Technical ReportPDF Available

Putting the S Word in Sustainability - Can we be more Social?

January 2011

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.12242.96965

Affiliation: Berkeley Group

Authors:

Timothy J. Dixon

Universities of Reading & Oxford

Triple Bottom Line Models of SD

…

Framework for social sustainability assessment in Vancouver 31

…

Dockside Green, Vancouver 33

…

Figures - uploaded by Timothy J. Dixon

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Timothy J. Dixon

Content may be subject to copyright.

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIAL

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCI

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIA

PROFESSOR TIM DIXON

DIRECTOR, OXFORD INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (OISD)

OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY

COMMISSIONED BY THE BERKELEY GROUP

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIAL

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCI

SOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIALSOCIA

CAN WE BE MORE ‘SOCIAL’?

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 1 15/09/2011 12:24

Professor Tim Dixon (Oxford Institute for

Sustainable Development (OISD), Oxford Brookes

University) is Director of OISD and Professor of

Real Estate. He is also a member of the editorial

boards of four leading international real estate

journals and a member of the review panel of

the RICS Sustainability Taskforce. His research

interests revolve around the interface between the

sustainability agenda and its impact on property

development, investment and occupation. He

is co-author of ‘Urban Regeneration and Social

Sustainability’ (2010), based on a three year

research programme for the European Investment

Bank (EIB). He is currently working on the RICS

‘Green Gauge’ project and ‘Low Carbon UK Cities’

projects and EPSRC RETROFIT 2050 project.

He is also working in an OISD consultancy role

with a number of key players in the property

sector to operationalise the measurement

of social sustainability in property

development and regeneration projects.

Putting the ‘S-word’ back into Sustainability: Can we be more ‘social’?

In an era dominated by climate change debate and environmentalism

there is a real danger that the important ‘social’ pillar of sustainability

drops out of our vocabulary. This can happen at a variety of scales from

business level through to building and neighbourhood level regeneration

and development. Social sustainability should be at the heart of all

housing and mixed-use development but for a variety of reasons tends

to be frequently underplayed. The recent English city riots have brought

this point back sharply into focus. The relationships between people,

places and the local economy all matter and this is as true today as

it was in the late 19th century when Patrick Geddes, the great

pioneering town planner and ecologist, wrote of ‘place-work-folk’.

This paper, commissioned from Tim Dixon, explains what is meant by

social sustainability (and how it is linked to concepts such as social capital

and social cohesion); why the debate matters during a period when

‘localism’ is dominating political debate; and what is inhibiting its growth

and its measurement. The paper reviews best practice in post-occupancy

social sustainability metric systems, based on recent research undertaken

by the author on Dockside Green in Vancouver, and identiﬁ es some of

the key operational issues in mainstreaming the concept within major

mixed-use projects. The paper concludes by offering a framework for the

key challenges faced in setting strategic corporate goals and objectives;

prioritising and selecting the most appropriate investments; and measuring

social sustainability performance by identifying the required data sources.

Putting the ‘S-word’

back into sustainability:

Can we be more ‘social’?

Professor Tim Dixon

Director, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD), Oxford Brookes University

2 Introduction

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 2 15/09/2011 12:24

Putting the ‘S-word’ back into Sustainability: Can we be more ‘social’? Introduction 3

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 3 15/09/2011 12:24

Today a majority of the world’s population live in cities. By 2050

the ﬁ gure will be nearly 70%. Europe’s cities are amongst the

oldest in the world, giving them unique social, economic and

cultural characteristics, but many are facing mounting pressures

of socio-economic polarisation alongside climate change impact

and resource depletion.

Closer to home, the UK is expected to be the biggest country

in Western Europe by 2050. As its population increases by 24%

from 62.2m to 77m1 it will overtake both France and Germany.

The current pressure on social housing and new housing will

therefore continue to increase. Many UK cities are now entering

an era when population expansion and housing shortages

may well exacerbate existing inequalities and cause huge

infrastructure pressures2, and, as we have seen with the recent

English city riots, a potent and complex cocktail of issues can

create explosive tensions in some communities.

Urban regeneration and development therefore has a key role to

play in helping create and redesign communities which do make

a difference to people’s lives and give them not just housing but

a sense of belonging. This thinking is not new. After all, utopic

visions of society have been prevalent since Plato’s ‘Atlantis’

and Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’. The social entrepreneurs of the

19th century such as Titus Salt and later on, town planners

such as Patrick Geddes’ focus on ’place-work-folk’, also placed

a strong emphasis on people and jobs, whilst housing them

in an attractive environment3.

More recently, the emergence of the sustainable development

(SD) agenda gave further emphasis to environmental, social and

economic issues. However, in many respects, the strength of

its concern for environmental issues has meant that we are in

danger of forgetting the original principles of SD4.

The concept of sustainable development, as espoused by

Gro Harlem Brundtland, is a ‘triple bottom line approach’5,

which attempts to rationalise development that promotes

economic growth, but maintains social inclusion and minimises

environmental impact. There are two alternative models

suggesting how this should operate in practice: ﬁ rstly, the

‘Three Pillars’ model, which sees sustainability as the merging

of economic enterprise, social well-being and environmental

integrity; and secondly, the ‘Russian Doll’ model which sees

economic capital placed at the centre, but constrained by

environmental and social considerations (Figure 1)6.

Despite the relative equivalence with which these dimensions

are treated in both models, the academic literature and

the majority of empirical research has tended to focus on

environmental and economic rather than social issues. This

is partly the result of: (i) the difﬁ culties of deﬁ ning what social

sustainability comprises, and assessing and measuring it; and

(ii) because of a perceived trade-off at a global scale between

social progress and environmental issues7.

What is social sustainability

and why does it matter?

1. 0

Putting the ‘S-word’ back into Sustainability: Can we be more ‘social’?4 Chapter 1.0

Figure 1 Triple Bottom Line Models of SD

‘Three Pillars’ model ‘Russian Doll’ model

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 4 15/09/2011 12:24

“ This thinking is not new.

After all, utopic visions of

society have been prevalent

since Plato’s ‘Atlantis’ and

Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ ”

omas

ore

’

‘U

’

”

“… a process for creating sustainable, successful places that promote

well-being, by understanding what people need from the places they

live and work. Social sustainability combines design of the physical

realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social

and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement

and space for people and places to evolve” (Young Foundation, 2011)8

Putting the ‘S-word’ back into Sustainability: Can we be more ‘social’? Chapter 1.0 5

Despite this, we can clearly deﬁ ne social sustainability. It is:

It is important to understand that social sustainability can

operate across different scales: it can operate at a business

level in terms of the way in which an organisation engages with

society (and the links social sustainability has with ‘corporate

responsibility’); it can operate at an individual building level

(through the way in which the buildings and its occupants

interact and the way in which the building is connected to the

wider community or neighbourhood); and ﬁ nally it can operate

as the aggregate of the relationships between people and

places within a community or neighbourhood9.

‘Social capital’ also underpins social sustainability. This is

about the networks, norms and trust that, for example, bind

communities together. In a sense social capital is the glue which

should help join together the social infrastructure, which in turn

helps create communities which are socially sustainable10.

Social sustainability matters therefore because:

• Without social policy there can be no environmental policy.

For environmental issues to be tackled, people in

communities need to work together, and often the

most disadvantaged in society live in environmentally

unsustainable areas11.

• Social sustainability places the concept of ‘community’

centre stage. A body of work12 suggests that sustainable

and mixed communities require certain ‘critical success

factors’, such as good quality ‘mixed’ housing; good schools;

social infrastructure (including community outreach workers,

pre-school care); well-integrated social housing; and well-

designed, open and attractive spaces.

• Research from around the world suggests that planned

communities from countries as diverse as the UK and China

have frequently failed to design new communities which are

socially sustainable.

ble

chools;

rkers,

ell

h are

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 5 15/09/2011 12:24

The concept of social sustainability, and how it can best be

measured, is becoming more important for a number of reasons.

These cut across organisational and project level boundaries.

Firstly, at an organisational level, particular sectors of business

are striving to better understand their wider social and economic

‘footprint’, driven primarily by stakeholder reporting requirements

in relation to corporate responsibility.13

Research by WWF (the World Wildlife Fund) into the house

building sector found that companies tended to perform better

in stakeholder engagement and health and safety than in

other areas such as well-being14, where in fact housebuilders

performed the worst. Meanwhile, Business in the Community’s

Responsibility Index, perhaps surprisingly, found that mining

tended to perform better in key areas such as ‘community’

and ‘environment’ than other sectors15.

Secondly, the emergence of ‘responsible property investment’

(RPI) is underpinning the drive to social sustainability. The United

Nations Environment Programme now has a specialist Property

Workstream16 17, for instance. The growth of RPI should be seen

in the context of a wider ‘responsible investment’ (RI) agenda

which can include developing or acquiring properties designed

with environmentally and socially positive attributes (e.g. low-

income housing or green buildings) or managing properties in

beneﬁ cial ways (e.g. fair labour practices for service workers

or using environmentally friendly cleaning products).

Thirdly, within the UK, we are looking at a changed political

landscape characterised by localism and a big (or ‘good’)

society. This has brought an increasing focus on health

and well-being, and a strong emphasis on regeneration

to enable growth.

What’s

changing?

2.0

What’s changing? 6 Chapter 2.0

Figure 3. Impact on society - overview of average UK house builder performance19

WELL-BEING

CONSIDERATE CONSTRUCTION

EMPLOYMENT

CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT

HEALTH AND SAFETY

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

27%

30%

31%

47%

49%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percentage score

Figure 2. Why does your company measure its social and/or economic impact?18

INCREASE SUPPLY CHAIN EFFECTIVENESS

MONITOR LOCAL ACTIVITIES THAT MAY DO HARM

ENCOURAGE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

SECURE A LICENCE TO OPERATE

INFORM COMMUNITY PROGRAMME STRATEGY

BUILD REPUTATION

COMMUNICATE THE COMPANY’S BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TO STAKEHOLDERS

16%

17%

19%

37%

61%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage respondents

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 6 15/09/2011 12:24

What’s changing? Chapter 2.0 7

There is therefore a fresh sense that localism, and

empowering communities with greater decision-making

capabilities, should enable those in the regeneration and

development industry to focus more on ‘people-based’

outcomes. This approach is also being underpinned by

changes to the national planning system (National Planning

Policy Framework) which place an emphasis on economic

and social sustainability in the overall context of

a presumption in favour of sustainable development22.

This is all being played out within an overarching discussion

about ‘communitarianism’23, and what a big (or good) society

really means. Across the political spectrum, there is a

growing emphasis on collaborative models of regeneration

and partnership-based development projects which give

people a real sense of belonging and empowerment.

“ By including regeneration as

part of our agenda for economic

growth, we are ensuring that

regeneration strategies link people

to the opportunities brought by

economic growth so are more

likely to deliver lasting change to

people’s lives. Evidence shows that

regeneration strategies are more

effective if they consider the needs

of local people in terms of skills,

mobility between places and other

barriers to work, in addition to

investment in infrastructure and

the quality and environment of

a place.”21

The government’s approach emphasises the connections

between higher growth and decentralised polices, which

are seen as providing greater powers to communities to

build ‘social capital’20:

The idea that it is possible to create communities which

encourage health, happiness and well-being is central to this

agenda. This conviction is growing in importance as the UK

government seeks to develop measures which can assess

the social impacts of policy and their effect on well-being24.

Recent research from the GoWell project in Scotland25 has

attempted to measure the impact of regeneration on the

health and well-being of residents, for example, and a recent

report from the New Economics Foundation suggested ‘place

happiness’ (pH) captured three core aspects of well-being to

which the built environment can contribute26:

• Personal well-being, based on people’s experience of life

in relation to their physical and psychological well-being;

• Social well-being, focused on people’s experience of life

in relation to their community; and

• Economic and material well-being, based on people’s life

experience in relation to conditions and circumstances

and their physical surroundings.

The report went on to suggest that regeneration projects

should also capture ‘place sustainability’ (pS), which is

based on resources used during construction and across

the project’s lifetime.

These are all forces for change in the regeneration and

development industry, but there are, however, factors which

continue to inhibit change:

• The limitations of the industry in actually measuring social

sustainability are clear. Metrics are relatively poorly developed

in comparison with for example, environmental sustainability.

This is clear at a company level; at an individual building level

where community and people-based impact measures are

weakly framed (in BREEAM and LEED, for example); and at

a community level.

• Where measures for impact are relatively well-developed, for

example, through ‘Social Impact Assessment’, these tend to

be aspirational and often not followed through or monitored

downstream27. This exacerbates the long-term stewardship

issue, where developers frequently, with notable exceptions,

have no long-term interest in monitoring the success or

otherwise of the project in social terms.

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 7 15/09/2011 12:24

How can we measure social sustainability?8 Chapter 3.0

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 8 15/09/2011 12:24

How can we measure social sustainability? Chapter 3.0 9

In the wider context of social impact measurement, there are a

range of tools and toolkits. These include Social Value Metrics,

Social Rating, and Social Return on Investment29. In the context

of the UK built environment, there also exists a number of

frameworks and tools for integrating social sustainability within

urban design, as well as measuring its characteristics (Table 1).

Putting social infrastructure into new communities costs money.

In what was the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area,

it cost about £700/resident28. Those kind of ﬁ gures make it very

clear why we need to assess the costs and beneﬁ ts of social

sustainability, and compare the picture before and after each

development project.

How can we measure

social sustainability?

3.0

Table 1. Examples of UK Frameworks for Social Sustainability

Business in the

Community

(BiTC):

Community

Footprint

This is a business-focused toolkit which

enables companies to judge the difference

a business makes in its community. A

business can have both positive as well

as negative impacts and these impacts

result both from what businesses do and

the choices they make in terms of location,

management, hiring, procurement, sales

and social investments.

Being piloted by Costain, Halcrow,

Laing O’Rourke, Loughborough University,

Santander and Thames Water.

Young

Foundation:

Social Design

and Future

Communities

A new framework for “designing in”

the practical support, services and

interventions to transform new settlements

into ﬂ ourishing communities. It covers

four main themes: amenities and social

infrastructure, social and cultural life, voice

and inﬂ uence, and space to grow.

Homes and Communities Agency:

Toolkit for Design.

Being used in post-occupancy evaluation

of projects including Bermondsey Square,

Southwark.

Focuses on four themes for regeneration

projects: health, happiness and well-being;

regeneration; environment, and urban

design. Social sustainability cuts across

these themes.

Igloo ‘Footprint’

FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW EXAMPLES IN PRACTICE

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 9 15/09/2011 12:24

How can we measure social sustainability?10 Chapter 3.0

Outside the UK, one of the most interesting frameworks to

emerge is Vancouver’s Social Development Plan. This was

developed in 2005 and led to a city-wide Social Sustainability

Framework. According to the plan, social sustainability is made

up of three components and four guiding principles. The three

components are (i) basic needs, (ii) individual capacity and

(iii) community capacity30, which combine with the four guiding

principles of equity, inclusion, adaptability and security

(Figure 4).

EQUITY

LIVING WORKING PLAYING ENGAGING LEARNING MOVING

SENSE

PLACE

INCLUSION ADAPTABILITY SECURITY

THEMES

PRINCIPLES,

OBJECTIVES

OR CRITERIA

INDICATORS OR

BEST PRACTICE

FOR APPRAISAL

Figure 4. Framework for social sustainability assessment in Vancouver 31

How can we measure social sustainability?3.0

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 10 15/09/2011 12:24

Basic needs of residents can continue to be met through:

• Appropriate affordable housing

• Appropriate, affordable healthcare available in

the community.

• Locally produced, nutritious food that is affordable.

• Jobs that enable people to be productive and utilise

their skills and abilities.

• Sufﬁ cient income for people to be able to ﬁ nancially

support themselves and their families.

• Safe communities and workplaces.

Individual capacity can be maintained

and enhanced through:

• Opportunities to develop and upgrade skills.

• A variety of local employment opportunities throughout

the region.

• Opportunities to develop and make use of creativity

and artistic expression.

• Affordable opportunities for life-long learning.

• Affordable recreation, leisure and cultural facilities

and programme.

• Scope for individuals to contribute to the health and

well-being of the community.

Community capacity can be maintained

and enhanced through:

• Support and encouragement for economic development.

• The identity of the community reﬂ ecting its diversity.

• Involvement in public processes and their results, and

in government.

• Opportunities and places for social interaction throughout

the community.

• Opportunities, resources and venues for a variety of arts,

cultural and community activities.

• Support and encouragement for community organisations

and networks.

There are four guiding principles of social sustainability:

Equity:

Individuals have access to sufﬁ cient resources to participate

fully in their community and they have opportunities for personal

development and advancement. There is fair distribution

of resources among communities to facilitate participation

and collaboration.

Inclusion:

Residents are involved in setting and working towards

collective community goals.

Adaptability:

Resiliency for both individuals and communities and the ability

to respond appropriately and creatively to change.

Security:

Individuals and communities have economic security

and have conﬁ dence that they live in safe, supportive and

healthy environments.

These components and principles are being carried through into

the goal of making Vancouver the ‘greenest city’ in the world by

202032. Their Greenest City 2020 work has applied a strong

social lens to all of their goal areas, including:

• Assessing the job potential of different actions, particularly

for at risk, low income and youth populations;

• Applying a justice and affordability analysis to the climate,

transportation, ecological footprint, and local food draft

action plans;

• Maximising opportunities for the creation of social

enterprises as a way of lending ﬁ nancial stability to

non-proﬁ t organisations; and,

• Working to engage a broader audience in public

engagement activities.

How can we measure social sustainability? Chapter 3.0 11

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 11 15/09/2011 12:24

How can we measure social sustainability?12 Chapter 3.0

This model has now been speciﬁ cally applied to the development

of Dockside Green, a 6.5ha redevelopment project in Victoria,

Vancouver. The site is being developed as a model of a

sustainable community built to LEED Platinum standards over 10

years. It will ultimately comprise 2,200 residents in approximately

1,100 dwelling units with 1.3m sq ft of mixed commercial/light

industrial space. Here the social sustainability of the development

is being monitored with a system which assesses ‘diversity’,

‘housing affordability’; ‘liveability’ and ‘community’ using related

key performance indicators. Table 2, for example, shows

indicators used for measuring ‘diversity’.

Table 2 ‘Dockside Green’ Indicator Set: ‘Diversity’

INDICATOR PLANNED MEASURED

Residents by age Up to 31% of residential units

will be affordable

Number of people living

at Dockside by age cohort

Residents by ethnic background n/a Percentage of population that

is a member of a visible minority

Household type A wide range of housing types

including townhouses, condominiums

and studio apartments is planned

Percentage of couples, families

with and without children in

private households

Household by income level Planned as a mixed-use

community

Ability to accommodate a broad

range of residents including lower

income households

How can we measure social sustainability?3.0

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 12 15/09/2011 12:25

How can we measure social sustainability? Chapter 3.0 13

Figure 5. Dockside Green, Vancouver 33

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 13 15/09/2011 12:25

Where do you start? 4.0

In practice, it means:

• Clearly deﬁ ning the vision of the development;

• Identifying key themes of the development

in consultation with your stakeholders;

• Identifying the key topics within these three themes;

• Setting topic goals;

• Identifying performance indicators for before and after

project completion;

• Setting up systems to report and monitor performance.

Table 3. Traditional and emerging themes of social sustainability 34

TRADITIONAL

Equity

Basic needs, including housing and environmental health

Education and skills

Employment

Human rights and gender

Poverty

Social justice

EMERGING

Empowerment, participation and access

Demographic change (ageing, migration and mobility)

Social mixing and cohesion

Identity, sense of place and culture

Health and safety

Social capital

Well-being, happiness and quality of life

Where do you start? 14 Chapter 4.0

The way in which indicators can be embedded in decision-

making and monitoring is shown in Figure 7.

It makes sense to:

• Select a practical and simple set of indicators.

• Commit to a set of indicators over time.

• Balance technical and survey-based indicators.

• Summarise and visualise indicators through indices,

scoring and/or charts.

• Benchmark against targets and/or ‘reference’

communities or projects.

An example of how these principles might work in practice

is shown in Table 4.

Figure 7. Using indicators for monitoring and feedback 35

VISION

GOALS/OBJECTIVES

ACTIONS

MONITORING

Despite examples like Dockside Green, measuring social sustainability remains a challenge, particularly as we move from

traditional tangible themes towards concepts such as well-being (Table 3).

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 14 15/09/2011 12:25

Where do you start? Chapter 4.0 15

Table 4. A matrix for assessing social sustainability

Note: ‘Internal data’ is data held by the developer. ‘Survey data’ is data commissioned through survey work.

EXAMPLE THEME EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL

INVESTMENT REQUIRED

EXAMPLE TOPIC SOURCE OF DATA (‘PROXIES’)

- Affordable housing

- Mixed tenure

- School, further

education college

- Type of residents

(e.g. age, ethnicity)

- Household type

- Household income

- Education

- Internal data, survey work

- Neighbourhood statistics

People

Affordability - Affordable housing - Household tenure proﬁ le - Internal data, survey work

- Neighbourhood statistics

Health and well-being - Good design

- Cycling/walkways

- Public space

- Culture & heritage

- Crime levels and fear

of crime

- General health

- Indoor and outdoor public

space usage

- Internal data, survey work

- Neighbourhood statistics

- Crime statistics

- Economic & social data

(ESDS)

Sense of community - Community resources

- Volunteering

- Social infrastructure

- Engagement and

volunteering

- Social enterprise

- Internal data, survey work

- Neighbourhood statistics

- Economic & social data

(ESDS)

We could also construct a similar matrix for ‘economic’ indicators

which would include such measures as new jobs (construction

and non-construction); contribution of the development to the

tax base (national taxation and business rates); and net growth

of businesses, and also ‘environmental’ indicators, which would

include energy, water and waste indicators.

This approach enables a developer to set clear social criteria

for prioritising investments, and for subsequent monitoring

(through post-occupancy evaluation) to assess the impact

of the regeneration or development project on the social and

economic fabric of a place.

With an appropriate set of indices, it should also be possible to

measure the ‘social return on investment’ (a measure of social

and ﬁ nancial value) and ‘gross value added’ (as a measure of

spending on employees, suppliers and a company, for example)

within a regeneration or redevelopment project. However,

there is a ‘scale’ issue which needs to be borne in mind: some

datasets are not available at local super output level and survey

work and alternative data sources may also be needed.

There is, of course, also the issue of cost. A post-occupancy

evaluation of a ‘typical development’ or regeneration project

may cost between £15,000-20,000. This seems a price

worth paying if it can assess the real socio-economic

impact a project has made.

“ This approach enables a developer

to set clear social criteria for

prioritising investments, and

to assess the impact of the

regeneration or development

project on the social and

economic fabric of a place.”

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 15 15/09/2011 12:25

In Conclusion

5.0

Social sustainability matters because people, places and the economy

matter as much as environmental issues. If we are going to create

sustainable places in our towns and cities then we really do need to

‘re-balance’ the triple bottom line.

Changes in the political landscape, which will transcend party politics,

will make it much more likely that those projects which are community-

led, and which deliver growth and employment, and create places that

promote happiness and well-being, are those which will progress in a new

era of localism. Very quickly, the emphasis is likely to be much more on

‘people’ than ‘area-based’ initiatives.

If a development team can evaluate their impact, they can demonstrate

their contribution to local policy goals. This may not only justify their work

in planning terms but help us all achieve a better balance between the

different dimensions of sustainability.

For further information about OISD’s work on social sustainability see:

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/be/oisd/sustainable_communities/index.html

In Conclusion16 Chapter 5.0

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 16 15/09/2011 12:25

In Conclusion Chapter 5.0 17

SOCIAL

sustainability

matters

because people, places and

the economy matter as much

as environmental issues

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 17 15/09/2011 12:25

Bibliography

6.0

1 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-population-largest-in-western-

europe-by-2050-2039395.html

2 Colantonio, A., and Dixon, T (2010) Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability:

Best Practice from European Cities. Wiley-Blackwell

3 Welter, V. (2002) Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. MIT Press.

4 Colantonio and Dixon, op. cit.

5 Increasingly there is reference in the literature surrounding SD to a ‘quadruple bottom line’

approach which also includes the governance structures needed to underpin SD.

6 O’Riordan, T., Cameron, J., and Jordan, A. (2001) Reinterpreting the Precautionary

Principle. Cameron May, London.

7 Holden, M. (2011) ‘Urban Policy Engagement with Social Sustainability

in Metro Vancouver’, Urban Studies, June, 1-16.

8 Young Foundation (2011) Design for Social Sustainability. There have been a number of

attempts to provide a deﬁ nition. In work for the European Investment Bank, OISD deﬁ ned

social sustainability as being about: ‘how individuals, communities and societies live with

each other and the social realm of individuals and societies...social sustainability blends

traditional social policy areas and principles, such as equity and health, with emerging

issues concerning participation, needs, social capital, the economy, the environment,

and more recently, with the notions of happiness, well-being and quality of life.”

(Colantonio and Dixon, op cit)

9 Social sustainability can also apply at national and international levels.

10 Social Analysis and Reporting Division Ofﬁ ce for National Statistics (2001) Social Capital:

A Review of the Literature. Ofﬁ ce for National Statistics.

11 Holden, op. cit.

12 See for example, Young Foundation (2011) Design for Social Sustainability.

Young Foundation

13 Ethical Corporation (2010) Social and Economic Impact:

Measurement, Evaluation and Reporting. Ethical Corporation.

14 WWF (2007) Building a Sustainable Future:

UK Home Builders’ Progress in Addressing Sustainability. WWF

15 See http://www.bitc.org.uk/cr_index/

16 See http://www.unepﬁ .org/work_streams/property/index.html

17 ‘Sustainable buildings’ form the key investment category within the aegis of ‘responsible

property investment’ (RPI), which is deﬁ ned as ‘… an approach to property investing

that recognises environmental and social considerations along with more conventional

ﬁ nancial objectives. It goes beyond minimum legal requirements, to improving the

environmental or social performance of property, through strategies such as urban

revitalisation, or the conservation of natural resources.’UNEPI (2007) Responsible

Property Investment: Property Workstream. Accessed from:

http://www.unepﬁ .org/work_streams/property/responsible_property_investment/index.html

Footnotes18 Chapter 6.0

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 18 15/09/2011 12:25

18 Ethical Corporation, op. cit., p12.

19 WWF, op. cit., p40.

20 Communities and Local Government (2011) Regeneration to enable growth:

What government is doing in support of community-led regeneration.

21 Communities and Local Government (2011) Written evidence submitted

by CLG to Regeneration Inquiry.

22 Communities and Local Government (2011) Draft National Planning Policy Framework.

23 Essentially the relationship between individuals, families, and communities.

24 Social Impacts Taskforce (2011) A Framework for Understanding the Social Impacts

of Policy and their Effects on Well-being. Social Impacts Taskforce.

25 Egan, M., et al (2010) ‘Protocol for a mixed methods study investigating the impact

of investment in housing, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal on the health and well-

being of residents: the GoWell programme’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10:41.

26 NEF (2010) Good Foundations: Towards a Low Carbon, High Well-being Built

Environment. New Economics Foundation (NEF): London

27 The scope of SIA content has widened from the 1990s to cover population proﬁ le including

occupational groups; learning and employment; general well-being, including health, crime

and deprivation; community facilities/services; recreation and public open space; social

inclusion and community integration; health and economic and business context.

28 MKSM Social Infrastructure Group and the Bedfordshire and Luton Voluntary and

Community Sector Infrastructure Consortium (2006) Strong Communities: A Social

Infrastructure Plan for Voluntary and Community Action in the Milton Keynes & South

Midlands Growth Area.

29 Olsen, S., and Galimidi, B. (2008) Catalogue of Approaches to Impact Measurement:

Assessing Social Impact in Private Ventures, Rockefeller Foundation.

30 TAC Social Issues Subcommittee (2004) The Social Components of Community

Sustainability: A Framework.

31 Colantonio and Dixon, op.cit.

32 See http://vancouver.ca/greencapital/index.htm

33 Photographs courtesy of Ben Johnson/Sockeyed Images.

34 Colantonio and Dixon, op.cit.

35 Sheltair (2007) Indicators for Sustainable Communities.

Footnotes Chapter 6.0 19

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 19 15/09/2011 12:25

The Berkeley Group Holdings plc

Berkeley House

19 Portsmouth Road

Cobham

Surrey KT11 1JG

9160_002 BG_Not_carbon_essay_ART.indd 20 15/09/2011 12:25

Putting the S word back into sustainability

Data

October 2016

Timothy J. Dixon

Download

The relationship between satisfaction towards neighbourhood facilities and social trust in urban villages in Kuala Lumpur

Article

Jul 2017
CITIES

Evaluating Social Impact of Smart City Technologies and Services: Methods, Challenges, Future Directions

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

This study examines motivations, definitions, methods and challenges of evaluating the social impacts of smart city technologies and services. It outlines concepts of social impact assessment and discusses how social impact has been included in smart city evaluation frameworks. Thematic analysis is used to investigate how social impact is addressed in eight smart city projects that prioritise human-centred design across a variety of contexts and development phases, from design research and prototyping to completed and speculative projects. These projects are notable for their emphasis on human, organisational and natural stakeholders; inclusion, participation and empowerment; new methods of citizen engagement; and relationships between sustainability and social impact. At the same time, there are gaps in the evaluation of social impact in both the smart city indexes and the eight projects. Based on our analysis, we contend that more coherent, consistent and analytical approaches are needed to build narratives of change and to comprehend impacts before, during and after smart city projects. We propose criteria for social impact evaluation in smart cities and identify new directions for research. This is of interest for smart city developers, researchers, funders and policymakers establishing protocols and frameworks for evaluation, particularly as smart city concepts and complex technologies evolve in the context of equitable and sustainable development.

The Quality of Neighbourhood Facilities and Their Effect on Social Trust in Salak Selatan New Village, Kuala Lumpur

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2020

This study investigated neighbourhood amenities as socio-spatial settings within which relationships of trust are built through the passage of daily activities. It examined the effect of satisfaction towards neighbourhood facilities on social trust in one of Malaysiaâ€™s urban villages: Salak South New Village in Kuala Lumpur. Data from 335 survey respondents were analysed using the MANOVA method to determine the influence of neighbourhood facilities satisfaction on social trust. To achieve the aim of this study, five independent variables (IVs) of satisfaction with provided selected neighbourhood facilities were considered: basic utilities, commercial facilities, health facilities, police service and public transport, while two dependent variables (DV) of communal trust and leadership trust were identified that constitute social trust. The findings reveal that satisfaction towards neighbourhood facilities significantly influenced social trust among the respondents. Multivariate analysis showed commercial facilities as the most influential in determining social trust, followed by public transport, health facilities, basic utilities, and finally police service. Therefore, improving neighbourhood facilities and amenities will enhance the satisfaction of residents and accordingly increase social trust. In other words, unmaintained and underdeveloped facilities lessen social trust in a community via resident dissatisfaction. This necessitates engagement of stakeholders including urban planners, local authorities and the residents themselves in the planning process and village development to ensure that the residents will be satisfied with changes for better neighbourhood facilities and social trust is sustained.Abstrak. Makalah ini mempelajari keberadaan fasilitas lingkungan dalam konteks sosio-spasial yang menjadi tempat terbangunnya hubungan kepercayaan melalui perjalanan aktivitas sehari-hari. Makalah ini menguji pengaruh kepuasan terhadap fasilitas lingkungan pada kepercayaan sosial di salah satu desa perkotaan Malaysia - Desa Baru Selatan Salak, di Kuala Lumpur. Data dari 335 responden dianalisis menggunakan metode MANOVA untuk menjelaskan pengaruh kepuasan fasilitas lingkungan terhadap kepercayaan sosial. Untuk mencapai tujuan penelitian ini, ditentukan lima variabel independen (IV) yang dapat mewakili kepuasan terhadap penyediaan fasilitas lingkungan yang dipilih: utilitas dasar, fasilitas komersial, fasilitas kesehatan, layanan polisi dan angkutan umum; sedangkan dua variabel dependen (DV):Kepercayaan komunal dan kepercayaan kepemimpinan diidetifikasi sebagai yang merupakankepercayaan sosial Hasil penelitian mengungkapkan bahwa kepuasan terhadap fasilitas lingkungan berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap kepercayaan sosial di kalangan responden. Analisis multivariat menunjukkan fasilitas komersial sebagai yang paling berpengaruh dalam menentukan kepercayaan sosial; diikuti oleh angkutan umum, fasilitas kesehatan, utilitas dasar, dan terakhir layanan polisi. Oleh karena itu, peningkatan fasilitas dan amenitas lingkungan akan meningkatkan kepuasan penghuni dan karenanya meningkatkan kepercayaan sosial. Dengan kata lain, fasilitas yang tidak terawat dan terbelakang mengurangi kepercayaan sosial dalam masyarakat melalui ketidakpuasan warga. Hal ini membutuhkan keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan termasuk perencana kota, pemerintah daerah dan warga sendiri dalam proses perencanaan dan pembangunan desa untuk memastikan bahwa penduduk desa puas dengan perubahan untuk fasilitas lingkungan yang lebih baik dan kepercayaan sosial dipertahankan.Kata kunci. Kepercayaan sosial, Kepuasan fasilitas, Kelurahan, Ruang lingkungan, Kuala Lumpur.

Evaluation of Mecidiyeköy as an urban threshold in socio-cultural sustainability framework

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2021

The globalization process resulted from technological and economic developments in the second half of the 20th century has created a rapid urban transformation in the world and Turkey as a developing country. This rapid urban transformation has affected the urban and architectural context of cities, including Istanbul, both in negative and positive ways. Urban policies, which lay the groundwork for minimizing the negative effects of rapid urbanization on cities and producing more inclusive life scenarios, are mostly based on socio-cultural sustainability approaches. However, when urban policies are concerned, the issue of sustainability is usually approached from the perspectives of ecological and/or physical features, whereas the significance of socio-cultural sustainability for urban development strategies is often neglected. Within this framework, this study aims to examine the potentials and constraints that Mecidiyeköy encompasses as an “urban threshold” and to inquire the ways that socio-cultural sustainability can offer a ground for future urban policies and architectural practices to trigger the co-existence of differences and social interaction between them. This study is designed as a case-study and the methodological framework of the study consists of literature review and on-site observations. This article revealed that socio-cultural sustainability, as a conceptual framework and urban approach, can provide a fertile ground for future urban scenarios that would be developed for Mecidiyeköy. If approached from the socio-cultural sustainability perspective, it can be ensured that this region having constraints and potentials in terms of accommodating spatial and human diversity and triggering the interaction between them, can actually work as an “urban threshold.”

Piloting a collaborative data library of fine-grained data to support knowledge facilitation in architectural courses

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Nov 2020

This study discusses the establishment and pilot of a collaborative data library (CDL) for educational purposes, based on a transdisciplinary collaboration between the architecture departments at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, and University of Pretoria, South Africa. The CDL was tested Hammarkullen in Gothenburg in a joint exercise during which students from both institutions collected qualitative and quantitative data through site analysis using analogue and digital tools such as KoboToolbox and Maptionnaire. The collected data were uploaded in guided sessions to the web-based platform GeoNode to be stored in a systematic way for re-use of the data later in the course. Results show that the tools and CDL were relatively easy to use. For the students the most interesting aspects were the contextual information gained by using the data collecting tools, and, by that, make communities' needs heard. Thus, the students appreciated the participatory features of the data collection tools. The CDL will be further developed and tested in the South African design studio in the Mamelodi township of Pretoria early in 2020. The development of the CDL in a transdisciplinary and global context will allow for up-scaling and potentially also applications outside educational environments. The project contributes to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals 4 and 11.

Void potential: absence, imagination and the making of community in London’s Olympic Park

Thesis

Apr 2019

Saffron Woodcraft

This thesis examines the meaning and making of community in London’s Olympic Park where five new neighbourhoods - described as model communities for the 21st-century, and known as the Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) – are currently under construction. ‘Thriving new communities’ have been identified by government as an indicator of the success of the Olympic legacy regeneration programme, which promises to transform the prosperity and life chances of people living in east London. Planned urban development is the vehicle for this transformation, of which the LCS is a significant component. This research interrogates the social and material effects of the Olympic legacy regeneration programme by examining the process of ‘making’ Chobham Manor, the first LCS neighbourhood, from the perspective of the professional planners, architects and regeneration practitioners engaged in the planning and placemaking process. Based on ethnographic data collected over two and a half years, the thesis describes a series of social, spatial and discursive ‘voids’ – territories, gaps, absences and emptinesses - that emerged as prominent and agentive entities in the work of imagining and making Chobham Manor. It examines the investments made by different actors in producing, protecting and sometimes over-coming, the potential of these voids to support, disrupt or sustain the making of ‘community’. The thesis deconstructs how the voids shift through material registers and operate to produce and exert power in coercive and subtle ways, and from this empirical base, develops a typology of voids as an analytical device to interrogate the production of power, space and citizen subjectivities in the neo-liberal city. By engaging with ‘voids’ as vital and contingent entities that produce dynamic social, material and temporal relationalities, this thesis advances the analytical potential of the void beyond current engagements with the immaterial and transcendent.

Creating strong communities: measuring social sustainability in new housing development

Article

Nov 2013

Nov. pp. 473-480. ISSN 0040-996

Social Sustainability in Context: rediscovering Ingrid Gehl's Bo-Miljø

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2016

Terri Peters

Psychological needs and human wellbeing are aspects of sustainability that urgently need to be reconsidered in architecture. Too often, the concept of sustainability is connected to quantitative building performance, without enough consideration of how people use and enjoy spaces and how their wellbeing is influenced by their environment. This paper introduces the report Bo-miljø or Living Environment, written by Danish environmental psychologist Ingrid Gehl in 1971, into the current social sustainability discourse in architectural design as a way of gaining perspective into psychological wellbeing. The report is particularly relevant for considering the human dimension in housing design and identifies eight basic psychological needs that people have in relation to their living environments. The analysis of this report, and the synthesis of the findings with newer studies and definitions of social sustainability offer a framework for rethinking social sustainability. This essay analyses the findings from Gehl's report and contextualises it within current interdisciplinary research in this area. Critically analysing leading definitions and concepts in social sustainability and wellbeing, this essay offers an architectural perspective on design for social sustainability and wellbeing.

Envisioning the New Urban Informatics

Chapter

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Teija Vainio

This chapter envisions human implications of technology in cities, i.e., urban informatics, and focuses on related sustainability issues in technology design that particularly could influence citizens’ subjectively experienced security in urban environments. To date, much of the related urban informatics research contributes either to sustainability issues or security issues in the given context. In addition, sustainable technology design is quite often seen from the economic or environmental perspectives of sustainability and the challenges of secure technology, such as network stability and functionality. However, we argue here that these two phenomena, sustainability and citizen’s experienced security, are intertwined in the context of urban informatics. Thus, this chapter reviews the theoretical approaches and considerations of current urban informatics research related to sustainability and security issues from the citizen perspective. The outcome of this study reveals the gaps that have been unrecognized and discusses future research directions. The main contributions of this chapter are framing urban informatics into broader contexts of social sustainability and experienced security.

Third-Generation CPTED—Integrating Crime Prevention and Neighbourhood Liveability

Chapter

Full-text available

Oct 2022

The crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) pioneers first began writing about the connection between environment and crime in the early 1960s. Since then, the theory and practice of CPTED have been adopted by academics and practitioners from a number of different disciplines and professional backgrounds who have collectively contributed to evolution of this crime prevention approach over the past 60 years. The most recent conceptualisation of CPTED was by who introduced a new theoretical framework that amalgamates these developments with contemporary urbanisation challenges to develop a holistic integrated model of CPTED centred on neighbourhood liveability and conceptualisation of human needs (Mihinjac and Saville, Social Sciences 8:182, 2019). This chapter builds on this new conceptualisation of the Third-Generation CPTED by introducing the four sustainability strategies—4 S that form building blocks for developing safe, sustainable and liveable neighbourhoods and cities. The 4 S strategies: (a) environmental sustainability, (b) social sustainability, (c) economic sustainability and (d) public health sustainability are further deconstructed into examples of specific tactics that CPTED practitioners, planners, community developers, local communities and other professionals could employ. Some indicators for those tactics are also provided to promote empirical testing.KeywordsSustainability4 SEnvironmental sustainabilitySocial sustainabilityEconomic sustainabilityPublic health sustainabilityMaslow

Protocol for a mixed methods study investigating the impact of investment in housing, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal on the health and wellbeing of residents: The GoWell programme

Article

Full-text available

May 2010
BMC MED RES METHODOL

There is little robust evidence to test the policy assumption that housing-led area regeneration strategies will contribute to health improvement and reduce social inequalities in health. The GoWell Programme has been designed to measure effects on health and wellbeing of multi-faceted regeneration interventions on residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the city of Glasgow, Scotland. This mixed methods study focused (initially) on 14 disadvantaged neighbourhoods experiencing regeneration. These were grouped by intervention into 5 categories for comparison. GoWell includes a pre-intervention householder survey (n = 6008) and three follow-up repeat-cross sectional surveys held at two or three year intervals (the main focus of this protocol) conducted alongside a nested longitudinal study of residents from 6 of those areas. Self-reported responses from face-to-face questionnaires are analysed along with various routinely produced ecological data and documentary sources to build a picture of the changes taking place, their cost and impacts on residents and communities. Qualitative methods include interviews and focus groups of residents, housing managers and other stakeholders exploring issues such as the neighbourhood context, potential pathways from regeneration to health, community engagement and empowerment. Urban regeneration programmes are 'natural experiments.' They are complex interventions that may impact upon social determinants of population health and wellbeing. Measuring the effects of such interventions is notoriously challenging. GoWell compares the health and wellbeing effects of different approaches to regeneration, generates theory on pathways from regeneration to health and explores the attitudes and responses of residents and other stakeholders to neighbourhood change.

Urban Regeneration & Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities

Chapter

Feb 2011

Urban regeneration is a key focus for public policy throughout Europe. This book examines social sustainability and analyses its meaning and significance – an area of research which has, until now, been comparatively neglected. The authors offer a comprehensive European perspective to identify best practice in sustainable urban regeneration in five major cities in Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, and the UK. Urban Regeneration & Social Sustainability: best practice from European cities examines the extent to which social sustainability is incorporated within urban regeneration projects in the EU, but also investigates how local authorities, developers, investors and other key stakeholders approach sustainability. The book covers the recent economic recession and the growth of responsible investment (RI) and corporate responsibility (CR) agendas of investors and developers. It also provides a thorough analysis of the current metrics and tools used by the public, private and NGO sectors to implement, measure and monitor social sustainability. A range of urban regeneration models and vehicles are reviewed, with a particular emphasis on public private partnerships (PPPs) and EU structural funds, and a new framework for assessing social sustainability is described. City-specific case studies examine regeneration projects in which institutional arrangements, financial products and tools, monitoring and measurement systems for social sustainability and stakeholders’ participation in PPPs have delivered successful urban regeneration. This comprehensive, systematic and authoritative overview of both the scholarly literature and current best practice across Europe makes the book essential reading for researchers and post-graduate students in sustainable development, real estate, geography, urban studies and urban planning, as well as consultants and policy advisors in urban regeneration and the built environment.

Interpreting the Precautionary Principle

Article

Jul 1995

Design for Social Sustainability. Young Foundation 13 Ethical Corporation (2010) Social and Economic Impact: Measurement, Evaluation and Reporting

Jan 2011

Young See For Example
Foundation

12 See for example, Young Foundation (2011) Design for Social Sustainability. Young Foundation 13 Ethical Corporation (2010) Social and Economic Impact: Measurement, Evaluation and Reporting. Ethical Corporation.

The Social Components of Community Sustainability: A Framework

Jan 2004

30 TAC Social Issues Subcommittee (2004) The Social Components of Community Sustainability: A Framework.

Catalogue of Approaches to Impact Measurement: Assessing Social Impact in Private Ventures

Jan 2008

S Olsen
B Galimidi

Olsen, S., and Galimidi, B. (2008) Catalogue of Approaches to Impact Measurement: Assessing Social Impact in Private Ventures, Rockefeller Foundation.

Indicators for Sustainable Communities

Jan 2007

Sheltair

Sheltair (2007) Indicators for Sustainable Communities.

Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life

Jan 2002

V Welter

Welter, V. (2002) Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. MIT Press.

Building a Sustainable Future: UK Home Builders' Progress in Addressing Sustainability

Jan 2007

WWF (2007) Building a Sustainable Future: UK Home Builders' Progress in Addressing Sustainability. WWF

Regeneration to enable growth: What government is doing in support of community-led regeneration

Jan 2011

Local Communities
Government

Communities and Local Government (2011) Regeneration to enable growth: What government is doing in support of community-led regeneration.

Putting the S Word in Sustainability - Can we be more Social?

Figures

Supplementary resource (1)

Recommended publications

Evolución de la emisión de memorias de sostenibilidad conforme al modelo GRI

Cuadernos de Desarrollo Económico 41 Instrumentos para la medición de la sostenibilidad empresarial

Research on the social assistance system of the shidu group: a perspective of sustainable livelihood...

RESEÑA DE "MODERNIZACIÓN DE REGADÍOS, SOSTENIBILIDAD SOCIAL Y ECONÓMICA. LA NGULARIDAD DE LOS REGADÍ...