Sociology of the Built Environment

The built environment consists of all human-made structures and stands in contrast to the natural environment. The character of the built environment has historically reflected the nature of prevailing human activity and industry, evolving over time with advances in technology, trade, and transportation. From the industrial age onward, societies around the globe have witnessed unparalleled growth in the number of building developments and the array of materials used to construct buildings. The contemporary passion for owning land has fueled capital interests in the built environment, which has contributed to the accelerated pace of development. Inequitable and unhealthy situations for humans and the rest of nature continue to arise within the planning and construction of the built environment. Considering the projected increases in population and average age, new policies must be developed to address these concerns.

Keywords Architecture; Built Environment; Control of Land; Environmental Health; Land Ownership; Land Use; Natural Environment; Property; Public Health; Real Estate; Sustainability; Vernacular Architecture

Sociology of the Built Environment

Overview

The concept of built environment stands in contrast to what is understood as the natural environment and consists of all manner of structures erected by humans, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, educational, civic, and devotional buildings. The physical dimension of the built environment and the living processes by which that environment is built together constitute a rich data field revealing insights about human behavior, social psychology, production and consumption patterns, and dispositions with regard to humans' relationship to or place within the natural world.

Examined macroscopically and historically, the diversity and evolution of our built environments can be probed for underlying social mechanisms and ideologies, for convergences and anomalies. Microscopically, in the design, construction, and use of just one building in the context of a sociopolitical community, we can observe a dynamism of interaction between aspects such as agency, participation, power, culture, space claiming, capital interests, social reproduction, policy, experience, and physical and psychosocial health (Szapocznik 2006). And while sociological exploration of the built environment produces a diverse array of claims, one fundamental finding is key: that we humans both shape and are shaped by the physical environment we build.

History of the Built Environment: From Hunter-Gatherer to Suburban Commuter

Looking broadly at Homo sapiens' 100,000-year tenure on Earth, one can imagine that during most of that history, humans impacted Earth in very natural ways, much like other hunting-gathering animals: producing and consuming only what was crucial to survival, dispersing waste across regions, and accumulating very few material goods (Lazlo & Seidel, 2006). A hunter-gatherer's relationship to the environment was, like that of modern-day humans, a paradoxical one. On one hand, nature's bounty was needed for survival; on the other hand, nature's unforgiving hazards jeopardized existence or diminished quality of life (Fitch & Bobenhausen, 1999). In the absence of naturally occurring shelter such as a cave, the construction of reliable shelter was most likely a very important development in the progress of certain groups, allowing them proximity to natural resources yet decreasing their exposure to harmful elements. And while this primitive "built environment" reduced nature's potentially negative effect on humans, it likely made an insignificant impact on the natural environment.

It is believed that about 10,000 years ago—about ten percent of humans' total evolutionary history—there occurred a decisive shift away from nomadic behavior and toward a more fixed or settled standard of living (Lazlo & Seidel, 2006). With the spread of agricultural knowledge and the refinement of tool technology, full-time farming became a viable option for survival. Accordingly, the character and composition of the built environment at that time likely evolved to suit a more settled lifestyle. The gathering together of more permanent buildings, including shelters and occupational buildings for storing and Processing, constituted what might be considered early cities. Settlements allowed an increase in the production and exchange of material goods and led to the creation of a more persistent waste stream within a limited land area.

While it is clear that civilizations since (and before) the dawning of the agricultural age have contributed to our species' progress in the form of technological advancement, amassed empirical knowledge, and increased mobility, it is interesting to note that until the relatively recent boom of industry and manufacturing, the technique employed in the construction of the built environment remained remarkably unchanged from the vernacular form, whereby building materials native to a given region were used and building expertise was passed from person to person over generations.

The unparalleled technological advancement witnessed in the late 19th and 20th centuries has left its indelible mark on the shape and content of the built environment. Industry, mining, and manufacturing made reliable the production of materials such as steel, increased access to resources such as fossil-fuel energy, increased the rate of production and assembly of goods, and vastly improved the methods of transporting such goods. This technological surge is made manifest in the growth of new architectural forms and in modified land-use plans. Cities have risen to unparalleled heights, and thanks to a growing transportation infrastructure, the suburbs have pushed the outer limits of urban development.

The Problem of Land Ownership

Inextricably linked with the concept of built environment is the idea of land ownership. In a capitalist society, nature has come to be known as a thing someone can own. Steinberg (1995) describes how 18th-century Europe witnessed a paradigmatic shift in what was meant by having property in land, which had conventionally meant that one owned the rights to use the land but then evolved to mean that one owned the land outright, as a possession. Steinberg notes:

Later in the eighteenth century, the famous legal scholar William Blackstone summarized the advent of a new era. "There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." So it was that property became, in a word, fetishized. One can scarcely overestimate the enormity of the shift when property, previously conceived of as a right "in" something, assumes its new identity as the thing itself. (p. 14)

The segmentation and the free market exchange of the "nonideological matter-in-motion we call nature" (Steinberg, 1995, p. 10) plays a critical role in the direction, planning, and construction of the built environment, which requires a place to reside. The layering of capitalist logic over the natural world begets "the belief that all land should have an owner" as well as the idea that "the earth is put to best use when a person claims it" (p. 18), and this is where sociological examination might begin to appreciate how the built environment (its form, content, location, ownership, occupancy, use, etc.) manifests dimensions of social relationship, power, and inequity.

What Buildings Mean

Buildings are more than bricks and mortar; they are the physical manifestation of a plan involving multiple agents, motives, and desired outcomes. According to Fitch and Bobenhausen (1999), depending on one's relationship to the building project, the building plan can be interpreted in many different ways:

A plan is many things, depending upon how one looks at it. From the point of view of society as a whole, a plan is an instrument of policy, a means of facilitating a certain line of action. Thus the plan of an American city, or entire metropolitan area, or region, may be regarded as an instrument of socioeconomic policy for the production and exchange of goods and ideas…[f]rom the standpoint of the architect or physical planner, however, a plan is a representation of a horizontal plane passed through a building, city or community. In this sense, a plan is a solution for a given line of action. It inevitably reflects the designer's concept of how—within the limits given—a certain amount of space may be best organized for the specific operation to be housed. For the people who live or work in the completed building or city, a plan is something else again. It is the schema of a control mechanism that, to a large extent, determines how happily they live or how well they work together. (p. 299)

Fitch and Bobenhausen (1999) underscore the existence of diverse perspectives, including political, operational, and critical perspectives, in the planning and design of just one single building. When we consider the built environment, therefore, we must recognize this multiplicity of points of view and be aware of the web of forces that shape our physical environment. Put plainly, a building project means one thing to a venture capitalist or lending institution, another thing to an architect or engineer, and yet another thing to an end user, dweller, neighbor, historian, etc.

We must remember, too, Fitch and Bobenhausen's (1999) decree about the very purpose of human-made environments:

[T]he ultimate task of architecture is to act in favor of human beings—to interpose itself between people and the natural environment in which they find themselves in such a way as to remove the gross environmental load from their shoulders. The central function of architecture is thus to lighten the very stress of life. Its purpose is to maximize our capacities by permitting us to focus our limited energies upon those tasks and activities that are the essence of the human experience. (p. 3)

While it seems Fitch and Bobenhausen's declaration was intended for an audience of architects, many of whom have been criticized for compromising function or well-being of occupants for aesthetic accomplishment, all parties involved in the development of the built environment should heed its central message. Fitch and Bobenhausen remind us that "in architecture there are no spectators: there are only protagonists, participants" (p. 4). All parties are responsible for the ultimate effect the building incurs on human experience, measured in physical, social, and mental wellness. Hastings and Thomas (2005) reinforce this notion:

Designers are but one influence on the built environment. It is a product of complex relationships between designers, commissioners and builders of new projects operating within ways of seeing the world and rationalities which of necessity limit the range of options over which they are even prepared to struggle. (p. 532)

It is interesting to pause for a moment to reflect on the development of the field of architecture. In the context of vernacular construction, all builders were architects in a sense. One can imagine that architects (proficient builders, mathematicians, artisans) were initially sought out by nobles aspiring to create large-scale buildings such as, for example, devotional monuments or structures fortified for safety. Like these premier architects, their modern contemporaries are needed in situations where mainstream or common building expertise may not be enough to carry a plan to execution. Starting in the twentieth century, this has included expertise with nonnative, synthetic, mined, and chemical materials.

Further Insights

Representation & Participation in the Built Environment

Given contemporary notions of property ownership (Steinberg 1995), how we use land and build our environment is wedded to capital interests. Land-as-investment ideology is a powerful force behind many of the decisions that are made with regard to land-use policy and the construction of the built environment. The development of suburban residential complexes is a prime example of how capital investment shapes the character and direction of the built environment. When investing in the central business districts of metropolitan areas was no longer a financially sound venture, capital flowed toward ideas and projects aimed the development of suburban communities, altering the character of the built environment across metropolitan regions.

In the United States and in developing countries worldwide, the rise of democratic ideals has made a link between land ownership and success, independence, and even happiness, suggesting that the pursuit of this kind of success should be possible for all citizens within a democracy. While most would identify with these ideals on an ideological level, the overlaying of capitalist economics creates profound disturbances. In capitalist logic, land and the built environment are seen as commodities, objects of exchange, goods to be produced and consumed. And in this context, the power gap that often exists between producers and consumers leads to inequity, unbalanced participation, and irresponsible representation of all parties' needs and interests.

Exclusion of Disabled Citizens

Hastings and Thomas (2005) address the inherent bias against disabled citizens in the design and construction of major civic buildings:

The creation of an environment which is difficult or impossible to use by some people renders those people dependent (Oliver 1993), for which they are stigmatised, and conditions are created where they are, quite literally, out of sight of the majority of the populace which is engaged in the daily round of social, economic and civic activity. (p. 531)

By its physical features, the built environment, in fact, defines which citizens are included in contemporary life and which are not. Certain buildings can pose "potent barriers to participation in civic life if they do not take into account the physical characteristics of the whole population" (p. 531). And worse, these "barriers tend to have a long life and thereby help to structure opportunities and accessibility in the future" (p. 531). Those in power thereby disenfranchise certain groups from the norm. This takes on significant meaning in the cases described by Hastings and Thomas (2005), where the construction of two civic buildings is examined for features discriminating against disabled participation. Symbolically, the creation of a legislative building that by virtue of its design excludes or renders difficult the inclusion of lesser-abled bodies is a direct statement about who counts as a citizen.

Policy in Emerging Nations

In democratizing areas across the globe, many nations are faced with the question of how to proceed as an entity no longer ruled by totalitarian regime. Karel Maier (2001) reveals Czech citizens' struggle to contribute to land-use policy and practice in the context of a growing capitalist economy fueled by NGOs and emerging civic leadership. Where previous governments had disenfranchised the voice of the citizenry, one might imagine the process of organizing "bottom-up" initiatives would be quite difficult. Again, here we see how the power of producers—people of capital means—shapes the built environment and the conditions to be experienced by consumers.

This process is by no means limited to new growth areas around the globe. Here in the United States and in other developed countries, there are several groups, both historically and contemporarily, whose livelihood, safety, culture, and power have been be altered by emerging movements in the built environment. One needs only to think of the frontier of settlements followed by towns and cities that imposed spatial and cultural disturbances on Native American life, or of the city dwellers whose homes have been bulldozed by eminent domain for the sake of highways and railroads. Power to manipulate the built environment is one of the most significant ways in which inequities are expressed.

The Effect of the Built Environment on Public Health

The built environment has been associated with causing physical and mental health problems, including, but by no means limited to, allergies, asthma, and obesity. A variety of elements in the built environment can contribute to sickness, from physical layout issues to chemical composition of construction materials, ventilation, and moisture control. Fitch and Bobenhausen (1999) report that "water and air conditioning systems that try to improve architectural environment of individual buildings are wreaking havoc on ecology—especially city ecologies, causing health problems (asthma, etc) in its citizens" (p. 34). Jacobs, Kelly, and Sobolewski (2007) add:

Today, inadequate ventilation and moisture management in housing still contributes to asthma, mold-induced illnesses, carbon monoxide poisoning, and other diseases and injuries (Krieger and Higgins 2002; Matte and Jacobs 2000)…. A recent United Nations report shows that more than one-third of all urban dwellers live in slums in developing countries (nearly 1 billion people), and the percentage is increasing rapidly, with the number of slum dwellers expected to double by 2030 (United Nations 2003)…. Some of the key policy impediments in this field involve the tension between housing affordability and health, privacy issues, lack of clarity in statutory authority, and gaps in responsibility for the built and indoor environments. (p. 976)

If the first priority of the built environment is to provide sufficient shelter for humans to be safe and to ensure optimum performance of necessary activities in the human experience, then clearly modern building techniques have obscured this pure ideal.

Berke et al. (2007) investigated the role the built environment and land-use policy might play in the obesity of older people and concluded that the less "walkable" their neighborhood is, the more at risk seniors are for decreased functionality. They write:

Older people are at particular risk for functional decline. Habitats that encourage physical activity and help reduce unhealthy body weight may be beneficial… The demand for this type of residential environment could influence developers and designers to create communities that promote walking and improve the health of their residents. Most important, application of findings such as these can help older people preserve their function, independence and quality of life. (p. 491)

This study, and surely others, calls into question the long-term benefit of living in suburban neighborhoods, or other developments that are designated for residential use only. Mixed-use neighborhoods seem to foster interconnectedness between people, places, and resources, which may benefit physical, social, and mental well-being.

Land usage and the layout of regions of built environment have also been associated with increased motor-vehicle accidents and mortalities. William Lucy (2003) asserts that "settlement patterns contribute to traffic dangers. Land use controls that establish clean edges around metropolitan areas, rather than extensive sprawl along narrow exurban roads, can reduce the dangers of leaving home" (p. 1569).

Recalling Fitch and Bobenhausen's (1999) idea about the ultimate purpose of architecture—"to remove the gross environmental load from [humanity's'] shoulders"—we must ask ourselves if modern-day architecture, land-use policy, and construction methods are fulfilling this promise or whether they are in some ways contributing to the gross load of potential hazards.

Sustainability & the Natural Environment

Much of what has been discussed in this section has focused on the relationship between the built environment and the human agents/participants that act on and are acted on by that environment. It would be folly to ignore the effect the built environment has had on the natural world. Fitch and Bobenhausen (1999) address the responsibility of architects (and others) in the protection of our natural resources:

The scale and complexity of such ecological problems may outrun the comprehension, not to say the professional jurisdiction, of the average architect. And yet architects are an active party of the whole process, whether or not they will it or recognize it. Each time they provide parking space for another car, each time they cut down a tree, or replace a square yard of turf with one of blacktop, or install a heating plant burning fossil fuels—so, each time, they modify the microclimate in which the building stands… Sooner or later, they must face the consequences of their acts—if not as architects, then certainly as citizens. (p. 35)

But architects are just one small part of the collective problem of eco-unfriendly development, which is deeply rooted in the human desire to own and manipulate things, most especially land. Steinberg (1995) asserts that "the impulse to turn everything into property has not just confused but impoverished our relationship with the natural world by reducing that world in all its complexity into a giant legal abstraction" (p. 10). Looking forward, Steinberg warns us:

This impulse to transform nature into property may continue to limit our ability to adapt successfully to the physical environment. A culture so single-minded in its pursuit of property, especially private property, may sacrifice what one anthropologist has called its "evolutionary flexibility" and therefore foreclose on other ways (ways possibly more equitable and ecologically sustainable) of relating to the earth. (p. 10)

While it is frowned upon as simple or rudimentary by many contemporary architects and commissioners of buildings, vernacular architecture may teach us a great deal about how to simultaneously and serendipitously address humanity's and nature's survival needs.

Conclusion

With the spread of capitalism, accelerated population growth, ever-increasing globalization, and access to information, we must recognize that the push for continued development of the built environment will only intensify over time. And while human-made structures have afforded us protection, increased industry, convenience, and luxury, structures built over the last century or so have contributed to a decrease in well-being measured in people and in nature. All participants in the planning and construction of the built environment must carry with them the awareness of the deleterious effects of their work—anything that may harm social, physical, mental, and environmental well-being. Fitch and Bobenhausen (1999) instruct:

We must judge buildings as we do any other instrument or tool—that is, by its performance. And the central criterion for judging building performance must necessarily be amenity, well-being, ultimately health. Does the building regulate the relations between the individual and the environment in such a way as to guarantee optimal well-being? (p. 24)

Terms & Concepts

Built Environment: The collection of human-made structures built and used for various purposes, including residence, industry, service, government, and worship. This stands in contrast to the natural environment.

Land Ownership: A contested concept or right; while the idea of rights to use or dwell on property has existed historically, the notion of individuals owning land outright as a possession is fairly new (post-feudal times). This laid the groundwork for seeing land ownership as a symbol of independence, freedom, and success, which has in turn permeated behaviors with regard to the built environment.

Land Use: The manner in which land is designated for specific needs, uses, or tasks. Land-use policy is governed by municipal means and may reflect developments or movements in industry, capital interests, and production/consumption patterns.

Natural Environment: All that is not the built environment; structures, features, and other phenomena that occur naturally and organically.

Sustainable Architecture: Buildings that make use of naturally occurring and renewable resources; the practice of designing and constructing buildings that behave sympathetically with the natural environment.

Urban Planning: The process by which cities and metropolitan regions are designed; involves multiple parties, including engineers, architects, municipal agencies, investors, businesses, and sometimes community members.

Vernacular Architecture: Buildings constructed with materials native to and naturally occurring in a given area. Construction expertise is passed from person to person and across generations. Structures can range from nomadic (semi-fixed) to permanent shelters.

Bibliography

Berke, E.M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., Larson, E. B. (2007). Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97 . 486-492. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24347123&site=ehost-live

Ferdinand, A. O., Sen, B., Rahurkar, S., Engler, S., & Menachemi, N. (2012). The relationship between built environments and physical activity: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 102, e7–e13. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82052501&site=ehost-live

Fitch, J.M. & Bobenhausen, W. (1999). American building: The environmental forces that shape it. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hastings, J. & Thomas, H. (2005). Accessing the nation: Disability, political inclusion and built form. Urban Studies, 42 , pp. 527-544. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16572983&site=ehost-live

Hutch, D. J., Bouye, K. E., Skillen, E., Lee, C., Whitehead, L., & Rashid, J. R. (2011). Potential strategies to eliminate built environment disparities for disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 587–595. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=59346300&site=ehost-live

Jackson, R. J., Dannenberg, A. L., & Frumkin, H. (2013). Health and the built environment: 10 years after. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1542–1544. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89604390&site=ehost-live

Jacobs, D. E., Kelly, T. & Sobolewski, J. (2007). Linking public health, housing, and indoor environmental policy: Successes and challenges at local and federal agencies in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 , 976-982. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25453633&site=ehost-live

Laszlo, E. & Seidel, P., Eds. (2006) Global survival: The challenge and its implications for thinking and acting. NY: SelectBooks, Inc.

Lucy, W.H. (2003). Mortality risk associated with leaving home: Recognizing the relevance of the built environment. American Journal of Public Health, 93 . 1564-1569. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10739924&site=ehost-live

Maier, K. (2001). Citizen participation in planning: Climbing a ladder? European Planning Studies, 9 , pp. 707-719. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5107860&site=ehost-live

Szapocznik, J., Lombard, J., Martinez, F., Mason, C. A., Gorman-Smith, D., Plater-Zyberk, E., Brown, S. C., Spokane, A. (2006). The impact of the built environment on children's school conduct grades: The role of diversity of use in a Hispanic neighborhood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (3/4), pp. 299-310.

Steinberg, T. (1995). Slide Mountain: Or, the folly of owning nature. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Yen, I. H., & Anderson, L. A. (2012). Built environment and mobility of older adults: Important policy and practice efforts. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 951–956. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=75232498&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Fligstein, N. (2002) The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McClure, W.R. & Bartuska, T.J. (2007). The built environment: A collaborative inquiry into design and planning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. NY: North Point Press.

Qi, W., & Heath, T. (2011). Towards a universal language of the built environment. Social Semiotics, 21, 399–416. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=62667636&site=ehost-live