Sustainable development is a widely used term, which has been increasingly infl uential on UK planning, housing and urban policy in recent years. Debates about sustainability no longer consider sustainability solely as an environmental concern, but also incorporate economic and social dimensions. However, while a social dimension to sustainability is widely accepted, exactly what this means has not been very clearly defi ned or agreed. This paper aims to address this disparity through a detailed exploration and defi nition of the concept of social sustainability within the urban context. The relationship between urban form and social sustainability is explored and two main dimensions of social sustainability are identifi ed and discussed in detail: equitable access and the sustainability of the community itself.

IntroductionLand-use planning is the principal policy intervention which seeks to influence the physical form of towns and cities, but to what end is this intervention directed? Over the last decade and a half,`sustainability' has come to be the overarching goal of urban planning. Sustainability emerged from an essentially environmental discourse, which pointed to the many ways in which current development might degrade the environment and compromise the heritage bequeathed to future generations (World Commission on Environmental Development, 1987). Consideration of the most obvious examples of the relationship between these environmental impacts and urban form, notably around energy use and the need to travel, has led to a strong association in planning thinking between sustainability and more compact forms of urban development (CEC, 1990;Jenks et al, 1996). However, consideration of the concept of sustainability and its role in policy has led many to seek to broaden the concept to embrace economic and social dimensions, as well as the original environmental concerns.This paper is concerned with the relationship between residential density, and the associated types of housing, and`social sustainability', as part of a wider study of sustainable urban form. (1) Adopting a definition of social sustainability informed

Planning and urban policies emphasise ‘sustainability’, but claims that ‘compact cities' are more socially sustainable and acceptable have been controversial and subject to limited empirical testing. After a brief review of the concepts and debate, we set out new empirical evidence based on household surveys linked to neighbourhood physical, map-based, and sociodemographic data for five British cities. Statistical models are developed to account for systematic variations in the main social sustainability outcomes. The results are considered both in terms of the role of particular urban form and locational measures, but also in terms of the broader patterns of effects of packages of measures. Outcomes relating to residential satisfaction, stability, neighbourhood environment, and safety are all shown to be lower in higher density/central places, but it is also shown that a good deal of this apparent effect is due to social and demographic factors. Interaction with neighbours and participation in groups is better at medium densities, controlling for other factors, while use of local services is, as expected, greater in denser, more central locations. These findings indicate that compact cities are not ‘win-win’ on all dimensions of sustainability but, rather, that reductions in transport emissions will have to be weighed against social criteria. In addition, urban form has different aspects, which have differing social effects, and this knowledge could inform the future design of ‘smarter’ urban environments.

Two consequences of the continued urbanisation of the human population are that a growing proportion of the landscape is less hospitable to, and that a growing proportion of people are disconnected from, native biodiversity. One response of the UK government has been to establish a goal, and an associated baseline indicator, of increasing the extent and range of public participation in gardening for wildlife. The formulation of policy to attain this end requires, however, insight into the factors that are associated with the level of participation. Here we examine the relationships, across 15 areas in five UK cities, between the proportion of households providing various garden features for wildlife or participating in various wildlife gardening activities, and housing densities and characteristics of the garden resource. We show that significant numbers of households participate in some form of wildlife gardening, but that the predominant form this participation takes is feeding wild birds. Key variables associated with spatial variation in wildlife gardening activities are the proportion of households with access to a garden and, more importantly, average garden size and the proportion of land cover by gardens. There was no evidence for strong effects of household density or the socio-economic status of householders on the prevalence of wildlife friendly features in gardens or on the participation by householders in activities to encourage wildlife. Our results suggest important considerations in attempts to increase awareness and participation in wildlife gardening.

No abstract

No abstract

Fruit and vegetables are an important source of vitamins and minerals such as vitamin C, folate, K and b-carotene (1) . High fruit and vegetable consumption may reduce the risk of several chronic diseases, including cancers, CVD, hypertension and stroke (2) . The benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption continue into old age. In fact, with advancing age the requirements for some antioxidants may be increased (3) . The Irish food-based dietary guidelines therefore recommends consumption of at least five portions of fruit and vegetables daily. The aim of this study was to establish the frequency of consumption of fruit and vegetables within a sample of institutionalised elderly, Irish subjects (n 99; twenty-six men and seventy-three women; aged 66-104 years), who participated in the ELDERMET project.Dietary data was collected using a validated semi-quantitative, 147-item FFQ. Fruit and vegetables that contributed to the recommended five portions a day included all fresh, frozen and canned fruit and vegetables, pure fruit drinks, dried fruit, vegetable soups, tomato-based pasta sauces, baked beans and other pulses. Potatoes and nuts were excluded. In order to estimate the number of servings of fruit and vegetables consumed on a daily basis, frequency of consumption was converted to a single daily serving. The number of servings of fruit and vegetables was then calculated by adding the daily value for each relevant fruit/vegetable item. Statistical analysis was conducted using PASW TM (version 18.0). Overall, fruit and vegetable intake was below the recommended 5 + servings (see Table). The most commonly consumed vegetables were carrots, parsnips/turnips and cabbage, while the most commonly consumed fruit items were pure fruit drinks, bananas and apples. A large proportion of subjects (71.7%) did not meet recommendations to consume 5 + servings of fruit and vegetables daily. Almost half (46.5%) of these subjects consumed less than three servings a day. Percentage compliance with recommendations for other food groups was also poor. Over all, one-fifth (21.2%) of subjects consumed dietary supplements (including vitamin and mineral supplements) on a daily basis that may contribute to vitamin and mineral intakes.

No abstract