Limits of policy and planning in peri-urban waterscapes: The case of Ghaziabad, Delhi, India

Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Limits of policy and planning in peri-urban waterscapes: The case of Ghaziabad, Delhi, India Lyla Mehta a, b, Timothy Karpouzoglou c, * a

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway c Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen 6700EW, The Netherlands b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 November 2014 Received in revised form 26 January 2015 Accepted 12 March 2015 Available online

The notion of the waterscape has been proposed to capture the interconnectedness of economic, political, cultural and social processes embedded in water. More recently recognised, yet still relatively under-theorised are waterscapes that are ‘in-between’ the city and the periphery. This article focuses on peri-urban Delhi, specifically the area around Ghaziabad. We show that peri-urban waterscapes do not fit into existing urban or rural planning models because these same models largely fail to recognise the peri-urban interface as a distinct form of territorial development. As a result a diverse range of mobilisations around water relevant to the peri-urban poor are systematically undermined while power asymmetries that shape access to water remain unrecognised. Peri-urban spaces thus continue to be planned as if in a transition towards urban modernity despite the complex social, political, technological and cultural realities these spaces represent. The failure to address current limits of policy and planning in peri-urban waterscapes has long term implications for the resilience, sustainability and transformative adaptation of both city and periphery. Crown Copyright © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: peri-urban Waterscape Liquid dynamics Delhi Ghaziabad

1. Introduction Urbanisation and peri-urbanism in the Global South have challenged the model of the ‘bacteriological city’ which is prevalent in the global North (Gandy, 2006). This is the model of universal water and sanitation provision - usually public- that followed on from the water and sanitation reforms of the 19th century ‘Great Stink’ in industrialising Europe1 (Mehta & Movik, 2014; UNDP, 2006). In cities of the Global South large populations continue to lack access to state supplied water (UNDP, 2006; WHO, 2010). Panda and Agarwala's (2007) study in the context of urban Delhi, refers to the “worrisome” situation of inadequate provision and

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Mehta), [email protected] (T. Karpouzoglou). 1 This was the time in the hot summer of 1858 during which the stench of untreated human waste was very strong in central London. The smell in the River Thames was so offensive that Parliament was suspended and the government agreed to take immediate measures to address public health reform and sanitation (Black & Fawcett, 2008; UNDP, 2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.008 0197-3975/Crown Copyright © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

poor implementation of schemes and programmes pertaining to water and sanitation services. Problems of inadequate access to water and sanitation are further exacerbated by an expanding slum population that is placing huge pressures on existing civic infrastructure, especially for drinking water and sanitation. It is further broadly recognised that urban water access and sanitation are often € rkman, heavily contested and highly politicised (Bakker, 2008; Bjo 2014; Castro, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2005). The peri-urban interface has seen a dramatic increase in the concentration of poverty and environmental degradation in recent years that challenges the logic of universal access to water (UNFPA, 2007). Scholars have since long argued about the problematic position of the per-urban interface, characterised by administrative and jurisdictional ambiguity, environmental degradation and marginalisation (Dupont, 2005; Marshall, Waldman, MacGregor, Mehta, & Randhawa, 2009; Narain & Nischal, 2007). Yet the peri-urban interface has only recently come into view in relation to water and sanitation scholarship, vila, & water and development activism and policy (Allen, Da Hofmann, 2006; Kurlan & McCarney, 2010; Mehta, Allouche, Nicol, & Walnycki, 2014; Randhawa & Marshall, 2014; Revi,

160

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

2008). A number of studies that focus on the relationship between water resources and peri-urban livelihoods identify important links between income activities and water availability (Allen et al. nchez-Flores, 2011; Prakash, Singh, & 2006; Díaz-Caravantes & Sa Narain, 2011). In addition, water for drinking and other domestic uses such as food preparation, hygiene and sanitation that tend to be met by the peri-urban poor through informal means of water allocation are also identified. For example, an increasing number of informal vendors and small-scale private entrepreneurs have been able to profit from the lack of state water provision by selling bottled water to poorer peri-urban populations (Solo, 1999). These various water allocation strategies that are rapidly emerging in peri-urban interface areas still remain under-theorised. Planning ambiguity in the peri-urban further suggests that peri-urban water allocation takes place in the absence of a clear regulatory framework and under ambiguous water safety standards that do not ensure neither good quality or sufficient quantity of water (Davilla, Budds, & Minaya, 1999). There is still a marked lack of attention to how peri-urban waterscapes, proposed to designate urban hydro-social flows (Swyngedouw, 1999, 2004, 2005), are being constituted and redefined. The neglect of the peri-urban interface is partly a reflection of the power relations at play and the growing tendency of urban planners, policy actors and urban environmental campaigners to prioritise urban middle class and elite interests (Díazcaravantes & Wilder, 2014; Karpouzoglou, 2012; Narain, 2014; Veron, 2006). There is therefore a need for peri-urban research to address more carefully power asymmetries shaping access to water in peri-urban areas (Díaz-caravantes & Wilder, 2014). Alankar (2013) notes elsewhere in the context of Delhi, that planned localities with secured rights to land and piped water supply receive around 225 lpcd while for the informal colonies water supply often falls to as low as 50 lpcd. However, social inequalities previously perceived to be exclusively urban, are becoming reproduced in peri-urban spaces suggesting that inadequate or unsafe water provision is not merely the result of a weak or inefficient state service delivery mechanism. Middle class citizens residing in periurban gated communities have managed to secure access to water and sanitation infrastructure and remain far better served by formal policies than the peri-urban poor. At the same time the acceleration and spread of neo-liberalisation and gentrification of urban and peri-urban spaces (Davis, 2004: 23) present a unique set of material and social realities that ultimately shape urban trajectories for resilience, sustainability and transformative adaptation in urban planning and water sectors alike (Hordijk, Sara, & Sutherland, 2014; Revi et al., 2014). Peri-urban Delhi, specifically the area around Ghaziabad, presents four key ‘problems’ in terms of the conceptualisation of waterscapes. One, peri-urban waterscapes do not fit into existing policy and planning models. They represent territories in-between urban and rural which are more than a simple mixing of the two (Wandl, Nadin, Zonneveld, & Rooij, 2014). Two, peri-urban waterscapes challenge us to break down conventional divides (seen also in cities) between waste and supply as well as water, waste and sanitation. Three, collective activities which take place in these spaces do not fit binary models of either formality or informality, licit or illicit and labour or consumption. As such they challenge contemporary debates on waterscapes that neglect the significance of poor periurban water users who have been forced to fend for themselves and are often caught in a vacuum of legality and illegality (Chatterjee, 2004; IDS, 2010; Ramanathan, 2006). Four, peri-urban spaces are seen as problematic and in a transition state towards a greater urban modernity by policy-makers and some academics. Yet as we describe, they remain permanently and persistently in-between, because this serves the power dynamics between the poor and

politicians, middle class employers and their labourers as well as between the middle class elite and the working class. This article thus seeks to challenge this problematic and ‘anomalous’ status of peri-urban waterscapes. It does so by providing an internal account of the social dynamics that produce the material reality in Ghaziabad by following the flows of water and waste within it. This example will hopefully help rethink how to conceptualise peri-urban waterscapes, the dialectics between formality and informality within them and also provide concrete areas for policy engagement. The article begins with an overview of conceptual and practical issues concerning peri-urban waterscapes. Next, the methodology and study field sites are described. The empirical sections then focus on flows of water and power as well as flows of waste in Ghaziabad and how these are marked by exclusion. The discussion and conclusion raises questions about how to re-imagine issues concerning water, its provision and sustainability in these charged settings.

2. Linking the waterscape notion with peri-urban liquid dynamics 2.1. The waterscape as a relational concept The waterscape notion describes the intertwined dialectics of the material and non-material, shaping access and distribution to water (Bakker, 2003; Budds, 2009; Swyngedouw, 2006). It is a relational concept that situates water within social, natural, material and discursive processes (Swyngedouw, 1999). This relational perspective is useful since it keeps open the ontological question of what water is, thereby encapsulating “multiple tales of socio-nature” (Bouleau, 2014; Swyngedouw, 1999: 446). Further expanding upon questions that surround the production of nature (Smith, 1990) and the production of space (Lefebvre, 1991), political ecologists such as Eric Swyngedouw seek to understand the dialectic relationship of capitalist development and the production of socio-natures such as those that a waterscape typically encapsulates. Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003; 910-1) argue that “who gains from and who pays for, who benefits from and who suffers from particular processes of socio-environmental change [ … ] is not independent from class, gender, ethnicity or other power struggles and, in fact, often tend to be explained by these social struggles”. In this mode of inquiry, the waterscape is a highly politicised space enmeshed with contradictions, inequalities, and conflicts between powerful and disenfranchised actors, as well as, class struggles (Marshall et al., 2009; Mehta, 2003). The waterscape as a contested space further reflects power asymmetries, socioeconomic inequalities, and other distribution factors, such as the ownership of land. Waterscapes may also encapsulate different symbolic and cultural meanings to different people (Baviskar, 2007). In the context of cities, the waterscape notion is further linked to the production of urban nature and unjust urban geographies (Lawhon, Ernstson, & Silver, 2014; Swyngedouw, 2006). From this perspective, the material conditions that comprise urban environments are controlled, manipulated and serve the interests of the elite at the expense of marginalized populations (Heynen, Kaika, & Swyngedouw, 2006; 6). Recent work that focuses on environmental injustices and rights violations in shaping ‘access’ to water in urban and peri-urban Delhi (Alankar, 2013; Mehta et al., 2014), on the one hand, and political ecology perspectives that take into account interactions between the production of waterscapes, environmental governance, and middle-class environmentalism on the other also allude to this (Baviskar, 2003, 2007; Zimmer, 2012). As we later show, while peri-urban waterscapes are fraught with their own

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

particularities, at the same time the peri-urban space cannot be seen in isolation from urban transformation and change. 2.1.1. The peri-urban interface as territory in-between The peri-urban is indeed an elusive phenomenon and this is partly due to the fact that it is fraught with conceptual difficulties. For example, is it a “place”, a “concept” or a “process” (Narain & Nischal, 2007)? When seen as a place, the peri-urban locality often becomes a site of expulsion from the city to make way for visions of a modernity. The displacement of the ‘visual signs of poverty’ (Fernandes, 2006: 22) to the peripheries observable in Indian cities, and the way this is driven by a new middle-class identity is a an example of this trend. It is also simultaneously a threatening urban fringe, where communities become associated with health and environmental hazards which require some form of control (Marshall et al., 2009). When regarded as a process it can be seen as a transition zone, where for example the retirement of rural activities are inevitable and therefore require little attention. It is thus bypassed by planners and authorities and characterised by jurisdictional and administrative ambiguities that lead to systemic exclusions of poor and marginalised citizens. As a concept, the periurban interface could be seen as an interface of rural and urban activities and institutions (Narain & Nischal, 2007: 261). Despite these various conceptualisations, typologies of spatial development and planning are still often formulated on the premise that the boundaries of the peri-urban are spatially as well as temporally fixed. In this article, we align with Wandl et al. (2014) conceptualisation of the peri-urban as a territory in-between. A perspective that underpins the peri-urban interface as a distinctive form of territoriality (as noted also by previous peri-urban scholarship) yet more explicitly relates peri-urban development to the shifting nature of rural activities and urban activities. These insights raise challenges with respect to water services provision especially and how rights to water become realised (Marshall et al., 2009; Mehta et al., 2014). Because planning models are misplaced or poorly conceived for the peri-urban interface, both rural and urban authorities systematically fail to adequately address citizens water needs. Often placing a larger burden on the peri-urban poor as a consequence of their political marginality (Bakker, 2008). 2.1.2. Flows based understanding of urban and peri-urban space In this article we further would like to highlight the flows based understanding of urban and peri-urban space that is embedded in the waterscape notion. A flows based understanding places emphasis on the quantity and direction of water flow through cities, while simultaneously pointing out the economic, political, cultural and social processes that lead to this flow (Heynen et al., 2006; Swyngedouw, 1999). A flows based conceptualisation has gained more prominence in urban as opposed to peri-urban scholarship. David Held argues for a flows based understanding in conceptualising how urban space is organised by means “of social relations and transactions e assessed in terms of their extensivity, intensity, velocity and impact e generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and the exercise of power” Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, and Perraton (1999) in Amin (2002). In the peri-urban space a flows based understanding has received emphasis mainly in terms of material and natural resource flows. However, “flows of produce, finance, labour and services” and the influence of “processes of rapid economic, sociological, institutional, and environmental change” can be delineated (Halkatti, Purushothaman, & Brook, 2003: 149) that bring to the surface particular tensions in relation to peri-urban localities. The established urban development and planning cultures have played an important role in disguising problems affecting the periphery while overtly

161

highlighting specific ‘flows’ of goods and services ‘into’ or ‘of’ the city. Here as well we observe the manifestation of certain power asymmetries. For example when contemporary planning logics showcase only those areas and activities that are viewed as profitable or directly implicated with Delhi's redefined role as worldclass city (Baviskar, 2002; Bhan, 2009; Follmann, 2014; Veron, 2006). As we describe in later sections, the relocation of smallscale industries (and the associated transfer of water pollution hazards) from Delhi into the periphery, is embedded in a politicised process of orderly displacement, and subsequently legitimized by a city planning culture of tolerating flows of hazards in the periphery while simultaneously striving to sanitise the urban core (Allen, 2003; Arabindoo, 2005, 2006). A flows based understanding that is attentive to the peri-urban waterscape highlights not only the enabling aspects of both material and social flows (previously highlighted by peri-urban scholars) but also the constraining aspects, typically associated with this paradoxical and often politicised positioning of the peri-urban. 2.1.3. Liquid dynamics of peri-urban waterscapes We define ‘liquid dynamics’ as the patterns of complexity and interaction between the social, technological, and hydrological dimensions of water systems (Mehta & Movik, 2014). Liquid dynamics involve rapid changes and interactions across multiple, inter-locking scales, affected by processes such as climate change and rapid urbanization. We observe that peri-urban areas are also characterised by ‘liquid dynamics’ with interlocking social, technological and hydrological dimensions (Arha, Audichya, & Pant, 2014; Marshall et al., 2009; Mehta & Movik, 2014). The empirical material presented shows how the increasing migration of people to and from the city, and disease outbreaks due to industrial effluents and poor sanitation facilities shapes liquid dynamics (Parkinson & Tayler, 2003). Furthermore, the expansion of the city and the urbanisation of villages absorbed by the city leading to increasing competition over scarce water through industry, domestic use, farm houses and recreation parks is also intertwined with liquid dynamics as changes in land use increase competitive demands for water (Hofmann, 2013; Randhawa & Marshall, 2014; Singh, Sharma, Agrawal, & Marshall, 2010). A further dimension of liquid dynamics is the understanding that water systems are subject to different framings and interpretations. In peri-urban areas as well, a technocratic planning and water engineering frame of the water system is frequently at odds with the perceptions, knowledges and experiences of local water users (Karpouzoglou, 2012; Mehta & Movik, 2014). This leads on the one hand to systematic exclusion of poorer people's perspectives and on the other to general neglect of peri-urban liquid dynamics more broadly. Furthermore, we illustrate how liquid dynamics include issues of waste, the contamination of rivers, lakes and groundwater and should therefore be an important feature of understanding peri-urban waterscapes as well (Bartram & Cairncross, 2010). 2.2. Methods and field study sites This article is based on the research project ‘peri-urban sustainability’ of the STEPS Centre which focussed on Delhi and its fringe. In particular, the trans-Hindon region of Ghaziabad district in the state of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), near the eastern border of New Delhi, Fig. 1. Fieldwork was carried out by several scholars based at the STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex and the Sarai programme, Centre for the Study of Development Societies (CSDS). The STEPS and Sarai team conducted 120 interviews with local women and men in several peri-urban villages, scientists, government officials, farmers, property dealers, activists, doctors, and private water

162

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

Fig. 1. Location of Ghaziabad district in relation to New Delhi. Source: Google Maps.

supply vendors. Interviews were semi-structured, open-ended or unstructured where in some cases detailed questions were formulated ahead of time, while in other instances a more ‘conversational’ style of engagement was adopted. Interviews were conducted either in English or Hindi. The fieldwork strategy grew by way of an ‘outward layering’ of data sets. Guided by few prior assumptions about how problems of water were created in the district, we traced the relations between individuals and groups who appeared to define and debate the problems, or are involved in the exercise of solving them. Starting from the ‘official’ representation of the problems (i.e. the pollution of the river Hindon, the unregulated disposal of industrial effluents, the depletion of the groundwater etc.), we gradually expanded the field of inquiry to include other perspectives including NGOs, environmental activists, journalists, and peri-urban citizens from different socio-economic backgrounds. This outward layering approach led to a widening of the geographical and socio-cultural space examined (i.e. inclusion of new field sites), as well as development of a richer understanding of the types of discourses related to the core water issues affecting the study sites. We also sought to identify specific field sites where urban citizens encountered different water and sanitation related challenges. For this purpose, we conducted fieldwork in urbanised villages as well as in more affluent middle class colonies. We asked residents to describe specific issues and concerns related to water access and quality, and in the process further attempted to synthesise a more complex picture of the waterscape from the vantage point of diverse periurban publics, the poorest as well as the middle class and the elite residents. The research team also consulted grey literature sources including government as well as urban planning reports, such as the planning Master Plans of both Delhi and Ghaziabad. Planning reports were consulted for understanding how the state mobilises its own evaluation of the peri-urban waterscape, but also for interpreting how these evaluations have evolved over time. Ethical considerations required that we ensured informed consent of participants in the research, thereby protecting the interests of the subjects, maintaining confidentiality, and preventing the disclosure of identities where it could harm those participating in the research.

demographically. It is now spilling out over to three adjoining states (Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan, all comprising the National Capital Region of Delhi). Beautification drives in the city, middle class environmentalism and international events such as the Asian and Commonwealth Games have legitimised both the relocation of polluting industries and the forced displacements of poor citizens to the periphery (STEPS and Sarai, 2010). Ghaziabad, an industrial town in Uttar Pradesh on the outskirts of Delhi, has witnessed many rapid commercial developments over the last decade. This has been accompanied by the migration of many small-scale industrial units from Delhi in the wake of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India regarding the relocation of polluting and nonconforming units from Delhi (Sharan, Alankar, & Prasad, 2010). Agriculture has been shrinking over the years2 but is still practised, in addition to commercial, industrial and service sector activities. There has also been a construction boom in Ghaziabad with new middle class colonies emerging close to the Delhi border in the trans-Hindon region (e.g. Vaishali, Vasundhara, Indrapuram) (see also Fig. 2). If you drive along the highway towards Ghaziabad from Delhi, the air quality rapidly declines. Huge finished and unfinished residential complexes with names such as ‘Utopia’ or ‘Buckingham’ are flanked by squatter colonies, multiplex cinemas, restaurants and highly polluting industries. A few kilometres later things look distinctly rural with irrigated fields, farmers, crops and cattle. In some villages such as Karhera irrigated agriculture still continues to be practised, but most of the erstwhile rural spaces in Arthala have been completely transformed into residential areas. There is a sharp contrast between the villages and the resettlement colonies. The former claim roots and take pride in being old villages and include the residential areas developed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation. The latter include ‘colonies’ or Basti (slums) that have been settled by the more recent wave of migrant workers in areas such as Rajiv Colony, Ambedkar Nagar, Chitrakoot, Ramnagar and Balaji Vihar. They are further distinguished by the categories of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, namely ‘legal’ v/s ‘illegal’ which influences their access to services and rights as citizens (see also Table 1). The Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation has declared 23 rural areas as slums and these urbanised rural areas lack basic facilities (Sarai, 2010). Several parts of the

2.3. Case study: drivers of development in Ghaziabad With a population of about 17 million people, Delhi is one of the fastest growing metropolises in the world, spatially as well as

2 Largely as a result of state-led land acquisitions of (assumed public) land for different purposes.

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

163

Fig. 2. Location map of different settlements in the trans-Hindon Ghaziabad area. Source: (Sarai, 2010).

region have recently been notified as ‘urban’, marking changes in land use classifications but also leading to a host of different assessments. Different social groups inhabit and jostle for land, jobs and services here. These include old clans and castes such as the Gujars and Chauhan Rajputs, long term migrants who arrived in the 1960s, more recent migrants from Bihar and Bengal. They live alongside aspiring middle and upper middle class residents from Delhi and other major cities seeking affordable accommodation. In just a few decades, the transformations have been rapid. Builders, property dealers, government officials, owners of polluting industries, small factory units and water purifying plants as well as rural residents and migrant workers have all contributed to these changes. A resident of Karhera (Male farmer, 53 years) tries to make sense of all the changes: Before, all this was a jungle. Now there is hardly any agricultural land left. We used to grow sugarcane and carrots here. Then the soil became infertile and diseases took over. There is no life left in it [… ] The government has formulated policies regarding the National Capital Region and the National Capital Territory and we don't benefit from or understand them. Houses have been built over our tanks and commons. [… ] The government is the biggest property dealer of the lot. (Interview, January 2010) Many residents were ambivalent about whether or not these changes constituted development. A woman from one of the middle class colonies said (Home-maker, 37 years): ‘I lived in Delhi for decades. We moved here eight years ago. Property is cheaper than in Delhi but the facilities are zero. Rich and poor all have to fend for themselves

here’ (Interview, January 2010). A very particular blurring of social boundaries is taking place, as far as how changes are experienced by peri-urban residents, rich, middle class or poor. However, as will be evident from the analysis to follow, the rich and middle classes have the means to provide for themselves and are often the targets of state-sponsored schemes. By contrast, the failure to provide housing for the poor has led to the proliferation of unauthorised colonies which lack regular titles and are outside the ambit of municipal intervention and services. Parallels can be drawn with Saravanan's (2013) analysis of Ahmedabad's water and health crisis, where he notes a reduced role of the state to mere crisis-driven interventions that are either technocentric or overweighted with social solutions to address growing services insecurities. 2.3.1. ‘Planning’ unequal waterscapes The complex social mosaic that constitutes peri-urban Ghaziabad has reproduced a highly unequal waterscape. Although the region has been endowed with good groundwater resources, the river Hindon is very polluted (Jain, 2004), commonly referred to as a drain, rarely as a river. Agriculture is irrigated through canals and tubewells. Official water sources include government-supplied taps, wells and pipes which largely cater to people who live in residential quarters or comprise the old rich in old villages. A farmer recalls how a few decades ago the water level stood at 20 feet. But now ‘due to industrial use, it is at 120 feet. Our ponds are being acquired for paper mills. There is no water left for local use.’ The dominant narrative is thus one of growing water stress and scarcity. Rich and middle class people and their housing colonies enjoy piped water from a canal bringing distant Ganga water. Water that is increasingly allocated for meeting growing urban and peri-urban

164

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

Table 1 Relationship between settlement type, tenure, poverty and access to water connection (adapted from Maria, 2008). Category

Description

Example of settlement in Ghaziabad

Poverty

Tenure

Access to individual water connection

Squatter settlements (or Basti)

Squatter settlements are characterized by the illegal occupation of public or private land. They belong to the most precarious type of settlement. Most of the public interventions directed towards squatter settlements in Delhi have consisted of the eviction and resettlement of colonies in the peri-urban areas of the city. A characteristic feature is lack of tenure security. An interesting feature is the attempt of less formalised colonies (such as resettlement colonies and squatter settlements) to become recognised as unauthorised colonies. This recognition, in terms of being listed on the official register of unauthorized colonies, is perceived as marking an important step towards making such settlements more visible in planning. This has been considered by authorities as early as 1961 and since then, several waves of regularizations have followed. Regularisation provides the residents with an improved legal regime of ownership and improved infrastructure. However, the unwillingness of plot holders to pay the regularisation charges and to follow the regularization plans has led to a partial implementation of these schemes. There are around 110 villages in the rural-urban fringe of Delhi which have developed to a level of density which can lead to consider them as urban settlements. A village has obtained urban status when provided with amenities such as water supply, electricity, sewerage, improvement of roads, parks and community facilities. Formal settlements include apartments, apartments in group housing societies as well as plots allotted to individuals. Planned colonies are basically catering to the higher income groups.

Ambedkar, Chitrakoot

High

Illegal

No right to individual connection

Rajiv colony

Mixed

Semi-legal

Official right not respected

Not specified

Mixed

Semi-legal

No right to individual connection

Not applicable

Mixed

Legal

Good situation

Arthala village

Mixed

Legal

Good situation

Vasundhara

Low

Legal

Good situation

Resettlement colonies

Unauthorised colonies

Regularised-unauthorised colonies

Urban villages

Planned colonies

water needs (Maria, 2006). In Vasundhara, a middle class housing locality built in the 1990s, water supply is largely regular and additional storage tanks and pumps help to ensure supply 24/7. Water is provided to this and other housing colonies by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) from the Pratap Vihar water treatment plant which procures bulk water supply from the Upper Ganga canal. Even though the water does not arrive on some days, largely the situation is satisfactory, apart from one lean period when the main canal is cleaned by the authorities. Still, as residents told the study team, without the use of motors, storage tanks and reservoirs the supply wouldn't be reliable. Additionally, filter based systems such as Aquaguard ensure that the water is purified. This reflects both distributive and procedural injustice when it comes to  & Keil, 2004; Mehta et al., access to basic water provision (Debbane 2014). Villagers and slum dwellers in the district perceive that the middle class colonies ‘count’. By contrast, their dwellings experiencing varying degrees of regularisation or de-regularisation, often do not (Ramanathan, 2006). There is also increasing distancing between the official and unofficial when it comes to peri-urban waterscapes. The Uttar Pradesh Water Board (in Hindi, Jal Nigam) operates within the district but its operations are almost remotely controlled from the state headquarters in Lucknow, U.P. Ghaziabad is merely a district division, yet a significant number of infrastructure projects to do with water supply and sanitation are located there. These projects mainly include the installation and maintenance of sewage treatment plants (STPs) and water treatment plants (WTPs). These

infrastructure projects are managed by specialist engineers and chemists who are posted to Ghaziabad from the Water Board's head office in Lucknow on short-term placements, or are sub-contracted through agreements between the government and private engineering firms from Delhi. Consequently, those that effectively ‘manage’ the waterscape are often engineers that are neither from the district nor reside in Ghaziabad. Their interest in water is therefore limited to the technology, as this is defined by reference to water and sanitation projects (mainly construction of STPs and WTPs). Large technological infrastructures are perceived to provide long term solutions to inadequate water and sanitation when in reality these same infrastructures are manifestations of the power asymmetries and inherently contested nature of water in the periurban setting. The current management of the peri-urban waterscape (including technological installations for water treatment and supply) grossly undermines community mobilisations around accessing water. This includes collectively managing wastewater, stealing water, collecting it together from rich neighbourhoods, as well as lobbying local politicians to install water standpipes. For example in Ambedkar bastee, residents managed to get a small informal pipeline connected to the main pipeline taking water to middle class localities. They in fact did this by approaching offi la Chatterjee's (2004) ‘political socicials and political leaders a ety.’ Ambedkar Bastee is an informal colony located behind the Anand Industrial Estate. It is located between the industrial estate and a railway line connecting Delhi with the Eastern states of the

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

165

Table 2 Limits of policy and planning in the peri-urban waterscape, adapted from (STEPS and Sarai, 2010). Planning contradictions The Chief Engineer of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), the agency which prepares Ghaziabad Master Plan states, ‘we don't do any planning for slums and unauthorised colonies … they are the responsibility of GNN’. Villages located in the industrial zones in the trans-Hindon, such as KarKar Model, are discursively represented as ‘unhygienic’ and ‘poorly maintained’. By contrast, newly established residential colonies of Vasundhara and Indirapuram are referred by officials using terms such as ‘clean’, where the population is ‘decent’ or ‘posh’, marking that an elite category of citizens resides there. Infrastructural contradictions The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) procures water directly from the Ganges in the upper Himalayan region and treats it in Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) in Ghaziabad, yet access to this water is primarily restricted to middle class colonies. Water engineers that effectively ‘manage’ the peri-urban waterscape are often neither from the district nor reside in Ghaziabad. Their interest in water is therefore limited to the technology, as this is defined by reference to water and sanitation projects (mainly construction of STPs and WTPs). Water flow contradictions A particular type of planning, infrastructure and water politics ascribes legitimacy to ‘some’ peri-urban water flows while in process restricting or excluding other flows. From the point of view of a GDA official ‘groundwater in the district is polluted, that is why piped water from the Ganga Water Project is provided to Vasundhara and Vaishali’. Because territorial boundaries that shape access to water are blurred and contested, powerful social groups exert significant influence over peri-urban water ‘flows’, even when these flows transcend their own locality. Domestic wastewater is released outside homes and spreads to form pools of wastewater while the river Hindon is subjected to so called ‘beautification’ activities, such as cementing on the river bank.

country. The wealthy Vasundhara locality is behind this busy railway track. For a while the poor residents of this colony (largely informal labourers, vendors and industrial workers) largely got by tapping into the pipeline of Vasundhara locality. This meant putting themselves at great risk to meet basic needs including crossing high-speed railway lines to access water, sometimes paying for water with their lives (STEPS and Sarai, 2010). As is evident, even though poor and informal neighbourhoods exist alongside the elite and middle class colonies in the region, and despite the fact that they face serious scarcity of drinking water, little provision is made to improve their situation. ‘Organised irresponsibility’ amongst officials and a formal system that is full of contradictions regarding its treatment of the poor, many of whom live in a continuum of legality and illegality contributes to the sustenance of unequal, albeit ‘planned’, waterscapes (see also Table 2). 2.3.2. Winners and losers of peri-urban waterscapes In an area characterised by increasing air and water pollution due to the relocation of polluting industries from Delhi, water quality has emerged as a major issue and enormous inequalities remain concerning access to water. Local residents do not distinguish between supply and quality issues. Yet, bureaucratic and institutional responses separate these critical issues which impact negatively on the lives and livelihoods of the poor and marginalised who bear the costs of polluted water through negative impacts on their health. Due to the strong presence of highly polluting industries, Ghaziabad is the third most polluted city in India3 and yet there is very little action taken against the polluting industries. Despite chlorination and water treatment, poor water quality is a major concern even for the rich and most of them resort to treating water via domestically purchasable water purification systems, in most instances, filter based systems like Aquaguard. In this way the middle classes draw on modern technologies to escape an increasingly polluted environment through private consumption rather than through public action (Chaplin, 2011). Water quality is described by villagers and slum-dwellers by its colour and taste. In Ambedkar Bastee we were told that drinking water turns yellow overnight. Buckets and taps are said to leak and lose shape due to bad water. A 44 year old mother of four children

3 Ghaziabad is the third most polluted city in India partly as a consequence of little action taken against polluting industries in the region (CPCB, 2009).

highlights issues concerning poor water quality and how it affects the poor in 2010: The water is acid here. We can't drink it. We have to cross the railway line and go over to Vasundhra and beg for a pot of water [… ] Our kids have fallen into the drains and got rashes, allergies. Doctors ask us, what water have you drunk? The factories in Ghaziabad are considered to be one of the major causes of all the pollution in the region, with the dye industry signalled out as the most culpable. The research team found that wastewater is let out in drains if they exist. Most of the drains are choked and if they are lacking, the water is discharged outside. At times industries bore large holes and discharge their wastewater directly into the ground, contributing to the contamination of groundwater. The water eventually ends up in the Hindon contributing to its pollution. Domestic wastewater is released outside the homes and eventually spreads to form pools of wastewater outside people's homes. Still, the river is being subjected to so called ‘beautification’ activities, such as cementing on the banks, solid waste collection and the use of mesh and nets to discourage people from through religious materials directly into the river. However, despite the ‘death’ of the river due to industrial and domestic wastewater, a sun temple and a ghat are being built on the banks of the river Hindon for the celebration of chaath (Hindu sun festival) (Sarai, 2010). Even here social divisions surface, as the rich and poor will have their separate ghats. Still, these cultural and material practices notwithstanding, most people do not mourn the death of the river (ibid.) and it is not linked to the daily rhythms of their lives. As a young woman in Ambedkar Bastee said, ‘It is filthy and when it rains the Hindon rises and floods us out. So why bother to go there for workship?’ There are few official attempts to clean it up, apart from talk of letting in fresh water from the Ganga river. The Hindon, thus, is a step-cousin of both the Yamuna and Ganga where millions have been spent on clean up attempts but little has been achieved in terms of river water quality restoration (CSE, 2007; Lewis, 2007). Unlike the environmental justice notion that so called environmental bads only affect the poor, in many peri-urban areas the rich and poor are affected due to poor waste management and environmental pollution as the following quote by a rich property dealer reveals: ‘See these houses of the rich and middle class. They too have open drains outside. So nobody is immune from malaria, dengue and so on’ (60 year old business man, Interview January 2009). The difference being that the richer households are more able to cope

166

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

with the consequences of environmental bads, through purchasing technologies, health services and, if necessary, moving themselves elsewhere. Officials see no problem with this arrangement; as a GDA official said in an interview ‘groundwater in the district is polluted, that is why we provide piped water from the Ganga Water Project to Vasundhara and Vaishali’. ‘Managing’ waste and pollution thus lends itself to a peculiar politics of preference that legitimises certain waste flows (i.e. pollution of the groundwater) while de-legitimising others (i.e. polluted drinking water in informal colonies) (Karpouzoglou & Zimmer, 2012). This regulation of some flows e and the failure thereof e exemplifies the contradictory nature of the state in peri-urban areas whereby unequal experiences of citizenship and elite biases in planning result in further deepening of inequality and marginality (Mehta et al., 2014). 3. Discussion In this article we have attempted to focus on analysing the totality of peri-urban waterscapes. Neither rural nor urban, the overlapping jurisdictions and ambiguities of peri-urban waterscapes compel us to rethink issues concerning conventional divides between supply and waste, formal and informal as well as legal and illegal. Also, unlike water inequalities in rural areas (Mehta, 2005) or urban areas (Chaplin, 2011; Sultana and Loftus, 2012; Truelove, 2011), inequalities in peri urban areas are not just characterised by traditional markers such as caste and gender and water is not just controlled by one or two powerful communities or castes. Instead, as we have shown, we need to engage with a host of powerful actors including elite residents, state authorities, politicians and industry. We have also demonstrated that distinctions between ‘civil’ and ‘political’ society do exist in peri-urban areas but they are more blurred than suggested by Chatterjee (2004). While marginalised groups do mobilise collectively and resort to patronage to access water, the waterscapes of Ghaziabad are also sites of industrial production and labour as well as sites where flows of waste are (de) legitimised by state actors with little consideration of peri-urban livelihoods, namely the livelihoods of the poor. In these sites it is then the co-occurrence of the practices of political and civil society that creates the reality of everyday labour. In addition, the material reality of the polluted river Hindon is created by the licit and illicit actions of both political and bourgeois civil society. Thus, rather than separating out the urban poor and the bourgeoisie into separate zones of political and civil society, peri-urban waterscapes suggest that we need to view the lives, politics and the waterscapes inhabited by both groups as well as the experiences of citizenship concurrently. One of main limitations of conventional policy and planning is that it does not take into account the specificities of the peri-urban interface. In this article we have aligned with Wandl et al.'s (2014) conceptualisation of the peri-urban interface as a territory inbetween to emphasise both the specificity and dynamism that encapsulates this territorial, spatial and social mosaic. We further highlighted how the peri-urban interface as a distinctive form of territoriality shapes the formation of peri-urban waterscapes. Because planning models are, as evident also by our case study insights, misplaced or poorly conceived for the peri-urban interface, planning systematically fails to adequately address citizens water needs. Reliable water supply is largely treated as a technical issue while social, cultural and political aspects are ignored. Elite biases allow for unsustainable and expensive provision of water to upper middle class colonies, completely bypassing old recognised villages and so called illegal settlements. As a result, the official water system attends only towards the formally organised and technologically enforced waterscape, while remains inattentive towards community

mobilisations around water and wastewater management that are being rapidly encroached upon. Daily struggles and practices to access water shape residents' experiences of the state and the law in socially differentiated ways leading to citizens experiencing varying degrees of inclusion and exclusion to rights and resources (Williams & Mawdsley, 2006). The poor are forced to adopt coping mechanisms to access water due to the lack of formal provision of water supply. At times, the cost of accessing water can be the cost of life itself. 4. Conclusion Returning to one of the initial premises of this article, that is to imagine the peri-urban interface as in-between rural and urban, we at the same time acknowledge that territories in-between can be found within cities as well. Yet our analysis of the peri-urban interface is illustrative of how many of the blurred boundaries and elite biases found in cities are reproduced, but potentially at an accelerated pace and with greater force. Transferring people who do not count and polluting industries to the outskirts may seem like a desirable solution in the short term, but such ‘solutions’ apparently aimed at improving the wellbeing of the urban elite often end up undermining the resilience and sustainability of both the city and the periphery while ignoring the needs and interests of marginalised people. It is these paradoxical dimensions of planning and policy which are also symptomatic of urban and peri-urban growth that need to be confronted and analysed in order to develop a politics and policy for the peri-urban interface. The waterscape notion has provided a useful conceptual lens from which to depart our study that situates water resources in peri-urban areas firmly within social, natural, material and discursive processes. Using the particular example of peri-urban Ghaziabad we have further shown that any analysis of the periurban waterscape from either an ‘urban’ or ‘rural’ vantage point is therefore likely to obscure its different functions and intensities. Thus while the notion of the waterscape proposed by Swyngedouw (1999) to capture urban hydro-social flows continues to be theoretically and conceptually relevant in pointing out the interconnectedness of economic, political, cultural and social processes embedded in water, our case study is potentially illustrative of the particular conjectures and disjunctures of the concept as it pertains to water related dynamics in peri-urban spaces. Conflict of interest The authors are not aware of any conflict of interest in the publication of this article. Acknowledgements The article has drawn its main insights from empirical research undertaken within the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) project “Peri-urban interface and sustainability in South Asian cities” at the STEPS Centre, funded by the ESRC, at the University of Sussex. The research for this paper was jointly carried out by scholars from the STEPS Centre (UK) and Sarai (India) including principal convenors Fiona Marshall and Lyla Mehta, the research team Awadhendra Sharan, Alankar, Bhagwati Prasad, Pritpal Randhawa, Linda Waldman, Hayley MacGregor and Timothy Karpouzoglou. We are indebted to all those interviewed in Ghaziabad for giving us their valuable time, and sharing information. We also wish to acknowledge the important contributions of Laura Bear to the ideas developed in this article. We are thankful for the valuable and constructive comments of the reviewers. These have been very helpful in improving this article and clarifying the main issues.

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

References Alankar. (2013). Socio-spatial situatedness and access to water. Economic and Political Weekly, xlviii(41). Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization, 15, 135e148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500103. Allen, A., D avila, J. D., & Hofmann, P. (2006). The peri-urban water poor: citizens or consumers? Environment and Urbanization, 18.2, 333e351. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0956247806069608. Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 385e399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3439. Arabindoo, P. (2005). Examining the peri-urban interface as a constructed primordialism. In V. Dupont (Ed.), Peri-urban dynamics: Population, habitat and environment on the peripheries of large Indian metropolises. A review of concepts and general issues. New Delhi: Centre de Sciences Humaines. Arabindoo, P. (2006). Neighbourhood transformations in peri-urban Chennai. In V. Dupont, & N. Sridharan (Eds.), Peri-urban dynamics: Case studies in Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai. Centre de Sciences Humaines - French Research Institutes in India. CHS Occasional Paper No. 17. Arha, A., Audichya, R., & Pant, D. C. (2014). Challenges in the urban and peri-urban transition zones and strategies for sustainable cities: experiences from selected cities. In B. Maheshwari, et al. (Eds.), The security of water, food, energy and liveability of cities: Challenges and opportunities for peri-urban futures. New York: Springer. Bakker. (2003). From archipelago to network: urbanization and water privatization in the South. The Geographical Journal, 169, 328e341. Bakker, K. (2008). The ambiguity of community: debating alternatives to privatesector provision of urban water supply. Water Alternatives, 1(2), 236e252. Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010). Hygiene, sanitation, and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med, 7(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000367. Baviskar, A. (2002). The politics of the city. Seminar, 516, 40e42. Baviskar, A. (2003). Between violence and desire: space, power, and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi. International Social Science Journal, 55, 89e98. Baviskar, A. (2007). Waterscapes: The cultural politics of a natural resource. Permanent Black. Bhan, G. (2009). “This is no longer the city I once knew”. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 127e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247809103009. € rkman, L. (2014). Becoming a slum: from municipal colony to illegal settlement Bjo in Liberalization-Era Mumbai. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), 36e59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12041. Black, M., & Fawcett, B. (2008). The last Taboo: Opening the door on the global sanitation crisis. London: Earthscan. Bouleau, G. (2014). The co-production of science and waterscapes: the case of the ^ne Rivers, France. Geoforum, 57, 248e257. http://dx.doi.org/ Seine and the Rho 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.009. Budds, J. (2009). Contested H2O: science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum, 40, 418e430. Castro, J. E. (2004). Urban water and the politics of citizenship: the case of the Mexico City Metropolitan Area in the 1980s and 1990s. Environment and Urbanization, 36, 327e346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a35159. Chaplin, S. E. (2011). Indian cities, sanitation and the state: the politics of the failure to provide. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 57e70. Chatterjee, P. (2004). The politics of the governed: Popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press. CPCB. (2009). Comprehensive environmental assessment of industrial clusters. New Delhi: CPCB. CSE. (2007). Sewage canal: How to clean the Yamuna. New Delhi, India: Centre for science and environment. Davilla, J., Budds, J., & Minaya, A. (1999). A review of policies and strategies affecting the peri-urban interface. London: Development Planning Unit, UCL. Davis, M. (2004). Planet of slums. New Left Review, 26, March e April. , A., & Keil, R. (2004). Multiple disconnections: environmental justice and Debbane urban water in Canada and South Africa. Space and Polity, 8(2), 209e225. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356257042000273968. nchez-Flores, E. (2011). Water transfer effects on peri-urban Díaz-Caravantes, R. E., & Sa land use/land cover: a case study in a semi-arid region of Mexico. Applied Geography, 31(2), 413e425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.005. Díaz-caravantes, R. E., & Wilder, M. (2014). Water, cities and peri-urban communities: geographies of power in the context of drought in Northwest Mexico. Water Alternatives, 7(3), 499e517. Dupont, V. (2005). Peri-urban dynamics: population, habitat and environment on the peripheries of large Indian metropolises: an introduction. In V. Dupont (Ed.), Peri-urban dynamics: Population, habitat and environment on the peripheries of large Indian metropolises. A Review of concepts and general issues. New Delhi: Centre de Sciences Humaines. Fernandes, L. (2006). India's new middle class: Democratic politics in an era of economic reform. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Follmann, A. (2014). Urban mega-projects for a “world-class” riverfront e the interplay of informality, flexibility and exceptionality along the Yamuna in Delhi, India. Habitat International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.02.007. Advance online publication.

167

Gandy, M. (2006). Water sanitation and the modern City: Colonial and Post-colonial experiences in Lagos and Mumbai. UNDP. Occasional Paper, Human Development Report 2006. Halkatti, M., Purushothaman, S., & Brook, R. (2003). Participatory action planning in the peri-urban interface: the Twin city experience, Hubli-Dharwad, India. Environment and Urbanization, 15(1), 149e158. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Urban political ecology: politicizing the production of urban natures. In Heynen, et al. (Eds.), In the nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Routledge. Hofmann, P. (2013). Wasted wasteddisappearing reuse at the peri-urban interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 31(2006), 13e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2013.03.011. Hordijk, M., Sara, L. M., & Sutherland, C. (2014). Resilience, transition or transformation? A comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four southern cities. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 130e146. IDS. (2010). An Upside down view of governance. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Jain, C. K. (2004). Metal fractionation study on bed sediments of river Yamuna, India. Water Research, 38, 569e578. Karpouzoglou, T. (2012). ‘Our power rests in numbers’: The role of expert-led policy processes in addressing water quality: The case of peri-urban areas in the national capital region of Delhi, India. University of Sussex, SPRU & STEPS Centre. Doctoral Thesis. Karpouzoglou, T., & Zimmer, A. (2012). Closing the gap between ‘Expert’ and ‘Lay’ knowledge in the Governance of wastewater: lessons and reflections from New Delhi. IDS Bulletin, 43, 59e68. Kurlan, M., & McCarney, P. (2010). Peri-urban water and sanitation services: Policy, planning and methods. Springer Publications. Lawhon, M., Ernstson, H., & Silver, J. (2014). Provincializing urban political ecology: towards a situated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode, 46, 497e516. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Cambridge Mass. (USA). Lewis, H. (2007). Hindon river: Gasping for breath. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh: Janhit Foundation. Maria, A. (2006). The role of groundwater in Delhi's water supply. Urban Groundwater Management and Sustainability, 74, 459e470. Maria, A. (2008). Urban water crisis in Delhi. Stakeholders responses and potential scenarios of evolution. Idees pour le debat (p. 29). France: Institut du Developpement Durable et des Relations Internationales (IDDRI). No. 6. Private Sector and public goods. Marshall, F., Waldman, L., MacGregor, H., Mehta, L., & Randhawa, P. (2009). On the edge of sustainability: Perspectives on peri-urban dynamics. Brighton: STEPS Centre. STEPS Working Paper 35. Mehta, L. (2003). Struggles around “Publicness” and the right to access: perspectives from the water domain. In I. Kaul (Ed.), Global public Goods: Making Globalisation work for all. New York: Oxford University Press. Mehta, L. (2005). The politics and poetics of water: Naturalising scarcity in Western India. Delhi: Orient Longman. Mehta, L., Allouche, J., Nicol, A., & Walnycki, A. (2014). Global environmental justice and the right to water: the case of peri-urban Cochabamba and Delhi. Geoforum, 54, 158e166. Mehta, L., & Movik, S. (August 2014). Liquid dynamics: challenges for sustainability in the water domain. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/wat2.1031. Narain, V. (2014). Whose land? Whose water? Water rights, equity and justice in a peri-urban context. Local Environment, 19(9), 974e989. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13549839.2014.907248. Narain, V., & Nischal, S. (2007). The peri-urban interface in Shahpur Khurd and Karnera, India. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 261e273. Panda, G. R., & Agarwala, T. (2007). Water and sanitation study of urban slums in Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly, xlviII(5). Parkinson, J., & Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income countries. Environment and Urbanization, 15(1), 75e90. Prakash, A., Singh, S., & Narain, V. (2011). Changing waterscapes in the periphery. Understanding peri-urban water security in urbanizing India. IDFC. Oxford University Press. India Infrastructure Report 2011. Ramanathan, U. (Jul. 22e28, 2006). Illegality and the urban poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 41, 3193e3197. Randhawa, P., & Marshall, F. (2014). Policy transformations and translations: lessons for sustainable water management in peri-urban Delhi, India. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(1), 93e107. Revi, A. (2008). Climate change risk: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 207e229. Revi, a., Satterthwaite, D., Aragon-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R. B. R., Pelling, M., et al. (2014). Towards transformative adaptation in cities: the IPCC's Fifth Assessment. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 11e28. Sarai. (2010). Peri-urban sustainability: A case study of Ghaziabad's trans-Hindon area. New Delhi: Sarai. Saravanan, V. S. (2013). Urbanizing diseases: contested institutional terrain of water- and vector-borne diseases in Ahmedabad, India. Water International, 38(7), 875e887. Sharan, A., Alankar, & Prasad, B. (2010). Peri-urban sustainability: A case study of Ghaziabad's trans-Hindon area. New Delhi: Sarai. unpublished STEPS Peri-Urban Project Report.

168

L. Mehta, T. Karpouzoglou / Habitat International 48 (2015) 159e168

Singh, A., Sharma, R. K., Agrawal, M., & Marshall, F. M. (2010). Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of foodstuffs from the wastewater irrigated site of a dry tropical area of India. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(2), 611e619. Smith, N. (1990). Uneven development. Nature, capital and the production of space. Basil Blackwell. Solo, T. M. (1999). Small-scale entrepreneurs in the urban water and sanitation market. Environment and Urbanization, 11(1), 117e132. STEPS and Sarai. (2010). Contesting sustainablity in the peri-urban interface (Research Report. Brighton). Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2012). The right to water: Politics, governance and social struggles. London and New York: Routledge. Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890e1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), 443e465. Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Social power and the urbanization of water: Flows of power. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Dispossessing H2O: the contested terrain of water privatization. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(1), 81e98. after Jan 1, 2004. Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Metabolic urbanization. The making of cyborg cities. In N. Heynen, et al. (Eds.), In the nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism (pp. 21e40). Routledge.

Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode, 35, 898e918. Truelove, Y. (2011). (Re-)Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum, 42(2), 143e152. UNDP. (2006). Human development report ‘Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis’. New York: published for UNDP by Palgrave Macmillan. UNFPA. (2007). State of world population, 2007: Unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population Fund. Available at: www.unfpa.org/swp/ 2007/presskit/pdf/sowp2007_eng.pdf Accessed 01.09.09.. Veron, R. (2006). Remaking urban environments: the political ecology of air pollution in Delhi. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2093e2109. Wandl, A., Nadin, V., Zonneveld, W., & Rooij, R. (2014). Beyond urbanerural classifications: characterising and mapping territories-in-between across Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 50e63. WHO. (2010). Un-water global annual assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (Geneva). Williams, G., & Mawdsley, E. (2006). Postcolonial environmental justice: government and governance in India. Geofoum, 37, 660e670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoforum.2005.08.003. Zimmer, A. (2012). Everyday governance of the waste waterscapes. A Foucauldian analysis in Delhi's informal settlements. University of Bonn. Doctoral Thesis.