Measuring the impact of spatial network layout on community social cohesion: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThere is now a substantial body of research suggesting that social cohesion, a collective characteristic measured by the levels of trust, reciprocity and formation of strong social bonds within communities, is an important factor in determining health. Of particular interest is the extent to which factors in the built environment facilitate, or impede, the development of social bonds. Severance is a characteristic of physical environments which is hypothesized to inhibit cohesion. In the current study we test a number of characteristics of spatial networks which could be hypothesized to relate either to severance, or directly to community cohesion. Particular focus is given to our most promising variable for further analysis (Convex Hull Maximum Radius 600 m).MethodsIn the current study we analysed social cohesion as measured at Enumeration District level, aggregated from a survey of 10,892 individuals aged 18 to 74 years in the Caerphilly Health and Social Needs Cohort Study, 2001. In a data mining process we test 16 network variables on multiple scales. The variable showing the most promise is validated in a test on an independent data set. We then conduct a multivariate regression also including Townsend deprivation scores and urban/rural status as predictor variables for social cohesion.ResultsWe find convex hull maximum radius at a 600 m scale to have a small but highly significant correlation with social cohesion on both data sets. Deprivation has a stronger effect. Splitting the analysis by tertile of deprivation, we find that the effect of severance as measured by this variable is strongest in the most deprived areas. A range of spatial scales are tested, with the strongest effects being observed at scales that match typical walking distances.ConclusionWe conclude that physical connectivity as measured in this paper has a significant effect on social cohesion, and that our measure is unlikely to proxy either deprivation or the urban/rural status of communities. Possible mechanisms for the effect include intrinsic navigability of areas, and the existence of a focal route on which people can meet on foot. Further investigation may lead to much stronger predictive models of social cohesion.

[1]  C. E. Gehlke,et al.  Certain Effects of Grouping upon the Size of the Correlation Coefficient in Census Tract Material , 1934 .

[2]  D. Black.  HEALTH AND DEPRIVATION: Inequality and the north , 1988 .

[3]  J. Buckner.  The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion , 1988 .

[4]  Reginald G. Golledge,et al.  Path Selection and Route Preference in Human Navigation: A Progress Report , 1995, COSIT.

[5]  I. Kawachi.  Social cohesion, social capital and health , 2000 .

[6]  D. R. Montello.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Navigation , 2005 .

[7]  D. Fone,et al.  An ecometric analysis of neighbourhood cohesion , 2006, Population health metrics.

[8]  Ester Cerin,et al.  Does Walking in the Neighbourhood Enhance Local Sociability? , 2007 .

[9]  D. Fone,et al.  Does social cohesion modify the association between area income deprivation and mental health? A multilevel analysis. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  Modifiable Areal Unit Problem , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[11]  Derek Greene,et al.  Tracking the Evolution of Communities in Dynamic Social Networks , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining.

[12]  Alexei Pozdnoukhov,et al.  Spatial structure and dynamics of urbancommunities , 2011 .

[13]  Paul Stangl,et al.  Neighborhood design, connectivity assessment and obstruction , 2011 .

[14]  C. Cheung,et al.  Social sustainability for mothers in Hong Kong’s low-income communities , 2011 .

[15]  Jennifer S. Mindell,et al.  Community Severance and Health: What Do We Actually Know? , 2012, Journal of Urban Health.

[16]  A. Pozdnoukhov,et al.  Spatial structure and dynamics of urban communities , 2011 .

[17]  T. Nakaya,et al.  Does walkable mean sociable? Neighborhood determinants of social capital among older adults in Japan. , 2012, Health & place.

[18]  Bill Hillier,et al.  Compositional and urban form effects on residential property value patterns in Greater London , 2013 .

[19]  Ronan A Lyons,et al.  COHORT PROFILE Cohort Profile : The Caerphilly Health and Social Needs Electronic Cohort Study ( E-CATALyST ) , 2014 .

[20]  Ilse de Bourdeaudhuij,et al.  Environmental perceptions as mediators of the relationship between the objective built environment and walking among socio-economically disadvantaged women , 2013, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.