by
Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Head of Research, Track2Training, New Delhi, India
Email ID: research@track2training.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8031-8569
Abstract
Urban development programmes commonly report completed dwellings, infrastructure expenditure and installed facilities, yet these outputs do not establish whether residents experience lasting improvements. This article develops a practical approach to evaluating inclusive urban development in India through the relationships among housing, livelihoods, mobility, environmental comfort and service reliability. It draws on eleven selected urban publications, supplemented by three methodological and monitoring sources, addressing settlement typologies, redevelopment, urban renewal, vernacular architecture, heritage comfort, public transport, pedestrian access, green buildings and waste management. The approach is a conceptual synthesis, not a systematic review or an evaluation of a completed programme. Six figures combine a conceptual framework, a descriptive literature profile, transparent numerical illustrations and a management feedback cycle. Six tables translate the discussion into evaluation questions, indicators, calculation inputs and reporting arrangements. The article distinguishes inputs, outputs, outcomes and distributional consequences; explains how baselines, comparison strategies and repeated observations can support interpretation; and examines the risks of composite scores, incomplete household records and unverified technology claims. It proposes an evaluation process that begins before intervention selection and continues through transition, occupation and maintenance. Special attention is given to recurring household costs, livelihood continuity, complete journeys, user experience and residents missing from routine administrative records. The resulting framework supports municipal decision-making, interdisciplinary education and future empirical research, while requiring local adaptation and validation.
Keywords: Urban evaluation; inclusive development; housing affordability; accessibility; neighbourhood planning; environmental services; monitoring indicators; post-occupancy evaluation.
1. Why Evaluation Must Begin With Everyday Life
A city improvement programme can complete its construction schedule while leaving important questions unanswered. Can households meet the cost of living in the new environment? Can workers reach their jobs at the necessary times? Do installed services operate reliably? These questions concern the experience of development, and they cannot be answered by expenditure and completion figures alone.
Evaluation should connect physical change with the daily activities it is intended to support. A drainage project should be examined through service performance and reported problems, while a housing intervention should be assessed through occupation, affordability and suitability for household use. The purpose is to understand whether the intended improvement occurs and for whom.
This article places evaluation at the centre of inclusive planning. It treats housing, movement and environmental quality as interconnected conditions. A change in residential location can affect travel costs; an unreliable service can consume household time; and a poorly designed approach route can reduce the practical usefulness of public transport. These relationships require more than separate departmental accounts.
The central argument is that evaluation should begin before a preferred intervention has been selected. Early investigation helps define the problem, compare alternatives and establish what later success would mean. When evaluation is added only at completion, the programme may lack a credible baseline or a clear explanation of its intended outcomes.
For students and practitioners, this offers a disciplined way to connect research with public decisions. The task is not to collect every available number. It is to identify meaningful questions, obtain dependable evidence and use the results to improve action. Evaluation becomes valuable when it changes a decision, corrects a failure or reveals a consequence that would otherwise remain unnoticed.
Figure 1. Proposed integrated evaluation framework. Diagnosis and delivery are connected to everyday outcomes, distributional context and an accountable response. Conceptual relationships are not estimated causal effects.
2. Evidence Base and Analytical Approach
The discussion uses eleven distinct publications selected for their relevance to neighbourhood conditions and urban intervention. Six works originate from the initial bibliography supplied for this series of articles; five complementary works were identified through the Track2Training research collection. A duplicated redevelopment reference is counted once, and the verified journal version represents the vernacular-architecture work.
The selection is purposive and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive literature search. Available publisher records, abstracts and accessible texts support the descriptions. Different publication types contribute different forms of evidence, and their findings are not combined into an estimated overall effect. Where original text was unavailable, detailed results are not attributed.
Figure 1 presents the proposed relationships among diagnosis, intervention, everyday experience and accountable response. Figure 2 assigns each of the eleven urban publications one primary theme for descriptive counting. Several works span multiple topics, so this coding simplifies their scope. Table 1 makes the assignment visible. Theme counts reflect the selection made for this paper; they do not establish the relative importance of research fields or the effectiveness of particular interventions.
Three additional sources strengthen the methodological discussion. OECD (2021) provides evaluation criteria, Gertler and colleagues (2016) introduce impact-evaluation methods, and UN-Habitat’s urban monitoring resources address integrated urban measurement. These sources provide methodological context and are excluded from the eleven-item theme graph. The paper therefore cites fourteen distinct works while retaining a clearly bounded urban reference profile.
Figures 3–5 use deliberately constructed teaching examples to explain household costs, incomplete follow-up and journey components. Every numerical input is disclosed. These illustrations are not observations, estimates or forecasts for any Indian city. Figure 6 depicts a proposed management cycle. Separating conceptual diagrams, bibliography counts and illustrative calculations enables visual communication without confusing different kinds of evidence.
Table 1. Selected publications and primary-theme coding
| Publication | Year | Primary theme | Focus |
| Sharma & Dhote | 2003 | Buildings and climate | Heritage and thermal comfort |
| Dhote, Onkar & Das | 2012 | Buildings and climate | Vernacular habitat |
| Jaiswal et al. | 2012 | Mobility and public space | Janmarg BRT |
| Singh et al. | 2013 | Housing and regeneration | Settlement typologies |
| Dhote, Silakri & Onkar | 2013 | Housing and regeneration | Intervention selection |
| Bouddha et al. | 2014 | Housing and regeneration | Inclusive redevelopment |
| Lodhi et al. | 2024 | Mobility and public space | Bus-user satisfaction |
| Sharma, Dehalwar & Singh | 2024 | Environmental services | Solid waste management |
| Lalramsangi et al. | 2025 | Mobility and public space | Open-space access |
| Sharma, Singh et al. | 2025 | Buildings and climate | Green neighbourhoods |
| Yadav et al. | 2026 | Mobility and public space | First and last mile |
Source: reference metadata and author-assigned primary themes. Each distinct work is counted once; thematic categories simplify overlapping subjects.
Figure 2. Primary-theme profile of the eleven core urban publications. One author-assigned theme per work; see Table 1. Rounded percentages describe this selected set, not the wider literature. The three methodological sources are excluded.
2.1 Evaluation criteria and the contribution of this framework
The OECD identifies relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability as six evaluation criteria. They address different judgements about an intervention and should be applied thoughtfully in context (OECD, 2021). OECD evaluation guidance. This paper translates those perspectives into neighbourhood questions: whether the response matches residents’ priorities, fits surrounding services, delivers intended changes, uses resources responsibly, contributes to wider improvement and sustains its benefits.
That translation is an analytical proposal. It does not establish a new international standard. Its contribution lies in connecting criteria usually discussed at programme level with household occupation costs, livelihood transitions, pedestrian journeys and maintenance responsibilities. The unit of interest moves repeatedly between the intervention and the experience of people affected by it.
UN-Habitat’s Global Urban Monitoring Framework emphasises integration across urban dimensions, data disaggregation and inclusion. This supports examining connected conditions while retaining differences between population groups. UN-Habitat urban monitoring resources. A local evaluation can contribute to broader monitoring, but the relationship must be explicit: an indicator designed for one project should not automatically be labelled an official global indicator. Definitions, geographic coverage and collection procedures may differ.
The synthesis proceeds by identifying a planning concern in the selected literature, translating it into an observable evaluation question, specifying suitable evidence and identifying a decision that evidence could inform. This four-part process makes the argument traceable. It also leaves space for disagreement: readers can challenge the interpretation of a source, the proposed measure or the decision rule separately.
3. Distinguishing Inputs, Outputs, Outcomes and Wider Effects
Evaluation becomes clearer when different levels of achievement are separated. Inputs are the resources committed to an activity. Outputs are the immediate products delivered. Outcomes concern changes in the conditions or experiences that the activity seeks to improve. Wider effects extend beyond those immediate changes and generally require stronger evidence to establish.
For example, the budget and staff assigned to a pedestrian improvement programme are inputs. Completed crossings and repaired walking surfaces are outputs. Easier access to a bus stop is a potential outcome. A change in employment participation or household expenditure is a possible wider consequence, but it should not be inferred automatically from construction.
Each level answers a legitimate question. Financial records help establish whether resources were used as intended, and construction inspections help determine whether works meet the approved specification. These are necessary checks. They become misleading only when presented as sufficient proof that residents’ lives have improved.
A practical evaluation plan should state the connection expected between levels. If a new facility is intended to reduce travel difficulty, the programme should explain who will use it, which barriers it addresses and what other conditions must hold. An accessible stop, for instance, still depends on a service that reaches useful destinations at relevant times.
The evaluator should also record alternative explanations. Changes in household circumstances or wider service provision may influence the outcome independently of the project. The strength of the conclusion should match the design and evidence available. Describing a change is different from attributing it to an intervention, and both forms of reporting should be labelled accurately.
Table 2. Distinguishing levels of evaluation
| Level | Question | Example evidence |
| Input | What resources were committed? | Budget, staff allocation and implementation capacity. |
| Output | What was delivered? | Verified dwellings, crossings or service assets completed. |
| Outcome | What changed for users? | Occupation costs, journey difficulty or service reliability. |
| Wider effect | What broader change can be supported? | Sustained opportunity or well-being changes, with attribution examined. |
Proposed analytical distinction. Examples are evaluation questions and evidence types, not measured programme results.
4. Defining the Unit of Evaluation
The choice of unit determines what an evaluation can see. A project boundary is convenient for contracts, but residents may depend on destinations beyond it. A dwelling is useful for inspecting building conditions, but household activities can extend into shared spaces and nearby streets. A neighbourhood assessment should therefore combine several connected units.
Dhote, Silakri and Onkar (2013) emphasise understanding physical and social conditions before selecting renewal or redevelopment. Their intervention framework provides a relevant foundation for examining local circumstances rather than assuming that a single response fits every area.
The approach proposed here distinguishes the household, dwelling, neighbourhood and journey. Household information explains affordability, work and care. Dwelling information describes the physical environment. Neighbourhood information captures shared services and public space. Journey information connects residents with opportunities outside the immediate area.
These units should be linked carefully rather than merged indiscriminately. An average neighbourhood service score cannot establish that every household receives a reliable service. Similarly, a good building inspection cannot show that the dwelling suits all occupants. Reporting at several levels makes those differences visible.
Boundaries should be documented at the start and retained for comparison where possible. If the area, population or service definition changes, the evaluation should explain how that affects interpretation. Otherwise, an apparent improvement may arise because the measurement unit changed rather than because conditions improved. Clear units are a basic requirement for a trustworthy account of urban change.
5. Using Settlement Typologies Without Losing Household Variation
Classification can help organise a complex urban area into categories relevant to action. It may distinguish service deficiencies, building conditions or site constraints. However, a typology should support investigation rather than replace it. The way categories are defined influences which problems become visible and which interventions appear appropriate.
Singh, Dhote and Soni (2013) develop a settlement typology through a Jabalpur case study, considering location, poverty, housing and services. Their matrix-based approach is intended to support intervention prioritisation. It shows the value of examining differences between settlements before making redevelopment choices.
An evaluation can build on this principle by comparing outcomes within and across clearly defined starting conditions. A programme serving areas with severe service failures should not be compared casually with one addressing minor building defects. Baseline differences affect what improvement is feasible and how quickly it might occur.
Variation within a category remains important. Some households may have direct access to a service while others depend on shared or distant facilities. Renters may experience changes differently from owners. A category average can therefore conceal unequal outcomes, even when its overall direction appears favourable.
The proposed practice is to retain both the classification and the underlying observations. Evaluators should explain why a category exists, which indicators define it and how uncertainty is handled. Residents should have a route for correcting inaccurate information. Classification then becomes an accountable analytical step rather than a permanent label attached to a place.
6. Establishing a Baseline That Can Be Revisited
A baseline should describe the conditions that an intervention intends to change. Collecting information merely because it is easy to obtain can leave important outcomes unmeasured. The starting point should be a set of evaluation questions linked to the programme’s objectives and residents’ priorities.
The baseline should combine records, observation and household accounts where appropriate. Administrative information may identify a connection or facility, while users describe interruptions or access difficulties. Disagreement between sources should prompt investigation rather than an automatic preference for the more formal record.
Timing requires attention. A service observed during one season may operate differently at another time. Travel conditions can vary across weekdays, weekends and working hours. An evaluation should document its observation periods and avoid presenting a short survey as a complete account of annual conditions.
Repeatability also matters. Questions, measurement procedures and location records should be sufficiently clear for another team to revisit them. Changes in instruments or survey wording should be recorded so that later differences are not mistaken for real improvement. Baseline documentation is part of the evidence, not an administrative afterthought.
Finally, the baseline should be usable by the people making decisions. A concise summary can identify major deficiencies, uncertainty and groups requiring closer attention. Detailed records can support analysis without overwhelming public discussion. The aim is a starting account that is credible, understandable and capable of supporting future comparison, rather than a large dataset whose relationship to the project remains unclear.
6.1 A reproducible field protocol
A practical protocol should identify the eligible population before deciding how many interviews to conduct. A housing register may omit tenants, recent arrivals or people using dwellings partly for work. Researchers should document who the register represents, compare it with a field listing where feasible and explain exclusions. Coverage problems cannot be repaired simply by increasing interviews within an incomplete list.
Sampling should follow the intended claim. Probability selection is appropriate when the objective requires population estimates and a usable sampling frame exists. Purposive interviews are useful for exploring experiences and mechanisms, including difficulties faced by groups poorly represented in routine records. Their findings should be reported as qualitative evidence. Combining approaches is valuable when each has an explicit role rather than when one is used to imply the representativeness of the other.
Sample-size planning should consider the main outcome, required precision, expected variation, clustering and anticipated non-response. No universal household total is proposed here. If households are sampled within settlements, observations may share service conditions; treating them as wholly independent can overstate precision. A statistician should help align the design, analysis and uncertainty estimates before collection begins.
Each measure needs a compact data dictionary: variable name, question or observation rule, unit, valid range, missing-value codes and reporting period. Interviewer training should use realistic examples of ambiguous answers. A pilot can reveal whether a question about monthly transport expenditure includes school trips, employer reimbursement or occasional long-distance journeys. The final wording must settle these boundaries consistently.
Quality checks should investigate implausible combinations without silently changing them. An unusually long journey may be a recording error, a disrupted trip or a real access problem. The original record, query and resolution should be retained. Corrections improve data accuracy; deleting inconvenient observations to obtain a more favourable conclusion does not.
Before fieldwork, the team should prepare a short analysis plan naming primary outcomes, comparison groups and subgroup questions. Subsequent changes may be necessary, but they should be recorded with reasons. This keeps interpretation connected to the original purpose and helps reviewers distinguish planned analysis from exploratory learning.
7. Measuring Housing Affordability Beyond the Initial Price
Housing affordability should be examined through the continuing costs of occupation. The initial payment or allocation condition is only one component. Utilities, maintenance, repairs and changes in transport expenditure can influence whether a household can remain in the improved environment.
Bouddha, Dhote and Sharma (2014) connect redevelopment approaches with environmental management and residents’ well-being. Their review provides a relevant basis for considering improvement beyond physical shelter replacement. The evaluation questions developed here extend that inclusive perspective into recurring household costs.
A practical survey should distinguish regular obligations from occasional expenses. It should ask how payments are managed, whether costs are predictable and whether households experience difficulty meeting them. Sensitive financial questions require clear explanations and appropriate privacy arrangements; exact income figures are not always necessary for every evaluation purpose.
Interpretation should consider household composition and income variability. The same expenditure may have different implications for households with different needs and resources. A single affordability threshold should not be introduced without explaining its basis, and any reported ratio should identify what costs and resources it includes.
A hypothetical relocation illustrates the connection with mobility. A dwelling with a lower direct payment may involve higher travel expenditure. The evaluation should record the combined change rather than declaring success from the housing figure alone. This is a proposed appraisal principle, not an observed result for a particular programme. Its purpose is to make transferred burdens visible.
7.1 Worked illustration: a lower dwelling payment can conceal higher costs
Consider three invented monthly budgets for the same hypothetical household: an initial condition, an in-situ improvement and a relocation option. Direct housing payments are INR 3,000, INR 3,400 and INR 2,500 respectively. Utilities and maintenance are INR 800, INR 1,000 and INR 1,200; necessary travel costs are INR 1,200, INR 900 and INR 2,200. Table 3 records these inputs and Figure 3 displays their composition.
The combined amounts are INR 5,000, INR 5,300 and INR 5,900. Relative to the initial condition, the relocation option lowers the direct housing payment by INR 500 but raises the combined total by INR 900, or 18 per cent. In-situ improvement raises the combined total by INR 300, or 6 per cent. These calculations demonstrate a measurement issue; they do not establish which planning option is preferable.
The alternatives could differ in safety, space, tenure arrangements, employment opportunities or service quality, none of which is assigned a value here. A real appraisal must investigate those dimensions and explain how residents assess the trade-offs. The example also excludes relocation expenses, debt repayments and changes in earnings. Those exclusions are deliberate teaching boundaries, not a claim that the omitted items are unimportant.
This presentation is more informative than a single affordability score because readers can inspect what drives the difference. If a transport intervention changes the travel component, its effect on the total can be calculated directly. Decision-makers can then ask which costs are predictable, which are controllable and which households are most exposed to increases.
Table 3. Inputs for the illustrative monthly household budget
| Cost component (INR/month) | Initial condition | In-situ improvement | Relocation option |
| Housing payment | 3,000 | 3,400 | 2,500 |
| Utilities and maintenance | 800 | 1,000 | 1,200 |
| Necessary travel | 1,200 | 900 | 2,200 |
| Combined total | 5,000 | 5,300 | 5,900 |
| Change from initial total | — | +300 (+6%) | +900 (+18%) |
Constructed teaching inputs. The same hypothetical household is assumed. Earnings, one-off transition costs and non-monetary benefits are not modelled. No city data are represented.
Figure 3. Illustrative household budgets: combined monthly cost rises by 6% for the in-situ option and 18% for the relocation option relative to the initial condition. Values are constructed teaching inputs, not observed household data; see Table 3.
8. Following Livelihoods Through the Transition
Livelihood evaluation should begin with how work depends on location, space and relationships. Some residents travel to a fixed workplace, while others work from home or serve nearby customers. The physical arrangement that supports income can be as important as the distance to an employment centre.
Before intervention, evaluators should document the activities residents wish to continue and the conditions that make them possible. Relevant questions may concern storage, customer access, deliveries, working hours and the combination of paid work with care responsibilities. These details can inform design and transition planning.
The construction period requires separate attention. Restricted access, temporary moves or service interruptions may affect work before the completed project begins operating. Evaluating only the final condition can miss costs experienced during this period. A transition record should capture disruption and the adequacy of arrangements intended to address it.
Follow-up should distinguish continuity, adaptation and loss. A person may continue working but at different hours, with new expenses or a changed customer base. A simple employed-or-unemployed category may miss those consequences. Qualitative interviews can help explain changes that a short indicator cannot describe.
The purpose is not to assume that existing arrangements must remain identical. Regeneration can create new possibilities, but those possibilities should be examined alongside risks and actual experience. Tracking livelihoods over time provides evidence about whether promised opportunities become usable and whether households have the resources to make the transition. This helps connect spatial planning with the household economy.
9. Examining Residential Continuity and Missing Residents
Evaluations often depend on the people who remain available for follow-up. This creates a problem when some residents leave, cannot be contacted or were never included in the original record. Their absence may be closely related to the very outcomes the evaluation seeks to understand.
The proposed approach therefore records different forms of occupation at baseline, including rental and shared arrangements where participants consent to provide that information. It does not infer legal entitlement from residence. Its purpose is to identify the population whose experience should be considered when assessing the intervention.
Follow-up procedures should document contact attempts, refusals and unavailable participants. Researchers should avoid assuming that an unreachable household has experienced either a positive or negative outcome. They should report the extent of missing information and discuss how it may affect conclusions.
Where appropriate and authorised, repeated neighbourhood surveys can complement a household panel. A panel follows the same participants, while repeated surveys describe the population present at each observation. These approaches answer different questions. Using both can help distinguish changes among original residents from changes in the composition of the area.
The public report should make that distinction clear. Improved average conditions among current occupants do not necessarily establish improved conditions for the people originally affected. Residential continuity is consequently both an outcome question and a methodological concern. Taking it seriously prevents evaluation from overlooking households whose experience is difficult to observe but central to an inclusive account.
9.1 Worked illustration: uncertainty created by missing follow-up
Suppose an invented panel starts with 100 households. Eighty are reached later, and 56 of those report improvement under a predefined binary outcome. The observed improvement rate among respondents is 56 divided by 80, or 70 per cent. That calculation describes respondents; it does not establish the rate for all original households.
If none of the twenty missing households improved, the full-panel rate would be 56 per cent. If all twenty improved, it would be 76 per cent. Figure 4 displays this 56–76 per cent range alongside the respondent rate. It is an arithmetic bound under the stated assumptions, not a confidence interval and not an estimate of what actually happened to missing residents.
The width of the range reveals why follow-up deserves resources. Locating additional households may reduce uncertainty more usefully than adding elaborate modelling to the incomplete data. However, repeated contact must respect consent and refusal. The evaluation should record missingness without treating every uncontacted person as a problem to be pursued indefinitely.
Statistical adjustment would require further information and assumptions about how response relates to outcomes. Those assumptions should be stated and examined rather than hidden behind software output. Reporting the simple calculation first helps a non-specialist reader understand the remaining uncertainty and judge whether a stronger conclusion is justified.
Figure 4. Illustrative attrition bounds. With 56 improvements among 80 respondents from 100 original households, the respondent rate is 70%; the full-panel rate could lie between 56% and 76%. This range is not a confidence interval.
10. Evaluating Buildings Through Use, Comfort and Adaptation
Building evaluation should combine technical inspection with an understanding of use. Rooms, entrances and shared spaces support activities that may differ from the assumptions in the design brief. Occupant feedback can reveal where a feature works well, where adjustments are needed and where the intended operation is impractical.
Dhote, Onkar and Das (2012) examine vernacular settlements and habitats in central India, including spatial organisation and climatic responsiveness. Their discussion supports investigating underlying practices and adapting them to contemporary requirements. Sharma and Dhote (2003) provide an earlier bibliographic contribution on heritage buildings and thermal comfort; its original text was not examined here, and no specific results are attributed to it.
For evaluation, a promising design idea should be translated into an observable question. If a shared shaded space is intended to support everyday activity, the study can examine when it is used, by whom and under what conditions. Observation should be accompanied by explanation, since absence of use may have several causes.
Comfort monitoring should state the period, occupancy and conditions of measurement. Short observations cannot establish annual performance. Interviews should explain how residents adjust openings, move between spaces or manage privacy and security. These practices influence what the building actually delivers.
The goal is a balanced account of physical performance and lived suitability. Evaluators should avoid treating traditional appearance, new materials or technological sophistication as proof of success. Each claim requires evidence appropriate to the function and the conditions under which the building is occupied.
11. Connecting Green-Building Claims With Operating Evidence
Environmental design proposals often contain predicted savings or expected improvements. Evaluation should preserve the distinction between these expectations and observed performance. Installing equipment demonstrates delivery of an asset; it does not by itself show that the asset produces its intended benefit under everyday conditions.
Sharma, Singh, Kumar, Pandey and Dehalwar (2025) discuss green buildings in relation to sustainable neighbourhoods, including resource efficiency and occupant well-being. Their review offers a basis for examining environmental objectives across building and neighbourhood scales.
A practical assessment should ask what is being compared. Changes in occupancy, use, weather or service availability can affect consumption independently of an installed measure. A simple comparison of bills may be informative, but the report should explain relevant differences before attributing the change to design.
Maintenance evidence is also necessary. Records should identify faults, periods of non-operation, repair arrangements and user understanding. An efficient system on paper may deliver limited value if residents cannot operate it or obtain support. These are implementation questions rather than reasons to reject innovation automatically.
Neighbourhood connections should remain visible. Evaluators can examine whether building entrances, service areas and shared spaces work with surrounding movement and collection arrangements. The strongest assessment links expected environmental performance with actual operation, realistic costs and occupant experience. Its value lies in identifying what works, what needs correction and what future projects should avoid assuming without evidence.
12. Measuring Accessibility as a Complete Journey
Accessibility concerns the opportunities people can reach under realistic conditions. A transport route near a housing area is relevant, but so are waiting, transfers, operating hours and the approach to the stop. Evaluation should therefore examine complete journeys rather than relying only on network proximity.
Jaiswal, Dhote, Krishnan and Jain (2012) examine Ahmedabad’s Janmarg bus rapid transit system through a sustainable transport perspective, discussing coordinated infrastructure and operations. This historical case contributes to the rationale for integrated service assessment; it is not a current audit of the system.
The proposed evaluation begins by identifying destinations and times that matter to residents. Early work shifts, evening education and journeys involving dependants may require different service conditions. Representative journeys should be selected transparently and should not be presented as an exhaustive account of everyone’s mobility.
Data collection can combine participant accounts with observation of selected journeys. The record should distinguish walking, waiting, travel and transfer components, alongside cost and reported difficulty. This helps identify where a change occurs and which organisation could address the problem.
Accessibility outcomes should be interpreted alongside residential change. If a housing project moves households, evaluating only the new dwelling misses a potentially important effect on opportunity. If it improves local services, some journeys may become unnecessary. The evaluation should allow for both possibilities rather than assuming that more or faster travel is always the desired result.
12.1 Worked illustration: why the whole journey matters
Figure 5 compares three invented one-way journeys to the same destination. The initial journey contains fifteen minutes of access walking, twelve minutes waiting, twenty-five minutes in the vehicle and eight minutes of final walking: sixty minutes altogether. A vehicle-speed improvement reduces the vehicle component to twenty minutes, producing a fifty-five-minute journey. A coordinated access-and-service option uses eight, six, twenty-two and six minutes respectively, producing forty-two minutes.
The second option saves five minutes relative to the initial condition; the coordinated option saves eighteen. Its vehicle segment is two minutes longer than the speed-focused option, yet the complete journey is thirteen minutes shorter. This demonstrates why a transport assessment focused on vehicle speed can miss the contribution of access and waiting conditions.
These deterministic values do not represent observed averages or distributions. Actual assessment should record variability, missed services, transfers, crowding and journeys that cannot be completed. A mean travel time can conceal unreliability that matters greatly to workers with fixed reporting times. Repeated trips and user accounts would be needed before attributing performance to an operating service.
The graph also leaves monetary cost and physical difficulty separate. A shorter walk may still involve an inaccessible crossing, while a faster service may be unaffordable. Evaluators should resist converting every dimension into minutes unless they can justify the conversion and explain whose preferences it represents. Separate measures can preserve meaningful differences that a single total would obscure.
Figure 5. Illustrative complete-journey comparison. Segment values sum to 60, 55 and 42 minutes respectively. The example demonstrates the contribution of access and waiting; it does not report measured service performance.
13. Combining Passenger Feedback With Environmental Access Audits
Passenger experience and route conditions provide complementary evidence. A timetable or vehicle record may indicate operational performance, while users explain difficulties with information, waiting or boarding. An approach-route audit adds the conditions encountered before and after the ride.
Lodhi, Jaiswal and Sharma (2024) study bus-user satisfaction in Bhopal using a survey of 1,313 respondents and discrete choice models. Their findings identify comfort and safety among important concerns, alongside operational attributes. Yadav, Dehalwar and Sharma (2026) review environmental influences on first- and last-mile mode choice, identifying microclimatic conditions, environmental quality and infrastructure continuity as relevant considerations.
The evaluation proposed here combines these perspectives without assuming that one dataset explains every experience. Passenger surveys should be supplemented where necessary by consultation with non-users, including people who cannot reach the service. Otherwise, the assessment may describe only those who have already overcome its barriers.
Audits should examine continuous routes and the points where usability breaks down. A missing connection can matter even when most of the route is improved. Observations should state time and conditions, especially where rainfall or exposure may affect the experience.
Finally, each finding should connect with an action and an accountable organisation. Separate agencies may manage the service and the street, but passengers experience a single journey. Evaluating coordinated improvement is more informative than reporting isolated works without checking their combined effect.
14. Public Space and the Difference Between Proximity and Usability
Public-space evaluation should examine who can reach a space, how it is used and what prevents participation. Area and visitor totals provide useful information but do not describe all aspects of inclusion. A nearby destination can remain difficult to use because of its approach, entrances or management arrangements.
Lalramsangi, Garg and Sharma (2025) study route choices to public open spaces in Aizawl using space syntax. Their work highlights the relevance of hill-city conditions and the need to consider more than a flat representation of pedestrian routes.
An evaluation should consequently distinguish straight-line distance from usable access. Gradients, steps and indirect connections can change the effort involved. The appropriate information depends on the users and the setting; a single distance threshold should not be treated as proof of accessibility for everyone.
Observation should cover more than one period where practical. Different groups may use a space at different times, and a quiet visit does not necessarily indicate failure. Interviews can help explain patterns, including why some residents do not visit. Evaluation should avoid assuming that absence always reflects lack of interest.
Maintenance and management deserve the same attention as initial design. Cleaning, repairs and the handling of conflicts can influence continued usability. Reporting should identify responsible organisations and unresolved difficulties. The purpose is to understand whether the space supports meaningful opportunities for use, rather than to treat its physical completion as the end of the public responsibility.
15. Evaluating Environmental Services as Working Processes
Environmental services are delivered through connected tasks. Collection, transport, treatment, inspection and repair require coordination and dependable resources. An evaluation focused only on facilities can miss failures in the process that links them.
Sharma, Dehalwar and Singh (2024) review emerging solid-waste-management techniques, including recycling, composting and waste-to-energy approaches, together with their benefits and challenges. Their chapter offers a basis for examining options while retaining attention to local operating conditions.
A service evaluation should define the expected process and identify points where performance can be checked. For waste management, this may include collection regularity, handling arrangements and the destination of materials. Data should distinguish intended procedures from observed practice and explain the coverage of the observations.
Worker knowledge is particularly useful. People carrying out routine tasks can explain access constraints, equipment problems and inconsistencies that administrative summaries overlook. Consultation should respect their time and protect sensitive information. It should also distinguish organisational problems from individual blame.
User experience adds another perspective. Households may report missed collections or difficulties following instructions, while service teams identify the conditions that make compliance possible. Combining these accounts can support practical correction. The proposed outcome measure is dependable service, supported by evidence about failures and responses over time. A count of installed bins or purchased vehicles remains an output and should be reported as such.
Table 4. Indicator menu for local adaptation
| Domain | Candidate indicator | Evidence and caution |
| Housing costs | Reported difficulty meeting recurring occupation costs. | Household follow-up; define included expenses and protect privacy. |
| Livelihoods | Continuity and changes in income-generating activity. | Interviews and activity records; distinguish adaptation from loss. |
| Residential continuity | Original households contacted and their occupation status. | Consented panel records; report missing cases separately. |
| Accessibility | Difficulty and time components of selected complete journeys. | Journey logs and interviews; specify destinations and observation times. |
| Comfort | Observed conditions and occupant-reported usability. | Monitoring plus interviews; identify season and occupancy. |
| Public space | Usable access and patterns of participation. | Route audits and observations; include reasons for non-use. |
| Service reliability | Documented interruptions and time to response. | Service records and user accounts; reconcile conflicting reports. |
| Participation | Documented influence of resident input on decisions. | Decision-response records; attendance does not demonstrate influence. |
All indicators are proposed. Local teams must define units, periods, sampling, responsibilities and interpretation before collecting data. No city values or universal thresholds are assigned.
16. Equity, Disaggregation and the Danger of the Average
An average improvement can coexist with poor outcomes for particular groups. Inclusive evaluation should therefore ask how benefits and burdens are distributed. The relevant groupings depend on the intervention and the evidence available, rather than a fixed list applied without purpose.
Household circumstances that may matter include occupation arrangement, livelihood type, mobility requirements and care responsibilities. These characteristics can influence how a project is experienced. However, subgroup reporting should protect privacy and avoid presenting unstable estimates from very small numbers as dependable comparisons.
Disaggregation should be planned early. If the baseline does not collect information needed to distinguish relevant experiences, later analysis may be unable to answer important questions. The evaluation team should discuss these needs with residents and explain why particular information is requested.
Qualitative evidence can help interpret differences without pretending to establish their population prevalence. A detailed account may reveal an overlooked mechanism or difficulty. It should be presented as that kind of evidence, rather than as a substitute for a representative estimate.
Equity reporting also involves explaining trade-offs. A project may improve one group’s access while creating disruption for another. The evaluator’s task is to make these consequences visible and distinguish them from the policy judgement about how they should be addressed. Transparent reporting supports a more informed discussion than a single citywide score that conceals who benefits, who pays and whose experience remains uncertain.
17. Comparison, Attribution and Claims of Success
Before-and-after information can show that a condition changed, but it does not automatically show why. Wider service changes, economic conditions or household transitions may contribute. The evaluation design should reflect whether the objective is descriptive monitoring or a stronger claim about an intervention’s effect.
A comparison area may help, but only if its role is justified. Areas can differ in starting conditions, investment histories and population characteristics. Selecting a convenient comparison without examining these differences can introduce false confidence. The report should explain why the comparison is informative and where it remains imperfect.
Repeated observations can strengthen understanding of timing and persistence. They help distinguish a temporary disruption from a continuing problem or an early benefit from a durable improvement. Observation intervals should follow the expected process of change and the resources available, not an arbitrary desire for more data.
Where a stronger causal design is not feasible, evaluation can still provide value. It can document outcomes, investigate plausible explanations, compare experiences and identify operational failures. The limitation should be stated clearly, and the language of the conclusion should remain proportionate.
Success is therefore best reported as an evidence-based account with boundaries. A programme may meet construction targets, improve a measured service and leave other outcomes unresolved. Acknowledging that mixed picture is more useful than forcing the result into a simple successful-or-unsuccessful category. It directs attention to the next decision and the evidence needed to support it.
An additional safeguard is to specify the expected direction of change before examining results. If a programme is intended to reduce reported travel difficulty, that outcome should not be replaced after data collection merely because another measure looks more favourable. Changes to the evaluation plan may be justified, but the reasons should be recorded and the revised analysis distinguished from the original question.
Uncertainty can also be explored through deliberately different interpretations. Analysts can examine whether conclusions change when incomplete cases are described separately, when observation periods differ or when unusual values are retained and investigated. These checks should address plausible weaknesses in the evidence rather than become an exercise in searching for a preferred result. The public account should explain the practical implication: whether the finding appears stable, depends on a particular assumption or requires further information before action is justified.
17.1 Choosing a comparison design
Impact evaluation asks what would have happened without the intervention. Gertler and colleagues (2016) explain the importance of a credible counterfactual and introduce methods for constructing comparisons. Impact Evaluation in Practice. A before-and-after comparison alone generally cannot distinguish programme effects from other changes occurring over the same period.
For example, an evaluator might compare changes in travel time in an intervention area with changes in a comparison area. This difference-in-differences approach requires a defensible expectation that, without the intervention, the outcome trends would have been comparable. Pre-intervention observations can inform that judgement, while spillovers or another transport project affecting only one area may undermine it. A sophisticated estimator cannot compensate for an unsuitable comparison.
In urban projects, assignment is often related to deprivation, land availability or political priorities. These conditions also influence outcomes. Researchers should document the selection process and examine which differences their method can address. Where credible causal identification is unavailable, a transparent account of implementation and outcomes remains valuable, provided it does not claim a demonstrated impact.
Table 5. Matching the comparison design to the claim
| Design | What it can examine | Key limitation or condition |
| Repeated monitoring | Whether a defined condition changed. | Other causes of change remain unresolved. |
| Difference-in-differences | Change relative to a comparison trend. | Requires credible parallel counterfactual trends; check spillovers. |
| Qualitative process inquiry | How delivery and user experience connect. | Mechanisms do not establish population effect sizes. |
| Mixed-method evaluation | Outcome patterns and explanations together. | Each evidence stream needs a defined role and stated limits. |
Analytical guide proposed for this paper. Counterfactual and difference-in-differences concepts draw on Gertler et al. (2016); design selection must reflect the actual intervention and available evidence.
18. Tables, Dashboards and Composite Scores
The way results are displayed affects how they are interpreted. Tables are useful for exact definitions and comparisons, while graphs can reveal distributions or differences more quickly. Both should identify their source, unit and scope. A polished display cannot compensate for an unclear denominator or an unsupported claim.
The figures in this article deliberately distinguish evidence types. The theme profile describes eleven selected publications; the numerical examples illustrate fully disclosed arithmetic; and the diagrams represent proposed relationships and management processes. None ranks cities or estimates programme benefits. That distinction should remain visible wherever the figures are reproduced, including presentations or extracts that separate a graph from the surrounding discussion.
Composite scores require additional caution. Combining affordability, accessibility and service reliability into one number involves choices about scaling and weights. It can also allow a favourable result in one domain to offset a serious problem elsewhere. Those choices should be justified rather than hidden in a formula.
For an initial evaluation, separate domain results are often easier to interpret. Decision-makers can see which conditions improved, which deteriorated and where evidence is missing. If an index is later developed, sensitivity analysis should examine how alternative reasonable choices affect rankings or conclusions.
Reporting should also distinguish proposed indicators from collected results. Table 4 is a menu for local adaptation, not a dataset. Its entries have no assigned city values because no new field survey was conducted. Maintaining this distinction allows the article to offer practical tools without creating the appearance of measurements that do not exist.
18.1 Digital evidence with a clear audit trail
A useful digital system links each reported indicator to its definition, source, collection date and revision history. A dashboard should allow the analyst to trace a summary back to the relevant records without exposing personal information publicly. The design starts with those relationships; purchasing a more complex platform is not a substitute for defining them.
Geographic information systems can connect service assets, route observations and neighbourhood boundaries. The team should record coordinate accuracy and the date of each mapped feature. A line representing a footpath should not automatically imply a continuous, accessible route. Field observations about steps, obstructions or opening hours may be essential to interpreting the mapped connection.
Administrative and sensor data also need contextual checks. A timestamped service entry may describe a scheduled visit rather than completed work. A device reading may reflect a faulty sensor or unusual placement. Automated flags can identify missing periods and implausible values, but their role is to prompt investigation. An unexplained algorithmic correction can make the evidence less transparent.
Public dashboards should use restrained visual conventions: explicit units, readable labels, comparable axes and visible missing categories. Colour should reinforce meaning without being the only way it is communicated. A chart should identify whether it presents measured observations, model estimates or an illustrative scenario. Version dates help readers avoid comparing figures drawn from incompatible reporting cycles.
Access arrangements should follow the purpose of the data. Identifying contact details used for follow-up can be stored separately from analysis records, with restricted access and a documented retention period. A public release can provide aggregate results and a methods note. This supports scrutiny while reducing unnecessary exposure of the households whose participation makes evaluation possible.
19. Governance, Maintenance and Learning After Delivery
Evaluation requires an organisation able to respond to what it finds. A report that documents service problems without identifying responsibility may have limited practical effect. The process should therefore connect evidence with a decision, a responsible body and a mechanism for follow-up.
Responsibilities should be assigned before handover. Shared spaces, installed systems and public access routes may involve different agencies or community arrangements. The evaluation should examine whether those arrangements are clear, adequately resourced and understood by the people expected to use them.
Resident participation should extend into interpretation. Public discussions can help explain why a measured change matters and whether proposed corrections address the actual difficulty. Participants should be told which decisions can change and how their comments will be considered. A record of responses is more informative than attendance totals alone.
Maintenance information should be treated as learning evidence. Repeated faults may indicate a design issue, an operating constraint or a mismatch between the asset and available support. Identifying the pattern can improve future procurement and design rather than merely recording each repair separately.
The proposed evaluation cycle consequently continues after delivery. It moves from a baseline to implementation checks, outcome review and corrective action. The intervals and responsibilities should be adapted to local capacity. The essential requirement is that findings can lead to a practical response and that the response is checked, creating a visible connection between research, management and residents’ experience.
Evaluation itself needs a realistic budget. Field visits, data management, interpretation and returning findings to participants take time. A programme that funds only a final report may lack the resources needed to investigate emerging problems or maintain contact with affected households. The evaluation plan should identify these tasks early and assign enough capacity to perform them consistently.
The budget should also distinguish routine monitoring from additional research. Service teams may already collect useful operational records, while household follow-up may require a separate arrangement. Reusing existing information can reduce duplication, provided its definitions and quality suit the evaluation question. Data collected for one administrative purpose should not be assumed to answer a different research question without review.
Corrective action should have a documented closure process. Recording a complaint as resolved is different from checking whether the user’s difficulty has ended. A proportionate follow-up can ask whether the service works, whether the repair lasted and whether the response created another problem. This closes the connection between evidence and action while producing practical information for later projects. It also gives residents a clearer account of what the programme has done with their contribution.
Table 6. Evaluation and response cycle
| Stage | Main task | Responsible arrangement | Review output |
| Before selection | Define questions and revisit existing records. | Planning team with resident input. | Baseline and uncertainty statement. |
| Options appraisal | Compare benefits, burdens and dependencies. | Design and service teams; affected groups. | Transparent comparison of alternatives. |
| Transition | Track disruption and temporary arrangements. | Delivery team with a clear contact point. | Problems recorded and responses assigned. |
| After occupation | Check usability, costs and service operation. | Evaluator and operating organisations. | Outcome account with missing cases noted. |
| Maintenance | Investigate recurring faults and repair capacity. | Named asset and service managers. | Corrective actions and resource needs. |
| Learning review | Check whether corrections solved the problem. | Managers with user verification where appropriate. | Lessons for future design and delivery. |
Proposed roles and stages, not a mandated timetable. Assign local organisations, resources and review intervals before implementation.
Figure 6. Proposed evaluation feedback cycle. Responsibility and corrective action connect reporting to implementation; verification returns the process to diagnosis and revised questions.
20. Research and Teaching Applications
The framework can support interdisciplinary teaching through clearly bounded exercises. Students might compare a mapped service with observed operation, document complete journeys or investigate how a dwelling supports everyday activities. Each task should have a manageable question and an output useful to the people who contribute information.
Research training should emphasise the distinction between description and inference. A small field exercise can produce valuable observations without supporting citywide estimates. Students should report selection procedures, observation periods and uncertainty. This makes modest work credible and provides a foundation for more demanding designs.
Universities can also contribute to indicator development. Proposed questions should be tested for clarity, relevance and feasibility before routine use. Repeated collection can help examine consistency, while consultation can reveal whether the information captures concerns residents consider important.
Future research could compare intervention approaches under documented starting conditions or follow households through transition and occupation. It could investigate how maintenance arrangements influence the durability of benefits. These studies would need designs appropriate to their claims and resources sufficient to retain meaningful follow-up.
The present article remains conceptual. Its literature is selected rather than comprehensive, and its proposed tools have not been validated as a universal evaluation system. Their value will depend on adaptation, testing and transparent revision. Reporting difficulties and unsuccessful applications would be as useful as reporting favourable results, because both contribute to understanding when an approach works and what it requires.
Teaching projects should include a clear agreement about what students can and cannot provide. Participants need to know whether the exercise is intended for learning, municipal decision support or a formal research study. Students should avoid implying that an interview guarantees assistance, eligibility or a design change. An honest account of purpose protects participants and improves the quality of the exchange.
Supervision should cover how findings are represented. A photograph may show a physical condition but reveal private information; a quotation may explain an experience but make a person identifiable. Decisions about inclusion should consider consent, necessity and potential consequences. Public outputs can often communicate the planning issue without exposing a household’s specific circumstances.
The final educational task is to return the findings in a usable form. A short local-language summary, an annotated map or a discussion with service staff may be more helpful than a lengthy technical report alone. Returning information allows participants to correct misunderstandings and helps students learn whether their interpretation matches lived experience. That feedback should be documented as part of the project’s learning, with unresolved disagreements retained where appropriate.
20.1 Priorities for empirical validation
The next research stage should test whether the proposed measures are understandable, repeatable and useful for decisions. An initial pilot could compare independently recorded route conditions, repeat selected household questions and examine disagreements between service records and user accounts. Such work would assess measurement performance before attempting to combine indicators or rank neighbourhoods.
A subsequent comparative study could follow different intervention approaches while retaining information on starting conditions and implementation differences. The research should identify the population to which its conclusions apply. A finding from one settlement type, season or service arrangement should not be transferred to another without examining the mechanism that might make the result relevant.
Validation should also examine practical burden. A technically informative indicator may require equipment, interview time or analytical capacity that local teams cannot sustain. Recording the cost and effort of collection allows researchers to compare a comprehensive instrument with a smaller routine monitoring set. The question is whether simplification preserves the information needed for responsible decisions.
Finally, future studies should report when evidence changes a project decision. Examples could include modifying a route, revising maintenance arrangements or addressing a recurring cost that residents identify. Documenting the response and its subsequent performance would test the framework’s practical contribution. Publication should include unresolved problems as well as improvements, creating an evidence base that can support learning across institutions and locations over successive implementation cycles.
21. Conclusion
Urban evaluation should explain whether development improves the conditions that matter in everyday life. Construction, expenditure and asset records remain necessary, but they should be connected with affordability, livelihoods, accessibility, comfort and reliable services. The evaluation question must extend from what was delivered to what changed, for whom and for how long.
The selected literature offers complementary perspectives on those relationships. Settlement typologies encourage contextual diagnosis; redevelopment and renewal studies support careful intervention choice; architectural research raises questions of use and comfort; and transport and environmental studies direct attention to complete service experiences.
The practical approach proposed here begins before selection, retains a revisitable baseline and continues through transition, occupation and maintenance. It separates outputs from outcomes, treats missing residents as an important evidence concern and avoids presenting aggregate improvement as proof of universal benefit. Its tables provide proposed tools and disclosed inputs, while its figures distinguish literature description, conceptual relationships and illustrative calculations.
For public agencies and educational institutions, the immediate opportunity is to make evaluation more usable and accountable. Clear definitions, proportionate claims and visible responsibility can help turn findings into corrections. A city programme deserves confidence when it can show how its decisions improve residents’ conditions and explain openly where the evidence or outcomes remain incomplete.
Evaluation should also preserve a clear record of revisions. When definitions, responsibilities or project arrangements change, documenting the reason allows future teams to interpret results consistently and understand which lessons remain applicable to the next stage of urban improvement.
Declarations and Source Notes
Article type: Conceptual article and narrative synthesis. No new household survey, city-performance dataset or intervention experiment was conducted.
Figures and data availability: Figures 1 and 6 are conceptual diagrams. Figure 2 describes the eleven urban references in Table 1 using one author-assigned primary theme per work. Figures 3–5 use constructed examples; their complete numerical inputs are disclosed in the text or tables. No original field dataset exists for this paper. These graphics must retain their explanatory labels when reproduced.
Tables: Table 1 documents the core urban reference set; Table 3 contains invented teaching inputs; Tables 2, 4, 5 and 6 present proposed analytical distinctions, indicator options, comparison designs and implementation arrangements. They require local adaptation and do not constitute validated standards.
Reference handling: The duplicate Bouddha/Charumitra redevelopment entry is consolidated. The journal version represents the supplied vernacular conference citation. Original text for Sharma and Dhote (2003) was not examined; no detailed findings are attributed to it.
Methodological scope: This expanded conceptual paper develops a selected-literature synthesis. It reports no systematic search, formal risk-of-bias assessment, pooled effect or empirical validation. The additional methodological sources are not included in the descriptive theme count.
References
Bouddha, C., Dhote, K. K., & Sharma, A. (2014). Slum redevelopment strategy: A way forward to urban environment management through inclusive approach. Research Journal of Engineering Sciences, 3(7), 28–37. Publisher record.
Dhote, K. K., Onkar, P., & Das, S. (2012). Identifying the sustainable practices from the vernacular architecture of tribes of central India. American Transactions on Engineering & Applied Sciences, 1(3), 237–251. Published full text.
Dhote, K. K., Silakri, R. K., & Onkar, P. (2013). Urban renewal and redevelopment: Identification of appropriate planning intervention for Indian cities. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 2(7), 42–48. Published full text.
Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. J. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice (2nd ed.). Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank. Publisher record.
Jaiswal, A., Dhote, K., Krishnan, R., & Jain, D. (2012). Bus rapid transit system: A milestone for sustainable transport: A case study of Janmarg BRTs, Ahmedabad, India. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(11), 45–62. Study record.
Lalramsangi, V., Garg, Y. K., & Sharma, S. N. (2025). Route choices to access public open spaces in hill cities. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 16(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/09754253251388721.
Lodhi, A. S., Jaiswal, A., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Assessing bus users satisfaction using discrete choice models: A case of Bhopal. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9, Article 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01652-w.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en.
Sharma, A., & Dhote, K. K. (2003). Thermal comfort and heritage buildings. Institution of Engineers (India), Architectural Engineering, 84, 1–3. [Original full text not examined; bibliographic form retained from the supplied reference.]
Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., & Singh, J. (2024). Emerging techniques of solid waste management for sustainable and safe living environment. In M. Nasr & A. Negm (Eds.), Solid waste management (pp. 29–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60684-7_3.
Sharma, S. N., Singh, S., Kumar, G., Pandey, A. K., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Role of green buildings in creating sustainable neighbourhoods. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1519(1), 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1519/1/012018.
Singh, P. O., Dhote, K. K., & Soni, N. (2013). Development of typologies of slum settlements: The case of a million plus city of India. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 179, 153–164. In The Sustainable City VIII: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC130131.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (n.d.). Urban monitoring framework. Official framework resources.
Yadav, K., Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2026). Exploring the environmental determinants of mode choice in first and last mile connectivity: Evidence from a systematic review. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 11, Article 204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-026-02614-0.
Track2Training 
You must be logged in to post a comment.