Social capital: how parks and recreation help to build community - Research Update

They come from all over your community. Players, coaches, referees, families and friends join together each fall Saturday for youth soccer games. The parks and recreation department has worked hard to ensure the benefits of participating in this program, including the new skills gained, the teamwork, the joy of competing with and against others, and the new friends made. Yet the benefits of such a program move beyond the participants to the families and friends watching these games. The spectators meet and greet one another, talk about the weather, the game and community events. As they connect with one another at many levels, they are in the process of building the social capital needed to increase the quality of life of their community.

Put succinctly, social capital refers to the collective value of all social networks (who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other ("norms of reciprocity") (www.bowlingalone.com/socialcapital.php3). Researchers have determined that social capital is as important as economic capital for successful societies. Social capital encompasses such social elements as trust (social trust and inter-ethnic trust), connections with others (formal and informal) and diversity of friendships, participation in politics (conventional and protest politics), giving and volunteering, faith-based engagement, and equality of civic engagement across the community (www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/ results.htm).

A Little Background

The first official use of the term "social capital" was by L. Judson Hanifan in 1916, Hanifan noted the need for and importance of renewed community involvement to sustain democracy and development. He was reporting on the demise of neighborliness and civic engagement, which resulted from the decline of such events as debating societies, barn raisings and apple cuttings. As these customs were abandoned, people became less neighborly, and the community's social life gave way to family isolation and community stagnation. Once he had identified the problem, Hanifan went on to outline how social capital could be fostered. (Note the importance he placed on recreation.)

When the people of a given community have become acquainted with one another and have formed a habit of coming together occasionally for entertainment, social discourse and personal enjoyment, then by skillful leadership this social capital will be directed toward the general improvement of community well-being (Hanifan, 1916 as cited by Putnam & Goss, 2002, p. 4).

Since 1916, the term "social capital" has been used in a variety of ways. Jane Jacobs used the term in her book Death and Life of Great American Cities to emphasize the collective value of informal neighborhood ties in modern cities. Coleman (1990) distinguished social capital from natural, physical, human or economic capital. From this distinction, Putnam (2000) and others have identified social capital as the features of social life--networks, norms and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.

In recent years, scholars in many fields have begun to explore the many dimensions of social capital, and this work has grown exponentially. One reason why social capital has received so much attention recently is the work of Robert Putnam, Putnam (2002) documents the decline of social capital in America as reflected by decreasing membership in voluntary organizations such as the National Boy Scouts of America, the League of Women Voters, National Parent Teacher Associations and the American Red Cross. Putnam singles out four primary factors contributing to the declining levels of civic engagement and decreasing social capital: longer working hours and increasing time pressures, increasing suburban sprawl, television and other forms of mass media, and a generational shift from the civic-minded generation of World War II to a more "me-oriented" generation.

Putnam's work has generated much debate on whether social capital in declining or just changing into new ways for people to connect. An this debate plays out, there is consensus that social capital in an important concept that requires continued study. Yet with the explosion of research on social capital in recent years, a comprehensive review of the literature is beyond the scope of this article. It in our intent, however, to highlight some of the major findings of social capital research and apply these findings to parks and recreation programs.

Type of Social Capital

Since its conceptualization, and as the theory of social capital has developed, several sources Of social capital have been articulated (Putnam and Gross, 2002). Each type adds to the overall effectiveness and success of a community. These types include:

* Formal versus informal social capital: Formal social capital refers to organizations that have recognized officers, membership requirements, dues and regular meetings, like clubs and associations. On the other hand, informal social capital refers to non-formal gatherings, like pick-up games of basketball or people who gather at the same bar.

* Thick versus thin social capital: Thick social capital is closely interwoven and multistranded, such as individuals who work, play and worship together. Such strong ties are defined in terms of frequency of contact and closeness, while a weak or thin tie might exist among individuals who are acquaintances and share few friendship groups.

* Inward-looking versus outward-looking social capital: Some forms of social capital are inward-looking and tend to promote the material, social or political interests of its members (e.g. private golf club), while others are outward-looking and concern themselves with public goods, such as seeking the common good (e.g. environmental groups).

* Bridging versus bonding social capital: These types of social capital are similar to inward- and outboard-looking social capital. Specifically bridging social capital refers to the social networks that bring people together who are unlike one another. Bonding social capital, on the other band, usually brings together people who are alike in some respect (e.g. race, gender, religion, socioeconomic status).

It is interesting to note the multidimensional nature of social capital as well as the connection between the various forms of social capital. For example, informal, thin, outward-looking and bridging social capital all share some common characteristics; likewise, the formal, thick, inward-looking and bonding types appear to be connected. Although all types of social capital are important, Florida (2002) notes that, "where strong ties among people were elite important, weak ties are now more effective. Where old social structures were once nurturing, now they are restricting ... our evolving communities and emerging society are marked by a greater diversity of friendships, more individualistic pursuits and weaker ties within the community. People want diversity, low-entry barriers and the ability to be themselves" (p. 269). This type of informal social capital can be generated through recreation programs, and may be best suited for knitting a society together and for building broad norms of generalized reciprocity.

Research About Social Capitol

Social capital is being studied all over the world, and we are learning much about it from such countries as India, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Vietnam, Tanzania, Mexico and the U.S. Highlights of these findings include:

* Social connectedness is a stronger predictor of perceived quality of life in a community than community income or educational level.

* Personal happiness is more closely tied to level of community social connectedness and trust than to income or educational levels.

* Bridging social capital is important in producing community solidarity.

* Higher social capital and social cohesion leads to improvements in health conditions.

* The lower the trust among citizens, the higher the mortality rate in a community.

* Communities with higher levels of social capital are likely to have higher educational achievement, better-performing governmental institutions, faster economic growth and less crime and violence.

* Joining one group cuts your odds of dying over the next year in hale Joining two groups cuts it in quarters.

* Every 10 minutes of additional commuting time cuts all forms of social capital by 10 percent--there is 10 percent less church going, 10 percent fewer club meetings, 10 percent fewer evenings with friends, etc.

* Television is tire only leisure activity in which doing more of it is associated with less social capital.

Drawbacks of Social Capital

Research has also reported that, when taken to an extreme, social capital may be detrimental to a community's health.

* Like all types of capital, research reports unequal access to social capital among the differing social strata.

* Those with less financial and human capital also have less social capital.

* High levels of within-group trust may generate distrust of out-group members.

* Social capital develops social ties that enable community members to work together, and which also can exclude outsiders. Exclusionary cliques can form, which may be detrimental to the overall health of a community.

* Community pressure to conform to group norms can result in developing unhealthy traditions; taken to an extreme, social capital can rally people around unhealthy causes--particularly if the group is strong in bonding social capital and short in bridging social capital.

* There is a risk of decreased autonomy--individuals may not be able to break out of a group to which they have belonged (i.e., gang members who try to break away).

* There is a need to understand what kind of support individuals and families will need in the future. We can not be bound by the past, and we must be willing to consider that "the life we think about as uniquely American--close families and friends, tight neighborhoods, civic clubs, vibrant electoral politics, strong faith-based institutions and a reliance on civic leadership--is giving away to something new" (Florida, 2002, p. 269).

Building Social Capital

Research is also beginning to help us understand how social capital is built and to help us realize that social capital is not a tangible and finite resource that can be taken from one group and given to another. Individuals, communities and organization have the capacity to develop their own social capital. At the same time, social capital takes time and effort to develop. Additional points include:

* Participation in networks is necessary for the development of social capital, as is the notion of service to and "being there for" others.

* Opportunities to develop trust and form new relationships across age, ethnic, religious and economic lines are important.

* Embedding the notion of pooled resources as a benefit to all is needed, as is the active and willing engagement of citizens within a participatory community.

* There seem to be 11 key indicators of social capital in a community. These indicators are: social trust, inter-racial trust, conventional politics participation, protest politics participation, civic leadership, association involvement, informal socializing, diversity of friendships, giving and volunteering, faith-based engagement and equality of civic engagement.

Implications for Parks and Recreation

Given the many sources of social capital, it becomes evident that individuals, communities and professionals can help to build social capital in a variety of venues. Parks and recreation is one such professional field through which social capital may be developed. The early research about leisure and social capital is still mixed, and some caution must be used in directly correlating social capital and leisure. Having said that, however, Hemingway (2000) notes that the importance of social capital to a democratic society can not be overlooked. Further research is needed in examining the role that parks, recreation and leisure services can play in reinventing and encouraging positive aspects of social capital and general well-being.

We already know, of course, that parks, recreation and leisure services can play an important role in promoting a sense of well-being and happiness, as well as in promoting close relationships, social support, purpose and hope. Parks, recreation and leisure services professionals have an opportunity to make conscious choices about making a difference in our communities by promoting the development of social capital. We can begin that process by examining current practices in light of the 11 key indicators of social capital. In addition, we must examine our entire agency or organization--our policies and procedures, programs and services, facilities and structures, staffing and staff training, and so on.

We should ask ourselves the following questions:

* What elements of our organization promote formal and informal social capital?

* What elements of our organization promote thick arm thin social capital?

* What elements of our organization promote inward-looking and outward-looking social capital?

* What elements of our organization promote bridging and bonding social capital?

* Where, when and how do we concentrate on developing social trust? How do we do this among our staff? Our participants? Between our staff and participants?

* Where, when and how do we engender inter-racial/ethnic trust?

* Where, when and how do we facilitate political involvement of our constituents?

* Where, when and how do we engage community members in meaningful civic leadership opportunities?

* Where, when and how do we enhance association involvement?

* Where, when and how do we perpetuate opportunities for informal socializing?

* Where, when and how do we facilitate and encourage diversity in friendships?

* Where, when and how do we provide opportunities for volunteerism and giving by members of the community?

* Where, when and how do we recognize the importance of faith-based engagement?

* Where, when and how do we strive to make available equal opportunities for civic engagement in all quadrants and among all constituent groups of our community?

As park and recreation professionals think through many of the questions listed above, we enter the public debate on hoax to help build communities that meet our needs in the 21st century. We cannot be bound by the past, but rather should strive to be visionary in an attempt to understand the driving forces at work in our society today. We can use the many tools (recreation programs) at our disposal to build the cohesive, open and tolerant communities we desire.

References

Abrams, P. with M. Bulmer (1986) Neighbours. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bates, R. (1989) The Structuring Influence of Capital in Societies Based on Kinship. Durham, NC: Duke University Program in Political Economy.

Bates, R., Rui F. Jr. and B. Weingast (1998) "The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transition" Politics & Society 26(2):221-235.

Baum, F. (1997) "Public Health and Civil Society: Understanding and Valuing the Connection" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21(7):673-675.

Bullen and Onyx (1999). Social Capital: Family Support Services and Neighborhood and Community Centres in NSW. Found at www.mapl.com au/A12.htm.

Coleman, J. (1988) "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital" American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S126.

Collier, P. (1998). Social Capital and Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Durlauf, S. (2002). On the empirics of social capital. The Economic Journal 112 (November) F459-F479

Elshtain, J. (2002). Jane Addams and the dream of American democracy. New York: Basic Books.

Fernandez-Kelley, M. (1995) "Social and Cultural Capital in the Urban Ghetto: Implications for the Economic Sociology of Immigration," in A. Portes (ed.) The Economic Sociology of Immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday fife. New York: Basic Books.

Fukuyama, F. (1995) "Social Capital and the Global Economy" Foreign Affairs 74(5):89-97.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Hemingway, J. (2000). Conceptualizing social capital generation in leisure: Social networks and discussion patterns. Paper presented at Leisure Research Symposium on Leisure Research. National Recreation and Park Association Annual Congress. Phoenix, AZ.

Humphrey, J. & H. Schmidtz (1998) "Trust and Inter-Firm Relations in Developing and Transition Economies" The Journal of Development Studies 34(4):32-45.

La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and R. Vishny (1997) "Trust in Large Organizations" The American Economic Review 87(2):333-345.

Meyer, D. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist. 55 (1), 56-67.

Moore, G. (1990) "Structural Determinants of Men's and Women's Personal Networks" American Sociological Review 55(October).

Picciotto, R. (1998) Evaluation and Development: The Institutional Dimension. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Politics and Society 21(3):307-323.

Portes, A. (ed.) 11995) The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on the Networks, Ethnicity and Entreprenership. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner (1993) "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action" American Journal of Sociology 98(6):1320-50.

Portes, A. and P. Landolt (1996) "The Downside of Social Capital." The American Prospect 26 (May-June): 18-21, 94 http://epn.org/prospect/ 26/26-cnt2.

Putnam, R. (1995) "Bowling Alone; America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy 6(1):65-78.

Putnam, R. (1996) The Strange Disappearance of Civic America. The American Prospect. 24 (Winter):34-43.

Putnam, R. (2006) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. & Goss, K. (20(]2). Introduction. In R. Putnam (Ed.). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society(pp. 3-21). New York: Oxford Press.

Putnam, R. (2002, February 11). Bowling together The American Prospect. 13 (3).

Renshaw, R.(1994) "Strengthening Civil Society: the role of NGOs" Development = Development = Desarrollo Number 4:46-54.

Robinson, J. and Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Russell, R. (2002). Pastimes: The context of contemporary leisure. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 2nd Edition.

Saguaro Seminar (2001). Social capital community Benchmark Survey Boston, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Shichman, S. and Cooper, E. (1984). Life satisfaction and sex role concept, Sex Roles, 11(3/4), 227-240.

Szreter, S. (2000) "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," in Stephen Baron, John Field and Tom Schuller, (eds.), Social Capital Critical Perspectives Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.

Wuthnow, R. (2002). United States: Bridging the privileged and the marginalized. In R. Putnam (Ed.). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 59-103). New York: Oxford Press.

Online Sources of Social Capital Information

www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital

www.cfsa.org/communitysurvey/ results.html

www.bowlingalone.com/socialcapital

www.ksg.Harvard.edu/saguaro

Don DeGraaf, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Dance and Sport at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Mich. Deb Jordan, Re.D., is a professor in the Leisure Studies Department at Oklahoma Slate University, in Stillwater; Okla. DeGraaf can be reached at ddegraaf@calvin.edu.

COPYRIGHT 2003 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group