Are thriving communities merely places where a lot of happy individuals live? Or is the relationship more complex – are there many different experiences in the same place? These are important questions when considering our ability to stand shocks such as COVID-19, as well as levelling up.

 

Since Spring 2020 and the first lockdown, it is clear that people have experienced COVID-19 very differently. Some people have not missed commuting, and enjoyed the greater connection with their local community brought about by working from home. Others have faced financial pressures and struggled with their physical and mental health.

Communities, too, responded differently to COVID-19. In some places mutual aid groups were set up very quickly and hundreds of people came forward to volunteer. In other neighbourhoods, fewer people came forward to help out. A survey undertaken for the Together Coalition in December 2020 suggested that 13% of people felt that COVID-19 had divided communities rather than uniting them.

Two years into the pandemic, researchers are now looking at the links between individual and community wellbeing. Are thriving communities merely places where a lot of happy individuals live? Or is the relationship more complex – are there many different experiences in the same place? These are important questions when considering our ability to stand shocks such as COVID-19, as well as levelling up. Individual and community wellbeing lies at the heart of Spirit of 2012’s work, and it is for this reason that Spirit came together with the Centre for Ageing Better to fund research that looks at the relationship between individual and community wellbeing.

The research has been carried out by a team based at the University of Birmingham in partnership with the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. The team started by defining these terms and building a model to show the links between individual and community wellbeing. Individual wellbeing has objective components − our income or employment status, for example – as well as subjective components, that is, how happy, worthwhile or anxious we feel.

In more sociable areas, where a higher proportion of people report talking regularly to their neighbours, less sociable people had worse emotional and psychological wellbeing than sociable people.

Community wellbeing looks at how we are doing as a place. Again the research team felt there are objective and subjective aspects to community wellbeing. Objective factors might include area-based crime data, voter participation employment rates, and access to green space. The funder Local Trust has recently commissioned research that examined area-based statistics on community wellbeing. Subjective community wellbeing is how we feel about the area where we live, whether we feel civic pride, or feel we belong, for example.

The research team then looked at the relationships between individual and community wellbeing, using a range of data sources, including Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Survey. It became apparent, however, that there is not much community-level data on subjective wellbeing. Statistics on wellbeing, for example, in the ONS Annual Population Survey are available at a local authority, rather than ward or neighbourhood level.

Despite shortcomings in the data, the research team did find some relationships between individual and community wellbeing. Area-level volunteering rates were associated with both community and individual subjective wellbeing. Higher general election voter turnout was associated with better individual subjective wellbeing. This suggests that high levels of civic engagement are associated with wellbeing.

As might be expected, higher area-level average income was associated with better individual subjective wellbeing. People living in urban areas had worse community subjective wellbeing than those living in rural areas, particularly where voting rates were low.

As well as looking at economic factors such as infrastructure, investment, jobs and skills, the white paper recognises that thriving communities are ones where social relationships are strong.

 

Crucially, the findings show that people who live in the same place may have different experiences and feelings about where they live. Different people, same place is perhaps the most important finding of the research. In more sociable areas, where a higher proportion of people report talking regularly to their neighbours, less sociable people had worse emotional and psychological wellbeing than sociable people. Higher area-level unemployment was associated with worse community subjective wellbeing for the employed, but not the unemployed.

These are not just interesting findings, but also important and timely because the Government has recently published its flagship Levelling Up white paper. This sets out a programme of work to narrow disparities between different places. As well as looking at economic factors such as infrastructure, investment, jobs and skills, the white paper recognises that thriving communities are ones where social relationships are strong.

The white paper sets out over 100 place-based initiatives that aim to ‘level up’ neighbourhoods that have been left behind. Some of these have already been announced, such as the National Youth Guarantee, that aims to give every young person access to out-of-school activities, outdoor adventures and opportunities to volunteer. New announcements in the white paper include a commitment to a strategy to strengthen social connection.

There is an emphasis on collecting more data. Policy success will be measured by 12 medium-term (2030) place-based Levelling Up targets. As well as targets that relate to levels of skills and investment in a particular area, there are targets on wellbeing and pride that people feel in the places where they live. There is a commitment to increasing the average levels of personal wellbeing in every area, using ONS measures and to reduce place-based differences in wellbeing.

While the emphasis on community wellbeing in the Levelling Up programme of work is welcome, it is also important to remember that people make places. This new research shows that people experience the same place differently. As the white paper commitments are developed and rolled out policymakers need to look beyond ‘averages’. We need to focus on people, as well as places.

Find out more and download the full report, model and briefing here: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/projects/different-people-same-place/

Join us for a webinar on Thursday 23 March

What Works Centre for Wellbeing will be hosting a free webinar on Wednesday 23 March 14.00-15.30 to explore the findings from Different people, same place.

This will be an opportunity to explore the findings in more depth and to reflect on how they can inform action being taken in communities as part of the levelling up agenda, and in support of pandemic recovery.

The webinar will be chaired by David Hopkins, Director of Community at Coin Street Community Builders and What Works Centre for Wellbeing Trustee. Lead researchers Dr Laura Kudrna and Dr Oyinlola Oyebode will present the findings from their work and the model. Both the Centre for Ageing Better and Spirit of 2012, who funded the research will share their responses to the findings.

You can register for this event via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_G0rpYhZrQ-WJA9PYFkaV6Q