You are on page 1of 146

Benchmarking Bangalore City for sustainability

An indicator-based approach

Final Report (Draft)

Principle Researchers

Dr. P. Balachandra
Department of Management Studies & Centre for Sustainable Technologies.
Indian Institute of Science.
Bangalore - 560012, India.
Phone: 91-80-22933268
Fax: 91-80-23600683/23604534
Email: patilb@mgmt.iisc.ernet.in

Prof. B. Sudhakara Reddy.


Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.
Film City Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 065, India.
Tel: 91-22-28416526
Fax: 91-22-28416399
E-mail: sreddy@igidr.ac.in

April 2013

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 8
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8
1..1

Background.............................................................................................................. 8

1..2

Urbanisation and its impacts.................................................................................. 10

1..3

Urban sustainability ............................................................................................... 11

1..4

Megacities and sustainability................................................................................. 12

1..5

Indicators of Sustainability .................................................................................... 14

1..6

Objectives, scope and the expected out comes ...................................................... 16

1..7

Urban sustainability Bangalore .......................................................................... 17

1..8

Chapter Schema ..................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 20
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY.................................................................................. 20
2..1

Urban sustainability indicators: Background ........................................................ 20

2..2

Urban Sustainability Indicators Literature Review ............................................ 21

2..3

Objectives and Scope............................................................................................. 36

2..4

Methodology.......................................................................................................... 37

2..5

Benchmarking Urban Sustainability - A Gap analysis approach .......................... 48

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 51
PROFILING BANGALORE CITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY .......................................... 51
3..1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 51

3..2

Demographic profile .............................................................................................. 52

3..3

Land use................................................................................................................. 54

3..4

Economic Profile ................................................................................................... 55

3..5

Household Characteristics ..................................................................................... 57

3..6

Household Assets .................................................................................................. 59

3..7

Education ............................................................................................................... 60

3..8

Transport................................................................................................................ 61

3..9

Energy.................................................................................................................... 63

3..10

Resource Consumption ...................................................................................... 65

3..11

Municipal solid waste ........................................................................................ 65

3..12

Emission inventory ............................................................................................ 66

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 67
3

BENCHMARKING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY A COMPOSITE URBAN


SUSTAINABILITY INDEX FOR BANGALORE ............................................................. 67
4..1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 67

4..2

Dimensions of Sustainability ................................................................................. 67

4..3

Categories of Sustainability ................................................................................... 69

4..4

Indicators of Urban Sustainability ......................................................................... 71

4..5

Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability..................................................... 76

4..6

Comparing Indicators of Urban Sustainability with Threshold Values ................ 80

4..7

Normalized Indicators of Urban Sustainability ..................................................... 81

4..8 Composite Indicator Values of different Categories and Dimensions of


Sustainability .................................................................................................................... 84
4..9
4..10

Developing a composite Urban Sustainability Index (USI) .................................. 86


Benchmarking Urban Sustainability .................................................................. 87

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 92
BENCHMARKING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY COMPARING CITIES ................... 92
5..1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 92

5..2

Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability for the Cities ............................... 94

5..3

Normalized Indicators of Urban Sustainability for Cities ..................................... 98

5..4 Composite Indicator Values of different Categories and Dimensions of


Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 100
5..5

Developing a composite Urban Sustainability Index (USI) ................................ 102

5..6

Benchmarking Urban Sustainability Comparing five cities ............................. 103

CHAPTER 6 .......................................................................................................................... 109


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................. 109
6..1

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 109

6..2

Summary.............................................................................................................. 110

6..3

Important Findings .............................................................................................. 113

6..4

Implementing the Benchmark initiative .............................................................. 115

6..5

Inputs for Policies ................................................................................................ 116

6..6

Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 119

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 121


ANNEXURE 1 - Website References ................................................................................ 136

List of Tables
Table 2.1: List of Indicators ..................................................................................................... 42
Table 3.1: The Population growth in Bangalore (1901 - 2011) ............................................... 53
Table 3.2: Demographic data for Bangalore (2001-2011) ....................................................... 54
Table 3.3: Land use pattern (%) ............................................................................................... 55
Table 3.4: Per capita GDP, income and exports (2011) .......................................................... 56
Table 3.5: Households by Ownership and dwelling Status ..................................................... 57
Table 3.6: Profile of Housing and amenities ........................................................................... 58
Table 3.7: Households by Main Source of Drinking Water .................................................... 59
Table 3.8: Number of Households Having Specified Vehicle Assets ..................................... 60
Table 3.9: Households Having Specified Electronic Assets .................................................... 60
Table 3.10: Education - Civic Statistics ................................................................................... 61
Table 3.11: Vehicle Population (million) in Bangalore (2010) ............................................... 63
Table 3.12: Electricity use by sector ........................................................................................ 63
Table 3.13: Households by Type of Fuel Used For Cooking .................................................. 64
Table 3.14: Households by Main Source of Lighting .............................................................. 65
Table 3.15: Resource Consumption per capita ........................................................................ 65
Table 3.16: Municipal solid waste Generation (TPD) ............................................................. 66
Table 3.17: Emission inventory in Bangalore (t/day) .............................................................. 66
Table 4.1: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension ................................... 73
Table 4.2: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension ......................................... 74
Table 4.3: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension ............................ 75
Table 4.4: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Institutional/Governance Dimension ............ 76
Table 4.5: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension ............... 77
Table 4.6: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension ..................... 78
Table 4.7: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension ....... 79
Table 4.8: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Institutional/Governance
Dimension ................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 4.9: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Comparing with Threshold Values............... 82
Table 4.10: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Normalized Indicator Values...................... 83
Table 4.11: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability...................................................... 86
Table 5.1: Comparing important indicators ............................................................................. 93
5

Table 5.2: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension ............... 95


Table 5.3: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension ..................... 96
Table 5.4: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension ....... 97
Table 5.5: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Normalized Indicator Values........................ 99
Table 5.6: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability...................................................... 101
Table 5.7: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability and Composite Urban Sustainability
Index (USI) ............................................................................................................................ 102

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 The World Urban Explosion .................................................................................... 9


Figure 1.2 Urban sustainability: as the intersection of two phenomena. ................................. 14
Figure 2.1: Fields of Sustainable Development ....................................................................... 40
Figure 2.2 : Benchmarking Urban Sustainability .................................................................... 49
Figure 4.1: Benchmarking Economic Sustainability ............................................................... 88
Figure 4.2: Benchmarking Social Sustainability ..................................................................... 89
Figure 4.3: Benchmarking Environmental Sustainability........................................................ 90
Figure 4.4: Benchmarking Urban Sustainability ..................................................................... 91
Figure 5.1: Benchmarking Economic Sustainability Comparing Cities ............................. 104
Figure 5.2: Benchmarking Social Sustainability Comparing Cities ................................... 105
Figure 5.3: Benchmarking Environmental Sustainability Comparing Cities ..................... 106
Figure 5.4: Benchmarking Urban Sustainability Comparing Cities ................................... 107
Figure 5.5: Comparing Urban Sustainability Index (USI) ..................................................... 108

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1..1

Background

Cities are at the forefront of global socio-economic change and rapid urbanisation is a
phenomenon of the 20th century. Half of the worlds population now lives in urban areas and
the other half increasingly depends upon cities for economic, social, cultural and political
activities. It is now widely acknowledged that the impact of urbanisation 1 will continue to
bring about major global and local changes in economic, environmental and social arenas.
Urbanisation is high in developed countries with as high as 75 per cent of its population
living in cities. Urbanisation is now commonly regarded as one of the most important social
processes, also having enormous impact on the environment at local, regional and global
scales (Anon, 2000). In the developing world, urbanization is occurring at an accelerating
pace, accompanied by the creation of some very large urban aggregations and megacities.
The magnitude and speed of urban growth are an unprecedented phenomenon in the history
of the world. Figure 1.1 gives a perspective of the percentage of the worlds population living
in rural and urban areas right from 1900 onwards up to 2100 (Anon, 2006) clearly showing a
shift to urban areas and a clear decrease in rural population.

A shift from a predominantly rural to a urban society. Urbanization is not synonymous with urban sprawl. It is
a process of sustainable densification with respect to urban environment and eventually upgrades a city into a
metropolis.

Figure 1.1 The World Urban Explosion


Cities can be defined by population, by administrative jurisdictions, by function and by
territory (Kyrkoua and Karthaus, 2011 and European Foundation, 1998). Population- and
jurisdiction-based definitions depend on the availability of data, which often are unreliable
for extended urban agglomerations with multiple jurisdictions. Satellite photographs taken at
night of light illumination on the surface of the earth provide a clear picture of urbanisation.
Function (e.g. services, industries, transportation hubs) and territory can help separate cities
from other human aggregates, such as villages or barrios. Historically, the growth of urban
concentration is the result of the invention of agriculture and of the surplus of food it
produced. As cities have become increasingly concentrated sites for the generation of
knowledge and the development of science and technology, they have, in turn, with that
knowledge, impacted agriculture which, today, absorbs from the outside (fertilizers, fuel,
etc.) over four times the energy it produces in the form of food.

In developing countries, the pace of urbanisation is rather slow and thus the share of urban
population stood at about 45 per cent in 2010. The population living in urban areas in 2010
was 3.6 billion which is four times higher than in 1950, which is likely to rise to 5 billion by
2030 showing a net addition of 1.4 billion to the world population, largely to cities and towns
in developing countries. In contrast, the addition to the urban population of developed

countries will only be 0.1 billion. The magic number of one billion urban population was
reached as recently as 1961 and it took only a quarter of a century to add another billion, and
later only 15 years for another billion. In 1950, there were only two megacities with
population exceeding 10 million. After six decades, such cities rose in number to 22, of
which 13 belong to developing countries. By 2010, about 12 per cent of the world population
lived in megacities and this will increase to 20% by 2020. This clearly shows the quick pace
and irresistibility of the urbanisation process.
1..2

Urbanisation and its impacts

Urbanisation results in major irreversible changes in production and consumption styles. This
will have a significant impact on the carrying capacity of the earth. The diffusion power of
the urbanisation process affects the health, migration, production systems and natural
resource use which in turn influences the global economy. The expansion of a city devours
acres of land and materials for infrastructure like highways, water supply and power. It
intensifies traffic problems on commuting roads from a citys central location to suburban
areas. Hence, it is important to study the rapid urban change that is likely to take place in
developing countries that are least equipped with the means to invest in basic urban
infrastructurewater, sanitation, housingand are unable to provide vital economic
opportunities for urban residents. Thus, the urbanisation process that is being witnessed in
developing countries is to be viewed through socio-economic and environmental
perspectives. It is surprising to note that the urbanisation process is being viewed through a
sustainability lens only in the recent past.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that with increasing urbanisation, resource use has moved
into the very centre of public concern. As population expands and people strive for better
standard of living, the per capita resource use rises many fold. It is not surprising, therefore,

10

that those who advocated "limits to growth" have been ridiculed for years as impractical and
opponents of development. However, in recent years, there seems to be a realisation of the
negative impact of growth, particularly, in the area of "urban development".

The availability of resources, their utilisation and their impact on the economy, environment
and society are important considerations for any urban region. The interconnection among
these suggest that all these crises were symptoms of some common fault that lay deep within
the design of the urban system that governs how resources are produced, transported,
distributed and used. Thus, it is obvious that the idea of studying all these aspects of urban
resource use is more than ever in need of support, as the advances of science and technology
multiply the hazards.

Until recently, growth in resource use was equated with economic and social development.
As with the case of other resources like land, potable water and clean air, energy is
exhaustible. It is also being distributed unevenly and it will become increasingly difficult to
extract and deliver in the future. Finally, the transportation and utilisation of resources are
causing irreversible damage to human and natural environment. However, much of the
information required to deal effectively with these issues is not available. An obvious gap
has been the absence of statistics on resource utilisation. So, even at the beginning of 21st
century, we have no comprehensive urban plan to describe the system, let alone correct its
serious faults in distribution networks and consumption patterns.

1..3

Urban sustainability

Published in 1987, Our Common Future popularized sustainable development as the most
widely accepted framework for considering and tracking humanitys progress (WECD,

11

1987). The sustainable development paradigm is important because it integrates


environmental, social and economic factors as targets of development, and helps us
understand how these three dimensions are linked. Cities also accommodate social, economic
and political systems. Disparity between the rich and poor is a growing problem in urban
areas, and providing services for low-income populations is becoming an increasing
challenge. In addition, cities house an increasing diversity of jobs. While a citys economy is
dependent on many local factors including strategic location and a skilled work force, the
local economy is also tied to wider factors such as the global economy and politics. An
appropriate balance of development pertaining to environmental, social, and economic factors
has become increasingly important and difficult to achieve in our cities.

1..4

Megacities and sustainability

The term mega-city was created by the United Nations in mid-1980 in a study addressing
issues generated by rapid urbanization and a growing population (UNPF, 1997). The common
issues relating to urban energy use include transportation, building and housing, public health
and safety, and an increase in the standard of living. (Phdungsilp, 2005). In 1800 only 3per
cent of the worlds population lived in cities while in 2010 it is over 50 per cent. Big cities
are growing at unprecedented rates and sizes. By 2010, there are 25 megacities with 14 of
them in Asia alone. Hence, the future of urban regions is a defining theme of the present
generation. In this context, it is important to address issues such as sustainability in the
context of megacities. Meeting the challenges ahead will require a deeper understanding of
these issues to facilitate appropriate urban policies and management practices.

In general, it is recognised that, in order to respond to the idea of sustainability, urban areas
have to maintain an internal equilibrium among economic activity, population growth,
infrastructure and services, pollution, waste, noise, etc., in such a way that urban system and
12

its dynamics evolve in harmony, internally limiting, as much as possible, impacts on the
natural environment. Thus, for this purpose, there is a need to understand concepts of urban
sustainability. It is difficult to give one definition to sustainable urban development since
sustainability is fundamentally a complex and multilateral issue. Many terms like Green
urbanism, Urban Sustainable Development, Eco-cities, Green Cities, and Sustainable Cities
are used. Girardet in Cities, People, Planet, defines a sustainable city as one which
enables all its citizens to meet their own needs and enhances their well-being without
degrading the natural world or the lives of other people, now or in the future (Girardet, 2008).

Urban systems emerge as distinct entities from the complex interactions among social,
financial, and cultural attributes, and information, energy, and material stocks and flows that
operate on different temporal and spatial scales. The paradigm of sustainability has emerged
as the key concern in regard to the future. Sustainable urban development specifically means
achieving a balance between the development of the urban areas and protection of the
environment with an eye to equity in employment, shelter, basic services, social
infrastructure and transportation in the urban areas. Obviously, at the simplest level,
sustainability is survival, but as human organizations and cities become more complicated,
sustainability itself becomes more complex.

Urban sustainability is defined by the intersection of both urbanization and global


sustainability and is depicted in Figure 1.2.

13

Figure 1.2 Urban sustainability: as the intersection of two phenomena.

In the context of rapid urbanization in developing countries, it is essential that we apply the
concept of sustainability in policy and planning decisions. However, the criteria for
sustainability differ between developed and developing countries. These differences prohibit
us from transferring the models of sustainability from advanced societies to those which lag
behind. In such a scenario, we have to develop different models which can be applied to the
urban regions of developing countries.

1..5

Indicators of Sustainability

Indicators can play an important role in turning data into relevant information for policy
makers and help in decision-making. They also simplify a complex and large information
base. In this way, the indicators provide a synthesis view of existing situation. The
indicators have become well established and are widely used in diverse fields and at various
levels, viz., global, regional, national and local (Anon, 2000). Examples of indicators include
such measurements as GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as a way of assessing economic
development in a country, the infant mortality rate (IMR) as an indicator of the health status
of a community, or the rise in carbon emissions as a way of estimating the environmental
conditions of a region. The selection criteria for the construction of indicators include factors

14

such as transparency, scientific validity, robustness, sensitivity and the extent to which they
are linkable to each other. The main criteria for the selection of indicators include:

Easily understood by stakeholders;

Related to the interests of various stakeholders;

Measurable using the available data at city and national levels; and

Clearly related to urban policy goals and capable of being changed

To be useful, indicators should be user-driven and depend on factors and the purpose for
which they are to be used. The indicators could be assessed depending on their relevance to
the issue they are intended to describe and to changes in policy and practice. In developing
the indicators, certain parameters are especially adhered to. These include:
(i)

Importance for policyrelevant to policies and directly measure outcomes

(ii)

Comprehensiveprovide a broad overview of the economic, social and environmental


'health' of the city

(iii) Priorityidentified based on priority


(iv) Easily understoodsimple and reliable
(v)

Cost effective and timelyinformation to be collected in a cost effective way

(vi) Measurablelikely to show the magnitude of the problem


(vii) Sensitiveflexible enough to accept changes
(viii) Independenceseparate indicators are used to measure different outcomes

The applicability of the criteria depends on the indicator in question, and the purpose of the
indicator to be used. However, no single set of criteria will be applicable to all indicators and
all situations since each have priorities for data collection and analysis.

15

1..6

Objectives, scope and the expected out comes

Sustainability indicators quantify performance, providing clear and compelling measures of


key trends in the environment, social systems, economy, and human well-being. Indicators
measure changes that matter to people. For example, changes in the environment include
things such as the concentration of different pollutants in the air and the amount of resources,
such as water and electricity, consumed, and the quantity of waste produced. Shifts in the
social environment can include factors such as community participation, while economic
changes involve issues such as housing affordability and unemployment rates. Indicators are
presented as charts and graphics, helping to visualize and measure progress in our efforts to
move towards urban sustainability.

The main aim is to investigate whether the present pattern of urban development in India in
the creation of mega cities is sustainable. This has been proposed to be done by performing
an indicator-based evaluation of Bangalore city against some benchmark sustainable cities.
Thus, the objectives of the study include: (i) developing sustainable urban indicator variables
spanning all the relevant sectors of a typical megacity, (ii) developing a benchmark
sustainable indicator-base for a benchmark megacity, (iii) by adopting the same methodology
and same indicators develop the database for Bangalore in India, (iv) comparing and
evaluating the indicator data with the benchmark indicator database using a gap analysis
approach, (v) comparing Bangalore city with selected megacities of the world on
sustainability

benchmark,

and

(vi)

suggesting

appropriate

policy

measures

and

implementation strategies to bridge the identified gaps to attain the goal of sustainable urban
system. In this context, the economic, social, environmental and the governance sub-systems
of an urban are proposed to be studied.

16

The project outcome gives several pointers for further application of the approach developed
in this study. The sustainability indicators developed here can play an instrumental role in
policy making and assessing policy implementation. If sustainability is identified as a
coherent policy goal, it must be measureable to know if we are moving towards or away from
the directions desired, and indicators do exactly that. The indicators represent a primary tool
to provide guidance for policy makers and to potentially assist in decision-making and
monitoring local strategies/plans. The outcome of the study is expected to contribute to the
design of policies, tools, and approaches essential for planning to attain the goal of
sustainable development and the social cohesion of metropolitan regions.

1..7

Urban sustainability Bangalore

With the broad objective of studying the performance and future prospects of emerging
megacities, a city like Bangalore has been selected for the study. It has been chosen for
several reasons.

Compared to other Indian cities, it is one of two cities, which are

cosmopolitan in character (other being Mumbai), and has a large and rising population. This
growing population results in a demand for resources which grows exponentially and is
difficult to manage. It is therefore important to the metabolism patterns as it exhibits
consumption patterns that negatively impact the ecosystem. The indicators for the city are
chosen such that they correspond with policy areas within the mandate of the city.

For our analysis of the Bangalore city as well as the comparable cities, we have analysed four
dimensions of sustainability viz., economic, social, environmental and governance. This
analysis attempts to quantify the impact of human activities on different sub-systems of an
urban system. It measures and analyzes the citys level of resource consumption and
compares with the best in the world. We can plan to achieve the objective of attaining the

17

standards of the benchmark city by implementing sustainable development practices. Studies


like this will help sustainability become a greater focus of development planning in the region
as a whole by demonstrating the interactions between the cities and resource consumption.
The metabolism studies are important tools for assessing the current state of resource
consumption versus sustainability of natural resources. Research was carried out on all the
four of these dimensions of sustainability. The information collected is used to discuss the
resource flows and their impacts to arrive at sustainable indices for these cities.

Applying this approach on a nation-wide scale is difficult, so these urban centres are chosen
to serve as reference case studies and an in-depth analysis is made. We seek to generalise,
but, are aware that differences in urban demographic and other characteristics are
impediments. An in-depth analysis of this nature is bound to throw up some new factors or
eliminate a few existing ones. Either way, the methodology developed here has to be
replicated for other urban settings. This gives all the learning components, just as wisdom
dawns after knowledge is acquired.

1..8

Chapter Schema

Overall, the report contains six chapters. This chapter (Chapter 1) contains introduction of the
research problem that is being addressed, description of the context and the listing of the
specific objectives of the study. The Chapter 2 presents the state-of-the-art developed through
a brief literature review and elaborate discussion on the objectives, scope and methodology of
the research study. Bangalore citys brief profile is presented in Chapter 3 through a
discussion of the different aspects of an urban system economic, demographic,
infrastructure, transport, environment, etc. Our attempt to assess Bangalore city against a
sustainable benchmark city using an indicator-based approach is discussed in Chapter 4. The

18

Chapter 5 presents an attempt to compare five cities, Bangalore, Mumbai, London, Singapore
and Shanghai on a sustainability yardstick using an indicator-based approach. Finally, the
Chapter 6 provides the required summary and conclusion for the report.

19

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

2..1

Urban sustainability indicators: Background

In recent years, the discussion on sustainable development with respect to urban regions has
gained momentum.

The indicators should reveal the fields in which a city is doing better

over others and according to its specific goals. The indicators should contribute to making the
city more visible and transparent, aid in comparison, evaluation and prediction, help construct
and harmonize data banks, provide decision-making with relevant information, stimulate
communication, and promote citizen empowerment and participation (Mega, 2005). The
ability of a city to survive and prosper indefinitely involves factors such as the economy of
the city, the availability of jobs and services, the health and attraction of the urban
environment and the availability of resources, such as water, materials and energy, as well as
space for growth.

In general, sustainability is a subjective concept that refers to a set of social goals such as
improving the welfare of the people and the quality of the environment, having an equitable
distribution of resources, and improvement in health and education systems. In this context,
cities can be seen as focal points for achieving sustainability. They offer many opportunities:
from an energy point of view, the efficiency of cities both in transport and building sectors
has great potential. The provision of services is easy and efficient in an urban area than in
rural regions (Anon, 2003).

Sustainability indicators play a significant role in policy making and assessing policy
implementation. If sustainability is identified as a policy goal, it is essential that we measure
20

the direction of the movement, i.e., whether we are moving towards or away from the
directions desired, and the role of the indicators is to exactly do that. The indicators represent
a tool to provide guidance for policy makers and will potentially assist in decision making
and monitoring local strategies/plans.

2..2

Urban Sustainability Indicators Literature Review

Literature has been reviewed comprehensively for information to pursue the objectives of this
study by gathering it from books, academic journals, government and institutional reports,
sustainable urban development plans and websites.

Sustainability has emerged as a planning concept from its beginnings in economics and
ecological thinking and has widely been applied to urban development. Urban sustainability
is simply described as a desirable state or set of urban conditions that persists over time. Just
as the task of defining sustainability has progressed in response to early economic thinking,
so has the task of its assessment. Ever since sustainable development became the catchword
in most international discussions, several approaches to its assessment have been developed.
Lawrence (1997), considers it as simply applying the broad principles of sustainability to
ascertain whether, and to what extent, various actions might advance the cause of
sustainability. Many urban sustainability assessment methods can be identified from the
literature.

The ecologist Eugene Odum has written that the city is a parasite on the natural and
domesticated environments, since it does not grow food, and dirties its air and water (Odum,
1989). Urban economic activity is based on the continued availability of resources. Past
efforts at the improvement of urban environmental quality have typically concentrated on the
21

protection of environmentally sensitive areas. However, sustainable development, more than


merely `protecting' the environment, requires a paradigm shifteconomic, social and
environmental. Roseland (1991) addressed the implications of sustainable development for
north-American cities by raising the issues of transportation management, land-use planning
and housing, energy conservation and efficiency, waste reduction and recycling, community
livability, and sustainable administration. Urban development needs to be on a sustainable
basis if the long-term health of urban dwellers and integrity of the environment is not to be
irreversibly damaged.

Sustainable urban development develops and grows in harmony with, and can reinforce the
productive potential of, their life-support environments, ranging from local and regional to
global ecosystems (Huang et al., 1995). A key goal for urban policy is, therefore, sustainable
development and the prevention of damage to the life-support functions provided by the
environment. Indicators are bits of information that reject the status of large systems and have
long been useful in science, health, economics and many public policy areas as feedback
mechanisms to decision making.

Indicators represent components or processes of real-world systems. The numeric values of


indicators have a special meaning to particular observers, a meaning that goes beyond the
numerical value itself. For example, the green coverage ratio may be used to represent the
life-support capability of the metropolitan region. Sustainability indicators differ from
classical environmental indicators; they do not simply reject environmental conditions or
pressures on the environment, but indicate interactive characters between socio-economic and
ecological systems (Opschoor and Reijnders, 1991).

22

Urban sustainability indicators are crucial for helping on target setting, performance reviews
and facilitating communication among the policy makers, experts and public (Verbruggen &
Kuik, 1991). A wide range of urban sustainability indicators is therefore in use across the
diversity of different cities and regions, which vary according to their particular needs and
goals (Brandon & Lombardi, 2005; Verbruggen and Kuik, 1991). However, practical
challenges have led to mixed results in applying sustainability indicators in different
environments and sometimes with little gain in sustainability performance (Alshuwaikhat and
Nkwenti, 2002; Seabrooke, et al, 2004; Selman, 1999). It has been argued that one of the
main reasons for failing to attain the desired performance is the inadequate selection of
indicators guiding and monitoring the sustainable urbanization process (Briassoulis, 2001;
Seabrooke et al., 2004). It has also been argued that the lack of consensus on urban
sustainability indicators among different practices has been causing confusion when selecting
and relating them with the objectives defined or policies implemented (Legrand et al., 2007;
Planque and Lazzeri, 2006).

Maclaren (1996) distinguished urban sustainability indicators from simple environmental,


economic, and social indicators by the fact that they are not only integrating, but forwardlooking, distributional, and with input from multiple stakeholders. In this study, urban
sustainability indicators are defined as those which can be used as measurements to represent
the vital signs of our society by telling us in which direction the society is moving.
Development of appropriate sets of indicators is a laborious process and is likely to involve
many arbitrary decisions with variables to select and aggregate.

Evidence of progress on urban sustainability is important for justifying urban management at


a policy level. A significant barrier to determine whether or not a community is marching
23

toward sustainable development is the absence of a clearly articulated methodology for


reporting on urban sustainability (Maclaren, 1996). The challenge for urban planners is to
find indicators which can be easily assessed, and are as reliable as length on a scale.

Hardoy et al., 2001; McGranahan et al., 2005 and Grimm et al., 2008 have well documented
the battle for sustainability highlighting the importance of cities in pursuit of broader
sustainability goals. Despite the fact that there is a rapidly growing literature on good
urban practices, very little is known about how they are practiced and their role in policymaking processes (Bulkeley, 2006).

To develop sustainable communities and cities it is necessary to recognize the progress


towards sustainability. Some method for measuring the direction of current trends and
success or failure of initiatives is crucial. As more and more cities adopt sustainability as a
goal and aim to radically change current ways of cities development, it becomes an urgency
to determine whether the actions taken are indeed leading the communities towards
sustainability. Formulating clearly articulated methods for measuring and reporting on urban
sustainability is a prerequisite in any attempt for sustainable urban development.

In order to measure and evaluate the progress, indicators are used while reporting on urban
sustainability. In general, indicators are parameters or values that provide information about a
phenomenon (Guy and Kibert, 1998). Most of the indicators are, in fact, simplifications of
complex phenomena and provide only an indication of conditions or problems (Whorton and
Morgan, 1975; Clarke and Wilson, 1994). The purpose is to show how well a system is
working. If there is a problem, an indicator can help determine the steps need to be taken to
address the issue. In brief, if chosen properly, indicators can contribute to sustainability
24

debates through two major roles: reducing the amount of data required to describe a situation
fully and facilitating communication with diverse audiences (Keirstead, 2007).

In urban sustainability, indicators of a city reveal the fields in which it is doing better than
others and according to its specific goals. They should contribute to making the city more
visible and transparent, aid in comparison, evaluation and prediction, help construct and
harmonize data banks, provide decision-making with relevant information, stimulate
communication, and promote citizen empowerment and participation (Mega, 2005).

Huang et al. (1998) presented a conceptual framework of the indicator system for measuring
its metropolitan life-support system through economic vitality for enhancing its urban
productivity and quality. Based on the conceptual framework of urban ecological economic
system, 80 indicators, selected with the participation of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), have been used as policy-making indicators for measuring Taipei's urban
sustainability. The policy-making indicators are further aggregated into ten general public
indicators and evaluated using signal lights (green, yellow and red).

Boyko and Cooper (2011) consider a tool kit developed in UK which facilitates the use of
scenarios in any urban context and at any scale relevant to that context. It comprises two key
components, namely, (i) a series of indicators comprising both generic and topic area-specific
indicators (e.g., air quality, biodiversity, density, water) that measure sustainability
performance, and (ii) a list of characteristics (i.e., 12- sentence statements about a feature,
issue or small set of issues) that describe four future scenarios. In combination, these two
components enable them to measure the performance of any given sustainability indicator,
and establish the relative sensitivity or vulnerability of that indicator to different future
25

scenarios. An important aspect of the methodology underpinning the tool kit is that it is
flexible enough to incorporate new scenarios, characteristics and indicators, thereby allowing
the measurement of long-term performance of our urban environments to be considered in the
broadest possible sense.

Rosales (2011) in his paper builds on the background of the recent movement towards the use
of indicators by introducing a carefully chosen set for quantifying sustainability performance
at the urban level and into the planning process. By moving indicators from the ex-post
evaluation of cities performance to an ex-ante stage in which they can be operationalized as
planning tools, this study provides a significant contribution to the traditional urban planning
instruments and provides a step forward with regard to the construction of sustainability
indicators. In this framework, indicators become key instruments in the analysis, design of
policies, strategies, actions and programs for sustainable urban development. The paper
introduces the methodology and the urban sustainable indicators system for planning. This
model is tested and applied in a case study based on Mexico Citys metabolism. It provides a
series of reflections on how successful strategies enhance the long-term sustainability of
cities by developing sustainability indicators into urban planning process.

Keirstead (2007) explores the selection of indicators for urban energy use in London City,
drawing on the work of Maclaren (1996) and Ravetz (2000). Potential urban energy
indicators for London are presented to demonstrate the selection procedure and to highlight
the challenges posed by the measurement of urban energy use. He suggests a mix of data
sources, supported by a strong theoretical framework, to evaluate both urban energy systems
and urban sustainability.

26

Mega and Pedersen state that the European Commission's Report on Sustainable Cities (EC
1996a) recognises the need for indicators as tools for quantifying sustainability performance.
If sustainability is a coherent policy goal, it must be possible to visualize whether we are
moving towards it. The World Bank defines indicators as performance measures that
aggregate information into usable forms, highlighting the unresolved issues of fluctuation,
inter-temporal variations and uncertainty. All experts and organisations involved in indicator
construction seem to agree that indicator development provides a useful tool for policy
making (prospective) and assessing policy implementation (retrospective indictors), but stress
limitations (World Resources Institute, 1994). The suggested set of indicators includes nine
environmental indicators. The indicators for the themes Responsibility for Global Climate,
Acidification of the Environment, Toxification of Ecosystems and Local Disturbances follow
the directions of the Dutch set, with its limitations and its potential (Adriaanse,1993).

Block and Van Assche (1999) put forward an innovative approach for developing SDIs
(Sustainable Development Indicators) for decision-making processes in cities from a
complexity acknowledging perspective. Cities are confronted with multi-level and -actor
governance settings, uncertain evolutions, unplanned policy stream convergences, emergent
problems and opportunities, and that these complex processes and situations requirein
addition to more traditional, rational-normative and actor related approachesa specific way
of dealing with the issues raised by the indicators. It is argued that actor-exceeding and policy
exogenous SDIs, including their construction, through a participative approach, can be used
as a learning and communication instrument for all actors involved in urban development,
elevating the quality of the policy debate and strengthening decision-making processes.

27

Transportation problems in most cities are among the most pressing strategic development
issues. They are major constraints for long-term urban development in general and very
closely related to land development, economic structure, energy policies, and environmental
quality in particular. Since all citizens are either enjoying the transportation system or, and
often at the same time, suffering from it, it is an important element of the urban quality of
life. Therefore, Nathan and Reddy (2012) have proposed a Multi-view Black-box (MVBB)
framework for development of sustainable development indicators (SDIs) for an urban set up.
The framework is flexible enough to be applied to any domain or sector of an urban system.
The proposed framework has been applied for the transportation sector of Mumbai City. The
paper begins with a discussion on transportation sector and its un-sustainability links and
trends. It outlines the concept of sustainable transportation system and reviews some of the
prominent sustainable transportation indicator initiatives. In order to formalize sustainable
development indicators for transportation sector, the study collates the indicators from the
literature, places them in Mumbais context and classifies them into the three dimensions of
urban sustainabilityeconomic efficiency, social well-being and ecological acceptability.

Adinyira et.al (2007) presents an appraisal of the relative potentials and limitations of
methods developed around the three identified methodological foundations. They concur with
the much held view that the available urban sustainability assessment methods fail to
demonstrate sufficient understanding of the interrelations and interdependencies of social,
economic and environmental considerations. It further points to a wide gap between
assessment theories and practices. To help narrow this gap, they recommend a pragmatic shift
in focus, from theory development to application and auditing. A suggestion is made for the
application of key assessment methods in a given urban area and across various issues, spatial
and time scales so as to allow for method comparison. It is hoped that the parallel application
28

of existing methods will greatly accelerate the urban sustainability assessment learning
process and will help in the improvement of both theory and practice.

Marcotullio (2003) considers the process of achieving urban sustainable development as


uncharted. Despite knowing that plans should address the economic, environmental and
social health issues of a city, they can be accomplished only by approaching each of these
issues at different scales. For rapidly developing world cities, sustainability is becoming an
increasingly elusive objective, in part, because of the impacts by forces beyond their borders.
Using the Asia-Pacific region as a case study, a framework is developed relating regional
transnational flows to the state of the urban environment and the social conditions of rapidly
developing cities. The functional city system within the Asia-Pacific is both an engine of
urban growth and the force behind differentiating urban environmental and social issues. At
the same time, while globalization forces have been particularly strong within the cities, local
factors also play a crucial role in urban development. Globalization-driven growth has not
translated into a single path of development rather localities have demonstrated context
specific paths.

Xuemei Bai et.al (2009) examine 30 innovative urban practices in Asia from a system
innovation and urban environmental evolution perspective. This is an attempt to identify
common patterns and pathways that can aid up-scaling and thereby broader application of
effective sustainability practices. They have developed a five-tier framework (e.g. triggers
actorslinkagesbarrierspathways) to explore a successful broad-scale application that
relates to the patterns within each of the tiers and see whether certain combinations of tiers
lead to certain application pathways. The results indicate the importance of policy changes
and cumulative effects; the importance of local government, community and international
29

agencies as main actors; and the prominent role of political and institutional barriers, while
technology doesnt seem to be a major barrier in urban sustainability experiment in Asia. The
results also indicate that those cases that are up-scaled through broader application often have
strong vertical linkages with state or national governments. Many international development
agency initiatives tend to remain as experiments or duplicated elsewhere but are seldom upscaled to change the system of practice. Nearly half of the innovative practices examined
were either mainstreamed or duplicated elsewhere suggesting that these innovative practices
might play an important role in sustainability transitions in Asia.

China has experienced significant economic growth during the last three decades through
urbanization, but many of its ecological and social issues have been marginalized, leading to
problems in public safety, health, and social equity. Such a pattern of development is unlikely
to be sustainable in the long run. These issues and challenges that come with resolving them
are examined by Wang and Hofe (2007) who advocated a holistic and pragmatic approach to
the research and practice of urban sustainability in China.

Kari Lautso et.al (2002) presented a modelling system developed to simulate and evaluate the
impacts of different land-use and transport policies in seven European agglomerations in
terms of sustainability. The system developed is unique in several respects.

The key intellectual challenge for urban policy-makers is a complete understanding of the
complexity of urban systems and their environment.

Zellner et.al (2002) address this

challenge by developing an assessment framework with two main components: (i) a simple
agent-based model of a hypothetical urbanizing area that integrates data on spatial economic
and policy decisions, energy and fuel use, emissions and assimilation, and test how policy
30

decisions affect urban form, consumption and pollution; and (ii) an information index to
define the degree of order and sustainability of the hypothetical urban system in different
scenarios, to determine whether specific policy and individual decisions contribute to the
sustainability of the entire urban system or to its collapse.

Xing et.al (2009) report on the development of an Urban Development Sustainability


Assessment Model (UD-SAM) which allows decision-makers to identify sustainability
indicators (economic, environmental and social) and lead to more holistic evaluation of the
sustainability impact of elements of the urban environment. The UD-SAM builds on a
sustainability assessment model (SAM) developed originally in the oil industry. It describes
how SAM has been tailored for the assessment of construction industry and how a set of
generic sustainable development indicators have been identified and validated by various
stakeholders.

Holden et.al (2008) focus on the role that major global gatherings play in the pursuit of urban
sustainability. To this end, the study examines the outcomes from the United Nations Habitat
II Forum (1996, Istanbul), the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002,
Johannesburg), the World Social Forum (2001, Porto Alegre), and the World Urban Forum 3
(2006, Vancouver). For comparative purposes, the study included reflections on the
contributions made by the United Nations on sustainability and the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) without an accompanying major global gathering.

Barredo and Demicheli (2003) assessed the framework of the European Commissions
MOLAND project and consider urban sustainability issues in African countries with a focus
on urban growth. The need for urban management tools that are able to provide prospective
31

scenarios is addressed. Urban simulations represent a useful approach to an understanding of


the consequences of current planning policies or their incompleteness. Simulations of future
urban growth are usually quite difficult without tools that embrace the complexity of the
urban system. The study describes the growth simulation in Lagos in Nigeria using a dynamic
spatial model prototype. This is a bottom-up approach, integrating land-use factors with a
dynamic modeling arriving at urban land-use scenarios. The model for Lagos was calibrated
and tested using measured time-series data on land use, through a set of spatial metrics and
Kappa (k) coefficients. Afterwards, a 20-year simulation was run until 2020. The simulation
results are realistic and relatively accurate, confirming the effectiveness of the proposed
model.

Kyrkou and Karthaus (2011) discuss the increasing number of scheme operators developing
and running sustainability assessment methods for neighbourhood scale development. The
work suggests that opportunities exist for new approaches to urban sustainability assessment
systems that will allow future research focusing on frameworks with a transparent and
auditable structure as a better response than an ever-more detailed set of criteria for different
urban systems.

Berrini and Bono (2012) share the best practices among cities. The evaluation criteria are
based on the following aspects: (i) the 'greenest' city, (ii) Implementation of efficient and
innovative measures and future commitment, and (iii) Communication and networking.
Policies are described with qualitative information and a selection of local best practices.
McGeough, et al. (2004) state that the consensus of stakeholders in the Bi-national
Metropolitan Region provides the political will and direction for policy decisions. This will
move the region in the appropriate direction for (i) evolution of the new urban design and
32

building systems, (ii) innovative transportation systems, (iii) new solutions for water,
wastewater, and solid and hazardous waste issues, (iv) a new energy system, and (v) delivery
of urban, social, and health services. The same policy decisions will move the region into a
process of sustainable economic development, based on synergies of the Mexican and U.S.
portions of the regional economy that emphasize R&D and advanced technology and services
as well as skilled labor and manufacturing capabilities of the region.

In urban development and sustainability perspectives, urban form and land uses are
fundamentally shaped by transportation. PuiChingin (2005) illustrates how the vertical and
horizontal integration of different institutions and policies and pedestrian environment and
physical linkages should be put on the agenda for sustainable urban form and environmental
qualities. The study argues that transit-oriented development (TOD) cannot be truly
sustainable without an integrated approach and that every ad hoc improvement measure will
be in vain. Embracing the principles of sustainable development, the strength and weakness
of Hong Kong's TOD experience will serve to help local communities reflect upon the
sustainable development agenda. With case study evaluations and findings, the paper
concludes that the potential benefits, including social, economic and environmental, of Hong
Kong's TOD have not been captured to the fullest extent as it is not implemented in an
integrated and coherent approach.

Kouloumpi (2006) focuses on the analysis and comparison of assessment tools for sustainable
urban communities. They include: BREEAM Communities, BREEAM Gebiedsontwikkeling,
GPR Stedenbouw, and LEED for Neighbourhood Development. The main goal of the
comparison is to examine how the four tools assess energy sustainability in the urban

33

environment, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, draw up conclusions for an
improved tool.

The report of the Working Group on Urban Design for Sustainability (2004) identifies
models and strategies of good practice in urban design to support sustainability in EU
(European Union) and EU-accession countries, and present review of best practice and
recommendations for action at all levels. It explores the themes of re-designing and retrofitting existing urban areas, designing for green field sites, and knitting the urban fabric
together to achieve an integrated city-wide vision. The themes are explored within the
broader context of achieving sustainable urban development in Europe. The report sets out
the main issues to be faced by Europe as whole in response to a common set of mega
trends. It sets out a vision of Urban Design for Sustainability in the European context. It is
an inclusive and participatory planning, design and management process that aims at creating
socially integrated and inclusive places; promotes equitable economic development;
conserves land; looks at towns and cities in relation to one another and their hinterlands;
ensures the strategic location of new developments in relation to the natural environment and
transport systems; ensures development is mixed and of appropriate density; includes a welldeveloped green structure and a high-quality and well-planned public infrastructure and
builds upon the existing cultural heritage and social capital.

Nickl (2004) portrays and analyses Santiago de Chiles new integrated transport system, Tran
Santiago, and identifies the three key components that are essential in the context of
achieving urban sustainabilityvisionary leadership, institutional stringency and widespread
public participation. Tran Santiago was considered a failure when compared with the initial

34

aims and objectives and the huge social cost involved and the lack of environmental and
economic benefits that the system has created.

An increase in environmental load from the transport sector is of particular concern in Asian
mega-cities due to the anticipated increase of automobile traffic. KATO et.al (2005) proposes
a framework for an inter-city comparison of Asian mega-cities to evaluate their states of
urban spatial structure, transport and environmental situation. Motorization, as the dominant
factor increases environmental load from the transport sector, has the characteristics of
irreversibility and synergism with urban sprawl. To deal with such issues, five topics are
introduced: i) induced vehicle traffic due to road improvement, ii) relationship between
vehicle-related taxation and road budget, iii) relationship between public transport
improvement and motorization, iv) impact of urban planning and land-use management, and
v) public consensus for enforcing policy measures for Environmentally Sustainable Transport
(EST). Finally, they point out the necessity of benchmarking based on the given five topics
for inter-city comparison and relative evaluation.

Fedra (2004) describes the methodology and application examples of SUTRA, Sustainable
Urban Transportation project under the EU Energy, Environment and Sustainable
Development Research Programme. The primary objective of SUTRA is to develop a
consistent and comprehensive model-based approach and planning methodology for the
analysis of urban transportation problems to support design strategies for sustainable cities.
This includes an integration of socio-economic, environmental and technological concepts
including the development, integration, and demonstration of simulation tools to improve
scenario design, assessment and policy-level decision support. Combining the indicator based
approach with simulation modelling ranging from techno-economic optimisation to street
35

canyon modelling, the methodology ranges from awareness building end educational aspects
for citizens and stake-holders participating in urban decision-making processes to detailed
technical modelling and optimisation results for the planning professional.

Joe and Ralph (2006) describe the principles of sustainability and ecologically sustainable
development (ESD) which are widely accepted as important components of urban planning
and development. However, the activity on the incorporation of ESD principles into the
planning and design of the broader urban form is yet pick up pace. This study focuses on
assessment tools aimed at the suburb or precinct scale, presenting a representative review of
the existing initiatives. It highlights the strength and a weakness of the approaches reviewed,
and proposes directions for the provision of assessment tools to improve the ecological
sustainability performance of urban development.

There has been little attempt to identify commonalities across a large number of individual
cases. To anticipate the consequences of urban growth in the megacities of developing
countries is a difficult task. There are complex rules at work that make difficult the
forecasting of urban dynamics. This present study develops a set of Urban Sustainable
Indicators which helps in designing a sustainable framework. The study addresses issues
concerning social, economic, environment and infrastructure activities of the city.

2..3

Objectives and Scope

The key research objective of the project is to investigate whether the present pattern of urban
development in India that results in creation of mega cities is sustainable. This would be
carried out by performing an indicator-based evaluation of Bangalore city, the emerging
megacity of India, against a hypothetical sustainable mega city developed based on threshold
36

indicators (maximum and minimum) derived from the best and the worst indicator values
from cities across the world. For this investigation, a benchmark sustainable indicator-base
would be developed using the threshold indicator values, which could be categorized as a
sustainable megacity (hypothetical city) based on its performance against different indicators.
The proposed study will have the following specific objectives: (i) developing sustainable
urban indicator variables spanning all the relevant sectors of a typical megacity, (ii)
developing a benchmark sustainable indicator-base using sustainability threshold values, (iii)
by adopting the same methodology and same indicators develop the database for Bangalore
city, (iv) comparing and evaluating the indicator data with the benchmark indicator database
using a gap analysis approach, (v) comparing Bangalore city with selected megacities of
the world on sustainability benchmark, and (vi) suggesting appropriate policy measures and
implementation strategies to bridge the identified gaps to attain the goal of sustainable urban
system.

Household, industrial, commercial and transport activities are proposed to be

examined in the context of resource utilization and benefit sharing. The project outcomes are
expected to contribute to the design of policies, tools, and approaches essential for planning
to attain the goal of sustainable development and the social cohesion of metropolitan regions.

2..4

Methodology

The projects basic aim is to study the phenomenon of urbanization and creation of mega
cities and their impact on social, environmental and economic developments. Towards this
objective, the study performs a comparative assessment of urbanization in India by studying
Bangalore and evaluating it against a hypothetical sustainable mega city. This comparative
assessment is expected to be performed by developing appropriate indicator variables, and
quantifying those using data from various sources (mainly secondary). The impacts will be
measured in terms of various indicator dimensions such as economic, social, technological,
37

infrastructural, environmental, human development. The various steps used for achieving the
set objectives are briefly discussed below.

2..4.1

Design of an Indicator-based approach

The first step in this approach is to prioritize the relevant indicators. An in-depth literature
survey has been carried out to enable us in prioritizing the indicators. The next step is to
develop comprehensive indicators linking urbanization and sustainable development, which
include indicators belonging to the following dimensionsEconomic, Social, Environmental
and Institutional/Governance. Next, the indicators will be quantified by analysing extensively
the data collected, mostly from secondary sources. The threshold indicator database for the
best and worst sustainability indicator values across the globe would enable the development
of the benchmark sustainable urban indicator template for comparison and evaluation. This
template will be used to evaluate Bangalore city for identifying gaps and deviations from the
desired status. A gap analysis approach will be used for estimating the essential differences in
the observed indicator values for Bangalore with those of sustainable urban development
indicators. A gap analysis in the present context can be defined as the process of matching
and comparing the existing urbanization process as against those urbanization processes
needed for achieving the goal of sustainable urban system and identifying the gaps. This kind
of matching process will help to identify the reasons for such gaps to devise strategies to
overcome these gaps and to evolve a plan for future course of action. The next step would be
to identify the strategies, policies and approaches to be adopted for bridging these gaps. This
would form part of the framework for the policy recommendations to achieve the desired
goal.

38

2..4.2

Need for indicators

Indicators are quantified information which help to explain how things are changing over
time. For many years, a limited number of key economic measures have been used to judge
how the economy is performingfor example, output, the level of employment, the rate of
inflation, the balance of payments, public sector borrowing, etc. These statistics give an
overall picture but do not explain why particular trends are taking place, and do not
necessarily reflect the situation of a particular industry, society or area. They do, however,
provide policy-makers and the public reasonable indicators of changes in the economy,
assisting economic policy decision making and allowing the public to judge for themselves
how the economy is performing overall.

There are three basic functions of indicatorssimplification, quantification, and


communication. Indicators generally simplify to make complex phenomena quantifiable so
that the information can be communicated. The general public is concerned about sustainable
development and the environment. They like to be informed about the state of the
environment and the economy and how and why they are changing.

2..4.3

Sustainability indicators

It is a statistical tool which captures and measures a particular aspect of sustainable


development in a way that is easy to understand and communicate, permitting monitoring and
subsequent execution and conduction of a public policy or process of management (Ryding et
al., 2003). The number of indicators of sustainability depends on the level of analysis that
needs to be carried out as well as the variables and categories which define each case. In
general, the indicators of sustainability are numerous and comprise categories of each field of
sustainable development (social, environmental and economic). As mentioned above,
39

sustainable urbanism is developed at various levels and its indicators can be local, regional or
global, depending on the case and the objectives of the study, revision, planning or design,
and can arise as partial or total. The fields of sustainable development proposed in the project
are shown in Figure 2.1.

Economic

Social

Fields of SD

Environment

Infrastructure
Figure 2.1: Fields of Sustainable Development

2..4.4

Identification of Indicators

A comprehensive list of urban sustainability indicators is composed by using various sets of


indicators promoted by international and regional organizations, such as the United Nations
(2007), the UN Habitat (2004), the World Bank (2008), the European Foundation (1998), the
European Commission on Science, Research and Development (2000), the European
Commission on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (2004). The purpose is
to have a comprehensive list as a comparative base. Attempts have been made to study the
extent to which cities are becoming sustainable or unsustainable using indicators, and the
challenges that are encountered in the process (Bell and Morse, 1999; Briassoulis, 2001; Roy,
2009; Tanguay and Rojaoson, 2010; Wong et al, 2006). However, what is important is that
the process of selection should not be to gather the data for all indicators, but rather select
those that are likely to produce the most accurate information about the status of practice
(Shen et al, 2011). According to Mega and Pedersen (1998) the indicators must be clear,
simple, scientifically sound, verifiable and reproducible. Zhang et al., (2003) proposed that
40

urban sustainability indicators should be: (1) explanatory tools to translate the concepts of
sustainable development into practical terms; (2) pilot tools to assist in making policy choices
that promote sustainable development and (3) performance assessment tools to decide how
effective efforts have been.

Whenever a large number of variables exist, it is more difficult to determine or predict the
response or answer, so topics and categories must always be eliminated to arrive at a smaller,
controllable number. Table 2.1 shows the categories identified using the sustainability
criteria, which could also be called urban sustainability topics from which urban
sustainability indicators can be extrapolated. It is important to note that the categories
referred to in Table 2.1 show only sustainability topics about urbanism, since in global terms
of sustainable development, other factors also exist and other variables should also be taken
into account.

The preliminary assessment of sustainability issues concerning urban systems has resulted in
the following broad groups of indicators belonging to economic, social, environmental
institutional/ governance systems. The categories of urban sustainability indicators have been
derived from the conceptual framework of urban economicenvironmentsocial system. Each
category of indicators measures an important dimension of urban sustainability. What is
different about this indicator framework is that it attempts to bring into focus a holistic urban
system view of how the society behaves. For example, can we say our economy is sustainable
if we have a dwindling supply of natural resources or growing frequency of public safety
accidents? This indicator framework can generally be applied to different areas. The indicator
list is given in Table 2.1.

41

Table 2.1: List of Indicators


LEVEL 1
Dimensions of
Sustainability

LEVEL 2
Categories of
Sustainability

LEVEL 3
Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)


Income distribution [GINI Coefficient]
Income
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
Per capita monthly expenditure (Rs./Month)
City GDP growth rate
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Share of organised employment
Growth/Development
Share of Exports
Unemployment rate (%)
Share of IT Exports
Employment growth rate

Consumption
Economic
Framework

Infrastructure
Services

Transportation

Per capita water consumption (litres)


Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Share of Renewable Energy (%)
Per capita energy consumption (GJ)
Per capita food consumption (kg)
Per capita material consumption
Road length (km/1000 population)
Hospitals/100,000 population (Hospital beds)
Bank branches/100,000 population
Colleges/100,000 eligible population
Schools/1000 population
No. of telephones landlines per 100,000 pop
No. of telephones (cell) per 100,000 pop
No. of internet connections per 100,000 pop
Accessibility of public transportation infrastructure (%)
Public suburban rail/metro transport seats (per 1000
population)
Public bus transport seats (per 1000 population)
Para-Public (Auto, Taxi, Maxicabs) transport seats (per
1000 population)
Private Road Transport seats (per 1000 population)
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population

42

Table 2.1 (Contd.): List of Indicators


LEVEL 1
Dimensions of
Sustainability

Economic
Framework

LEVEL 2
Categories of
Sustainability

Transportation

Demographics

Social
Framework

Education

Health

LEVEL 3
Indicators of Urban Sustainability
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking)
Share of walking (%)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Vehicle km/capita/year
Passenger car units (PCU)/1000 population
Transportation fatalities per 100000 population
Transportation injuries per 100000 population
Transportation accidents per 100000 population
Average Travel time/km (min)
Travel time (hrs/day)
Automobile ownership (no/family)
Average public transport cost/km (Rs.)
Pedestrians killed (no/year)
City population (million)
% of population that are children
% of population that are youth
% of population that are senior citizens
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Child sex ratio
Literacy rate (%)
Male literacy
Female literacy
Number of houses/1000 population
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
Average household size (no)
Slum population (% of total)
Migration rate (%)
% of students completing primary and secondary
education
% of students completing secondary education
% of students completing primary education
School enrolment rate (No)
Number of hospital beds per 100000 population
Number of physicians per 100,000 population

43

Table 2.1 (Contd.): List of Indicators


LEVEL 1
Dimensions of
Sustainability

LEVEL 2
Categories of
Sustainability

Health

Equity

Social
Framework

Poverty

Housing quality

Safety

Access to basic needs


(energy, water,
sanitation)

LEVEL 3
Indicators of Urban Sustainability
Number of nursing personnel per 100,000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Adolescent fertility rate
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate
Death rate
Infant mortality
Child mortality rate (no/1000)
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
% of women councillors
Minimum wage (Rs/month)
Share of people with unhealthy living conditions
% of poor without electricity
% of poor with LPG connection
Average household size (sq.m)
Share of population living in pucca houses
Number of police officers per 100000 population
Number of fire fighters per 100000 population
Crime rate per 100000 population
Share of pucca houses
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
HH with LPG connection (%)
% of HH having toilet facility

Climate Change

Environmental
Framework

Air Pollution

Soil pollution

CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]


GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
Average cost of waste disposal (Rs/ton)
Sewage disposal (%)
Wet waste per capita (kg/person/day)

44

Table 2.1 (Contd.): List of Indicators


LEVEL 1
Dimensions of
Sustainability

LEVEL 2
Categories of
Sustainability
Soil pollution

Water pollution

Urban green spaces

Land use pattern

Environmental
Framework
Energy

Water consumption

Raw materials
consumption
Institutional/
Governance
Framework

Government

LEVEL 3
Indicators of Urban Sustainability
% of solid waste that is recycled
Dry waste capita (kg/cap/day)
Biodegradable waste (%)
Waste water per capita (Litre/cap)
Share of treated water (%)
Share of population with access to treated water (%)
Water leakage (% of total)
Cost of wastewater treatment (Rs/kl)
Share of waste water recycled (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Area of Green cover (Sq.m/1000 population)
Share of Green space (%)
Share of area used for Roads (%)
Share of residential area (%)
Electricity consumption/capita
LPG/Gas consumption/capita (kg)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Biomass use/capita
Kerosene/capita
Penetration of solar water heaters
Share of income spent on energy
Electricity price (Rs/Kwh)
LPG price (Rs/kg.)
T&D losses (%)
% of population with potable water supply service
Share of houses with Sources of water within
premises
Consumption of water (l/day)
Piped water supply reliability (no.of hours of
supply/day)
% of HH having piped water connection
Price of water (RS./kl)
Per capita raw material consumption
Total expenditure per capita

45

Table 2.1 (Contd.): List of Indicators


LEVEL 1
Dimensions of
Sustainability

LEVEL 2
Categories of
Sustainability

Government
Institutional/
Governance
Framewo

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Revenue generation per capita
No. of councillors per 1000 population
Voter participation rates by men
Voter participation rates by women
Share of salaries in budget
Police personnel per 1000 population
Per-capita capital expenditure
SMEs per 1000 population

Industry

2..4.5

LEVEL 3

Large industries per 1000 population


Industry value added per capita

Quantifying indicators

Quantification of prioritized indicators will be done using data gathered from secondary
sources. Further, deliberations have been made with experts from stakeholder organizations,
research institutes working in the area of urbanisation, NGOs, planners, policy-makers, etc.,
to substantiate the information thus gathered.

2..4.6

Determining indicator and dimension weights

As stated, indicator-based approach uses a set of dimensions and several indicators under
each dimension to measure the sustainability of an urban system. In this context, it is critical
to derive the extent of contributions made by each of the dimensions to the overall urban
sustainability. Similarly, it is also important to determine the extent of contributions made by
each of the indicators to the dimension it belongs to. Simplest assumption is that all the
dimensions contribute equally to urban sustainability and all the indicators contribute equally
to the dimensions. In other words, it means that all the indicators and dimensions will have
equal weights assigned to them. A more rigorous approach could be to derive weights for
every indicator and associated dimensions by seeking inputs from relevant stakeholders. This
46

would enable assigning differential weights to indicators and dimensions depending on their
relative importance in determining the extent of sustainability. In other words, stakeholders
would be asked to assign weights to the indicators. A stakeholder survey would be designed
for this purpose and either paired comparison or ranking method would be used for deriving
weights for indicators as well as dimensions.

In real-life situations, indicator values have different measurement units (income in rupees,
Electricity in kWh, etc.). For developing composite indicators, it is essential to transform the
values all these indicators into some standard form. Thus, for each of the indicators included
in the analysis, a relative indicator is estimated using the actual and the sustainability
threshold values. For each indicator, a minimum and maximum threshold values will be
determined. The relative indicator is developed by using a scaling technique where the
minimum value is set to 0 and the maximum to 1. The equation used for this is

Relative indicator
=
(or Dimension index)

2..4.7

actual value minimum threshold value ------------ (1)


maximum threshold value minimum threshold value

Developing composite indicator dimensions

The next step is to derive the composite indicator dimensions from appropriate indicators
belonging to that particular dimension. There are two ways to develop the composite
indicator dimensions. One is to use the weights of the indicators in relation to a given
dimension and combine the indicators to form a composite indicator dimension. The other is
where indicator weights are not available, the composite dimension index is computed as the
root mean square of the relative indicator variables belonging to that particular dimension.
This method has been adopted from Gnansounou (2008). The equation used is as follows:

47

=1 2

Where,

d j = Dimension of type j

0.5

--------------------------------- (2)

V ij = Variables i belonging to dimension j, i = 1, 2, ., I


I = Number of variables in a dimension

2..4.8

Developing composite Urban Sustainability Indicator (USI)

Further, we develop the composite urban sustainability index, the USI, from these dimensions
that are assumed to contribute to the issue of urban sustainability. Same two ways, as
explained above, could be used for deriving USI. Where weights of dimensions are available
from the survey, then these could be used to derive the USI, and where unavailable, the
following modified equation could be used:

Where,

=1 2

USI = Urban sustainability index

0.5

--------------------------- (3)

d j = Dimension j, j = 1, 2, ., J
J = Number of dimensions

2..5

Benchmarking Urban Sustainability - A Gap analysis approach

As stated earlier, the indicators of sustainability for each of the dimensions that are being
determined Bangalore city will be compared with the benchmark indicators of a hypothetical
sustainable megacity developed using maximum and minimum threshold values of
sustainability indicators. The values will be derived from the best and the worst values
obtained for a given indicator by any city in the world. In the first step, the standardized
indicator dimensions for Bangalore city and the sustainable city will be mapped on a radar
48

diagram as shown in Figure 2.2 (a hypothetical depiction of such mapping). The distance
between the two points of a given dimension for the two cities gives the prevailing gap. It is
same even for other dimensions. These dimension gaps for the study city suggest how far
they are from achieving the level of a benchmark sustainable city, and also provide insights
on which dimensions they are seriously lacking. Similar radar graphs will be developed for
each of the dimensions using standardized indicators belonging to that dimension. Thus, the
quantified gaps in dimensions as well as individual indicators can provide greater insights
into the reasons for existence of such sustainability gaps, targets need to be fixed for bridge
them and strategies that need to be adopted for achieving these targets.

Figure 2.2 : Benchmarking Urban Sustainability


National and international experience demonstrates that the search for a core set of
sustainability indicators should not stop at the identification. There is a need to understand
what we want to achieve. Once done, the details on how indicators should be measured and
reported can be addressed relatively quickly and generate a real indication of how the city is
performing. This will result in the development of a framework that specifies operational
49

objectives. Indicators are a means to achieve the objectives and are not an end in themselves.
Achieving objectives, rather than measuring common quantities, become the basis for
reporting progress and are more likely to be accepted at the local, national or global scales.

50

CHAPTER 3

PROFILING BANGALORE CITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY


3..1

Introduction

Bangalore is emerged as the third largest metropolis in India with a population of about 8.4
million as per the Census 2011 (Census, 2011), and is among one of the fastest growing cities
in Asia. It is also the capital of the state of Karnataka. The name Bangalore is an anglicised
version of the city's name in Kannada language, Bengaluru. The Bangalore city is
considered as the principal administrative, industrial, commercial, educational and cultural
capital of the state of Karnataka, in the South-Western part of India. Blessed with a strong
educational and technological base and agreeable climate, Bangalore is witnessing a
tremendous growth in industry, trade and commerce leading to a rapid growth of the city and
large scale urbanization. It is globally recognized as IT capital of India and also as a
well developed industrial city. The city which was originally developed as a Garden City has
slowly transformed into an industrial and software hub of India. The establishment of the IT
Parks on the outskirts of the city has converted the city and its surroundings into
Silicon Valley of the country. It has also caused an urban sprawl around, to some extent lop
sided towards the south and east. It has become a commercial, administrative and military
centre for the region because of its salubrious climate and cosmopolitan nature of people.

It is located in the south east of Karnataka. It is located in the heart of the Mysore Plateau at
an average elevation of 920 m (3,018 feet) above mean sea level. It is positioned at 12.97 N
77.56 E. Bangalore District borders with Kolar District in the northeast, Tumkur District in
the northwest, Mandya District in the southwest, Chamarajanagar District in the south and
the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu in the southeast.
51

Over the last decade, the economy of Bangalore has transitioned from a public sector-based
economy to a textile industry-based economy and finally to high-technology industries. The
establishment and success of high technology firms in Bangalore have led to the growth of
Information Technology (IT) in India. Thus, Bangalore is clearly a city on the rise to become
a megacity, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The following sections briefly present
the dynamics that are likely to influence the citys transition from an emerging city into a
megacity of the future.

3..2

Demographic profile

The demographic base of Bangalore is distinct in terms of overall size and features. The
population of Bangalore has been growing at about 3.65% per annum since 1901
(Table 3.1). The city, which had a population of 1.63 lakh in 1901, reached a figure of 84.26
lakh in 2011. With decadal growth rate of about 65% during 2001-11, Bangalore is one of the
fastest-growing Indian metropolises.

Within the growth story of Bangalores population during the last 110 years, three decades,
one during 1941-51, second one during 1971-81 and the third one during 2001-11, showed
significant spur in population growth. During 1941-51, the population grew at 6.7% annually
with a decadal growth rate of 91.2%. Similarly, the second spur happened during 1971-81
with an annual population growth rate of 5.8% resulting in decadal growth of 75.6%. During
2001-11, again significantly, the population grew annually at 5.15% with a decadal growth of
about 65%. Post 1991, Bangalores population is growing annually at 3.63% mainly due to
the prominence of information technology resulting in strong in-flow of migrants, particularly
educated youth.
52

Table 3.1: The Population growth in Bangalore (1901 - 2011)


Population
Decadal
Annual
Year
(lakh)
Growth (%)
Growth
1901
1.63
-9.58
-1.00
1911
1.89
15.95
1.49
1921
2.40
26.98
2.42
1931
3.10
29.17
2.59
1941
4.11
32.58
2.86
1951
7.86
91.24
6.70
1961
12.07
53.56
4.38
1971
16.64
37.86
3.26
1981
29.22
75.60
5.79
1991
41.30
41.34
3.52
2001
51.01
23.51
2.13
2011
84.26
65.18
5.15
Overall annual growth rate over last 110 years (%)
3.65
Bangalore city has a land area of 741 km2 and uses much of its land for housing, industry and
parks. During the last decade, Bangalores population grew by 65.2%, which is one of the
highest in India (Table 3.2). A key feature of population growth in Bangalore is that most of
the growth is occurring in the surrounding areas. The population density of Bangalore has
increased from about 6,884 persons/km2 in 2001 to 11,371 persons/km2 in 2011, registering a
decadal increase of 65%. Such an increase necessitates radical changes in long term planning
and significant investments for improved service delivery. It is an undesirable trend that the
sex ratio has declined from 930 in 2001 to 914 in 2011. This may be partially due to the
dominant male migration, for job opportunities, happening during the last decade.

53

Table 3.2: Demographic data for Bangalore (2001-2011)


Description

2001

2011

Population (million)

5.10

8.43

Male (million)

2.67

4.40

Female (million)

2.43

4.03

Population Growth (decadal) (%)

23.5

65.2

Area Sq. Km

565

741

Population Density (persons/km2)

9,026

11,371

Proportion to state Population (%)

9.65

13.78

Green cover (m /person)

41

Sex Ratio (Per 1000)


Average Literacy

930

914

82.96

89.59

Source: http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/242-bangalore.html;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore, TERI (2011a)

3..3

Land use

The study of land use patterns help in arriving at solutions that limit the decaying of areas
through a sustainable development of core city and the suburban areas. The data indicate that
residential area of Bangalore constitutes 43% of the land area followed by approximately
21% each by roads/transport and green cover. The central core in Bangalore appears to be
underdeveloped. This means that business and commercial activities that normally provide
services to the city and its region have not developed fully. Instead, the city has a mix of uses,
such as industrial, agricultural, residential, and water bodies around their cores. This signals
that markets have not operated to allocate land to higher value uses, such as commerce and
services, as would be seen in comparable Asian cities. In effect, the land utilisation pattern is
influenced by central planning controls, and this introduces rigidities into the system (Table
3.3).

54

Table 3.3: Land use pattern (%)


Land use
% Share
Residential Formal

40.2

Residential Informal

2.9

Business/industry

6.8

Agriculture

4.5

Transport /Roads

20.7

Green cover (forest, coastal wet


land, agriculture, etc.)

21.5

Wet land

1.4

Water body

2.0

Average temp (summer)

20 to 36 C

Winter

10 to 30 oC

Average rain fall (cm)

86

Source: Bharath and Uttam (2009)


3..4

Economic Profile

Presently, large cities contribute significant shares of GDP to the national economy. Large
cities have such relative economic weight for two reasons. Firstly, they are home to 20
percent of the population. Secondly, they have relatively high per capita incomes (for
example, about 10,000 USD on PPP basis for Bangalore). The average per capita GDP of
urban India is about 10 times higher than in rural areas.

We are aware of the fact that Bangalore is not only the administrative capital but also the
economic and financial capital of the state. It is the largest contributor to the States GDP.
Over past two decades, Bangalores economy has undergone a significant transformation in
with service industry playing a major role in the economic development. The share of
tertiary or services sector has increased over the recent years with a significant proportion of
new jobs occurring across a whole range of activities. Of late, this sector has emerged as the

55

single largest employer and will continue to grow as the dominant sector in the future
considering the developmental initiatives planned in the city.

The economy of Bangalore is built on a broad regional resource base that extends into
surrounding areas which are rural, agriculture dependent and primary resource hinterlands
which depend, in turn, on the markets, services of these cities. It should be noted that the
fortunes of the surrounding rural areas and the prospects for employment are inextricably
linked to the fate of the city economy.

Table 3.4: Per capita GDP, income and exports (2011)


Category
Quantity
GDP (US$. billion)

83

Per capita income (US$)

10,247

City product as a % of countrys GDP

2.29

Share of Exports

2.2

Share of IT Exports

6.2

Unemployment rate (%)

14

Employment growth rate (%)

6.12

% of Households availing bank services


66.9
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010), IMF (2012), Web search
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/apr/23/slide-show-1-the-top-10-cities-in-india-bygdp.htm

In terms of economic structure the difference between the two cities actually is narrowing, an
indication that the economies are tending to converge, but the pace of convergence is slow.
Despite this slow convergence in economic structure, the difference in absolute employment
is actually increasing. Between 2001 and 2011, total employment in Bangalore rose by
6.12%. This is because in Bangalore the share of tourism, ICT, and cultural activities is high,
which have high employment potential. These are the characteristics for advanced
56

knowledge-based urban economies in which the creative element, added value and
employment growth are expected to be relatively high. Consequently, in Bangalore the share
of rapidly growing service sectors is larger. It is important to note that nearly 67% of the
households in Bangalore operate Bank accounts (Table 3.4).

3..5

Household Characteristics

Table 3.5 provides information on the status of households. In Bangalore, 38.4 per cent of
population own a house. The preference appears to be for rented houses with a high share of
58.7%. This may be due the large presence of migrant population. The type of household may
be viewed as an indicator of the quality of housing (a wealth dimension) as well as an
indicator of health risk. Overall, in Bangalore, over 78 out of every 100 houses are pucca
houses (built with material such as stone, brick, cement, concrete, and timber with floors
made of vinyl-asphalt strips, ceramic tiles or cement). On the other hand, 20.7 percent of
households in Bangalore are semi-pucca houses (with brick masonry and RC foundation and
having earth or sand floors). The rest of the houses are Katcha houses (made of mud used for
walls/roof and/or dry stone masonry). In Bangalore, on an average, there are 2.5 persons per
room. Thus, 33.2 percent of households in Bangalore have one room.

Table 3.5: Households by Ownership and dwelling Status


% Share
Category
Total HH (No.)

23,77,056

Owned

38.4

Rented

58.7

Others

2.9

Pucca
Semi pucca
Katcha

78
20.7
1.3
2.5

Average no. of persons/room


% of Households with one
room
Source: Census 2011
57

33.2

Table 3.6 provides information that relates to other characteristics of dwellings, such as
whether or not the household has electricity, toilets and water facilities. Access to electricity
is quite high in Bangalore almost universal, i.e., 98 percent. In case of toilet facility, over
94.8 percent households in Bangalore have access. Increased access to safe drinking water
results in improved health conditions in the form of reduced cases of water-borne diseases
such as dysentery and cholera. In Bangalore, about one third of the households do not have
access to tap water with in the household premises.

Table 3.6: Profile of Housing and amenities


Category
Quantity
Average no. of persons per room

2.5

% of Households with one room

33.2

% of Households reporting availability of


(i) Electricity

98.0

(ii) Toilet

94.8

(iii) Tap Water Within Premises

66.6

(iv) Tap Water Outside Premises


Source: Census, 2011

12.5

An abundant water supply is essential for the growth of a city. In order to monitor the water
use, it is important to monitor volumes of water obtained from various sources. Since water
can be treated, it can act as a basis for calculating the efficiency of water use. Overall, the
distribution of water use can be divided into the following uses: domestic water usage,
industry, commercial and miscellaneous uses. Bangalore gets its fresh water mainly from
Kaveri river and also through rainfall. Estimates show that about 15 to 20% of water supply
is lost due to leakage in pipes. Very little work has been done to maintain the water pipes,
which can account for this significant water loss.
58

Table 3.7 provides information about certain characteristics of household drinking water,
including source of drinking water and water treatment prior to drinking. According to the
Table 79 percent of the households in Bangalore use tap water. Borewells and hand-pumps
are still a major source of water in Bangalore with about 17 percent of households depending
on it. Only about 3 percent of households in Bangalore use pond/lake water.

Table 3.7: Households by Main Source of Drinking Water

Bangalore

Total
number of
households

Tap-water
(treated and
untreated)

Well
(Covered
and
Uncovered)

Hand
pump/
Tubewell/
Borehole

Spring/River
/Canal/Tank/
Pond/Lake

Other
Sources

2,377,056

1,880,155

19,282

400,927

11,471

65,221

79.10

0.81

16.87

0.48

2.74

% of total

Source: Census 2011

3..6

Household Assets

The households ownership of selected assets is believed to have a strong association with
income levels. Some of these can be used to measure household welfare. The information on
household ownership of radios and televisions is a measure of access to mass media where as
telephones (both mobile and landline) is an indicator of access to an efficient means of
communication. Access to transportation modes (bicycle, motorcycle, or private car) can be
considered as a sign of the level of access to public services and markets as well as exposure
to developments in other areas.

Regarding transport, 23 percent in Bangalore own bicycles and these are more likely to be
found in poor households than in wealthy homes. Meanwhile 44.3 percent of Bangalore
households own two wheelers. About 17.5 percent of Bangalore households own cars (Table
3.8). These statistics indicate the dominance of personalised transport in Bangalore.
59

Table 3.8: Number of Households Having Specified Vehicle Assets

Bangalore

Total
number of
households
2,377,056

% share

545,433

Scooter/
Motorcycle/
Moped
1,053,876

23.0

44.3

Bicycle

Car/Jeep
/Van

None

414,862

362,885

17.5

15.2

Source: Census 2011

Table 3.9 shows that more than 42 percent of Bangalore population owns a radio. Overall, in
Bangalore, 86 percent of all households own a television set, and as expected households are
more likely to own a television set than a radio. More than 67 percent of households own a
mobile telephone while about 15 percent own a land-line telephone. Almost one third of the
households own computer.
Table 3.9: Households Having Specified Electronic Assets
Total
number of
households

Bangalore

23,77,056

% of total
Source: Census 2011

3..7

Radio/
Transistor

Television

Computer/Laptop

Telephone/Mobile Phone

With
Internet

Without
Internet

Landline

Mobile

Both

10,08,239

20,42,977

4,30,880

3,59,223

2,11,852

16,09,899

3,59,041

42.42

85.95

18.13

15.11

8.91

67.73

15.10

Education

As a result of free education, the literacy rates are high in Bangalore. The likelihood of
completing secondary and more than secondary level education increases as household
wealth quintile increases. About 92.5 percent of males from Bangalore population are literate.
A similar pattern is observed for women, with 86 percent of females from Bangalore having
attained the literacy levels

60

Table 3.10: Education - Civic Statistics


Categories
Number
Municipal School Children
230,134
Municipal Primary Schools
1,312
Aided Schools
553
Unaided Schools
898
Teachers in Municipal Schools
6,324
Male Literacy
92.5
Female Literacy
86.1
Average literacy
89.5
Source: Census (2011), web search

3..8

Transport

Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR) has approximately 6,000 km of road length for an
area of 8,005 sq. km. The BMR is intercepted by two National Expressways and three
National Highways and 12 State Highways connecting major towns and cities within BMR
and beyond. The radial road network in the BMR converges into the core and contains centreperiphery traffic as well as the transit traffic which chokes the city center.

Bangalore is served by five broad-gauge radial rail corridors connecting the city with
neighboring States. Attempts are being made to use the existing lines and capacity (with
some augmentation), as a Commuter Rail System. However, these do not presently serve as
commuter corridors.

At present, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and Karnataka State


Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) connect the city and major towns in the BMR through
a bus system. The BMTC operates approximately 5,370 routes with a fleet of about 5,593
buses carrying approximately 38 lakh passengers daily.

61

In spite of having a number of transport proposals on anvil like Metro rail, ring roads,
peripheral ring roads etc., Bangalore is expected to face severe traffic congestion in the
coming years resulting in various social economic and environmental issues. The rapid
economic growth will result in significant increase in traffic problems. In the absence of
properly planned mass transit systems, a disproportionately high share of trips will be carried
by personalized modes of transport creating chaotic situation and causing over-strain on the
existing infrastructure.

The inter-city travel demand from/to Bangalore and the travel

between the rapidly growing outer towns are also expected to grow at faster levels. The
transport network needs to be augmented to cater to the expected demand. Hence, to improve
the situation, there is a dire need devise a certain framework that can tap the indicators
pertaining to sustainable transport and use the same to track how transport system answers to
sustainable trends with improvements in it.

A study of the variation of the number of different vehicles indicates that the numbers of twowheelers, cars and taxis have are high for Bangalore with 3.79 million. This is because, in
Bangalore, the principal mode of travel is road transport (bus, car, autorickshaw and twowheelers). Bicycle transport has very few users. Bus travel includes city buses, chartered
buses, school buses, etc. During 2010, the share of cars in Bangalore was 7.1% of all the
vehicle population. In case of two wheelers, their share in total vehicle population was
69.22% for Bangalore (Table 3.11)

62

Table 3.11: Vehicle Population (million) in Bangalore (2010)


Types
Number
% Share
Two Wheelers
2.62
69.22
Motor Cars
0.71
18.73
Three Wheelers
0.12
3.19
Others
0.034
8.86
Total
3.79
Source: Bangalore Road Transport Organisation (http://rto.kar.nic.in/)

3..9

Energy

The Primary Energy Sources (PES) consists of solid (coal and biomass), liquid (petroleum
products), gas (LPG and Natural Gas) and electricity. The energy is consumed in four
principal sectors: (i) households, (ii) industries, (iii) commercial establishments, and (4)
transport.

Coal is being used by the power sector. Oil products such as petrol, diesel and

LPG as well as natural gas are used for transportation and domestic uses. The shares of
various energy carriers in the energy mix of Bangalore varied considerably (Table 3.12). In
the case of Bangalore, industrial are dominant consumer of electricity with a share of about
55% and residential sector occupying second position with a share of 30.3%.

Table 3.12: Electricity use by sector


Sectors
% share by sector
Domestic

30.31

Industrial
55.24
Commercial/
13.72
Services
Traction
0.00
Miscellaneous
0.73
Total (GWh)
14,252
Source: BESCOM data was used for Bangalore
(http://bescom.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Financial-details.pdf)

The household fuel use data indicates that there is a variation in the contribution of different
energy carriers to the energy mix of households which are being used for use cooking and
63

water-heating. Findings presented in Table 3.13 show that LPG serves as the main fuel used
for cooking in more than 75% of all households in Bangalore, while kerosene is used in 16%
percent of households. Biofuels are used by 6.93 percent of all households. Cooking fuel
affects the air quality for household members. Clean fuel is not accessible to the poor
households and they resort to using biofuels and kerosene that emit a lot of smoke. As a
result, household members, mainly the female members, are likely to be exposed to indoor air
pollution.
Table 3.13: Households by Type of Fuel Used For Cooking
Fuel Used For Cooking

Bangalore
% of
total

Total
number of
households

Biomass

Coal/
Lignite/
Charcoal

Kerosene

LPG/
PNG

Electricity

Biogas

Any
Other

No
cooking

23,77,056

1,64,695

1,681

3,79,053

17,88,912

4,245

20,613

2,191

15,666

6.93

0.07

15.95

75.26

0.18

0.87

0.09

0.66

Source: Census 2011

Lighting is an important household energy service as it is directly related to quality and


productivity of life. Unlike heating or cooking, lighting is the energy end use that is
associated more exclusively with electricity as it can provide high levels of light at high
efficiency compared to other fuel sources. During early seventies, the share of households
using electricity for lighting was only about 60% which increased steadily over the years. By
2010, the share reached about 98%, leaving only 2% of the total households using kerosene
for fuel-based lighting. Unavailability of infrastructure and high initial connection and service
costs are the main reasons for the households not having electricity connection (Table 3.14).

64

Table 3.14: Households by Main Source of Lighting


Main Source of lighting
Total number
of households
Bangalore
% of total

23,77,056

Electricity Kerosene

Solar
energy

Other
oil

Any
other

No
lighting

23,30,631

35,488

2,646

2,167

1,911

4,213

98.0

1.5

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

Source: Census 2011

3..10

Resource Consumption

As cities become more prosperous, one expect residents to consume more resources resulting
in environmental degradation such as high carbon emissions or excessive waste. In general,
up to a certain level of income, the cities show a steady rise in resource consumption along
with per capita GDP. But when income rises above a certain point, average consumption
declines (Table 3.15).
Table 3.15: Resource Consumption per capita
Resource
Quantity
Water (litres/day)
129
Wood (GJ)
0.96
Electricity (kWh/month)
131.33
Final Energy (GJ)
10.95
Petroleum products (tonne)
0.27
Food (tonne)
0.60
3..11

Municipal solid waste

Municipal solid waste (MSW) includes predominantly household waste (domestic waste)
with sometimes the addition of commercial wastes, sanitation residue, and waste from streets
collected by a municipality within a given area. They are in either solid or semisolid form.
As shown in Table 3.15, Bangalore generates about 1,562 tonnes/day of municipal solid
waste. But if we consider the per capita generation of solid waste, it is about 0.20 kg/day.

65

Table 3.16: Municipal solid waste Generation (TPD)


Source
Quantity
Residences
1,562
Markets/industry
84
Hotels and Restaurants
96
Total
1,742
Per capita (kg/day)
0.2
Source: MSW Master Plan, 2008 (CDP, Bangalore)
3..12

Emission inventory

Emission inventory is an estimate of the amount of pollutants emitted into atmosphere.


Characterized by the following aspects: (i) Type of activities that cause emissions, (ii)
Chemical or physical identity of the pollutants included, (iii) Geographic location, and
(iv)Time period over which emissions are estimated.

Transport sector is the major

contributor of emissions of PM10 and NOx in Bangalore where as Industrial sector is the
number one emitter for SO 2 emissions. Over the years, PM 10 emissions have fallen mainly
due to a shift away from coal and wood for both domestic heating and industrial use, and are
predicted to fall in future with change in fuel use trends and technology improvements. As
shown in Table 3.16, transport sector of Bangalore is the major source for PM 10 emissions
contributing nearly 45% of total. The main source of NO x emissions in Bangalore is motor
vehicles (75%), while DG sets contribute about 20%. Domestic and commercial sector
combustion are only minor sources of NOx. The main source of SO 2 emissions is industry.
This source contributes 60% of the total SO 2 emissions in Bangalore. The other major
sources are transport and domestic sources.
Table 3.17: Emission inventory in Bangalore (t/day)
Source
PM 10
NO x
SO 2
Transport
22.4
146.36
2.31
Road dust
10.9
0
0
Domestic
1.8
2.73
0.68
Industry
7.8
1.2
8.2
Commercial
0.1
0.2
0.02
Construction
2.7
0
0
Others (DG set)
3.6
51
3.35
Source: TERI, 2011a
66

CHAPTER 4

BENCHMARKING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY A COMPOSITE


URBAN SUSTAINABILITY INDEX FOR BANGALORE

4..1

Introduction

The previous chapter presented a discussion on the profile of Bangalore city on various urban
dimensions. The discussions mainly revolved around the some observations in demographics,
infrastructure, access to services, mobility, etc. In this chapter, the focus is on making similar
assessment from an urban sustainability perspective using an indicator-based approach. The
approach adopted for this purpose is explained in the methodology chapter (Chapter 2). In
this chapter, we begin the discussions with the prioritization of indicators that are relevant for
measuring urban sustainability under different categories as well as dimensions of
sustainability. The prioritization is made on the basis of logical assessment and data
availability. An extensive literature review is performed for this purpose. In the next step, for
the prioritized indicators, values are obtained from the various secondary sources of
information. In the third step, to develop a sustainability benchmark, the threshold values
(maximum and minimum) for the prioritized indicators are generated again from different
sources of secondary information. In the fourth step, the composite sustainability index
values, category-wise and dimension-wise, are developed using the approach explained in the
methodology chapter (Chapter 2). Finally, the Urban Sustainability Index (USI) for
Bangalore is developed and compared with the benchmark USI. The following sections
discuss these aspects in detail.

4..2

Dimensions of Sustainability

As mentioned earlier, the sustainability of any system is defined in terms of three dimensions,
namely, economic, social and environmental sustainability. This is true even for an urban
67

system, which consists of these three dimensions. The dream of sustainable urban system can
be achieved only when the functioning of the economic, social and environmental systems in
an urban set-up conforms to the standards fixed based on sustainability requirements. It is
important to note that the objectives of the three dimensions to achieve sustainability
standards are conflictive in nature. Thus, the desired outcome is an optimal trade-off
necessitating effective transactions among these three dimensions. For example, economic
sustainability needs increased energy consumption, social sustainability requires this energy
consumption to benefit the poor at affordable prices whereas environmental sustainability
demands a reduction in energy consumption. A possible solution, though a difficult one,
could be energy production from renewable energy systems in a distributed mode with
government support. However, for an effective transaction among these dimensions of
sustainability there is a need for access to efficient and effective institutional and governance
systems (private as well as public). These systems have to perform the functions of
governance, regulation, implementation, production, distribution, management, monitoring,
etc. Thus, in the present study, we have used four dimensions to assess the sustainability of
the urban systems. The indicators developed for measuring the sustainability of an urban
system are grouped into the following four dimensions

Economic Sustainability The indicators under this dimension capture the current as
well as the dynamic economic strength of an urban system.

Social Sustainability The indicators under social dimension map the extent of
equitable distribution of the benefits of economic development to the people.

Environmental Sustainability The indicators under this dimension attempt to assess


the conformation of the economic development to the environmental standards.

68

Institutional/Governance Sustainability The indicators measure the extent and


effectiveness of institutions in creating opportunities like employment, financial
resources, community services, government support, etc.

4..3

Categories of Sustainability

The four sustainability dimensions represent different aspects of a typical urban system and a
significant number of indicator variables are necessary to measure their extent. In other
words, these dimensions constitute large number of representative indicators belonging to
different groups of indicators. Thus, at next level of classification of indicators, we have
developed representative set of categories under each dimension. These indicators represent
different aspects of sustainability and contribute collectively to measure it. Further, all the
categories belonging to a dimension collectively measure the extent of sustainability reached
by that dimension. Finally, collectively, all the four dimensions measure the extent or
magnitude of sustainability of a given urban system.

The prioritization of categories of urban sustainability indicators has been made with the
support of literature and logical assessment (Silverio and Jess 2010, Stewart 2010, GCIF
2011, UNHABITAT 2009, Lynch et al, 2011, Shen 2011, Marzukhi et al, 2011, Natalie 2011,
Matthew and Giles 2010, Peter 2009, Theo and Frank 2007, Peter 2005, Zainuddin 2005,
Alberti 1996, Shu-Li 1998, Voula 1998). This process facilitated short-listing of 25 categories
of sustainability indicators under four dimensions of sustainability.
(a) Economic Sustainability:

Income Indicators belonging to this category measure the current status of


the economic achievements of an urban system or a city.

69

Growth/Development The dynamics of economic progress by capturing the


growth potential, capacity to grow, etc.

Consumption Quantity and quality of consumption of livelihood and


lifestyle goods and services.

Infrastructure, Services and Urban Equipment Availability of good and


adequate infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, banks, etc) contributes to
economic development.

Transportation Mobility through efficient transport systems provides access


to employment, markets, education/health facilities, etc.

(b) Social Sustainability

Demographics Indicators related to gender composition, children, youth,


population growth and density, etc., captures important aspects of social
empowerment.

Education Facilitates knowledge empowerment and better decisions.

Health Physical empowerment.

Equity Distributive justice

Poverty Ability to enjoy the benefits of economic progress.

Housing quality One more aspect of social empowerment and status.

Safety Social security.

Access to basic needs Extent of poverty and living standards.

(c) Environmental Sustainability


The following categories of indicators determine the extent of environmental
sustainability achieved by the urban systems. Most of the categories listed below do not
need additional explanation. With respect to categories related to consumption of energy
70

resources/carriers, water and raw material, the indicators are expected to capture the
negative impact on the environment due to uncontrolled consumption.

Global Climate Change

Air Pollution

Soil Pollution

Water Pollution

Urban green spaces

Land use pattern

Energy Consumption

Water consumption

Raw materials consumption

(d) Institutional/Governance Sustainability


As explained earlier, the institutional and governance dimensions constitute categories of
indicators that capture the effectiveness of institutions in the public and private sectors to
manage, monitor and support the transactions among the three dimensions of
sustainability.

4..4

Government Indicators capturing the effectiveness of governance, support, etc.

Banking Access to and adequacy of financial services.

Industry Extent of industrialization and access to employment.

Indicators of Urban Sustainability

The next step in finalising the indicator sets for developing urban sustainability index for an
urban system is prioritization of representative indicator variables for each of the categories
under the four dimensions. Again with the support of extensive literature review, discussions
with experts and logical analysis, the final list of indicator variables is derived (Silverio and
71

Jess 2010, Stewart 2010, GCIF 2011, UNHABITAT 2009, Lynch et al, 2011, Shen 2011,
Marzukhi et al, 2011, Natalie 2011, Matthew and Giles 2010, Peter 2009, Theo and Frank
2007, Peter 2005, Zainuddin 2005, Alberti 1996, Shu-Li 1998, Voula 1998). The following
criteria were used for prioritizing the indicators:

The indicator should be representative of the category and dimension to which it


belongs.

The relationship between the indicators and the categories/dimensions are easily
deductible.

It should be easily quantifiable and observable.

The required data for quantifying indicators is accessible and available.

The final lists of sustainability indicators for different dimensions and categories are given in
Tables 4.14.4 which show adequate numbers of indicators for each of the sustainability
categories. A total of 56 indicators are used for representing the economic dimension of
urban sustainability (Table 4.1). Similarly, the social dimension of urban sustainability is
represented by 52 indicators (Table 4.2), the environmental dimension by 42 indicators
(Table 4.3) and Institutional and Governance dimension by 13 indicators (Table 4.4). Thus a
total of 163 indicators are used for assessing the sustainability of urban system. All the
indicators are self-explanatory. Some indicators contribute positively to the urban
sustainability and others negatively. In terms of magnitude of the indicator values, the
contribution of positive indicators to sustainability will increase with increase in their values
and vice versa. In the case of negative indicators, the contribution to sustainability will
decrease with increase in value. For example, with increase in per capita income there will be
an increase in economic sustainability. On the other hand, any increase in the value of CO 2
emissions per person will cause decrease in environmental sustainability.
72

Table 4.1: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension

Categories of Sustainability
Income

Growth/ Development

Consumption

Infrastructure, Services and


Urban Equipment

Transportation

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)
Income distribution (GINI Coefficient)
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
Per capita monthly expenditure (Rs./Month)
City GDP growth rate (%)
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Share of organized employment (%)
Share of Countrys Exports (%)
Unemployment rate (%)
Share of Countrys IT Exports (%)
Employment growth rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity generation (%)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Per capita food consumption (kg)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Per capita material consumption (kg)
Road length (km/1000 population)
Per capita connected load (kW)
Hospitals/100,000 population
Bank branches/100,000 population
Colleges/100,000 eligible population
Schools/1000 population
No. of telephones landlines per 100,000 pop
No. of mobile phones per 100,000 pop
No. of internet connections per 100,000 pop
Share of households with access to telephones (%)
Share of households with access to mobile phones (%)
Accessibility of public transportation infrastructure (%)
Public suburban rail/metro transport seats per 1000 population (No.)
Public bus transport seats (per 1000 population)
Para-Public (Auto, Taxi, Maxi-cabs) transport seats per 1000 population (No.)
Private Road Transport seats per 1000 population (No.)
Cars per 1000 population (No.)
Two-wheelers per 1000 population (No.)
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking) %
Share of walking (%)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Efficiency of public road transport (km/litre)
Efficiency public rail transport (km/litre)
Efficiency private road transport (km/litre)
Vehicle km/capita/year
Proportion of total motorised road PKM on public transport (%)
Passenger car units (PCU)/1000 population
Transportation fatalities per 100,000 population
Transportation injuries per 100,000 population
Transportation accidents per 100,000 population
Average road network speed (km/h)
Superior public transport network, covering trams, light rail, subway and BRT (km/km2)
Parking spaces per hectare
Travel time (hrs/day)
Automobile ownership (no/family)
Average public transport cost/km (Rs.)
Pedestrians killed (no/year)

73

Table 4.2: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension

Categories of Sustainability

Demographics

Education

Health

Equity

Poverty
Housing quality
Safety

Access to basic needs (energy,


water, sanitation)

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


City population (million)
% of population that are children
% of population that are youth
% of population that are above 65 years
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Child sex ratio
Literacy rate (%)
Male literacy (%)
Female literacy (%)
Number of houses/1000 population
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
Average household size (no)
Slum population (% of total)
Migration rate (%)
% of students completing primary and secondary education
% of students completing secondary education
% of students completing primary education
Mean years of schooling (years)
School enrolment rate (No)
Expected years of schooling (years)
Literacy rate (%)
Teachers in govt. schools (per 100 students)
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population
Number of physicians per 10,000 population
Number of nursing personnel per 100000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Adolescent fertility rate
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
Death rate
Infant mortality
Malnourished children under five (no/1000)
Child mortality rate (no/1000)
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
% of women councillors
Minimum wage (Rs/month)
Share of people with unhealthy living conditions
% of poor without electricity
% of poor with LPG connection
Average household size (sq.m)
Share of population living in pucca houses
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
Number of fire fighters per 100000 population
Crime rate per 100000 population
Share of pucca houses (%)
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
HH with LPG connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)

74

Table 4.3: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension


Categories of Sustainability
Global Climate Change
Air Pollution

Soil pollution

Water pollution

Urban green spaces


Land use pattern

Energy Consumption

Water consumption

Raw materials consumption

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]
GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
Average cost of waste disposal (Rs/tonne)
Sewage disposal (%)
Wet waste per capita (kg/person/day)
% of solid waste that is recycled
Dry waste capita (kg/cap/day)
Biodegradable waste (%)
Waste water per capita (Litre/cap)
Share of treated water (%)
Share of population with access to treated water (%)
Water system leakage (% of total)
Cost of wastewater treatment (Rs/kl)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Area of Green cover (Sq.m/1000 population)
Share of Green space (%)
Share of area used for Roads (%)
Share of residential area (%)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
LPG/Gas consumption/capita (kg)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Biomass use/capita
Kerosene/capita
Penetration of solar water heaters
Share of income spent on energy
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
LPG price (Rs/kg.)
T&D losses (%)
% of population with potable water supply service
Share of houses with Sources of water within premises
Consumption of water (l/day/person)
Piped water supply reliability (no. of hours of supply/day)
% of HH having piped water connection
Price of water (RS./kl)
Per capita raw material consumption
Share of Recycled material

75

Table 4.4: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Institutional/Governance Dimension


Categories of Sustainability

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Total expenditure per capita
Revenue generation per capita
No. of councillors per 1000 population

Government

Banking
Industry

Voter participation rates by men


Voter participation rates by women
Share of salaries in budget
Voter turnout (%)
Per-capita capital expenditure
Accounts per 1000 population
Bank turnover per 1000 population
SMEs per 1000 population
Large industries per 1000 population
Industry value added per capita

4..5

Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability

As explained in Chapter 2, the proposal is to assess how the emerging mega cities like
Bangalore in India perform against sustainability yardsticks. In other words, the objective is
to compare sustainability of Bangalore urban system with a sustainability benchmark
established using prioritized and classified list of indicators as explained above. The first step
in the process of benchmarking Bangalore city for sustainability is to gather the required data
for quantifying all the prioritized indicators. The data were gathered mainly from secondary
sources of information (NUMBEO 2012, Samuel et al 2012, World atlas 2012,
UNHABITAT 2012, Bangalore Census 2011, BBMP 2011, BRSIPP 2011, Chaudhuri 2011,
John 2011, Rode and Kandt 2011, Siemens 2011, TERI 2011a, WHO, 2011, Anonymous
2010, Edward 2010, Mahendra et al 2010, Singh 2010, UNHABITAT 2010, GOK 2009,
PWC 2009, World Bank 2009, UNHABITAT 2009, Chanakya et al, 2008, Gopakumar 2008,
Sitharam 2008, Sekher et al 2008, UNHABITAT 2008). Even after spending significant
efforts and time for collecting relevant data, we were not able to get data for all the indicator
variables. Finally, we could collect data on 49 indicators under economic dimension (original
list 57), 45 under social dimension (original 52), 36 under environmental dimension (original
76

42) and 6 under institutional/governance dimension (original 13). Thus, we have gathered
data for Bangalore city on a total of 135 sustainability indicators (Tables 4.54.8).
Table 4.5: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension
Categories of
Sustainability
Income

Growth/
Development

Consumption

Infrastructure,
Services and
Urban
Equipment

Transportation

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)
Income distribution (GINI Coefficient)
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
Per capita monthly expenditure (Rs./Month)
City GDP growth rate (%)
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Share of organised employment (%)
Share of Exports (%)
Unemployment rate (%)
Share of IT Exports (%)
Employment growth rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity generation (%)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Road length (km/1000 population)
Hospitals/100,000 population
Bank branches/100,000 population
Colleges/100,000 eligible population
Schools/1000 population
No. of telephones landlines per 100,000 pop
No. of mobile phones per 100,000 pop
No. of internet connections per 100,000 pop
Share of households with access to telephones (Landline)
Share of households with access to mobile phones
Accessibility of public transportation infrastructure (%)
Public suburban rail/metro transport seats (per 1000 population)
Public bus transport seats (per 1000 population)
Para-Public (Auto, Taxi, Maxicabs) transport seats (per 1000 population)
Private Road Transport seats (per 1000 population)
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking)
Share of walking (%)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Vehicle km/capita/year
Proportion of total motorised road PKM on public transport (%)
Passenger car units (PCU)/1000 population
Transportation fatalities per 100,000 population
Transportation injuries per 100,000 population
Transportation accidents per 100,000 population
Average road network speed (km/h)
Superior public transport network , covering trams, light rail, subway and
BRT (km/km2)
Travel time (hrs/day)
Automobile ownership (no/family)
Average public transport cost/km (Rs.)
Pedestrians killed (no/year)

77

Bangalore
10,247
0.32
83
2721
6.5
2.29
31.96
31
2.22
14
6.22
6.12
129
1576
10.95
61
1.57
0.65
13.4
17
21.21
0.521
10,823
6777
3847
24.1
82.8
46
0
35
352
10
47
258
38
34
2.78
1259
72.2
195.8
9.4
70.0
84.9
27
0
0.5
1.7
15.6
348

Table 4.6: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension


Categories of Sustainability

Demographics

Education

Health

Equity

Poverty
Housing quality
Safety
Access to basic needs
(energy, water, sanitation)

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


City population (million)
% of population that are children
% of population that are youth
% of population that are above 65 years
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Child sex ratio
Literacy rate (%)
Male literacy
Female literacy
Number of houses/1000 population
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
Average household size (no)
Slum population (% of total)
Migration rate (%)
% of students completing primary and secondary
education
% of students completing secondary education
% of students completing primary education
School enrolment rate (No)
Literacy rate (%)
Teachers in govt. schools (per 100 students)
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population
Number of physicians per 10,000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Adolescent fertility rate
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
Death rate
Infant mortality
Child mortality rate (no/1000)
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
Minimum wage (Rs/month)
Share of people with unhealthy living conditions
% of poor without electricity
% of poor with LPG connection
Share of population living in pucca houses
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
Crime rate per 100,000 population
Share of pucca houses (%)
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
HH with LPG connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)

78

Bangalore
8.1
10.31
64.2
5.4
922
941
88.48
91.82
84.8
317
3.25
17,723
3.24
10
13.4
83
82
89
97
88.48
5
22
5
70
3.5
125
27
7.2
31
54.7
18
99.2
95.9
5044
1.09
1.4
75.9
61
283
318
61
79.00
98.6
75.9
94.82

Table 4.7: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension


Categories of Sustainability
Global Climate Change
Air Pollution

Soil pollution

Water pollution

Urban green spaces


Land use pattern

Energy Consumption

Water consumption

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]
GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
Average cost of waste disposal (Rs/tonne)
Sewage disposal (%)
Wet waste per capita (kg/person/day)
% of solid waste that is recycled
Dry waste capita (kg/cap/day)
Biodegradable waste (%)
Waste water per capita (Litre/cap)
Share of treated water (%)
Share of population with access to treated water (%)
Water system leakage (% of total)
Cost of wastewater treatment (Rs/kl)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Area of Green cover (Sq.m/1000 population)
Share of Green space (%)
Share of area used for Roads (%)
Share of residential area (%)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
LPG/Gas consumption/capita (kg)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
LPG price (Rs/kg.)
T&D losses (%)
% of population with potable water supply service
Share of houses with Sources of water within premises
Consumption of water (l/day/person)
Piped water supply reliability (no. of hours of supply/day)
% of HH having piped water connection
Price of water (RS./kl)

Bangalore
0.5
0.049
15.1
41
90
266.5
1450
40
0.176
80
0.082
76
95
70
66.56
39
41,194
42.4
41
23171
28.83
24.3
40.4
1576
30
57.9
39.4
9.6
30
9.02
94.8
76
129
4
79.00
6

Table 4.8: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Institutional/Governance


Dimension
Categories of Sustainability

Government

Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Bangalore

Revenue generation per capita

4448

No. of Councilors per 1000 population

0.023

Voter participation rates by men

44.23

Voter participation rates by women

43.96
48
1570

Voter turnout (%)


Per-capita capital expenditure

79

4..6

Comparing Indicators of Urban Sustainability with Threshold Values

As stated earlier, the objective is to develop a composite sustainability index for Bangalore
city. For this, it is essential to combine individual indicators under each category to form
composite indicators. However, it may be observed from the tables that different indicators
have different values and units of measurement, and the ranges of values are large. In such a
case, a normalization procedure is required to be adopted to convert all the indicator values
into single form using the same unit of measurement. However, for normalizing the indicator
values, we need to have the maximum and minimum possible values of the same indicator
types. In the present case, it is essential to gather data for each of the indicators, a maximum
value from a city, which has the best value for that indicator in the world. Similarly, we need
to choose a city with worst value for that particular indicator. In other words, we need to have
cities (same city can be repeated) with the best and worst values for every indicator. This
exercise will provide us with the threshold values (maximum and minimum) for every
indicator. The data were obtained from literature with best as well as worst values for cities
for every indicator (NUMBEO 2012, World Atlas 2012, UNHABITAT 2012, John 2011,
Rode and Kandt 2011, Siemens 2011, WHO, 2011, Edward 2010, UNHABITAT 2010, PWC
2009, World Bank 2009, UNHABITAT 2009, UNHABITAT 2008). This process resulted in
further elimination of indicator variables because of lack of data. Finally, data could be
collected for only 61 indicators. Since there is a good spread across categories and
dimensions, we feel that 61 indicators are adequate for developing composite sustainability
index. Table 4.9 contains the data obtained for maximum and minimum threshold values of
different indicators. The data for Bangalore is included in the table for comparison. Because
of non-availability of data for threshold values, the institutional and governance dimension of
sustainability has been dropped from further analysis.

80

4..7

Normalized Indicators of Urban Sustainability

As mentioned above, for developing composite sustainability indicators, all the indicator
variable values need to be transformed into normalized values using the maximum and
minimum threshold values. The normalized indicator is developed by using a scaling
technique where the minimum value is set to 0 and the maximum 1. The equation used for
this is (Equation 1 in Chapter 2 on methodology)
Normalized indicator value

actual value minimum threshold value


maximum threshold value minimum threshold value

The estimated normalized indicator values (range between a minimum of 0 and a maximum
of 1) for Bangalore city are given in Table 4.10. The transformed values are used in the next
step for developing composite indicators.

81

Table 4.9: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Comparing with Threshold Values


Dimensions of
Sustainability

Categories of
Sustainability
Income
Growth/
Development

Consumption

Economic
Framework

Infrastructure,
Services and Urban
Equipment

Transportation

Demographics

Education

Social
Framework

Health

Equity
Safety
Access to basic
needs (energy, water,
sanitation)
Global Climate
Change
Air Pollution

Environmental
Framework

Soil pollution
Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy Consumption
Water Consumption

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)
Income distribution [GINI Coefficient]
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
City GDP growth rate
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Unemployment rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity generation (%)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Bank branches/100,000 population
Schools/1000 population
Share of households with access to telephones
(Landline)
Share of households with access to mobile phones
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Proportion of total motorised road PKM on public
transport (%)
Average road network speed (km/h)
Superior public transport network , covering trams,
light rail, subway and BRT (km/km2)
City population (million)
% of population that are above 65 years
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
% of students completing primary and secondary
education
School enrolment rate (No)
Literacy rate (%)
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population
Number of physicians per 10,000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
Death rate
Infant mortality
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)
CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]
GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
% of solid waste that is recycled
Water system leakage (% of total)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
Consumption of water (l/day/person)
% of HH having piped water connection

82

10,247
0.32
83
6.5
2.29
31.96
14
129
1576
10.95
61
4.6
17
0.521

Maximum

45,578
0.75
1479
13.3
35.73
191.15
50
527
17619
215.96
61
14.8
95.87
0.955

Minimum

24.1

100

17.5

82.8
47
258
38
2.78

100
587.1
258
65
60.8

37.6
26.1
32
8.1
0.92

72.2

72.2

2.9

27

49.3

18.7

0.55

8.1
5.4
922
3.25
17,723

32.45
20.4
1176
11.4
43079

4.796
5.4
734
0.29
1700

83

100

56

97
88.48
22
5
70
125
27
7.2
31
18
99.2
95.9
283
79.00
98.6
94.82
0.5
0.049
15.1
41
90
266.5
80
39
42.4
41
1576
57.9
39.4
9.6
129
79.00

100
100
137
42
83.75
540
50.06
17.23
61.27
70
100
100
558
100
100
100
9.7
0.690
90
130
150
995.6
100
50.2
100
166.3
17619
734.5
1129.8
31.4
527
100

45
22
3
3
48.69
25
6.85
1.55
2.65
3.8
40
25
55
26
86.3
12
0.5
0.049
11
23
11
146.8
32.4
3.1
10
1.8
352
10.9
6.1
4.95
53.1
26

Bangalore

5,004
0.22
24
1.1
1.00
28.61
4.2
53.1
352
10.95
2
1.2
3.14
0.05

Table 4.10: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Normalized Indicator Values

Dimensions of
Sustainability

Categories of
Sustainability
Income

Growth/ Development

Consumption
Economic
Framework

Infrastructure,
Services and Urban
Equipment

Transportation

Demographics

Education

Social
Framework

Health

Equity
Safety
Access to basic
needs (energy, water,
sanitation)
Global Climate
Change
Air Pollution
Soil pollution
Environ-mental
Framework

Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy Consumption
Water Consumption

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)
Income distribution [GINI Coefficient]
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
City GDP growth rate
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Unemployment rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity generation (%)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Bank branches/100,000 population
Schools/1000 population
Share of households with access to telephones (Landline)
Share of households with access to mobile phones
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Proportion of total motorised road PKM on public transport (%)
Average road network speed (km/h)
Superior public transport network (km/km2)
City population (million)
% of population that are above 65 years
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
% of students completing primary and secondary education
School enrolment rate (No)
Literacy rate (%)
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population
Number of physicians per 10,000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
Death rate
Infant mortality
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)
CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]
GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
% of solid waste that is recycled
Water system leakage (% of total)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
Consumption of water (l/day/person)
% of HH having piped water connection

83

Bangalore
0.13
0.81
0.04
0.44
0.04
0.98
0.79
0.16
0.07
0.00
1.00
0.03
0.15
0.52
0.08
0.72
0.04
1.00
0.53
0.03
1.00
0.27
0.00
0.12
1.00
0.43
0.73
0.61
0.61
0.95
0.85
0.14
0.05
0.61
0.81
0.53
0.64
0.52
0.79
0.99
0.95
0.45
0.72
0.90
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.83
0.43
0.86
0.70
0.24
0.36
0.24
0.93
0.94
0.97
0.18
0.84
0.72

4..8

Composite Indicator Values of different Categories and Dimensions of


Sustainability

The next step is to derive the composite indicator values for different categories of
sustainability from appropriate indicators belonging to that particular category. Further, these
category-wise indicator values are used for developing composite indicator values for various
dimensions of sustainability. In this case, the composite category-wise indices are computed
as the root mean square of the normalized or relative indicator variables belonging to that
particular category. Similarly, composite dimension indices are computed as the root mean
square of the composite indicator values of categories belonging to that particular dimension.
The equation (2) given in Chapter 2 on methodology is used for developing composite
indicators.

=1 2

0.5
P

Where, d j = Dimension or Category of type j


V ij = Variables or categories i belonging to category or dimension j, i = 1, 2, .,
I
I = Number of variables in a dimension

The category- and dimension-wise composite sustainability indicator values, estimated using
the above equation, are presented in Table 4.11.

First, the composite indicators are estimated for each category of sustainability under three
dimensions (Table 4.11). In the next step, the category-wise composite indicator values are
used for developing composite indicator values for different dimensions. As stated previous,
the indicator values range between 0 and 1 on a sustainability scale, with 0 being least
sustainable and 1 being highest sustainable for a given indicator, categories, dimensions and
84

cities/systems under consideration. In other words, a value of 1 becomes the target


benchmark to be achieved for any indicator or index values. Thus, all the values given in
Table 4.11 for Bangalore city may be compared with benchmark value of 1 for making any
inference.

We observe from Table 4.11 that Bangalore city has got the highest index value of 0.720 for
the dimension environmental sustainability and the least value for economic sustainability at
0.519. The social sustainability dimension has got a value of 0.715. Compared to the
benchmark value of 1.000, Bangalore appears to be doing reasonably well with respect to
environmental and social sustainability dimensions. In relation to benchmark values,
Bangalore appears to fair poorly with respect to all the categories of indicators under
economic dimension. Main culprits are indicators belonging to the categories of income and
consumption. Low per capita income levels, low levels of resource consumption (including
energy, water, etc.), inadequate infrastructure development, etc., are contributing to lower
levels of economic sustainability. Relatively better performance with respect to indicators
belonging to categories like education, equity and access to basic needs has significantly
improved the index value of social sustainability. Improved access to health care facilities,
reduction mortality levels, enhanced safety, etc., are some of the aspects that need attention to
improve the values of social sustainability. Further, lower level of energy consumption
leading to lower pollution levels including emissions of greenhouse gases has contributed to
enhancing the environmental sustainability in the case of Bangalore. This may not be a
desirable situation. It is also reflected by lower value for economic sustainability obtained by
Bangalore. However, water pollution and availability of green spaces have got low scores and
improvements in these are more desirable to enhance environmental sustainability.

85

Table 4.11: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Dimensions of
Sustainability

Categories of Sustainability

Economic Framework

Social Framework

Environmental
Framework

Composite Urban
Sustainability Index
(USI)

4..9

Income
Growth/Development
Consumption
Infrastructure, Services and Urban
Equipment
Transportation
Demographics
Education
Health
Equity
Safety
Access to basic needs (energy,
water, sanitation)
Global Climate Change
Air pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy consumption
Water consumption

Composite
Indicator
Values
(Categories)
0.472
0.656
0.454

Composite
Indicator
Values
(Dimensions)

0.519

0.522
0.467
0.689
0.816
0.528
0.898
0.330

0.715

0.857
1.000
0.757
0.785
0.305
0.240
0.823
0.780

0.720

0.658

Developing a composite Urban Sustainability Index (USI)

The next logical step in indicator analysis for benchmarking urban sustainability is to develop
a composite USI. This provides a single number (within the range of 0 and 1) for comparing
the level of sustainability reached by a city or an urban system. The USI is developed using
the composite indicator values (Table 4.11) of above three dimensions that are assumed to
contribute to the issue of urban sustainability. The modified equation that is used for
developing USI is as follows:

=1 2

86

0.5
P

Where,

USI = Urban sustainability index


d j = Dimension j, j = 1, 2, ., J
J = Number of dimensions

The estimated USI for Bangalore is given in Table 4.11. Bangalore obtains an USI value of
0.658 compared to the benchmark value of 1. It is important to remember again that these are
relative index values and not the absolute ones. Conceptually, the maximum USI of 1.0 is
obtained by using the best or highest values for each of the indicator variables under different
categories and dimensions. In other words, for each indicator, the city with the best value is
chosen. Thus, a city with USI of 1.0 is a hypothetical city with the highest achievement on
sustainability radar. Similarly, the USI of 0 is obtained by using the data from cities with least
or worst values for each of the indicators or indicator variables. Therefore, the hypothetical
city with 0 USI has the least achievement on sustainability radar. Thus, all the cities in the
world on a sustainability scale will fall in between these two limits. Similarly, the USIs of
Bangalore or any other city need to be compared in this context.

4..10

Benchmarking Urban Sustainability

Benchmarking any system, urban, industrial, etc., needs some standards to compare. As
explained above, in the present case, we have used two hypothetical cities with an USI of 1 as
best and 0 as worst on a sustainability scale. The same limits of 0 and 1 are applicable even
for all the categories as well as the dimensions of sustainability. The following paragraphs
briefly discuss the efforts at benchmarking Bangalore city for sustainability across categories
and dimensions. Radar diagrams, which have been developed using the estimated
sustainability indices given in Table 4.11, are used for benchmark comparisons.

87

Figure 4.1 shows the benchmarking of Bangalore for economic sustainability against two
hypothetical cities with least and highest sustainability index values. It may be observed from
the figure that Bangalore is quite a distance away from the highest economic sustainability
index value of 1. In all the five categories under economic sustainability dimension,
Bangalore fare well with respect to Growth/Development indicator, with a value of 0.656.
This good performance is mainly contributed by the favourable indicators related to low
consumer price index and unemployment rate. Bangalore performs poorly on a sustainability
scale with respect to indicators like Income, Consumption and Transportation with composite
index values of about 0.4. The main reasons for such a situation are relatively lower levels of
per capita income, per capita water and electricity consumption, lower access to public
transport, poor road infrastructure and relatively higher congestion levels. Bangalores
relatively lower levels of unemployment rate and inflation, higher mobile penetration, better
access to education infrastructure, are some of the reasons for relatively better indicator
values for categories like growth/development and infrastructure and urban services.

Figure 4.1: Benchmarking Economic Sustainability

88

The next dimension used for benchmarking is social sustainability (Figure 4.2). Bangalore
has better sustainability index values with respect to demographics, education and health.
With index values of 0.82 and 0.90 respectively for education and equity categories,
Bangalore city compares favourably with the benchmark sustainability index value of 1 for
these two categories. Even with respect to access to basic needs Bangalore with an index
value of 0.86 is close to the sustainability benchmark. These indicate that Bangalore has
better performance with respect to the chosen social sustainability indicators. The main
reasons for this good performance are the relatively high values obtained for indicators
related to longevity, population growth rate, literacy rate, maternal mortality rate, access to
potable water, access to basic needs, etc.

Figure 4.2: Benchmarking Social Sustainability

Figure 4.3 shows the comparison of the composite environmental sustainability index values
of Bangalore with benchmark sustainability values. Compared to economic and social
sustainability index values, Bangalore City performs better with respect to environmental
sustainability dimension. Especially, the index values for climate change, air and soil
89

pollution, energy consumption and water consumption are relatively high. Availability of
urban green spaces in Bangalore has a value of 0.24 (Figure 4.3). With regard to indicators
related to water pollution and urban green spaces, Bangalore has low values. Overall,
Bangalore compares favourably with environmental sustainability benchmark.

Figure 4.3: Benchmarking Environmental Sustainability

Finally, the composite index values of the dimensions of economic, social and environmental
sustainability are compared with the benchmark index values (Figure 4.4). Among the three
dimension-based composite index values for Bangalore, the values for environmental and
social sustainability dimensions are closer to the benchmark values compared to the
economic dimension. This indicates the lacking of economic development in Bangalore.

90

Figure 4.4: Benchmarking Urban Sustainability

91

CHAPTER 5

BENCHMARKING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY COMPARING


CITIES
5..1

Introduction

In Chapter 4, we discussed about assessment of Bangalores sustainability by comparing


different classes of indices with the hypothetical benchmark indices. These hypothetical
indices are derived based on the best values for different indicators achieved by cities across
the world. This is equivalent of comparing Bangalore city with a hypothetical ideal city.
The comparison is more useful as an estimator of potential gap between the best and actual
(Bangalore citys) indicator values leading to fixing of ultimate targets to be achieved to
bridge the sustainability gap. However, these targets would remain theoretical with
practically impossible to achieve for a given city. Still it is good to be aware of existence of
such targets for making the cities to competitive and progressive.

In this chapter, we discuss an attempt to compare Bangalore city with realistic benchmarks.
In other words, the attempt is to compare Bangalore city with other chosen cities on a
sustainability scale. The aim of this comparison is to enable responding to following
questions

How Bangalore city is faring with respect to various indicators of sustainability


compared to other cities?

With respect to which indicators Bangalore is lacking or doing well?

What are the realistic targets for Bangalore city to improve its sustainability
performance?

For this comparison, we have chosen four cities, one each from India (Mumbai), Europe
(London) and China (Shanghai), and a city-country (Singapore). The profiles of each of the
92

cities in terms of information on some of the important indicators are given in Table 5.1. In
terms of total GDP, Mumbai, Singapore and Shanghai have approximately similar GDP
figures. Similarly, in terms of per capita income, Bangalore, Mumbai and Shanghai could be
clubbed together. London and Singapore are richer cities among the lot. Such similarities
may be observed even with respect to other indicators. For example, GDP growth rates are
approximately same for Bangalore, Mumbai and Singapore; and population is growing at
same rate in Mumbai, London and Shanghai. Bangalore and London at the lower end, and
Mumbai and Singapore at medium level have similar levels of energy consumption per GDP.
Both Mumbai and Bangalore have approximately same levels of per capita electricity
consumption. Shanghai consumes highest amount of energy per GDP where as Singapore has
highest per capita electricity consumption.

Table 5.1: Comparing important indicators


Bangalore Mumbai London Singapore Shanghai
Indicators
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
83
209
349
215
233
Per capita income (US$
10,247
10,885 42,700
41,500
13,061
PPP/year)
City GDP growth rate (%)
6.5
6.3
3
5.7
9.4
City population (million)
8.1
19.2
8.17
5.18
17.84
Population density
10,034
27,137
5,206
7,025
3,030
(persons/sq.km)
Population growth rate (%)
3.25
1.13
1
2.1
1.1
Energy consumption per
1.57
6.5
1.4
5.31
14.66
US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Electricity consumption per
1,576
1,600
5,200
7,949
6,446
capita (kWh)
The above inferences suggest that there are similarities as well as differences among the
chosen cities with respect to economic, demographic and resource use indicators. We feel
that comparing and benchmarking Bangalore city with this set of cities would be more
appropriate rather than using a single city. The following sections briefly present discussions
on our attempt to benchmark Bangalore city with the above list of cities.

93

5..2

Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability for the Cities

As done in Chapter 4 in the case of Bangalore citys assessment against sustainability


yardstick developed using threshold indicator values, the first step in the process of
comparing the cities is to gather required data for quantifying all the prioritized indicators.
The data was gathered mainly from the secondary sources of information, journal papers,
reference books, government reports, project reports, websites of concerned government
departments and ministries, websites related multilateral agencies and variety of databases
from the internet (NUMBEO 2012, Samuel et al 2012, Worldatlas 2012, UNHABITAT 2012,
Bangalore Census 2011, BBMP 2011, BRSIPP 2011, Chaudhuri 2011, John 2011, Rode and
Kandt 2011, Siemens 2011, Siemens 2009, TERI 2011a, WHO, 2011, Anonymous 2010,
Edward 2010, Mahendra et al 2010, Singh 2010, UNHABITAT 2010, GOK 2009, PWC
2009, World Bank 2009, UNHABITAT 2009, Chanakya et al, 2008, Gopakumar 2008,
Sitharam 2008, Sekher et al 2008, UNHABITAT 2008,

Several websites listed in

ANNEXURE 1). Even after spending significant time and efforts for collecting relevant data,
we were not able to get data for all the indicator variables. The requirement is to get data for a
given indicator for all the cities. Even, if we are not successful in getting data for a single city
for a particular indicator, then that indicator cannot be used. This made our task extremely
difficult. Finally, we could gather data for only 22 indicators under economic dimension
(original list contained 56 indicators), 22 indicators under social dimension (original 52
indicators), and 16 indicators under environmental dimension (original 42 indicators). Thus,
for a total of 60 sustainability indicators, we could gather data for all the five cities as well as
for two threshold limits. In this process, we ensured meeting of minimum requirement in
terms of number indicators for every category of sustainability. The data obtained for all the
indicators are presented in Tables 5.2 to 5.4.

94

Table 5.2: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Economic Dimension


Categories of
Sustainability

Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Indicator Values
Comparable Cities
Bangalore

Mumbai

London

Singapore

Shanghai

Maximum

Minimum

10,247

10,885

42,700

41,500

13,061

65,500

5,004

0.32

0.35

0.32

0.45

0.321

0.75

0.22

City GDP (US$ billion PPP)

83

209

349

215

233

1479

24

City GDP growth rate (%)

6.5

6.3

3.0

5.7

9.4

13.3

1.1

2.29

5.76

33

100

4.5

100

1.00

31.96

37.33

110.69

104.86

70.44

191.15

28.61

14

17

8.1

2.1

4.8

50

2.1

129
10.95
1576
61
1.57
17
0.521
82.8

208
15.14
1600
21
6.5
7.9
0.125
83

161
74.49
5150
1.2
1.4
25.56
0.25
100

308.5
158.37
7949
0.0
5.31
10.54
0.16
100

411.1
140.54
6003
0.5
14.66
23.6
0.129
100

527
215.96
17619
61
14.8
95.87
0.955
100

53.1
10.95
352
0.0
1.2
3.14
0.05
37.6

47

26.5

317.2

117

169

587.1

26.1

258

49.1

15.47

134

700

700

15.47

38

33

33

48

34

65

8.1

Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)

2.78

0.92

53.00

25.34

27.48

60.8

0.92

Proportion of total motorized road PKM on public transport (%)

72.2

65.5

52.6

57.1

66

72.2

2.9

27

23

17

27

15

49.3

15

0.0

0.0

0.79

0.21

0.07

0.79

0.0

Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)


Income

Growth/Development

Consumption

Infrastructure,
Services and Urban
Equipment

Income distribution [GINI Coefficient]

City product as a % of countrys GDP


Consumer price index
Unemployment rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity generation (%)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Bank branches/100,000 population
Schools/1000 population
Share of households with access to mobile phones (%)
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking)

Transportation

Threshold values

Average road network speed (km/h)


Superior public transport network , covering trams,
light rail, subway and BRT (km/km2)

95

Table 5.3: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Social Dimension


Categories of
Sustainability

Demographics

Education

Indicator Values
Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Bangalore

Singapore

Shanghai

Maximum

Minimum

8.17

5.18

17.84

32.45

4.796

% of population that are above 65 years

5.4

6.4

11.5

8.45

10.2

20.4

5.4

Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)

922

810

1010

1041

982

1176

734

Population growth rate (%/annum)

3.25

1.13

1.0

2.1

1.1

11.4

0.29

Population density (persons/sq.km)

10,034

27,137

5,206

7025.2

3030.2

43,079

1,700

% of students completing primary and secondary education

83

83

100

100

97

100

56

School enrollment rate (%)

97

95.25

100

100

100

100

45

88.48

82.5

99

94

97

100

22

22

19.2

33

26

51.9

137

5.4

24

18

26.6

42

70

71

79

82

82.1

83.75

48.69

125

63

9.3

3.0

9.61

540

Birth rate (births/1,000 population)

27

13.8

16

9.5

4.9

50.06

6.85

Death rate (deaths/1,000 population)

7.2

6.9

8.05

3.41

3.4

17.23

1.55

Infant mortality

31

34.6

4.60

3.0

5.97

61.27

2.65

Households below poverty line (%)

18

20

8.0

0.0

10

70

% of HH access to water

99.2

98.4

100

100

100

100

40

% of HH access to sanitation

95.9

52

100

100

58

100

25

Number of police officers per 100,000 population

283

140

377

752

195

752

55

79

69

100

100

100

100

26

98.6

98

100

100

100

100

86.3

94.82

49

100

100

72.5

100

12

Life expectancy at birth (years)

Access to basic
needs (energy, water,
sanitation)

London

19.2

Number of physicians per 10,000 population

Safety

Mumbai

8.1

Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population

Equity

Comparable Cities

City population (million)

Literacy rate (%)

Health

Threshold values

Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)

% of HH having piped water connection


Households with electricity connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)

96

Table 5.4: Quantifying Indicators of Urban Sustainability Environmental Dimension


Categories of
Sustainability
Global Climate
Change
Air Pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy Consumption

Water Consumption

Indicator Values
Indicators of Urban Sustainability

Bangalore

CO 2 Emissions per person (tonne per capita)

Threshold values

Comparable Cities
Mumbai

London

Singapore

Shanghai

Maximum

Minimum

0.5

5.84

7.4

9.7

9.7

0.5

0.049

0.092

0.137

0.178

0.743

0.743

0.049

15.1

34

25

35

90

NO 2 emission (g/m3)

41

86

37

22

53

130

22

PM10 emission (g/m3)

90

132

29

29

81

150

11

266.5
80
39
42.4
41
1576
57.9

209
32.4
13.6
67.6
6.6
1600
12.3

566
100
22
97
20.5
5200
185.7

306.6
100
5
100
66.2
7949
384.3

369.5
82.3
10
78.4
18.1
6446.2
266.6

995.6
100
50.2
100
166.3
17619
734.5

146.8
32.4
3.1
10
1.8
352
10.9

39.4

15.9

297.6

237

216.7

1129.8

6.1

9.6
129

7.2
208

9.8
161

27
308.5

10
411.1

31.4
527

4.95
53.1

79

69

100

100

100

100

26

GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)


SO 2 emissions (g/m3)

Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)


Share of waste collected and adequately disposed (%)
Water system leakage (% of total)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
Consumption of water (litre/day/person)
% of HH having piped water connection

97

5..3

Normalized Indicators of Urban Sustainability for Cities

As mentioned above, for developing the composite sustainability indicators, all the indicator
variable values need to be transformed into normalized values using the maximum and
minimum threshold values. The normalized indicator is developed by using a scaling
technique where the minimum value is set to 0 and the maximum to 1. The equation used for
this is the same as that given in Chapter 2 on methodology. The estimated normalized
indicator values for all the five cities are given in Table 5.5. These values range between a
minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1. These transformed values are used in the next step for
developing composite indicators.

98

Table 5.5: Indicators of Urban Sustainability Normalized Indicator Values

Dimensions
of
Sustainability

Categories of
Sustainability
Income

Growth/Development

Consumption
Economic
Framework

Infrastructure,
Services and Urban
Equipment

Transportation

Demographics

Education

Social
Framework

Health

Equity
Safety
Access to basic
needs (energy,
water, sanitation)
Global Climate
Change
Air Pollution

Environmental
Framework

Soil pollution
Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy Consumption
Water Consumption

Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Per capita income (US$ PPP/year)
Income distribution [GINI Coefficient]
City GDP (US$ billion PPP)
City GDP growth rate (%)
City product as a % of countrys GDP
Consumer price index
Unemployment rate (%)
Per capita water consumption (litres)
Final energy consumption (GJ/Capita)
Per capita electricity consumption (kWh)
Share of Renewable Energy in electricity
generation (%)
Energy consumption per US$ GDP (MJ/US$)
Bank branches/100,000 population
Schools/1000 population
Share of households with access to mobile phones
Cars per 1000 population
Two-wheelers per 1000 population
Share of non-motorized transport (including
walking)
Transport fuel consumption (GJ/capita/year)
Proportion of total motorised road PKM on public
transport (%)
Average road network speed (km/h)
Superior public transport network (km/km2)
City population (million)
% of population that are above 65 years
Gender ratio (Females/1000 males)
Population growth rate (%/annum)
Population density (persons/sq.km)
% of students completing primary and secondary
education
School enrolment rate (%)
Literacy rate (%)
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population
Number of physicians per 10,000 population
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 pop)
Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
Death rate (deaths/1,000 population)
Infant mortality
Households below poverty line (%)
% of HH access to water
% of HH access to sanitation
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
% of HH having piped water connection
Households with electricity connection (%)
Population with access to sanitation (%)
CO 2 Emissions per person [tonne per capita]
GHG emission/city GDP (kg/US$ PPP)
SO 2 emissions (g/m3)
NO 2 emission (g/m3)
PM10 emission (g/m3)
Per capita Solid waste (kg/cap/year)
Share of waste collected and adequately disposed
(%)
Water system leakage (% of total)
Share of waste water treated (%)
Green spaces/person (m2)
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh)
Diesel Consumption/capita (litre/year)
Petrol consumption/capita (litre/year)
Electricity price (US Cents/kWh)
Consumption of water (litre/day/person)
% of HH having piped water connection

99

Bangalore

Mumbai

London

Singapore

Shanghai

0.09
0.81
0.04
0.44
0.01
0.98
0.75
0.16
0.00
0.07

0.10
0.75
0.13
0.43
0.05
0.95
0.69
0.33
0.02
0.07

0.62
0.80
0.22
0.16
0.32
0.50
0.87
0.23
0.31
0.28

0.60
0.57
0.13
0.38
1.00
0.53
1.00
0.54
0.72
0.44

0.13
0.81
0.14
0.68
0.04
0.74
0.94
0.76
0.63
0.33

1.00

0.34

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.03
0.15
0.52
0.72
0.04
0.35

0.39
0.05
0.08
0.73
0.00
0.05

0.01
0.24
0.22
1.00
0.52
0.00

0.30
0.08
0.12
1.00
0.16
0.17

0.99
0.22
0.09
1.00
0.25
1.00

0.53

0.44

0.44

0.70

0.46

0.03

0.00

0.87

0.41

0.44

1.00

0.90

0.72

0.78

0.91

0.35
0.00
0.12
1.00
0.43
0.73
0.80

0.23
0.00
0.52
0.93
0.17
0.92
0.39

0.06
1.00
0.12
0.59
0.62
0.94
0.92

0.35
0.27
0.01
0.80
0.69
0.84
0.87

0.00
0.09
0.47
0.68
0.56
0.93
0.97

0.61

0.61

1.00

1.00

0.93

0.95
0.85
0.14
0.05
0.61
0.77
0.53
0.64
0.52
0.74
0.99
0.95
0.33
0.72
0.90
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.82
0.43
0.86

0.91
0.78
0.12
0.06
0.64
0.89
0.84
0.66
0.45
0.71
0.97
0.36
0.12
0.58
0.85
0.42
0.95
0.94
0.69
0.41
0.13
0.93

1.00
0.99
0.22
0.54
0.86
0.99
0.79
0.59
0.97
0.89
1.00
1.00
0.46
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.42
0.87
0.80
0.86
0.87
0.51

1.00
0.92
0.17
0.39
0.95
1.00
0.94
0.88
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.81
1.00
1.00
0.87
0.81

1.00
0.96
0.36
0.61
0.95
0.99
1.04
0.88
0.94
0.86
1.00
0.44
0.20
1.00
1.00
0.69
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.71
0.50
0.74

0.70

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.74

0.24
0.36
0.24
0.93
0.94
0.97
0.18
0.84
0.72

0.78
0.64
0.03
0.93
1.00
0.99
0.09
0.67
0.58

0.60
0.97
0.11
0.72
0.76
0.74
0.18
0.77
1.00

0.96
1.00
0.39
0.56
0.48
0.79
0.83
0.46
1.00

0.85
0.76
0.10
0.65
0.65
0.81
0.19
0.24
1.00

5..4

Composite Indicator Values of different Categories and Dimensions of


Sustainability

The category-wise estimated composite sustainability index values for the three dimensions
of sustainability are presented in Table 5.6. These estimates have been derived for all the five
cities. If we use the category-wise index values as the performance measure of sustainability,
we may observe from Table 5.6 that different cities have performed better with respect to
different categories. For example, under the dimension of economic sustainability, London
has best index value of 0.601 for category income, Singapore has a best value for
growth/development and Shanghai obtains high value of 0.641 for consumption. Under the
economic dimension, Bangalore city does well with respect to the indicator category
growth/development with a value of 0.656, which is higher than that obtained by Mumbai
and London. The index value of 0.454 obtained for the category consumption by Bangalore is
higher than that obtained by Mumbai and London, and very close to Singapores value (Table
5.6).

Under the dimension of social sustainability, Shanghai has best index values for categories
demographics and health where as Singapore obtains high values for categories equity, safety
and access to basic needs. London tops in categories education and access to basic needs,
which it shares with Singapore. Bangalore city obtains relatively high values for indicator
categories education, equity and access to basic needs; however, it occupies only third
position among five cities with respect to equity and fourth position with respect to other two
categories.

Bangalore obtains the best index value of 1.0 for the category global climate change under
the environmental dimension of urban sustainability where as Mumbai tops with a value of
0.844 for the category energy consumption. Singapore performs the best under the
100

environmental sustainability dimension by obtaining high values for indicator categories air
pollution, soil pollution, water pollution and urban green spaces. This indicates that
Singapore is the most environment friendly city among the five chosen for the analysis. In
relation to other cities, Bangalore does well with respect to indicator categories like global
climate change (top), energy consumption (second after Mumbai), urban green spaces
(second after Singapore) and water consumption (second after London) when compared with
five cities. However, Bangalore obtains the last position among the five cities for water
pollution. Overall, Bangalore citys performance with respect to indicator categories under
environmental sustainability appears to be better compared to social and economic
sustainability dimensions.

Table 5.6: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability


Dimensions of
Sustainability

Economic
Framework

Social Framework

Environmental
Framework

Categories of Sustainability
Income
Growth/Development
Consumption
Infrastructure, Services and
Urban Equipment
Transportation
Demographics
Education
Health
Equity
Safety
Access to basic needs
(energy, water, sanitation)
Global Climate Change
Air pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Urban green spaces
Energy consumption
Water consumption

Composite Indicator Values (Categories)


Bangalore Mumbai London Singapore Shanghai
0.472
0.445
0.601
0.487
0.481
0.656
0.623
0.534
0.778
0.690
0.454
0.277
0.212
0.467
0.641

101

0.522

0.424

0.608

0.583

0.593

0.467
0.689
0.816
0.528
0.898

0.390
0.660
0.777
0.604
0.727

0.625
0.703
0.996
0.752
0.963

0.466
0.718
0.975
0.822
1.000

0.574
0.748
0.964
0.857
0.802

0.330

0.120

0.460

1.000

0.200

0.857

0.644

1.000

1.000

0.908

1.000
0.757
0.785
0.305

0.942
0.469
0.655
0.712

0.685
0.845
0.793
0.804

0.602
0.959
0.911
0.980

0.000
0.637
0.738
0.808

0.240
0.823
0.780

0.030
0.844
0.629

0.110
0.647
0.893

0.390
0.684
0.779

0.100
0.619
0.728

These category-wise index values are used to construct dimension-wise sustainability indices.
Table 5.7 presents the estimated index values for three dimensions of sustainability for all the
five cities. From Table 5.7, we may observe that Shanghai has the best value of 0.60 for
economic sustainability where as Singapore obtains highest values for both social (0.926) and
environmental (0.784) sustainability. In comparison, Bangalore city with values of 0.519,
0.715 and 0.720 respectively for economic, social and environmental sustainability
dimensions is better only compared to Mumbai. Only in the case of environmental
sustainability it fares better than Shanghai in addition to Mumbai. All these suggest that
Bangalore needs to do lot more to in order to climb ladder of sustainability.

Table 5.7: Composite Indicators of Urban Sustainability and Composite Urban


Sustainability Index (USI)
Composite Indicator Values (Dimensions)
Dimensions of
Sustainability
Bangalore Mumbai London Singapore Shanghai
Economic
0.519
0.446
0.539
0.569
0.600
Framework
Social Framework
0.715
0.628
0.836
0.926
0.789
Environmental
0.720
0.671
0.726
0.784
0.601
Framework
Composite Urban
Sustainability
0.658
0.590
0.711
0.773
0.669
Index (USI)

5..5

Developing a composite Urban Sustainability Index (USI)

As done in the previous chapter, the next logical step in indicator analysis for benchmarking
urban sustainability is to develop a composite urban sustainability index (USI) for overall
comparison. This provides a single number (within the range of 0 and 1) for comparing the
level of sustainability reached by a city or an urban system. The USI is developed using the
dimension-wise composite indicator values (Table 5.7) of three dimensions, economic, social
and environmental, that are assumed to contribute to the issue of urban sustainability. The
estimated USIs for all the five cities are given in Table 5.7 (last row).
102

Bangalore obtains an USI value of 0.658, which makes it fourth among five cities with
Singapore topping the list with an USI of 0.773. Mumbai has a lowest USI of 0.59. It is
important to remember again that these are relative index values and not the absolute ones
and all the cities in the world on a sustainability scale will fall in between two limits of 0 and
1. To improve the USI levels, both Bangalore and Mumbai need to work towards enhancing
the rate of economic development while simultaneously adhering to the conditions imposed
by social and environmental imperatives.

5..6

Benchmarking Urban Sustainability Comparing five cities

As explained in the previous chapter, benchmarking any system urban, industrial, etc.,
needs some benchmark standards to compare. In the previous chapter, we used a hypothetical
city with an USI of 1 on a sustainability scale for comparing Bangalore city. In this chapter,
we make similar comparison of Bangalore city with four more cities. The following
paragraphs briefly discuss the efforts of comparing five cities for sustainability across
categories and dimensions. Radar diagrams are being used for these benchmark comparisons.

Figure 5.1 shows the benchmarking of Bangalore for economic sustainability against four
cities with different sustainability index values. It may be observed from the figure that all the
five cities are quite a distance away from the highest economic sustainability index value of
1. Out of the five categories under economic sustainability dimension, only with respect to
Growth/Development indicator, the values have crossed 0.6 and approaching 0.8. This
relatively good performance is mainly because of the favourable indicators related to low
consumer price index and low unemployment rate. In the case of remaining indicator
categories, the values are mostly below 0.6 and in the case of Bangalore and Mumbai, they
are around 0.4. The main reasons for such a situation are relatively lower per capita water &
103

electricity consumption, lower share of renewable energy, lower access to education and
financial infrastructure, lower access to motorized transport and relatively higher congestion
levels. The reasons are approximately similar to all the five cities with differing degrees of
influence. These differences in the influence are exhibited through the variations in the values
of indices, which can be observed from Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Benchmarking Economic Sustainability Comparing Cities

Next dimension used for comparing cities is social sustainability (Figure 5.2). Unlike in the
previous case, the values of most of the indicator categories are either close to or above 0.8.
This is true for almost all the cities, exception being the city of Mumbai. With respect to
indicator safety, except for Singapore (1.0) all other cities have fared very poorly, with
Bangalore and Mumbai obtaining values less than 0.2. Indicator categories like education,
equity and access to basic needs where cities have shown the best performance. The reasons
for this good performance are mainly due to relatively high values obtained for indicators
104

related to longevity, population growth rate, literacy rate, maternal mortality rate, access to
potable water, access to basic needs, etc. Overall, all the five cities have shown better social
performance compared to economic performance.

Figure 5.2: Benchmarking Social Sustainability Comparing Cities

Figure 5.3 shows the comparison of the composite environmental sustainability index values
for different categories among five cities as well as with benchmark sustainability value.
Compared to economic and social sustainability index values, both the Indian cities have
performed better with respect to environmental sustainability dimension. Especially, the
index values for climate change, energy consumption and soil pollution are relatively high.
Shanghai city, does poorly with respect to most of the indicator categories under
environmental sustainability dimension resulting in poor overall performance. All the cities
have scored lowly on indicator category availability of urban green spaces (Figure 5.3).
Bangalore city also does well with respect to five of the seven categories under
105

environmental sustainability. Only with respect to indicators related to water pollution and
urban green spaces, Bangalore has low values.

Figure 5.3: Benchmarking Environmental Sustainability Comparing Cities

Finally, the composite index values of economic, social and environmental sustainability
dimensions are compared for all the five cities (Figure 5.4). From the figure, we may observe
that least achievement by the five cities is with respect to economic sustainability with each
citys composite index value of either equal to or less than 0.6. With respect to environmental
sustainability, the cities have achieved composite index values closer to 0.8 (less than or
equal to 0.8). The best performance showed by these cities is with respect to social
sustainability. The composite index values achieved by the cities are around 0.8 (few cities
more than 0.8 and few slightly below that). Mumbai is the only exception here. Further, both
Bangalore and Mumbai, unlike the other three cities, perform better with respect to
environmental sustainability compared to social sustainability (Figure 5.4). Lower economic
106

development resulting in lower resource requirements might have been the reason for this
deviation. Possible recommendation could be to adopt environmental friendly pathways for
economic development leading to enhancing the values of all the three composite indicators
of sustainability.

Figure 5.4: Benchmarking Urban Sustainability Comparing Cities

Finally, the USI is compared for all the five cities (Figure 5.5). As with individual dimension
index values, the rank order remain the same with Singapore and London occupying the two
positions in that order. In other words, among the five cities chosen for comparison,
Singapore emerges as the most sustainable urban system.

107

Figure 5.5: Comparing Urban Sustainability Index (USI)

108

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6..1

Introduction

There is a growing concern world-wide that increasing urbanisation and the related
environmental impacts are posing new challenges to the stakeholders governments, policy
makers, industries, service providers, users and the public. With limited resource availability,
these problems are becoming more widespread and the approaches to tackle them are
becoming complex. There is an urgent need to develop new approaches which should be
based on integrated policy and planning mechanisms involving all the stakeholders. This will
result in clear policy goals and strategies which can support new ways of thinking that results
in sustainable urban systems. The present study is an attempt to lay the basis to achieve that
goal through the development and use of indicators belonging to economic, environmental
and social dimensions of sustainability to establish the baseline status of sustainability of an
urban system. It should be emphasised here that indicators are effective when they are
developed as a part of the overall policy and planning process. They facilitate comparisons
among urban regions world-wide, across time-periods for a given city and comparison with a
benchmark city. However, it should be recognized that it is difficult to develop common
indicators which are universally applicable and measurable. Nevertheless, providing a basis
for developing indicators and a framework for the comparison is essential. There is also a
need to monitor the progress of these indicators over time.

In this study, we have discussed elaborately an attempt at developing indicators of


sustainability for Bangalore city with an objective of developing an urban sustainability
baseline. In the next step, this baseline sustainability status for the city was compared initially
109

with a sustainable benchmark hypothetical city developed using threshold index values. Next,
Bangalore city was also compared with cities like Mumbai, London, Singapore and Shanghai
on the scale of sustainability. The following sections briefly present the summary of this
effort and some important findings as well as few inputs for policy formulation.

6..2

Summary

As explained elaborately in earlier chapters, the study was conducted with the following
specific objectives: (i) developing sustainable urban indicator variables spanning all the
relevant sectors of a typical megacity, (ii) developing a benchmark indicator-base for a
hypothetical sustainable city, (iii) similarly develop the indicator database for Bangalore city,
(iv) comparing and evaluating the indicator data with the benchmark indicator database using
a gap analysis approach, (v) comparing Bangalore citys sustainability indices with four
megacities

on similar indices, and (vi) suggesting appropriate policy measures and

implementation strategies to bridge the identified gaps to attain the goal of sustainable urban
system.

The study began with the prioritization of indicators that are relevant for measuring urban
sustainability under different categories as well as dimensions of sustainability. Based on the
literature, four dimensions of urban sustainability economic sustainability, social
sustainability, environmental sustainability and institutional/governance sustainability were
used. The prioritization was made on the basis of literature review, logical assessment and
data availability. In the next step, for the prioritized indicators, values were obtained from the
various secondary sources of information. In the third step, to develop a sustainability
benchmark, the threshold values (maximum and minimum) for the prioritized indicators were
generated again from different sources of secondary information. In the fourth step, the
composite sustainability index values, category-wise and dimension-wise, were developed for
110

Bangalore city. Finally, the Urban Sustainability Index (USI) initially for Bangalore and next
for four more cities were developed and compared with the benchmark USI. The results
presented in the study provided a snapshot of the state of un-sustainability prevailing in the
chosen cities.

As the study shows, there are interactions among economic activity, social empowerment and
the environmental development, and understanding this relationship is essential.

It is

important to monitor the feedbacks and status of these relationships in the interests of
resource use and its impact on the urban economy and environment. Indicators can give
guidance for such efforts. Basically, the study outlines the steps of an approach to develop
indicators for urban regions considering the challenges of scale, capacity, data comparability
and reliability. This approach can be extended to other urban centres based on the consensus
around basic objectives (founded on basic needs), core and optional questions recognizing the
unique nature of the urban region and geographic location and the need to monitor the
activities.

Measuring the sustainability of urban regions poses many challenges. It includes the
processes of identification and collection of data which is valid, reliable and comprehensive.
In some cases the data may not be readily available and the activities of identifying and
collecting the data constitute no small task. The collection and organisation of information in
a way that is valid, efficient and meets the growing needs for comparable data across cities to
address the sustainability issues are the major challenges. The generation of and access to
information requires significant commitment of resources, coordination of efforts and
collaboration among agencies and organizations at various levels. The next problem is of
interpreting indicators and drawing conclusions from them for effective use in decision111

making processes. It is important to note that the data for basic indicators may already be
available in some form but for some (especially for interventions) a new indicator
development process is required. In order to be comprehensive in the approach and allow
indications of status across the world, it is necessary to be flexible about the way the data are
collected.

Regarding the approach to be adopted, in general, it is based on the understandings of what


constitutes a sustainable city. Studies suggest that the most beneficial approach may be the
one which is based on the measurement of resource use and its impacts (water use, energy
use, air pollution, etc.) and incorporate the metabolism approach without converting
everything into a single unit of land. The results presented in this study provide a snapshot of
the state of un-sustainability as well as the targets to be reached, and does not recognise the
efforts to move towards sustainability. This is an issue one has to keep in mind. If the
concepts discussed in this study were applied to other cities, what could it mean for their
progress in terms of sustainability? It is difficult to be certain of the answer, particularly in
regard to the sustainability indicator measurement because the choice of indicators will
clearly influence the results.

In order to manage issues pertaining to economic, environmental and social development


more effectively, decision-makers should develop and use appropriate indicators, so that the
information provided and analysed in this study would become useful and meaningful for
policy and planning at various levels. In this regard there is an urgent need to harmonize
indicator development initiatives at all levels local, national and global.

112

6..3

Important Findings

As explained in the previous chapters, the benchmarking of Bangalore for urban


sustainability was done by comparing the sustainability index values with two hypothetical
cities with least and highest sustainability index values. Some of important observations from
this analysis are as follows.

With the index values of 0.519 for economic sustainability, Bangalore has occupied a
lower position on urban sustainability scale when compared with the benchmark value
of 1.0. Main reasons for this low performance are lower sustainability scores obtained
for indicators related to income, infrastructure and transportation.

With respect to social sustainability, Bangalore has bettered its performance with
index value of 0.715. This relatively better performance is due to high scores obtained
for sustainability indicators like education, equity and access to basic needs. The
results suggest that Bangalore can further improve its social sustainability index
values by focusing on issues related safety of citizens and development of the health
infrastructure.

In relation to economic and social sustainability index values, the performance of


Bangalore is slightly better with respect to environmental sustainability. The index
value of 0.720 Bangalore reflects this. The index value is relatively high because of
better sustainability scores for indicators related to climate change, energy
consumption and soil pollution. The low score for urban green spaces is one of the
contributors for lowering the environmental sustainability index value. Individually,
Bangalore has low sustainability scores for water pollution. It needs to make targeted

113

interventions with respect to indicator categories where they have got low normalised
scores.

Next, we have also compared the category-wise and dimension-wise sustainability index
values as well as the composite USIs of five cities including Bangalore, Mumbai, London,
Singapore and Shanghai. Some of the important findings for this analysis are as follows.

Among the five cities compared, Singapore emerges as the most sustainable city with
an USI of 0.773. Bangalore is fourth in the list with a composite USI of 0.658.

In relation to social and environmental dimensions, all the cities have obtained least
values for economic sustainability. This is a very positive finding from this
comparative analysis. Basically, urbanisation leads to better access to basic needs,
infrastructure, less resource intensive economic growth, better opportunity for
employment, etc.

Relatively low performance on indicators linked to economic sustainability has been


the main reason for both Bangalore and Mumbai to rank fourth and fifth respectively
among the five cities.

The relatively better performance with respect to environmental sustainability by both


Bangalore and Mumbai is partially due to their lower achievements in economic
development. Lower economic achievements mean lesser demand for fossil fuelbased energy resources and lesser economic activities.

A deeper analysis with indicator-specific comparison among cities enables


identification of specific gaps and target setting for improvement. Such a comparison
114

can enable cities like Bangalore to prioritise interventions and make attempts at
focused implementation of such interventions.

6..4

Implementing the Benchmark initiative

Chapters 4 and 5 presented Bangalore citys comparison with benchmark sustainability


standards and with four megacities. The next step is to use the comparative analysis and
develop appropriate benchmarks for each city. Establishing a benchmarking initiative should
reflect the desired policy objectives and include only relevant indicators. The first step
towards any meaningful benchmarking is to have a thorough understanding of the
performance of a city. This not only involves comparison with other cities but also involves
an understanding of changes in the performance of the city itself (economic, environmental,
social and governance) during the past years. In terms of the external comparison, it is
important to choose an appropriate urban region that clearly has a better performance in the
dimensions that are investigated. It is therefore logical that the benchmarking of Bangalore
city has been done using an ideal sustainability standard with a value of 1.0 (hypothetical
city) and four megacities representing different levels of development.

Having a specific target sets a clear direction for the city. Hence, one of the first steps
towards establishing benchmarking targets is to have strong policy commitment and a clear
vision to achieve improvement strategies. Therefore, the target performance or benchmark
level is decided based on a combination of: (i) the citys current performance and its desired
position in the future; and (ii) the background of the city in terms of future objectives for
public policies regarding urban renewal. Of course, depending on the resource availability,
and the time frame, one may accept a lower performance level than the target. Therefore a

115

future target should be set on the basis of practical and achievable incremental improvements
(Theuns, Mohammed and Jung, 2011).

Benchmarking can only be successful if it becomes a continued process of measurement and


reporting against the set targets. Apart from obvious progress monitoring that takes place, it
will also ensure that the overall outcomes progress in a desired direction. Having continuous
measurement and reporting in mind should also help set the expectations in terms of the
scope and magnitude of the benchmarking framework. Experience shows that the best
approach would be to start with a small set of indicators and increase them over time keeping
in mind the marginal benefits and costs of such additions.

6..5

Inputs for Policies

In order to manage issues pertaining to economic, environmental and social development


more effectively, decision-makers should develop and use appropriate indicators, so that the
information provided and analysed in this or similar studies would become useful and
meaningful for policy and planning at various levels.

The city administration needs to develop an integrated policy and legislative framework that
will facilitate the implementation of programmes towards advancing sustainability. The roles
and responsibilities of each stake holder should be clarified to enhance the provision of basic
services such as water and sanitation in the areas within the municipalities as well as in areas
beyond the municipal boundaries. The coordination among inter-governmental agencies and
alignment of various development programmes will improve the implementation in key areas
such as poverty reduction, employment generation and reduction in environment pollution.
Programme level indicators for implementing sustainable development projects are important
116

in improving urban sustainability. These could include: renewable energy programmes, green
buildings programmes, efficient mobility, urban organic farming programmes, etc. Indicators
should therefore address the linkage between various dimensions of sustainability, viz.,
economy, society and the environment.

The macro-economic and environmental policies will need to support local policies in
establishing small businesses and skills development programmes that match market needs.
It is important that the government needs to take leading role in providing basic services,
rather than relying on the private sector to provide such services. This will enable basic
service provision at prices that are affordable to the poor.

While selected indicators should describe the existing state of urban systems and show
undesirable trends, indicators should include policy implementation indicators to assess
whether programmes are effective in improving the quality of life of the inhabitants. The
indicators need to be reviewed periodically in order to align them with the evolving urban
system and be used to inform new policies and programmes where required. It is important
that urban regions must continue to innovate and evolve. To make that transition
successfully, the city administration needs to work with a wide array of stakeholders from
business, labour and philanthropy

There is also need to develop feedback indicators which help in resource conservation. For
example, introducing green buildings regulations help in reducing the amount of energy and
materials used in construction. A public forum should be established to develop a clear
vision and plan for implementing sustainable development programmes. The forum should
consist of representatives from local communities, professionals, technical and social groups,
117

including youth, women and disadvantaged groups of the population. Active participation of
policy makers in this forum is critical to enable linkage of indicators to policies and
corrective measures. The forum should focus on issues that can control or influence and
agree on what indicators are required to monitor sustainability. The involvement of technical
experts after the indicators have been identified is crucial to advise whether the indicators are
practical, suitable, and measurable. The form can improvise the list of indicators, policy
prescriptions and corrective measures through workshops and awareness campaigns.

Institutional arrangements for effective coordination and implementation of action plans


between local, municipal, state and central government departments, private sector, civil
society and the local communities need to be developed. The creation of such institutional
mechanisms will improve knowledge on challenges facing cities and for capacity building
that will be useful in improving urban management and decision making processes. For this
reason government officials across various departments as well as representatives from local
community, private companies, academia and NGOs should be involved in decision making
processes that influence urban sustainability.

At the municipal level, effective coordination and institutional alignment is important at ward
and sub-council levels and also the active participation of communities in planning, policy
development and implementation. This should be supported by allowing municipalities to
exercise control of their budget allocations.

Sustainability issues are inherently interconnected, and any approach that needs to be
implemented requires the administration to think across various sectors, viz., housing,

118

transportation, education and workforce, and energy policy and act collaboratively to
construct feasible sustainability plans.

Finally, to achieve sustainability a common commitment and effort to cooperate on initiatives


must be adopted. This commitment must include the enhancement of capacities of the
stakeholders and the political will to monitor and act on these issues in order to ensure a
common minimal standard of global urban sustainability.

6..6

Conclusions

The study involving Bangalore city and four other megacities as comparative cities
demonstrated the value of benchmarking and obtained a better understanding of the practical
and data-related aspects of benchmarking cities for sustainability. The study demonstrated the
importance of these comparisons in the context of four dimensions, economic, environmental,
social and governance. Although the study is not an in-depth research of the urban
performance in Indian cities, this is a relatively quick demonstration, by using relatively
easily available existing data sets that benchmarking can be an effective tool in identifying
areas for improvement.

The use of indicators for assessing urban sustainability performance is an important tool and
is being adopted widely in recent times. Even though various indicators have been selected
and applied, the final goal is the same, to attain urban sustainability. It must be noted that the
selection of indicators should be done with the clear understanding of the needs where these
are going to be applied. Initially a short list of indicators is recommended and later more
indicators can be added or eliminated depending on the emerging needs. There is an urgent
need to harmonize indicator development initiatives at all levels local, national and global.
119

There are many studies that have explored the potential of various urban regions to achieve
sustainability and indicator-based approach can be used for tracking such progress and setting
targets.

Institutional innovations and indicators are needed to provide fertile ground for socioeconomic improvements and creativity. All actors have a major role to play in this process. It
involves establishing a sense of urgency, developing a vision and strategy, communicating
the vision of change and proposing new measures for evaluating progress. They must proceed
with empowering people for broad-based action, winning short-term goals, consolidating
gains, producing more changes and anchoring new changes in the life style of the inhabitants.
Urban regions need paradigm shifts towards a new economic, political and socioenvironmental equilibrium.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.

Abhishek, A. (2012a), Citizen Matters, 50% women councillors in BBMP help


http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/4162-will-50-womenBengaluru,
councillors-in-bbmp-help-bengaluru

2.

Abhishek,
A.
(2012b),
Citizen
http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/4321-cauvery-is-too-far

3.

Adikeshavalu, R. (2004), Evaluation Capacity Development: An Assessment of the


Impact of Bangalore Citizen Report Cards on the Performance of Public Agencies.
http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/45856721251461875432/ecd_wp_12.pdf.

4.

Agarwal,
O.P.
(2006),
Urban
Transport,
http://www.iitk.ac.in/3inetwork/html/reports/IIR2006/ Urban%20Transport.pdf.

5.

Alberti, M. (1996), Measuring Urban Sustainability, Environmental Impact


Assessment
Rev.,
16
(46),
pp
381423,
ftp://colbun.utalca.cl/redcauquenes/Papers/measuring%20urban%
20sustainability.pdf.

6.

Alshuwaikhat, H.M. and Nkwenti, D.I. (2002), Developing Sustainable Cities in Arid
Regions, Cities, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 8594.

7.

Ambiente Italia,(2003), European common indicatorstowards a local sustainability


profile, Final Project Report, Ambiente Italia Research Institute, Milano, Italy, May.

8.

Amna, S. and Salman, Q. (2005), Indicators of sustainable urban development: A


review
of
urban
regeneration
projects
in
Karachi,
Pakistan,
http://www.herodot.net/conferences/ayvalik/ papers/geog-04.pdf.

9.

Angel, D.P. and Rock, M.T. (2001), Policy Integration: Environment and
Development in Asia. United StatesAsia Environmental Partnership, Asia Policy
Network II, Technical area: Environmental and Economic Growth Linkages, March.

10.

Anonymous (2010), Mumbai Human Development Report 209, Oxford University


Press, New Delhi, http://mhupa.gov.in/W_new/Mumbai%20HDR%20Complete.pdf

11.

Anon (2000), Selected Papers from the Quebec City Consensus Conference on
Environmental Health Indicators, Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, SeptOct.

12.

Anon, (2003), Report of the Montreal urban indicators system project, The Woodcock
Foundation, November.

13.

Anon, (2006), Urban Explosion: the facts, New Internationalist, January.

121

Matters,

14.

Anon, (2008), Sustainable Energy Planning Office report on Model for Sustainable
Urban Design With Expanded Sections on Distributed Energy Resources

15.

Anon, (2010), Revised Land use Plan, Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development
Authority, Mumbai. http://www.regionalplan-mmrda.org

16.

Anon, (2004), Working Group on Urban Design for Sustainability, Final Report on
Urban Design For Sustainability European Union Expert Group on the Urban
Environment, January.

17.

Andre Nickl, (2008), A thesis on Urban Sustainability in the Global South and the
Role of Integrated Transport SolutionsExperiences from Latin America with a
Focus on Chiles TranSantiago School of Geography, Environment and Earth
Sciences June.

18.

Asnani, P.U. (2010), Solid Waste Management, http://environmentclearance.nic.in/


writereaddata/Form1A/HomeLinks/TGM_%20Comman%20Municipal%20Sold%20Waste%
20Management_160910_NK.pdf.

19.

Aumnad Phdungsilp, (2006), Licentiate Thesis, Department of Energy Technology,


Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

20.

Balachandra, P. and Chanakya, H.N. (2009), Sustainability Proofing of Energy


Technologies, UK-India Sustainable Energy Technologies Conference, 910
September, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

21.

Balachandra, P., (2009), Access to Modern Energy Services: A case of Bangalore


City, Regional Workshop on Urban Energy Access and Development in Asia, 45
August, Jakarta, Indonesia.

22.

Balachandra, P. and B. Sudhakara Reddy, (2007), Hydrogen Energy for Indian


Transport Sector: A Well-To-Wheel Techno-Economic and Environmental Feasibility
Analysis, Discussion Paper No. WP-2007-007, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development
Research
(IGIDR),
Mumbai,
2007,
http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-004.pdf.

23.

Balachandra, P. and Sudhakar, Y, (2006), Cleaner Mobility in Urban Area,


Technical Paper, submitted to UNDP, New Delhi, September

24.

BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education & Research) (2004), The urban transition:
research for the sustainable development of the megacities of tomorrow, Division
622 Global Change, BMBF, Germany.

25.

Boyko, C. T. and Cooper, R., (2011), Clarifying and re-conceptualising density.


Progress in Planning, 76 (1), 161.

26.

Bulkeley H, (2006), "Urban sustainability: learning from best practice?" Environment


and Planning A, 38(6) 10291044.
122

27.

Bangalore Census (2011), Bangalore (Bengaluru) District Census 2011 data,


http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/242-bangalore.html.

28.

Becky, P.Y. (2006), Sustainable Urban Transportation: Concepts, Policies, and


Methodologies,
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%2907339488%282006%29132%3A2%2876%29?journalCode=jupddm.

29.

BESCOM
(2003),
Citizen
Report
Card
on
Bescom
http://www.citizenreportcard.com/ crc/pdf/Written_Document.pdf.

30.

Bharath, H. A. and Uttam, K. (2009), Fusion of multi resolution remote sensing data
for
urban
sprawl
analysis,
http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/cosmar09/Fusion%20of%20multi
%20resolution%20remote%20sensing.pdf.

31.

Banister, D. (2008), Urban sustainability: Dilemmas, challenges and paradigms,


Transport Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 7380.

32.

BBMP (2011), City Statistics, http://218.248.45.169/download/health/swm.pdf.

33.

Bell, S. G., and Morse, S. (1999), Sustainability indicators: Measuring the


immeasurable. London: Earthscan.

34.

Briassoulis, H., (2001), Sustainable development and its indicators: through a


(planners) glass darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3),
pp. 409427.

35.

BRSIPP (2011), Program and Results, http://www.nimhans.kar.nic.in/epidemiology/


bisp/brsipp2011c.pdf.

36.

BS Reporter (2011), City has lowest CO 2 emissions, Business Standard,


http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/city-has-lowest-co2emissions/425165/.

37.

Bureau (2012), Financial Express, http://www.financialexpress.com/news/karnatakaincreases-power-tariff-by-average-13-paiseunit/943869/.

38.

Census (2011), Cities having population 1 lakh and above, Census 2011,
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-provresults/paper2/data_files/India2/Table_2_PR_Cities_1Lakh_and_Above.pdf.

39.

Chanakya, H.N, Ramachandra, T.V, and Shwetmala, (2008), Towards a sustainable


waste management system for Bangalore, http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/
wms_for_bangalore/sustainable_waste_management_system_for_Bangalore.pdf.

40.

Chaudhuri, A. (2011), A tale of two cities: How Bangalore is losing out,


http://www.iipm.edu/ itt/11-july.html.

41.

Correspondent (2008), Carbon emissions from vehicles in Bangalore alarming: Study,


Outlook India, http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=538422.
123

Services,

42.

Correspondent (2012), LPG Price down by Rs. 6.55, Times of India,


http://articles.timesofindia. indiatimes.com/2012-07-27/bangalore/32888512_1_lpgprice-domestic-lpg-cylinders-price-dip.

43.

Christopher, T. Boyko, Mark R. Gaterell, Austin R.G. Barber, Julie Brown, John R.
Bryson, David Butler (*), Benchmarking sustainability in cities: The role of
indicators and future scenarios, Journal of Global Environmental Change-951; pp. 10

44.

Deccan Herald Correspondent (2012), Delhi stands 4th in employment growth in


country, Deccan Herald, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/271008/delhi-stands4th-employment-growth.html.

45.

Deepa, K. (2012), We may be the tech hub, but our residents arent that wired, The
Hindu, http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/article3751424.ece

46.

Deepti, B and Ankita, D. (2007), Citizens Report Cards On Public Services:


Bangalore,
India,
http://internationalbudget.org/library/publications/guides/ourmoney-our-responsibility/our-money-our-responsibility-part-7/

47.

Dimitra, K. and Roland, K. (2011), Urban sustainability standards: predetermined


checklists or adaptable frameworks? Procedia Engineering, Vol. 21, pp 204211.

48.

Correspondent (2012), New, improved Bangalore coming up near BIA, Daily News
and Analysis, http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_new-improved-bangalorecoming-up-near-bia_1698289.

49.

Edward,
L.
G.
(2010),
Making
Sense
of
Bangalore,
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDI
QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fd
oi%3D10.1.1.180.1358%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=1kW0UIzbM8LprQesj
oHYCQ&usg=AFQjCNH9XBZKo_rCKJl1nUwneVLdt4qiwA&sig2=J33QBGfkqP6
pz6yxYNMZFw.

50.

Emmanuel Adinyira, Samuel Oteng-Seifah, and TheophilusAdjei-Kumi, 2007, A


Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies, Paper presented at the
International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment,
Glasgow.

51.

European Foundation, (1998), European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign.


Charter of European Cities and Towns: Towards Sustainability, Brussels.

52.

Fedra, K. (2004), Sustainable Urban Transportation: a model-based approach.


Cybernetics and Systems, 35: 455485.

53.

George, B. (2006), Urban sustainability: Dilemmas, challenges and paradigms,


Technology in Society, Vol. 28, pp. 1926.

54.

Goel
(2012),
Times
http://mobiletoi.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&
124

Of

India,

pageid=3&sectid=edid=&edlabel=TOIBG&mydateHid=10-10-2012&pubname=
Times+of+ India+-+Bangalore&edname=&articleid=Ar00300&publabel=TOI
55.

Girardet, Herbert, (2008). Cities People Planet: Urban Development and Climate
Change. Second edition, England: John Wiley &Sons Ltd.

56.

Gnansounou, E., (2008), Assessing the energy vulnerability: Case of industrialised


countries, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 3734-3744.

57.

Gopakumar,
(2008),
Bangalore
climate
change,
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/
Mertice-36585-Bangalore-climatechange-Gopakumar-Oil-greatest-discovery-ever-Indias-consumption-Bangalores-asEntertainment-ppt-powerpoint/.

58.

GOK (2009), Bangalore Mobility Indicators 2008, Government of Karnataka,


http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Draft%20Bangalore%20Mobility%20I
ndicators%202008.pdf.

59.

Gowda, B.N. (2012), Deccan Herald, Karnataka government revises minimum


wages, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/100847/karnataka-government-revisesminimum-wages.html

60.

Globe Scan and MRC McLean Hazel, (2010), Megacity Challenges: A stakeholder
perspective, Siemens AG Corporate Communications (CC), Munich.

61.

Hardoy, J.E., Mitlin, D. and Satterhwaite, D. (2001), Environmental Problems in an


Urbanizing World: Finding Solutions for Cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Earthscan, London.

62.

Hippu, S. K and Reddy, B.S. (2011), Urban Transport Sustainability Indicators


Application
of
Multi-view
Black-box
(MVBB)
framework,
http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2011-022.pdf.

63.

Ides Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore (2005), Policy Paper for Pedestrian Movement in
the
Bangalore
Metropolitan
Region,
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Draft%20
Pedestrian%20Policy%20for%20BMR.pdf.

64.

Hilda LEUNG PuiChing, (2005), A report on Planning For Urban Sustainability:


Promoting Integrated Transit-Oriented Development, The Centre of Urban Planning
Environment Management, The University of Hong Kong, June.

65.

Hirokazu Kato, Kentaro Jimbo, and Yoshitsugu Hayashi, (2005), A Framework For
Benchmarking Environmental Sustainability Of Transport In Asian Mega-Cities,
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 32413249.

66.

Hurley, Joe and Horne, Ralph. (2006) Review and Analysis of Tools for the
Implementation of Sustainable Urban Development, EIANZ.

125

67.

Ilektra Kouloumpi, (2012), Rating Energy Sustainability of Urban Communities A


comparison of four sustainability assessment tools for urban areas, M.Sc. Thesis,
Sustainable Development Energy and Resources, May. which institution?

68.

International Institute for Sustainable Development, (2005), Sustainable Development


Indicators Proposals for a Way Forward.

69.

International Institute for Sustainable Development, (2010), Compendium of


Sustainability
Indicators,
IISD,
available
at
http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx (accessed on 7 July
2010).

70.

Jesper, O. J. (2009), Sustainability Profile for Urban Districts in Copenhagen,


http://vbn.aau.dk/ files/18950039/Sustainable__profile.pdf.

71.

John, D.S. (2011), Vulnerability Assessment of Urban Marginalised Communities: A


Pilot
study
in
Bangalore
Slum
areas,http://www.ced.org.in/docs/inecc/member_reports/VA-rep-urbanmarginalised.pdf.

72.

James, K. (2007), Selecting sustainability indicators for urban energy systems, paper
presented at International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its
Assessment, Glasgow.

73.

Jose, I. B. and Luca, D. (2003), Urban sustainability in developing countries


megacities: modeling and predicting future urban growth in Lagos, Cities, Vol. 20,
No. 5, pp 297310.

74.

Joe Hurley, and Ralph Horne (*), Review and Analysis of Tools for the
Implementation and Assessment of Sustainable Urban Development ????

75.

Kari Lautso, Klaus Spiekermann, and Michael Wegener, (2002), Modelling Policies
for Urban Sustainability, Paper presented at the 42nd Congress of the European
Regional Science Association (ERSA), Dortmund, August 2731.

76.

Kelkar, U., Balachandra, P. and Gurtoo, A., (2011), Assessing Indian Cities for
Vulnerability to Climate Change, International Conference on Environmental
Science and Development, January 79, Mumbai, India,

77.

KSPCB (2011), Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Annual Report 2009-2010,
http://kspcb.gov.in/Anual%20Report%202009-2010.pdf

78.

Klaus, S. and Michael, W. (2003), Modelling Urban Sustainability, International


Journal of Urban Sciences, Vol.7, pp 4764.

79.

Liyin, S., Peng, Xiaoling, Z. and Yuzhe, W. (2011), An alternative model for
evaluating sustainable urbanization. Cities, Vol. 29, pp. 3239.

126

80.

Lundin, M. and Morrison, G.M. (2002), A life cycle assessment based procedure for
development of environmental sustainability indicators for urban water systems,
Urban Water, Vol. 4, pp. 145152.

81.

Lynch, A.J., Andreason, S., Eisenman, T., Robinson, J., Steif, K., and Birch, E.J.
(2011), Sustainable Urban Development Indicators for the United States, Report to the
Office of International and Philanthropic Innovation, Office of Policy Development
and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
http://penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/
media_items/sustainable-urban-developmentindicators-for-the-united-states.original.pdf.

82.

Madhavi, R. (2012), Bangalore costliest Indian city to live in: Survey, Times of India,
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0329/bangalore/31254095_1_mumbai-and-delhi-cities-bangalore-s-cpi.

83.

Mahendra, B., Harikrishnan, K., and Gowda, K. (2010), Urban Governance and
Master Plan of Bangalore City, Institute of Town Planners, India Journal Vol. 7, pp
0118.

84.

Maheshwara,
R.
(2012),
Daily
News
and
Analysis,
http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_
news_and_features/Budget-promisesfine-but-wheres-the-cash-BBMP/DNBAN58185

85.

Manohar, M. (2012), Deccan Herald, Child mortality rate declines in Karnataka,


http://www. deccanherald.com/content/37260/ipl-2012.html

86.

Maria Berrini and Lorenzo Bono, Ambiente Italia (2011), Measuring Urban
Sustainability, Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011
application round, Ambiente Italia (research and consultancy, Italy).

87.

Marzukhi, M.A., Dasimah, O., Oliver, L., and Muhammad, S. (2011), Malaysian
Urban Indicators Network: A Sustainable Development Initiative in Malaysia,
European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 25, No 1, pp 7784.

88.

Matthew, W. and Giles, C. (2010), The CDB Process: Developing and Applying
Urban
Indicators,
http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Books/Cities_Data_Book/03chapter3.pdf?Referer=
www.clickfind.com.au.

89.

McGranahan, G., Marcotullio, P.J. and Xuemei Bai et al. (2005), Urban systems, in
Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes and Neville Ash (editors), Ecosystems and Human
Well-Being: Current Status and Trends, Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 795825.

90.

McGeough, U., Newman, D. and Wrobel, J., (2004), Model for Sustainable Urban
Design, Sustainable Energy Planning Office, Gas Technology Institute.

91.

Maclaren, V., (1996). Developing indicators of urban sustainability: a focus on the


Canadian experience, (Toronto: ICURR Press) 130pp.

92.

Meera, S. (2008), I Change My City, http://www.ichangemycity.com/node/1264.


127

93.

Meg, H., Mark, R., Karen, F., and Anthony, P. (2008), Seeking urban sustainability on
the world stage, Habitat International, Vol. 32, pp 305317.

94.

Mega Voula, (2010). Sustainable Cities for the Third Millennium: The Odyssey of
Urban Excellence. Springer, September.

95.

Mega Voula, (2005). Sustainable Development, Energy and the City: A civilization of
concepts and actions, Springer, New York.

96.

Meg Holden, Mark Roseland, Karen Ferguson, and Anthony Perl, (2008), Seeking
urban sustainability on the world stage Habitat International, 32, 305317.

97.

Miranda, H.F. and


Rodrigues, A.F. (2012), Benchmarking sustainable urban
mobility: The case of Curitiba, Brazil, Transport Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 141151.

98.

Moira, L. Z., Thomas, L., Arunprakash, T.K., Ahjond, S.G., Heriberto, C. (2008), A
new framework for urban sustainability assessments: Linking complexity, information
and policy, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 32, pp. 474488.

99.

Montgomery, R., Stren, R., Cohen, B., and Reed, H.E., (2003), Cities transformed:
demographic change and its implications in the developing world. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.

100.

Mumford L. (1961), The city in historyits origin, its transformations and its
prospects. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & World , New York. Nanjuddappa (2011),
Dr. Nanjundappa's Report, http://planning.kar.nic.in/sites/ planning.kar.nic.
in/files/DR_Nanjundappa/

101.

Nancy B Grimm, David Foster, Peter Groffman, J Morgan Grove, Charles S


Hopkinson, Knute J Nadelhoffer, Diane E Pataki, and Debra PC Peters, (2008), The
changing landscape: ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across
climatic and societal gradients, Ecol. Environ., 6(5): 264272.

102.

Natalie, R. (2011), Towards the modeling of sustainability into urban planning: Using
indicators to build sustainable cities, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 641647.

103.

NUMBEO (2012), Cost of Living Index Rate, http://www.numbeo.com/cost-ofliving/rankings_ current.jsp.

104.

Odum, (1989), Ecology and our endangered life-support systems, Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA. Opschoor and Reijnders, 1991, Towards sustainable development
indicators. In: Kuik O,

105.

Peter,
N.
(2009),Urban
Indicators
for
Managing
Cities,
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ve
d=0CEsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownlo
ad%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.200.4083%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=3Ue0UKnEN8
-qrAe_128

IGADw&usg=AFQjCNG81tD7q4cdajGkF3w3jJtgxDPFkA&sig2=3zs2jU8t3t2PfUP
Gr9ukDw.
106.

Peter, H. (2005), Urban Indicators for Asias Cities: From Theory to Practice,
http://sd-cite.iisd. org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=19660.

107.

Peter, J.M. (2001), Asian urban sustainability in the era of globalization, Habitat
International, Vol. 25, pp. 577598.

108.

Peter, J. M., (2003), Globalization, urban form and environmental conditions in Asia
Pacific cities, Urban Studies, 40(2): 219248.

109.

PWC (2009), Which are the largest city economies in the world and how might this
change
by
2025?
PricewaterhouseCoopers
UK
Economic
Outlook
November.http://www.
ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562.

110.

Rahul, T.M. and Ashish, V. (2012), Impact of non-motorised transportation in Indian


cities, Times of India, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0712/bangalore/32647505_1 congestion-bangalore-iisc

111.

Rajiv, K. (2012), Times of India, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0224/ bangalore/31094741_1_fire-stations-fire-safety-measures-fire-tender

112.

Ramachandra, T. V. and Uttam, K. (2010), Greater Bangalore: Emerging Urban Heat


Island, http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/Bangalore_heatisland/index.htm

113.

Ramesh, R. (2007), Federalism, Urban Decentralisation and Citizen Participation,


http://www.
epw.in/governance-and-development-karnataka/federalism-urbandecentralisation-and-citizen-participation.htm.

114.

Richard, D., Sven, S., Jaana, R., James, M., Charles, R., Alejandra, R. (2011), Urban
world:
Mapping
the
economic
power
of
cities,
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CE8
QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstrategy2020.rian.ru%2Fload%2F366074447&ei=sEi0
ULTkBNGHrAevrYDgBw&usg=AFQjCNHER4Rqh-y-sxqTXbd0kmC4Krm0g&sig2=f5hchywa_ A7faaLBQ8y0UQ.

115.

Rode, P. and Kandt, J. (2011), Inequality in Transport Accessibility, Sao Paulo,


Istanbul and Mumbai, http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC-w3prode.pdf.

116.

Rosales, Natalie, Universidad Complutense, (2011), Towards a Design of Sustainable


Cities: Incorporating
sustainability indicators in urban planning, Procedia
Engineering, Vol.21, 641647.

117.

Roberts, B.K. (1996), Landscape of settlement: prehistory to the present. New York:
Routledge.

129

118.

Shu-Li Huanga, Jui-Hao Wong, Tzy-Chuen Chen, 1998, A framework of indicator


system for measuring Taipei's urban sustainability Landscape and Urban Planning, 42,
1527.

119.

Roy, M., (2009), Planning for sustainable urbanisation in fast growing cities:
mitigation and adaptation issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat
International, 33, pp. 276286.

120.

Samuel,
P.
(2005),
On
Stimulating
Citizen
Activism,
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&
rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.sasanet.org%2Fdocuments%2FCurriculum%2FStrategic%2520Communication%
2FSam%2520Paul.doc&ei=2Ui0UMuEBoL5rQe8-4CICQ&usg=AFQjCNEzik7QSgb4hCbT-9gIGjm6_8uSQ&sig2=6NPgPd2KexF1ti_MN6DL7Q.

121.

Samuel P., Kala S.S., Venugopala, R., Pavan, S. (2012), The State of Our Cities:
Evidence from Karnataka. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

122.

Seabrooke, W., Yeung, S.C.W., Ma, F.M.F and Li, Y. (2004), Implementing
sustainable urban development at the operational level (with special reference to Hong
Kong and Guangzhou), Habitat International, 28, pp. 443466.

123.

Sekher, T.V., Ram, Ladusingh, Paswan, B., Sayeed, U., Rajiva, P. (2008), District
Level Household Survey, http://www.rchiips.org/pdf/rch3/report/KA.pdf.

124.

Selman, P. (1999), The demography of inter-country adoption, in A. Ryvgold, M.


Dalen & B. Saetersdal, Mine Yours Ours and Theirs, University of Oslo.

125.

Shen Li Yun, Ochoa, J, Shah M N. and Zhang X, (2011) The application of urban
sustainability indicators: A comparison between various practices, Habitat
International, 35, 1729.

126.

Siemens (2011), Asian Green City Index: Assessing the environmental performance
of
Asias
major
cities,
http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf.

127.

Siemens (2009), European Green City Index: Assessing the environmental


performance
of
Europes
major
cities,
https://www.cee.siemens.com/.../European_Green_City_Index.pdf.

128.

Selva, K.S. (2012), State tops South in infant, mother mortality rate, Deccan Herald,
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/273523/state-tops-south-infant-mother.html.

129.

Shen, L., Jorge, J., Mona, N., Shah, B., and Xiaoling, Z. (2011), The application of
urban sustainability indicators: A comparison between various practices, Habitat
International, Vol. 35, pp. 1729.

130

130.

Shu-Li H., Jui, H.W., and Chuen, C. (1998), A framework of indicator system for
measuring Taipei's urban sustainability, Landscape and Urban Planning , Vol. 42, pp.
1527.

131.

Silverio, H.M, and Jess, D. (2010), Indicators of Urban Sustainability in Mexico,


Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Vol. 7(16),
http://um.ase.ro/no16/4.pdf.

132.

Singh, D.P. (2010), Employment Situation in Mumbai: An analysis, http://webcache.


googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VmZvcLQMZKUJ:www.global-labouruniversity.org/fileadmin/GLU_conference_2010/papers/44._Employment_situation_i
n_MumbaiAn_analysis.pdf+&hl=en&gl=in.

133.

Sitharam, T.G. (2008), A Framework For Achieving Sustainable Urban Mobility,


http://cistup.iisc.ernet.in/TGS%20Urban%20mobility%20at%20Malleshwaram%20M
arch%203rd%202012.pdf.

134.

Special Correspondent (2008), The Hindu, http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/25/ stories/


2008012550140100.htm.

135.

Staff Reporter (2009), The Hindu, BSNL launches prepaid broadband service,
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bsnl-launches-prepaid-broadbandservice/ article37536.ece.

136.

Staff Reporter (2012), The Hindu, http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/


article3579834.ece.

137.

Stewart, S. (2010), Global Sustainable Urban Development Indicators (GDI),


http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/OECD%20Paris%20Presentation%20SSB%
2029Nov2010.pdf.

138.

Subrahmanya, A .T. (2008) ,Courtesy broadband, landlines too in demand, Times of


India,
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-0825/bangalore/27916333_1_broadband-connections-landline-broadband-plan.

139.

Sudhakara Reddy, B. and Balachandra, P., 2012, Dynamics of Urban Mobility: A


Comparative analysis of megacities of India, Transport Policy, 21, pp. 152164.

140.

Sudhir and Sameera (2006), Bangalore: Silicon City or Black City,


http://www.bangalured.net/bangalured/Bangalore-Silicon_Capital_or_Black_City.pdf.

141.

Sudhir, G. and Prashant, M. (2005), Congestion to DemotorisationA Paradigm Shift


for Bangalore, http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/72398_resource_1.pdf.

142.

Swathi
Shivanand
(2007),
Times
of
India,
http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/31/stories/2007013117900300.htm.(chk one part says
TOI, and the other links to the Hindu)

143.

Swati, R. (2003), White Paper On Sustainable Urbanization In


http://www.janaagraha.org/ sites/default/files/Urban_design_in_India.pdf.
131

India,

144.

Swati, R. (2005), Blueprint For the City Integrated Transport: The Networked City,
http://janaagraha.org/sites/default/files/integrated-20transport.pdf.

145.

Tanguay, G. A., Rojaoson, J., Lefebvre, J. F. and Lanoie, P, 2010, Measuring the
sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators, Ecological
Indicators, 10, 407418.

146.

TERI, 2010, Air quality assessment, emission inventory and source apportionment
study for Bangalore city, The Energy Research Institute, New Delhi.

147.

Tanuj, L. (2011), Youth Surveywhere is the opportunity for brands,


http://www.indiasocial.in/youth-survey-where-is-the-opportunity-for-brands/.

148.

Team DNA (2010), As Bangalore city grows, footpaths shrink, Daily News and
Analysis,
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_as-bangalore-city-growsfootpaths-shrink_1460934.

149.

TERI (2011a), Air quality monitoring, emission inventory and source apportionment
study for Indian cities, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/RHooda_0.pdf.

150.

TERI (2001), Restructuring Options for Urban Public Transport in India,


http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_publication&task=details&sid=190.

151.

TERI
(2011b),
Solar
Water
http://www.teriin.org/ResUpdate/reep/ch_9.pdf.

152.

Terry, M. (2005), Comparing The Cities Database: The Context of The Cities Data
Book, http://www2.adb.org/documents/books/cities_data_book/05chapter5.pdf.

153.

Theuns, H., Mohammed, D.E. and Jung, E.O., (2011), A Framework For Urban
Transport Benchmarking, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

154.

Theo, K., Frank, F. (2007), Developing urban Indicators for Managing Mega Cities,
http://www.fig.net/pub/fig_wb_2009/papers/urb/urb_2_koetter.pdf.

155.

Thomas, B., Assche, Gert, G. (2011), Unravelling urban sustainability: How the
Flemish City Monitor acknowledges complexities, Ecological Informatics (in Press).

156.

Thomas B., and Assche G, (1999), Co-design of Indicators on Urban Sustainable


Development, Case GhentBelgium, Centre for Sustainable Development, Ghent
University

157.

Thomas B, andAssche G, GertGoeminne (2004), Unravelling urban sustainability.


How the Flemish City Monitor acknowledges complexities Ecological Informatics00255; pp.

158.

UNHABITAT (2012), State of the Worlds Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities,


http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3387&alt=1.
132

heating

systems,

159.

Turner II B. L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T. and Meyer,
W.B., (1990), The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional
Changes in the Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press with
Clark

160.

UNHABITAT
(2010),
The
State
of
Asian
http://www.unescap.org/esd/apuf-5/documents/SACR.pdf.

161.

UN Habitat (2004), State of the World's Cities 2004-05

162.

United Nations Center for Human Settlement, (2004), Urban Indicator Guidelines:
Monitoring the Habitat Agenda and Millenium Development Goals, UNCHS,
Nairobi.

163.

United States Agency for International Development, (2004), Policy reform lessons
learnedten years of environmentally related policy reform activities in developing
countries, USAID, Washington, DC.

164.

UNPF, (1997), The state of world population 1996: changing places: population,
development and the urban future. United Nations Population Fund, New York.

165.

UNHABITAT (2009), Global Urban Indicators Selected statistics, UN-HABITAT,


http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/global_urban_indicators.pdf.

166.

UNHABITAT (2008), State of the Worlds Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban
Divide,
Earthscan,
London,
www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2917&alt=1.

167.

Vasavi, A.R. (2002), Urban Poverty


http://www.nias.res.in/ docs/revblore.pdf.

168.

Verbruggen H, In search of indicators of sustainable development. Dordrecht: Kluwer


Academic Publications. Year?

169.

Verbruggen and Kuik, (1991), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development.


Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

170.

Virginia, W. M. (1996), Urban Sustainability Reporting, Journal of the American


Planning Association, Vol. 62(2), pp. 184202.

171.

Voula, M. and Jrn, P. (1998), Urban Sustainability


http://eurofound.europa.eu/ pubdocs/1998/07/en/1/ef9807en.pdf.

172.

Wei, N.X., Robyn, M.B., and Xuchu, M. (2011), Meeting critical challenges and
striving for urban sustainability in China, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 100,
pp. 418420.

173.

WHO
(2011),
Urban
outdoor
air
pollution
database,
www.who.int/entity/phe/health_topics/ outdoorair/databases/OAP_database.xls.
133

and

Basic

Cities

Education

2010/11,

Deprivation,

Indicators,

174.

World Bank (2009), World Development Indicators 2009, World Bank, Washington,
D.C.

175.

Wei-Ning Xiang, Robyn, M.B., Stuber, XuchuMeng (*) Meeting critical challenges
and striving for urban sustainability in China Landscape and Urban Planning Chk

176.

Wang, X. and Von Hofe, Rainer (2007). Research Methods in Urban and Regional
Planning, Springer Chk

177.

Wong, S.W., Tang, B.S., and Van Horen, B., 2006, Strategic urban management in
China: a case study of Guangzhou Development District, Habitat International, 30,
pp. 645667.

178.

World
Atlas
(2012),
Largest
http://www.worldatlas.com/citypops.htm.

179.

Xuemei, B., Brian, R., and Jing, C. (2010), Urban sustainability experiments in Asia:
Patterns and Pathways, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 13, pp. 31232 5.

180.

World Bank, (2008), Exploring Urban Growth Management: Insights from Three
Cities, Urban Paper Series. UP-7, Urban Development Unit France.

181.

Xuemei, B, Anna J. Wieczorek, Kaneko, S., Lisson, S. and Contreras, C., (2009),
Enabling sustainability transitions in Asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal
linkages, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 255266.

182.

Xuemei Bai, Brian Roberts, Jing Chen, (2010), Urban sustainability experiments in
Asia: patterns and pathways, Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 312325.

183.

Yangang, X., Malcolm, W.H., Mohamed, A.E., and Jan, B. (2009), A framework
model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development, Accounting Forum,
Vol. 33, pp. 209224.

184.

Yoshitsugu, H. (2008), Mobility for Sustainable Development, Bangalore Case Study,


http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Prof-Hayashi-report-august.pdf.

185.

Zainuddin, B.M. (2005), Development of Urban Indicators: A Malaysian Initiative,


http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preliminary-blueprintenglish.pdf.

186.

Wei, N.X., Robyn, M.B., Xuchu, M. (2011), Meeting critical challenges and striving
for urban sustainability in China, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 100, pp 418
420.

187.

WHO
(2011),
Urban
outdoor
air
pollution
database,
www.who.int/entity/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/OAP_database.xls.

188.

World Bank (2009), World Development Indicators 2009, World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
134

Cities

of

the

World,

189.

Wei-Ning Xiang, Robyn M.B. Stuber, Xuchu Meng (2011) Meeting critical
challenges and striving for urban sustainability in China, Landscape and Urban
Planning

190.

Wang, X. and Von Hofe, Rainer (2007). Research Methods in Urban and Regional
Planning, Springer

191.

Wong, S. W., Tang, B. S., and Van Horen, B, (2006), Strategic urban management in
china: a case study of Guangzhou Development District, Habitat International, 30, pp
645-667.

192.

World
Atlas
(2012),
Largest
http://www.worldatlas.com/citypops.htm.

193.

Xuemei, B., Brian, R., Jing, C. (2010), Urban sustainability experiments in Asia:
patterns and Pathways, environmental science & policy, Vol. 13, pp 312 32 5.

194.

World Bank, (2008), Exploring Urban Growth Management: Insights from Three
Cities, Urban Paper Series. UP-7, Urban Development Unit, France.

195.

Xuemei B, Anna J. Wieczorek, Kaneko S, Lisson S and Contreras C, (2009), Enabling


sustainability transitions in Asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal linkages,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 255266

196.

Xuemei Bai, Brian Roberts, Jing Chen, (2010), Urban sustainability experiments in
Asia: patterns and pathways Environmental Science & Policy 13, 312 325

197.

Yangang, X., Malcolm, W.H., Mohamed, A.E., Jan, B. (2009), A framework model
for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development, Accounting Forum, Vol.
33, pp 209224.

198.

Yoshitsugu, H. (2008), Mobility for Sustainable Development Bangalore Case Study,


http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Prof-Hayashi-report-august.pdf.

199.

Zainuddin, B. M. (2005), Development of Urban Indicators: A Malaysian Initiative,


http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preliminary-blueprintenglish.pdf.

135

Cities

of

the

World,

ANNEXURE 1 - Website References


1.

http://londoncreativelabs.com/blog/2010/3/28/insights-into-economic-inequality-andjob-creation-from-samu.html

2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

4.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings.jsp

5.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/12/uk-unemployment-fall-olympics-jobs

6.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/41051.aspx

7.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

8.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

9.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

10.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/londonfacts/default.htm?category=3#ref45

11.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120806065140AAEmMZM

12.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Walking-in-London-report-May-2008.pdf

13.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

15.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

17.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171780_275206.pdf

18.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/901950/916_borough_statistics/age_and_gender.aspx

19.

http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/37249/londons-population-growth-dips-belownational-average/

20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

21.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_literacy_rate_of_London_England

22.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171780_275206.pdf

23.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/midwife-numbers-london-pregnancydeaths.aspx

24.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/midwife-numbers-london-pregnancydeaths.aspx

25.

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/health/child-ill-health-byborough/

26.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/reports/london%202010.pdf

27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Service

28.

http://www.basecities.com/london/news/london-ranks-10th-in-top-20-uk-cities-percapita-carbon-emissions/?newsid=81

29.

http://eau.sagepub.com/content/21/1/185.full.pdf
136

30.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false

31.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Travel-in-London-report-1.pdf

32.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

33.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

34.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

35.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

36.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

37.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

38.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

39.

http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf

40.

http://www.londonhydro.com/residential/electricityrates/

41.

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/SOE-2011-report.pdf

42.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=LFw9KxnqQqYC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=gini
+coefficient+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=aV7RYfp-PV&sig=dUP0gJhNeuSIO0XywdlT0nh8tA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RvLTUKzvLIXKrAed8oHACA&ved=0CHwQ
6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=gini%20coefficient%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false

43.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai

44.

http://www.globalurban.org/GUD%20Shanghai%20MES%20Report.pdf

45.

http://eau.sagepub.com/content/23/1/207.full.pdf+html?ijkey=GvNCj83oPm922&keyty
pe=ref&siteid=speau

46.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=China&city=Shanghai

47.

http://www.manivestasia.com/library/factsheet/shanghai/FACT_SHEETS_Shanghai_B
ackground_eng.pdf

48.

http://www.siemens.com/sustainability/pool/en/current-reporting/sr2010_shanghai.pdf

49.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

50.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

51.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

52.

http://countrycode.org/singapore

53.

http://www.izvoznookno.si/Dokumenti/shanghai_ACProvinceReport.pdf

54.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10491&page=225

55.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

56.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10491&page=233
137

57.

http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/1947.pdf

58.

http://www.unep.org/pdf/SHANGHAI_REPORT_FullReport.pdf

59.

http://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/ebank/EN_Home/Evaluation/Expost_evaluation_reports/PDF-Dokumente_A-D/kurz_china_schanghai._I.pdf

60.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

61.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai

62.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

63.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

64.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5721333&tag=1

65.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

66.

http://www.oecd.org/countries/hongkongchina/46581016.pdf

67.

http://asiasociety.org/education/learning-world/shanghai-worlds-best-school-system

68.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

69.

http://www.who.int/ageing/projects/intra/phase_two/alc_intra2_cp_china_shanghai.pdf

70.

http://www.who.int/ageing/projects/intra/phase_two/alc_intra2_cp_china_shanghai.pdf

71.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

72.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai

73.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

74.

http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html

75.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai6

76.

http://www.motorola.com/web/Business/B2B_Internationalization_Patni/_Documents/
Brochures/_Static%20Files/shanghai_police.pdf?pLibItem=1

77.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ghg+emission+of+shanghai+city&hl=en&tbo=d&r
lz=1C1CHFX_enIN510IN510&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ie8ZUbr5DcnTkQ
WBvIGwDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=899#imgrc=w9BNzqr3bBNJM%3A%3BHYbPU_EdNnaEM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.guim.co.uk%252Fsysimages%252FEnvironment%252FPix%252Fpictures%252F2009%252F03%252F25%2
52Fbigsmoke.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.guardian.co.uk%252Fenvironmen
t%252F2009%252Fmar%252F23%252Fcity-dwellers-smaller-carbonfootprints%3B460%3B312

78.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

138

79.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

80.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

81.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

82.

http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/ipla/doc/120905Huang-Shanghai-China.pdf

83.

http://jsrsai.envr.tsukuba.ac.jp/Annual_Meeting/PROG_49/Resume1/rA106%20LuKeyu.pdf

84.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

85.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

86.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf

87.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nsp/Business/2012/06/16/City%2Bpicks%2Byearly%2
Bpricing%2Bplan%2Bfor%2Bgraduated%2Belectricity%2Brates/

88.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

89.

http://www.idfc.com/pdf/report/2011/Chp-12-Provincial-Water-Access-in-China-andIndia-a-Com.pdf

90.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD

91.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/12/23/singapores-inequality-battle/

92.

http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/181-singapore-gdp-countryreport.html#axzz2Fft3M400

93.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore

94.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

95.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/cpi.html

96.

http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/181-singapore-gdp-countryreport.html#axzz2Fft3M400

97.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

98.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

99.

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf

100. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
101. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FB.CBK.BRCH.P5
102. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Singapore
139

103. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
104. 104.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq
=Population+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM
667&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
105. 105.http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asiangci-report-e.pdf
106. 106.http://citiscope.org/2010/singapores-transportation-secrets
107. 107.http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asiangci-report-e.pdf
108. 108.http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asiangci-report-e.pdf
109. 109.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq
=Population+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM
667&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
110. http://www.indexmundi.com/singapore/sex_ratio.html
111. http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/181-singapore-gdp-countryreport.html#axzz2Fft3M400
112. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
113. http://www.childinfo.org/files/IND_Singapore.pdf
114. http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/181-singapore-gdp-countryreport.html#axzz2Fft3M400
115. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
116. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
140

=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
117. http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore
118. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT
119. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html
120. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html
121. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
122. http://www.lcsi.smu.edu.sg/downloads/SocialSpace2011Bottom%20Fifth%20in%20Singapore%20-%20Jacqueline%20Loh.pdf
123. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
124. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
125. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers
126. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
127. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS/countries
128. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lMJVe3wfacQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Po
pulation+with+access+to+sanitation+in+shanghai+city&source=bl&ots=hSFP3jM667
&sig=L48WTG4J1BsjRBIN6hbZsdhfhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xgjUUKgNhYasB4uLgaAJ&ved
=0CFsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Population%20with%20access%20to%20sanitation
%20in%20shanghai%20city&f=false
129. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
130. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ghg+emission+of+shanghai+city&hl=en&tbo=d&r
lz=1C1CHFX_enIN510IN510&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ie8ZUbr5DcnTkQ
141

WBvIGwDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=899#imgrc=w9BNzqr3bBNJM%3A%3BHYbPU_EdNnaEM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.guim.co.uk%252Fsysimages%252FEnvironment%252FPix%252Fpictures%252F2009%252F03%252F25%2
52Fbigsmoke.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.guardian.co.uk%252Fenvironmen
t%252F2009%252Fmar%252F23%252Fcity-dwellers-smaller-carbonfootprints%3B460%3B312
131. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
132. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
133. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
134. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
135. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
136. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
137. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
138. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
139. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
140. http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20100524-218048.html
141. http://www.ema.gov.sg/Electricity/new/
142. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-02-asia/asian-gcireport-e.pdf
143. www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/london/events/lenttermseminars/
2012/Shantaram.ppt
144. www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/london/events/lenttermseminars/
2012/Shantaram.ppt
145. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/Energy/KM18_City_energ
y_DB.pdf
146. http://uccrn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ARC3-Chapter-4.pdf
147. http://www.21chemnet.com/cas/128902-07-8.html
148. http://fas.imf.org/
149. http://www.ftkmc.com/newsletter/Vol1-28-sep27-2010.pdf
150. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FB.CBK.BRCH.P5
151. http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/Singapore/Telephone_Statistics
142

152. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do;jsessionid=9ea7d07e30de7
97cbed398314d67a888dac4f133c4c3.e34MbxeSahmMa40LbNiMbxaMbxyRe0?tab=ta
ble&plugin=1&pcode=tgs00089&language=en
153. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.PCAR.P3
154. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/09/driverless-highways-creating-cars-that-talk-tothe-roads/
155. http://www.clear.london.ca/pdf/2008_Inventory_Report.pdf
156. http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/International%20Colloboration/Workshops/Aust%2
0China%20Science%20and%20Tech/Climate%20Change/Wu.pdf
157. http://www.siemens.com/entry/infrastructurecities/cc/features/infrastructure_cities/industry_sector/en/pdf/london.pdf
158. http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbEnglish/page/news12911.htm
159. http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/our_healthcare_system/Healthcare_Se
rvices/Hospitals.html
160. http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbEnglish/page/news12911.htm
161. http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7640/353.2
162. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2226.html
163. http://www.shanghailaw.gov.cn/fzbEnglish/page/news12911.htm
164. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai#Demographics
165. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai#Demographics
166. http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=90&fmt=92&by=Location&
order=d
167. http://www.indexmundi.com/singapore/death_rate.html
168. http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/shanghai/shanghai-facts/shanghaipopulation.html
169. http://www.shanghai.alloexpat.com/shanghai_information/economy_shanghai.php?pag
e=0%2C2
170. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers
171. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/7/70/Water_statistics_YB2
013.xls
172. http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&sqi
=2&ved=0CHIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arup.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFile
s%2FPDF%2FPublications%2FResearch_and_whitepapers%2FArupUrbanLife_Water
ResilienceForCities.ashx&ei=k35JUZzEHIvMrQeryoH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGcbrSU7s
9q3jPp0VoaDjfS
173. http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/annex_6_shanghai_1.pdf
174. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49436/2
096-regional-road-transport-cons-2005-9.xls174.
175. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.ROD.DESL.PC
143

176. http://www.crc.uqam.ca/Publication/2011/Geng%20etal_2011.pdf
177. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49436/2
096-regional-road-transport-cons-2005-9.xls
178. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.ROD.SGAS.PC
179. http://www.crc.uqam.ca/Publication/2011/Geng%20etal_2011.pdf
180. http://www.ijesd.org/papers/104-D529.pdf
181. http://cgwb.gov.in/district_profile/karnataka/bangalore_urban_brochure.pdf
182. http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/environment_report_ca
rd_2012__centre_for_sustainable_development_csd.pdf
183. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/slum-dwellers-contribute-33-5-of-bangalore-s-economy-112110802021_1.html
184. http://bangalorebuzz.blogspot.in/2005/11/it-industry-undermines-citys-education.html
185. http://www.southasia.ox.ac.uk/sites/sias/files/documents/Oxford%20University%20CS
ASP%20%20Work%20in%20Progress%20paper%2010%20Supriya%20RoyChowdhury.pdf
186. http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_new-improved-bangalore-coming-up-nearbia_1698289
187. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0329/bangalore/31254095_1_mumbai-and-delhi-cities-bangalore-s-cpi
188. http://www.iipm.edu/itt/11-july.html
189. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bangalore
190. http://bit.ly/Rg2EuR
191. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore#Economy
192. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/271008/delhi-stands-4th-employmentgrowth.html
193. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Water_Supply_and_Sewerage_Board
194. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/city-has-lowest-co2-emissions/425165/
195. http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_as-bangalore-city-grows-footpathsshrink_1460934
196. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-0825/bangalore/27916333_1_broadband-connections-landline-broadband-plan
197. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/article3751424.ece
198. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bsnl-launches-prepaid-broadbandservice/article37536.ece
199. http://cistup.iisc.ernet.in/TGS%20Urban%20mobility%20at%20Malleshwaram%20Mar
ch%203rd%202012.pdf
200. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Mertice-36585-Bangalore-climate-changeGopakumar-Oil-greatest-discovery-ever-Indias-consumption-Bangalores-asEntertainment-ppt-powerpoint/
144

201. http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/72398_resource_1.pdf
202. http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/72398_resource_1.pdf
203. http://www.iitk.ac.in/3inetwork/html/reports/IIR2006/Urban%20Transport.pdf
204. http://www.bangalured.net/bangalured/Bangalore-Silicon_Capital_or_Black_City.pdf
205. http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/242-bangalore.html
206. http://www.indiasocial.in/youth-survey-where-is-the-opportunity-for-brands/
207. http://www.census2011.co.in
208. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/article3751424.ece
209. http://www.census2011.co.in
210. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-12-22/bangalore/27928036_1_slumdwellers-slum-population-new-promise
211. http://censusindia.gov.in/Data_Products/Data_Highlights/Data_Highlights_link/data_hi
ghlights_D1D2D3.pdf
212. http://northbridgeasia.com/ResearchReports/BANGALORE%20HOSPITAL%20REPO
RT.pdf
213. http://medind.nic.in/jah/t05/i1/jaht05i1p39.pdf
214. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/273523/state-tops-south-infant-mother.html
215. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/37260/ipl-2012.html
216. http://www.rchiips.org/pdf/rch3/report/KA.pdf
217. http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/4162-will-50-women-councillors-inbbmp-help-bengaluru218. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/100847/karnataka-government-revisesminimum-wages.html
219. http://www.rchiips.org/pdf/rch3/report/KA.pdf
220. http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/cosmar09/Fusion%20of%20multi%20resolut
ion%20remote%20sensing.pdf
221. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_geography_and_environment
222. http://www.ichangemycity.com/node/1264
223. http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/31/stories/2007013117900300.htm
224. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/karnataka-increases-power-tariff-by-average13-paiseunit/943869/
225. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-27/bangalore/32888512_1_lpgprice-domestic-lpg-cylinders-price-dip
226. http://www.isec.ac.in/Urban%20Governance.PDF
227. http://bwssb.org/faq/
228. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/article3579834.ece
229. http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Budget-promises-finebut-wheres-the-cash-BBMP/DNBAN58185
145

230. http://bit.ly/WYL3fb
231. http://bangalorebuzz.blogspot.in/2010/03/highbrow-city-lowbrow-voting.html
232. http://www.nimhans.kar.nic.in/epidemiology/bisp/brsipp2011c.pdf
233. http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/karnataka/Sector%20Profiles/MSME.pdf

146