Navigating complexity with the four pillars of social sustainability

Abstract The concept of social sustainability has long been a subject of discussion within academic literature and practitioners. However, there remains a lack of clarity in its definition and scholars argue that this can impacting the legitimacy of addressing social sustainability challenges. Through a systematic literature review and a content analysis, we shed light on the multifaceted discourse surrounding the concept of social sustainability, elucidating its diverse applications and meanings portrayed and defined within scholarly discourse. Our findings show that the concept predominantly revolves around four prevalent categories: “ Equity, ” “ Well-being, ” “ Participation and Influence, ” and ‘ Social Capital. Based on results, we develop and present a novel analytical framework of the four pillars of social sustainability, referred to as the “ SoSuCompass, ” representing a conceptual framework to clarify the concept's multifaceted nature. The framework can serve as a tool for a fuller comprehension of the definition of social sustainability.


| INTRODUCTION
The notion of sustainability has been at the heart of the international research-and policy forefront for 35 years by now, or, ever since the Brundtland Report first was published in 1987.The three pillars of environmental, economic, and social sustainability were first introduced in the early 1990s.Initiating in the latter part of the 1980s, the discourse surrounding sustainability has prominently revolved around the ecological perspectives, although an increasing attention to the social aspects of sustainability has been witnessed more recently (Åhman, 2013).Even though there today exists a consensus that all the three pillars are equally important, many scholars argue that the notion of social sustainability (hereafter abbreviated as "SoSu") is a vague concept (Hemani & Das, 2016) that has not been thoroughly addressed in research and practice (Boström, 2012;Colantonio, 2009;Cuthill, 2010;Nilipour, 2020;Vallance et al., 2011).Dempsey et al. (2011) contend that establishing the social goals of sustainability holds paramount importance.This inquiry spawns a range of responses, with limited academic consensus on the precise nature of social sustainability objectives and the optimal pathways to achieve them.Colantonio (2009), in turn, asserts that the social facet of sustainability is frequently inadequately studied, undertheorized, and oversimplified.Consequently, some researchers argue that the concept is missing a clear theoretical meaning (Littig & Grießler, 2005), affecting the concepts' utility both in research and practice (Vallance et al., 2011).Contrary to this notion, some scholars argue that the complete elimination of vagueness is unattainable due to the intricate social dimensions inherent in the concept (Boström, 2012).In fact, pluralistic and nebulous definitions are by some deemed as being more advantageous (Dempsey et al., 2011) despite that vagueness can hinder the usefulness of social sustainability in both practice and theory (Hemani & Das, 2016).Theory, research, and practice are connected, therefore a gap of knowledge in one area may affect the outcome in another.For example, De Fine Licht and Folland (2019) contend that the absence of a universally accepted definition of SoSu undermines trust and legitimacy to address related concerns, when collaborating with municipalities, entrepreneurs, and other societal actors.In academic discourse, it is argued that a universally applicable definition proves challenging due to the inherent inability to be useful, or even valid, for the plethora of all specific local contexts (De Fine Licht & Folland, 2019; McKenzie, 2004).However, Åhman (2013) argues that there is a need for establishing new theoretical constructs and conceptual frameworks, aimed at advancing the comprehension of social sustainability.So, is it possible to create a social sustainability framework that adequately captures the complex and multidimensional nature of the concept?

| Study aim and outline
The goals of this article are to (1) enrich the ongoing research discourse concerning the definitions and conceptualizations of social sustainability (SoSu) through a comprehensive exploration of how the concept currently is described and applied in scholarly research, and (2) to present an analytical framework, referred here to as the "SoSuCompass," representing a novel conceptual framework to enhance the usefulness and understanding of SoSu.The framework draws on both a conducted systematic literature review (SLR) and a content analysis (CA) of SoSu.While several reviews already exist on social sustainability (see e.g., Ghahramanpouri et Wolff & Ehrström, 2020), no SLR based on PRISMA guidelines has so far presented a systematic and synthesized framework for a broader comprehension of SoSu.Hence, we answer the call of Åhman (2013) for the development of a conceptual framework with a capacity to accommodate more diverse interpretations of SoSu.The "SoSuCompass," as presented herein, represents a tool for facilitating a more organized inquiry of the concept's multifaceted nature based on the available literature that has focused on various interpretations of SoSu.As such we believe it can serve as a useful tool for a fuller comprehension of what social sustainability entails and how to achieve the goals of social sustainability in practice.

| METHODOLOGY
The systematic literature review (SLR) was used to gather and select existing studies conceptualizing and defining SoSu.A SLR follows a methodological structure delineated in an associated protocol with predetermined eligibility criteria (Moher et al., 2016).It has the advantage of reducing the researchers' biases in the data selection process (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).
The content analysis was performed using this material with the purpose of evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing all available research relevant to the area of interest (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).A content analysis is a systematic and replicable way to approach text and documents to find quantifiable content (Bryman, 2016) and reveals new meanings through qualitative analysis by way of coding (Schreier, 2012).To combine qualitative and quantitative data can leverage their respective strengths and compensate their weaknesses; where qualitative data may offer detailed contextual insights for an in-depth understanding of the how and why lines of inquiries (Patton, 2015); quantitative data provide the means that can be used for generally valid explanations (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018;Kelle, 2006).Qualitative research is criticized for being subjective in the production of data, which entail limited use for generally valid explanations.This is in part due to that ideologies, attitudes, and values of individuals, and groups, risk potential bias.
Quantitative research attempts to maintain objectivity but often it is unable to capture fine-grained contextual information, while qualitative research addresses this deficiency (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
The integration of both approaches in mixed methods research may provide a more comprehensive picture (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), which may, when it fits with the aim of the study as herein, surpass the individual contributions of quantitative or qualitative methods alone.

| The systematic literature review
The SLR, as a tool of data collection, was conducted in conformity with the checklist and guidelines stipulated by PRISMA (Moher et al., 2016;Page et al., 2021).To identify publications that delineate social sustainability, the inclusion of SoSu definitions or conceptualizations was one criterion.Moreover, the publications had to be research publications, peer-reviewed, and published in English.We excluded non-English studies because of our limited knowledge of other language where we did not have the capacity the translate these articles and ensure that the translation was correct.The study was then conducted in several steps as depicted in Figure 1.To locate relevant publications, the online databases of Web of Science, Scopus, and SocIndex were used.Three databases were chosen because the combination of several databases provides a comprehensive end result of literature searches (Bramer et al., 2017), SocIndex to include social sciences (Wilder & Walters, 2021), and Scopus and Web of Science for wide-range coverage (Zhu & Liu, 2020).
The searches were performed using the search string ("social sustainability" OR "social sustainable") AND (definition OR defining OR define).To match the inclusion criteria; the searches were limited to research publications published in English and in peer-reviewed journals and book chapters.They were further constricted to Title, Keywords, and Abstract.No limitation on the publication year was set.The decisive searches were finalized on January 4, 2021, and resulted in a total of 473 publications.

| Selection criteria for literature analysis
The first two authors of this paper performed the literature review; henceforth referred to as the "main authors."The software Rayyan was used to execute the first screening where the abstracts were assessed according to the inclusion criterion.The inclusion criterion: abstracts that contained a social sustainability definition or a conceptual analysis.The main authors independently evaluated the abstracts.
Divergences were scrutinized and discussed with the purpose of reaching a joint decision and evaluating if the publication met the inclusion criteria.Only 88 articles met the inclusion criterion, and these were selected as the data set for further analysis.Thereafter, a second-stage screening of the full publications was carried out.The software Atlas.ti was employed to conduct the remaining screenings and analyses.The two main authors screened half of the publications each for later cross-verification.Publications that failed to meet the inclusion criterion, although it was foreboded in the abstract, were excluded from the data set.Three papers were excluded during full-text review because their English abstracts initially met inclusion criteria, but subsequent examination revealed the full texts did not satisfy the English language requirement, preventing further evaluation of other criteria.Altogether, 79 peer-reviewed journal publications and book chapters were found eligible for further analysis.

| Content analysis
The data set was analyzed by way of a content analysis (CA) and included both qualitative and quantitative approaches.A content analysis can both be quantitative, for example by compiling the presence of word or phases, and qualitative, by focusing on the content First, and in parallel with the second stage screening, the data were collected by extracting keywords and phrases from the articles' definitions of SoSu and turn them into codes by generalizing the keyword or phrase into a single word or a short sentence.To ensure objectivity, we faced challenges in consistently evaluating papers on social sustainability.The screening process became a learning opportunity, requiring multiple assessments to reduce bias.Single data extraction was utilized, the main authors each coded half of the articles, and the data were cross-verified by the other main author who scrutinized the coding, with the purpose of minimize misinterpretations and errors.Similar terms were generalized under the same code and the process resulted in 144 codes.Second, when the codes where interpreted, categories were made by analyzing the data set's connotation of the codes and then group codes with similar meaning, which resulted in 23 discursive categories.Third, the categories' rate of appearance was examined to uncover how frequent a category appeared in the articles' definition.The calculation for RoA represents the number of times a category appears in a publication's definition of SoSu, divided by the total number of publications.Fourth, an analysis of how many categories the selected research had used in their definition was carried out.Fifth, the co-occurrence analysis displayed the categories' interrelations were the analyses show the trends of which categories were used in the same definition.The analysis confirms a correlation when two categories coexisted within a definition.The number of correlations were then depicted in a Sankey diagram to reveal patterns concerning the interplay of categories.The analysis can clarify whether a specific category was chosen over another or if they were used together.Sixth, the QLR analyzed the qualitative meaning of the categories.All publications were systematically screened to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the categories and to identify connections between them.Furthermore, to structure, connect, and envision the categories' rate of appearance (RoA) within the scope of the QLR and to enhance the comprehensibility of the categories' impact on the concepts definition, were categories divided into groups.The formation of the groups was accomplished by identifying clustering patterns, and the relationship between the categories' RoA was analyzed using the bar chart depicted in Figure 4. Three distinct clusters of categories emerged, thereby leading to the composition of three groups: (a) categories appearing in 75% and more of the definitions, (b) categories appearing in 40%-74% of the definitions, and (c) categories appearing in less than 40% of the definitions.

| RESULTS
The findings of the quantitative analyses are in the following detailed across Sections 3.1 to 3.3, encompassing several key aspects.In Section 3.1, we delve into interpretations and facets related to the term "social sustainability," along with their corresponding rate of appearance (RoA).Moving to Section 3.2, we explore patterns of multidimensionality that emerged from the analysis.The subsequent Section, 3.3, presents the outcomes of the co-occurrence analysis.
Shifting the focus, Section 3.4 provides a qualitative insight into the results of the content analysis.

| Aspects of social sustainability and their rate of appearance
Analysis of the extracted data resulted in 144 codes, which were subsequently grouped into 23 categories (Table 1).The frequency with which each category appeared, as measured by the rate of appearance (RoA), provided insight into the relative importance of each aspect.
The category with the highest RoA was identified as having a RoA of 85% of the definitions, while the category with the lowest RoA was 1%.

| Patterns of multidimensionality
Most of the data set's definition of SoSu was established through a synthesis of multiple aspects.Only one article defined SoSu as a single aspects concept.The amalgamation of various aspects could be linked to as many as 18 of this study's categories.Notably, 90% of the data The content analysis process from identifying codes to the development of a framework.
T A B L E 1 The table contains the categories found in the definitions of social sustainability, including descriptions of categories, attached codes, the article ID (disclosing which article used which code), and the rate of appearance of each category.

Category
Description Codes (Article ID) (article ID, see reference list)

Inequality reduction
Equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and costs among individuals, in society, and through generations.

Participation and influence
The processes and actions of providing the members of society the opportunity to actively take part in the society, access the decision-making processes and influence planning, policy, and politics.

Social relationships and network
The connection to other individuals and to the society, such as fostering relationships, networks, inclusion, interaction, and social capital.

Needs
The basic needs to live and survive, like having access to food, water, shelter, livelihood, and recovery.

Safety and security
The aspects of feeling and to being safe.This category also includes economic and environmental security.

Learning and knowledge
The process of learning and gaining knowledge and skills, both at an individual and a societal level.

Rights and responsibilities
The aspects of responsibility for powerholders, governance, social order, human rights, and tolerance and respect in society.

Identity and meaning
The feeling of meaning and purpose both within oneself and within the community.

Belonging
The sense of feeling as a part of a group and/or society and being proud of a place.

Built environment
Physical settings' effect and potential on the societal structures, the individuals', or groups' well-being.

Capacity and development
The capacity to evolve and develop on a societal level and the institutional capacity for self-organization.

30%
Environmental care The importance of a healthy environment to nurture social life.

Collaboration and peace
Peaceful collaboration and co-existence between stakeholders.

Trust and reciprocity
Faith to and in the society and its members, and reciprocation of cooperation.

Freedom
The freedom of choice and expression and the power to change one's own life.

Demography
The change or stabilization in the demographic structure.

Economic prosperity
Economic development and prosperity.
Economic prosperity (12,   19, 24, 32, 40, 45)   Productivity (21, 54)  Social institutions for economic sustainability (28, 77)   13% (Continues) set encompassed a variation of keywords incorporated in four or more different categories.Additionally, the result envisioned a correlation between level of multidimensionally and the RoA.The articles that defined SoSu by employing aspects from the categories with a lower RoA used aspects from more categories than the articles that used aspects included in the categories with a higher RoA.

| Co-occurrence analysis
The co-occurrence analysis identified the relationships between the categories, showing a complex web of interconnections.Furthermore, the cooccurrence analysis revealed that the categories with the highest RoA, namely "Inequality Reduction," "Well-being," "Participation and Influence," "Social Relationships and Network," exhibited the most frequent interconnections (Figure 3).For example, the analysis shows that 72% of the data set combined the categories "Inequality Reduction" and "Well-being, and 70% combined "Inequality Reduction," and "Participation and Influence." Moreover, all four categories were combined in 51% of the data set.

Innovation and Creativity
A society that fosters innovative thinking and creativity.
Creativity (23)  Innovation (26, 42, 55)  Technology development (11)   6% Empathy No explications.Empathy (30)  1%  The category that we refer to as "Rights and Responsibilities" (54%) encompasses a wide array of subcategories.Among these, the Collaboration within the planning process can be viewed as an approach to foster more effective community participation.However, there is a challenge in engaging a diverse group of people and creating a process that avoids tokenism (Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).
Access to the category referred to as "Social Services" (25%), cov- In this study, however, we instead approach this vagueness as an opportunity for developing a framework that can be applied in various contexts while remaining cognizant of these challenges.

| The SoSuCompass: A dynamic framework of social sustainability
In the following we present a comprehendible social sustainability framework, The "SoSuCompass," that simultaneously is sensitized to the complex and multidimensional nature of social life.
The SoSuCompass is based on the methodological approach and results derived at in this study.We view it as a dynamic framework in the sense that it can endure different meanings and contexts of SoSu The framework revolves around the multidimensional four categories that have been identified in this study, namely "Equity," "Well-being," "Participation and Influence," and "Social Capital."The definitions are constructed by combining the categories with the different RoAs.Hence, the categories are contributing to each other rather than contrasting each other and should therefore be utilized in conjunction with one another.All the other categories can, in one way or another, be included in one or more of these four fundamental categories.This provides us with the notion that the categories are interrelated and actions to improve one aspect can also impact another aspect.
The category of "Equity" pervades all other categories by adding the perspective of distribution to the aspects of resources.The most prevalent resources discussed were "Well-being," "Participation and Influence," and "Social Capital."The other categories can be integrated in the categories presented above and can be seen as providing a capacity to expand the perspectives depending on the context.Even if we, in this paper, try to differentiate the aspects of social sustainability to clarify the concept, should the aspects of the concept not be viewed as isolated parts but as an interconnected whole.The presented framework can disclose the perspectives of social sustainability and emphasize the importance of the aspect's interconnectedness and be used as a tool when addressing social sustainability issues.
First, the categories found in the study disclose the prevalent aspects of the definition of social sustainability, where the RoA analysis reveals the most dominant aspects in the definitions.The aspects with the highest RoA can be perceived as strong fundamental elements in the definitions and are therefore used as a base in the framework.In the framework, the three groups of categories, delineated based on their RoA, are visualized with the aim of showing the impact of these categories.
Second, the construction of the definition of social sustainability involved an amalgamation of several aspects, thereby reinforcing the perception of social sustainability as a multidimensional concept.
Moreover, the multidimensional character of social sustainability endows the concept with comprehensiveness and adaptability, allowing the concept to be "universal in context but context-specific in implementation" (Rogers et al., 2012, p. 66).Even though the four categories with the highest RoA can be perceived as constituting the fundamental basis, it is notable that a considerable number of the definitions contain more than four categories.As the result shows, the keywords with the categories with a lower RoA are being combined with more categories than the ones with the higher RoA.This can be an indication that the categories with lower RoA were nuancing the fundamental view of sustainability and adding perspectives or providing a heightened attention to specific aspects depending on the context.The framework is constructed by acknowledging the multidimensionality and includes all but one (Empathy) of the categories regardless of their RoA.
Third, the co-occurrence analysis shows the pattern of interconnection between aspects.The combinations are seen as a part of the construction of the concept, where the interconnection empowers the multidimensionality of the concept.Consequently, no aspect can be seen as an isolated element but as a part of an interacting whole.
The category of "Equity," "Well-being," "Participation and Influence," and "Social Capital" are combined in the majority of the definitions.
This indicates that the categories complement each other rather than contrast each other.
Fourth, the qualitative literature review (QRL) showed how the different categories are discussed, described, or defined.It also shows the interconnection between categories where the definition of one category included aspects from other categories.By acknowledging this, all the categories can be included in one or more of the four main categories.The clarification of the categories' content and their connection to-or inclusion in-other categories can clarify the concept and make the framework more intelligible.The narratives and analyses presented in the QLR can serve as a valuable reference when developing context-specific strategies or when tackling diverse issues.

| Method discussion
In the method introduction, we highlighted limitations and challenges inherent in both qualitative and quantitative approaches, noting that the former is susceptible to subjectivity, while the latter to excessive objectivity.Limitations include the fact that our search string The "SoSuCompass," depicting a framework of social sustainability derived from the result and discussion presented herein.It is based on the four main categories and their associated aspects that researchers´adhere to the notion of SoSu.The different RoAs are represented by three fields within the circle.The circular shape illustrate that the aspects are interrelated and should be viewed as an interconnected system.
constrained results to publications explicitly defining social sustainability, thereby excluding articles discussing issues related to the concept but using alternative terms.The search was additionally restricted to papers published in English, potentially excluding ideas or views contributed by non-English research.A potential risk with this limitation is that it could possibly reinforce a tendency to prioritize ideas stemming from specific theoretical or socio-geographically biased perspectives.Furthermore, as we provide a synthesis of prior research, wherein the data set's definitions of the concept are accepted without scrutiny of their legitimacy or potential impact on the enhancement of SoSu.We proceed under the assumption that a tenable examination of these definitions can be achieved through

F I G U R E 1
The study's search process applied in PRISMA Flow diagram(Page et al., 2021).(Säfsten & Gustavsson, 2020) The CA followed the stages of (1) coding the definitions, (2) categorizing the codes, (3) analyzing the categories' rate of appearance (RoA),(4) analyzing the definitions' level of multidimensionality, (5) a co-occurrence analysis of the categories and (6) a qualitative literature review (QLR) (Figure2).We combine qualitative (Stages 1, 2, and 6) and quantitative (Stages 3, 4, and 5) methods of analysis.The qualitative stages of this study explore and disclose the aspects of the SoSu.Stage 1 identifies these aspects, Stage 2 generalizes them for a more comprehensive picture, and Stage 6 provides a deeper knowledge of the aspects, establishes connections for enhanced comprehensibility and discloses definitions and meanings of identified categories and concepts.Conversely, the quantitative stages (3, 4, and 5) unveil dominant aspects and reveal how definitions were constructed, enabling the production of our generalizable knowledge about prevalent aspects and patterns.
cited study, defining equity as the provision of fair resources and opportunities to all community members, especially the most vulnerable and impoverished individuals.Furthermore, scholars frequently link SoSu to the study byDempsey et al. (2011) and their notion of social equity and its linkages to social and distributive justice.Hemani and Das (2016) link SoSu to distributional equity and the notion of social inclusion.This encompasses the fair distribution of social, environmental, and economic costs, damages, and benefits, as well as the promotion of participation among community members.Ketschau (2015) on the other hand, discusses SoSu in relation to the notion of individual freedom, highlighting the importance of capability and equality of opportunities for individual prosperity, and for providing equal educational opportunities for individuals with diverse needs.According to Turker and Ozdemir (2020) a socially sustainable society is characterized by justice and equality, ensuring that no one is excluded and empowering citizens to live fulfilling lives in freedom.Pitarch-Garrido (2018) adopts a physical, geographic perspective on SoSu, highlighting the notion of spatial equity, referring it to the distribution of wealth over physical places.In a similar vein, Almahmoud and Doloi (2020) assert that new building projects have significant influences on the social sustainability of neighboring communities, as they leave a permanent imprint that affects equality aspects.They argue that all new construction projects should nurture the co-benefits of social equality since it can lead to reduced crime rates, F I G U R E 3 A Sankey diagram, visualizing the co-occurrence between categories and displaying the strongest connections among the four dominant categories found in the current analysis, that is, "Inequality Reduction," "Well-Being," "Participation and Influence," and "Social Relationships and Network."longer life expectancies, increased civic engagement, and enhanced economic vitality.Altogether, 81% of the data set examined have linked the concept of SoSu to various facets of the category referred here to as "Wellbeing," encompassing both individual and societal well-being.Some authors have defined human well-being by associating it with analogies such as "Quality of Life" and "Life Satisfaction" (De Fine Licht & Folland, 2019), "Quality of Life" and "Happiness"(Boström, 2012), and "Health" and "Quality of Life"(Dempsey et al., 2011).Aparicio and Ramizer (2016) define "Quality of Life" as "the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his or her life" (p.47).Weingaertner and Moberg (2014) argue that well-being is a holistic concept that pertains to the whole person and is not solely restricted to psychological and physical health.It also includes an individual's need to feel happy, satisfied, and prosperous.Rogers et al. (2012) provide a holistic perspective on well-being, referring to it as "comprehensive well-being."This concept encompasses various dimensions, including physical well-being (access to food, water, and health services), as well as social and emotional wellbeing, which includes aspects like social equity, relationships, social interaction, education, and trust.The meaning of comprehensive wellbeing can vary depending on time, person, place, and culture but should be "universal in context but context-specific in implementation" (Rogers et al., 2012, p. 66).Consequently, the meanings of social sustainability are culture-and context-dependent.Several scholars consider the category of "Participation and Influence" to be a fundamental component of SoSu although emphasizing different aspects of participation (Murphy, 2012; Ročak et al., 2016; Whitton et al., 2014).For example, "community participation" can be viewed as the active engagement and involvement of individuals in various events and activities within their communities.Additionally, participation encompasses the opportunities for individuals to take part in the decision-making process and have a chance to influence decisions that affect their community (Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).Participation can also be seen as a characteristic of a civil and democratic society and as an important part of the political system in a sustainable society (Almahmoud & Doloi, 2020).Rashidfarokhi et al. (2018) contend that despite the existence of ostensibly equivalent opportunities for participation, challenges for SoSu remain with respect to achieving genuine equality.The authors identify various barriers that can lead to the exclusion of certain groups or individuals from participation, including factors such as special needs, differing values, language barriers, and disparities in information flows.These factors can create inequities in access to information, decision-making processes, and opportunities for participation.A number of authors also link SoSu to different aspects of the category of "Social Relationships and Network" (e.g., Almahmoud & Doloi, 2020; Colantonio, 2009; Ketschau, 2015).While the concept of social capital is and has been fiercely debated in the academic literature, it is often conceptualized as three dimensions: bonding, bridging, and linking (Hemani & Das, 2016; Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).Bonding refers to homogeneous social relationships (like the ties between family members and neighbors); bridging as the heterogeneous social relationships within a wider network (like friends and co-workers); and linking as the ties to decision-makers and institutions (Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).Hence, several authors associate social capital as a fundamental component of social networks that is important for social cohesion (e.g., Dempsey et al., 2011; Larimian & Sadeghi, 2021) as F I G U R E 4 Obtained grouping of categories of social sustainability in reference to their RoA in the content analysis.well as social institutions, like rules, norms, and processes (Hemani & Das, 2016).Weingaertner and Moberg (2014) relate SoSu to the relational aspects of social capital such as societal reciprocity and mutual trust.It also includes features such as social norms, trust, a code of conduct, and knowledge on a group and/or organizational level.The notion of social inclusion may be elucidated as a state of social mix wherein every group are fairly represented, understood, respected, and where their concerns and knowledge are recognized and considered (Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).Meinhold et al. (2014) and Resendez de Lozano et al. (2014) argue that social inclusion is an important aspect of well-being.The latter further asserts that well-being includes opportunities for self-development, safety, and health, along with societal well-being facilitated through social interaction and participation in cultural traditions.Facilitating social interaction is a crucial aspect of various social institutions, including established norms, processes, and regulations that shape human behavior and govern social interactions(Hemani & Das, 2016).Given the all-encompassing scope pertaining to the concept of social capital, this category is henceforth named as "Social Capital."3.4.2 | Categories that appear in 40% to 74% of the definitionsFurthermore, 61% of the definitions related to SoSu is linked to the category of "Needs" that centers around the fulfillment of basic human needs.The most frequently mentioned aspects include the satisfaction of fundamental human requirements, such as establishing healthy living conditions (e.g., shelter, food, water, safety, and security), as well as facilitating work, employment, and sustainable livelihoods.The aspirations of fulfilling a sense of identity, and gaining access to jobs, education, transportation, and comfort are also inherently interconnected with basic human needs (Almahmoud & Doloi, 2020; Pareja-Eastaway, 2012).A significant portion of the data set (58%) also discussed SoSu in relation to a category referred to here as "Safety and Security."For instance, Van Haaster et al. (2017) link SoSu to the freedom from feeling threatened in terms of property and human health.This implies that individuals should be able to live in an environment where they are protected from potential dangers or risks that could harm their physical well-being or property.Some authors emphasize the concept of a "safe community," characterized by a low level of anti-social behavior and crime, tolerance of diverse groups, and individuals experiencing a sense of place and security within social interactions and community engagements (Dempsey et al., 2011; Rashidfarokhi et al., 2018).Resendez de Lozano et al. (2014) consider secure living conditions as a prerequisite for people to engage in and enjoy public spaces and outdoor activities.Additionally, some scholars in our data set discussed safety and security in relation to economic and environmental indicators.Authors also frequently connect SoSu to a category referred to as "Learning and Knowledge" (56%), both at an individual and societal level.Equal access to education is often seen as fundamental in achieving this.Åhman (2013) for instance, argues that education is a prerequisite for political representation, societal participation, employment opportunities, and personal fulfillment.Rogers et al. (2012) suggest that education is crucial for emotional and social well-being.Turker and Ozdemir (2020) take a broader perspective on education, going beyond the norm, and relate it to Bourdieu's theory of Cultural Capital.They emphasize that education is linked to an individual's social status, cultural competence, and skills that can be developed through various social experiences such as education, group membership, and socialization.
most frequently discussed relate SoSu to rights and responsibilities associated with political leadership, governance, basic human rights, and labor rights.Scholars also discuss how SoSu encompasses aspects of human rights, social institutions, norms and values, social order, and societal responsibility (e.g.,Andre, 2012;Missimer et al., 2017b).Approximately half (52%) of our data set associates SoSu with a category referred to as "Identity and Meaning," which signifies the fulfillment of meaning and purpose both at the individual and community levels.The key term of "Sense of identity" is frequently linked to SoSu.For example, Almahmoud and Doloi (2020) argue that culture and heritage play key roles in fostering a sense of identity within a community.Meaning-making and the search for meaning are fundamental aspects of human existence, as individuals are constantly seeking purpose and significance in their lives(Missimer et al., 2017a).The process of meaning-making is closely linked to an individual's emotional and mental well-being.Any hindrance to this process can be viewed as a violation of an individual's right to health(Missimer et al., 2017b).Another subcategory that scholars emphasize in their discussions of SoSu is the importance of preserving traditions, cultures, and cultural heritage.The category referred to as "Belonging" (44%) emphasizes that SoSu should foster the notion of being part of a group and/or society and to take pride in a particular place.It highlights the importance of creating an environment where individuals feel a sense of belonging and connection to their surroundings, thereby enhancing social cohesion and community well-being within a specific place.For instance, the concept of a citizen's sense of meaning in connection to a physical setting, often referred to as "sense of place" (Goosen & Cilliers, 2020), has long been advocated for in the sustainability discourse.The social-spatial interpretation of a community can be linked to social order and common norms, where stronger mutual values and norms contribute to a stronger sense of community(Dempsey et al., 2011).Aspects that are related to the category of "Built environment" (43%) are frequently mentioned by scholars as being crucial for SoSu.Such aspects include, among others, housing satisfaction and quality, infrastructure, environmental amenity, and connecting community members with one another and their neighborhood.Urban qualities that are often cited as important for SoSu include factors like facilitating mixed use and tenure, mobility, recreation, urbanity, and walkability.Arenghi (2020) argues that the design of parks, squares, streets, and sidewalks needs to be of good quality to ensure people can access them and feel safe.Dempsey et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of the built environment in providing access to various resources, services, job opportunities, decent housing, and education.Medved (2017) highlights that participation in urban design through a bottom-up approach, fosters a greater sense of responsibility towards urban space and strengthens local identity.The category "Diversity" (41%) emphasizes the importance of maintaining and nurturing a variety of perspectives and functions in society.Some scholars highlight cultural diversity or social diversity and the coexistence of different social groups as important determinants for social sustainability (Resendez de Lozano et al., 2014).Missimer et al. (2017a) cite Folke et al. (2002) who emphasize the significance of diversity as a principle for building resilience.Folke et al. (2002) argue that diversity, encompassing attributes and various groups of people, is crucial for offering a blend of knowledge, experience, and options, which becomes particularly valuable in addressing uncertain and changing challenges, fostering innovative solutions, and facilitating redevelopment in response to crises and disturbances.3.4.3| Categories that appear in less than 40% of the definitions The category denoted "Capacity and Development" (30%) refers in part to the capacity to evolve and develop on a societal level and the institutional capacity for self-organization.Although it can be defined in different ways, Missimer et al. (2017b), p. 48) describe selforganization as "the ability of the system to organize itself without a pre-determined intent and structure."Self-organizing within a social system will come about as a result of the realization of other social sustainability factors.The category "Environmental Care" (28%) signifies the importance of human and environmental coexistence in harmony (Hnedina, 2017) and addresses such wide topics as environmental protection, the role of values and behaviors for safeguarding ecosystem and environmental health as well as human-nature relations and the importance of developing social institutions for environmental sustainability.Various authors stress that the natural environment is pivotal for achieving SoSu.For example, Dempsey et al. (2012) argue that social equity and environmental equity are closely related, and both are needed for providing a high-quality living environment.Rogers et al. (2012) bring attention to the cause-and-effect relationship between the natural environment and human well-being with the latter requiring well-functioning ecosystems and for creating a sense of identity and meaning, enabling recreation, and the enjoyment of natural beauty.The category of "Collaboration and Peace" (25%) emphasizes the significance of establishing collaboration and coexistence among stakeholders.Several authors have highlighted collaboration and cooperation as crucial elements for achieving SoSu and promoting peaceful coexistence among individuals in neighborhoods or communities (see, e.g.,Taiwo et al., 2020).Some authors have also emphasized the importance of conflict mitigation in order to achieve SoSu.

4 | 1 | 4 . 2 |
ering basic human needs, is a prerequisite for SoSu (Pitarch-Garrido, 2018).Important social services include, for example, grocery stores, banks, community centers, restaurants, recreation facilities, primary schools, libraries, facilities for children, and public open spaces(Dempsey et al., 2012).According to Grum and Kobal Grum (2020), social infrastructure is considered one of the most crucial drivers for fulfilling basic human needs and can be likened to the glue that holds communities together.Qualitative social infrastructure has the potential to enhance the overall quality of life in the built environment(Grum & Kobal Grum, 2020).The category referred to as "Trust and Reciprocity" (23%) contain aspects crucial for societal interactions, playing a vital role in binding societies together and fostering value creation within a given social system(Missimer et al., 2017a).Trust encompasses both interpersonal trust, which refers to trust between individuals, and institutional trust, where institutional trust acts as a determinant of social trust.Institutions, through their ability to establish incentives and rules that govern individual-level behavior, significantly influence social trust(Missimer et al., 2017b).Low levels of trust among stakeholders can have adverse effects, leading to reduced citizen participation in formal activities and limited empowerment(Ročak et al., 2016).Trust is an integral part of social and emotional well-being, as highlighted byRogers et al. (2012).The ability to trust others contributes to a sense of belonging and connection within a community.Feeling safe within a community enhances trust and reciprocity and contributes to a sense of place(Dempsey et al., 2011;Whitton et al., 2015).When individuals feel secure and protected, they are more probable to engage in positive social interactions, collaborate, and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.Understanding the dynamics of trust, reciprocity, and safety is essential for building and maintaining sustainable communities, as they create a conducive environment for social cohesion, active citizen participation, and the development of resilient and thriving societies.Several authors discuss different aspects and interpretations of "Freedom" (19%).Van Haaster et al. (2017) define it as an individual's control over her or his own resources.According to Rashidfarokhi et al.(2018), the concept of freedom is closely connected to safety and participation, particular in the sense of feeling free to maintain one's individuality, express oneself, and disagree with others without the fear of disapproval, attack, or loss of social services.Furthermore, freedom encompasses the fulfillment of fundamental needs, the capacity to selfsustain, and to possess the personal agency or the power to enact change within one's reality(Meinhold et al., 2014).According toRogers et al. (2012) the freedom to choose home, job, and social relationships is a fundamental part of social and emotional well-being.Dynamics related to the category of "Demography" (18%) encompass various aspects related to demographic stability and/or change in relation to questions of aging, migration, and mobility(Andre, 2012;Colantonio, 2009;Ferri, 2017).Understanding the dynamics of demographic patterns is essential for comprehending the social fabric of communities.Researchers have explored concepts like the selfreproducing community, which refers to a community's ability to maintain its population over time, and the stability of a community, which can be measured by its residential turnover rate and the total number of residents.These aspects play a crucial role in realizing social sustainability(Dempsey et al., 2012).By examining demographic trends, researchers can gain insights into opportunities and the challenges associated with population dynamics, and in turn, inform strategies for fostering social cohesion, inclusion, and well-being within communities.The category of "Economic Prosperity" (13%) includes aspects that are vital to achieve social sustainability and can include such aspects as the construction of new buildings within a neighborhood in fostering economic growth and enhancing social interaction and capital, to economic prosperity and environmental protection(Sueyoshi et al., 2017).Almahmoud and Doloi (2020) argue that the construction of new buildings contributes to economic prosperity by creating opportunities for employment, stimulates economic activity, and facilitating information exchange within the community.Additionally, the inclusion of new features such as walking paths and green areas in the construction process can contribute to the overall quality of life and well-being of residents.To achieve social sustainability, it is essential to achieve a balance between economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental protection.The category called "Transformability" (11%) comprises linkages of SoSu to resilience thinking as well as adaptability to change and raising awareness about potential risks and threats.For example, Wolff and Ehrström (2020) emphasize the importance of building social resilience within societies to effectively address environmental risks and challenges.They argue that one fundamental aspect of achieving social resilience is establishing strong connections among people.These connections serve as a foundation for collective problem-solving and collaborative efforts in response to environmental threats and societal transformation.Missimer et al. (2017a) highlight the significance of adaptive capacity for a society to effectively handle uncertainty and change.To possess qualities of flexibility, adaptability, and transformability, adaptive capacity is necessary.They identify five key aspects of adaptive capacity in relation to social sustainability: trust, learning, diversity, common meaning, and selforganization.Articles within the category of "Innovation and Creativity" (6%) entails the role of innovative thinking, creativity, and technological development in achieving SoSu in society.Goli c et al. (2020) argue that SoSu encompasses the intangible aspects of life, where the promotion of creativity, spirituality, impulsivity, and emotional well-being is essential for facilitating knowledge acquisition and learning.Nurturing these aspects can contribute to the development of a holistic and thriving society.Innovation plays a crucial role in transforming societies towards environmental sustainability.The generation and implementation of innovative ideas are vital for addressing environmental challenges and transitioning to more sustainable practices.However, effectively managing these challenges requires a well-functioning society that considers economic, social, and political factors (Turker & Ozdemir, 2020).DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 4.The four pillars of social sustainability Based on the findings of this review, it is evident that common and observable patterns exist in the definition and utilization of the concept of social sustainability (SoSu) within scholarly research.Our systematic literature review and content analysis indicate that four categories are more central than others when it comes to the use, application, and definition of the term "social sustainability" across a diverse array of academic fields and contexts.These categories include different aspects of equity, well-being, participation and influence, and social capital.Hence, as this quartet appears to represent the foundation for addressing societal challenges and pursuing shared social goals more effectively, we regard them as representing the pillars of SoSu and constituting the core components of the definitions of social sustainability.The four categories emerged as those with the highest score in the RoAs undertaking in this review, appearing in over 75% of the data set.More generally, though, and as our literature review suggests, it is evident that the concept of social sustainability encompasses a diverse range of ideas and notions, lending support to the idea that SoSu is both a complex and rather vaguely defined concept in the academic literature(Boström,  2012; Dempsey et al., 2011; Taiwo et al., 2020).Moreover, the multi-faceted meaning of social sustainability comprises quite a complex mosaic of socio-cultural values and issues.While the vagueness of the concept may hinder work in research and practice (De Fine Licht & Folland, 2019; Weingaertner & Moberg, 2014), there is also a risk that a more precise definition of SoSu makes the concept too instrumental and static to be of practical use, rather SoSu is a concept that needs constantly to change over space and time (Dempsey et al., 2011; Ghahramanpouri et al., 2013).As also noticeable in our review, existing definitions of SoSu are often intradisciplinary based, or applied from a certain study perspective instead of being universal (Weingaertner & Moberg, 2014).Hence, different researchers and scholars emphasize different aspects and dimensions of social sustainability based on their disciplinary background or the professional context in which they are working.Cultural and geographical differences also give rise to multiple interpretation and meanings of SoSu.Moreover, scholars frequently cite and use definitions of SoSu from a few seemingly highly influential studies on the topic, such as Dempsey et al. (2011) that define urban SoSu as two dimensions: social equity and sustainability of community.Weingaertner and Moberg (2014) define urban SoSu to include 17 aspects, and Murphy (2012) define SoSu as four dimensions: equity, awareness of sustainability, participation, and social cohesion.Nevertheless, these dimensions are all incorporated within the study and collectively contribute to the establishment of the conceptual framework.In pursuit of novel SoSu-Framework As the four basic categories of SoSu synergistically intertwine with a whole range of analogues, they together fortify the fabric of interconnectedness, reinforcing the pillars of a more comprehensive socially sustainable framework.However, what does such interconnectedness look like in more detail?While attaining a universally accepted and consistent definition of SoSu remains a formidable undertaking, we engage with Åhman's proposition regarding the necessity for evolving novel conceptual frameworks to enhance the understanding of SoSu (Åhman, 2013).Consequently, in the remaining part of this paper, we put forward such a framework with the aspiration that it serves as a valuable instrument in facilitating a more systematic examination of the intricate dimensions inherent to this concept.As our review clearly underscores there is a real need for a more comprehensive and standardized framework for understanding and assessing social sustainability in more comprehensive ways, as this may allow for more effective interdisciplinary communication, collaboration as well as practical implementation.Implicit in the pursuit of such a framework, is the recognition that the dominance of certain aspects in the various definitions of SoSu does not imply that other aspects are less important or should be disregarded.On the contrary, it might be instructive and even warranted to develop a more comprehensive and holistic SoSu-framework that can capture the multidimensionality of social sustainability and that can consider the interplay and interconnectedness of various social, economic, and environmental factors.Whether the vagueness of the SoSu-concept provides a possibility to develop a definition that is universal in meaning and context-specific in implementation or instead poses a challenge by causing confusion of what the concept entails, remains an area of ambiguity.
without excluding others.It is also dynamic in the sense that it can have practical value, such as in decision-making, planning, and policy, as it introduces key themes of social sustainability that at the same time can facilitate the practitioner's work of dealing with case-specific problems or formulating context-dependent aspects or indicators for social sustainability(Weingaertner & Moberg, 2014).The "SoSuCompass" (Figure5) will hopefully contribute to a clearer and more nuanced understanding of the concept, thereby aiding researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in their efforts to promote and implement socially sustainable practices and policies.
keyword coding.Additionally, we view these definitions as navigational aids to the essence of the concept, thus serving as instrumental tools in enhancing SoSu.Within the RoA, we posit that the prevalence of certain aspects correlates with their significance to the concept, though this perspective is tempered by the comprehensive exploration undertaken in the qualitative literature review.The main authors who conducted the data collection have a pre-understanding based in sustainability science, spatial planning, and landscape architecture.The remaining authors were involved in the study design, data analysis, and manuscript writing, bringing pre-understandings from sustainability science, sociology, social work, spatial planning.A critical self-reflection reveals that the categorization process involved subjective interpretation, influencing the analysis based on the authors' pre-understanding.This pre-understanding likely shaped the development of the SuSoCompass, as this finding emanated from our qualitative interpretation of definitions and interrelations of the prevalent aspects.Additionally, the data collection used a single extraction method, whereas a double extraction could have mitigated the low risk of potential biases.To counter potential bias, we ensured, based on a qualitative approach, to include many of the most influential papers on social sustainability in the data set definitions.Despite the potential bias related to our collective preunderstanding, we argue that within the created research design, our results can be considered both valid and credible.This assertion is grounded in the identification of overarching patterns and prevalent aspects, considered as the fundamental constituents of the concept, achieved through objectivity and the rigorous application of validated quantitative tools.5 | CONCLUDING REMARKSConducting a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative systematic literature review like the one performed herein is indeed a challenge.Nevertheless, it has the advantage of presenting the full spectrum of multifaceted aspects and meanings that academic scholars attach to the concept of social sustainability.Still, the establishment of clear criteria and guidelines to ensure that the categorization process remains coherent and reliable, is based on the authors' interpretation of secondary data and is inherently an open-ended undertaking.However, we regard the end result in the form of the "SoSuCompass" as a sufficiently comprehensive and meaningful framework that can be used for further analyses of the SoSuconcept.Boström (2012) emphasizes that there exist two barriers in the development of the social goals of sustainability in practice and research.The first barrier is to define the substantive aspects, "what" the social goals of sustainability are, and the second barrier refers to understanding of "how" to achieve these goals via implementation and organization.Organizations do not only need to understand what the social goals of sustainability are, they also need to have the knowledge and capacity of how to reach them (Sundström et al., 2019).The present study has examined how previous research defines social sustainability and identified areas of consensus.Hence, the "SoSuCompass" should primarily be regarded as a framework to enhance the understanding of "what" social sustainability is.It can therefore offer guidance in overcoming the initial barrier of sustainability.On the other hand, addressing Boström's second barrier and studying "how" to attain the objectives of social sustainability constitute areas for future research.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research has been supported through financial support from the University of Gävle via the program called FUTURE PROOF CITIES (Grant No. 2019-0129), which is financed by the Knowledge Foundation (KK-stiftelsen) of Sweden.Colding, Sjöberg, and Barthel have been financed by a grant from Mistra (DIA 2019/28) and from Formas via the National Research Progamme on Climate (2021 00416).Colding's work was also funded bt the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Special thanks also go to Gavlefastigheter AB for contributing with insight from an organizational perspective.Ulrika Raumer and Marie Österberg from Gavlefastigheter's communication department for contributing with ideas for graphics for the framework, and to Per Nilsson for proofreading.