A truly sustainable city must combine ecological health and social fairness, not just display charging stations. To reduce the growing green divide, urban planners must include Social Impact Assessments in all green infrastructure projects to guarantee community welfare
Sweeping sustainability projects in India often privilege elites while bulldozing the poor. Only 2 per cent of Mumbai’s population will be served by the 29-km Coastal Road (Rs 13,000-cr), which necessitates recovering about 0.9 km² of coastline and is “disrupting the livelihoods of coastal fishing communities” in addition to damaging tidal ecosystems. In Delhi, hundreds of slum dwellers have already been removed without finding new homes as a result of simultaneous eviction drives and “green” parks along the Yamuna River. In a similar vein, almost 80 per cent of the funds allocated by India’s Smart Cities Mission go to small settlements, which make up around 5 per cent of the city’s total size. This has the effect of gentrification, leading to slum clearances and rent rises. These injustices are a reflection of global trends.
True green development, according to critics, must prioritise the community. Together with strong anti-eviction measures like rent controls, guaranteed affordable housing, community land trusts, and local stewardship, parks should be co-designed with the community. As an example, consider Washington, DC’s 11th Street Bridge Park, whose planners incorporated homeowner cooperatives and tenant safeguards into the design. Such inclusive, anti-displacement tactics are crucial, according to experts, to guarantee that climate-friendly projects benefit long-term residents rather than displacing them.
India’s Urban Greening Schemes:
AMRUT (started in 2015) and Swachh Bharat Mission (2014), two of India’s premier urban missions, also presented themselves as sustainability initiatives. In 500 cities, AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) promised improved green spaces, water systems, and sewers. The goal of Swachh Bharat by 2019 was to establish a “India free of open defecation.” But in both cases, the high standards have often not been met.
Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban): The government declared the nation ODF by the 2019 deadline, although surveys conducted on the ground refute that assertion. Critics, including seasoned journalists, point to prominent corruption: entire towns had ghost infrastructure, supplies and doors were stolen, and restrooms “exist[ed] only on paper.” A Rs 540 crore scam was discovered by one investigation in Madhya Pradesh alone, where 4.5 lakh promised restrooms were never constructed. It was discovered that many public restrooms were either located adjacent to garbage dumps or were inoperable (lacked a water supply). To put it briefly, the objective was essentially rendered untenable due to “poor implementation and widespread corruption,” turning it into “a political slogan.”
AMRUT: AMRUT, which was formerly praised for saving infrastructure, is also displaying flaws. Opposition leaders openly call it “a victim of corruption,” alleging that labour has been done “just for paperwork” and that funds have been embezzled. Projects to address flooding and water-logging have even fallen short. For instance, Sirsa, Haryana, saw worsening waterlogging despite officials spending Rs 40 crore on drainage lines under AMRUT. The situation varies throughout India: numerous municipalities have abandoned AMRUT programs. Due to impending deadlines, 163 projects in Kerala totalling about Rs 900 crore were “way behind schedule.” Out of the fourteen planned sewage treatment plants, only two were finished. Central grants could be lost if construction isn’t completed on time, and local governments would be responsible for paying for it. In short, AMRUT’s headline targets are far from achieved, and its rollout has largely benefited contractors rather than citizens.
Smart Cities Mission: The goal of this Rs 2-lakh-crore program was to use green and tech projects to change 100 cities. However, as of April 2025, government statistics showed that only 7,549 of the 8,067 tendered projects had been completed, leaving 518 projects (worth Rs 13,142 crore) unfinished. Parks and transit improvements are promised in several of the unbuilt projects. According to observers, finished “smart” initiatives frequently benefit the wealthy (upmarket neighbourhoods, IT centres), while the impoverished reap little rewards.
The key findings are: Common problems that arise in all of these projects include corruption, a lack of openness, and unfulfilled goals.
Top-down planning has overlooked local needs. Entire villages were found to have 7.85 million constructed toilets that were essentially worthless during floods during the Swachh Bharat investigation.
The impoverished usually bear the consequences, even when policy documents speak of “inclusive” and “sustainable” cities. Take Delhi, where 20-30 per cent of the city’s population lives in slum bastis, but making up only 0.5 per cent of the land. However, under the guise of “development” or “municipal beautification,” significant demolitions take place every few months. A new estimate claims that 278,796 individuals were forcibly evicted from Delhi’s slums in 2023 alone. Residents complain about being referred to as unlawful “encroachments” and having their home demolished without cause, even though court rulings forbid indiscriminate evictions. The poorest neighbourhoods are usually uprooted during these clearance campaigns, which frequently align with infrastructure projects like new highways or metro lines that are presented as modernising the metropolis. Slum dwellers frequently have to fumble to gather identification documents and receipts — even as little as invoices from internet purchases — in order to demonstrate their eligibility to remain. The outcome is clear: social inequality and environmental “upgrades” frequently coexist.
Who Really Benefits?
In reality, urban “greening” has mostly benefited investors and the urban middle class, but its advantages for equity, sanitation, and climate resilience are still minimal. Many of the expected outcomes, including ODF certification, clean rivers, and flood-safe housing, have yet to materialise despite billions of dollars being spent. Independent audits characterise major schemes as being rife with fraud and incomplete development. Many of the expected outcomes, including ODF certification, clean rivers, and flood-safe housing, have yet to materialise despite billions of dollars being spent. Independent audits characterise major schemes as being rife with fraud and incomplete development.
Truth About Electric Corridors
Another recent example is the campaign for electric vehicle (EV) zones in places like Bengaluru, Delhi, and Pune. Despite their intended goal of lowering air pollution, these zones frequently have exclusionary rules, including prohibiting older cars or requiring payment to enter low-emission zones. Workers in the unorganised sector who utilise diesel cars for goods transportation or autorickshaws for last-mile commuting risk economic penalties.
The Way Forward
A truly sustainable city must combine ecological health and social fairness, not just display trees and Tesla charging stations. To reduce the growing green divide, urban planners must include Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) in all green infrastructure projects.
This would guarantee that rehabilitation and resettlement plans are developed through real community involvement rather than token efforts. Low-income housing must be required in green zones in order to avoid demographic exclusion. In order to enable Ward Committees, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and neighbourhood organisations to collaborate on eco-projects, governance must become more participatory.
Adopting participatory budgeting will guarantee that green funding represents the interests of all socioeconomic groups. It is imperative that informal livelihoods, like those of street sellers and garbage recyclers, be officially acknowledged and incorporated into sustainability programs with financing availability. Finally, the shift to electric vehicles (EVs) needs to be fair.
Governments should install reasonably priced EV infrastructure in underserved urban areas and provide low-income drivers with training and subsidies. Then and only then can sustainability benefit people rather than replace them.
(The writer is Project Head at World Intellectual Foundation (WIF), actively involved in research and policy writing on social equity & governance. Co-authored by Sakshi Chaudhary, researcher)