Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement
Authors
Petrović, FilipContributors
Fikfak, AlenkaVaništa Lazarević, Eva
Fikfak, Nataša
Vukmirović, Milena

Gabrijelčič, Peter
Conference object (Published version)

Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Poor health is associated with poorer living circumstances (Ellaway et al., 2012)
and there is therefore, a logical expectation that housing improvements and area
regeneration in disadvantaged urban areas will improve health and reduce social
inequalities in health (Kearns et al., 2009; WHO Commission on Social
Determinants of Health, 2008). Urban regeneration can thus be considered a
public health intervention whereby improvements in health and wellbeing are
stated as specific aims of regeneration strategies (Beck et al., 2010). Regeneration
in most cases includes a range of activities that potentially may improve the
interlinked realities of household, dwelling, community and neighbourhood
environment in urban areas, thereby impacting on many of the social determinants
of health (Dahlgren and Whitehead, 2007). However, to date the evidence that
regeneration activities achieve these health benefits is limited or weak and any
health effects are small (Jacobs et al., 2010). ...Evidence for long-term effects and
the mechanisms by which different interventions or combinations of interventions
might lead to positive health outcomes tend also to be rare (Jacobs et al., 2010).
There are also concerns that regeneration activities may have unintended
consequences of social disruption and displacement through gentrification
(Lindberg et al., 2010). This paper therefore collects information and evidence of
urban regeneration projects in a systematic way, both from historic urban
regeneration projects and new modern models of regeneration, analysing and
evaluating them from population health impact perspective. Paper concludes with
recommendations of necessary future aims and methods to implement in urban
regeneration projects as to achieve improvements in population health and health
equality.
Keywords:
Urban regeneration / Population health / Effect / Improvement / GentrificationSource:
Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia, 2015, 272-280Publisher:
- Ljubljana : Faculty of Architecture
Institution/Community
Arhitektonski fakultetTY - CONF AU - Petrović, Filip PY - 2015 UR - https://raf.arh.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/663 AB - Poor health is associated with poorer living circumstances (Ellaway et al., 2012) and there is therefore, a logical expectation that housing improvements and area regeneration in disadvantaged urban areas will improve health and reduce social inequalities in health (Kearns et al., 2009; WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008). Urban regeneration can thus be considered a public health intervention whereby improvements in health and wellbeing are stated as specific aims of regeneration strategies (Beck et al., 2010). Regeneration in most cases includes a range of activities that potentially may improve the interlinked realities of household, dwelling, community and neighbourhood environment in urban areas, thereby impacting on many of the social determinants of health (Dahlgren and Whitehead, 2007). However, to date the evidence that regeneration activities achieve these health benefits is limited or weak and any health effects are small (Jacobs et al., 2010). Evidence for long-term effects and the mechanisms by which different interventions or combinations of interventions might lead to positive health outcomes tend also to be rare (Jacobs et al., 2010). There are also concerns that regeneration activities may have unintended consequences of social disruption and displacement through gentrification (Lindberg et al., 2010). This paper therefore collects information and evidence of urban regeneration projects in a systematic way, both from historic urban regeneration projects and new modern models of regeneration, analysing and evaluating them from population health impact perspective. Paper concludes with recommendations of necessary future aims and methods to implement in urban regeneration projects as to achieve improvements in population health and health equality. PB - Ljubljana : Faculty of Architecture C3 - Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia T1 - Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement SP - 272 EP - 280 UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_raf_663 ER -
@conference{ author = "Petrović, Filip", year = "2015", abstract = "Poor health is associated with poorer living circumstances (Ellaway et al., 2012) and there is therefore, a logical expectation that housing improvements and area regeneration in disadvantaged urban areas will improve health and reduce social inequalities in health (Kearns et al., 2009; WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008). Urban regeneration can thus be considered a public health intervention whereby improvements in health and wellbeing are stated as specific aims of regeneration strategies (Beck et al., 2010). Regeneration in most cases includes a range of activities that potentially may improve the interlinked realities of household, dwelling, community and neighbourhood environment in urban areas, thereby impacting on many of the social determinants of health (Dahlgren and Whitehead, 2007). However, to date the evidence that regeneration activities achieve these health benefits is limited or weak and any health effects are small (Jacobs et al., 2010). Evidence for long-term effects and the mechanisms by which different interventions or combinations of interventions might lead to positive health outcomes tend also to be rare (Jacobs et al., 2010). There are also concerns that regeneration activities may have unintended consequences of social disruption and displacement through gentrification (Lindberg et al., 2010). This paper therefore collects information and evidence of urban regeneration projects in a systematic way, both from historic urban regeneration projects and new modern models of regeneration, analysing and evaluating them from population health impact perspective. Paper concludes with recommendations of necessary future aims and methods to implement in urban regeneration projects as to achieve improvements in population health and health equality.", publisher = "Ljubljana : Faculty of Architecture", journal = "Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia", title = "Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement", pages = "272-280", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_raf_663" }
Petrović, F.. (2015). Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement. in Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia Ljubljana : Faculty of Architecture., 272-280. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_raf_663
Petrović F. Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement. in Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia. 2015;:272-280. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_raf_663 .
Petrović, Filip, "Urban regeneration as a tool for population health improvement" in Keeping up with technologies to make healthy places : book of conference proceedings / [2nd International Academic Conference] Places and Technologies 2015, Nova Gorica, Slovenia (2015):272-280, https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_raf_663 .