The city or the suburbs: ScienceAlert

The rapid growth of cities brings many challenges. How can we build greener? And how can we support the health and well-being of people living in urban areas?

This seems to imply a trade-off. Many studies show that denser neighborhoods are relatively better for the planet, but carry higher risks of depression.

It may seem surprising that depression is less common in the countryside. Stress, noise, air pollution, loneliness, and lack of sunlight on the ground floor of a high-rise apartment are just a few examples of the challenges urban dwellers face.

In fact, these factors may be behind the 39 percent increased risk of depression in urban areas of Western European countries and in the US.

But it turns out that some urban areas are better than others. My colleagues and I have produced a new study, published in Progress of sciencewhich shows that people in the suburbs are more likely to be depressed than those in urban centers.

important factors

We wanted to find out which factors in the built environment were most important for psychological well-being, so that cities can be better designed to be sustainable and supportive of mental health.

One hectare of land can support the same amount of population with dense low buildings or sparse tall buildings. Tall buildings can be in dense, bustling business districts or in less-dense urban areas with stylish apartments fronting a large green.

The suburbs, however, tend to have a medium density of low-rise buildings. What approach should we take?

Our team, which includes researchers from Yale University in the US, the Universities of Stockholm and Gävle in Sweden, and Aarhus University and the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, analyzed a large amount of source material for our study.

Using machine learning tools, we examined satellite images of all buildings in Denmark over 30 years (1987-2017). We then sort them into different categories based on height and density.

We combined the resulting map with individual residential addresses and health and socioeconomic records in Denmark. This allowed us to take into account factors known to increase the risk of depression, such as socioeconomic status or diagnosis of mental illness in parents.

The results do not show a clear correlation that dense downtown areas impact depression. This may be because dense urban centers can provide relatively more opportunities for social networking and interaction, which can benefit mental health.

Rural areas also do not appear to increase the risk of mental health problems. Instead, after accounting for socioeconomic factors, the highest risk was found in single-family and low-rise suburbs.

Ultimately, multi-story buildings in central locations or in close suburbs with easy access to open spaces, such as green parks or shorelines, showed surprisingly low risks.

That means the type of area with a high risk of mental health problems generally features low-rise, medium-density developments, such as suburban single-family housing.

Implications for planning

We believe that the relatively higher risks of depression found in sprawling, low-rise suburbs may be due in part to longer car commutes, fewer public open spaces, and not a high enough density of residents to accommodate many venues. Local businesses where people can gather, such as shops, cafes, and restaurants.

But of course there can be many other factors as well.

This is not to say that there are no potential benefits to living in the suburbs. In fact, some people may prefer privacy, silence and having their own garden.

We hope that this study can be used as a basis for urban planning. The study does not provide support for the continued expansion of car-dependent suburban single-family residential areas if planners wish to mitigate mental health issues and climate change.

A better option might be investing in high-rise housing where lifestyles do not depend on private car ownership, combined with smart spatial design to increase access to waterfronts, canals, lakes, or urban parks.

We could also improve the accessibility of existing suburbs to both urban amenities and public open spaces, and ensure there are more walkable neighborhoods in these car-centric areas.

The research points to how social the human being is. After all, a certain level of density is necessary to create lively communities that can accommodate shops, businesses, and public transportation while allowing for dining with the benefit of open space.

In Copenhagen, people have a beer or cake and hang out with friends along the canal. These areas are cut off from shops and nature, making the spaces social. City centers also have less of an impact on climate change than sparse, car-centric suburbs.

While the study controlled for income and unemployment, it is crucial to recognize that housing choices are influenced by socioeconomic factors. Waterfront or greenfront properties in downtown areas are significantly more expensive than homes in the suburbs.

Therefore, taking steps to address the inequality this can cause, such as creating mixed-income housing projects, is essential to ensure that attempts to use urban planning to improve people’s well-being are inclusive and do not contribute to gentrification or displacement of low-income communities.

We recognize that the findings of the study in Denmark may not be directly applicable to all other countries. Socio-environmental factors of mental well-being depend on cultural and geographical contexts. However, the framework developed in this study provides a foundation for future research in different parts of the world.

Karen Chen, Donnelley Postdoctoral Associate in Geography, Yale University and Stephan Barthel, Principal Investigator of Urban Sustainability, Stockholm University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.