Source
doi:10.1186/s40985-020-00138-1 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Context: thesis · Feeds: I10, I05, I04
Summary
Scoping review of evidence on cohousing and health/wellbeing outcomes. Covers 25 studies across 77 projects, primarily in Europe and North America, in senior and intergenerational settings. Identifies psychosocial determinants as the primary mechanism: social support, sense of community, sense of security, reduced social isolation. Finds generally positive associations but cautions against causal claims (mostly cross-sectional designs, few comparison groups). Flags an equity concern: access to cohousing skews toward more advantaged social groups, raising risk that promotion of the model widens health inequalities.
Key thesis insights
- Table 3 synthesis (25 studies): Social support beneficial in 20, neutral in 3; social isolation reduced in 5; sense of community beneficial in 10, detrimental in 2; sense of security beneficial in 9 — the most comprehensive quantitative summary of cohousing health outcomes to date. LIT_011
- Philippsen (2014): 83–95% of cohousing residents have received instrumental or emotional support from neighbours; 75–88% have given support; 93% believe close friendships are possible in cohousing; N=220 adults across 7 intergenerational German projects. LIT_011
- Tyvimaa (2011): 29% of Finnish cohousing residents vs 14.9% of conventional senior housing residents reported meeting neighbours at least once — quantified social engagement differential between the two models. LIT_011
- Housing affordability as health pathway: In intentional communities construction costs are less subject to capital gains; long-term price stability and mutual economic support produce stable economic security for residents, reducing exposure to precarious neo-liberal housing market conditions — identified as a material health determinant. LIT_011
- Equity caveat: Studies identify unequal access — populations from disadvantaged social classes have fewer opportunities to access cohousing, raising risk that advocacy for the model increases rather than reduces health and social inequalities. LIT_011
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
(none)
Research gaps
(none)
Connections
Referenced by
SSI indicators (3): I04: Human Development & Social Capital · I05: Good Governance & Transparency · I10: Psychological Self-Sufficiency
Sources (1): LIT_080