Dr. Kavita Dehalwar

Abstract

The transformation of human settlements in India is occurring through rapid urbanisation, peri-urban expansion, changing housing markets, infrastructure development, migration, technological transformation and environmental change. These processes have created substantial opportunities for economic development, improved connectivity and better access to services, but they have also produced persistent inequalities in housing, sanitation, transportation, public space, employment, environmental quality and political participation. Social justice in human settlement planning therefore requires more than the provision of physical infrastructure. It requires an integrated understanding of how spatial decisions affect different social groups and how access to opportunities is distributed across space. This article examines the relationship between social justice and spatial development in India by synthesising research on social injustice in vernacular settings, informal settlements, housing in urban fringe areas, sanitation, universal design, women’s representation, caste-based representation, rural employment, public transport, first- and last-mile accessibility, transit-oriented development, public-space accessibility, land-use–transport interaction, green buildings, life-cycle assessment, urban growth modelling, artificial intelligence and digital twins. The article argues that housing, mobility, infrastructure, environment and participation should be treated as interconnected components of an inclusive human-settlement system. It proposes a framework based on distributive justice, recognitional justice, procedural justice, representational justice, spatial accessibility, affordability, environmental justice and technological accountability. The article further argues that emerging analytical technologies can improve planning decisions only when combined with qualitative knowledge, participatory processes and careful attention to data gaps. The future of Indian planning should therefore move from infrastructure-centred development towards people-centred, context-sensitive and evidence-based spatial development in which diverse communities can access opportunities, participate in decision-making and live with dignity, security and resilience.

Keywords: social justice; inclusive human settlements; spatial inequality; housing; informal settlements; transport accessibility; universal design; participatory planning; urbanisation; India; environmental justice; artificial intelligence

1. Introduction

Human settlements are among the most important physical manifestations of social, economic, political and cultural relationships. Houses, streets, neighbourhoods, transportation networks, public spaces, markets, institutions and environmental infrastructure together constitute the places in which people live their everyday lives. Consequently, planning decisions about land use and infrastructure are simultaneously decisions about access, opportunity, identity, safety and social inclusion.

India is experiencing profound transformation in its human settlements. Metropolitan regions are expanding beyond traditional municipal boundaries; villages are becoming incorporated into urban systems; Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities are experiencing increasing development pressures; informal settlements continue to provide housing for economically vulnerable households; and transportation systems are being reconfigured around new patterns of employment and consumption. At the same time, digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning, geographic information systems and digital twins are changing how planners understand and manage urban systems.

The challenge is that development does not affect all populations equally.

A new road may improve accessibility for some communities while dividing another neighbourhood. A new transit corridor may reduce travel time but also increase land values. A housing project may provide formal dwellings but locate households far from employment. A new green space may improve environmental quality but increase development pressure around its boundaries. A redevelopment programme may improve physical infrastructure while weakening existing social networks.

These examples demonstrate that spatial development cannot be evaluated only through physical or economic indicators. It must also be evaluated in terms of social justice.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2024), in their study Social injustice inflicted by spatial changes in vernacular settings: An analysis of published literature, highlight the importance of examining the social consequences of spatial transformation. Their work provides a valuable starting point for understanding the relationship between physical change and social inequality.

Similarly, Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2023) research on the Fate of slums of Bhopal—a tale of struggle and resilience brings attention to the lived experiences of communities in informal settlements.

The wider research portfolio supplied for this article also contains studies on housing, sanitation, public transport, universal design, rural employment, women’s reservation, Dalit representation, public-space accessibility, green buildings, urban growth modelling, artificial intelligence and digital twins. These works provide complementary perspectives on the relationship between spatial development and social outcomes.

This article argues that social justice should be treated as a fundamental planning objective rather than a supplementary social consideration. An inclusive human settlement is not simply one with adequate infrastructure. It is one in which different groups can access opportunities, services and public spaces; participate in decisions; retain social and cultural relationships; and benefit equitably from development.

2. Conceptualising Social Justice in Spatial Planning

Social justice in planning can be understood through several related dimensions.

2.1 Distributive justice

Distributive justice concerns how land, housing, infrastructure, public services and environmental benefits are distributed. A city in which high-income neighbourhoods have excellent infrastructure while low-income communities experience inadequate sanitation or transportation demonstrates spatially unequal distribution.

2.2 Recognitional justice

Recognitional justice requires planners to acknowledge differences among communities. Older adults, children, persons with disabilities, women, migrants, informal workers and socially marginalised groups may have different spatial requirements.

2.3 Procedural justice

Procedural justice concerns participation in decision-making. People affected by planning decisions should have meaningful opportunities to express their priorities and influence outcomes.

2.4 Representational justice

Representational justice concerns institutional power. Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) work on women’s reservation and Verma, Yadav, and Sharma’s (2026) study of Dalit representation demonstrate the importance of considering who participates in institutions and who has access to decision-making power.

These four dimensions are interconnected. Infrastructure distribution may be unequal because certain communities have limited political representation. Similarly, a group may have formal access to a service but remain excluded because the service does not recognise its specific needs.

Therefore, socially just planning should combine physical, social and institutional analysis.

3. Spatial Transformation and Social Inequality

Spatial transformation is an inevitable component of urbanisation. Agricultural land becomes urban land, villages become incorporated into metropolitan regions, traditional neighbourhoods experience redevelopment, and new transport infrastructure restructures accessibility.

However, spatial transformation is not socially neutral.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2024) argue, through their examination of published literature on social injustice in vernacular settings, that spatial changes can have consequences extending beyond physical form. Traditional spatial arrangements can contain social relationships, cultural practices and collective identities. When such environments are transformed without adequate understanding of their social significance, physical redevelopment can produce social disruption.

This issue is particularly relevant to Indian cities, where traditional neighbourhoods and villages are increasingly exposed to market-led development.

The transformation of settlement morphology can alter:

patterns of social interaction;
access to common spaces;
local livelihoods;
cultural identity;
pedestrian routes;
housing affordability;
property ownership; and
community networks.

Consequently, planners should assess not only what physical development will be constructed but also what existing social systems may be affected.

This requires a more comprehensive approach to impact assessment.

4. Urbanisation, Metropolitan Expansion and the Urban Fringe

The urban fringe is one of the most rapidly changing components of India’s settlement system.

Kumar, Vyas, Sharma, and Dehalwar (2023) examined the planning and development of housing in the urban fringe area of Bhopal, highlighting the importance of understanding peripheral development.

Urban fringe areas often contain multiple land-use systems simultaneously:

agricultural land;
villages;
informal settlements;
plotted housing;
institutional campuses;
industrial development;
commercial corridors; and
new residential projects.

This mixture produces complex planning challenges.

Agricultural land may be converted into housing, while existing villages become surrounded by new development. Landowners may receive financial benefits from land conversion, but agricultural labourers may lose livelihoods. Existing residents may experience improved infrastructure but also rising property taxes, land values and living costs.

Urban fringe development can therefore create both opportunities and vulnerabilities.

One solution is to strengthen metropolitan-scale planning that coordinates land use, transportation, housing, environmental protection and rural development.

Rather than treating villages at the urban edge as residual spaces awaiting urbanisation, planners should recognise them as existing communities with their own social and economic systems.

5. Predictive Urban Growth and Socially Responsible Planning

Predictive modelling provides an important tool for managing urban growth.

Kumar, Vyas, Sharma, and Dehalwar (2025) examined urban growth prediction using a CA–ANN model and spatial analysis for planning policy in Indore city. The work demonstrates how Cellular Automata and Artificial Neural Networks can be used to understand potential spatial patterns of urban expansion. The supplied bibliography records this work in GeoJournal, 90(3).

Predictive models can assist planners in identifying:

potential growth corridors;
areas of future land conversion;
infrastructure requirements;
development pressure zones;
areas requiring environmental protection; and
potential conflicts between growth and existing land uses.

However, a prediction is not a planning recommendation.

A model can estimate where urban growth may occur, but it cannot independently determine whether such growth is equitable. Social variables should therefore be incorporated into scenario analysis.

For example, a growth scenario could be evaluated using:

accessibility to employment;
housing affordability;
service coverage;
environmental risk;
displacement potential;
public-transport access; and
proximity to schools and healthcare.

The combination of predictive modelling and social indicators can produce more socially responsible planning scenarios.

6. Informal Settlements and the Politics of Recognition

Informal settlements are frequently described through deficiencies: inadequate housing, poor sanitation, insecure tenure and limited infrastructure. Such descriptions are factually important but incomplete.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2023), through their study of slums in Bhopal, emphasise the dimensions of struggle and resilience.

Residents of informal settlements often create extensive social and economic systems. These can include:

informal employment networks;
neighbourhood associations;
shared childcare;
informal credit;
community support;
local markets; and
adaptive housing practices.

Therefore, the destruction or relocation of an informal settlement can result in the loss of social capital.

A planning approach centred solely on physical improvement may fail to recognise these assets.

Where feasible, in-situ upgrading can be considered. Such upgrading can include:

water supply;
sanitation;
drainage;
road improvement;
street lighting;
waste management;
housing improvement;
tenure security; and
public-space development.

Relocation may still be necessary in locations subject to severe environmental hazards, but where relocation is required, social and livelihood impacts should be carefully assessed.

7. Housing, Affordability and Spatial Opportunity

Housing is more than shelter. It determines the location from which households access employment, education, healthcare and social networks.

The housing question therefore has both physical and spatial dimensions.

Kumar et al. (2023) demonstrate the importance of understanding housing development within the wider transformation of urban fringe areas.

Sharma and Dehalwar’s work on housing design and planning similarly indicates the importance of integrating housing with broader settlement planning.

Housing affordability should ideally be evaluated through a broader concept of housing burden.

A household’s effective housing cost may include:

housing cost + transportation cost + utility cost + maintenance cost + opportunity cost of location.

This is particularly important when affordable housing is located far from employment.

A household may pay less for housing but spend significantly more on transportation. Long commuting times can also reduce time available for childcare, education and community participation.

Consequently, affordable housing policies should be coordinated with:

employment location;
public transport;
pedestrian infrastructure;
schools;
healthcare;
markets; and
public spaces.

8. Housing Diversity and Inclusive Settlement Design

Housing policy often assumes a standard household structure. However, Indian cities contain highly diverse household arrangements.

These include:

nuclear families;
joint families;
elderly households;
women-headed households;
single-person households;
students;
migrants;
informal workers; and
temporary workers.

A single housing typology cannot adequately address all these needs.

Inclusive housing should therefore consider flexibility, affordability, accessibility and adaptability.

Universal design should also be integrated into housing from the beginning.

Agarwal and Sharma (2014), in their work on universal design to ensure equitable society, emphasise the importance of designing environments that support wider social inclusion.

Universal design can reduce the need for costly future modifications and can support people across different stages of life.

9. Sanitation as a Question of Social Justice

Sanitation is one of the clearest examples of the connection between infrastructure and human dignity.

Sharma’s work on the fate of rural sanitation schemes illustrates the importance of sanitation beyond the construction of physical facilities.

Similarly, the work on best practices for ensuring total sanitation indicates that successful sanitation requires more than isolated infrastructure.

A complete sanitation system requires:

access to safe toilets;
adequate water;
collection;
treatment;
safe disposal;
maintenance;
behavioural support; and
institutional accountability.

Inadequate sanitation can disproportionately affect poorer communities.

It can also create environmental externalities by contaminating water bodies and groundwater.

Sharma, Dehalwar, and Pandey (2026) examined measures to manage urban water quality for public health, connecting environmental water management with health. The supplied publication list identifies the chapter in Environmentalism in Healthcare.

Sanitation should consequently be integrated into spatial planning, public-health policy and environmental management.

10. Universal Design and an Age-Friendly City

Universal design is an essential component of inclusive planning.

Agarwal and Sharma’s (2014) work provides a foundation for considering universal design as a mechanism for equitable society.

The concept should be applied across:

buildings;
streets;
public transport;
parks;
government offices;
educational institutions;
healthcare facilities; and
public spaces.

Accessibility includes more than wheelchair access.

An inclusive environment should also accommodate:

older adults;
children;
pregnant women;
people carrying goods;
people with temporary injuries;
people with visual or hearing impairments; and
people with reduced mobility.

Sharma and Dehalwar (2025) examined the inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for senior citizens, highlighting the mobility requirements of older populations.

Age-friendly planning is increasingly important because longer life expectancy changes the demographic structure of settlements.

A city that is accessible to older adults is often also more convenient for children, families and people with temporary mobility limitations.

11. Public Transport and Transport Justice

Transportation is a central mechanism through which spatial inequality is experienced.

Lodhi, Jaiswal, and Sharma (2024) examined bus-user satisfaction using discrete choice models in Bhopal.

The importance of such research lies in its user-centred perspective.

Traditional transport planning often prioritises:

traffic speed;
road capacity;
vehicle movement; and
intersection performance.

However, users experience transport systems through:

waiting time;
reliability;
comfort;
affordability;
safety;
accessibility; and
connectivity.

A transport system can be technically efficient while remaining socially unsatisfactory.

Therefore, transport evaluation should combine engineering indicators with user-experience indicators.

12. First- and Last-Mile Accessibility

Public transport cannot provide complete mobility unless people can reach transit stations and destinations.

Yadav, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2025) examined factors affecting first- and last-mile accessibility in transit-oriented development through a literature review. The study is particularly relevant because the success of transit-oriented development depends on the connections between high-capacity transit and local neighbourhoods.

First- and last-mile barriers can include:

missing footpaths;
unsafe crossings;
long distances;
steep gradients;
poor lighting;
inadequate cycling infrastructure;
unreliable feeder services; and
lack of universal accessibility.

The issue becomes particularly important in Indian Tier-2 cities, where transit systems may be less extensive than those of large metropolitan regions.

Yadav et al. (2025) also examined user satisfaction in last-mile connectivity under TOD in Tier-2 Indian cities from a climate-sensitive perspective.

This expands the concept of accessibility by recognising that climate conditions influence walking and cycling decisions.

Heat, rain and extreme weather can become significant barriers to active mobility.

13. Environmental Determinants of Mobility

Mobility choices are influenced not only by travel time and cost but also by environmental conditions.

Yadav, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2026) examined environmental determinants of mode choice in first- and last-mile connectivity through a systematic review.

This line of research is important for socially inclusive mobility because environmental conditions can affect different groups differently.

For example:

elderly people may be more sensitive to heat;
children may face greater safety risks;
people with disabilities may face greater difficulty with poor surfaces;
women may be more sensitive to perceived safety;
low-income households may have fewer alternatives to walking.

Consequently, transport planning should include environmental comfort and safety as part of accessibility.

14. Public Open Spaces and Spatial Accessibility

Public open spaces contribute to health, recreation and social interaction.

Lalramsangi, Garg, and Sharma (2025) studied route choices to access public open spaces in hill cities, demonstrating that accessibility depends upon spatial configuration and route characteristics.

The research is especially relevant to hilly settlements, where conventional measures of distance may fail to capture the actual difficulty of movement.

A destination may be geographically close but difficult to reach because of:

steep slopes;
stairs;
indirect routes;
narrow paths;
barriers; or
poor connectivity.

This suggests that accessibility analysis should consider actual routes rather than only Euclidean distance.

Public-space planning should therefore integrate spatial analysis with user experience.

15. Transit-Oriented Development and Social Equity

Transit-oriented development has become an important planning strategy for integrating land use and transportation.

Sharma and Dehalwar (2025) conducted a systematic literature review of TOD and its relationship with economic development. Their work is relevant to understanding the broader economic implications of transit-oriented urban development.

Yadav et al. (2025) further examine first- and last-mile accessibility within TOD environments.

However, TOD should also be assessed through social justice.

Improved transit accessibility can increase land values. This can produce benefits for property owners while creating affordability pressures for renters and low-income households.

Therefore, socially inclusive TOD should consider:

affordable housing;
existing residents;
displacement risk;
pedestrian accessibility;
universal design;
public-space provision;
employment access; and
community participation.

TOD should not simply become a strategy for increasing development intensity around stations.

Its broader objective should be to create accessible and mixed-use communities.

16. Land Use–Transport Interaction and Spatial Equity

Land-use and transport systems influence one another.

Sharma and Dehalwar (2025) reviewed land-use transportation interaction models in smart urban growth management.

This relationship is central to social justice.

Land-use decisions determine:

where people live;
where jobs are located;
where schools are built;
where healthcare is available; and
where public transport demand emerges.

Transport decisions then influence land values, development density and investment.

If these systems are planned independently, spatial inequality can increase.

For example, low-income housing may be developed without corresponding employment or transport infrastructure. Alternatively, transport investment may be concentrated in already prosperous areas.

Integrated land-use and transport planning can reduce such mismatches.

17. Gender and Inclusive Planning

Gender influences how people experience urban space.

Women’s mobility can be affected by:

safety;
household responsibilities;
childcare;
employment patterns;
transport availability; and
social norms.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) research on politics in the name of women’s reservation provides an important institutional dimension to gender inclusion.

Representation matters because planning priorities are shaped by institutions.

However, numerical representation alone does not guarantee substantive participation.

Gender-responsive planning can include:

safe streets;
adequate lighting;
accessible sanitation;
safe public transport;
childcare facilities;
mixed-use development;
inclusive public spaces; and
meaningful participation in planning.

Women’s mobility should also be analysed through trip chaining rather than only conventional home-to-work commuting.

18. Caste and Spatial Inclusion

Caste is an important dimension of social inequality in India.

Spatial planning cannot be separated from wider social structures that influence access to resources and institutions.

Verma, Yadav, and Sharma (2026), in their study From access to power: Dalit representation deficits across state, market, and cultural institutions in neoliberal India, examine representation from an institutional perspective.

The planning implication is that spatial access and institutional access are interconnected.

A community may have physical proximity to public facilities but still experience exclusion if it lacks meaningful representation.

Planning research should therefore investigate both:

Where are services located?

and

Who has the capacity to influence their provision?

Participatory planning can help address this gap, but participation must be structured to ensure that marginalised groups are not dominated by more powerful stakeholders.

19. Rural Employment and Human Settlement Equity

Rural development is an integral part of the social-justice agenda.

Sharma, Chatterjee, and Dehalwar (2023) examined the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, identifying challenges and opportunities associated with rural employment.

Employment programmes can contribute to settlement resilience by providing household income while supporting local infrastructure.

Similarly, Chatterjee and Sharma’s (2020) review of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana highlights the importance of rural connectivity.

Rural roads can improve access to:

markets;
schools;
healthcare;
employment; and
government services.

However, physical connectivity alone is insufficient.

Infrastructure should be accompanied by service availability and livelihood opportunities.

This reinforces the need to consider rural and urban development as part of a continuous regional system.

20. Rural–Urban Continuum

The distinction between rural and urban areas is increasingly difficult to maintain in rapidly developing regions.

Villages around metropolitan areas can become economically dependent on cities. Residents may commute to urban employment while maintaining rural housing. Agricultural land may be converted to residential use. Urban infrastructure may extend into rural administrative areas.

This creates a rural–urban continuum.

Planning at the metropolitan scale should therefore consider:

rural livelihoods;
agricultural land;
migration;
housing;
transportation;
environmental resources;
public services; and
peri-urban governance.

Failure to recognise these relationships can produce fragmented development.

21. Participatory Planning and Community Knowledge

Participatory planning provides an institutional mechanism for incorporating community knowledge.

Sharma’s work on participatory planning in plan preparation provides a foundation for this approach.

Residents often understand their neighbourhoods through everyday experience.

They know:

where water accumulates;
which paths are unsafe;
where informal markets operate;
which public spaces are important;
where transport services are unreliable;
which services are difficult to reach; and
which local institutions provide community support.

Such information may not be visible in conventional planning datasets.

Participation can therefore improve both social legitimacy and technical understanding.

However, participation must be meaningful.

A public meeting in which residents are informed of a predetermined project is not equivalent to participation in which alternatives are discussed.

Meaningful participation should occur throughout:

problem identification;
priority setting;
option development;
plan formulation;
implementation; and
monitoring.

22. Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Planning

Dehalwar and Sharma (2024) examined the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods, an issue with direct relevance to social-justice research.

Quantitative approaches can identify patterns of inequality through:

census data;
GIS;
surveys;
statistical analysis;
accessibility modelling; and
spatial indicators.

Qualitative methods can reveal:

perceptions;
experiences;
social relationships;
cultural meanings;
institutional barriers; and
community priorities.

Neither approach is sufficient in every situation.

A mixed-method approach can identify both the spatial pattern of inequality and the mechanisms producing it.

For example, GIS may demonstrate that a neighbourhood is far from healthcare facilities. Interviews may reveal that the real problem is not distance alone but unaffordable transportation.

This demonstrates why social-justice planning requires methodological pluralism.

23. Delphi Methods and Expert Knowledge

Jain, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2024) examined the Delphi research method and expert opinion surveys.

Delphi methods can be useful where planning decisions involve uncertainty and require structured expert judgement.

Potential applications include:

identifying social-justice indicators;
evaluating accessibility criteria;
prioritising infrastructure;
assessing urban-growth scenarios;
developing resilience strategies; and
evaluating planning policies.

Expert opinion should not replace community knowledge. Instead, expert judgement and community experience can complement one another.

24. Environmental Justice

Environmental risks and benefits are often spatially uneven.

Low-income communities may be located in areas with:

flooding;
pollution;
inadequate drainage;
waste facilities;
poor air quality; or
limited green space.

At the same time, environmental improvements may generate new inequalities if they increase property values and displace existing communities.

This creates a central planning question:

How can environmental improvement be achieved without reproducing social exclusion?

The answer requires environmental impact assessment to be combined with social-impact assessment.

Green infrastructure should therefore be evaluated according to:

environmental benefits;
distribution of benefits;
distribution of costs;
affordability;
displacement risk; and
accessibility.

25. Green Buildings and Social Sustainability

Sharma, Singh, Kumar, Pandey, and Dehalwar (2025) examined the role of green buildings in creating sustainable neighbourhoods.

Green buildings can contribute to:

energy efficiency;
water conservation;
indoor environmental quality;
reduced resource consumption; and
lower environmental impacts.

However, social sustainability requires broader consideration.

A green building should also be:

accessible;
affordable;
connected to transportation;
integrated with public spaces; and
suitable for diverse users.

Green development should therefore not be limited to technological features such as energy systems or materials.

The neighbourhood context matters.

26. Life-Cycle Assessment and Equitable Infrastructure

Sharma, Lodhi, Dehalwar, and Jaiswal (2024) examined life-cycle assessment of recycled and secondary materials in road construction.

Life-cycle assessment can improve infrastructure planning by considering impacts across the full life of materials and projects.

From a social-justice perspective, life-cycle thinking can be extended beyond environmental impacts.

Infrastructure should also be evaluated in terms of:

maintenance;
accessibility;
long-term affordability;
resilience;
employment;
community disruption; and
future adaptability.

A road that is inexpensive to construct but difficult to maintain may impose future costs on municipalities and communities.

Thus, long-term infrastructure planning is also a question of intergenerational justice.

27. Waste Management and Social Inclusion

Waste management is both an environmental and social service.

Sharma, Dehalwar, Jain, and Pandey (2025) examined applications and prospects of AI tools in solid waste management, illustrating the growing use of technology in environmental-service delivery.

AI can potentially improve:

route optimisation;
collection scheduling;
waste classification;
monitoring;
recycling;
demand prediction; and
resource efficiency.

However, technological solutions must be evaluated alongside the social conditions of waste workers and communities.

Waste-management planning should address occupational health, safety, dignity and access to protective equipment.

The distribution of waste facilities also requires environmental-justice analysis.

28. Artificial Intelligence and Social Justice

AI is increasingly entering planning, infrastructure and environmental management.

The supplied bibliography includes work on AI in solid waste management, AI in social work for environmental sustainability, machine learning for accessibility and AI-supported urban growth prediction.

Ogbanga, Sharma, Pandey, and Singh (2025), for example, examine artificial intelligence in social work to ensure environmental sustainability.

The relevance to planning lies in the possibility of using AI to connect environmental and social information.

However, AI systems depend on data.

If data exclude:

informal settlements;
informal workers;
low-income households;
women;
people without digital access; or
rural populations,

then algorithmic outputs may reproduce existing inequalities.

Therefore, socially responsible AI requires:

representative data;
transparency;
validation;
human oversight;
community accountability; and
monitoring of unequal impacts.

29. Digital Twins and Inclusive Urban Management

Digital twins offer a more dynamic approach to urban planning.

Sharma and Dehalwar (2026) examined the role of urban spatial digital twins in sustainability and transit-oriented development.

Digital twins can potentially integrate:

land use;
transportation;
buildings;
environmental conditions;
infrastructure;
population;
energy;
water; and
real-time sensor data.

Such systems can help planners test alternative scenarios.

For example, a digital twin could be used to examine how a new transit station might influence:

accessibility;
traffic;
development density;
land values;
public-space use; and
environmental conditions.

However, social variables must be included.

A technically advanced digital twin that does not adequately represent informal settlements or vulnerable populations may produce misleading planning scenarios.

The future of digital planning should therefore combine computational representation with participatory representation.

30. Social Justice and Smart Urban Growth

Smart growth should not simply mean data-driven growth.

A genuinely smart settlement should be capable of identifying inequalities and responding to them.

Sharma’s earlier review of commonly used urban growth models provides a foundation for understanding how different modelling approaches can contribute to urban planning.

The next generation of smart planning should integrate:

spatial intelligence + social intelligence + environmental intelligence + institutional intelligence.

Spatial intelligence identifies patterns.

Social intelligence identifies lived experiences.

Environmental intelligence identifies ecological risks.

Institutional intelligence identifies governance constraints.

Only their combination can support socially just planning.

31. A Framework for Inclusive Human Settlement Planning

Based on the literature discussed above, an integrated framework can be developed around ten dimensions.

31.1 Housing justice

Every household should have access to adequate, affordable and secure housing.

31.2 Mobility justice

Residents should have affordable, safe and accessible transportation.

31.3 Accessibility justice

Public buildings, streets and spaces should be usable by diverse populations.

31.4 Environmental justice

Environmental risks and benefits should be distributed equitably.

31.5 Infrastructure justice

Basic infrastructure should be provided according to need rather than market value alone.

31.6 Gender justice

Planning should account for women’s safety, mobility and participation.

31.7 Social and caste inclusion

Historically marginalised groups should have access to resources and decision-making.

31.8 Participatory justice

Communities should meaningfully influence development decisions.

31.9 Rural–urban justice

Development opportunities should not be concentrated exclusively in metropolitan areas.

31.10 Digital justice

Technology-driven planning should ensure representation and accessibility in data and decision-making.

32. Indicators for Measuring Socially Just Settlements

The framework can be operationalised through measurable indicators.

Dimension	Possible Indicators
Housing	Housing affordability, tenure security, crowding
Transport	Public transport coverage, fare burden, travel time
Walking	Footpath coverage, crossing safety, route accessibility
Universal design	Accessible buildings, ramps, tactile systems
Sanitation	Toilet access, wastewater treatment, drainage
Public space	Park accessibility, open-space distribution
Gender	Safety, women’s mobility, representation
Social inclusion	Access to services across social groups
Environment	Flood exposure, air quality, green-space access
Employment	Job accessibility, livelihood security
Participation	Community involvement in planning
Digital inclusion	Data coverage, access to digital services
Governance	Representation, transparency, accountability

These indicators should not be treated as a universal checklist. Their selection should be adapted to local context.

33. From Equality to Equity

An important distinction in social planning is between equality and equity.

Equality means providing the same intervention to everyone.

Equity means responding according to different levels of need.

For example, providing one bus stop per kilometre across every neighbourhood may appear equal. However, a settlement with many older adults or persons with disabilities may require more accessible and closely connected services.

Similarly, providing identical housing units to every household may not be equitable if household sizes and needs differ.

Equity therefore requires differentiated planning.

This does not mean arbitrary discrimination. It means recognising existing inequalities and designing interventions to address them.

34. Planning for Vulnerability

Vulnerability is multidimensional.

A household may be vulnerable because of:

low income;
insecure tenure;
disability;
age;
gender;
caste-based exclusion;
environmental exposure;
lack of transport;
lack of digital access; or
insecure employment.

Multiple vulnerabilities can overlap.

For example, an elderly person living alone in a peripheral settlement may experience simultaneous challenges related to mobility, healthcare access, transportation and social isolation.

Planning should therefore move beyond single-category vulnerability assessments.

A multi-dimensional vulnerability framework can provide a more realistic understanding of settlement conditions.

35. The Role of Local Context

There is no single model of an inclusive Indian settlement.

Planning solutions must respond to:

climate;
topography;
settlement morphology;
economic structure;
cultural practices;
governance;
infrastructure;
demographic composition.

Research on public-space accessibility in hill cities demonstrates why topography matters. Research on Bhopal’s slums demonstrates the importance of local socio-economic conditions. Research on Tier-2 cities demonstrates why transport solutions developed for major metropolitan areas cannot automatically be transferred elsewhere.

Context-sensitive planning is therefore essential.

36. Implications for Planning Education

Planning education should also respond to the changing understanding of social justice.

Students of architecture and planning should be trained in:

spatial analysis;
GIS;
statistics;
qualitative research;
participatory planning;
transport planning;
housing;
environmental planning;
universal design;
social-impact assessment;
AI and digital technologies.

But technical skills should be combined with ethical reasoning.

A planner must understand not only how to model a city but also how planning decisions affect people.

The research methodology works of Dehalwar and Sharma (2024) and Jain et al. (2024) are relevant here because they reinforce the importance of methodological understanding in planning research.

37. Future Research Directions

The literature suggests several priorities for future research.

37.1 Spatial inequality mapping

More detailed GIS-based studies are required to map inequality at neighbourhood and settlement scales.

37.2 Housing and transport integration

Research should examine housing affordability together with transportation costs.

37.3 Informal-settlement upgrading

Longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the social outcomes of in-situ upgrading versus relocation.

37.4 Gender-responsive mobility

More research is needed on women’s mobility in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.

37.5 Age-friendly transportation

Research should examine how older adults interact with changing transport systems.

37.6 Accessibility and climate

Future studies should integrate heat, rainfall and other environmental conditions into accessibility modelling.

37.7 Socially responsible AI

AI research should examine representation, algorithmic bias and the exclusion of marginalised populations.

37.8 Digital twins

Digital twins should incorporate social and participatory dimensions.

37.9 Environmental justice

Green infrastructure should be evaluated for potential displacement and unequal distribution of benefits.

37.10 Rural–urban transformation

More integrated research is required on metropolitan expansion and the transformation of rural livelihoods.

38. Conclusion

The future of India’s human settlements depends not only on how rapidly cities and regions develop but also on how equitably the benefits of development are distributed.

The research considered in this article demonstrates that social justice is inherently spatial. Housing determines access to opportunity. Transportation determines mobility. Public spaces influence social interaction. Sanitation influences health and dignity. Urban growth affects land and livelihoods. Environmental interventions influence both resilience and land values. Political representation affects whose priorities are incorporated into planning.

The supplied research portfolio provides a particularly useful multidisciplinary foundation for understanding these relationships.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) research on spatial injustice demonstrates that changes to physical environments can produce social consequences. Their study of Bhopal’s slums demonstrates that informal settlements should be understood through both vulnerability and resilience. Housing research in Bhopal’s urban fringe demonstrates the complexity of peripheral development. Research on universal design establishes accessibility as a foundation of equitable environments. Research on women’s reservation and Dalit representation highlights the institutional dimension of justice.

Transport research further expands the argument. Bus-user satisfaction research demonstrates the importance of user experience. First- and last-mile research demonstrates that transit accessibility depends on local connections. Research on public-space route choices demonstrates the importance of spatial configuration. Work on senior citizens highlights age-sensitive mobility. Research on land-use–transport interaction demonstrates the interdependence between spatial development and mobility.

The environmental dimension is equally important. Research on green buildings, recycled road materials, water quality and waste management demonstrates that sustainability must be integrated with social outcomes.

Finally, the increasing use of CA–ANN models, machine learning, AI and digital twins offers powerful new tools for planning. However, these technologies should be understood as decision-support mechanisms rather than replacements for planning judgement, community knowledge and institutional accountability.

The central proposition of this article is therefore that inclusive human settlement planning requires the integration of spatial, social, environmental, economic and technological perspectives.

Planning for social justice does not mean providing identical environments to everyone. It means recognising differences in need and ensuring that all groups have meaningful access to opportunities, services and decision-making.

A socially just settlement should provide adequate housing, accessible transportation, safe public spaces, sanitation, employment opportunities and environmental quality. It should also protect communities from unnecessary displacement and provide meaningful mechanisms for participation.

The future planning paradigm should therefore move:

from infrastructure provision to accessibility;

from housing construction to housing security;

from mobility to meaningful access;

from consultation to participation;

from physical inclusion to social inclusion;

from technological efficiency to accountable innovation;

from isolated urban planning to rural–urban integration; and

from development-centred planning to people-centred planning.

India’s cities and regions are too diverse to be governed by a single universal spatial model. The appropriate approach is one that combines advanced analytical tools with local knowledge, community participation and social sensitivity.

The ultimate measure of a settlement should not simply be how efficiently it functions, how rapidly it grows or how technologically advanced it becomes. It should also be whether people of different backgrounds, incomes, ages, abilities and social circumstances can live there with dignity, security, accessibility, participation and opportunity.

That is the foundation of socially just and inclusive human settlements.

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

Ogbanga, M. M., Sharma, S. N., Pandey, A. K., & Singh, P. (2025). Artificial intelligence in social work to ensure environmental sustainability. In M. Nasr, A. Negm, & L. Peng (Eds.), Artificial intelligence applications for a sustainable environment (pp. 491–508). Springer.

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

Sharma, S. N. (2013). Sustainable development strategies and approaches. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research.

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

Sharma, S. N. (2019). Review of most used urban growth models. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 10.

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. (2025). A systematic literature review of transit-oriented development to assess its role in economic development of city. Transportation in Developing Economies, 11(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-025-00245-1

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. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003513834-5

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., Dehalwar, K., Jain, S., & Pandey, A. K. (2025). An assessment of the applications and prospects of AI tools in solid waste management. In Artificial intelligence applications for a sustainable environment (pp. 97–118). Springer.

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., Dehalwar, K., & Yadav, K. (2026). Urban spatial digital twin in sustainability to spur economic growth in transit-oriented development-based development. In Tenable Engineering for a Sustainable Future (pp. 257–300).

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. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1519/1/012018

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.

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

Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., Kumar, G., Yadav, K., & Verma, D. (2026). Utilization of advanced materials for permeable paving, biocrete, and piezoelectric materials in walkways to transit stations. In Engineering sustainability goals: UNSDG 12 (p. 209).

Sharma, S. N., Dehalwar, K., & Sharma, S. N. (2026). Advances in AI-based mobility modelling: Toward intelligent transport infrastructure in smart cities. In AI-Based Data Mobility and Intelligent Modeling for Smart Cities (pp. 67–106).

Sharma, S. N. (2026). Generative AI and digital twins for sustainable last-mile logistics: Enabling green operations and electric vehicle integration. In Accelerating logistics through generative AI, digital twins, and autonomous operations.

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.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2024). World cities report 2024: Cities and climate action. UN-Habitat.

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

The genie grants you a wish. What is it?
View all responses