Mysuru’s first citywide tree census has produced a finding that is both encouraging and difficult to ignore: the city has significant ecological assets, but they are distributed extremely unevenly. The NAMMARA Tree Audit Report 2025-26 recorded green cover of 13.3% across 65 wards under Mysuru City Corporation, while the gap between the best- and worst-covered wards ranged from 28.9% in Vidyaranyapuram to just 0.09% in Ajeej Seth Nagar.
The headline number matters, but it does not describe the experience of every Mysuru resident. Twenty wards had fewer than 500 trees each, and the census found several streets without shade trees. At the same time, Dattagalli had 8,024 trees and Vidyaranyapuram recorded the highest green cover. The result is a citywide average that conceals a sharply unequal distribution of shade, vegetation and the environmental benefits associated with urban trees.
That distinction is central to understanding the report. A city may appear reasonably green when its trees are concentrated in particular neighbourhoods, institutional areas or established residential districts. Residents in wards with extensive canopy can experience cooler streets, shaded footpaths and a stronger visual connection with vegetation. Those in wards with very few trees may encounter a harder streetscape, with less shade and fewer nearby ecological assets. The census does not provide a ward-wise assessment of pedestrian heat exposure or street temperatures, so it cannot establish those impacts directly. It does, however, identify where the underlying distribution of trees is most unequal.
The scale of the inventory is substantial. The audit documented 1,17,131 plants, including 1,16,764 trees, across the corporation’s 65 wards. That works out to an average of roughly 1,796 recorded trees per ward, but the ward-level figures show why this average is an inadequate guide to local conditions. Dattagalli’s 8,024 trees were more than 76 times the 105 recorded in Meenabazar. Ajeej Seth Nagar’s 0.09% green cover, along with its 17 recorded species, places it at the most severe end of both the coverage and species-richness gaps identified in the report.
The census also complicates any simple narrative of decline. Mysuru’s tree population was recorded as having more than 900 species, and the citywide Shannon’s Diversity Index was 3.7, indicating high species diversity. Vijayanagar had the highest species richness, with around 300 species among 7,420 trees. These findings suggest that the city’s green infrastructure is not merely a question of tree quantity. What is planted, where it is planted and whether different wards contain a broad range of species are equally important parts of the urban ecology.
The distribution of dominant species provides another layer of detail. Pongamia pinnata, commonly known as Honge, was the dominant species in 56 wards, accounting for between 13.8% and 46.2% of trees in those wards. Nine wards were dominated by other species, including Samanea saman, coconut, drumstick and Peltophorum pterocarpum. This pattern indicates that Mysuru has a strong recurring species presence while retaining substantial diversity across the wider tree population. The report, as supplied, does not establish whether the concentration of Honge reflects coordinated planting, local conditions, historical planting practices or survival patterns.
The carbon data gives the inventory a wider climate dimension. The trees’ total biomass was estimated at 39,559 metric tonnes, with carbon content of 19,779.4 metric tonnes. Estimated carbon sequestration stood at 72,586 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Gangothri recorded the highest ward-level sequestration at 4,739 tonnes, while Ajeej Seth Nagar recorded the lowest at 49 tonnes. These figures show that the distribution of trees is also a distribution of measurable carbon-related assets, although the supplied report does not explain the methodology, time period or assumptions used for the estimates.
That qualification is important because urban tree data can easily be reduced to a single citywide percentage or a carbon headline. The value of NAMMARA lies in making the differences between wards visible. A citywide inventory can support broad planning, but ward-level data is what allows civic authorities and communities to identify areas with very low coverage, small tree populations or limited species richness. In Mysuru’s case, the contrast between Vidyaranyapuram and Ajeej Seth Nagar is not a minor variation. It is a difference of more than 28 percentage points in reported green cover.
The audit was conducted by the BHERUNDA Foundation, led by Trishikha Kumari Wadiyar, with the Centre for Advanced Learning as knowledge partner. District authorities, civic groups, institutions, research organisations and hundreds of volunteers supported the exercise. Editors Prof Smitha Hegde and Vijay Moras said the citizen-participatory census was completed within its one-year deadline. They also said the survey showed that people in Mysuru love and protect trees. That statement is an attributed observation from the organisers, rather than a citywide behavioural measurement, but it points to the institutional character of the exercise: the census was not presented as a purely administrative enumeration.
This civic participation matters because tree management in a city is not limited to planting. It involves identifying existing trees, recording species, maintaining public information, protecting mature trees and deciding where new planting can survive. The report establishes an inventory and highlights ward-level disparities. It does not, in the material supplied, specify a municipal action plan, ward-wise planting targets, a maintenance budget, protection measures or a timeline for addressing the lowest-coverage areas. Those omissions do not diminish the census; they define the next administrative questions that the data raises.
The policy landscape is therefore only partly visible. Mysuru City Corporation is the geographic and administrative framework used for the audit, but the supplied report does not detail how the corporation will incorporate the findings into road design, footpath works, public-space upgrades, development permissions or routine tree maintenance. It also does not state whether the 13.3% figure is being adopted as a formal municipal baseline or how green cover has changed over time. Without that information, the report can establish the present distribution recorded by the census, but not a trend or a measure of policy performance.
This is where the distinction between planting numbers and urban green infrastructure becomes significant. The audit records 1,16,764 trees, but it also identifies streets without shade trees and wards with fewer than 500 trees. Trees are not interchangeable units. Their location determines whether they contribute to a residential street, a public institution, a road edge or an open space. Their species, size and survival condition also affect the benefits they provide. The supplied findings do not include canopy extent by street, tree age, health condition or access to green spaces, so those aspects remain outside the report’s demonstrated evidence.
Even with those limits, the numbers reveal a clear planning problem: Mysuru’s green character cannot be assessed only through its reputation or citywide average. Vidyaranyapuram’s 28.9% green cover, Dattagalli’s 8,024 trees and Vijayanagar’s species richness show that substantial ecological capacity exists within the municipal area. The figures for Ajeej Seth Nagar, KN Pura, Gandhi Nagar and Meenabazar show that this capacity is not evenly shared. KN Pura’s green cover was 0.8%, Gandhi Nagar’s was 1%, and Meenabazar had only 105 recorded trees.
The larger urban question is whether Mysuru’s green infrastructure will be managed as a citywide system or remain a collection of uneven local conditions. The census supplies the first detailed evidence needed to ask that question. It identifies ecological strengths, exposes neighbourhood-level deficits and records carbon and species data that can inform future decisions. But it does not yet show how the city will respond, whether the most deficient wards will receive priority, or how progress will be measured.
What the evidence confirms is a city with high recorded species diversity, substantial tree biomass and a significant estimated carbon-sequestration capacity, alongside deep inequalities in green cover and tree numbers. The next developments to monitor are the public release of ward-level data, the civic corporation’s response, and whether the census becomes a continuing management tool rather than a one-time inventory.
