environments

Article Assessing the Social Sustainability Indicators in Vernacular Architecture—Application of a Green Building Assessment Approach

Obafemi A. P. Olukoya 1,* and Jubril O. Atanda 2

1 Department of Environmental Planning, Brandenburg Technical University, 03046 Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany 2 Department of Architecture, Cyprus International University, Haspolat, Mersin 10, North Cyprus; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]



Received: 23 July 2020; Accepted: 28 August 2020; Published: 1 September 2020


Abstract: Although a growing body of research has debated the array of sustainability lessons of vernacular architecture, social sustainability discussions remain less advanced in comparison to the other pillars of sustainability. This has narrowed the plural lessons of vernacular architecture and limited the broad concept of sustainability to a partial one. Against this research gap, this study aims to conduct an assessment of the social sustainability of residential vernacular architecture through the application of a proposed Social Criteria of Green Building Assessment Tool (SCGBAT) assessment method. The SCGBAT proposes eight sets of social criteria categories namely; health and safety; participation and control; education; equity, accessibility and satisfaction; social cohesion; cultural values; physical resilience and also, 37 indicators for the evaluation of social sustainability. To empirically operationalize the proposed SCGBAT, this study utilizes the vernacular architecture typologies in the vernacular landscape of Louroujina village in Cyprus as a case study. Methods for data collection are desk review for secondary data while 135 close-ended questionnaires were used for primary data. The data are statistically presented based on Linkert scale and interpreted using both quantitative and descriptive analysis. The results demonstrated that the investigated vernacular architecture ranked lowly in Physical Resilience Indicator (PRI), Environmental Education Indicator (EEI), Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator (ASI) but demonstrated sufficient lessons in the context of Health and Safety Indicator (HSI); Participation and Control Indicator (PCI); Social Equity Indicator (SEI); Social Cohesion Indicator (SCI); and Cultural Value Indicator (CVI). To this end, this paper contribute to the advancement of knowledge on the assessment of the social sustainability of vernacular architecture by innovatively applying a green building assessment approach and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of such approach in a vernacular setting.

Keywords: vernacular architecture; social sustainability; social criteria of green building assessment tool (SCGBAT); Louroujina settlement

1. Introduction Owing to the recent growing array of environmental challenges, researchers and practitioners began to suggest and debate the sustainable character of vernacular architecture in relation to contemporary buildings which in many cases, are associated with a range of environment depleting characterization such as carbon footprints, uncontrollable energy consumption, wasteful use of resources and pollution [1]. The ecological friendliness of vernacular architecture, its passive technologies and its rootedness with vernacular tradition continue to be positioned as a repository of knowledge and

Environments 2020, 7, 67; doi:10.3390/environments7090067 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments Environments 2020, 7, 67 2 of 24 values which the contemporary construction industry can draw on for any attempt to develop more sustainable built environments. As such, vernacular architecture has gained a renewed interest and its imagery is no longer relegated to the nostalgic aide-mémoire of long-forgotten past or mere roadblocks to contemporary progress. However, despite the renewed interest, all the representations of vernacular architecture lessons have operated under preconceived themes that privileges environmental sustainability over other pillars of sustainable development. Even while most of the researches has been accomplished through diverse disciplinary backgrounds, the devotion to the idea of assessing the extent to which vernacular materials perform in the context of environmental sustainability continues to unite most of the studies. Most of the studies investigate vernacular architecture in relation to its thermal properties in the way the material, layouts and building types relate to the microclimate and geographical conditions [2–5]. Given this reductionist representation of vernacular architecture in the broad literature, this paper argues that it has limited the broad concept of sustainability and narrowed the plural lessons of vernacular architecture is a partial one. Even while a large continuing body of scholar has demonstrated the importance of the social pillar of sustainability in sustainable development [6–9] and with vernacular architecture being conceptualized as the objectification of social relations [10], studies that treat this pillar in relation to lessons of sustainability in vernacular architecture remain less advanced. Given this identified research lacuna, this study aims to conduct the assessment of social sustainability indicators in vernacular architecture. To pursue this nature of research aim, green building assessment approach, among others, provides a platform for assessment of such sustainability indicators. Against this background, this paper adopts a proposed Social Criteria of Green Building Assessment Tool (SCGBAT) for the assessment of social sustainability in vernacular architecture. To empirically delineate the research aim, the study draws on a case study approach to operationalize the proposed SCGBAT. To organize this paper and structure the argumentations, it is organized into two main parts. Part 1 is the theoretical review aspect which led to the adoption of the SCGBAT while part 2 is the application of the tools through a case study approach. Part one is organized into the following sections; following this introduction part is Section2, which dwells on a rapid review of vernacular architecture and sustainability discourse. The following subsection focuses on the review of green building assessment tools in relation to social sustainability assessment. Also, the section explains the SCGBAT and the reason for the choice of selecting the tool for this research. Part 2 of this paper begins from Section3, which is the methodology applied to organize and structure the operationalization of the SCGBAT. The section also gives the background to the case study and the building characterizations. Section4 shows the results, Section5 discusses the results and the implication of the data while Section6 is the conclusion part of the paper. Based on this structuring of this paper, this study contributes the identified research gap by drawing on a green building assessment approach to demonstrate how to assess the social sustainability indicators in vernacular architecture.

2. Vernacular Architecture and the Sustainability Discourse As an introduction caveat, this section does not attempt to provide a holistic review of the discourse of vernacular architecture and sustainability, as such would require a book-length treatment [11]. This section only aims to provide the important summations of the discourses as regards the pillars of sustainability with reference to vernacular architecture. By vernacular architecture, this paper refers to buildings that are regionally representative, regionally distinctive and regionally understood [12]. By extension, this definition includes the architecture of a precinct and/or a people or of an ethnic group, who lives in a particular geographical location [13]. Over the last 2 decades or so, this typology of architecture has emerged as a term that has taken up a life, not only within cultural heritage studies but also within the discourse of sustainability and sustainable development as well. For this reason, a large continuing body of works has demonstrated its values and why vernacular architecture should be taken seriously in architectural practice, for example, References [1,14,15]. The most frequent expression which summarizes the aims of the research includes, ‘lessons from vernacular architecture’ Environments 2020, 7, 67 3 of 24 and ‘learning from the vernacular’ for example, References [16–29]. As such, it has simply become related to specific arguments such as positioning it as a didactic alternative to the contemporary architecture which is associated with uncontrollable greenhouse gas emission, disproportionate energy consumption and unsustainable use of earth’s resources [1,27,28]. Thus, the recent discourses on vernacular architecture in relations to sustainability have been accomplished arguably under the following groups of studies. First, there is a group of study that demonstrates the environmental sustainability lessons that can be drawn from vernacular architecture. In this context, it is explained that vernacular architecture holds enormous lessons as demonstrated by a growing body of researches which has illustrated it through various case studies [25,27,28,30–37]. Some studies also demonstrated through various computer-based modeling how vernacular architecture have a lower carbon footprint and consumes lesser energy in comparison to modern buildings in the regions, for example, References [27,28]. In the same vein, some of the studies also demonstrate how vernacular buildings are more thermally comfortable than the contemporary building by employing climatically responsive technologies, building techniques, materials and technologies without recourse to active mechanical means. For example, Praytino and Winaktoe [2] used an ecological model based approach on vernacular housing to demonstrate this relevance. Shaffer [5] also attempted to reinvent similar vernacular elements by synthesizing it using modern techniques. Dayaratne [3,4] equally demonstrated how traditional earth construction material and techniques were reinvented in Sri Lanka for sustainability and as common alternative to modern concrete technologies. Some of the studies also examined the techniques and technologies employed in vernacular settlements which make them responsive to the environment and therefore contribute to sustainability [38]. Lastly, there are also researches which demonstrate how vernacular architecture respond to geographical conditions geological and environmental resources and have fashioned the buildings that are sensitive to the prevailing environmental conditions [39–41]. The second group of studies emphasizes the economic sustainability lesson of vernacular architecture by suggesting that it responds and satisfies the needs of a community in the context of being more self-sufficient through sustaining the production and optimizing of local material by choosing to build through a collective communal effort [11]. In this regard, this group of studies suggested that vernacular architecture is more efficient management in the local resources which in turn becomes the main goal of any community [11,42,43]. Also, vernacular architecture has judicious use of resources which are scarce such as water or wood in arid environments [30,31,43]. This holds substantial lessons for the contemporary building industry on how to manage available resources for the sake of the future generation. The third group of studies adumbrate the cultural sustainability lessons that can be drawn from vernacular architecture by suggesting that it encourages the re-establishment of the anthropological and social particularity of a specific locality [44,45]. It is often described as a non-arrogant, connected, peaceful, minimalist architecture that is in organic association with its site, topographies. It embodies intangible knowledge as well as tangible know-how and it is a testimony to the genial capacity of adaptation of the human to environmental constraints and opportunities. With this in view, vernacular architecture is argued to demonstrates cultural sustainability lesson through its approach which demonstrates the capacity to transform locally available materials (such as earth, stone, plants, wood) into construction elements and buildings (such as stables, houses, mosques and churches) that are organic with its place and addresses the social and the cultural identity of the particular locality [11]. Against this background, vernacular architecture is an incubator of regional identities, traditional craft and technique, human creativity and collective memory [46]. Summarily, according to these studies, the loss of vernacular architecture is tantamount to loss of traditional knowledge, regional and local identities. It also equals the loss of collective memory, loss of languages, traditional crafts and techniques and a continuum of lessons in the context of sustainable development as demonstrated by the overview in this section. Environments 2020, 7, 67 4 of 24

As demonstrated by the rapid review, despite of the plethora of research position and the growing interest in the discourse of vernacular architecture, the social dimension which is equally an important component of vernacular settlement and their innate traditions, remains less advanced than researches in the direction of environmental sustainability. Thus, as a contribution to the existing scant positions in the context of social sustainability, this study adopts a building assessment system as an approach to assess the social dimension of vernacular buildings. However, before this is done, it is important to give a background to the building assessment tools and the understanding of social sustainability in the building assessment processes. In this regard, the following section gives an overview of the rating system and their approach to the assessment of social sustainability.

Building Assessment Tools, Social Sustainability and Proposed Social Criteria for Green Building Assessment (SCGBAT) Over the years, Green Building Assessment Tools (GBATs) have grown to become the banner conveying the sustainability standards in different locations around the world. It has become widely adopted to reduce carbon emission, reduce energy consumption and providing the basis for healthy and comfortable building spaces while generating benefits for environmental, economic and social aspects [47]. Building assessment tools have been developed with a specific end goal to aid the application of sustainable development in the building and construction sector. It is a tool developed for the specific goal of ensuring sustainable development in the construction sector [48]. It is applied with the sole intent of evaluating, promoting and enhancing the comprehensive understanding of sustainability in the building industry through data evaluations, investigation and differentiation [49,50]. As such, different countries have developed different contextual building assessment tools such as the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB)—to mention a few—to ensure sustainable development in the different countries [48]. Two basic tools characterize the operationalization of the assessment of GBATs: the life cycle assessment tool and the criteria based tools. Enormous researches have been conducted in the direction of the criteria based assessment tools such as LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE and Green Star among others [51]. However, despite the robustness in the importance of GBATs, the social aspect remain less elaborate in comparison to the other pillars of sustainability. Despite the growing body of scholarly works have suggested that sustainable development requires the three pillars: environmental criteria, economic criteria and social criteria to acts as a continuum for sustainable development to be achieved [52–59]. Yet, appraisal of the criteria tools for the GBAT indicates that significant attention continues to be drawn to the environmental criteria of most building assessment tool while the social criteria remain in flux. This material essentialism of the most popular building tools reduces their effectiveness in the context of representing the social dynamics of a particular setting. More so, some of these tools are customer-needs oriented to such an extent that designers embark on pursuing credits [60]. In the literature, the importance of social sustainability has generated a plethora of positions over the years. For example, a study [61] explained social sustainability with regards to dual two factors, namely, equity and democracy. A study [6] also suggested that it as a movement that comes to play while regulating the progress of civil society, while the improvement brings about a rich environment. Meanwhile, Reference [7] explained it as a longtime association between society and nature. Furthermore, Reference [8] explained social sustainability to be contributory, enlightening and sustaining human welfare. Another study [9] argued that social sustainability is accomplishable if a project incorporates environmental understanding while lessening the social differences and hierarchies and in the same vein, enhancing personal satisfaction. These understandings of social sustainability have enormous utility with regards to the understanding of the conceptual dimension of vernacular architecture as an objectification of social relations [10]. As such, any assessment of sustainability in such buildings or of new development in such a context must incorporate the profound necessity Environments 2020, 7, 67 5 of 24 for social sustainability. Thus, socially sustainable approaches in building assessment tools will be necessary to elucidate the relationship between the building and its users in an incorporated way, in this manner, factoring in both environmental and social aspects of sustainability. Nevertheless, the GBATs lacks an approach which sufficiently involves a comprehensive assessment of stakeholders [60,62]. Therefore, against the background of the identified gap of social sustainability in GBATs, a recent study by Atanda [63] developed sets of social categories/indicators by drawing on social sustainability literature and the criteria available in the existing green building assessment tools to develop categories and indicators. Eight set categories (health and safety; participation and control; education; equity, accessibility and satisfaction; social cohesion; cultural values and physical resilience) were suggested and tailored based on the adoption of LEED working sheet thereby creating a working sheet termed Social Criteria for Green Building Assessment (SCGBAT). The suggested 8 social categories are accompanied by 35 indicators that were selected by the application of a two-round questionnaire responded to by qualified experts for the support of evaluation for social criteria in GBAT. The categories and indicator as illustrated in Table1 below.

Table 1. The final set of 8 social categories and 35 indicators for social sustainable developed [51,63].

Social Sustainability Indicator Categories Social Sustainability Indicator Sets Individual Social Sustainability Indicators 1. Access to information Equity of process 2. Participation in decision making Social equity 3. Formation of governance structure 4. Planning of space Fair distribution 5. Use of natural resources 6. Material choices 7. Energy sources Environmental awareness & sensibility 8. Water and waste management Environmental 9. Pollution education 10. Biodiversity 11. Awareness of the physical environment Ecological literacy 12. Knowledge of human activity on the environment 13. Ability to take actions to environmental problems 14. User participation Participation & Involvement 15. Willingness to act and improve environment control 16. Creative place making opportunities 17. Conferences & seminars Social programs 18. Neighborhood involvement in design and planning phases Social Cohesion 19. Design of a place which increases social interaction within the building Social interaction 20. Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid spaces) in the neighborhood 21. Health impacts of materials 22. Health impacts of energy sources Health &Safety Health & Safety measures 23. Health impact of water consumption 24. Health impacts of IEQ 25. Feeling of safety 26. Access to social information about green building Accessibility & Ease of accessibility 27. Access to choice of natural resource satisfaction 28. Project location for public access Satisfaction level 29. Post-Occupancy Evaluation 30. Design of spaces Cultural value Local identity 31. Indigenous environmental management practices 32. Intercultural dialogue 33. Compliance to earthquake resistance code Physical resilience Disaster resilience and mitigation 34. Mitigation in the use of environmental resources 35. Sustainable management of hazards

To operationalize the suggested categories and indicators, the author applied Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to find the most relevant measurement and weight for the resulting indicators and categories [see 61]. In this paper, social criteria are defined as an aspect that affects the final users within Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24

EnvironmentsTo operationalize2020, 7, 67 the suggested categories and indicators, the author applied Analytic6 of 24 Hierarchy Process (AHP) to find the most relevant measurement and weight for the resulting indicators and categories [see 61]. In this paper, social criteria are defined as an aspect that affects the thefinal living users space within of the the building living space (indoors of the and building outdoors) (indoors such and as itsoutdoors) health, safety,such as visuals, its health, accessibility, safety, culturalvisuals, values accessibility, and participation cultural values in attaining and participation sustainability. in attaining According sustainability. to this understanding According to of this social criteriaunderstanding and based of on social the adoptedcriteria and definition, based on the the approach, adopted definition, indicators the and approach, categories indicators suggested and and integratedcategories by suggested Reference and [63 integrated] is considered by Reference to be appropriate [63] is considered to achieve to be the appropriate research aim to achieve of this the study. Inresearch a vernacular aim of settlement, this study. peopleIn a vernacular are often settlem collectivelyent, people involved are often in the collectively creation, involved decision in making the andcreation, planning decision of vernacular making and spaces planning and asof vernacular such affected spaces by it.and In as this such regard, affected any by assessment it. In this regard, in such contextualany assessment settlement in such must contextual be people-driven. settlement Thus, must therebe people-driven. is an imperative Thus, need there for is integrating an imperative social sustainabilityneed for integrating criteria into social the buildingsustainability assessment criteria tool into for the eff ectivebuilding assessment assessment in the tool case for of effective vernacular settlementassessment which in the is builtcase of contingent vernacular on settlement the abundance which of is socio-culturalbuilt contingent traditions on the abundance in a particular of socio- setting. cultural traditions in a particular setting. 3. Methodology 3. Methodology The data which leads to the argumentation in this paper is divided into primary and secondary data, respectivelyThe data which [64,65 leads]. The to secondarythe argumentation data draws in this on literaturepaper is divided review into to frame primary the and secondary secondary aspect ofdata, the research. respectively The primary[64,65]. The data secondary draws on data a case draws study on approach literature to review draw its to empirical frame the data secondary as shown inaspect Figure of1. the Thus, research. the methodology The primary is data organized draws on into a case four study steps. approach The first to step draw is concernedits empirical with data the as shown in Figure 1. Thus, the methodology is organized into four steps. The first step is concerned conceptual development which draws on the adoption of the Social Sustainability Green Assessment with the conceptual development which draws on the adoption of the Social Sustainability Green Tool (SGBAT) as developed by Reference [63] and References [44,51] as the guide for field inquiry Assessment Tool (SGBAT) as developed by Reference [63] and References [44,51] as the guide for and application of data collection methods. The second step is concerned with the case study and field inquiry and application of data collection methods. The second step is concerned with the case building identification. The justification for the selected buildings is explained through the developed study and building identification. The justification for the selected buildings is explained through the criteriadeveloped for selection. criteria for Step selection. three isStep the three identification is the identification of suitable of primary suitable data primary collection data collection methods to bemethods applied forto be data applied collection. for data In thiscollection. case, a closed-In this case, ended a questionnaireclosed- ended methodquestionnaire is applied. method Having is consideredapplied. Having the appropriate considered data the collectionappropriate methods, data collection the implementation methods, the approachimplementation for the approach SCGBAT is donefor throughthe SCGBAT fieldwork. is done The through last step fieldwork. is the data The analysislast step approachis the data which analysis leads approach to the discussionwhich leads and theto conclusion. the discussion and the conclusion.

Figure 1. The methodological framework for research. Figure 1. The methodological framework for research.

3.1. Step 1: Adoption of Social Criteria for Green Building Assessment Tool (SCGBAT) Working Sheet The categories and indicators were assigned weightings by Reference [63], through the applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to find the most relevant measurement and weight for the resulting Environments 2020, 7, 67 7 of 24 indicators and categories [see Reference 63].The weight point of each indicator is measured using the final weight score as seen in Table2 below.

Table 2. Weighting score of the social categories and indicators [63].

Social Sustainability Final Weight Value Weight Final Weight Indicator Categories (%) Individual Social Sustainability Indicators (%) (%) SEI 1—Access to information 25.8 5.0 SEI 2—Participation in decision making 33.4 6.5 Social equity 19.5 SEI 3—Formation of governance structure 22.0 4.3 SEI 4—Planning of space 10.2 2.0 SEI 5—Use of natural resources 8.6 1.7 EEI 1—Material choices 17.0 3.3 EEI 2—Energy sources 16.6 3.2 EEI 4—Water and waste management 12.7 2.5 EEI 5—Pollution 15.9 3.1 EEI 7—Biodiversity 12.4 2.4 Environmental 19.5 EEI 8—Awareness of the physical education environmental 9.9 2.0 EEI 9—Knowledge of human activity on the environment 6.3 1.2 EEI 10—Ability to take actions to environmental problems 9.3 1.8 PCI 1—User participation 39.9 8.0 PCI 2—Willingness to act and improve 39.9 8.0 Participation & 20.1 environment control PCI 3—Creative place making opportunities 15.8 3.2 PCI 4—Conferences & seminars 4.3 0.9 SCI 2—Neighborhood involvement in design and planning phases 33.3 2.9 SCI 3—Design of a place which increases 33.3 2.9 Social Cohesion 8.7 social interaction within the building SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid 33.3 2.9 spaces) in the neighborhood HSI 1—Health impacts of materials 21.2 2.9 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 30.6 4.2 Health &Safety 13.7 HSI 3—Health impact of water consumption 18.2 2.5 HSI 4—Health impacts of IEQ 21.5 2.9 HSI 5—Feeling of safety 8.5 1.2 ASI 1—Access to social information about green building 23.7 2.8 Accessibility & 12.0 ASI 2—Access to choice of natural resource 36.5 4.4 satisfaction ASI 3—Project location for public access 26.0 3.1 ASI 4—Post-Occupancy Evaluation 13.8 1.7 CVI 2—Design of spaces 38.7 1.4 Cultural value 3.7 CVI 3—Indigenous environmental management practices 45.3 1.7 CVI 4VIntercultural dialogue 16.0 0.6 PRI 2—Compliance to earthquake resistance code 41.3 1.2 Physical resilience 2.8 PRI 3—Mitigation in the use of environmental resources 26.0 0.7 PRI 4—Sustainable management of hazards 32.7 0.9

3.2. Step 2: Case Study and Vernacular Building Identification for Implementation of SCGBAT Having adopted the SCGBAT framework, an initial selection of the site was done through a set of criteria which draws fundamentally on the theoretical conception of vernacular architecture and settlement. The understanding of vernacular architecture in this research draws on the definition of vernacular architecture according to a study [12] which defined it as buildings that are regionally representative, regionally distinctive and regionally understood. By extension, this definition includes the architecture of a precinct and/or a people or of an ethnic group, who lives in a particular geographical location [13] (p. 4). This ‘contextualized’ architecture as rightly described by a study [11], belongs to a particular geographical area, regional or to a ‘country’ and built in a given time. Vernacular architecture emerges from the ‘genius loci’ which is the ‘being to the place’ and of the sense of ‘being of the place’ [66]. Reference [67] (p. 132) defined regionalism as an umbrella term for vernacular architecture Environments 2020, 7, 67 8 of 24 which he defined as a “communal art, not produced by a few intellectuals or specialist but by the spontaneous and continuing activity of a whole people with a common heritage, acting under a community experience.” In all of these definitions, there is an important emphasis on the importance of the social dimension of vernacular architecture. Thus by drawing on these definitions stated above, Table3 was developed to demonstrates the dimension for identifying what constitutes vernacular architecture according to the following analytical themes, (1) conceptual reference; (2) authorship; (3) planning process; (4) production process; (5) user; and, (6) the language of heritage [68].

Table 3. The Simple dimension of what constitutes vernacular architecture, adapted based on [68].

Criteria Vernacular Expression Conceptual reference Non Academic/Informal Author Non Specialist/anonymous in some cases Planning process Collective/communal/intuitive/mental/schematic Production process Artisanal and constructed/Commonly use locally available material Local, in general from the community to which the author belongs; mostly from User popular social classes. In general refers to the visual culture of the suburbs and from the classes with lower Language of heritage purchasing power. Reveals the working tools and the raw materials used by the artisans. Utilizes chromatic and pictorial codes familiar to the popular universe

Against the background of this definition and criteria, Louroujina village in Cyprus was considered to satisfy almost all of the defining criteria for what constitutes vernacular settlement and its architecture. Having identified the settlement and buildings, the next step is to define the objectives. The objectives were designed in a hierarchical manner such that it reflects the target goals for which the performance of SCGBAT indicators would be based. The building function is also clearly defined. This is to assist the measurement of the indicators. As shown in Figure2 below, the target value of the building project is also clearly stated, for example, for children, elderly people, students, staff or general public and so forth, is clarified. Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Figure 2. Sequence for identifying the objectives, target values and thethe impactimpact ofof thethe indicators.indicators.

3.2.1.Having Introduction framed to theCase site Study: and Lo theuroujina vernacular Vernacular buildings, Settlement, the implementation Cyprus of the “SCGBAT” indicators begins. Each of the indicators is used to measure and monitor the objectives of the vernacular Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea after Sicily and Sardinia. It is building as shown in the steps illustrated in Figure2. geographically located on the 35 N meridian. Historically, Cyprus became known around 10,000 BC. 3.2.1.Cyprus Introduction became divided to Case into Study: the LouroujinaNorth part Vernacular& South part Settlement, in 1974, Cyprus North Cyprus area is around 3355Km2 [69] (see Figure 3). CyprusLouroujina is thevillage third which largest is the island case in study the Mediterraneanof this research Sea is situated after Sicily in the and Northern Sardinia. part It of is geographicallyCyprus. Geographically, located on the the villag 35 Ne meridian. is located Historically,at longitude Cyprus 350°00′ became42″ North known and latitude around 330°27 10,000′ BC.51″ East with altitude of 236 meters [70]. Although the precise origin of Louroujina remains far from clear, one thing is certain, however, as a member of the over 650 towns and villages on the Island, the history dates back to possibly the 12–13 century AD [71]. In 1958, Turkish Cypriots adopted Akıncılar as its alternative name. Akıncılar literally means “Ottoman raiders” in Turkish [72]. What is simply unique about Louroujina village is that, till date, only a very few modern building exists in the village and vernacular building culture remains intact.

Figure 3. The Location of Louroujina Village in Cyprus [73].

3.2.2. Typologies of Vernacular Architecture in Louroujina According to the recently concluded research project conducted in Louroujina, there are four typologies of vernacular houses in the village [72]. Typology in this context refers to a group of building which shares the same plan configuration and façade characteristics. In this regard, the typologies of vernacular architecture in Louroujina are a function of the combination of two parameters, namely; the plan characteristic and façade characteristics. Table 4 below illustrates the typologies of plans evident in Louroujina today.

Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Figure 2. Sequence for identifying the objectives, target values and the impact of the indicators.

3.2.1.Environments Introduction2020, 7, 67 to Case Study: Louroujina Vernacular Settlement, Cyprus 9 of 24 Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea after Sicily and Sardinia. It is geographically located on the 35 N meridian. Historically, Cyprus became known around 10,000 BC. Cyprus became divided into the North part & South part in 1974, North Cyprus area is around Cyprus became divided into the North part & South part in 1974, North Cyprus area is around 3355 Km2 [69] (see Figure3). 3355Km2 [69] (see Figure 3). Louroujina village which is the case study of this research is situated in the Northern part of Louroujina village which is the case study of this research is situated in the Northern part of Cyprus. Geographically, the village is located at longitude 350◦0004200 North and latitude 330◦2705100 Cyprus. Geographically, the village is located at longitude 350°00′42″ North and latitude 330°27′51″ East with altitude of 236 m [70]. Although the precise origin of Louroujina remains far from clear, one East with altitude of 236 meters [70]. Although the precise origin of Louroujina remains far from clear, thing is certain, however, as a member of the over 650 towns and villages on the Island, the history one thing is certain, however, as a member of the over 650 towns and villages on the Island, the dates back to possibly the 12–13 century AD [71]. In 1958, Turkish Cypriots adopted Akıncılar as its history dates back to possibly the 12–13 century AD [71]. In 1958, Turkish Cypriots adopted Akıncılar alternative name. Akıncılar literally means “Ottoman raiders” in Turkish [72]. What is simply unique as its alternative name. Akıncılar literally means “Ottoman raiders” in Turkish [72]. What is simply about Louroujina village is that, till date, only a very few modern building exists in the village and unique about Louroujina village is that, till date, only a very few modern building exists in the village vernacular building culture remains intact. and vernacular building culture remains intact.

FigureFigure 3. 3. TheThe Location Location of of Louroujina Louroujina Village Village in in Cyprus Cyprus [73]. [73].

3.2.2.3.2.2. Typologies Typologies of of Vernacular Vernacular Architecture in Louroujina AccordingAccording to to the the recently recently concluded concluded research research project project conducted conducted in in Louroujina, Louroujina, there there are are four four typologiestypologies ofof vernacularvernacular houses houses in in the the village village [72 ].[72]. Typology Typology in this in context this context refers torefers a group to a of group building of buildingwhich shares which the shares same planthe same configuration plan configuration and façade and characteristics. façade characteristics. In this regard, In thethis typologies regard, the of typologiesvernacular of architecture vernacular in architecture Louroujina arein aLouroujina function of are the combinationa function of of the two combination parameters, namely;of two parameters,the plan characteristic namely; the and plan façade characteristic characteristics. and façade Table characteristics.4 below illustrates Table the 4 below typologies illustrates of plans the typologiesevident in Louroujinaof plans evident today. in Louroujina today.

EnvironmentsEnvironments 2020 2020, 7, x, 7FOR, x FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1 of1 24of 24 EnvironmentsEnvironments 2020 2020, 7,, x7 ,FOR x FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1 of1 of24 24 EnvironmentsEnvironments 2020 2020, 7,, x7 ,FOR x FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1 of1 of24 24 Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1 of 24 EnvironmentsEnvironments 2020, 7, x FOR 2020 ,PEER 7, x FOR REVIEW PEER REVIEW 1 of 24 1 of 24 TableTable 4. The 4. The typologies typologies and and characteristics characteristics of vernacular of vernacular architecture architecture in Louroujina in Louroujina EnvironmentsEnvironments2020, 7 2020, 67 , 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW TableTable 4. 4.The The typologies typologies and and characteristics characteristics of ofvernacular vernacular architecture architecture1 of 24 in inLouroujina Louroujina 10 of 24 EnvironmentsEnvironments 2020, 7, x FOR 2020 PEER, 7, x FOR REVIEW PEER REVIEW TableTable 4. The4. The typologies typologies and and characteristics characteristics of ofvernacular vernacular1 architecture of architecture 24 1 of in24 inLouroujina Louroujina Table 4. The typologies and characteristics of vernacular architecture in Louroujina Building Table 4. TheTable typologies 4. The typologies and characteristicsBuilding andBuilding characteristics Characterization ofCharacterization vernacular of vernacular architecture architecture in Louroujina in Louroujina Building Building Envelop Envelop BuildingBuilding BuildingBuilding Characterization Characterization Building Building Envelop Envelop BuildingBuilding Table 4. The typologies andBuilding characteristicsBuilding Characterization Characterization of vernacular architecture in Louroujina Building Building Envelop Envelop TypologiesBuildingTypologies TablePlan 4.Plan TheSchemeTable Scheme typologies 4. The typologies and characteristicsBuilding and characteristics Characterization of vernacular of vernacular architecture Facade architecture Facade in Louroujina in Louroujina Wall WallBuilding Envelop Roof Roof TypologiesTypologiesBuildingTypologiesBuilding TablePlanPlan Scheme 4. SchemeThe typologies andBuilding characteristicsBuilding Characterization ofCharacterization vernacular architecture Facade Facade in Louroujina. Building Wall Wall BuildingEnvelop Roof Envelop Roof BuildingTypologies PlanPlan Scheme Scheme Facade Facade Wall Wall Roof Roof Typologies Plan Scheme Building Characterization Facade Wall Building Envelop Roof TypologiesBuildingBuildingTypologiesBuilding Plan SchemePlan Scheme BuildingBuilding Characterization Characterization Facade Facade Wall Building Wall BuildingEnvelop Roof Envelop Roof TypologiesTypologies Plan Scheme Building Characterization Facade Building Wall Envelop Roof BuildingTypologies Typologies Plan SchemePlan Scheme Facade Facade Wall Wall Roof Roof

Plan Scheme Facade Wall Roof 1. Two-Storey1. Two-Storey Stone+Stone+ 1. 1.Two-Storey 1.Two-Storey Two-Storey Stone+Stone+Stone+ ClayClay tiles tiles 1.Town Two-Storey House AdobeStone+ ClayClay tiles tiles Town1. Two-StoreyTown1. House Two-Storey House AdobeStone+AdobeStone+ ClayClay tiles tiles 1. Two-StoreyTownTown House House Stone+Adobe Adobe Clay tiles Town House Adobe Clay tilesClay tiles 1. Two-Storey1. TownTwo-StoreyTown House House Stone+Stone+Adobe Adobe Town House1. Two-Storey Adobe Stone+ Clay tiles 1. Two-Storey Town House Stone+ Adobe ClayClay tilestilesClay tiles TownTown HouseTown House House AdobeAdobe Adobe

2. Central2. Central Hall Hall 2. 2.Central 2.Central Central Hall Hall Hall AdobeAdobe Clay Clay tiles tiles 2. CentralTypologyTypology Hall AdobeAdobeAdobe Clay Clay Clay tiles tiles tiles 2.Typology CentralTypology2. Central Hall Hall Adobe Clay tiles 2. 2.Central CentralTypologyTypology Hall Hall Typology AdobeAdobeAdobe Clay tiles Clay Clay tiles tiles Typology Adobe Clay tiles 2. CentralTypology2. Central2. Hall CentralTypology Hall Hall AdobeAdobe Adobe Clay Claytiles Clay tiles tiles TypologyTypologyTypology

3. Columned3. Columned Porch Porch Stone+Stone+ 3. 3.Columned 3.Columned Columned Porch Porch Porch Stone+Stone+Stone+ ClayClay tiles tiles 3. ColumnedTypologyTypology Porch AdobeStone+Adobe ClayClayClay tiles tiles tiles 3. Columned3. ColumnedTypology3.Typology Columned Porch Porch TypologyPorch Stone+ AdobeAdobeStone+AdobeStone+ Clay tilesClay tiles 3. ColumnedTypologyTypology Porch Stone+Adobe Adobe ClayClay tiles tiles Typology Adobe Clay tiles 3. Columned3.Typology Columned PorchTypology Porch Stone+AdobeStone+ Adobe 3. Columned Porch Stone+Clay Claytiles tiles Typology Adobe Clay tiles TypologyTypology Adobe Adobe

4. Dichoro4. Dichoro Stone+Stone+ 4.4. Dichoro 4.Dichoro 4.Dichoro Dichoro Typology Stone+ AdobeStone+Stone+Stone+ Clay tilesClayClay tiles tiles 4.Typology DichoroTypology AdobeStone+Adobe ClayClayClay tiles tiles tiles Typology4.Typology Dichoro4. Dichoro AdobeStone+AdobeStone+ Clay tiles 4. DichoroTypologyTypology Stone+Adobe Adobe ClayClay tiles tiles Typology Adobe Clay tiles 4.Typology Dichoro4. Dichoro4.Typology Dichoro Stone+AdobeStone+ Stone+Adobe Clay ClaytilesClay tiles tiles TypologyTypology AdobeAdobe Typology Adobe

Environments 2020, 7, 67 11 of 24

3.3. Step 3: Data Collection Approach

3.3.1. Closed-Ended Questionnaire A closed-ended questionnaire approach was applied to gather data from selected participants. The questionnaire consisted of structured questions with each addressing questions concerning the specific categories and its indicators. A total number of 135 questionnaires were distributed between December 2019 and February 2020. Each of the 8 social categories was assigned different questions based on the objective of the data to be collected. There was a flexible time frame for the questionnaires so that the respondents are more flexible and provide greater clarity in their answers. In some cases, follow-up questions were applied to ensure consistency and reevaluate the responses. In some cases, a translator was used to communicate with the respondents, especially in Turkish language.

3.3.2. Selection of Participants The choice of participants was selected with snowball method, availability of respondents and the determined number of questionnaires. The question sub-categories are stratified with regards to the affiliation to Louroujina village, roles, gender, experience and level of education of participants in certain cases. A total number of 135 respondents were used for the research. 121 of the respondents are community members and occupants of the vernacular building typologies. The number amounted to 35% of the population of the village. The other 14 respondents are professionals and experts working on the funded restoration project in the village (see Table5). The participant comprises of both males (83) and females (52), allowing mixed-gender perspectives and encouraging the diversity of opinion in the discussion. The names of the respondents remain anonymous throughout the paper. The analysis of the data was based on a descriptive data analysis approach given the qualitative nature of the data.

Table 5. The characteristics of the participants used for the questionnaire procedure.

Number of Participant Group Affiliations Participant Cyprus International University Professionals and Experts Heritage Site Managers at the Department of Antiquity 14 Louroujina Municipality office House owners Community Members, house Organized groups and NGOs 121 owners and Stakeholders Owners in Diaspora Occupant and households

3.4. Step 4: Evaluation and Data Analysis The questions are simple and direct, which were validated by References [73–76]. In this regard, the questions were analyzed based on the validity of the Likert scale. The respondents were asked to assess the indicators in five-point Likert scale. The 5 point scale was selected to minimize skewed responses. The responses were scored according to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Because the assessment was based on five-point Likert scales, a score of 5 is analyzed as the highest and 1 is the lowest agreement with the questions from the respondents’ perception. The respondent was expected to select their choice by marking a number along with the scale. If the respondent considered that factor was not relevant to the selection of the SCGBAT, they were requested to make suggestions. For the first round of questionnaires distributed to the 121 residents in/or connected to Louroujina village and 117 was returned. The first round of questions was used to understand the local perspectives of the SCGBAT indicators adopted. The first round of questionnaires stated the purpose of the study. Locals were asked to rate the relevance of the indicators using a five-point Likert scale. It aimed at exploring the terminologies of the indicators to the local and familiarizing them with the study. After the analysis of the first round, the response from the locals was evaluated by SPSS software to calculate the mean and Environments 2020, 7, 67 12 of 24 standard deviation. In the analysis the result a parametrical statistical analysis was adopted where the mean was used to measure the control of tendency and the standard deviation to measure the degree of convergence [77,78]. To conduct the second round, the number of participants of experts had to be determined. The literature agrees that there is no standard range of sample size [79]. For a homogeneous study, smaller sample size is preferable and might yield sufficient results and for a heterogeneous study, a larger sample size might be suitable [80]. Taylor-Powell [81] stated the number of experts depends solely on the research objective. However reaching on a determination that somewhere in the range of 30 and 50 participants are sufficient to establish the purposeful on the research and the variety of opinions [82] and due to the complexity of the study, a 30 member expert was decided. The second round of questionnaire which was distributed to the experts both in the academia and the industry via an online link, all the 14 was returned which signified 90% total response rate. While conducting the second round, the result accumulated from the first round was measured by the experts. The experts were then asked to rank the indicators in a review of the response from the first round. After the finish of the second round, the mean score and standard deviation of the indicators were again ascertained to gauge the level of convergence. The responses from the second round were used as the benchmark of the analysis. The result generated from the expert was analyzed using SPSS to calculate the mean, the mean was converted into a percentile value (see Table6). To derive the total value of the respondents (experts) using Table6 below to demonstrate the percentile rate from the Likert scale. Each question was rated as 100%, based on the adopted SCGBAT model (Table6), each individual indicator has its weight value.

Table 6. Likert scale, the points and the values.

Likert Scale Points Values Strongly Agree 5 76–100% Agree 4 51–75% Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 26–50% Disagree 2 01–25% Strongly Disagree 1 Nil

From the 14 returned answers the rating was derived through means as a benchmark for each indicator and it was calculated using the percentage of the total. As an example, SE1 3 the mean was calculated as 50% from the experts rating. Since the overall rating is 4.3 which is equal to 100%, to get the actual point, after cross multiplication x = 2, which is the value used in the RAG rating. See calculation below 4.3 = 100%

x = 50%

Therefore x = 2.

This calculation is used for all the indicators to derive their final weights in the rating system. Concerning the organization of the data, it followed the process of coding; all correlation and discrepancy are organized, coded and tabulated. Also, organizing of the data was achieved by interpretive coding through the tables produces and classification of the valid data to generate interpretations and verdicts from the collected data. In this regard, to assess the “SCGBAT” indicators, a RAG rating system (red, yellow and green) was adopted to provide a graphical representation of the results for the indicators and categories. The RAG rating system was developed to enable a proper presentation of the indicators analyzed. The RAG rating system is demonstrated as follows—green indicates a positive result with a high number (4–5), yellow indicates an average level of satisfaction (3), while red indicates a negative result (2 and 1). Figure4 shows an example of the RAG rating system. Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24

The Figure 4 above gives an overall presentation of the indicators from the SCGBAT indicators adopted. Each section of color represents the 36 indicators derived from the experts’ response to the questions are evaluation. It shows the different levels of rating in each indicator with some indicators have a mix of higher individual indicators points than the others. This shows that a single indicator can have a positive response in all its indicators while some can have a variance of negative, average and positive ratings. Environments 2020, 7, 67 13 of 24

Figure 4. Sequence for identifying the objectives, target values and the impact of the indicators. Figure 4. Sequence for identifying the objectives, target values and the impact of the indicators. The Figure4 above gives an overall presentation of the indicators from the SCGBAT indicators 4. adopted.Results Each section of color represents the 36 indicators derived from the experts’ response to the questions are evaluation. It shows the different levels of rating in each indicator with some indicators The following Table 7 is the final result of the questionnaire, based on the SCGBAT working have a mix of higher individual indicators points than the others. This shows that a single indicator sheet. can have a positive response in all its indicators while some can have a variance of negative, average and positive ratings. Table 7. Results which led to the analysis.

4. Results Final Social Sustainability Percentile Individual Social Sustainability Indicators Weight Results IndicatorThe followingCategories Table 7 is the final result of the questionnaire, based on the SCGBAT workingValue (%) sheet. (%) SEI 1—Access to information 5.0 5 100 Table 7. Results which led to the analysis. SEI 2—Participation in decision making 6.5 5 75 Social equity SEI 3—Formation of governance structure 4.3 2 50 Social Sustainability Individual Social Sustainability Indicators Final Weight Results Percentile Value Indicator Categories SEI 4—Planning of space (%) 2.0 2 100(%) SEISEI 1—Access 5—Use toof informationnatural resources 5.0 1.7 5 1.7 100 100 SEI 2—Participation in decision making 6.5 5 75 Social equity SEI 3—FormationEEI 1—Material of governance choices structure 4.3 3.3 2 3.3 100 50 SEI 4—PlanningEEI 2—Energy of space sources 2.0 3.2 2 1 10025 SEI 5—Use of natural resources 1.7 1.7 100 EEI 4—Water and waste management 2.5 1 50 EEI 1—MaterialEEI 5—Pollution choices 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.1 100 100 EEI 2—Energy sources 3.2 1 25 EEI 4—WaterEEI and 7—Biodiversity waste management 2.5 2.4 1 2 75 50 Environmental EEI 8—AwarenessEEI 5—Pollution of the physical 3.1 3.1 100 Environmentaleducation EEI 7—Biodiversity 2.42.0 22 100 75 environmental education EEI 8—Awareness of the physical 2.0 2 100 EEI 9—Knowledgeenvironmental of human activity on the EEI 9—Knowledge of human activity on the 1.2 1.2 100 environmentenvironment 1.2 1.2 100 EEIEEI 10—Ability 10—Ability to take to actionstake actions to to environmental problems 1.81.8 11 100 100 environmental problems PCI 1—User participation 8.0 8 100 PCI 1—User participation 8.0 8 100 Participation & PCI 2—Willingness to act and improve 8.0 4 50 Participationcontrol & PCI 2—Willingnessenvironment to act and improve PCI 3—Creative place making opportunities 3.28.0 3.24 10050 control PCI 4—Conferencesenvironment & seminars 0.9 0 25 PCI 3—Creative place making opportunities 3.2 3.2 100 SCI 2—Neighborhood involvement in design and planning phases 2.9 2.9 100 SCI 3—Design of a place which increases social Social Cohesion interaction within the building 2.9 2.9 100 SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid spaces) 2.9 2.9 100 in the neighborhood Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

PCI 4—Conferences & seminars 0.9 0 25 SCI 2—Neighborhood involvement in design 2.9 2.9 100 and planning phases SCI 3—Design of a place which increases 2.9 2.9 100 Social Cohesion social interaction within the building SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid 2.9 2.9 100 Environments 2020, 7, 67 spaces) in the neighborhood 14 of 24 HSI 1—Health impacts of materials 2.9 2 75 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 4.2 4 100 Table 7. Cont. Health &Safety HSI 3—Health impact of water consumption 2.5 2 100 Social Sustainability IndividualHSI Social 4—Health Sustainability impacts Indicators of IEQ Final Weight 2.9 Results 2 Percentile 75 Value Indicator Categories HSI 5—Feeling of safety (%) 1.2 1.2 (%) 100 ASIHSI 1—Health1—Access impacts to social of materialsinformation about 2.9 2 75 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 4.22.8 40 100 0 Health &Safety HSI 3—Health impactgreen of water building consumption 2.5 2 100 Accessibility & ASIHSI 2—Access 4—Health to impacts choice ofof IEQnatural resource 2.9 4.4 2 4.4 10075 satisfaction HSI 5—Feeling of safety 1.2 1.2 100 ASI 3—Project location for public access 3.1 3 100 ASI 1—Access to social information about ASI 4—Post-Occupancygreen building Evaluation 2.8 1.7 0 0 0 0 Accessibility & ASI 2—AccessCVI to choice 2—Design of natural of spaces resource 4.4 1.4 4.4 1 100 75 satisfaction ASI 3—Project location for public access 3.1 3 100 CVI 3—Indigenous environmental Cultural value ASI 4—Post-Occupancy Evaluation 1.71.7 01.7 100 0 management practices CVI 2—Design of spaces 1.4 1 75 CVI 4—Intercultural dialogue 0.6 0.6 100 Cultural value CVI 3—Indigenous environmental 1.7 1.7 100 PRI 2—Compliancemanagement practices to earthquake resistance CVI 4—Intercultural dialogue 0.61.2 0.60 100 0 code PRI 2—Compliance to earthquake resistance Physical resilience PRI 3—Mitigation in the use of environmental1.2 0 0 code 0.7 0 0 Physical resilience PRI 3—Mitigation in theresources use of environmental resources 0.7 0 0 PRIPRI 4—Sustainable 4—Sustainable management management of hazards of hazards 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0 0

4.1.4.1. Category Category 1: 1: Social Social Equity Equity Indicator Indicator (SEI) (SEI) AccordingAccording to to the the responses responses gathered gathered for category one ofof thethe socialsocial equityequity category,category, the the majority majority of ofthe the indicators indicators assessments assessments were were of positive of positive ratings ratings (see Table (see8). Table However, 8). concerningHowever, concerning the formation the of formationa governance of a governance structure indicator, structure it wasindicator, gathered it was that gathered policies that based policies on environmental based on environmental gain and loss gainwere and unequally loss were implemented unequally implemented among the participants. among the participants.

TableTable 8. 8. RAGRAG rating rating of of Social Social Equity Equity Indicator Indicator in in Louroujina. Louroujina.

Category Indicatorsindicators Indicators Indicators Score Score SEI 1—Access to information 5/5 SEI 1—AccessSEI 2—Participation to information in decision making5/5 5/6.5 SEI 3—Formation of governance SEI 2—Participation in decision making 5/6.5 2/4.3 structure SEI 3—FormationSEI of governance 4—Planning structure of space 2/4.3 2/2 SEI 5—Use of natural resources 1.7/1.7 SEI 4—Planning of space 2/2 SEI 2 SEI 5—Use of natural resourcesTotal 1.7/1.7 15.7

SOCIAL EQUITY Total 15.7 SOCIAL EQUITY

4.2.4.2. Category Category 2: 2: Environmental Environmental Education Education Indicator Indicator (EEI) (EEI) EnvironmentalEnvironmental education education category category for for Louroujina Louroujina shows shows that that majority majority of of the the indicator indicator yielded yielded a a positivepositive result result (see (see Table Table 9),9), in in particular, particular, the the awar awarenesseness of of the the material material choice choice used used within within the the area, area, awarenessawareness of of the the physical physical environment environment and and also also th thee ability ability to to take take action action towards towards any any environmental environmental problemproblem facing facing them. them. However, However, the the unsatisfactory unsatisfactory score score came came from from the the energy energy sources, sources, where where users users areare not not well well learned learned about about the the energy input into theirtheir buildingsbuildings andand alsoalso an an average average understanding understanding of ofthe the water water and and waste waste management management was was visible visible in in the the result result (Table (Table9). 9).

EnvironmentsEnvironments 20202020,, 77,, 67x FOR PEER REVIEW 155 of 2424

Table 9. RAG rating of Environmental Education Indicator in Louroujina. Table 9. RAG rating of Environmental Education Indicator in Louroujina. Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24 Framework Category Indicators Indicators Score Score Table 9. RAG rating of Environmental EducationEEI 1—Material Indicator in choicesLouroujina. 3.3/3.3 EEI 1—Material choices 3.3/3.3 EEI 2—Energy sources 1/3.2 FrameworkEEI 10 Category EEI Indicators 2—Energy sources Score 1/3.2 EEI 9 7% EEI 1 EEI 4—Water and waste management 1/2.5 8% 22% EEI 4—WaterEEI 1—Material andEEI 5—Pollution waste choices management 3.3/3.3 1/2.53.1/3.1 EEI 8 EEI 2—Energy sources 1/3.2 14% EEI 10 EEI 7—Biodiversity 2/2.4 EEI 2 EEI 5—Pollution 3.1/3.1 7% EEI 1 EEI 4—Water and waste management 1/2.5 EEI 9 7% 8% 22% EEI 8—Awareness of the physical environment 2/2 EEI 4 EEI 5—Pollution 3.1/3.1 EEI 7 EEI 7—Biodiversity 2/2.4 EEI 8 7% EEI 9—Knowledge of human activity on the environment 1.2/1.2 14% 14% EEI 7—Biodiversity 2/2.4 EEI 5 EEI 2 EEIEEI 10—Ability 8—Awareness to take of actions the physical to environmental environment problems 2/21.8/1.8 21% 7% EEI 8—Awareness of the physical environment 2/2 EEI 4 EEI 7 7% EEIEEI 9—Knowledge 9—Knowledge of ofhuman human activity activity on the on environment the environment 1.2/1.2 1.2/1.2 14% ENVIRONMENTALEEI 5 EEI 10—Ability to take actions to environmentalTotal problems 1.8/1.8 14.6 21% EEI 10—Ability to take actions to environmental problems 1.8/1.8 ENVIRONMENTALEDUCATION EDUCATION Total 14.6 Total 14.6 4.3.ENVIRONMENTAL Category 3: Participation EDUCATION and Control Indicator (PCI) 4.3. Category 3: Participation and Control Indicator (PCI) 4.3. CategoryThe participation 3: Participation and and control Control categoryIndicator (PCI) shows an average rating between the indicators, with The participation and control category shows an average rating between the indicators, positive outcomes from the user's participation, where the users are highly involved in discussing with positiveThe participation outcomes and from control the user’scategory participation, shows an average where rating the users between are highly the indicators, involved with in discussing environmentalpositive outcomes problems, from the waysuser's ofparticipation, tackling them where and the th userseir benefits are highly to their involved community in discussing (see Table 10). environmental problems, ways of tackling them and their benefits to their community (see Table 10). However,environmental the problems,willingness ways to actof tackling toward them improving and their the benefits environment to their community is on an average (see Table score. 10). Whereas However, the willingness to act toward improving the environment is on an average score. Whereas the theHowever, lack of the a congregational willingness to act assembly toward improving (conferences the environment or seminars) is onto discussan average these score. problems Whereas are visible lackinthe the lack of community a of congregational a congregational (Table assembly 10).assembly (conferences (conferences oror seminars)seminars) to to discuss discuss these these problems problems are are visible visible in the communityin the community (Table (Table 10). 10). Table 10. RAG rating of Participation & Control Indicator in Louroujina. TableTable 10.10. RAG rating rating of of Participation Participation & Control & Control Indicator Indicator in Louroujina. in Louroujina. Framework Category Indicators Score Framework Category Category Indicators Indicators Score Score PCI 4 PCI 1—User participation 8/8 PCI 4 0% PCI 1—User participation 8/8 0% PCI 2—WillingnessPCI 2—WillingnessPCI 1—User to act participation an tod actimprove and improve environment environment 4/88/ 8 4/8

PCIPCI 3 3 PCI 3—CreativePCI 3—Creative place making place makingopportunities opportunities 3.2/3.2 3.2/3.2 21%21% PCI 2—WillingnessPCI 4—ConferencePCI to act4—Conference and improveand seminars and environment seminars 0/0.94/8 0/0.9

PCI 1 PCI 1 53% 53% PCI 3—Creative place making opportunities 3.2/3.2 PCIPCI 2 2 26% 26% Total Total 15.2 15.2 PCI 4—Conference and seminars 0/0.9

PARTICIPATIONPARTICIPATION & CONTROL & PARTICIPATIONCONTROL & CONTROL Total 15.2 4.4. Category 4: Social Cohesion Indicator (SCI) 4.4. Category 4: Social Cohesion Indicator (SCI) 4.4. CategorySocial Cohesion 4: Social category Cohesion for Indicator Louroujina (SCI) shows that indicators were of positive ratings. The neighborsSocial were Cohesion involved category in the planning for Louroujina and design shows phases, th theat indicatorsdesign of the were spaces of helpedpositive boost ratings. The Social Cohesion category for Louroujina shows that indicators were of positive ratings. neighborstheir social werenetworks involved both within in the the planning building and indesign common phases, spaces the (Table design 11). of the spaces helped boost The neighbors were involved in the planning and design phases, the design of the spaces helped boost their social networks both within the building and in common spaces (Table 11). Environmentstheir 2020 social, 7, x FOR networks PEER REVIEW both within the building and in common spaces (Table 116). of 24

Table 11.Table RAG 11.ratingRAG of Social rating Cohesion of Social Indicator Cohesion in Louroujina. Indicator in Louroujina.

FrameworkFramework CategoryCategory Indicators Indicators Score Score SCI 2—Neighborhood involvement in design 2.9/2.9 SCI 2—Neighborhoodand involvement planning phases in design and planning phases 2.9/2.9

SCI 4 SCI 3—Design of a place which increases SCI 2 SCI 3—Design of a place which increases social interaction2.9/2.9 within social interaction within the building 2.9/2.9 the building SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid 2.9/2.9 SCI 3 SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with spaces) in the neighborhood 2.9/2.9 common spaces (fluid spaces) in the neighborhood

Total 8.7 Total 8.7 SOCIALSOCIAL COHESIONCOHESION

4.5. Category 5: Health and Safety Indicator (HSI) The health and safety category in Louroujina shows a positive result from the indicator assessment. All the indicators yielded a positive response based on the health impacts of material; energy sources; water; IEQ and safety measures. The occupants are well informed of the basic health issues relating to the subjects mentioned earlier (see Table 12).

Table 12. RAG rating of Health and Safety Indicator in Louroujina.

Framework Category Indicators Score HSI 1—Health impact of materials 2/2.9

HSI 5 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 4/4.2 HSI 1 HSI 3—Health impacts of water consumption 2/2.5

HSI 4 HSI 4—Health impact of IEQ 2/2.9 HIS 5—Feeling of safety 1.2/1.2

HSI 3 HSI 2 Total 11.2

HEALTH & SAFETY

4.6. Category 6: Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator (ASI) Accessibility and Satisfaction category in Louroujina shows the mixed reaction of the indicators, where access to social information about green building within the community is at the least scores, this shows the level of information readily available to occupants to be very low, with no library or adequate knowledge of green building. Also, post-occupancy evaluation is not readily implemented in the community. However, access to natural resources and project location for the public is of higher impact in the community (Table 13).

Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24

Table 11. RAG rating of Social Cohesion Indicator in Louroujina.

Framework Category Indicators Score SCI 2—Neighborhood involvement in design 2.9/2.9 and planning phases

SCI 4 SCI 3—Design of a place which increases SCI 2 2.9/2.9 social interaction within the building SCI 4—Design of a place which increases social interaction with common spaces (fluid 2.9/2.9 SCI 3 spaces) in the neighborhood

Total 8.7 Environments 2020SOCIAL, 7, 67 COHESION 16 of 24

4.5. Category 5: Health and Safety Indicator (HSI) 4.5. Category 5: Health and Safety Indicator (HSI) The health and safety category in Louroujina shows a positive result from the indicator The health and safety category in Louroujina shows a positive result from the indicator assessment. assessment. All the indicators yielded a positive response based on the health impacts of material; All the indicators yielded a positive response based on the health impacts of material; energy sources; energy sources; water; IEQ and safety measures. The occupants are well informed of the basic health water; IEQ and safety measures. The occupants are well informed of the basic health issues relating to issues relating to the subjects mentioned earlier (see Table 12). the subjects mentioned earlier (see Table 12). Table 12. RAG rating of Health and Safety Indicator in Louroujina. Table 12. RAG rating of Health and Safety Indicator in Louroujina.

FrameworkFramework Category Category Indicators Indicators Score Score HSI 1—Health impact of materials 2/2.9 HSI 1—Health impact of materials 2/2.9 HSI 5 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 4/4.2 HSI 1 HSI 3—Health impacts of water consumption 2/2.5 HSI 2—Health impacts of energy sources 4/4.2 HSI 4 HSI 4—Health impact of IEQ 2/2.9 HSI 3—Health impactsHIS 5—Feeling of water consumption of safety 2/2.5 1.2/1.2

HSI 4—Health impact of IEQ 2/2.9 HSI 3 HSI 2

HIS 5—Feeling ofTotal safety 1.2/1.2 11.2

HEALTHHEALTH & & SAFETY SAFETY Total 11.2

4.6. Category 6: Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator (ASI) 4.6. Category 6: Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator (ASI) Accessibility and Satisfaction category in Louroujina shows the mixed reaction of the indicators, whereAccessibility access to socialand Satisfaction information category about green in Louroujina building shows within the the mixed community reaction is of at the indicators, least scores, wherethis shows access the to social level ofinformation information about readily green available building to within occupants the community to be very low, is at with the least no library scores, or thisadequate shows knowledgethe level of ofinformation green building. readily Also, available post-occupancy to occupants evaluation to be very is notlow, readily with no implemented library or adequatein the community. knowledge However, of green accessbuilding. to naturalAlso, post-o resourcesccupancy and project evaluation location is not for readily the public implemented is of higher Environmentsinimpact the community. in 2020 the, 7 community, x FOR However, PEER REVIEW (Table access 13 to). natural resources and project location for the public 7is of of 24 higher impact in the community (Table 13). TableTable 13. 13. RAGRAG rating rating of of Accessibility Accessibility and and Satisfaction Satisfaction Indicator Indicator in Louroujina. in Louroujina.

Category IndicatorsIndicators ScoreScore

ASI 4 ASI 1 ASI 1—Access to social information about green 0% 0% 0/2.8 ASI 1—Access to social informationbuilding about green building 0/2.8 ASI 2—Access to choice of natural resources 4/4.4

ASI 3 ASI 2—AccessASI 3—Project to choice location of natural for public resources access 43/3.1/4.4 41% HSI 4—Post Occupancy Evaluation 0/1.7

ASI 2 ASI 3—Project location for public access 3/3.1 59%

HSI 4—Post OccupancyTotal Evaluation 0/7.41.7 ACCESSIBILITY & Total 7.4 ACCESSIBILITYSATISFACTION & SATISFACTION

4.7.4.7. Category Category 7: Cultural 7: Cultural Value Value Indicator Indicator (CVI) (CVI) TheThe Cultural Cultural value value category category shows shows that thatthe assessm the assessmentent of the of indicators the indicators was of was positive of positive ratings ratings withwith the the design design of ofspaces, spaces, indicating indicating an above-av an above-averageerage level levelof encouraging of encouraging cultural cultural aspect aspectinto into designingdesigning of oftheir their spaces spaces and and the theuse useof indigenous of indigenous environmental environmental management management practices practices been highly been highly encouragedencouraged in in the the community. community. Also, Also, interculturalintercultural dialoguedialogue betweenbetween individualsindividuals and and groups groups of of di fferent differentcultural cultural background background exists whichexists which helps helps improve improve the environment the environment (Table (Table 14). 14).

Table 14. RAG rating of Cultural Value Indicator in Louroujina.

Framework Category Indicators Score CVI 1—Design of spaces 1/1.4 CVI 2—Indigenous environmental management 1.7/1.7 practices CVI 3 CVI 3—Intercultural dialogue 0.6/0.6 CVI 1

Total 3.3

CVI 2

CULTURAL VALUE

4.8. Category 8: Physical Resilience Indicator (PRI) The physical resilience category in Louroujina shows that all the indicator assessments were of low ratings, the compliance to earthquake resistance code having an unsatisfactory score, shows the low level of encouragement for the implementation of earthquake resistance code to building projects in the community, which in turn affect the management of hazards on projects. The mitigation in the use of the environmental resource is also low; this shows that there are not specified and regulated alternative environmental resources provided for the community to reduce harming the environment (see Table 15).

Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

Table 13. RAG rating of Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator in Louroujina.

Category Indicators Score

ASI 4 ASI 1 ASI 1—Access to social information about green 0% 0% 0/2.8 building ASI 2—Access to choice of natural resources 4/4.4

ASI 3 ASI 3—Project location for public access 3/3.1 41% HSI 4—Post Occupancy Evaluation 0/1.7

ASI 2 59%

Total 7.4

ACCESSIBILITY & SATISFACTION

4.7. Category 7: Cultural Value Indicator (CVI) The Cultural value category shows that the assessment of the indicators was of positive ratings with the design of spaces, indicating an above-average level of encouraging cultural aspect into designing of their spaces and the use of indigenous environmental management practices been highly encouraged in the community. Also, intercultural dialogue between individuals and groups of Environments 2020, 7, 67 17 of 24 different cultural background exists which helps improve the environment (Table 14).

Table 14. RAG rating of Cultural Value Indicator in Louroujina. Table 14. RAG rating of Cultural Value Indicator in Louroujina. Framework Category Indicators Score Framework CategoryCVI 1—Design Indicators of spaces 1/1.4 Score CVI 2—Indigenous environmental management 1.7/1.7 practices CVI 3 CVI 1—Design of spaces 1/1.4 CVI 3—Intercultural dialogue 0.6/0.6 CVI 1

CVI 2—Indigenous environmental management practices 1.7/1.7

CVI 3—InterculturalTotal dialogue 3.3 0.6/0.6 CVI 2

Total 3.3 CULTURAL VALUE CULTURAL VALUE 4.8. Category 8: Physical Resilience Indicator (PRI) 4.8. Category 8: Physical Resilience Indicator (PRI) TheThe physicalphysical resilience resilience category category in Louroujina in Louroujina shows that shows all the indicator that all assessments the indicator were assessments of were of lowlow ratings, ratings, the the compliance compliance to earthquake to earthquake resistance resistance code having code an unsatisfactory having an unsatisfactoryscore, shows the score, shows the lowlow level level ofof encouragement encouragement for the for implementation the implementation of earthquake of earthquake resistance code resistance to building codeprojects to building projects in the community, which in turn affect the management of hazards on projects. The mitigation in the inuse the of community, the environmental which resource in turn is also aff ectlow; the this management shows that there of are hazards not specified on projects. and regulated The mitigation in the usealternative of the environmental environmental resources resource provided is also for the low; community this shows to reduce that harming there arethe environment not specified and regulated alternative(see Table 15). environmental resources provided for the community to reduce harming the environment (see Table 15). Environments 2020, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24

Table 15. TableRAG rating 15. RAG of Physical rating Resilience of Physical Indicator Resilience in Louroujina. Indicator in Louroujina.

FrameworkFramework Category Indicators Indicators Score Score

PRI 3PRI 2 PRI 2- Compliance to 0/1.2 PRI 2- Complianceearthquake resistance to earthquake code resistance code 0/1.2 PRI 3- Mitigation in the use of 0/0.7 environmental resources PRI 3- MitigationPRI in 4- the Sustainable use of environmental resources 0/0.7 0.2/0.9 management of hazards PRI 4- Sustainable management of hazards 0.2/0.9 PRI 4

Total 0.2 Total 0.2 PHYSICAL RESILIENCE PHYSICAL RESILIENCE As an overview of the entire, Table 16 below is prepared to demonstrate the evaluation of Building As an overview of the entire, Table 16 below is prepared to demonstrate the evaluation of Buildingin in Louroujina, Louroujina, Table 16, 16 present, present the the total total evaluation evaluation checklist checklist of the building of the building through the through the “SCGBAT” “SCGBAT”framework. framework. The The Building Building in Louroujinain Louroujina was was placed placed within within the the Gold Gold rating rating of of the the framework, which seen framework,is Table which 14 seen. The is tableTable shows14. The atable 77.9% shows in thea 77.9% final in ratingthe final for rating all the for indicatorsall the indicators in louroujina’s building. in louroujina’s building.

Environments 2020, 7, 67 18 of 24

Table 16. “Social Criteria of Green Building Assessment Tool (SCGBAT)” Framework: Louroujina.

Project Checklist Project Name: Evaluation of Social Sustainability of Vernacular Architecture in Louroujina Settlement Project Period: December 2019 and February 2020. 0 1 Social Equity 15.7 5 0 0 Health and Safety 11.9 √ Access to information 5.0 √ Health impacts of material 2.0 √ Participation in decision making 6.5 √ Health impacts of energy sources 4.2 √ Formation of governance structure 2.0 √ Health impacts of water consumption 2.5 √ Planning of space 2.0 √ Health impacts of IEQ 2.0 √ Use of natural resources 1.7 √ Feeling of safety 1.2 6 1 1 Environmental Education 15.4 2 0 2 Accessibility and Satisfaction 7.5 √ Material choices 3.3 √ Access to social information about green building 0.0 √ Energy sources 1.0 √ Access to choice of natural resources 4.4 √ Water and waste management 1.0 √ Project location for public access 3.1 √ Pollution 3.1 √ Post Occupancy Evaluation 0.0 √ Biodiversity 2.0 √ Awareness of the physical environmental 2.0 3 0 0 Cultural Value 3.3 √ Knowledge of human activity on the environment 1.2 √ Design of spaces 1.0 √ Ability to take actions to environmental problem 1.8 √ Indigenous environmental management practices 1.7 √ Intercultural dialogue 0.6 2 1 1 Participation and Control 15.2 √ User participation 8.0 0 0 3 Physical Resilience 0.2 √ Willingness to act and improve environment 4.0 √ Compliance to earthquake resistance code 0.0 √ Creative place making opportunities 3.2 √ Mitigation in the use of environmental resources 0.0 √ Conference & seminars 0.0 √ Sustainable management hazards 0.2 3 0 0 Social Cohesion 8.7 25 2 8 TOTAL 77.9 Environments 2020, 7, 67 19 of 24

Table 16. Cont.

Project Checklist Project Name: Evaluation of Social Sustainability of Vernacular Architecture in Louroujina Settlement Project Period: December 2019 and February 2020. Neighborhood involvement in design and planning √ 2.9 phases Design of a place which increases social interaction √ 2.9 Certified: 45–54%, Silver: 55–64%, Gold: 65–79%, Platinum: 80–100% within the building Design of a place which increases social interaction √ with common spaces (fluid spaces) in the 2.9 neighborhood Environments 2020, 7, 67 20 of 24

5. Discussion The results demonstrated that the investigated vernacular architecture lacked in; Physical Resilience Indicator (PRI), Environmental Education Indicator (EEI), Accessibility and Satisfaction Indicator (ASI) but satisfactorily better in the context of Health and Safety Indicator (HSI); Participation and Control Indicator (PCI); Social Equity Indicator (SEI); Social Cohesion Indicator (SCI); and Cultural Value Indicator (CVI). The indicator of participation and control namely PCI 2—willingness to act and improve environment (4/8) and PCI 4—conference and seminar (0/0.9) demonstrated low responses from all the respondents. The low responses as regard the willingness to act is indicative of the fact that the young population of the village does not want to live in the vernacular architecture anymore and they prefer the contemporary alternatives they observe in the city. The Low response concerning the conference and seminar is simply self-evident since no such awareness raising conferences are organized in the village at any point. Also, two of the indicators of environmental education: EEI 4—Water and waste management (1/2.5) and EEI 2—Energy sources (1/3.2) ranked lowly from the responses. This is also indicative of the fact that in vernacular settlement, they rely on traditional indigenous knowledge of energy and energy sources, as such; formal knowledge of energy sources is not available [83]. In the same manner as the other two mentioned categories, the indicator of social equity: SEI 3–formation of governance structure (2/4.3) also ranked lowly in the responses. This is because; governance structure in Louroujina village is vested in a specific family. Furthermore, indicator: ASI 1- Access to social information about green building also ranked low because of the previously described factors about the preference for indigenous knowledge as against formal knowledge [84]. The indicator of physical resilience categories namely—PRI 2—compliance to earthquake resistance code (0/1.2), PRI 3—mitigation in the use of environmental resources (0/0.7) and PRI 4–sustainable management of hazards (0.2/0.9) demonstrated a low response from the experts. This is indicative of the fact that vernacular architecture was built based on a non-formal understanding of the concept of resilience and engineering compliance (Ibid.)

6. Conclusions This paper assesses the social sustainability indicators in vernacular architecture through the application of a proposed set of 8 social sustainability categories and 37 indicators. The main proposed categories are health and safety; participation and control; education; equity, accessibility and satisfaction; social cohesion; cultural values; physical resilience [51,63]. The weighted score of each indicator was used to assess the social sustainability criteria of vernacular architecture in Louroujina village, Cyprus. One hundred and thirty five questionnaires were administered based on the 8 categories and the 37 indicators of social sustainability. One hundred and twenty one of the respondents were residents and occupants of the four residential typologies of vernacular architecture in Louroujina village while the other 14 respondents are professionals and experts working closely on projects in the village. These expert groups include the academia, the staff of the department of antiquity, staff of the municipality office and heritage site managers among others (see Table5). The respondents were asked to assess the indicators in five-point Likert scale. As demonstrated by the analysis of results, the vernacular architecture in Louroujina village demonstrated a nearly satisfactory level of social sustainability from the respondents. In this regard, this paper contributes to the advancement of knowledge concerning the assessment of social indicators in vernacular architecture which has witnessed less advancement in recent years. Also, this study has demonstrated the empirical application of the proposed conceptual SCGBAT assessment tool, especially, its compatibility, strengths and weaknesses in the context of assessing social values in vernacular landscapes. While several methods have been applied to assess the sustainability lessons of vernacular architecture over the years, green building assessment approach remains in a dearth. Against this background, by applying a green building assessment approach, this paper demonstrates that there are considerable lessons that can be drawn from vernacular architecture in Environments 2020, 7, 67 21 of 24 the context of social sustainability. In this regard, the outcomes of this research can be used as an empirical basis for assessing the social sustainability of vernacular architecture which has long been ignored. However, in the course of the study, it was realized there are several other indicators of social sustainability of vernacular architecture that were not considered in the SGCBAT proposed categories and indicators. While the indicators proposed by the SCGBAT are important, some of the indicators are however not in tandem with the traditional philosophy of vernacular architecture in some cases. Thus, for future research, it is suggested that the categories and indicators be developed contextually using a vernacular settlement as a case study. The indicators and categories can be improved by using more in-depth vernacular architecture case study, creating different categories and adding more regionally specific indicators.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.A.P.O. and J.O.A.; methodology, O.A.P.O. and J.O.A.; formal analysis, J.O.A.; investigation, O.A.P.O. and J.O.A.; resources, O.A.P.O. and J.O.A.; data O.A.P.O. and J.O.A.; writing—original draft preparation, O.A.P.O.; writing—review and editing, O.A.P.O.; visualization, O.A.P.O. and J.O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Authors want to express gratitude to the entire staff of Louroujina Municipality and the department of Architecture, Cyprus International University for the support throughout the research. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Vellinga, M. The noble vernacular. J. Arch. 2013, 18, 570–590. [CrossRef] 2. Praytino, B.; Winaktoe, W.W. Paradigm Shift towards Ecological (Vernacular) Settlement: Measuring the Dynamics within the Built-environment. In Proceedings of the ISVS 2, Jaskarta, Indonesia, 16–17 February 2002. 3. Dayaratne, R. Vernacular settlements and sustainable traditions in Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the First Vernacular Settlement Conference at the University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia, 3–4 August 1999. 4. Dayaratne, R. Learning from tradition for an environmentally responsive architecture in Sri Lanka: A formal practice. Open House Int. 2000, 25, 5–15. 5. Shaffer, M. New Machine Vernacular: Remote Building Devises Digital/Cultural accommodation and technology’s renewed humanitarian agenda. In Proceedings of the ISVS 5, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 30–31 July 2010. 6. Polèse, M.; Stren, R.E. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000. 7. Becker, E.; Jahn, T. Sustainability and the Social Sciences; Zed Books: New York, NY, USA, 1999. 8. Chiu, R.L.H. Social Sustainability, Sustainable Development and Housing Development: The Experience of Hong Kong. In Housing and Social Change: East-West Perspectives; Forrest, R., Lee, J., Eds.; Routledge: Florence, SC, USA, 2003; pp. 221–239. 9. Enyedi, G. Social sustainability of large cities. Ekistics 2002, 69, 42–144. 10. Levi-Strauss, C. The Way of the Masks; University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 1982. 11. Correia, M.; Dipasquale, L.; Mecca, S. (Eds.) Versus: Heritage for Tomorrow; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2014. 12. Heath, K. Vernacular Architecture and Regional Design; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2009. 13. AA.VV.Vernacular Architecture: ICOMOS International Committee on VernacularArchitecture. International Scientific Committee. In Proceedings of the 10th General Assembly, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 30 July– 4 August 1993. 14. Buyukmihci, G.; Bilsel, G.; Hisarligil, H.; Polat, E. Sustainable Traditional Environment Commencing a New Strategy to Re- insure the Cultural Continuity in Gesi and Surrounding Small Settlements. In Traditional Environments in a New Millenium; Turgut, H., Kellett, P., Eds.; IAPS-CSBE Network Book Series 4; Istanbul Technical University: Instanbul, Turkey, 2002; pp. 229–232. 15. Numan, I.; Dincyurek, O. Learning from Cyprus and its traditional Mesaorian adobe architecture. In Proceedings of the ISVS 2, Depok, Indonesia, 16–17 February 2012; pp. 219–226. 16. Burr, P. Comparative analysis of comfort levels in five selected South Florida residences. In Proceedings of the First International PLEA Conference, Bermuda, UK, 13–15 September 1982; pp. 3.12–3.18. Environments 2020, 7, 67 22 of 24

17. Sahlins, M. What is anthropological enlightenment? Some lessons of the twentieth century. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999, 28, i–xxiii. [CrossRef] 18. Stasinopoulos, T.N. The four elements of Santorini architecture: Lessons in vernacular sustainability. In Proceedings of the PLEA2006—The 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland, 6–8 September 2006; Volume 2, pp. 73–78. 19. Antarikananda, P.; Douvlou, E.; McCartney, K. Lessons from traditional architecture: Design for a climatic responsive contemporary house in Thailand. In Proceedings of the PLEA2006 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland, 6–8 September 2006; pp. 6–8. 20. Eyüce, A. Learning from the Vernacular: Sustainable Planning and Design. Open House Int. 2007, 32, 9–22. 21. Roaf, S. The traditional technology trap (2): More lessons from the windcatchers of Yazd. In Proceedings of the PLEA 25th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Dublin, Ireland, 22–24 October 2008; p. 739. 22. Kazimee, B.A. Learning from vernacular architecture: Sustainability and cultural conformity. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 113, 3–13. 23. Anna-Maria, V. Evaluation of a sustainable Greek vernacular settlement and its landscape: Architectural typology and building physics. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1095–1106. [CrossRef] 24. Ellen, R.F.; Parker, P.; Bicker, A. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives; Harwood: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000. 25. Fernandes, J.; Mateus, R.; Braganca, L.; Da Silva, J.J.C. Portuguese Vernacular Architecture: The contribution of vernacular materials and design approaches for sustainable construction. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2015, 58, 323–336. [CrossRef] 26. Hosseini, E.; Mursib, G.; Nafida, R.; Shahedi, B. Malay Vernacular Architecture: Mirror of the Past. Lessons for the Future. In Proceedings of the 8th Seatuc Symposium Universiti Teknologi Malaysiaat, Johor, Malaysia, 4–5 March 2014; pp. 1–6. 27. Olukoya, A.O.; Kurt, S. Environmental impacts of adobe as a building material: The north Cyprus traditional building case. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2016, 4, 32–41. [CrossRef] 28. Olukoya, A.O. Built heritage as catalysts of environmental sustainability: A pragmatic paradigm for Anthropocene. In Vernacular and Earthen Architecture: Conservation and Sustainability; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 657–662. 29. Tawayha, F.A.; Braganca, L.; Mateus, R. Contribution of the vernacular architecture to the sustainability: A comparative study between the contemporary areas and the old quarter of a Mediterranean city. Sustainability 2019, 11, 896. [CrossRef] 30. Foruzanmehr, A.; Vellinga, M. Vernacular architecture: Questions of comfort and practicability. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 274–285. [CrossRef] 31. Foruzanmehr, A. Resident’s perception of earthen dwellings in Iran. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2012, 5, 179–199. [CrossRef] 32. Foruzanmehr, A. Summer-time thermal comfort in vernacular earth dwellings in Yazd, Iran. Int. J. Sustain. Des. 2012, 2, 46–63. [CrossRef] 33. Foruzanmehr, A. The wind-catcher: Users’ perception of a vernacular passive cooling system. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2012, 55, 250–258. [CrossRef] 34. Foruzanmehr, A. Thermal comfort and practicality: Separate winter and summer rooms in Iranian traditional houses. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2014, 59, 1–11. [CrossRef] 35. Foruzanmehr, A. Basements of vernacular earth dwellings in Iran: Prominent passive cooling systems or only storage spaces? Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2015, 7, 232–244. [CrossRef] 36. Foruzanmehr, A. People’s perception of loggia: A vernacular passive cooling system in Iranian architecture. Int. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 19, 61–67. [CrossRef] 37. Yadav, M. Embodied Energy in Vernacular Houses. Case study of Goari Settlement, Mumbai, India. In Proceedings of the ISVS 5 Conference, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 30–31 July 2010; pp. 72–84. 38. Fathy, H. Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976. 39. Rasavi, M. Harmonization between Architecture Nature in Howraman. ISVS 2008, 4, 543–550. 40. Tokman, L.Y.; Yamacli, R.; Yanilmaz, B. The Context of Sustainability Space; (IAPS-CSBE Network book 4); Istanbul Technical University: Istanbul, Turkey, 2002; pp. 87–89. Environments 2020, 7, 67 23 of 24

41. Tucker, S.; Gamage, A. Some design aspects of sustainable post-disaster housing. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built-Environ. 2014, 5, 163–181. [CrossRef] 42. Frey, P. Learning from Vernacular: Towards a New Vernacular Architecture; Actes Sud: Arles, France, 2010. 43. Dayaratne, R. Toward sustainable development: Lessons from vernacular settlements of Sri Lanka. Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 334–346. [CrossRef] 44. Rapoport, A. House Form and Culture; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1969. 45. Alexander, C. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. 46. Oliver, P.Shelter for All: Continuity and change in the world housing. In Proceedings of the ISVS 5 Conference, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 30–31 July 2010; pp. 1–5. 47. He, B.-J. Towards the next generation of green building for urban heat island mitigation: Zero UHI impact building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101647. [CrossRef] 48. Atanda, J.O.; Olukoya, O.A. Green building standards: Opportunities for Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 66–377. [CrossRef] 49. Nguyen, B.K.; Altan, H. Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. In 2011 international conference on green buildings and sustainable cities. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 376–386. [CrossRef] 50. Cole, R.J. Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions. In Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 27–29 September 2005; pp. 1934–1939. 51. Atanda, J.O.; Öztürk, A. Social criteria of sustainable development in relation to green building assessment tools. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 22, 61–87. [CrossRef] 52. Holmberg, J. Making Development Sustainable: Redefining Institutions Policy and Economics; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1992. 53. Reed, D. Review brief-structural adjustment, the environment, and sustainable development. Long Range Plan. 1997, 30, 143–144. [CrossRef] 54. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks—Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; New Society Publisher: Stoney Creek, CT, USA, 1997. 55. OECD. Sustainable Development: Critical Issues; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. 56. Jenkins, V. Commission of the European Communities: A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication from the Commission (Commission’s proposal to the Gothenburg European Council). COM (264) Final. 2001, pp. 240–261. Available online: https://ec.europa. eu/regional_policy/archive/innovation/pdf/library/strategy_sustdev_en.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020). 57. Harris, J.M.; Timothy, A.W.; Kevin, P.G.; Neva, R.G. (Eds.) A Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 6. 58. Savitz, A.; Weber, K. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Organizations Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success—And How You Can Too; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006. 59. Epstein, M. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts; Greenleaf: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008. 60. Komeily, A.; Srinivasan, R.S. A need for balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 32–43. [CrossRef] 61. Sachs, I. Social Sustainability and Whole and Whole Development: Exploring the Dimensions of Sustainable Development; Zed Book: London, UK, 1999. 62. Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 73–87. [CrossRef] 63. Atanda, J.O. Developing a social sustainability assessment framework. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 237–252. [CrossRef] 64. Dawson, C. Practical Research Methods: A User-Friendly Guide to Mastering Research Techniques and Projects; How to Books Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2002. 65. Olukoya, O.P. Energy Efficiency in Traditional Buildings: The Louroujina; North Cyprus Case: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2015. 66. Norberg-Schulz, C. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture; Rizzoli Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 1980. 67. Belluschi, P. The Meaning of Regionalism in Architecture; Architectural Record: New York, NY, USA, 1955. Environments 2020, 7, 67 24 of 24

68. Finizola, F.; Coutinho, S.; Cavalcanti, V. Vernacular design: A discussion on its concept. In Proceedings of the Design Frontiers: Territories, Concepts, Technologies, 8th Conference of the International Committee for Design History Design Studies-ICDHS, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 3–6 September 2012; pp. 557–561. 69. Kurt, S.; Bay, I.; Mesda, M.; Shagbaor, T.; Isik, B. Repairing and Maintaining Damaged Buildings in Louroujina Village/Cyprus: A Case Study for Old Khan. In Proceedings of the Kerpic ‘13. New Generation Earthen Architecture: Learning from Heritage, Istanbul, Turkey, 11–15 September 2013; Yücel, G.F., Ed.; pp. 475–485. 70. Kiessel, M.; Kurt, S.; Mesda, Y. The Abandoned Khan of Louroujina, Cyprus: A Case Study of a Vanishing Building Type. Adalya 2016, 19, 323–347. 71. Goodwin, J.C. An Historical Toponymy of Cyprus, 4th ed.; Private Publication: Nicosia, Cyprus, 1984. 72. TÜBITAK Project 112M417. Kıbrıs- Akıncılar Köyünün Korunması, Rehabilitasyonu ve Yeniden Canlandırılması Kapsamında Yerel bir Kalkınma Stratejisi Geli¸stirilmesiPreojesi 1. Geli¸simRaporu, Lulu: USA. 2013. 73. Yin, R.K.; Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods); Sage: London, UK; Singapore, 2009. 74. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In ARCH Psychological; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1932; p. 140. 75. Hartley, S.L.; MacLean, W.E., Jr. A review of the reliability and validity of Likert-type scales for people with intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2006, 50, 813–827. [CrossRef] 76. Sivo, S.A.; Saunders, C.; Chang, Q.; Jiang, J.J. How low should you go? Low response rates and the validity of inference in IS questionnaire research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 7, 17. [CrossRef] 77. Miller, G. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Manag. 2001, 22, 351–362. [CrossRef] 78. Hugé, J.; Le Trinh, H.; Hai, P.H.; Kuilman, J.; Hens, L. Sustainability indicators for clean development mechanism projects in Vietnam. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2010, 12, 561–571. [CrossRef] 79. Skulmoski, G.J.; Hartman, F.T.; Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2007, 6, 1–21. [CrossRef] 80. Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H.; Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes; Scott Foresman: Glenview, IL, USA, 1975. 81. Taylor-Powell, E. Collecting group data: Delphi technique. In Program Development and Evaluation; University of Wisconsin-Extension: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; Available online: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/ resources/pdf/Tipsheet4.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020). 82. Coutinho, S.S.; Freitas, M.A.; Pereira, M.J.B.; Veiga, T.B.; Ferreira, M.; Mishima, S. MUse of Delphi technique in research in the primary health care: Integrative. Rev. Baiana Saúde Pública 2013, 37, 582–596. 83. Brown, R.; Maudlin, D. Concepts of vernacular architecture. In The SAGE Handbook of Architecture Theory; Sage: London, UK, 2012; pp. 340–368. 84. Özkan, S.; Turan, M.; Üstünkök, O. Institutionalised Architecture, Vernacular Architecture and Vernacularism in Historical Perspective. METU J. Fac. Archit. 1979, 5, 127–156.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).