Research about connecting with others via the local physical and social environment

Question 1

Glossary

Accepted Answer

Area deprivation - The extent to which an area is deprived based on the availability of resources.

Absolute diversity - The likelihood that any two people randomly chosen from a given community or organisation will belong to the same social group. ^{[footnote 1]}

Anti-social behaviour - Behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to persons not of the same household. ^{[footnote 2]}

Blue space - Outdoor environments, which can be either natural or manmade, which prominently feature water and are accessible to people. Examples are rivers, lakes, the sea, marinas, and canals. ^{[footnote 3]}

Bumping spaces - Places where people bump into each other, either intentionally or unintentionally, such as communal spaces and gathering places.

Chronic loneliness - Defined as those who feel lonely (see loneliness below) often or always.

DCMS - The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport.

Demographic Diversity - The similarities or differences of people within a community.

Demographic factors - Personal characteristics, such as gender and age.

Digital exclusion - Where a section of the population has unequal access and capacity to use digital technologies that are essential to fully participate in society.

Focus group - A facilitated group interaction which allows qualitative data collection.

Framework / Framework method - A method for extracting and analysing data, whereby each row represents one interview or focus group, and each column represents a research question or sub-question.

Green space - Natural spaces which are accessible to the general public, including specific local gardens, parks, nature reserves, or countryside (e.g., woodland or farmlands).

Group representation - Representation of people with similar demographic characteristics within a population. ^{[footnote 4]}

Hierarchy of needs - A psychological theory of motivation which is based on different levels of need. ^{[footnote 5]}

Housing tenure - The legal status under which people have the right to occupy their accommodation. ^{[footnote 6]}

Indices of deprivation - The official measure of relative deprivation in England across seven distinct domains of deprivation which are combined and weighted to calculate the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019. ^{[footnote 7]}

Loneliness - A subjective, unwelcome feeling of lack or loss of companionship. It happens when we have a mismatch between the quantity and quality of social relationships that we have, and those that we want. ^{[footnote 8]}

Lower Layer Super Output Areas - Areas of between 400 to 1,200 households (or 1,000 to 3,000 persons) made up of around four to five Output Areas, which are the smallest geographical areas used for census statistics. ^{[footnote 9]}

Marginalisation - The treatment of a person or group as insignificant or peripheral.

MHCLG - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Neoliberalism - A political approach that favours free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending. ^{[footnote 10]}

Physical environment - Refers to how the places where we live, live, study, work, and engage in leisure activities are built and connected to each other. ^{[footnote 11]} For example, green spaces, housing, and transport.

Purposive sampling - Sampling which is not based on probability and people included are selected based on characteristics that they possess.

Qualitative research and data - Research methods which gather non-numerical data, such as data from interviews.

Rural area - An area which is sparsely populated (less than 10,000 resident population). ^{[footnote 12]}

Semi-urban area - An area which has a higher population and is more built up than a rural area.

Snowball sampling - A sampling technique where existing participants help to recruit further participants in research.

Social cohesion - The extent of social connection within a group or society.

Social environment - The functioning of communities, such as how cohesive they are and how much they focus on mutual help. ^{[footnote 13]}

Stigma - The disapproval of, or discrimination against, an individual or group based on perceived characteristics. This can manifest itself as self-stigma (an internalised shame that people have around their own feelings) and social stigma (negative attitudes or beliefs towards an individual or group, based on experiences or characteristics which are seen to distinguish them from other people).

Structural factors - The broader political, economic, social, and environmental conditions and institutions that can increase or decrease the opportunities, resources, and wellbeing of individuals.

System-level interventions - The design and implementation of changes at a structural level (for example related to broader systems of funding or working relationships between organisations).

Topographic factors - Features of land surfaces.

Transport infrastructure - The fixtures and installations, structures, and networks which allow the movement of people and goods, such as bus stops, roads, cycle lanes, and pavements.

Urban area - A built-up area with a large population (over 10,000). ^{[footnote 14]}

VCSE - An incorporated voluntary, community, or social enterprise organisation which serves communities.

Walkability - The ability to safely walk to services and amenities within a reasonable distance.

Question 2

Executive Summary

Accepted Answer

This report presents findings from a research project that explored how social connection and loneliness relate to physical and social structural factors. Previous research has shown that chronic loneliness is associated with higher mortality rates and poorer physical health outcomes. A recent evidence review examining inequalities in loneliness ^{[footnote 15]} identified six structural factors that can influence loneliness, two of which are the focus of this research: the physical and social environments. The physical environment includes factors such as transportation infrastructure, housing type and provision, and green spaces. The social environment includes factors such as social cohesion and community belonging. To further develop the evidence base around how these structural factors affect loneliness and social connection, The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) commissioned The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and RSM UK Consulting to answer the following research questions:

Research questions:

1. How do structural factors relating to physical and social environments impact loneliness in areas of high deprivation?

How does the local physical environment facilitate and/or create barriers to social connections?
How does the social environment facilitate and/or create barriers to social connections?
What indications are there, if any, that the role of the physical and social environments differ between urban, semi-urban and rural geographies in areas of high deprivation?
What, if any, are the general and distinct physical and social environment factors between areas?

2. What are the potential points of intervention on these structural factors that could influence loneliness for those living in areas of high deprivation?

How can communities identify mechanisms to tackle loneliness within their community and what is missing?
What interventions and/or solutions relating to the physical or social environment can help/are helping to support social connections?
How did successful interventions/solutions relating to the physical or social environment achieve change in local areas (e.g. the mechanisms and processes applied)?
Are there insights into how these interventions should be tailored to specific communities and/or geographies?
What are the facilitators and barriers for implementing these interventions?
How do local and central government stakeholders perceive their role in regard to these potential points of intervention?

To answer the above questions, this project applied the following methods:

Six focus groups with residents across three areas in England: Castleford, Oldham, and Torquay.
10 interviews with stakeholders from the selected areas, each with a role in the local physical and/or social environment.
One national stakeholder workshop, with representatives from multiple government departments and the Local Government Association.

Key Findings

Focus group participants highlighted how transport infrastructure (e.g. roads, pavements, and public transport) can both support and hinder social connection. Transport could enable focus group participants to visit friends and family, access broader social connections outside of their local community, and access increased work opportunities (leading to interactions with colleagues). Furthermore, public transport itself was cited as a place to meet and get to know others living locally. Transport-related barriers to social connection included feeling unsafe on public transport, the cost of tickets, service reliability, road congestion, parking, and the quality of cycle lanes and pavements.
Housing and neighbourhood design (e.g. housing type, layout, density, and tenure) influenced how focus group participants built social connections. For example, focus group participants described how housing estates had often been built with a communal space, which facilitated a sense of community. High levels of home ownership were felt to support a strong sense of community, whereas high levels of renting were felt to negatively impact a sense of community due to a more transient population. Focus group participants had mixed views on the role of housing density on social connection. For some it enabled more people to chat and children to play together, whereas others noted concerns around an imbalance between high housing density and sufficient infrastructure which could lead to tension and frustration.
Green and blue spaces (such as parks, nature reserves, beaches, and canals) were felt to be important to building social connections. These spaces were a place to meet others, socialise (e.g. picnics), and attend events or initiatives, as well as support physical, social, and psychological health. In general, focus group participants used green spaces to meet those they had existing relationships with, and although in some cases residents greeted one another in outdoor spaces, this rarely led to long-term social connections. Transport costs were cited as a key barrier to accessing green space, especially for spaces located far from residential areas (e.g. nature reserves). The appeal of using green spaces was affected by high levels of litter and anti-social behaviour.
Local buildings and spaces acted as both a facilitator and barrier to building social connections, depending on their availability and quality and wider factors such as anti-social behaviour. In all three areas, the decline of high streets and closing of local pubs, bars, and other spaces (e.g. theatres) impacted focus group participants’ ability to socialise with others in local venues. In addition, focus group participants and stakeholders emphasised the benefits of local community centres and youth centres for community cohesion and building social connections locally.
A number of interventions relating to the physical environment to support social connection were identified across the three areas. These fell into three main categories: connecting people to the physical environment, maintaining the physical environment, and creating new physical spaces. These included cycle lane improvements, bus routes to connect focus group participants living in different areas, supporting local shops and facilities, maintaining green spaces (e.g. community gardens and coastal path maintenance to ensure beach accessibility), and creating new spaces for interaction (e.g. benches and community “lounges”). Stakeholders emphasised the importance of resident involvement in the development, design, and implementation of physical space intervention to ensure that interventions were based on local community needs but in general found it difficult to outline how local needs were identified and mechanisms for change. Stakeholders were less aware of how communities identify mechanism to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities.

Common interest-based groups and activities were identified as ways to build social connection locally by focus group participants and stakeholders. They tended to focus on sport and exercise, arts and crafts, and family. These were hosted in a range of venues, including community centres, places of worship, libraries, and sports venues. Groups and activities tended to target specific demographics, which often pertained to age and gender, to bring people with common experiences together. This included structured youth clubs (e.g. musical performance and school holiday food provision) and drop-in activities for older people (e.g. coffee mornings and dementia peer support). Focus group participants reported a limited number of groups, events, and “bumping spaces” (places where people can meet or interact spontaneously i.e. ‘bump into each other’) that were designed for the general public and did not focus on a specific interest or hobby.
Barriers to involvement and participation in local groups, activities, and events included a lack of awareness, and advertising format diversity (e.g. print and social media). Focus group participants noted that social media was often a key information source yet reached a limited number of people. They also highlighted the decline of local newspapers in which to advertise groups and activities across all three areas. Focus group participants also felt that many available groups occurred during the day when many were at work. Other barriers included accessibility challenges due to limited transport and active travel options, as well as activity costs.
Focus group participants had mixed feelings about social cohesion and their sense of belonging to where they lived. Whereas some had historical ties to their area, others found it difficult to meet new people and felt frustrated that some friends had moved away. Some focus group participants did not have ties to the local area, but lived there due to cheaper housing costs. This meant that their social life existed elsewhere, which acted as a barrier to building social connections locally.
Interventions relating to the social environment were identified in the three areas. These fell into three main categories: connecting people to groups and services, connecting people to each other, and connecting groups and services to each other. This included mapping local services for referrals, a single-point referral platform for multiple services, neighbourhood organisation, and moving services closer to each other or target groups.
Local partnership working (e.g. between Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations and local councillors) was cited as a key facilitator to building interventions. Barriers included a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities between organisations and increased demand for more essential services. Stakeholders were less aware of how communities identify mechanisms to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities.

Local groups, activities, and events were often reliant on high quality, safe, and accessible physical spaces in order to take place. This included green spaces to host exercise classes or events, and spaces such as libraries or community centres to host local activity groups. Conversely, the social environment was often key to the development and maintenance of physical environment spaces.

Role of local and central government stakeholders

National stakeholders who were consulted as part of the workshop (largely a sample of central Government representatives) felt that the role of central government departments was primarily to provide strategic direction on matters such as wellbeing, community cohesion, and green spaces, as well as providing funding and resources to stakeholders at a local level. National stakeholders felt that many of the issues highlighted in this research should therefore primarily be addressed and led by local government (with support from central government, VCSE organisations, local businesses and key stakeholders, including the police).
Local stakeholders held varied views on the role of local and central government, particularly when it came to the social environment. There was a general consensus that any initiative should be produced collaboratively with both local/central government and stakeholder organisations in the area.

Question 3

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

1.1 Background to the research

Loneliness is defined as “a subjective, unwelcome feeling of lack or loss of companionship. It happens when we have a mismatch between the quantity and quality of social relationships that we have, and those that we want”. ^{[footnote 16]} Chronic loneliness (defined as feeling lonely often or always) has been shown to be associated with higher rates of mortality and poorer physical health outcomes, ^{[footnote 17]} and additionally predicts the onset of severe Common Mental Disorders (CMD), such as depression and anxiety. ^{[footnote 18]} ^{[footnote 19]} Furthermore, qualitative research has found a cyclical and bidirectional relationship between loneliness and mental health. ^{[footnote 20]}

The government’s tackling loneliness strategy ^{[footnote 21]} sets out the government’s approach to tackling loneliness in England with the overarching aims to reduce stigma around loneliness, drive action across sectors, and build the evidence base around loneliness. A review of the existing evidence base around tackling loneliness in 2023 ^{[footnote 22]} recognised that structural factors are important drivers of stigma and are likely to influence experiences of loneliness, particularly among marginalised communities. The six identified structural factors were:

Area deprivation (Crime rates, socio-economic status)
Community attitudes (Prejudice, loneliness stigma)
Demographic diversity (Absolute diversity, group representation)
Physical environment (Transportation, housing, green space)
Public policy (Discriminatory policy, diversity policy and Neoliberalism)
Social environment (Social cohesion, community belonging)

The review highlighted that although structural factors are “amenable” to change, there is a lack of evidence regarding how they influence loneliness, which structural factors cause loneliness, and how these can be addressed.

The review concluded that further research is needed to understand how structural factors affect loneliness, which draws on specific lived experiences and obstacles for social connection with affected communities. This research focuses on two of these structural factors, which were selected by DCMS as it was felt these were two areas that DCMS could have most impact in. Please see below:

The physical environment: This includes factors such as transportation infrastructure, housing type and provision, and green space; and
The social environment: This includes factors such as social cohesion and community belonging.

There is a broad scope of applicable structural factors and experiences of impacted marginalised groups. This research therefore does not aim to make conclusions around the comparative importance of different structural factors between communities. Instead, it focuses on the interplay between social connections, the physical and social environment, and area deprivation, while engaging with a diverse sample of participants. While area deprivation can be considered a structural factor in itself, this research examined how it can influence the physical and social environment specifically (and deprivation metrics were used to influence the selection of areas, as outlined in section 1.3 below).Comprehensively and accurately assessing changes in loneliness (particularly among different groups) is challenging. However, there is a clear evidence base that stronger, more vibrant communities can support the alleviation of loneliness. ^{[footnote 23]} It is also important to understand how physical and social structural factors impact social connection as part of wider initiatives to tackle loneliness.

1.2 Research aims

To gain insights into how social connection and loneliness relate to physical and social structural factors, the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and RSM UK Consulting (RSM) to explore the following research questions:

1. How do structural factors relating to physical and social environments impact loneliness in areas of high deprivation?

How does the local physical environment facilitate and/or create barriers to social connections?
How does the social environment facilitate and/or create barriers to social connections?
What indications are there, if any, that the role of the physical and social environment differ between urban, semi-urban and rural geographies in areas of high deprivation?
What, if any, are the general and distinct physical and social environment factors between areas?

2. What are the potential points of intervention on these structural factors that could influence loneliness for those living in areas of high deprivation?

How can communities identify mechanisms to tackle loneliness within their community and what is missing?
What interventions and/or solutions relating to the physical or social environment can help/are helping to support social connections?
How did successful interventions/solutions relating to the physical or social environment achieve change in local areas (e.g., the mechanisms and processes applied)?
Are there insights into how these interventions should be tailored to specific communities and/or geographies?
What are the facilitators and barriers for implementing these interventions?
How do local and central government stakeholders perceive their role in regard to these potential points of intervention?

1.3 Methods and participants

This research consisted of three parts: focus groups with participants from three local areas of high area deprivation, in-depth interviews with stakeholders from the selected local areas, and a workshop with national government stakeholders. Full details of the sample, methodological approach, and ethical considerations are provided in Appendix A.

Area selection was informed by the existing evidence base and government policy interests, as well as practical factors related to the feasibility of recruitment in the timeframe of the project and location of recruitment resources. The Tackling Loneliness Evidence Review ^{[footnote 24]} recognised that area deprivation and environmental features (e.g. green spaces, transport, and volunteering opportunities) are linked to loneliness. There is evidence that communities living in areas of higher deprivation have less access to quality green spaces, ^{[footnote 25]} ^{[footnote 26]} ^{[footnote 27]} ^{[footnote 28]} safe public places, ^{[footnote 29]} and public transport. ^{[footnote 30]} ^{[footnote 31]} ^{[footnote 32]} As such, in collaboration with DCMS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), NatCen selected three areas three areas that had been selected for the Levelling Up Partnership Programme and the Long-Term Plan for Towns (government funding for 55 towns to provide long-term investment for local priorities) ^{[footnote 33]} that:

Ranked low for the following domains of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) ^{[footnote 34]}: barriers to housing and services and living environment
Offered geographical properties that enabled us to explore the relationship between social connection and physical and social structural factors
Were located where our recruitment partner, Criteria, had sufficient local resources to recruit participants within the given timeframe

Three local areas were chosen (see Figure 1 below):

Castleford (a semi-urban area within the City of Wakefield district in West Yorkshire, surrounded by rural areas)
Oldham (an urban area which is a borough of Greater Manchester in North West England)
Torquay (a coastal town in Devon in South West England, surrounded by rural areas)

Figure 1: Map of England showing locations of selected local areas

Focus groups

Two focus groups were conducted in each of the three selected areas with local residents that had experience of loneliness. Age was the primary sampling criteria, with one focus group including participants aged 18-40 and the other including participants over 41. Secondary sampling criteria (ethnicity, living arrangements, relationship status, and socio-economic status) were also monitored. Focus groups aimed to gain the perspectives and experiences of residents around the local physical and social environment, and the related impacts on building and accessing social connections.

Interviews with stakeholders

Interviews were conducted with 10 stakeholders from the areas selected, each with a role in the local physical and/or social environment. Participants included those working for the local government (n=2) and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations (n=8). Due to challenges recruiting stakeholders working in local government, a higher number of stakeholders working for VCSE organisations were included. In some cases these stakeholders worked closely with local government as part of their role. Interviews provided insight into the influence of physical and social factors on social connections in local areas and interventions that have been tried to support social connection.

National stakeholder workshop

A workshop was conducted with central government stakeholders with responsibilities related to the physical and social environments (e.g. transport, communities, anti-social behaviour). This included stakeholders from DCMS, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), MHCLG, and the Department for Transport (DfT), and one stakeholder for the Local Government Association (LGA), The workshop aimed to gain an understanding of how findings from focus groups and stakeholder interviews could be generalised to the wider population, including the role and responsibilities of central government in interventions to improve social connection.

1.4 Analysis and interpretation of findings

All areas of fieldwork (focus groups, local stakeholder interviews, and national stakeholder workshop) were audio recorded, with consent from participants, and subsequently transcribed. Data was analysed and managed using the ‘Framework’ approach^{[footnote 35]} , whereby a framework was used to represent individual focus groups or interviews in each row. Each column then represented a research question, sub-question, or theme. Through this method, data was grouped and could be analysed and presented thematically to explore the full range of views and experiences expressed across work strands. This report does not present numerical findings, since qualitative research cannot support numerical analysis. Instead, the qualitative findings present in-depth insights into the diverse range of views and experiences of participants, influenced by demographic and life experiences, with verbatim quotes used to illustrate insights.

1.5 Structure of the report

This report is divided into the following sections:

Chapter 2 discusses how physical structural factors influence social connection and loneliness
Chapter 3 discusses how social structural factors influence social connection and loneliness
Chapter 4 summarises findings on the relationships between social connection and physical and social environments and makes recommendations for future research
Appendix A presents place-based case study findings from Castleford, Oldham and Torquay
Appendix B provides a more detailed methodology for the research

Question 4

2.  Structural factors and the physical environment

Accepted Answer

2.1 Features of the physical environments

The term ‘physical environment’ refers to how the places where we live, study, work and take part in leisure activities are built and connected. ^{[footnote 36]} Stakeholders and focus group participants identified several key features of the physical environment that impacted social connection (either positively or negatively). These included green space, housing and neighbourhood design, local buildings and spaces, and transport infrastructure (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Features of the physical environment which impact social connection

Across the three areas, stakeholders reported that local authorities were mainly responsible for features of the physical environment, with some variation between areas in relation to non-statutory provision e.g. of community centres. However, it should be noted that a low number of local authority stakeholders were interviewed due to recruitment difficulties. Local authorities have a number of statutory duties including planning and housing services, road maintenance, library services, waste collection, and transport planning. ^{[footnote 37]} Stakeholders highlighted that other organisations such as Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, residents groups, local businesses, and central government also play a key role in the creation, maintenance, and protection of the physical environment. The role of different organisations will be discussed further throughout this chapter.

Transport infrastructure

Transport infrastructure includes roads and paths used by individuals, private vehicles, and public transport networks. Focus group participants highlighted how public transport (e.g. trains and buses) can support social connection. In particular, by allowing people to visit friends and family who do not live locally, which enabled them to widen their social connections outside of the local community. While Torquay focus group participants highlighted the importance of train links to Exeter, focus group participants in Oldham highlighted the tram links to Manchester City Centre and Rochdale. The ability to connect with friends, family and colleagues using public transport was facilitated by fast connections to local towns across all three areas.

It [public transport] makes it accessible, it makes the world bigger for people. It’s not just what they can walk to. It means that people don’t have to socialise within their own community as well, which isn’t always what people want to do, so that helps

– Stakeholder (Oldham)

Focus group participants also described how public transport provides access to work opportunities, which can facilitate social connections through interactions with colleagues. For example, Castleford focus group participants described how the train connection to Leeds allowed them to access work opportunities that were not available in Castleford. Additionally, stakeholders felt that public transport to cities can allow specific minority communities (e.g. LGBTQ+ groups) to access bespoke social activities and support groups, where these are locally unavailable.

Some focus group participants reported that public transport itself could act as a place to meet and get to know others. For example, focus group participants in Torquay described how taking the same public transport route regularly could result in getting to know others who take the same route.

I do think that if people take the same bus every day at the same time, they get to know the same people…they will just chat in general as they’re travelling.

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Focus group participants highlighted how transport infrastructure can create barriers to building social connections. Across all three areas, focus group participants reported sometimes feeling unsafe on public transport or in stations (e.g. bus/train/tram), creating a disincentive to travel and meet others. For example, Castleford focus group participants perceived the last train from Leeds on a weekend to be “rowdy”, while buses had previously been cancelled due to vandalism.

Focus group participants highlighted several other barriers to accessing transport to build social connections. These included their proximity to transport stops, ticket costs, service reliability (e.g. frequent delays and/or cancellations) and timetabling (e.g. the last train back to a home station being earlier than desired). Of those focus group participants who used private transport (e.g. cars), road congestion and challenges finding safe and affordable places to park were sometimes barriers to socialising.

Active travel and walkability

Active travel involves making journeys in physically active ways, including by walking, using a wheelchair, or cycling^{[footnote 38]} . Focus group participants highlighted ways that active travel can facilitate social connection. For example, walking or cycling to meet others on a local high street, as well as travelling to a public transport stop or station. This could enable social connection where other forms of transport were not available or accessible (e.g. residents who did not have a private car, or where the cost of public transport tickets was a barrier). However, focus group participants also reported that poor quality cycle lanes and pavements could make active travel to meet others challenging. One disabled participant who used a mobility scooter highlighted how challenges with the quality of pavements was particularly an issue for those with a disability. Torquay focus group participants also highlighted how the hilly layout of the town rendered active travel difficult, especially for those who lived on hills further from the town centre.

Housing and neighbourhood design

The physical environment is also constituted by housing and neighbourhood design. This can include factors such as housing type, layout, density, tenure, and the mix of residential and commercial land. Focus group participants had mixed views on housing and neighbourhood design and varied experiences of building social connections with their neighbours. As well as variation between the three case study areas due to specific local challenges (e.g. a high proportion of holiday homes in Torquay), focus group participants living in different areas of the same town often had different experiences. These tended to relate to the type (and design) of housing they were living in and broader factors, such as a higher proportion of holiday homes in certain neighbourhoods.

Focus group participants and stakeholders described how some types of housing (e.g. housing estates) had been built with communal spaces (e.g. community centres and/or pubs). It was felt that these facilitated social connection with neighbours, although they reported that many such spaces had since closed. Despite this, some focus group participants felt that living on a housing estate brought a sense of community compared to other types of housing (such as terraced streets) and felt that neighbours looked out for each other.

I found there was more of a camaraderie on a council estate, to be honest with you. People looked out for each other a bit more than they do anywhere else.

– Focus group participant (Oldham)

Social connection was also influenced by housing tenure (e.g. renting and home ownership), as this impacted how long focus group participants stayed in the same area. Focus group participants in Oldham reported that some local areas had a strong sense of community due to long-term inhabitants and high levels of home ownership. In other areas, social connection was negatively impacted by the prevalence of renting and residents (not necessarily focus group participants) consequently moving around frequently. This made it more difficult to build long-term relationships with neighbours and those living locally. One stakeholder working with Oldham residents reported this was a particular challenge for those living in temporary accommodation. They felt that local community connection was often a secondary thought for local residents, as insecure housing resulted in uncertainty around how long they would be in a particular building, street, or area.

Focus group participants had mixed views on the role of housing density on social connection. Some highlighted that dense housing enabled people to chat and children to play together, particularly in the summer. Conversely, focus group participants highlighted that high housing density combined with insufficient infrastructure (e.g. a lack of parking and communal spaces), can lead to frustration and prevent positive social interaction.

When you tend to find there’s no communal space and the housing density is really high, and there’s a lack of infrastructure and parking, then you get people grating on each other and not interacting in a positive way. If it’s a little bit less dense, a little bit more communal spaces and better links, you do get social interaction and some community events even occasionally

– Focus group participant (Castleford)

Focus group participants and stakeholders also identified empty homes as a barrier to connecting with others locally. Although homes could be empty for a range of reasons, Torquay focus group participants highlighted a particular issue with part-time second or holiday homes.

Green and blue spaces

Green spaces are an important form of public space with a range of research pointing to their mental health and wellbeing benefits ^{[footnote 39]}. Green spaces can include parks and gardens in urban and semi-urban areas, as well as nature reserves, woodland, and farmland. Blue space refers to environments close to water. This includes both natural and manmade sources, such as rivers, lakes, the sea, marinas, and canal paths. Blue spaces contribute to physical, social, and psychological health, offering the opportunity for sports and exercise^{[footnote 40]}.

Focus group participants described how local green spaces were a place to meet others, socialise, and attend events or initiatives. In Castleford, this included St. Aidan’s Nature Reserve or Pontefract Park, while in Oldham focus group participants described socialising during summer walks along local canal paths. In Torquay, focus group participants highlighted a “wealth” of green and blue spaces for socialising near the seafront, including playgrounds, coastal paths, beaches, moorland, and downs.

We’re very lucky; we’re within five minutes’ walk of the beach and we’ve got the greens. We’re within ten minutes’ drive of about three or four parks, so we can – we do meet a lot of people socially with the dogs.

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Although focus group participants described saying “hello” to strangers that shared green spaces, such interactions rarely led to long-term friendships. Instead, focus group participants generally used green spaces to meet people they had existing relationships with. In some cases, green spaces hosted local clubs and events (see Chapter 4), such as community Eid celebrations in Oldham.

Focus group participants and stakeholders highlighted three main barriers to using green spaces, related to their accessibility and appeal. Firstly, the cost of transport to reach green spaces was emphasised as a barrier, particularly for those on low incomes. This was a greater challenge when accessing green spaces that are often further from residential areas, such as nature reserves. Secondly, focus group participants highlighted challenges with litter. They felt that this was often due to a lack of bins or waste collection in green spaces and reported that it discouraged them from using spaces to socialise. Thirdly, the impact of anti-social behaviour was consistently raised by focus group participants across all three areas. Focus group participants reported that some local parks were primarily used by teenagers, who they felt damaged facilities. This resulted in others not wanting to use local parks or feeling unsafe while there. Parents also expressed safety concerns for children around park playgrounds, with one resident citing a previous experience of finding broken glass.

Several other barriers were highlighted. Focus group participants and stakeholders emphasised that local green spaces did not appeal to all residents, with some people preferring to spend time in places more local to them where they would know others. Stakeholders in Torquay highlighted that some young people living in the town had never been to a beach, despite a wealth of local coastal areas. However, the reasons for this were unclear and this point was not raised by focus group participants in Torquay. Focus group participants in Castleford also had concerns that local green spaces were being built on, particularly for newer housing estates. They felt this was limiting the green spaces available for them to socialise in.

Local buildings and spaces

Local buildings and spaces include a wide range of places, from retail and leisure facilities to community centres and places of worship. Local buildings and spaces can act as a facilitator or barrier, depending on their availability and quality.

Focus group participants had mixed views on the availability of local spaces and venues to meet with others. They highlighted that retail parks and leisure centres can act as meeting places for the community. For example, focus group participants in Castleford highlighted the Junction 32 shopping centre as a place to visit restaurants, cafes, and shops with friends. Events venues, such as the Queen Elizabeth Hall in Oldham, were also reported as places to meet and spend time with others.

In all three areas focus group participants felt that the decline of high streets and closing of local pubs, bars, and other spaces (e.g. theatres) impacted their ability to socialise with others in local venues. In Castleford, focus group participants described the high street as “failing”, emphasising the presence of empty shop units and low footfall which disincentivised them from shopping or socialising there. In Oldham, some focus group participants chose to travel to other areas, such as Ashton-under-Lyne or central Manchester. This was due to a perceived lack of local shops, facilities, and social spaces to meet up with friends in Oldham town centre. In Torquay, focus group participants and stakeholders discussed how the town centre had also experienced decline. In particular, they highlighted that the closing of shops, banks and post offices had led to them using the town centre less frequently.

Focus group participants and stakeholders emphasised the benefits of local community centres and youth centres for building social connection and community cohesion.

Stakeholders described how, in Torquay, many housing estates were designed with embedded community centres and how there had also been a growth in the number of youth centres in recent years. In Oldham, community centres (e.g. The Honeywell Centre) provided a space for local groups to meet. These spaces also provided places for support groups and activities, and the green spaces outside centres were often used for football and exercises classes. Despite the social benefits of community centres, focus group participants felt they were often focused on support for specific groups or offered specific classes and did not provide a space just to socialise. They compared centres to physical spaces, such as pubs, which they perceived to be better for general socialising with friends and neighbours. This reflection was echoed by stakeholders. One stakeholder in Torquay described how many community centres are now run by specific charities or organisations, which focus on support for certain groups (e.g. adults with learning difficulties). In general, focus group participants and stakeholders discussed spaces for people to meet existing social connections. It should be noted that spaces to meet new people are also likely to be important for combatting chronic loneliness. This theme links closely to the social environment and is explored further in Chapter 3.

Focus group participants and stakeholders identified a range of potential intervention points related to the physical environment to improve social connection. These points of intervention spanned green spaces, local buildings and venues, neighbourhood design, and transport infrastructure (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Potential points of intervention related to the physical environment to improve social connection

Stakeholders discussed physical environment interventions that tended to fall into three main categories: connecting people to the physical environment, maintaining the physical environment, and creating new physical spaces. These included cycle lane improvements, bus routes to connect residents living in different areas, supporting local shops and facilities, maintaining green spaces (e.g. community gardens and coastal path maintenance to ensure beach accessibility), and creating new spaces for interaction (e.g. benches and community “lounges”). Although stakeholders identified a number of interventions, as well as barriers and facilitators to their implementation, they were less aware of other areas. In particular, how communities identified mechanisms to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities. The following specific interventions were identified:

Castleford

Castleford Connections Project^{[footnote 41]} : Wakefield council was successful in gaining £23.9 million from the Government’s Towns Fund to support a range of local projects in Castleford. One of the four key projects is “Castleford Connections”, which has also secured additional funding from Network Rail. The project aims to improve active travel infrastructure for pedestrians, wheelchair users, and cyclists by improving signage and ensuring clear directions to key locations (e.g. train and bus stations, Castleford market, and heritage attractions). The project started in early 2024 and will be running until early 2026.
First and Last Mile Funding Project: Castleford was allocated £720,000 in 2023 from Network Rail to improve the surrounding areas of Castleford train station. The project aims to increase train usage, improve passenger experience, and improve air quality. It will involve increased CCTV coverage, lighting, and public art.

Oldham

Town Centre Regeneration Projects: Stakeholders highlighted several projects focused on the regeneration of Oldham town centre. This has included the installation of cycle lanes to support active travel, the pedestrianisation of some streets, and adding gym equipment to local parks. However, stakeholders highlighted barriers to the success of interventions, including access to, and affordability of, bikes for many residents.
Chatty Café Project: This project involved setting up “Chatter and Natter” tables within local cafes, where customers can sit if they are happy to talk to other customers. The project was part of a wider initiative to set up tables across the UK ^{[footnote 42]} and was supported by Oldham Council, local charities, and businesses. However, stakeholders had mixed views on the success of the project, with some highlighting that some tables were not being used.

Torquay

Friendly Benches Project: The “Friendly Benches Project” involves identifying benches in public spaces, such as parks and walking routes, and designating them (with a sign) as “Friendly Benches”. The concept is that anyone sat on the bench would be open to having a conversation with someone else locally. The project has involved local residents who have been involved in decisions about where the benches should be.
Torquay Community Lounge Project: Torbay Communities (a local charity that aims to create stronger and more resilient communities), set up a lounge in Torquay for those experiencing loneliness. The lounge offers a space for people to spend time with others, without taking part in specific activities or events, a need identified by the local community. Residents were involved in the development of the space. Stakeholders highlighted that a key facilitator to the success of the project was giving agency to residents to create and decorate the space as they wanted. One stakeholder described how the space functions as a place both for residents to meet each other as well as a safe space where housing officers and social workers could meet residents.

It became the baseline for other things to happen because you have people who wouldn’t ordinarily have crossed paths going in there, talking, chatting.

– Stakeholder (Torquay)

Facilitators to implementing interventions

Stakeholders emphasised the value of resident involvement in the development, design, and implementation of physical space interventions. For example, stakeholders in Torquay highlighted how residents were involved in the development of the “Community Lounge” and “Friendly Benches” Projects. This resulted in interventions which were based on local community needs and that residents were invested in.

Barriers to implementing interventions

Many of the local physical environment interventions highlighted by stakeholders were run by VCSE organisations, or partnerships between these organisations and the local authority. Stakeholders working in VCSE organisations highlighted a lack of certainty about long-term funding for some local community organisations, which constrained planning of future physical environment-related projects and interventions. Challenges related to insufficient local government funding security were also raised in the national stakeholder workshop. Such challenges may have knock on effects for VCSE organisation projects aiming to improve the physical environment which are more reliant on local government funding.

Stakeholders also highlighted how delays to previous local council projects had led to challenges with trust among residents, with many questioning whether new projects or ideas will come to fruition. They felt that this had led to some residents losing faith in the local area and council, which is a barrier to engaging people in future interventions locally.

That [delays to previous projects] breeds that resentment. People don’t have any sort of faith in the local area and in the system.

– Stakeholder (Torquay)

The role of local and central government

Overall, there was consensus among national stakeholders on the role of central government. This was two-fold:

Providing strategic policy direction on issues related to the physical environment (such as transport); and
Providing funding and resources to stakeholders at a local level (for example through local government funding or specific national funding programmes).

UK government departments highlighted previous central government programmes of work, which aimed to address challenges highlighted by local stakeholders and focus group participants. An example of a government department’s involvement in seeking to enhance social connection includes the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)’s work to promote increased access to good quality green and blue spaces locally. National stakeholders also highlighted the “Tackling Loneliness with Transport Fund” led by the Department for Transport (DfT), where 12 pilot projects were funded to support those experiencing loneliness to engage in transport-based activities to build and sustain their social connections.

Question 5

3.  Structural factors and the social environment

Accepted Answer

The term ‘social environment’ refers to the functioning of communities, including how cohesive they are, how much they focus on mutual help, and access to local groups and activities^{[footnote 43]} . Stakeholders and focus group participants identified several key features of the social environment that impacted social connection (either positively or negatively), which will be discussed in this chapter. These included the range and timing of local groups, activities and events, as well as social cohesion and sense of belonging.

Across the three areas, stakeholders felt that local authorities have some responsibilities for the social environment (e.g. commissioning support services, such as social work). This role is supported by Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations and the private sector, through the development and maintenance of the social environment (e.g. running social groups and activities). The role of these different organisations will be discussed further throughout this chapter.

Local groups, activities, and events

As might be expected, stakeholders expressed greater knowledge of the local social environment than focus group participants across the three areas. This generally consisted of activities and groups that were interest-based or targeted at specific demographics, as well as wider groups, events, and “bumping spaces”. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed description of the social environment in each area.

Common interest-based groups and activities tended to centre on sport and exercise (e.g. badminton, football, Pilates, rugby, running, and yoga), arts and crafts (e.g. knitting, sewing, theatre, cooking, and music), and family (e.g. parent and baby groups). These were hosted in a range of venues, including community centres, places of worship, libraries, and sports venues. In Torquay, local green and blue spaces were also leveraged to create activities around coastal walking and wild swimming.

Everyone stuck together and really helped each other out and clapping as they all came round [running] and stuff and give you that kind of support. People became quite friendly off the back of that.

– Focus group participant (Oldham)

Groups and activities also targeted specific demographics, often pertaining to age and gender, to bring people with common experiences together. This included youth clubs and projects, such as the year-round participatory activities delivered by the Torbay Youth Trust (e.g. musical performance and informing health commissioning), school holiday-based food provision in Oldham, and activities such as bowling at The Hut, a youth centre in Castleford. Those activities aimed at older people tended to work on a drop-in basis (e.g. bingo, coffee mornings, and dementia peer support), such as the local Wakefield Age UK-run “Time for Tea” service. Group activities targeting men mostly focused on mental and physical health. In particular, participants across all three areas reported that Andy’s Man Club operated locally. These clubs provide opportunities for local volunteers to provide peer-to-peer support around mental health and were also perceived as an opportunity to build social connection. Groups specifically for women were also identified in Oldham and Castleford. These tended to take an intersectional approach by either aiming to support or appealing to minority ethnic women (e.g. Black African and South Asian women, as well as refugees and asylum seekers), parents with children or grandchildren in school, or new mothers.

I think I made a lot of social connections and then from there, I think I’ve helped quite a lot of ladies.

– Stakeholder (Oldham)

Participants reported a lack of inclusive groups, events, and “bumping spaces”, which appealed to the general public and did not focus on a specific interest or hobby (see section below on how this can create barriers to engaging with the social environment). Participants identified examples of these types of events; in Torquay, this included events hosted at Torre Abbey (e.g. festivals, film viewings, and talks) and a cost-of-living event that aimed to provide people with advice and guidance on managing finances. Conversely, public events such as carnivals and the switching on of Christmas lights were promoted to a wider range of people. Focus group participants in Torquay reported that the town previously hosted an annual carnival to bring people together, but that this no longer happened. In Castleford, focus group participants identified the local switching on of the Christmas lights as an opportunity to build social connections. However, they also noted that events in other local towns were better advertised and coordinated, and as a result better attended.

Barriers to involvement and participation in local groups, activities, and events

Focus group participants across all three areas expressed a lack of awareness about local activities, groups, and events. They linked this to advertising being limited in both quantity and format diversity. The main reported source of activity and group information was social media (e.g. the local Facebook page). However, many focus group participants did not use such platforms and/or felt that they reached a limited population (a view shared by stakeholders). Although some focus group participants reported being made aware of local events through print (e.g. door leaflets), many noted a distinct lack of physical or print advertising. For example, focus group participants in all three areas reported how free local newspapers that widely advertise social activities were discontinued, and nothing had replaced them. Stakeholders in one area also reported that attendees were often referred to activities (e.g. through the local authority or social prescribers), which was thought to limit their reach.

I don’t really know what groups exist, but there might be lots, and actually I just haven’t discovered them, because I do other things instead outside of Torquay, but in terms of advertisement, I’m not sure I see too much.

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Across all three areas, many focus group participants reported that local activities, groups, and events had a narrow appeal to the broader local population, which focused on specific demographics (e.g. older and younger people) or occurred during the day. In particular, it was felt that there was a lack of activities that generally targeted working age adults and parents/families. The exception to this was in Castleford where focus group participants highlighted an increased need for opportunities to build social connections during this life stage. Stakeholders recognised that community-based activities tended to take place during the day, which limited the people who could attend, with one stakeholder reporting that there was increased demand for weekend-based activities. In Torquay, focus group participants and stakeholders noted the seasonality of activities and events during the summer months, resulting in fewer year-round social opportunities for permanent residents.

There’s not just a nice safe place for somewhere for families to go, your kids can play and meet new people and things like that. So, that’s something that’s lacking within the area.

– Focus group participant (Oldham)

It [activities and groups] tends to be the older generation that go to those events. I have been to a couple, but I feel like I don’t kind of fit there.

– Focus group participant (Castleford)

Stakeholders identified that activities, groups, and events were not always accessible for prospective attendees. This included digital exclusion whereby opportunities were solely advertised online, attendees being unable to make their way to the venue via transport or active travel (particularly in Torquay), lack of accessibility within venues, and language barriers (highlighted in Oldham). Stakeholders identified that a lack of available support and services (e.g. for drug and alcohol use, mental health, occupational health, and social care assessments) resulted in some potential attendees finding activities inaccessible as their health declined. This resulted in those individuals becoming further isolated.

Although stakeholders and focus group participants identified free or subsidised activities, some participants highlighted cost and income deprivation as a barrier to taking part in social activities; particularly for certain groups such as families with young children. While for focus group participants this related to activities such as going to restaurants, bars, and pubs, stakeholders expressed concerns over more vulnerable people affording relatively less expensive (often subsidised) activities. This was described as a hierarchy of needs, ^{[footnote 44]} whereby increased costs for basic essentials (e.g. accommodation, clothing, and food) decreased any surplus to spend on activities, which was compounded by higher overheads and consequent increase of activity costs. In other words, people with limited financial resources have little, if any, money to spend on social activities once they have paid for their essentials. Subsequently, some people were ‘priced out’ of activities and became further isolated.

We need a whole little team of drivers that can just pick people up and take people places in their cars; that would be amazing if we could do that. Then at least some of those people would be able to go out.

– Stakeholder (Torquay)

If you’re worrying about where your next meal is coming from… where do you get the trainers from to go to the group? Where am I going to be sleeping?… [if] people haven’t got their basic needs met, then actually £2.50 to go to a community event or activity actually appears quite a lot.

– Stakeholder (Oldham)

Social cohesion and sense of belonging

Although focus group participants within and across areas had mixed views on feelings of a sense of belonging, they generally struggled to describe and define what a sense of belonging is or should mean. In Castleford and Torquay, focus group participants tended to report having historical family ties to the area, which in some cases contributed to a sense of belonging bolstered by long-term friendships. In contrast, others in Torquay found it difficult to meet new people and felt frustrated that some friends had moved away (e.g. for work or university). Although new people did move to the area, this was often temporarily for seasonal summer work, which made it difficult to socialise with them. While Oldham focus group participants also reported historical family ties, some were originally from or worked in nearby and more expensive areas (e.g. Trafford), and resided in Oldham due to its more affordable housing rather than a sense of belonging to the area. For example, one resident described how a change in work location (from Oldham to Manchester City Centre), had resulted in fewer social ties and feeling less connected to the area through work. Others with historical ties to Torquay and Oldham felt inclined to move away for employment opportunities, resulting in a trade-off between maintaining existing social connections and employment opportunities.

I feel connected because I like where I live…I’ve got a lot of family round here, but if there was a good opportunity I would leave

– Focus group participant (Oldham)

Across all three areas, focus group participants noted pull factors from nearby places perceived to have a better social environment in terms of facilities (e.g. nicer town centre, swimming pool, shops, and cafes), friends and family, and events. For example, Manchester City Centre and Trafford for Oldham, nearby villages and Exeter for Torquay, and Leeds for Castleford. This often led to focus group participants living in one place but choosing to seek and build social connections in another, impacting their sense of belonging to where they lived.

Feelings of social cohesion were mixed across the three areas, especially with regards to neighbours. In Torquay and Castleford, focus group participants reported feeling a low sense of community spirit. While neighbourly relations were described as friendly and unproblematic, they did not go as far to feel socially connected to their neighbours. Focus group participants generally struggled to ascertain why this was, sometimes comparing their area to nearby towns and villages that had a “community feel”. For some, it was felt that this was due to neighbours generally no longer speaking as much or a higher turnover of people due to the rental market (see Chapter 2), a particular seasonal issue in Torquay.

I think we [neighbours] look out for each other, but I wouldn’t go to the pub with them, necessarily. If I saw them there, I’d interact and we’d have a catch-up and things, but we’re not best of friends

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Interventions relating to the social environment to support social connection

Stakeholders identified higher or system-level interventions, which aimed to encourage or support the types of activities, groups, and events referred to in section 3.1 and appendix A of this report. These fell into three main categories: connecting people to groups and services, connecting people to each other, and connecting groups and services to each other. These included mapping local services for referrals, providing a one-stop referral platform to connect people to multiple services, encouraging neighbours to organise and help each other, and moving services closer to each other or target groups (e.g. to a shopping centre) (see Figure 4). Although stakeholders identified a number of interventions, as well as barriers and facilitators (see below) to their implementation, they were less aware of other areas. In particular, how communities identified mechanism to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities

Figure 4: Potential points of intervention related to the social environment to improve social connection

The following interventions were identified:

Castleford

Castleford Town Board: The Castleford Town Board involves the local community in planning for the town’s future and helped develop Wakefield Council’s long-term strategy for Castleford town centre. The board meets regularly and brings together various stakeholders including local councillors, representatives from schools and colleges, VCSE organisations, West Yorkshire Police, and local businesses. A key role of the board is engaging with residents to identify key priorities for Castleford.
Time for Tea project: Run by Wakefield District Age UK, “Time for Tea” is a drop-in event run in communal spaces across Castleford. The aim of the initiative is to provide an opportunity for older people to gather and build or maintain their social connections, in a space they feel comfortable in. Local stakeholders highlighted how, for some participants, the initiative has led to the rekindling of old friendships.
Community Hub: Hosted at Castleford Library, the Community Hub is a social space used for arts and crafts, foodbanks and other initiatives. There are other venues within Castleford, namely ‘Queen’s Mill’ which also provide similar services. These community centres provide important access to social interaction within the wider community at little-to-no cost.

Oldham

Oldham Community Advice Network (OCAN): OCAN is a web-based referral platform, which offers a single touchpoint to connect service users with multiple providers. By doing so, service users only need to give (often sensitive) information once, assistance is given to navigate complex systems, and a more holistic response can be made involving multiple organisations. Stakeholders reported that this can also systematically help people to access support in a timely way to help with social connection.

Torquay

Good Neighbour Scheme: Run by Torbay Communities, the “Good Neighbour Scheme” encourages street-based support between neighbours to help build social connection/cohesion. Information, advice, and a “Community Builder” staff member are provided to assist coordination efforts. Neighbours are matched based on needs, skills, and availability. For example, people who do not leave the house would be matched with a nearby resident who can help with shopping and provide company.

Facilitators to implementing interventions

Local partnership working was highlighted as a facilitator by stakeholders. In Torquay, VCSE stakeholders reported having a good working relationship with local councillors, who can advocate for them or facilitate actions on their behalf. They also reported that a “Community Partnership” has been set up by the council. This involves regular meetings between local councillors, residents, the police, and third sector organisations, which facilitates dialogue about community related issues in order to plan interventions. One stakeholder also identified a platform that mapped local services, which provided a one-stop referral platform to connect people to multiple services.

Barriers to implementing interventions

Collaborative working challenges were reported by stakeholders with experience of working with other organisations. In particular, VCSE stakeholders found that fostering and maintaining a relationship with the local authority and police was difficult, due to a lack of communication and agreed actions not followed up after meetings. Other stakeholders reported the need to establish a better overview of local services, to provide a more holistic offer to service users through signposting and cross-organisational working.

A lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities was also cited by some stakeholders as a barrier to successful interventions. For example, local authority representatives in Castleford highlighted blurred lines between where their responsibilities correspond with those of other stakeholders/organisations. In the context of addressing concerns around anti-social behaviour, stakeholders in Castleford highlighted a lack of clarity between what the local authority can and should be doing and the remit of the police.

Funding was a key challenge reported by stakeholders. Firstly, funding was seen as short term and uncertain, which limited organisations’ ability to effectively plan long-term interventions alongside experiencing increased demand. To mitigate this, one stakeholder suggested local VCSE funding could be included in council tax, which would provide increased financial security and enable staff to focus on service delivery.

The demand for essential services was cited by stakeholders as a two-fold challenge to providing direct social connection or loneliness interventions. Firstly, stakeholders had to prioritise their own resources to provide for an increased demand for essential services. Secondly, service users were unable to attend activities perceived as less important due to the hierarchy of needs described above.

Stakeholders also highlighted how the setting up and embedding of new community hubs, such as youth centres, can be time consuming. One stakeholder working in Torquay described how a new youth centre has been recently set up, but only has a small number of users compared to other youth centres in the area, which are well used. They felt this was because it takes time for youth centre staff members to build trust with young people.

The role of local and central government

As with the physical environment, there was consensus among national stakeholders that the role of central government within the social environment (such as anti-social behaviour or volunteering) was primarily one of providing strategic policy direction and providing funding and resources to stakeholders at a local level, including local authorities and VCSE organisations. A representative from the Local Government Authority suggested that the responsibility to fund and deliver local projects should sit with local councils, due to their knowledge and expertise of local issues.

UK government departments also highlighted many ongoing central government programmes/funds of work which aim to address social environment challenges highlighted by local stakeholders and residents. For example, the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), in collaboration with The National Lottery Community Fund are leading the “Million Hours Fund” ^{[footnote 45]}. The initiative is providing funding to youth organisations to extend youth support provision, to ensure that young people who may be at risk of anti-social behaviour have options to engage in positive activities.

Local stakeholders identified that the role and power of local authorities is currently restrained to ONS ward boundaries and central government’s long-term funding plans, although there can be wider confusion about responsibilities; one stakeholder representative from a local authority suggested that the public feel councils are “responsible for everything”. However, the local stakeholder believed that to deal with pertinent issues such as anti-social behaviour, there needs to be a combined effort from councils, VCSEs and organisations such as the Police. To combat this, as one example, Castleford’s upcoming Town Deal will aim to address the confusion around responsibility, by bringing together a board consisting members of the Police, Wakefield District Housing and other local organisations to help “steer and deliver the funding” to the correct places. The local stakeholder suggested this will help people see that “it’s not just the Council’s responsibility; it’s everyone’s responsibility to make a town as good as it can be”.

When looking at the social environment, the role of local government was echoed through another local stakeholder, as they commented that for initiatives to exist, the role of local government is to “facilitate bringing those groups together by making resources available for them, making places available for them, making it free, making it cheap, making it interesting”, as opposed to directly providing the services.

Question 6

4.  Discussion and recommendations

Accepted Answer

4.1 Summary of findings

The findings presented in this report go some way to addressing evidence gaps highlighted by previous research around how physical and social structural factors influence social connection and loneliness. This research found strong evidence that physical and social environments features can both support and hinder social connection. The identified structural factors tended to be consistent across the three areas; however, the specific relationships between those factors and social connection varied.

This research identified that for the physical environment, social connection can be influenced by:

The nature of (and access to) local green and blue spaces such as parks, nature reserves, beaches, or canal paths which provide spaces to meet others and attend events;
Housing and neighbourhood design, including the type and density of housing (and the influence of this on the ability to meet neighbours), housing tenure (influencing how transient local populations are), and road layout (affecting ease of access to surrounding areas);
Topographic and environmental factors, including terrain (e.g. hills which can make it more difficult to move between areas, particularly via active travel);
Types of local buildings and spaces available locally including community centres, sports and leisure facilities, theatres and music venues, libraries, and shops (which provide spaces to meet others and host activities); and
Transport infrastructure including public transport (including availability, safety, and cost), roads and pavements, and active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes) which can all provide ways to travel to meet friends and family and attend activities and events.

For the social environment, the following factors which influence social connection were identified:

Awareness, availability, and accessibility of local groups, activities, and events (which provide opportunities to meet others);
A sense of belonging to a local area and social cohesion;
Work and education opportunities available locally (the availability of local jobs and good schools resulting in residents (and families) staying in an area);
Seasonality and tourism (which can result in empty homes and transient communities); and
Opportunities for volunteering which can provide opportunities to build social connections locally.

The physical and social environments are closely interrelated, and this research identified a number of ways that these factors intersect to either support or hinder social connection. Local groups, activities, and events were often reliant on high quality, safe, and accessible physical spaces to take place. This included green spaces to host exercise classes or events, and spaces such as libraries or community centres to host local activity groups. Conversely, the social environment was often key to the development and maintenance of physical environment spaces, which could support social connection by providing places for people to meet and events to take place. For example, this research has highlighted the importance of local volunteering networks for the maintenance of community gardens, and in some cases the design and decorating of community hubs. Moreover, a sense of belonging to a local area influenced how likely residents were to spend time in their community and use local physical spaces (e.g. shops and entertainment venues), which can provide opportunities to build social connections.

Strategies to combat loneliness through the physical and social environments must take a holistic approach to addressing challenges, recognising that these structural factors cannot be addressed in isolation. A holistic approach should also consider other factors not included in this research including demographic diversity, community attitudes, and public policy ^{[footnote 46]} which will also influence loneliness.

All three areas included were classified as being deprived, as defined by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Lower-layer Super Output Areas^{[footnote 47]} , which is based on several factors (namely income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education, skills and training, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment). The research found that deprivation impacted social connection (in relation to the physical and social environment) in a number of ways:

Affordability of local activities, groups and events, and transport: Residents on lower incomes reported challenges accessing local activities, groups, and events due to the cost of taking part, as well as the cost of transport to attend activities or to meet others;
Anti-social behaviour: This was a key theme throughout this research, with anti-social behaviour such as vandalism acting as a barrier to the use of town centres, public transport, and local venues. Previous research has shown that the more deprived an area is, the more likely it is that residents have personally experienced or witnessed an incident of anti-social behaviour; ^{[footnote 48]}
Digital exclusion: Residents and stakeholders reported that social media was a key source of information for finding out about local events, but digital exclusion prevented people from accessing information which would allow them to connect with others locally. There is a wealth of evidence showing that digital exclusion is higher in areas of deprivation; ^{[footnote 49]}
Housing insecurity: Social connection was negatively impacted by the prevalence of renting and temporary accommodation, which resulted in residents moving around frequently. This made it more difficult to build long-term relationships with neighbours and those living locally;
Mental and physical health challenges: Stakeholders highlighted how health challenges could result in local activities becoming inaccessible, which acted as a barrier to meeting others. Stakeholders also linked this to challenges with the availability of support and services (e.g. for drug and alcohol use, mental health, occupational health, and social care assessments); and
Town centre decline: In all three areas residents felt that the decline of highstreets and closing of local pubs, bars, and other spaces (e.g. theatres) impacted their ability to socialise with others in local venues. Residents also reported seeking employment and social opportunities in nearby places that they perceived to have better opportunities. This often led to residents living in one place but choosing to seek and build social connections in another, impacting their sense of belonging to where they lived.

4.3 Structural factor interventions and local/central government involvement

This research identified several points of intervention related to physical and social environments that could improve social connection. For the physical environment, this ranged from the protection and maintenance of green spaces, town centre regeneration, provision and improvement of cycle lanes, and the protection of community assets (e.g. pubs, theatres, and football clubs). For the social environment, this included initiatives to map and list local services, groups, and activities, the promotion of local volunteering, and the setting up of communication channels between local stakeholders and residents. Stakeholders were less aware of how communities identified mechanisms to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities. However, they did identify several facilitators and barriers to implementation.

Local stakeholders identified two main facilitators for intervention implementation. Firstly, resident involvement in the development, design, and implementation of physical space interventions ensured that they met local needs and encouraged support. Secondly, partnership working (e.g. between local councillors, Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, and the police) was thought to facilitate dialogue around community needs and help plan interventions.

A number of barriers to intervention planning and implementation were identified by local stakeholders. It should be noted that, despite recruitment efforts, local authority stakeholders formed a small proportion of our sample. Short term and uncertain funding was reported to limit local VCSE organisations’ ability to effectively plan long term interventions. Some stakeholders also reported a lack of clarity around their responsibilities in relation to local authorities, which may compound funding challenges when prioritising resources. Although stakeholders reported how partnership working can facilitate interventions, some reported challenges around such collaborative working. In particular, VCSE stakeholders found that fostering and maintaining a relationship with the local authority and police was difficult, due to a lack of communication and agreed actions not followed up after meetings. As above, resident involvement was cited as a facilitator to successful interventions. However, some stakeholders also noted that delays to previous local council projects led to challenges with trust among residents, creating a barrier to future engagement.

National stakeholders, consulted as part of the workshop, felt that many of the issues highlighted in this research should primarily be addressed and led by local government (with support from VCSE organisations, local businesses, and the police). Their reasoning was that local authorities have the knowledge and understanding of local contexts to lead and implement interventions that best meet the needs of their respective local areas. They also felt that local authorities have a more in-depth understanding of competing priorities locally and budgetary constraints. Central government departments perceived their role as primarily providing strategic policy direction on matters such as wellbeing, community cohesion, and green spaces, as well as providing the funding and resources to stakeholders at a local level.

A Local Government Authority representative in the national stakeholder workshop suggested that simplifying local authority funding and ensuring long-term funding security would have the most sustained benefit on local areas. It was felt that this would assist in giving those with local expertise the power and autonomy to deliver locally tailored interventions with the greatest impact. Others suggested that central government departments should primarily be brought into such projects to endorse, guide, and provide advice to local authorities (as opposed to leading the projects) and reinforced the importance of partnership working and collaboration.

4.4 Limitations and recommendations

Limitation: Although this research focused on three areas which vary in location, terrain, and demographics (Castleford, Oldham, and Torquay), they are similar in size, and all share certain key features such as a town centre with shopping facilities and a train station. The influence of features of the physical and social environments specific to very rural or urban areas (such as villages or inner-city areas) may therefore not have been captured.

Recommendations:

Future qualitative research examining structural factors and social connection/loneliness could include residents and stakeholders living and working in a wider range of areas across the UK, including rural areas (such as villages and hamlets) and inner-city areas.
It is also important that central government support (e.g. through funding and capacity building) local authorities and VCSE organisations to carry out research locally. Although this research identified common themes across areas, social connection is impacted by specific local environments, and research should be tied to local priorities.

Limitation:

Although this research identified that physical and social factors influence social connection in different ways for different groups (e.g. the importance of quality pavements for those using mobility scooters), the scope of the study did not allow full exploration of how factors such as age, gender, and disability influence social connection in relation to structural factors.

Recommendations:

Future research could focus on specific groups at risk of loneliness (e.g. people living alone, younger people, women, new parents, disabled people) to understand how experiences related to the physical and social environments may vary.
Government may consider providing guidance for those who develop structural factors-related policy. Specifically, the guidance could centre around how policies affect social connections for groups at-risk of loneliness and how to integrate social connection building into wider policies. In particular, those policies that may be considered further up the scale in people’s ‘hierarchy of needs’. For example, planning policy to consider the protection of green spaces in support of social connection; transport policy to consider the importance of local bus routes to support social connection; levelling up policy to consider the importance of ‘bumping spaces’ (e.g. high streets, libraries, community halls) to support social connection.

Limitation:

This research was able to identify key points of intervention on the physical and social environments through interviews with stakeholders and focus groups with residents. However, stakeholders were less aware of how communities identified interventions to tackle loneliness, how interventions achieved change, and how interventions could be tailored to specific communities. This research also interviewed a limited number of local authority stakeholders and may therefore exclude their perspective in some areas. Furthermore, national stakeholder workshop attendees may have been limited in what they could advocate for on behalf of their respective departments.

Recommendations:

Further research could examine specific physical or social environment interventions, to identify mechanisms for improving social connection and loneliness. Mixed method approaches could examine the design, implementation, and impact of interventions and support the development of best practice recommendations.
Evidence reviews could support this by identifying existing evidence on physical and social environments interventions from the UK and similar contexts.
Government may consider holding wider consultation between empowered central government and local authority stakeholders, with the aim to establish and strengthen long term ties. Specifically, to understand their respective roles around facilitating social connection through structural factors, ascertain appropriate funding mechanisms, share knowledge (e.g. around evaluation design), and understand mechanisms for change.

Question 7

Authors

Accepted Answer

Authors: The National Centre for Social Research (Imogen Martin, Alexander Martin, Hannah Brearley-Bayliss) and RSM UK Consulting (Kieran Jones, Polly Jackson, Samuel Mulvaney)

Question 8

Appendix A: Case Studies

Accepted Answer

Castleford

Castleford is the second largest town within the City of Wakefield district, West Yorkshire, England. Within the municipal borough of Castleford, there are several suburbs including Airedale, Cutsyke, and Glasshoughton. The population is estimated to be 45,363 (2021). ^{[footnote 50]} Castleford was historically an industrial mining town and has been heavily impacted by the decline of the mining industry. However, it remains an important town for manufacturing in the UK due to its geographical location.

Key physical environment features

Green spaces: There are a large number of green spaces in Castleford, including local parks and nature reserves such as St. Aidan’s Nature Reserve and Pontefract Park/Racecourse.
Housing: Neighbourhood design and housing are varied throughout the town, including older council housing estates as well as new build developments.
Transport: Castleford is located within proximity to major motorways such as the M1, A1(M), and M62. Residents were content with the availability and accessibility of local public transport, reporting good connectivity to local towns and cities, such as Leeds and Sheffield.
Local facilities: There are a number of local venues for leisure activities nearby, including the Xscape entertainment facility and Junction 32 Shopping Centre.

Key social environment features

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of the Community Hub (hosted at Castleford Library) which is used by the foodbank, for arts and crafts sessions, as well as other events. Other venues such as Queen’s Mill provide free/low-cost arts and crafts clubs.
Residents and stakeholders highlighted how Castleford Tigers Rugby League Football Club is an essential part of the local community.

Local physical environment and social connections

Facilitators

Transport: Residents noted that Castleford is well connected to other cities and areas, particularly Leeds, and described how public transport (in particular train connections) give them access to work opportunities which can facilitate social connections through interaction with colleagues.

Local amenities: Residents felt that some features of the built environment facilitated social connection by providing spaces to meet others. This was particularly the case at retail and entertainment venues, such as Junction 32 (a shopping outlet) and Xscape (a sports and leisure activity centre) where there is a range of amenities such as shops, cafés, restaurants, gyms, activity centres, and an indoor ski slope.

Barriers

Transport: Residents found that traffic generated from busy road systems which connect to major cities, particularly around Glasshoughton, caused them to avoid travelling on weekends and at rush hour, preventing them from accessing social connections at common meeting places such as Xscape and Junction 32’s retail park. Residents also reported that they did not always feel safe on public transport or in the bus or train station, which was a disincentive for them to travel to meet others. Residents in Castleford perceived the last train from Leeds on a weekend to be “rowdy” and reported that buses had previously been cancelled due to vandalism. Although residents in general felt that the cost of public transport was acceptable, they recognised that cost could be a barrier to social connection for those on lower incomes, a challenge which may have been exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis.

Housing and Neighbourhood Design: Residents highlighted that there are several large council housing estates in Castleford and felt that these estates have been built with little communal space to socialise or for children to play. There are also newly built housing estates in Castleford which are primarily used by people who work in and commute to other areas, such as Leeds and other surrounding cities. Residents felt that people living in these houses tend to socialise in the areas they work rather than locally.

Local amenities: Residents indicated that local housing estates no longer have shared facilities such as pubs, which in previous years had acted as the hub of a community. Residents highlighted the importance of spaces such as pubs to socialise, compared to spaces such as community centres which are often focused on specific groups or classes. Those who had lived in Castleford for a long time additionally commented on the decline of the town centre and reported that it no longer had the amenities that it once did. Residents particularly noted that the closure of the local Marks and Spencer shop in the town centre, which had previously acted as a space to bump into people they knew, had impacted their social connection.

Twenty years ago, you’d have a pub on each estate. They’ve replaced them with city centre pubs or community centres that only cater for certain things like to have groups to learn how to use the internet. – Focus group participant (Castleford)

Safety: Residents emphasised that they witnessed frequent anti-social behaviour in Castleford, including in local leisure spaces and retail parks, which acted as a barrier to visiting these facilities and, as a result, to building social connections. Residents also reported that they tended to avoid the town centre due to anti-social behaviour and deeming the area to be unsafe.

Local social environment and social connections

Facilitators

Availability of groups, activities, and events: Residents were aware of a range of activities run in the area, which they viewed as accessible and inclusive due to them being low or no cost. Local sports activities and events provided a social occasion, particularly the Tigers Rugby League Football Club who play home games fortnightly, and many residents reported joining running clubs or gym classes in the area. Furthermore, both residents and stakeholders identified activities available for those less interested in sports, for example, council-funded arts and crafts activity clubs in the library and at the Queen’s Mill.

Barriers

Availability of groups, activities, and events: Despite being aware of, and attending some local activities, residents found that these tended to focus on children, older people, or those with specific interests (such as craft groups) and felt that there were not enough activities in the local area which they were aware of, particularly for adults of working age.

I’m aware of groups that take place at the local church for people, so they have like knit and natter groups…but I’m not aware of anything kind of my age range that I’d possibly be interested in. – Focus group participant (Castleford)

Awareness of groups, activities, and events: Awareness of local groups and activities among residents was low relative to what was on offer, with residents linking this to a lack of accessible information. Residents described how they could access information about groups and activities via Facebook but recognised that information could sometimes be restricted to only those using the platform. One stakeholder noted that their community organisation provides information about local events through an online newsletter. However, residents who took part in focus groups did not highlight this as a source of information which they used. The organisation reported that they are trying to obtain funding to also provide this newsletter physically in local spaces such as the library.

Interventions and/or solutions that can help/are helping to support social connection

Residents and stakeholders highlighted potential interventions that could aid social connection.
Residents felt that a national Government scheme to buy/fund local pubs could bring back hubs for communities to meet and build/maintain social connections.
Green spaces in Castleford are being built on, limiting the spaces residents find they have for leisure activities and to maintain social connections. As such, residents felt it was important for local green spaces (in particular parks) to be protected and maintained for leisure use, to support the development and maintenance of social connection.
Both local authorities and residents suggested that a publicly funded bus service would aid social connection, particularly for those most affected by deprivation in the area. However, there were conflicting views from stakeholders and residents as to the access that this should provide; stakeholders felt that transport services to the town centre would be most impactful on social connection as this would bring more people to a central hub. Residents on the other hand felt that it would be beneficial to provide accessible transport to certain local green spaces (such as Pontefract Park or St. Aidan’s Nature Reserve) as they felt that these areas provide a more appealing opportunity to maintain social connections compared to parks in the town centre which they associated with anti-social behaviour.
Stakeholders highlighted future interventions that they felt would aid social connection.

Castleford Connections Project: Castleford was successful in gaining £23.9 million from the Government’s Towns Fund to support a range of projects in Castleford. One of the four key projects is the “Castleford Connections” project, which has also secured additional funding from Network Rail. The project aims to make it easier for pedestrians, wheelchair users, and cyclists to move around the town by improving signage and ensuring clear directions to important locations such as the train and bus stations, Castleford market, and heritage attractions. The project started in early 2024 and will be running until early 2026.

First and Last Mile Funding Project: Castleford was allocated £720,000 in 2023 from Network Rail to improve the areas surrounding Castleford train station. The project aims to increase train usage, improve passenger experience, and improve air quality and will involve increased CCTV coverage, lighting, and public art.

Facilitators to interventions

There are numerous existing buildings in the community in which to host activities, including the library, community centres, and Queen’s Mill, which both residents and local stakeholders identified as providing the space and opportunity to build social connections through groups and activities.

Oldham

Oldham is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, in North West England, with an estimated population of 242,100. ^{[footnote 51]} ^{[footnote 52]} Oldham was historically an industrial town, with industry focused on textiles manufacturing, and is an urban area with high levels of physical infrastructure (e.g. housing, roads), surrounded by areas which are more rural.

Key physical environment features

Green spaces: Oldham has a range of parks and green spaces, including Alexandra Park, Chadderton Park, Daisy Nook Country Park, and Tandle Hill Country Park, as well as many canal paths.
Housing: There is a variety of housing in Oldham, including council and privately owned properties, smaller rural village housing, and some temporary housing.
Transport: Oldham has a tram system, which provides access to the City of Manchester and Manchester Airport. Bus services also provide access to both nearby towns and central Manchester.
Local facilities: Oldham town centre has a variety of shops, a shopping centre, and a cinema.

Key social environment features

Views among residents on social connection and belonging in Oldham were mixed; some residents reported feeling connected to the area due to family ties and knowing their neighbours, whilst others who worked and took part in leisure activities in other areas felt less connected.
There are a variety of social groups in place in Oldham, including walking clubs, lunch clubs, community allotments, arts and crafts groups, language classes, and sports and exercise-based groups. There is a directory of social groups and activities in the area available through a local social prescribing service, and a further list on Oldham Council’s website.

Local physical environment and social connections

Facilitators

Neighbourhoods: Residents referred to strong community spirit, fostered through supportive relationships with neighbours who have known each other for a long-time. A key facilitator was residents remaining in one area for a long time as they can get to know their neighbours; this was particularly the case for those living in housing estates, and for residents who owned their homes.

I class the community as home sometimes, as in we’re a quite close-knit community and everybody looks out for each other. I think when I go away, I can’t wait to come back home – Focus group participant (Oldham)

Green spaces: There are a range of green spaces in Oldham, including parks, canals, and allotments. Residents reflected on the benefits of green spaces for connecting with others, through walking and taking part in exercise with others, using outdoor gyms, and attending celebrations for events such as Eid in parks.

Transport: Residents reported that access to tram and bus services facilitated social connection, particularly for those living close to stations. Accessibility of transport to surrounding areas provided opportunities to meet with people who live outside the area, particularly where friends had moved away from Oldham.

It [public transport] makes it accessible; it makes the world bigger for people. It’s not just what they can walk to. It means that people don’t have to socialise within their own community as well, which isn’t always what people want to do

– Stakeholder (Oldham)

Barriers

Safety: Both residents and stakeholders expressed concern over safety in the area related to crime and anti-social behaviour. Residents felt this was particularly an issue on trams and at tram stops, which prevented social connection in the evenings because people chose not to use public transport to meet others or needed to go out with others rather than alone, due to safety concerns.

Cohesion: Residents reflected that in some areas, renting rather than buying housing means that neighbours change often which limits their capacity to get to know people. Stakeholders highlighted that social connection is not always a priority for people living in insecure housing (such as those living in temporary accommodation) due to greater concerns about safety and necessities.

…Actually, if you’ve not got a firm base of a house and a home and somewhere you know you’re going to be safe, actually looking at connecting with your community and things like that is a secondary thought for people

– Stakeholder (Oldham)

Town centre: Residents emphasised that the town centre had changed; shops and amenities such as the market and bars have closed, which meant that there is a lack of spaces for people to meet up with friends to socialise.

Local social environment and social connections

Facilitators

Availability of groups, activities, and events: Residents of Oldham discussed meeting and getting to know others through a range of activities and groups including mental health support groups, and sports and exercise classes. Residents felt that Oldham football club facilitated social connection through affordable tickets and has good attendance to games. Stakeholders reflected on the benefits of a variety of groups being available, meaning that people can access groups and activities in line with their own interests.

[A running club] did Couch to 5K and trained for the Manchester 10K run. Everyone stuck together and really helped each other out, and clapping as they all came round and stuff, and give you that kind of support. People became quite friendly off the back of that

– Focus group participant (Oldham)

Barriers

Closure of local venues: Residents reported that some youth centres and the local theatre had closed, impacting the spaces available for people to socialise and the range of activities and events which are offered locally. Residents felt there were insufficient activities locally, particularly for specific groups, such as for adults in their 30s and 40s, family activities, and for young people.

Advertising of activities: Some residents found it difficult to find information about local activities and were not aware of what was available. Others pointed out that information about activities was available, for example via local newspapers, from the library and through social media, but felt that information was only available to people who sought it out. Stakeholders emphasised that people often only become aware of the activities available locally when they were already involved with services, such as through social prescribing.

Mental health: Both residents and local stakeholders identified that mental health problems were a barrier to social connection due to people not being motivated to attend groups or maintain relationships with friends. Stakeholders also perceived that long waiting lists for professional services, such as mental health services, prevent people from recovering from mental ill-health in order to access groups and activities, and increase social isolation.

Barriers to accessing groups and activities: The cost of the activities themselves and of travel requirements, language barriers, and timing of activities were all noted as barriers that prevented people from forming connections through the social environment.

Change in delivery: Stakeholders emphasised that delivery of services was altered by the COVID-19 pandemic and many groups or services continue to be delivered remotely which may contribute to loneliness and isolation as residents feel more separated from others.

Interventions and/or solutions that can help/are helping to support social connection

Residents highlighted potential interventions that could aid social connection:
Although infrastructure has improved with the development of the tram system, which has facilitated connection to others, residents highlighted that safety on transport could be improved by increasing staff presence, and discounting ticket prices could increase accessibility.
Providing free and accessible places for young people (such as school sports facilities, youth clubs, and gyms) could improve safety in local green spaces and on public transport.
Improvements to education and employment opportunities locally would encourage people to stay in the area for longer, which would facilitate lasting connections and social cohesion.
An increased offer of activities of interest to the community, which are affordable or subsidised, would improve social connection. Activities and social spaces should be aimed towards young people, families, and adults, and there should also be neutral spaces where people can come together and connect.
Stakeholders highlighted interventions that had been implemented to aid social connection:

Town centre regeneration: There has been regeneration of the town centre to improve parks, green spaces, and cycle lanes. However, it was highlighted that this was not beneficial for some residents, such as those with no access to bikes.

Chatty Café project: A “Chatty Café” ^{[footnote 53]} was set up where tables were made available in local cafes in the community to encourage social connection.

Doorstep Engagement Team project: A “Doorstep Engagement Team” supported residents during the COVID-19 pandemic which connected people.

Facilitators to interventions

Both residents and stakeholders identified that there is existing infrastructure in place to share and gather information about local activities and groups, for example through local newspapers, an established directory, and the local library, to increase accessibility of local groups and facilitate social connection.

Barriers to interventions

Stakeholders felt that social connection needs were not a priority for residents experiencing other significant challenges related to their finances, housing, or mental health. It was felt that these challenges prevented engagement with local activities, services, and generally with their community. Stakeholders highlighted that organisations need to work together collaboratively to facilitate cohesive, long-term support for residents.

Torquay

Torquay is a seaside town in Devon, South West England, with an estimated population of 52,341. ^{[footnote 54]} The main industry in Torquay has historically been tourism due to the local coastline. The area is semi-urban with a town centre and a mix of surrounding rural areas.

Key physical environment features

Green spaces: There are a variety of outdoor public spaces in Torquay including beaches, moorland, cliff paths, and parks in the town. Residents referred to walking in Ilsham Green and visiting Babbacombe.
Transport: There is a bus service which operates within Torquay and to surrounding areas and train connections gives access to larger surrounding cities such as Plymouth and Exeter.
Town centre: Torquay town centre has a variety of businesses, including a shopping centre, cinema, theatre, and pier. However, residents highlighted that the town centre has experienced decline, including the closing of shops, banks, and post offices and that they now visit the town centre less frequently as a result.

Key social environment features

Groups and activities: Residents and stakeholders highlighted a variety of activities on offer in Torquay, including coffee mornings, sports clubs (such as yoga groups and line dancing), walking groups, and social groups, such as social badminton.

Local physical environment and social connections

Facilitators

Transport: Residents highlighted that there are a range of local public transport options including buses and trains, which they use to travel to meet friends. Residents also reported that train connections to surrounding areas, such as Exeter where there are more social events, are reliable and enjoyable. Both residents and stakeholders who took part in interviews felt that the bus services provided the opportunity for residents to make social connections on regular journeys.

Green spaces: Torquay has a variety of green spaces which residents reported using for dog walking, meeting up with other people, and forming passing social connections. However, residents felt that litter in some green spaces was off-putting and some spaces felt unsafe due to building works on walking routes which caused residents to avoid the areas.

There’s quite a lot of green spaces and nice walks, cliff walks and things, so you can meet up with friends. I go for quite a lot of dog walks, so that’s quite a nice social thing to do

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Barriers

Town centre decline: Residents felt that the town centre in Torquay had declined; shops have closed down and pubs have either closed or been changed to more expensive and less social eateries. There was also concern that the town centre was unsafe due to crime, and residents resultantly avoid the area and socialise in other places.

Geography of the town: Residents and stakeholders highlighted that social connection in Torquay is impacted by its geography; there are a lot of hills and residents found that the quality of the pavements (width, upkeep) reduced walkability. Those who struggled with mobility problems discussed how this prevented them from socialising and could contribute to them feeling isolated.

All the sports side of it has gone…the social side, because to go and meet people, I’ve got to walk down to the bus stop, which is very difficult. I don’t like to take the scooter because some of the pavements are so narrow, you can’t go on them

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Transport: Although residents used public transport to meet friends, social connection was limited by heavy traffic, impacting both bus services and private cars, which prevented people from wanting to go out to socialise. Stakeholders also highlighted that bus services and schedules are not streamlined or coordinated which means that people have to wait a long time when changing buses, making journeys longer and more difficult.

Community buildings: Stakeholders noted that although community centres are well used by specific groups, for example adults with learning difficulties and young people, they are often embedded in housing estates which reduces passing footfall.

Safety: Residents expressed concern over safety due to drug and alcohol use and violent crime, particularly in the town centre, around the town hall, and on buses in the evening. Consequently, residents described avoiding these areas and travelling further away to socialise.

Local social environment and social connections

Facilitators

Groups and activities: Residents described how local groups and events allowed residents to make local connections. This included running clubs and Pilates groups, and events including concerts and theatre productions at local venues such as Torre Abbey. Stakeholders reflected on the wide variety of groups available in the area, but felt groups were most beneficial to specific communities or people with established interests, such as sports.

Barriers

Community connection: Residents had mixed views on community cohesion in the area. In general, those who had lived in the area for a long time or had long-term family connections in the area felt a stronger sense of connection and community, whilst others described how people they knew had moved away which limited their sense of connection. Stakeholders felt that there is a lack of pride in the area, particularly for younger people, and that people don’t connect with others who live nearby and in surrounding areas.

Barriers to attending groups, activities, and events: Although stakeholders identified a variety of groups and events in Torquay, residents were not aware of, or did not attend them. Stakeholders felt that the timing and cost of activities limited peoples’ engagement with them, and that venues in which activities are held are off-putting due to the requirement to travel to them and their lack of upkeep.

Seasonality: Residents felt that the seasonal nature of jobs and events in Torquay, driven by tourism, impacted their social connections. Residents reported that there are fewer available groups and activities during winter months. They also highlighted how some people live there for short periods in summer months due to work availability and therefore don’t form local connections, and housing bought and used as holiday homes are unoccupied for long periods which limits social connections in the area. They also emphasised that it was more difficult to use green spaces to connect with others in the winter months due to the weather.

It’s like in the summer there seems to be everything. It’s like the place comes alive; there is everything all rammed into a few months, and then as soon as September kicks in and the nights start getting darker, it’s like everyone shuts up their shop and that’s it

– Focus group participant (Torquay)

Interventions and/or solutions that can help/are helping to support social connection

Residents highlighted potential interventions that could aid social connection.
Although there are groups and activities available, residents felt that more advertising of groups would boost social connection by increasing awareness of what is available.
Residents acknowledged that although there has been some investment in the town centre, particularly around the harbour, they felt that further investment in street lighting and bins in the area would boost feelings of safety and make spaces more appealing.
Stakeholders highlighted interventions that had been implemented to aid social connection.

Bus provision: One community organisation took over a bus service when public transport provision was reduced to maintain social connection for local people otherwise unable to get out of their homes.

Ideas fair: A community organisation ran an ‘ideas fair’ to collaborate with local residents regarding ideas for activities and groups, which was well attended and gave good insight into ideas from residents to boost social connection, for instance generating ideas for new groups.

Lounge project: A lounge opened on Fleet Street, run by a local community organisation, as a drop-in service for people experiencing loneliness and wanting to build social connection. The lounge facilitated residents meeting each other and provided a safe place for other meetings, such as for social workers meeting local residents. One stakeholder interviewed felt that the intervention was successful at generating lasting friendships for some residents in Torquay.

Boom Bus project: A “Boom Bus”, an initiative from a local charity, is a bus which acts as a mobile music studio and travels around the area to provide young people with activities and connection. Stakeholders highlighted that part of the success of the project is that the bus travels to young people’s local area which allows people who prefer to stay within their area to take part.

Facilitators to interventions

Residents highlighted existing networks of groups and activities in the area that could be built on and felt that awareness about existing provision could be increased. One community organisation also writes a column providing information about local events.

Stakeholders expressed that they had good working relationships with other stakeholders, including the local authority. Stakeholders found that involving the local community, giving agency, and encouraging residents to take ownership of initiatives resulted in successful interventions with a focus on social connection (such as the lounge on Fleet Street).

[From the lounge initiative] there were a lot of social connections made and so people made real friendships, like real friendships, and they are still friends

– Stakeholder (Torquay)

Barriers to interventions

Stakeholders recognised that the insecurity of funding for VCSE organisations was a barrier to the delivery of interventions and felt that organisations were reluctant to grow due to funding uncertainty. Infrastructure in Torquay was also identified as a barrier to interventions involving social groups and activities; stakeholders described the area as badly connected (meaning it is difficult to travel to activities) and felt that available venues are run down, meaning that residents are often reluctant to spend time in them.

Question 9

Appendix B: Methodology

Accepted Answer

Overview of methodology

The research took a qualitative approach to data collection and consisted of three strands:

Six focus groups with people with experience of loneliness in three local areas of high deprivation (two focus groups were conducted in each area);
10 qualitative interviews with local stakeholders from the same three local areas; and
A workshop with central and local government stakeholders.

Selection of geographical areas

In collaboration with the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), we selected three areas within both the 20 Levelling Up Partnerships Areas ^{[footnote 55]} and the Long-Term Plan for Towns. ^{[footnote 56]} The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which measures relative levels of deprivation at the Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOA) level across England, ^{[footnote 57]} as well as on the ground intelligence from MHCLG, also informed area selection. In addition, areas were selected based on their geographical properties to explore the relationship between social connection and physical and social structural factors influenced by geographical features in rural, urban, and semi-urban areas. This resulted in the following three areas for exploration:

Castleford (Wakefield, West Yorkshire);
Oldham (Greater Manchester): Alexandra, Hollinwood, Medlock and St. Mary’s wards; and
Torquay (Devon).

This process ensured that focus groups and stakeholder interviews were held in policy priority areas of overall high deprivation, which also have specific challenges relating to areas of interest (e.g. the living environment).

Recruitment, Sampling, and Data Collection

Focus groups

Six focus groups, each with 6-8 participants, were conducted to explore experiences of loneliness and building social connections in each local area, with a focus on the role of physical and social structural factors. Two focus groups were conducted in each of the three selected areas. Focus groups were conducted in March 2024 online via Microsoft Teams. All focus groups lasted up to 90 minutes and were facilitated by an experienced researcher, with additional staff to support.

Participants were primarily sampled on location (residing in one of the three selected local areas), experience of loneliness, and age. Participants’ experience of loneliness was measured using the ONS measures, ^{[footnote 58]} comprised of the UCLA Loneliness Scale and direct measures of loneliness. In order to ensure that participants of focus groups shared some key characteristics, one focus group in each area was conducted with participants aged 18-40 and the other with participants over 41. Demographic factors (ethnicity, socio-economic status, living arrangements, and relationship status) were monitored to ensure that the research involved people with a diverse range of experiences. Research participants were recruited via a trusted recruitment agency, Criteria. Criteria contacted potential participants from their databases and conducted a screening process to ensure that participants were eligible to be included in the research. Table 1 below shows the numbers and demographics of focus group participants.

Table 1: Focus group participants

Attribute	Sample	Number of participants
Local area	Castleford	16
	Oldham	13
	Torquay	14
Age	16-25	3
	26-49	30
	50-65	8
	Over 65	2
Ethnicity	Asian, Asian British, Asian Welsh	3
	Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	1
	Mixed or multiple	2
	White	37
	Other ethnic group	0
Socioeconomic status	Received free school meals	11
	Did not receive free school meals	26
	Not applicable/did not answer	6
Living arrangements	Lives alone	9
	Lives with other(s)	34
Relationship status	Single, never married	34
	Married or civil partnership	19
	Partnered	7
	Widowed	2
	Divorced	4
	Separated	0

Stakeholder interviews

10 in-depth interviews were conducted with local stakeholders working for the local government and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations from the selected areas who had a role in the local physical or social environment (see Table 2). Interviews provided insight into influences of physical and social structural factors on social connections in local areas and interventions that have been tried to support social connection. Interviews with local stakeholders were conducted in March and April 2024 and took place either over the phone or online via Microsoft Teams. Interviews lasted up to 60 minutes and were completed by an experienced researcher from The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) or RSM UK Consulting (RSM). Participants were sampled based on their responsibilities and location (from one of the three selected local areas), using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Organisations or individuals were approached independently by NatCen and RSM and invited to take part; some details of relevant organisations were provided by DCMS.

Table 2: Local stakeholder participants

Organisation	Achieved sample
Local government/those responsible for statutory duties	2
Charities and local community organisations	8

National stakeholder workshop

One workshop was conducted with nine central and local government stakeholders with responsibilities related to the physical and social environments (e.g. transport, communities, anti-social behaviour). The workshop aimed to gain an understanding of how findings from focus groups and stakeholder interviews could be generalised to the wider population, including the role and responsibilities of central government in interventions to improve social connection. All participants were sampled based on their responsibilities in relation to the physical and social environments and identified through consultation with DCMS. The national stakeholder workshop was conducted in April 2024, took place online via Microsoft Teams, and lasted 90 minutes.

Data collection

Topic guides for both the focus groups and local stakeholder interviews were developed in collaboration with RSM and DCMS. The topic guides were used to outline key topics for discussion during the respective fieldwork and were in place to ensure that the approach and discussion were consistent across interviews and focus groups, whilst remaining open and participant-led. The respective topic guides for focus groups and interviews were based on the defined research questions and areas of interest to this research/ For example, social and physical structural factors, interventions to these areas, and facilitators or barriers to relative interventions.

Data analysis

All areas of fieldwork (focus groups, local stakeholder interviews, and national stakeholder workshop) were audio recorded with consent from participants and were subsequently transcribed. Data was analysed and managed using the ‘Framework’ approach, [59^] whereby a framework was used to represent individual focus groups or interviews in each row. Each column then represented a research question, sub-question, or theme. Through this method, data was grouped and could be analysed and presented thematically to explore the full range of views and experiences expressed in all work strands.

This report does not present numerical findings, since qualitative research cannot support numerical analysis. Instead, the qualitative findings present in-depth insights into the diverse range of views and experiences of participants, influenced by demographic and life experiences, with verbatim quotes used to illustrate insights.

Ethics

This study was approved by NatCen’s Research Ethics Committee. With regards to ethics, particular attention was paid to:

Sensitivity of research topics – The topic of loneliness was potentially sensitive and had the potential to raise difficult or upsetting feelings for participants. As such, the research team sought to reduce any risk of psychological harm for those taking part. All participants received an information sheet which outlined the purpose of the research and nature of topics covered. All participants were additionally informed of what would happen to participant data. Participants were informed and reminded of their right to withdraw from the research, and that they did not have to answer questions which they did not want to. Participants were provided with signposting information for support organisations and helplines to contact should the subject matter have prompted distress.
Informed staged consent to take part – Participants were made aware during all stages of recruitment and fieldwork, verbally and in writing, of their right to withdraw at any time and that participation was voluntary. Consent to take part was recorded as part of fieldwork recordings and participants were asked after participation for consent to include quotes in reporting.
Inclusivity of participation – Sampling of participants ensured a diverse group took part in the research. In addition, participants were offered options to ensure that participation was suitable and convenient, including mode of participation (telephone or Microsoft Teams). In addition, focus groups were conducted in the evening. Participants of focus groups were offered an incentive as a thank you and in recognition of their time.

Question 10

Footnotes

Accepted Answer

Barreto M., Qualter P., and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Metropolitan Police. (n.d.). What is antisocial behaviour? Available at: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/asb/asb/antisocial-behaviour/what-is-antisocial-behaviour/#:~:text=Antisocial%20behaviour%20is%20defined%20as,and%20Social%20Responsibility%20Act%202011%20) [Accessed on 30th April 2024] ↩
Environment Agency. (2024). Blue Space Forum: Health and Inequalities project. Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-wellbeing-benefits-of-blue-space-lived-experience [Accessed on 1st May 2024] ↩
Barreto M., Qualter P., and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Pichère, P. and Cadiat, A.C. (2015). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Lemaitre. ↩
Shelter. (2009). Housing Tenure. Shelter. Available from: https://assets.ctfassets.net/6sxvmndnpn0s/3ItVcFISulAoIndrpGMHN5/d7cfe6fc2bc609dae702c091c6f302ce/Factsheet_Housing_tenure.pdf [Accessed on 30th April 2024] ↩
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. (2019). The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019) Statistical Release. Ministry of Housing, Communities, & Local Government. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8e26f6ed915d5570c6cc55/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Drawing on Perlman, D. and Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal Relationships: 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31-56). London. ↩
Census 2021. (n.d.). Statistical geographies. Office for National Statistics. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/statisticalgeographies#:~:text=Lower%20layer%20Super%20Output%20Areas%20(LSOAs)%20are%20made%20up%20of,between%201%2C000%20and%203%2C000%20persons. [Accessed on 30th April 2024] ↩
Bockman J. (2013). Neolibralism. Contexts, 12(3), 14-15. ↩
Barretto et al. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf ↩
GOV.UK. (2015). Defining rural areas using the rural urban classification. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/defining-rural-areas [Accessed on 30/04/2024] ↩
Barretto et al. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf ↩
Government Statistical Service. (2017). The 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Output Areas in England. Government Statistical Service. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/610c08e4d3bf7f044024465a/RUCOA_leaflet_Jan2017.pdf [Accessed on 30th April 2024] ↩
Barreto M., Qualter P. and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Perlman, D. and Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal Relationships: 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31-56). London. ↩
Holt‐Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., and Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7). ↩
Nuyen, J., Tuithof, M., De Graaf, R., Van Dorsselaer, S., Kleinjan, M., and Have, M. T. (2019). The bidirectional relationship between loneliness and common mental disorders in adults: findings from a longitudinal population-based cohort study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(10), 1297-1310. ↩
Mann, F., Wang, J., Pearce, E., Ma, R., Schlief, M., Lloyd‐Evans, B., Ikhtabi, S., and Johnson, S. (2022). Loneliness and the onset of new mental health problems in the general population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 57(11), 2161-2178. ↩
Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. (2022). Mental health and loneliness: the relationship across life stages. The National Centre for Social Research on behalf of Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-health-and-loneliness-the-relationship-across-life-stages/mental-health-and-loneliness-the-relationship-across-life-stages [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. (2018). A connected society, a strategy for tackling loneliness – laying the foundations for change. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-connected-society-a-strategy-for-tackling-loneliness [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Qualter P., Arseneault L., Barreto M., Fett A., Hey N., Johnson S., Kharicha K., Matthews T., McDaid D., Pearce E., Pitman A., and Victor C. (2023). Tackling loneliness evidence review: main report. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Barreto M., Qualter P., and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Qualter P., Arseneault L., Barreto M., Fett A., Hey N., Johnson S., Kharicha K., Matthews T., McDaid D., Pearce E., Pitman A., and Victor C. (2023). Tackling loneliness evidence review. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Zylva P., Gordon-Smith C. and Childs M. (2020). England’s Green Space Gap. Friends of the Earth. Available at: https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/englands-green-space-gap [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
The Countryside Charity. (2022). Local Green Space, a tool for people and nature’s wellbeing. The Countryside Charity. Available at: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Feb-2022_CPRE_Local-Green-Spaces-full-report-1.pdf [Accessed on 3rd May 2024] ↩
The Countryside Charity. (2023). Local Green Spaces 2023. The Countryside Charity. Available at: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Local-Green-Spaces-report.pdf [Accessed on 3rd May 2023] ↩
Zandieh, R., Martínez, J. and Flacke, J. (2019). Older adults’ outdoor walking and inequalities in neighbourhood green spaces characteristics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4379. ↩
Department for Transport. (2023). Reported road casualties Great Britain: Casualties and deprivation. Department for Transport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-casualties-and-deprivation-factsheet-england/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-casualties-and-deprivation#:~:text=In%20each%20of%20the%20last,years%20from%202018%20to%202022 [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Lucas K., Stokes G., Bastiaanssen J. and Burkinshaw J. (2019). Inequalities in Mobility and Access in the UK Transport System, Future of Mobility: Evidence Review. Government Office for Science. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784685/future_of_mobility_access.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
APPG for Left Behind Neighbourhoods. (2021) Connecting communities: improving transport to get ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods back on track. APPG for Left Behind Neighbourhoods. Available at: https://www.appg-leftbehindneighbourhoods.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APPG_LBN_Connecting-Communities_HD-1.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Gates S., Gogescu F., Grollman C., Cooper E. and Khambhaita P. (2019). Transport and inequality: An evidence review for the Department for Transport. Department for Transport. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60080f728fa8f50d8f210fbe/Transport_and_inequality_report_document.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2023). Our Long-Term Plan for Towns. Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-long-term-plan-for-towns/our-long-term-plan-for-towns#our-long-term-plan-for-towns [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Barreto M., Qualter P., and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M. and Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed.). Sage. ↩
Qualter P., Arseneault L., Barreto M., Fett A., Hey N., Johnson S., Kharicha K., Matthews T., McDaid D., Pearce E., Pitman A. and Victor C. (2023). Tackling loneliness evidence review: Main report. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Local Government Association. (n.d.) Service-specific policy areas. Local Government Association. Available at: https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/councillor-and-officer-development/councillor-hub/lga-support-councillors/service#:~:text=Local%20government%20plays%20a%20crucial,special%20educational%20needs%20and%20disabilities [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Paths for all. (n.d.). About Active Travel, Increasing levels of active travel can bring huge benefits to our communities, health and environment. Paths for all. Available at: https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/about-active-travel#:~:text=Active%20travel%20simply%20means%20making,)%2C%20cycling%2C%20or%20scootering [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Wendelboe-Nelson, C., Kelly, S., Kennedy, M. and Cherrie, J. (2019). A Scoping Review Mapping Research on Green Space and Associated Mental Health Benefits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(12), 2081. ↩
Environment Agency. (2024). Blue Space Forum: Health and Inequalities project. Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-wellbeing-benefits-of-blue-space-lived-experience [Accessed on 1st May 2024] ↩
Wakefield Council. (n.d.) Castleford connections. Available at: https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/regeneration/the-towns/castleford/castleford-connections [Accessed on 3rd May 2024] ↩
The Chatty Café Scheme. (n.d.). The Chatty Café Scheme. Available at: https://thechattycafescheme.co.uk/ [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Qualter P., Arseneault L., Barreto M., Fett A., Hey N., Johnson S., Kharicha K., Matthews T., McDaid D., Pearce E., Pitman A. and Victor C. (2023). Tackling loneliness evidence review: main report. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Although participants did not directly reference it, this could be referring to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. For more information, see Maslow, A.H. (1943). “A Theory of Human Motivation”. In Psychological Review, 50 (4), 430-437. ↩
Community Fund. (n.d.). Million Hours. Available at: https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/funding/programmes/million-hours [Accessed on 2nd May 2024] ↩
Barreto M., Qualter P., and Doyle D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. Available at: https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. (2019). The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019) Statistical Release. Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8e26f6ed915d5570c6cc55/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Home Office. (2023). Anti-social behaviour: impacts on individuals and local communities. Home Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impacts-of-anti-social-behaviour-on-individuals-and-communities/anti-social-behaviour-impacts-on-individuals-and-local-communities [Accessed on 3rd May 2024] ↩
Communications and Digital Committee, House of Lords. (2023). Digital Exclusion. House of Lords. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40662/documents/198365/default/ [Accessed on 3rd May 2024] ↩
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2024). Castleford Local Data Profile 2024. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6603f671c34a860011be7634/Castleford.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
The figure represents the population based on data collected in the 2021 census. ↩
Census 2021. (2023). How life has changed in Oldham: Census 2021. Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/E08000004 [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
The Chatty Café Scheme. (n.d.). The Chatty Café Scheme. Available at: https://thechattycafescheme.co.uk/ [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2024). Torquay – local data profile. Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604489bf9ab41001aeea41f/Torquay.pdf [Accessed 29th April 2024] ↩
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2023). Levelling Up Partnerships: methodology note. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-partnerships-methodology-note/levelling-up-partnerships-methodology-note [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2023). Our Long-Term Plan for Towns. Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-long-term-plan-for-towns/our-long-term-plan-for-towns#our-long-term-plan-for-towns [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. (2019). The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019) Statistical Release. Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8e26f6ed915d5570c6cc55/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩
Office for National Statistics. (2018). Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys. Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/measuringlonelinessguidanceforuseofthenationalindicatorsonsurveys [Accessed on 29th April 2024] ↩

Research about connecting with others via the local physical and social environment

Applies to England

Glossary

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Role of local and central government stakeholders

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the research

1.2 Research aims

1.3 Methods and participants

1.4 Analysis and interpretation of findings

1.5 Structure of the report

2. Structural factors and the physical environment

2.1 Features of the physical environments

4. Discussion and recommendations

4.1 Summary of findings

4.3 Structural factor interventions and local/central government involvement

4.4 Limitations and recommendations

Authors

Appendix A: Case Studies

Appendix B: Methodology

Footnotes

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England

Glossary

Executive Summary

Key Findings

How physical structural factors influence social connection and loneliness

How social structural factors influence social connection and loneliness

The relationships between social connection and physical and social environments

Role of local and central government stakeholders

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the research

1.2 Research aims

1.3 Methods and participants

1.4 Analysis and interpretation of findings

1.5 Structure of the report

2. Structural factors and the physical environment

2.1 Features of the physical environments

2.2 The role of local physical environments in building social connection

2.3 Interventions relating to the physical environment to support social connection

3. Structural factors and the social environment

3.1 Features of social environments

3.2 The role of local social environments in building social connection

4. Discussion and recommendations

4.1 Summary of findings

4.2 The role of area deprivation on social connection

4.3 Structural factor interventions and local/central government involvement

4.4 Limitations and recommendations

Authors

Appendix A: Case Studies

Appendix B: Methodology

Footnotes

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK