Collaborative Cohesion: The Necessity for A Standardized

Collaborative Cohesion:

The Necessity for A

Standardized

Community/City Social

Cohesion Model Zachary

Raden

1. Introduction:

1.1 Kresge and using Social Cohesion

within a Climate Resilient Plan

2. Review of Literature on Social

Cohesion:

2.1 The Dimensions and Domains of

Social Cohesion

2.2 Indicators of Social Cohesion

2.3 Communication Infrastructure

Theory (CIT): The “Storytelling

Network” and the “Communication

Action Context”

Overview

3. Limitations in Measuring and

Identifying Social Cohesion Indicators:

3.1 Existing Data and Data

Gathering

4. The Importance of a Standard Model

for Social Cohesion:

4.1 The New Focus: Increasing

Social Cohesion

4.2 Emphasizing Cross-

Communication and

Collaboration between City and

Community Institutions

5. Conclusion:

5.1 Gentrification as a Dismantling

Force for Social Cohesion

1 Introduction 1.1

“ ➤

➤

➤

1.1 Kresge and using Social Cohesion within a Climate Resilient Plan

“ ➤

➤

1.1 Kresge and using Social Cohesion within a Climate Resilient Plan

➤

➤

➤

The Kresge Environment Program, 2014, 3-4

Increasingly more governmental, non-

governmental, and intergovernmental

institutions are realizing the importance of

social cohesion with leaders including:

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

1.1 Kresge and using Social Cohesion within a Climate

Resilient Plan

A Tremendous Body of Existing Literature on Both the

Theoretical and Actual Application of Social Cohesion

An opportunity to bridge the

gap community with a

standard

between the city and

social cohesion model

Unifying Oakland’s

ROOTS!

2 Review of Literature

on Social Cohesion 2.1

2.1 The Dimensions and Domains of Social Cohesion

Jenson,

Jane ➤

➤

➤

It is important to understand the core

concepts of Social Cohesion rather than a

fixed definition

THE MICRO/MACRO DICHOTOMY OF SOCIAL COHESION:

1. MICRO: Local Community (Individuals) → Various levels of Social Capital

2. MACRO: Society as a Whole (Structures and Institutions) → Strength of Social

Economy

DOMAINS

D

I

M

E

N

S

I

O

N

S

Weighted and Aggregated Index of Social Cohesion Indicators

Separating social

cohesion into six

dimensions and three

domains (Economic,

Political, and Socio-

cultural) is helpful as it

allows for a more

systematic and

organized way to

measure and identify

social cohesion

indicators

2 Review of Literature

on Social Cohesion 2.2

Indicators for United Nations

➤➤

➤➤➤➤

2.2 Indicators of Social Cohesion

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

1. Social cohesion as social inclusion -- indicated

by access to financial resources:

➤ The Gini coefficient, which is a measure of

inequality of income distribution or inequality

of wealth distribution

2. Social cohesion as social inclusion -- indicated

by access to economic activity

➤ Unemployment rate (percentage of total

labour force)

3. Social cohesion as social inclusion -- indicated

by access to education and human capital

➤ Literacy rate, adult total (percentage of

people aged 15 and above

4. Social cohesion as social inclusion -- indicated

by access to health

➤ Life expectancy at birth, in years

5. Social cohesion as social inclusion --

indicated by access to technology

➤ Percentage of households with

access to broadband internet

6. Social cohesion as cultural and ethnic

homogeneity

➤ Percentage of foreign born in

population

7. Social cohesion as trust

➤ Question about trust from public

opinion surveys

8. Social cohesion as participation and

solidarity

➤ Electoral participation -- percentage

of eligible voters participating in

national elections

2 Review of Literature

on Social Cohesion 2.3

CIT identifies two basic components of communication infrastructure. The

first is the “neighborhood storytelling network” which consists of three key

storytellers:

2.3 Communication Infrastructure Theory

(CIT)

C

O

M

M

U

N

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

I

S

E

S

S

E

N

T

I

A

L

!

Fostering the “community action

context” further encourages the

“storytelling network”, enhancing

social cohesion. Further

research suggests that

addressing both elements is not

only a tactic of cohesion

enhancement but can also

directly increase civic

engagement and participation

(Kim, 2006, 173)

In order to foster social cohesion,

the focus must be on preserving

and improving CIT elements that

reinforces and strengthens this

feedback system

In order to foster social cohesion, the

focus must be on preserving and

improving CIT elements that reinforces and

strengthens this feedback system

Limitations in Measuring and

Identifying Social Cohesion

Indicators 3.1 3

2 ➤

➤

Problems

International

data sets like the

World Values

Survey can be

helpful in

understanding a

U.S. average in

comparison to

the City of

Oakland

3.1 Existing Data and Data

Gathering

If an Oakland specific survey

be implemented annually, a

meaningful comparison could

be made on the

increase/decrease of social

cohesion. By involving the

community to partake in

collecting data, it would be

an efficient and local use of

resources and create a

greater sense of community

The Importance of a Standard

Model for Social Cohesion 4.1 4

A NEED FOR STANDARDS

4.1 The New Focus: Increasing Social Cohesion

Econo

my

Econo

my

Infrastructur

e

Infrastructure

Social

Cohesion

Social

Cohesion CITY

CITY

G

E

N

T

R

I

F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

R

E

S

I

L

I

E

N

C

E 1

.

2

.

The Importance of a Standard

Model for Social Cohesion 4.2 4

Applying Communication

Infrastructure Theory (CIT)

4.2 Emphasizing Cross-Communication and Collaboration between City and Community

Institutions

Community

Level

Community

Level

City

Level

City Level

Both have social cohesion as main

objective with same models to measure

1

.

2.

Outsid

e

decisio

n

making

Outsid

e

decisio

n

making

Inside

decisio

n

making

Inside

decisio

n

making

Collaborative decision

making

Conclusion 4.2 5

THERE CAN BE NO INCREASING OF

SOCIAL COHESION WITH

GENTRIFICATION

With social cohesion as the focus, it directly fights against

policies of gentrification while simultaneously aiming to

improve both infrastructure and the local economy

With a standardized model, Oakland can be a leader in the

U.S. for this new growing policy approach so many other

institutions are utilizing

5.1 Gentrification as a Dismantling Force for Social Cohesion