Age-Friendly River Ghats: Bridging Heritage, Accessibility, and Universal Design

Year : 2026 | Volume : 04 | Issue : 02 | Page : 73 81
By

Vedula Shanmuka Teja,

Srinivas Daketi,

  1. Student, Department of Architecture, School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India
  2. Assistant Professor, School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract

Public spaces shape social life, yet for older adults, accessibility is a matter of dignity and participation rather than convenience. Heritage‑rich river ghats in India stepped waterfronts that support ritual, social, and daily needs are largely absent from age‑friendly and accessibility research. This bibliometric and systematic review (2010–2025) examines 1,200 records from Scopus and Web of Science and conducts a focused qualitative synthesis of 162 India‑context studies. Using VOSviewer for network mapping and inductive thematic coding, the study identifies four convergent research directions: universal design for inclusion, heritage management, blue‑space health benefits, and smart‑city technologies for non‑invasive accessibility audits. Results reveal a pronounced disciplinary and typological bias: domestic research concentrates on green, flat recreational spaces while river ghats and heritage water architecture remain a structural research void. Policy analysis exposes a standardization trap in which universal accessibility standards (for example, 1:12 ramp requirements) are impractical for steep, historic ghats, producing legislative paralysis. The paper proposes a heritage‑sensitive, justice‑centered framework that combines non‑invasive digital audits (IoT, LiDAR) with context‑specific, reversible interventions: discreet handrails, micro‑resting nodes, shaded seating, thermal mitigation, tactile cues, and crowd‑management protocols for mass pilgrimages. Practical recommendations include a Heritage‑Blue Space Policy Framework, a set of missing metrics (safe step geometry, thermal stress thresholds, crowd safety indicators), and a targeted research agenda prioritizing southern riverine ghats. Methodologically, the study combines quantitative bibliometric mapping with qualitative thematic synthesis to ensure both breadth and depth in findings. Findings are intended to inform urban designers, conservation authorities, and policymakers seeking equitable, culturally sensitive accessibility solutions. By bridging universal design and conservation, the study outlines pathways to make ghats culturally authentic and genuinely age‑friendly, ensuring India’s riverfronts remain timeless and ageless.

Keywords: Age-friendly environments, river ghats, universal design, heritage management, blue spaces

[This article belongs to International Journal of Environmental Planning and Development Architecture ]

How to cite this article: Vedula Shanmuka Teja, Srinivas Daketi. Age-Friendly River Ghats: Bridging Heritage, Accessibility, and Universal Design. International Journal of Environmental Planning and Development Architecture. 2026; 04(02):73-81.
How to cite this URL: Vedula Shanmuka Teja, Srinivas Daketi. Age-Friendly River Ghats: Bridging Heritage, Accessibility, and Universal Design. International Journal of Environmental Planning and Development Architecture. 2026; 04(02):73-81. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijepda/article=2026/view=260797

References

  1. Government of India. Smart Cities Mission statement & guidelines. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development; 2015.
  2. Bell SL, Foley R, Houghton F, Maddrell A, Williams AM. From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: a scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 2018;196:123-130. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.035. PMID:29175701.
  3. Wheaton B, Waiti J, Cosgriff M, Burrows L. Coastal blue space and wellbeing research: looking beyond western tides. Leisure Stud. 2020;39(1):83-95. doi:10.1080/02614367.2019.1640774.
  4. Völker S, Kistemann T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being – salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: a review. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2011;214(6):449-460. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.001. PMID:21665536.
  5. Remillard-Boilard S, Buffel T, Phillipson C. Developing age-friendly cities and communities: eleven case studies of community-based participatory research. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):133.
  6. Handler S. Age-friendly cities and communities: a review. UK Urban Ageing Consortium; 2014.
  7. World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
  8. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2022: summary of results. New York: United Nations; 2023.
  9. Mozaffari A, Karimipour H. Smart preservation of cultural heritage: a review of IoT applications. J Cult Herit. 2023;62:289-302.
  10. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens (amendment) bill. Government of India; 2020.
  11. Singh RPB. The Ganga Riverfront in Varanasi: heritage, challenges, and future prospects. J Cult Geogr. 2016;33(3):321-345.
  12. Gascon M, Zijlema W, Vert C, White MP, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220(8):1207-1221. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004. PMID:28843736.
  13. Plouffe L, Kalache A. Towards global age-friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. J Urban Health. 2010;87(5):733-9. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9466-0.
  14. Iwarsson S, Ståhl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design – positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(2):57-66. doi:10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66. PMID:12554380.
  15. Foley R, Kistemann T. Blue space geographies: enabling health in place. Health Place. 2015;35:157-165. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.07.003. PMID:26238330.
  16. World Health Organization. Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
  17. Li M, Wang C, Wu Y, Santamouris M, Lu S. Assessing spatial inequities of thermal environment and blue-green intervention for vulnerable populations in dense urban areas. Urban Clim. 2025;59:102328. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2025.102328.
  18. Menon S, Sharma A. Integrating heritage conservation and urban development: a case of Varanasi riverfront. J Herit Manag. 2021;6(1):45-60.
  19. Central Public Works Department. Harmonized guidelines and space standards for universal accessibility in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India; 2021.
  20. Lourdes KT, Hamel P, Gibbins CN, Sanusi R, Azhar B, Lechner AM. Planning for green infrastructure using multiple urban ecosystem service models and multicriteria analysis. Landsc Urban Plan. 2022;226:104500. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104500.
  21. Mohapatra S, Maiya GA, Nayak UU, Sheelvant R, J V, Watson J, et al. Justice-centered best practices for accessibility to public buildings in a tier II city: insights from a Delphi expert consensus. F1000Res. 2024;13:1145. doi:10.12688/f1000research.156920.1. PMID:39925990.
  22. Feng Y, Zhang F, Wu F. Waterfront regeneration as a political mission: megaprojects under state entrepreneurialism. J Urban Aff. 2025;48:1863-1880. doi:10.1080/07352166.2025.2504996.
  23. Buffel T, Phillipson C. Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities. 2016;55:94-100. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016.
  24. Völker S, Kistemann T. ‘I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!’ Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc Sci Med. 2013;78:113-124. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.047. PMID:23273410.
  25. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID:33782057.
  26. Grebner LA, Wolf ID, Elands B. Blue space availability and visiting frequency in relation to mental health: a case study of the elderly in Germany. Urban For Urban Green. 2023;79:127814.
  27. Cerin E, Sit CHP, Barnett A, Cheung MC. Walking for transportation and leisure: roles of neighborhood attributes and personal factors. Behav Med. 2016;42(3):163-178.
  28. Das M. Green and blue infrastructure in high-density megacities of the Global South: a critical evaluation of benefits and obstacles for enhancing the well-being of Hong Kong’s aging population. Dev Environ Sci. 2024;15:575-594.
  29. Gálvez A, Tirado F, Martínez MJ. Work-life balance, organizations and social sustainability: analyzing female telework in Spain. Sustainability. 2020;12:3567. doi:10.3390/su12093567.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 04
Issue 02
Received 27/05/2026
Accepted 13/07/2026
Published 30/07/2026
Publication Time 64 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics

Support