- Email: [email protected]
Carrying capacities and standards as bases towards urban infrastructure planning in India
HABI¹A¹ IN¹¸. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 327—337, 1998 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0197-3975/98 $19.00#0.00
PII: S0197-3975(98)00002-2
Carrying Capacities and Standards as Bases Towards Urban Infrastructure Planning in India: A Case of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation SOURO D. JOARDAR School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India
ABSTRACT Assessment of urban carrying capacities with respect to their basic infrastructure provisions like water supply and sanitation helps to determine the relative potentials of individual urban centres across regions for sustainable growth and also provides a framework for rational sectoral and spatial allocations of resources for infrastructure development. While carrying capacities should be assessed against acceptable norms and standards for provision of the basic services, there is ample scope for further development of minimum standards for urban water supply and sanitation in India. There has been a multiplicity of recommendations of standards with wide disparity across them and the rationale behind these recommendations are not explicit. The paper develops an array of indicator measures through which the natural and man-made resources and assimilative capacities of urban areas with respect to water supply, sewerage, drainage and solid waste disposal can be assessed in quantitative and qualitative terms. Another set of indicators have been developed to assess the financial and managerial capacities of various local institutions in the provision of these utilities. A framework for the use of these urban carrying capacity measures in spatial planning has been suggested. The author suggests further research to test the applicability of these indicator measures through real-life case studies of Indian cities based on available environmental information base. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: infrastructure; urban standards; carrying capacities
INTRODUCTION Basic infrastructure provisions of water supply and sanitation are dismal across India’s urban areas and the potential urban-industrial growth following economic reforms is likely to exert tremendous pressure on these already fragile conditions, especially across the large urban centres. The urgent need for large-scale investments in the urban infrastructure sector has drawn planner’s attention; but investment decisions call for judicious spatial allocation of the meager resources on these sectors vis-a` -vis spatial policies on urban-industrial growth across regions of the Correspondence to: S.D. Joardar, School of Planning and Architecture, 4-B, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002, India.
327
328
Souro D. Joardar
country. Careful assessment of existing carrying capacities of individual urban centres based on rational standards for infrastructure development is necessary to determine the relative investment needs towards their capacity building, not only to provide a minimal quality of life for their inhabitants, but also to support potential demands of urban-industrial growth across regions. Conversely, such relative investment needs for individual urban centres based upon their existing infrastructure carrying capacities may send the appropriate economic signals to the stakeholders in their future growth (both policy makers and potential entrepreneurs and migrants) in terms of the relative costs of their future development and guide thereby rational decisions on spatial distribution of economic activities and population across regions. Sustainable urban-industrial growth across regions need to minimize the demand-supply gap or the ‘‘carrying capacity differentials’’ (viz. Bishop et al., 1974) in urban infrastructure resources through both supply management (i.e., capacity building) and demand management (i.e., activity allocation, rational pricing of infrastructure, etc.) strategies. This paper attempts to develop an array of urban carrying capacity indicators and their associated parameters with respect to water supply and sanitation provisions which should be measured against rational standards for these basic urban services. It proceeds to suggest a framework for use of such carrying capacity measures in spatial planning or sustainable urban growth across regions. While water supply and sanitation are generally poor across urban India, there exists sharp differences among the large urban centres across this vast country in terms of these basic services (for instance, NIUA, 1989), which underscores the need for a rational procedure to assess the relative surplus or deficiencies of various infrastructures of potential growth centres. NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION IN INDIA Urban-carrying capacities with respect to different basic services should be assessed against acceptable norms and standards for provision of these services. In India, several federal and state-level agencies, such as the Town and Country Planning Organization (1974), Planning Commission (1983, 1992), Ministry of Urban Development (1980, 1991), Ministry of Works and Housing (1983), and the Government of Gujrat (1989), as well as a host of expert groups or committees, such as the Zakaria Committee (1963), Committee on Plan Projects (1973), National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) (1987, 1995) and The Operations Research Group (1989), have prescribed at different points of time the norms and standards for water supply, drainage, sewerage and solid waste disposal across urban India. There has been an overwhelming concern for the quantitative dimensions of these urban services across the various recommended norms and standards; for instance, the amount of water supply in litres per capita per day in cities. Qualitative norms are primarily with respect to the technological options recommended for water treatment, sewage treatment, sewage and solid waste disposal methods, etc., and these have been based almost solely on the population size of the urban area (viz. Zakaria Committee, 1963; Ministry of Works and Housing, 1983; NIUA, 1987; Government of Gujrat, 1989). Although the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (1995) provides water quality standards for drinking and other urban uses, they do not constitute an integral part of the recommendations of the various dedicated committees set for establishment of the norms and standards of supply of urban services. Furthermore, the methodological basis for arriving at these recommended quantitative standards is not explicit, although the criteria of cost or the relative affordability for different sizes of urban centres in adopting different
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
329
technological options and the differential requirements of industrial and other cities are reflected across several recommendations. In the absence of any clear methodological base for arriving at the quantitative standards of supply, the plethora of recommendations may confuse the urban local bodies who are supposed to be the actual suppliers of the services, particularly since wide variations exist among different recommended standards. For instance, with respect to water supply for ‘‘small’’ urban areas, recommended physical standards vary from as little as 45 lpcd (Zakaria Committee, 1963) to as high as 80 lpcd (Operations Research Group, 1989) or to a even higher 95—125 lpcd (NIUA, 1987). For medium-sized industrial towns where the water requirement is likely to be more than those for average urban areas of similar size, NIUA (1987) recommends a supply standard of 150 lpcd while the Committee on Plan Projects (COPP, 1973) prescribes 180—225 lpcd which is 20—50% higher than the former. Interestingly, even some recently developed ‘‘minimum physical standards for immediate attainment’’, like the water supply target of 150 lpcd recommended by the NIUA (1995 : III 3—5) exceed several of the earlier standards like those of the 8th Five Year Plan (1992—1997), Zakaria Committee (1963) or the Government of Gujrat (1989), which have been branded as ‘‘optimum’’ (rather than minimum) standards by the NIUA itself. While ‘‘optimal’’ standards for urban water supply, excreta disposal, drainage and solid waste disposal may vary widely across this vast country, depending on various local factors, such as economic base (viz. special requirements of industries), population characteristics (especially income and purchasing power) and capacities of urban local bodies, there is the need for further research in developing minimal requirements for these urban services based primarily on the substantive criteria of public health. Minimum financial needs of the urban local bodies should be worked out on the basis of such minimum standards as well as local cost factors, such as construction costs, relative availability of resources to support urban water supply and sanitation. The carrying capacities of individual urban areas with respect to each urban service should be assessed against such minimum physical and financial standards for the service. The carrying capacities will vary from case to case or location to location based on the values of different physical parameters associated with the development and operation and maintenance of such standards of service as well as the institutional capacity of the urban local body, especially its financial capacity as measured against the financial norms developed on the basis of unit costs of the service. SUGGESTED INDICATORS OF URBAN CARRYING CAPACITIES WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION Systematic classifications and measures of urban environmental components, resources, issues or concerns have been attempted in recent times with varied purposes related to urban development and management (see, for instance, Society for Development Studies, 1996; NEERI, 1994; UNCHS, 1995; Lietman, 1993; OECD, 1974; Bishop et al., 1974). Joardar (1996) suggests several criteria for development of urban carrying capacity indicators, i.e., indicators should be able to assess both natural and man-made/managed resources of the urban setting in quantitative as well as qualitative terms through measurable parameters and compare these against acceptable norms and standards of their adequacies and qualities. Further, multiple indicators are often necessary for individual environmental components or resources (see also Lietman, 1993 : 2), some relying on proxy/surrogate, i.e., indirect measures (Joardar, 1996 : 12—13). In the context of urban water supply and sanitation provisions, an attempt has been made here to identify the distinct natural and human or managed components
330
Souro D. Joardar
or resources of the environment related to these urban services and to develop indicator measures of their capacities in both quantitative and qualitative terms (Table 1). The key criterion for carrying capacity with respect to each of these urban services sets the policy goal for attainment of the service to be measured against acceptable norms and standards of provision. Development of the array of indicators and their related measurement parameters follow from these criteria or policy goals. Carrying capacities of an urban environment may be assessed in terms of the regenerative capacities of its various supportive resources as well as its capacity for assimilation of wastes generated by its population and activities. Thus, distinct sets of indicators have been developed (Table 1: Modules A—C) to assess these capacity dimensions for water supply and sanitation. A separate array of indicators (Table 1: Module D) has been developed to assess urban capacities in respect of various institutional arrangements necessary to support both water supply and sanitation provisions, since both these utilities depend on various common institutional arrangements in terms of finance, manpower, technical and other resources of urban local bodies. In the Indian context, the urban local bodies, primarily the municipalities, are traditionally responsible for the provision of the above urban services, while the presence of special purpose agencies (viz. urban development authorities, drainage, sewerage or water supply boards, etc.) as well as departments like the Public-Health of the state governments are also not uncommon. In recent times, the potential roles of non-governmental organizations and the private sector in urban basic services are also being recognized. Furthermore, the so-called informal or unorganized sector has been present traditionally in Indian cities, especially in solid waste management through the activities of the ubiquitous rag-pickers and door-to-door vendors collecting various household and industrial wastes. The role of such unorganized sector, especially in segregration and recycling of urban solid waste has been immense, but rarely accounted for. The relative availability of alternative actors in the provision of different urban services is by itself an indicator of the relative capacity of an urban area. A critical issue in operationalizing these urban carrying capacity indicators is the determination of the spatial jurisdictions of their measures. This is true especially with regard to various natural resource regimes (viz., ground water aquifers, drainage basins or watersheds) that constitute the environmental resources for the carrying capacity of an urban area, but do not necessarily coincide with its administrative boundary or physical extent. The smaller the urban area, the less likely its chance to incorporate such natural regimes within its boundary. Further, an urban area may have ‘‘appropriated carrying capacity’’ (e.g. Whitney, 1990; Rees, 1989) when it imports much of its resources from distant locations. Such dependencies of urban areas on distant regional physical resources are widely recognized in urban and regional planning and may even be considered for their capacity building, for instance, through trade-off against their financial resources. However, if ‘‘self-sustenance’’ is viewed as the basic tenet for assessing urban carrying capacities, the natural resources lying within or close to the physical planning jurisdiction of the urban area should constitute the environmental resources to operationalize the suggested carrying capacity indicators. Thus, for instance, a river stretch lying within the urban area or the part of a wider natural water shed where the urban area is located should form the jurisdiction to operationalise indicators with respect to its drainage or waste assimilative capacities. SPATIAL PLANNING BASED ON CARRYING CAPACITY MEASURES Conceptually, the above indicator measures of carrying capacities with respect to the basic urban services of water supply and sanitation may lead to the
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
331
Table 1. Carrying capacity indicators of urban utilities Module A: Supportive resource capacity for water supply Key carrying capacity criteria for water supply: adequate and affordable public water supply in terms of acceptable norms and standards Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural resources 1. ºtilizable ¼ater (in million cubic meters per year) in Ground ¼ater Aquifer and Surface ¼ater (river/lake/reservoir, etc) basins in the location of the ºrban Area
Hydro-geomorphological parameters, specifically, precipitation, topography, surface and soil drainage, aquifer recharge, discharge and basin flows in the water shed are determinants.
2. Mean Depth (in meters) of Ground ¼ater ¹able in the location of the ºrban Area
Parameters as under 1 : 3 Statistical data on ground water are usually available at ‘‘Tehsil’’ or ‘‘Block’’ (administrative unit) level which may be considered as a spatial unit for assessment.
3. Distance and Altitude difference between ¼ater Source (Main ¼ater ¼orks) and the Centre of the ºrban Area
Capacity is inversely proportional to distance and gaining height; While water works locations at both surface water resource and major ground water wells are considered, the measure will be critical for urban areas located remote from surface water sources; Altitude is critical for water supply across hilly terrain.
4. Ambient ¼ater Quality in terms of Critical Parameters (viz. DO, BOD, Coil-forms, Metals, Dissolved Solids, etc.) in Ground ¼ater Aquifer and Surface ¼ater in the location of the ºrban Area in relation to Designated water uses
In addition to the hydro-geomorphological parameters as under 1, bedrock and soil characteristics as well as the level and type of wastewater discharge in the watershed will determine the water quality; CPCB (1995) prescribed norms for different water quality parameters for different designated water uses may be used for comparison.
Man-made resources 5. Installed capacity (in ¸itres Per Capita Per Day or ¸PCD) of Public ¼ater ¼orks in ¹erms of : 5.1 Pumping Capacity (rates, duration and pressure), 5.2 Storage Capacity and 5.3. ¹reatment Plant CapacityM
Actual supply in lpcd in household and community taps may be used as a surrogate indicator as it will be proportional to the installed capacity but the difference between the two will indicate capacity utilization and management problems: Both these capacities may be compared against the minimum standard for water supply.
6. Installed Capacity of Decentralized Private ¼ater ¼orks (in lpcd) (in Residential, Industrial and Commercial Establishments)
This will be a significant albeit difficult measure, since there is extensive use of private wells and pumps in Indian cities; licensed/approved private tubewells in operation may surrogate detailed measures of capacities.
7. Number of Public ¼ater Supply Connections: 7.1 Per ºnit Population and 7.2 Per unit ¸and of the ºrban Area
Area coverage relates to the spatial distribution of centralized public water supply network, which may vary significantly across cities, especially between developed cores and fringe areas; Census No. of Household with/without public water supply are available at urban area.
8. Percentage Reduction of Critical ¼ater Pollutants ¹hrough ¹reatment in Public ¼ater ¼orks
This will depend on the level of technology used in water treatment, viz. primary, secondary or tertiary treatment. Although post-treatment water quality is usually measured (water samples) in public water works, measurements taken at public or household water taps is preferred as it will take into account any pollution across water supply networks through seepage or other means. A surrogate indicator would be the Quality of ¼ater in Household/Public taps in ¹erms of the Critical ¼ater Quality Parameters (and as measured against acceptable standards).
Module B: Assimilative capacity for sanitation Key carrying capacity criteria for sanitation: adequate, hygienic and affordable disposal of sewage, storm water and solid wastes in terms of acceptable norms and standards Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural assimilation 9. Rate of Natural Surface and Subsurface Drainage in the ¸ocality of the ºrban Area
This will depend on the natural slope, permeability of local soil, depth of water table and natural drainage outlets (viz. gullies, streams, depressions, etc.) in relation to the precipitation rate and waste water discharge, in and around the urban area.
332
Souro D. Joardar Table 1. Continued
10. Rate of Bio-degradation of Solid ¼astes and ¼aste ¼ater in the ¸ocal Soil
This will depend on soil characteristics, especially the presence of microorganism as well as the types of wastes, i.e. biodegradable vs non-biodegradable wastes generated in the urban area.
11. Rate of Maximum Dischargable Critical Pollution ¸oad (especially BOD load in kg/day) in Critical Stretches of : 11.1 Running ¼ater Bodies (Rivers, Streams, Canals, etc.) and 11.2 Still ¼ater Bodies
Critical stretches of water bodies should be identified on the basis of locations of pollution sources and use of water. Critical time of assessment should be the period of leanest water flow or volume; Hydrological modelling for given water bodies may help to predict/simulate pollution dilution/mixing rates; wastewater assimilation in the biological media through bio-degradation and nutrient uptake will depend on the aquatic ecosystem, especially its diversity and presence of micro-organisms, aquatic plants, fishes, etc.; Wastewater, especially BOD load, will in turn affect the ecosystem; hydrology, temperature and sunlight conditions will influence water quality as the bio-degradation process.
Managed assimilation 12. Installed Capacities (in Million ¸itres per Day or M¸D) of : 12.1 Municipal Sewage ¹reatment Plant; 12.2 Public Septic ¹anks 12.3 Private Septic ¹anks and 12.4 Industrial ¼aste ¼ater ¹reatment/Recyling Plant in proportion of Industrial ¼aste ¼ater Generation
Municipal waste water discharge will depend on population size, No. of households, No. of Workers and sewerage system in the urban area; Industrial waste water discharge will depend on the No., size and type of industrial units and their production processes; The relative presence and type of sewerage system and technology of treatment and recycling will indicate the Qualitative dimension of capacity. The difference between installed capacity and average daily treatment will indicate idle capacity and management problems.
13. Installed Capacities (in Million ¹onnes per Day or M¹D) of : 13.1 Public Incinerators/Biogas/Solid ¼aste ¹reatment/Recycling Plants 13.2 Private Industrial/Hospital ¼aste/Hazardous ¼aste ¹reatment Plant and 13.3 Private Incinerators/Biogas/Solid ¼aste ¹reatment Plants
Such capacities are traditionally insignificant across Indian urban areas, but there are recent instances of capacity building; Generation will depend on population, income and expenditure patterns and the No., size and type of commercial/industrial and other establishments; Again, the Qualitative capacity will depend upon the relative presence and the technology of treatment/recycling.
Module C: Supportive resource capacity for sanitation Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural resources 14. Distance (in Kms.) of ¼aterways/¼asteland Resources (low lying areas, marshlands, etc.) for ¼aste ¼ater Discharge from Centre of ºrban Area
The capacity in this respect will be related also to the level of waste water treatment — recycled water from treatment plants may be used for irrigation; proximity to running water bodies, viz. rivers, streams, etc., rather than still water bodies will lead to higher capacity on account of greater assimilation.
15. Solid ¼aste Disposal ¸and (in Hectares) in the »icinity of the ºrban Area
Low lying lands in the fringe may augment capacity; but capacity in this respect will depend on the level of solid waste management (especially separation of wastes) — biodegradable wastes may be used for agriculture in urban fringe.
Man-made resources 16. Population Coverage (in %) By Sanitary ¸atrines Connected ¹o: 16.1 ºnderground Sewerage System 16.2 Public Septic ¹anks 16.3 Private Septic ¹anks
The No. of latrine connections per unit population/household will indicate the level, the amenity and total connections the sewage disposal capacity of the urban area; The qualitative dimension of capacity will be given by the technologies and their relative coverage.
17. Generation: Collection Ratio of Municipal Solid ¼aste per Day in M¹D
Collection will depend on institutional capacities (dealt separately) of municipalities and local community organizations in terms of manpower, finance, technology, etc., as well as informal sector collection, viz. rag-picking, given by the relative extent of the different technologies.
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
333
Table 1. Continued Module D: Institutional capacity in urban utility provisions Key carrying capacity criteria : local institutions, especially urban local bodies to have adequate organizational, financial and legal capacities towards provisions of adequate water supply and sanitation Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
ºrban local bodies (Municipalities, especially and Dedicated Public Agencies, viz. Water/Sanitation Boards wherever applicable) 18. Financial Autonomy in Setting Revenue Rates, especially levies and charges for potable water supply, collection and disposal of solid wastes, sanitary toilet connections and use of public toilets as well as in Allocations of Development and Maintenance Expenditure in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Traditionally, urban municipalities in India are governed by State Municipal Acts and the relative flexibility in such acts, such as the prescribed range of maximum and minimum tax limits, may determine relative capacity. In terms of India’s recent 74th Constitutional Amendment, municipal financial reforms as well as establishment of norms and standards for the delivery of urban services are expected through the functioning of respective State Finance Commissions and the relative progress of different states in this regard may lead to differences in capacities across state muncipalities. Similarly, the relative progress in respect of political autonomy (through municipal elections), formation of different committees (Ward and District Committees) and other reforms will lead to varying municipal autonomy and capacities across the states.
19. Annual Revenue Income per ºnit Population
Income from taxes, levies, charges, rents, interests, lease, etc., should be considered while loans and grants will not be true indicators of capacity; innovative income generation instruments and efficiency in the collection of revenue will lead to capacity.
20. Capital and Operating Expenditure per ºnit Population in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Both the outlay and the cost efficiency in delivery of services in these sectors should be accounted for.
21. Annual Man-Hour Deployment per ºnit Population in the Delivery of ¼ater Supply and Sanitation Services
The size of employed and hired municipal labour force in these sectors will determine capacity in quantitative terms; The skill and efficiency of the deployed workforce will determine capacity in qualitative terms and may be measured in terms of physical units of services delivered in relation to man-hour deployment, such as LPCD of water delivery, MTD of garbage collection, etc.
22. Infrastructure/Physical Resources Available per ºnit Population for the Delivery of ¼ater Supply and Sanitation Services
These will include the availability of space, gadgets, vehicles, etc., required for these services, such as the No. of garbage bins or delivery trucks, etc. While both the quantity and the level of technology or sophistication for such physical infrastructure are important determinants of capacity, norms and standards in this regard are minimal and need to be established through empirical research.
Other formal and non-formal institutions 23. Financial Investments of Private/Public Sector Companies in ¸ocal ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Such investments are limited and piecemeal at present but potential in future. But industrial towns managed by public sector undertakings and large private companies are cases where capacities need to be assessed.
24. Financial Investments of NGOs/CBOs in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Again, there are scattered limited involvement, especially in solid waste disposal, provision of public toilets, etc.
25. No. of Rag-pickers and Non-formal Sector Garbage and Solid ¼aste Collectors per ºnit Population
Traditionally, it has a significant role in solid waste collection from household and industrial (small and medium scale) sources, especially the collections of paper, plastic, metal and glass wastes as well as in recycling of these resources, often having links with household and formal recycling industries. The sheer number of persons engaged in such occupation will provide a measure.
334
Souro D. Joardar
determination of sustainable city size. For a given population size of an urban area, the capacity indicators measured against rational minimum physical standards for the various infrastructures may indicate the stress on the existing infrastructures. Conversely, such measures of the existing infrastructure should determine the population size that can be sustained in terms of acceptable minimum standards or norms. This is possible, however, when these various indicators are related to population size norms and standards. Both resource consumption and waste generation depend on population size where the application of per capita norms, such as for water supply, solid waste collection based on per capita generation, sewage or wastewater treatment plant, are common. Thus, many of the quantitative measures of capacities of man-made supportive resources for water supply and sanitation as well as the managed assimilative capacity measures can be related directly to the population size of the urban area. However, it is relatively difficult to draw direct relationships between city size and capacities with respect to qualities of various natural and man-made resources as well as the capacities in terms of the quantum of various natural resources and assimilation, such as, the annual available groundwater, surface water flow, and percolation rate in local soil for natural drainage, that determine the levels of managed resource supply and assimilation. Nevertheless, indirect relationships may be possible. For instance, the qualitative dimensions of the local environment (such as, surface and ground-water qualities) will determine the city’s requirements for managed assimilation in terms of technology or management options (viz. manpower deployment in pollution control) which could be translated into financial requirements for developing qualitative capacities in accordance with acceptable norms. These in turn may be related to acceptable municipal expenditure or financial norms based on population size. In other words, carrying capacity assessment for a given urban area may incorporate a tradeoff between environmental quality and financial capacity. In the context of spatial planning, however, the most useful application of the indicators could be in determining the relative rather than absolute measures of urban carrying capacity, i.e., relative rather than absolute sustainable city size. In the absence of easily quantifiable parameters associated with building up these indicator measures for any discrete spatial unit, areas may be compared on rating scales in terms of their infrastructure carrying capacities. Spatial planning inherently relies on such comparisons of discreet physical units for decisions on distributions or flows across such units within a larger spatial frame. For instance, carrying capacities of individual urban areas of a region may help in rational decisions on the relative allocation of resources or investments among different settlements in relation to the specific needs among different infrastructure sectors within them. They should be able to guide both the supply-driven planned distribution of future activities and population across the urban entities and their demand-driven relative costs and pricing of future supply of infrastructures. Furthermore, these measures may be applied at the scale of metropolitan or urban planning by comparison among different parts of cities. For an individual urban entity, however, a more important application would be to determine the development priorities among different sectors of infrastructure (such as water supply, drainage, sewerage, etc.) and the investment needs for development of these to acceptable minimal standards. Figure 1 suggests a procedure for the use of urban carrying capacity indicators developed in the study and illustrates how varied development scenarios for individual urban centres of regions may be conceived through these measures. The array of indicator measures for individual urban areas should be assessed against acceptable local standards for the provision of different infrastructures to determine their relative carrying capacities. Development of an extensive urban environmental information base on the various identified parameters of indicator measures (see Table 1) is a necessary prerequisite to operationalise the process. A range of
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
335
Fig. 1. Urban infrastructure carrying capacity and regional development — a conceptual framework.
policy options may be framed for different urban centres on the basis of their relative carrying capacities and their relative economic growth potentials. For instance, areas with high urban-industrial growth prospects but ranking low in infrastructure carrying capacity may draw priority attention towards capacity building in order to avoid imminent infrastructure stress or hot spots. While costs for capacity building may be high, prospects for cost recovery through future income and employment generation may also be bright across such centres. Centres ranking low in terms of both infrastructure carrying capacities and economic growth prospects may draw the least attention from development planners and entrepreneurs alike, while those with surplus infrastructure capacities may provide opportunities for decentralization of other overstressed regional centres through induced growth within them which in turn may render their surplus capacities financially viable. Such hypothetical and broad scenarios are only illustrative of the use of relative infrastructure carrying capacity measures as tools towards rational spatial decision
336
Souro D. Joardar
making process and should not be constructed as models of policies or plans. Nations and regions within them may follow alternative value-based socio-economic policy goals leading towards alternative spatial development scenarios. For instance, an equity goal in terms of balanced spatial distribution of population, economic activities and levels of infrastructure across regions may imply disproportionate utilization of existing carrying capacities and uneven financial allocations for infrastructure development. Similarly, a free market economy may lead to infrastructure stress across urban centres with high growth potentials, or it may lead to competition among centres for future growth on the basis of their relative carrying capacities. In all cases, nevertheless, the existing relative carrying capacity measures are useful to assess the implications of alternative spatial development plans and policies.
CONCLUSION As a corollary to the basic objective of providing a scientific framework for regional growth and resource allocations, the paper develops, through the suggested carrying capacity indicators, tools towards planning policies for capacity building in individual urban areas. For instance, policies for development of water supply and sanitation technologies, environmental resource management and capacity building of urban local bodies may be operationalized through the identified indicators and their related measurement parameters. A prerequisite for operationalizing the process, however, is the development of extensive urban information base to assess the various carrying capacity indicators. This in turn may lead to the issue of testing the validity of the various suggested indicator measures or parameters against commonly available environmental databases across cities, especially in the Indian context. The paper stops short of completing this task. In other words, case studies should be taken up to test the applicability of the various indicators. Case studies based on ground realities of the available information base may be able to test the time and cost involvement in operationalising the carrying capacity assessment procedure and may also suggest modifications with regard to individual indicator measures.
REFERENCES Bishop, A.B. et al. (1974) Carrying Capacity in Regional Environmental Management. EPA Report No. EPA-600/574-021, Washington, DC. Central Pollution Control Board (1995) Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications issued Thereunder. Pollution Control Series: PCL/2/1992, Vol. 1. CPCB, New Delhi. Committee on Plan Projects (1973) Committee on Plan Projects for Industrial ¹ownships. COPP, New Delhi. Government of Gujrat (1989) Gujrat 2005 (Papers on Perspective Plan), Ahmedabad. Joardar, S.D. (1996) Carrying capacity based planning for cities — concept and procedure. SPACE, 11(2) 7—16. School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Leitmann, J. (1993) Rapid ºrban Environmental Assessment: ¸essons from Cities of the Developing ¼orld, Vols. 1 & 2 Urban Management Programme. World Bank, Washington, DC. Ministry of Urban Development (1980) ¹he Manual on Sewerage and Sewage ¹reatment CPHEEO, New Delhi. Ministry of Urban Development (1991) Manual on ¼ater Supply and ¹reatment. CPHEEO, New Delhi. Ministry of Works and Housing (1983) National Master Plan—India, International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade, 1981—90, New Delhi. National Environmental Engineering Research, Institute (1994) Carrying Capacity Based Development Planning of National Capital Region, Delhi. Interim Report, NEERI, Nagpur. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1987) A Note on the Physical Norms and Specifications for Provision of Basic Services. NIUA, New Delhi. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1989) ºpgrading Municipal Services—Norms and Financial Implications, NIUA, New Delhi. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1995) Report of the Working Group on Expenditure Norms, Guidepoints for the State Finance Commissions; III 1-55, NIUA, New Delhi. Operations Research Group (1989) Delivery and Financing of ºrban Services. ORG, New Delhi.
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
337
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1978) ºrban Environmental Indicators. OECD, Paris. Planning Commission (1983) ¹ask Force on Housing and ºrban Development, Vol. II. Financing Urban Development, New Delhi. Planning Commission (1992) The 8th Five Year Plan: 1992—1997, New Delhi. Rees, W.R. (1989) Defining Sustainable Development. Research Bulletin, UBC Centre for Human Settlements. Society for Development Studies (1996). Housing and Urban Indicators, Management Tool for Human Settlements, India Case Study. Society of Development Studies, New Delhi. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (1995) ºrban Policy and Indicators. UNCHS, Nairobi. Whitney, J.B.R. (1990) The carrying capacity concept and sustainable urban development. Working Paper for Environment & Policy Institute, East West Center, Honolulu. Zakaria Committee (1963). Financial Resources for ºrban ¸ocal Bodies. Government of India, New Delhi.
PII: S0197-3975(98)00002-2
Carrying Capacities and Standards as Bases Towards Urban Infrastructure Planning in India: A Case of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation SOURO D. JOARDAR School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India
ABSTRACT Assessment of urban carrying capacities with respect to their basic infrastructure provisions like water supply and sanitation helps to determine the relative potentials of individual urban centres across regions for sustainable growth and also provides a framework for rational sectoral and spatial allocations of resources for infrastructure development. While carrying capacities should be assessed against acceptable norms and standards for provision of the basic services, there is ample scope for further development of minimum standards for urban water supply and sanitation in India. There has been a multiplicity of recommendations of standards with wide disparity across them and the rationale behind these recommendations are not explicit. The paper develops an array of indicator measures through which the natural and man-made resources and assimilative capacities of urban areas with respect to water supply, sewerage, drainage and solid waste disposal can be assessed in quantitative and qualitative terms. Another set of indicators have been developed to assess the financial and managerial capacities of various local institutions in the provision of these utilities. A framework for the use of these urban carrying capacity measures in spatial planning has been suggested. The author suggests further research to test the applicability of these indicator measures through real-life case studies of Indian cities based on available environmental information base. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: infrastructure; urban standards; carrying capacities
INTRODUCTION Basic infrastructure provisions of water supply and sanitation are dismal across India’s urban areas and the potential urban-industrial growth following economic reforms is likely to exert tremendous pressure on these already fragile conditions, especially across the large urban centres. The urgent need for large-scale investments in the urban infrastructure sector has drawn planner’s attention; but investment decisions call for judicious spatial allocation of the meager resources on these sectors vis-a` -vis spatial policies on urban-industrial growth across regions of the Correspondence to: S.D. Joardar, School of Planning and Architecture, 4-B, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002, India.
327
328
Souro D. Joardar
country. Careful assessment of existing carrying capacities of individual urban centres based on rational standards for infrastructure development is necessary to determine the relative investment needs towards their capacity building, not only to provide a minimal quality of life for their inhabitants, but also to support potential demands of urban-industrial growth across regions. Conversely, such relative investment needs for individual urban centres based upon their existing infrastructure carrying capacities may send the appropriate economic signals to the stakeholders in their future growth (both policy makers and potential entrepreneurs and migrants) in terms of the relative costs of their future development and guide thereby rational decisions on spatial distribution of economic activities and population across regions. Sustainable urban-industrial growth across regions need to minimize the demand-supply gap or the ‘‘carrying capacity differentials’’ (viz. Bishop et al., 1974) in urban infrastructure resources through both supply management (i.e., capacity building) and demand management (i.e., activity allocation, rational pricing of infrastructure, etc.) strategies. This paper attempts to develop an array of urban carrying capacity indicators and their associated parameters with respect to water supply and sanitation provisions which should be measured against rational standards for these basic urban services. It proceeds to suggest a framework for use of such carrying capacity measures in spatial planning or sustainable urban growth across regions. While water supply and sanitation are generally poor across urban India, there exists sharp differences among the large urban centres across this vast country in terms of these basic services (for instance, NIUA, 1989), which underscores the need for a rational procedure to assess the relative surplus or deficiencies of various infrastructures of potential growth centres. NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION IN INDIA Urban-carrying capacities with respect to different basic services should be assessed against acceptable norms and standards for provision of these services. In India, several federal and state-level agencies, such as the Town and Country Planning Organization (1974), Planning Commission (1983, 1992), Ministry of Urban Development (1980, 1991), Ministry of Works and Housing (1983), and the Government of Gujrat (1989), as well as a host of expert groups or committees, such as the Zakaria Committee (1963), Committee on Plan Projects (1973), National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) (1987, 1995) and The Operations Research Group (1989), have prescribed at different points of time the norms and standards for water supply, drainage, sewerage and solid waste disposal across urban India. There has been an overwhelming concern for the quantitative dimensions of these urban services across the various recommended norms and standards; for instance, the amount of water supply in litres per capita per day in cities. Qualitative norms are primarily with respect to the technological options recommended for water treatment, sewage treatment, sewage and solid waste disposal methods, etc., and these have been based almost solely on the population size of the urban area (viz. Zakaria Committee, 1963; Ministry of Works and Housing, 1983; NIUA, 1987; Government of Gujrat, 1989). Although the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (1995) provides water quality standards for drinking and other urban uses, they do not constitute an integral part of the recommendations of the various dedicated committees set for establishment of the norms and standards of supply of urban services. Furthermore, the methodological basis for arriving at these recommended quantitative standards is not explicit, although the criteria of cost or the relative affordability for different sizes of urban centres in adopting different
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
329
technological options and the differential requirements of industrial and other cities are reflected across several recommendations. In the absence of any clear methodological base for arriving at the quantitative standards of supply, the plethora of recommendations may confuse the urban local bodies who are supposed to be the actual suppliers of the services, particularly since wide variations exist among different recommended standards. For instance, with respect to water supply for ‘‘small’’ urban areas, recommended physical standards vary from as little as 45 lpcd (Zakaria Committee, 1963) to as high as 80 lpcd (Operations Research Group, 1989) or to a even higher 95—125 lpcd (NIUA, 1987). For medium-sized industrial towns where the water requirement is likely to be more than those for average urban areas of similar size, NIUA (1987) recommends a supply standard of 150 lpcd while the Committee on Plan Projects (COPP, 1973) prescribes 180—225 lpcd which is 20—50% higher than the former. Interestingly, even some recently developed ‘‘minimum physical standards for immediate attainment’’, like the water supply target of 150 lpcd recommended by the NIUA (1995 : III 3—5) exceed several of the earlier standards like those of the 8th Five Year Plan (1992—1997), Zakaria Committee (1963) or the Government of Gujrat (1989), which have been branded as ‘‘optimum’’ (rather than minimum) standards by the NIUA itself. While ‘‘optimal’’ standards for urban water supply, excreta disposal, drainage and solid waste disposal may vary widely across this vast country, depending on various local factors, such as economic base (viz. special requirements of industries), population characteristics (especially income and purchasing power) and capacities of urban local bodies, there is the need for further research in developing minimal requirements for these urban services based primarily on the substantive criteria of public health. Minimum financial needs of the urban local bodies should be worked out on the basis of such minimum standards as well as local cost factors, such as construction costs, relative availability of resources to support urban water supply and sanitation. The carrying capacities of individual urban areas with respect to each urban service should be assessed against such minimum physical and financial standards for the service. The carrying capacities will vary from case to case or location to location based on the values of different physical parameters associated with the development and operation and maintenance of such standards of service as well as the institutional capacity of the urban local body, especially its financial capacity as measured against the financial norms developed on the basis of unit costs of the service. SUGGESTED INDICATORS OF URBAN CARRYING CAPACITIES WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION Systematic classifications and measures of urban environmental components, resources, issues or concerns have been attempted in recent times with varied purposes related to urban development and management (see, for instance, Society for Development Studies, 1996; NEERI, 1994; UNCHS, 1995; Lietman, 1993; OECD, 1974; Bishop et al., 1974). Joardar (1996) suggests several criteria for development of urban carrying capacity indicators, i.e., indicators should be able to assess both natural and man-made/managed resources of the urban setting in quantitative as well as qualitative terms through measurable parameters and compare these against acceptable norms and standards of their adequacies and qualities. Further, multiple indicators are often necessary for individual environmental components or resources (see also Lietman, 1993 : 2), some relying on proxy/surrogate, i.e., indirect measures (Joardar, 1996 : 12—13). In the context of urban water supply and sanitation provisions, an attempt has been made here to identify the distinct natural and human or managed components
330
Souro D. Joardar
or resources of the environment related to these urban services and to develop indicator measures of their capacities in both quantitative and qualitative terms (Table 1). The key criterion for carrying capacity with respect to each of these urban services sets the policy goal for attainment of the service to be measured against acceptable norms and standards of provision. Development of the array of indicators and their related measurement parameters follow from these criteria or policy goals. Carrying capacities of an urban environment may be assessed in terms of the regenerative capacities of its various supportive resources as well as its capacity for assimilation of wastes generated by its population and activities. Thus, distinct sets of indicators have been developed (Table 1: Modules A—C) to assess these capacity dimensions for water supply and sanitation. A separate array of indicators (Table 1: Module D) has been developed to assess urban capacities in respect of various institutional arrangements necessary to support both water supply and sanitation provisions, since both these utilities depend on various common institutional arrangements in terms of finance, manpower, technical and other resources of urban local bodies. In the Indian context, the urban local bodies, primarily the municipalities, are traditionally responsible for the provision of the above urban services, while the presence of special purpose agencies (viz. urban development authorities, drainage, sewerage or water supply boards, etc.) as well as departments like the Public-Health of the state governments are also not uncommon. In recent times, the potential roles of non-governmental organizations and the private sector in urban basic services are also being recognized. Furthermore, the so-called informal or unorganized sector has been present traditionally in Indian cities, especially in solid waste management through the activities of the ubiquitous rag-pickers and door-to-door vendors collecting various household and industrial wastes. The role of such unorganized sector, especially in segregration and recycling of urban solid waste has been immense, but rarely accounted for. The relative availability of alternative actors in the provision of different urban services is by itself an indicator of the relative capacity of an urban area. A critical issue in operationalizing these urban carrying capacity indicators is the determination of the spatial jurisdictions of their measures. This is true especially with regard to various natural resource regimes (viz., ground water aquifers, drainage basins or watersheds) that constitute the environmental resources for the carrying capacity of an urban area, but do not necessarily coincide with its administrative boundary or physical extent. The smaller the urban area, the less likely its chance to incorporate such natural regimes within its boundary. Further, an urban area may have ‘‘appropriated carrying capacity’’ (e.g. Whitney, 1990; Rees, 1989) when it imports much of its resources from distant locations. Such dependencies of urban areas on distant regional physical resources are widely recognized in urban and regional planning and may even be considered for their capacity building, for instance, through trade-off against their financial resources. However, if ‘‘self-sustenance’’ is viewed as the basic tenet for assessing urban carrying capacities, the natural resources lying within or close to the physical planning jurisdiction of the urban area should constitute the environmental resources to operationalize the suggested carrying capacity indicators. Thus, for instance, a river stretch lying within the urban area or the part of a wider natural water shed where the urban area is located should form the jurisdiction to operationalise indicators with respect to its drainage or waste assimilative capacities. SPATIAL PLANNING BASED ON CARRYING CAPACITY MEASURES Conceptually, the above indicator measures of carrying capacities with respect to the basic urban services of water supply and sanitation may lead to the
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
331
Table 1. Carrying capacity indicators of urban utilities Module A: Supportive resource capacity for water supply Key carrying capacity criteria for water supply: adequate and affordable public water supply in terms of acceptable norms and standards Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural resources 1. ºtilizable ¼ater (in million cubic meters per year) in Ground ¼ater Aquifer and Surface ¼ater (river/lake/reservoir, etc) basins in the location of the ºrban Area
Hydro-geomorphological parameters, specifically, precipitation, topography, surface and soil drainage, aquifer recharge, discharge and basin flows in the water shed are determinants.
2. Mean Depth (in meters) of Ground ¼ater ¹able in the location of the ºrban Area
Parameters as under 1 : 3 Statistical data on ground water are usually available at ‘‘Tehsil’’ or ‘‘Block’’ (administrative unit) level which may be considered as a spatial unit for assessment.
3. Distance and Altitude difference between ¼ater Source (Main ¼ater ¼orks) and the Centre of the ºrban Area
Capacity is inversely proportional to distance and gaining height; While water works locations at both surface water resource and major ground water wells are considered, the measure will be critical for urban areas located remote from surface water sources; Altitude is critical for water supply across hilly terrain.
4. Ambient ¼ater Quality in terms of Critical Parameters (viz. DO, BOD, Coil-forms, Metals, Dissolved Solids, etc.) in Ground ¼ater Aquifer and Surface ¼ater in the location of the ºrban Area in relation to Designated water uses
In addition to the hydro-geomorphological parameters as under 1, bedrock and soil characteristics as well as the level and type of wastewater discharge in the watershed will determine the water quality; CPCB (1995) prescribed norms for different water quality parameters for different designated water uses may be used for comparison.
Man-made resources 5. Installed capacity (in ¸itres Per Capita Per Day or ¸PCD) of Public ¼ater ¼orks in ¹erms of : 5.1 Pumping Capacity (rates, duration and pressure), 5.2 Storage Capacity and 5.3. ¹reatment Plant CapacityM
Actual supply in lpcd in household and community taps may be used as a surrogate indicator as it will be proportional to the installed capacity but the difference between the two will indicate capacity utilization and management problems: Both these capacities may be compared against the minimum standard for water supply.
6. Installed Capacity of Decentralized Private ¼ater ¼orks (in lpcd) (in Residential, Industrial and Commercial Establishments)
This will be a significant albeit difficult measure, since there is extensive use of private wells and pumps in Indian cities; licensed/approved private tubewells in operation may surrogate detailed measures of capacities.
7. Number of Public ¼ater Supply Connections: 7.1 Per ºnit Population and 7.2 Per unit ¸and of the ºrban Area
Area coverage relates to the spatial distribution of centralized public water supply network, which may vary significantly across cities, especially between developed cores and fringe areas; Census No. of Household with/without public water supply are available at urban area.
8. Percentage Reduction of Critical ¼ater Pollutants ¹hrough ¹reatment in Public ¼ater ¼orks
This will depend on the level of technology used in water treatment, viz. primary, secondary or tertiary treatment. Although post-treatment water quality is usually measured (water samples) in public water works, measurements taken at public or household water taps is preferred as it will take into account any pollution across water supply networks through seepage or other means. A surrogate indicator would be the Quality of ¼ater in Household/Public taps in ¹erms of the Critical ¼ater Quality Parameters (and as measured against acceptable standards).
Module B: Assimilative capacity for sanitation Key carrying capacity criteria for sanitation: adequate, hygienic and affordable disposal of sewage, storm water and solid wastes in terms of acceptable norms and standards Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural assimilation 9. Rate of Natural Surface and Subsurface Drainage in the ¸ocality of the ºrban Area
This will depend on the natural slope, permeability of local soil, depth of water table and natural drainage outlets (viz. gullies, streams, depressions, etc.) in relation to the precipitation rate and waste water discharge, in and around the urban area.
332
Souro D. Joardar Table 1. Continued
10. Rate of Bio-degradation of Solid ¼astes and ¼aste ¼ater in the ¸ocal Soil
This will depend on soil characteristics, especially the presence of microorganism as well as the types of wastes, i.e. biodegradable vs non-biodegradable wastes generated in the urban area.
11. Rate of Maximum Dischargable Critical Pollution ¸oad (especially BOD load in kg/day) in Critical Stretches of : 11.1 Running ¼ater Bodies (Rivers, Streams, Canals, etc.) and 11.2 Still ¼ater Bodies
Critical stretches of water bodies should be identified on the basis of locations of pollution sources and use of water. Critical time of assessment should be the period of leanest water flow or volume; Hydrological modelling for given water bodies may help to predict/simulate pollution dilution/mixing rates; wastewater assimilation in the biological media through bio-degradation and nutrient uptake will depend on the aquatic ecosystem, especially its diversity and presence of micro-organisms, aquatic plants, fishes, etc.; Wastewater, especially BOD load, will in turn affect the ecosystem; hydrology, temperature and sunlight conditions will influence water quality as the bio-degradation process.
Managed assimilation 12. Installed Capacities (in Million ¸itres per Day or M¸D) of : 12.1 Municipal Sewage ¹reatment Plant; 12.2 Public Septic ¹anks 12.3 Private Septic ¹anks and 12.4 Industrial ¼aste ¼ater ¹reatment/Recyling Plant in proportion of Industrial ¼aste ¼ater Generation
Municipal waste water discharge will depend on population size, No. of households, No. of Workers and sewerage system in the urban area; Industrial waste water discharge will depend on the No., size and type of industrial units and their production processes; The relative presence and type of sewerage system and technology of treatment and recycling will indicate the Qualitative dimension of capacity. The difference between installed capacity and average daily treatment will indicate idle capacity and management problems.
13. Installed Capacities (in Million ¹onnes per Day or M¹D) of : 13.1 Public Incinerators/Biogas/Solid ¼aste ¹reatment/Recycling Plants 13.2 Private Industrial/Hospital ¼aste/Hazardous ¼aste ¹reatment Plant and 13.3 Private Incinerators/Biogas/Solid ¼aste ¹reatment Plants
Such capacities are traditionally insignificant across Indian urban areas, but there are recent instances of capacity building; Generation will depend on population, income and expenditure patterns and the No., size and type of commercial/industrial and other establishments; Again, the Qualitative capacity will depend upon the relative presence and the technology of treatment/recycling.
Module C: Supportive resource capacity for sanitation Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
Natural resources 14. Distance (in Kms.) of ¼aterways/¼asteland Resources (low lying areas, marshlands, etc.) for ¼aste ¼ater Discharge from Centre of ºrban Area
The capacity in this respect will be related also to the level of waste water treatment — recycled water from treatment plants may be used for irrigation; proximity to running water bodies, viz. rivers, streams, etc., rather than still water bodies will lead to higher capacity on account of greater assimilation.
15. Solid ¼aste Disposal ¸and (in Hectares) in the »icinity of the ºrban Area
Low lying lands in the fringe may augment capacity; but capacity in this respect will depend on the level of solid waste management (especially separation of wastes) — biodegradable wastes may be used for agriculture in urban fringe.
Man-made resources 16. Population Coverage (in %) By Sanitary ¸atrines Connected ¹o: 16.1 ºnderground Sewerage System 16.2 Public Septic ¹anks 16.3 Private Septic ¹anks
The No. of latrine connections per unit population/household will indicate the level, the amenity and total connections the sewage disposal capacity of the urban area; The qualitative dimension of capacity will be given by the technologies and their relative coverage.
17. Generation: Collection Ratio of Municipal Solid ¼aste per Day in M¹D
Collection will depend on institutional capacities (dealt separately) of municipalities and local community organizations in terms of manpower, finance, technology, etc., as well as informal sector collection, viz. rag-picking, given by the relative extent of the different technologies.
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
333
Table 1. Continued Module D: Institutional capacity in urban utility provisions Key carrying capacity criteria : local institutions, especially urban local bodies to have adequate organizational, financial and legal capacities towards provisions of adequate water supply and sanitation Carrying capacity indicators
Assessment parameters
ºrban local bodies (Municipalities, especially and Dedicated Public Agencies, viz. Water/Sanitation Boards wherever applicable) 18. Financial Autonomy in Setting Revenue Rates, especially levies and charges for potable water supply, collection and disposal of solid wastes, sanitary toilet connections and use of public toilets as well as in Allocations of Development and Maintenance Expenditure in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Traditionally, urban municipalities in India are governed by State Municipal Acts and the relative flexibility in such acts, such as the prescribed range of maximum and minimum tax limits, may determine relative capacity. In terms of India’s recent 74th Constitutional Amendment, municipal financial reforms as well as establishment of norms and standards for the delivery of urban services are expected through the functioning of respective State Finance Commissions and the relative progress of different states in this regard may lead to differences in capacities across state muncipalities. Similarly, the relative progress in respect of political autonomy (through municipal elections), formation of different committees (Ward and District Committees) and other reforms will lead to varying municipal autonomy and capacities across the states.
19. Annual Revenue Income per ºnit Population
Income from taxes, levies, charges, rents, interests, lease, etc., should be considered while loans and grants will not be true indicators of capacity; innovative income generation instruments and efficiency in the collection of revenue will lead to capacity.
20. Capital and Operating Expenditure per ºnit Population in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Both the outlay and the cost efficiency in delivery of services in these sectors should be accounted for.
21. Annual Man-Hour Deployment per ºnit Population in the Delivery of ¼ater Supply and Sanitation Services
The size of employed and hired municipal labour force in these sectors will determine capacity in quantitative terms; The skill and efficiency of the deployed workforce will determine capacity in qualitative terms and may be measured in terms of physical units of services delivered in relation to man-hour deployment, such as LPCD of water delivery, MTD of garbage collection, etc.
22. Infrastructure/Physical Resources Available per ºnit Population for the Delivery of ¼ater Supply and Sanitation Services
These will include the availability of space, gadgets, vehicles, etc., required for these services, such as the No. of garbage bins or delivery trucks, etc. While both the quantity and the level of technology or sophistication for such physical infrastructure are important determinants of capacity, norms and standards in this regard are minimal and need to be established through empirical research.
Other formal and non-formal institutions 23. Financial Investments of Private/Public Sector Companies in ¸ocal ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Such investments are limited and piecemeal at present but potential in future. But industrial towns managed by public sector undertakings and large private companies are cases where capacities need to be assessed.
24. Financial Investments of NGOs/CBOs in ¼ater Supply and Sanitation
Again, there are scattered limited involvement, especially in solid waste disposal, provision of public toilets, etc.
25. No. of Rag-pickers and Non-formal Sector Garbage and Solid ¼aste Collectors per ºnit Population
Traditionally, it has a significant role in solid waste collection from household and industrial (small and medium scale) sources, especially the collections of paper, plastic, metal and glass wastes as well as in recycling of these resources, often having links with household and formal recycling industries. The sheer number of persons engaged in such occupation will provide a measure.
334
Souro D. Joardar
determination of sustainable city size. For a given population size of an urban area, the capacity indicators measured against rational minimum physical standards for the various infrastructures may indicate the stress on the existing infrastructures. Conversely, such measures of the existing infrastructure should determine the population size that can be sustained in terms of acceptable minimum standards or norms. This is possible, however, when these various indicators are related to population size norms and standards. Both resource consumption and waste generation depend on population size where the application of per capita norms, such as for water supply, solid waste collection based on per capita generation, sewage or wastewater treatment plant, are common. Thus, many of the quantitative measures of capacities of man-made supportive resources for water supply and sanitation as well as the managed assimilative capacity measures can be related directly to the population size of the urban area. However, it is relatively difficult to draw direct relationships between city size and capacities with respect to qualities of various natural and man-made resources as well as the capacities in terms of the quantum of various natural resources and assimilation, such as, the annual available groundwater, surface water flow, and percolation rate in local soil for natural drainage, that determine the levels of managed resource supply and assimilation. Nevertheless, indirect relationships may be possible. For instance, the qualitative dimensions of the local environment (such as, surface and ground-water qualities) will determine the city’s requirements for managed assimilation in terms of technology or management options (viz. manpower deployment in pollution control) which could be translated into financial requirements for developing qualitative capacities in accordance with acceptable norms. These in turn may be related to acceptable municipal expenditure or financial norms based on population size. In other words, carrying capacity assessment for a given urban area may incorporate a tradeoff between environmental quality and financial capacity. In the context of spatial planning, however, the most useful application of the indicators could be in determining the relative rather than absolute measures of urban carrying capacity, i.e., relative rather than absolute sustainable city size. In the absence of easily quantifiable parameters associated with building up these indicator measures for any discrete spatial unit, areas may be compared on rating scales in terms of their infrastructure carrying capacities. Spatial planning inherently relies on such comparisons of discreet physical units for decisions on distributions or flows across such units within a larger spatial frame. For instance, carrying capacities of individual urban areas of a region may help in rational decisions on the relative allocation of resources or investments among different settlements in relation to the specific needs among different infrastructure sectors within them. They should be able to guide both the supply-driven planned distribution of future activities and population across the urban entities and their demand-driven relative costs and pricing of future supply of infrastructures. Furthermore, these measures may be applied at the scale of metropolitan or urban planning by comparison among different parts of cities. For an individual urban entity, however, a more important application would be to determine the development priorities among different sectors of infrastructure (such as water supply, drainage, sewerage, etc.) and the investment needs for development of these to acceptable minimal standards. Figure 1 suggests a procedure for the use of urban carrying capacity indicators developed in the study and illustrates how varied development scenarios for individual urban centres of regions may be conceived through these measures. The array of indicator measures for individual urban areas should be assessed against acceptable local standards for the provision of different infrastructures to determine their relative carrying capacities. Development of an extensive urban environmental information base on the various identified parameters of indicator measures (see Table 1) is a necessary prerequisite to operationalise the process. A range of
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
335
Fig. 1. Urban infrastructure carrying capacity and regional development — a conceptual framework.
policy options may be framed for different urban centres on the basis of their relative carrying capacities and their relative economic growth potentials. For instance, areas with high urban-industrial growth prospects but ranking low in infrastructure carrying capacity may draw priority attention towards capacity building in order to avoid imminent infrastructure stress or hot spots. While costs for capacity building may be high, prospects for cost recovery through future income and employment generation may also be bright across such centres. Centres ranking low in terms of both infrastructure carrying capacities and economic growth prospects may draw the least attention from development planners and entrepreneurs alike, while those with surplus infrastructure capacities may provide opportunities for decentralization of other overstressed regional centres through induced growth within them which in turn may render their surplus capacities financially viable. Such hypothetical and broad scenarios are only illustrative of the use of relative infrastructure carrying capacity measures as tools towards rational spatial decision
336
Souro D. Joardar
making process and should not be constructed as models of policies or plans. Nations and regions within them may follow alternative value-based socio-economic policy goals leading towards alternative spatial development scenarios. For instance, an equity goal in terms of balanced spatial distribution of population, economic activities and levels of infrastructure across regions may imply disproportionate utilization of existing carrying capacities and uneven financial allocations for infrastructure development. Similarly, a free market economy may lead to infrastructure stress across urban centres with high growth potentials, or it may lead to competition among centres for future growth on the basis of their relative carrying capacities. In all cases, nevertheless, the existing relative carrying capacity measures are useful to assess the implications of alternative spatial development plans and policies.
CONCLUSION As a corollary to the basic objective of providing a scientific framework for regional growth and resource allocations, the paper develops, through the suggested carrying capacity indicators, tools towards planning policies for capacity building in individual urban areas. For instance, policies for development of water supply and sanitation technologies, environmental resource management and capacity building of urban local bodies may be operationalized through the identified indicators and their related measurement parameters. A prerequisite for operationalizing the process, however, is the development of extensive urban information base to assess the various carrying capacity indicators. This in turn may lead to the issue of testing the validity of the various suggested indicator measures or parameters against commonly available environmental databases across cities, especially in the Indian context. The paper stops short of completing this task. In other words, case studies should be taken up to test the applicability of the various indicators. Case studies based on ground realities of the available information base may be able to test the time and cost involvement in operationalising the carrying capacity assessment procedure and may also suggest modifications with regard to individual indicator measures.
REFERENCES Bishop, A.B. et al. (1974) Carrying Capacity in Regional Environmental Management. EPA Report No. EPA-600/574-021, Washington, DC. Central Pollution Control Board (1995) Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications issued Thereunder. Pollution Control Series: PCL/2/1992, Vol. 1. CPCB, New Delhi. Committee on Plan Projects (1973) Committee on Plan Projects for Industrial ¹ownships. COPP, New Delhi. Government of Gujrat (1989) Gujrat 2005 (Papers on Perspective Plan), Ahmedabad. Joardar, S.D. (1996) Carrying capacity based planning for cities — concept and procedure. SPACE, 11(2) 7—16. School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Leitmann, J. (1993) Rapid ºrban Environmental Assessment: ¸essons from Cities of the Developing ¼orld, Vols. 1 & 2 Urban Management Programme. World Bank, Washington, DC. Ministry of Urban Development (1980) ¹he Manual on Sewerage and Sewage ¹reatment CPHEEO, New Delhi. Ministry of Urban Development (1991) Manual on ¼ater Supply and ¹reatment. CPHEEO, New Delhi. Ministry of Works and Housing (1983) National Master Plan—India, International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade, 1981—90, New Delhi. National Environmental Engineering Research, Institute (1994) Carrying Capacity Based Development Planning of National Capital Region, Delhi. Interim Report, NEERI, Nagpur. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1987) A Note on the Physical Norms and Specifications for Provision of Basic Services. NIUA, New Delhi. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1989) ºpgrading Municipal Services—Norms and Financial Implications, NIUA, New Delhi. National Institute of Urban Affairs (1995) Report of the Working Group on Expenditure Norms, Guidepoints for the State Finance Commissions; III 1-55, NIUA, New Delhi. Operations Research Group (1989) Delivery and Financing of ºrban Services. ORG, New Delhi.
Urban Infrastructure Planning in India
337
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1978) ºrban Environmental Indicators. OECD, Paris. Planning Commission (1983) ¹ask Force on Housing and ºrban Development, Vol. II. Financing Urban Development, New Delhi. Planning Commission (1992) The 8th Five Year Plan: 1992—1997, New Delhi. Rees, W.R. (1989) Defining Sustainable Development. Research Bulletin, UBC Centre for Human Settlements. Society for Development Studies (1996). Housing and Urban Indicators, Management Tool for Human Settlements, India Case Study. Society of Development Studies, New Delhi. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (1995) ºrban Policy and Indicators. UNCHS, Nairobi. Whitney, J.B.R. (1990) The carrying capacity concept and sustainable urban development. Working Paper for Environment & Policy Institute, East West Center, Honolulu. Zakaria Committee (1963). Financial Resources for ºrban ¸ocal Bodies. Government of India, New Delhi.