Alone Together - HOLLY WALKER A RESEARCH PAPER BY - The Helen Clark Foundation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
VOLUME I
Alone
Together
The risks of loneliness in Aotearoa
New Zealand following Covid-19 and
how public policy can help
A RESEARCH PAPER BY
HOLLY WALKER
CONTENTS
3 ABOUT THE HELEN CLARK FOUNDATION
4 ABOUT THE POST-PANDEMIC FUTURES SERIES
4 ABOUT WSP NEW ZEALAND
5 ABOUT THIS PAPER – AUTHOR’S NOTE
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10 WHY LONELINESS MATTERS
14 LONELINESS BEFORE COVID-19
22 THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 AND
THE LEVEL 4 LOCKDOWN
26 SIX PLANKS OF AN EFFECTIVE PUBLIC
POLICY RESPONSE
30 PAPAKĀINGA HOUSING: A Q&A WITH
ARCHITECT JADE KAKE
Cover image:
Kate Trifo on Unsplash
This paper is covered by the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
International. When reproducing any
part of this report, including tables,
full attribution must be given to
the report author.
ABOUT THE
HELEN CLARK
FOUNDATION
The Helen Clark Foundation is an independent public policy think tank based
in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, at the Auckland University of Technology. It
is funded by members and donations. We advocate for ideas and encourage
debate, we do not campaign for political parties or candidates. Launched
in March 2019, the foundation issues research and discussion papers on a
broad range of economic, social and environmental issues.
Our philosophy Our purpose
New problems confront our The Foundation publishes research
society and our environment, both that aims to contribute to a more
in Aotearoa New Zealand and just, sustainable and peaceful
internationally. Unacceptable levels society. Our goal is to gather,
of inequality persist. Women’s interpret and communicate evidence
interests remain underrepresented. in order to both diagnose the
Through new technology we problems we face and propose new
are more connected than ever, solutions to tackle them.
yet loneliness is increasing, and
We welcome your support, please see
civic engagement is declining.
our website helenclark.foundation
Environmental neglect continues
for more information about getting
despite greater awareness. We aim
involved.
to address these issues in a manner
consistent with the values of former
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen
Clark, who serves as our patron.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 3
ABOUT THE
POST-PANDEMIC
FUTURES SERIES
The world has changed around us, and as we work to rebuild our society and
our economy we need a bold new direction for Aotearoa New Zealand. A
new direction that builds a truly resilient economy and a fair labour market.
A new direction that embraces environmental sustainability and provides for
a just transition. A new direction that nurtures an independent and vibrant
Kiwi cultural and media landscape. And a new direction that focuses on the
wellbeing of all in society.
To get there, we need to shine a light on new ideas, new policies, and new
ways of doing things. And we need vigorous and constructive debate. At the
Helen Clark Foundation, we will do what we can to contribute with our series
on Aotearoa New Zealand’s post-pandemic future. This is the first report in
a series which will discuss policy challenges facing New Zealand due to the
Covid-19 pandemic.
ABOUT WSP IN
NEW ZEALAND
As one of the world’s leading professional service firms, WSP provides
engineering, design and environmental services to clients in the Transport,
Property & Buildings, Water, Environment and Power sectors, as well as offering
project management and strategic advisory services. Our experts in Aotearoa
New Zealand include engineers, advisors, technicians, scientists, architects,
planners, surveyors and environmental specialists, as well as other design,
program and construction management professionals. With approximately
48,000 experts globally, including 1,900 in Aotearoa New Zealand located
across 40 regional offices, we are uniquely positioned to deliver future ready
solutions, wherever our clients need us. See our website at wsp.com/nz.
4 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 5
ABOUT THIS PAPER –
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This is the first paper in the Helen Clark Foundation’s Post-Pandemic Futures
Series, and also the first report produced as part of our partnership with
WSP New Zealand. Under the partnership, WSP sponsors me as a full-time
I am grateful to the following researcher with the Foundation to produce evidence-based reports and
people and organisations
insights to stimulate public debate and policy action. WSP also leverages
who assisted with this work:
its local and global experts across its extensive network to support the
Roy Lay-Yee of the COMPASS
Research Centre at the University of Foundation’s work.
Auckland for sharing an extensive
reading list and reviewing early As Deputy Director and WSP Fellow, I commenced my work in January with
drafts; Hannah Hawkins Elder
a project on urban road safety and sustainability and I was well underway
of the School of Psychology at
Victoria University of Wellington for with this when Aotearoa moved into Covid-19 Alert Level 4 in late March.
sharing insights about the typology
With urban roads temporarily quiet, WSP and the Foundation quickly agreed
of loneliness in New Zealand and
also reviewing early drafts; Dr Kate to put this work on hold and I turned my attention to loneliness – already a
Prickett of the Roy McKenzie Centre
topic we had marked out for future work, but now suddenly more pressing as
for the Study of Families and Children
at Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand and the world stared down the barrel of an unknown period of
for sharing early survey results and
enforced social isolation.
reviewing my interpretation of them;
Associate Professor Grant Duncan of
the School of People, Environment The initial result was two feature articles published on The Spinoff in April,
and Planning at Massey University for
one on the heightened risks of loneliness during the pandemic, and another
accepting a version of this research
for publication in Policy Quarterly in on how public policy can help.1,2 Following the publication of these articles I
August; Jade Kake for her valuable
extended my research and analysis and am now pleased to present the full
contribution on papakāinga housing;
Toby Manhire and The Spinoff for results of my investigation in this report.
publishing the first two articles;
Marianne Elliott of The Workshop Urban road safety and sustainability remains a key issue in the post-Covid-19
for facilitating our first webinar
on loneliness; Andrew Chen for context and will be the subject of our second report in partnership with WSP,
assistance with statistical analysis also part of the Post-Pandemic Futures Series, later this year.
and graphs; Paul Smith for practical
and moral support while we shared
acting director duties in the first part
of 2020; and of course WSP New Holly Walker,
Zealand, especially David Kidd and
Deputy Director and WSP Fellow,
Bridget McFlinn for being excellent
to work with, and Risto Jounila and June 2020
Carinnya Feaunati for talking through
aspects of loneliness, transport and
the built environment with me.
1
Holly Walker, “The Perils of Loneliness in the Time of Covid-19,” The Spinoff, April 14, 2020, sec. Covid-19,
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-04-2020/the-perils-of-loneliness-in-the-time-of-covid-19/.
2
Holly Walker, “How Our Leaders Can Minimise the Negative Effects of Loneliness after Covid-19,” The Spinoff,
May 1, 2020, sec. Covid-19, https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-05-2020/how-our-leaders-can-minimise-the-
negative-effects-of-loneliness-after-covid-19/.
6 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
We have all experienced the pang of loneliness, the painful feeling that
occurs when one’s needs for meaningful connection are unmet. Short periods
of loneliness are a normal part of the human experience, but when it is
experienced consistently for a prolonged period, loneliness can have profound
negative consequences for health and wellbeing.
Even before Covid-19, loneliness presented a significant public policy
challenge in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Labour-led government had
indicated that wellbeing was to be the driving force behind government
decision-making and made it the centrepiece of Budget 2019. Loneliness
intersects in complex ways with other wellbeing factors: in 2018 those more
likely to experience chronic loneliness included people with low incomes,
those who were unemployed, Māori, young people, and single parents – all
groups whose wellbeing the government is seeking to improve.
The global outbreak of Covid-19 and associated lockdowns has significantly
exacerbated the risks of loneliness, both during the immediate period of
enforced isolation, and as communities transition out of isolation with new
social distancing requirements and altered social norms. The risk has been
heightened for everyone, but especially for those who were already more
likely to feel profoundly lonely. Early indications are that the lockdown
significantly increased rates of self-reported loneliness, particularly among
these groups.
This report outlines the health and wellbeing risks posed by loneliness,
describes those most likely to be negatively affected by loneliness in Aotearoa
New Zealand, sketches the impact of the Level 4 lockdown on levels of
loneliness, and recommends six key policy planks to enable social connection
to thrive as Aotearoa New Zealand recovers from the economic and social
shock of Covid-19.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
01 02 03
Make sure people Close the digital Help communities do
have enough money divide their magic
Loneliness is clearly linked to income Our reliance on digital technologies Community organisations provide
and employment status. Given during the lockdown threw day-to-day opportunities for social
the mass loss of both income and Aotearoa’s digital divide into stark interaction and connection that can
employment caused by Covid-19, relief. There are some 211,000 buffer against loneliness. In the post-
ensuring people have stable, households with no internet access Covid-19 environment, it is likely that
sufficient income and employment and many others without access philanthropic support for community
opportunities will be critical to to affordable data or Wi-Fi. In the organisations will be reduced. If
buffer against the effects of not only 21st century, a suitable device with communities are supported to
economic recession, but also high an affordable internet connection identify and tackle the challenges
levels of loneliness, isolation, and should be considered part of the they wish to solve collectively,
psychological distress. baseline for social inclusion. enhanced relationships and a greater
sense of belonging tend to occur as
• We recommend that the • We recommend that the a result.
government implement an effective government make the provision of
guaranteed minimum income for all high-speed internet access standard • We recommend that the
New Zealanders to enable everyone in all social housing tenancies. government establish a substantial
to live with dignity. community-led development fund
• We recommend that the to which community organisations
• We recommend that the government make provision can apply to support self-identified
government further extend of internet access a standard collective goals following Covid-19.
programmes and opportunities to intervention for all government-
help people to retrain and regain funded services and supports for • We recommend that the
employment following job losses as a disabled people. government boost funding for
result of Covid-19. Whānau Ora to further enable
• We recommend that the Māori communities to identify
government work with community and solve their own challenges
organisations, iwi authorities, and including fostering whanaungatanga,
NGOs to further enable the provision connection and belonging following
of devices and internet connections Covid-19.
to those in need, alongside making
internet safety a core part of the
school curriculum.
8 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I
04 05 06
Create friendly streets Prioritise those Invest in frontline
and neighbourhoods already lonely mental health
Communities thrive when people Even with stable incomes, equitable The full impact of the Covid-19
know their neighbours and feel a digital access, strong communities pandemic on New Zealanders’
sense of belonging and connection. and well-designed neighbourhoods, mental health will not be fully known
Thriving neighbourhoods require some people will still experience for some time. As the immediate
conscious planning to prioritise debilitating loneliness, with crisis recedes, we can expect to
social wellbeing. Such developments potentially devastating impacts on see an increase in people seeking
prioritise walkability, social their physical and mental health. help for depression, anxiety, PTSD
interaction, common space, easy Existing data helps us to identify and other mental health conditions.
access to parks and green space, those most likely to be experiencing Budget 2019 committed $455m to
and well-integrated links to public chronic loneliness: people on the rollout of a new frontline mental
transport. very low incomes, those who are health service. During the recovery
unemployed or have lost their jobs and rebuild period, this new service
• We recommend that the as a result of Covid-19, Māori, young will be even more important.
government model best-practice people aged under 24, single parents,
urban planning for social goals and some older people, particularly • We recommend that the
with projects led by Kāinga Ora, those living alone. government boost the new frontline
and that it uses the upcoming mental health service’s funding and
government policy statement on • We recommend that when making bring forward the date for its full
housing and urban development to decisions about services to support implementation.
set clear expectations for how urban and allocating public funding for
developments should prioritise social further research, policy-makers • We recommend that reducing
wellbeing. prioritise targeted interventions to loneliness is included as a key item
alleviate loneliness among those at in the Kia Kaha, Kia Māia, Kia Ora
• We recommend that central and greatest risk. Aotearoa: Covid-19 psychosocial and
local government work with public mental wellbeing recovery plan, and
transport providers to improve in the workplan of the new Mental
the design of buses and trains to Health and Wellbeing Commission.
encourage positive social interaction
while minimising dangerous enforced
proximity.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 9
W H Y LONE LI NES S
MATTE R S
Lo n eli n ess i s t h e Defining loneliness
pa inful feeli n g t h at There are at least three main types of loneliness: emotional loneliness,
related to the lack or loss of an intimate other; social loneliness, feeling
o ccur s w h en o n e’s
unconnected to a wider social network, such as friends, family, and
need s fo r mea n i n g f ul neighbours; and existential loneliness, related to a feeling of lacking
meaning and purpose in life.
co nn ec t i o n a re
While related, loneliness and being alone are not the same thing.
u n m et , of ten
Someone can live alone and rarely see others, but feel no loneliness,
exper i en ced a s a either because they value and enjoy solitude, or because they are able
to maintain supportive relationships in other ways such as online or
dis tres si n g lo n g i n g
on the phone. Similarly, someone can be constantly in the company of
fo r ot h er s. others but intensely lonely, such as a parent fully engaged with caring
for children, but longing for the company of other adults, or an elderly
person living communally in a care facility, but with only superficial
relationships with carers and other residents. Loneliness can occur
at any time and is experienced differently depending on the person’s
needs and circumstances, though it does seem to be most prevalent
during major life transitions such as leaving home for the first time,
new parenthood, or retirement.
Under normal circumstances, there is only a weak correlation between
social isolation and loneliness. However, the enforced social isolation
and sudden loss of the latter social networks during the Level 4
lockdown put many people at greater risk of developing feelings of
social loneliness. Those who lost loved ones to the virus (fortunately a
small number in New Zealand, but still significant for those impacted)
10 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume Iand those whose loved ones died At one end of the spectrum, the Why loneliness can be
of other causes and who weren’t “high loneliness” group both felt
able to mourn in the usual way likely like outsiders and did not think the life-threatening
experienced heightened emotional people in their lives valued and
Human beings are social animals.
loneliness. For many, loss of accepted them. This was a small
Our ancient ancestors lived in tribal
employment, uncertainty of income, group of about 6 percent, but they
groups and would have relied on
and witnessing the distressing global experienced significantly worse
those around them for survival
impact of Covid-19 is also likely to self-reported health and wellbeing
(e.g. provision of food, protection
have contributed increasing feelings than the other groups. The majority,
from predators, care for the sick
of existential loneliness. 58 percent, of respondents fell into
and elderly). Hence, to this day,
the ‘low loneliness’ group, and they
perceiving ourselves to be ‘separated
How New Zealanders experienced the highest self-reported
from the group’ can trigger an
experience loneliness health and wellbeing compared to
other groups.
automatic threat response in the
brain (e.g. “I am alone. I am at risk”)
In 2017, some New Zealand which activates a state of physical
Those who felt like outsiders, but
researchers used data from the hyperarousal that is intended to
nonetheless felt valued and accepted,
New Zealand Attitudes and Values help us manage immediate danger
had better well-being outcomes
Study to investigate how loneliness by making us more alert and poised
than those who were “superficially
is experienced by New Zealanders, for action. This is often known as
connected”, a group of people that
and whether differences in people’s the “fight, flight, or freeze” response,
felt they belonged in society as a
experience of loneliness were related and is not intended to be maintained
whole but didn’t feel valued and
to certain wellbeing outcomes.3 for long periods due to the stress it
respected by their contacts. This
They identified four categories or places on our body, over-activating
suggests that the quality of social
loneliness types, based on how various physical systems and not
relationships may be more important
people responded to the following allowing time for us to adequately
than the quantity.
statements: “I feel like an outsider” rest and recover. When we stay in
and “I know that people in my life this zone long-term, it can create
value and accept me.” hormonal imbalances, disrupt sleep
3
Hannah Hawkins-Elder et al., “Who Are the Lonely? A Typology of Loneliness in New Zealand,”
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 52, no. 4 (April 1, 2018): 357–64, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417718944.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 11duration and quality, and elevate A key aspect of wellbeing is range of factors, like health, housing,
feelings of panic and urgency, leaving what is known in Te Ao Māori as and human rights. A focus on holistic
us prone to anxiety and depression. whanaungatanga: relationships wellbeing is closer to a Te Ao Māori
These mental and physiological through familial connection, shared understanding that the wellbeing of
health risks can also reinforce experiences, and working together individuals, whānau, communities,
each other – for example, lack of which provides people with a society and the natural environment
sleep contributing to worsening of sense of belonging. In English we are interlinked and interdependent.7
depression and a weakened immune might talk about family and social A strategy just for reducing loneliness
system – and thereby create a connectedness. Loneliness, or would risk focusing exclusively
cycle of deteriorating health and mokemoke, can be seen as the on one aspect of wellbeing at the
wellbeing.4 absence of such connections. As expense of others.
such, it is an important indicator to
Physiologically, these effects of measure and understand. However, if New Zealand is
loneliness can accrue over time to to achieve the stated goal of
accelerate the process of ageing, such Loneliness is tangible, because we maximising wellbeing, we need to
that that those who report consistent have all experienced it at some tackle loneliness head-on as part
feelings of loneliness are more likely stage in our lives and we know of that strategy, because loneliness
to experience cardiovascular disease, the distinct anguish it can cause. It intersects with wellbeing in complex
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, is trackable, because we have an ways and can have wide-ranging
dementia, and hormonal imbalances. established measure of self-reported negative effects. To date, policies
Studies have found clear links loneliness in the General Social specifically to reduce loneliness
between self-reported loneliness and Survey (GSS) that can be easily have not featured as part of the
increased morbidity and mortality, broken down to see how it impacts government’s wellbeing response. In
i.e. shortened life expectancy.5 For different groups. It is important the post Covid-19 context, in which
these reasons, loneliness presents a – as we have already seen, it has loneliness has become a significant
significant public health challenge. significant public health implications. challenge, this needs to change.
At least one other jurisdiction, the
Loneliness and UK, has opted to make loneliness Our recommendations therefore
focus on how to prioritise reducing
wellbeing – which itself a key government priority with
the introduction of a Minister for loneliness within the existing
should we prioritise? Loneliness in 2018 and the adoption overarching focus on wellbeing.
of a national loneliness strategy.6
The Labour-led government has
made wellbeing a priority, indicating In preparing this report, we
that wellbeing should be the driving considered recommending that
force behind government decision- Aotearoa New Zealand adopt a
making, and making it the centrepiece similar national loneliness strategy.
of the last two Budgets. While there However, in our view, it is correct
is no single definition of wellbeing, it to focus government strategy on
is understood that it refers to more a holistic and positive vision of
than just the absence of negative wellbeing. Wellbeing is more than
factors: it is a positive, holistic state just the absence of negative factors
in which a person, family, whānau, or like loneliness; it takes in a wider
community can thrive.
4
Louise C. Hawkley and John T. Cacioppo, “Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms,”
Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 40, no. 2 (October 2010), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8.
5
Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, “How Important Are Social Relations for Our Health and Well-Being?,” Oxford Martin School, Our World in Data, July 17, 2019,
https://ourworldindata.org/social-relations-health-and-well-being.
6
UK Government, “A Connected Society: A Strategy for Tackling Loneliness,” GOV.UK, 2018,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-connected-society-a-strategy-for-tackling-loneliness.
7
Te Puni Kōkiri and The Treasury, “An Indigenous Approach to the Living Standards Framework” (Wellington, February 2019),
https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/dp/dp-19-01-html.
12 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume IThe Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 13
LONE L I N ES S B E FOR E
COV I D-19
In 2018, Who was most likely to feel lonely?
3. 5 p ercent of We are fortunate in New Zealand to have an established measure
of self-reported loneliness in the General Social Survey (GSS – now
New Zea la n der s
incorporated as part of Stats NZ Wellbeing Statistics reporting). The
repo r ted feeli n g GSS is undertaken every two years, and asks a representative sample
of New Zealanders aged over 15 about a wide range of economic and
lo nely m o st o r a ll
social indicators, including how often they felt lonely in the previous
of t h e t i m e i n four weeks.
t h e p rev i o u s In 2018, 3.5 percent of New Zealanders reported feeling lonely most
or all of the time in the previous four weeks. A further 35.5 percent
fo ur week s.
reported feeling lonely some or a little of the time, and 61 percent
reported no feelings of loneliness. Rates of loneliness were relatively
stable in the 2014, 2016 and 2018 surveys, with a small increase in
2016 reversing in 2018.8
A closer examination of who was more likely to report feeling lonely
in 2018 reveals that loneliness intersects significantly with other
Note: Data from the 2018 GSS
breaks down the experience of wellbeing factors. Those most likely to report feeling lonely most or all
loneliness by various factors including of the time included those who were unemployed (7.6 percent), Māori
ethnicity, age, employment status, (6.3 percent), those with a household income of less than $30,000 (6.1
family structure and income, but not percent), single parents (6.1 percent), and young people aged 15-24
disability. This is a significant omission
(5.8 percent) – all groups whose wellbeing the government is seeking
because many disabled people report
to improve. In the following sections we delve more deeply into some
feelings of loneliness, exclusion or a
lack of belonging in both physical and of these factors.
social spaces (see http://www.dpa.org.
nz/news/spaces-of-belonging). We
acknowledge that disabled people are
among those most likely to experience
loneliness in Aotearoa.
8
Stats NZ, “Wellbeing Statistics: 2018” (Stats NZ, 2018),
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/wellbeing-statistics-2018.
14 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume ILoneliness, with colleagues, relationships more likely you are to feel lonely.
with clients and customers, and People in households earning under
employment, and crucial day to day interactions with $30,000 were more than twice
income others that buffer against social as likely to report feeling lonely
loneliness. For many, work is also most or all of the time than those
It is striking how closely loneliness an important source of personal in households earning more than
was linked to employment status and identity and purpose, so that loss $70,000. The group least likely of
household income. The group most of employment can trigger feelings all to report feeling lonely in 2018
likely overall to report feeling lonely of purposelessness, or existential were individuals earning more than
in 2018 were people who were loneliness. $70,000, with just 1.5 percent feeling
unemployed. lonely most or all of the time.
Employment of course also
For many people, work provides more provides income, which itself is The close correlation between
than just income. It can provide an closely linked to loneliness. The loneliness and low income is
important social network – friendship lower your household income, the likely to occur because poverty
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 15creates barriers that can hinder the The effect of poverty on loneliness is internet may have felt the impact of
formation and maintenance of social particularly pernicious because it can loneliness less than those who could
relationships, firstly through the work both ways: as well as being more not easily connect via video calls with
pervasive toxic stress that it creates, likely to feel lonely, the subjective their loved ones, and those living in
and secondly through the lack of experience of loneliness can also be warm, comfortable homes with access
access to resources like free time to worse for those with less access to to plentiful food and resources may
socialise, and funds for travel and material and social resources to buffer have found it easier to cope with
recreational activities.9 its negative effects. For example, feelings of loneliness than those who
during the Level 4 lockdown, those could not afford or access
with reliable access to high speed these things.
Loneliness and family a nuclear family (including those who policy response to loneliness should
live alone) are significantly more likely include increased services and
structure to feel lonely. support for sole parents.
There are marked differences in the While these results suggest living For those living alone, finding ways
experience of loneliness depending alone is a significant risk factor for to encourage social interaction in
on the type of household or family loneliness, the high rate of loneliness the course of daily life, in public
structure someone lives in. Couples among sole parents also illustrate spaces, via community groups and
without children are significantly less how loneliness and being alone are services, in the design of streets
likely to experience loneliness than not necessarily correlated – even and neighbourhoods, and through
any other household type, while sole with children in the house, sole digital technology may be particularly
parents and those who live outside of parents can feel very lonely. This important.
suggests that part of an effective
9
Emily Garden et al., “Speaking for Ourselves: The Truth about What Keeps People in Poverty from Those Who Live It” (Auckland: Auckland City Mission, 2014),
https://www.aucklandcitymission.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Auckland-City-Mission-Family100-Speaking-for-Ourselves.pdf.
16 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume ILoneliness and age It is sometimes posited that Frequently the high incidence of
loneliness amongst young people is loneliness among young people is
Loneliness is strongly correlated with growing exponentially, or that there is linked to social media use, although
age. Young people in 2018 were an “epidemic” of loneliness in young the evidence on this topic seems
significantly more likely to feel lonely people.10 However, there appears to to suggest that social media can
than older people, with the risk have been little change in rates of either protect against loneliness or
decreasing with age. loneliness amongst young people in exacerbate it, depending on how it
New Zealand across the last three is used and experienced.12 It seems
Loneliness tends to coincide with iterations of the GSS (as with overall most likely that young adulthood
periods of major life transition, and a rates, a small increase in 2016 is simply a vulnerable time for
series of significant transitions occurs appears to have reversed in 2018). loneliness. Unhealthy patterns of
for many young people between the Internationally, several meta-analyses social media and digital technology
ages of 15 and 24, including leaving looking at historical data across use may have an exacerbating effect
school, starting work and/or study, several generations have found that on youth loneliness, but by the same
and moving out of home for the there is little evidence of increasing token, these these technologies can
first time. During this period, young rates loneliness amongst young be a powerful tool for combatting
people transition from childhood to people over time – young people loneliness, especially when they are
adulthood, and while this can be a in previous generations felt similar used as tools to facilitate offline
time of possibility and discovery, it levels of loneliness at the same age social interaction.13
can also be frightening, stressful, and as young people do today.11
a source of emotional upheaval.
10
Michelle Lim, “Loneliness Has Become a Global Epidemic among Young People Today,” World Economic Forum, October 24, 2019, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2019/10/1-in-3-young-adults-are-lonely-and-it-affects-their-mental-health/.
11
Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, “Is There a Loneliness Epidemic?,” Oxford Martin School, Our World in Data, December 11, 2019, https://ourworldindata.org/lonely-not-alone.
12
Rebecca Nowland, “Social Media: Is It Really to Blame for Young People Being Lonelier than Any Other Age Group?,” The Conversation, October 4, 2018,
http://theconversation.com/social-media-is-it-really-to-blame-for-young-people-being-lonelier-than-any-other-age-group-104292.
13
Lisa Thomas, Elizabeth Orme, and Finola Kerrigan, “Student Loneliness: The Role of Social Media Through Life Transitions,” Computers & Education 146
(March 1, 2020): 103754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103754.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 17It is notable that rates of loneliness the academic literature on the topic the overall numbers are still very
are lowest among older people, of loneliness. Internationally, there small compared to other age groups.
because anecdotal discussion and is evidence that while loneliness However, those in this age group
media coverage of loneliness very decreases with age, it begins to who do experience chronic loneliness
often tends to focus on this age increase again once people reach are at greater risk of ill-health as
group as being particularly at risk, the age of 75.14 This also appears to a result, meaning they are still an
as does a significant proportion of be the case in New Zealand, though important group on whom to focus.15
Loneliness and lesser levels (some or a little of the To some extent, these differences
time) their experience of loneliness in the experience of loneliness
ethnicity was less pronounced. People by ethnicity may be explained
identifying as Asian, by contrast, were by correlation with other risk
There are striking differences in the
only slightly more likely than average factors; Māori for example have
experience of loneliness depending
to report feeling lonely most or all a younger age profile than the
on ethnicity. European or Pākehā
of the time at 4.3 percent, but were general population, and due to
people were the least likely ethnicity
more likely to report feeling lonely historical inequities and the legacy
to feel lonely, with rates just under
some or a little of the time so that of colonisation are also more likely
those of the total population. Māori
their overall rate of loneliness were to experience low income and
were among those most likely to
higher than average. Pacific people unemployment. However, on average
report feeling lonely most or all of the
reported low rates of loneliness these correlations also apply to
time at 6.3 percent, although at the
across the board. Pacific people who nevertheless
14
Ortiz-Ospina, “Is There a Loneliness Epidemic?”
Valerie A Wright-St Clair et al., “Integrative Review of Older Adult Loneliness and Social Isolation in Aotearoa/New Zealand,”
15
Australasian Journal on Ageing 36, no. 2 (June 2017): 114–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12379.
18 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume Ireported lower overall rates of Unfortunately, there appears to have of Māori this should be seen as part
loneliness, and not to Asian people, been little academic analysis of the of the government’s responsibility
who nevertheless reported higher relationship between loneliness and to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and
overall rates of loneliness. It is ethnicity in Aotearoa, aside from some any specific policies or initiatives
therefore reasonable to conclude that studies among older people. This is for Māori should be developed and
there are other factors at play which something that should be remedied in delivered in partnership with whānau,
could include cultural factors, the future research and policy. hapū, and iwi. Whānau Ora is a good
aforementioned negative impacts of model for delivering government-
colonisation and historical inequities Meanwhile, government should funded but Māori-led services and
on Māori, and the ongoing impacts prioritise working alongside diverse supports.
of racism and unconscious bias on all communities to support culturally
ethnic minorities. appropriate and specific solutions
to reducing loneliness. In the case
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 19T H E LONE LY CI TY ?
Lessons f rom Lond on
WSP in the UK commissioned result of the environments in which 3. How many items have you
primary research in 2017 to better we live. Three data points were borrowed from your neighbours in
understand loneliness and its included as a proxy for indicating the past year?
impacts, asking 1,000 Londoners social connectedness:
how they felt about their lives, how One of the conclusions of the
regularly they socialised, and how 1. How often, if at all, do you meet research was that if we fail to
well they knew their neighbours. socially with friends, relatives or consider how the neighbourhoods
work colleagues? and communities where we spend
What presented were wide-ranging time affect us, we are missing a
issues with complex causes and 2. How many neighbours do you crucial opportunity for healthy, happy
effects both behavioural and as a know the names of? and more connected lives.
HOW OFTEN, IF AT ALL, DO YOU MEET SOCIALLY WITH FRIENDS, RELATIVES OR WORK COLLEAGUES?
Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
At least once a week
At least once a month Less than once
Every day a month
12%
47% 23% 16%
On behalf of WSP in the UK, ComRes interviewed 1,039 adults online between 11th -17th January 2017. Data were weighted to be representative of
all British adults by age, gender and region. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
20 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume IHOW MANY NEIGHBOURS DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF?
None 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
HOW MANY ITEMS HAVE YOU BORROWED FROM YOUR NEIGHBOURS IN THE PAST YEAR?
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
74%
None
1
11%
2 7%
3 2%
4 2%
5 2%
6 or more 2%
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 21T H E I MPACT OF COV I D-19
A N D THE LE V E L 4
LOCK DOWN
D ur ing t h e Level New Zealand entered Alert Level 4 lockdown on 25 March 2020,
and remained there until 27 April. During the lockdown, everybody
4 lo ckdow n , 1 0 .6 in New Zealand was instructed to stay at home in their “bubble” (i.e.
see only the people they lived with) other than for essential personal
perce nt of su r vey
movement. Recreational activity was restricted to the local area, travel
res pon dent s sa i d was severely limited, all gatherings were cancelled and public venues
closed, businesses were closed except for essential services, and
th ey ha d felt lo n ely educational facilities were shut. The risks of such a lockdown causing
mo s t o r a ll of t h e a spike in loneliness are clear: people were unable to see extended
family or whānau, children and young people were unable to see their
time in t h e p rev i o u s friends, people living alone were effectively isolated indefinitely, and
fo ur week s. many people lost jobs and income. Significant restrictions remained
under Level 3, which lasted from 28 April until 12 May. Under Level 2
most social interaction was permitted to resume, schools re-opened,
and many people returned to work. Level 1, representing a return to
“normal” commenced on 11:59pm 8 June 2020.
Thanks to some quick-footed researchers at the Roy McKenzie Centre
for the Study of Families and Children and the Institute of Governance
and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, we have an
idea of the immediate exacerbating impact of the Level 4 lockdown
on loneliness, and of how this intersected with existing risk factors.16
Undertaken during the third week of the lockdown, the survey asked
respondents various questions about their emotional wellbeing during
the lockdown, including how often they had felt lonely in the previous
four weeks. 10.6 percent said they had felt lonely most or all of the
time. By contrast, the equivalent figure in the 2018 GSS was 3.5
percent. While the two surveys are not directly comparable due to
sampling and survey construction differences, reading the lockdown
16
Kate Prickett et. al., “Life in Lockdown: The Economic and Social Effect of Lockdown in Alert Level 4 on New Zealanders” (Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, 2020).
22 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume Isurvey results alongside the 2018 During the lockdown, 20.8 percent of job or income who reported greater
GSS does suggest a significant young people aged 18-24 reported levels of loneliness; people living in
increase in self-reported loneliness feeling lonely most or all of the time, homes where their partner or another
under lockdown conditions. compared to 5.8 percent of young adult had experienced economic
people aged 15-24 in the 2018 GSS. loss also reported high levels of
Same storm, 20 percent of those with household loneliness.
different boats incomes under $30,000 reported
feeling lonely most or all of the Clearly, the Level 4 lockdown was
time, compared with 6.1 percent a particularly acute time of social
Note: this section presents some analysis in 2018. Unemployment remained isolation, economic loss, and stress
of the impact of Level 4 lockdown on levels for many people. It is not surprising
a risk factor, with 19.2 percent of
of loneliness among some of the groups that levels of loneliness spiked
identified in the 2018 GSS as being at greater
those who lost their job as a result
of Covid-19 reporting feeling lonely dramatically during the lockdown,
risk, namely young people, low-income
households, and those who had lost jobs or most or all of the time during the though the extent to which some
income as a result of Covid-19. We were not lockdown. groups were affected is striking.
able to analyse the impact of the lockdown on
levels of loneliness by ethnicity, the full range Respondents who had experienced These results confirm that income
of ages, or other factors like gender, disability economic loss (i.e. job or income and employment status are critical
or family structure. This would be a fruitful risk factors for loneliness, and that
loss) as a result of Covid-19
area for future research. Covid-19 had a significant negative
reported significant increases in
loneliness. Those most starkly impact on these factors. While social
The results of the lockdown survey
affected were those already in restrictions have subsequently eased
reveal that while overall rates of
low income households who then and social interactions have regained
loneliness increased significantly
also experienced economic loss: a some degree of normalcy, the
across the total population in
striking 30.7 percent of these people impacts of economic loss are likely
lockdown conditions, some groups
reported feeling lonely all or most of to continue for some time, and may
who were already at greater risk of
the time during the lockdown. It was continue to have an exacerbating
loneliness were disproportionately
not only those who lost their own effect on loneliness.
negatively affected.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 23The researchers behind the lockdown in 2020 and reported in 2021. It survey conducted a follow-up will be important to track levels of survey at Alert Level 2 which will self-reported loneliness in both the provide useful information about general population and in those the ongoing impact; at the time of groups previously more susceptible writing the results of this survey to determine the ongoing impact of were not yet available. Likewise, the Covid-19. next GSS is due to be conducted 24 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume I
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 25
S I X P LA NK S OF A N
E F F ECTI V E PUB LI C
P OL I CY R ES PONS E
Even p r i o r to Loneliness intersects with other wellbeing factors, so prioritising
wellbeing requires investing in policies that allow social interaction to
t h e di st ress thrive. Prolonged loneliness also creates significant public health risks.
a nd di sr upt i o n The Covid-19 crisis has thrust loneliness into greater prominence as a
of C ov i d-1 9, policy challenge with an extended period of enforced social isolation
compounded by considerable loss of employment and income. It
lo nelin ess p o sed a appears that the Level 4 lockdown contributed to a significant increase
in self-reported loneliness, especially for those already at greater risk.
s ignif i c a nt p ub li c
Future analysis of loneliness trends will be important to determine
po licy c h a llen g e the full impact of the Covid-19 crisis; in the meantime, policy to
tackle loneliness head-on will be an important part of New Zealand’s
in Aotea ro a New recovery.
Zea la nd, p a r t i c u la r ly
Ultimately, what works to reduce loneliness is more frequent and
fo r a g over n ment especially more meaningful social interactions with other people.
What this looks like differs for everyone depending on culture, family,
co mmi t ted to community, values, and preferences, so it is not something government
p r i o r i t i si n g ministers or agencies can easily influence directly.
wellb ei n g . What our leaders can do, though, is adopt policies that create
the conditions that allow meaningful social interaction to flourish.
What follows are six planks of an effective policy response to
loneliness: make sure people have enough money, close the digital
divide, help communities do their magic, create friendly streets and
neighbourhoods, prioritise those already lonely, and invest in frontline
mental health services. These policies will work best when they
are developed and delivered in partnership with local authorities,
community organisations, whānau, hapū, and iwi.
26 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume IMake sure everyone necessary for the government to We also recommend that the
continue to stabilise people’s incomes government further extend
has enough money and create meaningful employment programmes and opportunities to
opportunities for some time. The help people to retrain and regain
Loneliness is clearly linked to income:
immediate $25 weekly increase to employment following job losses as a
in 2018, people living in households
core benefit rates and the 12-week result of Covid-19.
earning than $30,000 per year
special payment made available in
had more than double the rate of
loneliness of those with a household
June 2020 to those who had lost Close the digital divide
their jobs as a result of the crisis
income over $70,000. Loneliness was
were a good start, although they The reliance on digital technology
also strongly linked to employment
also created equity issues between for essential work, school, and
status, with those unemployed more
those who were already unemployed, social interaction during the Level
likely to report feeling lonely than
and those who lost jobs as a result 4 lockdown brought Aotearoa’s
those in work. These effects appear
of Covid-19. The rate of sole parent digital divide into stark relief. Prior
to have been amplified during the
support should be reviewed in to the lockdown, 86 percent of New
lockdown.
light of the intersecting impacts on Zealand households had access to
Given the mass loss of both loneliness of both low income and the internet, which meant there were
income and employment caused being a sole parent. still around 211,000 households
by Covid-19, ensuring people have with no internet access.17 During
We recommend that the government the lockdown, the Ministry of
a stable, sufficient income will be
implement an effective guaranteed Education hastily distributed around
critical to buffer against the effects of
minimum income for all New 10,000 devices to help students
not only economic recession, but also
Zealanders to enable everyone to access remote learning, but an
high levels of loneliness, isolation,
live with dignity. internet-enabled device still requires
and psychological distress. It will be
17
Stats NZ, “2018 Census Totals by Topic – National Highlights,” Stats NZ, 2020,
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/2018-census-totals-by-topic-national-highlights-updated.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 27affordable data or Wi-Fi, which many We recommend that the government 2020 recognised this with $36
households lacked. These financial make the provision of high-speed million in grants for community
and physical factors combined with internet access standard in all social groups to enhance the wellbeing
skill gaps and safety concerns create housing tenancies. of their local communities in the
significant barriers to digital access Covid-19 recovery period. An even
for many people.18 The two groups We recommend that the government more substantial community-led
least likely to have internet access make provision of internet access development fund to which a diverse
were social housing tenants and a standard intervention for all range of groups and organisations
disabled people.19 government-funded services and could apply to solve self-identified
supports for disabled people. community needs would be an
One simple solution is to make the effective tool to combat loneliness.
provision of high-speed internet We recommend that the government
Such a fund would not need to
access standard in all Housing New work with community organisations,
target loneliness or promote social
Zealand properties and social housing iwi authorities, and NGOs to further
connection specifically; success
tenancies. A basic package could enable the provision of devices
is more likely if communities are
be wholly funded or subsidised and internet connections to those
supported to identify the challenges
(in the same way that the Winter in need, alongside making internet
they wish to tackle themselves.
Energy Payment acknowledges safety a core part of the school
Enhanced relationships and a greater
that access to adequate heating is curriculum.
sense of belonging tend to occur as a
essential). Likewise, many people result of such projects.20
with disabilities access government Help communities do
services and supports (or support their magic With reference to Māori communities
from government-funded NGOs). in particular, Whānau Ora is an
Enabling internet access could Thousands of community groups, established model for delivering
be mandated as one of the key NGOs, marae, churches, cultural and social support that starts from a Te
interventions for these services. sporting clubs, community centres, Ao Māori worldview, puts family
and membership organisations wellbeing at the centre of decision-
During and after the Covid-19 provide day-to-day opportunities for making, and – while government-
crisis, affordable internet access social interaction and connection funded – operates at arm’s length
has become even more important that can buffer against loneliness. from central government. It’s a good
to enable people to retain social When these are at their best, they example of central government
connections. There was already identify a need in their community allowing whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori
a strong case that a suitable and mobilise collectively to meet community organisations to identify
device with an affordable internet it, forging and maintaining social and solve their own challenges rather
connection should be considered bonds between individuals, following than assuming that government
part of the baseline for social proven principles of community-led agencies know best, in keeping with
inclusion, in the same way that a development. the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
landline with free local calling was Consideration should be given to
a baseline last century; in the post- In the post-Covid-19 environment,
boosting funding for Whānau Ora to
Covid-19 environment this is even it is likely that philanthropic support
enable Māori communities to further
more important. for community organisations will
foster whanaungatanga, connection
be reduced, meaning government
and belonging.
support of community activities will
be even more important. Budget
18
Marianne Elliott, “Out of the Maze: Building Digitally Inclusive Communities” (Wellington: Internet NZ, Vodafone Aotearoa Foundation, The Workshop, 2018),
https://report.digitaldivides.nz.
19
Arthur Grimes and Dominic White, “Digital Inclusion and Wellbeing in New Zealand” (Wellington: Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, 2019),
https://motu.nz/our-work/wellbeing-and-macroeconomics/well-being-and-sustainability-measures/digital-inclusion-and-wellbeing-in-new-zealand/.
20
Inspiring Communities, “Understanding and Accelerating Community-Led Development in Aotearoa New Zealand: The Difference That Working in Community-Led De-
velopment Ways Has Been Making on Eight Local Community Journeys.,” June 2013, http://inspiringcommunities.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Understanding-
and-accelerating-community-led-development-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand..pdf.
28 Alone Together | Post-Pandemic Futures Series - Volume IWe recommend that the government for walking or socialising. By contrast, As people begin to return to public
establish a substantial community- developments can be planned with transport after Covid-19, the layout
led development fund to which social goals at the centre.22 Such of buses and trains can be improved
community organisations can apply developments prioritise walkability, to both encourage social interaction
to support self-identified collective social interaction, common space, and to minimise dangerous enforced
goals following Covid-19. easy access to parks and green space, proximity. Rather than packing
and well-integrated links to public people in like sardines, designs like
We recommend that the government transport. L-shaped seating, armrests, increased
boost funding for Whānau Ora to spacing between seats, and small
further enable Māori communities The government has a significant tables can encourage people to keep
to identify and solve their own tool at its disposal to ensure that a comfortable distance from one
challenges including fostering social wellbeing is central to new other. Experiments show that when
whanaungatanga, connection and urban development. Formed in passengers enjoy a comfortable level
belonging following Covid-19. October 2019, Kāinga Ora brought of personal space, they’re more likely
together Housing New Zealand and to initiate friendly social contact.24
Create friendly streets its development subsidiary Homes
and neighbourhoods Land Community (HLC), along
with the existing KiwiBuild unit, to
We recommend that the government
model best-practice urban planning
Communities thrive when people form partnerships with developers, for social goals with projects
know their neighbours and feel a local and central government, led by Kāinga Ora, and that it
sense of belonging and connection. and Māori in order to deliver new uses the upcoming government
Streets and neighbourhoods can urban developments that support policy statement on housing
either encourage this, or actively community needs. Work is underway and urban development to set
discourage it. The more dangerous to develop a government policy clear expectations for how urban
people perceive their street to be, statement to set the outcomes that developments should prioritise social
the less likely they are to spend new housing and urban development wellbeing.
time outside and get to know their projects must deliver. A clear policy
on how urban developments should We recommend that central and
neighbours, whereas when streets
prioritise social wellbeing would local government work with public
are safe, open, and friendly to
have a far-reaching positive impact transport providers to improve
pedestrians and bicycles, people are
on our future neighbourhoods and the design of buses and trains to
much more likely to stop and chat,
communities. encourage positive social interaction
spend more time outside, and feel a
while minimising dangerous enforced
sense of wellbeing and belonging.21
Likewise, transport planning can proximity.
Thriving neighbourhoods require have a big impact on people’s levels
conscious planning to prioritise of loneliness and social wellbeing.
social wellbeing. The conventional For many people who experience
approach to urban development loneliness, simply being out in
tends to start with traffic networks the presence of other people is a
and flows, and design housing significant salve, like the 33 percent
and business around those, with of respondents in a UK poll who
the result that car use remains said they had deliberately caught the
dominant, and streets are not safe bus in order to have some human
contact.23
21
Ade Kearns et al., “‘Lonesome Town’? Is Loneliness Associated with the Residential Environment, Including Housing and Neighborhood Factors?,”
Journal of Community Psychology 43, no. 7 (September 2015): 849–67, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21711.
22
David Symons, “Alone Together in the 21st-Century City,” The Possible, May 24, 2018,
https://www.the-possible.com/alone-together-loneliness-social-isolation-in-dense-city/.
23
“Greener Journeys Loneliness Poll,” Savanta ComRes, September 2018, https://comresglobal.com/polls/greener-journeys-loneliness-poll/.
24
Risto Jounila, “What If Public Transport Could Alleviate Loneliness?,” WSP Insights, October 22, 2019,
https://www.wsp.com/en-NZ/insights/public-transport-loneliness.
The Helen Clark Foundation & WSP 29You can also read
