Building bridges: Sustainable Urban Health in Hamburg, 2018

Abstract

Results: 51 included studies, mostly of poor to moderate quality, and mostly qualitative, provided moderate evidence that: Community hubs may promote social cohesion, increase social capital and build trust, widen social networks, increase interaction, and increase knowledge or skills; Changes to neighbourhood design may positively affect sense of belonging and pride in a community; Green and blue space interventions that provide the opportunity to participate in activities or meetings may improve social interactions, increase social networks, bonding and bridging social capital, physical activity and healthy eating, and improve people's skills and knowledge. There were also common themes relating to facilitators and barriers to successful interventions. Conclusions: There is moderate evidence that a range of intervention approaches to community infrastructure can boost social relations and community wellbeing. Future research should prioritise high quality evaluations using repeated measures and validated tools, and robust and credible qualitative evidence. Key messages: There is moderate evidence that a range of intervention approaches to community infrastructure can boost social relations and community wellbeing. Community hubs may promote social cohesion, increase social capital and build trust, widen social networks, increase interaction, and increase knowledge or skills. Do perspectives on healthy environment differ between health/social professionals and urban planners? Background: In a multidisciplinary collaboration it is essential that professionals understand from each other what is meant by a healthy environment and of what aspects it consists. However, the field of health and social welfare and the field of urban planning differ in many aspects, including language. Therefore, this study examined: what is the perception of professionals in the field of health and social welfare and in the field of urban planning about a healthy living environment? And do these perceptions differ? Methods: Using the concept mapping method, 94 professionals (govern-ment and non government) in the city of Nijmegen(NL) were asked to generate statements on healthy living environment. Next, the professionals sorted these statements and rated them on priority and opportunity within urban planning processes. Results: In the brainstorm 45 professionals generated 136 statements. After clearing doubles, 92 statements were sorted by 32 professionals. Which, after analysis, resulted in a map of ten different clusters together indicating what professionals perceive as aspects of a healthy living environment. There was agreement on priority and opportunity between both groups of professionals regards clusters urban quality and invited to move. The two groups professionals have different views about five clusters. Professionals of both fields agree on the three clusters with the least priority and possibilities. Interesting is the relatively limited possibilities that professionals see to stimulate healthy behavior and to improve social connectivity in urban planning. Conclusions: There is a consistency between professionals in the field of health and social welfare and in the field of urban planning about the most and least important aspects of healthy environment in urban planning process. It is interesting to see that, although there is a lot of agreement, there are also relevant nuances between both groups on priority and possibilities at 5 out of 10 clusters. Key messages: There is a consistency about the most and least important aspects of healthy environment in urban planning process. It depends on the aspect of a healthy living environment if understanding and collaboration between professionals easy is.