Chilhati is a ward in Bilaspur (bilaspur) with ๐ข good livability livability (Score: 61.64/100, Grade: B).
Strengths: Low Noise, Open Area, Water Quality · Needs improvement: Population Density, Nighttime Lights
Best suited for: All Residents
Data & estimates: Scores combine multiple sources, including satellite data, OpenStreetMap, APIs, and public datasets. Where neighbourhood-level measurements are unavailable, some indicators (including earthquake risk and some water-quality values) are modelled using city- or region-level information. Treat these as indicative estimates, not site-specific test results.
Click any metric card to explore detailed parameters
Historical parameter scores over the past 3 data points 01 Nov โ 03 Nov 2026
No air quality data available yet.
Create a free account or login to view detailed parameter data including Water Quality, Sanitation, Amenities, Green Cover, Noise Levels, Flood Risk, and Earthquake Risk.
Real opinions from people living in Chilhati
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience!
Printable & shareable summary for Chilhati
Areas with comparable livability scores
The Amenity Score for Chilhati is calculated by averaging 11 category sub-scores:
Each category scores 0-100 based on how many amenities are found within a specific radius:
| Category | Search Radius | Max Count for 100 | Points per Amenity | Formula |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitals (500m) | 500m | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| Hospitals (2km) | 2km | 5 | 20 | min(100, count ร 20) |
| Schools (1km) | 1km | 5 | 20 | min(100, count ร 20) |
| Markets (1km) | 1km | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| Parks (500m) | 500m | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| BRTS/Bus Stop (1km) | 1km | 2 | 50 | min(100, count ร 50) |
| Pharmacy (2km) | 2km | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| Banks (1km) | 1km | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| Restaurants (1km) | 1km | 5 | 20 | min(100, count ร 20) |
| Worship (1km) | 1km | 3 | 33 | min(100, count ร 33) |
| Transport Services (1km) | 1km | 4 | 25 | min(100, count ร 25) |
| Category | Found | Raw (count ร pts) | Capped at 100 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitals (500m) | 0 | 0 ร 33 = 0 | 0 |
| Hospitals (2km) | 2 | 2 ร 20 = 40 | 40 |
| Schools (1km) | 2 | 2 ร 20 = 40 | 40 |
| Markets (1km) | 1 | 1 ร 33 = 33 | 33 |
| Parks (500m) | 0 | 0 ร 33 = 0 | 0 |
| BRTS/Bus Stop (1km) | 0 | 0 ร 50 = 0 | 0 |
| Pharmacy (2km) | 0 | 0 ร 33 = 0 | 0 |
| Banks (1km) | 0 | 0 ร 33 = 0 | 0 |
| Restaurants (1km) | 0 | 0 ร 20 = 0 | 0 |
| Worship (1km) | 2 | 2 ร 33 = 66 | 66 |
| Transport Services (1km) | 0 | 0 ร 25 = 0 | 0 |
| Sum of all categories | 179 | 179 | |
| Final Score = 179 รท 11 | 16.27/100 | ||
The Water Quality Score is a composite measure (0โ100) derived from key drinking water parameters based on WHO/BIS standards and ground-truth data from the CWC Hot Spots Report 2022 (Central Water Commission).
Water Score = (TDS Score + pH Score + Supply Score + Fluoride Score) รท 4
| Parameter | Condition | Score |
|---|---|---|
| TDS (mg/L) | โค 300 ppm | 100 |
| 301 โ 600 ppm | 75 | |
| 601 โ 900 ppm | 50 | |
| > 900 ppm | 25 | |
| pH Level | 6.5 โ 8.5 | 100 |
| 6.0 โ 6.5 or 8.5 โ 9.0 | 70 | |
| < 6.0 or > 9.0 | 30 | |
| Water Supply | 24 hrs/day | 100 |
| Less than 24 hrs | (hours รท 24) ร 100 | |
| Fluoride | โค 1.0 mg/L | 100 |
| 1.1 โ 1.5 mg/L | 60 | |
| > 1.5 mg/L | 20 |
| Parameter | Value | Score |
|---|---|---|
| TDS | 360 ppm | 75 |
| pH Level | 7.3 | 100 |
| Supply | 3 hrs/day | 12 |
| Fluoride | 0.6 mg/L | 100 |
Water Score = (75 + 100 + 12 + 100) รท 4 = 65/100
The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) measures vegetation health using satellite imagery:
NIR = Near-Infrared reflectance (Landsat 8/9 Band 5)
Red = Red light reflectance (Landsat 8/9 Band 4)
Range: โ1 (water) to +1 (dense vegetation)
| NDVI Range | Category | Description |
|---|---|---|
| < 0.0 | Water | Water bodies, rivers, ponds |
| 0.0 โ 0.1 | Barren | Bare soil, rock, sand, built-up areas |
| 0.1 โ 0.2 | Sparse | Sparse vegetation, urban green, scattered shrubs |
| 0.2 โ 0.4 | Moderate | Grassland, cropland, gardens, roadside trees |
| 0.4 โ 0.6 | Dense | Dense parks, plantation, forest patches |
| > 0.6 | Very Dense | Closed canopy forest, dense tropical vegetation |
| Component | Raw Value | Sub-Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NDVI Mean | 0.258 | 51.6/100 | 40% | 20.64 |
| Vegetation Coverage | 85.4% | 85.4/100 | 30% | 25.62 |
| Dense Green Cover | 3.6% | 7.3/100 | 20% | 1.46 |
| Parks within 500m | 0 | 0/100 | 10% | 0 |
| Green Cover Score | 47.7/100 | |||
ee.Image.normalizedDifference(['B5', 'B4']) โ per GEE TutorialThe Quiet Score measures how quiet and peaceful an area is, on a scale of 0 to 100. A higher score means a quieter, more livable area โ better for living, sleeping, and overall well-being. It is calculated using real geographic data from OpenStreetMap to determine proximity to noise sources like highways, industries, and railways.
| Parameter | Weight | How It's Scored |
|---|---|---|
| Highway Proximity | 40% | Distance to nearest motorway/trunk/primary road. 0m = 0 points, โฅ2000m = 100 points. Linear interpolation. |
| Industrial Proximity | 25% | Distance to nearest industrial zone. 0m = 0 points, โฅ2000m = 100 points. Linear interpolation. |
| Railway Proximity | 15% | Distance to nearest rail/light rail track. 0m = 0 points, โฅ2000m = 100 points. |
| Highway Density | 10% | Count of major roads within 2km. 0 roads = 100 points, โฅ10 roads = 0 points. |
| Industrial Density | 10% | Count of industrial zones within 2km. 0 zones = 100 points, โฅ5 zones = 0 points. |
Daytime and nighttime noise levels (dB) are estimated using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (simplified). The model calculates noise attenuation based on distance:
| Source | Reference Level | At 100m | At 500m | At 1000m |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major Highway | 78 dB @ 10m | 58 dB | 44 dB | 38 dB |
| Industrial Zone | 70 dB @ 50m | 64 dB | 50 dB | 44 dB |
| Railway (Leq) | 60 dB @ 25m | 48 dB | 34 dB | 28 dB |
| Airport | 75 dB @ 1km | โ | 81 dB | 75 dB |
Nighttime noise is estimated to be 5โ10 dB lower than daytime (reduced traffic, no industrial operations). Multiple sources are combined using logarithmic addition.
The Central Pollution Control Board classifies areas into 4 noise zones with specific limits:
| Zone | Day Limit | Night Limit | Typical Areas |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial | 75 dB | 70 dB | Factory areas, manufacturing hubs (Siltara, Urla) |
| Commercial | 65 dB | 55 dB | Markets, commercial zones (Pandri, Malviya Road) |
| Residential | 55 dB | 45 dB | Housing colonies, wards (Shankar Nagar, Tatibandh) |
| Silence | 50 dB | 40 dB | Near hospitals, schools, courts (within 100m) |
| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 80โ100 | Excellent | Very quiet, far from all noise sources โ ideal for families and health-conscious residents |
| 60โ79 | Good | Generally peaceful with minimal noise intrusion โ suitable for comfortable living |
| 40โ59 | Moderate | Some noise from traffic or industrial areas โ consider soundproofing improvements |
| 20โ39 | Below Average | Noticeable noise pollution โ may affect sleep quality and daily comfort |
| 0โ19 | Poor | High noise exposure โ health risks from prolonged exposure (stress, hearing, cardiovascular) |
The Sanitation Score measures the quality and coverage of sanitation infrastructure in an area, on a scale of 0 to 100. A higher score means better sewage treatment, drainage, waste collection, and open-defecation-free (ODF) compliance โ all critical for public health and livability.
| Parameter | Weight | How It's Scored |
|---|---|---|
| ODF Status | 20% | ODF++ = 100, ODF+ = 70, ODF = 40. Based on SBM Urban certification level. ODF++ means no open defecation plus solid & liquid waste management. |
| Sewage Treatment Coverage | 30% | Direct percentage value (0โ100%). Measures the proportion of area connected to sewage treatment plants (STPs). Higher coverage means less untreated sewage discharge. |
| Drainage Coverage | 25% | Direct percentage value (0โ100%). Measures the extent of paved/covered storm-water drains. Better drainage prevents waterlogging and disease vectors. |
| Waste Collection | 15% | Daily (2x) = 100, Daily = 80, Alternate Day = 50. Reflects frequency and reliability of door-to-door waste collection by the municipal body. |
| Sewage Disposal Method | 10% | Centralized STP = 100, STP Connected = 80, Septic Tank = 50, Open Drain = 10. Measures how responsibly sewage effluent is handled before discharge. |
The Swachh Bharat Mission Urban uses a three-tier ODF certification framework:
| Level | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
| ODF++ | No open defecation + all sewage/septage safely treated + proper fecal sludge management | 100 |
| ODF+ | No open defecation + no untreated sewage/septage discharged into water bodies/open drains | 70 |
| ODF | No open defecation โ all households have access to toilets and use them | 40 |
| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 80โ100 | Excellent | Comprehensive sanitation coverage โ ODF++ certified, high sewage treatment, reliable waste collection |
| 60โ79 | Good | Good infrastructure with room for improvement โ most areas connected to STPs, daily waste collection |
| 40โ59 | Moderate | Basic sanitation in place but gaps in coverage โ some open drains, partial sewage treatment |
| 20โ39 | Below Average | Significant gaps in sanitation โ poor drainage, infrequent waste collection, septic-tank-dependent |
| 0โ19 | Poor | Severe sanitation deficits โ open defecation areas, untreated sewage discharge, disease risk |
The Flood Safety Score shows how safe an area is from river flooding and urban waterlogging. Higher score = safer area (same direction as the composite score). It is calculated as 100 minus the flood risk score below.
| Parameter | Weight | Description | Risk โ Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| River Flood Risk | 50% | Proximity to rivers (Kharun, Pairy, Seonath) and flood history | Low = 10, Low-Medium = 25, Medium = 40, High = 70, Very High = 85 |
| Urban Waterlogging | 50% | Storm-water drainage adequacy and monsoon waterlogging history | Low = 10, Low-Medium = 25, Medium = 40, High = 70, Very High = 85 |
Flood Risk Score = (River Flood ร 50%) + (Waterlogging ร 50%)Flood Safety Score = 100 โ Flood Risk Score (this is the value shown)
| Risk Level | Risk Score | Safety Score (shown) |
|---|---|---|
| ?? Low | 10 | 90 |
| ?? Low-Medium | 25 | 75 |
| ?? Medium | 40 | 60 |
| ?? High | 70 | 30 |
| ?? Very High | 85 | 15 |
The Livability Report is a single number (0โ100) that represents the overall quality of life in a neighbourhood. It is the simple average of all available sub-scores.
Livability Report = Average of all available sub-scores100 โ AQI (lower AQI = better air = higher score)100 โ flood_risk_score (lower risk = safer = higher score)100 โ earthquake_score (lower risk = safer = higher score)
| # | Parameter | Source | Conversion for Composite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Air Quality | Google AQI / AQICN | 100 โ AQI (AQI 41 โ 59) |
| 2 | Water Quality | BIS IS-10500 parameters | Direct (0โ100) |
| 3 | Sanitation | RMC/NRANVP sanitation data | Direct (0โ100) |
| 4 | Amenities | Google Places API | Direct (0โ100) |
| 5 | Quiet Score | Noise level analysis | Direct (0โ100) |
| 6 | Green Cover | NDVI satellite analysis | Direct (0โ100) |
| 7 | Flood Risk | NDMA/ThinkHazard | 100 โ score (risk 10 โ 90) |
| 8 | Earthquake Risk | BIS IS-1893/NDMA | 100 โ score (risk 10 โ 90) |
Infrastructure score is planned but not yet included. Only parameters with available data are averaged โ NULL values are skipped, not treated as zero.
| Grade | Score Range | Meaning | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 80โ100 | Excellent livability | Top-tier neighbourhood. Premium pricing justified. Ideal for families. |
| B | 60โ79 | Good livability | Well-served area. Good balance of infrastructure and environment. Recommended for most buyers. |
| C | 40โ59 | Average livability | Some gaps in amenities or environment. Check specific weak parameters before deciding. |
| D | 20โ39 | Below average | Significant gaps. Suitable only if specific advantages (price, location) outweigh livability concerns. |
| F | 0โ19 | Poor livability | Major livability issues. Not recommended for residential investment without significant improvement plans. |
The Earthquake Safety Score shows how safe an area is from seismic shaking, based on soil type and amplification potential. Higher score = safer area (same direction as the composite score).
Since the whole city is uniformly Zone II, the only meaningful differentiator is soil type. Soft, saturated, or filled soils amplify distant earthquake shaking more than hard alluvial or laterite soils. This is called site amplification effect per IS 1893.
Risk Score = Soil-based raw risk (1โ5) mapped to 0โ100 scaleEarthquake Safety Score = 100 โ Risk Score| Raw Score | Risk Score | Safety Score (shown) | Soil Type | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/5 | 10 | 90 | Hard alluvial / laterite / rock | ๐ข Low |
| 2/5 | 25 | 75 | Soft alluvial / fill / saturated riverine | ๐ก Low-Medium |
| 3/5 | 45 | 55 | Mixed weak soil | ๐ Medium |
| 4/5 | 65 | 35 | Very soft / liquefiable | ๐ด High |
| 5/5 | 85 | 15 | Extreme soft / reclaimed | ๐ด Very High |
The Land Surface Temperature (LST) Score measures the thermal comfort of an area from satellite data. Lower surface temperature = higher score (better livability).
LST Score = max(0, min(100, ((45 - mean_temp) / 25) ร 100))| Mean LST (ยฐC) | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| โค 20ยฐC | 100 | โ๏ธ Cool โ Perfect |
| 25ยฐC | 80 | ๐ค๏ธ Comfortable |
| 30ยฐC | 60 | ๐ค๏ธ Moderate |
| 35ยฐC | 40 | โ๏ธ Warm |
| 40ยฐC | 20 | ๐ฅ Hot |
| โฅ 45ยฐC | 0 | ๐ฅ Extreme Heat |
The Open Area Score measures the percentage of non-built-up land โ open spaces, parks, vegetation and room to breathe. Higher open space percentage = higher score.
Open Area Score = 100 - builtup_percentage| Open Space % | Built-up % | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90-100% | 0-10% | 90-100 | ๐ณ Spacious |
| 70-90% | 10-30% | 70-90 | ๐ก Very Open |
| 50-70% | 30-50% | 50-70 | ๐๏ธ Moderate |
| 30-50% | 50-70% | 30-50 | ๐๏ธ Limited |
| 10-30% | 70-90% | 10-30 | ๐๏ธ Very Limited |
| 0-10% | 90-100% | 0-10 | ๐ข Extremely Dense |
The Nighttime Lights (NTL) Score measures urban illumination intensity as a proxy for infrastructure quality and economic activity. Higher radiance = higher score (better infrastructure).
NTL Score = min(100, (avg_radiance / 50) ร 100)| Avg Radiance (nW/cmยฒ/sr) | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 0-5 | 0-10 | ๐ Dark โ Minimal infrastructure |
| 5-15 | 10-30 | ๐ Dim โ Rural/developing |
| 15-25 | 30-50 | ๐ Moderate โ Residential |
| 25-35 | 50-70 | ๐ก Bright โ Active commercial |
| 35-50 | 70-100 | ๐ก Very Bright โ Major hub |
| โฅ 50 | 100 | ๐ก Maximum โ City centre |
The Water Bodies Score measures the presence of surface water (lakes, ponds, rivers, reservoirs) in and around an area. More water bodies = higher score (better livability).
Permanent Score = min(100, (permanent_water_pct / 10) ร 100)Seasonal Score = min(100, (seasonal_water_pct / 15) ร 100)Water Score = (Permanent ร 0.7) + (Seasonal ร 0.3)| Permanent Water % | Approx Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 0 | ๐๏ธ No water bodies |
| 0.1-1% | 7-10 | ๐ฆ Minimal |
| 1-3% | 10-30 | ๐ง Some water |
| 3-5% | 30-50 | ๐ง Moderate |
| 5-10% | 50-100 | ๐ Significant water |
| โฅ 10% | 100 | ๐ Maximum โ Lakefront |
The Population Density Score measures how crowded a neighbourhood is based on gridded population estimates. Lower density = higher score (less congestion, more space).
Pop Density Score = max(0, ((20000 - density_per_kmยฒ) / 20000) ร 100)| Density (people/kmยฒ) | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 0-2,000 | 90-100 | ๐ก Low Density โ Spacious |
| 2,000-5,000 | 75-90 | ๐ก Moderate-Low |
| 5,000-8,000 | 60-75 | ๐๏ธ Moderate |
| 8,000-12,000 | 40-60 | ๐๏ธ Dense |
| 12,000-18,000 | 10-40 | ๐ข Very Dense |
| โฅ 20,000 | 0 | ๐ข Extremely Dense |
The Groundwater Score evaluates underground water balance and recharge conditions using high-resolution satellite-derived climate data. Higher soil moisture, positive recharge, and wetter PDSI = higher score.
| Parameter | Weight | Scoring Range |
|---|---|---|
| Soil Moisture (mm) | 30% | 0 = 0, 200+ = 100 |
| GW Recharge (mm/yr) | 25% | โ200 = 0, +400 = 100 |
| PDSI (drought index) | 20% | โ4 = 0, +4 = 100 |
| SM Trend (mm change) | 15% | โ50 = 0, +50 = 100 |
| Precipitation (mm/yr) | 10% | 800 = 0, 1800 = 100 |
Score = (SMร0.30) + (Rechargeร0.25) + (PDSIร0.20) + (Trendร0.15) + (Precipร0.10)
The Risk Factor Score evaluates ground-level risks that affect livability โ environmental hazards, drainage issues, pollution sources, infrastructure gaps, zoning problems, safety concerns, and more. Lower score = fewer risks = safer area.
| Category | What's Checked |
|---|---|
| Environmental Hazards | Landfills, open drains, garbage dumps, sewage overflow, industrial waste |
| Water & Drainage | Waterlogging zones, flood-prone areas, contaminated wells, blocked drainage |
| Air Pollution Sources | Industrial zones, brick kilns, heavy traffic corridors, crematoriums, quarries |
| Infrastructure Stress | Power outage zones, poor roads, unlit areas, no sewerage, water supply gaps |
| Land & Zoning Risks | HT power lines, pipelines, unauthorised colonies, disputed land, zoning changes |
| Safety & Social | Crime clusters, abandoned areas, encroachment zones |
| Future Threats | Land acquisition notices, planned industrial corridors, highway widening |
| Health & Nuisance | Slaughterhouses, tanneries, poultry farms, stagnant water, noise sources |
| Accessibility Risks | Far from emergency services, monsoon cutoff zones, no public transit |
Each risk factor has a severity weight:
| Severity | Weight | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Low | 5 | Minor nuisance, far away |
| Medium | 12 | Moderate impact within area |
| High | 20 | Significant hazard nearby |
| Critical | 25 | Severe, immediate proximity |
Category Score = Sum of severity weights for all identified risks (capped at 100)Overall Score = Average of all 9 category scoresThe Infrastructure Score evaluates urban development quality using 9 satellite datasets โ assessing built-up density, building heights, nighttime illumination, road surfaces, terrain, greenery, and urbanization level. Higher score = better infrastructure.
| Parameter | Weight | Scoring Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Urbanization Index (SMOD) | 20% | Direct 0โ100 scale from GHSL SMOD |
| Built-up Density (ESA) | 15% | Optimal 30โ60%; 0%=0, 60%=100, >60% declines |
| Nighttime Light Stability | 15% | Stability index ร 100 (proxy for reliable power) |
| Avg Building Height (GHSL) | 10% | 0m=0, 10m=100 (taller = better vertical infra) |
| Impervious Surface % | 10% | Optimal 10โ40%; >40% declines (roads/concrete) |
| Nighttime Radiance (VIIRS) | 10% | 0=0, 50 nW/cmยฒ/sr=100 (electrification proxy) |
| Terrain Slope (ALOS DEM) | 10% | Flat=100, steep declines (road-building ease) |
| Green Cover (Tree+Grass) | 10% | 0%=0, 30%=100 (livability greenery balance) |
Score = Weighted average of available parameters (NULL values excluded)
The Safety Score evaluates the availability and proximity of emergency services โ police, fire, hospitals, and pharmacies โ within an area. Scored on a 0โ100 scale (higher = safer / better covered).
Each sub-score is normalised to 0โ100 using count and proximity scoring with distance-based decay. This is a special experimental parameter not included in the composite livability score.
| Sub-Score | Weight | How It's Scored | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Police Presence | 20% |
|
Binary presence check: scores 100 if any police station exists nearby (OSM or Google data), 0 otherwise. |
| Fire Station Response | 15% |
|
Binary presence check: scores 100 if any fire station exists nearby (OSM or Google Maps data), 0 otherwise. |
| Hospital Access | 35% |
|
Includes hospitals and clinics from Google Maps data. Highest weighted sub-score because healthcare proximity is critical. |
| Pharmacy & First Aid | 15% |
|
Minimum service check capped at 2. Pharmacies provide first-line medical access. |
| Emergency Coverage | 15% |
|
Binary check: does the area have at least one of each emergency service type? Max 100 if all four present. |
| Score Range | Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 80 โ 100 | Excellent | Comprehensive emergency coverage with nearby services |
| 60 โ 79 | Good | Good emergency access with minor gaps |
| 40 โ 59 | Moderate | Partial coverage โ some services distant or absent |
| 0 โ 39 | Poor | Limited emergency infrastructure โ significant gaps |
Google Maps Places API + OpenStreetMap
Emergency services data is sourced from Google Maps Places API (police stations, fire stations, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies) enriched with OpenStreetMap amenity data. Distance calculations use the Haversine formula from each area's centroid to the nearest service locations.