Advertisement

Social Acceptability

  • Glen Bramley
  • Caroline Brown
  • Nicola Dempsey
  • Sinead Power
  • David Watkins
Chapter
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 2)

Abstract

Urban forms cannot be considered ‘sustainable’ in the full sense if they are not acceptable to people as places to live, work and interact. This chapter focuses on the relationship between urban form and social sustainability, and has four main aims. First, drawing upon a wide-ranging literature we advance and clarify an understanding of social sustainability that allows us to explore possible links between social sustainability and urban form. There has hitherto been a lack of clear and agreed definitions for this concept and we hope our approach contributes to a better shared understanding. The second aim is to address ways of measuring social sustainability and testing/quantifying some of the hypothesized relationships between selected dimensions of social sustainability and urban form. The measures used draw primarily on the household survey of case study neighbourhoods, linked to urban form measures as described in  Chapter 2. The third aim of the chapter is to examine the empirical relationships between aspects of social sustainability and different aspects of urban form, particularly density, housing type and location. This analysis highlights the importance of controlling for exogenous and intervening variables, such as housing tenure and the social composition of neighbourhoods, in testing and calibrating these relationships. The final aim is to offer some more insights into how and why some urban forms may provide more beneficial social outcomes for different groups of people, based on qualitative focus group evidence.

Keywords

Social Capital Local Service Urban Form Housing Tenure Social Sustainability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Atkinson, R. and Flint, J. (2003) Locating the local in informal processes of social control: the defended neighbourhood and informal crime management, CNR Paper 10. Bristol University, School of Policy Studies, Centre for Neighbourhood Research.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2001) Disentangling neighbourhood effects: evidence from deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies 38(11), pp. 2277–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audirac, I. and Zifou, M. (1989) Urban development issues: What is controversial in urban sprawl? An annotated bibliography of often overlooked sources, Council of Planning Librarians, Monticello, IL.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey. N. and Livingstone, M. (2007) Population Turnover and Area Deprivation, Research Report to Joseph Rowntree Foundation, JRF, York.Google Scholar
  5. Barton, H. (ed) (2000) Sustainable Communities: the potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  6. Barton, H., Grant, M. and Guise, R. (2003) Shaping Neighbourhoods: a guide for health, sustainability and vitality, Spon Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, B. L. (2004) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Pearson International, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research, SAGE Publications, London.Google Scholar
  9. Bramley, G., Brown, C., Dempsey, N. and Power, S. (2007) Social Sustainability and Urban Form: measuring and calibrating the relationship. Paper presented at Planning Research Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, April 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2006) What is ‘social sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it? Paper presented at Global Places, Local Spaces Planning Research Conference 2006, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 5th-7th April 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Bramley, G. and Power, S. (2005) Urban Form and Social Sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Paper presented at European Network for Housing Research, Reykjavic, Iceland, June 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Bramley, G. and Morgan, J. (2003) Building competitiveness and cohesion: The role of new house building in central Scotland’s cities. Housing Studies, 18(4), pp. 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bramley, G., Pawson, H. and Third, H. (2000) Low Demand Housing and Unpopular Neighbourhoods. DETR, London.Google Scholar
  14. Breheny, M. (1992a) Sustainable development and urban form, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  15. Breheny, M. (1992b) The contradictions of the compact city: a review. In Sustainable development and urban form, (ed. M. Breheny), Pion, London, pp. 138–159.Google Scholar
  16. Bridge, G. (2002) The neighbourhood and social networks, CNR, Paper 4, April 2002, http://www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk
  17. Brook Lyndhurst (2004) Sustainable Cities and the Ageing Society: the role of older people in an urban renaissance, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.Google Scholar
  18. Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Bunker, R. (1985) Urban consolidation and Australian cities. Built Environment, 11, pp. 83–96Google Scholar
  20. Burton, E. (2000a) The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), pp. 1969–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burton, E. (2000b) The potential of the compact city for promoting social equity. In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, (eds. K. Williams, L. Burton, and M. Jenks), E & FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  22. Burton, E. (2003) Housing for an urban renaissance: implications for social equity. Housing Studies, 18(4), pp. 537–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2005a) Decent parks? Decent behaviour? the link between the quality of parks and user behaviour, CABE Space, London.Google Scholar
  24. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2005b) Parks Need Parkforce: a report on the people who work in our urban parks and green spaces, CABE Space, London.Google Scholar
  25. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2005c) Start With the Park: creating sustainable urban green spaces in areas of housing growth and renewal, CABE Space, London.Google Scholar
  26. Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream, Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Collie, M. (1990) The case for urban consolidation. Australian Planner, 28, pp. 26–33.Google Scholar
  28. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1990) Green paper on the urban environment, CEC, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Congress of the New Urbanism (CNU) (2004) Charter of New Urbanism, (http://www.cnu.org/about/index.cfm)
  30. Darlow, A. (1996) Cultural policy and urban sustainability: making a missing link? Planning Practice and Research, 11(3), pp. 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dempsey, N. (2006) The Influence of the Quality of the Built Environment on Social Cohesion in English Neighbourhoods. Unpublished PhD thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2007) Survey of English Housing (SEH) Live Tables, DCLG, London.Google Scholar
  33. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) State of the English Cities, Research Summary 21, DCLG, London.Google Scholar
  34. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) (1997) Indicators of Sustainable Development, DETR, London.Google Scholar
  35. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) (1999a) Towards an Urban Renaissance – Final Report of the Urban Task Force, E and FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  36. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) (1999b) A Better Quality of Life, DETR, London.Google Scholar
  37. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) (2001) Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development, Government Annual Report 2000, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  38. Diamond, H. L. and Noonan, P. F. (1996) Land Use in America, Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  39. Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E. (2001) The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream, North Point Press, Florida.Google Scholar
  40. Elkin, T., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991) Reviving the city: towards sustainable urban development, Friends of the Earth, London.Google Scholar
  41. English Heritage, Sport England and The Countryside Agency (2003) The Use of Public Parks in England 2003, Sport England, London.Google Scholar
  42. Ewing, R. (1997) Is Los Angeles style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), pp. 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fisher, T. and Bramley, G. (2006) Poverty and local services. In Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, (eds. C. Pantazis, D. Gordon and R. Levitas), Policy Press, Bristol.Google Scholar
  44. Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2125–2143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Freeman, L. (2001) The effects of sprawl on neighbourhood social ties. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), pp. 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Glynn, T. (1981) Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations, 34, pp. 789–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gordon, P. and Richardson, H. (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), pp. 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Groves, R. M. and Couper, M. P. (1998) Nonresponse in household interview surveys, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  49. H M Government, (2005) Securing the Future, Cm 6467, The Stationary Office, London.Google Scholar
  50. Harvey, D. (1989) The Urban Experience, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. Haughton, G. and Hunter, C. (1994) Sustainable Cities, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  52. Hills, J., Le Grand, J. and Piachaud, D. (2002) Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Hirschfield, A. and Bowers, K. (1997) The effects of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas. Urban Studies, 34(8), pp. 1275–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Institute for Public Policy Research (2006) Childhood is changing, but ‘paedophobia’ makes things worse. IPPR. [Online]. Retrieved on 26th July 2007 from: http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2388
  55. Jenks, M. (2000) The Acceptability of Urban Intensification. In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, (eds. K. Williams, E. Burton and M. Jenks), E & FN Spon, London, pp. 242–250.Google Scholar
  56. Jenks, M., Burton, E. and Williams, K. (1996) The Compact City: a sustainable urban form? E & FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  57. Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (2007) Defining the Neighbourhood: challenges for empirical research. Town Planning Review, 78(2), pp. 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Katz, P. (1994) The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000) Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5-6), pp. 995–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kearns, A. and Turok, I. (2003) Sustainable communities: dimensions and challenges, Urban and Neighbourhood Studies Research Network.Google Scholar
  61. Knight, C. (1996) Economic and Social Issues In The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (eds. M. Jenks, E. Burton and K. Williams), E & FN Spon, London, pp. 114–121.Google Scholar
  62. Krueger, R. A. (1994) Focus Groups: a practical guide for applied research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  63. Krueger, R. A. (1998) Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  64. Laurie, H. (2006) Lessons for Census Enumeration from Survey Research. Paper presented at Hard to Count? Royal Statistical Society Seminar, London, 4th December 2006.Google Scholar
  65. MacDonald, C. and Bramley, G. (2006) Cityform Household Survey Methodology. Unpublished working paper, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  66. Margo, J. (2007) Gordon’s Plan to Keep the Kids Under Control. The Sunday Times, 8th July 2007, p. 27.Google Scholar
  67. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  68. Nasar, J. and Julian, D. (1995) The psychological sense of community in the neighbourhood. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, pp. 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nelessen, A. C. (1994) Visions for a New American Dream: process, principles and an ordinance to plan and design small urban communities, American Planning Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  70. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable communities: building for the future, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  71. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004) Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention, ODPM, London.Google Scholar
  72. Pierson, J. (2002) Tackling social exclusion, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  73. Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. (2006) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Policy Press, Bristol.Google Scholar
  74. Polese, M. and Stren, R. (2000) The social sustainability of cities: diversity and management of change, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  75. Power, A. and Mumford, K. (1999) The slow death of great cities? Urban abandonment or urban renaissance, JRF/York Publishing Services, York.Google Scholar
  76. Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  77. Rees, J. (1988) Social polarisation in shopping patterns: an example from Swansea. Planning Practice and Research, 6, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
  78. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2007) The Urban Environment, The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
  79. Rydin, Y. (2003) Rationalities of planning: Development versus environment in planning for housing, Urban Studies, 40(10), pp. 2099–2101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Selman, P. (1996) Local Sustainability: Managing and planning ecologically sound places, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  81. Shaftoe, H. (2000) Community safety and actual neighbourhoods. In Sustainable communities: The potential for eco-neighbourhoods, (ed. H. Barton), Earthscan Publications, London.Google Scholar
  82. Sherlock, H. (1990) Cities are good for use: the case for close knit communities, local shops and public transport, Palodin, London.Google Scholar
  83. Shore, W. B. (1995) ‘Recentralization’: the single answer to more than a dozen United States problems and a major answer to poverty. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(4), pp. 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simmel, G. (1995) The metropolis and mental life. In Metropolis: Center and Symbol of our times, (ed. P Kasnitz), Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 30–45Google Scholar
  85. Talen, E. (1999) Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Studies, 36(8), pp. 1361–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) (1998) The costs of sprawl revisited, Report 39, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  87. Tunstall, R and Lupton, R. (2003) Is targeting deprived areas an effective means to reach poor people? An assessment of one rationale for area-based funding programme, CASE Paper 70, June 2003, CASE, LSE.Google Scholar
  88. United Nations (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development, Johannesburg, 26th August-4th September 2002.Google Scholar
  89. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, E & F Spon, London.Google Scholar
  90. Whitehead, M. (2003) (Re) Analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation and the regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies, 40(7), pp. 1183–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Williams, K. (2000) Does Intensifying Cities Make Them More Sustainable? In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, (eds. K. Williams, L. Burton, and M. Jenks), E & FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  92. Wirth, L. (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woolever, C. (1992) A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment. Urban Studies, 29(1), pp. 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. World Commission on Environmental Development (1987) Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  95. Yiftachel, O and Hedgcock, D. (1993) Urban social sustainability: The planning of an Australian city. Cities, 10(2), pp. 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen Bramley
    • 1
  • Caroline Brown
    • 2
  • Nicola Dempsey
    • 3
  • Sinead Power
    • 4
    • 5
  • David Watkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research into Socially Inclusive Services (CRSIS), School of the Built EnvironmentHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.CRSIS, School of the Built EnvironmentHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  4. 4.Children, Young People and Social Care TeamScottish GovernmentEdinburghUK
  5. 5.School of the Built EnvironmentHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations