Neighbourhood development and public health initiatives: who participates?

Abstract

Citizen participation in neighbourhood development is one way to promote public health and contribute to the well-being of individuals. However, some people participate while others do not. This study examines the individual characteristics of people who during the past 2 years have participated in a neighbourhood development process compared with potential and non-participants. Socio-demographic factors, perceptions and behaviour were analysed in a cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was answered by 1160 randomly chosen citizens over the age of 18 who lived in three Swedish cities. The most important single factor related to participation in neighbourhood development was prior experience of participation, such as attempting to influence city policies by contacting politicians, submitting a citizen proposal, etc. Furthermore, having frequent political discussions with neighbours was another behavioural factor that was found associated to people's participation in neighbourhood development. Among socio-demographic factors, only ethnicity was found significant after controlling for other factors; i.e. people born outside the Nordic countries were less likely to participate.

Academic practice–policy partnerships for health promotion research: Experiences from three research programs

“…using this approach, the review focuses on exploring the impact of participatory processes or cogovernance on research processes and outcomes. In-depth studies, including two doctoral dissertations [36,37], and published papers [see, e.g., [38][39][40][41] One doctoral dissertation [42] and research papers [see, for example, [43][44][45][46] Nine research studies and two meta-analytic studies, a family guide and a book in Swedish [47], and presentations at national and international conferences…”

Sustainability potential of a redevelopment initiative in Swedish public housing: The ambiguous role of residents’ participation and place identity

“…For example, in the field of public health policies individual participation is commonly ascribed positive effects in terms of physical, mental, and selfreported health: ''People have to be at the centre of health promotion action and decision-making processes for them to be effective'' (WHO, 1997, p. 262; cf. a host of references in Frö ding, Elander, & Eriksson, 2012). The last few decades calls for citizen participation in development programmes have also become commonplace, underpinned by a belief that including citizens in such programmes ''holds more promise for ensuring equality, efficiency and effectiveness in service provision'' (Lambi, 2010, p. 67).…”

“…On the positive side, this creates some opportunities; after all, given the right circumstances anyone may become a participant (Amnå , 2010a,b). To let people have a voice in identifying and analysing their own environment can give them an important kind of knowledge that may foster participation and induce social change (Frö ding et al, 2012). However, whether this will also happen in reality can only be known through in-depth scrutiny of the social life of a neighbourhood (cf.…”

The Los Angeles Healthy Community Neighborhood Initiative: A Ten Year Experience in Building and Sustaining a Successful Community-Academic Partnership

“…It is important to frequently review who is not at the table and who should be at the table [28,34,35]. Importantly, this should include not only key stakeholders who might be supportive but those who might be naysayers in order to have a spectrum of perspectives and insights that allow the team to think through the potential successes and pitfalls of the project and planned strategies.…”