Development and Application of Urban Social Sustainability Index to Assess the Phnom Penh Capital of Cambodia

Abstract

Our world is rapidly urbanizing, while 2.5 billion people are projected to shift from rural to urban areas by 2050, with close to 90% occurring in Asia and Africa. In Southeast Asia, particularly, the Phnom Penh capital city of Cambodia is experiencing this rapid urbanization, facing significant challenges in improving the quality of urban life and achieving social sustainability. Hence, this research aims to assess this capital on social sustainability dimensions to find out the strong and weak points of its 14 districts in order to reveal the improvement potential. The research developed and applied an urban social sustainability index based on national development priorities, SDG11, the New Urban Agenda, and other SDGs that related to human wellbeing and social inclusiveness. The AHP was used to prioritize indicators to develop a priority index, while the standard score was used to apply the index to assess the 14 districts of Phnom Penh. The data for this index application were sourced from Phnom Penh’s commune database. The results showed that the highest-scoring district for urban social sustainability was Chamkarmon, followed by Boeng Keng Kang and Doun Penh. The findings revealed that Prek Pnov was weak in income generation and welfare, while Kamboul was weak in gender inclusion compared to other districts. Prampir Makara was strong, and Sen Sok was weak in resilience to vulnerability. Boeng Keng Kang was strong in welfare and sanitation, while Kamboul was weak in sanitation. Doun Penh was strong, and Mean Chey was weak in water supply.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Objectives

To address global issues such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation, sustainable development goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1]. The goals aim to ensure peace and prosperity for people and the planet by addressing economic, social, and environmental well-being [1,2]. According to the UN statistics, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and nearly 70 percent of its population is expected to live in urban areas by 2050 [3,4]. The data showed that 2.5 billion people, with the gradual shift from rural areas, are expected to live in urban areas by 2050, with close to 90% of this shift occurring in Asia and Africa [4]. Particularly, in Southeast Asia, rapid urbanization is occurring in Cambodia, and six other countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the urban population of this region is expected to increase by another 100 million people by 2030 [5]. Therefore, improving the quality of life and living conditions in cities is needed. In this regard, urban social sustainability has been promoted to foster the harmonious development of societies, create a conducive environment for the cohabitation of socially and culturally diverse groups, and encourage social integration, thereby improving the quality of life [6,7].

To address the above-mentioned urban challenges, Target 11.a of SDG11 ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable’ was set to support positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas through strengthening national and regional development planning [8,9,10]. Particularly, the New Urban Agenda (NUA), adopted by the United Nations’ 167 countries in 2016, further set a new global standard for planning, management, and living in cities [11,12]. NUA has been recognized as an important tool for the sustainable development of cities by offering a series of sustainable urban development standards aimed at providing basic services for all citizens and ensuring that all citizens have access to equal opportunities and face no discrimination. These include access to adequate housing, healthcare quality, clean water and sanitation, quality education and gender mainstreaming, and social inclusion, including access to equal opportunities and facing no discrimination [12,13].

Currently, Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, is facing rapid urbanization issues and significant challenges in improving the quality of urban life and achieving social sustainability [14]. Those include income-related housing issues, for example, housing costs in Phnom Penh are disproportionately high relative to household incomes [15]. Additionally, education and gender-related issues are among the challenges. A study revealed that women remain significantly underrepresented, while observing significant disparities favoring male students at the graduate level [16]. Furthermore, climate vulnerability has been contributing to the pattern of infectious diseases, causing more health risks to urban populations, and this phenomenon has been observed to be increasing in many cities, including Phnom Penh [17]. Moreover, Phnom Penh faces increased flooding, commonly due to heavy rain, and other vulnerabilities due to climate change impacts, while there are signs of land and water scarcity, inequality, and inadequate housing [14,18].

Therefore, this research aims to assess this capital city on the social sustainability dimension by developing and applying an urban social sustainability index. This research applied this index to assess the 14 capital districts (khans) of Phnom Penh to find out the strong and weak points of each district in order to reveal the improvement potentials and offer operational recommendations for decision-makers or urban planners. This research first reviewed existing potential indicators and then used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritize those indicators to develop a priority index. Furthermore, the research used the standard score (Z-score) to apply the index to assess the 14 capital districts. In this application, an important tool is shown for the measurement of urban progress of the Phnom Penh capital toward realizing urban social sustainability dimensions.

1.2. Theoretical Review

Urban social sustainability focuses on creating cities that support a high quality of life for all residents, both now and in the future. It encompasses creating safe, equitable environments that foster social interaction and participation, and that provide residents with a sense of place and satisfaction with their neighborhoods. This is achieved through development that ensures access to housing, services, and economic opportunities, as well as community-focused planning and infrastructure [19,20,21]. Polese and Stren (2000) [6] have expressed urban social sustainability as harmonious growth or development of civil society, fostering a conducive environment to the cohabitation of socially and culturally diverse groups, and encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life. Barron and Gauntlett (2002) [22] stated that promoting urban social sustainability happens when there is a structure, process, relationships, and/or system to support the creation of healthy, livable cities and communities; and usually, social sustainability communities are diverse, equitable, and connected in providing a good quality of life. McKenzie (2004) [23] mentioned that urban social sustainability is a life-quality-enhancing condition in an urban community, and its process in that community can achieve the quality-of-life condition. These definitions often involve a series of indicators, which can be positive, such as literacy rate, or negative, such as homicide/crime rate.

Akcali and Cahantimur (2022) [24] defined urban social sustainability as a pentagon model (five dimensions), the person (household and demographic characteristics), the place (places for daily operations, social infrastructure and accessibility), the people (social network, social relations, and sense of community), the perception (security and safety and sense of place), and the process (participation and future of space). Dempsey et al. (2009) [25] expressed the core of the concept of urban social sustainability as social equity and sustainable community; these involved powerful policy and political concerns, a distributive notion of social justice, and essential concerns with the continued viability, health, and functioning of the society. Colantonio (2010) [26] elaborated that, traditionally, urban social sustainability is seen as hard themes such as poverty alleviation and employment, but these have been increasingly changing or complemented by the currently emerging soft themes that are less measurable concepts such as happiness, sense of place, and social mixing or socializing. Ghahramanpouri et al. (2013) [27] demonstrated the definitions of urban social sustainability as a concept, principles, and measurement framework, and those include social equity, well-being, quality of life, satisfaction of human need, social interaction, cohesion and inclusion, sense of community, and sense of place. Woodcraft (2015) [28] mentioned that urban social sustainability has been an emerging element in sustainable development discourses; it has been discussed over several years to address environmental concerns and social issues in cities, such as displacement, inequality, livability, and the increasing need for affordable housing.

Based on the above definitions and indications, an urban social sustainability framework primarily encompasses basic needs and social services; those include housing, healthcare, and education, with broader attention to safety, sanitation, clean water, and income, as well as welfare, gender inclusion, and vulnerable groups. Such as the first target of the Sustainable Development Goal for cities (SDG11), which aims to ensure access for all to adequate housing and basic services, especially target 11.a which supports positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas.

The literature showed that many studies have introduced and developed the index to assess the urban social sustainability of their city. Atalay and Gülersoy (2023) [29] developed an urban social sustainability index (criteria and indicators) by using a holistic and integrated perspective. This study assessed urban social sustainability by using both qualitative and quantitative data and envisaged mixed techniques to generate the results. Larimian and Sadeghi (2019) [20] presented a scale development and validation to measure urban social sustainability with six dimensions, including sense of place, social interaction, safety, social participation, neighborhood satisfaction, and social equity, but their investigation focused on the influence of the design quality. Larimian et al. (2020) [21] also discussed urban social sustainability at the neighborhood scale, focusing on measurement and the impact of personal and physical factors. They developed and tested a model for measuring urban social sustainability and then examined the roles of socio-economic factors and different urban forms in promoting or weakening various aspects of urban social sustainability at the neighborhood level. Additionally, Chan (2020) [30] developed a sustainable city index through Delphi methods in three rounds. This research revealed that the Delphi technique has a limited role in developing an index, as its functions are based on the 5-point Likert-type scale. Then, the AHP technique was suggested to be used to develop an urban sustainability index in order to improve the accuracy of the index application. In the same way, Han (2019) [31] used the AHP technique to develop the urban sustainability index and then used the standard score (Z-score) technique for the index application to assess the urban sustainability of Korean cities. Similarly, Lee (2015) [32] used the AHP technique to develop the urban growth management index and then used the Z-score technique for the index application to assess urban growth management in the metropolis of Korea. Following these studies, the current research chose the AHP technique for index development and the Z-score technique for index application.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analytical Framework

This research first reviewed and selected indicators from the commune database and then prioritized the selected indicators by using the AHP methods. After obtaining the priority weights, this research developed a priority index to assess the urban social sustainability of Phnom Penh. Before this index application, unifying the data (unit conversion) was processed, and then, this research used the standard score (Z-score) for the index application to assess 14 districts of the capital. Through a comparative assessment, a standard average was formed, and then this research used it to find out the strong and weak points of each capital district based on this standard (Figure 1).

2.2. Development of Urban Social Sustainability Index

2.2.1. Indicator Framework

The development of an urban social sustainability index to assess the Cambodian city must incorporate the national priority for urban development. Furthermore, the development must follow SDG11 and NUA. Moreover, it has to include the social dimension-related SDGs, such as SDGs1-6, SDG8, SDG10, and SDG12. Therefore, the framework for reviewing and selecting urban social sustainability indicators is summarized in Figure 2.

Regarding the national priority, the Cambodian government has successfully implemented the Rectangular Strategy in four distinct phases (2004–2023), with significant achievements in all areas, while setting human resources as the first priority and increasing the national budget for the education sector [33,34,35]. Moreover, the key priorities of the sustainable financing strategy in Cambodia also included the education sector with gender mainstreaming [36]. Currently, the new government has been implementing the Pentagonal Strategy Phase I (2023–2028) that sets national development priorities centered on the themes of growth, employment, equity, efficiency, and sustainability, to boost growth, create jobs, ensure equity, increase efficiency, and maintain sustainability. In particular, the objective of “Pentagon 4” is set for “resilient, sustainable, and inclusive development” in which the “priority 4” is aimed at strengthening urban management, focusing on existing urban areas in the capital city and provinces, to ensure safety, beauty, good environment, and well-being of people, as well as socio-economic efficiency [37].

With the aim of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, SDG11 has target 11.a set to support positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas [10]. Moreover, the NUA aimed to provide basic services for all citizens and ensure that all citizens have access to equal opportunities and face no discrimination [12,13]. These services include access to adequate housing, healthcare, clean water, sanitation, education, and family planning while ensuring equal access to opportunities and face no discrimination [12]. This incorporated other related goals, such as SDGs1–6, 8, 10, and 12, in particular, SDG4 targeted to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all, and SDG5 targeted to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls [38,39] while SDG8 targeted to promote inclusive economic growth, productive employment, and decent work for all and SDG10 targeted to reduce inequality within and among countries [40].

Based on this indicator framework, the indicators to be reviewed and selected for the index development must meet the following criteria: First, the national priority for urban development set in the Pentagonal Strategy; second, urban sustainability dimensions by SDG11 and NUA; third, urban inclusiveness dimensions by social SDGs (1–6, 8, 10, 12); and fourth, data availability at the commune database [41] for the Phnom Penh capital. After review and cross-checking with these criteria, 32 potential indicators are selected to prioritize urban social sustainability index development (see

Table 1. Selected indicators to prioritize for urban social sustainability index development.

No.	Reviewed Indicators	Shortened	Section
1	Ratio of employees in production and services per 1000 population	Careers	Income
2	Ratio of populations with vocational training per 1000 population	Training
3	Percentage of households living in poor-quality houses	Housing
4	Percentage of main and secondary jobs by Women (nonagricultural)	W-jobs
5	Ratio of female students to male students at high schools and universities	Students	Gender
6	Percentage of female teachers who taught at primary and secondary schools	Teachers
7	Ratio of Technical female workers to total employees in production and services	T-workers
8	Percentage of commune/district council members (decision-making level) as women	M-decision
9	Ratio of the number of households (Families) with violence per 1000 households	F-violence	Welfare
10	Ratio of pharmacies and clinics per 100,000 population	Healthcare
11	Percentage of children joined childcare/kindergarten (aged 3–5)	Childcare
12	Ratio of under-five mortality per 1000 births	Newborn
13	Percentage of children enrolled at primary schools (aged 6–11)	Primary	Education
14	Percentage of children enrolled at secondary schools (aged 12–14)	Secondary
15	Percentage of illiterate Youth (aged 15–24)	Y-literacy
16	Percentage of illiterate Adults and middle-aged groups (25–45)	A-literacy
17	Ratio of Vulnerable groups/people per 1000 population	V-groups	Vulnerability
18	Ratio of households informally settled/living on public land per 1000 households	I-settlement
19	Ratio of Land conflict cases per 1000 households	L-conflicts
20	Ratio of households having Drug-abuse members per 1000 households	D-abuse
21	Percentage of households accessible to waste collection services	Wastes	Sanitation
22	Percentage of households affected by environmental pollution	Polluted
23	Ratio of schools that installed proper toilets per 100 students	School
24	Percentage of households that installed proper toilets	Home
25	Percentage of households with potable water consuming habits	Habit	Water
26	Percentage of households located close to water sources (less than 150 m)	Access
27	Percentage of Schools having potable water to use or drink	S-water
28	Percentage of Households having potable water to use or drink	H-water
29	Ratio of criminal cases per 100,000 population	Crimes	Safety
30	Ratio of households affected by floods per 1000 households	Floods
31	Ratio of deaths by diseases per 100,000 population	Diseases
32	Ratio of deaths by traffic accidents per 100,000 population	Accidents

).

2.2.2. Indicator Prioritization for Index Development

In order to develop and apply the urban social sustainability index more accurately and represent the national context and priorities for urban development of Phnom Penh, this research conducted a prioritization process of the above indicators. The AHP technique was used to analyze the relative weight (priority) of indicators. So far, the AHP is widely used as a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions based on mathematics and psychology. It was founded by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s [42,43], who partnered with Ernest Forman to develop Expert Choice in 1983 and has been extensively studied and improved since then [44,45].

As widely demonstrated by Han [31] and Lee [32], this technique represents a valid method for weighting analysis of urban indicators. The individual expertise experiences are utilized to estimate the relative magnitudes of factors through pairwise comparison matrices, while these matrices must be consistent. The consistency ratio must be less than or equal to 0.1 (CR ≤ 0.1 or CR ≤ 10%) [45]. The AHP-based indicator structure to prioritize for urban social sustainability index development is shown in Figure 3.

The weights of all indicators were analyzed by calculating the principal eigenvector through the AHP matrix. Its consistency was assessed through the consistency index (CI) and the consistency ratio (CR), as shown in the following Equations (1) and (2):

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{I}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\lambda }\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}-\mathit{n}}{\mathit{n}-1}}$$

(1)

and

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{C}\mathit{I}}{\mathit{R}\mathit{I}}}$$

(2)

where λmax corresponds to the maximum eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix, n is the number of pairwise-comparison indicators demonstrated in the figure above, and RI is a random consistency index that depends on the number of pairwise-comparison indicators. CR must be lower than or equal to 0.1 [45].

To implement AHP, this research was based on the theories and practical applications of Soldatou et al. (2022) [46] and Dongmin et al. (2020) [47], as well as related studies [31,32]. According to Soldatou et al. (2022), “the pairwise comparison judgements are performed based on the authors’ expertise and experience [48,49,50]. It should be noted that the consistency of the 11 × 11 pairwise comparison matrix has been confirmed by calculating CR, which is equal to 8%, which is less than the threshold of 10%” [46]. Accordingly, this research conducted the AHP technique based on the author’s experiences and practical applications in [51,52,53,54], in which the survey obtained 102 respondents who have work experience in sustainable cities and community planning, development, management, and assessment in Cambodia. The characteristics of the respondents and survey process can be found in [52]. The experience gained from this study and relevant research [53,54], the current research obtained the pairwise comparison matrices for the indicators’ sections as shown in

Table 2. AHP pairwise comparison matrices of the indicators’ sections.

Section	Income	Gender	Welfare	Education	Vulnerability	Sanitation	Water	Safety
Income	1	1	1	1 1/5	1/2	2	2	1 1/2
Gender	1	1	2	1/2	1	1	1/2	2/3
Welfare	1	1/2	1	1	1	1	1/2	2
Education	5/6	2	1	1	2	1/2	2	1
Vulnerability	2	1	1	1/2	1	1	1/2	1/2
Sanitation	1/2	1	1	2	1	1	1	1/2
Water	1/2	2	2	1/2	2	1	1	1/2
Safety	2/3	1 1/2	1/2	1	2	2	2	1

. The pairwise comparison matrices for all 32 indicators by 8 sections have been calculated in the same way. Please see them all in the Supplementary Materials attached to this paper.

2.3. Application of Urban Social Sustainability Index

2.3.1. Standard Z-Score Methods

After obtaining a priority-based urban social sustainability index, this research used the standard score (Z-score) technique for index application. This technique has been widely used to standardize variables before comparison. As a statistical technique that makes different variables more comparable, it was found to be useful for the following purposes: Ensuring equal contribution (standardization ensures that all variables contribute evenly to a scale when items are added together), revealing essential findings (standardization can help reveal essential findings that would otherwise miss), determining which variable is most important (standardization can help determine which variable is the most important), comparing regression coefficients (when variables have the same variances, it is easier to compare the relative magnitudes of different regression coefficients), and simplifying computation (standardization simplifies the computation of sample covariances and correlations) [55,56]. There are some ways to standardize variables. For example, subtracting the mean from the value for each case and dividing the difference between the individual’s score and the mean by the standard deviation.

Based on the above-mentioned significance, this research standardized the variables (the values of indicators) before the comparison. The comparison by standardizing values of indicators and using indicator weights for comparative urban assessment was found to be a significant approach to improve the accuracy of the comparison [31]. Therefore, this research used these methods to apply the index to comparatively assess the urban social sustainability of 14 districts of the Phnom Penh capital of Cambodia.

Based on the normal distribution model, the ‘statistical standard variable, Z-value, standard score, or Z-score’ technique defines the number of standard deviations with the value of a raw score (for example, the indicator values or data observed) being higher or lower than the mean value of what was observed or measured. The above-average raw scores or raw values resulted in positive standard scores, while the below-average scores or values resulted in negative standard scores, as shown in Figure 4.

Furthermore, the Z-scores were calculated by subtracting the mean of the population from each raw score (indicator value) and then dividing the difference by the standard deviation of the population. The process of converting raw scores into standard scores is termed normalization; however, normalization can refer to a wide range of ratios. Calculating the Z-score requires the specification of a mean value (average) and the standard deviation of the full population with which the data points were associated. If only a sample of population observations is available, then approximation with the sample mean value (average) and standard deviation gives the T-statistic [58].

Kreyszig [59] has demonstrated that the analyzed population mean value (average) and standard deviation of raw score X were converted into a standard score by the following formula, with μ standing for the mean of the population, and σ representing the standard deviation of the population:

$$\mathbf{Z}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{X}-\mathsf{\mu }}{\mathsf{\sigma }}}$$

The absolute value of Z represents the distance between the raw score X and the population mean in units of standard deviation; Z is negative when the raw score is below the average, and positive when it is above the average. The standard normal distribution Tables developed by Claude et al. in 2016, and revised by Claude in 2017 [58], were created to provide probability values (p-values). According to the developed Tables, Z values are points on the horizontal scale, whereas probabilities (values in the body of the Table) are the regions bounded by the normal curve and the horizontal scale.

2.3.2. Data Unit Conversion and Index Application

Before data conversion and index application, it is good to know the profile of the capital of Cambodia. Phnom Penh has a total population of 2,129,371 in 2019 [60] and is located at the intersection of four rivers (known as the four-face river). They are the Sap River (Tonle Sap), the upper Mekong River, the lower Mekong River, and the Bassac River. Figure 5 below illustrates the map of Phnom Penh and its 14 districts, illustrating the district location and the boundary, together with their population.

As mentioned in the indicator framework, the data for all indicators of 14 districts is reviewed and sourced from the 2019 Phnom Penh Socio-Economic Data, known as the commune database (the government’s source), which is prepared and published by the Phnom Penh Capital Department of Planning under the Cambodian government’s Ministry of Planning [41]. The data used for all assessment indicators were translated from the Cambodian language and calculated based on the required unit of each indicator, which means all data have been converted into the same unit to be comparable.

After the data unit conversion, this research used the Z-score technique for index application to assess urban social sustainability of Phnom Penh’s 14 districts in order to find out the strong and weak points of each district based on the formed standard average. According to the first and second clean city contests, organized every three years by the National Committee for Clean City Assessment [61], many capital districts have been awarded Clean City Romduol III (1st rank) and Romduol II (2nd rank). More importantly, each of these districts has its own strong points to be followed and learnt from, especially for the districts that have low or weak points on that indicator, which can learn and improve based on the best practices of the strong districts. Furthermore, the ASEAN (11 countries, including Cambodia) has developed the ASEAN Sustainable Cities Award, which is an initiative to keep ASEAN cities clean, green, and livable even as they continue to grow as centers of economic and industrial activity. It is not only promoting environmentally sustainable practices and monitoring progress towards environmental sustainability, but also enhancing environmental education and awareness among city communities, stimulating public participation in city programs, recognizing efforts towards improving sustainability, and encouraging partnership between public authorities, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. Additionally, Phnom Penh has also won this Award [62]. This confirmed that this capital really has strong points of indicators and best practices to follow.

Therefore, forming a standard average based on each district’s strong points of indicators and best practices will help to find out the weak points of its peers after comparison and reveal the improvement potentials for the preference of Cambodian people and the context of urban social sustainability in Cambodia. Hence, this research followed this concept to form a standard average based on the use of the Z-score technique to assess the 14 districts through the application of the urban social sustainability index.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Priority Weights of Urban Social Sustainability Index Development

After conducting the AHP pairwise comparison analysis to prioritize the selected potential indicators for urban social sustainability index development, this research obtained the priority weights as shown in

Table 3. Relative weights of urban social sustainability assessment indicators.

Section	Weight	Indicator	Weight	Priority Weight	Rank
Income	0.1448	Careers	0.4771	0.0691	1
		Training	0.1382	0.0200	21
		Housing	0.2564	0.0371	11
		W-jobs	0.1282	0.0186	22
Gender	0.1061	Students	0.3263	0.0346	13
		Teachers	0.1632	0.0173	25
		T-workers	0.3620	0.0384	10
		M-decision	0.1485	0.0158	27
Welfare	0.1166	F-violence	0.1202	0.0140	30
		Healthcare	0.2020	0.0235	19
		Childcare	0.4566	0.0532	4
		Newborn	0.2212	0.0258	18
Education	0.1413	Primary	0.4017	0.0568	2
		Secondary	0.3350	0.0473	7
		Y-literacy	0.1572	0.0222	20
		A-literacy	0.1061	0.0150	28
Vulnerability	0.1069	V-groups	0.2800	0.0299	16
		I-settlement	0.4687	0.0501	6
		L-conflicts	0.1152	0.0123	32
		D-abuse	0.1361	0.0145	29
Sanitation	0.1128	Wastes	0.2802	0.0316	15
		Polluted	0.3625	0.0409	8
		School	0.1197	0.0135	31
		Home	0.2375	0.0268	17
Water	0.1260	Habit	0.4380	0.0552	3
		Access	0.1443	0.0182	23
		S-water	0.1274	0.0161	26
		H-water	0.2904	0.0366	12
Safety	0.1454	Crimes	0.2336	0.0340	14
		Floods	0.3645	0.0530	5
		Diseases	0.2777	0.0404	9
		Accidents	0.1242	0.0181	24
Total	1.0000	-	8.0000	1.0000	-

. The highest-weight section was Safety (0.1454), followed by Income (0.1448) and Education (0.1413). The highest-weight indicator was career (0.0691), followed by primary education (0.0568) and habit (0.0552).

The above priority index development results also showed that the highest-weight indicator under the ‘Income’ section was the ‘Ratio of employees in production and services per 1000 population’, while the highest-weight indicator under the ‘Gender’ section was the ‘Ratio of technical female workers to total employees in production and services’, which also related to employment. In this sense, the careers or employment dimensions were considered the first priority for urban development to achieve social sustainability in Phnom Penh. It is also the same with one of the five main priorities of the Cambodian government, indicated in the ‘Pentagonal Strategy’, while the first three of the five strategic priorities of this Strategy aimed to promote this dimension. Those three priorities are (i) ensuring economic growth, (ii) creating more jobs, and (iii) achieving poverty reduction [37]. Therefore, achieving urban social sustainability in Phnom Penh should be given more consideration on employment dimensions. UN and WB reports recently also claimed that employment is crucial for Cambodia’s urban social sustainability by reducing poverty, improving living standards, fostering inclusive growth, and building community resilience, as decent jobs provide income, access to services (health, education), and integrate the poor into the economy, preventing the social strains of rapid urbanization such as inequality and poor basic services. Strong employment creates purpose, engages workers, and supports the ‘Green Jobs’ agenda, aligning economic development with environmental and social goals for balanced, long-term urban well-being [63,64,65].

3.2. Results of Urban Social Sustainability Index Application to Assess 14 Districts

3.2.1. Income Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Income’ section showed that the strongest income sustainability district was Chamkarmon (1.9892), followed by Doun Penh (1.5644) and Boeng Keng Kang (1.5481), as shown in Figure 6a.

Chamkarmon was the strongest income sustainability district, compared to others because this district had maintained the highest ratio of employees working in production and services per 1000 population and the highest percentage of households living in quality houses, while also higher in the ratio of populations, aged 18–35, who joined vocational training per 1000 population and the percentage of main and secondary non-agricultural jobs by women, as shown in Figure 6b.

Doun Penh was the stronger income sustainability district after Chamkarmon because this district had maintained a higher ratio of employees working in production and services per 1000 population, which is the indicator to obtain the highest weight.

Boeng Keng Kong was another stronger income sustainability district after Chamkarmon and Doun Penh because this district had maintained a higher ratio of employees working in production and services per 1000 population as well.

Prampir Makara was the strongest district in maintaining the highest ratio of populations, aged 18–35, who joined vocational training per 1000 population.

Mean Chey was a stronger district after Prampir Makara and Chamkarmon in maintaining the higher ratio of populations, aged 18–35, who joined vocational training per 1000 population.

Kamboul was the strongest district in maintaining the highest percentage of main and secondary non-agricultural jobs by women.

Pou Senchey was a stronger district after Chamkarmon in maintaining the higher percentage of households living in quality houses, and after Kamboul and Chamkarmon in maintaining the higher percentage of main and secondary non-agricultural jobs by women.

3.2.2. Gender Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Gender’ section showed that the strongest gender-inclusive district was Doun Penh (1.2891), followed by Chbar Ampov (1.1634) and Boeng Keng Kang (1.1332), as shown in Figure 7a.

Doun Penh was the strongest gender-inclusive district, compared to others, because this district had maintained the highest ratio of female students to male students studied at high schools and universities, while the higher ratio of female employees to total employees in production and services, and the higher percentage of commune’s and district’s council members as women, as shown in Figure 7b.

Chbar Ampov was another stronger gender-inclusive district after Doun Penh because this district had also maintained the highest ratio of female to male students studied at high schools and universities, which is the indicator to obtain the highest weight.

Boeng Keng Kong was another stronger gender-inclusive district after Doun Penh and Chbar Ampov because this district had maintained the highest ratio of female students to male students studying at high schools and universities, as well.

Tuol Kouk, Dangkao, Sen Sok, and Prek Pnov were the other strongest districts in maintaining the highest ratio of female students to male students studying at high schools and universities, but they were not good in other indicators.

Prampir Makara was the strongest district in maintaining the highest percentage of female teachers teaching at primary and secondary schools.

Chroy Changvar was the strongest district in maintaining the highest ratio of female employees to total employees in production and services.

Kamboul was the strongest district in maintaining the highest percentage of commune and district council members as women.

3.2.3. Welfare Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Welfare’ section showed that the strongest welfare-inclusive district was Boeng Keng Kang (1.5254), followed by Prampir Makara (1.4363) and Doun Penh (1.4206), as shown in Figure 8a.

Boeng Keng Kang was the strongest welfare-inclusive district, compared to others, because this district had maintained the highest ratio of pharmacies and clinics per 100,000 population and of the number of households without family violence per 1000 households. This district was also stronger in maintaining the higher percentage of children who have joined childcare/kindergarten programs aged 3–5 and the higher ratio of under-five survivals per 1000 births, as shown in Figure 8b.

Prampir Makara was the stronger welfare-inclusive district after Boeng Keng Kong because this district had maintained a higher percentage of children who had joined childcare/kindergarten programs aged 3–5, which is the indicator to obtain the highest weight, the higher ratio of pharmacies and clinics per 100,000 population, and the higher ratio of under-five survivals per 1000 births.

Doun Penh was another stronger welfare-inclusive district after Boeng Keng Kong and Prampir Makara because this district had maintained a higher ratio of pharmacies and clinics per 100,000 population, a higher ratio of under-five survivals per 1000 births, and a higher number of households without family violence per 1000 households.

Tuol Kouk was the strongest district in maintaining the highest percentage of children who had joined childcare/kindergarten programs aged 3–5. This district was also stronger in maintaining a higher number of households without family violence per 1000 households.

3.2.4. Education Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Education’ section showed that the strongest educational sustainability district was Chamkarmon (1.9307), followed by Boeng Keng Kang (1.6225) and Kamboul (1.5371), as shown in Figure 9a.

Chamkarmon was the strongest educational sustainability district, compared to others, because this district had maintained the highest percentage of children studied at primary schools aged 6–11, the highest percentage of literate youth aged 15–24, and the highest percentage of literate adults and middle-aged groups (25–45). This district was also stronger in maintaining the higher percentage of children studied at secondary schools aged 12–14, as shown in Figure 9b.

Boeng Keng Kang was the stronger educational sustainability district after Chamkarmon because this district had maintained a higher percentage of literate adults and middle-aged groups, and a higher percentage of literate youth aged 15–24.

Kamboul was another stronger educational sustainability district after Chamkarmon and Boeng Keng Kang because this district had maintained a higher percentage of children studied at primary schools aged 6–11, a higher percentage of children studied at secondary schools aged 12–14, a higher percentage of literate youth aged 15–24, and a higher percentage of literate adults and middle-aged groups.

Prampir Makara was a stronger district in maintaining the higher percentage of children studied at secondary schools aged 12–14, a higher percentage of literate youth aged 15–24, and a higher percentage of literate adults and middle-aged groups.

Pou Senchey was a stronger district in maintaining the higher percentage of literate youth aged 15–24 and the higher percentage of literate adults and middle-aged groups.

3.2.5. Vulnerability Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Vulnerability’ section showed that the strongest social resilience district was Prampir Makara (1.2233), followed by Chamkarmon (1.1817) and Tuol Kouk (1.0970), as shown in Figure 10a.

Prampir Makara was the strongest social resilience district, compared to others, because this district had maintained the lowest ratio of land conflict cases per 1000 households, a lower ratio of households living on public land (informal/illegal settlements) per 1000 households, as shown in Figure 10b.

Chamkarmon was the stronger social resilience district after Prampir Makara because this district had a lower ratio of vulnerable groups (i.e., orphans, homeless, disabled, and elders) per 1000 population, and a lower ratio of household members with drug abuse per 1000 households.

Tuol Kouk was another stronger social resilience district after Prampir Makara and Chamkarmon because this district had a lower ratio of vulnerable groups (i.e., orphans, homeless, disabled, and elders) per 1000 population, a lower ratio of land conflict cases per 1000 households, and a lower ratio of household members with drug abuse per 1000 households.

Doun Penh was stronger in maintaining the lowest ratio of households living on public land (informal/illegal settlements) per 1000 households.

Kamboul was stronger in maintaining the lower ratio of land conflict cases per 1000 households, a lower ratio of households living on public land (informal/illegal settlements) per 1000 households, and a lower ratio of household members with drug abuse per 1000 households.

3.2.6. Sanitation Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Sanitation’ section showed that the strongest sanitation sustainability district was Boeng Keng Kang (1.2585), followed by Prampir Makara (1.2557) and Chamkarmon (1.2506), as shown in Figure 11a.

Boeng Keng Kang was the strongest sanitation sustainability district, compared to others, because this district had maintained a higher ratio of primary, secondary, and high schools that have installed proper toilets per one hundred students, and a higher percentage of households that have installed proper toilets, as shown in Figure 11b.

Prampir Makara was a stronger sanitation sustainability district after Boeng Keng Kang because this district had maintained the lowest percentage of households that have been affected by environmental pollution, and a higher ratio of primary, secondary, and high schools that have installed proper toilets per one hundred students.

Chamkarmon was another stronger sanitation sustainability district after Boeng Keng Kang and Prampir Makara because this district had maintained a lower percentage of households that have been affected by environmental pollution, and a higher percentage of households that have installed proper toilets.

Doun Penh was the strongest district in maintaining the highest percentage of households that have installed proper toilets, and a higher percentage of households accessible to waste collection services.

Tuol Kouk and Chbar Ampov were stronger in maintaining the highest percentage of households accessible to waste collection services.

Prek Pnov was stronger in maintaining the higher ratio of primary, secondary, and high schools that have installed proper toilets per one hundred students.

3.2.7. Water Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Water’ section showed that the strongest clean water sustainability district was Doun Penh (1.6919), followed by Prek Pnov (1.6191) and Tuol Kouk (1.4789), as shown in Figure 12a.

Doun Penh was the strongest clean water sustainability district, compared to others, because this district had maintained the highest percentage of households with potable water drinking and consuming habits, a higher percentage of primary, secondary, and high schools with potable water access to use/drink, and a higher percentage of households with potable water access to use/drink, as shown in Figure 12b.

Prek Pnov was the stronger clean water sustainability district after Doun Penh because this district had maintained the highest percentage of primary, secondary, and high schools with potable water access to use/drink, the highest percentage of households with potable water access to use/drink, and a higher percentage of households with potable water drinking and consuming habits.

Tuol Kouk was another stronger clean water sustainability district after Doun Penh and Prek Pnov because this district had maintained a higher percentage of households with potable water drinking and consuming habits, and the highest percentage of households with potable water access to use/drink.

Russey Keo, Mean Chey, and Pou Senchey were the strongest districts as they had the highest percentage of households located close to water sources (less than 150 m).

Chamkarmon, Prampir Makara, Chroy Changvar, and Boeng Keng Kang were stronger in maintaining the highest percentage of households and primary, secondary, and high schools with potable water access to use/drink.

3.2.8. Safety Section

The results of the urban social sustainability index application to assess the 14 capital districts of Phnom Penh at the ‘Safety’ section showed that the strongest district for urban safety was Mean Chey (1.8914), followed by Chamkarmon (1.8159) and Prampir Makara (1.7726), as shown in Figure 13a.

Mean Chey was the strongest district for urban safety, compared to other districts, because this district had maintained the lowest ratio of criminal cases per 100,000 population, the lowest ratio of households affected by floods per 1000 households, and the lowest ratio of deaths by diseases, such as malaria, dengue fevers, and tuberculosis, per 100,000 population, as shown in Figure 13b.

Chamkarmon was the stronger district for urban safety after Mean Chey because this district had maintained the lowest ratio of criminal cases per 100,000 population, the lowest ratio of households affected by floods per 1000 households, and the lowest ratio of deaths by traffic accidents per 100,000 population.

Prampir Makara was another stronger district for urban safety after Mean Chey and Chamkarmon because this district had maintained the lowest ratio of criminal cases per 100,000 population, and a lower ratio of deaths by traffic accidents per 100,000 population.

Tuol Kouk, Sen Sok, Prek Pnov, and Boeng Keng Kang were stronger in maintaining the lowest ratio of households affected by floods per 1000 households.

Pou Senchey and Chroy Changvar were stronger in maintaining the lowest ratio of criminal cases per 100,000 population.

Doun Penh was stronger in maintaining the lowest ratio of deaths by traffic accidents per 100,000 population.

3.3. Overall Urban Social Sustainability Findings of 14 Districts

Based on the index application results presented and discussed in Section 3.2, nine districts were found to be strong, stronger, and strongest in urban social sustainability levels across the eight sections, as shown in

Table 4. Urban social sustainability levels of 14 districts by 8 sections.

Section	K01	K02	K03	K04	K05	K06	K07	K07	K09	K10	K11	K12	K13	K14
Income	●●●	●●											●
Gender		●●●										●●	●
Welfare		●	●●										●●●
Education	●●●												●●	●
Resilience	●●		●●●	●
Sanitation	●		●●										●●●
Water		●●●		●							●●
Safety	●●		●			●●●

Note: ‘Resilience’ to social ‘Vulnerability’: those districts had higher resiliency and lower vulnerability; ‘●’ = strong or high; ‘●●’ = stronger or higher; ‘●●●’ = strongest or highest.

.

Chamkarmon was found to be strong in ‘Sanitation’, stronger in ‘Resilience and Safety’, and strongest in ‘Income and Education’. Doun Penh was found to be strong in ‘Welfare’, stronger in ‘Income’, and strongest in ‘Clean water and Gender inclusion’. Prampir Makara was found to be stronger in ‘Welfare and Sanitation’ and strongest in ‘Resilience’. Tuol Kouk was found to be strong in ‘Resilience and Clean water’.

Mean Chey was found to be strongest in ‘Safety (strong in disease prevention and low death rate by flood)’. Prek Pnov was found to be stronger in ‘Water source’. Chbar Ampov was found to be stronger in ‘Gender inclusion’. Kamboul was found to be strong in ‘Education (primary school enrolled)’. Boeng Keng Kong was found to be strong in ‘Income and Gender inclusion’, stronger in ‘Education (primary and secondary schools enrolled)’, and strongest in ‘Welfare and Sanitation’.

Five districts were found to be weak, compared to nine other districts across the eight sections of the urban social sustainability assessment framework. They are Dangkao, Russey Keo, Sen Sok, Pou Senchey, and Chhroy Changvar, even though these districts were found to be strong, stronger, and strongest in some indicators. The improvement potentials for these districts, as well as nine other districts, based on each assessment indicator, have been demonstrated in Section 3.5.

3.4. Urban Social Sustainability Ranking of 14 Districts

3.4.1. Section-Based Ranking

Chamkarmon (1.9892) was found to be the strongest district for urban income sustainability based on the indicators of careers, vocational training, affordable housing, and jobs by women, while Prek Pnov (0.4077) was the weakest, as shown in Figure 14.

Doun Penh (1.2891) was found to be the strongest district for urban gender inclusion based on the indicators of women’s empowerment at schools or universities, teaching profession, technical workers, and decision makers, while Kamboul (0.5203) was the weakest.

Boeng Keng Kang (1.5254) was found to be the strongest district for urban welfare inclusion based on the indicators of families without violence, access to healthcare, childcare programs, and survival of newborns, while Prek Pnov (0.3228) was the weakest.

Chamkarmon (1.9307) was found to be the strongest district for urban educational sustainability based on the indicators of primary and secondary education enrollment, and literacy of youth and adults, while Sen Sok (0.3495) was the weakest.

Prampir Makara (1.2233) was found to be the strongest district for urban resilience to social vulnerability based on the indicators of the vulnerable groups of orphans, homeless, disabled, and elder populations, informal settlements on the public land, land conflicts, and household members with drug abuse, while Sen Sok (0.4626) was the weakest.

Boeng Keng Kang (1.2585) was found to be the strongest district for urban sanitation sustainability based on the indicators of household waste collection, households affected by polluted environments, schools that installed proper toilets, and households that have installed proper toilets, while Kamboul (0.3430) was the weakest.

Doun Penh (1.6919) was found to be the strongest district for urban clean water sustainability based on the indicators of access to clean water sources, schools’ access to potable water, households that have potable water to use/drink, and households with clean water using habits, while Mean Chey (0.5022) was the weakest.

Mean Chey (1.8914) was found to be the strongest district for urban safety based on the indicators of criminal cases, households affected by floods, deaths by diseases, and deaths by traffic accidents, while Chbar Ampov (0.4725) was the weakest.

3.4.2. Consolidated Ranking

Based on the consolidated results of urban social sustainability assessment of 14 districts across the eight sections of indicators, this research obtained the top-five districts as follows: Chamkarmon (10.7896), Boeng Keng Kang (10.6996), Doun Penh (10.6766), Prampir Makara (10.6553), and Tuol Kouk (9.2817), respectively, whereas the lowest rank was Dangkao (5.1188). All rankings of the 14 districts are shown in Figure 15.

Chamkarmon achieved the first rank because this district obtained the first rank for two sections, ‘Income and Education’, which have the highest weights. More than that, this district obtained the second rank for two other sections, ‘Safety and Resilience’, as well as the third rank for another section, ‘Sanitation’. Boeng Keng Kang achieved the second rank because this district obtained the first rank for two sections, ‘Welfare and Sanitation’, which contained upper-middle weights. Furthermore, this district obtained the second rank for another section, ‘Education’, and the third rank for two other sections, ‘Income and Gender’. Doun Penh achieved the third rank because this district obtained the first rank for two sections, ‘Gender and Clean Water’, one of which contained the upper-middle weight. Moreover, this district obtained the second rank for another section, ‘Income’, and the third rank for the other section, ‘Welfare’.

3.5. Strong and Weak Points of 14 Districts by Each Indicator

As demonstrated in Section 2.3.2, ‘Data Conversion and Index Application’, this research obtained the standard average level (orange color), significantly to find out the strong and weak points ‘current level (blue color)’ of each district by each indicator. Through this standard, the research also revealed the improvement potential for the preference of Cambodian people and the context of urban social sustainability in Cambodia, as demonstrated in the following.

Chamkarmon, according to Figure 16a, was found to have only eight indicators below the standard, and in clean water and gender-inclusive sections. This research suggests improving indicators of clean water consumption habits, access to water sources, female technical/skilled workers in production and services, and female council members at the commune or district level, so that women have a voice in decision-making. According to Figure 16b, Doun Penh’s findings have only seven indicators below the standard, and in the resilience to social vulnerability section. This research suggests improving indicators of vulnerable groups, land conflicts, and household members with drug abuse.

Prampir Makara, according to Figure A1a, was found to have only five indicators below the standard, and in the income section. This research suggests improving indicators of affordable housing and women’s income in main and secondary nonagricultural jobs. According to Figure A1b, Tuol Kouk was found to have twelve indicators below the standard, especially in the gender-inclusive and sanitation sections. This research suggests that improving indicators of female students who have studied until high-school/university level, female teachers have taught at primary/secondary schools, households affected by polluted environments, and schools that have installed proper toilets.

Dangkao, according to Figure A2a, was found to have twenty-four indicators below the standard, especially in clean water, and three indicators for each section, except the vulnerability section. This research suggests improving indicators of clean water consumption habits and water sources, clean water use in schools and households, as well as employment in production and services, skilled population, and affordable housing. According to Figure A2b, Mean Chey was found to have twenty-one indicators below the standard, especially all indicators of the education and sanitation sections, and three indicators for each of the clean water and vulnerability sections. This research suggests improving indicators of primary and secondary education and youth and adults’ literacy, as well as household waste collection, households affected by polluted environments, and schools and households that have installed proper toilets.

Russey Keo, according to Figure A3a, was found to have eighteen indicators below the standard, especially in the income, welfare, vulnerability, and safety sections. This research suggests improving income indicators, such as employment in production and services, skilled population, and affordable housing; safety indicators, such as criminal cases, households affected by floods, and deaths by diseases; and welfare indicators, such as access to pharmacies and clinic centers, childcare programs, and survival of newborns. According to Figure A3b, Sen Sok was found to have twenty-one indicators below the standard, especially in all indicators of the education section and three indicators for each of the gender-inclusive, vulnerability, sanitation, and clean water sections. This research suggests improving the indicators of primary and secondary education and literacy of youth, adults, and middle-aged groups.

Pou Senchey, according to Figure A4a, was found to have fourteen indicators below the standard, especially in the gender-inclusive and income sections. This research suggests improving gender-inclusive indicators, such as female students enrolled at high school and university levels, female teachers at primary and secondary schools, and female council members at commune and district levels, and income indicators, such as employment in production and services and skilled population. According to Figure A4b, Chroy Changvar was found to have seventeen indicators below the standard, especially in the welfare section. This research suggests improving the indicators of family violence, access to healthcare services, childcare programs, and survival of newborns.

Prek Pnov, according to Figure A5a, was found to have twenty-two indicators below the standard, especially in the income, gender-inclusive, welfare, education, vulnerability, sanitation, and safety sections. This research highly suggests improving the income and welfare indicators, such as employment in production and services, skilled population, affordable housing, family violence, access to healthcare services, and childcare programs. According to Figure A5b, Chbar Ampov was found to have twenty-four indicators below the standard, especially in the income, education, vulnerability, and safety sections. This research suggests improving income and safety indicators, such as employment in production and services, skilled population, affordable housing, women’s income, criminal cases, households affected by floods, deaths by diseases, and traffic accidents.

Boeng Keng Kang, according to Figure A6a, was found to have only seven indicators below the standard, and in the income and gender-inclusive section. This research suggests improving the indicators of women’s income, access to water sources or reservoirs, and traffic accidents. According to Figure A6b, Kamboul was found to have twenty indicators below the standard, especially in all indicators of the vulnerability sections and almost all indicators of the gender-inclusive, sanitation, and safety sections. This research suggests improving the vulnerability indicators, such as vulnerable groups, illegal settlements on public land, land conflicts, and household members with drug abuse, and safety indicators such as criminal cases, households affected by floods, and traffic accidents.

4. Conclusions

This research developed and applied an urban social sustainability index based on the national priority for urban development, SDG11, NUA, and other SDGs related to human wellbeing and social inclusiveness. AHP was used to develop a weight-based index, and the standard Z-score was used to apply the index to assess 14 districts of Phnom Penh. The results showed that Chamkarmon was the strongest district, followed by Boeng Keng Kang and Doun Penh, while Prampir Makara and Tuol Kouk were ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. The strongest district for urban income sustainability was Chamkarmon, whereas Prek Pnov was the weakest. The strongest district for urban gender inclusion was Doun Penh, whereas Kamboul was weak. The strongest district for urban welfare inclusion was Boeng Keng Kang, whereas Prek Pnov was weak. The strongest district for urban educational sustainability was Chamkarmon, whereas Sen Sok was weak. The strongest district for urban resilience to social vulnerability was Prampir Makara, whereas Sen Sok was weak. The strongest district for urban sanitation sustainability was Boeng Keng Kang, whereas Kamboul was weak. The strongest district for urban clean water sustainability was Doun Penh, whereas Mean Chey was weak. The strongest district for urban safety was Mean Chey, whereas Chbar Ampov was weak.

The findings revealed that Chamkarmon achieved the first rank because this district obtained the first rank for the income and education sections, which had high weights, while obtaining the second rank for the safety and resilience to social vulnerability sections, and the third rank for the sanitation section. Boeng Keng Kang achieved the second rank because this district obtained the first rank for welfare and sanitation sections, which had upper-middle weights, while obtaining the second rank for the education section and the third rank for income and gender-inclusive sectors. Doun Penh achieved the third rank because this district obtained the first rank for clean water and gender-inclusive sections, even though only one of them had an upper-middle weight, while it obtained the second rank for the income section, and the third rank for the welfare section.

This research is believed to have the following limitations. The technical and vocational training was regarded as a skilled labor-force indicator under the income section, so if this indicator were included in the education section, the assessment might show slightly different results. Furthermore, this research viewed income to have impacts on housing conditions, which means if households were living in poor quality houses, their income would be low, but not all households with good incomes would spend their money on house upgrading; however, this possibility was very low and would not impact the results much. Hence, future studies exploring these aspects in detail would further improve the understanding of income-spending behaviors of Phnom Penh residents. In addition, gender inclusion in decision-making was limited to management levels of public administration and could not reflect the situations in private companies, civil societies, or development partners; therefore, future studies taking these aspects into account could contribute to a wider understanding of gender inclusion in decision-making across those organizations. Lastly, this research is limited to its developed index framework and data availability in the commune database; in this case, other research developing a different framework and using different sources may obtain different results.