PRETAB Planning Model: Local Information Infrastructure (LII) as DSS for Local-level Urban Planning Ayon K Tarafdar Associate Professor, Dr. Department of Urban Planning School of Planning and Architecture: Vijayawada (MHRD, Govt of India)

Outline Municipal planning in India – the potential and profile of an (unnoticed) sector ULBs and the notion of non-spatial planning – the fallacy and shortcomings Geospatial tools for municipal planning – an issue of sectoral offerings and approach A way forward – The PRETAB planning model (NTNU-Norway-SPAV research assignment)

Urbanization in India Source: Census of India 19 urban% 35% urban 40% urban National Population National Urban Population

ULBs and Metropolitans In 1991 there were 23 metropolitan cities, which increased to 35 in 2001 – 2011, there are estimated 41 metro cities In 1991, there were 2562 urban local bodies (ULBs), which increased to 3255 by 2001 It is estimated that by the year 2011, urban areas would contribute about 65 % of GDP 3255 ULBs in India? Notified Area (319) Town Nagar Panchayat (453) Town Area Committee (620) Municipality (1290) Municipal Council (32) Municipal Committee (233) Municipal Board (253) Municipal Corporations (55)

National Commission on Urbanisation 1985 NCU, Vol. II, Map 4 77 NPCs

252 SPCs National Commission on Urbanisation 1985 NCU, Vol. II, Map 5

49 SPURs National Commission on Urbanisation 1985 NCU, Vol. II, Map 6

Understanding the local mandate 74 th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA74, 1993) accorded constitutional status to ULBs – mandated ULBs with the role of preparing spatial, economic and social development plans CAA74 - SchdXII: accords 18 key planning functions for ULBs – – Regulation of land use and building construction – Water supply (domestic and commercial) – Roads and bridges – Public health, sanitation and solid waste management – Slum improvement and up-gradation – Parks, playgrounds, water bodies, etc – Planning for trade, commerce and economic development

This means… Each ULB needs to prepare a municipal/town development plan (10-15 year vision) addressing each sector (18), through: – Strategizing, phasing, projectizing, and evolving implementation plans Leading to 5 Year Plans and Annual Plans; and subsequent project plans 1.Do we have enough (3255)Town Development Plans currently? 2.What does this plan- making mean, financially?

Understanding the potential For almost 10 years, there were no municipal spatial plan, which got approved, after CAA74 in 1993 Led to launch of – National Urban Information System (NUIS), 2006 – Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), 2005 NUIS Preparation of GIS database by NMA in coordination with State Govts. 137 towns and cities crore population Rs crores JNNURM Preparation of City Development Plan (CDPs), and DPRs 65 towns and cities crore population Rs. 50,000 crores

Understanding the potential The status / outcome as on 2010: – 27 CDPs have been completed; rest underway None of the CDPs are statutory plans – About 43 NUIS town database completed; rest underway None of this finds reference in CDPs or Municipal Plans – About 11 Municipal Corporations out of 55 have an approved plan – About 45 municipalities out of 1700 have an approved plan

Other issues with the CDPs and NUIS… CDPs and NUIS data Non-Statutory documents Not necessarily certified by professional planners Not as per UDPFI/ ITPI guidelines No plan-period specified Non-spatial approach to development (lacks land use plan and control, land suitability analysis, and other spatial aspects) NUIS data not streamlined for urban planning Attribute developed as per available data with census and NMAs and not development agencies

Which means… We do not have plans for almost 96% of our constitutionally empowered 3255 ULBs, since CAA74 in 1993 (17 years) Municipal plans are directly linked to municipal budgets and projects, yet plans not ready Every municipal body continues to have annual budgets, projects and functions, without a local vision or development plan Projects are allocated on a top-down fashion, as earlier, based on district and state economic plans Does this show a way?

Understanding the Need/Potential Estimated annual avg. municipal budget is INR 200 crores (for a medium sized municipality) – Roughly 10% is allocated for plan-making - INR 20 crores – JNNURM allocates around INR 50 crores for CDP preparation – A development planning assignment by a public planning body is estimated to be of around 30 crores (including primary survey), that can be sanctioned from State Planning Board Estimated funding available for plan-making = INR 100 crores per municipality Equivalent to a potential market of INR 300,000 crores – (referring to only plan-making for 3000 ULBs)

Understanding the Need/Potential Assuming 20% to be spent on data assimilation and creation of GIS = INR 20 crores per municipality Equivalent to a potential market of INR 6000 crores for geospatial enablement in plan-making What stops us from acting?

Notional Roadblocks Planning without information Planning without planners Geospatial element left out to mapping and creation of thematic maps, and databases only None of the current municipal plans utilize geospatial tools in its analytical frame Geospatial tools continue to address municipal planning and services at the sectoral level.

The sectoral approach Geospatial CanvassSectoral utility Design and Engg.Infrastructure, utilities & services, construction, network planning etc MappingCartography, thematic representation, delineation Terrain and 3DTerrain modelling, defense, urban design While each of these are formidable tools, they remain potent at the application stage of project implementation within sectors. What then, can be more appropriate for planners?

PRETAB Planning Model Need to inculcate the role of geospatial sciences at the plan making level, particularly land use control Need for a simplified platform for that assists in creation of spatial development plans leading to further sectoral projects. Platform need three main tenets: – Proactivity (geospatial expert enabled) – Reflectivity (planner and local stakeholder enabled) – Incrementalism (system enabled)

Proactive Module: – Spatial & temporal information systems handling quantitative data structures – Capacity to simulate, and analyse inter-sectorally – Inculcates role of experts Reflective Module: – Non-spatial information analytics; Livelihood analysis, socio-economic profiling, stakeholder mapping, fishbone mapping, qualitative data structures, etc – Inculcates role of local people Incremental Module: – Ability to add and delete components of analysis and data structure to the system as required by a specific context and user

A PRETAB Planning Process Model Local Information Infrastructure LII Component A) Proactivity Module Component B) Environmental Module Component C) Territorial Module Component D) Action Module User- defined Input Dynamic exercise User-defined Analysis User-defined Output

A PRETAB Planning Process Model Under development by NTNU-Norway & SPAV

Ending thoughts There is dearth of technology and human capacity There is no dearth of funds and resources There is no dearth of need and rationale What we need is – – Appropriate vision, appropriate applications/tools, and appropriate intervention.

Thank you /