submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of doctor ...... · submitted by: dharmesh...

SYNOPSIS of the Ph.D. thesis titled

Influence of metropolitan physical environment on

walkability in Indian context

Submitted in

Partial fulfillment of the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Submitted by:

Dharmesh Juremalani Enrollment No: 139997106002

Supervisor; Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan,

Associate Professor & P. G. Section Head (M Tech – Urban Planning),

Civil Engineering Department, SVNIT Surat

DPC Member 1: Dr. J E M Macwan,

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, SVNIT Surat

DPC Member 2: Dr. L. B. Zala Professor & Head,

Civil Engineering Department, BVM Engineering College, V V Nagar

Submitted to

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

AHMEDABAD

April- 2018

Synopsis for Thesis titled “Influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability in Indian context”

Submitted by: Dharmesh Juremalani, Supervisor: Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan 1

1. Title of the Thesis and Abstract

Title; “Influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability in Indian context”

Abstract

This research intends to study Influence of metropolitan physical environment on

walkability in Indian context in order to establish the correlation between urban physical

environment and walkability with a view to assess the correlation between the two which shall

help to quantify the level of service for walkability (WLOS) of the metropolitan pockets and also

to rank the metropolitan pockets in terms of WLOS so that appropriate urban planning measures

can be proposed to enhance walkability based on the WLOS status of the metropolitan pocket.

The city of Vadodara situated in Gujarat state of India is selected as the demonstration

site for this research with population of 16 70 806 as per Census 2011. The city is divided in to

four administrative zones by Vadodara Mahanagar Sewa Sadan namely North zone, South zone,

East zone and West zone. All zones have different socio economic status (SES). Three Urban

Pockets are chosen per zone having Residential, Commercial and Recreational character

respectively for this research to comprehensively cover the different typology of urban form for

higher accuracy of results. Thus 12 different pockets of Vadodara city are considered for this

research as demonstration sites. The industrial and unauthorized typology of development is not

within the scope of this research. Each zone is having a population range of 2,49,582 to 5,75,878.

A Sample size of 384 is considered for each 12 pockets based on Krejcie and Morgan formula.

The confidence level of 95% and Margin of Error of 5% is considered for this qualitative

research. The data was collected using manual, for Experts a questionnaire is designed

containing the pairwise comparisons based on Satty`s scale for determination of Weights and for

respondents the separate questionnaire is designed for determination of Score.

A theoretical frame work is prepared to enlist the factors influencing walkability in

metropolitan environment based on the guidelines by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for

healthy cities and these factors are categories in five categories namely regional level, city level,

neighbourhood level, housing space level and individual level.



The issues affecting metropolitan walkability are identified based on the Global

walkability index developed by Holly Virginia Krambeck having 73 indices at Primary,

Secondary and Tertiary level.

For analyzing the influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability;

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is used for assigning weights based on expert`s

opinion. The scores for each metropolitan pocket were compiled separately using statistical

software based on the respondent’s feedback. Simple Additive Weighing (SAW) is used to

evaluate each parameter and analyzing the correlation between walkability and metropolitan

physical environment. Technique for Order Preference by similarity to an Ideal Situation

(TOPSIS) Method is used to rank the Commercial pockets in terms of level of service for

walkability (WLOS) and the distance from the ideal scenario.

All the twelve metropolitan pockets were categorized in four categories based on their

WLOS status namely WLOS.A, WLOS.B, WLOS.C and WLOS.D where WLOS.A is being the

most walkable and WLOS.D is being the least walkable. Urban planning measures are proposed

to enhance walkability based on the WLOS status of the metropolitan pocket. The urban

planning measures have combination of generic as well as site specific interventions.

It is concluded that metropolitan physical environment influences the walkability; this

influence can be quantified, and categorized. Metropolitan walkability can be improved by

means of urban planning interventions proposed in this research based on the WLOS status of

the metropolitan pocket.

2. Brief description on the state of the art of the research topic

Global Walkability Index

The Global walkability index developed by Holly Virginia Krambeck in 2006 for the World

Bank provides a qualitative analysis of the walking conditions including safety, security, and

convenience of the pedestrian environment. It consists of a field walkability survey to assess

pedestrian infrastructure in four areas: commercial, residential, educational, and public transport



terminals. The survey also identified pedestrian preferences, and analyzes government policies

and institutional setup. The methodology is qualitative but because it encompasses several key

parameters, it provides a good insight into the current state of the walkability environment and

enables the identification of areas for improvement. The Global walkability index consists of 73

indices including 6 Primary, 23 Secondary and 44 Tertiary indices

Krejcie & Morgan formula for sample size determination

The Krejcie & Morgan formula for sample size determination adopted for this study with 5%

Margin of error and 95 % Confidence level is as follows. Table 4.8 Shows the chart of sample

size using the Krejcie & Morgan formula for different Margin of Error and Confidence level

� =�� ∗ � ∗ � ∗ 1 − ��

[�� ∗ � − 1� + �� ∗ � ∗ 1 − ��]

Where n = sample size,

�� = �ℎ� − ��ℎ�� !��"!��"��!�#�$�#��1"�%��"�&

N = Population size

P = Population proportion

ME = Desired margin of Error

The AHP method

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of Multi Criteria decision making method that was

originally developed by Prof. Thomas L. Saaty. In short, it is a method to derive ratio scales from

paired comparisons. The input can be obtained from actual measurement such as price, weight

etc., or from subjective opinion such as satisfaction feelings and preference. AHP allow some

small inconsistency in judgment because human is not always consistent. The ratio scales are

derived from the principal Eigen vectors and the consistency index is derived from the principal

Eigen value. For determining the number of experts Delphi method was used and 5 experts were

consulted for this study.

The TOPSIS Method

The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a multi-

criteria decision analysis method, which was originally developed by Hwang and Yoon in 1981



with further developments by Yoon in 1987, and Hwang, Lai and Liu in 1993 TOPSIS is based

on the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest geometric distance from the

positive ideal solution (PIS) and the longest geometric distance from the negative ideal solution

(NIS). It is a method of compensatory aggregation that compares a set of alternatives by

identifying weights for each criterion, normalizing scores for each criterion and calculating the

geometric distance between each alternative and the ideal alternative, which is the best score in

each criterion. An assumption of TOPSIS is that the criteria are monotonically increasing or

decreasing. Normalization is usually required as the parameters or criteria are often of

incongruous dimensions in multi-criteria problems

The SAW Method

Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) which is also known as weighted linear combination or

scoring methods is a simple and most often used multi attribute decision technique. The method

is based on the weighted average. An evaluation score is calculated for each alternative by

multiplying the scaled value given to the alternative of that attribute with the weights of relative

importance directly assigned by decision maker followed by summing of the products for all

criteria. The advantage of this method is that it is a proportional linear transformation of the raw

data which means that the relative order of magnitude of the standardized scores remains equal

3. Definition of the Problem

The definition of the walkability itself includes that how inviting or uninviting the

physical environment of the path is for which the walkability is being observed. This physical

environment is beyond the control of the pedestrian who intends to walk but the same physical

environment becomes an urban planning criteria if at all the concerned path is being looked up

on as the place where urban planners are looking forward to increase or measure the walkability.

If one can quantify the level of service of a metropolitan pocket for walkability and also enlist

the urban design intervention which may influence the walkability positively than it becomes

relatively easier to control and encourage walkability through urban planning and this particular

research intends to do precisely the same.



Table 1: Details of the Metropolitan pockets selected for demonstration

Sr

No Code

Name of the

Metropolitan Pocket Nature Zone

Population

of the zone

as per

Census 2011

Sample

size

1 NZ-RESI Gotri Residential North

Zone 456576

386 per

pocket

(Highest

proposed

by Krejcie

&

Morgan)

Total

12 x 386

=4608

2 NZ-COM Race Course Circle Commercial

3 NZ-REC Akota Stadium Recreational

4 SZ-RESI New Karelibaug Residential South

Zone 370528 5 SZ-COM Sardar Estate Commercial

6 SZ-REC Sagar Studio Recreational

7 EZ-RESI Nizampura Residential East

Zone 281626 8 EZ-COM Sayajigunj Commercial

9 EZ-REC Kamatibaug Recreational

10 WZ-RESI Tulsidham Residential West

Zone 337687 11 WZ-COM Darbar Chowkdi Commercial

12 WZ-REC Lal baug Recreational

Null Hypothesis

H0 = The Walkability and Active living is not influenced by the Socio economic status

and the surrounding physical environment of the urban pocket.

Alternative Hypothesis

H1 = The Walkability and Active living is influenced by the Socio economic

status and the surrounding physical environment of the urban pocket

The city of Vadodara is divided in to four zones by the Vadodara Mahan agar Sewasadan

for the administrative convenience. From each zone three metropolitan pockets are considered

for this study having the Residential, Commercial and the Recreational characters respectively.

Each zone is having different Socio Economic profile and hence the twelve identified pockets



more or less resembles to the entire cross section of the society making the findings more generic

and acceptable Details of the pockets selected is given in the Table 1

4. Aim, Objectives and Scope of work

Aim: To assess the influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability

in Indian context; in order to suggest remedial measures by means of urban

design interventions to encourage the walkability of the metropolitan pockets.

Objectives: The objectives of this study are as follows,

1. To study the factors influencing walkability in metropolitan environment

2. To identify issues affecting metropolitan walkability

3. To analyze the influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability

4. To propose urban planning measures to enhance walkability

Figure 1. Graphical illustration showing typologies of metropolitan pockets considered for the research

Types of Metropolitan Pockets covered for study

Residential

Low / Medium / High Socio Economic

Setup

Retail Commercial / Shopping Market

Traditional Shopping Street /

Modern Retail / Malls

Public Place / Recreational

Indoor / OutdoorRecreational

Activities



Scope: The scope of this study is as follows

1. This study focuses on the Mega polis, other typologies of urban settlements like

Metropolis, Town, and Village etc. are not considered for this research.

2. Three typologies of metropolitan pockets Commercial, Residential and

Recreational are only considered for this research other typologies like Slum /

Unauthorized settlements, Industrial pockets, Institutional Pockets,

Administration Pockets, Defense Area are not considered for this research

5. Original contribution of the Thesis

1. The level of service (LOS) for walkability for metropolitan pockets in Indian context may be

fixed using this method. Once incorporated in the requirement of Development Plan the same

may play a significant role in the preparation and implementation of the periodical Development

plans and other urban planning policies at Local as well as regional level

2. The relative significance of the individual indices once quantified using this method may

provide guidelines to the urban planners and also in the urban design interventions to measure

the appropriateness of the decision taken in terms of enhancing the walkability in Indian context

3. This study of different types of urban functions like Commercial, Recreational and Residential

and its influence on walkability helps to understand how the human behavior changes with the

change of function and urban planning policies may be fine-tuned accordingly.

6. Methodology of Research, Results / Comparisons

As the research is been carried out with 73 indices of primary, secondary and tertiary level the

adoption of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method becomes obvious for this research.

Further the nature of this research is qualitative and hence the study does not intend to overlook

and of the parameters but to set up an order of preference in terms of suitability and level of

significance; the compensatory methods of MCDM like AHP, TOPSIS and Saw is preferred

over other outranking MCDM method. The graphical illustration of the methodology adopted is

given in the Figure below.



Figure 2. Graphical illustration showing methodology adopted for the research

7. Achievements with respect to Objectives

A theoretical frame work is prepared to enlist the factors influencing walkability in

metropolitan environment based on the guidelines by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for

healthy cities and these factors are categories in five categories namely regional level, city level,

neighbourhood level, housing space level and individual level to achieve Objective 1

Preparation of Theoritical Framework (Hypothesis)

Identification, deliniation and Urban Form analysis of demonstration metropolitan pockets

Identification and finalisation of indices for analysis ofinfluence of metroplitian environment on walkability in Indian context

based on Global Walkabiity Index by Kremback

Preparation of Questionnaire for Experts and Respondents

Assignment of Weights basedon Expert Openion

Questionnaire designed based on Satty Scale

Delphy Method is used for determination of

No of experts

AHP method used for weightdetermination

Score determination based on respondents feedback

Manual methods of data clooection

For sample size Krejcie & Morgan formula is adopted with 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level

Scores are determind for total 12 pockets ( 1 Residential, 1

Commercial and 1 Recreational respectively in each of four zones

of Vadodara City)



• Regional level

• Governance

• Macroeconomics

• Social Ideologies (Democracy, human rights, racism,

customs)

• Urban Regeneration

• Sprawl, Suburbanization, Immigration

• Biodiversity, Natural Habitats, Climate Stability / change

• City Level • Governance and enforcement regulations

• Macroeconomic structure

• Route morphometries (City wide network and access)

• Land-use dynamics

• Transport

• Labor Market, Agricultural Market and Food network

• Educational system, Health Services, Welfare Benefits

(Social Infrastructure)

• Pollution, Waste disposal

• Neighbourhood

level

• Route morphometries ( network and access)

• Land-use morphometries (Proximity of service stations)

• Residential Density

• Urban Design (Pedestrian friendly design)

• Neighborhood SES (Socio economic status)

• Social Capital / Sense of Community / Interaction

• Sense of Safety (Crime, Graffiti / Road Safety)

• Housing space /

Work space

Level

• Household Type, Tenure, Floor Level, Overcrowding

• Household Income, Wealth, Amenities.

• Sanitation and Household pollution levels

• Physical Conditions

(Light, dampness, sunlight hours, individual average space)

• Neighborhood SES (Socio economic status)

• Social bond

• Hygiene, Diet, nutrition



• Individual Level • Lifestyle

(Sleeping hours, physical activity, smoking, drinking habits)

• Age, Gender, Ethnicity

• Education, Employment

• Physiologic Factors

• Genotype

• Birth Defects, Accidents, Disabling injuries

The issues affecting metropolitan walkability are identified based on the Global

walkability index developed by Holly Virginia Krambeck having 73 indices at Primary,

Secondary and Tertiary level to achieve the objective 2.

Table 2 The list of the indices considered for this research, their codes and the weights derived using AHP method

Sr No Code

Level of

Significance Description

Weight

derived

using AHP

method 1 P1 Primary Safety & Security 0.06

2 P2 Primary Comfort & Convenience 0.06

3 P3 Primary Choice of Alternative routes 0.14

4 P4 Primary Regulatory Policies 0.21

5 P5 Primary Amenities 0.44

6 P6 Primary Accessibility 0.09

7 P1S1 Secondary Street Lighting 0.05

8 P1S2 Secondary Level of Crossing 0.06

9 P1S3 Secondary Modal Conflict 0.2

10 P1S4 Secondary Safety rules 0.09

11 P1S5 Secondary Pedestrian Phase Signals 0.13

12 P1S6 Secondary Safety Education 0.1

13 P1S7 Secondary Pedestrian behavior 0.34



14 P1S8 Secondary Safe motorist behavior 0.19

15 P1S9 Secondary Injuries& medical facilities 0.03

16 P2S1 Secondary Foliage trees 0.05

17 P2S2 Secondary Cleanliness 0.09

18 P2S3 Secondary Walking path surface material 0.09

19 P2S4 Secondary Quality of Maintenance 13

20 P2S5 Secondary Barrier free environment 0.19

21 P2S6 Secondary Permanent Obstructions 0.39

22 P2S7 Secondary Temporary Obstructions 0.05

23 P3S1 Secondary Connectivity 0.1

24 P3S2 Secondary Availability of Crossing 0.22

25 P3S3 Secondary Walking path congestion 0.58

26 P3S4 Secondary Overall convince 0.1

27 P4S1 Secondary Planning for pedestrian 1

28 P5S1 Secondary Social Infrastructure conduciveness 1

29 P6S1 Secondary Ease of access 1

30 P1S1T1 Tertiary Street light count as a function of road length 0.5

31 P1S1T2 Tertiary Adequacy of Street lights in neighbourhood. 0.5

32 P1S2T1 Tertiary Crossing safety 0.5

33 P1S2T2 Tertiary Waiting time 0.5

34 P1S3T1 Tertiary Modal conflict 1

35 P1S4T1 Tertiary Existence of pedestrian safety rules 0.5

36 P1S4T2 Tertiary Enforcement of pedestrian safety rules 0.5

37 P1S5T1 Tertiary Pedestrian Phase signal count as function of

road length.

0.5

38 P1S5T2 Tertiary Pedestrian Phase signal availability 0.5

39 P1S6T1 Tertiary Safety education 0.1

40 P1S7T1 Tertiary Pedestrian Behavior 0.34

41 P1S8T1 Tertiary Traffic Speed 0.5



42 P1S8T2 Tertiary Road accidents 0.5

43 P1S9T1 Tertiary Proportion of road accidents resulting in serious

injuries

0.5

44 P1S9T2 Tertiary Medical Infrastructure 1

45 P2S1T1 Tertiary Foliage Tree count 1

46 P2S2T1 Tertiary Cleanliness of the walking path 0.5

47 P2S2T2 Tertiary Presence of open dumping points 0.5

48 P2S3T1 Tertiary Conduciveness of surface material 0.5

49 P2S3T2 Tertiary Width of the walking path 0.5

50 P2S4T1 Tertiary Maintenance 1

51 P2S5T1 Tertiary Barrier free environment 1

52 P2S6T1 Tertiary Presence of Permanent Obstruction 0.5

53 P2S6T2 Tertiary Incontinence caused by Permanent Obstruction 0.5

54 P2S7T1 Tertiary Presence of temporary Obstruction like tree,

pole etc

0.5

55 P2S7T2 Tertiary Incontinence caused by temporary Obstruction 0.5

56 P3S1T1 Tertiary Connectivity of sidewalks 1

57 P3S1T2 Tertiary Connectivity between residence and place of

work

5

58 P3S3T1 Tertiary Pedestrian congestion 0.5

59 P3S3T2 Tertiary availability of less congested alternative route 0.5

60 P3S4T1 Tertiary Pedestrian perception of convince 0.03

61 P4S1T1 Tertiary Presence and quality of pedestrian planning

programme

0.1

62 P4S1T3 Tertiary Degree of centralization amongst relevant

agencies

0.58

63 P4S1T4 Tertiary Relative importance of pedestrians in city

planning

0.1

64 P5S1T1 Tertiary Availability of benches, foliage trees 0.24

65 P5S1T2 Tertiary Separation from motorized traffic 0.08

66 P5S1T3 Tertiary low noise levels and air pollution level 0.67

67 P6S1T1 Tertiary Neighborhood level accessibility 0.5

68 P6S1T2 Tertiary Frequency of visit is high 0.5



For analyzing the influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability to

achieve objective 3; Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is used for assigning weights

based on expert`s opinion. The scores for each metropolitan pocket were compiled separately

using statistical software based on the respondent’s feedback. Simple Additive Weighing (SAW)

is used to evaluate each parameter and analyzing the correlation between walkability and

metropolitan physical environment.

X axis shows the name of the 12 metropolitan pockets.

Y Axis shows the SAW value of walkability

Chart 1 Comparative Analysis of 12 metropolitan pockets in terms of walkability using SAW method

Technique for Order Preference by similarity to an Ideal Situation (TOPSIS) Method is

used to rank the Commercial pockets in terms of level of service for walkability (WLOS) and the

distance from the ideal scenario.

33610

34172

36917

32950

32497

35956

33425

3230832612

33608

34957

34054

30000

31000

32000

33000

34000

35000

36000

37000

38000



X axis shows the name of the 12 metropolitan pockets.

Y Axis shows the TOPSIS value of walkability in the range of 0 to 1 where 1 represents the Ideal situation

Chart 2 WLOS classification of the 12 pockets based on the result derived using TOPSIS method.

All the twelve metropolitan pockets were categorized in four categories based on their

WLOS status namely WLOS.A, WLOS.B, WLOS.C and WLOS.D where WLOS.A is being the

most walkable and WLOS.D is being the least walkable. Urban planning measures are proposed

to enhance walkability based on the WLOS status of the metropolitan pocket. The urban

planning measures have combination of generic as well as site specific interventions to achieve

the objective 4.

0.39

0.52

0.89

0.38

0.12

0.68

0.36

0.28

0.16

0.37

0.51

0.4

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

WLOS.A 0.75 to 1.00

WLOS.B 0.5 to 0.75

WLOS.C 025 to 0.5

WLOS.D 0.00 to 0.25



8. Conclusions

The following points are concluded

1. The aim of this research to assess the influence of metropolitan physical environment on

walkability in Indian context; in order to suggest remedial measures by means of urban

planning interventions to encourage the walkability of the metropolitan pockets is

fulfilled.

2. The Null Hypothesis.H0 = The Walkability and Active living is not influenced by the

metropolitan environment is proven wrong and the Alternative Hypothesis H1 =The

Walkability and Active living is influenced by the metropolitan environment is proven to

be the correct.

3. After studying the factors influencing walkability in metropolitan environment the

identification of issues affecting metropolitan walkability is done and the same is

analyzed using three Multi criteria decision making methods namely AHP, TOPSIS and

SAW. The quantification of the metropolitan pockets in terms of walkability is done and

the same is also categorized as per LOS.W in four categories WLOS.A, WLOS.B,

WLOS.C and WLOS.D

4. The metropolitan physical environment influences the walkability; this influence can be

quantified, and categorized. Metropolitan walkability can be improved by means of urban

planning interventions proposed in this research based on the WLOS status of the

metropolitan pocket.

9. Copies of papers published and a list of all publications arising from the thesis

Journals 1. Paper Titled “Analyzing the Influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability in

Indian context for the pockets having recreational character using TOPSIS method- a case study

of Vadodara city” authored by Ar. Dharmesh Juremalani, Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan is accepted



to be published in the ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Science. ISSN 18196608

(UGC Approval Sr No 8551), (SCOPUS Indexed journal)

2. Paper Titled “Analyzing the influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability in

Indian context using TOPSIS method – a case study of four commercial pockets of Vadodara

city” authored by Ar. Dharmesh Juremalani, Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan is accepted to be published

in the Journal “Urban Panorama” – a Journal of Urban Governance and Management a UGC

approved journal published by Regional Centre for Urban & Environmental Studies established

by MoUD Govt of India

3. Paper Titled “Study of Correlation between Urban Physical Environment and Walkability for

Cities of “Y” Category in Indian Context using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Simple

Additive Weighing methods of Multi Criteria Decision Making” authored by Ar. Dharmesh

Juremalani, Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan is published in the Indian Journal of Science and

Technology Vol 10(16), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i16/114379, April 2017, ISSN

(Print):0974-6846 ISSN (Online): 0974-5645

4. Paper titled “Encouraging Neighbourhood walkability through urban design in India”- Critical

Appraisal and Research challenges” authored by Ar. Dharmesh Juremalani, Dr. Krupesh A.

Chauhan is published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Engineering Research (JBAER),

p-ISSN 2350-0077, e-ISSN 2350-0255 Vol 2, Issue 3 page no 1967-1971.

Conferences

Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

5. Paper titled “Quantifying relative significance of the parameters of global walkability

index in context of “y” category of cities in India; using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

methodology”authored by Ar. Dharmesh Juremalani, Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan was presented

in the international conference on Sustainable Built environments “Dialogues on Smart

Built environments” on 3-5 February, 2016organised by Department of Architecture and

Planning, Indian Institute Of Technology, Roorkee at Roorkee; commemorating the

Diamond Jubilee Year of Department of Architecture and Planning



Institute of Town Planners India, New Delhi

6. Poster titled “Influence of metropolitan physical environment on walkability in Indian

context– a pilot survey” authored by Ar. Dharmesh Juremlani, Dr. Krupesh A. Chauhan was

presented in the International Conference “Future of Cities: Opportunities and Challenges” at

Vigyan Bhvan, New Delhi on 27-28 July, 2017 organised by the Institute of Town Planners India

(ITPI), the apex body in the field of Urban Planning in India.

10. References

1) Afshari A, Mojahed M, Yusuff R. Simple additive weighting approach to personnel

selection problem. Int J Innov Manag Technol. 2010; 1(5):511-515.

doi:10.7763/IJIMT.2010.V1.89.

2) Alinezhad A, Amini A, Alinezhad A. Sensitivity analysis of simple additive weighting

method (SAW): the results of change in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of

alternatives. J Ind Eng. 2009; 4:13-18

3) Aljoufie M, Zuidgeest M, Brussel M, van Maarseveen M. Spatial-temporal analysis of

urban growth and transportation in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia. Cities. 2013; 31:57-68.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.04.008.

4) Ariffin RNR, Zahari RK. Perceptions of the Urban Walking Environments. Procedia -

Soc Behav Sci. 2013; 105:589-597. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.062.

5) Arkesteijn MH, Volker L. The power of pluralism for urban strategies. Cities. 2013;

31:328-336. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.001.

6) Atkinson R. Does Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods ? An Assessment

of the Evidence-Base in the Context of the New Urban Agenda. 2002 ;(June).

7) Azmi DI, Karim HA. Implications of Walkability towards Promoting Sustainable Urban

Neighbourhood. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2012; 50(July):204-213.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.028.

8) Azmi DI, Karim HA. A Comparative Study of Walking Behavior to Community

Facilities in Low-Cost and Medium Cost Housing. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2012;

35(December 2011):619-628. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.129.



9) Azmi DI, Karim HA, Amin MZM. Convenience and Safety of Walking Experience in

Putrajaya Neighbourhood Area cProcedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2012; 68:406-416.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.237.

10) Baccelli E, Jacquet P, and Mans B, Rodolakis G. Licensed to : CengageBrain User

Licensed to : CengageBrain User. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 2012; 58(3):1743-1756. Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6071007.

11) Berkeley UC, William W. Electronic Thesis and Dissertations Walkability and Housing :

A Comparative Study of Income, Neighborhood Change and Socio- Cultural Dynamics in the

San Francisco Bay Area By William Warren Riggs A dissertation submitted in partial

satisfaction of the re. 2011.

12) Bhattacharyya DB, Mitra S. Making Siliguri a Walkable City. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci.

2013; 96(Cacti):2737-2744. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.307.

13) Belcic I, Cecchini A, Congiu T, Fancello G, Trunfio GA. Walkability explorer: An

evaluation and design support tool for walkability. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect

Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2014; 8582 LNCS (PART 4):511-521. doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-09147-1_37.

14) Brown T, Cummins S. Intervening in health: The place of urban green space. Lands

Urban Plan. 2013; 118:59-61. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.003.

15) Burgess T. Guide to the Design of Questionnaires. A Gen Introd to Des Quest …. 2001 ;(

May):29. doi:10.5923/j.economics.20120001.22.

16) Carpenter M. From “healthful exercise” to “nature on prescription”: The politics of urban

green spaces and walking for health. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013; 118:120-127.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.009.

17) Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. A Comparative Analysis of Decision

Making Methods for the Seismic Retrofit of RC Buildings. 14th World Conf Earthq Eng.

2008:1-8.

18) Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Neighborhood environment walkability scale:

Validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(9):1682-1691.

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000227639.83607.4d.

19) Chatterjee D. A Study on The Comparison of AHP And Fuzzy AHP Evaluations of

Private Technical Institutions in India. 2013 ;( 1):283-291.



20) Chen MF, Tzeng GH. Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an

expatriate host country. Math Comput Model. 2004; 40(13):1473-1490.

doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2005.01.006.

21) Cheng J, Bertolini L. Measuring urban job accessibility with distance decay, competition

and diversity. J Transp Geogr. 2013; 30:100-109. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.005.

22) Cheng YH, Chen SY. Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public

transportation systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2015; 77:386-403.

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.003.

23) Chiou YC, Jou RC, Yang CH. Factors affecting public transportation usage rate:

Geographically weighted regression. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2015; 78:161-177.

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.016.

24) Choi E. Walkability as an urban design problem. Understanding the activity of walking

in the urban environment. 2012.

25) Chrysoulakis N, Lopes M, San José R, et al. Sustainable urban metabolism as a link

between bio-physical sciences and urban planning: The BRIDGE project. Landsc Urban Plan.

2013; 112:100-117. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.005.

26) Cities I. in Indian Cities. 2011 ;( March):84.

27) Craig CLC, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, et al. International Physical Activity

Questionnaire: 12 country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2003; 35(August):1-7.

doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.

28) Cubukcu E. Walking for Sustainable Living. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2013; 85:33-42.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.335.

29) de Jong K, Albin M, Skärbäck E, Grahn P, Björk J. Perceived green qualities were

associated with neighborhood satisfaction, physical activity, and general health: results from a

cross-sectional study in suburban and rural Scania, southern Sweden. Health Place. 2012;

18(6):1374-80. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.07.001.

30) De Luca S. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy

process based approach. Transp Policy. 2014; 33:110-124. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.03.002.

31) De Montis A, Reggiani A. Cities special section on “Analysis and Planning of Urban

Settlements: The Role of Accessibility.” Cities. 2013;30:1-3. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.08.001.



32) de Sa E, Ardern CI. Neighbourhood walkability, leisure-time and transport-related

physical activity in a mixed urban-rural area. PeerJ. 2014;2:e440. doi:10.7717/peerj.440.

33) Desouza KC, Flanery TH. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A

conceptual framework. Cities. 2013;35:89-99. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.003.

34) Deviation S, Dev S, Value G. …a Resource for Survey Researchers. 2013:5-6.

35) D’Haese S, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. The association

between objective walkability, neighborhood socio-economic status, and physical activity in

Belgian children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:104. doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0104-1.

36) Dinnie E, Brown KM, Morris S. Reprint of “Community, cooperation and conflict:

Negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences.” Landsc Urban

Plan. 2013;118:103-111. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.011.

37) Dobesova Z, Krivka T. Walkability Index in the Urban Planning : A Case Study in

Olomouc City. 3.

38) Elsheshtawy Y. Where the sidewalk ends: Informal street corner encounters in Dubai.

Cities. 2013;31:382-393. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.12.001.

39) Engineering I, Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for

Decision Making in Engineering Applications : Some Challenges. Int J Ind Eng Theory, Appl

Pract. 1995;2(1):35-44.

40) Enquiry S. The validation of analytic hierarchy process ( AHP ) scoring model Narumon

Saardchom. 2012;5(2).

41) Eriksson U, Arvidsson D, Gebel K, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K. Walkability parameters,

active transportation and objective physical activity: moderating and mediating effects of motor

vehicle ownership in a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1):123.

doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-123.

42) Ewing R, Handy S, Brownson RC, Clemente O, Winston E. Identifying and Measuring

Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J Phys Act Heal. 2006;3(Suppl 1):223-240.

doi:10.13072/midss.126.

43) Fred S. Azar. Multiattribute Decision-Making: Use of Three Scoring Methods to

Compare the Performance of Imaging Techniques for Breast Cancer Detection. Univ

Pennsylvania. 2000.



44) Factor R, Awerbuch T, Levins R. Social and land use composition determinants of

health: variability in health indicators. Health Place. 2013;22:90-7.

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.04.001.

45) Fanning E. Formatting a paper-based survey questionnaire: Best practices. Pract

assessment, Res Eval. 2005;10(12):1-14. Available at:

http://parkdatabase.org/files/documents/2005_Formatting-a-paper-based-Survey-

Questionnaire_E-Fanning.pdf.

46) Fauria A, Mathur S. Impact of Targeted Redevelopment of Central Business District on

Housing Prices in the Surrounding Neighborhoods : Evidence from Oakland , California.

2012;(September):244-253. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000112.

47) Fellow A. Designing an Effective. 2006:1-5.

48) Forsyth A. What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Des

Int. 2015;20(4):274-292. doi:10.1057/udi.2015.22.

49) Fraser JC, Bazuin JT, Band LE, Grove JM. Covenants, cohesion, and community: The

effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;115:30-38.


50) Frenkel A, Bendit E, Kaplan S. Residential location choice of knowledge-workers: The

role of amenities, workplace and lifestyle. Cities. 2013;35:33-41.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.005.

51) Gatrell AC. Therapeutic mobilities: walking and “steps” to wellbeing and health. Health

Place. 2013;22:98-106. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.04.002.

52) Glanz T, Nam Y, Tang Z. Sustainable Urban Design and Walkable Neighborhoods. 2008.

53) Glazier R, Weyman J, Creatore M. Development and Validation of an Urban Walkability

Index for Toronto, Canada. TorontohealthprofilesCa. 2013:1-21. Available at:

http://torontohealthprofiles.ca/a_documents/aboutTheData/12_1_ReportsAndPapers_Walkability

_WKB_2012.pdf.

54) Gokhale MV, Telang M V Gross Sidewalk Walkability Index as Evaluation Model for

Existing Sidewalk Environment and Pedestrians ’ Comfort : A Case Study of Pune.

2014;(September).

55) Gottdiener M. URBAN ANALYSIS as MERCHANDISING : The “ LA School ” and the

Understanding of Metropolitan Development. 2000:157-182.



56) Government of India. Ministry of Urban Development. National Urban Transport Policy.

2001:1-22. Available at: http://urbanindia.nic.in/policies/TransportPolicy.pdf

57) García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT. On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput

Model. 2012;56(5-6):123-132. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022.

58) Guidelines C. Research & Consultation Guidelines. Kirklees Gov uk. 2006:6.

59) Gulhan G, Ceylan H, Özuysal M, Ceylan H. Impact of utility-based accessibility

measures on urban public transportation planning: A case study of Denizli, Turkey. Cities.

2013;32:102-112. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.001.

60) Gupta S, Singh SK, Agrawal K, Nagaraju D. Comparison of Fuzzy Ahp and Topsis

Evaluations. 2015;10(14):6072-6079.

61) Health by Design Coalition. How Walkable is Your Neighborhood ? Available at:

http://www.healthbydesignonline.org/documents/WalkabilitySurvey_HbD.pdf.

62) Hess PM. Walkability in toronto’s high-rise neighbourhoods. 2010.

63) Hickman C. “To brighten the aspect of our streets and increase the health and enjoyment

of our city”: The National Health Society and urban green space in late-nineteenth century

London. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118:112-119. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.007.

64) Hillier B. Credible mechanisms or spatial determinism. Cities. 2013;34:75-77.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.05.013.

65) Hitchings R. Studying the preoccupations that prevent people from going into green

space. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118:98-102. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.006.

66) Initiative CA, Cities A. Walkability in Indian Cities. 2011;(March).

67) Initiative HW, Control D. Wa l k ab ili ty aud i t too l. 2010:16-21.

68) Isalou AA, Litman T, Shahmoradi B. Testing the housing and transportation affordability

index in a developing world context: A sustainability comparison of central and suburban

districts in Qom, Iran. Transp Policy. 2014;33:33-39. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.006.

69) Jarass J, Heinrichs D. New Urban Living and Mobility. Transp Res Procedia.

2014;1(1):142-153. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2014.07.015.

70) Jeon CM, Amekudzi AA, Guensler RL. Sustainability assessment at the transportation

planning level: Performance measures and indexes. Transp Policy. 2013;25:10-21.

doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.004.



71) Jong K De, Albin M, Sk E. Health & Place Perceived green qualities were associated

with neighborhood satisfaction , physical activity , and general health : Results from a cross-

sectional study in suburban and rural Scania , southern Sweden. 2012;18:1374-1380.


72) Kaczynski AT, Glover TD. Talking the talk, walking the walk: examining the effect of

neighbourhood walkability and social connectedness on physical activity. J Public Health (Oxf).

2012;34(3):382-9. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fds011.

73) Karim HA, Azmi DI. Convenience and Safety of Walking Experience in Putrajaya

Neighbourhood Area. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2013;101:318-327.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.206.

74) Kattel GR, Elkadi H, Meikle H. Developing a complementary framework for urban

ecology. Urban For Urban Green. 2013:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2013.07.005.

75) Krambeck H. The global walkability index. 2006:1-29.

76) Krohling RA, Pacheco AGC. A-TOPSIS - An approach based on TOPSIS for ranking

evolutionary algorithms. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;55(Itqm):308-317.

doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.054.

77) Kurniawan YI, Surakarta UM, Java C. Decision Support System for Acceptance

Scholarship With Simple Additive. 2015:99-108.

78) Kuang W, Zhou H. Property Tax, Supply and Demand Elasticity and Housing Price.

2010 3rd Int Conf Inf Manag Innov Manag Ind Eng. 2010:11-14. doi:10.1109/ICIII.2010.325.

79) Kunz J. The Analytic Hierarchy Process ( AHP ) What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process

( AHP )? What is its purpose ? How does it work ? Engineering. 2010;(March):1-25.

80) Lachowycz K, Jones AP. Landscape and Urban Planning Towards a better understanding

of the relationship between greenspace and health : Development of a theoretical framework.

Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118:62-69. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.012.

81) Learmonth A, Curtis S. Place shaping to create health and wellbeing using health impact

assessment: Health geography applied to develop evidence-based practice. Health Place.

2013;24C:20-22. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.07.011.

82) Leather J, Fabian H, Gota S, Mejia A. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian

Cities State and Issues Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities. 2011.



83) Leger S, Lachowycz W, Thompson W. Landscape and Urban Planning Intervening in

health : The place of urban green space. 2013;118:59-61. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.003.

84) Lenzholzer S, Duchhart I, Koh J. “Research through designing” in landscape architecture.

Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;113:120-127. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.003.

85) Luadsakul C, Ratanvaraha V. The Study of Walkability Index : A Case Study in Nakhon

Ratchasima Province. 2013;3(3):471-476.

86) Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Von Wehrden H. A systematic review of guiding principles for

sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118:40-52.


87) Luke N, Xu H. Exploring the meaning of context for health: Community influences on

child health in South India. Demogr Res. 2011;24:345-374. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2011.24.15.

88) Majumder M. Impact of Urbanization on Water Shortage in Face of Climatic

Aberrations. 2015:35-48. doi:10.1007/978-981-4560-73-3.

89) Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A. Validating walkability indices: How do different households

respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transp Res Part D Transp Environ.

2011;16(2011):309-315. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.009.

90) Mao L, Nekorchuk D. Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Healthcare for Populations with

Multiple Transportation Modes. Health Place. 2013;24:115-122.


91) Marcus B, Forsyth L. Physical Activity Stages of Change Questionnaire- Motivating

people to be physically active. Hum Kinet. 2008;3(1):2-4.

92) Mathur S. Self-financing urbanization: Insights from the use of Town Planning Schemes

in Ahmadabad, India. Cities. 2013;31:308-316. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.09.004.

93) Mavoa S, Witten K, McCreanor T, O’Sullivan D. GIS based destination accessibility via

public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand. J Transp Geogr. 2012;20(1):15-22.

doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.001.

94) Mao L, Nekorchuk D. Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Healthcare for Populations with

Multiple Transportation Modes. Health Place. 2013;24:115-122.


95) Mckinney OA. An Investigation of Methodologies for Determining Walkability and its

Association with Socio-Demographics: An Application to the Tampa -St. Petersburg Urbanized



Area. 2014. Available at:

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd%5Cnhttp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5422.

96) Meester F De, Dyck D Van, Bourdeaudhuij I De, Deforche B, Sallis JF. Active living

neighborhoods : is neighborhood walkability a key element for Belgian adolescents ? BMC

Public Health. 2012;12(1):7. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-7.

97) Memari AM, Asce F, Huelman PH, et al. Residential Building Construction : State-of-

the-Art Review. :1-38. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000157.

98) Menezes TR de, Souza JF de. Transportation and Urban Mobility in Mega-events: The

Case of Recife. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2014;162(Panam):218-227.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.202.

99) Min Y, Wei W, Xue-wu C, Wen-yong LI. Mode Choice for the Mass Rapid Transit

System Based on Combined Method of DEA and AHP. J Highw Transp Res Dev. 2007;2(1):89-

94.

100) Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs. The Persons with Disabilities ( Equal

Opportunities , Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act , 1995. 1995;1995:1-20.

Available at: http://socialjustice.nic.in/pwdact1995.php.

101) Moeinaddini M, Asadi-Shekari Z, Zaly Shah M. An urban mobility index for evaluating

and reducing private motorized trips. Meas J Int Meas Confed. 2015;63:30-40.

doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2014.11.026.

102) Mohindru P. MCDM Methods INTRODUCTION. 2011;(Mcdm).

103) NǍdǍban S, Dzitac S, Dzitac I. Fuzzy TOPSIS: A General View. Procedia Comput Sci.

2016;91(Itqm):823-831. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.088.

104) NEDARC. Do’s and Don’ts of Questionnaire. NEDARC - Natl EMSC Data Anal Resour

Cent. 2010:1-4. Available at: http://www.nedarc.org/.

105) Nogueira H, Padez C, Ferrão MM. Healthy Places , Healthy People : Living Environment

Factors Associated with Physical Activity in Urban Areas. 2008.

106) Nohria MS, Chahal KS. Walkability for Urban Sustainability : Advocating the Green

Transport Paradigm in India. 2014;(December).

107) O’Hanlon J, Scott J. Healthy Communities: The Walkability Assessment Tool. 2010.

Available at: http://www.ipa.udel.edu/healthyDEtoolkit/docs/WalkabilityAssessmentTool.pdf.



108) Park S. Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts

on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station. Univ Calif Transp Cent.

2008;UCTC Disse(150):239. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

109) Patel K. A successful slum upgrade in Durban: A case of formal change and informal

continuity. Habitat Int. 2013;40:211-217. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.05.005.

110) Place C, Delhi N. GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION OF.

2014;(January).

111) Planning C. Neighborhood Walking Survey How to use this tool : :1-5.

112) Potter DR, Sharpe KM, Hendee JC, Clark RN. Questionnaires - for Research :

113) Practice PG, El-saharty S, Ohno N, Sarker I. REPRODUCTIVE. 2014:1-4.

114) Rahul TM, Verma A. Study of Impact of Various Influencing Factors on NMT Mode

Choice. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2013;104(2005):1112-1119.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.207.

115) Raja AZ. Achieving Sustainable Urban Growth by Linking Job-Housing Balance with

Commute to Work. Icsdec 2012. 2012:276-285. doi:10.1061/9780784412688.033.

116) Rao M. What a Difference a State Makes Health Reform in Andhra Pradesh. 2014;(May).

117) Rao RV. Decision Making in Manufacturing Environment Using Graph Theory and

Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods.; 2013. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4375-8.

118) Report FD. U r d p f i. 2014;I.

119) Riley DL, Mark AE, Kristjansson E, Sawada MC, Reid RD. Neighbourhood walkability

and physical activity among family members of people with heart disease who participated in a

randomized controlled trial of a behavioural risk reduction intervention. Health Place.

2013;21:148-55. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.01.010.

120) Rules V. the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 1. 2001;221(1).

121) Sachithanandan AN. Prof. A. N. Sachithanandan 16.

122) Sallis JF, Frank LD, Frank L, Robert P, Conway TL, Cain KL. NIH Public Access.

2012;68(7):1285-1293. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.017.Neighborhood.

123) Satunin S, Babkin E. A multi-agent approach to Intelligent Transportation Systems

modeling with combinatorial auctions. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41(15):6622-6633.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.015.



124) Sayyadi G, Awasthi A. AHP-Based Approach for Location Planning of Pedestrian Zones:

Application in Montreal, Canada. J Transp Eng. 2013;139(2):pp 239-246. doi:Doi

10.1061/(Asce)Te.1943-5436.0000493.

125) Sheikh Mohammad Zadeh A, Rajabi MA. Analyzing the effect of the street network

configuration on the efficiency of an urban transportation system. Cities. 2013;31:285-297.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.08.008.

126) Sinha KC. Sustainability and Urban Public Transportation. J Transp Eng.

2003;129(4):331-341. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2003)129:4(331).

127) Statistics MOF, Implementation P. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ( COMPUTER

CENTRE ) RATE LIST OF UNIT-LEVEL NSS DATA ON CD ’ s. 2011;(June):0-3.

128) Stevens RD. Walkability Around Neighborhood Parks: An Assessment Of Four Parks In

Springfield, Oregon. 2005;(June):70.

129) Sutikno FR, Kurniawan EB. Walkability and Pedestrian Perceptions in Malang City

Emerging Business Corridor. Procedia Environ Sci. 2013;17:424-433.

doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2013.02.056.

130) Talen E, Koschinsky J. The Walkable Neighborhood: A Literature Review. Int J Sustain

L Use Urban Plan. 2013;1(1):42-63. doi:10.24102/ijslup.v1i1.211.

131) Tran M. Healthy cities — walkability as a component of health promoting urban planning

and design. 2016:1-11.

132) Twombly RC. Undoing the City : Frank Lloyd Wright â€TM s Planned Communities

Undoing the City : Frank Lloyd Wright â€TM s. 2016;24(4):538-549.

133) Wallbaum H, Krank S, Teloh R. Prioritizing Sustainability Criteria in Urban Planning

Processes : Methodology Application. Database. 2011;137(March):20-28.

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000038.

134) Wasfi R a, Ross N a, El-Geneidy AM. Achieving recommended daily physical activity

levels through commuting by public transportation: Unpacking individual and contextual

influences. Health Place. 2013;23:18-25. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.04.006.

135) Weinberger R, Sweet MN. Integrating Walkability into Planning Practice.

doi:10.3141/2322-03.

136) Wright FL, Wright FL. Early years. 1959.



137) Yedla S, Shrestha RM. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban

Transport Options – Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods Application of

Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options –. Technology.

2007;(September).

138) Yin H, Zhao S, Wu Y. Low-Income Groups’ Housing Issues Research. Iccrem 2013.

2013:1209-1218. doi:10.1061/9780784413135.117.

139) Yung EHK, Chan EHW, Xu Y. Community-Initiated Adaptive Reuse of Historic

Buildings and Sustainable Development in the Inner City of Shanghai. 2014;(Shin 2010).

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000174.

140) Żak J, Fierek S, Kruszyński M. Evaluation of Different Transportation Solutions with the

Application of Macro Simulation tools and Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making/Aiding

Methodology. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2014;111:340-349. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.067.

141) Zhang X, Hu J, Skitmore M, Leung BYP. Inner-City Urban Redevelopment in China

Metropolises and the Emergence of Gentrification : Case of Yuexiu , Guangzhou. 2010:1-8.

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000169.

142) A Research on the Influencing Factors of the Price of Real Estate - 06382452.pdf.

143) Property Tax, Supply and Demand Elasticity and Housing Price - 05694669.pdf.

144) Walkable new urban LEED_NeighborhoodDevelopment (LEEDND) community design

and children’s.pdf.

145) coring for the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale – Abbreviated ( NEWS-A )

Updated : September 24 , 2007 The NEWS-A is an abbreviated version of the Neighborhood

Environment Walkability Scale ( NEWS ) ( see http://www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu/measu.

2007;(2003).

146) l k i n g a n d C y c l i n g i n I n d i a n C i t i e s t r u g g l e f o r e c l a i mi n g o a d E d

g e s Walking and Cycling in Indian Cities : A Struggle for Reclaiming Road Edges

147) Book , Sarkar, Webster and Gallacher (2014) in their book “Healthy Cities: Public Health

through Urban Planning”

submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of doctor ...... · submitted by: dharmesh...

Documents