Tackling Loneliness at the Intersection of Space and Migration
Loneliness is an exponentially growing global concern with significant emotional and physiological consequences. It is emotional, social, economic, and political all at once, and cuts across age groups, social classes, and national borders — though not to the same extent. Some groups are quantifiably lonelier than others; this includes not only older adults, as commonly acknowledged, but also, to an increasing extent, adolescents and young adults, marginalised groups, and migrants. Migrants, particularly first-generation, are at higher risk of loneliness for a range of reasons, from linguistic, cultural, and economic barriers to separation from friends and family, racism, discrimination, and limited social networks (Salari et al., 2025). Yet attention remains uneven; much of the literature rather focuses on older first-generation migrants, while the everyday experiences of newcomers or younger generations remain comparatively underexplored in both research and policy.
In the grand scheme, most societal-level explanations of loneliness lean on familiar narratives: digitalisation, individualisation, and the decline of community and regular, in-depth face-to-face interactions (Putnam, 2000; Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). These accounts do capture the broader frame of ongoing societal shifts, yet as is often the case, the devil lies in the details. Much remains to be explored in the finer brushstrokes of everyday life, particularly at the small, local scale where these broader shifts are lived and experienced. The growing digitalisation of communication might give the impression that physical space is losing its importance, however, a wide body of cross-disciplinary literature repeatedly show that physical space remains crucial for understanding the formation and maintenance of meaningful social ties, which can mitigate loneliness.
Social connection as spatially defined and grounded
Space is a container for social relations and is actively shaped by how we design, perceive, and use it (Lefebvre, 1991). In turn, it shapes how we encounter one another. It structures who we meet, how often interactions occur, what form they take, and whether they can develop into meaningful connections. The social connectedness then occurs in the intersection of sufficient inter-personal relationships and a broader sense of belonging, and is fundamental to human wellbeing. This is perhaps one of the rare points of agreement across disciplines; research consistently shows that humans are inherently social and function better, think more clearly, and live longer when embedded in supportive social environments. At the same time, we are living through a profound societal transformation. Our post-industrial and neoliberal societies are increasingly characterised by enhanced (though unequally) mobility, individualism, super-diversity, rapid urbanisation, and transnational lives. We are moving away from small, local, and often tightly knit communities towards larger, denser, and more fragmented urban environments.
This raises an important question: are we losing our sense of, and spaces for, connection?
Is urbanisation the culprit?
This question has been asked repeatedly over the past century, from early urban theorists to contemporary scholars. Cities are often portrayed as dense and anonymous spaces that foster social withdrawal (Simmel, 1903). Yet empirical evidence paints a complex picture: there is no clear, deterministic relationship between urbanisation and loneliness, and the relationship is deeply context-dependent (Bower et al., 2023). Beyond all the chaos and alienation, cities are also a meeting point of diverse trajectories, where difference and multiplicity can coexist, and different people, histories, and identities can be brought into relation with one another. If allowed this can also allow encounter, negotiation, and coexistence – particularly in public space (Massey 2005). Then the question becomes not whether cities make us lonely, but whether they can still allow space for the public to engage in encounters that can then turn into connections across differences. This is where social infrastructure becomes crucial.
Third places, micro-publics and social infrastructure
The role of social infrastructure is increasingly recognised and emphasised across both the academic literature and policy debates as crucial physical, communal and institutional settings that can enable social connections (Klinenberg, 2018). Similar points have also been raised before through concepts like third places (Oldenburg, 1989) and micro-publics(Amin, 2002), threading a fine-spun thread between sociality and spatiality. These settings are often characterised by sociality, accessibility, openness, and engagement, and include public spaces such as parks, libraries, and community centres, as well as semi-public spaces such as cafes or barbershops. They matter because they reinforce a form of ‘local connectivity’ and hold the potential to connect across differences and create dialogue. However, the mere presence or availability of social infrastructure is not sufficient; its impact depends on accessibility, quality, and its meaning to users. Inclusivity and reach across diverse groups, the presence of activities or shared points of focus, regularity of use, and a sense of comfort and belonging are all crucial for meaningful engagement and connection (Kearns et al., 2015; Bergefurt et al., 2019; Moore et al., 2023).
Newcomer migrants: a high-risk group?
Two facts are out there: an increasingly larger group of people are on the move, most of whom are young working-age adults (Eurostat 2025), and, at least in Europe, young adults are increasingly feeling lonelier (Berlingieri et al., 2024). Migration is often accompanied by the loss of established social networks and socio-economic status, and the profound challenge of navigating a new socio-cultural context, in which case, everyday spaces can play a crucial role in rebuilding said connections. Social infrastructures, as described above, can function as catalysts for (new) social connections and a sense of belonging. Also conceptualised as arrival infrastructures (Meeus et al., 2019), they have been the subject of increasing attention. The opportunities provided by such places (to meet others, establish routines, and develop a sense of familiarity and connection to the new locality) can be crucial settlement and overall well-being. But again, in the face of structural barriers set by a range of factors, newcomers' access to these essential social infrastructures might not be straightforward. This sheds light on an important path yet to be fully discovered; we know that social infrastructure is crucial for social connectedness, well-being and a sense of belonging, but how does it function for newcomers?
Towards a socio-spatial understanding of loneliness among newcomers
To fully understand the extent and characteristics of modern loneliness, there is much to be unravelled. The tip of the iceberg may seem to lie in individual-level factors, but a much larger share sits beneath the surface, at the societal level. For newcomers, often young dwellers navigating transnational lives marked by uncertainty, this landscape can be even more entangled. Call them arrival infrastructures, third places, or micro-publics, shared spaces can become crucial first points of contact; offer an entry into a new socio-cultural context; and act as catalysts for connection and belonging. Yet, for a plethora of reasons, they are not always equally accessible or readily available to all.
Loneliness then, is ultimately a socio-spatial experience. And understanding the loneliness among newcomers requires looking towards the very environments in which social life takes place. For researchers, this opens up important questions about how migrants experience, access, and use shared spaces. For policymakers, city planners, and community organisations, it highlights the importance of creating and sustaining inclusive places where meaningful encounters can occur.
References
Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 34(6).
Bergefurt, L., Kemperman, A., van den Berg, P., Borgers, A., van der Waerden, P., Oosterhuis, G., & Hommel, M. (2019). Loneliness and life satisfaction explained by public-space use and mobility patterns. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Berlingieri, F., Barjaková, M., Garnero, A., Mauri, C. (2024). Who Feels Lonely in the European Union?. In: Schnepf, S.V., d'Hombres, B., Mauri, C. (eds) Loneliness in Europe. Population Economics. Springer, Cham.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. W. W. Norton & Company.
Eurostat. (2025). EU population diversity by citizenship and country of birth. European Commission.
Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Tannahill, C., & Ellaway, A. (2015). ‘Lonesome town’? Is loneliness associated with the residential environment, including housing and neighbourhood factors? Journal of Community Psychology, 43(7), 849–867.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (Original work published 1974). Blackwell.
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. Sage.
Meeus, B., van Heur, B., Arnaut, K. (2019). Migration and the Infrastructural Politics of Urban Arrival. In: Meeus, B., Arnaut, K., van Heur, B. (eds) Arrival Infrastructures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Moore, G., Fardghassemi, S., & Joffe, H. (2023). Wellbeing in the city: Young adults’ sense of loneliness and social connection in deprived urban neighbourhoods. Wellbeing, Space and Society.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Salari, N., Razavizadeh, S., Abdolmaleki, A., Zarei, H., Daneshkhah, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2025). Global prevalence of loneliness in immigrants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 104381.
Simmel, G. (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life.
Small, M. L., & Adler, L. (2019). The role of space in the formation of social ties. Annual Review of Sociology.
*This blog post is based on a guest lecture titled “The Spatial Dimension of Social Connectedness”, given as part of the lecture series “European Social & Population Issues” at the Brussels Institute for Social and Population Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Author's Bio
Tulya Su Güven is a PhD researcher in Sociology at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her research explores the socio-spatial experiences of newcomer migrants in Belgium, examining how the use of everyday ‘third places’ and social networks shapes their sense of belonging and overall well-being.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulyasuguven
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9044-1935