Monitoring and enhancing spontaneous sustainability—a framework

Abstract

The paper presents and addresses the concept of “spontaneous sustainability”, the informal and unplanned sustainable development of communities, as the basis and framework to support the notion, drives, and agendas of “formal sustainability”. It follows the interdependence between the “spontaneous sustainability” of “distinct” communities and their “cultural” characteristics, including history, spatial continuity, values and behaviors, the associated physical settings, and tangible and intangible products, which enabled them to continue, survive, and develop. The research aims at formulating and validating a “framework” for monitoring and enhancing the “spontaneous sustainability” of “distinct” communities to enable, support and link it, to the broader frameworks of “sustainable development”. The proposed “framework” combines “sustainability” dimensions: environmental, economic, and socio-cultural; and the levels of community contexts, and spatial impact. The “framework” is formulated by integrating selected “urban sustainability” approaches, and systems, with later research that developed the key aspects, criteria, and indicators of those systems, together with research addressing “social and cultural sustainability”, and assessment aspects, criteria, and indicators. The “framework” is developed and validated through a limited questionnaire, involving local experts and specialists, academics, and practitioners, to point out limitations and potential, and to suggest the relative importance of its components, key aspects, and criteria. The validation supported the research propositions, the formulation, and development of the proposed “spontaneous sustainability framework” and emphasized its flexibility to include other approaches and agendas, and potential for further development and application in distinct local communities.

Introduction

Culture is the cumulative result of humans’ continuous dialogue and interaction with their settings: natural and man-made. The collective cultural environment of the human settings dialogue may arguably be regarded as the true reflection; and the manifestation of the ongoing interaction: humans’ actions and impact, and the resulting reaction of their cultural settings. Culture and settings, tangible and intangible, could be monitored, traced, and assessed through communities’ living patterns, behavior, and related social contexts and settings [1, 2].

The cultural setting is dynamic and ever-changing, along with the changes and transformations of the related communities; hence the proposition that culture and cultural settings are the means and tools to understand, read environments, and follow humans’ adaptation to various environments [3, 4].

It is generally accepted that “culture” is an important factor in the life of societies, and an influence, determinant, and product [5, 6] that deserves attention and care in dealing with reading its components, levels, and products, tangible and intangible, and integrate into the processes of community and urban design and development.

The present work, addresses, culture, and cultural contexts as a key determinant in shaping communities’ living, realizing sustainability, and securing continuity, and aspirations. Culture and components are recognized as a key dimension in “sustainable” development and drives, together with the complimentary dimensions, physical, environmental, and economic. It presents the notion of “spontaneous sustainability” of “distinct” communities that managed to continue, survive, and develop through time and till the present in their traditional settings, and away from, yet bearing and enjoying merits and returns, like those targeted by formal sustainability and development.

The present work is part of an extended study of the Nubian communities in Egypt, which witnessed major transformations through the past century and till the present, yet it maintained its distinct characteristics and values, reflected in its intact survival and continuity [7, 8]. The study investigates three distinct, existing, impressively functioning, and contrasting physical contexts, and related Nubian communities; arguably representing the said historic development from the turn of the twentieth century till now. A Nubian community still living in its original traditional setting, the second is a displaced community, in the new settlement, they moved to in the 1960s upon the construction of the “High Dam”, Aswan, Egypt; and the third represents the migrated Nubian communities, that moved to and settled in major cities, as an alternative to settling in the newly developed displacement villages, Upper Egypt [9, 10].

This study will be covered in an independent presentation, a sequel to the present work, covering the said Nubian communities, and contexts, as well as the application of the proposed framework. Hence providing an appropriate forum for investigating “spontaneous sustainability” as an inherent social and cultural value, and allowing further development, and validation of the proposed “framework” for monitoring and enhancing spontaneous sustainability, the prime objective of the present work.

This research aims at formulating, developing, and validating the said “framework” for monitoring and supporting the “spontaneous sustainability” of distinct communities, enjoying historical depths, locales, and products to enable their integration into, and benefiting formal sustainable development frameworks and drives.

Literature review—on sustainability

The present work proposes and presents the conception, and features of “spontaneous sustainability”, following the notion of societal “spontaneous” actions and reactions. Several concepts of “spontaneity” have emerged in urban contexts, that vary according to the circumstances and attitudes taken by communities, groups, and individuals. “Spontaneity” may be regarded as an “unplanned” act, motive, or an inborn tendency associated with unplanned physical settings shaped by “spontaneous” individual and collective actions of a group or society that relates to the man-made urban and rural environments [11]. Closely related is what psychologists advocate, namely that “spontaneity” is an important feature of social relations among humans, leading to the realization of the personal nature of the individual.

Meanwhile, sociologists often adopt the view that “spontaneity” is a positive drive, feature, and characteristic, leading to development, and progress, and is based on a deep legacy of experience and learning, away from the social and economic motives that are closely intertwined with “spontaneity” [12].

As presented earlier in the “Introduction” section, this research presents “spontaneous sustainability” as an inherent value and feature of distinct societies and communities that managed to survive and develop through time. A value comprising respect and integration with their settings’ resources and determinants, allowing them to enjoy the declared objectives of “formal sustainability”, sustainable development, and drives, though often enough not targeted by or part of.

Hence, the emphasis on “culture”, and its key aspects, criteria, and related indicators, in “sustainability” agendas, models, and drives, in this brief review. In preparation for the formulation of the targeted “framework” that allows following the research propositions, monitoring, and enhancing culturally distinct communities and settings, this section reviews in a determined sequence:

• Sustainability and sustainable development, the bases and backdrop of the proposed notion, together with,

• Sustainability models represent the complexity of the conception, and emphasize the emergence of “culture” as an added dimension and container, and,

• Urban sustainability systems, concluding the review, and presenting the comprehensive-most framework for sustainable development, emphasizing its dimensions, and effectively relating to designated physical settings, including districts and neighborhoods, as well as comprising key aspects, criteria, and indicators, and combining qualitative, and quantitative means of monitoring, and assessment, hence the relation and bases, it provides to the targeted “framework”.

Sustainability and sustainable development

Sustainability is treated in contemporary discourses as a relatively new notion and drive, despite its intellectual and political developments through the past few decades and till the present. The emerging concept was shaped and developed, since its emergence, through the continuous debates, it witnessed and faced, and the related milestones of events and venues—yet it hardly enjoys consensus or adherence to its definition and scope [13, 14]. Humans’ interaction with the environment to satisfy their needs and aspirations and facing the impact and returns was generally accepted as the key to and basis for the notion and conception of “sustainability” [15].

Sustainability is still a relatively vague concept open to multiple interpretations [16]. The early definition of the conception of sustainability and sustainable development, presented at the “Brundtland Commission” in 1987 is among the accepted-most, namely “Development that fulfills the needs of the present without prejudice to the ability of future generations to fulfill their own needs” [17].

The conception and related notions and drives were invariably presented to comprise three main dimensions: social, environmental, and economic, that must be collectively addressed and satisfied, to secure sustainable development [18, 19]. It is generally agreed that “to consider the development of a given region, district, or a local setting “sustainable”, it must integrate and achieve the qualities associated with the interactions of the said three key dimensions” [16].

Sustainability models

Many theoretical models representing sustainability were proposed to present and tame the complexity of the conception [19], including the widely used three intersecting circles’ schematic diagram [13, 20]. The interactive circles represent the common-most dimensions (Fig. 1a); social, economic, and environmental to achieve sustainability and sustainable development goals, namely:

• Equitability (through economic and social dimensions’ interactions).

• Livability (a product of environmental compatibility and social needs).

• Viability (harmony and integration, economic development, respecting and supporting environment and resources) [15].

Fig. 1

Sustainability models and underlying propositions [15]

“Culture” was later added as the fourth (Fig. 1b) to the three dimensions’ circles, as a larger circle containing the earlier three key dimensions, and providing the context, and setting for [21]. Culture’s importance was highlighted as it helps communities to “understand” their settings and environments, to follow, and comprehend related values and needs, and face the likely related challenges. Sabatini [22], emphasized that culture represents societies’ links to the environment and settings, and the collective expression of the related physical and intangibles, values, needs, and challenges. Sabatini further indicated that culture encompasses the three development dimensions, and truly reflects the features characterizing societies [22].

Furthermore, sustainability representational models incorporated political and institutional dimensions (Fig. 1c) and hinted at the likely interactions between pairs of key dimensions adding to the earlier products, governance, effective management, decision-making, and (environmental fitting) ecology as means and features of effective sustainability process and implementation [13].

To reiterate, it can be generally accepted that sustainable development and sustainability depend on and combine the four dimensions (environmental, economic, sociocultural, and institutional) in achieving its community-related objectives and securing betterment and quality of living.

Urban sustainability systems—selected approaches

Many urban sustainability systems were developed during the past two decades, combining key aspects, main indicators, and related criteria to assess the performance of “neighborhood sustainability”, hence the title. NSA “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Systems Tools” was loosely classified into two subcategories, namely, systems and assessment “tools” related to the environmental performance of buildings and settings (spin-offs of building assessment tools), and systems, initiatives, and tools, related to neighborhood development plans and the sustainability performance of (Plan-Embedded Tools) [23, 24].

Urban sustainability rating tools may be regarded as “a stand-alone openly accessible act”, providing quantitative elements for assessment of the extent of total and/or progressive welfare [25].

Furthermore, neighborhoods and settings plan-oriented rating tools including (LEED-ND) in the USA, (CASBEE-UD) in Japan, (BREEAM Communities) in the United Kingdom, (GREEN Star) in Australia, (The Pearl Community) in the United Arab Emirates, and (DGNB-UD) in Germany—provide a relatively balanced assessment of the environmental, social and economic dimensions, if compared to building level systems, that is arguably confined to the environmental aspect of the site [26, 27].

Table 1 represents the said six acclaimed urban sustainability assessment tools, systems, and initiatives (Kaur, H. and Garg, P. 2019) [26] pointing out: the state of origin, release dates, application scope, object’s level, dimensions of sustainability, categories/themes, and number of criteria, relative weight, and performance rating measures.

Table 1 Features of selected “urban sustainability systems” (Kaur, H. and Garg, P. 2019) [26]

Methods

Propositions and methodology

Formulating the targeted “spontaneous sustainability” framework; to monitor, assess, enhance, and develop—is achieved through the deployment of established systems and agendas, addressing formal sustainability, integrating and developing, as well as synthesizing its components, key aspects, indicators, and criteria, emphasizing socio-cultural dimensions, and related scales of application, (validity) scope, towards the local and limited settings and communities.

Two related approaches provide the basis for the sequence of formulating the proposed framework, both focusing on sustainability assessment. The first is Diesendorf, M. (1998) [28], who emphasized, and pointed out the organic nature of the process, where sustainability resembles a “tree”. His descriptive model comprises 4 consecutive levels, namely, the trunk (level 0) points out the ethical principles, (level 1) main branches, which represent the main goals and objectives, (level 2) secondary branches, which reflect the measurable objectives, and (level 3) combines the developed main and secondary branches, with the global development of “sustainability” goals and indicators, [29]. The second, is the framework, delineated by Jorge, G. (2013) [30], emphasizing five levels, namely, (1) sustainability dimensions, comprising main objectives and the three key dimensions (economic, social, and environmental), (2) urban sustainability issues, that need to be addressed to realize its objectives, including (resources, accessibility, survival, and viability), (3) evaluation criteria, related to the aspects needed to secure objectives and address sustainability issues to be evaluated, (4) design indicators, (levels to be achieved) the measures to assess design performance, comprising processes, and benchmarks, with specific units and measurement methods, and (5) criteria values, reference values and targets, [30].

Hence, “sustainability” monitoring and assessment frameworks should comprise, and integrate the said levels, namely:

• Dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional.

• Key aspects: include and reflect the main themes and objectives for achieving urban “sustainability”, as defined, and adopted by the United Nations and international agendas.

• Criteria: integrated and closely related to the key aspects, respected in the plans, policies, and drives to realize, and provide the means to assess and evaluate the performance of “sustainability” key aspects.

• Indicators: provide qualitative, and quantitative tools to evaluate, trace and assess the criteria.

The proposed “framework” for assessing the “spontaneous sustainability” of culturally distinguished communities, allowing monitoring, enhancing, and supporting; should combine, the said four levels and components, sustainability dimensions, key aspects, criteria, and related indicators.

It is formulated through a rational sequence, based on selected published work, presenting, reviewing, and integrating international approaches and agendas—open-ended so that it can be developed to include other approaches and agendas.

The formulation sequence

The proposed “framework” formulation sequence, comprises three interrelated phases, namely:

Phase 1: preliminary frameworks—selected international approaches

Reviewing, integrating, and collectively presenting a sample of selected leading sustainability systems and approaches, combining; dimensions, key aspects, criteria, and indicators. It comprises three independent stages in a rational sequence, namely:

• Stage 1 

• Reviewing and collectivity representing selected international/global leading “Sustainability” systems and approaches, providing the start and bases for the target framework, (developed and presented between 2007 and 2015) (Tables 2 and 3).

• Stage 2 

• Reviewing and collectivity presenting later global approaches, (developed and presented between 2014 and 2020), that checked and developed earlier endeavors, presented, and sampled in Stage 1 (Tables 4 and 5).

• Stage 3 

• Reviewing and collectivity presenting selected later international frameworks, approaches, and systems, addressing social and cultural sustainability (developed and presented between 2015 and 2019) (Table 6).

Table 2 Sustainability assessment systems; environmental and economic dimensions–preliminary framework (1)

Table 3 Sustainability assessment systems; social and cultural and institutional dimensions–preliminary framework (1)

Table 4 Developing sustainability assessment systems; environmental dimensions—preliminary framework (2)

Table 5 Developing sustainability assessment systems: economic, social, culture, and institutional dimensions‏—preliminary framework (2)

Table 6 Social and cultural sustainability: selected approaches—preliminary framework (3)

Phase (2): integrating the preliminary frameworks, emphasizing social, and cultural dimensions

The preliminary formulation of the proposed “framework”, integrates the products of phase (1) emphasizing sociocultural dimensions (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7 Integrating the preliminary frameworks 1 and 2—sustainability assessment systems, and development

Table 8 Integrating the preliminary frameworks (1), (2), and (3)

Phase (3): validation of the proposed framework

The validation procedure is an added step in the formulation of the targeted “framework”, to point out the limitations, and potential, of the adopted conception, and methods—is carried out at this stage, through a pilot, limited survey, seeking the views of local experts (academics and professionals), allowing interaction, suggesting relative weights and importance, of key aspects and criteria, hence the development and presentation of the proposed “framework”, and delineating directives of future related investigation, and research work. The selection criteria of the selected sample of experts are highlighted in the “The validation sample, participants’ profiles” section.

Formulation of the proposed framework

This section briefly presents the selected sample of leading “sustainability” systems, agendas, and approaches, emphasizing sustainability 4 levels, and components, namely dimensions, key aspects, criteria, and indicators, hence allowing concentration and integration, and providing the bases for the targeted “framework”.

Following the sequence, highlighted in the “Methods” section, namely:

• Leading sustainability assessment systems (2007–2015).

• Developing sustainability systems influenced by the said leading systems (2007–2015).

• Social and cultural sustainability assessment; the focus of the propositions and target “framework” (2014–2020).

The emphasis in this section is on the method and rationale, the integration of the selected agendas and approaches’ components, and key notions of the presented frameworks, ready for validation and further assessment; more systems and agendas could be checked and integrated in future research.

Preliminary frameworks (phase 1)—proposed framework formulation

Sustainability assessment framework (stage 1)—selected systems and approaches

As hinted earlier, stage 1 presents and highlights selected international urban sustainability assessment, systems, published and widely deployed. The six sustainability systems presented delineate the approach to shaping and formulating the preliminary framework, highlighting similarities and agreement and providing the bases for the formulation of the targeted framework—other systems could be further added and compared. Tables 2 and 3 present the six selected systems, preliminary framework (1), pointing out the main features, according to the four levels indicated earlier; namely sustainability dimensions, likely impact (spatial) level, representative common selected key aspects, hence suggesting similarities and agreement and providing the bases for formulation of the concluding framework. The selected systems are the following:

• BREEAM Communities [31].

• LEED for Neighborhood Development [36].

• CASBEE for Urban Development [37].

• GREEN Star Community Rating System [38].

• The Pearl Communities Rating System [39].

• DGNB-UD Rating System [40].

Developing sustainability assessment systems framework (stage 2)—three selected approaches

Following the review, presentation, and highlight of the six sustainability assessment systems pointing out main features according to the sustainability dimensions, indicating themes, impact spatial level, and key aspects, this section presents a sample of the follow-up studies based on and influenced by the earlier agendas (5 years apart), synthesizing, and further developing.

It follows the structure and contents of the earlier systems, emphasizing developed criteria to check and enhance main/key aspects, and attempting to focus on the emerging challenges. The three follow-up updating studies are the following:

• Sustainability Circles Method [41].

• Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development (CAMSUD) [42].

• Urban Sustainability Assessment Tools (USAT) [26].

• 1) Sustainability circles method [41]:

  A method developed through collaboration among Metropolis, the United Nations, and other organizations, as a part of the Social Life Circles Project, led by Paul James and Liam Magee. The circles are used to review and assess “sustainability”, and manage socially sustainable worldwide projects, places, and settings. This method is mostly used for urban areas and settlements. The circle is divided into four domains, namely the environment, the economy, politics, and culture; each domain is further divided into seven sub-domains [41].

• 2) Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development CAMSUD [42]:

  The “Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development”, CAMSUD, was introduced in 2017; the result of an extensive comparative analysis of five well-established urban sustainability assessment systems, namely: CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities, DGNB-NSQ, and Green Star Community. The comparison identified agreement, similarities, and differences among those systems, and potential for further improvement, in the light of the outstanding points of strength and weakness. It further introduced the main concepts, common in its development, in addition to some 40 criteria as the specific goals of sustainability; classified into 8 categories, to achieve sustainability [42].

• 3) Urban Sustainability Assessment Tools USAT [26]:

  This approach is similarly based on a comprehensive review of six of the common-most deployed urban sustainability assessment tools, namely: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM Communities), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) for Urban Development, Green Building Index (GBI) for Cities, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for neighborhoods’ development, the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) for green cities, and the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA). It pointed out similarities and differences and identified gaps and capabilities in appropriately addressing urban sustainability assessment issues in various contexts [26].

Tables 4 and 5 sum up stage (2)—collectively present preliminary framework (2), developing sustainability systems, highlighting the features of the selected three studies and related systems, adhering to the entries, and classifying into dimensions, main aspects, criteria, and hinting at similarities and agreements, and indicating selected key aspects and criteria, likely to relate to limited scale settings and communities.

Social and cultural sustainability assessment; selected approaches—preliminary framework (stage 3)

This section concludes phase 1, presenting selected sample research work, addressing, monitoring, and assessing social and cultural sustainability towards the formulation of the proposed framework to monitor and enhance spontaneous sustainability comprising four selected approaches to emphasize the method (more could be incorporated later) loosely following and adhering to the factors identified by Nicola Dempsey et al. [43, 44]), namely:

• Kefayati, Z. and Moztarzadeh, H., [32].

• Hajirasouli, A. and Kumarasuriyar, A., [33].

• Mehan, A. and Soflaei, F., [34].

• Doğu, F. U. and Aras, L., [35].

• 1) Kefayati, Z. and Moztarzadeh, H. 2015 presented and addressed principles and criteria for assessing societal sustainability including social interaction, architectural identity, social security, flexibility, and social participation, together with indicators of social sustainability in urban design that are likely to be closely related to social interactions and collective memory, attachment, belonging, and commitment to places [32].

• 2) Hajirasouli, A. and Kumarasuriyar, A. 2016 related social sustainability topics and issues to macro and micro (spatial) levels, namely:

  Macro levels refer to material welfare and basic needs of communities and individuals including shelter/housing, food, clothing, and public facilities.

  Micro levels include quality of life and equity (social and cultural life, coherence and social cohesion, integration, diversity and sense of place, communication and participation, equity and social justice, social stability, social security, social capital, and‏ ‏welfare) [33].

• 3) Mehan, A. and Soflaei, F. 2017 recognized and presented definitions, principles, and frameworks of social sustainability, highlighting key aspects affecting it, in urban settings, and satisfying the community’s needs. Suggested key aspects of social sustainability, including social equity, satisfying human needs, social interaction, cohesion and integration, sense of place, cultural identity, and quality of life [34].

• 4) Doğu, F. U. and Aras, L. 2019 proposed a rationale, an MCSA model, to follow and assess social sustainability in urban settings, comprising a number of key aspects, including social interactions, security, perceived environment, social capital, sense of belonging, and satisfaction. Those aspects are addressed through related variables and criteria [35].

Table 6, preliminary framework (3), collectively presents the key aspects and criteria, put forward by the (sample) four selected approaches, stressing the common-most and representative to be later integrated into the earlier two relational tables: preliminary frameworks (1) and (2).

Integrating the preliminary frameworks, emphasizing socio-cultural dimensions—the proposed framework (phase 2)

This section follows the briefly highlighted method (“Methods” section), towards the formulation of the target, proposed “framework” for monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability”, emphasizing the socio-cultural dimensions. The formulation drive deploys the three preliminary frameworks, presented in phase 1, in three stages, namely:

• Preliminary framework (1): sustainability assessment systems (Tables 2 and 3).

• Preliminary framework (2): developing sustainability assessment systems (Tables 4 and 5).

• Preliminary framework (3): social and cultural sustainability (Table 6).

The formulation is carried out in a rational sequence, combining and integrating the products, key aspects, and criteria of the three preliminary frameworks in three steps, leading to the presentation of the “proposed framework”.

Formulation of the proposed framework—step 1

Integrating the products of stages 1 and 2, sustainability assessment systems and development, the preliminary frameworks 1 and 2—comprising the six sample approaches, relational (Tables 2 and 3), together with the three “sustainability assessment systems” development approaches, preliminary framework 2, and relational tables (Tables 4 and 5). Table 7 represents the said integration, through the governing notions and components, sustainability levels, dimensions, key aspects, and related criteria.

This is collectively carried out, for stages 1 and 2, and combined in the integrated preliminary frameworks 1 and 2, sustainability key aspects, and criteria. The integrated set combines common aspects and related criteria of sustainability assessment systems and development (12 key aspects, and 31 criteria).

Formulation of the proposed framework—step 2

Integrating the products of stages 1, 2, and 3, sustainability assessment systems and development emphasizing the socio-cultural dimensions. This is carried out in a rational sequence, integrating the selected key aspects and related criteria of the preliminary framework 3, social and cultural sustainability sample approaches (Table 6) with the collective socio-cultural product of integrating preliminary frameworks 1 and 2, (Table 7).

Table 8 represents the integrating sequence, the key aspects, and related criteria of preliminary framework 3, the combined frameworks 1 and 2, and the collective combination of the 3 preliminary frameworks, namely, the integrated social and cultural sustainability, key aspects, and criteria.

Formulation of the proposed framework—step 3: spontaneous sustainability, framework 1

This is carried out by combining the products of integrating frameworks 1, 2, and 3, and the integrated key aspects, and related criteria.

Table 10 presents the said combination: sustainability dimensions, collective key aspects, criteria, and related indicators, emphasizing the social and cultural. Furthermore, an added evaluation scale for assessing the relative weight and importance of the criteria and related indicators. This will allow the presentation of the “proposed framework” to the validation sample of experts, academics, and practitioners/professionals, as an integral part of phase 3 of the formulation of the proposed framework (Sec. 3., Propositions and Methodology).

Validation of the proposed framework (phase 3)

The validation of the proposed “framework” for monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability”, is an integrated part of its development, as indicated in the “Methods” Sect. (3), (phase 3), and Fig. 2. The “proposed framework” (Table 10) and the closely related underlying propositions, the formulation sequence, and preliminary frameworks 1, 2, and 3), were presented to a limited sample of local experts, academics, and professionals, combining research and practice experience, in the present work realms and related fields, namely, architecture, urban design and planning, community design and development, landscape design, as well as social and cultural studies. The validation was based on a questionnaire, backed by the adopted method presentation (phases, stages, and steps), the preliminary frameworks 1, 2, and 3, and the resulting “proposed framework” (Table 10) to be evaluated by the participating experts.

Fig. 2

Formulation of the proposed “spontaneous sustainability” monitoring and assessment “framework”—phases and stages

The validation questionnaire and supporting research material comprised and covered four key components and the underlying objectives are the following:

• 1) The validation sample, participants; key data, profiles, specialization, and years of experience.

• 2) The present research “propositions” and method of formulating the targeted “Framework”, together with the preliminary frameworks 1, 2, and 3 (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

• 3) The “proposed framework” for monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability” (Table 10).

• 4) The sample participants’ interaction with the “proposed framework” suggests the importance and relative weights of its components: key aspects, criteria, and indicators (Table 11).

The outcome of the preliminary validation parts and objectives is briefly presented in the following sub-sections.

The validation sample, participants’ profiles

The validation sample comprised 25 participants, of specialists; academics, and professionals/practitioners, and mostly spanning both.

The selection criteria of the sample combined the fields of specialization closely related to the present research scope: architecture, urban design and planning, community design and development, and landscape design, supported by specialists in social sciences and humanities—all with at least 5 years of experience. The validation sample was mostly academic, with professional experience, and their main features/profiles, as briefly presented in Table 9.

Table 9 The validation sample participants; academics, and professionals/practitioners—main features

Research propositions

The participants invariably accepted the present work, key propositions, and underlying notions, namely:

• The notion of “spontaneous sustainability”.

• Culture as the container, and social and cultural dimensions of sustainability, impact, and relative importance.

• “Spontaneous Sustainability” likely contribution to formal Sustainability systems and drives.

Spontaneous sustainability framework development

The participants agreed with and endorsed the research procedure to realize the research objective, and the sequence to formulate the targeted “proposed framework’, through the three stages and products, “sustainability assessment systems”, “development approaches”, and “social and cultural sustainability”, and integrating the resulting three “preliminary frameworks”. They also accepted the format of the resulting “proposed framework”, pointing out its clarity, ease of usage, practicality, and flexibility. Furthermore, the participants interacted with it, assessing, and suggesting the relative weights and importance of its key components: key aspects, criteria, and indicators.

Interacting with the proposed framework

Guided by their combined experience, academic and practical, the participants were asked to deploy and interact with the “proposed framework”, indicating the relative weights and importance of the key aspects, each criterion, and related indicators, in achieving, “spontaneous sustainability” using Saaty, T. (1994) [45], relative weighting and importance, 9 ranks/levels scale, ranging from least important (1) to the top-most (9).

Results and discussion

The results of the questionnaire were compiled, presented, and analyzed using Python 3 programming language: a relatively simple and effective data treatment, and general-purpose language, with a collection of libraries, compatible with Microsoft Excel files. The program first reads the preliminary data from the Excel files, rearranges, and processes the readable data, sorts the questionnaire results and the experts/respondents’ responses, assigns relative weights according to specializations, and represents in another Excel file, pointing out specializations, weights/importance, according to sustainability dimensions, and key aspect. The processed data is written in an easy-to-analyze manner and arranged according to the dimensions and the sub-aspects.

Figure 3 sums up the statistical analysis of the participants’ reactions toward sustainability dimensions, and the closely related key aspects, indicating the relative weights and ranking. The experts and participants collectively emphasized the importance of social and cultural aspects, ranked relatively top-most (8) points/grades, including urban value and social capital, and the aspects of viability, safety and security, and identity, scored 7 grades, followed by the aspects of, local environment, and urban design patterns, scoring 6 grades. In the middle ranking of importance were the partially physical and economic aspects, namely, land uses, mobility structure, local climate, and economic structure, scoring level (5) ranking of relative importance. Figure 3 also shows the respondents’ reactions, according to their realms of specialization, namely, group 1; architecture, urban design and planning, and landscape design, and group 2; social sciences and humanities.

Fig. 3

The “proposed framework” validation—the relative importance of the main aspects, according to the participants’ specializations

Furthermore, Fig. 4 presents the statistical analysis of the participants’ reactions toward the relative weight and importance of each criterion (key aspects related) in achieving and realizing “spontaneous sustainability” using the Saaty scale [45]. The results of the survey of experts’ ranking and interacting with the “proposed framework”, emphasized the importance of social and cultural criteria in securing “sustainability”, hence the propositions of “spontaneous” drives of distinct communities. They stressed the criteria related to community features, character and identity, and continuity. Top-most are the issues and notions of visual and aesthetic value, heritage and cultural identity, socio-cultural practices, aesthetics of urbanism and architecture, social commitment, scoring 9 grades, as well as the culturally related physical criteria of urban density and cohesion, collectively enhancing continuity, identity, and place-attachment, scoring 7–8 grades, followed by the criteria of appropriate location, location quality, urban network, climate adaptation, accessibility, and communication, scoring 6 grades.

Fig. 4

The “Proposed Framework” validation—the relative importance of criteria, according to the participants’ specializations

Social sciences and humanities participating experts emphasized the relative importance of the criteria: basic needs, communication and continuity between individuals and communities, physiological needs, health care and education, housing stability, services and facilities, and social security in achieving “spontaneous sustainability”.

The results of the experts’ interaction with the proposed framework, and questionnaire, further pointed out agreement regarding the “least important” criteria, including those of overlap and diversity of land uses, the hierarchy of open spaces, proximity and accessibility to the transportation network, local community contribution, scoring 3–4 grades. They also suggested that the criteria of proximity and accessibility to the transportation network, using local sources and resources, insurance and social equity, and community participation are not directly related to the “Framework” objectives, and may be taken out from the proposed framework.

Table 11 presents the developed “proposed framework” comprising the four levels of sustainability: dimensions, key aspects, criteria, and indicators, and highlights the relative weights and importance, given to the key aspects and related criteria.

To allow the “proposed framework” to be applied, and further developed; an evaluation scale of the presence, and quality of the governing key aspects and criteria, is added, to enable, monitoring and assessing “spontaneous sustainability” of distinct communities and settings (Table 11). Hence providing a field tool combining two action-levels, namely monitoring, and qualitative assessment, as well as allowing interaction with local distinct communities, seeking their assessment of related settings, features, and potential, as pointed out earlier in the Introduction.

Conclusions

The present work presented the concept and notion of “spontaneous sustainability”, as the informal, and unplanned “sustainable development” of communities, pointing out its potential as bases and framework, to complement, and support the agendas and drives of formal “sustainability”. The proposition was emphasized by highlighting “culture” and components, as a well-recognized dimension in “sustainable” development and drives, together with the earlier, readily recognized dimensions, environmental, social, and economic.

The research, presented, and followed the said notion, and conception of “spontaneous sustainability” of distinct communities, that managed to continue, survive, and develop, in their traditional settings, and away from, bearing and enjoying, the merits of formal “sustainability”.

The present research is part of an investigation into the “spontaneous sustainability” of those communities, a prelude, with a main objective, to formulate a “framework”, to follow, monitor, assess, and enhance. The developed “framework” provides a tool, suitable for fieldwork, allowing interaction with the targeted communities, rendering support, and integration into the formal drives of “sustainable” development.

The research secured the said objective, of formulating, developing, and validating, the targeted “framework” for monitoring and enhancing the “spontaneous sustainability” of distinct communities, characterized by, historic depths, continuity, quality culture, and products.

The research recalled and deployed, the conception and drives of “sustainability” and development, and the related representational models, and systems, emphasizing its governing three principal dimensions; environmental, social, and economic, together with “culture”, the encompassing, and added fourth, providing the context and container for the other development dimensions, and reflecting communities’ features and characteristics.

The target “spontaneous sustainability” framework was formulated and developed, through a rational sequence, deploying selected international, “formal sustainability” systems and agendas—presenting and integrating its components: dimensions, key aspects, criteria, and indicators, emphasizing, social and cultural dimensions, and related scale of application. The formulation procedure incorporated 3 phases—collectively covering the formulation of “sustainability” preliminary frameworks, incorporating, and leading sustainability assessment systems, later development of the said systems, and approaches addressing social and cultural sustainability. The preliminary frameworks were combined and integrated, emphasizing the social and cultural dimensions, and leading to the “proposed framework” (Table 10).

Table 10 The proposed framework—monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability”

The “proposed framework” was validated in the concluding “phase”, through a limited survey, of local experts, who reviewed and assessed, the research “propositions”, and method of formulating the targeted “framework”, together with the preliminary frameworks 1, 2, and 3, as well as the “proposed framework” for monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability” (Table 10).

The experts accepted the research propositions and products, agreed with and endorsed the procedure to realize its objective and the sequence to formulate the targeted “framework”. They interacted with the resulting “proposed framework”, pointing out its clarity, ease of usage, and flexibility; assessing and suggesting the relative weights and importance of its components: key aspects, criteria, and indicators (Figs. 3 and 4).

The developed “framework” (Table 11) provides the basis for an integrated part of the present work, namely, to apply selected culturally distinct communities and settings, to monitor and assess the presence and quality of “sustainability” dimensions, aspects, criteria, and indicators, emphasizing the social and cultural. As presented earlier, it can indirectly benefit the “Nubian” and other distinct communities, at times on the margins of mainstream “Sustainability” drives, acknowledging their potential, following and allowing means of integration.

Table 11 Developed, proposed framework—monitoring and enhancing “spontaneous sustainability”

The proposed “framework” provides the involved partners and actors, in community design and development, professionals and decision-makers, with a flexible, open-ended tool, to deploy at the various stages of community development. The sources deployed to formulate, the “preliminary frameworks” and leading to the “proposed”, could be further expanded, allowing comparative analysis, and assessment of the adopted “criteria” and indicators.

Furthermore, fieldwork and applications, of the “proposed framework” point out future research, allowing further testing and validation of the research propositions regarding informal and unplanned “spontaneous sustainability” and its potential to complement, enhance, and be integrated into “formal sustainable development” systems, plans, and drives.