Exploring Multi-disciplinary Approach in Urban Planning

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/281523885
Exploring Multi-disciplinary Approach in Urban Planning: Need for a

Paradigm Shift in Planning Education in India Anil Kumar Roy1 Debjani
Ghosh2 and Ajith Kaliyath3
Conference Paper · August 2015
CITATION READS
1 1,228
3 authors, including:
Anil Kumar Roy Debjani Ghosh

Faculty of Planning CEPT University National institute of Urban Affairs
16 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Gujarat Coastal City and Its Neighbourhood: Climate change Challenges in Jamnagar City Region View project
Defining the urban in India View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anil Kumar Roy on 24 August 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Best paper award in the 13th International Congress of Asian Planning Schools Association (APSA 2015) hosted by
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in Johor Bahru, MALAYSIA on 12-14 August, 2015.
Exploring a Multi-disciplinary Approach to Urban Planning:

Need for a Paradigm Shift in Planning Education in India
Anil Kumar Roy1 Debjani Ghosh2 and Ajith Kaliyath3
1
Associate Professor, Faculty of Planning, CEPT University, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad,
India-380009Email: royanil@gmail.com; anil.roy@cept.ac.in
2
Senior Research Officer, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India-110003,
Email dghosh@niua.org
3
Environment Specialist, South Asia Urban Knowledge Hub, National Institute of Urban
Affairs, New Delhi, India-110003, Email: ajithkaliyath@gmail.com
Abstract
This study examines the curricula of selected urban planning schools in India to understand
whether they have incorporated global and national urban agendas into them. The selection of
schools is based on whether they are privately or publicly funded and their subsequent
functioning. The content analysis method has been used to assess the relevance of courses and
appropriateness of the pedagogy of the selected schools vis-à-vis the national urban agenda.
Public planning schools largely follow the spatial planning approach, while some of the private
schools have included a multi-disciplinary approach in their curricula.
Keywords: Planning Education in India, Urban Planning, Multi-disciplinary Approaches,

Urban Agenda.
Corresponding Author: Anil Kumar Roy PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Planning, CEPT
University, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India-380009, Email: royanil@gmail.com
1
1. Introduction
The emergence of planning education dates back to the turn of the 19th and 20th century in
response to the growing concern of rapidly urbanising centres resulting in increasing levels of
environmental pollution affecting human health in western Europe (UN-Habitat, 2009). The
establishment of the first course on Town Planning and Civic Design at the University of
Liverpool, UK, in the year 1909, which focused on urban health and sanitation was the first
manifestation of this concern. The publication of the journal Town Planning Review in the year
1910 (Davoudi and Pendlebury, 2010) gave birth to the urban planning discipline in academia.
This caught the attention of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA, which
introduced a course on urban planning in the year 1912. Since then, urban planning courses
have been continuously evolving. The urban agenda of the world has also been changing with
the passage of time, from the provisioning of water and sanitation to issues of
environmentalism, sustainable urban development, and high urban growth (Wheeler et al.,
2010), to livable, smart and intelligent cities. A gap remained, however, between planning
agendas and planning education both in space and time, which compelled the schools and their
pedagogic methods to change and adapt to new sets of approaches. Therefore, along with the
changing concerns of urban areas, the nature of urban planning has changed over time and
varies across the globe (UN-Habitat, 2009). Urban planning in its early years focused on
physical design, enforced through strict land use regulations. This has now been replaced by
new approaches that identify an institutional shift from governmental control to good
governance, facilitating a wider scope for planning through public participation and effective
implementation of the plans (UN-Habitat, 2009). These changes are reflected in the philosophy
and pedagogy of planning curricula, particularly in the schools of the developed world, while
those of the developing nations have yet to incorporate these changes vis-à-vis changing urban
issues in their respective countries.
European countries, including the United Kingdom, display a wide variety of urban planning
approaches characterized by a wide range of course curricula (UN-Habitat, 2009). Frank, et al.
(2014), have observed three ideologies representing unique educational models of planning
throughout Europe. They are: i) planning as a single discipline representing a particular
specialisation focusing on either the intuitive, technical, or practical application of the
2
architectural and engineering disciplines, as in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece; ii)
planning as an extension of various social sciences, with planners acting either as generalists or
specialists having a particular spatial understanding of politics, or an applied notion of
geography, with the UK, Germany and Switzerland in the lead; and iii) planning as an
independent discipline, with planners specialising in the core methods of interdisciplinary
analysis and normative policy development, as is common in the Netherlands, France, Italy and
the UK. The overlapping of these models of planning education in European countries exists,
as many countries encourage various models and ideologies to bring a multi-disciplinary
dimension into planning education.
The curricula in Canada and Australia are similar in their approaches and ideologies for the
obvious reason that both countries have inherited a common British colonial past. While
Canadian planning schools, particularly in the Ontario Planning Program, focus on multi-
culturalism and ethnic diversities in a highly urbanised nation (Goonewardena et.al., 2004), the
Australian planning course curriculum stresses the need for environmental sustainability
components to be incorporated heavily into their curricula (Hurlimann, 2009).
Planning education in Africa has been facing challenges (given the rapid pace of urbanisation
amidst extreme poverty and inequality) in the consolidation of curricula and research funding
because of the changing socio-economic scenario of Saharan and sub-Saharan countries. While
the rest of the continent exhibits commonalities in planning education ideologies, South Africa
seems to be somewhat different due to its history of apartheid and resource availability.
However, planning courses are very similar in other universities in the subcontinent due to the
colonial influence (UN-Habitat, 2009; also see Watson and Odendaal, 2012). More recent
demands for urban planners in the subcontinent have changed dramatically as African cities are
struggling to cope with rapid urbanisation associated with inequality, informality and
environmental degradation (Watson and Odendaal, 2012).
The same is the case with South Asian planning education as cities in this region, though largely
bearing colonial influence, exhibit contrasting characteristics of urban growth in recent times.
The history of urban planning education in South Asia is only half a century old, with the
establishment of the first planning school in India, the School of Planning and Architecture
(SPA, New Delhi) in the year 1955 (Ansari, 2009). Planning schools in the subcontinent have
initially followed the urban planning ideas, the process of diagnostic survey, conservative
3
surgery, and integrated planning ideas of Sir Patrick Geddes and/or Garden City principles of
Ebenezer Howard (Ansari, 2009, 69). This pattern of an evolving planning curriculum across
the schools worldwide indicates the urgent need for examining the curricula of Indian planning
institutions to understand their relevance in today’s context of strategic and short term planning
processes.
This paper tries to trace the nature of planning education in India and assesses the different
pathways being practised. Section two provides a detailed methodology that has been adopted
along with the various database sources. Section three presents the institutional history of
planning education in India. It also tries to find out the relevance of planning courses to the
contemporary urban agenda. Section four assesses the course content, pedagogy and
significance of urban and regional planning courses adopted in selected public and private
schools. It also brings out the gaps between the national urban planning agenda and present
curricula being offered in the selected schools. Section five examines the role of accreditation
in guiding planning education in India. Section six concludes this paper with recommendations
for a specific way forward leading to policy changes in the curricula presently adopted in the
country.
2. Methodology and sources of data
Limited time and resources prevented the authors from conducting a pan-India survey of
planning schools. Hence this paper provides only an overview of planning education in India,
which may not give all the details. The information and data presented here are either sourced
from websites of the respective schools or through the authors’ communications with the
selected schools. Any error, therefore, in quoting information/data is the collective
responsibility of the authors.
The selection of schools for this study is based on their respective affiliations and management
pathways. There are 25 planning schools in India out of which two sets of five schools in each
have been selected. The first set has schools governed by public agencies of national and state
governments and they include the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), New Delhi;
Department of Architecture and Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Kharagpur; Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Roorkee; School of Planning, Bhopal; and Guru Ramdas School of Planning, Guru Nanak Dev
University (GNDU), Amritsar. The second set of schools consists of privately owned self-
financed institutions recognised by the respective state governments by the act of laws and
4
ordinances. These include the Faculty of Planning, CEPT University Ahmedabad; School of
Architecture and Design, Lovely Professional University (LPU), Jalandhar; Amity School of
Architecture and Planning, Noida, UP, and Ananth Institute of Planning, Ahmedabad. The
objective of this study is not to compare all of the above based on their performance, but to
assess the content of their courses and their relevance, teaching pedagogy, academic strengths
and outreach of the planning profession.
3. The institutional history of planning education and its relevance to the urban agenda
Planning education was started in India in the early years of independence under the influence
of the British system of education in town and country planning (Ansari, 2009). The first
educational programme was started with the establishment of the School of Planning and
Architecture (SPA), New Delhi, in the year 1955. This was followed by another master’s level
programme in city and regional planning by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Kharagpur, West Bengal, in 1956. Currently, there are 25 planning schools in India operating
under public and private ownership (see Table 1). They are either governed by public agencies
such as the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), the Government of India, or
by various state government technical education agencies, or by the private sector under the
self-financed schemes of higher education. However, they are all required to follow the broader
guidelines of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) under the MHRD that
provides for the accreditation of courses and guidelines for curricula development. Some of the
private planning schools are also recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of
the Government of India by an Act passed by their respective state assemblies.
Figure1.
Figure1. Map - Location of Planning Schools in India
Source: (Authors, 2015)
When planning education was conceived in India, there was an urgent requirement for master
plans to be prepared for cities and towns in the country. The above schools, therefore geared
themselves to prepare such plans with a physical planning and civic design perspective. The
establishment of the Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI), in 1951was inspired heavily by
the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) of the UK. According to the ITPI
(www.itpi.org.in/pages/origin), there were only 15 Indian planners at the time of its
5
establishment, most of whom had been educated and trained in town and country planning in
the UK.
The agendas for development were heavily focused on nation-building programmes through
sectoral planning at the national, regional and local levels in the initial years of independence.
There was hardly any demand for urban planners as the orientation of developmental
programmes was sectoral but focused on physical planning and civic design. The creation of
the city of Chandigarh and the preparation of the Delhi Master Plan were the only two important
planning projects undertaken during this period. The urban policy also suffered from poor
implementation as programmes such as the Urban Community Development Project in 1958‒
59 could not take on a pan India coverage due to the neglect of an urban development agenda
in the national policy. However, a few notable urban planning instruments did get a mention
in the first two Five Year Plans [i], such as the National Town and Country Planning Act,
Zoning Regulations, Slum Clearance, and preparation of Master Plans. This was followed by
the establishment of the Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO) in 1955, the creation
of a separate Ministry of Urban Development and the preparation of the Delhi Master Plan
under the guidance of the American planner and architect Albert Mayer (Kumar, 1996).
The agenda in the first two decades of nation-building after independence was highly biased
towards agriculture and rural development, focusing on employment generation along with
poverty alleviation. This resulted in a poor response from existing planning schools in providing
professional inputs in the development process. Therefore, no new schools were established
during the 1960s, except for the School of Architecture and Planning at Anna University in
present-day Chennai. However, during the early 1970s, the urgent need for more planning
schools was felt in India, mainly because of the prevailing socio-economic conditions and
growing demand for shelter across cities and towns. Community and public participation were
the key policy approaches in fighting growing poverty and housing shortages. These
developmental agendas encouraged the establishment of four new planning schools, namely,
Institute of Development Studies, University of Mysore (1971); Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar (1972); Pune Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pune (1972); and School of
Planning, CEPT, Ahmedabad (1972), spreading across the south, north, central and western
India respectively (see Map1).
6
During the 1980s, however, the growing demand for better urban infrastructure and housing
encouraged engineering and technological institutes to offer courses in urban planning. There
were only two institutions, Bengal Engineering College, Sibpur University, and Visvesvaraya
National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, in Madhya Pradesh which started offering a master’s
degree in Urban and Regional Planning. Since building infrastructure was the dominant urban
issue during this period, the planning curricula emphasized technological skills to cope with the
growing demands for improved urban infrastructure and basic services. This policy framework,
however, could not fulfil the increasing need and large cities kept on growing
disproportionately. The ad hoc policy of the Government of India — Integrated Development
of Small and Medium Towns in 1979‒80 remained largely on paper. The demand for urban and
regional planners was negatively affected due to a general apathy in the implementation of this
urban policy. However, under the structural adjustment programme, the government launched
a massive campaign to provide urban basic services in 1986‒87 which, to some extent,
motivated the required demand for planners in providing capacity building to urban local
bodies.
Two new planning schools, namely, the School of Planning and Architecture, Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University (JNTU), Hyderabad, and Maulana Azad Institute of Technology,
Bhopal respectively were established in 1992 and 1996. However, the new economic policy
which turned around the development agenda of India after more than 40 years of independence
did not establish any significant urban policy in the mainstream political economy of India. The
development approaches were sectoral and multilayer planning from national to state and
district level was being practised in a top-down approach. The developmental schemes were
still being implemented by the administrative services where urban planners had little role to
play. However, public participation in decision-making at the grassroots level was felt like one
of the necessary preconditions for the successful implementation of developmental
activities. Hence in 1992, the Government of India brought in the 74th Constitutional
Amendment Act which guaranteed people's participation in decision-making through elected
wings of government. Parallel to this in 1991‒92 a scheme called Basic Services for the Urban
Poor (BSUP) was launched to make planning as inclusive as possible (Kumar, 1996). Despite
all these initiatives, the implementation of these schemes through bureaucratic channels could
not provide incentives for the growth of the planning profession.
It was in 2005 that a massive urban sector programme at the national level, called the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewable Mission (JNNURM) was launched, recognising for the first
7
time in India urban centres as the engines of economic growth. Subsequently, policy reforms
were put in place to strengthen the capacity of urban local bodies for ensuring efficient urban
infrastructure and access to basic services to citizens. This programme realised the need for
urban planners in nation-building and there was a massive requirement for capacity building in
the urban sector. This led to the establishment of new planning schools in India mainly by the
private sector. During the last 15 years (2000‒2015) more than 12 schools/institutes offering
urban planning courses have been established in India. The central government also felt the
need for public sector engagement in planning education and established two new Schools of
Planning and Architecture at Bhopal and Vijayawada respectively during the year 2008.
There has been an overwhelming response from privately run urban planning schools during
the last decade. They follow the model course curricula given by the Board of Town & Country
Planning, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Prominent among them are 1)
Lovely School of Architecture and Design at Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, and 2)
Amity University which has started a Bachelor of Planning course at its Noida (UP), Mumbai
and Gurgaon campuses. A few others are operating on a self-financing basis affiliated to their
respective state-level technical education agencies in and around Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Surat and
Mumbai regions (see Map 1).
4. Planning education in India: content, pedagogy and relevance
The courses offered in the above-selected schools have diversified to some extent to cope with
the changing socio-cultural and political economy of contemporary India. However, careful
observation of the curricula reveals that there is still a major emphasis on spatial or physical
planning components. One glaring lacuna in the existing urban planning process in India is an
absence of any participatory mechanisms, which has been primarily responsible for the wide
gap between what planners do and what people expect from the planning profession. This gap
has increased due to the limited scope of planning education linked with the market demand
(Ansari, 2009).
To understand the content of various courses and their relevance, a review of urban and regional
planning curricula of selected government and private schools has been attempted in the
following section. Five government-funded and five completely privately funded planning
schools offering both the Master’s and Bachelor’s programmes have been selected (see
Table.1). The content analysis of the curricula of these schools focuses on its relevance to the
contemporary urban development agenda, teaching pedagogy, academic strengths and outreach
of the planning profession.
8
Table 1.
Public (sector) planning schools
In almost all planning schools in the country, the orientation and content of their programmes
have largely been influenced by the planning ideologies that were essentially western in origin.
British town planning influence had taken root during the early twentieth century. Even the
recently established planning schools continue to show the British modernist influence since
these schools largely follow the curricula adopted by the earlier planning schools. However, the
private schools have completely adapted the AICTE model course curricula to their
Master/Bachelor of Planning courses. The AICTE’s model course curriculum for the Master’s
programme has also been followed by the government-run schools. They have also incorporated
the relevant courses that are demanded in professional practice.
Table 2.
Table 2 shows the levels of planning education and the respective affiliation of all the selected
government planning schools. Diversification of planning courses (number of specialisations
in the Master of Planning programme) has been observed in the case of two schools, namely,
SPA, New Delhi, and Faculty of Planning, CEPT University being privately managed. These
institutes (see Table 2) offer doctoral programmes to bring in research components in the
planning discipline. However, only three schools, namely SPA, New Delhi, SPA Bhopal, and
GNDU, Amritsar, offer a Bachelor of Planning course. This will help provide multi-disciplinary
strength for planners and in the long run, it will provide the required maturity of planning
courses as an independent discipline.
The indicators for curriculum assessment covered a wide range of relevant issues of planning
education. They have tried to address to what extent the course content can meet the demands
of the changing urban scenario and prepare the emerging new planners for it. SPA, New Delhi
being the pioneering school in this regard, still offers the maximum choice of specialisation
among the selected government schools. However, it is observed that IIT, Kharagpur and SPA,
Bhopal have better teaching strengths compared to the other schools (see Table 3).
Table 3.
The long-term institutional commitment to education and the urban profession has been
reflected by the engagement of full-time faculty and student-teacher ratio. Based on these two
broad indicators, the above mentioned two schools are far ahead of others in India.
The information about part-time or adjunct faculty was not easily available for all the schools;
however, a majority do rely on the adjunct and visiting faculties. SPA, New Delhi depends
9
more on the visiting faculty in almost all courses as well as in-studio classes compared to other
schools. The possibility of a higher number of qualified teachers and urban professionals who
can be called visiting faculty does exist in the Delhi metropolitan area. Most schools have an
intake of students ranging between 20 and 40 in their respective Master’s programmes. Hence
the teacher-student ratio across all the schools is reasonably good. As per the AICTE model
curriculum guideline, it is suggested that a 1:10 ratio of teachers and students for planning
courses, especially for the studios, be maintained to provide better quality education.
Table 4.
Academic inputs in terms of the full-time teaching staff having a doctoral degree as an essential
qualification is not mandatory in these schools. There are huge variations in the number of
teaching staff who have a doctoral degree across the planning schools in India (see Table 4).
IITs and SPAs are now stressing the need for having a doctoral degree as an essential
qualification at the entry level recruitment of an Assistant Professor. In SPA New Delhi, IIT
Roorkee and IIT Kharagpur more than 50 per cent of their academic staff do have a PhD degree.
SPA Bhopal has only 32 per cent while GNDU does not have a single member on the academic
staff with a doctoral degree. It may eventually improve the overall teaching and research
standards as the number of teaching staff with doctoral degrees increases. In anticipation of
this, both these schools have started doctoral programmes in planning quite recently. IIT,
Kharagpur and SPA, New Delhi have a long tradition of offering a doctoral programme in their
planning courses.
The outreach of planning education in India is limited to training, research and consultancy and
advisory services to the public, private and development sectors (see Table 5). Most of the
planning schools are providing urban planning research and consultancy services. Most schools
use their outreach programme to join various networks of urban professional bodies. Prominent
amongst these is the Institute of Town Planners, India, New Delhi, which provides a platform
for networking between urban planning professionals/practitioners and planning education
professionals. The faculty members of these schools from their respective departments,
individually provide advisory services to policymaking in India and abroad as expert members
or resource persons in the various committees formed by public institutions from time to time.
Table 5.
Most curricula are a mix of theory and practical knowledge which try to hone communication
and soft skills apart from technical and analytical skills (see Table 6). The need to redefine the
curricula to meet the growing needs of the urban sector is felt to be increasing and there is a
10
conscious effort among the planning academia to try and plug in planning education with the
urban agenda.
Table 6.
The AICTE had brought out a model curriculum in the year 2011 to standardise the curricula
of post-graduate planning programmes offered in the respective schools. However, the schools
follow them differently. The course content of SPA Delhi is the same as provided by AICTE
as a model curriculum. SPA Delhi, SPA Bhopal and GNDU do not include ‘seminars’ as a
separate ‘subject’ which would give students a chance to learn public communication; the other
schools have incorporated it as a part of an individual module/course. Use of analytical tools
involving geospatial science (Remote Sensing) and modelling for decision making
(Quantitative Methods) as separate subjects are lacking in most of the schools’ curricula.
Except for both the IITs, in all other schools theory courses are divided among the four
semesters, but in IITs, all the theory courses are taught in the first two semesters. The second
year in the IITs is exclusively left for working on the post-graduate thesis and self-learning
process through research. Internship as a mandatory requirement for students is not there at
SPA, New Delhi. All other schools have included students’ internships in their curricula.
Table 7.
Table 7 presents various aspects of the planning curriculum that is relevant in the present day
context both at the national and international level. The selected planning schools in India have
incorporated the majority of the thematic contents in three broader levels of pedagogies such as
1) theoretical and conceptual understanding of the issues; 2) analytical tools and skills
development, and 3) surveying and field techniques essential for the profession. However,
there has been a serious lack of creating awareness of social equity/justice, participatory
planning tools and techniques, and deliberative and communication skills in the curricula of the
selected planning schools. These schools across the world are now required to incorporate these
themes into their curricula to better equip professionals for 21st-century planning challenges
(UN-Habitat, 2009). Gender issues are completely missing from all the planning curricula in
India. There is an effort by a Mumbai-based civil society organization, PUKAR, which initiated
gender-based urban development projects and suggested modules that are relevant to the
present-day context of megacity planning in India (as cited in UN-Habitat, 2009). These
modules include gender consciousness and practice of planning; gender, space, youth and urban
identity; interrogating the city — gender, space, people power etc. The above analysis of
planning curricula of public-funded planning schools is a more generalised way of looking at
11
the various aspects of planning education. It may or may not differ from those of privately
funded planning schools in India.
Private planning schools
The history of private planning schools dates back to the establishment of the Faculty of
Planning, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, in 1972 (see Table 8). Here, for the first time, a
planning school in India incorporated a significant degree of the social and economic aspects
of urban planning rather than only the traditional physical planning approach that had
dominated urban design in its curriculum.
Table 8.
While the IITs in Kharagpur and Roorkee still focus on aspects of physical planning through
the structuring of a master plan and development plan into their studies, the Faculty of Planning,
CEPT University, has diversified into five specialisations in recent years. It has now introduced
a choice based curriculum in five major areas of specialisation (Land Use Planning,
Environmental Planning, Housing, Infrastructure Planning and Transport Planning) for the
Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) course. Students are free to choose any one
of these depending upon their interests and future career prospects.
The private planning schools, except for the Faculty of Planning, CEPT University, follow
almost the entire model course curriculum given by AICTE. However, all of them are either
attached to the architecture or the engineering department/faculty of their respective
institutes/universities. The dominance of planning education related to architecture rather than
to engineering and the social sciences emphasises the urban design perspective in the
curriculum and orients the philosophy and pedagogy towards physical planning rather than
urban planning and management and social-economic planning that should be focused on
relevant sectors and/or groups.
The remaining private planning schools started almost 40 years after the establishment of the
Faculty of Planning at CEPT University (see Table 9). This can be attributed largely to the fact
that the national planning agendas had neglected the changing urban scenario in favour of rural
development priorities during these years. The emergence of private planning schools in recent
times is largely the result of recent nationwide urban programmes, i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and BSUP. These two programmes for the first
time in the history of national policy-making have recognised urban centres as the engines of
growth.
Table 9.
12
Table 9 presents the academic strength of all the five selected private planning schools in India.
Academic strength is the key to quality education which has been captured in terms of the
number of full-time/part-time faculty members along with the number of adjunct faculty
members. The teacher-student ratio has been calculated to show institutional commitments vis-
à-vis proper guidance to the students as per the AICTE standards and University Grants
Commission (UGC) norms for all the institutes of higher education in India. It is observed that
amongst all the private planning schools in India, the Faculty of Planning at CEPT University
has far better academic strengths in terms of the above parameters (see Table 9). It has the
highest number of full-time faculty, not only amongst the private schools of planning but also
all the selected public-funded planning schools in India. The teacher-student ratio is favourable
with the largest intake of students both for the Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees. The Faculty of
Planning at CEPT University has also promoted and encouraged inputs from visiting faculty to
bring in the much-needed know-how of professional practices from experienced urban
practitioners from its pool of alumni and urban managers in the country and abroad.
Table 10.
Amongst the new private planning schools, Amity University, New Delhi has a relatively poor
teacher-student ratio compared to others. Manipal University (Manipal), Jaipur (Rajasthan) and
Anant Institute, Ahmedabad, have just started their programme of planning so they are at an
infancy stage on these parameters. However, there is a huge potential for consolidation of
academic strength in these schools soon (see Table 10). Lovely Professional University (LPU)
has successfully graduated a full batch of Bachelor of Planning students in the academic year
2014‒15. According to LPU sources, it has an international level of infrastructure and facilities
(classrooms and hostels) that has attracted almost 50 per cent of planning students from abroad,
namely from Bhutan, Afghanistan, and Rwanda. None of the other private schools has reported
an intake of foreign students in their respective planning courses so far. The Faculty of
Planning, CEPT University has an international exchange programme with foreign universities
such as UCLA, Berkley, Development Planning Unit (DPU) of University College, London,
and other European institutes and vice versa for studios and training programmes. These kinds
of private initiatives are likely to promote universalism in planning education. They will also
bring Indian planning education to the forefront of developing countries which can then provide
urban planning professionals even globally.
Table 11.
13
As far as the outreach of planning education by the selected five private planning schools in
India is concerned, all of them provide teaching and research components in their respective
education and training programmes (see Table.11). The Faculty of Planning at CEPT University
has a long tradition of promoting research, training and consultancy services to both public and
private sector agencies, including multinational and intergovernmental agencies. LPU also
promotes research and consultancy services in-house as part of the outreach in professional
practices in the country. It has made an effort to encourage a doctoral programme at the planning
school to support its research and consultancy services. The other private planning schools are
relatively new, hence it may take some more time to have a strong outreach programme. The
private schools may have to follow the CEPT University model of its outreach programme
where it has set up an independent centre called CEPT Research and Development Foundation
(CRDF) that encourages thematic research, training, and consultancy activities. The Faculty of
Planning has been actively involved in these activities and made extensive outreach into the
field of urban planning.
Table 12.
A planning curriculum model has been given by the AICTE to be followed by all the planning
schools in India. They have all incorporated technical skills such as plan preparation (Master
Plan, Development Plan and Area/Neighbourhood Plan), communication skills, analytical skills
in terms of sector analysis, including population projections and prediction of economic sectors
in terms of modelling using statistical and econometrics tools. They have also included soft
skills in terms of the development of analytical tools, model programming using existing
software and GIS tools.
An effort to harmonise all the different aspects in teaching pedagogy is apparent across these
schools (see Table 12). All the selected private planning schools in India follow almost the
same AICTE model curriculum, except for the Faculty of Planning, CEPT University, where it
has further evolved and incorporated relevant and futuristic subjects into its curriculum. For
example, it now has elective courses on Smart Cities, Participatory Planning and Governance,
Climate Change and Cities, Urban Disaster Management, Industrial Area Planning and
Industrial Ecology and other such courses from across the various departments of the university.
Students are required to choose electives from across the schools and departments to make their
learning as multi-disciplinary as possible.
Table 13.
14
Table 13 provides a content analysis of the courses offered by the five selected private planning
schools in India. While the Faculty of Planning, CEPT University incorporated and evolved its
course curriculum by including relevant courses, others have followed whatever has been given
in the model course curriculum of AICTE. For the benefit of better understanding, the entire
planning course content has been divided into three broad categories: a) theoretical
understanding of relevant planning subjects; b) application of analytical tools and various
survey techniques; and c) inclusion of communicative and participatory planning. The
application of analytical tools has been well accommodated into the curriculum; however,
barring one or two, the schools have yet to incorporate important and relevant subjects such as
deliberative and advocacy planning, communicative planning, and gender planning into their
respective curricula. There is a need for the incorporation of these subjects into planning
education worldwide, and more so for the developing countries (UN-Habitat, 2009).
Participatory planning tools and techniques, along with their relevance have not yet been
understood by most of the planning schools in India. There has been a need for the planning
profession to be more participatory and for a bottoms-up approach, so that its implementation
can be as inclusive as possible (Chettiparamb, 2006, see also Roy, 2009). However, the
accreditation of these skill sets will be required to be universally accepted in the planning
education domain. It is therefore important to understand the process of accreditation of
planning schools and their respective courses.
5. Role of accreditation in planning education
Accreditation of institutes of higher education, which include technical and professional
courses such as urban planning (town planning), has been done since Independence to ensure a
quality of education that meets international standards and these are universally recognised
(Sinha and Subramanian, 2013). The various accrediting bodies established by Acts of
Parliament have done it from time to time. The Ministry of Human Resources Development
(MHRD), Government of India has been responsible for supervising and regulating the
functioning and ensuring of quality education through its regulatory body, the University Grants
Commission (UGC). The other regulatory bodies are the All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). While
NAAC has been entrusted with providing accreditation to all the universities and/or institutes
of higher education in India, AICTE acts as a regulatory council for the following technical
fields: engineering, technology, pharmaceutical sciences, architecture, town planning, hotel
management, catering technology and applied arts and crafts. It is empowered to ensure
15
regulatory measures related to courses, curricula, facilities etc. It has also the statutory authority
to approve to start of new technical institutions and introduce new courses. It can make a
recommendation of recognition and can de-recognise a university and/or institutes through the
National Board of Accreditation (NBA). The difference between the AICTE and NBA is that
the former is a regulatory body that ensures whether technical institutes/universities meet the
initial requirements of functioning as per the prescribed norms and standards, while the latter
is a monitoring agency that supervises institutions on their ability to sustain their functioning
as technical institutes.
Unlike architecture education that has a professional regulatory council such as the Council of
Architecture (CoA) which has statutory authority by an Act of Parliament, planning education
has not been able to establish any professional regulatory body with statutory powers. The
Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI), though not a statutory body, supports AICTE in
regulating (town) planning education in India. AICTE has constituted the All India Board of
Town and Country Planning consisting of senior academic administrators from planning
schools, practitioners and representatives of ITPI, particularly to regulate and supervise
planning courses. The composition and terms of reference of the board get reviewed
periodically and the most recent reconstitution was done in May 2016. The board has the
mandate to accredit urban planning (town planning) courses of both public and privately
supported planning schools. Accreditation is provided based on the assessment of physical
infrastructure, curriculum, academic strength (eligibility of faculty members, teacher-student
ratio, research and publications etc.) and professional outreach of the schools. To respond to
the emerging issues in planning education, ITPI has set up an Educational Standing Committee,
which consists of the institute's members drawn from academic, policy-making and practising
institutions.
6. Conclusion and way forward
The history of planning education is more than half a century old in India. While in the
formative stage the public sector supported planning schools provided most of the urban
planning needs in the country, largely following the colonial ideologies, but during the 1970s
there was a felt need for diversification and reorientation of planning philosophy towards more
socially- and people-centric approaches. However, with the greater impact of globalisation and
rapid economic growth focused largely on cities, there has also been a greater emphasis on
urban planning education. With the urban agenda slowly coming into the mainstream of
16
developmental policies in recent years in India, it is important to incorporate new skills, tools
and techniques and include soft skills as well into the planning curriculum.
It appears that a mismatch has developed between the urban agenda and the kind of education
planners are being imparted in the schools. It is expected that planning practices should respond
to the changing circumstances by instituting reforms that move away from the traditional
theories dominated by physical planning towards a multi-disciplinary approach. If not, the
isolation and gap between planners and their handling of mainstream planning and development
processes will continue to grow.
Thus, it is of utmost importance that planning education should seek to undo the isolation of
planners from the mainstream of institutions engaged in the formulation and implementation of
policies, programmes and projects for urban development limited to spatial planning in urban
design. Today, town planners not only need to be educated about development plan making,
public policy framing, and enforcement of development control norms, but they should also
acquire skills for effective communication, negotiation and mediation with competing priorities
through creative solutions and diverse perspectives of stakeholders and the political leadership.
The planning schools will, therefore, be required to reorient their education programmes to
address the new challenges that will arise with the new orientation toward urban development,
management and governance.
The following conclusions and inbuilt recommendations may help education policy reforms in
shaping the planning profession in the coming years:
1. A pan-Indian research on planning education is required to further explore the current
orientation of curricula and their relevance. The above research will provide the impetus for
reform in planning curricula in the country.
3. The present study finds a glaring absence of social science orientations with a very low or
negligible focus on social equity/justice, participatory planning, and advocacy planning in the
existing curricula and pedagogy.
4. Schools not effectively focusing on the issues of sustainability and must do so for future
climate change proofing of cities.
5. There has been complete neglect of gender-related subjects in the curricula which need to
be addressed urgently.
6. There is a felt need that planning schools either form a strong professional network or that
the existing ITPI be strengthened with greater participation in national policy formulation and
17
lobbying for reforms. The schools need to interact with international planning networks for
the development of planning as a strong and independent subject discipline.
7. Geospatial knowledge along with soft managerial skills such as negotiation, conflict
resolution and advocacy need to be incorporated into planning pedagogies.
Notes:[i] Five Year Plan: The government of India adopted the centralised and integrated economic planning
based on sectoral targets and funds allocation in a five years interval. This planning process has been inspired
by the former USSR model of socialistic economic planning.
References
1. Adams, D and Watkins, C (2014), "The Value of Planning", RTPI Research Report.5,
London: RTPI
2. Amin, A (2013), "The Urban Condition: A Challenge to Social Science", Public Culture, Vol
25 (2), pp.201-208.
3. Ansari, J.H. (2009). Revisiting urban planning in South Asia. Regional Study Prepared for
Revisiting Urban Planning: Global Report on Human Settlements.
4. Budge, T. (2009). Educating planners, educating for planning or planning education: The
never-ending story. Australian Planner, 46(1), 8–13.
5. Chapin, T. S. (2003). Revolutionizing the core: GIS in the planning curriculum. Environment
and Planning B, 30(4), 565–574.
6. Chettiparamb, A. (2006). Bottom-Up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), 185–194.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06289239
7. Davoudi, S., & Pendlebury, J. (2010). Centenary paper: The evolution of planning as an
academic discipline. Town Planning Review, 81(6), 613–646.
8. Fisher, F., & Tees, D. (2005). Key Competencies for Improving Local Governance, Vol. 1-4.
UNHABITAT and LGI.
9. Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). How planners deal with uncomfortable knowledge: The dubious ethics
of the American Planning Association. Cities, 32, 157–163.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.016
10. Frank, A. I. (2007). Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning
education? Planning, Practice & Research, 22(4), 635–648.
11. Frank, A. I., & Buining, F. (2007). A practice-based approach to developing creativity in
higher education. Transactions, 4(2), 8–26.
18
12. Frank, A. I., Mironowicz, I., Lourenço, J., Franchini, T., Ache, P., Finka, M., Grams, A.
(2014). Educating planners in Europe: A review of 21st-century study programs. Progress in
Planning, 91, 30–94.
13. Geppert, A., & Verhage, R. (2008). Towards a European recognition for the Planning
profession. Planning Education, AESOP.
14. Gleeson, B. (2013). What Role for Social Science in the “Urban Age”? International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1839–1851.
15. Goldstein, H. A., Bollens, S., Feser, E., & Silver, C. (2006). An Experiment in the
Internationalization of Planning Education the NEURUS Program. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 25(4), 349–363.
16. Goonewardena, K., Rankin, K., & Weinstock, S. (2004). Diversity and planning education: A
Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13(1), 1–26.
17. Hambleton, R. (2006). Purpose and Collegiality in Planning Education An International
Perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 107–117.
18. Higgins, M., & Reeves, D. (2004). Creative Thinking Tools for Planners & Related Built
Environment Professions. Centre for Education in the Built Environment.
19. Higgins, M., & Reeves, D. (2006). Creative thinking in planning: How do we climb outside
the box? Town Planning Review, 77(2), 221–244.
20. Holgersen, S. ale. (2013). Spatial planning as condensation of social relations: A dialectical
approach. Planning Theory, 1473095213501672.
21. Hurlimann, A. C. (2009). Responding to environmental challenges: an initial assessment of
higher education curricula needs by Australian planning professionals. Environmental
Education Research, 15(6), 643–659.
22. Jupp, E., & Inch, A. (2012). Introduction Planning as a profession in uncertain times. Town
Planning Review, 83(5), 505–512.
23. Kaliyath, A (2013), Land as a Critical Ecological Resource for Sustainable Cities: A Case of
Chennai, India, Unpublished Thesis, Queen's University Belfast, UK,256-268.
24. Kumar, P., Siddiqui, A., Gupta, K., Jain, S., & Murthy, Y. K. (2014). Capacity Building
through Geospatial Education in Planning and School Curricula. ISPRS-International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 1, 1253–
1259.
25. Lennon, M. (2014). Finding Purpose in Planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 0739456X14560573.
19
26. Osborne, M., Kearns, P., & Yang, J. (2013). Learning cities: Developing inclusive,
prosperous and sustainable urban communities. International Review of Education, 59(4),
409–423.
27. Poxon, J. (2001). Shaping the planning profession of the future: the role of planning
education. Environment and Planning B, 28(4), 563–580.
28. Raghavendra, V. (2014, November 5). SPAV among global top ten urban planning schools.
The Hindu. Vijayawada. Retrieved from
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/spav-among-global-top-ten-urban-planning-
schools/article6568123.ece
29. Roy, A. (2009). The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory. Regional Studies,
43(6), 819–830. http://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701809665
30. Roy, A. (2009). Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the idiom of
urbanization, Planning Theory, 8 (1), 76-87.
31. Sankhe, S., Vittal, I., Dobbs, R., Mohan, A., & Gulati, A. (2010). Indiaâ s urban awakening:
Building inclusive cities sustaining economic growth. Retrieved from
http://www.popline.org/node/210196
32. Sehested, K. (2009). Urban Planners as Network Managers and Metagovernors. Planning
Theory & Practice, 10(2), 245–263. http://doi.org/10.1080/14649350902884516
33. Sinha, V and Subramanian, K.S. (2013). Accreditation in India: Path of Achieving
Educational Excellence. Business Education & Accreditation, Vo. 5, No. 2, pp.107-116
34. UN-Habitat. (2009). Global report on human settlements 2009: Planning sustainable cities.
Earthscan: for UN-Habitat.
35. UN-Habitat. (2012). Training for better cities (p. 62). Retrieved from
http://unhabitat.org/books/training-for-better-cities/
36. Watson, V., & Odendaal, N. (2013). Changing Planning Education in Africa The Role of the
Association of African Planning Schools. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
33(1), 96–107.
37. Watson,V(2013), ''The ethics of planners and their professional bodies: Response to
Flyvbjerg", Cities, Vol.32, pp.167.168.
38. Wheeler, S. M. (2013). Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological
communities. Routledge.
39. Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
127–153.
20
40. Wilson, A. G. (1968). Models in urban planning: a synoptic review of recent literature. Urban
Studies, 5(3), 249–276.
List of Figure
Figure1. Location of Planning School in India,

Source: (Prepared by Authors, 2015)
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Planning Schools in India

Government funded/recognised Privately owned Planning Schools
Planning Schools
21
1.SPA Delhi 1.Faculty of Planning, CEPT University

Ahmedabad
2.IIT Roorkee 2.School of Architecture and Design,
Lovely Professional University, New Delhi
3.IIT Kharagpur 3.Amity School of Architecture & Planning,
Noida, Gurgoan and Mumbai Campuses
4.SPA Bhopal 4.Manipal University, Jaipur
5. GNDU Amritsar 5.Ananth Institute of Planning, Ahmedabad
Source: Compiled by Authors, 2015
Table 2. Select Government Planning Schools in India

Sl. Name of Year of Subjects Levels offered Affiliations
No. the Schools establishment offered and
Number
1 SPA New 1955 5 (UP, RP, TP, PhD., MP, BP Autonomous
Delhi HSG, EP) Institute,
MHRD, Govt. of
India
2 IIT Roorkee 1974/2001* 1 ( URP) PhD, MP Autonomous
Institute,
MHRD, Govt. of
India
3 IIT 1956 2 (CP, RP) PhD, MP Autonomous
Kharagpur Institute,
MHRD, Govt. of
India
4 SPA 2008 2 (TUP, UD) PhD, MP, BP Autonomous
Bhopal Institute,
MHRD, Govt. of
India
22
5 GNDU 1972 2 (CP, RP) PhD, MP, BP State University

Amritsar
*1974- MURP started/ 2001- Became IIT Roorkee, UP- Urban Planning, RP- Regional Planning, TP-Transport Planning,
HSG- Housing, EP- Environment Planning, URP- Urban and Regional Planning, CP- City Planning, MP- Master of Planning,
BP- Bachelor of Planning.
Table 3: Academic Strength of Schools (Planning Department)

Sl. Name of Total Full Part Adjunct Teacher/ Student
No the faculty Time time/Visitin faculty Student intake for
. Schools g Ratio urban
planning
only
SPA New
1 Delhi 291 4 25 0 0.94 31
IIT
2 Roorkee 8 7 1 0 0.44 18
IIT
Kharagpu
3 r 18 17 1 0 0.45 40
SPA
4 Bhopal 12 12 0 0 0.60 20
GNDU
5 Amritsar 7 7 0 0 0.30 23
23
Table 4. Academic Strength of staff- Basic Qualification of Teaching Staff

No. of Faculty with the following basic degree
Sl. Name of the
No. Schools Post Graduate Doctoral Degree % post graduate % doctoral
1 SPA New Delhi 4 2 100 50
2 IIT Roorkee 7 5 100 71
3 IIT Kharagpur 18 15 100 83
4 SPA Bhopal 12 3 100 25
GNDU
5 Amritsar 7 0 100 0
Table 5. Outreach of planning educations

Sl. No. Name of the Teaching Research Members of Public
Schools Professional Services
Networks
1 SPA New Delhi √ √ √ √
2 IIT Roorkee √ √ √ √
3 IIT Kharagpur √ √ √ √
4 SPA Bhopal √ √ √ √
5 GNDU Amritsar √ √ √ √
24
Table 6. Teaching Pedagogy practices

Sl. Technical Skills Communicative Analytical Soft Skills
No. Schools Skills Skills
1 SPA New Delhi √ √ √ √
2 IIT Roorkee √ √ √ √
3 IIT Kharagpur √ √ √ √
4 SPA Bhopal √ √ √ √
GNDU
5 Amritsar √ √ √ √
Table 7. Course Content and their relevance to Urban Agenda

Schools/Thematic SPA
course content New IIT IIT SPA GNDU
being offered Delhi Roorkee Kharagpur Bhopal Amritsar
Theoretical
Understanding
Physical planning
and design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sustainable
development ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Social
Equity/Justice    ✓ 
Participatory     
Deliberative     
Communicative  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Climate Change ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Gender and Planning     
25
Policy focus ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Analytical Tools
Geospatial Science   ✓ ✓ 
GIS- Digital
Mapping ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Modelling for
decision   ✓ ✓ 
Survey
Techniques
Field Visits ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Reconnaissance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Photo
documentations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Survey methods ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
PRA * * * * *
Table 8. Select Private Planning Schools in India

Sl. Name of the Schools Year of Levels offered Affiliations
No. establishment
26
1 Faculty of Planning, CEPT 1972/2005# Bachelor of CEPT

University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Planning, University/AICTE
Master of approved
Planning/PhD
2 Department of Urban Planning, 2011-12 Bachelor of LPU/AICTE
School of Architecture and Design, Planning, Approved
Lovely Professional University, Master of
New Delhi Planning/PhD
3 Amity School of Architecture & 2011-12 Bachelor of Amity University
Planning, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Planning /AICTE
Approved
4 School of Planning and Design, 2013-14 Bachelor of Manipal
Manipal University, Jaipur, Planning University/
Rajasthan AICTE Approved
5 Ananth Institute of Planning, 2014-15 Bachelor of Gujarat Technical
Ahmedabad, Gujarat Planning University (GTU)
Source: Compiled by the Authors 2015; #CEPT became University by an Act of Gujarat University Act, 2005
27
Table 9: Academic Strength of Schools (Planning Department)
Sl. Name of the Total Full Part Adjunct Student/ Student
No. Schools faculty Time/core time/ faculty Teacher intake for
Visiting Ratio urban
planning*
CEPT
1 UNIVERSITY 38 24 11 3 140/38 (140/ year)
2 LPU 9 9 0 0 52/9 (40/year)
AMITY
3 UNIVERSITY 5 5 0 0 79/5 (25/year)
MANIPAL
4 UNIVERSITY 9 5 0 4 18/9 (40/year)
ANANT
INSTITUTES
OF
5 PLANNING 5 2 3 0 26/5 (40/year)
Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015 Note * includes both Master and Bachelor students’ intake where
applicable
Table 10. Academic Strength of staff- Basic Qualification of Teaching Staff

No. of full time Faculty with the following basic degree
28
Sl. Name of the Post Graduate Doctoral % post % doctoral

No Schools Degree graduate
.
CEPT
1 UNIVERSITY 24 8 100 33
Lovely
Professional
2 University 7 0 100 0
AMITY
MANIPAL
ANANT
INSTITUTES
OF
5 PLANNING 5 0 100 0
Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015
Table 11. Outreach of planning educations

Sl. Name of the Schools Teaching Research Members of Public
No. component Professional Services/
Networks Consultancy
1 CEPT UNIVERSITY √ √ √ √
Not yet
2 LPU √ √ become √
Not yet Not yet
3 AMITY UNIVERSITY √ √ become started
Not yet Not yet
4 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY √ √ become started
ANANT INSTITUTES OF Not yet Not yet
5 PLANNING √ √ become started
29
Table 12. Teaching Pedagogy practices

Sl. Schools Technical Skills Communicative Analytical Soft Skills
No. Skills Skills
CEPT
1 UNIVERSITY √ √ √ √
2 LPU √ √ √ √
AMITY
MANIPAL
ANANT
5 INSTIT. √ √ √ √
Table 13. Course Content and their relevance to Urban Agenda

Private Schools/ CEPT LPU AMITY MANIPA ANANT
Course content UNIVERSIT L
Y
Theoretical
Understanding
Physical planning √ √ √ √ √
SD# √ √ √ √ √
Social Equity √ √ √ √ √
Participatory √ * * √ *
Deliberative * * * * *
Communicative * √ √ * *
Climate Change √ √ √ √ *
Gender and *
Planning * * * *
Policy focus √ √ √ √ √
Analytical Tools √ √ √ √ √
Geospatial Science √ √ √ √ √
30
GISDigital √
Mapping √ √ √ √
Modelling √ √ √ √ √
Survey √
Techniques √ √ √ √
Field Visits √ √ * √ √
Reconnaissance √ √ √ √ √
Photo document √ √ √ √ √
Survey methods √ √ √ √ √
PRA techniques * * * * *
Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015, √=Yes; *=No subject, #SD- Sustainable Development
Appendix1.
List of Planning Schools in India (Institutions)
Sl. Name of the Year of Name of Degree Affiliations
No Schools/University/Institutes Course
Started
/approv
ed
Indian Institute of Technology, Master of City MHRD,
1 Kharagpur 1955 Planning AICTE
Master of Urban
School of Planning and Architecture, Planning and Master MHRD,
2 New Delhi (Deemed University) 1987-88 of Regional Planning GOI
School of Architecture and Planning Master of Town and MHRD,
3 Anna University, (Chennai) 1964 Country Planning GOI
Institute of Development Studies, Master of Urban and State
4 University of Mysore 1971 Regional Planning University
Pune Institute of Engineering and M.Tech Town and State
5 Technology, Pune 1972 Country Planning University
Centre for Environmental Planning
and Technology, (CEPT), Master of Urban and State
6 Ahmedabad) 1972 Regional Planning Recognised
31
University
(Pvt)
Gura Ramdas School of Planning,
Guru Nanak Dev University, M.Tech Urban State
7 Amritsar 1972 Planning University
Indian Institute of Technology, (IIT) Master in Urban and MHRD,
8 Roorkee 1973 Rural Planning AICTE
Bengal Engineering College, Sibpur Master of Town and State
9 University, Kolkata 1984-85 Regional Planning University
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Master of
Technology (Deemed University), Technology (Urban Deemed
10 Nagrpur 1985-86 Planning) University
School of Planning and Architecture,
Jawaharlal Nehru Technology Master of Urban and MHRD,
11 University, Hyderabad 1992 Regional Planning GOI
Master of Urban
Maulana Azad Institute of Development and MHRD,
12 Technology, Bhopal 1996 Planning GOI
Sardar Vallabhabhai National Master of Town and MHRD,
13 Institute of Technology, Surat 2005 Regional Planning AICTE
Arvindbhai Patel Institute of State
Environmental Design, Bhaikaka Recognized
Centre for Human Settlement, Master of Urban Institutes
14 Vallabh Vidyanagar, Surat 2005 Planning (Pvt.)
Malaviya National Institute of MHRD,
15 Technology, Jaipur 2012 Master of Planning GOI
School of Planning and Architecture, MHRD,
16 Bhopal 2012 Master of Planning GOI
Bachelor of
Planning,
School of Planning and Architecture, 2008 Master of Planning MHRD,
17 Vijayavada 2015 (URP) GOI
32
State
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University Recognized
of Science and Technology, Murthal, Master of Urban and Institute
18 Sonipat 2013 Rural Planning (Pvt.)
State
Recognized
Birla Institute of Technology Master of Urban Institute
19 (MESRA), Ranchi 2013 Planning (Pvt.)
Lively School of Architecture and State
Design, Lovely Professional Private
20 University, Jalandhar 2005 Bachelor of Planning University
State
Amity School of Architecture and Private
21 Design Bachelor of Planning University
State
22 M.S. University, Vadodara 2012 Master of Planning University
State
Private
Anant- Institute of Architecture and Institute
23 Planning, Ahmedabad 2014 Bachelor of Planning (GTU)
State
Private
24 Manipal University, Jaipur 2014 Master of Planning Institute
State
Private
Bhagwan Mahvir College of Institute
25 Architecture and Planning, Surat 2013 Bachelor of Planning (GTU)
Source: ITPI, 2013, Ansari, 2009, GOI-Government of India, GTU- Gujarat Technological University, Pvt=
Privately operated self-financed institutions.
33
View publication stats

Exploring Multi-disciplinary Approach in Urban Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Multi-disciplinary Approach in Urban Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Exploring Multi-disciplinary Approach in Urban Planning: Need for a

Conference Paper · August 2015

Anil Kumar Roy Debjani Ghosh

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Defining the urban in India View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Exploring a Multi-disciplinary Approach to Urban Planning:

Keywords: Planning Education in India, Urban Planning, Multi-disciplinary Approaches,

Figure1. Location of Planning School in India,

Table 1. Selected Planning Schools in India

1.SPA Delhi 1.Faculty of Planning, CEPT University

Table 2. Select Government Planning Schools in India

5 GNDU 1972 2 (CP, RP) PhD, MP, BP State University

Source: Compiled by Authors, 2015

Table 3: Academic Strength of Schools (Planning Department)

Table 4. Academic Strength of staff- Basic Qualification of Teaching Staff

Table 5. Outreach of planning educations

Source: Compiled by Authors, 2015

Table 6. Teaching Pedagogy practices

Source: Compiled by Authors, 2015

Table 7. Course Content and their relevance to Urban Agenda

Source: Compiled by Authors, 2015

Table 8. Select Private Planning Schools in India

1 Faculty of Planning, CEPT 1972/2005# Bachelor of CEPT

Table 10. Academic Strength of staff- Basic Qualification of Teaching Staff

Sl. Name of the Post Graduate Doctoral % post % doctoral

Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015

Table 11. Outreach of planning educations

Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015

Table 12. Teaching Pedagogy practices

Source: Compiled by the Authors, 2015

Table 13. Course Content and their relevance to Urban Agenda

View publication stats

You might also like