Can We Build Walkable Environments to Support Social Capital? Towards a Spatial Understanding of Social Capital; a Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is a literature review. I assess the method as correct. The literature was compiled in a comprehensive and systematic manner, and the results of the literature review were presented in a legible manner. I have the impression that the journal databases recognized in the scientific community were used - because the literature review collected publications from major journals and publishing houses. In my opinion, the study is of a scientific nature and may be published in MDPI Sustainability.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the article is an interesting read with proper citations and good flow. It is also important to note that social capital and walkability are influenced by the cultural, micro climate and the geographical locations of cities, which I am in a strong opinion that this should be included in the discussion and if these are the gaps, then they should be included in the recommendation for future research. The limitations of the scoping exercise can be further elaborated. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Glanz (9), mentioned that a neighbourhood that promotes walkability improves 51 health conditions and increases the number of social interactions between residents.

Glanz TA. Walkability , Social Interaction , and Neighborhood Design. Design [Internet]. 2011 May 1 [cited 2021 Aug 19]; Available 524 from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_crp_theses/6

While research does reveal neighbourhoods characterized as pedestrian friendly environments support a greater sense of community (insert citation) and social capital (insert citations) among their residents, it fails to examine the act of walking as an explicit contributor to generating these social outcomes.  

Evidence suggests physical characteristics that promote walkability not surprisingly improve the likelihood of social interactions among neighbours (Kim & Kaplan).

Kim J, Kaplan R. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. 556 Environment and Behavior. 2004;36(3):313–40.

For Giles-Corti et al. (24), walking emerges as a multidimensional behavioural category that involves different aspects of urban practices and dimensions. They have de-150 scribed three dimensions: 1) a utilitarian dimension (where walking is a necessary activity); 2) a leisure dimension (where walking is an optional and recreational activity) and, 3) a social dimension (where walking is a vector of contact and interaction between indi-153 viduals).

Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora T. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: Increased specificity for eco-560 logical models [Internet]. Vol. 33, Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. Exerc Sport Sci Rev; 2005 [cited 2021 Mar 25]. p. 175–81. 561 Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16239834/

Zuniga-Teran et al., among others, identify dimensions of walkable spaces, including the presence of spaces that facilitate social interactions, and spaces that promote community participation.

Zuniga-Teran AA, Orr BJ, Gimblett RH, Chalfoun N V., Marsh SE, Guertin DP, et al. Designing healthy communities: Testing the 565 walkability model. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2017 Mar 1;6(1):63–73.

Mental health represents another area of research that has grown recently (see Li et al).   

Kim and Yang (35), analysed the relationship 232 between the experience of walking for various purposes and individual perceptions of SC 233 through surveys. The results showed that there are relationships between leisure walks 234 and levels of neighbourhood trust and the creation of social networks.

Kim H, Yang S. Neighborhood walking and social capital: The correlation between walking experience and individual perception of 588 social capital. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2017;9(5).

For their part, French et al. (52), find a negative correlation between residential den-295 sity and the sense of community. They attribute this to the fact that a neighbourhood 296 where land uses attract more "strangers" can detract from the sense of community, since 297 it is difficult for residents to distinguish who belongs to the neighbourhood from who 298 does not. Therefore, although the built environment may not directly affect the sense of 299 community, it can influence the perceptions of residents, which in turn affects the sense 300 of community.

French S, Wood L, Foster SA, Giles-Corti B, Frank L, Learnihan V. Sense of Community and Its Association With the Neighborhood 628 Built Environment. Environment and Behavior. 2014;46(6):677–97.

Overall, I welcome this scoping review and like the topic. I have a few suggestions for improvement, however. First, the author(s) note “other keywords that make up the concept of SC have been taken into account, such as: social interactions, sense of community and sociability.” They add, ‘”Whilst these concepts are not the definition of SC, without them there is no SC.” This statement warrants further elaboration and justification. While I agree with the general premise, I think the lack of expansion and explanation leaves a hole in reader understanding. Please expand and explain.

Second, though the acronym for social capital, SC, is identified in the abstract, the full word should appear the first time social capital is mentioned in the main text before it is used. Also, the author(s) keep referring to “the SC.” Is “the” necessary?

Third, I think there are some issues that warrant, if anything, recognition when defining social capital. More specifically, please acknowledge that Putnum’s definition has been criticized for listing “trust” and “norms” (forms of social capital) along with “networks” (one source of social capital) in his definition. Confusing social capital with its sources is far too commonplace and ought to be addressed. Also, the inclusion of “for the mutual benefit of people” in the Putman definition implies incorrectly that social capital is used for good only. There is a widespread recognition that social capital is often leveraged for darker purposes, too.

Fourth, the author(s) must make clear that the evidence reported about the association between features of the built environment that make a neighbourhood more walkable and social capital show a correlation between the two, but not causation. Moreover, the authors ought to reiterate what Field (2003) noted; that we can build the conditions for social capital to form, but doing so does not guarantee its formation. In other words, no matter what we do, we can’t force people to forge meaningful relationships.

Fifth, it’s worth mentioning, given the research reported, that surprisingly few, if any, studies examine the act of walking and its connection to the development of social capital. This point warrants recognition in the text. And it may require a title change insofar as the existing title gives the impression that the review is focused on social capital formed through walking behaviour. Instead, I would argue, the article is about how our walkable environments facilitate social capital development, something very different from asking the question, “Can we build social capital as we walk?” More like, “Can we build walkable environments to support social capital?”

Sixth, in their recommendations, the authors focus on developing objective measurements to examine this topic, but in doing they ignore the potential contributions of qualitative research to this area of study. I think this omission is unfortunate, given the potential contributions qualitative research could contribute.

I hope these comments help improve the current draft. Good luck with your revisions!

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have appropriately addressed the comments made. Proof read required.