Cohousing as a model for social health: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Social connections, and the social capital they foster, are important contributors to health, and often occur in the context of housing. Cohousing is one form of housing design often touted as fostering social capital. This scoping review aimed to draw on the social capital theory to examine how cohousing promotes the social health of residents and integrates with existing neighbours. Potential studies were identified from 28 academic databases across public health, architecture and humanities. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the last 10 years in developed countries. Of 59 potential studies reviewed against inclusion/exclusion criteria, 37 contributed to the findings. Thematic analysis identified the social structures inherent in, as well as the physical design, of cohousing models and their relationships with social health. There was evidence of the development of bonding and (to a lesser extent) bridging and linking social capital. However, the studies reviewed had a number of limitations; few included control, non-cohousing samples and tended to rely on case studies and cross-sectional study designs with small sample sizes. A key finding and recommendation from this review is therefore the need for more robust primary research of cohousing models to determine benefits for social health.

KEYWORDS:

• Cohousing
• social health
• scoping review

Introduction

Social connections are important contributors to positive physical and mental health (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010, 2015). Having social health, defined in this context as the ability to develop and benefit from meaningful connections with others, as part of a social network can encourage conformity to social norms around health-promoting behaviours and offer resources that act to buffer the impact of stressors on health (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010). Conversely, it has been argued that social isolation not only predicts poor mental health but is also a stronger risk factor for premature death than obesity or smoking (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). There is evidence that social isolation is increasing in cities in several Western countries. In the UK, a Minister for Loneliness has recently been appointed, while in Australia, several key health organisations have identified combating loneliness as a priority public health challenge (Tatz 2019, VicHealth 2019).

Housing is an important setting for addressing loneliness and social isolation. Franklin and Tranter (2011, p. 1) argue that ‘loneliness is endured, mostly in isolation, inside the four walls of a home’. More specifically loneliness is spatially concentrated, being located in some housing types and tenures more than others (Franklin and Tranter 2011). Conversely, healthy and affordable housing can improve social connectedness by addressing inequalities and encouraging people to establish ‘roots’ in a particular place (Hulse et al. 2011). There are a burgeoning number of housing schemes in Western cities but, one particular model gaining popularity as a means of addressing social isolation within an urban housing context, and the subject of this review is cohousing.

Cohousing communities are purposefully designed to improve connections between neighbours; shared communal areas co-exist alongside private dwellings and residents collaborate in the establishment and ongoing management of the community (Glass 2009, Sargisson 2012, Sanguinetti 2012, Chiodelli and Baglione 2014, Droste 2015). Cohousing emerged in the 1960s and 1970s across Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands in response to ‘disintegrating’ community values and social isolation (Sargisson 2012). This approach to housing later emerged in the northern United States in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, often described as the ‘second wave’. This version is somewhat distinct from European cohousing, in that communities are predominantly owner-occupied (rather than being all-rented or a combination of rented and privately owned) and never financed through the state as part of social housing (Sargisson 2012). Nevertheless, practitioners continue to see cohousing as a way to escape the alienated, isolated, and disconnected social life in modern society, whereby neighbours are ‘strangers’ treated with suspicion and mistrust, civic responsibility is limited, and there is little belonging or ‘community’ (Sargisson 2012).

Residents move to cohousing communities for a number of reasons, including prior experience of community living; dissatisfaction with nuclear family living models; the desire for friendly supportive relationships with neighbours; values related to child-rearing and/or multigenerational living; and a preference towards ecologically sustainable living (Markle et al. 2015). Cohousing, according to Garciano (2011), offers many benefits for residents. They live in a local supportive community, with neighbourly connections encouraging the sharing of resources and time-consuming responsibilities and providing a greater sense of physical security. For the young, social networks for tutoring, education, and job training thrive, while a diverse group of adults provide positive role models (Garciano 2011). Being able to call on nearby neighbours for help and less reliant on driving makes cohousing an optimal choice for the elderly, while the pedestrian-friendly setup allows greater mobility and access to an environment full of natural activities and engaging opportunities for persons with disabilities (Garciano 2011). From a public health perspective, studies purport that cohousing has mental and physical health benefits, including avoiding or delaying the need for medical care through neighbour support, increasing mental stimulation through community involvement, and increasing feelings of efficacy and self-esteem that come with helping other community members (Lubik and Kosatsky 2019).

Given these advantages, cohousing is consistently linked to social capital. Social capital, according to the seminal works of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), refers to the resources (either potential or realised) for individuals within their social networks as determined by social norms and obligations. Putnam (1995), in contrast, views social capital as a resource of groups or societies that benefits individuals. The main components, however, can be summarised as reciprocity, trust, social norms, shared ownership over resources, social agency and participation in social networks (Onyx and Bullen 2000). There are three types of social capital: bonding, or the internal relationships within a group of similar members; bridging, which refers to external ties; and linking, the extent to which individuals can develop relationships with institutions and individuals who have relative power over them (Szreter and Woolcock 2004). These components develop through the process of social connectedness, which encapsulates the various types of connections, interactions and processes between individuals that sustain social participation, as well as perceptions of available support (Denny et al. 2014, Kelly 2012). Social connections, and in turn social capital, provide a range of benefits, including access to information, social control, solidarity and mutual support, and engagement and civic sense (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988, Putnam 1995). In doing so, both are closely linked to social health; connections and capital foster social health, while possession of social health, in turn, enables individuals and communities to develop greater connections and the reciprocity, trust, shared ownership, social agency and participation associated with social capital (Onyx and Bullen 2000) (refer Figure 1). These same advantages are often cited in relation to cohousing (Sargisson 2012, Fromm 2012, Ruiu 2016b).

Figure 1. Conceptual map of Social Health, Social Connectedness, Social Capital and related concepts.

To our knowledge, no research to date has explicitly analysed the links between cohousing and social health. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to explore these potential links by drawing on the social capital framework to examine how cohousing promotes social capital and thus the social health and wellbeing of residents and integrates with existing neighbours. In order to achieve this aim, we focused on peer-reviewed papers reporting on cohousing, including both primary research and reviews. Given literature on cohousing is inter-disciplinary, and the aim was to explore the current evidence in order to inform the impending development of a cohousing community in Australia, the scoping review was an appropriate approach. Scoping reviews are one form of rapid evidence assessment that aim to answer a research question by focusing on the identification of key concepts, evidence, and gaps in research through the systematic search, selection and synthesis of existing evidence (Colquhoun et al. 2014). It is at times necessary to adopt rapid evidence assessments, particularly when there is a need to achieve scientific rigour in a timely manner (Tricco et al. 2015). Unlike systematic reviews, which often demand 6 to 24 months to examine the efficacy of clinical interventions using specific quantitative methods and undertake critical quality assessment of the evidence (Khangura et al. 2012), rapid evidence assessments require less time (3–6 months) and use more streamlined processes, such as searching fewer academic databases, using one rather than two researchers to collect data (Tricco et al. 2016), and/or excluding study quality assessment (Arksey and O’Malley 2005, Peters et al. 2015).

Methods

The review presented here followed the steps for scoping reviews, beginning with the development of the research questions, followed by the identification of potential studies, the review of papers against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, data charting, and the generation of findings/recommendations (e.g. Tricco et al. 2016). The review was guided by two research questions: What cohousing designs promote the social health and wellbeing of residents? What designs promote social integration with existing neighbours? Two authors developed the search terms and the research inclusion/exclusion criteria. The search included English-language studies published between January 2009 and September 2019. Restricting articles to this date range ensured research was up-to-date and relevant to recent housing trends. The review was also limited to research carried out in developed countries to ensure evidence would be best-placed to inform the development of a cohousing community in the Australian context.

Given the research questions covered a range of topics, databases related to a variety of fields, including health, architecture, ageing and social sciences, were used to conduct the search. EBSCOHost databases included Academic Search Complete; AgeLine; Art & Architecture Source; Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals; CINAHL Complete; Environment Complete; Global Health; GreenFILE; Health Business Elite; Health Policy Reference Center; Health Source – Consumer Edition; Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition; Humanities Source; MEDLINE Complete; PsycINFO; Social Work Abstracts; SocINDEX with Full Text; and Urban Studies Abstracts. Additional Informit databases searched included ARCH – Australian Architecture Database; APAFT – Australian Public Affairs Full Text; APAIS-Health- Australian Public Affairs Information Service – Health; ATSIhealth- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography; FAMILY- Australian Family & Society Abstracts Database; Health & Society – Health & Society Database; Health Collection; Humanities & Social Sciences Collection; POLICY – Analysis and Policy Observatory; and RURAL – Rural and Remote Health Database.

Table 1 provides a summary of terms combined during the search process. Housing design terms were based on the researchers’ previous knowledge of the field; these were initially broad in nature to capture the various labels used to describe cohousing. Social health terms were based on definitions of social capital (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988; Putnam 1995, Onyx and Bullen 2000). The EBSCOHost search involved undertaking two separate searches, one with each cluster of terms (e.g. Search 1 was housing designs, Search 2 was social health), and then combining the two using AND. The Informit search combined all variations of the housing design terms and social health terms inside separate parentheses (e.g. ((cohousing OR co-housing) OR ((‘tiny house’) OR (‘tiny home’)) OR ((‘intentional community’) OR (‘intentional communities’))) and then combined the terms using AND.

Table 1. Database search terms.

Housing designs	Social health
cohousing	social health
co-housing	community connect*
tiny hous*	wellbeing
tiny home*	well-being
Intentional communit*	connection
microvillage*	sense of community
micro village	belonging
cooperative hous*	social cohesion
co-operative hous*	social support
collective hous*	psychosocial
community led hous*	social* connect*
community hous*	social* exclu*
	social* isolat*
	quality of life
	inclusion
	age in place
	aging in place
	ageing in place
	social interaction
	sociali?ation
	neighbo*
	integrat*

Papers were excluded from this review if they focused on intentional communities that examined service provision (e.g. support for mental health issues, disabilities or substance use) for vulnerable groups within cohousing, as these models were recognised to have different contributors to, and outcomes for, social health. Research carried out in developing countries, which tended to focus on housing models in severely disadvantaged areas (e.g. slums), was also excluded to ensure outcomes would be more applicable in Australian socio-economic and housing contexts. Based on a review of the abstracts and countries of origin, included studies tended to originate in the United States and Europe.

After removing duplicates and refining the search, 2811 potential studies were identified using this search protocol (refer Figure 2). Two researchers first selected 20 titles at random and reviewed the abstracts against the eligibility criteria, reaching agreement on which titles to include and exclude. One researcher (A1) then reviewed titles of remaining articles; 237 were retained. Further revision was undertaken to filter out papers not specific to cohousing; this resulted in 59 papers. In line with recommendations (Arksey and O’Malley 2005), variables used for charting when reviewing full-text papers included authors/date/journal; location and type; theoretical framework, sample/methods, main findings, and gaps/recommendations. This chart has been condensed as a table in the supplementary materials.

Figure 2. Search results.

Thematic analysis, based on the steps of Braun and Clarke (2006), was used to analyse the findings of the 28 primary research studies and nine reviews included. Findings from the articles were read by all three authors in order to be immersed in the data and enable the identification of potential patterns. Preliminary codes relevant to the research questions were devised, with findings from the articles assigned to codes as examples. Articles tended to explore more than one concept related to social capital and social health (refer Table 2). Codes were then drawn together repeatedly until key themes emerged from the data; these were subsequently reviewed and refined in order to arrive at the two main ideas – social structures inherent in co-housing models and the physical design of these communities – presented in the next section.

Table 2. Reviewed literature in terms of mechanisms promoting social capital and social health.

Study design	Mechanisms promoting social health
Author; year; location	Physical design	Bonding social capital	Bridging social capital	Linking social capital
Case studies
Fromm (2012); United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands		Collaboration, shared goals	Integration with neighbourhood
Glass (2012); United States	Design of community	Social contact
Korpela (2012); Finland		Collaboration, shared goals, mutual support, social cohesion
Jarvis and Bonnett (2013); Scandinavia; United Kingdom and United States	Design of community	Collaboration
Ruiu (2015); United Kingdom	Design of community	Mutual support, social connectedness	Integration with neighbourhood
Ruiu; (2016a); United Kingdom		Collaboration, shared goals, social connectedness	Integration with neighbourhood
Glass (2009); United States		Collaboration, shared goals, mutual support
Devlin et al. (2015); United Kingdom	Balance of public and private space	Collaboration, shared goals, social connectedness
Wechuli (2017); Germany		Mutual support, social connectedness	Integration with wider neighbourhood
Qualitative studies
Jarvis (2011); United Kingdom and United States	Design of community	Collaboration, social connectedness
Khangura et al. (2012); United States	Design of community	Social connectedness
Jarvis (2015); Australia, United Kingdom and United States		Collaboration, mutual support, social connectedness
Ruiu (2015); Italy and United Kingdom		Shared goals, social connectedness	Integration with wider neighbourhood
Sullivan (2016); United States		Collaboration
Lies et al. (2017); United States	Design of community	Social connectedness
Puplampu (2019); Canada		Collaboration, mutual support, social connectedness
Riedy et al. (2019); Australia			Integration with wider neighbourhood
Weeks et al. (2019); Canada			Integration with wider neighbourhood
Mixed-methods studies
Garciano (2011); United States		Mutual support, social connectedness
Glass (2013); United States	Design of community	Collaboration, mutual support, social connectedness
Glass (2013); United States		Mutual support, social connectedness
Jolanki and Vilkko (2015); Finland		Collaboration, mutual support, social connectedness
Markle et al. (2015); United States		Collaboration, mutual support, social connectedness
Pedersen (2015); Denmark	Design of community	Mutual support, social connectedness
Cross-sectional surveys
Choi and Paulsson (2011); Sweden		Mutual support, social contact
Sanguinetti (2014); United States		Community connectedness, mutual support, social contact
Glass (2016); United States		Community connectedness, mutual support, social contact
Case-control study
Kehl and Then (2013); Germany		Mutual support	Integration with wider neighbourhood
Reviews
Chiodelli and Baglione (2014)			Integration with wider neighbourhood
Droste (2015)		Shared goals	Integration with wider neighbourhood
Lietaert (2010)			Integration with wider neighbourhood
Lubik and Kosatsky (2019)		Mutual support
Ruiu (2014)		Community connectedness, shared goals	Integration with wider neighbourhood
Sargisson (2010)	Design of community	Social connectedness
Sargisson (2012)	Design of community	Shared goals, social connectedness
Tummers (2016)			Integration with wider neighbourhood
Vestbro and Horelli (2012)	Design of community

Results

Included studies

Of the 59 studies identified from the abstract review for full-text review, 23 were excluded based on the lack of explicit information regarding social health. The included studies (N = 37) were 28 primary research studies and nine review papers. Of the primary research studies, nine were based on case studies; seven were qualitative studies; six used mixed methods; three used cross-sectional surveys; and one was a case–control study. Reviews were mostly narrative reviews.

Elements of social health, and their relationship to bonding, bridging and linking social capital, is inherent in the literature concerning cohousing (refer Table 2). The reviewed studies, whether they were drawing on their own small-scale study of a cohousing community or reviewing the broader literature, emphasised two main avenues through which cohousing promotes the social connectedness, social capital, and thus social health, of residents: the social structure and the physical design.

Social structure

Establishing the cohousing community: shared goals and collaboration

The establishment of a cohousing community is a social process (Glass 2009), with many references in the literature to the role of participation and collaboration in determining not only the success of projects but also the formation of social capital (Fromm 2012, Sanguinetti 2014, Ruiu 2015, 2016b, Jolanki and Vilkko 2015). Specifically, the process of establishing a cohousing community has the potential to foster bonding social capital among residents as well as bridging and linking capital with external ties. Cohousing communities typically begin with potential residents leading the formation of a group with similar interests and a shared goal (Sanguinetti 2014). Having a purpose is said to provide a common focus and encourage communal actions and shared emotional investment, thereby increasing trust and the sense of community from the initial phase of the housing project (Glass 2012). Group members then discuss the development and running of the community, learning facilitation and group management skills in the process. This begins to build ‘team’ cohesion by forming alliances among future residents, and between residents and local organisations and the municipality (Fromm 2012).

Twelve papers suggest participation in the design process encourages the formation of new social connections and a sense of shared ownership of resources (Devlin et al. 2015), and thus the opportunity for bonding social capital (Glass 2009, 2012, 2013, Fromm 2012, Korpela 2012, Sanguinetti 2014, Pedersen 2015, Ruiu 2015, 2016b, Jolanki and Vilkko 2015, Lies et al. 2017). For example, those associated with the elder cohousing community in the United States studied by Glass (2009) began to involve potential residents in the design process through courses, retreats, informal meals and get-togethers, and formal planning sessions. Potential residents also had many individual choices in the construction details of their units (Glass 2009). These efforts supposedly created opportunities to begin to build a sense of community during the lengthy construction period. However, as is common with many studies of cohousing, the lack of control group or research into residents’ experiences of ‘sense of community’ prior to the cohousing project means it is difficult to clearly measure whether these strategies affect social connections. Instead, evidence depends on residents’ perceptions. For example, Ruiu (2016b), drawing on qualitative interviews, found that residents of Italian cohousing communities strongly believed their participation in the design process promoted more intimate relationships and increased their social capital in comparison with their previous situation. However, research also suggests that the organisational phase can be intense, and requires strong skills in conflict resolution to avoid disagreements that can negatively impact on social cohesion moving forward (Sargisson 2010, Jarvis 2015).

Residing in the cohousing community: community connections and support

Once established, connection to the community is fostered as residents share meals and activities (Choi and Paulsson 2011), and collectively own, manage and enjoy communal facilities and spaces (Sanguinetti 2014). Nine papers suggest the collaborative nature of cohousing communities creates an environment where residents support and offer practical help to one another (Glass 2009, 2013, 2016, Garciano 2011, Jarvis 2011, 2015, Jolanki and Vikko 2015, Markle et al. 2015, Wechuli 2017), which can prevent social isolation, foster bonding social capital and contribute to improved mental health (especially among older people) (Puplampu 2019). Indeed, one of the few studies to compare residents of cohousing with demographically similar residents found that those from cohousing communities give and receive significantly more socially supportive behaviours. However, interestingly, cohousing residents do not report they are exceptionally abundant in support on measures of perceived social support. This is because, according to Markle et al. (2015), they do not consider the giving and receiving of support extraordinary. Knowing there are others around to assist in times of need also creates a sense of safety and security, and trust seems to develop, especially within elder cohousing projects (Glass 2013, Jolanki and Vilkko 2015). These benefits in terms of bonding social capital, however, are somewhat expected, given these communities were designed to foster social connections. It is also common for participants to know each other prior to starting the establishment process, and residents often specifically choose to live in projects because they seek a greater sense of community.

Expectations of intentionality can, however, differ from the way shared values are actually acted on in practice (Jarvis 2015). For example, Fromm (2012) suggests that families may not have the hours free to commit to the added work expected of community members. Furthermore, where residents are elderly or of lower income, their priorities may focus on stability rather than the maintenance of the wider community. These differences can lead to conflict and situations where the group experiences a form of arrested development (Jarvis 2011), with examples of residents socially withdrawing and others leaving the community permanently. In this way, communities are continually evolving over time. Glass (2013), one of the few authors to explore residents’ perceptions longitudinally, found that each time a resident left or joined the senior cohousing community, the system would adjust and become slightly different, reinforcing its dynamic nature.

It is therefore interesting, given so much emphasis on the importance of engagement for the social connectedness of cohousing residents, only three papers attempt to consider outcomes for residents who move into an established community, and are therefore not involved in decision-making processes from the outset. Findings are mixed, with two papers suggesting differences in feelings of belonging between founding members versus newcomers (Jarvis 2015, Ruiu 2016a). For example, Ruiu (2016a) found the addition of residents in a cohousing development in the United Kingdom specifically affected community life by creating two separate groups. The new residents, whose detached dwellings were added to one side of the site after the original development was completed, did not participate as readily in community life, used the common house less frequently and parked their cars near their homes rather than in the main parking area; this reduced their possibility to casually meet other residents. Consequently, the aim to establish a community characterized by sharing practices was only partially achieved within each single group rather than as a whole. While the lack of integration could be attributed to the altered physical layout of the community, it does suggest that problems can arise when not all residents participate in the phases of development (from the forming to the performing phase). In contrast, one study found positive integration overall between existing (or ‘old’) and new residents (Pedersen 2015). Apart from minor tensions, and one example of a major conflict over the rebuilding of part of the facility, new residents integrated well or very well. New and ‘old’ residents also showed little difference in their perceptions of the democracy, or the value they placed on their cohousing community (Pedersen 2015). While Pedersen (2015) therefore infers that he has answered the question of how new residents integrate into an existing resident group, it remains unclear why little differences in the views of the two groups exist. Findings were also based on surveys and interviews with senior cohousing communities, and therefore cannot be generalised beyond this context.

Integration with existing neighbours

With regard to social connections beyond the cohousing community, there is an underlying expectation that communities will interact positively with the broader neighbourhood (Tummers 2016). Primary research in England and Italy shows how cohousing residents’ bonding social capital, which is established through participation in the development of the community, also represents the foundation for building external and institutional social ties (Ruiu 2016b). Cohousing is thus posited to promote bridging and linking social capital through integration with the neighbourhood and wider setting (Ruiu 2016b). This can occur from the outset, whereby the planning stage takes neighbourhood dynamics into consideration and consults with external groups (Droste 2015, Ruiu 2016b). Translating the cohousing process for the public can help to avoid political refusal, stigmatization, and/or stereotyping of present and future cohousing initiatives (Jarvis 2011).

Furthermore, once established, cohousing communities are said to foster bridging and linking social capital by inviting neighbours to organised activities (sport, entertainment, cultural, leisure, social events) (Ruiu 2015, 2016b) and opening up communal facilities, such as green spaces and common rooms, for others to use as parks, garden allotments and meeting rooms (Droste 2015, Ruiu 2015). These actions will ultimately contribute to the acceptance of cohousing and the recognition of communities for their hybridity, diversity and openness, and involvement in enhancing the wider neighbourhood ‘social life’ (Droste 2015, Ruiu 2016b).

Nevertheless, the conditions for cohousing to maintain such openness to the broader neighbourhood are relatively understudied (Tummers 2016). Furthermore, there remains a concern that cohousing projects could potentially become disconnected from the broader neighbourhood (Ruiu 2015). Indeed, a survey of 741 Germans found those who lived in cohousing were significantly less active in the outside community than their control group counterparts, and residents’ benefits occurred at the expense of returns for civil society (Kehl and Then 2013). The lack of integration with surrounding neighbours is one of two problems with cohousing identified in a review by Chiodelli and Baglione (2014), who argue that, because cohousing communities are often introverted from a physical perspective and self-sufficient in terms of function and relationships, they have the potential to segregate themselves (Chiodelli and Baglione 2014). This can cause barriers (Weeks et al. 2019), including scepticism from potential residents (Riedy et al. 2019); initial suspicion from neighbouring residents; and opposition from policy-makers and local authorities (Ruiu 2014, 2016b, Droste 2015, Pedersen 2015). For example, a study of 41 older Australians deemed potential future residents revealed cohousing was poorly understood, and there were concerns about how the sharing of space would work in practice (Riedy et al. 2019). Neighbours can also be hostile at the beginning, with English experiences suggesting they see cohousing communities as hippie groups or communes (Ruiu 2014).

Communities can also be perceived as elitist (Lietaert 2010) or gentrifiers (Droste 2015), given the lack of diversity in terms of economics, social and cultural backgrounds (Chiodelli and Baglione 2014, Ruiu 2015, Pedersen 2015). The higher financial costs of sites and construction are typically borne solely by residents, thus excluding those who are more vulnerable (Ruiu 2015). The self-selection of residents who fit with the lifestyle and values of the community, albeit more of an abstract concept rather than a true recruitment system, is also associated with a lack of social heterogeneity and intensified segregation (Droste 2015, Ruiu 2015). Furthermore, because cohousing is typically privately owned, residents are permitted to govern using their own internal system of rules and can therefore decide who, from outside, can be allowed to enter into the community, including using communal spaces (Chiodelli and Baglione 2014). Municipalities thus vary in their responses, with Pedersen’s work (2015) in Denmark finding some supported the development of senior cohousing facilities as subsidized dwellings, while others refused to be involved on the basis that establishing social housing for seniors in good health from privately owned homes was not a public endeavour. This is in contrast to Riedy et al. (2019), who found stakeholders were mostly positive about cohousing as a solution to elders’ housing issues. While some literature suggests projects need to engage with key stakeholders to facilitate the development process (Fromm 2012), how projects do this differs across the literature, reflecting the variety of communities in terms of size, location, establishment processes and socio-political contexts. In this way, it could be argued that there is less certainty around the capacity for cohousing to facilitate bridging and linking forms of social capital compared to bonding social capital.

Physical design

The review found that the physical design of communities is integral to its success (Sargisson 2010, 2012), with specific elements proposed by Williams (2005) now widely accepted to foster bonding social capital and thus the social health of residents (Vestbro and Horelli 2012, Sanguinetti 2012, 2014, Glass 2012, 2013, Pedersen 2015, Sullivan 2016, Ruiu 2016b). Four articles outline the ‘cluster design’, which aims to provide a central location for social interaction by building small private residences around a large, shared open space (Jarvis 2011, Sargisson 2012, Pedersen 2015, Sullivan 2016). Residents report this as the ideal site plan; they can witness what is happening from their homes, join with other residents who are socialising, and incidentally meet with neighbours as they undertake everyday tasks and pass through the common areas to get to their front doors (Pedersen 2015). In contrast, earlier research suggests that residents who live in second storey dwellings facing away from common green spaces report a sense of disconnect and loss of opportunities for socialising (Glass 2013).

Several studies suggest the use of pedestrianised areas (Sargisson 2012, Devlin et al. 2015) and locating car parking at the periphery of the community (Garciano 2011, Ruiu 2016b) encourages residents to meet each other as they walk past neighbours’ houses to reach their vehicles (Sargisson 2012). However, whilst designs that enable all residents to enter and exit the community through the same common routes are in theory beneficial for social interaction and thus bonding social capital, there appear to be some exceptions (Glass 2012, 2013). For instance, the distances from units to the carparks can be challenging for the elderly, with ageing residents suggesting that the risk of falls during adverse weather actually confined them to their units and contributed to social isolation. This then becomes counterintuitive, especially when cohousing is proposed to be an attractive option for seniors to age in their own homes amongst a socially connected community (Glass 2009, 2012, 2013, 2016, Fromm 2012, Kang et al. 2012, Glass and Vander Plaats 2013, Devlin et al. 2015, Jolanki and Vilkko 2015, Pedersen 2015, Lies et al. 2017).

In terms of the buildings, cohousing developments aim for physical designs that encourage social connections and interaction, but still ensure individual space for privacy and solitude (Garciano 2011, Jarvis 2011). Much of the literature, therefore, focuses on the development of bonding social capital, despite suggestions that common areas might be made available for others beyond the cohousing residents (Droste 2015, Ruiu 2015) in order to foster bridging and linking social capital. For example, the common house is widely recognised as a fundamental feature of cohousing design, providing a designated area for communal activities and socialising among residents, including eating meals together (Jarvis 2011, Pedersen 2015, Sullivan 2016). Most common houses include a kitchen, combined living and dining area, and a guest room, though some will also incorporate a shared laundry, mail room, games area, office, workshop, or storage room (Glass 2009, Pedersen 2015, Sullivan 2016, Lies et al. 2017). Common houses should not be excessively large, with Pedersen’s (2015) review of 26 cohousing communities suggesting that 150 square metres offers an ideal balance between public and private space.

Access to these common facilities means private dwellings are typically smaller, albeit with most of the features of conventional homes (Garciano 2011, Sargisson 2012). Units can be designed for specific needs, including ageing in place (Glass 2012, 2013, Glass and Vander Plaats 2013), with the possibility of installing handrails and stair lifts (or ensuring no steps at all); a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor; and doorways and bathrooms that allow wheelchair access (Glass 2012). Individual dwellings are typically private, though having one’s own front porch supposedly encourages spontaneous interaction and may therefore foster bonding social capital. Ten residents from a senior cohousing community in the United States took photographs of their front porches and suggested it allowed them to sit outside and interact with neighbours who ‘perch’ on their railings as they pass by (Lies et al. 2017). However, four studies have found residents still desire private outdoor areas, with grass, where possible (Glass 2012, 2013, Devlin et al. 2015, Sullivan 2016). Glass (2012, 2013) analysed data from a mixed-methods case study with three elder cohousing communities in the United States. Although no data was collected from those who participated in the planning and development but chose not to move into the community, or residents who moved away, residents in both studies expressed disappointment about not having a private yard (Glass 2012, 2013). One community addressed residents’ desire for private yards by reserving some external spaces for the use of individual units only.

This review suggests that the number of units and residents in a cohousing community also appears to be important when aiming to foster frequent communication and social connection. Two studies, for example, suggest that cohousing models with between 20 and 30 units can enhance social cohesion of the group while still respecting privacy (Glass 2012, Pedersen 2015). This is in line with much of the research on physical design of cohousing communities, which focuses on features that promote social interactions among residents, and thus bonding social capital, rather than between residents and the wider neighbourhood in terms of bridging and linking capital.

Discussion

The aim of this scoping review was to draw on social capital theory to examine how cohousing promotes the social health and wellbeing of residents and integration with existing neighbours. Overall, the literature repeatedly claims that cohousing promotes social connections and social capital, established through social structures and the physical design (Fromm 2012, Ruiu 2016b). Cohousing communities guarantee bonding social capital through connections, internal cohesion, trust among members, shared goals and internal rules, which (as depicted in Figure 1) in turn has the potential to foster the social health of residents. Communities can also develop bridging and linking social capital by being open to the outside, establishing friendly relationships with the broader neighbourhood and creating partnerships with external actors (Ruiu 2016b).

These claims regarding the impacts of cohousing on social capital and social health outcomes should, however, be met with caution, particularly in light of the somewhat limited quality of evidence. For example, literature reviews do not describe their methodologies in sufficient detail and are often ‘hybrid’ publications, merging evidence from literature searches (albeit with limited detail on methodology) with observations from their own work in cohousing communities (Sargisson 2012, Vestbro and Horelli 2012, Ruiu 2016b). Surveys are often cross-sectional, meaning they cannot definitely prove that participation in cohousing increases levels of connectedness (or vice versa) (Sanguinetti 2014). Ten authors presented case studies (Glass 2009, 2012, 2013, Fromm 2012, Korpela 2012, Jarvis and Bonnett 2013, Devlin et al. 2015, Ruiu 2015, 2016a, Wechuli 2017); results obtained using this methodology are not always generalisable to other contexts, but this was further challenged by a general lack of detail on the samples and whether these captured all residents’ perspectives. Nine studies were qualitative in nature and utilised small samples, meaning results cannot necessarily be generalised to other cohousing communities beyond their immediate contexts. Furthermore, the samples in the studies were mostly homogenous. Although the reliance on highly educated, higher-income, mostly Caucasian women reflects the general demographics of cohousing as a whole, several studies discussed this as a weakness (Glass and Vander Plaats 2013, Glass 2016, Sullivan 2016). In addition, only 11 of the studies appeared to include mixed-age cohousing communities.

Studies typically interview existing residents within their cohousing communities, without consideration of their previous experiences. None appear to take measurements of social connections, or social capital, before moving into the community, meaning it is difficult to prove if, and by how much, social capital changes (Ruiu 2016b). Glass and Vander Plaats (2013) themselves acknowledge that the benefits they delineate came from previous literature and anecdotal evidence, and therefore that more formal measures of social connections (and isolation) are needed in future surveys. Furthermore, few studies collected data over multiple time points, meaning it remains relatively unclear how social capital changes over time. The use of longitudinal data (Markle et al. 2015, Wechuli 2017, Weeks et al. 2019) is therefore recommended.

Only two studies (Kehl and Then 2013, Markle et al. 2015) included a non-cohousing comparison group. While there was the possibility that they may be predisposed to dissatisfaction with their current living situation, and as such did not represent the average non-cohousing population (Markle et al. 2015), including a comparative group still allowed for impacts of cohousing to be measured. Future studies should endeavour to include a comparative group when exploring the experiences of cohousing residents to see if social capital increases (and more quickly) in these communities.

The majority of studies rely on self-report data to measure behaviours and practices among cohousing residents. Therefore, studies may be affected by social desirability bias or inaccurate recall by participants (Althubaiti 2016). For example, residents will obviously be aware of the researchers’ interests in cohousing and therefore potentially overstate its benefits, including the formation of positive social connections. In addition, cohousing residents have made the intentional choice to live in a community that places emphasis on social interaction, with several studies suggesting this is a primary reason for moving there (Glass 2009, Kang et al. 2012, Markle et al. 2015). In this way, most residents self-select to be involved in cohousing, whether through the establishment of the project or by moving into an existing community, based on their fit with its aim and the values of the group (Puplampu 2019). Given the intention of most cohousing projects is to create a ‘friendly neighbourhood’ and ‘community life’ (Sargisson 2010), these residents are already potentially drawn to collaboration, and may therefore be more favourable towards contributing to the community and becoming involved in the larger neighbourhood compared to the general population (Fromm 2012). Therefore, further research is needed which compares the experiences of cohousing residents with the general population to determine the true effects on social connections and social capital.

Study strengths and limitations

The main strength of this scoping review was its attempt to integrate literature concerning social health and housing. Research constantly promotes cohousing as a specific model designed to facilitate greater social connections. Our integration of findings with social capital theory suggests there are apparent links, but that more research measuring the development of social capital over time is required.

Scoping reviews, however, are not without limitations. The aim to summarise evidence within a specific timeframe meant we decided to focus only on peer-reviewed papers. This is possibly problematic given the nature of cohousing communities, which are often reported on by cohousing associations and profiled as ‘case studies’ in other forms of grey literature. While this may have excluded potentially valuable lessons, we believe the terms used to search 28 academic databases offered comprehensive results. We also consider this to reinforce our recommendation that more rigorous studies into the successes (and potential failures) of cohousing communities in facilitating social health need to be undertaken and subsequently published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Another limitation of this review was the decision to focus on papers from locations with similar contexts to Australia. While results still included evidence from a range of countries where cohousing is more common, including Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, there is the potential that relevant evidence from dissimilar countries was excluded. Including evidence from other contexts, including developing countries, may have offered alternative useful insights.

A further limitation of this review was the decision to exclude published studies that focused on service provision. Although such models are typically designed to support vulnerable groups, and are therefore likely to have different contributors to, and outcomes for, social health, there is still the possibility that these studies included relevant information about design features.

Conclusion

While the potential for cohousing to contribute positively to social capital, and therefore the social health and wellbeing of residents, was evident across the literature discussed in this scoping review, the exact impact continues to remain unclear. This is because, at least in part, the existing evidence draws predominantly on short-term explorations of perspectives of small groups of cohousing residents. Further research should therefore move beyond self-report and involve longitudinal data collection and observations of interactions within cohousing communities across different stages of the process and with different residents (old versus new, renters versus owners), in order to capture changing social experiences. Evaluating cohousing outcomes more rigorously could establish stronger links between cohousing and social health, thereby encouraging public and private investors, policymakers and administrators, as well as potentially interested residents, to consider this model as a means of preventing social isolation.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Geelong Community Foundation, Geelong, Australia.

Notes on contributors

Elyse Warner

Elyse Warner, PhD, is a Lecturer in the School of Health and Social Development at Deakin University. Her research interests include the relationship between families and health, with a particular focus on the influence of housing and community. She has published on the wellbeing of young adults and parents who return to co-residence, as well as the health and wellbeing implications for families raising children in high-rise apartments and on the suburban fringe. She lectures in human development and family health and well-being.

Emma Sutton

Emma Sutton recently completed a Master of Health Promotion at Deakin University. She has a broad range of research interests, including the ways in which neighbourhood and housing design impact social health. She has worked in the disability sector for a number of years and is interested in promoting social health among people with disabilities, especially those with a limited informal support network. In addition, she is interested in improving food access and urban design in disadvantaged communities to increase health outcomes.

Fiona Andrews

Fiona Andrews, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Deakin University, School of Health and Social Development, Co-Leader of the Deakin Research Hub HOME, and member of the Centre for Health through Action on Social Exclusion (CHASE). She has research interests and has published on the relationship between neighbourhoods, health and families, with a particular focus on parents of preschool-aged children. She lectures in healthy cities; family health and well-being; health, place and planning.