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