ABSTRACT
Research has demonstrated that housing quality is a key urban intervention in reducing health risks and improving climate resilience, addressing a key ambition of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Yet housing quality remains a problem even in high income countries such as England. In particular, hazards such as excess cold, excess heat and lack of ventilation leading to damp and mould have been identified as a major issue in homes. Research shows that these hazards can lead to a range of health conditions, such as respiratory and cardiovascular disease, infections and mental health problems. This article explores the use of public health research and evidence in policy to regulate new buildings in England to deliver improved public health, climate resilience and a reduced carbon footprint, in particular exploring the policy drivers and awareness of the public health evidence. Findings show that public health evidence is hardly referenced in policy and that the focus on other evidence bases such as on climate mitigation in building regulations results in both positive and negative impacts on health. This reflects a lack of a systems approach around urban interventions leading to weaknesses in standards regulating the private development sector. In conclusion, this paper recommends: 1. the consideration of health impact in future building regulations; 2. the integration and coordination of key policies covering various scales and phases of the development processes and 3. the better education of residents to understand advances in new energy performance technologies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In England, nearly one child in ten lives in overcrowded housing. Crowding is likely to worsen with increasing population size, urbanisation, and the ongoing concerns about housing shortages. Children with behavioural difficulties are at increased risk of mental and physical health problems and poorer employment prospects. OBJECTIVE: To test the association between the level of crowding in the home and behavioural problems in children, and to explore what factors might explain the relationship. METHODS: Mothers of 2576 children from the Southampton Women's Survey population-based mother-offspring cohort were interviewed. Crowding was measured at age 2 years by people per room (PPR) and behavioural problems assessed at age 3 years with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Both were analysed as continuous measures, and multivariable linear regression models were fitted, adjusting for confounding factors: gender, age, single-parent family, maternal education, receipt of benefits, and social class. Potential mediators were assessed with formal mediation analysis. RESULTS: The characteristics of the sample were broadly representative of the population in England. Median (IQR) SDQ score was 9 (6-12) and PPR was 0.75 (0.6-1). In households that were more crowded, children tended to have more behavioural problems (by 0.20 SDQ points (95% CI 0.08, 0.32) per additional 0.2 PPR, adjusting for confounding factors). This relationship was partially mediated by greater maternal stress, less sleep, and strained parent-child interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a more crowded home was associated with a greater risk of behavioural problems, independent of confounding factors. The findings suggest that improved housing might reduce childhood behavioural problems and that families living in crowded circumstances might benefit from greater support.
