Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred Approach

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Efforts to measure social and community sustainability confront a series of methodological dilemmas. We present four key distinctions that tend to orient such efforts: between objective and subjective assessment; between “communities” as the sum-of-their-parts, or as holistic and distinct entities in themselves; between present and future aspects to be measured; and between use of “top–down” and “bottom–up” indicators. We then propose a questionnaire for sustainability assessment in light of these. We administered the questionnaire to various communities in the Middle East, South and South East Asia between 2006 and 2010, and present descriptive summaries and a factor analysis of the results here. The results serve two aims: to augment existing qualitative research conducted in the respective areas, and to test the validity and reliability of the instrument itself. Several limitations of the questionnaire emerged during analysis, which we discuss. The results also show strong correlation with national Human Development Index figures for the communities surveyed and moreover, point to several interesting attitudinal divergences between the communities sampled. We conclude with an outline of a revised sustainability assessment instrument that has application for research looking to bridge the gap between psychological orientations towards wellbeing, on the one hand, and sociological or organizational studies on sustainability, on the other hand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agger, A. (2010). Involving citizens in sustainable development: evidence of new forms of participation in the Danish agenda 21 schemes. Local Environment, 15(6), 541–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assche, J., Block, T., & Reynaert, H. (2010). Can community indicators live up to their expectations? The case of the Flemish city monitor for liveable and sustainable urban development. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 5(4), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 235–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balana, B. B., Mathijs, E., & Muys, B. (2010). Assessing the sustainability of forest management: an application of multi-criteria decision analysis to community forests in northern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1294–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohringer, C., & Jochem, P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable—a survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. A. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: the Australian unity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and Ill-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(2), 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom-line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(4–5), 286–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1999). Unifying livability and comparison theory: cross-national time-series analysis of life-satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 47(1), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hettelingh, J., Vries, B. J. M. D., & Hordijk, L. (2009). Integrated assessment. Principles of environmental sciences. Springer: Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, M. (2007). Revisiting the local impact of community indicators projects: sustainable Seattle as prophet in its own land. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(3–4), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Development Report Office, (2010). HDI 2010 index. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/Lets-Talk-HD-HDI_2010.pdf.

  • Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Basanez, M. (2000). World values survey. USA and Mexico.

  • James, P., Nadarajah, Y., Haive, K., & Stead, V. (2011). Sustainable communities, sustainable development: other paths for Papua New Guinea. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, P., Stead, V., Nadarajah, Y., & Haive, K. (2011). Urban and peri-urban communities: Vanagi settlement, central province; Divinai village, Milne Bay province; Kananam community, Madang province; Yalu village and surrounds, Morobe province. Local–global Papua New Guinea: Projecting Community-Life, 5, 18–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilbourne, W. E. (2006). The role of the dominant social paradigm in the quality of life/environmental interface. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajnc, D., & Glavic, P. (2005). A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43(2), 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, P. S. (2010). Wellbeing—the five essential elements. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(3), 325–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Thai “global person generated index”, an individualised measure of quality of life. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 5(3), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2010). Changing communities, community satisfaction, and quality of life: a view of multiple perceived indicators. Social Indicators Research, 98(1), 105–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCool, S. F., & Stankey, G. H. (2004). Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management, 33(3), 294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: evidence of differential associations with self-reported. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, M., & Shaw, J. (2007). What the world can learn from Sri Lanka’s post-tsunami experiences. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 3(2), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2005). ‘Measuring sustainability’: a multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 559–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, M. (2011). Happiness, income, and beyond. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(3), 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, A., & James, P. (2010a). Accounting for sustainability: combining qualitative and quantitative research in developing ‘indicators’ of sustainability. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, A., & James, P. (2010b). Communities of citizens and “indicators” of sustainability. Community Development Journal, 45(2), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, A., James, P., Humphery, K., & Mulligan, M. (2009). Towards meaningful indicators of wellbeing—community arts, inclusion and avowal in local–global relationships. In S. Fleming (Ed.), Leisure and tourism: international perspectives on cultural practice (pp. 67–78). Liverpool: LSA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilperoord, M., Rotmans, J., & Bergman, N. (2008). Modelling societal transitions with agent transformation. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 14(4), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Societal QOL is more than the sum of QOL of individuals: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(3), 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1992a). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Rio de Janeiro: UN General Assembly.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1992b). Rio declaration on environment and development. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Rio de Janeiro: UN General Assembly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (2009). Happy life years in 143 nations 2000–2008. World database of happiness, Rank report 2009-2a.

  • Veenhoven, R., & Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34(1), 33–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., & Pelot, R. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The people who have contributed to the development of this questionnaire are too numerous to list, but to give a sense of the reach of our indebtedness to others we list the researchers who were involved in the Papua New Guinea project: Albert Age, Sama Arua, Kelly Donati, Jean Eparo, Beno Erepan, Julie Foster-Smith, Betty Gali-Malpo, Andrew Kedu, Max Kep, Leo Kulumbu, Karen Malone, Ronnie Mamia, Lita Mugugia, Martin Mulligan, Yaso Nadarajah, Gibson Oeka, Jalal Paraha, Peter Phipps, Leonie Rakanangu, Isabel Salatiel, Chris Scanlon, Victoria Stead, Pou Toivita, Kema Vegala, Naup Waup, Mollie Willie, and Joe Yomba. In addition, given the issue that the PNG project involved many languages across 50 villages in five provinces, we need to thank in particular, Gerard Arua, Vanapa, Central Province; Monica Arua, Yule Island, Central Province; Viki Avei, Boera, Central Province; Sunema Bagita, Provisional Community Development Advisor, Milne Bay Province; Mago Doelegu, Alotau, Milne Bay Province; Clement Dogale, Vanagi, Central Province; Jerry Gomuma, Alepa, Central Province; Alfred Kaket, Simbukanam/Tokain, Madang Province; Yat Paol from the Bismark Ramu Group, Madang Province; Joseph Pulayasi, Omarakana, Milne Bay Province; Bing Sawanga, Yalu, Morobe Province; Alexia Tokau, Kananam, Madang Province; and Naup Waup, Wisini Village, Morobe Province. They became our formal research leaders in their respective locales and guides to language nuances.

Parts of this research were supported under Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme, and for that we thank the ARC.

We also gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers in the preparation of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    Liam Magee, Andy Scerri & Paul James

  2. RMIT University, 96.2.7c, 17 Lygon Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia

    Liam Magee

Authors
  1. Liam Magee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy Scerri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liam Magee.

Appendix 1. Measuring Community Sustainability, Version 2.0

Appendix 1. Measuring Community Sustainability, Version 2.0

Demographic Variables

  1. 1.

    What is the highest level of formal or school education that you have completed? [Level of educational attainment]

  2. 2.

    What is your age? (Please write how many years old you are.) [Age]

  3. 3.

    What is your gender? [Gender]

  4. 4.

    Financially speaking, how would you describe your household? [Financial self-assessment]

  5. 5.

    Compared to other people of the same age, how would you describe your health? [Health self-assessment]

  6. 6.

    Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not enough money for the health care that you or your family needed? [Cost of health care]

  7. 7.

    With whom do you live? [Cohabitation]

  8. 8.

    How many people live in your household presently? [Household size]

  9. 9.

    For how many years have you lived in your current locality? (That is, in this local place or area) [Duration at current location]

  10. 10.

    What or whom do you identify as your main community? [Identified community]

Well-Being Satisfaction Levels

  1. 11.

    How satisfied are you with being part of your community?

  2. 12.

    How satisfied are you with the environment where you live?

  3. 13.

    How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?

  4. 14.

    How satisfied are you with the balance between your work and social life?

  5. 15.

    How satisfied are you with how safe you feel?

  6. 16.

    How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?

Political

Sense of Trust

  1. 17.

    I can influence people and institutions that have authority in relation to my community.

  2. 18.

    Decisions made in relation to my community are generally made in the interests of the whole community.

  3. 19.

    Outside experts can be trusted when dealing with local issues.

  4. 20.

    Governments make decisions and laws that are good for the way I live locally.

Sense of Concern

  1. 21.

    I am concerned that global levels of politically-motivated violence will affect our locality.

  2. 22.

    I am concerned about the corruption of local political institutions.

Sense of Optimism About the Future

  1. 23.

    Outsiders are and will continue to be comfortable coming to live in our locality.

  2. 24.

    People can learn to live with people who are culturally different from themselves.

Ecological

Sense of Trust

  1. 25.

    Experts will always find a way to solve environmental problems.

  2. 26.

    My identity is bound up with the local natural environment and landscape.

  3. 27.

    Conserving natural resources is unnecessary because alternatives will always be found.

  4. 28.

    In order to conserve natural diversity, economic development should be excluded from substantial wilderness areas.

Sense of Concern

  1. 29.

    Across our locality there is good access to places of nature.

  2. 30.

    I am concerned that global climate change will affect our locality.

Sense of Optimism About the Future

  1. 31.

    We have a capacity to meet our local needs for basic resources such as food, water and energy.

  2. 32.

    Continuing economic growth is compatible with environmental sustainability.

Economic

Sense of Trust

  1. 33.

    Wealth is distributed widely enough to allow all people in our locality to enjoy a good standard of living.

  2. 34.

    Our government supports economic growth as one of its highest priorities.

  3. 35.

    Our economy is adequately protected against competition from foreign-owned businesses.

  4. 36.

    Hard work and initiative alone is enough to get ahead financially.

Sense of Concern

  1. 37.

    I am concerned that global economic change will affect our locality.

  2. 38.

    A slump in the local economy.

Sense of Optimism

  1. 39.

    Keeping our economy sustainable requires that our needs for a wide range of consumer goods are fulfilled.

  2. 40.

    Current levels of consumption in our locality are compatible with an environmentally sustainable future.

Cultural

Sense of Trust

  1. 41.

    I feel that I can influence the generation of meanings and values in relation to our way of life.

  2. 42.

    I feel comfortable meeting and talking with people who are different from me.

  3. 43.

    Most people can be trusted most of the time.

  4. 44.

    Places of learning, health, recreation and faith are distributed across our locality in a way that ensures good access by all.

Sense of Concern

  1. 45.

    I am concerned about a decline in the vitality of local cultural institutions.

  2. 46.

    I am concerned that globally-transmitted cultural values will affect our locality.

Sense of Optimism

  1. 47.

    I am free to express my beliefs through meaningful creative activities.

  2. 48.

    People living in our locality are free to celebrate publicly their own rituals and memories, even if those rituals are not part of the mainstream culture.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Magee, L., Scerri, A. & James, P. Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred Approach. Applied Research Quality Life 7, 239–261 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation