Social Justice and Inclusive Human Settlements in India: Reframing Planning, Housing, Mobility and Participation

Dr. Kavita Dehalwar

Abstract

Urbanisation and rural transformation in India have generated significant opportunities for economic development, improved infrastructure and social mobility, but these processes have also produced persistent inequalities in access to land, housing, transportation, sanitation, employment, public space and decision-making. Social justice in human settlements therefore requires more than physical infrastructure provision. It requires planning systems capable of recognising differences in income, gender, caste, age, disability, location and access to institutional resources. This article examines social justice in Indian human settlements through the interconnected themes of spatial inequality, housing vulnerability, informal settlements, sanitation, universal design, mobility, women’s representation, participatory planning and rural development. Drawing upon a range of recent studies, including research on spatial changes in vernacular settings, slums in Bhopal, housing development, sanitation, universal design, women’s reservation, Dalit representation, rural employment and inclusive urban transport, the article argues that social justice should be treated as a fundamental planning objective rather than a secondary social consideration. The article proposes an integrated framework based on equitable access, recognition, participation, representation, affordability and spatial inclusion. It concludes that future planning in India should move from infrastructure-centred development towards people-centred human-settlement planning in which communities participate meaningfully in shaping the places in which they live.

Keywords: social justice; inclusive planning; human settlements; housing; informal settlements; spatial inequality; universal design; participatory planning; India; urbanisation

1. Introduction

Human settlements are more than physical arrangements of buildings, roads and infrastructure. They are social spaces in which people live, work, interact, access opportunities and construct individual and collective identities. Consequently, the quality of a settlement cannot be assessed only through indicators such as road width, housing density, infrastructure coverage or economic productivity. It must also be assessed through questions of equity: Who has access to land? Who can afford adequate housing? Who can reach employment and education? Who has access to sanitation and public spaces? Whose needs are considered in planning decisions? And who has the power to influence the transformation of neighbourhoods and communities?

These questions are particularly significant in India, where rapid urbanisation coexists with substantial socio-economic diversity. Metropolitan regions, small and medium-sized towns, peri-urban settlements, villages and informal settlements are undergoing rapid transformation. Such transformation can create new opportunities, but it can also produce uneven development. Areas with better infrastructure and connectivity may attract investment and experience increasing land values, while communities with limited economic resources may remain in poorly serviced locations or face displacement pressures.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) analysis of social injustice resulting from spatial changes in vernacular settings provides an important conceptual basis for examining this issue. Spatial transformation is not socially neutral. Changes in land use, infrastructure, urban form and settlement patterns can influence community relationships, cultural identity and access to resources.

Similarly, research on the fate of slums in Bhopal highlights the relationship between vulnerability, struggle and resilience in informal settlements (Dehalwar & Sharma, 2023). Rather than viewing informal settlements simply as spatial problems to be removed, planning needs to understand them as places where households develop social, economic and spatial strategies for survival.

Social justice in planning consequently requires a shift from asking what should the city look like? to also asking for whom is the city being planned? This article explores this question through multiple dimensions of human settlement planning.

2. Social Justice as a Planning Principle

Social justice in spatial planning involves the fair distribution of opportunities, resources, services and environmental benefits. However, distribution alone is insufficient. Justice also involves recognition and participation.

A settlement may have technically equal infrastructure provision while remaining socially unequal if particular groups cannot use that infrastructure effectively. For example, a public transport system may be available throughout a city, but older people or persons with disabilities may face barriers because buses, footpaths or stations are inaccessible. Similarly, a public park may exist within a neighbourhood, but women or children may not use it if they perceive the space as unsafe.

This means that planning should consider at least four dimensions of justice:

1. Distributive justice – equitable access to land, housing, infrastructure and services.
2. Recognitional justice – recognition of different social, cultural and spatial needs.
3. Procedural justice – meaningful participation in planning and decision-making.
4. Representational justice – inclusion of historically underrepresented groups in institutions and governance.

The work of Dehalwar and Sharma (2024) on spatial injustice reinforces the importance of recognising how physical changes can generate social consequences. Planning interventions should therefore be evaluated not only by their physical outcomes but also by their effects on vulnerable communities.

A socially just planning system does not necessarily mean providing identical interventions everywhere. Rather, it means responding appropriately to different needs. This distinction between equality and equity is fundamental to inclusive planning.

3. Urbanisation, Spatial Inequality and the Transformation of Settlements

Urbanisation changes the spatial structure of settlements. Agricultural land becomes residential or commercial land; villages become incorporated into metropolitan regions; informal settlements become surrounded by formal development; and traditional neighbourhoods are increasingly influenced by market forces.

Such transformations can create what may be described as uneven urban citizenship. Some residents gain improved accessibility, employment opportunities and property values, while others experience displacement, congestion or declining access to traditional livelihoods.

Research on the planning and development of housing in the urban fringe of Bhopal illustrates the importance of understanding peripheral areas as spaces of rapid transition (Kumar, Vyas, Sharma, & Dehalwar, 2023). Urban fringes frequently contain a mixture of agricultural land, villages, plotted developments, informal settlements and new housing projects. Planning institutions often struggle to manage this mixture because administrative boundaries do not necessarily correspond to actual patterns of urbanisation.

The problem is not simply uncontrolled physical growth. Peri-urban transformation can also alter social relationships and livelihoods. Farmers may sell land because of rising development pressure, while agricultural workers can lose employment opportunities. At the same time, new residents may experience inadequate infrastructure because development occurs faster than public-service provision.

Urban planning should therefore treat the urban fringe as a distinct planning zone rather than simply an area awaiting future urbanisation.

4. Informal Settlements: From Vulnerability to Resilience

Informal settlements are among the clearest manifestations of inequality in urban development. Residents often face inadequate housing, insecure tenure, limited sanitation, insufficient drainage and restricted access to formal services. Yet these communities should not be understood exclusively through the language of deficiency.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2023), in their study of slums in Bhopal, frame informal settlements through the concepts of struggle and resilience. This perspective is important because residents develop informal networks, livelihood strategies and community institutions that help them cope with difficult conditions.

The conventional response to informal settlements has often involved demolition, relocation or replacement. Such approaches can physically remove inadequate housing but may simultaneously destroy social networks and increase travel distances to employment. Relocation can therefore solve one physical problem while creating new social and economic problems.

An inclusive alternative is in-situ improvement, where feasible. Such an approach can combine infrastructure upgrading, tenure security, housing improvement, sanitation, drainage, street improvements and community participation.

The planning question should consequently shift from How can informal settlements be eliminated? to How can housing and living conditions be improved while preserving livelihoods, social networks and dignity?

This approach is consistent with the broader principle that housing is not simply a commodity. It is a foundation for access to employment, education, healthcare and social relationships.

5. Housing and the Right to a Secure Settlement

Housing occupies a central position in social justice because inadequate housing can reinforce multiple forms of deprivation. Poor-quality housing may expose households to environmental hazards, while insecure tenure can discourage investment in housing improvements.

The relationship between housing and urban development is also influenced by transportation. Housing located far from employment centres may appear affordable but generate high commuting costs. Therefore, housing affordability should ideally be assessed through total housing-and-transport costs, rather than housing price alone.

Research on the development of housing in urban fringe areas (Kumar et al., 2023) highlights the need to understand housing within broader spatial-development processes. Similarly, Sharma and Dehalwar’s work on the fundamentals of housing and planning emphasises the importance of integrating housing design with settlement-level planning.

The concept of inclusive housing should encompass:

• affordability;
• adequate floor area;
• structural safety;
• access to water and sanitation;
• access to public transport;
• proximity to employment and education;
• universal accessibility;
• tenure security; and
• access to public and community spaces.

Housing policy should also recognise differences between household types. A housing model designed around the conventional nuclear family may not respond adequately to single-person households, elderly people, migrant workers, women-headed households or extended families.

6. Sanitation, Public Health and Human Dignity

Sanitation is another fundamental dimension of social justice. Inadequate sanitation affects health, environmental quality and human dignity, and its impacts are not evenly distributed.

Sharma’s work on rural sanitation and subsequent research on best practices for ensuring total sanitation emphasise the continuing importance of sanitation as a development issue. Rural and urban sanitation cannot be considered exclusively as engineering problems. They involve behaviour, governance, maintenance, public awareness and institutional responsibility.

Similarly, Sharma, Dehalwar, and Pandey (2026) examine measures for managing urban water quality for public health. Their work reinforces the connection between environmental infrastructure and health outcomes.

A socially just sanitation system must consider the entire sanitation chain: access to toilets, water availability, wastewater collection, treatment, safe disposal and environmental monitoring. Constructing toilets without ensuring water, maintenance and waste management can result in infrastructure that exists physically but does not function effectively.

Sanitation planning must also consider gender. Women and girls can face distinct risks when sanitation facilities are distant, unsafe or inadequate. Thus, sanitation infrastructure should be evaluated through accessibility, safety and dignity in addition to technical performance.

7. Universal Design and Accessibility

Inclusive human settlements must be accessible to people with different physical abilities and life circumstances. Universal design provides an important framework for achieving this objective.

Agarwal and Sharma’s (2014) work on universal design to ensure an equitable society provides an early foundation for understanding accessibility as a social-equity issue. Universal design seeks to make environments usable by the widest possible range of people without requiring specialised adaptation.

Accessibility should be considered at multiple scales:

Building scale: entrances, corridors, toilets, elevators and circulation.

Street scale: footpaths, crossings, kerbs, tactile surfaces and street furniture.

Neighbourhood scale: access to parks, schools, healthcare and public transport.

City scale: accessible public transport and equitable distribution of services.

Universal design should not be limited to wheelchair accessibility. Older adults, children, people with temporary injuries, pregnant women and individuals carrying goods can all benefit from accessible environments.

Transport research provides an additional perspective. Sharma and Dehalwar (2025), in examining the inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for senior citizens, draw attention to the specific mobility requirements of older populations. The issue becomes increasingly important as demographic ageing changes the structure of urban populations.

Planning for accessibility therefore represents an investment in long-term urban resilience.

8. Gender and Representation in Planning

Gender is another critical dimension of spatial justice. Women’s experiences of cities are influenced by safety, mobility, employment, access to public spaces, care responsibilities and representation in decision-making.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) work on politics in the name of women’s reservation provides a broader institutional perspective on representation. Representation matters because planning decisions can reflect the priorities of groups that have greater access to political and administrative institutions.

Women’s participation should not be understood only as numerical representation. Meaningful participation requires opportunities to influence decisions and institutional mechanisms capable of incorporating women’s perspectives into planning.

Gender-sensitive planning can address:

• safe public transport;
• well-lit streets;
• accessible sanitation;
• childcare facilities;
• safe public spaces;
• mixed-use neighbourhoods;
• employment accessibility;
• pedestrian safety; and
• participation in local governance.

Transport is especially important because women’s mobility patterns can be influenced by household responsibilities and safety concerns. Consequently, transport planning based exclusively on peak-hour commuting may overlook significant portions of women’s travel.

9. Caste, Representation and Spatial Inclusion

Social justice in India also requires attention to caste-based inequality. Spatial development does not occur independently of broader social structures. Access to education, employment, land, housing and political institutions can be shaped by historically established inequalities.

The work of Verma, Yadav, and Sharma (2026), From access to power: Dalit representation deficits across state, market, and cultural institutions in neoliberal India, provides an institutional lens for examining representation and access to power. The central planning implication is that physical accessibility alone cannot guarantee social inclusion.

Planning institutions must therefore consider who participates in decisions about land, infrastructure and development.

This perspective is particularly relevant when redevelopment projects alter established communities. If affected groups have limited institutional representation, planning decisions may fail to capture their concerns.

Socially just planning should therefore combine spatial analysis with social analysis. GIS can show where services are located, but participatory research is often needed to understand who can actually access them and why.

10. Rural Development and the Urban-Rural Continuum

Social justice should not be restricted to metropolitan cities. Rural settlements are deeply connected to urban systems through employment, migration, markets, education and infrastructure.

Sharma, Chatterjee, and Dehalwar’s (2023) research on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) highlights the importance of rural employment policy in addressing livelihood challenges. Rural development programmes can influence not only household income but also local infrastructure and resilience.

Similarly, research on the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana has examined the role of rural road connectivity in development. Rural roads can reduce isolation and improve access to markets, schools and healthcare. However, connectivity must be combined with affordable and reliable services.

The relationship between rural and urban areas should therefore be understood as a continuum. Rural communities can be transformed by metropolitan expansion, while urban economies depend on rural production and labour.

An integrated planning framework should consequently address metropolitan regions, towns, villages and peri-urban areas together.

11. Participatory Planning and Community Knowledge

Participation is one of the most important foundations of socially just planning. Sharma’s work on participatory planning in plan preparation, including the case of Delhi, demonstrates the longstanding importance of involving stakeholders in planning processes.

Participation can improve the relevance of plans because local residents possess knowledge that may not appear in conventional datasets. Residents understand seasonal flooding, pedestrian shortcuts, unsafe locations, informal economic activities, social networks and everyday patterns of service use.

However, participation can become tokenistic if communities are consulted only after major decisions have already been made.

Meaningful participation should involve:

1. early engagement;
2. accessible information;
3. representation of marginalised groups;
4. opportunities to propose alternatives;
5. transparent responses to community concerns; and
6. feedback on how participation influenced the final plan.

Participatory planning should also use multiple methods. Public meetings alone may exclude people who cannot attend. Surveys, focus groups, participatory mapping, digital platforms, interviews and neighbourhood workshops can provide complementary forms of engagement.

Research methodology is therefore important. Dehalwar and Sharma (2024), in their examination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, and Jain, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2024), in their discussion of Delphi research and expert-opinion surveys, provide methodological perspectives that can support more rigorous planning research.

The implication is that planning should combine quantitative evidence with qualitative understanding rather than treating one approach as universally sufficient.

12. Transport, Accessibility and Social Equity

Transport is a mechanism through which spatial inequality becomes an everyday experience. A person may live only 10 kilometres from a job centre, but if public transport is unreliable, expensive or inaccessible, the practical distance may be much greater.

Research on public transport satisfaction in Bhopal (Lodhi et al., 2024) demonstrates the value of understanding users’ experiences. Similarly, research by Yadav, Dehalwar, and Sharma on first- and last-mile accessibility and multimodal accessibility extends the discussion to the connections between major transit systems and people’s origins and destinations.

Transit-oriented development can potentially reduce automobile dependence and improve accessibility, but its social consequences require careful assessment. Transit investments can alter land values and development patterns. Without appropriate housing and land policies, improved accessibility may not benefit existing low-income residents equally.

Mobility planning should therefore consider both transport accessibility and land-use affordability.

A socially inclusive transport system should provide:

• affordable fares;
• reliable service;
• accessible vehicles and stations;
• safe pedestrian connections;
• adequate first- and last-mile links;
• consideration of elderly and disabled users;
• gender-sensitive safety measures; and
• connections between peripheral and employment areas.

Lalramsangi, Garg, and Sharma’s (2025) work on access to public open spaces further demonstrates that accessibility is not only about reaching employment or transport stations. Everyday destinations such as parks and public spaces are also essential components of urban quality of life.

13. Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability and social justice are deeply interconnected. Environmental hazards are often experienced disproportionately by communities with fewer resources.

Low-income communities may be located in areas exposed to flooding, pollution or inadequate drainage because safer land is more expensive. Similarly, communities living close to waste facilities, industrial areas or polluted waterways may face environmental burdens without receiving equivalent benefits.

This creates the problem of environmental injustice.

Research on nature-based solutions, urban water quality and sustainable development in the supplied body of work demonstrates opportunities to connect environmental improvement with social outcomes. However, green interventions must also be implemented equitably. New parks or waterfront improvements can improve environmental conditions while increasing surrounding land values and displacement pressures.

Therefore, environmental planning should ask two questions:

What environmental improvement is being created?

and

Who will benefit from it, and who may bear unintended costs?

This approach links environmental planning with social-impact assessment.

14. A Framework for Socially Just Human Settlements

Based on the themes discussed above, an integrated framework for socially just human settlements can be structured around six principles.

14.1 Equitable Access

All residents should have reasonable access to housing, transportation, sanitation, healthcare, education, employment and public spaces.

14.2 Recognition of Diversity

Planning should recognise differences in gender, age, disability, income, caste, occupation, household structure and cultural identity.

14.3 Participation

Communities should participate meaningfully in planning, implementation and evaluation.

14.4 Representation

Planning institutions should improve the representation of groups that have historically had limited influence over development decisions.

14.5 Affordability

Housing, transport and basic services should be considered together so that improvements in one domain do not create unaffordable burdens in another.

14.6 Spatial Integration

Urban, peri-urban and rural areas should be planned as interconnected systems rather than isolated administrative territories.

This framework can be operationalised through indicators such as service accessibility, housing affordability, public-transport coverage, pedestrian accessibility, sanitation availability, participation rates, representation, displacement risk and environmental exposure.

15. The Role of Planning Research

The complexity of social justice requires methodological pluralism. Quantitative methods can identify spatial patterns and inequalities, while qualitative methods can explain why those patterns exist.

GIS can map service distribution. Statistical analysis can identify relationships between socio-economic characteristics and accessibility. Space syntax can examine movement and spatial configuration. Surveys can capture user satisfaction. Interviews can reveal lived experiences. Delphi methods can obtain structured expert judgement. Participatory mapping can capture community knowledge.

The methodological choices should be driven by the research question.

This is particularly important because social inequality is multidimensional. A single indicator such as household income cannot fully explain settlement vulnerability. Similarly, infrastructure coverage cannot automatically be interpreted as accessibility.

The combination of methods can therefore produce a more comprehensive understanding of human settlements.

16. Policy Implications for India

Several policy implications emerge from the discussion.

First, housing policy should be integrated with transport planning. Affordable housing located far from employment can create a cycle of transport poverty.

Second, informal settlements should be assessed through upgrading possibilities before relocation is considered. Existing social networks and livelihoods should be treated as assets.

Third, universal design should become a mainstream planning principle, not a specialised requirement applied only to selected buildings.

Fourth, participatory planning should move beyond consultation. Communities should have meaningful opportunities to influence priorities and alternatives.

Fifth, gender and social representation should be integrated into planning institutions.

Sixth, rural and peri-urban development should be coordinated with metropolitan growth.

Seventh, environmental interventions should incorporate social-impact assessment to reduce the risk of green development contributing to displacement.

Finally, planning decisions should be supported by transparent evidence. Digital tools, GIS, modelling and statistical methods can strengthen planning, but they should remain accountable to social objectives.

17. Conclusion

Socially just human settlements cannot be created simply by increasing the quantity of infrastructure. Roads, houses, sanitation systems, public transport and public spaces are necessary, but their social value depends upon who can access them, how they are designed and whether communities have a voice in their development.

The body of research considered in this article demonstrates the multidimensional nature of the challenge. Research on spatial injustice highlights the social consequences of physical transformation. Work on slums in Bhopal illustrates the importance of understanding informal settlements through resilience as well as vulnerability. Housing research demonstrates the importance of considering settlement development at the urban fringe. Studies on sanitation connect infrastructure with public health and dignity. Universal-design research emphasises accessibility. Research on women’s reservation and Dalit representation highlights the institutional dimension of justice. Studies of rural employment and connectivity show that social justice extends beyond cities. Transport research demonstrates that accessibility is central to participation in urban life. Participatory-planning research establishes the importance of community involvement.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the future of Indian planning should be guided by a shift from development for communities to development with communities.

The socially just city is not necessarily the city with the most infrastructure or the most advanced technology. It is the city in which people with different economic, social and physical circumstances can meaningfully access opportunities and participate in shaping their environments.

The same principle applies to villages, peri-urban settlements and metropolitan regions. Human settlement planning must recognise that spatial form and social relations are interconnected. Decisions about roads, housing, sanitation, land use and public spaces are simultaneously decisions about opportunity, dignity and inclusion.

India’s future urban and regional development therefore requires a planning paradigm that places equity, accessibility, participation, representation and human dignity alongside economic growth and physical development. Such a paradigm can help transform planning from a technical exercise in land and infrastructure management into a broader instrument of social development.

Ultimately, inclusive planning is not an additional component of sustainable development. It is one of its foundations. A settlement becomes genuinely sustainable when its environmental, economic and physical systems function in ways that enable diverse communities to live with security, dignity, accessibility and opportunity.

References

Agarwal, S., & Sharma, S. N. (2014). Universal design to ensure equitable society. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 2(1).

Chatterjee, S., & Sharma, S. N. (2020). Review of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Think India Journal, 23(1), 33–42.

Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2023). Fate of slums of Bhopal—a tale of struggle and resilience. Think India Journal, 26(4), 4.

Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Exploring the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Think India Journal, 27(1), 7–15.

Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Politics in the name of women’s reservation. Contemporary Voice of Dalit. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455328X241262562

Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Social injustice inflicted by spatial changes in vernacular settings: An analysis of published literature. ISVS e-journal, 11(9), 93–113.

Jain, S., Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Explanation of Delphi research method and expert opinion surveys. Think India, 27(4), 37–48.

Kumar, G., Vyas, S., Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2023). Planning and development of housing in urban fringe area: Case of Bhopal (MP). GIS Business, 18(1), 1–14.

Kumar, G., Vyas, S., Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Urban growth prediction using CA-ANN model and spatial analysis for planning policy in Indore city, India. GeoJournal, 90(3), 139.

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, 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01652-w

Sharma, S. N. (2012). Participatory planning in plan preparation: A case of Delhi. EduPedia Publications (P) Ltd.

Sharma, S. N. (2014). Fate of rural sanitation scheme. International Journal of Research, 1(2).

Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Examining the inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for senior citizens. In D. S.-K. Ting & J. A. Stagner (Eds.), Transforming healthcare infrastructure (pp. 115–134). CRC Press.

Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Review of landuse transportation interaction model in smart urban growth management. European Transport/Trasporti Europei, 103, 1–15.

Sharma, S. N., Chatterjee, S., & Dehalwar, K. (2023). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme: Challenges and opportunities. Think India Journal, 26(1), 7–15.

Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., & Pandey, A. K. (2026). Measures to manage the urban water quality for public health. In Environmentalism in healthcare (pp. 339–371).

Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., & Yadav, K. (2026). Advancing travel behaviour modelling: A systematic literature review. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal, e108027.

Sharma, S. N., Lodhi, A. S., Dehalwar, K., & Jaiswal, A. (2024). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of recycled & secondary materials in the construction of roads. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1326(1), 012102.

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.

Verma, D., Yadav, P., & Sharma, S. N. (2026). From access to power: Dalit representation deficits across state, market, and cultural institutions in neoliberal India. Forum for Social Economics, 1–26.

Yadav, K., Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2025). Assessing the factors affecting first and last mile accessibility in transit-oriented development: A literature review. GeoJournal, 90, 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-025-11546-8

Yadav, K., Dehalwar, K., Sharma, S. N., & Yadav, S. (2025). Understanding user satisfaction in last-mile connectivity under transit-oriented development in Tier 2 Indian cities: A climate-sensitive perspective. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1579(1), 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1579/1/012006

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(4), 204.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2022). World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the future of cities. UN-Habitat.

World Health Organization. (2021). Global report on ageism. World Health Organization.

Which relationship has taught you the most about yourself?

View all responses