3.4 Results
3.4.1 Results for the user survey
Results of the user survey are presented below. The results are divided into two groups, one for the results of testing the created framework (survey questions about the importance of different social sustainability categories), Figure 13, and one for the results of the case study (survey questions about how well the different social sustainability categories are realised within the business campus in question, JUJU business campus), Figure 14. Each category consist of 1 to 4 indicators and the result considering individual indicators are presented in the next part of the study.
The answers were given on a Likert scale, ranging from one to five, where 1 equals “not at all important” for the questions about importance of social sustainability indicators, or
“poorly” for the questions about actualisation of indicators within the JUJU business campus and 5 equals “very important” or “excellently” respectively for both groups of questions.
The variation between the results of different categories is quite subtle with the average perceived importance of categories ranging from 3,5 to 4,4 and the average perceived rate of realisation of categories in the JUJU business campus ranging from 3,4 to 4,0. Of all the categories, health, safety and well-being and equity were deemed the most important while equity and employment and education were regarded as being realised the best within the
business campus. Social mixing and integration, and access to information/knowledge management were deemed the least important of the categories, while community vitality and social mixing and integration were seen as the worst realised within the business campus.
The equity category had a rather low response rate of 64% considering the realisation of the category. Even though it was rated the best realised category within the business campus, it had the third lowest response rate of all the categories. The response rates for the importance of categories were notably higher, between 82% and 98%.
The variation between individual answers was rather moderate as can be seen from the standard deviation, with the highest standard deviation of the whole survey being 1,5 regarding the importance of the indicator accessibility by bike. The average (shown as the blue bars) and standard deviation (shown as the black lines) are presented for each category for both groups.
The results were also divided by building, age and gender. All the numeric results for the categories are presented in Appendix 1.
Figure 13 Results for perceived importance of social sustainability categories
Figure 14 Results for realisation of social sustainability categories
In the next part the results of all individual indicators are presented. Indicators are presented for the whole survey and divided by gender of respondents, age of respondents and by building.
All respondents
Figures 15 and 16 show the results of all indicators divided into two groups, the importance of indicators (Figure 15) and the realisation of indicators (Figure 16). The average (shown as the blue bars) and standard deviation (shown as the black lines) are presented for each indicator for both groups.
The variation between individual indicators’ averages is somewhat greater than that of categories, with the importance of indicators ranging from 3,2 to 4,7 and the realisation of indicators ranging from 3,3 to 4,4.
Of individual indicators, health impacts of materials and indoor environmental quality and non-discrimination were found the most important while non-discrimination and gender equity were seen as best realised within the campus. On the other end of the spectrum, social mixing/hard social infrastructure and accessibility by bike were seen as least important of the indicators and health impacts of materials and indoor environmental quality and community vitality as the worst realised within the campus.
Two indicators stood out with having a significantly lower rating for the realisation of the indicator in comparison to the importance. These indicators were health impacts of materials and indoor environmental quality with an importance rating of 4,7 and realisation rating of
3,3, and level of compliance with clients’ requests with an importance rating of 4,4 and realisation rating of 3,6.
Non-discrimination, even though being among the best realised indicators within the business campus, had a rather low response rate of 65%. Only five other indicators had a response rate lower than that. Four indicators got a response rate below 60% considering the realisation, social mixing/hard social infrastructure, social integration/soft social infrastructure, convertibility and diversity and equal opportunity all had a response rate between 48% and 54%. Overall, for the user survey, the response rate for individual questions was consistently higher for the question about importance, in comparison for the response rate for the realisation of each indicator. The biggest difference of 45 percentage points was in response rates for the social mixing/hard social infrastructure indicator, with the response rate for importance being 93% and the response rate for realisation being only 48%. The low response rates were not so notably present within the questions about importance of indicators. The response rates for the importance questions were between 85%
and 100% for all except for one indicator, convertibility, with the response rate of 74%.
All the numeric results for the indicators are presented in Appendix 2.
Figure 15 Results for percieved importance of indicators
Figure 16 Results for realisation of indicators
Answers divided by individual buildings
Figures 17 and 18 present the results for all indicators from the 7 respondents working in Hiomotie 6. The users of Hiomotie 6 regarded three indicators equally as important with an average of 5: the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality, non-discrimination and compliance with clients’ requests were the most important social sustainability indicators. Gender equity was the best realised indicator in Hiomotie 6 with the average score of 4,4. The least important indicator according to Hiomotie 6 users was accessibility by bike with the average of 3,7, while accessibility by car was deemed the worst realised indicator within the business campus with the average score of 2,6.
Figures 19 and 20 present the results for all indicators from the 6 respondents working in Hiomotie 8. The users of Hiomotie 8 regarded non-discrimination with an average of 5 as the most important social sustainability indicator. Gender equity was the best realised indicator in Hiomotie 6 with the average score of 4,5. Social mixing/hard social infrastructure was seen as the least important of the indicators by Hiomotie 8 users, the average score for this indicator was 2,7. Two indicators had the same score at the lower end of the spectrum, satisfaction on aesthetic aspects and social mixing/hard social infrastructure were seen as the worst realised indicators within the campus with the average of 3 respectively.
Figures 21 and 22 present the results for all indicators from the 6 respondents working in Kornetintie 3. The users of Kornetintie 3 regarded accessibility by public transport with an average of 5 as the most important social sustainability indicator. Inter and intra -generational equity was the best realised indicator in Kornetintie 3 with the average score of 4,75. Access to information/knowledge management was deemed the least important social sustainability indicator with an average of 3,17 and satisfaction on aesthetic aspects the worst realised within the business campus with an average score of 3,17.
Figures 23 and 24 present the results for all indicators from the 5 respondents working in Kornetintie 6. The users of Kornetintie 6 regarded two indicators equally as important with an average of 4,6: the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality and compliance with clients’ requests were the most important social sustainability indicators.
Accessibility by car was the best realised indicator in Kornetintie 6 with the average score of 4,25. The least important indicator according to Kornetintie 6 users was social integration/soft social infrastructure with the average of 2,5 and the worst realised indicator within the business campus was accessibility for minorities and disadvantaged groups with an average score of 2,8.
Figures 25 and 26 present the results for all indicators from the 30 respondents working in Takomotie 8. The users of Takomotie 8 regarded the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality with an average of 4,67 as the most important social sustainability indicator. Non-discrimination was the best realised indicator in Takomotie 8 with the average score of 4,55. Social mixing/hard social infrastructure was seen as the least important social sustainability indicator with an average score of 2,89, while diversity and equal opportunity was deemed the worst realised indicator with an average of 3,17.
The variation between individual indicators’ averages concerning importance is the greatest within the respondents from Hiomotie 8, with the importance of indicators ranging from 2,67
to 5. The averages concerning realisation of indicators range from 3 to 4,5 for respondents from Hiomotie 8. The greatest variation between averages for realisation of individual indicators comes from respondents from Hiomotie 6, with averages ranging from 2,6 to 4,4.
The range for importance of social sustainability indicators for Hiomotie 6 respondents is from 3,67 to 5. Kornetintie 6 respondents’ average scores range from 2,5 to 4,6 for importance of indicators and 2,8 to 4,25 for realisation of indicators. The scores from Kornetintie 3 respondents range between 3,16 and 5 concerning importance of indicators and 3,16 to 4,75 concerning the realisation of indicators. Takomotie 8 respondents’ average scores range from 2,89 to 4,67 concerning importance of indicator and from 3,16 to 4,55 concerning the realisation of indicators
Non-discrimination stood out specifically in Kornetintie 3, where it was rated in the top 3 most important indicators. The social mixing/hard social infrastructure indicator stood out on the other end of the spectrum, it was within the three least important indicators in Hiomotie 6, Kornetintie 3 and Kornetintie 6. Concerning the realisation of indicators, community vitality was seen especially badly realised within respondents from Hiomotie 6 and Takomotie 8 while satisfaction on aesthetic aspects was especially low within respondents from Hiomotie 8, Kornetintie 3 and Kornetintie 6.
The standard deviation was highest among respondents from Kornetintie 6, with the highest standard deviation among this group being 2,3 for the indicator importance of resilience. In the other buildings, the variation between answers was slightly more moderate with the standard deviation ranging from 0 to 2,04 between indicators.
The average (shown as the blue bars) and standard deviation (shown as the black lines) are presented for each indicator for both groups.
Figure 17 Results for percieved importance of indicators, Hiomotie 6 users
Figure 18 Results for realisation of indicators, Hiomotie 6 users
Figure 19 Results for percieved importance of indicators, Hiomotie 8 users
Figure 20 Results for realisation of indicators, Hiomotie 8 users
Figure 21 Results for percieved importance of indicators, Kornetintie 3 users
Figure 22 Results for realisation of indicators, Kornetintie 3 users
Figure 23 Results for percieved importance of indicators, Kornetintie 6 users
Figure 24 Results for realisation of indicators, Kornetintie 6 users
Figure 25 Results for percieved importance of indicators, Takomotie 8 users
Figure 26 Results for realisation of indicators, Takomotie 8 users
Answers divided by gender of respondents
Figures 27 and 28 present the results from the 26 male respondents for all indicators. The male respondents regarded the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality –indicator, with an average of 4,7 as the most important social sustainability indicator and gender equity as the best realised indicator in the business campus with the average score of 4,5. Social mixing/hard social infrastructure was deemed the least important indicator by male respondents with an average of 3,37 and health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality the worst realised indicator within the business campus with an average score of 3,38.
Figures 29 and 30 present results from all 19 respondents identifying as female. The female respondents deemed the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality – indicator, with an average of 4,8 as the most important social sustainability indicator and accessibility by car as the best realised indicator with the average of 4,2. Social mixing/hard social infrastructure was deemed both the least important and the worst realised indicator by female respondents with an average of 3,22 for importance and 3,1 for realisation within the business campus.
Figures 31 and 32 present results from the one respondent identifying as other. The respondent gave the highest possible score of five to eight indicators in total concerning the importance of the indicators, the most important indicators according to this respondent were health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality, security practices, gender equity, non-discrimination, accessibility for minorities and disadvantaged groups, accessibility by bike and accessibility by public transport. The highest scoring indicators regarding the realisation in the business campus were according to this respondent education, security practices, safety practices, accessibility by public transport, equal opportunities and access to resources, satisfaction on functionality, satisfaction on aesthetic aspects, satisfaction on building amenities and resilience, all with the score of 4. This respondent regarded accessibility by car as the least important indicator with the score of 2, while two indicators shared the lowest ranking for realisation, accessibility by bike and accessibility for minorities and disadvantaged groups, both with a score of 2. The respondent answered 7 questions with the “I don’t know” option, which can be seen in the figure as blank spaces regarding the unanswered indicators.
Figure 33 and 34 present result from the four respondents that did not want to disclose their gender. These respondents regarded the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality –indicator, with an average of 4,3 as the most important social sustainability indicator and non-discrimination as the best realised indicator with the average score of 4,7.
Respondents in this category regarded accessibility by bike as the least important indicator with an average score of 1 and social integration/soft social infrastructure as the worst realised with an average of 1. However, only one respondent actually answered the question of realisation of social integration/soft social infrastructure, while others chose the “I don’t know option”. From indicators that had more than one answer, community vitality was seen as worst realised with an average of 1,5. None of the respondents in this category answered the question about realisation of social mixing/hard social infrastructure, which can be seen in the figure as a blank space regarding the unanswered indicator.
The variation between individual indicators’ averages is the greatest within the group of respondents that chose not to disclose their gender, with the importance of indicators ranging from 1 to 4,3 and the realisation of indicators ranging from 1 to 4,7. For male respondents the variation between averages ranges from 3,4 to 4,7 concerning the importance and from
3,4 to 4,5 concerning the realisation of indicators. Female respondents’ average scores ranging from 3,2 to 4,8 for importance of indicators and 3,1 to 4,2 for realisation of indicators. The scores from the one respondent identifying as other range between 2 and 5 concerning importance of indicators and 2-4 concerning the realisation of indicators.
Some differences between genders can be seen in the results. Most notably there seems to be a difference in average ratings and response rates regarding the realisation of non-discrimination within the business campus. The male respondents rated the realisation of non-discrimination with an average of 4,52 and a response rate of 70%, while female respondents rated the indicator somewhat lower with an average of four and a notably lower response rate of 58%. Safety, on the other hand, was found especially important by women and those identifying as other. Gender equity was only rated the best realised indicator by male respondents, even though it was also quite highly rated by other genders. Male respondents were especially dissatisfied with satisfied on the health impacts of materials and indoor environmental quality, rating it in the three worst realised indicators, while all other gender groups were relatively satisfied with it.
The standard deviation was highest among the category of respondents that did not want to disclose their gender, with the highest standard deviation among this group being 1,7 for the indicators realisation of employment, realisation of health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality, realisation of accessibility by public transport and importance of diversity and equal opportunity. In the other gender groups, the variation between answers was more moderate with the standard deviation ranging from 0 to 1,5 between indicators.
The average (shown as the blue bars) and standard deviation (shown as the black lines) are presented for each indicator for both groups.
Figure 27 Results for percieved importance of indicators, respondents identifying as male
Figure 28 Results for realisation of indicators, respondents identifying as male
Figure 29 Results for percieved importance of indicators, respondents identifying as female
Figure 30 Results for realisation of indicators, respondents identifying as female
Figure 31 Results for percieved importance of indicators, respondents identifying as
“other”
Figure 32 Results for realisation of indicators, respondents identifying as “other”
Figure 33 Results for percieved importance of indicators, respondent that did not specify their gender
Figure 34 Results for realisation of indicators, respondent that did not specify their gender
Answers divided by age of respondents
Figures 35 and 36 present the results from the 4 respondents in the under 30 years age group for all indicators. The under 30 years old respondents regarded the non-discrimination indicator, with an average of 4,8 as the most important social sustainability indicator and non-discrimination as the best realised indicator in the business campus with the average score of 5. The under 30 years old respondents regarded accessibility for minorities and disadvantaged groups and social mixing/hard social infrastructure as the least important social sustainability indicators with an average of 2 respectively. Social mixing/hard social infrastructure, and diversity and equal opportunity were deemed the worst realised within the business campus by this age group, both with the average score of 3.
Figures 37 and 38 present the results from the 15 respondents in the 30-39 years age group for all indicators. The 30-39 years old respondents regarded the accessibility by public transport indicator, with an average of 4,7 as the most important social sustainability indicator and accessibility by public transport as the best realised indicator in the business campus with the average score of 4,4. This age group saw convertibility as the least important indicator with an average score of 3,5 while social mixing/hard social infrastructure was regarded as the worst realised indicator within the business campus with an average of 2,5.
Figures 39 and 40 present the results from the 11 respondents in the 40-49 years age group for all indicators. The 40-49 years old respondents regarded the non-discrimination indicator, with an average of 4,5 as the most important social sustainability indicator and accessibility by car as the best realised indicator in the business campus with the average score of 4,5.
The least important social sustainability indicators according to this age group were social mixing/hard social infrastructure and access to information/knowledge management with an average of 3,09 respectively. Satisfaction on aesthetic aspects was deemed the worst realised indicator within the business campus with an average score of 3,36.
Figures 41 and 42 present the results from the 16 respondents in the 50-59 years age group for all indicators. The 50-59 years old respondents regarded the health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality, with an average of 5 as the most important social sustainability indicator and gender equity as the best realised indicator in the business campus with the average score of 4,5. The least important indicator according to this group was social mixing/hard social infrastructure with an average score of 3, while health impact of materials and indoor environmental quality was deemed the worst realised within the business campus with an average of 2,77.
Figures 43 and 44 presents the results from the 8 respondents in the over 60 years age group for all indicators. The over 60 years old respondents regarded the health impact of materials
Figures 43 and 44 presents the results from the 8 respondents in the over 60 years age group for all indicators. The over 60 years old respondents regarded the health impact of materials