https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-9278
Figures
Abstract
Community-based informal reciprocal interactions (natural supports) enhance individual and community well-being. Like social connections, natural supports aim to establish supportive and healthy environments, but with a greater focus on local surroundings. This study explored natural support approaches within communities in an urban Canadian center. Employing grounded theory, purposive and theoretical sampling identified participants familiar with the community and its opportunities and activities, referred to as community champions. These champions were interviewed about their perceptions of resident connectivity and the key facilitators and barriers related to natural supports approaches in their communities. Themes and categories emerged, leading to the development of a theory. The overarching theory posited “building a community’s capacity to transition from disconnected to naturally supportive: the need for connectors, assets, and action to empower residents”. Community connectors and assets facilitate natural support approaches within urban community settings. Limited access to space and challenges in recruiting and retaining volunteers were identified as barriers. The findings empower knowledge users, such as community planners, to invest in and promote community natural supports approaches to enhance resident and community well-being. Future directions for this study include the implementation and evaluation of natural support approaches within communities.
Citation: Walsh J-LA, Manhas KP, Stephenson N, McDonald SW, Patten SB, Tough SC (2026) Community perceptions of natural supports and their approaches: A Canadian grounded theory study with Connections First. PLoS One 21(5): e0346971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346971
Editor: Julia A. Jones, Oregon State University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: August 1, 2025; Accepted: March 26, 2026; Published: May 4, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Walsh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly due to confidentiality and participant privacy concerns, as per the ethical guidelines of the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary. Data may be available for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data upon reasonable request to the lead or corresponding authors of the study, or the University of Calgary’s Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB) via email (chreb@ucalgary.ca) and or via the webpage (https://research.ucalgary.ca/research-services/ethics-compliance/chreb).
Funding: This research received operational funding and support from the Max Bell Foundation and Burns Memorial Fund. The Cuthbertson and Fischer Chair in Pediatric Mental Health at the University of Calgary provided stipend support for JW. JW was also supported by an Alberta Graduate Student Scholarship and an Alberta Graduate Excellence Scholarship.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
It is well-established that social connections and supportive environments promote positive physical, psychological, and developmental outcomes [1–5]. However, research shows that social connections, social participation (engagement in community or societal opportunities) [6], and social engagement (active participation in social activities, roles, and norms) [7] have all declined over the past several decades [6,8]. For example, the Human Early Learning Partnership collected data from Grade 4 students in 19 British Columbia (BC) school districts in Canada; they observed an increase in the number of children self-reporting that they have “no important adults” in their lives from 15% in 2017–2018 to 29% in 2018–2019 [9]. In adult populations, US national trends between 2003 and 2020 found that social isolation (an objective measure of a lack of social connections, interactions, or memberships) [6] among individuals aged 15 years and older has increased [10]. There is a recognized need to promote innovative and sustainable strategies that foster social connection [11]. Our study presents an opportunity to utilize informal, natural support approaches within community settings to foster social connections and supportive environments, drawing on an evidence-based theory that can guide these approaches.
One potential mechanism: Natural supports
Natural supports have emerged from academic, non-profit, and government literature and reports within community contexts [12–14]. Natural supports are informal reciprocal connections that consist of close relationships with friends and family, as well as broader associations, including neighbours, organizations, and local businesses [14]. Similar to social connections, natural supports aim to create supportive and healthy environments, while also emphasizing the locality or places where individuals and families spend their time [14]. Although the concept of natural supports is not new, particularly in disability literature, it is a relatively recent idea in health and community literature. This study arose from a need for a sustainable approach to fostering a supportive social environment beyond professional and formal supports and services [15]. For the purposes of this study, we focused on natural supports involving informal connections among residents, organizations, local businesses, and other community-based entities.
In 2017, the Change Collective, a consortium of non-profit organizations in Alberta, Canada, released a Practice Framework for organizations and health service providers to improve non-professional support for vulnerable youth, particularly those transitioning into adulthood [14]. However, there is a lack of peer-reviewed literature on community-based natural supports, and no theories adequately capture how to promote informal natural supports in community settings.
Rationale and objective
Organizations and governments have begun to prioritize incorporating communities into their care models and supporting community-based strategies aimed at strengthening resident and family health and well-being [16–18]. Formal community-based programming and interventions, such as social prescription, are becoming increasingly common to promote social connections that support positive health outcomes [19]. Social prescription involves linking patients in primary care to supports and resources available within community settings [20]. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the perceptions of barriers and facilitators related to developing informal approaches that foster supportive connections and environments within communities for residents and families; thus, exploring natural supports becomes an ideal strategy for addressing this gap. Understanding natural supports approaches from the perspectives of individuals working and living in community settings is crucial for advancing and implementing informal strategies that empower communities to support residents in promoting positive health and well-being [21–25]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate community residents’ and leaders’ perceptions of resident connectivity and natural support approaches, as well as the facilitators and barriers to these approaches in urban communities within a Canadian context, utilizing qualitative methodology and methods. To our knowledge, this is the only study that explores how to create more naturally supportive connections and environments within communities informally.
Methods
Qualitative methods were chosen due to limited evidence on perceptions of community natural supports and approaches that facilitate them. Grounded theory methodology enabled the exploration of community-based perceptions regarding resident connectivity and natural support approaches, and developed a theory to capture a comprehensive process for advancing natural supports in urban community settings [26]. The rich, contextualized findings associated with this methodology provided a deeper understanding of experiences and processes within a community [26]. ‘Community’ was defined as the geographical area where residents live. This qualitative study adheres to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.[27] This checklist is included in Supporting Information S1 File.
Community classification framework
This study aimed to identify a theory encompassing natural supports approaches for communities across varying levels of economic, social and physical vulnerability. To ensure this broad representation, participants were intentionally recruited from communities across all vulnerability classifications.
To guide this effort, this study employed an urban classification framework developed by the City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services, which are municipal representatives responsible for addressing the social needs of local communities and residents.[28] This framework categorized all Calgary, Alberta, Canada communities into three vulnerability subgroups – high, moderate and low –based on differences in economic, social, and physical well-being.[28] Classification was determined using 19 indicators; examples included low-income households and lone-parent families.[28] A complete list of these indicators is provided in Supporting Information S1 Table.
Each indicator was quantified using two complementary metrics. The Index of Volume (INV) captured the number of individuals within a community experiencing a specific indicator. The calculated INVs for each indicator within a community were averaged to determine the overall community INV.[28] The Index of Risk (INR) captured the percentage of individuals in a community experiencing a particular indicator. Similarly, the INRs for each indicator within a community were averaged to determine the overall community INR [28] Communities were classified into the following vulnerability sub-groups: high INR and high INV (top 40%) were highly vulnerable; those with high INR and low INV, or low INR and high INV were moderately vulnerable; and those with low INR and low INV were the least vulnerable [28].
This framework was used exclusively to guide recruitment and ensure representation across vulnerability classifications, thereby reducing the risk of bias in developing a theory relevant to communities with varied structural and social conditions. Communities from each vulnerability classification (highly, moderately, and least) were randomly selected using randomization software.
Study sample
Purposive sampling was used to deliberately identify participants who were familiar with the randomly selected community and its available opportunities and activities [29]; these individuals were referred to as community champions. The inclusion criteria for community champions included those who 1) resided or worked in the selected communities and were active participants; 2) had lived or worked in their communities for at least six months to ensure familiarity; and 3) could speak English due to the lack of resources for translation. To ensure representation of both formal and informal perspectives within the community, study participants were drawn from multiple groups. Community Social Workers (CSWs) were identified and invited to participate because of their roles in designing, implementing, and evaluating community programs and supports. CSWs contribute to enhancing the health and well-being of communities by collaborating with residents and community-based organizations, initiatives, and partners. The sample also included representatives from Community Associations (CAs). CAs are non-profit, community-based organizations that offer residents social, educational, and recreational opportunities [30]. Residents, mostly comprised those who volunteered or held community leadership roles, were also recruited to provide firsthand accounts of natural supports approaches within their communities.
Recruitment
Representation across vulnerability classifications was central to this study’s aims; therefore, recruitment was conducted within the communities randomly selected from the City of Calgary classification framework.
A study summary was initially circulated to CSWs by a non-study representative to maintain confidentiality and ensure minimal potential for coercion. CSWs willing to participate connected with the research team directly, and all were included in the study.
After initial purposive sampling among CSWs, theoretical sampling was used to identify additional champion perspectives to include. Theoretical sampling is guided by emerging concepts and categories to clarify connections between themes and categories and to facilitate saturation of categories.(100) After initial interviews with CSWs were conducted and analyzed, theoretical sampling guided expansion to residents in order to gather firsthand experiences of natural support approaches in urban communities. CSWs helped identify other champions to facilitate the collection of rich data. Theoretical sampling also identified CA representatives as a crucial group to connect with to reach our objective. CAs were emailed a summary of the study. Representatives who agreed to participate were then asked to help identify additional champions within their community.
This study aimed to achieve saturation in each community studied and vulnerability classification by connecting with at least three communities in each and at least two champions per community – one a CSW or CA representative and the other a resident to ensure both formal and informal perspectives were gathered. A minimum of three communities per vulnerability classification was proposed to reduce bias and ensure data saturation within study timelines. The recruitment period for this study was March 10, 2019, to August 30, 2019.
Data collection
Semi-structured interviews were used to explore perceptions, facilitators, and barriers related to natural supports and approaches that foster them. The semi-structured questions (Fig 1) were designed to align with the study’s objectives and grounded theory methodology [31]. Using cognitive interviews, semi-structured interview questions were pilot-tested with two CSWs, and feedback was obtained to improve the interview guide.
Participants were emailed 48 hours prior to the interview to facilitate preparation. One researcher (JW) conducted the interviews in person or by phone in English, which generally lasted approximately 30–45 minutes. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Community champions from various sectors maximized validity and triangulated results by providing multiple perspectives on natural support approaches, thereby ensuring rich and complex data [32–34]. Demographic information was extracted from the City of Calgary Community Profiles website to describe key indicators for the highly, moderately, and least vulnerable communities included in this study [35].
Data analysis
Analysis commenced with line-by-line open coding of transcribed interviews using Windows NVivo 12 software [36]. Words and phrases were coded, compared, and grouped into categories based on similar themes and concepts [37]. The iterative process of constant comparison was employed, where codes and emerging categories from new interviews were compared to previous codes and categories [37]. As more interview transcripts were coded and compared, the relationships between categories became evident, leading to the emergence of the core category. Selective coding followed, involving the extraction of data related to categories tied to the core category [37]. This process continued until each category reached theoretical saturation—when collecting more data revealed no new information.[38] Next, theoretical coding integrated and conceptualized the relationships among categories.[39,40] The described analytical processes and memoing facilitated the emergence of a data-driven grounded theory [41]. Measures to enhance methodological rigour and strengthen theoretical sensitivity included ensuring fidelity to champion voices, engaging in memoing and reflexivity journaling, maintaining an audit trail, and holding peer check-ins and team meetings to consider relevance, fit, workability, and potential implications [41–43]. These strategies supported the ongoing development of theoretical sensitivity, which involves conceptualizing codes and categories, remaining open to emergent ideas, iteratively comparing codes and categories, and critically reflecting on the study team’s influence on the analytic process to allow a theory to authentically emerge [40].
Ethical considerations
This study received ethical approval from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (REB18–2003). All champions who expressed interest in participating were included to ensure diversity of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other identities. We sought informed, written, and voluntary consent from each community champion before the interviews began, including consent for recording the interviews. Minors were not recruited for this study. Champions were informed that interview questions were optional and that they could withdraw their consent for project participation at any time without repercussions. All study team members and transcriptionists signed confidentiality agreements. All data was de-identified and stored on a computer that was encrypted and password-protected. Diverse perspectives from community champions and team members were intentionally integrated into the development of codes, themes, and categories, ensuring that the analysis honoured participant voices, mitigated power imbalances, and aligned with established guidelines for community-based research to support a rich and inclusive interpretation of the data. Finally, champions were contacted for permission to use direct quotations.
Results
Participant and community characteristics
Eighteen communities from the Canadian urban center of Calgary were included, out of a total of 212 [44], and 23 champions were interviewed. The community champions comprised seven CSWs, nine CA representatives, and seven residents, with 20 being women and three men. Some CSWs served two communities. Nine communities were classified as highly vulnerable, six as moderately vulnerable, and three as least vulnerable. Moderately vulnerable sub-groups were consolidated due to the recruitment of only two communities in the high INV low INR sub-group. Table 1 outlines the demographics of each vulnerability subgroup, consisting of averages from all communities included in that subgroup.
Theory for natural supports and their approaches in urban communities
The grounded theory for natural support approaches in urban communities is: Building a community’s ability to shift from disconnected to naturally supportive: the need for connectors, assets, and action to empower residents. Fig 2 illustrates this theory. The theory and figure demonstrate that natural support approaches can transform a disconnected community, where residents feel unable to establish social connections, into a naturally supportive one. Community connectors were essential facilitators for this action and natural support approaches. The availability of community assets further facilitated connectors and natural support approaches. Finally, some residents in each community were uninterested in connecting with others in their community.
Analysis identified six categories, as shown in Table 2. The categories and their related themes are discussed in further detail below, along with supporting champion quotes for each theme in Tables 3, 4.
Perceptions of Resident Connectivity
Disconnected.
Community champion perceptions of resident connectivity primarily focused on why residents may or may not have participated in their community (Tables 2, 3). Champions recognized that some residents felt separate from others, leading to perceptions of disconnection. Two main themes emerged from the data in this disconnected category: fear and isolation. Fear indicated a lack of confidence to engage with community members, especially among immigrants and newcomers, due to language and cultural barriers. Additionally, perceptions of community safety contributed to this fear. For instance, champions noted that some residents restricted their children to organized activities and sports, limiting their movement throughout the community because of perceived elevated crime levels. Furthermore, champions perceived that residents facing struggles often wished to keep their circumstances private, fearing vulnerability to judgment and feeling like an inconvenience to their neighbours. As a result, these residents rarely engaged with their community or connected with others.
Isolation.
Isolation pertains to “silent members” or specific populations that are more susceptible to experiencing isolation, such as seniors, youth, and at-risk families (defined by champions as those in crisis, with low income, lacking support, or single parents). Experiences of marginalization and misconceptions have contributed to the isolation of some residents. Additionally, social anxieties, especially among youth, have led to a reluctance to engage and connect with other residents. Those who are uncertain about connecting with others and accessing available resources are also more likely to experience isolation in urban communities. Champions identified newcomer, transient, immigrant, and refugee populations as more likely to face challenges in accessing community resources.
Uninterested.
Another category consisted of those who were uninterested in community connections (Tables 2, 3). The most frequently suggested reasons for the lack of connection from these residents included busy schedules, a focus on meeting their own needs, and a disinterest in community-based opportunities. Residents may also have had different definitions of community and primarily formed connections outside of their residential community; examples included cultural, faith, and work communities. Champions were unable to determine or estimate the proportion of residents in this group and expressed interest in learning more about them in the future. Therefore, the representation of this category in Fig 2 may not accurately reflect the true proportion of residents uninterested in participating in their community.
Naturally supportive.
Champion descriptions of the characteristics and benefits of naturally supportive communities emerged as a critical category (Tables 2, 3). A sense of community was a prominent theme, where residents felt a sense of belonging and valued their role as community members. Feeling “at home” in their community fostered more connections with other residents and led to greater involvement in opportunities and events. Residents were also more inclined to “look out for each other.” For example, one resident called a neighbour because his garage door had been left open. Additionally, residents who were comfortable with their neighbours felt safer and more secure in their community. When people felt safe, they were more likely to participate in community-based programming and events, and allow their children and youth to walk to school.
Action.
All champions associated community-based natural supports with action (Tables 2, 3). Words such as “bridging,” “building,” “coming together “, “forming,” “making,” and “reaching” were used in conjunction with natural supports, emphasizing the need for action to create community-based connections and relationships. One of the most frequent recommendations made by champions to promote the development of naturally supportive communities was for residents to say “hello” to each other when walking in their community and to know the names of their neighbours. Residents were also more likely to create connections and participate in the community if they could relate to one another by sharing something in common, such as faith, culture, children, and interests. Champions further emphasized the need for in-person opportunities to foster natural supports.
Facilitators and barriers to community-based natural supports approaches
Community connectors.
Every champion emphasized the importance of having a community connector to facilitate urban, community-based natural supports (Tables 2, 4). These connectors were essential for fostering a naturally supportive community and creating connections among residents. Consequently, these connectors became the core category. Terms used to describe connectors included “builders”, “initiators,” “brokers,” “ambassadors,” “block/neighbourhood connectors,” and “engagement coordinators.” The nature of their roles justified the title of these representatives, thereby establishing the core category title. The key themes in this category comprised the primary roles of connectors: 1) making connections and building trust with residents, organizations, sponsors, schools, etc.; 2) meeting and gathering input from residents; 3) connecting residents to supports, services, and resources; and 4) enhancing a community’s capacity to problem-solve and to support and empower residents and families.
Community assets.
Champions perceived that community assets facilitated natural supports and approaches that fostered them (Tables 2, 4). Community assets encompass resources and attributes of both residents and the community. The absence of an asset was often viewed as a barrier. There were five key themes in the community assets category, each described by its corresponding asset type. The first asset type was accessibility, which included strategies to reduce barriers for residents, enabling the creation of natural supports. This involved identifying nearby locations for activities and events (e.g., community centres or local schools), providing free or low-cost opportunities and equipment, and helping families meet basic needs through food assistance and subsidies. Champions also emphasized the need for increased awareness of opportunities by utilizing various advertising modalities (e.g., door-knocking, flyers, social media, and emails). However, champions noted that the most effective way to promote opportunities and connections was for residents to invite each other, as they tend to trust fellow residents more.
The second asset type was inclusivity. While some approaches may target specific populations, champions recommended that the majority should be accessible to everyone so that whole families and individual residents can attend. Opportunities for residents to share their culture, traditions, customs, and language help minimize cultural and language barriers. Approaches promoting intergenerational opportunities were considered a potential “untapped” resource in communities; examples include “adopt” a grandparent or grandchild, after-school mentoring and homework assistance, and cooking classes.
The third asset type was the promotion and enhancement of partnerships. The three most common partners suggested for communities were local schools, community organizations and non-profits, and neighbouring communities and CAs. Collaborating with these community-based entities facilitated greater awareness of opportunities and strategies, as well as the sharing of knowledge and available resources.
The fourth type is related to essential leadership qualities that foster natural supports. Characteristics of accessible and receptive community leadership included active participation within the community, openness to new ideas and innovations, empowering residents, and assisting residents and connectors in overcoming potential obstacles (such as bylaws or other legalities) to natural supports approaches. Additionally, champions emphasized the importance of involving residents, including children and youth, in planning activities and approaches. To promote sustainability, ideally, some opportunities were resident-led. Lastly, champions emphasized the need to update or redefine the role of CAs within communities. They provided recommendations for CAs to prioritize community engagement to help address the needs of their residents and families.
The fifth asset type involved identifying resources to facilitate natural support approaches in urban communities. Financial resources for communities included funding for opportunities and equipment, as well as access to neighbourhood grants or monetary aid. Champions explicitly highlighted the availability of funding for community connectors to foster natural supports. The resource of space refers to the accessibility of community areas that allow residents and families to connect, encompassing drop-in centers and free venues. Outdoor green spaces offered opportunities to promote strategies for outdoor physical activities and games. However, champions often noted barriers related to access to space, particularly in indoor areas of buildings owned by organizations, associations, schools, and businesses, due to legal issues, costs, liability concerns, and a lack of awareness. Childcare was another essential resource; champions recommended providing supervised play areas for children during community events to enable more families to participate. Volunteers were crucial to community efforts. Many communities struggled to recruit volunteers and sought strategies to enhance volunteer numbers. Champions noted that residents were reluctant to volunteer, particularly in child and youth initiatives, due to training requirements, police checks, and concerns about liability. The few communities with sufficient volunteers highlighted that making volunteering enjoyable, offering support and training, providing various volunteer opportunities, and frequently expressing appreciation were vital for recruitment and retention. Lastly, staffing referred to the availability of organizers and coordinators who were familiar to residents and could build trust. Champions recommended that approaches targeting vulnerable children, youth, and families include staff with proper training to connect with this specific population and direct them to available resources. Staff with these skill sets were viewed as essential in developing naturally supportive communities, especially among those who are more vulnerable.
Discussion
Natural supports approaches are key mechanisms for communities to empower and promote the well-being of residents and families. As shown in the data-driven theoretical model (Fig 2), champions identified that community connectors, assets and actions were necessary to shift communities from disconnected to naturally supportive. To illustrate this theory, the promotion of natural supports approaches requires communities to identify connectors (i.e., those whose responsibilities or roles include making connections, receiving input and building a community’s capacity), such as CSWs, CAs, block leaders, café owners, and volunteers. Communities then need to take stock of community assets to mitigate barriers for offering natural supports approaches, and to enable residents and families to participate in these approaches by improving accessibility (e.g., providing transportation, making events free entry), being inclusive (e.g., events that are open to everyone of every age, ethnicity, English proficiency, sexual orientation, etc.), and optimizing available resources (e.g., community planning to ensure large enough green spaces, and supporting community volunteers and staff). Accessible, respectful, and responsive leadership, as well as developing partnerships with community organizations and businesses, for example, are also key assets to consider that help facilitate natural support approaches and decrease barriers for residents and families to engage in these approaches. The remainder of this discussion presents key themes and their alignment with existing literature, followed by the implications of this study for communities, community planners, and policy.
Perceptions of resident connectivity
This study revealed that some residents feared social connections or felt isolated and, as a result, were perceived as disconnected from others in their community. These findings were predominantly related to perceptions of community safety. Despite decreasing crime statistics in Canadian national reports over recent decades [45], many residents were perceived to view their communities as unsafe. A lack of safety can cause residents to minimize interactions with others in the community and become less likely to intervene or offer help when problems arise [46]. Providing opportunities for residents and families to engage with diverse people and places in their community can foster a greater sense of belonging and security [47].
Residents may be less likely to engage with their community due to a lack of interest in connecting with neighbours or having friends or partners living outside the community [48]. Residents may also struggle to find time to participate. Twenty-four percent of men and 38% of women in dual-income families in Canada experience severe ‘time-crunch’ stress [49], which may lead many families to feel overwhelmed and focused on meeting their own needs. Another possible explanation is that families seek resources outside their communities due to limited recreational and cultural activities, as well as other available resources [50]. It is important to note that while individuals may be uninterested in residential community connections, this does not necessarily imply a lack of natural supports. Future research should aim to identify the proportion of residents in this group within urban communities and explore effective strategies to engage them, particularly if they are new to the community or are experiencing isolation.
A sense of community emerged as a key theme in naturally supportive communities. Despite varying definitions of a sense of community in literature, there is a consensus that emotional interconnectedness among residents of a healthy community promotes well-being for individuals, families and the community [48,51–53]. The social-ecological model and social capital theories support this idea [54,55]. Brief, repeated interactions with neighbours can foster a greater sense of belonging, and over time, trust and familiarity can develop. In line with the broaden-and-build theory, a stronger sense of community and belonging enhances resident well-being [56]. Residents with optimal well-being are more likely to engage with others and participate in their community [56]. These actions create an effect where positive interactions and social connections boost overall psychological and physical well-being, encouraging further engagement in community, work, and school environments [57]. Such approaches may also yield significant social returns on investment for individual residents and the communities with which they engage.
Facilitators and barriers to natural supports approaches
Community connectors are essential for fostering community-based natural supports. Most peer-reviewed literature on connectors pertains to health services. For instance, a study of rural health services described community connectors as mechanisms for reaching groups that are often difficult for service providers to access, such as low-income families, seniors, and youth [58]. Social prescription is another example where healthcare providers can collaborate with a community link worker, whose responsibilities include connecting patients with community-based programs and resources [20]. However, these interventions necessitate access to health professionals or awareness of other formal community resources. Similar to this study, some literature identifies community connectors as key drivers for enabling informal community strategies and social connections [59,60]. The findings from this study enhance existing work by underscoring the contemporary significance of community connectors in developing and strengthening a community’s well-being through informal natural supports and approaches that foster them.
Community assets enhance a community’s ability to foster natural supports while empowering community connectors, residents, and families. Although each community possesses contextualized assets, a core category and five key themes were identified that promote informal natural support approaches. The literature highlights many of these facilitators, particularly within community asset mapping [61,62]. Asset mapping identifies and builds upon what communities currently have, promoting a strengths-based approach to developing community-based strategies [61,62]. This study distinguishes itself from other asset mapping studies by identifying specific assets that support natural support approaches in community settings. Researchers involved in community asset mapping projects, especially those evaluating them, have found that approaches and strategies that leverage and build on the community’s assets are more likely to be effective than introducing external assets [63].
The remainder of this discussion focuses on novel community asset findings and key contemporary barriers identified by community champions. Champions recommended approaches that leverage these assets and offered suggestions to address the identified barriers, noting that such strategies can be feasible within limited community resources through the restructuring, re-evaluating, and redistributing of community priority areas and resources. The first barrier to natural supports approaches is the CA’s contemporary role and future. CAs often face significant challenges due to continual decreases in available funding and issues with facility maintenance [64]. They are also subject to numerous priorities and must continually adapt to changing community dynamics and needs [65]. Literature has identified that CAs are vital assets to communities [66,67]. Furthermore, collaboration between CAs and residents, organizations, businesses, schools, and other entities empowers a community’s residents and leadership, optimizing resources to achieve innovative and sustainable goals [60]. One goal is to promote community well-being while also targeting and supporting those who are vulnerable. This study emphasizes the importance of CAs for engagement and facilitation of natural supports for residents, highlighting the need for CAs to prioritize natural support approaches that address the needs and goals of residents, while also recognizing the competing demands for amenity and facility maintenance, as well as revenue. CAs can be key facilitators of natural support approaches by engaging with community connectors and identifying community assets.
Access to both indoor and outdoor spaces facilitated natural support approaches. Specifically, champions highlighted the need for drop-in and free community spaces, aligning with findings in peer-reviewed literature [68–70]. However, champions frequently mentioned restricted access, legal concerns, and potential liabilities as significant barriers to community-based spaces, such as the lack of available kitchen space in community centers for local events. Other access challenges included making rent payments, adhering to school restrictions, and having limited green space for outdoor activities. Community leadership, along with local schools, organizations, and businesses, should consider making their policies and procedures more adaptable to natural support approaches for families and residents.
Many champions expressed concerns about recruiting and retaining volunteers. Volunteers are a crucial resource for community initiatives and events. However, significant barriers to volunteering exist, especially for child and youth strategies, due to training requirements, police security checks, and potential liabilities. According to a 2010 report, the largest barrier to volunteering for Canadians was a lack of time [71]. Interestingly, 45% of non-volunteers had never volunteered because they had not been asked and were unaware of available opportunities [71]. Nesbit et al. conducted a comprehensive review of the volunteering literature [72]. They developed a conceptual framework with suggestions on how organizational characteristics, volunteer management, and environmental factors can influence volunteer involvement [72]. One example includes recommendations for communities and organizations to appoint a dedicated, full-time, paid volunteer manager [72].
Potential limitations
This study has two potential limitations. The first pertains to only six communities that recruited resident or volunteer champions for the study. However, at least one resident or volunteer was interviewed within each vulnerability classification subgroup, ensuring data collection from these perspectives. Secondly, due to the inherent biases associated with opt-in recruitment and the practice of having community champions nominate other champions, there may be reduced heterogeneity among the participants in this study relative to the broader community population that would be captured through more randomized or stratified recruitment. Individuals with similar values and interests may be more likely to respond to recruitment emails and nominate others who share these values and interests. Community connectors likely constituted a significant portion of the champions in this study. However, connectors are some of the most knowledgeable about resident connectivity, assets, barriers, and opportunities in communities, making them essential individuals to interview for this study. Given the critical role of connectors in fostering natural supports in communities, the authors are confident that the core category would have emerged as community connectors, regardless of the participant composition.
Implications
To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore urban community-based informal natural supports and approaches that foster them from the perspectives of community champions. The theory and, particularly, asset themes identified in this study can help communities develop natural supports and create opportunities for residents and families to build supportive community environments. Community champions shared their views on the benefits of naturally supportive communities, particularly regarding the enhanced sense of safety, security, and belonging that residents experience. Natural support approaches offer an innovative and sustainable opportunity for communities to enhance their residents’ well-being by leveraging existing assets and resources to reduce the impact of barriers. As noted by the community champions, actions as simple as saying “hello” to others while walking or learning neighbours’ names contribute to building naturally supportive communities and enhancing resident well-being.
Communities are uniquely positioned to identify the needs of their residents and provide contextualized support to address these needs [73]. A healthy and empowered community is more likely to problem-solve and create innovative, sustainable solutions to community or societal issues. A relevant and recent example is the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence from the pandemic indicates that mandated social isolation and lockdowns increased the risk of poor mental health, loneliness, and stress in individuals globally [74–77]. Furthermore, children and youth may be more vulnerable than other age groups to negative long-term outcomes from the critical periods of brain and social-emotional development that coincided with physical distancing, social isolation, and the closure of schools and recreational spaces [78]. Many societies are still grappling with the repercussions of the pandemic and its impact on mental health and well-being. Awareness of the significance of natural supports, community, neighbours, and green spaces grew during the pandemic [79,80]. Implementing natural support approaches in communities to promote resident connectivity and well-being has never been timelier. This study offers a theoretical framework for how communities can foster informal natural supports and their approaches. Evaluating natural support methods and the theory presented in this study are important next steps for future research.
Potential action points
Although this paper introduces many potential action points, our findings have identified six crucial ones for overcoming frequent barriers to natural support approaches. First, the asset themes uncovered in this study can help communities develop natural supports, specifically. However, general knowledge of these assets and how to access them may be limited within communities [81]. Identifying relevant community assets specific to natural supports and raising awareness among residents are essential for implementing these strategies.
Next, community-based leadership, businesses, organizations, schools, associations and other entities should recognize the value of the community connector role and leverage support and resources for this role to promote natural supports approaches. Once appropriate resources have been allocated, identifying community connectors — such as individuals who already hold these roles and responsibilities or those who can be trained — is a critical step for natural supports, as connectors are key facilitators.
Third, CAs and other community-based organizations aiming to enhance natural supports and supportive communities should consider reviewing their priority areas and incorporating natural supports approaches into local planning and evaluation. This process can include creating or referencing indicators [82] for natural supports approaches, which are essential for effective community planning and evaluation.
Fourth, partnerships with local organizations, businesses, associations, funders, and surrounding communities will leverage knowledge and resources to foster natural supports among residents. Exploring potential partnerships is a crucial step in identifying community assets, such as collaborating with organizations that offer community grants or other forms of support.
Fifth, policies and procedures, including bylaws that address access to community spaces (e.g., free spaces, community buildings, unused business spaces), would benefit from a comprehensive review to manage risk and enhance usage, particularly in implementing natural supports approaches.
Ultimately, discussing the benefits and opportunities of volunteering may enhance the recruitment and retention of volunteers. Effective volunteer coordination and recognition are also essential, as suggested by community champions in this study and literature [72].
Conclusion
In summary, community champions identified that community connectors, assets, and actions were needed to transform communities from disconnected to naturally supportive. Recognizing community assets and supporting community connectors were pivotal to informal natural support approaches, which foster resident connectivity and well-being in urban communities. With the information gathered from this study, knowledge users, such as community planners and policymakers, will gain a better understanding of how to optimally invest in natural support approaches and develop community approaches that enhance natural supports and the well-being of their residents and families.
Supporting information
S1 File. Standard for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346971.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Indicators used for community vulnerability classification, from the City of Calgary Indices of Community Well-being report.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346971.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the community champions who participated in this research for sharing their time, thoughts and expertise. We also thank the All Our Families Research Team, the Owerko Centre at the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the University of Calgary, and The Change Collective for their support and contributions.
References
- 1. Fritz J, de Graaff AM, Caisley H, van Harmelen A-L, Wilkinson PO. A Systematic Review of Amenable Resilience Factors That Moderate and/or Mediate the Relationship Between Childhood Adversity and Mental Health in Young People. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:230. pmid:29971021
- 2. Kelly ME, Duff H, Kelly S, McHugh Power JE, Brennan S, Lawlor BA, et al. The impact of social activities, social networks, social support and social relationships on the cognitive functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(259).
- 3. Sanders J, Munford R, Boden J. Culture and context: The differential impact of culture, risks and resources on resilience among vulnerable adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:517–26.
- 4. Schiefer D, van der Noll J. The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review. Soc Indic Res. 2016;132(2):579–603.
- 5. Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: a flashpoint for health policy. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51 Suppl(Suppl):S54–66. pmid:20943583
- 6. Holt-Lunstad J. Social connection as a critical factor for mental and physical health: evidence, trends, challenges, and future implications. World Psychiatry. 2024;23(3):312–32. pmid:39279411
- 7.
Holt-Lunstad J. Social integration, social networks, and health. In: Wright JD, editor. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2 ed. Elsevier. 2015: 365–70.
- 8.
Office of the Surgeon General OSG. Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the health effects of social connection and community. Washington (DC), USA: US Department of Health and Human Services. 2023.
- 9.
Middle Years Development Instrument. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia. 2019. http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/mdi/
- 10. Kannan VD, Veazie PJ. US trends in social isolation, social engagement, and companionship - nationally and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and work hours, 2003-2020. SSM - Population Health. 2023;21:1–11.
- 11. Holt-Lunstad J. Social Connection as a Public Health Issue: The Evidence and a Systemic Framework for Prioritizing the “Social” in Social Determinants of Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2022;43:193–213. pmid:35021021
- 12. Hall J, Porter L, Longhi D, Becker-Green J, Dreyfus S. Reducing adverse childhood experiences (ACE) by building community capacity: a summary of Washington Family Policy Council research findings. J Prev Interv Community. 2012;40(4):325–34. pmid:22970785
- 13.
Ministry of Children’s Services. Well-being and resiliency: A framework for supporting safe and healthy children and families. Alberta, Canada: Government of Alberta. 2019.
- 14.
The Change Collective. Working with vulnerable youth to enhance their natural supports: A practice framework. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The Change Collective. 2018.
- 15. Cook JR, Kilmer RP. The importance of context in fostering responsive community systems: supports for families in systems of care. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80(1):115–23. pmid:20397996
- 16.
Family and Community Support Services. Provincial Priority Measures with Instructions. 2014.
- 17.
Mantoura P. The Roles of Public Health in Population Mental Health and Wellness Promotion-Guidance Report. National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy. 2022.
- 18.
South J, Stansfield J, Mehta P, Brice A, Connolly AM, Davies C. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and well-being: Full report. London, England: Public Health England. 2015.
- 19.
Polley M, Chatterjee H, Asthana S, Cartwright L, Husk K, Burns L. Measuring outcomes for individuals receiving support through social prescribing. London, England: National Academy for Social Prescribing. 2022.
- 20. Morse DF, Sandhu S, Mulligan K, Tierney S, Polley M, Chiva Giurca B, et al. Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(5):e008524. pmid:35577392
- 21. Bhuiya N, House LD, Desmarais J, Fletcher E, Conlin M, Perez-McAdoo S, et al. Strategies to Build Readiness in Community Mobilization Efforts for Implementation in a Multi-Year Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(3S):S51–6. pmid:28235436
- 22. Edwards RW, Jumper-Thurman P, Plested BA, Oetting ER, Swanson L. Community readiness: Research to practice. J Community Psychol. 2000;28(3):291–307.
- 23. Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT, Osgood DW. Readiness, functioning, and perceived effectiveness in community prevention coalitions: a study of communities that care. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;33(3–4):163–76. pmid:15212176
- 24. Fitzpatrick JL, Gerard K. Community attitudes toward drug use: the need to assess community norms. Int J Addict. 1993;28(10):947–57. pmid:8407023
- 25. Oetting ER, Donnermeyer JF, Plested BA, Edwards RW, Kelly K, Beauvais F. Assessing community readiness for prevention. Int J Addict. 1995;30(6):659–83. pmid:7657396
- 26.
Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. 4 ed. Cichester, West Sussex, UK; Ames, Iowa, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2017.
- 27. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51. pmid:24979285
- 28.
City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services. Indices of community well-being, 2006, for Calgary neighbourhoods. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: City of Calgary. 2010.
- 29.
Battaglia MP. Purposive sample. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications, Inc. 2008. http://methods.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/Reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n419.xml
- 30.
Federation of Calgary Communities. Find my Community Association. https://calgarycommunities.com/. 2019.
- 31.
Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4 ed. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 2018.
- 32. Aldiabat K, Le Navenec C-L. Philosophical Roots of Classical Grounded Theory: Its Foundations in Symbolic Interactionism. TQR. 2014.
- 33. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989;11(3):255–74.
- 34. Aldiabat K, Le Navenec C-L. Data Saturation: The Mysterious Step In Grounded Theory Method. TQR. 2018.
- 35.
City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services. Community profiles Calgary, Alberta, Canada. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Research-and-strategy/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx. 2014. Accessed 2018 October 28.
- 36. Glaser BG, Holton J. Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2004;5(2):1–17.
- 37.
Holton JA. The coding process and its challenges. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Sage Publications, Ltd. 2010:265–89.
- 38.
Morse JM. Theoretical saturation. The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 2004:1123.
- 39. Kenny M, Fourie R. Contrasting Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist Grounded Theory: Methodological and Philosophical Conflicts. TQR. 2015.
- 40. Reay G, Bouchal SR, A Rankin J. Staying theoretically sensitive when conducting grounded theory research. Nurse Res. 2016;24(1):26–30. pmid:27641705
- 41.
Glaser BG. Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, California, USA: Sociology Press. 1992.
- 42.
Glaser BG. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in methodology of grounded theory. San Francisco, California, USA: University of California Press. 1978.
- 43.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, USA: Aldine. 1967.
- 44.
City of Calgary. Community profiles Calgary, Alberta. https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles.html. Accessed 2019 October 12.
- 45.
Statistics Canada. Table 35-10-0026-01: Crime severity index and weighted clearance rates, Canada, provinces, territories and census metropolitan areas. Statistics Canada. 2024.
- 46. Zahnow R, Corcoran J, Kimpton A, Wickes R. Neighbourhood places, collective efficacy and crime: A longitudinal perspective. Urban Studies. 2021;59(4):789–809.
- 47. Jack G. Place Matters: The Significance of Place Attachments for Children’s Well-Being. British Journal of Social Work. 2008;40(3):755–71.
- 48. Ziersch AM, Baum FE, Macdougall C, Putland C. Neighbourhood life and social capital: the implications for health. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(1):71–86. pmid:15482868
- 49.
Marshall K. The family work week. Ontario, Canada: Statistics Canada, Labour and Household Survey Analysis Division. 2009.
- 50. Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):309–37. pmid:10748645
- 51. Leverentz A, Pittman A, Skinnon J. Place and Perception: Constructions of Community and Safety across Neighborhoods and Residents. City & Community. 2018;17(4):972–95.
- 52. O’Connor JP, Alfrey L, Hall C, Burke G. Intergenerational understandings of personal, social and community assets for health. Health Place. 2019;57:218–27. pmid:31108364
- 53. Talò C, Mannarini T, Rochira A. Sense of Community and Community Participation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Soc Indic Res. 2013;117(1):1–28.
- 54. An W, Western B. Social capital in the creation of cultural capital: Family structure, neighborhood cohesion, and extracurricular participation. Soc Sci Res. 2019;81:192–208. pmid:31130196
- 55. Putnam RD. Social Capital and Public Affairs. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1994;47(8):5–19.
- 56. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218–26. pmid:11315248
- 57. Kok BE, Coffey KA, Cohn MA, Catalino LI, Vacharkulksemsuk T, Algoe SB, et al. How positive emotions build physical health: perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(7):1123–32. pmid:23649562
- 58. Wallace C, Farmer J, McCosker A. Boundary spanning practices of community connectors for engaging “hardly reached” people in health services. Soc Sci Med. 2019;232:366–73. pmid:31132544
- 59.
McKnight JG, Block P. The power of connectors. The abundant community: Awakening the power of families and neighbourhoods. San Francisco, CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. 2010:195–222.
- 60. Klee D, Mordey M, Phuare S, Russell C. Asset based community development – enriching the lives of older citizens. Working with Older People. 2014;18(3):111–9.
- 61. Lightfoot E, McCleary JS, Lum T. Asset Mapping as a Research Tool for Community-Based Participatory Research in Social Work. Social Work Research. 2014;38(1):59–64.
- 62. Nel H. A Comparison between the Asset-oriented and Needs-based Community Development Approaches in Terms of Systems Changes. Practice. 2017;30(1):33–52.
- 63. Saunders JA, Marchik BMA. Building Community Capacity to Help Persons with Mental Illness. Journal of Community Practice. 2007;15(4):73–96.
- 64.
Conger BW, Goodbrand P, Gondek J. On the role and future of Calgary’s Community Associations. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary. 2016.
- 65. Harris ME. Organizational challenges of community associations: Applying nonprofit research to real-world problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2015;44(4):796–813.
- 66. Pan RJ, Littlefield D, Valladolid SG, Tapping PJ, West DC. Building healthier communities for children and families: applying asset-based community development to community pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4 Suppl):1185–7. pmid:15821307
- 67. Mathie A, Cunningham G. From clients to citizens: Asset-based Community Development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice. 2003;13(5):474–86.
- 68. García-Moya I, Moreno C, Braun-Lewensohn O. Neighbourhood perceptions and sense of coherence in adolescence. J Prim Prev. 2013;34(5):371–9. pmid:23943136
- 69. Lenzi M, Vieno A, Santinello M, Perkins DD. How neighborhood structural and institutional features can shape neighborhood social connectedness: a multilevel study of adolescent perceptions. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(3–4):451–67. pmid:23264043
- 70. Pinderhughes EE, Nix R, Foster EM, Jones D, The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Parenting in Context: Impact of Neighborhood Poverty, Residential Stability, Public Services, Social Networks, and Danger on Parental Behaviors. J Marriage Fam. 2007;63(4):941–53. pmid:19829752
- 71.
Vézina M, Crompton S. Volunteering in Canada. Canada: Statistics Canada. 2012.
- 72. Nesbit R, Christensen RK, Brudney JL. The Limits and Possibilities of Volunteering: A Framework for Explaining the Scope of Volunteer Involvement in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Public Administration Review. 2017;78(4):502–13.
- 73.
Born P. Community conversations: mobilizing the ideas, skills, and passion of community organizations, governments, businesses, and people. 2nd ed. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: BPS Books. 2012.
- 74. Jones EAK, Mitra AK, Bhuiyan AR. Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2470. pmid:33802278
- 75. Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, Vaisi-Raygani A, Rasoulpoor S, Mohammadi M, et al. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health. 2020;16(1):57. pmid:32631403
- 76. Stockwell S, Trott M, Tully M, Shin J, Barnett Y, Butler L, et al. Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: a systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021;7(1):e000960. pmid:34192010
- 77. Cost KT, Crosbie J, Anagnostou E, Birken CS, Charach A, Monga S, et al. Mostly worse, occasionally better: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Canadian children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;31(4):671–84. pmid:33638005
- 78. Vigo D, Patten S, Pajer K, Krausz M, Taylor S, Rush B, et al. Mental Health of Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Can J Psychiatry. 2020;65(10):681–7. pmid:32391720
- 79.
Charnock S, Heisz A, Kaddatz J, Spinks N, Mann R. Canadians’ well-being in year one of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada: Statistics Canada, and The Vanier Institute of the Family. 2021.
- 80.
Rutter J, Puddle J, Ballinger S, Buckerfield L, Hickmott L, Katwala S. Our chance to reconnect: Final report of the Talk/together project. United Kingdom: British Future for the Together Coalition. 2021.
- 81. Dieleman C. Mapping Community Capacity: Identifying Existing Community Assets for Supporting People with Mental Health Problems who Have Been Involved with the Criminal Justice System. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. 2014;33(3):29–42.
- 82.
Tough S, Reynolds N, Walsh JL, Agius M. Connections First: Key natural supports indicators. Calgary, AB, Canada: Connections First Max Bell Foundation & Burns Memorial Fund Policy Fellowship. 2020.