Abstract
Introduction
Planning has historically sought to achieve social value for the public interest (Dadashpoor, Sheydayi and Esmaeili 2025; Campbell and Marshall 2002). However, in today's property-led planning systems, efforts to advance social value are limited. This article argues that the rise of market-led planning, coupled with institutional complexities, has enabled contested interpretations of social value. These interpretations often reduce the concept to short-term outcomes rather than long-term strategies and continuous processes rooted in public interest. As a result, social value is increasingly framed as a deliverable aligned with project viability, rather than a guiding ethos embedded in planning's normative foundations.
This tension reflects a broader contradiction at the heart of contemporary planning systems which operate “in and against the market” (Raco and Tasan-Kok 2024). On the one hand, planning is tasked with facilitating investment and economic growth; on the other, it remains expected to support social value creation. While this dual role is often framed as a strategic balancing act, in practice it generates significant trade-offs, particularly in how social value is conceptualized and delivered (Raco and Tasan-Kok 2024; Shahab 2022).
These trade-offs are further complicated by the fact that interpretations of social value vary widely across actors, institutions, and policies involved in planning and property development (Kim 2025; Çıdık 2023; Samuel and Watson 2023). Research shows that how social value is understood and operationalized, is shaped by subjective interests, professional norms, and broader ideological positions (Jain et al. 2020; Tsirogianni and Gaskell 2011). Even when policy frameworks seek to advance social value, their implementation is often conditioned by complex ecosystem of regulations, public-private interdependencies, and land ownership models. These pose additional challenges to aligning goals and effectively navigating the creation of social value.
As planners advance entrepreneurial endeavors, they grapple with the challenge of upholding longstanding objectives of creating value for individuals while safeguarding public interests (Tait 2016). Moreover, they often overlook the potential insights from diverse backgrounds, which could offer innovative solutions, rather than relying solely on a linear, goal-oriented process. (Kady, Özogul and Tasan-Kok 2024). As a result, efforts to incorporate social value into development processes tend to be partial and fragmented.
Nonetheless, social value has gained traction in property discourse (Gamage, Amidu and Levy 2025; Samuel and Watson 2023) and in property development practices, reflecting an increasing recognition that products and outcomes must align with broader societal values and ideologies (JLL 2023; Savills 2022). This came about in response to growing societal pressures such as unaffordable housing, social inequality, and post-pandemic recovery (Urban Land Institute 2021). Social value is understood as the positive physical and non-physical impact of decisions and practices on people, beyond financial profit (Social Value UK 2025). It encompasses non-economic societal values such as safety, inclusion, empowerment, access to green spaces, health, well-being, etc. to guide policies and practices towards bringing about positive impacts.
As the term becomes more widely adopted in property-led development practices, there is a tendency that new interpretations emerge as diverse stakeholders with distinct objectives interact across planning and development processes. This can lead to selective implementation, where certain social value outcomes are prioritized while others are overlooked, reinforcing uneven outcomes.
Fragmented Debates and the Interdisciplinary Solution
The fragmentation observed in planning practice mirrors the fragmentation found in academic debates. Major attempts to study social value empirically have varied in their starting points (de la Cruz Jara and Spanjol 2025; Herzog et al. 2024; Lorenzo-Afable, Lips-Wiersma and Singh 2023) but have struggled to link together to form a cohesive body of knowledge. Addressing this critical gap requires synthesizing literature from planning, urban studies, architecture, property, law, and sustainability, as planning is inherently multidisciplinary and relies on diverse perspectives to manage complex concepts.
This review systematically draws on the unique insights of these fields. Amid institutional changes, planning scholarship evolved, documenting the shifting role of planners (Adams and Tiesdell 2010), the tools they employ (Stead 2021), the public value of property-led development (Adams, Disberry and Hutchison 2017), and the entangled relationship between planning systems and property markets (Özogul and Tasan-Kok 2020; Gurran and Bramley 2017). Urban scholarship, for instance, emphasizes institutional norms and governance structures, illustrating how these mechanisms shape urban development and condition the pursuit of broader societal goals (Eakin, Keele and Lueck 2022). Property research has begun to reframe value beyond financial returns (Edkins 2018), echoing broader debates in economics (Mazzucato 2023); and sustainability studies offer frameworks and indicators for assessing long-term impacts (Dean, Trillo and Bichard 2017; Smyth and Vanclay 2017). Yet while these contributions provide valuable insights, they often remain siloed. Integrating these perspectives therefore provides the foundation for an integrated understanding of how social value is represented, managed, and assess in property development.
A total of 109 peer-reviewed articles were systematically reviewed and manually grouped according to central concepts, spatial context, and thematic focus, culminating in the formation of four sub-categories: spatial design and architecture, urban planning models, impact assessment, and evaluation (see Figure 1). Following an inductive approach, recurring patterns, themes, and relationships were identified, leading to the development of a conceptual framework structured around three interrelated dimensions:
Categorizations of social value.
The synthesis demonstrates that while the literature extensively engages with representation (34%) and management (44%), the assessment of social value remains significantly underexplored (22%). Notably highlighted in the literature is the growing emphasis on leveraging spatial design and architecture to mobilize social value. This is also reflected in both planning policies and visions aimed at enhancing urban attractiveness.
Assessment revolves around the evaluation of social value through different valuation approaches and assessment tools, including qualitative accounts as well. Although researchers provided critical accounts of outcomes of processes and strategies, there seemed to be a significant gap in understanding to what extent. Limited insights into the outcome of evaluation strategies highlight a key gap, undermining the integration of social and hindering its transition from discourse to implementation.
Together, these three dimensions offer a comprehensive framework for understanding and navigating social value within property development, supporting both scholars and practitioners in engaging with its practical and theoretical implications.
This article is structured as follows. The next section outlines the methodology used for the systematic literature review. This is followed by a review of social value, organized into three subsections based on the conceptual framework. The subsequent section presents a discussion of the key findings. Finally, the concluding section summarizes the contributions of the study and outlines directions for future research.
Methodology
Due to the multidisciplinary nature of planning, identifying commonalities among scholars within the field can be challenging. With its multiple identities, planning often divides along distinct problem-oriented lines (Weber and Crane 2012). Some scholars view planning as a reflexive practice rather than a prescriptive one (Alexander 2022), while others focus on the functionality of contemporary planning systems, particularly their role in guiding decision-making and coordinating networks of actors for the public interest (Parker and Street 2021). This philosophical and practical division confirms the need for a combined methodology that recognizes how understanding evolves through continuous interaction with diverse disciplinary literature.
This research employed a systematic literature review which attempts to synthesize existing research by identifying, analyzing and integrating patterns across a body of literature, enabling researchers to uncover under-explored areas and inform both academic and practical applications (Xiao and Watson 2019). The review also drew on analytical reading and iterative interpretation, as proposed by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014), to maintain conceptual sensitivity and allow for deeper engagement with diverse texts. This hermeneutic lens recognizes that understanding evolves through continuous interaction with the literature, enabling deepening of insights throughout the review process. Such combined methodology is particularly valuable in the multidisciplinary field of planning, where complex concepts, such as social value, are interpreted through diverse disciplinary lenses, including policy, law, design, and property.
Keyword Selection and Inclusion Criteria
Recognizing social value's multidimensionality, a set of conceptually adjacent keywords was adopted to capture overlapping discourses. The primary search term was “social value” in conjunction with “real estate,” “property development,” “housing,” “urban development,” and “urban planning.” As the search progressed, additional terms emerged through iterative reading, including “public value,” “social impact,” “public benefit,” and “cultural value.” These terms were included as they reflect a broad understanding of social value, one that incorporates shared beliefs, norms, and practices that ultimately shape how social value is perceived and produced for the collective well-being and long-term benefit of people and place. This iterative refinement of keywords reflects the hermeneutic principle that understanding deepens through repeated engagement with texts, allowing more critical and layered interpretations to emerge throughout the review process (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2014).
The literature search was conducted across two of the most frequently used online academic platforms, Web of Science and Google Scholar. These platforms were selected due to their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature across urban studies, planning, property, law, and architecture disciplines. The search resulted in a total of 1,002 records which were then filtered to include articles from 1993 to 2023 since an increase in the number of articles was observed from 1993 onwards. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English language journals were included, regardless of their geographical context, and manually screened by title and abstract. Article selection was based on the following criteria: i. The title or abstract includes one of the social-value-related keywords ii. The article relates to urban planning, urban development, or property research iii. The article is spatially bounded to physical property, including all forms of real estate, public space, and green space.
After multiple rounds of screening, a total of 109 articles that met all the selection criteria were further analyzed. This manual exercise allowed for a deeper interpretive engagement with the literature where I was not only reading the text but also allowing the texts to shape my understanding. This dialogical interaction was essential in formulating the conceptual framework as it enabled themes and connections to emerge through reflection and cross-comparison.
Analytical Strategy and Thematic Coding
The selected articles were thematically coded based on three dimensions: spatial level, topic area, and key concepts. Through an inductive process of categorization, four initial sub-categories were identified:
Spatial design and Architecture which explored articles focusing on “Aesthetics” and “Spatial configuration.” Urban planning models which explored articles focussing on “Planning policies and visions,” “Law,” and “Planning strategies.” Impact assessment which explored articles focussing on “Assessment tools” and “Academic research.” Evaluation which explored articles focussing on “Valuation approaches” and “Market tools.”
Further synthesis of the articles was conducted through thematic analysis, a method that identifies recurring patterns, concepts and theoretical approaches used across disciplines (Squires 2023). Through this process, thematic connections were established, revealing overarching narratives on how social value is approached. These were refined into three analytical categories that structure this review:
Disciplinary and Geographical Scope of Selected Literature
To understand the extent and scope of social value studies, the articles were categorized based on geographical context and journal discipline. Given the interdisciplinary nature of research journals, seven areas of research study were defined: “Urban Design and Architecture,” “Urban Planning,” “Urban Studies,” “Housing Studies,” “Property and Economics,” “Sustainability,” and “Law”, as shown in Figure 2. This approach allowed for a clearer understanding of the primary focus within each research area. 1
Literature review results by research area.
While the field of Urban Planning came with the highest number of articles, the majority (around 58%) of its articles focussed on the management aspect following representation (27%), and the least number of articles were related to social value assessment (15%). A similar trend is seen in Urban Studies articles, where 54% focus on management, 31% on representation, and only 15% on assessment, demonstrating a significant gap in research, particularly in the domain of assessment. This is also notable within the field of Urban Design and Architecture and absent in the fields of Housing Studies and Law. On the other hand, despite their small number of outputs, 63% of the articles in the field of Property and Economics and 40% of the articles in the field of Sustainability focussed on the assessment aspect. Each of thes fields provide unique accounts and perspectives of social value. Urban scholarship provides critical insights into institutional norms, practices, and changing governance structures that shape social value outcomes (Nguyen et al. 2017; Kallinikos 1997), in addition to the existing tools and value capture mechanisms that help mobilize them (Noring 2019). Similarly, planning studies provide rich theoretical and empirical evidence on the social impact of market-led planning models (Gielen and Tasan-Kok 2010) and property development practices (Ferilli et al. 2017). Urban design and architecture literature highlight the impact of design in contributing to social value creation. In addition, it demonstrates how architecture serves as a vehicle for enabling broader policy objectives under the claim of value creation (Nayyeri Fallah, Khalili and Rasdi 2015).
Exploring the geographical context, the largest body of research on social value originated from Asia, followed by Europe and North America (see Figure 3). An intriguing finding within the search boundary was the limited amount of research in the UK context despite implementing the Social Value Act in 2012. Additionally, there is a substantial gap in social value research within Australia and New Zealand, Africa, and South America despite growing initiatives within the regions. Notably, research in Asia focuses more on the representation aspect, potentially influenced by cultural values and priorities. In contrast, in areas where market-led planning is more prominent, such as Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom, there is a greater emphasis on management aspects suggesting that these regions prioritize the practical implementation of social value through regulatory frameworks and decision-making processes to ensure its integration into urban development practices.
No. of articles per geographical context.
Looking at the distribution of articles in Figure 4, around 44% of the studies focus on social value management, mainly through planning policies and strategies, legal boundaries, and impact assessments that are crucial components in forecasting and managing planning and development actions. Following, 34% of the studies focus on the representation aspect that mostly reflects the translation of social value ideologies into the built environment. These articles touch upon how culture, sustainability, and ethical norms shape the perception and implementation of social value in different contexts. Lastly, the lowest percentage of studies focuses on the assessment aspect which is considerably lacking. These studies are essential for understanding the long-term social impact of property development and planning practices. Literature in this area examines the methods used to evaluate social value outcomes and the social impact of existing projects.
Distribution of articles per category.
Framing Social Value: Key Approaches
This section examines how the key themes of representation, management, and assessment is represented across the literature. Each theme unpacks how different disciplines construct and operationalize social value revealing the impact of current planning and property development practices within a market dependent context. More importantly, it reveals nuanced interpretations, priorities, and tensions that shape how social value is pursued in various spatial and institutional settings.
Social Value Representation
Spatial design and architecture are used to communicate and express societal values, cultural traditions, and historical narratives (Thuku and Maringa 2025; Carmona 2021). Globally, local governments have endorsed the rhetoric of “aesthetic planning” by improving aesthetic, cultural, and historical aspects of built environments to enhance economic and social value (Andersen and Røe 2017; Pløger 2001). Aesthetics planning has often been associated with the improvement of quality and functionality, resulting in the direct improvement of quality of life (Nia and Olugbenga 2020; Williams 1954). Historical buildings and cultural flagship projects have been associated with being symbolic representations of the city, closely intertwined with the generation of social value through cultural representation, public accessibility, and addressing local needs and interests (Smith and von Krogh Strand 2011). However, the mobilization of such projects has commonly prioritized city image enhancement rather than harnessing social value (Andersen and Røe 2017). This form of aestheticization visible in many city visions and ambitions throughout different contexts has led to contradictory outcomes such as housing unaffordability, change in social composition, and altering embedded socio-cultural values.
The adoption of aesthetic planning resulted in cities embracing similar approaches to urban (re)development, which in turn, abstracted the significance of place identity, disregarding the social and cultural context (García-Doménech 2015). This phenomenon is particularly evident in contexts that experience the forces of globalization, yet its citizens remain deeply rooted in their unique identity and cultural heritage. Such accounts can be observed in cities worldwide; however, they are especially prominent in, for example, many Asian and African contexts, where culture, religion, or other deeply ingrained values significantly shape people's lives and perspectives.
Research on these contexts narrates the dissociation between the impact of spatial design and architecture on social value. The common argument is prioritizing architects’ visions over individual needs and preferences. The literature review revealed studies conducted in China, Egypt, Malaysia, and Iran, highlighting how contemporary housing models often lacked the socio-cultural meaning embedded in traditional dwellings. In China rapid urbanization has led to the loss of traditional courtyard houses, which once provided privacy and security, giving way to dense housing units (Huang, Chiou and Li 2019). A similar disconnection is evident in Egypt, where local governments prioritized Western design configurations in public housing projects, rather than meeting specific functional and spiritual human needs (Ahmed 2012). In Iran, traditional spatial designs that facilitated connections and supported community activities were gradually being substituted with high-rise buildings that overlooked these spaces, leading to a disconnection from traditional social and cultural values (Abbaszadeh et al. 2009). Malaysia shows a comparable trend, with vernacular architecture rooted in the principle of “the building of the people, built by the people” (GhaffarianHoseini et al. 2014, 157), being replaced by “modern,” “popular,” and “smart” architectural styles (GhaffarianHoseini et al. 2014) . Across these contexts, the shift from culturally embedded design, has resulted in a decrease in the quality of life experienced by local communities.
Research on the representation of social value also explores the social meaning embedded in public spaces. Numerous policy contexts, such as the European Commission's Horizon 2020 initiative, have placed significant emphasis on nature-based solutions such as green spaces, parks, and open recreational areas, as a means to foster social inclusion, enhance social cohesion, promote well-being, and mitigate socio-spatial inequalities (Bauduceau et al. 2015). Yet in practice, urban greening has inadvertently become a means to improve city image and enhance market appeal, in some cases resulting in the displacement of vulnerable groups and undermining its social benefits (Haase et al. 2017). In other contexts, however, public space initiatives have produced more inclusive outcomes. In China, the transformation of historic parks from exclusive to a public spaces introduced new planning ideas, modernizing urban design while improving the city landscape and citizens’ health and well-being (Jiang and Liu 2018). Similarly, Jin et al. (2021) illustrated how converting abandoned spaces into community green areas significantly improved citizens’ social, physical, and emotional well-being in South Korea. Positive accounts of green spaces in the form of parks, urban agriculture, etc. have also been noted in UK and European contexts, improving residents’ physical health and well-being (Schoen, Caputo and Blythe 2020).
Law plays an integral role in defining and safeguarding social value. Beyond regulating social order, it can enhance quality of life by acquiring and protecting social good (Arnoldussen, Knegt and Schwitters 2016; D. J. Galligan 2006). Legal frameworks provide the foundation for equitable access to shared spaces and for mediating cultural controversies in public life, thereby offering a level playing field for diverse groups negotiating shared spaces (Chevalier 2016). Policies, regulations, and governance structures derive their authority from this legal basis.
Despite this central role, the literature review revealed only limited attention to the legal dimension of social value with most studies concentrated on the North American context. Here, eminent domain laws allow governments to take over land for public use, provided that the owner receives a “just compensation.” This principle has been extended to facilitate private development so long as projects can be justified as serving the public interest (LLI n.d.). Yet, much of the scholarship challenges the idea of “just compensation” and “public use,” arguing for a clearer conceptualization of these ideas in law and planning literature (VanDemark and Clevenger 2020; Turnbull 2010; Vickory and Diskin 1997).
While findings from property journals on social value representation were predictably limited, they provided interesting insights into emerging topics within the field. This approach stems from gaining a deeper comprehension of their consumer base and developing a broader understanding of property value. An example of this was the work of Edkins (2018), who sought to unpack the various domains of value within property and identify its true meaning. Another example was the work of Kaganova, Al-Sultan and Speakman (2005) which, although focused on the economic impact of property market imbalances in Kuwait, provided insights into the social value of home ownership in Kuwait.
The above studies reveal that social value representation remains deeply contested, often oscillating between market-driven priorities and the safeguarding of cultural identity, equity and public interest. This reflects the tension between the symbolic and instrumental uses of social value, highlighting how planning, design, and legal frameworks often prioritize economic over long-term societal benefits.
Social Value Management
Social value management is mainly addressed within planning literature. Discussions on social value have gained significant prominence within various public and private organizations associated with the property field. Social value management aims to enhance the positive value created for society and reduce any negative impacts (Social Value UK 2025). Doing so requires analyzing, measuring, documenting, and communicating changes occurring in the built environment (Social Value UK 2025). However, it is necessary to occur at multiple levels, according to Bryson, Crosby and Bloomberg (2014), who emphasized the importance of enhancing collaboration between stakeholders and “linking managerial behaviour attempting to create public value with institutions and processes and policy-level and other important public values related to democratic and collaborative governance” (p.454). Furthermore, governments play a fundamental role as guarantors of social value, serving as an initial catalyst for promoting and facilitating the advancement of social value within urban development.
Urban scholars have thoroughly researched how governance structures critically shape the management of social value, often revealing uneven and context-specific outcomes. Alves (2022), for instance, showed that planning policies aimed at securing affordable housing in London and Lisbon led to mixed outcomes due to evolving planning practices, planners’ ideologies, and planning cultures. Similarly, Kim (2020) compared rule-based exaction systems in Seattle with negotiation-based practices in Boston, showing that while the former offered predictability and consistency, the latter often secured larger public benefit through greater flexibility, albeit with less certainty. In the Vietnamese context, new land rights policies have allowed private developers to exploit the ambiguous governance arrangements, leaving the property rights of original land users inadequately protected (Nguyen et al. 2017).
When examining the mechanisms by which social value is generated, the literature review results displayed a variety of methods. Scholars found that governments employed various tools, including planning strategies, partnerships, community engagement, and impact assessments, at different scales and means to enhance social value. However, improving social value in market-based economies became a shared responsibility between public and private actors. Baker and Freestone (2012) provided insights into the social impact of one of the common global strategies governments adopt: the privatization of public assets. The authors contributed to the discussion by highlighting how this government action failed to safeguard the public interest adequately. They illustrated this through the privatization of airport development in Australia, demonstrating the conflicts that arose from divergent public and private values and the lack of integration of regulations between different levels of government.
On the other hand, public-private partnerships have proven successful in different contexts. One case study in Tübingen, Germany, showed that the local government maintaining an authoritative position could generate broader social value outcomes by implementing a governance strategy focused on community-building. This approach involved decentralizing power among various small developer groups, leading to a carefully planned urban regeneration strategy (Schaller 2021). Similarly, Noring (2023) illustrated through the Danish context that variations in objectives and priorities among public, private, and civic actors resulted in divergent ownership and organizational roles in a complex environment. Yet, public actors could still effectively generate and capture social value.
Academic discourse emerged as a valuable source in advancing the understanding and providing empirical foundations for effectively managing social value. Scholars have proactively developed a variety of frameworks to manage the social implications that arise from urban (re)development. An example of this was Smyth and Vanclay's (2017)
A more formally recognized model is the Social Impact Assessment (SIA), which helps planners and decision-makers recognize the social consequences of projects, policies, and plans (IISD 2016). Research on SIA illustrated its diverse applications, as exemplified by Peltonen and Sairinen (2010), who explored the role of SIA in relation to conflict management, recognizing it as a valuable means to mediate conflicts that arise in Finnish land use planning. Chan (2017) investigated the effectiveness of SIA in protecting the living rights of residents affected by urban renewal in Hong Kong. Contrary to the Finnish case, where SIA enabled a value-based process, its improper use in the Hong Kong case overlooked the collective rights of affected residents. In both instances, the authors underscored the imperative of effectively integrating SIA into planning and development processes to ensure its applicability.
Social value generation is often created through land value capture mechanisms which allow governments to fund public projects. With the current ongoing social challenges that cities face, scholars and practitioners have increasingly called for innovative solutions to complement such mechanisms. One emerging instrument is Social Impact Investing (SII), which enables private actors to generate as a way for the private sector to generate financial returns while creating social value in property development. A study by Coscia et al. (2020) revealed that SII in central Paris was able to promote social diversity and expand affordable housing opportunities for socio-economically vulnerable groups.
Overall, social value management is highly contingent on governance arrangements and the balance between public and private interests. While diverse tools and instruments exist their outcomes are uneven and fragmented, underscoring the need to critically examine how such practices can safeguard public interest.
Social Value Assessment
Scholars and practitioners have recognized that measuring social value presents the most significant obstacle to its advancement. Both academics and practitioners continually work on developing metrics that can tackle this challenge, resulting in hundreds of market tools with varying purposes. Such tools have had different functions, such as reporting to external stakeholders, optimizing internal processes, or assessing societal impact (Mulgan 2010). However, in the built environment domain, valuation tools, and economic models that assess the value users place on their surroundings are limited. Such tools are essential as they reflect the extent to which individuals capture values, subsequently enhancing social value management and promoting implementation. More importantly, assigning a financial value to less tangible elements such as social cohesion or social networks, which are usually not accounted for, helps to prioritize them in decision-making (Mazzucato 2018).
Research on social value assessment has paid particular attention to the Social Return on Investment (SROI) tool. SROI combines qualitative and quantitative data to understand the financial value of outcomes created through social investment, aiming to reduce social and environmental issues and improve well-being (Miller and Ofrim 2016; Nicholls et al. 2009). Unlike Social Impact Assessment (SIA), SROI enables the measurement, management, and accounting of social value. Its application in the built environment include Schoen, Caputo and Blythe (2020) study of urban gardens, which quantified intangible outcomes such as reduced isolation, well-being, and increased confidence and Watson and Whitley's (2017) evaluation of user experiences in public space. Together these cases illustrate how SROI attempts to capture the “true value” of social outcome that are otherwise difficult to measure.
Despite its benefits, SROI faces significant challenges. Watson and Whitley (2017) caution that it risks oversimplifying complex social outcomes, portraying an incomplete picture when qualitative data is limited. In addition, SROI is a resource intensive process, requiring significant stakeholder input, transparency, and time. Such limitations help explain why the wider uptake of SROI in social value assessment has been uneven and constrained.
Property scholarship provides valuable methodologies for assessing social impact. For instance, Czembrowski, Kronenberg and Czepkiewicz (2016), employed the hedonic pricing method to calculate the perceived value of urban green spaces in relation to property prices. This method takes into account internal and external factors influencing the price of a particular good (Hargrave 2021). Other tools recognized in the property industry to measure social value include the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Social Value Toolkit, Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), LEED, BREEAM, WELL, etc. However, no studies related to these, or other tools emerged within the literature review results.
Planning and urban scholarship have played a pivotal role in social value assessment, primarily utilizing qualitative methods to delve into nuanced aspects not easily captured through quantitative approaches. For instance, Joseph and Chaskin (2010) traced the impact of Chicago's income and tenure mixing strategies, revealing a mix of positive and negative social outcomes, including improved quality of life but decreased social connections within residents’ immediate environment. Similarly, Bottero, Mondini and Datola (2017) employed an integrated evaluation approach, combining Stakeholder Analysis and the State Preference Method, to investigate residents’ perceptions of social value and willingness to pay for certain transformative practices in urban regeneration. Their unique research proved the significance of non-economic values within urban regeneration processes. While such methodologies show promise in understanding urban development practices, their adoption remains limited in planning scholarship, suggesting a need for broader integration of innovative research approaches.
Discussion and Conclusion
The turn toward property-driven planning was initially perceived as a means of improving socio-economic conditions and advancing social value. Yet, in practice, it significantly altered the very nature of planning systems by privileging market interests, reframing social and environmental concerns within economic logics (Ferm and Raco 2020; Healey 1992), and prioritizing instruments and methods aimed at operational efficiency over sustaining planning's normative commitment to public interest (Næss 2001). I argue that this transformation of planning's normative core has enabled contested interpretations of social value, reducing the concept to short-term outcomes rather than long-term strategies rooted in the public interest.
Adaptability and flexibility in planning became crucial for responding to evolving market conditions, creating new and complex dynamics between public and market actors (Rauws and De Roo 2016; Tasan-Kok 2008). This, in turn, facilitated the emergence of new social norms, the adjustment of legal frameworks in support of adaptive governance, and the removal of barriers to expedite planning processes (Nowak and Tasan-Kok 2025; Cosens et al. 2017). Sustainability agendas, for instance, often blended social and environmental concerns, reshaping the boundaries of social value. The distinction between planning and market imperatives became increasingly blurred, placing planners in a difficult position of navigating institutional complexity. Over time, the role of planners shifted away from actively creating social value toward mediating between competing interests and mitigating social consequences of development framed as a collective good (Murphy and Fox-Rogers 2015). Consequently, fragmented value sets emerge within each property project, leading to a disjointed landscape of social value creation.
The literature review demonstrates that these systemic transformations manifest unevenly across the three dimensions of representation, management, and assessment. Situating these findings within broader planning debates highlights how institutional logics, governance arrangements, and methodological limitations continue to fragment social value's role in planning practice.
In terms of representation, the findings highlight the blurred boundaries between planning and design. Visual imagery and design quality are frequently used to mobilize market interests rather than social goals. Scholars such as Carmona (2016) and Madanipour (2006) have shown that design quality is frequently instrumentalized to attract investment or enhance city branding. This dynamic is also evident through the reliance on visualizations and renderings that frame particular urban futures as desirable (Christmann et al. 2020). The review showed that cultural heritage and green spaces are likewise often mobilized for their symbolic value but whose meaning is shaped by market logics and political priorities. At the scale of property development projects, their symbolic representation embodies social values that are highly debated and not effectively grounded in lived realities (Hassink et al. 2025; Boland, Bronte and Muir 2017). Such practices reflect how planners are forced to navigate dilemmas about which values to prioritize and which to sideline (Sturzaker and Hickman 2024), revealing representation as a site where social value is continually contested.
For management, the findings speak directly to debates on governance complexity and planning's changing institutional role. Planning scholars have long examined how regulatory tools, negotiation mechanisms, and public–private partnerships redistribute responsibilities for achieving societal goals (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012). The review confirms that while efforts such as planning obligations, community engagement strategies, and social impact assessments are widespread, their outcomes are inconsistent across contexts. This inconsistency reflects the ideological reorientation of market-led planning, where managerial flexibility often substitutes for normative clarity (Sturzaker and Hickman 2024; Davoudi, Galland and Stead 2019). In practice, planners are positioned as mediators of competing interests rather than as proactive guarantors of social value. The result is that social value outcomes depend less on formal policy commitments than on the interplay of local governance cultures, institutional capacity, and market pressures (Sturzaker and Hickman 2024).
The assessment of social value remains the least developed dimension and is perhaps where the planning field has the most to gain from cross-disciplinary engagement. Critical urban scholars often resist quantitative approaches, arguing that it leads to oversimplification or neglect of social impacts (Wolman et al. 2022). Yet as (Oliveira and Pinho 2010) argue, evaluation tools also play a constitutive role in shaping what is considered legitimate knowledge in planning. The review demonstrates that while some innovations, such as Social Return on Investment or hedonic pricing, have been tested, their application remains limited and uneven. Without robust and widely accepted assessment approaches, social value risks remaining an ambition rather than an action. A stronger integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches, as advocated by Guyadeen and Seasons (2016) and Oliveira and Pinho (2010), could provide a more systematic evidence base for embedding social value into development processes.
Synthesizing social value into a conceptual framework provides a means to navigate the fragmented narratives that shape how the concept is defined and mobilized. The three dimensions of representation, management, and assessment should not be understood as separate silos but interdependent elements of an iterative cycle. Representation shapes management strategies, while assessment provides feedback that can reinforce or reshape representation and management.
Recognizing this opens important directions for research and practice. Future research therefore needs to examine not only each dimension in turn but also the causal pathways between them. For instance, how legal and design representations of social value influence management choices, and whether systematic assessment can trigger changes in governance or practice. Comparative studies could explore how different planning systems institutionalize social value, shedding light on the relationship between governance arrangements and outcomes. More critical assessment of emerging property industry tools (e.g., BREEAM, WELL, GRESB) is needed to examine whether they genuinely embed social value or simply reframe it in market-friendly terms.
Ultimately, embedding social value in planning requires moving beyond rhetorical commitments to integrated, iterative approaches. By linking representation to governance strategies and embedding robust assessment methods, planners and property actors can better navigate institutional complexity and advance social value as a long-term public good. Such efforts can help shift debates from conceptual ambiguity to practical pathways that ensure the effective mobilization of social value.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
ORCID iD
