Have you looked around your community? Where are the shopping centres? Where are the fast food outlets? Where are the doctors and dentists located? Where are social agencies located? Where is
the local income housing located?
Perhaps not surprising the body of literature supports that
food depots and those with fresh foods tend to aggregate to large shopping
centres, which tend to be located in suburban, middle income areas. Some urban area studies have clearly
demonstrated that socioeconomically challenges neighbourhoods actually have
less access to food and in particular fresh food supplies. In contrast, fast
food outlets are often located on the margins of lower income areas – at times
precluded from becoming established in middle and upper income
neighbourhoods.
In large centres the hospitals used to be on the community
fringes when they were built, many are now integral to the downtown areas. In smaller centres the hospital is often located
in a prime community location away from the stresses of the downtown
environments. Doctors may aggregate near
the hospital, but certainly tend to become established in mid to upper income
neighbourhoods. Lower income
neighbourhoods can at times be without any medical services. Likewise with dentists. Of course these private health care
profession businesses are going to where income can be maximized and risks
minimized. Not necessarily through any malice,
just a function of making solid business decisions.
In contrast, look where social agencies are ghettoed, often
expected to provide service to the most needy and aggregating where the need
is. An appropriate choice, just one that
further ghettoizes the area and precludes social integration.
Lower income housing is relegated to the least healthy
locations. Close to major roads,
industrial areas, existing low income neighbourhoods. Community living housing, halfway houses,
group homes and homeless shelters can find getting established in such neighbourhoods
is without the hassle and public outcry that locating in middle income settings
may entail.
It is just a description of what happens. Perhaps the simple description is sufficient
to suggest that where such blatant and obvious geographic correlations exist – healthful
planning and purposeful development could overcome such problems.
Public Policy interventions to affect built environment were
reviewed in a national working sessions in 2011 NCC on
Healthy Public policy workshop proceedings
and fact sheets on some of these topics and others like impact on safety
are accessible through the national collaborating centre on environmental
health NCC
on environmental health fact sheets
The built environment defines our wellbeing. As we discuss the built environment, lets be
sure we understand the multiple diverse impacts that currently exist and then
test and modify to ensure that better outcomes can be achieved. Lets not wait 50 years to figure out that the
process isn’t working for everyone.
Great post Dr. P. I like how you showed that so many decisions that result in inequity and unhealthy environments are 'logical' due to our current multiple systems (or lack thereof) that focus on singular goals rather than common/interconnected ones.
ReplyDeleteIt's a crazy world. Keeps us working.
Another good one and food for thought. Effective trusting relationships (with municipal planners and others) are once again essential for health equity. The "weave" of health equity (via action on SDOH)is complex, yes. But not impossible if political and public will is fostered. That of course implies health authority support for local level action.
ReplyDelete