Dear colleague,

Your question is indeed very central: on a quantitative point of view, considering only the consumption of natural ressources, it is not obvious a priori that a socially fair development is more sustainable than a socially unfair one. For cynics, the life of the poor can be very sustainable in terms of consumption of fossil fuels. Theorizing both dimensions together is thus a matter of ideological choice. But a decisive and necessary one. In order to justify it, researchers have insisted both on the traumatic ecological and economic consequences of unfair developpment on the long term and on the possibility of a virtuous circle combining both dimensions in the promotion of a new kind of development.

If you read French, French researchers have been particularly active in trying to reflect on this dimension. For example:

http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=MED_156_0089

Best

d.

Dear colleagues,

I fully agree that considering social sustainability is a critical point. And that it is ultimately a political choice, even if mots of the studies try to avoid this aspect.

In the building sector, the quantification of social sustainability is done through labels considering social criteria to assess the sustainability of a project. These criteria are essentially related to user comfort, but also integrate aspects on land use planning, population density/diversity. The most advanced labels in Europe are probably the german standard DGNB and the recent Swiss standard (SNBS).

The other method, I know is called "Social LCA" and is done to be combined with environmental life cycle assessment and life cycle costing.

However, the main critic we can do from all these methods (in addition to the choice of criteria which are clearly linked with a certain political analysis of the situation) is the diconnection between the social, the economic and the environmental assessment. Those three aspects are considered separately and can be ultimately sumed to get a final "sustainability" criteria. In the same idea see for instance the "city sustainability index": http://www.sustainablecitiesindex.com/wp-content/uploads/Arcadis_whitepaper_web-2.pdf

where at the end, we see a sum of independant criteria (oriented toward real estate investors)

The critical point you're bringing is how to link (or at least make visible) the interactions between social and environmental sustainability. I don't have an answer but that is needed if we don't want social sustainability to be assessed by real estate market.

Hi,

Would you please try reading books and papers about "community capitals framework" by Cornelia Flora, Jan Flora, Mary Emery and Cheryl Jacobs since there are relevant literature, frameworks and process steps to measure the 7 capitals, including social sustainability and their interactions. E.g.

Emery M, Fey S, Flora C. 2006. Using community capitals to develop assets for positive community change. CD Practice 13: 1-19.

Emery M, Flora C. 2006. Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development 37(1): 19-35.

Fey S, Bregendahl C, Flora C. 2006. The measurement of community capitals through research: A Study Conducted for the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation by the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Online Journal of Rural Research & Policy 1(1): 01-28.

Flora CB, Thiboumery A. 2005. Community capitals: poverty reduction and rural development in dry areas. Annals of Arid Zone 44(3 & 4): 239-253.

Best regards,

Dear Osama:

Analyzing the scenario that we have, I would say that we are still not prepared to achieve sustainability, as a long process of environmental education will be necessary, the revival of ethical, moral and cultural values. We know something is already being done, but there is still much to do, for environmental sustainability depends on each of us and our commitment while passengers this ship called Earth. Therefore, the sustainability criteria need to be applied: social, cultural, ecological, economic and political. To achieve sustainable development, these criteria must be met in all dimensions. Are we really aware and prepared for the challenge of this new reality? In a world full of unemployment and underpinned growth in the quantitative and the qualitative not, that just takes into account the environmental dimension, the paradigm shift is possible?

The technology of the day creates a lacuna between the varying social strata of humanity based on their perceptions of sustainability.

Dear Osama,

I can try to answer the first part of your question regarding the way social sustainability may be theorized. That would be the first step in order to ensure its appropriate implementation in practices, though this last point is to me the most challenging and complex one.

First it can be useful to recall where the concept of sustainability comes from. It was not introduced by academics for research purposes but rather by political and societal actors in international institutions, essentially the UN.

While “sustainable development” has emerged as the baseline concept to describe the ideal path of socio-economic development – and that was in the late 80s –, it was not the first attempt to conceptualize a normative global project addressing current and future challenges. Actually, such concepts were already introduced during the first Earth Summit in Stockholm (1972). The central notion at that time was the one of “ecodevelopment” (known in French as Ecodéveloppement, see the works of Ignacy Sachs for that matter).

The reason why this second concept did not establish itself as the reference terminology is to be found in its relatively radical propositions, in particular with regards to environmental protection. Several actors, mainly private companies and the US government, lobbied for the abandonment of this expression because of the potential threats it posed to economic growth.

On the other hand, countries form the developing world pushed for the recognition of their right to develop, especially since the historical responsibility of environmental degradation lies in the hands of the western world. These claims led – among others – to the recognition of the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities during the Rio Summit of 1992. The main rationale behind this principle is the imperative of social equity between regions of the world (while environmental protection relates mainly to intergenerational equity).

As the result of these political dynamics, the concept of sustainable development has become the central notion in the global discourse, mainly because of its consensualism: three interconnected pillars, economic, social, environmental, placed on an equal footing.

Do not take me wrong. I am not denying the utility of this concept for academic work. I just want to emphasize that it is the product of a longstanding international political negotiation process. It was not built to fit the purpose of scientific research in term of conceptualizing a social project that is theoretically consistent and robust. Still researchers need to deal with it since it represents the most democratically accepted norm for global evolution of human societies.

That being said, the scientific value of the concept may precisely rely in the complexity and the multidimensionality of its theoretical construction. As the common definition puts it: all of the three pillars are interconnected and one cannot be understood without considering the others. There are synergies of course (an environmental protection plan that leads to economic and/or social benefits), but there are also conflicts between the various goals of sustainable development.

The question of allocation is probably the most obvious source of conflict between those dimensions. For instance, we often see social sustainability as every action that may bring, at the same time, environmental and/or economic benefits, e.g. investing in education to support social mobility is likely to generate positive environmental outcomes through the rise of public awareness. On the other hand, investing in education can also be seen (in a very sceptical way) as an allocation of public funds that can no longer be spent to support immediate research in clean energy.

In this regard, research on sustainability must set itself the goal to (1) identify possible synergies, and (2) resolve the unavoidable trade-offs by identifying the priorities.

Finally, regarding social sustainability, consider the following:

These considerations make me want to conclude by returning the question: isn't this all about social sustainability in the end? 

Dear Osama 

Many of the above answers I can endorse as very relevant, mainly the studies of transdisciplinary science (given by Dora). However, I realise lack of studies focused on how professionals are prepared for dealing with personal constructs as values, beliefs, attittudes, behaviours when they face the reality of increasing population and increasing scarcity of natural resources, as well as increasing greed. Personal constructs do not develop only through formal knowledge (academic or alike). They arise from practical experiences, I dare to say, they come from suffering the lack of natural resources, lack of social equity, lack of ethics in politics, and so on. Practical reasoning is therefore a need in sustainability in higher education. For straight answering and summarising: I think the main reason lies on lack of action, lack of values, and lack of dialetic movement between reflexive and relfective thinking, and it is still seen as just a matter of theory, unfortunately.

The fundamental problem is that the purpose of our global political/social system (i.e., neoliberalism) is wealth creation.  Society must reorder its values from one that prioritizes profit (virtually at the expense of all other values) to one that makes its prime goals societal wellbeing and environmental sustainability.

Emphasizing social sustainability aspect is important especially when there is growth in development.  Challenges faced by practitioners may from lack of knowledge, experts, financial capability and awareness about the importance of highlighting this aspect during business activities. I agree with Andrea Alves that "environmental sustainability depends on each of us and our commitment while passengers this ship called Earth. Therefore, the sustainability criteria need to be applied: social, cultural, ecological, economic and political".  This is because, sustainability also involve with other dimensions namely economic and environment.  It also involves with commitment from all stakeholders.

Hi Osama

The open and contested nature of social sustainability renders it a difficult concept to realize and operationalize among standard setters, planners, and practitioners in various field. The concept of social sustainability is more difficult to analyse, comprehend, define, and incorporate into sustainability projects and planning than the other dimensions of sustainability. The concept of sustainable development is a good example of utopian thought. Such conceptual imprecision and interpretative flexibility is often seen as weakness, as people must constantly elaborate what they actually mean when they address social sustainability. Three observations are made from existing literature which contributes to the challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability.

1. As environmental and economic sustainability has more concrete objectives and is easier to measure, there is no evident scientific basis for measuring social sustainability. For example, environmental sustainability has widely accepted scientific basis for analysis like the ability to debate population ecology, acceptable levels of toxicity, or acceptable concentrations of green-house gases in the atmosphere. Such reliable indicators are totally absent with social sustainability issues, and thus pose much difficulty for effort aimed to operationalize it. (Read more examples from the works of Davidson, 2009; Klintman, 2012 ; Bebbington & Dillard, 2009)

2. Historically, the sustainability framing is appropriately suited to the environmental than social issues. Conversely, sustainability framing emerges from its environmental roots, and thus a conservative bias is potentially created and evidenced. While the strengthening of the environment is usually assumed to be desirable, this is less often the case regarding the conservation of some social sustainability features (Read more from Marcuse, 1998; Hopwood et al. 2005)

3. There is very little incorporation of the social dimension - in the context of the effective participation of actors representing social goals and concerns. As sustainability framing helps to cement the institutional separation of “the environment” and “the social” in policy, administration and management, the failure to institutionalise supervision and participation has rendered the planning process of social sustainability project problematic (see also Casula Vifell & Thedvall, 2012; Devlin & Tubino, 2012).

I hope this input helps you in your quest.

regards

michael

Hi Osama,

as previously mentioned, social sustainability measurement and assessment present lots of challenges because there could be factors playing a role in your analysis that are not easily convertible into tangible measurements. But let me add the point that indicators and methodologies that tackle this challenge do exist. So, my suggestion is that you can refer to the approaches currently available and dig into their potential and their shortcomings in order to answer to your question. 

For starters, you can investigate potentials/concerns/challenges of:

• GRI indicators and Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes related to social sustainability (when it comes to measurement)
• Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment, to assess the social impact from a product perspective.

These one are just examples, and you can complete the picture of framing the challenges of theorizing and practicing social sustainability by investigating other methodologies or by consulting even experts, for instance.

Hope this hint may help you out.

My best

Ilaria

Hi Osama,

I'll just list some general remarks:

1. when you conclude a theory from practical information you face the issue of information reduction, because theory is always a generalization and never corresponds 100% to all practical cases. The main question is how much generalization is still representable.

2. any social study has the main issues: how to consider & evaluate social differences between different income classes, countries, gender, age, personal values etc.

My advice would be to continue reading lit until you feel comfortable enough in this area.

Lea

The low hanging fruit here (at least for the U.S.) is to reform (roll back) urban sprawl.  Urban sprawl is an obstacle to all three dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social.

Hi Osama,

maybe the papers below could be of interest for you.

Regards from Finland,

Michael

Lettenmeier, M., Hirvilammi, T., Laakso, S., Lähteenoja, S., & Aalto, K. (2012). Material footprint of low-income households in Finland—Consequences for the sustainability debate. Sustainability, 4(7), 1426-1447. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273910358_Material_Footprint_of_Low-Income_Households_in_FinlandConsequences_for_the_Sustainability_Debate

Hirvilammi, T., Laakso, S., Lettenmeier, M., & Lähteenoja, S. (2013). Studying well-being and its environmental impacts: A case study of minimum income receivers in Finland. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 134-154. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271991570_Studying_Well-being_and_its_Environmental_Impacts_A_Case_Study_of_Minimum_Income_Receivers_in_Finland

Tuuli Hirvilammi and Tuula Helne (2014): Changing Paradigms: A Sketch for Sustainable Wellbeing and Ecosocial Policy. Sustainability 2014, 6(4), 2160-2175. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/4/2160/htm

Article Studying Well-being and its Environmental Impacts: A Case St...

Article Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Conse...

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/33399

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33399/Kaminsky_TheorizingSocialSustainability.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.academia.edu/14934870/A_Missing_Pillar_Challenges_in_theorizing_and_practicing_social_sustainability