Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 31:6:1624771.
doi: 10.3389/fresc.2025.1624771. eCollection 2025.

The role of place types on social relationships and satisfaction as influenced by COVID and disabilities

Brent Chamberlain  1 , Valerie Novack  1 , Teresa Larsen  2 , Keunhyun Park  1   3 , Samuel Johnson  2 , Jefferson Sheen  1 , Motahareh Abrishami  1 , Carlos Licon  1 , Keith Christensen  1
Affiliations

The role of place types on social relationships and satisfaction as influenced by COVID and disabilities

Brent Chamberlain et al. Front Rehabil Sci. .

Abstract

An individual's participation in community life is important to their health, well-being, self-determination, and quality of life. Consequently, community planners and policymakers play a role in shaping and improving environments through land use planning, including the distribution of amenities. This research explores the influence of different amenities, referred to as place types, and their influence on social satisfaction during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationwide online survey of 393 adults across the U.S.A. was conducted to compare participants who self-report as living with and without a disability (41% and 59%, respectively). To uncover the relationship between place types and social satisfaction, participants responded to questions about social relationships, social satisfaction, frequency of visitation to place types, and the perceived importance of place types. Results indicate that the frequency of visits and perceived importance of place types were significantly associated with social satisfaction (r = 0.30, p = 0.001). Disability status, income level, population density, and employment status significantly predicted reduced visitation frequency during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that individuals with disabilities experience a lower level of satisfaction with social life living closer to outdoor recreation (p = 0.006) and healthcare facilities (p = 0.025) compared to other place types. The findings emphasize the need for planners to better account for accessibility and inclusion in the design and combination of community amenities.

Keywords: accessibility; amenities; built environment; community engagement; land use; planning; social relationships; travel behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Frequency of meeting with family and friends. Frequency range = Everyday or almost everyday (5), 2–3 days per week (4), Once a week (3), Every other week (2), A few times per year (1), Rarely or never (0). Shown are average values with 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Satisfaction with relationship types during-COVID. Satisfaction Rating = very satisfied (5), somewhat satisfied (4), neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (3), somewhat unsatisfied (2) and very unsatisfied (1).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Representation of estimate of marginal means for all place types for all participants (pre-COVID). CI = 95%.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Representation of estimate of marginal means for all place types by disability status (pre-COVID). CI = 95%.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Representation of estimate of marginal means for all place types for all participants (during-COVID, after controlling for pre-COVID ratings). CI = 95%.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Representation of estimate of marginal means for all place types by disability status (during-COVID, after controlling for pre-COVID ratings with covariate evaluated at 2.80). CI = 95%.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Christensen KM, Byrne BC. The built environment and community integration: a review of states’ olmstead plans. J Disabil Policy Stud. (2014) 25(3):186–95. 10.1177/1044207313493009 - DOI
    1. White GW, Summers JA. People with disabilities and community participation. J Prev Interv Community. (2017) 45(2):81–5. 10.1080/10852352.2017.1281041 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Christensen KM, Holt JM, Wilson JF. Effects of perceived neighborhood characteristics and use of community facilities on physical activity of adults with and without disabilities. Prev Chronic Dis. (2010) 7(5):A105. Erratum in: Prev Chronic Dis. (2011) 8(1):A29. Available online at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2938399/ - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eicher C, Kawachi I. Social capital and community design. In: Dannenberg AL, Frumkin H, Jackson RJ, editors. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics; (2011). p. 117–28.
    1. Kochtitzky CS. Vulnerable populations and the built environment. In: Dannenberg AL, Frumkin H, Jackson RJ, editors. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics; (2011). p. 129–45.

LinkOut - more resources