[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16231-d1286109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple-Criteria Methods for Assessing Social Sustainability in the Built Environment: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • George da Mota Passos Neto

    (Management Engineering Department, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50670-901, Brazil)

  • Luciana Hazin Alencar

    (Management Engineering Department, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50670-901, Brazil)

  • Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez

    (Department of Construction Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

Abstract
Studies related to social sustainability assessment have presented a variety of methods and criteria, but there is a need to better understand how these studies incorporate multiple criteria along with the issues addressed, the decision-makers, and the overall process followed to promote more socially sustainable outcomes. A systematic literature review methodology is conducted to identify, analyze, and synthesize scholarly articles that use multiple criteria to assess the built environment’s social sustainability. This study explores types of problems, decision-makers, criteria, and methods adopted by researchers. The analysis involved 42 studies identified in the Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases. The results revealed a diverse range of studies, covering various issues, project types, and methodologies, highlighting the multifaceted nature of social sustainability evaluation in the context of the built environment. The most considered social sustainability issues in the studies were ‘Impacts in Community’ and ‘Employment’. While most of the selected papers used multi-criteria decision-making/aiding (MCDM/A), not all engaged in these methods for decision-making purposes. Moreover, despite the prevalence of studies involving multiple decision-makers, issues related to group decision-making were often insufficiently addressed. The types of problems that the methods are used for are discussed, as well as the decision context and the process for selecting methods, thereby highlighting future research opportunities. Future studies should ensure that the criteria used are manageable but encompass all facets of social sustainability in the built environment, prioritizing methodological rigor when selecting MCDM/A methods and focusing on the nuances of preference aggregation in group decision-making scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • George da Mota Passos Neto & Luciana Hazin Alencar & Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez, 2023. "Multiple-Criteria Methods for Assessing Social Sustainability in the Built Environment: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16231-:d:1286109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16231/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16231/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolo Rosasco & Leopoldo Sdino, 2023. "The Social Sustainability of the Infrastructures: A Case Study in the Liguria Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    2. Lucas Borges Leal Da Silva & Evanielle Barbosa Ferreira & Rodrigo José Pires Ferreira & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Adiel Teixeira De Almeida, 2023. "Paradigms, Methods, and Tools for Multicriteria Decision Models in Sustainable Industry 4.0 Oriented Manufacturing Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.
    3. George Passos Neto & Emilia Rahnemay Kohlman Rabbani & Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez & Luciana H. Alencar, 2022. "Implementation of the Global Reporting Initiative Social Sustainability Indicators: A Multi-Case Study Approach Using Brazilian Construction Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Samaras, Andreas P., 2001. "MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 414-429, April.
    5. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Cerretta & Lidia Diappi, 2014. "Adaptive Evaluations in Complex Contexts: Introduction," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 5-22.
    2. Jose Antonio Fernández Gallardo & Jose María Caridad y Ocerín & María Genoveva Millán Vázquez de la Torre, 2019. "Evaluation of the Reception Capacity of a Certain Area Regarding Tourist Housing, Addressing Sustainable-Tourism Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Lars Carlsen, 2024. "Sustainability: An Ethical Challenge: The Overexploitation of the Planet as an Exemplary Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    5. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    6. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    7. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    8. Claudio Garuti & Enrique Mu, 2024. "A Rate of Change and Center of Gravity Approach to Calculating Composite Indicator Thresholds: Moving from an Empirical to a Theoretical Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-40, June.
    9. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    10. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    11. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    13. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & S. Arcuri, 2014. "Measuring the sustainability performances of the Italian regions," Discussion Papers 2014/187, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Nepelski, 2018. "Validation of the Innovation Radar assessment framework," JRC Research Reports JRC110926, Joint Research Centre.
    15. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    16. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & Gianluca Gucciardi, 2017. "Communicating the uncertainty of synthetic indicators: a reassessment of the HDI ranking," Discussion Papers 2017/228, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    17. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    18. Fikret Adaman & Yahya M. Madra, 2012. "Understanding Neoliberalism as Economization: The Case of the Ecology," Working Papers 2012/04, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    19. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16231-:d:1286109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.