HOUSING, URBAN STRUCTURE AND HEALTH

Project leader: Rauno Sairinen, The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS),
Helsinki University of Technology, P.O.Box 9300, FIN-02015 TKK, Finland,
tel. +358-9-451-4095 / +358-19-237 200,  e-mail: Rauno.Sairinen@hut.fi
 
 

PUBLICATIONS

TIIVISTELMÄ SUOMEKSI

Researchers:
Kalevi Korpela, University of Tampere/Department of Psychology, tel. +358-3-215 6579, e-mail: Pskako@uta.fi
Ari Lainevuo (in the first phase), YTV, tel. +358-9-1561 291, e-mail: Ari.Lainevuo@ytv.fi
Kimmo Lapintie (leader of the group in the first phase), Helsinki University of Technology, tel. +358-9-451 4089, e-mail: Kimmo.Lapintie@hut.fi
Jani Päivänen, LT Consultants Ltd, tel. +358-9-6158 1359, e-mail: Jani.Paivanen@ltcon.fi
Satu Tienari (in the second phase), Helsinki University of Technology/Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, tel. +358-9-451  4090, e-mail: Satu.Tienari@hut.fi
Maarit Vuorela-Wiik (in the first phase), Helsinki University of Technology/Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, tel. +358-50-575 3909, e-mail: Maarit.Vuorela-Wiik@ppl.inet.fi
Marjut Wallenius, University of Tampere/Department of Psychology, tel. +358-3-215 7209, e-mail: Psmawa@uta.fi

Financing SYTTY organisation: The Ministry of Environment, and The Ministry of Transport and Communications
Funding from SYTTY / Total funding of project (€): 193416 / 227053
Person-months of work funded by SYTTY / Total person-months of work: 64 / 78

KEY WORDS:  environmental health, urban planning, social impacts, environmental psychology
 

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

1 Introduction

The research project Housing, Urban Structure and Health is a joint effort by a multi-disciplinary group including sociologists from the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the Helsinki University of Technology and LT Consultants Ltd, and psychologists from the Department of Psychology at the University of Tampere. The project has been funded by Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Transport and Communications.

In this project, the objective is to analyse the perception of environmental risks as part of the everyday life of the residents and, on the other hand, the social construction of environmental health in expert discourses and in the professional activity of, e.g., medical doctors, construction engineers, urban planners and architects. It will also be analysed how these perceptions and constructions are reflected in the households’ ways of life, as well as in individuals’ decisions to select and avoid certain parts of the residential area, city and its surroundings. The research report also includes an overview of the changes of the concept ‘environmental health’ especially in the context of urban planning from the 19th century to present day.

The health effects of the housing environment are only partially direct and physical. The project concentrates on the two most important perspectives regarding the indirect health effects of the housing environment, namely the individual-psychological and the social-cultural mediation of environmental health. The individual perceptions of the positive and negative features of the living environment will themselves cause health effects, such as stress. These perceptions, as well as the social construction of  “the good environment” or environmental risks by experts and by the media, can also change people’s living habits and the images of different housing areas. Both will, in the long run, cause changes in the housing market, as well as in public planning and environmental policy. The project has been divided into two phases of which the first one is presented in this paper.

2 Methods

The case areas in the first research phase of the project are examples of different options of consolidating the urban structure. The residential areas in the first phase consist of relatively dense construction, mainly blocks of flats, and they are all served by either train or metro connections. All of the areas contain owner-occupied, semi-owned and rental apartments. Some comparisons are made between the residents’ and the planners’ perspectives to the same areas.

Ruoholahti, a residential area adjacent to the centre of Helsinki, has high area efficiency but there is a canal providing a seaside element. Nuisances and noise are caused by several streets and a cargo railway line. The area is well served by public transport, especially by the metro. The other two areas are in suburban locations in Espoo, the neighbouring city of Helsinki. Leppävaara is a large suburb located approximately 12 kilometres from Helsinki city centre. It is also a densely built area, and is well served by train and bus lines. The local services are fairly good. The noise levels caused by car traffic are problematic, they exceed the national level of tolerance. Kilo is also a compaction project  located 15 kilometres from Helsinki. It has lower buildings, more open space and green nature, and much less through traffic by car. On the other hand, it has not so good traffic connections or local services.

The research data was gathered by survey including both quantitative, i.e. structured, and qualitative, i.e. open, questions about residents’ experiences and opinions concerning their flats, residential areas, noise, favorite and unpleasant places, transport and service possibilities, willingness to move, their personal characteristics and stress level. The city and traffic planners responsible for the areas were interviewed.

The questionnaire survey was delivered to 730 flats. In all of the areas, both residents living next to main sources of disturbance and others, living further away, were surveyed. 256 questionnaires (35%) were returned. The low percentage is partly explained by the amount of time and effort that was required: many commented that it had taken up to one hour to fill in the questionnaire. On the other hand, questions of experiences of health may be difficult to answer. Among the respondents 70% were women. This kind of gender bias is very common in surveys. Young people were slightly overrepresented: 60% were 26 – 45 years old.

The second research phase of the project will go on with another round of surveys in additional four residential areas in Espoo (Latokaski, Puolarniitty) and in Helsinki (Hakaniemi, Kumpula) and with interviews of residents and environmental health professionals, primarily with medical doctors working in the local health centres.

3 Results

Residents were asked to assess their flats, residential areas and urban planning in general in the light of environmental health, and describe their choice of dwelling. Most people had moved to the case areas from different kinds of suburbs. Only the central Ruoholahti had "recruited" people from the city centre. The two most important reasons to move were the actual phase of life, 25%, (having children, changing to a smaller apartment due to divorce etc.) and the need for more space, 24%. The two reasons, obviously, often overlap. Health reasons were very seldom (2%, 5 respondents) mentioned as primary reasons for changing dwelling.

General satisfaction with the residential area was quite high in all of the case areas. When asked about the positive aspects of the areas, their good traffic connections were prominent. Ruoholahti was valued for its urban character, the nearness to the sea, and its distinctive qualities like the canal and the styles of building and planning. In Kilo the residents appreciated a 'country-like' location, and the yards of the buildings. The residents of Leppävaara valued local services. About half of the negative aspects of areas had to do with health and well-being. As expected, the roads and traffic, noise and pollution were mentioned as the most negative aspect of the areas.

The respondents were asked to assess the possible health impacts of their living anvironment, separately for the area and the apartment. The scale was 0 - 10 (no impact - serious impact). As to the health impacts of the apartment, one third thought it had no impact (values 0 - 1), while one tenth evaluated it to have great impact (values 8 - 10).  As to the health impacts of the area, one fifth thought it had no impact. Similarly 22% gave values 8 - 10. 5% of the respondents assessed the area to have a very serious impact (value 10) to health.

On the whole, the residents evaluated the area to be more unhealthy than the apartment. The three areas have great differences: in peaceful Kilo one third of the respondents perceived no health impacts at all (values 0 - 1), in through traffic disturbed Leppävaara 54% vere relatively worried (values 5 - 9), and the central Ruoholahti had the largest percentage of extremely worried residents, 11% (value 10).

People in the suburban Kilo were most willing to change dwelling, while residents of the central Ruoholahti were most often determined to stay. This is interesting in comparison to the perception of health impacts in the areas, for they were considered most serious in Ruoholahti and least serious in Kilo. Obviously many other things besides health influence the willingness to move. Still, the most important motive for "will to move" was air pollution, especially in traffic disturbed areas. In the most peripheral area, Kilo, the problems of long distances are more important than health reasons. Traffic can be a positive characteristic of the area, and a negative characteristic at the same time. Many replies from Ruoholahti and Leppävaara reflect that people have not been able to foresee in advance how much they would be disturbed by the traffic. Groups of lower income (elderly, part-time workers, students, unemployed etc.) live most often in the most disturbed areas and spend more hours in the area per day than people with higher income.

Residents were quite positive to the ideal of compaction of the city. Suburban dwellers tended to favour compaction in suburban locations. Central city dwellers saw possibilities of further compaction in the central areas, and were also generally more in favour of compaction. The residents were asked to assess whether the compact city is ecologically better than a spacious semi-urban structure.  This statement was most frequently favoured in central Ruoholahti, and least favoured in the suburban and disturbed Leppävaara.

In the survey questionnaire the respondents were asked to identify their favorite and unpleasant places within the residential area and describe their experiences in them. The aim of these questions was to find out whether experiences within the places were related to health and whether favorite places were used to regulate emotions and stress.

Previous studies in environmental psychology have indicated that people use particular places, often natural settings, for alleviation of stress, and for self- and emotion-regulation. More specifically, these studies have shown that people often go to the favorite place after threatening or emotionally negative events in order to relax, calm down, clear their minds, and face troublesome matters. In addition to these studies an accumulating body of experimental evidence supports the notion of restorative benefits of natural environments on the physiological, emotional and behavioral level. Natural settings (compared to built environments without natural elements) produce larger physiological changes toward relaxation, larger reductions in negative feelings such as fear and anger, effectively hold attention and produce higher levels of experiences described in the attention restoration theory such as Being Away, Fascination, Coherence and Compatibility.

The results of the present study showed that 75% of the respondents regardless of the residential area selected natural settings or residential settings (mainly their own home) as favorite places. In a similar fashion, 75-80% of the respondents in all areas selected transportation and transitional settings (vehicular traffic, streets, train sations etc.) and certain geographical areas ( areas near restaurants, supermarkets or stations) as unpleasant places. The main reasons for favoriteness were natural features of the places or possibilities to relax. The main reasons for unpleasantness were the large amounts of traffic, difficulties for pedestrians to cross the busy streets, and unpleasant gangs of juveniles or alcoholics in certain areas.

The results indicated that favorite places, especially natural settings within the residential area, contributed to experienced stress-and emotion-regulation. 52% of the respondents reported that they felt tired, bored, stressed, anxious or angry before going to their favorite place. Without exception, their feelings were positive or normal after visiting their favorite place. Moreover, women who selected natural settings as their favorite places reported lower experienced health status, more somatic symptoms and more general feelings of anxiety or restlessness in comparison to women who selected residential settings.  There were no differences between the groups in the average age, the amount of outdoor physical acticvity, family type, the location of the apartment in the building, labour-market status, family income, being alone vs with others in the favorite place or the existence of summer cottage in the family. In contrast, there were no differences in the above mentioned health variables in male respondents. However, men who selected natural settings as their favorite places reported more sensitiveness to noise than men who selected residential settings.

One aim of the study was to examine psychological and health-related reactions to environmental noise and the moderating role of individual differences and life situation. As a methodological goal, we wanted to examine which proportion of annoyance and self-rated health measures is explained by neuroticism. Noise was interpreted to be an environmental stessor, and it was presumed that noise annoyance and health effects of noise are modulated in interaction with different personal and situational factors. Environmental noise was defined widely containing e.g. traffic noise, railroad noise and disturbing neighbours. The respondents e. g. rated themselves on noise sensitivity and neuroticism scales, appraised how stressing personal projects they had at present and how satisfied they were with their housing environment. Self-rated health was measured by general health status, a somatic symptom checklist and the number of cigarettes smoked during one week.

The results showed that on the whole annoyance increased with increasing amount of traffic. Traffic noise was most disturbing for outdoor activities whereas sleeping, relaxation and reading were disturbed more by noise from the inside of the house, e.g. by neighbours. There were wide individual differences in perceived annoyance, however. Noise annoyance was most strongly related to noise sensitivity and personal project stress. Consistently with earlier results individual differences in noise annoyance were not explained by usual demographic variables such as sex, age, educational level or tenure. Also adaptation to noise seemed to vary individually. Persons least sensitive to noise showed slight habituation to traffic noise and disturbing neighbours. In contrast to this, annoyance ratings of persons high in noise sensitivity or high in project stress increased along with time of residence. Satisfaction with the housing environment was negatively related to noise annoyance.

In relation to self-rated health perceived annoyance showed to be more important than noise level. Noise level was associated only with elevated smoking. This is consistent with earlier findings. In addition to smoking perceived annoyance was related to self-rated general health status and the number of somatic symptoms during a week. Closer inspection of the data revealed that with increasing noise annoyance only the respondents who were most sensitive to noise (highest 20%) or whose life situation (personal projects) was most stressing (highest 20%) smoked more and expressed lower general health status and increased number of somatic symptoms than the rest of the respondents. The underlying processes which would explain the reactions of noise sensitive persons to noise are still unknown. Instead, the interactive effects of two stressors, noise and stressing life situation, is possible to explain with the adaptive cost model of stress. According to this model coping with a stressor may diminish capability to deal effectively with the demands placed by other sources of stress. Cumulative effects of multiple stressors may be manifested in greater psychophysiological activation. The personality trait neuroticism accounts for a considerable proportion of noise annoyance and self-rated health. However, noise sensitivity and personal project stress clearly have explanatory power independent of neuroticism.

The results support the interpretation that when predicting well-being of the inhabitants perceived annoyance is more important than technical noise measures. Adverse health effects of noise are mediated through a complex process.

Another aim of the research project was to investigate the planners' relationship towards environmental health. Although planners were aware of the environmental problems in their areas, they had relatively little knowledge of the residents' experiences or their willingness to move away because of environmental health reasons. Planners also saw healthy urban environments important, but they felt they have very few possibilities to actually promote health in the locations more or less "handed from above". There is no clear strategy of environmental health for planning. The knowledge and power within the planning and municipal system that is needed to influence environmental objectives, is very fragmented.

The almost only option planners saw that would help to decrease the noise and pollution caused by car traffic was the development of cleaner technology for cars. Some things concerning the planning of the city were mentioned, like locating a harbour further away from residential areas, building a metro line to decrease motor car traffic, or promoting office construction to act as noise fencing. Planners also considered the overall consolidation of the urban structure as a way to promote environmental health by more efficient public transport systems. On the other hand they mentioned the green areas and water elements in the city as a way to promote health.

Some planners wished that residential organisations take a more active role in preventing environmental nuisances. Co-operative activity would also enhance residents’ sense of belonging and community. However, some planners discussed their actual experiences of interaction in planning as a kind of "psychological care/treatment" of the residents or as an effort to prevent hostile NIMBY (not in my backyard) behaviour.

4 Some discussion concerning the second research phase and the use of results

Some improvements to the research setting should be done for the second phase. For example it would be appropriate to choose more case areas, representing more variable ways of life and dwelling, and capture the meanings of city and suburb, health, traffic, coping and behaviour, better. The results of the project can be applied for example in urban planning and housing design, in the renovation and densification of old housing areas, in planning and housing policy, and in social impact assessment.
 

[ Projects | Main Page ]