**6. Social Capital as the Reference Point for Communities**

In the context of modern democracy and dynamically changing market conditions [97], social capital is an essential reference point for actions within communities. Therefore, the Social Capital Theory seems to be the most suitable one to illustrate the dynamics of social behavior in relation to emerging social-economic phenomena, including the SE. The SCT encompasses several theoretical trends formed in the second half of the 20th century and still used today. Initially, the significance of social capital has not been spotted, it has been rather discovered gradually starting with the works of Bourdieu [16,98] who is considered to be the creator of the narrative focused on the relationships in the community. His theory of "dark" social capital mainly refers to the social inequalities caused by access to goods such as education. According to the theory, a high level of social capital (e.g., an access to education) is a rare and desirable good, while growing up in a socially recognized area provides symbolic capital suitable for social advancement, and vice versa. According to Bourdieu, social capital is reproduced in a social network [16,98], which means that it increases and stimulates

social stratification. On the other hand, Coleman disseminated the concept of social capital in scientific discourse and neutralized its negative overtones. In his considerations on social capital, Coleman [17] refers to the concept of structure, i.e., a specific map of the paths of social capital flow. According to Coleman, the actors within the structure are equipped with three types of capital: human, physical and social. The levels of these types of capital and their configuration position members of the community in the social world. Next, Putnam [18], in his understanding of social capital proposed the "bright" (positive) approach. In his view, social capital is a network of dependencies and a kind of grease that reduces tensions in a society. Putnam's recognition of social capital legalizes the inclusion of excused private resources (e.g., bonding relationships) in the market game. In line with that approach, Fukuyama [99] understands social capital as an instantiated informal norm which promotes cooperation among individuals and organizations to pursue their own interests.

Putnam makes a distinction between the bridging and bonding social capital (see Table 3). The former is intended to depressurize this capital to stimulate integration and innovation so as to lead to social inclusion (including economic inclusion) and social innovation. The bridging SC facilitates movement in various social networks, e.g., in the labor market. It also allows an access to knowledge and awareness of the possibilities of its use. The bonding SC gives a specific sense of security and social stability so it is of exclusive nature, and thus leads to social exclusion (also economic exclusion) and inhibition of innovation (see Table 3). This division is not sharp; Putnam treats the bonding and bridging social capitals as coexisting analytical categories, which makes it easier to think about social resources. Such thinking about the SC imposes more economically understandable categories, creating a place for knowledge-based economy and reflecting the dynamics of urban change (which is considered as a laboratory in this article) stimulated by the SE.


**Table 3.** Putnam's social capital division.

Source: References [18,36,100,101].

The approaches within the theory of social capital have been criticized for their ambiguity and lack of a developed "universal" measuring apparatus. Various authors synthesized theoretical approaches [102,103]. Against the background of seminal works, the researchers using SCT theory nowadays [102,104–107] refer to Putnam's findings. The division into bridging and bonding social capital is used as a conceptual grid within which social capital is studied in selected aspects [106,108–110].

The criticism of Putnam's concept refers mainly to the lack of a clear division between bridging and bounding dimensions of social capital. Haynes [111] criticizes Putnam's approach for unspecifying the direction of change given as examples of the impact of social capital. This, according to Heynes, makes the study conducted through the prism of the SCT tautological, that is explaining the cause of the (social) phenomenon by using its effect. Haynes also states explicitly that social capital cannot

be measured by hard indicators. Moreover, social capital refers to both positively and negatively validated social phenomena. This means, as mentioned before, that it has a "dark" side.

The tautological balance [111] between bridging and bonding has created space for reflection on the new components of Putnam's division. Considering this criticism, attempts were made to develop a new type of capital, i.e., linking social capital [106,107]. Linking social capital was supposed to fill the liquid space between bridging and bonding and explain the phenomena beyond Putnam's proposal. It seems, however, that to date, no more promising approaches have been developed to cover all of the social capital issues in a way that could replace Putnam's approach.

Despite the discussion raised by Putnam's works, we argue that among all the presented interpretations of social capital, Putnam's approach to social capital is the most useful framework for discussing the sustainability impacts of the SE on the urban community. Three arguments are justifying this belief. First, Putnam's framework considers the growing complexity of the social capital network. Second, it refers to the norms and relationships that can increase the society's efficiency by facilitating coordinated action [36]. Third, Putnam's approach refers to the study of the level of happiness, as the letter phenomenon refers to the quality of life concept when related to life in communities.

The SCT has already been used to explain the potential of social phenomena caused by the SE [112,113]. Some work has been also done to describe the role of sharing of resources in the development of modern communities and thus strengthening social capital [105,114–118]. The SCT has also been a basis for understanding micro-processes in the labor market, as the participation in the SE is associated with increased employability [113]. These studies confirm the SCT is predisposed for SE analysis by the fact that it considers the roles of all the actors of the social world, including businesses [119].

Researchers attempt to measure social capital in specific contexts. The SCT "profiling" studies relate to the social consequences caused by the changes in the natural environment [106] and the activities of voluntary organizations [109]. Social capital has also been analyzed in the context of selected values, such as trust in public institutions [120,121] and economic well-being [110,122]. These approaches increase SCT's explanatory potential [106,108,121] and measurability of social capital at the expense of a holistic approach to its analysis. However, they seem necessary when it comes to observing the local community.

SCT is also used as a framework for studying relationships in tourist destinations [123–126]. Such an approach refers to the destination by examining it generally at the collective level as a group of social actors and their capacity to act together towards common goals, but this approach remains highly fragmented and vaguely operationalized [103]. However, regarding our attempts to review literature, this approach has been not applied to consider the SE in relationships with social phenomena in local communities in the context of overtourism.

The bonding and bridging social capital sets two extreme equilibrium points in Putnam's approach. Their coexistence in relation to social life, including for business, is a determinant of social consensus. However, the communities face various challenges related to the emergence of SE market practices. The expansion of the SE can be described as a relatively new challenge [127], disrupting this equilibrium, or at least changing the rules for the creation of social capital. For the assumption of Putnam's perspective on the SCT, one can suppose that the SE can strengthen social capital. On the other hand, social capital is one of the guarantees of sustainable development [112].
