Dr. Kavita Dehalwar

Abstract

India’s rapid urbanisation and changing rural–urban relationships are transforming the spatial, economic and social structure of human settlements. Urban expansion, housing development, transportation infrastructure, peri-urbanisation, environmental change and technological transformation have generated new opportunities while simultaneously reproducing or intensifying inequalities in access to land, housing, sanitation, mobility, employment, public spaces and decision-making. Socially just planning therefore requires a shift from infrastructure-centred development towards people-centred and inclusive human-settlement planning. This article examines the relationship between social justice and spatial development in India through interconnected themes of housing, informal settlements, rural–urban transformation, sanitation, universal design, transport accessibility, gender, caste, participation, environmental justice and digital planning. Drawing extensively on the supplied body of research—including studies on spatial injustice in vernacular settings, the fate of slums in Bhopal, housing in urban fringe areas, rural sanitation, universal design, women’s reservation, Dalit representation, rural employment, public-transport satisfaction, first- and last-mile accessibility, public-space access, land-use–transport interaction, green buildings, urban growth modelling and artificial intelligence—the article argues that spatial planning is inseparable from social justice. It proposes an integrated framework based on distributive, recognitional, procedural and representational justice. The article concludes that equitable human settlements require coordinated planning across scales, participatory governance, universal accessibility, affordable housing, inclusive mobility and evidence-based decision-making. The objective should not simply be to create efficient cities, but to create settlements in which diverse populations can access opportunities, participate in decision-making and live with dignity, security and resilience.

Keywords: social justice; inclusive planning; human settlements; spatial inequality; housing; informal settlements; mobility; universal design; participatory planning; India; rural–urban development

1. Introduction

Human settlements are physical, social, economic and cultural systems. They include not only buildings and infrastructure but also communities, institutions, livelihoods, public spaces, social networks and patterns of interaction. Consequently, the success of a settlement cannot be measured only by the quantity of infrastructure constructed or the speed of economic growth. It must also be evaluated according to the distribution of opportunities and the ability of different groups to access and influence the spaces in which they live.

This issue is particularly important in India, where rapid urbanisation is occurring alongside substantial socio-economic diversity. Metropolitan cities, Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, villages, peri-urban settlements and informal settlements are increasingly interconnected. Urban expansion has created new housing and employment opportunities, but it has also generated challenges associated with land speculation, housing affordability, congestion, displacement, environmental degradation and unequal infrastructure provision.

The concept of social justice provides a framework for understanding these challenges. Planning decisions influence who receives infrastructure, who benefits from improved accessibility, who is exposed to environmental hazards and whose voice is represented in development decisions. Spatial development therefore has distributive as well as social consequences.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2024), in their study of social injustice inflicted by spatial changes in vernacular settings, demonstrate the importance of understanding spatial transformation from a social perspective. Changes in physical form can affect social relationships, cultural identity and patterns of community life. This perspective is particularly important in rapidly transforming settlements where traditional spatial structures are replaced by new development patterns.

The question of justice becomes even more significant when considering informal settlements. Dehalwar and Sharma (2023), in their examination of the fate of slums in Bhopal, describe a context of struggle and resilience. Such settlements are often characterised by inadequate infrastructure and tenure insecurity, but they also contain strong social networks, livelihood systems and community relationships.

Similarly, housing development at the urban fringe can generate complex relationships between formal development, rural settlements, agricultural land and emerging residential areas. Kumar, Vyas, Sharma, and Dehalwar (2023) examined housing development in the urban fringe of Bhopal, illustrating the importance of understanding peripheral areas as dynamic spaces rather than simply as future extensions of the city.

The central argument of this article is that social justice must be treated as a fundamental objective of spatial planning. Housing, mobility, sanitation, public space, environmental infrastructure and participation should not be addressed as separate policy sectors. They are interconnected components of people’s everyday experience of place.

2. Understanding Social Justice in Human Settlement Planning

Social justice in planning can be understood through several complementary dimensions. The first is distributive justice, which concerns the fair distribution of resources and opportunities. The second is recognitional justice, which requires planners to recognise the different needs and identities of communities. The third is procedural justice, which concerns participation in decision-making. The fourth is representational justice, which concerns whether historically underrepresented groups have meaningful institutional influence.

These dimensions are interconnected.

For example, providing a new road to a low-income settlement may improve accessibility and therefore contribute to distributive justice. However, if the road results in displacement without adequate compensation, the overall social consequences may be negative. Similarly, constructing a public park may provide an environmental benefit, but if particular groups feel unsafe or excluded from using the park, the physical provision does not automatically create social inclusion.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) analysis of social injustice associated with spatial changes is particularly relevant because it illustrates how apparently physical transformations can have broader social consequences.

Social justice should therefore be embedded throughout the planning cycle:

diagnosis should identify inequalities;
plan formulation should recognise diverse needs;
decision-making should include affected communities;
implementation should protect vulnerable groups;
monitoring should measure distributional outcomes; and
evaluation should consider both intended and unintended consequences.

This approach moves planning away from a purely technical exercise towards a social and institutional process.

3. Urbanisation and Uneven Spatial Development

Urbanisation is often associated with economic development, but its benefits are rarely distributed uniformly. Investment tends to concentrate in areas with better connectivity, higher land values and greater economic potential. Peripheral and low-income areas may experience slower infrastructure development.

The transformation of urban fringes is particularly important. Kumar et al. (2023) examined planning and development of housing in the urban fringe area of Bhopal, highlighting the significance of peripheral development. Urban fringe areas frequently contain a combination of villages, agricultural land, plotted housing, informal settlements and large-scale development projects.

Such areas are socially complex because different forms of land ownership and livelihood coexist. Agricultural land may be converted into residential development, while existing villages may gradually become surrounded by urban construction. Residents may experience increased land values but also rising living costs and changing livelihood opportunities.

The challenge is therefore not simply to control urban expansion but to manage it equitably.

Urban growth modelling can contribute to this process. Kumar, Vyas, Sharma, and Dehalwar (2025) used a CA–ANN model and spatial analysis for urban growth prediction in Indore. Such modelling can help planners identify likely patterns of future development and assess infrastructure requirements.

However, predictive models should not be interpreted as socially neutral. A model can predict where development is likely to occur, but it cannot by itself determine whether that development is socially desirable. Planning judgement and community participation remain essential.

The integration of spatial modelling with social indicators can therefore provide a stronger foundation for equitable urban growth management.

4. Informal Settlements, Vulnerability and Community Resilience

Informal settlements represent one of the most visible expressions of inequality in rapidly urbanising cities. They often emerge because formal housing markets fail to provide affordable accommodation for low-income households.

The conventional planning response has frequently treated informal settlements as undesirable or temporary spaces. However, such an approach can overlook their social and economic functions.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2023), in their study of the fate of slums in Bhopal, emphasise struggle and resilience. Informal settlements are not merely collections of deficient houses. They are communities in which residents develop networks of mutual support, informal employment, social institutions and adaptive strategies.

Relocation can disrupt these systems. A household may receive a formally constructed dwelling but lose proximity to employment, schools, markets and social networks.

Therefore, the evaluation of housing programmes should extend beyond the physical quality of the dwelling.

A more comprehensive assessment should consider:

tenure security;
affordability;
access to employment;
transport connectivity;
access to schools;
access to healthcare;
sanitation;
social networks;
environmental risks; and
participation in redevelopment decisions.

Where feasible, in-situ upgrading can provide an alternative to displacement. Improvements in water supply, drainage, sanitation, roads, street lighting, housing quality and tenure security can improve living conditions while retaining community networks.

Such approaches also recognise the knowledge and resilience that already exist within informal communities.

5. Housing as a Foundation of Social Justice

Housing is one of the most important dimensions of human settlement planning because it influences health, education, employment, safety and social stability.

A narrow understanding of housing affordability focuses on purchase or rental cost. However, a household’s real housing burden also depends on transport costs, utility expenses, maintenance and access to essential services.

A relatively inexpensive house located far from employment may impose substantial commuting costs. Conversely, a more expensive dwelling near public transport and employment may produce lower total household expenditure.

This relationship makes housing and transportation inseparable.

The research of Sharma and Dehalwar on housing and planning provides a foundation for understanding housing as part of a broader settlement system. Similarly, Kumar et al. (2023) demonstrate the importance of analysing housing development within the wider context of urban-fringe transformation.

Inclusive housing policy should therefore consider:

location;
affordability;
tenure;
accessibility;
environmental quality;
social infrastructure;
public transport;
employment access; and
community facilities.

Housing should also accommodate different household structures. Planning standards designed primarily around conventional family structures may not adequately respond to elderly people living alone, single-parent households, migrant workers, students or women-headed households.

A socially just housing policy should therefore support diversity rather than impose a single model of household life.

6. Sanitation, Water and Public Health

Sanitation represents another fundamental dimension of social justice. Access to safe sanitation is closely connected with health, dignity and environmental quality.

Sharma’s research on the fate of rural sanitation schemes and subsequent work on best practices for total sanitation illustrates the continuing importance of sanitation in development planning. The challenge is not simply to construct toilets but to create functioning sanitation systems.

Effective sanitation requires:

reliable water supply;
safe toilets;
wastewater management;
drainage;
treatment infrastructure;
maintenance;
behavioural awareness; and
institutional accountability.

Inadequate sanitation can affect entire communities through contamination of water bodies and groundwater. It can therefore become an environmental-justice issue.

Sharma, Dehalwar, and Pandey (2026), in their work on urban water quality and public health, further demonstrate the connection between environmental infrastructure and human well-being.

Water-quality planning should therefore be integrated with settlement planning rather than treated solely as an engineering responsibility.

Gender must also be considered. Women and girls can face greater safety and privacy concerns when sanitation facilities are distant or inadequate. This makes sanitation an issue of both public health and gender justice.

7. Universal Design and the Inclusive City

An inclusive city must be accessible to people with different physical abilities, ages and mobility requirements.

Agarwal and Sharma (2014) examined universal design to ensure an equitable society, providing an important conceptual foundation for inclusive physical environments.

Universal design involves designing environments so that they can be used by the broadest possible range of people. Its relevance extends beyond wheelchair access.

Children, older adults, people carrying goods, pregnant women and people with temporary injuries can all benefit from:

step-free access;
safe crossings;
appropriate gradients;
accessible toilets;
tactile surfaces;
adequate seating;
clear signage;
safe pedestrian routes; and
accessible public transport.

Accessibility should therefore be considered from the beginning of the planning process.

It should not be treated as a corrective intervention applied after buildings and streets have already been designed.

The issue becomes increasingly important with population ageing. Sharma and Dehalwar (2025), in their examination of the inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for senior citizens, highlight the specific mobility requirements of older populations.

An age-friendly settlement should allow older people to remain socially and economically connected rather than becoming dependent on others for basic mobility.

8. Mobility, Accessibility and Transport Justice

Transportation determines people’s ability to participate in urban life. Employment, education, healthcare, markets and social activities all depend upon mobility.

Transport inequality can occur when:

services are unavailable in peripheral areas;
fares are unaffordable;
pedestrian infrastructure is poor;
first- and last-mile connections are weak;
vehicles are inaccessible;
routes do not match employment patterns; or
people perceive public spaces and transport systems as unsafe.

Lodhi, Jaiswal, and Sharma (2024) examined bus-user satisfaction in Bhopal using discrete choice models, illustrating the importance of understanding transport from the user’s perspective rather than evaluating systems solely through technical indicators.

Yadav, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2025) examined factors affecting first- and last-mile accessibility in transit-oriented development, highlighting the importance of connections between major transit systems and people’s actual origins and destinations.

Their work on multimodal accessibility further demonstrates the potential of machine learning to understand complex accessibility patterns (Yadav et al., 2026).

The broader lesson is that transport planning should focus on accessibility rather than movement alone.

A transport system that moves vehicles efficiently but leaves people unable to reach essential destinations cannot be regarded as socially inclusive.

9. Public Spaces and Everyday Accessibility

Public spaces are essential elements of socially inclusive settlements. Parks, streets, plazas and community spaces provide opportunities for recreation, interaction and cultural expression.

However, the existence of a public space does not guarantee equitable access.

Lalramsangi, Garg, and Sharma (2025) investigated route choices to access public open spaces in hill cities, demonstrating how spatial configuration influences people’s ability to reach public spaces.

This issue is particularly important in geographically challenging environments. Steep terrain, stairs, narrow roads and disconnected pedestrian networks can create barriers for elderly people, children and persons with disabilities.

The study illustrates the importance of considering accessibility at the neighbourhood level rather than simply calculating straight-line distance.

Public-space planning should therefore consider:

route directness;
pedestrian safety;
topography;
lighting;
seating;
shade;
universal accessibility;
social safety; and
connectivity with surrounding neighbourhoods.

A park that is technically nearby but difficult to reach is not necessarily an accessible public resource.

10. Gender, Space and Political Representation

Gender equality in planning involves more than providing facilities specifically labelled for women. It requires understanding how the structure of cities influences women’s daily experiences.

Women often combine employment, household responsibilities, childcare and other activities. Their travel patterns may therefore involve multiple destinations rather than a simple home-to-work journey.

Transport systems designed primarily around conventional commuting patterns can consequently overlook these mobility needs.

Gender-sensitive planning can include:

safe pedestrian routes;
reliable public transport;
appropriate lighting;
accessible sanitation;
childcare facilities;
mixed-use development;
safe public spaces; and
women’s participation in planning.

Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) work on politics in the name of women’s reservation provides a complementary institutional perspective. Representation matters because decision-making institutions influence which issues receive attention.

However, representation should be understood in substantive rather than purely numerical terms. The presence of women in institutions does not automatically guarantee gender-responsive planning. Institutional procedures must enable representatives and communities to influence actual decisions.

11. Caste, Representation and Spatial Inequality

The question of social justice in India cannot be separated from caste-based inequalities.

Spatial planning can influence access to education, employment, housing, infrastructure and public institutions. Historical inequalities can consequently become spatially reproduced.

Verma, Yadav, and Sharma (2026), in their work on Dalit representation deficits across state, market and cultural institutions, highlight the relationship between social representation and access to power.

The planning implication is significant: spatial inclusion requires institutional inclusion.

A neighbourhood may have physical access to government services, but if residents lack effective representation in decision-making, their concerns may remain inadequately addressed.

Planning therefore needs mechanisms through which marginalised groups can participate in:

neighbourhood planning;
housing decisions;
infrastructure priorities;
redevelopment;
environmental management; and
local governance.

Social mapping can be combined with participatory research to identify inequalities that conventional physical surveys may overlook.

12. Rural Employment, Connectivity and Social Development

Social justice should not be conceptualised solely through urban development.

Rural settlements are connected to cities through migration, employment, education, markets, transport and service networks.

Sharma, Chatterjee, and Dehalwar (2023) examined MGNREGS and its challenges and opportunities, illustrating how employment programmes can contribute to rural livelihood security.

Rural infrastructure also plays an important role. The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana has been examined in the supplied literature by Chatterjee and Sharma (2020). Rural roads can improve access to markets, healthcare and education.

However, connectivity alone does not eliminate rural inequality. Roads need to be connected to functioning services, markets and employment opportunities.

Rural development should therefore be understood as a multidimensional process involving:

employment;
infrastructure;
education;
healthcare;
sanitation;
digital connectivity;
agricultural productivity; and
access to urban markets.

The urban–rural divide should increasingly be replaced by a rural–urban continuum in regional planning.

13. Participatory Planning and the Right to Influence Development

Participation is central to social justice because communities are not simply recipients of planning decisions; they are knowledge holders and stakeholders.

Sharma’s work on participatory planning in plan preparation provides an important basis for understanding participation as a component of planning practice.

Residents possess knowledge about their neighbourhoods that may not be captured through conventional surveys. They know where flooding occurs, which paths are most frequently used, which public spaces feel unsafe, where informal markets operate and which services are difficult to access.

Participatory planning can capture this knowledge through:

public meetings;
household surveys;
focus groups;
participatory mapping;
interviews;
workshops;
expert consultations; and
digital engagement.

However, participation should not become symbolic. If communities are consulted only after decisions have already been made, participation becomes procedural rather than substantive.

Effective participation requires transparency about:

what decisions are open for discussion;
what constraints exist;
how public input will be evaluated; and
how community recommendations influence the final plan.

14. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Planning Research

Social justice is difficult to understand through a single research method.

Dehalwar and Sharma (2024) examined distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods, highlighting the different forms of evidence generated by each.

Quantitative methods are valuable for measuring:

service accessibility;
income distributions;
housing costs;
transport behaviour;
population characteristics;
infrastructure provision; and
spatial relationships.

Qualitative methods are valuable for understanding:

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

The two approaches should therefore be viewed as complementary.

Jain, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2024), in their discussion of the Delphi research method and expert opinion surveys, provide another methodological option for situations where expert judgement is important.

A robust social-justice study can consequently use mixed methods: GIS and statistical analysis can identify spatial inequality, while interviews and participatory methods can explain its causes and consequences.

15. Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

Environmental sustainability and social justice are closely connected.

Environmental risks are not necessarily distributed equally. Low-income households may live in locations exposed to flooding, pollution, inadequate drainage or poor environmental conditions because safer locations are less affordable.

Similarly, environmental improvements can produce unintended social consequences.

For example, waterfront redevelopment or the creation of attractive green spaces may increase surrounding land values. Without safeguards, low-income residents can become vulnerable to displacement.

This means that environmental planning should consider both ecological and social outcomes.

Research on green buildings by Sharma, Singh, Kumar, Pandey, and Dehalwar (2025) demonstrates the potential of green-building approaches to contribute to sustainable neighbourhoods. However, green development should also be assessed in terms of affordability and accessibility.

Similarly, research on the life-cycle assessment of recycled and secondary road materials (Sharma et al., 2024) demonstrates the importance of considering environmental impacts over the infrastructure life cycle.

Sustainable development should therefore be understood as a combination of:

environmental responsibility + social inclusion + economic viability.

Neglecting any one of these dimensions can undermine the long-term sustainability of settlements.

16. Green Buildings and Neighbourhood Equity

Green buildings can contribute to energy efficiency, water conservation and improved environmental performance. Yet building-level sustainability does not automatically produce neighbourhood-level sustainability.

Sharma et al. (2025) examined the role of green buildings in creating sustainable neighbourhoods, illustrating the importance of considering the relationship between buildings and their surrounding environments.

A sustainable neighbourhood should integrate:

energy-efficient buildings;
green spaces;
pedestrian infrastructure;
public transport;
water conservation;
waste management;
social facilities; and
affordable housing.

If sustainable development is accessible only to high-income residents, environmental innovation can unintentionally become another mechanism of inequality.

The objective should therefore be to democratise access to sustainable environments.

17. Land Use and Transportation as an Integrated Social System

Land-use and transportation systems influence each other continuously.

Transportation infrastructure affects land values and development patterns, while land-use distribution influences travel demand.

Sharma and Dehalwar (2025), in their review of land-use transportation interaction models in smart urban growth management, provide a useful framework for understanding this interrelationship.

From a social-justice perspective, the importance of land-use–transport interaction is considerable.

Suppose affordable housing is developed far from employment. The housing may appear socially beneficial, but residents may experience:

high commuting costs;
long travel times;
reduced access to family and social networks;
greater exposure to traffic;
reduced access to opportunities.

Integrated planning can reduce these problems by coordinating housing, employment and transportation.

This is also relevant to transit-oriented development. Yadav, Dehalwar, and Sharma (2025) examined first- and last-mile accessibility in TOD, while Sharma and Dehalwar (2025) reviewed the role of TOD in economic development.

TOD should therefore be assessed not only by density and transit proximity but also by affordability, displacement risk, pedestrian accessibility and social inclusion.

18. Technology and Socially Just Planning

Technology is increasingly influencing planning practice.

CA–ANN models, GIS, machine learning, digital twins and artificial intelligence can help planners analyse complex urban systems.

Kumar et al. (2025) demonstrate the use of CA–ANN for urban growth prediction. Yadav et al. (2026) demonstrate machine-learning applications for multimodal accessibility. Sharma and Dehalwar (2026) explore urban spatial digital twins in relation to sustainability and transit-oriented development.

These technologies can improve planning efficiency, but they also raise questions about data inequality and algorithmic bias.

If informal settlements are poorly represented in datasets, a data-driven model may underestimate their population or service needs. If mobility data disproportionately represent smartphone users, planners may obtain an incomplete picture of transport behaviour.

Therefore, technological sophistication must be accompanied by data inclusiveness.

AI should support planners rather than replace professional and community judgement.

19. Waste Management, Water and Environmental Health

Environmental services are also important dimensions of social justice.

Sharma, Dehalwar, Jain, and Pandey (2025) examined applications and prospects of AI tools in solid waste management, demonstrating how emerging technologies can improve waste-management systems.

Technology can potentially support:

waste collection optimisation;
route planning;
waste classification;
demand prediction;
monitoring;
recycling systems; and
environmental compliance.

However, the social dimension should remain central.

Waste-management systems involve workers, communities and neighbourhoods. Planning should therefore consider occupational safety, working conditions, exposure to hazards and the distribution of waste facilities.

Similarly, water-quality management requires attention to both environmental monitoring and public-health consequences.

The sustainable city is therefore one in which environmental infrastructure improves conditions for all communities rather than simply improving selected high-value areas.

20. Toward an Integrated Framework for Equitable Human Settlements

The discussion can be consolidated into an integrated planning framework with eight principles.

20.1 Equitable Distribution

Infrastructure, housing and services should be distributed according to need rather than simply according to market potential.

20.2 Accessibility

Physical proximity should be complemented by actual accessibility for pedestrians, public-transport users, older people and persons with disabilities.

20.3 Affordability

Housing and transport costs should be evaluated together.

20.4 Recognition

Planning should recognise cultural, social, gender, age, caste and livelihood differences.

20.5 Participation

Communities should participate throughout planning and implementation.

20.6 Representation

Historically marginalised groups should have meaningful institutional representation.

20.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental benefits and risks should be assessed across different social groups.

20.8 Evidence-Based Decision-Making

GIS, statistical analysis, qualitative research, expert judgement, AI and participatory knowledge should be combined where appropriate.

These principles can form the basis for a Socially Just Human Settlement Assessment Framework.

Potential indicators include:

Dimension	Illustrative Indicators
Housing	Affordability, tenure security, housing quality
Mobility	Public transport access, travel time, fare burden
Accessibility	Universal access, pedestrian connectivity
Sanitation	Toilet access, wastewater management, water quality
Public space	Park accessibility, safety, distribution
Participation	Community participation, consultation quality
Representation	Inclusion of marginalised groups
Environment	Flood exposure, pollution, green-space access
Employment	Employment accessibility, livelihood security
Digital inclusion	Data availability and digital accessibility

Such a framework can support comparative analysis between neighbourhoods and settlements.

21. Implications for Planning Practice in India

The literature discussed in this article suggests several practical directions for Indian planning.

First, planning should become more people-centred.

Infrastructure should be evaluated according to how it affects everyday life.

Second, informal settlements should be recognised as communities.

Where feasible, upgrading should be considered alongside relocation, with livelihood and social networks protected.

Third, housing should be planned with transport.

Affordable housing located far from employment can create transport poverty.

Fourth, accessibility should become mainstream.

Universal design should be incorporated into buildings, streets, public transport and public spaces.

Fifth, rural and urban planning should be coordinated.

Metropolitan expansion increasingly affects villages and agricultural areas.

Sixth, participation should become substantive.

Communities should have opportunities to influence actual planning decisions.

Seventh, representation should be strengthened.

Gender, caste, disability and other dimensions of social diversity should be reflected in planning institutions.

Eighth, digital technologies should be used responsibly.

AI and spatial modelling should strengthen evidence-based planning while remaining transparent and socially accountable.

22. Future Research Agenda

Several areas deserve further research.

First, India needs more spatially disaggregated social-justice indicators that combine demographic, economic, environmental and accessibility variables.

Second, future studies should examine the relationship between housing affordability and transportation costs.

Third, more research is required on gender-sensitive mobility in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.

Fourth, the relationship between transit-oriented development and displacement requires systematic investigation.

Fifth, digital planning research should examine algorithmic bias and data gaps affecting informal and marginalised communities.

Sixth, researchers should investigate how nature-based solutions influence land values and displacement.

Seventh, more studies should combine GIS and spatial modelling with qualitative community research.

Eighth, rural–urban research should examine how metropolitan expansion changes agricultural livelihoods and village institutions.

Ninth, universal-design research should move beyond individual buildings towards accessible neighbourhood systems.

Finally, planning research should increasingly evaluate not only whether projects were implemented, but whether they produced equitable outcomes.

23. Conclusion

Social justice should be regarded as one of the central objectives of human settlement planning in India. Urbanisation, infrastructure development, housing construction, transportation investment and environmental improvement can generate substantial benefits, but these benefits are not automatically distributed equally.

The research considered in this article demonstrates the multidimensional nature of the problem. Dehalwar and Sharma’s (2024) analysis of social injustice in vernacular settings highlights the social consequences of spatial transformation. Their study of slums in Bhopal (2023) demonstrates the importance of understanding informal settlements through resilience as well as vulnerability. Kumar et al. (2023) show the importance of examining housing development in urban fringe areas. Sharma’s research on sanitation highlights the continuing importance of basic services. Agarwal and Sharma (2014) establish the relevance of universal design for an equitable society.

Transport research provides another major dimension. Lodhi et al. (2024) demonstrate the importance of user satisfaction in public transportation, while Lalramsangi et al. (2025) demonstrate the role of spatial configuration in access to public open spaces. Yadav et al. (2025, 2026) extend this discussion into first- and last-mile accessibility, multimodal accessibility and environmental determinants of mode choice. Sharma and Dehalwar’s research on transport policy and land-use–transport interaction further connects mobility with broader urban development.

Social justice also requires institutional analysis. Dehalwar and Sharma’s work on women’s reservation and Verma et al.’s (2026) research on Dalit representation demonstrate that spatial inclusion cannot be separated from political and institutional representation.

At the same time, rural development remains an essential part of the social-justice agenda. Research on MGNREGS, rural roads and sanitation demonstrates that equitable development must extend beyond metropolitan boundaries.

The emerging use of CA–ANN models, machine learning, AI and digital twins creates new opportunities for evidence-based planning. However, technology should remain a means rather than an end. A technically sophisticated planning system can still reproduce inequality if its data are incomplete or if marginalised communities are excluded from decision-making.

The central principle emerging from this body of research is therefore inclusive spatial development.

Inclusive spatial development requires planners to consider not merely where infrastructure is located but who can access it; not merely how many houses are constructed but whether residents can afford and sustain them; not merely whether public spaces exist but whether diverse populations can reach and use them; and not merely whether communities are consulted but whether their participation influences decisions.

The future of human settlement planning in India should consequently move beyond a narrow conception of physical development. Housing, mobility, sanitation, public space, environmental quality, employment, representation and participation should be considered interconnected dimensions of human well-being.

A socially just settlement is one where differences among people are recognised rather than ignored, where infrastructure is accessible rather than merely present, where development creates opportunities rather than displacement, and where residents participate in shaping their own environments.

The objective of planning should ultimately be to create settlements of dignity, accessibility, opportunity and belonging.

This requires a transition from planning for people towards planning with people; from infrastructure provision towards equitable access; from isolated projects towards integrated settlement systems; and from purely technical evaluation towards social, environmental and spatial assessment.

Such a transformation can help ensure that India’s urbanisation and regional development contribute not only to economic growth but also to a more inclusive and equitable society.

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. (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., & 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., & 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., 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., 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). Elsevier.

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.

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.

This version draws on more than 30 references, with substantially more citations from the publications in your supplied list. I have also deliberately connected your works rather than simply listing them—for example, linking slums → housing → urban fringe → transport → accessibility → participation → representation → environmental justice → AI/data-driven planning into one coherent argument.

What are five simple exercises to do at home?
View all responses