Reviving The City of Joy: Unpacking Urban Governance Challenges Through The Lens of Kolkata
- Parth Piyush Prasad
- 6 days ago
- 16 min read
Updated: 8 hours ago
As published in the Volume 2(2) of Ramjas Political Review
Abstract
Political thought seeps into the governance of the city through the institutionalised focus on neoliberalism. The Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP) exemplifies sustainability-focussed, neoliberal urban governance, addressing water supply, sewerage, drainage, and waste management in a post-colonial city. This essay critically examines KEIIP's policy context and outcomes. Despite achievements, challenges persist, including inequitable resource allocation and socio-economic displacement. The program’s hierarchical management structure, reliance on external agencies, and limited capacity-building efforts reveal systemic inefficiencies. Insights from resettlement, flood management, and stakeholder dynamics underscore the complexity of sustainable urban development. By evaluating KEIIP’s opportunities and paradoxes, this study advances theoretical discussions on urban governance and sustainability in rapidly urbanising cities.
Keywords: Urban governance, Neoliberal, Waste management, Sustainability, Displacement
Introduction
As the relentless march of urbanisation reshapes India's metropolitan landscapes, scholars of urban governance arrive at the question of retrofitting sustainability in post-colonial cities developed upon outdated infrastructure. The Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP) stands as a bold testament to the promises and paradoxes of sustainability-driven urban governance. Positioned at the crossroads of ecological imperatives and neoliberal infrastructure aspirations, KEIIP offers a compelling narrative of how modern cities grapple with critical challenges of water supply, sewerage, drainage, and waste management. By dissecting its intricate layers, this paper illuminates the delicate interplay between local accountability and global funding paradigms, inviting a profound critique of what it truly means to build resilient and inclusive urban futures.
This paper aims to holistically analyse the Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP), discussing the context and content of the policy, key decisions, and their opportunity costs, as well as the results of the policy. The KEIIP, as proven further, is primarily a sustainability-focussed, neoliberal urban infrastructure project. This paper uses the policy as a case study to develop insights into critical issues of urban development addressed by the aforementioned, notably questions of urban water supply, sewerage, drainage, and waste management. Using concepts of sustainability and theories of urban governance, this paper further develops theoretical insights into the management structure and classification of this project. Through insights across different paths of analysis for the paper, this paper challenges the results and efficiencies of the policies to create a strong critique of the policy.
The rationale behind selecting the KEIIP for our analysis is twofold. The KEIIP is an ongoing project, but is an extension of the previous Kolkata Environmental Improvement Program (KEIP) with similar outcomes but with sophisticated multi-tranche financial facilities (MFF). This means that analysing the KEIIP not only aids us in analysing the KEIP programme and results but also allows us to dive into the workings of inter-agency financial collaborations. Furthermore, the public domain reports on the due diligence and project outcomes, curated by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), reveal crucial factors relevant to urban governance, specifically focussing on the sustainability of the project, land acquisition, and resettlement impacts as well as the key stakeholders. This set of reliable information establishes that the social responsibility of the work conducted is placed upon all funding parties and not just the local stakeholders, thus proving that sustainable projects require in-depth life cycle assessments from all stakeholders (Koc et al., 2023).
A Brief History of Sewage in Kolkata & Recounting the Tale of the KEIIP
Kolkata, situated in eastern India, serves as the capital of West Bengal and is positioned along the eastern bank of the Hooghly River, near the Bay of Bengal. Encompassed by a combination of wetlands, riverine systems, and fertile Gangetic plains, it possesses a complicated terrain that affects its drainage and infrastructural requirements.
The city is characterised by colonial-era architecture, a high population density, and deteriorating infrastructure (Dey and Downey, 2020). As the seventh-largest agglomeration in India, with a floating and resident population of over 14 million people (Census of India, 2011), Kolkata faces extensive challenges in governing urban water and sewage, related to potable waters, rain or storm water, and sewerage systems.
Efforts to resolve the urban water and sewage problems arising from rapid urbanisation were formulated in Kolkata since 1966, manifesting as the Master Plan Proposals for Sewage and Drainage. However, due to a substantial influx of refugees from the conflict-ridden East Pakistan (now, Bangladesh), the sudden surge in migration during and after the 1971 War, and the steady movement through the post-war porous borders, the population of West Bengal grew exponentially in the 1960s and 1970s (Chakrabarti et al., 2021). Kolkata became a popular spot for in-state migration, as a large economic hub with cheap urban housing in the suburban areas as well as lucrative employment opportunities requiring low to unskilled labour (Chakrabarti et al., 2021). Indeed, this was noticeable in the increase in the city boundaries, leading to the assimilation of suburban areas into the municipality (Figure 1). These areas were largely unplanned, and had little to no development of sewage and drainage facilities over the years (Chakrabarti et al., 2021).
In order to address these issues and cater to the “newly urban”, the Kolkata Environmental Improvement Program (KEIP) and the Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP) were set up to improve water supply, drainage, and environmental sustainability. From 2000, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the leading regional institution catering to the economic and social development programmes in the Indo-Pacific with significant stakeholders from South and Southeast Asia (Wesley, 2003), had extended loans and technical support to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) for sewage improvement projects. Between 2000 and 2006, the KMC received two loans from the ADB, amounting to $257.77 million, in order to revamp and upgrade the sewerage and drainage system while also creating sustainable sources of water supply by restoring canals and raising the standards of the water supply in the city. This policy, titled the Kolkata Environment Improvement Program (or KEIP), was largely successful, laying and renovating 564 kilometres of sewers and drains across Kolkata and improving sewer coverage from 31 per cent of the population in 2001 to 43 per cent in 2011. The loans matured in 2013, formally ending the KEIP project.
However, to build upon the successes of the project, as well as continue to improve the water and sewage systems in Kolkata while catering to a majority of the urban population with no access to the current sewage systems, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and ADB opened discussions to continue the KEIP projects. In 2014, the Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP) was announced as a multi-tranche financing facility (MFF) loan offered by the ADB, with a total contribution of $400 million over three tranches. In total, the project would cost $566 million over the three tranches, the rest of which would be covered by the Government of West Bengal and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Tranche-1 was implemented from 2014 to 2019, while Tranche-II and III are under process, extending till 2025 (Millennium Post Editors, 2024).
Insights into Issues of Urban Development Addressed by the KEIIP
The KEIIP, through the three tranches, aims to address three major aspects of urban governance: urban water supply and management, sewerage and drainage, and flood management systems.
Urban Water Supply and Management
Covered as subprojects under Tranche-I and II, the KEIIP focused on installing pumping infrastructure to reach out to the areas populated by the urban poor and disadvantaged women (Asian Development Bank, 2023), establishing district metering areas (Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program, n.d.b), and establishing water service reservoirs across the city (Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program, n.d.b). With major investments going into the project, the ADB rated the projects as “satisfactory” in the development criteria but “less than likely” in the sustainability criteria (Asian Development Bank, 2023, pp. 12-13). Their rationale behind the low score on sustainability revolves around the fact that, at the time of the project report, the KMC had not introduced tariffs for domestic water supply, leading to delays in incurring operating and management costs as well as recovering capital costs. Here, it is important to note that the people availing the benefits of the projects are often the urban poor, thus revealing the inequitable and neoliberal nature of the project. Neoliberal urban planning, as theorised by Gideon Baffoe (2023), protects elite interests, reducing socially impactful planning exercises to mere exercises of facilitation, which is evident here.
The draft resettlement plan (Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Asian Development Bank, 2012) denotes a deeply optimistic view on the impact of the policy, denoting numerous times that the resettlement or rehabilitation impact due to the water supply subproject will be minimal and temporary. It identifies 350 structures in Ward 80, 10 structures around the Garden Reach Sludge Pond and the entirety of Ward 132 as public stakeholders with the potential to face temporary to short-term impacts (Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Asian Development Bank, 2012, p. 31). To the afflicted, the plan offers temporary resettlement and jobs with the relevant contractors, and establishes a comprehensive ‘Grievance Redressal Mechanism’ (Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Asian Development Bank, 2012) to resolve concerns for the same.
However, it is not only difficult for the urban poor to file claims against large private corporations, that too with institutions benefitting from efficient resolution of the project, but also to claim better working conditions and employment status in the temporary jobs offered. Beyond the institutional influence wielded by these large corporations, the legal discourse on the urban poor has been elitist at all levels of jurisprudence, as argued by Ramanathan (2006). Importantly, many of these projects were extended for long periods of time, increasing the time spent for the displaced urban poor as well as detaching them from their sources of livelihood for extended periods of time. Since there is neither a quality standard for these resettlements, nor a guarantee to provide their previous housing intact, it becomes difficult for the displaced to resettle in their old environments (Shaw & Saharan, 2018).
Furthermore, the initial environmental examination (IEE) denotes certain environmental concerns, but “is unlikely to cause significant adverse impacts” and notes that there is no need for further environmental impact assessment (EIA). However, as a project classified under Category B, working with basic necessities and around environmentally sensitive zones (river banks and near the coast), it seems difficult to claim that there is no requirement for further EIAs.
Sewerage and Drainage
Covered under all three tranches, the projects for sewerage and drainage were focused on extending the successes of the KEIP to peripheral areas by laying new sewer drainage pipes, providing direct housing connections to the sewage system (Sewerage and Drainage Works, n.d.), and establishing new pumping stations (Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program, n.d.b). The draft resettlement plan for these projects adequately identifies private land acquisition and the identities of the landowners, and also acknowledges the structures built upon this land. It also identifies roughly 1,400 structures, including nearly 800 residential settlements, which require demolition for the projects to continue. The critique of the resettlement plan follows a similar path, noting that contractors providing employment opportunities is unsustainable for the urban poor, while there is no protective social safety net for those losing their settlements and livelihoods (Kuiper & Van Der Ree, 2006).
Importantly, this document mentions that a week’s notice would be provided to the afflicted people to vacate their land before demolition. The time period, which is noted as “adequate” by the plan, is predatory, due to the threat of physical demolition after a week. It is also infeasible for the urban poor to uproot their lives and livelihood from their land, find gainful employment elsewhere and maintain their social status in a new community within a period of one week.
Beyond this, humanitarian concerns about the working conditions of unskilled workers in the sewage and drainage projects are equally important critiques of the programme. The death of four sanitation workers in Kudghat in February 2021, sent into a manhole with inadequate training and no safety belts to work on the sewage connections under the KEIIP, not only violates the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation (PEMSR) Act of 2013, but also raises concerns about the humanitarian cost of the project (Akhilesh, 2021).
Flood Management Systems
Under the KEIIP, the KMC established the first Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System (FFEWS) in Kolkata in order to navigate extensive urban flooding due to the weak drainage system and severe lack of stormwater drainage systems. It uses sensor nodes in critical city locations (Figure 3) to deliver predictions and real-time updates. The system includes weather forecasts, flood models for various rainfall intensities, real-time information on key pump status, sump and canal water levels, actual rainfall, inundation levels, and a messaging system to warn city officials and citizens (Asian Development Bank, 2018).
Although an excellent policy initiative, from the image, there is a noticeable focus on sensor placement, with a majority of sensors present in and around residential and commercial buildings, and a notable lack of coverage for peripheral slum areas. These slums, often without stormwater drain coverage, are most susceptible to socio-economic repercussions from urban flooding (Yadav et al., 2018) and thus require more attention.
Stakeholder Analysis
There are three sets of stakeholders in the planning and implementation process of this policy, relevant to our analysis due to the variety of roles played. The core stakeholders are the regional-level authorities, with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) playing a key role. In order to ease the process of implementation and continue with the ideals of decentralisation of planning and implementation, the KMC established an arm dedicated to the KEIIP, headed by the Mayor, Commissioner, and an Indian Administrative Service (IAS)-level bureaucrat appointed as the project director. The following organogram clearly defines the organisational structure for the arm.
Certain critical insights about the policy are evident from the organogram itself. The hierarchical structure in the KEIIP places the decision-making authority in the hands of the top authorities of the city, while the technical and social units perform logistical and operational roles, leading to inequitable power distribution and creating inefficiencies by mandating excessive communication between entities with separate priorities. This fragmented structure not only slows down decision-making but also weakens the ability of technical and social units to address localised challenges effectively, as their insights are filtered through multiple bureaucratic layers before reaching policymakers.
Furthermore, the presence of external consultants shows the dependence on external entities, endemic to contemporary policy implementation (Howlett & Migone, 2013). Although it does add non-governmental perspectives to the implementation organisation, it arguably limits capacity-building activities within governmental institutions for future projects. This reliance on external consultants can also lead to a lack of institutional memory, where expertise and decision-making knowledge remain with private entities rather than being internalised by government bodies, potentially reducing long-term self-sufficiency in policy execution.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) remains a key stakeholder due to their investments in the project and extensive due diligence reports. An insight here is that the multi-tranche system benefits the project and ADB by avoiding incessant use of budgets and unnecessary wastage of resources. However, it is equally possible that failures during the first two tranches could lead to delays in subsequent tranches, creating uncertainty in the project (ADB, 2022).
The third set of stakeholders are the private institutions taking up the tenders for KEIIP projects. The Press Trust of India (2016) reported that the French utility company SUEZ Group won a recently-concluded contract to implement water services management in the Cossipore area under the KEIIP. Foreign and Indian companies are key to the process of revamping the supply system. However, it must be noted that allowing private entities to involve themselves with basic services such as the provision of water can be detrimental to the idea of equitable development, as professional service delivery will prioritise profit-driven approaches and have the position to refute any grassroots-level complaints (Prasad, 2007).
Theoretical Analysis
Governance Structure
The KEIIP follows a hybrid governance framework, with theoretical grounding in neoliberal urbanism and network governance.
Neoliberalism in urban governance entails market-orientated restructuring that emphasises privatisation, deregulation, and competition. Neoliberal scholars often argue in favour of removing paternalist policies and forgoing extensive government institutionalism, focussing on free-market procedures to create policies on the basis of the policy recipients’ direct demands (Bally, 2002). In this case, neoliberal scholars would laud the investments from the ADB and the presence of consultants in the governance structure, as well as the public-private partnership sought after to fulfil the tenders and conduct the projects. However, it must be noted that the presence of a hierarchical structure of governmental stakeholders would be critiqued by neoliberal scholars, with a similar argument as this paper suggests, claiming that excessive authority to high stakeholders will inevitably create implementation bottlenecks (Brenner and Theodore, 2002).
Network governance, as a theory, describes a collaborative method of policymaking, combining the governance strength of interconnected stakeholders in various ways, as opposed to hierarchical or market-based structures (Provan and Kenis, 2007). Provan and Kenis (2007) describe three types of network governance frameworks: participant-governed, lead organisation-governed, and network administrative organisation (NAO). The NAO method perfectly describes the model of governance opted by the KMC for the KEIIP, establishing an arm of qualified technical staff members to specifically govern the network of stakeholders, creating rules of procedure and reports, and monitoring the functioning of the others.
Insights from Key Terms
To examine governance challenges in KEIIP, it is crucial to elucidate important concepts such as sustainability, “environmental improvement programmes”, and inter-governmental funding facilities. These ideas provide the theoretical foundation of this subject and affect the actual results of such undertakings.
Under the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11, urban sustainability is realised when a city grows equitably while reducing emissions (Thomas et al., 2020). Although indicators fail to adequately contextualise or even characterise sustainable growth (Thomas et al., 2020), it is necessary for urban growth to reduce emissions while increasing participatory governance. Sustainability, in the context of urban sewage development programmes, has evolved beyond robust sewage connections. Sustainable wastewater and sewage management in urban centres is inherently linked to effective wastewater treatment, thus promoting resource recovery through principles of circular economics and reducing the environmental impact of wastewater discharges (Ansari et al., 2024; Derco et al., 2024). Within the project goals of both the KEIP and the KEIIP, it is clear that the literal application of SDG 11 may be kept in mind, but the project objectives often ignore or fail to prioritise the disposal or equitable side of the sustainability goal, which is, creating an impressive framework of sewers but with limited treatment plants.
Environmental improvement programmes follow an intriguing system of “facilitative regulation”, that is, decentralising environmental programmes and social infrastructure to non-hierarchical and more inclusive programmes (Holley & Gunningham, 2006). EIPs, according to popular research coming from Australia, aim to engage with popular stakeholders as well as the affected citizens to generate meaningful policy and mould government authorities to act as facilitators rather than paternalist enforcers (Shearing, Gunningham & Holley, 2007). Although the KEIIP is a much larger project as opposed to the Victoria Environment Protection Authority (VEPA)’s Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) discussed by Holley and Gunningham (2006), aspects of decentralisation are visible, with industrial stakeholders taking up tenders playing a key role in policymaking, exemplified by the contract picked up by SUEZ. Effective decentralisation of the project will bring the KMC-led KEIIP closer to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11, but requires considerable administrative dissolution, which seems highly unlikely at the time. This would require more participatory mechanisms built into the institutional and implementation system of such projects and embrace the collaborative approach to decision-making that the VEPA was able to. These measures to decentralise power are necessary to take into account the aforementioned adverse and overlooked consequences of these programmes on local communities during the policymaking phase.
Conclusion
By 2023, the KEIIP has faced significant challenges related to delays in project completion, particularly concerning road conditions and waterlogging following pipeline work, with delays in the pipe laying work around Diamond Harbour Road and Ward 125 leading to inaccessible roads (Millennium Post Editors, 2023). Delays in Tranche-II projects seem unending, often caused by inefficient contractors.
Having denoted several critical insights, the KEIIP stands as an excellent programme with numerous implementation and theoretical issues. The successes of the KEIP and KEIIP combined have promised the creation of 1000 kilometres of water supply and drainage systems in Kolkata, and have generated skilled and unskilled labour. Just as with most urban policies, the intentions behind the KEIIP often outweigh the unintended consequences of the program, but it is necessary to identify the affected citizens and create safety nets for their livelihood.
References
Akhilesh, P. (2021) Kolkata sewer deaths: Do not improve sewerage and water supply at the cost of sanitation workers. Down to
Ansari, A., Dutt, D., & Kumar, V. (2024) 'Revolutionizing urban Waste: Eco-Innovation for Saharanpur’s sustainability
(Class-II urban Centers),' Waste Management Bulletin, 2(1), pp. 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.01.006.
Asian Development Bank. (2018). Toward Resilient Kolkata: Introducing India’s First Comprehensive City-Level Flood
Forecasting and Early Warning System. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/452576/toward-resilient-kolkata.pdf
Asian Development Bank. (2023, December). India: Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program - Tranche 1.
Bally, F. (2002) 'Neo liberalizing space,' Antipode, 34(3), pp. 380–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002) 'Cities and the geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”,' Antipode, 34(3),
pp. 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246.
Baffoe, G. (2023). Neoliberal urban development and the polarization of urban governance. Cities, 143, 104570.
Chakrabarti, A., Tiwari, R., & Banerji, H. (2021) 'Migrants’ Narratives on Urban Governance: A Case from Kolkata, a
City of the Global South,' Sustainability, 13(2), p. 1009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13021009.
Derco, J. et al. (2024) 'Sustainability strategies in municipal wastewater treatment,' Sustainability, 16(20), p. 9038.
Dey, A., & Downey, D.B. (2020) 'Victorian brick sewers for a clean flowing Indian colonial city,' Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage, 173(4), pp. 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenhh.19.00012.
Holley, C., & Gunningham, N. (2006) 'Environment Improvement Plans: Facilitative regulation in practice,'
Environmental Planning and Law Journal, 23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228203454_Environment_Improvement_Plans_Facilitative_Regulation_in_Practice
Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2013). Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary
policy advisory systems. Policy and Society, 32(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.005
Kuiper, M., & Van Der Ree, K. (2006). Growing out of Poverty: Urban Job Creation and the Millennium Development
Goals. In Global Urban Development (Vol. 2, Issue 1). https://www.globalurbandevelopment.org/GUDMag06Vol2Iss1/Kuiper%20&%20van%20der%20Ree%20PDF.pdf
Koc, K., Kunkcu, H., & Gurgun, A.P. (2023) 'A Life cycle Risk management Framework for green building project
stakeholders,' Journal of Management in Engineering, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/jmenea.meeng-5361.
Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program. (n.d.a). About Us https://www.keiip.in/about-us.html
Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program, (n.d.b). Water Supply works of KEIIP.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Asian Development Bank. (2012, May). Kolkata Environmental Improvement
Investment Program (Tranche 1) – Water Supply Subproject. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents//42266-023-ind-rp-draft-01.pdf
Millennium Post Editors (2023). Hakim to hold joint meet with KEIIP & KMC officials. Millennium Post.
Millennium Post Editors (2024). Mayor sets December deadline for tranche-II KEIIP projects.
Parveen, M.T., & Ilahi, R.A. (2022) 'Assessment of land-use change and its impact on the environment using GIS
techniques: a case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, West Bengal, India,' GeoJournal, 87(S4), pp. 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10581-z.
Prasad, N. (2007) Privatisation of Water: A Historical Perspective. Law, Environment and Development Journal, p. 217.
Press Trust of India (2016) France-based SUEZ wins 6-yr contract to improve water. https://www.business-
Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P. (2007) 'Modes of network Governance: structure, management, and effectiveness,' Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), pp. 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.
Ramanathan, U. (2006). Illegality and the Urban Poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(29), 3193–3197.
Shaw, A., & Saharan, T. (2018). Urban development-induced displacement and quality of life in Kolkata. Environment
and Urbanization, 31(2), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818816891
Shearing, C., Gunningham, N., & Holley, C. (2006) 'Neighbourhood Environmental Improvement Plans: Community
Empowerment, Voluntary Collaboration and Legislative Design,' Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 24(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257891382_Neighbourhood_Environmental_Improvement_Plans_Community_Empowerment_Voluntary_Collaboration_and_Legislative_Design.
Thomas, R., Hsu, A., & Weinfurter, A. (2020) 'Sustainable and inclusive – Evaluating urban sustainability indicators’
suitability for measuring progress towards SDG-11,' Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(8), pp. 2346–2362. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320975404.
Wesley, M. (2003). The Asian Development Bank. In The Regional Organizations of the Asia-Pacific (pp. 19–39). Palgrave
Macmillan UK eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403944023_2
Yadav, M., Dhote, K., & Yadav, P. (2018). Impact of urban floods on slum redevelopment case of Bhopal. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3334401
Appendix
Figure 1:
Note: Change in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) boundaries between 1973 (above) and 1996 (below). From “Assessment of land-use change and its impact on the environment using GIS techniques: a case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, West Bengal, India” by M.T. Parveen and R.A. Ilahi, 2018, Geojournal, 87(S4) (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10581-z).
Figure 2:
Note: Locations of Sensors, mapped as the letters A, B, C and D. From “Toward Resilient Kolkata: Introducing India’s First Comprehensive City-Level Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System” by Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2018.(https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/452576/toward-resilient-kolkata.pdf)
Figure 3:
Note: Organogram of the KEIIP Implementation Arm of the KMC. From “About Us”, Kolkata Environmental Improvement Investment Program (KEIIP), n.d.a (https://www.keiip.in/about-us.html)
The author, Parth Piyush Prasad, is a student at FLAME University.
Featured image credit: en.wikipedia.or
Comments