WISE Quotient 2026 · Ward-level analysis
Ten visual breakdowns of the 3,447-response WISE survey at ward and locality granularity. Each chart is self-contained SVG, designed to be embedded into the v2 report HTML without external chart libraries.
Source: CCF 16 - WISE Survey.csv · Wards with n ≥ 50 only · Generated 2026-06-08
Chart 1
Thirteen wards have enough responses (n ≥ 50) to rank. F/North leads at 3.11; M/East sits alone at 1.57 — a full point below every other ward.
M/East is the outlier. Removing it alone shifts Mumbai's overall WISE score from 2.45 to 2.66. The v2 report should treat M/East as a separate chapter, not a ward in a ranking.
Chart 2
Every ward × every indicator. Red = low (citizens disagree the system works), green = high. The horizontal stripe at M/East is one of the most striking patterns in the dataset.
Chart 3
Plotting each ward by the average of its physical-system indicators (x-axis) vs the average of Belonging + Hope (y-axis) reveals four working archetypes. Bubble size = response count.
Chart 4
Where citizens feel more heard than the systems would warrant (positive bars, green) = "Aware Strugglers" — ripe for ward-sabha pilots. Where voice trails systems (red) = empowerment vacuum.
H/East shows the largest positive voice gap. Bandra/Khar East citizens feel heard despite weak systems — exactly the constituency that converts grievance into pressure. The largest negative gap (−0.95) is in raw "M" ward, suggesting many respondents tagged as just "M" are actually M/East citizens with no working civic outlet.
Chart 5
Composite of (4 − Heat liveability) + (4 − Climate resilience) + (4 − Waste/Water/Energy). Maximum possible = 9. H/East, M/East and ward M cluster above 7.8.
Chart 6
The 9 M/East localities with n ≥ 15. Indira Nagar and Road no 10 Govandi post overall scores of 1.22 and 1.17 — meaning citizens unanimously disagreed on almost every indicator.
Chart 7
Localities ranked by share of citizens who say their area is not liveable in summer. Seven post 100% disagreement. This is publishable as a named artefact.
Chart 8
The single highest awareness gap in the survey. G/North and D show 45% and 41% — almost half of respondents cannot answer where to go for emotional or mental-health help.
Chart 9
Indicator by indicator. Positive = older citizens scored it higher. The big gaps are on human-system indicators: Safety (+0.36), Belonging (+0.27), Accessibility (+0.26), Air (+0.26), Hope (+0.19).
The 12–24 cohort sees Mumbai as measurably less safe than the 41+ cohort. Youth are 49% of the sample, so the city average itself is youth-tilted. For a youth-led organization, this is the mandate to act.
Chart 10
Across every single indicator, the wider MMR scores higher than the MCGM core. Thane, Navi Mumbai, KDMC, Ambernath, Panvel, Vasai-Virar and Palghar respondents report better neighbourhood life than Mumbai citizens.
Average indicator gap. MCGM = 2.33 overall; MMR = 2.63. Suburban-vs-core narratives need to be inverted: for lived neighbourhood quality, citizens at the periphery feel better off than citizens in the centre.