The inextricable link between infrastructure and social cohesion

Social cohesion is the ‘glue’ that binds a society. It usually takes shape through shared values, trust, and the strength of relationships, and can be felt at the smallest neighbourhood level, right up to a national sense of togetherness.

Or not, as the case seems to be. A recent Helen Clark Foundation (HCF) report on social cohesion makes for sobering reading. While more than 80% of people take pride in the New Zealand way of life, the report notes “growing cracks in how people experience fairness, opportunity and connection”. At the same time, loneliness is a growing concern, with 18% of people reporting feeling lonely at least some of the time.

As my colleague Hilary Konigkramer points out in WSP and the HCF’s recent 'Measuring what Matters’ report on cost benefit analysis, social impacts of infrastructure projects are getting more attention than ever before.

For a good reason. The buildings, public spaces, and networks that surround us are the literal and metaphorical foundation for community life. In a nutshell, infrastructure can be a powerful agent for social change. Its inextricable link with social cohesion starts with a simple idea - the things we build shape how people encounter each other in everyday life.

Built places can provide lots of opportunities for interaction. A park, a playground, a walkway, a library, or a transport connection can all make it easier for people to come into contact with others outside of their immediate networks. These everyday points of contact matter because cohesion isn’t built through one-off events; it’s sustained through daily life. 

Public infrastructure is very much part of the social fabric of a place. Well-designed public and civic spaces, for example, can help people feel comfortable alongside others, build attachments to where they live, and create a sense that their city or neighbourhood is somewhere they belong.

My interest in this goes back to my PhD research into social fragmentation in neighbourhoods. I looked at the conditions that make it harder for people to connect and found three important foundations for cohesion – the means to share norms and values, attachment to people and place, and access to social resources such as places to gather, like playgrounds and parks.  

Each of these works together. Cohesion is supported if people have places where they can meet,  feel attached to where they live, and can communicate what is important to them. If those things are missing, communities can become more fragmented.  

This is where the quality of infrastructure really matters. Spaces that are safe, attractive, accessible, and comfortable are more likely to be used and valued than those that feel like an afterthought.

When these things are designed and built well, they can add to peoples’ sense of identity and attachment to place. When they are done badly, it can result in the opposite. 

Think of a dark underpass, poorly connected green space, or public area designed without its users in mind. Usually, people feel unsafe, overlooked, or excluded. That can reduce trust in the institutions who design and look after these places. The message people often take is - ‘you don’t care about me, and I don’t belong here’.  

Christchurch offers some splendid counterpoint examples of infrastructure and civic spaces that have helped people reconnect. The city’s post-earthquake pop-up mall gave people somewhere safe and familiar to go when the central city was still deeply unsettled. The Margaret Mahy Family Playground played a similar role.

In the Capital City, newly opened Te Ara Tupua (Path of the Ancients) is another example of infrastructure doing more than just solving a civil engineering challenge. The phenomenally beautiful, well-trafficked harbour path shores up a vulnerable rail line and lets people enjoy a new relationship with the coastline.

That’s also true of places like Wellington’s waterfront, Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter, and the newly opened City Rail Link with its striking architectural and Te Ao Māori designs. These places are socially valuable. They let people be alongside each other and share space safely and comfortably.

Importantly, infrastructure also supports cohesion through the way decisions are made. Done well, community engagement can become a forum for people to discuss what matters, negotiate trade-offs, and contribute to decisions that affect their daily lives. Done poorly,  it can feel like a box-ticking exercise or a process where people are simply told what will happen. Good engagement gives people a sense of being part of a decision. It doesn’t mean everyone will agree. Conflict can be part of meaning-making. The question is whether the process helps people work through hard choices together, or whether it leaves them feeling shut out and distrustful of each other and organisations.

Infrastructure can strengthen or erode the ties that bind us. This is where there's an opportunity for infrastructure planning to take social cohesion more seriously. The recent WSP and HCF report argues for more consistent, evidence-led infrastructure investment, including better use of cost benefit analysis to assess social, environmental and economic impacts. That should include clearer pathways between infrastructure and cohesion.

Some of this can be measured through behaviour, such as how often people use an asset, who uses it, and how well it supports different users at different times. Other parts are harder to capture but are still important – things like comfort, belonging, attachment to place, perceived safety, trust, and whether people feel the design process has treated them fairly.

Ultimately, the point is that infrastructure can divide or connect. The difference lies in whether, and how, we design places, assets, and decision-making processes with people’s togetherness in mind.

Getting the vision clear is important. If we understand how good infrastructure contributes to social cohesion, we can look for the right ways to measure and value it. We can also be clearer about what leads to fragmentation and do our very best to avoid that.