Sustainable Development Goals and Equity in Urban Planning: A Comparative Analysis of Chicago, São Paulo, and Delhi

Abstract

Today, for the first time in the history of human civilization, over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. Due to this global urbanization, the United Nations included sustainable urban development in its recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda. SDG Goal 11 is one of 17 comprehensive SDGs, and it pays specific attention to making “cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”. This study comparatively analyzes the current state of participatory urban planning processes in three cities: Chicago, Illinois, U.S.; São Paulo, Brazil; and Delhi, India. Utilizing the cities’ most recent master plans, a content analysis found that public engagement was a key instrument that they adopted in the production of their planning documents, but the level of engagement and tools used to engage the public differed among cities, with Chicago and São Paulo demonstrating more robust public engagement than Delhi. The historical context of the comparative countries’ political, cultural, and socioeconomic development also plays a role in the degree to which a landscape for public engagement and participation exists. The study finds that the ideals of a just city can be determined by the level of participation with which cities engage their citizens during the planning process, and that sustainable urban development is further determined by the level of social equity that currently exists in a city itself.

1. Introduction

Today, for the first time in the history of human settlement, over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. The global urban population grew from 746 million in 1950 to 2.9 billion in 2014 [1]. Between 2015 and 2030, the urban population is projected to grow by 1.5 billion people, with those living in cities making up 60 percent of the entire population (5 billion people), and it is projected that 70 percent will live in cities by 2050 [1]. The projected urbanization will take place concurrently with rural population growth staying stagnant. During this unprecedented urbanization phenomenon, close to 90 percent of urban growth will be concentrated in developing countries in Asia and Africa [2].

Due to global urbanization trends, the United Nations (UN) found it necessary to include sustainable urban development in its recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda. The UN’s previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) mostly lacked a direct emphasis on urban issues as a factor for global sustainable development, where it was partially incorporated in MDG Goal 1 for eradicating poverty [3]. Member states of the UN view rapid urbanization and the many potential challenges that it generates as a fundamental paradigm that must be addressed at the global level. They take it so seriously that the UN and 170 countries also adopted the New Urban Agenda (better known as Habitat III) in 2016, a complementary document intended to guide national and local policies on the growth and development of cities through 2036 [4].

SDG Goal 11 is one of 17 comprehensive sustainable development goals, and it pays specific attention to making “cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” [5] (p. 26). It is underpinned by 10 targets, each with one or more agreed-upon frameworks of indicators for monitoring set targets through 2030. The most accepted definition of sustainable development comes from the Bruntland Commission, which envisions a world in which human needs are met equitably and without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs [3]. Sustainable urban development encompasses the planning and management of cities through a holistic approach that promote inclusive social and economic development along with environmentally sustainable infrastructure development addressing climate change [5]. This includes the development of multi-modal transportation systems; green spaces; green architecture; and sustainable land use, water, and waste management [6,7,8,9].

Since the development of SDGs, there have been a plethora of studies examining progress on meeting several of the 10 targets related to SDG Goal 11 [10,11,12,13]. This exploratory research is focused on one of two indicators that have been formulated for tracking SDG Target 11.3, which states that all member nations shall “enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management” by 2030 [5] (p. 26). First, Indicator 11.3.1 addresses a fundamental area of sustainable urban development paying attention to the ratio of urban land consumption rate relative to population growth rate, and several studies have examined this target utilizing different methodologies. Second, Indicator 11.3.2 examines proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically. However, there is a gap in the literature directly addressing this indicator comparatively between cities.

This exploratory research fills this gap through a practical approach to undertake a comparative analysis of the current state of public engagement and participatory planning processes among selected three cities during the development of their most recent master plan/policy documents. This approach was chosen as most nations had not yet provided data needed for Indicator 11.3.1 largely due to SDGs being in their early stages and still establishing their monitoring processes [14]. Research has shown that participation of civil society in the planning process leads to a more equitable community development, which in turn addresses the sustainable development of cities. While it has been generally accepted that participatory planning and management is a critical practice for equitable urban development, there are a multitude of differences in the cultural, political, economic, and technological development that either limit or advance participatory planning and management practices among nations. It is important to address and acknowledge these differences in tracking and measuring SDGs. Hence, the goal of this research is primarily to examine the level civil society engagement in the planning process, and how they differ between Chicago, São Paulo, and Delhi. We can hypothesize that participatory planning processes will be more robust in Chicago compared to São Paulo and Delhi due to higher levels of democratic systems, technological advancement, and economic development in the United States. We can also hypothesize that Delhi will show lower levels of civil society participation in urban planning and management compared to Chicago and São Paulo due to lower levels of inclusive cultural, economic, and democratic systems (i.e., prevalence of poverty, caste system, etc.). Finally, with increased decentralization and strengthened civil engagement in the planning and management of cities in Brazil, we can hypothesize that São Paulo will demonstrate better participatory practices compared to Delhi.

1.1. Background

As the world becomes more urbanized, cities of all sizes will play a critical role in global sustainable development. Urbanization is not a new phenomenon, with the earliest cities forming in ancient times, when the introduction of cultivation allowed people to settle in one place instead of moving around looking for food. Cities grew and civilizations flourished along major world rivers, such as the Nile in Africa, Indus in Asia, and the Tigris and Euphrates in the Middle East. By the time of the Romans, cities had become more planned, with sophisticated architecture and road, sewer, and water system infrastructure. In the interconnected territories of the Roman Empire, cities became major centers of commerce, politics, and intellectual and cultural development. Still, the world remained largely rural, and with the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent Dark Ages, cities went through an era of decline.

The emergence of modern cities began during the Agricultural Revolution of the 18th century and continued to develop during the Industrial Age of the 19th century. In today’s developing world, urbanization is driven by rural-to-urban migration, as well as high rates of population growth, but it has not necessarily followed similar rates of socioeconomic development as in the developed world. Moreover, rapid urbanization in the midst of complex technological and natural environmental changes facing the world today brings about enormous challenges, including “growing numbers of slum dwellers, increased air pollution, inadequate basic services and infrastructure, and unplanned urban sprawl, which also make cities more vulnerable to disasters” [15] (p. 13). The history of urbanization has proved that better urban planning and management alleviate potential sustainable threats and make urban spaces that are more inclusive, safe, and resilient [16].

Most developed nations have long practiced nationwide and local-level urban planning; however, the majority of the developing world is just beginning to implement such strategic planning in urban governance [15]. SDG Goal 11.3 acknowledges this incongruity and provides a roadmap for international capacity building to assist countries in meeting goals and targets directly related to the urban scale. In this regard, two specific policy mechanisms are instrumental in assessing and guiding urban development. First is national-level urban policy, which guides the overall spatial planning of urban development in a country, and second is city-level master plans, which focus the planning of development to the urban scale of a given municipality, in most cases under a master, strategic, or comprehensive plan.

1.1.1. National-Level Urban Policy

A National Urban Policy (NUP) is an overarching framework that coordinates and supports the spatial organization and function of city systems. NUPs act not only as documents, but also as guiding principles promoting the positive role of urbanization in national socioeconomic development. At their core, NUPs work as products that communicate and define a nation’s visons for its cities and guides the process to maximize the benefits of urbanization by reducing inequalities, mitigating potential adverse externalities, reasserting urban space, and engaging various urban stakeholders. Moreover, NUPs have been recognized internationally as important tools for implementing and monitoring global urban agendas, including the SDGs (particularly SDG 11) and the New Urban Agenda [17].

Not all countries have an NUP in place, but their importance has been amplified by several UN SDG-monitoring agencies and partners [18]. Achieving sustainable urban development has many challenges, differing across nation states according to their current level of socioeconomic development, political systems, and overall capacity to facilitate urban interventions. Nevertheless, NUPs that are formulated at the national level through a participatory process foster urban policies that are responsive and promote more compact, socially inclusive, better integrated, and connected cities that are resilient to urban challenges. As policy, NUPs are instruments that are key for facilitating two main functions: (1) mobilizing political and institutional support for a concerted effort to shape the trajectory of urban growth and (2) developing the technical capabilities, legal frameworks, and financial instruments to implement this commitment consistently [18] (p. 5). Often, NUPs may also pose inadvertent negative externalities to policies that are made at the national level without considering local socioeconomic conditions. A great example is the Interstate Highway System in the U.S. put in place by the Dwight Eisenhower administration, which had a harmful impact by disenfranchising many minority communities in urban centers across the country [19].

1.1.2. City-Level Master Plans

Although NUPs play a critical role in guiding national-level urban policies, it is the presence and function of city-level comprehensive master plans that both incorporate larger national visions and pay special attention to local challenges that truly produce effective actions to address existing and future urban conditions. Perhaps the absence of NUPs in most countries is largely due to the emergence of city-level master plans underpinned by the decentralization of urban governance that has proliferated for the better part of the last century. Furthermore, reflecting the diverse goals and objectives, as well as different democratic systems and traditions, there has never been a consensus about the “purpose of urban policy” or “the most appropriate tools and techniques” among nations or international organizations [20]. However, with the recent development of the SDG and UN-Habitat’s New Urban Agenda, the important roles that NUPs and city-level master plans play in assessing and tracking developments have made both required targets to achieve set goals.

It is the case that national urban policies play a major role in shaping equitable and sustainable urban development, and the comprehensive municipality-scale master plan has a significant role in addressing inequities at the local level [15]. It has become even more important because most nations have adopted decentralized forms of governance in recent decades, and municipalities’ master plans have become an important policy instrument in urban planning [20]. There are a multitude of benefits in city-level urban planning, including sustainable management of urban growth, enhanced economic and resource utilization, improved health and quality of life, and mitigating environmental impact through instruments such as land-use, urban design, public transportation systems, and green open spaces. Moreover, the inclusiveness of all stakeholders in the urban planning processes is a determinant of equitable urban planning, Therefore, examining to what extent civil society (who are the most affected by policy) has been a participatory factor in the development of urban planning through their city-level master plans in this study is of a key significance.

1.1.3. Participatory Planning and Equity

Cities are complex, human-developed organisms that are shaped by public policy and urban planners. In the modern world, many urban inequities, in both the developed and developing worlds, are rooted in policies shaped through the legacies of colonialism, racism, sexism, segregation, income inequality, and discrimination against minority groups [19]. As the world becomes more urban, social inequities and disparities will become most acute at the urban scale. Historically, urban planning was not necessarily created to address social inequities in the developed world, nor did it involve civil society in the planning process. The Industrial Age caused horrific conditions in human urban settlements that were worsened by streets littered with horse manure, overcrowded housing tenements with little if any water or drainage systems, and cities that were rife with crime, disease, and illness [21]. To address these evils in 19th-century cities (i.e., New York City, Paris, Berlin, and London), the first international conference on urban planning took place in 1898 in New York City. However, it resulted in an urban planning profession that was centered around architecture and landscape with a top-down approach to planning [22]. This has exasperated the economic inequalities [23] and ‘wicked problems’ that continue to persist in most cities to this day [24,25].

In the United States, for example, top-down urban policy-making and planning underpinned by the Housing Act of 1949, the GI Bill, and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 displaced, segregated, and cut through black communities throughout the country. The injustice of such policies still impacts the inequities we see today in such inner cities as Baltimore, Richmond, and Detroit [18,19,21]. The housing policies of blockbusting and red lining generally excluded black and minorities from accumulating wealth through property ownership, which furthered the injustice that has had a generational impact that still reverberates today, linked to urban inequities in education, health, access to jobs, and environmental conditions [26]. It is important to stress that these policies had little to no civil society engagement in their development and adoption.

Furthermore, cities in what we today call developing nations had not yet fully emerged in the early parts of the 20th century, as they were in a state of colonization. Colonizing powers were interested in building empires, not the development of cities; hence, the engagement of local populations in the development of colonial cities was nonexistent [27,28]. Most cities were either newly established or redeveloped in existing indigenous town settlements as administrative centers to serve the needs of the colonizers [27]. Infrastructure building was mostly focused on attaining sufficient modes to transport natural resources, both human and raw or finished materials, out of colonized territories. In these conditions, social inequity was not the main interest but rather a part of a colonial system that could only exist if those inequities were maintained.

The legacy of colonization has had lasting effects on the urban and overall socioeconomic development of the developing world. South Africa, with its discriminatory urban development of cities such as Johannesburg, Durbin, and Cape Town, has yet to fully dismantle the inequities on which the nation was based prior to the end of its apartheid policy in 1993 [28]. In Rio de Janeiro, the exclusion and racially based segregation of black and indigenous Brazilians in dense, informal favela settlements have been linked to propagating inequities not only in housing but also in concentrations of poverty and crime [29]. In a more modern form and underpinned by a lack of regional and international policy consensus, the occupation of Palestinian territories in the Middle East is amplifying injustices when it comes to basic human needs for millions of urban inhabitants [30]. All these inequities are directly related to the long history of both colonization and a top-down approach to urban planning and development.

2. Theoretical Framework

Urban inequities are issues that encompass cities of all political, administrative, and geographical variances. For governing bodies and administrators, achieving a just city with ideals of sustainability and equity had led towards participatory urban planning and management over the last several decades [31]. This was a significant paradigm shift from the traditional rational theories and approaches to urban planning that had dominated the field for more than a century. Participatory planning came to the fore in the 1960s as a direct reaction to the upheavals of that era, with citizens protesting over dissatisfaction with the status quo and condemning rampant urban inequalities that were prevalent at the time [32]. Unlike top-down and centralized forms of planning, participatory planning considers input from diverse stakeholders of the community during the planning process [33,34]. It is a deliberate decentralized bottom-up approach that gives civil society and individual citizens a seat at the table, allowing for equitable policy-making and an enhanced legitimacy to the planning process [35].

Planners and urban managers have utilized a variety of methods to engage the community during the planning process in an effort to attain a diverse and inclusive process to policy-making [36]. Design charettes, for example, have increasingly become an effective strategy in garnering public and stakeholder input in addressing issues and finding consensus towards short- and long-term sustainable development goals that have a significant impact on the community [37]. Other strategies include public hearings and notices, workshops, and a variety of solicitation of stakeholder input through accessible traditional media platforms (i.e., TV and radio) [38]. More recently, planners and government agencies are using web-based applications such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), social media, and websites to garner public participation in the planning process [39,40]. However, it must be noted that the use of internet-based public engagement strategies have a limited capacity due to the digital divide that exists in most cities, particularly in developing countries [41].

To this end, the UN has developed strategies for identifying concepts, classifications, unit of measurement, and data collection methods to monitor levels of participatory planning processes for meeting SDG Target 11.3.2 [42]. For example, the UN conceptualizes democratic participation as structures that allow and facilitate civil society inclusive of non-governmental organizations, community groups/organizations, regional representatives, unions, and a wide variety of cultural, economic, and social groups that are directly affected by urban policy [42]. Furthermore, it stipulates that level of direct participation structures of civil society in the planning and management process at the city and aggregated national level performance is evaluated with a confirmation that a legal requirement that civil society is involved in the process at the city and municipality level [42]. While the UN and UN-Habitat are working as partners to a various degrees in ensuring that such systems are in place, the primary data provider is the national statistical agency. This implies limitations to how researchers are able to attain data that are not biased with discrepancies considering the variety of social, political, economic, and administrative capacity differences among nations and cities that exist globally, a fact that the UN itself points out [42]. With all its challenges, however, most global cities today have formulated their master plans with some degree of participatory planning processes that is reported within the document itself or in some instances as a separate report.

2.1. Identification and Justification of Comparative Cities

Case selection in comparative public policy and administration analysis is fraught with challenging contradictions. Cases may be selected for their own “interesting and appropriate” implicit or explicit reasons [43] (p. 316), to investigate the validity of an existing theory [44], or to test its hypotheses [45]. The scholarly debate on the validity of comparative research is rightfully active because of the uneven and inappropriate methods that it may use when it comes to measures of transposable data used to legitimately make comparative claims [46]. However, one can argue all scientific research is comparative in nature.

The comparative approach in this study is cross-sectional, in that it uses three cities’ master plans as its units of analysis. As a comparative study, it examines three cities’ (Chicago, Illinois, USA; São Paulo, Brazil; and Delhi, India) approaches to participatory planning. These cities differ in geography, political systems, and population makeup, yet they share urban inequities that have a long historical context. Sao Paulo and Delhi were chosen as they reside in two of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), whose economic developmental stage assumes that high rates of urbanization have been taking place, and both have a history of colonization. Additionally, the history of colonization has had a significant impact on their urban development rooted in an uneven and a top-down paradigm of urban planning that is important to unpack. On the other hand, Chicago has been the cornerstone of many of the early theories in the social sciences and urban planning but continues to be a city in the United States that faces some of the most inequities among its residents.

Municipalities use comprehensive master plans, traditionally drafted to last 20 years, as public policy instruments to account for the existing conditions of their localities and guide long-term future growth and development. Master plans typically include guidelines, regulations, and recommendations for future growth patterns, transportation and traffic needs, community facilities, parks and open spaces, neighborhoods and housing, economic development, and land use. Urban planners and legislators depend on master plans to enforce regulations set forth by the plans once they have been adopted; however, the success of a master plan is highly reliant on strong public support of its vision. Public opposition may arise if residents believe the proposals in a plan are too costly, are not fair or equitable, or could endanger public safety and well-being. The level of participation of citizens in the planning process is a significant factor in mitigating these challenges and finding a common ground towards sustainable urban development. Analyzing the reported public participation methodologies and strategies utilized within each cities’ master plan (and/or additional documents publicly provided), this exploratory study will evaluate the differences, and refer back to the social, political, economic, and technological factors that may have been a factor in those differences.

2.1.1. Chicago, Illinois, United States

With a 2018 city population of 2.7 million and metropolitan population of 10.8 million, Chicago is one of the largest and oldest cities in the U.S. Situated near Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, Chicago has played an extensive role in the economic development of the nation. It was also one of the first cities to adopt a master plan produced by Daniel Burnham, Edward Bennet, and the Commercial Club of Chicago as the Plan of Chicago (commonly referred to as the Burnham Plan) in 1909. Burnham Plan was distinctive for its time in that it was comprehensive, systematic, and regional [47]. Burnham—an architect and city planner who was also at the helm of the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1883 in Chicago—and his Burnham Plan have been credited as one of the seminal works in city planning, in both the U.S. and the world. Moreover, it was developed at the turn of the century during the unprecedented urbanization of the Industrial Age. This is clear from the first pages of the document, which claims from the outset that conditions of cities were “neither economical nor satisfactory,” and that “practical men of affairs are turning their attention to working out the means whereby the city may be made an efficient instrument for providing all its people with the best possible conditions of living” [47] (p. 1).

To a large degree, the Burnham Plan was concerned with the ills of urban centers, and the solutions were primarily focused on physical designs and infrastructure needs rather than the socioeconomic inequities of cities. Nevertheless, it is important in the historical development of city master plans, and other cities began to develop their own master plans in subsequent years. Since the adoption of the Burnham Plan, Chicago has maintained its place as an economic engine and model for a well-designed city, attracting a wide range of immigrant populations, unlike many other cities in the Midwest. The development of the city’s master plan has also evolved, becoming more comprehensive in its reach.

Like other metropolitan cities in the U.S., Chicago has not escaped the wicked problems that face urban centers. It currently has one of the highest rates of gun violence and crime in the developed world, and social inequities mostly suffered by minority and immigrant communities persist. Chicago was chosen as one of the cities for this comparative study because of both its legacy as an innovator in modern city planning and its current socioeconomic woes.

2.1.2. São Paulo, Brazil

São Paulo, a city in the southeast region of Brazil, is the financial center of the country. São Paulo is the wealthiest city in the nation and, with around 12 million inhabitants in 2019, also the most populous. The metropolitan population reached 21.2 million in 2019, making it one of the largest cities in South America. São Paulo grew to a city during the 20th century, developing from village to metropolis through a series of informal settlements and irregular urban sprawl. In the last half of the 20th century, Brazil began developing city master plans to shape and direct urban development. While the early plans had little to no democratic and equitable processes as part of its development, São Paulo played a significant role in the development of participatory models of urban planning in Brazil beginning in the late 1980s [48]. Its most current Strategic Master Plan was adopted and became law in July 2014.

Similar to cities in the developing world, São Paulo faces numerous challenges, highlighted by high urban density and proliferations of favelas (slums/informal settlements). Like Chicago, São Paulo has high rates of gun violence and crime concentrated in poor communities and favelas [49]. São Paulo was chosen for its global economic factor, population size, and levels of inequities that are similar to but different from those that exist in Chicago and Delhi.

2.1.3. Delhi, India

The National Capital Territory of Delhi, the political capital of India, had a population of 16.3 million and an estimated 26.4 metropolitan inhabitants in 2018. Delhi is also the center of the National Capital Region (NCR), which is a unique “interstate regional planning” area. Delhi is believed to have been settled as far back as 3000 B.C.E. Since becoming the capital of India in 1911, it has experienced significant urban growth. City planning in India can be traced back to the establishment of what is now called New Delhi in 1911, when Henry V laid the cornerstone for a new planned development for the Imperial Government of India that would be an expression of the “dignity” of the British Empire in the already existing city of Delhi [50]. However, the first modern Master Plan for Delhi (1961–1981) was published in 1962, and it was fashioned by town planning, which was prominent in England at the time. This was not only because India had once been a British Colony, but also because British architects and city planners were commissioned to prepare the document. The third and most current Master Plan of Delhi (2001–2021) became law in 2001.

India has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and, as part of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), it is estimated that it will become one of the largest economies of Asia in the coming years. Like São Paulo, Delhi is the richest city in its country, and citizens of the city are enjoying the expansion of the middle class with economic growth. However, income distribution is extremely uneven and poverty levels are high. Like the favelas of São Paulo, Delhi has a high concentration of slums and informal settlements that lack sufficient water, sewer, and energy infrastructure. Access to basic services and unequal settlement types exacerbate the conditions of poverty, a condition of institutional inequality that has been shaped by the legacy of the caste system and foreign rule in the country [51].

Delhi makes for a great comparison city because it is also located in one of the BRICS countries and its population size and history of urban planning are not that different from those of São Paulo. It also has a history of colonization, and while its caste system is unique, it has had similar inequitable consequences for minority groups (e.g., decedents of slaves in Brazil and U.S.)

2.2. Identification and Justification of Comparative Criteria

Participatory planning is an urban planning paradigm that emphasizes the engagement of an entire community and its stakeholders in the strategic planning and management of urban and/or community-level policy-making processes. As previously discussed, cities plan strategically by envisioning their desired goals, assessing current conditions, and systematically planning future development to achieve their set goals and outcomes. Policy documents provide legal frameworks to guide cities towards these goals, but the question of who gets a seat at the table during planning document creation is critical in making sure that all groups in the community and their desired interests and concerns are incorporated in moving towards a just and equitable future for their locality.

Contemporary urban planning has drastically moved towards more participatory design in the last several decades, gradually shifting from an architectural and design focus to a more community-centered process of city planning in the field [52]. This shift began in the U.S. with Arnstein (1969) [53], who lamented critically that planning methods of the time led to uninformed policies that prevented the equitable development and growth of cities due to non-participatory development, most notable in the top-down approaches of urban renewal programs that led to the disenfranchisement and dislocation of minorities in most American cities at the time. The principal of participatory practice is a cornerstone in the field of urban planning today, but the level and inclusion of participants’ input differs across localities and political systems. In any case, when governments and planners include the community in the planning process, it leads to legitimate plans and an overall acceptance of future development. Moreover, community engagement leads to policies that are better informed and equitably formulated. For these reasons, SDG 11 incorporated the need for participatory planning as a target to be met by member nations.

Keeping with SDG 11, the criteria used in the following analysis is the level of community engagement and participatory processes the cities used in developing their long-term urban policy agendas. This information can be found within each city’s specific master plan document that is available to the public through their government and/or municipalities’ websites. All three cities are democratic political systems, and, to a large extent, they have similar Democracy Index scores in the 2019 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranking. The U.S. (rank #25), India (rank #51), and Brazil (rank #52) had indices of 7.96, 6.90, and 6.86, respectively [54]. While this aspect of their political systems is conceptually relevant, the analysis will also take each country’s political development into consideration when making comparative analyses and assumptions. Basic statistical information about each city’s land area and population (at the city and metro levels), the name of each planning document, and the legal framework it occupies can be found in

Table 1. Comparative city profiles.

		Area (sq mi)	Population (2017 Estimates)	Name of Plan	Legal Framework
Chicago	city	2123 sq mi	2.7 million	GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan	Public Act 095-0677
	metro	10,874 sq mi	9.5 million
São Paulo	city	587.3 sq mi	12.1 million	City of São Paulo Strategic Master Plan	Law 16.050/2014
	metro	3068 sq mi	21.4 million
Delhi	city	573.0 sq mi	17.8 million	Master Plan for Delhi 2021	Section 11A(2) of Delhi Development Act of 1957
	metro	N/A	26.5 million

below.

3. Design and Methods

The UN has provided two options for data collection methodologies to measure and track Indicator 11.3.2. at the national level [15]. The first option utilizes a scoreboard approach to evaluate the existing structure for civil society participation in urban planning and management by five local experts from academia, urban planning experts, city leaders and government officials. This option uses a National Sample of Cities approach to draw a sample of cities with relevant urban-specific characteristics that ensure the sample is representative of the country’s history, region, geography, size, etc. The second option first identifies and confirms that there is an established legal requirement in place that civil society must be involved in urban planning and management of cities. If there is a legal requirement, evaluators then assess if this is being practiced in all cities and municipalities. If the legal framework is not considered to be 100% covered nationally, evacuators will need to estimate the average level of coverage of the policy.

While the UN’s methodologies are designed to measure national-level participatory planning processes, it does not allow for comparison research between cities situated in different countries. Hence, this study is a non-experimental design grounded in a naturalistic paradigm that utilizes a content analysis technique of a qualitative research methodology [55]. As a result, the study takes three master plans from the selected cities to conduct an analysis and address the posited research questions. To a large extent, it is an exploratory study, setting some bases for further investigations that can take both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The purpose of the inquiry is to establish a basic footprint to understand the extent to which the master plans have been a product of participatory processes. As a comparative study, it further investigates how these processes differ across cases. Along the line of the UN’s second option for data collection methodology, the study will first identify if there is a legal framework that mandates the participation of civil society in the urban planning and management process. Second, it will use existing reports, master plans, national and city websites to attain and measure the level and forms of participatory planning processes utilized for each city for comparison. Finally, the study will consider and discuss historical, cultural, developmental, and political differences that may be a factor for the differences observed.

4. Comparative Analysis

4.1. Chicago, United States

Chicago’s most recent master plan is the GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan, which was published in 2010 by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) after “the business community and local elected officials recognized that many of the most pressing challenges are best addressed at the regional scale” [56] (p. 27). CMAP and the master plan are a legally binding organization and document, bound by federal designation for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the State of Illinois Public Act 095-0677, respectively. More specifically, these state and federal mandates require CMAP to “conduct comprehensive regional planning, to program transportation funding, to provide technical assistance for communities, and to provide data resources for stakeholder organizations and residents across the seven-county region” [56] (p. 27).

CMAP has an organizational structure that is inclusive at the public organizational level, including regional stakeholders, citizens’ advisory committees, and a council of mayors. CMAP’s development of GO TO 2040 coincided with the region-wide celebrations of the centennial anniversary of the landmark 1909 Plan of Chicago. Taking advantage of the year-long commemoration, CMAP partnered with centennial organizers to help educate the region’s residents about the need for “effective planning and of the significant opportunities for input to the region’s new plan” [56] (p. 29). The most significant outreach took place in 2009 at CMAP’s organized “Invent the Future” events, which attracted 35,000 participants to engage through workshops, kiosks, web tools, and booths at community festivals. The input that ordinary citizens gave about their preferences is reflected throughout the final plan.

It has become common practice among U.S. city planning organizations to include extended efforts to gain public participation during the development of their master plans, and they have been mandated to do so in most cases. Chicago and CMAP adhered to this practice and, in addition to their outreach efforts, they authored 47 strategy papers on a range of best practices and reports around such issues as state and local taxation, air quality, and jobs–housing balance. In addition, a partnership with external groups resulted in strategy papers on topics, including arts and culture, education, emergency preparedness, food, human relations, hunger, public health, public safety and crime, and workforce development, most of which are not traditionally included in regional plans. However, CMAP utilized and incorporated some appropriate recommendations in the final comprehensive plan.

4.2. São Paulo, Brazil

The City of São Paulo Strategic Master Plan, produced by the City of São Paulo Department of Urban Development (SMDU), was approved and enacted as new Law 14.050/2014 on 31 July 2014. The master plan defines a set of guidelines for the city’s development and growth until 2030. The main purpose of the master plan is “to humanize and rebalance the city…bringing housing and jobs closer together and facing socio-territorial inequalities” [57] (p. 3).

The public participatory process in developing the plan was unprecedented for both São Paulo, Brazil, and many other countries and cities in the region. The document outlines the process in detail, as follows.

In total, 114 public hearings were carried out, with the participation of 25,692 people, who gave 10,147 contributions for the improvement in the Master Plan. Additionally, 5684 proposals were made in meetings and workshops and other 4463 suggestions were sent by digital tools—1826 through online forms, 902 interventions on the shared map and 1204 in the collaborative draft bill available on the “Gestão Urbana” website, as well as 531 proposals on the City Council’s website [57] (p. 3).

The unprecedented participatory process was further notable because SMDU launched the digital platform “Gestao Urbana” (Urban Management), which gathered all the information related to the participatory process, including schedules, results, news, and files, and made it available in an open format on a website. As more people were being engaged through e-government, this allowed the sharing of open data and the use of innovative participatory tools, such as an online proposal form, a shared map, and a collaborative draft bill, that regular citizens could use to post comments and suggestions for each posted article.

One of the most significant outcomes of the participatory planning process was the establishment of Consortium Urban Operations, Urban Intervention Areas, Urban Concessions, and Local Structuring Areas programs that were developed through the direct inputs made by citizens during the participatory process. These programs shaped social equity concerns and incorporated the development of an urban intervention project, which addressed social housing needs, environmental and landscape risk solutions, economic urban interventions, mechanisms for participatory and social control instruments, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation process. The active participation of civil society is embedded within the plan in many aspects and directly addresses the issue by declaring that it will do so by

• Ensuring the principles of democratic management with popular participation
• Promoting a permanent, decentralized, and participatory planning process
• Promoting wide access to documents and information on the implementation of the Master Plan
• Ensuring funding for implementing Master Plan’s goals and guidelines though municipal funds
• Updating the action of the district plans every 4 years [57].

4.3. Delhi, India

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) prepared and the Central Government under Section 11A(2) of Delhi Development Act of 1957 approved the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (MPD) on 7 February 2007. An updated version incorporating notifications of amendments and modifications was later made available in 2010. It is stated that the plan will “make Delhi a global metropolis and a world-class city, where all the people would be engaged in productive work with a better quality of life, living in a sustainable environment” [58] (p. 2). Although the master plan covers issues such as land, physical infrastructure, transportation, ecology and environment, housing, and sociocultural and other institutional facilities, the document stresses that it is the planning process itself that is the cornerstone of the final product.

Taking place in the largest democracy in the world, the MPD process included both democratic procedures and statutory obligations for the drafting of the plan, including extensive consultations at the pre-planning stage that involved local bodies, National Capital Territory Government of Delhi, public sector agencies, professional groups, resident welfare associations, and elected representatives. In addition, DDA utilized reports from 12 study groups made up of experts and stakeholders on various topics, such as shelter, demography, conservation, transportation, industry, environment, and infrastructure. DDA also presented the draft in various forums, including the Legislative Assembly. Throughout this process, suggestions were also received at the Ministry of Urban Development from various interest groups, such as lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants, traders, and residents. Overall, suggestions made by various groups through all the engagement processes were considered in the final draft of MPD.

However, an invitation for public objections and suggestions for the final draft was only submitted to the Gazette of India on March 16, 2005, with public notices in newspapers following on 4 April 2005. Regardless, about 7000 objections/suggestions were received, and 661 persons and/or organizations were also heard at personal meetings with MPD authorities through the process. Public participatory practices during MPD appear to have largely included interest groups and private sector stakeholders, meaning that although MPD billed the democratic processes in the development of the plan as its cornerstone, the majority of the city’s inhabitants were left out of the process. Delhi has one of the largest slum-dwelling populations in the region, and their informal settlement status appears to extend to their limited political power in shaping their urban future. This is not a new phenomenon in India, where centuries of the caste system have traditionally kept a large part of the population disenfranchised, keeping the “subaltern” and “untouchables”—the silent majority—out of the democratic system in all its forms [59].

5. Discussion

As

Table 2. Comparative city public engagement overview.

	Total Population Engaged (Approximate)	% Engaged to Total (City) Population	Types of Engagement
Chicago	47,000	1.74%	Workshops (57) Kiosks Fairs and festivals GO TO 2040 website MetroQuest Scenario Media promotion
São Paulo	35,839	0.3%	Public hearings (114) Workshops Gestão Urbana website City Council website Media promotion
Delhi	N/A	N/A	Study groups (12) Public presentations Meetings with interest groups Published notification for objection and recommendations

demonstrates, the data from Chicago and São Paulo demonstrate more robust public engagement, with 1.74% and 0.30%, respectively, of each city’s population engaging through various tools. In particular, Chicago provided a standalone, 200-page document reporting its public engagement activities, including data on workshop attendees’ demographics by race, gender, and county of residence. The calculation of percent engaged to total city population is an estimate. For example, the calculations for Chicago and São Paulo do not account for the total number of website visitors, instead focusing on the number of unique visitors that engaged and contributed by adding comments and/or utilized map and scenario online tools during website visits. In addition, it is important to note that the percentages of engaged populations appear small because they have been calculated from each city’s overall population, including children. Although Delhi reports that robust public engagement was its core principle during the development of its master plan, very little raw data on number of participants was provided, making it necessary to omit it in Table 2 below.

What also emerges from the analysis is that historical and traditional political and cultural factors shape the extent to which participatory urban planning is practiced among cases. For example, the federal political system of the U.S. and its historical planning practices borne out of the autonomy of its first towns/settlements and states still linger today. Although the federal government requires states and localities to have planning policies, the overall processes and development choices are left to the states. Conversely, Brazil has not historically had a national urban planning policy in its form of federalism, underlined by the fact that its first national urban project, which connected Rio de Janeiro to São Paulo via a paved road, was only completed in 1952 [60]. Brazil differs from the U.S in that it experienced two decades of dictatorship (1964–1984), followed by a period of centralized development planning. The emergence of Brazilian states’ autonomy in guiding their own urban development planning, therefore, is a much more modern practice. Brazil’s era of central dictatorship may have led to São Paulo’s robust participatory practice in developing its most current master plan.

India, on the other hand, has a long history of both colonization and internal ethnic, religious, and class divisions that have shaped its democratic system, creating unique historical and cultural differences that are difficult to comparatively analyze with the U.S. and Brazil. Delhi’s participatory processes in urban planning at first come across as being as democratic as either Chicago or São Paulo, but the extent to which the general public is engaged in Delhi differs. The high levels of poverty in Delhi may play a role in these differences, perhaps to the extent that planning agencies there are unable to communicate through the wide range of outreach programs (e.g., internet, workshops, etc.) used in Chicago and São Paulo. Even given these possible conditions, Delhi’s master plan suggests that most participants came from the private sector and mostly professional interest groups. This is problematic, especially considering that the larger poor population that is already vulnerable will be most affected by implemented policies. For example, the MPD lays out policies to curb and alleviate slum development through interventions that appear inequitable (e.g., upgrading slums versus legalizing land tenure). Given India’s long history of oppressing its populations with the caste system, its national urban policy and city-level master plans may need to be more extensively revisited to be more inclusive than their counterparts in the U.S. and Brazil.

Another important difference is that the extensive urban planning instruments used in the U.S. do not yet exist for some comparative cities. Cities in the U.S have comprehensive city-level plans, but they also provide more localized neighborhood plans, as well as downtown/central business district, transportation, economic development, bicycle and pedestrian, environmental, and many other specialized plans that are complementary to and extend existing strategic master plans. At this disaggregated level, public participation is further enhanced, which may show that the U.S. style of urban planning makes public participation more equitable and participatory in nature. As witnessed in the analysis, São Paula appears to have a more stringent agenda to enhance participatory practices compared to both Chicago and Delhi, but the engagement of the public is limited solely to the master plan, its processes, and implementation. In this regard, the ways in which all parts of society in the city can participate at the local level are less realizable.

Social Equity Implications and Recommendations

Sustainable urban development is critical in an era when most of the world’s population lives in cities. Social equity is paramount to the sustainability of cities, as the ideals of the theory of a just city posit that sustainability can only be achieved when representative equity is justly distributed spatially, economically, and politically to all its residents. Cities’ master plans are public policy instruments that guide their development over time, and the processes used to prepare them pose social equity implications if the concerns and visions of all their citizens are not addressed in the formulation of final policies. Public engagement during the processes of developing a city’s long-term master plan is thus one of the critical ways that social equity can be addressed.

This comparative analysis has shown that cities acknowledge the importance of civil societies’ engagement as a key factor for making informed and equitable decisions in urban planning and management processes. However, it has also shown that the level of engagement differs among cities. Two prongs of recommendations are presented to address these findings. First, while the UN has developed two options for the collection of data and measuring Indicator 11.3.2, it should consider a more holistic approach that incorporates cultural, political, economic, and historical factors that may differentiate among nations in meeting this target. A significant recommendation is to utilize and incorporate indicators such as typology of regime, levels of democracy, gender equality, educational attainment, internet access, and digital literacy within the methodologies of tracking and measuring nations’ progress in meeting SDG goals.

Second, rapid urbanization is currently taking place in developing regions where democratic civil engagement in policymaking tends to be greatly lacking or is in its infancy. There is a need for capacity building in participatory urban planning and management processes in these regions where economic, cultural, and technological factors put limits to skills and practices of such a paradigm. For example, the use of digital and internet-based forms of public engagement techniques that have had a positive effect in reaching a great part of society in highly developed countries do not have the same impact in less developed nations that have an uneven distribution of internet access and digital literacy. In these instances, international (i.e., UN, UN-Habitat, World Bank, etc.), regional (i.e., African Union, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, etc.), national and local organizations will need to find and utilize more equitable ways of reaching all stakeholders through other means in order to truly have equitable and sustainable urban development and planning processes. An example and recommendation to this end is the training and use of community agents and/or organizations at the local level to play a greater role in the dissemination of information and collection of civil society and stakeholders’ comments, priorities, and needs during the planning process.

6. Conclusions

As we become a more urbanized world, how we plan and develop our cities has a multiplicity of implications for the long-term sustainability of human settlement and a just and equitable society. Urban social equity is the cornerstone of sustainable development in all its dimensions and measures. The inclusion of SDG 11 within the framework of global sustainable development demonstrates the critical nature of the urban factor in the general well-being of our interconnected universe. Comparative analysis of social equity among nations’ and cities’ development planning sheds light on how some cities have incorporated equitable practices, such as participatory planning, and allows us to compare and contrast best practices and lessons learned to better understand our own strengths and weaknesses.

Although this brief comparative analysis barely scratches the surface, it conveys the complexity of the political and historical factors that shape how different cities approach inclusive and participatory processes in urban development and planning. What underlines the similarities between the urban planning approaches of Chicago, São Paulo, and Delhi is that they all emphasize the role of public engagement as the cornerstone of their urban planning processes. However, even though they share the ideals of inclusive urbanization as their guiding principle, the extent to which they are inclusive and participatory differs. This does not negate the fact that all three cities face many challenges in combating the urban inequities that currently exist within their domains. In the coming years, and using the SDGs as a guiding tool, the cities may each be able to track progress towards a more sustainable and equitable urban future at their own pace but reaching towards the same goals. As the UN, other state, and non-governmental organizations continue to develop more accessible data to measure the extent to which civil society and citizens are included in the planning process, it will allow for a more substantial and comparative research. However, future research must take a significant on the ground analysis to truly measure and unpack the extent that participation is inclusive and diverse in the process of planning, management, and implementations of sustainable urban development.