Perceived barriers faced by persons with disability in urban public buildings in India

The global population of people with disabilities (PWDs) is consistently increasing (Patterson and Pegg, 2011). In 2010, the disabled population was 785 million (WHO, 2012), in 2014 it was reported that one billion people were disabled in some form (WHO, 2015) and recent estimates accounts 1.3 billion people (WHO, 2023). The global urban population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion by 2050, and ≈90% of the increase is projected to occur in Asia and Africa, with a significant portion of the growth projected to be accounted for by India, China, and Nigeria. (UNDESA, 2018). For the developing nations, cities are the engines of inclusive growth, if not planned properly the same place can be the vulnerable ground for inequality driven by social, economic, and physical disparity (UNDESA, 2020; UNHABITAT, 2022). Technological advancement and new constructions may bring about a new hindrance in the urban built environment and generate disparity among the users (UNHABITAT, 2022), and technological intervention cannot provide a comprehensive solution to the existing barrier (Makkonen and Inkinen, 2024). The possibilities, motivations, and capabilities of using the technologies depend on social, cultural, and economic backgrounds (Merisalo and Makkonen, 2022), eventually disadvantaged groups often suffers the social exclusion. Cities support social inclusion by improving accessibility and opportunity, particularly for people who are physically, economically, and socially disadvantaged (Litman, 2006). Vision of Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 led by human-centred creativity and human-centric approach would be crucial in urban planning and design process. In that connect, considering the perception of PWDs in urban planning process is quintessential for existing and emerging cities (Klaever et al., 2024) in terms of disability inclusion. Majority of PWDs have no access to Universal Declaration of Human Rights; therefore, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities urges governments all over world to guarantee access to the human, social, financial, and physical capital in the urban system (UN, 2006, 1948). Public buildings (PBs) including schools, hospitals, government offices, and cultural institutions epitomise the tangible investments or physical capital in the city’s infrastructure (Li et al., 2022). Within the urban built environment, barriers encountered by PWDs can be broadly classified into two categories: attitudinal (Castro et al., 2024) and physical. Attitudinal barriers are intangible, whereas physical barriers relate to infrastructure (Gharebaghi et al., 2018a). Attitudinal barriers can be further subdivided into the attitudes of individuals towards PWDs and the self-perceptions of PWDs (Abbott and McConkey, 2006) regarding themselves and the challenges they encounter in daily life also termed as perceived barrier (Brick et al., 2024; Green et al., 2020). Perceived barriers are often people’s evaluations of the social, personal, financial, or environmental difficulties they encounter when engaging in any activity, and are psychological traits generated through previous negative experiences in performing a particular activity. Immobility or reduced mobility among disabled people was caused by perceived barriers in accessing the opportunities (Church et al., 2000; Hine and Kamruzzaman, 2020; Lucas et al., 2001), resulting in social exclusion. In urban areas, new growth with technological interventions introduces numerous complexities, PWDs are unable to keep up with and adjust to non-disabled counterparts in these situations.

Previous researches on disability focusing on PBs access by PWDs were limited to developed countries (Burns et al., 2023; Carlsson et al., 2022; Gissen, 2022; Hamraie, 2017; Mohapatra et al., 2024; Okezue et al., 2024). Few recent researches are conducted in the Indian context concerning the disabled (Garg et al., 2024; Krishnan et al., 2023; Yadav et al., 2022), none address built environment issues that disabled people face on regular basis in the Indian context, understanding the determinants of disability specially the societal factors (Hridya et al., 2025) have discussed the determinant of public transports (PTs) but PBs access in the study is missing in Indian context and underscores the gap in the disability research. Understanding the PBs aspect nationwide would constitute the comprehensive examination of the urban built environment in context. Disability-related policy and legislative initiatives in India lag behind the rest of the globe and are not sufficient (GoI, 2022a), despite the government’s persistent efforts and amendments for social inclusion of the PWD. A primary contributing factor is the scarcity of literature within the Indian context, attributable to a deficiency of data. There is a need to overcome the imbalance of access complexity induced by urban expansion and technology use in a country with a complicated and sensitive societal background (Makkonen and Inkinen, 2024; Levin, 2009; Singer and Cohn, 2017). According to the National Family Health Survey - 5 (NFHS-5), 4 out of every 100 people suffer from at least one type of impairment (Krishnan et al., 2023) in India.

Both the physical barriers and perceived barriers need to be addressed in the urban planning and design process (van Holstein et al., 2022) ensuring a participatory planning approach. The current research examines the perceived barriers in form of difficulties faced by PWDs in accessing the PBs in the Indian urban context. Ultimately, the present research offers well-founded urban policy and planning recommendations aimed at improving the mobility and accessibility of PWDs by addressing both physical and perceived barriers.

The research focuses on investigating the determinants of the barrier to access to PBs by PWD as inclusive urban context; overall research approach was to identify and review the criteria of exclusion in the urban system. The structure of the literature review supports the exploratory research, literature review approach for conceptualisation, and theorisation (Bryman, 2016; Umar, 2020), with the various models of disability, which provides a base for the technical documents. The review of literature has been broadly divided in two parts firstly the grey literatures provide an overview of the acts, legislations, and policies pertaining to the PWDs will provide the legal background for rights and status in Indian context. The prerequisite of good legislations, acts, and policies is that it should be carefully framed with the data-driven and based on the scientific evidences and studies, either it would not be able to achieve the purpose for which it is designed for (Lowe et al., 2022; Umar et al., 2025). The second part of the literature review consists of the evolution of theories and concepts that has been evolved from the past, the availability of the literature on the disability and contextual knowledge. In examining the factors influencing the barriers to accessing PBs by PWD within the context of an inclusive city, initially the criteria for exclusion were explored and thoroughly discussed within the urban system.

The evolution of the acts and policies pertaining to PWDs has been implied by adjustment from medical model to rights-based biopsychosocial approach, this transition has been evinced in progression from Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act 1995 to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 (Balakrishnan et al., 2019). The RPwD Act 2016 is rights-based combined medical and social model, with an approach of rights-based approach clearly defining discrimination, barrier, caregiver, person with benchmark disability, rehabilitation and rules, and specification about accessibility of buildings together with a 2-year deadline to guarantee barrier-free access providing approval only after confirming standards (see Figure 1).

Furthermore, The RPwD (amendment) Act 2024 underscores ensuring accessibility to the built environment and enhancing service efficiency, both government and private establishments, to promote inclusion among PWDs. However, the anticipated objectives have yet to be accomplished (GoI, 2022b) due to challenges faced in the implementation of the progressive policies.

Understanding of disability has evinced a substantial paradigm shift from the medical model (Carlson, 2010; Olkin, 2001; Thomas and Woods, 2004) to social model (UPIAS, 1976), and further shifts to rights-based model (Biziewska and Palattiyil, 2023; Degener, 2017, 2016). The medical model regarded the disability as an individual problem to be ‘cured’ or contained, converging on the person’s impairment (Humpage, 2007) (see Figure 2).

This model framed disability as medical problem, highlighting rehabilitation and treatment, criticised for its narrow view on individual and failure to address societal barriers (Degener, 2017). The social model of disability shifted the focus from the individual to the relationship between PWDs and their social environment, accentuating the need for social policy and institutional changes to address barriers to participation (Smith and Bundon, 2018) (see Figure 3). Human rights model of disability have evolved from the social model of disability emphasising the intrinsic dignity and equal rights. The rights-based model of disability framework is built upon the philosophical base emphasising equality, inclusion, participation, employment, and accessibility (Arstein-Kerslake et al., 2020; Degener, 2016; Petri et al., 2017) (see the illustration in Figure 4). This model distinguishes disability as a universal human disparity rather than an abnormality, embracing the talents and potential of all individuals (Series L, 2020).

The human rights–based model of disability emphasises on the key principles of participation, inclusion, empowerment (Mohammad and Aldakhil, 2024), and accessibility that aim to promote equality, dignity, and full participation of PWDs in society. Social models and rights-based models complement each other (Lawson and Beckett, 2020), and rights-based models are gaining importance in the policy context.

Perceived barrier in context to PWDs can be defined as the ‘subjective obstacles that individuals with disabilities experience that hinder their participation in activities, or their access to services’ (Becker, Stuifbergen, et al., 1991; Jacinto et al., 2021). Perceived barriers to physical activity and other health-related behaviours generally evolve from actual barriers, even when these barriers may be relatively small in urban settings. This evolution is influenced by various personal, psychological (Akkaya et al., 2024), social, and environmental factors (Anjali and Sabharwal, 2018). Perceived barriers extend beyond actual physical limitations and encompass psychological, personal, and social factors (see Figure 5). Attitudinal barriers, such as fear of injuries or complications, can discourage participation in physical activities, even when physical accessibility is not the prime issue (Buffart et al., 2009).

PWDs often perceive small barriers as significant obstacles in their daily lives, particularly in areas such as employment, healthcare, and disaster preparedness. This perception is rooted in the complex interplay of environmental, structural, and process barriers they encounter.

Physical barriers are tangible and are built environment obstacles that prevent seamless participation to activities, services, and urban facilities especially the disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. Despite the available acts, rules, and guidelines aiming to reduce the physical barriers, challenges existing in the layout and design of the built environment poses hurdles for PWDs (Bezyak et al., 2017). Physical barriers are inherently objective, stemming from deficiencies in infrastructure and suboptimal design of the built environment, whereas perceived barriers are inherently subjective. Addressing both physical and perceived barriers is critical for creating inclusive environments that promote equal access and participation for all members of society, regardless of their abilities. There are significant gaps in our understanding of how to make PBs accessible to the persons with functional impairments, and more methodological considerations are needed in this field of study. Empirical research is necessary to evaluate and measure the architectural elements perceived as obstacles by individuals with disabilities, as well as to examine access-related activities and the strategies employed by these individuals to navigate access challenges (Carlsson et al., 2022). The implementation of accessibility presents significant challenges, and it is often overlooked in planning and construction processes (Rieger and Strickfaden, 2016).

Recent studies indicate that there remain substantial disparities in access to public healthcare facilities in India, and the potential for rights violations necessitates a comprehensive audit of all building types (Garg et al., 2024). In their study on accessibility to PB, Mohapatra et al. (2024) placed a strong emphasis on social justice and equity, stressing the need to address systemic problems, discriminatory behaviours, and societal attitudes that impede accessibility and inclusion. In the context of the United States, Burns et al. (2023) aimed to investigate trends in the accessibility of PB, accessibility issues that arise, and methods for obtaining information and resources regarding the accessibility of particular buildings for PWDs. There is a paucity of studies available in the context of developing nations (Chanda Chiluba and Gift Njapawu, 2019), and a particularly limited number of studies have been conducted and reported on access to PB for disability in India (Garg et al., 2024). Furthermore, the majority of previous research has concentrated on individual towns or cities. Most disability research is conducted and reported within the context of developed countries (Burns et al., 2023; Carlsson et al., 2022; Karunasena et al., 2010).

PBs, as physical capital in urban systems, often serve as sites of both inclusion and exclusion, reflecting broader societal inequalities and power dynamics. PBs and spaces, while ostensibly designed for all, often embody and reinforce existing social inequalities. The physical design and management of these spaces can create barriers to access and participation for certain groups, effectively excluding them from the full benefits of urban life. This exclusion is not always overt but can be subtle, embedded in design choices and operational practices that prioritise certain users over others (Jensen, 2024). Anttiroiko and De Jong (2020) conceptualised the grounds of exclusion in urban system, a disability-centric conceptualisation has been done (see Figure 6) to represent the factors of exclusion and access to PBs by PWDs.

The findings in context to developing countries show that the existing modes of transportation are inadequate and non-inclusive and pose both physical (including built environments such as roads, ramps, and footpaths) and social barriers (e.g. low income, low employment opportunities, and negative social attitude), which reduced the accessibility to workplaces, healthcare, and social networks for these vulnerable groups (Jahangir et al., 2024). Through the matrix of the forms of exclusion and the types of capital, Anttiroiko and De Jong (2020) presented the grounds for individual or group dimensions of exclusion, identified age, physical and mental disability, religion and ideology, race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, level of income, and geographical location (nationality, residence, or otherwise). Furthermore, excluding minorities from access to many forms of capital including physical capital, that is, using PTs or access to PBs. Social capital refers to the intangible asset, generated by networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, empowering society to function effectively, is instituted by trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by enabling co-ordinated actions (Muzayanah et al., 2020; Temkin and Rohe, 1998). While the physical capital concerns the tangible environment that constitutes the physical infrastructure of a city, including buildings, transportation systems, utilities, and other tangible assets (Caragliu et al., 2011; Yabe et al., 2021).

Gender differentials have a significant impact on perceived access to PBs and spaces, especially with women often experiencing more barriers or safety concerns (Ouali et al., 2020). Okezue et al. (2024) asserted that women with disabilities reported feeling more anxious during their visit to PBs. The findings may highlight the significance of considering gender in design and management of PBs.

The possibility of outdoor activities decreases with the increase of age (Brumbaugh, 2018; Corran et al., 2018) travel to work and recreations are affected (Stern, 1993). As an antithesis, the duration of disability also matters, as the long-term experiences with disability make them acknowledged to the difficulties, and develops their own effective strategies to overcome the obstacles in journey (Henly and Brucker, 2019). New disabled face more difficulties while travelling as they are less trained or confident in using assistive devices (Kaye et al., 2008; Ward et al., 2017).

The married disabled have an advantage of social well-being over non-married counterpart, although it’s not applicable for all unmarried individual (Shapiro and Keyes, 2008). Education and marital status are major determinants of perceived barriers in access to public spaces in urban areas and can be used as the proxy of socio-economic status. Educational level significantly affects the socio-economic status and higher education levels being associated as better physical and mental functioning (Furuya et al., 2015; Jang et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2019). Higher education among the parents leading to a broader socio-economic advantage (Davis-Kean et al., 2020). Literacy and education have profound implications on health disparities, particularly among the elderly, where lower education levels are linked to poorer access to healthcare and worse health outcomes (Ladin, 2008; Sudore et al., 2006). Improving education and literacy among PWDs can lead to better employment opportunities, reducing economic dependency, and enhancing personal welfare (Redley, 2009). Education can reduce stigma and promotes understanding and acceptance among peers without disabilities (Beyene et al., 2023; Kart and Kart, 2021). Adoption of assistive technologies is crucial for PWDs to communicate effectively and access information (Williams, 2025), education makes it easier.

The cultural interactions are limited by the disabled living alone (Páez and Farber, 2012). Larger household usually has more potential caregivers (Lopez–anuarbe and Kohli, 2019), smaller household sizes may give more caregiver stress (Murthy, 2016a).

Social stigmatisation disseminates negative attitudes and discriminatory practices reduce disabled individuals’ confidence, limit supportive social policies and interactions, and thereby constrain their access to and participation in the urban built environment (Attar et al., 2024; Gharebaghi et al., 2018b).Family members, friends, and neighbours either facilitate or hinder PWDs’ access to facilities (Jesus et al., 2021). Social-cultural norms play a role in generating issues such as social involvement, job difficulty, and humiliation. These unfavourable opinions make it more difficult for people with mobility impairments to get necessary services and assistance (van Brakel et al., 2012).

Living arrangements are the most immediate social and physical setting for PWDs. They also affect their access to resources by determining whether or not other people in the house can provide instrumental help. Living arrangements matter a lot for the disabled (Henning-Smith et al., 2018) and are associated with the changes in mobility and changes in the disability (Speare et al., 1991). The living arrangement of individuals with disabilities, particularly their marital status, serves as an indicator of various critical dimensions of their social well-being, as evidenced by a study utilising data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) 58th round in the Indian context (Chakraborty and Mukherjee, 2016).

Economic insecurity and negative labour market outcomes are closely linked to disability. Disability has a negative influence on labour market outcomes and creates economic instability (Frederick and Shifrer, 2019). When compared with those without disabilities, disabled persons spend more on food, transportation, fuel, power, equipment, medical supplies, aids, support services, care assistance, medications, and healthcare providers (Morris and Zaidi, 2020). PWDs with low income perceives more barriers in the built environment than a non-disabled person with same economic status (Hwang, 2022). The government at various levels provides financial aids like medical aids, pension, free education, and so on to decrease the burden of disability. The old age pension significantly reduces poverty rates among households with older people by around 2%, while it also significantly reduces poverty rates among households with severe disabilities by around 5% (Wapling et al., 2021). The effects are far more pronounced among beneficiary households. For instance, it is anticipated that households receiving the national disability pension will experience a 12% decrease in poverty.

Financial aids from the government or institutions provides acts as tools and resources to manage their health, these aids strengthen their self-efficacy and dignity, contributing to improved mental and physical well-being (Wang et al., 2023).Disability often limits access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and employment; financial aid can bridge these gaps by enabling individuals to access necessary resources and participate fully in society (Yadav et al., 2023). As the concern of PWDs facing difficulties in access to PBs, this has indirect impact as well as direct influence of financial aids from government or non-government institutions.

The certification of disability is critical in bridging the gap between the disabled and dissemination of their rights as certification plays a vital role in ensuring identification, welfare access, and smooth accessibility in the physical and digital environment (Chemnad and Othman, 2024; Chiu et al., 2013). The certification process involves an assessment of the individual’s physical or mental condition to determine the degree of disability, following guidelines established by the Indian Government. A person with benchmark disability means a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority (GoI, 2016). Certification of disability is mandatory for the financial aid and other benefits from the government and the agencies.

Religion has always served as a pillar of society, influencing governance, promoting communal cohesiveness, and offering a moral compass. Numerous narratives by PWDs talk about their continuous religious interactions, challenges, and comforts (Coggins, 2017; Cohen, 2009; Sanford, 2006). Prevailing customs, thought process, teachings, preachings of the particular religion has deep impact on the individual's perception and actions. The religion-based society, Hinduism, Muslims, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Christianity constitute major population in Indian context, and gives a different perspective towards the disability (Gupta, 2011; Miles, 2002). Hindus believe in the law of karma and surrender to the almighty god and accept the suffering, but Buddhism and Sikhism have another view that bad karma can be mitigated by chanting god’s name. Hindus don’t express their pain and generally do not join any parent support groups or organisation (Gilbert et al., 2004; Ramisetty‐Mikler, 1993), but Sikhism encompassing social, cultural, political, and territorial identities, emphasises the importance of spiritual values in daily functioning, and their influence on therapeutic management is crucial (Kalra et al., 2012). Kirat Karni and Vand Chakna serve as reminders to practice hard labour, maintain honesty, and limit the consumption to correct societal imbalances, and impart a self-therapeutic and social welfare (Garg and Kumar, 2024; Priya et al., 2017) through the service to disadvantaged persons in the society. The Qur’an addresses societal disadvantages imposed on those lacking desirable attributes, emphasising the responsibility of rectifying this inequity on society and urges Muslims to recognise and improve their situation (Bazna and Hatab, 2005). The Quranic view sees disability not as a punishment but as a condition that society must accommodate with kindness and justice, the perspective aligns with spiritual beliefs that underscore human worth beyond physical or mental capabilities, reflecting God’s wisdom and purpose in diversity (Liu et al., 2014). The Quran encourages believers to show empathy and to remove barriers to participation in religious, social, and family life. Imhoff (2017) advocated for including the religious perspective for the disability studies.

Considering social groups, identifying the disadvantaged groups of society is critical for addressing various social development parameters due to socio-cultural and economic diversity. Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are the broadly classified disadvantaged groups in India. Socio-cultural diversity is the determinant of mobility in urban India (Ahmad and Puppim de Oliveira, 2016; Goswami et al., 2015; Srinivasan, 2005; Srinivasan and Rogers, 2005). Previous studies have accounted the social groups as the critical factor in Indian context. Disability makes them more vulnerable and poses more barriers to mobility and accessibility to PBs. Also affect their ability to access the social benefits from government through various schemes. Identifying the social groups who perceive relatively more difficulties in facing the barriers in daily life becomes critical.

Caregiving typically involves providing support with activities of daily living and is often driven by necessity rather than choice. Caregivers are usually family members or formal service provider focusing on meeting basic needs and often includes a wide range of support activities, such as feeding, dressing, and personal hygiene, rather than enhancing personal autonomy and self-determination (Grossman and Webb, 2016; Woo et al., 2023). Personal assistance (PA), as described in the context of disability services, underscores autonomy, integrity, and self-determination for individuals with disabilities, emphasises a rights-based approach focused on enabling personal autonomy and self-determined living (Bahner, 2012; Brennan et al., 2016).

Murillo-Munar et al. (2023) shed insight into the movement of caregivers and noted how socio-economic and gender-based disparities affect mobility. It was evident from the previous study that individuals with intellectual disabilities need more autonomy and self-determination in their life projects and highlights the effect of personal assistance on the individual empowerment (Ambit et al., 2019). Although PWDs are now generally more conscious of their rights, this has not always resulted in them receiving care that upholds their human rights. (Biziewska and Palattiyil, 2023) receiving caregiver or PAs is PWDs rights, and PA is critical in rights-based model of disability. Parents provide PAs for their adult son or daughter and addresses the communication needs, but PWDs faces challenges in choice, independence, and autonomy (Brennan et al., 2016). There are both advantages and disadvantages of having family member as PA (Dunér and Olin, 2018; Olin and Dunér, 2019), can affect autonomy and social interaction. Lack of knowledge about independent living and personal help hinders adequate support for disabled, the East Asian Taiwanese individuals, who prefer in-person help over home care and foster positive family relationships (Chou et al., 2023). Recent study has identified in the Indian context that, PWDs who need a caregiver are among having the least mobility in the public transit (Hridya et al., 2025). Caregivers are essential for long-term independence for disabled individuals, not limited to severe disabilities, and should be clearly defined in the Indian setting.

Identifying the specific built environment barrier in space design or building design is the core of applied inclusive design, ignoring specific barriers may lead to exclusion and inequality, Table 1 summarises some specific built environment barriers and associated literature and authors.

Absence of the special toilet seats in the PBs affects the comfort of the PWDs with mobility impairments and prevent them to use the restroom; wheelchair users face major challenges due to structural inaccessibility (Chiwandire and Vincent, 2017). Absence of inclusive restrooms may lead to fatal injury and health issues like urinary tract infections among the PWDs (Wiseman, 2019; Kitchin and Law, 2001). These circumstances create a negative perception of urban built environment among PWDs and discourage them to participate.

People with hearing impairment face difficulty due to lack of signage with direction (Goralzik et al., 2022); public announcement system along with the visual aid may help the PWDs in accessing the PBs. While people with visual disabilities rely on the auditory information, tactile warning and orientation cues, people with cognitive disabilities may get benefits from clear, easy-to-understand signs and public information system. This shows that the built environment could be made accessible and relatively convenient for the PWDs but not for all time in single measure, comprehensive measures are required. PWDs with cognitive disability, blindness, locomotor disability, and hearing impairment are affected by poor sign design or no signage (Coombes et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2024; Small et al., 2005).

Specially in the public health buildings, inaccessible examination equipment and facilities are itself hindrance to their ability to access preventive healthcare services (Kroll et al., 2005). People with hearing and visual impairment faces difficulties in healthcare buildings due to lack of accessible communication tools (Mac-Seing et al., 2020; Anand and Sevak, 2017).

People with mobility impairment, with or without wheel chair face difficulties in the waiting areas of the building (Rimmer et al., 2005). If designated seating arrangement or waiting area is not there, it affects persons with visual impairments and other multiple disability persons (Thapar et al., 2004).

People with mobility impairments face difficulty in opening doors in PBs which includes wheelchairs, crutches, or walkers and those with limited dexterity or strength. Specific issues arise due to the heavy doors, improperly designed door handles, and opening mechanisms of doors (Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al., 2011; Burgstahler, 2015; Goralzik et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2024). If doorways are not clearly marked or equipped with tactile or audio cues, the visual impairments might find it difficult to access independently and experience barriers in social participations (Mrak et al., 2019).

Persons with physical disabilities are usually influenced by the absence of ramps, grooved tiles, or lifts in the PBs (Wan Ali et al., 2024; Vanderschuren and Nnene, 2021); physical disabilities may include the loss of functions or the limb abnormalities.

Industry 4.0, defined by its reliance on robotics and Internet of Things, data analytics, characterised by digital transformation and automation poses challenges as well opportunity for the PWDs. A significant gap exists in aligning Industry 4.0 technologies with the needs of PWDs, emphasises a lack of social applicability and misalignment with SDGs, particularly in terms of workstation design and occupational inclusion in the PBs’ working environment (Bonello et al., 2024). Industry 5.0 brings a more inclusive (Ghobakhloo et al., 2023) and human-centric perspective (Nahavandi, 2019) by integrating smart and sustainable solutions designed for operators with disabilities(Bonello et al., 2024). The approach bridges existing technological divides by ensuring that the advancements in AI and digital systems cater to a broader spectrum of disabilities, including the multiple impairments. AI can be leveraged to create smart work environments that adapt to the needs of disabled workers, thereby reducing barriers and enhancing participation in the workforce (Bonello et al., 2024; Chemnad and Othman, 2024). In the evolving technological and economic urban environment, supporting Industry 5.0 goals a human-centric and sustainable strategies approach is quite relevant and essential in that line understanding the perception of disabled towards barriers is quintessential.

The research investigates the barriers faced by the PWDs in accessing the urban built environment in India, with particular attention to the access to PBs and its implications for national-level policies. The focus is on finding the background factors that create difficulties faced by PWDs in access to PBs from the nationwide urban dataset constituting the prerequisite of efficient urban policy. The quantitative approaches are crucial for deriving generalisable conclusions about the disability population investigated for the pan nation context (Kroll et al., 2005; Umar, 2019). The qualitative research is often specific to particular areas or regions (Edwardraj et al., 2010a; Singal, 2010; Umar et al., 2018). These conclusions can subsequently inform national health policies and guide resource allocation. Another key philosophy driving the investigation was to emphasise the participant’s role in the research, guidelines and policy formulation process (Mietola et al., 2017; Richard and Hennekam, 2021; Umar et al., 2025). Considering the physical (structural) and social (attitudinal) aspects by integrating through feedback or enquiry is crucial for the inclusive research methodologies and planning for the cities with diverse groups in the society (Puyalto et al., 2016) ensures the inclusion of the disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, the philosophical frameworks like ‘social model of disability’ and ‘rights-based model’ provide the theoretical basis of designing the policies and technical guidelines particularly in context to PWDs. Grounded in international commitments like the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, these philosophical approaches consider access as a fundamental human right. Philosophies of understanding the key determinants would lead to a comprehensive, strategic and effective implementation of public administrative vision to govern the urban areas (Ongaro, 2020). In Indian context, the current urban policy framework lacks inclusivity provisions, prioritising the economical and infrastructural growth overlook the social dimensions (José and Rodrigues, 2024) should include the causes of exclusion of disadvantaged group while planning and designing phase with stakeholders’ perception.

As part of the 76th round of the NSS, the National Statistical Office conducted the Survey of PWDs from July to December 2018. The survey’s main objectives were to provide sample estimates on the incidence and prevalence of disabilities, their causes, the age at which they first appeared, the facilities available to them, the challenges they face when utilising PBs and PTs, the arrangement of regular caretakers, and the out-of-pocket costs associated with disabilities. Drawing more thorough conclusions on the state of disability in India is made possible by the representative character of the NSS and the larger number of data points for the current disability round (NIUA, 2020).

Data from a nationwide sample of 31 948 urban PWDs were analysed to investigate the ease of access to PBs and the barriers encountered by PWDs. The data underwent a cleaning process, which included the removal of more than 40% of missing data and the exclusion of outliers to ensure a robust model. To validate the final model, potential multicollinearity among covariates was assessed and found to be satisfactory, with a cut-off value of 10. During the analytical phase, the chi-square test was employed to determine the significance level of the bivariate relationships.

Binary Logistic Regression (BLR) with dependent variables (binary data) as ‘difficulties faced’ and ‘Not faced any difficulties’ was performed by independent variables mentioned in Table 2. Similarly, disabled from 14 838 households responded that they use the PBs, out of them 9155 ‘faced difficulties’ in some form, 5683 didn’t faced any difficulty in accessing the PB (see Figure 7). Further specific built environment barriers were analysed among the PWDs who faced problems of any types previously mentioned in Table 1. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test, a goodness-of-fit test has been used to assess how well the BLR model fits the observed data. If the p-value is greater than 0.05 suggests no evidence to reject the model (Ailobhio and Ikughur, 2024). The Nagelkerke R Square is essential in logistic regression analysis as it provides a way to quantify how well the model explains the variability of the outcome variable (Bujang et al., 2018), it offers a pseudo-R-square value that resembles the R-squared in ordinary least squares regression but is suitable for models like logistic regression where the dependent variable is categorical.

The BLR is used to identify a well-fitting model that describes the relationship between a set of predictors or explanatory factors and a binary dependent variable (Washington et al., 2020). This method simulates the likelihood that the binary dependent variable will be present or absent. (Ozdemir, 2011). BLR is widely used in medicine and disability research (Chen et al., 2015; Harris, 2021; Hassan et al., 2022). General form of BLR can be described through the following equations (Hosmer et al., 2013).

Y_PB is dependent variable where Y_PB = 1 when disabled are facing difficulties in accessing the PBs.

$β0$ is the constant; $β0+ β1+β2+… +βm$ are the regression coefficients to be estimated; and $x1 +x2 +… +βxm$ are the independent variables. Regression coefficients show the contribution of each independent variables on the probability value P.

Multivariate BLR was performed to ascertain the effects of age, gender, marital status, literacy level (i.e. individual variables), household size, social class, religion, having certificate, receipt of aid, living arrangement, and arrangement of caregiver status on the likelihood that the disabled faced while accessing PB. The regression model was statistically significant (as per the results from the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test; p-value = 0.138) with a chi-square value of 12.32, p < 0.005. The model explained 13.6% (Nagelkere R²) of the variance in facing difficulties in PB and correctly classified 65.6% of cases. The results are summarised in Table 3 and further explicated.

Age: As the age increases, the difficulties faced by the disabled decreases (age = 0.996 times, p = 0.005) (see Table 3) slightly. Inference somewhat supports the argument that long-term disability leads to develop their own effective strategies to overcome the impediments in access to the PBs (Henly and Brucker, 2019).

Receipt of any aid: There are the evidences of the PWDs getting governmental financial support from aid for corrective surgery, getting disability pension or aid in form of loan, provide the substantive evidences of reduced difficulty in accessing the PBs (corrective surgery = 0.539 times, p = 0.000; disabled pension = 0.503 times, p = 0.008; in form of loan = 0.737 times, p = 0.000; aid from the organisation other than government = 0.722 times, p = 0.021).

Having a certificate of disability: Having a certificate of disability makes the disabled to avail the benefits and support of government schemes and opportunities. Having a greater number of disabled with the disability certificate reduced the difficulties in access to PB (having certificate = 0.755 times, p = 0.000).

Highest level of education: PWDs who are not literate perceived less difficulties in accessing the PBs (not literate = 0.785 times, p = 0.031).

Social group: The disabled from a disadvantaged group in society, that is, an ST is less mobile and has access to opportunities and facilities. Disabled from ST faced increased difficulty in access to PB (ST = 1.186 times, p = 0.045).

Living arrangement: The disabled who have a living arrangement with children faced 2.20 times more difficulty than living as an inmate of hostel or institution.

Arrangement of regular care giver: PWDs who have arrangements of regular caregivers with institutions or organisations are likely to face 2.61 times (2.61 times, p = 0.001) more difficulties in accessing PB, suggesting a lack of professionalism and training in the absence of a professional framework/regulation. Another possible reason for the lack of proper training is that caregivers are not able to support psychologically or empathetically in their work or education, which raises the question of the regulation and suitability of institutional caregiver support.

Another group of disabled people in need of caregivers, but who are not available faced the difficulties 2.46 times more than the others in accessing PB. On the other hand, the caregiver as a close relative reduced the difficulties faced in accessing PB (father = 0675 times, p = 0.045; spouse = 0.742 times, p = 0.002; son = 0.678 times, p = 0.006; sons-in-law = 0.552 times, p = 0.000; granddaughter = 0.186 times, p = 0.024).

The other independent variables like ‘Household Size’, ‘Gender’, and ‘Marital Status’ were included in the study but didn’t show any significant association.

Figure 8 presents the share of PWDs facing particular difficulties in accessing PBs in urban India. In PB, 64% of disabled people (out of which the disabled who use PBs) faced difficulties in steps, staircases, and non-availability of ramp-grooved tiles. Five per cent faced problems in opening doors in the PBs in urban India and 2% faced difficulties due to the non-availability of seats in waiting area PBs. Six per cent of PWDs faced difficulties due to no sign of direction, instruction, or public announcement system in PBs.

Previous studies have presented contradictory arguments regarding the age as the factor among PWDs, one argument presents the negative factor that it poses limitations in access (Brumbaugh, 2018; Corran et al., 2018) while contrarily it argues that with the age PWDs gain the experience to use the assistive device (Kaye et al., 2008; Ward et al., 2017), get familiar with the surroundings and environment and have easier access to the urban built environment (Henly and Brucker, 2019). The present study’s findings support the latter argument, older in age PWDs may develop the strategies to access and use the urban environment. Future research could further delve on how age-related experience influence PWDs’ ability to overcome accessibility barriers in the Indian context.

From the study of the global cities from Europe, Americas and Asia, Ouali et al. (2020) evidenced the gender differentials, as women with disability concerned more about safety concerns. Okezue et al.’s (2024) work on access to PBs suggested the gender factor prevalent in the Nigerian context. The spaces in the PBs that require safety and privacy like restrooms and medical care are not designed according to the needs of disabled female in context of Latin America and Caribbean nation (Reichenberger et al., 2024). In the present study, the relation was found to be statistically insignificant for the female disabled. Lopez–anuarbe and Kohli (2019) argued that large household have more potential caregivers and enhances the cultural interactions. But in present study ‘Household Size’ was not found statistically significant.

In this study, ‘highest level of education’ as a variable was considered as proxy of socio-economic status, the result is in contradictory to the previous discussion. In Indian context, the ‘not literate’ faced less barrier in access to PBs, can be interpreted as less education among the PWDs, lead to inability to access the digital mediums driving towards less awareness about their rights (Smith et al., 2024) and inability to self-advocacy asserting the severeness of PWDs status in the urban society (Petri et al., 2017) advocating the need for future study that can be directed towards further investigation in this context. Marital status of the PWDs is significant in shaping the perceived barrier condition of disabled person, directly affects the acceptance of disability, previous researches have indicated that quality and stability of marital relationship can influence how PWDs accept the condition and perceive their impairment over time. But on contrary, living arrangement with spouse they face difficulty and perceive barrier in access to PBs. Interestingly, married PWDs perceive no barrier when their regular caregiver is their spouse. This warrants further enquiry on the level of disability, whether both wife and husband are disabled and so on? According to Henning-Smith et al. (2018) the living arrangement is crucial because it affects how PWDs are treated. The analysis shows that PWDs who live with their children experience greater challenges than those in other living arrangements. Inferences suggest that adult and elderly disabled may struggle with independence due to excessive care from relatives, but hostels or institutional living arrangements can provide better quality of life and empowerment. Prioritising PWDs’ choices is crucial and initiating the debate and research direction in Indian urban context over the living arrangement. For both men and women, living alone or with a non-spousal relationship is linked to a higher risk of functional decline (Greenfield and Russell, 2011; Henning-Smith, 2016, 2017; Li, 2005; Matthews et al., 2005) and linked with relatively inferior quality of life and mental health (Henning-Smith, 2016, 2017).

In the PBs, PWDs ‘who are in need of caregiver, but caregiver is not available’, faced the most difficulties, it is quite evident from analysis that traditional caregiver or close relative as the caregiving are predominant trend in India. The result is in sync with the recent research conducted in the Indian context (Hridya et al., 2025). The presence of caregiver as the close relative led to perceive no barrier than institutional caregiver support. In accessing the PBs, it is inferred that Institutional caregiver arrangements pose more barriers, suggests absence of professionally trained personnel in the sector, need of capacity building in the sector. Caregiver from the institution for disabled is a specialised task and involves critical strategies and also it may vary from different types and levels of disabilities. It is evident in the Indian context, institutional caregivers particularly Non Governmental Organisations face their own capacity constrains like funding, organisational infrastructure, skilled staff, and technical resources (Murthy, 2016b; Rajan et al., 2024). Lack of robust regulatory framework and support further augments the difficulties of caregivers (Harbishettar et al., 2021). Personal assistants (PAs) for PWDs are individuals who provide a range of support services aimed at enabling PWDs to live more independently and participate fully in society (Ambit et al., 2019; Chou et al., 2023; Mladenov, 2020; Romer and Walker, 2013; Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022). The findings also initiate a debate on the provision of PAs in the Indian context and argue for trained professionals in this sector. As the disability brings socio-economic disadvantages, institutional or governmental financial aids are required to independently spent the life with dignity. The research affirms the fact that PWDs who have received the government or institutional aid for corrective surgery and disability pension or any financial help in form of loan have faced lesser barriers in the in the PBs. Financial aids from the government or institutions act as tools and resources to manage their health, these aids strengthen their self-efficacy and dignity, contributing to improved mental and physical well-being (Wang et al., 2023). Disability often limits access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and employment. Financial aid can bridge these gaps by enabling individuals to access necessary resources and participate fully in society (Yadav et al., 2023). Social norms usually dictate the way disabled are treated in the society; religious beliefs provide sustenance to these norms positively by providing support or negatively by perpetuating the stigma. So, the study evidenced the impact of religion as a whole on the difficulties faced by the PWDs. Disabled persons from the STs in India face the additional challenges including intersecting issues of socio-economic disadvantages and cultural factors. While discussing the tribal remoteness are related, access to healthcare is severely limited due to geographical remoteness; furthermore, the scarcity of healthcare professionals, inadequate infrastructure, and cultural and language barriers (Deb Roy et al., 2023) makes the situation worsen for PWDs. Other prevalent issue in urban context is the difficulty with steps, staircases, and the absence of ramp-grooved tiles, affecting over 60% of disabled individuals including the difficulties in opening doors, lack of seating, and inadequate signage or public announcement systems. These findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive accessibility improvements in urban infrastructure to ensure equal access and participation for PWDs in public spaces and services. In a recent study, Gaurav et al. (2023) asserted that due to architects’ lack of knowledge and their uninformed behaviour, schools in India are unable to address the design needs related to disabilities. Taking into account the societal determinant as background would help to better understand the factors and effective implementation of projects and schemes and add value to the idea of sustainability and inclusivity. This study has accounted a broader urban population of PWDs’ in urban Indian context, so the study is limited in the sense that regional differential or specific city context has not been captured in the study.

Present research quantitatively expresses the determinants of difficulties faced by PWDs in accessing PBs under the framework of the grounds of exclusion in Indian urban context. No previous study in Indian context has discussed the disability on the grounds of exclusion and models of disability. The arrangement of regular caregivers emerges as the predominant factor, while the factor living arrangements do not positively contribute to the model. In considering the social model of disability and the concept of independent living, it is essential for adults with disabilities to find a balance between loneliness and independent living. For adults with disabilities, residing in close proximity to persons with similar experiences may offer an encouraging and educational environment. Consequently, further research and investigation are warranted in this area. PWDs are often compelled to navigate built environments designed for able-bodied individuals, frequently encountering barriers. In the development of future urban environments, it is imperative to examine these factors in housing and accessibility to foster an inclusive society.

Caregiving and assistance are the cores of the present rights-based model of disability. Cultural and religious beliefs attribute the disabilities as ‘past life karma’ or other spiritual causes, certain cultural norms inclined towards accepting the disability as it is. These all lead to stigmatisation and isolation of caregivers and burden on caregiver, not receive support from the broader community (Edwardraj et al., 2010b). In India, conventionally the family is considered as the primary caregiver, may be due to community expectation this burden goes to one person usually women member in the family creates stress (Murthy, 2016c). Caregivers in India might not have access to suitable disability-specific training and resources and knowledge base affects the quality of care provided and caregivers’ attitude towards disabled (Ugargol et al., 2016).

The paper has given an account of the perception of PWDs, where they also experience the challenges in existing caregiving status in India, and the research highlights both the unavailability and the suitability of caregivers. The result supports that the caregivers for PWDs must possess specialised skills and be distinct from regular caregivers, particularly when accompanying individuals with disabilities in urban environments and the built environment should be designed and managed accordingly like accessibility of caregivers should be taken into account. In urban context, and metropolitan lifestyle family caregiving is stressful, leading conflicts between caregivers’ commitments and holistic development. Focusing on generation of services, skills, research, and training would present new avenues for non-disabled individuals also and could be a win-win situation with enhanced work participation and inclusiveness.

There are huge differences between the urban development policies targeting individuals with disabilities due to the infrastructure differentials, economic resources, and social attitudes. In developed countries, focus of policies is on inclusive city planning, leveraging technology and improve technology with innovative infrastructure. In Burgos (Spain), where PT accessibility is the major concern, evaluation of 431 bus stops was done in terms of barriers like inadequate vehicle, encroachment prevention, inadequately designed shelters, and unavailability of limited accessible formats like Braille, and a methodological framework was developed for this evaluation (Elorduy et al., 2025). Actionable approach and replicable framework were generated and applied for further development. Architects, engineers, and building designers are forerunners in designing and implementing barrier-free environment in urban areas. They need to consider the human-centric aspects in the building design, like lighting, daylighting within the buildings, vertical transportation, level differences, and signage. But there are some considerations that are beyond physical barriers like ambience for the PWDs and consideration of additional access to caregivers and PAs, which would help diverse types of disability in the urban environment.

In developing countries like India, acts and guidelines are there but two major gaps are there that for many terminologies like ‘caregiver’ and ‘Personal Assistance’, there is no clear operational definition and actionable roadmap or guidelines. Secondly, major guidelines (GoI, 2021; MoHUA, 2016) are just a collection of global accessibility practices and not contextual or developed with consistent research. So, following policy implications are suggested.

• The human rights–based disability model promotes the choice of PWDs for living arrangements, in the similar line the present study in the urban Indian context argues and recommends that welfare and empowerment of PWDs are not necessarily associated with the traditional living arrangements and their priorities should also be given importance. The study finds the need of caregivers and living arrangements as the significant determinant of difficulties faced in access to the PBs, current acts and policies, caregivers or personal assistance is insufficient in terms of ‘the rights-based model of disability framework’. Caregivers. Most important aspect about the caregiving is that this is applicable and effective in all types of disability. Caregivers enable PWDs to exercise their rights, access services, and live independently, highlighting the social intersection in disability rights. The rights-based model emphasises self-determination and independent living, so it advocates for the choice of living arrangements, need to be elaborated and emphasised in the policy and legal documents.

• The role of caregivers is critical for PWDs, and the individual needs of caregivers may be diversified, short-term, long-term, permanent support, and so on, depending on the level and type of disability. In general, caregiver arrangements are traditional in India, and they are sometimes imposed rather than choices or preferences. The present study shows that a significant number of the urban disabled are in need of caregivers, but are not available. The RPwD Act in 2016 mentioned very little about the caregiver arrangement, that is, it may be provided only for severe disability.

• The architect’s planner engineers and related professionals must consider the above determinants, as these factors are not physical and, hence, not visible. This understanding would enhance the effectiveness of urban projects, such as caregivers and PAs, and gender sensitivity while accessing PBs.

• In the Indian urban context, a gap remains in the services and quality of professional caregivers or PA services, and discontinuity of universal accessible infrastructure and absence of PA services need to be addressed in new emerging cities.

• The policymaker need to adopt ‘delivery at door’, policy, government need to reach out to the disabled for identification and certification process, this builds confidence among the disabled. Certification alleviates perceived difficulty of the disabled.

• Architects, planners’ engineers, and designers need to focus on vertical transportation in PBs, including the tactile tiles availability and installation in urban built environment. Identify the barriers caused by level differences and integrate technologies such as sensors, providing technical or personal assistance. Furthermore, regular accessibility audits and user feedback mechanisms could help identify and rectify specific barriers, ensuring a more inclusive urban environment for everyone.

This document has been prepared with assistance from AI-assisted technologies. While the AI was used for this purpose, the authors retain full responsibility for the content of the document. The authors have carefully reviewed, edited, and verified all content, ensuring its accuracy and originality. The AI was not used to create or alter images, graphics, or tables, and no AI tools were used for data analysis or research insights. The authors declare that they have adhered to all ethical guidelines related to AI use in academic writing.

The author acknowledges the National Sample Survey Organization and Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), India, for the 76th round of data collection and providing data in the public domain for research purposes.