HIPOTESIS SOBRE LA INSTAURACIÓN DE LA FATIGA DE CORTA Y LARGA DURACIÓN

This section provides an understanding to the different perspectives on a community and anticipated challenges and opportunities that may arise if they aim to be cohesive and integrative with its social structure, its cultural values and the way it governs itself in creating the sense of community.

The term community cohesion can be considered as a common term used by those who tend to see the big picture on how it has been applied into a multicultural society (Roseland and Connelly, 2005). Community cohesion has been defined as a glue working towards a society in which there is a common vision and sense of belonging by all communities; a society in which the diversity of people‟s backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and valued; a society in which similar life opportunities are available to all; and a society in which strong and „positive relationships‟ exist and continue to be developed in the workplace, in schools

and in the wider community (Berns et al., 2010)

In other words, community cohesion ensures different groups of people who live in one place that are willing to share a common vision and sense of belonging, even when similar life opportunities are not necessarily available to all. The objectives for community cohesion have never really stopped, therefore, the expectation and efforts have always been high for some communities. (Demireva and McNeil, 2010). The same idea of promoting community cohesion in sustainable community agendas have to be continued. The need to bring new opportunities that ensure people‘s cohesiveness to remain positive in the future will still become a challenge that needs to be considered (Gruder et al., 2007). The best alternative

26

solution in related work with promoting community cohesion towards sustainable communities was during the nation‘s economic slowdown period and lack of provisions to build new buildings and community infrastructure. Thus, it will be the critical time to make use of the community facilities available, and this has to be one of the key aspects (McShane, 2006a).

Community cohesion is also being recognised as an outcome of effective community engagement and empowerment (Blake et al., 2008). A healthy society is therefore dependent on the nature and quality of relationships that exist within and between communities. The term ‗social capital‘ has always been used to describe the impact of such relationships. Social capital is a key characteristic of all communities and has recently been defined as a crucial characteristic of a healthy civic society (Putnam, 2000). Putnam (2000) has defined different forms of social capital dependent on its purposes which are as follows:

1) By keeping the bond, social capital has to be crucial to relationships within a particular

group and helps people to ‗get by‘ in life.

2) Bridging social capital secures the relationships between groups with different interests and views by helping people to move on in life.

3) Social capital linked with the connections of people who have different levels of power and to help them mixing and be around in the communities.

However, Carroll (2001) states that not all outcomes of social capital have to be desirable, and what makes a healthy community is not just the quantity of social capital. High bonding social capital can lead to social exclusion of outsiders, resulting in exclusivity and tension between different community groups (EPA, 2002). The distribution of different forms of social capital has to be related to the degree of cohesion within a locality (Putnam, 2000, Long and Hutchins, 2003). In addition, the presence of social capital does not always mean that it has to

be equally accessible to all members of the community (Barth, 1995). (Poplin, 1979)

Nowadays within one of the Sustainable Communities‘ strategies and frameworks, housing development sectors have been urged to play a major role in transforming the perception of communities to be inclusive and restrictive of some members of a minority group into something more nuanced and the communities can be placed and with greater value on cohesion (Kelly, 2005, Barnard and Turner, 2011). The United Kingdom‘s Government has come to realise that cohesion empowers local people and it helps to sustain good

27

neighbourhoods (DCLG, 2008). Figure 2.4 shows the community cohesion connections at a community-wide level.

The ongoing challenge for the issue of cohesion is to agree on its wide definition (Meegan and Mitchell, 2001). Meagan (2001) suggests that a cohesive community should be a place where people will have a shared vision; which is a central requirement of the definition. Moreover, there are some people with different backgrounds and cultures can be argued to have shared characteristics among some people which can be exclusive of others (Karn et al., 1999). Cohesion practitioners nowadays have to accept that what constitutes cohesion can differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood when time goes by and with the right definition of community cohesion (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

Community cohesion needs to be promoted by not just working on government policies, but also community programmes and areas with high populations of people from minority ethnic groups. It is also about taking full advantage of community facilities as resources available in the neighbourhood (McShane, 2006b). The United Kingdom‘s Local Government Commission viewed community cohesion as an ongoing process that must be valued by all kinds of multiracial communities and have to be ensured that different groups of people get on well together from time to time (DCLG, 2008).

Figure 2.4: Community Cohesion Connections at a Community-Wide Level Source: Peng, (2009)

28