< Back The elephant in the room: Addressing wildlife-inclusivity in the design of the urban environment Animals reveal hidden urban ecologies, showing how cities function as shared habitats shaped by planning choices. Aaishwarya Jain and Madhulikaa March 2021 Image: A still from ‘Eeb Allay Ooo’ trailer. Source: YouTube “Eeb, Allay, Ooo; Eeb, Allay, Ooo;” shout two men riding on a cycle through the broad tree-lined roads of Lutyens’ Delhi, trying to scare away the aggressive monkeys that have become a nuisance of late in the locality. This is where, in the movie Eeb Allay Ooo, the protagonist receives training for the government job of a “monkey chaser” or a “monkey repeller” by imitating the sound of a langur (eeb), the natural predator of the monkey. Reading the word monkey repeller in the subtitles, the co-author was instantly hooked to the story and invested in the inherent absurdity of the situation. Although the movie was intended to be a satire on the current socio-political state of India, the ‘architect’ in the author couldn’t help but wonder if the strategies drafted while planning the capital city took into consideration the local wildlife. This instantly highlighted the need to include wildlife-inclusive urban design at the planning stage of Indian cities. While one author was caught up in the trail of thoughts left by the movie, the other discovered the joys of observing and not just ‘looking’ at views from the window while quarantined at home during the 2020 COVID pandemic. One such morning, the co-author saw cows bathe in a pool near the dilapidated Otteri canal that runs in the backyard of her home. The cows would be owned by someone who resides nearby, as they are regular visitors to this space. This urban space, by accident, provided a haven for cows. Envisioning the large diversity of living beings residing in cities, let’s take the case of the canal where the cows bathe. As architects or urban designers, when we imagine the canal being rejuvenated, it typically conjures visuals of steps going down to the canal, space for the water to swell, natural landscapes including trees and shrubs, maybe a playground for kids? But would these 'sustainable city’ visions provide space for the cows to bathe? Similarly, would monkey chasers be necessary for Delhi if urban habitats are designed holistically? These questions further highlight the need to examine the range of relationships Indian cities have with their animals. In this article, we intend to look at this generically, drawing upon examples from India and the rest of the world and will further zoom in to a human scale to investigate its physical manifestations in India. Image: Cows bathing in a patch of water and situated amid the dense city, eating the garbage being dumped on the edge of the plot. Source: Author Image: Manifestation of a typical canal rejuvenation in the same space. Source: Author Examining the current spectrum of relationships between cities and wildlife Image: Residential balconies encased with nets to prevent the entry of birds and other animals (Bhande, 2020) At one end of the spectrum, we can observe an attempt to prevent animals from accessing the built environment. This usually manifests as hostile architecture towards urban animals. Walls topped with barbed wire, glass shards or pointed metal needles serve as a defence mechanism in buildings in many cities. In the cities of India, non-human actors like the Rhesus Macaques, Bonnet Macaque, Langur, Spotted deer, Common Myna, Rose-ringed Parakeet, Red-Vented Bulbul, and Black Kite often fall prey to these “unpleasant” design interventions. Chequered nets and grill structures used to enclose balconies prove as a hindrance for birds navigating through the city. (Chugh, 2020a). The peak of this “unpleasantness” in design (Savičić and Savičić, 2016) can be witnessed in Bristol, UK where the trees in a parking lot have been installed with metal spikes to prevent birds from perching and nesting on them. This is claimed to be done for the sole purpose of protecting expensive cars from bird droppings. (Ward and Ashcroft, 2017). Image: Sparrows perched and nested in Shivsagar School, Assam (Studio Advaita, n.d) At the other end of the spectrum, we find that some animals like pigeons and monkeys (mostly non-domesticated ones that live in the urban setting) have found ingenious ways to adapt to the prevailing conditions to nest, commute and survive in the city. Scientific research shows that, through fierce adaptation, they have evolved into an urban-adapted species, known as “synurbics”, which are significantly different from their wild counterparts. Synurbics have been found to exhibit enhanced rates of productivity, higher life expectancy, faster growth and higher reproductivity rates due to their unique survival strategies in urban landscapes as opposed to the wild (Gonji, 2019). In cities, certain animals’ needs take precedence over others; especially those of domesticated animals. For instance, there are dog parks and cafes in several cities in India for domesticated dogs, while stray dogs are not welcome. In the same cityscape, the needs of other animals like cows and poultry are largely invisibilized. Image: Selective wildlife-inclusive urban design. Source: (Chugh, 2020b) So, how does the nature of this relationship impact humans, and how can we improve the relationship cities have with animals? Urban wildlife benefits humans as it helps control the spread of diseases that pass from animals to humans. Animal diversity controls zoonotic diseases without having to use as much pesticide. It also provides immense mental well-being benefits to humans. This is where ecological urbanism enters the picture - one that can incorporate and accommodate the inherent conflictual conditions between ecology and urbanism. Adopting an ecological urbanism approach would call for transdisciplinary strategies that look beyond the confines of architecture, urban planning and human needs to be able to produce “socially just interventions that are sensitive to the environment.”(Mostafavi, 2020). While standard “sustainable city” visions have been propelled by planning, architecture, and centred around energy, waste, and construction materials, the ecological urbanism lens aims to go beyond the myopic definition of “sustainable city” to include interdisciplinary ecological perspectives on urban issues. Further, Moshen Mostafavi (2020) identifies the challenge of the paradoxical term “ecological urbanism” and thus, urges planners and architects to use “the problems confronting our cities and regions” as “opportunities to define new approaches” to progress towards ecological desirable solutions that cater to ecology as a whole rather than a singular human-centric perspective. Graphic: The term “Ecological Urbanism” is a paradox in itself. Source: Author If one were to successfully adopt an ecological urbanism perspective in the case of the canal rejuvenation and the employment of ‘monkey chaser’ mentioned earlier, it should ideally result in a space that integrates the uses of humans, animals, and prioritises the symbiotic nature of the landscape. Although the definition of ecological urbanism needs to be applied at multiple levels, this article examines its application in the heart of cities and densely built-up areas. Most often, we categorise animal conservation to make it more applicable and avoid complexity. Existing wildlife conservation practices in urban areas focus predominantly on the protection of specific habitats (e.g. wetlands, marshlands), which are usually isolated from the densely built-up areas of cities. Despite sharing the same natural environment where interventions and policies come to life, urban design and conservation are rarely seen embracing each other to reach biodiversity goals (Weisser and Hauk, 2017). Incorporation of ecological design elements like green infrastructure, biophilic design for human benefit, is understood as mandatory for visions of urban sustainability. They are automatically assumed to have a positive effect on wildlife without much practical testing (Filazzola, Shrestha, & MacIvor, 2019). Image: Conservation seen as a separate entity. Source: Author Image: Conservation as a continuous entity. Source: Author Towards an inclusive urban environment by application of ecological urbanism Thus, the translation of ecological urbanism concepts must remain all-encompassing, taking into account the complex relationships present in the urban environment. In this perspective, the wildlife-inclusive urban design aims to establish a conservation continuum for wildlife. It focuses on “areas that are generally not prioritised for wildlife conservation” (Apfelbeck et al., 2020) and aims to propose strategies that develop new possibilities for wildlife conservation within dense built-up areas of cities. The following section details existing and proposed methodologies involved in the pertinent translation of ecological urbanism and wildlife-inclusive urban design in the real world. Strategy for an inclusive design process: After a thorough, critical analysis of several applications of wildlife-inclusive urban design, Apfelbeck et al. (2020) propose that the features of such successful projects are: 1. Interdisciplinary design teams that involve ecologists early on, 2. Consideration of the entire life-cycle of the target species, 3. Post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation with feedback to communicate best practices, and 4. Stakeholder involvement and participatory approaches. Graphic: Interdisciplinary team with ecologists early on, considering of life cycles of the target species. Source: Author Graphic: Post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation, Stakeholder and participatory involvement, Source: Author Felson et al. (2013) also urge urban ecology researchers to “use the design process as a framework for engaging with cities” and advocate for the inclusion of ecology research at the earliest stage (design) possible. Similarly, the idea of Animal-Aided Design strives to “include the presence of animals in the planning process, such that they are an integral part of the design” to enrich the urban design with species conservation (Weisser and Hauk, 2017). This would involve taking into consideration a species’ life cycle at the beginning of the planning process to avoid conflict during it. The ultimate goals of Animal-aided Design can be summarised as 1) providing space for a species in an urban environment that would otherwise be lost due to development plans and 2) an opportunity to create new habitats for these species. Image: Animal-Aided Design process (Weisser and Hauk, 2017) For Animal-aided Design to be successful, we have to reflect on the socio-political status of wildlife in the urban landscape. Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011), introduce political legitimacy into the idea of integration of wildlife into the urban landscape. In their seminal book, Zoopolis: A political theory of Animal Rights, they study the roles of different types of animals in human society. They classify them into domesticated, liminal, and wild animals and align them with citizenship rights to aim for the protection of animals’ rights and hope to create a “mutually-enriching, respectable and non-exploitative environment for animals and humans” (Abney, n.d). Image: Citizenship rights of animals according to Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011). Source: Author Additionally, citizen science has proved instrumental in establishing social-ecological connections, thus creating a new meaning of place while deepening social, personal, and environmental attachments (Toomey, Strehlau-Howay, Manzolillo and Thomas, 2020). This further serves as a motive for investing greater time in the conservation of urban wildlife. Integrating the above-mentioned methods into the current urban planning/design process ensures a greater chance at success as opposed to it existing as a separate procedure or in addition to the existing one. Post-implementation, the continuous assessment and evaluation of the wildlife-inclusive urban design interventions become vital for their long-term sustainability and success. Apfelbeck et al. (2020) have such a solution at hand: a planning cycle to incorporate wildlife needs at every stage of the planning and design process. Image: Depicts a planning cycle for successful integration of wildlife-inclusive urban design into the urban planning and design process from Apfelbeck et al. (2020). The green text indicates the wildlife needs, and the blue font highlights stakeholder requirements at each step. Wildlife-inclusive urban design has to be mainstreamed to create a socially just and inclusive environment for urban animals. On the other hand, it is crucial to ensure that these interventions do not make animals dependent on humans for their survival, but rather create spaces where all kinds of urban animals and humans can coexist. Research by urban ecologists states that the over-dependence of monkeys on the residents for their daily food requirements has led to them being more aggressive, especially when they are not able to access resources with the same ease. The peculiar case of monkey groups wandering around Luyten’s Delhi, causing havoc to residents, serves as a cautionary tale, urging humans to be mindful of the way they interact with urban animals. Though knowledge and awareness form the first step towards the implementation of wildlife-inclusive urban design, transparency and political will are cornerstones to turn this knowledge into a successful, transformative capacity and actionable policies. Image: Repurposing green roofs into green corridors to cater to a greater degree of biodiversity while also protecting birds/animals from vehicles. Based on New York architecture firm DLANDstudio’s discussions. Source: Author On an endnote: Reflect, Rethink and Include The pandemic has shown us the consequences of increased human-animal conflicts as a result of the loss of habitat, which is occurring all across the world. As humans, we need to acknowledge that we are not alone in inhabiting the earth, and we should create spaces that maintain a harmonious ecosystem. The article questions the role of a designer in creating wildlife-inclusive cities, especially in the Indian context and urges us to question: Is it enough for architects, landscape architects, and urbanists to simply conceive the future centring around ‘sustainable architecture’ or blue-green landscapes oriented only towards human needs? To begin, we urge designers to understand the concept of ecological urbanism and avoid compartmentalisation of conservation strategies. The urban context is still a habitat for various non-human actors, and it’s our responsibility to facilitate life to thrive in all forms. The design process has to include ecologists from the beginning to ensure eco-sensitivity holds the utmost significance and is not just an afterthought. Multi-disciplinary teams can widen the objectives of our designs and bring out innovative solutions. We also need to develop systems and frameworks for post-occupancy evaluation and feedback. As designers and planners, the intent is to pause the next time we are working on a design problem and remind ourselves of the vast world that the word ‘nature’ encompasses and be imaginative in creating spaces, installations or just nothingness that lets nature flourish. Endnote: The authors would like to firstly thank Sagana and her blog Column1o6 for being the platform that planted the seed for this article! They are immensely grateful to Aditi Subramanian for her editorial insights during the writing process. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Deepesh & Hamza at Multilogue Collective for hosting this article on Urban Dialogue in 2021. References Abney, M., n.d. Summary Of Zoopolis: A Political Theory Of Animal Rights. [online] Animalstudies.msu.edu.(http://Animalstudies.msu.edu) [Accessed 4 January 2021]. Bhande, A., 2020. Residential balconies encased with nets to prevent entry of birds and other animals [image]. [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Apfelbeck, B., Snep, R., Hauck, T., Ferguson, J., Holy, M., Jakoby, C., Scott MacIvor, J., Schär, L., Taylor, M. and Weisser, W., 2020. Designing wildlife-inclusive cities that support human-animal co-existence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 200, p.103817. Arcari, P., Probyn-Rapsey, F. and Singer, H., 2020. Where species don’t meet: Invisibilized animals, urban nature and city limits. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, p.251484862093987. Chugh, K., 2020a. More-Than-Human Cities: On Urban Design And Nonhuman Agency. [online] Cuesonline.org.(http://Cuesonline.org) [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Chugh, K., 2020b. Needs Of A Domesticated Dog Taking Precedence Over Other Urban Animals. [image] [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Donaldson, S. and Kymlicka, W., 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory Of Animal Rights. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Filazzola, A., Shrestha, N., & MacIvor, J.S., 2019. The contribution of constructed green infrastructure to urban biodiversity: a synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56, 2131-2143. Felson, A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Carter, T., Montalto, F., Shuster, B., Springer, N., Stander, E. and Starry, O., 2013. Mapping the Design Process for Urban Ecology Researchers. BioScience, 63(11), pp.854-865. Gonji, A., 2019. Human-Generated Food And Urban Wildlife. [online] Cuesonline.org.(http://Cuesonline.org) [Accessed 27 December 2020]. Independant, 2017. Anti-Bird Spikes Installed On Trees In Bristol. [image] [Accessed 30 December 2020]. Mostafavi, M., 2020. Harvard Design Magazine: Why Ecological Urbanism? Why Now?. [online] [Accessed 26 September 2020]. Savičić, G. and Savičić, S. ed., 2016. Unpleasant Design. 1st ed. G.L.O.R.I.A. Studio Advaita, n.d. Sparrows Preached And Nested In Shivsagar School, Assam. [image] [Accessed 31 December 2020]. Rodrigues, L.C., 2015. Review of Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Political Studies Review, 13, pp 399-399. Toomey, A.H, Strehlau-Howay, L., Manzolillo, B. and Thomas, C., 2020. The place-making potential of citizen science: Creating social-ecological connections in an urbanized world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 200, p.103824. Ward, S. and Ashcroft, E., 2017. Wealthy Bristol Residents Cause Outrage By Installing 'Anti-Bird Spikes' To Stop Droppings Hitting Expensive Cars. [online] The Independent. [Accessed 30 December 2020]. Weisser, W.W. and Hauck, T.E., 2017. ANIMAL-AIDED DESIGN–using a species’ life-cycle to improve open space planning and conservation in cities and elsewhere. [Accessed 27 December 2020] Up Up

< Back Waste as Public Space? Chennai’s garbage mountains hide injustice. Can reimagined public spaces transform waste into collective responsibility? Madhulikaa November 2025 Image 1: Mountains of mixed waste at Kodyungaiyur dumpyard (Raj, 2019) Picture this: You are driving on the roads of your city and have hilly landscapes for company everyday. Beautiful right? But what if these are not the lush green mountains you just thought about - rather, they are massive piles of filthy garbage resembling mountains. Unnerving isn’t it? Spanning 345 acres, these 300 ft high piles of waste are a result of 4 decades of indiscriminate dumping at Kodungaiyur in Chennai. Residents here are victims of respiratory issues, skin allergies, and contaminated groundwater (Shekhar, 2021). While most of the city ignores its waste management problems, areas near dumping grounds suffer the most - which is plain injustice. If this trend continues, we will undoubtedly end up in a situation like Kevin Lynch’s “waste cacotopia” (Lynch & Southworth, 1990), where many animals are extinct, humans are struggling to live and where waste is disposed to outer space. Figure 1: Map showing the 15 administrative zones of Chennai along with transfer station sites denoted by T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. Graphic is author’s own adapted from GCC’s website. As per data available in Greater Corporation of Chennai’s (GCC) website, the city of Chennai generates a staggering total of 5.4 million kilograms of garbage daily. 68% of this waste is generated by its residents alone. In a country where waste management is not perceived as a shared responsibility and where we have been conditioned to accept that cleanliness is only reserved for private spaces and not public spaces (Bisen, 2019), it has become a common practice to discard waste without any seconds thoughts like - What happens to my waste? Where does it go? Will this affect the environment and in turn my well being? Though the GCC lists all available waste management infrastructure in the city in its website, the exact location of these facilities, especially transfer stations, are not easily accessible. Additionally, due to insufficient maintenance, these transfer stations have become mini dump yards themselves. While the government makes multiple announcements on the adoption of different methodologies and technologies to get rid of municipal waste, the waste management debate in Chennai has not yet made a strong overlap with the fields of architecture and spatial planning. Architecture and urban planning have the potential to act as a “device” (Nobile, 2018) to weave waste management infrastructure into the urban fabric. What if spaces of waste management can become public spaces that foster important conversations on recycling, upcycling, composting and mindful waste management amongst residents, government authorities and waste pickers alike? When waste infrastructures and its associated spaces become public spaces, they open up closed processes of waste management (Lhendup and Dorji, 2022) and expose the complexities associated with it. The “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” attitude is making people complacent when it comes to taking action towards scientifically-sound waste management practices. Data supports the fact that people become exceedingly uncomfortable when put face to face with huge amounts of waste and start questioning their consumption levels (Eckardt et al., 2012). Re-imagining places of waste infrastructure as public spaces offers a dual advantage: it enhances public awareness and motivation for action while encouraging the maintenance of the facility. Image 2: CopenHill Energy Plant (Luftfoto, 2019) and a graphic (courtesy BIG architects) to depict the recreational activites on the roof In this regard, Chennai can take a leaf out of Copenhagen’s urban fabric. Through the CopenHill Energy Plant and Urban Recreation Centre in Copenhagen, BIG architects envision a space where public facilities and a waste to energy (WTE) plant intersect, creating a medium for retrospection and reflection. Although the usage of a WTE plant in solid waste management (SWM) process in Chennai or any Indian city - where 50% or more of waste generated is biodegradable and unsegregated - is debatable (Bhushan et al., 2018), it is the concept of community integration that is to be taken into consideration. Image 3: Sydhavns Recycling centre (courtesy BIG architects) In a similar fashion, nestled within a man-made hill that functions as a public park with fitness tracks, the Sydhavns Recycling centre at Copenhagan performs the dual function of a public recreation space and a recycling centre where people can drop off waste. As BIG eloquently puts it, “In its simplest form the recycling station is a way to start thinking of our cities as integrated man-made ecosystems, where we don’t distinguish between the front and back of house. But rather orchestrate all aspects of daily life, from consumption to recycling, from infrastructure to education, from the practical to the playful into a single integrated urban landscape of work and play,” While many garbage dumping sites around the world in Brazil, Seoul and the USA (Harnik et al., 2006) have been transformed into green spaces, this is a petition to “visibilise” the process of waste management and seamlessly amalgamate it in the quotidian lives of people in an effort to make them sensitive towards management of waste. Creating a public space that inventively integrates waste management processes and recreational/educational activities will elevate these processes as a community-oriented responsibility and encourage greater participation, thereby progressing towards harmonious coexistence with nature. Applying this concept, a systemic strategy for the city of Chennai can be formulated: The existing transfer station sites in Chennai (as shown in Figure 1), situated at various locations at the heart of the city, have been rendered useless due to indiscriminate dumping. These sites can be upcycled into dynamic public spaces to contain waste processing units that cater to both dry waste and biodegradable waste. Reduce, reuse and recycle are the golden words when it comes to efficient municipal waste management. Being true to this theme, many studies (Srivatsava et al., 2014) show that a network of decentralised integrated solid waste management (ISWM) is best suited to simultaneously tackle dry and wet waste. Apart from dealing with day-to-day waste, this system will ensure sustainability in the municipal SWM process in the long run - which is undoubtedly the need of the hour. It is crucial that the methods adopted are sensitive to the local context as “waste is not a mathematical problem”(Eckardt et al., 2012). Figure 2: An overview of Mylapore and the location of the transfer station. Graphic credits: author’s own For instance, consider the 2-acre transfer station site at Mylapore. Regarded as the culture centre of the city, Mylapore is famous for its places of worship and cultural centres to foster classical art and dance forms. It is also one of the city’s oldest residential areas. Apart from the general municipal solid waste generated, a lot of flower waste is also generated which is unique to this area. Therefore, in addition to a Material Recovery Facility to tackle dry waste, composting and biogas infrastructure at the site, there should be facilities to compost the flower waste. Natural dyes can be extracted from the processed waste and used in the manufacture of associated goods. A community space can further help foster public engagement with the up-cycling process and to hold educational discussions and workshops. Figure 3: Proposed up-cycle treatment to Mylapore transfer station. Graphic credits: author’s own Another potential site is the transfer station at Athipet. Athipet lies within the industrial hub of Chennai. Hence, it can be activated to process metal, plastic, wood and industrial waste. Being a larger site of 5-acres, it will also have the ability to provide for up-cycling studios, workshop spaces, a training centre for waste pickers and recreational elements like play area and rooftop walking tracks. Similarly, other transfer station sites located at Saidapet, Pulinathope and T.Nagar can be activated by being sensitive to the type of waste generated in their locality. Conversely, the landfill sites at Kodungaiyur and Perungudi are inherently wetlands (Khan, 2020). The most ecologically conscious course of action would involve remediation of legacy waste through the process of bio-mining. Following this, it is imperative that these locales are maintained as sanctuaries of biodiversity. Figure 4: Conceptual depiction of the overlap of waste management infrastructure and architecture. Graphic credits: author’s own As architects and urban planners, the objective at hand is to up-cycle the waste management site’s identity from an unpleasant eye-sore to a vibrant public space; concurrently up-cycling the collective consciousness of the public. This attempt to reinvent the system is the first step towards counteracting the negative perception of waste, bringing in meaningful public participation in Chennai while simultaneously giving the city its much needed quota of public space. The amalgamation of waste infrastructure and public space ought to serve as a catalyst, galvanising all relevant stakeholders to collaborate to address one of the most pressing urban challenges of our time. Finally, picture this: People of all age groups actively engaging in good waste management practices through the help of the above envisioned public spaces. Do you see a cleaner, greener Chennai city in the background? Bibliography Bhushan, C., Sambyal, S.S. and Agarwal, R. (2018) To burn or not to burn: Feasibility of waste-to-energy plants in India. New Delhi, New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. Bisen, A. (2019) Wasted: The messy story of sanitation in India, A manifesto for change. New Delhi, India, New Delhi: Pan Macmillan India. Eckardt, F., Morgado, S. and Arici, F. (2012) ‘The space of waste is public space’, in Understanding the Post-Industrial city. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 72–96. Harnik, P., Taylor, M. and Welle, B. (2006) ‘From Dumps to Destinations: The Conversion of Landfills to Parks’, Places, 18(1). Khan, A. (2020) Destruction of marshlands due to Garbage dumping, CAG. (Accessed: 05 September 2023). Lhendup, S. and Dorji, J. P. (2022) “Redesigning waste: An exploration into the role of architecture in an integrated solid waste management system”, Zorig Melong- A Technical Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 7(1), pp. 1–9. (Accessed: 5 September 2023) Luftfoto, D. (2019) Ariel view of the CopenHill Energy Plant and recreation Centre, CopenHill Energy Plant and Urban Recreation Center / BIG. (Accessed: 05 September 2023). Lynch, K. (1990) Wasting Away. Edited by M. Southworth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Nobile, M.L. (2018) ‘Architecture as a device: The design of Waste Recycling Collection Centres’, Detritus, 2(1). doi:10.31025/2611-4135/2018.13654. Raj, G. (2019) A mountain-like mixed waste heaped up in the Kodungaiyur dumpyard, My first visit to the Kodungaiyur dumpyard. (Accessed: 05 September 2023). Shekhar, L. (2021) Nearly a third of Kodungaiyur residents have difficulty breathing, but no action on waste dump, Citizen Matters, Chennai. (Accessed: 31 August 2023). Srivastava, V. et al. (2014) ‘Urban solid waste management in the developing world with emphasis on India: Challenges and opportunities’, Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 14(2), pp. 317–337. doi:10.1007/s11157-014-9352-4. Up Up