Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century

By Y. Rydin, Ana Bleahu, M. Davies, Julio Dávila, S. Friel, G. Grandis, N. Groce, P. Hallal, I. Hamilton, P. Howden-Chapman and 9 more. The Lancet, 2012

745 citations recorded by the source corpus.

3·4 billion people—about half the world’s population--live in urban areas, and this number might rise to 6·3 billion by 2050.1 The proportion of the global population living in cities will be 60% by 2030,2 a 72% increase in 30 years (figures 1 and ​and2).2). Urban growth will be greatest in Africa and Asia, followed by Latin America and Oceania.5 Even in long-established urban areas in Europe, urban population growth during that period will reach almost 5%.5 This growth will not only result in more megacities (cities of more than 10 million people), increasingly concentrated in Asia, but also in more medium-sized cities, especially in Africa. UN estimates are that about 1 billion people, nearly a sixth of the global population, live in slum-like conditions. With the worldwide population predicted to expand to 9 billion by 2030, the number of people living in slum-like conditions could reach 2 billion.5 Figure 1 World population growth, 1950-2050 Figure 2 Proportion of the world population living in urban areas The understanding of how urban environments affect health outcomes and can produce health benefits is therefore an urgent priority, as recognised by WHO in their declaration of 2010 as the Year of Urban Health. From this perspective, there are reasons to be optimistic. The idea of the so-called urban advantage encapsulates the health benefits of living in urban as opposed to rural areas. However, factors such as economic growth and associated urban expansion cannot be relied on to drive improvements in health outcomes. Health improvements need to be actively planned for. The Healthy Cities movement has appreciated this fact and generated much action. Assessments have, however, pointed to a gap between aspirations and outcomes and limitations in the coherence of the models behind action. In response to this problem, the UCL Lancet Commission met from November, 2009, to June, 2011, bringing together an interdisciplinary team of experts to under stand how better health outcomes can be delivered through interventions in the urban environment in cities across the world, and to generate policy recommendations. We began with the definition of health as both the absence of ill health and the presence of mental and physical wellbeing,6 and the urban environment as the physical context within which urban activities take place, including the material fabric of buildings and infrastructure and their spatial organisation. The Commission focused on the potential for shaping the urban environment for better health outcomes; we explicitly did not address the issue of health-service provision within cities, but acknowledge that this is a key component of urban policy. We undertook expert-led reviews of available studies and desk-top research into the connection between urban planning and health in more than a dozen cities, with additional information provided by Commission members who have experience of working in many of these cities. The work informed discussions at monthly meetings with experts in public health, planning, architecture, building physics, engineering, development studies, anthropology, and philosophy. The Commission developed an approach based on complexity thinking—an approach that looks at the interconnected elements of a system and how that system has properties not readily apparent from the properties of the individual elements—and used this approach to develop proposals for an effective way forward. We begin by addressing the arguments around the urban advantage idea and then review the work of the Healthy Cities movement in the promotion of action for urban health. We then set out a complex systems approach for the understanding of how urban environments affect urban health, followed by five short case studies of urban interventions: the inter-related domains of sanitation and water management, building standards and indoor health, transportation and the links to mobility, urban form and the urban heat island effect, and the promotion of urban agriculture. We then turn to the implications of our analysis for urban governance if effective interventions to improve urban health are to be delivered, concluding with recommendations for policy and practice.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Health, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b892731c9925e42d1a808e8f3b613356ca83b81

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

  1. N. Simcock
  2. Anna Goodman
  3. Stefan Bouzarovski

In Health

  1. Stefan Bouzarovski

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

  1. N. Simcock
  2. Stefan Bouzarovski

Citations in the corpus