The National Disaster Management Authority(NDMA) and State Disaster Management Authorities(SDMA) are doing well as it is evident from the recent warning signal communicated well in advance due to the Earthquake having epi-centre in Indonesia and measuring 8.5 on the Richter scale and its aftershocks, one of which was of 8.2 magnitude, sent tremors across many countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar and Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka.

We have kept pace with the need of time. Other south-eastern Asian countries also passed the test of time. The global cooperation and collaboration in the field of disaster management can go a long way in minimizing the fury of nature. The capabilities developed in this field of disaster management can be further highlighted by the fact the India has largest National Disaster Response Force and the recently conducted successful mock drills to check the disaster response system and staffs. This exercise has also raised sincere awareness among the public.

Participatory planning is very sought after concept in the domain of planning in current practices. Delhi is a very progressive city and the city planners and administrators are very active in adopting and implementing current best practices across the world. There are many practices in Delhi which is seen as a good example of participatory planning and the concerns arises when we want to replicate in other cities and towns then it becomes imperative to look in detail the process and their allied pros and cons so that a more effective model can be adapted and adopted for implementation. For Delhi also we are in the process of preparation of ‘Local Area Plan’ an initiative of Municipal Corporation of Delhi to realize the provisions of Master Plan for a planned development taking into account the existing ground realities. The thesis cum research project will be of great help in looking at the shortcomings of the participatory planning process and the recommendations can give us an opportunity to strengthen the scope and effectiveness of public participation in planning at local level. The author thinks that his research work will be of some help in devising more efficient mechanism for public participation and demand responsive planning by the local body of the national capital.

The need of the study has arisen due to the combined effect of various factors like lack of awareness and understanding of the concept and applicability of the participatory planning processes. Sometimes it is called ad hocism in the practice of participation taking place in the current scenario where people are awakening to the need and demand for more participatory planning approach. Case studies of different practices in Participatory Planning arena viz. decentralized planning in Kerala, National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Bhagidari Scheme of Government of Delhi has showcased how the plan or scheme has been able to deliver or fail. Further, the author has developed a framework for analysis will helps in judiciously considering the case of Participatory Planning in Delhi.

The detailed analysis of the Participatory Planning mechanism used in the cases of Master Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan preparation in Delhi gives the pros and cons of public participation and the loopholes in the planning processes. Here, author feels in a position to understand the virtues and shortcomings of the different participatory practices and how they can be beneficially adopted and adapted for the preparation of Local Area Plan in a more effective participatory manner.

Finally, author tries to evolve a realistic and implementable framework for effective public participation in Local Area Planning which is undergoing its final stages. His interactions with many consultants and planners engaged in this project can also be put forward for better comprehensibility and feasibility of the framework.

 There is a need for policies and practices to promote walking, cycling and other modes of active transport for trips to and from source and common destination, and also regular public transport where this is appropriate and possible. This can be done through  two things: (i) arranging land uses and transport facilities so as to reduce transport’s adverse effects on users when they are travelling and when they are doing other things; and (ii) improving the travelling experience for users, which could mean, for example, making it more enriching for users and providing more independence for youth. Two-thirds of parents report that their users participate in unorganized physical activities after school; these activities might include bicycling, walking, or running. Several studies have found that users who actively commute to school are more physically active outside of school. Adults who live in highly walkable communities report two times more walking trips per week than adults in low walkable communities. Furthermore, adults who are physically active are more likely to have users who actively commute looked at pedestrian travel of users aged 5-18.

Progress made towards creating safer environments, and the best practices of countries that have made concerted efforts to reduce the risk to users from traffic are many to explore. The World Health Organization and UNICEF World Report on Child Injury Prevention road safety recommendations include reducing speeds to 30 km/hour in residential areas, around schools and around play areas to protect pedestrians; separation of child cyclists from other road users through dedicated cycle lanes; use of bicycle helmets; and increased education for users on pedestrian and cycling skills. An Australian study reported that pollution concentrations in pedestrian “breathing zones” resulting from passing vehicles (travelling less than 45 km/hr) were on average six times higher. These guidelines could be used to ensure that users are consulted in the development of these plans and that they reflect their needs and aspirations for active transportation.

Users benefit from active transportation networks that are safe and accessible. Greater synergy amongst school board, municipal body and state government representatives could improve active transportation planning with respect to all trips made by young people. Infrastructure that would make active transportation a safe option (sidewalks, paved shoulders, non-motorized bike paths and trails), bike safety lessons for youth, bike racks at schools and other locations, youth-led activities (e.g. hiking clubs, running groups on trails) and appropriate modeling of active transportation by users.

The development of safe bicycle corridors and other infrastructure, policies and legislation suitable would support active transportation. Safe pathways or transportation routes must be created and transportation bylaws revised. An essential feature of putting users first is that transport and land-use planning issues are seen from perspectives of users. Providing for users on bicycles (and other wheels)

The guidelines below should be considered in conjunction with bicycle safety programs for users. For older users, ensure that destinations that cannot be a walk away are no more than a bicycle ride away. Help ensure that school policies and practices favour walking, cycling and other modes of active transport for trips to and from school, and also regular public transport where this is appropriate and possible. Recognizing the transportation responsibilities of school boards and the concerns regarding physical activity of users, it would seem advisable for school boards and Municipalities to work together towards enabling students to travel through active means of transportation. On the other hand, given the evidence noted on air quality in school buses, not reducing users’ exposure to pollutants in these vehicles could be more costly in the long run.

The guidelines are directed towards reducing all adverse Traffic impacts on young people (and others), whether or not they are in a vehicle. To the extent that users’ travel by car is undesirable-because of poor in-vehicle air quality, and opportunities lost to exercise, gain independence, and experience neighbourhood-land-use and transport planners should help ensure that the distances users travel by car are kept as short as possible. The barriers are grouped into three main challenges: 1. Increase users’ active transport for the trip to school, 2. Increase active transport for users on non-school trips, and 3. Reduce adult automobile and motorized vehicle use (and thus users’ exposure in and outside vehicles).

References: