4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How Good Is our Place—Implementation of the Place Standard Tool in North Macedonia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study describes the implementation, in North Macedonia, of a “tool”, initially devised in Scotland, to generate community and stakeholder discussion about the places in which they live and notably a place’s capacity to generate health wellbeing and greater equity among citizens. In this study, the “place standard tool” (PST) is viewed from the perspective of creating places which can deliver a triple win of health and wellbeing, equity, and environmental sustainability. Skopje, North Macedonia’s capital, inevitably differs economically, culturally, and politically from Scotland, thus providing an opportunity to augment existing knowledge on adaptability of the tool in shaping agendas for policy and action. Тhe PST was tested through seminars with selected focus groups and an online questionnaire. Over 350 respondents were included. Information on priorities enabled the distillation of suggestions for improvement and was shared with the Mayor and municipal administration. Skopje citizens valued an approach which solicited their views in a meaningful way. Specific concerns were expressed relating to heavy traffic and related air and noise pollution, and care and maintenance of places and care services. Responses varied by geographic location. Application of the PST increased knowledge and confidence levels among citizens and enthusiasm for active involvement in decision making. Effective implementation relies heavily on: good governance and top-level support; excellent organization and good timing; careful training of interviewers and focus group moderators; and on prior knowledge of the participants/respondents.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Residential environments and cardiovascular risk.

          The article begins with a discussion of the rationale for studying the relationship between residential environments and cardiovascular health. Existing empirical research relating residential environments to cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors is summarized. The research areas discussed include neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics and cardiovascular disease, the effects of residential environments on physical activity, and the effects of residential environments on diet. Other mechanisms through which residential environments may affect cardiovascular health are also briefly noted. Key challenges in investigating the relationship between residential environments and health are discussed. These challenges include characterizing environments (including definition and geographic scale as well as conceptualization and measurement of relevant features), the limitations of observational studies, and the need to evaluate the health impact of interventions or "naturally" occurring changes in local environments. The need for interdisciplinary work is emphasized.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The association between urban form and physical activity in U.S. adults.

              Physical inactivity is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes. Results from the transportation literature suggest that aspects of the urban environment may influence walking for transportation. In this paper we examine the association between a proxy measure of the urban environment and walking behavior. We analyzed the association between home age and walking behavior in U.S. adults using data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals and to control for the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, age, education level, household income, and activity limitations. Adults who lived in homes built before 1946 and from 1946 to 1973 were significantly more likely to walk 1+ miles > or =20 times per month than those who lived in homes built after 1973. This association was present among people living in urban and suburban counties, but absent among those living in rural counties. The association was also found in models that controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, age, education, income, and any health-related activity limitation. Other forms of leisure-time physical activity were not independently associated with home age. These results support the hypothesis that environmental variables influence walking frequency and suggest that home age may be a useful proxy for features of the urban environment that influence physical activity in the form of walking. Such proxy measures could facilitate testing ecologic models of health behavior using survey data.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                27 December 2019
                January 2020
                : 17
                : 1
                : 194
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Public Health of the Republic of North Macedonia, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia; m.dimovska2016@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro TR1 3HD, UK; geomorris55@ 123456hotmail.co.uk
                [3 ]NHS Health Scotland, Meridian Court, 5 Cadogan Street, Glasgow, Scotland G2 6QE, UK; john.howie@ 123456nhs.net
                [4 ]Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research, Skopje, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia; mborota@ 123456isppi.ukim.edu.mk (M.B.P.); marija_t@ 123456isppi.ukim.edu.mk (M.T.L.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: dgjorgjev@ 123456gmail.com ; Tel.: +389-70-248-617
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5631-8726
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2587-3188
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6069-5690
                Article
                ijerph-17-00194
                10.3390/ijerph17010194
                6981766
                31892126
                1794849c-3e72-4a24-b441-f99a24f415e8
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 08 October 2019
                : 23 December 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                place,place standard,community engagement,community empowerment,health determinants,wellbeing

                Comments

                Comment on this article