Content uploaded by Hege Hofstad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hege Hofstad on Feb 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Kostas Mouratidis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kostas Mouratidis on Feb 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
0264-2751/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Assessing urban social sustainability with the Place Standard Tool:
Measurement, ndings, and guidance
Kostas Mouratidis
a
,
b
,
*
, Hege Hofstad
c
, Hilde Hatleskog Zeiner
c
, Stine Busborg Sagen
d
,
Christel Dahl
e
, Kjersti Eline Følling
f
, Bent Olav Olsen
f
a
Section for Geography, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
c
Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
d
Kristiansand Municipality, Norway
e
Stavanger Municipality, Norway
f
Fredrikstad Municipality, Norway
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Urban social sustainability
Place Standard Tool
Urban quality of life
Social equity
Health and well-being
Built environment
ABSTRACT
This study introduces the Place Standard Tool as an instrument for assessing urban social sustainability. The
Place Standard Tool was developed in Scotland as a simple framework to evaluate physical (e.g., buildings,
public spaces, transport system), social (e.g., social interaction, identity and belonging, safety), and procedural
(e.g., public participation, sense of control) aspects concerning places, neighborhoods, and districts. The tool was
tested in three cities in Norway – Kristiansand, Stavanger, and Fredrikstad – through a transdisciplinary
collaboration between researchers, municipalities, and local stakeholders. We rst present the methodology we
applied for testing the tool and then report some indicative ndings. Next, municipal advisors present their
qualitative assessment of the tool discussing its usefulness for urban planning and local governance. Finally,
researchers offer theoretical and methodological guidance: they theoretically discuss the relevance of the tool for
urban social sustainability, present its strengths and weaknesses, and provide methodological recommendations
for future applications.
1. Introduction
Social sustainability in cities is becoming more and more relevant
due to the rapid urbanization and the increasing global population
coupled by multiple societal challenges. At the same time, climate
change mitigation and adaptation make considerations of urban social
sustainability and social justice even more urgent. Researchers have
been increasingly investigating urban social sustainability theoretically
as well as empirically (Cloutier et al., 2018; Dempsey et al., 2011;
Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017; Hofstad & Bergsli, 2017; Hofstad, 2023;
Larimian & Sadeghi, 2021; Mouratidis, 2020; Opp, 2017). Although
urban development processes involving and engaging residents
contribute to creating more socially sustainable communities and
developing stronger local governance systems (Medved, 2017), there is a
lack of knowledge on how social sustainability could be applied to urban
planning and local urban governance and a lack of concrete tools that
municipal advisors and urban planners can use to systematically assess
social sustainability within cities.
The aim of this study was to test the Place Standard Tool for assessing
urban social sustainability and, based on this testing, offer theoretical
and methodological guidance for future applications of the tool. The tool
was tested in three cities in Norway: Kristiansand, Stavanger, and Fre-
drikstad. The study is part of SOSLOKAL, a collaborative research
project on urban social sustainability involving researchers, municipal-
ities, and local stakeholders. First, we present a theoretical background
(Section 2) and the methodology used to apply the Place Standard Tool
in collaboration with the municipalities of the three cities (Section 3).
Next, we present ndings from the application of the tool that was done
with surveys and focus group interviews with residents (Section 4).
Subsequently, the municipal advisors present their qualitative assess-
ment of the use of the tool (Section 5). Finally, the researchers assess and
discuss the relevance of the tool for urban social sustainability, present
its strengths and limitations, and offer recommendations for future ap-
plications of the tool (Section 6).
* Corresponding author at: Section for Geography, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
E-mail address: km@ign.ku.dk (K. Mouratidis).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104902
Received 17 August 2023; Received in revised form 15 February 2024; Accepted 18 February 2024
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
2
The paper contributes to knowledge on social sustainability in
several ways: (1) by introducing an in-depth methodology for assessing
urban social sustainability including rationales for case selection, steps
and methods for data collection, development of survey items, and a
framework for analysis and presentation of results, (2) by providing
lessons learned from using the Place Standard Tool for assessing urban
social sustainability in real cases tightly linked to urban planning
practice, (3) by providing guidance on data collection, analysis, and
interpretation for future applications of the tool by researchers, mu-
nicipalities, consultancies, practitioners, and other relevant actors, and
(4) by providing an example of a transdisciplinary collaboration be-
tween researchers and municipal advisors in social sustainability
research, with both parties actively contributing to this research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Urban social sustainability
Sustainable development is a guiding principle for urban develop-
ment, with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
functioning as a recent stimulus for implementation. The concept's social
dimension is often portrayed as the forgotten pillar of sustainability,
while environmental and economic dimensions have dominated the
discourse (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017; McGuinn et al., 2020; Opp,
2017; Vallance et al., 2011). In recent years, there has been an increased
interest in social sustainability and there have been several attempts to
arrive at a common denition of the concept.
Social sustainability can be dened, acknowledging planetary
boundaries in line with the original denition of sustainable develop-
ment by WCED (1987). Such a denition of social sustainability is: “social
sustainability concerns how individuals, communities, and societies live
with each other and set out to achieve the objectives of development
models, which they have chosen for themselves taking also into account
the physical boundaries of their places and planet earth as a whole”
(Colantonio, 2011, p. 40). Based on a review of various conceptualiza-
tions, the core themes of social sustainability “concern human well-being
and equity, access to basic needs, fair distribution of income, good
working conditions and decent wages, equality of rights, inter-and
intragenerational justice, access to social and health services and to
education, social cohesion and inclusion, empowerment, and partici-
pation in policy-making” (McGuinn et al., 2020, p.12). Social sustain-
ability comprises both substantive aspects – the social goals of sustainable
development, including social justice, quality of life, human rights, op-
portunity, social cohesion, belonging, and health – and procedural as-
pects for achieving development goals revolving around participation,
communication, governance, and empowerment (Bostr¨
om, 2012).
The former neglect of social sustainability as an ideal for urban
development has been exchanged with a newfound interest globally,
nationally, and locally, according to a recent literature study (Hofstad,
2023). The study nds that two core dimensions identied by Dempsey
et al. (2011) have become a key reference in the eld when seeking to
operationalize social sustainability in an urban/community setting. The
rst dimension emphasizes social justice as a core aspect of urban social
sustainability. It underlines the importance of being able to participate
economically, socially, and politically. Thus, accessibility to goods, ser-
vices, political institutions, and absence of burdens are a main way of
measuring if a community is socially just in itself or compared to others.
The second dimension emphasizes social robustness as a core, internal
aspect of a socially sustainable community (Dempsey et al., 2012;
Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017; Opp, 2017). Social capital, networks, sta-
bility, identity and belonging, and safety are key aspects of a community
or neighborhood's capacity to maintain and reproduce itself at an
acceptable level of functioning (Dempsey et al., 2011, p. 293; Dempsey
et al., 2012, p. 94). Table 1 summarizes the critical factors of these two
dimensions based on results from the abovementioned literature study
(Hofstad, 2023).
A common trait of these two dimensions is their understanding of
urban social sustainability as something that is developed and main-
tained in the present. However, the sustainability concept in itself, and
the presence and urgency of climate change, put into question the long-
term effects of today's economic and social organization (WCED, 1987;
IPCC, 2022). Following this rationale, social sustainability should not
only address intra-generational justice, distribution of resources, and
maintenance and development of social relations here and now but
engage also in questions of inter-generational justice; distribution of re-
sources between current and future generations (Eizenberg & Jabareen,
2017; Lafferty & Langhelle, 1999; Meadowcroft, 2000; Opp, 2017).
When inter-generational justice is added to the understanding of social
sustainability, a clear linkage to sustainability's environmental dimen-
sion is provided. Access to goods/avoidance of burdens should not only
be secured here and now, but also over time, for present and future
generations (Dempsey et al., 2011; Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017;
Medved, 2018; Opp, 2017; Trudeau, 2018; Vallance et al., 2011). This
lays the premises for urban development. If present choices deplete or
deteriorate available resources, this will signicantly affect future gen-
erations' ability to acquire the same level of resources and amenities
(Opp, 2017, p. 287; Dassen et al., 2013, p. 195).
In the present paper, to integrate intra-generational justice, inter-
generational justice, as well as ecological planetary boundaries, we
dene urban social sustainability as a set of three mutually related elements,
in accordance with Hofstad (2023). These elements are: “(1) Neigh-
borhood social sustainability highlighting dear traditions, values, and
practices that people want to maintain. A neighborhood's social sus-
tainability, thus, cannot be measured by objective social and collective
aspects of the community alone but needs to relate to the subjective
meaning and value that these practices have for its inhabitants. (2) So-
cially just community governance highlighting social inclusion as a
crucial aspect of justice. The idea is to avoid, reduce, or combat socio-
spatial marginalization, segregation, and spatial injustice through
more inclusive governance processes capable of rebalancing power re-
lationships and uneven spatial governance. (3) Environmentally just
community development highlighting the linkage between social justice
and the physical/material context of the community. The extent to
which access to resources and goods are equitably distributed within
Table 1
Dimensions of urban social sustainability (from Hofstad, 2023, p. 1198, 1199).
Dimensions Categories Distinguishing factors
Just accessibility Social infrastructure
Physical infrastructure and transport
Public spaces
Neighborhood qualities
Political participation
Housing, local environmental centers, schools, kindergartens, workplaces, etc.
Public transport, bicycle routes, walk-friendly areas.
Open spaces, parks, and outdoor areas.
Health, quality of life, absence of annoying activities, noise, pollution of air, water, and soil.
Political elections and political processes
Social robustness Social capital
Social networks
Stability
Identity and belonging
Safety and security
Social relations, trust between community members
Collective arenas
Balance between in- and out mobility
Norms, identity, "right to belong"
Trust and reciprocity
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
3
and between communities today, and between present and future gen-
erations.” (Hofstad, 2023, p. 1206).
At stake is to create a predictable, environmentally- and climate-
sound strategy for community development at the same time manage
to ensure just access to goods and resources and maintain traditions,
values, and practices that are dear to the local community (Hofstad,
2023; Vallance et al., 2011). The Place Standard Tool offers a way of
creating awareness of these competing values and interests in urban
development.
2.2. Place Standard Tool
The Place Standard Tool is a tool used to assess places. The tool was
developed by Public Health Scotland, the Scottish Government, and
Architecture & Design Scotland. The tool provides a simple framework
to evaluate and discuss physical (e.g., buildings, public spaces, trans-
port), social (e.g., safety, place identity), and procedural (e.g., partici-
pation, sense of control) aspects concerning places, neighborhoods, and
districts. These are all aspects found in the literature on social sustain-
ability in urban environments (Arundel & Ronald, 2017; Bramley et al.,
2009; Dempsey et al., 2012; Hofstad, 2021, 2023; Mouratidis, 2021),
making the tool relevant for evaluating, at least to some extent, urban
social sustainability. A series of studies have shown that residents' as-
sessments of physical and social characteristics of places, neighbor-
hoods, and cities are related to health, well-being, equity, and ecological
outcomes (Cao et al., 2018; Hogan et al., 2016; Howley et al., 2009;
Kytt¨
a et al., 2016; Marans & Stimson, 2011; McCrea et al., 2014;
Mouratidis, 2018, 2019; Mouratidis & Yiannakou, 2022; Pfeiffer &
Cloutier, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2016; Zhan et al., 2018). Moreover, as-
sessments of procedural aspects give an indication of governance,
participation, communication, and inuence related to a place, neigh-
borhood, or city (Baba et al., 2017; Shekhar et al., 2019).
Applications of the Place Standard Tool have been conducted in
several countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, North
Macedonia, Norway, and Spain (Gjorgjev et al., 2020; Koeckler et al.,
2020; Mouratidis et al., 2021; Oca˜
na et al., 2022). The tool is easy to use
and is developed to facilitate dialogue between communities, organi-
zations, businesses, and decision-makers (Horgan & Dimitrijevi´
c, 2019).
It comprises 14 main themes shown in Fig. 1. The themes and the tool
guide are based on research on how the urban environment can support
health, well-being, and social equity (Hasler & Howie, 2020). Through
the assessment of these 14 themes, strengths and weaknesses of places
can be identied and ideas on how to address challenges can be
initiated.
The Place Standard Tool can be used as follows. First, the tool can
serve as a platform to structure a survey with the local population. The
tool's guide provides a set of 14 main questions, one for each of the tool's
themes. These questions ask participants to assess how well their local
area covers their needs with regard to each one of the 14 themes shown
in Fig. 1 (e.g. moving around, feeling safe, natural space, social inter-
action). The main questions are accompanied by a series of comple-
mentary questions that assess each of the themes in greater detail. A
Place Standard Tool survey could then include the 14 main questions,
and potentially some or all the complementary questions. All questions
are asked on a scale from 1 (least satisfying) to 7 (most satisfying).
Second, the tool can be used as a framework for organizing workshops
with the local community. The 14 themes and the related questions
found in the guide offer a systematic way to have a dialogue and/or a co-
creation process with the local community and stakeholders. All or some
of the tool's themes can be covered in the process. Third, the tool can be
used as a guide for personal or focus group interviews with residents or
stakeholders. The questions of the tool can be used as a basis for a semi-
structured interview. Interviews could target specic groups of the
population or specic stakeholders. Similar to workshops, all or some of
the tool's themes can be covered in the process. Fourth, the tool can be
used as a guide to conduct walking tours with residents and/or stake-
holders and discuss key matters of the local environment and local
governance. Finally, the tool can be used by combining two or more of
these methods.
Outputs from the tool vary according to method and purpose.
Quantitative assessments of the 14 themes can be derived from surveys.
Average scores from quantitative assessments can be used to ll in the
Fig. 1. The Place Standard Tool.
Source: https://www.ourplace.scot.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
4
Place Standard Tool diagram shown in Fig. 1, with scores ranging from 1
to 7. Different diagrams can be drawn for different places, neighbor-
hoods, or cities. Moreover, different diagrams can be drawn for different
population groups. Qualitative assessments can be obtained with in-
terviews, walking tours, as well as open-ended questions in surveys.
Notes, audio recording, and lming could be used. Quantitative and
qualitative data need to be analyzed with statistical and qualitative
analysis methods. Outcomes are then used as input for local urban plans,
redevelopment, or interventions in an area. Besides providing data to be
used in local planning processes and decision-making, the tool can be
used for dialogue and co-creative workshops, as explained above. In this
way, the tool offers a platform for direct participation in shaping the
built and the social environment, contributing to empowerment and
social cohesion.
The developers of the tool provide relevant material online. This
includes an online version of the tool (i.e. an online survey), an online
guide, updates on new versions of the tool (including climate lens, air
quality lens, and children's version), translations of the tool in various
languages, toolkits, examples of case studies, and a report with evidence
on health and well-being outcomes.
3. Methods
3.1. Case areas
3.1.1. Selection of case areas
Municipal advisors involved in the project SOSLOKAL were the ones
to suggest the case areas where the project team would test the Place
Standard Tool. The project team then discussed and conrmed that the
suggested cases were in line with the main aims of the research project.
The selected case areas are three districts in three different cities of
Norway: Tinnheia in Kristiansand, Kvernevik in Stavanger, and the
Central Area of Fredrikstad. We selected these districts due to the
challenges that the districts face in terms of physical and social char-
acteristics. The Place Standard Tool would provide much-needed input
and dialogue for municipalities' ongoing and forthcoming plans and
interventions aiming to improve social sustainability in these districts.
Tinnheia is a district where living conditions statistics and socioeco-
nomic indicators are lower than those of most districts in the city of
Kristiansand. Kvernevik also scores lower in living conditions statistics
and socioeconomic indicators than most districts in Stavanger. The
Central Area of Fredrikstad is a district characterized by socioeconomic
and spatial disparities as it contains both afuent and disadvantaged
sub-districts, and therefore offers a suitable case area for a comparative
application of the tool.
The selected cases provided challenging, real-case examples for
testing the Place Standard Tool, assessing its relevance for urban social
sustainability, and understanding its potential usefulness for local au-
thorities. We need to note that we did not select the cases to provide
generalizations on how to make districts and neighborhoods more so-
cially sustainable but to test the Place Standard Tool in diverse ways and
contexts. In line with Robert Yin's work, we selected cases that offer “the
opportunity to shed empirical light on some theoretical concepts or
principles” (Yin, 2018, p. 38), in this case on the concept of urban social
sustainability. We further elaborate on the rationale for selecting each of
the case areas in the three subsections that follow.
3.1.2. Tinnheia, Kristiansand
The rst case where we tested the Place Standard Tool was Tinnheia
in the city of Kristiansand (Fig. 2). Tinnheia is a district that lies
approximately 3 km from the city center of Kristiansand, hosting around
3000 residents in 1400 homes. The district has a high proportion of
residents with an immigrant background and scores below the munic-
ipal average on socioeconomic factors such as education level and in-
come. Several services closed down during the last years. Local
authorities and other local actors have not adequately maintained the
district for a long period. Tinnheia's residents do not have the same
opportunities or access to activities and services as other parts of the
city. Due to the challenging living conditions and an ongoing planning
process, we selected Tinnheia district as a case area for the SOSLOKAL
project. We tested the Place Standard Tool in parallel with other
participatory activities taking place in the area in 2021.
During the period that this research was conducted, the Municipal-
ity's planning department conducted a feasibility study in Tinnheia to
evaluate the qualities and potential of the area. The feasibility study was
carried out together with residents, residents' associations, businesses,
and politicians to further develop the district. The feasibility study
included a survey and focus group interviews that were both largely
based on the Place Standard Tool. Eventually, the feasibility study
became the basis for a new zoning plan in the area.
3.1.3. Kvernevik, Stavanger
The second case where we tested the Place Standard Tool was
Kvernevik (Fig. 2), a district in the suburbs of Stavanger, located at the
far end of the Municipality approximately 8 km from the city center.
Kvernevik has a long history of being a suburb with limited resources.
Fig. 2. The three case areas of the study and demarcation of sub-districts. Left: Tinnheia, Kristiansand. Middle: Kvernevik, Stavanger. Right: Central Area, Fre-
drikstad.
Sources: Kristiansand Municipality, Stavanger Municipality, and Fredrikstad Municipality.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
5
Due to its remote location, land values have been relatively low in the
area, and housing prices have been lower than the average in Stavanger.
Residents of other districts at times view Kvernevik as a deprived area of
lower reputation. Kvernevik lies well beyond the mean of Stavanger
when it comes to the percentage of residents with a non-Norwegian
background. Among the approximately 5500 residents of Kvernevik,
1580 people represent a total of 112 different nationalities. This does
challenge the primary schools on language, cultural, and social issues,
not only among the children, but also in getting the parents involved in
the political and social development of the school. The three main areas
of Kvernevik have a lower completion rate of A-level education than the
average in Stavanger. Parts of Kvernevik have a percentage of above 20
% of children living in low-income households.
Due to these socioeconomic challenges, developing Kvernevik is now
a political priority of the Municipality's council. We tested the Place
Standard Tool as an instrument to measure and help improve social
sustainability in Kvernevik. The tool could provide useful and to-the-
point information on what the residents thought was positive about
the area, where there was a need for change, and what is the general
potential for further development. It would involve the community in a
way that would lead to new collaborations being formed, increasing
motivation for public participation, and renewed faith in the change that
needs to happen. Since the application of the Place Standard Tool in
Kvernevik, the Municipality has developed an action plan for the area.
The results of the Place Standard Tool along with data on socioeconomic
factors are the main drivers behind the points being presented in the
action plan.
3.1.4. Central Area, Fredrikstad
The third case where we tested the Place Standard Tool was the
Central Area (Sentrumsområder) in the city of Fredrikstad (Fig. 2). In
Fredrikstad, the Municipality used indicators on living conditions to
decide where and how to test the Place Standard Tool. Fredrikstad is
performing interventions in vulnerable areas to improve living condi-
tions. We tested the Place Standard Tool in Fredrikstad's Central Area,
which consists of four sub-districts: Holmen/Seut, Sentrum øst, Sentrum
vest, and Sentrum syd (see Fig. 2). The areas for testing the Place
Standard Tool were chosen because the Municipality has been working
with parts of these areas for a long time, and the work is still ongoing. It
was therefore useful to apply the Place Standard Tool to receive input
from residents and learn more about their communities.
The sub-district Holmen/Seut (number 1, Fig. 2) is the sub-district of
Fredrikstad with the greatest accumulation of challenges pertaining to
living conditions. Holmen/Seut has the highest proportion of children in
low-income households (41 %), the highest proportion of children with
single parents (37 %), and the lowest median income. It also has the
highest proportion of recipients of work assessment allowance and so-
cial assistance, the highest proportion of rental housing, and the highest
number of people moving out. Living conditions in the sub-districts
Sentrum vest and Sentrum øst (numbers 2 and 4, Fig. 2) present many
of the same challenges as Holmen/Seut. Sentrum syd (number 3, Fig. 2),
on the other hand, differs from the other sub-districts of the Central
Area. Its southern part is mostly a wealthy residential area, while the
northeastern part is characterized by poorer living conditions. The
Central Area district illustrates how large socio-spatial inequalities can
exist within a ve-minute walk in the city of Fredrikstad. The accumu-
lation of living conditions challenges can be described as a mosaic, and
not a classic east/west divide or similar.
3.2. Data collection with the Place Standard Tool
3.2.1. Place Standard Tool as a survey tool
We used the Place Standard Tool for conducting online surveys with
residents of the three case areas. (1) In the district of Tinnheia in Kris-
tiansand, the survey was distributed with the help of local associations
that sent out an invitation and the link to the survey to email lists of
homeowners living in the district. The survey was sent in February 2021.
The sample size was N =358. This represents about 10 % of the in-
habitants of the district. (2) In the district of Kvernevik in Stavanger, to
distribute the survey as quickly as possible and to reach all residents of
the district, the Municipality used the SMS service of Stavanger's Agency
for the Urban Environment (Fig. 3) to disseminate the survey. This
service is usually used to notify residents about issues such as water
outages and road works. Stavanger Municipality sent an SMS to all
mobile phone numbers registered to residents in the district inviting
them to participate in the survey. The invitation included a link to the
online survey. The SMS was sent to 3315 residents of Kvernevik. In
addition to the SMS, Stavanger Municipality organized a campaign
informing residents about the study and the survey in specic. This was
done via the Municipality's webpage, the social media, and local net-
works. The survey was sent in February 2022. The sample size was N =
1053 respondents and the response rate was 32 %. (3) In the Central Area
(Sentrumsområder) of Fredrikstad, we also applied the SMS method to
recruit participants. Fredrikstad Municipality sent an SMS to all regis-
tered mobile phones of residents of the Central Area inviting them to
participate in the survey. In total, 5934 invitations were sent via SMS.
The invitation included a link to the online survey. The survey was sent
in November 2022. The nal sample size was N =718 and the response
rate was 12 %. The sample consists of subsamples for the four sub-
districts of the Central Area of Fredrikstad: N =196 for Holmen/Seut,
N =123 for Sentrum øst, N =222 for Sentrum syd, and N =177 for
Sentrum vest.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the three samples are shown in
Tables A1–A5 in the Appendix. In Tinnheia, we invited only adult resi-
dents to participate in the survey, while in Kvernevik and in the Central
Area of Fredrikstad, children of 15–17 years were also invited to
participate. Although we do not have the latest sociodemographic data
of the population at the municipal district level to directly compare them
with those of the study's samples, we expect that highly educated resi-
dents are overrepresented while residents with an immigrant back-
ground are underrepresented in the three samples.
Via the surveys, we collected quantitative evaluations on the 14 main
themes of the Place Standard Tool. These represent physical and social
characteristics of the area residents live in. The surveys also included
some additional questions about people's perceptions of their local area,
travel behavior, housing situation, basic sociodemographic character-
istics, and open-ended questions on what people like about their local
area and what could be improved. In this study, we focus on answers to
questions on the 14 themes of the Place Standard Tool and the open-
ended questions.
We developed a short single-item version of the Place Standard Tool
(Table 2) to use in the study's surveys. With this, we assessed each of the
14 themes of the Place Standard Tool with a single question. This was
done to keep the length of the survey relatively short and reduce
participant dropout. To compensate for the single items used in the
survey, we chose to further elaborate on the 14 themes of the tool with
the aforementioned open-ended questions that were included in the
survey and focus group interviews that were performed after the survey.
We developed the 14 questions corresponding to the 14 themes of the
Place Standard Tool based on the guidelines by Public Health Scotland
(https://www.ourplace.scot/tool/place-standard-guide) and on the
Norwegian version of the tool by Sunne Kommuner (https://www.sunn
ekommuner.no/de-gode-eksemplene/stedskompasset). The 14 ques-
tions, shown in Table 2, were developed by the research team and
municipal advisors of each case city. Since the survey was conducted in
sequence in three cities, we revised each version of the questionnaire
based on the experience of the previous application. We aimed to
improve both the language used and the content of the questions. The
third and last version shown in Table 2, applied in Fredrikstad, was the
most complete. The surveys were conducted in Norwegian, therefore the
original questions are in Norwegian. Table 2 shows translations of these
questions into English. The scale used in the questions was from 1 to 7 as
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
6
explained in Table 2.
In addition to assessing areas based on the 14 themes of the tool, we
also assessed the perceived importance of each theme. This would help
us understand how residents view each of the 14 themes and whether
and how perceived importance varies across themes. This assessment
was only done in Fredrikstad. We specically asked survey participants
how important each of the fourteen themes of the Place Standard Tool
was to them on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
The survey also included two general open-ended questions that
aimed to capture more detailed information on what residents appre-
ciate in their districts and what could be improved. In Tinnheia (Kris-
tiansand), the rst was obtained with the question “What is your
perception of Tinnheia? How do you like it?” and the second “Are there
places in Tinnheia that you think can be developed for the better? Which
ones?” In Kvernevik (Stavanger) we asked: “Would you like to elaborate
on what you enjoy in Kvernevik?” and “What can be improved in
Kvernevik?”. In Central Area, Fredrikstad we asked: “Would you like to
elaborate on what you enjoy in your local area?” and “Would you like to
elaborate on what can be improved in your local area?”
Regarding the geographical scale of measurement, in Tinnheia
(Kristiansand) and Kvernevik (Stavanger), we used the Place Standard
Tool to assess the whole district. Thus, questions referred to the whole
district, i.e., Tinnheia and Kvernevik respectively. However, in Fre-
drikstad, we decided to obtain assessments that allow us to compare four
different neighborhoods (sub-districts) within the Central Area district.
To do that, we asked survey participants to state which of the four sub-
districts of the Central Area of Fredrikstad they lived in. Then, for the 14
questions of the Place Standard Tool, we asked participants to assess
their “local area” instead of the whole district. Specically, we asked
them to consider their “local area” as the “area that is within a 15-min-
ute walk from their home”. This is a commonly used way of assessing
perceptions of a neighborhood in previous studies (e.g., Mouratidis,
2020; Mouratidis & Yiannakou, 2022). The benet of such measurement
is that it helps counter the modiable areal unit problem.
3.2.2. Place Standard Tool for focus group interviews
In each city, after conducting a survey, we used the Place Standard
Tool as a platform to carry out focus group interviews. The purpose of
the focus groups was twofold. First, by adopting a qualitative approach
that followed up on the (mainly) quantitative data collected in the
survey, we intended to shed more light on how residents evaluate their
neighborhoods in relation to the 14 themes of the tool and their ideas on
potential improvements. Second, we intended to focus on groups of
residents who tend not to get involved in participatory processes (as also
done in previous relevant applications of the tool (Koeckler et al., 2020))
and/or residents whose needs in terms of neighborhood environment
require special attention as they might not be covered sufciently. The
groups were selected together by the research team and the municipal
advisors of each city. Table 3 shows the focus groups in each city and the
number of participants per group.
In Tinnheia (Kristiansand), the focus groups were carried out on
17–18 June 2021. In Kvernevik (Stavanger), the focus groups were
carried out on 10–11 March 2022. In the Central Area of Fredrikstad, the
focus groups were conducted on various dates during November and
December 2022. Interview participants were recruited by the munici-
palities via social media, local organizations, and local contacts.
We used the detailed Place Standard Tool guide as a framework for
the discussions. We specically used the Norwegian version prepared by
Fig. 3. Place Standard Tool survey distribution via SMS in Kvernevik, Stavanger.
Source: Stavanger Municipality.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
7
Table 2
Place Standard Tool measurement with single items for each theme.
Place Standard Tool theme Version of
question (case
area)
Question
1. Moving around 1 Can I easily walk and cycle around
on good and safe routes in
DISTRICT?
2, 3 Do you think DISTRICT is well
organized for walking and cycling?
(Consider examples of unsafe
intersections, overgrown hedges
along the sidewalks, how easy it is to
get around with strollers, bicycles,
and wheelchairs)
2. Public transport 1 Do the public transport services cover
my needs?
2, 3 How satised are you with public
transport in DISTRICT?
3. Trafc and parking
(environmentally
friendly travel)
1 Do the trafc and parking facilities
make it possible to travel safely, and
do they meet the needs of the local
area? (Are pedestrians and cyclists
prioritized over cars and other means
of transport? Are there too many cars
and too much trafc in DISTRICT?)
2 How are the possibilities for
environmentally friendly travel?
(car-sharing, good walking and
cycling routes, charging stations for
electric cars, city bikes)
3 How are the possibilities for
environmentally friendly travel from
your local area? (i.e. to use a car less
in everyday life)
4. Streets and spaces 1 Do buildings, streets, and public
spaces contribute to creating an
attractive place where it is easy to get
around?
2, 3 Do buildings, streets, and squares
contribute to DISTRICT being a nice
place?
5. Natural space 1 Is there good access to several
attractive green areas?
2, 3 How satised are you with the green
areas in DISTRICT?
6. Play and recreation 1 Do I have access to places and areas
where it is possible to play and engage
in leisure activities?
2, 3 How good are the opportunities for
play and leisure activities in
DISTRICT?
7. Facilities and services 1 Do the various facilities and
amenities cover my needs? (Do the
facilities cover various needs such as
school, kindergarten and childcare,
health services, grocery shopping,
leisure activities, etc.?)
2, 3 Does the local environment have
what you need on a daily basis?
Like school, kindergarten and
childcare, health services, grocery
stores, and leisure activities?
8. Work and local economy 1 Is there an active local economy and
opportunities to gain access to jobs
with good working conditions? (Does
the local population have access to
job opportunities on site, regardless
of age, gender, ethnic origin, religious
belief, sexual orientation, or
disability? Are there opportunities
and room for local businesses to
establish themselves and grow
larger?)
2 Do you think there are good job
opportunities, entrepreneurial
Table 2 (continued )
Place Standard Tool theme Version of
question (case
area)
Question
opportunities, and a vibrant local
business life in DISTRICT?
3 Do you think there is good access
from your local area to workplaces
and job opportunities?
9. Housing and community 1 Does the housing offer in DISTRICT
cover the needs of the local
population?
2 Does the housing offer in DISTRICT
(e.g., detached houses, terraced
houses, apartments, owning and
renting) meet the needs of the local
population?
3 Does the housing offer in DISTRICT
(e.g., detached houses, terraced
houses, apartments, owning and
renting) meet the needs of those who
live in your local area?
10. Social interaction 1 Does DISTRICT have a selection of
places and opportunities for people to
meet? (Are these locations varied, e.
g., indoor, outdoor, purpose-built
meeting spaces and more informal
locations?)
2, 3 Are there many good meeting places
in the DISTRICT? (For example,
indoors, outdoors, meeting places
built specically for the purpose and
more informal places?)
11. Identity and belonging 1 Does DISTRICT have a positive
identity, and do I feel like I belong
here?
2 DISTRICT is a good place, and I feel
like I belong here.
3 How much do you agree or disagree
with the following statement?“
My local area is a good place and I
feel like I belong here.”
12. Feeling safe 1 Do I feel safe here?
2, 3 How safe do you feel in DISTRICT?
13. Care and maintenance 1 Are buildings and public spaces
adequately maintained?
2, 3 Do you think buildings, houses, and
outdoor areas in your local area are
well looked after and maintained?
14. Inuence and sense of
control
1 Do I feel that I have the opportunity
to take part in decisions and
contribute to changing things for the
better? (Do actors such as the
Municipality, voluntary
organizations, housing associations
etc. make arrangements for residents
to be able to share needs and
contribute to development
processes?)
2, 3 To what extent do you feel that you
can inuence things in DISTRICT?
(Does the Municipality, voluntary
organizations, housing associations
etc. make arrangements so that
residents can share their needs and
contribute to the development of
DISTRICT?)
Notes:
Questions are translated from Norwegian.
Case area refers to the district and city where each question was used.
1 =Tinnheia, Kristiansand; 2 =Kvernevik, Stavanger; 3 =Central Area, Fre-
drikstad.
DISTRICT refers to the name of the district for Tinnheia and Kvernevik or one's
local area for Central Area in Fredrikstad (local area was dened as the area
within 15 min walk from one's dwelling).
Scale used: In Tinnheia, Kristiansand, a 1 to 7 scale was used where 1 was “large
room for improvement” and 7 was “little room for improvement”. In Kvernevik,
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
8
Sunne Kommuner (https://www.sunnekommuner.no/de-gode-eksemp
lene/stedskompasset). Based on this guide we had an in-depth group
discussion on how participants view their local area in terms of each of
the 14 themes of the tool. A semi-structured interview approach was
followed, where the order and phrasing of questions varied according to
the ow of the discussion and the communication with the participants.
Typically, two facilitators were present in each focus group, one
municipal coordinator and one researcher. The focus groups were
typically held in indoor spaces of the local community, such as the
school, youth club, district hall, and cultural hall. A map of the local area
was placed on the table where focus group interviews were held. Par-
ticipants could show on the map places they were referring to during the
discussions. All interviews were audio recorded except for the one with
the group with disabilities. Data collection for the project has been
approved by the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD). The focus
groups lasted approximately 1 to 1.5 h. In Fredrikstad, we decided to test
the Place Standard Tool for conducting walking interviews prior to the
standard focus group interviews. These were held with all groups except
for the group with disabilities. Walking tours aimed at obtaining direct
insights into the physical aspects of the local environment. Participants
in the groups could discuss with the interviewers about issues relevant to
public space, housing, and mobility among others while being present in
the place they were talking about.
4. Results
4.1. Survey results
An overview of the Place Standard Tool survey results in each district
is presented in Fig. 4. The chart presents mean scores for each of the
fourteen themes of the tool. The scores are based on survey participants'
evaluations on a scale from 1 to 7, as shown in Table 2. These results
indicate characteristics (themes) that residents consider satisfactory or
less satisfactory.
First, we consider the Place Standard Tool results in Fig. 4 for each
district individually. These considerations may suggest strengths and
weaknesses of each district, at least based on residents' assessments. In
Tinnheia (Kristiansand), characteristics that are assessed more positively
(mean scores above 5) are: public transport, feeling safe, and moving
around. Characteristics with moderate evaluations (mean scores be-
tween 4 and 5) are: identity and belonging, natural space, trafc and
parking, housing and community, play and recreation, streets and
spaces, and facilities and services. Characteristics with low evaluations
(mean scores below 4) are: inuence and sense of control, care and
maintenance, social interaction, and work and local economy. In
Kvernevik (Stavanger), characteristics that are assessed more positively
(mean scores above 5) are: feeling safe, identity and belonging, public
transport, natural space, play and recreation, housing and community,
and moving around. Characteristics with moderate evaluations (mean
scores between 4 and 5) are: facilities and services, streets and spaces,
and care and maintenance. Characteristics with low evaluations (mean
scores below 4) are: social interaction, trafc and parking, inuence and
sense of control, and work and local economy. In the Central Area of
Fredrikstad, characteristics that are assessed more positively (mean
scores above 5) are: housing and community, identity and belonging,
feeling safe, trafc and parking, facilities and services, and work and
local economy. Characteristics with moderate evaluations (mean scores
between 4 and 5) are: moving around, public transport, play and rec-
reation, streets and spaces, care and maintenance, and social interaction.
The only characteristic with low evaluations (mean score below 4) is:
inuence and sense of control.
Next, the Place Standard Tool results in Fig. 4 can be compared
across the three different districts. Tinnheia generally received generally
lower scores than the other two districts. Kvernevik is the district with
the highest number of positive evaluations (above 5). Specically, seven
characteristics were positively evaluated in Kvernevik, compared to six
in the Central Area of Fredrikstad and three in Tinnheia. The Central
Area of Fredrikstad is the district that received the fewest low evalua-
tions, with only one characteristic scoring low (below 4). This suggests
that this district may be considered as the most well-rounded among the
three. Another observation is that there is one characteristic that scores
low in all three districts of the study. This is “inuence and sense of
control”.
It is important to reect on the local context of each district when
interpreting these results. Assessment of several characteristics is
contingent upon or moderated by the location of the district within the
urban region, the urban form of the district, and the different land uses
within the districts. For example, we observe that facilities and services
score higher in the Central Area of Fredrikstad than in the other two
districts. This is reasonable since this district is characterized by a cen-
tral location, a denser urban form, and relatively mixed-land uses, which
result in a greater number of facilities and services. On the other hand,
Tinnheia and Kvernevik are mostly residential, low-density districts
located in the suburbs, which result in just a few facilities and services.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the difference in the assessment
of facilities and services between the three districts seen in Fig. 4 does
not completely reect the substantial actual difference in the number of
facilities and services between the Central Area of Fredrikstad and the
other two districts, Tinnheia and Kvernevik. This is very often the case in
perceptions and subjective evaluations of attributes. People tend to
adjust their expectations according to the local context. A more coun-
terintuitive outcome is that public transport is found to be evaluated
more positively in Kvernevik and Tinnheia – two suburban districts with
very high modal share for car use – than in the Central Area of
Stavanger and Central areas of Fredrikstad, a 1 to 7 scale was used together with
a gure showing emoticons. A sad face was used for 1 and a happy face was used
for 7.
Table 3
Focus groups.
Tinnheia, Kristiansand Kvernevik, Stavanger Central Area, Fredrikstad
Group Number of
participants
Group Number of
participants
Group Number of
participants
People with immigrant
background
3 Parents (of young children) with
immigrant background
7 People with immigrant background 3
Older adults 3 Older adults 6 Older adults 4
Young adults
a
1 Young adults 7 Mixed group 7
Parents with children in
kindergarten
5 School students (14–15 years) 9 School students (16 years) with
immigrant background
10
Parents with young
children
5 Men
b
6 People with disabilities 3
Mixed group 3
a
The “young adults” group in Tinnheia consisted of one participant so it was essentially a personal interview and not a focus group interview.
b
The “men” group in Kvernevik was selected as municipal advisors in Stavanger considered that some aspects of the district are less satisfying for male residents.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
9
Fredrikstad – a more urban district with lower car dependency. These
ndings highlight the subjectivity of the responses and the fact that
evaluations are based on people's expectations and attitudes that are
shaped by the local context. For example, in a suburb, the expectations
for frequent and effective public transport are lower than in an area
located close to the city center.
Next, the Place Standard Tool survey results for the Central Area of
Fredrikstad were further analyzed for each sub-district of the district
(Fig. 5). The district comprises areas of diverse physical and socioeco-
nomic characteristics, so it is useful to make comparisons at a smaller
geographical scale. The mean scores for each of the fourteen themes of
the Place Standard Tool in each sub-district are presented in Fig. 5. The
results show that the sub-districts of Sentrum syd and Sentrum vest
generally received more positive evaluations than Holmen/Seut and
Sentrum øst. The most important observation from these results is that
assessments differ substantially across the four sub-districts. This points
to the usefulness of making comparisons of areas at relatively small
geographical scales that ensure uniformity of physical and socioeco-
nomic characteristics within each area. To highlight these differences,
we present a direct comparison between two districts of different so-
cioeconomic proles, Holmen/Seut and Sentrum syd, with Sentrum syd
being a considerably more afuent subdistrict than Homen/Seut. Re-
sults are presented in Fig. 6. The comparison indicates that Sentrum syd
is evaluated more positively than Holmen/Seut in thirteen out of the
fourteen characteristics. This suggests a generally more favorable eval-
uation for Sentrum syd.
The Place Standard Tool themes were also rated by the residents for
their importance (Fig. 7). This was done only in the survey conducted in
Fredrikstad. Results are presented in Fig. 7, showing mean values of
perceived importance for each theme. It is observed that perceived
Fig. 4. Place Standard Tool results in three districts of three cities in Norway. Scores represent mean values.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
10
importance may vary substantially across themes. On average, feeling
safe was considered the most important theme, whereas inuence and
sense of control were considered the least important theme.
Finally, we present qualitative ndings from the open-ended ques-
tions of the study. Qualitative data were systematically analyzed to
extract categories that appear in the responses. Then, the input by each
respondent was linked to the relevant categories, and the frequency at
which each category was mentioned was calculated. Table 4 presents an
analysis of the three most frequently mentioned categories of what re-
spondents like about their district or local area, while Table 5 presents
an analysis of the three most frequently mentioned categories of what
respondents think can be improved in their district or local area. In the
case of Tinnheia, it is the proximity to the center of Kristiansand, safety
and quietness, and good neighbor relations that are most frequently
mentioned as positive aspects. With regard to what can be improved, the
most frequently mentioned categories are the district's main public
space, the main green space, and several surrounding natural and rec-
reational areas. In the case of Kvernevik, participants most often
appreciate its recreational and natural areas, hiking areas and trails, as
well as good neighbor relations. Their answers on what could be
improved revolve around amenities including health services, shops and
other services, and the presence of meeting places such as a caf´
e, a
restaurant, and a bar. For the case of Central Area in Fredrikstad, par-
ticipants report its central location which enables good access to facil-
ities and services, its safety and quietness, and the good neighbor
relations as positive aspects. Their most frequent answers on what could
Fig. 5. Place Standard Tool results per sub-district in the Central Area of Fredrikstad. Scores represent mean values.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
11
be improved are related to streets, bike paths, and sidewalks, car trafc,
and the presence of shops and other services such as post, bank, and
hairdresser.
4.2. Focus groups results
The focus group interviews represent an opportunity to further
develop the ndings from the survey, as well as an opportunity to give
voice to groups that tend not to participate in surveys. Hence, they may
function both as a supplement and an alternative to surveys. In this
section, we will briey summarize ndings from the focus groups in the
three districts, and then discuss the focus groups as a tool to give voice to
the “voiceless”. In the presentation, we will focus on four themes that are
illustrative of the inhabitants' sense of their neighborhoods, as well as
areas where there are differences in perception between the groups
represented in the focus group interviews. A full summary of the results
of the focus group interviews including all the 14 themes of the Place
Standard Tool is presented in Appendix B.
In Tinnheia, we organized six focus groups: older adults, young
adults, parents with children in kindergarten, parents with young chil-
dren (not necessarily in kindergarten), people with an immigrant
background, as well as mixed groups. An overview of selected themes is
presented in Table 6. The overall impression is that the focus groups are
in accordance with the ndings from the survey and that there is little
variation between the focus groups. As in the survey, the inhabitants
participating in the focus groups report that they feel safe in the
neighborhood and that they are generally satised with public transport.
Moreover, there is a widespread dissatisfaction with care and mainte-
nance; a dissatisfaction that colors the participants' estimation of streets
and spaces, natural spaces, possibilities for play and recreation, and
housing and community. The participants from all the groups describe
littering and run-down buildings, playgrounds, and public spaces, and
highlight the state of Tinnheia Torv (the main public square) and
Grønndalen (a large green recreational area). In addition, the partici-
pants point to the absence of social meeting places, a lack they ascribe
partly to the lack of maintenance and partly to a lack of services, facil-
ities, and citizen initiatives (see Table 6).
A general impression from the focus groups is that of loss. For one
thing, the participants compare the Tinnheia of today to that of former
times and see a community where buildings, streets, recreational areas,
and facilities have not been maintained, and where important services –
such as the doctor's ofce, post ofce, library, and pharmacy – have
closed or moved elsewhere. In addition, social cohesion is weakened;
civil society associations are less active and the ranks of enthusiasts have
thinned. As a result, there are fewer social gatherings in the community.
What is more, the participants fear that the planned densication of the
area will negatively affect social cohesion. There is a sense among the
participants that the area lacks houses for families and that the
perceived higher turnover in apartment buildings is detrimental to so-
cial cohesion, and thereby to local identity. The fear is that densication
will further cement outsiders' view of Tinnheia as a ghetto.
The points of view are surprisingly consistent across the different
focus groups. The elderly are less concerned with rush hour trafc and
packed buses, the young and their families are more concerned with the
Fig. 6. Comparison of Place Standard Tool results between two neighborhoods of the Central Area of Fredrikstad. Mean values of responses by residents of Holmen/
Seut and residents of Sentrum syd.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
12
lack of activities for young people, and immigrants who are new to the
area nd the recreational areas somewhat less accessible due to poor
signage (see Appendix B). All in all, however, participants seem to have
a shared narrative of Tinnheia, namely of an area that is inclusive and
with certain qualities, but that lacks maintenance, services, and facil-
ities, and that will not benet from densication.
In Kvernevik, we organized ve focus groups: older adults, young
adults, men, parents (of young children) with an immigrant background,
and the student council (teenagers). An overview of selected themes is
presented in Table 7. As in Tinnheia, the feedback from the focus groups
corresponds with the results from the survey. The participants report
that they feel safe in the area, that there is a strong sense of identity and
belonging, and are generally content with public transport, even if they
have some misgivings about the bus service in the evenings and night-
time as well as about the access by bus to areas outside the city and/or
business center. Opportunities for play and recreation, as well as the
natural spaces in the area, are generally perceived as good, as are
housing and community. As in the survey, the participants are less
content with trafc and parking, in particularly trafc on the ring road,
care and maintenance, and inuence and sense of control (see Appendix
B).
Like Tinnheia, loss is a leitmotif in the focus group discussions in
Kvernevik, at least among the adult participants (see Table 7). The
participants describe a lack of maintenance of buildings, playgrounds,
and roads. In addition, many services have closed or moved closer to the
city center. The participants point to the lack of a doctor's ofce, phar-
macy, dentist, orist, gym, and a caf´
e. These are in line with the answers
to the survey's open-ended question on what could be improved in the
area, presented in Table 5. At the same time, however, focus group
participants point to concrete improvements in recent years, such as the
demolishing of the old commercial center, long derelict and open wound
in the community that has nally been torn down, a long-awaited
swimming pool opened in 2016, and the opening of a new community
center which was just around the corner at the time the focus groups
were organized.
There is a strong sense of belonging and identity in Kvernevik. In
Fig. 7. Perceived importance of Place Standard Tool themes. Mean values of responses by residents of the Central Area of Fredrikstad.
Table 4
Analysis of what residents like about their district. Most frequently mentioned categories are presented.
Tinnheia, Kristiansand (N =287) Kvernevik, Stavanger (N =626) Central Area, Fredrikstad (N =423)
Category Frequency Category Frequency Category Frequency
Proximity to city center 20 % Proximity to nature and recreational areas 39 % Central location/proximity to facilities and services 60 %
Safe and quiet 16 % Hiking areas and trails 34 % Safe and quiet 18 %
Good neighbor relations 11 % Good neighbor relations 18 % Good neighbor relations 5 %
Table 5
Analysis of residents' answers on what can be improved in their districts. Most frequently mentioned categories are presented.
Tinnheia, Kristiansand (N =277) Kvernevik, Stavanger (N =740) Central Area, Fredrikstad (N =444)
Category Frequency Category Frequency Category Frequency
Main public space (Tinnheia Torv) 47 % Health services 39 % Streets, bike paths, and sidewalks 13 %
Main green space (Grønndalen) 26 % Shops and other services 24 % Car trafc 12 %
Recreational and natural areas 21 % Caf´
e, restaurant, bar 21 % Shops and services 7 %
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
13
part, this seems to stem from a feeling of “us against them”, with “them”
being both inhabitants in other parts of Stavanger and the Municipality.
Historically, Kvernevik has had a bad reputation, and focus group par-
ticipants tell stories of being frowned upon by people from other parts of
the city, and even of friends not being allowed to visit the area. What is
more, there is a sense that their suggestions, worries, and complaints are
not considered by politicians and the central administration in the city.
The impression from the focus groups is that the perception of unre-
sponsive authorities in no small part results from prolonged decision-
making processes. At the same time, it should be noted that concerns
about the derelict former commercial center, among other things, seem
to have spurred political activism among inhabitants and relatively
active residents' associations. In addition, the Municipality itself has
sought to improve communication between the communities and the
Municipality, for instance through the establishment of community
councils. To the inhabitants of Kvernevik, however, a local enthusiast
working as a liaison between the community and the municipal
administration seems to be the most valued asset.
As in Tinnheia, there is little variation in the concerns and feedback
from the different groups in Kvernevik. Granted, older adults are less
concerned with public transport in the rush hour and children are less
concerned with the lack of services and facilities. In addition, people
with an immigrant background are more concerned with the multicul-
tural qualities of the neighborhood and are also the only ones to raise
issues of sex-segregated activities. Although all groups are fairly pleased
with the opportunities for play and recreation, they appreciate different
aspects and activities. There is, however, a shared narrative among the
groups; a community of which they are proud, but which is not neces-
sarily appreciated by “outsiders” or the Municipality at large.
In Fredrikstad, ve focus groups were organized: older adults, a
mixed group of elderly and single parents, adults with an immigrant
background, school students with an immigrant background, and people
with disabilities. An overview of selected themes is presented in Table 8.
The Fredrikstad case differs from the other cases, in two respects: First,
because of the proximity to the city center, the participants tend to
include the city center in their estimation of their communities, and are,
as a result, more content with services and facilities. Second, the vari-
ation between the different groups is greater. Whereas the mixed group
and the adults with an immigrant background tend to be content with
most aspects of their local communities, the older adults, the school
students, and the people with disabilities have more objections. Not
surprisingly, participants with disabilities are more concerned with the
accessibility of streets, facilities, and services, people with an immigrant
background are more concerned about social integration and inclu-
siveness, school students are concerned about meeting places and areas
for recreation, while the older adults have more complaints about the
maintenance of buildings, streets, and recreational areas.
On closer examination, however, the concerns of this latter group
appear to be less a feature of this group, and more a feature of the
community of which they are asked to opine. As illustrated in Fig. 5,
there is variation between the four areas of Fredrikstad that have
participated in the study, with Holmen/Seut scoring lower than the
other areas. In the focus groups, these differences manifest themselves in
the participants from Holmen/Seut being more concerned about lack of
maintenance, littering, derelict buildings, ooding, and so on. They are
also the only group pointing to problems related to small rental ats,
with high turnover and little maintenance. Even though on other topics,
such as public transport and facilities and services, the viewpoints of the
different groups are more in sync, it is more difcult to identify a
common narrative or shared understanding among the inhabitants of
central Fredrikstad.
In sum, ndings from the focus groups substantiate and expand on
those of the survey. In our material, moreover, there appears to be little
conict between the different groups participating in the focus groups,
Table 6
Tinnheia – overview of selected themes.
Care and
maintenance
A general lack of maintenance of playgrounds, recreational
areas, and buildings.
Tinnheia Torv (the town square) is unwelcoming and in need
of upgrading.
Littering is a problem, especially around the grocery store and
in Grønndalen (a recreational area).
Private property is well-maintained.
Facilities and
services
Many services are no longer located at Tinnheia: doctor's
ofce, post ofce, orist, pharmacy, etc.
The sports hall needs maintenance.
The school and the schoolyard are of high quality and are in
use also after school hours.
Social interaction Tinnheia feels inclusive, people are nice, and the mix between
different ethnic groups is good.
Lack of activity and meeting places, especially for young
people.
There used to be more activity, and the residents' association
was more active in the past.
Identity and
belonging
Inhabitants have a strong sense of identity, but people from the
outside consider it a ghetto.
Easy for immigrants to integrate into society.
High turnover in apartment buildings makes it more difcult
to create a sense of community.
Will densication threaten local identity?
Table 7
Kvernevik – overview of selected themes.
Care and maintenance Lack of maintenance, rundown buildings and playgrounds,
potholes, and surface water on the roads.
However, much has improved in later years, a derelict
building that attracted substance abusers, has nally been
torn down.
Facilities and services Many services are no longer present in the community:
doctor's ofce, pharmacy, dentist, orist, gym, caf´
e. The
school is an asset, particularly for bilingual and
multicultural children, it became a meeting point for
children and parents during the pandemic.
At the same time, a new community center (with a caf´
e) is
opening and a new swimming pool was opened in 2016.
Identity and belonging A strong sense of belonging and identity, but Kvernevik has
historically had a bad reputation, and inhabitants still feel
like they are being frowned upon. A feeling of “us against
them”?
Inuence and sense of
control
A community council with an advisory capacity and a local
enthusiast employed by the Municipality advocating for
the community drive several citizen initiatives.
Yet, a sense of disillusionment, a feeling of not being heard,
and decision-making processes dragging (swimming pool,
derelict building) on seem to have created the impression
that the Municipality is unresponsive.
Table 8
Central Area, Fredrikstad – overview of selected themes.
Public transport The ferry and the bus service for the elderly are positive.
The city center is not made for public transport but for walking
or cycling. It is difcult to access areas outside the city center.
The bus is not frequent.
Streets and spaces Some beautiful houses and green areas, the town hall is
universally accessible, the pedestrian streets and the river walk
are nice.
Heavy vehicle trafc in Holmegaten, substandard roads and
pavements, ooding, derelict buildings, cars abandoned by
owners, littering, too little lighting, and a general lack of
maintenance of housing, streets, and spaces both by landlords
and the Municipality.
Facilities and
services
Good facilities in central Fredrikstad, easily accessible, the
community health center is an asset.
No rehabilitation center in the city center, hospital located too
far from the city, too few grocery stores and greengrocers.
Identity and
belonging
A sense of belonging and pride, responsible developers
Stigma of being on benets, difcult to meet Norwegians, small
ats unsuited to families lead to higher turnover, language
barriers, area (Holmen) has a bad reputation.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
14
even if they may give different weight to certain aspects of their com-
munity. Even though there is a bias related to survey respondents, the
surveys appear to give an accurate representation of inhabitants' per-
ceptions of their community. Moreover, the focus groups, together with
the surveys' open-ended questions, made us aware that certain closed-
ended survey questions should be nuanced to capture the variety of
judgements on different aspects, for example, views on different kinds of
services and amenities, views on social inclusion and sense of belonging,
and views on specic public spaces and recreational areas.
5. Using the Place Standard Tool in planning and local
governance: insights from municipalities
5.1. The view of Kristiansand Municipality
The municipal advisors who participated in testing the Place Stan-
dard Tool in Kristiansand conclude: “The Place Standard Tool worked
well as an instrument for dialogue with the citizens of Tinnheia used
both as a survey tool and as an interview guide. In both incidences, we
used the Place Standard Tool questionnaire as a starting point before
making some adjustments to better suit the local context. For urban
planning purposes, the tool works well in the process of regulating larger
local areas, e.g., neighborhoods as in the case of Tinnheia. The tool al-
lows us to add a social element and a relational perspective to traditional
questionnaires of urban development, making it easier to identify and
follow up accordingly on strengths and issues linked to the social aspects
of the community and social sustainability in the areas. The results of the
survey and focus groups were integrated into the feasibility study of
Tinnheia that was carried out in parallel with the research project. The
results are also a supplement to the statistical mapping of living condi-
tions in the area and can serve as a comprehensive local knowledge base
for future efforts in Tinnheia. Local planners and ofcials are consid-
ering using the Place Standard Tool in more areas of Kristiansand in the
future. This will give us the benet of benchmarking between areas,
allowing us to better target areas with challenges regarding living
standards and low social sustainability. In the Municipality's upcoming
effort to better the living conditions in low-income areas, the Place
Standard Tool will be used to investigate inhabitants' views on their
neighborhood and to mobilize the local community to co-create better
public services in the area.”
5.2. The view of Stavanger Municipality
The municipal advisors who participated in testing the Place Stan-
dard Tool in Stavanger conclude: “As a project group in Stavanger
Municipality, we were not only delighted by the response and interest
the people of Kvernevik showed in the Place Standard Tool survey, but
amazed about the amount of information that we were able to gather in
such a short time. It came across as a user-friendly and effective tool,
providing great insight into an area from the people themselves. Addi-
tionally, the results spiderweb chart (see Fig. 4) came more or less
instantly, so the results were easily and quickly sent back to the com-
munity. The results from the Place Standard Tool provided vital local
information in the action plan for Kvernevik. Using this input, the action
plan emphasizes the need for social inclusion and physical changes for
the benet of the residents of Kvernevik. There is an increased focus on
establishing age-friendly meeting places, indoors and outdoors, a need
for facilities and services such as post, bank, and local pharmacies, along
with better public transportation services and access to job opportu-
nities. In addition, the action plan speaks of a need for better commu-
nication on decision-making between the council and the inhabitants.
The Place Standard Tool will be used again to identify whether or not the
population of Kvernevik feels that the development in the area is moving
in the right direction. There will be new measurements with the tool in
2024 and 2027. Hopefully, the new primary school and sports center
will be already in use by then. The project group is also eager to try out
the Place Standard Tool's climate lens and children's lens in this work.”
5.3. The view of Fredrikstad Municipality
The municipal advisors who participated in testing the Place Stan-
dard Tool in Fredrikstad conclude: “In Fredrikstad, the Place Standard
Tool was tested through a survey and focus group interviews that also
included city walks. Fredrikstad Municipality has a good overview of
living conditions through statistical data, but we have lacked methods
for obtaining knowledge about how residents experience their local
environments. The Place Standard Tool survey gave us a good overview
of strengths and challenges in local communities. Through the focus
group interviews, we were able to delve deeper into the various results
of the survey, while giving residents the opportunity to talk about what
they thought was important. The focus groups also made it easier for
residents to reect on the 14 themes of the tool. The results of the Place
Standard Tool, including the survey and focus groups, have been used as
an important knowledge base and participation platform for the
Municipality's planning work and local area interventions. The Place
Standard Tool therefore showed us that tools such as surveys and focus
group interviews can be used in various contexts. For future use, the
Municipality sees the benet of implementing the Place Standard Tool,
which can complement statistics with more qualitative data. The chal-
lenges, however, may be the processing of large amounts of data, for
which the Municipality received help from researchers in this project. It
will require a lot of time and resources to process data in a good way.”
6. Theoretical and methodological guidance
6.1. Relevance for urban social sustainability
When linking the theoretical understanding of urban social sustain-
ability consisting broadly of two interdependent dimensions (Table 1) –
socially just access to goods/avoidance of burdens and social robustness
of the community – to the empirical experience of social sustainability of
concrete communities assessed through the survey of the Place Standard
Tool, a general impression is that the tool is particularly good at
measuring the access to goods and general aspects of social robustness.
Access to material amenities, such as shops, health care, schools, and
kindergartens, is an important factor for the informant's well-being and
this comes through in the study. However, the social distribution of these
amenities and services is harder to grasp through the Place Standard
Tool. The tool does not offer a direct measurement of the extent to which
the access to goods/avoidance of burdens is socially just. When a
comparative aspect is built into the study, as done in Fredrikstad, dif-
ferences in how the areas are evaluated become apparent. However, for
such discrepancies in the material to be linked to a matter of social
justice requires a clear awareness among those analyzing the data. The
tool does not nudge the user analyst in a social justice direction.
The other dimension, social robustness, is well-covered through as-
pects such as safety, identity, belonging, etc. However, the social aspects,
the interaction among residents, their access to networks, and thus the
social capital of the community are harder to grasp if you only base a
study on the survey, and if you do not have a broad and clear under-
standing of key aspects of social robustness to direct the analysis of the
material. However, such social aspects come more easily to the fore
when getting directly involved with the residents in focus groups and
when survey respondents get the ability to give qualitative judgements
in open-ended questions. Thicker narratives from daily life show how
residents use and interact in the community. Yet our impression is that
focus group discussions do not mend the tool's weakness regarding
matters of social justice. This is a theoretical and highly political issue
that ordinary citizens to little extent are actively aware of. Again,
assessing social justice requires awareness and theoretical insight among
the analysts, and the ability to communicate its basis and judge its im-
plications when reporting results.
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
15
One interesting aspect of socially just access built into the survey is
the question about inuence and sense of control. In general, this aspect
of urban social sustainability gets a low score in the survey in all com-
munities studied. However, in the last area, Fredrikstad, we added a
question where we asked the respondents to assess the importance of the
different categories covered by the Place Standard Tool. The results
showed that the theme “inuence and sense of control” was not
considered highly important among the residents. This may be due to
the questions' somewhat vague wording, but it may also indicate that
more important for people's view of social justice are their most im-
mediate surroundings – accessibility to services and amenities, the
quality of the environment, maintenance, and interaction with neigh-
bors at public places. Interaction and inuence with the Municipality are
important when something is not functioning well. The Place Standard
Tool shows that channels between citizens and the Municipality are
neither actively used nor well-known among citizens. In that sense, the
tool provides awareness to a key aspect of creating urban social sus-
tainability; namely to link knowledge about the social and environ-
mental status of communities with institutional channels and capacities
to address and handle pressing issues.
The Place Standard Tool addresses the social sustainability of com-
munities here and now, hence it provides knowledge regarding the intra-
generational justice of concrete communities, i.e., the social distribution
of resources within a generation. The social distribution between gen-
erations, inter-generational justice, is however not an active ingredient
in the tool. To ensure social sustainability in the long run, the Place
Standard Tool needs to be combined with other assessments. In addition
to social justice concerns, assessment of environmental and economic
resource use and how to secure just distribution of these resources over
time needs to be part of the overall judgement of urban social sustain-
ability. The Place Standard Tool thus needs to be part of a broader,
holistic judgement of urban sustainability as such. Handling and acting
on social sustainability thus requires sensitivity to all facets of the
agenda, and thus complementary and professional competence and
governance systems and processes capable of unleashing and handling
these complex issues.
6.2. Strengths and limitations of the tool
After applying it in real-case examples, we have identied certain
strengths of the Place Standard Tool. (1) It is a straightforward tool that
can be easily used by professionals who are in a position to shape the
built environment. The tool can be initially applied with the help of an
expert or researcher and subsequently without any assistance. (2) The
tool can be useful for assessing urban social sustainability. The physical
and social factors evaluated with the tool correspond to a series of ele-
ments of urban social sustainability: social infrastructure, physical
infrastructure and transport, public spaces, local environmental quality,
political participation, social interaction, security and safety, and iden-
tity and belonging. When properly analyzed (see Subsection 6.1), resi-
dents' evaluations of these factors may shed light on equitable access and
opportunity and social cohesion, which are basic dimensions of urban
social sustainability, and on whether an area enables residents to cover
their needs, which is a key goal of urban sustainability in general. (3)
The tool can be used to obtain both quantitative and qualitative input.
Using the tool for conducting surveys provides an overall general
assessment of physical and social factors and highlights possible
strengths and weaknesses. Using the tool for workshops, focus groups,
personal interviews, or walking tours provides an in-depth, nuanced
understanding of each factor and how each factor is embedded into the
local context. Moreover, workshops can mobilize residents to participate
in decisions for future development and offer concrete suggestions on
how to improve physical and social factors to better meet the needs of
specic groups.
Naturally, every tool has limitations. Here, we present some limita-
tions that we have identied. (1) The Place Standard Tool cannot, on its
own, offer a complete assessment of urban social sustainability. Resi-
dents' subjective evaluations of the 14 themes of the tool cannot sub-
stitute the information that is offered by objectively measured indicators
(e.g., neighborhood deprivation indices, access to green spaces and fa-
cilities, crime rates) and other subjective indicators (e.g., neighborhood
satisfaction, subjective well-being). Also, without analyzing the results
for different groups of people and without comparing neighborhoods of
different socioeconomic proles, the social justice aspect of social sus-
tainability is likely to be overlooked when using the tool. (2) Assess-
ments with the Place Standard Tool suffer from biases inherent to
subjective evaluations of this kind. Assessments are based on people's
expectations and attitudes, both of which are shaped by the local
context. Thus, Place Standard Tool scores and relevant proposed mea-
sures should always be interpreted considering the local context in terms
of urban form, travel behavior, as well as cultural, social, and
geographical aspects. (3) Related to the previous point is how the results
of the Place Standard Tool are interpreted considering links to social
sustainability at a city or global scale as well as links to environmental
considerations of sustainability. To make this point clearer, let us
consider the example of developing additional parking spots in a certain
neighborhood. Such a measure might be seen as desirable by some
residents but might have negative impacts on sustainable mobility and
environmental sustainability.
6.3. Methodological guidance for future applications
After considering the above-mentioned strengths and weaknesses,
we have developed the following methodological recommendations for
future applications of the Place Standard Tool:
•Combining quantitative and qualitative data: Ideally, a survey distrib-
uted to the residents of a district or neighborhood would be
accompanied by qualitative data collection with workshops, focus
groups, personal interviews, or walking tours. The survey could also
include open-ended questions that provide space for qualitative data.
•Comparative use of the tool: Rather than applying the tool only to one
place, it is more useful to apply it to different neighborhoods or
districts within the same urban region and to involve diverse groups
of the population. This would allow comparisons between areas and
population groups, contributing to a better understanding of the
local context and the needs of different people.
•Interpret with caution: The particularities of the local context and the
expectations and attitudes of residents within the context need to be
considered. Links to environmental sustainability and overall social
sustainability, acknowledging planetary boundaries, also need to be
considered when interpreting the results obtained from the use of the
tool.
•Supplement with additional indicators: Additional objective (e.g.,
indices on neighborhood deprivation, public transport, green space,
pollution, accessibility, segregation, crime, schools) and subjective
indicators (e.g., subjective well-being, neighborhood satisfaction,
housing satisfaction) of the local environment need to be obtained
for a more holistic assessment of urban social sustainability.
•Support by researchers and tool experts: Support by researchers and
tool experts is recommended at least for the rst use of the tool. This
support would ensure proper data collection, analysis, and inter-
pretation, and would serve as training for future applications.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kostas Mouratidis: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Conceptualization. Hege Hofstad: Writing – original draft, Project
administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition,
Conceptualization. Hilde Hatleskog Zeiner: Writing – original draft,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Stine Busborg Sagen:
K. Mouratidis et al.
Cities 148 (2024) 104902
16
Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Investi-
gation, Funding acquisition. Christel Dahl: Writing – original draft,
Methodology, Investigation. Kjersti Eline Følling: Writing – original
draft, Methodology, Investigation. Bent Olav Olsen: Writing – original
draft, Methodology, Investigation.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the project “Social sustainability as a new driving
force in local community development (SOSLOKAL)” (project number:
309458) funded by the Research Council of Norway. Special thanks to
everyone, from Kristiansand, Stavanger, and Fredrikstad Municipalities,
who contributed to data collection for this study. We are also grateful to
all participants in the surveys and focus groups of our study.
Appendix. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104902.
References
Arundel, R., & Ronald, R. (2017). The role of urban form in sustainability of community:
The case of Amsterdam. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science,
44(1), 33–53.
Baba, C., Kearns, A., McIntosh, E., Tannahill, C., & Lewsey, J. (2017). Is empowerment a
route to improving mental health and wellbeing in an urban regeneration (UR)
context? Urban Studies, 54(7), 1619–1637.
Bostr¨
om, M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social
sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice and
Policy, 8(1), 3–14.
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., & Watkins, D. (2009). Social
sustainability and urban form: Evidence from ve British cities. Environment and
Planning A, 41(9), 2125–2142.
Cao, X., Wu, X., & Yuan, Y. (2018). Examining built environmental correlates of
neighborhood satisfaction: A focus on analysis approaches. Journal of Planning
Literature, 33(4), 419–432.
Cloutier, S., Berejnoi, E., Russell, S., Ann Morrison, B., & Ross, A. (2018). Toward a
holistic sustainable and happy neighborhood development assessment tool: A critical
review of relevant literature. Ecological Indicators, 89, 139–149.
Colantonio, A. (2011). Social sustainability: Exploring the linkages between research,
policy and practice. In C. C. Jaeger, J. D. T`
abara, & J. Jaeger (Eds.), Transformative
science approaches for sustainability: Volume 1. European research on sustainable
development (pp. 35–57). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Dassen, T., Kunseler, E., & van Kessenich, L. (2013). The sustainable city: An
analytical–deliberative approach to assess policy in the context of sustainable urban
development. Sustainable Development, 21, 193–205.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of
sustainable development: Dening urban social sustainability. Sustainable
Development, 19(5), 289–300.
Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2012). The key to sustainable urban
development in UK cities? The inuence of density on social sustainability. Progress
in Planning, 77(3), 89–141.
Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework.
Sustainability, 9(1), 68.
Gjorgjev, D., Dimovska, M., Morris, G., Howie, J., Borota Popovska, M., & Topuzovska
Latkovikj, M. (2020). How good is our place—Implementation of the Place Standard
Tool in North Macedonia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(1), 194.
Hasler, K., & Howie, J. (2020). Creating healthy places with the Place Standard Tool – An
introduction. European Journal of Public Health, 30(Supplement_5).
Hofstad, H. (2021). Sosialt bærekraftige lokalsamfunn-en litteraturstudie. NIBR-rapport
2021:7, 8283093452. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research
(NIBR), OsloMet.
Hofstad, H. (2023). Well understood? A literature study dening and operationalising
community social sustainability. Local Environment, 28(9), 1193–1209.
Hofstad, H., & Bergsli, H. (2017). Folkehelse og Sosial Bærekraft: En Sammenligning og
Diskusjon av Begrepsinnhold, Målsettinger og Praktiske Tilnærminger. Oslo: Norwegian
Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), OsloMet.
Hogan, M. J., Leyden, K. M., Conway, R., Goldberg, A., Walsh, D., & McKenna-
Plumley, P. E. (2016). Happiness and health across the lifespan in ve major cities:
The impact of place and government performance. Social Science & Medicine, 162,
168–176.
Horgan, D., & Dimitrijevi´
c, B. (2019). Frameworks for citizens participation in planning:
From conversational to smart tools. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, Article 101550.
Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: An
investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 52(6), 847–864.
IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Koeckler, H., Sammet, T., Mekel, O. C. L., & Plantz, C. (2020). The potential of the Place
Standard Tool to foster healthy urban & rural development with an equity lens.
European Journal of Public Health, 30(Supplement_5).
Kytt¨
a, M., Broberg, A., Haybatollahi, M., & Schmidt-Thom´
e, K. (2016). Urban happiness:
Context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 34–57.
Lafferty, W. M., & Langhelle, O. (1999). Sustainable development as concept and norm.
In Towards sustainable development: On the goals of development—And the conditions of
sustainability (pp. 1–29). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Larimian, T., & Sadeghi, A. (2021). Measuring urban social sustainability: Scale
development and validation. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City
Science, 48(4), 621–637.
Marans, R. W., & Stimson, R. (2011). An overview of quality of urban life. In
R. W. Marans, & R. J. Stimson (Eds.), Investigating quality of urban life: Theory,
methods, and empirical research (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. J. (2014). Satised residents in different types of
local areas: Measuring what’s most important. Social Indicators Research, 118(1),
87–101.
McGuinn, J., Fries-Tersch, E., Jones, M., Crepaldi, C., Masso, M., Kadarik, I., … Geny, B.
(2020). Social sustainability: Concepts and benchmarks. Luxembourg: Policy
Department for Economic, Scientic and Quality of Life Policies. Directorate-General
for Internal Policies. European Parliament.
Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Sustainable development: A new (ish) idea for a new century?
Political Studies, 48(2), 370–387.
Medved, P. (2017). Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key
principles and processes. Urbani Izziv, 28(1), 107–121.
Medved, P. (2018). Exploring the ‘Just City principles’ within two European sustainable
neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 23(3), 414–431.
Mouratidis, K. (2018). Rethinking how built environments inuence subjective well-
being: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 11(1), 24–40.
Mouratidis, K. (2019). Compact city, urban sprawl, and subjective well-being. Cities, 92,
261–272.
Mouratidis, K. (2020). Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and
well-being: The links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy, 99, Article
104886.
Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking
the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, Article 103229.
Mouratidis, K., Sagen, S., & Hofstad, H. (2021). Assessing local social sustainability:
Lessons learned from testing the Place Standard Tool in Kristiansand, Norway. In
57th ISOCARP World Planning Congress – Doha, Qatar 2021.
Mouratidis, K., & Yiannakou, A. (2022). What makes cities livable? Determinants of
neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts. Land
Use Policy, 112, Article 105855.
Oca˜
na, A., Gea-Caballero, V., Peir´
o, R., Ju´
arez-Vela, R., P´
erez-Sanz, E., Corch´
on, S., &
Paredes-Carbonell, J. J. (2022). Properties of the Spanish version of the Place
Standard Tool. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19
(15), 9395.
Opp, S. (2017). The forgotten pillar: A denition for the measurement of social
sustainability in American cities. Local Environment, 22(3), 286–305.
Pfeiffer, D., & Cloutier, S. (2016). Planning for happy neighborhoods. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 82(3), 267–279.
Shekhar, H., Schmidt, A. J., & Wehling, H.-W. (2019). Exploring wellbeing in human
settlements - A spatial planning perspective. Habitat International, 87, 66–74.
Trudeau, D. (2018). Integrating social equity in sustainable development practice:
Institutional commitments and patient capital. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41,
601–610.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A
clarication of concepts. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional
Geosciences, 42(3), 342–348.
Wang, F., & Wang, D. (2016). Place, geographical context and subjective well-being:
State of art and future directions. In Mobility, sociability and well-being of urban living
(pp. 189–230). Berlin: Springer.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. Report of the world commission on environment and
development. New York: United Nations.
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhan, D., Kwan, M.-P., Zhang, W., Fan, J., Yu, J., & Dang, Y. (2018). Assessment and
determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities, 79, 92–101.
K. Mouratidis et al.
