Assessment of social sustainability performance for residential building

Figures & data

Figure 1. Illustration of stakeholder interests.

Figure 2. Residential social benefit assessment (RSBA) framework.

Figure 3. RSBA over time.

Table 1. Identification of Stakeholders.

No.	Stakeholder	Source
	Industrial community
1	Owner	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
2	Building/operational management	Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
3	Staff/employee	Smith and Love (2004)
	User community
1	Occupant/Resident	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
2	Visitor	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004)
	Neighboring community
1	Residential neighbor	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
2	Commercial neighbor	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
3	Path and road user	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)

Table 2. Social sustainability criteria.

No.	Social Sustainability Criteria	Code	Source
1	Provide a sense of security Minimize the chance of criminal activity	C1	Gunatilake (2013), Maleki et al. (2019)
2	Provide a sense of safety Design and other features that minimize hazards	C2	Rohman, Doloi, and Heywood (2017); Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
3	Pay attention to health from pollution/environmental problems Eliminate the harmful effects that can affect health conditions	C3	Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
4	Provide physical comfort Comfortability regarding light, temperature, sound, air, water, vibration and clean condition	C4	Maleki et al. (2019)
5	Provide local job opportunities Availability of employment opportunities for skills development and economic enhancement	C5	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
6	Provide economic benefits to the surrounding community Enhance the local economy and employment opportunities that are indirectly related to buildings	C6	Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
7	Stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making process Transparent and according to stakeholders’ preferences with regard to solutions	C7	Mireé and Toryalay (2016)
8	Stakeholders’ conflict resolution Conflict resolution that can be accepted by stakeholders	C8	Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013)
9	Ease of communication and information exchange Availability of information flows in evaluation of future changes future changes	C9	Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013)
10	The surrounding community does not feel disturbed Acceptance of the building’s existence	C10	Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
11	Respect for the cultural values of the surrounding community Prevention of the negative effects of buildings on culture	C11	Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
12	Provides parking area Availability of adequate and appropriate parking spaces for vehicles	C12	Colantonio et al. (2009)
13	Provides proper traffic management Proper traffic management to ensure the safety of road users including direction of information to prevent confusion and accidents	C13	Zuo, Jin, and Flynn (2012)
14	Easy access to public facilities Distance and travel time to public facilities	C14	Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
15	Easy access to emergency facilities Distance and travel time to emergency facilities	C15	Yigitcanlar, Kamruzzaman, and Teriman (2015)
16	Easy access for persons with disabilities Availability of access and facilities for disabled persons and the elderly	C16	Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
17	Sense of place Creation of an emotional connection between individuals and their environment that provides a positive impression and cares for the environment	C17	Colantonio et al. (2009)
18	Place for social interaction Buildings become places for interpersonal communication but do not disturb other neighbors	C18	Maleki et al. (2019)
19	Pay attention to esthetic aspects and functionality Functions according to needs.	C19	Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
20	Provides communal open space area Availability of open spaces that can be accessed and are designed properly for meetings and social interactions and can improve physical health and reduce stress	C20	Chan and Lee (2007)
21	Provides visual privacy area Private space where users can engage in activities without being seen by neighbors	C21	Ardda, Mateus, and Bragança (2018)

Figure 4. Case-study location in Alam Sutera, South Tangerang, Banten Province, Indonesia. Source: Google Maps.

Figure 5. The social network of case study.

Table 3. Eigenvector centrality (C_EV) and the weight of stakeholders (Si).

ID	Community	Role	Eigenvector centrality (CEV)	Normalized weight
S1	Industry	Owner 1	0.355	0.121
S2		Owner 2	0.456	0.156
S3		Building management	0.456	0.156
S4		Security	0.244	0.083
S5		Cleaning service	0.101	0.034
S6	Users	Resident	0.322	0.110
S7		Visitor	0.304	0.104
S8		Building User	0.374	0.128
S9	Neighborhood	Residential neighbors	0.215	0.073
S10		Commercial neighbors	0.074	0.025
S11		Path User	0.029	0.010
			2.930	1.000

Note: Roles denoted in bold indicate stakeholders that have a higher influence according to the eigenvector centrality value.

Table 4. Eigenvector centrality (C_EV) and the weight of sustainable criteria (Ci).

Ci	Eigenvector centrality (CEV)	Normalized weight	Ci	Eigenvector centrality (CEV)	Normalized weight
C13	0.281	0.063	C21	0.231	0.052
C12	0.278	0.062	C15	0.223	0.050
C3	0.263	0.059	C11	0.176	0.039
C2	0.256	0.057	C7	0.169	0.038
C14	0.256	0.057	C8	0.168	0.038
C18	0.253	0.056	C19	0.167	0.037
C1	0.241	0.054	C6	0.160	0.036
C4	0.241	0.054	C5	0.150	0.033
C9	0.232	0.052	C10	0.140	0.031
C16	0.231	0.052	C17	0.131	0.029
C20	0.231	0.052	Total	4.478	1.000

Table 5. Targeted residential social benefit (TRSB).

Code	Weight	Very low	Low	Neutral	High	Very high
C1	0.054	0	0	0	0.219	0.781
C2	0.057	0	0	0	0.277	0.723
C3	0.059	0	0	0	0.446	0.554
C4	0.054	0	0	0	0.351	0.649
C5	0.033	0	0	0.146	0.310	0.544
C6	0.036	0	0	0	0.663	0.337
C7	0.038	0	0	0.174	0.275	0.550
C8	0.038	0	0	0	0.423	0.577
C9	0.052	0	0	0.141	0.396	0.463
C10	0.031	0	0	0.157	0.178	0.665
C11	0.039	0	0	0.125	0	0.875
C12	0.062	0	0	0	0.190	0.810
C13	0.063	0	0	0	0.263	0.737
C14	0.057	0	0	0.149	0.431	0.420
C15	0.050	0	0	0	0.518	0.482
C16	0.052	0	0	0	0.441	0.559
C17	0.029	0	0	0	0.291	0.709
C18	0.056	0	0	0.130	0.360	0.510
C19	0.037	0	0	0	0.228	0.772
C20	0.052	0	0	0.142	0.335	0.523
C21	0.052	0	0	0.142	0.165	0.693

Table 6. Actual residential social benefit (ARSB).

Code	Weight	Very bad	Bad	Neutral	Good	Very good
C1	0.054	0	0	0	0.514	0.486
C2	0.057	0	0	0	0.149	0.851
C3	0.059	0	0	0	0.446	0.554
C4	0.054	0	0	0	0.636	0.364
C5	0.033	0	0	0.146	0	0.854
C6	0.036	0	0	0	0.421	0.579
C7	0.038	0	0	0.174	0.489	0.336
C8	0.038	0	0	0	0.342	0.658
C9	0.052	0	0	0	0.552	0.448
C10	0.031	0	0	0	0.335	0.665
C11	0.039	0	0	0	0.125	0.875
C12	0.062	0	0	0.112	0.246	0.642
C13	0.063	0	0	0.011	0.412	0.578
C14	0.057	0	0	0.270	0.310	0.420
C15	0.050	0	0	0.139	0.171	0.690
C16	0.052	0	0	0	0.500	0.500
C17	0.029	0	0	0	0.645	0.355
C18	0.056	0	0	0	0.564	0.436
C19	0.037	0	0	0.228	0	0.772
C20	0.052	0	0	0	0.477	0.523
C21	0.052	0	0	0	0.523	0.477

Figure 6. Spiderweb diagram comparing TRSB and ARSB.

Table 7. Social sustainability criteria that exceeded the expectation.

Code	TRSB	APSB	RSB GAP	Weight	Gap × weight	Rank
C5	4.398	4.708	−0.310	0.033	−0.010	1
C6	4.337	4.579	−0.243	0.036	−0.009	2
C2	4.723	4.851	−0.128	0.057	−0.007	3
C20	4.381	4.523	−0.142	0.052	−0.007	4
C9	4.321	4.448	−0.127	0.052	−0.007	5
C10	4.508	4.665	−0.157	0.031	−0.005	6
C11	4.751	4.875	−0.125	0.039	−0.005	7
C15	4.482	4.551	−0.069	0.050	−0.003	8
C18	4.381	4.436	−0.055	0.056	−0.003	9
C8	4.577	4.658	−0.081	0.038	−0.003	10

Table 8. Social sustainability criteria that not yet fulfill the expectation.

Code	TRSB	APSB	RSB GAP	Weight	Gap X weight	Rank
C12	4.810	4.531	0.279	0.062	0.017	1
C1	4.781	4.486	0.295	0.054	0.016	2
C4	4.649	4.364	0.286	0.054	0.015	3
C13	4.737	4.567	0.170	0.063	0.011	4
C17	4.709	4.355	0.355	0.029	0.010	5
C19	4.772	4.544	0.228	0.037	0.008	6
C7	4.376	4.162	0.214	0.038	0.008	7
C14	4.271	4.150	0.121	0.057	0.007	8
C21	4.551	4.477	0.074	0.052	0.004	9
C16	4.559	4.500	0.059	0.052	0.003	10

Almahmoud, E., and H. Doloi. 2015. “Assessment of Social Sustainability in Construction Projects Using Social Network Analysis.” Facilities 33 (3–4): 152–176. doi:10.1108/F-05-2013-0042.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smith, J., and P. Love. 2004. “Stakeholder Management during Project Inception: Strategic Needs Analysis.” Journal of Architectural Engineering 10 (1): 22–33. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:1(22).

 Google Scholar

Edum-Fotwe, F., and A. Price. 2009. “A Social Ontology for Appraising Sustainability of Construction Projects and Developments.” International Journal of Project Management 27 (4): 313–322. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunatilake, S. 2013. The Uptake and Implementation of Sustainable Construction: Transforming Policy into Practice. Preston: University of Central Lancashire.

 Google Scholar

Maleki, B., M. Casanovas Rubio, S. Hosseini, and A. De La Fuente Antequera. 2019. “Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the Social Sustainability Assessment of High-Rise Residential Buildings.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 290 (1): 012054. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012054.

 Google Scholar

Rohman, M., H. Doloi, and C. Heywood. 2017. “Success Criteria of Toll Road Projects from a Community Societal Perspective.” Built Environment Project and Asset Management 7 (1): 32–44. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-12-2015-0073.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fatourehchi, D., and E. Zarghami. 2020. “Social Sustainability Assessment Framework for Managing Sustainable Construction in Residential Buildings.” Journal of Building Engineering 32: 101761. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101761.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sierra, L., V. Yepes, and E. Pellicer. 2018. “A Review of Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Social Sustainability of Infrastructures.” Journal of Cleaner Production 187: 496–513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mireé, I., and A. Toryalay. 2016. “Operationalization of Social Sustainability in the Construction Industry from a Client Perspective: How the Concept of Social Sustainability in the Construction Industry is Defined and Communicated by Skanska’s Proposed Clients?” Master’s thesis, Chalmers University. http://studentarbeten.chalmers.se/publication/244900-operationalization-of-social-sustainability-in-the-construction-industry-from-a-client-perspective-h

 Google Scholar

Valdes-Vasquez, R., and L. Klotz. 2013. “Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139 (1): 80–89. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000566.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Colantonio, A., T. Dixon, R. Ganser, J. Carpenter, and A. Ngombe. 2009. Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes University.

 Google Scholar

Zuo, J., X. Jin, and L. Flynn. 2012. “Social Sustainability in Construction: An Explorative Study.” International Journal of Construction Management 12 (2): 51–63. doi:10.1080/15623599.2012.10773190.

 Google Scholar

Yigitcanlar, T., M. Kamruzzaman, and S. Teriman. 2015. “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context.” Sustainability 7 (3): 2570–2602. doi:10.3390/su7032570.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan, E., and G. Lee. 2007. “Critical Factors for Improving Social Sustainability of Urban Renewal Projects.” Social Indicators Research 85 (2): 243–256. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9089-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ardda, N., R. Mateus, and L. Bragança. 2018. “Methodology to Identify and Prioritise the Social Aspects to Be Considered in the Design of More Sustainable Residential Buildings: Application to a Developing Country.” Buildings 8 (10): 130. doi:10.3390/buildings8100130.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar