Review refresh: Places, spaces, and social connections

Community wellbeing

Community wellbeing is about being well together. Our working definition for this review is: ‘the combination of social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by individuals and their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfil their potential.’ (Wiseman and Brasher 2008: 358)

Community infrastructure

Community infrastructure is defined as: 

• Public places and ‘bumping’ places designed for people to meet, including streets, squares, parks, play areas, village halls and community centres. 
• Places where people meet informally or are used as meeting places in addition to their primary role, such as cafes, pubs, libraries, schools and churches.
• Services that can facilitate access to places to meet, including urban design, landscape architecture and public art, transport, public health organisations, subsidised housing sites, and bus routes. 

Social relations

Social relations underpin many ideas, such as social capital and sense of community. It covers a wide variety of human interactions, interconnections, and exchanges between human beings and the physical and social environment. The connections with people around us are an important determinant of individual and community wellbeing, leading to social values such as trust in others and social cooperation. (Evans, 2015)

Community hubs – community centres or community anchor organisations focused on health and wellbeing that can either be locality-based or work as a network. They  typically provide activities and services open to the wider community that address health or the wider determinants of health.  

Events – temporary events that take place at a community level, such as festivals, markets, art events, street parties, concerts. Events can range from a one-off activity to a regular, sometimes weekly, occurrence. 

Neighbourhood design – the scale, form or function of buildings and open space. 

Green and blue space – any natural green space: parks, woodland, gardens; or blue space: rivers, canals, or the coast. 

Place-making – the role of arts, culture and heritage in helping to shape the places where we live.

Alternative use of space – temporary changes to the way that people interact with a space, such as closure of streets for children to play, public art installations or a ‘pop-up park’. 

Urban regeneration – the process of improving derelict or dilapidated districts of a city, typically through redevelopment. 

Community development – a long-term value-based process which aims to address imbalances in power and bring about change founded on social justice, equality and inclusion.

• There is strong evidence community hubs increase social networks
• There is moderate evidence community hubs promote social cohesion and create bonding and bridging social capital.
• There is weak evidence (from one study) of both negative and positive effects on social cohesion of a church-based hub.

• There is moderate evidence community hubs create a sense of belonging within communities , a sense of pride in the wider community, increases in community empowerment, civic participation and improvements in the social determinants of health.

• There is strong evidence that community hubs improve mental health and wellbeing.
• There is moderate evidence that community hubs support individual empowerment by fostering a sense of control.

• There is moderate to strong evidence that community events can expand social networks, can boost social cohesion by mixing age or ethnic groups, boost bonding and bridging social capital.
• There is moderate to strong evidence that community events may have potentially negative effects on social capital (for instance if too great an emphasis was felt to be placed on attracting people from outside the local community).

• There is strong evidence community events increase sense of belonging or pride through shared identity and contribute to community empowerment.
• There is moderate to strong evidence that community events contribute to civic participation and knowledge and cultural exchange.
• There is moderate evidence that community events improve the social determinants of health.
• There is moderate evidence that community events can lead to a potential loss of shared identity, gentrification and/or physical or perceived exclusion of local residents from events.

• There is moderate to strong evidence that community events can increase skills and knowledge
• There is moderate evidence that community events can improve mental health and wellbeing, hedonic wellbeing, and improve employability through volunteering.

• There is strong evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can improve social networks.
• There is moderate evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can improve social cohesion, as well as weak evidence that it has no effect.
• There is moderate to weak evidence that neighbourhood design interventions have a positive impact on social capital.

• There is moderate to strong evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can boost sense of pride, belonging, ownership and empowerment, and improve social determinants of health.
• There is moderate evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can boost civic participation.
• There is weak to moderate evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can have both positive and negative impacts upon sense of safety.
• There is strong evidence of negative perceptions of a transfer of ‘problems’ to other areas.
• There is moderate to strong evidence that neighbourhood design intervention can lead to negative issues with gentrification.

• There is strong evidence neighbourhood design interventions can improve physical health or physical activity
• There is moderate to strong evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can have a positive impact on mental health and wellbeing, but also weak evidence that it can have a negative impact.
• There is moderate evidence that neighbourhood design interventions can boost skills and knowledge, social connections and sense of belonging.

• There is strong evidence green and blue space interventions boost social cohesion
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions boost social capital.
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions can have both positive and negative impacts upon social interactions.
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions can have a negative impact due to perceived exclusion.

• There is strong evidence that green and blue space interventions can boost sense of belonging and pride.
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions can boost empowerment.
• There is strong evidence green and blue space interventions can have a positive impact upon the social determinants of health, but also moderate to strong evidence of negative impacts.
• There is weak evidence green and blue space interventions can boost civic participation.
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions can have negative impacts on community wellbeing due to gentrification and the contested use of space.

• There is strong evidence green and blue space interventions boost physical activity, empowerment and improve skills and knowledge.
• There is moderate to strong evidence green and blue space interventions boost mental wellbeing.
• There is weak evidence that green and blue space interventions support connection to nature.
• There is moderate evidence green and blue space interventions can lead to unequally distributed benefits.

• There is moderate evidence placemaking interventions boost social interaction.
• There is moderate evidence placemaking interventions have a positive impact upon social cohesion, but also weak evidence that it can have a negative impact.
• There is weak evidence placemaking interventions can boost social capital.

• There is moderate evidence placemaking interventions can boost sense of belonging and pride and the social determinants of health.
• There is weak evidence placemaking interventions boost civic participation.
• There is weak evidence placemaking interventions have a negative impact upon community wellbeing due to gentrification.

• There is weak evidence placemaking interventions can have positive impacts upon physical activity, empowerment, knowledge and skills, and economic outcomes.
• There is weak evidence placemaking interventions can lead to unequally distributed benefits.

• There is moderate to strong evidence alternative use of spaces can boost social cohesion and social capital.
• There is moderate evidence alternative use of spaces can boost social interaction.

• There is moderate to strong evidence alternative use of spaces can have a positive impact upon civic participation and reduce crime or the fear of crime.
• There is moderate evidence alternative use of spaces can have a positive impact on sense of community and identity, belonging and pride, as well as the social determinants of health.

• There is moderate to strong evidence alternative use of spaces can have positive impacts on physical activity and mental wellbeing.
• There is moderate evidence alternative use of spaces can have positive impacts on skills and knowledge.
• There is weak to moderate evidence alternative use of spaces can boost hedonic wellbeing.

• There is moderate evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on social interactions.
• There is moderate to weak evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on social capital, but also moderate evidence it can have negative impacts.

• There is strong evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on crime or the fear of crime, but also weak evidence it can have a negative impact.
• There is moderate to strong evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on the social determinants of health, but also weak evidence of a negative impact.
• There is weak evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on sense of belonging and pride, but also weak evidence it can have a negative impact.
• There is weak evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on civic participation.

• There is moderate evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on skills and knowledge.
• There is moderate to weak evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on mental wellbeing, but also moderate evidence it can have a negative impact.
• There is weak evidence urban regeneration can have a positive impact on physical activity and mental health.
• There is moderate evidence urban regeneration can have a negative impact on empowerment.

• There is strong evidence community development has a positive impact on social interactions
• There is moderate to strong evidence community development has a positive impact on social cohesion, and social capital.

• There is moderate to strong evidence community development has a positive impact on community empowerment, sense of belonging, pride and community identity, as well as the social determinants of health.
• There is weak evidence community development has a negative impact on community wellbeing due to gentrification.

• There is moderate to strong evidence community development has a positive impact on physical activity.
• There is moderate evidence community development has a positive impact on knowledge and skills.
• There is weak evidence community development has a positive impact on mental wellbeing and empowerment.