Accessibility and Equity in Sustainable Urban Planning: Insights from Developed Countries for Developing Cities

Abstract

Urban sustainability has increasingly emphasized accessibility and inclusivity, reflecting the growing recognition that urban planning must address the diverse needs of different social groups. In recent decades, several developed countries have pioneered inclusive urban planning, resulting in projects such as Vienna’s gender mainstreaming community and Barcelona’s Superblocks, which respond to differentiated needs in housing, transportation, and public space. However, these initiatives demonstrate how sustainable urban planning can enhance social equity and livability. Similar efforts in developing countries remain limited, fragmented, or nonexistent. This study examines representative cases from developed nations to discern fundamental principles and strategies that underpin effective inclusive urban planning. The study utilizes a case study and comparative analytic approach to clarify aspects such as transportation accessibility, safety, multifunctional community, and public space. The results suggest that incorporating inclusion into sustainable planning frameworks can enhance accessibility, promote social justice, and improve environmental resilience. The paper concludes by offering realistic, grounded suggestions for developing countries based on established best practices from around the world. The suggestions focus on strategies that can be tailored to each country’s social, cultural, and economic conditions.

1. Introduction

In the twenty-first century, sustainable urban planning has become a significant national issue, as cities are growing rapidly and inequality is increasing, necessitating immediate and long-term solutions [1]. Sustainable Development Goal 11, as outlined by the United Nations, emphasizes the importance of cities being inclusive, safe, diverse, and sustainable. This illustrates the importance of city planning in addressing social justice, environmental degradation, and government inefficiency [1]. In recent years, both scholars and policymakers have given considerable attention to the concept of inclusive urban planning. This is because people recognize that sustainable cities can benefit everyone in the community [2].

Studies indicate that inclusive urban planning strategies yield numerous benefits, including improved access to public services, enhanced mobility, safer public spaces, greener landscapes, and increased social cohesion [3,4]. The majority of effective sustainable urban planning initiatives have occurred in developed nations, particularly in Europe and North America. In developed nations, initiatives demonstrate that design strategies such as mixed-use housing, pedestrian-friendly districts, and participatory governance can simultaneously enhance sustainability and social fairness [5,6,7,8]. In developing countries, on the other hand, similar efforts are often limited, fragmented, or face significant implementation barriers due to a lack of funding, weak governance, and competing development priorities. Contemporary examinations of sustainable urban planning often focus on specific nations or distinct case studies. Few studies undertake comprehensive analyses across multiple cases. Furthermore, due to the differing economic, political, and cultural contexts across countries, the sustainable urban planning approaches proposed by most existing research cannot be universally applied [9]. Moreover, current sustainable urban planning research lacks explicit clarification of the conceptual linkages between inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability. It is even rarer to find practical guiding principles that integrate urban planning theory with SDG 11.

This study constructs a framework for achieving sustainable urban planning grounded in SDG 11. The framework emphasizes that realizing SDG 11 requires consideration of Inclusive Urban Planning, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Adaptive Governance, and Ecological Urbanism. By analyzing exemplary cases of sustainable inclusive urban planning in developed nations, this study explores how their fundamental principles offer insights for future planning in developing countries, thereby formulating universally applicable guidelines. Employing case studies and comparative analysis, the research distills key solutions: transport accessibility, public space safety, multifunctional community development, and public space optimization. Findings demonstrate that integrating inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability into urban frameworks enhances livability, equity, and resilience in the face of environmental shifts. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for developing nations, stressing flexible approaches that balance global best practices with local requirements. The innovation of this research lies in situating urban planning theory within SDG 11. Based on four representative case studies, it proposes a four-dimensional framework. Through cross-case comparison, it achieves adaptability across diverse developing-country contexts rather than merely cataloging experiences.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. From SDG11 to Four Urban Planning Theories

The concept of sustainable development was first introduced in 1987, when the United Nations’ Committee on Environment and Development outlined in the Brundtland Report that sustainable development should integrate social equity, economic development, and environmental protection [9]. Following the next three decades, the sustainable development concept continued to develop, and in 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11) within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development announced that to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, this has become the most frequently referenced international framework in virtually all contemporary academic research and national planning [10]. This framework explicitly introduced the concept of inclusive + sustainable cities at the global level for the first time. Subsequently, declarations such as the New Urban Agenda and the OECD’s Inclusive and Resilient Cities initiative were proposed, extending urban sustainable development beyond housing issues to encompass public spaces, transport, and participatory governance [11]. These initiatives ensure the inclusion of “gender, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities” in sustainable urban development plans.

This paper’s theoretical foundation is grounded in SDG 11. It recognizes that the challenges of urbanization—ranging from spatial inequality to environmental degradation—require planning paradigms that integrate social equity, safety, adaptability, and ecological efficiency within coherent governance frameworks. Building on this vision, the present study employs four complementary urban planning theories to explain how these dimensions can be operationalized in practice: Inclusive Urban Planning, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Adaptive Governance, and Ecological Urbanism. Together, these theories form a conceptual framework that connects the normative aspirations of SDG 11 to the concrete mechanisms of sustainable urban planning.

Inclusive Urban Planning provides the foundation for realizing the “inclusive” dimension of SDG 11. Emerging from advocacy planning and participatory design traditions [12,13], this framework argues that urban planning must explicitly recognize social diversity and empower marginalized groups—such as women, low-income populations, and the elderly—to participate meaningfully in decision-making. Currently, Inclusive Urban Planning theory aligns with Just City Theory, which emphasizes the importance of sustainable cities for social equity. This theory examines how power, resources, and opportunities are distributed in space. It expands the perspective on equity from physical accessibility to issues of fairness and rights, that is, who benefits from urban development and whose mobility or safety is prioritized [14]. These two theories explained that inclusivity in this sense extends beyond equitable access to physical infrastructure; it encompasses the right to the city [15], ensuring that all residents can shape the spaces they inhabit.

The “safe” dimension of SDG 11 aligns closely with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), a theory that links spatial design with social behavior [16]. CPTED posits that well-designed environments can reduce fear of crime and promote social trust through principles such as natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, and access control. In sustainable planning, this translates into creating open, visible, and accessible public spaces that enhance both perceived and actual safety. Moreover, contemporary feminist adaptations of CPTED highlight the importance of gender-sensitive safety audits and the spatial experiences of women, emphasizing that safety is not merely an outcome of policing but a condition of accessibility and equity.

The “resilient” aspect of SDG 11 is grounded in Adaptive Governance Theory, which emerged from environmental governance and urban resilience scholarship [17]. Adaptive governance emphasizes flexibility, learning, and multi-level coordination as essential mechanisms for cities to respond to social and ecological shocks. In the context of urban planning, this theory suggests that resilience is not solely a matter of physical infrastructure, but also of institutional capacity—the ability of planning systems to adjust, experiment, and incorporate feedback from diverse actors. This requires that sustainable urban development is not only a goal urban designers need to consider, but also one the government must get involved in. It necessitates cross-departmental collaboration between designers and the government, as well as the joint promotion of social equity and urban sustainability through institutional governance and urban design.

Finally, the “sustainable” dimension of SDG 11 can be understood through the lens of Ecological Urbanism, a framework that extends ecological thinking beyond environmental science into the cultural, social, and spatial design of cities [18,19]. Ecological urbanism emphasizes integrating natural systems with urban processes and advocates planning models that mimic the resilience, diversity, and adaptability of ecosystems. It seeks to reimagine the city as an ecological network in which environmental health, social equity, and spatial design are mutually reinforcing. Rather than relying solely on technological efficiency, ecological urbanism prioritizes human-scale design, climate responsiveness, and environmental justice as foundations for sustainable living. In this sense, it provides a holistic interpretation of SDG 11’s vision—cities that are not only resource-efficient but also regenerative, inclusive, and symbiotic with their natural environments.

As demonstrated in Figure 1, these four theories offer a multidimensional understanding of how SDG 11 can be translated into actionable urban planning strategies. Inclusive Urban Planning foregrounds participation and equity; CPTED emphasizes safety through design; Adaptive Governance ensures institutional flexibility and resilience; and Smart Urbanism integrates sustainability through innovation and efficiency. By synthesizing these frameworks, this study situates sustainable urban planning as both a technical process and a normative project—one that aspires to balance efficiency with justice, growth with equity, and innovation with inclusivity.

2.2. Positioning the Proposed Framework Within Existing Global Urban Assessment Models

This paper’s theoretical framework builds on SDG11 and relates it to four urban planning theories, analysing how an inclusive perspective has been embedded in transportation, community design, safety, and public space, which are the core indices in the ITU United for Smart Sustainable Cities (U4SSC). This global framework checks urban sustainability through three dimensions: economy, environment, and society and culture. Although U4SSC highlights important indices such as transport accessibility, governance efficiency, safety, and environmental performance, its function remains largely diagnostic, emphasizing measurement rather than the planning processes that produce sustainable outcomes.

In contrast, this paper contributes a process-based, theory-driven framework grounded in urban planning theories (Inclusive Urban Planning, CPTED, Adaptive Governance, and Ecological Urbanism), focusing on how cities operationalise SDG 11 rather than how they are evaluated. The four proposed guidelines emerge from comparative analysis of real planning interventions, thereby offering mechanisms of change, such as institutional integration of core principles, participatory governance, incremental interventions, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, which are less explicit in U4SSC.

In addition, U4SSC rarely accounts for the political, cultural, and institutional contexts that shape planning practices. By combining SDG 11 with urban planning theories and practice, this study fills the gap between sustainability checklists and real-life planning processes, demonstrating how inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability can be achieved through governance and design mechanisms.

3. Global Context of Sustainable Urban Planning

Building on the theoretical foundations outlined above, it is essential to examine how sustainable urban planning has been interpreted and implemented in different national contexts. Many developed countries now incorporate sustainable urban planning into their national policies. The goal of this project is to combat climate change, foster community engagement, and enhance economic resilience. Japan is committed to building smart cities. It focuses on sustainable, inclusive, and resilient strategies that bring together people, society, and technology to address population changes and mitigate their environmental impact [20]. Australia’s national urban framework incorporates inclusive planning principles that emphasize accessibility, community engagement, and resilience in the face of climate-related threats [21]. The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities serves as a guide for the European Union in developing environmentally friendly urban policies. It achieves this by supporting “integrated sustainable urban development strategies” with policy frameworks, funding mechanisms, and city networks that work in tandem [22]. North America is at the forefront of sustainable urban development. It states that urban sustainability should encompass not only environmental quality but also ease of transportation and the welcoming nature of urban areas [23].

In reality, inclusive sustainable urban planning primarily focuses on four key areas: making transportation accessible, designing neighborhoods and communities, ensuring public safety, and ensuring that everyone can use public space fairly. These principles are evident in the great achievements of developed countries. The gender-sensitive housing programs in Vienna have incorporated safety features, childcare facilities, and designs that facilitate easy navigation in residential buildings [6]. The Superblocks project in Barcelona has transformed the way streets are laid out, reducing car traffic, making it easier for people to walk, creating public spaces for various uses, and encouraging interaction among residents [24]. Transit-oriented development in Toronto is closely tied to policies that make housing more affordable and accessible, ensuring that marginalized people can still use efficient transit networks. These initiatives illustrate that integrating sustainability into planning can enhance both environmental quality and human health. In contrast, efforts in developing countries are still not well-coordinated and often fail to yield systemic or strategic results. For example, the Matatu industry in Nairobi has made it easier for low-income people to transport [25]. Meanwhile, the urbanization process in Abuja initially achieved remarkable results, but it has faced challenges due to the neglect of non-urban settlement factors [26]. However, these projects are typically localized and constrained by financial limitations, governance challenges, and inadequate institutional frameworks. As a result, they fall short of creating comprehensive, integrated planning models that characterize successful initiatives in developed contexts.

There are several reasons why the results differ between developed and developing countries. Developed nations frequently gain advantages from enhanced institutional capacity, increased financial resources, and resilient participatory governance frameworks that facilitate long-term strategic planning and execution [9]. They work in political environments where sustainability is a major policy goal. In contrast, developing nations face competing priorities, including rapid population growth, poverty alleviation, and inadequate infrastructure, which often render inclusive urban planning a secondary role [9]. Additionally, a lack of data, insufficient community involvement, and a reliance on pilot programs funded outside the community hinder the growth of effective programs.

On this basis, this study aims to analyze the success factors of representative sustainable urban planning schemes from developed nations and to propose universally applicable guidance by contextualizing these within the framework of developing nations pursuing sustainable development. By examining diverse planning models that exemplify inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability, the research seeks to identify the institutional, social, and spatial mechanisms that enable their success. Rather than focusing on replicating specific projects, the study emphasizes extracting transferable principles that can be adjusted to fit different political, cultural, and economic realities. This comparative perspective bridges the persistent divide between global normative frameworks, such as SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda, and the practical realities faced by cities in Developing Countries. In doing so, the research lays the foundation for a systematic methodological inquiry, employing a comparative case study approach to distill key lessons from successful planning experiences across developed contexts.

4. Methodology

This study employs a qualitative, comparative case study approach to analyze how developed countries achieve sustainable urban planning and to derive transferable lessons for developing countries. The goal of the methodological strategy is not to measure the impact of sustainable urban planning quantitatively, but to move beyond single-case descriptions towards a comparative framework that highlights common principles across different policy environments.

This paper chose four different cases: Vienna’s gender-sensitive transportation reforms, Melbourne’s 20-min Neighborhoods, Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit, and Barcelona’s Superblocks. Case selection followed three interrelated criteria. First, the four cases were chosen to represent the four key dimensions of SDG 11—inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable—and to correspond with established urban planning theories: Inclusive Urban Planning (Vienna), Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Montreal), Adaptive Governance (Melbourne), and Ecological Urbanism (Barcelona). This theoretical mapping ensures that each case illuminates a different but complementary pathway toward achieving the goals of SDG 11. Second, each cases represent diverse domains of urban planning, including transportation, community design, safety, and public space, which cover all aspects of urban planning to the greatest extent, ensuring its universality for the subsequent proposal of feasible suggestions to developing countries. Third, the selection aimed for geographical and institutional diversity, encompassing Europe, North America, and Oceania, enabling cross-contextual comparison of planning practices across different governance systems. Fourth, the cases were selected based on data richness and scholarly maturity: each initiative has been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic literature, policy documents, municipal planning reports, and publications from international organizations (e.g., UN-Habitat, OECD, World Bank). Particular attention was given to sources that evaluated the impact of these initiatives on inclusivity and accessibility, as well as to critical accounts that addressed limitations such as uneven implementation, gentrification, or institutional constraints. This multi-source strategy enables triangulation and reduces the risk of relying solely on policy rhetoric without evidence of actual outcomes.

Table 1. Reasons for choosing four cases as representative analytical examples.

Case	Geographical Context	SDG 11 Dimension Represented	Corresponding Urban Planning Theory	Planning Focus	Reason for Selection & Analytical Value
Vienna’s Gender-Sensitive Transportation Reforms	Europe (Austria)	Inclusive	Inclusive Urban Planning	Transportation	Represents a mature example of integrating gender and accessibility into mobility systems; demonstrates how inclusivity can be institutionalized through data-driven policy and urban design. Provides strong evidence base and clear documentation from municipal and academic sources.
Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit	North America (Canada)	Safe	Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)	Public Safety	Exemplifies gender-sensitive approaches to urban safety and participatory governance. Offers an established model with measurable social impacts and international replication.
Melbourne’s 20-min Neighborhoods	Oceania (Australia)	Resilient	Adaptive Governance	Community	Demonstrates resilience through proximity planning, participatory governance, and cross-sectoral collaboration. Reflects how institutional adaptability supports sustainable, community-based planning.
Barcelona’s Superblocks	Europe (Spain)	Sustainable	Ecological Urbanism	Public Space	Illustrates ecological and social sustainability through the reallocation of urban space from vehicles to pedestrians. Provides data-rich evaluations of environmental and social outcomes.

summarizes the reasons why these four cases were chosen as representative analytical examples. And

Table 2. SDG 11 Target and Indicator Mapping.

SDG 11 Dimension	Case	Corresponding Urban Planning Theory	Relevant SDG Target(s)	Relevant Indicator(s)
Inclusive	Vienna’s Gender-Sensitive Transportation Reforms	Inclusive Urban Planning	11.2: Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all	11.2.1: Proportion of population with convenient access to public transport
Safe	Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit	Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)	11.3 enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries	11.7.2: Proportion of persons who feel safe walking alone around their area
Resilient	Melbourne’s 20-min Neighborhoods	Adaptive Governance	11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces	N/A
Sustainable	Barcelona’s Superblocks	Ecological Urbanism	11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities	11.6.2: Annual mean levels of PM2.5 and PM10

demonstrates the SDG 11 Target and Indicator Mapping.

As for the case analysis structure, each case study was analyzed using a structured interpretive framework designed to ensure analytical consistency and comparability across contexts. The analysis of each initiative followed a four-part structure. First, the socio-political and environmental background of each case was examined to identify the reasons for introducing the planning intervention, including diversity needs, governance reforms, or sustainability imperatives. Second, the study analyzed the key planning interventions and design strategies implemented, focusing on how principles of inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability were operationalized through institutional arrangements, spatial design, and participatory mechanisms. Third, available evaluations and documented outcomes were reviewed to assess the measurable and perceived impacts of these initiatives on social equity, accessibility, and environmental quality. Finally, each case concluded with an interpretive synthesis highlighting the transferable lessons and potential adaptations for developing-country contexts, linking empirical observations to the theoretical dimensions of SDG 11. This consistent structure allows for comparative synthesis across diverse policy environments, ensuring that the analysis moves beyond descriptive narration to identify cross-cutting principles that underpin successful sustainable urban planning.

This research relies on its comparative, principle-driven methodology, which enables the derivation of universal insights rather than context-specific suggestions. In doing so, the study aims to bridge the gap between global sustainability frameworks, such as the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11, and the practical challenges of urban development in diverse socio-political contexts. In addition to advantages, this methodological framework has several limitations. The selection of four cases does not adequately represent the vast diversity of sustainable urban planning methodologies globally, nor does it account for the variations in socio-political and cultural contexts among cities. Furthermore, each selected example is dynamic, having undergone iterative development, which complicates the provision of a comprehensive empirical evaluation within the parameters of this study. To mitigate these limitations, the study employs three strategies. First, instead of seeking statistical representativeness, the four cases are used as analytical exemplars to allow for conceptual generalization rather than empirical generalization, emphasizing principle transferability over direct policy replication. Second, to address contextual variation, the analysis focuses on comparative mechanisms—that is, how institutional capacity, governance structure, and community participation interact to produce planning outcomes—rather than on the absolute performance of each case. This approach enables meaningful cross-context insights while respecting the uniqueness of local conditions. Third, to overcome the dynamic of urban planning development, the study draws upon triangulation across diverse source types, including peer-reviewed academic research, policy reports, and municipal evaluations, thereby ensuring that conclusions rest on a convergence of independent evidence rather than on single-source interpretations.

5. Case Study

This section conducts an in-depth analysis of four sustainable urban design projects from developed countries, each representing the inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable aspects of SDG 11. The cases fall into four main areas of urban sustainability: transportation, public safety, community, and public space. This part examines sustainable urban development projects in developed countries, discussing their strategies, successes, and failures, and draws useful lessons to inform the principles that follow.

5.1. Transportation: Vienna’s Gender Mainstreaming Sustainable Urban Planning

Many people consider Vienna a leader in incorporating principles of inclusivity and accessibility into urban planning, particularly by enhancing transportation and mobility systems to be more gender sensitive. As part of a larger effort to incorporate gender into urban planning, the city initiated several pilot projects in the early 1990s. This is due to the growing realization that traditional transportation systems, which were often built around the commuting habits of men who worked, didn’t meet the needs of women, children, the elderly, and other underrepresented groups [27,28]. The main transport modes for women are within the vicinity of their workplaces and residences. Their mobility mostly revolves around childcare and shopping, and they rarely use cars [29,30]. According to Vienna‘s mobility survey, about 40% of women in Vienna reported using public transport compared to 36% of men; 30% of women walked as their main mode, versus 25% of men; and only about 25% of women used motorized private transport compared with 33% of men [31].

The Vienna government has adopted a proposal to incorporate women’s perspectives into the city’s sustainable development plan, collecting gender-disaggregated mobility data that served as the basis for policy adjustments. The results show that women are more likely to walk and use public transportation, are more vulnerable in poorly lit areas, and are more concerned about safety in transit hubs [32]. For instance, the Gender Equality Monitoring Report (2016) shows that the share of annual public-transport ticket holders among women increased from 39% to 45% between 2013 and 2016, while the share for men increased from 28% to 31% in the same period [31]. The city started targeted interventions based on these results (Detailed results are shown in

Table 3. Vienna’s Urban Planning Implementation and Outcomes.

Reason	Implementation	Outcomes
Traditional transportation system didn’t meet the needs of underrepresented groups	Integration of women’s perspectives in city planning; collection of gender-disaggregated mobility data to inform decision-making.	Institutionalization of gender-sensitive planning across municipal departments
Women are more vulnerable in poorly lit areas, and are more concerned about safety in transit hubs	Renovated 50,000 streetlights	Reduced nighttime safety concerns; achieved 60% energy savings
	Upgraded lighting and installed surveillance cameras in subway stations.	Increase in perceived safety, particularly for women traveling at night.
Inclusive Urban Planning	Continuous monitoring of travel behavior through city mobility surveys.	Over 75% of total trips now made via “environmentally friendly” modes (walking 30%, public transport 34%); private car use declined to 25%, the lowest on record.
		Women’s annual public transport ticket holders increased from 39% to 45% (2013–2016); men’s from 28% to 31%.

). Some of these changes made pedestrian paths easier to walk on, increased the frequency and reliability of buses and trams in residential areas, and improved accessibility for strollers and wheelchairs. Vienna has carried out a large-scale LED renovation project. Approximately 50,000 streetlights have been renovated. This not only improves the lighting efficiency to ensure safe nighttime travel but also saves 60% of energy [31]. Subway stations also improved lighting and enhanced security measures, such as increased camera surveillance, to make them safer, especially for women who use public transportation at night [27,29,32]. Vienna’s model demonstrated that making transportation more accessible benefits everyone in the city, not just women. This includes the elderly, people with disabilities, and families [29]. For example, a city-mobility survey reported that over 75% of journeys made by Vienna residents are “environmentally friendly”, with walking at about 30% and public transport at 34%, while the share of car traffic dropped to 25%, the lowest on record [31]. Additionally, gender mainstreaming was incorporated into the city’s planning process, requiring all departments to consider how planned urban projects would affect men and women differently.

Insights relevant to developing contexts can be derived from this case when interpreted through the theoretical lens of Inclusive Urban Planning, which underpins the “inclusive” dimension of SDG 11. The case illustrates that inclusive planning operates not only through infrastructure but also through participatory governance, differentiated data collection, and continuous policy adaptation. For developing countries, the transferable implications extend beyond replication of physical interventions to the institutionalization of inclusive planning principles:

• Institutionalize inclusion within governance frameworks. Inclusivity should not remain a project-level aspiration but be embedded in urban governance.
• Base planning on evidence of differentiated needs. Inclusive planning begins with understanding social diversity.
• Prioritize adaptability and gradualism rather than large-scale infrastructure, incremental improvements.
• Reframe inclusion as a measure of sustainability.

5.2. Community: Melbourne’s 20-Min Neighborhoods

Melbourne’s “20-min Neighborhoods” program is one of the biggest tests of how to make community-centered sustainable planning more inclusive and accessible. The initiative was part of the metropolitan strategy Plan Melbourne 2017–2050. Its goal was to adapt the global “20-min city” concept to the Australian suburbs, which are characterized by their spread-out land use and reliance on cars [7]. The main idea is that people should be able to access most of their daily needs—such as stores, doctors, schools, public transportation, and parks—within a 20-min walk, bike ride, or bus ride from their homes [33]. By defining accessibility in terms of proximity, the policy directly addresses differences in access to important services. At the same time, it helps to reach sustainability goals.

Three pilot projects, including Strathmore, Preston, and Sunshine West, have been implemented across metropolitan Melbourne, supported by collaboration between state government agencies, local councils, and community organizations [21]. Each pilot includes integrating neighborhood activity centers that combine retail, ample green spaces, healthcare, and educational facilities, as well as upgrades to walking and cycling infrastructure and transportation connections to improve connectivity between residential areas and services, thereby improving accessibility for people of all ages and abilities [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Empirical evaluations from the Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP, 2020) report that after the implementation of 20-min neighbourhoods, residents in pilot areas can now access key services within a 20-min travel radius. This encourages more walking trips and stimulates local retail activity, which can improve neighborhood self-sufficiency [36]. The initiative also reduced reliance on private vehicles, resulting in a 9% decline in short-distance car trips. Importantly, survey data highlight a rise in perceived neighborhood connectedness and safety among women and older adults, who identified improved lighting and pedestrian crossings as key factors enhancing everyday mobility [35].

The 20-min Neighborhood model demonstrates that urban sustainability can be achieved through proximity planning, community participation, and integrated service provision, thereby reducing carbon emissions by shortening travel distances while also promoting social cohesion, equity, and community resilience. The policy aims to establish inclusive, age-friendly, and accessible communities by integrating critical services and amenities into local neighborhoods, accommodating various populations, including women, children, older citizens, and those with limited mobility [33,35]. The 20-min framework is a crucial tool for advancing sustainability and equity by linking environmental objectives with social inclusion.

Table 4. Melbourne’s Urban Planning Implementation and Outcomes.

Reason	Implementation	Outcomes
Integrated land-use and transport strategy promoting “20-min Neighborhoods.”	Collaboration among state agencies, councils, and residents to integrate essential services, green spaces, and walkable streets.	Over 60% of residents in pilots can now access key services within 20 min (vs. <40% baseline).
	Construction new cycle paths; pedestrian crossings improved; enhanced bus connectivity.	Walking trips increased; car trips for short distances declined.
	Integration of mixed-use hubs providing retail, schools, health services, and community facilities.	Local retail turnover increased; satisfaction with proximity to amenities rose
	Workshops and surveys with women, elderly, and low-income groups to identify accessibility needs.	Rise in sense of safety and community connectedness among respondents.
	Focus on local living to reduce car dependency and CO2 emissions.	Estimated CO2 reduction annually across pilot areas.

shows the summary of Melbourne’s 20-min Neighbourhoods.

When interpreted through the lens of Adaptive Governance, which corresponds to the “resilient” dimension of SDG 11, the Melbourne case offers a valuable model for developing countries seeking to enhance urban resilience under conditions of institutional and financial constraint. The 20-min Neighborhoods initiative exemplifies how governance flexibility, cross-sectoral collaboration, and iterative planning can foster resilience not merely as environmental robustness but as social and institutional adaptability. A fundamental lesson is the principle of “proximity planning,” which reflects the adaptive governance principle that resilience is best achieved through distributed systems of accessibility rather than centralized infrastructural dependence. For developing countries, the insights are less about replicating Melbourne’s spatial model and more about operationalizing its governance logic—one that allows policies to evolve incrementally through localized contextual mechanisms.

For developing nations, the applicable insights include:

• Embed flexibility within governance frameworks. Cooperate with adaptive institutions to address emerging challenges.
• Institutionalize participatory feedback loops. Incorporating community engagement in decision-making processes.
• Prioritize adaptability and gradualism. Entails prioritizing local proximity planning, even if only partially achieved.

5.3. Public Safety: Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit

As inclusive urban planning becomes increasingly popular, scholars and policymakers are placing greater emphasis on public safety as a key component of both sustainability and inclusivity. Governments are placing increasing emphasis on ensuring that various groups can access locations during the replanning process. Public safety includes not only the absence of crime but also how different groups of people see and experience cities. Public safety is a crucial aspect of sustainable and inclusive urban development, as perceptions of safety significantly influence how various groups, particularly women and girls, perceive and interact with public spaces [37]. Studies consistently show that approximately 50% of women expressed concern about travelling alone on public transport at night, compared with 22% of men [38]. Conventional safety frameworks, typically dependent on quantitative crime statistics or surveillance technologies, have demonstrated inadequacy in addressing these lived experiences. Feminist urban planning and grassroots organizations promote safety measures that consider daily experiences, emotional landscapes, and the accessibility of urban spaces [39]. Safety is not merely a law enforcement issue but a question of equitable access to urban life.

To address these inequalities, Montreal became one of the first cities to institutionalize the Women’s Safety Audit (WSA), a participatory planning tool first developed in Toronto in the late 1980s by the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC). The women’s safety audit is defined as “a process of bringing individuals together to walk in a physical environment, assessing how safe it feels to them, identifying ways to make the space safer, and organizing to bring about these changes”. The audit process invites community members—especially women—to collectively walk through public spaces, assess perceived safety, identify problematic areas, and co-develop design-based interventions. The tool has been adopted internationally and institutionalized in multiple planning contexts [39]. The Women’s Safety Audit reveals that women and men often perceive the city differently. This means that urban safety plans must consider diverse perspectives and real-life experiences. This new idea represented a significant departure from safety models that were based on police work and responding to crime. Instead, it focused on urban design changes that prioritize accessibility, fairness, and inclusion.

The Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children [40] says that being safe means “not being threatened, afraid, or experiencing any kind of violence, oppression, or discrimination.” When public safety is at risk, the effects extend beyond the event itself, damaging community trust and limiting urban citizenship [40].

In Montreal, the Women’s Safety Audit was implemented in partnership between city authorities, METRAC, and local women’s organizations across multiple boroughs, including Plateau-Mont-Royal and Ville-Marie, between 2002 and 2010. These audits led to the redesign of bus stops, installation of emergency intercoms, and upgrades to lighting and visibility in public parks and underpasses [40]. The city also adopted the “Request Stop Program”, enabling women traveling alone at night to disembark between official stops—a policy credited with reducing reported harassment incidents on night routes [41].

A post-implementation survey found that respondents felt safer in audited areas, and public space usage by women increased. Importantly, community participation in local governance structures also rose, as women’s groups were incorporated into planning committees and neighborhood councils [42]. These findings illustrate that participatory design and gender-sensitive safety frameworks not only improve perceptions of safety but also foster civic trust and inclusion [41]. It was important because it established a planning framework that accounted for gender.

Table 5. Montreal’s Urban Planning Implementation and Outcomes.

Reason	Implementation	Outcomes
Safety is not merely a law enforcement issue but a question of equitable access to urban life.	Multi-sector collaboration among METRAC, local NGOs, and municipal authorities.	Institutionalized in Montreal urban policy (2002–2010); incorporated into city’s Safer Cities agenda.
60% of women modifying their daily routes or transport use due to safety concerns, compared to 23% of men	Participatory process engaging women to assess perceived safety in public spaces.	Conducted safety walks, covering parks, bus stops, metro areas, and pathways.
	Upgraded lighting in public parks; installed emergency intercoms and transparent bus shelters.	Residents reported improved feelings of safety in audited areas.
	Allowed women to request off-route bus stops during night hours.	Nighttime harassment reports decreased.
	Engaged more residents, majority women, in participatory assessments and consultations.	Women’s participation in local planning processes increased; neighborhood trust improved.

summarizes the implementation and outcome of Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit.

Viewed through the framework of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which aligns with the “safe” dimension of SDG 11, the Montreal case demonstrates how safety-oriented planning can evolve from reactive policing to proactive inclusion. Rather than relying solely on crime statistics or surveillance infrastructure, the Women’s Safety Audit in Montreal reframed urban safety as a socially produced condition, grounded in everyday experiences, spatial perception, and collective responsibility. By translating women’s lived experiences into concrete planning interventions—such as transparent bus shelters, improved lighting, accessible elevators, and “request stop” programs—the initiative embedded the principle of designing for safety into the city’s governance system.

For developing countries, this case underscores two critical lessons:

• Participatory governance is essential. Safety audits can identify context-specific vulnerabilities at minimal cost, generating actionable data for planners without relying on expensive technologies.
• Safety must be regarded as an essential prerequisite for accessibility. Safety should be viewed not only as a mechanism for crime deterrence, but also as an essential condition for equitable participation in social, economic, and political domains.
• Prioritize design-based interventions over surveillance measures. Lighting, visibility, and access improvements often deliver greater safety gains and social trust than enforcement-heavy or surveillance-based solutions.
• Institutionalize gender-sensitive governance. Embedding women’s perspectives into planning institutions ensures that safety frameworks reflect diverse needs rather than abstract policy assumptions.

5.4. Public Space: Urban Planning in Barcelona’s Superblocks

Public space is central to the idea of inclusive and sustainable cities. It functions not only as a site of mobility but also as a sphere of social interaction, cultural expression, and democratic participation. However, automobile-centered urban and transportation planning has produced multiple negative externalities, including heightened exposure to air and noise pollution, intensified urban heat islands, reduced green infrastructure, and declining levels of physical activity—all of which carry measurable public health risks [5]. For example, prior to intervention, average nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations in central districts exceeded 60 µg/m³, well above the EU safe limit [43]. Traditional planning methods focus on building around cars, which makes public places less accessible and leaves out many groups of people with different spatial needs, like women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

To address these issues, the city of Barcelona launched the Superblocks (Superilles) program in 2016, a flagship initiative of its Urban Mobility Plan (

Table 6. Barcelona’s Urban Planning Implementation and Outcomes.

Reason	Implementation	Outcomes
Automobile-centered urban and transportation planning has produced multiple negative externalities	Merged 9 blocks into each superblock; limited vehicle speed to 10–20 km/h; allocated 70% of streets to pedestrians and bikes.	Traffic volumes reduced 25–30%; pedestrian movement increased 45%.
	Added green corridors, planted 6000+ trees, and created permeable pavements.	NO2 levels dropped 33% (47 → 31 µg/m3); average noise reduced 5 dB.
	Redesigned public spaces to encourage walking, cycling, and outdoor socialization.	Public-space use increased; children’s outdoor play rose.
	Workshops with residents, especially women, elderly, and caregivers, to shape redesign priorities.	residents reported improved safety and comfort; trust in local government rose.

demonstrates the project). The aim was to reclaim street space from vehicular traffic and repurpose it for pedestrians, cyclists, and community use. The Superblocks project alters the city’s layout by consolidating nine blocks into a single “superblock.” In this superblock, vehicular traffic is rigorously regulated, with speed restrictions set between 10 and 20 km/h. Over 70% of the street area is allocated for pedestrian and cycling use. The repurposed roadway zones transform into pedestrian-friendly spaces featuring bike routes, playgrounds, green corridors, and venues for cultural activities, effectively turning streets into multifunctional social commons [5]. The project used participatory planning methods from the start. It enabled people, such as women, caregivers, the elderly, and children, to express their daily needs for space and safety.

Evaluations of the Superblocks initiative indicate significant improvements in both objective accessibility and subjective perceptions of inclusivity. In pilot areas such as Poblenou, Sant Antoni, and Eixample, vehicle traffic fell by 25–30%, while pedestrian volumes increased by 45% [44]. Average noise levels dropped from 66 dB to 61 dB, and NO₂ concentrations declined by 24% (from 47 µg/m³ to 36 µg/m³) [43]. Furthermore, surveys indicated that 68% of residents felt “safer and more comfortable” in redesigned areas, with women and older adults reporting the largest improvements in perceived safety. Importantly, greater social interaction in the superblock’s interior streets, with families—including those with children—perceiving increased opportunities for leisure and gathering. Observational data also showed more varied uses of the space (walking, sitting, playing), although not all age groups increased their physical activity [44]. The reconfiguration of streets also encouraged greater use of public spaces by diverse groups, strengthening neighborhood cohesion, fostering intergenerational interaction, and revalorizing urban commons.

Within the framework of Ecological Urbanism, which corresponds to the “sustainable” dimension of SDG 11, the Barcelona Superblocks initiative exemplifies how urban design can simultaneously enhance ecological performance and social inclusivity. For developing countries, the Superblocks initiative provides three critical insights grounded in the principles of Ecological Urbanism:

• Integrate ecological and social goals rather than treating them as separate agendas. Urban greening, mobility reduction, and public space redesign can simultaneously address climate adaptation and social inclusion if planned holistically.
• Adopt a “small-scale ecology” approach. Instead of large, capital-intensive environmental projects, incremental neighborhood-level interventions—such as traffic calming, shaded pedestrian corridors, and multi-use green spaces—can yield measurable environmental and social benefits.
• Institutionalize participatory ecological governance. Engaging communities in the co-design and stewardship of public spaces ensures that sustainability initiatives reflect local environmental knowledge and cultural practices.

5.5. Discussion of the Four Representative Cases

A comparative analysis of Vienna, Montreal, Melbourne, and Barcelona reveals that the core to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 11 lies not in replicating flagship projects, but in cultivating institutionalised planning processes that embed inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability within everyday governance. Despite differing political and geographical contexts, these four initiatives reveal a shared logic: sustainable urban goals can only be realised when social, environmental, and institutional systems are produced in synergy.

Examined through the theoretical lenses of inclusive urban planning, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), adaptive governance, and ecological urbanism, these cases collectively construct a process-oriented understanding of urban transformation. Vienna’s gender-sensitive transport planning demonstrates how institutional learning and data-driven inclusive mechanisms can transform equality from a normative value into an operational principle. Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit redefines security as conditions of spatial and social accessibility, replacing passive policing with participatory design. Melbourne’s 20-min neighbourhood concept highlights adaptive governance, building social and environmental resilience through flexible planning, community-centred neighbourhood design, and iterative feedback mechanisms. Barcelona’s superblock practice demonstrates that when design and participation converge at the community level, ecological sustainability and social sustainability become mutually reinforcing.

As shown in

Table 7. Comparative Insights and Theoretical Synthesis.

SDG 11	Urban Planning Theory	Representative Case	Key Transferable Insight
Inclusive	Inclusive Urban Planning	Vienna’s gender-sensitive transport planning	Ideological institutionalization
Safe	CPTED	Montreal’s Women’s Safety Audit	Participatory mechanisms
Resilient	Adaptive Governance	Melbourne’s 20-min neighborhood	Multi-party collaboration
Sustainable	Ecological Urbanism	Barcelona’s superblock	Gradual improvement

, these practices indicate that Sustainable Development Goal 11 is best realised when urban planning shifts from infrastructure provision towards governance transformation. Sustainable cities are realised through ideological institutionalisation, participatory mechanisms, gradual improvement, and multi-party collaboration. This integrated approach underscores how policy frameworks, planning cultures, and daily practices collectively sustain equity and ecological balance.

For developing nations, these insights reveal that urban sustainability must be rooted in existing institutional and cultural frameworks, rather than replicating standardised models. The core challenge lies in translating universal SDGs into locally negotiated planning processes that cultivate accessibility, safety, adaptability, and trust. This theoretical consensus directly underpins the four guiding principles outlined in the following section, which translate these insights into actionable strategies for building locally grounded, socially equitable, and environmentally resilient urban futures.

5.6. Digitalisation and Sustainable Urban Planning

Although digitalisation is not the primary focus of this study, it is an important enabler of achieving SDG 11. Current sustainable cities cannot live alone with digital tools. For instance, real-time safety applications, crime alarming, environmental monitoring, and online participant communities. These digital approaches can enhance the implementation of the four proposed guidelines by strengthening evidence-based planning, expanding channels for citizen participation, and improving coordination among government agencies.

However, consistent with findings from Vienna, Melbourne, Montreal, and Barcelona, digitalisation should be understood as a supporting mechanism rather than the only approach for sustainable urban planning. The case studies demonstrate that equitable outcomes were produced not by technological tools alone, but by institutional governance, participatory design, incremental improvement, and multi-stakeholder cooperation. In developing countries, digital tools can improve planning capacity, but only when paired with strong governance institutions and socially inclusive practices.

6. Guidelines for Developing Countries: Translating the Insights into Practice

This section outlines four principles for developing nations seeking to achieve sustainable and equitable urban development, drawing on insights. These conditions underscore a vital principle for developing nations: urban sustainability cannot be achieved merely by emulating “best practices” from developed countries. Rather, it requires incorporating fundamental principles—such as accessibility, participation, safety, and adaptability—into local governance, economic structures, and daily life.

Table 8. Crosswalk Matrix of the Relationships between the Guidelines and U4SSC.

Proposed Guideline	U4SSC Dimension	How This Study Extends/Adds Value Beyond U4SSC
Embed Core Principles into Institutions	Society & Culture	U4SSC evaluates institutional performance, while this study explains how institutions internalize inclusion, gender-sensitivity, and equity—providing mechanisms, not only indicators.
Apply Participant Mechanism to Ensure Marginalized Voices	Society & Culture	U4SSC measures participation levels, whereas this study identifies design and governance mechanisms (e.g., safety audits, mobility data, community co-design) that enable participatory planning to become routine practice.
Prioritize Incremental and Affordable Interventions	Economy	U4SSC focuses on macro-level efficiency indicators, while this study shows how incrementalism, proximity planning, and low-cost design improve equity and resilience in resource-constrained settings.
Acquire Multi-Party Collaboration	Economy & Society	U4SSC highlights the importance of partnerships but does not explain how collaboration occurs. This study provides a process-oriented framework for cross-sectoral and intergovernmental coordination.

at the end clearly demonstrates the relationships among the four proposed guidelines, the three dimensions of U4SSC, and key indicators.

6.1. Guideline 1: Embed Core Principles into Institutions

Developed countries and developing countries have different political, cultural, and economic systems. This requires that developing countries not simply copy the urban models of developed countries without careful assessment, but rather integrate concepts of inclusiveness, safety, resilience, and sustainability into their systems. There are historical records of developed countries’ failures being directly copied by developing countries. For instance, Abuja was designed in the 1970s to be a “model capital” that would replace Lagos as a modern administrative center. The new city, on the other hand, disregarded local social and cultural practices, allowing informal settlements to grow rapidly. As a result, informal housing spread beyond the formal grid, and infrastructure and services struggled to keep pace [26,45]. At the same time, developing countries are also adapting measures to suit their specific circumstances. People in Nairobi have been using the Matatu system of informal minibuses as their primary means of transportation for a long time. Initially, the government considered it illegal and out of control. Subsequently, they initiated the regulatory and integration process by implementing cashless payment systems, establishing licensing frameworks, and devising corridor-specific plans. This provided Matatus with increased autonomy while also enhancing their safety and efficiency [25,46]. Developing countries should conduct urban planning in line with their national conditions. Embedding the concepts into the system can ensure that the government prioritizes adaptation over standardization, ensuring that policies are both technically sound and socially and politically acceptable within their own contexts.

6.2. Guideline 2: Apply Participant Mechanism to Ensure Marginalized Voices

The participatory mechanism can ensure the diversity and accessibility of urban planning by accounting for the needs of various groups. Incorporating gender audits, participatory consultations, and universal design principles into planning frameworks is not merely an optional enhancement but a prerequisite for attaining sustainable and equitable urban futures. Additionally, acknowledging the unique experiences of women, children, the elderly, and marginalized groups as they traverse the city can enrich the design data based on male samples, providing a more comprehensive perspective for future urban planning. Research demonstrates that cities designed primarily for male habits have not only caused environmental pollution, a low green space ratio, and scattered community functions, but also restricted the movement of other groups of people [27]. Evidence from developed countries suggests that successful instances often integrate the perspectives of underrepresented groups, listen to their needs, thereby ensuring equality, inclusivity, and accessibility.

6.3. Guideline 3: Prioritize Incremental and Affordable Interventions

In developing countries, urban planning often focuses on large, expensive projects, particularly when tied to significant events or international donor funding. Nevertheless, these endeavors do not universally confer advantages upon all individuals. On the other hand, small, inexpensive, and community-driven changes can lead to lasting and more equitable outcomes. For instance, small-scale changes, such as dedicating streets exclusively to pedestrians, constructing affordable bike paths, and reconfiguring street space for mixed use, can yield significant social benefits at a relatively low cost. These methods help cities gradually build institutional capacity, and reduce the risk of debt accumulation. Incrementalism is inherently adaptable, enabling policymakers to test, learn, and refine strategies in response to changing social and environmental conditions. When there isn’t much money or staff, “doing less but doing it well and with everyone” often leads to more lasting results than big megaprojects.

6.4. Guideline 4: Acquire Multi-Party Collaboration

Grassroots and community-led initiatives are crucial for improving urban inclusivity; however, their long-term viability requires governmental support and integration into established institutions. Without political support, pilot projects often remain isolated and fail to expand. Although the concept of gender-friendliness is deeply ingrained in Danish culture, the reform of gender consciousness in Denmark was not successfully incorporated at the state or municipal level during the implementation of inclusive urban planning. This meant that the sustainable planning concept could not be fully realized [38]. Illustrations from both developed and developing settings demonstrate that the most significant urban transformations occur when local governments establish enabling policy frameworks, ensure sustained funding, and foster inter-agency coordination. Additionally, when the government becomes involved, it lends legitimacy, encourages private-sector collaboration, and increases the likelihood that similar events will occur in other cities.

7. Conclusions

This study examined how the aims of SDG 11—making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable—can be operationalized in practice through an integrated theoretical-empirical approach. By analysing four emblematic interventions (Vienna, Montreal, Melbourne, Barcelona) and interpreting them through Inclusive Urban Planning, CPTED, Adaptive Governance, and Ecological Urbanism, the paper shows that urban sustainability is primarily a governance and design problem: success depends less on one-off infrastructure projects than on embedding equity, participation, adaptability, and cooperative thinking into planning processes. These mechanisms transform sustainability from a technical pursuit into a form of social and institutional practice, highlighting that planning for SDG 11 requires cultural, political, and ethical as well as spatial change.

The comparative analysis also underscores a broader lesson for developing contexts: urban sustainability cannot be transferred; it can only be translated. The effective strategies observed in advanced cities derive their strength not from scale or technology, but from flexibility, social legitimacy, and iterative learning. Sustainable planning in the developing countries should therefore focus on building the enabling conditions—accessibility, engagement, safety, adaptability, and institutional support—rather than replicating infrastructure-heavy projects. Building on these insights, the study distilled five interrelated guidelines for developing contexts: (1) embed core principles into institutions; (2) apply participant mechanisms to ensure marginalized voices; (3) prioritize incremental and affordable interventions over costly megaprojects; (4) acquire multi-party collaboration. Together, these guidelines emphasize that sustainable urban planning requires adaptation, flexibility, and institutional commitment rather than replicating the paradigms of developed countries.

By synthesizing these lessons into guidelines for developing contexts, the study makes a significant theoretical and practical contribution. Theoretically, this research contributes an integrative framework linking the four dimensions of SDG 11 with corresponding urban planning theories, offering a new conceptual lens for analysing the relationship between social inclusion and sustainability. Empirically, it demonstrates how diverse planning practices from advanced contexts can be synthesized into transferable governance principles. In practice, it offers policymakers in developing countries flexible strategies, cautioning against the dangers of uncritical policy transfer and promoting incremental, participatory, and context-sensitive methodologies.