metro project and this has led toa faster progress in metro’s implementation (Sahai & Bishop, 2010;Siemiatycki, 2006). When the first six km of the BRT corridor wasopened to operations in April 2008, more than half of the secondphase of the metro was in place and operating. At present, somegovernmental bodies such as Unified Traffic and TransportationInfrastructure Planning and Engineering Center (UTTIPEC) and agovernment-related company, Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Tran-sit System Ltd. (DIMTS), work to develop an integrated multimodaltransport system in Delhi. Nevertheless, the coordination betweenthese attempts and the metro project is yet to be developed,mainly because the metro project and the corporation responsiblefor it (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) still preserve their autonomyand dominance over all the other policy initiatives and agencies inthe city.

These institutional pitfalls may have their impact increased bythe political configuration in the city. There are three levels of gov-ernments, each elected for 5 years periods: the ULBs, the NCTD andthe GoI. This provides them with a sound democratic basis andensures their legitimacy. Two parties are the main political move-ments in Delhi: the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Table 6Political configuration in Delhi 1993–2012. Source: Authors’ compilation using election co

Central C C C aU U aB aB B BState aB B B B B aC C C CLocal (ULBs) aB B B B BElectionYear 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01

a Represents year of election held; C – Congress; U – United Front supported by the cNCTD and local election for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) election. In 2012, MCD was trifu

Table 6 shows the changing political configuration in Delhi in theresults 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 differ-ent levels of governments, create more conflicts and deadlocks.This seems particularly true when it comes to the NCTD and GoIas they both share important administrative functions and controlpowers over the service providers (see Table 4). The three unitswhere 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 impor-tant challenge at present. The voice of the workers and slumsdwellers often appears to go unheard (Baviskar, 2012; Bhan & Gau-tam, 2009).

At the national level, there have been some initiatives to en-hance proximity between citizens and their governing body. Thedecentralization process is an example of it. In particular, amend-ment 74th of the Constitution provides that the creation of WardsCommittees (WCMs) in the wards of Municipal Corporations witha population of 300,000 or more is mandatory. These committeesshall comprise ‘‘persons chosen by direct election from the territorialarea of the Ward’’. The Chairman of the Committee is the Councilorelected from the Ward. The committees may also include represen-tatives of the civil society such as NGOs. The objective is to fosterparticipation and improve representation and accountability. Itaims at creating forums of discussion where local issues can be ex-posed in a bottom-up approach. However the enforcement of thismeasure largely lies in the states and they have done so in a differ-ent way from one to another.

In Delhi, the legislation regarding Ward Committees wasadopted in 1996. However, only twelve WCMs were created, whichmeans that they stand for population of more than 800,000 inhab-itants. They only include elected councilors and have no represen-tative from the civil society (De Wit, Nainan, & Paltnikarm, 2009;Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2012). These two characteristics create a phe-nomenon of institutional capture by the elites, and underminethe primary objective of the decentralization process.

The lack of representation of the poorest section of Delhiites isalso true in the judicial arena. This is noteworthy given the roleplayed by the Courts in Delhi’s governance (Dupont & Ramanathan,2007). Although the Supreme Court of India has been very active inopening the courts to the people, through a large appreciation ofthe locus standi (right to stand) and the development of publicinterest litigation (PIL), the interests of the poor are seldom upheld.These legal mechanisms still require financial and time commit-ments that disempowered people may not be able to provide. Onthe contrary middle-class lobbies or associations often have per-manent legal advisors to support their actions (Tawa Lama-Rewal,2012) and can thus easily access the courts. As a result, decisionson the closure of industries and evictions have been made withouthearing workers or local dwellers. This caused a lot of socialdistress and tensions as manifested by the riots and casualties of

mmissions’ website.

B B aC C C C C aC C C CC aC C C C C aC C C C CaC C C C C aB B B B B aB

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

ongress; B – BJP; Central election stands for central government, state election forrcated and BJP won in all.

Table 7Main 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 andgeneral transport demand

Overlapping authorities& conflicting interests

High human capacity and investment interest atthe international level

Shift to public and non-motorizedmodes which has equitable access

Land/Housing

Persistent monopoly of landownership

Overlapping authorities Huge potential of efficient land use Guaranteed rights of land occupiers

Environment Multiform pollution Lack of representation Increased awareness and activity to combatpollution, city image on the international stage

Shift to cleaner urban activities withgreater enforcement of regulations

Poverty High income disparity andgrowing proportion of poor

Lack of representation ‘Greening’ of growing economies towardspoverty eradication on the international agenda

Inclusive development in economicand social arenas

S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653 651

2000, following a decision of the court to shut down some factories(Baviskar, 2012). Even the embryonic BRT corridor has not escapeda legal petition by an NGO, who claim motorists have a greaterright to mobility by virtue that they are the wealth creators ofthe city.10

Other actors in the city may play an important role in represent-ing citizens and implementing urban policies. Although they do nothave clear powers, their role is important as intermediary players,especially towards the poorest part of the population. For instancethe slum pradhans or ‘‘slumlords’’ are often the only connection be-tween the most disempowered people and the administration ofthe city. However these representatives, who are neither electednor accountable, may also abuse of their position (Milbert, 2009).

The way forward

Implications for the future

This paper has provided an overview of the state of the mainsectors in the city and how various governance issues affect theirfunctioning. Given the arrangement and variety of issues Delhi isfacing in its effort to develop, we identify four main sectors (Ta-ble 7), which will be critical to Delhi’s future development in thecoming years. Based on our analysis of each sector, Table 7 pre-sents the main issue and governance challenge facing the sector.We further identify an opportunity and key outcome, which wouldmake progress to improving the sector. The governance challengesare taken from the analysis made in Section ‘Critical evaluation’.

The transport situation in the city remains a big hurdle to itsefficient operation. Despite recent improvements in public trans-port, most notably an extensive metro system, Delhi remains themost motorized city in India. However, the city has a high levelof human capacity and a good understanding of the transport is-sues facing the city, this combined with a high level of interna-tional interest in funding sustainable transport project gives arelatively optimistic prognosis in this sector. Delhi’s position asthe capital of India, a major emerging economy, places it undergreater international scrutiny than perhaps other cities in thecountry. This can be beneficial in driving through initiatives andpolicies which benefit the environment, as the city, being the seatof government, also to some extent presents the face of India to theworld. The areas of land (and housing) and poverty reduction ishowever a more intractable problem. As has been explained in thispaper, Delhi has been reluctant to cede land to its occupiers andnow faces a crisis whereby much of the housing stock of the cityis illegally developed. The precarious legal situation of land occupi-ers means that development is implicitly short-sighted. Guarantee-ing rights of land occupiers could help resolve this situation andthereby implement the master plan, which is at present conceivedwith little practical change. The efficient use of land and the rightsto 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.

could see the greatest benefits to the city. Associated with this isthe problem of growing inequality, which afflicts many cities inthe developing Asian cities. Whilst pro-poor and socially inclusivedevelopment have long been suggested, the reality is that such pol-icies are usually given cursory regard with respect to the tradi-tional infrastructure led development paradigm. In this respect,the analysis of sectors highlights the importance of the governancestructures for the sustainable development of the city. Howeverthe fragmentation of authorities hinders the implementation ofsound policies. The definition of new policies should therefore becoupled with reflection on their application and the role of agen-cies responsible for it. To avoid the lack of action of these author-ities, resources must be allocated and/or identified to cover theseactivities.

Two themes for the future

Managing urban development in a rapidly growing city is anunenviable task given the complexity of stakeholders and compet-ing interests for scarce resources. Whilst the aims of sustainabledevelopment are widely accepted in word, translating good inten-tions into concrete plans remains a challenge in all cities aroundthe world. An emerging theme, which is gaining traction in inter-national sustainable development discourse and processes is thatof the Green Economy, one of the two major theme of the landmarkUnited Nations Rio + 20 conference in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012.The Green economy aims to integrate the concepts of sustainabledevelopment within various economic sectors. Despite the name,a key concept underpinning the Green Economy is that environ-mental sustainability will also lead to more socially inclusivedevelopment pathways and poverty reduction. Puppim de Oliveiraet al. (2012) takes a sector specific approach to evaluate how activ-ities in urban sectors can be ‘greened’ not just in terms of theirenvironmental impacts but also in terms of their social benefits.This takes on a particular significance at the city level as the con-nections between sectors are closer and the linkages more appar-ent. Although cities tend to be managed by sectors, it is likelythat the greatest impacts can occur through integrating sectors,such as transport and land-use, which in turn can help preservegreen spaces and ecosystem services in and round the city. Whilsta sector based analysis is both useful and logical to identify theproblems, the high-level solutions are to be found ultimately inintegrated planning of all these sectors, in order to understandwhere synergies and efficiencies can be found, as well as whichstrategies might contain important trade-offs in implementation.As various sectors battle to preserve and extend their spheres ofinfluence in the city, jurisdictions begin to overlap along withadministrative conflict.

Calling for new modes of thinking and planning is a challengefor any organization. These challenges take on added urgencyand are particularly fraught given that multiple environmental im-pacts are being encountered earlier in the development processthan was previously the case for developed countries (Marcotullio& Schulz, 2007). Given the scarce resources of those cities to miti-gate its effects, there is a need to reconsider the development pro-

652 S. Ahmad et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 641–653

cess. As climate change remains a pressing issue in the interna-tional community; consideration is now turning to how both localand global impacts can be minimized in the urban transition indeveloping countries. A concept connected to that of the GreenEconomy is known as urban development with co-benefits. A largepart of this discourse is coming from the climate change mitigationcommunity, who see the concept as something that may be usefulin considering the future of the Clean Development Mechanism.The co-benefits concept aims to understand how global and localenvironmental benefits can occur by design at the planning stagerather than being dealt with as ex-post mitigation measures. Cur-rently much work has focused at the sector level, especially in thetransport sector, as controlling the combustion of fuels can yieldboth improvement for the local air quality as well as global carbonemissions. Wider considerations beyond vehicle efficiency and fuelchoice include what type of transport people take and strategiesthat minimize the need to travel (travel demand management).Seen through this lens, it becomes apparent that transport is notjust an issue of vehicle technology, but of land use planning andlifestyles, accessibility and safety.

Support will be required to help cities understand and plan forco-benefits but also in their implementation. The practical applica-tion of such plans remains a challenge and often receives lessattention than the formulation of the plans themselves as theyare highly localized in character and resist generalization. Such ini-tiatives can help guide rapidly developing cities in their planningprocess if supported by the right tools and financing mechanisms.Although little general progress was made at the landmark Rio + 20conference in June 2012, one significant outcome was the decisionof the major development banks to contribute $175 billion to thepromotion of public transport initiatives over the coming decade(SLoCaT, 2012), which could make serious impact in both Asiaand Africa as these regions are projected to grow their urban pop-ulations by 500 million in the next 20 years (SLoCaT, 2012). Whilsta multilateral agreement on financing for climate change seems toencounter endless political obstacles, it would seem that fundingfor sector based initiatives could be easier to obtain if the climatebenefits are incorporated into the development ones. Ultimatelythough, there needs to be a political willingness and organizationalcapacity at the city level to consider integrated development acrosssector in order for such concepts to radically alter developmentpatterns and set cities on low carbon and sustainable developmentpathways.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the editor (Andrew Kirby) and 4anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. All authors werefull-time researchers at the United Nations University Institute ofAdvanced Studies (UNU-IAS) during the period they were workingon the manuscript. S. Ahmad was co-affiliated with the TokyoInstitute of Technology and M. Dreyfus with the National Institutefor Environmental Studies (NIES) in Tuskuba, Japan. S. Ahmad andM. Dreyfus are grateful to the Japan Society for the Promotion ofScience (JSPS) for supporting their postdoctoral research throughJSPS-UNU Postdoctoral Fellowship. O. Balaban is grateful to UNU-IAS and The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Tur-key (TUBITAK) for funding his postdoctoral research through theirfellowship programmes. The article is the sole responsibility to theauthors and does not express the views of the institutions authorsare affiliated.

References

Agrawal, S. K. (2010). Design review in a post-colonial city: The Delhi urban artcommission. Cities, 27(5), 397–404.

Ahmad, S. (2011). Characteristics of uncontrolled urban settlements and housingmarket in Delhi (p. 106). Graduate School of Environmental Studies. Seoul: SeoulNational University. PhD.

Ahmad, S., & Choi, M. J. (2010). Identifying and measuring dimensions of urbandeprivation in Delhi: A town level analysis. Infrastructure systems and services:Next generation infrastructure systems for eco-cities (INFRA). In 2010 Thirdinternational 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 inDelhi. ASIEN, 118(January), 75–90.

Ahmad, S., Choi, M.J., & Ko, J. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative demand for slumand 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 inIndian cities. Transportation Research Part A, 41, 961–981.

Baud, I., Sridharan, N., & Pfeffer, K. (2008). Mapping urban poverty for localgovernance in an Indian mega-city: The case of Delhi. Urban Studies, 45(7),1385.

Baviskar, A. (2012). Public interest and private compromises: The politics ofenvironmental negotiation in Delhi, India. In J. Eckert, B. Donahoe, C. Strumpell,& Z. O. Biner (Eds.), Law against the state. Ethnographic forays into Law’stransformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bhan, G. (2009). This is no longer the city I once knew. Evictions, the urban poor andthe 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. CD-ROM. Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India.

Census of India (2011a). Provisional population totals (districts/Su-districts) NCT ofDelhi. <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/7-pop-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. InI. 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. Roleand 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 ofCNG implementation. Atmospheric Environment, 37(38), 5423–5431.

Gurjar, B. R., Butler, T. M., Lawrence, M. G., & Lelieveld, J. (2008). Evaluation ofemissions and air quality in megacities. Atmospheric Environment, 42,1592–1606.

Guttikunda, S. K. (2009). Motorized passenger travel in urban India: Emissions and co-benefits 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 airpollution 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 provisionof infrastructure in the national capital territory of Delhi. In Graham P.Chapman, Ashok K. Dutt, & Robert W. Bradnock (Eds.), Urban growth anddevelopment 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: Recenttrends 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) 641–653 653

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 betweenthe USA and developing and industrializing economies. World Development,35(10), 1650–1683.

Master Plan of Delhi (2007). Master plan for Delhi – 2021. Delhi Developmentauthority. 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 ofEnvironment 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. IndianInstitute of Technology Delhi.

NBO (2007). Report of the technical group [11th five year plan: 2007–2012] onestimation of urban housing shortage. New Delhi: Ministry of housing and UrbanPoverty Alleviation, Government of India.

NCR Board (2005). Master plan for NCR – 2021. National Capital Region PlanningBoard. 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 ofeconomic & statistics. NCTD. <http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc/sdp10-11.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=455963647&CACHEID=7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc&lmod=455963647&CACHEID=7700880046f508c987fd9fe4055ad2cc> Accessed09.05.12.

NSSO (2001). Report on informal sector in Delhi – NSS 55th round: Ministry of statisticsand 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 ofStatistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

Planning Commission (2012). Press note on poverty estimates, 2009–2010. PlanningCommission 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 historicalview. In S. Patel & K. Deb (Eds.), Urban studies. New Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Pucher, J., Korattyswaropam, N., Mittal, N., & Ittyerah, N. (2005). Urban transportcrisis in India. Transport Policy, 12, 185–198.

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 onbiological 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 andglobal governance. In Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira (Ed.), Green economy and goodgovernance 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. InIndia 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 oftransport in Delhi. Transport Policy, 17, 27–37.

Siemiatycki, M. (2006). Message in a metro: Building urban rail infrastructure andimage 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 moresustainable transport systems. <http://www.slocat.net/content/world%E2%80%99s-largest-development-banks-join-together-rio20-invest-175-billion-creation-more-susta> Accessed 15.09.12.

Tawa Lama-Rewal, Stephanie (2012). Le conflit sur l’usage du sol à Delhi: Unrévélateur 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 badgovernability. Paper presented in the seminar on urban actors, policies andgovernance in four Indian metropolitan cities, Delhi, 23–24 January 2007.

Thynell, M., Mohan, D., & Tiwari, G. (2010). Sustainable transport and themodernisation 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, May2 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 socio-economic 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 urbanrailway systems: A case study of Delhi Metro. In Proceedings of the worldconference 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.