It is too simplistic to see housing as merely a physical dwelling in which one resides. The World Health Organization (WHO) (Bonnefoy, 2007) defines housing as being based on four interlinked levels, with an array of possible health effects in each:

• the physical structure, including factors such as mould growth, quality, design, and noise exposure;
• the meaning of “home” as a protective, safe and intimate refuge where one develops a sense of identity and attachment;
• the immediate housing environment, including the quality of urban design (e.g., public services, playgrounds, green space, parks, places to socialise); and
• the community, that is, the quality of the neighbourhood and its relation to social cohesion, sense of trust and collective efficacy.

Shaw (2004) categorises these levels in a model that indicates how housing affects health, through direct and indirect, hard and soft ways (see Figure 1). This paper mainly concentrates on the direct, “soft” ways in which housing can influence health, that is, the effects of poor housing; insecurity and debt; and housing as a component of general wellbeing, ontological security³ and social status perception. Each of these issues is addressed in the following sections.

Figure 1: Direct and indirect (hard and soft) ways in which housing can affect health

Reproduced with permission from Shaw (2004)

Poor quality housing/housing conditions

In his review of the relationship between the built environment and mental health, Evans (2003) notes that house type (e.g., high-rise), floor level, and housing quality (e.g., structural problems) have all been linked to mental health. Studies on house type have suggested that high-rise, multi-dwelling units are detrimental to psychological wellbeing, particularly that of mothers with young children and possibly the children themselves (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003). This may be due to social isolation, a lack of access to play spaces that promote social interaction, the stigmatisation of high-rise living, or a combination of these. Evans, Wells and Moch’s (2003) review of 27 studies suggests that overall housing quality⁴ is positively correlated with psychological wellbeing, although issues that may affect this relationship include identity/self-esteem, anxiety about structural hazards or a fear of crime.

Evans (2003) provides some explanations for the possible link between issues with housing quality and mental health, including insecurity/tenure concerns, difficulties with repairs and landlords, frequent relocations, less controllable social interactions, and stigma associated with poor housing. There is some evidence to suggest that when people move to better quality housing, mental health can improve (AHURI, 2005; Evans, Wells, Chan, & Saltzman, 2000; Wells & Harris, 2007), with Evans, Wells, Chan, & Saltzman (2000) finding that the degree of improvement in housing predicted the level of change in psychological distress.

One large-scale, cross-sectional, European housing and health study by the World Health Organization has indicated a relationship between depression/anxiety and living in a dwelling that: has insufficient protection against external aggressions, e.g., cold, draughts, noise; has little space for solitude or freedom; lacks light and/or an external view; does not facilitate socialisation; and is prone to vandalism. Low socioeconomic status, fear of losing dwelling, an inability to move due to financial constraints, and a bad image of the neighbourhood also contributed to anxiety and depression (Bonnefoy et al., 2004).

Source(s):

AIFS

The impacts of tourism can be sorted into seven general categories:

1. Economic
2. Environmental
3. Social and cultural
4. Crowding and congestion
5. Services
6. Taxes
7. Community attitude

Each category includes positive and negative impacts. Not all impacts are applicable to every community because conditions or resources differ. Community and tourism leaders must balance an array of impacts that may either improve or negatively affect communities and their residents. Leaders must be sensitive and visionary, and must avoid the temptation of glossing over certain difficulties tourism development creates. Tourism leaders must also balance the opportunities and concerns of all community sectors by working against conditions where positive impacts benefit one part of the community (geographic or social) and negative impacts hurt another. Conversely, community sensitivity to tourism means avoiding undue burdens on the industry that could thwart its success. Local leaders should not expect tourism to solve all community problems. Tourism is just one element of a community. While creative strategic development of tourism amenities and services can enhance the community or correct local deficiencies, tourism, like all business development, must assure that its products (attractions and services) attract customers. Overbearing rules and restrictions, and overburdening taxes can make tourism businesses less attractive or competitive.

Understanding Tourism Conflicts

Different groups are often concerned about different tourism impacts. To generalize, where one group embraces the e c o n o m i c impacts of tourism, another group experiences social and cultural i m p a c t s , while another is affected by tourism’s e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts. In theory, the interests of each group could be completely separate.For example, Group A could include the business community and people who are in need of the jobs offered by tourism. Group B might include residents who feel displaced by an influx of visitors. Group C could be local outdoor enthusiasts concerned about changes in natural resources. In such a case, each group would have completely different outlooks on tourism. Ideally, all groups could be positively affected and would support the community’s tourism efforts. However, when group interests are divergent, differing perspectives can make consensus on tourism development difficult. In most cases, groups with interests in one area of tourism will also have interests or concerns about other tourism impacts as diagramed in Figure 1b. In these situations, there are common areas of interest and a greater likelihood that each group will show more appreciation for the concerns of the other groups. Finding commonality provides a starting point for resolving tourism issues.

 Economic impacts

usually seen as positive, contributing to employment, better services, and social stability. Also it may improve in terms of cultural education which one may have not considered. Yet these impacts can also contribute to high living costs within the community, pushing local business out of the areas, and raising costs for locals .

Environmental impacts

Impacts that affect the carrying capacity of the area, vegetation, air quality, bodies of water, the water table, wildlife, and natural phenomena.

Social and Cultural 

Associated with interactions between peoples and culture background, attitudes and behaviors, and their relationships to material goods. The introduction of tourists to sensitive areas can be detrimental, cause a loss of culture, or, alternatively, contribute to the preservation of culture and cultural sites through increased resources. Relationship between culture and tourism is a strong one.The widespread cultural, economic and social benefits lead to at policies promoting linking culture and tourism or the narrower development of “cultural tourism”  worldwide at continental, national and regional levels. In Europe,  the European Commission promotes cultural tourism as a means of underpinning the “unity in diversity” of the EU population.

Community Attitude

Visitor interest and satisfaction in the community is a source of local pride. Seeing visitor interest makes localresidents more appreciative of local resources that are often taken for granted. As tourism develops, local residents will enjoy more facilities and a greater range of choices. Tourism activities and events tend to make living in a place more interesting and exciting.

However,tension between residents and tourists can occur. People will often feel stressed over the new, increasingly hectic community and personal pace of life. They may claim the result is no better than before or perhaps even worse. Where culture is part of the tourist attractions, over-amplification of cultural traits and creation of “new” cultural traits to satisfy tourist tastes may create a phony culture.

Source(s):

SeaGrant