-
A total of 1,357 respondents (564 males and 793 females, 33.56 ± 9.21 years) were involved. The respondents with college level or above accounted for 94.6%. As to marital status, the proportion of respondents being married was 64%; 72.8% of respondents had the annual household income which was over RMB 100,000 yuan; 53.8% of respondents had lived in the aera for more than 5 years; most of respondents lived in new integrated communities (46.7%) and traditional neighborhood communities (30%); 52.3% of respondents participated in regular physical activities (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents
Variables Total, n (%) SRH status, n (%) χ2 P Low-score group High-score group Age (years old) < 25 66 (11.7) 66 (29.0) 154 (71.0) 41.306 < 0.001 25–35 296 (52.5) 169 (23.3) 557 (76.7) 35–45 130 (23.0) 94 (34.3) 180 (65.7) > 45 72 (12.8) 68 (48.6) 72 (51.4) Gender Male 564 (41.6) 144 (25.5) 420 (74.5) 5.747 0.017 Female 793 (58.4) 250 (31.5) 543 (68.5) Education level High school or below 73 (5.4) 27 (37.0) 46 (63.0) 3.147 0.207 College 1,044 (76.9) 304 (29.1) 740 (70.9) Master or higher 240 (17.7) 63 (26.3) 177 (73.8) Annual household income (RMB) < 100,000 369 (27.2) 122 (33.1) 247 (66.9) 6.063 0.109 100,000–200,000 475 (35.0) 132 (27.8) 343 (72.2) 200,000–300,000 281 (20.7) 84 (29.9) 197 (70.1) > 300,000 232 (17.1) 56 (24.1) 176 (75.9) Marital status Unmarried 488 (36.0) 144 (29.5) 344 (70.5) 0.083 0.773 Married 869 (64.0) 250 (28.8) 619 (71.2) Occupation Retiree/the unemployed 143 (10.5) 46 (32.2) 97 (67.8) 7.594 0.055 Company employee 614 (45.2) 157 (25.6) 457 (74.4) laborer 394 (29.0) 120 (30.5) 274 (69.5) Professional and technical personnel/ government personnel 206 (15.2) 71 (34.5) 135 (65.5) Residential region Urban fringe community 82 (6.0) 35 (42.7) 47 (57.3) 15.551 0.001 Traditional neighborhood community 407 (30.0) 135 (33.2) 272 (66.8) Unit community 234 (17.2) 64 (27.4) 170 (72.6) Commercial comprehensive community 634 (46.7) 160 (25.2) 474 (74.8) Length of residence (years) < 5 626 (46.2) 190 (30.4) 436 (69.6) 1.087 0.581 5–10 230 (17.0) 63 (27.4) 167 (72.6) > 10 500 (36.9) 140 (28.0) 360 (72.0) Regular physical activity No 647 (47.7) 309 (47.8) 338 (52.2) 210.413 < 0.001 Yes 710 (52.3) 85 (12.0) 625 (88.0) Note. SRH, self-rated health. -
The analysis results showed that there were no residents reported "very unhealthy", 33 (2.4%) residents reported "unhealthy" and 361 (26.6%) reported "general". The residents reported "healthy" and "very healthy" accounted for 46.4% and 24.5, respectively. After grouping the answers into two groups ("high-score group" and "low-score group"), 71% of respondents were in high-score group, while, 29% of them were in low-score group.
According to χ2 test results, age, gender, occupation, type of community and regular physical exercise showed significant differences between high-score group and low-score group of SRH status of residents (Table 1).
-
χ2 test results showed that the 22 items, such as adequate public fitness facilities, enough green space and night lighting, displayed significant differences between high-score group and low-score group on the SRH status of residents (Table 2).
Table 2. Correlation between built environment and SRH status
Variables SRH status, n (%) χ2 P Low-score group High-score group Adequate public fitness facilities No 198 (50.3) 349 (36.2) 22.818 < 0.001 Yes 196 (49.7) 614 (63.8) Enough green space No 193 (49.0) 314 (32.6) 32.049 < 0.001 Yes 201 (51.0) 649 (67.4) Enough night lighting No 130 (33.0) 216 (22.4) 16.429 < 0.001 Yes 264 (67.0) 747 (77.6) Enough public toilets No 296 (75.1) 578 (60.0) 27.832 < 0.001 Yes 98 (24.9) 385 (40.0) Enough health trails No 255 (67.4) 418 (43.4) 50.815 < 0.001 Yes 139 (35.3) 545 (56.6) Enough garbage classification facilities No 99 (25.1) 164 (17.0) 11.732 0.001 Yes 295 (74.9) 799 (83.0) Enough propaganda on garbage classification No 264 (67.0) 497 (51.6) 26.907 < 0.001 Yes 130 (33.0) 466 (48.4) Enough "No Smoking" signs in public places No 106 (26.9) 172 (17.9) 14.036 0.000 Yes 288 (73.1) 791 (82.1) Enough propaganda on smoking ban No 260 (66.0) 488 (50.7) 26.510 < 0.001 Yes 134 (34.0) 475 (49.3) Ennough propaganda on vaccination No 279 (70.8) 524 (54.4) 31.125 < 0.001 Yes 115 (29.2) 439 (45.6) Enough propaganda on unpaid blood donation No 273 (69.3) 563 (58.5) 13.855 < 0.001 Yes 121 (30.7) 400 (41.5) Enough propaganda on healthy diet No 324 (82.2) 668 (69.4) 23.542 < 0.001 Yes 70 (17.8) 295 (30.6) Enough propaganda on personal hygiene No 217 (55.1) 405 (42.1) 19.092 0.000 Yes 177 (44.9) 558 (57.9) Enough propaganda on vector prevention and treatment No 291 (73.9) 594 (61.7) 18.273 < 0.001 Yes 103 (26.1) 369 (38.3) Household garbage in community cleared every day No 141 (35.8) 245 (25.4) 14.703 < 0.001 Yes 253 (64.2) 718 (74.6) Clean and hygienic community environment No 221 (56.1) 337 (35.0) 51.398 < 0.001 Yes 173 (43.9) 626 (65.0) Good air quality No 195 (49.6) 419 (43.5) 4.039 0.044 Yes 199 (50.5) 544 (56.5) Confidence in drinking water safety No 166 (42.1) 209 (21.7) 58.352 0.000 Yes 228 (57.9) 754 (78.3) Confidence in food safety No 169 (42.9) 235 (24.4) 45.722 < 0.001 Yes 225 (57.1) 728 (75.6) Clean and hygiene pedlars' markets No 155 (39.3) 310 (32.2) 6.344 0.012 Yes 239 (60.7) 653 (67.8) Standard management of city peddlers No 174 (44.2) 322 (33.4) 13.869 < 0.001 Yes 220 (55.8) 641 (66.6) Good services from community health service centers No 281 (71.3) 531 (55.1) 30.457 < 0.001 Yes 113 (28.7) 432 (44.9) Note. SRH, self-rated health. -
Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the influencing factors of SRH status, with the factors statistically related to the dependent variable in the univariate analysis as the independent variables.
The results showed that the residents aged 25 years old and below had a higher SRH compared with the residents aged 36–45 years old (OR = 0.546, 95% CI: 0.351–0.851 ) and 46 years old above (OR = 0.295, 95% CI: 0.175–0.497).
Women had a lower SRH than men (OR = 0.680, 95% CI: 0.514–0.900). In addition, the SRH status of the residents living in commercial comprehensive community was higher than that living in urban fringe community (OR = 2.019, 95% CI: 1.177–3.464). Moreover, the residents who regularly participated in physical exercise had a higher SRH status than those who without regular physical exercise (OR = 6.589, 95% CI: 4.903–8.854). Additionally, the respondents with enough green space (OR = 1.395, 95% CI: 1.055–1.845), clean and hygienic community environment (OR = 1.472, 95% CI: 1.107–1.956), confidence in drinking water safety (OR = 1.856, 95% CI: 1.354–2.544) and food safety (OR = 1.405, 95% CI: 1.027–1.921) were detected a higher SRH status (Table 3).
Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression analysis on influencing factors of SRH status
Variables β SD Wald χ2 P OR 95% CI Influencing factors Enough green space 0.333 0.143 5.446 0.020 1.395 1.055–1.845 Clean and hygienic community environment 0.386 0.145 7.081 0.008 1.472 1.107–1.956 Confidence in Drinking water safety 0.618 0.161 14.771 0.000 1.856 1.354–2.544 Confidence in food safety 0.340 0.160 4.531 0.033 1.405 1.027–1.921 Control variables 36−45 years old −0.605 0.226 7.162 0.007 0.546 0.351–0.851 ≥ 46 years old −1.222 0.266 21.066 0.000 0.295 0.175–0.497 Female −0.385 0.143 7.251 0.007 0.680 0.514–0.900 Commercial comprehensive community 0.703 0.275 6.517 0.011 2.019 1.177–3.464 Regular exercise 1.885 0.151 156.306 0.000 6.589 4.903–8.854 Note. Confounding varaibles: age, gender, education level, annual household income, marital status, occupation, residential region, and regular physical exercise. SRH, self-rated health.
doi: 10.3967/bes2022.142
Influence of Built Environment in Hygienic City in China on Self-rated Health of Residents
-
Abstract:
Objective To assess the subjective perception of residents on the built environment in hygienic cities and its relation to the self-rated health (SRH) status of residents, providing a basis for a better promotion on construction of health-supportive environments. Methods The online survey was adopted with the respondents recruited from residents living in Chaoyang District of Beijing in January 2021. With SRH level as the dependent variable, two-category logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the impact of the built environment in hygienic cities on the SRH status of residents. Results A total of 1,357 respondents were enrolled in this study. After controlling confounding factors, four aspects in the built environment in hygienic cities were detected remarkable influences on the SRH level of residents, including enough green space in the living area [odds ratio (OR) = 1.395, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.055–1.845], clean and hygienic living environment (OR = 1.472, 95% CI: 1.107–1.956), residents' confidence in drinking water safety in the living area (OR = 1.856, 95% CI: 1.354–2.544) and residents' confidence in food safety in the living area (OR = 1.405, 95% CI: 1.027–1.921). Conclusion Regarding city construction, the government should focus more on the subjective perception of residents on built environments to build a supportive environment benefiting the health of residents. -
Key words:
- Hygienic city /
- Built environment /
- Self-rated health
-
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents
Variables Total, n (%) SRH status, n (%) χ2 P Low-score group High-score group Age (years old) < 25 66 (11.7) 66 (29.0) 154 (71.0) 41.306 < 0.001 25–35 296 (52.5) 169 (23.3) 557 (76.7) 35–45 130 (23.0) 94 (34.3) 180 (65.7) > 45 72 (12.8) 68 (48.6) 72 (51.4) Gender Male 564 (41.6) 144 (25.5) 420 (74.5) 5.747 0.017 Female 793 (58.4) 250 (31.5) 543 (68.5) Education level High school or below 73 (5.4) 27 (37.0) 46 (63.0) 3.147 0.207 College 1,044 (76.9) 304 (29.1) 740 (70.9) Master or higher 240 (17.7) 63 (26.3) 177 (73.8) Annual household income (RMB) < 100,000 369 (27.2) 122 (33.1) 247 (66.9) 6.063 0.109 100,000–200,000 475 (35.0) 132 (27.8) 343 (72.2) 200,000–300,000 281 (20.7) 84 (29.9) 197 (70.1) > 300,000 232 (17.1) 56 (24.1) 176 (75.9) Marital status Unmarried 488 (36.0) 144 (29.5) 344 (70.5) 0.083 0.773 Married 869 (64.0) 250 (28.8) 619 (71.2) Occupation Retiree/the unemployed 143 (10.5) 46 (32.2) 97 (67.8) 7.594 0.055 Company employee 614 (45.2) 157 (25.6) 457 (74.4) laborer 394 (29.0) 120 (30.5) 274 (69.5) Professional and technical personnel/ government personnel 206 (15.2) 71 (34.5) 135 (65.5) Residential region Urban fringe community 82 (6.0) 35 (42.7) 47 (57.3) 15.551 0.001 Traditional neighborhood community 407 (30.0) 135 (33.2) 272 (66.8) Unit community 234 (17.2) 64 (27.4) 170 (72.6) Commercial comprehensive community 634 (46.7) 160 (25.2) 474 (74.8) Length of residence (years) < 5 626 (46.2) 190 (30.4) 436 (69.6) 1.087 0.581 5–10 230 (17.0) 63 (27.4) 167 (72.6) > 10 500 (36.9) 140 (28.0) 360 (72.0) Regular physical activity No 647 (47.7) 309 (47.8) 338 (52.2) 210.413 < 0.001 Yes 710 (52.3) 85 (12.0) 625 (88.0) Note. SRH, self-rated health. Table 2. Correlation between built environment and SRH status
Variables SRH status, n (%) χ2 P Low-score group High-score group Adequate public fitness facilities No 198 (50.3) 349 (36.2) 22.818 < 0.001 Yes 196 (49.7) 614 (63.8) Enough green space No 193 (49.0) 314 (32.6) 32.049 < 0.001 Yes 201 (51.0) 649 (67.4) Enough night lighting No 130 (33.0) 216 (22.4) 16.429 < 0.001 Yes 264 (67.0) 747 (77.6) Enough public toilets No 296 (75.1) 578 (60.0) 27.832 < 0.001 Yes 98 (24.9) 385 (40.0) Enough health trails No 255 (67.4) 418 (43.4) 50.815 < 0.001 Yes 139 (35.3) 545 (56.6) Enough garbage classification facilities No 99 (25.1) 164 (17.0) 11.732 0.001 Yes 295 (74.9) 799 (83.0) Enough propaganda on garbage classification No 264 (67.0) 497 (51.6) 26.907 < 0.001 Yes 130 (33.0) 466 (48.4) Enough "No Smoking" signs in public places No 106 (26.9) 172 (17.9) 14.036 0.000 Yes 288 (73.1) 791 (82.1) Enough propaganda on smoking ban No 260 (66.0) 488 (50.7) 26.510 < 0.001 Yes 134 (34.0) 475 (49.3) Ennough propaganda on vaccination No 279 (70.8) 524 (54.4) 31.125 < 0.001 Yes 115 (29.2) 439 (45.6) Enough propaganda on unpaid blood donation No 273 (69.3) 563 (58.5) 13.855 < 0.001 Yes 121 (30.7) 400 (41.5) Enough propaganda on healthy diet No 324 (82.2) 668 (69.4) 23.542 < 0.001 Yes 70 (17.8) 295 (30.6) Enough propaganda on personal hygiene No 217 (55.1) 405 (42.1) 19.092 0.000 Yes 177 (44.9) 558 (57.9) Enough propaganda on vector prevention and treatment No 291 (73.9) 594 (61.7) 18.273 < 0.001 Yes 103 (26.1) 369 (38.3) Household garbage in community cleared every day No 141 (35.8) 245 (25.4) 14.703 < 0.001 Yes 253 (64.2) 718 (74.6) Clean and hygienic community environment No 221 (56.1) 337 (35.0) 51.398 < 0.001 Yes 173 (43.9) 626 (65.0) Good air quality No 195 (49.6) 419 (43.5) 4.039 0.044 Yes 199 (50.5) 544 (56.5) Confidence in drinking water safety No 166 (42.1) 209 (21.7) 58.352 0.000 Yes 228 (57.9) 754 (78.3) Confidence in food safety No 169 (42.9) 235 (24.4) 45.722 < 0.001 Yes 225 (57.1) 728 (75.6) Clean and hygiene pedlars' markets No 155 (39.3) 310 (32.2) 6.344 0.012 Yes 239 (60.7) 653 (67.8) Standard management of city peddlers No 174 (44.2) 322 (33.4) 13.869 < 0.001 Yes 220 (55.8) 641 (66.6) Good services from community health service centers No 281 (71.3) 531 (55.1) 30.457 < 0.001 Yes 113 (28.7) 432 (44.9) Note. SRH, self-rated health. Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression analysis on influencing factors of SRH status
Variables β SD Wald χ2 P OR 95% CI Influencing factors Enough green space 0.333 0.143 5.446 0.020 1.395 1.055–1.845 Clean and hygienic community environment 0.386 0.145 7.081 0.008 1.472 1.107–1.956 Confidence in Drinking water safety 0.618 0.161 14.771 0.000 1.856 1.354–2.544 Confidence in food safety 0.340 0.160 4.531 0.033 1.405 1.027–1.921 Control variables 36−45 years old −0.605 0.226 7.162 0.007 0.546 0.351–0.851 ≥ 46 years old −1.222 0.266 21.066 0.000 0.295 0.175–0.497 Female −0.385 0.143 7.251 0.007 0.680 0.514–0.900 Commercial comprehensive community 0.703 0.275 6.517 0.011 2.019 1.177–3.464 Regular exercise 1.885 0.151 156.306 0.000 6.589 4.903–8.854 Note. Confounding varaibles: age, gender, education level, annual household income, marital status, occupation, residential region, and regular physical exercise. SRH, self-rated health. -
[1] Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, et al. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med, 2002; 23, 64−73. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0 [2] Croucher K, Myers L, Jones R, et al. Health and the physical characteristics of urban neighbourhoods: a critical literature review. Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, 2007. [3] Sarkar C, Webster C, Gallacher J. Healthy cities: public Health through urban planning. Edward Elgar Publishers, 2014. [4] Joshu CE, Boehmer TK, Brownson RC, et al. Personal, neighbourhood and urban factors associated with obesity in the United States. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2008; 62, 202−8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.058321 [5] Lv J, Cheng SX. Surveillance and analysis for foodborne pathogens in food products before and after the initiative of hygienic cities. J Pub Health Prev Med, 2017; 28, 129−30. (In Chinese [6] Yue DH, Ruan SM, Xu J, et al. Impact of the China healthy cities initiative on urban environment. J Urban Health, 2017; 94, 149−57. doi: 10.1007/s11524-016-0106-1 [7] Qi Hl, Dong YD, Mei Y, et al. Impact of creating national healthy city on vector control effect. Chin J Hyg Insect Equip, 2016; 22, 145−7, 152. (In Chinese [8] Wang JQ, Liu JJ, Sun JF, et al. Geographical distribution of accredited healthy cities and towns in China: 1989-2019. China J Public Health, 2020; 36, 89−92. (In Chinese [9] Ergin I, Mandiracioglu A. Demographic and socioeconomic inequalities for self-rated health and happiness in elderly: the situation for Turkey regarding World Values Survey between 1990 and 2013. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2015; 61, 224−30. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2015.06.011 [10] Zheng WJ, Yao HY, Liu JJ, et al. Developing a subjective evaluation scale for assessing the built environments of China’s hygienic city initiative. Biomed Environ Sci, 2021; 34, 372−8. [11] Au N, Johnston DW. Self-assessed health: what does it mean and what does it hide? Soc Sci Med, 2014; 121, 21−8. [12] Perlman F, Bobak M. Determinants of self rated health and mortality in Russia-are they the same? Int J Equity Health, 2008; 7, 19. [13] Dong WL, Li YC, Wang ZQ, et al. Self-rated health and health-related quality of life among Chinese residents, China, 2010. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2016; 14, 5. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0409-7 [14] Jia XX, Hu HY, Wang XX, et al. Analysis on Self-rated health status and its influencing factors among Chinese residents aged 15 and above. Chin J Health Policy, 2016; 9, 62−7. (In Chinese [15] Gebel K, Bauman AE, Sugiyama T, et al. Mismatch between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood walkability attributes: prospective relationships with walking and weight gain. Health Place, 2011; 17, 519−24. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.008 [16] YU CY. How differences in roadways affect school travel safety. J Am Plann Assoc, 2015; 81, 203−20. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1080599 [17] Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, et al. Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults in 11 countries. Am J Prev Med, 2009; 36, 484−90. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.031 [18] Craveiro D. The role of personal social networks on health inequalities across European regions. Health Place, 2017; 45, 24−31. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.02.007 [19] Hayward E, Ibe C, Young JH, et al. Linking social and built environmental factors to the health of public housing residents: a focus group study. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15, 351. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1710-9 [20] Gidlow C, Cochrane T, Davey RC, et al. Relative importance of physical and social aspects of perceived neighbourhood environment for self-reported health. Preventive Medicine, 2010; 51, 157−63. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.05.006 [21] Xu YQ, Wen M, Wang FH. Multilevel built environment features and individual odds of overweight and obesity in Utah. Appl Geogr, 2015; 60, 197−203. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.10.006 [22] Gilliland JA, Rangel CY, Healy MA, et al. Linking childhood obesity to the built environment: a multi-level analysis of home and school neighbourhood factors associated with body mass index. Can J Public Health, 2012; 103, S15−21. [23] Konteh FH. Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: reminiscing the nineteenth century industrial nations. Health Place, 2009; 15, 69−78. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.02.003 [24] Preventing disease through healthy environments: towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241593822. [2021-2-11]. [25] Wang XY, Hu S. Influence of safe drinking water accessibility on middle and old-age residents' health in rural areas——an empirical analysis based on data CHARLS. J Green Sci Technol, 2016; 65−7, 70. (In Chinese [26] Howard G, Bartram J. Domestic water quantity, service level and health. Geneva World Health Organization. 2003; 1−33. [27] Kremer M, Leino J, Miguel E, et al. Spring cleaning: rural water impacts, valuation, and Property rights institutions. Quart J Econom, 2011; 126, 145−205. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjq010 [28] Feng J, Yu YY. Income inequality and health in rural China. Econom Res J, 2007; 42, 79−88. (In Chinese [29] Tang X. Food safety Per cognition of and subjective Well-being of Urban Residents. J Nanchang Univ, 2017; 48, 72−80. (In Chinese [30] Chen JH, Jin KJ, Zhao L, et al. Correlation between self-rated health status, depression and subjective well-being of the elderly in old-age institutions. International Journal of Nursing, 2021; 40, 4428−33. (In Chinese [31] Xu YQ, Wang FH. Built environment and obesity by urbanicity in the U. S. Health Place, 2015; 34, 19−29. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.03.010 [32] Walker RE, Keane CR, Burke JG. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: a review of food deserts literature. Health Place, 2010; 16, 876−84. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013 [33] Fraser LK, Edwards KL, Cade J, et al. The geography of fast food outlets: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2010; 7, 2290−308. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7052290