'Nearness' and social cohesion

Can proximity planning really forge strong communities?

Proximity (or geographic nearness) is a concept in current urban and transport planning which is again in vogue. The 15-minute city championed by Carlos Moreno is the latest manifestations of the way in which the idea of promoting places and lifestyles based on proximity has featured in professional and public debate. Increased proximity is believed to enhance individuals’ quality of life, boost neighborhoods, and promote environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Ideas of nearness lie at the heart of these visions to make cities vibrant and attractive through greater densification, land-use mixing and filling, and the co-location of various activities and facilities. The concept is central to discourse on how to reduce energy-consuming and polluting transportation, foster local community ties, trust, and social capital, and promote economic activity and innovation. Proximity seems to be regarded as a key factor in generating social cohesion.

However both of these concepts are problematic and an uncritical acceptance of the relationship between them can be misleading for both planners and communities. This piece looks more closely at the links between nearness - the distance and accessibility of places essential to community life - and social cohesion.

The drivers of proximity

Transportation and land use planning are typically seen as the fundamental enablers of proximity. The character of urban form - including density, permitted use in buildings, and transportation designs - will either promote closer proximity or push social and economic activity further apart. Despite the best efforts of many, the prevailing ‘mobility’ model in many cities downplays the significance of distance in its focus on traffic. Proximity planning is a reaction to this dominance of mobility planning by prioritizing distance, social interaction and community building.

There are competing narratives about the goals of proximity planning. One derives from the established understanding of transportation and land-use integration and usually the preserve of professional experts. A second narrative emphasizes the local community understandings of proximity, highlighting the social context of neighborhood interaction, whilst a third narrative focusses on the personal environment and the understandings of the individual’s perceived physical space at a detailed local level. In any particular location, proximity policy is likely to be the result of some kind of negotiation between these different conceptualizations.

Proximity thinking therefore represents a shift in approach to focus more on people’s lived experience rather than transportation modes and traffic flows. In order to take account of citizens’ varied needs and activities in everyday life, it implies a further shift from top-down expert planning towards more participatory forms of urban planning and place building. This is reflected in the objectives of proximity planning in terms of increased social cohesion.

While the environmental and health benefits of increased proximity are well documented, its social implications, particularly in relation to social cohesion, are more problematic. This is important because social cohesion is often associated with stronger communities, increased community resilience and social stability. Whilst research has looked at how particular features of the built environment affect social cohesion, it remains the case that studies which explore the impact of proximity on social cohesion and everyday social interaction and use of community facilities are still rather thin on the ground.

Benefits of proximity planning

Brookings has summarized the typical view of the justifications for proximity planning. These include:

1. Proximity promotes agglomeration, helping to grow industries and regional economies.

2. Proximity requires less infrastructure per capita, reducing fiscal burdens on communities.

3. Proximity offers more modal choice, making transportation more affordable and age-neutral.

4. Proximity is essential to hitting carbon targets and developing more resilient places.

5. Proximity incentivizes safer streets and supports a healthier population.

It is interesting that this list of benefits mostly relate to urban form and design. If proximity is about anything it is about accessibility to public services and community resources. The Brookings list has little to say about the social impacts of proximity.

The environmental and health benefits of increased proximity are well documented. However its social implications, particularly in relation to social cohesion, are more problematic. This is important because social cohesion is often associated with stronger communities, increased community resilience and social stability. Whilst research has looked at how particular features of the built environment such as density and mix-use developments affect social cohesion, it remains the case that studies which explore the impact of proximity on social cohesion and everyday social interaction and use of community facilities are still rather thin on the ground.

The sociology of proximity

We need to think more about what might be called the sociology of proximity. What does the pursuit of proximity, or ‘nearness’ do for social relations and social interaction within local areas? And does planned proximity lead to more socially cohesive, inclusive, stronger and more resilient communities as is often claimed?

Underlying the idea of a strong community at neighbourhood level are the concepts of equity and sustainability. The first relates to equity in accessibility to key services, facilities, opportunities and transport infrastructure, whilst community sustainability emphasizes the importance of collective aspects of social life. It relates to the importance of local social interaction, participation in local community activities, community stability, place identity and sense of place, and feeling safe and secure.

It has been shown, that inhabitants of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods are more likely to know their neighbors, participate politically, trust others, and be socially engaged than are people living in car-oriented suburbs. This has been assumed to be due to the enhanced opportunities for resident interaction in neighborhood streets and public areas which encourages a sense of connection and familiarity. Add to this the understanding that residents’ emotional bonds to a place relate to their actual use of the area, and that residents who feel attached to their area and see their experience as positive are more likely to use local amenities in daily living rather than traveling elsewhere.

Understanding how a place ‘works’ must take account of social and emotional ties as important aspects of the lived-experience of a place and acknowledge that places are likely to be understood differently by different people . The study of urban proximity should not be concerned only with accessibility to spatially distributed services and must consider the relationships that develop between people, built spaces, and open spaces.

Social cohesion, like many sociological concepts, has no universally agreed definition. It refers to the interdependence, shared bonds and solidarity between members of society. For Schiefer and Van der Noll (2017), social cohesion encompasses three subdimensions: social relations, orientation towards the common good, and attachment and belonging, all of which are important in understanding how individuals relate to their neighbourhood and wider urban environment.

All this makes exploring the connection between proximity and social cohesion rather challenging. To date, a number of studies have examined how particular characteristics of the built environment, such as density, diversity, design, and walkability, can influence social cohesion (Mazumdar et al., 2018). However, there is still a lack of systematic empirical evidence to support the idea that proximity to amenities for everyday living itself can effectively promote more socially cohesive communities.

Urban proximity and social cohesion rely for their measurement on both objective and subjective data. Urban proximity is often analyzed only from a distance and time perspective, without considering the subjective measures which relate to perceived distance, time and difficulty to reach destinations. Social cohesion also has to be measured in terms of indicators and perceptions of the quality of life, trust and beliefs held by residents within communities usually drawn from respondent’s answers to survey questions about their perceptions of their neighbourhood, whether they feel integrated into the community, whether people are trustworthy and opinion on the proximity of facilities such as shopping sport, culture and green space.

Social cohesion as a policy outcome

Social cohesion has been seen as one of the most abstract and difficult concepts in sociology and is probably overused in public policy debates about community building. It is at the core of the justifications for proximity planning, but it is rarely explained just what is meant by the term.

Jane Jacobs and others have shown that lived experience in neighbourhoods and localities is complex and changeable. Contacts between residents in their neighbourhood may be limited to a few neighbors. Residents are often involved in social networks other than those within the neighbourhood, and via social media. Living together in a socially mixed environment can also lead to misunderstandings and tensions. The policy goal of social cohesion seems to imply an objective of building harmonious neighbourhoods but reality would suggests that is unlikely. The spatial distance to access daily essentials and the social distance between community groups are both important. If social cohesion is seen as some kind of binding force in a social system which promotes inclusion and belonging, there is usually a flipside which excludes participation from some other groups.

When it comes to looking at social cohesion as a policy outcome there is a need to look deeper at the underlying dimensions of social cohesion outlined above (social relations, orientation towards community and the common good, and belonging and attachment). There are different forms of social cohesion: policy-makers need to ask what is the nature of the social cohesion which is sought.

Distance and social cohesion

If policy debates are not strong at clarifying these matters, there is at least some research emerging which does start to unpack the complex relationship between proximity and social cohesion. A newly published study undertaken in 5 Spanish cities attempts to isolate the impact of proximity on social cohesion. The study integrates both objective and subjective measures of proximity to daily destinations in assessing their impact on neighbourhood social cohesion as measured through a social survey. The results from the study show:

• Social cohesion is negatively associated with distance to daily destinations.

• This negative association is mediated by individuals’ perceptions of proximity.

• Perceived distance amplifies the effect of destination proximity on social cohesion.

• Planning focused on local access to services and amenities is key to social cohesion.

This means that the impact of distances to destinations on social cohesion is stronger when destinations are perceived to be closer or further than they actually are.

Applying the ‘proximity principle’

Notwithstanding the ambiguities in the concepts of both proximity and social cohesion, the findings about perceived distances amplifying the relationship between proximity and social cohesion indicate that urban planners and policymakers should consider objective and subjective measures of proximity when adopting the principles of proximity planning. They need to focus on equitable access to essential services if they are to promote community cohesion. They need to consider the different groups within the community when considering accessibility. For some groups, short distances to facilities might be perceived as much longer or impossible given their circumstances. Some will feel a wide social distance between themselves and other groups if, for example, proximity planning leads to gentrification.

This discussion highlights the tensions in neighbourhoods between physical proximity and social distance. Diverse, dense, mixed-use urban development is likely to need transformative placemaking solutions to foster social cohesion and minimize social distance between social groups if such neighbourhoods are to become the vibrant thriving cohesive communities which planners seek.