Monitoring and evaluation

framework for inclusive smart

cities in India

Madhurima Waghmare & Shaleen Singhal

Urban experts have cautioned from time to time that contemporary development pro- jects like
the greenfield townships, business districts, industrial areas, and many of the “area-based
developments” that are being addressed under the Smart City Mission (SCM) are exclusionary in
terms of access, affordability, and cultural response.
. Ground studies by the Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN), India (2016–2018),
suggest that the Smart City Mission in India is lacking in many aspects, inclusion is one of the
prominent gaps. It records that the mission benefits only around 22 percent of the urban
population. There is an inadequacy of participation and base data and the absence of human
rights-based standards and monitoring indicators. The HLRN report and other studies identify
that due to these issues and with a state-centric institutional structure promoted by the SCM,
there will be increased corporatisation of cities and there is a likelihood of increased
segregation and gentrification (Singhal and Jain 2020). One of the recent studies on risk and
mitigation measures for smart city projects in India has identified various risks. Issues of
citizen participation in terms of exclusion and resistance; lack of Information Technology (IT)
connectivity; unfavourable procurement conditions due to the lack of local expertise/service
providers; and low service quality, are some of the identified common and high priority risks
(Gupta, Zhang, and Hall 2020). The livability Index, which was introduced quite late into the
mission structure is the existing monitoring framework for the SCM. It addresses inclusion, but
limited to aspects like wider spatial coverage of basic infrastructure and housing for all.
The global indicator framework for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is one of the
very few literature that provide a wide ranging coverage of the concept applicable at the city
level.
The complex nature of the issues faced by Indian cities point to the need for a more
inclusive and sustainable development model for its cities. A robust and contemporary
framework which will aid in taking corrective actions and achieve balanced growth and
development is needed to inform this model. This paper has developed a multi-dimensional
inclusion monitoring and evaluation frame- work. Using this framework, this study has also
brought to light the nature of imbalances and inequalities in the small, medium and large size
cities of India with a case sample of the first 20
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 3

smart cities selected under the SCM. Researchers as well as policy makers and administrators will
find the recommendations and propositions of this paper useful.

1. Methodological approach
To develop a robust framework and comprehensively capture key factors across diverse disciplines,
a three-stepped process is adopted in this study. The method draws upon (1) the literature for
the con- struct validity; (2) the expertise of academic and professional experts for an external
validity; (3) the case study to provide internal validity to the framework as well as test the
application of the framework.
Step1: Initially, a draft framework has been prepared based on a review of global and wide-
ranging literature that captures multi-sector perspectives of the concept in the context of the
chal- lenges of livability and inclusive growth faced by the cities today. The literature
encompasses an entire range of fundamental city development theories, frameworks, indices,
and learnings from established evidence-based case studies by prominent groups working in
the sector. Significant factors and indicators that are conducive to inclusive development have
been identified from 40 sources and are structured within the social, economic, and spatial
dimensions as the existing frame- work on inclusive cities identifies these three dimensions as
critical pillars of inclusive development (WB 2015; Seoul Institute 2019). In the context of
cities, the spatial dimension or the physical dimen- sion is identified as a prominent dimension
creating tradeoff with the ecological aspects.
Step2: The draft framework is reviewed through structured interviews with 20 experts and
prac-
titioners (18 national and 2 international) from academic and professional backgrounds. The
experts are associated with prominent think tanks, academic and research institutions, and
centres that have substantial experience of dealing with issues of the urban sector in India.
Their area of expertise includes urban planning, urban design, social planning, urban
economics and urban governance and management. The experts have validated three
dimensions and prioritised various factors ident- ified through the Step 1. They recommended
various indicators for the framework in context of cities in India. These include indicators such
as those included in the livability index developed under the SCM and other indicators
covering aspects of gender and the informal sector. Some of the indicators
that can be generated through primary survey are also suggested by the experts (Refer end
note of the Table 2).
Based on the review by experts, the framework is finalised with 13 factors and 45 indicators
struc- tured within the social, economic, and spatial dimensions. The inclusive cities literature
and practice identifies governance as a key dimension embedded within the social dimension
with “participation” as the main aspect. Likewise, the environmental dimension is embedded
within the spatial dimen- sion. The indicators representing the factors are largely identified
based on the expert’s recommen- dations and based on data available at the national, state
and local level.
Step 3:To examine the relationships between various dimensions and factors of inclusiveness,
the framework is used to assess inclusion in a cluster of 20 smart cities in India. The cities are
selected based on four criteria (see Table 1): sustained investments; diversity of population
size representing small, medium and large cities; at least 50 percent cities being part of the
states that constituted

Table 1. Details of the 20 smart cities.

Sustained investments
Part of states with the early constitution Part of Part of the first
City of ward committees as per Article 243 – JnNURM round of the Smart
Typology Number Population S of the 74th CAA (2005–15) City Mission
Small 9 <1 million 6 out of 9 4 out of 9 √
Medium 6 >1 and <3 5 out of 6 √ √
 million
Large 5 >3 million 2 out of 5 √ √
 4
Table 2. Inclusive smart cities framework: factors, aspects, and indicators.
Factors Primary conducive aspects Indicators

M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Social dimension: participation and social equity (SOi)
1. Participatory Governance (planning, . Participatory planning (Rapoport 19671, 977; Sen 2002) . Implementation of participatory provisions of the 74th CAA (transfer % out of
budgeting, etc.) .
Participatory budgeting (Cabannes2015) 18 functions)
.
Negotiation and consensus-building techniques, generating .
ULB Level Reforms (% implemented /7 reforms)
opportunities for political pluralism (Campbe1ll996) .
Share of a dedicated budget for the urban poor (per 10,000 population)
.
Participatory governance (Seoul Institute2019; UN-SDG .
The proportion of peoples’ participation in the municipal election (%
indicators 2017; WB 2015) voter turnout)
.
Support organisations for urban poor (WB 2015) .
Formation of Ward Committee
.
Develop standards to measure poverty, identify groups vulnerable .
Policy structure for direct participation of civil society. (representation in
to various committees) (**) Proxy indicator – membership in ward committee.
social exclusion, earmark social fund (Eurostat 2018) .
National/international horizontal networks
.
Formal integration of community leaders in public projects (**)

2. Community Initiatives . Citizens’ participation (Geddes 1915; WB 2015) .

The extent of civil society participation (number/ population)
.
Community efforts to create an Active and Beautiful Public .
The extent of direct local development initiatives from citizens (number per
Realm 100,000 population) (**)
(Rapoport 1967; Congress for New Urbanism 2019)
.
Promote incremental development (Congress for New
Urbanism 2019)

3. Social Equity and Access to .

Achieve social equity by resolving planning conflicts .
The extent of gender equality (sex ratio)
Social Infrastructure (Campbell 1996) .
Level of educational equality (average literacy and female literacy percentage)
.
Rights to migrants & equal access to basic services (Spencer .
Hospitals per 100,000 people
2011; .
Pupil-Teacher ratio>35 at the upper primary level (%)
UNESCO 2013) .
Rate of crime (crimes per 100,000 population)
.
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education (OECD 2018);
an appropriate number of schools with good infrastructure (UN-
.
Formation of Town Vending Committee
SDG
indicators 2017)
.
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and
employment (UN-SDG indicators 2017)
.
Promote gender equality (Eurostat 2018)
.
Focus on early childhood development (OECD 2018)

4. Network of Social Institutions . A well-knit network of social institutions acts as a social nucleus .
Active diverse social protection mechanisms (social protection
for schemes diversity)
integrated cities (Mumford 2011)
.
Social protection systems (Eurostat 2018)
.
Establish social institutions (OECD-IGI 2018)
(Continued )
Table 2. Continued.
Factors Primary conducive aspects Indicators

5. Social Diversity
. Encourage social diversity, ethnic diversity (Jacobs [1961] 1992; .
Ethnic diversity (per 100,000 population)/Proxy indicator – religious
Florida 2005) diversity (per 100,000 population)
.
Effective use of human capacities (Seoul Institute 2019) .
Skill diversity (per 100,000 population) (**)

SPATIAL DIMENSION: Inclusive Spatial Access (SPi)

6. Access to Basic and .
Inclusive public spaces; green parks (Russ and Bradley 1970) .
Coverage of water supply (% within premises)
Environmental Infrastructure .
Basic services for urban poor and vulnerable population (WB .
Coverage of electricity supply (%)
2015) .
Coverage of toilet connection (% within premises)
.
Equitable access to public spaces (UN-SDG indicators 2017, WB .
Coverage of covered wastewater drainage system (%)
2015) .
Level of cleanliness (Swatchh Bharat Mission score/5,000)
.
Provide affordable and equitable access to basic services (WB .
Per capita green space (square metre per inhabitant) (**)
2015) .
Implementation of inclusive design guidelines in urban spaces (% of
.
Access to public services & neighbourhood infrastructure urban spaces) (**)
(Seoul
.
Quality of air pollution (average air quality index score) (**)
Institute 2019)

7. Housing Affordability and Access
. Including inclusive urban planning and related access to
land (Mahadevia 2001)
.
The proportion of households living in congested houses (% of the
.
Prevent slums (WB 2015) total population)
.
The proportion of slum population (% of the total population)
.
Improved living conditions (Eurostat 2018)
.
Affordable housing and appropriate land use planning;
.
The proportion of the homeless population (houseless households/population)
managing the fringes (ADB 2019)

8. Information Communication and .

ICT network to facilitate interaction, digital citizens (Mori 2011) .
Share of households with computer/laptop using the internet (%)
Technology (ICT) for .
A communicative city that integrates its residents into a .
The proportion of households with mobile phones (%)
Communities

DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE
dynamic .
Implementation of citizen-centric services (% of the 3 mandated services under
whole (Mori 2011) ULB reforms): active online payment of bills, grievance monitoring,
.
Access to technology (Florida 2005) central facility centre
.
User-friendly and ecologically suitable technology applicable to .
Implementation of ICT based projects that directly connect the citizens
the (number/population) (**)
scale of the community (Schumacher 1973),

9. Urban Heritage and .

Inclusive urban revitalisation of historic city areas (WB 2015) . The extent of heritage and culture inclusion projects at the urban level
Culture Inclusion
(coverage of urban heritage under projects) (a proxy measurement used
is the number of projects)

ECONOMIC DIMENSION: Equal Access to Economic Opportunities (ECi)

5
10.Economic Vitality . Average income (yearly per capita income)

(Continued )
 6
M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL
Table 2. Continued.
Factors Primary conducive aspects Indicators
.
Fair distribution of economic growth (Campbel1l996; OECD .
Urban poverty ratio (% of the total population)
2018; Eurostat 2018)
.
Inclusive economic growth (Sen2002; OECD 2018)

11. Diversity of Economic .

Decentralised and self-reliant economics (Schumache1r973) .
Rate of unemployment (% of the total population)
Opportunities .
Initiative for the benefit of young firms and SMEs .
The proportion of casual labour (% of the total population)
(OECD2018) .
The proportion of hawkers (% of the total population) (**)
.
Building skills, access to education, Pro-poor economic
development, high level of economic activity (Eurosta2t018;
WB
2015)
.
Effective distribution of human resources (Seoul Institute
2019; Eurostat 2018)
.
High level of employment (Eurostat 2018)

12.Access to
Affordable
.
Improved spatial access to jobs (WB 2015) .
Accessibility of public transport (average distance in km)
Transportation .
Affordable public transport (Planning Commission (GOI) 2019; .
Walkability facility (footpath length/major road length + rating score of the
Options ADB available facility)
2019)
.
Supply of city bus transport (public + private) agency operations for
1,00,000 population

13.Access to Financial Services . Improved access to finance and institutions (WB 2015) . The proportion of population availing banking services (%)
.
Ease of access to banking loans for the small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) (proportion of SME population with easy access) (**)

* Indicators in italics are those used for the assessment in the paper. ** Uniform data are not available in the pool of the common national or local database. It can be derived
through a primary survey.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 7

ward committees early on as per Article 243 – S of the 74th CAA; and presence in the list of
first round of the Smart City Mission (2015).
Uniform data against 33 indicators were available and used in this assessment. The data
for each indicator has been converted to a normalised score using the feature scaling method
(rescaling) to balance the diversity of data in terms of measurement unit and timeline (Carrino
2016). The data has been normalised to obtain scores between 0-to-1 for each indicator. The
normalisation formula used is as below:
{Xnorm = X − Xmin/Xmax − Xmin}
in case of indicators like literacy rate, sex ratios, Swachh Bharat score, etc., where the higher
score gets a higher value.
{Xnorm = X − Xmax/Xmix − Xmax}
for indicators like slum population, causal labour percentage, etc. where the lower score gets a
higher value.
The equal weight method is suggested when the data on subjective weightings is not
available (Osberg and Sharpe 2011). Also, the phenomenon of inclusion is yet to take strong
rooting in India and the objective of this assessment is to understand the overall landscape of
inclusion across the three dimensions. Hence, equal weights have been assigned to the
indicators as well as the factors. Each factor gets its final score by adding up the normalised
scores of the indicators. The total
inclusion score is the sum of the scores against various factors {Inclusion score = ⍰ (SOi + SPi
+
ECi)}. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software is used for further data
analysis.
Based on the normality of the data and other descriptive statistical indicators, the data analysis
tests such as correlation test has been conducted. Due to the multidimensionality of the
indicators, a high collinearity is observed within the factors and the distribution is not normal in
case of many factors. This limits the use of advanced statistical test.
As recommended by the experts, the pattern analysis of inclusion scores across the factors
(between cities and within specific cities) is done. It beings to light various latent aspects and
vali- dates some of the important propositions made in this paper. This method also helps to
overcome limitations of the available city level uniform data and collinearity within the
indicators that limits advanced quantitative analysis. It is understood from this study that
qualitative methods are useful for multidimensional and nonfigurative concepts like inclusion
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000)
This study has examined the level of overall inclusion in smart cities and the pattern of
inclusion
across various factors in the small medium and large cities of India. The study had a small
sample size and limitations in terms of availability of uniform data at the level of city. With the
help of in-depth case studies of selected cities, more knowledge can be gained on this subject.
A large body of such case studies will be needed to design detailed strategies for different
typologies of the cities and effect policy changes at the national level. Future research may be
focused on identifying causal relationship between the inclusion factors to support the
inclusive cities strategies in context of the developing nations.

3. Multi-dimensional framework for inclusive smart cities

3.1. Factors and indicators
Table 2 provides comprehensive details of the assessment framework developed in this
paper. A robust list of key factors and indicators is identified through literature and expert
opinion for the three main dimensions of inclusion:
The Social Dimension is focused on the elements of equity and participation. Aspects like
8 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

pol- itical pluralism, incremental development by local action, integration of the needs of the
vulnerable population in the city, social protection mechanisms, and ethnic diversity are
included. Five main
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 9

factors: Participatory Governance; Community Involvement, Social Equity and Access to Social
Infra- structure, Network of Social Institutions and Social Diversity, and Nineteen Indicators are
identified for this dimension.
The Spatial Dimension emphasises equitable access to services. Aspects like coverage
and pro- vision of equitable access to basic services/to public goods and services/to the public
spaces and other neighbourhood infrastructure; proportion of slums; role of urban planning;
Information, Com- munication, and Technology (ICT) network that help in building digital
citizens; and rejuvenation of historic/heritage areas are important to this dimension. Four
factors: Access to Basic and Environ- mental Infrastructure; Housing Affordability and Access;
ICT for the Communities, and Sixteen Indicators are identified to measure this dimension.
The Economic Dimension has a latent theme of equal access to economic opportunities.
Aspects
like fair distribution of economic growth, skill building, high level of employment, policies for
econ- omic self-reliance, initiatives that are focused on the young firms and small and medium
enterprises, transport options connecting the economic opportunity areas and financial
inclusion through insti- tutions are critical to this dimension. Four important factors: Economic
Vitality; Diversity of Economic Opportunities; Affordable public transport; Access to Financial
Services, and Ten Indicators are identified for this dimension.

3.2. Data sources

Uniform data at the city level in the Indian context is a challenge as well as a limitation. At the
same time, under the e-governance initiatives and activities like the central data centre the
smart cities, a city level data bank is being organised and augmented. But, in most cities, it is
still a compilation of the existing datasets only and hence it is not uniform. The appropriate
representation of the factors and the availability of city-level data in the secondary database
have been the deciding as well as limiting factors for the indicators used in the case analysis
in this paper. Data against 33 indicators has been collected from the government and similar
other authentic sources including the Govern- ment of India (2011); Directorate of Economics
and Statistics (average 2009–12); Martin Prosperity Institute (2011); MoHUA (2019); MSPI 2012,
the national list of registered NGOs (2018); Respective Urban Local Bodies (2019, 2020),
Institute of Urban Transport India under the MoUD 2008, Urban Governance Reforms study by
Praja, New Delhi (2020), Election Commission of India (2020).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Inclusion in small, medium and large smart cities of India
In the ranking list of the 20 case study cities, the top quartile is occupied by the large, important,
and capital cities. Of these, Pune, Chennai and Ahmedabad are the large cities, New Delhi Municipal
Cor- poration (NDMC) is the central small part of the large agglomeration of Delhi and Kochi is a
small city. The bottom quartile is occupied by the small and not so important cities. The
medium-sized cities score average rank in the list and occupy the middle positions (see Figure
1). The large and capital cities have been receiving a greater share of funds and support for a
long time, especially during the JnNURM initiative, and currently through the ongoing large-
scale urban revitalisation schemes like the Smart City and AMRUT missions. The major cities
attract people from the surrounding region and
also different parts of the country. These cities not only have the advantage of a diversity of
econ- omic activities but also of a larger share and diversity of funding, social diversity,
stronger local bodies, and leadership.
The ranking list indicates a positive relationship between investments and inclusion.
However, this observation requires detailed probing (see Figure 2). The small and large cities
either score very high or very low. Also, important cities like Guwahati, Coimbatore, Bhopal,
Indore and Bhuba- neswar score low. Udaipur, which is a small city and did not receive
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

JnNURM funding, still ranks

 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1

competitively (8th in the list). The small city of Kochi tops the overall ranking, whereas the
capital city of Bhubaneswar, which has received consistent funding, ranks 16th. This indicates
that the provision of investments is not enough; its distribution to balance the social, economic,
and spatial develop- ment aspects is more important. The focus of these investments,
especially in the case of large and medium cities, is skewed towards the spatial factors (see
Figure 3). The small cities have limitations of both resources and political will. Kakinada and the
other low scoring cities in the ranking list (see Figures 2 and 3) demonstrate this. But some of
the small cities also have the benefits of a manage- able size, a better involved and cohesive
social capital, and good leadership. This is demonstrated by the high scoring cities like Kochi,
Guwahati, and Udaipur (see Figure 4), These cities have focused on multidimensional aspects
of development as well as capitalised on their unique cultural identity.
Many forward-looking initiatives with an integrated approach in the area of education, local
economy, community participation, water management, heritage management, etc., have
been demonstrated in the three cities. These cities have been at the forefront in their
respective states. The small cities, have an opportunity for balanced growth if they adopt an
integrated approach to development and catch up on some of the lagging economic and
spatial factors.

4.2. Imbalances and inequalities

As against their larger counterparts, in the medium size cities, the lack of investments is
leading to a low score on the spatial dimension (see Figure 2). The medium-sized cities also
struggle on the other two dimensions (see Figures 2 and 6). They nurture a complacent
attitude towards growth. which can eventually lock them into a gloomy zone of slow growth
and subsequently, the pressure of urbanisation can lead to increased imbalances.
There is a negative score in all the cities on critical indicators like slum population and
urban poverty ratio, representing inequality. The urban poverty is a matter of concern more
evidently in the medium size cities (see Figures 5 and 6). The slum population is high in
medium and larger cities mainly due to pressures of migration. The presence of slums is
represents exclusion starkly. Indian cities have struggled with slums for a very long period.
This not only points to the multi-

Figure 1. Total Inclusions Score Percentile

1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Note: Names of cities (&population) along “X” axis and estimated inclusion score frequency through the test along “Y” axis.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1

Figure 2. Total inclusion score (normalised) in cluster of small (a), medium (b) and large Cities.

dimensional and complex nature of the issue but also to a neglect of the national and local
leader- ship towards it.
Participatory planning is identified as an important contributory factor for building inclusive
cities both in theory and practice. However, in the case of the cities in India, the action taken
by the gov- ernment in this area is poor. There are very few cities that have created creative
forums and policies for participation beyond the tools of ward meetings and citizen surveys
that are undertaken during specific projects. Only 5 out of the 20 sample cities conduct
meetings at the ward level regularly with diverse stakeholder participation. Kerala is the single
state in India which has successfully implemented a sustained and broad-based initiatives in
the year 1996 to empower and encourage people for participation at the state and local level
through the People’s Plan Campaign (Isaac and Heller 2003). There is enough evidence to
show the lack of “real commitment to participatory plan- ning and governance” by the
government and the political leadership in India. There is a record of elite capture of the ward
level interactions in the case of Pune, and lack of participation from diverse groups in the ward
meetings in the case of cities like Surat. Studies also indicate the existence and role of other
barriers such as the attitude of the leadership and professionals, competency of the
administration, and knowledge gap (see Figure 7).

4.3. Interdimensional and inter factor relationships

Based on the nature of the distribution of the data, the correlation test was conducted using
SPSS software. The results validate some of the arguments made earlier in the paper. The
test reveals a strong and significant correlation between spatial and economic dimensions (r =
0.64) (see Table 3). The weak relationship between the spatial and economic with the social
dimensions implies the lack of a conducive ecosystem for balanced and inclusive development
in Indian cities. It brings to light the necessity of an integrated vision and improved involvement
of citizen in city development. Policy level strengthening for inclusive city development as well
as a corresponding local strategy and action is required in most cities of India, irrespective of
their size.
The inter factor correlation test provides internal validation to the selection of factors. It
suggests a strong and statistically significant positive association with total inclusion of 6 out of
the 13 factors. (r = 0.48–0.65). Although a statistically significant association is not clarified
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

between every factor, all

 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1

Figure 3. Inclusion factors – scoring pattern in Kakinada and Kochi–Surat and Pune–Jabalpur and Indore.

factors are internally validated as they show strong to a very strong and significant positive
associ- ation with at least 1 to a maximum of 4 other factors (see Table 4).
This paper demonstrates that a detailed review of the scoring pattern of factors within the
dimen- sions can inform various actionable points for different typology of cities (see Figures
8–10). Cities
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Figure 4. Inclusion factors – scoring pattern in Kochi, Guwahati, and Udaipur.

like Pune, Surat, Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Chennai are large and support an ever-growing
migrant population. The expansion of basic services through physical infrastructure has been
the priority of all investments in these cities. However, moving forward, the interrelationship of
social and econ- omic development should be harnessed. Initiatives in these cities, whether
conceptualised as spatial infrastructure-based projects or other soft initiatives, should
encompass various other aspects. The thrust should be on factors like affordable housing, a
good network of affordable public transport, better diversity of economic opportunities
especially for the population engaged in informal jobs and the SME sector, thrust on social
infrastructure and social capital, strengthening networks of social institutions and promoting
community initiatives. The medium-sized cities such as Coimba- tore, Bhopal, Indore and
others need to take concrete actions to improve their economic vitality, strengthen
infrastructure and concurrently take up initiatives for social transformation.
Similarly, the framework also helps in identifying further improvement areas, specific to
cities. Kochi is a small city but interestingly, the highest scorer in the list. The areas of
improvement for

Figure 5. Percentage of slum population in small (a), medium (b) and large cities.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1

Figure 6. Urban poverty ratio in small (a), medium (b), and large cities.

Figure 7. Participatory governance score in small (a), medium (b), and large cities.

Kochi are earning capacities of its citizens, conducive environment for community initiatives,
and the use of ICT based tools to link with the communities directly. Similarly, Bhubaneswar,
which is representative of the situation in small cities, needs to achieve better provision of
basic infrastruc- ture as well as improve on aspects related to economic vitality (see Figure
11).

Table 3. Correlation between dimensions of inclusive cities.

Economic inclusion Spatial inclusion
Economic Inclusion .646**
Spatial Inclusion .646**
Social Inclusion .352 0.209
**Significant at 0.01.
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

5. Conclusion
This paper adopts a three stepped robust method to develop a multidimensional framework for
inclusive cities. The multidimensional analysis of the smart cities in India on inclusion factors,
simul- taneously brings to light the concern of imbalanced growth, slow growth and social
exclusion in the Indian cities. This indicates the need to widen and mainstream the agenda of
inclusive growth in the city planning and governance framework. The socio-economic
transformation does not seem to be a priority area even in the policy rhetoric of the Smart
Cities Mission, which is currently the largest initiative with a possibility for integrated
development in the cities. The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which is the institutional
structure that is seeded in the cities as part of this mission, is state centric and does not have
direct and strong representation from the local councillors, community, civil society, and the
excluded population. In most cities, the project management teams are engaged in
documenting, reporting and meeting deadlines. A deeper ground level engagement with the
communities is either left to the discretion of the nongovernment organisations, if hired for
specific projects or managed with the inadequate existing channels of the city administration.
Only in the later stage of the mission period (due to substantial criticism from the professional
fra-
ternity), piecemeal attempts were made to integrate the component of inclusiveness in the
mission. Currently, the livability index (which was developed around the third year from
inception of the SCM), provides a space for inclusiveness. The mission does not promote
inclusiveness evidently – but at the same time – it does not close doors to social
transformation. In this situation, the cities need to take charge and influence the
mainstreaming of this agenda.
Many cities are trying to move towards inclusiveness through specific projects. For example, Pune
is taking up various placemaking projects to enhance community life and vibrancy of the city.
Chennai and Pune and some other smart cities are building a bicycle friendly, pedestrian
oriented, and green streets. Bhopal has developed Sarafa Bazaar street to benefit the hawkers and
a prominent public bicycle sharing track in the city. Most smart cities are slowly integrating
pedestrian oriented and non-motorised transportation infrastructure in their street designs.
NDMC (New Delhi) is suc- cessfully implementing the integrated transformation of public
schools. Visakhapatnam has
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1
Figure 8. Scoring variation within select factors in small (a), medium (b), and large (c) cities.
 2 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Table 4. Correlation between factors of inclusive

cities.
Urban
Social Equality Basic and Heritage Access to
Total Network of Environmental Housing Diversity Access
& Access to and Affordable
Inclusion of to
Dimensions sans the Participatory Community social Social Social Infrastructure affordability ICT for Culture Economic Economic Financial Public
of Inclusion Factors factor Governance Initiatives infrastructure Diversity Institutions Access and Access Communities Inclusion Vitality Opportunity services Transport
SOCIAL Participatory .488* .454* .535*
Governance
Community .495*
Initiatives
Social Equity & .495* .515*
Access to
Social
Infrastructure
Network of Social .488* .538*
Institution
Social Diversity .583** .555* .481*
SPATIAL Basic and .486*
Environmental
Infrastructure
Access
Housing .495* .583*
Affordability
and Access
ICT for .487** .454* .651** .497*
Communities
Urban Heritage .587** .710**
and Culture
Inclusion
ECONOMIC Economic Vitality .657** .535* .555* .651* .535*
Diversity of .481*
Economic
Opportunity
Access to .664** .495* .515* .609**

DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE
Financial
Services
Access to .567** .497* .710** .535* .609**
Affordable
Public
Transport
Note: *Correlation is signfii cant at 0.05 and **. Correlation is signfiaitca0n.0t1. Only signi ficant correlations are included in this table.

15
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Figure 9. Scoring in basic infrastructure, economic vitality & community initiatives in small (a), medium (b), and large (c)
cities.

Figure 10. Scoring pattern across critical social, economic, and spatial factors in small (a), medium (b), and large (c)
cities.

developed projects like all-abilities children’s park in the city (SCM 2020). The smart cities of
Bhopal, Jabalpur, Pune, and Kochi are currently building a smart database aimed towards
building inclusive cities under the e-governance provisions (Institute for Development Studies
2018).
However, these efforts are still fragmentary. The cities need to install sustainable
institutional mechanisms that foster real participation and community engagement within the
SPV structure. Through the pan city initiatives, they need to undertake wider and
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1
multidisciplinary schemes that
1 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

Figure 11. Imbalances within factors in small cities (Bhubaneshwar and Kochi).

are designed to respond to the needs of the small enterprises, the informal sector, the slum
dwellers, the youth, the women, and instill balanced social and economic development of the
society. The guidelines for projects should have equal emphasis on aspects related to local
culture and skills, social and environmental impact, and long-term participation from the
communities. The project management team in the cities should have a dedicated social wing
to ensure wide participation and identify innovative mechanisms for direct community
engagement. Smart cities like Kochi, which already have a comprehensive list of projects, can
take advantage of the statewide initiatives of participatory planning in place since long and
build an open and wider institutional structure within the SPV.
The Smart City Mission provides avenues for innovative and creative projects and the
opportunity to use technology to enhance direct community involvement. It has resources and
structures to build capacities of the local body. Through multilateral partnerships, it provides an
opportunity to connect cities to national and global networks like the Global Resilient Cities
Network, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is a complex challenge and hence a
multi-fold effort will be required. The cities should take the lead and with the help of frequent
self assessment, develop initiatives. The national government should provide the necessary
ecosystem that opens up the urban sector to the long-term benefits of inclusive growth
models.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Madhurima Waghmare is a sustainable urban development specialist and academician with training in
architecture, urban design and development planning. Madhurima has one year of advanced training in
development planning from the U.K. She is completing her PhD research in the area of inclusive and forward-
looking smart cities from the TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi. She has over18 years of experience
in the field with research, technical, leadership, managerial, knowledge sharing and capacity building roles. She
has been involved in design and planning
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 1

projects covering around 60 cities in India and over 12 regional planning projects in 6 States of India. She has
led pro- jects in India funded by the private sector, central; state; and local governments, and multilateral donor
agencies like The World Bank, Cities Alliance, and DFID. Madhurima has built, led, managed, and advised
multidisciplinary teams on large scale and complex projects and programs in the research as well as
consultancy ecosystem. Her areas of special- isation include: strategic planning for inclusive and forward-
looking smart cities, Inclusive revitalisation in historic cities, design of complex building units, integrated and
environmentally sensitive land use and infrastructure planning in greenfield and brownfield areas in urban and
semi-urban context, and statutory plans. She has been contributing as faculty and jury member at leading
architecture and planning schools in India. Madhurima is author to a substantial body of high-quality consultancy
reports, premier research-based works of national and global importance and confer- ence publications.
Shaleen Singhal is the Dean (Research and Relationships) at TERI School of Advanced Studies. Dr Singhal had
been a Visiting Fulbright Fellow at the Yale University in 2018. He is a Fellow of Higher Education Academy, UK
and a member of the Global Urban Competitiveness Project Council, US. For over 23 years, he had been
working in areas relating to sustainability, urban development, policy and planning in India and UK. He had been
a lecturer in Sustainability Design at the School of the Built Environment, Ulster University. He is an architect-
planner with globally awarded (Emerald/ EFMD) PhD on City Competitiveness and Regeneration. Dr Singhal had
been Principle Investigator of several multi-dis- ciplinary research and consultancy assignments focusing on India
and other developing countries. His research work and publications lay emphasis on sustainable redevelopment
in cities, ecology-based urban planning and effective public policy. He headed the Department of Policy Studies
at TERI School from 2012 to 2017 and had pioneered in struc- turing first-of-its-kind MTech programme on
Urban Development and Management in India; and first masters’ course on Sustainable Consumption and
Production. Inter-disciplinary research by his PhD scholars examines the challenges and solutions for smart
sustainable cities. He was the Indian Lead Collaborator of the Indian European multi-level climate governance
research networking programme. Prof. Singhal contributes as an external PhD examiner, doctoral research
committee member and guest faculty at leading architecture and planning schools in India.

ORCID
Madhurima Waghmare http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4295-3179

References
Asian Development Bank. 2019. Asian Development Outlook 2019 update: “Fostering Growth and Inclusion in Asia’s
Cities”.
Manila.
Bhattacharya, S., S. A. Patro, and S. Rathi. 2016. “Creating Inclusive Cities: A Review of Indicators for
Measuring Sustainability for Urban Infrastructure in India.” Environment and Urbanization Asia 7 (2): 214–
233. doi:10.1177/ 0975425316654799.
Election Commission of India. 2020. The Voters Turnout Status. https://eci.gov.in/statistical-report/statistical-
reports.
Cabannes, Yves. 2015. “The Impact of Participatory Budgeting on Basic Services: Municipal Practices and Evidence
from the Field.” Environment and Urbanisation 27 (1): 257–284.
Campbell, S. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of
Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3): 296–312.
Carrino, L. 2016. “Data Versus Survey-Based Normalisation in a Multidimensional Analysis of Social Inclusion.” Italian
Economic Journal 2: 305–345. doi:10.1007/s40797-016-0041-z.
Congress for New Urbanism. 2019. “Building Local Strength, Emerging Strategies for Inclusive Development.”
Accessed 25 May 2019. https://www.cnu.org/building-local-strength.
Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. eds. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
Eurostat. 2018. Smarter, Greener, More Inclusive? — Indicators to Support the Europe 2020 Strategy.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed 30 March 2020.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail.
Florida, Richard. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge.
Geddes, Pattrick. 1915.inCiEtvieoslution: an Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and the Study of Civics .
London: Williams & Norgate.
Government of India. 2011. Primary Census Abstract Data of year 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar
General & Census Commissioner, India.
Gupta, K., W. Zhang, and R. P. Hall. 2020. “Risk Priorities and Their co-Occurrences in Smart City Project
Implementation: Evidence from India’s Smart Cities Mission (SCM).” Environment and Lanning B: Urban Analytics
and City Science. doi:10.1177/2399808320907607.
Haque, Ismail, Simi Mehta, and Arjun Kumar. 2019. Towards Sustainable and Inclusive Cities: The Case of Kolkata.
2 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

ORF Special Report No. 83, March 2019, Observer Research Foundation.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 2

Institute for Development Studies (IDS). 2018. Capacity Building for Smart Data and Inclusive Cities (SDIC). Accessed
15 January 2019. https://www.ids.ac.uk/projects/capacity-building-for-smart-data-and-inclusive-cities-sdic/.
International Labour Organisation (ILO). 2018. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture.
3rd ed. International Labour Office – Geneva.
Isaac, T. M. T., and P. Heller. 2003. “Democracy and Development: Decentralized Planning” in Kerala, in Fung &
Wright.
Jacobs, Jane. (1961) 1992. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage
Books. Kundu, Amitabh. 2013. “Making Indian Cities Slum Free.” Economic and Political Weekly
48: 15–18.
Lee, Neil. 2019. “Inclusive Growth in Cities: A Sympathetic Critique.” Regional Studies 53 (3): 424–434.
doi:10.1080/ 00343404.2018.1476753.
Mahadevia, Darshini. 2001. “Sustainable Urban Development in India: An Inclusive Perspective.” Development in
Practice 11 (2/3): 242–259.
Martin Prosperity Institute. 2011. Creativity and Prosperity: The Global Creativity Index.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA). 2019. Smart City Profiles. https://smartcities.gov.in/cities-
profiles. Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). 2008. Traffic & Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban
Areas in India.
New Delhi: Institute of Urban Transport (India).
Mori, C. K. 2011. “‘Digital Inclusion’: Are We All Talking About the Same Thing?” In ICTS and Sustainable
Solutions for Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives, edited by J. Steyn, and G. Johnson, 45–N6e4w. York:
Information Science Reference.
MSPI. 2012. National Sample Survey Report 2011-12 (68th Round). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and
Program Implementation (MSPI).
Mumford, Lewis. 2011. “What is a City.” In The City Reader. 5th ed., edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout,
91–
95. London: Routledge. (First published in Architectural Record, 1937).
OECD. 2018. Opportunities for All: The Framework for Policy Action on Inclusive Growth. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Accessed
22 December. https://oe.cd/2hJ.
Osberg, Lars, and Andrew Sharpe. 2011. “‘Moving from a GDP-based to a Well-Being Based Metric of
Economic Performance and Social Progress’ Results of the Index of Economic Well-Being for OECD
Countries, 1980–2009.” Paper presented to the International Statistical Institute Conference, August 21–26,
Dublin, Ireland.
Planning Commission, Government of India (GOI). 2019. India Transport Report: Moving India to 2032. New
Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India (niti.gov.in).
Praja. 2020. Praja’s Urban Governance Index. Mumbai: Praja Foundataion.
Rapoport, Amos. 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Russ, V., and V. Bradley, Jr. 1970. Journal of Architectural Education (1947–1974) 24 (2/3): 16–25. Accessed 25 July
2015. http://www/jstor.org/stable/1424238.
Schumacher, Ernst Friedrich. 1973. Small is Beautiful — Economics as if People Mattered. London: Harper
Collins.
Sen, A. 2002. “Opportunities and Freedom”, Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the
Harvard University Press.
Seoul Institute. 2019. “Framework of the Inclusive City Indicators and the Inclusiveness of Seoul.” Accessed 22
October 2019. http://global.si.re.kr/report_data.
Singhal, Shaleen, and Saurabh Jain. 2020. “Smart Sustainable Cities.” In Environmental Policy in India, edited by
Natalia Ciecierska-Holmes, Kirsten Jörgensen, Lana Laura Ollier and D. Raghunandan, 174–200. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Smart Cities Mission. 2015 and 2020. An initiative by the Government of India (GoI). Accessed 12 May 2019.
http:// smartcities.gov.in/writereaddata/SmartCityGuidelines.pdf.
Spencer, S. 2011. The Migration Debate. Bristol: The Policy Press.
UN-SDG Indicators. 2017. “‘Global indicator Framework’ for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the
2030, Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Accessed 22 May 2019. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-
list/. UN/UNDP/UNESCO. 2013.“Creative Economy Report ‘Widening Local Development Pathways’.” Accessed 2
July 2016.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/creative-economy-report-2013.pdf.
Van Beurden, Heidy. 2011. Smart City Dynamics. 1st ed. Amsterdam: HVB Communicatie.
Westendorff, David, ed. 2004. From Unsustainable Cities to Inclusive Cities. Geneva: United Nations Research
Institute for
Social Development (UNRISD).
World Bank. 2015. “Inclusive Cities Framework.” Accessed 22 May 2019. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/inclusive-
cities.
2 M. WAGHMARE AND S. SINGHAL

View publication stats