Social sustainability in Swedish urban development - what does it mean? : A casestudy of three Citylab Action pilot projects

Abstract: Cities around the world are facing challenges of rapid population growth, social inequality, environmental degradation and climate change. Within the realm of planning and policy, one answer to these issues has been the invention of certification systems to support the transition to a sustainable urban development. In the last ten years a number of certification systems for sustainable urban development on neighbourhood level have been developed, such as BREEAM Communities and LEED Neighborhood Development. Though an important contribution for a systematic way to treat sustainability in urban development, such systems have been criticised in a number of criteria, among which an important deficiency is their lack of factors for social sustainability. A new Swedish certification system for neighbourhood level, Citylab Action, is since January 2016 being tested in a pilot round with twelve Swedish urban development projects. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate how three of the pilot projects worked with social sustainability and within which areas the Citylab Action Guide best could be developed to support socially sustainable urban development. The following research questions were formulated: What is a relevant understanding of social sustainability for contemporary urban development drawing on the academic literature? How do the selected Citylab Action projects understand and work with social sustainability? What are projects’ key challenges for creating socially sustainable neighbourhoods? What are the projects’ experiences with Citylab Action in relation to their work with social sustainability? The thesis had a critical approach and took ground in a literature study, which rendered an analytical framework and the normative standpoint that social sustainability needs to be concerned with increasing social justice. Täby Park, DrottningH and Masthuggskajen were selected as cases, and studies involved interviews with two civil servants from each project and analysis of planning documents related to the projects’ work with social sustainability. An analysis of the empirical material was carried out underpinned by the analytical framework, which contained the questions: How is social sustainability (implicitly) defined and operationalised? How is the project oriented in regards to the dualism of development and maintenance? Who is considered in the development of the district? Results showed theoretical understanding of social sustainability, as well as operational work, were very different between projects. Synthesis suggests a key challenge for the projects’ work with social sustainability concerns the tendency of marginalising people with less purchasing power. For the development of the Citylab Action Guide to better support socially sustainable urban development, four proposals are given. The Guide should include: more aspects for how to work with existing inhabitants, more distinct aims for projects to execute a comprehensive analysis of the effects on segregation patterns, more attention to the creation of affordable apartments and socially mixed housing, and aims for considering the seven discrimination grounds and socio-economic status in the outcomes of planning.