Placekeeping: bringing quality of local social life into the mix
have just published a
report developing a methodology to measure social sustainability in new
aim of this project is to create a practical and cost-effective way of
measuring people’s quality of life and the strength of community.’
This could be significant because, as the report
new emphasis on social sustainability means thinking about placekeeping
as well as placemaking.
It requires us to recognise that some intangibles – the emotional relationships
that people who live in and use a space develop – are as important as the hard
infrastructure we deliver.’
(Be warned, at the moment some of the links say ‘download
full publication’ but you may only get Part
1, which itself doesn’t appear to carry links to Parts 2
and 3. Part 1 gives the deceptive impression that it's a self-contained report).
The first part seeks to demonstrate how the
methodology as it stands could be applied, in this case to new developments,
three of them in London.
Since residents presumably moved in at roughly the same time, have similar issues to
discuss, and a similar drive to get to know people, you’d expect levels of
neighbourliness and satisfaction to be reasonably high for the first few years
at least. Plus they just invested emotional energy in the move, so folk are
more likely to be upbeat about the place. The housing provider has to really
mess up to get bad marks early on.
But the real point is the development and testing
of a methodology that can bring the social quality of local life into the mix.
The framework applied to the four localities has three ‘critical dimensions’:
amenities and social
social and cultural
residents’ voice and
A fourth dimension, change in the neighbourhood, will be
assessed in due course using data from the 2011 Census. These dimensions are populated with 13 indicators comprised of a total of 45 questions, mostly taken from or adapted from established surveys. The findings for the four study areas are based mainly
on nearly 600 face-to-face interviews in the four sites,
with site surveys and some interviews with professionals/practitioners, and
benchmarked against London
and national comparative data.
The first thing that might strike you is
that all the indicators, and indeed the three dimensions, are treated equally.
This is not addressed in the main report but is covered in section 2:
‘It is probable that different questions have different
significance in explaining social sustainability, and there is as yet no
evidence available that provides any rationale for weighting.’
Weighting will have to
wait. Fair enough.
This is enormously thorough, detailed work, and further refinement could make it very strong. We will all have our doubts about some of the questions used but there's no doubting the soundness of the overall approach. Whether or not it becomes a standard tool as we strive to become a nation of housebuilders, it all adds to the drive to embed the factors of local social quailty of life in decision-making processes.