Hashemi and colleagues probed how design can influence urbanites’ quality-of-life. They report that to complete their “study [they] selected two different urban blocks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania–with high and low social vulnerability indices (SVI)–to compare their microclimate conditions in association with urban morphological characteristics such as green coverage area, sky view factor (SVF), albedo, and street height to width (H/W) ratio. . . .
The Irish Times reports on a study presented at the European Congress on Obesity by Brouwer and van Rossum. The researchers found that “living in a safer neighborhood can have a greater impact on weight loss than how close your home is to a gym of grocery store. Factors such as inadequate street lighting, groups of loitering children, and heavy traffic all have an association with difficulties losing weight. . . .
Ayalon evaluated the criteria humans use to judge neighborhoods. Research conducted indicated “the importance of subjective mediators, rather than objective ones in explaining the association between perceived neighborhood characteristics and wellbeing.” Wellbeing was higher when perceived neighborhood disorder was lower and neighborhood cohesion was perceived to be higher, for example.
Mygind and colleagues evaluated the ramifications of growing up in green neighborhoods. They determined via data collected for 5-to 12-year olds that “Vegetation cover around the home might support the formation of social skills through higher order reasoning about emotion experience and cause and effect as it relates to other people.”
Astell-Burt and colleagues link living near greenspace and feeling less lonely. They report “a 10% increase in urban greening within 1.6 km was associated with lower cumulative incident loneliness. . . . stronger association was observed for people living alone. . . . No age, sex or disability-related contingencies, associations with green space within 400 or 800 m or relief from loneliness reported at baseline were observed. . . . Loneliness is a major risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, depression and premature death. . . .
Powerful, meaningful, useful, readable
Promoting attachment and public health
Trop and colleagues evaluated lighting conditions in which people felt safe in public spaces. They learned via a literature review that “while higher intensity is usually associated with better safety perception, some studies . . . point out the diminishing returns or plateau-escarpment of illumination levels above 10lx. Second, mismatch between perception of safety and perception of other qualities of PSL is also apparent . . . indicating that place intended functionality should be considered (e.g., parking lot comfort associated with higher CCT. . .
Living near greenspace makes it less likely that people will experience postpartum depression (PPD). Sun and colleagues found that “A reduced risk for PPD was associated with total green space exposure based on street-view measure [500 m buffer. . .], but not NDVI [normalized difference vegetation index], land-cover greenness, or proximity to a park. Compared to other types of green space, tree coverage showed stronger protective effects. . . . Street view-based green space and tree coverage were associated with a decreased risk of PPD.
Zhu, Sze, and Newnam probed how tree cover influences how individuals think and behave. They found that a “street tree is considered a traffic calming measure.” Findings from the Zhu-lead study “indicate that road width, bus stop, tram station, on-street parking, and 85th percentile speed are positively associated with pedestrian casualty. In contrast, pedestrian casualty decreases when there is a pedestrian crosswalk and increases in tree density and canopy. . . . urban street trees should have favorable effect on pedestrian safety. . . .