DEGREE PROJECT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2021
Lonely places Investigating the impact of environmental factors on loneliness and social isolation
DANIEL BOTHA
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Degree Project in the Built Environment Second Cycle, 30 Credits Stockholm, Sweden, 2021
Lonely places
investigating the impact of environmental factors on loneliness and social isolation
by Daniel Botha
Degree Project in Urban and Regional Planning, Second Cycle, AG212X, 30 credits
Supervisor: Jing Jing Examiner: Andrew Karvonen
Department of Urban Planning and Environment. Division of Urban and Regional Studies School of Architecture and the Built Environment. KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Abstract:
Loneliness is increasingly understood as a significant physical and mental health concern in modern society. Yet studies of the subject typically characterise it as resulting entirely from subjective individual characteristics and circumstances. The impact of broader living environments is under- studied, leaving disciplines such as urban planning with little guidance as to how environmental intervention strategies might best ameliorate loneliness. This paper uses Stockholm as a case study for asking two place-based questions: (1) what can our knowledge of loneliness risk factors tell us about the possible spatial distribution of loneliness in cities? (2) what influence does the built environment itself have on loneliness? An abductive approach is used to test different ways in which urban planners might map risk of loneliness and social isolation in different neighbourhoods. The results shed light on spatial segregation as a potential contributing factor, with implications for planning practice.
Sammanfattning:
I det moderna samhället uppfattas ensamhet som en alltmer betydande faktor för fysisk och mental hälsa. Trots det framställer studier i ämnet det som en följd av subjektiva individuella egenskaper och omständigheter. Effekterna av den externa levnadsmiljön är understuderad i relation till ensamhet, vilket lämnar discipliner som stadsplanering med bristande kunskap om hur man bäst kan minska ensamheten genom strategier för förändringar i den fysiska miljön. Denna uppsats använder Stockholm som en fallstudie för att ställa två platsbaserade frågor (1) vad kan vår kunskap om riskfaktorer för ensamhet säga om den potentiella rumsliga fördelningen av ensamhet i städer? (2) vilken påverkan har den byggda miljön på ensamhet? En abduktiv metod har använts för att testa olika sätt som stadsplanerare kan kartlägga risken för ensamhet och social isolering inom olika stadsdelar. Resultaten belyser rumslig segregering som en potentiellt bidragande faktor, vilket ger konsekvenser för planeringsutövning.
Keywords:
Loneliness, social isolation, loneliness mapping, loneliness risk factors, environmental intervention strategies, social infrastructure, co-presence.
Table of contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………… 1
2. Background & literature review ….....………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 2.1 Research gap: impact of environment on loneliness .….…....……...... ………………………………... 3 2.2 Definition & overview of loneliness ………….………………………...…………………………………...... 5 2.3 The importance of environmental interventions ……….…….………………………….………..……….. 8 2.4 Public spaces to facilitate social interaction ………………………………..….………………..……….….. 10 2.5 Loneliness risk groups …………………………………….…………………..…………………………………..……. 13
3. Theoretical framework …………………………………………………….…………………………….…………………… 20 4.1 Social fragmentation ...... ………………………………..…...... 20 4.2 Public space as social infrastructure ……………..………….……………………………………..…………… 24 4.3 Co-presence / geographies of encounter ..………….…………...……………………..…………………….. 26 4.4 Common features ...... 26
4. Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……… 27
5. Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……… 32 5.1 Geospatial analysis - identifying lonely places using census data …………....…………….………. 32 5.2 Desktop study - identifying lonely places using space syntax analysis ………….…………...... 36 5.3 Expert interviews ……………...…………..……………………………………………………………………..………. 40
6. Discussion & analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 45 6.1 Common themes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45 6.2 Definitional implications …………..…..…………………………………….………….....…….….……….……… 45 6.3 Methodological implications ……..……………………………………..……….………………..……..….……… 47 6.4 Implications for practice …...……………………………………………….…..…………………………….……… 48 6.5y Stud limitations and proposals for further studies ………....…………………….……..……...………. 50
7. Conclusions …...... ……....…………………….……..……...……… 51
References ………...…………………………………………………………………………………………...... 53 Annexures …..…………..………………………………..……………………………………………………...... 65 1. Introduction
The last two decades have seen evidence of increasing social isolation and loneliness in society (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). The magnitude of the problem remains a topic of debate. Yet there is concern regarding the impact of contemporary societal trends, such as ageing populations and a shift from physical socialising to interaction on social media (Mullins, 2007; Wilson & Moulton, 2010). Our understanding of loneliness as a public health problem extends beyond mental health concerns to its substantial impact on physical health. It is associated with a 26% increase in the risk of premature mortality - equivalent to smoking fifteen cigarettes per day (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018; Holt-Lunstad, 2010). As a public health concern, loneliness can be recognised not just as a problem for the individual, but also a wider societal issue. An understanding of the broader causes and effective intervention strategies is vital. The multifaceted nature of loneliness means that any strategy for tackling loneliness will have to incorporate insights from a large variety of disciplines, with each playing its small part (UK Government, 2018, p. 6).
Studies typically characterise loneliness as a problem of the individual - based on individual characteristics and circumstances (Mullins, 2007). The impact of broader living environments on loneliness is rare (Victor & Pikhartova, 2020). The literature review suggests that the topic is rarely considered within the field of urban planning. Some recent studies have however sought to study neighbourhood characteristics (primarily census data) to identify ‘hotspots’ where the risk of loneliness is higher (ibid; Dorling et al. 2008; Age UK, 2015a). Yet these have only been conducted in the UK and are typically based on studies of the elderly - an important demographic but by no means the only loneliness risk group. As will be shown, they also tend to provide little insight into the ways in which the built environment itself might affect loneliness - a crucial insight for understanding how we might plan for less lonely cities (Victor & Pikhartova, 2020). The aim of this paper is therefore to investigate methods for assessing lonely places, one which provides more guidance for possible planning interventions. The city of Stockholm, Sweden, is used as a case-study.
Overall then, this paper will consider two related questions. Firstly, what can our knowledge of loneliness risk factors tell us about the potential spatial distribution of loneliness in cities? Secondly, what influence does the built environment itself have on loneliness? Intervention strategies for loneliness have traditionally focused on psychology and counselling - involving therapy or coaching at the individual or group level (Mullins, 2007). Less targeted social disciplines, such as architecture and planning, instead lend themselves to environmental approaches. These seek to proactively design the environment so as to facilitate social interaction - enhancing the ‘web of sociability’ (Hochschild, 1973). Studying the relationship between loneliness and the built environment can assist such disciplines in understanding how and where to focus interventions. This is needed, as current research on public meeting spaces have tended to prioritise hands-on practice and urban design features at the expense of research on where such places would best be situated (Aelbrecht 2016). In emphasising the role of the surrounding environment in facilitating social interactions and network building, the approach draws on aspects of environmental possibilism and theories of social infrastructure (Fekadu, 2014; Klinenberg, 2018). More broadly, by linking loneliness to capacity for interaction with wider society, the paper will situate loneliness within broader debates concerning the impacts of inequality and segregation in cities.
1 introduction
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section will provide some background on loneliness - what insight does current research provide regarding its general causes and effective counter-strategies? It considers the importance of public spaces in facilitating social engagement and notes what the literature suggests are the most effective public space qualities in this regard. It highlights recent studies suggesting loneliness is not merely a concern for the elderly and those living alone, but also a question of access to resources, such as adequate income and healthcare services (D’Hombres et al. 2018; Walker et al. 2020; ). Chapter three considers a number of theoretical frameworks that can help us understand the ways in which public spaces can mitigate loneliness in society - social fragmentation, social infrastructure and co-presence. All three speak, in different ways, totheir role in fostering inclusion and encouraging interaction across geographical and cultural differences (Klinenberg, 2018; Legeby & Marcus, 2011). In chapters four and five, these insights will be used to test and assess different ways of identifying ‘lonely places’ in the context of Stockholm. Dorling et al.’s (2008) loneliness mapping based on census data will be recreated and a number of shortcomings identified. An alternative means of mapping will be proposed, one grounded in spatial connectivity and an analysis of the ways in which certain neighbourhoods are spatially disconnected from the city at large - contributing to the isolation of their residents from wider society (Legeby & Marcus, 2011; Rokem & Vaughan, 2020). This will be supported with interviews from three built environment practitioners in order to assess insights and knowledge gaps from the field. Before concluding, chapter six will discuss the conceptual and practical implications of these findings.
Thesis Aim and Research Questions:
Given how under-studied loneliness is within built environment disciplines, the aim of this paper is to find pathways for how urban planners might conceptualise and respond to loneliness as an element of social sustainability. This is investigated through two research questions:
1. What can our knowledge of loneliness risk factors tell us about the possible spatial distribution of loneliness in cities?
2. What influence does the built environment itself have on loneliness?
While the first speaks to correlation of loneliness risk groups in certain areas, the latter goes a step further, in seeking to understand causation – i.e. what role urban form and public space itself can play in either contributing to, or mitigating, loneliness and social isolation.
2 2. Background & literature review
2.1 Research gap: impact of environment on loneliness
Intervention strategies for loneliness typically take one of three forms. Individual approaches focus on various types of one-on-on therapies and friendly visitor programs. Group approaches work with specific target groups, typically to help develop skills required to initiate social contact. Finally, Environmental approaches work to adapt the surrounding environment in a way that fosters social interaction and network building, whether intentional or otherwise - thus working to enhance what Hochschild (1973) terms ‘the web of sociability’ (Mullins, 2007). It is Environmental intervention strategies, self-evidently, where fields such as urban planning and design can most clearly play a role.
Environmental intervention strategies require a place-based analysis of loneliness, focusing on the impact that particular environments have on loneliness, not on the pathological identification and treatment of specific individuals, more common in the fields of psychology and pathology. Focus is therefore on identifying ‘lonely places’, not lonely people (Victor & Pikhartova, 2020). Yet loneliness is rarely considered as an element of social sustainability within urban planning. Only a few place-based loneliness studies have been conducted – mostly emanating from the field of public health.
Researchers in the UK have recently attempted to use our understanding of loneliness risk groups to map so-called loneliness ‘hotspots’. Rather than analysing something as transient and intangible as loneliness itself, they use data on demographic and neighbourhood characteristics to measure relative risk of loneliness. Hotspots indicate where the risk of loneliness is highest according to the index used. Depending on scale, these might be regions, local government or even individual neighbourhoods. The use of indices based on area census data is common in epidemiology and public health (Smith et al. 2001). They are applicable in a number of circumstances, including where the primary analytic interest lies in the health impacts of particular characteristics of places of residence (MacIntyre et al. 1993). This makes them appropriate for loneliness mapping. In theory, loneliness mapping can serve as a tool to improve the allocation of limited resources and interventions to reduce loneliness across a geographic area - ensuring that these resources are targeted to areas of greatest need (Age UK, 2020).1
To date, at least three such cases of loneliness mapping have been attempted. Dorling et al. (2008) at the University of Sheffield have attempted to map loneliness hotspots across the entire UK population. As will be discussed in section 3.1, below, the authors see loneliness as resulting from social fragmentation in cities, and use an index based on factors which they see as evidence of such fragmentation.
1 Loneliness mapping is a form of ecological study, with data analysed at the population or group level, rather than the individual level (Levin, 2006). One shortcoming of this is a risk of reverse-causation, with sufferers choosing to live in these ‘hotspots’, rather than being negatively affected by the places themselves (Whitley et al. 1999). In this regard, the possibility exists to subsequently support such studies with longitudinal studies, in order to help clarify the relative im- portance of area- versus individual characteristics (Whitley et al. 1999). Indeed, this is beginning to take place in more recent studies - see the Age UK (2015). 3 background & literature review
The charity Age UK has also attempted to create an index to predict the prevalence of loneliness amongst the elderly in different parts of the UK (2015a). Unlike in the previous study, the Age UK researchers were able to base their studies on a rich source of survey data. The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) is an ongoing study that, since 2002, has collected multidisciplinary data from a representative sample of England’s population aged 50 and older - over 18,000 people to date (ELSA, 2021). Regression analysis could therefore be conducted to formally test the relationship between loneliness and a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic factors.2 The four factors that were found to best predict loneliness were marital status (divorced/separated), household size (single- person), age (75-79) and self-reported health-status (poor). These factors predicted around 20% of the loneliness observed amongst those aged 65 or older, but it is not clear to what extent they are equally appropriate for predicting loneliness amongst the wider population.
Most recently, researchers at Brunel University London, have attempted to more directly study the role of the broader living environment on loneliness. They note that the previous studies are only based on census data in different areas, and therefore do not speak directly to the impact of particularly environmental characteristics themselves on loneliness (Victor & Pikhartova, 2020). They useda sample consisting of 4,663 core members selected from waves 3 and 7 of ELSA to test the impact of three environmental factors - deprivation, geographical region and area classification (urban or rural). Deprivation was the only factor that had a significant relationship to loneliness, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas. They highlight the need for further research to investigate the interrelationship between area-level factors and individual-level loneliness vulnerability measures. They note that current interventions for loneliness focused on individuals show little evidence of effectiveness, and posit that reducing deprivation may be an effective way to reduce loneliness.3
The study measured deprivation using the UK government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which provides a score based on seven sub-factors - namely Income; Employment; Education, Skills and Training; Health Deprivation and Disability; Crime; Barriers to Housing and Services; and Living Environment (ODPM, 2004). It is these final two factors that give credence to the view that loneliness is indeed influenced by built environmental characteristics of different areas - as they speak to, inter alia, quality of outdoor and indoor environments and access to housing and other basic services.4 This paper accordingly seeks to build on these early insights. It considers in more detail the relationship between loneliness and environmental characteristics. This is done in particular with the helpof theories regarding the important social function that public spaces can provide.
2 Including Age, Gender, Marital Status, Household size, Tenure, Health Status, Pet Ownership, Difficulty in perform- ing activities of daily living, Hearing, Eyesight, and Local Area Deprivation. 3 Again, the use of only ELSA participants means the effects of deprivation on individuals under 50 is less clear. 4 The sub-barriers for Barriers to Housing and Services are (1) Wider Barriers (factors - Household overcrowding; share of applications for assistance under the homeless provisions; and Difficulty ofAccess to owner-occupation) and (2) Geographical Barriers (factors - road distance to GP / Supermarket or convenience store / primary school / post office). The sub-domains for Living Environment are (1) indoor living environment (factors - social and private housing in poor condition; houses lacking central heating) and (2) outdoors living environment (factors - air quality and road traffic acci- dents injuring pedestrians or cyclists).
4 background & literature review
2.2 Definition & overview of loneliness
Loneliness is a widely recognised concept. Yet it is notoriously difficult to adequately define or measure, its causes and treatments even more so. Most academic studies on the subject stress the distinction between loneliness and being alone (Cacioppo, 2018). The two are oftentimes not significantly correlated (Perissinotto & Covinsky, 2014). Conflation of the two concepts has often led to misguided attempts to address loneliness in the wrong fashion (Khazan, 2017). In the past, different approaches have seen loneliness categorised into eight different conceptualisations which differ in their views on the nature and causes of loneliness - who is affected, is it a phenomenon that requires treatment, and how such treatment should be effected (Perlman & Peplau, 1982). The most complete and research-stimulating conceptualisations view loneliness as an aversive (i.e. unpleasant) feeling, widely experienced in society, and influenced by a combination of societal and individual factors. These conceptions appear to have had the greatest influence on our contemporary understanding of the subject. A typical definition of loneliness would therefore define it as a psycho-social condition stemming from a variety of factors, most commonly a combination of social and emotional isolation, (Weiss, 1973). While social isolation is an objectively measurable fact related to the size and strength of one’s social network, emotional isolation is an entirely subjective feeling about the strength of one’s connections (ibid). However, the experience of loneliness is itself entirely subjective, with each person requiring their own specific level and quality of social contact to avoid feeling lonely (ibid).
More recently, Hertz, in her book The Lonely Century (2020) has argued persuasively for an updated definition. This is centred less around feeling loved and cared for by our immediate connections - partners, friends and family. Instead, drawing on the work of thinkers like Marx, Durkheim and Arendt, she situates much of contemporary loneliness in feeling disconnected from, and unsupported by, wider society - our fellow citizens, our employers, our communities, our governments. She supports this with a variety of studies pointing to a lack of engagement and trust in society - the high share of workers who report feeling disconnected from their work (Gallup, 2017), the growing number of individuals who report not trusting their fellow citizens (NORC, 2018), and the substantial risk of loneliness found amongst those who had been subject to racial, ethnic or xenophobic discrimination at work in their home neighbourhood (British Red Cross, 2019). She also posits that increased inequality and segregation, leading more people to feel ‘left behind’, are in turn also leading to increased disaffection and loneliness. This paper will draw heavily on Hertz’s definition, which sees loneliness as being as much an existential state as an internal one.
Loneliness is complicated by the fact that it manifests in various forms. Chronic loneliness refers to persistent deficiencies which people experience in their social relationships for a period of longer than two years. This is in contrast to transient loneliness, which is felt occasionally and is therefore far more common. Finally, situational loneliness is caused by a specific crisis, such as a major physical injury or the loss of a partner. These forms can also blur into one another, such as when a major life crisis causes one to retreat further and further within one’s self over time - situational loneliness thus developing into chronic loneliness over time (Young, 1982).
5 background & literature review
While such micro-social perspectives on loneliness emphasise its different types and causes on an individual level, macro-social perspectives emphasise the influence that cultural and sociological specificities have on loneliness within particular societies. Loneliness is influenced by a disconnect between our expectations of the nature and strength of our social connections and their actual form (Perlman & Peplau, 1982), and such expectations are heavily influenced by the societies in which we are raised (Mullins, 2007). What kinds of social contact are seen as normal, expected or desirable? Until recently, there has been a dearth of cross-cultural comparative work considering what is culturally specific and what is socially and psychologically generalisable between societies (ibid).5
There are two commonly used scales for measuring feelings of loneliness - the most well-known UCLA Scale (Russel D et al. 1980) and the De Jong Gierveld Scale (De Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985). Each takes a cognitive approach, requiring participants to answer a series of questions such as ‘I feel isolated from others’ on a scale of certainty - often, sometimes, rarely or never. In order to ensure more accurate and balanced results, explicit questions about loneliness are avoided (due to the widespread stigma of admitting loneliness). For the same reason, the De Jong Gierveld scale also uses a combination of positively and negatively framed questions (Mullins, 2007). The UCLA scale is included as Annexure 1, while the De Jong Gierveld Scale, which is included as table 1, below.
Table 1: De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale
Answer: Yes! [ ] Yes [ ] More or less [ ] No [ ] No! [ ]
Emotional loneliness subscale Social loneliness subscale
1. There is always someone I can talk to about my 1. day-to-day problems 1. There is always someone I can talk to about my 2. I miss having a really close friend day-to-day problems 3. I experience a general sense of emptiness 2. I miss having a really close friend 4. There are plenty of people I can rely on when I 3. I experience a general sense of emptiness have problems 4. There are plenty of people I can rely on when I 5. I miss the pleasure of the company of others have problems 6. I find my circle of friends and acquaintances too 5. I miss the pleasure of the company of others limited 6. I find my circle of friends and acquaintances too 7. There are many people I can trust completely limited 8. There are enough people I feel close to 7. There are many people I can trust completely 9. I miss having people around 8. There are enough people I feel close to 10. I often feel rejected 9. I miss having people around 11. I can call on my friends whenever I need them 10. I often feel rejected 11. I can call on my friends whenever I need them
│ De Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985.
5 This appears to be slowly changing, however, with a number of recent studies analysing the relationship between old- age and loneliness between different EU countries - either across all EU countries or case study comparisons of particu- lar countries.
6 background & literature review
The health impacts of loneliness can be severe, particularly when persisting for an extended period of time. While it is commonly seen as a mental health problem, loneliness has increasingly been shown to have a negative impact on physical health too. The most comprehensive meta-analysis on the effects of social isolation, loneliness and living alone on mortality considered 70 independent studies featuring over 3,4 million participants (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). It found all three forms of isolation to correspond with a substantially increased risk of premature mortality6 - comparable to many of the most established risk factors for mortality.7 Such health effects can be either direct or indirect (Uchino, 2006).8 The relationship between isolation and mortality appears to be more of a continuum than a threshold, with no one minimum point at which impact on mortality becomes pronounced (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). This would appear to suggest that while there are certain most at-risk individuals, attempts to reduce loneliness and strengthen social connections can have health benefits for all impacted individuals - regardless of the extent and quality of their existing connections.
The extent that loneliness can be blamed for specific societal problems is difficult to prove. Various aspects of modernity and contemporary lifestyles have been purportedly linked to the rise in loneliness.9 A number of studies have also indicated that social isolation and loneliness are increasing in many societies, at least those where such research is generally focused (the US and Western Europe).10 This has been linked to a wide variety of factors, including population ageing, shrinking social networks and a rise in depression (McPherson et al. 2006; Perissinotto et al. 2012; Victor & Yang, 2012).11 Researchers warn that loneliness is likely to continue increasing unless loneliness is recognised as a serious public health problem, and decisive and inclusive action is taken as soon as possible (Linehan et al. 2014).12 Further research is a necessary part of any such effective response.
6 26% in the case of loneliness, 29% in the case of social isolation and 32% for those living alone. This indicates little difference between objective and subjective measures of social isolation as predictors of mortality. 7 Namely, substance abuse, obesity, injury and violence, environmental quality, immunisation, healthcare access, sexual behaviour and physical activity (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). 8 Indirectly, loneliness and physical isolation are linked to poor health behaviour, such as smoking, reduced sleep and lack of exercise (Cacioppo et al. 2002; Hawkley et al. 2009; Theeke, 2010). They can also have a more direct impact, being linked to biological risk factors such as higher blood pressure and reduced immune functioning (Grant et al. 2009; Pressman et al. 2005). 9 Murthy’s recent bestseller, Together, sees it as the root cause of everything from political polarisation to crime, de- pression and suicide (2020). But Lepore (2020) questions what she terms the ‘everything-can-be-reduced-to-loneliness argument’, noting that much of what is said about loneliness here was previously linked to homelessness in the 1980s. The implication is that both concerns are potentially part of larger societal problems about feeling accepted and valued within society. ““Loneliness” is a vogue term, and like all vogue terms it’s a cover for all sorts of things most people would rather not name and have no idea how to fix.” (ibid). 10 Note that this is not universally accepted. Others have questioned whether there is any empirical evidence that loneli- ness is actually increasing (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019a). 11 Loneliness is increasingly being recognised by the media, and commonly referred to as an ‘epidemic’ both in Swe- den (Jones, 2019) and internationally (Cooke, 2019; Murthy, 2016). 12 The authors draw parallels between our current understanding of loneliness and that of obesity (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). In the 1970s and 1980s scientists, observing widespread change in dietary choice and increasingly sedentary life- styles, warned that this could lead to obesity problems (Brewster & Jacobson, 1978). Failure to adequately heed these warnings has led to obesity becoming a worldwide public health crisis in recent decades - affecting first high-income countries and now low- and middle-income countries too (WHO, 2020). 7 background & literature review
2.3 The importance of environmental interventions
What are the tangible steps that have been proposed to reduce loneliness in particular areas? The UK government has advocated for social prescribing - where primary care services such as GPs and nurses are trained to proactively identify patients who appear at risk of loneliness and refer them to various local support services (Local Government Association et al. 2016).13 Yet this approach still focuses on individual intervention strategies. What kinds of broader environmental interventions can be incorporated into the built environment in an attempt to spread the web of sociability? Existing loneliness mapping studies focus only on the mapping itself - arguing that local governments are best- placed to design ‘tailor-made solutions’ (Age UK, 2015b).
Yet it is possible to provide general guidance on the kinds of solutions that may be most appropriate. The evolutionary theory of loneliness posited by John and Stephanie Cacioppo sees belonging to intimate social groups as an essential part of survival for all primates. Loneliness is therefore an adaptive signal similar to hunger or cold - compelling us to alter our behaviour in order to increase survival. While we no longer need company for survival to the extent that we still need food and shelter, the body’s anxious and hypervigilant response to isolation remains hardwired within our nervous systems (Murthy, 2020). Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) therefore opine that attempts to treat only feelings of loneliness (e.g. through counselling) without regard to actual social behaviour would be akin to treating a person’s feeling hunger (the signal) without actually feeding them. We need to provide opportunities for people to actually connect more, socially.
Online engagement, such as video calling and social media, can provide one convenient source of social connection. Yet studies indicate that this provides a poor substitute for physical connection, leaving us distracted, uninterested and increasingly ill-equipped to socialise offline (Hertz pp 91-100). Lonely people are substantially more likely to meet friends and acquaintances online than those who are not lonely and are more than twice as likely to feel that the internet contributes to their loneliness, decreasing the number of deep connections they could sustain (Wilson & Moulton, 2010). There are various benefits of physical engagement which online engagement is unable to replicate. The kind of formal, planned interaction that online engagement allows is but one type of the interactions we commonly encounter on a daily basis. It does not allow for the kinds of spontaneous interactions we might have at work or in public (Kumlin, 2020). This forms part of ongoing studies into the importance of micro-interactions with other people during our daily routines (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2013). Online spaces, particularly social media, also encourage self-invention and curation of a perfect version of one’s life. As Sherry Turkle, Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT, notes, “At the screen you have a chance to write yourself into the person you want to be and to imagine
13 Test studies such as the Rotherham Social Prescribing scheme have had significant success - with beneficiaries having a reduced need for GP and hospital visits, and self-reported increase in mental well-being and knowledge of community services. Attempts have also been made to incorporate social prescribing into loneliness mapping method- ology. A new UK government-sponsored app, Care View, allows individuals such as police officers, postal workers and charity workers to register the location of people seemingly experiencing social isolation - with a view to connecting these individuals with community volunteers and other support services (Urban Sustainable Development Lab, 2021).
8 background & literature review others as you wish them to be, constructing them for your purposes.” (Turkle, 2011). If loneliness is understood in part as a longing to be seen and accepted for who you really are ‘warts and all’, then it is questionable that engagement as a perfect online self can fulfil these desires (Laing, 2020).
Another way in which we can tackle loneliness through changes in the built form is through new living arrangements. In Sweden there has been increased interest in co-housing projects, which provide a combination of private bedrooms and shared spaces for residents. Along with affordability, another stated benefit is companionship (Robertson, 2020). This may provide a partial solution for particular lonely groups, particularly the elderly - projects likeSällBo in Helsingborg aim to pair senior citizens with younger residents (Helsingborgshem, 2021). But it is doubtful that co-housing will be a viable solution for the broader public. Not only are there too many existing small apartments, but the concept is arguably too far removed from the widespread culture of individualism - shared living has been repeatedly proposed and tried by previous generations, without the concept ever taking off (Savage, 2019). There is a recognised need for more large apartments in cities like Stockholm (Stockholm stad, 2016). Yet these face similar limitations and are unlikely to be built on a scale that will serve a substantial portion of the public in the foreseeable future.
It therefore appears that in order to benefit society at large, environmental loneliness interventions need to consider the ways in which spaces in the public realm can contribute to facilitating social engagement.
Summary: Literature review on importance of interventions in the public realm
Site for social connection Comments Suitability
- Poor substitute for physical engagement.
Online connections - Problem of our online personas often providing poor X reflection of our true self. - Contrary to market demand for smaller, individual Adapted living arrange- apartments. ments (larger apart- X ments / co-housing) - Unfeasible to build sufficient housing at a scale that will serve wider population. - Able to serve wider public Public realm - Site for important micro-interactions in ✔ everyday life
9 background & literature review
2.4 Public spaces to facilitate social interaction
Which kinds of public spaces, then, are thought to be most effective at mitigating loneliness? The UK has sought to tackle loneliness directly, with the introduction of a national loneliness strategy (2018). Its ‘community infrastructure’ section refers to the promotion of healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote interaction, especially between people who might not come into contact with one-another (MHCLG, 2018). Focus is on ensuring safety, accessibility and inclusiveness - particularly at the neighbourhood level. Mixed-use developments, with active frontages and street layouts that facilitate easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods. Public parks and other green spaces are identified as highly beneficial for physical health and mental wellbeing.14 Local high streets are identified as the centres of community - an important source of social ties and relationships. It also strongly approves of private café schemes which aim to initiate conversations between lonely people by designating particular tables for those who wish to talk to other strangers. Finally, libraries, museums and the arts are briefly identified as sites that can host and support community groups and organisations.
New Zealand has taken a more holistic position. The government has since 2019 centred its entire policy and budget on wellbeing. Loneliness is therefore treated as part of a broader concern that includes wider factors like healthcare, housing and mental health (Government of New Zealand, 2019). This affects the nature of the recommendations for addressing loneliness (Walker et al. 2019). The WSP and Helen Clark foundation Alone Together report’s six recommendations therefore focus primarily on broader considerations, such as economic support for community organisations and individuals, and investment in frontline mental health. Only one recommendation touches on environmental interventions related to the public realm (‘Create friendly streets and neighbourhoods’) through characteristics like walkability, safety and access to parks.
WSP Sweden’s loneliness study (2019) emphasises the importance of weather-protected spaces to provide shelter from the harsh Nordic climate, as well as non-commercial meeting places, with functions that can attract different age groups. Good lighting and other safety features are important for spaces as well as the paths connecting them. Respondents also provided specific proposals for spaces to mitigate involuntary loneliness. These include workshop spaces for pursuing extracurricular hobbies, common spaces in residential buildings, and exchange centres for lending and borrowing.
“As a parent of small children, good playgrounds are worth their weight in gold. This provides the opportunity for contact with other guardians.” Anonymous (WSP Sweden Loneliness survey, 2019, p. 10).
14 Focus is on greening and protecting existing green spaces in urban and rural areas, increasing accessibility to green space for all new developments and increasing accessibility for poorly resourced neighbourhoods which can benefit from greening strategies.
10 background & literature review
Other studies have emphasised the importance of public spaces which communities feel they have ownership over, thus facilitating social ties (Shuttleworth et al. 2019). It points to the role of corporate intrusion in the public realm, with the rise of ‘privately owned public spaces’ subject to various powers of constraint by private owners (lack of seating, right of refusal, limited opening times). Controlled spaces and especially those with unclear legal or acceptable boundaries, create an environment in which users tend to police themselves, and limit their interactions. This limits the public’s ability to truly claim these spaces, and establish social ties. The authors accordingly call for the addition of more ‘third places’ in cities - open areas where people can socialise without having to spend money. Examples include community gardens, plazas, parks and playgrounds where people can socialise on neutral ground. Despite their commercial function, markets are cited as a positive example because of their potential to foster a sense of local belonging (ibid).
Klinenberg’s work on social infrastructure,15 focuses on libraries in New York (2016). For many elderly and isolated individuals, these serve as one of the only spaces in which they are able to interact with others - particularly those from other generations (2018). This argument is no less applicable in Scandinavia, where libraries have long been recognised as an important element of the welfare model (Paraschiv, 2018). This traditional role of the library as a welcoming third space for all is actually increasing. In Sweden, this entails a shift in roles from a focus on collections and transactions (book lending) to building relationships with and between library users and empowering communities by strengthening links to civil society. For instance, there is a trend towards keeping libraries accessible to the public even after the staff has left for the day - with spaces accessible with the use of a library card and a code - so-called ‘Meröppet bibliotek’ (Kungliga Bibliotek, 2020.16
Meanwhile a variety of public health studies discuss the impact of green spaces. Green space quantity near one’s residence has been positively associated with mental health benefits generally (Gascon et al. 2015; van den Berg et al. 2015). Both social cohesion and especially loneliness have a significant association with time spent visiting green spaces (van den Berg, et al. 2019).17 This is in line with previous research suggesting that green space does not necessarily need to increase actual social contact but can also act to encourage feelings of trust and belonging in one’s community (Maas et al. 2009; Bergefurt et al. 2016; Hartig et al. 2014).18
15 See section 3.2, below. 16 There has been a slight reduction in the number of visitors, but increasing diversity of uses - such as language cen- tres, homework assistance, IT training and spaces for community meetings generally 17 In other words, in what circumstances does access to green space tend to improve mental health? Each additional hour spent visiting green space per month was associated with a decrease in feelings of loneliness and an increase in social cohesion. An important strength of the study was its size and geographical scope, with questionnaires obtained from over 3,000 residents living in 124 neighbourhoods across four European cities. 18 Various studies have also shown that green space quantity facilitates social contacts and strengthens social ties & cohesion (Arnberger & Eder, 2012; Kazmierczak, 2013). This accords with theories of social capital, which posit that everyday interactions and encounters among strangers contribute to the building of social cohesion (Putnam, 2000). This has seen increasing investment in both government-funded and academic research on the identification of (pub- lic) places and qualities that can support interactions between strangers (Aelbrecht, 2016). In contrast, the EU’s joint research centre is currently researching how loneliness itself appears to weaken social cohesion by heightening feelings of vulnerability, anxiety and threat levels (D’Hombres et al. 2018). 11 background & literature review
Such spaces need not be big. Small urban green areas such as urban gardens have been found to provide Ecosystem Services (ES) such as recreation and social cohesion, with a relatively close match between scales of supply and demand (Camps-Calvet et al. 2016). More important is equitable distribution.19 This suggests a need for increased systematic use of predictive tools which calculate the ES supply outcomes of different urban planning interventions (ibid). Public space distribution is one such area which can benefit from predictive tools. Most of the research prioritises hands-on practice and the social attributes of public spaces (e.g. urban design features) at the expense of research on where these places should best be situated (Aelbrecht 2016).20
Summary: Literature review on public spaces to mitigate loneliness
Characteristics: Categories: Further research needed:
Encourage lingering - Libraries - Predictive tools to inform spatial attributes of - Safe & well-lit public space, such as equitable - Public parks, community - Mixed-use distribution. gardens & other green spaces - Walkable (supply & distribution crucial) - Active frontage - Incorporating green - Playgrounds elements
- local high streets Inclusive - Non-commercial offerings - Plazas - Accessible - Welcoming of difference - Neighbourhood markets - Incorporate functions that can attract different age - Museums and art spaces groups
- Exchange centres Well-designed - Strong neighbourhood - Workshop spaces for centres extracurricular hobbies - Pedestrian and bicycle connections within & between neighbourhoods.
19 Local-scale ecosystem services can be maximised by measures aimed at optimising supply - regardless of whether or not overall land-use ratios are changed (Kain et al. 2016). 20 This can undermine societal enjoyment of ES, which are dependent on good infrastructural accessibility (Kremer et al. 2016).
12 background & literature review
2.5 Loneliness risk groups
2.5.1 Risk groups generally
Dorling et al. (2008) justify their use of loneliness mapping based on census data, by noting that society generally is becoming more polarised, with most of us living a little more among our ‘own kind’ in relation to factors such as age and income (2008). If increasing residential homogeneity is indeed a fact, we might consider which demographics are most at risk of loneliness and to what extent this differs between countries.
Traditionally, contemporary Western societies have viewed loneliness as a problem particularly associated with old age (Victor & Yang, 2012). The elderly are therefore disproportionately represented in studies on the subject (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015).21 However, the possibility exists that this may also be partly a case of confirmation bias. The raft of recent studies on the subject of loneliness has provided us with a more nuanced understanding of the groups most at risk of loneliness. Young adults are increasingly understood to be a significant risk group (Bu et al. 2020), with some studies suggesting adolescence is the peak age for experiencing loneliness (Yang & Victor, 2011).22 The causes of loneliness also differ between age groups. For younger adults, quantity of social engagement is most important, indicating a risk of social loneliness. But for older adults, what counts most isquality of social engagement with those closest to them - emotional isolation was more of a threat (ibid).
Age can also play a role in determining loneliness risk factors. Only depression is a risk for all age groups (Victor & Yang, 2012). Lower education level had a particularly significant effect on loneliness for those over 30. A mere 3% of tertiary educated respondents in the UK reported severe loneliness, as compared to a full 20% of those with only primary education. The authors post that this may be a proxy for access to material resources, rather than education itself being the crucial variable, or whether this merely acts as a (ibid). Both living alone and lacking a partner are contributing factors for over 30s, possibly due to age-related social norms. Other factors have less impact on the elderly.23
Understandably, given factors such as language barriers, cultural differences, and loss of social networks, refugees and asylum seekers can easily feel lonely and isolated.24 Meanwhile, factors such as inadequate public services and inaccessible public transport offerings typically limit people with disabilities from pursuing social and employment opportunities (Sense, 2017). This accords with research from New Zealand, which has been one of the leading nations in collecting data on loneliness, both before and during the pandemic.25 The results identify socially and economically marginalised
21 The authors found the mean age of research participants in studies on the relationship between loneliness and mortal- ity to be 66.0 years at initial data collection, with a mean length of follow-up of 7.1 years. 22 Victor & Yang (2012) considered both the prevalence & causes of loneliness amongst adults in the UK. They found loneliness to have a U-shaped distribution, with the highest rates of loneliness being found in under 25s and +65s. 23 Poor physical health and limitations in daily activities are only a contributing factor for under-60s. 24 58% of respondents in a London study identified this as their biggest challenge (Christodoulou, 2014). Half of people with disabilities feel lonely on any given day, with one in four feeling lonely every day (Sense, 2017). 25 This includes having loneliness questions included in its national census in recent years. 13 background & literature review groups as most at risk of chronic loneliness - the unemployed, those on low incomes, indigenous people, single parents and young adults (although no more so than in previous generations). The authors note links to young adults with surprise, given how anecdotal discussions and media coverage focus so heavily on loneliness amongst the elderly (Walker et al. 2020). They also note it is “[S]triking how close loneliness was linked to employment status and household income”, with those in the lowest quintile more than double as likely to report feeling lonely all or most of the time,when compared to the top three quintiles (p. 15). Most bluntly, unemployment robs us of the opportunities for friendships and social interactions with colleagues, clients and customers. More generally, poverty hinders the formation and maintenance of social relationships, by causing toxic stress and alack of resources like free time and money for recreational activities (ibid).26 Accordingly, the authors’ first proposal for mitigating loneliness post-pandemic is simply making sure that people have enough money (Walker et al. 2020).
Figure 1: The ‘Striking’ correlation between loneliness and household income / employment status in New Zealand │ Walker et al. 2020 with reference to New Zealand 2018 census data.
Evidence suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic has also had a disproportionate negative impact on the mental health and loneliness of young adults, with the pandemic’s impact on income and unemployment status disproportionately affecting young adults This impact will likely continue to be felt long after social restrictions and interactions have regained some degree of normalcy (ibid).27
26 Thus, social isolation has been found to be more than twice as high among Europeans in the lowest income bracket versus those in the highest bracket (Eurostat, 2017a). 27 See annexure 2 for more information on the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on loneliness.
14 background & literature review
2.5.2 Loneliness in Sweden: the shielding effects of income and healthcare
Living alone is often listed as a significant risk factor for loneliness (Victor & Yang, 2012; Walker et al. 2020). Yet social and cultural specificities mean this is not always the case. Northern Europe has been characterised as ‘more alone but not more lonely’ (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019b). More than half of Swedish households are single-person, the highest share in the EU, with neighbours Denmark and Finland also in the top five (Eurostat, 2017b).28 Yet Western and Northern European countries have mostly been characterised as low-loneliness prevalence countries (Yang & Victor, 2011). This has been supported by the EU’s own studies, which indicates that Southern and Eastern Europe have the highest rates of loneliness (D’Hombres et al. 2018). See Figures 2 & 3, below. Significant contributing factors include poor health and unfavourable economic circumstances.
Figures 2 & 3: Alone but no more lonely. Self-reported frequent loneliness is substantially more prevalent in Southern & Eastern Europe compared to Northern & Western Europe. Out of all EU regions, Northern Europe has the largest disconnect between loneliness & levels of actual social isolation │ D’Hombres et al. 2018
The difficulty may arise from the need to consider how different factors operate in tandem (Holt- Lunstad, 2015). Sweden has many people living alone, but it also has a strong social safety net based on the premise of welfare ‘from the cradle to the grave’. GDP and wages are high, and financial support for those unable to work is amongst the highest in the world. Healthcare is universal and largely government-funded (Government Offices of Sweden, 2017). It may indeed be the case that Sweden’s many single-person households create an increased risk of loneliness, but that this risk is mitigated by low levels of people living in poor health or unfavourable economic circumstances - giving more people the physical and economic resources to maintain a healthy social life.29
28 Swedes leave home earlier on average than any other country (Eurostat, 2019) and many immediately begin living alone (Savage, 2019). Thanks to public policy and a wide range of municipal services, this trend of Swedes living alone continues into old age (Global Ageing Network, 2018). Demographers note that this Swedish culture of “individualism” is partly historical, but it is also influenced by urban form, with cities largely consisting of compact apartments. Unlike London or Paris, there are few converted townhouses for young professionals to share (Savage, 2019). 29 It also seems plausible that risk of loneliness would be far stronger for those forced to live alone, versus those doing so by choice. Demographers also highlight that much single living in Sweden occurs during temporary phases of life - early adulthood and old age. People may be waiting longer before forming partnerships and having children, but there is no indication that more people are opting out of these life choices altogether, as in countries like Korea and Japan 15 background & literature review
Loneliness is nonetheless seen as an important issue in Sweden, with loneliness in old-age an area of considerable academic interest.30 But others have questioned whether loneliness and social isolation amongst young adults is not underestimated (Savage, 2019).31 One problem is a shortage of recent survey data at census level. The most recent time that Statistics Sweden (SCB) conducted a nationally representative loneliness survey was in 2013. Then, it was over-75s who most reported feeling alone during the previous two weeks (16.8%), closely followed by 16-24-year-olds (17.4%) (SCB, 2013).32 Another vulnerable category is those moving to new towns and cities. Sweden is consistently ranked as one of the hardest countries in the world to make new friends (InterNations, 2019).33 Loneliness may therefore be especially acute for foreigners moving to Sweden.
2.5.3 Utanförskap
In this regard, numerous studies have documented the significant and growing degree of social exclusion and segregation in Swedish cities (e.g. Legeby, 2010; Marcus, 2007; Rokem & Vaughan, 2019). There is a trend of residential homogeneity, with increasing polarisation between the most and least attractive housing areas since the 1970s, and an increased difference in living conditions between areas (Öresjö, 1997, p.43; SOU, 2005). Income segregation in Stockholm has seen those with the highest and lowest incomes increasingly moving to a select few suburbs.34 As a result, “Certain social groups are simply not part of the Swedish society in the way that others are” (Legeby & Marcus, 2011, p. 155). This has led to a new term - ‘Utanförskap’ (Outsiderness) to reflect those who are seen, either by themselves or others, as situated largely outside of broader society (Marcus, 2007a).
In the context of Stockholm, the city’s archipelago landscape plays a role in separating residents, with a series spatially disconnected enclaves separated by waterways and green areas and reliant on limited connections by bridges or tunnels (Marcus, 2007). This creates a stark distinction between those living in the densely gridded, urban core and those living in the poorly connected periphery.
(Andersson, 2018). 30 Most notably the work of Lena Dahlberg and colleagues at the Ageing Research Center, Karolinska Institute/ Stock- holm University (e.g. Dahlberg et al. 2018a; Dahlberg et al. 2018b). 31 Concerns have been raised in particular about the impact of societal expectations of self-sufficiency on many young adults (Jones, 2019). More than 55% of Swedes aged 16-24 report not socialising with any close relatives at all (SCB, 2017). Sociologists speculate that living alone is indeed a contributing factor to loneliness amongst Swedish young adults (Brülde & Fors, 2015). 32 The idea of young adult Swedes being lonelier than the elderly is supported by a smaller 2019 study on loneliness conducted by WSP Sweden, which surveyed 1,000 respondents on their self-reported views on loneliness. The results indicated self-reported loneliness was most common among young adults (18-34 years old) and substantially more com- mon in cities than rural areas. Women and foreign-born residents were also slightly more at risk than men and Swed- ish-born residents, respectively (WSP Sweden, 2019). 33 Although people move homes regularly, they tend to do so within the same municipality - theoretically allowing them to maintain the same social network. Of the circa 1.5 million moves in 2019, only around 33% were to a new municipality and around 15% to a new county (SCB, 2021). 34 Norrmalm for the wealthiest individuals and Skärholmen or Rinkeby-Kista for the poorest (SCB, 2018).
16 background & literature review
The foreign-born share of the city is almost twice as high on the periphery.35 The problem of spatial isolation is particularly acute in Sweden’s Million Homes housing estates - the result of an ambitious public housing programme by the Swedish state to address its housing shortage by building one million new homes in the space of a decade (1965 to 1974). These are typically similar in size and form - built around the concept of the grannskapsenheten (neighbourhood unit), comprising an independent and well-functioning community of a controlled size - around 16,500 inhabitants in a radius of 900m. Each neighbourhood comprises not only homes but also schools, services, sports facilities, serviced by trains (Marcus, 2007). See figures 4 & 5, below.
In practice, what this has led to is large-scale, inward-oriented enclaves in the outer suburbs, with very weak spatial and social connections to their surroundings (Legeby et al. 2015). This has had a strongly segregating effect on these areas, which still constitute 20-25% of the country’s total housing stock (Rokem & Vaughan, 2020). Attempts to address this have typically focused on housing policies aimed at diversifying housing types and tenures, in the hopes that more affluent and socially integrated groups will move to these areas or more residents will stay. These initiatives have been largely unsuccessful (Marcus, 2007a).
Thus, “what seems to be conspicuous in many of the post-war suburbs in Sweden is the segregation in public space; the relation between buildings and public space is disrupted, the different scales of movements are separated, and the residents are efficiently geographically separated from others” (Legeby, 2010, p. 96).
Figure 4 & 5: Template for neighbourhood unit, supported by commuter trains │ Stockholm stad, 1952; Typical local squares in Gothenburg’s Million Homes Programme neighbourhoods │ Legeby et al. 2015
35 With 20% in the inner city districts and 38.5% in the outer districts (Stockholm stad, 2016). 17 background & literature review
This manifests particularly acutely in ethnic segregation. Stockholm is characterised by a concentration of groups with a foreign background in a limited number of districts on the urban fringes (Malmberg et al. 2013).36 Sweden’s race-blind public housing allocation policies also focus only on socio-economic data, otherwise distinguishing only between ‘Swedish’ and ‘foreign-born’. Rokem and Vaughan argue that this well-meaning policy masks a highly complex range of integration trajectories, and leads to a situation in which those who can expect to have the most difficulty integrating into broader society, are disproportionately clustered together in neighbourhoods on the urban fringes. Neighbourhood self-sufficiency thus becomes a part of the problem - everyday basic needs such as schools and local shops are available locally, allowing local residents to remain, while non-residents have little reason to visit these outlying areas (2019). Such neighbourhoods therefore remain unable to support mixing between immigrants and native populations. The result is that non-Swedish residents are not provided with the kind of local knowledge and information that can come from social mixing, and which can support social inclusion (Legeby et al. 2015).
It is true that a degree of residential homogeneity is common in cities worldwide, and that many middle- and upper-middle-class suburbs outside of Stockholm’s city centre are also physically isolated (Marcus, 2007). Yet Legeby draws a crucial distinction between ‘segregation of choice’ and the ‘segregation of coercion’ found in certain isolated neighbourhoods characterised by high ethnic diversity and particularly low income levels (Legeby, 2010, following Varidy, 2005). Spatial segregation is not necessarily a major problem. Yet when paired with immobility, it is one of the main causes of social exclusion (Massey, 1994). Households in Stockholm’s periphery are more dependent on cars, and that lower income households are much more dependent on public transport (Pyddoke & Creutzer, 2014). Studies of public transport accessibility, have also found minorities to be highly disadvantaged with regards to access to the city’s spatial core (Rokem & Vaughan, 2020).
Initial evidence suggests the Covid pandemic will only exacerbate these social and economic divisions. While the economy is expected to retain its pre-pandemic size relatively quickly, this hides wide differences in the ways different Swedes have negotiated the pandemic. Unemployment has disproportionately affected foreign-born workers.37 Government furlough schemes have also primarily supported full-time workers while contract workers and the self-employed (disproportionately foreign- born) have been sidelined. Even before the pandemic, half of all immigrants took 5-10 years to secure regular employment. Critics fear the pandemic will only exacerbate long-term unemployment - one of the key drivers of social exclusion (Johnson, 2021).
36 A situation exacerbated by the country’s significant refugee intake between 2010 & 2016 (Legeby, 2010). 37 Rising by 3.5% year-on-year to 18%. This, in contrast to those born in Sweden, who saw a rise of only 1% to 4.1%.
18 background & literature review
Summary: Literature review on loneliness risk groups
- Loneliness is a ‘wicked problem’, as different age groups and nationalities are affected differently by the same factors, influenced by social norms & expectations.
- Traditionally, focus has been on the elderly and physically isolated - those living alone, lacking a partner, etc.
- More recently, research highlights the effects of social & economic exclusion on loneliness - with demographics such as young adults, migrants, people with disabilities and single parents at risk.
- Crucially, there appears to be a striking correlation between loneliness and poverty or unemployment, as well as possible proxies like education level. Poverty hinders the formation and maintenance of social relationships, by causing toxic stress and a lack of resources.
- This is supported by inter-regional EU studies indicating that Northern European residents are sheltered from the negative effects of living alone by a welfare state with strong healthcare and income guarantees.
- Studies in Stockholm indicate extension of residential segregation into the public realm.e Ther is evidence that this robs foreign-born residents from spatially isolated neighbourhoods of the opportunities to mix with local residents, contributing to social exclusion.
- It appears that the Covid-19 pandemic will amplify extremes and make vulnerable groups more lonely. Impacts on unemployment and income are inequality likely to continue to be felt long after social restrictions have ended, disproportionately impacting the economically vulnerable, including young adults and foreigners.
19 3. Theoretical framework
The literature review suggests that a place-based analysis of loneliness should recognise public space as an important site of social interaction. We have seen that in contexts such as Sweden, segregation in public space is a significant source of social exclusion. We have also seen that the public realm can play an important role in mitigating loneliness in society and helping to encourage social interaction. Accordingly, this study will primarily draw on three relevant theories - social fragmentation, social infrastructure, and co-presence. These can assist in providing a deeper understanding of how urban form and public spaces might play a role in either contributing to, or mitigating, loneliness and social isolation in cities.
3.1 Social fragmentation theory
3.1.1 Definition
Social fragmentation is based on the sociological concepts of ‘anomie’ and social integration - a sense of alienation and not belonging within one’s society (Durkheim, 1897). This was later adapted for use in the field of human geography, which sought to emphasise the ways in which modern urban life has broken down neighbourhood ties and connections, with a negative impact on mental health and an increase in loneliness and suicides (Congdon, 1996).38 Rather than focusing on socio-economic conditions, social fragmentation focuses on the importance of features such as neighbourhood ties and place-attachment. Various features of modern living - such as urbanisation, urban housing shortages and the knowledge economy - are said to undermine the strength of these relationships (Dorling et al. 2008). The upside of modern life is its convenience and freedom, with many people freer to choose where and how they wish to live. We can (and many do) live alone, move often, and have our shopping and entertainment delivered straight to our homes. Social fragmentation argues that there are other negative effects to these living arrangements. We are social beings and so for many of us, a failure to integrate ourselves within a wider community leaves us starved of a particular kind of social contact important for our mental well-being (even if no longer necessary for survival).
Analysis of social networks in the USA indicates that fragmentation has been ongoing for many decades. Between 1984 and 2004, the number of close confidants individuals had on average dropped from 2.94 to 2.08. These changes reflected not only a decrease in close connections but also a more insular re-orientation - increasingly centred on kin, such as spouses and parents. The share of connections through voluntary associations and neighbourhoods decreased, with networks becoming generally denser and more homogenous (McPherson et al. 2006). 39 This accords with Dorling et al.’s loneliness maps, which indicate that the UK became significantly more socially fragmented between 1971 and 2001. See figure 6, below. 38 Social fragmentation is not to be confused with social deprivation. Studies of the UK, for instance, indicate that at the turn of the century, constituencies in London had the highest social fragmentation scores, despite being situated in one of the wealthiest regions in the UK (Whitley et al. 1999). 39 It must be noted that this study, while highly influential in the public sphere, has been criticised by some academics, who accuse it of overstating the extent of social isolation in modern society (Fischer, 2009; Klinenberg, 2016).
20 theoretical framework
Figure 6: Loneliness maps based on Congdon’s Social Fragmentation Index, suggest the UK has become significantly more socially fragmented │ Dorling et al. (2008).
3.1.2 Congdon’s Social Fragmentation Index
Human geographer Peter Congdon developed his social fragmentation index as a means of tracking degrees of social fragmentation in different areas. The index is based around four indicators which are thought to best measure poor neighbourhood ties and weak attachment to place. The index is equal to the sum of the following multiples in each area:
Factor: Weight: 1. Number of unmarried adults40 x 0.18
2. Number of single-person households x 0.50
3. Number of people who have moved to their current address within the last year x 0.38
4. Number of private renters41 x 0.80
40 Marital status is used as a proxy for those not in long-term relationships, given the transient nature of this category and the general lack of census data on unmarried couples. It has also been posited that this factor could be updated to reflect changing societal norms - instead tracking rates of divorced or widowed individuals (Whitley, 1999). This may be necessary given the differences between those who have never been married and those whose relationships have ended (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). 41 Number of private renters refers to the number of people renting housing owned by a private landlord (Summers, 2018). It therefore does not include any form of public housing. 21 theoretical framework
3.1.3 Social Fragmentation as an appropriate indicator of loneliness?
For loneliness mapping purposes, Dorling et al. (2008) use Congdon’s social fragmentation index, seeing social fragmentation as a cause of much modern loneliness. But how effectively then can social fragmentation and the Social Fragmentation Index be linked to loneliness? The theory accords in many ways with older sociological theorisations of loneliness, which similarly focus on external factors in society. As early as 1955, Bowman posited three social forces leading to increased loneliness, (1) declining primary group relations; (2) increase in family mobility; (3) increase in social mobility. Slater (1976) points to a disconnect between our basic needs for community, engagement and dependence and modern society’s deep-rooted emphasis on individualism and destiny. All of these factors have arguably only become more pronounced in the decades since, and can plausibly be seen as contributing to the factors emphasised in Congdon’s social fragmentation index.42
To what extent does social fragmentation theory accord with the loneliness scales traditionally used in loneliness surveys? While both scales are academically rigorous and widely used, the De Jong Gierveld scale has a number of benefits that make it a more appropriate tool of comparison.43 Social fragmentation sees loneliness as resulting partly from a breakdown in community and neighbourhood ties. Focus is not only on the strength of relationships with our close friends and family, but also how we perceive and connect with neighbours and members of our community. How many of our neighbours’ names do you know? How many times have we borrowed something from a neighbour in the past year? (Symons, 2018). To what extent do we trust people living in our neighbourhood? (Matthews et al. 2019). Such considerations do not speak to all of theDeJong Gierveld questions. Some, such as feelings of emptiness (Q3) or rejection (Q10) are arguably better treated with individual approaches such as individual or group therapy. Social fragmentation also arguably has less impact on our closest ties, such as friends and family, as it has long since become normalised to live in different suburbs or even cities from such contacts (Qs 2, 7, 8 & 11).
42 Owing to the difficulties of data collection on loneliness levels, studies assessing the validity of Congdon’s social fragmentation factors have typically focused on suicide as a symptom of despair, rather than loneliness (see Congdon, 1996; Whitley et al. 1999). Social fragmentation has been linked to higher suicide, while suicide and loneliness have been strongly linked to one-another (Goldsmith et al. 2002). In comparing particular area-based measures of mortali- ty, Smith et al. (2001) find socio-economic deprivation to correlate more strongly with physical health conditions, but social fragmentation correlates more strongly with mental health conditions (2001). More recently, Age UK’s regression analysis of the comprehensive English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) have concluded that at least in the context of the elderly, two of Congdon’s social fragmentation index factors are indeed appropriate indicators for risk of loneli- ness. These are marital status and household size. 43 A common criticism of the UCLA scale is that it was developed in the USA with students, making it less suitable for research involving other countries or age-groups. The De Jong Gierveld scale was developed for use with one of the main loneliness risk groups (older people), and remains the gold standard for such research (Campaign to End Loneli- ness, 2015). Furthermore, the UCLA scale’s more traditional, unidimensional conception of loneliness has proven con- troversial (Lasgaard, 2007). In contrast, the De Jong Gierveld scale was specifically developed around the social versus emotional loneliness distinction, which has been so emphasised in the more recent literature. The 11-item list features 6 emotional questions and 5 social questions (De Jong Gierveld & van Tilburg, 2006).
22 theoretical framework
Yet loneliness is not only about our closest connections, but also more mundane ones. The loosest questions on the De Jong Gierveld scale speak to simply having people around, and our circle ofacquaintances more broadly (Qs 5, 6 & 9). These might be closer acquaintances - a colleague, a friend’s partner, etc. But they might also just be people we regularly see and interact with in our neighbourhood - say, a local store-owner or a fellow dog-walker in the park. Others require slightly more connection and trust, such as those we might traditionally expect from neighbours - being able to discuss day-to-day problems with people (1) or having people to rely on in times of need (4). It is these questions about our everyday connections, nearly half of those on the De Jong Gierveld scale, which social fragmentation theory speaks to.
Table 2: Author’s categorisation of De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale questions by Strength of connection and relationship to Social Fragmentation theory.44
Connection Loneliness Connection De Jong Gierveld Related to Social typically related to... strength... scale questions Fragmentation with...
Loose rela- “I experience a general No Mental tionship to sense of emptiness” (3) Unclear (individual therapy inter- state actual con- “I often feel rejected” (10) ventions likely more appro- nections priate)
“I miss having a really close friend” (2)
Closest friends “There are many people I can trust completely” (7) Strong to Regular friends close ties “There are enough people Unlikely very strong I feel close to” (8) Family & relatives “I can call on my friends whenever I need them” (11)
“There is always someone I Family & friends can talk to about my day-to-day problems” (1) Direct Neighbours “There are plenty of people I can mundane Others living Weak to rely on when I have problems” (4) or in one’s neigh- moderate bourhood “I miss the pleasure of Yes everyday the company of others” (5) Others working in one’s neigh- “I find my circle of friends and bourhood acquaintances too limited” (6) “I miss having people around” (9)
│ De Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985.
44 See annexure 3 for more detail. 23 theoretical framework
3.2 Public space as social infrastructure
3.2.1 Definition
Social infrastructure is a concept developed by sociologist Eric Klinenberg. It is premised on the view that the social and physical environment plays a significant role in determining who we are and how we live (Klinenberg, 2018). The theory can accordingly be situated within the wider context of environmental possibilism, which seeks to incorporate environmental factors (both natural and infrastructural) into explanations of social outcomes (Ballinger, 2011). It rejects the determinist view that our environmental characteristics alone explain the characteristics of society or individual, but nonetheless stresses that our environment can help predict types of behaviour and social outcomes (Fekadu, 2014). Infrastructure possibilism speaks to the influence of the built environment. Klinenberg notes that homophily - our inclination to surround ourselves with those most like us - is a natural involuntary instinct. Yet by limiting interaction across lines of difference, it creates atomised and fragmented societies (Drevitch, 2018). In contrast, social infrastructure is defined as, “the network of physical spaces and institutions - from sidewalks to public parks, libraries to cafés - that, when robust, promote community-building activities among otherwise diverse clans. When these resources are degraded, however, they discourage interaction, leaving different groups - however you define them - to fend for themselves.” (Klinenberg, 2017).
These may be public or private spaces (provided that they are publicly accessible), essentially encompassing any space or institution where people congregate. Rather, it is a lens that we should apply to decisions about infrastructure - both new and pre-existing. Prioritising economic growth and physical spaces that support trade tend to benefit the wealthy alone. Therefore, focus should be on how spaces can support social interaction between people. (Klinenberg, 2018). For instance, in the field of transportation planning, the complete streets concept - creating safer and more accessible environments for pedestrians and cyclists to pass through or linger - can be seen as contributing to social infrastructure (Yusuf, 2019). In contrast, Facebook’s proposal of ‘Virtual communities.’ as online social infrastructure is flimsy, and aimed solely at profit. When public spaces encourage us to leave our homes and engage with neighbours in places where we feel safe, we are more likely to look out for each other when help is needed. Social infrastructure therefore needs to facilitate people making connections, forming networks and being able to support one-another (Klinenberg, 2018).
Spaces therefore exist on a spectrum, depending on their effectiveness as pieces of social infrastructure. For instance, cafés serve as meeting places and contribute to neighbourhood safety through passive surveillance - their presence is linked to reduced street crime and murder in virtually every setting. Yet their effectiveness is limited by their status as commercial sites of consumption, with management free to enforce ‘no loitering’ policies (Klinenberg, 2018). More effective are free and accessible public spaces like parks and playgrounds. Arguably the most critical are libraries, which in an age of austerity and cuts to public funding, increasingly operate as multifaceted community centres - providing access to not only books, but internet services, sites for club meetings as well as a home away from home for
24 theoretical framework those who need it. Other places provide a social infrastructure role primarily as sites where particular communities and organisations can meet - such as churches and civic associations, or bowling leagues and barber shops in the US.
3.2.2 Shortcomings of using social infrastructure to reduce loneliness
The most obvious shortcoming with seeking to use public space to mitigate loneliness is that there is no guarantee that lonely people will make use of these spaces - particularly since loneliness can often be self-reinforcing, with sufferers increasingly isolating themselves from the outside world (Lepore, 2020). Even if they are used, their primary function can only be to facilitate so-called micro- interactions. Table 2 thus indicates that only 5 of the 11 De Jong loneliness questions can likely be met (even in a best-case scenario) through public space interventions. Research has shown that such micro-interactions have a significant positive effect on our mental wellbeing (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2013). Yet it is clear that these interactions alone cannot stand as a substitute for deeper and more meaningful social connections, which is why the UK’s loneliness strategy also stresses the need for individual and group interventions like Social Prescribing.45 Other, policy-based interventions may also have more success in encouraging a sense of community and interactions within neighbourhoods. With average rental periods in major cities like London as low as 20 months, rent freezes may be one good example (Hertz, 2020).
Questions might also be asked about who is most served by investments in public space. Social infrastructure is thriving in gentrified urban neighbourhoods hosting communities of affluence - which place great importance in performances of lifestyle consumption (lounging at coffee shops, parks, etc). For those working low-income jobs typified by long hours and stagnating wages, it can be difficult to find either the time or the inclination to make use of even free and accessible spaces. Clearly then, a ‘build it and they will come’ approach of social infrastructure investment alone might be insufficient to ensure marginalised groups are able to partake in such spaces (Ocejo, 2018).
Finally, performances of lifestyle consumption can also increase perceived social isolation, particularly in Scandinavian cities, with their strong culture of streetside socialising in bars and restaurants. “The city, for sure, is a constant reminder that people are living better lives than you. I mean they don’t, but it looks like it. There was a period where I [...] was super lonely and [...] then you have to walk through these people sitting there drinking wine, looking fabulous and having all their friends. And you sort of forget that this might be the first time in three months that they might. But it looks like they do this all the time and it’s like “Oh my god, I’m the only one who’s not being invited!”“ (Anonymous Copenhagen resident quoted by Milne, 2020).
These points emphasise the importance of features such as inclusivity and accessibility in planning for social infrastructure - and what sets apart spaces like centrally-located libraries and parks (at both the neighbourhood and city-wide scales) over commercial offerings.
45 See section 2.4, above. 25 theoretical framework
3.3 Co-presence / Geographies of encounter
What is the value of bringing diverse social groups together in public space? Much work in this regard can be traced back to the work of psychologist Gordon Allport, whose ‘contact hypothesis’ argued that the best way to reduce prejudice and promote social integration was by bringing different groups together. This can operate to minimise difference and ‘otherness’ by lessening fear of the unknown and creating a sense of familiarity between different groups in particular and comfort with difference more generally (1954).
This viewpoint has obvious applicability within the field of planning, given the implicit role of shared space in providing a site for such interactions between strangers. Work on the instrumental value of geographies of difference have been increasingly influential within the literature since the early 2000s, with the city being reimagined as a site of connection and ‘throwntogetherness’ with others (Valentine, 2008; Massey, 2005). This connection generally takes place at the micro scale of everyday public interactions. Low-level sociability, such as holding doors and sharing seats, nevertheless arguably represents an important facet of mutual acknowledgement and civility (Laurier & Philo, 2006; Boyd, 2006). Potential for social interaction is therefore created by people going through their everyday routines, as individuals encounter each other in situated contexts. These allow for processes that negotiate and shape social structures, attitudes and acceptable behaviours (Giddens, 1984).
This raises important questions about who in fact has access to public space in different parts of the city, and who is excluded. Where do citizens with different backgrounds have a possibility to share space, if indeed such places exist? Residents of areas left out of these inflows and exchanges can face social exclusion, particularly immigrants who are in the process of adapting to a new culture (Legeby & Marcus, 2015). On the one hand, co-presence is important because of its ability to allow for recognition and normalising of diversity, that can trigger processes of acceptance and solidarity - who is seen (Franzén, 2009). On the other hand, they are an important way for newcomers to more effectively interact with wider society - navigating and understanding of everyday practices and social and cultural norms (Olsson, 1998). Urban form is an important factor in this context. Space can operate in a conservative or generative way - structuring and reproducing existing social relations and divisions, or creating potential for new interactions and co-presence in public space (Legeby & Marcus, 2011). This has relevance for loneliness in a wider sense, which has been identified as relating to social exclusion and a desire to be seen, witnessed and accepted (Laing, 2015).
3.4 Common features
Taken together, these three theories come together to create a guiding framework. All three stress the importance of public space as a site for interaction with strangers. Such interactions alone cannot tackle loneliness. And yet they facilitate an important form of sociability that cannot be replicated in private settings – whose inherently exclusory nature contributes to atomisation and fragmentation of different social groups from one-another. Loneliness is strongly linked to feelings of
26 trust and belonging in wider society, which public spaces are best-placed to facilitate. This sense of connection is important, whether at the local neighbourhood scale or across society more broadly - and is especially important for newcomers looking to integrate within society. Because of this, we 4.
4. Methodology
This study is borne out of a long-standing personal interest regarding the ways in which our surrounding environments affect seemingly personal individual factors such as education, income and physical and mental wellbeing. This is only beginning to be considered in the context of loneliness and isolation. A consistent theme of the literature review on loneliness has been the extent of uncertainty and contradiction surrounding our knowledge of loneliness and the need for further research into how different factors contribute to such feelings. This is particularly true in the context of urban planning, which appears to have only recently begun grappling with the question of how the discipline should conceptualise and respond to loneliness in cities. The intention is accordingly to provide insights for urban planners. Rather than focusing on practical urban design solutions, it takes a step back, by considering the ways in which we might conceive of and respond to loneliness as a problem of the built environment. How should we understand the problem and what is the most effective way for planning to respond to it?
Given the limited prior research on the subject, an abductive approach is felt to be the most appropriate means of relating data collection in Stockholm to an analysis of loneliness. Rather than the traditional linear-sequential approach of data collection followed by analysis, abduction takes an iterative approach - moving back and forth between data collection and analysis during the research process (Kennedy-Lewis & Thornberg, 2018). This allows for the testing and revising of approaches as a means of ‘reasoning towards meaning’ (Given, 2008). The shortcoming of this approach is the strength of inferences that can be made. Whereas deductive inferences are certain (provided the premises are true) and inductive inferences are probable, abductive inferences are merely plausible. This is especially true in the context of a topic like loneliness – its quality as an internal emotional state means studies typically use data acquired from large-scale surveys involving many thousands of individuals to support generalisations.46 A place-based analysis also cannot speak directly to whether an individual is lonely, but can only consider risk of loneliness. However, the benefit of abductive reasoning is its ability to expand the realm of plausible explanations . It is therefore seen to be useful in the context of a rarely considered subject. A mixed-methods approach is used to try to explore the different ways in which higher-risk loneliness areas can be identified and how public space can be used and improved to facilitate necessary types of social interaction in these areas.
Firstly, an attempt has been made to recreate Dorling et al.’s loneliness maps using the same social fragmentation index listed in section 3.1, above.47 The literature review suggests that the elderly are far from the only vulnerable demographic, and indeed a number of surveys in Sweden and abroad
46 Such as ELSA and the New Zealand Census. 47 Number of unmarried adults x 0.18; Number of single-person households x 0.5; Number of people who have moved to their current address within the last year x 0.38; Number of private renters x 0.8 27 methodology suggest that loneliness rates are actually higher amongst young adults (WSP Sweden, 2019; Walker et al. 2020). Of the three loneliness mapping studies previously conducted, this is the only one that maps the public at large, not only the elderly. The aim is to test both data and methodology. Is suitable data available in Sweden? Is this data available at sufficiently detailed scales? And is it appropriate to use the same factors to measure risk of loneliness in a non-UK context?
For the mapping to be possible, data needs to be available for consistently sized geographical units. Meanwhile, for the end results to be useful, they would need to provide data that is sufficiently fine- grained to provide insight into a particular area. The typical SCB geographical units (Country, Region or Municipality) are all arguably too large for this purpose. Attempts were accordingly made to map loneliness at two scales. One, comparing the different districts within Stockholm municipality (the municipality with the best publicly accessibly data) and one at a more fine-grained scale - comparing the 26 DeSO units within Sundbyberg (the smallest and densest municipality in Stockholm County). DeSO units are distinct geographical units created by Statistics Sweden. They are chosen to encourage more micro-scale comparisons, with each having a roughly equal population of between 700 and 2,700 people per unit (SCB, 2018). A typical municipality in Stockholm County therefore has a few dozen (Sundbyberg has 26), while large metros have hundreds (Stockholm has 544). In theory they would therefore make ideal units of comparison. Data was obtained from the Statistics Sweden (SCB) and Stockholm municipality’s annual yearbook (Stockholm Årsbok) and the mapping conducted in QGIS.
Mapping attempt 1 - Sundbyberg municipality Mapping attempt 2 - Stockholm municipality
Scale: DeSO units Scale: Districts Number of units: 26 Number of units: 13 Typical population per unit: 1,500 - 3,000 Typical population per unit: 50,000 - 100,000 Total area: 9 km2 Total area: 187 km2
28 methodology
Secondly, and given the insights provided by Legeby and Marcus on the isolating effects of neighbourhood planning in Sweden, a desktop study has been conducted on the ways in which urban morphology and space syntax can contribute to an understanding of the links between physically isolated neighbourhoods and risk of loneliness. Does poor connectivity and social isolation from wider society perhaps provide a more plausible view of high-risk neighbourhoods? If so, to what extent can interactions in public space be expected to support social integration?
Finally, interviews have been conducted with three urban planning professionals in Stockholm as a means of testing the insights gleaned from the above results. To what extent do they consider loneliness as an element of social sustainability during the planning process? What are their views on the way planning and particularly public spaces can reduce loneliness and facilitate social contact? Given the insights about segregation and its socially isolating effects, have loneliness and isolation been identified as issues when working with segregation? Owing to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, in-person interviews were not possible. The interview with Lina Kumlin took place via email correspondence, while meetings with Joel Berring and Irma Orgeta took place over video-chat. The full list of questions is available as Annexures 6 & 7. Given the small sample size and expert nature of the interview subjects, semi-structured interviews were felt to be the most appropriate method. This allows for the comparison and contrasting of the paper’s central themes and questions while maintaining openness and flexibility should the interviewee wish to deviate and provide their own insights (Kvale, 1996; Grix, 2004). Every effort has been made to comply with the research ethics requirements of KTH and the Swedish Research council, as well as applicable legislation such as the GDPR (EU, 2018). In particular, interview subjects provided their full and informed consent to being recorded during interviews, and to being identified and quoted in the final paper.
Name Title Employer Lina Kumlin Planning architect WSP Sweden Joel Berring Urban planner City of Stockholm Irma Ortega Project & dialogue co-ordinator City of Stockholm
Lina Kumlin specialises in work relating to loneliness and the built environment. She has been involved in a number of recent studies on the distribution and causes of loneliness in Sweden.48 She was interviewed in order to gain insights into how she sees the role of urban form in contributing to or mitigating loneliness, and whether loneliness is taken into consideration as an element of social sustainability within planning processes. It was also interesting to see whether segregation has come up at all in the context of her work on loneliness.
Joel Berring and Irma Ortega are both involved in the planning process for Fokus Skärholmen, a large- scale ongoing urban development project based in Skärholmen, south-west of Stockholm. Joel works with strategic planning, while Irma works primarily with community dialogues processes. Since they
48 Including WSP’s studies referred to in section 2, above. 29 methodology have no expertise in loneliness, the primary objective was to see how ordinary planners understand loneliness. Is it something they consider, and if so, what are the knowledge gaps that exist in relation to loneliness risk groups and the effect of the built environment? Finally, how do they seek to address the problems of segregation in public space?
Fokus Skärholmen is based in the suburbs of Bredäng, Sätra, Vårberg and Skärholmen (together making up greater Skärholmen). It seeks to add at least 4,000 new homes and related local services by 2030. Emphasis is also placed on investing in meeting places, parks and green areas, as well as strengthening connections in the area (Stockholm stad, 2021b). The project is an interesting one for considering the links between segregation and loneliness. The four areas are in many ways good examples of the isolated neighbourhoods previously discussed by Legeby and others - large-scale, inward-oriented enclaves in the outer suburbs, with weak spatial and social connections to their surroundings. Housing consists largely of monotonous, imposing concrete apartment blocks. No other homes have been added in the area since their development in the late 1950s and early 1960s (ibid). The areas have a very high foreign-born population (between 60 and 80%), and median income and education levels significantly below the Stockholm average (Stockholm stad, 2021c). Indeed, in studying segregation in Southern Stockholm, Legeby has assigned each of her 18 study areas a ‘social exposure’ index based on the four factors of income level, education level, ethnicity and employment. The two study areas located in Skärholmen district (Skärholmen and Bredäng) received the lowest scores of the 18 study areas (2013).
Figure 7: An aerial view of greater Skärholmen clearly how the four districts are disconnected from one-another │ Stockholm stad, 2021b.
At a city-wide scale, Skärholmen forms part of a wedge of spatial segregation (see figure 8, below), ensuring the area is not integrated at a global, cross-city level and likely contributing to its high unemployment levels (Legeby, 2013). In attempting to map social fragmentation levels, the district also had the highest social fragmentation score of any district outside of the Stockholm inner city.49 49 See section 5.1, above.
30 methodology
Stockholm municipality has explicitly recognised the difficulties surrounding social and economic differences between districts. As a result, it has chosen to prioritise social sustainability as a core priority of the Fokus Skärholmen project. Substantial citizen engagement and participation has also taken place to identify the needs and wishes of the local community. The project has been based around feedback from interviews and surveys, which focused on those living and working in the area generally, but also on specific target groups, such as children, jobseekers and young adults (Stockholm stad, 2020).
Figure 8: Hierarchy of street integration in Stockholm, from red (best connected) to blue (worst connected) shows how poorly integrated Skärholmen is to the rest of the city’s street network, compared to other outlying suburbs. This undermines possibilities for co-presence, despite the area’s public transport connections │ Rokem & Vaughan, 2020.
Responses generally focused on the need for improved quality and safety of public spaces, stronger maintenance and stewardship, investment in youth sports and culture facilities, and the addition of larger apartments. All four centres are noted as areas with safety concerns, and sites with strong development needs (Stockholm stad, 2017). The city plans to increase the number of parks and spaces for sports and play, in order to activate the area. Most notable in this regard is a major investment in a new city park, Vårbergstoppen - the largest investment in Stockholm’s current urban greening strategy, Grönare Stockholm. It will be a unique attraction, situated at the highest point in Stockholm, with views over the entire city (Stockholm stad, 2021d). The park was listed as a finalist for Stockholm building of the year (Stockholm stad, 2021e).
31 5. Results
5.1 Geospatial analysis - identifying lonely places using census data
Mapping attempt 1 - Sundbyberg municipality:
Unfortunately, only two of the four factors listed in Congdon’s Social Fragmentation index were available at the DeSO scale - namely, household size and marital status.50 Data on housing tenure for private rentals was not available, so map 1 was therefore forced to use overall rentals per DeSO unit (both public and private). Data on residential relocations was only available for the entire municipality (not for separate DeSO units). Map 1 therefore used the same average relocation figure (municipal relocations divided by number of DeSO units), effectively meaning this factor was not compared.
The results for Sundbyberg indicate no clear geographic pattern, with many of the municipality’s neighbourhoods including areas with both high and low anomie/social fragmentation levels. Thus, the suburb of Hallonbergen has both some of the highest and lowest results, while there is significant variation in different parts of Central Sundbyberg, Duvbo and Stora Ursvik. See Annexures 4 and 5, below, for full explanation of social fragmentation calculations and list of data sources.
Social Popu- fragmentation lation Sundbyberg districts Loneliness mapping results score
1419 38.40 1719 37.70 1957 36.14 2043 36.05 1769 35.94 1661 35.48 1397 34.75 1999 34.70 2393 34.20 1651 33.69 2562 33.63 1882 33.28 1924 33.26 1581 32.87 2398 31.88 2034 31.71 1910 31.36 1516 31.30 1659 31.06 1642 30.82 1663 30.46 3546 30.04 1921 29.54 1581 29.24 1535 28.83 2213 26.47
50 Single-person households considered those living alone without children, while a decision was taken to update marital status to consider only divorced and widowed residents.
32 results
Mapping attempt 2 - Stockholm municipality:
Stockholm municipality keeps more detailed data on residential relocations in its annual yearbook - ‘statistiska årsboken för Stockholm’. This allows for comparison between its 13 city districts. Mapping attempt 2 accordingly tried to map loneliness between these districts.
Data for single-person households (without children) and unmarried (divorced/widowed) residents was available from Statistics Sweden (SCB).51
However, the yearbook only provided data on number of private rental households. Multiplying the number of rental households by the average household size per district gave a rough indication of the number of private renters. Therefore, unlike data on Sundbyberg, it was in fact possible to extract fairly accurate figures for all four factors.
However, Stockholm municipality’s size and population density mean it is questionable how useful loneliness mapping on the district level is, with each roughly the size of a typical municipality in Stockholm County (50-150,000 residents each).The results for Stockholm suggest that the inner city has the highest level of social fragmentation. Södermalm has the highest fragmentation score, followed by Kungsholmen, Norrmalm and Östermalm. Other areas with high social fragmentation are Skärholmen and Hässelby-Vällingby. The lowest social fragmentation scores are in the southern suburbs, in Hägersten-Älvsjö, Skarpnäck and Farsta.
Social Popu- District fragmentation lation score
42.12 Södermalm 131,383 38.63 Kungsholmen 75,423 38.35 Norrmalm 75,764 36.42 Östermalm 86,284 34.86 Skärholmen 48,973 32.71 Hässelby-Vällingby 80,268 30.87 Enskede-Årsta-Vantör 121,651 29.11 Bromma 92,737 28.67 Spånga-Tensta 45,914 27.70 Rinkeby-Kista 62,432 27.06 Hägersten-Älvsjö 143,165 26.09 Skarpnäck 53,547 23.40 Farsta 71,981
51 By adding up the totals for all DeSO units within each district. 33 results
Shortcomings of loneliness maps based on social fragmentation index:
There are a number of shortcomings with the loneliness maps which render the identified loneliness ‘hotspots’ questionable at best. These shortcomings extend beyond data availability to also include more fundamental theoretical and methodological criticisms.
A. Lack of data, This is a common problem with area studies and census-based loneliness mapping (Age particularly UK, 2017). Even where such data exists at a sufficiently detailed scale, in most cases it is at local scale not made available to the public or even to academics (Vaughan et al. 2005). This was the case for both study areas. Requests for data were denied due to privacy concerns.52 In- abilityo t obtain data on residential turnover per area in Sundbyberg has rendered the results largely meaningless. This is indicated by the fact that the Total social fragmenta- tion score ranking is essentially the same as the ranking for Single-person households.
B. Data and This was most evident in the context of the ‘Private renters’ category. Like many countries, categories not the UK has a largely binary distinction between private and public housing. The situation is standardised between more complex in Sweden. While the Stockholm map only considers private rentals, it fails to countries. distinguish between second-hand contracts and first-hand contracts, which are often rentals from large housing co-operatives. The Sundbyberg map includes first-hand contracts and public rentals - an especially problematic oversight since more than half of all renters live in munici- pally owned housing. This is often a stable and long-term living arrangement, since municipal housing companies have greater social responsibilities by law (Sveriges Allmännytta, 2021).
C. Questions The Social fragmentation index has only been shown to have a statistically significant relation- about validity ship to suicide, and links to loneliness remain a theory. Even if the factors were associated with of Social Fragmentation loneliness, there are questions about weighting. Age UK authors warn that merely superim- index formula posing such factors without identifying their weightings is problematic and inaccurate, as some factors were found to have an association 10x stronger than others (2015).
D. Questions Research on loneliness risk factors in the Swedish context also makes it appear question- about ablet tha three of the four factors in the Social Fragmentation index are appropriate predic- relevance tors of loneliness in Sweden - the exception being divorced and widowed residents. As we of factors have seen, single households are extremely common in Sweden and research suggests living in Swedish alone has a far weaker connection to loneliness than in many countries.53 Residential turn- context over is also relatively high, and most moves take place within the same municipality and often even within the same district - likely reducing their ‘fragmentary’ effects (SCB, 2021). Rent- ing can also be a more stable and long-term arrangement, given the large number of peo- ple renting from housing co-operatives and state housing companies (Sveriges Allmännyt- ta, 2021). However, a lack of recent survey data makes it difficult to test different factors.54
52 The municipalities contacted did not have access to information on DeSO-level residential relocations. While SCB maintains a micro-data register, the data is not available to the public for privacy reasons. Requests for data were rejected. Stockholm County also has a local area database at the basområde level (ODB), but again this is only available to those working in the public sector (Region Stockholm, 2021). 53 See section 5.3, above 54 In contrast, Age UK and Victor & Pikhartova’s studies can be tested against data gleaned from the English
34 results
E. Provides no Neither of the loneliness mapping attempts by Age UK and Dorling et al. considered insight into howy and wh loneliness may vary between different types of geographical areas (Victor how area & Pikhartova, 2020). This limits the extent of the insights that can be gleaned from the resultant loneliness maps. We can infer only correlation between particular areas and risk of loneliness - it provides no insight into whether or how built environment characteristics themselves contribute to heightened risk of loneliness. If loneliness mapping is intended as a way of informing resource allocation within planning, we have limited insight into the kinds of environmental interventions required.
F. General The social fragmentation index’s methodology is rooted in sociology. Its main approach criticism of is therefore to describe the social constitution of different urban areas using average mapping values and shares for different social indicators (in this case, marital status, household based on size, etc.). This leads to different areas being categorised according to their residential residential composition. A similar approach is typically taken in studying social segregation in cities social indicators (Marcus, 2007). Legeby, Marcus and others working on segregation and social isolation in Stockholm are critical of this approach, which they feel has been overly dominant in human geography (2011). They point to two major flaws with the approach. Firstly, the Modified Area Unit Problem - by focusing on area averages we typically use area units which are arbitrarily defined, but whose definition heavily influences the results of its analysis (Marcus, 2007). By averaging out, we also hide variation within data (Openshaw, 1984).
By obtaining data at a fine scale we can partially overcome these issues, but we cannot overcome the second problem of failing to count non-residents who work in or visit the area. This provides a one-dimensional and incomplete conception of social isolation which fails to consider questions of segregation in public space - also known as interplay segregation (Olsson, 2005). It also encourages misinformed solutions which aim only at residential diversification (Marcus, 2007). Thus,
“The pressure of newly arrived refugees is generally acknowledged in terms of the following questions: Where will the newly arrived be housed? Where will their children goo t school? [...] Less debated is how the built environment encourages or discourages newcomers from interacting with society at large. That is, can public space be a place that people with different backgrounds and from different residential areas in fact share? [...] What concrete opportunities does this mean for a newcomer, for example, to meet or see other people, access [...] amenities, or partake in public space? ” ~ Legeby & Marcus, 2011, p. 156.
Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) - an ongoing study that, since 2002, has collected multidisciplinary data from a representative sample of England’s population aged 50+ (ELSA, 2021). No such possibilities for regression analysis is possible in the Swedish context. 35 results
5.2 Desktop study - identifying lonely places using space syntax analysis
5.2.1 Spatial morphology
Given the critiques listed in section F, above, an increasing number of scholars are choosing to forego the use of place-based residential indicators, and instead analyse spatial morphology. This is premised on the work of Hillier and others, whose theory of Natural Movement states that spatial configuration influences patterns of movement in urban space (Hillier et al. 1993). By assessing how well-integrated streets are within the overall city network, we can predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy how likely particular streets and street segments are to capture pedestrian flows, based on their so-called ‘integration value’ within the overall system (Marcus, 2007). In the context of Stockholm, studies of the Södermalm district have found integration value to correlate with observed levels of pedestrian movement by 70% (Marcus, 2007). Space syntax therefore provides the possibility to analyse urban relations more dynamically, “...as how people are connected, mediated and integrated through public space, rather than statistically, average across large urban areas.” (Marcus, 2007a, p. 255) - enabling a shift from spatial location to spatial relations (Legeby, 2015). This analysis can be conducted at different scales - such as local integration within a neighbourhood, or global integration across an entire city.55
Figures 9 & 10: Space syntax map indicating global integration level of all streets in Stockholm (left) │ Rokem & Vaughan, 2020; Space syntax maps of southern Stockholm, indicating the street segments that are best integrated at a local scale (top) and a global scale (bottom) │ Marcus, 2007.
55 The accessibility measures developed in space syntax research has been further developed with the creation of a place syntax GIS plug-in. This allows for the assessment of how physically accessible specific urban functions and attractors (e.g. libraries or open green spaces) are to the population available to use it (Ståhle et al. 2005).
36 results
An extensive body of research has identified correlations between urban form (as measured by spatial integration) and a variety of urban phenomena (Marcus, 2007a).56 The ways in which people are encouraged to move and congregate in a city is clearly of pivotal importance in understanding the city’s functioning. Space syntax has also been used extensively by Legeby and others as a means of assessing segregation in neighbourhoods characterised by concerns such as low income and education levels and a very high share of foreign-born residents. They show how not only are these neighbourhoods poorly connected to workplaces and public amenities, but the potential for co-presence with people from other neighbourhoods is severely undermined by the fact that these neighbourhoods and their neighbourhood squares are poorly integrated with the rest of the city - creating a ‘ruptured interface’ that discourages mixing between locals and non-locals (Legeby, 2010; Legeby, Pont & Marcus, 2015). Access to workplaces in these neighbourhoods is also typically low.
Figure 11: Legeby and others argue that urban form itself isolates many modernist-era neighbourhoods in Sweden, undermining their mostly foreign-born residents from potentials for co-presence in wider society. Depicted here is a map of isolated neighbourhoods on Gothenburg’s periphery │ Legeby, Pont and Marcus (2015).
In Stockholm, a wedge of spatial segregation is most apparent to the city’s south-west, in neighbourhoods around Skärholmen (Legeby, 2013). As we have seen, these factors result in limited job
56 These include retail location (Marcus, 2019), rent prices (Netzell, 2010) and perceived access to green space (Ståhle, 2005). 37 results opportunities and economic activity for those living on the city’s edges, especially those who lack access to private transport (Legeby, 2013). This manifests in various inequalities, particularly social deprivation, which often persists across generations (Rokem & Vaughan, 2019). More importantly, from the point of view of loneliness and isolation, it also contributes to a significant lack of possibilities for interaction between these residents and the rest Swedish society. It therefore extends beyond residential segregation to also result in segregation in public space (Marcus, 2007). The authors thus link this to urban form - arguing that urban design interventions can create more favourable conditions for accessing local amenities on the one hand, and for a wider urban life with a mixing of locals and non-locals (ibid).
5.2.2 Linking residential segregation to loneliness
Loneliness is a subjective emotion. Even at an individual level, the relationship between physical isolation and loneliness can be contributory but subjectively so (Perissinotto & Covinsky, 2014). Without representative survey studies it is not possible to say whether residents of physically isolated neighbourhoods are at increased risk of loneliness. Yet it seems plausible that such a relationship may exist. In the context of Stockholm such neighbourhoods are typically the lowest income areas, where those with the fewest resources and choices are housed.57 Thus, Legeby characterises such enforced isolation as ‘segregation of coercion.’ We have seen that many in Sweden are seemingly insulated from negative social effects of living alone, with good healthcare and resources to maintain social connections.58 Should the focus of loneliness risk neighbourhoods not then focus on those who have less options and are most disconnected from society more broadly?
This is reinforced by a number of international studies identifying deprivation as the most important neighbourhood characteristic increasing loneliness (albeit focusing only on the elderly). These include Victor & Pikhartova’s (2020) loneliness mapping study59 and an international comparison of the UK and Netherlands by Scharf & De Jong Gierveld, 2008). Here, the authors note that despite notable differences in overall loneliness scores, the association between deprived areas and loneliness is remarkably similar across both countries. Furthermore, in the Swedish context, the very notion of ‘utanförskap’ (outsiderness) suggests a feeling of alienation from wider society. This accords strongly with Hertz’s definition of loneliness as feeling existentially disconnected from wider society, rather than from our immediate relations.60
Spatial isolation also has the benefit of providing a causal explanation for how the built environment itself contributes to loneliness, and thus how it can be optimised to reduce loneliness. Neighbourhoods with ‘ruptured interfaces’ and poor possibilities for interaction and co-presence with those from other neighbourhoods stand at odds with many of the design proposals in loneliness strategies. These ask us to consider whether we are creating infrastructure that facilitates or undermines communities?
57 See Rokem & Vaughan (2020) in section 2.3.4, above. 58 See section 2.3.4 above 59 See section 2.2, above. 60 See section 2.1, above.
38 results
Are we creating streets and squares where people are encouraged to linger or are we simply creating noisy and unsafe environments? Much of this is focused on analysing and correcting existing inequalities - regarding access and use of public amenities. Where are features such as public transport, greenery and parks located? Who has proximity to them and who uses them? (WSP Sweden, 2021).
5.2.3 To what extent can interactions in public space support social integration?
If loneliness is framed around segregation and isolation of particular groups from wider society, to what extent can interventions in public space be expected to address these issues? There is some dispute about the extent to which social integration can be promoted through bringing different groups together in public. In criticising the ‘worrying romanticization of urban encounter’ Valentine notes that mere proximity to difference does not account for the fact that groups may continue to self-segregate within such spaces (2008). Furthermore, she shows through a combination of group discussions and interviews that a disconnect often persists between individuals’ values and their actions in public space - those holding prejudiced views merely learn to self-censor when in public. She argues instead that social integration can best be fostered through ensuring better access for all to work opportunities, housing and other benefits. Prejudice is fuelled by perceived competition for scarce resources.
Sarraf agrees that spatial interventions are unlikely to generate and sustain enduring ties between those who live in entirely different places (2015). Nevertheless, he argues that patterns of co-presence can at least sustain and support what he terms a ‘civility of indifference’. Ganji and Rishbeth also argue that the elective nature of these central public spaces, and their ability to support shared activity and pleasure can play a small but crucial role in making intercultural connections more likely. They take this a step further - seeking to identify specific design elements that can support this process. They emphasise, for instance, the importance of sheltered seating arrangements which encourage users to linger inconspicuously - maximising thresholds and edges for passive observation (2020). We might therefore see the benefit of public space less being less about changing prejudiced attitudes, and more about empowering isolated groups to more actively carve out a space for themselves through their presence in public space.
In the Swedish context, there is also debate about whether and to what extent, urban design and planning can reduce social segregation in Sweden. Marcus is one those who champion an approach grounded in Space Syntax analysis and the possibility of design interventions to ‘open up’ inward- facing neighbourhoods.61 Yet even he recognises the that root of the problem lies elsewhere - in domains such as labour market policy (ensuring a more even distribution of unemployment among different social groups and different districts); school policy (particularly addressing the growing phenomenon of private schooling and the social stratification that can result from this); and finally housing policies (Marcus, 2007). Rokem and Vaughan take an even stronger position - arguing that the complexities of segregation in Stockholm mean the situation is unlikely to be solved through attempts to knit the urban fabric together. Instead, they situate the core of the issue withinthe country’s race-blind housing allocation policies, which fail to account for the different housing needs of different communities, particularly the needs of more recent immigrants to have opportunities
61 See section 10.2 for further details. 39 results for interaction with the broader public to facilitate their process of integration.62 They argue that only a ‘root and branch’ rethinking of the use of ethnicity in statistical data can address this problem, allied with housing and transportation policies which prioritise spatialand social accessibility.
This is not to say that urban design has no role to play - but merely to recognise that it is but one limited part of a broader, multi-faceted approach. We can recognise and address the ways urban design and morphology isolate communities from one-another, while still remaining wary of over-stating the potential of societal transformation through public space interventions alone.
5.3 Expert interviews
5.3.3 Interview Results:
What insights can local planners provide in relation to where and how particular place characteristics might contribute to loneliness? The interviews provided a largely consistent view of the ways in which loneliness and social isolation are understood within the planning profession. Swedish municipal planners are increasingly aware of and concerned by the problem, yet can feel ill-equipped to address it. Difficulties include a lack of data on the prevalence and distribution of loneliness in society. “...we haven’t focused on it and we talked a little bit about why and I think it’s because it’s not so easy to deal with as a planning issue. Maybe we also don’t have enough information about the loneliness statistics - we should learn more about it. I think it’s quite an issue” (Berring). Because of a lack of data and the difficulty of assessing subjective mental states, the problem continues to be conceived as primarily one afflicting the most physically isolated, such as the elderly. Many of the tangible proposals for addressing loneliness therefore focus on elderly facilities, such as old- age community centres or co-housing projects. Another difficulty is the problem of assessing how effectively investments in public spaces actually reduce loneliness, even if they are well-used. “If you plan for new squares people meet at the square, but do they actually meet other people or do they just meet the people they used to meet?” (Berring).
This creates tension with the current model of market-driven development, which has dominated Swedish municipal planning since the 1990s (Hedin et al. 2012). It can be difficult to empirically prove the social utility of these spaces in the context of conflicting budgetary demands. Larger, well-planned public spaces, such as Kulturhuset (a cultural centre in central Stockholm), are recognised as some of the most effective places to facilitate social contact for a diversity of users. While the residents of Skärholmen recognise the need for such premises for cultural and entertainment, planning departments struggle to justify their cost. It is also possible that the market-led planning approach is actively exacerbating loneliness in society. The interviewees note concern about the number of small apartments being built and the types of social structure this can help reproduce. The addition of larger apartments was listed by Skärholmen residents as the single most desired way of improving the area. The functionalist-era policy of building communal meeting rooms within apartment blocks
62 See sections 2.3.4 and 5.2, above.
40 results has also largely disappeared - jettisoned as a cost-cutting measure. However, an alternative possibility is the idea that Sweden’s high number of single-households does not lead to increased loneliness precisely because Swedish living conditions and social norms are ahead of global trends. “Discussing this with [...] researchers [...] the subject of urbanization and individualism came up - two trends that Sweden has already been going through whilst other countries now are undergoing which of course can be a painful experience, hence having high expectations on social interaction with family that are not met” (Kumlin).
Loneliness is not yet considered a part of social sustainability as a singular theme (although interest is increasing). However, many aspects of social sustainability are similar to those emphasised by loneliness researchers - such as the need for meeting places, proximity to nature and public transport accessibility. As regards links between loneliness and segregated or isolated neighbourhoods, the two also share common characteristics, although none of the interviewees have worked on loneliness in relation to segregation. Certainly, people born abroad are more at risk of loneliness. There is also clear evidence of social isolation and less sense of community interaction in these neighbourhoods, although whether this correlates to increased loneliness is less clear. “Of course, we see tendencies of social isolation in low-income areas, and we see this in Skärholmen. For instance, children are less likely to participate in sports activities compared to richer areas. And we see tendencies to co-operate less in associations, sports, etc. But it’s very hard to tackle the question from a planning process.” (Berring). The interviewees largely agree with Legeby and Marcus’ views on the isolating effect of Stockholm’s island form and the way this has been reproduced within modernist-era neighbourhood planning paradigms. However, there was also some disagreement as to whether this lack of non- resident visitors is a greater problem in segregated neighbourhoods or just an inevitable fact of less centrally located suburbs being unable to sustain the kinds of attractions that draw visitors into an area. “I think we have this large-scale separation where people [from] villa areas don’t go to large- scale areas as much, but still, those areas are so large it’s a breeding ground for a lot of connections as well [. ..] Of course the residential areas don’t attract them [visitors] and this is true of other residential areas as well. It’s partly about wealth, but also because [...] on the outskirts the hinterland is less inhabited, [many attractions] couldn’t survive” (Berring).
At the neighbourhood level, there is a sense that many parks and green spaces only provide playgrounds for small children or active spaces for teens. Teenagers and adults alike complain that there are insufficient spaces simply for recreation and meeting, while elderly and disabled focus groups feel excluded by insufficient or inadequate seating. “There has been a lot of focus on activity, like a parkour park- youth, youth, youth. And the older people say “There isn’t even a bench here.” [...] I haven’t thought about it from this perspective of feeling excluded and lonely. But [...] they might be related. You can maybe pass by, but not stop and interact with the space” (Ortega). Requests mainly centre on simple elements like accessible seating and lighting in places with attractive green qualities. The planners strive to create places where people can meet in groups, but are also comfortable being alone. “Skärholmen is the best-functioning, because it has all the traditional features of a good square. It attracts a lot of people. You can meet people you know, but you can also be anonymous and interact
41 results in your own way and just be surrounded by action” (Ortega). It is hoped that the major investments in Vårbergstoppen park will also draw some visitors into the area, but segregation is primarily seen as a problem within Skärholmen. Here, the shortcomings of public space as a site of social mixing and integration are again recognised. Although the local authorities spend significant time working with these issues, they do so in a more direct and proactive way. “We have beautiful spaces, but you need to kind of push people [.. .] We had an activity called Thursday Club Torsdags-klubben( ), with the goal to make people from different backgrounds in Vårby meet for cultural events. So it’s not just about attracting visitors from other parts of Stockholm, [.. .] Another project called Getting to know your neighbour (Lär känna din granne), they create events like a Christmas table or other traditional Swedish things, but in a fun way - like making a Smårgåsbord but with Iraqi food” (Ortega).
Another way to bring non-residents into these suburbs is by adding jobs and workplaces. Access to jobs is a recognised problem here and in other parts of southern Stockholm (Legeby, (2013). This continues to concern local planners, who are eager to increase the number of people commuting into the area. Yet this can be difficult to ensure, given the difficulty of ensuring strategies to prevent companies from moving to other parts of the city - such as the many technology companies which have moved to Kista, a new ICT cluster in the city’s north-west. Where the problem manifests as a shortage of offices (rather than existing offices standing empty), the prohibitively high costsof new construction make it difficult to convince would-be developers that they could secure the kinds of rentals to justify their investment. These difficulties are partly mitigated through the support of the public sector seeking to build a hospital and move existing municipal companies into the area.
As regards public spaces within the inner city that are able to welcome a wide diversity of users, important characteristics mentioned were large size, a diversity of uses and (if outdoors) green elements. Examples mentioned include Kulturhuset, Hornsberg Strand and Rålambshovsparken - one of the most popular inner city parks, with features including a large skate park, volleyball nets, an amphitheatre, boule bar, etc. “[These examples] are nice sites where a lot of different people can meet in different ways. [...] I would say that versatility is the key, so you feel safe to go to a public space on your own as well with a group of friends” (Kumlin). These sites incorporate various design elements that facilitate sitting, recreation and activity - rather than simply being traditional parks and green spaces. A lack of quality indoor public spaces was noted as a concern, given the cold winters. Contextual factors like location and history can be just as important as design choices. Hornsberg Strand no doubt attracts many visitors due the substantial thought and design that has gone into the addition of a new park space in 2012. But just as important is its location as the nearest point of water contact for suburbs located on the city’s blue subway line. Meanwhile, Kungsträdgården, a popular square in the very middle of the inner city, benefits from its long tradition as a meeting place. “Kungsträdgården has always been the central square for everybody [. ..] It’s always been the place to meet people [...] it’s for all in a way, not like a park or something in Södermalm which is only for people living there. [...] it’s not about design“ (Berring).
42 results
Summary: Expert interview results
- Concern about loneliness as a significant social issue. Institutional knowledge - But lack of data and uncertainty about how to address it as a planning issue. gaps - Focus primarily on elderly and physically isolated. regarding loneliness - Loneliness not considered a part of social sustainability (although ties to wider focus on meeting places, accessibility and proximity to services and attractions).
- Loneliness not raised by residents as a concern & planners have not considered this as a problem before. Loneliness in relation - But some evidence of social isolation and reduced community interaction in these to neighbourhoods. segregation - Segregation is not considered a problem primarily in relation to the inner city. Focus is more on segregation between wealthy and lower-income areas within Skärholmen.
- Speculation concerning negative effects of market-driven development on loneliness (smaller apartments and reduced funding for public spaces).
- Difficulty of drawing outsiders into outlying neighbourhoods either through jobs or Further attractions. insights on loneliness - In regard to inner city public spaces that are welcoming 'for all', large size and programming to allow for a broad variety of uses is important. Site location and history also contribute to a site’s success.
- Lack of quality indoor public spaces is a concern.
43 results
Interview results suggest that the most diverse and accommodating inner city public spaces are those that facilitate a diversity of uses, with design elements that facilitate sitting, recreation and activity. History and central location can be just as important.
Clockwise from top-left: Figure 12: The square outside of Stockholm’s cultural centre, Kulturhuset; Figure 13: Rålambshovsparken; Figure 14: Kungsträdgården; Figures 15 & 16: Hornsberg Strand; Figure 17: The viewing tower on top of Vårbergstoppen park, Skärholmen. It is hoped this attraction will help draw more visitors into the area.
44 6. Discussion & analysis
6.1 Common themes
From the above sections, a number of common themes emerge. Firstly, we see again and again the extent of uncertainty and contradiction regarding where and why loneliness manifests in society. Lack of representative surveys across society at large in many countries (including Sweden), means we are forced to rely on smaller academic studies which typically focus on particular social groups - especially the elderly and physically isolated. Recent studies have begun to identify new risk groups, and question how anecdotal discussions and media coverage have influenced our understanding of the subject. The various loneliness mapping studies have all used different indexes for mapping what they understand to be the primary risk factors, while we see that socio-cultural factors can mean differences between societies. The result of all this is a lack of insight for planning professionals, who suspect that it may be a substantial problem, but admit to knowing little about how it manifests or how it should be dealt with as a planning concern.
Secondly, there is increasing evidence that loneliness is affectedy b social and economic deprivation - disproportionately affecting groups such as the poor and unemployed, young adults, and immigrants. We see that in the EU, concerns surround access to healthcare and income, while in Sweden, we see concerns around immobility, social exclusion along ethnic lines, and segregation in public space. Thus, social infrastructure and co-presence both stress the importance of built environment interventions that facilitate accessible and inclusive public spaces for a broad diversity of social groups. The results of section 5.2’s Space Syntax approach, suggest the particular importance of such interventions in combatting social exclusion and loneliness in Stockholm.
Finally, there is strong evidential support for a place-based analysis of loneliness advocated by Victor & Pikhartova (2020). Loneliness is significantly influenced by situational factors and close relationships, both of which have less to do with our surrounding environments. Yet links to social and economic deprivation in particular suggest we should be cognisant of the influence of inequalities between different neighbourhoods. The space syntax analysis shows the role of morphology & public spaces as a source of exclusion. Yet evidence from the literature review and theoretical framework also suggests the importance of environmental interventions as a means of facilitating particularly important kinds of social interaction. Both section 2.4 and the interviews build on this - showing that we can identify particular public space typologies and characteristics that facilitate the kinds of social interaction that might mitigate loneliness. We would do well to continue studying how broader environmental factors influence loneliness.
6.2 Definitional implications
This paper started with the premise of identifying neighbourhoods where people are more likely to suffer from loneliness. However, this question is entirely dependent on how loneliness is defined and how its relationship to the built environment is understood. The literature review defines loneliness as an aversive feeling of alienation, influenced by one’ssubjective assessment of the quality 45 discussion & analysis and quantity of one’s social connections (Mullins, 2007). While it can be affected by physical isolation, the two are not the same. The inherent subjectivity means detailed surveys are needed to assess loneliness. This is time-consuming and therefore difficult to conduct widely. Even where such surveys are conducted, the results can be affected by factors such as cultural and sociological specificities and changing generational attitudes to the stigma of loneliness (De Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985). Practicality therefore requires researchers to instead consider risk factors for loneliness - what should we understand the primary causes of loneliness in society to be?
Because of the difficulty of measuring loneliness, a particular mainstream view of loneliness has arisen in society (Walker et al. 2020). This sees the issue as one primarily affecting the elderly and the physically isolated, such as unmarried persons and those living alone (Victor & Yang, 2012; Holt- Lunstad et al. 2015). The interview results suggest this is equally true within the planning profession. These are undoubtedly all risk factors, as has been repeatedly proved in numerous statistical analyses comparing loneliness survey answers to demographic factors. However, the problem remains that the elderly in particular are over-represented in studies on the subject, and in the surveys on which these studies are based (Holt-Lunstad. 2015). This can lead to confirmation bias and failure to appreciate the different causes of loneliness in different demographics and particularly different age groups (Victor & Yang, 2012). Social fragmentation theory fits within this mainstream view - seeing loneliness as a problem of urban lifestyles fraying traditional social connections. People live alone and move often, resulting in fewer and weaker connections and support from family, neighbours and friends.
More recently, a number of studies have been conducted which survey loneliness levels across society more broadly. These paint a different conception of loneliness as primarily a question of resource access. Numerous studies show young adults to be more vulnerable than the elderly (Walker et al. 2020; WSP Sweden, 2019). The New Zealand government’s decision to incorporate loneliness into its census questions means its results are arguably the most representative. The results identify socially and economically marginalised groups as most at risk - unemployed persons, those with low incomes, indigenous people, young adults and single parents. In particular, it notes the ‘striking’ link between loneliness in relation to low household income and unemployment, and identifies a universal basic income as the most effective way to combat loneliness. Meanwhile the EU’s studies similarly suggest that higher income levels and access to affordable healthcare appear to have a significant effect in shielding certain EU regions (including Sweden) from loneliness, despite individual social isolation. Thus, instead of focusing on the subjective emotional impact of (perceived or real) individual social isolation, we might instead consider how economic deprivation and isolation of particular groups might have an impact on their relationship to wider society. Covid-19’s long-term impact will also serve to amplify social and economic divisions. We have seen that the economic and employment impacts will likely continue to be felt long after social restrictions and interactions have passed (Walker et al. 2020).
46 discussion & analysis
Social fragmentation also stresses the extent to which people live in increasingly homogenous neighbourhoods in relation to factors like age and income. In the context of Sweden, we see how income and economic inequality have a strong spatial form, with the highest and lowest earners each increasingly living in a select few suburbs, and growing differences in living conditions between different geographical areas has also increased (SOU, 2005; SCB, 2018). What this results inisa ‘segregation of coercion’ whereby residents of low-income, peripheral neighbourhoods are excluded from opportunities for co-presence in wider society. As these residents are also disproportionately foreign-born, this makes integration more difficult. Diversity is less normalised and newcomers have fewer opportunities to navigate and engage with local practices and cultural norms (Franzén, 2009; Olsson, 1998). This state of affairs, combined with insights in the isolating effects of deprivation more generally, point to the possibility of a broader conception of loneliness centred on a need to be seen, witnessed and accepted in society (Laing, 2015). This ties to Noreena Hertz’s conception of loneliness as both an individual and existential phenomenon, with factors like increased inequality and segregation seeing individuals increasingly left behind and disconnected from wider society.
6.3 Methodological implications
These insights help point to shortcomings in many of the traditional mapping techniques. The lack of representative studies means these maps use indexes that are based on data regarding loneliness only in old age (Age UK, 2015a; Victor & Pikhartova, 2020) or on sociological theories like social fragmentation (Dorling et al. 2008). During the loneliness mapping attempt in 5.1, typical difficulties arose with data collection, particularly at the micro-scale level. However, more fundamental questions concerned the weak connection between loneliness and many of the factors in the Swedish context. Physical isolation at a residential level does not appear to be a strong predictor of loneliness, apparently owing to a strong economic and healthcare safety net. The factors used in Congdon’s social fragmentation index are therefore seemingly too simplistic and fail to account for social and cultural specificities & the ways different factors operate in tandem. Attempts to consider loneliness across a particular society therefore need to take account of the socio-cultural specificities of the study area, which can differ markedly between countries and regions. These affect social expectations, which in turn affect our assessment of whether or not we should be satisfied with our current social connections. A list of factors cannot be transplanted as is from one context to another. Thus, we see that in the context of Stockholm, loneliness may be influenced by factors as diverse and contextual as national post-war planning policies, recent immigration policies, and a longstanding culture of individualism and self-sufficiency.
More broadly, loneliness mapping does not take into account spatial relations. We are given no insight into how (often arbitrarily defined) neighbourhoods relate to one another orthe extent to which non-residents may visit the area for work or leisure. It also gives little insight into environmental influences - how area characteristics might contribute to loneliness prevalence in particular areas. Social fragmentation does seek to situate loneliness conceptually within a breakdown of social relations at the neighbourhood level, which hints at the need for
47 discussion & analysis environmental interventions at this scale, but it still does not explain why these areas might suffer from higher residential turnover, have more divorced or widowed residents, etc.
In contrast, the strength of the space syntax approach advocated by Legeby and others is that situates the problem in spatial relations, and provides a plausible causal explanation for how place characteristics in certain neighbourhoods contribute to the social isolation of their residents. It draws from theories of co-presence by recognising the role of space in structuring and reproducing social relations and divisions, and limiting or creating potential for interaction in public space. If loneliness is partly a question of resource access, then public space is conceptualised as one such resource. Space syntax is a way of mapping uneven access thereto - by measuring the integration value of different neighbourhoods to the overall city network. This also provides an explanation forwhy these neighbourhoods typically suffer higher levels of deprivation, owing to the important role of geographical access to jobs and the way in which co-presence in public space affects the life chances that a neighbourhood affords (Legeby, 2013).
The focus on public space as a social resource, and particularly as a site for interaction with difference, relates strongly to Klinenberg’s theories on public space as a form of social infrastructure. Klinenberg stresses that such spaces should facilitate people making connections and forming networks. What Legeby and others suggest is that urban form in cities like Stockholm prohibit this from happening within and between neighbourhoods, owing to a ‘ruptured interface’ that discourages mixing between locals and non-locals (Legeby, 2010; Legeby, Pont and Marcus, 2015).
6.4 Implications for practice
There is evidence that loneliness can indeed be understood as a planning problem and addressed partly through environmental interventions. The literature review has shown that particular public space categories and characteristics help to reduce loneliness by acting as social infrastructure to facilitate social interaction. Social fragmentation speaks to a lack of place-attachment and this receives support from studies showing that green spaces serve to increase social cohesion and interaction partly through changing the way we perceive our neighbourhoods and thosewe share them with. A consideration of the De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale questions suggests that environmental strategies speak to around half of the questions on the scale.63 Conversely, studies of segregation in Stockholm have also shown how space operates in a conservative way - structuring existing social differences by reducing potential for interactions and co-presence within the city.
Yet the interviews suggest that while there is increasing concern and interest in loneliness as a societal problem, planners are hampered by a lack of institutional insight into who is lonely and how planning can best contribute. They recognise a need for more data on where and why loneliness manifests in Sweden. In this regard, the literature review has shown the benefits of broadly representative, multi- year surveys on the extent of loneliness across society or a segment of society - such as New Zealand’s
63 See section 3.1.3, above.
48 discussion & analysis loneliness-related census questions or the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA).64
The literature review indicates that a place-based analysis of loneliness should recognise public space as an important site of social interaction. While all three theories speak to the importance of public space as a place for interaction across lines of difference, they do so at different scales. Social fragmentation speaks to the importance of interventions at the local, neighbourhood level. Existing loneliness strategies typically focus on this scale, pointing to the need for environmental affordances that are inclusive, well-designed and generally encourage lingering. This is largely in keeping with broader trends in planning - with a focus on characteristics such as walkable, sheltered, mixed-use areas, with active frontages, good lighting and green elements. Various public space categories are recognised as strongly supporting social interactions and a sense of place - including libraries, neighbourhood parks and green spaces, playgrounds, plazas, and local high streets and markets.65 The interview results also suggest that a failure to consider the most basic needs of groups such as the elderly and disabled can lead to their effective exclusion from the public realm. This points to the importance of public participation within planning processes, particularly with vulnerable demographics.
Inclusivity can help ensure a greater diversity of users. Social infrastructure provides a lens through which to assess the effectiveness of different public spaces in facilitating social interactions. Sites of consumption are only accessible to those who can pay, while other privately owned and policed public spaces contribute less to neighbourhood ties and sense of place. This is what sets apart free and accessible public truly public spaces like parks, playgrounds, cultural centres and libraries, as compared to cafés and stores. This sounds a warning for the approach of the UK government, whose loneliness strategy rarely mentions its libraries and cultural institutions, but spends significant time discussing the importance of high streets and chat schemes instigated by cafe chains. The interviewees’ speculation concerning the negative effects of market-driven development on loneliness in Sweden similarly suggest that provision of social infrastructure should not be left exclusively to the private sector.
Meanwhile, insights about residential segregation and the importance of co-presence highlight the need for strategies that encourage mixing between neighbourhoods across the entire city. Calls for planning on a 15-minute neighbourhood scale (Carlstén, 2021) should therefore be careful lest they reproduce the isolating effects of the Million Homes era’s neighbourhood planning principles. There is no easy answer for how to facilitate co-presence. The interviews show that municipal planners are strongly aware of this issue, and put a great deal of thought into how to attract people and jobs into neighbourhoods like Skärholmen, but face difficulty in achieving this through environmental interventions alone. They therefore tend to instead focus on group interventions, in theformof cultural and social events explicitly designed to encourage individuals from different backgrounds to meet one-another.
64 See sections 2.2 and 2.3.1, above. 65 See section 2.5, above, for the full summary. 49 discussion & analysis
If we consider ways to create inner city public spaces ‘for everyone’, insights from the interviews indicate that the most diverse and welcoming spaces in Stockholm are more unique, large-scale attractions that are programmed for a wide variety of uses, with design elements that facilitate sitting, recreation and activity. Activity and versatility of uses is key, as this attracts a wider array of users, but also makes users feel more comfortable visiting the space alone to passively observe. This is supported by Ganji and Rishbeth’s work in the UK, suggesting that public spaces can best support social integration for newcomers by providing elements like sheltered seating arrangements, which encourage users to linger inconspicuously - maximising thresholds and edges for passive observation (2020). Finally, interviews indicate that the location of public spaces in relation to transport routes can be as important as their design.
6.5 Study limitations and proposals for further studies
It is important to briefly recognise some of the limitations of this study, and consider proposals for further related studies. The study has only made use of desktop research and expert interviews, in arguing for segregation and lack of co-presence as a contributing factor to loneliness and social isolation. The expert interviews did not provide significant evidence either for or against this link. Accordingly, and given the increasing evidence suggesting deprivation as a substantial contributing factor to loneliness, there is a need for further studies incorporating direct surveys, which consider the extent of loneliness in segregated, low-income neighbourhoods.
While this paper has made the case that environmental loneliness interventions should prioritise interventions in public space, we have also seen that such strategies remain unable to fulfil many of our needs for deeper social connections. At least six of the eleven De Jong loneliness questions appear to require interventions extending beyond environmental factors. We should also be wary of prioritising a form of social infrastructure that enables little more than public displays of lifestyle consumption - further contributing to feelings of alienation.66 Similarly, in using public spacing to combat social segregation, we are warned of the dangers of romanticising urban encounter. Public space strategies can only serve as one limited part of a broader, multi-faceted approach which must include other aspects such as policies on the labour market, schooling and housing allocation.67 The question of how to achieve a balance between planning at a neighbourhood scale while also ensuring interactions across different parts of the city, is also something that warrants further study.
Finally, Victor & Pikhartova have highlighted the need for further research to investigate the interrelationship between area characteristics and individual-level loneliness vulnerability measures (2020). In particular, it is worth studying whether different age groups are differently affected in this regard, given evidence that different age groups are differently affected by the same factors.68
66 See sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.2, above. 67 See section 5.2.3, above. 68 See section 2.3.1, above.
50 7. Conclusion
This paper set out to answer two questions regarding the relationship between loneliness and the built environment - namely, (1) what can our knowledge of loneliness risk factors tell us about the possible spatial distribution of loneliness in cities? and (2) what influence does the built environment itself have on loneliness? By answering these questions, the aim was to chart an understanding of loneliness with practical insights for how urban planning can respond to this public health concern.
As to the possible spatial distribution of loneliness, commonly identified risk factors typically focus on transient, situational factors (divorce, death of a partner) or characteristics that are widely distributed in society (the elderly, single-person households). Drawing on a number of recent studies highlighting factors such as employment, income and healthcare as crucial determinants of loneliness, this study has instead proposed that loneliness should be seen substantially as a question of resource access. This builds on the work of Victor & Pikhartova, suggesting we should understand deprived neighbourhoods as those most at risk of loneliness (2020).
What in turn is the impact of the built environment on loneliness? Loneliness’ traditional characterisation as a problem based exclusively on individual characteristics & circumstance provides little insight for built environment professionals seeking to address the problem through less targeted interventions in the broader living environment (otherwise known as environmental intervention strategies). Space syntax analysis is proposed as a more helpful method of analysis. It shows that urban form can contribute to social isolation of residents in poorly integrated neighbourhoods on the urban fringes - limiting possibilities for interaction with others in the public realm. Where, as in Stockholm, spatial isolation coincides with a largely foreign-born population, this isolating effect is stronger, as co-presence in public space is necessary to support processes of integration and acceptance within society. Spatial isolation therefore contributes to the definition of loneliness proposed by Hertz (2020) - as a more partly existential feeling of alienation and disconnect from wider society (rather than from our immediate friends and family). This study therefore grounds loneliness and social isolation in broader themes of cultural difference, integration and feelings of belonging.
The ramifications for these findings are firstly the need to consider in more detail possible links between segregation and loneliness. Secondly, there is a need for further studies of the kinds of public spaces best-suited to combating loneliness. Current focus on interventions that foster a sense of place and community building at the neighbourhood scale may not be sufficient to address concerns surrounding segregation and lack of co-presence between different demographics. If lack of co-presence in public space can contribute to loneliness, then public space interventions, particularly those that support interaction between residents from different parts of the city, may help mitigate loneliness and social isolation
51 52 References
Aelbrecht PS. (2016). ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers, Journal of Urban Design, 21:1, 124-152, doi: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1106920
Age UK. (2020). Loneliness maps. Available at: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/our-impact/policy-research/loneliness- research-and-resources/loneliness-maps [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Age UK. (2017). Age UK’s Loneliness Heat Map Questions & Answers. Available at: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/ contentassets/972087f6d82841569c55d96a86e0dd87/age_uk_loneliness_heat_maps_faqs.pdf [Accessed on 07 March 2021].
Age UK. (2015a). ‘Predicting the prevalence of loneliness at older ages.’ Iparraguirre J. Available at: https://www. ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/health--wellbeing/ predicting_the_prevalence_of_loneliness_at_older_ages.pdf [Accessed on 07 Feb 2021].
Age UK. (2015b). ‘Loneliness at local and neighbourhood level. Summary July 2015.’ Available at: https://www.ageuk. org.uk/contentassets/972087f6d82841569c55d96a86e0dd87/age_uk_loneliness_risk_index_summary-july2015. pdf [Accessed on 8 march 2021].
Allport GW. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andersson G. (2018). ‘Why are there so many single households in Sweden?’ Socio(b)log. Available at: https:// socioblog.su.se/2018/02/28/why-are-there-so-many-single-households-in-sweden/ [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Arnberger A. & Eder R. (2012). ‘The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents.’ Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 41-49. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003
Ballinger C. (2011). ‘Why Geographic Factors are Necessary in Development Studies’. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ ssrn.1791127.
Beridze G, Ayala A, Ribeiro O et al. (2020) ‘Are Loneliness and Social Isolation Associated with Quality of Life in Older Adults? Insights from Northern and Southern Europe.’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(22):8637. Doi:10.3390/ijerph17228637
Bowman CC. (1955). ‘Loneliness and social change.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 112, 194-198.
Boyd R. (2006). ‘The value of civility?’ Urban Studies. 43, 863–78.
Brewster L. & Jacobson MF. (1978). The changing American diet. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest.
British Red Cross. (2019). Barriers to Belonging. Available at: https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/ what-we-do/we-speak-up-for-change/barriers-to-belonging#:~:text=Our%20report%20is%20an%20 exploration,backgrounds.&text=Feeling%20valued%2C%20included%2C%20safe%20and,big%20role%20in%20 tackling%20loneliness. [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Brülde B & Fors F. (2015). ‘Den svenska ensamheten: om hur olika former av ensamhet påverkar vårt välbefinnande’ in Bergström A, Johansson B, Oscarsson H och Oskarson M. (eds.) Fragment: SOM-undersökningen 2014 (pp. 47-61). Göteborg: SOM-institutet.
Bu F, Steptoe A & Fancourt D. (2020). ‘Who is lonely in lockdown? Cross-cohort analyses of predictors of loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.’ Public Health (London), 186, 31-34.
Cacioppo JT. (2018) ‘The growing problem of Loneliness.’ The Lancet, Vol 391. Available at: https://static1. squarespace.com/static/531897cde4b0fa5080a9b19e/t/5ab52956352f534a09fea2c6/1521822038969/the- growing-problem-of-loneliness.pdf [Accessed on 37 Jan 2021].
Cacioppo JT & Cacioppo S. (2018). ‘Loneliness in the Modern Age: An Evolutionary Theory of Loneliness (ETL). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.03.003.
53 Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Crawford LE, Ernst JM, Burleson MH, Kowalewski RB & Berntson GG. (2002). ‘Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms.’ Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 407–417.
Campaign to End Loneliness. (2015). Measuring Your Impact on Loneliness in Later Life. Available at: https://www. campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/Loneliness-Measurement-Guidance1-1.pdf [Accessed on 17 Feb 2021].
Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L & Gómez-Baggethun E. (2016). ‘Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and planning.’ Environmental Science and Policy, in press. http:// dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007
Carlstén F. (2021). ‘Gröna pauser är här för att stanna’ WSP Sweden. Available at: https://www.wsp.com/sv-SE/insikter/ grona-pauser-har-for-att-stanna [Accessed on 22 March 2021].
Christodoulou P. (2014). ‘This is how it feels to be lonely: A report on migrants and refugees’ experiences with loneliness in London’. The Forum. Available at: https://migrantsorganise.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ Loneliness-report_The-Forum_UPDATED.pdf [accessed on 19 February 2021].
Congdon P. (1996). ‘Suicide and Parasuicide in London: A Small-area Study’ Urban Studies, 33(1), 137-158.
Cooke R. (2019). No one is immune from loneliness, but we have the cure within ourselves. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/loneliness-epidemic-strategies-christmas [Accessed on 26 Jan 2021].
Dahlberg L, Agahi N, & Lennartsson C. (2018a). ‘Lonelier than ever? Loneliness of older people over two decades. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics’, 75, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.11.004
Dahlberg L, Andersson L, Lennartsson C. (2018b). ‘Long-term predictors of loneliness in old age: results of a 20-year national study.’ Aging Ment Health. 22(2):190-196. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2016.1247425
De Jong Gierveld J & van Tilburg T. (2006). ‘A 6-Item Scale for Overall, Emotional, and Social Loneliness Confirmatory Tests on Survey Data.’ Research on Aging. 28. 10.1177/0164027506289723.
De Jong Gierveld J & Kamphuis F. (1985). ‘The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale.’ Applied Psychological Measurement 9: 289–299.
Delaney B. (2020). How will we tackle the pandemic of loneliness after Covid? Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/16/how-will-we-tackle-the-pandemic-of-loneliness-after-covid [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
D’Hombres B, Sykle S, Barjakova M & Mendonca, FT. (2018). ‘Loneliness - an unequally shared burden in Europe’. European Commission. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329802077_Loneliness-an_ unequally_shared_burden_in_Europe [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Drevitch G. (2018). ‘Come Together, Right Now, Maybe at the Library.’ Psychology Today, Sep/Oct. Available at: https:// www.psychologytoday.com/ie/articles/201809/come-together-right-now-maybe-the-library [Accessed on 09 March 2021].
Dorling D, Vickers D, Thomas B, Pritchard J & Ballas D. (2008). ‘Changing UK: The way we live now.’ Social And Spatial Inequalities (SASI) group, Department of Geography, University of Sheffield. Available at: http://www.dannydorling. org/?page_id=2015 [Accessed on 4 Feb 2021].
Durkheim E. (1897). Le suicide. Paris. Translated as “Suicide: a study” by Spalding J & Simpson G. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul in 1952.
ELSA. (2021). ‘About ELSA.’ English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Available at: https://www.elsa-project.ac.uk/about- elsa [Accessed on 07 March 2021].
EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2018). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119/1.
54 Eurostat. (2019). When are they ready to leave the nest? Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products- eurostat-news/-/EDN-20190514-1 [accessed on 18 February 2021].
Eurostat. (2017a). Do Europeans feel lonely? Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products- eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170628-1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Feurostat%2F&fbclid=IwAR3PJELr_tZ_ WYQl2npICpYaurbzz3ORDuCgR1d9f-NhdY1cG3ZXn6diRg8 [accessed on 27 April 2021]
Eurostat. (2017a). Over half of Sweden’s households made up of one person. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170905-1?inheritRedirect=true [accessed on 18 February 2021].
Fekadu KA. (2014). ‘The paradox in environmental determinism and possibilism: A literature review.’ Journal of Geography and Regional Planning. Vol.7(7). 132-139. 10.5897/JGRP2013.0406.
Fischer CS. (2009). ‘The 2004 GSS finding of shrunken social networks: an artifact?’ Am Sociol Rev. 74(4):657–669.
Franzén M. (2009). ‘Matters of Urban Segregation - Invited Paper 5. in Koch D, Marcus L & Steen J (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Stockholm: KTH. Available at: http://www.sss7.org/ Proceedings/02%20Invited%20Papers/I05_Franzen_Matters_of_urban_segregation.pdf [Accessed on 22 March 2021].
Gallup. (2017). State of the Workplace. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238079/state-global- workplace-2017.aspx [accessed on 18 February 2021].
Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martinez D, Dadvand P, Forns J, Plasencia A & Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. (2015). ‘Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review.’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 4354-4379. doi:10.3390/ijerph120404354
Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Given LM. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909
Global Ageing Network, 2018. ’An educational journey: Seniors Care in Sweden’ Available at: https://www.dialog- health.com/gan-study-tour-sweden-2020 [Accessed on 18 February 2021].
Government of New Zealand. (2019). The Wellbeing Budget. Available at: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/ wellbeing-budget/wellbeing-budget-2019 [Accessed on 07 March 2021].
Government Offices of Sweden. (2017). ‘The Swedish Model’ Ministry of Finance. Available at: https://www. government.se/4a5336/contentassets/8416c4ff1410419090181fe503920390/the-swedish-model.pdf [Accessed on 22 February 2021].
Grant N, Hamer M & Steptoe A. (2009). ‘Social isolation and stress-related cardiovascular, lipid, and cortisol responses.’ Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 29–37. doi:10.1007/ s12160-009-9081-z
Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goldsmith SK, Pellmar TC, Kleinman AM & Bunney WE. (2002). ‘Reducing suicide: A national imperative.’ Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S & Frumkin H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207-228. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Hawkley LC, Thisted RA & Cacioppo JT. (2009). Loneliness predicts reduced physical activity: Cross-sectional & longitudinal analyses.’ Health Psychology, 28, 354–363. doi:10.1037/a0014400
Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning. (2004). Nature and health. The influence of nature on social, psychological and physical well-being. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands.
55 Helsingborgshem. (2021). SällBo – ett nytt sätt att bo. Available at: https://www.helsingborgshem.se/nyheter/sallbo- ett-nytt-satt-att-bo [Accessed on 23 Feb 2021].
Hertz N. (2020). The Lonely Century, London: Penguin Random House.
Hedin K, Clark E, Lundholm E & Malmberg G. (2012). ‘Neoliberalization of Housing in Sweden: Gentrification, Filtering, and Social Polarization.’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(2), 443-463.
Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T & Xu J. (1993). “Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20 29-66.
Hochschild A. (1973). The Unexpected Community. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. (2015) ‘Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science. Mar; 10(2):227-37. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352. PMID: 25910392.
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. (2010). ‘Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review.’ PLOS Medicine 7(7): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Holwerda TJ, Beekman AT, Deeg DJ, Stek ML, van Tilburg TG, Visser PJ & Schoevers RA. (2012). ‘Increased risk of mortality associated with social isolation in older men: Only when feeling lonely? Results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL).’ Psychological Medicine, 42, 843–853. doi:10.1017/S0033291711001772
InterNatons. (2019).Expat Insider Report 2019. (63/64). Available at: https://cms-internationsgmbh.netdna-ssl.com/ cdn/file/cms-media/public/2019-09/Expat-Insider-2019_The-InterNations-Survey_0.pdf [Accessed on 22 Feb 2021].
Johnson S. (2021). ‘‘New Swedes’ left out as economy powers through pandemic’ Reuters. Available at: hhttps://www. reuters.com/article/us-sweden-unemployment-pandemic-idUSKBN2B91MO [Accessed on 07 April 2021].
Jones E. (2019). ‘Allt fler unga vuxna känner sig ensamma.’ Dagens Nyheter. Available at: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/ sverige/ar-ensamheten-bland-unga-vuxna-en-ny-epidemi/ [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Kain JH, Neele L, Haase D, & Kaczorowska A. (2016). ‘Exploring Local Consequences of Two Land-use Alternatives for the Supply of Urban Ecosystem Services in Stockholm Year 2050.’ (2016). Ecological Indicators 70, no. November 2016: 615-29.
Kazmierczak A. (2013). ‘The contribution of local parks to neighborhood social ties.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 31-44. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007
Kennedy-Lewis BL & Thornberg R. (2018). ‘Induction, deduction, abduction.’ In The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 49–64). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-164288
Khazan O. (2017). ‘How to Break the Dangerous Cycle of Loneliness.’ CityLab. Available at: https://www.bloomberg. com/news/articles/2017-04-06/john-cacioppo-explains-the-psychology-of-loneliness [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Klinenberg E. (2018). Palaces for the people : how social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. New York : Crown.
Klinenberg, E. (2017). ‘The Final Word.’ Foreign Policy. 222, p. 76.
Klinenberg E. (2016). ‘Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Living Alone: Identifying the Risks for Public Health’. AJPH v. 106, No. 5, pp. 786-787.
Kremer P, Hamstead Z, Haase D, McPhearson T, Frantzeskaki N, Andersson E, Kabisch N, Larondelle N, Rall EL, Voigt A, Baró F, Bertram C, Gómez-Baggethun E, Hansen R, Kaczorowska A, Kain JH, Kronenberg J, Langemeyer J, Pauleit S, Rehdanz K, Schewenius M, Van Ham C, Wurster D, & Elmqvist T. ‘Key Insights for the Future of Urban Ecosystem Services Research.’ Ecology and Society 21, no. 2 (2016): 29.
Kumlin, L. (2020). ‘43.SV. Den ensamma staden - Lina Kumlin.’ Urbanistica. Available at: https://shows.acast.com/
56 Urbanistica/episodes/5f69a05f4c69860ef7dda6a9 [Accessed on 12 April 2021].
Kungliga Biblioteket. (2019). Bibliotek 2019: Offentligt finansierade bibliotek. Available at: https://urn.kb.se/ resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kb:publ-64 [Accessed on 11 March 2021].
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Laing, O. (2015). ‘The future of loneliness.’ The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/ apr/01/future-of-loneliness-internet-isolation [Accessed on 12 April 2021].
Lasgaard M. (2007). ‘Reliability and validity of the Danish version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale’ Personality and Individual Differences. 42(7), 1359-1366. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.013.
Laurier E and Philo C. (2006). ‘Cold shoulders and napkins handed: gestures of responsibility.’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS. 31, 193–207.
Legeby A, Berghauser Pont M & Marcus L. (2015). ‘Streets for co-presence? Mapping potentials.’ in Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, 13–15 July.
Legeby A. (2013). ‘Configuration and co-presence: The underpinnings of job opportunities’ in Kim YO, Park HT and Seo KW (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Space Syntax Symposium. Seoul: Sejong University. Available at:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-137198 [Accessed on 16 March 2021].
Legeby A & Marcus L. (2011). ‘Does the Urban Structure of Swedish Cities Inhibit the Sharing of Public Space?’ Built Environment, 37(2), 155-169.
Legeby A. (2010). ‘From Housing Segregation to Integration in Public Space: A Space Syntax Approach Applied on the City of Södertälje.’ The Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1): 92-107.
Lepore, J. (2020). ‘The History of Loneliness’ The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2020/04/06/the-history-of-loneliness [Accessed on 30 Jan 2021].
Levin KA. (2006). ‘Study Design VI - Ecological Studies’ Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/6400454. pdf?origin=ppub [Accessed on 05 Feb 2021].
Linehan T, Bottery S, Kaye A, Millar L, Sinclair D & Watson J. (2014). ‘2030 vision: The best and worst futures for older people in the UK.’ Independent Age and International Longevity Centre-UK. Available at: https://ilcuk.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/2030-vision-report.pdf [Accessed on 22 Feb 2021].
Liu B & Floud S. (2017). ‘Unravelling the associations between social isolation,loneliness, and mortality’. The Lancet. Public Health, 2(6), E248-E249.
Local Government Association, Campaign to End Loneliness & Age UK. (2016). Combating loneliness: A guide for local authorities. Available at: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/combating-loneliness-guid-24e_ march_2018.pdf [Accessed on 22 Feb 2021].
Maas J, van Dillen SME, Verheij RA & Groenewegen PP. (2009). ‘Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health.’ Health & Place, 15, 586-595. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
Macintyre S, Maclver S & Sooman A. (1993). ‘Area, class and health: should we be focusing on places or people?’ Journal of Social Policy. 22, 213-234.
Marcus L. (2007). ‘Social housing and segregation in Sweden. From residential segregation to social integration in public space.’ Progress in Planning 67(3): 251–263.
Massey D. (2005): For space. London: Sage.
Massey D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity.
Matthews T, Odgers CL, Danese A, Fisher H, Newbury J, Caspi A, Moffitt T & Arseneault L. (2019). ‘Loneliness and Neighborhood Characteristics: A Multi-Informant, Nationally Representative Study of Young Adults.’ Psychological Science. 30(5):095679761983610. DOI: 10.1177/0956797619836102.
57 McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L & Brashears ME. (2006). ‘Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades.’ American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353-375.
Milne, R. (2020). ‘Copenhagen and loneliness’. The Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/ c9ca6106-1d4e-44e8-9734-0ae9b5ceaf7c [Accessed on 09 March 2021].
MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government). (2018). ‘National Planning Policy Framework’. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf [Accessed on 3 April 2021].
Mullins LC. (2007). ‘Loneliness.’ in Birren JE (ed). Encyclopedia of Gerontology, pp. 93-98, New York: Elserivier. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780123708700/encyclopedia-of-gerontology#book-info [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Murthy V. (2020). Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World. New York: Harper Wave.
Murthy V. (2016). Emotional Well-Being is the Missing Key to Better Health Available at: https://blog.tedmed.com/tag/ vivek-murthy/ [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Netzell, Olof. (2012). The effect of accessibility on retail rents: testing integration value as a measure of geographic location. Journal of Property Research. 30. 1-23. 10.1080/09599916.2012.713974.
Newson JJ, Pastukh V, Sukhoi O, Taylor J & Thiagarajan TC. (2021) ‘Mental State of the World Report 2020, Mental Health Million project.’ Sapien Labs. Available at: https://mentalstateoftheworld.report/ [Accessed on 10 April 2021].
NORC at the University of Chicago. (2018). GSS Data Explorer: Can People be Trusted? Available at: https:// gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/441/vshow [Accessed on 10 April 2021].
Ocejo RE. (2019). ‘Book Review - Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. By Eric Klinenberg. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018. Pp. 277. $28.00.’ In Clemens ES (Ed). American Journal of Sociology. 125(2). https://doi.org/10.1086/706918
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). (2004). The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised). Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407220133/http://www.communities.gov.uk/ documents/communities/pdf/131206.pdf [Accessed on 26 May 2021].
Olsson S. (1998). ‘Det offentliga stadslivets förändringar’ [The changes of urban public life]. Goteborg: Centrum for byggnadskultur i västra Sverige.
Olsson S. (2005). Västlänken Dess sociala konsekvenser, perspektiv och metoder, underlagsrapport. [Västlänken: Social consequences: perspectives and methods, background report]. Banverket.
Openshaw S. (1984). ‘Ecological Fallacies and the Analysis of Areal Census Data.’ Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 16(1):17-31. doi:10.1068/a160017
Ortiz-Ospina E. (2019a). ‘Is there a loneliness epidemic?’ Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/ loneliness-epidemic [Accessed on 18 February 2021].
Ortiz-Ospina E. (2019b). ‘Are people more likely to be lonely in so-called ‘individualistic’ societies?’ Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/lonely-not-alone [Accessed on 18 February 2021].
Paraschiv P. (2018). ‘Scandinavian Libraries: What are they doing differently? Interview with Peter Alsbjer’ Princh. Available at: https://princh.com/scandinavian-libraries-what-are-they-doing-differently-interview-with-peter- alsbjer/#.YEnhkWhKiM8 [Accessed on 11 March 2021].
Perlman D & Peplau LA. (Eds.). (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. New York: Wiley.
Perissinotto CM, Stijacic Cenzer I & Covinsky KE. (2012). Loneliness in older persons: A predictor of functional decline and death. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172, 1078–1083. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1993
58 Perissinotto CM & Covinsky KE. (2014). ‘Living alone, socially isolated or lonely—What are we measuring?’ Journal of General Internal Medicine, 11, 1429–1431. doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2977-8
Power JEM, Sjöberg L, Kee F et al. (2019) ‘Comparisons of the discrepancy between loneliness and social isolation across Ireland and Sweden: findings from TILDA and SNAC-K.’ Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 54, 1079–1088 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01679-w
Pressman SD, Cohen S, Miller GE, Barkin A, Rabin BS, & Treanor JJ. (2005). ‘Loneliness, social network size, and immune response to influenza vaccination in college freshmen.’ Health Psychology, 24, 297–306. doi:10.1037/0278- 6133.24.3.297
Putnam RD. (1995). ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.’ Journal of Democracy. 6 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002. Archived from the original on 2010-02-01. Retrieved 2005-04-06.
Pyddoke R. & Creutzer C. 2014). ‘Household Car Ownership in Urban and Rural Areas in Sweden 1999–2008. Stockholm: Centre for Transport Studies.
Region Stockholm. (2021). Områdesdata och basområdeskartor. Available at: http://rufs.se/kartor/omradesdata [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Robertson, D. (2020). ‘‘It’s like family’: the Swedish housing experiment designed to cure loneliness.’ The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/its-like-family-the-swedish-housing-experiment- designed-to-cure-loneliness [Accessed on 23 Feb 2021].
Rokem J & Vaughan L. (2019). ‘Geographies of ethnic segregation in Stockholm: The role of mobility and co-presence in shaping the ‘diverse’ city.’ Urban Studies, 56(12), 2426–2446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018795561
Russell DW, Peplau LA & Cutrona, CE. (1980). ‘The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 471–480.
Sandstrom G & Dunn EW. (2013). Is efficiency overrated? Minimal social interactions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological & Personality Science. 5. 436-441.
Sarraf M. (2015). Spatiality of Multiculturalism (PhD dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/ resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-167636.
Savage M. (2019). ‘Why so many young Swedes live alone’ BBC Worklife. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/ article/20190821-why-so-many-young-swedes-live-alone [accessed on 18 February 2021].
Scharf T. & de Jong Gierveld J. (2008). ‘Loneliness in urban neighbourhoods: an Anglo-Dutch comparison.’ Eur J Ageing 5, 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-008-0080-x
SCB. (2021). Flyttar inom Sverige.Available at: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/ manniskorna-i-sverige/flyttar-inom-sverige/#:~:text=Antal%20m%C3%A4n%20som%20flyttat%20 inom%20Sverige&text=Under%202020%20bytte%20drygt%201,var%20n%C3%A4stan%201%2C6%2- 0miljoner.&text=%C3%85r%202000%20var%20antalet%20flyttar,inom%20Sverige%20bygger%20p%C3%A5%20 folkbokf%C3%B6ringsuppgifter. [Accessed on 22 Feb 2021].
SCB. (2018). DeSO – Demografiska statistikområden. Available at: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/regional-statistik- och-kartor/regionala-indelningar/deso---demografiska-statistikomraden/ [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
SCB. (2017). Social relations. Available at: https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__LE__LE0101__ LE0101R/LE0101R07/ [Accessed on 22 Feb 2021].
SCB. (2013). ‘Social isolering och ingen nära vän samt upplevd ensamhet (Ensamhet endast 2012–2013)’ in Sociala relationer, kontakter och umgänge 2016–2017 och 2012–2013. Available at: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/levnadsforhallanden/levnadsforhallanden/ undersokningarna-av-levnadsforhallanden-ulf-silc/pong/tabell-och-diagram/sociala-relationer/sociala-relationer- kontakter-och-umgange/ [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Schoenbach VJ. (1999). ‘6. Standardization of rates and ratios*’, in Schoenbach VJ & Rosamond WD (ed.) Understanding the fundamentals of epidemiology: an evolving text, pp 129-151. Available at: http://www. epidemiolog.net/evolving/Standardization.pdf [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
59 Sense. (2017). “Someone cares if I’m not there” Addressing loneliness in disabled people. Available at: https://www. sense.org.uk/support-us/campaigns/loneliness/ [accessed on 18 February 2021].
Slater P. (1976). The pursuit of loneliness. Boston: Beacon Press.
Smith GD, Whitley E, Dorling D, Gunnel, D. (2001). ‘Area based measures of social and economic circumstances: cause specific mortality patterns depend on the choice of index’ Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2001; 55:149-150.
Ståhle A. (2005). Mer park i tätare stad: Teoretiska och empiriska undersökningar av stadsplaneringens mått på friytetillgång Licentiate thesis (in Swedish), School of Architecture, KTH, Stockholm.
Ståhle A, Marcus L and Karlström A. (2005). ‘Place Syntax—Geographic Accessibility with Axial Lines in GIS’ In: van Nes A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft: University of Technology. Vol. 1, p.131-‐144.
Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P & Wardle J. (2013). ‘Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 5797–5801. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1219686110
Stockholm stad. (2021a). Stockholm Statistisk årsbok 2021. Stockholm: Klippan Press. Available at: https://start. stockholm/om-stockholms-stad/utredningar-statistik-och-fakta/statistik/statistisk-arsbok/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2021b). Fokus Skärholmen. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/fokus-skarholmen/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2021c). Områdesfakta. Available at: https://start.stockholm/om-stockholms-stad/utredningar- statistik-och-fakta/statistik/omradesfakta/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2021d). Vårbergstoppen. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/projekt/varbergstoppens-stadspark/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2021e). Årets Stockholmsbyggnad 2021. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/tema/arets-stockholmsbyggnad/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2020). Dialog. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/fokus-skarholmen/dialog/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2017). Social hållbarhet i Fokus Skärholmen - Nycklar för det lokala behovet. Available at: https:// vaxer.stockholm/globalassets/projekt/skarholmen-sdo/social-hallbarhet-i-fokus-skarholmen_nycklar-for-det-lokala- behovet.pdf [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. Bästa Platsen! Available at: (2016a).https://vaxer.stockholm/globalassets/omraden/- stadsutvecklingsomraden/skarholmen-fokus-skarholmen/dokument-skarholmen/pm_basta-platsen_fokus- skarholmen_160615.pdf [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Stockholm stad. (2016b). Stockholm Statistisk årsbok 2016. Stockholm: Klippan Press. Available at: https://start. stockholm/globalassets/start/om-stockholms-stad/utredningar-statistik-och-fakta/statistik/arsbok/arsbok_2016.pdf [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Summers C. (2018). ‘What is the private rented sector?’ Bidwells. Available at: https://www.bidwells.co.uk/faqs/blog- what-is-the-private-rented-sector/ [Accessed on 3 March 2021].
Symons D. (2018). ‘Alone Together in the 21st-Century’ The Possible. Available at: https://www.the-possible.com/ alone-together-loneliness-social-isolation-in-dense-city/ [Accessed on 07 Feb 2021].
Theeke LA. (2010). ‘Sociodemographic and health-related risks for loneliness and outcome differences by loneliness status in a sample of U.S. older adults.’ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 3, 113–125. doi:10.3928/19404921- 20091103-99
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together : why we expect more from technology and less from each other.
60 New York: Basic Books.
Uchino BN. (2006). ‘Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes.’ Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 377–387. doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5
UK Government. (2018). A connected society: A strategy for tackling loneliness - laying the foundations for change. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-connected-society-a-strategy-for-tackling-loneliness [Accessed on 26 January 2021].
Urban Sustainable Development Lab. (2021). Care View and social isolation. Available at: https://www.care.vu/care- view-and-social-isolation/ [Accessed on 11 April 2021].
Valentine G. (2008). Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography 32(3) (2008) pp. 323–337. van den Berg MM, Van Poppel M, Van Kamp I, Ruijsbroek A, Triguero-Mas M, Gidlow C, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Gražulevičiene R, Van Mechelen W, Kruize H, & Maas J. (2019). ‘Do Physical Activity, Social Cohesion, and Loneliness Mediate the Association Between Time Spent Visiting Green Space and Mental Health?’ Environment and Behavior 51.2 (2019): 144-66. van den Berg MM, Wendel-Vos W, van Poppel M, Kemper H, van Mechelen W & Maas J. (2015). ‘Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies.’ Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 806-816. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008
Varidy DP. (ed). (2005). ‘Desegregating the city. Ghettos, Enclaves, and Inequality.’ State University of New York Press, Albany.
Vaughan L, Clark DLC, Sahbaz O & Haklay M. (2005). ‘Space and exclusion: does urban morphology play a part in social deprivation?’ Area, 37 (4) 402 - 412. 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00651.x.
Victor CR & Yang K. (2012). ‘The Prevalence of Loneliness Among Adults: A Case Study of the United Kingdom.’ The Journal of Psychology, 146:1-2, 85-104, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2011.613875
Victor CR & Pikhartova J. (2020) ‘Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence.’ BMC Public Health 20, 778 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08703-8
Walker H, Kidd D, McFlinn B, et al. (2020). ‘Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I.’ WSP New Zealand and The Helen Clark Foundation. Available at: https://helenclark.foundation/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/alone-together-report-min.pdf [Accessed on 22 March 2021].
Weiss RS. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Whitley E, Gunnell D, Dorling D & Smith GD. (1999). ‘Ecological study of social fragmentation, poverty, and suicide.’ BMJ. 319(7216):1034-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7216.1034. PMID: 10521194; PMCID: PMC28254.
Wilson C & Moulton B. (2010). Loneliness among Older Adults: A National Survey of Adults 45+. Prepared by Knowledge Networks and Insight Policy Research. Washington, DC: AARP.
World Health Organisation. (2020). Obesity and overweight. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight#:~:text=%2Fm2).-,Adults,than%20or%20equal%20to%2030 [Accessed on: 31 Jan 2021].
WSP Sweden. (2021). Ensam i en sjuk värld. Available at: https://www.wsp.com/sv-SE/insikter/ensam-i-en-sjuk-varld [Accessed on 22 March 2021].
WSP Sweden. (2020). Trängsel, mötesplatser och ensamhet. Available at: https://www.wsp.com/sv-SE/insikter/ trangsel-motesplatser-ensamhet [22 March 2021].
WSP Sweden. (2019). Ensamhet: En studie över den ofrivilliga ensamheten i våra städer och vad vi kan göra för att bryta den. Available at: https://www.wsp.com/-/media/Insights/Sweden/Documents/2019/Ensamhetsstudie-2019.pdf
61 [Accessed on 23 March 2021].
Wu B. (2020). ‘Social isolation and loneliness among older adults in the context of COVID-19: a global challenge.’ Global Health Research and Policy. 5:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-020-00154-3
Yang K & Victor C. (2011). ‘Age and loneliness in 25 European nations.’ Ageing and Society 31 1368-1388.
Young JE. (1982). ‘Loneliness, depression and cognitive therapy: theory and application.’ In LA Peplau & D Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy, pp. 379-405), New York: John Wiley.
Yusuf JE (Wie). (2019). ‘Book review: Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life.’In Little RG (Ed) Public Works Management & Policy. 2019;24(4):388-390. doi:10.1177/1087724X19865273
62 References: tables
Table 1: De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale questions, emotional and social subscales
De Jong Gierveld J & Kamphuis F. (1985). ‘The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale.’ Applied Psychological Measurement 9: 289–299
Table 2: Author’s categorisation of De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale questions by strength of connection and relationship to Social Fragmentation theory.
De Jong Gierveld J & Kamphuis F. (1985). ‘The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale.’ Applied Psychological Measurement 9: 289–299
References: images
Figure 1: The ‘Striking’ correlation between loneliness and household income / employment status in New Zealand
Walker H, Kidd D, McFlinn B, et al. (2020). ‘Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I.’ WSP New Zealand and The Helen Clark Foundation. Available at: https://helenclark.foundation/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/alone-together-report-min.pdf [Accessed on 22 March 2021].
Figures 2 &3: Frequency of social isolation and loneliness within the EU
D’Hombres B, Sykle S, Barjakova M & Mendonca, FT. (2018). ‘Loneliness - an unequally shared burden in Europe’. European Commission. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329802077_Loneliness-an_ unequally_shared_burden_in_Europe [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021]. Referring to data from the European Social Surveys 2010, 2012 & 2014. Available at: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ [Accessed on 27 Jan 2021].
Figure 4: Template for neighbourhood unit, supported by commuter trains
Stockholm stad. (1952). Generalplan for Stockholm 1952: A general plan for Stockholm 1952.
Figure 5: Typical local squares in Gothenburg’s Million Homes Programme neighbourhoods
Legeby A, Berghauser Pont M & Marcus L. (2015). ‘Streets for co-presence? Mapping potentials.’ in Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, 13–15 July
Figure 6: Loneliness maps based on Congdon’s Social Fragmentation Index, suggest the UK has became significantly more socially fragmented
Dorling D, Vickers D, Thomas B, Pritchard J & Ballas D. (2008). ‘Changing UK: The way we live now.’ Social And Spatial Inequalities (SASI) group, Department of Geography, University of Sheffield. Available at: http://www. dannydorling.org/?page_id=2015 [Accessed on 4 Feb 2021].
Figure 7: An aerial view of greater Skärholmen clearly how the four districts are disconnected from one-another. Stockholm stad. (2021b). Fokus Skärholmen. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/fokus-skarholmen/ [Accessed on 19 April 2021].
Figure 8: Hierarchy of street integration in Stockholm
63
Rokem J & Vaughan L. (2019). ‘Geographies of ethnic segregation in Stockholm: The role of mobility and co-presence in shaping the ‘diverse’ city.’ Urban Studies, 56(12), 2426–2446. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098018795561
Figure 9: Space syntax map indicating global integration level of all streets in Stockholm
Rokem J & Vaughan L. (2019). ‘Geographies of ethnic segregation in Stockholm: The role of mobility and co-presence in shaping the ‘diverse’ city.’ Urban Studies, 56(12), 2426–2446. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098018795561
Figure 10: Space syntax maps of southern Stockholm, indicating the street segments that are best integrated at the local and global scales
Marcus L. (2007). ‘Social housing and segregation in Sweden. From residential segregation to social integration in public space.’ Progress in Planning 67(3): 251–263.
Figure 11: Map of isolated neighbourhoods on Gothenburg’s periphery
Legeby A, Berghauser Pont M & Marcus L. (2015). ‘Streets for co-presence? Mapping potentials.’ in Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, 13–15 July.
Figure 12: The square outside of Stockholm’s cultural centre, Kulturhuset
Thomas Robbin. Available at: Superstock.com [Accessed on 03 June 2021].
Figure 13: Rålambshovsparken
Anonymous. Stockholm Film Festival 2013. Available at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/e4/43/ b4e443bb2bf36e49e4e5eec9b49b9f6d.jpg [Accessed on 03 June 2021].
Figure 14: Kungsträdgården
Anonymous. Projects for Public Spaces. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/mgmtkungstragarden [Accessed on 03 June 2021].
Figures 15 & 16: Hornsberg Strand
Mattias Hamrén. Available at: https://parker.stockholm/parker/hornsbergs-strandpark/ [Accessed on 03 June 2021].
Figure 17: Viewing tower at Vårbergstoppen park, Skärholmen.
Anonymous. Stockholm stad. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm/projekt/varbergstoppens-stadspark/ [Accessed on 03 June 2021].
Figure 18: Studies suggest that Covid-19’s effects on mental wellbeing are hitting younger adults hardest.
Newson JJ, Pastukh V, Sukhoi O, Taylor J & Thiagarajan TC. (2021) ‘Mental State of the World Report 2020, Mental Health Million project.’ Sapien Labs. Available at: https://mentalstateoftheworld.report/ [Accessed on 10 April 2021].
64
Annexure 1: UCLA loneliness scale
Answer: Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Rarely [ ] Never [ ]
1. I am unhappy doing so many things alone 2. I have nobody to talk to 3. I cannot tolerate being so alone 4. I lack companionship 5. I feel as if nobody really understands me 6. I find myself waiting for people to call or write 7. There is no one I can turn to 8. I am no longer close to anyone 9. My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me 10. I feel left out 11. I feel completely alone 12. I am unable to reach out and communicate with those around me 13. My social relationships are superficial 14. I feel starved for company 15. No one really knows me well 16. I feel isolated from others 17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn 18. It is difficult for me to make friends 19. I feel shut out and excluded by others 20. People are around me but not with me
UCLA Loneliness Test questions │ Russel (1996).69
69 Russell DW. (1996). ‘UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure.’ Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20-40. 65 Annexure 2: The effect of Covid-19 on different risk groups
The Covid-19 pandemic, with its enforced lockdowns and social distancing measures, has understandably had a significant impact on loneliness and social isolation.70 It has also served to amplify extremes, with those who were already at risk of loneliness becoming significantly more lonely, both in Sweden and abroad (WSP Sweden, 2020; Bu et al. 2020). Some public health experts warn of significant negative social impact of the pandemic on older adults. Older adults across the world have been largely instructed to self-quarantine and shut themselves off from family, friends and wider society wherever possible. This creates a marked change from pre-Covid times, when most community-dwelling older adults actively participated in various social activities (Wu, 2020).
Yet initial studies of the effects of the pandemic on mental wellbeing strongly suggest thatit is young adults who are faring worst. Data from the UK suggests while risk factors for loneliness were largely similar before and during the pandemic, the most severely affected were young adults aged 18–30 years, people with low income and those living alone (Bu et al. 2020). A recent study of nearly 50,000 self-assessed research subjects in eight countries across the world71 noted a generational decline in mental wellbeing present in all countries, with well-being progressively worse for each younger generation (see figure 19, below).72 Loneliness and social isolation is one of the major lifestyle factors most likely contributing to current mental wellbeing levels (Newson et al. 2021). The authors raise warnings about the vastly greater self-reported occurrence of strange and unwanted thoughts, concentration difficulties, and feelings of hopelessness, arguing that these may be signs of a more long-term damage which may last into middle-age and beyond. This may be partly explained by the impact of income and unemployment status on loneliness. Covid-19’s impact in this regard has disproportionality affected young adults and this impact will likely continue to be felt long after social restrictions and interactions have regained some degree of normalcy (Walker et al. 2020).
Finally, the large-scale shift to online work and studies during the pandemic has also made access to digital technology increasingly central to our lives. This has heightened a pre-existing digital divide between those who do and do not have internet at home. Access to reliable internet connection is an increasingly necessary baseline for social inclusion (Walker et al. 2020).
70 In Sweden, over 60% of respondents in a recent survey stated that social distancing increased their feelings of loneliness (WSP Sweden, 2020). 71 The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore and South Africa. 72 Thus, 44% of 18-24 year-olds reported experiencing symptoms of such severity that they were struggling to function effectively in everyday life. This is as compared to only 6% of over-65s
66 Figure 19: Studies suggest that Covid-19’s effects on mental wellbeing are hitting younger adults hardest │ Newson et al. (2021).
67
Annexure 3: Author’s detailed categorisation of connections potentially sufficient to meet De Jong Gierveld Scale questions73
Acquain- Others living De Jong Gierveld Ques- Regular tances Closest friends Family Neighbours & working in Friends (colleagues, tions neighbouhood etc.)
I miss having a really close friend X
There are many people I can trust completely X X
I can call on my friends whenever I need them X X
There are enough people I feel close to X X X
There is always someone I can talk to about my day-to-day X X X X X problems
There are plenty of people I can X X X X X rely on when I have problems
I find my circle of friends and X X X X X acquaintances too limited
I miss the pleasure of the compa- ny of others X X X X X X
I miss having people around X X X X X X
I experience a general sense of emptiness Unclear
I often feel rejected Unclear
73 Those marked in green are suggested as potentially able to be addressed through loneliness mapping and efforts to limit social fragmentation. Light green relates to potential interactions with neighbours, while dark green relates to potential interactions with others living and working in the same neighbourhood more broadly.
68 Annexure 4: Loneliness mapping, Sundbyberg municipality.
Social fragmentation calculations:
Congdon and others give little clarity on exactly how to apply the Social Fragmentation Index formula - stating only that the four factors “are census variables standardised to the same scale and the total score is derived with uniform weighting on each of the four indices. The respective coefficients of variation (standard deviation over mean) for the values of these indices prior to standardisation are 0.18, 0.5, 0.38 and 0.8.”
Typically, standardisation takes place against another confounding variable that can distort comparisons, e.g. to account for differences in age between population groups when measuring mortality rates (Schoenbach, 1999). As it is not made clear against what the four variables above are to be standardised against, the incidence of the four variables can at least be measured per 100 persons, to account for differences in population size between the units of comparison (DeSO units for map one, districts for map two).
Divorced & Single house- New residents Renters DeSO code Population widowed Total social fragmentation holds / 100 ppl / 100 ppl / 100 ppl / 100 ppl
0183C1130 1419 19.03 30.02 52.55 60.47 38.40 0183C1180 1719 18.03 28.97 52.55 82.32 37.70 0183C1060 1957 22.69 24.17 52.55 43.48 36.14 0183C1220 2043 18.36 25.55 52.55 72.93 36.05 0183C1260 1769 16.51 26.00 52.55 83.49 35.94 0183C1010 1661 21.31 23.36 52.55 80.85 35.48 0183C1070 1397 22.26 21.55 52.55 75.45 34.75 0183C1170 1999 16.96 23.36 52.55 9.60 34.70 0183C1250 2393 16.63 22.48 52.55 73.51 34.20 0183C1100 1651 17.20 21.26 52.55 89.82 33.69 0183C1050 2562 14.44 22.13 52.55 21.23 33.63 0183C1020 1882 18.76 19.87 52.55 73.86 33.28 0183C1230 1924 18.40 19.96 52.55 98.75 33.26 0183C1080 1581 19.29 18.85 52.55 11.76 32.87 0183C1040 2398 18.02 17.35 52.55 60.76 31.88 0183C1210 2034 14.55 18.24 52.55 29.11 31.71 0183C1030 1910 16.18 16.96 52.55 17.17 31.36 0183C1120 1516 16.42 16.75 52.55 76.78 31.30 0183C1140 1659 16.58 16.21 52.55 78.18 31.06 0183C1200 1642 18.33 15.10 52.55 99.27 30.82 0183C1090 1663 17.38 14.73 52.55 24.95 30.46 0183C1240 3546 11.70 15.93 52.55 44.64 30.04 0183C1190 1921 14.84 13.79 52.55 0.42 29.54 0183C1160 1581 14.99 13.16 52.55 74.07 29.24 0183C1150 1535 12.51 13.22 52.55 50.16 28.83 0183C1110 2213 10.39 9.26 52.55 24.76 26.47
Data sources
Notes Category Source URLs (all figures converted from total to share per 100 residents)
Population by region by marital status and sex. Year 2015 - 2020: Population SCB https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ BE0101__BE0101Y/FolkmDesoCivilKonN/
69 Population by region by marital status and sex. Year 2015 - 2020: Divorced & wid- SCB https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ owed BE0101__BE0101Y/FolkmDesoCivilKonN/ Number of households per region by household type. Single-person Year 2015 - 2020: SCB households https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ BE0101__BE0101Y/HushallDesoTypN/ Relocations by region of birth, region, age and sex. Data on residential turnover only avail- Year 2002 - 2020: able at municipal level. New residents SCB https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ Municipal turnover rate used for all BE0101__BE0101J/FlyttFodReg/ units. Number of apartments by region and type of lease. Year 2015 - 2020: Data on all rentals (hyresrätt) used, data Renters SCB https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BO__ on only private rentals not available. BO0104__BO0104X/BO0104T10/
70 Annexure 5: Loneliness mapping, Stockholm municipality.
Social fragmentation calculations:
Divorced & Single New resi- Private Total social frag- Area Population widowed / households dents/ renters / mentation 100 ppl / 100 ppl 100 ppl 100 ppl
42.12 Södermalm 131,383 13.29 25.25 11.75 28.29 38.63 Kungsholmen 75,423 11.77 26.56 13.05 22.84 38.35 Norrmalm 75,764 11.38 23.15 14.47 24.03 36.42 Östermalm 86,284 11.84 22.03 13.95 22.46 34.86 Skärholmen 48,973 11.71 10.88 11.41 28.73 32.71 Hässelby-Vällingby 80,268 13.34 15.31 11.04 23.07 121,651 11.61 16.93 11.97 19.71 30.87 Enskede-Årsta-Vantör 29.11 Bromma 92,737 10.70 16.83 9.94 18.74 28.67 Spånga-Tensta 45,914 11.45 12.63 10.74 20.26 27.70 Rinkeby-Kista 62,432 13.19 11.78 13.78 17.75 27.06 Hägersten-Älvsjö 143,165 9.99 16.98 10.45 16.00 26.09 Skarpnäck 53,547 12.08 18.97 10.54 13.03 23.40 Farsta 71,981 12.76 16.60 9.71 11.39
Data sources:
Notes Category Source URLs (all figures converted from total to share per 100 residents) Stockholm city annual yearbook - section 1.2: https://start.stockholm/ SCB/ Population globalassets/start/om-stockholms-stad/utredningar-statistik-och-fakta/ Sweco statistik/arsbok/statistisk-arsbok-for-stockholm-2021.pdf
Population by region by marital status and sex. Year 2015 - 2020: Calculated by adding up figures Divorced & wid- SCB https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ from all DeSO units within each owed BE0101__BE0101Y/FolkmDesoCivilKonN/ district Number of households per region by household type. Calculated by adding up figures Single-person Year 2015 - 2020: SCB from all DeSO units within each households https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__ district BE0101__BE0101Y/HushallDesoTypN/
SCB/ Stockholm city annual yearbook - section 1.20: New residents Sweco (link above)
Number of households: Roughly calculated by multiplying Stockholm city annual yearbook - section 6.9 (see link above) SCB/ the number of rental households Renters Sweco by the average household size per Average household size: district. Stockholm city annual yearbook - section 6.8
71 Annexure 6: Interview Questions - Lina Kumlin, WSP Sweden
1. We typically associate loneliness with the elderly. But many studies seem to suggest young adults are lonelier (including WSP’s 2019 Ensamhet study). Do you think this might just be a case of young people being more willing to admit to feeling lonely or have we been misunderstanding who the most vulnerable groups are?
2. European Social Survey (ESS) data suggests that while Sweden and Northern Europe have a high number of people living alone, loneliness is less prevalent than in many other parts of Europe. I know social isolation and loneliness are not the same, but why do you think there is a larger disconnect between these two factors here compared to other regions?
3. To what extent, if at all, is loneliness considered as an element of social sustainability in the planning process? It seems to be a widely discussed topic in society but I haven’t seen it mentioned in comprehensive plans or municipal planning documents before.
4. In your work, at what stage of the planning process are you usually involved? Could you mention some examples of projects you’ve been involved in?
5. Much of the literature on how built form can reduce loneliness focuses on general characteristics - safe, sheltered, walkable, encouraging people to linger, etc. But are there specific types of public space that you think are particularly effective at facilitating social contact? For example, Klinenberg’s theory of social infrastructure focuses on libraries and there is also a lot of focus on access to parks and green spaces in the literature. Also, are there any particular sites in Stockholm or elsewhere that you consider particularly interesting or noteworthy?
6. I’ve been looking at Legeby and Marcus’s work on segregation in Swedish cities, and their studies suggesting that post-war planning isolates neighbourhoods from one-another and discourages interaction in public space, particularly within Million Homes programme areas. Has segregation come up in your work on loneliness? Have you been involved in any projects in this regard?
7. The UK’s loneliness strategy (2018) talks about the need for safe places that promote social interaction, ‘including between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other.’ To what extent do you think this is an important part of addressing loneliness? What do you think are the most important ways to facilitate diversity of users in public space?
72 Annexure 7: Interview Questions - Joel Berring & Irma Ortega, Stockholm stad.
1. Social isolation and loneliness are receiving increasing attention in the news and in academic research. Countries like the UK and New Zealand are increasingly trying to investigate how we can plan cities that are less lonely and which better facilitate social contact. Is it a topic that comes up at all in your work at Stockholm Stads planning department? Is it something you consider in the planning process?
2. The reason I’m interested in Fokus Skärholmen is because of the information I have found regarding loneliness risk groups (in general and in Sweden). I started out looking at factors like elderly, divorced, living alone, etc. But I found these to not be the best predictors of loneliness in Sweden. There is increasing evidence that factors like unemployment,and poor access to opportunities are significant risk factors for loneliness.
Legeby and Marcus’s work on segregation in Swedish cities also suggests that post-war planning isolates neighbourhoods from one-another and discourages interaction in public space. The four areas situated in Fokus Skärholmen are in many ways good examples of such isolated neighbourhoods - large-scale, inward-oriented enclaves in the outer suburbs, with very weak spatial and social connections to their surroundings.
Because of this, I am curious if any of the residents mentioned feelings of loneliness or social isolation as an issue at all during the Fokus Skärholmen dialogues?
3. A lot of the literature also talks about loneliness as related to feeling like an outsider - not a part of wider society.
The project’s focus on social sustainability comes out of a recognition of social and economic differences between districts and different Stockholmers. Skärholmen has this very high share of residents with a foreign-born background, and low education and income levels.
Is there a sense that the residents living in Skärholmen feel socially isolated from the city at large? Did this come up at all during dialogues?
4. I found an interesting article from SCB (2018) talking about how not only is inequality increasing in Stockholm, but the richest and poorest residents are increasingly moving only to the same few neighbourhoods (Norrmalm vs Skärholmen & Rinkeby-Kista). What do you think are the most effective ways to combat this?
5. Interested to read about the proposal to allow existing and former residents the first option on new apartments. Residential turn-over has come up in the literature as contributing to loneliness (linked to sense of community). Is this something you’re planning on going ahead with? What do you think/ hope the impact will be on the area? And who do you foresee moving into the old apartments?
73 6. Much of the literature on how built form can reduce loneliness focuses on general characteristics - safe, sheltered, walkable, encouraging people to linger, etc.
This really seems to match resident feedback in the Fokus Skärholmen Bästa platsen survey - areas feel unsafe and unattractive because they are not activated. Many resident comments focus on activating the area - “premises for culture and entertainment” “Neglected, boring, unattractive.” “We need community spaces.”
But are there specific types of public space that you think are particularly effective at facilitating social contact and sense of social cohesion? For example, Klinenberg’s theory of social infrastructure focuses on libraries, and there is also a lot of focus on parks and green spaces in the literature.
7. Could you comment on the nature of the proposed community spaces discussed in the Strategies for Social Sustainability in Skärholmen document (stadsbyggnadsstrategier för socialt hållbart Fokus Skärholmen)?
8. Legeby and Marcus say we focus too much on residential composition. Need to look more at segregation in public space - to what extent non-residents come into the area (e.g. for work, to visit) and residents leave? Neighbourhood self-sufficiency thus becomes a part of the problem - everyday basic needs such as schools and local shops are available locally, allowing local residents to remain, while non-residents have little reason to visit these outlying areas (Rokem & Vaughan, 2019).
I’m curious about how to facilitate contact between different groups - draw non-residents into the area and potentially help non-residents. Is there a plan to add more unique attractions to draw non-residents into the area? I see for instance that Vårbergstoppen is obviously a major investment - the largest in Stockholm stad’s current urban greening strategy. Are there any other plans in this regard? I see one of the respondents in the Bästa platsen survey says Skärholemn needs its own “Plattans Kulturhuset.”
9. The project places substantial focus on increasing employment rates and bringing more jobs into the area. Could you talk a bit about this? What kind of employers and jobs do you have in mind? Are there any specific developments in this regard?
10. If we move away from Skärholmen and look at co-presence in the inner city, why do you think certain sites (Kungsträdgården, Kulturhuset, Hornsberg Strand) seem to be more accommodating and attract a more diverse group of users than most of the inner city (e.g. Södermalm, Vasastan)
74
TRITA ABE-MBT-21456
www.kth.se