Next Article in Journal
Leveraging Immersive Digital Twins and AI-Driven Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Water Reserves Management: A Conceptual Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Correlation Between Perception and Utilization of Green Spaces in Residential Areas and Residents’ Self-Rated Health Under Different Vegetation Coverage Rates: A Case Study from the Central City of Beijing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083753
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Enhancing Livability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities and Their Perspectives in China

by
Lei Qi
1,2,
Yong Adilah Shamsul Harumain
1,* and
Melasutra Md Dali
1
1
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
2
Architectural Design Institute, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3753; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083753
Submission received: 20 February 2025 / Revised: 8 April 2025 / Accepted: 15 April 2025 / Published: 21 April 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Neighborhood facilities received global attention in sustainability implementation because they meet the daily needs of residents and represent the relationship between them, neighborhoods, and cities. This study aims to reveal the factors influencing sustainable facilities in Chinese neighborhoods under rapid urbanization through a systematic review of relevant empirical studies and the Chinese context. This review looks through the Scopus and WoS databases for 59 papers published between 1981 and 2025 on the implementation of sustainable neighborhood facilities; additional evidence was collected from neighborhood sustainability assessments (NSAs) conducted around the world and China’s current relevant regulations in neighborhood facilities for the literature review. The findings indicate that the influencing factors of sustainable neighborhood facilities are an intersubjective structure of providers, recipients, and coordinating mediators. This study extends the current knowledge and literature on sustainable neighborhood facilities and deepens our understanding of how sustainability implementation standards and decision-making influence these facilities to improve livability in China. Meanwhile, it also provides a perspective on four aspects, including the compilation of influencing factors, the development of assessment tools, the categorization assessment, and the development of a framework of sustainable neighborhood facilities in China. In addition, it further enriches sustainable cities and neighborhoods in applications worldwide.

1. Introduction

Following the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987, research on sustainability thrived and transformed into the field of sustainability science. Launching the New Urban Agenda [1] and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2] provided the impetus for sustainable urban development [3]. However, with accelerated urbanization, controversies over the insufficient supply and unequal distribution of neighborhood facilities are becoming increasingly fierce, and the environmental pressures faced by cities and neighborhoods may become obstacles to the transformation of urban resilience and sustainability [4].
Urban planning practices always revolved around creating livable built environments and ensuring high-quality living circumstances [5,6]. According to the sustainable development agenda, 70% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas by 2030. Meanwhile, neighborhood facilities are integral to creating livable environments because they meet a wide range of needs and improve the overall quality of life [7,8,9,10]. They ensure that residents have access to essential services [11,12], promote physical and mental health, facilitate community interactions [13], ensure safety, and contribute to economic stability [14,15]. While specific definitions and classifications may vary from country to country, there is a clear consensus that “neighborhood facilities” are facilities that meet the daily needs of residents in the neighborhood and promote the overall health and sustainable development of the area, such as parks, neighborhood hubs, libraries, schools, medical clinics, public transport, etc. [16,17]. In recent years, planners and policymakers have chosen to think more about creating livable environments from an urban sustainability perspective [18], prioritizing neighborhood facility practices [19] to create sustainable and livable neighborhoods [20].
Many neighborhoods and cities developed and implemented frameworks and regulations to guide the transition to sustainable neighborhood facilities and track the achievement of the SDGs. However, there are still no specialized and universally recognized assessment tools and frameworks worldwide. More often, they draw on neighborhood sustainability assessment (NSA) tools, which played a positive role in guiding and promoting sustainable planning and design in neighborhoods with some significant flaws that cannot also be ignored, such as limited coverage and unevenness of the sustainability dimension, failure to consider interactions between indicator [21], and overemphasis on quantitative indicators that fail to consider qualitative values of neighborhood facility components [22,23]. This leads to assessment tools that are not yet definitive in their empowerment and integration approaches, and there is no strong rationale for this. Recently, many scholars and researchers have begun to address these shortcomings by implementing a shift in frameworks from a single environmental dimension to a theory of sustainable development based on the “three pillars” of environment, economy, and society. Furthermore, McShane [24] and Satu and Chiu [25] highlight the technocratic and rationalist nature of tools that ignore neighborhood facility priorities and values. The importance of governance, management, and institutional aspects as crucial components of sustainable neighborhood facilities has also been underlined by academics [26,27].
A search of the Scopus and WoS online databases revealed several review papers dealing with the management and evaluation of sustainable neighborhood facilities. No review article focused on the full range of influences on sustainable neighborhood facilities, with most focusing on specific sub-topics related to sustainable neighborhood facilities, such as a particular type of facility. Lori, Tim [28] reviewed 13 criteria, such as neighborhood priorities, traditional values, location, and functionality, which have been developed based on common design standards for water service facilities. On the other hand, Vinussa, Sara [29] comprehensively reviewed the novel resilience literature from the perspective of resilient sanitation systems to make the adaptation of sanitation systems to EWE feasible in the Asia-Pacific region. Additionally, some other reviewed papers include the work of Zhang, Liu [30] on identifying risk factors related to neighborhood facilities in China, and the study by Ghazala and Vijayendra [31] on how to build effective community infrastructure through participation, social capital, and empowerment.
As one of the fastest urbanizing countries, China’s urban population is rapidly increasing, from 52.57% in 2012 to 67.00% in 2024 [32], resulting in cities facing the challenges of rapidly growing population density and a range of “urban diseases” [33]. China attaches great importance to these issues and actively addresses these challenges with the idea of accessible, safe, and healthy neighborhood facilities, which are still in their infancy. Namely, (i) research and actions are still concentrated at the national level [34,35]; policies and implementation initiatives at all levels of authority are more based on superior policies and guidelines, which are mismatched with the actual needs at the neighborhood level [36,37]; most research in this area seeks a solution from specific perspectives rather than a comprehensive approach [38,39]. (ii) Existing facility utilization is not incorporated in the plans [40,41]; there is a lack of consideration for children, the elderly, and disabled residents, resulting in poor convenience and adaptability; the absence of management mechanisms results in unreliable maintenance and uneven daily lives for residents [42]. (iii) Unharmonized policies and guidelines about sustainable implementation mechanisms from different departments confused researchers and the public [37,43]; there is a lack of clear aspiration and authoritative implementation standards; there is a lack of attention to stakeholder relations as the main subject in the implementation of facilities [15,44]. (iv) There are no rating systems or frameworks to manage the implementation [45], and more policies and guidance are only for advocacy [46].
Significant differences exist between China’s neighborhood system and residential concepts, developed since the Han and Tang dynasties, and those of Western countries [37,47]. Therefore, the low-rise, low-density neighborhood framework promoted in Europe and the United States is not directly applicable to high-rise, high-density development in China [48]. Efforts have been made by authorities and scholars to address these issues, and a large body of literature dealing with sustainable neighborhood facilities has been published. However, to our knowledge, no review article focused on influencing factors or implementation frameworks suitable for China.
Therefore, indicators and influencing factors need to be identified, validated, and supplemented in China’s context. This will help in the subsequent development of a framework for sustainable neighborhood facilities suitable for China.

2. Methodology

This study utilized a systematic literature review methodology in light of the above issues. A systematic literature review (SLR) answers specific questions by identifying, selecting, and critically evaluating studies [49]. Systematic literature reviews originated in the medical and biological fields, and recently it continued to promote the quality of review studies in urban planning [50]. The 2020 edition of the PRISMA checklist (Supplementary Materials) summarizes the main processes as follows: (i) provide an explicit statement of the objective(s); (ii) Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review; (iii) specify the sources of the literature (databases) and the date when each source was consulted; (iv) specify the samples of the studies that were ultimately included and summarize their characteristics and results; and (v) elaborate on the results of the review, significance, discussion, and limitations [51].
This study used manual analysis for the initial screening and review. The software also conducted relationship analysis on the screened data to support the review findings. Some researchers believe this hybrid approach can improve the efficiency of identifying themes and critical concepts and effectively identify patterns and trends [52,53]. NVIVO, a software program for qualitative research methods, streamlined the coding process and data analysis [54].
In terms of identifying keywords, the thesaurus and previous research played an important role in determining similar keywords and words used to describe sustainability, livability, and neighborhood facilities. In addition to the main concepts, synonyms for neighborhood and facility are also defined and combined (e.g., neighborhood facilities, community amenities, and block infrastructure).
The study used Web of Science and Scopus for digital databases, which are widely used in the literature. WOS goes back to 1900, Scopus covers post-2000 literature more comprehensively, and the combination reduces omissions [55,56].
According to Kitchenham [57], for the research question, the following inclusion criteria were developed: (i) journal and conference articles that addressed the intersection between the fields of sustainability and neighborhood facility implementation by including these terms in their titles, abstracts, or keywords; (ii) written in English; and (iii) journal and conference articles. In addition, exclusion criteria were defined: (i) papers that used the term service facility outside the neighborhood perspective (e.g., healthcare, energy, mathematics, agriculture, etc.); (ii) full text was unavailable.
This systematic review process involved multiple searches from July 2023 to March 2024 and additional revisions were made in March 2025, using the WoS and Scopus scientific databases (Table 1). The selection process shown in Figure 1 involved searching for terms, exporting article information, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, downloading selected papers, applying quality criteria, and, finally, data extraction. A total of 542 papers were retrieved during the initial screening phase. Then, after a rigorous screening of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, 115 papers were eligible for this review. We screened the papers’ abstracts, titles, and keywords to ensure relevance to the topic of our investigation and further filtered the 115 papers into two types. The first type involved papers that assessed at least one sustainability dimension (i.e., social, environmental, economic, and institutional) through multiple indicators of sustainable neighborhood facilities or an integrated framework. The second type consisted of papers that assessed a single indicator or narrow theme related to some aspect of sustainable neighborhood facilities. Thus, this step excluded 56 papers that discussed livability and sustainability outside of the perspective of neighborhood facilities. After extracting 59 papers, we classified them into Type 1 (15) and Type 2 (44). Figure 1 provides an overview of the study method.

3. Results

3.1. Data Abstraction and Analysis

Results generated based on the WoS and Scopus database filters indicate that the earliest search record for the combination of neighborhood facilities and sustainable development appeared in 1981; the literature that met the requirements appeared in 2006 and showed a significant increase in 2020 (Figure 2).
One study was conducted in the least developed countries, namely Bangladesh. A total of 36 studies were conducted in developed countries and regions: the USA, the UK, the European Union, Australia, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. In developing countries, 22 studies have been identified to be relevant with sustainable neighborhood facilities in terms of livability, namely Malaysia, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Serbia, Egypt, Kenya, Iran, Iraq, and the UAE. Relevant studies in China (including Hong Kong) appeared in 2016 and increased significantly in 2023 and 2024, totaling 10 papers (accounting for 17%), indicating that this research received increasing attention recently (Figure 3).
According to the data presented in Figure 4, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on 59 papers falling under Types 1 and 2. It was observed that a significant proportion, precisely more than 15 papers (at least 25%), measured influencing factors such as behavioral characteristics, common needs, individual needs, agglomeration, location, mobile modes, and natural resources and environment. Furthermore, 15–25% of the papers measured influencing factors related to service concepts, value choices, supply capacity, supply modes, social attributes, sound institution, good governance, economic spatial activities, and land use. The least influencing factors were noise pollution, food security, and housing services and conditions.
To further validate the results, we draw on existing studies [21,58] and select five of the most widely used, representative NSA tools that have been most studied in the literature for in-depth analysis, namely LEED for Neighborhood Development (2009), BREEAM for Communities (2009), DGNB for Urban Areas (2012), CASBEE for Urban Development (2006), and GREENSTAR for Communities (2012) [59,60]. Meanwhile, we extracted the contents of China’s current relevant regulations in neighborhood facilities. We tried to classify them, referring to the influencing factors extracted from the literature based on international perspectives and China’s context.
We found that the NSA tools for neighborhood facilities cover the environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions of sustainable development. However, the facility provider’s service concepts, value choices, supply capacity, and supply modes receive less consideration. China’s existing regulations, on the other hand, emphasize more of these four factors, as well as factors such as behavioral characteristics, social attributes, and common needs. However, the content is more of an advocacy perspective, without a clear implementation framework, and put more emphasis on the social aspects at the expense of economic and environmental dimensions (Table 2).

3.2. Synthesis of the Literature

This study comprehensively reviewed and analyzed papers, NSA tools, and China’s regulations. The criteria measured in more than eight (8) papers (at least 15%) were themed into factors. Preliminary identified factors, such as authority values, service supply, user attributes, user needs, accessibility, institutions and governance, and spatial environment, influence sustainable neighborhood facilities in China (Table 2, Figure 4). The ultimate development goal of enhancing livability is to meet the needs of users (residents) [118]. Residents and neighborhoods are inseparable from all factors. Sustainable neighborhood facilities need to carefully balance the economy, society, environment, and institutional dimensions to use resources wisely, ensure fairness, protect nature, and have effective governance. The ultimate goal of sustainable neighborhood facility implementation is still to meet the needs of residents (people) [118]. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the objective attributes of neighborhood facilities, i.e., the design requirements, as well as the potential impact of stakeholders on sustainable neighborhood facilities, including local authorities, developers, and residents who are the developers, providers, controllers, and basically participants in the implementation process. Under the “people-oriented” service concept, they have a crucial role in implementing neighborhood facilities [119]. The relationship between the groups of subjects is one of intersubjectivity based on the shared value of “subject coordination equilibrium” [120].
The factors above are classified into three primary groups for sustainable neighborhood facilities (Table 3, Figure 5): The subject (providers) is the supplier of neighborhood facilities; the subject (recipients) is the user of neighborhood facilities; and the mediation (coordinating mediators) is a procedure and tool that effectively connects different subjects. The literature review demonstrates that the supply–demand relationship between the providers and recipients factors for the neighborhood facilities are impacted by various dimensions of sustainability, encompassing economic, environmental, social, and institutional aspects [121,122,123], because of which institutional sustainability is being recognized as the fourth pillar of sustainable development [124].
Using NVIVO, we created “relationships” as separate nodes to code the relationships between the factors studied and discussed in the papers. As shown in Figure 6, we visualize the effect of mediation on both subjects. Criteria for sustainable dimensions include agglomeration, location, mobile modes, good governance, sound institutions, economic spatial activities, land use, natural resources and environment effect authority values, service supply, user attributes, and user needs. In light of the above information, the criteria for sustainable dimensions, such as accessibility, institutions and governance, and spatial environment as mediation, affect the interrelationship between the two subjects in Table 3. It is assume that the “subject–mediation–subject” mode among the three groups reflects the philosophical category of practical activities [125,126]. Framing the selected factors is critical to accurately reflect the phenomenon under study [127]. It emphasizes the importance of sustainable neighborhood facilities for enhancing livability. Figure 7 visually represents the preceding discourse. The subsequent subsections provide a concise description of each of the seven factors.

4. Factors Contributing to the Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities

4.1. Authority Values

According to our review, as the supplier of neighborhood facilities, the authority’ s service concepts and value choices strongly influence the sustainable neighborhood facilities [79,84]. Authority service concepts are vital assessment indicators [75] and are crucial to sustainable cities and neighborhoods [87]. These indicators indicate the authority concept of the balanced development of neighborhood facilities [81]. Meanwhile, value choices is another critical factor in enhancing livability. According to the researchers, the authority’s decisions about neighborhood facilities should focus on values such as well-being, environmental protection, or economic efficiency [89,99,102], rather than political interests or neighborhood preferences [24,25,103].
According to the review, service concepts and value choices accounted for 20% and 23% of the total review papers, NSA tools, and China’s regulations, respectively. Meanwhile, several of the papers we reviewed, and China’s existing regulations emphasize the importance of the Chinese authorities’ values in developing sustainable neighborhoods and enhancing livability. We define authority values by service concepts and value choices.

4.2. Service Supply

Wang, Shaw [79], Furmankiewicz and Campbell [81] state that the government publicly leads the implementation of neighborhood facilities, ensuring residents fairness and livability. Recently, the panorama of urban planning in Europe and the United States shifted, proposing a new model of cooperative management that allows capital and social organizations to participate in developing neighborhood facilities [61,73]. The role of government departments in the decision-making process gradually increased [64,89]. This mixed supply model can improve the efficiency of government departments in implementing neighborhood facilities, leading to a more effective and sustainable development process [61].
Many studies figure that supply capacity directly determines the service quality of neighborhood facilities. The supply modes will influence the supply capacity. Meanwhile, in the face of public emergencies (COVID-19, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), the basic living needs of residents must be ensured, which is a critical issue in the supply capacity of neighborhood facilities [63,89]. We define this factor through supply modes and supply capacity.

4.3. User Attributes

It is worth noting that user attributes can be measured in multiple dimensions, from users’ (residents’) social attributes to behavioral characteristics. User attributes define the configuration of neighborhood facilities, including the built environment, land use, green space, road patterns, etc. Different preferences also influence the behavioral characteristics of populations with additional social attributes [25,61,67,73,97]. In China, younger residents of commercial neighborhoods have a greater need for recreation. In comparison, the elderly in older neighborhoods need more amenities nearby. Wang, Shaw [79], Huang and Yin [128] posit that residents gather daily on neighborhood streets, stores, squares, and open spaces—essential spaces for public activities.
Based on our review, behavioral characteristics, and social attributes, we accounted for 32% and 32% of the total review papers, NSA tools, and China’s regulations, respectively. Three NSA tools and three of China’s regulations are focused on these two nodes. Therefore, we define this factor through behavioral characteristics and social attributes.

4.4. User Needs

As recipients of neighborhood facilities, their needs and satisfaction are key factors affecting sustainable implementation. Many believe that neighborhood facilities that meet residents’ needs will enhance residents’ daily quality of life and neighborhood livability [25,69]. Authority generally regards the need for physically accessible shared or public amenity spaces and the convenience of facilities [25,92,99], as well as the leisure needs of green and landscaped areas suitable for outdoor community leisure and entertainment activities, as common needs of residents [79]. Ziaesaeidi and Cushing [82], Baek and Kwon [84], Temeljotov Salaj and Lindkvist [89] also mentioned that the individual needs for neighborhood facilities can be matched with the “top-down” policy of the suppliers by establishing local networks, knowledge, and understanding through participation and enhancing residential satisfaction and neighborhood livability.
Based on our review, common needs and individual needs accounted for 43% and 38% of the total review papers, NSA tools, and China’s regulations, respectively. Four NSA tools that focused on these two nodes simultaneously were reviewed. China’s regulations are all focused on common needs and one on individual needs. Therefore, we define this factor through common needs and personality attributes.

4.5. Accessibility

Accessibility has a variety of definitions and indicators that define the interaction of social and environmental dimensions. Many studies believe that good mobility, appropriate location, and reasonable agglomeration play a vital role in residents’ equal opportunities to use neighborhood facilities and improve their quality of life [62,68,77,100]. These also define livability.
At the physical scale of neighborhoods, many use good mobility as an influential variable to measure accessibility [70], making it easier for residents to reach neighborhood facilities and improve their experience along the way, including consideration of mobility modes such as walking [62,67] and public transportation [66]. Recently, more Chinese scholars have begun paying attention to foot accessibility to neighborhood facilities in dense urban forms, which improves residents’ use experience and thus enhances livability [71,86,100,106]. Appropriate site selection is also essential to accessibility, which reduces residents’ travel costs and enhances user satisfaction [69,100,101]. Reasonable agglomeration forming a hub will increase the diversity and richness of neighborhood facilities and satisfy numerous leisure experiences freely [73,98], as well as improve accessibility and facility service efficiency [25,106].
Based on our review, agglomeration, location, and mobile modes, we accounted for 43%, 41%, and 30% of the total review papers, NSA tools, and China’s regulations, respectively. All of China’s regulations are focused on these three nodes. Therefore, we define this factor through agglomeration, location, and mobile modes.

4.6. Institutions and Governance

Institutions and governance ensure the interaction between providers and recipients and the practical connection between top-down planning and bottom-up participation. A sound institution ensures the stability and continuity of neighborhood facility implementation, that is, sustainability [61,99,102,103]. Bhadra [63] emphasized that developing comprehensive plans for sustainable development through disaster risk management initiatives can improve the safety level of core neighborhood facilities. Another critical factor is good governance [61,89]. Some research shows that governance is an essential indicator for neighborhood sustainability assessment. It ensures that neighborhood facilities are well maintained and suitable for the existing population density of the area [64,75]; it can also serve as a mechanism or success factor by integrating social enterprises, or PPPs [65], and ‘devolution’ between critical stakeholders in neighborhood facility planning can sustain and increase community activity, an essential aspect of regional sustainability [24,88].
The three existing regulations reviewed all propose strengthening institutionalization and management mechanisms, which means that the national level attaches great importance to them. More extraordinary efforts within neighborhoods to provide equitable services and amenities are necessary. Therefore, we factor in good governance and sound institution.

4.7. Spatial Environment

The interaction between economic and environmental sustainability dimensions defines the concept of a spatial environment. The natural resources and environment are essential sustainability features that authorities and developers integrate into developing neighborhood amenities [77]. Measures such as efficient resources and alternative energy use can carefully balance daily human needs with the steady replenishment rate of natural resources [67,77,99,104,105]. Land is the basis and primary resource for any development and is a vital indicator factor for sustainability [66]. Lu, Crittenden [73] believe the compact land use model will realize the most significant carbon emission reduction potential. China’s cities have a high population density and limited and scarce land. Therefore, the effective use of land resources is crucial [106]. Through economic spatial activities such as commercial services and employment opportunities in neighborhood facilities, we attract and satisfy residents to enhance their sense of belonging [98,99], promote social well-being [71,97], and enhance the vitality and livability of the neighborhood. Consequently, we themed economic spatial activities, land use, and natural resources and environments under this factor.

5. Discussion and Limitation

This study systematically analyzes the current literature on sustainable neighborhood facilities for enhancing livability in the Chinese context. We aimed to understand the concept of sustainable neighborhood facilities from a researcher’s perspective, examine the impact of their sustainable implementation on livability, and identify the main factors contributing to sustainable neighborhood facilities through empirical research. We conducted a rigorous systematic review process using two databases. This resulted in 59 papers about the impact of sustainable neighborhood facilities on livability. The study identified seven dimensions and sixteen sub-classifications as crucial factors suitable for sustainable neighborhood facilities to enhance livability in China (Table 3). These dimensions are authority values, service supply, user attributes, user needs, accessibility, institutions and governance, and spatial environment.
These studies on this topic come from different countries, although current literature and NSA modeling focus more on developed countries with sound institutions, such as the European Union (EU), the UK, the USA, and Australia. At the same time, criticisms of current research and NSA tools focus on controversial issues such as the non-transparent and top-down approach [101,129], and the lesser consideration of sustainable implementation from provider perspectives [24,99,102,103]. However, due to significant differences in cultural and institutional context, research on China’s authorities and scholars paid more attention to the dimensions of accessibility, authority values, and user (residents) needs. These made it particularly difficult for China to inherit and develop the theories and practices of developed countries [130], which may also be a prominent problem in developing countries. This study fully integrates current research and China’s existing regulation concerns, responds to these criticisms from the perspectives of supporting residents’ participation, sound institutions, and providers’ value, etc., and explores the factors influencing sustainable neighborhood facilities in China, which can be a good reference worldwide.
As Sharifi, Dawodu [129], and Randall and Baetz [70] noted, the strength of interlinkages and the weighting of indicators may affect the scientific rigor of sustainability assessment. Therefore, a reasonable assessment and implementation framework should be developed to minimize errors, an issue that should be further investigated in the future.
Regarding limitations, this review is based on the Chinese context; addressing all issues worldwide simultaneously may be difficult. Meanwhile, with the leading papers appearing between 2012 and 2024. Future research could expand the search to include more recent papers published in 2025 and explore in greater depth the impact of the sustainability agenda and policies in China and worldwide on implementing neighborhood facilities.

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

As sustainability-influencing factors have become a significant focus for policymakers and scholars in developing sustainable neighborhood facilities. This study broadens our understanding of sustainable neighborhood facilities, furnishes scholars and practitioners with valuable information, and sheds light on metrics commonly utilized by researchers. In turn, it highlights factors that often go unnoticed and require incorporation into an implementation framework and rating systems for sustainable neighborhood facilities. Based on this, the following are some prospects for researching sustainable neighborhood facilities in China.

6.1. Clarify the Influencing Factors of Sustainable Community Facilities

Quantitatively clarifying the influencing factors and operating mechanisms that promote sustainable neighborhood facilities is the only approach to achieving livability. Firstly, we should intensify our research on influencing factors that have unknown effects. This will enable us to objectively recognize the logical connection between the precise configuration of the facilities and the diverse needs of residents, and further develop the implementation framework. Secondly, the strength and weight of the mutual connection between indicators may affect the scientific rigor of the sustainability assessment, which should be paid attention to next. Sharifi, Dawodu [129], and Stephan and Reimund [131] paid attention to that issue and indicated that it needs further study in future research. In addition, the intersubjective relationship between these two types of subjects, which is based on the shared value of being “people-oriented”, also reflects the philosophical concept of practical activities.

6.2. Developing Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities Assessment Tools and Approaches in China Context

Effective research on assessing sustainable community facilities presupposes a clear definition of “neighborhood facilities” and “sustainability”. Regarding sustainable neighborhood facilities, the four-dimensional “prism” model, which includes environmental, economic, social, and institutional factors, has become widely accepted, and its features vary greatly between China and worldwide. Taking the institutional dimension as an example, in Europe and the United States, the institutional environments of private land ownership and a high degree of free marketization led to a situation in which the neighborhood, as a development project, refers more to a single land development project with a large footprint and a low density than to the grassroots administrative unit referred to in China. The former’s institutional sustainability focuses on increasing the neighborhood’s capital value, while the latter focuses on the welfare of disadvantaged groups. Therefore, the development of China adapted sustainability assessment tools and approaches for neighborhood facilities. The precise matching of supply and demand within a 300–500 m neighborhood scale should be the basic premise of this research area.

6.3. Conducting a Classification Assessment of Neighborhood Facilities for SDGs and Livability

China’s urbanization rate reached 67.00% in 2024, and livability development emphasizing “people-oriented” will become the overall goal of the territorial spatial planning system being developed. However, Zhou, Ma [132] pointed out in their study that since China’s development in the field of sustainability science is seriously lagging behind the international frontiers, benchmarking against the SDGs is an effective way to carry out cooperation on the sustainability assessment of neighborhood facilities in China and worldwide [133]. Meanwhile, during decades of urbanization in China, different types of neighborhoods, such as commercial neighborhoods, old neighborhoods (Danwei compound), and affordable neighborhoods with various spatial and temporal characteristics [130,134], have been formed in cities transitioning from incremental expansion to stock enhancement. The demand for facility services and sustainability issues faced by the residents of different types of neighborhoods may be unique. Therefore, to consider the contexts of China and worldwide, it is particularly time-sensitive to conduct a study on categorizing, assessing, and implementing sustainable neighborhood facilities that integrate SDGs and livability.

6.4. Establishing an Implementation Framework for Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities

A close and mutually reinforcing relationship exists between theoretical research on sustainable neighborhood facility assessments and practical needs. Driven by sustainability and livability needs, establishing a multi-factor, multi-scale implementation framework for neighborhood facilities that integrates technical methods and policy systems to carry out relevant research is practical.
Overall, this study provides a starting point for developing a practical implementation framework and is a useful reference for future research on sustainable neighborhood facilities in China and worldwide.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17083753/s1. Ref. [135] is cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Supervision, Y.A.S.H. and M.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Q.; writing—review and editing, Y.A.S.H. and L.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the first author.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to my supervisors, Melasutra Md Dali and Yong Adilah Shamsul Harumain, for their invaluable guidance and support. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude for the support provided by the Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya. I also thank the anonymous peer reviewers at Sustainability for their constructive feedback, which greatly improved this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UN-Habitat. New Urban Agenda. 2017. Available online: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  2. UN-Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  3. He, B.J.; Zhao, D.X.; Zhu, J.; Darko, A.; Gou, Z.H. Promoting and implementing urban sustainability in China: An integration of sustainable initiatives at different urban scales. Habitat Int. 2018, 82, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Subramanian, K.; Chopra, S.S.; Ezgi, C.; Liu, J.; Xu, Z. Advancing neighbourhood sustainability assessment by accounting for sustainable development goals: A case study of Sha Tin neighbourhood in Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 66, 102649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pacione, M. Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geogr. 1990, 11, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Doxiadis, C.A. Ekistics, the Science of Human Settlements: Ekistics starts with the premise that human settlements are susceptible of systematic investigation. Science 1970, 170, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Niu, W.Y.; Liu, Y.J. China’s New-Urbanization Report; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. World Health Organization. Healthy Cities Effective Approach to a Rapidly Changing World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Benites, H.S.; Osmond, P.; Gabriella Rossi, A.M. Developing low-carbon communities with LEED-ND and climate tools and policies in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04019025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kasim, R.; Ahmad, A.R.; Eni, S. The Neighbourhood Facilities and the Sustainable Communities Agenda: An Overview. 2007. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/reader/12005620 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  12. Gibberd, J. Neighbourhood facilities for sustainability. In Sustainable City VIII; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mouratidis, K. Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and well-being: The links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ercan, M.A. Challenges and conflicts in achieving sustainable communities in historic neighbourhoods of Istanbul. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huang, L.J.; Wei, Z.; Hong, J.K.; Liu, Y.; Liu, G.W. Paths and strategies for sustainable urban renewal at the neighbourhood level: A framework for decision-making. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 55, 102074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. San Francisco Planning Commission. Southeast Framework Community Facilities Assessment Report. 2021. Available online: https://sfplanning.org/resource/southeast-framework-community-facilities-assessment-report (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  17. Planit-IE and Deloitte. Sheffield City Centre Priority Neighbourhood Frameworks. 2022. Available online: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/city_centre_priority_neighbourhood_frameworks.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  18. Zhan, D.; Kwan, M.-P.; Zhang, W.; Fan, J.; Yu, J.; Dang, Y. Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities 2018, 79, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ruth, M.; Franklin, R.S. Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 49, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. C40 Cities and C40 Knowledge Hub. 15-Minute Cities: How to Create ‘Complete’ Neighbourhoods. 2021. Available online: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/15-minute-cities-How-to-create-complete-neighbourhoods?language=en_US (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  21. Shari, A.; Dawodu, A.; Cheshmehzangi, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools: A review of success factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kaur, H.; Garg, P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Merino-Saum, A.; Halla, P.; Superti, V.; Boesch, A.; Binder, C.R. Indicators for urban sustainability: Key lessons from a systematic analysis of 67 measurement initiatives. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 119, 106879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. McShane, I. Social value and the management of community infrastructure. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2006, 65, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Satu, S.A.; Chiu, R.L. Livability in dense residential neighbourhoods of Dhaka. Hous. Stud. 2017, 34, 538–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sudeshna, K.; Anirban, S.; Haimanti, B. Pentagram sustainability model: Framing of a holistic sustainability dimension model for assessment of neighbourhood-level urban communities (NLUCS) using a semi-automated systematic literature review. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 8, 100–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ayotunde, D.; Ali, C.; Bamidele, A. The systematic selection of headline sustainable indicators for the development of future neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools for Africa. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 41, 760–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lori, B.; Tim, V.; Karl-Erich, L.; Kerry, N.M.; Graham, E.H.S.; Terrence, A.F.; Lalita, A.B. Co-design of water services and infrastructure for Indigenous Canada: A scoping review. FACETS 2018, 3, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vinussa, R.; Sara, W.; Lincoln, L.H.L.; Warren, D.D. Health system resilience to extreme weather events in Asia-Pacific: A scoping review. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 944–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Liu, N.; Li, Y.; Long, Y.; Jill, B.; Gary, A.; Kavi, B.; Judith, R.; Emily, G. Neighborhood infrastructure-related risk factors and non-communicable diseases: A systematic meta-review. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2023, 22, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Ghazala, M.; Vijayendra, R. Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. World Bank Res. Obs. 2004, 19, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lucas, N. Shanghai and Beijing: China’s Incredible Shrinking Megacities. 2018. Available online: https://thechinaproject.com/2018/03/26/shanghai-beijing-chinas-incredible-shrinking-megacities/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  34. Lin, Z.D.; Zhao, W. Research on influencing factors of regional differences in rural public infrastructure investment. Rural Econ. 2016, 1, 7. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tian, X.Y.; Li, P.Y. Research on influencing factors of fairness of rural infrastructure investment in China—Based on the perspective of equity. Macroeconomics 2016, 11, 10. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, H.; Zhou, G.; Wennersten, R.; Frostell, B. Analysis of sustainable urban development approaches in China. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Q.; Yung, H.K.; Chan, H.W. Towards sustainable neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities for neighborhood planning in transitional urban China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wei, W.; Ren, X.; Guo, S. Evaluation of public service facilities in 19 large cities in china from the perspective of supply and demand. Land 2022, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, Y.; Qian, Y.S.; Zeng, J.W.; Wei, X.T.; Yang, M.n. Walkability measurement of 15-minute community life circle in Shanghai. Land 2023, 12, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pan, J.L. Research on the matching problems of facilities in urban residential neighborhoods. Archit. Eng. Technol. Des. 2021, 14, 1. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xu, K.; Shen, G.Q.; Liu, G.; Martek, I. Demolition of existing buildings in urban renewal projects: A decision support system in the china context. Sustainability 2019, 11, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ovais, H. Khori garden transformation and its impacts: Tracing the lost essence of a neighborhood open space. J. Art Archit. Built Environ. 2022, 5, 30–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Q.; Yung, H.K.; Chan, H.W. Meshing sustainability with satisfaction: An investigation of residents’ perceptions in three different neighborhoods in Chengdu, China. Land 2021, 10, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sun, L.L.; Esther, H.K.Y.; Edwin, H.W.C.; Zhu, D.J. Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of stakeholders: A case study in Shanghai. Habitat Int. 2016, 53, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xi, J.P. Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; Xinhua News Agency: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Huang, L.; Luo, Y. Community planning and the local approach in the perspective of social governance innovation—A case study of Shiyou road, Yuzhong district of Chongqing. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2014, 5, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, D.H. Urban Planning History of China; Southeast University Press: Nanjing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lee, J.; Park, S. Exploring neighborhood unit’s planning elements and configuration methods in seoul and singapore from a walkability perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dario, S.; Miranda, C.; Chris, W. Introduction to Systematic Reviews: Online Learning Module. 2025. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning/module-1-introduction-conducting-systematic-reviews (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  50. Chen, S.; Huang, C.; Wang, C.; Qiu, B. A systematic study of the urban green space quality evaluation research based on PRISMA. Landsc. Archit. Acad. J. 2023, 41, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  51. PRISMA 2020 Checklist. 2024. Available online: https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  52. Khatibi, M.; Khaidzir, K.A.M.; Mahdzar, S.S.S. Measuring the sustainability of neighborhoods: A systematic literature review. Iscience 2023, 26, 105951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. O’Neill, M.; Booth, S.R.; Lamb, J.T. Using NVivo for Literature Reviews: The Eight Step Pedagogy (N7+1). Qual. Rep. 2018, 23, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, M. Research on the Integrated Spatial Planning of Urban Livelihood Services—Taking Harbin as a Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rekik, R.; Kallel, I.; Casillas, J.; Alimi, A.M. Assessing web sites quality: A systematic literature review by text and association rules mining. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 38, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mazlan, N.A.; Zainol, R.; Harumain, Y.A.S. Effects of informal economy towards employment: A systematic review. Geografia 2021, 17, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kitchenham, B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ. 2004, 33, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ayotunde, D.; Ali, C.; Ayyoob, S.; Jumoke, M.O. Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools: Research trends and forecast for the built environment. Sustain. Futures 2022, 4, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yilmaz, M.; Yildiz, S.; Kvrak, S.; Gültekin, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools and a comparative analysis of five different assessment tools. J. Plan. 2016, 26, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tam, V.; Karimipour, H.; Le, K.N.; Wang, J. Green neighbourhood: Review on the international assessment systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82 Pt 1, 689–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Moore, R. ‘Precinct Planning and Design Standards (PPDS) in a coastal area’: The development, planning and design process of a medium-sized coastal precinct incorporating community facilities and infrastructure. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 102, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Azmi, D.I.; Karim, H.A. Implications of walkability towards promoting sustainable urban neighbourhood. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 50, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bhadra, M. Empowering Communities to Cope with Disaster Risks through Community Based Disaster Management UNCRD Disaster Management planning Hyogo office; People, Communities and Disasters. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Earthquake Safer World in the 21st Century, Kobe, Japan, 30 January–1 February 2003. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tammo, M.; Nelson, M. A critical review of the concept of facilities management in community-based contexts. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 3–5 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
  65. Uzairiah Mohd Tobi, S.; Amaratunga, D.; Mohd Noor, N. Social enterprise applications in an urban facilities management setting. Facilities 2013, 31, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abdullahi, S.; Pradhan, B.; Jebur, M.N. GIS-based sustainable city compactness assessment using integration of MCDM, Bayes theorem and RADAR technology. Geocarto Int. 2014, 30, 365–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lietz, K.; Bijoux, D. Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A New Zealand example. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 191, 1637–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Azmi, D.I.; Ahmad, P. A GIS Approach: Determinant of neighbourhood environment indices in influencing walkability between two precincts in Putrajaya. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 557–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, Y. A comparative study on the neighborhood street characteristics of Seongnam City-Focused on Taepyungdong, Sanseongdong, Sinheungdong, and Dandaedong. Int. J. Smart Home 2015, 9, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Randall, T.A.; Baetz, B.W. A GIS-based land-use diversity index model to measure the degree of suburban sprawl. Area 2015, 47, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Han, J.; Liang, H.; Hara, K.; Uwasu, M.; Dong, L. Quality of life in China’s largest city, Shanghai: A 20-year subjective and objective composite assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 173, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hehl, R. Cultivating the field in the Global Hinterland: Community building for mass housing in the Amazon Region. Archit. Des. 2016, 86, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lu, Z.M.; Crittenden, J.; Southworth, F.; Dunham-Jones, E. An integrated framework for managing the complex interdependence between infrastructures and the socioeconomic environment: An application in metropolitan Atlanta. Urban Stud. 2016, 54, 2874–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Natarajan, L.; Rydin, Y.; Lock, S.J.; Lee, M. Navigating the participatory processes of renewable energy infrastructure regulation: A ‘local participant perspective’on the NSIPs regime in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2017, 114, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nieto, J.; Dasilva, L.; Murtinho, V.; Rigueiro, C. ‘The management indicator’ from the point of view of an urban assessment. Urban Regen. Sustain. 2017, 12, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ardeshiri, A.; Willis, K.; Ardeshiri, M. Exploring preference homogeneity and heterogeneity for proximity to urban public services. Cities 2018, 81, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Green, R.; Tiwari, P.; Rao, J.; Hersburgh, R. Strategies used by developers in seeking EnviroDevelopment certification for “sustainable” master-planned residential developments in Victoria, Australia. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2018, 11, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sarram, G.; Ivey, S.S. Investigating customer satisfaction patterns in a community livability context: An efficiency-oriented decision-making approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation and Development 2018, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–18 July 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wang, Y.; Shaw, D.; Yuan, K. Gated neighborhoods, privatized amenities and fragmented society: Evidence from residential experience and implications for urban planning. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Čičević, S.; Dragović, M.; Mitrović, S. Walkability and usability of street after reconstruction–potentials for reverse logistics. In Proceedings of the 4th Logistics International Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 23–25 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  81. Furmankiewicz, M.; Campbell, A. From single-use community facilities support to integrated sustainable development: The aims of inter-municipal cooperation in Poland, 1990–2018. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ziaesaeidi, P.; Cushing, D.F. The social sustainability of neighbourhood-schools: A qualitative study with Iranian children and youth about their neighbourhood perceptions. Local Environ. 2019, 24, 1178–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aziz, A.; Anwar, M.M. Assessing land values and proximity using hedonic model-a case study of green town gujrat, pakistan. Eur. J. Geogr. 2020, 10, 4. [Google Scholar]
  84. Baek, S.G.; Kwon, H.-A. Participatory planning through flexible approach: Public community facilities in Seoul’s urban regeneration project. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Elldér, E.; Haugen, K.; Vilhelmson, B. When local access matters: A detailed analysis of place, neighbourhood amenities and travel choice. Urban Stud. 2020, 59, 120–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jia, Y.Q.; Zheng, Z.H.; Zhang, Q.; Li, M.; Liu, X.F. Associations of spatial aggregation between neighborhood facilities and the population of age groups based on points-of-interest data. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kim, Y.; Oh, J.; Kim, S. The transition from traditional infrastructure to living SOC and its effectiveness for community sustainability: The case of South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Moroke, T.; Schoeman, C.; Schoeman, I. Neighbourhood sustainability assessment model for developing countries: A comprehensive approach to urban quality of life. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 15, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Lindkvist, C.M. Urban facility management. Facilities 2020, 39, 525–537. [Google Scholar]
  90. Parisa, Z.; Flanders, C.D.; Tracy, W.; Elinor, B. How youth are socially engaged in parks: A participatory-approach for understanding youth perceptions and use patterns. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 052058. [Google Scholar]
  91. Graziuso, G.; Mancini, S.; Francavilla, A.B.; Grimaldi, M.; Guarnaccia, C. Geo-Crowdsourced Sound Level Data in Support of the Community Facilities Planning. A Methodological Proposal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kumar, P.; Kumar, P.; Garg, R.K.; Garg, R. Urban housing: A study on housing environment, residents’ satisfaction and happiness. Open House Int. 2021, 46, 528–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Masoumi, H. Home-Based urban commute and Non-Commute trip generation in Less-Studied Contexts: Evidence from Cairo, Istanbul, and Tehran. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 130–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Almusalami, A.; Habuza, T.; Singh, H.; Zaki, N. AffordAD: A User Friendly Tool for Estimating Housing Affordability in Abu Dhabi. In Proceedings of the 2022 14th Annual Undergraduate Research Conference on Applied Computing (URC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 23–24 November 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  95. Dillard, D.; Billie, M.; Bell-Rogers, N.; Wang, S.X.; Harrington, M.A. The Benefits of Community Engaged Research in Creating Place-Based Responses to COVID-19. Del. J. Public Health 2022, 8, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fonseca, F.; Papageorgiou, G.; Tondelli, S.; Ribeiro, P.; Conticelli, E.; Jabbari, M.; Ramos, R. Perceived Walkability and Respective Urban Determinants: Insights from Bologna and Porto. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Islam, M.A.; Shetu, M.M.; Hakim, S.S. Possibilities of a gender-responsive infrastructure for livelihood-vulnerable women’s resilience in rural-coastal Bangladesh. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 12, 447–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kim, J.Y.; Kim, Y.O. Residents’ spatial-usage behavior and interaction according to the spatial configuration of a social housing complex: A comparison between high-rise apartments and perimeter block housing. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ragheb, R.A.; Barakat, P.N. New sustainable agenda for slums future expansion, case-study: Ezbiit El-Matabea, Alexandria, Egypt. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2022, 17, 385–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. You, N.L. A walking-based measurement for understanding the relationship between dense urban form and community facility distribution: A case study in the old town of Fuzhou, China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 3704–3722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Goudsmit, I.; Nel, D.; Lin, S. Evaluating the quality of life in Hong Kong’s new towns in relation to accessibility and the distribution of community and cultural facilities: A case study of Tung Chung. J. Urban Manag. 2023, 12, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jayasena, N.S.; Chan, D.W.; Kumaraswamy, M. Benefits, enablers and barriers in deploying PPP when developing smart infrastructure in non-urban areas. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2023, 14, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Masterson, J.; Katare, A.; Thapa, J.; Malecha, M.; Yu, S.; Berke, P. Plan integration and plan quality: Combining assessment tools to align local infrastructure priorities to reduce hazard vulnerability. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2023, 8, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vallati, A.; Muzi, F.; Fiorini, C.V.; di Matteo, M.; Sundararajan, M. Development of an Energy Community through semi-dynamic simulation of a urban social housing. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2648, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Xiao, J.; Yuizono, T. Impact of microclimate landscape design updates on thermal comfort in a community park. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction, Energy, Environment and Sustainability (CEES 2023), Funchal, Portugal, 27–30 June 2023; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  106. Zhang, K.; Yan, D. Enhancing the community environment in populous residential districts: Neighborhood amenities and residents’ daily needs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Song, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, R.; Yu, H.; Li, F.; Pang, Y. How to design a sustainable street network for neighbourhoods: An empirical study of China’s inner cities from the perspective of spatial configuration. Urban Des. Int. 2024, 29, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hira, Q. Urban sustainability assessment of DHA City, Karachi (DCK)—Pakistan: A methodological approach combining urban form indicators with stakeholders’ perspectives. J. Urban Manag. 2024, 13, 813–831. [Google Scholar]
  109. Seyyedeh, F.M. Changes in social impacts of industrial heritage adaptive reuse in high-density residential environment: Reciprocal relations between social cohesion and perceived safety. Soc. Indic. Res. 2024, 172, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  110. Lehner, M.; Richter, J.L.; Kreinin, H.; Mamut, P.; Vadovics, E.; Henman, J.; Mont, O.; Fuchs, D. Living smaller: Acceptance, effects and structural factors in the EU. Build. Cities 2024, 5, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nguyen, D.N.; Usuda, Y.; Imamura, F. Gaps in and Opportunities for Disaster Risk Reduction in Urban Areas Through International Standardization of Smart Community Infrastructure. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aaron, A. Growing liveable cities: An indicators study of Melbourne’s fast-growing metropolitan area. GeoJournal 2024, 89, 244. [Google Scholar]
  113. Yang, M.; Yaman, R.; Ismail, F.Z.; Cheng, P.; Jiang, Y. A Sustainable urban renovation assessment model (SURAM) for enhancing elderly-friendly environments. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev. 2024, 8, 7993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Shelley, G.; Paul, M. The model street method: Considering its suitability beyond poverty and sustainability into post-conflict settings. South Sudan Med. J. 2024, 17. [Google Scholar]
  115. Abbas, M.K.; Dhuha, A.H.; Tabark, M.A. Promoting sustainability in housing sector using eco-friendly materials. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Iraq 2024, Baghdad, Iraq, 17–18 April 2024. [Google Scholar]
  116. Viehl, A.; Deckers, J.; Kern, F.; Sossdorf, A.; Zeilfelder, B.; Taş, Ö.Ş. Smart districts as key elements of livable and sustainable smart cities. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Smart Cities Futures Summit (SCFC), Marrakech, Morocco, 29–31 May 2024. [Google Scholar]
  117. Roslan, N.; Marzbali, M.H.; Abdullah, A.; Tilaki, M.J. GIS analysis of neighbourhood environment determinants that influence walkability in Penang, Malaysia. Plan. Malays. 2025, 23, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wheeler, S. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  119. Josh, P. Intersubjectivity and community-building: Learning to learn organizationally. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management; Mark, E.-S., Marjorie, A.L., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  120. Hu, P. Location Evaluation of Basic Public Facilities; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  121. Anke, V.; Joachim, H.S. A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Boyko, C.T.; Cooper, R.; Davey, C.L.; Wootton, A.B. Addressing sustainability early in the urban design process. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2006, 17, 689–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Poh-Chin, L.; Si, C.; Chien-Tat, L.; Ester, C.; Robert, S.; Pui, W. Neighborhood variation of sustainable urban morphological characteristics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Hunt, D.V.; Lombardi, D.R.; Rogers, C.D.; Jefferson, I. Application of sustainability indicators in decision-making processes for urban regeneration projects. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  125. Husserl, E. Edmund Husserl; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1980; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  126. Guo, Z. Philosophy of Subjectivity: An Interpretation of Human Existence and Its Meaning; China Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  127. Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.-F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Huang, H.; Yin, L. Creating sustainable urban built environments: An application of hedonic house price models in Wuhan, China. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2015, 30, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sharifi, A.; Dawodu, A.; Cheshmehzangi, A. Limitations in assessment methodologies of neighborhood sustainability assessment tools: A literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Qin, S.Q.; Zhang, N.; Zhu, P.J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C. Progress of international research on community sustainability assessment and its prospects in China. Urban Plan. Int. 2022, 39, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  131. Stephan, B.; Reimund, S. No perfect tools: Trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing tools supporting land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 153, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhou, B.-B.; Ma, Q.; Wu, J.; Hu, G.; Mao, D.; Zeng, X.; Guo, J.; Fang, X.; Liu, Y.; Lyu, L. What is sustainability science? Recent advances and new opportunities. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Peng, S.; Chen, J.; Huiru, R.; Hao, C.; Zhao, X. Comprehensive measurement of localized indicator alignment and practice toward SDGs. Geomat. World 2022, 29, 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  134. National Social Worker Professional Level Teaching Material. Junior Social Work Practice; China Social Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  135. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03753 g001
Figure 1. The flow diagram in this study.
Figure 1. The flow diagram in this study.
Sustainability 17 03753 g001
Sustainability 17 03753 g002
Figure 2. Number of papers published by year.
Figure 2. Number of papers published by year.
Sustainability 17 03753 g002
Sustainability 17 03753 g003
Figure 3. Number of papers published in China by year.
Figure 3. Number of papers published in China by year.
Sustainability 17 03753 g003
Sustainability 17 03753 g004
Figure 4. Overall frequency of the influencing factors.
Figure 4. Overall frequency of the influencing factors.
Sustainability 17 03753 g004
Sustainability 17 03753 g005
Figure 5. Factors contributing to the sustainable neighborhood facilities.
Figure 5. Factors contributing to the sustainable neighborhood facilities.
Sustainability 17 03753 g005
Sustainability 17 03753 g006
Figure 6. The relationship between the providers and recipients and the sustainability factors in the reviewed article.
Figure 6. The relationship between the providers and recipients and the sustainability factors in the reviewed article.
Sustainability 17 03753 g006
Sustainability 17 03753 g007
Figure 7. The relationship among the influencing factors of the neighborhood facilities.
Figure 7. The relationship among the influencing factors of the neighborhood facilities.
Sustainability 17 03753 g007
Table 1. The search string used for the systematic review process.
Table 1. The search string used for the systematic review process.
Scientific DatabaseSearch String
ScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainab*” OR “liv*abilit*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“neighbo*hood facilit*” OR “neighbo*hood amenit*” OR “neighbo*hood infrastructure” OR “community facilit*” OR “community amenit*” OR “community infrastructure” OR “block facilit*” OR “block amenit*” OR “block infrastructure”)
Web of ScienceTS= (“sustainab*” OR “liv*abilit*”) AND TS= (“neighbo*hood facilit*” OR “neighbo*hood amenit*” OR “neighbo*hood infrastructure” OR “community facilit*” OR “community amenit*” OR “community infrastructure” OR “block facilit*” OR “block amenit*” OR “block infrastructure”)
Table 2. Extraction of influencing factors.
Table 2. Extraction of influencing factors.
AuthorsCountryAuthority ValuesService SupplyUser AttributesUser NeedsAccessibilityInstitutions and GovernanceSpatial Environment
Service
Concepts		Value ChoicesSupply CapacitySupply ModesBehavioral CharacteristicsSocial AttributesCommon NeedsIndividual NeedsAgglomerationLocationMobile ModesGood GovernanceSound InstitutionEconomic Spatial ActivitiesLand UseNatural Resources and Environment
McShane [24] (2006)Australia • •• Article
Moore [61] (2007)Australia • •• •• •• •
Azmi and Karim [62] (2012)Malaysia • • •
Bhadra [63] (2012)Japan •••
Tammo and Nelson [64] (2012)UK • •• •
Uzairiah Mohd Tobi, Amaratunga [65] (2013)Malaysia • •
Abdullahi, Pradhan [66] (2014)Malaysia • • •
Lietz and Bijoux [67] (2014)New Zealand ••• • •
Azmi and Ahmad [68] (2015)Malaysia • • •
Lee [69] (2015)Korea •• •
Randall and Baetz [70] (2015)Canada • ••• •
Han, Liang [71] (2016)China • •• • • •
Hehl [72] (2016)Germany •• •
Lu, Crittenden [73] (2016)USA• • •
Natarajan, Rydin [74] (2017)UK • •••• ••
Nieto, Dasilva [75] (2017)Portugal • • •
Satu and Chiu [25] (2017)Hong Kong • • •
Ardeshiri, Willis [76] (2018)Australia •• • •
Green, Tiwari [77] (2018)Australia •• •
Sarram and Ivey [78] (2018)USA ••• •
Wang, Shaw [79] (2018)China••• ••••• •••••
Čičević, Dragović [80] (2019)Serbia • •
Furmankiewicz and Campbell [81] (2019)Poland ••• •
Ziaesaeidi and Cushing [82] (2019)Australia• ••
Aziz and Anwar [83] (2020)Pakistan •• •• •••
Baek and Kwon [84] (2020)Korea • ••
Elldér, Haugen [85] (2020)Sweden••• ••• ••
Jia, Zheng [86] (2020)China •• •
Kim, Oh [87] (2020)Korea • • •
Moroke, Schoeman [88] (2020)South Africa • • • • ••
Temeljotov Salaj and Lindkvist [89] (2020)Norway • •• •
Ziaesaeidi, Cushing [90] (2020)Australia• • •
Graziuso, Mancini [91] (2021)Italy • •
Kumar, Kumar [92] (2021)India • • •
Masoumi [93] (2021)Germany •
Almusalami, Habuza [94] (2022)UAE • • •• •• ••
Dillard, Billie [95] (2022)USA •• •• •
Fonseca, Papageorgiou [96] (2022)Italy • •
Islam, Shetu [97] (2022)Bangladesh •• ••
Kim and Kim [98] (2022)Korea ••
Ragheb and Barakat [99] (2022)Egypt•• •• •
You [100] (2022)China ••• •
Goudsmit, Nel [101] (2023)Hong Kong • • • •
Jayasena, Chan [102] (2023)Hong Kong• • • • •
Masterson, Katare [103] (2023)USA • • •
Vallati, Muzi [104] (2023)Italy •
Xiao and Yuizono [105] (2023)Japan • •
Zhang and Yan [106] (2023)China • •
Song, Li [107] (2024)China ••
Hira [108] (2024)Pakistan •• •• •• ••
Seyyedeh [109] (2024)Iran •
Matthias, Jessika [110] (2024)Sweden • •
David, Yuichiro [111] (2024)Japan • •
Aaron [112] (2024)Australia •
Yang, Rostam [113] (2024)China •••••• •
Shelley and Paul [114] (2024)Kenya•• ••• •
Maher, Dhuha [115] (2024)Iraq •
Alexander, Jana [116] (2024)Germany ••
Nurfarahin, Hedayati [117] (2025)Malaysia • • •
BREEAM Communities (2012)UK •• ••• •NSA
DGNB for Districts (2012)Germany •••• • ••••
CASBEE-UD (2014)Japan •• • •
Green Star Communities (2016)Australia••••••••• ••• •
LEED-ND (2018)USA •• •• • •
Standards for Urban Residential Area Planning and Design (GB50180-2018)China••• •••••••• •••China’s Regulation
Spatial Planning Guidance: Community Life Unit (TD/T1062-2021)China••••••••••••••••
Construction Guidance for Complete Residential Neighborhoods (2022)China••••••• ••••••
Table 3. Classification and grading of influencing factors.
Table 3. Classification and grading of influencing factors.
DimensionsIndicatorsInfluencing FactorsMeasuring Item
Providers
(suppliers)		Authority
values		Service conceptsPeople-oriented approach,
efficiency in the use of funds for implementation,
and priority levels for facility planning and implementation.
Value choicesEquity and inclusiveness,
level of planning and implementation matching,
and level of planning achievement.
Service
supply		Supply capacityAdequacy of neighborhood facilities,
quality of configuration of neighborhood facilities,
and safeguarding basic needs in the face of public emergencies.
Supply modesEfficiency and sustainability of implementation guaranteed by the authorities,
partnership structure performance,
and ratio of the non-governmental sector in the decision-making process.
Recipients
(users)		User
attributes		Behavioral characteristicsFrequency of common-need facilities,
frequency of individual-need facilities,
and ways to reach neighborhood facilities.
Social attributesAge structure,
level of income and education,
and population size and quality.
User
needs		Common needsAvailability of daily needs,
availability of leisure needs,
availability of safety and security needs,
availability of social needs, and sense of belonging.
Individual needsAvailability of diversity needs,
availability of emotional needs,
availability of privacy needs,
and sense of self-worth
Coordinating
mediators		AccessibilityAgglomerationAttraction to users,
degree of travel time cost reduction,
enrichment of facility services,
quality of facility services after agglomeration,
and resource mobilization capacity during emergency.
LocationCoverage of common-need facilities within neighborhood scale,
coverage of individual-need facilities within neighborhood scale,
and level of life circle facilities enrichment within neighborhood scale.
Mobile modesProvision of roads,
provision of sidewalk,
provision of parking lot,
and transport modes to neighborhood facilities
Institutions and governanceGood governanceDigitalization and Smart City initiatives,
implementation and operational performance,
incentive mechanism,
and mechanisms for multi-party participation.
Sound institutionOperability and specificity of the standardized system,
stability and sustainability in the implementation.
Spatial
environment		Economic spatial activitiesProvision of basic retail services for daily needs,
provision of high-quality multi-format value-added services,
business vitality created by different format services,
incorporation of local training initiatives to neighborhood management,
and employment opportunity for residents.
Land useMixed-use: various uses within the same building or open space,
integration of existing and new developments,
and reuse of greyfield land.
Natural resources and environmentOpen space and environment,
five sections—saving initiatives,
and physical environment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qi, L.; Harumain, Y.A.S.; Dali, M.M. Enhancing Livability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities and Their Perspectives in China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083753

AMA Style

Qi L, Harumain YAS, Dali MM. Enhancing Livability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities and Their Perspectives in China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083753

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi, Lei, Yong Adilah Shamsul Harumain, and Melasutra Md Dali. 2025. "Enhancing Livability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities and Their Perspectives in China" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083753

APA Style

Qi, L., Harumain, Y. A. S., & Dali, M. M. (2025). Enhancing Livability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Neighborhood Facilities and Their Perspectives in China. Sustainability, 17(8), 3753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083753

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop