4.6 Review

Build Healthier: Post-COVID-19 Urban Requirements for Healthy and Sustainable Living

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14159274

关键词

COVID-19; urban health; environmental health; healthy urban planning strategies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a renewed interest in urban environment and healthy living. Achieving health and well-being requires healthy design strategies, including infrastructure for healthy living, liveable communities, accessible physical spaces, and the integration of urban spaces and public health.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed interest in urban environment and healthy living and the changes in urban environments which can make for a healthier living. Today, more than 50% of the global population lives in urban areas, and in Europe the number is 75%. We present a narrative review to explore considerations and necessary requirements to achieve health and well-being within strategies for healthy design and urban planning whilst rethinking urban spaces for a post-COVID-19 and carbon-neutral future. The achievement of health and well-being demands healthy design strategies, namely, (1) moving from the concept of infrastructure for processes to the infrastructure for healthy living-requirements for healthy places, cycling, walking, disintegrating the role of polluting traffic from the urban environments, social vulnerability and equality; (2) physical space that will achieve standards of 'liveable communities'-open, green space requirements and standards for any built environment; (3) mainstreaming 'in-the-walking distance' cities and neighbourhoods for healthy physical activities for daily living; (4) exploring any of the new concepts that connect the nexus of urban spaces and public health and improving of the population's well-being. Public health needs to be prioritised systematically in planning of built environments, energy generations, sustainable food production, and nutrition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据