| Literature DB >> 32998282 |
Tingting Lu1,2, Matthew Lane3, Dan Van der Horst3, Xin Liang1,2, Jianing Wu1.
Abstract
Urban planning and design in the 21st century is increasingly focusing on sustainability, illustrated by the proliferation of greener cities. While operational definitions and the actual planning of these cities can vary considerably (e.g., eco cities and low carbon cities), conceptually, at least, these terms overlap, particularly with regard to how they attempt to achieve both greener infrastructural design and healthier human lifestyles. This paper presents the findings of survey-based research carried out within Lingang New Town in Shanghai in 2019. In the cities of the Global North, the interplay between green infrastructural provision and public health has been of interest, especially in the context of social inequalities; however, there is little research from rapidly urbanizing countries where green urbanism is being increasingly promoted. Using this newly constructed example, we identified a clear positive correlation between moving to a green city and the adoption of healthier lifestyles. The structural equation modelling results suggest that behaviors around the use of green space as well as perceptions of different green space have notable impacts on residents' physical health, measured by body mass index (BMI). The findings further illustrate systemic inequalities among private housing, rental housing and public housing typologies with regard to the distribution of health benefits.Entities:
Keywords: BMI; health; housing tenure choice; sustainable urban planning; urban China
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32998282 PMCID: PMC7579353 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
Figure 2Main green space distribution in the survey area in Lingang New Town (LNT).
Summary statistics (by housing tenure choice).
| Description | Range | Housing Tenure Choice | F Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private | Rental | Public | ||||
| Age | Mean (S.D.) | 18–80 | 36.4 (9.0) | 34.3 (11.0) | 32.8 (10.0) | 3.9 * |
| Gender | Female (%) | 57.6 | 42.4 | 44.6 | ||
| Marital status | Married (%) | 84.7 | 65.3 | 55.4 | ||
| Non-Shanghai (%) | 32.3 | 77.1 | 64.3 | |||
| Non-agriculture (%) | 86.0 | 56.8 | 69.6 | |||
| Educational degree | College or above (%) | 84.7 | 71.2 | 89.3 | ||
| Job type | Public sector (%) | 53.3 | 28.0 | 57.1 | ||
| Other sector (%) | 46.7 | 72.0 | 42.9 | |||
| Employment status | Retired (%) | 3.1 | 1.7 | 3.6 | ||
| Part-time (%) | 8.7 | 17.0 | 8.9 | |||
| Full-time (%) | 88.2 | 81.3 | 87.5 | |||
| Commuting minutes | Mean(S.D.) | 2–120 | 26.1 (19.8) | 20.8 (16.6) | 18.7 (10.3) | 5.9 ** |
| Household monthly income level | Mean (S.D.) | 1–6 | 4.1 (1.1) | 3.7 (1.2) | 4.1 (0.9) | 4.1 * |
| Year living in LNT | Mean (S.D.) | 0–18 | 4.2 (3.2) | 2.2 (1.6) | 1.6 (1.1) | 35.8 *** |
| Frequency of using green space before | Mean (S.D.) | 1–4 | 1.6 (0.9) | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.8 (0.9) | 1.3 |
| Frequency of using green space now | Mean (S.D.) | 1–4 | 1.9 (0.9) | 1.9 (0.9) | 2.0 (1.0) | 0.22 |
| Distance to nearest green space | Mean (S.D.) | 1–4 | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.8 (1.0) | 2.1 (1.1) | 4.6* |
| Self-reported health level | Mean (S.D.) | 1–4 | 2.9 (0.7) | 3.1 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.9) | 1.6 |
| BMI | Mean (S.D.) | 15.6–32.9 | 22.9 (2.9) | 22.5 (2.8) | 21.7 (2.4) | 4.4* |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Relative change of green space use, before and after residents moving to LNT.
| Frequency of Using Green Space | Before Moving to LNT (%) | After Moved to LNT (%) | Relative Change (%) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday | 6.2 | 7.1 | +14.5 |
| 3–6 times per week | 9.5 | 13.9 | +46.3 |
| 1–2 times per week | 27.0 | 40.0 | +48.1 |
| Once in a few weeks | 57.3 | 39.0 | −31.9 |
1 relative change is measured by [(after–before)/before]*100%.
Principal components of green space perceptions.
| Component | Variance | Loaded Items (>0.40) | Percentage of Explained Variance | Generative Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 4.842 | Exercising (0.402), safety (0.413), quality environment (0.430) | 0.153 | Perception of community garden |
| II | 4.778 | Safety (0.486), accessibility (0.459) | 0.143 | Perception of small parks |
| III | 4.460 | Safety (0.457), accessibility (0.421), quality environment (0.413) | 0.137 | Perception of large parks |
| IV | 4.052 | Commerce (0.421), public events (0.425) | 0.133 | Social values of green space in general |
| V | 3.137 | Safety (0.480), accessibility (0.449), quality environment (0.436) | 0.109 | Physical value of green space in general |
Results of structural equation modelling.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private Housing | BMI | Private Housing | BMI | Public Housing | BMI | |
| Coef. (S.E.) | Coef. (S.E.) | Coef. (S.E.) | Coef. (S.E.) | Coef. (S.E.) | Coef. (S.E.) | |
|
| ||||||
| Private housing | 0.617 ** (0.279) | |||||
| Public housing | −0.947 ** (0.367) | |||||
| Green lifestyles | ||||||
| Relative change of using green space | 0.060 ** (0.028) | −0.116 (0.160) | 0.060 ** (0.028) | −0.152 (0.160) | −0.021 (0.022) | −0.134 (0.159) |
| Frequency of using green space now | −0.026 (0.031) | 0.230 (0.179) | −0.026 (0.031) | 0.248 (0.178) | 0.023 (0.023) | 0.262 (0.178) |
| Perception of community garden | −0.009 (0.015) | 0.042 (0.086) | −0.009 (0.015) | 0.048 (0.085) | 0.015 (0.012) | 0.057 (0.085) |
| Perception of small parks | −0.020 (0.018) | −0.176 * (0.100) | −0.002 (0.018) | −0.174 * (0.100) | −0.016 (0.014) | −0.189 * (0.100) |
| Perception of large parks | −0.007 (0.016) | 0.164 * (0.088) | −0.007 (0.016) | 0.169 * (0.087) | −0.004 (0.012) | 0.161 * (0.087) |
| Social values of green space in general | 0.001 (0.014) | −0.109 (0.079) | 0.001 (0.014) | −0.111 (0.078) | −0.001 (0.046) | −0.111 (0.078) |
| Physical value of green space in general | 0.008 (0.013) | −0.002 (0.072) | 0.008 (0.013) | −0.008 (0.072) | 0.006 (0.010) | 0.001 (0.072) |
|
| ||||||
| Age | −4.19 × 10−4 (0.003) | 0.054 *** (0.018) | −4.19 × 10−4 (0.003) | 0.055 *** (0.018) | −0.001 (0.002) | 0.053 *** (0.018) |
| Educational level (college and above = 1) | −0.034 (0.066) | −1.070 *** (0.372) | −0.034 (0.066) | −1.056 *** (0.370) | 0.068 (0.050) | −1.017 *** (0.370) |
| Gender (female = 1) | 0.085 * (0.046) | −2.092 *** (0.259) | 0.085 * (0.046) | −2.143 *** (0.259) | −0.032 (0.035) | −2.122 *** (0.258) |
| −0.316 *** (0.051) | −0.584 ** (0.285) | −0.316 *** (0.051) | −0.392 (0.296) | 0.090 ** (0.039) | −0.503 * (0.285) | |
| 0.107 * (0.060) | 0.395 (0.336) | 0.107 * (0.060) | 0.332 (0.335) | −0.011 (0.046) | 0.391 (0.333) | |
| Marital status (married = 1) | 0.162 *** (0.060) | 0.454 (0.340) | 0.162 *** (0.060) | 0.353 (0.341) | −0.123 *** (0.046) | 0.341 (0.340) |
| Level of household monthly income | 0.014 (0.021) | 0.140 (0.119) | 0.014 (0.021) | 0.136 (0.118) | 0.014 (0.016) | 0.160 (0.118) |
| Job type (public sector = 1) | −0.004 (0.050) | −0.220 (0.282) | −0.004 (0.050) | −0.218 (0.280) | 0.080 ** (0.038) | −0.148 (0.281) |
| Commuting time | 0.002 *** (0.001) | 0.005 (0.005) | 0.002 *** (0.001) | 0.004 (0.005) | −0.001 (0.001) | 0.004 (0.005) |
| Employment status (retired = 1) | 0.018 (0.163) | −1.329 (0.917) | 0.018 (0.163) | −1.347 (0.912) | 0.114 (0.124) | −1.234 (0.911) |
|
| ||||||
| Self-reported health | −0.449 *** (0.162) | −0.443 *** (0.161) | −0.459 *** (0.161) | |||
| Time to nearest green space | 0.210 (0.133) | 0.232 * (0.133) | 0.253 * (0.133) | |||
|
| 0.435 (0.149) | 22.262 (1.020) | 0.435 *** (0.149) | 21.919 *** (1.026) | 0.096 (0.114) | 22.273 *** (1.012) |
|
| 0.060 | 0.024 | 0.075 | |||
|
| 0.979 | 0.998 | 0.968 |
Note: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Figure 3(a) Predicted relationship between individual body mass index (BMI) and the perception of small parks; (b) predicted relationship between individual BMI and the perception of large parks.