Turcu, C; Crane, M; Hutchinson, E; Lloyd, S; Belesova, K; Wilkinson, P and Davies, M (2021) A multi-scalar perspective on health and urban housing: An umbrella review. Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 734-758. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
With more than half the world’s population living in cities, understanding how the built environment impacts human health at different urban scales is crucial. To be able to shape cities for health, an understanding is needed of planetary health impacts, which encompass the human health impacts of human-caused disruptions on the Earth’s natural ecosystems. This umbrella review maps health evidence across the spatial scales of the built environment (building; neighbourhood; and wider system, including city, regional and planetary levels), with a specific focus on urban housing. Systematic reviews published in English between January 2011 and December 2020 were searched across 20 databases, with 1176 articles identified and 124 articles screened for inclusion. Findings suggests that most evidence reports on health determinants at the neighbourhood level, such as greenspace, physical and socio-economic conditions, transport infrastructure and access to local services. Physical health outcomes are also primarily reported, with an emerging interest in mental health outcomes. There is little evidence on planetary health outcomes and significant gaps in the research literature are identified. Based on these findings, three potential directions are identified for future research. POLICY RELEVANCE Evidence about local built environment determinants of health have focused to date on physical health outcomes and the neighbourhood level; there is also significant evidence about mental health outcomes and greenspace. Future research can strengthen understanding of mental health outcomes across all scales and determinants of the built environment; investigate more robustly planetary health outcomes; and provide additional evidence at the building and wider urban system level, especially in relation to low-income settings, vulnerable groups and communicable disease. There is limited discussion of implications for policymaking and economic evaluations of health interventions, i.e. the cost of intervention versus health outcomes. Urban health interventions have focused to date on treating the effects of health conditions; however, there is potential for constructive interventions in the built environment (at various scales) which improve health and/or reduce environmental health risks if the policy focus is on dealing with the causes of health conditions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building; built environment; environmental health; health; housing; mental health; meta-analysis; neighbourhood; urban |
| Index terms: | environmental health, human health, built environment, housing, population, maps, systematic literature review, transport infrastructure, evidence, database, vulnerable group, determinant, economic condition, economic evaluation, income, meta-analysis, mental health |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data management, evaluation and assessment methods, health conditions and diseases, research evaluation and metrics, financial analysis, spatial and geospatial analysis, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, public and environmental health, construction type, environmental health, economic analysis, demography |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Business Strategy, Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here