Sustainable Management Models for Neighborhood Parks in Bangalore, India Leveraging the Power of Community Engagement for Effective Park Stewardship

Home , Cubbon Park

PRIYANKA JINSIWALE , SES CAPSTONE 2019 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT MODELS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS IN BANGALORE, INDIA LEVERAGING THE POWER OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR EFFECTIVE PARK STEWARDSHIP

Project Abstract

Bangalore city has had a tradition of being a ‘garden city’ with several green spaces.However, the changing demographic and rapid urban development of the city has led to a deterioration in the quality of many public spaces namely parks, more so, neighborhood parks. The need for clean, well maintained green spaces within residential localities remains unmet.Since hard infrastructure development gains more priority in city-wide budget allocations, the amount of money available for public amenities such as parks and greening of the city is limited. There is an urgent need to rejuvenate and redevelop parks in neighborhoods as recreation and breakout spaces for the citizens. This project intends to explore the various possible partnerships for effective long-term neighborhood park management by engaging multiple stakeholders at the local scale of a neighborhood and the local community for park stewardship.The methodology adopted includes an analysis of existing conditions of parks and their spatial distribution, park management structures, parks assessment conducted by the non-profit Janaagraha and a scoping of opportunities available to supplement current funding streams.A study of relevant case studies of city-wide implemented public-private partnership schemes, land-value capture mechanisms as well as an example of a self-sustaining park model further assists the research process. Based on varying scenarios in Bangalore’s parks planning and management, key conclusions derived from case studies and spatial analysis have been applied to formulate a management model.

Table of Contents

1) Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

2) Identifying the problem and Research question… ………………………………………….3

3) Current Parks Usage and Management…………………………………………………………..5

4) Research Methodology… …………………………………………………………………………………..6

5) The Third Tier of Governance : Ward Committees………………………………………..13

6) Bangalore Agenda Task Force and Adopt a Park Scheme…………………………….1 6

7) Stakeholder Interviews…………………………………………………………………………………...2 1

8) Case Studies… …………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

9) Recommendations… ………………………………………………………………………………………..41

10) Sustainable Park Management Model : Systems Diagram… …………………………44

1) Introduction

Historically, Bangalore has been known as India's Garden City. Small and medium-sized parks, as well as large parks like Lalbagh and Cubbon Parks, are spread throughout the city. Publicly developed and maintained parks are mainly located in the districts of Core and Intermediate Ring Planning. They perform environmental functions and meet recreational needs.Cubbon Park, Lalbagh, Coles Park, M.N. Krishna Rao Park, Jayamahal Park, Caribbean Memorial Park, Nandanavana Park, Jayanagar, Kuvempu Park, BTM Layout, R.V. Road Children's Park, etc are some of the major parks in Bangalore city. Bangalore, Karnataka's capital, is India's fifth largest metropolitan city. It is well-known–nationally and internationally–as a destination of choice for high-tech industries, especially in the sectors of IT / ITES and biotechnology. It is a city that has become a modern, thriving cosmopolitan metropolis ,as a paradise of retirees. The pleasant weather conditions and the image of the garden city, as well as the presence of academic institutions and skilled workforce, led to this rapid growth. The Metropolitan Area of Bangalore covers an area of 1307 sq. Km and includes the Mahanagara Palike Bruhat Bangalore (BBMP), the surrounding villages and the Bangalore-Mysore Corridor Project Area (BMICPA). As a result of the development of the IT industry, the Bangalore Metropolitan Area experienced a drastic population increase (currently 12 million) towards the end of the last century.1

1 Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007

2) Identifying the problem - Research question

Despite a surge in population, the open space ratio per person is only a meagre 2.2 sq.m as opposed to the required norm of 10-12 sq.m(as per Ministry of Urban Development, India). According to the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) of 1995, the percentage of open space was 25% which has reduced to only 4% as per the Revised Master Plan (RMP) of 2031 due to the rapid unplanned expansion of the city towards the outer wards as well as multiple land encroachments.

Map : BBMP Wards and Zones

Bangalore city under the Urban Local Body - Mahanagara Palike Bruhat Bangalore (BBMP) is divided into 198 wards,28 Assembly Constituencies and 8 zones and is spread over 711 sq.m area. With respect to city budget, less than 14% is targeted at the ward level and as much as 40% is allocated for roads and other infrastructure services and only 4% for parks and open spaces.2 Irrespective of ward size, population and area of parks within each ward, parks budget allocated for nearly all wards is the same amount.This lack of decentralisation of city budget ,disproportionate budgets and no prioritisation of green spaces has resulted in several Urban Local Bodies like the BBMP facing a constant shortfall of funds for infrastructure upgrades especially public amenities like parks and playgrounds. There is clearly a need to develop long-term self-sustaining funding strategies for effective park management.

3) Current Parks Usage/Management

Bangalore has 1,115 parks spread across 198 wards of the city. Of the 1,115 parks in the city, 429 parks are maintained by the BBMP in-house staff and 696 through tender/private contracts3.Majority of the parks maintained by the BBMP are of poor standard. Irrespective of the ward size, population and number of parks within it, the same amount of money is dispensed towards developing and maintaining parks and playgrounds.

According to the Comprehensive Development Plan of Bangalore city, based on area, parks are divided into :- i) Local Parks - a) Housing Area Parks < 5,000 sq.m b) Neighbourhood Parks 5,000-10,000 sq.m c) Community Park 10,000 -50,000 sq.m

ii) District Park - 50,000- 2,50,000 sq.m

2 BBMP City Brief 2015-2016 - Janaagraha." 2015 3 BBMP List of Parks

iii) Sub-city Park -2,50,000 sqm and above.

Based on BBMP budgeting , parks are divided into :- i) Neighbourhood Parks - for walking/jogging often separate from playgrounds

ii) Ornamental Parks - with water bodies and fountains for tourist attraction

iii) Heritage Parks - those with historical significance

All major ornamental and heritage parks are maintained well by the Horticulture Department of BBMP in the city as they attract tourists and revenue. These constitute only a handful such as Cubbon Park, Lal Bagh, JP Park, Freedom Park etc.4 The current set of neighborhood parks cater mainly to morning and evening walkers due to limited park timings in the early mornings and evenings.The main park facilities are walking,jogging tracks and benches. Vegetable vendors of the brand Hopcoms, which is state-owned, is allowed to operate as well as the milk brand Nandini ,which is a state cooperative.

These parks have limited accessibility due to few entrances ,hard edges and are not designed to offer diverse uses and activities.Because of this, they are not viewed and used as active public spaces. According to BBMP bye-laws, the following are the permissible land uses for parks :-

Open Air theatres,indoor recreational uses,dwelling for watch and guard,social clubs, canteens,libraries,government dispensaries,dairy stores,vegetable vendors and public use ancillary to park and open spaces, the are of which should not exceed 5% of the total area. 5

4) Research Methodology

4 Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007

5 BBMP Bye-laws

The methodology involves first creating a visual mapping of the existing conditions of Bangalore’s green spaces/parks within all the 198 wards that the city is divided into. Based on the total park (in sq. m) within each ward, the spatial distribution of these green spaces has been mapped. The major road Outer Ring Road(ORR) demarcates the inner wards from the outer wards. The population distribution across the wards has also been mapped.

Map : Census 2011 , Population data

Map : Total Park Area across the wards

From the above maps, it is observed that there is a disproportionate distribution of green spaces/parks across the wards i.e the area of parks/green spaces is not proportionate to ward size .Many smaller wards have large areas of green spaces and vice versa. The central wards have highest areas of green spaces due to the presence of large city-scale parks such as Cubbon Park, Lal Bagh, Freedom Park etc. Some of these central wards also contain private green spaces such as IT parks as well as private golf courses.Also, inner

wards have more park area than outer wards.

The population map (census 2011) shows that outer wards having a larger size as well as a higher population, have lesser park area which is comparable to the inner wards which are much smaller in size and population. This again shows that the green spaces have not been planned in proportion to ward size and population. This is a possible reason for the low open-space ratio within the city.

Image Source : Janaagraha Parks Assessment Report

Janaagraha non-profit ,conducted a parks assessment in 2016 wherein out of the 1,115 parks of the city, only 7 parks scored a full score of 10 whereas 470 parks scored less than 5 showing the state of neglect of parks in Bangalore.Also, the assessment concluded that

79% of parks of the city were within the inner wards.6 The above map highlights the differences between the spatial distribution of green spaces in the inner and outer wards

6 "Janaagraha." Parks and Playgrounds Score of Bengaluru. April 2017.

with the layer of road network superimposed. The green spaces are more evenly distributed within the inner wards with planned neighborhoods (dense road network) whereas the outer wards have scattered developments in the form of high-rise apartment complexes as well as gated communities.

Image Source : Janaagraha Ward Performance Report

Map : BBMP per capita allocation of budget

The above map shows the per capita allocation of budget by the BBMP mapped by Janaagraha. From this, Janaagraha concluded that outer wards are in need of higher per capita budget due to poor infrastructure.

Map : Wards with best and worst scoring parks7

As per Janaagraha’s wards performance assessment, the wards having parks with a full score of 10 and those having a score of 0 have been mapped. From the above map, it can be inferred that the top scoring wards (in yellow) with regards to parks ,are inner wards whereas the lowest scoring wards (in brown) are outer wards.The wards with the lowest score of 0, are the wards which have no parks and no money budgeted specifically for parks maintenance by the urban local body BBMP. Most wards,irrespective of the area of parks within them, have the same amount of 0.29 crores budgeted for parks and playgrounds. Lack of sufficient funds and improper distribution is one of the main reasons

7 "Ward Performance Reports." Janaagraha. August 18, 2016.

for the poor quality of parks in Bangalore. The top two wards at the city-centre, contain major city-level parks that are landmarks as well as major tourist attractions. These fall under the category of ‘heritage parks’ and are well-maintained by the BBMP.

The ward performance report shows that citizens in 135 out of 198 wards live within 500m walking distance of a park and that most of them belong to inner wards of the city. 8

Conclusions from the Spatial Analysis :-

1) The total park area within wards is disproportionate to ward area, population. 2) Inner wards have more parks and are in a better condition. 3) Inner wards have planned neighborhoods with more citizens living within walkable distance of a park. 4) Outer wards have fewer parks, scattered development and poor infrastructure. 5) Some outer wards have no parks and no budget for them.

5) The Third Tier of Governance - BBMP Ward Committees

Apart from Central and State governance, the information below explains the crucial role played by ward committees in addressing issues of local governance which directly impacts the annual budgets allocated to each wards for various public works including the management of parks and playgrounds.

The 198 wards of Bangalore city under the jurisdiction of the urban local body BBMP are grouped into 30 ward committees each comprising of a cluster 3-4 wards each. Each ward committee comprises of 2-3 elected officials known as councillors representing the wards, 5 people who have knowledge and experience in municipal administration who are nominated by the State Government and 2 members nominated by the State Government

8 "Ward Performance Reports." Janaagraha. August 18, 2016

from NGOs and CBOs working within the area of the wards committee. Although the population covered by a wards committee is to be in the range of 1-1,5 lakhs, unfortunately neither population nor area is taken as a basis for determining wards committee area.

As per the 74th Constitutional Amendment, urban local bodies should be given the power and authority to ‘prepare plans for economic development and social justice’. However, urban local development is often misunderstood as being only the building of flyovers, expressways etc. which is far removed from issues of social justice.

The purpose of the ward committees was to bring about greater decentralisation of functions, increase proximity of the elected representatives and civic administration to citizens and to enhance people’s participation at the local level.

Some of the areas that come under the purview of wards committees pertaining to this research are:-

i) Timely assessment and collection of property tax, fees and other sums due to the Corporation (BBMP).

ii) Utilisation of budget grants and compliance of audit reports.

iii) Execution of public works

iv) Maintenance of parks and playgrounds and other Corporation properties.

The above functions are concurrent with those of the Corporation BBMP.

The wards committee has the power to give administrative approval to ward work estimates not exceeding Rs 1 lakh, subject to funds being made available for the said purposes.

The procedure of nomination of members is non-transparent and wholly undemocratic. Nomination allows the State Government to exercise control over wards committees through the back door which is against the idea of local self-governance.9

Issues faced by Wards Committees that affect parks funding

There is a lack of access to ward-level information, lack of finances and control over ward expenditures, no role in planning, implementation and monitoring of ward works. There is no form of interaction with people for grievance redressal, no scope for participatory planning to take place.

There is no provision for wards committees to initiate schemes of their own.

Ward committees do not bring about as much decentralisation, accountability or transparency that they had been envisioned to.

Though ‘utilisation of budget grants’, ‘execution of public works’ are also development activities, only their monitoring and supervision has been assigned to wards committees but not their independent planning and execution.

Moreover, the elected Chairperson, chosen from the 3-4 elected councillors of the wards of the committee, has sole authority to disburse funds for ward works and plan the Annual Program of Works. The other 7 nominated members have no explicit powers.

Wards committees have no authority to change or collect fees or taxes of their own.

Wards committees have no role in preparation of the budget of the wards, deciding or prioritising works, in lobbying for funds for their projects or in utilising money sanctioned for ward works. Officials respond only to request made by the elected representatives

9 Chamaraj, Kathyayini, and Prasanna Rao. "Functioning of Wards Committees in Bangalore: A Case Study." CIVIC Bangalore.

(councillors) and not those of the nominated members.

Many NGOs on the committee are unsuitable or not bonafide organisations.

Since there are no executive orders issued by the BBMP Commissioner to release the Rs 1 lakh to the wards committees,they cannot make use of it. Sanction for even small ward works require authorisation from the BBMP Commissioner(head of BBMP at the city level).

Typical neighbourhood park sizes vary from 5,000- 10,1000 sq.m. At the rate of Rs 60 per sq.m for park maintenance, the average cost of maintaining a park comes to around Rs 6 lakhs. This is well above the allowable work estimate of Rs 1 lakh that ward committees can authorize the management/development of.10

Most wards committee members have stated the unwillingness of elected councillors to share powers with nominated members, political interference and bureaucratic apathy as

the major problems that hinder their effective functioning.

Failure of local governance at the ward level is one of the leading causes of disproportionate allocation of budget and deteriorating infrastructure. To overcome this, the government started to experiment with Public-Private partnerships.

6) Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF) and ‘Adopt a park’ scheme

In order to address Bangalore’s lowering infrastructure standards, the city introduced the concept of Public-Private partnerships through the inception of Bangalore Agenda Task Force in 1999 under the then Chief Minister S M Krishna. BATF played an advisory role to

10 Chamaraj, Kathyayini, and Prasanna Rao. "Functioning of Wards Committees in Bangalore: A Case Study." CIVIC Bangalore.

the city agencies to initiate partnerships with the private sector to undertake large scale infrastructure projects by ensuring best practices were incorporated to ensure high quality. According to Nandan Nilekani,former CEO of Infosys and head of BATF, meant it to be a Public Private Partnership attempt where a set of people from outside the government could bring some value to governance. This was meant to be pro-bono, as well as a collaboration between citizens, businesses and administrative agencies. Many corporates like Biocon, Aditi technologies, Infosys foundation, Prestige Developers etc worked to create infrastructure, for the tasks underlined by BATF. BATF ceased to exist, with the end of S M Krishna’s rule in 2004.

Amongst the tasks completed by the BATF, the ones pertaining to urban green spaces/parks were:-

1) Drawing up a formal memorandum of understanding between private corporates and city agency BBMP for the ‘Adopt a Park’ scheme wherein, the BBMP would handover the Build, Operate, Transfer model of park management to private companies in return for being able to advertise their brand logo with that of the BBMP at a designated location within the park. This contract could be entered into for a period of 11 month, 3 or 5 years. The ownership of the parkland would still remain with the BBMP. 2) Bangalore Jail was being transferred from a location in the heart of the city to the outer limits. This jail had high historical significance as having housed several freedom fighters during the British rule. The BATF proposed to create a park around the relocated jail and called for city-wide competition entries for its design and development. This park was to be called Freedom park and spanned an area of 16 acres with several public amenities like open air theatres,museum,library, restaurants, spaces for community use. Being categorised as a ‘Heritage Park’, the BBMP took up full responsibility of developing and maintaining the park. 3) Future-proofing of Lal Bagh - Hailed as one of the most prominent parks in the city, the Bangalore Development Authority allocated 18 crores for retrofitting the

existing park with infrastructure that would address environmental issues. These included lake dredging and desilting, developing a 1.5 million litres/day capacity Sewage Treatment Plant(STP), an automatic sprinkler system that used waste water treated by the STP for gardening purposes and renovation of the iconic glasshouse within the park.

While the ‘adopt a park’ program got fully implemented only in 2007, even then, it did not gain full traction due to the following reasons:-

a) Despite the the onus of park design, development and maintenance being handed over to the private sector, during the actual execution of these projects there was tendency of local ward authorities to interfere leading to mismanagement. b) The city agency BBMP was inept at marketing this new program for adoption of parks to the relevant stakeholders (private sector, residential welfare associations). c) There was lack of incentive for the private sector to invest in this program especially for parks in the interiors of the neighbourhood as these were not as ’visible’ from a branding point of view. Private sector sponsorship was more readily available for greening prominent medians,circles and traffic junctions within the

city as they were also cheaper than developing parks.11

Out of the 1,115 parks in Bangalore, only 63 parks were adopted due to the above reasons. The ‘adoption’ of these parks was mostly by private companies as well as

Residential Welfare Associations (RWAs) of corresponding neighborhoods. 12

11 Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007 12 BBMP Adopted Parks List

Map : Wards with adopted parks

The above map shows the the wards having ‘adopted’ parks within them along with the number of parks adopted within each of these wards.It can be observed that most of the

wards amongst all the 29 with adopted parks within them, are wards having a higher total park area( darker shades of green). This could be an indicator that wards with surplus of parks/green spaces have a deficit of funds and this is what often prompts parks to be ‘adopted’ by local citizen groups as well as private companies.Also, more parks in the inner wards have been adopted with as many as eight in a single ward.

Issues faced by ‘Adopt a Park’ scheme

a) Most of the adopted parks by RWAs are managed by levying a fee on residents of the neighborhood that goes towards the upkeep of the parks and playgrounds. However, despite this, there is very often a shortage of adequate funds for the operations and maintenance budget. Moreover, the RWAs are still dependent on funding through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR funds) by key private companies. Since the park adoption program does not provide any baseline funding from the BBMP city agency, gathering funds for initial capital investments becomes an arduous task for the residents with companies preferring to sponsor more prominent parks.

b) The parks managed by RWAs, although catering to the basic needs of its residents by offering walking/jogging tracks, do not address the larger issue of generating revenue within the park in order to offset maintenance expenses. These parks have not been developed and designed keeping in mind varying uses that parks can offer. Since the RWAs are simply an active group of residents, they lack the foresight and expertise required to design parks with active programming.

c) RWAs although have shown some capability in fundraising for parks, still do not possess the experience and expertise required for this. Since these are regular citizens with other jobs and employment, management of parks is not viewed as a full-time necessity requiring private intervention. Parks with active citizen groups such as RWAs have relatively ensured better quality and upkeep amongst all neighborhood parks.

7) Stakeholder Interviews

Interview of Mr. Ravichander - Bangalore Agenda Task Force Committee Member

1) What were the past challenges that the Bangalore Task Force Agenda faced in undertaking PPP projects especially parks/public spaces?

The BATF helped initiate partnerships between the private sector and the city agencies,one of them being, drawing up a formal memorandum of understanding for the ‘adopt a park’ scheme under Chief Minister S M Krishna. Prior to it, this was done on an ad-hoc basis. Since the BATF played a solely advisory role, it could only serve as an intermediate body, like an honest broker to carry out these partnerships as the government was incapable of doing this on their own. Apart from the above scheme, the development of Freedom Park after the relocation of central jail and upgrades for Lal Bagh Park were some of the ‘greening’ projects undertaken by BATF.

2) What is your opinion of BBMP's 'Adopt a Park' scheme? Is a public-private partnership the solution to provide quality parks?

The ‘adopt a park’ scheme although well intentioned did not gain much traction firstly because there was a lot of interference at the local level by ward authorities that deterred private companies from wanting to sponsor. Secondly, the scheme offered the private company sponsoring the park to display its brand logo within the park vicinity. Since most of these neighborhood parks are within residential localities, companies did not have much incentive to advertise. A solution to this would be to offer the private sector advertising opportunity in more commercial areas in lieu of park vicinity. This would attract more takers if they were not confined to park limits. Another reason why this scheme was not as popular as it should have been, was because the government was not good at marketing it. The ‘adopt a police station’ scheme was more successful surprisingly which prompted about 35 police stations across the city to be sponsored each having a

budget of 30-40 lakhs for upgrades.

3) Many cities across the world levy a Real Estate Transfer Tax which contributes towards the upkeep of public spaces. Given the rapid development in Bangalore city, can this be considered as an alternative revenue generating stream to maintain parks/public spaces?Or any other tax mechanism such as Land Use conversion charges, FAR charges, Tax Increment Financing, Property Tax?

Cess is levied on property tax but it goes towards hard infrastructure only, like expansion of major roads etc. Moreover, these taxes get heavily diluted by the time they reach the local/ward level. The government has used these alternative mechanisms to fund projects like the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project wherein an amount of Rs 3,000 crore was raised through the transferable development rights (TDR) scheme. Ahmedabad, a UNESCO World Heritage City in Gujarat State, India, uses a structured process known as a Town Planning Scheme to secure public service urban land and ensure a more equitable distribution. With the TPS, the city was able to acquire land for public purposes such as low-income housing, open spaces, roads, utilities and social amenities, avoiding a great deal of haphazard, unserviced expansion that characterizes many other Indian cities. Land owners were whose properties were acquired, would receive half the area of their land back but having a land value more than the entire initial plot size.

4) How beneficial is the implementation of AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) Mission with regards to helping 'increase the amenity value of cities by enhancing urban greenery and park spaces'? As per the guidelines, half of the funding required for parks/open space projects in cities can be directed from here. Has Bangalore city utilised these funds for any park development? What about other sources like Smart Cities Mission?

Not beneficial at all. Even with respect to open spaces, I am not aware of any projects being funded by AMRUT. No more than 1.8% of the funds released for Smart Cities

Mission (SCM) have been utilised since its launch in 2015. In fact, all six flagship schemes that the government promised will bring “an urban renaissance”--Smart Cities Mission, Swachh Bharat, National Urban Livelihood, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation & Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and Heritage City Development & Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY)--have together used 21% of the funds allocated. That is Rs 7,850.72 crore ($1.2 billion) of the Rs 36,194.39 crore ($5.6 billion) available. The National Livelihood Mission used the most--Rs 850 crore, 56% of funds released--followed by Swachh Bharat and AMRUT--Rs 2,223 crore or 38%, and Rs 2,480 crore or 29%, respectively.

5) Lastly, what, in your opinion, is a long-term solution for effective park management?

Open Spaces need to be prioritised by the government. The Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 1995 had 25% open spaces.However, the Revised Master Plan 2031 has only 4% open spaces which shows how fast land development is going to occur. We need a more data-driven decision making culture for better budget allocations. The Community Lake Program is a good example of citizen led lake improvement projects.The revival of Puttanahalli Lake followed a ground up approach by working with the locals to raise CSR funds. Creating active, vibrant programming for parks and public spaces to increase usage by neighbourhood residents. This will create a sense of community and ownership and help generate some revenue.Drawbacks like parks being closed from 12-4pm need to be addressed. The Open Streets initiative in my neighbourhood of Langford Town was a huge success but it was entirely organised by the active Residents Welfare Association. It is not always possible for RWAs to initiate and carry out these on their own. Having a non-profit manage these will be ensure a higher success rate. Neighborhood Improvement Plans (NIP) such as that carried out in HSR Layout neighbourhood were possible because of a non-profit, an active RWA and an enthusiastic ward corporator. The NIP also had some vested interests of residing IPS officers.

Large military owned land is completely cordoned off to the public.Make portions of it

available to public.So is city owned unused land such as NGEF (New Government Electrical Factory)with 119 acres available for public utilization. Instead of selling this off to private individuals, create and reimagine new public spaces in it.

Interview of the President of the Residential Welfare Association - Decora , of Indiranagar Neighborhood

1) What is the role played by Decora including aspects such as funding- is it solely maintained based on residents' contribution or does the BBMP also contribute?

All the parks are owned by BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike). They have a scheme whereby RWAs or Corporates can 'adopt' parks. Adoption means that while the adopting body broadly adheres to BBMP guidelines regarding usage and taking responsibility for the upkeep of the park and its equipment. (This is free and requires no payment). As a consequence, BBMP expects the RWA to maintain the park - look after the herbiage, the infrastructure etc. and ensure that all equipment is usable. Decora has adopted two parks: The Children's Park (CP) and the Senior Citizen's Park (SCP). I keep an eye on the Walker's Park.We are not allowed to charge admission fees and have to adhere (broadly) to BBMP stipulated timings. A significant portion of our Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) that members pay goes towards the salaries of the two gardeners in our employ. They also act as caretakers for the CP and SCP. We raise funds through donations to the park: certain regular users, one-off donations for repair/replacement/improvements and CSR funds. Recently we used CSR funds to revive a large well in the third park in DC, the Walker's Park. Occasional fund raisers also contribute their might. Despite this, we are chronically short of funds for upkeep/improvements.We try very hard not to make our parks into a wasteland of concrete pathways and potted plants, but try and keep them as much in their natural state as possible.

2) What are the issues Decora is facing so far in managing the parks?

BBMP is usually not involved and is not very responsive when it comes to any investment.

3) Was Decora involved even in the planning and design phase of the parks?

Both the Children’s Park and the Senior Citizen’s Park have been designed and created by members of Decora with significant donations by a couple of members. We were involved in the design of the Walker’s Park , but not sure how much.

4) Since there is a shortage of funding , is it possible for Decora to conduct some kind of revenue generating activities from time to time inside the parks(eg.Children's Park) such as flea markets/selling concessions etc.Does the BBMP allow that since it does not partake in any maintenance costs?

We have run fellowship events for members in the past, with people running food and craft stalls. Some revenue was generated. We’ve also had special events like art in the park with lessons by a noted artist as well as children’s events.

5) Koramangala's (another neighbourhood) RWA -Kora3b has undertaken a composting initiative wherein all leaf waste generated in the neighbourhood is converted to high quality compost which is then sold.The facility is entirely run on the revenue generated.Since the Walkers Park opposite to the Children's Park already has a waste sorting facility, would it also be possible to have a composting facility as well? Can Decora then request for some contribution from the BBMP for waste diversion since the organic waste has been diverted from landfills?

We used to create and sell compost up until 5 years ago. Unfortunately as individual houses gave way to apartments, demand dropped. And like all such initiatives, one passionate person ran it. She moved and the initiative petered out. The facility opposite the CP is a dry waste collection centre. Unfortunately BBMP is misusing it. Koramangala 3rd block is full of affluent people with huge houses, so their demand is higher.

6) What would, in your opinion, be a long-term self-sustaining(financially) viable solution to maintain neighbourhood parks?

Dedicated residents who believe trees and parks are worth their attention and time. If all our residents became members our revenue would more than double. With support from BBMP on waste collection and infrastructure, this would be enough to sustain endlessly.

Interview of Sandeept Maiti, World Research Institute, Bangalore - active stakeholder in the Neighborhood Improvement Partnership in Bangalore

1)How are parks typically managed in Bangalore? Larger parks are maintained by the BBMP. Neighborhood parks are open for adoption through schemes. Have these fared well? In Janaagraha’s parks assessment, the top 5 parks are all managed by the BBMP and not adopted. Few wards have many adopted parks and many don’t. What determines this?

Parks that are managed by the BBMP, that are in good condition, is due to the fact that they are prominent parks within the community. They are actively used and so become a major amenity within the area. These well faring parks are also in wards with enthusiastic corporators/councillors. Active citizen groups are essential for neighborhoods to voice their grievances. Residential Welfare Associations (RWAs) have connections and are

better able to mobilise CSR funding for neighborhood improvements. The wards having many adopted parks are often the ones with strong RWAs. Parks that are privately managed are not accessible to everyone in terms of limited entry and timings.

2) Do all neighborhoods have RWAs? In Janaagraha’s assessment report, outer wards had poor quality of parks despite having RWAs. Why have not all RWAs adopted their parks?

Most of the outer wards having RWAs have not adopted parks because they are concerned with other issues such as roads, waste management etc. which take precedence. Maintaining parks is often not their top priority. Also, outer wards have newer developments and gated communities which have their own parks/ recreational spaces. So, for them there is no incentive to want to use/maintain public parks.

3) Irrespective of overall ward budget, ward population, number of households, every ward is allocated only 30 lakhs for parks/public amenities. Is this enough? Does it get diverted towards other infrastructure?

If it is new ward, then it is allocated more money.However, it is not specifically towards parks.There is no transparency in where the money exactly goes.It depends more on the administration of the ward, where the veto power lies with the councillor of the wards committee.

4) In the Neighborhood Improvement Partnership, did you find an equal distribution of participation of low-income and high-income neighborhoods? Were neighborhoods with stronger RWAs better able to make a case for their neighborhoods?

Yes. Neighborhoods with more active RWAs were from higher income neighborhoods. They were better able to organise themselves and there was also a slight bias towards

them because of this. In neighborhoods that did not have RWAs, NGOs helped the representatives present their improvement plans.

5) My research involves finding a new park management model structure that goes beyond the conventional public-private partnerships and involves the local community in its design and long-term management. What, in your opinion, is the most ideal solution for this?

The first change that needs to be brought about is that parks need to be viewed as public spaces. The BBMP currently maintains parks just for the sake of it.They are perceived as important spaces for the public to engage in various activities. In order to increase park usage over the past years, the BBMP has come up with a new strategy to add outdoor gym equipment to many parks to diversify the uses. This has been very successful.They need to come up with creative ways to prompt active usage of parks. Parks management needs to be very localised. There needs to be more transparency about various budgets and where they are being directed. Also, ward committees need to be given more power which at present, rests with the state. Citizen groups along with wards committees (which also include NGOs), need to present a united front in dealing with local issues. Even with adopted parks, there needs to be a follow-up of such schemes and ensure that the quality of these parks is tracked and monitored.

Interview with David Burney,Head of Urban Placemaking Program at Pratt Institute

1)What is your opinion on PPPs for parks?

I personally do not favour it because a park is a public space and should be free from rules and restrictions that come with privatisation.

2) What are some of the most successful PPPs in nyc?

Bryant park,Brooklyn Bridge Park and Central Park. In the case of Bryant Park, the management is a BID and in Central Park,it is a conservancy.Brooklyn Bridge park was not funded by the parks department,so they had to come up with an alternative means to run it- by selling real estate, a parcel of land at the back, not prime waterfront land- a good decision in my opinion. In the case of Central Park, there have been requests for them to divert funds to other under developed parks in New York City.But the conservancy declined.Central Park is also dependent on funding from rich,upscale neighborhoods of Manhattan.Popular tourist attractions boosts real estate value as well as alot of corporate/philanthropic funding.

3) To encourage public and private intervention, what are the ways to incentivize for both?

Through concessions like Central Park has.

4) Do you think a private+civic engagement partnership is favourable to generate revenues for the upkeep of the park?

No,I think it is duty of the governments to maintain parks.The entire brunt should not be borne by citizens.

5) Do you think leasing of a part of the park for community purposes will help in revenue generation?

I don’t think it is a good idea to build anything inside a park because that goes against the basic principle of having open space.And community spaces do not generate enough revenue for park maintenance.

8) Case Studies

Case Study 1 : Neighborhood Improvement Partnership, Bangalore

Context

BBMP launched ‘Namma Bengaluru, Nanna Koduge’ in July 2014 – as an effort to get Corporates to come forward and do their bit for the city by adopting civic infrastructure across the city. Under this, the Neighborhood Improvement Partnerships (NIP) was introduced ,wherein, any group of tax paying citizens can come forward with a plan for their neighborhood (which includes raising funds). After acquiring approval from BBMP, the group could then implement the plans with BBMP acting as an Enabler. This partnership was created in order to strengthen the bond between BBMP and its citizens.Unlike a conventional PPP where the private sector has commercial gain from its participation in the PPP, here, the neighborhood’s expectation from the Neighborhood Improvement Partnerships (NIP) is a better quality of life in their neighborhood and no commercial return to themselves or their entities. BBMP and the Government of Karnataka played an enabling role for citizens / institutions that come forward to participate under the NIP. The NIP became a platform for citizens to participate in solving their daily urban issues alongside public officials by taking ownership of their local areas, bring to the fore workable solutions to civic problems in the city , allow learning from one another, towards shared knowledge capital, while showcasing the potential of Corporate Social Responsibility to tackle and overcome development challenges in the city.

Identifying the Gap : Why the NIP model works

The government needs expertise and support in addressing a complex array of issues at the city level and projects often lack community representation. Civil society efforts need financial support and mediation with government.Domain experts are often left disconnected with fast paced actions on the ground. Corporates with Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) funds are looking to get involved in reliable impactful socially responsible initiatives.The NIP prompts action from a ‘Finding problems to be solved’ approach towards a ‘Letting solutions to everyday problems be developed’ by local communities through empowering change makers, networking with expert knowledge/solutions, mediating bureaucratic processes for ease of working at the local level. By offering a trustable and reliable neutral third party position where problem solving comes first, it creates a ‘One Stop Shop’ for end to end facilitation of problem solving for urban issues.13

The applicants can be the following :-

● Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) - Must be Registered with Karnataka Societies Registration Act (KSR Act) and ● Apartment Associations (AA) ● Gated Community Societies ● Community Based Organizations (CBO –Rotary/Lions) ● NGOs working with underprivileged groups - Must have worked for >2 years

Economically challenged neighborhoods (not registered under KSR Act) could participate in collaboration with a neighboring RWA.

The Stakeholders

United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Sponsorship- 1 Crore for 12 winning proposals

Centre for Public Problem Solving (CPPS) and Embarq- Conceptualization and execution

World Research Institute,Bangalore - Formulating plans and detailing.

Bangalore Political Action Committee (B.Pac) - NGO

13 Citizens for the City. "Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge." 2015.

Residential Welfare Associations

BBMP ward committees

The Process

Mentorship for the developing proposals included analysing the feasibility of the project ,financial assessment and costing , impact analysis, replicability and phasing. The project topics could be for improving mobility, public safety, revitalization of public spaces,off the grid initiatives, waste management or environment and lakes.

The NIP was a competition based process wherein winning proposals approved by the Review Board (headed by the BBMP Commissioner) were funded for the initial capital investments. The winning applicants/neighbourhoods would then create a management body for the implementation and operation of the NIP. On implementation of the NIP, the management body would be responsible for all services and maintenance as indicated in the NIP and would submit an annual statement of its work to the BBMP, detailing its adherence to the approved NIP. 14The NIP was one of the first few public-private partnerships that were initiated at the grassroot level of the neighborhood. The RWAs, other citizen groups, NGOs, the local ward councillor,technical experts as well the private sector, all collaborated at the local level to address development issues. This is the primary reason why the NIP worked well because stakeholder engagement and problem

solving had a bottom-up process.

Drawbacks of the NIP - A critical view

In the survey that was taken amongst the participating groups, 58% showed concern for waste management while only 6% was for parks and public spaces. Other causes that took precedence over parks included mobility and traffic junctions( 50%) and public safety (20%).While the NIP works very well in terms of creating actionable plans at the local

14 Citizens for the City. "Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge." 2015.

neighborhood level,through capacity-building of the urban local bodies and leveraging the power of citizen groups, often the issue of parks and maintenance gets sidelined due to other, more pressing concerns.At the larger scale of the city, this is primarily the reason for the deteriorating quality of public spaces/ parks. Sufficient priority is not given for such spaces leading to their neglect. If the NIPs can be category specific such as creating NIPs solely for park redevelopment and upkeep, then there would be certainty in the allocation of funds for the enhancing of parks only, without being diverted for any other purpose.

Amongst the winning proposals, only two were pertaining to parks - one involved the creation of a composting area within the park and the other proposal involved redevelopment of an abandoned park for the disabled. However, given the nature of the NIP, no maintenance plan was put in place to ensure its upkeep over time.

Most of the applicants were from neighborhoods with established Residential Welfare Associations (RWAs) or Community Based groups. The economically weaker sections of society were not able to put forth their plans simply because they did not possess active citizens groups to voice their neighbourhood concerns. Also, the private sector funding was available for the development phase of the projects only. Maintenance had to be undertaken by the citizen groups.

Case Study 2 : Wake the Lake Campaign, Bangalore

In 2011, the non-profit United Way Bengaluru(UWB), launched the Wake the Lake Campaign that impacted 14 lakes in the city, by mobilising resources, volunteers and community. The main goals of the campaign are :- 1) Restore the water quality of lakes by freeing the lake from garbage, effluents and other pollution. 2) Revive the ecosystem in and around the lake.

3) Bring about community ownership through active volunteerism. This has been the most successful Public-Private-Community partnership within the city wherein, more than 16 lakes have been managed for 7 years.

In 2016, UWB conducted a survey of 200 lakes of the city to assess their quality in relation to the level of community engagement within the area.

Image Source : United Way Bengaluru-Unite for Lakes,Save Bengaluru Report

It was found that the best lakes had strong, active community participation which led to improved quality. Also, some lakes were of average quality despite having active community groups supporting them mainly due to the lack of sustainable sources of revenue for lake maintenance. Some lakes that had an average score, lacked active communities as well as funding. The lakes that fared the worst were in need of huge capital investments and community engagement. From the survey, it can be concluded that for effective stewardship , sustainable , consistent revenue streams and community activism is required.

How the campaign works :

UWB works with communities to take local action by bringing about more awareness about lakes by conducting cleanup drives and conservation programs. UWBe signs a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the BBMP for specific lakes, mobilise resources from the neighborhood corporates and engages the local community to take care of the lake. The funds collected from corporates through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are directly deployed by UWBe to vendors for lake maintenance and for community and volunteering activities.

UWB first identifies lakes in need of rejuvenation within the city along with the BBMP. It then organises local communities into Neighborhood Lake Associations (NLAs) who then approach the BBMP as well as the concerned lake chief engineer to find the government’s plans for the lake, resources allocated and required. The NLAs then sign a MoU with the BBMP to ‘adopt a lake’ for the long-term by taking up the maintenance of the lake. UWB then assists the NLAs to acquire CSR funding and/or ensuring funds are diverted by the government and helps them in acquiring all necessary government sanctions and procedures.

The main role of the non-profit UWB is seen in facilitating civic engagement for long-term lake stewardship in all communities, especially those that do not have any existing citizen groups such as Residential Welfare Associations (RWAs). The CSR funds that are directed for lake rejuvenation provide for the maintenance for the first year after the rejuvenation work has been completed.Thereafter, the NLAs set up a Trust and collect private donations to meet the monthly maintenance expenses. Furthermore, to incentivise the participation of more corporates in these rejuvenation programs, the non-profit UWB creates scoring metrics for the various lakes to show

tangible results of previous efforts of such partnerships.15

Case Study 3 : Area planning methods to access land for public purposes (parks and open spaces) and land value capture mechanisms

This case study provides a mechanism to address the issue of incentivizing the creation of public spaces/parks using an area planning method.

The Town Planning Scheme Mechanism (Gujarat)

The Town Planning Scheme (TPS) was originally introduced through the Bombay Town Planning Act of 1915, and is the first known State led alternative to access land for public purposes in India. It is extensively used in Gujarat and to a lesser extent in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. It is a micro level plan that follows the land readjustment and pooling method and is typically guided by a Development Plan (DP) prepared as per the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (GTPUD) Act 1976.This ‘partners in development’ model brings together a group of landowners who pool their land/plots for development. The GTPUD Act allows up to 35% of land to be taken for roads, public amenities such as schools as well as parks and housing accommodation for socially and economically backward classes (GTPUD Act 1976). The Act further allows 15% of the land to be kept by the authority for sale for residential, commercial or

15 United Way Bengaluru. "Unite for Lakes,Save Bengaluru." April 15, 2016.

industrial use, and the remaining land is returned as reconstituted final plots to the landowners. TPS, being an area development scheme enables holistic development of the area earmarked in the Development Plan. Road networks, which range from the main arterials to the collector and feeder road at neighborhood level get implemented through the scheme. Plots for amenities such as schools, dispensaries, parks and recreational

spaces as designated in the scheme also get implemented in the process.16

Financing of TP Scheme

The financing is based on the fact that infrastructure investments can be capitalised through land value capture. Cost of the scheme is partially or wholly financed through the contributions levied by the authority on the landowners for the infrastructure provisions and through the sale or mortgaging of plots obtained through the scheme by the authority. During the draft stage of the scheme, the incremental values of the land are calculated.This increment in land value is a result of government intervention through providing infrastructure facilities and hence the landowners are entitled to pay a percentage of the increment as a betterment levy. Betterment levy is calculated as the difference between 50 percent of the increment in land value and the compensation to be paid by the authority for land appropriated. Even with a reduced plot area, the landowner benefits from the escalated land value that results from the construction of access roads and trunk infrastructure.Within the scheme, up to 5 percent is allocated each for parks,

playgrounds, and other open spaces.

A critical view of TPS

TP scheme is a win-win proposition for both the government and the landowner, as both the government and landowners share the post development benefits. The government authority executing the scheme ensure that owners receive reconstituted plots at the original location itself. However, in some cases it has faced administrative and procedural

16 BBMP Restructuring,Land Procurement Report

delays that hamper the timely implementation of the scheme . With powers vested in the State government to approve and sanction the stages of TPS, the process has become centralised and time consuming.

Also, while the TPS allows for planned development of public spaces/parks, there is no mention of how public amenities will be maintained, whether by redirecting a portion of the ‘betterment charges’ or compulsory stewardship of the parks by the landowners or the ULB. The issue that remains is to ensure that the collection of these betterment charges goes towards public amenities like parks.

For Bangalore city, which, like Ahmedabad is rapidly expanding at the peripheries, the potential of increasing land value can easily be tapped into through similar schemes. Most unplanned neighbourhoods in the outer wards of Bangalore do not have parks or open spaces.Such schemes would incentivise the creation of planned neighbourhoods and consequently, planned areas for parks and recreation. This would further create more opportunity for better park management.

Case Study 4: Brooklyn Bridge Park,NY

Brooklyn Bridge Park operates as a financially self-sustaining model. While a small fraction of the park's operations and maintenance funds are collected from permits and concessions, the majority of the funds come from a limited number of revenue-generating development sites. The development program was determined after an in-depth analysis of potential locations. The analysis focused on finding uses that would generate sufficient revenue to support park operations, minimize the size of the required development footprint, and be compatible with the surrounding park and neighborhood uses.

Developing the site into a park was not straightforward or simple, given the waterfront location and proximity to a major highway. Planning and design was further complicated due to proximity to the shoreline which required ensuring that the park could withstand major floods, storm surges, and any rise in sea level, which would drive up future

maintenance costs. With a limited amount of public money available, other revenue streams were necessary to ensure the park’s future viability. Due to considerable future maintenance costs, one of the fundamental principles of the plan for Brooklyn Bridge Park was the requirement that the operations and maintenance budget be funded through revenues generated from within the project site. To accomplish this, the City of New York sought permission to redirect real estate taxes from residential and commercial developments in the project zone, which has effectively created a self-sustaining revenue stream that is far less dependent on concessions and permits for special events than

comparable signature parks in other major cities. 17

Conclusions from Case Studies

i) Neighborhood Improvement Partnership

Engaging multiple stakeholders at the lowest level of a neighborhood enables the most effective partnerships and closes the gap between governance and citizens.

Funds that are disbursed on a project-wise basis at the local scale have less chances of being diluted.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds are not available for both the development and maintenance of projects.

Neighborhoods that had established Residential Welfare Associations(RWAs) had a funding advantage.

ii) Wake the Lake Campaign

Having a designated non-profit that has domain expertise, can help facilitate civic participation and stakeholder engagement.

17 brooklynbridgepark.org

It can also serve as a platform for neighborhoods without active citizen groups or RWAs to organise themselves into one and have equal access to CSR funds.

CSR funding is available only for the initial development of projects, not their maintenance.Active community engagement is required to ensure long-term sustainability.

Non -profits having a tie-up with the CSR division of the corporate sector are more capable of ensuring direct deployment of these funds.

Dedicated non -profits can incentivize private sector funding by creating scoring metrics to track the upkeep of the various development projects to show tangible results of investments.

iii) Gujarat Town Planning Scheme - Area planning method

Area planning methods such as the TPS incentivize the creation of designated sites for public amenities (parks) and neighborhoods with planned structures.

This method also creates alternative revenue generating streams for the government using land value capture of the reconstituted land with the amenities. Cities can tap into these betterment charges that are levied, to compensate for the funding deficit for parks and open spaces.

iv) Brooklyn Bridge Park

Multiple revenue streams are required for long-term maintenance of parks.

Taxes and charges can be levied on properties in close proximity to parks as they offer unique value-added benefits to immediate users as well as prompt a surge in property values.

Parks can supplement maintenance budgets by generating on-site revenue through concessions and activities.

9) Recommendations

Overcoming budget deficit to address baseline funding of parks

i) Restructure of Wards Committees

Decentralization of power is required so that local wards have more authority to carry out ward related works. Have atleast 40% of ward funds given to the wards committee as untied fund to implement local ward works. Allow wards committees to be given the power to decide on the use of public land properties and resources in the ward including parks and playgrounds, use of civic amenity sites as well as location of public amenities.18

At present wards committees exist at the cluster level which is the primary reason for administrative issues relating to the allocation of appropriate budgets for the wards. A solution to this is to have ward committees for each ward and not a cluster of wards wherein, every ward would have the elected councillor as the Chairperson in charge of budgets for that ward only.In this way, the ward committee would also be more localised in terms of helping bridge the gap between governance and citizens.

Ward-wise allocation of budget for parks : At present, the money allotted per ward for parks and playgrounds is not proportionate to ward size, population or area of green space. Assessing the total park area within each ward and assigning funds based on this is likely to create a more effective outcome.

ii) Betterment charges and Park Amenity Tax

The outer wards of Bangalore city face issues of poor infrastructure and planning. This has

18 BBMP Restructuring Report

resulted in a dearth of green spaces with poor open space ratios as the outer wards have a larger population. To overcome this, area planning methods such as the Town Planning Scheme of Gujarat can be used to incentivize the creation of designated sites for parks and open spaces in the outer wards of the city. Furthermore, a portion of the betterment charges collected as a result of increased land value, can be redirected towards the maintenance of parks and public amenities. This would in turn supplement the reducing wards budget for green spaces.

Apart from betterment fees, Value Capture Finance can also include land value tax, fees for changing land use, development charges, transfer of development rights, the premium on the relaxation of floor space index and floor area ratio, vacant land tax, tax increment financing and zoning relaxation for land acquisition.

For the inner wards of the city, that have planned neighborhoods with more citizens living within 500m walking distance to a park, a Park Amenity Tax can be levied on sites within this distance of a park.This will tap into the added value and benefits created or immediate end users of the park and help in addressing the budget shortfall for development works of parks.

iii) Incentivise investment for the private sector

By allowing advertising opportunity beyond the park limits ( unlike in the current case of ‘adopt a park’ scheme which is within park limits), CSR funding from the private sector can be incentivized if they can display their brand in prime commercial areas of the ward that have more visibility.

iv) Designated umbrella NGO to manage parks

The Wake the Lake campaign primarily worked because the participating NGO acted as the facilitator for stakeholder engagement to happen. With expertise in both,mobilising funds from the corporate sector, as well as assisting as an intermediate body between

local communities and the government, the NGO was able to successfully establish a Public-Private-Community Partnership to ensure long-term sustainability.

This PPC model can also be applied to manage parks wherein, a single NGO can organise neighborhoods into Residential Welfare Associations(RWAs) in ones that do not already have them.The RWAs can ‘adopt a park’ thus forming a community-public partnership with the government body BBMP.

All RWAs can then have equal opportunity to access CSR funds for any development works as well the assistance from government to divert funds.

The RWAs can form a Trust for the long-term maintenance of the parks through a combination of resident donations and revenue generated within the park through activities and charges.

v) Parks as active public spaces

At present , parks are not viewed as public spaces of the city, fully accessible to everyone throughout the day. Parks typically cater only to a niche crowd of walkers/joggers who use the park in the early hours of the day and a few hours in the evening.For most of the day, parks remain shut to the public. Local RWAs that manage the parks, cite reasons of public safety and lack of funding for all-day security, as being the main cause of limited park accessibility.

Parks need to be designed to serve as dynamic public spaces, offering a variety of activities to draw more people in to use them. Parks that are not actively used are often the ones in the most neglected state. Hence, by designing parks with foresight to allow multiple uses such as space for fitness activities, flea markets, farmers markets,community gardens, composting etc. will not only create exciting, vibrant parks but also bolster on-site revenue generation that can be directed towards the maintenance of the parks. The current set of state-owned brands that are allowed to operate within the

park, are a lso not levied any fee. By levying a charge on them, on-site revenue generation can be supplemented for maintenance funds.

10) Sustainable Park Management Model : Systems Diagram

Bibliography

1) Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007 2) BBMP City Brief 2015-2016 - Janaagraha." 2015 3) BBMP List of Parks 4) Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007 5) BBMP Bye-laws 6) "Janaagraha." Parks and Playgrounds Score of Bengaluru. April 2017. 7) "Ward Performance Reports." Janaagraha. August 18, 2016. 8) "Ward Performance Reports." Janaagraha. August 18, 2016. 9) Chamaraj, Kathyayini, and Prasanna Rao. "Functioning of Wards Committees in Bangalore: A Case Study." CIVIC Bangalore. 10) Chamaraj, Kathyayini, and Prasanna Rao. "Functioning of Wards Committees in Bangalore: A Case Study." CIVIC Bangalore. 11) Rajan Sridhar. "Planning Strategies and Design Guidelines for Parks Open Spaces and Green Areas in Bangalore Metropolitan Area." Department of Development Studies,University of Mysore, 2007 12) BBMP Adopted Parks List 13) Citizens for the City. "Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge." 2015. 14) Citizens for the City. "Neighbourhood Improvement Partnership Challenge." 2015. 15) United Way Bengaluru. "Unite for Lakes,Save Bengaluru." April 15, 2016. 16) BBMP Restructuring,Land Procurement Report 17) brooklynbridgepark.org 18) BBMP Restructuring Report