Loneliness among young adults is a growing concern worldwide, posing serious health risks. While the human ecological framework explains how various factors such as socio-demographic, social, and built environment characteristics can affect this feeling, still, relatively little is known about the effect of built environment characteristics on the feelings of loneliness that young people experience in their daily life activities. This research investigates the relationship between built environment characteristics and emotional state loneliness in young adults (aged 18–25) during their daily activities. Leveraging the Experience Sampling Method, we collected data from 43 participants for 393 personal experiences during daily activities across different environmental settings. The findings of a mixed-effects regression model reveal that built environment features significantly impact emotional state loneliness. Notably, activity location accessibility, social company during activities, and walking activities all contribute to reducing loneliness. These findings can inform urban planners and municipalities to implement interventions that support youngsters’ activities and positive experiences to enhance well-being and alleviate feelings of loneliness in young adults. Specific recommendations regarding the built environment are (1) to create spaces that are accessible, (2) create spaces that are especially accessible by foot, and (3) provide housing with shared facilities for young adults rather than apartments/studios.
LINK
Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used.
MULTIFILE
The aim of this study is to determine the contribution of student interventions to urban greening processes. In two Dutch cities action research was conducted, including reflexive interviews a year after the first intervention, to assess factors causing change in the socio-ecological system. Results show that students and network actors were mutually learning, causing the empowerment of actors in that network by adding contextualized knowledge, enlarging the social network, expanding the amount of interactions in the socio-ecological system and speeding up the process. Students brought unique qualities to the process: time, access to stakeholders who tend to distrust the municipality and a certain open-mindedness. Their mere presence made a difference and started a process of change. However, university staff needed to keep the focus on long-term effects and empowerment, because students did not oversee that. After a year, many new green elements had been developed or were in the planning phase. In Enschede, the municipality districtmanagers were part of the learning network, which made it easier to cause changes in the main ecological network. In Haarlem however, no change took place in the main ecological network managed by the municipality, because no political empowerment of the civil society group had developed yet.
MULTIFILE
