Community-Scale Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment: A PRISMA-ScR Review of Spatial, Social, and Governance Mechanisms in Urban Sustainability

Community-scale sustainable built-environment practices are increasingly important for linking urban sustainability policy with everyday spatial transformation, yet the evidence base remains fragmented across nature-based solutions, housing retrofit, settlement upgrading, public-space transformation, digital mapping, circular infrastructure, and governance-oriented planning. This scoping review, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), maps and synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence on community-scale sustainable built-environment practices, with publication years from 2015 to 2026 and indexed by the final search date of 13 June 2026. Searches were conducted in Scopus and the Web of Science Core Collection, yielding 3506 records. After duplicate removal, title-and-abstract screening, and full-text eligibility assessment, 130 studies were included for Spatial–Social–Governance (SSG) coding and thematic synthesis. This review identified eight thematic clusters, led by nature-based and green–blue infrastructure practices, followed by housing, retrofit, and settlement upgrading; neighborhood sustainability assessment and planning; public-space transformation and placemaking; digital tools and mapping; circular neighborhood infrastructures; mobility-related practices; and heritage-led regeneration. The largest concentration of evidence was found in nature-based and green–blue infrastructure practices, followed by housing, retrofit, and settlement upgrading; smaller clusters extended the field towards neighborhood assessment, public-space transformation, digital evidence systems, circular infrastructures, mobility, and heritage-led regeneration. As a review-derived synthesis output, the Spatial–Social–Governance Mechanism Framework does not introduce spatial, social, and governance as new analytical dimensions. Instead, it operationalizes these established concerns as a common comparison structure for heterogeneous community-scale built-environment practices, linking spatial intervention, social embedding, and governance enablement. The framework is neither a general theory nor an effectiveness model; its contribution is an integrative and review-specific analytical instrument.