Cultural sustainability is essential for sustainable urban development, yet its integration into environmental facility design in urban community is often overlooked. This paper proposed a 4-level hierarchical framework with 30 indicators to assess the cultural sustainability of urban environmental facilities. The framework was organized into three dimensions: cultural core, cultural representation, and cultural impetus, focusing on preserving cultural heritage, fostering emotional and identity connections through design, and strengthening community resilience. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, including Delphi and Bayesian Best-Worst Methods (BWM), the indicators were refined and weighted. Case studies in Shanghai and Guangzhou demonstrated the framework’s practical application in assessing cultural sustainability and guiding urban design and policy decisions. This study provided urban planners and designers with an adaptable tool to incorporate cultural sustainability into rapidly changing urban environments, offering insights for promoting resilient and cohesive communities.
Research Article
Developing a cultural sustainability assessment framework for environmental facilities in urban communities
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5326346/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
cultural sustainability
environmental facility design
sustainability assessment
urban community renewal
city cultural image
multi-criteria decision analysis
In recent years, the concept of sustainable development has transcended traditional economic, social, and environmental sustainability, incorporating cultural sustainability as an equally important component [1, 2, 3]. Culture, as the cornerstone of social identity, values, and collective memory, plays a crucial role in shaping sustainable urban development [4]. However, while comprehensive assessment frameworks for economic, social and environmental aspects have been established [5, 6], the integration of cultural sustainability into urban planning and environmental facilities remains underexplored and ill-defined [7]. This gap is particularly evident in assessing how cultural factors contribute to the sustainability of urban communities and environmental facilities, which are important platforms for cultural expression, heritage preservation, and social interaction.
As globalization and urbanization accelerate, many cities face the challenge of balancing modernization with the preservation and promotion of local culture. The homogenizing trend of urban spaces compels us to critically reassess local cultural practices [8], urging us to reconceptualize urban spaces as generative, active sites of cultural production, to address the potential erosion of cultural diversity, which is an indispensable component of community identity and resilience [2, 9]. Meanwhile, there is growing recognition that environmental facilities in urban communities are key factors in shaping users' daily behaviors and spatial experiences, and in maintaining cultural vitality, which are essential in promoting urban sustainability [10, 11].
Developing and formulating an indicator framework and theoretical system for cultural sustainability environmental facilities is of great significance to urban sustainability. Jones [12] argues that sustainable development at the cultural level reflects social prosperity. Coordinated actions addressing global sustainability issues need to focus on the particularities of culture at their core, rather than uniform solutions, in order to promote sustainable development. Manzini & M’Rithaa [13] suggest that a sustainable society should include cultural dimensions and the deep, comprehensive meanings of quality of life, where intertwined narratives, ideas, meaningful products, and performances together form an emerging socio-cultural structure, creating a more resilient and prosperous society. However, Skrede [14] critiques the instrumental role of culture in the context of contemporary neoliberal urban development, calling for culture to be viewed as an anthropological concept of a holistic way of life. Similarly, del Castillo [15] argues that cultural sustainability not only considers aesthetic forms with specific cultural characteristics but also considers the design and production processes, incorporating ethical considerations into design and development. Further expanding on the practical applications, Lazar & Chithra [16] incorporated cultural indicators into sustainable built environments, identifying their benefits in enhancing cultural interaction, creating a sense of place, preserving local characteristics, efficiently using energy and resources, creating local employment, improving affordability, and promoting sustainable behavior change. Memmott & Keys [9] define cultural sustainability within a cross-cultural and value-sensitive framework, focusing on the cultural "fit" and "well-being" between buildings and their users. The environmental facilities of urban communities reflect the city's physical structure and cultural image on a macro level, while on a micro level, they accommodate the diversity of users and the complexity of their behavioral patterns, serving as a key material foundation for promoting the sustainable transformation of urban communities [17]. Therefore, the establishment of relevant indicator frameworks contributes to urban development and sustainable policy formulation, thereby promoting more harmonious and meaningful urban lifestyles [18].
This study aims to address these challenges by developing a comprehensive assessment framework for the cultural sustainability of environmental facilities. To build this framework, we conducted a comprehensive literature review using the snowball sampling method to identify key research, policies, tools, and indicator factors related to cultural sustainability. Subsequently, expert reviews and the Delphi method were used to refine the indicators and allocate appropriate weights to different indicators. The final framework combines qualitative and quantitative methods, using the Bayesian Best-Worst Method (BWM) to optimize the weight of each indicator based on expert consensus [19]. This ensures that the assessment framework is both flexible and robust, capable of adapting to different cultural contexts while providing a structured approach to assessing the cultural sustainability of environmental facilities.
This paper begins with an overview of theories in related fields, then outlines the methods used to develop the assessment framework, and then details the results, including the weight distribution of key indicators. The discussion then explores the applicability of the framework in different cultural contexts and the relationships between key criteria, highlighting the practical and theoretical significance of the findings. A case study of a culturally significant urban renewal projects in Shanghai and Guangzhou were used to test and validate the framework, providing deep insights into its applicability in the real world and its potential to guide future urban design practices. By establishing a rigorous and adaptable framework for assessing cultural sustainability environmental facilities, this study contributes to the broader discussion of sustainable urban development. It provides designers, planners, and policymakers with a new tool to ensure the preservation and promotion of cultural values in the context of rapid urbanization and global change. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of incorporating cultural considerations into sustainability efforts, stressing that a truly sustainable future must account for the cultural aspects of urban life.
2.1 Culture and sustainable development
Since the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development has been at the forefront of the global agenda, encompassing a multidimensional framework that goes beyond ecological balance, environmental protection, and social justice, and has become the dominant discourse of the development paradigm [20]. Sustainable development is inherently complex and multifaceted, involving economic growth, industrial restructuring, lifestyles, mindsets, and institutional frameworks [21]. Although traditionally dominant frameworks have focused on economic, environmental, and social dimensions, the cultural aspect of sustainability has often been overlooked or marginalized in theoretical discussions and practical applications [22]. In recent years, integrating culture into the sustainable development framework has become an increasingly prominent topic, highlighting the critical role that culture plays in supporting and strengthening other pillars [23]. In this sense, sustainable development can be viewed both as a form of cultural innovation and as a new form of human civilization.
Culture is usually defined as the sum of material and spiritual wealth created by humanity throughout history. This broad definition encompasses the various ways in which culture influences social behavior, production methods, and lifestyles [24]. From this perspective, sustainable development is not merely a matter of environmental or economic considerations but is also a product of cultural values and knowledge. Only by positioning culture as a core component of sustainable development can we achieve a comprehensive and enduring model of progress [25]. Therefore, cultural sustainability should be integrated with economic, social, and environmental systems to ensure balanced development.
UNESCO has played a key role in promoting the inclusion of culture in the global sustainable development agenda. Since the Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation, UNESCO [26] has continuously emphasized the importance of culture in national development, positioning culture as a world heritage. Notably, the 1970 Venice Conference recognized the limitations of measurable economic growth models and called for linking cultural development with economic and social progress [27]. The conference also pointed out that technological and economic progress could endanger cultural life and social structures, potentially hindering comprehensive human development. The Mexico City Conference further cemented the link between cultural heritage and sustainable development, bringing more attention to the interaction between culture and development [24]. UNESCO's continued efforts, including the 1986 World Decade for Cultural Development Action Plan and the 1998 Stockholm Conference on Cultural Policy Development, gradually expanded the concept of cultural policy to include identity, diversity, and international cultural exchange. UNESCO's [28] Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity asserted that cultural diversity is a fundamental driving force of sustainable development, the declaration acknowledged the similarity between biodiversity and cultural diversity in maintaining systemic balance, reflecting growing recognition of this concept. Cultural diversity is now regarded as an important resource for human development and economic growth, contributing to sustainable practices and social well-being. Subsequent initiatives, such as the 2012 report "Culture: A Driver and Enabler of Sustainable Development," further emphasized the complexity of culture as a powerful economic resource in terms of its cross-sectional and cross-sectoral impact, and the importance of culture in various aspects of the process and outcomes of sustainable development [29]. The UN Agenda for Sustainable Development further reinforced this concept, explicitly recognizing the fundamental role of culture in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [30]. Goal 11 focuses on building inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities, directly referencing the protection and preservation of the world's cultural and natural heritage.
However, despite these efforts, the integration of culture into sustainable development strategies remains limited. A report by the International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity [31] highlighted the untapped potential of culture in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, calling for a more conscious integration of culture into policies and practices. In response to these ongoing challenges, UNESCO's [32] "Cultural Indicators for the 2030 Agenda" provides a comprehensive framework for measuring and monitoring culture's contribution to various Sustainable Development Goals. These 22 indicators cover four thematic dimensions, providing a robust tool for assessing culture's role in sustainable development across multiple fields. Moreover, the World Conference on Cultural Policies [33] in Mexico City reaffirmed the need to elevate culture as a global public good and as an intrinsic element of the post-2030 development agenda. The discourse on cultural sustainability has evolved to recognize culture as a key factor in promoting resilience, inclusiveness, and innovation. From the Hangzhou Declaration , which emphasized the central role of culture in urban development, to the "Culture 21: Actions" report, which recognized culture as a key driver for the transformation towards sustainable cities, the global consensus on culture's role in sustainable development has greatly strengthened. Currently, the SDGs have drastically deviated from their course in the run-up to the 2030 deadline [34]. Under these circumstances, it is particularly important to consider and understand various roles and concepts of culture in sustainable development.
2.2 Defining cultural sustainability
Cultural sustainability refers to explicitly integrating cultural factors into sustainable development, viewing culture as a resource, condition, process and methodology for sustainable urban transition. It emphasizes raising awareness and knowledge of sustainable development among local populations from the inside out and is key in promoting local identity, resilient communities, and inclusive social practices [35, 36].
Cultural sustainability has three key characteristics. First, it involves the localization of SDGs to reflect specific cultural contexts, a process known as "cultural localization" [31]. Second, cultural knowledge, skills, and resources are regarded as driving forces for sustainable development [37]. Third, cultural sustainability promotes human dignity, identity construction, and creative expression, which are integral to achieving long-term social well-being [38].
Academic discussions surrounding cultural sustainability have revealed several challenges. Culture is a highly complex and ambiguous concept, encompassing a wide range of meanings from lifestyles and fine arts to social networks [39]. This inherent complexity makes its integration into the sustainable development framework challenging. Additionally, cultural indicators lag behind economic, social, and environmental indicators, limiting the systematic assessment of culture's contribution to sustainability [40]. Finally, integrating culture into sustainable development requires consideration of diverse values, behaviors, and lifestyles, which presents methodological and normative challenges [22, 38].
Scholars from various disciplines have contributed to the conceptualization of cultural sustainability. Nassauer [41] emphasizes the aesthetic experience and cultural identity of the landscape from an ecological landscaping perspective, and how this aesthetic experience and identity complement ecological conservation and restoration. Throsby [42] introduced the concept of cultural capital in economics, linking cultural value to sustainability. Jon Hawkes [43] proposed the "fourth pillar of sustainability," emphasizing cultural vitality in public planning. Axelsson et al. [44] identified key dimensions of cultural sustainability, including cultural diversity, heritage preservation, and cultural participation. These perspectives highlight the multifaceted nature of cultural sustainability, encompassing both tangible and intangible cultural assets. James [45] developed the Sustainability Circle for understanding and evaluating the sustainability of urban development, in which the assessment of cultural sustainability is organized into seven sub-dimensions: identity and engagement, creativity and recreation, memory and projection, beliefs and ideas, gender and generations, enquiry and learning, and health and well-being.
Building on these contributions, Soini & Dessein [46] developed a conceptual framework that positions culture as a distinct dimension and of sustainable development, and as a mediator between the economic, environmental, and social pillars, or a basis for sustainable social transition. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, this interdisciplinary model emphasizes three key manifestations of culture: culture in sustainable development, culture for sustainable development, and culture as sustainable development. These manifestations provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic role of culture in sustainable development and lay the foundation for further exploration and integration in academic and policy fields. The literature indicates a growing consensus that cultural sustainability must be regarded as an integral part of sustainable development [47]. Cultural practices, values, and identities must be seen as fundamental drivers of resilience, innovation, and inclusiveness, contributing to a holistic approach to urban development.
Table 1 Three roles and eight structural dimensions of the culture-sustainability relationship [46]
|
|
Culture in sustainable development |
Culture for sustainable development |
Culture as sustainable development |
|
Definition of culture |
culture as a capital |
culture as a way of life |
culture as a semiosis |
|
Culture and development |
culture as an achievement in development |
culture as a resource and condition for development |
development as a cultural process |
|
Value of culture |
intrinsic |
instrumental and intrinsic |
embedded |
|
Culture and society |
complementing |
affording |
transforming |
|
Culture and nature |
human perspective on nature |
interaction of culture andnature |
nature constituent of culture |
|
Policy sectors |
cultural policies |
all policies |
new policies |
|
Modes of Governance |
hierarchical governance, 1st order |
co-governance, 2nd order |
self-governance, meta-governance |
|
Research approach |
mainly mono- and multidisciplinary |
mainly multi- and interdisciplinary |
mainly inter-and transdisciplinary |
2.3 Cultural sustainability assessment tools and urban environmental facility design principle
Cultural sustainability inherently involves the influence of normative values, ideas, and ethics, further shaping the ontological meaning, target groups, and practical objectives of cultural sustainability. Also, this leads to difficulties in assessing it. However, scholars suggest that addressing the driving forces of sustainable development requires large-scale changes in human behavior, driven by cultural forces such as institutions, norms, customs, and values that shape behavior [48]. Table 2 summarizes the current assessment tools for cultural sustainability, their usage methods, and applicable principles.
Cities are centers of social and cultural activities, and when assessing culturally sustainable urban environmental facilities, the fundamental principles should include respect, inheritance, adaptation, promotion, and mutual learning. These principles mainly focus on integrating and utilizing cultural resources to create more sustainable, economically viable, and inclusive living environments, while cultivating residents' cultural identity and enhancing the quality of life and cohesion in urban communities [49]. Firstly, respect means a deep understanding of the cultural heritage, values, and traditional customs of cities and local communities, as well as thoroughly listening to and respecting the needs of community members. The design of environmental facilities should reflect the unique cultural identity and values of the community.
Inheritance means the continuation of the city's history and memory, and in assessing the design of environmental facilities [50], the historical value of design elements and the degree of cultural inheritance should be considered. This includes considering the historical background, cultural significance, and relationship with the local urban community, as well as the level of representation of traditional elements and the extent of cultural heritage protection, ensuring the city retains its unique identity and charm during continuous development.
Adaptation considers the adaptive reuse of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, achieved by providing new functions for cultural sites or material carriers for intangible cultural heritage to meet the goal of protection [51]. When assessing the design of environmental facilities, consideration should be given to how the design conveys cultural content and meaning through material carriers, services, or experience. On the other hand, it is important to assess whether the redefined function of the facility meets the contemporary social and cultural needs of the community.
Promotion aims to accelerate cultural revival in cities and regions through cultural heritage, with culture-oriented public spaces promoting cultural diversity and creative expression [52]. It also fosters increased community participation and cohesion [4]. Demonstrating cultural diversity in the design of urban environmental facilities is a key factor in promoting positive dialogue and inclusiveness within public spaces. Creative cultural expressions bring artistic aesthetics and cultural vitality, creating a rich cultural atmosphere for residents' daily lives. Environmental facilities with local cultural attributes help local residents affirm their cultural identity, fostering a sense of belonging and attachment. Additionally, promotion includes the social process of cultural knowledge production, which serves as the basis for guiding local administrators, planners, and builders in implementing interventions [36, 53]. This process could promotes meaningful cultural change for local residents.
Mutual learning encompasses the influence of multiple cultures on one culture and the interaction of internal ideas [54]. It also includes the impact of one culture on others. The formation of any mature culture cannot be separated from the exchange and mutual learning with diverse cultures. Reflected in the assessment of urban environmental facilities design, it is necessary to consider whether the design can promote the sharing and utilization of cultural resources. Additionally, it is important to assess whether the design can integrate resources from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds, creating a "unity in diversity" urban space and a multicultural, inclusive city image.
Cultural sustainability is based on place-making and locality, possessing relative autonomy [53]. As a development resource, it breaks away from the all-encompassing anthropological definition of culture and holds metaphorical and practical significance [14]. In urban spcae, cultural sustainability reflects an aestheticization of daily life and the constant flow of symbols and images, thus generating cultural change and creation [55]. It acknowledges the independent role and value of art and design in society [56, 57], while also serving as an attitude and practice that drives broader social development. It plays an important role in promoting economic growth, cultural design representation, residents' interactive practices, and the shaping of spiritual civilization. The economic development dimension emphasizes the importance of cultural resources and the creative economy. It focuses on the role of environmental facilities in carrying cultural value, enhancing the city’s image, and creating economic diversity. Cultural representation emphasizes the function, symbolism, and structure of environmental facilities, integrating design, aesthetics, and cultural expression. Residents' interactive practices demonstrate the potential of environmental facilities in enriching emotional experiences, enhancing cultural vitality, and guiding place-making. Culture plays a unique role in fostering community cohesion—ie., cultural sustainability views environmental facilities as carriers of enriched spiritual civilization. Through enhancing community resilience and cultural ecology, it focuses on education and sustainability to complete cultural transition and the dissemination of values.
Table 2 Summarized tools and indicators for assessing cultural sustainability
|
Serial Number |
Tool Name |
Author & Date |
Tool Usage |
Measurement Indicators |
Application Domain |
|
1 |
The fourth pillar of sustainable development |
Hawkes [43] |
Analysis, Observation |
Cultural vitality (well-being, creativity, diversity, innovation) |
Urban planning, Cultural policy |
|
2 |
Sustainable development circle |
James [45] |
Analysis, Observation |
Identity and engagement; creativity and recreation; memory and projection; beliefs and ideas; gender and generations; enquiry and learning; health and well-being |
Urban Development |
|
3 |
Cultural sustainability measurement |
Axelsson et al. [44] |
Analysis, Observation |
Cultural vitality, diversity and conviviality; social capital; cultural landscape; cultural heritage; cultural access, participation, consumption |
Urban planning, Cultural policy |
|
4 |
Community-based cultural heritage resource management (COBACHREM) |
Keitumetse [58] |
Analysis, Observation |
Core: identify local level communities’ parameters, identify heritage knowledge bearers (people), identify historical events, categorize domains of cultural heritage, extract heritage knowledge |
Cultural development |
|
5 |
Scientific discourse on cultural sustainability |
Soini & Dessein [22,46]; Osman [59]; Ge et al.[60] |
Analysis, Observation |
Heritage; vitality; economic viability; diversity, locality, eco-cultural resilience; and eco-cultural civilization |
Cultural development |
|
6 |
A cultural sustainability index framework for green buildings |
Wu, Fan & Chen [61] |
Guidelines |
Cultural diversity; cultural identity; cultural vitality; cultural continuity; aesthetic experience; creative sensitivity; spiritual enrichment; behavioral shifts |
Architectural design |
|
7 |
Biocultural approach to indicator development |
Sterling et al. [62] |
Guidelines |
Understand local issues and resource interaction/management systems; |
Cross-disciplinary research |
|
8 |
Sustainable neighborhoods for happiness assessment tool（SNfH） |
Cloutier et al. [63] |
Interviews, Analysis and Observation |
Cultural dimension of community engagement: encourage neighbors to integrate their cultural traditions into collective gatherings as a means of sharing and strengthening cultural heritage |
Sustainable community development |
|
9 |
Cultural models of and for urban sustainability - dimensions of the enabling environment |
Yazar et al. [64] |
Interviews, Questionnaires, Survey |
Visions; |
Urban development |
|
10 |
European cities cultural policy |
Mickov & Pivac [65] |
Guidelines |
cultural identity; |
Cultural development, Cultural policy |
|
11 |
Driver of urban sustainability - social/cultural |
Naheed, & Shooshtarian [3] |
Guidelines |
Preserve social norms/customs: implement local characteristics, accessibility, safety; promote urban development while considering cultural factors; encourage voluntary local participation; restore social cohesion in public spaces; promote future-adaptive community engagement |
Sustainable community development |
|
12 |
Vitality evaluation of historical and cultural districts |
Zhang & Han [66] |
Interviews, Questionnaires, Survey |
Historic value; |
Urban planning, Cultural Policy |
|
13 |
Cultural space as sustainability indicator |
Habib, Hasibuan, & Kurniawan [67] |
Interviews, Survey |
Core cultural spaces; |
Urban planning, Cultural Policy |
|
14 |
Cultural and creative cities index (C3 Index) |
Montalto & Keys [9] |
Questionnaires, Survey |
Culture vibrancy; |
Urban development |
The basic research framework and process are illustrated in Fig. 2. Employing a qualitative method, a snowballing approach was used to collect relevant literature, policies, reports, and assessment tools related to cultural sustainability [68], which served as the foundation for developing an indicator framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities. Subsequently, the indicator framework underwent revision and adjustment based on expert reviews and questionnaire surveys, with weights assigned to the indicators at different levels. Based on the literature review, a four-level hierarchical assessment structure was established, encompassing the objective, criteria, sub-criteria, and indicator levels. The Delphi method was employed to consult experts for the selection of key indicators [69], while the Bayesian Best-Worst Method (BWM) was applied to allocate weights for each level of indicators maximize benefits [19]. Through the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, a robust assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities was ultimately developed.
Mainstream assessment systems generally require setting weight coefficients for each indicator to determine the importance, reliability, and varying roles of the indicators within the system [6]. The methods for allocating weights to indicators were divided into subjective weighting and objective weighting. Subjective weighting is based on expert knowledge, experience, and preferences, including methods such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [70], analytic network process (ANP) [71], best-worst method (BWM) [72], and expert ranking [73]. Objective weighting is measured based on the variation of the weight framework within the overall indicator framework and its impact on other indicators. Common methods include entropy weight method [74] rank-sum ratio (RSR) [75], CRITIC method, correlation coefficient method, analytic network process (ANP), principal component analysis, factor analysis, fuzzy clustering, regression analysis, and grey relational analysis (GRA), etc. [76]. Bayesian BWM is a multi-criteria decision-making method based on subjective weighting, used to describe the preferences of a group of decision-makers (or evaluators) to find the optimal weights for a set of criteria [19]. In the standard BWM method, group decision-making problems are evaluated by aggregating the arithmetic or geometric mean of multiple decision-makers. Bayesian BWM uses probability distribution methods to model inputs and outputs, transforming the weighting problem in multi-criteria decision-making into a probability distribution problem to improve evaluation. It ultimately derives the final aggregated weights that reflect group decision preferences and confidence levels in the ranking of criteria. The reason for adopting this method is that it addresses the issue of overemphasis on central tendencies while neglecting outliers in the process of aggregating group decisions based solely on arithmetic means. By creating a probabilistic environment, it maximizes the idea of "letting each indicator be in the position it deserves to be."
3.1 Identification of factors relevant to the assessment of cultural sustainability environmental facilities
This study adopted snowball sampling [77], a qualitative method well-suited for exploring emerging research fields that lack systematic organization. According to [78], we consider the evaluation criteria for cultural sustainability environmental facilities as a means to achieve sustainability objectives, rather than solely focusing on the establishment and fulfillment of specific functional requirements of the facilities. This approach allowed for flexibility in interpreting innovative solutions at system level.
We began by gathering a selection of influential foundational papers that have shaped the assessment of cultural sustainability [4, 9, 22, 23, 44, 46, 61, 79] and environmental facilities [52, 80, 81, 82, 83], which served as the starting point for further snowball sampling. In each round of sampling, we delved into both the references cited within the papers and their citing resources, ensuring a comprehensive and bidirectional method. Furthermore, relevant literature related to cultural sustainability were retrieved from several academic databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The keywords used included but were not limited to "cultural sustainability," "environmental facilities assessment," and "sustainability indicators." Rigorous screening was employed to ensure the selected papers were representative and covered different disciplinary perspectives.
Upon the literature collection was completed, qualitative content analysis was used to conduct in-depth reading and categorization of the theories, assessment tools, and case applications discussed in the literature. During this process, we focused on identifying the critical factors influencing the design, urban management, community development, and assessment of cultural sustainability and environmental facilities. Employing Nvivo 14 software for data coding, the relevant terms were categorized and integrated into more general categories, ultimately refining key indicator factors. These indicators were eventually translated into specific evaluation criteria within the framework, serving as the basis for developing an assessment framework for culturally sustainable environmental facilities.
3.2 Construction of an appropriate indicator framework
This study used the Delphi Method to select the key indicators for the assessment framework of cultural sustainability environmental facilities. The Delphi Method is a collective intelligence approach that can identify highly independent and relevant indicators based on expert consensus. Initially, the research team conducted an initial screening, removing duplicate, similar, or irrelevant indicators for environmental facilities, as well as factors with low relevance to cultural sustainability objectives. Finally, after multiple rounds of expert discussions, a preliminary indicator set was formed [84].
A questionnaire was created based on this information, and a survey was carried out to ask experts to rate the relevance and importance of each indicator. The experts used a 9-point scale, with 9 indicating the most important indicator and 1 indicating the least important. To provide more detailed ratings, options for 8, 6, 4, and 2 were also included. The survey data was then quantitatively analyzed using means\(\:{M}_{j}\), standard deviations\(\:{S}_{j}\), and coefficients of variation \(\:{V}_{j}\) to further filter the indicators. The mean was used to reflect the importance of the indicators, while the coefficient of variation was used to measure the level of consensus among experts, which can be calculated using Eq. 1:
To ensure that the indicator hierarchy was clear and logically structured, the levels were set between two and four, with subsystems or sub-indicators at each level maintaining parallel, causal, or sequential relationships to avoid overlapping meanings [85]. Pairwise comparisons were conducted starting from the lowest level to evaluate the contribution of each indicator to the upper levels, ultimately reducing biases throughout the decision-making process.
Eventually, a four-level hierarchical structure was formed. The first level is the objective level, which defines the overall objective of achieving culturally sustainable environmental facilities; the second level is the criteria level, which breaks down into key areas for achieving the objective; the third level is the sub-criteria level, which further refines into specific assessment dimensions; and the fourth level is the indicator level, which includes the most specific quantitative or qualitative measurement standards.
3.3 Allocation of indicators weight at different levels
The Bayesian BWM is a multi-criteria decision-making tool based on subjective weighting, suitable for handling uncertainty and weight allocation issues when multiple decision-makers (DMs) are involved. In this study, the Bayesian BWM method was used to assign weights to the various indicators of culturally sustainable environmental facilities. Compared to the traditional BWM method, Bayesian BWM uses probability distribution models to capture the differences in preferences among experts, thereby avoiding the biases that may arise from simply using arithmetic averages [19]. The steps of this method include:
Step 1: Define decision criteria
First, it is essential to define all the criteria involved in the decision-making process. For instance, let's assume there are n criteria denoted as C1,C2,C3,…,Cn, which will be assessed by decision-makers in the following steps. In this research, the assessment system for cultural sustainability environmental facilities was denoted as the set of criteria C.
Step 2: Collect preference information from decision-makers
Let each decision-maker k was asked to provide two vectors: \(\:{\text{C}}_{\text{B}}^{\text{k}}\) represents the best indicator selected by the expert, and \(\:{\text{C}}_{\text{W}}^{\text{k}}\) represents the worst indicator selected by the expert. The best indicator was considered the most important for assessing cultural sustainability environmental facilities, while the worst indicator was considered the least important.
Once the best indicator was determined, the expert needs to compare the other indicators with the best indicator. The scoring uses a 9-point scale, with 1 indicating that the other indicators are equally important to the best indicator, and 9 indicating that the other indicators are completely unimportant compared to the best indicator. The Best-to-Others (BO)vector (\(\:{A}_{B}^{k}\)) was generated by expert k through pairwise comparisons, where a represents expert k's preference for the best indicator \(\:{C}_{B}^{k}\) relative to \(\:{C}_{j}\in\:C\), as shown in Eq. 2.
\(\:{A}_{B}^{k}={a}_{B1}^{k}\) ,\(\:{a}_{B2}^{k}\),\(\:{a}_{B3}^{k}\),...\(\:{a}_{Bm}^{k}\), 其中 m=1, 2, 3, ..., N(2)
After determining the worst indicator, the experts were asked to compare the other indicators with the selected worst indicator using the 9-point scale. In this case, 1 indicates that the other indicators are equally important as the worst indicator, and 9 indicates that the other indicators are more important compared to the worst indicator. The Worst-to-Others (WO)vector (\(\:{A}_{W}^{k}\)) was generated by expert k through pairwise comparisons, where \(\:{a}_{Wj}^{k}\) represents expert k's preference for the worst indicator \(\:{C}_{W}^{k}\) relative to \(\:{C}_{j}\in\:C\), as shown in Eq. 3.
\(\:{A}_{W}^{k}=（{a}_{W1}^{k}\) ,\(\:{a}_{W2}^{k}\),\(\:{a}_{W3}^{k}\),...\(\:{a}_{Wm}^{k}{）}^{T}\)(3)
Step 3: Calculate the aggregated weights
\(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\ast\:}\) =(\(\:{{\omega\:}}_{1}^{\ast\:}，{{\omega\:}}_{2}^{\ast\:}{，{\omega\:}}_{3}^{\ast\:}，...，{{\omega\:}}_{\text{n}}^{\ast\:}\)) was used to represent the aggregated weights of k experts, with each expert's weight denoted as \(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\text{k}}\). For each expert k, the weight \(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\text{k}}\) was sampled from a multinomial distribution, with \(\:{A}_{B}^{k}\) and \(\:{A}_{W}^{k}\) representing the results under two different multinomial distributions. For each expert k, the weight \(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\text{k}}\) follows a Dirichlet distribution, with its parameters being a vector \(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\ast\:}\) multiplied by a scalar \(\:{\gamma\:}\). The scalar \(\:{\gamma\:}\) follows a Gamma distribution with shape parameters all equal to 0.1. The aggregated weight \(\:{{\omega\:}}^{\ast\:}\) follows a uniform Dirichlet distribution, as shown in Eq. 4. Since these equations have no analytical solution, the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was used to estimate these weights(Gilks et al., 1995). Currently, Bayesian BWM is publicly available at the following location: https://github.com/Majeed7/BayesianBWM。
Specifically, the weight of an indicator was determined by multiplying the factor weight by the proportion of the indicator within the criteria level. This product reflects the contribution of each indicator under its corresponding criteria. All results was normalized to ensure that the sum of the weights of all indicators equals 1, ensuring the rationality and consistency of weight allocation. At the sub-criteria level, the weight was obtained by summing the weights of all indicators at that level. This method allowed us to precisely allocate weights at different levels, thus constructing an assessment framework with high internal consistency and practical applicability.
3.4 Validation of the assessment framework
To validate the practicality and reliability of the cultural sustainability environmental facilities assessment framework, a series of verification steps were implemented. First, the research team carefully selected environmental facility case with a focus on cultural attributes. Subsequently, industry experts were organized and asked to use the constructed assessment framework to conduct detailed evaluation of the selected case. The experts' task was to score each case (on a scale of 1 to 5) based on the indicators in the framework, with higher scores indicating better performance in the phenomenon described by the indicator. Next, the evaluation results of the case was weighted and analyzed to understand and investigate their performance in terms of cultural sustainability.
Based on these analyses, we proposed specific strategies to improve each plan, ensuring that they can more effectively achieve the goals of cultural sustainability. Ultimately, to demonstrate the assessment framwork can provide quantitative evaluation tools for experts and residents in practice, and offer directional guidance for the design and improvement of urban environmental facilities.
4.1 Literature collection and candidate indicator screening
A comprehensive review of the literature using the snowball method resulted in the identification of 45 publications about culturally sustainable environmental facilities. The complete list of these publications can be found in the Table 3. Additionally, two reports and two monographs were included due to their high relevance to the development of cultural sustainability indicators.
Following an initial screening process, 40 candidate indicators were meticulously chosen. Each selected indicator underwent a detailed explanation and standardization process. Given the unique nature of cultural sustainability, we opted not to rely on singular quantitative measures for assessment. Instead, we chose to consolidate and integrate various factors in a qualitative manner. Following three rounds of internal discussion and review within the research team, a total of 30 potential indicators were identified, as shown in Table 3.
| Candidate indicators | Mean | Coefficient of Variation | Explanation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inheritance | 7.16 | 0.25 | The facility precisely preserves the original form of cultural resources | [6, 16, 36, 44, 86, 87] |
| Symbolism | 7.10 | 0.21 | The facility skillfully refines cultural resources into specific cultural symbols | [61, 81] |
| Legibility | 7.56 | 0.17 | The facility's cultural resources are easily understood in terms of meaning | [9, 61, 88, 89] |
| Commerciality | 6.71 | 0.24 | The facility reflects the integration of cultural and commercial values (e.g., attracting tourists, stimulating consumption and investment) | [2, 71, 84, 90, 91] |
| Aesthetic | 7.46 | 0.13 | The facility reflects the integration of cultural and traditional aesthetic concepts (e.g., harmony between humans and nature, simplicity, plain) | [9, 16, 41, 87, 89, 92] |
| Innovation | 7.21 | 0.21 | The facility reflects the integration of cultural and technological innovation capabilities (e.g., intelligent analysis, digital interaction, modular configuration) | [9, 61] |
| Subjectivity | 6.90 | 0.24 | The facility supports the expression of the unique cultural characteristics of a single cultural entity (nation, ethnicity, or region) | [9, 66, 93] |
| Inclusivity | 7.46 | 0.20 | The facility reflects respect for diverse cultural groups (ethnicity, age, education, religion, language, generations, etc.) | [9, 11, 78, 94] |
| Diversity | 7.27 | 0.22 | The facility supports the recognition of multiple values and their cultural expressions (natural culture, historical culture, folk culture, revolutionary culture, etc.) | [95, 96] |
| Empathy | 7.18 | 0.22 | The facility's cultural connotations evoke reflection and emotional resonance from users | [97, 98] |
| Delightfulness | 7.52 | 0.18 | The facility's cultural connotations are attractive and bring a sense of delight to users | [89, 99] |
| Interestingness | 7.03 | 0.21 | The facility's cultural intent conveys meaning and increases affinity | [4, 100] |
| Functionality | 7.30 | 0.19 | The facility's functional settings meet the needs of users' cultural activities | [4] |
| Usability | 7.26 | 0.19 | The facility is easy to use and takes into account the specificities of cultural practices | [101] |
| Consistency | 7.14 | 0.21 | The facility effectively maintains the consistency of cultural landscapes in urban spaces | [9, 23, 57] |
| Interactivity | 6.63 | 0.25 | The facility promotes gathering and interactive behaviors in urban spaces | [3, 16, 102] |
| Inspirability | 6.82 | 0.20 | The facility inspires the creation of new cultural practices in urban spaces | [4] |
| Environmental awareness | 7.11 | 0.22 | The facility promotes behaviors that protect the environment | [4, 9, 16,103] |
| Attachment | 6.63 | 0.27 | The facility strengthens individuals' sense of connection to a place | [16, 102, 103, 104] |
| Place Value | 7.05 | 0.24 | The facility enhances individuals' value judgment of a place | [9, 16, 23, 53] |
| Place Identity | 7.31 | 0.23 | The facility reinforces individuals' sense of local identity | [16, 53, 105, 106] |
| Sense of Community | 6.86 | 0.24 | The facility strengthens the sense of community among groups | [4, 107] |
| Participation | 7.39 | 0.18 | The facility's construction and planning process fully considers residents' participation | [11, 23, 47, 108] |
| Livability | 7.43 | 0.18 | The facility improves the quality of community life, enhancing the stability of residents' settlement | [9, 72, 99] |
| Publicness | 6.16 | 0.28 | The facility stimulates a spirit of collective cooperation among groups | [11, 23, 61] |
| Collective Memory | 7.29 | 0.22 | The facility evokes shared historical memories among groups | [11, 61, 109, 110] |
| Aesthetic Education | 7.16 | 0.21 | The facility enhances the ability of groups to perceive aesthetics in daily life | [14, 94] |
| Dynamic | 6.66 | 0.27 | The facility responds to dynamic demands related to urban or regional cultural development policies | [9, 66, 111, 112] |
| Systematicness | 7.16 | 0.22 | The facility systematically and comprehensively conveys the cultural image of the city or region | [2, 14, 23, 61] |
| Coordination | 7.18 | 0.21 | The facility coordinated the future cultural development vision of the city or region | [9, 23, 78] |
4.2 Construction of an assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities
In order to establish an assessment framework for culturally sustainable environmental facilities, this investigation gathered input from 200 experts via a questionnaire survey. The survey encompassed various domains includingdesign research, urban planning, sustainable development, cultural heritage, and community studies. The cohort of experts comprised university faculty, government officials, research institute personnel, PhD students, industry professionals, and independent scholars. The questionnaire was disseminated on August 17, 2024, and garnered 188 valid responses, yielding a response rate of 94%. The demographic information of the respondents who completed the valid questionnaires is presented in Table 4.
Subsequently, the mean and coefficient of variation of the expert rating indicators were computed using Eq. (1). Initially, indicators with a mean \(\:{M}_{j}\)> 7.0 and a coefficient of variation \(\:{V}_{j}\)< 0.3 were selected, signifying a high level of significance and consensus among the experts. Furthermore, indicators with a mean \(\:{M}_{j}\)> 6.0 and a coefficient of variation \(\:{V}_{j}\)< 0.3 were identified, demonstrating that while the importance of these indicators is moderate, there exists a high degree of expert consensus. Overall, the indicators of Legibility and Delightfulness \(\:{M}_{j}\)>7.5, with \(\:{V}_{j}\)< 0.2, indicating that these two indicators were highly valued within the research sample and exhibited a high degree of consensus. In contrast, publicity was the sole indicator with a mean \(\:{M}_{j}\)< 6.5 and the highest coefficient of variation (\(\:{V}_{j}\)= 0.28), suggesting that while a basic consensus can be established regarding this indicator, its significance in the assessment of cultural sustainability environmental facilities is the least pronounced.
| Category | Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 69 | 36.70% |
| Female | 119 | 63.30% | |
| Age | 20–30 | 126 | 67.02% |
| 31–40 | 39 | 20.74% | |
| 41–50 | 12 | 6.38% | |
| 51–60 | 7 | 3.72% | |
| 61 and above | 4 | 2.12% | |
| Education | Doctor | 54 | 28.72% |
| Master | 87 | 46.28% | |
| Bachelor | 47 | 25% | |
| Institute | Student | 97 | 51.60% |
| Teacher | 51 | 27.13% | |
| Government employee | 5 | 2.66% | |
| Industry | 25 | 13.30% | |
| Independent scholar | 10 | 5.32% | |
| Experience | 0–5 years expertise | 102 | 54.26% |
| 6–10 years expertise | 45 | 23.94% | |
| 11–15 years expertise | 16 | 8.51% | |
| 15–20 years expertise | 11 | 5.85% | |
| 20 years or more | 14 | 7.45% | |
| Total | 188 |
Based on 30 indicators from the candidate pool and the theoretical foundation of cultural sustainability, a four-level hierarchical structure framework for assessing cultural sustainability environmental facilities was constructed, as shown in Table 5. The derivation process of the three main criteria of the evaluation system is as follows.
Dimension 1: Cultural Core
The cultural core refers to the fundamental aspects of culture, including traditions, beliefs, customs, and basic social norms that are deeply embedded in society. These elements constitute the foundational resources of a culture, facilitating the development of diverse value systems. The cultural core plays a crucial role in the inter-generational transmission of culture, ensuring that its essential characteristics remain intact despite external shocks.
Inheritance is a crucial indicator for assessing the precise preservation and transmission of cultural resources across generations, representing the historical continuity of cultural resources and the effectiveness of protective measures [36]. Environmental facilities can be used to safeguard and recreate the original form of cultural resources. Symbolism refers to the symbolic significance of cultural resources and their representativeness in the cultural system. The careful extraction and application of cultural symbols in environmental facilities facilitate the identification and transformation of cultural resources. Legibility assesses whether cultural resources can be widely understood and accepted. As a public good, the cultural connotations embodied in environmental facilities need to be easily recognized and understood by diverse social groups [113]. The analysis of these three indicators forms the foundation for evaluating the sustainability of cultural resources, ultimately leading to the development of cultural resource indicators at the sub-criteria level.
Commerciality emphasizes the economic benefits, market demand, cost-effectiveness analysis, and sustainability in broad application of design, providing the necessary economic support for culturally sustainable construction. In the design and planning of environmental facilities, commerciality involves the integration of cultural appeal and commercial value [91]. Aesthetic focuses on the depth of cultural connotations, particularly aesthetic concepts that align with cultural traditions. The integration of environmental facilities with traditional aesthetic concepts facilitates both cultural transmission and aesthetic appreciation. Innovation combines technological innovation, creative thinking, and cultural values, using theseelements to promote the dynamic development of culture. Merging technological advancements in environmental facilities with cultural connotations ensures the continuous development of cultural values and their adaptation to modern life. These indicators_focusing on economic adaptability, the depth of cultural connotations, and technological innovation capabilities, clarify the cultural values at the sub-criteria level within the assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities.
Cultural subjectivity reflects the characteristics exhibited in the process of "civilizing" individuals through culture, particularly in expressing the cultural identity of a specific nation, ethnicity, or region. Conveying the subjectivity of culture in environmental facilities is essential for maintaining cultural recognition in a globally diverse environment [114]. Cultural inclusivity involves the acceptance and coexistence of multiple cultures, as well as fostering harmony among different cultural groups. Environmental facilities can create an inclusive environment for the protection and development of cultural diversity by considering and respecting the needs of various cultural groups. Diversity supports the integration of different cultural elements, resulting in a rich and varied cultural environment [115]. Environmental facilities can not only carry a single form of cultural expression but are also suitable for presenting the integration of multiple types of cultural expressions, thereby promoting the richness and diversity of cultural development. These indicators emphasize the characteristics of cultural diversity and are appropriate as sub-criteria level indicators.
In summary, the cultural core promotes cultural sustainability by reflecting the foundational resources, cultural values, and cultural diversity, highlighting the unique role of culture in sustainable development, its intrinsic values, and the creativity and diversity of cultural expressions [23]. Ultimately, through environmental facilities that embody the cultural core, a crucial pathway for the survival and development of culture is established.
Dimension 2: Cultural Representation
Cultural representation examines how culture influences individuals' emotions, behaviors, thinking patterns, and identities, specifically manifesting in cultural practices and cognition in daily life. The representation of culture involves the creation and expression of cultural forms [116], and serves as a channel which culture can continuously evolve and engage in dialogue with contemporary.
Empathy emphasizes how design evokes emotional resonance and cultural reflection in individuals through cultural connotations. Environmental facilities can establish emotional connections with users through shape, materials, structure, patterns, and craftsmanship, guiding users to perceive and reflect on their cultural environment. Delightfulness pertains to the enjoyment individuals derive from the visual, tactile, or functional aspects of environmental facilities. These facilities can employ artistic and design techniques to create a pleasant and comfortable public space experience while satisfying functional requirements.
Interestingness considers the creative expression of culture and interactive settings, making cultural transmission more vivid and engaging. Environmental facilities are key mediums for expressing cultural interests in urban space, enhancing the enjoyment of cultural dissemination while allowing individuals to immerse themselves in cultural experiences naturally. Functionality addresses the daily cultural activities needs of citizens, providing the necessary supportive spaces. Culturally adaptive environmental facilities not only fulfill basic functional needs but also offer material support for diverse cultural practices.
Usability considers how to enhance the localized implementation of cultural activities. Environmental facilities, by incorporating the local cultural background and residents' activities in their design, can effectively facilitate individuals' cultural practices. Consistency focuses on the harmony between culture and the spatial environment, aiming to maintain the stylistic features and cultural characteristics of the space. Through organic layout and planning, environmental facilities can enhance the cultural atmosphere of urban space. Interactivity addresses the intensity and forms of cultural activities in urban spaces, promoting resident interaction and social behavior. Environmental facilities can function as social platforms that combine interactivity and gathering, fostering citizen engagement and enhancing cultural interaction and exchange among communities. Inspirability emphasizes cultural creativity and exploratory spirit, aiming to promote cultural innovation. The affordance of environmental facility design can inspire individuals to engage in new cultural activities and practices, driving the regeneration and innovation of culture in public spaces. Environmental sustainability focuses on enhancing environmental awareness and guiding green actions, fostering the formation of an environmentally sustainable culture. Environmental facilities emphasize eco-friendly design and promote sustainable behaviors, helping individuals consciously practice environmental protection in daily lives and develop a sustainable lifestyle.
Place attachment highlights the emotional connection between individuals and meaningful environments [117]. As an integrative process of individuals' memories, beliefs, meanings, and knowledge related to the environment, it promotes recognition of one’s closeness to a place. By incorporating elements related to local culture, environmental facilities can evoke residents' sense of belonging and ownership of a place. Place value links the sense of place with values, focusing on the meaning and the construction of meaning between people and places [53]. Environmental facilities can highlight local cultural characteristics through visual, functional, or spatial layouts, encouraging individuals to value and cherish their surroundings. Place identity is related to attachment but emphasizes the cognitive connection between individuals and places (e.g., beliefs and perceptions), contributing to the overall strength of the bond between people and places [118]. Considering the influence of place identity in the design and planning of environmental facilities can effectively mobilize individuals' behavioral commitment to a place.
In summary, these derivations provide theoretical foundations for evaluating culturally sustainable environmental facilities through emotional experience, living space, and sense of place, forming a systematic cultural representation evaluation framework. This framework not only offers clear evaluation guidance for urban designers and planners but also identifies the factors through which cultural sustainability impacts individuals.
Dimension 3: Cultural Impetus
Cultural impetus examines the systemic impact of culture on social organization and structure. It emphasizes the role of culture in institutions, policy-making, and social cooperation, viewing it as a primary force in strengthening social cohesion, influencing collective behavior, building spiritual civilization, shaping city identity, and driving social progress.
Sense of community is typically defined as members' feelings of belonging, their perceived importance to each other and the group, and shared beliefs, meaning that members' needs will be met through their commitment to solidarity [119]. Sense of community is colsely related to the availability of landscapes and convenient environmental facilities within the area [120]. Environmental facilities can create spaces conducive to social and cultural interaction, fostering residents' sense of community and forming cohesive community groups. Participation focuses on whether the design and construction of environmental facilities adequately consider the opinions and needs of community residents. This includes incorporating community voices through resident feedback mechanisms, design workshops, or public surveys to ensure the facilities meet cultural needs and promote the resilient development of community culture. Livability concerns whether environmental facilities can enhance the living environment and residential appeal of the community, encouraging long-term residency. High-quality environmental facilities and community cultural spaces can significantly increase residents' satisfaction with community life [121], thereby promoting stability and the longevity of community culture, supporting the stable development of community culture, and helping community members respond to challenges and uncertainties in a united way [122]
Publicness emphasizes collective ideas and public spirit, encouraging social members to transcend personal interests and engage in collective affairs or public activities through collective identity and cohesion, while maintaining local common interests through cooperation. Environmental facilities inherently have exclusivity, meaning that users do not jointly own them but only have usage rights [123]. Therefore, publicness necessitates increasing the flexibility and openness of environmental facilities through design to guide people in establishing positive public relationships. Collective memory refers to the process or outcome of shared historical events experienced by a group with specific cultural cohesion and identity (Hebbert, 2005), which can be serve as a tool for shaping urban spaces. Environmental facilities in urban contexts can create scenarios or settings through thematic artistic expression to evoke shared historical memories within a group and reinforce related social contexts and collective behaviors, contrasting social reality with history [109]. Aesthetic education for sustainable development, as a critical method for questioning and imagining lifestyles, is considered more effective in triggering change and action than mere knowledge [124] Through aesthetic design and cultural presentation, environmental facilities can enhance residents' aesthetic perception and vision in daily life, thus cultivating aesthetic literacy and addressing residents' spiritual and cultural needs.
Cultural ecology refers to the environment in which culture survives and develops, consisting of internal and external elements of the cultural system and the ecological relationships formed through their interactions. Generally, the formation of cultural ecology is constrained by the natural environment, social institutional environment, and socio-economic context. Forlizzi [125] proposed the product ecology framework, offering a new perspective for understanding the complex physical and social environments surrounding products, as well as methods for proposing change in the current global context. Dynamic focuses on whether environmental facilities can respond to changes in urban or regional cultural policies and shifts in cultural needs. Facilities designed with flexibility can quickly adapt to cultural policy changes and support the dynamic development of urban culture. Systematicity assesses whether environmental facilities can shape the overall cultural image of a city or region through integrated design and holistic support. These facilities can organically combine the historical context, cultural characteristics, and modern development of a city or region, becoming important carrier for disseminating and showcasing cultural images. Coordination assesses the alignment of environmental facilities with the city's cultural development vision, ensuring that current designs can support future cultural development. Through forward-looking planning and design, environmental facilities can support the cultural development goals of the city and ensure the longevity and sustainability of cultural development.
Thus, community cultural resilience, civic literacy, and cultural ecology provide important foundations for understanding how culture promotes sustainable development. Community cultural resilience helps weave together people, communities, and places, forming more cohesive and stable communities. Civic literacy fosters civic cultural awareness by emphasizing public spirit, collective memory, and aesthetic education. Lastly, cultural ecology deeply considers the impact and unique role of culture from the perspectives of cultural policy, city image, and future vision, ensuring the long-term value and social impact of facility design.
4.3 Allocation of weights for each level of indicators
To further confirm the weights of different levels of indicators in the assessment framework of cultural sustainability environmental facilities, this study used Bayesian BWM to allocate weights to the indicators. Eqs. (2) and (3) were used to construct the BO and WO vectors, and the weights of all indicator elements at the criterion level were calculated using Eq. (4), with the results detailed in Table 5.
Culture core held a relatively high weight, likely because cultural resources represent the foundation of cultural sustainability, involving the intergenerational transmission of cultural resources, the exploration and utilization of cultural values, as well as support and inclusion of cultural diversity. The weights of cultural representation and cultural impetus were relatively close, with the former focusing on individual interaction and experience with culture, and the latter emphasizing the explanation of culture's role in the social system. This suggests that both individual-level cultural cognition and practice, as well as the broader societal impact of culture, should be considered.
As shown in Fig. 3, cultural value had the highest weight at 15.07% in the sub-criteria level, indicating that cultural value contributes the most to the assessment framework of culturally sustainable environmental facilities, followed closely by cultural resources with a weight of 13.18%. This result indicated that the exploration of cultural resources and the utilization of cultural values are among the core factors that environmental facilities should consider. Cultural ecology and community cultural resilience accounted for 12.82% and 12.19%, respectively, indicating that the benefits environmental facilities bring to the community and the city should be prioritized during the evaluation process. Additionally, sense of place (11.58%) and emotional experience (11.09%) suggested that environmental facilities should also emphasize and address the needs of users to establish emotional connections with the place. Although cultural diversity (9.29%) and living space (9.07%) had slightly lower weights, they should still to be given prioritied as part of the cultural core and cultural representation. Furthermore, the weight of civic literacy was 5.70%, implied that environmental facilities are an effective means of cultivating civic literacy, but may not play a central role. Figure 4 showed the ranking of each element in the indicator level.
| Objective | Criteria | Sub-criteria | Indicators | Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental facility assessment framework for cultural sustainability | Cultural Core A | Cultural resources A1 | Inheritance A1.1 | 1 |
| 37.54% | 13.18% | 5.24% | ||
| Symbolism A1.2 | 3 | |||
| 3.95% | ||||
| Legibility A1.3 | 2 | |||
| 3.99% | ||||
| Cultural Value A2 | Commerciality A2.1 | 3 | ||
| 15.07% | 3.66% | |||
| Aesthetic A2.2 | 2 | |||
| 5.31% | ||||
| Innovation A2.3 | 1 | |||
| 6.10% | ||||
| Cultural Diversity A3 | Subjectivity A3.1 | 3 | ||
| 9.29% | 1.28% | |||
| Inclusivity A3.2 | 2 | |||
| 2.81% | ||||
| Diversity A3.3 | 1 | |||
| 3.07% | ||||
| Cultural Representation B | Emotion Experience B1 | Empathy B1.1 | 1 | |
| 31.74% | 11.09% | 5.16% | ||
| Delightfulness B1.2 | 2 | |||
| 3.42% | ||||
| Interestingness B1.3 | 3 | |||
| 2.51% | ||||
| Living Space B2 | Functionality B2.1 | 1 | ||
| 9.07% | 1.70% | |||
| Usability B2.2 | 3 | |||
| 1.67% | ||||
| Consistency B2.3 | 2 | |||
| 1.70% | ||||
| Interactivity B2.4 | 6 | |||
| 1.23% | ||||
| InspirabilityB2.5 | 5 | |||
| 1.33% | ||||
| Environmental awareness B2.6 | 4 | |||
| 1.44% | ||||
| Sense of Place B3 | Attachment B3.1 | 3 | ||
| 11.58% | 2.59% | |||
| Place Value B3.2 | 2 | |||
| 4.04% | ||||
| Place Identity B3.3 | 1 | |||
| 4.95% | ||||
| Cultural Impetus C | Community Cultural Resilience C1 | Sense of Community C1.1 | 1 | |
| 30.71% | 12.19% | 5.10% | ||
| Participation C1.2 | 2 | |||
| 3.91% | ||||
| Livability C1.3 | 3 | |||
| 3.19% | ||||
| Civic Literacy C2 | Publicness C2.1 | 3 | ||
| 5.70% | 1.38% | |||
| Collective Memory C2.2 | 1 | |||
| 2.87% | ||||
| Aesthetic Education C2.3 | 2 | |||
| 1.46% | ||||
| Cultural Ecology C3 | Dynamic C3.1 | 1 | ||
| 12.82% | 5.35% | |||
| Systematicness C3.2 | 3 | |||
| 3.39% | ||||
| Coordination C3.3 | 2 | |||
| 4.08% |
This study constructed an assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities and analyzed in detail the weight distribution of the three criteria layers—cultural core, cultural representation, and cultural impetus—and their subordinate sub-indicators. It also explored their applicability and interrelationships in different contexts. The following sections will delve into the effectiveness and applicability of the evaluation system from multiple perspectives.
5.1 Interrelation among cultural core indicators and their core role
In constructing the assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities, the cultural core, as the fundamental element of culture, plays a key role in maintaining inter-generational cultural inheritance and resisting external shocks. With a weight of 37.54%, it holds a dominant position among the three criteria layers, reflecting its central role in the cultural sustainability of environmental facilities. Through its sub-criteria—cultural resources (A1), cultural value (A2), and cultural diversity (A3)—the cultural core collectively builds the foundational resources of culture while laying a solid foundation for the implementation of cultural representation and cultural impetus.
Specifically, cultural resources (A1) ensure the effective preservation and recognition of basic cultural elements through inheritance (A1.1), symbolism (A1.2), and legibility (A1.3). These resources not only provide rich content for the cultural core but also enhance the intrinsic strength of culture by protecting and inheriting cultural symbols. Innovation (A2.3), aesthetics (A2.2), and commerciality (A2.1) within cultural value (A2) further promote the dialogue between culture and the contemporary era. The high weights of these sub-indicators indicate that the cultural core is not merely a static inheritance system; it adapts to changes in modern cultural demands through innovation and commercialization while maintaining lasting cultural vitality. Cultural diversity (A3) ensures the coexistence and development of different cultures within the same system, enhancing cultural inclusiveness and adaptability through the three dimensions of subjectivity, inclusiveness, and diversity. These elements are interconnected, jointly ensuring that culture can maintain its fundamental characteristics and diversity when facing external social and economic changes.
5.2 The impact of cultural representation on individual emotions and identity recognition
With a weight of 31.74%, the indicators at the cultural representation level emphasize the profound impact of culture on individual emotions, behaviors, and identity recognition. Cultural representation directly influences individual emotional experiences and cultural recognition through cultural practices in daily life, allowing culture to flow and be recreated across different social strata.
Emotional experience (B1) is an important component of cultural representation. Through the three indicators of empathy (B1.1), delightfulness (B1.2), and interestingness (B1.3), it emphasizes how culture shapes individual emotions and their emotional connection to cultural meanings. For example, environmental facilities can enhance the public's sense of pleasure and enjoyment through aesthetic design and interactive activities, thereby increasing participation and recognition of culture. Living space (B2) focuses on how culture influences individual behaviors and emotional experiences through daily physical spaces. Indicators such as functionality (B2.1), consistency (B2.3), and interactivity (B2.4) demonstrate the application of cultural representation in actual spaces, ensuring that culture not only serves physical functional needs but also adapts to cultural activities and practices. Such spatial experiences further contribute to individual cognition and recognition of culture. Sense of place (B3), as an important dimension of cultural representation, explores the close relationship between culture and individual identity recognition. Attachment (B3.1), place value (B3.2), and place identity (B3.3) promote the dissemination and consolidation of culture by strengthening individual recognition of local culture. Thus, the cultural representation level provides individuals with rich cultural practices and recognition channels through cultural expressions in emotional experiences and
5.3 The Systemic Impact of Cultural Impetus on Social Organization and Structure
The cultural impetus level (30.71%) emphasizes the systemic impact of culture on social organization, policy-making, and social cooperation. Culture is not only a carrier of individual emotions and identity recognition but also an important driving force for enhancing social cohesion, influencing collective behavior, and promoting social progress.
Community cultural resilience (C1) demonstrates the role of culture in building community resilience and cohesion through sense of community (C1.1), participation (C1.2), and livability (C1.3). The higher weights of sense of community and participation indicate that culture enhances the cohesion and sense of belonging among community members through collective community practices. Cultural facilities not only carry cultural symbols but also enhance the community's cultural capacity and vitality through actual community cultural activities. Although civic literacy (C2) has a relatively low weight, its importance in building social and spiritual civilization cannot be ignored. Publicness (C2.1) and collective memory (C2.2) reflect the role of culture in shaping public spaces and group identity, particularly playing a positive role in the formation of civic consciousness and collective values. The dynamism (C3.1), systematicness (C3.2), and coordination (C3.3) of cultural ecology (C3) emphasize how culture maintains its sustainability in a constantly changing social environment. The higher weights of dynamism and coordination indicate the role of dynamic balance in maintaining the sustainability of the cultural ecology.
Additionally, there is a synergistic effect between cultural ecology (C3) and community cultural resilience (C1). A good cultural ecological environment helps enhance the community's cultural resilience, while active community participation, in turn, promotes the dynamism and coordination of the cultural ecology. The combined effect of both forms an effective support system for the sustainable development of culture.
5.4 Applicability of Indicators in Different ContextsIn different socio-cultural contexts, the weight and importance of various indicators may vary. In the process of globalization, cultural homogenization and the erosion of local cultures have become pressing issues. In this context, the indicators of cultural diversity (A3) and sense of place (B3) become particularly important. Diversity (A3.3) and place identity (B3.3) help preserve and promote local cultural characteristics, resisting the cultural impact brought by globalization. Additionally, innovation (A2.3) holds great significance in the context of globalization. Through innovation, integrating traditional cultural elements into modern design and expression can enhance cultural vitality, meet diverse cultural needs, and increase the competitiveness of culture on the international stage.
In traditional communities rich in cultural resources, the importance of cultural resources (A1) and cultural values (A2) stands out, as these areas have a greater need for cultural preservation and transmission, and their relative cultural value is also higher. For example, in traditional streets or local communities rich in historical heritage, inheritance (A1.1) and symbolism (A1.2) may hold higher weights to ensure the continuation and intergenerational transmission of cultural symbols. In contrast, contemporary communities are characterized by selectivity, inclusivity, and flexibility [122]. First, members of contemporary communities tend to actively choose which cultural practices to engage in rather than passively accepting them, meaning that innovation (A2.3) and aesthetics (A2.2) are more applicable in modern contexts. Secondly, due to the diversity and inclusivity of members, they are more concerned about how culture affects individual emotions, behavior, and identity. Empathy (B1.1) and delightfulness (B1.2) within emotional experience (B1) help strengthen emotional connections between members, fostering temporary but meaningful interactions. Although interactivity (B2.4) and inspirability (B2.5) within living space (B2) have lower weights, they play an important role in promoting spontaneous communication and creating opportunities, and should receive more attention in contemporary contexts.
In contemporary communities with high mobility, traditional long-term, stable community structures are no longer applicable. Instead, participation (C1.2) and livability (C1.3) within community cultural resilience (C1) become more important. These indicators support the creation of environments conducive to members' autonomy and collaboration, enhancing community flexibility and adaptability.
Finally, when designing environmental facilities, it is essential to focus on creating conditions that promote "meaningful encounters." This involves the design of safe spaces and relational objects to reduce psychological risk during interactions and encourage more communication and cooperation. This is closely related to several indicators within living space (B2) and emotional experience (B1), especially empathy (B1.1) and interactivity (B2.4). Although these indicators may have lower weights in traditional evaluation systems, their applicability and importance need to be reassessed and elevated in contemporary community contexts.
5.5 Case Study Validation of Urban Community Environmental Facilities in ChinaTo verify the practicality and effectiveness of the constructed assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities, this paper selected the renewal project of Danshui Road in Huangpu District, Shanghai (2022) as a case for analysis, as shown in Fig. 5 and6. A summary of the relevant case information is presented in Table 6.
-
The various cultural relics and multi-era architectural styles in the Xianfeng Community of Panyu District, Guangzhou, China, have created a unique cultural landscape in the area. The micro-renovation project is guided by the principles of historical and cultural preservation and the recreation of collective memory, emphasizing the integrity and continuity of historical spaces. Utilizing the multi-era historical memory catalyst as the renovation method, traditional blue brick elements are extracted from the block as design materials, which not only respects and preserves the historical features of the original block but also ensures the transmission of cultural heritage in modern urban development. The entrance renovation of Xianfeng Avenue enhances transparency and openness, making it suitable for both living and tourism. The traditional appearance of Gupo House has been restored through facade renovations, and the combination of blue bricks and transparent railings expands the visual space. The red brick wall renovation utilizes local oyster shells, which not only provides moisture resistance and reinforcement but also embodies grassroots strength and local spirit. The red brick building complex is equipped with lighting facilities, smart information systems, and cultural display systems, transforming it into a public leisure space.
The Danshui Road Community is the most vibrant neighborhood within the Hengfu Historical Style Protection Zone in Shanghai, known for its bustling local atmosphere. During the Republica of China, many notable figures from the business and cultural sectors resided here. The block renewal project is based on residents' wishes and includes micro-renovation initiatives such as a senior citizens' garden, a communal tea area, and a one-square-meter children's playhouse. These initiatives refresh the community's appearance and foster the formation of self-governing teams. The exterior walls of Xicheng Lane connect historical buildings and reflect the memories of Shanghai-style culture and alley life through mural art. The "colonade" design along Xiaojinling Road standardizes the storefronts and lighting strips, highlighting the charm of Southeast Asian culture. At 414–415 Zizhong Road, efforts are made to utilize red resources by designing walking routes and incorporating QR codes and VR panoramic tours to create a micro-tourism experience highlighting the historical features.
Scores ranging from 1 to 5 were assigned to each indicator. The scoring results were then normalized. Each score was multiplied by the corresponding weight of the indicator proportionally. Finally, the scores at each criterion level were obtained by summing the results, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
The results indicated that at the cultural core level, the Xianfeng Community's main strengths lie in the comprehensive representation of its cultural resources (A1) and cultural values (A2), particularly through the use of multi-era architectural styles that reflect the region's cultural symbols, showcasing the rich heritage of clan settlement culture and commercial trade. In contrast, the Danshui Road block received the highest score in the development of cultural value (A2), indicating its high scores in innovation (A2.3) and aesthetics (A2.2), exemplified by the use of VR panoramic tours and historical tourism routes, which effectively blend cultural characteristics with modern design elements. At the level of cultural representation, the scores of the two selected cases are relatively close; however, the Xianfeng Community received a higher score in creating a sense of place, which may be attributed to the strong identificatory nature of Panyu culture, facilitating to influence individuals' value judgments about the place. Additionally, the preservation of historical features enhances residents' attachment to the community. In terms of cultural impetus, the Danshui Road block received a higher score in community cultural resilience, reflecting the importance of resident participation. The project effectively strengthened community cohesion and cooperative spirit by establishing self-governing teams and addressing residents' cultural needs during its construction. Ultimately, the Xianfeng Community slightly outperformed the Danshui Road block in overall scores, but it should improve the diversity of its public services and environmental facilities, particularly regarding the functionality and commercial viability of its facilities. The Danshui Road block received positive feedback regarding resident participation, and it should consider residents' opinions and needs more in the future to enhance civic literacy.
| Serial Number | Project Name | Renewl Method | Location | Date | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Xianfeng Community Micro-Renovation | Multi-Era Historical Memory Catalyst | Xianfengqiao Community, Panyu District, Guangzhou, China | 2022 | The project is guided by the principles of historical and cultural preservation and the recreation of collective memory, emphasizing the integrity and continuity of historical spaces. It aims to create a unified and coordinated environmental style based on the existing historical features of the block, achieving a harmonious integration of residents' emotional memories, community space, and unique local characteristics |
| 2 | Danshui Road Block Renewal | One Street, One Road Construction | Danshui Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China | 2022 | The project focuses on inheriting red culture and immersively showcasing Shanghai-style culture, allowing the city's cultural context to continue and spread during the block renewal, thereby revitalizing its charm |
The assessment framework for cultural sustainability environmental facilities established in this study provides an important theoretical and practical foundation for exploring the role of culture in the development of sustainable environmental facilities. Through a comprehensive analysis of expert opinions using the Delphi method and Bayesian Best-Worst Method (BWM), the study clarified the importance and interactions of cultural core, cultural representation, and cultural impetus in the evaluation of cultural sustainability. However, this study has some limitations. For instance, although the system is highly applicable to various types of communities and cultural contexts, the performance of its detailed indicators in specific social, economic, and cultural settings still requires further validation.
Future research could apply and test this assessment framework in more diverse socio-cultural contexts, and propose more flexible and dynamic assessment methods that align with the evolving development of different cultures. Additionally, how to organically integrate cultural sustainability with other sustainable development goals, such as social justice and ecological protection, is also a potential direction for future research. This will further enhance the practical value of cultural sustainability in design and planning practices.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Funding
National Social Science Found of China, Major Project of Art, Research on Urban Image Design in China (22ZD18); National Social Science Found of China, Research on innovative design thinking, strategy and method with Chinese characteristics (23VRC069)
Authors' contributions
Conceptualization: ZLH, ZQX. Methodology: ZQX, ZLH. Formal analysis: ZQX. Investigation: ZQX, HJ. Writing—original draft preparation: ZQX. Writing—review and editing: ZQX, ZLH, HJ. Visualization: ZQX, HJ. Resources: ZQX, ZLH. Supervision: ZLH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This paper was sponsored by the following funding projects: National Social Science Found of China, Major Project of Art, Research on Urban Image Design in China (22ZD18); National Social Science Found of China, Research on innovative design thinking, strategy and method with Chinese characteristics (23VRC069).
- Aigwi IE, Egbelakin T, Ingham J, Phipps R, Rotimi J, Filippova O. A performance-based framework to prioritise underutilised historical buildings for adaptive reuse interventions in New Zealand. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2019 Jul;48:101547.
- Montalto V, Tacao Moura CJ, Langedijk S, Saisana M. Culture counts: An empirical approach to measure the cultural and creative vitality of European cities. Cities. 2019 Jun;89:167–85.
- Sanober Naheed, Salman Shooshtarian. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Promoting Urban Sustainability: A Brief Review. Land. 2022 Sep 8 [cited 2024 Oct 25];11(9):1508–8. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1508
- Mervi Luonila, Kaisu Kumpulainen, Aino Leppänen, Eerika Koskinen-Koivisto, Olli Ruokolainen. Community resilience and cultural sustainability in two Finnish urban neighbourhoods. Frontiers in Political Science. 2023 Aug 3 [cited 2024 Oct 25];5. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023.1213240/full
- Deng W, Peng Z, Tang Y. A quick assessment method to evaluate sustainability of urban built environment: Case studies of four large-sized Chinese cities. Cities. 2019 Jun;89:57–69.
- Kaur H, Garg P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019 Feb [cited 2019 Oct 20];210:146–58. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618334097
- Dilek Yasar. Urban Furniture in the Framework of Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability. SAUC - Street Art and Urban Creativity. 2023 [cited 2024 Oct 25];9(1):74–80. Available from: https://journals.ap2.pt/index.php/sauc/article/view/696
- Yates A. On nature, culture and sustainable design. In: WIT transactions on ecology and the environment. WIT Press; 2008 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. p. 191–200. Available from: https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19267
- Memmott P, Keys C. Redefining architecture to accommodate cultural difference: designing for cultural sustainability. Architectural Science Review. 2015 [cited 2024 Oct 25];58(4):278–89. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2015.1032210
- Haripriya TK. Analysis of shift in aspects of Cultural Sustainability in built environment. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science. 2023 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25];1210(1):012024–4. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1210/1/012024
- Margolin V. The Good City: Design for Sustainability. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2015;1(1):34–43. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872615300228
- Jones P. Social ecologies of flourishing. Routledge eBooks. Informa; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315229065-4/social-ecologies-flourishing-peter-jones
- Manzini E, M’Rithaa MK. Distributed Systems And Cosmopolitan Localism: An Emerging Design Scenario For Resilient Societies. Sustainable Development. 2016 Sep;24(5):275–80.
- Skrede J. What may culture contribute to urban sustainability? Critical reflections on the uses of culture in urban development in Oslo and beyond. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. 2016 [cited 2024 Oct 25];9(4). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17549175.2015.1074603
- del Castillo JAC. The idea of simplicity as a pathway to cultural sustainability. In: Design for a Sustainable Culture. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, [2017] | Series: Routledge studies in culture and sustainable development: Routledge; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. p. 55–66. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315229065-5/idea-simplicity-pathway-cultural-sustainability-jorge-andres-caro-del-castillo
- Lazar N, K. Chithra. Role of culture in sustainable development and sustainable built environment: a review. Environment Development and Sustainability. 2022 [cited 2024 Oct 25];24(5):5991–6031. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01691-8
- Jones S, Chiara Bonacchi, Robson E, Broccoli E, Hiscock A, Biondi A, et al. Assessing the dynamic social values of the “deep city”: An integrated methodology combining online and offline approaches. Progress in Planning. 2024 May 1;100852–2.
- Baek JS, Meroni A, Manzini E. A socio-technical approach to design for community resilience: A framework for analysis and design goal forming. Design Studies. 2015 Sep;40:60–84.
- Mohammadi M, Rezaei J. Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega. 2020;96:102075.
- Waas T, Hugé J, Verbruggen A, Wright T. Sustainable Development: A Bird’s Eye View. Sustainability. 2011 Sep 27 [cited 2024 Oct 25];3(10):1637–61. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1637
- Villeneuve C, Tremblay D, Olivier Riffon, Georges Lanmafankpotin, Bouchard S. A Systemic Tool and Process for Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability. 2017 Oct 23 [cited 2024 Oct 25];9(10):1909–9. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1909
- Soini K, Birkeland I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum. 2014 Jan;51(51):213–23.
- Dessein J, Soini K, Fairclough G, Horlings L, Battaglini E, Birkeland I, et al. Culture in, for and as sustainable development : conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 investigating cultural sustainability. Jyx.jyu.fi. University of Jyväskylä; 2015 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/50452
- UNESCO - 1982-2000: from Mondiacult to Our Creative Diversity [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://ich.unesco.org/en/1982-2000-00309#:~:text=The%20Mexico%20Declaration%20furthermore%20stated,its%20presence%20in%20the%20world.
- Turner M. Culture as an Enabler for Sustainable Development: Challenges for the World Heritage Convention in Adopting the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer eBooks. 2017 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25];19–31. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-57165-2_2
- Declaration of Principles of International Cultural Co-operation [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/declaration-principles-international-cultural-co-operation
- Vestheim G. UNESCO Cultural Policies 1966–1972 –the Founding Years of “New Cultural Policy.” Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift. 2019 Sep 27;22(1):174–95.
- UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: a vision, a conceptual platform, a pool of ideas for implementation, a new paradigm [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127162?posInSet=2&queryId=117a7ec0-815a-4f74-b142-60999395e029
- UNESCO. Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development Thematic Think Piece UNESCO [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/2_culture.pdf
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [Internet]. United Nations. United Nations; 2015 p. 1–41. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
- Culture in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/culture2030goal_en_exres.pdf
- Culture | 2030 indicators [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371562
- UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies and Sustainable Development – MONDIACULT 2022 [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2022 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-world-conference-cultural-policies-and-sustainable-development-mondiacult-2022
- Fu B, Wu X, Wang S, Zhao W. Scientific principles for accelerating the Sustainable Development Goals. Geography and sustainability. 2024 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25];5(2). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683924000063
- Duxbury N, Kangas A, De Beukelaer C. Cultural policies for sustainable development: four strategic paths. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 25];23(2). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10286632.2017.1280789
- Mason MA, Turner R. Cultural Sustainability: A Framework for Relationships, Understanding, and Action. Journal of American Folklore. 2019 Dec 24 [cited 2024 Oct 25];133(527):81–105. Available from: https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/jaf/article-abstract/133/527/81/227117/Cultural-Sustainability-A-Framework-for?redirectedFrom=fulltext
- Watene K, Yap M. Culture and sustainable development: indigenous contributions. Journal of Global Ethics. 2015 Jan 2;11(1):51–5. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449626.2015.1010099
- Zheng X, Wang R, Hoekstra AY, Krol MS, Zhang Y, Guo K, et al. Consideration of culture is vital if we are to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth. 2021 Feb;4(2):307–19. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221000580
- Clea Beatriz Macagnan, Seibert RM. Culture: A Pillar of Organizational Sustainability. IntechOpen eBooks. 2022 Aug 18 [cited 2024 Oct 25]; Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/83014
- Throsby D. Culture in sustainable development: insights for the implementation of art. 13. Economia della Cultura. 2008 Feb 2 [cited 2024 Oct 25];(3):389–96. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/a/mul/jkrece/doi10.1446-27881y2008i3p389-396.html
- Nassauer J. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. Academia.edu. 1997 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/12128609/Cultural_sustainability_aligning_aesthetics_and_ecology
- Throsby D. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press; 2000 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-and-culture/14439A4E891452AA74D15EFAF3C69EC4
- Hawkes J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Common Ground; 2001 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200029531_The_Fourth_Pillar_of_Sustainability_Culture's_essential_role_in_public_planning
- Axelsson R, Per Angelstam, Degerman E, Teitelbaum S, Andersson K, Elbakidze M, et al. Social and Cultural Sustainability: Criteria, Indicators, Verifier Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support Planning. AMBIO. 2013 Mar 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25];42(2):215–28. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0
- James P. Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice. Routledge; 2014 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Urban-Sustainability-in-Theory-and-Practice-Circles-of-sustainability/James/p/book/9781138025738?srsltid=AfmBOoro4CqQbVdmK28zR3ZZyxvcDFvqvDtjm8qjZfIyg09GuUg1zMLa
- Soini K, Joost Dessein. Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability. 2016 Feb 11 [cited 2024 Oct 25];8(2):167–7. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/2/167
- Hristova S, Milena Dragićević Šešić, Duxbury N. Culture and Sustainability in European Cities. Routledge; 2015 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Culture-and-Sustainability-in-European-Cities-Imagining-Europolis/Hristova-DragicevicSesic-Duxbury/p/book/9780367668884?srsltid=AfmBOoplz8P1RRbQTZFlSdeBeEoVeg5SeXqS80ReD0CrM8_yV0g1N44E
- Brooks JS, Waring TM, Mulder MB, Richerson PJ. Applying cultural evolution to sustainability challenges: an introduction to the special issue. Sustainability Science. 2017 Dec 14 [cited 2024 Oct 25];13(1):1–8. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-017-0516-3
- UNESCO, UNPF, UNDP. Post-2015 dialogues on culture and development [Internet]. Unesco.org. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232266
- Esra Köksaldı, Zihni Turkan. Urban Furniture in Sustainable Historical Urban Texture Landscapes: Historical Squares in the Walled City of Nicosia. Sustainability. 2023 Jun 7 [cited 2024 Oct 25];15(12):9236–6. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/12/9236
- Pintossi N, Kaya DI, Roders AP. Assessing Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Practices: Multi-Scale Challenges and Solutions in Rijeka. Sustainability. 2021 Mar 24 [cited 2024 Oct 25];13(7):3603–3. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3603
- Vukmirovic M, Gavrilović S. Placemaking as an approach of sustainable urban facilities management | Emerald Insight. Facilities. 2020 [cited 2024 Oct 25];38(11/12):801–18. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/F-04-2020-0055/full/html
- Grenni S, Soini K, Lummina Geertruida Horlings. The inner dimension of sustainability transformation: how sense of place and values can support sustainable place-shaping. Sustainability Science. 2020 [cited 2024 Oct 25];15(2):411–22. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-019-00743-3
- Betzler D. Implementing UNESCO’s Convention on Cultural Diversity at the regional level: Experiences from evaluating cultural competence centers. International Journal of Cultural Property. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25];27(4):511–25. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/abs/implementing-unescos-convention-on-cultural-diversity-at-the-regional-level-experiences-from-evaluating-cultural-competence-centers/E601E1AECD09B9A724A34F891D604EED
- Barker C, Jane EA. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 5th ed. SAGE Publications; 2016 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Studies-Practice-Chris-Barker/dp/1473919452
- THROSBY D. Culture, Economics and Sustainability. Journal of Cultural Economics. 1995 [cited 2024 Oct 25];19(3):199–206. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41810549
- Härkönen E, Stöckell A. Cultural Sustainability in Art‐Based Interdisciplinary Dialogue. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2019 Aug [cited 2024 Oct 25];38(3):639–48. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jade.12246
- Keitumetse S. Cultural Resources as Sustainability Enablers: Towards a Community-Based Cultural Heritage Resources Management (COBACHREM) Model. Sustainability. 2013 Dec 20 [cited 2024 Oct 25];6(1):70–85. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/1/70
- Osman A. Empirical measure of cultural sustainability. Applied Geography. 2022 Aug;145:102745.
- Ge Y, Lu C, Gao H. Constructing an Indicator System for Cultural Sustainability in Chinese Cities under the Objective of Urban Renewal and Capability Measurement. Sustainability. 2023 Sep 11 [cited 2024 Oct 25];15(18):13571–1. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/18/13571
- Wu SR, Fan P, Chen J. Incorporating Culture Into Sustainable Development: A Cultural Sustainability Index Framework for Green Buildings. Sustainable Development. 2015 Sep 17 [cited 2024 Oct 25];24(1):64–76. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sd.1608
- Sterling E, Ticktin T, Kipa Kepa Morgan T, Cullman G, Alvira D, Andrade P, et al. Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environment and Society. 8(1). Available from: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/environment-and-society/8/1/ares080104.xml
- Cloutier S, Berejnoi E, Russell S, Ann Morrison B, Ross A. Toward a holistic sustainable and happy neighborhood development assessment tool: A critical review of relevant literature. Ecological Indicators. 2018 Jun;89:139–49.
- Mahir Yazar, Hestad D, Mangalagiu D, Ma Y, Thornton TF, Saysel AK, et al. Enabling environments for regime destabilization towards sustainable urban transitions in megacities: comparing Shanghai and Istanbul. Climatic Change. 160(4):727–52. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02726-1
- Biljana Mickov, Tatjana Pivac. New Culture Sustainability in “OPEN CITIES.” Kultura polisa. 2021 Oct 18 [cited 2024 Oct 27];46:123–32. Available from: https://kpolisa.com/index.php/kp/article/view/13
- Zhang Y, Han Y. Vitality evaluation of historical and cultural districts based on the values dimension: districts in Beijing City, China. Heritage Science. 2022 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];10(1). Available from: https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-022-00776-5
- Habib MH, Hayati Sari Hasibuan, Kurniawan KR. Cultural Space as Sustainability Indicator for Development Planning (Case Study in Jakarta Coastal Area). Sustainability. 2023 Aug 31 [cited 2024 Oct 27];15(17):13125–5. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13125
- Deepika Badampudi, Claes Wohlin, Petersen K. Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. DiVA (Blekinge Institute of Technology). 2015 Apr 27 [cited 2024 Oct 27]; Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2745802.2745818
- Ameen RFM, Mourshed M. Urban sustainability assessment framework development: The ranking and weighting of sustainability indicators using analytic hierarchy process. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2019 Jan;44:356–66.
- Awad J, Jung C. Extracting the Planning Elements for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Dubai with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). Sustainable Cities and Society. 2021 Oct;76:103496.
- Navarro IJ, Martí JV, Yepes V. Analytic Network Process-Based Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Bridges in Coastal Regions. Sustainability. 2022 Aug 27 [cited 2024 Oct 27];14(17):10688–8. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10688
- Li W, Meng M, Llewellyn CE, Sun T. Developing an indicator framework for sustainability assessment in urban community regeneration: A case of Shanghai. Developments in the Built Environment. 2024 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Oct 11];18:100476–6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666165924001571#sec3
- Meijering JV, Tobi H, Kern K. Defining and measuring urban sustainability in Europe: A Delphi study on identifying its most relevant components. Ecological Indicators. 2018 Jul;90:38–46.
- Yi P, Zuo X, Li W, Wang L. Urban sustainability assessment based on sentiment analysis and entropy weight method: case study in Liaoning, China. Environment Development and Sustainability. 2023 Feb 23 [cited 2024 Oct 27]; Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-023-03045-y
- Lu H, Zhu C, Cao X, Hsu Y. The Sustainability Evaluation of Masks Based on the Integrated Rank Sum Ratio and Entropy Weight Method. Sustainability. 2022 May 9 [cited 2024 Oct 27];14(9):5706–6. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5706
- Lindfors A. Assessing sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A methodologically focused literature review. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 2021 Dec;12:100149. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972721000507
- Claes Wohlin. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: CiteSeer X (The Pennsylvania State University) [Internet]. Pennsylvania State University; 2014 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2601248.2601268
- Ali-Toudert F, Ji L, Fährmann L, Czempik S. Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development (CAMSUD) - A New Multi-Criteria System for Planning, Evaluation and Decision-Making. Progress in Planning. 2019 Jun;140:100430.
- Ostrom E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science. 2009 Jul 23 [cited 2024 Oct 27];325(5939):419–22. Available from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1172133
- Ziyaee M. Assessment of urban identity through a matrix of cultural landscapes. Cities. 2018 Apr;74:21–31.
- Wei X. Research of Human Culture Design of City Public Environment Facilities Based on Kansei Engineering - with Chengdu as Example. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2019 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. p. 052016. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/242/5/052016/pdf
- Lesan M, Gjerde M. Sidewalk design in multi-cultural settings: a study of street furniture layout and design. URBAN DESIGN International. 2020 Mar 23 [cited 2024 Oct 27];26(1):21–41. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41289-020-00121-x
- Westerholt R, Acedo A, Naranjo-Zolotov M. Exploring sense of place in relation to urban facilities – evidence from Lisbon. Cities. 2022 Aug;127:103750.
- Yang L, Dam K van, Zhang L. Developing Goals and Indicators for the Design of Sustainable and Integrated Transport Infrastructure and Urban Spaces. Sustainability. 2020 Nov 19 [cited 2024 Oct 27];12(22):9677–7. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9677
- Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008 [cited 2024 Oct 27];1(1). Available from: https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=17590
- Chiu RLH. Socio‐cultural sustainability of housing: a conceptual exploration. Housing, Theory and Society. 2004 [cited 2024 Oct 27];21(2). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14036090410014999
- Hegazy SM. Cultural Sustainability between Traditional and Contemporary Omani Residences – A Comparative Case Study. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2015 Jun 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];4(2). Available from: https://ecsdev.org/ojs/index.php/ejsd/article/view/251
- Paydar M, Kamani Fard A. The impact of legibility and seating areas on social interaction in the neighbourhood park and plaza | Emerald Insight. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. 2020 [cited 2024 Oct 27];15(3):571–88. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARCH-07-2020-0146/full/html
- Tweed C, Sutherland M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007 Nov;83(1):62–9.
- Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially responsive and sustainable product design. CoDesign. 2011 [cited 2024 Oct 27];7(3-4). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710882.2011.630473
- Tülin Vural-Arslan, Neslihan Dostoğlu, Özlem Köprülü-Bağbanci, Nilüfer Akıncıtürk. Sustainable revitalisation as a tool for regenerating the attractiveness of an inner-city historic commercial district: “Han District” as a case. URBAN DESIGN International. 2011 Feb 16 [cited 2024 Oct 27];16(3):188–201. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/udi.2011.1
- Nohl W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001 May;54(1-4):223–37.
- Daae JLZ. The importance of culture in design for sustainable behaviour research. In: Skjerven A, Reitan J, editors. Design for a Sustainable Culture. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, [2017] | Series: Routledge studies in culture and sustainable development: Routledge; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. p. 107–16. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315229065-8/importance-culture-design-sustainable-behaviour-research-johannes-ludvig-zachrisson-daae
- Vila SF, Miotto G, Josep Rom Rodríguez. Cultural Sustainability and the SDGs: Strategies and Priorities in the European Union Countries. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];10(2):73–90. Available from: https://ecsdev.org/ojs/index.php/ejsd/article/view/1211
- Antrop M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005 Jan;70(1-2):21–34.
- An D, Liu Y, Huang Y. The Influence of Street Components on Age Diversity: A Case Study on a Living Street in Shanghai. Sustainability. 2023 Jul 3 [cited 2024 Oct 27];15(13):10493. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10493
- Devecchi A, Guerrini L. Empathy and Design. A new perspective. The Design Journal. 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 27];20(sup1). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352932
- Sandman H, Levänen J, Savela N. Using Empathic Design as a Tool for Urban Sustainability in Low-Resource Settings. Sustainability. 2018 Jul 17 [cited 2024 Oct 27];10(7):2493. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2493
- UNESCO, World Bank. Cities, Culture, Creativity: Leveraging Culture and Creativity for Sustainable Urban Development and Inclusive Growth. [Internet]. Unesco.org. Paris: UNESCO, and Washington, D.C.: World Bank.; 2021 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377427
- Hristova S, Milena Dragićević Šešić, Duxbury N. Culture and Sustainability in European Cities. Routledge; 2015 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Culture-and-Sustainability-in-European-Cities-Imagining-Europolis/Hristova-DragicevicSesic-Duxbury/p/book/9780367668884?srsltid=AfmBOoqPDTyIJgWcPdlxyj0VcTo-TmjYhJAogsv9xQJTQCyh1GyY4X-L
- Berg A. Designing a sense of place. In: Skjerven A, Reitan J, editors. Design for a Sustainable Culture Perspectives, Practices and Education. London: Routledge; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. p. 89–104. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315229065-7/designing-sense-place-arild-berg
- Siamakpour M. Sustainable Design of A High-Rise Residental Complex in Shiraz With an Approach Enhanching Cultural Interactions. International Transaction Journal of Engineering. 2018 [cited 2024 Oct 27];9(5). Available from: https://tuengr.com/V09/371.pdf
- Eren İÖ. Can place-attachment provide cultural sustainability? Empirical research on Turkish neighborhoods “mahalle.” A|Z ITU JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE. 2013 [cited 2024 Oct 27];10(1):138 158. Available from: https://www.az.itu.edu.tr/index.php/jfa/article/view/512
- Rishbeth C, Powell M. Place Attachment and Memory: Landscapes of Belonging as Experienced Post-migration. Landscape Research. 2013 Apr;38(2):160–78.
- Elif Merve Alpak, Emine Tarakci, Tugba Duzenli. Does “Place Identity” Support Sustainability of Community at the Urban Parks. Online Journal of Art and Design. 2023;11(1):243–63. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366066733_Does_Place_Identity_Support_Sustainability_of_Community_at_the_Urban_Parks
- Jang KM, Chen J, Kang Y, Kim J, Lee J, Duarte F, et al. Place identity: a generative AI’s perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024 Sep 7 [cited 2024 Oct 27];11(1). Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03645-7
- GražulevičIūtė I. Cultural Heritage in the Context of Sustainable Development. | EBSCOhost. Environmental Research, Engineering & Management/Aplinkos Tyrimai, Inžinerija ir Vadyba. 2006 Oct [cited 2024 Oct 27];37(3):74. Available from: https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A7%3A18992823/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A22956385&crl=f
- Borges LA, Feras Hammami, Josefin Wangel. Reviewing Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools through Critical Heritage Studies. Sustainability. 2020 Feb 20 [cited 2024 Oct 27];12(4):1605–5. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1605
- Jahanbakhsh H, Hosseini Koumleh M, Alambaz F. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Methods and Techniques in Using Collective Memory in Urban Design: Achieving Social Sustainability in Urban Environments. CSJ). 2015;36(4). Available from: https://www.arastirmax.com/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/5000121132-5000197434-1-pb.pdf
- Yung EHK, Chan EHW, Xu Y. Sustainable Development and the Rehabilitation of a Historic Urban District - Social Sustainability in the Case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Sustainable Development. 2011 Oct 9 [cited 2024 Oct 27];22(2):95–112. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sd.534
- Conte E. Sustainability and cultural capital: An opportunity to improve the built environment. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2017 Oct 1;6(4).
- Leus M, Verhelst W. Sustainability Assessment of Urban Heritage Sites. Buildings. 2018 Aug 12 [cited 2024 Oct 27];8(8):107–7. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/8/8/107
- Frey H. Designing the City. Taylor & Francis eBooks. London: Taylor & Francis; 1999 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203362433/designing-city-hildebrand-frey
- Al-Salam NA, Al-Jaberi AA, Al-Khafaji AS. Measuring of Subjective and Objective Aesthetics in Planning and Urban Design. Civil Engineering Journal. 2021 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];7(9):1557–68. Available from: https://www.civilejournal.org/index.php/cej/article/view/2983
- Vega WA. Theoretical and pragmatic implications of cultural diversity for community research. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1992 Jun 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];20(3):375–91. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00937915
- Hall S, Evans J, Nixon S. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices . SAGE Publications Ltd. Sage Publications, Inc; Open University Press.; 1997 [cited 2024 Oct 27]. Available from: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/representation/book234567
- Scannell L, Gifford R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2010 Mar;30(1):1–10.
- Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC. A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006 May;79(3):316–27.
- Francis J, Giles-Corti B, Wood L, Knuiman M. Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2012 Dec;32(4):401–9.
- Nasar JL, Julian DA. The Psychological Sense of Community in the Neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning Association. 1995 Jun 30;61(2):178–84.
- Chen Z, Liu S, Yu Y, Thomson Raphael Bwanali, Douangdara V. Community satisfaction, sense of community, and social well-being in China. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal. 2020 Nov 4 [cited 2024 Oct 27];48(11):1–9. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2020/00000048/00000011/art00007;jsessionid=b2d5407de2pd8.x-ic-live-03
- Manzini E, Thorpe A. Weaving People and Places: Art and Design for Resilient Communities. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2018;4(1):1–10.
- Nielsen CH. Typologization of exclusionary design: An exploration of design interventions excluding unhoused people from urban public spaces. Design Studies. 2024 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Oct 27];93-94:101264–4. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142694X24000279
- Acevedo B, Malevicius R, Fadli H, Lamberti C. Aesthetics and education for sustainability. Culture and Organization. 2022 Jan 24;28(3-4):1–16.
- Forlizzi J. The Product Ecology: Understanding Social Product Use and Supporting Design Culture. International Journal of Dsign. 2008 [cited 2024 Oct 27];2(1). Available from: https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/220/143
No competing interests reported.