Source
doi:10.17269/s41997-018-0163-1 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Lubik & Kosatsky (2019) — Public health should promote co-operative housing and cohousing
Summary
A Commentary in the Canadian Journal of Public Health by Amy Lubik and Tom Kosatsky (BC Centre for Disease Control) arguing that improving access to co-operative and communal housing is an important area for public-health involvement. It reframes the built-environment / health agenda — which has focused on streetscapes and recreational space — to include housing form, citing evidence that communal housing models (cohousing, co-operative housing) promote social inclusion and raise the perceived well-being and mental and physical health of residents, especially seniors. It notes a Canadian evidence gap relative to other countries, and draws a historical parallel to Indigenous longhouses (connected dwellings around common areas) as a communal form that may still promote healthy communities. It is the policy-advocacy companion to the empirical cohousing-and-health literature already in the wiki — the scoping review LIT_010 (which raised this as a target), the bibliometric review LIT_009, and the health-outcomes review LIT_011. context: thesis — public-health-policy framing evidence for the cohousing / community-resilience argument; its one live SSI linkage is to psychological self-sufficiency (I10). ⚠ Only the abstract was retrievable (body paywalled).
Key claims
- claim: "In promoting healthier built environments, attention worldwide has focused largely on streetscapes and recreational spaces, with less regard given to housing form, in particular to the health effects of communal housing."
source_location: "Abstract (p.121)"
- claim: "Research demonstrates that communal housing models, such as cohousing and co-operative housing, promote social inclusion, and increase the perceived well-being and mental and physical health of residents, particularly of seniors."
source_location: "Abstract (p.121)"
- claim: "In Canada, relative to other countries, there is a paucity of evidence for the health effects of co-operatives and cohousing."
source_location: "Abstract (p.121)"
- claim: "Historically, some Indigenous communities constructed longhouses, connected dwellings situated around common areas, a form which may still be useful in promoting healthy communities."
source_location: "Abstract (p.121)"
- claim: "In this commentary, we suggest that improving access to co-operative and communal housing is an important area for public health involvement."
source_location: "Abstract (p.121) / title"Relevance
To the thesis (cohousing / community-resilience argument). This is a citable, peer-reviewed public-health-authority endorsement (a provincial CDC) of co-operative and communal housing as a health-promoting built form — useful precisely because it is a policy stance rather than another empirical study: it positions “improve access to cohousing/co-op housing” as a legitimate public-health intervention, strengthening the thesis’s case that community housing models are a resilience and wellbeing lever, not a lifestyle niche. The Indigenous longhouse parallel (communal dwellings around shared common areas) is a transferable framing for the thesis’s Māori / communal-precedent thread — a non-Western historical model of health-promoting communal housing — though the source is Canadian, not NZ.
To Neobiome Intelligence (I10 only). Adds one qualitative, policy-advocacy datapoint to the psychological-self-sufficiency evidence base: an independent public-health argument that communal-housing living raises perceived well-being and mental/physical health, “particularly of seniors,” corroborating the empirical sibling sources (LIT_009, LIT_010, LIT_011). It contributes no quantitative input to any NI calculation cell — it is corroborating narrative evidence only. The I05 (governance & transparency) link the RT anticipated is not supported by the accessible text and is not made (see Notes).
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- [RT_049 — RESOLVED by this source] Lubik & Kosatsky (2019) is now ingested → LIT_080. ⚠ Residual: only the abstract was captured (Springer body paywalled). The full-text body is not raised as a new RT — this is a short advocacy Commentary whose thesis is fully carried by its title + abstract, and its value here is as a policy-stance citation, not a data source. Low priority.
Research gaps
None. This source raises no new benchmark or NZ-recalibration gaps (it is a Canadian policy commentary with no quantitative figures).
Notes
Provenance / retrieval limitation. The raw is the Springer link.springer.com article landing page (HTML). Springer serves only the abstract (English + French Résumé) to non-subscribers — the body is behind “This is a preview of subscription content.” Every claim above is verbatim from that abstract. The article carries 36 references and a primary-interview footnote (“Interview with Kathy McGrenera, Quayside Village Cohousing (Amy Lubik, Nov 9, 2017)”), both visible in the landing-page metadata; the substantive argument body was not accessible.
data_quality: medium (not high/verified). Two independent reasons: (1) this is a Commentary — a peer-reviewed but non-empirical opinion/advocacy piece; (2) only the abstract was captured. The abstract’s claims are traceable verbatim to the raw, but the piece asserts a policy position rather than reporting original data. medium matches the RT_049 row’s pre-assigned quality.
Routing — I05 deliberately dropped. RT_049’s Linked column proposed I10, I05. feeds: [I10] only. The abstract clearly supports I10 (psychological/wellbeing: “increase the perceived well-being and mental and physical health of residents”). It contains no community-governance / transparency / decision-making content, which is what I05 (Good Governance & Transparency) measures — the commentary’s “public-health policy involvement” argument is about external state policy promoting access, not internal community governance. Adding an I05 bullet would not be traceable to the accessible source, so I05 is not fed (verified-source-only). If the paywalled body is later retrieved and does discuss cooperative governance, an I05 bullet can be added then. D06 (from LIT_010’s feeds) is likewise not carried — no EDT-domain-specific claim in the abstract.
Cluster membership. Direct member of the cohousing-and-health literature cluster (siblings LIT_009 / LIT_010 / LIT_011, all context: thesis, all feeding I10). This source is the policy-advocacy voice in that cluster; its I10 evidence bullet is appended immediately after the LIT_010 bullets to keep the cluster contiguous.
Connections
Links to
Sources (3): LIT_009 · LIT_010 · LIT_011
SSI indicators (1): I10: Psychological Self-Sufficiency
Referenced by
SSI indicators (1): I10: Psychological Self-Sufficiency
Sources (1): LIT_010