Planning and Design Implementation
Analysis of Urban Development Plan Formulation in India with Special Reference to Public Participation
2022 Volume 10 Issue 4 Pages 192-208
Details
2022 Volume 10 Issue 4 Pages 192-208
Efficient public participation results in the effective implementation of plans, policies, and programs since the proposals are best-reviewed, suggested and accepted by the public. However, in a heterogeneous society like India, where there are a wide array of individuals, communities, and social groups creating enabling methods for public participation is still difficult for city-level development authorities. The paper aims to ascertain the current state of public participation while formulating Urban Development Plans, focusing across three Indian cities. It argues that the current practices of involving the public are limited to stakeholder consultation primarily comprising of expert groups where no robust methods exist to capture the say of the common public during the formulation of the development plan for the city. The analysis reveals that the inclusion of citizens and the implementation of a suitable participatory method amongst the three selected case studies still pose a question since the primary approach is inviting the influential stakeholders for suggestions. The research paper also brings in arguments from literature for how public participation aids the development process. An exploration of few approaches for public participation is also discussed along with considering the challenges of implementation in the Indian context.
India is witnessing rapid urbanization; 32% of the 377 million Indian population lives in cities (MHUA, 2011). This influx of population into cities imposes a challenge on urban sustainability. Effective and efficient decision-making involving citizens can be one aspect of urban sustainability. Public participation here plays a pivotal role in democratic decision making hence supporting sustainability (Carcasson, 2013; Chu, Anguelovski et al., 2016; Fung, 2006; Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2020).
In the Indian context, public participation is exhibited more in the implementation of formulated plans and policies rather than participation during the formulation of those policies and plans (Kumar and Prakash, 2016). The decentralized participatory spaces that exist in megacities are fragmented (Singh, 2012). Moreover, Indian cities do not have provisions for engaging citizens like Indian villages that offer platforms like Gram Sabha (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2020). All the policies are implemented on or through the public, but public participation in policy formulation has not necessarily been seen as an indispensable requirement. At times, we can call it ‘pseudo' participation since even the explanations or implementation strategies of policies/proposals to the public are given the cover of 'public participation; however, it has limited scope for all the stakeholders, especially the public. This might be because of the challenges in ensuring equitable, unbiased, univocal public participation at the primary stages of policy formulation. However, the importance of public participation is acknowledged in the formulation of policies and their implementation. However, there is limited information on how public participation can be ensured, and the output can be made meaningful by different approaches rather than inviting suggestions to draft policies (Burton and Mustelin, 2013). Thus, it can be noted that adequate public engagement is somewhat diluted under the broader term of stakeholder consultation (Figure 1) despite it being necessary.
The paper aims to analyse the Urban Development Plan formulation process in India with particular reference to Public Participation. The scientific literature on 'public participation' and 'public participation during the formulation of urban development plans’ was reviewed and synthesized. The second term was primarily analysed in the Indian context. The plan formulation process is studied w.r.t to three Indian cities– Ahmedabad, Delhi, and Chennai. These are among the most populous cities of the country with varied socio-economic strata and witnessed the early introduction of development plans in the 50s and 60s thus having experience of past plan formulations and feedback for the successful and unsuccessful approaches. To understand the background and history of public participation in India’s context, the guidelines issued by the Central government were studied along with published development plan reports for the case study. This qualitative study is aimed to understand the current scenario of public participation in selected cities and identify the challenges for effective citizen involvement in the Indian context. The research contributes to the literature evidence on the current processes, challenges and potential areas for considerations while designing and implementing public participation exercise during formulation of urban development plans in selected Indian cities. The limitation this research carries is that the information and facts available in government published plan documents have been referred, no primary data collection was conducted. This might have omitted the chances of inclusion of smaller scale participation processes which were not documented in published plans. The future research opportunity can hence include the analytical aspects drawn from primary data collection which could also consider the stance of government officials who were part of plan preparation process and citizens who were consulted.
Looking back at the Indian history of town planning, Town Planning Organization (TPO) was formed in 1955 by the Government of India to formulate the first master plan of Delhi, later in 1957 Central Urban and Regional Planning Organization (CRUPO) was formed. In 1962, these organizations were merged, forming Town and Country Planning Organization (TCPO). TCPO is an apex body in urban and regional planning in India. Based on the model regional planning and development law prepared by TCPO, Indian states enact their urban and regional planning acts. The preparation of urban development plans is regulated under each state's town and country planning act (Mahadevia, Joshi et al., 2009). For instance, Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 governs the urban planning functions in Gujarat. Urban Development plans are vital tools to ensure planned and systemic development in rapidly urbanizing Indian cities. According to Census 2011, 230 towns have approved Master Plans and another 400 towns are in different stages of preparation from 7933 towns (Jagtap and Singh, 2018).
Development Plan or Master Plan are tools used for urban planning for developing cities and infrastructure. Indian town planning adopts the development planning approach, typically for a horizon period of 20-25 years. The development plans are implemented through various tools like development control regulations, land-use zoning, and planning for infrastructure. The development plan was first introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 in the United Kingdom; since then it has been widely accepted by various countries (Jagtap and Singh, 2018). In the Indian context, the national government’s role is to lay the guidelines for urban development since Urban Planning is a state function. It is not included in the Central Government’s concurrent list (Mahadevia, Joshi et al., 2009). With the introduction of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA), the Urban Local Bodies (ULB) were mandated to prepare development plans for their jurisdiction area (Munshi, Joshi et al., n.d.).
The Role of Public Participation in Urban PlanningThere are varied accepted terms in literature used alternatively for public participation, like civic engagement, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder participation, citizen participation, and public and community engagement. The term ‘participation’ comprises of different meanings, many forms, and a variety of motivations (Amy, 2017). Coenen (2009) says that the umbrella term ‘public participation’ encompasses citizen, stakeholder, and community participation. The authors Dietz and Stern (2008) acknowledge that the concept of public participation is not consistently conceived or defined. However, literary evidence suggests 'how participation is structured' can be conceptualized involving five distinctive elements: who participates, when participation happens, what happens, how much participation, and why the actors participate (Burton and Mustelin, 2013; Dietz and Stern, 2008). Creighton (2005) defines public participation as a practice during which public issues, needs, and values can be combined in the government’s decision-making process. The process should not solely involve disseminating information; there should be an interaction between the governing authority (making decisions) and citizens who are affected by it or want to participate. Rowe and Frewer (2004) mentions that public participation is a process of consulting and involving the public. This consultation and involvement are conducted to set agenda, make decisions, and form policies. Alternatively, also used as public engagement, Maile and Griffiths (2014) emphasize that the motive behind the process should be the generation of mutual benefit, understanding, trust, and relevance. The concept of public participation primarily has two interrelated dimensions. One which accounts for transparency of the authority who is the decision-maker and the second involvement of the non-state actors (citizens) in this process (Bonzon, 2014).
The literature mentions varied types of public participation based on the levels at which the public is involved. Arnstein (1969) introduced ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation, which discusses eight different stages of involvement in citizens. The stages were presented in ascending order of citizen power, where the lowest level of citizen control included manipulation, therapy, and informing. After informing, the following stages gave citizens the power to share their views called consultation and placation. Citizen control is identified as highest during the partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. Rowe and Frewer (2004) in the research reports that there are diverse mechanisms for engaging citizens, from the most practiced method of the public meeting to conferences where consensus is aimed, using tools like a survey where the aim alone is to capture participant response to involving citizens in a focus group discussion where participants can interact mutually.
In India, the sixties era witnessed several practitioners working with communities at a local level; however, the focus on participation was ensured in the 1970s when donor agencies such as the World Bank adopted community participation as one of their primary goals. Through the 74th CAA Government of India (GoI) mandated decentralization and participatory governance first in 1992 and later in 2005 through the Community Participation Law (CPL), the concept of Area Sabhas and Ward Committees for urban areas under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). These platforms were mandated through amendments in the local government laws. Another approach to propagate participation was through linking central government funding to participation. For instance, in 2007, under JNNURM, a model participation law was prepared for states to enact as part of the reforms. JNNURM also mandated 'stakeholder consultation' while preparing of City Development Plan (CDP) (Kumar and Prakash, 2016). Decentralization through the 74th CAA empowered local governments with power, resources, and functions. The devolution was from state to local government and new participatory spaces called Ward Committees (Georgiadou, Sliuzas et al., 2016). Evaluating the existence of these ‘invited spaces’ for public participation in the literature indicates that these spaces have either not been created or are not functioning as envisaged. The functioning and sustainability of these platforms of invited and claimed spaces have never been a focus for Indian discussion (Kumar and Prakash, 2016). The launch of the smart cities mission in 2015 by the Government of India also mandated the preparation of smart cities plans through citizen engagement. This mission introduced methods for ICT-based citizen engagement through a website- MyGov.in (Praharaj, Han et al., 2017). Figure 2 graphically depicts the milestones of public participation in the planning process in Indian history. Thus, the Indian government has institutionalized public participation in the planning processes.
Simultaneously, understanding the introduction of guidelines by the National Government during the preparation of urban development plans; the Ministry of Urban Development in 1996 had first announced Urban Development Plans Formulation and implementation guidelines (UDPFI) which were later modified in 2015 as Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and implementation guidelines (URDPFI). The UDPFI, 1996 suggested the following steps concerning public participation during the preparation of the development plans: public notification and display of the draft development plan, public meeting and public comments and suggestions, public hearing, and final draft development plan formulation and submission to ULB for approval. The report also suggested that direct participation can happen through various groups involving citizens, neighborhoods, business, and consumer groups. Non-government organizations and Community-Based Organizations can play an essential role in ensuring direct participation by playing intermediary links between people and government. The indirect form of participation can be safeguarded through the elected representatives in the local body and ward committees, mandated under the 74th constitutional amendment act (MoUD, 1996). Later in 2015, the updated URDPFI guidelines coined ‘stakeholder consultation’ in the development plan preparation process. The stakeholder consultation was suggested at the plan formulation, approval, implementation, and monitoring phase. People's representatives, advisory committees, and citizens' participation are at the plan formulation stage. At the approval stage, citizen participation in the form of public objections and suggestions and private sector participation is advised. The guidelines recognized various mechanisms for interactive public participation like community design charrettes, advisory committees, low-cost demonstrations and transformations, focus groups, and participatory mapping and budgeting. The modifications were suggested to improve public participation, stating that the State planning provisions should be revised, emphasizing the public's participation at early stages. Involvement of Residential Welfare Associations in Local area plans (LAPs) and modern tools for awareness through websites by ULB was recommended (MoUD, 2015). This brought attention to involving citizens at early stages and introducing modern tools for engaging citizens while preparing urban development plans.
This study is based on the comparative assessment of the development plan of the case studies. Presenting a comparative assessment landscape of the development plans enables to picture a holistic image of public participation under various stages of plan formulation. A qualitative form of analysis, represented in Table 1 and Table 2, was used to study three selected cases. Firstly, the stages of preparation of urban development plan as suggested in URDPFI guidelines 2015 were taken as reference to which the stages of stakeholder consultation across three cities were compared. Whether the stakeholder consultation was carried out was decided based on data available in published development plan documents. This analysis was followed by mapping the methods used for participation, stakeholders, and output of participation exercises. The results derived in the tables are purely based on the information described in the government-published reports and development plan documents of the three selected cities. Each development plan studied details the process, output, and methods used for public participation.
Three cities: Ahmedabad, Chennai, and Delhi were selected to study the urban development plan formulation process and understand the role of public participation during the formulation and implementation phase.
Ahmedabad Urban Development Plan 2021Ahmedabad city holds administrative importance for the Gujarat state. As per the census 2011, the city comprises of 5.6 million residing population. Due to its strategic location in the state's centre, the city has also emerged as a hub for economic and industrial importance. It also caught national attention when the walled city of Ahmedabad was declared India’s first UNESCO world heritage city in 2017. From the eight municipal corporations and nine urban development authorities within the state, Ahmedabad is the largest city considering the population and area.
Urban development planning is defined by Gujarat Urban Development and Town Planning Act, 1976. Going back to the history of urban planning, under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 eleven town planning schemes were prepared within the local authority's jurisdiction in Ahmedabad. The concept of preparation of a Development Plan within the limits of the local body was introduced in the enactment of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The first Development Plan was prepared in the year 1965 for the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad. To ensure the undertaking of planning activities on a more rational and scientific basis and not restricting the areas to the jurisdiction of local authorities, the act described above was replaced by comprehensive legislation called The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act (GTPUDA), 1976, in the state of Gujarat. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) was constituted under the same legislation responsible for urban development and other assigned functions. While the establishment of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation can be drawn long back to 1950 under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. Ahmedabad's current development plan is for the horizon until 2021, approved in 2011.
The methodology of preparation of the development plan was initiated by collecting data from different sources, conducting primary surveys, and analysing the data. Base maps were prepared, along with conducting land use and suitability analysis. A past development plan was reviewed with the base information, which helped understand the level of development achieved in the decade as against proposed. The following step included future projections and demand analysis. Before identifying the vision and principles for the development plan, public consultations and stakeholder meetings were organized. The development plan document mentions that representing views and concerns of the varied socio-economic group is important while formulating a development plan. Based on the shared views and concerns, the aim and objective were proposed for the development plan 2021 (AUDA, 2011). The final stage in preparation of the development plan is the formation of the policies and proposals which was done by accessing the gaps and deriving the demands for the future. Stakeholder consultation was conducted where objections and suggestions were invited from the public by publication of the Development Plan in the official gazette of the Government of Gujarat.
Describing the approach of the preparation of the development plan, the document mentions three critical approaches which were adopted: Public consultations, GIS-based approach, and land use transport integration. Public consultation being adopted as one of the key approaches the document states, “The revised Development Plan is a document for the people and cannot be prepared behind closed doors the involvement of the people is very necessary i.e. a democratic approach is required and thus the first approach towards the Development Plan is the through Public consultations”. The process claims that extensive public consultation was conducted at various stages representing various socio-economic groups who participated through several interviews and workshops. After reviewing the inputs from these consultations, the vision and objectives were formulated. Three rounds of stakeholder consultation were conducted. The first round included expert consultation where the stakeholders were involved through interviews and focus group discussions which facilitated assessment of the current urban services and future infrastructure needs. The second round of consultation was more collaborative and participatory, where a series of working group meetings were organized. This process gave more specific suggestions for improving the existing scenario in the city. The third round of stakeholder participation was implemented to seek suggestions for various issues identified under each sector and discuss feasible solutions. However, carefully examining the list of primary and secondary stakeholders involved (chief officers, village sarpanch, institutes, non-government organizations, renowned architects, engineers and town planners, private developers, chief town planner, other government employees, member of parliament, member of legislative assembly, heritage cell and working groups)indicates the participation of experts, government, a non-government and private organization where the local citizen completely lacked the recognition.
Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026Chennai, the capital city of Tamil Nadu is the sixth most populous city with a population of 8.6 million according to Census 2011. It is one of the critical emerging metropolises attracting an influx of population due to IT opportunities, major educational centres, transportation hubs connecting major cities, and holding historical and cultural importance.
The Madras Town Planning Act was implemented in 1920, which led to a few Detailed Town Planning schemes. However, no comprehensive plan for the city was prepared. Later, Madras Town Planning Act was superseded in 1971 by Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act (TTCP). The function prescribed in the act is to prepare a master plan, detailed development plan, or a new town development plan for the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area. Looking back to history, the preparation of the first Master Plan for Chennai started in 1973. The draft master plan was notified in 1975. After considering the invited objections and suggestions the draft master plan was approved in 1976. Housing and Urban Development Department in 2006 directed Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for preparation of Master Plan towards which the proposal was formulated in 2007. The second master plan was sanctioned in 2008 till the horizon period of 2026. The formulating agency claims that the TTCP Act requires 60 days to be given for inviting public objections and suggestions. However, the authority gave more than 140 days inviting public opinion.
To enable public participation, copies of the draft master plan were made available to the public (in English and Tamil) and hosted on the official website. Fourteen public consultations were organized, which allowed the participation of elected representatives of local bodies. Separate meetings were held with architects and builder associations. Mayor and councilors were also consulted for their suggestions. In addition to this, the workshop was organized during which the government officials, academicians, and experts were consulted. As a result of this stakeholder consultation, more than 900 letters containing objections and suggestions were received. To further work on these suggestions, subject-wise committees were formed (Land use, Transport, Environment, Water Supply, Drainage, Housing, and Solid Waste Management). They formed committees that examined the suggestions, and their recommendations were placed before the Authority for consideration (CMDA, 2008a). The final decision on the incorporations was left to the Authority. Towards the experience of public participation, while the formulation of Master Plan, the development authority claims that using the website to share the document, sale of approximately 3000 copies, and public consultation events organized over four months provided a vast opportunity for the public to participate. Hence, 900 objections/suggestions were received, which deepened the content and scope (CMDA, 2008b). Analysing the preparation of the Master Plan, it is evident that stakeholders are consulted through formal meetings, workshops, and consultation, ensuring their views in-person; however, the views of a wider audience (citizens) are left to publishing plan on website and newspaper. This type of engagement works well with the self-motivated and literate citizen cluster; however, the remaining citizens are left unaware of the processes and developments.
Master Plan for Delhi 2021Delhi, the national capital of India, has a population of 16 million according to Census 2011. Delhi’s urban area comprises satellite cities of Noida, Faridabad, and Gurgaon, forming the National Capital Region. Delhi is jointly administered and governed by the Indian Central Government and the Local Government of Delhi. Delhi Development Act, 1957 was the first enactment to facilitate planned development for the National Capital Region. Under the said act, Master Plan 1962 was formulated. The current Development Plan for Delhi is for the horizon period 2021, sanctioned in 2007.
Detailing out the process and approach adopted towards public participation to prepare the Master Plan, the Master Plan Delhi (MPD) document states that the plan was formulated considering the democratic procedure and statutory obligations. The process of inviting public views was carried out through extensive consultations at the primary planning stages. This included local government involvement, resident welfare associations, elected representatives, and expert groups (DDA, 2007). Also, the Ministry of Urban Development issued guidelines in 2003 to prepare the MPD 2021, emphasizing the need to explore alternate methods of land assembly, private sector participation, and flexible land use and development norms. However, the method of public participation adopted was through notifying the draft master plan and inviting the public to objections/suggestions. In response to this invitation, 7000 objections and suggestions were received, from which 611 persons were also given a personal hearing. The planning authority made presentations on the draft MPD 2021 before various forums to receive suggestions. The Consultative Committee of Parliament, Governor, Chief Minister, and Group of Ministers set up by Central Government were various stakeholders who contributed to the suggestions. Personal interactions were also facilitated with various elected representatives, including Members of Parliament, Legislative Assembly, and Municipal Councillors. Being the country capital, Delhi attracts political attention, and hence special efforts were made to consult the elected and elected representatives. However, the citizens were invited only through notifying the draft master plan and inviting objections/suggestions. The group targeted through this medium is the one that requires empowerment through training, workshop, and awareness program, enabling their capacities to comprehend the plans and importance to share their say. Leaving citizens with only notifications might result in poor participation.
| Ahmedabad | Delhi | Chennai | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban Development Plan (DP) Preparation stages | Stakeholder Consultation | Stakeholder Consultation | Stakeholder Consultation |
| Data collection and analysis | Yes |
Yes (Pre-Planning stage) |
No |
| Preparation of Base Map, Land use analysis and land suitability analysis | No | No | No |
| Review of the past DP | No | No | No |
| Future projections and demand analysis | No | No | No |
| Public consultation and stakeholder meetings | Yes | No | No |
| Identifying vision and principles for DP | No | No | No |
| Prepare policies, proposals, and recommendations | Yes | Yes | No |
| Prepare General Development Regulations | Yes | No | No |
| Publication of draft DP | No | Yes | No |
| Suggestions, objections, and modifications | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Publication of final DP | No | No | No |
However, the city is also witnessing progressive reforms in this space. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is currently in the process of developing Development Plan-2041. DDA has commenced extensive public consultation efforts in association with the National Institute of Urban Affairs to take view/suggestions and feedback from varied citizen groups across the city, driving the agenda of the Master Plan. Considering the new normal and safety protocols for COVID, online public consultation events were organized. The official site of DDA has a designated webpage for information on public consultations called ‘re-inventing Delhi’ (DDA, 2021). The forced shift and acceptance of virtual connect can result in inclusion and convenience for a few socio-economic groups of the citizenry.
| City | Public Participation methods used |
Stakeholders consulted |
Output | Typology of Citizen Participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021 | Interviews. Group discussions, focus group discussions, working group meetings |
Primary stakeholders- Chief Officers, Village Sarpanchs, Institute such as Chamber of Commerce, Gujarat institute of Architecture and Civil engineering, non-government organizations, renowned architects, engineers and town planners, private developers, various governmental departments and working groups (working groups were formed that included experts from all fields to focus on key areas) Secondary stakeholders- Chief town planner, additional chief town planner and other government employees, various government departmental officers, MPs, MLAs and Heritage cell |
Consolidated suggestions across various sectors of Urban development plan produced as part of DP 2021 report |
Consultation: inviting public objections/suggestions through Gazette Notification From Arnstein (1969) eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation, the typology adopted across three case studies is ‘Consultation’ on the fourth rung. The author describes this type of consultation as a window dressing ritual since powerholders restrict the inputs at this level. Here the success of participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer questionnaires. |
|
Delhi Development Plan 2021 |
Personal interactions, meetings, consultations | Local bodies, Government of NCT Delhi, public sector agencies, professional groups, resident welfare associations, elected representatives, other interest groups such as lawyer, doctors, Chartered Accountants, traders, residents etc. |
The gist of suggestions in the Development Plan report 7000 objections and suggestions. |
|
| Chennai Master Plan 2026 | Workshops, stakeholder meetings | Various Government agencies, ward councillors, experts, engineers, architects, NGOs etc. | 900 objections and suggestions compiled in a report format (available online) |
Comparing the approaches and methodology of formulation of the urban development plan and analysing public participation across different Indian cities is comparatively difficult since the methodology for plan preparation is not consistent across the Indian cities. The inconsistent plan preparation across the Indian cities can be owed to variation in the political and governing structure along with different spatial development scope and need for planning interventions. For instance, Delhi is part of India’s national capital region and has higher political importance and strategic focus. Chennai, being port city is a hub of thriving businesses and hence brings in larger economic considerations while preparing urban development plan. Secondly, the data published under the development plan document is not similar (refer Table 1). For instance, The Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021 published document has a chapter on Stakeholder consultation processes performed, but the information in a similar format cannot be extracted out for Delhi and Chennai Master Plan. The stages during development plan preparation where specific information about method and execution of stakeholder consultation have not been mentioned in the documents are specified as 'no' in Table 1 above. Table 2 details the type of stakeholders consulted during the plan preparation across three cities by analysing the Stakeholder's inclusion in the process. Ahmedabad's Development Plan targeted primary and secondary stakeholders for consultation. The stakeholder group which was to be directly affected by the intervention was consulted. This list majorly included representatives and heads of villages, institutes, and professionals such as Architects and Urban Planners. Whereas the secondary stakeholders were identified as ones who could influence the development intervention, such as Chief Town Planner, government officers, political leaders such as Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly. Evident efforts and methods of ensuring common citizens' participation were not practiced during the consultation process. The stakeholders consulted for suggestions for Delhi Development Plan 2021 and Chennai Master Plan 2026 comprise of similar typology. Representatives of various government departments, public sector agencies, professional groups, resident welfare associations, residents and non-government organizations were consulted. The development plan document for both the cities claims that public participation was carried out across the length and breadth, which widened the scope of receiving suggestions for development plan. However, the inclusion of citizens and the implementation of a suitable participatory method still imposes a question since the primary approach is inviting the influential stakeholders for suggestions. The current provision in India is only limited to stakeholder consultation (refer Table 2) where the draft proposal/policy is made accessible for a stipulated time in the public domain for stakeholders to raise their concerns or give their suggestions (Georgiadou, Sliuzas et al., 2016; Kumar and Prakash, 2016). These suggestions are accepted in written form via letters or through e-mails. The described scenario is practiced in general with few outliers where public consultation is organized in the form of meetings (generally having a limited representation of the society as a whole). The suggestions or concerns raised are addressed if considered appropriate by the authority. With this limited experience in engaging the public, India is yet to focus on public participation and give all adequate, effective, efficient, and relevant representation. The case studies discussed validate the above-raised findings. Moreover, the literature on history of public participation in the planning process discussed above (Figure 2) attests that public participation in the urban planning process in Indian cities has been initiated in response to legal and mandatory requirements of plan formulation. In parallel to mandatory requirements, another process observed is the group of citizens proactively trying to influence the government's decision-making process. These groups are mainly the resident welfare association or community-based organizations from the less advantaged socio-economic cohort. Contrary to the current processes in country, the literature validates multiple benefits of engaging public.
Among the many benefits and needs of public participation, primary has been believed to reflect the need and aspirations of citizens of the city and build consensus amongst various stakeholders. It is also emphasized that organizing and implementing public participation is the process of community governance through which public participation can be propagated from initial to end of the process (Huang, Dan et al., 2018). Effective public participation helps address queries of people, supported by the bottom-up approach of implementation (Pankaj and Shekhar, 2014). Attaining instantaneous updated local knowledge for addressing problems that could otherwise not be accessed by conventional methods is one of many benefits of the engaging public (Li, Feng et al., 2020). Public participation can also positively impact citizen trust and tolerance, translating to the fact that public agencies should work hard to develop and implement high-quality public participation programs (Halvorsen, 2003). The public's common interest and relevant motivations to engage in urban planning is an important topic that triggers people to participate.
The quality and legitimacy of the decision in urban local government can be positively improved by enhanced public participation. The participatory process also aids in the development of social capital and building community capacity (Barnes, Newman et al., 2003). Van Herzele (2004) says that knowledge from the non-expert (citizens) can prove beneficial since the ideas thought would be outside and without consideration of the profession of urban planning. This approach may result in the reinvention of the creative solutions which could work in the specified local context. Another reason to value local/non-expert knowledge is that the new ideas may lead to the emergence of thoughts that might have never been thought of within the stipulated frame of bureaucracy and profession (Brabham, 2009). Manyozo (2017) mentions that if the development intentions to benefit the community are not communicated with communities, it can lead to exploitation and manipulation of the development processes. The idea of participation is well supported in literature and practice; however, its authenticity imposes a concern due to the dominance of influential stakeholder (Zanudin, Ngah et al., 2019). Like in case of consultation processes conducted for Ahmedabad, Delhi, and Chennai the dominance of expert group of stakeholders had impact on type of suggestions and objections which were received. The concern towards the engaging public is that the power to constitute the public for participation lies with public officials. During this process, the general public's interest, particularly, could be privileged, and that of the counter-public could be marginalized. Often the, equal opportunities for the marginalized cannot be ensured through participation. To address this, the facilitator-led participatory processes can be most successful in empowering and giving equal voice to participants and a horizontal form of listening, which would help the marginalized group challenge the unequal power distribution (Brear, 2020; Manyozo, 2017). The difficulty also lies in managing the degree and timing of participation related to the efficiency of participation (Huang, Dan et al., 2018).
Increasing the community capacity to participate would be an appropriate intervention when a formal institutional level framework exists for engaging the public. Public awareness is one of the essential indicators of participation success (Gurtoo, 2011). Freudenberg, Pastor et al., (2011) have identified and defined six intervention strategies that could increase community capacity. These strategies include training the citizen group and facilitating technology transfer, technical assistance, promoting community-based and participatory research, few approaches that would empower citizens, organizing community, and authenticating the participation process. Recently, Delhi organized extensive public consultation efforts in association with the National Institute of Urban Affairs to take view/suggestions and feedback from varied citizen groups across the city, driving the agenda of the Master Plan 2041. Considering the safety protocols for COVID, online public consultation events were organized. The technology can foster profound levels of engagement between citizens and government using the web as a medium. One such option could be a crowd sourcing model in which collective intelligence can be harnessed and citizens can organize (Brabham, 2009). For implementing ICT-based participation methods, professionals and policymakers need to take risks with innovative models such as crowdsourcing. However, careful considerations should also be given to the fact that internet technology is yet to be recognized as basic urban infrastructure in cities of the global south. The household internet access is still limited, substantiated by the fact that most progressive cities in India like Ahmedabad had only 10.3% of its household accessing the internet during 2011 (Praharaj, Han et al., 2017). The new public participation methods for the Indian context can establish partnerships where civil society organizations could influence the formation of deep democratic structures and processes. This might enhance the localized potential criteria for effective participation (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2020). Gurtoo (2011) also mentions that civil society groups hold significant importance to social democracy. Active collaboration between institutional bodies and civil society organizations could effectively spread awareness and information.
Identifying relevant stakeholders and forming coalitions is important for a participative approach that can aid cities' sustainable development (Das, 2017). This indicates that public participation can be a key to enhancing urban sustainability. However, India lacks effective public participation processes resolving equity and sustainability. The introduction of new public participation methods can enable improvement in urban governance and sustainability (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2019). The Indian planning process at the local level is consultative rather than participatory (Munshi, Joshi et al., n.d.). The case studies discussed above validate that stakeholder consultation aiming to include expert groups is given more attention during the plan formulation. Public participation in urban planning in India exists in the form of objections and suggestions during the preparation of development plans (Kumar and Prakash, 2016). The participation process across three selected cases supports the evidence-based inquiry asserting the fact that consultative approach which is largely followed in the country. The situation becomes more stringent, requiring ardent attention when we consider it in the Indian political, economic and social backdrop with a large chunk of uneducated, heterogeneous society and limited experience in the public domain for public engagement in the post-independence era. There is now a broader consent on accepting the public as an essential stakeholder to consult, primarily for local-level formulated projects and plans. However, there is no formal framework that mandates public participation.
In most developing countries, where political influence might compromise the unbiased state of public participation having a conclusive say on stage and scale of representation and involvements, it is imperative to assess the authoritative position on who decides what. Public participation in development projects is done to minimize the proposed development's impact; however, developing nations like India still lack effective public participation due to bureaucratic barriers that usually originate from traditional top-down approaches (Sherpa, 2011). The adequate representation of all socio-economic groups, public subgroups, representing the vulnerable is still dubious. The role and participation of the 'public' must be more organized and recognized consistently throughout the preparation of development plan stages, from identification of the problem to formulation of implementation proposals. The participation at each stage should be operationalized considering the involvement of citizens. Format like open workshops would encourage small group discussions amongst citizens compared to meeting format, which is usually accepted for expert group consultation. The spatial heterogeneity which Indian cities offer should be carefully considered while designing participation processes. The citizen’s linguistic preference should be incorporated which could ensure inclusion of larger group. Interactive and awareness tools should be developed which can help citizens understand the complex processes of plan preparation, these awareness can aid their engagement. Unlike consulting citizens after the plan is prepared, citizen participation should be organized simultaneously with the plan formulation. These approaches are expected to manifest into the meaningful realization of public participation in the planning process considering Indian context.
Conceptualization, B. S., S. S. and A. K.; methodology, A. K. and S. P.; investigation, S. S. and N. K.; resources, writing—original draft preparation, B. S., B. S. and S. S.; writing—review and editing, A. K., S. P., and N. K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.
