The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability – Summary
Sonia, Nadia and Farah
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
• •
Sustainability: the quality of being able to continue over a period of time. (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019) The paper forms part of the output from the core research programme of ‘CityForm – the Sustainable Urban Form Consortium’, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under its Sustainable Urban Environment (SUE) Programme. (Dempsy, 2009) The Definition of Social Sustainability: ‘places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all’ (ODPM, 2006, p. 12). UK faced an issue affecting its’ social sustainability after the urban sprawl which occurred due to good value for money housing in the suburbs. This prompted the government to change their regulations in the city to support the private sector in urban property development. In addition, recently, both Liveability and Wellbeing were added to the agenda of Social Sustainability. There are negative sides to the concepts of social cohesion, capital and inclusion. This can be observed if the community becomes insular or exclusive and due to the core of the community which is an existing public issue. Territoriality, as an agent of social cohesion, such territorial norms are commonly perceived as negative. Social sustainability acts as a basis and has been further evolve into looking at liveability and wellbeing to create a high quality of life. Social sustainability is a dynamic concept; never a constant. It is everchanging through continuous development with the environment. The scale will affect the contributory factors involved in urban social sustainability. City scales and spatial scales have different factors and are heavily influenced by the community. Social equity is related to social and environmental exclusion. Where accessibility is a fundamental measure, built environments and facilities play a role in an equitable society. This includes built environments, facilities, services and connectivity of the community to the transport systems. Community and neighbourhood are closely related and interchangeable at times. Territorial dimensions are applied into social sustainability and it is difficult to be divorced from social activity. Analysing the socio-spatial construct, the relationship between intangible communities and tangible neighbourhood are closely connected as how the social activities and interactions are inseparable from its public space. Social capital has been described as ‘social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity’ (Putnam, 2000, p. 21). It refers to features of social organization including trust, the density and knowledge of relationships within networks and obligations and expectations (Pennington and Rydin, 2000). Social capital is liked to social interaction and network, which is the basic process of the formation of human nature and the social order. However, the nature and extent of social capital can influence social cohesion (the ongoing integration of behaviours of residents in a given neighbourhood). The relationship between the urban form and social interaction and networks relate to the density, layout and extent of mixed land uses in a street or neighbourhood. For example, high-density mixeduse streets with overlooking residences are claimed to facilitate social interaction because of the increased range of people using the street. Requirements for a sustainable community include participation in organized activities; Social network and interaction; Community Stability; Sense of Place; Safety and Security; Conclusion: These five dimensions of urban social sustainability are identified as social equity and necessary elements for the sustainability of communities. The collective and active participation of individuals in organized groups within communities, although seemingly more nebulous, is also fundamental to the concept. This dimension is essentially concerned with the continued viability, health and functioning of ‘society’ itself as a collective entity, encompassed in the term ‘community’. In addition, the balanced mix use and the adequate land use can increase the social quality in a certain neighbourhood, which will aid its social sustainability.
Contributors: Farah Arar & Nadia Pinto
Initiated as a concept of ecological awareness alonside with social concern (deprivation, proverty and urban derilaction)
SUSTAINABLE DE SOCIAL
ENVIRON
CONCEPT OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Non- Physica SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social Cap Education
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
(civic participation, social interaction, sense of community)
Social Order Social Inclusion
Social equity
Social Justice Cultural traditon Employment
Sa
URBAN SOCIAL S
A dynamic concept that place , non abs
VS SOCIAL EQUITY Social activity occur in paces of high quality physical environments; Social order is correlated to health , happinnes and good quality of life;
SOCIAL COH AND INCLU
EVELOPMENT
NMENTAL
ECONOMIC
URBAN CONTEXT/BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Physical Factors
al Factors
Urbanity
pital Social Justice Participation Mixed ternure Health and well-being
Public realm
Accessibility
Local environmental quality and amenity
Sustainable Urban Design Neighbourhood
Fair distribution of income
Pedestrian Friendly
Employment Safety
afety
SUSTAINABILITY
will change over time in a solute or constant Basic form in the formation of both human nature and social order. A society hang together through social interaction. This dimension is strongly linked to the social capital. Weak and strong network can
SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY
HESION USION
coexist in the same neighborhood
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Community Stability Aim : Support social capital and minimizing crime and anti-social behaviours Failure: Residents mobility; new residents; Success: New residents; low residential mobility.
SOCIAL NETWORK
Residents’ decisions to stay in, or move out of, a neighbourhood may be related to the perceived quality and maintenance of the built environment, the level of accessibility to key services and facilities (such as schools) and the type and size of dwellings in relation to the life stage of the resident
The attendance at a community/ neighbourhood group or participation to organised activities can relate to one’s sense of community as well as contributing positevely to community sustainability. Participation is linked to mix land use and density and access to community facilities.
Contributors: Farah Arar & Nadia Pinto
CIRCULAR CITIES:
Ma p p i n g 6 ci ti e s i n tr ans it ion
Research paper in the Journal for Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2017) Authors: Dr. Sharon Prendeville, Emma Cherin and Dr. Nancy Bocken
C ONT EX T •
Contributions to and threats from climate change to cities are significant
•
With ‘circular cities’ increasingly used in practice by policymakers, the term itself is still ill-de-
• •
Inevitable scarcity of resources mean that current systems cannot be sustained ‘Circular Economy’ (CE) principles adopted as a route to resource efficiency
•
fined and scarcely investigated This paper explores how 6 cities are adoptiong CE (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Glasgow, Haar-
•
It identifies common strategies and policies implemented by the cities as a route to resource
lemmermeer, The Hague and Barcelona) efficiency
D EFI N I TI ON •
•
a city that practices circular economy principles to close resource loops (flow
of energy and resources), in partnership with the city’s stakeholders (citizens/ community/ business/ knowledge institutions) to realise its vision of a future-proof city.
Long term future-oriented, multidisciplinary approach that is usually part of a sustainability plan.
C E F RA ME W ORK consists of 6 principles, known as ReSOLVE, which requires to be applied in both top down and bottom up approaches. Examples and the 6 principles are detailed below.
CI RCULAR ECO NO M Y TO P- D O W N STRATEG I ES: 1.
KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT
2.
COLLABORATIVE PLATFORMS
3.
BUSINESS SUPPORT SCHEMES
4.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
5.
PROCUREMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
6.
FISCAL FRAMEWORKSv
A P P L I C AT I O N O F C E F R A M E W O R K T O C I T Y S C A L E
TOP DOW N
BO TTO M UP
1.
R E GE NE RAT E
- Convert rooftop > solar fields - More green space for biodiversity - Improve air quality.
- Acquire renewable energy domestically. - solar panels/ electric cars/ urban farming.
2.
S HARE
- Policy to support collective use of services. - i.e. Regulate sharing (uber services), tax & fiscal measures.
- Car-share/ share appliances (tools/ washing machine). - share knowledge of repair (repair cafes) - Reuse (clothing, furniture, vehicles).
3.
O P T IMIS E
- Fab labs (small-scale workshop offering digital fabrication like 3D printing). - Smart community (use ICT and data to be improve efficiency in ways of life and work).
4.
L O OP
- Gather data on traffic flows to optimise efficiency of cities transportation network. - Smart LED lighting to save energy. - Retrofit old buildings, increase energy efficiency. - Waste separation & recycling. - District heating.
5.
V I RTUAL IS E
- Virtual public library/ archives/ info. - Paperless municipality.
- Community-led digital platforms.
6.
E X CHANGE
- Circular construction/ demolition materials & processes. - Electric powered public transport.
- Electric mobility. - Locally sourced organic food.
- Community recycling initiatives. - Community bio-digesters.
M ETH OD OLOG Y •
AMSTERDAM- Fairly even balanced across policy measure outlined in the ReSOLVE framework.
•
ROTTERDAM- Business support scheme and collaboration platform are used broadly encouraged.
•
GLASGOW- Emphasis the important to engage all stakeholders.
•
HAARLEMMERMEER- Aims to create CE experiments with companies and the government and eventually includes citizens and society.
•
THE HAGUE- Low political ownership of the initiative across department, their understanding of what CE means for their city is limited and lack of direction
•
BARCELONA- strategy emerges from initial top down and shifted to more proactive citizen movement
WRAP and the circular economy (WRAP 2019)
Contributors: Alice Weng Sam Iu, Eva Cheung, Megha Paudyal
Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology. Technology
The Rise of the ‘Future City’
£ The Role of the Private Sector
Humans
The idea of a smart city is parallel with that of a culture of consumption, where people are regarded as consumers before they are regarded as people. There is a clear underlying motive of economic growth behind all arguments for a smart city. The authors pick apart the possible benefits of a smart city, and reveal how ultimately, they are not sustainable, not achievable for many populations and will not result in social or environmental gain.
Private businesses are a crucial component within the wider picture of the development towards a smart city. Everything seems to relate back to economic growth and they clearly have the most to gain from a smart city, but only a smart city where they can be more involved in a digital marketplace and can encourage consumption. This ultimately will have negative effects on the environment, as this version of a smart city is not sustainable or attainable for all, creating inequality and driving us further away from environmental sustainability.
Although there has been evidence of cities competing to propose the best “future city strategies”, primarily as cities are the answer to a more sustainable future, it is clear that ultimately, as long as those involved are the same bodies who aim to increase economic growth, sustainability and green growth will not be highlighted as a matter of urgency. The authors argue the idea that a smart city is the answer to sustainability and green growth is a myth, the reality is that a smart city can easily result in more waste and damage to the environment and to our well being.
Low Carbon Cities
Democratisation of Technology
Public -private partnership
Democratisation of technology refers to the process by which access to technology rapidly continues to become more accessible to more people and improved user experiences have empowered those outside of the technical industry to access and use technological products and services. However, the authors argued that there are implications as to what extent the open source data is being shared and controlled among the users, communities, private firms and the policy makers. Cities have to understand the implications of their dependence on the decisions made by private companies on the one hand and government institutions on the other.
Open Data
Culture of Consumerism
Social and Environmental Justice
Contributors: Hani Namira
Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology
Simon Guy, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle Upon Tyne Graham Farmer, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle Upon Ty 2001 Introduction • • •
Sustainable Architecture isn’t a prescription. It’s an approach, an attitude. Green/sustainable architecture is a contestable concept which produces array the designation ‘green’ is extremely wide ranging.
Constructing Consensus • • • • •
Much of the contemporary debate on Sustainable architecture tends to side ste Competing environmental strategies are grouped within a single, homogeneou Sustainable buildings are assumed to merely represent differently configured t Sustainable architecture should become more ‘objective’. Rational science will provide an understanding of the environment and an asse means particular local conditions and local knowledge tend to be ignored.
Reinterpreting sustainable architecture • • •
Abandoning the search for true or incontestable definition of sustainable buildin Society’s willingness to recognize and solve environmental problems depends Individuals, groups, institutions embody a widely differing perception of what e
The competing logics of sustainable architecture • • •
These six logics are not meant to be in any way exclusive, or frozen in time or Each of the logics highlight the ways in which the green building debate is fram environmental problem and alternative concepts. In practice, logics may merge or simply be absent as exemplified by analysis o
Conclusion • •
Reconstructing Sustainable Architecture Debates about sustainable architectu interpretations of the problem, and characterized by different pathways toward Environmental concerns are both time and space specific and are governed by a singular optimal technological pathway, it is vital that we learn to recognize a visions they express of alternative environmental places
yne
of different building types/variety of different technologies/design approaches
ep the issue. us categorization of green design. technical structures.
essment of those measures which are necessary to rectify environmental bads – this
ngs – ‘means of raising awareness of all the issues that can be considered.’ s upon ways claims are presented. environmental innovation is about – hence the solution to, unsustainability.
space. ‘Discourses are never static and rarely stable.’ med differently depending upon competing constructions of the
of any individual building.
ure are shaped by different social interests which are based on different ds a range of sustainable futures y a specific modelling of nature. Therefore, rather than searching for and listen to the number of voices striving to frame the debate and the Contributors: Kimberley Androliakos, Anna Renzin & Cezara Misca
Table summary of 6 sustainable logics LOGIC
VIEWS
CAUSE
EFFECT
The Ecotechnic logic Buildings and the Global Place
Based on a techno rational, policy-oriented discourse which represents a belief in incremental, technoeconomic change and that science can provide the solutions to environmental problems
Variety of inefficiencies in building practises
global environmental problems of climate change, global warming, ozo layer depletion and transitional pollution issues such as acid rain
``The Ecocentric Logic – buildings and the Place of Nature
This logic is founded on a need for a radical reconfiguration of values. This is a discourse that focus on the dynamic interaction between the living and non-living as a community of interdependent parts
Th ecocentric image of the built environment emphasizes its negative environmental impacts
in the case of buildings, the percept is that they are an unnatural form o “pure consumption” interrupting th natural cycles of nature
The Ecoaesthetic Logic – Buildings and the New Age Place
In this case, the role of sustainable architecture is metaphorical and, as an iconic expression of societal values, it should act to inspire and convey an increasing identification with nature and the nonhuman world
The world is undergoing a transformation or shift in consciousness, which will usher in a new mode of being
western rationalism, modern materialism and anthropoce attitude towards nature
The Ecocultural Logic Buildings and the Authentic Place
It emphasizes a fundamental reorientation of values to engage with both environmental and cultural concerns
The issue is authenticity and the notion that truly sustainable buildings need to be more fully relate to the concept of locality and place
universal and technologically based design methodologies often fail to coincide with the cultural values of a particular place or people
The Ecomedical Logic – Buildings and the Healthy Place
The eco-medical logic shifts debates about sustainability from concerns about appropriate form and the wider cultural context of design towards a humanist and social concern for the sustaining individual health
The Eco-social Logic- Buildings and the Community Place
It addresses the emblematic issue of democracy as the key to an ecological society
Technological intensity of large modern buildings, combined with a separation from nature and a lack of individual control over our immediate surroundings, are the root cause of the problem Wider social factors are considered the root cause of the ecological crisis - Environmental and ecological destruction is understood here as a form of human domination
example: adding ‘Arabic-wind’ towe as objects to an office block does no integrate a ‘green’ solution in terms cultural considerations People spend their lives in anonymo universal environments which are artificially lit, mechanically ventilate and effectively cut off from the outs world resulting in stress and illness
the more hierarchical and oppressiv the nature of a society, the more lik that it will abuse and dominate the environment
one
tion of he
nism, entric
a
SOLUTION
RESULT
INFLUENCES
Technological innovations in building fabric and servicing systems: translucent insulation, new types of glass and solar shading, intelligent facades, double-skin walls and roofs, and photovoltaics. Energy efficient lighting, passive solar design and daylighting, the use of natural and mixedmode ventilation, more efficient air condition and comfort cooling The essential mission of sustainable architecture becomes that of noninterference with nature. Where building is essential, the aim is to radically reduce the “ecological footprint” of buildings. Renewable materials such as earth, timber and straw – reuse and recycling materials
Reduction of building energy consumption, material-embodied energy, waste and resource-use reduction, and in concepts such as life-cycle flexibility and cost-benefit analysis
High-Tech school: led by Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw, Michael Hopkins Work of Renzo Piano Thomas Herzog in Germany
The design strategies that result tend to revolve around small-scale and decentralized techniques utilizing low and intermediate technologies
Mike Reynold’s work on domestic ‘Earthships’ in New Mexico – self-sufficient homes are made from used tires, bottles, and the other waste materials, filled and plastered with earth
Individual creativity and a liberated imagination combined with a romantic view of nature that rejects Western rationalism, modernism, and materialism. The solution requires a shift from utilitarian values to a view in which aesthetic and sensual values play a prominent role.
Redefine culture itself, and create new universal architectural iconography that has transformative value in altering our consciousness of nature
It implies the development of a sense of being indigenous to a place and a responsibility for protecting landscape and ecosystems from disturbance
The preservation and conservation of the variety of built cultural archetypes that already exist, combined with a concern for cultural continuity expressed through the transformation and reuse of traditional construction techniques, building typologies and settlement patterns Design buildings that meet our physical, biological, and spiritual needs. Their fabric, services, colour and scent must interact harmoniously with us and the environment… to maintain a healthy, ‘living’ indoor climate
Organi-tech: Frank Gehry Santiago Calatrava Future systems Cosmic forms of Japanese architects such as Arato Isosaki Artistic fusion of landscape and architecture in the work of SITE Works of architects like Glenn Murcutt in Australia, Charles Correa in India, Geoffrey Bawa in Sri lanka Hassan Fathy in Egypt
ers ot s of
ous,
ed, side
ve kely
New design principles of “environmental diversity is emerging”, which envisage spaces that maintain, in the occupant, a sense of dynamics of the natural climate, of the proper condition of mankind -architecture that can “honour the senses” Decentralization of industrial society into smaller, highly self-sufficient, and communal units, working with “intermediate technologies that are based on an understanding of the laws of ecology”
Creation of healthy, self-reliant societies that exercise local control, take responsibility for their environment, operate a local economy based on minimal level of material goods and the maximum use of human resources
Peter Schimd-Netherlands Floyd Stein - Denmark Gaia Group – Norway Elbe and Sambeth- Germany
Lucien Kroll – Belgium Ralph Erskine – UK Self-projects built by Peter Hubner – Germany
Contributors: Kimberley Androliakos, Anna Renzin & Cezara Misca