You are here: Home » Science
City layout affects health
RELATED
It
isn't hard to find an architect who will tell you that vast swathes of
the British urban landscape are ugly, grey and unappealing — nor would
you struggle to find people who agreed with them. But could it be that
the look and the layout of our cities is actually bad for our health?
A new report from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) sets out to prove just that. Comparing rates of physical activity, childhood obesity and diabetes in England's nine most populous cities, RIBA have found a clear correlation between the amount of green space, density of housing in urban areas, and the overall health of the local population.
They have also pinpointed the cities with the best and worst records on these key public health measures. Birmingham has the fewest physically active adults, while Liverpool has both the largest number of obese children and the highest rates of diabetes.
On the other end of the spectrum , the citizens of Leeds can boast the highest levels of activity while Bristol has the best outcomes for obesity and diabetes . All four cities have plenty of parks — but it is the quality as well as the quantity of green space that counts, if people are to be encouraged to walk around their city, go for a run, or let their children play outdoors , RIBA said.
Their report, "City Health Check" , found that the local authority (LA) areas which had the least physically active adults in the country — which included Birmingham's Sandwell district, Brent in London and Gateshead in Newcastle — had on average twice the housing density of the most active areas and also 20 per cent less green space.
The pattern repeats itself even within an individual city. Sixty nine per cent of land in Birmingham's leafy suburb of Solihull is green space, and sure enough, the area has the lowest levels of childhood obesity of any LA in the study — 14.1 per cent. In Sandwell meanwhile, only a third of land is green space, and a quarter of children are obese.
A significant factor behind the gulf in health outcomes identified by RIBA is explained by the different levels of social deprivation across the country and across cities. Greener, leafier areas with a lower density of housing and well-maintained parks and pathways come with a house price premium. Richer people who can afford to live there can also afford to buy better food, pay for gym memberships and generally fit within a national pattern of health inequality — the richer the area you live in, the more likely you are to be healthy.
Nevertheless, it's clear that physical inactivity — a key cause of obesity and the catalogue of associated health risks — is a problem. RIBA reports that 75 per cent of people living in the nine cities surveyed do not meet the government-recommended 150 minutes of physical activity every week. However, three quarters of people surveyed by RIBA said they could, in the right circumstances, be encouraged to do more walking each week.
A new report from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) sets out to prove just that. Comparing rates of physical activity, childhood obesity and diabetes in England's nine most populous cities, RIBA have found a clear correlation between the amount of green space, density of housing in urban areas, and the overall health of the local population.
They have also pinpointed the cities with the best and worst records on these key public health measures. Birmingham has the fewest physically active adults, while Liverpool has both the largest number of obese children and the highest rates of diabetes.
On the other end of the spectrum , the citizens of Leeds can boast the highest levels of activity while Bristol has the best outcomes for obesity and diabetes . All four cities have plenty of parks — but it is the quality as well as the quantity of green space that counts, if people are to be encouraged to walk around their city, go for a run, or let their children play outdoors , RIBA said.
Their report, "City Health Check" , found that the local authority (LA) areas which had the least physically active adults in the country — which included Birmingham's Sandwell district, Brent in London and Gateshead in Newcastle — had on average twice the housing density of the most active areas and also 20 per cent less green space.
The pattern repeats itself even within an individual city. Sixty nine per cent of land in Birmingham's leafy suburb of Solihull is green space, and sure enough, the area has the lowest levels of childhood obesity of any LA in the study — 14.1 per cent. In Sandwell meanwhile, only a third of land is green space, and a quarter of children are obese.
A significant factor behind the gulf in health outcomes identified by RIBA is explained by the different levels of social deprivation across the country and across cities. Greener, leafier areas with a lower density of housing and well-maintained parks and pathways come with a house price premium. Richer people who can afford to live there can also afford to buy better food, pay for gym memberships and generally fit within a national pattern of health inequality — the richer the area you live in, the more likely you are to be healthy.
Nevertheless, it's clear that physical inactivity — a key cause of obesity and the catalogue of associated health risks — is a problem. RIBA reports that 75 per cent of people living in the nine cities surveyed do not meet the government-recommended 150 minutes of physical activity every week. However, three quarters of people surveyed by RIBA said they could, in the right circumstances, be encouraged to do more walking each week.
No comments:
Post a Comment