SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY

2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2153575

https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2153575

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment of social sustainability performance for residential building

Feisal Rajab Rivaia, Mohammad Arif Rohmana and Bambang Sumantrib
a
Construction Management Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia
Surabaya, Indonesia; bIntelligent Control and Robitics Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Politeknik Elektronika
Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya City, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The need for residential buildings has been increasing over time. Because a residential build- Received 11 December 2020
ing has a long-life cycle and influences the life of the community in which it is situated, it is Accepted 13 November 2022
necessary to assess performance in terms of social sustainability. Social sustainability is a
KEYWORDS
component of sustainable development that has a relationship with community interest.
Social sustainability; social
This study proposes a framework for evaluating the social sustainability of residential build- network analysis; fuzzy
ings using social network analysis (SNA) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE). We use comprehensive evaluation;
SNA to visualize relationships between the stakeholders with their interests pertaining to residential building
social sustainability variables or criteria. FCE is applied to quantify the perceptions of stake-
holders regarding the performance of the social sustainability criteria. The assessment frame-
work compares the stakeholders’ expectations with existing performance to determine
whether the building has provided maximum benefits to society. We applied the framework
to a real case involving a residential building in Indonesia to demonstrate its efficacy. The
results demonstrate that the model is capable of assessing the social sustainability perform-
ance in this type of construction.

Introduction the construction process a building can have adverse

impacts on the community and its environment
Adequate housing is a basic need and has been
such as construction-caused damage, dust, flooding,
declared by the United Nations to be a human right
(UN Habitat 2014). Shelter provides not only a and traffic interference. Therefore, it is important to
place in which to live but is also a place where rela- ensure that the building can reduce the negative
tionships between society and the environment exist impacts to stakeholders as well as the environment
to support various human activities such as learning during the construction and operation phases to
and hosting a business meeting. Housing is an achieve overall efffectiveness (Rohman, Doloi, and
essential factor in determining the quality of life and Heywood 2017).
the well-being of people (Golubchikov and Badyina The concept of project success suggests that satis-
2012). In many nations, especially countries with faction should be measured from the point of view
low and moderate per capita incomes, population of its constituent stakeholders. According to De Wit
growth and urbanization are increasing while land (1988, 165), “a project can be considered an overall
availability for housing is limited. These circumstan- success if the project meets the technical perform-
ces mean that housing patterns are based not on ance specification and/or mission to be performed,
horizontal spread but rather on vertical growth. and if there is a high level of satisfaction concerning
Consequently, the advent of living arrangements the project outcome among key people in the parent
that require residents to reside on different floors organization, key people in the project team and
changes the way that they socialize. key users or clientele of the project effort.” As such,
Offsetting certain positive benefits, the construc- identifying different views and interests of stake-
tion of multi-story residential buildings can nega- holders is essential for achieving project objectives.
tively affect existing communities. The existence of In the context of a building or residential construc-
the building creates long-term footprints that could tion the stakeholders can comprise both individuals
change the behavior of social communities and groups that affect or can be affected by deci-
(Almahmoud and Doloi 2020). For example, during sions associated with the design and implementation

CONTACT Mohammad Arif Rohman [email protected] Construction Management Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Jl. Teknik Kimia, Keputih, Kec. Sukolilo, Kota SBY, Jawa Timur, 60111 Indonesia Surabaya, Indonesia
ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow
the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

of a residential project (Freeman and McVea 2001; current understanding of how to assess social value,
Phillips, Freeman, and Wicks 2003). Generally, they they still have limitations related to the accuracy of
can be categorized as the construction industry, the quantifying stakeholder satisfaction which are often
users, and the neighboring community (Almahmoud subjective and vague. The results of these analyses
and Doloi 2015). thus tend to be excessively optimistic or pessimistic
Indeed, satisfaction by stakeholders is an import- and such outcomes can lead to suboptimal decision
ant criterion for the success of a particular project making (Li et al. 2015). Fuzzy comprehensive evalu-
(Silvius and Schipper 2022). This satisfaction can be ation (FCE) is a tool which is used to deal with ambi-
understood as achievement of expectations in actual guity and is capable of overcoming these limitations
performance (Li, Ng, and Skitmore 2013) and by producing more comprehensive results (Liu and
inabilty to meet expectations can cause stakeholder Leng 2019).
opposition which can disrupt the project and create This study aims to demonstrate how SNA and FCE
circumstances where conflicts and controversies can be combined to more adequately assess social sus-
ultimately lead to project failure (Olander and tainability and to accommodate the inherent subjectiv-
Landin 2005; El-Gohary, Osman, and El-Diraby ity of stakeholders. We employ SNA to illustrate
2006; Majamaa et al. 2008). Accordingly, stakeholder stakeholder interests by considering appropriate social
management needs to be implemented appropriately criteria and FCE to determine how project perform-
to meet the expectations of relevant individuals and ance can accommodate uncertainty. We then demon-
communities. strate the application of the framework to assess
With regard to communities, the concept of sus- performance in terms of social sustainability in a case
tainable development is quite relevant in assessing study of a residential building in Alam Sutera, South
the success of construction projects. Referring to the Tangerang, Banten Province, Indonesia.
definition originally set forth by the Brundtland
Commission (WCED 1987), sustainable develop-
The concept of stakeholder satisfaction
ment is “development that meets needs of the pre-
sent without compromising the ability of future Measuring social sustainability as related to commu-
generations to meet their own needs.” There are nity satisfaction cannot be separated from stakeholder
three main aspects of sustainability that are often management. Li, Ng, and Skitmore (2013) defined
referred to as “the triple bottom line,” namely eco- stakeholders as “those who can influence the project
nomic, environmental, and social (Elkington 1998). process and/or final results, whose living environ-
However, by comparison to the economic and ment is positively or negatively affected, who associ-
environmental dimensions, the social aspect has ated direct and indirect benefit and or losses.” To
received the least attention (Bostr€ om 2012), espe- make such determinations it is necessary to identify
cially in the construction-management area the different views and interests of stakeholders and
(Rohman, Doloi, and Heywood 2017; Almahmoud the ways in which project costs and benefits are dis-
and Doloi 2020; Fatourehchi and Zarghami 2020). tributed (Almahmoud and Doloi 2015). This process
Social sustainability can be defined as a life-enhanc- can be confounded by the fact that once a project is
ing condition and a process within communities operational the interests of various stakeholders can
that can achieve that condition (McKenzie 2004). It change (Almahmoud and Doloi 2015). Regardless of
is closely related to fulfilling a community’s needs this critical source of complication, it is necessary for
to enhance the quality of life of its residents. a project’s sponsors to seek to satisfy all stakeholders.
Therefore, assessment of social sustainability is Li, Ng, and Skitmore (2013) defined stakeholder sat-
essential for evaluating and improving a project’s isfaction as the perceived achievement of reality
performance and ensuring that its social benefits against expectation.
accrue to the stakeholders. According to the project-success concept, satisfac-
Previous studies have proposed methods to assess tion should be measured from the perspective of a
the social sustainability performance of construction project’s stakeholders according to three criteria –
projects by considering the needs and interests of their often referred to as the “Iron Triangle” and com-
stakeholders. Sodangi (2019) developed a model using prising cost, time, and quality. However, the notion
mean score and expert judgment to determine the of social sustainability requires a more expansive
weight of each indicator. Almahmoud and Doloi approach (Rohman, Doloi, and Heywood 2017).
(2015) and Doloi (2018) proposed social network ana- Baccarini (1999) has divided the criteria for success
lysis (SNA) as a tool to quantify the needs and inter- into “project-management success” and “product
ests of stakeholders and subsequently estimated the success.” There are, in turn, three components of
level of social satisfaction by comparing their interests project-management success: (1) meeting time, cost,
and expectations. While these works have enhanced and quality, (2) quality of the project-management
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 3

Additionally, social sustainability has been described

as satisfying people’s extended needs, preserving
nature, fulfilling social justice, and fostering human
dignity and participation (Littig and Grießler 2005).
Santa-Cruz et al. (2016) stated that in principle,
social sustainability consists of two dimensions:
social equity (access to services, opportunities, facili-
ties, and adequate transportation and adequate
infrastructure) and sustainability of the community
Figure 1. Illustration of stakeholder interests. itself (security, social interaction, and public
participation).
process, and (3) satisfying the needs of a project’s Numerous criteria for social sustainability have
stakeholders that is related to the project-manage- been developed in the context of literature on resi-
ment process. Meanwhile, the components of prod- dential building. Ardda, Mateus, and Bragança
uct success are (1) meeting the strategic (2018) proposed six categories of social sustainabil-
organizational objectives (project goals) of the proj- ity in a building namely: cultural, heritage, indoor
ect’s sponsors; (2) satisfaction of user needs (which environmental quality, health and well-being, safety
are related to the project purpose); and (3) satisfac- and service quality, and accessibility. In another
tion of stakeholder needs (which are related to study, Maleki et al. (2019) identified several quite
the product). similar criteria: safety, security, sense of belonging
With regard to a construction project, stake- to a place, comfort, and esthetics. Ahmad and
holder satisfaction can be achieved by minimizing Thaheem (2017) developed two functional indicators
the negative impacts of the project’s existence. that they termed (1) esthetic and innovative design
Figure 1 illustrates how each stakeholder has differ- and (2) user comfort and safety. Considering
ent interests with respect to each criterion in a pro- another perceptive, Yigitcanlar, Kamruzzaman, and
ject. Focusing on one criterion in all likelihood Teriman (2015) focused on access to public facilities
cannot increase the satisfaction of all stakeholders. and emergency services, crime prevention and
Therefore, it would be more appropriate to formu- safety, and traffic calming as essential to social sus-
late strategies to include all the criteria as part of a tainability. Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020) high-
process of engaging with the full range of lighted five categories: site considerations and
stakeholders. equipment, health and comfort, safety and security,
practitioner interactions, and architectural factors.
With regard to the assessment of the social sus-
Sustainable construction and social
tainability of construction projects, several previous
sustainability assessment
studies introduced a framework to assess their per-
The concept of sustainable development is relevant formance. Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013) sug-
for assessing the success of construction projects. For gested that social sustainability should fully reflect the
decades, construction practitioners have recognized perspectives of the stakeholders in a project. In
the negative impacts of their activities on commun- response, Almahmoud and Doloi (2015) and Doloi
ities and the environment (Wirahadikusumah and (2012) proposed a framework to assess social sustain-
Ario 2015). Sustainable construction is the applica- ability by managing the needs and interests of differ-
tion of sustainable development in the construction ent stakeholders using SNA to map their existence
industry. Gunatilake (2013) identifies four key fea- and perspectives. Xiahou et al. (2018) combined fuzzy
tures of sustainable construction that require consid- analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and FCE. The
eration (1) the whole life cycle of the project from authors use FAHP to obtain the weight of an indica-
inception until demolition, (2) all three dimensions tor and FCE to convey social performance. All three
of sustainability, namely environmental, social, and studies rely on the opinions of experts to obtain the
economic, (3) both technological and non-techno- weight and performance of each social indicator.
logical solutions, and (4) needs of present and future However, only relying on the use of weighting based
stakeholders. on expert appraisals can lead to certain sources of
Social sustainability is a feature of sustainability bias (Reza, Sadiq, and Hewage 2014).
more generally that can be defined as improving the While these studies have contributed to improv-
quality of life by creating harmonic living (Enyedi ing the assessment of social sustainability perform-
2002). McKenzie (2004) added that social sustain- ance by accommodating stakeholder interests, they
ability is a life-enhancing condition and a process are not fully adequate for accommodating stake-
within communities that can achieve that condition. holder subjectivity. The application of FCE can
4 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

overcome the limitation by assessing the social varies between completely true and completely false
aspects in more objective terms using a quantitative which is represented in a fuzzy membership func-
approach that considers the importance of the crite- tion. Fuzziness is often encountered when evaluating
ria and the weight of each stakeholder to provide or assessing a condition or status of something in
more comprehensive assessment (Li, Ng, and accordance with the previously identified linguis-
Skitmore 2013). tic terms.
FCE is used to solve vagueness problems due to
Research design and framework uncertainty and incomplete information in real life
(Li, Ng, and Skitmore 2013). It is a comprehensive
To address the limitations of existing methods, this evaluation method based on fuzzy mathematics and
article proposes a framework to estimate social sus- predicated on the principle of fuzzy relation synthe-
tainability performance by integrating SNA and sis. This concept helps to quantify variables that do
FCE. We use SNA to visualize stakeholder interests not readily lend themselves to quantification as well
by connecting them to appropriate social criteria as to evaluate the condition of the variables compre-
based on their needs and calculating the weight of hensively (Zhu 2022). FCE provides a more reason-
each criterion. The analysis then relies on FCE to able reference for decision makers because the
accommodate subjective judgments to provide more membership function and the factor are considered
objective results. comprehensively, which makes the evaluation more
reasonable and accurate (Gu et al. 2020; Liu and
Social network analysis (SNA) Leng 2019). With the traditional evaluation method,
it is usually difficult to accommodate vagueness
SNA is a methodology that analyzes the structure of
problems with the results that are often encountered
relations within a network by capturing the inter-
in decision making (Li et al. 2015).
action and interrelationships (ties) among the actors
(nodes) (Wasserman and Faust 1994). This proced-
ure has been used in construction-project manage- Development of the framework for
ment because it can provide insights into residential social benefit assessment
relationship structure and integrates a large amount
The proposed framework is referred to as residential
of information which is illustrated in the graph that
social benefit assessment (RSBA). It is designed to
is produced as part of the SNA (Liang, Yu, and
measure building performance and to satisfy the
Guo 2017).
interests of stakeholders related to social sustainabil-
There are two types of SNA networks, namely
ity. Figure 2 shows how the RSBA model works.
one-mode and two-mode. The one-mode network
Stakeholders’ interests are mapped based on their
only links one actor to another actor while the two-
mode network analyzes the relationships between expectation regarding the social criteria which are
actors and their associated attributes. Weighting is compared to the actual social performance of the
used to determine the priority of the stakeholders or building. The expectation of the stakeholders is
criteria. SNA identifies the relationships of the called the targeted residential social benefit (TRSB)
stakeholders in the network and shows how they and the actual or real performance is referred to as
influence the relevant criteria and how they relate to actual residential social benefit (ARSB).
one another. Hadiana dan Witanti asserted that the In a case where the actual score (ARSB) does not
steps of two-mode SNA mainly involve: (1) identify- meet the target (TRSB), the building performance
ing nodes and the boundary of the network, (2) needs to be improved by identifying the criteria that
linking the nodes, (3) visualizing and projecting the have not been met. Figure 3 illustrates the comparison
network, (4) analyzing the network, and (5) finding of ARSB and TRSB over time across residential build-
the result. ing timelines. RSB GAP is the difference in the ARSB
and TRSB scores. The timescale shows the change of
TRSB and ARSB scores through time-phased assess-
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) ment whether there is an improvement or not.
In the case of FCE, fuzzy refers to the unclear boun- Before assessing a residential building, it is essen-
daries that represent two or more conditions using tial to identify the stakeholders and the social sus-
linguistic terms such as low, medium, or high. The tainability criteria. In this article, the stakeholders
fuzzy theory which was proposed by Zadeh (1965) are classified into three categories by distinguishing
introduced three values: (1) the value is not com- the industry, the users, and the neighboring com-
pletely true (1); (2) the value is not completely false munity as shown in Table 1 (see also Almahmoud
(0); and (3) both values are inconclusive. The value and Doloi 2015).
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 5

Figure 2. Residential social benefit assessment (RSBA) framework.

associated criteria or attributes such as the stake-

holders and their interests to better understand the
social network in this case study. The two-mode
matrix between stakeholders (S) and social sustain-
ability criteria (C) was formed as the input of the
SNA which was Ci,jSn,m ¼ 1 if the stakeholders i,j
are interested in criteria n,m and Ci,jSn,m ¼ 0
if otherwise.
Eigenvector centrality (CEV) determines the
Figure 3. RSBA over time.
weight of the stakeholders and the importance of
the sustainability criteria. CEV can be shown in
First, industrial communities are comprised of Equation 1 (Borgatti and Everett 1997) as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
people who provide or operate the building such as 1
the owner, operational manager, and staff/employees. CEV ¼ , (1)
2n0
Second, users are people who use the building such
as residents and visitors. Finally, the neighborhood where n0 is defined as the size of the vertex set in
refers to people who live nearby and/or are affected which the node belongs.
by the building such as residential neighbors, com- To make the results more intuitive, CEV is nor-
mercial neighbors, and those who use the roads and/ malized as outlined in Equations 2 and 3:
or sidewalks in surrounding areas. Based on a litera- CEV ðStakeholder n, mÞ
sn , m ¼ P , (2)
ture review, we identified 21 social sustainability cri- CEV ðCommunityÞ
teria and validated them through a preliminary CEV ðCriteria i, jÞ
survey involving experts in the field (Rohman, 2022). ci, j ¼ P , (3)
CEV ðCriteriaÞ
We interviewed three experts with academic back-
grounds who had 16–20 years of work experience where RCEV is the sum of CEV, sn,m is defined as
and had been involved in numerous residential build- the weight of each stakeholder and ci,j is defined as
ing projects. The social sustainability criteria which the weight of each criterion.
are relevant to this research based on the opinions of We then subsequently used FCE to compare the
the experts are presented in Table 2. TRSB and ARSB. FCE was adapted from (Li, Ng,
We used SNA to visualize and determine the and Skitmore 2013, Li et al. 2015) which involves
importance of stakeholders and social sustainability three steps as explained below.
criteria. As outlined above, there are two network
types in SNA, one mode and two modes. Since a 1. Determine the weight of the stakeholders and the
one-mode network can only link one actor to social sustainability criteria: Set the weight of
another, we employed the two-mode network to the stakeholders and the social sustainability cri-
analyze the relationship between actors and their teria obtained from the previous stage so that
6 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

Table 1. Identification of Stakeholders.

No. Stakeholder Source
Industrial community
1 Owner Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
2 Building/operational management Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
3 Staff/employee Smith and Love (2004)
User community
1 Occupant/Resident Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004), Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009)
2 Visitor Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Smith and Love (2004)
Neighboring community
1 Residential neighbor Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
2 Commercial neighbor Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
3 Path and road user Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)

Table 2. Social sustainability criteria.

No. Social Sustainability Criteria Code Source
1 Provide a sense of security C1 Gunatilake (2013), Maleki et al. (2019)
Minimize the chance of criminal activity
2 Provide a sense of safety C2 Rohman, Doloi, and Heywood (2017);
Design and other features that minimize hazards Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
3 Pay attention to health from pollution/environmental C3 Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
problems
Eliminate the harmful effects that can affect
health conditions
4 Provide physical comfort C4 Maleki et al. (2019)
Comfortability regarding light, temperature, sound, air,
water, vibration and clean condition
5 Provide local job opportunities C5 Almahmoud and Doloi (2015)
Availability of employment opportunities for skills
development and economic enhancement
6 Provide economic benefits to the surrounding community C6 Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
Enhance the local economy and employment opportunities
that are indirectly related to buildings
7 Stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making process C7 Miree and Toryalay (2016)
Transparent and according to stakeholders’ preferences
with regard to solutions
8 Stakeholders’ conflict resolution C8 Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013)
Conflict resolution that can be accepted by stakeholders
9 Ease of communication and information exchange C9 Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013)
Availability of information flows in evaluation of future
changes future changes
10 The surrounding community does not feel disturbed C10 Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
Acceptance of the building’s existence
11 Respect for the cultural values of the surrounding C11 Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
community
Prevention of the negative effects of buildings on culture
12 Provides parking area C12 Colantonio et al. (2009)
Availability of adequate and appropriate parking spaces
for vehicles
13 Provides proper traffic management C13 Zuo, Jin, and Flynn (2012)
Proper traffic management to ensure the safety of road
users including direction of information to prevent
confusion and accidents
14 Easy access to public facilities C14 Sierra, Yepes, and Pellicer (2018)
Distance and travel time to public facilities
15 Easy access to emergency facilities C15 Yigitcanlar, Kamruzzaman, and
Distance and travel time to emergency facilities Teriman (2015)
16 Easy access for persons with disabilities C16 Almahmoud and Doloi (2015), Fatourehchi
Availability of access and facilities for disabled persons and and Zarghami (2020)
the elderly
17 Sense of place C17 Colantonio et al. (2009)
Creation of an emotional connection between individuals
and their environment that provides a positive impression
and cares for the environment
18 Place for social interaction C18 Maleki et al. (2019)
Buildings become places for interpersonal communication
but do not disturb other neighbors
19 Pay attention to esthetic aspects and functionality C19 Fatourehchi and Zarghami (2020)
Functions according to needs.
20 Provides communal open space area C20 Chan and Lee (2007)
Availability of open spaces that can be accessed and are
designed properly for meetings and social interactions and
can improve physical health and reduce stress
21 Provides visual privacy area C21 Ardda, Mateus, and Bragança (2018)
Private space where users can engage in activities without
being seen by neighbors
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 7

they can be described using the following matri- B ¼ C  S0 ¼ ½c1 , c2 , c3 , :::, cn :

ces:
s ¼ ½s1 , s2 , s3 , :::, sm , (4) 2 3
s0 11 s0 12 ::: s0 15
c ¼ ½c1 , c2 , c3 , :::, cn , 6 s0 21 s0 25 7
(5)
6 s0 22 ::: 7 (10)
where si (i ¼ 1, 2, 3,., m) is defined as the 4 ::: ::: ::: ::: 5
weight of stakeholders and ci (i ¼ 1, 2, 3,., m) is s0 n1 s0 n2 ::: s0 n5
the performance assessment. The weight of each B ¼ ½b1 , b2 , b3 , b4 , b5  (11)
criterion must follow Equations 6 and 7:
The overall scores of TRSB and ARSB can finally be
Xm quantified by taking into account the set of grade
s
i¼1 i
¼ 1, 0  si perception V ¼ (V¼ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) as in Equation
12.
 1, ði ¼ 1, 2, 3, ::::, mÞ, (6) 2 3
Xm 1
c
i¼1 i
¼ 1, 0  ci 6 2 7
6 7
 1, ði ¼ 1, 2, 3, :::, mÞ, (7) RSB ¼ B x VT ¼ ½b1 , b2 , b3 , b4 , b5  x 6 3 7
4 4 5
2. Calculate the membership function: The qualita- 5
tive result is described by qualitative fuzzy lan- (12)
guage classified into V ¼ [v1, v2, v3, v4, v5],
where vi (i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) represents five-level
classifications. As mentioned earlier, stakeholder Application of the RSBA model in a
satisfaction can be defined as achieving stake- case study
holders’ expectations and actual reality perform-
We applied the framework in a actual case study to
ance (Li, Ng, and Skitmore 2013). Based on
demonstrate the application of the RSBA model. The
these definitions, the core of TRSB will follow
focus of this exercise was a high-rise residential build-
an amount of expectation where the five levels
ing in Alam Sutera, South Tangerang, Banten Province,
can be described as very low, low, neutral, high,
Indonesia (see Figure 4). South Tangerang is proximate
and very high. The score of ARSB will follow
to Jakarta (about 30 kilometers to the west of the cap-
the amount of actual performance where the
ital city of Indonesia). The building has been operated
five levels can be described as (1) very poor, (2)
poor, (3) neutral, (4) good, and (5) very good. for approximately four years by two companies as part
3. Set up a fuzzy evaluation matrix: Classify stake- of a joint-ownership scheme. Its land area is around
holders by their level of perception on each 10,000 square meters (m2) and a building area of
social sustainability criteria by considering their around 90,000 m2 with 27 floors and three basements.
weight and then normalizing it, as showed in There are nine floors for office space and housing.
Equation 8.
PT , Mapping interests
sðijÞ
s0 ij ¼ t¼1
(8)
PT The first step involved mapping the stakeholders’
s0
t¼1
interests by collecting data from eleven stakeholders
PT of the residential building. We identified the stake-
where t¼1 s is the sum of all stakeholders’
weights. After membership is calculated, the holders based on their knowledge about the building
fuzzy matrix is determined by Equation 9. and categorized them into three key communities
2 0 3 according to their roles in the building. The
s11 s012 ::: s015
6 s0 respondent stakeholders were asked to complete a
s022 ::: s025 7
S0 ¼ ðs0 ij Þnxm ¼ 64 :::
21 7 questionnaire that provided a checklist of social cri-
::: ::: ::: 5
s0n1 s0n2 ::: s0n5 teria related to their needs and interests. They were
advised to select “zero” if the items in the checklist
(9)
were not related to the social criterion and to select
4. Calculate and normalize the fuzzy evaluation “one” if the relation did exist between them. The
matrix and the weighting criteria: The fuzzy respondents were then asked to indicate their
evaluation matrix (S0 ) can be calculated and expectations and perceived reality using a Likert
normalized by considering the weighting matrix scale range from 1 to 5. To map the stakeholder
of social sustainability criteria as shown in interests, eigenvector centrality (CEV) from the SNA
Equations 10 and 11. output was used to determine the weight of
8 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

Figure 4. Case-study location in Alam Sutera, South Tangerang, Banten Province, Indonesia. Source: Google Maps.

stakeholder’s importance and the social sustainabil- Social sustainability performance assessment
ity criteria.
We analyzed the performance of the social sustain-
Figure 5 shows the social network of the stake-
ability criteria based on the relative weight of the
holders and the social sustainability criteria in the
stakeholders and the social sustainability criteria using
case study. The existence of a line provides informa-
FCE. All of the social sustainability criteria are repre-
tion about the relationship between the stakeholders
sented using a membership function which is calcu-
and variables. The thicker the line connecting the
lated using Equation 8 based on the stakeholders’
nodes, the stronger the relationship. Accordingly,
opinions. For example, with regard to the most
we can infer that almost all stakeholders are related
important social sustainability criteria (providing
in the social network with respect to this study case.
Table 3 shows the importance level of the stake- proper traffic management (C13), there were nine
holders’ role (Si) in the case study based on CEV value. stakeholders’ opinions. According to responses on the
The higher the CEV, the more important the role of the questionnaire, three stakeholders (S6, S8, S11) had
stakeholder and the social sustainability criteria are in high expectations and six stakeholders (S1, S2, S3, S4,
the case-study network. The eigenvector centrality S7, and S9) had very high expectations for C13.
obtained from the SNA needs to be normalized (nor- Based on the stakeholders’ normalized weight in
malized weight) based on Equations 2 and 3 to be used Table 3, the assessment is carried out using an average
in the performance assessment in the next section. which produces an absolute value. It can be difficult to
According to Table 3, Owner 1 and Owner 2, as determine whether the value is in the high or very high
well as the building management, play important category. Therefore, the membership function of high
roles regarding the social sustainability performance expectation with respect to C13 can be calculated as the
of the apartment building. This is likely because total weight for S6, S8, and S11 and we obtained
they are the decision makers regarding policies 0.110 þ 0.128 þ 0.010 ¼ 0.247. Meanwhile, very high
determining building operations. In addition, build- expectations were proposed by S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, and
ing users have a relatively important role because S9 and we obtained 0.121 þ 0.156 þ 0.156 þ 0.083
they can directly influence the policies carried out þ 0.104 þ 0.073 ¼ 0.693. Therefore, the overall score of
by the building operators. C13 can be calculated as 0.247 þ 0.693 ¼ 0.940.
Concomitantly, Table 4 presents the relative Based on a similar method, the membership
importance of the social sustainability criteria (Ci) function TRSB for C13 can be obtained as follows:
based on CEV value. The table offers insight on the TRSB of S013¼ s013:1 , s013:2 , s013:3 , s013:4 , s013:5
most important social sustainability criteria in the
0 0 0 0:247 0:693
building (highlighted in bold in the table), namely: ¼ , , , , (13)
(1) ensuring proper traffic management (C13), (2) 0:94 0:94 0:94 0:94 0:94
providing parking area (C12), (3) paying attention The above membership function can be normal-
to health from pollution/environmental problems ized as C13 ¼ (0,0,0,0.263,0.737) which means the
(C3), (4) creating a sense of safety (C2), and (5) expectation value of TRSB for C13 is 73.7% as very
offering easy access to public facilities (C14). high and 26.3% as high. This is different if the
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 9

Figure 5. The social network of case study.

Table 3. Eigenvector centrality (CEV) and the weight of stakeholders (Si).

ID Community Role Eigenvector centrality (CEV) Normalized weight
S1 Industry Owner 1 0.355 0.121
S2 Owner 2 0.456 0.156
S3 Building management 0.456 0.156
S4 Security 0.244 0.083
S5 Cleaning service 0.101 0.034
S6 Users Resident 0.322 0.110
S7 Visitor 0.304 0.104
S8 Building User 0.374 0.128
S9 Neighborhood Residential neighbors 0.215 0.073
S10 Commercial neighbors 0.074 0.025
S11 Path User 0.029 0.010
2.930 1.000
Note: Roles denoted in bold indicate stakeholders that have a higher influence according to the eigenvector centrality value.

Table 4. Eigenvector centrality (CEV) and the weight of sustainable criteria (Ci).
Ci Eigenvector centrality (CEV) Normalized weight Ci Eigenvector centrality (CEV) Normalized weight
C13 0.281 0.063 C21 0.231 0.052
C12 0.278 0.062 C15 0.223 0.050
C3 0.263 0.059 C11 0.176 0.039
C2 0.256 0.057 C7 0.169 0.038
C14 0.256 0.057 C8 0.168 0.038
C18 0.253 0.056 C19 0.167 0.037
C1 0.241 0.054 C6 0.160 0.036
C4 0.241 0.054 C5 0.150 0.033
C9 0.232 0.052 C10 0.140 0.031
C16 0.231 0.052 C17 0.131 0.029
C20 0.231 0.052 Total 4.478 1.000

2 3
assessment is carried out using the mean which pro- s0 1:1 s0 1:2 ::: s0 1:5
duces an absolute value; it is difficult to explain 6 s0 2:1 s0 2:2 ::: s0 2:5 7
6 7 (14)
whether the value is categorized as high or 4 ::: ::: ::: ::: 5
very high. s0 21:1 s0 21:2 ::: s0 21:5
The membership function of TRSB for all social TRSB ¼ C  S0 ¼ ½0:054, 0:057, 0:059, :::, 0:052:
sustainability criteria is presented in Table 5 and the
membership function of ARSB in all social sustain- 2 3
0 0 0 0:219 0:781
ability criteria is shown in Table 6. 6 7
6 0 0 0 0:277 0:723 7
Meanwhile, the level of expectation and actual 6 0 0 0 0:446 0:554 7 (15)
6 7
performance can be quantified with Equations 4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 5
10–12. 0 0 0:142 0:165 0:693
TRSB ¼ ½0, 0, 0:059, 0:324, 0:617  (16)
TRSB ¼ C  S0 ¼ ½c1 , c2 , c3 , :::, c21 : 0
ARSB ¼ C  S ¼ ½0:054, 0:057, 0:059, :::, 0:052:
10 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

Table 5. Targeted residential social benefit (TRSB). C1

C21 C2
Code Weight Very low Low Neutral High Very high 4.900
C20 C3
C1 0.054 0 0 0 0.219 0.781 4.700
C2 0.057 0 0 0 0.277 0.723
C3 0.059 0 0 0 0.446 0.554 C19 4.500 C4
C4 0.054 0 0 0 0.351 0.649 4.300
C5 0.033 0 0 0.146 0.310 0.544 4.100
C6 0.036 0 0 0 0.663 0.337 C18 C5
C7 0.038 0 0 0.174 0.275 0.550 3.900

C8 0.038 0 0 0 0.423 0.577 3.700

C9 0.052 0 0 0.141 0.396 0.463 C17 C6
3.500
C10 0.031 0 0 0.157 0.178 0.665
C11 0.039 0 0 0.125 0 0.875
C12 0.062 0 0 0 0.190 0.810 C16 C7
C13 0.063 0 0 0 0.263 0.737
C14 0.057 0 0 0.149 0.431 0.420
C15 0.050 0 0 0 0.518 0.482 C15 C8
C16 0.052 0 0 0 0.441 0.559
C17 0.029 0 0 0 0.291 0.709
C18 0.056 0 0 0.130 0.360 0.510 C14 C9
C19 0.037 0 0 0 0.228 0.772
C13 C10
C20 0.052 0 0 0.142 0.335 0.523
C12 C11
C21 0.052 0 0 0.142 0.165 0.693
TRSB APSB

Figure 6. Spiderweb diagram comparing TRSB and ARSB.

Table 6. Actual residential social benefit (ARSB).
Code Weight Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good ARSB ¼ B x VT ¼ ½0, 0, 0:050, 0:382, 0:568 x
C1 0.054 0 0 0 0.514 0.486
C2 0.057 0 0 0 0.149 0.851 2 3
C3 0.059 0 0 0 0.446 0.554 1
C4 0.054 0 0 0 0.636 0.364 6 2 7
6 7
C5 0.033 0 0 0.146 0 0.854 6 3 7 ¼ 4:518 (19)
C6 0.036 0 0 0 0.421 0.579 4 4 5
C7 0.038 0 0 0.174 0.489 0.336
C8 0.038 0 0 0 0.342 0.658 5
C9 0.052 0 0 0 0.552 0.448
C10 0.031 0 0 0 0.335 0.665 Based on these calculations, we determined that
C11 0.039 0 0 0 0.125 0.875
C12 0.062 0 0 0.112 0.246 0.642
the difference between the TRSB value and the
C13 0.063 0 0 0.011 0.412 0.578 ARSB value is 0.04. As described above, the unit is
C14 0.057 0 0 0.270 0.310 0.420 based on a Likert scale from 1–5. This means that
C15 0.050 0 0 0.139 0.171 0.690
C16 0.052 0 0 0 0.500 0.500 the gap between the actual performance and the
C17 0.029 0 0 0 0.645 0.355 expectation is not very large even though the resi-
C18 0.056 0 0 0 0.564 0.436
C19 0.037 0 0 0.228 0 0.772 dential building has not achieved overall stakeholder
C20 0.052 0 0 0 0.477 0.523 satisfaction according to its social sustainability per-
C21 0.052 0 0 0 0.523 0.477
formance. As such, improvement is still necessary to
2 3 close the outstanding gap.
0 0 0 0:514 0:486 To better understand the social sustainability per-
6 7
6 0 0 0 0:149 0:851 7 formance in this case, we developed the spiderweb
6 0 0 0 0:446 0:554 7 (16)
6 7 diagram shown in Figure 6 to compare the differ-
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: 5
0 0 0 0:523 0:477 ence between TRSB and ARSB. TRSB is shown as
an unbroken line and ARSB as a dashed line. The
ARSB ¼ ½0, 0, 0:050, 0:382, 0:568  (17) figure clearly displays the criteria that have fallen
The overall score of social sustainability in this short of expectations, those that have met expecta-
case study is calculated with Equation 12. tions, and those that have exceeded expectations.
Based on the assessment, it is apparent that the
TRSB ¼ B x VT ¼ ½0, 0, 0:059, 0:324, 0:617 x
building has met or even exceeded stakeholders’
expectations on several criteria. Table 7 shows several
2 3 social sustainability criteria (10 out of 21) that
1
6 2 7 exceeded expectations. Based on the ranking, the first
6 7
6 3 7 ¼ 4:558 (18) criteria is “providing local job opportunities” (C5) and
4 4 5
the second is “providing economic benefits for the sur-
5 rounding community” (C6). Meanwhile, the third cri-
teria is “providing a sense of safety” (C2).
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 11

Table 7. Social sustainability criteria that exceeded the underperforming variables to increase the social sus-
expectation. tainability score so as to achieve the target perform-
Code TRSB APSB RSB GAP Weight Gap  weight Rank ance. The model can help decision makers to
C5 4.398 4.708 0.310 0.033 0.010 1 quantify and assess social performance in selecting
C6 4.337 4.579 0.243 0.036 0.009 2
C2 4.723 4.851 0.128 0.057 0.007 3 appropriate management strategies that maximize
C20 4.381 4.523 0.142 0.052 0.007 4 social benefits and facilitate project success. Each
C9 4.321 4.448 0.127 0.052 0.007 5
C10 4.508 4.665 0.157 0.031 0.005 6 variable makes visible stakeholders’ opinions by
C11 4.751 4.875 0.125 0.039 0.005 7 mapping the SNA and FCE results. This research
C15 4.482 4.551 0.069 0.050 0.003 8
C18 4.381 4.436 0.055 0.056 0.003 9 can contribute to the design of evaluation frame-
C8 4.577 4.658 0.081 0.038 0.003 10 works for social sustainability and improvement of
building performance to achieve more sustainable
construction.
Table 8. Social sustainability criteria that not yet fulfill the It is though important to note that regardless of
expectation. the care applied in executing the analysis, this
Code TRSB APSB RSB GAP Weight Gap X weight Rank research has limitations due to the fact that we
C12 4.810 4.531 0.279 0.062 0.017 1 focused on only on one residential building in
C1 4.781 4.486 0.295 0.054 0.016 2
C4 4.649 4.364 0.286 0.054 0.015 3 Indonesia. The methodology described here merits
C13 4.737 4.567 0.170 0.063 0.011 4 replication for other types of buildings to enhance
C17 4.709 4.355 0.355 0.029 0.010 5
C19 4.772 4.544 0.228 0.037 0.008 6 social sustainability.
C7 4.376 4.162 0.214 0.038 0.008 7
C14 4.271 4.150 0.121 0.057 0.007 8
C21 4.551 4.477 0.074 0.052 0.004 9 Acknowledgements
C16 4.559 4.500 0.059 0.052 0.003 10
We extend our appreciation to the experts and respond-
ents involved in this study.
With regard to improvement in social sustainabil-
ity performance, it is necessary to highlight several
criteria that have fallen short of expectations (see Disclosure statement
Table 8). A total of 10 out of 21 criteria have not No potential conflict of interest was reported by
met stakeholders’ expectations. Therefore, the build- the authors.
ing management should implement improvements
to increase the score on these performance criteria.
Funding
The first criterion that should be more effectively
addressed by the building management is “providing The authors thank the Ministry of Research, Technology,
and Higher Education for providing grants to perform
parking area” (C12) because this is the second most
this research and for offering funding through the
important criteria overall. The most important cri- Kemdikbud Ristek/BRIN Scheme.
terion – “providing proper traffic management”
(C13) – is also still below stakeholders’ expectations.
ORCID
Mohammad Arif Rohman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
Conclusion 8215-0368
This study proposes a framework for assessing the
social sustainability performance of a residential References
building by combining SNA and FCE. This frame-
work is intended to accommodate the stakeholders’ Ahmad, T., and M. Thaheem. 2017. “Developing a
Residential Building-Related Social Sustainability
needs and interests in the assessment of social sus- Assessment Framework and Its Implications for BIM.”
tainability performance based on their perceptions Sustainable Cities and Society 28: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.
which are often vague and difficult to quantify. The scs.2016.08.002.
framework is implemented and tested in a case Almahmoud, E., and H. Doloi. 2015. “Assessment of
study of an existing residential building in Alam Social Sustainability in Construction Projects Using
Social Network Analysis.” Facilities 33 (3–4): 152–176.
Sutera, South Tangerang, Banten Province, doi:10.1108/F-05-2013-0042.
Indonesia to demonstrate its applicability. The Almahmoud, E., and H. Doloi. 2020. “Identifying the Key
results revealed that the framework can assess social Factors in Construction Projects that Affect
performance by linking stakeholders’ interests and Neighbourhood Social Sustainability.” Facilities 38 (11/
needs to social sustainability criteria. We found that 12): 765–782. doi:10.1108/F-11-2019-0121.
Ardda, N., R. Mateus, and L. Bragança. 2018.
several variables associated with the case-study “Methodology to Identify and Prioritise the Social
building have met stakeholders’ expectations. Aspects to Be Considered in the Design of More
However, the building management should address Sustainable Residential Buildings: Application to a
12 F. R. RIVAI ET AL.

Developing Country.” Buildings 8 (10): 130. doi:10. Gunatilake, S. 2013. The Uptake and Implementation of
3390/buildings8100130. Sustainable Construction: Transforming Policy into
Baccarini, D. 1999. “The Logical Framework Method for Practice. Preston: University of Central Lancashire.
Defining Project Success.” Project Management Journal Hendiani, S., and M. Bagherpour. 2019. “Developing an
30 (4): 25–32. doi:10.1177/875697289903000405. Integrated Index to Assess Social Sustainability in
Borgatti, S., and M. Everett. 1997. “Network Analysis of Construction Industry Using Fuzzy Logic.” Journal of
2-Mode Data.” Social Networks 19 (3): 243–269. doi:10. Cleaner Production 230: 647–662. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2. 2019.05.055.
Bostr€om, M. 2012. “A Missing Pillar? Challenges in Li, T., S. Ng, and M. Skitmore. 2013. “Evaluating
Theorizing and Practicing Social Sustainability: Stakeholder Satisfaction during Public Participation in
Introduction to the Special Issue.” Sustainability: Major Infrastructure and Construction Projects: A
Science, Practice, and Policy 8 (1): 3–14. doi:10.1080/ Fuzzy Approach.” Automation in Construction 29:
15487733.2012.11908080. 123–135. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.09.007.
Chan, E., and G. Lee. 2007. “Critical Factors for Li, W., W. Liang, L. Zhang, and Q. Tang. 2015.
Improving Social Sustainability of Urban Renewal “Performance Assessment System of Health, Safety and
Environment Based on Experts’ Weights and Fuzzy
Projects.” Social Indicators Research 85 (2): 243–256.
Comprehensive Evaluation.” Journal of Loss Prevention
doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9089-3.
in the Process Industries 35: 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.
Colantonio, A., T. Dixon, R. Ganser, J. Carpenter, and A.
2015.04.007.
Ngombe. 2009. Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban
Liang, X., T. Yu, and L. Guo. 2017. “Understanding
Regeneration in Europe. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Stakeholders’ Influence on Project Success with a New
Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes University. SNA Method: A Case Study of the Green Retrofit in
De Wit, A. 1988. “Measurement of Project Success.” China.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1927. doi:10.3390/
International Journal of Project Management 6 (3): su9101927.
164–170. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9. Littig, B., and E. Grießler. 2005. “Social Sustainability: A
Doloi, H. 2012. “Assessing Stakeholders’ Influence on Catchword between Political Pragmatism and Social
Social Performance of Infrastructure Projects.” Facilities Theory.” International Journal of Sustainable
30 (11–12): 531–550. doi:10.1108/02632771211252351. Development 8 (1–2): 65–79. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2005.
Doloi, H. 2018. “Community-Centric Model for 007375.
Evaluating Social Value in Projects.” Journal of Liu, W., and J. Leng. 2019. “The Application Research of
Construction Engineering and Management 144 (5): Fuzzy Mathematics in Design Quality Evaluation of
04018019. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001473. Industrial Product.” IOP Conference Series: Materials
Edum-Fotwe, F., and A. Price. 2009. “A Social Ontology Science and Engineering 573 (1): 012015. doi:10.1088/
for Appraising Sustainability of Construction Projects 1757-899X/573/1/012015.
and Developments.” International Journal of Project Majamaa, W., S. Junnila, H. Doloi, and E. Niemist€ o.
Management 27 (4): 313–322. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman. 2008. “End-User Oriented Public-Private Partnerships
2008.04.003. in Real Estate Industry.” International Journal of
El-Gohary, N., H. Osman, and T. El-Diraby. 2006. Strategic Property Management 12 (1): 1–17. doi:10.
“Stakeholder Management for Public Private 3846/1648-715X.2008.12.1-17.
Partnerships.” International Journal of Project Maleki, B., M. Casanovas Rubio, S. Hosseini, and A. De
Management 24 (7): 595–604. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman. La Fuente Antequera. 2019. “Multi-Criteria Decision
2006.07.009. Making in the Social Sustainability Assessment of
Elkington, J. 1998. “Partnerships from Cannibals with High-Rise Residential Buildings.” IOP Conference
Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Series: Earth and Environmental Science 290 (1):
Business.” Environmental Quality Management 8 (1): 012054. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012054.
37–51. doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106. McKenzie, S. 2004. Social Sustainability: Towards Some
Enyedi, G. 2002. “Social Sustainability of Large Cities.” Definitions. Adelaide: Hawke Research Institute.
Ekistics and the New Habitat 69 (412–414): 142–144. Miree, I., and A. Toryalay. 2016. “Operationalization of
Social Sustainability in the Construction Industry from
doi:10.53910/26531313-E200269412-414401.
a Client Perspective: How the Concept of Social
Fatourehchi, D., and E. Zarghami. 2020. “Social
Sustainability in the Construction Industry is Defined
Sustainability Assessment Framework for Managing
and Communicated by Skanska’s Proposed Clients?”
Sustainable Construction in Residential Buildings.”
Master’s thesis, Chalmers University. http://studentar-
Journal of Building Engineering 32: 101761. doi:10. beten.chalmers.se/publication/244900-operationaliza-
1016/j.jobe.2020.101761. tion-of-social-sustainability-in-the-construction-
Freeman, E., and J. McVea. 2001. A Stakeholder Approach industry-from-a-client-perspective-h
to Strategic Management. Working Paper No. 01–02. Olander, S., and A. Landin. 2005. “Evaluation of
Charlottesville, VA: Darden School of Business, Stakeholder Influence in the Implementation of
University of Virginia. doi:10.2139/ssrn.263511. Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project
Golubchikov, O., and A. Badyina. 2012. Sustainable Management 23 (4): 321–328. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
Housing for Sustainable Cities: A Policy Framework for 2005.02.002.
Developing Countries. Nairobi: UN Habitat. Phillips, R., R. Freeman, and A. Wicks. 2003. “What
Gu, H., X. Fu, Y. Zhu, Y. Chen, and L. Huang. 2020. Stakeholder Theory is Not.” Business Ethics Quarterly
“Analysis of Social and Environmental Impact of 13 (4): 479–502. doi:10.5840/beq200313434.
Earth-Rock Dam Breaks Based on a Fuzzy Reza, B., R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage. 2014. “Emergy-Based
Comprehensive Evaluation Method.” Sustainability 12 Life Cycle Assessment (Em-LCA) of Multi-Unit and
(15): 6239. doi:10.3390/su12156239. Single-Family Residential Buildings in Canada.”
 SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY 13

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment Valdes-Vasquez, R., and L. Klotz. 2013. “Social
3 (2): 207–224. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.09.001. Sustainability Considerations during Planning and
Rohman, M. 2022. “Assessment of the Government’s Role Design: Framework of Processes for Construction
Performance in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Toll Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Road Projects in Indonesia.” Journal of Financial Management 139 (1): 80–89. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.
Management of Property and Construction 27 (2): 1943-7862.0000566.
239–258. doi:10.1108/JFMPC-07-2019-0065. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network
Rohman, M., H. Doloi, and C. Heywood. 2017. “Success
Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge:
Criteria of Toll Road Projects from a Community
Cambridge University Press.
Societal Perspective.” Built Environment Project and
Wirahadikusumah, R., and D. Ario. 2015. “A Readiness
Asset Management 7 (1): 32–44. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-
12-2015-0073. Assessment Model for Indonesian Contractors in
Santa-Cruz, S., G. de Cordova, M. Rivera-Holguin, M. Implementing Sustainability Principles.” International
Vilela, V. Arana, and J. Polomino. 2016. “Social Journal of Construction Management 15 (2): 126–136.
Sustainability Dimension in the Seismic Risk Reduction doi:10.1080/15623599.2015.1033817.
of Public Schools: A Case Study of Lima, Peru.” World Commission on Environment and Development
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 12 (1): (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
34–46. doi:10.1080/15487733.2016.11908152. University Press.
Sierra, L., V. Yepes, and E. Pellicer. 2018. “A Review of Xiahou, X., Y. Tang, J. Yuan, T. Chang, P. Liu, and Q. Li.
Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Social Sustainability 2018. “Evaluating Social Performance of Construction
of Infrastructures.” Journal of Cleaner Production 187: Projects: An Empirical Study.” Sustainability 10 (7):
496–513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022. 2329. doi:10.3390/su10072329.
Silvius, G., and R. Schipper. 2022. “Exploring the Yigitcanlar, T., M. Kamruzzaman, and S. Teriman. 2015.
Relationship between Sustainability and Project “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating
Success.” International Journal of Information Systems Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing
and Project Management 4 (3): 5–22. doi:10.12821/ Country Context.” Sustainability 7 (3): 2570–2602. doi:
ijispm040301.
10.3390/su7032570.
Smith, J., and P. Love. 2004. “Stakeholder Management
Zadeh, L. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8
during Project Inception: Strategic Needs Analysis.”
(3): 338–353. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Journal of Architectural Engineering 10 (1): 22–33. doi:
Zhu, L. 2022. “Research and Application of AHP-Fuzzy
10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:1(22).
Sodangi, M. 2019. “Social Sustainability Efficacy of Comprehensive Evaluation Model.” Evolutionary
Construction Projects in the Pre-Construction Phase.” Intelligence 15 (4): 2403–2409. doi:10.1007/s12065-020-
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 00415-7.
– Engineering Sustainability 172 (2): 57–67. doi:10. Zuo, J., X. Jin, and L. Flynn. 2012. “Social Sustainability
1680/jensu.17.00057. in Construction: An Explorative Study.” International
UN Habitat. 2014. The Right to Adequate Housing. Journal of Construction Management 12 (2): 51–63. doi:
Nairobi: UN Habitat. 10.1080/15623599.2012.10773190.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor
and Francis Group. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.