Nature & neighbourhood: a network to nurture. Part 2: community.
Humans are social creatures and therefore it seems intuitive that positive feelings of connection in our community should increase our feelings of happiness and social connectedness.
Studies have been able to show that feelings of belonging and trust in others are the strongest predictor of mental wellbeing, even after physical health problems are accounted for.
In fact, direct person-to-person contact triggers parts of our nervous system that release a ‘cocktail’ of neurotransmitters tasked with regulating our response to stress and anxiety. Similarly, many studies show there are negative effects from low levels of community connectedness on our actual physical health as well. This occurs even after individual predictors – such as a person’s risk for heart disease – are accounted for (De Silva et al., 2005; Jennings & Bamkole, 2019). People with high quality or quantity of social networks have a decreased risk of mortality in comparison to those who have low levels, even after statistically controlling for baseline health status. In fact, social isolation itself was identified as an independent major risk factor for all-cause mortality (nih.gov). Exploring how we might explain this connection is a complex – but ultimately highly important – area of research.
The social network.
One of the best examples of how to properly investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the connection between community and our physical health is a three-city survey undertaken by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health. It investigated the role of community as an explanatory factor for Glasgow’s excess mortality in light of other cities’. Glasgow was compared with two other UK post-industrial cities with similar deprivation profiles: Liverpool & Manchester.
Five topics were covered:
1. Views about the local area
Perceived neighbourhood problems
2. Civic participation
Taking action and perceived levels of influence
3. Social networks and support
Frequency of contact and sources of help
4. Social participation
Volunteering
5. Reciprocity and trust
Within neighbourhoods
Glasgow was found to have significantly lower levels of social participation and reciprocity and trust compared with the other cities. This showed it was plausible that there were community cohesion differences between Glasgow and the other two cities that seemed to impact the physical health of the population. Why? Well, like green space’s indirect impact on health, social cohesion can play a similar role in four key ways:
Meanwhile, for mental health, there is extensive evidence that community spaces don’t even have to have an explicit focus on mental health to be extremely beneficial for wellbeing. Places such as community centres, social clubs, and sports facilities can offer a sense of grounding, belonging, identity, purpose and meaning, and nurture social cohesion. For example, community singing groups have been found to increase social interaction and have positive impacts on mental wellbeing (Clift el al., 2007, 2010) and local cycling clubs have been shown to have positive impacts on mental wellbeing (Holmes, West, Dreaves, 2009). Meanwhile, community centres offering a space to meet, eat and help with advocacy, facilitates better mental health (Walker, Hanna & Hart, 2015).
It has been suggested that £1 of investment in community-based spaces and activities offers up £8.03 social return in improved health and wellbeing, taking pressure off health and social care services.