Boosting Social Relations: Community Infrastructure Review

This systematic review is part of a larger three-part series exploring the connection between interventions designed to improve social relations and their impact on community wellbeing. It builds upon a previous scoping review (Bagnall et al., 2017a) which identified strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing evidence base. This second stage delves deeper, aiming to locate, assess, and synthesize evidence from primary studies on interventions using improved community infrastructure (places and spaces) to enhance social relations and community wellbeing, including related concepts such as social capital. The review's findings aim to inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based insights into effective strategies for improving community life. It acknowledges the complex relationship between the physical environment and social interactions, referencing the 'magic formula' proposed by Halpern (1995) which emphasizes easy opportunities for social interaction while retaining the freedom of choice regarding when, where, and with whom to interact. This concept aligns with policy priorities identified by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics (Berry, 2014) which emphasizes the creation of sociable and inclusive town centers.

The systematic review employed a rigorous methodology, drawing on data from multiple sources. A comprehensive search was conducted across major databases such as DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Library, DoPHER, MEDLINE, IDOX, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete, covering the period from 2005 to 2015. The search also included forward and backward citation tracing of relevant studies, searches of specialized websites, and consultation with subject matter experts. This exhaustive search resulted in the screening of 11,257 titles and abstracts. The review specifically focused on community-based interventions or policy/environmental changes designed to foster improved social relations, measuring community-level outcomes. While the primary emphasis was on community-level outcomes, individual-level health and wellbeing data were also included where applicable, recognizing the interconnectedness between individual and community wellbeing. The review considered a wide range of outcomes related to social relations, community wellbeing, social capital, and social trust, encompassing both quantitatively measured data and qualitative assessments of perceptions and views. Studies were included if they focused on a specific intervention in a physical (non-virtual) space and were not limited to city or national-level interventions.

The review incorporated existing literature and theoretical frameworks to guide its analysis. The study acknowledges the United Nations' six stages of social integration (Hemmati, 2007), illustrating the multifaceted nature of social relations with both positive and negative outcomes. This framework helps contextualize the diverse impacts of community interventions. Additionally, the research draws upon the work of Buonfino and Hilder (2006) who identified 'neighbouring and spaces for interaction' as a crucial area for future research. Furthermore, the Legatum report (O’Donnell et al., 2014) emphasizing the link between the physical environment and social relationships, providing further context for the study’s focus on community infrastructure. The concept of 'non-places' as coined by Marc Augé (1995) is also discussed, contrasting spaces designed for social interaction with those primarily serving as transit points for consumers. However, the review also considers how interventions could foster sociability even in ‘non-places’, highlighting the potential for creating opportunities for community engagement within various settings, including those with predominantly service-oriented functions. The definition of community infrastructure is broadened to include public sector resources and community assets such as informal social networks and community-based organizations (Foot and Hopkins, 2010).

The review examined various types of community hubs and their effect on community wellbeing and social relations. One notable example is the Men's Shed, which demonstrated positive impacts on skill development and mental wellbeing. Participants reported gaining new skills, feeling more comfortable and relaxed, and finding the activities a good way to pass time and improve their self-esteem (Fildes et al., 2010). Another study highlighted the success of Kensington Market's transformation into a space for creative, communal, and interactive interventions, showcasing the positive community response and enthusiasm for such initiatives (McLean and Rahder, 2013). The review found that community hubs, such as Men's Sheds and community gardens, effectively promoted social cohesion by bringing together diverse social groups and generations. This highlights the potential of strategically designed spaces to facilitate meaningful interactions and enhance a sense of belonging among community members. The effectiveness of community hubs varied depending on factors such as the homogeneity of the user group; for example, co-housing schemes appeared to thrive with homogenous groups (Cooper et al., 2000).

A significant portion of the reviewed studies focused on the impact of interventions related to green and blue spaces. Community gardens consistently emerged as a positive force, fostering family bonding, promoting civic engagement, and improving mental and physical wellbeing. Participants in community gardening projects reported increased physical activity, a stronger sense of community pride, and a greater sense of accomplishment (Coulson et al., 2011; Mangadu et al., 2016; Porter and McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013). Furthermore, improvements to green spaces, including woodland access and the development of community wildlife sites, were shown to increase civic activity, reduce anti-social behavior, and enhance individual wellbeing through enjoyment, a sense of fulfillment, and a deeper connection with nature (Lawrence et al., 2010; Morris and O’Brien, 2011; Shipway, 2016). The creation of new cycling and walking paths was linked to increased physical activity and a shift towards ‘active living’ (Crane et al., 2016; Jones, 2014). These findings highlight the crucial role of green and blue spaces in promoting both community and individual wellbeing, demonstrating the importance of incorporating such spaces into broader community development plans. Involving volunteers was also seen as a key ingredient in the success of such projects.

The review also considered the impact of alternative uses of existing spaces, often employing a 'placemaking' approach. This involved temporary modifications to how spaces were utilized, such as street closures for recreational activities, pop-up parks, public art installations, and markets. These interventions were found to significantly impact social relations and community identity. For instance, pop-up parks became popular social hubs, facilitating increased interaction among diverse age and socioeconomic groups (Tulloch, 2016). Similarly, pedestrianized markets provided spaces for creative expression and collective action, highlighting the community's unique character and acting as a form of resistance against gentrification (McLean and Rahder, 2013). Studies on street play projects showed positive impacts on social interaction, particularly for children, with many participants agreeing that such initiatives were a good way for children to make new friends (Murray and Devecchi, 2016; Zieff et al., 2016). These examples illustrate the potential of creative placemaking to enhance social relations and foster a stronger sense of community. The geographic distribution of these studies was varied, with studies conducted in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia, among others.

The interventions studied were geographically diverse, with a significant number from the USA (24 studies), UK (11 studies), and Canada (6 studies), alongside studies from Australia, Turkey, South Korea, and other countries. This diverse geographical representation provides a broader understanding of the applicability of different community interventions. Community-led initiatives were found to be particularly effective in many cases (17 studies reported some level of community leadership). Examples include pop-up parks (Tulloch, 2016), community cafes (Windhorst et al., 2010), co-housing schemes (Cooper et al., 2000), community gardens (Ohmer et al., 2009; Porter and McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013), and street play (Murray and Devecchi, 2016). This underlines the crucial role of community involvement in the success of such interventions. However, the study also notes challenges in reaching all community members, especially 'hard-to-reach' populations who might be less engaged due to cultural norms or perceptions of the interventions. The success of community-led initiatives also varied based on factors such as user homogeneity and the ability of communities to effectively engage with sometimes confusing bureaucratic systems (Shipway 2016).

The review found considerable evidence that well-designed community interventions positively affect social relations and community wellbeing. Many studies demonstrated that improvements to community infrastructure, particularly green spaces and community hubs, fostered increased social interaction, stronger social connections, and enhanced social capital. Community gardens, for example, frequently brought families closer and provided opportunities for intergenerational interaction (Mangadu et al., 2016; Porter and McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013). Similarly, the creation of community hubs, such as Men's Sheds, facilitated the mixing of different social groups, leading to increased social cohesion (Evidence Statement 1). Alternative uses of space, like pop-up parks and temporary street closures for events, also created opportunities for social interaction and strengthened community bonds, bringing together people from different age groups and backgrounds (Tulloch, 2016; Gomez-Feliciano et al., 2009). These findings highlight the importance of creating spaces that encourage social interaction and facilitate the building of strong community relationships. The improvements in social capital were noted through increased interactions, deeper friendships, stronger connections, and enhanced trust within communities.

Beyond the strengthening of social relations, the interventions also showed positive impacts on individual wellbeing. Improvements to green and blue spaces were associated with increased mental and physical wellbeing, with participants frequently reporting enjoyment, a sense of accomplishment, and a stronger connection to nature (Lawrence et al., 2010; Morris and O’Brien, 2011). Community gardens, in particular, were linked to improvements in mental health, with participants reporting reduced feelings of depression (Semenza 2003). In some cases, participation in community initiatives led to skill development and increased self-confidence, further contributing to improved overall wellbeing (Shipway, 2016). However, the review also acknowledges that not all interventions resulted in positive outcomes; a study on an urban renewal program showed no significant improvements in social capital or health behaviors (Jalaludin et al., 2012). This underscores the importance of careful planning and evaluation to ensure that interventions are effectively designed to achieve their intended goals and maximize positive impacts on both the community and individual levels. The involvement of volunteers in many of these projects was associated with stronger individuals, increased skills, and improved wellbeing.

The findings highlight the importance of accessibility and inclusivity in community interventions. Studies emphasized the need for places and spaces to be readily accessible to all community members, including those with disabilities (Porter and McIlvaine-Newsad, 2013; Mangadu et al., 2016). The design of spaces should cater to the varying needs of different groups. For example, ensuring access ramps for people with mobility impairments and providing sufficient seating and shaded areas were found to enhance the usability and appeal of community spaces. However, the review also noted instances where interventions inadvertently decreased accessibility, such as a pop-up park that became less convenient for cyclists and wheelchair users (Tulloch, 2016). Similarly, some community initiatives unintentionally excluded certain groups, underscoring the importance of inclusive design and community engagement in the planning and implementation stages of any intervention. The need for accessible and inclusive design in community infrastructure was also consistently highlighted in the reviewed studies.

Community-led initiatives were often found to be more effective and sustainable. Seventeen studies highlighted interventions that were community-led to some extent. This emphasizes the importance of community involvement in shaping and implementing interventions that meet their specific needs and preferences. The review suggests that involving volunteers is a critical mechanism for achieving long-term sustainability, with their participation leading to stronger community ownership and commitment to the project's success (Evidence Statement 1). However, it also highlighted challenges, such as difficulties in reaching ‘hard-to-reach’ populations and navigating bureaucratic systems. The consistent success of community-led interventions suggests that empowering communities to take ownership of their spaces and initiatives is crucial for creating effective, long-lasting positive change. The need for ongoing communication and a participatory planning process between the community and other stakeholders were also identified as critical factors.

The review identified several key factors contributing to the success of community interventions aimed at improving social relations and wellbeing. Providing a clear focal point or activity was crucial in increasing social interaction, particularly across diverse age and ethnic groups. This is supported by evidence from the Men in Sheds program, which successfully engaged older men through specific activities aligned with their interests (Milligan et al., 2012). Furthermore, community-led initiatives demonstrated higher success rates, highlighting the importance of community involvement and ownership. The presence of skilled facilitators, capable of managing projects, liaising with stakeholders, and fostering community participation, was also vital (Raja et al., 2009; Gomez-Feliciano et al., 2009; Shipway, 2016). These facilitators could be paid employees or community leaders with strong local ties and cultural competency (Fildes et al., 2010). Finally, focusing on long-term outcomes and sustainability, alongside actively involving volunteers, emerged as critical elements in ensuring the lasting impact of these interventions. The involvement of volunteers in particular was linked to stronger individuals and increased wellbeing (Shipway 2016).

Despite the positive findings, the review also highlighted challenges and barriers that can hinder the effectiveness of community interventions. Accessibility issues emerged as a significant concern, with some projects unintentionally reducing access for certain groups, such as cyclists and wheelchair users (Tulloch, 2016). Furthermore, reaching 'hard-to-reach' populations posed a significant challenge. This difficulty stems from various factors, including pre-existing cultural norms (e.g., mistrust of authorities, limited active travel) and perceptions that the interventions may not benefit them personally (Stenberg et al., 2009; Coulson et al., 2011; Crane et al., 2016). Overly complex and bureaucratic decision-making systems also created barriers to community involvement and participation (Shipway, 2016). In some instances, even well-intentioned initiatives unintentionally reinforced existing social inequalities, benefiting some community members at the expense of others (McLean and Rahder, 2013). These findings underline the importance of addressing these challenges through inclusive design, effective community engagement strategies, and simplified, transparent decision-making processes.

The review acknowledges that some interventions produced unexpected negative outcomes or failed to achieve their intended goals. For example, a study of an urban renewal program in Sydney, Australia, reported no significant improvement in social capital or health behaviors (Jalaludin et al., 2012). In another case, a civic game designed to promote community engagement faced challenges due to a lack of trust and participation from some ethnic minority groups (Stokes, 2015). These findings emphasize the importance of a thorough evaluation process to assess both intended and unintended consequences of community interventions. Furthermore, they underscore the need for flexible and adaptive approaches that take into account the unique needs and circumstances of individual communities. Addressing potential negative outcomes requires comprehensive planning, inclusive community engagement, and a willingness to adapt strategies based on feedback and real-world observations. Careful attention to the potential unintended consequences of an intervention is crucial for maximizing positive outcomes.

The review highlights a significant gap in high-quality evaluations of community interventions, particularly in the UK context. To strengthen the evidence base, it recommends more rigorous evaluations of future and existing initiatives. This includes employing robust methodologies, with quantitative studies utilizing repeated measures and comparator groups, and validated tools for measuring outcomes. Qualitative research should also adhere to robust sampling, data collection, and analysis methods. Areas where good-quality evidence is particularly lacking include events, placemaking, alternative uses of space, urban regeneration, and community development. This emphasizes the need for future research to focus on these areas to gain a more comprehensive understanding of what works best in different contexts. The focus on rigorous methodology is especially important for strengthening the evidence base to inform future policy and practice.

The review's findings offer important implications for community development practice and policy. The strong evidence supporting the positive impacts of community infrastructure improvements on social relations and wellbeing should inform the design and implementation of future interventions. Key factors to consider include providing a clear focal point for activity, ensuring inclusivity to avoid excluding specific community segments, focusing on long-term sustainability, and actively involving volunteers in both the design and execution of projects. The findings emphasize the importance of addressing challenges related to accessibility, working to reach ‘hard-to-reach’ populations, and streamlining bureaucratic processes to encourage greater community participation. The review underscores the need for a holistic, community-centered approach, recognizing that successful interventions often involve community-led initiatives, skilled facilitators, and a focus on sustainable, long-term impacts. This collaborative and inclusive approach is crucial for maximizing the positive effects on both community wellbeing and individual health.

The review's findings are particularly relevant given the significant issue of loneliness and social isolation in the UK, especially among older adults (over 1 million people aged 65+ report frequent loneliness, Local Government Association, 2012). The research indicates that providing a focal point or specific activity can be more effective in engaging lonely individuals, particularly men, compared to loosely defined social gatherings. The success of programs like Men in Sheds in reducing isolation and improving mental wellbeing underscores the importance of designing targeted interventions that cater to the unique needs of different population groups (Milligan et al., 2012). This implies a need for further research exploring effective engagement strategies for diverse populations, including those from different ethnic groups (Giuntoli and Cattan, 2012). The findings highlight the vital need for interventions to combat loneliness and social isolation, particularly in the context of an ageing population. These interventions should not only improve physical spaces but also promote social interaction and a sense of community.