Model of social sustainability for Dhaka city, Bangladesh

The study addresses the challenge of achieving socially sustainable urban development amid rapid urbanization, especially in developing regions. Global urbanization trends indicate a rising share of urban populations in developing countries, intensifying social issues such as poverty, segregation, inadequate services, and lack of social connection. Dhaka, Bangladesh, exemplifies these pressures, having grown into a megacity with severe livability concerns. The research problem is the lack of a structured and comprehensive social sustainability model to guide city authorities in addressing essential social needs and improving quality of life. The study’s purpose is to propose and statistically validate a social sustainability model for socially sustainable urban development in Dhaka, identifying key themes and indicators relevant to developing-country contexts. The study posits that social sustainability significantly influences socially sustainable urban development, articulating eleven hypotheses covering health facilities; gender equality and women’s empowerment; urban poverty and slum improvement; provisions for children, elderly, disabled people, and scavengers; transportation availability; satisfaction with housing/space; open space; social capital; social justice; safety; and education facilities. The model aims to inform policy, planning, and implementation, and contribute to achieving SDG 11.

The literature situates social sustainability as a core pillar of sustainable urban development, gaining prominence since the 1990s but often underemphasized relative to economic and environmental dimensions, particularly in developing regions. Definitions emphasize processes and structures that support current and future generations' capacity to build healthy, livable communities, satisfying human needs while safeguarding resources. Although cities globally have advanced infrastructure and services, social aspects have lagged, prompting attention to socially sustainable urban development focused on education, equity, community, safety, and inclusion. Dhaka faces acute social sustainability challenges due to rapid urbanization and high density, including inadequate housing, facilities, transport, healthcare, sanitation, and open spaces. Policy frameworks such as Bangladesh’s National Urban Sector Policy (2011) and the New Urban Agenda (2016) highlight social themes—basic needs, equitable access, community participation, gender equality—aligned with scholarly work (e.g., Bramley, Dempsey, Chan). Guided by the Theory of Sustainable Development and context-specific indicators (CSD 2001), the study selects eleven social sustainability themes for Dhaka: health facilities (HF); gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE); urban poverty and slums improvement (UPSI); urban children, aged, disabled, and scavengers (UCADS); transportation availability (TA); satisfied with space (SWS); open space (OS); social capital (SC); social justice (SJ); safety (SF); education facilities (EF). Hypotheses (H1–H11) test each theme’s positive influence on socially sustainable urban development (SSUD).

Study area and design: Dhaka city (Bangladesh). Quantitative approach with a structured questionnaire targeting Dhaka voters (as respondents with relevant living experience). Multistage sampling: (1) Purposive selection of Dhaka city voters; (2) Systematic sampling of 23 wards from city corporations; (3) Systematic sampling of households using voter lists from ward commissioners and the Bangladesh Election Commission. Sample size: G*Power 3.1.9.7 indicated a minimum of 287 (power > 0.80). 573 responses collected; after outlier removal (9 via Mahalanobis D2), final N=564. Preliminary study: Content validity (I-CVI, S-CVI) assessed by six experts (directors, planners, consultants, analysts). Based on feedback, items were merged/rearranged; 62 items under 11 themes retained for pilot. A pilot (n=109) informed language refinement. Variables: Independent: 62 items across 11 social sustainability themes (HF, GEWE, UPSI, UCADS, TA, SWS, OS, SC, SJ, SF, EF). Dependent: 5 items measuring SSUD. Items adopted from prior literature (Supplementary Tables S1, S2). Data processing: SPSS v22 used to check missing data (none). Outliers removed (9). Normality assessed via skewness and kurtosis (within ±2). Multicollinearity assessed (Tolerance >0.10, VIF <10). Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha overall=0.951 (62 items); individual variables 0.899–0.957 (>0.70). Analytical strategy: Split-sample approach for EFA and CFA to avoid bias (Henson & Roberts, 2006; Green et al., 2016). EFA: 219 responses using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation in SPSS to refine constructs. CFA/SEM: 345 responses using AMOS 26.0 to assess measurement and structural models, establishing unidimensionality, validity (convergent, discriminant), reliability, and model fit. Goodness-of-fit indices reported include chi-square/df, RMSEA, CFI, GFI, IFI, TLI, PGFI, PNFI. Path analysis conducted to test hypotheses using standardized estimates, standard errors, critical ratios (t-values), and p-values. Five observations per item criterion considered for CFA.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA): KMO=0.902; Bartlett’s test Sig=0.000. Communalities: one indicator (SC5) <0.40 removed; 66 items retained initially. Scree plot indicated 12 factors with eigenvalues >1 explaining 78.58% of total variance. Rotated factor loadings for 66 indicators were >0.50 (except SC5). Measurement model (CFA): From 66 items, 11 removed due to high MI (>15) and low R2 (<0.30), leaving 55 items. Final full measurement model fit (after re-specifications): chiSq/df=1.583, RMSEA=0.041, CFI=0.953, GFI=0.855, IFI=0.953, TLI=0.947, PGFI=0.727, PNFI=0.784. Ten additional items dropped due to MI/SRC, leaving 45 items for the structural model. Construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker), and reliability were satisfied. Structural model: Assessed with 41 independent items under 11 variables. Fit indices: chiSq/df=1.594, RMSEA=0.042, CFI=0.956, GFI=0.866, IFI=0.956, TLI=0.950, PGFI=0.722, PNFI=0.779. Endogenous R2 (SSUD)=0.75, indicating substantial explanatory power. Final retained indicators: 38 items across 11 themes. Hypotheses testing (all significant, positive effects on SSUD): - H1 (HF → SSUD): β=0.065, C.R.=2.269, p=0.023. - H2 (GEWE → SSUD): β=0.158, C.R.=2.021, p=0.043. - H3 (UPSI → SSUD): β=0.163, C.R.=3.226, p=0.001. - H4 (UCADS → SSUD): β=0.131, C.R.=2.333, p=0.020. - H5 (TA → SSUD): β=0.075, C.R.=2.228, p=0.026. - H6 (SWS → SSUD): β=0.092, C.R.=2.792, p=0.005. - H7 (OS → SSUD): β=0.108, C.R.=2.035, p=0.042. - H8 (SC → SSUD): β=0.142, C.R.=3.715, p<0.001. - H9 (SJ → SSUD): β=0.087, C.R.=1.962, p=0.050. - H10 (SF → SSUD): β=0.116, C.R.=3.436, p<0.001. - H11 (EF → SSUD): β=0.066, C.R.=2.113, p=0.035. Overall, the validated model demonstrates that social sustainability significantly and positively influences socially sustainable urban development in Dhaka, operationalized via 38 indicators across 11 themes.

The findings support the premise that strengthening social sustainability themes enhances socially sustainable urban development in Dhaka. Each theme’s positive association reflects context-specific deficits and priorities: - Health facilities: Urban expansion strains healthcare infrastructure, necessitating enhanced access and quality to support social sustainability. - Gender equality and women’s empowerment: Given safety concerns and gender disparities (e.g., Dhaka ranked as a hazardous city for women), empowering women and ensuring equity are foundational to sustainable urban societies. - Urban poverty and slum improvement: High levels of urban poverty hinder sustainability via unemployment, crime, and inadequate housing; targeted slum upgrading and poverty alleviation are crucial. - UCADS (children, elderly, disabled, scavengers): Addressing needs of disadvantaged groups mitigates long-term unsustainability and promotes equity. - Transportation availability: Chronic congestion and insufficient public transit undermine livability; improving affordable, safe, and reliable mobility supports social sustainability. - Satisfied with space (housing quality/satisfaction): Housing conditions are central to well-being; improving residential quality boosts perceived livability. - Open space: Loss of green/open areas due to rapid development highlights the need to preserve and expand accessible open spaces. - Social capital: Community networks and trust contribute to resilience and collective action; fostering social capital beyond informal survival strategies can reinforce sustainability. - Social justice: Embedding equity and justice in planning, especially for slum populations, aligns development with inclusive outcomes. - Safety: Personal and community safety is essential for social well-being and participation in urban life. - Education facilities: Access to education underpins opportunity and inclusion, aligning with urban development indices and SDG targets. Collectively, the model provides a statistically validated framework guiding policymakers and urban planners to prioritize interventions that directly affect residents’ quality of life and the city’s social sustainability trajectory.

The study develops and validates a comprehensive social sustainability model for Dhaka, demonstrating that 11 social themes—operationalized through 38 indicators—significantly and positively influence socially sustainable urban development. The model offers a practical framework for city authorities to formulate and revise plans and policies (e.g., Structure Plan, Urban Area Plan, Detailed Area Plan, Urban Sector Policy), addressing deficits in health, equity, poverty alleviation, vulnerable groups, transport, housing satisfaction, open space, social capital, justice, safety, and education. Beyond Dhaka, the model is relevant to rapidly urbanizing cities in developing regions (e.g., Delhi, Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai, Cairo), supporting context-sensitive policy design and implementation. The work contributes to achieving SDG 11 by translating social sustainability themes into actionable indicators and providing empirical evidence of their impacts on urban sustainability. Future research should employ mixed methods, diversify data collection (e.g., case studies, interviews, focus groups), tailor indicators to local culture and needs, increase sample sizes, and apply the approach to other cities for broader generalizability and refinement.

- Methodological: Only a quantitative approach was used; reliance on a questionnaire survey. - Scope of constructs: Only eleven social sustainability themes were adopted from existing literature. - Sample: Modest sample size (N=564) relative to the city’s population. - Generalizability: Study focused on Dhaka; findings may be context-specific. Future directions include mixed-methods designs, multiple data collection strategies (case studies, interviews, focus groups), culturally tailored indicator development, larger samples, and replication in other rapidly urbanizing cities.