Contemporary scholars generally accept the multidimensional understanding of sustainability - social, political, economic, cultural and environmental amongst other dimensions – but the concept used to be defined more narrowly as the ‘conservation of natural resources’ and the ‘restoration of ecological balance’ (Meadows et al. 1972). While the ‘Brundtland Report’ was instrumental in broadening the definition and bridging the environmental and economic dimensions (WCED 1987), it was Elkington who stressed the social dimension in the ‘triple bottom line’ of ‘people, planet, profit’ (1998). However, the role of community participation as an elementary part of social sustainability was only established after the turn of the millennium by Giddings et al. (2002). They emphasised the participation aspect of procedural equity “so that people are able to shape their own futures” (ibid., p.194). Dempsey et al. (2011) drew upon this contribution when they considered urban sustainability from a community approach and concluded that communities thrive upon social interaction between community members, organisational initiative through collective groups and networks, the relative stability of a neighbourhood in terms of net migration and turnover, a positive identification or sense of place and the level of trust that follows from a perception of safety. These factors are summarised by Dixon and Woodcraft (2013, p.475) as “the extent to which a neighbourhood supports individual and collective well-being (…) It combines design of the physical environment with a focus on how the people who live in and use a space relate to each other and function as a community”. While most community participation researchers look into social sustainability on the neighbourhood level, Putnam’s book ‘Bowling alone’ (2000) described how a lack of social capital, here understood as strong civic participation and localised empowerment, could prevent collective action and undermine democracy on the macro-level.