Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

The Role of Social Sustainability in the Designation of a Sustainable Community: Based on Cumulative Development Patterns in Residential Complexes

Written By

Elias Bojago

Submitted: 19 September 2022 Reviewed: 03 October 2022 Published: 03 November 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.108417

Environmental Resilience and Management - Annual Volume 2024 IntechOpen
Environmental Resilience and Management - Annual Volume 2024 Authored by Jose Navarro-Pedreño

From the Annual Volume

Environmental Resilience and Management - Annual Volume 2024 [Working Title]

Prof. Jose Navarro-Pedreño

Chapter metrics overview

178 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

One of the most important and contentious issues in recent years has been the role of social sustainability in the design of a sustainable community. This concept can be interpreted on the basis of the cumulative development pattern in residential complexes, according to the hypothesis and theory of the intended research. The neighborhood, as the basic social unit, is critical to the survival of the city. The objective of this article is to illustrate the cumulative development pattern in residential complexes by introducing the characteristics of a sustainable community and demonstrating the fundamental role of social aspects in the design of a consistent neighborhood. It also attempts to analyze the status of this approach in the development of the sustainability of the local community. The study’s findings indicate that incorporating social sustainability principles into the design of neighborhoods and the cumulative aspects of residential complexes could yield very positive results.

Keywords

  • sustainable local development
  • social sustainability
  • cumulative area
  • and residential complexes

1. Introduction

Social sustainability (SocSus) is defined as a measure of human well-being. SocSus is not concerned with simply existing but rather prospering and leading the best possible lifestyle. The sociocultural issue that has the greatest impact on sustainability is intergenerational equity, or using only what we need and passing the rest on to future generations [1, 2, 3]. As a result, we must work to improve the living conditions of those who cannot afford a place to live, clean water, or enough food [4, 5, 6]. The identification and management of positive and negative business effects on people are critical components of social sustainability. Stakeholder engagement and the quality of relationships within an organization are critical [7, 8, 9, 10].

Understanding what people expect from the places they live and work enables us to build socially sustainable communities that promote well-being [11, 12]. In social sustainability, physical and social design is combined to create spaces for people and places to grow and develop, as well as the infrastructure required to support social and cultural life [13, 14, 15]. Social Life is a UK-based social enterprise that focuses on place-based innovation. The effects of the environment on nerves, the soul, and the body are palpable. Despite the fact that they have the potential to transmit mental diseases from one person to another and that they can be congenital, they are primarily an environmental factor that disrupts mental balance [16, 17, 18, 19]. Silence, individual identity, self-confidence, and motivation, for example, have a large impact on the mental balance and physical environment of a person and can influence those factors [20].

Furthermore, the quality of a person’s physical environment can affect the establishment of social relationships and friendships. As a result, the true designation can be influential in harmonizing the person’s environment and making use of the appropriate environmental conditions; it can provide a recovery opportunity for the person through decreasing environmental pressures and can accelerate recovery from mental disorders (from short-term to serious) through proper environmental factors [21, 22, 23]. Those in charge of designation may interfere with individuals’ living or working environments, or they may simply control environmental factors. This topic is critical for designing and organizing houses, residential complexes, and living limits.

Studies conducted by [2, 24, 25] demonstrated the difference between citizen sustainability and social sustainability. These concepts interpret how the research theoretical framework manifests itself. The question at this point is: How does social sustainability interact with the programming and design of houses, residential complexes, and residential limits?

Based on the results of the analysis, the research questions are as follows:

  1. The main problem is defining the role of social sustainability in designing a sustainable community based on cumulative development patterns in residential complexes; how can this come true?

  2. What are the characteristics of the pattern of cumulative development in residential complexes along with the emphasis on the role of social sustainability in the design of a sustainable community?

Advertisement

2. Approaches to review and compilation of the literature

This review extracts saturated information based on theory and empirical findings. Experiments and scientific findings were used to filter the data and focus on recent publications. This article will be available from December 10, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The article’s literature search focused primarily on Social Sustainability in designing a Sustainable Community Based on Cumulative Development Patterns in Residential Complexes. The article information was extracted from Google Scholar and other peer-reviewed indexers such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus during this review. Keywords such as “Social Sustainability, Designation, Residential Complexes, and Sustainable Community” were used to find journal articles, papers, books, and symposia. The following section of this article will go over some concepts and experimental settings in the context of social sustainability, designation, and sustainable community based on Cumulative Development Patterns in Residential Complexes.

Advertisement

3. Definition and meaning of social sustainability

3.1 Multidimensional nature of the meaning of social sustainability

Although little research has been conducted on the definition of social sustainability, there is little agreement on it. One reason could be the difficulty in defining the number and meaning of social issues [25, 26, 27, 28].

Several factors influence the definition of social sustainability, including its multidimensional nature, its definition scale, and its overlap with other concepts [29, 30, 31, 32]. One method to determine the definition of social sustainability is to investigate its relationship with other aspects of sustainability, such as economics and the environment. This issue demonstrates the multifaceted nature of social sustainability [29, 33, 34, 35, 36]. Despite the dynamic and complex nature of sustainable development, this trend balances political, economic, social, and environmental aspects. Due to its dependence on other factors, social sustainability may require a multidimensional definition [27, 28, 37]. Therefore, so far, the environmental aspect of sustainability has received the most attention, with naturalistic discussions emphasizing the more effective use of resources and the vast lake of natural resources. On the other hand, the humanistic perspective considers both ecosystem problems and humanely and his quality of life. “Social sustainability generally focuses on the relationship between people’s behavior and the built environment or the relationship between individual life chances and organic structures” [38, 39, 40, 41]. This is an issue that is frequently overlooked in sustainability discussions. “The advantage of being multidimensional is that it creates a framework for understanding how different policies influence in different situations”, [42, 43]. As a result, the concept of social sustainability is completely dependent on the political, social, economic, and environmental constraints and capacities of a region”, [44].

Chiu [45] has specified three typologies different from the theoretician’s comprehension in relation to understanding various aspects of social stability. The first typology is as follows: In order for an activity to be socially sustainable, it must maintain or promote existing social structures and values as social constraints of human existence. Every development that denies preexisting social values is unsustainable from a social point of view. According to Chiu [45] and Bhaduri [21], this idea does not provide enough freedom to achieve socially sustainable goals and appears to accept existing social structures even if they do not last long. Chiu’s second and third points of view have served as the theoretical foundation for his studies on the social sustainability of housing in Hong Kong. The second point of view is the naturalistic approach, in which Chiu refers to social sustainability as the “necessary social term to provide ecological sustainability.” The third point of view is the humanistic approach, which emphasizes social unity. The last of the three interpretations placed the greatest emphasis on justice and social equality. According to Chiu [45], “equity of distribution and consumption of resources and entities, as well as balanced social relations and an acceptable quality of life, are required for social sustainability.” These viewpoints are evident in the analysis of the social sustainability of the citizen by Piovesan [46], which emphasizes three crucial issues of equality, society, and the citizen’s sense. There are undoubtedly additional significant social issues in cities, but those three topics that deal with city development programming are superior, they claim [45, 46, 47].

In addition to the earlier emphasis on the effectiveness of the relationship between economic and environmental aspects, the advantage of this multidimensional understanding could demonstrate how various economic, social, and environmental aspects influence urban policies [47, 48, 49]. Finding a balance between the various sustainability factors is perhaps one of the biggest issues in urban policy. Additionally, this argument requires a distinct definition of social sustainability in various nations because the degree to which effective aspects of social sustainability are prioritized varies between nations, as will be discussed in Section 4. Considering different scales and global sustainability goals is required in the designation and programming of homes, residential complexes, and residential limits, according to what has been said so far. The various scales have an impact on how social sustainability is defined and understood (international, national, urban, and local units) [27].

An examination of related definitions is necessary for the analysis of social sustainability. Prior studies on sustainability have only considered economic and environmental factors. However, in recent years, the government has begun to coordinate its political, economic, and urban programs with this argument due to the significance of taking social sustainability into account as one of the most fundamental aspects of sustainable development. However, there is not much consensus on what it means. According to Stern and Polèse [50], a development that is compatible with the balanced perfection of the social community creates conducive environment to lead a cumulative lifestyle that is acceptable to various social and cultural groups. On the other hand, by raising standards of living across all social groups, this development strengthens social cohesion. According to this definition, social sustainability refers to both society’s overall function and the debates surrounding each person’s quality of life. Depending on the types of initial, medium, and finite needs, the classifications imply that some aspects of social sustainability weigh more heavily than others. One of the first needs introduced by Maslow [51] is shelter. The primary requirements of social sustainability are also the size, health, availability of services, and initial construction of the shelter. The social relationships and security of the neighborhood are the main topics of the following phase. To achieve social sustainability, it is important to pay attention to psychological and sentimental needs, sense of belonging and arrogance, satisfaction with one’s neighborhood, active participation, and a sense of responsibility to high ranks.

It is important to note that social sustainability has influenced many nations’ policies when analyzing the quality of social sustainability in cumulative atmospheres, as well as the common atmospheres present in apartments and residential complexes. The English government has made an effort to link quality of life and sustainability arguments. It is clear from the Sustainable Community plan that social sustainability is a priority [51, 52]. The definition of “what is a sustainable neighborhood” is outlined in the most recent English government policy, which was later accepted by the European Union (Bristol agreement), through eight main titles, including active, all-encompassing and safe two) a good service system three) good design and manufacturing 4-Good management 5-sensitive to issues with the ecosystem 6 appropriate interactions 7-innovative and growing [53] 8-fair for all those definitions include three main pillars for the additional implications of sustainability: transportation, problems with supervision, programming, and designation; environmental and economic aspects. The main titles 1, 2, 3, and 8 all deal with social sustainability in some way. The first title includes “identity and belonging,” “beating difference,” “friendly neighborhoods,” “recreational and cultural opportunities,” “antisocial behaviors / crime,” and “good quality of life.” The second title defines a series of available services such as health instruction and social treatment. The third topic is about the sense of place, intimacy, being healthy, atmosphere, security, and having access to non-automotive transportation, and arguments related to cheap residence [54].

Although each of the current definitions of social sustainability only refers to one aspect of social sustainability, it is clear from the meaning of some definitions that the aspect related to the community’s role in development is crucial. Some terms within the definition of “social sustainability,” such as “equality and freedom,” “human welfare and participation,” “improved quality of life,” and “social cohesion,” have also been emphasized. Table 1 provides an illustration of one of these definitions.

Theorist (Reference)Definition of social sustainability
[55, 56, 57]A strong definition of social sustainability, which must rest on the basic values of equity and democracy, the latter meant as the effective appropriation of all human rights—political, civil, economic, social and cultural—by all people
[58]… a quality of societies. It signifies the nature-society relationships mediated by work, as well as relationships within the society. Social sustainability is given if work within a society and related institutional arrangements satisfy an extended set of human needs [and] are shaped in such a way that nature and its reproductive capabilities are preserved over a long period of time and normative claims of social justice, human dignity, and participation are fulfilled.
[59][Sustainability] aims to determine the minimal social requirements for long-term development (sometimes called critical social capital) and to identify the challenges to society’s long-term functioning of society in the long run
[60]Development (and/or growth) that is compatible with the harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in quality of life for all segments of the population

Table 1.

Examples of definitions of social sustainability (to quote: Colantonio & Dixon [86]).

Studies reveal that the development of homes, residential complexes, and residential boundaries is significantly influenced by social sustainability. In defining social sustainability, we must take into account the interrelationships between the social aspect of sustainability and other aspects, the scale of various aspects of social sustainability, and the particular requirements and constraints of each environment. Social sustainability is a quality that focuses on how people interact with each other according to social-cultural norms. It can be achieved by adhering to the values of social equality, human welfare, and meeting people’s spiritual and physical needs in relation to the physical and socioeconomic characteristics of each society. Therefore, sustainability in the local community is a basis for promoting the meaningful participation of the citizen in activities related to residential complexes and all volunteer activities related to their own environment [61].

3.2 Paying attention to the global purposes of sustainability in the area of neighborhood

The emphasis on various international, national, urban, and local units, particularly the neighborhood and proximity unit, has a significant impact on how social sustainability is defined and understood. Many of the solutions suggested by command number 21 are implemented by every government taking into account its own social, economic, and political conditions, as well as the global goals of sustainable development [62]. According to the report of the Brat Land Committee, the following techniques can be used to compare the fundamentals of sustainable development.

  • General trust: Refers to the protection of resources by the government regarding general profit.

  • Preventing Principles Actions taken to prevent serious and irreversible damages. These actions should not be postponed due to lack of knowledge.

  • Justice and equality between generations: Future generations should not be endangered due to present decisions.

  • Participation and Philanthropy: Decisions must be made at the lowest possible level.

  • Ecosystem protection: The cost of damage done to the ecosystem must be paid by those who are responsible [44].

These approaches, which take into account various economic, social, and environmental factors, use phrases such as “general trust” and “local supervision and participation.” To address this issue and achieve the global objectives of sustainable development, local scales must be taken into account. In addition to these concepts, the arguments for sustainable development emphasize poverty and a lack of social equality between and within nations, as well as between current and future generations. Each government should respond to these issues in light of its own constraints and social and physical potentials. Another significant issue is the divergent levels of attention paid to various aspects of social sustainability in developed and developing countries [63]. For example, the lack of initial construction, social-economic equality, the availability of shelter and its low cost, the size of shelters, and the decline in poverty are some of the most fundamental and important issues in developing countries. However, we can also take into account the citizen’s social equality, social unity, social entity, social capital, health, and welfare. Some of the aspects of social sustainability in developed countries are as follows:

  • Having access to facilities and services

  • Amount of Life space

  • Health conditions of the surroundings

  • The atmosphere of society and social relationships

  • Security feeling

  • Being satisfied with the neighborhood

According to the basic, intermediate, and ultimate needs, some aspects of social stability are given more weight in the definitions given. Maslow also introduced a “hierarchy of needs, which includes the need for shelter”. The main prerequisites for social stability are habitat size, health, existence services, and basic infrastructure. The safety of the neighborhood and the nature of social interaction should be taken into account. Taking into account residents’ mental and emotional needs, including some instances such as a sense of pride and belonging, satisfaction with the community, active participation, and a sense of duty to achieve the highest levels of social stability [64]. Planning and designing homes, as well as creating integrated biological and residential areas, all heavily rely on this issue.

3.3 Social justice and designation on the basis of sustainability

An emphasis on social justice is necessary for sustainability-based designations. We can understand two additional recognizable concepts at the core of the concept of social sustainability if we study the literature on the subject. Arguments for social equality and self-sustainability in the local community are included in these two concepts. While local community sustainability includes several minor factors such as a sense of belonging to the neighborhood, social interactions and neighborhood security, the quality of the local environment, being satisfied with shelter, durability, and participation in social cumulative activities, social equality includes having access to services and opportunities. These two main aspects of social sustainability include other expressions that are widely used in the concept of social sustainability (social cohesion, social capital and, Social exclusion)1. Collectively, these factors have an impact on quality of life, social cohesion, and group cohesion [64]. As a result, we can draw the conclusion that addressing social justice is essential to ensure social sustainability and to realize the goals of sustainable development in a range of economic, social, and environmental spheres.

In addition to the ideas mentioned above, social deprivation, social unity, and social property can also have a significant impact on the viability of neighborhoods. These ideas ensure the following neighborhood elements: (1) interaction between neighborhoods, (2) community involvement, (3) sense of pride and haughtiness, (4) community sustainability, and (5) security. Each of these elements is related to a few intriguing urban policy topics. The word “interaction” is included in the definition of social sustainability to highlight the fact that it is important for people to interact with each other, as well as to achieve a combination of population characteristics within an area. In other words, it should be investigated to see if the neighborhood’s neighbors’ motivation to interact with one another and its supporting factors are positive. Studies in this area could shed light on the difference between strong and weak social interactions.

The way in which people use and perceive facilities shared between neighbors is another issue. It is believed that if people are involved in their own local community events, they will develop stronger ties to their community and society. A similar argument can be made for the notion of a sense of place and arrogance, namely, that “if people depend on their neighborhood, they may choose to live there and contribute to its growth”. Stability or sustainability is the fourth factor from the perspective of social sustainability. Environments with a lot of movement are considered unsuitable or unsustainable. Social sustainability typically results in greater social cohesion and benefits, such as low crime rates [68]. The analysis of social unity and social privation could clarify the meaningful relation between social justice and designation on the basis of stability.

Advertisement

4. Social sustainability parameters in neighborhoods and residential complexes

For the general and private atmosphere of the city, the cumulative areas, and the common areas present within the apartments and residential complexes, Madani-poor and Nurian [69] propose various parameters and variables. Examining the social sustainability parameters is sometimes referred to as an “operational analysis” of social development goals (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Different aspects of social sustainability are used to define social sustainability parameters.

According to Jenks [54], a study on the relation between social sustainability and city form, eight different parameters are proposed for the analysis of different aspects of social sustainability, which are as follows.

  • Friendship and social interactions are estimated by the frequency of seeing friends and relatives in the neighborhood, meeting/interacting with/borrowing from neighbors, knowing some, all, or most of the neighbors by their names, and having agreed upon the fact that here (neighborhood) is a place where neighbors are friendly and take care of each other.

  • Sense of arrogance/being satisfied with the neighborhood: which is estimated by general satisfaction, proper appearance, and sense of arrogance, identity, and belonging.

  • Being satisfied with the house: Being able to feel relaxed and calm is essential for happiness at home, and owning a home is no better than renting in terms of happiness.

  • Security: which are estimated by negative responses to the standard questions about the security of taking a walk alone in darkness, the serious problems of crime, being hurt by children/ young or traffic, and lack of comfort/security in waiting for public vehicles.

  • Environment: is estimated by the negative rate of lightness of the street, parks or open spaces, serious difficulties with noisy neighbors, garbage or wall writing, lack of parking lot, or the amount of traffic.

  • Movement: is estimated by living in a place less than 3 years or moving in the near future because of problems related to residence or that particular surrounding.

  • Participation in cumulative activities: It is the systematic addition of a newly learned skill to previously learned and related skills. It is an essential evidence-based feature of high-quality instruction. It also includes planning services, serving self-help groups, running support and social action groups, building community networks, participating in interagency meetings, assessing needs, and increasing people’s skills.

  • Using the facilities and services of the neighbor: Your neighborhood is the area in which you live. It is a location that is easily accessible from your home. These local facilities are fundamental components of a specific neighborhood and include recreational facilities, health facilities, banks, post offices, educational facilities, and other communal facilities.

These factors fall into two main categories of social sustainability, which are local social sustainability and social equality. The last title is entirely related to access equality and can be divided into facilities/services like daily service appliances versus cultural services, despite the fact that these subjects emphasize the local sustainable community. Additionally, we can characterize the aforementioned issue as satisfied with the quality of one’s home and immediate surroundings [54]. We can define a socially sustainable neighborhood based on the criteria mentioned above, which are derived from earlier research and experience. We cannot arrive at a static pattern for the designation of neighborhoods by copying the research findings related to the pattern of the city and social sustainability in all regions, as previously mentioned, because the method of investigation of these parameters varies from place to place [61].

Advertisement

5. Social sustainability and social interaction within the neighborhood

The concept of social sustainability and social interaction among neighborhoods is gaining traction in cities all over the world. Urban residents can experience socioeconomic well-being, physical and mental health, engagement and interaction, sustainable behavior, and a sense of belonging in these distinct zones managed jointly (Figure 2) [70].

Figure 2.

The overall social sustainability rating framework.

5.1 Objectified in cultural capital

Cultural capital in its objectified state has a number of properties that can only be defined in relation to cultural capital in its embodied form. Objectified cultural capital is a physical representation of the experience, intellect, and meaning of a culture accumulated over time [71, 72]. Objectified cultural capital is defined as a person’s property (eg, a work of art, scientific instruments, etc.) that can be transferred for economic profit (buying and selling) as well as symbolically conveying the possession of cultural capital made possible by owning such things. It is feasible to interpret the function of social sustainability in the construction of a sustainable neighborhood based on the model of cumulative area growth in residential complexes from the perspective of understanding the definition of cultural capital. Cultural capital clearly possesses a number of characteristics that can only be explained in relation to cultural capital as it manifests itself in its imaginative form as opposed to cultural capital as it manifests itself in the form of tangible objects and media such as books, paintings, historical monuments, tools, etc., which can be transferred in its physical manner” [73]. However, what can be transferred physically is cultural capital as it manifests in its imaginative form, which can only be explained in relation to cultural capital as it manifests in its imaginative form.

As a result, cultural goods can be appropriated both materially (by means of economic capital) and symbolically (by means of cultural capital). As a result, the owner of the means of production must devise a method of appropriating either the embodied capital, which is a prerequisite for specific appropriation, or the services of the holders of this capital. To own the machines, he only needs economic capital; to appropriate and use them for their intended purpose (defined by the scientific or technical cultural capital incorporated in them), he must have access to embodied cultural capital, either in person or through proxy. This is without doubt the source of cadres’ ambiguous status (executives and engineers). If it is emphasized that they are not the owners (in the strict economic sense) of the means of production that they use and that they profit from their own cultural capital only by selling the services and products that it enables, then they can be classified as dominated; if it is emphasized that they profit from the use of a specific capital, then they can be classified as dominated [73].

Cultural capital in its objectified state appears to be an autonomous and coherent universe with its own laws, although it is the result of historical action. As the example of language demonstrates, this means that cultural capital is still irreducible to what each agent, or even the sum of agents, can appropriate (i.e., to the cultural capital embodied in each agent or even in the aggregate of agents). However, it should be remembered that it only qualifies as symbolically and materially active effective capital insofar as it is appropriated by agents, implemented and invested as a weapon and a stake in the conflicts that occur in the fields of cultural production (such as artistic, scientific, etc.) and, beyond them, in the fields of social classes-conflicts in which the agents wield strengths and reap rewards corresponding to their mastery of this object [73]. There is a dialectical relationship between concrete cultural capital, which is an exquisite form of writing, and nonobjective cultural capital, which is typically reduced to a grandiose descriptive spirit of decadence by words, animated by inanimate objects, creativity by routine and banality, grace and mercy by heavy. For example, academic writing is a prime example of cultural identity in the modern world.

One method of neutralizing some of the characteristics that arise from the fact that cultural capital is embodied and shares the same biological limitations as its bearer is the objectification of cultural capital in the form of academic credentials. This objectification is what distinguishes the cultural capital academically sanctioned by legally guaranteed qualifications, formally independent of the person of its bearer, from the capital of the autodidact, which may be called into question at any time, or even the cultural capital of the courtier, which can yield only ill-defined profits, of fluctuating value, in the market of high-society exchanges. Social alchemy creates a type of cultural capital that has relative autonomy with respect to its bearer and with respect to the cultural capital it actually possesses at a given point in time when combined with an academic qualification, a certificate of cultural competence, which bestows on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture [73]. By means of collective magic, it establishes a cultural capital; much like how Merleau-Ponty [74] claims that the ritual of mourning establishes the dead among the living. One only needs to consider the course (competitive recruitment examination), which establishes a critical distinction between simple cultural capital, which must constantly demonstrate itself, and officially recognized, guaranteed competence. Out of the continuum of infinitesimal differences between performances, the concourse produces sharp, absolute, lasting differences, such as that that which separates the last successful candidate from the first unsuccessful one. In this instance, it is easy to see the performativity magic of the ability to manifest and establish a belief, or to put it another way to impose recognition. The academic qualification also makes it possible to compare qualification holders and even exchange them by providing institutional recognition to the cultural capital held by any given agent (by substituting one for another in succession). In addition, it makes it possible [73]. Thus, it can be inferred that the clarity of cultural capital is a problem that has an impact on both the quantity and the quality of social relationships.

5.2 Exact social relations in the cumulative atmosphere

The main component of a society’s structure is its social relationships. The most basic aspect of human life is social action, which is defined as “the obvious and successive movements of a human that are designed to achieve a goal relative to another man.” Due to their innate need for social interaction, people create opportunities for it to occur. Various purposes drive the social relationship. It can be worth-based, which is seeking a goal without regard to its cost and other goals, emotional, which includes friendship, relativity, and neighbor relations, rational, which tries to maximize the individual’s chances of achieving the purpose, or traditional, which is formed according to customs and beliefs, and the reason for its sustainability is its traditional aspect [75]. One of the themes that can be seen repeatedly in traditional sociology is the fear of the decline of social relationships. ‘Perhaps it is accurate to say that the fear of social relations deteriorating as a result of industrialization and the emergence of modernism led to the birth of sociology. The impact of city life on human life is a topic on which early sociologists differed [75, 79]. Processes such as increased rationalism, decreased distribution of work, and other similar phenomena have led to a lack of interest and concern for the social relationships that exist in metropolitan areas. Such conditions lead to strained relationships and decreased social trust [76].

Because “social relationships happen in place and time,” theoretical discussions of the idea of social sustainability are defined within the analysis of society and social relationships. A social relationship can begin for a variety of reasons, not just exposure. To keep those relationships intact, some homogeneity is required. A place’s physical layout and functional divisions have the power to enhance or restrict opportunities for interaction. Urban programming, site designation, and detail designation, among others, can have an impact on how people gather in public spaces [75]. “Social relations and the cultural system are interconnected. On the one hand, social relationships have an impact on culture depending on their strength, i.e., the development and maintenance of social relationships enhance culture or values. On the other hand, culture establishes the prerequisites and etiquette for the formation of social relationships. The atmosphere is where social and cultural interactions occur. As a result, the atmosphere is made up of a variety of social and cultural connections between a particular group and a particular setting. Social life is situated in the environment and is constrained by it because these relationships are time-bound. The type of relationships formed in the atmosphere and the strength of those relationships give the atmosphere meaning. The cumulative atmosphere and common spaces that exist within apartments and residential complexes are places for the practicality of exact social relations.

5.3 Social capital reproduction in neighborhood unit

There are significant occurrences in the neighborhood unit. Reproduction of social capital ensures ongoing efforts to gain society’s acceptance (socialism), a chain of exchange in which familiarity is continuously supported and rejected. Unless someone invests a special skill in it, such as the genealogy of real relations and associations and the ability to use them, the task, which requires energy, time, and directly or indirectly economical capital, is worthless and cannot even be imagined.

This is one of the reasons why the accumulation and preservation of social capital increases as the number of entities increases. Owners of an inherited social capital can transform current relationships in their place and time into stable associations because the larger social capital that results from a specific relationship depends on the fact that the other person benefits greatly from this entity in this relationship. These people are sought after for their social capital, complete fame, and worth being known. They do not require familiarity and are more known than the people they know personally, and their task of social acceptance is incredibly effective when carried out [73]. “Group members must establish requirement” for obtaining the right to declare their membership within the group, provided that internal competition to obtain a legal representative does not put the group-accumulating entities in danger. Additionally, they must select a group representative to deal with the social capital of the entire group. One of the paradoxes of being representative is that the person in charge of the group can impose the authority bestowed upon (and, in some cases, on) the group by the group itself [73]. The possibility of this abuse arises from the fact that one group may be overseen by an intragroup that exercises authority on behalf of the entire group. In this place, a group has developed that we frequently refer to as being honest or respectable. He uses the group’s name and calls it by that name. Irony is the metonymous term for this occurrence. Shakespeare’s address to Cleopatra’s words or the king of France being referred to as simply France, both display the irony that links the honorable and upright to his group. The land and palaces, as well as his group’s members, pure disciples, are known to acknowledge and accept him through his name. Therefore, the representative logic takes into account factors such as the personality, religion, or affiliation of political parties, labor unions, or movements of their lenders. Everything comes together to create a context that takes the place of the denotation, with a lecturer serving as the representative of his own group [73]. The reproduction of social capital by a neighborhood unit and urban life is said to be a process that can only be fully understood through experience. We can learn a lot by comparing social units with similar cultures and the uniform social capital that is manifested in them rather than designing global indicators that include social capital and could cover all continents and nations [77].

Advertisement

6. The role of cumulative life and areas in the social sustainability of the neighborhood

Area and cumulative life are inseparably linked, and this connection can be traced back to the concepts that underpin their theoretical and applied applications. Social or cumulative life is an opportunity to remove disruptions from daily life, spend free time, engage in social interactions, bring people and different groups together, and give them a chance to exercise their right to free speech while maintaining the atmosphere. “Cumulative life in public spaces depends on the promotion of social interaction, the attraction of people and various groups, social security, and consequently the encouragement to reduce the tolerance of various groups in the environment, socialism, and finally the creation of a new and active environment. This is helpful in a supportive social environment in addition to physiological calmness, land claims, a sense of possession, and receiving justice within the environment. The definition of events and related activities is necessary for the establishment of social interactions and relationships, which in turn depends on the definition of physical topics, looks, conversations, and relationships between individuals. As a result the roles of people in the environment as well as “their membership in groups and social networks, are also necessary” [78]. On the other hand, cumulative life is affected by other forces and factors, such as

  1. Geographical Properties of the Public Atmosphere

  2. Bodily specifications of public atmosphere

  3. Economic aspects

  4. Social health

  5. Sociocultural properties of the society

  6. Political aspects

  7. Pattern of spending free time (Quote: [78])

Excellent theoretical research has been done in this field. Among behavioralist psychologists who have focused on urban issues, Rapoport [79] is well known. By bringing up the subject of reciprocal interactions between people and the environment, he has given urban designation and programming a new dimension. According to him, each local community and cumulative environment are made up of a variety of relationships between environmental factors and people. These relationships follow specific patterns, making them typically predictable and manageable. This makes it easier to see how areas and cumulative life play a role in social sustainability. Rapport considers two characteristics of those environments:

  1. Number of Environments: Each cumulative environment and local community are a collection of physical, social, cultural, etc.

  2. The association between physical environment and other environments: Rapoport emphasizes the importance of understanding how humans and the environment interact when we are organizing any kind of cumulative environment and local community after gaining such familiarity and at the subsequent stage. For easier study, he dissects the cumulative environment and local community into their basic components and classifies them into four groups or organizations:

    • Atmosphere Association of Environment: He believes that since people and things interact with one another through or within the atmosphere, mutual relations in physical environments are primarily atmospheric in nature. To better understand urban environments, he compiles a variety of separations, dependencies, and distances between people and other people, things and things, and things and things as part of an atmospheric organization.

    • Conceptual association of the environment, which is related to ideas that are understood through the shape, variety, and physical elements of the environment. In this association, the effects of marks, colors, landscape, materials, etc., are taken into consideration.

    • Time association with the environment: mean level of intensity, rhythm, and interoperability or incompatibility of activity. According to Rapoport, time can be used to separate people in a similar way to how air can. Average Human Activity Intensity, Rhyme and Compatibility or Incompatibility with One another

    • An interactional association of environment: it includes the connections between individuals as well as the relationship between individuals and the environment. According to Rapoport, there are two ways urban environments can interpret this association between sustainability and transportation systems, communication tools, and in-person interactions [79].

Advertisement

7. Way of improving and sustainability in social capital

7.1 Program for the development of social sustainability in neighborhoods

Governments have the power to promote social capital and stop actions that have the opposite effect. We can present four perspectives in this case: First, it cannot be said that the government lacks the resources to create a variety of social capital. Religion, tradition, shared historical events, and other factors that are not controlled by the government frequently produce social capital as a by-product. The effects of religion as a shared resource cannot be replicated by the general section policy, but it can be created and implemented using the social capital already in place. Politicians should be aware that social capital may have detrimental external effects [80].

The second industry where governments can most directly create social capital is the Ministry of Education. Educational institutions transfer not only human capital, but also social capital in the form of social norms and laws. This statement is true for higher education, as well as for education in primary and secondary schools. In addition to teaching medical science, doctors also cover Boghrat’s. To reduce crime, the educational standards of great people (elite) should be raised, as should their participation [80].

Third, by defining and establishing public security and possession rights, as well as indirectly supporting and strengthening the development of social capital, governments can help build a more secure society. Diego Gambetta has shown that the Mafia acts as the private guardian of property rights in some Italian regions [80]. All of these instances emphasize the importance of programming for the development of social sustainability in neighborhoods.

7.2 Social relations and social sustainability, reproduction

Social relationships and social relationships that reproduce social sustainability are necessary for social sustainability. Man is a social being with a long history of existence. Social interactions are fundamental to human existence and are necessary for advancement and self-actualization. It is obvious that this need affects both the individual and the community and that the individual’s interactions with society can satisfy both of these needs. In actuality, a person’s identity depends on how well all of his identities, particularly his cultural and social ones, come together. Having adequate living conditions, particularly social and cultural, is necessary to maintain one’s social and cultural identity [81]. This causes a sense of social dependency. This sentiment serves as the foundation for the sense of obligation and subsequent participation in local and urban development. In actuality, a city’s network of social interactions, which are based on various trades, is its most significant asset. Although physical designation cannot create a social sense, it can be crucial in creating new and effective neighborhood units, a network for human interaction, walking, and creating opportunities for shopping, having fun, forming social connections, etc.

The literature on this subject argues that physical conditions have an unavoidable impact on human behavior and thought to the point where it is impossible to study human thought without taking into account its physical state and situation. In environmental psychology, behavior is studied in relation to the physical, architectural, and symbolic aspects of the environment. On the one hand, a human being is affected by environmental conditions and, on the other hand, an organized the environment with respect to his own needs, values, and goals [82]. The human and man-made physical environment strengthen their mutual relationship. According to this trend, the environment reflects people’s interests, values, and imaginations, but it also has an impact on the person who created it. Influencing factors in interpersonal relationships and a person’s neighborhood can be divided into two categories: “external factors” and “internal factors.” The physical characteristics of residential atmospheres and the types of relationships that develop there are examples of external factors. The physical makeup of the environment can be considered in a way that fosters social interaction at various levels of designation, including urban programming, site designation, outlook designation, and details of urban elements [83].

Furthermore, the success of the designation proposition and the overall objectives can be ensured if the designation of the programming and atmosphere is coordinated with the existing social structure and cultural norms [85, 86]. Even today, some theories in sociology generally and city planning specifically emphasize how we can intentionally interfere to keep social relations from severing in urban environments. Internal factors include things like the size of the family, one’s level of literacy, the size of the neighborhood, the number of rooms, etc. [40]. It could respond to the intended goals very well if the interaction of external and internal factors adheres to the societal values and the development of social relationships [75]. Social relationships and social sustainability and reproduction are inextricably linked. They have theoretical foundations and practical manifestations that serve as the basis for such an association. The fundamental query, however, is “What are the requirements of the local community argument?” Putting forward the idea of community versus society is another crucial point.

Advertisement

8. Conclusions

8.1 Aspects of social sustainable neighborhoods

Biological complexes, residential areas, and social stability are all important considerations when designing and planning homes. Because each neighborhood has its own set of social and physical characteristics, this issue is inextricably linked to the activities that take place to preserve those characteristics. The freedom of each person to decide how to improve his quality of life within the context of his community and social networks is a prerequisite for social development. The study findings suggest that to create a sustainable neighborhood design community, it is necessary to fulfill the following goals.

  • Access and protection of personal health, physical, mental, and psychological

  • Representing themselves in their own right.

  • Providing adequate shelter

  • Having useful and meaningful job opportunities

  • Improve knowledge and understanding of around the world

  • Opportunity to express creativity and enjoy this initiative in a manner that satisfies psychological and spiritual needs.

  • Expresses a sense of identity with heritage and culture.

  • Enjoy the sense of belonging

  • To ensure mutual social support from the local community

  • Enjoy freedom from discrimination and enjoy the location for those who have difficulty physically

  • Lack of fear and enjoy the security of people

  • Active participation in civic affairs

The purpose is to clarify ideas like community involvement, safety, access to employment opportunities, having adequate facilities, and that one’s psychological and spiritual needs are being met. Given the importance of social stability in the design of sustainable neighborhoods, it is crucial to take into account the following principles and techniques (Tables 2 and 3).

NoMain objectivesResearch programs and policies
1Improve local communityCreate opportunities for groups and local social networks; improve mental health through a supportive social environment; strengthen cultural and social life
2Increasing equalityDiverse and affordable living opportunities; improve access to local facilities; improve movement options (particularly walking, cycling and public transport)
3Promote healthy livingImprove local air quality; to encourage an active lifestyle; facilitate access to fresh fruits and vegetables in the neighborhood
4Improved confidence and securityPossible to reduce accidents; reducing fear of street violence; encourage a sense of ownership and belonging
5Enhance freedom of choiceDiverse opportunities for local facilities; work and social relationships; the movement options and lifestyle
6Increase in local decision makingBuild local social capital with the participation process; create participation and trust; Increasing user control over the local systems

Table 2.

Research programs and policies.

Design principlesMajor objectivesMicro objectivesAdministration policies and programs
Social justice in the ResidentialCreate equal opportunities for all residents, especially the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society in the areas group applicationCommunal spaces of the settlements
  • Given the internal and external environment in terms of size, quality (materials, acoustic, physiological comfort conditions)

  • The use of residential land for communal spaces

  • Given the proportional to the density and compactness for development of community spaces

Existence services and facilities needed
  • Given the ages and different strata regarding the type of services and access to communal areas

  • Pedestrian and bicycle suitable access to communal spaces

  • Create to suitable facilities for public transport and given the distance and location services in place of residence

  • Locate suitable services in the neighborhood regarding future development and needs of today’s residents

  • Create and improve mixed Land Use in collective spaces

Platform to create suitable social opportunities
  • The use of barren lands for development of group areas and communal spaces

  • Change land use of some spaces commensurate with his needs in communal spaces

Development of social interactionStructures that improve communication within and outside the home, residential and collective spacesMultiplicity of collective spaces
  • The use of barren lands for group areas and communal spaces

  • Create and improvement mixed Land Use and give comfort to the services and facilities to public spaces

  • The use of social and cultural symbols and assimilating the collective spaces

Create cohesion in the neighborhood
  • The use of social symbols and assimilating the population

  • Locate the main elements of the neighborhood and the use of flexible and multi-purpose spaces

Cause of platform for group activities
  • The use of barren lands and natural substrates for development of group areas and communal spaces

  • Given the size and scale of space, comfort, service and facilities for group activities

Development of residents participationActive participation of people in the neighborhoodCreate to platform of group activities
  • The services and comfort and activity facilities for active participation of people in the neighborhood

Improving the collective quality of lifeSupply basic needs
and the interaction of all individuals, groups (Create a sense of belonging, sense of place, sense of security, sense of self, sense of connection with nature, responsibility and sense of self-reliance)
Creating of physiological comfort conditions
  • Given the retail climate and climate, and natural elements like: plants, water, sunlight

  • Given the quality passages and appropriate materials to facilitate walking and cycling

  • The use of appropriate materials and attention to sound and the solar systems

Given the apparent and physical quality
  • The use of plant, water, sunlight for development of apparent and physical quality

  • The use of appropriate lighting at night to improve the apparent and physical quality

  • The Use of appropriate materials and technology to create comfort

Platform creation of relationship with nature
  • The use of natural symbols in the collective space regarding green space and the principles of landscape architecture

  • Plaza creates and public places besides the natural environment by using natural light and a variety of light and shadow

Considering the psychological–psychiatric conditions of residents
  • Given the sound and the use of appropriate materials with attention to residents of psychological-psychiatric conditions

  • The use of spiritual symbols, values, and especially privacy and dominant

  • Maintain and enhance the potential value approach to enhancing the spaces of collective memory

Create safe spaces for citizen engagement
  • The use of appropriate lighting at night to engage citizens

  • Given the size and scale space By using appropriate models

VarietyThe presence of diverse groups in collective spacesDevelopment of Land Use for absorber population
  • Create a variety of spaces suitable for different ages with emphasis on multi-purpose spaces

  • Creating Landing neighborhood needs and promotion of cultural and artistic activities

Diverse views and perspectives for the development of social relationships
  • The use of varied patterns of collective spaces, with regard to integration

  • Considering the Sky Line and Islamic-Iranian identity with attractive cultural elements

  • The use of natural elements combined with public spaces with a combination of light and shadow

Table 3.

The pattern of development of group fields is based on the development of social stability in residential areas.

The results show that in an attempt to develop a group of fields in residential areas for sustainable neighborhood design, this development is needed to pay attention to the role of social sustainability in the design of sustainable neighborhoods.

Funding statement

I do not have funding sources for this study.

Data availability statement

I have no more data than in the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Ricee S. Social sustainability—Everything you need to know. Diversity for Social Impact. 2021;13(2)
  2. 2. Eizenberg E, Jabareen Y. Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability. 2017;9(1):68
  3. 3. McKenzie S. Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions. Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series. 2004;27:31
  4. 4. Kanyangarara M, Allen S, Jiwani SS. Access to water, sanitation and hygiene services in health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa 2013-2018: Results of health facility surveys and implications for COVID-19 transmission. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21(1):1-1
  5. 5. Rahaman MM, Galib AI, Azmi F. Achieving drinking water and sanitation related targets of SDG 6 at Shahidbug slum, Dhaka. Water International. 2021;46(4):462-476
  6. 6. Brown C, Neves-Silva P, Heller L. The human right to water and sanitation: A new perspective for public policies. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva. 2016;21:661-670
  7. 7. Tokoro N. Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility (CSR): A new perspective on the structure of relationships. Asian Business & Management. 2007;6(2):143-162
  8. 8. Martos-Pedrero A, Cortés-García FJ, Jiménez-Castillo D. The relationship between social responsibility and business performance: An analysis of the Agri-food sector of Southeast Spain. Sustainability. 2019;11(22):6390
  9. 9. Pfajfar G, Shoham A, Małecka A, Zalaznik M. Value of corporate social responsibility for multiple stakeholders and social impact–relationship marketing perspective. Journal of Business Research. 2022;143:46-61
  10. 10. Žukauskas P, Vveinhardt J, Andriukaitienė R. Corporate social responsibility as the organization’s commitment against stakeholders. Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility. 18 Apr 2018:43-62
  11. 11. Woodcraft SB, Dixon T. Creating strong communities–measuring social sustainability in new housing development. Town and Country Planning Association. 2013;82(11):473-480
  12. 12. Woodcraft S. Social sustainability and new communities: Moving from concept to practice in the UK. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;68:29-42
  13. 13. Gibbons LV. Moving beyond sustainability: A regenerative community development framework for co-creating thriving living systems and its application. Journal of Sustainable Development. 2020;13:20-52
  14. 14. Natasha P, Edmonds A. Social Sustainability: Creating Places and Participatory Processes That Perform Well for People. Environment Design Guide; 2013. pp. 1-13. JSTOR. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26151925 [Accessed: 24 Oct 2022]
  15. 15. Schlebusch S. Planning for sustainable communities: Evaluating place-making approaches. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2015;4(4):59
  16. 16. Light PC. The Search for Social Entrepreneurship. Vol. 27. No. 6. Strategic Direction; 2011. DOI: 10.1108/sd.2011.05627fae.001
  17. 17. Mair J. Social entrepreneurship: Taking stock and looking ahead. In: Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing; 28 Dec 2010
  18. 18. Desa G. Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2012;36(4):727-751
  19. 19. Macaulay B, Roy MJ, Donaldson C, Teasdale S, Kay A. Conceptualizing the health and well-being impacts of social enterprise: A UK-based study. Health Promotion International. 2018;33(5):748-759
  20. 20. Auttama N, Seangpraw K, Ong-Artborirak P, Tonchoy P. Factors associated with self-esteem, resilience, mental health, and psychological self-care among university students in northern Thailand. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2021;14:1213-1221
  21. 21. Bhaduri A, Bogardi J, Siddiqi A, Voigt H, Vörösmarty C, Pahl-Wostl C, et al. Achieving sustainable development goals from a water perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2016;4:64
  22. 22. Kancherla V, Roos N, Walani SR. Relationship between achieving sustainable development goals and promoting optimal care and prevention of birth defects globally. Birth Defects Research. 2022;114(14):773-784
  23. 23. Patel V, Pauli N, Biggs E, Barbour L, Boruff B. Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development. Ambio. 2021;50(1):49-59
  24. 24. Costa AJ, Curi D, Bandeira AM, Ferreira A, Tomé B, Joaquim C, et al. Literature review and theoretical framework of the evolution and interconnectedness of corporate sustainability constructs. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4413
  25. 25. Missimer M. Social Sustainability within the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development [Internet] [PhD dissertation]. [Karlskrona]; 2015. (Blekinge Institute of Technology Doctoral Dissertation Series). Available from: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:bth-10464
  26. 26. Seuring S, Sarkis J, Müller M, Rao P. Sustainability and supply chain management–an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008;16(15):1545-1551
  27. 27. Mensah J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences. 2019;5(1):1653531
  28. 28. Basiago AD. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist. 1998;19(2):145-161
  29. 29. Vallance S, Perkins HC, Dixon JE. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum. 2011;42(3):342-348
  30. 30. McGUINN J, Fries-Tersch E, Jones M, Crepaldi C, Masso M, Lodovici M, Geny B. Social Sustainability. Concepts and Benchmarks. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate. Requested by the EMPL Committee. 2020:648. Available from: https://www. europarl. europa. eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648782/IPOL_STU
  31. 31. Dempsey N, Bramley G, Power S, Brown C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development. 2011;19(5):289-300
  32. 32. Fekete A, Rhyner J. Sustainable digital transformation of disaster risk—Integrating new types of digital social vulnerability and interdependencies with critical infrastructure. Sustainability. 2020;12(22):9324
  33. 33. Cope MR, Kernan AR, Sanders SR, Ward C. Social sustainability?: Exploring the relationship between community experience and perceptions of the environment. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1935
  34. 34. Shirazi MR, Keivani R. Critical reflections on the theory and practice of social sustainability in the built environment–A meta-analysis. Local Environment. 2017;22(12):1526-1545
  35. 35. Summers JK, Smith LM. The role of social and intergenerational equity in making changes in human well-being sustainable. Ambio. 2014;43(6):718-728
  36. 36. Ives CD, Abson DJ, Von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science. 2018;13(5):1389-1397
  37. 37. Gough S, Scott W. Sustainable Development and Learning: Framing the Issues. Routledge; 16 Dec 2003
  38. 38. Jarvis H. Moving to London time: Household co-ordination and the infrastructure of everyday life. Time & Society. 2005;14(1):133-154
  39. 39. Berglund T. Student Views of Environmental, Social and Economic Dimensions of Sustainable Development and their Interconnectedness: A Search for the Holistic Perspective in Education for Sustainable Development. Karlstad, Sweden: Doctoral dissertation, Karlstads universitet; 2020
  40. 40. Ghanbari N, Rashti RR. The place of collective spaces in social sustainability of the new city of developing countries (case study: Golbahar, Mashhad, Iran). Journal of Sociology and Anthropology. 2017;1(1):26-32
  41. 41. Janssen C, Daamen TA, Verdaas C. Planning for urban social sustainability: Towards a human-centred operational approach. Sustainability. 2021;13(16):9083
  42. 42. Camara AS. Environmental Systems: A Multidimensional Approach. Oxford University Press on Demand; 2002
  43. 43. Wolff M, Mascarenhas A, Haase A, Haase D, Andersson E, Borgström S, et al. Conceptualizing multidimensional barriers: A framework for assessing constraints in realizing recreational benefits of urban green spaces. Ecology and Society. 2022;27(2):1-22
  44. 44. Manzi T, Lucas K, Jones TL, Allen J, editors. Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the Urban Fabric. Routledge; 2010
  45. 45. Chiu RL. Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual exploration. Housing, Theory and Society. 2004;21(2):65-76
  46. 46. Piovesan F. Social, economic and cultural rights and civil and political rights. Sur. Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos. 2004;1:20-47
  47. 47. Hammer S, Kamal-Chaoui L, Robert A, Plouin M. Cities and Green Growth: A Conceptual Framework, OECD Regional Development Working Papers 08. OECD Publishing; 2011
  48. 48. Dociu M, Dunarintu A. The socio-economic impact of urbanization. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences. 2012;2(1):47-52
  49. 49. Rivière F, editor. Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. Vol. 2. UNESCO; 2009
  50. 50. Stren R, Polèse M, editors. The new sociocultural dynamics of cities. In: The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2000
  51. 51. Maslow A, Lewis KJ. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated. 1987;14(17):987-990
  52. 52. Andrews D, Lewis M. Building sustainable futures: Emerging understandings of the significant contribution of the professional learning community. Improving Schools. 2004;7(2):129-150
  53. 53. Jenks M, Dempsey N. Defining the neighbourhood: Challenges for empirical research. Town Planning Review. 2007;78(2):153-178
  54. 54. Jones CA, Jenks M. Dimensions of the Sustainable City. Springer; 2010. 2
  55. 55. Hajirasouli A, Kumarasuriyar A. The social dimention of sustainability: Towards some definitions and analysis. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications. 2016;4(2):23-34
  56. 56. ACHS (Australian Council on Healthcare Standards). The Equip Guide: Standards and Guidelines for the ACHS Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program. 2nd ed. Ultimo, Australia: ACHS; 1999
  57. 57. Sachs I. Social sustainability and whole development: Exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: Becker E, Jahn T, editors. Sustainability and the Social Sciences. MOST Project, UNESCO/ISOE. Paris: Zed Books; 1999. pp. 25-36
  58. 58. Littig B, Griessler E. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2005;8(1-2):65-79
  59. 59. Biart M. Social sustainability as part of the social agenda of the European community. Soziale Nachhaltigkeit: Von der Umweltpolitik zur Nachhaltigkeit. 2002;149(8):5-10
  60. 60. Polèse M, Stren RE, Stren R, editors. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. University of Toronto Press; 2000
  61. 61. Rashti RR. The role of collective spaces in social sustainability of residential area (case study: Firuzeh residential complex, Mashhad, Iran). Journal of Sociology. 2018;2(1):1-8
  62. 62. Clark H, Wu H. The Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World. New York, NY, USA: Furthering the Work of the United Nations, UN; 2016. pp. 36-54
  63. 63. Tsalis TA, Malamateniou KE, Koulouriotis D, Nikolaou IE. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020;27(4):1617-1629
  64. 64. Dave S. Neighbourhood density and social sustainability in cities of developing countries. Sustainable Development. 2011;19(3):189-205
  65. 65. Putnam RD, Leonardi R, Nanetti RY. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press; 1992
  66. 66. Forrest R, Kearns A. Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies. 2001;38(12):2125-2143
  67. 67. Pierson P. Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. Revue Française de Sociologie. 2002:369-406
  68. 68. Bramley G, Dempsey N, Power S, Brown C. What is ‘social sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it. In: Sustainable Communities and Green Futures’ Conference, Bartlett School of Planning. London: University College London; 5 Apr 2006
  69. 69. Madani-Poor A, Nurian F. Public and Private Spaces of the City. Tehran: Processing Companies and Urban Planning; 2008
  70. 70. Jennings V, Bamkole O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(3):452
  71. 71. Moore R. Cultural capital: Objective probability and the cultural arbitrary. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2004;25(4):445-456
  72. 72. Xu P, Jiang J. Individual capital structure and health behaviors among Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A cross-sectional analysis using Bourdieu’s theory of capitals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(20):7369
  73. 73. Gilleard C. Bourdieu’s forms of capital and the stratification of later life. Journal of Aging Studies. 2020;53:100851
  74. 74. Merleau-Ponty M. Entretiens avec Georges Charbonnier et autres dialogues, 1946-1959. Paris: Verdier; 2016
  75. 75. Ardill N, Lemes de Oliveira F. Social innovation in urban spaces. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development. 2 Sep 2018;10(3):207-221
  76. 76. Roseland M. Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning. 2000;54(2):73-132
  77. 77. Mahdavinejad M, Rashti RR. The situation of social Capital in new Settlements of developing countries case study: Golbahar, Mashhad, Iran. International Journal of Social Science Research. 2013;1(2):98-110
  78. 78. Daneshpur A, Charkhchian M. Public places and effective factors on collective life. BagheNazar Journal. 2007;(7):1543-1551
  79. 79. Stilwell F. Towards sustainable cities. Urban Policy and Research. 2000;18(2):205-217
  80. 80. Fukuyama F. ‘Social Capital and Civil Society’, Social Capital (Trust, Democracy and Development, Efforts: Tajbakhsh, Kiyan, Translator: Khakbaz, Afshin and Pouyan, Hasan). Third ed. Tehran: Shirazeh Publications; 2010
  81. 81. Jibreel Z. Cultural Identity and the Challenges International Students Encounter. 2015
  82. 82. Martin JL, Maris V, Simberloff DS. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 31 May 2016;113(22):6105-6112
  83. 83. Rydin Y, Bleahu A, Davies M, Dávila JD, Friel S, De Grandis G, et al. Shaping cities for health: Complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet. 2 Jun 2012;379(9831):2079-108. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60435-8. Epub 2012 May 30. Erratum in: Lancet. 2012 Aug 18;380(9842):650. PMID: 22651973; PMCID: PMC3428861
  84. 84. Stanujkic D, Popovic G, Zavadskas EK, Karabasevic D, Binkyte-Veliene A. Assessment of progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy methods: The case of the EU Countries. Sustainability. 16 Jul 2020;12(14):5717
  85. 85. Pirahi da Silva Chagas N, de Paula Amantes B, Galhardo Pimenta Tienne L, da Silva Figueiredo AB, Vieira Marques MD. Development of composites of UHMWPE with low amounts of jute fiber. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. 2019;138(2):1279-1286
  86. 86. Rapoport A. House Form and Culture. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs; 1969
  87. 87. Carter JG, Cavan G, Connelly A, Guy S, Handley J, Kazmierczak A. Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning. 2015;95:1-66
  88. 88. Colantonio A, Dixon T. Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. EIB Final Report. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University; 2009. pp. 1-129

Notes

  • Careful study of these concepts may require more space than this article, but these definitions can be raised in general and detailed. Social capital refers to features of social organizations (such as networks, norms and trust) that will facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit ([65], p. 35). Social solidarity should be emphasized on the need for a common sense of morality and a common goal, aspects of social control and social order, threat to social cohesion due to income and wealth inequality between groups of people and places, level of social interaction between communities and families and sense of belonging to place ([66], p. 2128). Social exclusion is a process that will not benefit individuals and families, groups and neighbors of the resources needed to participate in social activities, economic and political as a whole. This process is result of poverty and low income, but it will reinforce other factors such as discrimination, low educational achievement and poor living environment. In this process, people are stopped in their lives from the institutions and services, social networking and development opportunities, that the majority of the community are benefiting from it for a considerable period ([67], p. 7).

Written By

Elias Bojago

Submitted: 19 September 2022 Reviewed: 03 October 2022 Published: 03 November 2022