An interdisciplinary debate on project perspectives
Table 1 Sample studies included in the desk research
From: Barriers to social sustainability in urbanisation: a comparative multi-stakeholder perspective
# | Study | Geography | Identified social barriers | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tafazzoli et al. (2019) | Global | Urban sprawl, lack of clarity of measures and standardisation, ineffective indicators | Lack of contextual focus, reliance on publication reviews |
2 | Sampson (2017) | USA | Inequalities, racial disparities, civic engagement, social involvement | Limitation of stakeholders |
3 | Zhu et al. (2020) | China | Public involvement, awareness of the environment, undemocratic systems | Focus on old neighbourhoods |
4 | Diugwu et al. (2021) | Nigeria | Lack of awareness, misunderstanding of the benefits, conflicting policies, limitation of measurement guidelines | Confined to experts |
5 | Al Surf (2014) | Saudi Arabia | Stakeholder interest and involvement, public awareness, | The focus was less focused on social sustainability |
6 | Tokbolat et al. (2020) | Kazakhstan | Lack of knowledge, lack of competence, awareness campaigns, inconvenience | Focus on the construction industry |
7 | Ohene et al. (2019) | Ghana | Accessible guidance, resistance to change, sustainability measurement tools, government policies | Restriction of stakeholders considered |
8 | Marsh et al. (2020) | South Africa | Lack of awareness/ interest, perceived cost, lack of community initiatives | Restricted to publication reviews/ Confined to construction |
9 | Durdyev et al. (2018) | Malaysia | Urbanisation, Lack of knowledge, unclear indicators measurements, unidentifiable benefits | Bias, limited stakeholders |
10 | McDonnell and Macgregor-Fors (2016) | Global | Urbanisation, government policy, knowledge and awareness | Less focus on social sustainability |
11 | Seto et al. (2012) | Global | Urbanisation, convenience of arrangements | Lack of focus on social sustainability |
12 | Williams and Dair (2007) | England | Unidentified indicators, involvement of stakeholders, misunderstanding of benefits | Emphasis on case studies |
13 | Mavrodieva et al. (2019) | Japan | Involvement, participation in decision and policy making | Case study specific |
14 | Ryu et al. (2018) | South Korea | Participation in decision and policy making, sense of community, community cohesion | Case study specific, limitation to social capital |
15 | Soma et al. (2018) | Global | Community participation, transparency, government policy, equity | Restricted to publication reviews |
16 | Zhang and Lu (2016) | China | Urban sprawl, sense of belonging, convenience | Case study specific, limited stakeholders |
17 | Zhuang et al. (2019) | China | Urbanisation, community participation | Case study specific |
18 | Power (2008) | Global | Unpredictable behavior, participation in decision and policy making | Case study specific |
19 | Djokoto et al. (2014) | Ghana | Public awareness, change resistance, government support | Limited stakeholders |
20 | Guzman et al. (2017) | Global | Clarity of indicators and measurements, awareness of heritage | Restricted to publication reviews |
21 | Verma and Raghubanshi (2018) | Global | Community participation, clarity of indicators and measurements | Restricted to publication reviews |
22 | Tanguay et al. (2010) | Global | Communal wellbeing/ convenience, services and amenities, community participation, health, diversity | Restricted to publication reviews |
23 | Wachsmuth et al. (2016) | Global | Equity, community participation, government policies | Restricted to publication reviews |