A pre-and-post study of an urban renewal program in a socially disadvantaged neighbourhood in Sydney, Australia

BMC Public Health

John Paszek³  Rodrigo Gutierrez³  Roy Byun⁴  Elizabeth Lobb⁴  Basema Saddik¹  Michelle Maxwell⁵  Bin Jalaludin² 

[1] College of Public Health & Health Informatics, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia;School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;Department of Family & Community Services - Housing NSW, Sydney, Australia;Centre for Research, Evidence Management and Surveillance, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia;Population Health Directorate, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia

关键词: Evaluation;    Social housing;    Socio-economic disadvantage;    Pre-and-post study design;    Urban renewal;   

Others  :  1163454
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-521

 received in 2012-03-16, accepted in 2012-06-06,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Urban renewal programs aim to target both the physical and social environments to improve the social capital, social connectedness, sense of community and economic conditions of residents of the neighbourhoods. We evaluated the impact of an urban renewal program on the health and well-being of residents of a socially disadvantaged community in south-western Sydney, Australia.

Methods

Pre- and post-urban renewal program surveys were conducted with householders by trained interviewers. The urban renewal program was conducted over 16 months and consisted of internal upgrades (including internal painting; replacement of kitchens, bathrooms and carpets; general maintenance), external upgrades (including property painting; new fencing, carports, letterboxes, concrete driveways, drainage and landscaping), general external maintenance, and social interventions such as community engagement activities, employment initiatives, and building a community meeting place. The questionnaire asked about demographic characteristics, self-reported physical activity, psychological distress, self-rated health, and perceptions of aesthetics, safety and walkability in the neighbourhood. We used the paired chi-square test (McNemars test) to compare paired proportions. A Bonferroni corrected p-value of <0.0013 denoted statistical significance.

Results

Following the urban renewal program we did not find statistically significant changes in perceptions of aesthetics, safety and walkability in the neighbourhood. However, post-urban renewal, more householders reported there were attractive buildings and homes in their neighbourhood (18% vs 64%), felt that they belonged to the neighbourhood (48% vs 70%), that their area had a reputation for being a safe place (8% vs 27%), that they felt safe walking down their street after dark (52% vs 85%), and that people who came to live in the neighbourhood would be more likely to stay rather than move elsewhere (13% vs 54%). Changes in psychological distress and self-rated health were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

We found an increase, in the short-term, in the proportion of householders reporting improvements in some aspects of their immediate neighbourhood following the urban renewal program. It will be important to repeat the survey in the future to determine whether these positive changes are sustained.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Jalaludin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Macintyre S, Ellaway A: Ecological approaches: rediscovering the role of the physical and social environment. In Social Epidemiology. Edited by Berkman LF, Kawachi I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England; 2000:332-348.
• [2]Poortinga W, Dunstan FD, Fone DL: Neighbourhood deprivation and self-rated health: the role of perceptions of the nighbourhood and of housing problems. Health Place 2008, 14:562-575.
• [3]Stockdale SE, Wells KB, Tang L, Belin TR, Zhang L, Sherbourne CD: The importance of social context: neighborhood stressors, stress-buffering mechanisms, and alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders. Soc Sci Med 2007, 65(9):1867-1881.
• [4]Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R: Neighbourhood environmental factors correlated with walking near home: using SPACES. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006, 38(4):708-714.
• [5]Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC: The Built Environment and Obesity. Epidemiol Rev 2007, 29(1):129-143.
• [6]Semenza JC, March TL, Bontempo BD: Community-initiated urban development: an ecological intervention. J Urban Health 2007, 84(1):8-20.
• [7]Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T: Assessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol 2002, 28:443-478.
• [8]Pickett KE, Pearl M: Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001, 55(2):111-122.
• [9]Saelens BE, Handy SL: Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40(7):S550-S566.
• [10]Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, Ainsworth BE, Bull FC, Craig CL, Sjöström M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lefevre J, Matsudo V, et al.: Neighborhood Environments and Physical Activity Among Adults in 11 Countries. Am J Prev Med 2009, 36(6):484-490.
• [11]Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF: Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med 2004, 27:67-76.
• [12]Ashe M, Feldstein LM, Graff S, Kline R, Pinkas D, Zellers L: Local venues for change: legal strategies for healthy environments. J L Med Ethics 2007, 35(1):138-147.
• [13]Baum F, Palmer C: 'Opportunity structures': urban landscape, social capital and health promotion in Australia. Heal Promot Int 2002, 17(4):351-361.
• [14]Leyden KM: Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighbourhoods. Am J Public Health 2003, 93(9):1546-1551.
• [15]Wood L, Frank LD, Giles-Corti B: Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Soc Sci Med 2010, 70(9):1381-1390.
• [16]Latkin CA, Curry AD, Hua W, Davey MA: Direct and indirect associations of neighborhood disorder with drug use and high-risk sexual partners. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32(6 Suppl):S234-S241.
• [17]Semenza JC: The intersection of urban planning, art, and public health: the Sunnyside Piazza. Am J Public Health 2003, 93(9):1439-1441.
• [18]Kelaher M, Warr DJ, Tacticos T: Evaluating health impacts: Results from the neighbourhood renewal strategy in Victoria, Australia. Health Place 2010, 16:861-867.
• [19]Whitley R, Prince M: Can urban regeneration programmes assist coping and recovery for people with mental illness? Suggestions from a qualitative case study. Heal Promot Int 2006, 21(1):19-26.
• [20]Thomson H, Morrison D, Petticrew M: The health impacts of housing-led regeneration: a prospective controlled study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61(3):211-214.
• [21]Huxley P, Evans Sl, Leese M, Gately C, Rogers A, Thomas R, Robson B: Urban regeneration and mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004, 39(4):280-285.
• [22]Petticrew M, Kearns A, Mason P, Hoy C: The SHARP study: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of housing and neighbourhood renewal. BMC Publ Health 2009, 9(415):1-14.
• [23]Blackman T, Harvey J, Lawrence M, Simon A: Neighbourhood renewal and health: evidence from a local case study. Health Place 2001, 7(2):93-103.
• [24]Thomson H, Atkinson R, Petticrew M, Kearns A: Do urban regeneration programmes improve public health and reduce health inequalities? A synthesis of the evidence from UK policy and practice (1980–2004). J Epidemiol Community Health 2006, 60(2):108-115.
• [25]National Health & Medical Research Council: Australian guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; 2009.
• [26]Macintyre S, Maciver S, Sooman A: Area, class and health; should we be focusing on places or people? J Social Policy 1993, 22(2):213-234.
• [27]Turner B: Social capital, inequality and health: the Durkheiminan revival. Social Theory and Health 2003, 1:4-20.
• [28]Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F: Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 1997, 277:918-924.
• [29]Hawe P, Sheill A: Social capital and health promotion: a review. Soc Sci Med 2000, 51(6):871-885.
• [30]Feldman P, Warr D, Tacticos T, Kelaher M: People, places and policies – trying to account for health inequalities in impoverished neighbourhoods. Aust N Z J Public Health 2009, 33(1):17-24.