BackgroundHousing-led regeneration has been shown to have limited effects on mental health. Considering housing and neighbourhoods as a psychosocial environment, regeneration may have greater impact on positive mental wellbeing than mental ill-health. This study examined the relationship between the positive mental wellbeing of residents living in deprived areas and their perceptions of their housing and neighbourhoods.MethodsA cross-sectional study of 3,911 residents in 15 deprived areas in Glasgow, Scotland. Positive mental wellbeing was measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.ResultsUsing multivariate mulit-nomial logistic regressions and controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and physical health status, we found that several aspects of people's residential psychosocial environments were strongly associated with higher mental wellbeing. Mental wellbeing was higher when respondents considered the following: their neighbourhood had very good aesthetic qualities (RRR 3.3, 95% CI 1.9, 5.8); their home and neighbourhood represented personal progress (RRR 3.2 95% CI 2.2, 4.8; RRR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8, 3.7, respectively); their home had a very good external appearance (RRR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3, 5.1) and a very good front door (both an aesthetic and a security/control item) (RRR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2, 3.8); and when satisfaction with their landlord was very high (RRR 2.3, 95% CI 2.2,4.8). Perception of poor neighbourhood aesthetic quality was associated with lower wellbeing (RRR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.5).ConclusionsThis study has shown that for people living in deprived areas, the quality and aesthetics of housing and neighbourhoods are associated with mental wellbeing, but so too are feelings of respect, status and progress that may be derived from how places are created, serviced and talked about by those who live there. The implication for regeneration activities undertaken to improve housing and neighbourhoods is that it is not just the delivery of improved housing that is important for mental wellbeing, but also the quality and manner of delivery.
BackgroundThere is little robust evidence to test the policy assumption that housing-led area regeneration strategies will contribute to health improvement and reduce social inequalities in health. The GoWell Programme has been designed to measure effects on health and wellbeing of multi-faceted regeneration interventions on residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the city of Glasgow, Scotland.Methods/DesignThis mixed methods study focused (initially) on 14 disadvantaged neighbourhoods experiencing regeneration. These were grouped by intervention into 5 categories for comparison. GoWell includes a pre-intervention householder survey (n = 6008) and three follow-up repeat-cross sectional surveys held at two or three year intervals (the main focus of this protocol) conducted alongside a nested longitudinal study of residents from 6 of those areas. Self-reported responses from face-to-face questionnaires are analysed along with various routinely produced ecological data and documentary sources to build a picture of the changes taking place, their cost and impacts on residents and communities. Qualitative methods include interviews and focus groups of residents, housing managers and other stakeholders exploring issues such as the neighbourhood context, potential pathways from regeneration to health, community engagement and empowerment.DiscussionUrban regeneration programmes are 'natural experiments.' They are complex interventions that may impact upon social determinants of population health and wellbeing. Measuring the effects of such interventions is notoriously challenging. GoWell compares the health and wellbeing effects of different approaches to regeneration, generates theory on pathways from regeneration to health and explores the attitudes and responses of residents and other stakeholders to neighbourhood change.
Current regeneration policy has been described as 'state-led gentrification', with comparisons made with the 'social disruption' caused by slum clearance of the 1950s and 1960s. This article takes issue with this approach in relation to the study of the restructuring of social housing areas. The terms 'forced relocation' and 'displacement' are often too crude to describe what actually happens within processes of restructuring and the effects upon residents. Displacement in particular has important dimensions other than the physical one of moving. Evidence from a recent study of people who have moved out of restructured areas shows that although there is some evidence of physical displacement, there is little evidence of social or psychosocial displacement after relocation. Prior attitudes to moving and aspects of the process of relocation-the degree of choice and distance involved-are important moderators of the outcomes. Issues of time and context are insufficiently taken into consideration in studies and accounts of restructuring, relocation and displacement.
The current period is one of ambiguity and contestation over the future of high-rise. A range of analyses is performed on survey data from deprived areas in Glasgow to examine the impacts of living in high-rise in comparison to other dwelling types. The findings show that many residential outcomes are worse for people in high-rise, especially related to noise and security issues in dwellings and buildings. Social and psychosocial outcomes are often worse in high-rise, particularly frequency of contact with neighbours and a number of aspects of control and recuperation at home. Further analysis shows that neighbourhood satisfaction and some social outcomes are better (or ameliorated) for people living higher up in tall buildings. There were different patterns of impacts for different household types. Contrary to much of the literature, the study found that negative impacts of high-rise were most wide ranging among adult-only households rather than families, with older persons least affected by negative social outcomes in high-rise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.