Our study analyzes the distinct impact of traditional and intelligent communities’ COVID-19 governance on their residents’ social involvement. We argue that pandemic governance necessitates implementation of physical isolation measures without socially excluding people. We propose that, although Chinese communities have contributed greatly to controlling the spread of the virus, thus helping residents return to normal relatively quickly compared to most other countries [46, 47], their residents still suffered due to restricted social involvement. We also argue that traditional and intelligent communities differ in terms of pandemic governance, and thus, the social involvement of their residents also differs, through a greater reliance on either human resources or technology, respectively, in offering community services.
Community F, a pilot intelligent community since 2015, covers an area of 11.8 square kilometers, with 11 residential regions and 36,000 apartments. At the time of the study was conducted, it has a population of 74,000 residents, including 340 individuals over 80 years old, 295 social assistance benefit (DiBao) recipients, 342 individuals with disabilities, and nine individuals with mental or psychological disorders. The provincial-level local government office is located inside the community [22]. Community services are provided by approximately 30 formally employed staff members and several volunteers and part-time workers. In 2020, Community F had one suspected COVID-19 case. Over 300 residents living in the same building as the identified case were required to self-isolate in their apartments. No other residents in the surrounding buildings were infected, and the restrictive measures prevented the virus from spreading in the community.
Community Q, a traditional community, covers an area of 21 square kilometers with 40 residential regions. At the time of the study was conducted, it has a population of 210,000 residents, with 1,009 individuals over 80 years old, 201 social assistance benefit recipients, and approximately 800 individuals with disabilities. Approximately 50 staff members had formal contracts to work in the community. In 2020, Community Q had one COVID-19 case, and approximately 350 residents who lived in the same building were required to self-isolate in their apartments. No other residents in the surrounding buildings were infected.
We propose that intelligent community services can, in principle, promote both isolation and social involvement since this novel type of community can provide different categories of autonomous services. Through utilizing their technology and online information platforms, intelligent communities can help to reconceptualize governance measures during health emergencies and maintain social involvement. We analyze three dimensions that affected how community services were provided during COVID-19: 1) COVID-19-related governance measures, 2) social involvement-oriented community services, and 3) budget costs. For the first dimension, we differentiate between four indicators implemented during the pandemic from 2019 to 2020: distance supervision, health condition governance and residents’ isolation, public opinion guidance, and restrictive measures on basic daily living activities. For the second dimension, we analyze services to support pandemic isolation and care services in the community. For the last dimension, we explored community costs and budgets for COVID-19 governance equipment and human resources and their savings from utilizing either human resources or technology in the process.
Effective pandemic governance measures and adequate social involvement services: technology use in service provision
To overcome the negative effects of lockdowns, local communities attempted to offer residents the necessary social involvement services, such as home care services. However, empirical research has shown that despite the extensive spread of COVID-19, some residents may still be unwilling to follow strict lockdown measures because they prefer to have “normal” community services [20]. Stricter COVID-19 governance measures combined with limited social involvement might even prompt residents to seek social contact, particularly when measures are implemented for a long period.
Therefore, communities that have implemented effective pandemic governance measures while also providing adequate social involvement services for residents may discourage residents’ incompliant attitudes toward COVID-19 governance measures. Problems associated with pandemic governance measures could in part be mitigated if residents’ normal daily living needs are met and if they receive adequate community services to compensate for lockdown-related inconveniences. If services are primarily provided through digital technologies with human personnel providing auxiliary support in some services, residents may have a greater incentive to embrace these services since this strategy both lowers infection risk and meets their daily living and social needs. Thus, we assume that intelligent communities, such as Community F, provide effective pandemic control and promote adequate social involvement.
Effective pandemic governance measures but fewer social involvement services: human resource use in service provision
Pandemic governance and social involvement may be at odds; for instance, a community may close social interaction spaces during lockdown. Communities might become more conservative when offering community services because of the lack of effective measures or technologies to provide such services, as they rely heavily on human staff. However, when infected cases appear in a community (as in Community Q), traditional human resources may be insufficient. More people are needed to perform even basic living services, such as food delivery and garbage disposal. Such a community might disregard residents’ need to maintain social contact, which could lead residents to meet their social needs in other ways and, thus, increase virus infection risks. Therefore, we assume communities like Community Q may provide effective pandemic control but insufficient socialization.
We conducted a comparative empirical study to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 governance and social involvement of residents in both community types. We conducted 42 in-person interviews (21 residents, 10 volunteers, and 11 staff members), 30 telephone interviews (10 residents, 10 volunteers, and 10 staff members), and 50 online video interviews (30 residents, 10 volunteers, and 10 staff members) from June to August 2020 in both communities. The age of the interviewees ranged from 18 to 85 years, and 55% were female. The resident interviewees included the care-dependent elderly, mothers of young children, individuals with disabilities, social assistance benefit recipients, and ordinary residents. Each interview lasted at least 30 minutes. In-person interviews were held in meeting rooms and audio was recorded. Similarly, online interviews were conducted and recorded via online platforms. Phone interviews were also audio recorded. Consent was obtained from all interviewees prior to recording, and an interview manual was used for the interviewing process. The questions to the residents included two categories: effectiveness of COVID-19 governance measures, and degree of residents’ social involvement in communities or community services. These questions were also posed to service personnel and managers, along with questions regarding the costs and budget of pandemic governance. The interview results are presented in Table 1. Apart from interview data, the basis of our empirical analysis includes institutional regulations from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Chinese National Health Commission, the Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration, and the Chinese COVID-19 online information platforms.
Table 1. Interview responses
|
|
Community F
|
Community Q
|
|
Residents felt safe during the pandemic
|
91.0%
|
90.5%
|
|
Residents felt well-informed
|
93.7%
|
74.0%
|
|
Residents found the imposed restrictions acceptable
|
89.8%
|
72.5%
|
|
Residents felt that their needs were met
|
95.0%
|
79.3%
|
|
Residents felt bored during the isolation period
|
40.5%
|
65.0%
|
|
Residents’ daily living needs were protected
|
95.0%
|
75.0%
|
|
Residents tended to ignore measures and tried to secretly break rules
|
5.0%
|
9.0%
|
|
Residents felt involved in community services
|
80.0%
|
43.7%
|
|
Service personnel felt that their recommendations were secretly ignored by residents
|
19.8%
|
33.5%
|
|
Service personnel and managers found the budget to be limited and that intelligent devices and online systems/programs were prohibitive
|
25.0%
|
83.0%
|
Source: Interviews conducted in 2020; table by authors.
Findings: Comparative impact of pandemic governance and social involvement
COVID-19 governance measures in the community
Health condition governance and residents’ isolation
Intelligent Community F. This community took measures to supervise people’s health conditions and isolate infected patients according to three steps. First, digital technologies, such as online platforms and chat groups, provided residents with updated virus infection information, including the exact location of local isolated apartments, where residents had to stay at home and observe any changes in their health conditions. Second, the community asked all residents to record their travel history on the online platform so that it could supervise and analyze infection risks for all residents. We argue this action was effective since most infection cases result from traveling. When travel history can be supervised in a timely manner, without face-to-face contact, communities may achieve positive pandemic governance outcomes, as mentioned by one interviewee.
I traveled through a place with relatively high risk of virus infection. I remember I was advised to stay at home for 14 days of home health condition supervision immediately after I returned home. I needed to upload updated information on my body temperature and the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results to the online platform in the following days. But it was amazing that I got responses on the platform to my updates as someone online replied to my questions quickly. (Appendix, Interview 2020a)
Third, Community F tracked residents’ health status through pharmacies, and, unlike traditional communities, conducted this supervision online. When residents purchase medicine online or in person, they must complete an online form (When people purchase medicine in person, is the form also online) to report their personal information and purchase details. These measures have been shown to effectively help supervise changes in residents’ health conditions without increasing the infection risk to staff.
Traditional Community Q. We found over half of the residents did not know the location of the isolated apartment. Due to limited human resources, personnel could only inform and supervise those who had to be isolated. Furthermore, the service personnel updated the travel history of Community Q residents through door-to-door visits and WeChat. However, some residents were not at home, and others could not be reached via phone. Residents were responsible for reporting their travel history, but we found not all of them followed this guideline in practice. One staff member expressed her experience as follows:
It’s very hard to supervise residents’ movements in the community. We have to knock door-to-door or call them one by one, and we advise them to not meet with other people unless it’s necessary. But some act against our advice, despite saying ‘yes’ to us. We don’t have that many colleagues to do this job. We’ve already been working over 10 hours a day during the first wave of the pandemic, it was really exhausting. (Appendix, Interview 2020e)
Additionally, compared to Community F, Community Q residents still obtained medicine in stores, even antibiotics, through transactions on paper. Thus, it was difficult for the community to obtain an overall picture of residents’ medicine purchases.
Public opinion guidance
Both Communities F and Q performed well in guiding public opinion by organizing chat groups in applications such as WeChat and QQ to deliver messages on how residents could support pandemic control measures. These online chat groups covered approximately 99% of residents, or at least one member in all families in both communities. However, we noted there were 300–500 people in each chat group, generally only one group manager, and 3–5 staff members from the community who could answer questions. Many residents commented simultaneously in the chat window; thus, most of the questions were not answered in a timely manner. Many were left unnoticed or were covered by new questions, despite the efforts of staff who worked overtime, sometimes until midnight and through the weekends. Community Q residents often complained during our interviews that their questions were left unanswered and problems remained unresolved since these chat groups were the main way to express their needs (see Appendix, Interview 2020h/2020i).
Other than chat groups, Community Q focused more on traditional measures to guide public opinion, such as using broadcast vehicles to deliver urgent information and posting lockdown notices at building entrances. A community manager said:
We realize it’s really hard to guide public opinion by only talking to residents during the pandemic. My colleagues spent hours per day providing information on pandemic governance measures, which is something hard to understand for residents, and we have no idea how the residents think and what they need. (Appendix, Interview 2020f).
Intelligent Community F. We found Community F performed better in guiding public opinion by uploading residents’ questions and problems from chat groups to their online platform. First, the platform classified messages into different types, marked them as tasks, and then sent them to the work calendars of the relevant staff. Subsequently, the staff managed these tasks, while reminders for pending tasks were continuously sent. Consequently, resident messages were not easily lost, messages and questions were responded to quickly, and residents’ problems were resolved faster, compared to Community Q. Residents could also use their individual IDs to log into the platform and post questions (through text or voice messages) to the staff directly, which were then transferred to work calendars. Moreover, to present updated information on pandemic governance, Community F installed equipment across the community, such as 15 electronic screens and 100 public information boards. These intelligent measures positively impacted the guidance of public opinion, particularly during the first wave (Dong and Ye 2020), as residents were closely connected online.
Restrictive measures on basic daily living activities
Restrictive measures on daily living activities are essential for pandemic governance, especially when a community has verified or suspected COVID-19 cases. Here, we discuss the extent to which residents followed these restrictions, leading to changes in their normal living patterns and unmet daily living needs, and how well community services met residents’ needs.
Intelligent Community F. Intelligent communities encourage residents to follow restrictive measures to promote a balance between residents’ daily living needs and the necessity of pandemic governance [17]. We found that basic daily living needs, including food shopping, package delivery, and garbage disposal, among others, received a prompt response. The system avoided missing messages by creating system backups of feedback during the isolation period.
As a result, few residents complained about unmet basic daily living needs. Meanwhile, volunteers who offered services to support restrictive measures could reduce working hours by 20% compared to those in Community Q (see Appendix, Interview 2020p). Community F residents understood the restrictive measures and developed a sense of intuitive cooperation. We also found that, while residents had complaints and bad service experiences, they could present them as feedback on the system. Most of these complaints were resolved quickly with the help of the platform. Thus, residents were more likely to be integrated into the community’s management. One resident expressed this as follows:
My family felt frustrated when we were notified that we couldn’t leave the building for two weeks. It seemed like we needed everything suddenly, and we were locked there. Even my cat needed food. We called the community center, but no one could be reached. I guess there were just too many people calling them. Luckily, we contacted staff online, and it was amazing how quickly they replied. I could upload what I needed to the system, and then I received my items at the building entrance. Although I felt sad when I saw the security guards protecting the entrance wearing horrible white protective clothing. It felt like we were all sick. But I felt better when community staff reached out to me via a video call from the online system to comfort me and give me some peace. (Appendix, Interview 2020j).
According to the records of the restrictive measures implemented in the isolated building, two residents from different apartments had fevers during isolation in Community F. These residents received online medical services from the platform and medicine was delivered to their apartments. Medical staff administered NAATs to these residents every two days for two weeks, instead of one NAAT every three days as was administered to the other residents (see Appendix, Interview 2020m). None of the family members living in the same apartment as the suspected infected individuals were permitted to leave the apartment or go to the main entrance. However, a delivery of daily living support package was delivered to their apartment door. We investigated whether the other residents in the isolated building had a cough or cold during this period; however, the results show this was not the case. A community staff member believed that wearing face masks for in-person interactions was the main reason for preventing spread of the virus (see Appendix, Interview 2020n).
Traditional Community Q. Some Community Q residents also experienced restrictive measures due to a COVID-19 infection case. Over 300 people in the building where the case was identified were isolated for two weeks. Similar to Community F, basic living services, such as vegetable purchases, were provided by staff and volunteers. Residents contacted service personnel daily and communicated their needs via telephone and WeChat messages. Volunteers recalled they went shopping more than 10 times per day, delivered goods to residents, and called residents to pick up deliveries at the building entrance. Sometimes residents’ needs could not be met due to misunderstandings or lack of timely contact with staff/volunteers (see Appendix, Interview 2020o). Over 40 disputes occurred with the isolated residents during this period, which the community director and her team had to resolve in person. Consequently, human resources played a key role in pandemic governance measures in Community Q.
Similar to Community F, four residents from different apartments in the isolated building had fevers and headaches during the isolation period. They also received NAATs every two days from the medical staff. However, they did not have access to online medical services, and medical staff needed to check their condition every two days in person instead of online (see Appendix, Interview 2020f). Family members living in the same apartment were not allowed to leave the apartment, and their garbage was removed by staff. There were also no additional cases of coughs or viral colds during this period.
We conclude that both communities relied on human resources in this period; however,
Community F could better organize services due to its online platform. Although both communities had a similar percentage of volunteers and staff, those in Community Q had 20% longer working hours. Over 30% of its volunteers and staff complained about feeling exhausted in this period (see Appendix, Interview 2020f/2020p).
Social involvement-oriented community services
Services supporting distance supervision
Intelligent Community F. Community F utilized its digital services as preventive measures to decrease spread of the virus. For example, the online information platform controlled entry/exit by identifying vehicles and people that passed through the entrance and analyzing whether they complied with isolation guidelines (see Figure 1). Infrared body temperature measurement equipment placed in different areas of the community could trigger alerts as soon as high body temperatures were detected. Community staff then responded to handle this risk. This increased the social involvement of both residents and staff, as expressed by a manager:
I’m very confident in this online platform because our staff can precisely locate residents’ movements in public places with the help of the platform. We were online for 24 hours, taking turns in 8 hour shifts during the pandemic. Additionally, the platform supervises sanitation information of buildings. For example, it tells me whether the supermarket is too crowded. (Appendix, Interview 2020a).
Insert Figure 1 here
Community F residents were required to register their health condition, travel records, and vaccination records using QR codes positioned in public places. While this was similar to what was done in most communities, Community F did not need staff to individually check the QR code results in person. Its online platform received the QR code results as soon as people scanned the codes. When the results indicated virus infection risk, the platform alerted staff. Thus, Community F was able to reduce its on-the-ground staff by approximately 80% and implement more online services.
Traditional Community Q. Here, many volunteers assumed temporary duties related to pandemic governance services, such as body temperature checks at entrances of most public places. Community Q also placed QR codes at almost all places requiring people to reveal their health status. However, staff—either wearing face masks or protective clothing—checked the results and residents one by one. Therefore, Community Q had more staff in the field. Instead of supervising residents’ activities, it also closed some public spaces used for parties or dancing by older residents or as playgrounds for children, as well as stores that sold flowers, snacks, and accessories, to restrict residents’ opportunities to gather. Although these measures decreased the risk of spreading the virus, they also increased social exclusion by restricting social contact.
Community care services
It is important to explore the extent of care services received by care-dependent older residents and the degree to which their care needs were met while COVID-19 pandemic governance measures were in place. In principle, these people depend on either community care services provided by care homes, home service deliveries, or family care work, which is mostly performed by female family members [15]. However, both communities closed care homes and decreased home care delivery owing to pandemic governance requirements. Moreover, family caregiving was inaccessible to older people without family members or whose family members lived far away [5].
Intelligent Community F. Community F identified 79 care-dependent older adults who did not have family care services, and offered them an “intelligent bracelet.” This bracelet was connected to the online information platform and transferred information about the older residents’ location and movement. Thereafter, staff could contact them when necessary. For instance, a 76-year-old resident living alone showed a sudden increase in his daily movements; however, according to information from the platform, he had difficulties with physical movement (see Appendix, Interview 2020r). Community staff visited him immediately and found he had been so bored that he forced himself to go outside and got lost. After this incident, community staff sent him videos and news broadcast channels through the information platform, and called him regularly to check on his condition (see the online platform in Figure 2).
The intelligent bracelet could also send emergency calls to the platform on behalf of older residents, after which services could be offered to them as needed. Home services and delivery-specific care services could also be provided through the bracelet when necessary. As expressed by one staff member:
Thanks to our intelligent bracelet and information platform, we noticed some poor and care-dependent older people stayed at home without consuming electricity for days or without using water, which meant they might be facing problems in their daily living and/or have deteriorating health conditions. We offered them help and services soon after we received notice through the platform. Sometimes we would deliver bread, rice, oil, vegetables, and medicine for free to their homes. These people cannot ask for help since some of them have serious physical disabilities and others have mental health problems, so we have to determine their needs. (Appendix, Interview 2020g)
Therefore, the care services in Community F contributed to the maintenance of social involvement of care-dependent older people and helped to fulfill their care needs autonomously. Although isolation measures restricted these people to their homes, smart digital technology connected them to social networks.
Insert Figure 2 here
Another crucial issue revealed in our interviews was the boredom and loneliness experienced by older residents with disabilities. Their concerns were reported through the information platform. The staff offered them detailed information on the nearest real-world spaces, online chat rooms, and timelines where they could interact with other people (see Appendix, Interview 2020q). Furthermore, Community F offered residents free online courses for mental health development. Doctors specializing in psychological disorders helped residents resolve their negative feelings and reduce fear of COVID-19. Other courses were offered to students of different ages and teachers. Therefore, we believe Community F greatly improved residents’ social involvement by offering daily living services during the pandemic.
Traditional Community Q. Care-dependent older people were sent to live with their families because care resources at care homes were limited, and home service delivery was suspended. In other words, the delivery of emergency care services from the community was not guaranteed, effectively making family members responsible for the delivery of services for care-dependent older adults. We argue, therefore, that during the pandemic, care services in traditional communities not only decreased care recipients’ social inclusion but also increased family members’ care burden [15]. However, family members could not always provide the timely delivery of care services, as in the case of family members who did not live with the care-dependent elderly individuals. As expressed by an adult daughter:
I should have delivered lunch and dinner every day to my mother, who lives in a neighboring sector in our community. Normally, it takes me five minutes to do so, but I couldn’t reach her any more due to the restrictive pandemic control measures. [The community care homes] stopped food delivery services, as well. I couldn’t leave her there alone unless I moved to her apartment, but I also have a young boy to take care of. We got no help, and we had to handle this problem by ourselves, which I’m still working on. (Appendix, Interview 2020h)
In summary, our findings indicate Community Q contributed weakly to social involvement in terms of the two measured indicators. In particular, its care services almost completely depended on family care regardless of family care availability. Conversely, Community F effectively promoted social involvement through its intelligent services, and the smart platform substantially contributed to providing services to residents. Furthermore, Community F invested time and money to establish the technological platform and change community management patterns; it took approximately three years to create the online platform, at a cost of nearly RMB 2 million (about USD 315,000). However, the community saved on human resources investment. In contrast, Community Q did not spend its budget on technology investment but instead on traditional resources, such as recruiting and training staff, and took full advantage of volunteers’ contribution to its pandemic governance. In the next section, we explore the differences between the two communities in terms of pandemic governance costs and savings.
Community costs, savings, and budgets for COVID-19 governance
One of the most important intelligent infrastructure costs for Community F was the online platform. The software to support the platform cost around RMB 950,000 (about USD 150,000), and received financial support from the Civil Affairs Bureau of Hefei. The software allows the online platform to analyze residents’ information, such as by tracing travel records and analyzing health conditions, and connects the platform with central institutions’ data systems. The Civil Affairs Bureau of Anhui province allocated RMB 900,000 (about USD 140,000) to Community F to improve the platform. However, the community is responsible for organizing resident services, receiving information regarding residents’ needs and feedback, and improving service quality. Costs of other equipment, such as video equipment, automatic temperature measuring equipment, automatic charging equipment, and intelligent bracelets, was approximately RMB 200,000 (about USD 31,500). Furthermore, the community’s yearly maintenance fee for the intelligent software is around RMB 60,000 (about USD 9,450). Additionally, the municipality provides the community with RMB 50,000 (about USD 7,900) per year to hire temporary staff (including volunteers’ daily support fee) to conduct community services, especially during the pandemic.
One of the main reasons Community F had a sufficient budget to develop its intelligent equipment and online platform is that the local government identified it as a model intelligent community. Therefore, both city- and provincial-level governments included its intelligent infrastructure development costs in the central institution’s budget. As a result, Community F had more governmental financial support than other communities. In addition, Community F was able to match residents’ needs with provided services through the online platform. This allowed it to offer better services and collect better feedback, which is the most important indicator for obtaining continued governmental financial support. It should be noted that both communities offer resident services for free; in particular, no extra fees were charged during the pandemic.
Conversely, as it did not have a central platform where residents could communicate their needs and provide relevant feedback, Community Q allocated most of its budget to human resources. It established 67% more community management offices to handle resident services and had 37% more staff than Community F. The average annual per capita income level in Hefei is approximately RMB 95,000 (about USD 14,960) [48]. This implies that if Community Q eliminated 10 staff positions for two years, it could theoretically afford the online platform, and the system would continue to save on personnel costs. The municipality and other government bodies regularly provide basic financial support to Community Q, as well as to other communities in the city.
Community Q accumulates savings by taking advantage of support from its many volunteers—79% more than those supporting Community F. From our analyses, we argue that Community F lowers costs because it needs fewer temporary personnel and volunteers, but its intelligent equipment and equipment maintenance fees are expensive. This investment can be an obstacle for other communities. Community F residents receive better support, whereas those in Community Q have to rely on patterns of traditional services, such as manual temperature measurement. Our interviews revealed many residents would prefer to pay for some kind of intelligent service system similar to what Community F offers. Residents also expressed their confusion as to why Community Q does not apply the online intelligent platform (see Appendix, Interview 2020o/2020b/2020e). However, building a comprehensive intelligent system is expensive and time-consuming. It is also difficult for governments to support such projects in regions with limited financial budgets. Nevertheless, this type of system could be a community development trend in the future, especially in regions with adequate socioeconomic development. It should also be pointed out that once the intelligent system software is developed and tested in a sufficient number of communities, the per-community development cost could likely be significantly reduced. This makes pilot projects such as Community F very valuable for provinces and municipalities.