People sat on picnic benches outside a historic house.
Heritage can play an increasingly important role in our society as we face rising levels of loneliness and social isolation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. © Hannah Smith c/o Unsplash.
Heritage can play an increasingly important role in our society as we face rising levels of loneliness and social isolation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. © Hannah Smith c/o Unsplash.

The Role of Heritage in Bringing People Together

Part of the Heritage Counts series. 4 minute read.


Heritage plays an important role in building social capital, often called the ‘glue that binds communities together’ (Haldane, 2018).

In this article, we look at how tangible and intangible heritage can bring people together and contribute to the different dimensions of social capital.

What is social capital?

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) defines social capital as “the extent and nature of our connections with others and the collective attitudes and behaviours between people that support a well-functioning, close-knit society”. It is considered to have several key components:

  1. Personal relationships
  2. Social network support
  3. Civic engagement
  4. Trust and cooperative norms

Social capital harmonised standard – Government Analysis Function (civilservice.gov.uk)

The relationship between the historic environment and social capital was demonstrated in a recent study by Mak et al (2023), which found that people living in places with greater historic built environment experience higher levels of personal relationships, social network support, and civic engagement (1).

Historic sites are venues for spending time with others

Official statistics show that historic sites are popular places to spend time with others. Their role as venues for social gatherings became particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic. By serving as focal points for people to gather with those they are close to, historic sites support the development of strong social bonds, which are considered a vital component of social capital.

  • According to the Participation Survey, 63% of adults visited a heritage site at least once in the last year, the top reason being to spend time with family and friends (67% selected this option) in 2021/22 (DCMS, 2022)
  • Research with visitors to seven heritage attractions during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the importance of historic places in bringing people back together after the first lockdown. More than a quarter (27%) of visitors surveyed (n=781) explicitly chose heritage sites as a place to reunite. These places offered visitors a fitting setting for an emotionally significant moment and a chance to feel part of a community, among other benefits (Sofaer et al, 2021)

Historic buildings and public places support everyday interactions

Historically, public places have played a ‘vital role in the social life of communities’ as spaces where people gather and come together, co-exist and encounter different groups (Warpole and Knox, 2007).

Many communal, everyday public spaces, such as marketplaces, pubs, town halls, and places of worship are historic in origin and continue to serve as important forms of social infrastructure (2). These places facilitate a diverse range of types of social interaction, from co-presence (sharing space with and encountering others) to deeper forms of civic engagement (Layton and Latham, 2021 and 2022).

Historic public sites (squares, streets, historic city centres and parks) are often “natural” spaces of leisure, meetings and encounters, conducive to them with their aesthetics and ambiance.
(Murzyn-Kupisz and Dzialek, 2013, p.44).

Historic cities, town centres and high streets enable social interactions due to their layout and design features:

  • A study by Leyden (2003) found that residents living in more traditional pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighbourhoods were more likely to know their neighbours, participate politically, trust others, and be involved socially compared to those living in more modern, car-dependent areas
  • Street types that enable social interactions at street level are associated with an increase in people’s social networks (Izenberg, 2016). This includes narrow older streets, which enable people to bump into their neighbours and create feelings of ‘nearness’ (Banwell and Kingham, 2022)
  • Walkable environments can encourage ‘incidental sociability and acts of neighbouring’. (Glover et al, 2022; Rosso et al, 2011; BBBC, 2020; Bauman and Bull, 2008)
  • The informal, impromptu encounters that happen in everyday public places have been evidenced to contribute to ‘weak’ social ties that are important for wellbeing (Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014; Banwell and Kingham, 2022)

Heritage can provide opportunities to encounter new people

Heritage can provide these opportunities as people come together to volunteer their time, participate in community events, and take part in civic engagement.

A study examining people’s involvement in local history groups found that participants in community-based heritage conservation projects built new social connections and friendships and improved their interpersonal skills (Power and Smyth, 2016). 

Festivals centred around culture and heritage can improve social networks, social cohesion, social capital, by giving people a reason to socialise, unite around shared ethnic, linguistic, historical and cultural bonds (Whitford and Ruhanen, 2013) and experience other cultures/traditions (Black, 2016; Jepson and Clarke, 2015)

Heritage institutions function as community hubs which can deepen existing relationships and present opportunities to encounter new people, for example, older and younger generations and longstanding and new residents (Murzyn‐Kupisz and Działek, 2013).

Heritage can build social capital by ‘mobilising community participation’ (Beel and Wallace, 2021). The act of coming together to save a historic community asset can strengthen linkages within family/friendship groups (bonding capital); as well as between different members of the community (bridging capital) (Sforzi and Bianchi, 2020). ‘Bridging’ capital, which comes about from interactions with people from different groups, is important to the goals of reducing prejudice, increasing trust and nurturing a greater sense of unity in a community (Casey, 2016).

Footnotes

  1. Based on analysis of the Understanding Society survey combined with data from the National Heritage List (NHLE) and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)
  2. A rapid evidence review published by DCMS (2022) defines social infrastructure as “the physical infrastructure (including places, spaces and facilities) within the community that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships”

References

  1. Bagnall, A., South, J., Di Martino, S., Southby, K., Pilkington, G., Mitchell, B., Pennington, A. and Corcoran, R. (2018) ‘A systematic review of interventions to boost social relations through improvements in community infrastructure (places and spaces). Technical Report’. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. Available at: https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4998/. (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  2. Banwell, K. and Kingham, S., (2022). ‘Living well in your local neighbourhood: The value of bumping and gathering places’. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 4, p.100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100124 (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  3. Bauman, A.B. and Bull, F.C. (2008) ‘Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and Children: A Review of Reviews’. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng90/evidence/environmental-correlates-of-physical-activity-review-pdf-4787281408 (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  4. Beel, D. and Wallace, C. (2021) ‘How can cultural heritage contribute to community development and wellbeing’. Researching Happiness: Qualitative, Biographical and Critical Perspectives. Policy Press. Available at: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/researching-happiness. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  5. Black, N. (2016) ‘Festival Connections: How Consistent and Innovative Connections Enable Small-scale Rural Festivals to Contribute to Socially Sustainable Communities’. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 7(3), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-04-2016-0026. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  6. Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (2020) ‘Living with beauty: report of the Building Better’, Building Beautiful Commission. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/living-with-beauty-report-of-the-building-better-building-beautiful-commission (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  7. Casey, L. (2016) ‘The Casey Review: A review into opportunity and integration’. Cited in: Kelsey, T. and Kenny, M. (2021) ‘The value of social infrastructure. Townscapes Policy Report Series’. Available at: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Townscapes_The_value_of_infrastructure.pdf (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  8. DCMS (2022) ‘Official Statistics: Main report for the Participation Survey (October 2021 to March 2022)’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/participation-survey-2021-22-annual-report/main-report-for-the-participation-survey-october-2021-to-march-2022 (Accessed 21.02.23) 
  9. Glover TD, Todd J, Moyer L. (2022) ‘Neighborhood Walking and Social Connectedness’. Front Sports Act Living. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffspor.2022.825224 (Accessed 02.06.23). 
  10. Haldane, A. (2018) ‘Social Capital is the glue that binds communities together’. Available at: https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/news/blog/2021-01-28/andy-haldane-social-capital-is-the-glue-that-binds-communities-together  (Accessed 15.05.23) 
  11. Healy, T. and Côté, S. (2001) ‘The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Education and Skills’. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 
  12. Izenberg, J. M., & Fullilove, M. T. (2016) ‘Hospitality invites sociability, which builds cohesion: a model for the role of main streets in population mental health’. Journal of Urban Health, 93(2), 292-311. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0027-z (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  13. Jepson, A. and Clarke, A. (2015) ‘Exploring Community Festivals and Events’. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Allan-Jepson/publication/277277133_Exploring_Community_Festivals_and_Events/links/5ee21dd7a6fdcc73be7034e5/Exploring-Community-Festivals-and-Events.pdf. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  14. Layton, J. and Latham, A., (2022). ‘Social infrastructure and public life–notes on Finsbury Park, London’. Urban Geography, 43(5), pp.755-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1934631. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  15. Lee EE, Depp C, Palmer BW, Glorioso D, Daly R, Liu J, Tu XM, Kim HC, Tarr P, Yamada Y, Jeste DV. (2019) ‘High prevalence and adverse health effects of loneliness in community-dwelling adults across the lifespan: role of wisdom as a protective factor’. Int Psychogeriatr. Oct;31(10):1447-1462. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610218002120 (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  16. Leyden, K. (2003) ‘Social Capital and the Built Environment: the importance of walkable neighbourhoods’. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9): 1546-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2105%2Fajph.93.9.1546 (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  17. Mak H, Gallou E, Fancourt D. (2023) ‘Is social capital higher in areas with a higher density of historic assets? Analyses of 11,112 adults living in England’. Perspectives in Public Health. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139221145609 (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  18. Murzyn‐Kupisz, M. and Działek, J., (2013) ‘Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital’. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 3(1), pp.35-54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/20441261311317392 (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  19. Office for National Statistics (2022) ‘Social capital in the UK: April 2020 to March 2021’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/socialcapitalintheuk/april2020tomarch2021. (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  20. Power, A. and Smyth, K., (2016) ‘Heritage, health and place: The legacies of local community-based heritage conservation on social wellbeing’. Health & Place, 39, pp.160-167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.04.005. (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  21. Rosso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2011) ‘The urban built environment and mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review’. Journal of aging research. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/816106. (Accessed: 21.02.23)  
  22. Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). ‘Social Interactions and Well-Being: The Surprising Power of Weak Ties’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910–922. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529799. (Accesed 02.06.23) 
  23. Sforzi, J. and Bianchi, M. (2020) ‘Fostering social capital: the case of community-owned pubs’. Social Enterprise Journal, 16(3), pp.281-297. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-07-2019-0050. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  24. Sofaer, J., Davenport, B., Stig S., Marie L., Gallou, E. and Uzzell, D (2021) ‘Heritage sites, value and wellbeing: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic in England’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (1), 4-18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1864113. (Accessed 02.06.23) 
  25. Sugiyama, T. and Thompson, C.W. (2008) ‘Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people's walking’. Urban forestry & urban greening, 7(1), pp.41-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.12.002. (Accessed: 21.02.23) 
  26. Warpole, K. and Knox, K. (2007) The social value of public spaces. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/social-value-public-spaces#downloads. (Accessed 30.05.23).  
  27. Whitford, M and Ruhanen, L. (2013) ‘Indigenous Festivals and Community Development: A Sociocultural Analysis of an Australian Indigenous Festival’. Event Management 17(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599513X13623342048149 (Accessed 02.06.23) 

Also of interest

Connecting to Place
Civic Engagement