Special Issue "Happiness and Quality of Life in a Sustainable Built Environment"

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Sustainable Engineering and Science".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 10 March 2022.

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Paola Sassi
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Architecture, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
Interests: sustainable architecture and urban design; built environment for sustainable quality of life; built environment as sustainable lifestyle driver; retrofit technologies and implementation
Mr. John Brennan
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Edinburgh College of Art, the University of Edinburgh, 20-22 Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1JZ, UK
Interests: counter-intuition; infrastructure; adaptability and long-term resilience; preconceptions of what constitutes sustainable design; rural regeneration and countryside narratives; quantitative and qualitative traditions in sustainable design
Dr. Mina Samangooei
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Architecture, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK
Interests: the role that buildings play for integrating food production in urban environments; energy-efficient and ecological building design; ecological retrofitting of existing buildings; community-focused housing design and post-occupancy evaluation

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

At its heart, sustainability is about making virtuous change in the world, while resilient societies are those with happy and contented people. This Special Edition of Sustainability explores particular perspectives in reconciling and achieving these goals.

The built environment has a significant impact on individuals’ lifestyles and habits, ranging from the impacts of car use or, conversely, movement by bicycle or foot, to housing design and developments that generate segregated, for instance, gated communities, to those that support integration of diverse social, race, income, etc. groups. It is now understood that the built environment has a role to play in improving the sustainability of societies, including by reducing the carbon and other environmental impacts of the built environment, protecting and enhancing natural biodiversity and providing opportunities for low environmental impact living. However, unless these lower-impact lifestyles also improve the quality of life of those who adopt them, they may be short-lived and therefore not sustainable. Furthermore, for those engaged in the developments of our cities and buildings, there is an ethical imperative not only to ensure the safety of societies, but also to create physical frameworks and promote built environment-related processes that support just, physically and mentally healthy sustainable societies for the long term.

While mindful of the complexity and the wide-ranging scope of the fields of sustainability, quality of life and the built environment, this issue investigates and discusses the relationships between the three fields and the extent to which the built environment can or should aim to make a positive contribution to these spheres of human life. The issue invites disciplinary specific, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary contributions, including but not limited to the fields of the built environment, transport, health, psychology, sociology and ethics.

Possible topics could include:

  • Paths to sustainability;
  • Visions of sustainability;
  • Built environment and behaviour change;
  • Built environment and nature;
  • Built environment and happiness in an ethical society;
  • Physical and mental wellbeing within a sustainable society;
  • Sustainable happiness;
  • Ethical practices in the built environment.

Dr. Paola Sassi
Mr. John Brennan
Dr. Mina Samangooei
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1900 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • built environment
  • sustainablity
  • visions of sustainability
  • ethics
  • nature
  • lifestyles
  • behaviour change
  • physical wellbeing
  • mental wellbeing
  • paths to sustainability

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Article
Myths and Issues about Sustainable Living
Sustainability 2021, 13(14), 7521; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147521 - 06 Jul 2021
Viewed by 491
Abstract
There are many common misconceptions about sustainable living. These hinder both an understanding of the benefits, and broader acceptance of sustainable solutions. Professionals within sustainability know of many good project examples, but these are still little known amongst the broader public; and in [...] Read more.
There are many common misconceptions about sustainable living. These hinder both an understanding of the benefits, and broader acceptance of sustainable solutions. Professionals within sustainability know of many good project examples, but these are still little known amongst the broader public; and in many countries hardly at all. Four such misconceptions or “myths” are briefly described, and then countered by a selection of examples. Most of these have been extensively studied and are arguably largely success stories, covering many aspects of ecological, economic and social sustainability. Four points are then noted which whilst not new, demand increased attention: an integrated view of city and countryside; the still underrated role of dynamics and process; social science insights into consumption and sociotechnical change; and emerging questions about sustainability in dense settlements, i.e., urbanity in general. This paper thus argues for a synthesis perspective; some quite new research perspectives are emerging. The paper is based on the literature as well as over 25 years of professional experience, visits, workshops and in-depth exchanges with most of the projects presented. Whilst remaining attentive to obstacles, weaknesses and challenges, a key task is to achieve wider dissemination of “the good news” about sustainable settlements and living. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Happiness and Quality of Life in a Sustainable Built Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Unhealthy Neighbourhood “Syndrome”: A Useful Label for Analysing and Providing Advice on Urban Design Decision-Making?
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 6232; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116232 - 01 Jun 2021
Viewed by 1363
Abstract
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was growing interest in designing healthier neighbourhoods. Adopting this perspective brings attention to how conditions in neighbourhoods (directly and indirectly) affect their inhabitants’ physical health and mental wellbeing. However, considerably less attention has been paid to how [...] Read more.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was growing interest in designing healthier neighbourhoods. Adopting this perspective brings attention to how conditions in neighbourhoods (directly and indirectly) affect their inhabitants’ physical health and mental wellbeing. However, considerably less attention has been paid to how to alleviate such conditions through integrated interventions designed to operate specifically at the neighbourhood scale. To address this gap, this paper introduces the term “unhealthy neighbourhood syndrome” (UNS). The conceptual clarity and practical utility offered by using this term are critically examined. The paper contains a rigorous review and critical analysis of academic and grey literature on what are held to be the relationships between key features of the built environment and people’s health and wellbeing. It also examines literature offering advice on how urban designers should make neighbourhoods healthier. It illustrates the complexity of the range of issues involved and the complicated web of top down, bottom up and middling out actors that need to be involved in making decisions about them. Despite having inherent weaknesses, the term “unhealthy neighbourhood syndrome” is judged to be useful. It illustrates how seemingly separate issues operate in urban design, promoted for tackling specific symptoms of ill health, need to be addressed jointly through an integrated programme of parallel work streams operating at the neighbourhood scale. The paper is innovative in identifying the wide cluster of symptoms used to describe unhealthy neighbourhoods in the literature as being a “syndrome”. Its significance lies in its injunction that this syndrome needs to be tackled through integrated streams of remedial action drawing on experience and expertise that lie beyond those offered by the traditional membership of urban design teams. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Happiness and Quality of Life in a Sustainable Built Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Mass Customisation for Zero-Energy Housing
Sustainability 2021, 13(10), 5616; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105616 - 18 May 2021
Viewed by 401
Abstract
This article describes the potential that co-design and marketing strategies have on increasing the consumption of energy-efficient dwellings. It explains how Japanese housebuilders are using ‘mass customisation’—a phenomenon that mirrors the production and marketing of the automobile sector—in order to produce zero-energy houses [...] Read more.
This article describes the potential that co-design and marketing strategies have on increasing the consumption of energy-efficient dwellings. It explains how Japanese housebuilders are using ‘mass customisation’—a phenomenon that mirrors the production and marketing of the automobile sector—in order to produce zero-energy houses and how this applies to the UK. The research consisted of a comparative analysis of Japanese and UK housebuilding. It identifies how mass customisation strategies are used to drive the sales of zero-energy houses in Japan and infers how to apply these in the UK context. This research found that some housebuilders in the UK are already using production strategies that resemble Japanese practices; however, the sustainable benefits observed in the Japanese context are not present in the UK because housebuilders’ mass customisation strategies are limited to construction and not used as part of the marketing, co-design, and selling processes. Production and consumption of sustainable houses would increase in the UK if housebuilders implemented full mass customisation, meaning selecting existing robust production processes, defining an appropriate space solution, and using informative navigation tools. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Happiness and Quality of Life in a Sustainable Built Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
How a Lack of Green in the Residential Environment Lowers the Life Satisfaction of City Dwellers and Increases Their Willingness to Relocate
Sustainability 2021, 13(7), 3984; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073984 - 02 Apr 2021
Viewed by 859
Abstract
This paper investigates whether various forms of green spaces in the residential environment are associated with city dwellers’ life satisfaction and their willingness to relocate. Previous research on different forms of green spaces in the residential environment as a direct source of life [...] Read more.
This paper investigates whether various forms of green spaces in the residential environment are associated with city dwellers’ life satisfaction and their willingness to relocate. Previous research on different forms of green spaces in the residential environment as a direct source of life satisfaction is scarce, and we know little about whether green spaces affect the decision to relocate. We address these topics with a two-equation model that estimates respondents’ considerations to relocate while accounting for life satisfaction. With this strategy, we are able to test which aspects of residential greenery (window view, green environment, green yard, own garden, and balcony) are associated with one or both outcomes, controlling for life-course events and demographic characteristics. The data come from a primary survey conducted in two large German cities, Cologne and Hamburg, in 2020/21 (N = 1886). The results show that not having green elements in the window view, not having a green yard, and—exclusively for parents—not having a garden increase the likelihood of considering residential relocation. Not having a balcony and not having a garden are directly associated with decreased life satisfaction, and decreased life satisfaction triggers the willingness to relocate. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Happiness and Quality of Life in a Sustainable Built Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop