JOIN USCovid-19: Rethinking urban planning strategies
What are the implications of the dense concentration of populations as urban centres have grown unfettered and governance systems – local and national – promote the ‘smart city’ initiative by investing in infrastructure assuming there will be an increase in GDP?
The consequences of such initiatives have been brought to sharp focus during the Covid-19 pandemic and maybe the same for disasters such as earthquakes and floods. The prime consequence involves curtailing the movement of people to limit and arrest the spread of Covid-19 or the evacuation of populations in the event of a flood or an earthquake.
A central point to understand is how to systematically facilitate the growth of urban centres and simultaneously consider optimal sizes of settlements in ways that mitigate the spread of infectious diseases such as Covid or allow for evacuation, if needed.
Urban planners who study settlements recognise the relevance of finding a happy medium in allowing the growth of urban centres in organised ways and at the same time be attentive to a realistic set of norms for population concentration.
As an architect who studies urban planning, I have witnessed the unfettered growth of urban centres across India. Arguing for modifying the current model, I outline the following strategies for policymaking taking into account the interconnectedness of settlement planning and governance.
The first strategy is to deter high-density concentrations of large populations as well as the formation of slums by adopting a multi-spatial growth model in the planning of settlements. This approach should emphasise the plan for the growth of all types of settlements - villages, small towns, and the large urban centres.
People in urban centres with high-density concentrations of population and large numbers of slums are experiencing the most severe restrictions on movement and activities during this lockdown.
This has resulted in the dislocation of people, disruption of daily wages, and the underutilisation of large-scale infrastructure.
Therefore, as a measure to maintain access to basic needs and allow some movement of people in a settlement in instances of a calamity or a health hazard, there is a need to deglamorise large cities as engines of growth.
Concurrently, new planning policies should emphasise on the development of small towns and villages. This will enable dispersing of populations and maintaining continuity of activities when ‘isolation’ is required because only smaller pockets of the population may be impacted.
The second strategy relates to developing villages and smaller towns. This will require the planners to envision manageable smaller settlements. This alternative approach to spatial development is important because India has over six lakh villages and over 7,000 small towns.
According to the 2011 Census, 68.4% of the population live in villages which is sizeable. Moreover, valuing an environment-friendly approach is key for both spatial planning and governance of settlements. This approach includes preserving natural water systems, protecting forests and fragile ecosystems among others.
Accomplishing the above requires capacity building of both planners and personnel of local bodies, engaging with people and using local knowledge to improve basic services such as conserving and replenishing local water resources and opting for new technologies such as decentralised waste water treatment systems where possible.
It means a less consumerist lifestyle to reduce waste, its treatment and its negative impact on the ecosystem and human health.
Other examples are: systematically replacing use of synthetic polluting materials with natural materials, promoting renewable energy (solar or wind energy), and aiding non-motorised means of mobility within settlements.
Continuous learning by planners, personnel of local bodies, and the general population should be mandated to implement, sustain, and build communities with environment- friendly values and lifestyles.
Social infrastructure
Additionally, planners must address planning of social infrastructure in the areas of education, healthcare, disaster management and entertainment to create opportunities for livelihoods, education and entertainment in villages and small towns.
This approach requires the development of high-speed transport systems between clusters of villages and towns to avail specialised services, if needed.
Proximity to basic services and social infrastructure will enhance and ease everyday life and can, in turn, open new arenas for livelihoods and earnings and minimise migration.
The accent till date has been on boosting cities with a singular aim of raising the GDP of large cities.
The paradigm shift as suggested above may appear unreal or not doable within the embedded approach of prioritising the urban centres.
However, the Covid-19 pandemic clearly indicates that while the economy is important for human survival, we need to be cognizant about and value other aspects of human life, for human life itself to survive and thrive.
Two obvious questions loom large in our face at this juncture. One, whether we continue with the present pattern where people go in search of livelihoods and a better life; and the other, whether we choose a new untrodden path where livelihoods and a better life reach people?
The choice, I note, must be the untrodden path. Rethinking strategies for settlement planning as outlined above is crucial to ease, somewhat, the lives of ordinary people.
(The writer is Associate Professor and former Officiating Head, Department of Architecture and former Associate Director, Master of Urban and Regional Planning Programme, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda)