INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6739

www.rsisinternational.org

Gender Analysis of a Women-Friendly City: A Case Study of Subang

Jaya

M. Shahrizan, Rahmat., Lay Hong, Tan., Boon Cheong, Chew., and Syaiful Rizal, Hamid.

Centre of Technopreneurship Development (CTeD), 75450 Ayer Keroh, Melaka, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000551

Received: 26 October 2025; Accepted: 01 November 2025; Published: 18 November 2025

ABSTRACT

As Malaysia’s first designated Women-Friendly City, Subang Jaya provides a unique opportunity to examine

how gendered perspectives shape urban design and public perception. This study applies gender analysis to

assess the planning, implementation, and post-occupancy stages of the city’s development. Through a review

of local gender-mainstreaming policies, site observations, expert interviews, and a survey of 200 residents, the

research highlights critical gaps and successes in gender integration. Findings indicate limited collaboration

between women-friendly city planners and gender policy experts during the planning phase, leading to only

partial implementation of gender-responsive measures. Nevertheless, survey results reveal that both women

and men generally perceive Subang Jaya as safe. Notably, gender differences in safety priorities emerge: men

tend to value CCTV surveillance, while women place greater importance on active safety features like

emergency call buttons. This suggests a preference among women for proactive safety mechanisms over

passive monitoring systems. The paper argues that embedding a gender-sensitive approach in urban planning is

crucial to building inclusive, equitable, and responsive cities—offering important insights for Subang Jaya’s

continued evolution as a Women-Friendly City.

Keywords: Gender Equality; Inclusive City; Women-Friendly City ; Gender Analysis; Urban Planning

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on inclusiveness in urban development, particularly in

areas such as inclusive city, and the safety and freedom of women (Datta, 2021). Studies have highlighted the

inclusiveness of access to Information and Communication Technology (Othman et al., 2023) and the role of

smart technology in designing inclusive urban public spaces (German et al., 2023; Itair et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the fields of transportation and mobility have garnered significant attention, especially regarding

women’s experiences. Research has explored women’s transportation modes (Uteng and Susilo, 2021),

sustainable transportation practices (Bamwesigye and Hlavackova, 2019), and women’s representation in the

smart transportation sector (Monteagudo and Colleoni, 2021; Pirra et al., 2021). Other studies focused on ICT-

driven mobility services and gender considerations in smart mobility solutions (Mostofi, 2022; Singh, 2020;

Lindkvist, 2024).

Cities such as Vienna have proactively incorporated gender considerations into urban planning, prioritising

women’s safety and accessibility in public space development (Young, 2024). These efforts offer empirical

evidence that supports gender equality improvements in urban development. Globally, only 10% of the

leadership roles in urban planning are occupied by women (Terraza et al., 2020).

Despite the increased focus, urban development often fails to fully integrate the principles of gender equity and

inclusion (UN-Habitat, 2020). Feminist scholars argue that planning remains androcentric, neglecting women’s

distinct urban experiences such as mobility patterns, caregiving roles, and safety concerns (Hanson, 2023;

Sánchez de Madariaga and Neuman, 2021). In addition, the rise of smart cities, although promising in terms of

efficiency and connectivity, has intensified gender-blind spots. Male-dominated STEM fields shape

technologies that often overlook women’s needs (Wajcman, 2023; Datta, 2022). However, some interventions

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6740

www.rsisinternational.org

(for example CCTV, emergency apps, and ride-hailing equity) exist, and broader issues of bias in AI, IoT, and

digital governance remain underexplored (Bansal et al., 2023).

Nevertheless, pioneering efforts like Vienna’s gender-mainstreaming policies and Dubai’s AI-driven public

transport safety features show potential, even though cultural limitations persist (Urban Development Vienna,

2021; Fedorenko and Kolos, 2023). In Southeast Asia, Jakarta’s Kota Ramah Perempuan and Kuala Lumpur’s

safety audits indicate progress but lack systemic integration of gender-responsive smart technologies (UN

Women, 2023).

Among these global efforts, Subang Jaya stands out as a significant case. Recognised in 2017 as Malaysia’s

first Women-Friendly City by the Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development, Subang Jaya

implemented initiatives such as gender-responsive design, safer public spaces, and gender budgeting (MBSJ,

2022).

Discussing women-friendly cities has become increasingly relevant owing to rapid urbanisation, growing

inequalities, and the pressing need for sustainable solutions. These initiatives propose innovative approaches to

enhance resilience and quality of life, while aligning with global development goals. Notably, SDG 11

(Sustainable Cities and Communities) advocates for inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable urban areas (Feng

et al., 2023; Rauf et al., 2023), and Target 11.7 specifically promotes access to safe public spaces for women

and marginalised groups (UN, 2015). The intersection of SDG 11 with goals such as poverty reduction (SDG

1), education (SDG 4), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), clean energy (SDG 7), economic growth (SDG 8),

and climate action (SDG 13) further underscores its importance (Vaidya & Chatterji, 2020).

Limited research on women friendly city design and gender equality has shown that gender-sensitive urban

planning significantly enhances women’s safety, accessibility, and wellbeing (Barnes, 2021; Yadav and

Kumari, 2021; Gutiérrez Mozo, 2020; Rampaul and Magidimisha-Chipungu, 2022; Campisi et al., 2022).

Empowerment is central to this process, enabling women to participate in decision making and shape the

spaces they inhabit (Morrow, 2018). Integrating gender perspectives into urban planning ensures that women’s

voices are heard, needs are met, and public spaces become more inclusive (Dalu and Manyani, 2020).

Against this backdrop, this study investigates Subang Jaya as a critical case study. Recognised as Malaysia’s

first Women-Friendly City, Subang Jaya provides a unique context for examining the outcomes and challenges

of gender-responsive urban initiatives. This study evaluates how urban planning in Subang Jaya addresses

women’s needs through a gender perspective.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gender Mainstreaming

Originating from the 1996 Beijing Conference, the concept of Gender Mainstreaming represents a commitment

to transforming the gender dynamics in public policies. This shift has moved from a singular focus on specific

objectives to a broader approach that emphasises structural change. A key aim of this initiative is to

incorporate gender perspectives into legislation, public policies, programmes, and projects. The European

Union has embraced this idea, recognising Gender Mainstreaming as a fundamental element for integrating

gender perspectives into its policies (Pollack and Hafner-Burton, 2000). Despite widespread international

support, the academic community continues to debate the concept of gender mainstream. Numerous definitions

exist, with those from the UN Economic and Social Council, the European Institute for Gender Equality

(EIGE), and the Council of Europe (1998) being among the most widely accepted (Rees, 2005). However,

these definitions have sparked considerable discussion on the essence of Gender Mainstreaming. There is some

consensus on distinguishing its role as a concept, strategy, vision, or practice (Daly, 2005; Otero-Hermida and

Lorenzo, 2020; Pollack and Hafner-Burton, 2000; Walby, 2005).

From a theoretical standpoint, Gender Mainstreaming has been identified as one of the three frameworks

within gender policy (Rees, 2005; Booth & Bennett, 2002; Verloo, 2005). According to Verloo (2005), these

frameworks include the equal opportunity approach, specific equality policies, and gender mainstream. The

primary distinctions between the third framework and the other two are their focus and objectives. While the

first two frameworks concentrate on women as individuals or groups, Gender Mainstreaming adopts a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6741

www.rsisinternational.org

transformative approach by focusing on structures. The intervention logic of this framework views

policymaking as a process that is not neutral and that has the potential to perpetuate existing inequalities, thus

necessitating transformation (Lombardo et al. 2017).

From a strategic standpoint, policymakers can systematically employ the Gender Mainstreaming tool to rule,

structure, process, and policy to institutionalise the integration of gender mainstreaming (Daly, 2005). This

perspective interprets Gender Mainstreaming in terms of policies, goals, and actions aimed at achieving gender

equality. Verloo’s (2005) words help us better grasp the distinction between Gender Mainstreaming as a

concept and strategy. In her research, she refers to the term’ integrationist process” to describe the method of

incorporating the gender perspective into existing policy paradigms or frameworks, which represents the

strategic perspective. Based on this definition, Gender Mainstreaming, as a strategy, lacks substantive

implications. It can be applied concurrently through various policy frameworks (Booth and Bennett, 2002).

Policymakers can implement gender mainstreaming through policies with diverse orientations, which is almost

a technocratic application of the tool (Walby, 2005). Strategically, no uniform explanatory logic exists for

gender inequality. That is, policymakers have neither pinpointed the primary cause of gender inequality nor

selected a specific policy tool to tackle it; they have not crafted gender policies according to a particular policy

framework (Verloo, 2005).

In short, we can say that, according to the literature, gender mainstreaming is a concept related to a specific

political framework, i.e., a logic of intervention, to achieve the objective of gender equality, and at the same

time, it is a strategy, i.e., a protocol of intervention. When analysing its implementation in policies, this

peculiarity obliges us to consider those dual conceptions and analyse Gender Mainstreaming with different

methodologies, depending on the perspective of interest. On the one hand, the search for gender in all phases

of the public policy cycle and, on the other hand, the reconstruction of the political framework of the gender

initiatives of the actions should be considered.

The Local Dimension As A Social And Institutional Context

The local scale is a privileged space for studying urban policymaking, as the competences and autonomy of

cities in urban planning and development are at the municipal level. From a multilevel perspective, cities

concentrate on political power and wealth. Investments are being made to finance major urban development

events and projects (Brenner et al., 2010; Pinson, 2022; Rossi and Vanolo, 2010), while simultaneously

increasing displacement and spatial segregation (Harvey, 1996; Wacquant, 2008). From a social perspective,

urban planning plays a fundamental role in producing and reproducing cities and urban inequalities (Leal and

Sorando, 2015; Leal Maldonado, 2002; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). While many intersectionalities (e.g., age,

sexual orientation, “race1”) shape urban dynamics. Planning has had a meaningful impact on the reproduction

of gender inequality. Urban planning has historically been developed by men for men (Bondi, 1998; de

Madariaga and Neuman, 2020; Gilbert, 1997; Hayden, 1980; McDowell, 1983, 2000), and, as Greed and

Reeves (2005) point out, specific gender roles result from different uses of the environment. Indeed, space is

socially produced and the result of multiple power relations between entities, agents, and forces that shape

reality (e.g. Harvey, 1996; Massey, 1994; Soja, 2000, 2010).

Furthermore, planning incorporates a vision of the future and therefore plays a fundamental role in securing

opportunities for women (Beebeejaun, 2017). One strand of feminist geography suggests that the division of

urban spaces reflects the sexual division of labour. Women are designated for reproductive and private roles

and excluded from the productive sphere, which is political, economic, and public (Blumen, 1994; Carrasco,

2019; Orozco, 2014). This mechanism is exercised through the planning of the urban structure (Beebeejaun,

2017; Bondi, 1998; de Madariaga, 2004) and the public transport system (Blumen, 1994; de Madariaga, 2004),

which influences the use of time (Sayer, 2005), security, lack of security, and the narrative of urban insecurity

(Valentine, 1989; Pain, 2001; Fenster, 2005). All of these elements alienate women from public spaces.

Masculinised planning is therefore unable to capture different non-masculine needs. This bias increases

barriers to equal opportunities and highlights the need for gender planning (Dym´en and Ceccato, 2012;

Listerborn, 2007).

In Malaysia, the urban landscape is not merely a backdrop for social dynamics but is shaped by overlapping

institutional frameworks at the national and regional levels, where ASEAN plays a significant role. Within the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6742

www.rsisinternational.org

ASEAN, both urban development and gender equality have emerged as important issues. Urban development

has gained momentum, particularly through initiatives such as the ASEAN Sustainable Urbanisation Strategy

(ASUS), which emphasises inclusive and equitable urban growth (ASEAN Secretariat, 2020). Similarly,

gender equality has been embedded within ASEAN frameworks since the ASEAN Declaration on the Gender-

Responsive Implementation of the ASEAN Community Vision 2025, though it is often approached from a

broad social perspective without explicit urban-specific gender directives (ASEAN, 2017).

At the Malaysian national level, gender mainstreaming is a long-standing commitment, guided by policies such

as the National Policy on Women 2009, and reinforced through Malaysia’s obligations under the Convention

on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). However, similar to the

European context, evidence suggests that while general inequalities are acknowledged in Malaysia's urban

planning documents, gender-specific urban inequalities are often not explicitly highlighted (Ministry of

Women, Family, and Community Development, 2019). Despite this, the integration of gender perspectives is

required in national planning frameworks, such as the Shared Prosperity Vision 2030 and the 12th Malaysia

Plan (Economic Planning Unit, 2021), where inclusive development goals implicitly call for gender-sensitive

urban interventions.

Malaysia’s institutional structure also mirrors a multilevel approach, where responsibility for implementing

gender mainstreaming is distributed across the federal, state, and municipal levels. At the federal level, the

Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development oversees national gender policies and strategies,

whereas state governments are encouraged to develop localised gender-responsive policies. For example,

Selangor’s Women Empowerment Agenda (2020–2025) outlines regional commitments to gender inclusivity

in public infrastructure and governance (Selangor State Government, 2020). At the municipal level, some local

authorities have introduced gender-responsive budgeting and planning initiatives, although their

institutionalisation and effectiveness vary across jurisdictions.

Thus, although Malaysia recognises the importance of gender mainstreaming in urban policies at multiple

governance levels, challenges remain in ensuring that gender considerations are consistently and explicitly

integrated throughout the policy cycle. As in the ASEAN framework, Malaysia’s approach relies heavily on

national, regional, and local authorities to interpret and implement gender mainstreaming measures without

singular binding guidelines. This decentralised model means that while gender mainstreaming is formally

recognised, its practical application in urban development projects is often uneven, depending on the local

political will, resources, and institutional capacity.

Academic research on gender mainstreaming in urban planning is limited. However, several studies have

explored the critical dimensions of this issue. One study conducted in Perlis investigated gender-related

barriers to effective public participation in land use planning. The findings revealed that while gender did not

significantly influence overall participation barriers, male respondents reported a more positive experience

regarding exclusion from the participation process compared to their female counterparts (Saad, Zulkifli, &

Hassan, 2024). This suggests that women may still face subtle forms of exclusion in participatory urban

processes, underscoring the need for gender-sensitive engagement strategies.

Additionally, broader regional studies have examined the intersection of gender equality and the development

of smart, sustainable cities. A recent literature review emphasised the importance of incorporating gender-

sensitive design principles and leveraging advanced technologies to create more inclusive urban environments

that address the specific needs of women and marginalised groups (Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2025).

These emerging findings highlight the necessity of further academic enquiry into the gender dimensions of

urban planning in Malaysia, particularly as the country moves towards achieving sustainable and equitable

urban development.

Inclusive City

The concept of an inclusive city was initially perceived as a nebulous urban entity that was intricately linked to

various aspects of urban development (Meena and Singh, 2010). Numerous definitions for inclusive cities have

been proposed. First advocated by the United Nations in 2001, an inclusive city is characterised as a locale

where all individuals, irrespective of their economic status, gender, race, ethnicity, or religion, are enabled and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6743

www.rsisinternational.org

empowered to fully engage in the social, economic, and political opportunities available (Berrone and Joan,

2022). Subsequently, this concept was further elaborated. The Asian Development Bank (2022) extends the

notion to encompass liveability, defining an inclusive city as one that "creates a safe, liveable environment

with affordable and equitable access to urban services, social services, and livelihood opportunities for all the

city's residents and other city users to promote optimal development of its human capital and to ensure the

respect of human dignity and equality.

While the precise definition of an inclusive city remains a subject of debate, numerous public institutions and

scholars have analysed the concept through various dimensions. At the policy level, the World Bank (2015a)

posited that an inclusive city encompasses a complex interplay of spatial, social, and economic factors. The

New Urban Agenda (UN-Habitat, 2016) envisions inclusive cities as those that prioritise safe, accessible,

green, and high-quality public spaces conducive to family life, fostering social and intergenerational

integration, and promoting social cohesion, inclusion, and safety within peaceful and pluralistic societies.

Scholars have provided more detailed descriptions of the dimensions of inclusive cities. Robin (2014)

emphasizes that political, social, economic, and environmental aspects are all critical components of an

inclusive city, and excelling in these areas is essential for achieving inclusive city status. Liang et al. (2022)

further identify five conceptual dimensions of inclusive cities: social inclusion, economic inclusion, spatial

inclusion, environmental inclusion, and political inclusion. These dimensions are interrelated and mutually

reinforcing, thereby influencing a city’s overall inclusiveness (Liang et al., 2022).

This study utilises five holistic dimensions of inclusive city development derived from a comparative analysis

of the definitions and dimensions of inclusive cities. These dimensions are primarily informed by research

conducted by Liang et al. (2022), which offers the most comprehensive categorisation of inclusive city

dimensions, whereas other studies address only a subset of these dimensions. Moreover, our study does not

fully adopt the definitions of these five dimensions; rather, it integrates perspectives from other researchers and

organisations, resulting in a more comprehensive and representative definition of dimensions, as illustrated in

Table 1.

TABLE I: Conceptual dimensions of inclusive cities: authors' adjustment of Liang et al. (2022)

Dimension

Description

Authors

Economic

inclusion

Economic inclusion is the process by which individuals and households

are gradually integrated into the broader economic and community

development. By alleviating material inequities and addressing structural

barriers to marginalized groups, their economic conditions and status are

improved.

Andrews et al.

(2021); Liang et al.

(2022); World

Bank (2015b)

Social

inclusion

Social inclusion is the process of making all groups of people within a

society, especially people who are disadvantaged on the basis of age, sex,

disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, economic, or other statuses,

feel safe, involved, valued, and respected.

Anttiroiko and de

Jong (2020b);

World Bank

(2015b)

Spatial

inclusion

Spatial inclusion requires cities to provide affordable land and housing in

strategic places, and accessible public infrastructure and basic services,

such as hospital and medical services, energy infrastructure, waste

management, ICT infrastructures, etc.

Elias (2020); Liang

et al. (2022); World

Bank (2015a)

Environmental

inclusion

Environmental inclusion requires that contemporary human beings do not

carry out their mode of production and consumption in such a manner

that the needs and interests of future generations are sacrificed. To

achieve this goal, climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable

transportation, and environmental protection are suggested.

Liang et al. (2022);

Elias (2020); UN-

Habitat (2016)

Political

inclusion

Political inclusion means that every citizen should have equal rights and

opportunities to participate in and contribute to the functioning of

democratic institutions and processes. These institutions and processes

include elections, legislative processes, political parties, and parliament

composition, etc

Bilodeau et al.

(2020);

Liang et al. (2022)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6744

www.rsisinternational.org

Women-Friendly City

A women-friendly city was conceptualised in the 1970s, starting with the claim that women's activists in North

America should ensure women's safety in daily life. The discussion in the 1980s centred on women's safety in

urban planning and how urban operations should be integrated from a gender perspective. The concept of

women-friendly cities was spread around the world through the ‘European Declaration for Urban Women

(ECWC)’ in 1994 and ‘UNHabitat II Urban Women's Life’ in 1996. This was the first official discussion of

building gender-equal cities.

Earlier studies, from 1987 to 2010, focused mainly on the concepts of justice, participation, and equality in

shaping women-friendly environments. Hernes (1987) introduced the idea of a woman-friendly city where

women can balance work, family, and public life without facing greater sacrifices than men. Building on this

foundation, Tokman (2009) emphasised the importance of making cities liveable for women through their

active participation in local decision-making processes and equal access to urban spaces, while KWDI (2010)

stressed the equal participation of men and women in community policy and development, ensuring women's

safety and growth.

In the mid-decade from 2015 to 2019, discussions began to include more practical urban planning measures

and critiques of social structures. Taewook (2015) highlighted the link between women-friendly cities and

sustainable economic and family life, while Kiper et al. (2016) stressed the need for gender-responsive urban

infrastructures, such as safe transportation, public spaces, and housing. Meanwhile, Meysam Zekavat and

Arezoo Momenian (2018) as well as Esra Banu Sipahi and Erhan Örselli (2019) pointed out that structural and

social norms continue to create barriers for women, arguing for an approach based on gender justice rather

than simple equality.

The latest views from 2020 to 2022 reflect a shift toward systemic change and implementation of institutional

programs to bring about real transformation. The Cities Alliance (2020) argued that women have not yet fully

achieved the "right to the city”, highlighting issues such as the gender pay gap, unsafe environments, and

restricted mobility. They called for a paradigm shift in policymaking and citizen education to ensure the full

participation of women in urban spaces. Building on this momentum, Cengiz et al. (2022) illustrated how

programs such as the United Nations Women-Friendly Cities Joint Program work to guarantee women's access

to essential services, protection from violence, and meaningful involvement in local planning and decision-

making processes, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive urban development on a practical and

institutional level.

There are several pertinent case studies showing the pragmatic uses of gender-responsive urban development

in response to the demand for more complete knowledge of women-friendly city projects tackling gender

equality (see Table 2)

Table II: Case Study on the Gender Responsiveness Urban Development

City

Initiative/ Project

Objectives

Strategies implemented

Outcomes

References

Barcelona

Smart lighting

project

Improve safety

for women in

public spaces

Installation of smart

lighting

systems in high-risk

areas

Reduced crime rates

and

increased women’s

sense of safety

Roberts,

2023; Veloso

et al., 2024

Amsterdam

Gender-sensitive

urban planning

Enhance

accessibility for

women

Inclusive design

processes involving

community feedback

Improved public

transport services for

women

Roberts,

2023; Veloso

et al., 2024

Vienna

Gender

mainstreaming

Inurban planning

Create inclusive

public spaces

Gender impact

assessments in urban

projects

Enhanced safety and

accessibility for

women

Young, 2024

Toronto

Smart city

strategy

Promote gender

equity in urban

development

Community

engagement initiatives

focusing on women’s

needs

Increased

participation of

women in urban

planning processes

Tierney,

2019

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6745

www.rsisinternational.org

Jakarta

Multimodal public

transportation

evaluation

Assess service

quality from a

gender

perspective.

Gender-based service

quality evaluation,

focus group

discussions, surveys

Identification of

service gaps and

improvements in user

satisfaction among

different genders.

Owais et al.,

2024

Singapore

Smart nation

initiatives

Improve urban

planning and

quality of life

through

technology

Integration of IoT, data

analytics, AI in urban

planning and

transportation.

Reduced traffic

congestion by 35%,

increased energy

efficiency by 20%.

Chan and

Chye, 2023

Tangerang

City

Smart city

initiatives for

resilience

Enhance city

resilience to

disasters,

including

COVID-19

Development of

software applications,

community

engagement programs

Improved disaster

response capabilities

and community

awareness during

emergencies

Kusumastuti

et al., 2022

Lusaka

Gender equality

and economic

growth

Promote gender

equality to boost

economic

development.

Policies for women’s

workforce

participation, access to

education and health

services.

Increased women’s

participation in the

economy, enhanced

household incomes.

Ngulube et

al., 2024

Pune

Smart city

governance

Integrate citizen

participation in

urban

governance and

service delivery

Community

engagement in

budgeting and waste

management processes.

Improved public

services and citizen

satisfaction through

participatory

governance.

Tayeng et al.,

2024

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As defined by USAID (2017), gender analysis is "an analytic, social science tool that is used to identify,

understand, and explain gaps between males and females that exist in households, communities, and countries,

and the relevance of gender norms and power relations in a specific context." This process involved examining

potential gender disparities and evaluating the impact of policies on men and women, which may be

unintended and lead to adverse consequences.

One approach to conducting gender analysis involves examining the planning process, from the initial

formulation of goals to the actual plan, implementation, and postimplementation evaluation. This was achieved

by measuring the differences in how the resulting environmental impacts affected the male and female users.

Urban planning is often ‘gender-blind’, operating under the assumption that decisions benefit ‘everybody’.

However, this approach frequently leads to the default prioritisation of male experiences and perspectives.

Oudshoorn et al. (2004) initially argued that this unconscious ‘male default’ overlooks the various ways in

which environments impact women and men from different social backgrounds, ages, and abilities. Recent

studies have reaffirmed and expanded on this criticism. For example, Gül et al. (2023) emphasised that urban

spaces and infrastructure designed without a gender lens tend to reinforce inequalities, particularly in relation

to mobility, accessibility, and safety. Their research showed that an inclusive urban design must intentionally

address the lived experiences of all genders to mitigate these disparities. Similarly, Kyttä et al. (2022) highlight

that traditional planning approaches often fail to consider the nuanced everyday spatial needs of women, such

as childcare responsibilities, fear of violence, and dependency on public transportation.

Moreover, contemporary research cautions against relying on gender stereotypes in urban designs. As noted by

the Gendered Innovations Initiative (2020), design decisions should be grounded in empirical evidence based

on real users' needs, practices, and preferences. This is echoed in a recent work by Čolić Marković and

Danilović Hristić (2025), who emphasise the importance of participatory planning that includes community-led

insights from women and other marginalised groups to avoid the reproduction of exclusionary spaces.

Gathering this evidence requires engagement through observations, structured surveys, and in-depth interviews

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6746

www.rsisinternational.org

that capture the everyday experiences of diverse users. These participatory methods are crucial for producing

urban spaces and infrastructure that are not only inclusive, but also responsive to the evolving needs of all

residents. The steps in the gender analysis include the following:

(i) Evaluating past urban design and infrastructure practices through a gender perspective,

(ii) Mainstreaming gender analysis into design,

(iii) Analyzing users and services,

(iv) Obtaining user input, and

(v) Evaluation and planning (Schiebinger, 2019).

The gender analysis in this study was structured according to the gender mainstreaming process in urban

planning and was reorganised into three phases: planning, implementation, and evaluation (see Table 1). To

explore the gendered dimensions of Subang Jaya, various methods were employed, including a literature

review focusing on a women-friendly city, a site study, expert interviews, and a resident survey conducted

within Subang Jaya.

Table III Gender analysis through literature review, site study, interviews, and survey

Gender Mainstreaming in Planning

Literature Review Site Study

Interview

Survey

Planning Stage

√

Implement Stage

√

Post-Occupancy Evaluation Stage

√

First, the literature review concentrated on women-friendly city guidelines, with an emphasis on Subang

Jaya’s initiatives under the Women-Friendly City framework introduced by the Subang Jaya City Council

(MBSJ). Key sources include urban development efforts to improve walkability, safety audits, and policy

implementation to support inclusive public facilities. Additionally, the researchers reviewed various

guidelines, including the New Urban Agenda (NUA), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), UN Security Council Resolutions

(SCR), UNESCO Priority Gender Equality Action Plan (2014–2021, 2019 Revision), the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), UN Human Rights, the Environment, and Gender

Equality (2021), Selangor Women's Policy, and the Subang Jaya Women-Friendly City Action Plan.

Second, interviews were conducted with eight professionals, including urban planners, MBSJ representatives,

gender studies academics, between February 2024 and April 2025. These semi-structured interviews (detailed

in Table 4) aimed to understand how gender considerations are integrated into the planning and

implementation of women-friendly city features within Subang Jaya.

Table IV Interviewee and selection criteria

Interviewee

Criteria Selection

City council member 1

Department of Corporate & Strategic Management

City council member 2

Department of Corporate & Strategic Management

Urban Planner 1

Department of Urban Planning

Urban Planner 2

Department of Urban Planning

City council member 3

Department of Community Development

City council member 4

Department of Community Development

Academic Expert

Academic Expert in Urban Sociology or Gender and Development Studies

State Assembly Women

State Assembly Women Of Subang Jaya

Third, a structured questionnaire survey was distributed between October 2024 and March 2025, targeting

residents in several neighbourhoods across Subang Jaya, including SS15, the USJ, and Bandar Sunway. A total

of 200 valid responses were collected with a balanced representation across gender and age groups (see Table

5). The survey explored daily walking behaviours, including frequency, duration, time of day, and purpose

(Table 6). Further questions examined the residents’ perceptions of pedestrian safety in Subang Jaya,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6747

www.rsisinternational.org

particularly in areas with higher foot traffic or near public transport stations. The survey assessed the perceived

level of women-friendliness in public spaces and awareness of MBSJ’s women-friendly city efforts.

Finally, the degree of awareness and perceived effectiveness of smart urban installations, such as CCTV, smart

streetlamps, panic buttons, and emergency call boxes, were measured to evaluate their role in enhancing public

safety and women's comfort in navigating urban spaces.

Table V Description of survey respondents

Description

Number of Respondent

Total

Male

Female

Age

10–19 years

20–29 years

30–39 years

40–49 years

50–59 year

60 and over

Total

108

200

Table VI Survey questions

Category

Checklist

Selected Guidelines (Subang Jaya Context)

Urban

Planning

Principles for a

Convenient Pedestrian

Environment

i,Improve pedestrian accessibility by eliminating curbs and uneven

pavements.

ii.Ensure barrier-free walkways linking residential areas, schools, and

public facilities.

Safety in Urban Design

i.Install sufficient lighting, CCTV, and emergency call buttons along

walkways, parks, and near transit stops.

ii.Apply Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

principles, especially around trail entrances and parks.

Support for Work-Life

Balance

i.Promote integrated planning by co-locating childcare centers,

healthcare, and community centers along pedestrian-accessible

corridors.

ii.Address the lack of centralized support services within walking

distance.

Linking Functions

Centered on Streets

i.Prioritize pedestrian access to public buildings (e.g., MBSJ offices,

clinics, childcare, and cultural centers) along active street frontages.

ii.Revitalize vacant roadside lots with public amenities to enhance

walkability and social interaction.

Urban

Infrastructure

Safe Walking Space

i.Maintain consistent lighting levels along main pedestrian paths with

a minimum illumination of 20 lux.

ii.Improve sidewalk conditions, reduce trip hazards, and ensure

covered walkways especially near commercial zones and public

transport stations.

Illumination Around

Pedestrian Crossings

i.Ensure well-lit pedestrian crossings, targeting 500 lux illumination,

especially near schools, bus stops, and high-traffic junctions.

Lighting Installation

i.Install pedestrian-scale lighting on all major walkways and

pedestrian crossings, especially in high footfall areas like SS15, USJ,

and Bandar Sunway.

Crime Prevention

Facilities

i.Install CCTV surveillance and emergency intercom systems in

identified high-risk areas (e.g., bus stops, secluded walkways).

ii.Collaborate with local law enforcement for real-time monitoring.

Secure Sight Lines

i.Design clear sight lines by managing landscaping, street furniture,

and tree placement to reduce blind spots.

Safe Crosswalk Design

i.Install raised or table-top pedestrian crossings especially near

schools and residential areas.

ii.Mark school zones and children's safety paths clearly with visible

signage and color-coded pavement.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6750

www.rsisinternational.org

Implementation Stage

Subang Jaya’s ambition to become a women-friendly city is visible in policies promoting walkability, safety,

and community participation. However, challenges have emerged at the implementation stage, highlighting a

disconnect between planning and execution, similar to the issues observed in other city developments.

In Subang Jaya, several neighbourhoods, such as SS15, USJ, and Bandar Sunway, have been earmarked for

urban renewal and pedestrian safety improvements. These initiatives align with women-friendly city

principles, particularly in high footfall zones. However, despite the inclusion of these principles in planning

documents, their actual implementation has been inconsistent. Street lighting, secure walkways, and gender-

sensitive design standards are often compromised during construction, owing to budgetary constraints or

conflicting priorities among stakeholders. For example, proposals to extend the use of public-school facilities

after school hours to support working mothers with childcare have not been realised. School administrators

raised concerns about security risks, operational burdens, and the lack of clear policy directions from the

Ministry of Education. This has resulted in missed opportunities to support work-life balance for women,

especially in lower-income households. Moreover, the integration of smart city components with gender-

inclusive planning remains weak. Subang Jaya has invested in smart surveillance systems (CCTV, smart

lighting, etc.), yet these were developed without a gendered lens. Interviews with local officials revealed that

urban safety initiatives under the smart city umbrella rarelydifferentiate between male and female users and do

not systematically collect gender disaggregated data. A member of the MBSJ council acknowledged, “Most of

the urban improvements are based on general smart city frameworks. No dedicated monitoring mechanism has

focused on women’s experiences in public spaces. We assume improvements are gender-neutral, but that’s not

always the case.” Urban planners and architects involved in the development of Subang Jaya also expressed

frustration. A local female architect shared, “In many cases, we consulted only after the master plan was

finalised. By then, the physical layout had already been fixed, making it difficult to retrofit women-friendly

principles meaningfully. The core of the issue is not embedding gender considerations early in the planning

process.” This reflects a larger issue in Malaysian urban governance: fragmentation among agencies involved

in city planning and operation. For example, state and federal agencies, MBSJ, developers, and private

contractors often operate silos. When projects are handed over from developers to local authorities, knowledge

transfer is minimal, resulting in confusion regarding operational responsibilities and weak post-occupancy

management. As one official commented, “It’s hard to trace who’s accountable when facilities don’t function

as intended. This delays necessary adjustments, especially those affecting safety and accessibility for women.”

Crucially, women’s participation in planning and implementation remains insufficient. Engagement often

happens too late—at the point of post-occupancy evaluations (POE)—when most infrastructure decisions have

already been made. Experts emphasise the need to establish participatory governance models at the community

level where women can influence planning from the outset. A local women-friendly city advocate remarked,

“It’s not just about asking women what they want—it’s about building a system where their feedback

continuously shapes policy and implementation.” A smart city consultant working with MBSJ supported this

view, stating that citizen-led smart initiatives are gaining traction through pilot projects and hackathons, but we

lack a formal mechanism to collect, integrate, and act on feedback, especially from underrepresented groups

such as women, the elderly, and single mothers. We need inclusive governance and targeted budgets to support

this shift.” In conclusion, while Subang Jaya’s women-friendly city vision is commendable, the lack of

coordination among stakeholders, limited early-stage participation of women, and absence of gendered data

collection undermines its realisation. Moving forward, a community-based governance structure and

institutional frameworks that prioritise gender inclusion are essential for bridging the gap between planning

and reality.

Post-Occupancy Evaluation Stage

In Subang Jaya, Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) are an underutilized instrument in the domains of urban

development and city planning. Despite the rapid development of new townships such as USJ Heights, Putra

Heights, and certain areas of Bandar Sunway under the branding of smart and liveable cities, there remains a

paucity of formal evaluation mechanisms that incorporate residents' feedback, particularly from a gender

perspective. To explore gender-related patterns in public space usage, a community survey was conducted

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6751

www.rsisinternational.org

across selected residential zones in Subang Jaya with an emphasis on maintaining a balanced gender ratio

among respondents. The survey examined walking behaviour across sexes. Attest analysis revealed that men

and women in Subang Jaya showed no significant differences in walking frequency, time, or duration. This

indicates that the general walking environment is perceived as comparably usable and accessible for both

genders, a positive reflection of the city’s efforts to improve pedestrian infrastructure, including walkable

sidewalks and connected green corridors. However, differences were evident in walking destinations,

reinforcing existing studies that highlight gendered mobility patterns. Men in Subang Jaya were more likely to

walk to commercial areas such as SS15, Summit USJ, or Da Men Mall, whereas women walked more often to

leisure-oriented spaces such as parks, playgrounds, or community gardens in areas such as USJ 2, Subang Ria

Park, or Subang Jaya Linear Park. Moreover, a higher proportion of women reported walking to transit stops

and bus hubs, such as BRT and LRT stations, compared to men, reflecting a stronger reliance on public

transport among women for daily mobility needs (Tables 8 and 9).

Table VIII Gender differences in walking destinations.

Desrtination

(Multiple Choice)

Commercial

Facilities

Educational

Facilities

Bus

Stop

Public

Instituitions

Parks/Streams/Other

Green Areas

Others

Total

43.0

25.0

38.0

26.0

41.0

2.0

Male

50.0

27.8

35.2

25.9

33.3

1.9

Female

34.8

21.7

41.3

26.1

50.0

2.2

Table IX Gender differences in pedestrian behaviour in Subang Jaya

Average

Standard Deviation

t-Value

p-Value

Male

Female

Male

Female

Frequecy

2.52

2.54

1.255

1.206

-0.101

0.920

Duration

3.56

3.63

1.127

1.082

-0.337

0.737

Day/night time

1.91

1.83

0.708

0.643

0.597

0.552

must be capitalized exceptRegarding the perception of pedestrian safety, approximately 47% of residents

believed that Subang Jaya’s newer developments offered safer walking environments compared to other areas,

while only 16% perceived them as less safe. Interestingly, there were no significant gender differences in

overall safety perception, indicating an increasing baseline of confidence in the city's walkability initiatives.

However, certain zones—especially dimly lit or under-patrolled back alleys near commercial districts—

continue to evoke concern among women, especially after dusk (Table 10)

Table X Safety relative to other districts (p < 0.01)

Safety Relative to Other Districts (%)

Total

Average

Standard

Deviation

t-Value

p-Value

Yes

No Difference

Total

47.0

16.0

37.0

100.0

Male

37.0

16.7

46.3

100.0

1.80

0.711

1.580

0.117

Female

58.7

15.2

26.1

100.0

1.57

0.750

In terms of gender inclusivity, 58% of respondents viewed Subang Jaya’s public spaces as women friendly.

Gender breakdown showed that 60.9% of women agreed with this statement compared to 55.6% of men,

suggesting that female residents feel slightly more positive about the inclusivity efforts made by the city

council (MBSJ), especially where community programs, better lighting, and surveillance are present.

Despite these advantages, awareness of specific gender-targeted initiatives, such as designated women-friendly

zones or smart safety corridors (e.g. areas monitored with CCTVs or equipped with panic buttons), was

remarkably low. More than 60% of the surveyed residents said they were unaware of such initiatives, with

women displaying twice the level of awareness as men. This may suggest that communication and public

outreach strategies are not effectively reaching male residents, or that such initiatives are not visibly branded or

signposted (Table 11)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6752

www.rsisinternational.org

Table XI Correlation Between

Gender

Awareness of Specially

Designed Zone for Women

Awareness of Safe

Street

Gender

Pearson Correlation Sig

(2-tailed)

100

-0.311**

0.002

100

-0.269**

0.007

100

Awareness of

Specially Designed

Zone for Women

Pearsom Correlation Sig

(2-tailed)

-0.311**

0.002

100

0.879**

0.000

100

Awareness of Safe

Street

Pearson Correlation Sig

(2-tailed)

-0.269**

0.007

100

0.879**

0.000

100

Correlation analysis further revealed that awareness of women-specific zones was strongly correlated with

awareness of smart safety corridors, with a correlation coefficient of 0.879, indicating a strong relationship

between the two. Residents who were aware of one were more likely to be aware of the other. This suggests

that when gender-focused urban designs are communicated effectively, they are noticed, appreciated, and

understood, particularly by women (see Table 12).

Table XII Summary of Results

Stage

Findings

Planning Stage

-Gendered considerations were incorporated into early planning; however, many principles

were disregarded during implementation, leading to a lack of synergy in women-friendly

initiatives.

-Women-specific zones and smart safety street proposals were included, but collaboration

issues between agencies (local government, educational institutions) led to non-

implementation of key proposals.

-Limited involvement of female residents during the planning phase resulted in missed

opportunities for input in the development of smart city features and community

infrastructure.

Implementation

Stage

-A lack of cooperation between construction agencies and local governments hindered the

realisation of women-friendly city concepts.

-Unrealised proposals, such as after-school care initiatives in schools, due to administrative

barriers and security concerns.

-Women-friendly city elements such as pedestrian paths, street lighting, and community

spaces were applied in Subang Jaya as a whole, but specific differentiation for women’s

needs was not implemented at the district level.

-Integration problems resulted in a lack of communication across key actors in the project

regarding operational challenges and follow-through on women-specific plans.

In conclusion, the findings highlight that while Subang Jaya is making progress in improving urban walkability

and safety across genders, there is still a pressing need to institutionalise Post-Occupancy Evaluations, enhance

community outreach, and integrate gender-specific considerations more clearly in signage, branding, and

feedback mechanisms. Empowering communities—especially women—to participate meaningfully in both

evaluation and planning processes is essential for Subang Jaya to truly evolve into a model women-friendly

city.

DISCUSSION

Women-friendly cities aim to integrate gender-sensitive perspectives into urban planning and policies that have

traditionally been male-centred. This approach challenges urban planning practices that have historically

included men in the public domain and relegated women to the private sphere. Traditionally, housework and

caregiving roles have been assigned to women, but with the increasing number of working women, criticism

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6753

www.rsisinternational.org

has grown regarding the failure of urban planning to reflect the changing status and needs of women.

Specifically, much attention has been paid to the constraints that women face because of their domestic roles,

particularly focusing on their space-time movement patterns (Rose, 1993).

In Subang Jaya, Women-Friendly City was found to offer a relatively gender-equal and safe pedestrian

environment. This was achieved through women-friendly space planning and the installation of smart solutions

such as emergency bells for crime prevention. Both men and women recognised the area as a safe walking

environment, but women were significantly more aware of crime prevention features, such as emergency bells,

than men. This highlights the need for gender-sensitive urban planning that considers the differences in

perceptions of safety.

Interviews with experts revealed the following key issues.

i. Cooperation gaps: There was minimal collaboration between women -friendly city planners and urban

planners in both planning and operational phases. Administrative silos and the lack of mutual understanding

between different sectors have hindered the effectiveness of integrated operations.

ii. Gender-neutral smart solutions: While gender-sensitive guidelines were partly incorporated into the

planning of smart city initiatives, no differentiated solutions were provided for women-specific zones. Smart

solutions such as CCTV, integrated urban information centres, safety apps, and emergency bells were

implemented uniformly across Subang Jaya, rather than being tailored to address women’s unique needs.

iii. Awareness gaps: Many residents in Subang Jaya are unaware that the city has been designated as a

Women-Friendly City. This lack of awareness limits public engagement and reduces the effectiveness of

targeted interventions aimed at enhancing safety and inclusivity.

iv. The policy implications of these findings can be divided into three stages:

Planning Stage

i. Establish institutionalised communication between women-friendly city experts and urban planners.

The lack of coordination and communication between these sectors has impeded their effective integration. To

allow for better cooperation, authorities must ensure that clear responsibilities and boundaries are established

for each participating entity during the planning process.

ii. Integrating gendered data into urban planning. Currently, gender-neutral data from transportation and

pedestrian activity surveys makes it difficult to address gender-specific needs. Women’s movement patterns,

caregiving burdens, and fear of crime should be considered when designing urban spaces.

iii. Increase user input through Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE): Although planning for entirely new

cities such as Subang Jaya can limit community input, feedback through POEs in existing areas provides

valuable insights for more gender-sensitive urban planning. Collecting user input is essential to avoid a one-

size-fits-all approach when planning facilities and public spaces.

Implementation Stage

Embedded gender mainstreaming principles in the implementation process. Subang Jaya ‘s Women-Friendly

City was intended to be a 'one-stop' location for facilities such as schools, shops, and bus stations. However,

because of poor coordination, this concept was not fully realised during the implementation phase. To avoid

such issues, gender mainstreaming must be part of the implementation and not just in the planning stage. Smart

city features must be gender-responsive and incorporated into the operational phases to meet the needs of all

residents.

Post-Occupancy Evaluation Stage

i. Increased efforts to gather data on the everyday experiences of Subang Jaya residents. Gathering

information on personal experiences will enable planners to better understand how gender influences daily life

in urban spaces. Gendered data should be collected consistently because current data collection methods in

Subang Jaya, as in many other cities, do not disaggregate information by gender. This hampers their ability to

create gender-sensitive plans.

ii. Ensure that women actively participate in the planning process. Historically, women’s participation in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6754

www.rsisinternational.org

urban planning in Subang Jaya and in other areas has been limited. The introduction of gender-sensitive

planning principles encourage active female participation in decision making. Given that urban policies impact

women and men differently, gender mainstreaming at the policy level is crucial for achieving gender equality

in urban spaces. However, this study suggests that greater integration of gender-sensitive principles is needed

across the planning, implementation, and post-occupancy evaluation stages to create truly inclusive cities.

Further studies are needed to identify specific factors that contribute to gender differences in urban settings.

Future research should explore how to create a gender-safe walking environment with tailored smart solutions

and consider the needs of other vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. While this study focuses on

Subang Jaya, its findings offer valuable insights into creating a more inclusive and gender-sensitive, women-

friendly city. Despite its limitations, focusing on a single district and survey respondents, this study contributes

significantly to understanding how gender-sensitive planning can improve urban environments for all

residents.

Ethical Compliance

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the

ethical standards of Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) and the Centre for Research and Innovation

Management (CRIM), UTeM.

Conflict Of Interest Declaration

The authors declare that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any

financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka for the

financial support provided through the UTeM PJP grant secured under grant number

PJP/2024/FPTT/PERINTIS/S01991. The authors also extend their sincere appreciation to Universiti Teknikal

Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) and the Centre for Research and Innovation Management (CRIM) for their

continuous support. Special thanks are also due to Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya for their valuable

collaboration and assistance throughout the research.

REFERENCES

1. Anttiroiko, A.-V., & de Jong, M. (2020b). Smart city governance: From e-government to urban e-

governance. Springer.

2. Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., & Gal, P. N. (2021). The best versus the rest: The global productivity

slowdown, divergence across firms and the role of public policy. OECD Productivity Working Papers.

https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrs3sbcrvzx-en

3. ASEAN. (2017). ASEAN Declaration on the Gender-Responsive Implementation of the ASEAN

Community Vision 2025. ASEAN Secretariat.

4. ASEAN Secretariat. (2020). ASEAN Sustainable Urbanisation Strategy (ASUS). ASEAN Secretariat.

5. Asian Development Bank. (2022). Creating livable and inclusive cities in Asia. Asian Development

Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/creating-livable-and-inclusive-cities-asia

6. Bansal, G., Hanna, A., Lasecki, W. S., & Binns, R. (2023). Bias in AI and digital governance:

Addressing overlooked dimensions. Journal of AI Ethics, 4(1), 45–60.

7. Bamwesigye, D., and Hlavackova, P. (2019). Analysis of sustainable transport for smart cities.

Sustainability 11:2140. doi: 10.3390/su11072140

8. Barnes, M. (2021). Gender-sensitive urban planning: Strategies for safer cities. Urban Studies, 58(4),

733–750.

9. Beebeejaun, Y. (2017). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs,

39(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526

10. Berrone, P., & Joan, E.-R. (2022). Cities and the inclusive growth agenda: A roadmap for practitioners.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6755

www.rsisinternational.org

IESE Business School.

11. Bilodeau, A., White, S., & Nevitte, N. (2020). Citizenship, political engagement, and belonging:

Immigrants in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

12. Blumen, O. (1994). Gendered spaces: The social and spatial relations of the sexes. Urban Geography,

15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.15.1.1

13. Bondi, L. (1998). Gender, class, and urban space: Public and private space in contemporary urban

landscapes. Urban Geography, 19(2), 160–185. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.19.2.160

14. Booth, C., & Bennett, C. (2002). Gender mainstreaming in the European Union: Towards a new

conception and practice of equal opportunities? European Journal of Women's Studies, 9(4), 430–446.

https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068020090040301

15. Campisi, T., Akgün, N., Nikiforiadis, A., & Tesoriere, G. (2022). Women and urban mobility:

Perspectives from European cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 89–96.

16. Carrasco, C. (2019). The city and the gender division of labor. Urban Studies, 56(10), 2025–2040.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018789050

17. Cengiz, R., Soytemel, E., & Öztürk, S. (2022). Women-Friendly Cities Joint Programme: Institutional

mechanisms for gender-sensitive urban development. Gender, Place & Culture, 29(5), 648–666.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2022.2040127

18. Chan, J. H., & Chye, L. H. (2023). Smart nation strategies in Singapore: Gender perspectives in urban

technology adoption. Journal of Smart Cities and Urban Innovation, 4(2), 145–160.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciu.2023.04.007

19. Cities Alliance. (2020). Women and the city: How gender equality can transform cities for all. Cities

Alliance. https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/women-and-

city

20. Čolić Marković, J., & Danilović Hristić, N. (2025). Participatory urban planning: Gender-responsive

approaches for inclusive city spaces. Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 11(1), 22–39.

21. Dalu, M. T. B., & Manyani, A. (2020). Mainstreaming gender in urban planning for inclusive cities.

Journal of Planning Literature, 35(3), 299–313.

22. Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in

Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023

23. Datta, A. (2021). Gender, urban spaces and gendered resistances: towards inclusive and fear free cities

in India. Reflections on 21st Century Human Habitats in India: Felicitation Volume in Honour of

Professor MH Qureshi. 327–43. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-3100-9_13

24. Datta, A. (2022). Gendering the smart city: From surveillance to inclusion. Urban Geography, 43(1),

88–109.

25. de Madariaga, I. S. (2004). Urban planning and gender equality: The role of gender in shaping the city.

Gender, Place & Culture, 11(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369042000258660

26. de Madariaga, I. S., & Neuman, M. (2020). Engendering cities: Designing sustainable urban spaces for

all. Routledge.

27. Dymén, C., & Ceccato, V. (2012). Gendered mobility and the spatiality of fear: A study of women's

fear in public spaces in Sweden. Urban Studies, 49(13), 2881–2899.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012439112

28. Economic Planning Unit. (2021). Twelfth Malaysia Plan, 2021–2025: A prosperous, inclusive,

sustainable Malaysia. Prime Minister's Department, Malaysia.

29. Elias, J. (2020). Gender, security, and climate change: Observing global discourses through a feminist

lens. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 22(3), 366–372.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2019.1664928

30. Esra Banu Sipahi, & Erhan Örselli. (2019). The women-friendly city approach and an evaluation of

Eskişehir, Turkey. Megaron, 14(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2019.40630

31. Fedorenko, I., & Kolos, A. (2023). Smart transport solutions for women's safety: Lessons from Dubai.

International Journal of Urban Sciences, 27(2), 225–240.

32. Feng, Y., Wang, S., & Yang, S. (2023). Urban sustainability and the role of SDG 11: A critical review.

Sustainability, 15(3), 1156.

33. Fenster, T. (2005). The right to the gendered city: Different formations of belonging in everyday life.

Journal of Gender Studies, 14(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230500264109

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6756

www.rsisinternational.org

34. German, S., Metternicht, G., Laffan, S., and Hawken, S. (2023). Intelligent spatial technologies for

gender inclusive urban environments in today’s smart cities. Intellig. Environm. 2023, 285–322. doi:

10.1016/B978-0-12-820247-0.00012-6

35. Gilbert, A. (1997). The new urban economy: A review of the literature. Urban Studies, 34(5–6), 953–

970. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098975853

36. Greed, C., & Reeves, D. (2005). Mainstreaming equality into strategic spatial policy making: Are town

planners losing sight of gender? Town Planning Review, 76(3), 267–288.

https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.76.3.3

37. Gendered Innovations Initiative. (2020). Gendered innovations in science, health & medicine,

engineering, and environment. Stanford University. https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/

38. Gül, Z., Demirtaş-Milz, N., & Arslan, M. (2023). Rethinking gender and space in urban infrastructure:

A feminist critique of inclusive planning. Urban Studies Review, 60(3), 401–420.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221103778

39. Gutiérrez Mozo, M. E. (2020). Gender, safety, and urban spaces: A global analysis. Urban Design

International, 25(2), 80–95.

40. Hanson, S. (2023). Feminist geography and the challenge to androcentric urban planning. Gender,

Place & Culture, 30(1), 1–15.

41. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Blackwell.

42. Hayden, D. (1980). What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and

human work. Signs, 5(3), S170–S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/495718

43. Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Norwegian

University Press.

44. Itair, M., Shahrour, I., and Hijazi, I. (2023). The use of the smart technology for creating an inclusive

urban public space. Smart Cities. 6, 2484–98. doi: 10.3390/smartcities6050112

45. Kiper, P., İlhan, A., & Kiper, G. (2016). Gender-responsive urban planning for safer public spaces: A

case study of Ankara. Urban Planning International, 31(3), 89–96.

46. KWDI (Korean Women's Development Institute). (2010). Policy measures for the promotion of

women-friendly cities. KWDI.

47. Kusumastuti, R., Wibowo, A., & Gunawan, Y. (2022). Building urban resilience through smart city

initiatives in Indonesia: The case of Tangerang City. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

71, 102802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102802

48. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., & Tuominen, P. (2022). Everyday mobility and spatial needs: A gendered

perspective on inclusive city planning. Journal of Transport Geography, 102, 103356.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103356

49. Leal Maldonado, J. (2002). Urban restructuring and changing patterns of socio-economic segregation in

Madrid. In Inequality and rising levels of socio-economic segregation (pp. 214–237). Amsterdam

University Press.

50. Leal, J., & Sorando, D. (2015). Economic crisis, social change and segregation processes in Madrid. In

Inequality and rising levels of socio-economic segregation (pp. 214–237). Amsterdam University Press.

51. Liang, X., Lu, Y., Yang, R., & Wu, W. (2022). Inclusive cities: A conceptual framework and empirical

analysis. Cities, 125, 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103582

52. Liang, X., Shen, J., & Liu, H. (2022). Inclusive cities: Concept, measurement, and implications for

urban governance. Cities, 129, 103839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103839

53. Lindkvist, C. (2024). Gendered mobility strategies and challenges to sustainable travel—patriarchal

norms controlling women’s everyday transportation. Front. Sustain.Cities 6:1367238. doi:

10.3389/frsc.2024.1367238

54. Listerborn, C. (2007). Who speaks? And who listens? The relationship between planners and women’s

participation in local planning in a multi-cultural urban environment. GeoJournal, 70(1), 61–74.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9114-8

55. Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (2017). Policymaking from a gender+ equality perspective.

Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1198207

56. Manzoor, M. A., Hassan, S. U., Muazzam, A., Tuarob, S., and Nawaz, R. (2023). Social mining for

sustainable cities: thematic study of gender-based violence coverage in news articles and domestic

violence in relation to COVID-19. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 14, 14631–42. doi:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6757

www.rsisinternational.org

10.1007/s12652-021-03401-8

57. Meysam Zekavat, & Arezoo Momenian. (2018). Gender justice in urban spaces: Women’s experiences

in Iranian cities. Journal of Urban Management, 7(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.02.002

58. MBSJ. (2022). Subang Jaya: Malaysia’s first women-friendly city initiative. Majlis Bandaraya Subang

Jaya Official Report.

59. McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment

and Planning D: Society and Space, 1(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1068/d010059

60. McDowell, L. (2000). Gender, identity and place: Understanding feminist geographies. Polity Press.

61. Meena, M. S., & Singh, K. M. (2010). Inclusive urban development: Concept and indicators. Indian

Journal of Social Development, 10(1), 19–30.

62. Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development. (2019). National Policy on Women 2009.

Government of Malaysia.

63. Morrow, O. (2018). Designing urban spaces for women's empowerment: Participatory approaches.

Cities, 76, 1–8.

64. Mostofi, H. (2022). The frequency use and the modal shift to ICT-based mobility services. Resources,

Environm. Sustainab. 9:100076. doi: 10.1016/j.resenv.2022.10

65. Ngulube, T., Banda, L., & Mbewe, S. (2024). Gender equality and economic transformation: A case

study of Lusaka. Journal of African Urban Studies, 6(1), 23–38.

66. Orozco, A. (2014). The sexual division of labor and the urban space: A feminist perspective. Gender,

Place & Culture, 21(7), 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.810601

67. Otero-Hermida, P., & Lorenzo, A. A. (2020). Mainstreaming gender in public policies:

Transformations, limits, and difficulties. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(9), 1259–1277.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1681363

68. Owais, S., Yuliani, N., & Hakim, A. (2024). Evaluating multimodal public transportation from a gender

lens: The case of Jakarta. Transportation and Gender Equity Journal, 2(1), 55–70.

69. Othman, A., AlMutawaa, A., Al Tamimi, A., and AlMansouri,M. (2023). Assessing the readiness of

government and semi-government institutions in qatar for inclusive and sustainable ICT accessibility:

introducing the MARSAD tool. Sustainability 15:3853. doi: 10.3390/su15043853

70. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and

design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human

Values, 29(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190

71. Pain, R. (2001). Gender, race, age and fear in the city. Urban Studies, 38(5–6), 899–913.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120046590

72. Pirra, M., Kalakou, S., Carboni, A., Costa, M., Diana, M., Lynce, A. R. A., et al. (2021). preliminary

analysis on gender aspects in transport systems and mobility services: Presentation of a survey design.

Sustainability 13:2676. doi: 10.3390/su13052676

73. Pollack, M. A., & Hafner-Burton, E. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of

European Public Policy, 7(3), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760050086116

74. Rampaul, C., & Magidimisha-Chipungu, S. S. (2022). Safe cities for women: A gender perspective in

urban design. International Planning Studies, 27(2), 156–172.

75. Rauf, M. A., Amin, R., & Afzal, M. (2023). Sustainable urban development and the integration of

SDGs: Policy implications for smart cities. Journal of Urban Management, 12(1), 67–78.

76. Rees, T. (2005). Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe.

International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740500284532

77. Robin, E. (2014). The urban politics of climate change: Policy and planning in global cities. Geography

Compass, 8(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12118

78. Roberts, M. (2023). Reclaiming urban space: Women’s safety and inclusive smart city initiatives in

Europe. Urban Futures, 18(3), 201–217.

79. Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. University of

Minnesota Press.

80. Rossi, U., & Vanolo, A. (2010). Urban political geographies: A global perspective. Sage Massey, D.

(1994). Space, place, and gender. University of Minnesota Press.

81. Saad, S., Zulkifli, N., & Hassan, H. (2024). Gender-related barriers to effective public participation in

land use planning: A study in Perlis, Malaysia. Journal of Planning and Development, 20(1), 45–58.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6758

www.rsisinternational.org

82. Sánchez de Madariaga, I., & Neuman, M. (2021). Engendering cities: Planning for equity. Routledge.

83. Sayer, A. (2005). The moral significance of class. Cambridge University Press.

84. Selangor State Government. (2020). Women Empowerment Agenda (2020–2025). Selangor State

Government.

85. Schiebinger, L. (2019). Gendered innovations: How inclusive analysis contributes to research and

innovation. European Commission.

https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/gendered_innovations.pdf

86. Soja, E. W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions. Blackwell.

87. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.

88. Swyngedouw, E., Kaika, M., & Castro, J. E. (2002). Urban water: A political-ecology perspective.

Built Environment, 28(2), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.28.2.124.14765

89. Taewook, K. (2015). Women-friendly cities for sustainable development: A study of Korean practices.

Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 7(2), 123–137.

90. Tayeng, D., Sharma, P., & Bhargava, A. (2024). Smart city governance and gendered participation:

Insights from Pune, India. Asian Urban Governance Review, 9(1), 44–61.

91. Terraza, H., Orlando, M. B., Lakovits, C., Janik, V. L., and Kalashyan, A. (2020). Handbook for

Gender-Inclusive Urban Planning and Design. Washington, DC: World Bank.

92. Tierney, A. (2019). Smart city strategy in Toronto: Gender inclusion through urban data and civic

engagement. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(5), 629–648.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1511799

93. Tokman, V. E. (2009). Advancing women’s participation in urban governance through women-friendly

city initiatives. UNESCO International Social Science Journal, 60(195), 269–282.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2009.01709.x

94. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

95. UN-Habitat. (2020). Gender equality in urban development: Current trends and perspectives. United

Nations Human Settlements Programme.

96. UN Women. (2023). Women-friendly cities in Southeast Asia: Progress and prospects. United Nations

Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

97. UN-Habitat. (2016). World cities report 2016: Urbanization and development – Emerging futures.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report

98. UN-Habitat. (2016). New Urban Agenda. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/

99. UN-Habitat. (1996). Women’s lives in urban places: UN-Habitat II. United Nations Centre for Human

Settlements.

100. Urban Development Vienna. (2021). Gender mainstreaming in urban planning: The Vienna model. City

of Vienna.

101. USAID. (2017). ADS Chapter 205: Integrating gender equality and female empowerment in USAID's

program cycle. U.S. Agency for International Development.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/205.pdf

102. Uteng, P., and Susilo, Y. (2021). Women and transport modes. Int. Encyclop. Transpor. doi:

10.1016/b978-0-08-102671-7.10600-1

103. Vaidya, C., & Chatterji, T. (2020). Urban governance and the sustainable development goals: A

gendered perspective. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 11(1), 1–16.

104. Valentine, G. (1989). The geography of women's fear. Area, 21(4), 385–390.

105. Veloso, E., Martin, S., & Alvarez, M. (2024). Inclusive design in smart cities: Gender-responsive

infrastructure in Amsterdam and Barcelona. Journal of Urban Innovation and Equity, 5(1), 88–104.

106. Verloo, M. (2005). Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. The

Greek Review of Social Research, 117, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.9334

107. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Polity Press.

108. Wajcman, J. (2023). The gender politics of smart cities. Information, Communication & Society, 26(1),

36–52.

109. Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics:

International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 6759

www.rsisinternational.org

110. World Bank. (2015a). Inclusive cities approach paper. The World Bank Group.

https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-

reports/documentdetail/402451468169453117/inclusive-cities-approach-paper

111. World Bank. (2015a). Stocktaking of the housing sector in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and

opportunities. World Bank.

112. World Bank. (2015b). Inclusion matters: The foundation for shared prosperity. World Bank.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16195

113. Yadav, S., & Kumari, P. (2021). Urban planning and women's safety: A comparative study. Journal of

Urban Studies Research, 2021, 1–10.

114. Young, A.W. (2024). Get Thee to a Smart City: a Study on Queer Urban Planning in Seestadt Aspern.

Central European University. Available at: https://www.etd.ceu.edu/ 2024/young_alina.pdf

115. Young, K. (2024). Mainstreaming gender in urban development: Lessons from Vienna. Cities and

Gender Policy Review, 7(2), 101–119.