Data Analytics
(ARC1113LCS)
Made by:
Riddhi Yadav
Mahi Patel
Residential Building Type and Activity Tendencies
The majority of respondents live in bungalows (35.1%) and high-rise apartments (24.3%), indicating neighbourhoods dominated
by planned housing layouts.
These housing types, as observed in similar contexts, generally correspond to structured rather than incidental physical activity,
since residents rely more on designated routes or parks instead of internal neighbourhood lanes.
Tenements (16.2%) and low-rise apartments (10.8%) provide a smaller but important segment whose movement patterns likely
remain more organic and necessity-based, influenced by closer building proximities and shared outdoor zones.
Gender Differences in Spatial Preferences
The gender distribution is nearly equal (51.4% male, 48.6% female), suggesting balanced representation in behavioural patterns.
Based on patterns associated with such distributions:
o Females typically prefer safer, more populated paths for walking and socialising.
o Males tend to use a wider range of public and semi-public areas.
These differences are important when interpreting preferences for early morning and evening activities seen in later charts.
Age Group Influence on Outdoor Engagement
The highest percentage of respondents belong to the 10–21 years age group (40.5%), not the 21–35 group—correcting earlier
misreading.
This demographic typically shows the highest engagement with open spaces, informal play areas, and walking routes.
The presence of a large youth cohort explains:
o Higher participation in walking, playing, and casual outdoor sitting,
o The tendency for short-duration weekday activities,
o Increased weekend activity time compared to weekdays.
Education Level and Activity Behaviour
A significant portion of respondents are studying in school (35.1%), followed by post-graduates and undergraduates.
Educational context strongly shapes physical activity:
o School/college-goers typically engage in daily short-duration activity, often tied to commuting or recreation.
o Higher education levels indicate greater awareness of health, aligning with activity patterns such as yoga, walking, and
jogging
Occupation
Students dominate (62.2%), far exceeding other groups such as in-service workers or business owners.
Students usually display higher daily movement due to:
o Commute-based walking/cycling,
o Recreational visits to nearby open spaces,
o Group outdoor activities.
Lower participation by working professionals explains the low engagement in long-duration activities during weekdays.
Household Income and Movement Patterns
A large segment lies in the 1.25–6 lakh and 6–12 lakh income brackets, representing lower–middle income groups.
Such households typically demonstrate:
o More necessity-driven walking/cycling,
o Lower reliance on personal vehicles,
o Greater use of local parks, open grounds, and nearby streets for activity.
This aligns with the charts showing walking as the most frequent activity across all durations.
Neighbourhood Familiarity (Years of Residence)
Many respondents have lived in the neighbourhood 7–12 years, indicating long-term familiarity with available public spaces.
Longer residence correlates with:
o Comfortable use of parks and open paths,
o Consistent walking behaviour,
o Higher weekend engagement compared to newer residents.
Facilities at Home and Activity Substitution
Higher numbers of TVs, fridges, washing machines, and mobile phones indicate moderate economic stability.
Lower presence of cars and ACs suggests residents likely depend more on nearby neighbourhood spaces for recreation,
reinforcing the high usage of walking paths and outdoor sitting areas.
Years of Residence in the Neighbourhood
• A majority of respondents have lived in the neighbourhood between 7–10 years, indicating a stable and long-term resident base.
• The highest single group is 7 years (13.5%), suggesting that mid-term residents form a significant part of the community.
• Smaller clusters at 1–4 years show that new residents exist but do not form a large proportion of the sample.
• Longer durations such as 15, 20, 28, and 40 years appear consistently, reflecting generational continuity and familiarity with local
spaces.
• This wide distribution suggests that experiences of the neighbourhood vary across long-term, mid-term, and newer residents,
influencing satisfaction and activity patterns differently.
z
Primary Motivation / Destination for Physical Activity
• Walking is primarily performed for school/work, showing that daily commuting contributes significantly to physical activity levels.
• Recreation is a strong motivator across all activity types, especially for walking and other physical activities, indicating active use of
neighbourhood leisure spaces.
• Cycling is rarely linked to shopping or errands, reflecting limited cycling infrastructure or safety concerns for utility cycling.
• Shopping and small errands contribute minimally to overall activity, showing that most movement in the neighbourhood is not utility-
based.
• Other physical activities (like yoga, exercise, sports) are predominantly recreation-driven, highlighting the importance of parks and open
spaces for non-commute activity.
House Ownership Status
81.1% are homeowners, but data does not indicate strong behavioural differences linked to ownership.
Physical activity patterns in the charts appear more influenced by age, occupation, and education, rather than ownership.
Satisfaction with neighbourhood infrastructure is moderate.
Residents are mostly “satisfied” with green spaces, safety, sidewalks, and aesthetics.
However, very few are “very satisfied,” highlighting the need for improvements in maintenance, safety, and walkability—especially during monsoon and
winter.
Weekly Recreation Time
Most respondents spend 120–300 minutes per week on recreational physical activity.
This indicates moderate activity levels consistent with neighbourhoods that offer reasonable, but not exceptional, open-space
infrastructure and accessibility.
Satisfaction Levels
• Most respondents rated all neighbourhood elements as “Satisfied (3)”, indicating generally positive but not exceptional conditions.
• Green spaces, sidewalks, and aesthetics receive strong satisfaction, but very few residents feel “Very Satisfied”, suggesting room for
quality improvements.
• Playgrounds and physical activity opportunities show more “Unsatisfied (2)” responses, highlighting gaps in equipment, maintenance, or
accessibility.
• Safety stands out as one of the highest-rated aspects, with several “Very Satisfied (4)” responses, showing strong comfort and trust in
local surroundings.
• Social activity opportunities are viewed positively overall, but limited “Very Satisfied” ratings indicate the need for better-designed
community interaction spaces.