Develops a composite index for placemaking quality in urban markets, indicating its applicability in the Global South.
Purpose: Despite widespread adoption of placemaking as an urban design strategy, quantitative tools for measuring its multidimensional qualities remain scarce, particularly in Global South contexts. This study develops and validates a composite Placemaking Index (PI) for assessing neighborhood market environments. Methods: Drawing on international placemaking frameworks and contextualized to Indian urban markets, we developed a 30-item instrument measuring seven dimensions: Economic & Livelihood, Community Engagement, Social & Cultural Interaction, Physical & Functional Attributes, Aesthetic & Environmental Quality, Well-being & Comfort, and Overall Sense of Place. Surveys were administered to 1,200 respondents across three neighborhood markets in Lucknow, India. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) identified the dimensional structure, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement model. A composite PI was computed using CFA-derived weights and applied for cross-site comparison. Results: EFA revealed a robust seven-factor structure explaining 87.4% of total variance. CFA confirmed excellent model fit (χ²/df = 1.87, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.037). All dimensions demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.95) and construct validity (CR > 0.84, AVE > 0.64). PI scores varied significantly across sites (F = 29.82, p < 0.001), with Patrakarpuram exhibiting the highest placemaking intensity (M = 74.61), followed by Kapoorthala (M = 71.18) and Engineering College Road (M = 69.47). Conclusion: The validated PI provides a reliable, replicable tool for quantifying placemaking quality in urban markets, bridging qualitative theory and quantitative assessment. The index enables cross-context comparisons, supports evidence-based planning decisions, and offers a scalable methodology for evaluating spatial interventions in Global South cities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naqvi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: