Bridging the Gap: The Gendered Impact of Infrastructure on Well-Being Through Capability and Subjective Well-Being Approaches

Abstract

This research situates urban planning as a social well-being determinant, highlighting that cities function as social habitats that shape individuals’ quality of life, as well as being physical spaces. The study emphasises the dangers of inadequate urban management, particularly when it is based on biased or incomplete information. This has the potential to exacerbate inequality and undermine the benefits of urbanisation. The present study focuses on the intersection of gender, social roles, and access to basic infrastructure, including childcare centres, elderly facilities, healthcare services, pedestrian paths, street lighting, and green areas. By addressing this critical urban issue, namely the uneven distribution of opportunities for well-being, the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge in this field. The Capability Approach, developed primarily by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, provides a theoretical framework for evaluating individuals’ freedom to pursue the lives they value. Theories of subjective well-being (SWB) are rooted in psychological and economic traditions that assess individuals’ life satisfaction, happiness, and emotional equilibrium The present study proposes a methodological framework that integrates the Capability Approach with Subjective Well-Being theory. This approach facilitates a more comprehensive measurement of citizens’ well-being, transcending the limitations of traditional gender dichotomies. The study identifies the manner in which infrastructural design affects individual capabilities and demonstrates the manner in which urban policies can foster gender equality and inclusive socio-economic development. It is therefore evident that the research provides urban planners and policymakers with actionable insights by demonstrating that equitable infrastructure provision is a cornerstone of sustainable, socially just urban development.

1. Introduction

In recent years, it has become increasingly recognised that relying exclusively on income to assess human and economic development, or overall social progress, provides only a limited perspective [1,2,3,4,5]. Although income indicators continue to play a key role in economic and social policies, they fail to reflect the various factors that influence people’s current and future well-being.

For this reason, alternative methodologies have been developed to measure well-being beyond monetary income, incorporating both objective and subjective factors. This study adopts a well-being framework based on the theoretical principles of objective well-being, particularly those derived from the Capability Approach developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum [6,7,8,9], and enriched by insights from the literature on subjective well-being. By integrating these perspectives through a gender lens, we propose a methodological model that can be embedded within the budgeting process. This framework yields a well-being budget indicator that can rank public expenditure according to its differentiated impact on the well-being of women and men, providing a useful tool for policy planning and evaluation.

Building on this theoretical foundation, the present article introduces a new model that combines Capability Approach (CA) and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) theories [10,11,12]. to create a gender-based well-being budget indicator: the Well-being and Infrastructure from a Gender Perspective Index (hereafter referred to as the WIGI). This indicator classifies public expenditure according to its gender-specific effects on well-being, facilitating the integration of equality considerations into the budgetary process. The creation of such a well-being indicator and its incorporation into budgeting also reflects existing practices in several OECD countries [5].

The Capability Approach, originally developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum [6,7,8,9], provides a conceptual basis for evaluating individuals’ real freedoms to lead lives that they value. This theoretical synthesis aligns with an expanding body of research connecting the two approaches—capabilities and subjective well-being—to broaden multidimensional well-being frameworks [13,14,15].

Conventionally, physical and environmental infrastructure, encompassing infrastructure such as roads, bridges, public buildings, and open spaces, has been regarded as universal and gender-neutral. It has been hypothesised that these spaces are equally available to women and men, and as material entities, devoid of gendered characteristics or implications for the reproduction of social norms. However, in recent years, this assumption has been the subject of increasing scrutiny. Despite the long-standing conception of infrastructure as a gender-neutral entity, mounting empirical evidence has come to demonstrate that its accessibility and utilisation are significantly influenced by prevailing gender dynamics [16,17].

The present study employs the proposed well-being model to infrastructure expenditure, thereby demonstrating its capacity to evaluate public investment through a gender-sensitive lens. This underscores the pivotal role of infrastructure in shaping gendered experiences of well-being.

The research is guided by three central questions:

(1)

The present study seeks to explore the manner in which access to infrastructure influences subjective well-being and the development of capabilities for both women and men.

(2)

The second research question concerns the question of whether these effects are conditioned by the type of infrastructure and the size of the municipality.

(3)

With regard to public policy, what implications can be deduced from these differentiated effects?

The extant literature on the subject is reviewed, and it is hypothesised that improved access to care-related and mobility infrastructure tends to enhance women’s subjective well-being to a greater extent than men’s, given persistent gender roles and caregiving responsibilities.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Conceptualizing Well-Being: Theoretical Foundations

Well-being is defined as the extent to which people can expand their capabilities, satisfy their needs, and fulfil their personal aspirations. This can be assessed using objective measures that capture individuals’ capacity to develop and realise their potential, as set out in the Capability Approach (CA) framework. Alternatively, it can be analysed from a subjective standpoint, reflecting how individuals perceive their own and their communities’ quality of life, as emphasised by the Subjective Well-Being (SWB) perspective.

The concepts of well-being and sustainability are inherently connected since they both involve economic, social, and environmental dimensions. This interdependence is a central theme in contemporary theories of well-being and development, as well as in literature on gender and development.

Although the CA and SWB originate from different theoretical traditions, they each provide a distinct perspective on development. Within this framework, development can be interpreted as either the expansion of human capabilities (according to the CA) or the degree of life satisfaction experienced by citizens, alongside the identification of contextual factors that enhance such satisfaction (as posited by the SWB).

Table 1. Differences between the two well-being theories employed.

THEORY	CAPABILITY APPROACH	SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
Well-Being Type	Eudaimonic Well-Being	Hedonic Well-Being
Well-being Concept	Well-being is associated with the concept of individual autonomy, specifically in relation to the selection of that which is held in high esteem. It is therefore evident that well-being is shaped by the extent to which individuals are able to fulfil their diverse needs and achieve their objectives. For instance, it is imperative to recognise that attaining a certain level of health and education is necessary to ensure a comfortable standard of living and/or a good job. The concept of well-being can be represented by the objective assessment of a society’s capabilities.	Well-being is derived from subjective, frequently self-reported, feelings of happiness, as well as positive and negative emotions and life satisfaction judgements.
Operationalisation	The contributions of Nussbaum and Robeyns’ lists of functionings have identified the dimensions of everyday life that contribute to individual well-being. Nevertheless, while these approaches offer significant insights, they do not operationalise these dimensions with specific proposals or applications to measure well-being.	Depending on the focus and data collection method, a range of metrics may be applied. Nevertheless, there is a consensus among scholars that well-being is an individual state of mind and is, therefore, hedonic. Diener et al. [5] are recognised as the pre-eminent exponents of the methodologies employed within this framework.
Institutionalisation	The United Nations’ “Human Development Index” (HDI) integrates per capita income with education and health.	Supported by the OECD in its most recent reports [12].
Literature	[1,2,3,4,18,19,20,21,22]	[6,7,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]

summarises the main distinctions between the two theoretical approaches used in this research to illustrate these conceptual differences.

This study conceives the integration of the Capability Approach (CA) and Subjective Well-Being (SWB) theories as a genuine synthesis that bridges the structural and perceptual dimensions of human well-being. The CA provides a normative and ethical basis for identifying fundamental capabilities and freedoms, while SWB offers an empirical perspective by capturing how individuals perceive and evaluate their achieved functioning. Together, they provide a multidimensional framework connecting objective living conditions with subjective evaluations, thereby strengthening the explanatory depth and policy applicability of well-being analysis.

This research proposes a methodological model that aims to reconcile capability-based and subjective well-being perspectives within a single analytical framework. We conceive of CA and SWB as complementary rather than competing paradigms. CA emphasises material and social conditions that enable human dignity and freedom, whereas SWB focuses on individuals’ self-reported experiences and evaluations of their ability to pursue life goals that align with their values, needs, and preferences. Integrating both perspectives enables a comprehensive measurement of well-being, encompassing both its objective (material and social living conditions) and subjective (life satisfaction, emotional balance, and perceived control) dimensions.

While information derived from SWB measures is inherently democratic for policy purposes, it should not be the only basis on which the needs addressed by public action are determined in order to safeguard human dignity. Interpreting CA and SWB together provides a broader and more consistent evaluation of well-being. CA focuses on expanding opportunities and reducing structural constraints, while SWB captures people’s lived experiences and perceptions of these opportunities.

Importantly, most existing well-being measurement frameworks have neglected gender as a determinant of economic and social outcomes—a shortcoming that this study explicitly addresses [33,34]. In this regard, the OECD has emphasised the importance of incorporating well-being indicators into national and subnational budgetary processes [12].

Recent research has advanced this theoretical dialogue by examining the interactions between capabilities and subjective well-being. It is important to note that Muffels and Headey [15] and Arita Watanawe [35,36] have provided empirical contributions that are consistent with the model proposed here. Comim [13] posits that the integration of these two frameworks can yield more robust indicators of both individual and collective well-being. In a similar vein, Graham and Nikolova [14] expand on this integration by linking capabilities to eudaimonic well-being, which emphasises the pursuit of purpose and meaning in life beyond simple life satisfaction.

Additionally, Hovi and Laamanen [37] examine how adaptation and macroeconomic loss aversion influence the relationship between GDP and subjective well-being (SWB). Their findings support the Easterlin paradox, demonstrating that although economic growth leads to diminishing long-term improvements in SWB, economic downturns have long-lasting negative consequences. Similarly, Muffels and Headey [15] empirically validate Sen’s capability framework using longitudinal data from Germany and the United Kingdom. They demonstrate that long-term well-being trajectories are largely determined by individuals’ capabilities and choices.

2.2. Gendered Everyday Life Infrastructure

Feminist economists have long emphasised the crucial role that adequate infrastructure plays in fostering women’s autonomy and promoting substantive gender equality [18,38]. Other scholars have also demonstrated that infrastructure investment reduces income inequality, highlighting the importance of integrating gender considerations into infrastructure planning to advance inclusive and sustainable development and individual well-being [16,39,40].

Infrastructure constitutes the material basis of collective life, encompassing public services and spaces, communication systems, environmental resources, housing, and productive activities that support the functioning of a country, city, or region. By improving accessibility and reducing congestion, infrastructure can mitigate negative externalities that affect the well-being of local populations [41,42].

This study focuses on everyday life infrastructure [43]. This category encompasses facilities and services intended to fulfil basic requirements, particularly for families with children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities. Within this analytical framework, a distinction is made between infrastructure related to productive activities and infrastructure associated with reproductive and care work. The latter is often carried out by women and addresses tasks and needs closely tied to their daily lives [16]. The analysis, therefore, concentrates on how women organise their daily routines, and how the configuration of material and socio-cultural infrastructure can support these routines to improve comfort and overall well-being [16,44].

Since the 1970s, architectural and urban studies have demonstrated that men and women experience, perceive and use urban space differently, and these disparities are still evident today [45,46,47]. Such studies reveal the spatial and territorial dimensions of gender inequality, highlighting that variations in use and perception stem not only from cultural or psychological factors, but also from the dual workload of women, who combine paid and unpaid labour [48].

According to Bofill Levi, cities have traditionally been designed based on the assumption that both sexes occupy pre-defined social roles. Urban planning has also tended to take the nuclear family as the only domestic reference point, overlooking more diverse and contemporary household arrangements.

A significant body of architectural research has examined urban planning and everyday infrastructure from a gender perspective [49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. This literature demonstrates that designing urban environments with attention to daily life makes cities more accessible, comfortable and secure, while challenging the notion that gender roles are fixed or universal.

In this study, we analyse eight categories of public infrastructure, including transport, childcare facilities, healthcare services and public spaces, through the objective and subjective dimensions of gendered well-being. Empirical evidence indicates that gender-sensitive infrastructure enhances social inclusion, economic participation, and overall well-being. Investments in pedestrian areas, childcare centres, and public transport systems, for instance, are particularly beneficial for women, who tend to engage more frequently than men in multimodal travel and care-related mobility [33].

The eight categories selected represent infrastructures that are most directly connected to everyday activities and care, which previous research has identified as central to sustaining capabilities and overall well-being, especially from a gendered standpoint [38,45,51].

Furthermore, this discussion extends to the influence of gender norms on access to and perceptions of infrastructure. These norms influence how women and men prioritise different types of public facilities, as well as how they interpret their contribution to personal and collective well-being. Future analyses could deepen this understanding by incorporating cultural and institutional variables to capture the structural mechanisms underlying gendered patterns of infrastructure use.

From a methodological standpoint, the observed relationships between access to infrastructure and subjective well-being should be viewed as correlational, not causal. Although socioeconomic control variables, such as income, education, employment status and age, were included to minimise confounding effects, the cross-sectional design of the survey does not permit definitive causal conclusions. Nevertheless, the consistency of the associations across multiple indicators supports the robustness and validity of the findings.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measurement Variable and Data Collection

This study used data derived from citizens’ opinions and attitudes regarding well-being in relation to specific public infrastructure to assess the impact of infrastructure on well-being.

All individual-level variables were obtained from the 2023 ‘Infrastructure for Everyday Life and Well-Being’ survey. This survey represents individuals over 18 years of age of both genders residing in Spain, totalling 1502 individuals. Significantly expanding upon a previous study conducted in Spain (referenced in [56]), it incorporates a larger set of questions that provide more detailed insights into the central theme of the importance of infrastructure for well-being from a gender perspective. Notably, the survey also covers two types of infrastructure not included in the previous study: public transport and industrial parks.

The 2023 survey gathers information on the following aspects:

• General background information, including details such as gender, age, place of residence, employment status, and other relevant factors. 2. Factors such as living arrangements (independent or dependent), time use, education level, income, and other personal circumstances are also considered.
• Perceived accessibility of infrastructure: Participants share their views on how accessible they find the following types of infrastructure: (1) nursery schools for children aged up to three years; (2) health centres and hospitals; (3) pavements, pedestrian paths, street lighting, parks and green spaces; (4) care centres for dependent people (nursing homes, day centres and centres for people with disabilities); (5) markets and shopping centres; (6) public transport for local travel and daily commuting; (7) leisure and cultural facilities (theatres, cinemas and exhibition halls); (8) sports facilities (swimming pools, gyms and fitness centres); (9) industrial parks.
• The Role of Infrastructure in Key Well-Being Capabilities

The survey examines the perceived importance of different types of infrastructure in relation to the capabilities identified in well-being literature. The capabilities considered are: (1) physical and mental health; (2) social relationships; (3) education; (4) care and domestic work; (5) employment; (6) mobility; (7) leisure; and (8) emotions.

4.

Subjective well-being. Respondents assess various aspects of subjective well-being, including their overall life satisfaction and how well their current life circumstances align with their personal aspirations.

3.2. Demographic Information of the Data

Figure 1 illustrates the characteristics of the 2023 survey in terms of respondent distribution by sex and age. It is important to note regarding sex categorisation that the survey allowed respondents to self-identify as something other than ‘man’ or ‘woman’. However, the number of non-binary responses was too small to ensure statistical robustness. Consequently, the empirical analysis is based on a binary classification of sex/gender, while recognising the conceptual and social significance of non-binary identities in gender studies.

The data indicate that women constitute 51.0% of the sample, with the highest representation observed among those aged 40 to 64 years (22.0% of the total). The most pronounced difference in representation by sex occurs among individuals aged 63 and over, where women comprise 13.7% of the total sample, 2.4 percentage points higher than the proportion of men. Notably, men outnumber women in only one age group: 18 to 39 years.

The survey considers three types of habitat:

Habitat 1: municipalities with fewer than 5000 inhabitants.

Habitat 2: municipalities with between 5000 and 400,000 inhabitants; and

Habitat 3: municipalities with more than 400,000 inhabitants.

Each of these groups accounts for approximately one-third of the total sample. Figure 2 shows the distribution of respondents by sex and habitat.

Table 2. Statistical summary of the variables.

Variable	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	Number Obs.
Gender	1.51	0.50	1	2	1502
Age	50.10	17.10	18	94	1502
Education	4.74	1.38	1	6	1499
Subjective Well-being	7.79	1.65	1	10	1501
Labour situation	4.48	1.69	1	9	1501
Income	4.68	1.92	1	9	1343

Source: Own elaboration.

shows the statistical summary of the individual demographic variables.

3.3. Methodology. The Well-Being and Infrastructure from a Gender Perspective Index

The study is guided by the following research questions: (1) How does access to infrastructure affect subjective well-being and capability development in relation to gender? (2) Do these effects vary according to the type of infrastructure and the size of the municipality? (3) What policy implications arise from these differentiated impacts?

In order to assess the impact of infrastructure on well-being from a gender perspective, the study employs the methodology proposed by Alarcón-García and Ayala-Gaitán [57]. This approach evaluates the influence of infrastructure access on subjective well-being (SWB) for men and women in terms of capabilities. It is based on the premise that estimating the effect of infrastructure access on capabilities can serve as a proxy for determining its impact on SWB. Consequently, the relationship between infrastructure access and SWB is analysed by assessing its impact on a set of capabilities. To capture this effect, the Well-being and Infrastructure from a Gender Perspective Index (WIGI) was constructed to quantify the influence of infrastructure access and its perceived importance on subjective well-being, as mediated by the development of fundamental capabilities.

The conceptual framework employed in this study treats access to infrastructure as an exogenous variable and capabilities and subjective well-being as endogenous variables. Access to infrastructure represents the extent to which infrastructure is available to individuals.

The central idea behind this approach is that access to infrastructure expands individual capabilities, particularly for women, thereby enhancing life satisfaction with regard to financial well-being, social relationships, and overall subjective well-being.

We hypothesise that improved access to care-related and mobility infrastructure enhances the subjective well-being of women more significantly than that of men due to gendered social roles and caregiving responsibilities. In terms of subjective influences on decision-making, our survey captures perceived well-being and access to infrastructure through self-reported measures. Potential biases are mitigated by including control variables (income, education, and labour status) in the regression models and by applying standardised scales to all respondents.

The construction of the aforementioned index (WIGI) for each infrastructure type is based on two sets of parameters. The first, denoted as $w_{hk}$, provides a measure of the impact of access to infrastructure h on capability k, while the second estimates the influence of improvements in capability k on subjective well-being due to access to infrastructures, through coefficients ${\beta }_k$. Since infrastructures affect subjective well-being through capabilities, this effect is quantified by the product of both coefficients: $w_{hk}{\beta }_k$.

The detailed formulation of the index for each infrastructure h is given by:

$$I_h=\sum _{k=1}^8{w}_{hk}{\beta }_k,h=1,2,\dots ,8.$$

(1)

Here $w_{hk}$ is a parameter that measures the impact of infrastructure h on capability k. This parameter is derived from the score assigned to the importance of infrastructure h for capability k (denoted $S_{hk }$), which ranges from 1 to 10. The score is then rescaled to the range 0–1 using the following formula:

$$w_{hk}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{hk}-min(S_{hk}, h=1,2,\dots ,8)}{\mathit{max}\left(S_{hk},h=1,2,\dots ,8\right)-min(S_{hk}, h=1,2,\dots ,8)}}, h=1,2,\dots ,8 \mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d} k=1,2,\dots ,8.$$

(2)

The parameter ${\beta }_k,\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r} k=1,2,\dots ,8,$ captures the effect of an increase in capability k on subjective well-being (SWB). These coefficients are estimated using a logistic regression model, applied separately for each capability k, where SWB serves as the dependent variable and a vector Z of control variables serves as the independent variable. This analysis is conducted within a generalised linear model (GLM) framework using a binomial link function. The resulting logistic model is:

$$E\left({SWB}_i\right)=\pi \left(E_i\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+exp[-(\alpha +{\beta }_k{C}_k+\gamma \prime Z)}}$$

(3)

where π is the mean function, ${SWB}_i$ is the ith observation of the dependent variable SWB (subjective well-being); and $E_i$ is the ith row of the matrix containing the full set of explanatory variables. Here, α is a constant, ${\beta }_k$ is a coefficient, and γ is a vector of coefficients. The index i = 1, 2, …, 1502 denotes the individuals in the sample.

The dependent variable, ${SWB}_i$, is derived from the survey data. (Following a similar approach to that employed in [56] for a previous survey, the present study utilizes the 2023 survey to construct subjective well-being (SWB) based on respondents’ answers to question P13N_1, which asks: “Could you please indicate on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means you do not agree at all and 10 means you completely agree, the extent to which you agree with the following statement: ‘In most aspects, my life is close to my ideal life’.” The SWB variable is dichotomized, taking a value of 0 for respondents who selected answers 1–7, and 1 for those who selected 8–10. This categorization corresponds to the responses that are, respectively, below or above the overall average).

$C_k$ is a coefficient designed to quantify the extent to which capability k is enhanced through access to infrastructure. As different types of infrastructure have varying impacts on capabilities, this coefficient is calculated as a weighted average, taking into account individuals’ access to different types of infrastructure. The calculation is given by the following equation:

$$C_k=\sum _{h=1}^8{w}_{hk}{A}_h,$$

(4)

where $w_{hk}$ is defined in (2) and $A_h$ represents the access score for infrastructure $h.$ (Following the methodology applied in [56] with a previous survey, access to infrastructure (A_h) in the present study is measured using responses to question P1.h in the 2023 survey. Respondents are asked to rate their satisfaction with the current availability of infrastructure in their place of residence on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 indicates “not at all satisfied” and 10 indicates “very satisfied.”)

The vector Z incorporates socio-economic control variables, including income, education and labour situation.

In order to facilitate interpretation of the index, it is necessary to normalise the values so that 100 represents the average index for the entire sample.

3.4. Data Analysis

Figure 3 shows how respondents answered question P13N_1, which asked about their perceived level of well-being. This variable quantifies well-being on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 denotes ‘not satisfied at all’ and 10 denotes ‘very satisfied’. Within the broader category of ‘not satisfied at all or little’, responses ranging from 1 to 7 are included. Conversely, the ‘very satisfied’ category encompasses responses from 8 to 10.

As can be seen, 56.4% of respondents reported being ‘not very satisfied’ with how their life aligns with their idea of an ideal life. The percentages for women and men are very similar, at 28.5% and 27.9%, respectively. By contrast, 43.5% of respondents said they were ‘very satisfied’, with women exceeding men by 2.7 percentage points.

Table 3. Statistical summary of the variables Subjective Well-being and Access to the infrastructure.

Variable	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	Number Obs.
Subjective Well-being	6.9	2.1	1	10	1502
Access to nursery schools up to 3 years	7.11	2.90	1	10	1461
Access to health centers and hospitals	7.56	2.34	1	10	1502
Access to centers for people with disabilities	5.64	3.07	1	10	1450
Access to sidewalks and pedestrian paths, street lights and parks and green areas	7.66	2.21	1	10	1502
Access to markets and shopping centers	7.10	2.61	1	10	1500
Access to public transport	6.47	2.99	1	10	1494
Access to cultural leisure and sports areas	6.86	2.47	1	10	1500
Access to industrial parks	5.72	3.00	1	10	1491

Source: Own elaboration based on the survey “Infrastructure for Everyday Life and Well-Being”.

provides a statistical summary of responses concerning well-being and the current allocation of infrastructure provided by public administrations.

In summary, the survey provides valuable insights into how respondents assess the importance and accessibility of various types of infrastructure across different dimensions of well-being.

Infrastructure is a crucial element that facilitates the transformation of capabilities into tangible outcomes, while also influencing various aspects of well-being.

4. Results

The survey revealed gender differences in the importance assigned to infrastructure impacting various dimensions of well-being. When the significance of different types of infrastructure on capabilities was evaluated by gender (Figure 4), the following findings were yielded: Except for industrial parks, women rated all types of infrastructure more highly than men across all capabilities. The largest average differences were observed in public transport, infrastructure for nursery schools for children up to three years old, and markets and shopping centres. Notable differences were also present in other types of infrastructure. Of these, cultural, leisure, and sports infrastructure exhibit the smallest gender gap in ratings.

Women rated public transport significantly more highly than men did. The largest differences were observed in relation to care and domestic work, emotions and feelings, the labour market and physical and mental health. However, differences in the remaining capabilities are also considerable, albeit smaller. Women rate public transport more highly than men because they rely on it more for caregiving and household responsibilities. They often have less access to private vehicles and are more concerned about safety. Additionally, public transport is crucial for their access to employment and healthcare.

Regarding nursery school infrastructure for children up to three years old, both men and women consider it to be the most important factor for both education and physical and mental health, on average. In contrast, however, it is regarded as the least important factor in relation to mobility, the labour market, and leisure and free time. In all instances, women assign a higher level of importance than men. The most significant gender differences are observed in care and domestic work, followed by mobility, labour market participation, and leisure and free time. These findings suggest that both men and women recognise the positive influence of infrastructure on crucial aspects such as health and education, underlining its importance for overall well-being. The more pronounced gender differences in the domain of domestic care reflect the greater caregiving responsibilities traditionally borne by women, both within families and in broader contexts.

Centres for people with disabilities are rated as the most important type of infrastructure for physical and mental health, as well as for care and domestic work, by both men and women. However, as previously noted, women rate this type of infrastructure as more important on average than men do. These gender differences may be related to women’s longer life expectancy and their greater likelihood of outliving their partners.

Table 4. Well-being and Infrastructure from a Gender Perspective Index, WIGI (mean = 100).

Infrastructure	Men	Women	Difference (pp)
Nursery Schools up to 3 years	85.98	113.51	27.53
Health Centers and hospitals	91.51	108.37	16.86
Centers for people with dependencies	86.87	113.09	26.22
Pedestrian streets, pavements, parks, public lighting and green areas	90.39	109.16	18.77
Markets and shopping centers	85.96	113.89	27.93
Public transport	85.95	113.89	27.94
Cultural leisure and sports areas	91.46	107.81	16.35
Industrial parks	110.68	86.64	−24.04
Average	91.10	108.30	17.20
	Habitat 1
Infrastructure	Men	Women	Difference (pp)
Nursery Schools up to 3 years	132.48	170.91	38.43
Health Centers and hospitals	141.86	161.12	19.26
Centers for people with dependencies	139.27	174.52	35.25
Pedestrian streets, pavements, parks, public lighting and green areas	138.70	152.90	14.20
Markets and shopping centers	127.65	152.26	24.62
Public transport	121.05	141.92	20.87
Cultural leisure and sports areas	141.10	148.19	7.09
Industrial parks	199.42	131.28	−68.15
Average	142.69	154.14	11.45
	Habitat 2
Infrastructure	Men	Women	Difference (pp)
Nursery Schools up to 3 years	44.49	72.81	28.32
Health Centers and hospitals	44.73	64.70	19.97
Centers for people with dependencies	39.04	71.78	32.74
Pedestrian streets, pavements, parks, public lighting and green areas	38.69	67.99	29.30
Markets and shopping centers	35.92	70.12	34.20
Public transport	34.27	76.86	42.59
Cultural leisure and sports areas	41.26	66.90	25.64
Industrial parks	53.13	57.49	4.36
Average	41.44	68.58	27.14
	Habitat 3
Infrastructure	Men	Women	Difference (pp)
Nursery Schools up to 3 years	89.53	121.31	31.78
Health Centers and hospitals	107.34	123.57	16.23
Centers for people with dependencies	96.86	119.05	22.19
Pedestrian streets, pavements, parks, public lighting and green areas	104.87	127.76	22.88
Markets and shopping centers	103.56	141.23	37.68
Public transport	115.06	140.98	25.92
Cultural leisure and sports areas	104.76	128.36	23.60
Industrial parks	106.50	96.07	−10.43
Average	103.56	124.79	21.23

Source: Own elaboration based on the survey “Infrastructure for Everyday Life and Well-Being”.

presents the main results of the subjective well-being index estimation, both overall and across the three previously defined habitat types. Each row reports the subjective well-being index for men, women, and the gender difference. In line with the findings of [57], our results demonstrate that all index values are positive, reflecting a favourable assessment of the influence of diverse types of infrastructure on the well-being of both men and women. These findings suggest a significant positive correlation between infrastructure provided by public administrations and individuals’ subjective well-being.

5. Discussion

The Well-being and Infrastructure from a Gender Perspective Index (WIGI) reveals significant gender-based disparities in infrastructure access, depending on habitat type. The analysis highlights how different types of infrastructure contribute to subjective well-being and how perceptions of this vary between men and women in municipalities of different sizes.

The main results show that public transport, markets and shopping centres, and nursery schools for children up to three years old contribute most to women’s well-being, while industrial parks contribute least. For men, industrial parks and public transport provide the greatest and least well-being, respectively. However, the infrastructures showing the most significant differences in well-being between women and men are those related to markets and shopping centres, public transport, nursery schools for children up to three years old, and centres for people with dependencies (with differences exceeding 26 percentage points). This may reflect women’s greater reliance on these services due to caregiving responsibilities and mobility patterns. Nursery schools for children up to three years old, in particular, can play a positive role in advancing gender equality by promoting a more equitable distribution of caregiving duties and encouraging fathers’ participation in caregiving activities, thereby fostering more positive parenting attitudes. In contrast, industrial parks exhibit an opposite trend, with men reporting significantly higher well-being scores than women. This suggests that men may benefit more economically or professionally from industrial areas, while women may perceive them as irrelevant or even detrimental to their quality of life.

On average, women have higher indexes than men, meaning that the provision of infrastructure by public administrations generates greater well-being for women. Therefore, an increase in public investment in this type of infrastructure would benefit women more. The range for men is 85.95–110.68, while for women it is 86.64–113.89. Women’s indices are higher for all types of infrastructure, with differences ranging from 16.35 to 27.94 points. However, for industrial parks, the index is significantly higher for men than for women. Results by habitat show that both men and women report higher overall WIGI scores in small municipalities (habitat 1) than in other habitat types. However, the gender gap remains, with women consistently scoring higher. The most significant differences are observed in nursery schools (38.43 points), centres for people with dependencies (35.25 points) and markets and shopping centres (24.62 points). These high scores in small municipalities could be attributed to stronger community ties and greater accessibility of this infrastructure within compact geographic areas.

A striking result is observed in industrial parks, where men report a significantly higher well-being index (199.42) than women (131.28), leading to a disparity of −68.15 points. This suggests that industrial areas may be perceived as crucial economic hubs for men in small municipalities, whereas women may associate them with environmental or social disadvantages.

In medium-sized municipalities (Habitat 2), WIGI scores are considerably lower for both men and women, achieving the lowest average scores of all Habitat types. The gender gap is still present but varies across infrastructure types. The most significant difference is seen in public transport (42.59 pp), followed by markets and shopping centres (34.20 pp) and centres for people with dependencies (32.74 pp).

The lower scores in medium-sized municipalities may reflect reduced infrastructure availability or inefficient services that fail to meet residents’ expectations. The relatively smaller gender gap in industrial parks (4.36 percentage points) suggests that the economic and social impact of these areas is more balanced between men and women in medium-sized municipalities.

In large municipalities, WIGI scores are higher than in medium-sized municipalities, but lower than in small ones. Women continue to report higher well-being indices for most infrastructure types. The largest gender differences are found in markets and shopping centres (37.68 percentage points) and nursery schools (31.78 percentage points), indicating the continued importance of these facilities for women’s well-being.

Public transport also remains critical, with a gender difference of 25.92 percentage points, which suggests that women rely more on public transport systems than men do. However, industrial parks present a reverse trend, with men scoring higher than women (106.50 vs. 96.07), albeit with a smaller disparity of −10.43 percentage points compared to small municipalities.

As a methodological clarification, the relationships identified between access to infrastructure and subjective well-being should be interpreted as correlations rather than causal effects. Although socioeconomic control variables (income, education, employment status and age) were included to mitigate confounding influences, the cross-sectional design of the survey precludes definitive causal inference. Nevertheless, the consistency of the associations observed across multiple indicators supports the robustness of these relationships.

In summary, the results suggest that access to infrastructure improves the well-being of both men and women, with women experiencing a greater improvement. The finding that women reported higher well-being than men suggests that access to government-provided infrastructure contributes more significantly to their well-being. This implies that increased public investment in such infrastructure would benefit women more. Consequently, designing public infrastructure policies with a gender focus could help to reduce gender inequality.

These findings have direct implications for urban planning and policy design. Infrastructure planning is not only about providing physical facilities, but also about how these facilities respond to differentiated social needs across gender and settlement size. Urban planners can use this information to design more inclusive environments, ensuring that the distribution and accessibility of essential infrastructure, such as public transport, childcare centres and markets, aligns with the mobility patterns and caregiving responsibilities that disproportionately affect women. Incorporating gender-sensitive perspectives into urban planning can help create cities and towns that are more equitable, resilient, and supportive of social well-being. Furthermore, acknowledging differing perceptions of industrial parks highlights the importance of planning strategies that balance economic development with social and environmental considerations, ensuring these infrastructures generate shared benefits for both men and women.

The discussion has expanded to include the role of gender norms in shaping access to, and perceptions of, infrastructure. These norms influence how women and men prioritise different infrastructures and interpret their impact on well-being. Future studies could incorporate cultural and institutional variables to better capture these mechanisms and deepen our understanding of the structural roots of gendered infrastructure use.

6. Conclusions

This study uses the ‘Infrastructure for Everyday Life and Well-Being’ survey, developed by the authors and others, which was conducted in 2023 with a sample of 1502 Spanish residents. The survey aimed to estimate subjective well-being in relation to different types of infrastructure from a gender perspective. Participants’ responses revealed gender-based differences in the importance assigned to infrastructure affecting various dimensions of well-being. Building upon a previous survey, the current study introduces two additional types of infrastructure: public transportation and industrial parks. Conversely, this study builds upon previous work by considering these additional infrastructures and conducting an analysis by habitat type. The findings emphasise the importance of integrating a gender perspective into efforts to improve access to infrastructure as a means of promoting gender equality with regard to subjective well-being.

The results indicate that access to infrastructure significantly influences subjective well-being, with notable variations observed across gender and habitat types. Consistently higher WIGI scores among women emphasise their greater dependence on specific infrastructures, particularly those related to caregiving, mobility, and daily life activities. These findings highlight the importance of implementing policies that enhance the accessibility and quality of these infrastructures, particularly in medium and large municipalities, where satisfaction levels tend to be lower.

The negative gender disparity in industrial parks calls into question their perceived inclusivity and impact on women’s well-being. Future urban planning and economic policies should consider ways to make industrial zones more accommodating and beneficial for both genders.

Estimating the subjective well-being index shows that access to infrastructure positively influences well-being for both men and women, but has a notably greater impact on women. These findings emphasise the importance of recognising that infrastructure planning is not gender-neutral and should be approached with a gender-sensitive lens. Investing in gender-equitable infrastructure can significantly reduce disparities in well-being.

Furthermore, incorporating gender-responsive strategies into public infrastructure planning, which address the distinct needs shaped by gender roles, can foster more inclusive economic and social development. This approach reinforces policies that prioritise women’s needs, ensuring broader access to essential services. The equitable expansion of infrastructure accessibility helps bridge gender gaps, enhances women’s autonomy in personal and professional spheres and improves safety, ultimately strengthening their overall well-being and independence.

To promote fairness in infrastructure distribution, policymakers must consider gender disparities when allocating public resources. It is also essential to implement broader economic strategies that work towards reducing gender inequality and improving well-being for all. These measures should focus on ensuring equitable access to opportunities and resources, thereby contributing to a fairer and more inclusive society.

While potential biases in survey responses must be acknowledged, the results strongly suggest that infrastructure significantly affects well-being and cannot be assumed to be gender-neutral. A gender-focused approach to infrastructure planning offers considerable benefits, particularly for women, and is a key means of reducing gender inequality in well-being outcomes.