The social dimension of sustainability
Testo in italiano al seguente link
In the current debate on sustainability in the construction sector, attention is often focused on energy and environmental aspects, such as building efficiency or CO₂ emissions reduction, or on economic aspects related to construction and management costs and property value. The social dimension, despite being one of the three fundamental components of sustainability, remains less well known and is sometimes perceived as abstract, difficult to define or translate into concrete design criteria. This difficulty often contributes to relegating it to a secondary role, treating it as a set of good intentions rather than a real quality factor.
The Swiss Sustainable Building Standard (SNBS) offers a different and more ambitious interpretation. The social dimension is not seen as an add-on, but as a structuring element of design quality and the long-term success of buildings and neighbourhoods. It contributes significantly to the acceptance of a project, its use over time and its ability to adapt to changing needs. In this sense, social sustainability is not only about “who uses” a building, but also “how” it is conceived, discussed and integrated into its context.
Within the SNBS, social sustainability encompasses a complex set of issues that directly affect people and their relationship with the built environment. These include well-being and health, accessibility and equity, the quality of indoor and outdoor spaces, integration into the urban and landscape context and, across the board, the quality of decision-making processes. This results in a broad vision that transcends the distinction between the final result and the design process. The social dimension can thus be interpreted as a synthesis of quality of use, perceived quality and quality of the process, highlighting the link between decisions made in the initial stages and long-term effects.
This approach highlights the importance of defining and sharing project objectives. In the initial phases, particularly in the strategic phase according to SIA 112, SNBS assigns a central role to the dialogue between clients, designers and other stakeholders. Making expectations explicit, clarifying priorities and formulating shared objectives allows a solid foundation to be built for the entire development of the project. The agreement on objectives is therefore not simply a policy document, but an operational tool that guides design choices and facilitates coordination between different disciplines.
A well-formulated agreement on objectives also makes it possible to address fundamental issues for social sustainability in an informed manner, such as the flexibility of spaces, their adaptability to future uses and the building's ability to respond to needs that may change over time. In this sense, the social dimension is closely linked to the robustness of the project and its ability to maintain functional, social and cultural value in the long term. Without a shared vision, even technically advanced solutions risk proving unsuitable for everyday use or generating conflicts between the actors involved.
This is where the issue of stakeholder involvement comes in. End users, neighbours, public bodies, managers, maintenance staff and other local stakeholders have specific knowledge and direct experience that can significantly enrich the design process. The participation of these individuals allows real needs to be integrated into the project, which are often difficult to identify through purely technical means.
Participation can take various forms, from information to consultation to co-creation, and must be calibrated according to the context, the scale of the intervention and the resources available. A well-structured participatory process helps to bring out latent needs, identify critical issues at an early stage and build consensus around design choices. It is important to emphasise that participation should not be understood as a renunciation of the decision-making role of the client or designer. On the contrary, when conducted in a targeted and professional manner, it enriches the process and enhances the quality of the solutions adopted. From this perspective, social sustainability is not the result of downward compromises, but of a greater awareness of the relationships between built space, use and society.
Architectural competitions play a particularly significant role in this context. In addition to being a well-established tool for selecting the best design proposal, competitions can be interpreted as a veritable laboratory for research into quality. Their strength lies not only in the comparison of different solutions, but also in the possibility of activating interdisciplinary work from the earliest stages of the project. Architects, engineers, landscape architects, environmental and economic specialists collaborate within a team to find integrated solutions that simultaneously respond to functional, social, spatial and economic needs.
This interdisciplinary work promotes a shared vision of the project and allows complexity to be addressed in a constructive manner. When accompanied by a clear programme that spells out social objectives and evaluation criteria, the competition becomes a particularly effective tool for translating SNBS principles into concrete solutions. The plurality of approaches stimulates in-depth reflection on the relationship between building, context and uses, helping to raise the architectural and urban quality of the intervention. In this sense, the competition can be considered not only a formal procedure, but a social process of quality construction.
Another pillar of social sustainability is the analysis of the site, understood not as a simple collection of technical or regulatory data, but as an in-depth reading of the social, cultural and spatial context in which the project is located. Analysing the location means understanding the existing architectural and urban heritage, the structure of public spaces, the landscape and visual relationships, but also the ways in which the area is used, everyday practices and the social dynamics that characterise it. From this perspective, the context is not a neutral backdrop, but a living system of relationships, memories and shared meanings.
From the point of view of social sustainability, analysing the context allows us to recognise identity values, fragilities and potential, avoiding interventions that are alien or in conflict with the existing fabric. It helps to identify spatial and social continuities, to enhance existing meeting spaces and to strengthen the role of public space as a place for relationships. A project that stems from a conscious reading of the place is able to establish a dialogue with the existing, encouraging appropriation by users and the neighbourhood. In this sense, the social quality of an intervention depends largely on its ability to recognise and interpret the context, transforming it without erasing its identity.
The quality of the interior and exterior spaces derives directly from this attention to context. Inside buildings, elements such as natural light, acoustics, room proportions, material quality and the legibility of pathways influence the comfort, orientation and well-being of users. Outside, the design of open spaces, transitions between public and private areas and meeting places encourages social interaction, perceived safety and a sense of belonging.
The SNBS recognises these aspects as assessable criteria, highlighting the link between spatial organisation and social behaviour. The theme of wellbeing and health represents the synthesis of many aspects of social sustainability and occupies a central position in the SNBS. It is not limited to technical parameters related to air quality, temperature or lighting, but includes broader psychological and social dimensions. Well-being is influenced by the ability to easily find one's way around spaces, to feel safe, to have an adequate balance between places of interaction and spaces of retreat, and to exercise a certain degree of control over the built environment.
From a social perspective, well-being is closely linked to the quality of relationships that a space is able to foster. Environments that offer opportunities for informal encounters, allow for diverse uses and take into account the different needs of users contribute to creating conditions conducive to long-term health and satisfaction. Conversely, rigid spaces that are difficult to understand or lack environmental qualities can generate stress, discomfort and conflict. A high-quality built environment not only reduces health risks, but also supports daily wellbeing and strengthens the bond between people and place, producing lasting benefits at both the individual and collective levels.
In conclusion, the social dimension of sustainability, as interpreted by the SNBS, invites us to consider the building and the project as part of a complex system of relationships. Integrating agreement on objectives, participation, interdisciplinary work and attention to context from the outset means creating the conditions for projects that work over time, that are accepted, used and valued. Social sustainability is therefore not an accessory element, but an essential component of architectural and urban quality, capable of giving meaning, durability and value to the transformations of our built environment.
