An Examination of Mass Housing Residents' Satisfaction with Social Sustainability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v10.n3.1120Keywords:
Social Sustainability, Mass Housing, Neighborhood, Social Equity, Sustainability of CommunityAbstract
With an increased demand for housing, mass housing focuses on speed and economic benefit and standardizes. Different user groups cannot find answers to some of their physical and social needs in this housing and its surroundings. This circumstance generates socially unsustainable regions. From this point of view, the study seeks answers to the questions "What is the social sustainability satisfaction level of the users?" and "Is there a statistically significant difference between the social sustainability satisfaction levels and the different characteristics of the users in the existing mass housing areas?" So, the study reveals the criteria necessary for ensuring social sustainability, defines the level of satisfaction with the fulfillment of these criteria, and determines the statistical difference in satisfaction based on resident characteristics. The link between housing and social sustainability was evaluated using the criteria of social equity and sustainability of community. 87 residents filled out the questionnaire form in a mass housing complex in Istanbul. Researchers used descriptive statistics, the Mann Whitney-U, and the Kruskal-Walis tests to define the statistical difference between social sustainability parameters and the demographic characteristics of the residents. The analysis revealed that inclusion and spatial diversity satisfaction on the housing scale were at the highest level and satisfaction with the Participation criteria was at the lowest level in ensuring social sustainability. The results of the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests are as follows: The spatial diversity satisfaction differed in terms of education, economic status, housing type, and length of residence; the social diversity satisfaction differed in terms of gender and age; and the accessibility sub-criterion differed in terms of gender. Only social interaction satisfaction differed by gender, education, and employment status among the sustainability of community criteria. The satisfaction of inclusion, security, community stability, sense of place, and participation were unaffected by demographic characteristics.
References
Arısoy, A. (2014). The Yeldegirmeni experience: a different approach to urban renewal, Cekul Foundation Publication, Istanbul.
Arslan, I. (2007). Housing economics, Sakarya Publishing, Istanbul.
Ataöv, A. & Osmay, S., (2007). A methodological approach to urban regeneration in Turkey, METU Journal Of The Faculty Of Architecture, 24(2): 57-82.
Bacon, N.; Cochrane, D., & Woodcraft, S. (2012). Creating strong communities: how to measure the social sustainability of new housing developments. The Berkeley Group: London, UK.
Barton H. (2000). Conflicting perceptions of the neighborhood. In Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco–Neighbourhoods, Barton H (ed.). Earthscan: London; 3–18.
Barton, H., Horswell, M., & Millar, P. (2012). Neighbourhood accessibility and active travel. Planning Practice and Research, 27(2): 177-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661636
Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1): 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33129
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., & Watkins, D. (2009). Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A, 41(9): 2125-2142. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4184
Chan, E., & Lee, G. K. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2): 243-256.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).
Colantonio, A. (2009). Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods. In Second International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment: Conference Proceedings. Loughborough: Loughborough University, 865- 885.
Colantonio, A., Dixon, T., Ganser, R., Carpenter, J., & Ngombe, A. (2009). Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD).
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95–120.
Darchen, S., & Ladouceur, E. (2013). Social sustainability in urban regeneration practice: A case study of the Fortitude Valley Renewal Plan in Brisbane. Australian Planner, 50(4): 340-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.764909
Dave, S. (2011). Neighbourhood density and social sustainability in cities of developing countries. Sustainable development, 19(3): 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.433
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5): 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
Doğu, F. U., & Aras, L. (2019). Measuring social sustainability with the developed MCSA model: güzelyurt case. Sustainability, 11(9): 2503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092503
Durand, R., H., (2018). A Framework for Socially Sustainable Urban Transformation: Sulukule Case Study, Master Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, İstanbul.
Egan, J., (2004). The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities, ODPM, London.
Gur, S.O. (2000). Housing culture in the example of Eastern Blacksea Region, YEM Publishing, Istanbul.
Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development. Dimensions of Sustainable Development, 21-41.
Hans-Boeckler-Foundation (Ed.), (2001). Pathways Towards a Sustainable Future, Setzkasten, Düsseldorf.
Heller, A. & Adams, T. (2009). Creating healthy cities through socially sustainable placemaking, Australian Planner, 46(2): 18-21.
Heller, A., & Adams, T. (2009). Creating healthy cities through socially sustainable placemaking. Australian Planner, 46(2): 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2009.9995305
Kiliç, S. (2016). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1): 47. https://doi.org/ 10.5455/jmood.20160307122823
Koca, C. (2010). Barrier-free city planning information report. 4. World Disability Foundation, Istanbul.
Larimian, T., & Sadeghi, A. (2021). Measuring urban social sustainability: Scale development and validation. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(4): 621-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319882950
McKenzie, S., (2004). Social sustainability: towards some definitions, Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series, 27.
Baines, J., & Morgan, B. (2004). Sustainability appraisal: A social perspective. Sustainability Appraisal. A Review Of International Experience And Practice, Dalal-Clayton B And Sadler B,(Eds), First Draft of Work in Progress, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi 1. Kaan Kitabevi, Eskisehir.
Partridge, E., (2005). Social sustainability: a useful theoretical framework. The Australasian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Partridge, E. (2005). Social sustainability’: a useful theoretical framework. In Australasian Political Science Association Annual Conference. 28-30.
Polèse, M., Stren, R. E., & Stren, R. (Eds.). (2000). The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change. University of Toronto press.
Potter, P. (1995). Alternatives to the concept of integration in the struggle against exclusion, Others’ Housing Issues. 488-497. Chamber of Architects of Turkey Publication, Ankara.
Sachs, I. (1999). Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. Journal of sustainability and the social sciences, 2: 25-36.
Taket, A., Crisp, B. R., Graham, M., & Hanna, L. (2013). Scoping social inclusion practice. In Practising social inclusion 17-56. Routledge.
Tekin, H. (1993). Assessment and evaluation in education. Ankara: Yargi Publishing.
Thin, N., Lockhart, C., & Yaron, G. (2002). Conceptualising socially sustainable development. A paper prepared for DFID and the World Bank, DFID. Unpublished work.
Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24: 3-8.
Ozsoy, A., (2011) An assessment for the development of mass housing practices. Journal of Ecological Structures and Settlements, 3: 42-46.
WCED, (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Var, E., B., (2015). Urban rehabilitation and social sustainability: In case of Ortahisar: Trabzon, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, İstanbul.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3): 342-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002
Woodcraft, S. (2012). Social sustainability and new communities: Moving from concept to practice in the UK. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68: 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.204
Woolever, C. (1992). A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment. Urban Studies, 29(1): 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989220080081
Yung, H. K. E., & Chan, H. W. E. (2012). Critical social sustainability factors in urban conservation: The case of the central police station compound in Hong Kong. Facilities. 30(9/10): 396-416.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles that appear in International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions or any other reproductions of similar nature.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- This Journal applies Creative Commons Licenses of CC-BY-NC-SA
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
