Menu
City Know-hows
We know that urbanisation and mental health are interrelated and mental illnesses are predicted to increase during this century. This alarming worldwide trend presents a challenge still not widely debated in political forums and public arenas. We argue that community-based initiatives involving the public and private sectors are necessary to address this urban challenge. We argue that a framework of ecosystem services and co-benefits can facilitate concerted action for the public good. Two cases of Seoul and Singapore show how this framework has been implemented effectively.
Share
Target audience
Community Associations; Healthy City Project Coordinators; National and local elected officials; Mayors; Public administrators.
The problem
The need to reconnect mental and urban health were clearly associated by architects, planners, medical doctors including psychiatrists from the 1960s. There is some urgency given ongoing worldwide negative trends in the incidence of mental illness in urban populations highlighted by the World health Organization since 2001. For example, dense unregulated urban development does not guarantee the provision of access to public green spaces that can be used by residents of all age groups for leisure activities.
What we did and why
Our study found that community place-based initiatives involving the public and private sectors can provide public spaces, such as public parks and communal gardens, that are appropriate for reconnecting mental and urban health using the concept of co-benefit endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2011. We examined this concept in large projects in Seoul and Singapore to show the advantage of intersectoral collaboration for reconnecting mental and urban health initiatives by urban planning.
Our study’s contribution
We have highlighted the shortcomings of mainstream discourse on urban health, then explained why mental health should be prioritized and reconnected to urban health initiatives including the WHO healthy Cities project. We have answered positively the how question by showing how cities including Seoul and Singapore with rapid urban development and foresight have responded to urban health challenges by initiating large-scale intersectoral land-use projects. This kind of urban planning is influenced by place-based contextual factors that should be understood.
Impacts for city policy and practice
We highlight need for political leadership in cities, as well as coordination by local government administrations, and collaboration with companies in the real estate sector using the case of Seoul and Singapore. Land-use regulations can promote the public good and be justified after identifying and then monitoring the co-lateral benefits of coordinated urban planning at both city and neighbourhood levels. Community place-based initiatives can serve as catalysts for intersectoral collaboration at both these local levels if those with authority are willing to delegate stewardship to residents.
Further information
Full research article:
[Open Access] Breaking taboos: admitting mental health in healthy cities – but how? By Roderick J. Lawrence and Saidatulakmal Mohd
Related posts
Across many cities, residents of informal settlements lack safe, nearby green space. Using Nakuru (Kenya) as a testbed, we show how opening schoolyards to communities outside school hours can rapidly expand walkable access at minimal cost. With basic security and governance measures, this dual-use model can advance health equity and resilience.
Including health in local alcohol license decisions is not just about a dedicated Health Associated Licensing Objective (HALO): A Public Health Perspective – beyond the HALO effect!
We explored the factors that can encourage walking and cycling to school from the adolescents’ perspective, considering individual and built environment factors as well. Travel mode selection, companionship, desired mobility autonomy, and perceptions of pedestrian and cyclist safety regarding traffic were relevant and interconnected.
