打印

作者

Jinhee Kim;Evelyne de Leeuw;Ben Harris-Roxas;Peter Sainsbury

来源

CITIES,Vol.128,Issue1,Article 103806

语言

英文

关键字

Paradigms;Urban health;Healthy cities;Healthy urban planning;Health social movements;Medical-industrial complex

作者单位

Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE), Part of the UNSW Australia Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, NSW Health, A member of the Ingham Institute;Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE), University of New South Wales;Healthy Urban Environments (HUE) Collaboratory, Maridulu Budyari Gumal Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise SPHERE;School of Population Health, University of New South Wales;School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame;Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE), Part of the UNSW Australia Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, NSW Health, A member of the Ingham Institute;Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE), University of New South Wales;Healthy Urban Environments (HUE) Collaboratory, Maridulu Budyari Gumal Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise SPHERE;School of Population Health, University of New South Wales;School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame

摘要

Scholars, practitioners and policymakers view urban health based on their foundational ontologies, or paradigms, which provide a framework of norms that specifies the policy goals or research questions, the preferred policy instruments or research methodologies, and defines the nature of the urban health issue. This paper identifies four paradigms in current research and practice that address the links between the urban built environment and human health: the ‘medical-industrial city’, ‘urban health science’, ‘healthy built environment’ and ‘health social movement’ paradigms. We argue that scholars, practitioners and policymakers must recognise their diverse and sometimes contradictory views in order to create an opportunity for coherence in understanding knowledge generated from different paradigms.