Jan-Paul Zock1, Robert Verheij2, Marco Helbich3, Beate Volker4, Peter Spreeuwenberg2, Maciek Strak5, Nicole A H Janssen6, Martin Dijst3, Peter Groenewegen7. 1. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: jan-paul.zock@rivm.nl. 2. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Sociology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 7. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both social and physical neighbourhood factors may affect residents' health, but few studies have considered the combination of several exposures in relation to individual health status. AIM: To assess a range of different potentially relevant physical and social environmental characteristics in a sample of small neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, to study their mutual correlations and to explore associations with morbidity of residents using routinely collected general practitioners' (GPs') data. METHODS: For 135 neighbourhoods in 43 Dutch municipalities, we could assess area-level social cohesion and collective efficacy using external questionnaire data, urbanisation, amount of greenspace and water areas, land use diversity, air pollution (particulate matter (PM) with a diameter <10 μm (PM10), PM <2.5 μm (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and noise (from road traffic and from railways). Health data of the year 2013 from GPs were available for 4450 residents living in these 135 neighbourhoods, that were representative for the entire country. Morbidity of 10 relevant physical or mental health groupings was considered. Individual-level socio-economic information was obtained from Statistics Netherlands. Associations between neighbourhood exposures and individual morbidity were quantified using multilevel mixed effects logistic regression analyses, adjusted for sex, age (continuous), household income and socio-economic status (individual level) and municipality and neighbourhood (group level). RESULTS: Most physical exposures were strongly correlated with degree of urbanisation. Social cohesion and collective efficacy tended to be higher in less urbanised municipalities. Degree of urbanisation was associated with higher morbidity of all disease groupings. A higher social cohesion at the municipal level coincided with a lower prevalence of depression, migraine/severe headache and Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS). An increase in both natural and agricultural greenspace in the neighbourhood was weakly associated with less morbidity for all conditions. A high land use diversity was consistently associated with lower morbidities, in particular among non-occupationally active individuals. CONCLUSION: A high diversity in land use of neighbourhoods may be beneficial for physical and mental health of the inhabitants. If confirmed, this may be incorporated into urban planning, in particular regarding the diversity of greenspace.
BACKGROUND: Both social and physical neighbourhood factors may affect residents' health, but few studies have considered the combination of several exposures in relation to individual health status. AIM: To assess a range of different potentially relevant physical and social environmental characteristics in a sample of small neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, to study their mutual correlations and to explore associations with morbidity of residents using routinely collected general practitioners' (GPs') data. METHODS: For 135 neighbourhoods in 43 Dutch municipalities, we could assess area-level social cohesion and collective efficacy using external questionnaire data, urbanisation, amount of greenspace and water areas, land use diversity, air pollution (particulate matter (PM) with a diameter <10 μm (PM10), PM <2.5 μm (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and noise (from road traffic and from railways). Health data of the year 2013 from GPs were available for 4450 residents living in these 135 neighbourhoods, that were representative for the entire country. Morbidity of 10 relevant physical or mental health groupings was considered. Individual-level socio-economic information was obtained from Statistics Netherlands. Associations between neighbourhood exposures and individual morbidity were quantified using multilevel mixed effects logistic regression analyses, adjusted for sex, age (continuous), household income and socio-economic status (individual level) and municipality and neighbourhood (group level). RESULTS: Most physical exposures were strongly correlated with degree of urbanisation. Social cohesion and collective efficacy tended to be higher in less urbanised municipalities. Degree of urbanisation was associated with higher morbidity of all disease groupings. A higher social cohesion at the municipal level coincided with a lower prevalence of depression, migraine/severe headache and Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS). An increase in both natural and agricultural greenspace in the neighbourhood was weakly associated with less morbidity for all conditions. A high land use diversity was consistently associated with lower morbidities, in particular among non-occupationally active individuals. CONCLUSION: A high diversity in land use of neighbourhoods may be beneficial for physical and mental health of the inhabitants. If confirmed, this may be incorporated into urban planning, in particular regarding the diversity of greenspace.
Authors: Yi Sun; Xingzhi Wang; Jiayin Zhu; Liangjian Chen; Yuhang Jia; Jean M Lawrence; Luo-Hua Jiang; Xiaohui Xie; Jun Wu Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Susan Lagaert; Thom Snaphaan; Veerle Vyncke; Wim Hardyns; Lieven J R Pauwels; Sara Willems Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Inês Paciência; André Moreira; João Cavaleiro Rufo; Ana Cristina Santos; Henrique Barros; Ana Isabel Ribeiro Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.801
Authors: Irene van Kamp; Sendrick Simon; Hilary Notley; Christos Baliatsas; Elise van Kempen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jamie L Humphrey; Colleen E Reid; Ellen J Kinnee; Laura D Kubzansky; Lucy F Robinson; Jane E Clougherty Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Regina Grazuleviciene; Sandra Andrusaityte; Audrius Dėdelė; Tomas Grazulevicius; Leonas Valius; Aurimas Rapalavicius; Violeta Kapustinskiene; Inga Bendokiene Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.390