Research priorities







In this article, we describe a novel approach in older persons’ housing, a recently established cohousing development, ‘New Ground’ in London, UK. Cohousing is a form of grouped housing designed and managed by those who reside within it. Further characteristics include resident selection, organisational shared values, a focus on social interaction and mutual support, and a mixture of private and shared spaces and facilities.1 We consider whether this approach may have beneficial effects in alleviating or protecting from loneliness in older people.

Social isolation and loneliness have detrimental effects on health and quality of life and are increasingly being recognised as a public health concern. Loneliness and social isolation increase the risk of anxiety, depression, suicide, sleep problems and cardiovascular disease.25 The risk of Alzheimer’s disease is more than double in lonely compared with non-lonely people, and loneliness is associated with more rapid cognitive decline.6 These results were sustained when researchers controlled for social isolation.

Loneliness is a subjective negative experience, the discrepancy between the level of social connectedness a person desires and what they perceive they have.7 Social isolation is an objective paucity of contacts and interactions between a person and a social network.7 The increased likelihood of seven-year mortality is 26% for loneliness, 29% for social isolation and 32% for living alone, in studies adjusting for age, sex and health conditions.8

Mechanisms behind adverse health effects include changes in health behaviour such as diet, alcohol and smoking, stress, likelihood of seeking emotional support, immune and cardiovascular system changes and worsened sleep along with consequent metabolic, hormonal and neurological changes.9,10


Cohousing, loneliness and social isolation

Fromm surveyed 71 respondents from three US cohousing communities.1 Respondents’ weekly conversations with neighbours improved from two
to 8–11 hours per week in the cohousing compared with previous residences; increases of 370–400%. 100% of residents felt able to ask neighbours for help with tasks when unwell, compared with 40% in previous residences.1

Residents in two urban mixed-age cohousing developments in California spend 62% of their time outside the community, 32% in private space, and 6% in communal or semi-private spaces, and spend 4% engaged in social interaction with others in the community (17-26 hours per month).11 In a Swedish cohousing study the preferred shared activities were daily meals followed by coffee meetings.12

However, increasing social interaction may not be sufficient to prevent loneliness. Loneliness is only weakly correlated with social isolation.13

‘New Ground’ is the only established cohousing development for older people in the UK, completed in November 2016. It was developed by the Older Women’s Cohousing (OWCH) group. Beyond promoting social interaction, life in ‘New Ground’ has other features that may reduce loneliness. Managing their community facilitates recognition of each other’s values, shared purpose and improved self-esteem. Autonomy may moderate the effects of social isolation on loneliness.14 A sense of ownership of a person’s environment contributes to a sense of social belonging.1517 Knight et al randomised care home residents to groups that either have collective input versus no control into the design of their communal living space.18 The former group had increased social identification, psychological comfort, quality of life and physical well-being, interacted more and used communal spaces more frequently.

The quality of relationships, group cohesion and social support will depend on the nature of OWCH group dynamics and leadership. Effective teams have a clear goal, results-driven structure, competent members, unified commitment, a collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support and recognition, and principled leadership.19

Shared-decision making and property management can be arduous and time-consuming. OWCH’s busiest members sometimes attend several meetings a day. In Fromm’s study, 90% are members of at least one working group, 50% more than one and 20% three or more, and whole communities meet at least monthly.1

At one-year, OWCH is in the ‘autonomy’ phase according to Shaffer & Anundsen’s model of community development; during which residents experience conflict, instability and changing social relationships.20

Well-being is more strongly associated with negative than positive social experiences.7 Depending on how social support is delivered and received, it may be perceived as either ‘supportive’ or ‘smothering’ and either acknowledged or not appreciated.21 Problems may arise if support is not of the correct type; is more or less than required; it generates a deceptive false sense of self-efficacy; or if the provider is not able to emotionally or physically cope with its provision.23,25


Table 1. Quotes from ‘New Ground’ residents21,22

“What are we learning? We have not before had to test boundaries between private and communal space, personal and group expectations, different habits and ways of living.”

“Actually, to begin with I thought, “oh hell, it’s boarding school,” because of having to adjust to all these different personalities”


Post-retirement migration

The process of developing ‘New Ground’ from inception to moving took 18 years. Delays during completion were challenging for residents. For one, the stress triggered a 5-day acute and transient memory loss (in response, others provided support using a rota system).21

Many residents moved from other counties or London boroughs, leading to potential loss of social contacts. Post-retirement migration in the UK is common and can be prompted by relationship changes, retirement, or ill health.6,26,27 There are spikes at 60–65, when movers are attempting to improve their lifestyle and environment, and after age 75, when movers are ‘coerced’ by the need for formal or informal care. The earlier ‘lifestyle’ movers tend to be comparatively economically well-off.26,28 Elders are less likely to have friends or relatives able to help them move.29 Delays in moving can worsen health outcomes.29,30 Hence, a third category, ‘planners’, in the middle age range move in anticipation of ill health before being forced to and while they have the energy.29 Drivers behind migration include the location’s appeal such as sense of community and cultural activities, moving closer to support networks, or housing availability.26,29,31 This potentially frees up larger homes for families and reduces pressure on social services.29,31

Whilst post-retirement migration may be associated with loneliness,32 confounding factors contribute such as health or relationship changes that triggered the move. Usually, older migrants have fewer opportunities such as work to help integrate into new environments.33 The community at OWCH might mitigate this.

Despite relocating issues, Chiodelli found cohousing residents “universally agree that it was well worth the effort”.34 Shin Choi studied 536 participants in 28 senior cohousing communities in Denmark and Sweden; mainly healthy, 70‐year‐olds.35 The majority would strongly recommend their scheme to others to improve quality of life. 242 participants in 12 of 44 (mixed-age and over 40s) cohousing units in Sweden reported a high level of life satisfaction and greater levels of mutual support in cohousing compared with usual communities.12


Table 2. Themes that are central to older people’s housing requirements according to the National Housing Federation’s Breaking the Mould project.30

1. Accessibility

2. Space and attractiveness

3. Safety and security

4. Age-friendliness

5. Offer of freedom, choice and flexibility

6. The option to have help at hand

7. Provision of flexible, personalised support

8. The ability for residents to socialise and feel included


Architecture and organisational structure

The design of the facilities is vital in promoting social use and engagement. The architect worked with OWCH to consider acoustics and size and flow of spaces. Availability, visibility and accessibility of communal spaces support voluntary and planned interactions while layout of shared walkways, territorial boundaries, density or proximity between units and restrictions on private space can force unplanned or spontaneous interactions.11 ‘New Ground’ is relatively dense—26 units occupy 0.83 acres, which is two thirds green space—which promotes interaction. The development is close to the amenities of the borough’s commercial area and the design aims to reduce barriers to mobility.

Fear of being a victim of crime increases in older age, potentially encouraging older people to withdraw from life.36,37 This may be mitigated by the secure access and support provided by shared living.30

This article focuses on older people, but OWCH accept residents from age 50. Accommodation that segregates retired people can be damaging for integration and social interaction.38 Heterogeneity in residents’ background and demographics creates a diverse skill set for social support. US cohousing residents tend to be diverse in age and household type but not socio-economic class, ethnicity or education, with minority and low-income groups under-represented.39 In two retirement village case studies, tension surfaced between residents with different income, health status and functional ability.40,41 OWCH is striving to improve its diversity.42

It is a challenge for this self-selecting group to attract diverse members and support the most vulnerable, given people from minority groups, refugees and those with mental health problems, sensory deficits and other disabilities are more likely to experience loneliness and suffer more adverse consequences once lonely.43,44

Future issues for the community include new members’ commitment to the organisational values and residents developing ill health or disability such as dementia, affecting their ability to contribute. Their request for dementia psychoeducation may be indicative of (a) individual motivators and fear of dementia, (b) group dynamics and the desire to support each other, and/or (c) a desire to understand the potential implications including care requirements.


Research priorities

There is a call for government to provide clear direction for housing strategies and to use preventative social measures that reduce health expenditures.29,31,45,46 Older people currently have limited choice in housing, particularly specialist and for purchase.29 The National Housing Federation argues options must be developed beyond sheltered housing that are attractive to asset-rich over-50s and encourage planned moves ahead of a crisis.30

OWCH believe their life together and mutual support will keep the group happier and healthier for longer. They are contributing towards longitudinal research led by Lancaster University, which will include comparisons of social and healthcare service use and subjective health and well-being measures. Clifton argues that public services tend to deliver care in a transactional approach, with less thought towards relationships.45 However, if people have opportunities to develop mature and strong social ties, they will be able to seek out resources and services themselves.

Future research might study the effects of intergenerational cohousing, given many young people experience loneliness, and of combining affordable housing in communities.

Longitudinal studies will help explain how loneliness changes over time, the biological, psychological and societal mechanisms affecting its progression, and how these factors affect responses to interventions. High-quality studies are needed into interventions. Considering loneliness as an outcome in interventions not directly targeting it will be helpful, such as economic and physical health programmes. Effect sizes to date are modest, demonstrating a need for preventative measures affecting social bonds and motivation to change.32,48 Qualitative studies exploration will be valuable, as will quality health economics work, such as those by McDaid and Knapp.49-50 Services that signpost people over 65 not in paid work to local activities that improve social networks are cost effective, with a conservative estimate of £1.26 return on every £1 spent over five years.51



Loneliness and social isolation are common in UK elders and possibly growing. Innovative public health and social care solutions are needed. People moving post-retirement, particularly when by choice, can have beneficial effects towards health and social isolation if the housing and environment are suitable to the person’s needs. Cohousing may have the potential to promote socialisation and neighbourliness and improve factors affecting loneliness such as helping residents feel valued, useful and part of a community. Policymakers should consider the potential health and social benefits of cohousing to support housing strategies.


Dr Helen Hopwood, ST4 Psychiatry trainee, Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust

Dr Farhana Mann, Wellcome clinical research training fellow at the Division of Psychiatry, UCL

Conflict of interest: none declared


Acknowledgements: The authors thank Dr Melissa Fernandez Arrigoitia, Dr Vivienne Watkin and Dr Robert Tobiansky for their guidance.



1. Fromm D. American Cohousing: The First Five Years. J Archit Plann Res 2000; 17: 94–109

2. Rubenowitz E, Waern M, Wilhelmson K, Allebeck P. Life events and psychosocial factors in elderly suicides – a case–control study. Psychol Med 2001; 31: 1193–202

3. James BD, Wilson RS, Barnes LL, Bennett DA. Late-Life Social Activity and Cognitive Decline in Old Age. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2011; 17: 998–1005

4. Luo Y, Hawkley LC, Waite LJ, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 907–14

5. Luanaigh CÓ, Lawlor BA. Loneliness and the health of older people. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008; 23: 1213–21

6. Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Arnold SE, et al. Loneliness and Risk of Alzheimer Disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 234

7. Peplau LA, Perlman D. Loneliness: a sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. Wiley, 1982

8. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015; 10: 227–37

9. Cacioppo J, Hawkley L, Crawford L, et al. Loneliness and Health: Potential Mechanisms. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 407–17

10. Hawkley LC, Burleson MH, Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness in Everyday Life: Cardiovascular Activity, Psychosocial Context, and Health Behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003; 85: 105–20

11. Williams J. Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing. J Urban Des 2005; 10: 195–227

12. Shin Choi J, Paulsson J. Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in Swedish Cohousing Units. Int J Hum Ecol 2011; 12: 133–46

13. Coyle CE, Dugan E. Social Isolation, Loneliness and Health Among Older Adults. J Aging Health 2012; 24: 1346–63

14. Chua SN, Koestner R. A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on the Role of Autonomy in Solitary Behavior. J Soc Psychol 2008; 148: 645–8

15. Kasser VG, Ryan RM. The Relation of Psychological Needs for Autonomy and Relatedness to Vitality, Well-Being, and Mortality in a Nursing Home1. J Appl Soc Psychol 1999; 29: 935–54

16. Hauge S, Kristin H. The nursing home as a home: a field study of residents? daily life in the common living rooms. J Clin Nurs 2007; 17: 460–7

17. Moos RH. Environmental Choice and Control In Community Care Settings for Older People1. J Appl Soc Psychol 1981; 11: 23–43

18. Knight C, Alexander Haslam S, Haslam C. In home or at home? How collective decision making in a new care facility enhances social interaction and wellbeing amongst older adults. Ageing Soc 2018; 30: 1393–418

19. Larson CE, LaFasto FMJ. Teamwork : what must go right, what can go wrong. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications, 1989

20. Shaffer C, Anundsen K. Creating community anywhere: Finding support and connection in a fragmented world. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher/Perigee, 1993

21. OWCH (Older Women’s Cohousing) Group. Senior Cohousing_The Way to Do It SUBS. 2018. (accessed March 13, 2018)

22. UK Cohousing Network. ‘New Ground’ Older Women’s Cohousing Community (OWCH) High Barnet. 2017.

23. Rosenfeld LB, Richman JM. Developing Effective Social Support: Team Building and the Social Support Process. J Appl Sport Psychol 1997; 9: 133–53

24. Cutrona CE, Russell DW. Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In: R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, eds. Social support: An interactional view. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1990: 319–66

25. Perrine RM. On Being Supportive: The Emotional Consequences of Listening to Another’s Distress. J Soc Pers Relat 1993; 10: 371–84

26. Evandrou M, Falkingham J, Green M. Migration in later life: evidence from the British Household Panel Study. Popul Trends 2010; 141: 77–94

27. Uren Z, Goldring S. Migration trends at older ages in England and Wales. Popul Trends 2007; 130: 31–40

28. Chevan A. Holding On and Letting Go. Res Aging 1995; 17: 278–302

29. Market Assessment of Housing Options for Older People A report for Shelter and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2012. (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

30. National Housing Federation. Breaking the mould. Re-visioning older people’s housing. 2011 (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

31. Moving On: Migration Trends in Later Life. 2013 (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

32. Wu Z, Penning M. Immigration and loneliness in later life. Ageing Soc 2018; 35: 64–95

33. Treas J, Batalova J. Immigrants and Aging. In: International Handbook of Population Aging. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2009: 365–94

34. Chiodelli F, Baglione V. Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban Res Pract 2014; 7: 20–34

35. Shin Choi J. Evaluation of Community Planning and Life of Senior Cohousing Projects in Northern European Countries. Eur Plan Stud 2004; 12: 1189–216

36. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A Sure Start to Later Life. Ending Inequalities for Older People: A Social Exclusion Unit Final Report. 2006 (accessed Feb 10, 2018)

37. Help the Aged. Crime and Fear of Crime 2006. (accessed Feb 10, 2018)

38. Croucher K, Hicks L, Jackson K. Housing with care for later life: A literature review. 2006 (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

39. Williams J. Sun, Surf and Sustainable Housing— Cohousing, the Californian Experience. Int Plan Stud 2005; 10: 145 –177

40. Croucher K, Bevan M. Telling the story of Hartfields. A new retirement village for the 21st century. 2010 (accessed Feb 19, 2018)

41. Evans S, Means R. Balanced Retirement Communities? A case study of Westbury Fields. 2007. (accessed Feb 19, 2018)

42. OWCH Group. Equality & Diversity Policy. 2014 (accessed Feb 10, 2018)

43. Victor CR, Scambler SJ, Bowling A, Bond J. The prevalence of, and risk factors for, loneliness in later life: a survey of older people in Great Britain. Ageing Soc 2005; 25: 357–75

44. Dahlberg L, McKee KJ. Correlates of social and emotional loneliness in older people: evidence from an English community study. Aging Ment Health 2014; 18: 504–14

45. Clifton J. Social Isolation Among Older Londoners. 2011 (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

46. Lawton K, Silim A. Institute for Public Policy Research. 2012. (accessed Feb 9, 2018)

47. Masi CM, Chen HY, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2011; 15: 10

48. Mann F, Bone JK, Lloyd-Evans B, et al. A life less lonely: the state of the art in interventions to reduce loneliness in people with mental health problems. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2017; 52: 627–38

49. McDaid D, Park A. Making Economic Case for Tackling Loneliness in Later Life. Innov Aging 2017; 1: 953

50. Mental Health Promotion and Prevention: The Economic Case. 2011 (accessed April 16, 2018)

51. McDaid D, Park A-L, Knapp M, et al. Commissioning Cost-Effective Services for Promotion of Mental Health and Wellbeing and Prevention of Mental Ill-Health. 2017 (accessed April 16, 2018)