Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Chinese

Neighbourhood social cohesion is associated with a range of beneficial outcomes for residents. However, it is commonly hypothesised that neighbourhood relations face potential disruptions from digital information and communication technologies (DICT) as they are assumed to alter traditional community structures previously grounded in physical proximity. We systematically review 52 empirical studies on the relationship between DICT and neighbourhood social cohesion to determine in what ways DICT hinder or promote neighbourhood social cohesion. We found that DICT promote social cohesion by catalysing local social capital, but not for everyone and not in every neighbourhood. We propose the theoretical concept of ‘catalysts of connection’ to explain how technological affordances and online content interact with collective and individual social capital to develop various domains of social cohesion. Based on these results and our theoretical concept, we conclude that DICT exacerbate socio-spatial inequality in cities as neighbourhoods with low social capital are less likely to reap the benefits of the digital age. We provide paths for future investigations on the intersection of urban research and media and communication studies.

Keywords

digital information and communication technologies neighbourhood social capital social cohesion

Introduction

The benefits of social cohesion are multifaceted, impacting both the neighbourhood as a whole and its residents. Neighbourhoods with high social cohesion are safer and have more informal social control, political power, self-organisation, disaster resilience and economic stability. For residents, living in a cohesive neighbourhood is associated with a range of positive outcomes such as well-being, social support, a sense of safety, belonging, integration, and opportunities. Hence, local governments and urban policy focus on improving social cohesion in neighbourhoods and direct attention to potential causes of its loss. Technological innovations have always been among the most prominent threats to social cohesion as they are assumed to shift peoples’ attention and action away from their local environment and dissolve local relations and cohesion.

Research on the impact of information and communication technologies on neighbourhoods has a longstanding tradition dating back to before the internet was invented. The early Chicago School analysed the impact of newspapers and focused on the formation of neighbourly interactions and the integration of immigrants (Park, 1922, 1938). Researchers were subsequently concerned with the consequences of radio and TV on community life (Putnam, 2000; Wellman and Leighton, 1979). More recently, with the rise of the internet, smartphones, and social media, it has again been hypothesised that new digital information and communication technologies (DICT) have altered the structure of human communication and communities in a fundamental way (Hampton, 2016). Within debates around the impact of new technology on society, neighbourhoods have always played a significant role, as compared with other foci of interaction, they are communities that emerge primarily from physical proximity. Owing to their limited physical space as a common factor, neighbourhoods lose relevance when new technologies are introduced that enable people to overcome spatial barriers and facilitate contact with like-minded people elsewhere (see the argument of ‘community lost’ in Wellman and Leighton, 1979: 368). Even Durkheim described the impact of industrialisation and the associated technological advances on the social integration of society and the decreasing relevance of the neighbourhood (Durkheim, 1893). These concerns are especially prominent among policymakers as neighbourhoods are assumed to provide weak ties and bridging social capital, which contribute to social mobility within society. Thus, public concerns over the impact of DICT on neighbourhoods may express the loss of the normative idea of a neighbourhood, which fosters social mobility through social mixing (Galster and Friedrichs, 2015).

More interestingly, while pessimistic public debates express fear of a divergence between digital interaction and neighbourhood life, the two academic disciplines that are concerned with the relationships between DICT and neighbourhoods – urban sociology and media and communication studies–, have recently converged around this topic. The ecological metaphors established by the early Chicago School have been used in neighbourhood research as well as in media and communication studies, with the latter evolving through the rapid spread of mass communication (Katz and Hampton, 2016; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2016). Along this line of thinking, ecological metaphors (e.g. media ecology or news ecology) are commonly used to conceptualise an individual’s embeddedness in a media context. Likewise, neighbourhood studies work with socioecological metaphors to conceptualise the social and material aspects of an individual’s physical surroundings. While the advent of the internet was initially perceived as diminishing the significance of the ‘local’, DICT (especially social media services and platforms) reveal a resurgence of locality, with users creating local Facebook groups, engaging in neighbourhood chats on messenger services or using hashtags to add a spatial reference to their posts. This demonstrates how social media ecology is progressively intertwined with the social and spatial dimensions of neighbourhoods and highlights the need for a comprehensive assessment.

Three problems in the field underscore the need for a more systematic review. First, there is no unified understanding or definition of neighbourhood social cohesion, it is a multidimensional concept that is applied in various ways. For example, it is often posited that DICT reduce neighbourhood social relations, but its effect on other dimensions (such as identification or place attachment) remains less clear. Second, the field is characterised by methodological diversity, not only in terms of qualitative and quantitative approaches but also in terms of data and general platform dependencies of research designs (e.g. the recruitment of study participants). Third, all modern communication processes rely on computers, mobile devices and the internet as basic infrastructure. Nevertheless, in the past 20 years, the devices, applications, and social media services that are used to communicate have been evolving constantly. As such, constraints on adoption and user behaviour exist, which are preconditions for any outcome based on DICT use. Taken together, these conceptual, methodological and technological features have an impact on research strategies and the evidence they produce.

The aim of this article is to systematically review empirical studies on DICT, social media and neighbourhood social cohesion published over the past 20 years. We aim to answer the following questions: In what ways do social media and DICT hinder or promote neighbourhood social cohesion? What are the decisive parameters that determine whether DICT promote neighbourhood social cohesion? Do DICT produce social cohesion in places that have low cohesion or promote it in places that already have some level of cohesion? The remainder of the article is organised as follows: First, we discuss the two theoretical concepts that constitute the starting point of our systematic review: neighbourhood social cohesion and DICT. The theoretical background informed our approach to the search, selection and analysis of the empirical studies subjected to our systematic review, which we describe in greater detail in the Methods. The following three sections present the results of the systematic review, discuss the abovementioned problems and answer the research questions. First, we turn to the diverse conceptualisations of social cohesion and provide a categorisation of measures. Second, we describe the different types of DICT that have been investigated in the reviewed studies, highlighting important properties related to neighbourhood social cohesion and social capital. Third, we present the empirical results from the reviewed studies, which show that DICT promote social cohesion through social capital, but not for everyone and not in every neighbourhood. To explain the inequality among neighbourhoods regarding the benefits of DICT, we draw on the results of this review to develop the concept of ‘catalysts of connection’. This work concludes by highlighting empirical and methodological gaps and providing implications for future research.

Theoretical background

Social cohesion and social capital in neighbourhoods

The concepts of social cohesion and social capital can be distinguished by examining differences between various aggregate levels and the individual level, whereby the degree of social cohesion at the aggregate level is a product of the forms and quality of social relations at the individual level. In this sense, social cohesion is an aggregate-level characteristic that describes systems, subsystems or collectives (Chan et al., 2006; Friedkin, 2004; Friedrichs and Jagodzinski, 1999; Schiefer and van der Noll, 2017). One example of such a subsystem is the neighbourhood. According to various conceptualisations, its degree of social cohesion (Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Schiefer and van der Noll, 2017) might be described by different domains, such as the forms and quality of social relations, identification with people and places, shared norms and values, the presence of social order and social control, or the degree of inequality and solidarity among residents (Forrest and Kearns, 2001: 2129). Chan and colleagues defined social cohesion by subjective components, which refer to individual attitudes (e.g. trust, the willingness to cooperate) and objective components, which refer to observable actions (e.g. participation in community meetings, mutual help; Chan et al., 2006). Although their concept is not intended to measure social cohesion at the neighbourhood level, the distinction between attitudes and observable actions is also well suited for the study of neighbourhoods.

Social capital, on the other hand, is either conceptualised as an individual characteristic that determines access to resources through social networks (Bourdieu, 1983; Granovetter, 1973) or a characteristic that can only be attributed to and is produced in collectives (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). According to Bourdieu, the function of social capital is to provide individuals with the power and ability to access resources by leveraging their networks or relationships. Social capital is thus instrumental for gaining a better position within the social hierarchy. Conceptual confusion arises from the fact that social capital emerges through social relations and cannot be an individual characteristic, such as economic capital, age or education. Although often measured as an individual aspect (e.g. the number of acquaintances), it captures a relational aspect as well. Coleman defined social capital as the resources embedded in social networks (such as trust, norms, and social connections) that individuals can draw upon to achieve their goals. He argued that social capital is not owned by individuals but is a collective property of a social group or community. According to Coleman, social capital facilitates cooperation, mutual support and the efficient functioning of communities (Coleman, 1988), which resonates with the social cohesion domains described by Forrest and Kearns (2001: 2129).

Compared with other types of collectives (e.g. families, companies), the unique specificity of the neighbourhood is its spatial boundary. Neighbourhoods ‘place’ individuals in physical proximity to each other such that other characteristics (e.g. income, ethnicity) might not constitute a collective. Owing to individuals’ economic capital, preferences and the housing market, this placement is sometimes more deliberate, results in social inequality within and between neighbourhoods, affects identification, and ultimately shapes opportunities for the formation of local social capital.

How DICT change communication

To understand the impact of DICT on neighbourhood social cohesion, we first need to understand how DICT are defined and what features are expected to have an impact on neighbourhood relations. Media and communication scholars emphasise that the specific technological features of DICT create networked publics that alter the structure of communication and social relations. Social networking sites play a decisive role in providing these networked publics, as they construct (semi-)publics within a bounded system and enable users to articulate connections to other users (boyd, 2010). Once established, ties have the potential to become enduring communication channels, keeping people in ‘persistent contact’ (Hampton, 2016: 103). Although a variety of messenger services and social media sites have emerged in recent years since the email list was created (boyd and Ellison, 2007), they all share the same functions. Social networking sites typically provide means for one-to-many communication that enable each user to ‘broadcast’ information to peers via messages in open or closed group chats, comments or postings on personal ‘walls’ that are visible to all other users of the system. Although the networked publics have much in common with other ‘analogue’ publics (e.g. ‘third places’ in Oldenburg, 1999 or ‘micropublics’ in Amin, 2002), the fact that they emerge due to the intersection of people and technology brings about specific features. The automatic recording of online expressions is ideal for asynchronous communication and allows users to search older messages (persistence and searchability, Boyd, 2010). Online content can be easily duplicated, forwarded, shared and distributed to other users. Through these features, its potential visibility is very high, depending on the audience’s interactions with the content (scalability and replicability, boyd, 2010). A result of this continuous, asynchronous exchange of content within networked publics is what Hampton termed ‘pervasive awareness’– an affordance of the ‘ambient nature of digital communication technologies’ (Hampton, 2016: 111) that provides continuous flows of information on the activities of social ties.

Although DICT and networked publics appear to be independent of physical space in the first place, the actual usage of social media platforms and messenger services reveals the high relevance of spatial references. With respect to their impact on neighbourhood social cohesion and social capital, a range of questions remain: in which neighbourhoods are DICT used? Where do they affect social cohesion and social capital? Which features of DICT play a role in neighbourhoods? Which dimensions of social cohesion are affected? How do DICT impact individual and collective social capital in neighbourhoods?

Method

We conducted a systematic review of 52 quantitative and qualitative empirical studies (Figure 1). We considered studies that were indexed in the Web of Science (Scopus)¹ in September 2022 and published no earlier than 2001. The studies had to be published in English and in peer-reviewed journals. Our target category contains three dimensions that the studies had to cover to be included in further analyses: (1) the use of DICT; (2) a small spatial scale (the neighbourhood level or small municipalities of similar size); and (3) at least one aspect of social cohesion or social capital.

Figure 1.

Research design for systematic literature review.

As a first step, we performed a complex search string on Web of Science (Scopus) based on the keyword collection of the three dimensions combined with the term ‘digital*’ (in all its forms, indicated by an asterisk).² All the keywords used are shown in the online appendix. This process yielded a list of 812 articles. After checking the formal and thematic fit (by screening the titles and abstracts) in the second and third steps, 31 publications that met our criteria and were therefore retained in the corpus were identified. Decisions on content suitability were made by a team of three scientists to avoid any possible bias. In the fourth step, an additional 21 suitable studies were identified through backwards citation chaining and included in the analysis. After this search and filtering process, a total of 52 studies were identified and used for further analysis.

The methodology used for the qualitative content analysis was based on the steps outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). The first step involved sequentially reviewing and coding relevant works in a within-case analysis. The second step involved comparing the findings across studies in a cross-case analysis to identify commonalities and differences. The 52 articles were thoroughly reviewed using this methodology. In the first step, the studies were categorised as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method to account for their respective epistemological and methodological foundations. The corresponding text segments and tables were categorised on the basis of our research questions and aims, the definition and measurement of social cohesion and social capital, the methodology, the research area and the results. MaxQDA24 software was used for this categorisation. In the next step, a spreadsheet was created including the bibliographic details and a synopsis of the condensed categorised segments (Supplemental Table 2 in the online appendix). The cross-case analysis was subsequently conducted using this table.

Approaches to measure social cohesion in neighbourhood

In research practice, the reviewed studies employ measures for (1) identification and perceptions; (2) social interactions, networks, and resources; and (3) civic participation (Table 1). The concepts and measures in the first category refer to feelings, attitudes and perceptions. Respective items focus on feelings of belonging (Mesch and Talmud, 2010), place attachment (Jung and Kim, 2021), beliefs about community life and the engagement of others (e.g. Gibbons, 2020; Kearns and Whitley, 2019) and perceptions of social cohesion (e.g. Schreurs et al., 2020). The measures in the second category ask about objective behaviour, whereby the quantity of interaction is either operationalised by its frequency or by the number of people the respondent interacts with. Some studies further qualify forms of interactions such as interpersonal discussions (e.g. Kim et al., 2019); helping, borrowing or lending items and activities (e.g. Mesch and Talmud, 2010); or bridging ties (e.g. Ognyanova et al., 2013). Other studies survey personal networks, network diversity and access to local resources (e.g. Hampton, 2007; Hampton et al., 2011; Tseng and Hsieh, 2015). It is important to distinguish between neighbourhood-related perceptions and feelings as measured in the first category and actions as measured in the second category, as they may lead to different outcomes; even invisible ties contribute to feelings of belonging (Felder, 2020). The third category includes measures of civic engagement, which include taking action for the community (e.g. cleaning the street, reporting problems) and different degrees of involvement in neighbourhood organisations (e.g. sports clubs, youth groups, religious groups, charity and social clubs, crime prevention groups and local politics). Civic engagement and participation in local organisations reflect a form of orientation towards a common good, as actions taken in such organisations produce goods for their members and the neighbourhood. In summary, the three categories reflect approaches to measure various aspects of social cohesion.

Table 1.

Overview of measures.

Category	(1) Identification and perceptions	(2) Interactions, networks and resources	(3) Civic participation
Description	Feelings and attitudes towards place and community and perceptions of community life	Forms, frequency and diversity of interactions, networks and exchange of resources	Taking action for the community or a local common good, memberships and degree of involvement in local organisations
Example	‘I often think about my neighbourhood’; ‘Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted’	‘How often do you talk with your neighbours about anything related to your neighbourhood?’	‘Did you attend a meeting where citizens spoke about local issues?’

DICT and social media platforms analysed

The reviewed publications investigate different types of DICT, ranging from mailing lists in early studies (since 2001) to the effects of social media platforms and messenger services in more recent studies (since 2010). With respect to the place-related effects of technologies, it is important to understand how spatial references come into play. On social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram or X/Twitter, users are required to actively construct localised communities. Spatial references must be actively included by users in their communication or profiles. This happens either by using georeferenced postings, by mentioning locations when posting text or by stating one’s current location in one’s user profile (e.g. place of residence). Another way of indicating geographic affiliation is through publicly visible interactions with local entities, such as businesses on X/Twitter or local news sites (Bingham-Hall and Law, 2015). In addition, group creation functions allow for the establishment of a spatial reference by naming the group after the neighbourhood. This is especially evident on Facebook (Afzalan and Evans-Cowley, 2015; Baborska-Narozny et al., 2017; Matthews, 2015, 2016; Mosconi et al., 2017; Witten et al., 2021) but may occur on other open forums with a large regional user base that enables online discussions related to local communities (e.g. gazeta.pl in Poland: Kotus and Hławka, 2010).

Conversely, commercial neighbourhood platforms and localised DICT have a spatial reference built in by design, forcing users to identify with a specific place or neighbourhood upon registration. Examples include Nextdoor or Hoplr, or very localised DICT, such as news sites with associated blogs or discussion boards, which are exclusively available to residents of a specific neighbourhood (Breek et al., 2018; Ferlander and Timms, 2007; Kavanaugh et al., 2005; Kavanaugh and Patterson, 2001; Wallace et al., 2017). For both platform types, local and non-local, users can reach out to others on the platform without necessarily having their personal contact information (e.g. telephone number, email address) beforehand.

Email and messenger services, which are commonly used for neighbourly interactions, operate differently, as users must have other users’ contact information to initiate communication. In the reviewed studies, communication primarily consists of emails sent through curated lists (Hampton and Wellman, 2003) or in group chats created in messenger services such as WhatsApp (Schreurs et al., 2020; van Steden and Mehlbaum, 2022). In contrast to social platforms, email and messaging services require their users to have contact information of others to initiate communication. Consequently, the outreach, scale, and accessibility of neighbourhood networks created through messenger services or email lists are more restricted because they are based on existing ties. On the other hand, this may lead to a more private setting for communication (Baborska-Narozny et al., 2017; Kotus and Hławka, 2010). These distinctions underscore a critical aspect of communication technologies’ relationship to neighbourhood social cohesion, highlighting how spatial references embedded in platform design may shape social capital formation.

Empirical findings

Do DICT promote neighbourhood social cohesion?

As for the relationships between DICT and social cohesion, the results of the reviewed quantitative studies support the hypothesis that DICT use promotes various aspects of neighbourhood social cohesion. The use of DICT is tied to a range of outcomes at the individual level: increased neighbourhood belonging, community perceptions, and place attachment (Capece and Costa, 2013; Choi et al., 2021; De Meulenaere et al., 2021b; Gibbons, 2020; Kim et al., 2019; Mesch and Talmud, 2010; Nah et al., 2022; Shim, 2013); talking more frequently about problems with neighbours (Ognyanova et al., 2013); larger networks and a greater number of weak ties (Hampton, 2007); increased collective efficacy (Capece and Costa, 2013; Choi et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019; Nah et al., 2022); improved access to resources and support from neighbours (Cabitza et al., 2016; De Meulenaere et al., 2021a; Gibbons, 2020; Hampton, 2003; Nah et al., 2022; Reisdorf et al., 2022); intergroup interactions (Ognyanova et al., 2013); bonding and bridging social capital (Tiwari et al., 2019); higher community satisfaction (Cabitza et al., 2016; Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Shim, 2013); greater community participation and membership in organisations (Capece and Costa, 2013; Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Jung and Kim, 2021; Kim et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2003; Mesch and Talmud, 2010; Tseng and Hsieh, 2015); and civic participation in neighbourhood events (Johnson and Halegoua, 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Nah et al., 2022; Nah and Yamamoto, 2017; Ognyanova et al., 2013).

While most studies indicate a positive relationship between DICT use and diverse aspects of neighbourhood social cohesion, only a few make causal claims about its direction. On the basis of two panel analyses of the Blacksburg Electronic Village, Kavanaugh and Patterson showed that the longer people are connected to the internet, the more they use it to build social capital, but community attachment increases for only a subset of respondents who were already involved in the community before the new communication technology was implemented (Kavanaugh and Patterson, 2001). By introducing a mailing list to three neighbourhoods, Hampton demonstrated that the adoption of DICT is greater in a suburban neighbourhood with high residential stability, the presence of children and a strong sense of community (Hampton, 2007), which are characteristics that favour the formation of local connections. Both studies concluded that for DICT to have a positive effect on social cohesion, there must be pre-existing social ties from which the online community is evolving.

Qualitative studies further elaborate on the processual character of on- and offline communication flows and their importance for promoting social cohesion. Conversations initiated within an online group may transition to private settings (one-to-one communication) where they continue digitally or result in face-to-face meetings in the analogue realm (Breek et al., 2018). Frequently, digital events or gatherings are organised online and then materialise within the neighbourhood. Simultaneously, information from the analogue sphere is integrated into digital networks. Through digital media, these different place-making activities are documented online, where they are visible even to residents not directly involved in them (Breek et al., 2021). Ideally, this fosters a reciprocal flow of information where digital communication does not replace interactions in the analogue world but rather complements and enhances them, making them more efficient. Hampton and Wellmann’s ethnographic observations in Netville suggest that new offline practices, such as sitting on the terrace in front of one’s home, might be established through online interactions within a smaller group and then carried over to the neighbourhood, where they are imitated by others (Hampton and Wellman, 2003: 301).

These findings are further supported by cross-sectional studies that are theoretically grounded in communication infrastructure theory. This theory posits a positive relationship between connection to a local storytelling network and civic engagement. Local storytelling networks have three components, the so-called storytelling agents: interpersonal discussions with neighbours; geo-ethnic media; and neighbourhood organisations. According to early studies, the internet promotes civic engagement (Jung et al., 2013) as it improves connections with neighbourhood organisations and local media. Later studies either incorporated social media into the measurement of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) or elucidated the interaction effects between ICSN and social media use. With respect to different dimensions of neighbourhood social cohesion, studies have produced mixed findings. While Kim and colleagues found overall positive correlations for informal social control, social cohesion, identification and participation and social media use (Kim et al., 2019), Choi et al. found expressive social media use to be positively related only to neighbourhood belonging (Choi et al., 2021; Jung and Kim, 2021). These divergent results may be due to differences in the operationalisation of social media use. While Kim and colleagues measured overall social media dependency (everyday dependency on the most preferred social networking service), Choi and colleagues used social media news expression (the frequency of sharing news and opinions via social media) and therefore focused on a specific form of use.

Finally, some studies contradict the finding of positive relationships between DICT and social cohesion. DICT use does not per se result in higher levels of social interaction or identification with the local community, especially in deprived neighbourhoods. Rather, it depends on how residents use the internet and social media (Hatuka et al., 2021; Kearns and Whitley, 2019). A study based on disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Detroit revealed a positive relationship between variety of use and social capital, but the use of social media is not directly related to access to resources (Reisdorf et al., 2022). In a study conducted across the US, Hampton and colleagues reported that people who use DICT have more diverse networks and that DICT indirectly supports participation in different community settings, including neighbourhoods. Only one activity was found to reduce acquaintances in the neighbourhood: the use of social networking services (Hampton et al., 2011). A qualitative study carried out in a disadvantaged area of Stockholm compared the effects of a newly implemented local communication platform and an IT café and concluded that only the latter had a positive effect on local social contacts since it also served as a meeting place for face-to-face interactions (Ferlander and Timms, 2007). Authors from the Netherlands found a lower sense of community among members of a neighbourhood crime prevention group on WhatsApp but greater previous experience with neighbourhood participation in other domains (Schreurs et al., 2020). The findings indicate that the positive effect of DICT use in deprived neighbourhoods depends on opportunities for face-to-face interactions that build social capital and residents’ prior experiences and perceptions of the local community.

For whom do DICT support neighbourhood social cohesion?

Socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity and migration background have important implications for the relationship between DICT and social cohesion. With respect to education and income, the results are straightforward: almost every study that controlled for education or income found a positive relationship with DICT use for neighbourhood community connections. This is not surprising given that education and wealth predict both having better access to DICT and living in neighbourhoods with greater levels of social cohesion. Internet access and its variety diminish with age, presenting greater challenges for older populations (Kearns and Whitley, 2019; Reisdorf et al., 2022). Quan-Haase et al. (2017) reported that younger participants were more likely to rely on digital media. In particular, older people use digital media less for exchanges of support than younger people do. Nevertheless, older adults maintain their social ties with family and friends by using an array of digital media in addition to the telephone; they especially use email to keep in touch with friends. As for the use of DICT, the relationship with age seems to depend on the actual platform and activity: whereas community-oriented online participation is more prevalent among younger groups (Nah and Yamamoto, 2017; Ognyanova et al., 2013), the use of specific online groups and social networks for neighbourhoods partially increases with age (Capece and Costa, 2013; De Meulenaere et al., 2021a, 2021b; Shim, 2013).

The extent to which DICT affect neighbourhood social cohesion varies among ethnic communities and is influenced by factors such as the duration of residency, language proficiency, individual media ecology and the significance of connections within one’s own ethnic group. With increasing length of stay, immigrants are better connected to the local communication infrastructure. In part, this is explained by decreasing language barriers and, in some cases, by establishing communication infrastructures such as geo-ethnic news websites or social media channels that support intra-ethnic contacts within the neighbourhood (An and Mendiola-Smith, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2001; Ognyanova et al., 2013). Moreover, the existing local news and media infrastructure within ethnically diverse neighbourhoods tends to attract readers and contributors among the native population with high DICT proficiency and community involvement (Chen et al., 2012). This results in a self-reinforcing effect, as the content on the platform promotes local narratives that reflect only the perspectives of dominant user groups (Bronsvoort and Uitermark, 2022).

The role of DICT in promoting neighbourhood social cohesion differs across socioeconomic and demographic factors. For younger, more educated, and affluent groups, DICT is a strong facilitator of community connection, which is attributable to their greater technological access and residence in more cohesive neighbourhoods. Older adults engage less comprehensively with DICT due to access barriers but remain connected through more traditional communication technologies. In contrast, the impact of DICT within ethnic minority communities is nuanced and positively related to longer residency and language assimilation, although the content of local DICT often predominantly reflects the perspectives of the most technologically adept users.

This review also reveals shortcomings in current study designs. There is a high degree of geographic inequality regarding the study areas, with almost all studies conducted in Western Europe or North America, while only a few studies are from the Global East and none from the Global South. There is a lack of more recent longitudinal studies involving DICTs such as social media platforms or messenger groups. Moreover, most studies focus on only one DICT (e.g. Facebook or X/Twitter), while at present, communication habits typically involve several forms of DICT, with their features being increasingly tailored to their users’ communication behaviour. While qualitative studies provide a nuanced understanding of online content and its impact on residents, most quantitative studies fail to account for the complexities inherent in online content; instead, they rely on a simplistic dichotomy of use versus non-use.

Conceptualising ‘catalysts of connection’

Empirical findings indicate that DICT increase social cohesion in neighbourhoods where social capital is high. In developing a conceptual framework (Figure 2), we employ the metaphor of ‘catalysis’ from the field of chemistry for its illustrative power rather than to imply a natural or inherent process. Just as a chemical catalyst facilitates and accelerates a reaction without being consumed by it, DICT interact with and accelerate the ‘reactive’ relationship between existing social capital and various domains of social cohesion, such as an increased sense of security, community attachment, social order or mutual support. According to Coleman (1988), these outcomes emerge from social relations and communication, and as DICT facilitate and enhance communication, the respective outcomes are also catalysed. In general, this acceleration is based on the affordances and characteristics of DICT and the networked public (boyd, 2010; Hampton, 2016). In the specific context of the neighbourhood, a spatial reference must be established either in user communication (by the user) or through the properties of the platform (by design) for DICT to influence the domains of neighbourhood social cohesion. DICT catalyse both individual social capital, which contributes to the achievement of goals, and collective social capital in neighbourhood organisations, where it contributes to their efficient functioning.

Figure 2.

Conceptualisation of the catalysing effect of DICT on social capital and related outcomes.

Two properties of DICT are particularly important for determining how catalysis works: (1) the characteristics of the technology and the platform on which a networked public is emerging; and (2) the content and users with whom networking takes place. We assume that analogous to the functioning of a catalyst in chemistry, the adjustment of these two features determines whether and to what extent the ‘reaction’ is catalysed.

Technology and platform characteristics: Each DICT has distinct characteristics that determine to what extent users may form a networked public, how pronounced the spatial reference is, who is able to access it and what aspect of social cohesion is promoted. Compared with open social networking services, social networking services that allow for the formation of closed groups (e.g. messenger services) are more likely to facilitate community engagement (Kim et al., 2019). While most social platforms are open to anyone from any location, neighbourhood platforms, by design, only allow residents to become members of the network. By restricting access, they form an online community that is partially congruent with the place-based community, thus promoting an online sense of community that promotes the intention to mobilise support via the online platform (De Meulenaere et al., 2021a, 2021b). Active use of the platform (e.g. posting and liking) improves awareness about neighbourhood issues and attitudes towards one’s neighbours. On the basis of these findings we conclude that DICT are more likely to facilitate neighbourhood social capital when they have a spatial reference by design, thus limiting online interactions to ‘real world’ neighbours. This effect might be achieved on open social networking platforms and messenger services when closed groups with restricted access are created by users who reside in the same neighbourhood. By restricting access to neighbours, either by design or by group creation, digital communication becomes place-based, which in cases of pre-existing local social capital facilitates further interaction on the platform or in the online group.

Content and users: To whom users connect online and what content they engage with determines to what extent they perceive their neighbourhood community as cohesive. Studies based on platform data show that engagement depends on who users connect to. On an open platform such as X/Twitter, residents engage more in local storytelling when they are connected to other residents and only connection to local residents within a storytelling network predicts the disclosure of positive emotions in the case of emergencies (An and Mendiola-Smith, 2018, 2020). Bingham-Hall and Law’s (2015) work on X/Twitter highlights that individuals in the neighbourhood can attain influential communication positions on the platform. Businesses, being already visible and location-implicit, are evident local entities in their view of producing a place identity. Conversely, ascertaining the geographic identity of other residents can be more challenging on this platform. In particular, online content that is associated with lower social cohesion (e.g. feelings of insecurity or content related to local crime) might result in a negative effect on DICT use (Schreurs et al., 2020; van Steden and Mehlbaum, 2022; Witten et al., 2021). Conversely, positive communication about historical images, urban development insights, store openings, or event information fosters a connection to the locality and the community (Breek et al., 2018; Matthews, 2015; Stern and Adams, 2010). We conclude that the moderating role of DICT in different domains of social cohesion depends on the content that is produced by users. If the content of local networked publics indicates neighbourhood cohesiveness, the facilitating function of DICT is strengthened. Conversely, content that suggests a lack of social cohesion may reduce the catalysing function or even reverse it.

In addition to the finding that neighbourhoods with high social capital are more likely to use DICT, two focal points of social capital in neighbourhoods stand out from the analysis of the findings: neighbourhood organisations (collective social capital) and highly networked individuals (individual social capital), whose outcomes are particularly catalysed by DICT.

Neighbourhood organisations: Neighbourhood organisations play a vital role in neighbourhood life as foci of repeated interactions, collective goal attainment and formalised social capital. Communication infrastructure theory sees neighbourhood organisations as local storytellers that spread narratives and promote identification (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). Understanding such organisations as meso-level actors within the neighbourhood community DICT play a twofold role: DICT use supports internal communication among members, supporting the efficient functioning of the organisation. In addition, neighbourhood organisations use digital communication to reach out to the local community and potential members by engaging in local storytelling via social media (An and Mendiola-Smith, 2018). Nevertheless, there are also pitfalls for community organisations when they enter the digital realm. In particular, smaller organisations often lack the resources to maintain an account on social media platforms; thus, their role as producers of neighbourhood stories lags behind, even though some of them may have large numbers of followers. Moreover, in neighbourhoods where residents perceive a lack of social cohesion, it might be more difficult for neighbourhood organisations to utilise social media to gain new members (Johnson and Halegoua, 2014; Matthews, 2016). Thus, we conclude that DICT catalyse the collective social capital within neighbourhood organisations and the outcome produced by their activities.

Highly networked individuals: Equipped with DICT, particularly committed and highly networked individuals have the potential to shape a neighbourhood according to their interests. Persons with high amounts of social capital and multiple memberships in organisations are more inclined to use DICT as it enables them to manage their diverse social contacts more efficiently and steer flows of information across different channels (Kavanaugh et al., 2007). Their motivation to use neighbourhood-related DICT revolves around the desire to enhance the neighbourhood’s quality of life or image or to invigorate the local economy (Breek et al., 2018). In some instances, the establishment and active use of DICT are driven by individual economic interests, for example, to increase property values or because residents simultaneously operate businesses (Baborska-Narozny et al., 2017). Qualitative studies portray how the impetus arises from a small group of individuals with shared interests possessing advanced digital skills. However, whether such a DICT network emerges as an actively used neighbourhood resource that successfully engages resident groups from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds remains questionable (Baborska-Narozny et al., 2017; Breek et al., 2018; Kotus and Hławka, 2010; Mosconi et al., 2017). By the catalysing effect of DICT, a single person or small group of residents may significantly shape the online discourse in the neighbourhood, potentially marginalising the interests of other communities and ultimately leading to disengagement and a decline in digital participation and social cohesion for others (Bingham-Hall and Law, 2015; Bronsvoort and Uitermark, 2022; Witten et al., 2021). It is therefore important to determine who is active in these groups and what topics are discussed. We conclude that highly networked individuals may use DICT to promote their interests and gather like-minded neighbours online, where shared motivations, perceptions, and problems become more visible and contribute to placemaking and collective action.

Implications for future research

On the basis of our theoretical concept, we expect neighbourhoods low in social capital to largely miss out on the beneficial outcomes of DICT. The potential explanation for this hypothesis is multifaceted and calls for further research that centres on the effects of DICT in neighbourhoods that lack social capital, are economically disadvantaged and ethnically mixed. Future research may focus on these types of neighbourhoods for several reasons. First, a spatial disadvantage results from unequal connection and signal quality as the provision is based on a market mechanism, and areas that seem least profitable to providers will be worst equipped (Mossberger et al., 2021). Second, people with low income are found to have a different motivation to use DICT, less access and device diversity, and different digital skills, which are related to less beneficial outcomes (Helsper, 2021; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2018). Third, technologies and platforms explicitly designed to improve neighbourhood relations and mutual assistance are least used in economically disadvantaged and ethnically heterogeneous neighbourhoods, as the intention to use such DICT is preceded by a positive perception of neighbourhood social cohesion and pre-existing social capital. In addition, for the platform owning companies, it might appear less profitable to operate in areas with fewer users and fewer online interactions. In summary, we hypothesise that these neighbourhoods are less likely to reap the benefits of the digital era, which will result in increased socio-spatial inequality between neighbourhoods. We call for more empirical research challenging this hypothesis.

Another important aspect that needs further investigation is the actual content created and consumed in neighbourhood-related DICT use. According to our concept, we assume that the quality of content determines the moderating effect of DICT use. In fact, there may be cases in which negative content limits the catalysing effect of DICT or reverses it, leading to a reduction in social capital-based outcomes. This could be the case in situations of conflict and hate speech in online neighbourhood groups or any form of territorial stigma that is transmitted through digital communication (e.g. Butler et al., 2018). What types of online content affect social capital-related outcomes? Does the type of content in local networked publics vary depending on the neighbourhood? Is there a heterogeneous effect of DICT, depending on the socioeconomic status and ethnic diversity of the neighbourhood? Future research designs comparing the catalysing effects of DICT across different neighbourhoods might also compare the effects of different technologies and platforms within the same neighbourhood to better understand how platform dependencies and affordances shape online neighbourhood communication and local social capital.

Both gaps can be investigated by comparative research designs across various neighbourhoods and platforms. Beyond the call for more multi-level studies, which has been expressed before (Friedland, 2016; Hampton et al., 2011), we see an urgent need for more longitudinal research. Current longitudinal studies, while pioneering, are confined to mailing lists and forums, forms of DICT that became outdated with the rise of social media platforms and messenger services. Hence, there is a notable gap in research investigating the causal direction of the relationship between modern DICT and neighbourhood social capital. Qualitative studies draw attention to the nuanced interplay between online and offline networks, suggesting that the use of DICT may enhance community perceptions and identification, potentially leading to increased ‘real-world’ interactions. Understanding this phenomenon is crucial as social capital presents various perceptions that may affect, or actions that may reflect, community engagement. Future research should dissect whether a particular form of social capital acts as a prerequisite or whether a synthesis of multiple forms is essential for leveraging the effect of DICT on neighbourhood cohesion.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-usj-10.1177_00420980241281502 – Supplemental material for Catalysts of connection. The role of digital information and communication technology in fostering neighbourhood social cohesion: A systematic review of empirical findings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-usj-10.1177_00420980241281502 for Catalysts of connection. The role of digital information and communication technology in fostering neighbourhood social cohesion: A systematic review of empirical findings by Jan Üblacker, Simon Liebig and Hawzheen Hamad in Urban Studies

Footnotes

We would like to thank George C. Galster for his constructive feedback on the early manuscript and Tim Raulf and Kira N. Freier for fruitful discussions on the concept. We would also like to thank all the participants of the workshop on ‘Digitalisation,Neighbourhood Change and Social Integration’ held at the Fritz-Thyssen Foundation in Cologne,Germany in May 2022. Finally,we would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: Stiftung Mercator,Grant #200437.

ORCID iDs

Jan Üblacker

Simon Liebig

Hawzheen Hamad

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Afzalan

Evans-Cowley

(2015) Planning and social media: Facebook for planning at the neighbourhood scale. Planning Practice and Research 30(3): 270–285.

Amin

(2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A 34(6): 959–980.

Mendiola-Smith

(2018) Mapping communication infrastructure theory onto Twitter: Network integration and neighborhood storytelling. Journal of International Communication 12: 4292–4312.

Mendiola-Smith

(2020) Connections to neighborhood storytellers and community-oriented emotional disclosure on Twitter during an emergency event. New Media & Society 22(8): 1359–1377.

Baborska-Narozny

Stirling

Stevenson

(2017) Exploring the efficacy of Facebook groups for collective occupant learning about using their homes. American Behavioral Scientist 61(7): 757–773.

Ball-Rokeach

Kim

Y-C

Matei

(2001) Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research 28(4): 392–428.

Bingham-Hall

Law

(2015) Connected or informed?: Local Twitter networking in a London neighbourhood. Big Data & Society 2(2): 1–17. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715597457

Bourdieu

(1983) Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel

(ed.) Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt Sonderband 2. Göttingen: Schwartz, pp.183–198.

boyd

(2010) Social networking sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: Papacharissi

(ed.) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.39–58.

10.

boyd

Ellison

(2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210–230.

11.

Breek

Hermes

Eshuis

, et al. (2018) The role of social media in collective processes of place making: A study of two neighborhood blogs in Amsterdam. City and Community 17(3): 906–924.

12.

Breek

Eshuis

Hermes

(2021) Sharing feelings about neighborhood transformation on Facebook: online affective placemaking in Amsterdam-Noord. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 14(2): 145–164.

13.

Bronsvoort

Uitermark

(2022) Seeing the street through Instagram. Digital platforms and the amplification of gentrification. Urban Studies 59(14): 2857–2874.

14.

Butler

Schafran

Carpenter

(2018) What does it mean when people call a place a shithole? Understanding a discourse of denigration in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 43(3): 496–510.

15.

Cabitza

Scramaglia

Cornetta

, et al. (2016) When the web supports communities of place: The ‘Social Street’ case in Italy. International Journal of Web Based Communities 12(3): 216.

16.

Capece

Costa

(2013) The new neighbourhood in the internet era: Network communities serving local communities. Behaviour & Information Technology 32(5): 438–448.

17.

Chan

(2006) Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research 75(2): 273–302.

18.

Chen

N-TN

Dong

Ball-Rokeach

, et al. (2012) Building a new media platform for local storytelling and civic engagement in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. New Media & Society 14(6): 931–950.

19.

Choi

D-H

Nah

Chung

(2021) Social media as a civic mobilizer: Community storytelling network, social media, and civic engagement in South Korea. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 65(1): 46–65.

20.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.

21.

De Meulenaere

Baccarne

Courtois

, et al. (2021a) Disentangling social support mobilization via online neighborhood networks. Journal of Community Psychology 49(2): 481–498.

22.

De Meulenaere

Baccarne

Courtois

, et al. (2021b) Neighborhood hotspot and community awareness: The double role of social network sites in local communities. Communications 46(4): 492–515.

23.

Durkheim

(1893) The Division of Labor in Society. Paris: Félix Alcan, Editeur.

24.

Dutta-Bergman

(2005) The antecedents of community-oriented Internet use: Community participation and community satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(1): 97–113.

25.

Felder

(2020) Strong, weak and invisible ties: A relational perspective on urban coexistence. Sociology 54(4): 675–692.

26.

Ferlander

Timms

(2007) Social capital and community building through the Internet: A Swedish case study in a disadvantaged suburban area. Sociological Research Online 12(5): 1–17.

27.

Forrest

Kearns

(2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38(12): 2125–2143.

28.

Friedkin

(2004) Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 409–425.

29.

Friedland

(2016) Networks in place. American Behavioral Scientist 60(1): 24–42.

30.

Friedrichs

Jagodzinski

(1999) Theorien sozialer Integration. In: Friedrichs

Jagodzinski

(eds) Soziale Integration (Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 39. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschafte, pp.9–43.

31.

Galster

Friedrichs

(2015) The dialectic of neighborhood social mix: Editors’ introduction to the special issue. Housing Studies 30(2): 175–191.

32.

Gibbons

(2020) “Placing” the relation of social media participation to neighborhood community connection. Journal of Urban Affairs 42(8): 1262–1277.

33.

Granovetter

(1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.

34.

Hampton

Wellman

(2003) Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City and Community 2(4): 277–311.

35.

Hampton

(2003) Grieving for a lost network: Collective action in a wired suburb special issue: ICTs and community networking. Information Society 19(5): 417–428.

36.

Hampton

(2007) Neighborhoods in the network society the e-neighbors study. Information Communication & Society 10(5): 714–748.

37.

Hampton

(2016) Persistent and pervasive community: New communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist 60(1): 101–124.

38.

Hampton

Lee

Her

(2011) How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society 13(7): 1031–1049.

39.

Hatuka

Zur

Mendoza

(2021) The urban digital lifestyle: An analytical framework for placing digital practices in a spatial context and for developing applicable policy. Cities 111: 102978.

40.

Helsper

(2021) The Digital Disconnect: The Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. London: Sage Publications.

41.

Johnson

Halegoua

(2014) Potential and challenges for social media in the neighborhood context. Journal of Urban Technology 21(4): 51–75.

42.

Jung

Kim

Y-C

(2021) Commuting, communication, and community engagement from a communication infrastructure theory perspective. Communication Research 48(5): 740–766.

43.

Jung

J-Y

Toriumi

Mizukoshi

(2013) Neighborhood storytelling networks, internet connectedness, and civic participation after the Great East Japan earthquake. Asian Journal of Communication 23(6): 637–657.

44.

Katz

Hampton

(2016) Communication in city and community: From the Chicago school to digital technology. American Behavioral Scientist 60(1): 3–7.

45.

Kavanaugh

Carroll

Rosson

, et al. (2005) Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(4): 00–00.

46.

Kavanaugh

Zin

Schmitz

, et al. (2007) Local groups online: Political learning and participation. In: Carroll

(ed.) Learning in Communities. Human–Computer Interaction Series. London: Springer, pp.55–73.

47.

Kavanaugh

Patterson

(2001) The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 496–509.

48.

Kearns

Whitley

(2019) Associations of internet access with social integration, wellbeing and physical activity among adults in deprived communities: Evidence from a household survey. BMC Public Health 19(1): 860.

49.

Kim

Y-C

Shin

Cho

, et al. (2019) SNS dependency and community engagement in urban neighborhoods: The moderating role of integrated connectedness to a community storytelling network. Communication Research 46(1): 7–32.

50.

Kotus

Hławka

(2010) Urban neighbourhood communities organised on-line – A new form of self-organisation in the Polish city? Cities 27(4): 204–214.

51.

Liu

Chen

N-TN

Ognyanova

, et al. (2018) Connecting with hyperlocal news website: Cause or effect of civic participation? American Behavioral Scientist 62(8): 1022–1041.

52.

Matei

Ball-Rokeach

(2003) The Internet in the communication infrastructure of urban residential communities: Macro- or mesolinkage? Journal of Communication 53(4): 642–657.

53.

Matei

Ball-Rokeach

(2001) Real and virtual social ties: Connections in the everyday lives of seven ethnic neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 550–564.

54.

Matthews

(2015) Neighbourhood belonging, social class and social media—Providing ladders to the cloud. Housing Studies 30(1): 22–39.

55.

Matthews

(2016) Social media, community development and social capital. Community Development Journal 51(3): 419–435.

56.

Mesch

Talmud

(2010) Internet connectivity, community participation, and place attachment: A longitudinal study. American Behavioral Scientist 53(8): 1095–1110.

57.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications.

58.

Mosconi

Korn

Reuter

, et al. (2017) From Facebook to the neighbourhood: Infrastructuring of hybrid community engagement. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 26(4–6): 959–1003.

59.

Mossberger

Tolbert

LaCombe

(2021) Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity in Communities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Nah

Lee

Liu

(2022) Community storytelling network, expressive digital media use, and civic engagement. Communication Research 49(3): 327–352.

61.

Nah

Yamamoto

(2017) Civic technology and community building: Interaction effects between integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and Internet and mobile uses on civic participation: Civic technology and community building. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22(4): 179–195.

62.

Ognyanova

Chen

Ball-Rokeach

, et al. (2013) Online participation in a community context: Civic engagement and connections to local communication resources. Journal of International Communication 7: 2433–2456.

63.

Oldenburg

(1999) The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.

64.

Park

(ed.) (1922) The Immigrant Press and its Control, 1st edn. New York, NY and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

65.

Park

(1938) Reflections on communication and culture. American Journal of Sociology 44(2): 187–205.

66.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Philadelphia, USA, 2–6 December 2000, p. 357. New York, NY: ACM Press. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358916.361990 (accessed 24 March 2023).

67.

Quan-Haase

Wellman

(2017) Connected seniors: How older adults in East York exchange social support online and offline. Information Communication & Society 20(7): 967–983.

68.

Reisdorf

Fernandez

Hampton

, et al. (2022) Mobile phones will not eliminate digital and social divides: How variation in Internet activities mediates the relationship between type of Internet access and local social capital in Detroit. Social Science Computer Review 40(2): 288–308.

69.

Schiefer

van der Noll

(2017) The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research 132(2): 579–603.

70.

Schreurs

Franjkić

Kerstholt

, et al. (2020) Why do citizens become a member of an online neighbourhood watch? A case study in the Netherlands. Police Practice and Research 21(6): 687–701.

71.

Shim

(2013) After broadband infrastructure saturation: The impact of public investment on rural social capital. Journal of International Communication 7: 26–47.

72.

Stern

Adams

(2010) Do rural residents really use the Internet to build social capital? An empirical investigation. American Behavioral Scientist 53(9): 1389–1422.

73.

Tiwari

Lane

Alam

(2019) Do social networking sites build and maintain social capital online in rural communities? Journal of Rural Studies 66: 1–10.

74.

Tseng

S-F

Hsieh

(2015) The implications of networked individualism for social participation. American Behavioral Scientist 59(9): 1157–1172.

75.

van Deursen

van Dijk

(2018) The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society 21(2): 354–375.

76.

van Steden

Mehlbaum

(2022) Do-it-yourself surveillance: The practices and effects of WhatsApp neighbourhood crime prevention groups. Crime Media Culture 18(4): 543–560.

77.

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2016) The Chicago school and ecology: A reappraisal for the digital era. American Behavioral Scientist 60(1): 8–23.

78.

Wallace

Vincent

Luguzan

, et al. (2017) Information technology and social cohesion: A tale of two villages. Journal of Rural Studies 54: 426–434.

79.

Wellman

Leighton

(1979) Networks, neighborhoods, and communities: Approaches to the study of the community question. Urban Affairs Quarterly 14(3): 363–390.

80.

Witten

Kearns

Opit

, et al. (2021) Facebook as soft infrastructure: Producing and performing community in a mixed tenure housing development. Housing Studies 36(9): 1345–1363.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB