Abstract
This paper investigates how the availability of services and amenities influences levels of community cohesion in rural England. Specifically, we measure levels of community cohesion in selected rural parishes between two points of time (2000 and 2010) using an index of indicators based on the presence or absence of retailers and amenities. Results of this analysis provide empirical evidence that the presence of facilities and services has a considerable impact on residents in rural areas, suggesting a significant relationship between the presence of small retailers and social engagement in the English countryside. We discuss these findings with regard to policies and initiatives that could enhance the positive impact that services and amenities operating within villages and rural hamlets have on local communities.
Introduction
In 2016, the population of England was 55.3 million (ONS, 2016). Of these, 9.4 million, about one in six people, lived in rural areas, with about half a million people living in sparse settings. A higher proportion of the elderly population lived in rural areas, with more than half of residents aged 45 and above, compared with around 40% in urban areas. In most isolated villages and hamlets in a sparse setting, 1 the proportion of residents aged 45 and above was approximately 60% (DEFRA, 2018). While levels of employment in England were generally higher in rural compared to urban areas, one in five living in rural sparse settings was economic inactive (DEFRA, 2018).
According to Local Government Association (2017), ‘changing population patterns, including outward migration of young people and inward migration of older people, are leading to a rural population that is increasingly older than the urban population’ (7). These changes seem to have had an effect on employment structure: since the financial crisis in 2008, the percentage of home workers in rural hamlets and dispersed areas increased significantly compared to those located in urban areas, at 34% compared with 13%, respectively (DEFRA, 2018). Home workers are more likely to be working in higher skilled roles and earn on average a higher hourly wage; however, this will vary across rural area (DEFRA, 2018).
These figures provide an overview of many peripheral and remote communities located in the English countryside. On the one hand, these communities are characterised by an ageing resident population (Local Government Association, 2017; ONS, 2016). On the other hand, the same communities have seen a growing influx of new residents mostly skilled and higher educated in the past recent years, as reported by the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC, 2010; see also DEFRA, 2018). In such context, the availability of small retailers and amenities becomes an important factor to consider in light of residential living, not only with regard to the provision of services and facilities at a local level, but also in relation to community cohesion and wellbeing.
The majority of English rural parishes and villages in the early to mid-20th century housed a number of different services such as primary schools, blacksmiths, butchers, bakeries, post offices, shops, pubs and garages, with some also accommodating GP practices, undertakers and banks (Buckton, 2005). Although many rural parishes and villages today still retain one or two of these services, there has been a sharp decline in the numbers of small retailers starting from the 1980s, as documented by many academic papers (Booth and Hough, 2014; Clarke and Wollett, 1990; Higgs and Langford, 2013; Moseley, 2000; Wilson, 2017) and policy reports (CRC, 2007a, 2007b; Department of Communities and Local Government, 2008; Rural Development Commission, 1994; Rural Service Network, 2010).
Generally, services and small retailers serving rural villages and other dispersed hamlets, or ‘village services’ (Clarke and Wollett, 1990; Moseley, 2000), are valued by individuals and local residents as incubators for wider relationships and activities, either formal or informal, outside of their private domains and workplaces (Cabras and Bosworth, 2014). In this context, village services are perceived as institutions which offer a physical space for entire communities to come together (Crisp, 2013; Urry, 2001) and serve as ‘third places’, thus social surroundings alternative to other social environments such as homes and workplaces, identified as ‘first places’ and ‘second places’, respectively (Oldenburg, 1989, 2001). Third places provide ideal settings for the origination and definition of societal orders, and delineate frameworks and boundaries for individuals and groups (Mount and Cabras, 2015; Watson and Watson, 2012).
Frequently, village services help to accumulate and shape social capital within the communities they serve, with social capital being the degree of social interaction, cohesiveness and networking (Putman, 2000). In this respect, higher levels of social capital can help to facilitate the flow of knowledge and information, which lead to positive impacts on community togetherness and engagement (Granovetter, 1985). Relationships between community members define the network dimension of social capital and can bring a range of positive externalities in terms of facilitating dialogues between and within groups, fostering cohesion and exchange of ideas (Malecki, 2012), increasing local knowledge (Storper, 1995) and mutual support (Cabras, 2011).
Likewise, the presence of services and amenities is positively associated with higher levels of community cohesion registered in rural parishes and villages (Cabras and Reggiani, 2010; Mount and Cabras, 2015), with community cohesion defined as the level of understanding and closeness that enables different groups of people living in a given residential area to get on well together (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2008). The higher the level of community cohesion, the higher the probability for residents to congregate and join together with regard to different types of initiatives, such as starting charitable campaigns or volunteering activities, promoting sport teams and ventures, and developing business opportunities (Cabras and Bosworth, 2014; Mount and Cabras, 2015).
While a number of media reports and press releases across England and the UK appear to support the idea that most served villages have more cohesive communities (e.g. BBC News, 2010; Collison, 2016; Ross, 2013; Todman, 2018), there is a paucity of empirical research about the impact of the decline of services on community cohesion and social wellbeing in peripheral and remote areas. How can this impact be measured? And, more generally, how the presence of facilities and the availability of services affect rural communities in England?
These questions inform the study presented in our paper, which aims to explore and examine the effects of the decline of services and facilities in the English countryside. We develop our investigation by using a dataset comprising information about facilities and services available in a sample of 284 rural parishes, and testing an index to examine levels of community cohesion at a local level. Data were gathered in two defined time points between 2000 and 2010, allowing for an analysis of the changes occurred in the sample.
The paper comprises of five sections, including this introduction. Section Two illustrates the theoretical background of the study. Section Three describes data used and methodology, and presents results gathered from the analysis. Section Four discusses findings in relation to possible policies and actions aimed at preserving the availability of services and facilities within rural areas. Section Five concludes.
The decline of services and retailers within rural communities in England
The reasons for the decline in number of village services across England are not always clear. From the literature, we can identify some generic causes that can be applied to the majority of rural retailers, such as are the rise of supermarket chains (Cabras, 2011; CRC, 2007a) or spatial redistribution of postal and banking services into larger town (CRC, 2007b; Wilson, 2017), as well some more individualistic reasons pertaining to changes in lifestyle, such as a sharp rise in personal mobility, and an increasing accessibility to the internet and online services (Wilson, 2017). The combination of these factors has meant that many consumers have been able to purchase all their groceries at one destination or have them delivered to their door at a relatively low price. Many traditional village services like the grocery store, the pub or the bakery have often struggled to compete with prices and offers of the large supermarket chains. Nearly all village services have had to contend with these changes, with some even contending with additional factors. The village pub, for example, endured changes in government legislation and policies, alongside changes in the behaviour of both landlords and consumers (Pratten, 2007). Similarly, the village blacksmith has had to adapt in light of technological advances and the changing methods of farming (Buckton, 2005). As a result, general survival rates of many services in rural areas decreased dramatically in the past 50 years (Wilson, 2017).
The decline of rural services has been observed also in the presence of significant levels of ‘counterurbanisation’, thus increasing levels of migration from urban to rural areas since the 1990s (see Champion and Sheppard, 2006; Bosworth, 2010). On the one hand, counterurbanisation saw higher number of new rural residents in retirement and preretirement ages and, on the other hand, young families with children accompanying their parents (Champion and Sheppard, 2006). As a result, rural in-migration became associated with an ageing rural population and the potential stagnation of rural areas, despite increases in non-traditional rural enterprises (Bosworth and Venhorst, 2018). Equally, the reduced size of local labour markets and the dependence on commuting for higher salaried employment add to disparities between those who drive or not, and between ‘ex-urbanites’ and local rural workers (Bosworth and Venhorst, 2018).
Little research so far has examined what the reduction in the number of services and amenities actually means for rural communities, particularly in terms of social capital community cohesion. Typically, rural research has tended to look in-depth at the importance of one particular service, rather than encompassing village services per se. The central issue arising from this is that, while the importance in the village of some services has been highlighted (e.g. see the extensive work of Cabras 2 on village pubs), the importance of others such as community halls and grocery stores remains somehow neglected. The village store, for example, as a stand-alone enterprise has often been accredited as having a wide-ranging importance for rural communities (Associations of Convenience Stores, 2017; Bensley, 2010; CRC, 2007a; Rural Shops Alliance, 2015). Yet it has not featured heavily in rural research. Consequently, ambiguity exists in relation to where its importance lies and how its decline in number is affecting villages and their communities.
Previous studies addressing rural and village services mainly focused on exploring their economic importance and impact at a local level. For example, small village retailers appear to be important generators of part-time and casual employment (Rural Shops Alliance, 2015), and pubs and bars provide about 119,000 jobs in rural areas of England and Wales (ONS, 2018). This not only highlights the importance of village services as sources of employment, but also rises the – to date – unanswered question of how the closure affects employees, their families and their local community. As stated by Campaign for Protect Rural England (CPRE, 2006:1): ‘the loss of local services… creates an economic cycle where there is no longer the critical mass of local provision necessary to make up a vibrant local economy’. Hence, the closure of village services can have a profound negative effect on the viability of other local services. For instance, small rural businesses frequently make use of local post offices: when these close, those businesses have to travel further afield or to relocate to another area (CPRE, 2006).
The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent austerity measures had a significant impact on the economy of rural communities, frequently resulting in a progressive redistribution of resources and services from peripheral and spatially remote areas to larger towns and urban centres (Shaw and Robinson, 2012). However, in recent years, legislation in the UK has increasingly granted protection to local services and at helping residents protect their community assets. The ‘Big Society’ manifesto, launched by the Conservative Party and promoted under the Coalition Government (2010–2015), aimed at supporting policies and initiatives to devolve powers to communities, establishing a greater role in public services for voluntary and community organisations (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2012). A key principle of the Big Society agenda was the transfer of power from central to local government, with the intent to increase community empowerment, thus entailing engagement within local communities through higher participation in decision-making processes (Lawson and Kearns, 2014), and providing them with instruments to gain control of local assets (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2012; Rolfe, 2016).
Based on these premises, the Localism Act, introduced by Parliament in 2011, increases the level of control for local authorities and parish councils on matters that arise within local communities, including decisions related to community assets and services. In particular, community groups are given priority with regard to services and assets of community value (ACV), such as pubs, village shops, libraries and post offices: community groups can indicate these places to local authorities; the latter are then required to insert them on a protected list. When listed assets come up for sale or change of ownership, community groups are given enough time to raise funds to bid and buy the asset when it comes on the open market (Parliament, 2011).
Throughout rural England there are examples where local communities have taken the opportunity to buy or lease community assets such as village pubs and stores (see, for instance Cabras, 2011; Mayo and Ross, 2009). In the majority of these instances, communities have benefited from funds sourced by organisations such as Pub is the Hub, Rural Shops Alliance and the Plunkett Foundation. It can be argued that the input generated from these sources contributes significantly to the short- and long-term viability of village services, as these organisations are able to help communities in different ways, e.g. mobilising financial and logistic resources, providing expert advice and consultancy on planning and building regulations, etc. (Cabras, 2011).
However, while the support made available by from organisations and the measures provided by the Localism Act may help villagers to rescue more third places from unnecessary closure, rural communities remain diverse and receptive to both the local and the national political and economic climate. As highlighted by Skerratt and Steiner (2012), the wider literature about community empowerment takes insufficient account of the complexities of community processes, particularly amongst those who do not engage – either through choice or through exclusion (…) there are opportunities to engage in community activities [for villagers and local residents], but that lack of time and previous negative experiences are barriers to development and reasons for failure of initiatives. (333)
While there is a rationale given as to why service decline has or is taking place, there is little to no investigation as to how the service withdrawal, reduction or closure has or will impact rural communities (Cabras and Bosworth, 2014; Markham and Bosworth, 2016). The social importance pertaining to village services, in view of their role as third places in fostering and facilitates relationships across different groups of residents within local communities, seems significant. However, divisions among different groups within the same community may frequently occur, even in the smallest ones, with members of a given group keen to exclude and/or impose their will on non-members (Besser, 2009; Lawson and Kearns, 2014). For instance, rural residents may have different perceptions of places such as pubs, where personal social networks can be impeded as well as be made and cemented. However, village pubs and the activities within those spaces could serve to both include and marginalise particular groups (Hunt, 1991; Hunt and Satterlee, 1986a; Leyshon, 2005). Likewise, village services such as shops and libraries offer goods and services that certain categories of residents, such as older people or those with poor transport provision, rely on for a number of daily activities. In doing so, such services not only supply physical provisions that some residents may need, but also work as a means by which they are able to interact with others in the same community. In other words, going to the local store to buy basic grocery provisions represents the only interaction some residents can have with other people, promoting cohesion among community members, and influencing the quality of their health and wellbeing.
In light of these considerations, services and facilities in rural areas might have become even more important for the English countryside and for rural economies and society in general, also in relation to regeneration policies and strategies (Lawless, 2011).
Methodology and data analysis
We propose the following research questions: How do the presence of facilities and the availability of services affect rural communities in England? Specifically, how does the decline of village services affect levels of community cohesion in rural areas? And does this decline have the same impact everywhere, or it is different across different communities and/or areas?
To develop our study, we used information extracted from the Survey of Rural Services conducted by Countryside Agency (2003) and from seven local authorities and organisations (Cambridgeshire County Council, Wiltshire County Council, Community Impact Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire Actions with Communities in Rural England (ACRE), Suffolk ACRE, the Rural Community Council of Essex and the Rural Community Council of Leicestershire and Rutland). Data were collected between 2000 and 2010. 3 Figure 1 illustrates the location of parishes within their respective local authorities.
Map of rural parishes identified for this study.
Based upon these data, we compiled a dataset with the aim to examine the impact of services and amenities on level of community cohesion and wellbeing in rural communities. The dataset included information specifically related to rural parishes in the local authorities, identified by using the definition proposed by Cabras and Reggiani (2010) as parishes ‘with no more than 3,000 inhabitants, situated at least 5 miles (or 10 minutes’ drive) from towns or larger parishes counting 5,000 inhabitants or more’ (949). Following this definition, we identified 284 rural parishes for which information was available within the 10 years’ span considered.
The level of observed community cohesion for a given area is argued to be function of a variety of inputs such as common values and culture, social networks and place attachment (Kearns and Forrest, 2000). Building on these factors, we tested the index measure of community cohesion (COMCOH) created by Cabras and Mount (2017) to conduct their analysis. Cabras and Mount (2017) used their index to investigate the relationship between pubs and levels of community cohesion in rural areas, neglecting the relationship between community cohesion and any other service or amenity locally available. The COMCOH index represents a proxy to measure the level of activities and engagement among residents in a given community, providing a value estimation of community cohesion.
The index used for this study comprises 21 binary categorical variables across four main components: leisure activities (LEI) – variables relating to a community’s access to social clubs and recreational activities; communication (COM) – variables relating to the spread of information within the community; food facilities (FF) – variables relating to a community’s access to local food facilities; volunteering (VOL) – variables relating to community-based voluntary activities. Table 1 provides the variable breakdown of these components, which were used to categorise variables in the dataset.
Index components and variables.
Note: All variables used to calculate the COMCOH are binary and provided in alphabetical order; sport matches classified as taking place on regular basis if frequency is above or equal to two matches per month, music/art events at least once a month.
Source: The National Archives; Cambridgeshire County Council, Wiltshire County Council, Community Impact Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire ACRE, Suffolk ACRE, the Rural Community Council of Essex and the Rural Community Council of Leicestershire and Rutland.
Using the COMCOH index, we seek to extend the analysis conducted by Cabras and Mount by examining the impact of different services and facilities on levels of community cohesion in rural parishes of England. More specifically, the focus is on the presence or absence in the parish of five types of services and retailers: community halls, village shops, libraries, post offices and pubs. This choice is dictated by the data available for the selected parishes within the period of examination, since information available for other types of services and facilities (e.g. GPs and local surgeries, bank branches, schools, etc.) resulted severely incomplete between the two time points considered.
Table 2 displays summary statistics of variables between the two periods considered, including changes in counts measured with differences. The COMCOH index shows a slight average increase (1.01) between 2000 and 2010, similar to almost all the demographic variables except for the number of residents classified as economically inactive, who registered a decrease (−55.43). Among services and facilities, average decreases can be observed for pubs (−1.03), village shop (−0.05) and community halls (−0.02). The slight increase in the average numbers of libraries and post offices might be explained with an increment of mobile library services supplied by local authorities and by the diffusion of post office services supplied by other retailers; it may not reflect an actual growth in the number of permanent libraries and post offices within selected parishes.
Descriptive statistics for values related to 2000, 2010 and differences between the two periods.
COMCOH: community cohesion.
aInformation about employment missing with regard to 13 parishes.
An ordinary least square (OLS) regression approach is adopted using a number of variables to estimate the impact of pubs on COMCOH index. The empirical model is specified as follows
In the function, population i,t is the population in parish i at time t; employed and unemployed refer to the number of employed/unemployed residents in the parish, respectively; and inactive indicates the number of residents either studying or retired. In addition, levels 1–4 indicate the level of qualifications held by residents in parishes based on categories used by the Official Labour Market Statistics (excluding other qualifications such as apprenticeships; see Appendix 1). The latter variable is used in the econometric analysis as a proxy for income as no information on salaries is available at parish level.
Table 3 shows the correlation matrix for all variables included in the model in 2000 and 2010. Most variables do not show any significant correlation, although some (e.g. number of employed residents and residents holding levels of qualification 1–4) are highly correlated. Although strong correlations may suggest excluding this group of variables from the regression analysis to avoid issues related to multicollinearity, we decided to include them to verify the severity of these potential issues. As shown from regression outputs, adding or deleting variables defining number of employed residents and residents holding levels of qualification does not change regression coefficients dramatically.
Correlations*.
COMCOH: community cohesion.
*No significant coefficients (p-value > 0.01) marked in grey.
Results from the OLS regression analysis explicated by equation (1) are shown in Table 4. Two sets of four models each are developed by elaborating on observations collected in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Models developed on 2000 data indicate that community halls and pubs have a large positive impact on COMCOH index among services. Model 3.1, which shows the largest R-square value among the four models, also indicates a positive impact associated with higher numbers of inactive residents.
OLS regression models – 2000 and 2010 (dependent variable: COMCOH).
COMCOH: community cohesion; OLS: ordinary least square.
Robust standard errors in brackets ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
No qualification used as benchmark category.
Results for the year 2010 confirm the positive impact of community halls and pubs on the COMCOH index, although coefficients related to pubs almost doubled compared to 2000 values, and coefficients to community halls reduced of about a third compared to previous time. Interestingly, Model 3.2 and Model 4.2 report libraries and post offices showing statistically significant coefficients, although again these might be related to the growth of mobile library and off-premise post office services within the parish considered.
Table 5 shows results of the regression analysis addressing differential changes calculated between 2000 and 2010 values. Among attribute variables, it seems that positive changes in COMCOH index in the period considered are related to decline in both population and unemployment, and to an increase in the proportion of inactive residents within the parishes considered – possibly related to an increased number of retired residents. No significant effect on the COMCOH index seems associated with any variation in education measured by the four levels of qualification.
OLS regression – change between 2000 and 2010 (dependent variable: COMCOH).
COMCOH: community cohesion; OLS: ordinary least square.
Robust standard errors in brackets ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
The saturated model shows an R-square nearly doubled compared to the baseline model, indicating a better fit of this model with regard to explaining variations in the COMCOH index. Variance inflation factors, which assess how much the variance of an estimated regression coefficient increases if predictors are correlated, are close to 1 for the key variables investigated, confirming multicollinearity not representing a potential issue for the model.
Results in Table 6 identify the impact of local facilities and services on the COMCOH by controlling for population size, using a thousand residents as threshold for grouping parishes. In 2000, services such as shops, libraries and pubs all had a significant and positive impact on levels of community cohesions measured among smaller parishes; while post offices appear to have the strongest impact on levels of community cohesions measured in largest parishes (together with pubs and, to a lower extent, community halls). In 2010, the positive effect of library and pubs is confirmed on community cohesion among smallest parishes, although the impact of library is nearly half compared to what measured 10 years earlier, while the importance of pubs grows. Post offices also acquire relevance in relation to assessing community cohesion, while unexpectedly the unemployment coefficient shows a significant positive sign in the model. For largest parishes, pubs appear to be the only essential service with a positive impact.
OLS regression controlling for parish population size (dependent variable: COMCOH).
COMCOH: community cohesion; OLS: ordinary least square.
Robust standard errors in parentheses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Finally, results reported in Table 7 show the impact of local facilities and services on the COMCOH by controlling for levels of education, using percentage of residents holding level 4 qualifications as threshold to select groups. In 2000, the presence of pubs, shops and community halls has a positive impact on shaping levels of community cohesion, but this positive impact is maintained (although reduced) only by pubs and community halls when examining larger parishes. Regressions run for observed parishes in 2010 confirm the significant, positive impact of pubs on the COMCOH in both smaller and larger parishes. However, while libraries show a strong positive impact on smaller parishes, post offices appear to be significant with regard to assessing community cohesion in larger parishes.
OLS regression controlling for levels of education (dependent variable: COMCOH).
COMCOH: community cohesion; OLS: ordinary least square.
Robust standard errors in parentheses ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Discussion
The analysis conducted in the previous section and the findings generated provide more clarity to the functional relationship between small retailers and levels of community cohesion in rural areas of England. Overall, results identify the positive impact of some of them on the community cohesion index, which provides a proxy of the level of social engagement and involvement among residents living in the English countryside.
The regression analysis developed using data collected between 2000 and 2010 shows a strong, statistically significant impact of pubs and (to a lesser extent) post office services on the level of community cohesion, measured by the COMCOH index, and sustained over time. Considering variation in time, results indicate that the magnitude of impact of pubs has increased over the last decade. This demonstrates an increased criticality of pubs for sustaining rural life and wellbeing in the area in terms of community cohesion, corroborating evidence in literature (Cabras, 2011; Cabras and Mount, 2017; Pratten, 2007) and confirming the significance of pubs as third places in rural and remote areas of England.
Among other services and amenities, community halls seem to have lost their importance as third places with regard to community cohesion: they were significant in 2000 particularly in smaller parishes and regardless the levels of qualification of residents, but they did not show any significant impact on the COMCOH in 2010. However, findings from the models indicate that other facilities may have replaced halls. For instance, in less affluent parishes, the presence of libraries is found to be highly significant in relation to the measured index, while the presence of post offices is found to be significant in more affluent parishes. It is possible that libraries could provide essential facilities to residents that may not be able either to afford them, or master them (mostly in case of elderly residents), such as internet connection and access to online services. Libraries would then provide a better platform for socialisation and social relationships for these segments of residents. Conversely, wealthier and affluent residents may regard the presence of a post office as more important, due to its role and effects (in terms of services provided) on business and entrepreneurial activities.
There are likely to be many varied reasons as to why places such small retailers and amenities in sampled parishes might generate a positive impact on levels of community cohesion. It can be argued, for instance, that village pubs provide a physical space where social networks can be developed and strengthened (Hunt and Satterlee, 1986b; Kingsnorth, 2008). Similarly, rural post offices and shops frequently act as social spaces whereby individual and community networks can be created, expanded and strengthened (CRC, 2007b).
Although some rural services can help to facilitate social networks and therefore could be described as being a social hub, there are also aspects that may limit their positive impact within rural communities. For example, rural pubs have been traditionally a ‘male’ dominated space in which women have typically been ‘excluded’ (Leyshon, 2005), and these establishments may in some cases operate in a manner which excludes those who do not hold shared ‘group’ values or adhere to common practices (Hunt and Satterlee, 1986b). Thus, while rural services can act as a social hub and in doing so aid community cohesion, it must be acknowledged that they can also marginalise some groups of the rural population (Besser, 2009; Leyshon, 2008).
The changes in the COMCOH index in the period considered show higher levels of community cohesion among those shrinking communities that experienced a decline in unemployment and an increase in the number of higher educated residents, these two variables used as proxies of wealth in the analysis. This finding is important in view of the fact that the number of people relocating from urban areas to the countryside has constantly increased in recent years (CRC, 2010; DEFRA, 2018; ONS, 2016), although most rural villages and hamlets in sparse settings showed a slight decline (0.2%) in population between 2011 and 2016 (DEFRA, 2018). While these figures reveal a renewed interest for living in rural areas, the declining number of services appears to mismatch an increased demand generated by a rising population (Cabras and Mount, 2017), with possible negative effects on local firms and enterprises that depend on those services for their business (Champion and Brown, 2012). Thus, to ensure that the quality of life of rural residents is maintained, there is a distinct need to promote factors associated with community cohesion and social integration (Atterton, 2007).
This statement seems particularly relevant in relation to smaller parishes, frequently characterised by a high proportion of ageing population and by lower availability of facilities and services. As shown by our study, since third places operating in smaller communities appear to generate a more significant impact on the index of community cohesion compared to larger parishes, the disappearance of local services and facilities for smaller communities would represent a far higher loss in terms of community wellbeing. In particular, findings show that community halls are less important compared to other services in view of increasing community cohesion, and that private enterprises are becoming more important with regard to rural community wellbeing. As the presence of services results in higher level of community cohesion in rural areas, this could lead to services being better used and thus more profitable.
If services in rural areas are to survive, however, then there needs to be motivation, commitment and determination from a number of different stakeholders including the Government, local authorities and policymakers. As highlighted by Curry (2012), opportunities need to be developed though both spatial planning and economic development polices in order to achieve sustainable development in rural areas, and greater attention ‘should be paid to mental health and to economic systems that maximize social or community wellbeing (…) making the most of local assets’ (100). More collaboration among public sector bodies and organisations can result in improved services at a local level (Elliott et al., 2018).
Rural communities can also play an important role. On the one hand, the decline of local services might represent an opportunity for more community participation. The instruments provided by the Localism Act are significant in view of preserving ACV and rescuing them from closure, and could represent an incentive for residents to get involved within common indicatives and act together. However, on the other hand, the lack of community cohesion might represent a challenge for community engagement and involvement. For instance, many rural communities might not have any knowledge or expertise with regard to starting processes and procedures to preserve their ACV. Frequently, no guidance is available especially at a local level, and residents may struggle to act and make decisions regarding how to set up and sustain their community assets. In addition, there may be power relations at a local level which may affect development initiatives, having implications for projects and initiatives within communities (Elliott et al., 2018; Skerrat and Steiner, 2012).
In light of these considerations, our study can provide an opportunity for policymakers and local administrators to evaluate current policies and actions in order to better support the development and maintenance of spatially remote communities. For instance, given the positive impact of pubs on community cohesion, specific policies should be designed in support of these businesses within rural areas. Although the Localism Act provides local communities and groups of residents with means to protect their pubs as ACV, most recent figures provided by the ONS (2018) show a fall in the number of rural pubs between 2012 and 2017, registering a 10% decrease (14% in most rural villages and sparse settings), a steeper decline compared to urban pubs (8%).
The Neighbourhood Planning Act, passed by Parliament in 2017, changes the rules related to planning permission needed to demolish a drinking establishment, or a drinking establishment with expanded food provision. The previous requirement for local planning authorities to verify whether the drinking establishment was nominated as an ACV is no longer relevant (Parliament, 2017). This measure may be more effective in terms of preserving rural pubs and their positive impact: even if our analysis does not clarify about a cause–effect relationship, there appears to be some circular causation with cohesion supporting these businesses that in turn strengthen cohesion at a local level, bringing multiple benefits for both residents and entrepreneurs.
Conclusions
The study we presented in this paper investigated the effects of the decline of services and facilities in the English countryside. Focusing on data and information provided for 284 rural parishes in England between 2000 and 2010, we analysed the impact of changes in the number of services and amenities available at a local level on the COMCOH index created by Cabras and Mount (2017). Results corroborate and expand previous findings from Cabras and Mount, confirming the importance of pubs in relation to community cohesion in rural areas of England. In addition, results indicate that some services such as libraries and post offices have a larger impact on community cohesion compared to others, this impact being evaluated by controlling for time, size and levels of education (used as a proxy for income) of resident population in the sample of parishes analysed.
The econometric models developed in our analysis do not identify a clear causality function or effect among variables analysed, although a strong level of association between the COMCOH index and a number of independent variables is proved and maintained in time. We recognise that a potential issue related to endogeneity in the models may arise from establishing the direction of causality between the presence of services and levels of community cohesion. In particular, relationships explored in the models might be affected by some unobserved variables possibly correlated to dependent and independent variables. However, it was not the purpose of this study to explore a cause–effect relationship, but rather to examine and verify that a high degree of association exists between the availability of services and levels of community cohesion reported in rural England.
The analysis offered in this paper responds to calls from scholars for more research on this particular theme in the field of rural studies (Bosworth, 2010, Cabras and Mount, 2017; Mount and Cabras, 2015), and provides more evidence to understand the effects of the presence of services in rural areas and their impact on local communities in time, compared to a cross sectional analysis. However, given the challenges in obtaining data relating to services and amenities available at a parish level (also due to the reduction in financial support from Government and local authorities for this type of research, e.g. the disbandment of the Countryside Agency in 2009 is an example), a broader longitudinal study of services and amenities available in rural areas of England might prove to be a very complex task.
While we recognise the importance of quantifying and measuring how services facilitate and promote community cohesion in rural England, we also foresee the need for further research in the field. In particular, expanding qualitative research on this theme (for instance, using focus groups and interviews with local residents) could increase and further reinforce the existing knowledge about this important theme, deepening the general understanding of multiple issues associated with communal living. This would provide practitioners and policymakers with updated and valuable instruments to design, develop and deliver policies aimed at increasing the quality of life and wellbeing for residents in peripheral and remote areas.
Footnotes
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.