Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy
Abstract
:1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Knowledge Gap
1.2. Research Goal
2. Review Methodology
2.1. Searching and Sourcing Relevant Literature
2.2. Development of Social Sustainability Framework
2.3. Synthesis of Sub-Indicators
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Stakeholder
3.2. Safety and Health
3.3. Human Resource Development
3.4. Project
3.5. Industry
3.6. Community
3.7. Government Rules, Regulations and Support
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nasirzadeh, F.; Ghayoumian, M.; Khanzadi, M.; Rostamnezhad Cherati, M. Modelling the social dimension of sustainable devel-opment using fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 20, 223–236. [Google Scholar]
- Taticchi, P.; Tonelli, F.; Pasqualino, R. Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: A literature review and a research agenda. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 782–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neely, A.; Edgeman, R.; Eskildsen, J.; Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. Measuring social issues in sustainable supply chains. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2015, 19, 33–45. [Google Scholar]
- Josa, I.; Aguado, A. Infrastructures and society: From a literature review to a conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentin, V.; Bogus, S.M. Assessing the link between public opinion and social sustainability in building and infrastructure projects. J. Green Build. 2015, 10, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assefa, G.; Frostell, B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toole, T.M.; Carpenter, G. Prevention through Design as a Path toward Social Sustainability. J. Arch. Eng. 2013, 19, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussin, J.M.; Rahman, I.A.; Memon, A.H. The Way Forward in Sustainable Construction: Issues and Challenges. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2013, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L.E. Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montalbán-Domingo, L.; Pellicer, E.; García-Segura, T.; Sanz-Benlloch, A. An integrated method for the assessment of social sus-tainability in public-works procurement. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 89, 106581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendiani, S.; Bagherpour, M. Developing an integrated index to assess social sustainability in construction industry using fuzzy logic. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 647–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Anbanandam, R. Development of social sustainability index for freight transportation system. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kordi, N.E.; Belayutham, S.; Che Ibrahim, C.K.I. Mapping of social sustainability attributes to stakeholders’ involvement in con-struction project life cycle. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021, 39, 513–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood sustainability assessment: Insights from a comparative case study. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B. From Marketing to Master Plan: An Environmental Sustainability Analysis of Toronto’s East Harbour EcoDistrict. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1974/26167 (accessed on 8 March 2022).
- Arshad, H.; Thaheem, M.; Bakhtawar, B.; Shrestha, A. Evaluation of Road Infrastructure Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinée, J. Handbook on life cycle assessment—Operational guide to the ISO standards. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001, 6, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goedkoop, M.; Oele, M.; Leijting, J.; Ponsioen, T.; Meijer, E. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro. Report Version 5.2. Recuperado a Partir de. 2016. Available online: www.pre-sustainability.com (accessed on 8 March 2022).
- Wang, Q.; Liu, C.; Hou, Y.; Xin, F.; Mao, Z.; Xue, X. Study of the spatio-temporal variation of environmental sustainability at national and provincial levels in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 807, 150830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, T.; Thaheem, M.J. Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implica-tions for BIM. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, A.N.; Farias, J.S. Inclusive sustainability within favela upgrading and incremental housing: The case of Rocinha in Rio de Janeiro. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doloi, H. Community-Centric Model for Evaluating Social Value in Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatti, U.; Migliaccio, G.; Bogus, S.M.; Priyadarshini, S.; Scharrer, A. Using Workforce’s Physiological Strain Monitoring to Enhance Social Sustainability of Construction. J. Arch. Eng. 2013, 19, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaminsky, J.A. National Culture Shapes Private Investment in Transportation Infrastructure Projects around the Globe. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04017098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaminsky, J. The global influence of national cultural values on construction permitting. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 37, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stender, M.; Walter, A. The role of social sustainability in building assessment. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 47, 598–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rostamnezhad, M.; Nasirzadeh, F.; Khanzadi, M.; Jarban, M.J.; Ghayoumian, M. Modelling social sustainability in construction projects by integrating system dynamics and fuzzy-DEMATEL method: A case study of highway project. Eng. Con-Struction Arch. Manag. 2020, 27, 1595–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X. Sustainability perceptions of off-site manufacturing stakeholders in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohman, M.A.; Doloi, H.; Heywood, C.A. Success criteria of toll road projects from a community societal perspective. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2017, 7, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almahmoud, E.; Doloi, H. Assessment of social sustainability in construction projects using social network analysis. Facilities 2015, 33, 152–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M.; Dong, Y.H. Social Sustainability Indicators of Public Construction Megaprojects in China. J. Urban. Plan. Dev. 2018, 144, 04018034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goel, A.; Ganesh, L.; Kaur, A. Project management for social good. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 695–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatourehchi, D.; Zarghami, E. Social sustainability assessment framework for managing sustainable construction in residential buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koke, B.; Moehler, R.C. Earned Green Value management for project management: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, F.-F.; Huang, Y.-W.; Yu, H.-C.; Wu, C.-S. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Libr. Hi Tech. 2018, 36, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddaway, A.P.; Wood, A.M.; Hedges, L.V. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christidis, T.; Pintar, K.D.M.; Butler, A.J.; Nesbitt, A.; Thomas, M.K.; Marshall, B.; Pollari, F. Campylobacter spp. Prevalence and Levels in Raw Milk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1775–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oraee, M.; Hosseini, M.R.; Edwards, D.J.; Li, H.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Cao, D. Collaboration barriers in BIM-based construction net-works: A conceptual model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 839–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, J.; Jin, X.-H.; Flynn, L. Social sustainability in construction–an explorative study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2012, 12, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doloi, H. Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects. Facilities 2012, 30, 531–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chasey, A.D.; Agrawal, N.A.D.; Agrawal, N. A Case Study on the Social Aspect of Sustainability in Construction. In ICSDEC 2012; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 543–551. [Google Scholar]
- Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Dong, Y.H.; Lo, I.M.; Cheng, J.C. Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. J. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1654–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karji, A.; Woldesenbet, A.; Khanzadi, M.; Tafazzoli, M. Assessment of Social Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr Housing Project. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 101697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karakhan, A.A.; Gambatese, J.; Simmons, D.R. Development of Assessment Tool for Workforce Sustainability. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almahmoud, E.; Doloi, H.K. Identifying the key factors in construction projects that affect neighbourhood social sustainability. Facil. 2020, 38, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goel, A.; Ganesh, L.; Kaur, A. Social sustainability considerations in construction project feasibility study: A stakeholder salience perspective. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2020, 27, 1429–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montalbán-Domingo, L.; Aguilar-Morocho, M.; García-Segura, T.; Pellicer, E. Study of Social and Environmental Needs for the Selection of Sustainable Criteria in the Procurement of Public Works. Sustainanility 2020, 12, 7756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawesittisankhun, K.; Pongpeng, J. Social Sustainability: Satisfying Owners and Communities by Multilevel Strategies of Con-tractors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hosny, H.E.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Eldars, E.A. Development of infrastructure projects sustainability assessment model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K. Underlying factors for successful project management to construct sustainable built assets. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novelo, R.A.A.; Álvarez Romero, S.O.; Suárez, G.A.C.; Ramírez, J.D.M. Social Sustainability in the Planning, Design, and Construction in Developing Countries: Guidelines and Feasibility for México. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2021, 9, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, H.; Pham, T.; Dang, C.N. Barriers to corporate social responsibility practices in construction and roles of education and government support. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Derakhshan, R.; Turner, R.; Mancini, M. Project governance and stakeholders: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hale, J.; Legun, K.; Campbell, H.; Carolan, M. Social sustainability indicators as performance. Geoforum 2019, 103, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peenstra, R.; Silvius, G. Enablers for Considering Sustainability in Projects; the Perspective of the Supplier. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 121, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Klassen, R.D. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small-and medium-sized suppliers in supply chains. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2008, 17, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajak, S.; Vinodh, S. Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance evaluation: A case study of an Indian au-tomotive component manufacturing organization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1184–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, R.A.; Siti-Nabiha, A.; Jalaludin, D.; Abdalla, Y.A. Barriers to and enablers of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munny, A.A.; Ali, S.M.; Kabir, G.; Moktadir, M.A.; Rahman, T.; Mahtab, Z. Enablers of social sustainability in the supply chain: An example of footwear industry from an emerging economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mani, V.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Hazen, B.; Dubey, R. Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evi-dence from India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 111, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcelino-Sádaba, S.; González-Jaen, L.F.; Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. Using project management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, M.; Ajmal, M.M.; Gunasekaran, A.; Khan, M. Exploration of social sustainability in healthcare supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.; Ajmal, M.; Hussain, M.; Helo, P. Barriers to social sustainability in the health-care industry in the UAE. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2018, 26, 450–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zhao, X.-J.; Zuo, J.; Zillante, G. Corporate social responsibility for construction contractors: A China study. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2016, 14, 614–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Wang, L.; Wu, K.-J.; Tseng, M.-L. Assessing co-benefit barriers among stakeholders in Chinese construction industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afolabi, A.; Ibem, E.; Aduwo, E.; Tunji-Olayeni, P.; Oluwunmi, O. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for e-Procurement Adoption in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Buildings 2019, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, R.A.J.; Thaheem, M.J.; Ali, T.H. Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their will-ingness to pay. Energy Policy 2020, 143, 111598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, Z.; Thaheem, M.J.; Maqsoom, A. Building information modeling as a risk transformer: An evolutionary insight into the project uncertainty. Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ullah, F.; Ayub, B.; Siddiqui, S.Q.; Thaheem, M.J. A review of public-private partnership: Critical factors of concession period. J. Financial Manag. Prop. Constr. 2016, 21, 269–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrgott, M.; Reimann, F.; Kaufmann, L.; Carter, C.R. Social Sustainability in Selecting Emerging Economy Suppliers. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 98, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duckworth, H.A.; Moore, R.A. Social Responsibility: Failure Mode Effects and Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Docherty, P.; Kira, M.; Shani, A.R. Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Developing Social Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- McElroy, M.W.; Jorna, R.J.; van Engelen, J. Sustainability quotients and the social footprint. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goosen, H.; Vellinga, P. Experiences with restoration of inland freshwater wetlands in the Netherlands: Lessons for science and policy-making. Reg. Environ. Change 2004, 4, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guldenmund, F.W. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalteh, H.O.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Mohammadi, E.; Salesi, M. The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: A systematic review. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 27, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.T.; Hadikusumo, B.H. Human resource related factors and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) project success. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2018, 23, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debrah, Y.A.; Ofori, G. Human resource development of professionals in an emerging economy: The case of the Tanzanian construction industry. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2006, 17, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, R.C.; Wood, G.D.; Thorpe, T. Technology-based learning and the project manager. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2004, 11, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, D.J. Improving People Performance in Construction; Gower Publishing, Ltd.: Aldershot, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Upadhyaya, K. Bonded Labour in South. Asia: India, Nepal and Pakistan The Political Economy of New Slavery; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 118–136. [Google Scholar]
- Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Leopoulos, V. Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of con-struction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, S.; Ganji, E.N. Sustainability adoption in project management practices within a social enterprise case. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 346–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvius, A.G.; de Graaf, M. Exploring the project manager’s intention to address sustainability in the project board. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1226–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owusu, E.K.; Chan, A.P.C.; Shan, M. Causal Factors of Corruption in Construction Project Management: An Overview. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019, 25, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Zhang, X.; Geertman, S. Toward smart governance and social sustainability for Chinese migrant communities. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragança, L.; Mateus, R.; Koukkari, H. Building sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2010–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Díaz-Balteiro, L.; Romero, C. In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, T.; Thaheem, M.J. Economic sustainability assessment of residential buildings: A dedicated assessment framework and implications for BIM. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 476–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akber, M.Z.; Thaheem, M.J.; Arshad, H. Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: Policy regime for a sustainable energy mix. Energy Policy 2017, 111, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierra, L.A.; Yepes, V.; García-Segura, T.; Pellicer, E. Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montalbán-Domingo, L.; García-Segura, T.; Sanz, M.A.; Pellicer, E. Social sustainability criteria in public-work procurement: An international perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1355–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Search Engine | Strings and Refinements | Results |
---|---|---|
Scopus | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“social sustainability”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“construction industry”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“construction project”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“construction management”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“project management”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“infrastructure project”)) | 178 |
AND PUBYEAR <2022 | 177 | |
AND (LIMIT-TO (“journal”)) | 112 | |
AND (Screening of titles/abstract/full text) | 94 | |
AND (Content analysis) | 52 | |
AND (Second step screening) | 28 |
Authors | Focus of Study | Study Location | Context | Approach |
---|---|---|---|---|
Zuo et al. [40] | Stakeholder | - | Construction | A qualitative approach was used and semi-structured interviews of 16 industry professionals were conducted. |
Doloi [41] | Stakeholder | Australia | Infrastructure | A quantitative approach was used. A university building case study was run and a questionnaire survey of 25 respondents was performed. |
Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz [10] | Wide-ranging framework with a focus on the planning and design phases | USA | Construction | A quantitative approach was used along with performing a questionnaire survey of 25 experts in academia, industry, and government. |
Chasey and Agrawal [42] | Wide-ranging framework | USA | Construction | A qualitative approach was used, and a case study in the Advanced Technology Facility Sector was used. |
Almahmoud and Doloi [31] | Stakeholder | Saudi Arabia | Construction | A quantitative approach was used. A building project was used as a case study. Also, a questionnaire survey of 20 experts across the project was performed. |
Valentin and Bogus [5] | Wide-ranging framework | USA | Building and infrastructure projects | A qualitative approach was used, and eight case studies of building and infrastructure projects were used. |
Ahmad and Thaheem [21] | Wide-ranging framework | Pakistan | Residential building | A mixed-method approach was used. A case study of a low-rise residential building was used. Besides, a questionnaire survey of 66 respondents from research and education disciplines was conducted. |
Rohman et al. [30] | Community | Indonesia | Toll road project | A quantitative approach was used. A toll road project was used as a case study. 206 respondents from three stakeholder groups (government, private, and end-users communities) were surveyed |
Doloi [23] | Community | Australia | Infrastructure | A quantitative approach was used. A toll road project in Melbourne was used as a case study. A questionnaire survey was also performed on 25 respondents. |
Hossain et al. [43] | Construction materials | Hong Kong | Construction material | A mixed-method approach was used. And a case study on construction materials was conducted. A case-specific survey was performed through 40 responses. |
Karji et al. [44] | Wide-ranging framework | Iran | Mass housing | A quantitative approach was used. A Mehr Housing Project in Iran was used as a case study. A two-stage questionnaire survey was performed by collecting 128 and 62 responses from the residents of the project and the construction industry experts, respectively. |
Kumar and Anbanandam [13] | Wide-ranging framework | India | Freight infrastructure | A quantitative approach was used. An Indian freight transportation project was used as a case study. A questionnaire survey was also performed on 8 experts. |
Hendiani and Bagherpour [12] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Construction | A quantitative approach was used. A questionnaire survey was also performed by participating 7 experts. |
Nasirzadeh et al. [1] | Wide-ranging framework | Iran | Construction | A mixed-method approach was used. A building project was used as a case study. A questionnaire survey was also performed with the participation of 10 experts. |
Rostamnezhad et al. [28] | Wide-ranging framework | Iran | Highway project | A mixed-method approach was used. A Qom-Mashhad highway project in Iran was used as a case study. A questionnaire survey was also performed with the participation of 12 experts. |
Karakhan et al. [45] | Workforce | USA | Construction | A mixed-methods approach that relied on semi-structured interviews and surveys was utilized. This process involved interviewing six experts—four industry professionals and two academics. |
Almahmoud and Doloi [46] | Community | Saudi Arabia | Construction | A quantitative approach was used. Two case studies of regeneration projects in Saudi Arabia were used as case studies. Also, a questionnaire survey was performed with the participation of 102 respondents. |
Goel et al. [33] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Construction | A quantitative approach was used. Knowledge abstraction was performed through thematic analysis |
Goel et al. [47] | Stakeholder | India | Construction | A mixed-method approach was used. Feasibility study reports for 61 projects were obtained from various government organizations in India. |
Montalbán-Domingo et al. [48] | Wide-ranging framework | EU countries | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. 451 tendering documents from 10 European countries were analyzed. |
Fatourehchi and Zarghami [34] | Wide-ranging framework | Iran | Construction | A quantitative approach was used. Also, a questionnaire survey was performed by participating 50 construction specialists and 15 academic researchers. |
Kawesittisankhun and Pongpeng [49] | Wide-ranging framework | Thailand | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. Also, a questionnaire survey was performed by 225 participants from the construction sector. Interviews with six experts were also used to test the content validity of the questionnaire. |
Montalbán-Domingo et al. [11] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Construction | A mixed-method approach was used. A questionnaire survey was also performed on 12 experts. |
Hosny et al. [50] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Infrastructure | A qualitative approach was used. Besides, a questionnaire of 100 infrastructure development experts from various sectors was conducted. |
Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos [51] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 6 experts from academia and industry. |
Novelo et al. [52] | Wide-ranging framework | Mexico | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interviews of 5 participants from different disciplines were conducted. Also, a survey was performed by obtaining 79 responses from academic and industry participants. |
Pham et al. [53] | Wide-ranging framework | Vietnam | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. Moreover, using a survey questionnaire, empirical data are collected from 17 construction firms in Vietnam through 137 questionnaires. |
Kordi et al. [14] | Wide-ranging framework | - | Construction | A qualitative approach was used. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was also used. |
Enablers | Indicators | Sub-indicators | Project Phase |
---|---|---|---|
Stakeholder | Stakeholder and user participation and engagement | The project incorporates stakeholder’s opinions into operational decision-making | All phases |
The project stakeholders agree with the project functions and amenities | Initiation and planning phases | ||
Stakeholder collaboration and conflict management | Lessons learned during the planning and design phases are documented and shared with all stakeholders | Planning phase | |
Partnering strategies are applied for resolving interpersonal conflicts among project stakeholders | Initiation phase | ||
Stakeholder accessibility and satisfaction | Final users participate in the design so that decision-makers can understand and anticipate their needs | Planning phase | |
Designs increase the wellness and productivity of the final users | Planning and execution phases | ||
Impact of the project location on access to public transit, biking opportunities, safe walking routes, and green spaces | Initiation and planning phases | ||
The level of satisfaction among users | All phases | ||
Stakeholder needs identification and communication | There is open communication among all stakeholders regarding their needs | All phases | |
Safety and health | Safety climate and culture | Safety and health care index | Planning and execution phases |
Health and safety literacy and education | Prevention through design is incorporated | Planning phase | |
Induction to work areas and ongoing OH&S training | Planning and execution phases | ||
Health and safety professionals | Health and safety professionals are part of the design and execution team to help analyze health impacts on the final users and the community | Initiation, planning, and execution phases | |
Health and safety performance | The project conforms to current regulations, including certification, public safety, and fair work requirement | Planning, execution, and monitoring and control phases | |
There is a safe and reliable workplace | Execution and monitoring and control phases | ||
Site health and safety | Fatality rate caused by wrong construction systems | Execution and monitoring and control phases | |
Safe places are created where workers can feel safe in the community | Execution phases | ||
Site layout considers safety issues | Planning phase | ||
Health check-ups | Execution phase | ||
Stress on residents is caused by construction operations | Execution and monitoring and control phases | ||
There are appropriate medical centers for injured workers | Execution phase | ||
There is a psychological health check of the workforce | Execution phase | ||
Materials robbery | Execution phase | ||
Sufficient access to personal protective equipment | Execution phase | ||
Regular vehicle maintenance | Execution phase | ||
Healthy and safe procurement | Subcontractors are hired considering their safety management abilities | Planning phase | |
Value Engineering is performed to improve construction safety issues | Planning phase | ||
Social considerations are incorporated into a return-on-investment analysis | Initiation and planning phases | ||
End-user health and safety | There is a safe and secure public facility for final users | Planning, execution, and closing phases | |
Human resource development | Education and training | Education and training opportunities are provided for employees and project staff | Initiation and planning phases |
Jobs and employment | There is job security for employees and project staff | All phases | |
There are jobs and investment opportunities | Initiation phase | ||
There are fair and clear employment practices/methods | All phases | ||
Rewards and incentives | Limited working times are available | All phases | |
Wage revision is regularly carried out | Initiation and execution phases | ||
Leave and rest time are provided | Initiation and execution phases | ||
Project | Procurements and claims | A fair code of conduct is in practice | All phases |
Claims of workers and employees are properly handled | All phases | ||
Material losses due to employee faults happen | Execution phases | ||
Project planning and management | Human capital | All phases | |
Local governments engage in design so that decision-makers can understand and anticipate their needs | Planning phase | ||
Green building practices are applied throughout the design and construction processes | Planning and execution phases | ||
Regular taxes are paid by the company | All phases | ||
Design and construction firms with a sustainability focus are selected | Planning phases | ||
Efficient pricing is practiced | Planning and execution phases | ||
Project cost and finance are effectively managed | Initiation and planning phases | ||
Amenities | Important amenities are provided | Planning and execution phases | |
The project is close to public transportation and amenities | Planning phase | ||
Group/team interaction | Everyone works as a team with respect and honesty | All phases | |
Disruptions caused by construction projects | Planning to minimize disruption caused by the construction process is done | Planning and monitoring and control phases | |
Traffic management around the project is done | Planning and execution phases | ||
Industry | Social performance | There are corrupt practices in construction | All phases |
Preventative actions | Prevention of child and bonded labor is guaranteed | All phases | |
Resilient planning is done to enable future expansions due to population growth | Planning phase | ||
Local labor/supplier | Local labor is trained, and local businesses are hired | Planning and execution phases | |
Supplier/business-related issues | There is an improvement in construction innovativeness | Planning and execution phases | |
Community | Community importance | There is an improvement in local infrastructure capacity | Initiation and planning phases |
New/additional community infrastructure needs resulting from the project are managed | Initiation and planning phases | ||
Local communities are rehabilitated | Closing phase | ||
Community Capital | All phases | ||
There is an impact of introducing new social classes into the surrounding community | Planning and closing phases | ||
The project impacts the cultural and ethnic identity of the surrounding community | Planning and closing phases | ||
The actual social impact on the community is monitored | Closing phase | ||
The social and institutional relationships toward the community are managed | All phases | ||
There is a quick response to community concerns and perceptions | All phases | ||
The community is protected during the construction/demolition of a project | All phases | ||
Primary education is supported in communities | All phases | ||
There is equal access for all community | Planning phase | ||
Community participation and engagement | Community concerns and perceptions are heard | All phases | |
The project is designed in a way that represents the local character and identity of the community | Planning phase | ||
Public involvement, discussion, and transparency are ensured | All phases | ||
Government rules, regulations and support | Provision of rules and regulations | There are trade and tariff barriers | All phases |
There is compliance with relevant laws and policies such as land use, sector plan, cohesion with existing economic and social development | All phases | ||
Equity and human rights | Social justice and equity are ensured, and the different status of relevant stakeholders is recognized | All phases | |
Voting rights and political freedom are upheld | All phases | ||
Consumer and human rights are protected | All phases |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rostamnezhad, M.; Thaheem, M.J. Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095279
Rostamnezhad M, Thaheem MJ. Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095279
Chicago/Turabian StyleRostamnezhad, Mozhdeh, and Muhammad Jamaluddin Thaheem. 2022. "Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095279