The anxiety is mounting about our process and ability to achieve sustainability, that is, our greed to meet our present needs while ensuring that future generations will be able to meet their needs.

1. Sustainability and Wise Use of Natural Resources
…..Are we compromising?
By Tapas Kumar Ghatak, Geophysicist
Domain Expertise in :Urban Environment and
Spatial Mapping

2. What is the Global Thought
About
Economic growth and sustainability
…….. are they mutually exclusive? Striking a balance
between uncontrolled with sectorial economic growth and
sustainability….. is it possible?
…….perhaps we neither recognize nor understand the
connection between the Economy and the Earth.
…… Perhaps our sense of understanding of such
interdependence has been buried by our search for
happiness with possessiveness through materialism and
economic growth.
…….perhaps we would not know what to do if our
nations rather we fail to attain higher GDP and our
businesses do not make a profit.

3. So.. are we compromising???
• The thought of so called GDPgrowth without the existence
or not being able to replenish the natural resources has not
so far hit our group as yet.
• Is it Because our Voices of sustainability yet to rise toward its
peak?
The anxiety is mounting about our process and
ability to achieve sustainability, that is, our
greed to meet our present needs
while ensuring that future generations will be
able to meet their needs.

4. Concern for the environment which was so far
known as Nature has Now matured
• People from government to private enterprise
decided to act and take appropriate action.
• Members of the Civic Societies across the world
also came forward
• Various group of thinkers in politics, business and
science also lined up in the front.
All are univocal about unbounded growth of
population, pollution and depletion of natural
resources would cause the collapse of physical
growth on earth along with its habitats.

5. In the last decade, more voices have
joined the choir
• Now the realisation started building between
the economy and the sustainability of society
and environment.
• These new voices add volume and harmony to
the chorus, suggesting that we seek
alternatives to economic growth perhaps by
measuring well-being in terms other than GDP
or profit.

6. Limitless economic growth counters
sustainability
Short terms, the benefits of economic growth are
many:
1.The more is the businesses and more the nations grow and
profit.
2. The more individuals have jobs.
3. more resources and better quality of life.
Yet in order to grow, the economy also grips on natural
resources and emits waste that pollutes the air and threatens
the delicate climate on which life not only survives but also
depends.

7. Behind the scenes is, the unlimited use of
limited natural resources
• Fuel like coal , oil and gas that facilitate
economic growth and by technological
advances that extract the last dregs of energy
from the earth.
These counterbalancing forces undermine the
foundation upon which economic growth is built
and, over the long term, create a huge gap and
as time progresses which will swallow up the
economy, environment and society itself.

8. • The continued emphasis on the economic growth it
is being established today is diametrically opposed
to sustainability of our planet in particular and its
life within, in general.
• There has been a progress in developing alternative
energy sources to divert us from carbon-based
energy, but it is time to bring an end to limitless
growth, to rethink our priorities, to conserve and
also to reinvent.
SO WE ARE COMPROMISING WITH SUSTAINIBILTY
WHEN WE ARE RACING FOR DEVELOPMENT

9. An Introspection:
How the Global process effects the
Local habitation and growth
A direct Impact
analysis:
The Kolkata
Context

10. Kolkata
Now and Then
THEN:-
•One of the biggest cities of the world having
functional category of services-cum-industry.
•In the process, the town, later city, underwent
several stages ranging from a garrison town to a
company town
• and then to a provincial city and then to the
headquarters of the Government of British
India.

11. Intermediate Period
• Loss in the administrative hierarchy by the
shift of the territorial headquarters to Delhi.
• Impact of Industrilasion which were
developing around Calcutta. This city got a
major share of the post – world war I
industrialization.
• It also started being known as a center of
culture, renaissance, films, literature, scientific
surveys and other institutions.

12. NOW
• Calcutta has several unaddressed issues as well.
• It has been known for its poverty in spite of the
richest people who live here.
• One of the major contributing factors to the growth
of this city is its ever-increasing population.
• No definite planning programme could be conceived
during the middle part of the century with the
growth rate of the city.
• Settlements were erratic, illegal and emotionally
biased. Planners had no option but to allow a
natural path for its growth.

13. Is this Non –Sustainable
Development can be termed as
“ Man Made Disaster?”
and
Are we really ready for the Such
Urban Disaster Management?

14. • “Although the incidence of major natural
disasters has not increased, their effects are
becoming more severe in the Third World
because of the growing numbers of people
and structures located in hazard-prone
areas. Millions of people in these expanding
urban populations are potential victims of
disasters of cataclysmic proportions, and
even the political and economic stability of
many nations in Africa, Asia and Latin
America can be threatened.”
Spencer W Havlick

15. How Much We actually know
about my City
And
How Much we actually Bother
to know

16. 1792

17. 1817

18. 1852

19. Early 20th
Century

20. We were and We are
proud what we had

21. An Introspection of the
use of our Natural
Resources which we
had….
And what we
have….

23. Urban AreaUrban Area
Rural AreaRural Area
Vacant AreaVacant Area
VegetationVegetation
Agricultural
Field
Agricultural
Field
Predominat
Wetlands (East
Kolkata)
Predominat
Wetlands (East
Kolkata)

24. Land Use Pattern Analysis (KMA)Land Use Pattern Analysis (KMA)
Year 2005 (1722 sq.km.)
Urban AreaUrban Area Rural AreaRural Area WetlandsWetlands VegetationVegetation Agricultural FieldAgricultural Field Vacant LandVacant Land
Year 2014 (1900 sq.km.)

26. Maximum Decline

28. Kalyani
Banshberia
Uluberia
Howrah
Barasat
Barrackpore
Kolkata
Baruipur
Kalyani
Barrackpore
Barasat
Kolkata
Maheshtala
Baruipur

29. Location of BorewellsLocation of Borewells
Southren Part of KMASouthren Part of KMA

31. Piezometric Depression: KMC area
7m - 10m
1998

32. HIGHEST RISK AREA
HIGH RISK AREA
MODERATE RISK AREA
Kmc Ward Wise (depression) Risk Areas

35. Based on NRSC
Data 2006
AND THE OBVIOUS
EFFECT

38. Aqua Info
• District/ village wise inventory
• Area of water bodies
• Bathymetry
• Aqua culture
• Pisi culture
• Wise use
• Ownership
• Community Use
• Pereniality
• Some more local informatiom

39. Aqua India :
Part of Hoogly Dist. with No of Water bodies (village wise)
Mouza Name No of water Body
Akna 3
Amarpur 36
Amdabad 16
Benabharui 26
Bhushnara 36
Charkona 20
Dharma pur 44
Erenga 44
Jagannathbati 17
Jarura 79
Kamdeb Pur 118
Khanagar 16
Khulihanda 44
Kodalia 40
Maheshpur 28
Narayanpur 18
Noapara 171
Patul 29
Sankar Bati 41
Simla 131
Sugandha 50
Chandanagar Municipal Corporation 1389

44. Name of Catchment Basin
Area of Catchment new
(Sq. Km)
Total Population
(As per census 2001)
Howrah Drainage Channel 118 1626615
Rajapur Drainage Channel 68.21 327241
Borajala Drainage Channel 55.8 216646
•Dankuni Drainage Channel 210 1239548
Bagher Khal 92.48 401,952
Nawi Khal 114 2304613
Beliaghata Khal and Bangur Cut 220 4223266
•Kaorapukur Khal Charial Khal and Boat
Canal
176 2,046,894
•Tolly's Nala 16 583847
•Panchammgram Cannel 46.13 926281
Details of Drainage Basin of Kolkata Metropolitan
Area
Details of Drainage Basin of Kolkata Metropolitan
Area

45. LAND FORM MAP OF
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN AREA

Dankuni Drainage channel
Panchannagram Drainage Channel
Tally Nala
Kaorapukur, Charial Khal and Boat Canal

46. Livee Area ( Sq. Km), Pop X 1000, Pop Density X 1000Back Swamp Area ( Sq. Km), Pop X 1000, Pop Density X 1000

47. Shrinkage of Drainage basins
Type/Year Habitat
Land
Wet land Agriculture
Land
1922 30% 17% 53%
2004 70% 10% 12%
Increase in habitat Land more than 100% since 1947

48. The Cumulative
Effect

53. WE
AND
OUR GROWTH

54. year Population X 1000
1,971 7,078.96
1,981 9,249.91
1,991 11,021.92
2,001 13,205.7
2,011 14,057.99
Population history [1]
KMA Annual population
change
[1971-1981] +2.71 %/year
[1981-1991] +1.77 %/year
[1991-2001] +1.82 %/year
[2001-2011] +0.63 %/year

56. This lists ranks buildings in Kolkata that stand at least (72 metres (236 ft),
Only completed buildings and under-construction buildings
(Only topped out are included in few selected ward ( 2012-2015 ?)

58. INTERFERANCE
WITH
URBANISAION

59. Map Showing Solid Waste Generation
Data Source KMC

60. PROCESS OF RELOCATION SHOULD BEGIN FROM HERE
INDUSRIE
S AND
POLLUTIO
N

61. TOTALNO.OFINDUSTRIES
INTHEWARDSOFKMC
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
N
o
.
O
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ward No.R O G0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
N
o
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Ward NoR O G
0
50
100
150
200
250
N
o
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75
Ward No.R O G
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
N
o
.
O
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
Ward NoR O G
NO.OFREDINDUSTRIES
INTHEWARDSOFKMC

62. Ward wise number of
Inflammable Unit Of KMC

Ward Wise Public Open
Space In KMC

63. A SPECIFIC CASE STUDY OF
DISASTER IN MY CITY :

64. RISK IN CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT ZONE OF KMC

65. KMC
24 WARDS OF KMC UNDER
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
ZONE
KALI KRISHNA TAGORE STREET
A.P.C.ROYROAD
A.J.C.BOSEROAD
A.J.C.BOSE ROAD
H
O
O
G
H
L
Y
R
I
V
E
R
NORTH
BOUNDARY OF CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT ZONE OF KMC AREA
KHIDDERPORE
ROAD
PARK STREET

66. DETECTION OF
VULNERABLE WARDS OF
KMC WITH GIS

67. Looking
Deeper By
A
Micro level
Risk
Analysis

68. Ward
No
Elevation 0pen Space Drainage Ground
water
Water
logging
Urbanisa
tion
Industry
13 LO Minimum Poor Average L L M
14 LO Minimum Poor Average Marginal L H
29 LO Minimum Poor Average L L M
30 LO Minimum Poor Average Moderate L M
31 LO Average Poor Average L H M
32 LO Average Poor Average L M M
33 LO High Poor Average Marginal H VH
34 LO Minimum Poor Average Acute H VH
35 LO Minimum Poor Average L M M
WARD WISE RISK IN BORROGH 3

69. Borough
No
Ward No Constrains potentials
Criteria Nature Criteria Nature
3 33 1. Physiography
2. Slope Direction
3. Water Logging.
4. Decadal Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground water
10. Units with
Inflatable storage
1. Sharp Multidirectional surface slope
2. towards North and west of the ward
3. Marginal , 2-4 hrs about 1 Km
4. 10% ( Marginal)
5. Very High ( 340 , census 2004)
6. 14%(existing) 14% ( Proposed) 0f existing Road
7. Waste( MT)/Area -3000 MT, High
Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 120 MT Marginally
high
8. Pockets: 44, Family 4780 9 High
9. Depletion of Water level prominent, Marginally
High
10. No: 50 Fire Risk Very High
1. Canal and
water ways
2. Wetlands &
Water bodies.
3. Park/open
Space (no), and
per 1000
person
1. Very Prominent in the
South and West.
2. No: 20, area 21% Very
High
3. No 12, area 0.27 per 1000
person, Good
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan
Identification Boro 3,Ward 33
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA
Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC

70. Borough
No
Ward No Constrains potentials
7 58 1. Physiography
2. Slope Direction
3. Water Logging.
4. Decadal
Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground water
10. Units with
Inflatable
storage
1. Very high surface slope from 0.05m to 6m
2. Surface slope towards Central and North West.
3. EXTREAMLY ACUTE, 12 Hrs to few days in few
pockets
4. Low.
5. High ( No 219. Census 2004)
6. 7%(existing) 3% ( Proposed) of existing road
7. Waste( MT)/Area -2400 MT,High
Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 206 MT very high
8. Pockets: 554, Family 20700 very High
9. Normal.
10. No: 25 Fire Risk Medium
1. Canal and
water ways
2. Wetlands &
Water bodies.
3. Park/open
Space (no), and
per 1000
person
1. Very Prominent in the
South and North.
2. No: 101, area 15% Very
High
3. No : 7 area 0.0.08 per 1000
person, Low
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan
Identification Boro 7, Ward No 58
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA
Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC

71. Borough
No
Ward No Constrains potentials
12 108 1. Physiograph
y
2. Slope
Direction
3. Water
Logging.
4. Decadal
Growth.
5. Industry.
6. Sewerage
7. Waste
8. Slums
9. Ground
water
10. Units with
Inflatable
storage
1. Very high surface slope from 0.01m to
5m
2. Lowest in the Central part, low in the
eastern part
3. Not reported
4. Very High
5. High ( No 140, Census 2004)
6. 0.007%(existing) 7% ( Proposed) of
existing road, Very low
7. Waste( MT)/Area -660 MT,average
Waste(MT)/1000 person/yr- 96 MT
high
8. Pockets: 14, Family 2770
9. Normal.
10. No: 14 Fire Risk low
1. Canal and
water ways
2. Wetlands &
Water
bodies.
3. Park/open
Space (no),
and per
1000
person
Criteria for Wards base Analysis for action plan
Identification Boro 12, Ward No 108
Data Source: Elevation/Slope-:- World bank, KMDA, IIT KGP, Canal:- World bank, KMC, Industry, : Industry Census; KMDA, WBPCB( JICA
Project),Water Logging:- World bank, UNICEF, Open Space/Park :- KMC, Sewerage: KEIP, Solid Waste:- KMC, Slum: KUSP, KMC

72. Constrains and Potential
Leads to Negativity Analysis
and is generally
followed by
Preparedness and Mitigation

73. WHY DID
IT HAPPEN
WHEN WE ARE

74. Politically +vePolitically +ve
• Stability
• Vision
• Willingness
• Involvement
• Knowledge
• Participation
Economically +veEconomically +ve
• Sufficient flow of fund
• International fund
• National fund
• State fund
• Private fund
• Joint Venture Fund
Literally +ve
• Highly concuss
• High literal percentage
• Concentration of
Knowledge center
• Literal Heritage
• International Recognition

75. DO These leads
to…….
URBAN
DISASTER Or
RISK
IF NOT, Then why
are we

76. Minimum Physically InfrastructureMinimum Physically Infrastructure
• Minimum Increase in roads/ Highway / Bridge/ flyover
• Stagnation in drainage: minimum modernization
• No Pvt. Participation in holistic way
• No legal binding on sewerage connection
• No financial obligation of sustainability
Insignificant Social InfrastructureInsignificant Social Infrastructure
• Improper Utilization of knowledge center
• Improper distribution of health Centre
• Prominence of social divide
• Disintegration among social groups
• No common platform for citizen interaction
• Minimum Stake holder’s participation
• No Financial Stake

77. PLANNINN
G
POLICIES
PLANNINNG POLICIES
What it should be…
What it is Now
=
Development
&
Sustainabilty
Where is
Communities
?

78. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
• Identification of Apolitical - Organised
Communities e.g Educational Institutes, Housing
Societies, Slum Dweller, Local Traders(?),
Markets(?).
• Identification of Resources persons from the
various Groups.
• Interaction and Awareness Building
• Circulation of Easy and simple IEC materials

79. 1. Establishing Institutional mechanism for
disaster prevention.
2. Emphasis on information collection and
analysis.
3. Situation Analysis for early warning
system
4. Mitigation of the impact of disasters
5. Preparedness and response
6. Capacity building and Community
resource development
INSTITUTIONAL
PARTICIPATION

80. THEN What Next ?For a Perfect Sustainable Planning: Specially
which effects the community maximum
like Disaster, The Must is…..
PARTICIPATE,
PLAN
AND
PERFORM

81. CONCLUSION?????
Frankly I do not
know…
If you have, let us
Share

82. My Contact
• Cell No 9830251685
• E-mail ID tk.ghatak@gmail.com
Lets go together in Future