The Roles of Institutional Trust and Spatial Justice in the Resilient Smart Mobility Systems

The Roles of Institutional Trust and Spatial Justice in the Resilient Smart Mobility Systems | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Perspective The Roles of Institutional Trust and Spatial Justice in the Resilient Smart Mobility Systems Ida Shaheera Bakhtiar, Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Smart city narratives often conflate technological optimization with urban resilience, promising seamless mobility through Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) and algorithmic management. However, this technocentric focus frequently obscures the invisible infrastructure of social systems required to sustain these technologies. This conceptual paper posits that without addressing deep-seated socio-spatial inequalities, smart infrastructures remain fragile and prone to public rejection, not due to technical failure, but social disconnect. We propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), a novel theoretical framework bridging Mobility Justice with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Unlike traditional adoption models, the JSMM redefines urban safety to encompass protection from algorithmic bias and spatial marginalization, identifying Institutional Trust as the critical mediator between infrastructural neglect and user adoption. To ground these theoretical abstractions in contested urban reality, we operationalize the framework through a forensic spatial vignette of the Iskandar Rapid Transit (IRT) in Malaysia. Rather than a statistical validation, this analysis functions as a structural stress-test, revealing how historical planning decisions that bypassed low-socioeconomic communities have fostered a trust deficit. The findings illustrate how digital exclusion acts as a fundamental safety risk, effectively ‘redlining’ vulnerable groups from the smart city grid. The paper concludes by advocating for a governance shift from technical solutionism to restorative justice, ensuring mobility systems are not only efficient but sufficiently inclusive to be resilient. Mobility Justice Algorithmic Accountability Resilient Infrastructure Institutional Trust Iskandar Malaysia Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction The ongoing urban transition toward smart cities is increasingly framed as a convergence of Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure and algorithmic governance a synthesis promising to optimize mobility, reduce congestion, and advance sustainability objectives. The scholarly literature repeatedly foregrounds this technocratic horizon as a driver of urban efficiency, highlighting how IoT-enabled sensing, data analytics, and automated decision-making can reconfigure transport systems to enhance service delivery and resilience (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Rocco et al., 2023 ; Ismaeel et al., 2023 ). Yet, this framing is not neutral; it tends to privilege frictionless efficiency and the optimization of flows over the social processes and governance arrangements that make such systems legitimate, usable, and fair in the long run (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Mutambik, 2023). While digital innovations may contribute to resilience in some dimensions (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Mutambik, 2023), governance frameworks and participatory feedback loops have often lagged behind rapid infrastructure deployment. Complementary lines of analysis insist that transport systems must be responsive to environmental and social needs, not merely technologically sophisticated (Ismaeel et al., 2023 ), a view echoed in work that problematizes techno-optimism and its implications for justice (Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Mian et al., 2025). Consequently, smart mobility cannot be reduced to a technical artifact; it is inseparable from the social institutions that authorize, fund, deploy, and operate it (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Rocco et al., 2023 ; Silvestri et al., 2024 ). Therefore, to move beyond a purely efficiency-centric logic, this work foregrounds Mobility Justice as a central axis for evaluating smart transport, alongside the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a lens to understand how citizens adopt algorithmic services. Mobility justice reframes transportation as a public good that must be accessible, affordable, and navigable by all urban residents, recognizing that the deployment of smart services can reproduce or even exacerbate existing inequalities if accessibility and stakeholder collaboration are neglected (Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Silvestri et al., 2024 ; Ismaeel et al., 2023 ). This aligns with findings in urban studies that digital services, when introduced without attention to participation, risk reproducing exclusion and unequal power relations (Silvestri et al., 2024 ; Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Mian et al., 2025). Specifically, when digital infrastructures rely on data-intensive algorithms, they may encode bias or unequal access into core transport decisions (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Mishra & Singh, 2023 ). A central claim of this paper is that Institutional Trust functions as the decisive mediator determining whether residents engage with or reject smart city interventions. When governance is opaque or biased, trust erodes, and the adoption of automated transport decisions becomes contested (Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Mutambik, 2025 ). In contexts characterized by historical neglect or weak state capacity, without credible governance, users may doubt the legitimacy of automated decisions and withdraw from public-sphere engagement. Conversely, when inclusive processes build trust, citizens are more likely to sustain digital mobility services, thereby stabilizing urban transport networks under uncertainty (Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Mutambik, 2025 ). In response to these tensions, we integrate TAM with a mobility-justice lens. While TAM offers a powerful tool for analyzing adoption (Mian et al., 2025), on its own it can overlook distributive concerns. This synthesis is supported by evidence from digital governance work, which demonstrates that transparent, inclusive institutions can foster legitimacy in digital transport systems (Silvestri et al., 2024 ; Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Mian et al., 2025). In developing-city contexts, the uptake of intelligent transport is not solely a technical problem; it is a social one driven by facilitating conditions and the distributional implications of design choices (Silvestri et al., 2024 ; Mian et al., 2025). Among urban systems, mobility infrastructure is particularly susceptible to these tensions, as it mediates access to employment and social life. Yet, it is often optimized for throughput over inclusion. Consequently, this paper interrogates a critical governance puzzle: How does spatial marginalization actively distort the adoption of smart mobility, and to what extent does institutional trust function as the ‘invisible infrastructure’ necessary to bridge this divide? To enrich this analysis, we expand the taxonomy of urban safety to explicitly include Social Safety and Digital Safety. Traditional safety metrics emphasize collision avoidance; however, concerns regarding algorithmic bias, privacy loss, and discriminatory outcomes reveal a broader spectrum of danger that threatens social well-being (Ahad et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Mishra, 2024 ; Mishra & Singh, 2023 ). By distinguishing Social Safety (protection from exclusion) from Digital Safety (protection from biased data), we provide a comprehensive account of resilient urban mobility that underscores the need for transparent institutions to mediate the interplay of people, data, and infrastructure (Ismaeel et al., 2023 ; Ahad et al., 2020 ; Mishra & Singh, 2023 ). 1.1 Significance of the Study This research contributes to the smart city discourse by transcending standard technical analyses of mobility. By interrogating the ‘invisible infrastructure’ of social systems, we challenge the technocratic determinism that equates technological optimization with urban resilience. The study advances SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by establishing Intstitutional Trust not merely as a social bonus, but as a functional prerequisite for the safety and adoption of smart systems. Through the proposed Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), we offer a governance-focused solution to the ‘safety paradox’, ensuring that future innovations in Iskandar Malaysia and beyong are not only efficient but fundamentally just. 1.2 Theoretical Contribution This study makes two significant theoretical contributions to the smart city literature. First, we propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), which deconstructs the traditional Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by rebuilding it with a critical ‘Justice Layer’. By positioning Spatial Marginalization as a structural antecedent to adoption, we address the ‘context collapse’ often present in technocentric adoption literature. Second, and most notably, we redefine the taxonomy of ‘Urban Safety’ to address the specific vulnerabilities of the digital age. By expanding this definition to include ‘Digital Safety’, specifically, protection from algorithmic bias and exclusion, alongside traditional physical metrics. This framework provides a fresh, urgent lens for evaluating resilience. This theoretical expansion creates a necessary vocabulary for future research in contested urban environments, shifting the focus from collision avoidance to the prevention of social erasure. 2. Theoretical Integration: Bridging TAM and Mobility Justice 2.1 Overview and Purpose This section articulates a hybrid theoretical framework that relocates the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) within a Mobility Justice lens. We retain TAM’s core propositions, Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), but reframed them as contingent on socio-spatial conditions. Building on Mobility Justice scholarship, we introduce Spatial Marginalization as an external determinant that shapes adoption by coupling the physical mobility grid with the digital layer. We then position Institutional Trust as a central mediator that translates social and governance conditions into resilience. Finally, we extend TAM with a triadic Safety construct (Physical Safety, Social Safety, Digital Safety). This Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) yields a socially attuned path to predict sustainable transport adoption(Dirsehan & Zoonen ,2022;Suraweera et al., 2025 ;Jacobs et al., 2020 ) in developing contexts such as Iskandar Malaysia, directly answering the call for a holistic and integrative approach to urban resilience. 2.2 Limitations of a Purely Technocentric Model TAM remains the dominant lens for forecasting user acceptance, positing that rational calculations of utility drive adoption (Jacobs et al., 2020 ). However, recent systematic analyses within this journal corroborate that the challenges of smart city deployment are no longer merely technical but deeply rooted in privacy, ethical issues, and scalability. A purely technocratic TAM abstracts away these material constraints. In practice, residents in marginalized neighborhoods may experience Ease of Use( a good IU) but negligible Usefulness if the physical route bypasses their community. This infrastructure-inclusion gap demonstrates TAM’s vulnerability to context collapse. As Al-Obaidi et al.(2024) caution, focusing on IoT feasibility without addressing these social dimensions risks creating fragile systems that fail to scale because they ignore the ethical prerequisites of user adoption. Specifically, we argue that this fragility is dual-natured when communities are spatially marginalized; they often create informal transport networks that compete with the smart system, leading to lower ridership(financial fragility), while simultaneously fostering public vandalism or active disengagement (social fragility). 2.3 The ‘Justice Layer’: Spatial Marginalization as a Determinant We define Spatial Marginalization as the chronic disconnection of specific communities from mobility networks due to urban form, such as sprawl and service design. This conceptualization is empirically supported by recent findings on the 15-minute city, where peripheral topographies and uneven planning create distinct accessibility gaps for vulnerable demographics. In the JSMM, Spatial Marginalization operates as a structural barrier that bifurcates adoption logic: Impact on Perceived Usefulness(PU): It serves the digital promise from physical reality. As noted by Omwamba et al.(2025), a mobility app is functionally useless if the optimized route remains geographically inaccessible to the user. Impact on Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU): Crucially, spatial exclusion degrades PEOU by introducing a friction penalty. For a resident in a last-mile dead zone, the app does not offer a seamless solution. Because it presents a complex logistical puzzle that requires the user to calculate precarious intermodal connections, such as walking on unlit roads, hailing informal transit just to access the smart node. In this sense, added physical and cognitive load render the system effortful to use, distinct from its theoretical utility. 2.4 Institutional Trust as the Mediator of Resilience A central claim of this framework is that Institutional Trust acts as the invisible infrastructure of the smart city. Transparent institutions are necessary to sustain public acceptance; opacity or bias erodes trust regardless of technical quality (Jacobs et al., 2020 ). Drawing on Tyler’s ( 2006 ) theory of procedural justice, we posit that users evaluate the fairness of the governance process before adopting the tool. If low-SES populations perceive that the algorithms governing Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) are opaque, they will lack the trust required to share their data. Consequently, true urban resilience depends on institutional trust earned through inclusive processes rather than technology alone. 2.5 Extending TAM with a Safety taxonomy Traditional safety in smart mobility emphasizes physical collision avoidance. The JSMM expands this to a triadic taxonomy: Physical Safety: Protection from bodily harm. Social Safety: Protection from exclusion and discrimination. Digital Safety: Protection from privacy loss and algorithmic bias. This expanded definition links directly to Institutional Trust. A system is only perceived as trustworthy when these broader safety concerns are addressed through governance mechanisms. This aligns with recent critiques that digital risks are not externalities, but core determinants of acceptance(Suraweera et al.,2025). 2.6 Proposed Conceptual Model: The Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) Synthesizing these constructs, we propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) as a heuristic framework for future empirical testing. Figure 1 visualizes the hypothesized causal flow, illustrating how spatial and safety antecedents filter through the mediator of Institutional Trust to shape adoption. We posit three specific theoretical propositions for validation: H1:Spatial Marginalization(Suraweera et al.,2025) as a Trust Erosion Mechanism. Spatial Marginalization is hypothesized to negatively correlate with Institutional Trust. Rationale: Historical neglect breeds suspicion that algorithms will prioritize already-served enclaves while reinforcing the isolation of the periphery. H2: The Trust Filter. Institutional Trust positively mediates(Jacobs et al., 2020 ) the effect of PU on Intentions to Adopt. Rationale: Usefulness is necessary but insufficient. Trust acts as the decisive filter; high-tech utility only translates into adoption when the governance structure is perceived as legitimate and benevolent. H3:The Safety Paradox. Perceived Social and Digital Safety are direct, positive antecedents of Institutional Trust. Rationale: When users feel protected from ‘algorithmic strandedness,’ which is the risk of being invisible to the system, their trust in the institution increases. Conversely, the fear of biased exclusion constitutes a safety hazard that stalls adoption. This framework in Fig. 1 shifts the analytical focus from making the technology better (Optimization) to making the governance fairer (Justice), directly addressing the resilience gaps identified in recent smart city literature. Transition to Application Theoretical models, however robust, remain sterile abstractions until they are confronted with on-the-ground spatial realities. To demonstrate the explanatory resilience of the JSMM, we must move beyond conceptual architecture to operational confrontation, stress-testing these constructs within a context where the friction between high-tech ambition and legacy inequality is most acute. We turn now to Iskandar Puteri, a region that serves not merely as a case study, but as a site of intense paradigmatic tension for the smart city dilemmas of the Global South. Here, the collision between rapid algorithmic deployment and deep-seated socio-spatial stratification offers a critical testing ground for the Just Smart Mobility Model. 3. Operationalizing the Framework: A Spatial Vignette Approach 3.1 Rationale for Site Selection and Instrumentation Why validate a universal theory through the lens of Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri 2035 (RTIP 2035)? Iskandar Puteri represents a critical case: it is at the precise fracture point between aggressive, master-planned ‘smartness’ (the IRT corridors) and persistent socio-spatial fragmentation (the Kampung and B40 enclaves). We utilize the statutory Local Plan as our primary forensic instrument because, unlike sanitized promotional brochures, the gazetted plan reveals the raw zoning logic of the city. It allows us to objectively measure the distance between the state’s digital promise and the marginalized resident’s physical reality, making it the ideal instrument to stress-test the ‘Justice Layer’ of our model. 3.2 Methodological Approach: The Spatial Vignette as a Diagnostic Tool To demonstrate the explanatory power of the JSMM, this paper employs a spatial vignette strategy. We define this vignette not as an empirical test of statistical significance, but as a contextual stress-test of the proposed theoretical constructs against a real-world planning scenario. By treating the statutory Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri 2035 (RTIP 2035) as a dataset, we perform a forensic overlay of gazetted land-use zones against the confirmed transit network alignment. This approach allows us to trace the structural pathway from physical exclusion to Institutional Trust, illustrating how legacy planning decisions create the ‘trust deficit’ that the JSMM predicts will stall smart mobility adoption. Specifically, we interrogate the disconnect between ‘Priority Development Zones’ (areas slated for high-tech investment) and ‘Social Preservation Zones’ (legacy B40 housing). By using the local plan’s own hierarchy to expose the structural origins of spatial marginalization, this method offers a heuristic tool for planners to diagnose resilience gaps before infrastructure deployment, shifting the focus from reactive user surveys to proactive structural analysis. 3.3 Study Context: The High-Stakes Transition to Autonomous Transit The urgency of this forensic analysis is underscored by the aggressive mobility targets set by the RTIP 2035 . The region currently faces an acute ‘sprawl-mobility’ challenge, with private vehicle dependency accounting for 97% of inbound and 86% of outbound traffic. To combat this, the plan envisions a radical modal shift, transitioning from a fragmented bus network to a high-tech integrated ecosystem comprising Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART), Light Rapid Transit (LRT), and High-Speed Rail (HSR). Specifically, the RTIP 2035 proposes three primary ART corridors, including the Iskandar Puteri Line (connecting Sunway Iskandar, Medini, and Bukit Indah) and the Skudai Line (connecting Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Taman Ungku Tun Aminah (TUTA)). Furthermore, it gazettes the construction of a RM 300 million Terminal Utama Daerah (TUD) at Gerbang Nusajaya to serve as a multi-modal interchange for the future HSR. However, despite these high-capital interventions, current public transport coverage remains limited to 35–45% of the municipal area. The central tension, therefore, is whether this massive infrastructural upgrade will expand coverage to marginalized zones or merely accelerate connectivity between existing elite enclaves. 4. Analysis and Findings: A Forensic Spatial Stress-Test 4.1 The Physical Layer : Visualizing the Infrastructure-Inclusion Gap An overlay analysis of the IRT network alignment against the demographic topography of Iskandar Puteri reveals a distinct ‘infrastructure-inclusion gap’ (see Fig. 4). While the trunk lines (blue routes) successfully connect major economic nodes including administrative centers in Kota Iskandar and commercial zones in Medini,the feeder service coverage exhibits significant spatial selectivity. This exclusion is not merely a byproduct of geography but is institutionalized within the planning instruments themselves. A distinct spatial logic emerges from the RTIP 2035: while Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones are aggressively clustered around the administrative core, peripheral enclaves are designated as ‘low-intensity residential’ with minimal public transport investment. Crucially, the proposed transition to Autonomous Rapid Transit (ART) threatens to calcify this exclusion. The gazetted ART alignments (Iskandar Puteri and Skudai Lines) largely overlay the existing trunk routes. Consequently, our spatial stress-test of the current network serves as a reliable predictor of future exclusion. We identify specific ‘last-mile dead zones’ (circled in Fig. 4) where legacy B40 housing developments and Kampung (village) clusters, such as Kampung Pendas Laut, remain geographically proximate to these high-tech corridors yet functionally disconnected due to a lack of planned micro-mobility feeders. Statutory analysis confirms that existing multimodal hubs currently operate in silos without effective physical or functional integration. The RTIP 2035 explicitly identifies ‘sprawled development’ and the lack of micro-mobility infrastructure as structural barriers. Consequently, vast swathes of new development areas remain disconnected from the core transit grid. This physical disconnect serves as the material basis for H1 . Optimization algorithms driving route selection favor density and speed (technocratic metrics) over social coverage (justice metrics). Consequently, for residents in these bypassed enclaves, the physical layer acts as a barrier rather than a bridge, rendering the ‘smart’ efficiency of the system functionally obsolete. Figure 2 Majlis Bandaraya Iskandar Puteri or Iskandar Puteri City Council within the regional context. Figure 3 spatial boundary of the Iskandar Puteri City Council within the Johor District. 4.2 The Trust Deficit: Historical Neglect and the IMBRT While the physical gap reduces accessibility, the JSMM posits that the resulting ‘Trust Gap’ is the decisive mediator for adoption. The introduction of the IRT does not occur in a vacuum; it enters an ecosystem characterized by ‘governance debt’. For decades, public transportation in Johor has struggled with fragmentation, reliability issues, and service discontinuities. Our forensic analysis of the Bas Muafakat Johor (BMJ) network quantifies this debt. Routes P-201 and P-211, which service the Jalan Pontian Lama and Jalan Universiti corridors (key B40 areas), consistently operate at Level of Service (LOS) F due to mixed-traffic congestion. Similarly, Routes P-202 and P-212 face chronic delays along Jalan Tun Aminah, where high-density commercial sprawl lacks the dedicated bus priority lanes found in the planned IRT zones. Table 1 Route Code Frequency (Wait Time) Level of Service (LOS) Status P-201/P-203 1 hour F(Poor) Existing Governance Debt P-212/P-214 > 1 hour F(Poor) Existing Governance Debt T30/T52 15–20 minutes C (Moderate) Served Zones Target 2035 < 10 minutes A (Excellent) Smart Mobility Goal Souce:Adopted from Kajian Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri 2035 . This ‘Governance Debt’ is further evidenced by the stark disparity in projected capital allocation (CAPEX). Data from the RTIP 2035 reveals a hierarchy of investment that prioritizes global connectivity over local access. The plan allocates RM 300 million for the new Terminal Gerbang Nusajaya (a Terminal Utama Daerah linked to the HSR), yet allocates only RM 1 million for the upgrade of local hubs like Terminal Kangkar Pulai (a Depoh Minor Tempatan serving B40 populations). This 300:1 investment ratio illustrates the structural bias of the smart city: immense resources are directed toward ‘Global’ nodes designed for business travelers and tourists, while the ‘Local’ nodes required for the daily survival of the urban poor receive nominal attention. This financial signaling actively erodes Institutional Trust, as residents perceive the smart city budget as a vehicle for gentrification rather than inclusive service improvement. 4.3 Outcomes: How Safety Concerns Stalled Adoption Finally, the vignette crystallizes the relationship between Safety and Trust. While the IRT system boasts advanced telemetry for physical safety (collision avoidance and surveillance cameras), the primary friction for adoption in marginalized zones stems from a lack of Social and Digital Safety. In the context of Iskandar Puteri, the fear among potential users is less about the vehicle crashing and more about the algorithm failing to see them. For a shift worker in a peripheral B40 zone relying on an app-based schedule, the risk of ‘algorithmic strandedness’, where the system dynamically re-routes away from low-demand areas, constitutes a critical safety hazard. This analysis aligns with H3: the perceived lack of protection against exclusionary algorithms directly degrades Institutional Trust. Residents perceive the ‘smartness’ of the system not as a safeguard, but as a source of precarity. Because they cannot verify the algorithm's fairness (Digital Safety) or guarantee their ride home (Social Safety), they retreat to lower-tech but known alternatives, such as private motorcycles or informal carpooling. The outcome is a paradox of resilience: the city invests in resilient high-tech infrastructure, but the populace relies on resilient informal networks. The stalled adoption is not a failure of the technology’s utility (TAM), but a failure of the safety architecture to account for the vulnerability of the user. 5. Policy Implications The Smart City Ecosystem To contextualize the specific findings of the JSMM within the broader urban framework, Fig. 5 illustrates the multidimensional pressure points facing Iskandar Puteri. The diagram captures the essential dialectic identified in our analysis: the tension between ‘Global’ technological standards (such as international IoT benchmarks) and ‘Local’ spatial realities (the Kampung and B40 contexts). As shown in the figure, a resilient Smart City is not defined solely by being ‘Intelligent’(data collection) or ensuring high ‘Performance’ (speed/efficiency). Instead, true resilience requires the system to ‘Respond’, a direct link to our finding on Institutional Trust. A system that fails to respond to social feedback loops (the ‘Challenges’ bubble) risks becoming fragile. Therefore, the ‘Services’ component must be re-engineered from a purely technical delivery mechanism into a socially responsive safety net, ensuring the city is ‘Strong’ enough to withstand both physical shocks and social rejection. 5.1 Governing for Trust The JSMM offers a pragmatic diagnostic tool for city planners and policymakers in Iskandar Malaysia. To move beyond technological solutionism, we recommend three specific governance shifts: Pre-Procurement Spatial Overlays: Before tendering IoT contracts, planners must layer demographic data (specifically B40 household density) over proposed service zones. This proactive mapping identifies ‘Trust Deserts’, neighbourhoods where high spatial marginalization intersects with low institutional trust, necessitating targeted engagement before sensors are deployed. Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA): Safety audits must expand to include social safety metrics. Vendors should be required to demonstrate how their route-optimization algorithms account for service equity, explicitly preventing the digital redlining of marginalized communities where algorithms might otherwise deprioritize low-demand but high-need zones. Restorative Feedback Loops: Grievance mechanisms must be decoupled from the service provider to ensure impartiality. We propose the implementation of a ‘Digital Ombudsman’ within the Smart City Office- an independent channel where users can report exclusionary errors, such as an app consistently failing to route to a specific block. This mechanism transforms the user from a passive data point into an active governance participant, rebuilding the institutional trust necessary for long-term resilience. Crucially, the operationalization of these tools requires neither new legislation nor massive capital, but a strategic realignment of existing assets. We identify the newly established Smart City Office, as gazetted in Chap. 8 of the RTIP 2035 , as the critical 'institutional anchor' for this reform. Rather than functioning solely as a technical monitoring body, this unit must be empowered to mandate cross-departmental spatial auditing, bridging the siloed gap between the Planning Department ( Jabatan Perancang ) and Digital Governance units. By embedding the JSMM frameworks into the Smart City Office's charter, Majlis Bandaraya Iskandar Puteri (MBIP) or Iskandar Puteri City Council can institutionalize resilience, transforming smart mobility from a fragmented procurement exercise into a cohesive, justice-oriented governance strategy. Declarations Funding The authors declare that no funding was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Clinical Trial Number Clinical trial number: not applicable. Ethics Approval, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations: not applicable. Author Contributions Author Contributions Ida Shaheera Bakhtiar ; Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin: Conceptualization, , Writing – review & editing. Competing Interests Competing Interests The author declares that there are no competing interests. Corresponding Author Corresponding author: Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin ,MZMA ( [email protected] ) Author Affiliations Ida Shaheera Bakhtiar, ( [email protected] ) ¹ Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin ( [email protected] ) ² Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Puncak Alam, Malaysia References Ahad, M. A., Paiva, S., Tripathi, G., & Feroz, N. (2020). Enabling technologies and sustainable smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society , 61, 102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102301 Bakhtiar, I. S. & Samsudin, N. A. (2023). Comparative review of smart cities from an urban planning perspective in Johor Bahru city and Petaling Jaya city. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , 1274 (1), 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1274/1/012016 Dirsehan, T. & Zoonen, L. v. (2022). Smart city technologies from the perspective of technology acceptance. IET Smart Cities , 4(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12040 Ismaeel, A. G., Mary, J. P., Chelliah, A., Logeshwaran, J., Mahmood, S. N., Alani, S.,& Shather, A. (2023). Enhancing traffic intelligence in smart cities using sustainable deep radial function. Sustainability , 15(19), 14441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914441 Jacobs, N., Edwards, P., Marković, M., Cottrill, C., & Salt, K. (2020). Who trusts in the smart city? Transparency, governance, and the Internet of Things. Data & Policy , 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.11 Mishra, P. & Singh, G. (2023). Energy management systems in sustainable smart cities based on the internet of energy: a technical review. Energies , 16(19), 6903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16196903 Mutambik, I. (2025). Iot-enabled adaptive traffic management: A multi-agent framework for urban mobility optimisation. Sensors , 25(13), 4126. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25134126 Omrany, H., Al-Obaidi, K. M., Hossain, M., Alduais, N. A., Al-Duais, H. S., & Ghaffarianhoseini, A. (2024). IoT-enabled smart cities: a hybrid systematic analysis of key research areas, challenges, and recommendations for future direction. Discover Cities , 1(1), 2. Omwamba, J., Puntel, S., Rotaris, L., & Longo, G. (2025). Evaluating last-mile access in the 15-minute city. Discover Cities , 2(1), 1-40. Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri 2035. https://onemap.mbip.gov.my/portal/apps/storymaps/stories/2bbe2ea6437e4c82bb0d3bba071dc70b Rocco, G., Pipino, C., & Pagano, C. (2023). An overview of urban mobility: revolutionizing with innovative smart parking systems. Sustainability , 15(17), 13174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713174 Sharma, S. & Mishra, N. (2024). Horizoning recent trends in the security of smart cities: Exploratory analysis using latent semantic analysis. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems , 46(1), 579-596. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-235210 Silvestri, S., Tricomi, G., Bassolillo, S. R., Benedictis, R. D., & Ciampi, M. (2024). An urban intelligence architecture for heterogeneous data and application integration, deployment and orchestration. Sensors , 24(7), 2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24072376 Suraweera, A., Chowdhury, S., & Welch, T. (2025). Perceived accessibility for women: First-mile trips to transit-oriented developments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 2679(8), 1044-1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981251332261 Tyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule-breaking . Journal of social issues , 62(2), 307-326. Yang, M., Qiu, J., Luo, S., Zhang, S., Xie, J., Liu, L.,& Zheng, Y. (2025). Evidence on how planning and design contribute to building a habitat security space: A multidimensional exploration. Environmental Research Communications , 7(9), 092002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae07a7 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 19 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 19 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8347833","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Perspective","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":573445704,"identity":"c225cee6-357d-4092-9456-437a8bdcdc87","order_by":0,"name":"Ida Shaheera Bakhtiar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Technology Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ida","middleName":"Shaheera","lastName":"Bakhtiar","suffix":""},{"id":573445705,"identity":"5c265637-6f18-4b4f-9e8d-c72019c95754","order_by":1,"name":"Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Teknologi MARA","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Zamreen Mohd","lastName":"Amin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-12 17:08:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100368112,"identity":"06853f78-e112-4138-8e8c-f6f3d6fa6a63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:36","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10342236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"updated19disTHEROLESOFINSTITUTIONALTRUSTANDSPATIALJUSTICEINTHERESILIENTSMARTMOBILITYSYSTEMS.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/d8ada7e1877380be3eb6cdbe.docx"},{"id":100367975,"identity":"ff3a0349-093a-422e-a2d8-a6cc51c6e04c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:29","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4324,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"6530dbb70fe24b34b138e035c8590cf6.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/27e171d6ef79bbc9d459c0e4.json"},{"id":100368325,"identity":"7c21202d-cc13-4bca-b843-cada83cc7f55","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:51","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":72798,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"6530dbb70fe24b34b138e035c8590cf61enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/ea3927ae403194846aeb5eb7.xml"},{"id":100368232,"identity":"5d325d35-0b43-4409-a090-48d2dc628a02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:44","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":383646,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/1583b1a2837e547c54aa8be4.png"},{"id":100137881,"identity":"ece75a8c-eaf8-4891-9970-a3d678d0b43f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1913353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/271c6b357b53e889bf1184d5.png"},{"id":100366506,"identity":"5882e0f1-4c1d-433e-b8be-8b9334702e0f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:56:19","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3376472,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/f32b10eef4a97eb6ae922264.png"},{"id":100366532,"identity":"41284277-f49a-41ce-a448-684d03fb3103","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:56:20","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3478064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/dd8e32ef8d8ed3c303a1ceaa.png"},{"id":100137892,"identity":"1672658b-fcdf-45c1-af44-d3a8f32281d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":99676,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/42fb9d88a83732809517147b.png"},{"id":100137888,"identity":"eb4e4afb-8692-4eba-82ef-3f09350025b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":194710,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/9a7e127b983866b79ca7d012.png"},{"id":100368426,"identity":"455a2193-18bd-4acc-a1bd-2e0871877dd9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:57","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":386914,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/c9ce792910e5ce9aa75e35b3.png"},{"id":100137891,"identity":"b6282d73-751f-4941-b333-49739f44b755","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":381578,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/e6da84cd3201fd712015537e.png"},{"id":100366423,"identity":"4fb378d2-3c12-40e9-9de5-875787322001","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:56:18","extension":"xml","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":70022,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"6530dbb70fe24b34b138e035c8590cf61structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/cb576630dda0caeaac4a4ee2.xml"},{"id":100137884,"identity":"8fae7c9c-5809-4e3e-908a-2b80a7894702","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"html","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":81153,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/249b3f42bac36d9b4e31d169.html"},{"id":100137874,"identity":"6239a93c-1eab-4453-8d47-503d1cbaa97b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87798,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM). The conceptual diagram illustrated the ‘Justice Layer’ (Spatial Marginalization) as an external variable impacting trust, while the safety triad (Physical, Social, and Digital) acts as a direct antecedent to Trust, mediating the traditional TAM relationship between Usefulness and Adoption. Source: Authors' construct\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/4caf105ca9ca165610a3df8f.jpg"},{"id":100137875,"identity":"a4637ab6-03eb-4571-8107-6392ebab9ac4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89585,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of Majlis Bandaraya I\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/65ac5d1dd6043fd1a9f5cee9.jpg"},{"id":100137877,"identity":"10a38819-f050-4790-a63e-76f332586d92","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118859,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSpatial boundary of the Iskandar Puteri City Council within the Johor District.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/5347c54cbee3847bdb4f1fd8.jpg"},{"id":100367973,"identity":"78ffe3a7-1e62-472b-97d2-3cc0c24689c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":128562,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Infrastructure-Inclusion Gap. This overlay illustrates the spatial disconnect between the core transit network (blue lines) and the \"Social Preservation Zones\" (B40 housing clusters, marked by \u003cstrong\u003ered indicators\u003c/strong\u003e). Note the \"Last-Mile Dead Zones\" (\u003cstrong\u003ecircled in pink\u003c/strong\u003e) where high-density village clusters, such as \u003cem\u003eKampung Pendas Laut\u003c/em\u003e, fall outside the effective 400m catchment radius of the transit nodes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/9843be03c4cb358c0850ae27.jpg"},{"id":100137879,"identity":"6e3a64ce-a539-49ca-9a3f-ec3056a3f1e3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:59:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47033,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Smart City Resilience Ecosystem. This conceptual diagram illustrates the necessary convergence of technical metrics (Performance, Intelligent) and social imperatives (Respond, Local) required to overcome structural barriers (Challenges) in the transition toward sustainable urban mobility.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eSource: Authors' construct.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/ca965faa6ba7688af3b807b5.jpg"},{"id":100382517,"identity":"17a90173-f71b-4102-ba2d-b674163ef9ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:43:04","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1320317,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8347833/v1/618765e0-ed86-4f7d-8b92-458d2ac79551.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Roles of Institutional Trust and Spatial Justice in the Resilient Smart Mobility Systems\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ongoing urban transition toward smart cities is increasingly framed as a convergence of Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure and algorithmic governance a synthesis promising to optimize mobility, reduce congestion, and advance sustainability objectives. The scholarly literature repeatedly foregrounds this technocratic horizon as a driver of urban efficiency, highlighting how IoT-enabled sensing, data analytics, and automated decision-making can reconfigure transport systems to enhance service delivery and resilience (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rocco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, this framing is not neutral; it tends to privilege frictionless efficiency and the optimization of flows over the social processes and governance arrangements that make such systems legitimate, usable, and fair in the long run (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mutambik, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile digital innovations may contribute to resilience in some dimensions (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mutambik, 2023), governance frameworks and participatory feedback loops have often lagged behind rapid infrastructure deployment. Complementary lines of analysis insist that transport systems must be responsive to environmental and social needs, not merely technologically sophisticated (Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), a view echoed in work that problematizes techno-optimism and its implications for justice (Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mian et al., 2025). Consequently, smart mobility cannot be reduced to a technical artifact; it is inseparable from the social institutions that authorize, fund, deploy, and operate it (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rocco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Silvestri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, to move beyond a purely efficiency-centric logic, this work foregrounds Mobility Justice as a central axis for evaluating smart transport, alongside the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a lens to understand how citizens adopt algorithmic services. Mobility justice reframes transportation as a public good that must be accessible, affordable, and navigable by all urban residents, recognizing that the deployment of smart services can reproduce or even exacerbate existing inequalities if accessibility and stakeholder collaboration are neglected (Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Silvestri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This aligns with findings in urban studies that digital services, when introduced without attention to participation, risk reproducing exclusion and unequal power relations (Silvestri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mian et al., 2025). Specifically, when digital infrastructures rely on data-intensive algorithms, they may encode bias or unequal access into core transport decisions (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mishra \u0026amp; Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central claim of this paper is that Institutional Trust functions as the decisive mediator determining whether residents engage with or reject smart city interventions. When governance is opaque or biased, trust erodes, and the adoption of automated transport decisions becomes contested (Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mutambik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In contexts characterized by historical neglect or weak state capacity, without credible governance, users may doubt the legitimacy of automated decisions and withdraw from public-sphere engagement. Conversely, when inclusive processes build trust, citizens are more likely to sustain digital mobility services, thereby stabilizing urban transport networks under uncertainty (Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mutambik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to these tensions, we integrate TAM with a mobility-justice lens. While TAM offers a powerful tool for analyzing adoption (Mian et al., 2025), on its own it can overlook distributive concerns. This synthesis is supported by evidence from digital governance work, which demonstrates that transparent, inclusive institutions can foster legitimacy in digital transport systems (Silvestri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mian et al., 2025). In developing-city contexts, the uptake of intelligent transport is not solely a technical problem; it is a social one driven by facilitating conditions and the distributional implications of design choices (Silvestri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mian et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong urban systems, mobility infrastructure is particularly susceptible to these tensions, as it mediates access to employment and social life. Yet, it is often optimized for throughput over inclusion. Consequently, this paper interrogates a critical governance puzzle: How does spatial marginalization actively distort the adoption of smart mobility, and to what extent does institutional trust function as the \u0026lsquo;invisible infrastructure\u0026rsquo; necessary to bridge this divide?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo enrich this analysis, we expand the taxonomy of urban safety to explicitly include Social Safety and Digital Safety. Traditional safety metrics emphasize collision avoidance; however, concerns regarding algorithmic bias, privacy loss, and discriminatory outcomes reveal a broader spectrum of danger that threatens social well-being (Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mishra \u0026amp; Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). By distinguishing Social Safety (protection from exclusion) from Digital Safety (protection from biased data), we provide a comprehensive account of resilient urban mobility that underscores the need for transparent institutions to mediate the interplay of people, data, and infrastructure (Ismaeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ahad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mishra \u0026amp; Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Significance of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to the smart city discourse by transcending standard technical analyses of mobility. By interrogating the \u0026lsquo;invisible infrastructure\u0026rsquo; of social systems, we challenge the technocratic determinism that equates technological optimization with urban resilience. The study advances SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by establishing Intstitutional Trust not merely as a social bonus, but as a functional prerequisite for the safety and adoption of smart systems. Through the proposed Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), we offer a governance-focused solution to the \u0026lsquo;safety paradox\u0026rsquo;, ensuring that future innovations in Iskandar Malaysia and beyong are not only efficient but fundamentally just.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Theoretical Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study makes two significant theoretical contributions to the smart city literature. First, we propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), which deconstructs the traditional Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by rebuilding it with a critical \u0026lsquo;Justice Layer\u0026rsquo;. By positioning Spatial Marginalization as a structural antecedent to adoption, we address the \u0026lsquo;context collapse\u0026rsquo; often present in technocentric adoption literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, and most notably, we redefine the taxonomy of \u0026lsquo;Urban Safety\u0026rsquo; to address the specific vulnerabilities of the digital age. By expanding this definition to include \u0026lsquo;Digital Safety\u0026rsquo;, specifically, protection from algorithmic bias and exclusion, alongside traditional physical metrics. This framework provides a fresh, urgent lens for evaluating resilience. This theoretical expansion creates a necessary vocabulary for future research in contested urban environments, shifting the focus from collision avoidance to the prevention of social erasure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Integration: Bridging TAM and Mobility Justice","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Overview and Purpose\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section articulates a hybrid theoretical framework that relocates the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) within a Mobility Justice lens. We retain TAM\u0026rsquo;s core propositions, Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), but reframed them as contingent on socio-spatial conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on Mobility Justice scholarship, we introduce Spatial Marginalization as an external determinant that shapes adoption by coupling the physical mobility grid with the digital layer. We then position Institutional Trust as a central mediator that translates social and governance conditions into resilience. Finally, we extend TAM with a triadic Safety construct (Physical Safety, Social Safety, Digital Safety). This Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) yields a socially attuned path to predict sustainable transport adoption(Dirsehan \u0026amp; Zoonen ,2022;Suraweera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e;Jacobs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) in developing contexts such as Iskandar Malaysia, directly answering the call for a holistic and integrative approach to urban resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Limitations of a Purely Technocentric Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTAM remains the dominant lens for forecasting user acceptance, positing that rational calculations of utility drive adoption (Jacobs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, recent systematic analyses within this journal corroborate that the challenges of smart city deployment are no longer merely technical but deeply rooted in privacy, ethical issues, and scalability. A purely technocratic TAM abstracts away these material constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn practice, residents in marginalized neighborhoods may experience Ease of Use( a good IU) but negligible Usefulness if the physical route bypasses their community. This infrastructure-inclusion gap demonstrates TAM\u0026rsquo;s vulnerability to context collapse. As Al-Obaidi et al.(2024) caution, focusing on IoT feasibility without addressing these social dimensions risks creating fragile systems that fail to scale because they ignore the ethical prerequisites of user adoption. Specifically, we argue that this fragility is dual-natured when communities are spatially marginalized; they often create informal transport networks that compete with the smart system, leading to lower ridership(financial fragility), while simultaneously fostering public vandalism or active disengagement (social fragility).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 The \u0026lsquo;Justice Layer\u0026rsquo;: Spatial Marginalization as a Determinant\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe define Spatial Marginalization as the chronic disconnection of specific communities from mobility networks due to urban form, such as sprawl and service design. This conceptualization is empirically supported by recent findings on the 15-minute city, where peripheral topographies and uneven planning create distinct accessibility gaps for vulnerable demographics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the JSMM, Spatial Marginalization operates as a structural barrier that bifurcates adoption logic:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact on Perceived Usefulness(PU): It serves the digital promise from physical reality. As noted by Omwamba et al.(2025), a mobility app is functionally useless if the optimized route remains geographically inaccessible to the user.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact on Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU): Crucially, spatial exclusion degrades PEOU by introducing a friction penalty. For a resident in a last-mile dead zone, the app does not offer a seamless solution. Because it presents a complex logistical puzzle that requires the user to calculate precarious intermodal connections, such as walking on unlit roads, hailing informal transit just to access the smart node. In this sense, added physical and cognitive load render the system effortful to use, distinct from its theoretical utility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Institutional Trust as the Mediator of Resilience\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central claim of this framework is that Institutional Trust acts as the invisible infrastructure of the smart city. Transparent institutions are necessary to sustain public acceptance; opacity or bias erodes trust regardless of technical quality (Jacobs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Drawing on Tyler\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) theory of procedural justice, we posit that users evaluate the fairness of the governance process before adopting the tool. If low-SES populations perceive that the algorithms governing Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) are opaque, they will lack the trust required to share their data. Consequently, true urban resilience depends on institutional trust earned through inclusive processes rather than technology alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Extending TAM with a Safety taxonomy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional safety in smart mobility emphasizes physical collision avoidance. The JSMM expands this to a triadic taxonomy:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical Safety: Protection from bodily harm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Safety: Protection from exclusion and discrimination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Safety: Protection from privacy loss and algorithmic bias.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis expanded definition links directly to Institutional Trust. A system is only perceived as trustworthy when these broader safety concerns are addressed through governance mechanisms. This aligns with recent critiques that digital risks are not externalities, but core determinants of acceptance(Suraweera et al.,2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Proposed Conceptual Model: The Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSynthesizing these constructs, we propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM) as a heuristic framework for future empirical testing. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e visualizes the hypothesized causal flow, illustrating how spatial and safety antecedents filter through the mediator of Institutional Trust to shape adoption. We posit three specific theoretical propositions for validation:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1:Spatial Marginalization(Suraweera et al.,2025) as a Trust Erosion Mechanism. Spatial Marginalization is hypothesized to negatively correlate with Institutional Trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRationale: Historical neglect breeds suspicion that algorithms will prioritize already-served enclaves while reinforcing the isolation of the periphery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2: The Trust Filter. Institutional Trust positively mediates(Jacobs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) the effect of PU on Intentions to Adopt.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRationale: Usefulness is necessary but insufficient. Trust acts as the decisive filter; high-tech utility only translates into adoption when the governance structure is perceived as legitimate and benevolent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3:The Safety Paradox. Perceived Social and Digital Safety are direct, positive antecedents of Institutional Trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRationale: When users feel protected from \u0026lsquo;algorithmic strandedness,\u0026rsquo; which is the risk of being invisible to the system, their trust in the institution increases. Conversely, the fear of biased exclusion constitutes a safety hazard that stalls adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis framework in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shifts the analytical focus from making the technology better (Optimization) to making the governance fairer (Justice), directly addressing the resilience gaps identified in recent smart city literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransition to Application Theoretical models, however robust, remain sterile abstractions until they are confronted with on-the-ground spatial realities. To demonstrate the explanatory resilience of the JSMM, we must move beyond conceptual architecture to operational confrontation, stress-testing these constructs within a context where the friction between high-tech ambition and legacy inequality is most acute. We turn now to Iskandar Puteri, a region that serves not merely as a case study, but as a site of intense paradigmatic tension for the smart city dilemmas of the Global South. Here, the collision between rapid algorithmic deployment and deep-seated socio-spatial stratification offers a critical testing ground for the Just Smart Mobility Model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Operationalizing the Framework: A Spatial Vignette Approach","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Rationale for Site Selection and Instrumentation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhy validate a universal theory through the lens of Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2035\u003c/span\u003e (RTIP 2035)? Iskandar Puteri represents a critical case: it is at the precise fracture point between aggressive, master-planned \u0026lsquo;smartness\u0026rsquo; (the IRT corridors) and persistent socio-spatial fragmentation (the \u003cem\u003eKampung\u003c/em\u003e and B40 enclaves). We utilize the statutory Local Plan as our primary forensic instrument because, unlike sanitized promotional brochures, the gazetted plan reveals the raw zoning logic of the city. It allows us to objectively measure the distance between the state\u0026rsquo;s digital promise and the marginalized resident\u0026rsquo;s physical reality, making it the ideal instrument to stress-test the \u0026lsquo;Justice Layer\u0026rsquo; of our model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.2 Methodological Approach: The Spatial Vignette as a Diagnostic Tool\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo demonstrate the explanatory power of the JSMM, this paper employs a spatial vignette strategy. We define this vignette not as an empirical test of statistical significance, but as a contextual stress-test of the proposed theoretical constructs against a real-world planning scenario. By treating the statutory Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2035\u003c/span\u003e (RTIP 2035) as a dataset, we perform a forensic overlay of gazetted land-use zones against the confirmed transit network alignment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach allows us to trace the structural pathway from physical exclusion to Institutional Trust, illustrating how legacy planning decisions create the \u0026lsquo;trust deficit\u0026rsquo; that the JSMM predicts will stall smart mobility adoption. Specifically, we interrogate the disconnect between \u0026lsquo;Priority Development Zones\u0026rsquo; (areas slated for high-tech investment) and \u0026lsquo;Social Preservation Zones\u0026rsquo; (legacy B40 housing). By using the local plan\u0026rsquo;s own hierarchy to expose the structural origins of spatial marginalization, this method offers a heuristic tool for planners to diagnose resilience gaps before infrastructure deployment, shifting the focus from reactive user surveys to proactive structural analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Study Context: The High-Stakes Transition to Autonomous Transit\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe urgency of this forensic analysis is underscored by the aggressive mobility targets set by the \u003cem\u003eRTIP 2035\u003c/em\u003e. The region currently faces an acute \u0026lsquo;sprawl-mobility\u0026rsquo; challenge, with private vehicle dependency accounting for 97% of inbound and 86% of outbound traffic. To combat this, the plan envisions a radical modal shift, transitioning from a fragmented bus network to a high-tech integrated ecosystem comprising Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART), Light Rapid Transit (LRT), and High-Speed Rail (HSR).\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the \u003cem\u003eRTIP 2035\u003c/em\u003e proposes three primary ART corridors, including the Iskandar Puteri Line (connecting Sunway Iskandar, Medini, and Bukit Indah) and the Skudai Line (connecting Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Taman Ungku Tun Aminah (TUTA)). Furthermore, it gazettes the construction of a RM 300\u0026nbsp;million Terminal Utama Daerah (TUD) at Gerbang Nusajaya to serve as a multi-modal interchange for the future HSR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, despite these high-capital interventions, current public transport coverage remains limited to 35\u0026ndash;45% of the municipal area. The central tension, therefore, is whether this massive infrastructural upgrade will expand coverage to marginalized zones or merely accelerate connectivity between existing elite enclaves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Analysis and Findings: A Forensic Spatial Stress-Test","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1 The Physical Layer\u003c/b\u003e: Visualizing the Infrastructure-Inclusion Gap\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn overlay analysis of the IRT network alignment against the demographic topography of Iskandar Puteri reveals a distinct \u0026lsquo;infrastructure-inclusion gap\u0026rsquo; (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). While the trunk lines (blue routes) successfully connect major economic nodes including administrative centers in Kota Iskandar and commercial zones in Medini,the feeder service coverage exhibits significant spatial selectivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis exclusion is not merely a byproduct of geography but is institutionalized within the planning instruments themselves. A distinct spatial logic emerges from the RTIP 2035: while Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones are aggressively clustered around the administrative core, peripheral enclaves are designated as \u0026lsquo;low-intensity residential\u0026rsquo; with minimal public transport investment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrucially, the proposed transition to Autonomous Rapid Transit (ART) threatens to calcify this exclusion. The gazetted ART alignments (Iskandar Puteri and Skudai Lines) largely overlay the existing trunk routes. Consequently, our spatial stress-test of the current network serves as a reliable predictor of future exclusion. We identify specific \u0026lsquo;last-mile dead zones\u0026rsquo; (circled in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4) where legacy B40 housing developments and \u003cem\u003eKampung\u003c/em\u003e (village) clusters, such as \u003cem\u003eKampung\u003c/em\u003e Pendas Laut, remain geographically proximate to these high-tech corridors yet functionally disconnected due to a lack of planned micro-mobility feeders. Statutory analysis confirms that existing multimodal hubs currently operate in silos without effective physical or functional integration. The RTIP 2035 explicitly identifies \u0026lsquo;sprawled development\u0026rsquo; and the lack of micro-mobility infrastructure as structural barriers. Consequently, vast swathes of new development areas remain disconnected from the core transit grid.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis physical disconnect serves as the material basis for \u003cb\u003eH1\u003c/b\u003e. Optimization algorithms driving route selection favor density and speed (technocratic metrics) over social coverage (justice metrics). Consequently, for residents in these bypassed enclaves, the physical layer acts as a barrier rather than a bridge, rendering the \u0026lsquo;smart\u0026rsquo; efficiency of the system functionally obsolete. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003eMajlis Bandaraya\u003c/em\u003e Iskandar Puteri or Iskandar Puteri City Council within the regional context. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e spatial boundary of the Iskandar Puteri City Council within the Johor District.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 The Trust Deficit: Historical Neglect and the IMBRT\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the physical gap reduces accessibility, the JSMM posits that the resulting \u0026lsquo;Trust Gap\u0026rsquo; is the decisive mediator for adoption. The introduction of the IRT does not occur in a vacuum; it enters an ecosystem characterized by \u0026lsquo;governance debt\u0026rsquo;. For decades, public transportation in Johor has struggled with fragmentation, reliability issues, and service discontinuities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur forensic analysis of the \u003cem\u003eBas Muafakat Johor\u003c/em\u003e (BMJ) network quantifies this debt. Routes P-201 and P-211, which service the Jalan Pontian Lama and Jalan Universiti corridors (key B40 areas), consistently operate at Level of Service (LOS) F due to mixed-traffic congestion. Similarly, Routes P-202 and P-212 face chronic delays along Jalan Tun Aminah, where high-density commercial sprawl lacks the dedicated bus priority lanes found in the planned IRT zones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoute Code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency (Wait Time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel of Service (LOS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP-201/P-203\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 hour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF(Poor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting Governance Debt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP-212/P-214\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 hour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF(Poor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting Governance Debt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT30/T52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u0026ndash;20 minutes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC (Moderate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eServed Zones\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTarget 2035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 minutes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA (Excellent)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmart Mobility Goal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouce:Adopted from \u003cem\u003eKajian\u003c/em\u003e Rancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2035\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis \u0026lsquo;Governance Debt\u0026rsquo; is further evidenced by the stark disparity in projected capital allocation (CAPEX). Data from the \u003cem\u003eRTIP 2035\u003c/em\u003e reveals a hierarchy of investment that prioritizes global connectivity over local access. The plan allocates RM 300\u0026nbsp;million for the new Terminal Gerbang Nusajaya (a Terminal Utama Daerah linked to the HSR), yet allocates only RM 1\u0026nbsp;million for the upgrade of local hubs like Terminal Kangkar Pulai (a Depoh Minor Tempatan serving B40 populations).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis 300:1 investment ratio illustrates the structural bias of the smart city: immense resources are directed toward \u0026lsquo;Global\u0026rsquo; nodes designed for business travelers and tourists, while the \u0026lsquo;Local\u0026rsquo; nodes required for the daily survival of the urban poor receive nominal attention. This financial signaling actively erodes Institutional Trust, as residents perceive the smart city budget as a vehicle for gentrification rather than inclusive service improvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Outcomes: How Safety Concerns Stalled Adoption\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the vignette crystallizes the relationship between Safety and Trust. While the IRT system boasts advanced telemetry for physical safety (collision avoidance and surveillance cameras), the primary friction for adoption in marginalized zones stems from a lack of Social and Digital Safety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of Iskandar Puteri, the fear among potential users is less about the vehicle crashing and more about the algorithm failing to see them. For a shift worker in a peripheral B40 zone relying on an app-based schedule, the risk of \u0026lsquo;algorithmic strandedness\u0026rsquo;, where the system dynamically re-routes away from low-demand areas, constitutes a critical safety hazard.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis analysis aligns with H3: the perceived lack of protection against exclusionary algorithms directly degrades Institutional Trust. Residents perceive the \u0026lsquo;smartness\u0026rsquo; of the system not as a safeguard, but as a source of precarity. Because they cannot verify the algorithm's fairness (Digital Safety) or guarantee their ride home (Social Safety), they retreat to lower-tech but known alternatives, such as private motorcycles or informal carpooling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe outcome is a paradox of resilience: the city invests in resilient high-tech infrastructure, but the populace relies on resilient informal networks. The stalled adoption is not a failure of the technology\u0026rsquo;s utility (TAM), but a failure of the safety architecture to account for the vulnerability of the user.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Policy Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe Smart City Ecosystem\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo contextualize the specific findings of the JSMM within the broader urban framework, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the multidimensional pressure points facing Iskandar Puteri. The diagram captures the essential dialectic identified in our analysis: the tension between \u0026lsquo;Global\u0026rsquo; technological standards (such as international IoT benchmarks) and \u0026lsquo;Local\u0026rsquo; spatial realities (the \u003cem\u003eKampung\u003c/em\u003e and B40 contexts).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in the figure, a resilient Smart City is not defined solely by being \u0026lsquo;Intelligent\u0026rsquo;(data collection) or ensuring high \u0026lsquo;Performance\u0026rsquo; (speed/efficiency). Instead, true resilience requires the system to \u0026lsquo;Respond\u0026rsquo;, a direct link to our finding on Institutional Trust. A system that fails to respond to social feedback loops (the \u0026lsquo;Challenges\u0026rsquo; bubble) risks becoming fragile. Therefore, the \u0026lsquo;Services\u0026rsquo; component must be re-engineered from a purely technical delivery mechanism into a socially responsive safety net, ensuring the city is \u0026lsquo;Strong\u0026rsquo; enough to withstand both physical shocks and social rejection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Governing for Trust\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe JSMM offers a pragmatic diagnostic tool for city planners and policymakers in Iskandar Malaysia. To move beyond technological solutionism, we recommend three specific governance shifts:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-Procurement Spatial Overlays: Before tendering IoT contracts, planners must layer demographic data (specifically B40 household density) over proposed service zones. This proactive mapping identifies \u0026lsquo;Trust Deserts\u0026rsquo;, neighbourhoods where high spatial marginalization intersects with low institutional trust, necessitating targeted engagement before sensors are deployed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlgorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA): Safety audits must expand to include social safety metrics. Vendors should be required to demonstrate how their route-optimization algorithms account for service equity, explicitly preventing the digital redlining of marginalized communities where algorithms might otherwise deprioritize low-demand but high-need zones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRestorative Feedback Loops: Grievance mechanisms must be decoupled from the service provider to ensure impartiality. We propose the implementation of a \u0026lsquo;Digital Ombudsman\u0026rsquo; within the Smart City Office- an independent channel where users can report exclusionary errors, such as an app consistently failing to route to a specific block.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis mechanism transforms the user from a passive data point into an active governance participant, rebuilding the institutional trust necessary for long-term resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrucially, the operationalization of these tools requires neither new legislation nor massive capital, but a strategic realignment of existing assets. We identify the newly established Smart City Office, as gazetted in Chap.\u0026nbsp;8 of the RTIP \u003cem\u003e2035\u003c/em\u003e, as the critical 'institutional anchor' for this reform. Rather than functioning solely as a technical monitoring body, this unit must be empowered to mandate cross-departmental spatial auditing, bridging the siloed gap between the Planning Department (\u003cem\u003eJabatan Perancang\u003c/em\u003e) and Digital Governance units. By embedding the JSMM frameworks into the Smart City Office's charter, \u003cem\u003eMajlis Bandaraya\u003c/em\u003e Iskandar Puteri (MBIP) or Iskandar Puteri City Council can institutionalize resilience, transforming smart mobility from a fragmented procurement exercise into a cohesive, justice-oriented governance strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funding was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIda Shaheera Bakhtiar ; Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMohd Zamreen Mohd Amin: Conceptualization, , Writing – review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that there are no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorresponding Author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorresponding author: \u0026nbsp;Mohd Zamreen Mohd Amin ,MZMA ([email protected])\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Affiliations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIda Shaheera Bakhtiar, ([email protected])\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e¹ Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMohd Zamreen Mohd Amin ([email protected])\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e² Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Puncak Alam, Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAhad, M. A., Paiva, S., Tripathi, G., \u0026amp; Feroz, N. (2020). Enabling technologies and sustainable smart \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ecities. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, 61, 102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102301\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBakhtiar, I. S. \u0026amp; Samsudin, N. A. (2023). Comparative review of smart cities from an urban planning \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eperspective in Johor Bahru city and Petaling Jaya city. \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1274\u003c/em\u003e(1), 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1274/1/012016\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDirsehan, T. \u0026amp; Zoonen, L. v. (2022). Smart city technologies from the perspective of technology \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eacceptance. \u003cem\u003eIET Smart Cities\u003c/em\u003e, 4(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12040\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIsmaeel, A. G., Mary, J. P., Chelliah, A., Logeshwaran, J., Mahmood, S. N., Alani, S.,\u0026amp; Shather, A. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2023). Enhancing traffic intelligence in smart cities using sustainable deep radial function. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 15(19), 14441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914441\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacobs, N., Edwards, P., Marković, M., Cottrill, C., \u0026amp; Salt, K. (2020). Who trusts in the smart city? \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransparency, governance, and the Internet of Things. \u003cem\u003eData \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMishra, P. \u0026amp; Singh, G. (2023). Energy management systems in sustainable smart cities based on the \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003einternet of energy: a technical review. \u003cem\u003eEnergies\u003c/em\u003e, 16(19), 6903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16196903\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMutambik, I. (2025). Iot-enabled adaptive traffic management: A multi-agent framework for urban \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emobility optimisation. \u003cem\u003eSensors\u003c/em\u003e, 25(13), 4126. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25134126\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOmrany, H., Al-Obaidi, K. M., Hossain, M., Alduais, N. A., Al-Duais, H. S., \u0026amp; Ghaffarianhoseini, A. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2024). IoT-enabled smart cities: a hybrid systematic analysis of key research areas, challenges, and recommendations for future direction. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Cities\u003c/em\u003e, 1(1), 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOmwamba, J., Puntel, S., Rotaris, L., \u0026amp; Longo, G. (2025). Evaluating last-mile access in the 15-minute \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ecity. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Cities\u003c/em\u003e, 2(1), 1-40.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRancangan Tempatan Iskandar Puteri 2035. https://onemap.mbip.gov.my/portal/apps/storymaps/stories/2bbe2ea6437e4c82bb0d3bba071dc70b\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRocco, G., Pipino, C., \u0026amp; Pagano, C. (2023). An overview of urban mobility: revolutionizing with \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003einnovative smart parking systems. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 15(17), 13174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713174\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSharma, S. \u0026amp; Mishra, N. (2024). Horizoning recent trends in the security of smart cities: Exploratory \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eanalysis using latent semantic analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligent \u0026amp; Fuzzy Systems\u003c/em\u003e, 46(1), 579-596. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-235210\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSilvestri, S., Tricomi, G., Bassolillo, S. R., Benedictis, R. D., \u0026amp; Ciampi, M. (2024). An urban \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eintelligence architecture for heterogeneous data and application integration, deployment and orchestration.\u003cem\u003e Sensors\u003c/em\u003e, 24(7), 2376. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24072376\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuraweera, A., Chowdhury, S., \u0026amp; Welch, T. (2025). Perceived accessibility for women: First-mile trips \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eto transit-oriented developments. \u003cem\u003eTransportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board\u003c/em\u003e, 2679(8), 1044-1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981251332261\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule-breaking\u003cem\u003e. Journal of \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esocial issues\u003c/em\u003e, 62(2), 307-326.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYang, M., Qiu, J., Luo, S., Zhang, S., Xie, J., Liu, L.,\u0026amp; Zheng, Y. (2025). Evidence on how planning \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eand design contribute to building a habitat security space: A multidimensional exploration. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 7(9), 092002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae07a7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-cities","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Cities](https://www.springer.com/journal/44327)","snPcode":"44327","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44327/3","title":"Discover Cities","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Mobility Justice, Algorithmic Accountability, Resilient Infrastructure, Institutional Trust, Iskandar Malaysia, Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSmart city narratives often conflate technological optimization with urban resilience, promising seamless mobility through Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) and algorithmic management. However, this technocentric focus frequently obscures the invisible infrastructure of social systems required to sustain these technologies. This conceptual paper posits that without addressing deep-seated socio-spatial inequalities, smart infrastructures remain fragile and prone to public rejection, not due to technical failure, but social disconnect. We propose the Just Smart Mobility Model (JSMM), a novel theoretical framework bridging Mobility Justice with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Unlike traditional adoption models, the JSMM redefines urban safety to encompass protection from algorithmic bias and spatial marginalization, identifying Institutional Trust as the critical mediator between infrastructural neglect and user adoption. To ground these theoretical abstractions in contested urban reality, we operationalize the framework through a forensic spatial vignette of the Iskandar Rapid Transit (IRT) in Malaysia. Rather than a statistical validation, this analysis functions as a structural stress-test, revealing how historical planning decisions that bypassed low-socioeconomic communities have fostered a trust deficit. The findings illustrate how digital exclusion acts as a fundamental safety risk, effectively \u0026lsquo;redlining\u0026rsquo; vulnerable groups from the smart city grid. The paper concludes by advocating for a governance shift from technical solutionism to restorative justice, ensuring mobility systems are not only efficient but sufficiently inclusive to be resilient.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Roles of Institutional Trust and Spatial Justice in the Resilient Smart Mobility Systems","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-13 10:58:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8347833/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-27T09:42:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-21T06:26:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"67795787384747436005179105699110851171","date":"2026-01-18T09:19:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-15T15:28:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"75288742364574475112016901719797694739","date":"2026-01-11T07:28:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"112186757896122817962092605094330233576","date":"2026-01-09T09:25:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-09T07:26:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-19T16:26:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-19T15:44:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Cities","date":"2025-12-19T15:36:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-cities","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Cities](https://www.springer.com/journal/44327)","snPcode":"44327","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44327/3","title":"Discover Cities","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e2fa27d0-6c44-46e0-bc43-98931d40a39c","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T14:09:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-13 10:58:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8347833","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8347833","identity":"rs-8347833","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}