| Literature DB >> 29382174 |
Yang Xiao1, Siyu Miao2, Chinmoy Sarkar3, Huizhi Geng4, Yi Lu5.
Abstract
Although rapid urbanization and associated rural-to-urban migration has brought in enormous economic benefits in Chinese cities, one of the negative externalities include adverse effects upon the migrant workers' mental health. The links between housing conditions and mental health are well-established in healthy city and community planning scholarship. Nonetheless, there has thusfar been no Chinese study deciphering the links between housing conditions and mental health accounting for macro-level community environments, and no study has previously examined the nature of the relationships in locals and migrants. To overcome this research gap, we hypothesized that housing conditions may have a direct and indirect effects upon mental which may be mediated by neighbourhood satisfaction. We tested this hypothesis with the help of a household survey of 368 adult participants in Nanxiang Town, Shanghai, employing a structural equation modeling approach. Our results point to the differential pathways via which housing conditions effect mental health in locals and migrants. For locals, housing conditions have direct effects on mental health, while as for migrants, housing conditions have indirect effects on mental health, mediated via neighborhood satisfaction. Our findings have significant policy implications on building an inclusive and harmonious society. Upstream-level community interventions in the form of sustainable planning and designing of migrant neighborhoods can promote sense of community, social capital and support, thereby improving mental health and overall mental capital of Chinese cities.Entities:
Keywords: Shanghai; housing condition; mental health; migrants; neighbourhood satisfaction; structural equation modelling (SEM)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29382174 PMCID: PMC5858294 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Concept model.
Figure 2Questionnaire distribution map.
Distribution of study participants.
| Neighborhood Committee | Number | Village Committee | Number | Enterprise | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guyiyuan | 7 | Xinyu | 27 | Giboli | 17 |
| Dongyuan | 6 | Yongle | 48 | Xinshida | 28 |
| Juanxiang | 9 | Hongxiang | 16 | Fuxiyoupin | 21 |
| Baihe | 8 | Xinfeng | 8 | Xiaomianyang | 22 |
| Xianghua | 11 | Liuxiang | 23 | Chaolv | 22 |
| Hongxiang | 8 | / | / | Younaitesi | 39 |
| Total of neighborhood committee questionnaires | 49 | Total of village committee questionnaires | 122 | Total of enterprise questionnaires | 149 |
| Total | 320 |
Housing type among the local and migrant categories.
| Housing Type | Local | Migrant |
|---|---|---|
| general building | 108 | 101 |
| Bungalow | 2 | 26 |
| Hut | 0 | 6 |
| Basement | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 7 | 24 |
| Total | 117 | 157 |
Descriptive characteristics of the participants’ residential environment.
| Variables | Local ( | Migrant ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing conditions | |||
| Commercial residential building; | 108.00 (94.7%) | 101.00 (73.7%) | *** |
| housing area; Mean (SD) | 53.70 (30.77) | 47.10 (24.14) | * |
| Facilities; | |||
| Separate kitchen | 106.00 (93.0%) | 93.00 (67.9%) | *** |
| Separate toilet | 105.00 (92.1%) | 87.00 (63.5%) | *** |
| Shower | 105.00 (92.1%) | 96.00 (70.1%) | *** |
| Gas | 104.00 (91.2%) | 82.00 (59.9%) | *** |
| Air condition | 103.00 (90.4%) | 95.00 (69.3%) | *** |
| Balcony | 96.00 (84.2%) | 69.00 (50.4%) | *** |
| Elevator | 39.00 (34.2%) | 37.00 (27.0%) | |
| Neighborhood satisfaction; Mean (SD) | |||
| Community services | 3.67 (0.88) | 3.20 (0.92) | *** |
| Commercial facilities | 4.35 (0.96) | 4.15 (1.15) | |
| Community policing | 3.60 (0.90) | 3.50 (0.92) | |
| Sanitary condition | 3.53 (0.92) | 3.34 (0.93) | |
| Recreational facilities | 3.32 (0.99) | 3.13 (0.99) | |
| Green space | 3.50 (1.01) | 3.31 (0.95) | |
| Property management | 4.36 (0.96) | 4.10 (0.99) | * |
| Mental health; Mean (SD) | |||
| Insomnia because of anxiety | 2.82 (0.90) | 2.71 (0.88) | |
| Always feel nervous | 1.97 (1.19) | 1.76 (1.09) | |
| Cannot overcome difficulties | 2.68 (0.80) | 2.61 (0.79) | |
| Be unhappy and depressed | 2.83 (0.89) | 2.66 (0.79) | * |
| Lose confidence | 3.01 (0.92) | 3.07 (0.82) | |
| Age; Mean (SD) | 40.21 (13.14) | 31.83 (7.22) | *** |
| Gender; | 58.00 (50.9%) | 73.00 (53.3%) | |
| Income (ln); Mean (SD) | 1.50 (0.67) | 1.75 (0.51) | ** |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 two-tailed t-tests chi-square test.
Figure 3Structural equation model linking housing characteristics to mental health among Shanghai locals.
Figure 4Structural equation model linking housing characteristics to mental health among Shanghai migrants.
Results of impact analysis.
| Variable | Neighborhood Satisfaction | Mental Health | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | ||||||
| Local | ||||||||
| Housing condition | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.20 | 0.80 | ** | |||
| Age | −0.00 | 0.01 | * | −0.00 | 0.01 | * | ||
| Income(ln) | 0.28 | * | −0.10 | 0.11 | * | 0.00 | ||
| Migrants | ||||||||
| Housing condition | 0.48 | * | −0.23 | 0.11 | −0.11 | |||
| Age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | * | |||
| Income(ln) | 0.01 | −0.11 | 0.00 | −0.11 | ||||
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; N = 251.