1. Introduction

1A caring neighbourhood policy aims for a coherent, neighbourhood-based approach to housing, care and welfare with the intention of enabling people to continue living in their familiar surroundings or neighbourhood irrespective of their age or care needs. Although a district-focused concept of care has already existed for some time, the term “caring neighbourhoods” has been growing in popularity in Brussels and Flanders since 2013. Caring neighbourhood projects often aim to connect residents with each other (i.e. creating a “welcoming neighbourhood”) or to link professional services with residents who have specific care needs [De Donder et al., 2021]. The MaN’Aige project (October 2019 – October 2022), financed by the Innoviris Co-Create programme, investigated how connections with neighbourhood users could contribute to a caring neighbourhood in two Brussels districts. Although caring neighbourhoods focus on key figures who work in the neighbourhood, including postal workers, grocers or pedicure specialists [Duppen et al., 2019], other players – such as businesses, schools, theatres, museums and even students or commuters – are rarely involved. In a diverse urban context, however, these neighbourhood users have a prominent presence, with space, resources and services that have the potential to meet specific care needs and demands for care in neighbourhoods.

2MaN’Aige was initiated by the local service centre Het Anker, a meeting place for older residents of the Begijnhofwijk since the 1980s. The Flemish government’s reformed residential care policy divided the Brussels-Capital Region into residential care zones in 2008, with each local service centre being made responsible for a certain geographical area [Kenniscentrum Woonzorg Brussel, 2014]. Two districts in the “Pentagon” of central Brussels, the Martelaarswijk and Onze-Lieve-Vrouw ter Sneeuw, now belonged to Het Anker’s residential care zone, but the local service centre hardly catered to any of the people living there. Based on their experience with residents in the surrounding district, Het Anker also wanted to develop a caring neighbourhood in these two districts, taking into account the specific character of the districts: a low population density and the prominent presence of all kinds of neighbourhood users, which made the traditional strategy of starting with local residents less suitable here. They set up the MaN’Aige project in partnership with Odisee University of Applied Sciences, Maison Médicale Enseignement (the medical centre based in Rue de l’Enseignement), Kenniscentrum Welzijn, Wonen, Zorg (the “Knowledge Centre for Welfare, Housing and Care”) and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). This article is a reflection on three years of co-creative research in these two neighbourhoods.

1.1. Socialisation of care

3The development of policy for caring neighbourhoods belongs within a broader policy context of the socialisation of care. This term initially referred to a movement in mental health care that drew more attention to the societal and social context. It was an approach that also resonated with other sectors such as care of the elderly and youth care. Since the concept emerged in the 1980s, we have seen two trends: a “de-institutionalisation” of professional care and the expansion of informal care [De Donder et al., 2017; 2021]. The first trend entailed the phasing out of residential care, with greater focus being placed on professional care within society, such as home care and family care. Instead of organising care within the walls of traditional care centres such as residential care homes, psychiatric hospitals or facilities for people with disabilities, care was taken out of the institution. This led to care that was better suited to the living situation of the person with care needs. An important condition of this was for home care services to be expanded. Since the 2000s, policy has not only focused on care in society, but also on care by society. Policy texts and decrees have focused increasingly on informal caregivers, including volunteers and care within the family. Social networks and community activities were also given a more prominent place in healthcare policy. Although there was a greater focus on an integrated, neighbourhood-based approach to care, this movement was also accompanied by cost-cutting in professional care and the shifting of care responsibilities to informal caregivers [De Donder et al., 2017; De Donder et al., 2022].

4There have also been various international developments that can be considered a “community turn” in healthcare policy: “Healthy Communities”, “Age-Friendly Cities & Communities”, “Compassionate Communities”, “Healthy Cities” proposed by the World Health Organisation, “Integrated Community Care” and so on. Although these movements are strongly committed to the neighbourhood level and to local networks, they should not be understood as an alternative to structural guarantees of care and support [De Donder et al., 2022]. Recognising networks and informal care also requires support and investment from the government [De Donder et al., 2021]. Precisely because neighbourhoods are increasingly expected to act as “caregivers”, it is necessary to gain insight into how neighbourhood dynamics work and which people remain visible – and invisible – within them.

5Although the traditional starting point for a caring neighbourhood is its residents and their networks, other stakeholders in the neighbourhood are often overlooked. Nonetheless, neighbourhood users such as workers, students, visitors and local organisations have a strong presence in urban contexts and potentially offer space and interactions that may contribute to responding to local care needs. Against this backdrop, this article explores which neighbourhood users can contribute to the development of caring neighbourhoods, whether they can contribute, and how they can do so.

1.2. Neighbourhood-based approach to care: the idea of caring neighbourhoods in Flanders and Brussels

6Over the past decade, Flemish care and welfare policy has increasingly focused on an integrated, neighbourhood-based approach to care. In 2012, the Flemish Government launched a call for innovation in the care of the elderly. The living lab project “Actief Zorgzame Buurten” (Active Caring Neighbourhoods) (2013-2016) in Brussels and Antwerp focused on the development of neighbourhood-based informal care, housing renovation and professional case management for elderly people living at home in the Brabantwijk in Schaarbeek and the Jachtwijk in Etterbeek [Smetcoren et al., 2018; De Donder et al., 2017]. In 2015, various Flemish and Brussels partners in the care and welfare sector issued a vision statement [Bekaert et al., 2016] and the idea was given greater prominence in the policy of the minister at the time, Jo Vandeurzen [2018]. The concept has since been further developed and is defined in current policy as follows:

In a Caring Neighbourhood, people live comfortably in their homes or familiar surroundings. It is a neighbourhood where people of all ages know and help each other. In a Caring Neighbourhood, quality of life is central; facilities and services are accessible to everyone. Everyone feels good about living there and receives help, regardless of their support needs [Flemish Government Department of Care, 2023].

1.3. Caring neighbourhoods in an urban context

8The two districts of Martelaarswijk and Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ter-Sneeuw are centrally located in the “Pentagon” in the heart of Brussels, but they share certain unique characteristics. Although the two districts are different, both historically and in the present-day experiences of residents and neighbourhood users, MaN’Aige based its approach on three observations that applied to both districts. Firstly, both districts experience a serious imbalance between residents and neighbourhood users who do not live in the neighbourhood but do use it, such as shops, businesses, organisations or schools. Compared to the rest of the Pentagon, the two districts have a low population density and a particularly high density of office blocks, roughly equal to that of the Noordwijk [Ibsa.Brussels, 2021; 2018]. Although the number of new residents has been increasing in recent years [Ibsa.Brussels, 2019], the imbalance remains significant. By way of an illustration, the two neighbourhoods have about 2,600 residents each [Ibsa.Brussels, 2019], whereas one of the companies in the Martelaarswijk employs around 2,800 people. Secondly, there are few services and facilities nearby for the residents of the district. Hospitality businesses and shops are mainly focused on non-local users, such as lunch bars and supermarkets that cater to commuters. The low population in comparison to the rest of the Pentagon means that these districts are less visible when it comes to services, facilities and political policy. Thirdly, the two districts are surrounded and crisscrossed by hard boundaries in the form of major avenues such as the Pachecolaan, Koningsstraat and Kleine Ring. Residents of the Martelaarswijk, for example, call their neighbourhood “a concrete landscape” with few signs of life, but conversely describe it as a quiet, sheltered island in the busy city centre.

1.4. Connections as a starting point for caring neighbourhoods and research questions

9MaN’Aige proposes that connections need to be established first in order to achieve a caring attitude. Connections can take various forms and are theorised in different ways. For example, the sociologist Granovetter [1973] mentions the difference between strong and weak ties that fulfil many different functions. Whereas strong ties can reinforce existing groups, weak ties are less intimate and profound but important to bridge the gaps between various individuals and networks. The anthropologist and social educationalist Soenen [2006] has expanded upon Granovetter’s theory of the importance of weak ties for social cohesion in Western societies. Besides strong and weak ties, she discerns a third type of relationship: casual ties. Soenen [2006] calls these “the world of little encounters”, such as people who start chatting in the supermarket queue or exchange glances on public transport. These fleeting relationships may create a sense of belonging in the instant, a “moment of community”, and they are of great importance in a diverse, urban context [Soenen 2003; 2006].

10In the story of caring neighbourhoods, the value of social networks for care and welfare is often cited, more specifically the roles of bonding and bridging in the fabric of society. Although these concepts mainly gained prominence in Putnam’s work (e.g. [2000]), Gittell and Vidal [1998] were among the first authors to introduce the terms bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital refers to the trusting and sustainable social relationships within a social group or community. This form of social capital is important for social well-being, social support and the embedding of individuals and groups. Bridging social capital refers to relationships of respect and reciprocity between groups or individuals who see each other as different in socio-demographic terms (e.g. differing ages or socio-economic backgrounds), or on the basis of their social or cultural identities. Bridging relationships have the potential to connect different groups. Caring neighbourhoods can commit to both, but Wegleitner and Schuchter [2018] point out the potentially negative effects of bonding social capital when developing caring neighbourhoods:

(…) such as social exclusion or disadvantages resulting from all too tightly-knit communities with alleged unity. Thus, the challenge and “art” of being a good neighbour includes strengthening the qualities of bridging in the community, which means in particular, showing openness for the unknown, the stranger, who lives next door or in the next street. [Wegleitner and Schuchter, 2018: 95-96].

11Caring neighbourhoods are always developed in a diverse context; neighbourhoods are traversed by different individuals and a range of social and cultural contexts. For this reason, MaN'Aige initially focused on bridging between various individuals, local residents and neighbourhood users, care and other services, etc., to create caring neighbourhoods.

12However, caring neighbourhoods are not about social connections alone: they also have to do with the connection with the environment and spatial setting. Care is a socio-material practice that is connected to and shaped by human beings, non-humans, environments and bodies in the city [Power and Williams, 2019]. People are an active part of a web of social relationships and are dependent on each other, but they also exist in relationship to their environment [Gabauer et al., 2022]. Research emphasises the importance of public space for welfare and health in the neighbourhood, both for individuals and communities. Green areas, playgrounds, accessible footpaths and streets have a direct impact on health whilst also creating the opportunity for encounters and social connections. Although public space is an important lever for encounters, it is not self-evident that encounters automatically lead to social cohesion. That relationship is also linked to how the space is designed, managed, used and appropriated [Aelbrecht and Stevens, 2019].

13In caring neighbourhood projects, however, public space is often regarded as a free meeting place. Connections emerge through activities, people and places – places which may also be temporary or mobile – that bring people together accessibly and make encounters possible [De Donder et al., 2024]. This vision of care transcends the individual, one-to-one relationship and views care from a perspective of social and spatial connection. Focusing on public space, for example through communal vegetable gardens in the neighbourhood, can thus contribute to community building and social contact whilst offering an accessible way of making care needs visible and responding to them.

14The study was therefore designed to consider two research questions:

1. What role can neighbourhood users play in developing a caring neighbourhood?

2. How do you create connections between neighbourhood users and the neighbourhood with its residents?

2. Our approach: co-creative research

16There are many theoretical interpretations of co-creative research. We initially followed the model by Bonney et al. [2009]. Co-creative research goes beyond mere contributions or collaboration in research: participants are involved in virtually all phases of the research process, from formulating the research question to experimenting, formulating and disseminating conclusions and asking new questions. In MaN'Aige's practical circumstances, however, co-creative research brought many challenges, both between project partners and in the relationship with neighbourhood stakeholders and funders. Six months into the project, the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, which made social connections extremely difficult. Although the initial target groups were elderly people and those in need of care in the neighbourhood, the initiatives gradually gained a broader focus on public space and green areas. The obstacles and challenges of this process are further discussed in the results section and analysed in more detail in the scientific article “Lessons Learned from a Co-creative Research Project on Caring Neighbourhoods in Brussels: An Ethical Reflection on the Research Journey” [Kint and De Donder, 2026].

17From our perspective as academic researchers, co-creative research was a constant balancing act between setting up concrete activities and adopting a reflective attitude, which involved exploring creative research methods and techniques.

Table 1. Living labs in MaN’Aige

Living Lab	Objective	Type of neighbourhood user
Accessibility	Analyse and map out the physical, social and emotional accessibility of the district and its facilities	Local shops and restaurants
Vegetable Gardens	A route leading past vegetable planters in Onze-Lieve-Vrouw ter Sneeuwwijk	Local district organisations
Green Space	A network of residents and cultural players aiming to make the Martelaarswijk greener	Cultural organisations (theatres, museums, etc.), public bodies and schools
Res’O	Creating a network around the shared space in the Martelaarswijk, with a focus on pleasant and unpleasant places in the district	Large organisations, businesses, public bodies
Meeting Place	A fixed or mobile meeting place in the district	Different types of user: passers-by, commuters, local organisations and businesses (e.g. hotels)
Caring Education	The connection between a university and its students with the surrounding area	Educational institution and students

19The results we present in the next section are based on the experiences of co-researchers and the collective analysis of the three-year MaN'Aige process. A number of insights were brought together in a booklet when the project ended. After the project period, the doctoral researcher was given one additional year to extract the project’s academic value, during which the results were further explored and explicitly linked to theory and academic literature. In that phase, the conclusions were supplemented and conceptually refined by the academic researchers. For example, the theme of power relationships and structural inequality was only explicitly added afterwards. Although present during the project in conversations and analyses, it was not stated as a research subject at the time and was only elaborated upon as an overarching theme in the doctoral analysis.

3. Results

20The results of three years of co-creative research gave us more insight into the social role that neighbourhood users could play in developing a caring neighbourhood. Three important building blocks were discussed: 1) a broad vision of care as a caring attitude, 2) the shared, public space as a lever for connection and care, 3) attention to power relationships at project and neighbourhood level.

3.1. A broad view of care as a caring attitude

21Firstly, the perspective of neighbourhood users in a caring neighbourhood revealed the need for a broader vision of care than its traditional meaning. Care is often considered to be a unilateral, individual relationship between a caregiver and the receiver of care, with respect to a particular care need [Fine and Glendinning, 2005]. In caring neighbourhood projects, the focus is often on strong, reciprocal, relationships and matching the demand for care with the available supply. Likewise in MaN'Aige, the initial intention was to set up care relationships between neighbourhood users (“care providers”) and older, lonely or isolated residents (“care requesters”). For example, we started up a buddy system between nursing students and older local residents who used the community health centre. The idea was to make contact for a weekly chat or activity. In practice, however, we encountered many obstacles. For example, the requirements of the programme in terms of scheduling, regulations and the (temporary) availability of students did not match the needs and requests of residents. Additionally, older residents experienced great resistance to letting a stranger into the house, and they wanted to offer their buddy something instead of merely receiving help. This experience led us to take a few steps back and reconsider our approach. Rather than building reciprocal relationships around providing and offering care between neighbourhood users and residents, we first had to work on an awareness of the neighbourhood and an open attitude towards other people. We called this broader vision of care a caring attitude. Although we recognised the importance of strong, individual care relationships that responded to concrete care needs in neighbourhoods, the concept of a caring attitude placed the emphasis on an awareness of other people and the environment as a first step towards sustainable connection. This took us another step beyond weak [Granovetter, 1973] or casual ties [Soenen, 2006]. Involving neighbourhood users in a caring neighbourhood began with raising awareness of “the neighbourhood” and other people:

A caring attitude means being attentive, and that can mean many things (...) it can be about a caring way of looking at a person, the environment, each other's safety, etc. (…) There are many ways to care or be considerate of someone or something that is alive. It can even be caring not to come into contact with something or someone else (co-researcher, focus group).

22The concept of a caring attitude implies that organisations that are present or active in the neighbourhood have a broader social responsibility for the environment in which they live. For example, a nurse at the community health centre contributed to a vegetable garden project that considered the quality of life of the entire neighbourhood, not just the well-being of her patients. The new perspective, focused on the neighbourhood, also emerged among other users outside the social or care sector. For example, some theatres in the neighbourhood were involved in projects to make the district greener:

In itself, making our surroundings greener has nothing to do with the primary task of a theatre (...) but instead of seeing things through the lens of “these are my customers”, they now see things through the lens of “this is my neighbourhood” (...). We are going to try to get involved in the neighbourhood and listen to what is important to the residents. And one of the things that has emerged is the importance of a greener neighbourhood (co-researcher, focus group).

23More than a focus on “care”, the basis of a caring neighbourhood therefore lies in being attentive to and listening to the various needs of the neighbourhood and its residents. This in turn forms the basis for the development of local networks, on a small scale.

3.2. Shared, public space as a lever for connection and care

24Although we initially had high expectations of the innovative role that neighbourhood users might play in a caring neighbourhood, one-on-one initiatives often remained brief, dependent on the goodwill of a few individuals, rather than structurally embedded. The involvement of neighbourhood users was limited by regulations surrounding safety and access, staff changes, priorities, time and financial resources. Furthermore, setting up initiatives was in itself no guarantee that they would be accessible or usable for the residents. Certainly where there is no existing outreach organisation in the neighbourhood, “a large amount of preparatory work is required before you genuinely have something upon which a caring attitude can be based” (co-researcher, focus group). The accessibility and quality of life in public and semi-public space was an important lever for connection, however, certainly during the pandemic. Concrete, shared needs made the importance of cooperation between residents and neighbourhood users clear. In MaN'Aige, the lack of liveable, high-quality shared public spaces was especially pronounced. It was expressed in the negative impact of large-scale construction projects on residents, the lack of green space, play areas for children or seating for students during the lunch break, social isolation during the pandemic, the inaccessibility of buildings, pavements and toilets of hospitality businesses for wheelchair users, etc. Networks arose out of these experiences and needs, which in turn led to new connections. As mentioned earlier, for example, local users were involved in projects to make the neighbourhood greener. Small interventions in public spaces such as vegetable planters led to new forms of cooperation emerging: workshops with children in the homework club, initiatives to look after the vegetable planters, collect seeds and plants, and exchange knowledge.

25Although public space was not explicitly addressed in our initial vision of caring neighbourhoods, it turned out to be an important lever for creating connections. Nevertheless, a focus on public space also led to many challenges. By committing to public space, we missed certain individual needs, which may have led to more exclusion. Some patients at the community health centre with limited mobility, for example, were not struggling with the inaccessibility of the neighbourhood, but the inaccessibility of their own apartment building:

My two patients are elderly: they have a lot of trouble getting around, they live at their own pace, and you just can’t change that (...) Due to their reduced mobility, their ability to move around the neighbourhood has become very limited. (…) For example, my patient cannot leave the building with her walking frame and has to wait until another resident passes by to help her keep the door open (co-researcher, written focus group).

26Additionally, public space could not respond to the diversity of users, experiences and needs in a neighbourhood. This field of tension came clearly to the fore in the Living Lab Res’O, where we brought together 46 residents, organisations and businesses. The space that residents, businesses, theatres and schools in the neighbourhood use and share was the starting point for the discussion. It began with some maps of the neighbourhood that two co-researchers hung up in the entrance halls of buildings and organisations, on which people could indicate pleasant and unpleasant places. This grew into discussions and info sessions where residents and neighbourhood users sat around one table together as neighbours for the first time. The cleanliness and safety of public space were very prominent themes. However, we found that the discussion remained limited to the needs of the stakeholders present and that other perspectives were lacking, for example of the experience of homelessness and the right to housing. Although we brought in organisations who raised awareness of these issues, these voices were not heard directly.

3.3. Attention to power relationships in the project and the neighbourhood

27In MaN'Aige, we observed power relationships in both the project and the neighbourhood itself. In terms of the project, structural social inequalities seeped into the cooperation between the participants. The project was developed and implemented by paid partners who participated on a professional basis, although most of them were also present in the district as neighbourhood users. The “usual suspects” were also involved: residents who had lived in the neighbourhood for a long time, were involved in district-based organisations or had contacts with local politicians, and neighbourhood users who could make time within their professional roles for projects in the neighbourhood. In terms of gender, education and socio-economic situation, the group of co-researchers and participants was fairly homogeneous. Networks and initiatives that grew from the bottom up, such as the vegetable planter project or the network tackling green areas, could not continue to be structurally supported by the project partners after the end of the project. However, setting up initiatives led to expectations of action and changes in the long term, which could not be met due to limited resources and time.

28At neighbourhood level, the involvement of certain neighbourhood users, such as local politicians and private companies, raised ethical questions in our project about a caring attitude in a context of unequal, structural power relationships. In the search for a place for the vegetable planter project, participants came up against the interests of private project developers, for example. On the site where they could potentially develop their vegetable garden, the private project developer had previously cut down hundreds of trees, which met with fierce protest from the neighbourhood committee. The project developer later used a conversation about the vegetable garden project to justify the earlier felling of the trees. A resident who was a member of the neighbourhood committee explained:

We had a meeting with [the project developer], supposedly to make contact about creating a vegetable garden on their site, but a day later we found out that they had recouped our conversation, and that we had supposedly given our consent to the trees they had cut down (co-researcher, co-researchers’ committee).

29Moreover, the conceptual vagueness of “caring neighbourhoods” and “neighbourhood users” offered a lot of flexibility but also led to excluded groups and realities remaining invisible and voiceless. Gradually, the focus shifted from individual care relationships to public space and green areas. On the one hand, this was in line with a broader vision of care involving stakeholders other than residents alone, but on the other hand, it created uncertainty about whose needs were central.

4. Conclusion

30The MaN'Aige project took several steps to address the question of the social role of neighbourhood users, such as businesses, socio-cultural and public institutions and their employees, in (caring) neighbourhoods. Three themes were considered in the development a caring neighbourhood with neighbourhood users: 1) a broader vision of care as a caring attitude, 2) the shared, public space as a lever for connection and care, 3) attention to power relationships at project and neighbourhood level. Our results showed that care should not be seen in the narrow sense, but more broadly as a caring attitude, an attentive view of other people and the neighbourhood. A lot is already going on in neighbourhoods, but caring neighbourhoods can contribute to this by paying attention to local needs and by connecting people, resources and activities. Furthermore, the public space that neighbourhood users and neighbourhood residents share was an important starting point for connection: green areas and space for children to play (or the lack of it), squares and benches, but also buildings and construction projects. Finally, it was important to examine existing power relationships, both at the micro level of relationships within the project, and at the neighbourhood level, and to be attentive to the broader impact of the activities set up and an ethical dimension. While we recognise the value of caring neighbourhoods, involving neighbourhood users provides more insight into the limits of a caring neighbourhood and the importance of a different vision of care. In the following section, we therefore intend to consider our three results from a critical perspective.

4.1. The limits of care and a caring attitude within a failing healthcare system

31In the context of the socialisation of care, it is important to take a critical view of the social role that neighbourhood users, whether organisations or individuals, may or “should” assume in care. In MaN'Aige, employees of the community health centre, the university and theatres stepped outside their traditional roles and were involved in many projects in the district, such as the community health centre’s vegetable garden projects or the buddy scheme involving nursing students and older local residents. In the results, we have already argued that the involvement of neighbourhood users should not be primarily based on organising extra care, but on strengthening a caring attitude: an attentive stance towards the neighbourhood and its residents. After all, it turned out in MaN'Aige that one-to-one care relationships with neighbourhood users were difficult to organise sustainably, whereas small-scale interventions in shared space and everyday encounters did offer an entry point for cultivating a “caring neighbourhood awareness”. A caring attitude functions here as a condition for care: it opens up the possibility that needs become visible and that connections arise that may later result – sometimes – in more targeted support. Simultaneously, this shift raises the question of where the boundary lies between valuable caring and the passing on of care responsibilities to players who are not equipped to provide care or who are not supported in doing so.

32After all, there are limits to the “care” involving neighbourhood users in terms of its form and intensity. In MaN’Aige, the involvement of neighbourhood users remained limited, and networks were not structurally supported after the end of the project. Thus De Donder et al. [2021] observed that although caring neighbourhoods can (temporarily) meet concrete care and welfare needs in the neighbourhood, they cannot offer a structural solution to a failing care system, a system based on a logic of cost saving that does not offer structural support capable of guaranteeing the right to care. Although local contexts differ, the last two decades have been characterised at international level by a trend in neoliberal market philosophy in the social and health sectors that prioritises individualisation and profit [Raap et al., 2022]. This evolution is reflected in policy and practice, but also in a changing vocabulary: for example, care at home is “delivered” in “care packages” [Garrett, 2018]. In Flanders, care facilities are bundled into “care businesses” that organise care as efficiently as possible. In the “privatisation decree on healthcare”, healthcare is increasingly viewed as a real estate investment. The emphasis is placed on personal responsibility and provisions for oneself. Supporting informal care and self-care goes hand in hand with a decline in public services, less investment and the phasing out of the welfare state.

33However, involving neighbourhood users in “caring” initiatives must not lead to care becoming a moral, individual responsibility again that leads to care tasks being passed off onto citizens and organisations. The task is therefore not to “activate more”, but to support care and invest in it [De Donder, 2021; 2022]. As Joan Tronto puts it:

Caring is not only about the intimate and daily routines of hand-on-care. Care also involves the larger structural questions of thinking about which institutions, people, and practices should be used to accomplish concrete and real caring tasks [Tronto, 2013: 139].

4.2. A spatial vision of care

34In the results, we showed that the shared, public space was a crucial lever for connection between neighbourhood residents and neighbourhood users. Where one-to-one care relationships proved difficult to sustain, concrete spatial issues, such as accessibility, making the neighbourhood greener, and the use of green spaces and squares, offered a common starting point to encourage cooperation. Public space did not function merely as a backdrop to encounters, here, but as an active carrier of a caring attitude: small interventions in the surrounding environment (e.g. the vegetable planters in the street) made needs visible, and new networks emerged from a shared sense of responsibility for the neighbourhood. At the same time, the living labs made it clear that public space is not a neutral or self-evidently inclusive place, and that not all needs can be met through spatial interventions.

35Hence a spatial vision of care requires a critical approach. Encounters in public space do not automatically lead to social cohesion, but are related to power relationships and the way in which space is designed and managed [Aelbrecht and Stevens, 2019].

36As such, the quality of life in shared public spaces and the creation of green areas in neighbourhoods were an important starting point for connection in a diverse urban context. Introducing urban greenery, for example, can both have a connecting effect and strengthen mechanisms of exclusion, for instance through gentrification processes or by displacing homeless people [Jelks et al., 2021; Koprowska et al., 2020]. Nevertheless, in policy and urban planning, positive discourse around green areas is emphasised as “inclusive”, “connecting” and “healing”, which minimises or disguises its negative and exclusionary effects [Mullenbach, 2022]. Hence well-intentioned initiatives to bring more greenery into the neighbourhood can lead to more exclusion at the same time. If caring neighbourhoods use public space as a lever, this also implies a responsibility to explicitly consider who has access to that space and which groups remain invisible or even excluded. 

37In policy and practices of caring neighbourhoods, little attention is currently paid to a spatial vision of care, the importance of public space, or to the mechanisms of exclusion. Conversely, not much attention is paid either to the experiences and (care) needs of residents, informal and formal caregivers and local players in urban planning and the design of public space. Care is not only a matter for local care and welfare players, but also for businesses, urban planners and all the existing stakeholders who are part of a neighbourhood and who are responsible for the environment in which they find themselves.

4.3. Attention to power relationships in caring neighbourhoods

38The results made it clear that creating caring neighbourhoods is not only about strengthening connections, but also a matter of recognising the power relationships within which those connections are established. At both project level and neighbourhood level, existing inequalities influenced who was involved and who could spare time and resources. In MaN'Aige, those who made a commitment were mainly players who were already professionally or socially embedded in the district. Nonetheless, it turned out that collaborations with large institutions or private players caused tensions, for example when interests related to urban development or image had an impact on conversations about care and quality of life. These experiences show that caring initiatives are always situated within broader economic and political relationships, and that these also determine what becomes possible and visible.

39In practice, we see a dual movement emerging. On the one hand, informal care practices remain in the margins, with little or no formal support. On the other hand, the policy of caring neighbourhoods promotes an ideal image of informal care. In practice, however, these initiatives are short-lived, financed by project subsidies.

40A critical look at caring neighbourhoods therefore requires explicit attention to power and structural inequality. Without this reflex, “the neighbourhood” risks being presented as a homogeneous and harmonious community, although neighbourhoods are characterised by divergent interests and resources. The “legitimate” players in a caring neighbourhood are, for example, people who have lived in the neighbourhood for a long time, while people who do not belong to a single neighbourhood or are in a precarious or temporary housing situation are hardly questioned or involved [Plovie and Goris, 2024]. Conversely, a caring image in the communication strategy of large multinationals, for example, may function as branding and reinforce unequal power relationships [Shever, 2010]. Acknowledging and actively discussing these structural power relationships, within the project and also in the broader context, is only a first step, but it is a crucial one. Thus it is important to adopt a reflective attitude, both at project level between the different people and organisations involved in a caring neighbourhood (Who is involved? Who gets paid?) and at the macro level in the neighbourhood (What is the impact of the activities? How are these shaped by structural inequality, or how do they reinforce it?). If project staff and subsidising bodies do not take power relationships into account, caring neighbourhoods serve purely as political window-dressing. However, if attention is paid to these power relationships, caring neighbourhoods can prioritise an attentive attitude towards other people and the environment and respond to local, diverse needs. Whereas the current vision of care mainly focuses on providing and receiving care as a product, caring neighbourhoods offer a broader view of care as a connection to a relational and spatial approach that opposes social exclusion and injustice.

The authors would like to thank Kate Meier and Dominique Mys for their valuable feedback, and the co-researchers in the MaN’Aige project, Karine Boussart, Kate Meier, Mia Laermans, Marilyn Magerotte, Anne-Laure Duchamps, Lut Cloetens and Willeke Bert for their contribution to the reflections in this article.