hi there. my subject is planning of healthy cities . i've attached my assignment and article . just let me know if you guys can do or not and also let me know the prices.
Assignment 1 (15%): Planning for Healthy Cities (ARCH5043) 2019 The first assignment tests your comprehension of key concepts, theories and models regarding linkages between the built environment and health. Case document "Sorting Out the Connections Between the Built Environment and Health: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating Pathways and Planning Healthy Cities' You can download the article from the UniSA library webpage. · In a paragraph describe what you think Northridge and her colleagues were arguing in this article – the answer should reflect the complexities of the model and the other points they raise ? · In what ways could their paper be seen to apply to contemporary Australian urbanisation/urbanism and population health ? · What do we have now that might go some way to addressing the shortcomings they described regarding the ability to conduct research back in 2003 ? · Outline, preferably using basic visualisation tools, what you think is the most powerful but simple way to summarise the linkages between the built environment and health – justify your model by reference to the literature Assessment criteria Ability to succinctly communicate an understanding of an academic argument – 10% Demonstrate critical appreciation of key themes regarding linkages between built environment and health – 50% Ability to use journals and or policy documents to identify research evidence to support an argument – 10% Ability to formulate ideas based on modest engagement with the literature – 20% Appropriate referencing – 10% Additional guidance You are required to write this assignment in 700 words. You may go over a little but do not exceed two pages. You should cite at least 5 other peer reviewed articles and or book chapters to undertake this assignment. Note that the second criterion in the list above is worth 50% of the grade which should alert you to where the effort should go – the first and last questions. You must use the UniSA Harvard Referencing system – (Author/Date) The Assignment is called a Report. What this means for the course is that you do not have to provide an Introduction and Conclusion – just answer the questions. For Assignment 2 and 3 you will need to provide an Introduction and Conclusion. If you are having difficulties with any assignments remember you can use the MyTutor service https://online.unisa.edu.au/student-support/online-tutors/ Help is available 7 days a week including evenings. Please make a time to speak with your tutor if you need additional clarification or suppport References Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: A conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine Vol. 80, No. 4, December 2003 2003 The New York Academy of Medicine Sorting Out the Connections Between the Built Environment and Health: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating Pathways and Planning Healthy Cities Mary E. Northridge, Elliott D. Sclar, and Padmini Biswas ABSTRACT The overarching goal of this article is to make explicit the multiple path- ways through which the built environment may potentially affect health and well- being. The loss of close collaboration between urban planning and public health pro- fessionals that characterized the post–World War II era has limited the design and implementation of effective interventions and policies that might translate into im- proved health for urban populations. First, we present a conceptual model that devel- oped out of previous research called Social Determinants of Health and Environmental Health Promotion. Second, we review empirical research from both the urban plan- ning and public health literature regarding the health effects of housing and housing interventions. And third, we wrestle with key challenges in conducting sound scientific research on connections between the built environment and health, namely: (1) the necessity of dealing with the possible health consequences of myriad public and private sector activities; (2) the lack of valid and reliable indicators of the built environment to monitor the health effects of urban planning and policy decisions, especially with regard to land use mix; and (3) the growth of the “megalopolis” or “super urban region” that requires analysis of health effects across state lines and in circumscribed areas within multiple states. We contend that to plan for healthy cities, we need to reinvigorate the historic link between urban planning and public health, and thereby conduct informed science to better guide effective public policy. KEYWORDS Urban planning, Public health, Population health, Urban health, Built en- vironment, Land use, Transportation. While it has been stated before, it nonetheless bears repeating that the connections between urban planning and public health are not new.1 What has changed is the magnitude of the population health crisis that we presently face in both the devel- oped and less developed areas of the world. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) estimates that approximately 1 billion people out of a global population of close to 6 billion people are presently living in slumlike condi- tions.2 By 2030, the global population is expected to increase by about 2 billion people; the slum-dwelling population is expected to account for half of this in- crease.2 The squalid living conditions of industrialized cities in the middle of the 19th century that gave rise to both the urban planning and public health professions Dr. Northridge is with the Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY; Dr. Sclar and Ms. Biswas are with the Urban Planning Program, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Columbia University, New York, NY; Dr. Sclar is also with the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY. 556 THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH 557 are again fully manifest at the beginning of the 21st century,3 as large segments of the world’s population lack basic shelter and sanitation, especially in developing countries.2 Unfortunately, the loss of close collaboration between urban planning and pub- lic health professionals that characterized the post–World War II era has limited the design and implementation of effective interventions and policies that might trans- late into improved health for urban populations. While the theory that connects the built environment to health and well-being is intuitively plausible, we still have a long way to go in collecting sufficient empirical data to make convincing appeals for planning and policy changes by the weight of the evidence. In the interest of reviving strategic collaborations between urban planning and public health professionals, next we outline three major aims for this article. First, we present a conceptual model that developed out of previous research conducted separately by colleagues at the University of Michigan4 and our group at Columbia University,3 which we then connected and built upon to construct a framework for “Social Determinants of Health and Environmental Health Promotion.”5 Unlike other approaches in which the built environment is considered as background or context, our conceptual model specifically focuses on urban morphology and responds to Hebbert’s conjectures about where the streets and buildings belong in the “new public health.”6(p446) Second, we review empirical research from both the urban planning and public health literature regarding the health effects of housing and housing interventions, both to illustrate how connections between the built environment and health and well-being have been investigated to date, and to recommend strategies that may be useful in future scientific inquiry. An earlier article by Greenberg et al. found only minor overlap in a review of all articles and book reviews published between 1978 and 1990 in the Journal of the American Planning Association and the American Journal of Public Health.7 Since that time, the “new urbanism” has devoted rather more attention to the new public health than vice versa,6 but recent campaigns spear- headed by the National Center for Environmental Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention8 and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sci- ences of the National Institutes of Health9 are helping to redirect the attention of public health researchers toward investigating the health outcomes of urban design choices and community revitalization projects. In September 2003, the American Journal of Public Health10 and the American Journal of Health Promotion11 both published theme issues devoted to the built environment and health. The current issue of the Journal of Urban Health provides additional scientific and policy focus on these connections, with particular emphasis on the urban context. Finally, we wrestle with key challenges in conducting sound scientific research on connections between the built environment and health, namely: (1) the necessity of dealing with the possible health consequences of myriad public and private sector activities, including those primarily concerned with commerce, housing, transporta- tion, labor, energy, and education;12 (2) the lack of valid and reliable indicators of the built environment to monitor the health effects of urban planning and policy decisions, especially with regard to land use mix;13 and (3) the growth of the “mega- lopolis” or “super urban region” that requires analysis of health effects across state lines and in circumscribed areas within multiple states.14 While they are by no means panaceas, we suggest strategies for addressing each of these challenges, in order to advance the science of connections between the built environment and health, and better plan for healthy cities. 558 NORTHRIDGE ET AL. FOCUS ON URBAN ENVIRONMENTS AND POPULATIONS More of us are urban dwellers than ever before. According to the 2000 census, nearly 80% of the approximately 280 million people counted in the United States live in metropolitan areas or, more correctly, metropolitan statistical areas, defined as urban agglomerations of 50,000 people or more.15 The largest of these is the New York consolidated metropolitan statistical area, which spreads out over four states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania) and contains over 21 mil- lion people. The US Bureau of the Census defines a consolidated metropolitan sta- tistical area as an agglomeration of over 1 million people living in adjacent primary metropolitan statistical areas or metropolitan statistical areas that by local common agreement are effectively aggregated into one region.15 The importance of this observation rests upon its implications for the relevant spatial unit for analyzing data, as well as the “level” for intervention to improve population health. For instance, most of the environmental interventions conducted to date, such as ameliorating lead paint, have occurred at the neighborhood, site, and building levels. Increasingly, however, the most important environmental and population health interventions, such as decreasing emissions of greenhouse gases, will require collaboration at the national, regional, and even global levels. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Our joint urban planning and public health framework is centrally concerned with the social, political, economic, and historical processes that generate the urban built environment.3 By the built environment, we mean that part of the physical environ- ment made by people for people, including buildings, transportation systems, and open spaces. The remainder of the physical environment is the natural environment. None of the natural environment per se remains in cities, since even the parks and waterways have been created—or at least significantly modified—by people