Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

AicE-Bs 2012 Cairo

ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
Mercure Le Sphinx Cairo Hotel, Giza, Egypt, 31 October 2 November 2012
-

Social Sustainability and New Communities:

Moving from concept to practice in the UK
Saffron Woodcraft*
Founding Director, Social Life, 18 Victoria Park Square, London E2 9PF

Abstract

Social sustainability is an emerging field of urban planning policy and practice. While a social dimension to
sustainability is now widely accepted as important (alongside environmental and economic dimensions) it is under-
theorized and not clearly defined in policy discourse or practice. Much academic work about social sustainability
focuses on defining and theorising the multiple and fluid interpretations of the concept, ranging from philosophical
and political ideas of human rights, wellbeing, equality and social justice, to related ideas of community social capital
and empowerment. This paper argues that closer attention should be paid to the practical and operational aspects of
social sustainability, in particular, to understanding how the concept is translated by different actors and used as
justification for making decisions about interventions and investments in the material and social fabric of cities.
©
© 2012
2012 The Authors.
Published byPublished by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-
Selection
Selection
Behaviourand peer-review
Studies (cE-Bs),under responsibility
Faculty of thePlanning
of Architecture, Centre for
& Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs),
Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Faculty of
Malaysia.
Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
Keywords: Social sustainability; sustainable development; planning theory; planning practice

1. Introduction

importance and utility (Vallance et al. 2011). Social sustainability is an emerging area of urban planning
policy and practice in the developed and developing world (Dempsey et al. 2011; Colantonio & T. Dixon
2010; Karuppannan & Sivam 2011). The concept is increasingly used by governments, public agencies,
policy makers, NGOs and corporations to frame decisions about urban development, regeneration and
housing, as part of a burgeoning policy discourse on the sustainability and resilience of cities. Porter and

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: [email protected].

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture,
Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.204
30 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

particular where they are appropriated and applied to the framing of planning problems (2012, p.329).
Yet the social sustainability literature has been described as fragmented (Weingaertner & Moberg 2011),
even conceptually chaotic (Vallance et al. 2011). Dempsey et al identify describe the lack of theoretical
ing the research
(2011, p.290). While there is a need for a more rigorous approach to defining and theorizing
social sustainability there is also an argument for research that pays close attention to the discourse of
social sustainability and how it is deployed in planning practice; in particular, to understanding how the
concept is translated by different actors and used as justification for making decisions about interventions
and investments in the material and social fabric of cities. This paper explores the emergence of social
sustainability as a conceptual field and a planning discourse, and identifies some of the challenges of
operationalizing social sustainability as a planning practice. It draws on literature about social
sustainability but is also informed by my experience as an applied researcher working with housing
providers, local authorities and community organisations in the UK.

2. Situating Social Sustainability

Social sustainability as a distinct concept is a relatively recent addition to both policy discourse and an
extensive academic literature about the theory, policy and practice of sustainable development (Vallance
et al. 2011; Murphy 2012). Although it is 25 years since the Brundtland Report established the concept
of sustainable development around the tripartite of environmental, economic and social sustainability, the
social aspect has consistently received less attention in policy and research terms (McKenzie 2004; Manzi
2010; Vallance et al. 2011; Murphy 2012).
Over the past decade however, social sustainability has emerged as a field of research, policy and
practice. A diverse set of stakeholders are involved in initiatives to apply social sustainability as a
planning practice with a particular focus on the social outcomes of urban development, housing and
regeneration. Global actors include the World Bank, United Nations Environment Programme, European
Investment Bank, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, all of which are involved in
programmes, policy and research that focus explicitly on social sustainability (as distinct from the social
implications of environmental management and the social outcomes of economic development). Cross-
sector strategies focusing on social sustainability and urban development involving central and local
governments, state agencies, universities, and public and private housing providers can be found in the
UK, Australia, Canada, Israel and Sweden. Other initiatives connect social sustainability to work on
labour rights, ethical tourism and socially responsible finance, while a small, but growing number, of
tools for measuring and reporting on social sustainability are being created for policymakers and
practitioners.§
Arguably, much of the emerging work on social sustainability falls into wha
(As quoted Davoudi et al. 2012). Here, there are
parallels to be drawn between the embryonic field of social sustainability and the expanding (but still

This wealth of literature encompasses specific bodies of work on environmental justice, ecological modernization,
environmental policy, green social policy, and sustainable development indicators (as categorized by Murphy 2012),
and an abundance of research about green buildings and sustainable urban design.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987
§
Measurement tools and frameworks that report on social sustainability include: Social Accountability,
, The Berkeley Group Social Sustainability
Measurement Framework.
 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 31

(2012).
The same could be said of social sustainability. It is not quite clear what it means in conceptual or
practical terms, but there is growing interest in its potential among planners, politicians and policymakers
who need to mediate the tensions that arise from attempting to act on the principles of sustainable
development.
A literal reading of social sustainability would interpret it as the ability to maintain society; drawing on

-disciplinary
literature of social sustainability has identified multiple, often conflicting, interpretations of the term that
encompass a broad range of philosophical, political and practical issues. For example, (Sachs 1999;
Agyeman 2008) argue social sustainability must be grounded in equality, democracy and social justice.
Vallance et al (2011) identify work addressing underdevelopment, basic needs, and the promotion of
stronger environmental ethics. Other authors emphasize the preservation of social values, cultural
traditions and ways of life (Barbier 1987; Koning 2002; Vallance et al. 2011).
The challenge of reaching a definitive conception of social sustainability is a recurring theme in the
literature (Dillard et al. 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011; Weingaertner & Moberg 2011; Murphy 2012).
However, in spite of its multiple interpretations and a sense of ambiguity about the policy objectives,
there appears to be a consensus in the literature that social sustainability incorporates a set of underlying
themes that could be described as social capital, human capital and well-being (Colantonio & T. Dixon
2010; Dempsey et al. 2011; Weingaertner & Moberg 2011; Murphy 2012; Magee et al. 2012).

conflicts between promoting economic growth, constructing environmentally sound cities, and advocating
social justice. He describes how this conceptual model can generate different perspectives about urban
development: the city as an economic space for production, consumption and innovation; the city as an
ecological space in competition with nature for scarce resources; and the city as a social space that
generates competition over distribution of resources, opportunities and services. And, he details the
practical challenges planners face as they try to balance divergent priorities in the context of professional,
fiscal (and arguably political) constraints.
These tensions remain unresolved in contemporary planning practice and arguably, the emergence of
social sustainability as a contemporary policy discourse can be seen as a response to these ongoing
difficulties. It is important however, to recognize other political and economic conditions that are shaping
social sustainability as a nascent planning practice. Among these is a political narrative of economic
decline and scarce public resources evident in policy and planning discourse in planning in the UK,
(Davoudi et
al. 2012) blic sector
spending crises, population growth, housing need, urban development and expansion, pressure on natural
resources and the need for climate change mitigation. Increasingly however, there is another important
strand of narrative in the UK and Europe that links the challenges of sustainable development to the threat
of social unrest. The 2011 riots in London, Paris, Madrid and other European cities are frequently
connected in planning discourse to failing urban development strategies, in particular, to the extremes of
income inequality, differential access to services and opportunities, and unaffordable housing experienced
by many city dwellers.
In the UK at least, the combination of recession, riots, urban growth and housing need, has created an
op
(Bertolini et al. 2011,
p.430).
32 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

3. ustainable?

It can be argued that social sustainability has become shorthand in policy discourse for creating places
- where people want to live now and in the future (Bacon et al. 2012; Woodcraft 2011).
Crucially however, the usefulness of social sustainability as a planning tool depends on how it is enacted
in practice. A radical application of social sustainability could open up opportunities for debate in

social and ethnic backgrounds: an aspect of debate which is absent from much of the policy discourse and
literature about social sustainability. While an uncritical acceptance of the term social sustainability could
at best diminish its potential as a planning tool, and at worst exacerbate the negative social outcomes of
urban development: gentrification rather than renewal, lack of affordable housing, poor spatial and social
integration being some of them.
It is important to recognize that the relationship between the social, material and natural worlds has
long been a concern in urban planning. Many of the concepts, themes and policy objectives contained in
current conceptualizations of social sustainability are well-established as individual fields of social policy
research and practice, notably social capital, social cohesion, wellbeing and quality of life. In the UK
policy on sustainable development and sustainable communities has been widely debated over the past
decade. Public agencies and programmes like the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), the
Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), and the Egan Review (2004) did much
to promote the sustainable communities policy agenda and to develop research exploring the connection
between the built environment and social experience. However, shifts in government policy and spending
priorities, changes to the planning system, and lack of resources and capacity in local government have
stalled debate, development and practical application of many aspects of this agenda.
Social sustainability is a different discourse and one that is emerging under different conditions to the
pan-European sustainable communities agenda. Although it draws on familiar themes and concepts it
attempts to combine both normative ideas about sustainability, such as social justice, equitable resource
distribution, and wellbeing, by translating them into practical policy objectives and interventions that can
be materialized in urban planning and development.
There are several important issues that need to be brought into planning policy discourse about social
sustainability as the idea gains ground. First, is to pose a set of questions about the purpose of social
sustainability. Who and what is being sustained? Why and at what cost?
Social sustainability, like other notions of sustainability, is not an a-political discourse or a neutral
practice. Arguments made in the name of sustainability influence political decision-making, policy,
investments and interventions that have real and long-term consequences for individuals, places and
institutions. There are questions to be addressed about power, voice, access to resources, decision-making
and accountability, associated with social sustainability as an emergent planning practice. Key issues are
around legitimacy and boundaries: who are the stakeholders involved in promoting social sustainability as
a planning discourse, what kind of conceptualizations are they enacting, and for what purpose?
Littig and Griessler identify that the social objectives of sustainable development are often a function
of power rather than coherent policy (2005). Clearly politics is central to how sustainability discourse is
translated into policy, and measures to assess these interventions. Close attention must be paid to the
different political and sociocultural priorities that are shaping these decisions (Colantonio 2007) and to
the stakeholders who are involved in promoting and enacting social sustainability. As Weingartner and
Moberg descr
assumed to be a role of the public sector, and more specifically local authorities; but other groups such as
politicians, party networks, lobby groups, business interests, landowners, developers and residents also
(Healey 2007, as quoted 2011).
 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 33

Arguably the language of planning policy de-politicizes the inevitable conflicts and trade-offs that will
arise as decisions are made about investments in different places. The recognition of conflict as an
integral part of the planning process is important. There is an unquestioning acceptance that
(Vallance et
al. 2011, p.343)
Framework (NPPF) is explicit in identifying a social role for the planning system but the language
neutralizes the conflicts that inevitably arise in planning practice, say, between social needs and market-
driven property development, or in allocating resources between communities with different needs. The
nt and healthy communities, by
providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by

needs and support its health, social and cultural well- (Department for Communities and Local
2012).
Another way to explore these issues is to ask: is social sustainability what is needed? Is resilience, with
its emphasis on adaptive capacity, fluidity and constant change, a more valuable idea for planning

al of some kind, a
system transforms into something different, then this is not seen as a failure in resilience terms, but as an
inherent possibility within that system. Under these assumptions, we would, for example, be better armed
if we cease talking a
focus on the possibilities for transformation and change to a potentially better housing market or more
(2012).
Second is the challenge of translating conceptual ideas about social sustainability into practical
planning tools that retain integrity. A key question is what can social sustainability deliver as a planning
framework? Does the evidence base exist to determine the kind of interventions and practices that can
support social sustainability? If so, can these concepts be incorporated in planning practice to achieve
positive social outcomes? Campbell identifies the challenge of translating thinking about sustainability
into planning practice
languages of the economic, the ecological, and the social views, and to avoid a quasi-colonial dominance
by the economic lingua franca, by creating equal two-way translatio (Campbell 1996).
The scale at which social sustainability is operationalized also presents a challenge. Sustainability
strategies tend to be developed and debated at citywide level (Karuppannan & Sivam 2011) but social

engage with citywide planning strategies, without losing the social specificity of neighbourhood
experience will be difficult especially so in the current UK context where local planning authorities are
struggling with financial pressures, staff cuts and new planning legislation.

4. Measuring What We Know about Social Sustainability

Jenks suggests that sustainable cities are places where people actually want to live and therefore have a
degree of support from residents. I argue that an important addition to this concept is creating cities and
communities where people are able to live, which means paying close attention to the social problems that
could be addressed by applying social sustainability as planning framework. A radical application of
social sustainability to planning practice could open up opportunities for rethinking the linkages between
social experience, urban development, economic growth and ecological systems. In practical terms this

delivering residential housing, alternative approaches to regeneration, and reconnecting economic and
34 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

environmental strategies to social experience. However, there is still much work to do in clearly defining
the concept of social sustainability in planning terms and building the evidence base for what supports
social sustainability at the neighbourhood level.

Table 1. Urban social sustainability: contributory factors as identified in the review of literature (in no particular
order) by Dempsey et al., 2009 (As quoted Dempsey et al. 2011)

Non-physical factors Predominantly physical factors

Education and training Urbanity
Social justice: inter- and intra-generational Attractive public realm
Participation and local democracy Decent housing
Health, quality of life and well-being Local environmental quality and amenity
Social inclusion (and eradication of social exclusion) Accessibility (e.g. to local services and
Social capital facilities/employment/green space)
Sustainable urban design
Community
Neighbourhood
Safety
Mixed tenure Walkable neighbourhood: pedestrian friendly

Fair distribution of income

Social order
Social cohesion
Community cohesion (i.e. cohesion between and among
different groups)
Social networks
Social interaction
Sense of community and belonging
Employment
Residential stability (vs turnover)
Active community organizations
Cultural traditions

I will briefly describe a project by Social Life** and Professor Tim Dixon from the University of
Reading, undertaken in 2012 to attempt to innovate in this area. Working with The Berkeley Group, a
UK house builder, the research team has developed a set of indicators to measure social sustainability in
new housing developments by collecting resident survey and site survey data. The purpose of the work
was to create and test a practical and cost-effective measurement framework that could be used by The
Berkeley Group across a wide range of its developments. This is a very brief narrative about the work,
which was completed in September 2012. A full discussion about the project including details about the

**
Social Life is a new social enterprise created by the Young Foundation in 2012 to develop work on
social sustainability and innovation in placemaking. See www.social-life.co
See Bacon, N., Cochrane, Douglas & Woodcraft, S., 2012. Creating strong communities: how to
measure the social sustainability of new housing developments, London: The Berkeley Group.
 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 35

research methodology, findings and lessons, will be published in a separate paper in 2012/13. The
research team used social sustainability as a conceptual framework to bring together and measure a wide
range of factors that are known to influence quality of life and community strength. A review of academic
literature and policy work identified what is known theoretically and practically about social
sustainability and its relationship to the built environment (Bramley 2006; Colantonio 2007; Dillard et al.
2009; Colantonio & T. Dixon 2010; Vallance et al. 2011; Dempsey et al. 2011; Woodcraft 2011;
Weingaertner & Moberg 2011; Murphy 2012; Magee et al. 2012;). Insights from this work were
combined with evidence from UK national government surveys about the relationship between wellbeing,
quality of life and local factors such as community involvement. See Table 1 for an example of the factors
identified as contributing to urban social sustainability from the literature reviewed for this project.

4.1. Developing a framework and indicator sets

Based on this review and detailed qualitative work undertaken by Social Life in 2011, the research
team developed the following definition of social sustainability that could be operationalized by The

the extent to which a neighbourhood supports individual and collective wellbeing. Social sustainability
combines design of the physical environment with a focus on how the people who live in and use a space
relate to each other and function as a community. It is enhanced by development which provides the right
infrastructure to support a strong social and cultural life, opportunities for people to get involved, and
(Bacon et al. 2012, p.9) A framework and a set of
metrics were developed to measure the experience of residents living in new housing developments
against this definition of social sustainability. The framework consists of three dimensions (see figure 1):

through design and provision of services.

on the surrounding neighbourhoods and wider area. It was identified as important to a practical
assessment of social sustainability at the local level, in particular for understanding how new development
changes the demographic profile of a neighbourhood and housing affordability. However, this dimension
was not included in the initial testing process because the chosen research method involved benchmarking
primary survey data against large-

See Woodcraft, S., 2011. Design for Social Sustainability: A framework for creating thriving
communities, London: The Young Foundation.
36 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

Fig. 1. Four dimensions of social sustainability assessment framework

Table 2. National surveys included in the analysis

British Household Panel Survey/Understanding Society (BHPS/US)

Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), 1996 to present
100,000 individuals in 40,000 British households
Data used from 2008-09 Innovation Panel Waves 1-2
Taking Part (TP)
Department of Culture Media and Sport, 2005 to present
14,000 participants
Data taken from 2010-2011 survey
Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly British Crime Survey (BCS))
Home Office,1986 to present
51,000 participants
Data taken from 2010-2011 survey
Citizenship Survey (CS)
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2001 to 2011 (biannual to 2007, annual 2008 to 2011)
11,000 participants
Data taken from 2009-10 survey
 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 37

The three different dimensions of the framework contain 13 different indicators. Each indicator is
informed by a number of different questions, drawn primarily from pre-existing national datasets or
industry-standard assessment tools. In total, 45 different questions were used to inform the indicators.
This approach was chosen because the research team wanted where possible, to develop a resident survey
and site survey that used pre-tested and validated questions, and to have the ability to benchmark the

tasets: the
Understanding Society Survey, the Taking Part Survey, the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and the
Citizenship Survey. A number of questions were created for the social and cultural life dimension where
appropriate questions did not already exist.§§

selecting questions from the Building for Life assessment tool, *** an industry standard that is endorsed by
the British government; from the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) tool (an assessment used

Additionally, a number of questions were created for this dimension where appropriate questions did not
already exist.

Fig. 2. 13 indicators in the social sustainability assessment framework

§§
Full details of the questions used in the resident survey and site survey can be found ip33-37 here
http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/f/l/BG_Socail_Sus_essay_PART2.pdf
***
Building for Life is an assessment tool developed by the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment. See: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/cabe/sectors/housing/building-for-life/
38 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

4.2. Testing the framework

The framework was tested by carrying out an assessment of four different housing developments that
had been completed in the past five years (see table 3 for summary details.) On each of the four sites a
resident survey and site survey were carried out and a small number of contextual interviews with local
stakeholders (such as the estate manager, a community representative or council officer) provided
additional qualitative insights to aid interpretation of the survey results. In total 598 face-to-face
interviews were carried out with residents of the four housing developments. A quota sampling method
was used to ensure the survey responses reflected the tenure mix for each housing development.

Table 3. The four test sites

Name of development Typology Where Brief description

Empire Square Regeneration In London Borough of Former warehouse site,
Southwark, South London. 567 homes, 30% affordable
Inner city.

The Hamptons Suburban dwellings In London Borough of Former sewage works, 645
Sutton, South West London. homes, 33% affordable
Suburbs.
Imperial Wharf Urban In London Borough of Former gas works, 1428
Hammersmith and Fulham. homes, 47% affordable
Inner city.
Knowle Village Rural/semi-rural In Winchester City Council Former hospital for
area, Hampshire. mentally ill, 701 homes,
31% affordable
Rural.

The results of the resident surveys were benchmarked against geo-demographic classifications. The
Office of National Statistics Output Area Classification (OAC) was used for questions taken from
Understanding Society and Taking Part surveys, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for the
Crime Survey for England and Wales and the Citizenship survey. This enabled us to compare the
responses of people living on the four Berkeley housing developments to the average responses that
would be expected for people from comparable social groups in comparable areas.
The differences between the actual and expected scores were subjected to statistical testing. These

the framework to fill gaps where there were no appropriate pre-existing questions from national surveys.
Consequently, it was not possible to benchmark the results of these questions, so an assessment was
generated by comparing results across the four sites.

survey, which followed the structure and scoring system of the original Building for Life survey, and a

transport provision on the developments.

 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 39

4.3. Assessing local social sustainability

The performance of the four developments was rated against the different indicators and a RAG (red-
yellow-green) rating system created to provide a simple graphic representation of the results. The RAG
Rating system was adopted for two reasons: to present the results in a form that is practical and
meaningful for different audiences but in particular, to enable development teams and local government
partners to consider how they plan and invest in new housing developments at different points in the
planning process; and secondly to enable presentation of a range of responses rather than a single social

where green indicates a positive result, higher or better than would be expected; yellow a satisfactory
result in line with comparable areas, and red a negative response, lower than would be expected. An
example of the RAG Rating tool can be seen in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. RAG Rating tool for The Hamptons

4.4. Emerging lessons

This project is experimental and has only recently been completed so there is still much to consider
and learn from the work. It is the first time a house builder in the UK has attempted to operationalize and
measure the concept of social sustainability. Findings from the testing work needs to be incorporated into
development planning processes by The Berkeley Group. However, there are initial lessons from the
project that can be identified. Some of these are detailed below:
40 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

Need for analysis of underlying factors: The measurement framework has been developed to provide a
single house builder with the means to highlight findings about specific developments (whether
positive or negative). It has been designed to help illuminate emerging patterns by enabling broad-
brush comparisons with appropriate benchmarks for comparable places or other new housing
developments. It does not, without supplementary analysis, identify the underlying factors or practical
concerns that play an important part in shaping how people experience a place.
Contextual, qualitative work: In-depth contextual interviews were carried out to enable the research
team to make interpret the survey findings. Although these insights were not scored or formerly
represented in the final assessments, they became an essential part of the project enabling contextual
analysis of the results.
Snapshot versus longitudinal data: This measurement framework has been designed as a practical,
replicable tool. It is has not been created to track a large sample of residents over a long period but to
provide a snapshot of community strength and quality of life at a point in time. Our approach is not as
robust as a large-scale longitudinal study in tracking changes in communities and individuals, and
neither is it designed to measure the impact of any specific intervention. However, if applied
periodically (say two, five and 10 years after completion) and/or to a range of different developments
(as in this study), the framework can provide opportunities for meaningful comparisons over time.
What is lost in robustness is gained in ease of use and meaningful information emerges from this
relatively low cost approach.
Mixed methods and data sources: One of the major challenges in constructing this framework was
combining the different types of data that underpin each indicator. Different types of data were
selected to contribute different insights and perspectives to the framework. The site survey work
focuses on predicting the likely outcomes for residents based on the well-established assumptions and
experience of urban design practitioners, that good design and provision of community facilities will
urvey attempts to measure what

their own wellbeing. The residents survey also attempts to look ahead to capture data about whether

survey (with a three tier

grading system from a single source) and the residents survey (with a broader sample with statistically
benchmarked responses). Doing this would have generated misleading results. The two types of data
were therefore split between different dimensions of the framework.
Scope: This measurement framework has been designed for a particular housing developer. The focus
therefore was on the aspects of community strength and quality of life that a house builder could
reasonably be held directly accountable for, or could influence through relationships with public
agencies. This has meant that some important dimensions of social sustainability are not represented in
this framework; specifically, measures focused on social equity and justice and access to education and
employment. They have been excluded where they are beyond the control or influence of a house
builder.

5. Conclusion

Social sustainability is emerging as an area of planning policy and practice in the UK. While there is
clearly a need for a more rigorous approach to defining and theorizing social sustainability there is still
much work needed to examine how the idea is deployed in planning practice, in particular, to
understanding how the concept is translated by different actors and used as justification for making
 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42 41

decisions about interventions and investments in the material and social fabric of cities. In policy and
practice terms more work is needed to define the concept of social sustainability in planning theory and
policy, and to investigate what supports social sustainability at the neighbourhood level to ensure the
policy agenda does not overtake the research and evidence base as Dempsey et al identify (2011, p.290).

Acknowledgements

This paper describes a social sustainability measurement framework which was developed jointly by
Social Life and Professor Tim Dixon of the Technologies for Sustainable Built Environments Centre at
the University of Reading. The project was commissioned by The Berkeley Group.
Full details of the project can be found in the report Creating Strong Communities: How to measure
the social sustainability of new housing developments, which was co-authored by Nicola Bacon, Douglas
Cochrane, Saffron Woodcraft and Dr John Brown, and published by The Berkeley Group in September
2012.

References

Agyeman, J., (2008) Continuum, 22(6), pp.751 756. Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10304310802452487 [Accessed July 4, 2012].
Bacon, N., Cochrane, Douglas & Woodcraft, S., 2012. Creating strong communities: how to measure the social sustainability of
new housing developments, London: The Berkeley Group.
Barbier, E.B., (1987). The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environmental Conservation, 14(02), pp.101 110.
Bertolini, L. et al., (2011). Planning and the Recession. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(3), pp.429 451. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2011.617499 [Accessed September 19, 2012].
Bramley, G., (2006)
IN NURTURING IT? In Planning Research Conference. Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, LONDON.
Campbell, S., (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), p.296. Available at:
http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/osland_a/Substantiability%20Articles/greencitiesgrowingcitiesarticle.pdf [Accessed September 25,
2012].
Colantonio, A., (2007). Social Sustainability: An Exploratory Analysis of its Definition, Assessment Methods, Metrics and Tools:
Best Practice from Urban Renewal in the EU, Oxford: Oxford Brooks University.
Colantonio, A. & Dixon, T., 2010. Urban Regeneration & Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities, John Wiley &
Sons.
Davoudi, S. et al., (2012) anning Theory
and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban
Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The
Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), pp.299 333. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124 [Accessed September 19, 2012].
Dempsey, N. et al., (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable
Development, 19(5), pp.289 300. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/sd.417 [Accessed July 4, 2012].
Department for Communities and Local, 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. Available at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/planningpolicyframework/ [Accessed
September 28, 2012].
Department for Communities and Local, (2004). The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities. Available at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/eganreview [Accessed September 28, 2012].
Dillard, J., Dujon, V. & King, M.C. eds., (2009). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability, New York; Abingdon:
Routledge.
Karuppannan, S. & Sivam, A., (2011)
Delhi. Local Environment, 16(9), pp.849 870. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2011.607159 [Accessed February 19, 2012].
42 Saffron Woodcraft / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 (2012) 29 – 42

Koning, J., 2002. Social sustainability in a globalizing world: context, theory and methodology explored, The Hague: UNESCO.
Available at:
http://portal.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_8E1EC1D61DD174F1C413A101BF68527466320700/filename/moreonmost.
pdf#page=61.
Littig, B. & Griessler, E., (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International
Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1), pp.65 79. Available at:
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/idsijsusd/v_3a8_3ay_3a2005_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a65-79.htm [Accessed September 28, 2012].
Magee, L., Scerri, A. & James, P., (2012). Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred Approach. Applied Research in
Quality of Life, 7(3), pp.239 261. Available at:
http://www.springerlink.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/content/68876032863438l7/abstract/ [Accessed August 15, 2012].
Manzi, T. & et eds., (2010). , London:
Earthscan.
McKenzie, S., (2004). Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions, Magill, South Australia: Hawke Research Institute.
Murphy, K., (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8(1).
Sachs, I., (1999). Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In
Sustainability and the Social Sciences. London: Zed Books.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. & Dixon, J.E., (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42, pp.342
248.
Weingaertner, C. & Moberg, Å., (2011). Exploring Social Sustainability: Learning from Perspectives on Urban Development and
Companies and Products. Sustainable Development, p.n/a n/a. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/sd.536 [Accessed
July 4, 2012].
Woodcraft, S., (2011). Design for Social Sustainability: A framework for creating thriving communities, London: The Young
Foundation.
World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987). Our common future.