Volume 13, Issue 7 (July 2026), Pages: 98-106

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

An integrated socio-economic inclusion model for sustainable urban welfare: The mediating role of public services

 Author(s): 

Ilham Mirzaya Putra ¹, Suwardi Lubis ², Satia Negara Lubis ^1, *, Badaruddin Badaruddin ²

 Affiliation(s):

¹Postgraduate School, Regional Planning Department, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
²Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0100-4241

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.07.009

 Abstract

This study aims to develop an integrated socio-economic inclusion model to achieve sustainable urban welfare within the framework of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11. The research is motivated by the urgent need for public policy interventions to address structural poverty amid rising living costs in urban informal settlements. Using a quantitative approach with 384 respondents, this study applies ANOVA, multiple linear regression, and SEM-PLS analysis to examine the complex relationships among the dimensions of inclusion. The findings classify the current level of socio-economic inclusion as "progressive," with health inclusion identified as the strongest predictor of improved community welfare. Furthermore, the SEM-PLS model confirms the strategic role of public services as both a mediator and a moderator, significantly strengthening the positive effects of the education, health, and economic sectors on welfare. This study concludes that achieving sustainable urban welfare requires a holistic policy model that integrates public service optimization with improved access to basic services to effectively break the cycle of poverty.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Socio-economic inclusion, Public services, Public policy, Urban welfare, Structural poverty

 Article history

Received 27 March 2026, Received in revised form 1 Jul 2026, Accepted 16 July 2026

 Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the enumerators and all the respondents in Medan City who willingly participated and spared their time to complete the questionnaires for this study. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study, involving human participants, was conducted in accordance with ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual respondents prior to the administration of the survey questionnaires. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, and they were assured that their participation was entirely voluntary, with the right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, all collected data were anonymized, and no personal identifying information was disclosed in this manuscript. 

 Citation:

Putra IM, Lubis S, Lubis SN, and Badaruddin B (2026). An integrated socio-economic inclusion model for sustainable urban welfare: The mediating role of public services. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(7): 98-106

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (24)

1. Adeyemi BB (2024). Reliability and validity in quantitative research. In: Bui HP (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language education research methods: Fundamentals and innovations: 86–102. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, Hershey, USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2603-9.ch007   [Google Scholar]
2. Batubara BM, Kusmanto H, and Ginting B (2023). Conceptual model implementation of poverty reduction policy in Medan City. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(4): 1297-1307. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180435   [Google Scholar]
3. Berisha E, Caprioli C, and Cotella G (2022). Unpacking SDG target 11.a: What is it about and how to measure its progress? City and Environment Interactions, 14: 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2022.100080   [Google Scholar]
4. Boateng FG and Klopp JM (2024). Urbanization, legacies of elite capture, and multi-dimensional exclusions in Ghana: Towards just housing and neighborhood policies in African cities. Urban Forum, 35: 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-024-09515-4   [Google Scholar]
5. Bull C, Howie P, and Callander EJ (2022). Inequities in vulnerable children’s access to health services in Australia. BMJ Global Health, 7: e007961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007961   [Google Scholar] PMid:35346955 PMCid:PMC8961130
6. Colavitti AM, Floris A, and Serra S (2020). Urban standards and ecosystem services: The evolution of the services planning in Italy from theory to practice. Sustainability, 12(6): 2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062434   [Google Scholar]
7. Dangol N (2024). Shaping the perception of flood risk among residents of riverbank informal settlements in Kathmandu. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 105: 104423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104423  [Google Scholar]
8. Domenech T and Borrion A (2022). Embedding circular economy principles into urban regeneration and waste management: Framework and metrics. Sustainability, 14(3): 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031293   [Google Scholar]
9. Fan C, Xu J, Natarajan BY, and Mostafavi A (2023). Interpretable machine learning learns complex interactions of urban features to understand socio‐economic inequality. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 38(14): 2013-2029. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12972   [Google Scholar]
10. Guo C, Zhou W, Jing C, and Zhaxi D (2024). Mapping and measuring urban-rural inequalities in accessibility to social infrastructures. Geography and Sustainability, 5(1): 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2023.11.004   [Google Scholar]
11. Harahap ZI, Lubis SN, and Aritonang EY (2024). The impact of financial literacy, inclusion, and access on MSME growth and welfare in North Sumatra: A mediating role of business growth. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7): 3271-3283. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4456   [Google Scholar]
12. Jha A, Sindhwani R, Dwivedi A, and Saddikuti V (2022). Sustainable recovery for digital entrepreneurs with shared resources: Enablers, challenges and solutions. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(3): 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-05-2021-0214   [Google Scholar]
13. Krejcie RV and Morgan DW (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3): 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308   [Google Scholar]
14. Nabiyeva GN, Wheeler SM, London JK, and Brazil N (2023). Implementation of sustainable development goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities): Initial good practices data. Sustainability, 15(20): 14810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014810   [Google Scholar]
15. Ogbonna SN, Ochie CN, and Aniwada EC (2024). Urban slum housing quality, and its public health implications in Nigeria: A case of urban slum residents in Enugu metropolis, South East, Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 24: 3231. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20764-7   [Google Scholar] PMid:39567915 PMCid:PMC11580511
16. Ogunniyi OR, Okunlola AF, Alatise MA, and Aregbeshola RA (2023). Socio-economic inclusion and sustainable economic growth: Empirical analysis of Nigeria and South Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(1): 2163077. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163077   [Google Scholar]
17. Omole FO, Olajiga OK, and Olatunde TM (2024). Sustainable urban design: A review of eco-friendly building practices and community impact. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(3): 1020-1030. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i3.955   [Google Scholar]
18. Ozili PK (2020). Social inclusion and financial inclusion: International evidence. International Journal of Development Issues, 19(2): 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-07-2019-0122   [Google Scholar]
19. Reiter B and Lezama P (2013). The importance of inclusion policies for the promotion of development in Brazil and Colombia. Journal of Developing Societies, 29(2): 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X13479707   [Google Scholar]
20. Sakamoto T (2024). Poverty, inequality, and redistribution: An analysis of the equalizing effects of social investment policy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 65(3): 310-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152231185282   [Google Scholar]
21. Sharma P (2022). Informal marketing and livelihood of marginal communities in urban Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. In: Pradhan PK and Leimgruber W (Eds.), Nature, society, and marginality: Case studies from Nepal, Southeast Asia and other regions: 179–195. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21325-0_12   [Google Scholar]
22. Singh J and Singh M (2023). Does financial inclusion impact socio-economic stability? A study of social safety net in Indian slums. International Journal of Social Economics, 50(8): 1060-1084. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-04-2022-0261   [Google Scholar]
23. Souza G, Santos C, and Lisboa É (2025). Water, sanitation, and hygiene in urban areas: A review. Water, 17(17): 2634. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172634   [Google Scholar]
24. Thamrin A, Can LR, and Musiana M (2024). Analysis of youth empowerment policies in supporting sustainable development in developing countries. West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4): 859-863. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v2i04.818   [Google Scholar]