Dynamic interaction of urban development and rural–urban migration: an application of integrated urban metabolism analysis tool (IUMAT) for sustainable city planning

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to gauge the effect of rural–urban migration and its challenges on the urban development of Bengaluru. This study examines the driving forces behind urbanization and its impact on social, economic and environment areas. The research helps to establish the sustainable city planning, after evaluation of specific challenges of zones, and this mitigation will optimize government investment and reduce cost. Design/methodology/approach Bengaluru is used as a study area to examine the interaction of migration and urban development. The study covers the period between 2011 and 2019. Panel data analysis is applied to measure the effect of urban development indicators on urban migration. The authors applied the integrated urban metabolism analysis tool to quantify the urban development indicators and identified the most critical areas for migrants. Later, authors proposed mitigation measures based on alternate scenario approach. Findings The authors found that there is a mixed effect of urban migration on urban development across various zones in Bengaluru. Besides, the authors suggest how planned collaboration should play a significant role in urban planning and optimize city planning judiciously. Effective mitigation measures should be developed based on zone-specific core issues, and practical trainings, research, public awareness campaigns and skill up-gradation of migrants would enhance the socio-economic and environmental conditions. Research limitations/implications The study will support the ongoing and upcoming initiatives launched by the Government of India i.e. Awas Yojna, Atmanirbhar Bharat and Swach Bharat. Practical implications The structured city planning suggested in the study will help to save wastage of resources and cost and time of developers and policymakers. This will also help to upgrade the status of migrants and enhance the ambience of city around social, economic and environment fronts. Originality/value The first of its kind of innovative model mapped in the study area establishes a link between strategic city planning under rural–urban migration and urban development.

Sustainable hydroelectric power project planning under socio-economic and environmental concerns using Index based approach

“…The sustainable HEP planning must address diverse impacts with their varying severity across projects, support all affected parties (Provenzale and Palazzi, 2015), solutions must be relevant (Kaunda et al. , 2012; Roy and Thangaraj, 2021), effective (Cunha and Ferreira, 2014), and offer long-term mitigation (Roy and Viswanathan, 2020), with less investment and changes (Oana et al. , 2011).…”

“…, 2018). This is due to the complexity of interactions around project stakeholders (Roy and Roy, 2020b), diversity among project attributes (Roy and Thangaraj, 2021), ambiguity in HEP impacts and their severity around surrounding interventions (Geneletti et al. , 2017; Neuman, 2005; Ugwu et al.…”

“…Despite sustainability initiatives becoming increasingly popular and supported, incorporating them into HEP development is extremely challenging (Liang et al, 2018). This is due to the complexity of interactions around project stakeholders (Roy and Roy, 2020b), diversity among project attributes (Roy and Thangaraj, 2021), ambiguity in HEP impacts and their severity around surrounding interventions (Geneletti et al, 2017;Neuman, 2005;Ugwu et al, 2003), all of which deviates from the sustainability motive. Thus, for the successful and sustainable development of HEPs, a structured approach is essential.…”

“…Furthermore, the sustainability assessment should also be able to showcase the real obstacles and opportunities associated with the project (Ajaero and Onokala, 2013;Quarrie, 1992). Presently sustainable assessment's most efforts are devoted to developing macro/national strategic policies and mostly qualitative in nature and ignored diversity at micro level (Banerjee, 2011;Indian Energy Exchange, 2017;Curwell and Cooper, 1998;Mostafavi et al, 2014;Oana et al, 2011;Roy and Thangaraj, 2021;Shaktawat and Vadhera, 2021). However, in the recent past, few authors did sustainable assessment at project level (Oana et al, 2011;Roy and Roy, 2020b;Patil et al, 2016), and few others are focusing on quantitative assessment (Kucukali, 2011;Roy and Roy, 2020b) but ignored both quantitative assessment with project level diversity under interventions must be addressed holistically, and can ensures long-run sustainability of the HEP.…”

“…(Environment), People (Society) and Profit (Economy) (Geneletti et al, 2017;Mostafavi et al, 2014;Nautiyal and Goel, 2020). The concept is designed to not only support social, economic and environmental (SEE) development but also to create an amicable environment among affected stakeholders (Roy and Thangaraj, 2021). Despite sustainability initiatives becoming increasingly popular and supported, incorporating them into HEP development is extremely challenging (Liang et al, 2018).…”