ABSTRACT
Purpose: An in-depth literature review was undertaken to uncover (1) what are described as the desired outcomes for 20 minute neighbourhoods (20MNs) – the normatively based ends which planners, architects and decision-makers want 20MNs to achieve;(2) the means (the mechanisms, levers, triggers and causal factors) that have to be correctly assembled and lined up for 20MNs to operate as intended and (3), in order to avoid naive environmental determinism, the behavioural changes required to support the operation of 20MNs even where the required configuration of means can be achieved. The content analysis was conducted following guidelines offered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Design/methodology/approach: Growing interest in the urban design concept of the "20MNs” has been greatly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been presented as a way of increasing the quality of local environments by enabling people to meet their daily needs through access to safe walking and cycling routes or by public transport. Internationally, it has captured the imagination of political decision-makers, built-environment practitioners and communities alike, as a life-affirming post-pandemic vision, held up as achieving environmental, health and economic improvements as well as reducing inequalities experienced by many. This paper's overall purpose is to separate the ends pursued in 20MNs from means available for achieving them. Findings: The paper concludes that the ambition to see the 20MNs widely woven into existing urban, suburban and rural neighbourhoods will require significant effort to ensure all that all the component parts of, and key players in, planning's place-delivery systems are aligned and mutually supportive. Even where this can be achieved, further guidance will be needed on (1) how to operationalise the practical implementation of 20MNs and (2) how their success can be measured. Originality/value: The originality of the paper lies in its efforts to discriminate between ends and means – between desired outcomes of 20MNs and the means available for achieving them. The significance of the paper lies here in this attempt to initiate a discussion on possible causal relationships between what is wanted and what would need to be done to achieve it. Without clarity about these relationships, misunderstanding, confusion and barriers to communication may arise across the many different organizations, stakeholder groups and actors involved. This lack of clarity could undermine trust and confidence, potentially undermining both the process and to its outcomes. © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited.
ABSTRACT
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was growing interest in designing healthier neighbourhoods. Adopting this perspective brings attention to how conditions in neighbourhoods (directly and indirectly) affect their inhabitants’ physical health and mental wellbeing. However, considerably less attention has been paid to how to alleviate such conditions through integrated interventions designed to operate specifically at the neighbourhood scale. To address this gap, this paper introduces the term “unhealthy neighbourhood syndrome” (UNS). The conceptual clar-ity and practical utility offered by using this term are critically examined. The paper contains a rigorous review and critical analysis of academic and grey literature on what are held to be the relationships between key features of the built environment and people’s health and wellbeing. It also examines literature offering advice on how urban designers should make neighbourhoods healthier. It illustrates the complexity of the range of issues involved and the complicated web of top down, bottom up and middling out actors that need to be involved in making decisions about them. Despite having inherent weaknesses, the term “unhealthy neighbourhood syndrome” is judged to be useful. It illustrates how seemingly separate issues operate in urban design, promoted for tackling specific symptoms of ill health, need to be addressed jointly through an integrated programme of parallel work streams operating at the neighbourhood scale. The paper is innovative in identifying the wide cluster of symptoms used to describe unhealthy neighbourhoods in the literature as being a “syndrome”. Its significance lies in its injunction that this syndrome needs to be tackled through integrated streams of remedial action drawing on experience and expertise that lie beyond those offered by the traditional membership of urban design teams. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.