India’s cities are growing at an unprecedented pace, presenting both exciting opportunities and formidable challenges. The rapid urban expansion requires a structured approach to spatial planning that ensures sustainable, inclusive, and well-governed urban environments. In this context, the Spatial Planning Index (SPI) emerges as a groundbreaking tool, designed to benchmark and strengthen urban planning systems across Indian cities. Developed by the Urban Design Research Institute (UDRI) and supported by the A.T.E Chandra Foundation, the SPI evaluates urban planning through 45 actionable indicators across five key themes.
At the heart of this initiative is the A.T.E Chandra Foundation’s commitment to urban reforms, focusing on governance, finance, and planning. By collaborating with organizations like UDRI and PRAJA Foundation, the foundation brings valuable insights into spatial planning, urban governance, and financial frameworks—critical elements in shaping the future of Indian cities. Through such partnerships, they aim to address systemic gaps and drive meaningful change in the way Indian cities are planned and managed.
In this exclusive conversation with TheCSRUniverse, Anuj Bhagwati, Head, A.T.E. Group, discusses the significance of spatial planning, the key findings from the SPI report, and the role of state and local governments in creating efficient, decentralized urban planning systems. He also highlights how benchmarking frameworks like SPI can drive tangible improvements and empower Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to take ownership of their city's future.
Explore how data-driven spatial planning is shaping India's urban future in the conversation below.
Q&A
Q. India is witnessing rapid urbanization, which brings both opportunities and significant challenges for urban planning. Why is effective spatial planning critical in addressing these complexities and ensuring sustainable urban development?
A. Yes, India is urbanizing rapidly, and the landscape is changing fast. However, the problem is not just of a stark urban and rural divide but of the entire spectrum of scales that includes metropolitan areas, peri-urban areas, cities, and transition areas at the periphery of rural and census towns. Metropolitan areas need to think through key human issues such as housing, water, sanitation, and transit, while keeping in mind priorities like sustainability and climate change. The challenges are diverse and ever-changing. Thus, the solution lies in the ability to anticipate changes and systematically plan for them in a manner that allows adaptation and evolution. This is where spatial planning plays a crucial role. We need a strong framework to support spatial planning, which ensures that various stakeholders, especially at the local government level, have a roadmap on how a particular area is planned. For example, in the Dutch planning system municipal governments are empowered with the preparation and implementation of spatial plans in their respective cities and those plans are well aligned with the larger goals set up at the provincial and national levels. A similar kind of planning system can be seen in most of the well-planned cities such as Singapore, Bangkok, and London.
Q. The Spatial Planning Index (SPI) report highlights disparities in planning implementation across cities. Could you elaborate on some of the most significant disparities observed and the underlying factors contributing to these differences?
A. Before we go into the disparities, it is worthwhile to start with the goals of the SPI report. The SPI was created because there was no comprehensive mapping of the systems of planning in various states in India. The SPI not only mapped these systems but also created a comparison matrix to understand how decentralized these spatial planning systems in various cities and states are. For the first time, a backdrop of the on-ground situation has been articulated, highlighting the fractured frameworks of governance and planning delivery across states. It is therefore difficult to share best practices and implement national schemes across the country
The UDRI’s Spatial Planning Index is built on five key themes: state legislative structure, organizational structure, spatial planning capacity, monitoring and GIS data management, and citizen engagement mechanisms. Against these five themes, we have evaluated 25 cities to understand the current state of spatial planning. The key gaps identified in our report are as follows:
- In many states, regional plans, which are important for managing peri-urban growth and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, are not mandated by state planning legislation and, as a result, are not being prepared.
- The spatial planning function is not devolved to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), as only three states have ULBs preparing development plans and empowering them with spatial planning capacity. This results in a lack of citizen engagement in the planning process as ULBs are more connected to the people living in the cities than to any other higher authority that is preparing development plans.
- 60% of development plans do not include a monitoring mechanism, which results in poor rates of achieving the targets outlined in the plans.
- 80% of cities do not have an independent committee set up to manage the suggestions and objections received during the development plan process, making it a tick-box exercise with no tangible impact.
All of the above factors showcase that across India, planning is not being done in a systematic way, and this is negatively impacting the current state of urban development and consequently the people’s quality of life.
Q. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act emphasizes decentralized governance. How do you suggest that states empower Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to take ownership of their planning processes and ensure alignment with this mandate in practice?
A. The SPI report strongly advocates for the decentralisation of functions to ULBs. It suggests the following three steps so that ULBs can take ownership of their planning processes:
- There must be a state legislative mandate for ULBs to prepare and implement development plans, as well as the lower-level plans that are required, within their jurisdiction.
- The state government should ensure that the development plans are prepared and implemented by the ULBs and not by any other state-appointed nodal agency, such as the development authority or development corporation. As ULBs are more approachable to the people and thus ensure a better understanding of the people’s problems and needs for the preparation and implementation of a development plan.
- ULBs should be empowered with spatial planning units/teams consisting of planners to carry out the spatial planning function.
Q. Beyond benchmarking, how does this framework translate into a motivation for tangible improvements in urban planning on the ground? Provide specific examples of cities where the SPI can be successfully utilized to refine their spatial planning systems. How can you measure these outcomes?
A. The SPI is formulated based on 45 indicators, resulting from a detailed status report on spatial planning in Indian cities. These 45 indicators have been converted into an actionable checklist that can be applied by various urban areas to understand capacity-building needs and to get directional inputs towards a robust structure. Planners and government officials can identify current gaps in the planning process and compare them with other areas where these gaps don’t exist and push for reforms.
The SPI also provides examples of good practices gathered from the field and cross-learning through comparison with other states. For example, in 15 states regional plans are being made, and other states can learn and mandate these plans. Even though Ahmedabad is low in the SPI, its capacity-building indicators are robust. Other states and cities can learn to integrate those learnings into their frameworks.
The SPI needs to evaluate the progress of cities/states towards a decentralised and comprehensive spatial planning system. Hence an updated mapping (after 4-5 years) of the cities will need to be done to capture and compare them against the 2024 index. This comparison could provide a measure of change in the frameworks. The main aim of these systems is to deliver liveable and sustainable cities for all. That is a long and slow process. The SPI does not have any liveability indicators to map the impact of that change. This is a project that the A.T.E. Chandra Foundation is taking up separately.
Q. Implementing a standardized framework like the SPI across diverse urban landscapes presents unique challenges. What have been some of the most significant hurdles encountered in implementing the SPI across different cities, and how are these being addressed?
A. The SPI is anchored within the frameworks of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. The SPI is an index that simply maps the existing frameworks in various states and captures gaps in either the legislation or its translation into the planning function on the ground. What this index is doing is capturing the on-ground diversity in existing implementation and governance frameworks.
Q. Given the importance of public input in urban planning, how does this framework incorporate or promote citizen participation in the planning process? Are there mechanisms for feedback and engagement built into the process, and how effective have they been?
A. Citizen participation in planning loses its impact when treated in isolation. While participation often arises from grassroots initiatives, engagement tends to be driven from the top down. It is vital to weave engagement strategies throughout the planning process, incorporating participation at key junctures. Citizen engagement should be viewed as a continuous process that runs parallel to the preparation of the plan and its implementation at every stage that involves engagement with multiple stakeholders.
Thus, the SPI captures the legislative mandate for citizen participation through suggestions and objections (S&O) at regular intervals, alongside an independent committee to manage the S&Os received. It also assesses whether the data related to development is easily accessible to citizens and whether planning authorities have made efforts to collaborate with NGOs, civil society organisations, and educational institutions to raise awareness regarding development plans. This ensures that, when submitting S&Os, citizens are well informed.
As the level changes, from regional to local, the nature of citizen engagement and its outputs also differ, with more information sharing and validation of outputs at the higher levels, to consent gathering and aspiration mapping type engagements at the sub-city levels.
State legislation should mandate the role and composition of a technical committee for providing subject-specific expertise and coordinating and managing citizen engagement and participation process. The legislation can also push for more transparency in the sharing of Suggestions and Objections (S/O) related information including what is incorporated, allocated budgets and periodic spending linked to the implementation of the plans. In addition to the spatial plans, legislation should also push for transparency in sharing large mobility and infrastructure-related project data and inviting S/O for those as well.
Q. Recognizing the profound impact of urban planning on local communities, particularly marginalized groups, how does this tool prioritize social equity and inclusion? Does it consider factors like access to housing, services, public spaces, and potential displacement, and how does it aim to promote more equitable outcomes?
A. The current scope of SPI is limited to mapping spatial planning structures across Indian cities. However, in the second phase of the research, we plan to conduct a horizontal cross-sectoral analysis of various sectors (such as transport, housing, public spaces, and the environment) in the spatial development of cities.
Q. The SPI uses 45 actionable indicators across five core themes. Are there any indicators that have proven particularly challenging for cities to meet, and what support or resources are needed to help them improve in these areas?
A. The biggest challenge has been the devolution of the planning function to the ULBs and consistently recognizing the administrative ward level as a key unit of planning. It is at this level actual implementation of planning happens. It is important to note that a ward in an Indian city has as many people as entire cities in the global west.
Q. What role do state governments play in supporting ULBs in adopting and effectively utilizing the SPI? What policy changes or capacity-building initiatives are crucial for the successful implementation of the SPI at the local level?
A. The 74th CAA clarified that spatial planning is a state subject, and state governments shall ensure that Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) within their jurisdiction take on the responsibility for spatial planning. To effectively utilise the Spatial Planning Index (SPI), the state government should take the following steps:
- Spatial Planning Legislative Reforms: Amendments to existing laws should be made to incorporate necessary changes that enable ULBs to handle spatial planning effectively. This may include revising zoning laws, building codes, and land use regulations to align with local needs.
- Building Spatial Planning Capacity at the ULB Level: It is essential to invest in training and resources for ULB staff to provide them with the skills and tools required for effective spatial planning. This includes equipping them with knowledge in sustainable urban design, land management, and infrastructure planning.
- Restricting the Role of Development Authorities: Development authorities or corporations should be restricted to preparing development plans for ULBs in a supporting or advisory role, ensuring that ULBs take primary responsibility for planning their development. This reinforces local governance and accountability.
- Preparation of Zonal/Local Area Plans and Layout Plans: ULBs should be empowered to create detailed local and zonal plans, which would provide a roadmap for future development. This ensures that urban growth is planned in a way that responds to local needs and conditions, preventing ad-hoc and uncoordinated expansion.
- Attaching Funding to Spatial Plans: Effective spatial planning requires adequate financial backing. The state governments should allocate specific funds for the implementation of spatial plans, ensuring that ULBs have the financial capacity to realise these plans, including infrastructure and service provision.
Q. Looking ahead, what are A.T.E. Chandra Foundation's plans for the Spatial Planning Index? Are there plans to expand its scope, refine the indicators, or incorporate new technologies to further enhance its effectiveness in driving positive urban development outcomes?
A. UDRI’s Spatial Planning Index Report was appreciated as a valuable tool for accessing critical information on the status of spatial planning in Indian cities. In the future, we plan to undertake the following initiatives:
- Further develop the indicators based on stakeholder engagements. The SPI will be released again for the same cities and some additional cities will be added. The aim will be to capture and compare changes in the frameworks over 5 years.
- Build on our previous research by incorporating a horizontal cross-sectoral analysis. Moving forward, we aim to broaden the scope to include the role of various sectors (such as transport, housing, and the environment) in the spatial development of cities. Additionally, this research will examine the role of parastatals in coordinating and integrating spatial and sectoral planning.
Further, we are also working on the study of liveability indicators for Indian cities that could be good goal-setting and monitoring touchpoints for guiding spatial planning efforts and ULBs.
x
