The promotion of social sustainability by micro-level social inclusion in a multicultural context: literature review and interview evidence

Abstract

Drawing on multicultural theory, social capital theory, and sustainability theory, this paper explores social sustainability in a multicultural context. A two-stage research design was employed, consisting of a systematic literature review and interview-based text analysis. In the first stage, 210 papers were systematically reviewed. By extracting conceptual elements, new constructs of micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability were defined. A preliminary social sustainability model—encompassing social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability—was proposed. Relationship-focused research addressed gaps in existing literature, revealing interactions among these constructs and spurring refinements to the preliminary model. In the second stage, 130 short interview videos (totaling 173 participants) were analyzed. Empirical evidence from these interviews confirms that micro-level social inclusion and individual social capital positively affect social sustainability. The results of this paper are derived from a systematic study of the literature, and the results are verified by the conclusion of interview text analysis. This paper presents an innovative viewpoint by foregrounding micro-level social inclusion and individual social capital in daily life as drivers of social sustainability. Findings demonstrate that micro-level social inclusion fosters individual social capital, which, in turn, is a potent force behind social sustainability. The study thus offers a new research agenda, expands the field of individual social capital research, and provides practical and policy insights for further research and implementation.

1 Introduction

In Hofstede’s cultural framework, multiculturalism typically refers to cultural differences and diversity between nations. In practice, geographic factors and immigration often yield diverse local cultures, even within a single country. This diversity can manifest via distinct languages and customs among population groups and becomes more prominent with increased immigration (Evan and Holý, 2023). Hofstede characterizes culture as the “programming of the human mind” that distinguishes one group from another—rarely changing substantially over a person’s lifespan (Hofstede et al., 2014). Consequently, multiculturalism emerges as an influential cultural phenomenon, particularly in immigrant societies.

Although multicultural phenomena have long existed, the formal concept of multiculturalism gained momentum after World War II. From the 1960s to the 1970s, with accelerating globalization and rising immigration, developed countries faced challenges associated with cultural diversity. Multiculturalism subsequently evolved as both a social policy and a philosophical idea, describing a situation in which different groups maintain their unique identities while participating in overarching social institutions (Foulkes, 1995). Multiculturalism is also a conceptual lens used to examine diversity, including factors like ethnicity, religion, and culture, as well as power imbalances (Clayton, 2019).

Although the meaning of multiculturalism can vary across societies and organizations (Verkuyten, 2005), it typically operates at three levels: demographic (cultural diversity and cross-cultural contact), ideological (inclusivity values guiding actions), and psychological (individual attitudes and behaviors toward diversity) (Berry et al., 1977; van de Vijver et al., 2008; Stogianni et al., 2021). Multicultural policies aim to facilitate cross-cultural communication and socio-political integration, uphold diversity, and advance equitable participation across different ethnic and cultural groups (Berry and Colleen, 2016; Ward et al., 2018). Multiculturalism thus includes population, ideology, and policy (Berry, 2013), reflecting notions of inclusion, equality, and empowerment—powerfully shaping societal perspectives in a globalizing world.

Researchers have examined multiculturalism from diverse angles. For instance, increasing immigration has led to more heterogeneous student populations, prompting schools and cultural institutions to adopt strategies that enhance multicultural awareness (Heruti and Yahya, 2024). Meanwhile, multicultural norms and wellbeing intersect in the social domain, where cross-cultural contact, ideology, and policy can generate benefits for immigrants and minorities, ensuring equitable access to education, healthcare, and media coverage (Mateo-Babiano and Fong, 2004). In economics, numerous studies explore relationships between cultural diversity and trade, economic growth, consumer behavior, labor markets, organizational management, and corporate performance (Guiso et al., 2009; Florida, 2002; Luna and Gupta, 2001; Ottaviano and Peri, 2006; Ely and Thomas., 2001; Cox and Blake, 1991; Girdauskiene and Eyvazzade, 2015).

Most multiculturalism research, however, adopts a macro-level perspective. In recent years, researchers have broadened their focus to include more localized issues. Examples include studying the digital divide’s impact on cross-cultural internet consumers (Papadopoulos and Cleveland, 2023), cross-cultural adaptation and culture-sharing on streaming platforms (Li, 2024), and equitable news discourse in a multicultural society (Eranfeno et al., 2024). Policy discussions increasingly highlight cultural adaptation and immigrant wellbeing (Karim and Hue, 2022).

Building on prior work, this paper concentrates on micro-level social inclusion within multicultural settings, addressing how such inclusion promotes social sustainability in everyday contexts (education, healthcare, employment, daily life). Responding to calls for deeper investigation into micro-level social inclusion in existing research, this paper examines how micro-level social inclusion influences social sustainability, particularly via individual social capital.

This research underscores the pivotal role of micro-level social inclusion in individuals’ daily interactions, focusing on how individual social capital (e.g., social networks, norms of reciprocity, and trust) mediates between micro-level social inclusion and social sustainability.

The research in this paper will find the mediating variable between micro-social inclusion and social sustainability, and construct a theoretical model, possibly assuming that the mediating variable is individual social capital. The implicit assumption in this paper is that micro-social inclusion affects individual social capital, and social sustainability is affected through social capital. To this end, this paper designs the working structure of systematic literature research and interview text research.

Conceptual development: this paper proposes a novel perspective on micro-level social inclusion, defining it and examining its relationship with individual social capital.

Practical implications: As globalization and immigration intensify, many countries grapple with cultural diversity and social challenges. Designing inclusion mechanisms at the micro level can be essential for mitigating these challenges.

First, this paper is inspired by research that highlights the importance of multiculturalism. The multicultural context in this paper focuses on everyday multicultural phenomena, investigating how multiculturalism influences individual behaviors, social interactions, identity, and social inclusion in daily life. By analyzing expressions of cultural diversity in day-to-day living, the paper unveils how different cultural elements coexist and accommodate one another in daily life, forming new cultural practices and symbolic meanings (García, 1995).

Second, based on a focus on individuals’ daily lives within a multicultural context—and following extensive reflection after conducting street interviews among the American public—this paper recognizes the close ties between individuals’ daily experiences and multiculturalism. Further, it attempts to explore the links between multiculturalism and social inclusion, and how social inclusion promotes social sustainability.

This research aims to:

Clarify relationships among micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and social sustainability through a systematic literature review and an interview-based text analysis.

Identify core elements and indicators of micro-level social inclusion and individual social capital in a multicultural context.

Demonstrate the positive influences of micro-level social inclusion and social capital on social sustainability.

2 Conceptual definition and theoretical framework

A review of the existing literature shows that although “social inclusion” is extensively referenced in economics, politics, sociology, and culture, there is no clear consensus on its meaning at the level of daily individual experience. This paper, therefore, introduces the concept of micro-level social inclusion as a multidimensional construct. It then develops a theoretical framework that integrates micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and social sustainability.

2.1 Conceptualizing micro-level social inclusion

2.1.1 Macro and micro levels of social inclusion

Although the literature addresses both macro and micro aspects of social inclusion, the micro dimension is not clearly articulated. Most work focuses on macro-level strategies and policies—such as those designed to increase access to public services for minority or vulnerable groups—while micro-level studies remain relatively sparse. In the research that does address micro-level inclusion, definitions remain broad and rarely delve into individuals’ everyday lives.

Existing work often frames social inclusion in terms of policies and practices that expand access to basic services, thereby equipping marginalized communities with the resources necessary to benefit from social and economic progress (Carneiro et al., 2015). In fact, social inclusion generates a sense of belonging, which scholars recognize as a fundamental human need (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). People routinely engage in day-to-day social interactions to strengthen their self-esteem and sense of belonging, underscoring the fact that social inclusion is not merely about macro-level policies but also hinges on individual choices and behaviors.

In practice, social inclusion is frequently viewed as part of a broader policy agenda, though it also addresses numerous micro-level issues. Originating with the concept of social exclusion in 1960s France, social inclusion/exclusion centered on communities marginalized by poverty, unemployment, or social isolation, with the remedy being active efforts to integrate these communities into society (Zeinab Hassan et al., 2022). International organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union subsequently promoted social inclusion in landmark documents (e.g., the Millennium Development Goals of 2000 and the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015), framing it to eliminate poverty, inequality, and social exclusion (Alaie et al., 2022). As a policy priority in Europe, social inclusion ensures that all individuals participate in social life and enjoy equitable opportunities and rights, thereby shaping a macro-level approach to sustainable development.

Academically, social inclusion is an expansive concept that often overlaps macro- and micro-level domains (Rawal, 2008). In multicultural contexts, social inclusion typically intersects with cultural diversity, emphasizing fair treatment for different ethnic and minority groups in political, economic, and cultural realms (Kymlicka, 1996). This can extend to social justice (Fraser, 2020), economic/financial inclusion (Fonseca and Matray, 2024), and inclusive education (Cooc, 2022). Accelerating globalization, growing immigration, and rapid technological change have all contributed to the complexity of social inclusion, making its definition more diverse in a multicultural setting.

Despite abundant research on social inclusion, key questions persist regarding its micro-level manifestations—especially in multicultural contexts. A more comprehensive understanding of how individuals interact, adapt, and embrace cultural differences in daily multicultural environments is vital for recognizing how micro-level social inclusion influences broader social sustainability. Moreover, empirical studies have yet to provide substantial evidence on how social inclusion manifests in routine behavior within multicultural settings.

2.1.2 Defining micro-level social inclusion

Drawing on the conceptual-attribute extraction approach (Licsandru and Cui, 2018), this paper synthesizes micro-level social inclusion themes from existing definitions by distinguishing between macro and micro emphases. Micro-level social inclusion typically involves promoting individual social participation, implementing welfare policies for fundamental needs (such as nutrition, housing, healthcare, education, and employment), enhancing personal capabilities, providing opportunities, and fostering dignity, acceptance, and support (see Table 1).

From this collective evidence, micro-level social inclusion comprises two key dimensions: (1) Material conditions that enable access to social welfare and resources; and (2) Mental conditions that provide meaning, belonging, dignity, and identity.

Furthermore, the literature reveals that micro-level social inclusion is intimately connected with individual lived experience, spanning economic, social, cultural, spatial, and policy domains (Bingqin et al., 2024). Economically, it involves ensuring that everyone has equitable access to educational and job opportunities (Amparo and Oyague, 2008). Socially, it nurtures robust interpersonal networks and cultural integration within a diverse society. Spatially, it mandates fair distribution of healthcare and public services. On the policy front, it champions equal voice in decisions affecting individuals’ lives (Scorgie and Forlin, 2019). In fostering social harmony, micro-level social inclusion helps reduce inequality and stabilizes society, thereby enhancing social sustainability (White, 2007).

2.2 The conceptual levels of social sustainability

Social sustainability gained traction in the 1970s against the backdrop of heightened concerns about environmental degradation and social equity (Zeinab Hassan et al., 2022). The 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, defined sustainable development as meeting present needs without compromising the future’s capacity to do the same (Alaie et al., 2022). Under the guidance of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), policies aimed at social sustainability began to flourish worldwide. Notably, Agenda 21 from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit positioned social sustainability as core to sustainable development, and the 2015 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development reinforced this stance by including poverty eradication, quality education, and gender equality within its 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

In the sustainability triad (ecology, economy, and society), the societal component extends beyond natural processes to encompass social processes (Zeinab Hassan et al., 2022). Social sustainability is sometimes dubbed the “cause” of environmental and economic difficulties (Gu and Zhang, 2021), underscoring its pivotal role. However, scholars have yet to reach a unanimous definition of social sustainability (Andrea, 2010). One recurring theme is that social sustainability concerns human interactions and cooperative social processes. For instance, Yiftachel and Hedgcock (1993) describe it as a city’s enduring capacity to support meaningful human interaction, communication, and cultural development, whereas Koning (2001) interprets it as a societal model characterized by justice, equality, and adequate quality of life. Andrea and Tim (2009) consider social sustainability in terms of how individuals attain self-defined development goals.

Social sustainability is thus complex and multifaceted. To clarify its essence, many researchers identify distinct dimensions (Hale et al., 2019). Grounded in the work of Vallance et al. (2011), this paper classifies social sustainability across three levels: individual, relational, and institutional (see Table 2). At the individual level, emphasis is placed on personal wellbeing, core human needs, and quality of life—dimensions crucial to the paper’s central argument. These must be undergirded by relational and institutional supports to flourish.

From Table 2, it is evident that social sustainability has evolved in definition and scope, forming a conceptual framework with individual, relational, and institutional layers. At the individual level, social sustainability definitions emphasize personal wellbeing, fundamental human needs, and quality of life. This paper views these as the ultimate aims of social sustainability, which is the focal point here—though it requires the support and assurance of social sustainability at the relational and institutional levels.

From these diverse perspectives, one core idea emerges: social sustainability often manifests through daily life and interpersonal engagement. Yet precisely, this individual dimension tends to be overlooked, making it the weakest pillar in sustainable development theory and practice (Shirazi and Keivani, 2018). Indeed, some scholars categorize social sustainability in terms of developmental (addressing basic needs and equity), bridge (altering behavior to meet environmental targets), and maintenance (preserving cultural practices and quality of life) (Vallance et al., 2011).

In this context, basic social inclusion is integral to social sustainability. Social sustainability can be succinctly described as “the economic, cultural, and political inclusion of different individuals and groups” within the process of societal progress (Bafarasat, 2023). The pillars of economic, cultural, and political inclusion all substantially influence individual wellbeing and social outcomes, even if they are not always detailed in current research.

2.3 Individual social capital vs. collective social capital

Social capital theory clarifies how societal or interpersonal structures support cooperation and mutual benefits (Eizenberg and Jabareen, 2017; Shirazi and Keivani, 2018). Early conceptualizations leaned toward community-wide attributes, though personal dimensions were also implicit. The term “social capital” first appeared in the context of educational literature (Hanifan, 1916), addressing the intangible value derived from people working together to solve daily problems. Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (2019) later formalized it further: Bourdieu viewed social capital as the sum of resources embedded in durable social networks, while Coleman characterized it as structural elements—e.g., norms, trust, reciprocity—facilitating individual actions within a collective (Coleman, 1988).

Putnam (1992) defined social capital as networks, norms, and trust that promote collaboration and mutual advantage, initially treating it as a collective property. He later shifted toward an individual-level analysis (Putnam, 2001), suggesting that features of social life can motivate cooperation among goal-sharing members of society. Consistent with the theoretical lineage (Portes, 2000; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000; Nan, 2005), this paper views social capital as comprising both individual and collective dimensions (Schwitter, 2020).

According to social capital theory, social networks and relationships are valuable resources for pursuing personal and collective interests (Abane et al., 2024). Following the path of some scholars (Schwitter, 2020; Brunie, 2009; Castiglione et al., 2008), this paper considers social capital to comprise individual and collective dimensions. A systematic literature review can extract the elements of social capital from various definitions, distinguishing whether they belong to personal social capital or collective social capital (Table 3).

Table 3 illustrates the distinction between personal and collective aspects of social capital. Individual social capital involves personal relationships, trust, empathy, and reciprocal support, while collective social capital resides at the societal or group level (Castiglione et al., 2008). From this perspective, individual social capital—encompassing family ties, friendships, reciprocal expectations, and interpersonal trust—closely aligns with micro-level social inclusion: both concepts focus on the personal experience of social interaction and belonging. Preliminary Conceptual Model of Social Sustainability.

Only a limited number of studies employ a conceptual model to explore social sustainability directly. In an early example, Assefa and Frostell (2007) proposed a model linking ecological sustainability to social and economic sustainability through technology. Some researcher later introduced a framework emphasizing community decision-making processes, highlighting how community transformation needs social capital as a pathway to social sustainability.

Recent research has continued this modeling trend, often with a technological emphasis. Tahlyan et al. (2022), for instance, presented a five-subsystem framework (socio-political, socio-cultural, socio-institutional, socio-economic, and socio-environmental) to assess building systems. In another example, Arpaci et al. (2022) incorporated personality traits into the UTAUT2 model to analyze social sustainability in the metaverse, showing how constructs such as performance expectancy, habit, and social influence shape social sustainability at the micro level.

Against this backdrop, the present paper proposes a preliminary conceptual model highlighting three main variables (see Figure 1): micro-level social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability. Prior scholarship suggests that social capital is a conceptual foundation for social sustainability (Cuthill, 2010). As a proxy for societal relationships (Kamaludin et al., 2021; Kamaludin, 2023), social capital influences social sustainability, which ultimately depends on human behavior and interaction. Micro-level social inclusion—encompassing equal opportunities in employment, security, healthcare, and overall quality of life (Pazhuhan et al., 2023)—is hypothesized to exert a positive effect on social capital. Additionally, empirical findings show that social capital’s structural dimension (social networks, interpersonal trust, reciprocity) can fully mediate this relationship (Su et al., 2024).

Figure 1

In summary, on the basis of the definition of relevant concepts, this paper has obtained some verification from the study of street interview texts on the basis of the systematic study of the literature on how social inclusion at the micro level affects social sustainability in the everyday environment (education, health care, employment, and daily life). Social inclusion at the micro level lays the foundation for long-term social stability and development through equitable resource distribution and increased individual wellbeing.

3 Methodology and research design

The research paradigm here combines interpretive empiricism and theory, emphasizing understanding and interpreting phenomena in the social domain. Under this paradigm, the core assumption is that a multicultural context and micro-level social inclusion have a positive impact on individual social capital, which in turn has a positive impact on social sustainability, and that multicultural context and micro-level social inclusion indirectly impact social sustainability through individual social capital. This study focuses on interpreting definitions of related concepts and constructing a conceptual model, thereby demonstrating the relationships among a multicultural background, micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and social sustainability.

Qualitative methods are employed, including literature analysis, text analysis, and discourse analysis. As an exploratory study, it does not rely on a specific case but on a systematic literature review combined with short street-interview videos collected by the author to elucidate, from a broader perspective, the influential variables of social sustainability. Therefore, this paper develops a two-phase research design (Table 4).

In Table 4, Phase 1 is a systematic analysis of existing literature aimed at identifying the themes, dimensions, or elements of multicultural context, social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability, as well as discovering examples of relationships among these variables. This leads to the initial and revised conceptual frameworks of social sustainability. Phase 2 analyzes random street-interview short videos, collecting and screening interview texts. Through text analysis and discourse analysis, relevant keywords are extracted, providing empirical evidence for Phase 1’s findings.

3.1 Phase 1

The main purpose of Phase 1 is to refine and revise the detailed elements and interrelationships in the initial social sustainability conceptual model presented in Figure 1. During the literature review process, papers were retrieved from the Elsevier database using the keywords “social inclusion,” “social capital,” and “social sustainability,” restricted to review articles and research articles with no limits on Subject areas or publication date, supplemented by Google Scholar searches. Following a principle of data saturation, searches stopped when no further exact keyword matches were identified. From 387 papers, 210 were carefully selected after excluding single quantitative studies that did not meet the research requirements.

During the study, a manual coding approach was used to develop a set of terms for each conceptual theme (Curcija et al., 2019), followed by thematic keyword extraction. Based on a limited number of references, an exploratory analysis of the relationships among the key variables (micro-level social inclusion, social capital, social sustainability) in the preliminary social sustainability model was then conducted. Finally, a more comprehensive conceptual framework was developed, and the social sustainability model was revised.

3.2 Phase 2

The main goal of Phase 2 is to validate the elements and relationships of the revised social sustainability conceptual model (Figure 2 in the original paper). Data for text analysis come from short random street-interview videos. Random interviews were used to explore individuals’ subjective experiences and interpretations of specific phenomena, seeking to understand people’s genuine thoughts and feelings under natural daily-life conditions—aligning with the study’s focus on micro-level social inclusion.

Figure 2

The author conducted the interviews from February to October 2023 in New York City and Jersey City, using theme-word prompts and semi-structured open-ended questions. About 130 two-minute videos were produced and uploaded to YouTube (see Appendix A), featuring 219 participants. After filtering out incomplete data and selecting respondents whose answers were relevant to the research theme, 173 participants were retained. Demographically, the oldest participant was 82, the youngest 15, with 83 males and 90 females from a wide range of professions. Their annual incomes spanned about $100,000–$300,000, $60,000–$90,000, and below $60,000, and their educational backgrounds ranged mostly from university/college to a small portion with only high school education. Their ethnic backgrounds reflected cultural diversity, including African American (32), White (86), Asian (15), Hispanic (15), and Indian (25). This study focuses on the breadth of respondents and content analysis of interviews, so the demographic characteristics are not analyzed further.

These themed prompts and open-ended questions yielded rich text data, achieving data saturation in collecting and collating interview transcripts. The transcripts were manually recorded for management and subjected to manual content analysis to refine conceptual definitions. Coding identified primary and subcategories. Guided by an interpretive empiricist paradigm, reliability and validity in qualitative research were approached through credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). During interviews, the “credibility” principle was observed by achieving data saturation (Eisner, 2017) and frequently paraphrasing participants’ descriptions to ensure no difference in meaning between the interviewer and interviewees (Creswell, 2007). Consistency in the same measurement tools over different times and places was also maintained. Moreover, the interview’s theme words matched the conceptual definitions being studied, fulfilling the “confirmability” criterion.

4 Results

4.1 Phase 1 results

Phase 1 results come from a systematic literature review of 210 selected papers related to social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability. Manual methods were supplemented by Voyant Tools, yielding a systematic analysis to identify research themes in these works. Based on thematic analysis, conceptual elements and levels in the literature were identified, refining, and revising the preliminary social sustainability model. With further reference to literature clues, the conceptual framework was enriched and logical validation and revision of the preliminary social sustainability model were completed.

4.1.1 Analysis of conceptual dimensions and elements

4.1.1.1 Micro-level social inclusion

Literature on social inclusion spans diverse fields, including social sciences, public policy, education, urban planning, and health. Generally, social inclusion includes four dimensions: economic, social, cultural, and political (Atkinson and Marlier, 2010). These dimensions appear in policy measures related to the economy, education, poverty, health, development, equity, and immigration. While these four dimensions of social inclusion typically refer to macro-level perspectives, some literature also confirms micro-level social inclusion, such as gender equality (Kabeer, 2016), housing exclusion (Baptista and Marlier, 2019), subjective feelings of inclusion (Licsandru and Cui, 2018), enjoyment of video games (Bowmanm et al., 2015), lack of income or household goods (Cambir and Vasile, 2015), and unequal food distribution (Fourat et al., 2020).

Building on existing studies, this paper interprets micro-level social inclusion as an emphasis on material or spiritual conditions that can enhance personal wellbeing. From a literature-based perspective, nine elements of micro-level social inclusion were identified: Acceptance, Belongingness, Empowerment, Equality, Respect, Ethnic self-referencing, Mobility, Community engagement, and Gender empowerment. These nine elements fall under the scope of micro-level social inclusion because, in daily life and work, they often represent individuals’ fundamental social needs.

4.1.1.2 Individual social capital

Research on social capital suggests it is a concept describing social relational forces at personal or collective levels (Peluso et al., 2024). Despite varied definitions, social capital is typically regarded as a collective property where social structures—like interpersonal trust, reciprocity norms, and mutual assistance—serve as resources for collective action (Kawachi et al., 1997; Lochner et al., 2003). Meanwhile, social capital also denotes resources or benefits individuals gain from connections with others, linking individual behaviors to organizational functions and then to society overall (Coleman, 1988, 1994; Kawachi et al., 2008; Putnam et al., 1992). In other words, social capital comprises both individual- and collective-level attributes, acting as an intermediary driving social sustainability. Social capital’s three fundamental dimensions—social networks, social trust, and social norms—promote cooperation and mutual benefit among individuals, with high social capital levels leading to more prosperous, resilient communities (Putnam et al., 1993).

Individual social capital is one form of social capital, manifested more concretely under the three fundamental dimensions of social capital. The structural dimension of social networks—both strong ties (family, relatives, close friends) and weak ties (neighbors, acquaintances)—constitutes individual social capital (Yanjie et al., 2012; Granovetter, 1973). The trust dimension is the core of social capital. Unlike the generalized trust that reflects an entire society, particularized trust, limited to family relationships, friendships, and contractual relationships, is part of individual social capital (Weimin and Yucheng, 2002). The reciprocity-norm dimension likewise appears as individual social capital. Whether as a support system or a constraint mechanism, reciprocity manifests in individual social capital. Instrumental support brings an abundance of available resources that help improve one’s life (Lin et al., 1999). Emotional support meets basic psychological needs like care, companionship, and sharing, enhancing self-identity (Xiumei Zhu et al., 2013). As a constraint mechanism, shared values and behavioral norms enable individuals to better conform to collective standards and enjoy a collective identity and sense of belonging (Yongqian, 2016).

From the literature, eight elements of individual social capital emerge: Community Governance, Neighborhood and Schools, Trust and Networks, Family Social Networks, Health and Wellbeing, Elderly and Loneliness, Social Cohesion, and Community Development (Table 5). These elements are especially salient in personal development and reflect subjective social capital.

4.1.1.3 Individual-level social sustainability

From the literature review, social sustainability integrates various conceptual elements such as quality of life, social cohesion, sustainable communities, livability, and social wellbeing (Talan et al., 2020). Key themes of social sustainability include human wellbeing, access to basic needs, fair income distribution, decent working conditions, equal rights, intergenerational justice, availability of health and education services, social cohesion, inclusion, empowerment, and participation in decision-making (Mcguinn et al., 2020). In essence, social sustainability often revolves around interconnections between unique life opportunities and institutional structures, or between personal behavior and the environment (Jarvis et al., 2001).

Specifically, social sustainability indicators can be categorized into individual, relational, and institutional levels (Hale et al., 2019). Various forms and keywords describing social sustainability in the literature can be attributed to these three layers. Social sustainability is undoubtedly broad; repeated attempts have been made to summarize its indicators differently. One approach highlights three components: “developmental sustainability” (meeting basic needs, ensuring intra- and inter-generational equity), “bridge sustainability” (changing behavior to meet environmental goals), and “maintenance sustainability” (maintaining existing cultural habits and quality of life) (Vallance et al., 2011). Developmental sustainability includes fair incomes and access to housing, goods, services, and employment (Sachs, 1999). Hence, social sustainability can be used both broadly to refer to systems providing social justice and equality and more narrowly to a social state ensuring individuals a dignified quality of life.

Unquestionably, social sustainability is an expansive concept. Its fundamental dimensions—social equity, social cohesion, quality of life, and participation—make up the social pillar of sustainable development, also serving as an analytical framework for relevant policies (Murphy, 2012). This paper aims for an in-depth analysis of a particular aspect. Social sustainability includes substantive concerns—such as social justice, quality of life, human rights, opportunities, social cohesion, belonging, and health—as well as procedural concerns like participation, communication, governance, and empowerment (Boström, 2012).

In the view of this paper, individual-level social sustainability more strongly reflects substantive aspects of social sustainability. Achieving social sustainability overall begins with satisfying the personal basic needs on which human wellbeing is founded. Therefore, this paper extracts a set of individual-level social sustainability elements from the literature, confirming that this layer is real and concrete (Table 6).

4.1.2 Relationship analysis among social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability

Analyzing the relationships among social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability reveals few direct references. Some literature examining best practices in social sustainability for European cities specifically addresses social inclusion, social capital, and community participation in urban regeneration (Andrea and Tim, 2009), indicating that social inclusion, social capital, and community engagement are crucial for sustainable urban development.

4.1.2.1 Social inclusion affects social sustainability

Existing studies tend to discuss their positive interaction when investigating the assessment dimensions and approaches for achieving social sustainability. Some works rank social inclusion among core dimensions of social sustainability—alongside social equity, social cohesion, quality of life, and social participation (Davidson, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Boström, 2012; Eizenberg and Jabareen, 2017)—and verify these indicators (Boström, 2012). Social inclusion thus emerges as a foundational metric in evaluating social sustainability. Other research views social inclusion as a critical tool for realizing social sustainability, especially efforts addressing poverty, educational equity, and gender equality (Sachs et al., 2019). Some studies, using a new framework like “doughnut economics,” explore economic inclusion as vital to social sustainability (Raworth, 2017).

Social inclusion fundamentally aims to remedy social exclusion. One major threat to social sustainability is long-term poverty driven by unfair distribution, arising from social and political exclusion (Friedmann, 1996). Achieving social sustainability must tackle exclusion, as exclusion obstructs access to resources and opportunities needed for improving life (M-Keivani et al., 2020). Clearly, social inclusion, including maintaining cultural diversity, is vital to social sustainability (Andrea, 2010).

Practical examples can be found in numerous domains—fair energy distribution, community governance of protected areas, inclusive governance via social contracts—demonstrating social inclusion’s key role in social sustainability (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015; Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Hickey et al., 2016). Without question, implementing social justice and equality via social inclusion significantly enhances social sustainability (Missimer et al., 2017). As a result, some scholars emphasize that social inclusion must be prioritized in urban sustainability planning to promote fairness, inclusion, and democratic participation (Fainstein, 2013).

4.1.2.2 Social inclusion promotes social sustainability through social capital

On one hand, achieving social inclusion in a multicultural context faces cultural differences and cross-cultural barriers. The trend of “super diversity” in social development can undermine mutual trust, decreasing social inclusion’s impact on social sustainability (Putnam, 2007; Vertovec, 2007). On the other hand, social inclusion can leverage social capital—expanding social networks, building interpersonal trust, and eliminating relational barriers to social sustainability.

According to social capital theory, social capital is an asset or capacity for action, enabling coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit among those with a common goal (Putnam, 1992, 2001). As a resource that can be deployed, social networks, trust, and reciprocity can either foster or hamper social inclusion (Cheong et al., 2016). Empirical research has shown that the structural dimension of social capital (social ties, social participation, social cohesion) and its cognitive dimension (trust, reciprocity) play regulatory roles in individual psychology and behavior (Pérez-Sastré et al., 2024). Both macro and micro forms of social capital—spanning social networks, trust, reciprocity, government governance, and local management—serve as mediating bridges in addressing poverty, individual apathy, and fostering social relations and cooperation.

Social inclusion and social sustainability share a common end goal. Bridge sustainability aims at behavioral change to fulfill environmental goals, and maintenance sustainability seeks to preserve social and cultural patterns under socioeconomic changes (Vallance et al., 2011). Both require concrete action and practice. Social capital is a robust asset for such action. Thus, social inclusion can advance social sustainability by influencing, building, and amplifying social capital. Through social interaction, expanded communication, and information sharing, social capital can affect knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and ultimately human behavior (Xu Z. et al., 2024).

4.1.3 Revised conceptual model of social sustainability

The outcome of the literature review is a fully developed social sustainability conceptual model (Figure 2). Compared with the preliminary model (Figure 1), the revised version introduces four variables—multicultural background, micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability, to show:

a. Social sustainability development is fundamentally about meeting people’s basic needs. Individual-level social sustainability is the foundation of social sustainability as a whole. b. Micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability correlate closely with personal needs. c. Under a multicultural background, cognition and behavior affects individual-level social sustainability.

Under the three-goal paradigm of social sustainability, developmental sustainability correlates with cognition and needs, aiming to address basic needs, foster social capital, and uphold social justice (Vallance et al., 2011), whereas bridge sustainability and maintenance sustainability relate to behavior. By linking social sustainability to human needs, cognition, and behavior, this paper provides a new perspective in the literature. Among factors affecting social sustainability, personal traits have garnered scholarly attention: in the Big Five personality framework, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness significantly influence social sustainability in virtual social interactions, with habit being the strongest predictor (Arpaci et al., 2022). Additionally, social inclusion that generates a sense of belonging meets a fundamental human need (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) and fosters social networks, trust, and reciprocity norms.

In Figure 2, the revised conceptual model of social sustainability considers the multicultural background and incorporates the cognitive and behavioral aspects from the S-O-R (stimulus-organism-response) theory (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) as moderators. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Abraham, 1943), five key elements each are identified for micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability: physiological needs, security needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. This revised model forms a new conceptual framework at the micro level for social sustainability, contributing a key result of the literature review (Figure 2).

4.2 Phase 2 results

Phase 2 results derive from analyzing short video transcripts. After filtering, interview transcripts from 173 participants were selected. Semi-structured questioning was conducted randomly on the streets of New York City and Jersey City, covering a wide array of responses. Transcripts were subjected to qualitative text analysis methods—manual coding, thematic analysis, and sentiment analysis—to extract key themes relevant to this study. Directed content analysis was employed (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), classifying the textual content according to the research objectives.

4.2.1 Revised conceptual model of social sustainability

The first step was to organize the original transcript data and conduct comparisons and abstractions to form basic categories. Using manual open coding, 12 preliminary categories were identified, and participants’ attitudes were analyzed. The initial categorization provides insight into the day-to-day attitudes and core demands of the general public regarding issues related to social sustainability (Table 7).

In Table 7, analysis of these 12 categories reveals positive, negative, or neutral attitudes. Transcript data in the categories of “Family and Marriage,” “Friendship and Relationship,” “Trust and Charity,” and “Saving and Money” show predominantly positive responses. This suggests that relationships, trust, and expectations are highly valued and relatively satisfactory. Conversely, “Wellbeing and Health,” “Rent, Price and Housing,” and “Fairness” show more negative attitudes, indicating that personal wellbeing, social justice, and quality of life are regarded as important but are deemed insufficiently met. For “Work-life balance,” “Job and Retirement,” “Sharing,” “Equality,” and “Education,” respondents’ feelings vary considerably; satisfaction and dissatisfaction coexist. These results suggest that there is substantial room for progress in social sustainability at the individual level and in everyday life.

4.2.2 Axial coding analysis

The second step involves axial coding to extract themes and elements. Because the original transcripts are extensive, it was necessary to identify themes from complex data sets and then recombine them by linking the initial categories. A manual method, combined with a structured thematic analysis (King, 2004), was used to extract themes and elements. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Abraham, 1943), the extracted themes and elements were compared with the five levels of needs (Table 8).

From Table 8, specific elements emerge from the categories, resulting in meaningful factors. Further, these categories, elements, and themes align with the framework of the revised conceptual model of social sustainability: “multicultural background,” “micro-level social inclusion,” “individual social capital,” and “individual social sustainability.” These extracted elements and themes also fit well with Maslow’s needs, thereby verifying, and refining the variables in the model. The extracted themes reinforce the paper’s focus on micro-level factors that promote social sustainability, indicating that the categories, elements, and themes from the raw transcripts are not only closely related to individual needs but also consistent with the attributes of micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability.

5 Conclusion

This paper examines issues of social sustainability in a multicultural context. Multiculturalism has developed over the years as a theory, a political idea, and a social policy. The literature system and the text of street interviews in this paper show that multiculturalism has a wide range of influences and challenges on individual behavior, interactions in everyday life, identity, and social inclusion. Having clarified the conceptual definitions of micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and social sustainability, it proposes a preliminary conceptual model of social sustainability. Two research phases were conducted to refine and validate this initial model.

In Phase 1, the paper reviewed published studies on how social inclusion promotes social sustainability, exploring the relationships among social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability. Findings reveal that while extensive research already addresses social inclusion, the emphasis on how it influences individual wellbeing and quality of life suggests that micro-level social inclusion aligns well with individual social capital, exerting an impact on individual-level social sustainability.

As its theoretical innovation, the final revised conceptual model of social sustainability integrates both cognitive (cultural identity) and behavioral (cross-cultural communication) elements of multiculturalism. Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, five fundamental elements were extracted for micro-level social inclusion (equal empowerment, acceptance, belonging, security protection, quality of life), individual social capital (sharing, trust and reciprocity, social cohesion, security dependency, life-related social resources), and individual social sustainability (social wellbeing, sustainable community, equal opportunity, secure future, sustainable living and working). This logically confirms that social inclusion promotes social sustainability through social capital.

In Phase 2, based on short video transcripts, the paper uses preliminary categorization and axial coding to extract elements and themes from original responses, aligning them with the five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The 12 categories (Family and Marriage, Friendship and Relationship, Trust and Charity, Sharing, Saving and Money, Wellbeing and Health, Rent, Price and Housing, Work-life balance, Job and Retirement, Education, Fairness, Equality) match the conceptual elements formed in Phase 1, confirming that micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual-level social sustainability constitute fundamental needs for individual welfare. This validates the variable relationships in the revised social sustainability conceptual model.

6 Theoretical contributions and implications

This study contributes in two main ways: conceptualizing micro-level social inclusion and proposing a new social sustainability conceptual model. Researchers and policymakers alike can apply these contributions to various studies and practices.

The first contribution is the concept of micro-level social inclusion. Here, a new definition and element set for micro-level social inclusion are offered. This new conceptual structure centers on micro-level attributes, including processes that support individuals’ social participation, welfare policies granting access to food, housing, health, education, and employment, along with individual capacity, opportunities, dignity, acceptance, and support. This differs from typical discussions of social inclusion that are macro-policy-focused, though micro and macro social inclusion are interlinked. By clarifying the multidimensional nature of micro-level social inclusion, this study provides a conceptually well-defined yet flexible basis for further research examining social inclusion and related factors at different levels (Licsandru and Cui, 2018). The five dimensions extracted for micro-level social inclusion can be operationalized in future research to measure micro-level social inclusion, facilitating broader empirical studies.

The second contribution is the conceptual model of social sustainability. Starting with a preliminary conceptual model, this paper refines the relationships among social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability, ultimately presenting a revised model. Prior literature typically discusses only social inclusion and social capital (Stanley et al., 2010) or social inclusion and social sustainability (Kohon, 2018). After introducing a multicultural background, the new model fully depicts how cultural identity, cross-cultural communication, micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual social sustainability interconnect. This provides a foundation for subsequent hypotheses, variable selection, and measurement research.

In the model proposed in this paper, the mediating role of social capital can be summarized as a chain: social inclusion policy, individual social capital accumulation, social network expansion, reciprocal norm reinforcement, and trust accumulation can be enhanced. This mediating role of social capital has been verified in the literature from the perspective of Italian cases (Putnam, 1992) and the interviews in this paper. Individual social capital is the “invisible social infrastructure” that connects micro-social inclusion and social sustainability, and its intermediary value lies in the fact that in the short term, social capital translates social inclusion into concrete cooperative actions, and in the long run, it will form a positive feedback loop of social inclusion, trust and cooperation, and social sustainability.

Practically, this research highlights how micro-level social inclusion, individual social capital, and individual-level social sustainability contribute to advancing social equity, equal opportunities, and long-term social stability and development, thereby enhancing individuals’ wellbeing and quality of life—supported by the interview-based text analysis. Specifically, several focal themes in the interviews offer practical insights into promoting social sustainability:

6.1 Personal finance and consumption behavior

Interview discussions addressed how financial education and support can help vulnerable populations (e.g., low-income families and minorities) better manage resources, thereby reducing economic inequality and strengthening social inclusion. Improving financial literacy among these groups fosters sustainable economic development and reduces social disparities, laying a stronger foundation for long-term social stability.

6.2 Rent and housing pressure

Safeguarding housing rights is essential for social inclusion. Interviews touched on how policy and market regulations can ensure that all society members, especially low-income groups, have access to affordable housing. Stable housing lessens social inequality, enhances social stability, and supports sustainable urban development.

6.3 Work-life balance and financial management

Widespread adoption of work-life balance policies helps ensure all social strata can maintain employment income while enjoying family and leisure time, thereby improving social inclusion. Fostering healthier work-life balance reduces burnout, heightens productivity and life satisfaction, and supports sustainable economic growth.

By examining these interview themes, this paper clarifies that social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability are not merely interlinked concepts but can be significantly advanced through concrete policy and practice. Such connections are crucial to building a fairer, more sustainable society.

6.4 Friendship and financial relationships

Interviews revealed how money can affect friendships across different socioeconomic backgrounds and explored ways to reinforce social support systems, thus encouraging interaction and inclusion among different groups. Healthy social relationships and networks bolster social cohesion and reduce social isolation, promoting stability and sustainable social development.

7 Limitations and further research

While this study yields some groundbreaking findings in both theory and practice, it also has clear limitations. Theoretically, although this paper establishes a theoretical model on how social inclusion, social capital, and social sustainability are interrelated, it does not include empirical analyses to test these proposals, leaving the door open for future studies to provide evidence and validate the model. Regarding the interviews, the random street interviews covered broad topics lacking tight focus on the research issues; thus, some randomness inevitably affects the analysis. In terms of systematic literature research, the literature sources of this paper are limited by the limitation of literature data collection software, and there is no extensive collection of literature in various databases, which limits the extensiveness of the research conclusions of this paper.

This research is exploratory, referencing existing studies as examples to build a complete social sustainability model, yet it does not conduct further qualitative or quantitative testing in other related applications. The limitations of this study are obvious, and future research needs to further quantify the relationship between micro social inclusion, individual social capital and social sustainability, and study the nodes of policy optimization and intervention from the perspective of the correlation between social capital index and social sustainability index.

Although the most striking or core proposition of this paper is that social inclusion at the micro level positively affects social capital and drives social sustainability, this paper argues that exploring the negative effects of excessive social inclusion is also a concern for future research. For example, social inclusion is neither unconditional nor cost-free, and the conflict between individual freedom and social norms suggests that there are boundaries to social norms. In practice, excessive social inclusion can lead to controversy, and excessive emphasis on diversity and differentiation also carries the risk of social differentiation.

Future endeavors might test, understand, and refine the proposed model and its applications in managing social sustainability. Potential directions include examining how micro-level social inclusion affects individual-level social sustainability through individual social capital under diverse multicultural themes; clarifying beneficial vs. adverse effects; strategies for amplifying positive impacts while minimizing negatives; and further investigating the micro-level social inclusion concept and its dimensions.

References

• 1

  Abane J. A. Adamtey R. Kpeglo R. (2024). The impact of social capital on business development in Ghana: experiences of local-level businesses in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area. Soc. Sci. Hum. Open9:100775. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100775

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Abraham M. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev., 50, 370–396.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Ahmadi H. B. Kusi-Sarpong S. Rezaei J. (2017). Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.126, 99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Alaie A. Yazdanfar S.-A. Norouzian-Maleki S. Hosseini S.-B. (2022). Evaluation of studies in the field of social sustainability in housing: a systematic review. J. Housing Built Environ.37, 2179–2214. doi: 10.1007/s10901-022-09946-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Aldrich D. P. Meyer M. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci.59, 254–269. doi: 10.1177/0002764214550299

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Amparo M. Oyague C.-S. (2008). Promoting social integration: economic, social and political dimensions with a focus on Latin America. United Nations. Available online at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/meetings/egm6_social_integration/documents/Promoting_Social_Integration.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Andrea C. (2010). Urban social sustainability themes and assessment methods. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.163, 79–88. doi: 10.1680/udap.2010.163.2.79

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Andrea C. Tim D. (2009). Measuring socially sustainable urban regeneration in Europe, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). Oxford Brookes University. Available online at: http://oisd.brookes.ac.uk/sustainable_communities/resources/Social_Sustainability_and_Urban_Regeneration_report.pdf/.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Arpaci I. Karatas K. Kusci I. Al-Emran M. (2022). Understanding the social sustainability of the Metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and big five personality traits: a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Technol. Soc.71:102120. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Assefa G. Frostell B. (2007). Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technol. Soc.29, 63–78. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.10.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Atkinson A. B. Marlier E. (2010). Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context. United Nations. Available online at: https://scholar.google.com.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Bafarasat A. Z. (2023). Strategic urban design for sustainable development: a framework for studio and practice. Sustain. Dev.31, 1861–1872. doi: 10.1002/sd.2489

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Baptista I. Marlier E. (2019). Fighting homelessness and housing exclusion in Europe: a study of national policies. Eur. J. Homeless.13, 23–49.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Baumeister R. Leary M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull.117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Bennett N. J. Dearden P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in thailand. Mar. Policy44, 107–116. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Berry J. W. (2013). Research on multiculturalism in Canada. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.37, 663–675. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Berry J. W. Rudolf K. Taylor D. M. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ministry of Supply and Services. Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Printr. and Pub. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Berry J. W. Ward C. (2016). “Multiculturalism” in The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. eds. SamD. L.BerryJ. W.. 2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 441–463.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Bibi S. Zada H. Awan T. Wong W.-K. Khan N. (2024). Evaluating the moderating role of governance on the relationships between social inclusion, ICT infrastructure, and financial inclusion. Heliyon10:e33711. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Bingqin L. Lijie F. Kumar S. (2024). Social inclusion, social innovation, and urban governance. Urban Govern.4, 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.ugj.2024.01.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Boström M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustainability8, 3–14. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Bourdieu P. (1986). “Forms of capital” in Readings in Economic Sociology, 2002ed (New Jersey, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Bowmanm N. D. Kowert R. Cohen E. (2015). When the ball stops, the fun stops too: the impact of social inclusion on video game enjoyment. Comput. Hum. Behav.53, 131–139. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Bramley G. Dempsey N. Power S. Brown C. Watkins D. (2009). Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environ Plan A41, 2125–2142. doi: 10.1068/a4184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Brunie A. (2009). Meaningful distinction within a concept: relational, collective, and generalised social capital. Soc. Sci. Res.38, 251–265. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.01.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Cambir A. Vasile V. (2015). Material dimension of life quality and social inclusion. Proc. Econ. Fin.32, 932–939. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01551-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Carneiro J. Matos N. Husted B. (2015). Free markets and social inclusion: toward a common goal. J. Bus. Res.68, 173–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Castiglione D. van Deth J. W. Wolleb G. (2008). The two meanings of social capital. In CastiglioneD.DethJ. W.vanWollebG. (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 22–49). Oxford: Oxford Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Chen Y. Volker B. (2016). Social capital and homophily both matter for labor market outcomes-evidence from replication and extension. Soc. Netw.45, 18–31. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.10.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Cheong P. H. Edwards R. Goulbourne H. Solomos J. (2016). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: a critical review. Crit. Soc. Policy27, 24–49. doi: 10.1177/0261018307072206

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Choguill C. L. (2008). Developing sustainable neighbourhoods. Habitat Int.32, 41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Clayton J. (2019). Multiculturalism. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography 2nd ed. Elsevier. 211–219.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Coleman J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol.94, S95–S120. doi: 10.1086/228943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Coleman J. S. (2019). Multiculturalism. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. 2nd edn. Elsevier, 211–219. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10296-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Collins H. (2003). Discrimination, equality and social inclusion. Modern Law Rev66, 16–43. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.6601002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Cooc N. (2022). Disparities in general education inclusion for students of color with disabilities: understanding when and why. J. Sch. Psychol.90, 43–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Cox T. H. Blake S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Acad. Manag. Exec.5, 45–56.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Creswell J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Curcija M. Breakey N. Driml S. (2019). Development of a conflict management model as a tool for improved project T outcomes in community based tourism. Tour. Manag.70, 341–354. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Cuthill M. (2010). Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev.18, 362–373. doi: 10.1002/sd.397

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Davidson M. (2010). Social Sustainability and the City. Geogr. Compass4, 872–880. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Dempsey N. Bramley G. Power S. Brown C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev.19, 289–300. doi: 10.1002/sd.417

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Eisner E. W. (2017). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Eizenberg E. Jabareen Y. (2017). Social sustainability: a new conceptual framework. Sustain. For.9:68. doi: 10.3390/su9010068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Ely R. J. Thomas D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Adm. Sci. Q.46, 229–273. doi: 10.2307/2667087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Eranfeno G. N. Gemeda A. J. Bamano A. Z. (2024). News discourses threatening multiculturalism in Ethiopian mainstream TV channels: discourse historical approach. Heliyon10:e25641. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25641

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Evan T. Holý V. (2023). Cultural diversity and its impact on governance. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci.89:101681. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101681

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Fainstein S. S. (2013). The just city. Int. J. Urban Sci.18, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/12265934.2013.834643

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Florida R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.92, 743–755. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.00314

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Fonseca J. Matray A. (2024). Financial inclusion, economic development, and inequality: evidence from Brazil. J. Financ. Econ.156:103854. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103854

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Foulkes R. A. (1995). Globalizing organizations and empowering people for high performance leadership of our multicultural world: or, behold, the demise of business-as-usual is at hand. Equal. Oppor. Int.14, 37–46. doi: 10.1108/eb010637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Fourat E. Closson C. Holzemer L. Hudon M. (2020). Social inclusion in an alternative food network: values, practices and tensions. J. Rural. Stud.76, 49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Fraser N. (2020). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a post-socialist age. In The new social theory reader, 188–196. Routledge. Available online at: https://scholar.google.com.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Friedmann J. (1996). Rethinking poverty: empowerment and citizen rights. Int. Soc. Sci. J.48, 161–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.1996.tb00070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  García C. N. (1995). Hybrid cultures: strategies for entering and leaving modernity. Minneapolis, MN 55401, USA University of Minnesota Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Girdauskiene L. Eyvazzade F. (2015). The profile of an effective female leadership in multicultural context. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci.210, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.323

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Granovetter M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol.78:1973. doi: 10.1086/225469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Gu Z. Zhang X. (2021). Framing social sustainability and justice claims in urban regeneration: a comparative analysis of two cases in Guangzhou. Land Use Policy102:105224. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105224

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Guiso L. Sapienza P. Zingales L. (2009). Cultural biases in economic exchange?Q. J. Econ.124, 1095–1131. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Hale J. Legun K. Campbell H. Carolan M. (2019). Social sustainability indicators as performance. Geoforum103, 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Hanifan L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.67, 130–138. doi: 10.1177/000271621606700118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Harris J. M. Gallagher K. Sen A. Wise T. A. (2001). A survey of sustainable development: social and economic dimensions. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Hassan Z. Akhreich W. Osman I. H. (2022). An international social inclusion index with application in the organization for economic co-operation and development countries. Decis. Anal. J.3:100047. doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100047

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Heruti V. Yahya A. H. (2024). "The things I see from here, you don’t see from there": promoting multicultural awareness in a diverse society by intercultural encounters in two museum spaces. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.100:101979. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.101979

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Hickey S. King S. (2016). Understanding social accountability: politics, power and building new social contracts. J. Dev. Stud.52, 1225–1240. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2015.1134778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Hofstad H. (2023). Well understood? A literature study defining and operationalising community social sustainability. Local Environ.28, 1193–1209. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2023.2195620

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Hofstede G. Hofstede G. J. Minkov M. (2014). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, vol. 10. 3rd Edn McGraw-Hill. Available online at:https://www.mhprofessional.com

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Hsieh H.-F. Shannon S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res.15, 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Jansen W. S. Otten S. van der Zee K. I. Jans L. (2014). Inclusion: conceptualization and measurement. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.44, 370–385. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Jarvis H. Pratt A. C. Wu P. C.-C. (2001). The secret life of cities: social reproduction of everyday life. 1st Edn. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Kabeer N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: the ‘endless variety’ and ‘monotonous similarity’ of patriarchal constraints. Fem. Econ.22, 295–321. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2015.1090009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Kamaludin M. F. (2023). Social sustainability within social entrepreneurship. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change192:122541. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122541

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Kamaludin M. F. Xavier J. A. Amin M. (2021). Social entrepreneurship and sustainability: a conceptual framework. J. Soc. Entrep.15, 26–49. doi: 10.1080/19420676.2021.1900339

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Kant S. Vertinsky I. (2022). The anatomy of social capital of a Canadian indigenous community: implications of social trust field experiments for community-based forest management. Forest Policy Econ.144:102822. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102822

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Karakasnaki M. Pantouvakis A. Vlachos I. (2023). Maritime social sustainability: conceptualization and scale development. Transp. Res. D121:103804. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103804

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Karim S. Hue M.-T. (2022). Enculturation of immigrants in multicultural contexts: a case of young Pakistani students in Hong Kong. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.87, 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Kawachi I. Kennedy B. P. Lochner K. Prothrow-Stith D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. Am. J. Public Health87, 1491–1498. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.87.9.1491

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Kawachi I. Subramanian S. V. Kim D. (2008). Social capital and health. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Kim K. M. Shin Y. R. Yu D. C. Kim D. K. (2016). The meaning of social inclusion for people with disabilities in South Korea. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ.64, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2016.1165802

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  King N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassels, C. and Symon, G, Eds., Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, 257–270.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Kohon J. (2018). Social inclusion in the sustainable neighborhood? Idealism of urban social T sustainability theory complicated by realities of community planning practice. City Cult. Soc.15, 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2018.08.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Koning J. (2001). “Social sustainability in a globalizing world context, theory and methodology explored” in Paper Prepared for the UNESCO/MOST Meeting 22–23 November 2001 (Netherlands: The Hague).

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Kymlicka W. (1996). “The politics of multiculturalism” in Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights (United Kingdom Oxford University Press), 280.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Lambert S. R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A T systematic review 2014-18. Comput. Educ.145:103693. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Levitas R. Pantazis C. Fahmy E. Gordon D. Lloyd E. Patsios D. (2007). The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Bristol Institute for Public Affairs. Available online at: https://scholar.google.com.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Li L. (2024). Impact of the propensity to cross-cultural adaptation on online viewers’ attitudes toward ethnic minority group cultural streaming: an extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Comput. Hum. Behav.160:108365. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108365

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Licsandru T. C. Cui C. C. (2018). Subjective social inclusion: a conceptual critique for socially inclusive marketing. J. Bus. Res.82, 330–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Lin N. Ye X. Ensel T. Ensel W. M. (1999). Social support and depressed mood: a structural analysis. J. Health Soc. Behav, 40, 344–59.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Lincoln Y. S. Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage. Available online at: https://books.google.com.

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Littig B. Griessler E. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.8, 65–79. doi: 10.1504/IJSD.2005.007375

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Lochner K. A. Kawachi I. Brennan R. T. Buka S. L. (2003). Social capital and neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Soc. Sci. Med.56, 1797–1805. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00177-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Luna D. Gupta S. F. (2001). An integrative framework for cross-cultural consumer behavior. Int. Mark. Rev.18, 45–69. doi: 10.1108/02651330110381998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MacGillivray B. H. (2018). Beyond social capital: the norms, belief systems, and agency embedded in social networks shape resilience to climatic and geophysical hazards. Environ. Sci. Pol.89, 116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Mani V. Gunasekaran A. Papadopoulos T. Hazen B. Dubey R. (2016). Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: evidence from India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.111, 42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  Marino-Francis F. Worrall-Davies A. (2010). Development and validation of a social inclusion questionnaire to evaluate the impact of attending a modernised mental health day service. Ment. Health Rev. J.15, 37–48. doi: 10.5042/mhrj.2010.0201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Mateo-Babiano I. Fong A. (2004). Integrating multiculturalism in public space policy and place governance. Urban Govern.4, 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ugj.2024.01.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Mcguinn J. Fries-Tersch E. Jones M. Crepaldi C. Masso M. Kadarik I. et al . (2020). Social sustainability: concepts and benchmarks. Luxembourg: Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. European Parliament.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  McKenzie S. (2004). Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Hawke research institute working paper series 27. Adelaide: Hawke Research Institute.

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  Mehrabian A. Russell J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology, vol. xii. USA: The MIT Press, 266.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Missimer M. Robèrt K.-H. Broman G. (2017). A strategic approach to social sustainability – part 1: exploring the social system. J. Clean. Prod.140, 32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  M-Keivani R. de Melo E. O. Brownill S. (2020). Durable inequality and the scope for pro-poor development in a globalising world: lessons from Rio de Janeiro. City24, 530–551. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2020.1782091

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Montalbán-Domingo L. Pellicer E. García-Segura T. Sanz-Benlloch A. (2021). An integrated method for the assessment of social sustainability in public works procurement. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.89:106581. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106581

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  Mouratidis K. Hofstad H. Zeiner H. H. Sagen S. B. Dahl C. Følling K. E. et al . (2024). Assessing urban social sustainability with the place standard tool: measurement, findings, and guidance. Cities148:104902. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  Murphy K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability8, 15–29. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  Nakanishi H. Black J. (2015). Social sustainability issues and older adults’ dependence on automobiles in low-density environments. Sustain. For.7, 7289–7309. doi: 10.3390/su7067289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  Nan L. (2005). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  Nan L. Erickson B. H. (2008). “Theory, measurement, and the research enterprise on social capital” in Social capital: an international research program. eds. LinN.EricksonB. (UK: Oxford University Press), 1–26.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Nejada M. C. Mansour S. Karamipour A. (2021). An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: a case study in banking industry. Technol. Soc.65:101602. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101602

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  Opp S. M. (2017). The forgotten pillar: a definition for the measurement of social sustainability in American cities. Local Environ.22, 286–305. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1195800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Ottaviano G. I. P. Peri G. (2006). The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US cities. J. Econ. Geogr.6, 9–44. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbi002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Papadopoulos N. Cleveland M. (2023). An international and cross-cultural perspective on ‘the wired consumer’: the digital divide and device difference dilemmas. J. Bus. Res.156:113473. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113473

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Pazhuhan M. Azadi H. Lopez-Carr D. Barbir J. Shahzadi I. Fürst C. (2023). Social sustainability of residential squares: evidence from Narmak neighborhood, Tehran. Habitat Int.136:102811. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102811

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Peluso A. Tuccillo J. Sparks K. Kapadia A. Hanson H. A. (2024). Spatial analysis of social capital and community heterogeneity at the United States county level. Appl. Geogr.162:103168. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103168

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  Pérez-Sastré M. A. García-Peña C. Ramos-Lira L. Ortiz-Hernández L. (2024). Social capital as a moderator of the relationship between violent community environment and psychological distress. Gac. Sanit.38:102408. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2024.102408

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  Polèse M. Stren R. (2000). The social sustainability of cities: diversity and the management of change. ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  Portes A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociol. Forum15, 1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1007537902813

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Putnam R. D. (1992). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Putnam R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY, USA Simon and Schuster.

  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Putnam R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century-the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scand. Polit. Stud.30, 137–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  Putnam R. D. Leonardi R. Nanetti R. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy (No. 272340). Princeton University Press. Available online at: https://digital.library.tu.ac.th.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  Rawal N. (2008). Social inclusion and exclusion: a review. Dhaulagiri J. Sociol. Anthropol.2, 161–180. doi: 10.3126/dsaj.v2i0.1362

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Raworth K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Sachs I. (1999). “Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development” in Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation. eds. BeckerE.JahanT. (UNESCO London), 25–36.

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  Sachs J. D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. (2019). Sustainable development report 2019: transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Cambridge, UK Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  Sasaki M. (2010). Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study. Cities27, S3–S9. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2010.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Schwitter N. (2020). Social capital in retirement villages: a literature review. Ageing Soc.42, 1560–1588. doi: 10.1017/s0144686X20001610

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  Scorgie K. Forlin C. (2019). “Social inclusion and belonging: affirming validation, agency and voice” in Promoting social inclusion. (Leeds, England: Emerald Publishing Limited), 3–15.

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Sharno M. A. Hiloidhari M. (2024). Social sustainability of biojet fuel for net zero aviation. Energy Sustain. Dev.79:101419. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2024.101419

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  Shiell A. Hawe P. Kavanagh S. (2020). Evidence suggest a need to rethink social capital and social capital interventions. Soc. Sci. Med.257:111930. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  Shirazi M. R. Keivani R. (2018). The triad of social sustainability: defining and measuring social sustainability of urban neighbourhoods. Urban Res. Pract.12, 448–471. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2018.1469039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  Simplican S. C. Leader G. Kosciulek J. Leahy M. (2015). Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: an ecological model of social networks and community participation. Res. Dev. Disabil.38, 18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  Soltani S. Ning G. J. Ochoa J. Sivam A. (2022). The role of spatial configuration in moderating the relationship between social sustainability and urban density. Cities121:103519. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103519

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  Sovacool B. K. Dworkin M. H. (2015). Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy142, 435–444. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  Spangenberg J. H. (2004). Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of the institutions in agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectivity. Sustain. Dev.10, 103–115. doi: 10.1002/sd.184

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  Stanley J. Stanley J. Vella-Brodrick D. Currie G. (2010). The place of transport in facilitating social inclusion via the mediating influence of social capital. Res. Transp. Econ.29, 280–286. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  Stogianni M. Murdock E. He J. van de Vijver F. (2021). Attitudes towards multiculturalism in Luxembourg: measurement invariance and factor structure of the Multicultural Ideology Scale. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.82, 207–219. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.03.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Su Y. Zhang X. Xuan Y. (2024). Linking neighborhood green spaces to loneliness among elderly residents: a path analysis of social capital. Cities149:104952. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104952

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  Sugandha Freestone R. Favaro P. (2022). The social sustainability of smart cities: a conceptual framework. City Cult. Soc.29:100460. doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2022.100460

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Taherkhani R. (2023). An integrated social sustainability assessment framework: the case of construction industry. Open House Int.48, 206–236. doi: 10.1108/OHI-04-2022-0098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  Tahlyan D. Stathopoulos A. Maness M. (2022). Disentangling social capital –understanding the effect of bonding and bridging on urban activity participation. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect15:100629. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100629

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  Talan A. Tyagi R. D. Surampalli R. Y. (2020). “Social dimensions of sustainability” in Sustainability: fundamentals and applications. eds. SurampalliR.ZhangT.GoyalM. K.BrarS.TyagiR. (New York, USA: Wiley), 183–206.

  • Google Scholar

• 142

  Tirmizi S. N. (2005). The contribution of levels of social capital to community development. IA, USA: Iowa State University.

  • Google Scholar

• 143

  UN (2016). “Leaving no one behind: the imperative of inclusive development. report on the world social situation 2016” in Department of economics and social affairs (New York, NY: United Nations (UN)).

  • Google Scholar

• 144

  Utsumi Y. Muradi M. T. (2024). Leveraging social capital for educational resilience in conflict: the impact of community behaviors on educational access in pre-Taliban ruling Afghanistan. Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct.106:104428. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104428

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  Vallance S. Perkins H. C. Dixon J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum42, 342–348. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  van de Vijver F. J. R. Breugelmans S. M. Schalk-Soekar S. R. G. (2008). Multiculturalism: construct validity and stability. Int. J. Intercult. Relat.32, 93–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  Verkuyten M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.88, 121–138. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  Vertovec S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethn. Racial Stud.30, 1024–1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  Ward C. Gale J. Staerklé C. Stuart J. (2018). Immigration and multiculturalism in context: a framework for psychological research. J. Soc. Issues74, 833–855. doi: 10.1111/josi.12301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  Weimin L. Yucheng L. (2002). Special trust and universal trust: the structure and characteristics of Chinese trust. Sociol. Res.3, 11–22. doi: 10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2002.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Weingaertner C. Moberg Å. (2011). Exploring social sustainability: learning from perspectives on urban development and companies and products. Sustain. Dev.22, 122–133. doi: 10.1002/sd.536

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  White J. J. (2007). Building bridges toward political stability: consociationalism and social inclusion in institutions of deeply divided societies. GA,USA: University of Georgia.

  • Google Scholar

• 153

  Woolcock M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Can. J. Policy Res.2, 65–88.

  • Google Scholar

• 154

  Woolcock M. Narayan D. (2000). Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res. Obs.15, 225–249. doi: 10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  World Bank . (2021). Social sustainability and inclusion. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/.

  • Google Scholar

• 156

  World Bank Group . (2018). Social inclusion. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/social-inclusion.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  Xu M. Feng Z. Yang Y. Li Q. Ni S. (2024). Ecological migration and social inclusion of the Yi minority in Southwestern China. Cities, 153, 105291. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  Xu Z. Li Y. Wang C. Shan J. (2024). Social capital and environmentally friendly behaviors. Environ Sci Policy151:103612. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103612

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  Yanjie B. Wenrong Z. Cheng C. (2012). Social network model of job search process: testing the relational effect hypothesis. Society3, 24–37. doi: 10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2012.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  Yiftachel O. Hedgcock D. (1993). Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian city. Cities10, 139–157. doi: 10.1016/0264-2751(93)90045-K

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  Yongqian F. (2016). Neighborhood reciprocity norms: formation mechanism, types and characteristics. Learn. Pract.1, 98–107. doi: 10.19624/j.cnki.cn42-1005/c.2016.01.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Zhu X. Woo S. E. Porter C. Brzezinski M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: from personality to social networks and perceived support. Soc. Networks35, 382–393. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005Get rights and content

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar