Exploring the role of Urban Green Spaces in 'smartening' cities in India

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the conceptualization of Urban Green Space (UGS) within India’s urban planning process. In doing so, the context of the Smart Cities Mission (SCM), which is a flagship programme for urban transformation in the country, is chosen. We identified four key elements of UGS planning in the literature – quantity, accessibility, multifunctionality, and connectivity. Using this as a framework for analysis, we reviewed the national SCM guidelines and plans of four cities – Gwalior, Bhagalpur, Chandigarh, and Udaipur – in depth. We find that multifunctionality does not feature in the planning of UGS, and the notable absence of a connected, strategic vision suggests the need for strategic-level planning and assessment that goes beyond the project level in India.

KEYWORDS:

• Urban Green Spaces
• open spaces
• India
• Smart Cities Mission
• multifunctionality
• green infrastructure

Introduction

Urban Green Spaces (UGS) are increasingly considered a critical asset within the context of sustainability as they are argued to provide with multiple benefits ranging from enriching aesthetics, reducing pollution, enhancing physical and mental health and general well-being, reducing urban heat island effect, and providing groundwater recharge (Sandström 2002; TEEB 2011; GoI 2014; Fischer et al. 2018). The extant research largely focuses on UGS planning in developed countries (the United States and Europe). However, urban planning in general and UGS planning in particular poses a different set of challenges in developing countries and thus requires further exploration. Countries such as China and India have been experiencing rapid urbanization with large-scale migration to cities in search of livelihoods, creating competing demands for limited land resources in urban areas. The need for expanding housing, public infrastructure, industry, and commercial space to meet the demands of increasing urbanization is leading to a decline in open/green spaces in many developing countries (e.g. Haaland and van den Bosch 2015), including India (e.g. Govindarajulu 2014; Mell 2018). Research on understanding the extent to which cities in developing countries value green/open spaces¹ and how they are incorporating UGS into urban planning is relatively sparse (Byomkesh et al. 2012).

In this paper, we contribute to this literature by exploring the broad research question: how do Indian cities conceptualize UGS in their planning process? We address this question by studying how UGS is incorporated in one ofIndia’s most ambitious urban planning interventions, the Smart Cities Mission (SCM), which we also refer to as Mission in this paper. We review the SCM guidelines as well as the plans of a set of four cities selected for funding under the Mission to address our research question. Based on our analyses we offer suggestions for enhancing UGS incorporation within urban planning in India.

We organize the paper in the following way. The next section reviews the extant literature on UGS planning in developing countries, including India. In the following section, we provide some background on our empirical context, the SCM. In the section that follows, we develop the rationale for the selection of the four criteria that we use to evaluate the UGS planning in smart cities. We then present the methodology we follow to address our research question, followed by the section on the findings of our analysis. We discuss the implications of our findings in the next section before concluding the paper in the last section.

UGS in developing countries: current state and planning challenges

A large body of literature examines the causes and consequences of the rapid destruction and disappearance of green spaces in cities across the developing world. The fast pace of urbanization, including geographic expansion as well as densification of the built environment, has been identified as a major contributor to green space shrinkage (e.g. Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). Environmental planners contend that urban growth without adequate consideration of green spaces can cause irreversible damage to urban ecosystems and degrade the quality of urban life (see, e.g. Williams et al. 2009; Niemela et al. 2010). In this section, we first review the extant literature to identify the major challenges that developing countries face in planning for UGS, followed by a brief review of the state of UGS planning in India.

UGS planning challenges in developing countries

UGS planning and management, including preservation and expansion, is challenging in fast-growing cities in developing countries for several reasons. First, the need for aggressive infill development to accommodate more people and jobs as well as to promote local economic development, necessitates conversion of existing green spaces into built-up areas, especially in core cities. Planners and elected officials often consider open, including green, spaces to be economically unproductive land uses as their economic benefits are difficult to measure and effectively communicate to the electorate. Consequently, political motivation to invest in public open spaces is typically low (Byomkesh et al. 2012; Mensah 2014). The move towards greater densification under the rubric of new planning philosophies such as new urbanism and smart growth is further threatening green spaces. Unfortunately, the extant literature does not offer much guidance on principles of green space planning in high-density built environments (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). Citizens and governments, however, are conducting many innovative urban experiments, e.g. community gardens including urban farms (De Bon et al. 2010; Guitart et al. 2012), green elements integrated with buildings (e.g. green roofs and walls), and public infrastructures (e.g. green belts along roads and light rail corridors), and the conversion of brownfield land into recreational greens (e.g. the High Line in New York).

Second, development controls on green spaces are absent or very weak in many developing country cities (Mensah 2014). Even if controls exist, they are often poorly enforced. Fringe or peri-urban areas of expanding cities are generally outside the purview of the city or regional planning agencies; consequently, public open spaces including green areas are not preserved or planned systematically (Zérah 2007).

Third, many studies, including one conducted in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, additionally highlight the issue of social and hence spatial inequality in access to green spaces, a phenomenon observed across the developing world (Wendel et al. 2012). Specifically, desirable and safe green zones are often confined to relatively affluent neighborhoods, thereby contributing to disparities in public health and well-being.

UGS planning in India

Concerns regarding the loss of green cover in Indian cities have emerged over the last several years because of the declining environmental quality in Indian cities (e.g. Sundaram 2011; Govindarajulu 2014). Previous studies have underscored the importance of UGS and the need for expanding urban green cover in Indian cities (see, e.g. Chaturvedi et al. 2013; Vailshery et al. 2013). Although there are several recent national initiatives for effective forest and ecosystems protection, development and management in India (e.g. the National Green Tribunal Act 2010; National Action Plan for Climate Change 2008, etc.), only a few cities have crafted targeted bye-laws for urban green space preservation, upgrade, and maintenance (Imam and Banerjee 2016).

National urban planning guidance documents such as the Ministry of Urban Development’s (MoUD) Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI) Guidelines (GoI 2015b) and other guidance documents such as the Urban Greening Guidelines (2014) are useful for understanding the benefits of green spaces and principles of planning, but are not legally binding for city/regional planning agencies or government/private developers. The Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) aims, in principle, to ‘increase the amenity value of cities by developing greenery and well-maintained open spaces (e.g. parks)’ (GoI 2015a), but there are no performance measures or any monitoring/evaluation framework.

Given this context, our paper documents green space planning initiatives of selected cities under the transformative SCM, the largest and most ambitious urban (re)development program in the country. Since the projects under this mission will determine the built and natural environments of a hundred Indian cities, it is imperative for urban planning scholars to understand how green spaces have been conceptualized in the proposals, and consider the causes and urban implications of such plans in order to influence policy. Our paper contributes to that effort.

India’s smart cities mission as a context

The Bharatiya Janata Party, in its election manifesto before the 2014 Indian general elections, had promised to build 100 new cities to improve the quality of life in rapidly urbanizing cities of India (BJP 2014). After the party came to power, the SCM was formally launched on 25 June 2015 but with a new promise to upgrade existing cities into smart cities instead of building new smart cities (Hoelscher 2016). The new government had budgeted ₹ 70.6 billion ($ 1.2 billion) during 2014–15 for smart city development over a period of 5 years, making it one of the largest urban development programmes in India. The state governments and the urban local bodies were expected to contribute a matching amount. The plans under the SCM are executed through a special purpose vehicle (SPV), headed by a Chief Executive Officer, and includes state and local government nominees. The SPV is designed to encourage private participation and enjoys autonomy in preparing the smart city proposals and executing them either through joint ventures, subsidiaries or through public–private partnerships (Aijaz and Hoelscher 2015).

The cities vying to receive funding under the Mission had to compete in a ‘City Challenge’ by submitting a proposal to the MoUD and the final selection of the 100 cities was to be made using a ranking mechanism developed by the Ministry (Praharaj et al. 2018). So far, 20 winning proposals were accepted in the first round, 13 in the fast track round, 26 in round 2, 30 in round 3 and 9 in round 4, for a total of totaling the number of cities to 98 smart cities (GoI 2016).

The SCM, while recognizing that there is no universally accepted definition of smart city, conceptualizes a smart city to comprise eight features of ‘comprehensive development’ (Government of India 2016: 7). The City Challenge proposal template that the MoUD provided to the competing cities further operationalizes these eight features identified in the SCM document by defining 24 specific features that are essential for a smart city. These features, among other things, include several related to environmental quality: e.g. air quality, water quality, sanitation, waste management, and, the one of the interest to us in this paper, open spaces. The cities, in their proposals, were expected to choose a specific region or area within their city for ‘smartening’ (called Area-based proposal), and develop some features across the entire city (called Pan-city proposal). In the Area-based proposal, for example, an ‘essential feature’ was an innovative use of open spaces and the competing cities were expected to explain how they plan to incorporate open spaces in the development of the chosen area within the city.

Thus, the SCM provides a broad framework that defines a smart city and allows the cities to interpret this framework in the context of the cities’ individual needs. It is this structure that provides us a context to examine how Indian cities conceptualize UGS in their urban development planning. Research on this new Mission is still emerging (e.g. Hoelscher 2016; Praharaj et al. 2018; Datta 2018) with just a few studies examining the Mission systematically from the perspective of UGS (e.g. Anguluri and Narayanan 2017).

Identifying elements to characterize UGS conceptualization in SCM

We investigate our broad research question of how Indian cities conceptualize UGS in their planning by identifying a set of elements of UGS planning, drawing on the academic literature on the principles of UGS and Green Infrastructure (GI) planning.

UGS planning and public health

A vast amount of literature over the last few decades found a range of positive health and well-being benefits of green spaces (e.g. see Tzoulas et al. 2007; Lee and Maheswaran 2011; Van Den Berg et al. 2015, WHO 2016). The extant literature also identifies a number of mechanisms through which UGS lead to health and wellbeing benefits. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO), which published a report in 2016 reviewing empirical evidence for the relationship between UGS and health, had identified several pathways through which UGS lead to health benefits. These include enhanced physical activity, greater social cohesion, engagement with nature and relaxation, and reduced exposure to heat and air pollution, among other pathways. These mechanisms also provide guidance for identifying important elements of UGS planning that could result in greater utilization of these spaces and in turn generate greater public health and wellbeing benefits. Among these, three key elements often cited in the literature are quantity, quality, and accessibility of green spaces (e.g. Shanahan et al. 2015; WHO 2016; Larson et al. 2016).

Each of these elements of UGS – quality, quantity, and accessibility – that are relevant to realizing health benefits is measured using a wide range of indicators (Shanahan et al. 2015). The quantity of green spaces could be measured as the amount of green spaces within a specific distance of a household (e.g. Maas et al. 2006) or the percentage of green spaces within an urban spatial unit such as a neighborhood or a city (e.g. Larson et al. 2016). Not surprisingly, the standards specified in urban planning practice are guided by similar measures. For example, WHO recommends a standard of nine square meter of green space per capita (Kuchelmeister 1998). Further, according to more recent standards of WHO, ‘as a rule of thumb, urban residents should be able to access public green spaces of at least 0.5–1 hectare within 300 metres’ linear distance (around 5 minutes’ walk) of their homes’ (WHO 2017, p.12).

Accessibility is typically measured in terms of proximity, for example, as the distance to a green space or the percentage of population living within a specific distance from a green space of interest (WHO 2016; Larson et al. 2016). It is argued that accessibility has been a dominant design principle in UGS planning because of its grounding in the normative concerns of spatial equity, apart from the ease with which it can be measured (Lennon et al. 2017). Research in Anglo-American context shows that the green spaces are distributed spatially to disproportionately benefit white and affluent population relative to others (Wolch et al. 2014). Standards that require every household/neighborhood to have access to a green space within a particular distance are designed to ensure that all population groups have equal access to green spaces irrespective of their social status (WHO 2017). Thus, accessibility includes both proximity to a green space and considerations for ensuring access to vulnerable and marginalized sections of the society.

The quality of green spaces is a more contested concept and does not easily lend itself to measurement (Lennon et al. 2017), with variations across disciplines on how quality is measured (Taylor and Hochuli 2017). Broadly, it appears that quality is conceptualized as the characteristics of green spaces that make them attractive to users (e.g. Herzele and Wiedemann 2003 for more discussion). For example, Zhang et al. (2017) measure the quality of green space as public perception of six aspects of green spaces: facilities, amenities, natural features, incivilities, accessibility, and maintenance. However, the ambiguity surrounding quality makes it a difficult criterion for planning purposes. In our study, we do not use quality as an element also because the planning documents, which provide us the ‘data’ do not have the necessary information to assess the quality of planned UGS, however it is measured.

Emergence of green infrastructure principles in UGS planning

The emergence of the concept of GI during the 1990s has brought new insights to UGS planning. As Lennon and Scott (2014) suggest, ‘ … in its focus on connectivity and multifunctionality, a GI approach reverses traditional planning practices, wherein attention is directed at the provision of single functions (e.g. drainage, conservation, recreation) in specific locations, with little interest shown to spatial, scalar and institutional integration’ (Lennon and Scott 2014, p. 574). Within UGS planning, this means that the GI literature shifts the concept of UGS from viewing it as an isolated green space providing cultural, environmental, and/or social benefits to the local population to conceptualizing UGS planning as designing and managing a set of interconnected green spaces delivering multiple functions. While the definitions of GI vary (Wright 2011) depending on a variety of factors, including the discipline in which the concept is used (Lennon 2015), two terms that are most frequently associated with principles of GI planning are multifunctionality and connectivity (e.g. Mell 2008; Hansen and Pauleit 2014; Lennon and Scott 2014; Pauleit et al. 2017).

Multifunctionality refers to the ability of green spaces (when designed appropriately) to provide multiple functions, leading to multiple benefits. The functions are broadly classified as social (e.g. mental and physical health benefits, spiritual and emotional well-being, social inclusion, community interaction, education, adding cultural identity to the city), ecological (e.g. climate control, biodiversity, flood water management, pollution control), and economic (e.g. land value increase, tourism, enhancing attractiveness of businesses)² (Mell 2008; Hansen and Pauleit 2014). Connectivity³ is closely linked to multifunctionality within the GI literature and refers to the way in which multiple greenspace units are connected with each other to deliver UGS benefits, particularly in the realm of ecological benefits (Mell 2008; Lennon and Scott 2014).

Based on this review, our study selected four elements – quantity, accessibility, multifunctionality, and connectivity – to understand how UGS is conceptualized within India’s SCM. While there are other elements for consideration, these four are clearly the most widely accepted elements in the literature and as an exploratory study, examining these four elements in the context of SCM provides us with meaningful initial insights into our question. Furthermore, these elements are largely similar to the aspects of urban green form (i.e. quantity, quality, connectivity, accessibility) emphasized by Govindarajulu (2014) in the Indian context.

Methodology

We use a documentary review to address our research question. We first review the overarching document of the SCM (i.e. SCM Guidelines) and the supplementary documents, specifically a template provided by the Mission to cities interested in applying for funding. In the next step, we conduct a detailed review of the SCM plans of four randomly selected (successful) cities – Gwalior, Bhagalpur, Chandigarh, and Udaipur – to analyze how the cities operationalized the larger Mission’s vision into specific city plans with regards to UGS. We adopted random selection because we do not have a priori information on the dimensions on which the successful cities within the SCM would differ with regards to UGS planning. For example, it is not clear a priori if cities in one region of the country would be different in how they plan for green spaces relative to those in other regions. Or if cities with higher population would differ from those with lower population. Nevertheless, the four cities that we randomly selected do represent different types of cities. Chandigarh, for example, is one of the few planned cities in the country whereas Udaipur is one of the most popular tourist destinations. And the four cities come from three distinct regions (Gwalior from central region, Udaipur and Chandigarh from northern region, and Bihar from eastern region) of the country.

In analyzing the documents we use the four elements of UGS planning that we chose based on our review: quality, accessibility, multifunctionality, and connectivity. We operationalize these four elements in the following manner in analyzing the documents.

Quantity

Consistent with our understanding of this concept in the literature, we interpret any reference to the amount of green spaces under this category. For example, we examine if the documents we review mention the total area to be developed as green spaces or percentage of an urban spatial unit that constitutes green spaces or meeting recommended national or international standards for the quantity of green spaces.

Accessibility

Accessibility refers to both proximity in general to green spaces and accessibility considerations to specific population groups, such as children, senior citizens, disabled, and other marginalized groups (WHO 2016; Larson et al. 2016; Lennon et al. 2017). We examine, for example, if the reviewed documents specify the proximity of households, neighborhoods, or communities to green spaces as a criterion in UGS planning within SCM. Similarly, we also look for a reference to specific population groups in terms of access to green spaces.

Multifunctionality

As our literature review shows, UGS have the potential to serve multiple functions – ecological, social, and economic (Mell 2008; Hansen and Pauleit 2014). In the documents we review, we examine which of these functions are invoked in reference to green spaces in SCM planning. For example, references to public health benefits, wellbeing, quality of life, and recreation would indicate considerations of social functions. Climate regulation, pollution reduction, ecological balance, and other such terms would indicate a reference to ecological functions. Finally, the reference to direct economic benefits of green spaces such as increasing revenues to tourism and attracting new businesses would indicate economic functions.

Connectivity

A key element in achieving multifunctionality to deliver multiple benefits, especially the ecological benefits, is connectivity across green spaces (Mell 2008; Lennon and Scott 2014). We focus on spatial connectivity (Lennon and Scott 2014) and review the documents, for example, for any references to physically connecting various green spaces – newly planned or existing.

Findings

The first set of findings we present is based on the documentary review of the guidelines of SCM. In the subsection that follows, we present the findings of our analysis of the smart city plans of the four cities that we selected.

Conceptualization of UGS in SCM guidelines

The smart city guidelines, which provide a broad framework for planning by the cities, invoke ‘open spaces’ in two different contexts. First, in the description of smart city features (Government of India 2016, guideline 3.1.iv):

Preserving and developing open spaces – parks, playgrounds, and recreational spaces in order to enhance the quality of life of citizens, reduce the urban heat effects in Areas and generally promote eco-balance (SCM Guidelines, p: 7)

The first thing to note in this description is that it is not explicit that the ‘open spaces’ be ‘green’ although the types of open spaces mentioned – parks, playgrounds, and recreational spaces – could all potentially be green spaces. More importantly though this description implicitly acknowledges the multifunctionality, though it does so rather vaguely. Reducing the urban heat island effect and promoting eco-balance could be interpreted as the ecological functions whereas the enhancement of the quality of life of citizens is more consistent with the social functions. The statement does not acknowledge the economic functions.

The second context in which open spaces receive mention in the guidelines is in the description of ‘essential features’ (Government of India 2016, guideline 6.2, p.7) that cities must include in their smart city plans. The guidelines require that the proposed plans indicate how the cities would use open spaces innovatively. The guidelines do not elaborate on what constitutes ‘innovative use.’ Further to the guidelines, the SCM had developed a template that must be used by cities for their application in the second stage of the competition. This template explicitly identifies 24 features of a smart city as conceptualized in the mission and ‘Open Spaces’ is one of those features (feature # 8). This feature is defined in this template as follows:

A Smart City has sufficient and usable public open spaces, many of which are green, that promote exercise and outdoor recreation for all age groups. Public open spaces of a range of sizes are dispersed throughout the City so all citizens can have access (Government of India 2016, Smart City Template, p. 16)

The template thus makes it more explicit than the guidelines that most of the planned open spaces must be green spaces. This definition has a somewhat implicit reference to quantity in its suggestion that open spaces of a range of sizes be developed. This conceptualization also takes into account issues of accessibility by stating that the public spaces be ‘dispersed throughout the City’ so that ‘all citizens’ have access, with a special reference to all ‘age groups.’ Thus accessibility here potentially refers to both proximity and concern for access to different groups, although it is only restricted to age groups. With regards to multifunctionality, this definition recognizes only the social functions of green spaces, in the form of recreation and promoting exercise. There is no discussion of connectivity in this definition.

The other instance within the template document that allows us to explore the conceptualization of UGS in the SCM is where the applicant cities are required to carry out a ‘self-assessment’ of their cities with respect to the 24 smart city features. The document provides guidance on the self-assessment (in Annexure 2) in the form of four possible ‘Scenarios’ (‘baseline’ to ‘advanced’) that help describe the status of a city with regards to a specific smart city feature. The self-assessment by cities should identify the scenario (out of the four possible scenarios) into which the existing status of the city falls and also indicate the scenario that the city aspires to achieve if funded under the Mission. Table 1 shows the four scenarios within the context of the Public Open Spaces feature.

Table 1. Four scenarios for self-assessment by cities under ‘Open Spaces’ feature of SCM

Scenario 1	Scenario 2	Scenario 3	Scenario 4 (advanced)
The city has very few usable public open spaces and very few usable green spaces. Available recreational spaces are located far away and are dispersed at long distances around the city. The few available public open spaces offer a limited variety of experiences for all sections of population and age groups such as places for sport, places for rest, and places for play.	A variety of public open spaces are available in some neighborhoods, but are not available in all the areas of the city or are located far away from residential areas. Many of the open spaces have access restrictions, or are not well maintained. A variety of types of public open spaces may be lacking, such as natural areas, green areas, parks, plazas, or recreation areas.	Most areas of the city have some sort of public open space. There is some variety in the types of public spaces in the city. However, public spaces are sometimes not within easy reach or access of more vulnerable populations and are more restricted in poorer neighborhoods.	Public open spaces are well dispersed throughout the city. Every residential area and work space has access to open space within 10 minutes walking distance. Open spaces are of various types – natural, green, plazas, parks, or recreation areas – which serve various sections of people. Public spaces tend to truly reflect the natural and cultural identity of the city.

An evaluation of these scenarios from the perspective of the four elements that we chose shows that: (i) quantity is invoked by references to the number of usable green spaces, (ii) accessibility is recognized as important, both in terms of proximity (‘10 minutes walking distance’ in Scenario 4) and access to vulnerable and marginalized groups, (iii) multifunctionality is again mostly limited to social function such as recreation and cultural identity, and (iv) connectivity does not receive any consideration.

Taken together, we find that the set of SCM guidelines, which provide a broad framework for cities to plan their open spaces, conceptualize green spaces rather narrowly, mostly as spaces that deliver social functions such as cultural identity, recreation, and space for physical activity. It is not surprising then that within this narrow conceptualization of UGS functions, spatial connectivity across green spaces does not receive any attention. Consistent with the more traditional UGS planning, accessibility concerns take the centre stage while quantity is also recognized as an important aspect of green space planning.

UGS considerations in the four city case studies

The plans of the four randomly selected cities – Gwalior, Chandigarh, Bhagalpur, and Udaipur – were studied against our four elements of UGS conceptualization. Our analysis is summarised in Table 2. The analysis shows that there is heterogeneity across the four cities in the extent to which they incorporate the four elements of UGS conceptualization. This raises the question with regards to influences that may be causing such variations because all cities use the same SCM framework discussed in the previous section.

Table 2. Summary of findings from four case studies based on the conceptual framework

City	Quantity	Functionality	Accessibility	Connectivity
Gwalior	The SCP provides baseline statistics on open spaces and estimates the open spaces to constitute 2.46% of the municipal area, translating to 1.85 m^2 per capita. The plan aims to meet URDPFI guideline of 10 m^2 per person open space in the next five years. Its ABD plan claims to to increase the green space in the selected area (Maharaj Bada) from a baseline of 1% to approximately 13%.	Unorganized and inaccessible open spaces are termed to deteriorate ‘quality of urban lifestyle’ suggesting a general function of enhancing the quality of urban life. Most of the ABD plans that increase the open spaces, such as riverfront rejuvenation and upgradation of existing parks, are discussed under ‘Recreation and social’ module suggesting recreation as the main function of open/green spaces. No other functions find any reference in the plan.	Access: There is no explicit discussion of access but the plan mentions ‘walkable range’ as a criterion in the development of open spaces. Such a range is not operationalized anywhere. Social inclusion: With regard to public open spaces, the city aims to ‘ensure equitable distribution. (Gwalior SCP, Annexure 2, An 2–3).’ There is no further elaboration of the meaning of equitable distribution. In the ABD plans, one aspect of upgradation of seven existing parks is to build children- and elderly-friendly infrastructure.	No discussion on the need to connect various green spaces nor any of the plans reflect such an intent.
Bhagalpur	The city plan does not quantify the baseline levels of green space in the city nor refer to any national or international guidelines on the amount of green space. However, the ABD plan claims to increase the open space within the selected area by 15%.	‘Relief and recreational areas’ and ‘green lungs of the city’ are the references associated with open spaces, thus suggesting recreation is an important function. The ABD plan associates development of open spaces with better health, recreation, and quality of life, claiming that ‘Public health improvement is directly linked to creation of open spaces (Bhagalpur SCP, p: 28),’ and ‘improved quality of life (Bhagalpur SCP, p: 37).’	No discussion in the plan in terms of access or social inclusion in the context of open spaces. The only reference comes in its vision for developing open spaces as ‘inclusive zones providing relief and recreation (Bhagalpur SCP, Annexure 2, p: 1).’ We have no further information in the plan on the nature of such inclusion.	There is only one vague reference to connectivity when the plan uses the term ‘integrated open space network (Bhagalpur SCP, Annexure 2, p: 1)’ in its vision to develop open spaces.
Chandigarh	Chandigarh’s SCP states that 33% of the city’s geographical area comprise of green and other open spaces. The total planned green area is about 10 km^2. Chandigarh is home to the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary spread over 26 km^2. The city has 1600 neighborhood parks, 68 green belts, and 26 gardens. A 46 acre plaza in Sector 17, a prominent public interaction space, includes some green spaces. While Chandigarh plans to strengthen its public open space infrastructure, the extent to which green cover will increase is unclear from the SCP. The SCP just mentions that 31.6 acres of paved plazas and surface parking areas within the ABD zone will be converted into landscaped public spaces to reduce urban heat island effect. The SCP does not specify whether the city’s aim is to meet or exceed any urban green space planning standards.	The vision states that ‘the City will focus on preservation of existing natural green environment, providing public spaces for recreational activities and reduction in Lifestyle Diseases (Chandigarh SCP, p: 15),’ clearly acknowledging the social functionality of green spaces. The other function that the city foresees for its green spaces is to reduce urban heat island effect ‘by replacing paved plazas in ABD with softscape and landscaped surfaces (Chandigarh SCP, p: 16).’ A few more ecosystem functions of green spaces envisaged in the plan include: (i) ‘protected areas management securing corridors for species migration for 450 acres until 2030,’ (ii) ‘promotion of natural regeneration and mixed species and planting’, and (iii) ‘eco restoration of degraded lands’ (Chandigarh SCP Annexures, p: 2).	Access: Chandigarh’s SCP states that a park or a green belt is already available within 100 m of all neighborhoods. The proposal does not include any targets for increasing access further. Social inclusion: As part of the city’s livability agenda, Chandigarh aims to increase outdoor activity spaces and playgrounds for children. This, the proposal argues, will help promote social, intellectual, and cultural interactions, and result in active, healthy communities. Chandigarh aims to develop its ABD zone as a ‘model of social equity that emphasizes investments and enhancement of public spaces (public realm, streets, plazas or buildings etc) catering to the needs and comfort of all irrespective of age, gender or income levels’ (Chandigarh SCP, p. 24). The ABD proposal includes specific plans for upgrading or developing playgrounds for children and plazas with green landscaping.	There is no discussion on the need to connect various green spaces. The SCP discusses the need to reduce forest fragmentation by conserving contiguous forest patches.
Udaipur	Udaipur’s SCP does not quantify baseline urban green space availability. It plans for ‘more, and higher quality, usable open space (Udaipur, SCP, p:38)’ indicating some focus on increasing the quantity. Although Udaipur values its existing public realm and recognizes the importance of upgrading and developing public open spaces, the extent to which green cover of the city or the ABD zone will increase as a result of the proposed interventions is unclear.	In the ABD of Udaipur, the development and upgradation of parks was targeted ‘to impact the children and general public’ especially because ‘a large no. of government schools do not have play grounds (Udaipur SCP, p. 42).’ Thus the green spaces are clearly targeted to serve social functions. None of the other functions figure in Udaipur’s plan.	Access: Udaipur’s SCP does not specify any measurable targets for increasing access to urban green spaces of various types or scales. The SCP, however, recognizes the importance of the lakefront as a distinctive place, and aims at providing all sections of the urban population access to the water. The plan for the ABD zone includes strategies for increasing the availability of parks for schools. Social inclusion: The ABD proposal states that ‘the parks once developed shall be commonly used by the locals and government schools inside the walled city since a large no. of government schools do not have playgrounds’ (Udaipur SCP, p. 42). Moreover, ‘integration of development of small parks within the walled city along with provision of grounds for the local government in close proximity will have significant positive impact to make the walled city a “child friendly” space’ (Udaipur SCP, p. 43).	Udaipur’s ABD proposal includes a plan for networking (connecting) parks with each other and with walking routes, and creation of a connected public promenade along the Pichola Lake. Although connectivity of green spaces at the city level is not discussed, the city ‘aspires to develop hierarchy of well dispersed public open spaces, right from their neighbourhood to city level using the new and already available variety of public open spaces (parks, lakes, hills, chowks, etc.) to meet the national and international standards’ (Udaipur SCP Annexure, p. 1).

Quantity

With regards to quantity, two cities – Gwalior and Chandigarh – provide detailed information, such as the number of open spaces under various categories (e.g. parks and playgrounds) and the corresponding area covered under each category; the other two cities have no quantitative information. Gwalior specifies a clear long-term target (10 sq.m. per person) for open space development and uses an established national standard (Government of India 2015b) as the benchmark. Udaipur vaguely refers to meeting ‘national and international standards’ while the other two cities do not invoke any national or international standards for the quantity of green spaces.

Accessibility

In terms of accessibility, none of the cities set a clear, quantitative target for providing access, although all the cities do mention access as an important criterion. In terms of social inclusion, some cities explicitly mention children and/or elderly as target groups for improving access while others use vague terms such as ‘inclusive zones’ and ‘equitable distribution,’ without operationalizing what constitutes ‘equitable’ and ‘inclusive’ and which groups are being targeted.

Multifunctionality

All the four cities typically view any form of open or green space to primarily meet the recreational needs of the citizens, thus predominantly focusing on the social function of green spaces as opposed to the ecological and economic functions. Bhagalpur and Chandigarh associate open spaces with public health, Gwalior with enhancing urban quality of life, and Udaipur views ‘clean and pollution-free environment’ as a benefit of developing open spaces. Only Chandigarh conceptualizes their green spaces to serve some ecological functions such as reducing urban heat island effects, ecological restoration of degraded lands, and protected green areas for species migration. None of the cities positions green spaces from the perspective of economic functions.

Connectivity

Consistent with the broader framework of SCM, spatial connectivity across green spaces does not find much discussion in the four city plans. Bhagalpur vaguely refers to ‘integrated open space network’ but does not discuss the nature of integration envisaged under the plan. Udaipur is relatively more explicit in articulating connectivity by proposing a plan to connect parks with each other and other green spaces as a connected network. The plan, however, does not indicate why such a networking of green spaces is important.

Given that the SCM template for cities developed a general set of open space planning criteria, applicable to all cities, what explains the heterogeneity across the cities we study? Within the sample of cities in our study, it appears that the centrality of open spaces in the cities’ larger smart city planning discourse varies. First, the planning process includes inputs from urban experts, city-elected officials, and citizens. Second, the smart city guidelines, while specifying 24 defining features of smart cities, allow cities to determine the relative importance they place on each of these features. For example, the guidelines describe four scenarios (baseline to advance) for each feature and the cities can choose the scenario they aspire to achieve, depending on the centrality accorded to any given feature. To the extent that the resources are limited, one would expect the cities to prioritize among the 24 defining features based on the preferences of their stakeholders.

Discussion and implications

Our study on the conceptualization of green spaces in one of the largest urban planning programmes in India – the SCM – shows, on the one hand, that open/green spaces are clearly recognized as one of the important features of smart urban development. In light of the declining trend of green spaces in Indian cities because of the developmental pressures (e.g. Govindarajulu 2014), explicit recognition of green spaces as an important component of smart urban planning is an encouraging sign. However, neither the broader SCM framework nor our city case studies clearly specify targets for increasing the quantity of green spaces to meet national and international standards. We also find that the plans we studied recognize equitable access to green spaces as an important principle of planning, although most discussion is confined to different age groups (i.e. children and elderly) and not so much towards other vulnerable and marginalized groups.

Our analysis of the SCM shows, more importantly, that green spaces are still largely conceptualized as monofunctional, mainly useful for delivering recreational and physical health benefits. The lack of any substantive discussion of connectivity across planned green spaces within the Mission further reinforces the argument that the green spaces are not quite viewed as multifunctional⁴. This conceptualization in the SCM is more in alignment with the traditional UGS planning and lags global practice, which is increasingly moving towards the use of the concept of GI as the guiding approach to UGS planning. The GI concept provides an approach in which green spaces can be designed as a network of connected spaces to deliver multiple functions – ecological, social/cultural, and economic (Lennon 2015). Our finding is consistent with other related studies, which find that the concept of GI is virtually absent in the spatial plans of Indian cities⁵ (e.g. Kumar and Geneletti 2015). This inability or unwillingness to recognize the multifunctional potential of UGS has significant implications for urban planning in India.

At the core of it, the inability to conceptualize UGS as multifunctional, delivering multiple benefits when designed appropriately, undervalues UGS in the planning process, leading to its under-provision. This study shows that none of the cities in our sample even discusses the potential economic benefits, which are more easily measurable than the ecological benefits of green spaces. Even Udaipur, which is a well-known tourist city, does not position the green spaces as having economic potential through increasing tourism. The inability of environmental planners to articulate the multifunctional nature of UGS will make it difficult to persuade policymakers to prioritize UGS over other developmental needs. For example, Lennon (2015) shows in the case of Ireland that environmental planners found it difficult to find political support for green space development until they started associating these spaces with multifunctionality and introduced the term ‘infrastructure,’ which the policymakers associate with valuable investments. A stream of UGS literature is also now developing methods to place a monetary value on the multiple benefits of GI to generate greater support for GI (e.g. Vandermeulen et al. 2011; Wilker and Rusche 2014). Economic valuation is controversial, especially in valuing benefits such as regulating services; however, in the short run, conceptualizing UGS as multifunctional assets is perhaps critical for generating greater political support.

Another critical area where a multifunctional conceptualization of green spaces is important is in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Because of the failure of the global and national policies to effectively guide climate change mitigation actions, in many countries the policy action is shifting to local governments (Rosenzweig et al. 2010). A strand of new research argues that UGS and more broadly GI must be an important component of the strategies to address climate change adaptation (e.g. Mell 2009; Demuzere et al. 2014; Sussams et al. 2015; Matthews et al. 2015) and is likely a cost-effective strategy in developing countries (Govindarajulu 2014). In our analysis of UGS planning in the SCM, we find that reducing heat island effect, which is potentially a climate change adaptation action, is the only climate-related benefit of green spaces that receives any attention. We could not find any reference to climate change mitigation or adaptation in the discussion of green spaces. At a time when Indian cities are facing significant vulnerabilities from climate change (e.g. Kumar et al. 2016), it would be a missed opportunity to not conceptualize and plan UGS more broadly to tackle climate change mitigation and adoption.

Even if multifunctionality is recognized, planning for multifunctional UGS is not necessarily straightforward. None of the pan-city development plans (i.e. the city scale plans) of the four cities that we analysed considers green space planning at a city-level scale. On the one hand, this is not surprising because there was no assessment of multifunctionality or connectivity even at a sub-city scale (i.e. in the area-based development plans). On the other hand, this may mean that assessment tools that enable more holistic planning process would be beneficial to planners. One such tool is strategic environmental assessment (SEA), which extends project-level assessment to plans, policies, and programmes (Fischer 2007).

Rationale for SEA in the assessment of urban plans is well rooted in the Indian system as Environmental Assessment (EA) at project level (known as Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA) has been made mandatory in India since 1994 (Jha-Thakur 2011). In the last 25 years since EIA has been practiced under the EIA Notification of 1994, there have been calls to introduce SEA in India and even made mandatory (e.g. see Erlewein 2013; Rathi 2017). Such a holistic assessment at a city-scale could help identify, for example, issues of spatial connectivity across green spaces to develop more multifunctional spaces. The mandatory citizen participation process introduced within the SCM may also prove beneficial in SEA, which requires stakeholder engagement in the assessment process as an important procedural step. The use of SEA would also be consistent with calls in the international literature to bring GI and ecosystem services thinking into the SEA process at the level of plans (e.g. Niemelä et al. 2010). With such large-scale urban transformations being carried across emerging economies like India, incorporating environmental considerations at a regional scale will enable to consider associated pressing issues such as climate change and health and wellbeing (e.g. See Fischer et al. 2010; Hetmanchuk 2019). It should be noted that SEA has already been tried within Urban Planning in India (e.g. see Mukherjee and Rajvanshi 2016), but integrating it with the SCM will further enable to create baseline data and accordingly monitor how the mission is delivering within urban planning in terms of sustainability or other specific environmental parameters such as climate change.

Conclusions and directions for future research

Because of the increasing pressure on limited resources, governments in rapidly urbanizing developing countries have to make difficult allocation decisions across several competing demands. In this context, the declining trends in green spaces, which can potentially deliver a wide range of social, ecological, and economic benefits, have been a concern. In this study, we analyze how Indian cities conceptualize and plan for UGS in the context of one of the largest urban planning initiatives, the SCM. Our main finding is that UGS are still largely conceptualized as monofunctional systems, potentially leading to under-provision. Our analysis suggests that future planning might benefit from shifting to GI thinking, which views green spaces as spatially connected multifunctional spaces capable of delivering a wide range of benefits, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, which is a highly salient issue in policy discourse. Such a conceptualization will help gain greater political support for UGS development. We recommend incorporating more holistic assessment tools such as SEA and the concept of ecosystem services in the planning process to design multifunctional green spaces to move towards urban sustainability in Indian cities.

Our study is an exploratory study in which we analyze the conceptualization of UGS in the broader SCM framework and examine how a set of four cities translate the broader framework to the level of a city plan. Our study makes a valuable contribution to a relatively thin extant literature that analyzes how environmental considerations are incorporated in city plans in developing countries. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, one should be cautious in generalizing our findings to either the entire SCM programme or the whole urban planning process in India. Future research should evaluate UGS in both SCM context and other similar planning programmes more holistically by looking at a larger set of cities and through the development of a more comprehensive framework for evaluation. Further research is also needed to explore how strategic assessment tools such as the SEA can be best integrated effectively with urban planning programmes and how existing EIA procedure can be effectively used in translating the SCM planning objectives to practice. Also, we have only analyzed the UGS as they are incorporated in the city plans but there could be significant differences in how the plans are translated to execution on the ground. As the plans are actually implemented in various cities, it will be interesting to examine how the cities translate the plans into physical reality.

Notes

1. The urban planning literature uses a variety of terms such as ‘urban open space,’ ‘urban green space,’ and ‘public open space’ to refer to green areas (Ignatieva et al. 2011). Benton-Short et al. (2017) contend that standardization of terminology is challenging and may not even be desirable. Because of this, in this paper, we use open spaces and green spaces interchangeably, recognizing that sometimes green spaces may also refer to only a subset of open spaces (Taylor and Hochuli 2017).

2. There is some variation in terminology used in the literature for these three functions but they broadly refer to ecological, economic, and social functions. For example, Lovell & Taylor (2013) use ecological, production, and cultural functions while Ahern (2007) uses biotic, abiotic, and cultural functions.

3. Lennon and Scott (2014) identifies three kinds of connectivity relevant within GI: spatial, scalar, and institutional. In our case, we use connectivity in the spatial sense, which refers to ‘a physically connected system across the landscape’ (Lennon and Scott 2014, p: 572).

4. This is somewhat surprising because Urban greening guidelines (2014) of Indian government, which came prior to SCM, specifically mention: ‘Protecting green spaces in isolation will often fail to sustain the capacity of urban ecosystems to generate value and they have to be integrated in overall city landscape’ (Government of India 2014, p.3).

5. Mell (2018) is an exception in which the author analyses the development plan of India’s western city of Ahmedabad and finds that the city’s plans, in spite of differences among various stakeholders, appear to be consistent with a GI approach.