The abstract nature of social cohesion requires co-created, locally relevant definitions centered on social equity and community values. Learn the essential steps for practitioners, including participatory governance and mixed-method measurement approaches, to define success and drive investments in urban resilience.
The effectiveness of any initiative focused on social cohesion—defined as the strength of social relationships, characterized by trust, participation, and a sense of belonging among all individuals in a society—hinges critically on its definition. Given the abstract nature of the concept, which is likely to "evolve over time" and "mean something different to different people", practitioners must utilize a structured, participatory governance process to create a clear, locally relevant definition that genuinely aligns with the values of the broader society and ensures justice and fairness.
Social cohesion is inherently complex because it is fundamentally "based on the existence of social equity". Without fairness, the social fabric weakens and alienation grows. Therefore, the most effective process moves beyond mere descriptive inclusion and actively focuses on co-creation through an equity lens, transforming definition-setting into a tool for systemic change. This approach is rooted in the "bottom-up community planning" philosophy championed by urbanists like Jane Jacobs, which asserts that local expertise is best suited for guiding community development.
The following sections detail the effective process for defining social cohesion, emphasizing the alignment of values, the institutionalization of participatory methods, and the imperative for social justice.
I. The Foundational Imperative: Centering Local Context and Equity
The initial step requires acknowledging that a standardized, top-down definition will likely fail to capture the complexities of the local context. Instead, practitioners must "Work with your community to align on a shared definition of social cohesion".
A. Aligning Definition with Societal Values
A critical component of this process is ensuring the definition "aligns with the values of the broader society". If the definition does not reflect these values, there is a risk of promoting a "narrow definition of cohesion". Practitioners are urged to avoid the pitfall of "imposing a narrative on people".
The effective process must therefore address the ethical and power-related question: "Whose version of good are you offering to promulgate through measurement? Who is making this decision?". Failure to interrogate this power dynamic risks creating a definition that describes a "very cohesive group of people who are dangerously exclusive".
B. Recognizing the Link to Urban Resilience
The local definition must also recognize that social cohesion is not simply a nice-to-have, but an "essential component to building urban resilience". A strong social fabric is the foundation that allows individuals and communities to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of chronic stresses (like poverty or climate change) and acute shocks (like natural disasters or economic crises). Therefore, the definition needs to encapsulate the qualities that make a community responsive and adaptable, such as collective action towards better outcomes for all.
II. Phase II: Institutionalizing Equitable Co-Creation (The Participatory Process)
An effective and enduring definition of social cohesion must emerge from participatory governance. This means involving community members not just as subjects of study, but as decision-makers who exercise power.
A. Early and Genuine Community Engagement
Practitioners are urged to "Engage the community and target audiences early" in the measurement planning process. This engagement must be genuine, as the sources explicitly caution that excessive focus on digital data collection and centralized learning can "interfere with authentic community engagement".
The goal is to "Empower the community to be active participants" in the process, granting them ownership over defining success, determining accountability, and dictating how the resulting data will be used. This principle recognizes that "self-generated and owned data is the most powerful".
B. Integrating Local Expertise and Community Leadership
The process should prioritize local knowledge over the "elaborate schemes of experts". The core idea, inspired by Jane Jacobs, is that "local expertise is better suited to guiding community development".
Example: Paris's "Ville du quart d’heure" Paris’s initiative to implement the 15-minute city model demonstrates how participatory governance informs definition. The "Ville du quart d’heure” initiative integrated the model into its urban policy by advancing it as a core strategy for climate action and recovery, but crucially ensured citizen involvement was central to the process. Key interventions, such as the "Transformation of schoolyards into public 'climate oases'" and the use of participatory budgeting, directly ensured that residents could "shape and contribute to local transformations". This bottom-up approach aligns the definition of a successful, livable, and resilient neighborhood (a local expression of social cohesion) with the practical, self-identified needs of the community.
C. Co-Creation with Institutions and Accountability
To ensure the definition is adopted and scaled, community leaders must "Bring in local officials to co-create the measurement framework". This partnership is essential for bridging the "learnings and contributions of community-led work" with municipal efforts, preventing community insights from being "too easily be lost at the city level".
This step also addresses the critical measurement challenge of Identifying owners and maintaining accountability. By involving local officials and city leadership, the resulting definition becomes linked to the city's overall strategy, allowing the city to "act as a multiplier" for scaling interventions across neighborhoods.
III. Phase III: The Equity Imperative – Defining Justice and Inclusion
A definition of social cohesion that ensures justice and fairness must be inherently linked to the existence of social equity. This requires moving beyond a superficial view of community harmony to deliberately define metrics that measure power dynamics and inclusion.
A. Acknowledging Structural Inequity
The definition must operate under a framework of social equity, which is distinct from mere equality. Equity "does not acknowledge that dominant populations enjoy greater power and privilege" and that marginalized individuals start with a "disadvantage, due to racism, sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, colonialism, and other forms of oppression within society".
Therefore, a just definition must prioritize the "promotion of access to context-appropriate opportunities and representation within systems of power for those that face systemic barriers and are most negatively impacted by regional decisions". This requires defining success through metrics that focus on the inclusion of all groups—in governance, informal networks, and day-to-day social interactions.
B. Defining Bridging and Heterogeneity
A cohesive society cannot be homogenous; it must be defined by its ability to function across difference. The local definition must explicitly include bridging—the capacity of people to relate to one another "across societally-enforced divides such as gender, class, and ethnicity".
The process must define how to measure the Heterogeneity of the group, quantifying the willingness of people to interact and form meaningful bonds with individuals outside of their immediate identities.
Example: Athens’ Schools Open to the Neighborhood Athens, facing the challenge of integrating migrants, defined success not just as the mere presence of migrants, but as proactive integration measures. The "Schools Open to the Neighborhood" initiative aimed to build relationships among Athenians old and new. By hosting activities like cooking lessons that engage women's networks and feature recipes from all over the world, the city defined success as an increase in the number of shared spaces and activities that "serve to defuse tensions in an otherwise challenging environment". The definition is successful because it focuses on measurable cross-cultural interaction and relationship-building, directly targeting a salient societal divide.
C. Integrating Respect and Tolerance
The definition must incorporate conditions that ensure the community works toward outcomes for all, not just specific members. Key qualities for success that must be defined and included are:
- Respect, Tolerance, and Love: These are requirements for ensuring "all individuals are treated justly" and included in the goals of the larger community. This can be operationalized by defining metrics related to whether individuals "feel respected by authorities in your community".
- Trust in Government and Institutions: Social cohesion requires "quality links with institutions". The definition must include the degree of trust the community has in officials and institutions to ensure collective action and to foster a willingness to work together to achieve better outcomes for the group.
IV. Phase IV: Translating the Abstract Definition into Actionable Metrics
Once the participatory process has defined the locally relevant values and principles, the next step is translating these into measurable metrics that guide action and demonstrate success, using a mixed-method approach.
A. Defining Core Measurable Qualities
The definition process should result in clarity regarding which aspects of social cohesion will be prioritized for measurement. Based on the sources, effective definitions typically integrate the following core qualities:
- Trust and Reciprocity: Defined by altruistic actions, the willingness to help others, and sacrifice.
- Participation and Collaboration: Defined by individuals’ engagement in their communities to achieve better outcomes for the group.
- Relationships and Belonging: Defined by the strength and existence of interpersonal relationships and the resulting sense of community.
- Unrest (or lack thereof): Defined as the absence of disruption during times of change, indicating the strength of community trust.
B. Using a Mixed-Method Approach for Rigor
To make the definition robust enough for funding and political buy-in, practitioners should define metrics that use a mixed-method approach, combining the scale of quantitative data with the depth of qualitative storytelling.
- Quantitative Metrics: The definition should allow for measurement through standardized questionnaires and surveys to achieve scale across the population, tracking specific indicators like changes in the percentage of families attending community events or the number of phone numbers/emails exchanged at community gatherings (as demonstrated by the Montréal LOCAL SOUP initiative).
- Qualitative Metrics: The definition must include space for capturing the "story it tells". Qualitative data, often gathered through interviews, is an "incredibly powerful way to bring the numbers to life". This captures the abstract metrics—such as sacrifice and generosity—that are missed by simple surveys, documenting the emotional impact and first-person narratives of change.
C. Navigating Conflicting Outcomes
The definition must be clear enough to address the "valid value difference about what kind of social cohesion behaviors we want to see". For instance, the definition must clarify whether success is documented as "trust in and collaboration with city government – or it could be occupying City Hall through protest". By defining success through participatory means, the community explicitly chooses the desired collective outcome (e.g., collaborative governance versus mobilization capacity), allowing the resulting metrics to track the most relevant path.
In conclusion, defining social cohesion effectively is not a desk exercise undertaken by outside experts, but an iterative and deeply democratic political act. The most effective process begins by committing to an equitable, bottom-up framework that recognizes social cohesion is complex and constantly evolving. It requires engaging the community and local officials early to co-create a definition based on shared values, explicitly integrating measures of justice, inclusion, and the ability to bridge societal divides. By translating these abstract values into actionable, mixed-method metrics—such as measures of trust, participation, and collaborative actions—practitioners ensure the definition is locally relevant and robust enough to mobilize resources and catalyze long-term urban resilience.
0 Comments