Environment

Download complete Environment domain

In the context of this domain, environment comprises the natural environment and built environment. The natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things that occur naturally. The built environment includes the form and function, aesthetic qualities, and distribution across space of all human-made physical elements. These elements include: roads, footpaths, cycle paths, railway tracks, and bridges; residential, commercial, office, and industrial buildings; and public spaces and facilities [1]. The built elements are fundamentally influenced by urban design, land use, and transportation requirements. Nearly all elements of the built environment are shaped, to some extent, by planning rules and government policy [2].

Characteristics of the environment can influence health and wellbeing in direct and indirect ways [1-3]. For example, levels of air pollution, noise, and ease of access to untransformed landscapes are all factors that can directly influence human health and wellbeing. Access to natural environments with high recreational value can buffer stress [4], and visits to public conservation areas can improve mental health and wellbeing [5]. Indirect effects can come about through environmental features that influence health behaviours (for example the availability of sport and recreational facilities can influence the community’s physical activity patterns). Transport systems are also highly relevant as they impact on health and wellbeing through commuting patterns [6] and by providing access to other important services such as education, social and health care services, as well as places of employment.

Key trends within environment

The greater Christchurch region has undergone a period of unprecedented environmental change as a consequence of the Canterbury earthquake sequence, which began on 4 September 2010. Some of the immediate impacts on the environment included substantial damage to land; damage to and substantial losses of dwellings, commercial properties, and workplaces; considerable disruption to transport systems; and the loss of sports, recreation, cultural and leisure facilities.

Overall, a large proportion of Christchurch City respondents to the Canterbury Wellbeing Survey is satisfied with the available community facilities but many respondents still report moderate or major impacts from the loss of sports, recreational, cultural and leisure-time facilities. There has been a statistically significant drop in satisfaction with the ease of access to suitable transport, between the 2017 and 2018 Canterbury Wellbeing Surveys, in greater Christchurch overall, as well as in Waimakariri District and Christchurch City. The alcohol licence density in greater Christchurch in 2016, was lower than for New Zealand as a whole, across the three main licence types: on-licences, off-licences, and club licences. However, time-series data are not yet available for this indicator. Gambling machine density reduced markedly in greater Christchurch immediately following the Canterbury earthquakes (mainly due to the loss of premises), however, the decline has flattened over the past five years, and is now broadly in line with gambling machine density across New Zealand overall. Air quality is an area in which substantial improvements have been made. The number of high-pollution days (PM10 exceedances per year) has decreased substantially within the three airsheds (geographical areas) in greater Christchurch since 2008, notably in Kaiapoi and Rangiora which met the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality in 2018.

Key equity issues within environment

While many indicators within environment relate to geographical areas, rather than to people, a number of inequities are highlighted by Canterbury Wellbeing Survey data. Survey data show those with a long-term health condition or disability to be statistically significantly less satisfied with their ease of access to suitable transport and ease of access to the natural environment, at both of the available time-points (2017 and 2018). Respondents of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity had statistically significantly lower levels of satisfaction with community facilities and with their ease of access to the natural environment than European respondents, at all available time-points. Satisfaction with ease of access to transport, and ease of access to the natural environment, both show a weak gradient by income, with the difference between the lowest income (<$30,000 household income) and highest income ($100,000+ household income) groups being statistically significant in 2017 (and in 2018 for access to the natural environment).

What this means for wellbeing

Many aspects of the environment continue to bear long-term damage caused by the Canterbury earthquake sequence. However, the pattern of change observed across many of the indicators in this domain is one of steady improvement. The impact of loss of sports, recreational, cultural and leisure-time facilities has been monitored since the first Canterbury Wellbeing Survey in 2012 [7] and had shown a statistically significant year-on-year improvement until an increase in impact was recorded in 2018. Three additional survey questions, satisfaction with local community facilities, ease of access to transport, and ease of access to the natural environment, were introduced from 2017, and there are high levels of satisfaction across these measures. Other environment indicators, showing lower density of alcohol licences in greater Christchurch, compared with New Zealand, and falling gambling machine density, have positive implications for wellbeing, as does improved air quality.

References

  1. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE (2002) How the built environment affects physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 23: 64-73.
  2. Perdue WC, Stone LA, Gostin LO (2003) The Built Environment and Its Relationship to the Public’s Health: The Legal Framework. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1390-1394.
  3. Sallis JF, Spoon C, Cavill N, Engelberg JK, Gebel K, et al. (2015) Co-benefits of designing communities for active living: an exploration of literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12: 30.
  4. Björk J, Albin M, Grahn P, Jacobsson H, Ardö J, et al. (2008) Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: e2.
  5. Blaschke P (2013) Health and wellbeing benefits of conservation in New Zealand. Science for Conservation 321.
  6. Juan de Dios Ortúzar, Willumsen LG (2011) Modelling Transport. New York: Wiley.
  7. CERA (2012) CERA Wellbeing Survey 2012 Report, prepared by AC Nielsen for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. AC Nielsen and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
  8. CDHB (2018) Canterbury Wellbeing Survey, June 2018: Report prepared by Nielsen for the Canterbury District Health Board and partnering agencies. Christchurch: Canterbury District Health Board.
  9. Cameron MP, Cochrane W, McNeill K, Melbourne P, Morrison SL, et al. (2012) Alcohol outlet density is related to police events and motor vehicle accidents in Manukau City, New Zealand. Aust NZ J Public Health 36: 537-542.
  10. Livingston M, Chikritzhs T, Room R (2007) Changing the density of alcohol outlets to reduce alcohol-related problems. Drug and Alcohol Review 26: 557-566.
  11. Popova S, Giesbrecht N, Bekmuradov D, Patra J (2009) Hours and days of sale and density of alcohol outlets: Impacts on alcohol consumption and damage: A systematic review. Alcohol and Alcoholism 44: 500-516.
  12. Cameron MP, Cochrane W, Gordon C, Livingston M (2013) The locally-specific impacts of alcohol outlet density in the North Island of New Zealand, 2006-2011. Research report commissioned by the Health Promotion Agency. Wellington: Health Promotion Agency.
  13. Lin E, Casswell S, You R (2008) Assessment of the social impacts of gambling in New Zealand. Auckland: Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation & Te Rōpū Whāriki.
  14. Kristiansen S, Trabjerg Camilla M (2016) Legal gambling availability and youth gambling behaviour: A qualitative longitudinal study. International Journal of Social Welfare 26: 218-229.
  15. Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell M-CO, Hoffman JH (2009) Legal gambling availability and problem gambling among adolescents and young adults. International Gambling Studies 9: 89-99.
  16. Pearce J, Mason K, Hiscock R, Day P (2008) A national study of neighbourhood access to gambling opportunities and individual gambling behaviour. J Epidemiol Community Health 62: 862-868.
  17. Binde P (2013) Why people gamble: A model with five motivational dimensions. International Gambling Studies 13: 81–97.
  18. Wardle H, Keily R, Astbury G, Reith G (2014) 'Risky places?': mapping gambling machine density and socio-economic deprivation. J Gambl Stud 30: 201-212.
  19. Beckert J, Lutter M (2009) The inequality of fair play: Lottery gambling and social stratification in Germany. European Sociological Review 25: 475–488.
  20. Orford J, Wardle H, Griffiths M, Sproston K, Erens B (2010) The role of social factors in gambling: Evidence from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. Community, Work & Family 13: 257–271.
  21. Abbott M, Binde P, Hodgins D, Korn D, Pereira A, et al. (2013) Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling: An International Collaboration. Guelph, Ontario: Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC).
  22. Easton B (2002) Gambling in New Zealand: an economic overview. In: Curtis B, editor. Gambling in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. pp. 45-58.
  23. Department of Internal Affairs Gambling in Pubs and Clubs (Class 4). Wellington: The Department of Internal Affairs.
  24. Abbott M, Bellringer M, Garrett N, Mundy-McPherson S (2016) New Zealand National Gambling Study: Wave 3 (2014). Report number 5. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology, Gambling and Addictions Research Centre.
  25. CDHB (2017) Canterbury Wellbeing Survey, June 2017: Report prepared by Nielsen for the Canterbury District Health Board and partnering agencies. Christchurch: Canterbury District Health Board.
  26. Environment Canterbury Regional Council (2018) Air Quality in the Canterbury Region – Winter 2018 Update: Environment Canterbury Environmental Snapshot Report. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury Regional Council.
  27. World Health Organization (2013) Health effects of particulate matter. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
  28. World Health Organization (2005) WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide: Global update 2005, Summary of risk assessment.