Unpacking tensions in community capacity building: A qualitative examination of a co-production process to support children's and adolescents' leisure-time physical activity in public housing areas

Community capacity building is widely regarded as a valuable approach in health promotion and applied across diverse contexts. However, there is a lack of research in applying community capacity building to promote leisure-time physical activity among children and adolescents. This study aimed to build community capacity to develop leisure-time physical activities for children and adolescents in public housing areas. In this article we examine how participating community stakeholders (municipal employees, social workers, representatives from sports clubs and a sports organization) attribute meaning to a co-production process as part of building community capacity. To explore this, we conducted four focus groups and one individual interview with participating stakeholders and observed 27 co-production workshops. We followed a strategy of reflective thematic analysis and orientated the coding process in Robert Chaskin's (2001) conceptualization of community capacity. Our analysis shows that the participating stakeholders were more focused on developing activities for children in the area than in building community capacity. The stakeholders’ level of commitment to reach their shared vision was challenged by ambiguities in their roles and responsibilities, competition for resources, and frustrations about the research-based design of the project. As many stakeholders measured success by the number of children participating in the developed activities, they perceived the project as less successful when implementation of activities failed, even if initial community capacities were developed. This article highlights the importance of future initiatives recognising and addressing the tensions involved in prioritising community capacity building equally alongside the achievement of specific programme outcomes. • Building community capacity does not contain inherent value. • Developing activity offers are prioritized over building community capacity. • Effort in developing activities is fraught with tensions concerning commitment. • Ambiguities in roles and responsibilities challenge stakeholder commitment. • Frustrations arise from adhering to a research-based project design.