Pune Faces Green Cover Disparity As Unequal Access To Parks Sparks Concern
The latest civic environmental status report has brought to the fore a troubling inequality in Pune’s urban landscape, highlighting a stark disparity in the distribution of green spaces across different zones. While the city’s overall green cover has seen a marginal increase, a deeper analysis reveals that this growth is not equitable, with some densely populated zones suffering from a severe lack of accessible and ecologically meaningful parkland. The report’s findings have intensified a critical debate among urban planners and environmentalists about the city’s approach to sustainable development.
An in-depth review of the report reveals a paradoxical situation where one zone boasts the highest number of parks, yet has the least green cover in terms of cumulative area. The densely populated Zone 1, which includes localities like Yerawada and Kharadi, has a remarkable 52 parks. However, the combined area of these parks is a meagre 3,223.12 square metres, translating to an average size of just 62 square metres per park. This minimal allocation of space falls drastically short of providing a substantial and equitable recreational outlet for a burgeoning population. This deficiency points to a long-standing failure in urban planning to set aside adequate land for green infrastructure in high-density areas.
Conversely, a more suburban zone, encompassing areas such as Warje-Karvenagar, presents a contrasting picture of green abundance. With only 40 parks, this zone benefits from a total parkland area of over 943,514 square metres. This includes vast natural spaces and biodiversity parks, positioning it as the city’s most generously green zone. This glaring contrast underscores a significant governance challenge: ensuring that as cities expand, the benefits of natural and public amenities are distributed equitably among all residents, not just a fortunate few.
The report also sheds light on a deeper ideological conflict over the nature of greenery itself. Environmental experts argue that civic bodies often prioritise creating visually appealing, yet ecologically hollow, green spaces. These are often filled with ornamental plants and exotic species that offer little support to local biodiversity or environmental resilience. Instead, a more sustainable and impactful strategy, they contend, would involve prioritising the eco-restoration of natural urban ecosystems such as river basins, hillsides, and other sensitive zones that are crucial for groundwater recharge, flood mitigation, and supporting native flora and fauna. These areas, when properly managed, provide far greater long-term environmental benefits than artificial gardens.
In response, officials have stated that garden development is tied to land reservations specified in the city’s development plans. They have expressed optimism that the recent merger of surrounding villages into the city limits will provide opportunities for creating new green spaces. However, the core of the issue remains unanswered: whether future planning will move beyond superficial parks to embrace a holistic, ecologically-sound, and equitable approach to green infrastructure that serves all of the city’s inhabitants. The public remains an important voice in this discussion, with many citizen groups actively engaging in conservation efforts and mapping trees to protect the city’s natural heritage. This ground-up movement highlights a clear desire for a truly sustainable and breathable city.
