Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …
53
norms, values, and organisations. It is given by this definition that every community may have evolved some encompassing rules and principles to which members
subscribe to guide their co-habitation. By extension, the authors may be insinuating
some form of distinction among communities. In essence, some form of psychological or mental delineation from other communities is created as a result. In the
findings of Walton (2018), each neighbourhood tends to have a degree of sense of
community (SOC) irrespective of the background of the constituent members of
such a community. It is this SOC that fosters communal relationships. It can be
deduced, therefore, that SOC is a critical construct of the concept ‘community’.
Sarason (1974 cited in Sakip et al. 2013) was the first researcher to emphasise the
concept of SOC, stressing its role in ensuring optimum functionality of any community. Kim and Kaplan (2004) identified four domains of SOC, namely, community
attachment, community identity, social interaction and pedestrianism; he associated
good communities with positive outcomes in each of the domains. Any neighbourhood where the SOC is missing opens itself to anarchy. According to Sakip et al.
(2013) and Walton (2018), this state of anarchy has in itself the potential to bring
social and mental distress to the people.
Ibama et al. (2015) had another perspective to the definition of community. They
viewed it as a group of people living within a common geographical boundary that
may not necessarily be of the same origin as in language, culture and practices but
are often of the spirit of joint ownership of issues of common interest and advancement. Ibama et al. (2015) introduced the notion of the existence of variety or assortment of community members to the definition, which ranged from race to ethnicity,
social class and other demographic and psychographic characteristics. Walton (2018)
opined that communal strain existed in certain neighbourhoods of America where
racial and ethnic diversity was high. In contrast, Sakip et al. (2013) found a high
degree of SOC—or what they otherwise referred to as community ties—in ethnically homogenous communities in Malaysia where middle-income earners lived.
Even though demographic factors such as age and gender did not impact the SOC,
they reported that social factors did. In recent times, anthropologists went further to
demonstrate that a community might have broken its geographical boundaries with
the advancement of communication and transportation technology. They argued that
the world itself had become a global community with the creation of ‘social space’
for people to interact (Matsumoto 1993). Nevertheless, the focus of this paper is
to point out the constructs of relevance in discussing wholesome community health
and health inequity. For every community, we expect members to embrace common
regulations and values, welcome diversity of composition and promote a SOC.
The word “health” is another terminology that requires conceptualisation. WHO
set the tone in 1946 when it established that health is a state of complete physical,
mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease of infirmity
(World Health Organisation, n. d.). It is apparent that the definition emphasised that
no form of disease must be found in the human body, in addition to advocating for
wholeness in all ramifications. It also views health as a static commodity that has
a pedestal to attain and maintain. Even though WHO called on the nations of the
world to take steps to ensure that people enjoy this state of health, the unmistakable
53
norms, values, and organisations. It is given by this definition that every community may have evolved some encompassing rules and principles to which members
subscribe to guide their co-habitation. By extension, the authors may be insinuating
some form of distinction among communities. In essence, some form of psychological or mental delineation from other communities is created as a result. In the
findings of Walton (2018), each neighbourhood tends to have a degree of sense of
community (SOC) irrespective of the background of the constituent members of
such a community. It is this SOC that fosters communal relationships. It can be
deduced, therefore, that SOC is a critical construct of the concept ‘community’.
Sarason (1974 cited in Sakip et al. 2013) was the first researcher to emphasise the
concept of SOC, stressing its role in ensuring optimum functionality of any community. Kim and Kaplan (2004) identified four domains of SOC, namely, community
attachment, community identity, social interaction and pedestrianism; he associated
good communities with positive outcomes in each of the domains. Any neighbourhood where the SOC is missing opens itself to anarchy. According to Sakip et al.
(2013) and Walton (2018), this state of anarchy has in itself the potential to bring
social and mental distress to the people.
Ibama et al. (2015) had another perspective to the definition of community. They
viewed it as a group of people living within a common geographical boundary that
may not necessarily be of the same origin as in language, culture and practices but
are often of the spirit of joint ownership of issues of common interest and advancement. Ibama et al. (2015) introduced the notion of the existence of variety or assortment of community members to the definition, which ranged from race to ethnicity,
social class and other demographic and psychographic characteristics. Walton (2018)
opined that communal strain existed in certain neighbourhoods of America where
racial and ethnic diversity was high. In contrast, Sakip et al. (2013) found a high
degree of SOC—or what they otherwise referred to as community ties—in ethnically homogenous communities in Malaysia where middle-income earners lived.
Even though demographic factors such as age and gender did not impact the SOC,
they reported that social factors did. In recent times, anthropologists went further to
demonstrate that a community might have broken its geographical boundaries with
the advancement of communication and transportation technology. They argued that
the world itself had become a global community with the creation of ‘social space’
for people to interact (Matsumoto 1993). Nevertheless, the focus of this paper is
to point out the constructs of relevance in discussing wholesome community health
and health inequity. For every community, we expect members to embrace common
regulations and values, welcome diversity of composition and promote a SOC.
The word “health” is another terminology that requires conceptualisation. WHO
set the tone in 1946 when it established that health is a state of complete physical,
mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease of infirmity
(World Health Organisation, n. d.). It is apparent that the definition emphasised that
no form of disease must be found in the human body, in addition to advocating for
wholeness in all ramifications. It also views health as a static commodity that has
a pedestal to attain and maintain. Even though WHO called on the nations of the
world to take steps to ensure that people enjoy this state of health, the unmistakable