Sustainable development is a widely used term, which has been increasingly infl uential on UK planning, housing and urban policy in recent years. Debates about sustainability no longer consider sustainability solely as an environmental concern, but also incorporate economic and social dimensions. However, while a social dimension to sustainability is widely accepted, exactly what this means has not been very clearly defi ned or agreed. This paper aims to address this disparity through a detailed exploration and defi nition of the concept of social sustainability within the urban context. The relationship between urban form and social sustainability is explored and two main dimensions of social sustainability are identifi ed and discussed in detail: equitable access and the sustainability of the community itself.

Planning and urban policies emphasise ‘sustainability’, but claims that ‘compact cities' are more socially sustainable and acceptable have been controversial and subject to limited empirical testing. After a brief review of the concepts and debate, we set out new empirical evidence based on household surveys linked to neighbourhood physical, map-based, and sociodemographic data for five British cities. Statistical models are developed to account for systematic variations in the main social sustainability outcomes. The results are considered both in terms of the role of particular urban form and locational measures, but also in terms of the broader patterns of effects of packages of measures. Outcomes relating to residential satisfaction, stability, neighbourhood environment, and safety are all shown to be lower in higher density/central places, but it is also shown that a good deal of this apparent effect is due to social and demographic factors. Interaction with neighbours and participation in groups is better at medium densities, controlling for other factors, while use of local services is, as expected, greater in denser, more central locations. These findings indicate that compact cities are not ‘win-win’ on all dimensions of sustainability but, rather, that reductions in transport emissions will have to be weighed against social criteria. In addition, urban form has different aspects, which have differing social effects, and this knowledge could inform the future design of ‘smarter’ urban environments.

No abstract

No abstract

Two consequences of the continued urbanisation of the human population are that a growing proportion of the landscape is less hospitable to, and that a growing proportion of people are disconnected from, native biodiversity. One response of the UK government has been to establish a goal, and an associated baseline indicator, of increasing the extent and range of public participation in gardening for wildlife. The formulation of policy to attain this end requires, however, insight into the factors that are associated with the level of participation. Here we examine the relationships, across 15 areas in five UK cities, between the proportion of households providing various garden features for wildlife or participating in various wildlife gardening activities, and housing densities and characteristics of the garden resource. We show that significant numbers of households participate in some form of wildlife gardening, but that the predominant form this participation takes is feeding wild birds. Key variables associated with spatial variation in wildlife gardening activities are the proportion of households with access to a garden and, more importantly, average garden size and the proportion of land cover by gardens. There was no evidence for strong effects of household density or the socio-economic status of householders on the prevalence of wildlife friendly features in gardens or on the participation by householders in activities to encourage wildlife. Our results suggest important considerations in attempts to increase awareness and participation in wildlife gardening.