Evaluating social sustainability in historic urban environments

Abstract

Government policies aimed at the alleviation of poverty and social exclusion have been moving toward a multi-faceted approach that includes community capacity building and collaborative partnerships. This implies greater community consultation and the involvement of public and private institutions and the voluntary sector in the democratic management of local affairs. While these are established theoretical concepts, implementing localised social policy and measuring the outcomes are notoriously difficult, particularly in historic urban areas where democratic decision making has the potential to conflict with the management of heritage value. Drawing on recent policy and academic literature, this paper explores the concept of social sustainability and the characteristics of its evaluation. The paper illustrates how social sustainability indicators favour multi-dimensional themes that support national political agendas. The tension between this and the rise of participatory governance is highlighted. The paper concludes with a suggested approach to the evaluation of social sustainability in historic urban environments.

Keywords:

• social sustainability
• historic urban environments
• sustainable development evaluation

Acknowledgements

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Laurajane Smith and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments.

Notes

1. The concept of social capital is most notably linked to Pierre Bourdieu, ‘The forms of capital’ (1985), and Robert Putnam, Blowing alone: the collapse and revival of American community (2000). Defined as ‘the connections among individuals – social networks and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’, Putnam’s central thesis is that increased civic engagement leads to greater social capital and this in turn provides the basis for effective government and economic development (p. 19). For a critique of the concept, see Arneil (2006) and McLean et al. (2002).

2. Community is assumed here to mean groups of people tied by similar experiences to geographic rather than social factors. For a critique of the concept, see Arneil (2006). The concept of social cohesion is defined by the Social Cohesion Unit as ‘a common vision and sense of belonging, appreciation of people from different backgrounds and promoting a strong and positive interaction between people’. For a critique of the concept, see Forrest and Kearns (2001) and Robinson (2005).

3. Defining legitimate stakeholders, resolving power imbalances and ensuring accountability and transparency have been identified as problematic issues for governance and participatory decision making. For more on governance, see Chhotray and Stoker (2009) and Davidson and Lockwood (2008).

4. The evolution of modern performance evaluation methodologies and indicators can be linked to the development of new approaches to the provision of public services in the 1980s and 1990s. Characterised as the New Public Management, the focus was on entrepreneurial management, decentralisation, increased competition and an emphasis on efficiency, outcomes and measures of performance. For more on New Public Management, see McLaughlin et al. 2002.

5. See, for example, Bramley and Power (2009), Colomb (2007) and Williams (2006).

6. For more on the relationship between social equity and health outcomes, see Blas and Sivasankara Kurup (2010).

7. For example, in the UK, the 1998 New Deal for Communities and the 2001 National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal; in Europe, the URBAN I and II Community Initiatives in 1994 and 1998.

8. For a critique of the concept, see Arneil (2006) and McLean et al. (2002).

9. Social inclusion is defined by Saunders et al. (2007, p. 2) as ‘social connectedness and … participation in community life that contributes to well being’. For a general critique of the concept, see Saunders et al. (2007). For a critique in relation to historic environments, see Pendlebury et al. (2004).

10. Adapted from Bramley and Power (2009), City of Vancouver (2005), Cummins (2000), Davidson and Lockwood (2008), Dempsey (2008) and Stubbs (2004).