Alsherfawi Aljazaerly, A; Okyere, S A; Mensah, S L; Abunyewah, M; Frimpong, L K and Kita, M (2026) Towards a socially sustainable built environment: A comparative assessment of urban neighbourhoods in Istanbul. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 15(1), pp. 343-363. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – Integrating and advancing social sustainability is foundational to achieving the urban sustainable development goals. Given the rapid transformation of cities in the Mediterranean region, this study sought to assess residents' evaluation of social sustainability in two socio-spatially diverse neighbourhoods of metropolitan Istanbul. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey, adapted from an empirically well-tested and robust social sustainability framework, was used to collect data from 197 residents from Balat and Rasimpasa neighbourhoods in Metropolitan Istanbul. The study then employed quantitative analytical techniques such as independent sample t-tests and Pearson correlation to analyse the sample data. Findings – In both neighbourhoods, accessibility and participation were ranked the highest and lowest dimensions of social sustainability, respectively. However, the t-test analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the two neighbourhoods regarding social networking and interaction, safety and security and participation. The differences align with emerging studies on urban social sustainability in the Mediterranean and European cities that when considered from urban spatial contexts, significant differences emerge from a social network and safety perspective. Practical implications – Our study invites urban planners and policy makers attention to and emphasise on lowly evaluated social sustainability dimensions such as participation in their efforts to promote sustainable urban development at the neighbourhood level. We reason that opening the decision-making process to include diverse voices and experiences of residents through participatory workshops might offer opportunities for context-specific, citizen-led urban planning and design strategies that are socially sustainable. Originality/value – Previous studies have not fully accounted for how various socio-spatial contexts at the neighbourhood level shape differential evaluation of social sustainability. This paper extends the emerging work on urban social sustainability by situating residents' evaluation of social sustainability indicators across two unique neighbourhoods with gridded and organic spatial characteristics in Istanbul. This paper is an important addition to ongoing work on how spatial organisation of neighbourhoods can influence experiences of social sustainability from an urban planning and design perspective.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Istanbul; social sustainability; sustainable development; urban development; urban neighbourhoods |
| Index terms: | urban planning, Istanbul, questionnaire, methodology, survey, sustainable development, networking, social network, design strategy, interaction, dimension, built environment, urban development, planner, sustainable development goal, social sustainability, transformation, sustainable urban development, decision-making process, workshop, accessibility |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, sociology, design methods, business, data collection methods, profession, health monitoring assessment and metrics, sustainability and resilience, communication, urban design, health safety and environment, Geography, sustainable design, research methods, inclusive design, behavioral psychology, communities and social development, construction type, urban planning |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Construction Technology, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here