Exploring the Impact of Environmental Health on Community Quality of Life Metrics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/hl2023223Keywords:
Environmental Health, Quality of Life, Urban Planning, Public Health, Socio-economic DisparitiesAbstract
Environmental health is a very important part of a community's general quality of life. This research looks at how different natural factors like the quality of the air and water, how trash is handled, noise pollution, and access to green spaces affect important aspects of quality of life, such as health, social well-being, and socioeconomic status. Understanding how natural elements influence these measurements helps one create healthy urban development strategies that enhance the well-being of the surroundings. This research aims to ascertain how members of the society see the state of the environment and how it influences their everyday life by use of both quantitative data analysis and qualitative surveys. Along with environmental elements, the research examines health data including rates of lung illness, mental health statistics, and overall mortality. It discovers substantial connections between people's physical and mental health directly derived from the condition of the surroundings. The research also examines socioeconomic elements and notes that underdeveloped regions are more prone to be impacted by unfavourable weather conditions, which may result in health disparities and worse quality of living ratings. The paper also addresses how urban infrastructure clean drinking water access, air filtration systems, and transit networks may assist to mitigate the negative consequences of environmental hazards. According to the findings, increasing environmental health standards not only improves public health but also promotes fair society, stimulates economic development, and strengthens communities. The study's policy suggestions call for focused actions to lower environmental risks, support green infrastructure, and make sure everyone has equal access to resources that support a good quality of life. The study also suggests that policymakers and urban planners should think about public health when making decisions. This would help make communities healthier and more sustainable.
References
1. Leyden, K.M.; Goldberg, A.; Duval, R.D. The built environment, maintenance of the public sphere and connections to others and to place: An examination of 10 cities. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2011, 4, 25–38.
2. Pringle, S.; Guaralda, M. Images of urban happiness: A pilot study in the self-representation of happiness in urban spaces. Int. J. Image 2018, 8, 97–122.
3. Diener, E.; Ryan, K. Subjective well-being: A general overview. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2009, 39, 391–406.
4. Veenhoven, R. Happiness: Also Known as “Life Satisfaction” and “Subjective Well-Being”. In Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research; Land, K.C., Michalos, A.C., Sirgy, M.J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 63–77.
5. Frey, B.S.; Stutzer, A. Happiness and public choice. Public Choice 2010, 144, 557–573.
6. Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.-W.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 143–156.
7. Helbich, M. Toward dynamic urban environmental exposure assessments in mental health research. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 129–135.
8. Bornioli, A.; Parkhurst, G.; Morgan, P.L. Psychological Wellbeing Benefits of Simulated Exposure to Five Urban Settings: An Experimental Study From the Pedestrian’s Perspective. J. Transp. Health 2018, 9, 105–116.
9. Tost, H.; Champagne, F.A.; Meyer-Lindenberg, A. Environmental influence in the brain, human welfare and mental health. Nat. Neurosci. 2015, 18, 1421–1431.
10. Adli, M.; Berger, M.; Brakemeier, E.-L.; Engel, L.; Fingerhut, J.; Gomez-Carrillo, A.; Hehl, R.; Heinz, A.; Mayer, H.J.; Mehran, N.; et al. Neurourbanism: Towards a new discipline. Lancet Psychiatry 2017, 4, 183–185.
11. Koohsari, M.J.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Karakiewicz, J.A. Effects of access to public open spaces on walking: Is proximity enough? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 117, 92–99.
12. Aram, F.; Solgi, E.; Holden, G. The role of green spaces in increasing social interactions in neighborhoods with periodic markets. Habitat Int. 2019, 84, 24–32.
13. Lotfi, S.; Koohsari, M.J. Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 94, 417–435.
14. Sarkar, C.; Webster, C. Healthy cities of tomorrow: The case for large scale built environment–health studies. J. Urban Health 2017, 94, 4–19.
15. Cilliers, E.J.; Timmermans, W. Transforming spaces into lively public open places: Case studies of practical interventions. J. Urban Des. 2016, 21, 836–849.
16. Douglas, O.; Lennon, M.; Scott, M. Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities 2017, 66, 53–62.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Shilpa C. Patil, Suhas Ballal, Shinde Babaso Ananda, Shailesh Solanki, Lulup Kumar Sahoo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
