Affiliation:
1. Multidisciplinary Studies School, HIT—Holon Institute of Technology, Holon 5810201, Israel
2. School of Architecture, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel
Abstract
This short opinion article critically comments on some current mainstream trends, characteristics, and biases in urban social sustainability research literature. Through identifying some gaps regarding geography, sub-topics, and study approaches, and through considering “off-the-map” southern urban realities, it calls for the need to refocus and reshape some of the basic notions and presumptions that currently stand behind urban social sustainability theory, concepts, and policy design. Enhancing our sensitivity to truly global urban conditions, argue the authors, would result in less expected and generic (Eurocentric) approaches regarding urban social sustainability and would contribute to its more meaningful and comprehensive understanding. A bias towards qualitative, place-based, and context-sensitive analysis is a necessary step in rendering urban social sustainability truly global as well as in the making of more place-intelligent and place-responsive planning interventions.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Geography, Planning and Development,Building and Construction
Reference35 articles.
1. van Rinsum, H., and de Ruijter, A. (2002). More on Most: Proceedings of an Expert Meeting, National UNESCO Commission.
2. McKenzie, S. (2004). Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No 27, University of South Australia.
3. Social Sustainability: A Catchword between Political Pragmatism and Social Theory;Littig;Int. J. Sustain. Dev.,2005
4. The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability;Dempsey;Sust. Dev.,2011
5. da Costa, C. (2017). Architectural Research Addressing Social Challenges: Conference Proceedings, Taylor & Francis.