Evaluating initiatives like smart cities, green buildings, and metro expansions in terms of environmental impact and social equity

Meena Saini

Introduction: India’s Urban Turning Point

India is undergoing one of its biggest urban transformations. As expected over 840 million people will live in cities by 2050 (United Nations, 2019), the country is diving into ambitious projects designed for a sustainable way of life in urban settings that include Smart Cities Mission, green building activities, and extensions of the metro railways and many more. These developments are envisaged to provide infrastructure, environmental conservation, and improve the quality of life (UN-Habitat, 2022).

But are these promises fulfilled for all? Lower carbon emissions and better biodiversity are seen environmentally, but a very important issue that needs prioritizing is social equity. How are these projects affecting the land values in the cities? Are they making cities more livable for all residents, or are they leading to gentrification, exclusion, and displacement? Sometimes, these projects could do so directly; in other cases, it is at least an unintended consequence.

By putting together research evidence, policy evaluation, and anecdotal accounts, this article tries to gauge whether Green India’s urban sustainability thrust results in inclusive green cities or simply upscale gentrified domains.

Smart Cities Mission: Environmental Innovation Meets Social Blind Spots

Environmental Achievements

The SCM, launched in 2015, aims to make 100 Indian cities into technologically advanced and sustainable urban hubs (Government of India, 2015). It has certainly recorded some stellar achievements:

• Integration of blue-green infrastructure in the form of lakes, wetlands, parks, and of other such elements in the cityscape (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013).
• Better biodiversity indicators in smart cities vis-à-vis non-smart ones after SCM implementation.
• Reduction of pollution, traffic control, and waste management through smart technologies.

Such achievements lead to environmental consciousness in planning, for example, Indore and Surat have fetched awards for their cleanliness and public services under the aegis of the SCM.

However, the picture tends to become an unflattering one on the basis of actual fund allocations and ground implementations. Many cities have very lofty environmental intentions in their plans but get very little budget allotted towards conservation or ecosystem restoration (Singh & Sharma, 2024). This incongruity between vision and action is detrimental to the future sustainability of the mission.

Social Equity Challenges

With investments of over ₹2 lakh crore already, it’s estimated that only 22% of India’s urban population (and just 8% of the entire population) will really be the recipients of benefits from SCM projects. Why is the reach so narrow?

One big cause is the Area-Based Development (ABD) strategy. Rather than upgrading whole cities, the SCM often chooses to focus on selected zones—typically commercial or high-growth corridors. While these become showcases for development, surrounding areas remain neglected. This “lighthouse” model, though theoretically replicable, often ends up deepening urban divides (UN-Habitat, 2021).

Gentrification and Displacement

In various cities, Smart City projects have involved demolition of slums and informal settlements. For example, in Pune and Bhubaneswar, slum clearance was part of development plans with meager or delayed rehabilitation. With prime land being redirected for business and high-end residential purposes, the displaced are pushed to city fringes with poor connectivity and poor services.

This physical relocation is frequently followed by cultural displacement. Thinkers such as architect B.V. Doshi and city planner Rajeev Kathpalia have cautioned that India’s efforts at “smartness” may erase the informal, culturally vibrant texture of its urban existence. Cities are becoming sanitized spaces—technologically sophisticated but socially disintegrative.

The Participation Deficit

One of the big issues is the absence of true citizen engagement. While SCM guidelines refer to public consultation, various studies, such as by Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) India, identify tokenism. Public contributions usually get to be online-based, excluding those who are not online-enabled—ironically, precisely those being most affected by development.

Green Buildings: Environmentally Progressive but Economically Exclusive

Environmental Milestones

The Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)-would-be green building movement has achieved notable milestones:

•  9.75 billion square feet of green certified space.
• About 12,000 tons of annual CO₂ reductions per million square feet.
• Almost 100MW of retrofitted renewable energy to green buildings (IGBC, 2023).
• 500 tons of waste diverted to landfills each year.

That makes India one of the global leaders in sustainable architecture and construction (IGBC, 2023). Green building systems and technologies provide environmental benefits of various scales, providing ways to mitigate environmental footprints while creating new benchmarks for design and performance at the level of commercial office towers and schools.

Access to, and equity in, green buildings

In order to have green builds, though, is primarily reserved for the upper economic class:

•  For every IGBC-certified green building, there are three or four types of building (conventional, commercial or luxury residential) that people will engage with (and the IGBC will certify) to increase the stake (or valuation) of the building and property.
• Equipment cost, technologies involved, and professionalism required present obstacles for local builders (Singh & Sharma, 2024).
• Affordable housing projects, like informal settlements, are not engaging aesthetic (or green) in their building styles, a major part of the volume in the urban morphology of Indian cities.

In the old days of no less than a century ago, retrofitting a rental or privately owned impoverished (or informal) housing case (strata) segregated supplies such as solar panel, in which we improve healthy (clinical), healthy/for climate and time efficiency of baseload service being engaged deliberate effort/dedicated in re-offending etc. If for return on investment no contractual free rider policy being offered, as well as in respect of circumstances (including common property lines) for both owners and skin, further consideration will be discouraging.

In this, an inherent paradox follows regarding sustainability: that the communities which could benefit the most, with the largest increases to engagement of these for sustainable practices.

Metro Rail Expansions: Sustainable Transit with Social Setbacks

Environmental benefits

Rapid expansion of metro rail systems across cities like Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, and Mumbai is the central ingredient in abating urban congestion and pollution. The positive effects include:

• Shifting a significant number of people from private vehicle use to public transit.
• Being electric, trains produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
• Reduction of road traffic, accidents, and exchanges of pollutants into the air (UN-Habitat, 2022).

To give a clearer example, Delhi Metro is said to take away about 3.50 lakh vehicles from the road each day, saving thousands of tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the process every year.

The Equity Disconnect

Yet, the metro projects are also clear indicators of social divisions.

• Construction displaces the urban poor, be they street vendors or slum dwellers, or small-scale business activities.
• The compensation and resettlement measures are insufficient or delayed.
• Prices stay high and remain out of reach for laborers, the low-income earners, and students.

Metro systems, being a public infrastructure, largely service the middle and upper classes. Much of the urban poor still rely on overcrowded buses or shared autos. Thus, in many scenarios, end-line issues—poor feeder bus connectivity or unsafe walking paths—further restrict their access.

So the net effect of metro projects is clean transit but not always fair mobility.

The Central Dilemma: Environmental Gains Without Social Justice

A clear pattern emerges when looking into India’s flagship sustainability projects:

• Environmental progress is given priority—and rightly so.
• Social justice issues remain, more often than not, an afterthought.
• Marginalized communities are often excluded, displaced, or suffer from inflation of prices.

This brings an interesting question- if a city is exclusive, can it then ever be considered “smart” and “green”?

Sustainability does not stop at green certificates or emission-level checks. It has to include housing security, cultural continuity, and livelihood opportunities.

If not, we balance on the temptation of sleek-looking, technologically advanced cities that simply will not serve those they intend to serve.

Critical Structural Insights and Theoretical Framing

To understand the systematic exclusion of different marginalized communities in India’s urban sustainability efforts, an examination of structural and institutional drivers is required, not just observations at case level.

As we noted above, much of the urban development in India is driven by urban neoliberalism. In the neoliberal model, cities are engines of capital accumulation. In this model, urban space is a commodity, governance is produced by multiple actors in the private sector, and land is used as a speculation instrument. It is easy to see how in such an environment, an initiative like Smart Cities Mission becomes a vehicle to attract investment rather than a redistribution or inclusion agenda.

And the elite capture of planning processes is compounded by weak democratic processes at urban local body level. Participation is largely tokenistic. Local communities are “consulted,” but not meaningfully involved to shape outcomes. The outcomes are predictable: redevelopment replaces slums, green buildings are created only for the rich, and metro corridors avoid working-class neighborhoods (Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation, 2023). (Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation, 2023).

The Right to the City – first articulated by Henri Lefebvre and expanded on by David Harvey – is instructive to the question we raise here. The Right to the City says that all urban residents – not just those with money or power – must have both the right to shape and participate in urban life. This obviously stands in stark contrast to the current trajectory where only those with capital have a say about the future of cities.

Additionally, Julian Agyeman’s theory of Just Sustainability reminds us that sustainability cannot just refer to environmental benefits. A city can be “green,” and remain profoundly unjust. Agyeman argues that sustainability requires a balance between environmental protection, social equity and cultural inclusion.

Global Comparisons for Contextual Reflection

To provide some context as to where India falls in the global urban sustainability landscape, we can compare two cities, which illustrate an inclusive, community based planning approach.

Latin America provides very strong examples. Porto Alegre, Brazil has adopted a Participatory Budgeting method in which every citizen, particularly those from disadvantaged groups participate in deciding how their available public resources are expended. This system has facilitated greater equity of infrastructure investment and has increased the legitimacy of public trust in city leadership.

In South Africa many cities have adopted inclusionary zoning and consequently they have required a proportion of affordable housing units in all new residential projects. This creates a mechanism to avoid complete potential gentrification of a neighborhood and access opportunity for a diverse set of socio-economically disadvantaged residents (Klug, Rubin, & Todes,2013).

In contrast, Indian urban policies—despite having some progressive guidelines—lack enforceable measures. Without mandatory social impact assessments or inclusionary zoning, well-meaning sustainability goals may end up excluding people. These global examples demonstrate that cities can be both sustainable and inclusive when there is political will, community involvement, and innovative institutions working together.

Charting a More Inclusive Urban Future: Policy Shifts Needed

To ensure India’s urban sustainability projects work for all, the following targeted policy mechanisms are essential:

Figure 1 Key Strategies for Equitable and Sustainable Urban Development

Conclusion: The Urban Choice Before Us

India is at a turning point in its urban growth story. The choices made today—regarding smart cities, green buildings, and public transport—will determine the destiny of hundreds of millions over the coming decades.

We can choose to:

• Do more of the same top-down, techno-centric model that produces shiny infrastructure but makes the poor an afterthought.
• Or shift to an inclusive, participatory approach that prioritizes both environmental conservation and human dignity.

The benefits of sustainability should not go only to an elite few. A green city is one where humans, technology, and nature all come together—where clean air is not a privilege, but a right; where transit is not a chore, but a bridge to opportunity.

India’s experience contains vital lessons for the Global South. Urban sustainability can’t be quantified purely in kilowatts saved or tons of carbon credited. It has to be assessed by whether cities continue to be homes to all their citizens—or turn into exclusionary spaces where only the privileged may survive.

Only when environmental sustainability goes hand in hand with social justice can India—and the world—construct cities worth living in. Not only smart or green cities, but just cities.

REFERENCES

1. Bhan, G. (2016). In the public’s interest: Evictions, citizenship, and inequality in contemporary Delhi. University of Georgia Press.
2. Government of India. (2015). Smart Cities Mission Statement and Guidelines. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. https://smartcities.gov.in
3. Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN). (2018). India’s smart cities mission: Smart for whom? Cities for whom? https://www.hlrn.org.in/documents/Smart_Cities_Report_2018.pdf
4. Indian Green Building Council (IGBC). (2023). Annual report and green building statistics. Confederation of Indian Industry. https://igbc.in
5. Jain, G., & Joglekar, R. (2022). Social equity in green infrastructure: A review of Smart City practices in India. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 13(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/09754253211065160
6. Kathpalia, R. (2020). Smartness, inclusion, and the Indian urban fabric. Lecture presented at CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
7. Khosla, R. (2020). Reimagining India’s urban future: Equity, environment, and climate. Centre for Policy Research. https://cprindia.org
8. Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2010). Walking and cycling for healthy cities. Built Environment, 36(4), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.4.391
9. Srivastava, R. (2021). Social costs of metro rail projects: Displacement and relocation in Indian cities. Economic and Political Weekly, 56(19), 38–45.
10. United Nations. (2019). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. https://population.un.org/wup/
11. Cohen, S. (2017). The sustainable city. Columbia University Press.
12. Rouse, D. C., & Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2013). Green infrastructure: A landscape approach (PAS Report No. 571). American Planning Association.
13. Singh, P., & Sharma, P. K. (2024). Contested urban green spaces in India: Complex dynamics of environmental development. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 6(5), 1–12. https://www.ijfmr.com/
14. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2020). People-smart sustainable cities: Sustainable and smart cities for all ages. United Nations. https://unece.org
15. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2021). Urban regeneration as a tool for inclusive and sustainable recovery: Report on the Expert Group Meeting. https://unhabitat.org
16. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2022). World cities report 2022: Envisaging the future of cities. https://unhabitat.org.
17. Klug, N., Rubin, M., & Todes, A. (2013). Inclusionary housing policy: A tool for re-shaping South Africa’s spatial legacy? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(4), 667–678.
18. Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation. (2023). Scoping Study for a Cities Climate Change Programme. https://shaktifoundation.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/cities-scoping-report-11July23.pdf .