Report for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, November 2021
As we emerge from the restrictions of Covid, we find ourselves still in the midst of a wider pandemic: that of loneliness. The painful separations forced on us by the virus may be coming to an end, but loneliness remains. This is especially the case for older people living on their own—though they are far from the only sufferers.
The experience of Covid lockdowns demonstrated how profoundly our social interactions are conditioned by the homes we live in. But not everyone lives in conventional single-family homes and flats. Community-led housing (CLH), including cohousing, community land trusts, cooperatives, self-help and self-build housing, emphasises resident decision-making, collaboration and inclusion. Living in these environments, with their common spaces and shared activities, seems intuitively like a good way to counter loneliness and is the reason many choose to take part in them. Until recently though, this had never been tested empirically.
In 2019, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) commissioned research to see if participation in community-led housing (cohousing in particular) could be shown to reduce loneliness. Researchers from four universities (LSE, Bristol, Lancaster and Northumbria) began work in late 2019, before anyone had even heard of COVID-19. Our fieldwork eventually concluded in January 2021, after two periods of national lockdown, which for many added significantly to feelings of loneliness.
Advocates of CLH claim that these neighbourly communities promote social interaction. But might it be that those who choose to live in CLH are simply more sociable people? To test this, we carried out an online survey of residents and members of CLH communities. Using questions from large-scale national surveys, we then matched the responses from 221 CLH residents with those of similarly sociable people living in conventional housing. We found that statistically, those living in CLH were indeed less lonely than others, and were more likely to trust neighbours and to feel a sense of belonging in their communities.
To understand why this was the case we looked in depth at five CLH schemes covering a range of organisational models, resident demographics, locations and ages:
- Lancaster Cohousing, a purpose-built intergenerational cohousing scheme on a riverbank outside Lancaster;
- New Ground (Older Women’s Cohousing), a cohousing community for older women in Barnet, north London;
- Tangram Co-op, an intergenerational co-op housed in a number of Victorian houses in Leeds, with some residents who had lived there for more than 40 years;
- 325 Fishponds Road (Bristol CLT), a recently built scheme of 12 houses around a communal garden; and
- The Yard at Ashley Vale, a neighbourhood of self-build homes, also in Bristol.
We found that loneliness was reduced by joint activities, the use of shared space, and by physical design. The most tight-knit places, where members knew and trusted each other most, performed best as supportive communities. Shared space and doing things together seemed to be key: not all the case studies were purpose-built or designed, but all had communal areas and enabled activities like exercising, eating or playing together.
A feeling of belonging helped counter emotional loneliness. When Covid hit, communities quickly formed mutual support networks, drawing on their experience of working together to clean common areas or maintain their homes. Beyond Covid, many CLH communities also have established systems (formal or informal) to support members through challenges like the birth of a child, poor health or the loss of a partner.
While cohousing schemes in particular are set up intentionally to be mutually supportive, intentionality is not a prerequisite for reduced loneliness; we also found social connection, belonging, friendship and support among residents of housing schemes that were not intentional communities.
Our report – available here in full- concluded with eight summary recommendations:
| Key Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1) Support resident control over management and decision-making | Residents’ involvement in running their communities increases their sense of agency, belonging and wellbeing, which in turn reduces loneliness. We recommend that self-management, decision-making and mediation be supported through training. |
| 2) Promote the design of spaces for social interaction | Shared spaces (indoor and out) contribute to organised and casual social interactions in CLH communities. We recommend support for the inclusion, careful design and maintenance of shared spaces in all new CLH schemes. |
| 3) Help CLH communities that want to provide facilities for neighbourhood use | Many CLH communities allow neighbours to use their gardens or common rooms for classes, performances, meetings and other events, benefitting local people. We recommend that CLH communities be encouraged and supported – though not required – to provide spaces for neighbourhood use. |
| 4) Support efforts to improve the data nationally on CLH | Data on CLH were fragmented and poor. We recommend support for efforts to improve data to help decision-makers and stakeholders better understand the sector. |
| 5) Promote inclusivity | Public interest in CLH is strong, but many who could benefit do not currently see CLH as an option. We recommend that strategies are adopted to increase inclusivity and affordability for underserved demographics. |
| 6) Encourage and support tenure security | Lack of tenure security, especially for private tenants, weakens the sense of belonging and participation—key factors in loneliness reduction. We recommend support for CLH models that ensure equal security for all residents. |
| 7) Adapt CLH features for existing housing, and non-CLH new-build schemes | CLH schemes can be seen as incubators for loneliness prevention strategies that could serve as examples for the wider housing sector. DLUHC should investigate how CLH’s beneficial features could be incorporated into existing housing and conventional new-build schemes. |
| 8) Reinvigorate targeted funding streams to make CLH options more widely available | Government funding would help groups, communities and the constituent organisations of Community Led Homes to enact our recommendations. Long-term sustainable capital funding is essential for groups to plan and deliver schemes that by their nature need continuity of funding. We recommend DLUHC investigate the scope for reinvigorating targeted funding streams, whether through the Community Housing Fund or other avenues. |
The full report can be read HERE
