Neighborhoods and health

*I LOVE THIS*



Neighborhoods (or residential areas more broadly) have emerged as potentially relevant contexts because they posses both physical and social attributes which could plausibly affect the health of individuals (125)

Place of residence is strongly patterned by social position and ethnicity (125)

Behavioral and stress processes operating at the level of individuals are also dynamically related: stress can result in the adoption of unhealthy eating behaviors as coping mechanisms, and some behaviors (such as physical activity) can buffer the adverse effects of stress (126)

The impact of neighborhood conditions on health is likely to be modified by individual-level characteristics. For example, some individuals may have characteristics that make them more vulnerable to adverse neighborhood conditions, while others may have the personal and financial resources that allow them to overcome deficiencies or hazards in their neighborhoods (126)

Research on neighborhoods and health is closely connected to work on residential segregation and health and work on housing on health (126)

Social determinants of health

Tackling the wider social determinants of health and
health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviews
C Bambra,1
M Gibson,2
A Sowden,3
K Wright,3
M Whitehead,4
M Petticrew5

Healthy Food Access Portal

Welcome to the nation’s first comprehensive healthy food access retail portal.

http://www.healthyfoodaccess.org/

Study of the Day: Bad Street Design Disproportionately Hurts the Poor

The poor disproportionately feel the impacts of bad road design, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Researchers charted the injury rates for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists in Montreal over five years. They found that "there were significantly more injured pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicle occupants at intersections in the poorest than in the richest areas." Pedestrians in low-income neighborhoods were six times more likely to be injured, even after controlling for traffic and pedestrian volume. Drivers were 4.3 times more likely to be injured; a cyclist's risk was 3.9 times higher.

The study's authors attributed this to the fact that poor neighborhoods have a higher traffic volume (thanks in part to the fact that these neighborhoods are more likely to contain major arteries and four-way intersections). Low-income residents are also more likely to rely on walking to get around.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/study-day-bad-street-design-disproportionately-hurts-poor/1845/

The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature

In sum, we have shown that simple and brief interactions with nature can produce marked increases in cognitive control. To consider the availability of nature as merely an amenity fails to recognize the vital importance of nature in effective cognitive functioning.

Earlier this year the same research group (with additional collaborators) came out with another study, set for publication in the November issue of the Journal of Affective Disorders. This time the researchers wondered how nature would influence a group of participants with clinical major depression. On one hand their symptoms could improve as attention and cognition were enhanced; on the other, their mood might worsen if they used the stroll through the woods to ruminate on troubling thoughts.

Just as before, attention performance increased more after nature walks than urban walks (in fact, the effect size was five times larger than in the 2008 study). The mood priming worked too: participants left the lab for their respective walks in worse moods than when they entered it. But after the strolls, those people who'd been through the park showed much greater improvement in "positive affect" — an emotional state typically low in depressed patients.

The study prompts several conclusions. The first, not really tied to cities, is that nature walks might provide a cost-efficient supplement to traditional treatments for major depression. As the researchers point out, the mood priming did work, meaning study participants set out on their journey thinking about a negative personal event. The fact that their positive affect improved despite this sour state shows the cognitive power of park land.

The second conclusion, more germane for our purposes, is that "incorporating nearby nature into urban environments may counteract" some of the cognitive strains placed on the brain by the city, the authors write. Recent research has suggested economic and crime benefits of urban greenery; now advocates can legitimately add "public health" to their list of arguments.

As always, caveats apply. To name just one: Nichols Arboretum in Ann Arbor, while no Central Park, is still quite vast at 123 acres. It would be nice to see the results replicated in an urban park of more modest (or, better yet, statistically average) proportions. Be great to know just how many trees it takes to give a city brain the break it needs from crossing traffic, or navigating subway platforms, or sitting in our cubicles reading Cracked.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/07/how-urban-parks-enhance-your-brain/2586/

FULL REPORT: http://www.umich.edu/~jlabpsyc/pdf/2008_2.pdf