Social Sustainability Criteria for School Building in Surabaya

Hidayat, Y.A.
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Hidayatyusriahmad@gmail.com
Rohman, M.A*.
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, arif.its@gmail.com
Utomo, C.
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Christiono@ce.its.ac.id

*Corresponding author

Abstract

School building has an important role in education process of the young generation of
the nation. Like other big cities in Indonesia, Surabaya has quite large number of school
buildings. A building usually has long project life cycle and consequently the concept
of sustainable development it quite relevant to be used in this building to provide
maximum benefit to the community. Social sustainability is one aspect of the sustainable
development which is important as the other two components of sustainability, namely
economic and environment aspects. The application of the social aspect in construction
project is expected can deliver project benefit streams to the community, not only in a
short-term, but also in the long-term, as this aspect is closely related to the community
interest. This paper is an initial stage of the research to determine the criteria of social
sustainability for the school building in Surabaya. Following the variable identification
from the literature, preliminary survey involving four experts were conducted to verify
several variables that have been identified from literature to be used for the questionnaire
survey. According to the experts’ opinion, it was found that 17 variables were
considered relevant to measure the social sustainability for school buildings in Surabaya.

Keywords: School building, Social Sustainability, Surabaya,

JEL Classification : L74

Citation:
Hidayat, Y.A., Rohman, M.A,. and Utomo C. (2018) Social Sustainability Criteria for School Building in
Surabaya. International Symposium of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering,
1(2), 1-16.

1
Introduction
School building have important role to be used as a facility to study, socialize and
organize for the young generation. Surabaya as the second big cities in Indonesia has
quite large number of public school building. Based on data from the Ministry of
Education and Culture (2017), there were 168,578 public school buildings ranging from
kindergarten to high school / vocational level in 2016/2017.

Construction industry is very important element to improve the economy as well as has
a significant impact on the surrounding community (Akadiri et al., 2012). The existence
of a public building can have a negative impact if it is not managed properly, either in
the construction (implementation) or operation phase. Several negative impacts can
happen in the form of environmental pollution, flooding, traffic congestion, damage to
surrounding buildings and others. Based on the above conditions, it is very important to
ensure that the school building project is successful, by delivering maximum positive
benefits and reduce minimal negative impacts to the community.

With regard to the community perspective, as construction projects have a long life
cycle, it needs to be sustainable (Kumaraswamy et al., 2007) in addition to the other
success measurement. The principle of sustainable development is often known as the
"triple bottom line” which should balance between economic, environment, and social
dimensions. It is agreed that sustainability will not be achieved unless all the concepts
can be achieved simultaneously (Keating, 1993). However, unlike other aspects of
sustainable development, social sustainability is still rarely obtained attention (Fotwe et
al, 2009). For example, in Saudi Arabia, trillions of dollars were spent in the construction
industry, but it has not guarantee can open job opportunity, capacity building or
improvement of the local economy (Allam, 2011).

The concept of "social sustainability" is very important as the other two aspects
(economic and environmental) to ensure that a project can provide benefit to the
stakeholders, including the community in the long-term (Doloi et al, 2012). Rohman et
al. (2017) stated that incorporating social sustainability to the project success criteria
can accommodate success perspective from the community point of view. According to
the above, this research is aimed at investigating social sustainability criteria for public
school building in Surabaya as currently there has been still limited research that can be
used as a reference to realize socially sustainable building in this area.

Literature Review
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is defined as the development which meet the present
generation interests without sacrificing the future generation needs (Brundtland, 1987).
The essence of sustainable development is to consider the three main pillars that are
social, economic and environmental can be implemented comprehensively (Strange and
Bayley, 2008).

2
From the economic sustainability perspective, it should enable the company survives in
a long period of time, in terms of financial performance and profitability as well as
managing the environment and social aspects (Doane & MacGillivray, 2001). Dyllick
and Hockerts (2002) added that business sustainability is the ability to meet company
needs both directly and indirectly without reducing their ability to meet the needs of
stakeholders in the future.

On the other hand, the environmental aspect focuses on maintaining biodiversity and
natural resilience. It tends to focus directly on the health of living things in the world
rather than giving attention on the opportunities or capital aspect (Rolson 1994). Natural
resources and species are two components which have to be maintained. Meanwhile, the
social aspect emphasizes to promote and to maintain a social system that embodies
human dignity, which is motivated by concerning about global environmental problems.
The concept focuses on maintaining a human-supported environment (Ageyman, 2005).

Unfortunately, while the economic and environmental sustain abilities have received a
lot of attention, the social sustainability has not been widely developed, including in the
context of project management. Indeed, the social sustainability concepts is very
important to be realized especially in a construction project to provide long-term project
benefits to all communities at large (Doloi, 2012).

Social Sustainability
The concept of social sustainability related to how public facilities are safe, comfortable,
providing adequate open space, becoming an icon of pride for the community, being a
means of equal access for all groups and truly receiving support from the community
(Rohman et al, 2017).

In addition, Dempsey et al. (2009) argued that social sustainability is related to the
collective aspect of social life as follows:
1. Social interaction / social network in society
2. Participation in groups and collective networks in the community
3. Community stability
4. Pride/sense of belonging to the place
5. Safety and security

Every sustainable construction must support the highest social aspects or social ethical
standards and support social equality at every level or stage of construction, starting
from the planning, development, to the process of using the building. From a social
sustainability, the building should be able to respond the human’s emotional and
psychological needs by providing positive stimulation to the environment, increasing
awareness of the important values of life, inspiring human souls, and strengthening
social, community and environmental relations.

3
 Several studies have been conducted to understand how a project relates to social life,
because it is essential to understand and consider the social aspects that are usually
affected by an infrastructure project’s existence. Chan and Lee (2008) investigated the
concept of sustainable urban design, and review critical indicators related to social
sustainability in urban projects in Hong Kong. According to this study, there are five
key components of social sustainability, namely the fulfillment of the need for welfare,
resource conservation and the environment, a harmonious environment, regulations that
facilitate daily activities, as well as the development and availability of space.

Doloi et al. (2012) proposed to measure social sustainability in infrastructure projects

by considering the relationship between social indicators using Social Network Analysis
(SNA). The satisfaction level of stakeholder is very significant in achieving social
performance and it is very often discussed to be a reference in building construction
projects in the future.

Yung and Chan (2012) examined several important factors to improve social
sustainability in the context of heritage buildings or preserved buildings. According to
the result, four factors are found as the main components of social sustainability, namely:
the meaning of education and cultural promotion, the meaning of the place itself, social
inclusion and psychological needs, and community participation and opportunities for
skills development.

Rohman et al. (2017) investigated the criteria of success on toll roads from a social
perspective because the toll road development has strong influence on the surrounding
community. but based on the results of these studies, it turns out that the construction of
toll roads is also very influential on the social life of the surrounding community, and
obtained four important factors related to social benefits which serve as a measure of the
success of toll road projects, from a social perspective.

Methodology
This research is an exploratory research as one of the important means to seek new
knowledge or to assess a phenomenon from a new perspective. This research was carried
out systematically through several stages which is depicted as in the Figure 1.

4
 Figure 1. Research Plan

Following study literature, seventeen attributes were identified from literature which
might be appropriate for the school building as presented in Table 1.

5
 Table 1. Criteria for Social Sustainable Building
No Criteria
1 Building can provide security for
all people.
2 Location of the building is close
to public transportation facilities. (2002)
3 Building provides an open space
area.
4 Building can be accessed by all
people without any gender or
social status restrictions.
5 The building can promote the
achievement of the local
community’s needs.
6 Building can adapt to changes in
the surrounding community.
7 The level of pollution (water, air,
waste) from the building
existance can be tolerated.
8 The surrounding community is
involved in the decision-making
process during the construction
and operation phases.
9 Building becomes facility for
training and education.
10 Building existence contributes to
maintain the local community
values and culture.
11 Building existence can be an
identity and historical value for
the surrounding community.
Source
Almahmoud & Doloi (2012),
Baird (2010), CABE &
DETR (2001), Chan & Lee
(2008), Colantonio dkk
(2009), Leaman & Bordass
(2005), Li et al (2011),
Rohman et.al (2017)
Chan & Lee (2008), GRI
Chan & Lee (2008), Doloi
(2012)
CABE and DETR (2001),
Chan and Lee (2008), Yung
and Chan (2012), Doloi
(2012)
CABE & DETR (2001),
Chan & Lee (2008),
Chappels & Shove (2005),
Colantonio et.al (2009),Hill
& Bowen (1997), Littig &
Griessler (2005), Macfarlane
& cook (2002), Rohman et.al
(2017)
Chan and Lee (2008), Li et
al. (2013)
CABE and DETR (2001),
Chan and Lee (2008),
Colantonio et al. (2009),
Zhai et al. (2009), Shen et al.
(2010), Doloi (2012)
Chan and Lee (2008),
Colantonio et al. (2009),
Yung and Chan (2012)
Colantonio et.al (2009),
Dave (2011), Littig &
Griessler (2005), McKenzie
(2004)
Dave (2011), Hill & Bowen
(1997), McKenzie (2004)
Dave (2011), McKenzie
(2004)
6
 No Criteria Source
12 The building can create a sense of CABE & DETR (2001),
belonging and pride for users and Colantonio et.al (2009),
the surrounding community. Rohman et.al (2017)

13 Building existence is supported CABE & DETR (2001),

by the users and the surrounding
community.
14 Building existence can improve
the economy of the surrounding
community (e.g. to bring up new
business activities around it).
15 The existence of buildings can
create new jobs for the
surrounding community.
16 Building existence does not
damage the community social
order.
17 The expected outcomes of the
building construction have been
communicated to the community.
Rohman et.al (2017)
Almahmoud & Doloi (2012),
Colantonio et.al (2009),
Rohman et al (2017)
Almahmoud & Doloi (2012),
Colantonio et.al (2009),
Rodolfo et.al (2011)
Colantonio et.al (2009), Lim
(2009), Littig & Griessler
(2005)
Rodolfo et.al (2011)

Following attributes identification, a preliminary survey was performed involving four

experts from academics, professional and researchers. The number of experts involved
in this study was considred sufficient accroding to Polit and Hungler (2006) where stated
that the number of experts used to measure the attributes relevancy are at least three to
five experts. This is supported by Doloi et al (2011) who also used four experts in his
preliminary survey.

The purpose of the preliminary survey was to verify the attributes that have been
identified from the literature. Semantic scale utilized 1-5 scales was used to calculate
the attributes relevancy based on experts’ opinion. Scale 1 represents the variable is very
irrelevant and scale 5 represents that the variable is very relevant. The next step was
determining the sample, drafting the questionnaire, conducting a pilot test and
questionnaire distribution through main survey. Pilot test was aimed at ensuring that the
respondents really understand the question to minimise the bias.

After the overall data was obtained from main survey through the questionnaire, the
samples were the examined and cleaned first before the analysis. When the data was
ready for the analysis, validity and reliability tests were carried out. Validity test was
intended to check the questionnaire accuracy. An instrument can be said valid if it
measures what should be measured or can give results in accordance to what the
researcher expected (Umar, 2000).

Meanwhile, reliability test is to ensure that the measurement instrument have

consistency to assess the attributes repeatedly (Sugiono, 2008). Reliability is usually
measured using Croanbach Alpha coefficient. An instrument is said to be reliable if its
Croanbach Alpha is greater than 0.60 (Ghozali, 2005).

7
Result and Analysis
As has been mentioned before, this paper is intended to explain the result of the initial
stage of the research based on the experts’ survey. It is presented with regard to the
attributes relevancy and their rankings.

Attributes Relevency
Data analysis from the experts’ opinion can be represented in the attributes mean and standard
deviation (SD) as can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Preliminary Survey Result

No Variables Mean SD
1 The existence of the building has the support of users and 5.00 0.00
the surrounding community.
2 The location of the building is close to public 4.75 0.50
transportation facilities.
3 The building can function to achieve the needs of the 4.75 0.50
local community.
4 The building can adapt to changes in the surrounding 4.50 0.58
community.
5 The building can be accessed by all people without any 4.25 1.50
gender or social status restrictions.
6 The surrounding community is allowed to be involved in 4.25 0.96
the decision-making process during construction and
after the building is operated.
7 The existence of the building contributes to maintaining 4.25 0.96
the values and culture of the local community.
8 The building is able to create a sense of belonging and 4.25 0.96
pride for users and the surrounding community.
9 The building can provide security for all people. 4.00 1.41
10 The existence of a building can be an identity and 4.00 1.15
historical value for the surrounding community.
11 The existence of a building does not damage the social 4.00 0.82
order in the community.
12 Building become a means for the development of 3.75 1.89
science.
13 The level of pollution (water, air, waste) from the 3.50 1.73
existence of buildings can be tolerated.
14 The existence of buildings can create new jobs for the 3.50 0.58
surrounding community.
15 The expected outcomes of building construction have 3.50 1.29
been communicated to the community.
16 The building provides open area. 3.25 1.71
17 The building is able to improve the economy of the 3.00 0.82
surrounding community (eg to bring up new business
activities around it).

Based on Table 2, the attributes means were between 3.00 to 5.00. In this study, three
score was used as the cut-off to determine the attribute relevancy as this value is the
middle score between 1 to 5. It means that the attributes were considered relevant if their

8
means are larger than three (≥ 3) as the middle value. As the means of the overall
attributes were greater than three, all attributes were considered relevant to be used for
the main survey through questionnaire.

Attributes Ranking
In addition to the attributes relevancy, it is also interesting to find the attributes ranking
based on experts’ opinion. Based on Table 2 five most relevance attributes can be
obtained from the experts’ survey. The highest attribute was "The existence of buildings
has the support of users and the surrounding community" (mean 5.00). This attribute
was considered as the most relevance attribute as the experts might perceived that the
community support to the building existence is very important (Almahmoud & Doloi
2012). Without this support the building construction will be difficult to be completed
as the community can stop the construction process or event does not allow the building
to be constructed since the initial step because the community feels the negative impact
of the the building to the surround area.

The second attribute ranking was "The location of buildings are close to public
transportation facilities" with means value was 4.75. This indicates that public transport
is very important to the community needs (Chan & Lee, 2008; GRI, 2002). As such, the
building location must be accessible by public transport. This can make the building
users are easier to come and leave the building.

“The building can function to reach the needs of the local community" was ranked as
the third place with mean value 4.75. This attribute is also considered relevant because
in addition to fulfil the users’ interests, the building should also could provide the local
community interests and needs (Chan & Lee, 2008; Doloi, 2012). It cannot be denied
that the building existence have strong influence to the surrounding area and community,
so it should be ensured that the positive impacts can be maximized while the negative
impact can be minimized.

Ranking four attribute was “The building can adapt to changes in the surrounding
community”. This attribute is important as the building is usually having a long project
life cycle. As such, the impact of the building to the surrounding area also happens in
the long-term. It should be ensured that the building can adapt to the environment
changing (CABE and DETR, 2001; Yung and Chan, 2012). It can be fulfilled if the
building is designed by considering the surrounding area master plan before it is
constructed.

Finally, the fifth place was “The building can be accessed by all people without any
gender or social status restrictions”. This means that it is really important that the
building can be accessed by every people, no matter what are their gender, physical
ability and other social status (Chappels & Shove, 2005; Colantonio et al., 2009). This
is an essential measure for the social sustainability to ensure that equality is applied to
the overall public infrastructure.

9
Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on the analysis results using mean value according to the experts’ opinion, it was found
that all 17 variables identified from the literature were considered relevant to be used to measure
social sustainability for school building in Surabaya. The five most relevant attributes were also
determined according to experts’ opinion, that are: The existence of buildings has the support of
users and the surrounding community, The location of buildings that are close to public
transportation facilities, and The building can function to reach the needs of the local community.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank to Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education who provides the
grant to perform this research. We also appreciate the experts who were involved in the
preliminary survey in this research at year 2019.

References
Agyeman, Julian. (2005). Sustainable communities and the challenge of environmental justice.
New York: New York University Press
Akadiri, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A.; Olomolaiye, P.O. (2012), Design of a sustainable building:
A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector.
Buildings, 2, 126–152.
Allam, A. (2011), “Saudi construction monopoly alleged”, Financial Times.
Almahmoud, E.S. and Doloi, H. (2015), “Assessment of social sustainability in
construction projects using social networks analysis”, Facilities, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4,
pp. 152-176.
Brundtland, G.H. and Development, W.C.o.E.a. (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
CABE and DETR (2001), The Value of Urban Design, Bartlett School of Planning
commissioned by Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,
London.
Chan, E. and Lee, G.K.L. (2008), “Critical factors for improving social sustainability of
urban renewal projects”, Social Indicator Research, No. 85 No. 2, pp. 243-256.
Chappells,H.and Shove, E. (2005), “Debating the future of comfort: environmental
sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment”, Building
Research and Information, Vol.33 No.1, pp. 32-40.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. And Brown, C. (2009). The social dimension of
sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development,
19, 289-300.
Doane D, MacGillivray A (2001) Economic Sustainability-the business of staying in business,
New Economics Foundation, London.
Doloi, H. (2012), “Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of
infrastructure projects”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 11/12, pp. 531-550.
Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strat Environ
11:130–141
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Price, A. D. F. (2009). A social ontology for appraising
sustainability of construction projects and developments. International Journal of
Project management, 27(4), 313-322.
Ghozali Imam. (2005), Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS, Semarang:
UNDIP, hlm. 129.

10
Hair et al., (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River : New Jersey.
Hill, R.H.; Bowen, P.A. (1997), Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework
for attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 15, 223–239.
Keating, M. (1993), The Earth Summit’s Agenda
Kumaraswamy, M.M., Ling, F.Y.Y., Anvuur, A.M. and Rahman, M.M. (2007),
“Targeting relationally integrated teams for sustainable PPP’s, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 581-595.
Keating, M. (1993), The Earth Summit’s Agenda
Littig, B. and Grießler, E. (2005), “Social sustainability: a catchword between political
pragmatism and social theory”, International Journal of Sustainable Development,
Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 65-79.
Polit, F. D. & Hungler, B. P. (2006). Nursing research: principles and methods.(6th).
Philadelphia: Lippicont Williams and Wilkins
Rodolfo, V.V. (2011), Social sustainability consideration during planning and design:
A framework of Processes for construction projects, Clemson University.
Rolston, Holmes, III. (1994). Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H., and Heywood, C,A. (2017), Succes criteria of toll road
projects from a community societal perspective, Built environment Project and
Asset Management, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 32-44
Strange, T. & Bayley, A. (2008), Sustainable Development, Linking economy, society,
environment. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD.
Sugiyono. (2008), Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D, Bandung : ALFABETA
Yung, H.K.E. and Chan H.W.E. (2012). Critical social sustainability factors in urban
conservation: the case of the central police station compound in Hong Kong.
Facilities, 30, 396-416
.

11