Go to the Students section
Go to the Staff section
Go to the Alumni section
Go to the Study here section
Go to the International section
Go to the About section
Go to the Research section
Go to the Business and Employers section
Go to the Support us section
School of the Built Environment
Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment
This ground breaking volume raises radical critiques and proposes innovative solutions for social sustainability in the built environment. Urban Social Sustainability provides an in-depth insight into the discourse and argues that every urban intervention has a social sustainability dimension that needs to be taken into consideration, and incorporated into a comprehensive and cohesive ‘urban agenda’ that is built on three principles of recognition, integration, and monitoring. This should be achieved through a dialogical and reflexive process of decision-making. To achieve sustainable communities, social sustainability should form the basis of a constructive dialogue and be interlinked with other areas of sustainable development. This book underlines the urgency of approaching social sustainability as an urban agenda and goes on to make suggestions about its formulation.
Urban Social Sustainability consists of original contributions from academics and experts within the field and explores the significance of social sustainability from different perspectives. Areas covered include urban policy, transportation and mobility, urban space and architectural form, housing, urban heritage, neighbourhood development, and urban governance. Drawing on case studies from a number of countries and world regions the book presents a multifaceted and interdisciplinary understanding from social sustainability in urban settings, and provides practitioners and policy makers with innovative recommendations to achieve more socially sustainable urban environment.
Compact urban form has been widely suggested as a more sustainable development pattern that enhances different aspects of social liveability such as social exchange, collective interaction, and outdoor activity. Empirical research, however, challenges proposing a generic and universal understanding of compactness and its social advantages: compactness is perceived and lived differently in different socio-cultural contexts. This paper contributes to the call for gaining a more place-specific understanding from the compact urban form. To do so, it examines the social life of compact neighbourhoods in two study sites in Berlin. Social life is investigated by measuring the two dimensions of “neighbouring” and “social activities”: while the former explores how residents of the neighbourhood perceive different aspects of social life, the latter maps how urban space accommodates different types of social activity. Questionnaires and advanced mapping techniques are the primary sources of research obtained through intensive fieldwork and on-site observation. The research findings challenge some dominant assumptions attributed to the compact urban form orthodoxy: a compact neighbourhood can be perceived as safe, offer acceptable home and neighbourhood satisfaction, and, at the same time, suffer from low social networking and community engagement.
Growing significance of neighbourhoods in different areas of urban planning, along with the increasing attention to the social dimension of sustainable communities and societies, emphasizes the need for conceptualizing socially sustainable neighbourhoods. This article first critically reflects on the concept of socially sustainable neighbourhoods in two areas of definition and operationalization. It then proposes a tripartite framework for measuring social sustainability of urban neighbourhoods which combines three elements of neighbourhood,neighbouring, and neighbours. This framework is tested, examined, and discussed in the case of Bethnal Green, London. The findings are integrated into a Social Sustainability Enhancement Index which encompasses practical recommendations to promote social sustainability of Bethnal Green. The article concludes with highlighting research and policy implications of the proposed framework, and suggests some methodological improvements for the future research.
This paper investigates spatial, temporal, age, and gender pattern of outdoor social activities in urban neighbourhoods and their correlation with properties of urban form. Informed by theories and mapping techniques in urban sociology, urban design, and behavioural research, it develops a methodology for mapping outdoor social activities and applies it to four case studies in London and Berlin. Findings demonstrate how different types of activities are spatially distributed, reflecting socio-spatial characteristics of the given neighbourhood. The paper elaborates the contribution of the research to ongoing debates such as gendered space and age-friendly communities and suggests methodological improvements for future research.
Despite recent advances in social sustainability discourse, there is a dearth of working definitions and evaluation frameworks regarding measuring social sustainability of neighbourhoods for research, practice, and policy purposes. Building on the qualitative meta-analysis of relevant resources, this article proposes the triad of social sustainability consisting of three pillars of neighbourhood, neighbouring, and neighbours, as a conceptual framework for understanding and measuring social sustainability of neighbourhoods. It introduces relevant indicators for each pillar, suggests advanced techniques for measuring them, and incorporates them into an integrated framework. At the end, significant research and policy implications of the proposed framework are discussed.
The idea of sustainability and sustainable development emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s as a reaction to the growing environmental, economic, and social challenges worldwide. Two interconnected crises played a vital role in the emergence of sustainable urbanism: an ecological crisis as the result of the culmination of the environmental damages of rapid industrialization, and an urban crisis of deteriorating quality of urban life in the rapidly expanding cities worldwide (Whitehead, 2011). Although the roots of public awareness with regard to negative consequences of industrial development, urban growth, environmental degradation, social inequality, and economic injustice go back to decades before, two publications, The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972) and A Blueprint for Survival (Goldsmith and Allen, 1972), suggested serious concerns about the future of our planet. The 1987 release of ‘Our Common Future’ report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by the Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, was a turning point: the concept of sustainable development became the mainstream globally (Wheeler, 2013). Several international meetings and conferences were organized around this concept, scholars of many fields published intensively to explore its advantages and challenges, city administrations produced plans and visions for a sustainable urban future, and national and local policy documents provided strategic planning guidelines to achieve sustainable urban and regional development.
In Chapter 1, we listed a number of definitions for social sustainability. These are based on a spatial element that either addresses the ‘place’ within which social sustainability themes and qualities, regardless of how they are defined, are positioned, or signifies a ‘sphere’ across which these qualities are individually and collectively perceived and comprehended. This spatiality, however, is differently implied. Approaching the city as a ‘long-term viable setting’ that can function as a ‘viable urban social unit’ (Yiftachel and Hedgcock, 1993: 140) highlights the capacity of a city to be a locality for delivering social qualities. The search for ‘equitable access to urban opportunities’ (Boschmann and Kwan, 2008: 139) has spatial implications, because the underlying prerequisite to achieve this goal is partly related to urban space and fair distribution of urban facilities across the city. From another perspective, ‘harmonious evolution of civil society’ (Stren and Polese, 2000: 15), a ‘decent quality of life or livelihood’ (Koning, 2002: 70), and ‘well-being of the people’ (Søholt et al., 2012: 256) hint at a subjectivity that goes beyond the locality as a physical setting and refers to a collective imagination in the minds of the urbanites. Despite these indirect references and spatial implications, the spatiality of social sustainability remains largely unexplored and untouched.
As outlined and discussed in Chapter 1, social sustainability discourse faces some challenges in areas of theory and evaluation. We begin the concluding chapter underlining the contribution of this book to these challenges.