International review for spatial planning and sustainable development D: Planning Assessment, Vol 10

No.3 (2022), 280-301

ISSN: 2187-3666 (online)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.10.3_280

Copyright@SPSD Press from 2010, SPSD Press, Kanazawa

Overview: Framework for Quantitative Assessment of

Urban-Blue-and-Green-Spaces in a High-density
Megacity

Souporni Paul1* and Suchandra Bardhan2

1, Department of Architecture, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, ORCID: 0000-0002-4813-
6199
2, Department of Architecture, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, ORCID: 0000-0002-5965-
3431
*Corresponding Author, Email: souporni@gmail.com

Received: Mar. 28, 2020 ; Accepted: Nov 25,2021

Keywords: UBGS, urban open areas, blue-green index, urban green spaces, blue-green
infrastructure

Abstract: Urban-blue-and-green-spaces (UBGS) comprising waterbodies and green

spaces are intrinsic to the urban environment due to their immense ecological,
social, economic, and health benefits. Owing to high population densities,
megacities in countries with emerging economies are losing their natural areas,
adversely affecting the urban environment. This article studies the current built-
open space dynamics and proposes a conceptual framework for the quantitative
assessment of UBGS in the Indian megacity of Kolkata at the smallest
administrative unit called wards. Results show that the available UBGS is
11.51% of the total area and 5.08 sq.m per inhabitant, both of which are far
below the national and international urban planning guidelines. The wards are
appraised for two indices, UBGS Distribution Index and UBGS Availability
Index, based on spatio-physical distribution and per inhabitant availability,
respectively, comparing them with the Indian urban planning standards. The
indices represent the actual shortfall of UBGS in each ward in terms of
minimum requirements as per national standards. The present unequal
distribution of UBGS in the city is a matter of social and environmental justice
that needs to be addressed. The indices show a correlation of 0.6688. This
framework can help decision-makers protect, preserve, and promote the city's
UBGS by adopting a bottom-up approach to solve local issues and providing
safe and socially inclusive public spaces for all sections of society.

1. INTRODUCTION

'Urban-blue-and-green-spaces' (UBGS) are fundamentally the areas with

'natural surfaces' or 'natural settings' (WHO Regional Office for Europe,
2016). Still, they may also include the 'blue and green' artificially landscaped @Licensee SPSD Press

components. 'Urban Blue Spaces' comprises saltwater and freshwater This open access article is published under a
Creative Commons [Attribution-
wetlands (Ramsar/Convention/Secretariat, 2016), while 'Urban Green Spaces' NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
encompass all visually and physically accessible open areas with considerable International] license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
vegetation cover. In this study, the term 'UBGS' includes both the 'blue' and

280
 Paul & Bardhan 281

'green' components of a city's landscape, such as the wetlands (urban lakes,

local water bodies), natural and semi-natural areas (urban agricultural lands,
wastelands), recreational green spaces (urban parks, local parks, formal
gardens, sports areas, and tot lots), institutional grounds, cemeteries, and
linear green spaces (rivers and canal banks).
Urban greenery and wetlands are considered the 'harbinger of
sustainability' (Bardhan, Debnath et al., 2016). Significant benefits are
environmental, health, social capital and cohesion, and recreation (Kim,
Rupprecht et al., 2020; Wendel, Zarger et al., 2012). Environmental benefits
include the provision of essential ecosystem services, pollution attenuation,
noise reduction, biodiversity conservation, urban heat island mitigation, water
storage, flood control, agriculture, aquaculture (Bowler, Buyung-Ali et al.,
2010; Ghofrani, Sposito et al., 2017; Millennium/Ecosystem/Assessment,
2005; Spronken-Smith and Oke, 1998). Physical and mental health benefits
include reduced rates of depression, cardiovascular morbidity, mortality,
obesity, and diabetes (Engemann, Pedersen et al., 2019; Thompson, Roe et
al., 2012; Tomita, Vandormael et al., 2017; Ulrich, Simons et al., 1991; WHO
Regional Office for Europe, 2016). Social capital and cohesion are improved
due to increased social interactions, thus supporting a sense of community
(Kim, Rupprecht et al., 2020; Martin, Warren et al., 2004). Economic benefits
include employment and revenue generation, and property prices (Arvanitidis,
Lalenis et al., 2009).
Currently, the effects of the changing climate, significantly increasing
temperatures, frequent floods, droughts, heatwaves, and cyclones, have
become significant challenges for cities (Benedict and McMahon, 2002;
Cohen-Shacham, Walters et al., 2016; Kim, Rupprecht et al., 2020). A
generous share of UBGS within the built environment is the ecological
backbone for the city's environmental, economic, and social sustainability and
a tool for safeguarding a city against the natural calamities by creating
resilience. Access to and availability of green spaces are related to social and
environmental justice (Kabisch and Bosch, 2017; Ngom, Gosselin et al.,
2016; Wolch, Byrne et al., 2014). The UN Sustainable Development Goal
11.7 aims to provide universal access to safe, inclusive, accessible, green and
public spaces for all sections of the society by 2030. Developing an easily
computable and cost-effective method to assess UBGS and producing locally
relevant, comparable data at the smallest administrative level is essential. It
enables planners and decision-makers to evaluate the need for improvement,
identify the specific areas which need immediate interventions, and the
aspects to consider when planning for UBGS interventions (WHO Regional
Office for Europe, 2016).
The present study is based on the Indian city of Kolkata, the state-capital
of West Bengal (Figure 1). The city is administered by the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation (KMC) and is situated in the centre of the Kolkata Metropolitan
Area (KMA), the larger urban agglomeration of the city that grew up
surrounding the core city. This study covers 206.08 sq. km of the KMC area,
consisting of 144 wards (administrative units) grouped into 16 boroughs
(administrative blocks).
282 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Figure 1. Location of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Area

Kolkata is a growing megacity with mounting pressures on its existing

natural resources due to its ever-increasing population, urban sprawl,
inadequate infrastructure, and poor governance (Mukherjee, Bebermeier et
al., 2018; Ramachandra, Aithal et al., 2014). The urbanisation pattern of
Kolkata is an outcome of several natural and socio-economic factors, policies
and practices, legal and regulatory frameworks, governance systems, financial
tools, and informal methods (Haque, Mehta et al., 2019). With the sudden
growth of the urban population, demand for housing and commercial spaces
has created horizontal and vertical pressure on land resources. Distortions in
policies and regulations, inefficient administration, a scarcity of reliable and
complete data, and lack of funds and infrastructure are formidable barriers to
adopting innovative methods in the sustainability pathways.
A detailed review of existing literature (elaborated in Section 2.1) reveals
that most focus on the city-level distribution of natural areas within the urban
or peri-urban areas. Spatio-temporal maps show the non-uniform distribution
of UBGS within the metropolitan area with apparent absence in significant
parts of the city and critically low in most other regions. There is an imminent
need to develop, provide, and maintain a minimum proportion and equitable
share of UBGS in each neighbourhood to maintain healthy and sustainable
living conditions. The authors noted that a locally relevant database on the
availability or shortage of open areas might guide decision-makers more
effectively in addressing the micro-level issues. This study aims to ward-wise
comprehensive analysis and indexing of UBGS. In the Indian municipal
system, wards are the smallest administrative units under elected ward
councillors. The councillors have the freedom and responsibilities to upgrade
civic amenities, set goals, and formulate local-level strategies. A bottom-up
approach to improving the local environment will enhance the city's overall
environment. This study suggests a systematic procedure where the wards are
assessed and indexed for availability or shortage of UBGS for decision-
makers to formulate ward-specific strategies to achieve an ecologically
sustainable urban neighbourhood with optimal grey-green proportions and
equitable share of UBGS per inhabitant.
 Paul & Bardhan 283

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

2.1 Study area

Kolkata was established as a port city by the British East India Company
on the eastern bank of the river Bhagirathi-Hooghly. Located within the lower
Gangetic deltaic floodplains, the city prospers with rich biodiversity and
natural ecosystems such as the East Kolkata Wetlands (a Ramsar site of
international importance), two rivers, and an efficient canal system. Being the
capital of British India until 1911, Kolkata expanded swiftly. Since there was
no possibility of expansion towards the west due to the presence of the river,
Kolkata progressively expanded towards the east, reclaiming the invaluable
wetlands. The city's growth accelerated after India's independence and
subsequent partition with Pakistan in 1947, followed by the Bangladesh war
of liberation in 1971. To accommodate a massive population influx from
neighbouring states and countries, Kolkata underwent unexpected
densification, with insufficient facilities and infrastructure, resulting in
environmental degradation and a lack of open spaces (Bhatta, 2009).
Recently, with a population density of around 24,760 per sq.
km(Kolkata/Municipal/Corporation/(Official/Website), 2019), the natural
areas in and around the city are experiencing severe human intrusions
(Ramachandra, Aithal et al., 2014). Kolkata suffers from urban environmental
challenges of loss of biodiversity and natural habitat, high pollution, land-use
changes, over-exploitation of natural systems, and loss of livelihoods. A
decadal study of urban growth by Mukherjee, Bebermeier et al. (2018)
displays the severe loss of valuable natural areas over the past decades. The
natural en¬vironment is relegated to inconspicuous fragments of the original
ecosystems within the dense urban fabric. Rapid encroachment of vacant lands
and water bodies in the eastern periphery had drastic influences on the land-
use pattern and resource management. In 2015, collaborative research (Figure
2) by various researchers and organisations stated that the open areas in the
city dropped from 25% of total areas in 1990 to a meagre 10% by 2015, while
residential and commercial land covered 79% of the total area (Reporter,
2017). Recorded forest cover is nil (Govindarajulu, 2014), with only 6% road
infrastructure (Bardhan, Debnath et al., 2016; Census/of/India, 2016).
284 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Figure 2. Relative distribution of built and open space cover in Kolkata (KMC area) as
received from past literature [(i) Mukherjee, Bebermeier et al. (2018); (i i) - (a) Chakrabarti
(2013); (b) TARU Leading Edge Pvt. Ltd. (2015); (c) Mukherjee, Bebermeier et al. (2018)]

2.2 Aim of the study

The study aims to understand the built-open relationship of Kolkata city
and gain a general overview of the cityscape, emphasising the assessment of
UBGS at the local level. The entire suite of the methodology is presented in
Figure 3. The research objectives are as follows:
i) Understand the actual availability and shortage of UBGS in the
city of Kolkata concerning the Indian and international standards
of urban planning guidelines
ii) Understand the actual availability and shortage of UBGS in each
ward concerning the Indian national standard of urban planning
guidelines
iii) Suggest a systematic procedure where the wards are assessed and
indexed for available UBGS within a single frame of reference for
an overall comparison
iv) Correlate the extent, population density, and available UBGS of
the wards through a statistical representation, and
v) Recommend a conceptual framework for decision-makers to
formulate ward-specific guidelines, allocate optimum resources,
and make time-bound action plans to achieve an ecologically
sustainable urban neighbourhood with optimal grey-green
coverage.

However, the study indicates a quantitative distribution, availability, and

shortage of UBGS; it does not show their quality, ease of accessibility, safety,
functionality, or ecological characteristics. Besides, avenue trees, private
 Paul & Bardhan 285

courtyards, incidental landscaped areas, roof gardens, vertical gardens, and

rainwater harvesting systems are not considered, although they provide vital
ecosystem services and add to the green cover of a city.

Figure 3. Conceptual framework of the paper

2.3 Detailed methodology

2.3.1 Stage 1 (City-level inventory of existing UBGS)

Stage 1 gives a complete term overview of the UBGS scenario in Kolkata.

The authors reviewed and analysed the accessible data drawn from various
archives, maps, and technical reports. Data on the area and population of
individual wards are sourced from the KMC Official Website. Data on parks
and water bodies are acquired from Kolkata City Park and Project
Management Unit, KMC. Web-based services such as Cadmapper, Google
Earth, and Bhuvan (the national Geoportal) were used to acquire geospatial
data for analysis. AutoCAD 2014, Adobe Photoshop CS6, and MS Office
were used for precise mapping and calculation of existing UBGS. The map
presented in Figure 4 is the outcome of the meticulous plotting of the existing
UBGS in Kolkata.
Further, the availability and shortage of UBGS in Kolkata are compared to
one national and three global urban planning regulatory standards. The
URDPFI (Urban Development Plans Formulations and Implementation of
286 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

India) guidelines, published by The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,

Govt. of India, is the Indian standard for urban planning, initially formulated
in 1996 and revised in 2014. It provides a framework for planning and
implementation in an urban region intending to provide an adequate and
equitable share of physical and social infrastructure for all sections of the
society. All urban planning and development in India must abide by the
standards set by URDPFI. Additionally, three internationally acclaimed
standards for sustainable cities and environmentally responsive
neighbourhoods were studied and compared to estimate the real-life scenario
in Kolkata, namely World Health Organisation (WHO Regional Office for
Europe), United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat, 2018),
and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – Neighbourhood
Development (LEED-ND) (as shown in (Figure 5). The minimum proportion
of UBGS, as recommended by the significant regulatory bodies, is as follows:
i. 14 – 16% of the total urban area or 10 – 12 sq. m per person
(URDPFI) (URDPFI, 2015)
ii. 9 sq. m per inhabitant (WHO – World Health Organization) (Singh,
Pandey et al., 2010)
iii. 12 – 16 sq. m per inhabitant (United Nations) (Herrera, 1995)
iv. 12.5 sq. m per inhabitant (LEED-ND – Leadership in Energy and
Environment Design Neighborhood Development)
(Govindarajulu, 2014)
The graphs in Figure 6 compare Kolkata with some important cities in
India and worldwide in terms of spatio-physical distribution and per inhabitant
availability of UBGS. This comparison gives an idea of the actual situation of
the built-open space relationship in Kolkata compared to other cities of
equivalent stature. The rationale behind the selection of cities is their
importance as country capital or state capitals. Being the administrative seats,
most of these cities have higher population densities than other cities in the
same country or province.

2.3.2 Stage 2 (Ward-level assessment of UBGS)

This stage provides a specific inventory of UBGS in each ward. A detailed

ward-level assessment is done considering the area, population, and available
amount of UBGS in each ward. The authors introduced two parameters based
on the spatio-physical and human perspectives of UBGS. The former indicates
the environmental status of the individual wards considering the variables of
ward area and available UBGS. The latter, i.e. the human perspective, shows
the same for health and other benefits considering the variables of ward-wise
population and availability of UBGS. The analysis mentioned above is done
to understand the spatial distribution of UBGS and its availability to the
residents, denoting the shortfall in each ward. Two separate maps are
presented in Figure 7 with tonal colour variation representing the ward-wise
distribution and visually demarcating the wards with critically low to high
proportions of UBGS.
This stage also provides a deeper understanding of the shortfall between
the ideal and the actual in relative terms. A composite bar diagram in Figure
8 shows the real shortage and availability of UBGS represented ward-wise and
under each borough. The theoretical model establishes the performance of the
individual wards in terms of available UBGS compared to the standards
mentioned in URDPFI Guidelines. Average values of 15% of the area and 11
sq. m of UBGS per inhabitant are considered for the calculations. Based on
this guideline, two indices are developed by the authors:
 Paul & Bardhan 287

i. UBGS Distribution Index (I1): Ratio of the spatio-physical

distribution of UBGS in each ward to URDPFI recommendation
ii. UBGS Availability Index (I2) Ratio of availability of per inhabitant
UBGS in each ward to URDPFI recommendation

2.3.3 Stage 3 (Ward-level review of existing status)

Stage 3 attempts to understand the relationship between ward-wise area,

population, and available UBGS. A Scatter-plot diagram in Figure 9 shows
the correlation between the two indices representing the relationship between
the respective area, population density, densification pattern, and available
UBGS in each ward.

2.3.4 Stage 4 (Strategy recommendations - Application of the

Indices)

Stage 4 provides an application of the assessment framework by

recommending strategies that may quantitatively and qualitatively enhance
the UBGS based on the results of the indices. Wards are classified into three
categories depending on the availability of UBGS, followed by specific
strategy recommendations for each type.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Stage 1 (City-level inventory of existing UBGS)

Figure 4. Comprehensive map of Kolkata (KMC area) showing the distribution of UBGS
as of 2020 (Refer to Table Ⅰ in the Appendix for calculations)
288 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Figure 4 presents the actual distribution of UBGS in Kolkata as of 2020.

As the early urban agglomeration in eastern India, Kolkata exhibits uneven
urban growth and population density. The map shows that the UBGS in the
KMC area is not uniformly distributed. The entire north and most of central
Kolkata are dominated by residential and commercial buildings with a higher
population density than the remaining parts of the city. This reason stems from
the fact that these are the oldest parts of Kolkata and, consequently, have
evolved organically since the colonial era. The only substantial green space
around central Kolkata is the Maidan, which the British planners envisioned
as an urban park.
In contrast, the city's southern, eastern, and western peripheries have
substantially more UBGS which are remnants of the wetlands and peri-urban
agricultural lands. These are relatively the newer parts of the city, which were
annexed from adjacent non-built-up areas. Consequently, these areas were
designed following efficient byelaws for mandatory open spaces. Uneven
distribution of UBGS is also a concern of social and environmental injustice.
Each citizen is entitled to a minimum share of UBGS irrespective of age,
social or financial status.
The inset in Figure 4 indicates that the total amount of UBGS in Kolkata
is approximately 22.85 sq. km (11.51% of the total area). It consists of 15.75
sq. km (7.93% of total area) of green areas and 7.10 sq. km (3.58% of total
area) of water bodies and wetlands [Refer to Table I in Supplementary]. The
individual share of UBGS is 5.08 sq. m/person, which is far below the
minimum requirement set by national and global standards, as shown in
Figure 5. Similarly, the graphs in Figure 6 show that Kolkata fares better than
some cities worldwide in the total provision of UBGS due to vast expanses
ofwetlands on the eastern fringes. However, due to high population density,
individual share UBGS is critically low compared to the same cities and the
standard mandates.

Figure 5. Graphical representation of actual availability and shortage of UBGS in Kolkata

compared to one national & three global standards
 Paul & Bardhan 289

Figure 6. Graphical comparison of the spatio-physical distribution and per inhabitant

availability of UBGS in Kolkata with other Indian and international cities
(Refer to Tables II and III for the sources of data)

Figure 7. Classification of the KMC wards: (a) spatio-physical distribution and (b) per
inhabitant availability of UBGS
(Refer to Table I for the source of data and calculation procedure).
290 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

3.2 Stage 2 (Ward-level assessment of UBGS)

Maps in Figure 7 represent the availability of UBGS in terms of the two

parameters introduced by the authors. The spatio-physical and human
perspective parameters respectively signified the availability of UBGS in
percentage and per inhabitant. Wards are classified into five categories for
each parameter, represented by varying shades of colour, the darker shades
indicating higher proportions of UBGS than the lighter shades. The wards
have a proportion of UBGS lower than 15% or availability less than 11 sq.m
per inhabitant can be considered critical as per URDPFI guidelines. The
critical wards are mostly located in the north, west, and central parts of the
city. The southern and eastern parts are above safe limits due to passive green
areas like wetlands and agricultural lands.
Figure 8 provides a deeper understanding of the shortfall between the ideal
and the actual in terms of the two indices developed by the authors, namely
the UBGS Distribution Index (I1) and UBGS Availability Index (I2), which
are expressed as ratios in comparison to URDPFI guidelines.
The ideal required ratio in either index is 1; these are the cases where the
wards meet the standard UBGS requirement of 15% of the total area, or 11 sq.
m per inhabitant. Based on the actual performance of the wards in terms of the
indices, they are classified into four grades representing an increasing
magnitude of UBGS availability, starting from critically low (index value less
than 0.5), low (0.5 to 1), average (1 to 2), and high (above 2). These indices
signify the actual shortage in each ward and the level of attention needed to
protect, restore, and promote existing UBGS or create new ones by developing
specific mandates, guidelines, and conservation measures. By default, this
gives an idea of the landscape intervention range from quantity (creation of
new green areas) to quality (conservation of the already existing ones) and
from the smallest built unit to vast natural landscape areas. It also helps
identify potential and envisaging interventions required to achieve the broad
vision of making a greener, sustainable, and resilient Kolkata. The results are
supported by a graph where the wards can be identified as the parameters of
'openness,' i.e., the defined indices.
 Paul & Bardhan 291

Figure 8. Assessment and indexing of the wards within a single frame of reference to
compare the provision and shortfall between the ideal and the existing UBGS w.r.t. URDPFI
guidelines
(Refer to Table I for the source of data and calculation procedure)

3.3 Stage 3 (Ward-level review of existing status)

This Scatter plot diagram in Figure 9 correlates the two indices

representing the relationship between the respective area, population density,
densification pattern, and available UBGS in each ward. The red markers
show the I1 vs I2 data set. The black dashed line represents a straight line with
a slope identical to the linear correlation coefficient R=0.6688, indicating that
the indices are moderately correlated. The solid blue line represents a linear
fit of the data set with a coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.4473. This
further substantiates that the congested wards having high population density
have higher proportions of built-up areas with minimum or no available
UBGS leading to unhealthy environmental conditions. Exceptions are seen in
the wards, which had been recently annexed from the adjacent peri-urban
areas where there are vast expanses of wetlands or agricultural lands with low
population density.
292 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Figure 9. Scatter plot diagram indicating a moderate correlation between the indices I1
and I2

3.4 Stage 4 (Strategy recommendations - Application of

the Indices)
Along with preparing a local-level database for the city, this paper aims to
provide a suggestive application of the study. Table 1 shows some
recommendations that may quantitatively and qualitatively enhance the
UBGS based on the results of the indices. Specific strategies are suggested for
each category, classified based on the above studies. These locally applicable
strategies aim to conserve the existing UBGS, increase the UBGS cover in the
critical wards, and provide access to an equitable share of UBGS for all
sections of society. Some of the notable publications referred by the authors
are Haaland and van Den Bosch (2015); Jim (2004, 2013).

Table 1. Recommended strategies for quantitative and qualitative enhancement of UBGS

Categorisatio Principle Area of Strategies recommended
n of wards application
Existing
Green roofs and green walls
buildings
Making strict norms for mandatory
open spaces and offering incentives
for tax reduction or additional floor
Developing
Integration area benefits to implement any
Critically buildings
of green façade-based and ground-based
Low (Index
infrastructure green infrastructure and rainwater
Value: 0 to
into grey harvesting options.
0.5)
infrastructure Joint use of Gardens or playgrounds in
institutional educational institutions can be
amenities – shared with the local people after
shared spaces regular academic hours
Roadside plantation, permeable
Streetscaping
paving material, vegetated swales
Organised planting and management
Interstitial of vacant lands, parking areas, rail
vacant spaces tracks, and corridors between
buildings
Integration Neighbourhood
Low Proper maintenance of these parks
of green- parks,
(Index Value: and converting them into multi-
grey playgrounds,
0.5 to 1) functional areas to cater to all
infrastructure gardens, and
sections of people
cemeteries
Proper maintenance of local water
Local
bodies to raise their cultural and
waterbodies
ecological value
 Paul & Bardhan 293

Gardens around
the historical or A revival of these gardens or making
important them open to public
building
East Kolkata
Preserving the existing natural assets
Preservation Wetlands,
Average to and protecting the eco-sensitive
of already urban parks,
High zones
existing and lakefronts
(Index Value:
green Creating a continuous "ecological
Above 1) Riverfronts and
infrastructure corridor" to bring nature into the
canal-banks
congested wards

Thus, in the wards with minimal or no UBGS cover, there is necessary to

continually look for green spaces or plantable spaces in the building premises,
housing complexes or create greenery in the form of roof gardens or green
walls to increase the green cover. However, in the wards with ample natural
components such as urban parks, wetlands, and agricultural lands, the focus is
more on their preservation and qualitative enhancement than on creating new
UBGS. A planned increase in the UBGS cover can inevitably improve a city's
environmental conditions, such as air purification, groundwater recharge,
microclimate control, and habitat for urban biodiversity.
This study is a quantitative assessment of UBGS distribution in Kolkata;
it does not investigate the quality of the open spaces or their ecological
aspects. However, along with the quantitative sides, qualitative factors such
as species richness, water quality, and canopy cover need to be monitored and
enhanced for a more sustainable urban ecology. The pre-urbanisation
character and native trees need to be replicated and the contaminated,
degraded canals and waterbodies restored, and vast paved areas replaced with
vegetation or permeable surfaces. Further, using the waterways as a link to
connect the fragmented remnants of urban nature will be another step forward
in preserving the rich natural resources the city possessed before urbanisation
happened.

4. CONCLUSION

It can be concluded from the study that Kolkata suffers from uneven
distribution of UBGS due to various factors, which may lead to serious
environmental hazards and poor living conditions in significant parts of the
city. Kolkata's present situation demands a restructuring of the existing built-
open space strategies and regulatory norms to achieve harmony between
distributions of UBGS in the city. The city's spatial policy aims and directions
should emphasise maintaining a reasonable proportion of natural and built-up
areas. Uneven distribution and unequal access to UBGS are an issue of
environmental justice (Kabisch and Bosch, 2017). To ensure that all
inhabitants have a minimum amount of UBGS within their visual and
accessible limits and therefore benefit from the ecosystem services, health and
recreational aspects provided by them, they must maintain the threshold value
of UBGS.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, Kolkata has a legacy of rich natural heritage
consisting of several ecologically rich resources. Unfortunately, the city's
growth was not always on a sustainable trajectory due to various factors. As a
result, Kolkata faces an acute shortage and unequal distribution of UBGS
concerning social and environmental injustice that needs to be overcome. The
benefits of UBGS are also not yet fully recognised. The short-term economic
294 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

benefits of converting wetlands into residential or commercial land-use are

more lucrative than the long-term benefits of maintaining those. The
parameter-based framework suggested in this paper includes a methodology
to procure accurate data on UBGS at the local level. Analysing current data
can provide a valuable model for adopting locally derived, locally applicable
strategies and efficient resource allocation to achieve an ecologically
sustainable urban neighbourhood with optimal grey-green dynamics and an
equitable share of UBGS per inhabitant. This analytical tool can be applied to
any city, particularly in developing countries where urban sprawl and rapid
and unplanned urbanisation are the primary concerns. Assessment and
indexing of UBGS at the smallest administrative level enable policymakers to
address local-level issues and provide local-level solutions. Reinforcing
adequate green coverage from the smallest household scale to the largest
urban scale will check environmental degradation and help meet the UN
Sustainable Development Goal of providing universal access to safe,
inclusive, and accessible public green spaces for all sections of the society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study uses secondary data from various sources for comparative
analysis. Authors duly acknowledged the various parties and portals for using
the data.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors have equal contributions. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.

ETHICS DECLARATION

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the
publication of the paper.

REFERENCES
Arvanitidis, P. A., Lalenis, K., et al. (2009). "Economic Aspects of Urban Green Space: A
Survey of Perceptions and Attitudes". International journal of environmental technology
and management, 11(1-3), 143-168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJETM.2009.027192.
Bardhan, R., Debnath, R., et al. (2016). "A Conceptual Model for Identifying the Risk
Susceptibility of Urban Green Spaces Using Geo-Spatial Techniques". Modeling earth
systems and environment, 2(3), 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0202-y.
Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. T. (2002). "Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for
the 21st Century". Renewable resources journal, 20(3), 12-17.
Bhatta, B. (2009). "Analysis of Urban Growth Pattern Using Remote Sensing and Gis: A Case
Study of Kolkata, India". International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30(18), 4733-4746.
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., et al. (2010). "Urban Greening to Cool Towns and Cities: A
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence". Landscape and urban planning, 97(3), 147-
155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006Get.
Census/of/India. (2016). "Provisional Population Totals for Census 2011". Retrieved from
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_wb.html.
Chakrabarti, C. (2013). "A Sourcebook on Environment of Kolkata". Kolkata Environment
Improvement Project.
 Paul & Bardhan 295

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., et al. (2016). "Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global
Societal Challenges". IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 97, 2016-2036. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en.
Engemann, K., Pedersen, C. B., et al. (2019). "Residential Green Space in Childhood Is
Associated with Lower Risk of Psychiatric Disorders from Adolescence into Adulthood".
Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 116(11), 5188-5193. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807504116.
Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., et al. (2017). "A Comprehensive Review of Blue-Green Infrastructure
Concepts". International Journal of Environment
Sustainability, 6(1).
Govindarajulu, D. (2014). "Urban Green Space Planning for Climate Adaptation in Indian
Cities". Urban climate, 10, 35-41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.09.006.
Haaland, C. and van Den Bosch, C. K. (2015). "Challenges and Strategies for Urban Green-
Space Planning in Cities Undergoing Densification: A Review". Urban forestry and urban
greening, 14(4), 760-771. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009.
Haque, I., Mehta, S., et al. (2019). "Towards Sustainable and Inclusive Cities: The Case of
Kolkata". ORF Special Report. Retrieved from
https://www.orfonline.org/research/towards-sustainable-and-inclusive-cities-the-case-of-
kolkata-48992/.
Herrera, J. (1995). "Problemasambientalesurbanos, Áreas Verdes Y Calidad De Vida,
Revistaingenieríasanitaria Y Ambiental – Aidisnro. 23. Argentina".
Jim, C. Y. (2004). "Green-Space Preservation and Allocation for Sustainable Greening of
Compact Cities". Cities, 21(4), 311-320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0268-x.
Jim, C. Y. (2013). "Sustainable Urban Greening Strategies for Compact Cities in Developing
and Developed Economies". Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 741-761. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0268-x.
Kabisch, N. and Bosch, M. A. v. d. (2017). "Urban Green Spaces and the Potential for Health
Improvement and Environmental Justice in a Changing Climate". Nature-Based Solutions
to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas (pp. 207-220). Springer, Cham.
Kim, M., Rupprecht, C. D., et al. (2020). "Typology and Perception of Informal Green Space
in Urban Interstices: A Case Study of Ichikawa City, Japan". International Review for
Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 4-20. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.8.1_4.
Kolkata/Municipal/Corporation/(Official/Website). (2019). "Basic Statistics of Kolkata.".
Retrieved from |on June 26th, 2019.
Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., et al. (2004). "Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status Is a Useful
Predictor of Perennial Landscape Vegetation in Residential Neighborhoods and Embedded
Small Parks of Phoenix, Az". Landscape and urban planning, 69(4), 355-368. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034.
Millennium/Ecosystem/Assessment. (2005). "Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis".
Retrieved from
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
Mukherjee, S., Bebermeier, W., et al. (2018). "An Overview of the Impacts of Land Use Land
Cover Changes (1980–2014) on Urban Water Security of Kolkata". Land, 7(3), 91. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030091.
Ngom, R., Gosselin, P., et al. (2016). "Reduction of Disparities in Access to Green Spaces:
Their Geographic Insertion and Recreational Functions Matter". Applied Geography, 66,
35-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.11.008.
Ramachandra, T., Aithal, B. H., et al. (2014). "Urban Structure in Kolkata: Metrics and
Modelling through Geo-Informatics". Applied Geomatics, 6(4), 229-244. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-014-0135-y.
Ramaiah, M. and Avtar, R. (2019). "Urban Green Spaces and Their Need in Cities of Rapidly
Urbanizing India: A Review". Urban science, 3(3), 94. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3030094.
Ramsar/Convention/Secretariat. (2016). An Introduction to the Convention on Wetlands
Published. Gland, Switzerland.
Reporter, S. (2017). "Study Bares Loss of Open Space in City". Retrieved from
https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/west-bengal/study-bares-loss-of-open-space-in-
city/cid/1397757 |on 19th November, 2019.
Singh, V. S., Pandey, D. N., et al. (2010). Urban Forests and Open Green Spaces: Lessons for
Jaipur, Rajasthan India. (Vol. 1). Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Jaipur.
Spronken-Smith, R. and Oke, T. (1998). "The Thermal Regime of Urban Parks in Two Cities
with Different Summer Climates". International journal of remote sensing, 19(11), 2085-
2104.
296 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

TARU Leading Edge Pvt. Ltd. (2015). "Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Maps: Kolkata. Climate
Friendly Interventions, Policies, Capacity Building and Sustainable Government under
Ukkmc Mou on Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Kolkata. New Delhi".
Thompson, C. W., Roe, J., et al. (2012). "More Green Space Is Linked to Less Stress in
Deprived Communities: Evidence from Salivary Cortisol Patterns". Landscape urban
planning, 105(3), 221-229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015.
Tomita, A., Vandormael, A. M., et al. (2017). "Green Environment and Incident Depression in
South Africa: A Geospatial Analysis and Mental Health Implications in a Resource-Limited
Setting". The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(4), e152-e162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-
5196(17)30063-3.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., et al. (1991). "Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and
Urban Environments". Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), 201-230. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7.
UN Habitat. (2018). "City Resilience Profiling Tool". Retrieved from
http://urbanresiliencehub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CRPT-Guide.pdf |on 30th May,
2019.
URDPFI. (2015). "Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation
Guidelines". Government of India. Ministry of Urban Development, Town and Country
Planning Organisation.
Wendel, H. E. W., Zarger, R. K., et al. (2012). "Accessibility and Usability: Green Space
Preferences, Perceptions, and Barriers in a Rapidly Urbanizing City in Latin America".
Landscape urban planning, 107(3), 272-282. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003.
WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2016). "Urban Green Spaces and Health: A Review of the
Evidence". Copenhagen: World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe.
Retrieved from https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/321971/Urban-
green-spaces-and-health-review-evidence.pdf |on 30th May, 2019.
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., et al. (2014). "Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental
Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’". Landscape urban planning,
125, 234-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.
 Paul & Bardhan 297

APPENDIXS

TableI. Ward-wise distribution of UBGS in the city of Kolkata

Population
Density wrt
Y=Availability
B=Total Population Density X=Distribution Open Areas (No I1=UGBS I2=UGBS
Borough Ward A=Ward Area G=Total Area U=Total Area of of UGBS=U/P
P=Ward Area of (No.of People/1000 of of People per Distribution Availability
Number Number (sq.m.) of UGS(sq.m.) UGBS=UGS+UBS(sq.m.) (sq.m./inhabita
Population UBS(sq.m.) SqM) UGBS=U/A(%) 100 SqM. Of Index=X/15 Index=Y/11
nt)
Ward's Open
Area)
1 1373469.81 53125 43224.27 15143.82 58368.09 38.67940861 0.042496813 1.098693459 91.01719792 0.283312088 0.099881224
2 1721590.162 48190 69110.7 17616.85 86727.55 27.9915633 0.050376421 1.799700145 55.56481187 0.335842804 0.163609104
3 1346984.469 53855 90881.86 42887.92 133769.78 39.98190123 0.099310559 2.483887847 40.25946667 0.66207039 0.225807986
4 949139.2508 34476 65532.84 276.05 65808.89 36.32343723 0.069335337 1.908831941 52.38805882 0.462235581 0.173530176
I 5 1357299.481 23707 119082.12 9254.08 128336.2 17.46630006 0.094552604 5.413430632 18.47257438 0.630350692 0.492130057
6 1743160.097 42346 37428.68 3685.77 41114.45 24.29266255 0.023586158 0.97091697 102.9954189 0.157241055 0.088265179
7 421206.848 19180 26335.43 0 26335.43 45.53582187 0.062523746 1.373067258 72.82964432 0.416824974 0.124824296
8 360744.7546 18760 57612.42 0 57612.42 52.00352815 0.15970411 3.07102452 32.56242317 1.064694067 0.279184047
9 296718.9649 16420 25919.19 0 25919.19 55.33855918 0.087352657 1.578513398 63.35074514 0.582351047 0.143501218
TOTAL 9570313.837 310059 535127.51 88864.49 623992 32.39799711 0.065200788 2.012494396 49.68957935 0.434671917 0.182954036
10 438490.2871 27700 36415.19 0 36415.19 63.17129664 0.083046743 1.314627798 76.06715769 0.553644951 0.119511618
11 326402.8703 22152 4049.3 0 4049.3 67.86705025 0.012405835 0.182796136 - 0.082705564 0.016617831
12 525896.5169 21493 6417.4 108 6525.4 40.86925718 0.012408145 0.303605825 329.3744445 0.082720964 0.02760053
15 532470.376 23922 62029.28 0 62029.28 44.92644301 0.116493392 2.59298052 38.56565802 0.77662261 0.235725502
II 16 308924.5876 20904 25080.26 0 25080.26 67.66699978 0.081185704 1.199782817 83.34841824 0.541238024 0.109071165
17 362849.1563 21023 30641.78 348.486 30990.266 57.93867682 0.085408125 1.474112448 67.83742999 0.569387498 0.134010223
18 237174.5298 22267 13524.4 0 13524.4 93.8844488 0.057022986 0.607374141 164.6431635 0.380153243 0.055215831
19 242964.4243 21158 9436.63 0 9436.63 87.08270794 0.038839555 0.446007657 224.2113975 0.258930363 0.040546151
20 295544.1551 21576 38688.79 0 38688.79 73.00431975 0.130906971 1.793140063 55.768092 0.872713137 0.163012733
TOTAL 3270716.903 202195 226283.03 0 226283.03 61.81978018 0.069184536 1.119132669 89.35491097 0.461230237 0.101739334
13 785766.7363 33066 38497.53 6106.32 44603.85 42.08119086 0.056764747 1.34893395 74.13261411 0.378431647 0.122630359
14 1004574.105 53343 45751.09 17634.3 63385.39 53.1001145 0.063096779 1.18826069 84.15661716 0.420645191 0.108023699
29 563438.621 53782 30471.77 6298.44 36770.21 95.45316561 0.065260365 0.683689896 146.2651424 0.435069099 0.062153627
30 570504.8853 30050 36796.71 5777.94 42574.65 52.67264273 0.074626267 1.416793677 70.58190731 0.497508448 0.128799425
III 31 1384643.054 39025 187206.07 181253.43 368459.5 28.18415901 0.266104321 9.441627162 10.59139471 1.774028808 0.858329742
32 1664560.201 45636 91754.15 16266.52 108020.67 27.41625083 0.064894421 2.367005653 42.24746986 0.432629471 0.215182332
33 1827183.148 45919 333782.02 10339.47 344121.49 25.13103301 0.188334426 7.494098086 13.34383389 1.255562842 0.681281644
34 788479.564 29773 35618.4 5746.76 41365.16 37.76001479 0.05246193 1.389351426 71.97603007 0.349746203 0.126304675
35 830846.999 35024 26942.12 17932.81 44874.93 42.15457243 0.054011063 1.281262277 78.04803261 0.360073756 0.116478389
TOTAL 9419997.314 365618 826819.86 267355.99 1094175.85 38.81296224 0.116154582 2.992675005 33.41492138 0.77436388 0.272061364
21 340818.4132 21187 26048.98 0 26048.98 62.16506849 0.076430671 1.229479398 81.33523846 0.509537806 0.111770854
22 345429.5504 15730 9050.45 0 9050.45 45.53750535 0.026200567 0.575362365 173.8035125 0.174670445 0.05230567
23 164369.0988 18256 10273.05 0 10273.05 111.0671053 0.062499886 0.562721845 177.7076915 0.416665909 0.051156531
24 201360.8553 19824 0 0 - - - - - - -
25 406597.4015 27484 43772.05 0 43772.05 67.59511964 0.107654525 1.592637535 62.78892581 0.717696831 0.14478523
IV
26 352579.0845 25371 6334.34 0 6334.34 71.95832401 0.017965728 0.249668519 400.5310735 0.119771521 0.022697138
27 424742.6221 19350 4490.19 2042.78 6532.97 45.55700086 0.015381009 0.337621189 296.1899412 0.102540059 0.030692835
28 425228.318 38110 12927.65 0 12927.65 89.62244137 0.030401668 0.339219365 294.7944909 0.202677784 0.030838124
38 491637.0736 28791 20480.11 0 20480.11 - 0.041656968 0.711337223 - 0.277713122 0.06466702
39 201430.752 21296 7215.46 10340.93 17556.39 105.7236782 0.087158439 0.824398479 121.3005635 0.581056263 0.074945316
TOTAL 3354193.169 235399 140592.28 12383.71 152975.99 70.1805138 0.045607388 0.649858283 153.8797036 0.304049255 0.059078026
36 930251.8589 27238 23713.68 5179.85 28893.53 29.28024248 0.0310599 1.06078016 94.27023974 0.207066002 0.09643456
37 313803.391 24020 0 0 - - - - - - -
40 367731.3382 20549 23952.91 0 23952.91 - 0.065136983 1.16564845 - 0.434246555 0.105968041
41 209773.9298 19946 11260.45 0 11260.45 95.08331192 0.053678977 0.564546776 177.1332407 0.357859848 0.051322434
42 321563.1294 21746 0 0 - - - - - - -
V 43 236348.4756 17677 0 0 - - - - - - -
44 521975.0618 29600 22043.24 0 22043.24 56.70769001 0.042230447 0.744704054 134.2815303 0.281536311 0.067700369
45 1540217.871 8394 212306.98 20196.89 232503.87 5.449878331 0.150955183 27.69881701 3.610262487 1.006367884 2.518074274
48 242919.621 20437 14415.78 0 14415.78 84.13070923 0.059343827 0.705376523 141.7682567 0.395625514 0.064125138
49 258248.8134 19416 6516.78 9602.37 16119.15 75.1833077 0.062417131 0.83019932 120.4530016 0.416114206 0.075472665
50 383447.4762 17251 6126.86 0 6126.86 44.98921253 0.015978355 0.355159701 281.5634762 0.106522368 0.032287246
TOTAL 5326280.966 226274 320336.68 34979.11 355315.79 42.48255048 0.066709922 1.570289958 63.6825062 0.444732816 0.142753633
298 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Population
Density wrt
Y=Availability
B=Total Population Density X=Distribution Open Areas (No I1=UGBS I2=UGBS
Borough Ward A=Ward Area G=Total Area U=Total Area of of UGBS=U/P
P=Ward Area of (No.of People/1000 of of People per Distribution Availability
Number Number (sq.m.) of UGS(sq.m.) UGBS=UGS+UBS(sq.m.) (sq.m./inhabita
Population UBS(sq.m.) SqM) UGBS=U/A(%) 100 SqM. Of Index=X/15 Index=Y/11
nt)
Ward's Open
Area)
46 1307626.021 12823 26521.07 28070.74 54591.81 9.80632061 0.041748794 4.257335257 23.48887132 0.278325296 0.387030478
47 403290.4744 14684 63006.71 0 63006.71 36.41048061 0.156231585 4.290841051 23.30545429 1.041543899 0.390076459
51 298749.6153 13556 13609.49 0 13609.49 45.37579065 0.045554837 1.003945854 99.60696543 0.303698913 0.091267805
52 238675.6242 16869 0 0 - - - - - - -
53 344762.7925 25598 13982.75 0 13982.75 74.24815136 0.040557596 0.546243847 183.0684236 0.270383972 0.049658532
VI
54 376675.69 36235 25767.08 0 25767.08 96.19681058 0.068406538 0.711110253 140.6251698 0.456043588 0.064646387
55 978775.709 32254 30517.14 1322.81 31839.95 32.95341282 0.032530384 0.987162833 101.3004103 0.216869229 0.089742076
60 581961.6132 35732 40686.42 0 40686.42 - 0.069912549 1.138654987 - 0.466083662 0.10351409
61 642597.2292 29704 13292.54 5260.51 18553.05 46.22491142 0.028871973 0.624597697 160.1030558 0.192479822 0.056781609
62 387936.446 34832 21318.22 0 21318.22 - 0.054952867 0.612029743 - 0.366352448 0.055639068
TOTAL 5561051.215 252287 248701.42 34654.06 283355.48 45.36678233 0.050953582 1.123147368 89.03551115 0.339690548 0.102104306
56 677764.947 43622 18981.47 9607.41 28588.88 64.36154628 0.042181113 0.655377562 152.5838018 0.281207422 0.059579778
57 2735910.838 49856 72365.51 284601.69 356967.2 18.22281608 0.13047472 7.159964698 13.96654931 0.869831465 0.650905882
58 10810142.41 88465 179427.67 281236.93 460664.6 8.183518463 0.04261411 5.207309105 19.20377646 0.284094068 0.473391737
59 1943368.796 70261 32089.24 42419.56 74508.8 36.15422875 0.038340021 1.060457437 94.29892845 0.255600138 0.096405222
VII 63 3799201.905 24387 903868.11 101873.09 1005741.2 6.418979725 0.264724336 41.24087424 2.42477886 1.764828904 3.749170385
64 851479.2211 31280 21603.02 211.22 21603.02 36.73606968 0.025371165 0.690633632 144.7945704 0.169141101 0.062784876
65 1332425.665 72427 24643.05 237.24 24880.29 54.35725377 0.018672929 0.343522305 291.1019124 0.124486194 0.0312293
66 1908257.883 98024 116671.59 158289.31 274960.9 51.36831917 0.144090011 2.805036522 35.65015971 0.960600076 0.25500332
67 1835366.288 56284 154256.62 70895.49 225152.11 30.66635819 0.12267421 4.000286227 24.99821121 0.817828069 0.363662384
TOTAL 25893917.95 534606 1523906.28 949371.94 2473278.22 20.64600656 0.095515797 4.626357018 21.6152795 0.636771982 0.420577911
68 928149.0197 20724 30745.69 930.86 31676.55 22.32831104 0.034128733 1.528495947 65.42379142 0.227524886 0.138954177
69 2016927.075 44111 313348.46 19085.84 332434.3 21.87039906 0.164822171 7.536312938 13.26908806 1.098814476 0.685119358
70 832435.6641 18618 51421.04 0 51421.04 22.36569239 0.061771789 2.761899237 36.20696898 0.411811925 0.251081749
72 577529.1614 19167 55817.16 0 55817.16 33.18793453 0.096648211 2.912149006 34.33890223 0.644321404 0.264740819
83 481087.8294 22163 10187.77 0 10187.77 46.06851108 0.021176528 0.459674683 217.5451546 0.141176855 0.041788608
VIII 84 464971.1091 19230 56643.41 0 56643.41 41.35740829 0.121821354 2.945575143 33.94922728 0.812142359 0.267779558
85 714345.0361 29566 19708.14 0 19708.14 - 0.027589105 0.666581208 - 0.183927365 0.060598292
86 887935.9203 19195 199668.13 24170.34 223838.47 21.61755095 0.25208854 11.66129044 8.575380273 1.680590268 1.060117313
87 747336.9502 12675 290356.14 65355.24 355711.38 16.96022122 0.475971889 28.0640142 3.563282119 3.173145928 2.551274018
88 489334.414 23672 38726.31 0 38726.31 48.37591496 0.079140786 0.079140786 61.12640218 0.527605238 0.007194617
90 1145646.022 18857 137035.04 191861.89 328896.93 16.45970888 0.287084251 17.441636 5.733407119 1.913895006 1.585603272
TOTAL 9285698.201 247978 1203657.29 301404.17 1505061.46 26.70536934 0.162083823 6.069334618 16.47627068 1.080558817 0.551757693
71 1039627.142 29922 81170 6930.21 88100.21 28.7814725 0.084742122 0.084742122 33.96359668 0.564947479 0.007703829
73 541916.328 23512 16301.36 0 16301.36 43.38677169 0.030080954 0.693320857 144.2333646 0.200539692 0.063029169
74 3347552.541 42176 0 48092.54 48092.54 12.59905542 0.014366478 0.014366478 - 0.09577652 0.001306043
75 562920.7648 26925 53569 117.43 53686.43 47.8308879 0.095371202 0.095371202 50.15233831 0.635808014 0.008670109
76 435335.3945 21946 431526.93 354.96 431881.89 50.41170619 0.992067026 0.992067026 5.081481884 6.613780171 0.090187911
IX
77 494892.2792 45984 18357.19 2624.22 20981.41 92.91719013 0.042395913 0.042395913 219.1654422 0.28263942 0.003854174
78 681993.4664 54090 46028.98 530.16 46559.14 79.31161025 0.068269188 0.068269188 116.1748263 0.455127918 0.00620629
79 2931005.285 44303 223641.8 11662.48 235304.28 15.11529175 0.080281083 0.080281083 18.82796182 0.535207223 0.00729828
80 9072355.934 31094 0 410174.86 410174.86 3.427334667 0.045211504 0.045211504 7.580669376 0.301410029 0.004110137
82 926085.6422 38838 56124.32 0 56124.32 - 0.060603812 0.060603812 - 0.404025412 0.005509437
TOTAL 20033684.78 358790 926719.58 422367.5 1349087.08 17.9093364 0.067340936 3.760102233 26.59502158 0.448939572 0.341827476
81 1273544.481 41501 107856.45 0 107856.45 - 0.084689975 2.598887979 - 0.564599832 0.236262544
89 698561.7644 22304 24370.75 5688.02 30058.77 31.92845806 0.043029509 1.347685169 74.20130631 0.286863396 0.122516834
91 1079161.617 38450 40930.41 38673.15 79603.56 35.62951035 0.073764262 2.070313654 48.30185987 0.491761745 0.188210332
92 1574886.47 36450 73884.9 61803.38 135688.28 23.14452546 0.086157499 3.722586557 26.86304226 0.574383329 0.33841696
93 1867950.648 44364 172183.95 40396.15 212580.1 23.75009214 0.113803917 4.791725273 20.86930997 0.758692778 0.435611388
94 1671320.606 27469 535155.47 38510.21 573665.68 16.43550609 0.343240954 20.88411227 4.788328979 2.28827303 1.898555661
X
95 1008219.54 26737 181902.26 13202.51 195104.77 26.51902581 0.193514173 7.297182556 13.70391918 1.290094483 0.663380232
96 1126817.248 31033 181902.26 10205.19 192107.45 27.54040201 0.170486785 6.190424709 16.15398049 1.136578567 0.562765883
97 1933898.859 37199 303384.6 46805.92 350190.52 19.23523551 0.181080059 9.41397672 10.62250343 1.207200395 0.855816065
98 1161286.887 31708 109346.41 332.43 109678.84 27.30419189 0.094445947 3.459027375 28.90986083 0.629639648 0.314457034
99 910260.723 26739 15095.73 4590.02 19685.75 29.37510026 0.021626496 0.736218632 135.8292166 0.144176641 0.066928967
100 1405704.445 25507 57241.16 0 57241.16 - 0.040720622 2.244135335 - 0.271470816 0.204012303
TOTAL 15711613.29 389461 1803254.35 260206.98 2063461.33 24.78809737 0.131333511 5.298248939 18.87416034 0.875556737 0.481658994
 Paul & Bardhan 299

Population
Density wrt
Y=Availability
B=Total Population Density X=Distribution Open Areas (No I1=UGBS I2=UGBS
Borough Ward A=Ward Area G=Total Area U=Total Area of of UGBS=U/P
P=Ward Area of (No.of People/1000 of of People per Distribution Availability
Number Number (sq.m.) of UGS(sq.m.) UGBS=UGS+UBS(sq.m.) (sq.m./inhabita
Population UBS(sq.m.) SqM) UGBS=U/A(%) 100 SqM. Of Index=X/15 Index=Y/11
nt)
Ward's Open
Area)
103 954307.6566 25428 34497.89 7263.83 41761.72 26.64549511 0.043761275 1.642351738 60.88829675 0.291741835 0.149304703
104 1188626.96 33185 39434.31 22639.48 62073.79 27.91876772 0.052223105 1.870537592 53.46056685 0.34815403 0.170048872
110 1750892.683 27470 163543.54 983.86 164527.4 15.68913976 0.093967724 5.98934838 16.69630712 0.626451492 0.544486216
XI 111 2425835.665 38647 42842.56 42201.771 85044.331 15.93141718 0.035057746 2.200541594 45.44335824 0.233718308 0.200049236
112 1608856.895 32404 154273.58 0 154273.58 - 0.095890182 4.760942476 - 0.639267878 0.432812952
113 1651789.486 33475 194182.43 0 194182.43 - 0.117558824 5.800819417 - 0.783725495 0.52734722
114 2307726.153 41913 31858.16 0 31858.16 18.16203363 0.013805 0.760102116 131.5612703 0.092033335 0.069100192
TOTAL 11888035.5 232522 660632.47 73088.941 733721.411 19.55932921 0.061719315 3.155492431 31.6907748 0.411462102 0.286862948
101 1676344.84 40208 61999.66 17978.56 79978.22 23.9855184 0.047709885 1.989112117 50.27368701 0.318065902 0.180828374
102 985341.807 21503 67944.82 31437.32 99382.14 21.82288405 0.100860574 4.621780217 21.63668442 0.672403825 0.420161838
105 667431.3749 21267 48513.61 32834.85 81348.46 31.86395006 0.121882883 3.825102741 26.14308863 0.812552552 0.347736613
XII 106 1911217.707 40618 552979.18 24518.66 577497.84 21.25241926 0.302162249 14.21778128 7.03344622 2.014414991 1.292525571
107 2700010.885 54260 502498.03 55276.04 557774.07 20.09621528 0.206582156 10.27965481 9.727953112 1.377214374 0.934514074
108 6411708.129 64777 663972.98 3824537.22 4488510.2 10.10292401 0.700049052 69.291727 1.443173728 4.666993683 6.299247909
109 7095093.567 64567 847201.72 252143.47 1099345.19 9.100232349 0.154944425 17.02642511 5.873223496 1.03296283 1.547856828
TOTAL 21447148.31 307200 2745110 4238726.12 6983836.12 14.32358258 0.325630057 22.73384154 4.398728646 2.170867045 2.066712867
115 1472758.955 31919 113220.34 18324.18 131544.52 21.67292882 0.089318432 4.121198033 24.26478883 0.595456211 0.374654367
116 1221977.527 28338 248710.38 0 248710.38 - 0.203531059 8.776567859 - 1.356873726 0.797869805
117 731523.3659 21824 178311.03 52219.87 230530.9 29.83363351 0.315138122 10.56318273 9.466843707 2.100920816 0.96028934
XIII 118 848086.4674 21810 99486.08 5255.45 104741.53 25.71671738 0.123503362 4.802454379 20.82268609 0.823355747 0.436586762
119 628667.0961 16491 26936.3 4288.27 31224.57 26.2316894 0.049667893 1.893430962 52.81417807 0.331119286 0.172130087
120 694812.496 19710 87553.42 11879.19 99432.61 28.36736546 0.143107112 5.044779807 19.82247072 0.954047416 0.458616346
122 3156011.329 39198 1366769.38 29704.08 1396473.46 12.42010751 0.442480497 35.62614062 2.806927673 2.949869977 3.238740056
TOTAL 8753837.236 179290 2120986.93 121671.04 2242657.97 20.48130382 0.256191417 12.50855023 7.994531596 1.707942783 1.13714093
121 1476021.805 29921 351380.51 24410.81 375791.32 20.27138075 0.254597404 12.55945055 7.962131749 1.697316028 1.141768232
127 3400112.639 43782 126857.09 0 126857.09 - 0.037309673 2.897471335 - 0.248731152 0.263406485
128 1837405.917 32179 78225.83 10871.14 89096.97 17.51327766 0.04849063 2.76879238 36.11682866 0.323270865 0.251708398
XIV 129 2112256.946 39654 196679.7 0 196679.7 - 0.09311353 4.959895597 - 0.620756865 0.4508996
130 1037434.392 23227 28472.22 7809.4 36281.62 22.38888568 0.034972448 1.562045034 64.01864084 0.233149651 0.142004094
131 1411919.575 30911 124679.71 15545.72 140225.43 21.89289004 0.099315451 4.536424897 22.04379049 0.66210301 0.412402263
132 916712.2812 26274 37089.65 35853.88 72943.53 28.66111924 0.0795708 2.776262845 36.01964424 0.530472003 0.252387531
TOTAL 12191863.56 225948 943384.71 94490.95 1037875.66 18.53268772 0.085128549 4.593427072 21.77023787 0.567523663 0.417584279
133 508348.3398 25588 0 0 - - - - - - -
134 381996.4232 35780 12587.6 0 12587.6 93.66579849 0.032952141 0.351805478 284.2479901 0.21968094 0.031982316
135 333548.1071 33258 0 0 - - - - - - -
136 529516.1026 21482 32355.98 0 32355.98 40.56911564 0.061104808 1.506190299 66.39267301 0.407365389 0.136926391
XV 137 624806.7576 19385 0 0 - - - - - - -
138 808056.8124 28858 0 0 - - - - - - -
139 1614937.914 42014 0 0 - - - - - - -
140 1546819.608 30504 105558.73 0 105558.73 19.72046375 0.068242431 3.460488133 28.89765726 0.454949538 0.31458983
141 2608132.718 41152 116369.65 0 116369.65 15.77833816 0.044617994 2.827800593 35.36317244 0.297453293 0.257072781
TOTAL 8956162.783 278021 266871.96 0 266871.96 31.04242372 0.029797578 0.959898569 104.1776738 0.198650521 0.087263506
123 1894774.231 35386 566570.98 43770.06 610341.04 18.67557592 0.322118081 17.2480936 5.797742193 2.147453876 1.568008509
124 2546473.422 39179 482167.03 0 482167.03 15.38559156 0.189346971 12.30677225 8.125607427 1.262313142 1.118797477
125 2881406.313 44850 72042.4 4825.75 76868.15 15.56531607 0.026677303 1.713894091 58.34666243 0.177848688 0.155808554
XVI 126 2959264.698 31631 117277.14 21487.91 138765.05 10.68880388 0.046891733 4.386995353 22.79464462 0.312611553 0.398817759
142 6513906.3 N/A 0 0 - - - - - - -
143 6125571.97 N/A 2901.63 0 2901.63 N/A 0.000473691 - N/A - -
144 4873831.57 N/A 12393.43 133785.16 146178.59 N/A 0.02999254 - N/A 0.199950269 -
TOTAL 27795228.5 151046 1253352.61 203868.88 1457221.49 5.434242067 0.052427038 9.64753446 10.36534261 0.349513584 0.877048587
GRAND
198459743.5 4496694 15745736.96 7103433.881 22849170.84 22.65796539 0.115132522 5.081326601 19.67990012 - -
TOTAL

Table II. Availability of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) in some of the Indian metropolitan cities

Availability of
Geographical Population Distribution of
City UGS/inhabitant
Area (sq.km.) (in million) UGS (%; 2017)
(sq.m.; 2018)

Delhi 1484 28.5 5.5 10.56%

Bengaluru 4381 13.9 2.01 8.40%
Mumbai 603 23.5 2.01 7.83%
Hyderabad 650 11.57 0.5 0.89%
Ahmedabad 464 8.41 3.9 7.07%
Chennai 1189 9.88 1.03 0.86%
Surat 326 6.55 2.7 5.42%
Jaipur 467 3.71 20 15.89%

Gandhinagar 649 6.33 147.6 143.96%

Chandigarh 114 1.05 54.45 50.15%

Source: Ramaiah and Avtar (2019)
300 IRSPSDD International, Vol 10 No.3 (2022), 280-301

Table III. Distribution and availability of UGS in some important cities (2002 – 2018)
Source (Data available
Distribution from Availability
of UGS http://www.worldcitiesc of UGS/
City Year Year Source
(Parks and ultureforum.com/data/o Inhabitant
Gardens) f-public-green-space- (sq.m.)
parks-and-gardens)
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/858893/green-
Statistics
Amsterdam 13.00% 2018 45.5 2018 areas-per-inhabitant-in-
Netherlands/TNO
amsterdam-the-
netherlands/
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/858922/green-
Brussels 18.80% 2015 IBGE 19.61 2018 areas-per-inhabitant-in-
the-largest-cities-in-the-
benelux-by-city/
https://www.skyscraperc
Buenos Aires 8.90% 2013 CABA 1.9 2013 ity.com/showthread.php
?t=1660203
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/860628/green-
Dublin 26.00% 2018 Dublin City Council 44.88 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
dublin-in-ireland/
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/860677/green-
Edinburgh 19.00% 2016 ESRI 99.38 2018 areas-per-inhabitant-in-
edinburgh-in-the-united-
kingdom/
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/858976/green-
Helsinki 40.00% 2018 City of Helsinki 105.7 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
helsinki-finland/
https://www.socialindica
Agriculture - Fisheries
tors.org.hk/en/indicators
Hong Kong 40.00% 2016 and Conservation 2.7 2016
/environmental_quality/2
Department
3.13
https://www.siemens.co
Istanbul Metropolitan m/entry/cc/features/gree
Istanbul 2.20% 2015 6.4 N/A
Municipality ncityindex_international/
all/en/pdf/report_en.pdf
State of the https://www.urbanafrica
Environment Report, .net/news/johannesburg-
Johannesburg 24.00% 2002 231 2011
City of Johannesburg greenest-city-south-
2009 africa/
https://unhabitat.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03
/Table-4.2-Green-area-
Câmara Municipal de
Lisbon 22.00% 2018 64.62 per-capita-CO2-per-
Lisboa
capita-and-population-
exposure-to-air-
pollution-PM2.5.pdf
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/860684/green-
Greenspace Information
London 33.00% 2015 27 2018 areas-per-inhabitant-in-
for Greater London
london-in-the-united-
kingdom/
https://www.scpr.org/blo
LA County Parks and
gs/environment/2011/12
Los Angeles 34.70% 2016 Recreation Needs 25 2011
/02/3926/los-angeles-
Assessment
ranks-low-public-parks/
Victorian Planning https://soe.environment.
Melbourne 10.00% 2016 116.46 2016
Authority gov.au/file/46106
https://unhabitat.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03
/Table-4.2-Green-area-
Milan 12.90% 2016 Comune di Milano 22.67 2015 per-capita-CO2-per-
capita-and-population-
exposure-to-air-
pollution-PM2.5.pdf
Ville de Montreal,
https://musemcgill.word
Direction des grands
Montreal 14.80% 2013 12 2006 press.com/research/urba
parcs et du
n-forestry-green-space/
verdissement
 Paul & Bardhan 301

Source (Data available

Distribution from Availability
of UGS http://www.worldcitiesc of UGS/
City Year Year Source
(Parks and ultureforum.com/data/o Inhabitant
Gardens) f-public-green-space- (sq.m.)
parks-and-gardens)
https://books.google.de/
books?id=4b2BBwAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=P
A258&dq=green+space
+per+capita+in+moscow
&source=bl&ots=kJhzR
cFQOw&sig=ACfU3U1
Department of natural s3DuxNbuctLdxpMZbA
Moscow 18.00% 2017 15 2012
resources TXBMEN0dg&hl=en&s
a=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAl
dOiiKPhAhXEwKQKH
aaCCpw4ChDoATALeg
QIChAB#v=onepage&q
=green%20space%20per
%20capita%20in%20mo
scow&f=false
New York City https://www.skyscraperc
New York 27.00% 2010 Department of City 23.1 2013 ity.com/showthread.php
Planning Land Use ?t=1660203
https://www.statista.com
Bymiljøetaten, Oslo /statistics/858877/green-
Oslo 68.00% 2018 39.05 2018
kommune areas-per-inhabitant-in-
oslo-norway/
https://www.skyscraperc
Paris 9.50% 2013 IAU Ile-de-France 11.5 2013 ity.com/showthread.php
?t=1660203
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/858453/green-
Rome 38.90% 2017 Roma Capitale 166.47 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
rome-in-italy/
San Francisco
Department of https://en.wikipedia.org/
San Francisco 13.00% 2017 Recreations and Parks 28.3 2010 wiki/Open_space_access
2017 Community ibility_in_California
Report
http://sg.siemens.com/cit
Seoul Metropolitan y_of_the_future/_docs/
Seoul 27.80% 2016 23.4 2019
Government Asian-Green-City-
Index.pdf
https://www.siemens.co
Shanghai Municipal m/entry/cc/features/gree
Shanghai 16.20% 2017 18.1 2008
People's Government ncityindex_international/
all/en/pdf/shanghai.pdf
https://www.siemens.co
m/entry/cc/features/gree
Singapore 47.00% 2011 National Parks Board 66 2009
ncityindex_international/
all/en/pdf/singapore.pdf
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/858914/green-
Stockholm 40.00% 2015 City of Stockholm 87.5 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
stockholm-sweden/
New South Wales https://soe.environment.
Sydney 46.00% 2010 80.96 2016
Department of Planning gov.au/file/46106
http://sg.siemens.com/cit
Parks and Street Lights y_of_the_future/_docs/
Taipei 3.40% 2017 49.6 2009
Office, Taipei City Asian-Green-City-
Index.pdf
https://www.skyscraperc
Bureau of Urban
Tokyo 7.50% 2015 3 2013 ity.com/showthread.php
Development
?t=1660203
https://www.skyscraperc
Toronto 13.00% 2018 City of Toronto 12.6 2013 ity.com/showthread.php
?t=1660203
https://www.statista.com
Vienna Annual Statistics /statistics/860514/green-
Vienna 45.50% 2014 120 2018
2014 areas-per-inhabitant-in-
vienna-in-austria/
https://www.statista.com
Head Office of
/statistics/860478/green-
Warsaw 17.00% 2015 Geodesy and 109.45 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
Cartography
warsaw-poland/
https://www.statista.com
/statistics/860599/green-
Zurich 41.00% 2018 Grun Stadt Zurich 79.51 2018
areas-per-inhabitant-in-
zurich-in-switzerland/
Source:http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/of-public-green-space-parks-and-
gardens