SANITY AND URBANITY BLOG
If you are an academic, urban designer, planner, health professional or citymaker, and would like to submit a blog, please see submission guidelines.
by Matthew Williams, UD/MH Fellow An inviting city has specific characteristics of its built environment which make us feel good. Its most salient characteristic is its (literally built-in) invitation to stop, observe, mingle, interact, and strengthen our social bonds. The great project of a city is, after all, to bring strangers together. Solitude is necessary for contemplation, reflection, and grounding, but it is the connections which cities make possible – everyday prosaic, romantic, and/or professional - that often generate better versions of ourselves and who we can be as a society. The way we lay out our cities from the micro to the macro determines the nature of the invitation. Do we want to invite more cars? Then build more roads and they’ll surely come. But, isn’t it more lively streets and public spaces that makes us feel alive? Then the city's invitation to us is contingent on one imperative: it must nourish our senses and obey our human scale, not the scale of the automobile. It must give us fine-grained detail, not Brutalist-style monoliths, nor vast swathes of ashphalt for cars and their parking spaces. Tokyo is, for the most part, very inviting. That's why I choose to live here. Contrary to the “Lost in Translation” stereotype, the city is not alienating. Tokyo combines density and detail in walkable human-scaled streets and public spaces. Its detail includes, for example, engaging multiple small-scale signage and displays of blossoms at shop entrances, noren (a printed fabric hanging in restaurant entrances, much like a curtain but with a vertical split to allow patrons to enter) and even ceramic bowls of carp in front of a hairdresser. Signage and blossoms at a shop entrance and bowl of carp in front of a hair salon, Tokyo There are scattered parking lots, but their propinquity to the rich detail elsewhere renders their sensory impact even more jarring. They are spaces of nothingness and desolation. They don't uplift. They diminish us. Parking lot, Tokyo Tokyo’s detail can only be perceived because it falls within our ‘social field of vision’ in numerous walkable human-scale streets. That is, within a range of up to 100 metres, our our senses are activated enough to engage meaningfully with our surroundings: to recognize the local okonomiyaki (Japanese seafood pancake) restaurant owner taking a break in his shopfront so as to stop and chat; to smell flowers; to notice the hanging noren printed with vegetables signaling a tempura restaurant inside. Tokyo’s predominant ‘architectural speed’ matches this social field of vision. That is, the architecture and the details amassed around it (the intricate woodwork and bamboo arrangement of the shop entrance and the flowers, signs, menus amassed in front) are at a walking (5km per hour) and cycling speed (average 15-20km per hour), not the speed of the automobile (average 60km per hour). This human mobility speed, and even the cycling speed, is visually stimulating and mentally nourishing because we can sense and engage with its details up close as we walk or cycle. Jan Gehl notes with ringing lucidity: “at its core, walking is a special form of communion between people who share public space as a platform and framework”. Restaurant owner resting outside his shop, and a noren curtain signaling a vegetable tempura restaurant. Medieval cities configured around central town squares and based on human mobility (architecture at walking speed were designed so people could walk in their daily commercial routines. Who hasn’t beamed at the pleasure of walking in a town square in Italy? Tokyo does this superbly in many of its neighbourhoods. It offers abundant ‘experience space’ in small-scale streets, pocket parks, and informal and formal squares, while its major thoroughfares provide the ‘movement space’ for private automobiles, buses, and trucks. And it has vast ‘movement space’ underground in its ubiquitous labyrinthe subway system, which carries workers, students, and the upper middle class. Pocket park, Tokyo This is not the case in many cities where modernism has ignored the ‘life in between buildings’, as Jan Gehl refers to it, and focused on discreet stand-alone buildings intersected by vast networks of roads to accommodate (and ‘invite’) the car invasion of the 20th century. Until that time, as Jane Jacobs opined, city space was primarily ‘experience space’, designed to facilitate social interaction. The automobile upended this paradigm, to the detriment of our social capital and well-being by streamlining city space for the utilitarian purpose of allowing cars fast passage. The automobile radically disrupted human scale because cars take up more space than people, both when driving and parked (a parking lot for 20 to 30 cars and their owners denies a whole metropolitan citizenry a nice-sized town square). In a city of cars, all spatial dimensions increase to accommodate the car’s speed, and we are left with the impoverished experience of the 60 km per hour architecture (‘fast architecture’) of a busy road. Its monochrome blandness ignores human scale precisely because it is not built for humans and their mobility speed. That's the regrettable legacy of the 20th century: we built cities for cars, not for humans. Cities designed for the spatial dimensions and speed of cars, not people People love to watch other people. They will stop, observe, mingle, sometimes make a new friend, and even occasionally fall in love if there is an appropriate ‘invitation’. The invitation works if it obeys human scale, is designed at a walking or cycling speed, is rich in visual detail such as in Tokyo’s small streets, and pushes cars onto main roads. Tokyo is not perfect but it is a very good touchstone of an ‘inviting’ human-scale city. Monocle magazine ranked Tokyo No. 1 in this years’ annual livability survey. Not undeserving. The open design invites people to stop and listen to the pianist at a community music centre All photographs by Matthew Williams About the Author
Elika Dadsetan, Social Development Specialist, International Health and Epidemiology Research Center (IHERC), Director of Programs The World Health Organization states: “There is no health without mental health,” which means that in terms of achieving healthy cities, mental health and other supplementary support elements are key. There are many factors for city planners, architects and others to contemplate regarding what a “mentally healthy” environment can look like and how to deliver it, and social-cultural, physical-built, and economic environments all come into play. These factors become particularly important in the context of supporting the mental health of refugees in the city. Mental illnesses are on the rise, and we know that at least one in four people will experience some mental illness in their lives. These numbers are only magnified in communities experiencing distress across the board, such as refugees coming out of Syria. Although it is too soon to discuss impacts of these recent refugee crises, it is very likely that with the highest number of migrants in our modern history, we will see further increases in mental illness in these populations. Due to the stigma and misconceptions around mental illness, people often do not receive adequate medical care. In low and middle-income countries, approximately 80% of people living with mental illness receive no mental health treatment at all, or they use traditional healers that may not deliver effective care. This means they have fewer opportunity to achieve good health, reducing their chances to become involved in projects that may be able to help them out of poverty, or at least be able to afford the health care they require, creating a further vicious circle of poverty and mental illness. Thus, we cannot ignore mental health as a key determinant of health in urban contexts. We have to include mental health as part of the discussions about how we can encourage “healthy cities” for the sake of children and adults alike. Taking into consideration what types of positive support systems are needed for refugee populations, and others living in poverty, is key to “city” planning. Children's mental health can be particularly impacted by growing up in slums and refugee camps. First, we know that poverty is inextricably linked with mental illness, and can create and maintain a vicious cycle. People who live in urban poverty are at particular risk of mental illness, and those who are mentally ill are at a greater risk of social discrimination and exclusion; without healthy support systems, these people are more likely to experience extreme poverty. Syrian refugee siblings in front of their tent. In the background there’s a photo of a fancy house- the boy explained that this is their dream house. Photograph by Ralph Baydoun, World Vision Lebanon. Living in cities increases the risk of developing certain mental illnesses, and for refugees living in urban poverty, these risks are often exacerbated because their living environments are often inherently stressful. For example, we know that children may have increased exposure to domestic and sexual violence, they may be more likely to worry about economic hardships, including child labor and child marriage, and children in these settings may experience greater levels of neglect or lack of parental engagement, since parents often have to spend time away from the home to earn money. We also see greater social isolation in urban slums, including refugee camps - both informal tented settlements or otherwise, and as such, increased risks for children to become involved in substance abuse, violence, sexual exploitation, and other risky behaviors and experiences. Furthermore, these children's adult caregivers are also at increased risk of developing mental illnesses - and this is a further risk factor for children's mental health. We know that suicide is amongst the top three causes of death for those of child-bearing age (15-44 year olds). The old “village” life that refugee children may be used to - and the care associated with it - may not be as prominent in their new lives. Pictures of Syrian refugees during winter season in Lebanon. Photograph by Ralph Baydoun, World Vision Lebanon. Stress is, of course, a normal brain response to threat - but when it occurs constantly, stress can cause the structure of the brain to change. Research has shown that the amygdala (an area of the brain that regulates emotions like anxiety and fear) shows higher activation levels in healthy individuals living in large cities than in healthy counterparts living in rural regions. Our brains start developing before we are born and continue up through the age of 23 or 24, so consistent stress associated with living in urban areas may literally alter young people's brain structure, which may lead to increased stress levels, anxiety, life-long hyperactivity, and greater vulnerability to various adult mental illnesses. Children with higher stress or childhood disorders are also less likely to do well at school, which affects their education and work opportunities. This challenge is magnified for refugee children, at least half of whom are out of school (at least 3.4 million refugee children), which causes further challenges, particularly when they are required to work instead, or get married at a young age. Strategies for designing living environments that promote good mental health for refugees Creating safer public spaces through rebuilding community social networks, strategically improving the built environment, and securing economic opportunities can help change the narrative and help develop resiliency and rebuild the dignity of refugees' communities. The social/community environment When planning the design of living environments for refugees, there needs to be consideration around building capacity (human resources and otherwise) within the communities to capture the needs of individuals with distress. Utilizing experts and leadership from the community to develop strategies that are culturally relevant, appropriate, and effective, needs to be considered. Taking cultural contexts into consideration to ensure appropriate spaces is key. Organizing and promoting regular positive community activities, while providing a voice of power to the community, can help rebuild community social networks, and help redefine the narratives associated with the community. Communities also need to be able to restore a connection to their home countries, and help rebuild a sense of cultural identity, which has been shown to have a positive impact on mental health outcomes. Some of the most successful youth development, violence prevention, and health promotion programs build on existing community assets, and are dependent on community members and organizations that connect individuals to a supportive community. In communities where organizational infrastructure and capacity is lacking or absent, violence and trauma have a more profound impact on individuals and communities. Thus, more effort needs to be made to create social cohesion between the host communities and refugee communities, assuming the host communities have that missing capacity. Churches and spiritual leaders can fulfill some of these roles in many communities, but a healthy community has multiple entry points, including businesses, civic organizations, social organizations, schools, and youth-driven organizations that can contribute to the social and cultural environment that promotes positive relationships, social norms, behaviors, and activities within a community. The physical/built environment Reducing deterioration, and creating space for positive interaction are the most important physical/built environment priorities to support mental health. This may include reclaiming public space to be appealing to residents, reflect their community culture, and become a source of pride that can contribute to a sense of community worth and be supportive of healing. The systematic disinvestment and neglect of poor inner city communities has been a part of the structural violence that has produced community trauma over the last half century in the US, and other western societies. This is only exacerbated in communities that are hosting refugees. Thus, there is a need to focus on improving and maintaining roads, buildings, parks, transportation, and other public services so that they are transformed from sources of toxic stress, into an environment that encourages positive social interaction and relationships. A great example of such an attempt is in Colombia with the various social development projects set up in Medellin. Additionally, parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities provide critical opportunities for engaging in physical activity and gathering with neighbors, and especially in order to relieve stress. Their absence undermines community health, mental health and quality of life. Thus, these facilities not only normalizes daily life in the communities, but can serve as safe spaces for youth to gather and socialize, while engaging in physical activity. The economic environment Lastly, strategies to improve economic opportunities for youth and adults in these neighborhoods are critical to the success of healing from community trauma, improving community health and wellness, and resisting the pressures of additional dislocation. Actual workforce development strategies that improve employment skills, capacity, and readiness of community members, while linking them to job opportunities with a living wage is critical. This also helps avoid idle youth in refugee camps being recruited for armed forces, early marriage, or child labor activities. These strategies must be multi-sectoral, focusing on different segments of communities, including strategies to increase the proportion of young people and adults who attend primary, secondary and tertiary (including vocational) education, and undertake job training and placement. Planners must ensure that the infrastructure for people to access these opportunities is available. It would be helpful to institute restorative justice programs that shift the norms around conflict resolution and healing circles to, amongst other outcomes, support people to stay on paths to pursue educational and economic opportunities Syrian refugees creating their own comfort zones. Photograph by Ralph Baydoun, World Vision Lebanon. What would help Mental health is not always talked about and fully documented in refugee populations; we need more documentation of the extent of the challenge, and more research on the most effective interventions. But for urban planners and designers, there is a need for increased capacity to recognize the needs of these populations: planning consultations with the communities are important - and should include people with mental health problems, and mental health and wellbeing promotion (including opportunities for play) should be actively built into future developments. About the Author
by Layla McCay, UD/MH Director An important new report on urban design and mental health, Urban Sanity: Understanding Urban Mental Health Impacts and How to Create Saner, Happier Cities, has just been published by the Victoria Transport Institute in Canada. The report evaluates the evidence that links urban design and mental health, and uses these specific links to propose policy recommendations. The report author, Todd Litman, asserts that cities generally provide good opportunities for people to thrive - yet research tells us that people who live in cities have an increased risk of psychosis, mood disorders, cocaine and heroin addiction and unhappiness (though a lower risk of dementia, alcohol abuse and suicide) compared to rural dwellers. Why? And what can we do about it? The premise of the report is that urban living in itself does not cause mental disorders or even make people unhappy - rather, city life seems to be associated with increased mental health problems for two principal reasons:
The report identifies factors that are particularly associated with the increased risk of mental illness in the city:
Design and Policy recommendations from the report The report makes specific design and policy recommendations to address the urban risk factors for mental illness identified in the report, replicated here: Targeted social service: Recognize that cities tend to attract people with elevated mental illness risks, and provide appropriate mental health, housing and substance abuse treatment services. Affordability: Improve affordable urban housing and transportation options (walking, cycling, public transit, taxi, etc.) to reduce residents’ financial stress. Independent mobility: Provide independent mobility options for diverse community members, including those who are poor, have disabilities or impairments, adolescents or seniors. Pro-social places: Create public spaces that promote community and encourage positive interactions among residents. Involve residents in creating public places and activities that meet their needs. Community safety: Create communities that minimize urban dangers including traffic, crime and harassment, and pollution exposure. This can involve traffic safety programs, crime prevention though environmental design, appropriate lighting, passive surveillance by nearby residents and bypassers, and other community safety programs. Design for physical activity: Integrate physical activity by providing good walking and cycling conditions, high quality public transit, compact and mixed neighborhoods, local parks and recreational facilities, plus appropriate community sports and recreation programs. Pollution reductions: Implement noise, air, light and toxic pollution reduction programs. Greenspace: Design cities with appropriate greenspaces, including local and regional parks, green infrastructure, and out-of-city wilderness access programs. What this report makes clear is that improving mental health through urban design is not a nebulous aspiration: practical architecture and urban planning approaches that target specific risk factors are likely to yield results. Better population mental health is an essential contributor to a thriving, sustainable city, and this report contributes an important analysis that will be helpful to citymakers. Read the report by Jenny Roe and Alice Roe Access to parks and urban green space facilitates exposure to nature, exercise and social opportunities that have positive impacts on both physical and mental health. In the last decade, rates of migration have risen dramatically across the globe: by 2038, it’s expected that half of London’s residents will be of a black and minority ethnic origin (BME). Our cities, towns and communities are becoming increasingly multicultural and, yet there are inequalities. A recent report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission showed that in the UK, ethnic minorities are experiencing worse health outcomes. This is particularly the case for mental health: in 2012, the proportion of adults in England who were at risk of poor mental health was found to be higher among Pakistani/Bangladeshi and African/Caribbean/Black respondents than White respondents, and there were inequalities in accessing healthcare. Hence, it is increasingly important that research reflects the diverse make-up of these populations. A new study has sought to better understand the differences in use and perception of urban green space amongst BME groups in the UK, and illustrated the need for park facilitators to accommodate the needs, attitudes and interests of our multicultural population. Source: Black Environment Network Several reviews have recently synthesised evidence showing the health benefits of contact with green space across a variety of international contexts but evidence of benefits by race/ethnicity is a notable gap. Given that BME groups in the UK generally suffer from poorer health and a wide range of environmental inequalities – perceiving their local open space to be poor in quality and reporting lower levels of use – the possible benefits of research into the relationships between green space, health and ethnicity is huge. While past studies have begun to identify different patterns of use and preference by ethnic minorities in urban green space, compared with white British populations, there is a need to better identify the underlying – and intrinsic – motivations behind these diverse behaviours. The study, conducted by Jenny Roe, Peter Aspinall and Catharine Ward Thompson, addresses this gap by exploring the role of urban green space in promoting general health within deprived urban communities in England. The study took an usual approach by exploring how aspects of social wellbeing – feelings of loneliness, perceptions of trust in the local neighbourhood, and place belonging – relate to general health, alongside the physical neighbourhood characteristics of deprived BME and white British communities, including perceptions and use of local green space. Using a self-rated general measure of health, the study explored individual, social and environmental predictors of general health in six ethnic groups living in three of England’s most ethnically mixed conurbations (i.e. London, Manchester and the Wolverhampton and Coventry area). The results of a household questionnaire, given to 523 people, identified three distinct health groups according to ethnicity: (1) people of Indian origin, who recorded the best health, (2) white British and (3) a segment labeled ‘Mixed BME’ combining people of African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani origin, and ‘Other BME’ (e.g. people of Chinese origin and other white background), who reported the worst health. A key finding was that aspects of social wellbeing predicted general health in all three health groups. Trust was a high ranking predictor of general health, particularly amongst people of Indian origin, compared to our ‘Mixed BME’ group, where place belonging ranked more highly. All of our measures of social wellbeing were found to be highly correlated to perceptions and use of community green. Significantly, general health in the worst health group (i.e. those ethnicities within the ‘Mixed BME’ group) was far more likely to be predicted by variables in urban green space usage and perception than in any other health group. Those of African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani origin, and Other BME, perceived the quality of local green space to be poorer (i.e. less safe, less attractive) and their visiting patterns varied significantly between winter and summer. In particular, low level of visits in winter was a significant determinant of poor general health. By comparison, the best health group (i.e. people of Indian origin) rated their neighbourhood more positively and felt greater levels of place-belonging than the other two health groups. For people of Indian origin, walking to a local urban green space was a predictor of good health, and they were much more likely to be accompanied by someone during visits (90%). The study identifies a clear correlation between self-reported general health and levels of use and perception of urban green space amongst BME communities and, consequently, points to a need for health policy to better understand how to foster positive use of urban green space amongst ethnic minorities throughout the year. By exploring the differences in use and perceptions of urban green space by ethnic group, the study identified the need for urban planners to take into account the diverse usage patterns of minority groups. For instance, we know that young women of Asian-British origin will be more likely to visit local green space if they can find a space to be among women of their own ethnicity. Park planners and recreational facilitators must therefore make a pronounced effort to understand these patterns of behaviour in order to better, and more appropriately, provide for BME groups. The study made clear the need for a culture of health specific to locality, race and ethnicity and the need for an intersectional approach to research – which is able to understand differences according to ethnicity, gender and poverty – to become the norm. About the Authors
Further information This op-ed is based on a new study by Jenny Roe and colleagues:
Roe J, Aspinall PA, Thompson CW. Understanding Relationships between Health, Ethnicity, Place and the Role of Urban Green Space in Deprived Urban Communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(7), 681. doi:10.3390/ijerph13070681 by Rhiannon Corcoran, UDMH Fellow and Professor of Psychology and Academic Director of the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice, University of Liverpool, UK It’s a sad fact, I’m afraid. Our cities don’t seem to be very good for us. Anonymous, via the Only Us campaign The isolation and mistrust in this anonymous note will be familiar to many who experience periods of low mood, anxiety or feelings of paranoia from time to time. To understand the psychology that underpins a phenomenon known as the urbanicity effect – the higher prevalence of diagnosable mental distress and low wellbeing in cities, we, the Prosocial Place research team, have run a series of group walks through a 2-mile route of the South of our great city, Liverpool, collecting ‘data’ along the way. At 16 stops along this reversible route from station to station, we asked our 48 participants to record their gut reactions to place, resulting in a rich resource of residential city sentiment. What’s interesting about this urban walk is that it transits some stark living contrasts and includes neighbourhoods, only metres apart, that are amongst the most different in terms of overt deprivation (confirmed by official Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics). In typical psychological science mode, this information must be rigorously analysed using complex statistical procedures so that we can be sure that we report only the findings that emerge as having a 95% likelihood of being ‘true’ or ‘real’. However, much of the richness of the walkers’ responses exist in what they say about the things they notice when they stop to consider how they feel. Using a text mining software package called Sentiment Analysis, we were able to show how the way our walkers described ‘salient features’ – those things that catch our eye and grab our attention as we walk through places, correlate with the inferences we make about the characters of the people who live in those places. This tells us how poor place management speaks unjustified volumes about matters such as the trustworthiness and the amount of control that the residents of places have over their own lives. This is psychology in action – where sensory information entering our central nervous systems provides the basis for ‘higher level’ decision-making and reasoning. In effect, what we are seeing is the operation of an automatic, evolutionary-selected process that tells us where we should go and where we should avoid if we want to survive. Word clouds of the descriptions given of salient features while walking through relatively non-deprived and the relatively deprived areas in South Liverpool. Of course, the inferences we make about people on the basis of sensory information is based upon ‘quick and dirty’ heuristic reasoning which, in Nobel prize winning research, Daniel Kahneman tells us is often incorrect. So, when we see cues to threat in the residential places of our cities, we make biologically and psychologically inevitable, but nevertheless likely incorrect, inferences about the people who live there. We were able to show this inaccuracy using a classic research technique of social psychology called the dropped letter method. Our dropped letter experiment During the months of November and December using careful methods to control for timing, weather and distance from post box, the undergraduate members of our research team ‘dropped’ Christmas cards in the two shopping lanes through which our walks passed, a relatively deprived and a relatively non-deprived area. The envelopes were addressed to consenting friends and families of the research team who reported how many of these cards they received in the post along with the details inside about where and when the cards were dropped. This gave us an objective snapshot of the ‘prosociality’ of the folk who live in these areas and use the two shopping lanes that differed starkly in terms of official deprivation statistics and contrasted greatly in terms of the sentiments they elicited in our walkers. The results In compelling contrast to the heuristically-driven decisions we make about the people who live in areas characterised by neglected fabric acting as cues to threat, exactly the same number of Christmas cards were returned from both lanes, demonstrating just how wrong our ‘quick and dirty’ reasoning can be when making judgment about the nature of a neighbourhood. Unless we are those "lucky fucks and angels” that Pete Townsend sings of, who spend their time and money amidst the abundance of wealth and resource that marks our city centres these day, we live locally: we forage in our high streets and walk routes of our neighbourhood streets and parks with our kids, our friends and our dogs. But in resource- torn Britain we have made some curious choices about how we manage our urban ecologies – the places where we work, rest, and play. The residential, not retail or commerce, city has for the most part, been devastated from lack of management to the extent that we intuitively react to the lack of assets, signalling a lack of thrival and so a threat to survival. It looks like ‘the fittest’ have adapted by going to forage elsewhere. It is they who live the thriving life of plenty and who wax lyrical about the culture and the opportunity that their city affords them. A Tale of Two Cities - still. Dickens’s opening lines are spooky: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.” That we have residential places in our 21st century cities that our biological system tells us we should avoid for our own good is surely a human rights issue and an international scandal (because Britain is not alone in this). By walking to understand and by placing the living environment at the centre of psychological study, we can begin to understand how and why we are so dramatically affected by the cities where so many of us now live. If, by coming out of our research labs and onto the streets, psychologists and other researchers can influence equitable place-making policy for the common good, we will achieve something very powerful . The Research Team Rhiannon Corcoran, Professor of Psychology and Academic Director of the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice, University of Liverpool and UD/MH Fellow.
Graham Marshall, Landscape Architect, Urban Designer and Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool and UD/MH Fellow. Rosie Mansfield, Demonstrator in School of Psychology and postgraduate student, University of Liverpool. Christophe de Bezenac, postgraduate student, University of Liverpool. Katherine Overbury, undergraduate psychology student, University of Liverpool. Ellen Anderson, undergraduate psychology student, University of Liverpool The World Health Organisation has recognised that increasing urbanisation is reshaping urban population health problems, with depression expected to be the second leading cause of loss disability-adjusted life years by 2030. It is widely accepted that the natural environment has a positive effect on health and wellbeing and plays a role in disease prevention. Nature in an urban environment can foster a sense of community which is key for improved health and wellbeing as connection with local community can reduce the risk of long-term health conditions such as depression, heart disease and increase life expectancy. Since the 1950s, psychologists have recognised the importance of community for individual and group wellbeing by understanding human behaviour from both a social and physical environmental perspective. More recently, epidemiologists have shown how mental health outcomes are influenced by community connections, belonging, networks, social cohesion and social capital, therefore a sense of community is considered a preventative method to mitigate against psychological and physical illnesses. Therefore, urban design should not just consider access to nature and green space but also the interactions that this can facilitate to encourage connection with place both with nature and community which is vital for health and wellbeing. Outdoor gym, Clapham, London. Photograph by Author. How can nature foster a sense of community? In the field of community psychology, a sense of community has been defined by membership, influence, integration and fulfilment of needs as well as a shared emotional connection. Arguably these factors, particularly emotional connection, can be facilitated in green environments. An experiment conducted by psychologists at the University of Rochester with virtual images, showed the more nature the study group were exposed to, the more likely they were to value emotional connections with other people and have increased generosity than those exposed to city views. Those that were not exposed to nature images were more focused on external goals such as increasing personal income. The research suggests that nature is significant in cultivating values that influence wellbeing and building a sense of community. Why do humans need to connect to nature and community? There are some theories that exist which aim to understand why interaction with nature has a positive impact on health and wellbeing. The biophilia hypothesis is a theory commonly referred to, particularly as increasing research through design practice shows the positive impact of biophilic design. However, the topophilia hypothesis provides a further suggestion to why interaction with nature is important in terms of fostering a sense of community. The topophilia hypothesis suggests that humans possess a genetic bias to form bonds with local place which may have evolved due to the need to learn and share knowledge related to local nature for survival. It has been predicted that bonding with place is a critical element of mental health. Further research is required to investigate the validity of the theory, however if significant evidence can support this, it would provide greater weight for urban design to encourage connection of place through nature and green space. The challenge for urban design Nature and green space in an urban environment could be viewed as the heart of building a healthy and happy community, as connecting with both nature and community is arguably an innate need we have as humans. However, green space is limited in urban environments. Urban design needs to rethink how nature is integrated into our cities and ensure that the community is involved in projects that promote green infrastructure and urban greening to build a sense of community and place. Some inspiring initiatives are listed below:
Wellbeing can be constructed in our cities. In many urban societies, material wealth is traditionally viewed as the path to happiness: a wardrobe of disposable fashion, a better and faster car, a bigger house. We know that this isn’t necessarily a positive influence on wellbeing. Perhaps through a greater focus on connecting with nature in our cities, we can build more resilient communities where everyone can have the opportunity to experience an increased sense of place and belonging in the world in which they live. ‘The happiest man is he who learns from nature the lesson of worship’ Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Nature’, 1836 Community Garden, London. Photograph by Author. About the Author
A new digital edition of the book Unpleasant Design was published last month. We caught up with one of the editors, Selena Savic, to learn more about unpleasant design and its potential for positive and negative impact on mental health in the city.
You've just published a new edition of your book, Unpleasant Design. What exactly is 'unpleasant design'? Unpleasant design is an approach to design that intentionally restricts the use of objects and spaces. It is thus not failed design, but rather, a successful, deliberate design to prevent certain behaviours. Often these design interventions are targeted to prevent behaviours that have not been formally banned, but that people may deem unwanted in public spaces. For example, while there may be no ban on people skating, hanging out, or sleeping rough in the city, these decisions can be made quietly between the contractor and the designer, without public participation. In unpleasant design, the decision is often hidden in the design. Can you give us some examples of unpleasant design in the urban environment? In the book, we divided unpleasant designs into unpleasant objects and unpleasant devices. This taxonomy brings on one side a large number of seating designs that prevent rough sleeping, obstacles to skating, anti-urinating corner installations, and surfaces that prevent attaching stickers and climbing. On the devices list, we include the infamous mosquito device (a high pitch buzz that annoys teenagers), blue lights (obfuscating veins and preventing intravenous injections), pink lights (emphasizing skin blemishes in teenage population to deter them from the area) and CCTV systems enhanced with facial recognition and motion tracking (thus theoretically capable of discriminating against skin colour, outfits and gait). No-sleeping bench at a metro station in Rotterdam. Source: Unpleasant Design. What are some of the ways in which unpleasant design in the city could impact people's mental health and wellbeing?
The most obvious link I see between unpleasant design and wellbeing is the prohibition of rough sleeping. While it is obvious that simply making a bench "unsleepable" is not in any way addressing the problem of homelessness (people don't stop being homeless because a bench is uncomfortable), this kind of design also sends a hostile and careless message to the whole population. Not only is it evident from interventions like this that social diversity and inclusion is not on the design agenda, but it is also okay to repel people like pests. Does unpleasant design have particular impact on the mental health of certain groups of people? Absolutely. Unpleasant design can exclude groups like teenagers or homeless people from spaces without any possibility for negotiation and without even questioning the ethics behind this. Some would argue that the solution is to create dedicated spaces, for example where skaters can safely perform their tricks without bothering others. However, imagine if this approach was applied to all groups that those making design decisions find incompatible with their own preferences for the use of urban spaces? What if homeless people were only allowed to be where other homeless people are; if square meters of publicly accessible space were allotted to youth based on their number in the area; if older people had no opportunity to be in contact with youth? How could a frictionless society function without the opportunity for negotiation between any of the conflicting entities? What would happen when they met somewhere by chance? Designing people out of space is particularly dangerous for young people as it deprives them from the possibility to learn and adapt to the society and to the needs of other people. Are there any positive aspects to 'unpleasant design'? I couldn't say that there aren't. Obviously, unpleasant design helps the majority keep the space in the shape they deem pleasant. Children can play in parks where benches are clean and free to use. People are not endangered by wild skaters running along urban furniture. Toilets with blue lights have not been possessed by drug addicts. However, I would like to stress once more that these benefits are only short-term and unsustainable. All these behaviours we design against will take place elsewhere. And the message of exclusion grants the right to people and institutions to create their own little oases of law, which is not always in the best interest of majority. What are the messages from the book for architects and city planners? We need to be able to negotiate the use of public space. We need to talk about unpleasant designs before we implement them. We need to make it very clear what unpleasant designs are against. Unpleasant design can also be subverted, as beautifully shown by artists and activisits whose work we published in our book. Why did you decide to create this book? At first, we wanted to collect examples of unpleasantness in public space and show that there is a language and an intention behind these. During this process, we learned about many other groups and collectives who were doing this type of work. We decided to create a compendium of designs and reflections on the topic, hoping to spur the debate among design professionals, city planners and other interested parties. We think we succeeded in that, as the book has proved to be a resourceful reading for anyone interested in the topic. What's new about the new edition? The new edition is digital only, and contains some updates and new stories. For example, there is an interview with a design office which explicitly specialises in unpleasant designs, Factory Furniture. Finally, which is your favorite city and why? I like cities a lot. I don't have a favourite one. Lausanne is a very pleasant city, it treats people with dignity. There are very few instances of unpleasant design against homeless people (there are not many homeless people either, so that's probably why) and there is a general tendency to design public space for flexible use. The view on the lake is also winning over many other beautifully designed cities. Apart from Lausanne, I love the agitated relaxedness on the streets of Belgrade, the monumental fragmentation of venues in Vienna and other unique contradictions that appear in cities I have spent time in. WHAT NEXT?
by Martin Knöll, Junior Professor at Technische Universität Darmstadt Department of Architecture in Germany, and head of the Urban Health Games Research Group, and Jenny Roe, Professor of Design and Health and the Director of the Center of Design and Health at the School of Architecture, University of Virginia in the US.
“Hey, what’s going on here?”
A pop-up Pokemon Go event on a street corner in Edinburgh was causing a real buzz last week among young people on a hot summer day, stopping to chat and take in a glass of ice-cold lemonade. The success of Pokemon Go is gigantic and it is good news for health and urban design. Specifically, if we - users, developers and urban designers /researchers - begin to collaborate on how we can use AR (augmented reality) gaming to design our cities for active engagement amongst our sedentary populations, particularly young people.
Young people playing at a Pokemon Go Gym in Darmstadt’s central park Herrngarten.
Source: Martin Knoll.
It seems obvious that there is an immediate effect of gaming on many players’ daily activity, social interactions and mental wellbeing. Many of the tweets at #PokemonGo testify how this is happening in synergy.
Source: Twitter
More research will be needed to show how intense the physical activity really is, how it is determined by players’ age, gender, health disposition and usual activity patterns, and the strength of the social and mental wellbeing benefits. Also, it will be interesting to see how the hype and the intense usage will translate to change long term health behaviours and motivations.
But the Pokemon hype is really good news as it helps to change peoples’ attitude towards the quality of physical places and (potentially) offers potential to use digital technology to plan, design and maintain our cities for health and wellbeing outcomes. People spend more time outside gaming, not only watching on the smartphone screen, but also interacting with their surroundings off-screen. We have found that players interact in various ways with their smartphones and physical surroundings while playing an AR game:
Participants of the AR game Stadtflucht while following a breathing exercise on the River Main harbour (a,b,c) running a slalom (d,e,f) and finding objects to capture. (Source: Knöll, 2016).
After playing the game prototype for 30 min, users reported they were more aware of their environments, and had discovered new features in the environment, prompting excitement and curiosity (Knöll 2016 & Halblaub Miranda and Knöll 2016). Curiosity is an integral component of mental wellbeing linked with motivation and meaning in life. Learning to see places differently, being curious as we navigate our everyday environments, ‘taking notice’ can all help catalyse mental wellbeing .
In order to make the most out of this hype for health, though, how best can developers, users and researchers collaborate to analyse how people use and interact with their physical environment in game? Where do they enjoy playing? Where are the challenges? What places are people hesitant to visit and pick up a Pokemon? Where do people fear? What do the they think of the places? The game developer, Niantic’s first game Ingress motivated players to exercise in their every day life by combining the history and accessibility of urban environments with a virtual story. It was the first commercial success of games, in what may be called an “urban exergame”(Knöll, Dutz, et al. 2014). It was already known to generate much data on where people move and spent time. It was hypothesised that this information was also used to optimize the functionality of Google maps (Purdy 2014) We have used tools such as apps and location based games to gain data on how users perceive their places and how they engage with the urban environment. These prototypes were experimental, but still showed potential to gain more spatially detailed, age specific data from users that would usually participate in co-design events (Knöll 2016 & Halblaub Miranda and Knöll 2016). Can you imagine what we could do, if we could develop these tools together and analyse the data that is being collected by millions of users in cities world wide? Pokemon Go has made a huge step from Ingress in this respect. Players seem to spend more time with a Pokemon while being in a real physical space. It has also been reported that a lot of the social interaction around Pokemon Go takes place informally outside of the game and in physical sites (Webber und Brewster 2016). Such a process, of course, would have to include users in a participatory design process. Also, it would have to balance game experience with the real world planning content. But, there is first approaches that show how this may work. What is missing is new collaboration between research and IT companies. This success story of Pokemon Go is to bring people out and about, as witnessed on our street corners this summer. In order to make it more sustainable – for both game engagement and positive health and wellbeing outcomes, there needs to be a discussion on how users may allow research to access data to identify and visualize how the physical environment can be improved to boost walkability, stress recovery, social interaction and playing smartphone games in public spaces. Whilst the media is flagging cautionary tales about Pokemon Go, does the game really pose any more risk than texting whilst walking? Is allowing our young people to adventure forth into adventurous space really posing a threat to their wellbeing? Surely – whilst urging sensible precautions – we need to allow our young people the right to roam as ‘free rangers’ in our cities? Key references for further reading
Halblaub Miranda, Marianne, und Martin Knöll. „Stadtflucht - Learning about healthy places with a location-based game.“ Navigationen - Zeitschrift für Medien und Kulturwissenschaften, 2016. http://dokumentix.ub.uni-siegen.de/opus/volltexte/2016/1004/pdf/Navigationen_Playin_the_city.pdf
Knöll, Martin. Bewertung von Aufenthaltsqualität durch Location-Based-Games - Altersspezifische Anforderungen in der Studie "Stadtflucht" in Frankfurt am Main.“ Herausgeber: Gesine Marquardt. MATI Mensch - Architektur - Technik - Interaktion für demografische Nachhaltigkeit. Dresden: Fraunhofer IRB, 2016. 266-77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284725664_Bewertung_von_Aufenthaltsqualitat_durch_Location-Based-Games_-_Altersspezifische_Anforderungen_in_der_Studie_Stadtflucht_in_Frankfurt_am_Main Knöll, Martin, Tim Dutz, Sandro Hardy, und Stefan Göbel. „Urban Exergames – How Architects and Serious Gaming Researchers Collaborate on the Design of Digital Games that make you move.“ In Virtual and Augmented Reality in Healthcare 1, Herausgeber: Minhua Ma, Lakhmi Jain, Anthony Withehead und Paul Anderson, 191-207. London: Springer, 2014. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-54816-1_11 Webber, Jordan Erica, und Kate Brewster. The Guardian. 18. July 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/18/pokemon-go-uk-developers-augmented-reality (Zugriff am 25. July 2016). About the Authors
By Eva Adler, Geospatial Information Specialist at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington DC. Trees present an excellent opportunity for planners to help enhance urban mental health and wellbeing. But choosing the wrong trees can be more detrimental to urban communities than having none at all. To make the most of urban green spaces, both tree characteristics and spatial thinking need be considered early on in the planning process. In this article, we will explore common challenges in choosing trees in urban design and how five tools can better support planning and build more vibrant, healthy urban communities. The ‘wrong trees’ can do more harm than good These tools are important because despite the best of intentions, implementation problems often occur at the neighborhood scale when the ‘wrong trees’, or trees unsuitable for a place’s specific urban variables, are brought into the built environment. For example, city planners plant beautiful Ginko bilboa trees along local roads to contribute to the city’s beautification project. The intention is to increase shade, safety, health and happiness across the local community - all laudable aims. However, over time the trees grow too large for the city’s infrastructure and budget. The branches begin to destroy electrical lines, crack underground water pipes, fall onto cars during winter storms, and litter pounds of smelly fruit every spring. The city becomes frustrated and cut down the trees... only to replace them with smaller, younger Ginko trees. So where did they go wrong? How to choose the ‘right tree’ for mental health, wellbeing… and for tax dollars In the US, the Arbor Day Foundation advocates The Right Tree in the Right Place framework, emphasizing that proper planning is vital to achieve the outcome of healthy urban green spaces. They describe trees that will “cool your home in summer and tame the winter winds… grow well in the soil and moisture of your neighborhood… be properly placed to avoid collisions with powerlines and buildings.” Furthermore, thousands of city tax dollars can be prevented in sidewalk and electrical repairs if planners match trees to the urban locations in which they will be planted. Tree characteristics to consider for sustainable urban design:
Organizations like Casey Trees strive to prevent planning issues associated with tree planting and restore the urban forest of the Washington DC through education and outreach, policy advocacy, and private and public partnerships. Source: Casey Trees website Tool 1: Tree Finder Wizard (for the US) But how to identify the right tree for a particular location? For instance, a local coffee shop in New York City wants to plant a few trees above the front patio to give customers shade. But there are electrical lines 50 feet above ground, there’s limited planting space for roots, partial shade, and the northeast winters are harsh. So what should they do? One helpful tool they can use is the Tree Finder Wizard tool, developed by the American Arbor Day Foundation. This tool identifies the right tree species for any community in the US based on the variables of zip-code, soil, height, growth rate, spread, and aesthetics desired (fruit, evergreen, deciduous, etc.) | website Source: Arbor Day Foundation, website Tool 2: National Tree Benefit Calculator (for the US) The Right Tree Right Place framework is an important first step towards using trees to help achieve healthier communities and more impactful outcomes. However, getting the information and facts to the right people is another challenge. Evidence of economic improvement can form a persuasive argument that helps turn ideas into action. Whether it’s city officials, policy makers, neighborhood HOAs, or school principals who need to be persuaded, the free National Tree Benefit Calculator is an effective tool to communicate specific economic benefits of urban trees and diversity of tree populations. While it does not yet consider health benefits, it calculates the monetary benefit of trees based on tree species, age, and size based on potential improvements in stormwater, property value, energy usage, and air quality | website Source: Arbor Day Foundation, website Tool 3: Google’s SketchUp However, city planning doesn’t only mean city effort. Local non-profits, businesses, and homeowners can too create designs for public spaces, backyards, and community gardens using the right tree right place framework and free 3D spatial design tools. SketchUp is Google's free design software. It incorporates a few landscape templates to help get a project started. In SketchUp, one can upload a photo and create objects from scratch easily on a laptop to help plan tree design within a given landscape. | website Tool 4: Garden Visualizer The Marshalls Garden Visualizer lets a beginner user design a garden or small public space with stunning 3D quality. Photos of community structures and buildings can also be uploaded and displayed in the backdrop | website Tool 5: Mappler K2 Predicting future trends and integrating community input early on into the design process are challenges that city and regional planners encounter regularly. Where do community members want more trees? In what areas do we need more trees to improve safety, mental health, and healing? How can a city streamline input and provide effective solutions? Mappler is a free crowdsource mapping tool and a mobile data collector app to easily conduct assessments and identify community needs across a city scale. It is a tried and true tool to collect diverse inputs on a large scale to help identify community issues, needs, and successes. | website | community asset mapping Asset Mapping using Mappler, website | A prime example of the use of Mappler was in New Jersey where local residents entered the location of road potholes. Local officials then used this input to prioritize areas of operation and improve road conditions. When each road was fixed, they were able to input a comment to notify the public that the issue they identified had been fixed. Source: Mappler Mobile, website This same process can be used for identifying other community needs, for instance the tracking and maintaining of urban forests as demonstrated by Casey Trees in Washington DC (online map). These tools can contribute to smarter urban planning that will achieve the wide range of positive impacts - and help avoid the unintended pitfalls - of planting trees to improve community life. Do you have a great tool to suggest? Please add a link and description in the comments section. About the Author
by Nélida Quintero, a psychologist, licensed architect, and American Psychological Association NGO Representative at the United Nations continues her Habitat III policy analysis series. What is the 'New Urban Agenda'? In October, countries all over the world will be adopting a 'new urban agenda' at the Habitat III meeting in Quito, Ecuador. The New Urban Agenda “will drive the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, especially Goal 11, of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable”(Preamble,p.1). After extensive input from a wide range of consultations, issue papers and policy papers, a New Urban Agenda (Zero Draft) has recently been released. This is the first draft of a global framework of actions for housing and sustainable urban development that will continue to be commented on, discussed and revised until the Habitat III meeting where a final version will be agreed upon. What's in the UN's Zero Draft? The Zero Draft document consists of a declaration on Cities for All, and an implementation plan for the New Urban Agenda: transformative commitments for sustainable urban development; effective implementation; and follow-up and review. The Zero Draft delineates a vision of sustainable urbanization that is people-centered and promotes equality and inclusion for all, including women, children and youth, older persons, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations, such as refugees, migrants and displaced persons. The draft document stresses the need for access to adequate housing, quality public space, public goods and services, livelihoods and work. “We envisage cities and human settlements…putting people in the center, and offer quality of life beyond the mere provision of infrastructure and services.” (5(a), p.2) It also calls for the design of cities resilient to natural and man-mad hazards, and underlines the importance of participatory processes in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and budgeting of urban policies and plans. Where is mental health in the New Urban Agenda and the Zero Draft? So where does mental health fit into the 175 paragraphs of the document? Cities that commit to working towards implementing the New Urban Agenda vision will, in developing inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable urban environments, also promote and sustain the physical and mental health of their inhabitants. Indeed, well-being and health are mentioned throughout the document, underlining the interaction between the urban environment and health: “Cities are human creations, places in which we aspire to enable inhabitants to lead peaceful, healthy, prosperous, and free lives with full respect of human rights for all”(p.1). The city proposed by this draft is sensitive to such elements of urban life that may impact well-being, addressing discrimination, equitable access to resources, adequate housing, public spaces and opportunities for work. What does the Zero Draft say about urban planning and design for better mental health? The important role of urban planning and design in influencing behavior and determinants of mental health is specifically stressed in the Zero Draft: “spatial organization, patterns and design of urban space together with development policies can promote or hinder social cohesion, equity, and inclusion, as well as the reduction of poverty and hunger.” (A22, p.5) Public space in particular is noted for its potential role in influencing human behavior and well-being by "enhancing social interactions and political participation, promoting socio-cultural expressions, embracing diversity, and fostering safety and social cohesion” (5e, p.2) Green public spaces are underlined for their “positive impacts on health and well-being”(71, p.10) as well as for their provision of ecosystem services. The draft also considers elements of city design that can impact people's emotional and social lives by enhancing or impeding access to goods, services and opportunities: for instance, whether a person can reach work, health care centers, or healthy food; enjoy a walk in the park; and interact with others in a safe neighborhood. Participatory processes are mentioned multiple times for their role in generating a sense of belonging and ownership of the city, which help promote civic engagement and a sense of empowerment. The draft is clear that city dwellers should therefore have the opportunity to participate “in the formulation, implementation, monitoring, and budgeting of urban policies and plans, strengthening effectiveness, transparency, and accountability." (5g, p.2) As urban populations grow, the need to research, design and maintain cities that support the physical, social and emotional needs of its inhabitants will continue to be an important task. The Zero Draft of the New Urban Agenda underlines relevant issues needed to address in this endeavor and calls for global commitments to make urban life better for all. The Zero Draft and most updated revisions can be found at: https://www.habitat3.org/zerodraft where you can provide feedback to them until 7th July. About the Author
|
Sanity and Urbanity:
|