Reviewing the Universal Mobility of the Footpaths in the Centers of Historic Indian Cities through Field Survey

Abstract

In this research, the condition of universal mobility, in the centers of historic Indian cities, has been critically analyzed. Implementing universal design guidelines (especially universal mobility standards) in the centers of historic Indian cities is comparatively challenging, due to the high-density, ever-increasing population, and organic urban development. The rising number of elderly and specially abled people also add a demographic challenge to universal mobility. The focus of this research is to understand the extent to which universal mobility guidelines can be implemented in the centers of historic Indian cities. The dataset for this research is derived from a field survey of 69 footpath stretches from the centers of 5 historic cities in India, namely Jaipur, Jodhpur, Nagpur, Hyderabad, and Chennai. Footpath stretches in the centers of these historic cities were evaluated based on several factors pertaining to universally designed infrastructure and universal mobility features. Such comprehensive research on universal mobility in footpaths of historic Indian cities has not been previously conducted. The findings of this research indicate the poor condition of universal mobility in the studied areas. Furthermore, the results can be useful for assessing the extent of implementation of universal mobility in the centers of other historic Indian cities.

1. Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi, also known as the father of the nation of India, famously stated that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Specially abled and elderly people are vulnerable in the physical and cognitive domains. As per the data of the Census of India from the last 100 years (1911–2011), the percentage of specially abled people have increased dramatically, by 737.2% (from 0.26% in 1911 to 2.21% in 2011), in comparison to a 284.21% increase in population (from 833,644 in 1911 to 26,814,994 in 2011) [1]. Similarly, the percentage of elderly people (those aged 60 and above) has increased significantly by 105.25% (4.18% in 1911 to 8.58% in 2011) [2,3]. The reason behind the increase in the number of elderly people is primarily due to the declining fertility rate, increased age for legal marriage, and increasing life expectancy [4].

India has always been proactive in the participation of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (hereafter, UN-SDGs). For instance, (a) India is a member of the Open Working Group (OWG), which prepares the proposal on SDGs, (b) India has institutionally set up the ‘NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog’, which connects the SDGs with central ministries and national schemes. The NITI Aayog has also published the SDG India Index: Baseline Report 2018, and (c) The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India has finalized 306 national indicators for India that are in accordance with the 169 SDG targets. Furthermore, India, being a member of the United Nations, is more likely to follow Goal Number 11 (specifically, target numbers 11.2 and 11.7) of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs) that targets making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, with a particular focus on the needs of elderly and specially abled people [5]. Thus, the inception of this research, related to universal design, is based on the demographic situation in India in the recent past. Universal design can be explained as the process undertaken to design products, buildings, and exterior spaces that are accessible (through usage) by all (able-bodied and specially abled people) to the maximum extent, without any specialized design [6]. Universal design has its root in the principle that a design solution should serve all user groups without making the specially abled feel distinctive [7]. Universal design takes into consideration usability, inclusivity, and accessibility, thereby making built environments usable for all [8]. However, this research is more inclined towards one aspect of universal design termed ‘universal mobility’.

Universal mobility is a policy-level intervention at the city scale, ensuring a minimum standard of mobility for all members of society [9]. Universal mobility connects the missing links between universally designed buildings and universally designed premises/precincts, and creates accessible urban spaces [10]. Both the UN-CRPD and the UN-SDG suggest the concept of universal mobility for enabling movement within a city, without discrimination based on physical or mental limitations. Universal mobility, especially at the footpath level of historic Indian cities, impacts the urban experience, which has been a determinant as well as a challenge to the architectural planning sector [11,12].

India presents classic examples of cities with historic and degraded pedestrian areas. Transformation dynamics have played a major role in the complex urban structure of historic Indian cities, which, in turn, have often created unfavorable pedestrian conditions [13]. In the aforementioned sentence, the term ‘complex’ specifically refers to conditions such as (a) minimal temporal changes in the centers of historic cities, (b) organic mixed-use development, and (c) encroached footpaths. Universal mobility (facilities that cater to the needs of able-bodied as well as specially abled people) might be a determinant whose improvement can positively influence the decaying centres of historic core cities in India.

Even institutionally, there are significant challenges in transforming existing historic cities into age-friendly/disability-friendly cities [14]. In particular, cities with historic centers face a major challenge in the implementation of any kind of development plan for restoration/revitalization/rejuvenation at street level [15,16]. The pedestrian movement of the specially abled and elderly is significantly impacted by poor/unsuitable pedestrian zone quality [17], which is not desirable with respect to Sustainable Development Goal Number 11 (target numbers 11.2 and 11.7) [18].

Thus, it is also evident that every successful streetscape has recognized that shortcomings in universal design create a negative impact on the commuting of the elderly and specially abled [19], in addition to being a factor in pedestrian accidents [20,21]. Since mobility remains a major challenge for the elderly and specially abled population [22], the challenge in this research is to define the degree of accessibility [23] and the ways in which the experience [24] of a street can be similar for those who are able-bodied as well as specially abled. The ‘degree of accessibility’ in this research refers to the possibility of accessible options available in the surveyed stretches, and the extent which accessibility may be increased during redevelopment. The ‘experience’, in the context of this research, refers to how pedestrians perceive the footpaths, cognitively and physically.

In this research, the factors preferable for implementing universal mobility were further subjected to a case-by-case investigation in seven other historic cities in India. As the hypothesis, the authors have considered that the footpaths in the centers of historic urban areas in India are poor in terms of universal mobility. The focus of this research is to understand which factors are responsible for reducing the universal mobility standards in footpaths in the centers of historic urban areas in India.

This paper aims to investigate the universal mobility conditions of the footpaths in the centers of historic urban areas in India. The objectives of the research were: (a) to determine the extent of accessibility in the footpaths in the centers of historic core cities in India, and (b) to check whether there is a correlation between the accessibility score and some indicators of universal mobility, such as footpath width. The scope of this research includes an assessment at the footpath level and 19 defined criteria (including 52 indicators) for analysis. The limitations of this research are that it is limited to the historic Indian cities with at least 100 years of documented heritage and also, the investigation is to be only at the pedestrian level.

In their previous publications, the authors summarized that the walkability conditions in the footpaths of historic cities in India are poor in terms of both basic walkability standards and universal mobility considerations, as well as taking Kolkata as a case study [25]. The authors have further critically appraised the challenges of implementing universal design standards in the mobility sector in India [26] and the contextual factors of accessibility in the centers of historic Indian cities [27,28]. Furthermore, in their book, Reinterpreting Urban Fabric in Cities with Living Heritage: The Case of Kolkata, the uniqueness of the centers of historic Indian cities was documented [29]. In this paper, the authors further verify the assumptions of substandard universal mobility, by conducting field studies in other historic Indian cities.

The next section explains the materials and methods for this research, including the (a) survey questionnaire and scoring pattern, (b) observation, (c) results, and (d) data validation.

2. Materials and Methods

To assess the baseline situation of footpaths in the centers of historic core cities in India, a survey was conducted from 11 December 2021, till 30 March 2022. The case areas considered for this research are historic cities which are at least 100 years old. Historic cities in India are different from most historic cities in the world. For this research, cities that evolved during the early 18th century (the start of British rule) are referred to as “historic cities”. The space structures in historic cities of developing nations, such as India, are complex, due to their historic origin. These central areas of these cities have high density, mixed land use, and a lack of space allocated to infrastructure compared to the rest of the city.

However, there are numerous cities in India which fit the aforementioned criteria. The authors also had to take into consideration the availability of personnel in India who would be able to assist in acquiring survey permissions and establishing contact with locals.

Thus, the Indian cities where the survey was conducted, as shown in Figure 1, were: (a) Jodhpur (located in the western part of India; founded in mid-15th century CE), (b) Jaipur (located in the western part of India; founded in early 18th century CE), (c) Hyderabad (located in the central part of India; founded in late 16th century CE), (d) Chennai (located in the southern part of India; founded in early 17th century CE), and (e) Nagpur (located in the central part of India; founded in 10th century CE). Thereafter, using the ‘paradigmatic case sampling’ sub-type of the ‘purposive sampling’ technique, the rhizome (temporal boundary) selected for the survey was 69 footpath stretches from the centers of the selected cities, with a total length of 15.48 km. Paradigmatic case sampling is considered when the researcher has focused the research on one specific category, such as historic cities in this case. Furthermore, the footpath stretches complied with the following conditions: (a) located at the city center, (b) a commercially important location, (c) predominantly mixed-use buildings, and, (d) easy access through public transport.

The details of individual locations (locality name, number of surveyed footpath stretches, total length of surveyed stretches, and average width of the footpath) are mentioned below in

Table 1. Details of Survey Locations (Source: Author).

S. No.	City	Locality	Number of Footpaths Stretches	Total Length of Stretch (in m)	Average Width of the Footpath (in m)
1	Jodhpur	Sardar Market	16	443.60	1.97
2	Jaipur	Bapu Bazaar	07	897.90	1.20
3	Hyderabad	Charminar	09	9002.70	2.43
4	Chennai	Mylapore	25	2564.20	1.44
5	Nagpur	Gandhisagar Lake	12	2571.40	1.53

.

Finally, the research methodology adopted for this research is illustrated in Figure 2. The research is primarily divided into three segments: Stage 1, consisting of the literature review; Stage 2, consisting of the primary survey of the case areas; and Stage 3, consisting of the summary of the findings. All these segments finally led to the confirmation of the hypothesis.

2.1. Survey Questionnaire and Scoring Pattern

Before conducting this survey, the authors had conducted a pilot survey in Kolkata, and the findings were published [30]. A survey format, consisting of 19 defined criteria (comprising 52 indicators, including one contextual criterion), was used for this survey. The choice of survey technique was observational, using a structured dichotomous questionnaire. The questionnaire is available at https://forms.gle/hDVduWAARes75JrbA (accessed on 25 February 2023).

The categorical variables (criteria) are as follows: (1) building typology of stretch, (2) footpath dimensions, (3) temporary encroachment, (4) permanent encroachment, (5) bus stop, (6) metro rail entrance, (7) railings, (8) storm water drains, (9) public toilet, (10) trash bins, (11) street lights, (12) flooring, (13) manholes, (14) curb, (15) pedestrian crossing, (16) street furniture, (17) safety and security (surveillance and fire-safety oriented), (18) additional inclusive features, and (19) contextual factors. Within the 19 criteria, 52 indicators can be distinguished into independent and dependent variables, respectively.

As an example, one of the categorical variables (criteria) “railings”, has associated indicators as: (a) presence of a railing (pedestrian guard rails) on the edge of the footpath, and (b) presence of thorough railings with a minimum of 150 cm height and clear visibility. In this case, the first indicator “presence of railing (pedestrian guard rails) on the edge of the footpath” is independent of any factor, which means that whether a railing is present or absent is the decisive factor in the assessment. However, with regard to the second indicator, i.e., “presence of thorough railings with a minimum of 150 cm height and clear visibility”, the condition of the railing can be assessed only if the railing is present at all. This means that if a railing is not present in the first place, then the functionality of the railing cannot be assessed at all. Therefore, this indicator is dependent on the previous sub-criteria. Since the indicator, “presence of railing (pedestrian guard rails) on the edge of the footpath”, is an independent variable, and “presence of thorough railings with a minimum of 150 cm height and clear visibility” is a dependent variable, their weighting would be different.

Thus, the indicators were scored based on their associated variable type (i.e., independent or dependent). If the associated variable is an independent variable, the presence of an indicator is scored as “+0.50”. Along similar lines, if the associated variable is a dependent variable, an indicator is scored as “+0.25”. Similarly, the absence of an indicator is scored as “−0.50” for independent variables and “−0.25” for dependent variables, respectively. Thus, weighting is used for further analysis. It should be noted that although all these indicators are not equally important for pedestrian activity, the negative impact of any one of them could lead to inadequate universal mobility standards. Thus, similar indicators are given equal weighting, i.e., +0.50 for the independent variable and +0.25 for the dependent variable.

Table 2. Details of Variables (Criteria and Indicator), Variable Type (Independent/Dependent), Scoring Logic, and the Individual Scores used in the research (Source: Author).

S. No.	Criterion	Indicator	Variable Type	Scoring Logic	Individual Associated Score
					If Yes	If No
1	Building Typology of Stretch	(1) Buildings with two or more uses	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(2) Heritage/historic buildings	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
2	Footpath Dimension	(3) Footpath Width >2500 mm	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(4) Unobstructed width of 1800 mm	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(5) Unobstructed clear height of 2200 mm	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
3	Temporary Encroachment	(6) Informal Vendors/Beggar/homeless/child labor occurring during the day/night	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(7) Informal Vendors/ hawkers away from the line of pedestrian flow (if Vendors are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.25	+0.25
		(8) Beggar/homeless/child labor occupying a part of the footpath as their homes	Dependent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.25	+0.25
4	Permanent Encroachment	(9) Place of religious interest (temple/churches/mosque) within or along the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(10) Encroachment by existing establishments on to the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(11) ‘Communal open bath’ within or along the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
5	Bus Stop	(12) Informal stoppage for Bus	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(13) Bus Shelter (if Bus Stops are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(14) Is ‘Bus Shelter’ functional (if Bus Shelter is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
6	Metro Rail Entrance	(15) Entrance connected to the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(16) Is the Entrance functional (if Metro Rail Entrance is present)?	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
7	Railings	(17) Railings (pedestrian guard rails) on the edge of the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(18) Thorough railings with minimum 150 cm height and clear visibility (if Railings are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
8	Storm Water Drains	(19) Storm Water Drains along footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(20) Functional Storm Water Drains (if Storm Water Drains are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
9	Public Toilet (Restroom)	(21) Public Toilet within the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(22) Functional Public Toilet (if Public Toilet is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
10	Trash Bins	(23) Trash Bins within the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(24) Functional Trash Bins (if Trash Bins are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(25) Trash Bins located away from the line of pedestrian flow (if Trash Bins are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
11	Streetlights	(26) Streetlights within the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(27) Functional Street Lights (if Street Lights are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(28) Light Poles situated away from pedestrian flow or, if present, demarcated with a tactile marking of a minimum of 60 cm around them (if Street Lights are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
12	Flooring	(29) Satisfactory Cross Fall (i.e., <1:50)	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(30) Tactile Marking	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(31) Anti-skid/matte-finish tiles in footpath and Curb	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
13	Manholes	(32) Manholes within/along the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(33) Drain-type manholes flush with the pavement surface (if Manholes are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(34) Grating-type manholes situated away from the pedestrian walkway (if Manholes are present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
14	Curb	(35) Curb on the edge of footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(36) Curb Height of no more than 150 mm from the road level (if Curb is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(37) Minimum 1200 mm width and tactile warning (if Curb is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(38) Cornered Curb radius more than 6 m (if Curb is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
15	Pedestrian crossing	(39) ‘At-grade’ pedestrian crossing (MID-BLOCK crossing) at all intersections along the walkway	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(40) Signalized Intersection (if Crossing is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(41) Functional Signalized Intersection (if Crossing is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
		(42) Audio Signal (if Crossing is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
16	Street furniture	(43) Street Furniture in the footpath	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(44) Street furniture having a knee clearance of a minimum of 70 cm and wheelchair space of 100 cm (if Street Furniture is present)	Dependent	Beneficial if Present	+0.25	−0.25
17	Safety and Security	(45) Fire Hydrant	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(46) Security Camera	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
18	Additional Inclusive features	(47) Signage	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(48) Bicycle Track	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(49) Public Drinking Water Facility	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
		(50) Street Art/Sculpture	Independent	Beneficial if Present	+0.50	−0.50
19	Contextual Factors	(51) Is the surveyed location within a high-pedestrian zone?	Independent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.50	+0.50
		(52) Is/are there any other contextual factors, such as potholes, parking, etc., affecting the high-pedestrian zone?	Dependent	Beneficial if Absent	−0.25	+0.25

shows the variables (criteria and indicator), types of associated variables (independent/dependent), scoring logic, and the individual scores used in this research. For any study stretch surveyed using this framework, the consolidated highest score can be +16.50 (and subsequently, the lowest can be −16.50).

2.2. Observation

The average footpath width among the 69 footpath stretches, across the 5 selected cities, is 1.71 m.

Table 3. Observation from surveys (Source: Author).

S. No.	Category (Parameters)	Findings (Indicator Based)
1	Building Typology	42.03% have buildings with two or more uses. 53.62% have Heritage/historic buildings.
2	Footpath Dimensions	3. 15.94% have a Footpath Width >2500 mm. 4. 14.49% have an unobstructed width of 1800 mm. 5. 52.17% have an unobstructed clear height of 2200 mm.
3	Temporary Encroachment	6. 68.12% have Informal Vendors/Beggar/homeless/child labor occurring during day/night. 7. 44.93% have Informal Vendors/hawkers away from the line of pedestrian flow (if Vendors are present). 8. 24.64% have Beggar/homeless/child labor occupying a part of the footpath as their homes.
4	Permanent Encroachment	9. Places of religious interest (temple/churches/mosque) within or along the footpath are present in 15.94%. 10. 75.36% have Encroachment by existing establishments onto the footpath is present on 75.36%. 11. ‘Communal open bath’ within or along the footpath is present on 2.90%.
5	Bus Stop	12. 11.59% have informal stoppage for Bus. 13. 10.14% have Bus Shelter (if Bus Stops). 14. In 10.14%, the ‘Bus Shelter’ is functional (if Bus Shelter is present).
6	Metro Rail Entrance	15. In 1.45%, the Entrance is connected to the footpath. 16. In 1.45%, the Entrance is functional (if Metro Rail Entrance is present).
7	Railings (pedestrian guard rails)	17. 5.80% have railings (pedestrian guard rails) on the edge of the footpath. 18. None of them have thorough railings with a minimum 1500 mm height and clear visibility (if Railings are present).
8	Storm Water Drains	19. 60.87% have Storm Water Drains along footpaths. 20. 2.90% have functional Storm Water Drains (if Storm Water Drains are present).
9	Public Toilet (Restroom)	21. 4.35% have Public Toilets within the footpath. 22. 2.90% have functional Public Toilets (if Public Toilets are present).
10	Trash Bins	23. 18.84% have Trash Bins within the footpath. 24. 14.49% are Functional Trash Bins (if Trash Bins are present). 25. 7.25% have Trash Bins located away from the line of pedestrian flow (if Trash Bins are present).
11	Streetlights	26. 88.41% have Streetlights within the footpath. 27. 86.96% have Functional Street Lights (if Street Lights are present). 28. 21.74% have Light Poles situated away from pedestrian flow or, if present, demarcated with a tactile marking of a minimum of 600 mm around them (if Street Lights are present).
12	Flooring	29. 26.09% have Satisfactory Cross Fall (i.e., <1:50). 30. 13.04% have Tactile Marking. 31. 57.97% have Anti-skid/matte-finish tiles in footpath and Curb.
13	Manholes	32. 60.87% have Manholes within/along the footpath. 33. 56.52% have Drain-type manholes flushed with the pavement surface (if Manholes are present). 34. 34.78% have Grating-type manholes sited away from the pedestrian walkway (if Manholes are present).
14	Curb	35. 91.30% have a Curb on the edge of the footpath. 36. 72.46% have a Curb Height of not more than 150 mm from the road level (if Curb is present). 37. 4.35% have a tactile warning (if Curb is present). 38. 11.59% have a Curb radius of more than 6m at the corner (if Curb is present).
15	Pedestrian Crossing	39. 5.80% have ‘At-grade’ pedestrian crossing (MID-BLOCK crossing) at all intersections along walkway. 40. 10.14% have Signalized Intersection (if Crossing is present). 41. 13.04% have Functional Signalized Intersection (if Crossing is present). 42. 1.45% have Audio Signal (if Crossing is present).
16	Street Furniture	43. 7.25% have Street Furniture on the footpath. 44. 1.45% have Street furniture having a knee clearance of a minimum of 700 mm and wheelchair space of 1000 mm (if Street Furniture is present).
17	Safety and Security	45. 1.45% have a Fire Hydrant. 46. 36.23% have a Security Camera.
18	Additional Inclusive Features	47. 27.54% have Signage. 48. 2.90% have Bicycle Track. 49. 2.90% have Public Drinking Water Facilities. 50. 5.80% have Street Art.
19	Contextual Factors	51. 100% were located within high-pedestrian zone. 52. 42.03% have contextual factors (such as potholes, terrain, etc.).

elaborates on the findings from the 69 footpath stretches, across the 5 selected cities, using the 19 criteria-based survey format.

2.3. Results

In continuation of the explanation in the previous sections, the step after the observation was the scoring of the footpath stretches. This was conducted in two parts. The first part was observing the results from the point of view of the 52 indicators. The second part was understanding the results from the perspective of the 69 footpaths.

Figure 3 represents the score of the 52 individual indicators, across the 69 footpath stretches, in the 5 cities in India. The values represented across each indicator in Figure 3 were derived by using the following formula:

S_P = (S_T/S_M) × 100

where,

S_P = percentage score of individual indicators across the entire case area, or 69 footpaths

S_T = summation of the score of each indicator across the entire case area, or 69 footpaths

S_M = maximum score of the indicators across the entire case area, or 69 footpaths

The details of this calculation are mentioned in Appendix A and a summary is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 indicates that only 32.69% (17 out of 52) of the parameters are in the positive score domain, out of which only 15.38% (8 out of 52) have a score above the 50% mark.

Figure 3. Score of the individual survey indicators across the 69 footpath stretches in 5 cities in India (Source: Author).

Figure 3. Score of the individual survey indicators across the 69 footpath stretches in 5 cities in India (Source: Author).

Figure 4 represents the score of the 69 footpath stretches in the 5 cities in India, depending on the presence/absence of the parameter (with indicators). The values represented across each indicator in Figure 4 were derived by using the following formula:

A = (B/C) × 100

where,

A = percentage score of each 69 footpaths

B = individual score of 69 footpaths

C = maximum positive score of a footpath, i.e., 16.5

The details of this calculation are mentioned in Appendix B a summary is illustrated in Figure 4. Furthermore, it is evident from Figure 4 that, if evaluated with the standard parameters of accessibility, the conditions of the surveyed footpath stretches are extremely poor. Only 4.35% (3 instances) of the surveyed stretches are in the positive score domain; the rest are in the negative, implying dilapidated footpath conditions.

Figure 4. Score of 69 footpath stretches in 5 cities in India, depending on the presence/absence of the parameter (Source: Author).

Figure 4. Score of 69 footpath stretches in 5 cities in India, depending on the presence/absence of the parameter (Source: Author).

2.4. Data Validation

The next step was to validate the internal consistency of the data to validate the performance of the indicators in the 69 footpaths, across the 5 case cities. The average of the accessibility scores of each parameter, for each of the five case cities, were first enlisted in

Table 4. Average consolidated scores for each parameter for the five cities (Source: Author).

S. No.	Parameters	Jodhpur	Jaipur	Hyderabad	Chennai	Nagpur
1	Building Typology	−0.143	−0.143	0.444	0.240	−0.333
2	Footpath Dimension	−0.500	−0.500	−1.056	−0.700	−0.667
3	Temporary Encroachment	−0.429	−0.429	0.444	−0.020	−0.292
4	Permanent Encroachment	0.500	0.500	0.611	0.500	0.417
5	Bus Stop	0.000	0.000	0.000	−0.040	0.000
6	Metro Rail	0.250	0.250	0.250	0.230	0.250
7	Railings	−0.750	−0.750	−0.750	−0.590	−0.750
8	SWD	0.250	0.250	−0.639	−0.010	−0.125
9	Public Toilet	−0.750	−0.750	−0.750	−0.750	−0.500
10	Trash Bins	−1.000	−1.000	−1.000	−0.660	0.000
11	Streetlights	0.500	0.500	−0.556	0.480	0.708
12	Flooring	−0.500	−0.500	−0.500	−0.300	−1.167
13	Manholes	0.286	0.286	−0.444	−0.100	−0.500
14	Curb	0.250	0.250	0.139	0.090	−0.167
15	Pedestrian Crossing	−1.250	−1.250	−1.250	−0.890	−1.042
16	Street Furniture	−0.750	−0.750	−0.750	−0.690	−0.500
17	Safety Security	−1.000	−1.000	−0.889	−0.280	−0.417
18	Additional Features	−2.000	−2.000	−2.000	−1.240	−1.417
19	Contextual Factors	−0.679	−0.679	−0.472	−0.390	−0.375

.

Hereafter, the percentage distribution of the 5 survey locations, concerning the 19-factor point of reference, was used for the Cronbach’s alpha analysis of internal consistency, using IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics version 26.0. The Cronbach’s alpha for the dataset is 0.951, indicating the highest order of internal consistency.

Based on the data analysis up until this stage, it can be stated that the hypothesis (footpaths in the centers of historic urban areas in India are poor in terms of universal mobility) holds true.

3. Discussion

There are numerous design-level examples at both footpath and urban levels in historic cities, indicating that walkability in an urban location can have universal design considerations if designed per the available guidelines and contextual demands. This statement can be further verified through the best practices mentioned hereafter.

In Jungali Maharaj Street (Pune, India), the designers have focussed on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and have redeveloped a stretch of 1800 m with simple design elements such as (a) a wide pedestrian area, (b) a slope between vehicular and pedestrian pathway, (c) anti-skid flooring, (d) streetlights to ensure the safety of citizens, (e) trees for proper shading, and (f) guiding blocks (for the visually impaired) [31,32]. Similarly, on a 1250 m stretch in Las Ramblas Street (Barcelona, Spain), the policy makers incorporated the following to ensure hassle-free walkability: (a) a walkway in the center and an area for motorists to the side, (b) a canopy for light filtration and protection from traffic, (c) anti-skid flooring, (d) ample sitting areas, (e) a building height which allows sun during winter, and (f) drinking facilities at an accessible height [33,34]. Prioritizing an enhanced mobility system, a 2500 m stretch in Avenue Paulista (Sao Paulo, Brazil) has been developed using the following: (a) a smooth, continuous walking surface, (b) wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians moving at different speeds, (c) the accommodation of informal vendors, (d) contrasting colour and tactile markings on the pavement for continuous visibility, (e) clear differentiation at intersections and crosswalks, (f) deliberate alignment and location of curb ramps, and (g) continuous walkways to facilitate crossing at wide avenues [35,36]. A 1000 m long stretch in SW Moody Avenue (Portland, OR, USA) was prioritized, based on the segregation of pedestrians and cyclists, incorporating the following design elements: (a) colourful signage, (b) tactile and activity-wise segregated walkways, (c) a wide pedestrian pathway for wheelchair users, (d) an anti-skid flooring surface, (e) signage in combination with small curb radii, distinctive materials, and other visual cues for making it inaccessible for vehicles, (f) handrails at the crossway at different levels, (g) tactical and demarcated routes in the crossways, railings all over the street side, and provision of slopes at crossing points [37,38]. Similarly, in Jackson Street (Saint Paul, MI, USA), the designers refined a 1700 m stretch, based on ‘deafscape’ or design enabling users with auditory impairment, using the following: (a) street trees and green infrastructure to provide wildlife habitat, reduce the heat island effect, provide a buffer for, and increase pedestrian safety, (b) wide pedestrian walkways, (c) places to rest for older and disabled pedestrians, (d) tactile and high-contrast paving, and (e) seating to accommodate different group sizes [39,40].

As an ideal/inclusive streetscape, the authors performed a rapid baseline assessment of certain footpath stretches in Sapporo, Japan (see Figure 5a,b). Japan is a country with a large number of elderly people (28% of the total population) and 4.3% differently abled citizens; thus, a universally designed streetscape is a prerequisite for urban development [41]. The prominent characteristics of the footpath, as seen in the pictures, are the ideal slope, tactile marking, street signage, proper location of grates and manholes, and street art. The authors propose much can be learned from these ideal streetscapes, while framing the accessibility audit guidelines in countries such as India.

Similarly, there are multiple instances around the world, at the urban level in historic cities, which show how the existing spaces for public walkability have been made inclusive, thereby increasing the potential of universal mobility, as shown in

Table 5. Dataset for Correlation Study (Source: Author).

S. No.	City	Average Footpath Width (in Meters)	Average Accessibility Percentage
1	Jodhpur	1.97	−27.96
2	Jaipur	1.20	−25.51
3	Hyderabad	2.43	−48.25
4	Chennai	1.44	−26.95
5	Nagpur	1.53	−36.18

.

There are some examples of universal mobility at the urban level. In Berlin, Germany, the focus is on accessible transportation. The features implemented in Berlin are: (a) Mobidat database, which offers information on accessibility and on-site conditions at Berlin sites and other locations, (b) most of the U-Bahn stations and the S-Bahn (city railway) are accessible, (c) Berlin’s public bus and ferry services are all wheelchair accessible, (d) the Wheel Map online application provides an accessible map where locations which are fully, partially, and not wheelchair accessible can be determined, (e) free mobility assistance services for buses and trains are available online and can be booked via call, (f) the provision of wheelchair taxis, (g) accessible toilets are marked on the Access Berlin application, and (h) around 1300 publicly accessible parking spaces are available in the city [42,43]. In Melbourne, Australia, prioritizing the creation of a mobility map for the city center, policymakers have done the following: (a) access and mobility maps for the city center, (b) an interactive access map showing disabled parking; accessible toilets; mobility recharging points; public seating; drinking fountains; train, bus, and tram station entrances; and street gradients, and (c) printable access maps which are available on the City of Melbourne website [44,45]. In Gdniya, Poland, making the city center accessible is considered best practice. The major initiatives in Gdniya are: (a) an accessible sports hall with special audio facilities for those who are specially abled and audio description for the visually impaired used during sports events, (b) railway stations which are fully accessible, (c) marina and sea beach with a wooden ramp for wheelchair users and large playgrounds for children who are specially abled, (d) buses and trolleybuses which have low floors for wheelchair access, (e) bus stops which have been modernized to be more accessible for elderly and specially abled people, (f) a special transportation system offering on-demand services for specially abled people who cannot use public transport, and (g) the high accessibility of public transport, which is the reason why the percentage of households with access to a passenger car is lower than in the whole city [46,47].

Thus, designers need to understand that there cannot be a standard formula for universal mobility. The need of every urban context is different, and the designers need to be flexible in implanting the standards. Especially in historic cities, where the pedestrian flow is relatively high, an understanding of the local context is important. The field survey results need to be critically understood to implement recommendations.

4. Conclusions

The next step was to critically analyze the data collected in this research. Thus, the correlation in the 2 sets of data was checked using Pearson’s correlation, with a confidence interval of 95%. The first was the correlation between the 19 parameters used in the field survey for this research. The second was the average accessibility percentage and the average footpath width of the five surveyed cities. The last part of this section highlights the major findings of this research.

4.1. Correlation between the 19 Parameters Used in the Field Survey

The cumulative score of the accessibility survey, across all 5 cities during the survey, was considered alongside the data associated with each of the 19 parameters. The results are shown in Figure 6.

As seen in Figure 6 above, a significant correlation exists only amongst the following:

• Strong negative correlation: Streetlight and Footpath Length;
• Strong positive correlation: (a) Manholes and Storm Water Drains, and (b) Safety and Security and Trash Bins.

Thus, the aforementioned factors may be prioritized in the preparation of development plans.

4.2. Correlation between the Accessibility Score of the Five Cities and Footpath Width

The average accessibility scores of the 5 cities and the average footpath widths, concerning their respective footpath stretches, were considered as the data associated with each of the 19 parameters. The dataset is shown in Table 5.

The correlation coefficient is −0.79, which indicates a strong negative relationship. Thus, it can be concluded that, in the historic cities, the footpaths with lesser widths have greater accessibility, which is rather unconventional. Future research can be conducted on discovering the reason behind this relationship.

4.3. Major Findings

In this research, the major findings are:

• Field-survey-based proof of the fact that the footpaths in the centers of historic urban areas in India are poor in terms of universal mobility. Thus, the degree of accessibility, as discussed in the Introduction section of this research, was understood based on these findings too;
• Analytical findings of the status of the different parameters of the footpath infrastructure in the historic cities of India.

This research is particularly beneficial for policymakers, since it will enable them to understand the weak survey parameters within a particular urban area, and thus be able to prioritize urban development from a survey-parameter-based perspective. Additionally, they will also be able to prioritize the weaker stretches if the development plans are focussed on spatial demarcation, rather than survey parameters. Thus, the improvement of universal mobility can be deterministic rather than probabilistic.

It is important to note that this research also had certain limitations, such as (a) including cognitive factors in the survey format, (b) including pedestrian count as a parameter in the research, and (c) comparing the research area in the historic part of the city with a relatively newer locality in the city. Further research in this field can be conducted by including these limitations in the already surveyed stretches, or by delineating a stretch in other historic cities in India, then verifying the hypothesis.

Although universal design can be best understood by people who have experienced some sort of disability, it is the ethical responsibility of every architect/planner/designer to provide an inclusive built environment [48,49]. If there were a Johari window [50] for streetscapes (considering “self” as the majority of able-bodied people), universal design would still be in the “unknown area” [51]. A multistakeholder approach might be fruitful in preparing a holistic accessibility plan for the centers of historic cities discussed in this research [52,53], especially with its users/citizens at the top of the stakeholder list [54].