Design environments for connection and invest in social events, activities, and programs

Confidence

Quality of Evidence

The evidence supporting the design of environments and the investment in social events, activities, and programs to foster social connection is of moderate quality. A substantial body of research indicates that the built environment—such as the design of public spaces, parks, transportation systems, and housing—significantly influences social interactions and community cohesion. Studies show that well-designed environments that encourage pedestrian activity, provide communal spaces, and integrate nature can enhance social connectivity and reduce feelings of isolation. Similarly, social events, activities, and programs that utilize these environments are associated with increased community engagement, social capital, and improved mental health. However, studies show that the effects of these built environments have a relatively small impact on sociability compared to other more proximal factors and it is unclear how different interventions might differentially shape improvements. It is likely that the relative effects of different interventions is highly context dependent—making them difficult to evaluate. As well, the politics of community spaces may introduce difficulties to successful utilization. For these reasons, it remains uncertain how community enhancements might independently influence social outcomes. However, when considered in the context of other interventions, it is likely that optimizing the social environment can remove critical barriers that might otherwise prevent engagement.

Balance of Benefits and Harms

The balance of benefits versus harms in designing environments for connection and investing in social events is likely in favor of benefits. Creating environments that facilitate social interaction and providing programming that maximizes the use of these spaces can lead to stronger communities, greater social cohesion, and improved wellbeing. On the other hand, when poorly implemented, such interventions can result in the displacement of vulnerable populations or result in environments that do not meet the needs of specific communities. As well, communities may enact these programs inequitably by prioritizing some regions over others. Further, capital infrastructure improvements and programmatic interventions can sometimes be costly. These costs may require divestment from other important priorities. Of course, such community investments can also result in economic gains as the value of neighbourhoods increase. However, many of these harms can be overcome through careful, well-planned and community-based implementation and consultation.

Alignment with Values and Preferences

This guideline aligns well with the values and preferences of communities that prioritize social wellbeing, inclusivity, and public health. The recommendation to design environments that facilitate social connection and to invest in community-based events and programs resonates with urban planners, public health professionals, and community organizers. It also appeals to residents who value accessible public spaces and opportunities for social interaction. While some communities may face challenges in funding or implementing these recommendations, the guideline’s flexibility in addressing both built and natural environments makes it highly acceptable across diverse contexts.

Feasibility

The feasibility of designing environments for connection and investing in social events is moderate. While implementing changes to the built environment and funding social programs require resources, planning, and coordination, many communities have existing infrastructure and public spaces that can be leveraged to enhance social connectivity. The guideline’s focus on maximizing the use of these environments through targeted programming provides practical steps that can be adapted to different community contexts. Additionally, partnerships between local governments, community organizations, and private stakeholders can increase the feasibility of implementing these recommendations effectively.

Certainty of Recommendation

Based on our assessment of the above criteria, we are confident that communities should design environments that facilitate social interaction and invest in related events and programs. Our primary reservations relate to the complexity of identifying appropriate strategies that meet contextual needs and whether identified strategies have meaningful impacts. Nevertheless, we believe the likelihood that additional information or evidence would cause us to reverse this recommendation is low.

Overall Assessment

The overall rating for this guideline is Strong Recommendation, Moderate Quality of Evidence.