Synonyms

Sustainability

Definition

Social sustainability is a variously defined term that generally refers to the social dimensions of sustainability. In a normative sense it refers to the social goals of sustainability strategies.

Description

Until recently, social sustainability was a relatively neglected dimension of debate, discussion, and theory relating to sustainability or sustainable development. While sustainability as a concept has achieved prominence in many fields, social sustainability is the least developed of the oft-cited “three dimensions” or three “pillars” of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social). Many authors note that both in sustainability theory and practice “the social” has been either neglected (Cuthill, 2010, p. 363), given a lower priority to other dimensions of sustainability, or undertheorized and oversimplified (Colantonio, 2008, pp. 3–4). The conceptual framework for social sustainability is widely acknowledged as under developed, and writers have noted the “paucity of genuine research within the framework of ‘sustainability’ into what sustains and promotes an equitable and just society” (McKenzie, 2004, p. 11) and the lack of a suitable framework to operationalize the concept of social sustainability (Koning, 2001, p. 2). Corporate interpretations of social sustainability have been assessed as particularly weak (Dillard, Dujon, & King, 2009b, p. 3).

Many have suggested that from its beginning, the sustainable development debate was dominated by environmental and economic issues (Cuthill, 2010, p. 365; Colantonio, 2008, p. 3; Partridge, 2005), with the result being that concern for these dimensions “eclipsed” efforts to understand and develop conceptual thinking about social dimensions (Dillard et al., 2009a, p. 2). However, Holden (2012) argues that in introducing the concept of sustainable development, the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) did conceptualize environmental problems and the socioeconomic challenges of poverty as interlinked, but that as the concept of sustainability developed over time, the prominence of environmental concerns came to overshadow social concerns.

Whether insufficient attention to the social dimensions was inherent from the beginning of this debate, or has developed over time, there is wide agreement that the result has been an “unsophisticated understanding of the social dimensions of sustainable development” (Cuthill, 2010, p. 370). While this neglect is widely acknowledged, the relationship between sustainability and social questions remains underexplored, and in particular there is little attention given to “the social” as a dimension of sustainability in its own right (Colantonio, 2008, p. 4). Ecological renditions of social sustainability typically see social issues only in relation to the environment, while economic conceptions embed society within an economic construct – both conceptualizations miss “the factors that sustain community of people” and fail to acknowledge that social sustainability has “intrinsic value” (Magis & Shinn, 2009, p.15, 16) or that sustainability is itself a social question (Partridge, 2005). At the practical level there are a growing number of examples of promising attempts to operationalize the concept of social sustainability, but this has been referred to as “bits and pieces approach” that sees a tendency for promising local strategies to respond to social issues to be isolated, uncoordinated, and not well supported by decision makers (Cuthill, 2010, p. 364).

Just as writers and researchers within the framework of sustainability were slow to focus on the social dimensions of the concept, so too were many in the social sciences slow to engage with sustainability debates (Becker, Jahn, & Stiess, 1999). While a lack of compatibility between perspectives derived from the natural and social sciences is not uncommon, from the current vantage point, it is perhaps surprising that it has taken so long for the sustainability debate to acknowledge “the social,” or conversely, for those working across the social sciences and humanities to acknowledge the relevance of this debate to their various disciplines. For as Becker et al. (1999, p. 4) point out, while sustainability is usually associated with an environmental focus, “it nevertheless describes a field of investigation that is based on a society-oriented definition of problems.” Rather than being “about” the environment then, sustainability can be conceived of as a fundamentally sociological question:

Sustainability addresses the question of how societies can shape their modes of change in such a way so as to ensure the preconditions of development for future generations … it refers to the viability of socially shaped relationships between society and nature over long periods of time. (Becker et al., 1999, p. 4)

Robinson’s definition of sustainability is similar: “Sustainability is ultimately an issue of human behavior, and negotiation over preferred futures, under conditions of deep contingency and uncertainty” (Robinson, 2004, pp. 379–80).

Sustainability then turns out to be “a topic of research that is basically social” (Becker et al., 1999, p. 4, emphasis added). As such, it is one within which environmental questions are just one aspect – the concept also requires consideration of social questions. Or more accurately, it demands an analysis of the complex relationship between the two. Neither social nor environmental sustainability can be considered in isolation – “sustainability has to be conceptualized in strictly relational terms” (Becker et al., 1999, p. 6). Further, as Robinson (2004, p. 379) writes, sustainability “is an inherently problem-driven rather than scientific, concept.” While scientific analysis is crucial, it is only part of the picture – what is also needed is an understanding of how complex ecological, social, and economic systems interact.

The lack of attention to the social dimensions of sustainability strikes Koning as intriguing, because sustainability “is so closely linked with well-being, future generations, quality of life” (Koning, 2001, p. 5). As Adebowale (2002) writes, sustainability has always been related to a core concept of human need, so it is “a fundamental contradiction to the principles of sustainable development to believe that it can be achieved without improved social equity and social progress” (2001, p. 5). Stren and Polèse put this in policy terms: “Without social policy there can be no effective environmental policy” (2000, p. 15). Holden (2012) suggests that from its origins in Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), the idea of sustainability can be read as one that required a radical new politics of development that coupled social, economic, and environmental goals, and it is therefore somewhat ironic that the approach developed as one that neglected of the social dimension.

Despite the previous lack of attention, there is now an increasing focus on social sustainability, with a growing number of authors exploring ways to both improve the conceptual definition of the concept in its own right and integrate the social dimensions of sustainability into broader sustainability theory and practice. Many have called for greater attention to be paid to the further development of the concept, arguing that it is currently somewhat “elastic” (Manzi et al., 2010b, p. 24) and “fuzzy” (Colantonio, 2008, p. 3) and needs to be further refined and developed if it is “to provide a strong ‘third pillar’ for ‘development’ that is both just and sustainable” (Cuthill, 2010, p. 363). Others argue that this can be progressed through greater engagement in this work by those outside what have largely been environmentally focused “sustainability” circles, such as social and political theorists (Partridge, 2005, Becker et al., 1999).

Social scientists and social and political theorists are now beginning to explore the relevance and potential for “sustainability” and to recognize the significant opportunity that exists to contribute to defining and refining sustainability, particularly its social dimensions. Cheney, Nheu, and Vecellio (2004, p. 244) argue that one of the most useful contributions social science can make to sustainability is to make values and power relationships explicit. They suggest it is the theoretical traditions concerned with justice and dialogue in particular that have the potential to contribute to the social change potential of sustainability discourse. Becker et al. (1999, p. 7) suggest an analytical framework for considering environmental sustainability that focuses on economic processes, social processes, patterns and factors, and decision-making processes and institutional arrangements.

The literature on social sustainability is still emerging, and there is as yet no consensus on a definition of the term (Dempsey, Bramley, Power, & Brown, 2009, Dillard et al., 2009b, p. 2, Colantonio, 2008), partly because the concept is currently being approached from diverging perspectives and disciplines, making a generalized definition difficult to achieve (Colantonio, 2008). Indeed, some have problematized the idea that a singular definition can be reached (McKenzie, 2004). However, a number of working definitions have been offered (for overviews, see Partridge (2005) and Colantonio (2008)).

The Western Australian Council of Social Service defines social sustainability as occurring “when the formal and informal processes; systems; structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable communities,” adding that “socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life” (Western Australian Council of Social Service [WACOSS], 2002). Similarly, McKenzie suggests social sustainability is “a life-enhancing condition within communities” that has the following features:

  • “Equity of access to key services (including health, education, transport, housing, and recreation)

  • Equity between generations, meaning that future generations will not be disadvantaged by the activities of the current generation

  • A system of cultural relations in which the positive aspects of disparate cultures are valued and promoted when desired by individuals and groups

  • Widespread political participation of citizens not only in electoral procedures but also in other areas of political activity, particularly at a local level

  • A system for transmitting awareness of social sustainability from one generation to the next

  • A sense of community responsibility for maintaining that system of transmission

  • Mechanisms for a community to collectively identify its strengths and needs.” (McKenzie, 2004, p. 12)

Taking a slightly different approach, Becker et al. redefine sustainability from a sociological perspective, stressing its analytical, normative, and political elements. In an analytical sense, sustainability means that “social development can no longer be viewed without considering its natural prerequisites” and that there should be no assumption of an “ideal” way for human societies to develop, but rather an emphasis on the “diversity of paths for societal transformation, depending on the particular cultural or political as well as ecological starting points.” The normative features of sustainability are justice for future generations, the subordination of economic goals to social and ecological constraints, gender equity, and democratic participation in decision-making processes. The political dimension is inherent in the focus on relationships between people and the environment, and the systems of governance, policy development, and institutional arrangements that determine those relationships (Becker et al., 1999, p. 5). Holden also sees political value in a focus on the social dimensions; pointing to work by local governments in Vancouver, Canada, as an example, she suggests that attempts to put social sustainability principles into practice at a local policy level can result in a “concerted repoliticisation of the local work of sustainable development,” by enabling a range of social issues previously considered marginal to be placed on the urban governance agenda (2012, p. 540).

While there may be no agreement on a concise “definition” of social sustainability, a review of the literature suggests a fair degree of consensus about the main themes or components of social sustainability. For summaries of the key themes that are emerging as important constituents of social sustainability, see Partridge (2005) and Colantonio (2008). For an overview that differentiates between nonphysical and physical factors identified in a review of the literature as contributing to social sustainability, see Dempsey (2009). The main principles or components of social sustainability that emerge are as follows: quality of life (or well-being), equity or social justice (which in turn encompasses the goals of inclusion and access), a “futures focus,” and democratic and participatory governance, each of which is briefly explained below:

Quality of Life

While “quality of life” may be hard to define and is necessarily subjective, the concept provides a useful means of focusing on the quaitative “human” dimension of social sustainability – where the aim is improving the quality of people’s lives. Some use a concept of “basic needs” to stress that at a fundamental level, social sustainability must imply the provision of such basic human needs as shelter, food, clean water, and employment (Colantonio, 2008, WACOSS, 2002). Others stress that sustainability requires that “quality of life for people today must not be achieved at the expense of people in the future” (Department of Environment and Transport and the Regions [DETR], 2000, p. 3) or that it demands a priority focus on improvements that can be made to the lives of the most disadvantaged rather than being a means to justify the unsustainable levels of consumption and waste that tend to accompany the pursuit of increased “quality of life” by already wealthy or privileged groups (Partridge, 2005).

Equity (or Social Justice)

Equity is the most commonly mentioned requirement for social sustainability, with many authors stressing notions of social justice and equity both essential and central in any definition of social sustainability (Cuthill, 2010, Colantonio, 2008, Dempsey et al., 2009, Koning, 2001, Partridge, 2005, WACOSS, 2002). The principles of social justice and equity provide “an ethical foundation” for social sustainability policies, directing a focus on those who are worst off in any given community (Cuthill, 2010, p. 368). Equity has also been described as such a fundamental component that it should be a “filter” through which all other principles are viewed (WACOSS, 2002). Numerous authors argue that social sustainability must have a redistributive element and that a sustainable community must be a just and equitable one (McManus, 1999, Dempsey et al., 2009) that “provides equitable opportunities and outcomes for all its members, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community” (WACOSS, 2002). Evidence that societies with lower levels of disparity have longer life expectancies, less crime, stronger civic engagement, and more robust economies suggests that equity is “a crucial component” of social sustainability (Colantonio, 2008, p. 6). Stren and Polèse argue that “social sustainability is strongly reflected in the degree to which inequalities and social discontinuity are reduced” (2000, p. 16). Importantly, the focus on social justice should make it clear that sustainability does not imply an endorsement of current social conditions. On the contrary, it recognizes that, for example, natural capital stocks have previously been lost to certain groups – particularly indigenous people – and this must be addressed through “a retrospective social justice component” (McManus, 1999, p. 67).

Inclusion (or Interconnectedness)

One means of improving equity is to increase levels of inclusion or interconnectedness. Many authors stress current levels of social exclusion as one of the impediments to achieving social sustainability, which should be understood as “the polar opposite of exclusion, both in territorial and social terms” (Stren & Polèse, 2000, p. 16). Social exclusion refers to the way poverty, deprivation, and related social problems work to exclude people both physically (e.g., through inequitable access to transport, jobs, or public services) and socially from the benefits and opportunities afforded by full social and economic participation. Social sustainability implies an equitable society in which there are no “exclusionary or discriminatory practices that hinder individuals or particular groups from participating fully in society” (Dempsey et al., 2009). Rather a socially sustainable community is one that “provides processes, systems and structures that promote connectedness within and outside the community at the formal, informal and institutional level” (WACOSS, 2002). Social exclusion has been described as a “new, more brutal form of spatial polarization” than the residential segregation and social segmentation found in cities throughout history (Polèse, 2000, p. 308). Social sustainability therefore requires “territorial justice,” that is, geographically equal access to services, as opposed to the social exclusion and inequity manifested by areas of deprivation and poorer living environments found in many contexts (Dempsey et al., 2009). Working towards social sustainability, then, means better integrating or including marginalized or excluded individuals and groups in economic, social, cultural, and political life. Such strategies can help achieve what Dempsey et al. (2009) call “sustainability of community” – a key component of social sustainability that refers to “the collective aspects of life,” measurable aspects of which might include social interaction and networks, participation in collective groups and networks, community stability (or low residential turnover), pride or sense of place, and safety and security. This concept makes the “continued viability, health and functioning of ‘society’ itself as a collective entity” fundamental to the concept of social sustainability (Dempsey et al., 2009).

Access

Accessibility is a commonly cited measure of social equity (Dempsey et al., 2009). Working towards social sustainability requires increasing the level of access (to resources, services, and opportunities) for those currently experiencing social exclusion. Social sustainability requires the addressing of inequitable levels of access to all aspects of life, from employment, housing and living conditions, services, and facilities to opportunities for participation in social, cultural, and political structures and processes. As noted above, this requires particular attention to be paid to those groups of people whose access to resources and opportunities has historically been compromised.

A “Futures Focus”

Adopting a sustainability perspective implies a concern with the future as well as the present. Social sustainability requires the creation of a just society in the present and the establishment of structures and processes that will guarantee lasting and continuing justice. Thus, social sustainability requires the conditions to be created for the maintenance and improvement of just social conditions for current and future generations (Partridge, 2005). A futures focus is also inevitable because as Dempsey et al. argue “social sustainability is neither an absolute nor a constant” but a “dynamic concept,” which will change over time as external influences change (2009). Similarly, Robinson argues that sustainability is a process, not an end-state to be reached, and that it might be thought of as “the emergent property of a conversation about desired futures that is informed by some understanding of the ecological, social and economic consequences of different courses of action” (Robinson, 2004, p. 381).

Participatory Processes

Democratic and participatory processes of governance are commonly cited as critical components of social sustainability. As an ongoing social process, sustainability requires the development of “methods of deliberation and decision-making that actively engage the relevant interests and communities in thinking through and deciding upon the kind of future they want to try to create” (Robinson, 2004, p. 380). More formally, a socially sustainable community is one that provides democratic processes and open and accountable governance structures (WACOSS, 2002). The goal should be “a more engaged form of governance that provides a foundation for stakeholders to be more closely involved in decision-making and informed action relating to social sustainability” (Cuthill, 2010, p. 369).

Emerging Models

While disagreement continues about a precise definition of sustainability, the most common approach and widely accepted approach is to conceptualize it as having three interlinked aspects or dimensions – namely, environmental, economic, and social. The “three-dimensional” model marks a clear shift from the original two-way focus on the “economy-environment” relationship. What began as a means of highlighting the environmental damage wrought by certain economic activity has, with the addition of the third, social element, become a more complex and multidimensional field. Sustainability is now commonly understood as requiring a balance between the three dimensions – environment, economy, and society.

Some see the three-dimensional model of sustainability itself, and the (belated) placement of “the social” within it, as perhaps indicative of the relative neglect of insights from social science and humanities disciplines in the sustainability debate. As Cheney et al. (2004, p. 228) assert, many in such disciplines would question the separation of the “social” from economic and environmental dimensions – and in particular would object to the apparent reification of the economy as a separate sphere outside or separate from the social. Partridge (2005) suggests it is an indication of the pervasive nature of an economic-centered paradigm that sustainability was ever able to be conceived as a relationship between “environment and economy” in the first place, as if “economy” is not absolutely a social creation. However, while the three-part model, with its implication that “social” and “economic” constitute discrete and equal spheres, may be analytically dubious, it can be useful in practice. Insisting on a separate sphere for “the social” does ensure that there is a clear place for a focus on noneconomic values. It also highlights how conceptually underdeveloped the social determinants of sustainability are.

A range of models for conceptualizing the relationship between the different dimensions of sustainability have been offered (see Manzi et al., 2010b for a discussion of different approaches). Becker argues that in many conventional approaches, the social perspective is very much an afterthought with social processes considered only as they relate to other targets or goals and social science knowledge playing only an instrumental role – useful only in making technological solutions more effective (Becker, 1999, p. 9). Clearly, this approach does not come close to realizing the full potential of a social approach to sustainability. Dillard et al. suggest that a more cross-disciplinary approach is now developing, with the social and natural science disciplines now beginning to recognize the importance of the other and the interrelatedness of the social with the environmental (Dillard et al., 2009b, p. 1).

Perhaps the most detailed attempt to develop and integrate the social dimension is that suggested by Cuthill. This model is based on two premises, firstly that “environmental problems are first and foremost social problems,” because they require the management of human impact on the natural environment, not the management of nature per se and secondly that “economics is meant to serve people” and in particular to enable equitable distribution of resources (as opposed to the view that people serve economic interests). Cuthill’s conceptual framework proposes an interdependent and self-reinforcing relationship between four key components of social sustainability, each of which has a specific role in contributing to the overall concept, namely:

  • Social capital provides a theoretical starting point for social sustainability

  • Social infrastructure provides an operational perspective

  • Social justice and equity provide an ethical imperative

  • Engaged governance provides a methodology for “working together” (Cuthill, 2010, p. 366)

Cuthill’s model provides a useful development of the notion of social sustainability, both as a concept in its own right, and as one that stands in a relationship with broader concepts of sustainability. Both of these aspects will require further development in the literature; however, recent work such as this continues to demonstrate the ongoing relevance and potential of the concept.

Criticisms of the Concept

Manzi et al. (2010b) summarize four criticisms that have been made of the concept of social sustainability (particularly in an urban policy context). Firstly, some argue that it is too abstract for practical implementation and further that this allows policy makers to deliberately avoid clear definitions, preferring the vagueness of “warm words” that do not commit them to specific actions. Secondly, it is suggested that many conceptions of social sustainability fail to appreciate the complexity of local political contexts, instead assuming idealized “win-win scenarios” and conflict-free consensus decision-making. Manzi et al. argue that this tendency neglects the inherent political dimension of the concept and obscures power relationships. Inevitably, however, social sustainability debates will need to engage with political questions of inequality, redistribution, citizenship, and social justice. A third and related criticism is that social sustainability does not sufficiently acknowledge the constraints of an empowerment and participation agenda. Overly simplistic conceptualizations of “participation” and “deliberation” risk ignoring the question of whether people have the capacity to “participate” and underestimating the significance of existing social conventions, power relations, and interests. Lastly, it is suggested that social sustainability debates pay insufficient attention to the international and global dimension. While many discussions of social sustainability are concerned with the local or “neighborhood” level and issues may be more easily understood at this level, there is a need for more sustained attention to global implications of “local” issues and for a wider global perspective more generally.

Cross-References

Sustainability

Sustainable Development