The Role of Smart Growth Neighborhoods in the Physical, Mental, and Social

Health of Residents
Matt Baumgardner
ENVL-3311
Dr. Moscovici

Table of Contents
Introduction... 3
Background... 3
Physical Health Effects. 4
Activity 4
Environmental Factors on Health 5
Social Contributors.. 6
Case Study The Preserve... 6
Mental Health Effects... 6
Effects of Green Space. 7
Fear of Crime... 7
Happiness and Satisfaction.. 7
Social Aspects.. 8
Case Study Miami, FL.. 8
Results & Suggestion 9
Conclusion.. 10
Works Cited 11

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

Introduction
Growth and development seem to have become an inevitable part of our society. As the world
population increases, more people need places to live. This leads to a necessity for more housing. These
developments tend to be spread far from one another and on large plots of land. This trend is known as
urban sprawl, more commonly referred to as suburbs, and it is unsustainable. These types of practices are
creating an ever growing demand on Earths natural resources and changing human behavior. Humans
depend on automobiles to reach schools, shops, restaurants, and practically every other point of interest
due to poor urban planning practices. Consequently, people spend more time sitting in cars and less time
interacting with other people, and this takes a toll on their physical, mental, and social well-being.
However, there is another growing trend in urban planning known as smart growth that seeks to put an
end to the sprawling and distant neighborhoods that have become so rampant in the past five decades. If
executed properly, smart growth neighborhoods and developments could have beneficial effects on the
residents physical, mental and social health, thus improving the overall quality of life.
This paper aims to provide a brief history and description of smart growth neighborhoods so that
the research provided may be better understood. It will discuss the effects that certain aspects of smart
growth development have on both physical and mental health by comparing residents of smart growth and
sprawl neighborhoods. In each section, the importance of social capital will be discussed and a case study
will be examined. Finally, suggestions will be provided that will hopefully promote the widespread use of
smart growth planning as well as improve upon the already established principles and ideas of the
movement so that they may be more effective around the world.
Background
The relationship between urban form and public health can be seen throughout history, but for the
purpose of this paper, consider the industrial revolution in both Europe and the United States. When
industrial development began to explode in the 19th century, most people were concentrated in cities, but

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

epidemics such as cholera, yellow fever and typhoid quickly spread through them. These occurred due to
the high density of people living with minimal, if any, sanitation. Therefore, people began moving to the
countryside because it was believed that it would be healthier if they had open space and fresh air (Frank
& Engelke, 2005). This was the beginning of urban sprawl; low density development with separated land
uses and the division of nature and development.
Urban sprawl as we know it today grew uncontrolled in the second half of the 20th century. Even
through those decades, some experts recognized the damage that was being done and argued that urban
planning should retake the form of traditional neighborhoods that were built before World War II to
mitigate the deleterious effects of sprawl. In the 1990s, this idea took on the name of smart growth and
has slowly been gaining traction ever since. Though there is not one universal definition of smart growth,
the various definitions espouse the same principles. Some of these major principles are creating a range of
housing options, promoting walkability, encouraging community collaboration, making fair and costeffective development decisions, mixed land usage, preserving open space, farmland and natural
environments, various transportation options, and compact building designs. New urbanism is another
movement often used synonymously with smart growth, but relates more to the physical planning and
architecture rather than policy planning like smart growth (Knaap & Talen, 2005). Still, smart growth is
not extremely widespread and there is plenty of opposition from the automobile industry, property rights
activists, and developers. Some argue that the higher accessibility and walkability of the streets increase
the likelihood of dangerous situations (Hedayati, et al., 2016). Others claim that increased building
density can increase exposure to noise and thus increase stress (Miles, et al., 2012). Clearly, smart growth
is not a movement without contention.
Physical Health Effects
Activity
One of the key aspects of smart growth neighborhoods is the promotion of walkable and
accessible streets. In theory, if it is a safe and short distance to their destination, people will walk or bike
rather than drive their car. This is not physical activity in the sense of recreation, but rather utilitarian
exercise. These types of activities are inherently dependent on the built environment and whether or not it
is practical (Frank & Engelke, 2005). Urban sprawl design does not make utilitarian exercise practical, as
seen in Figure 1. The long distances from homes to shopping or recreation centers are often only
connected by major arterial roadways that are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. Jackson (2003) supports
the idea that gridded street patterns with mixed land use regulations and high densities increase pedestrian
and bicycle activity. While Song (2005) does not disagree with this pattern, she states that it is rarely
executed properly. Places like Portland, OR, Orange County, FL, and Montgomery County, MD are
notorious for their smart growth development patterns but lack comprehensive utilization of the above
stated aspects in order to maximize the physical environments effectiveness. Smart growth

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

neighborhoods would most effectively provide a suitable walking environment when correctly executed.
Therefore, planners should take pedestrians into special consideration in order to make the neighborhood
safer and more enjoyable.
This is especially relevant to older adults. Chaudhury et al. (2016) studied the activity levels of
adults over the age of 65 in the greater Vancouver and Portland areas. This study acquired their data
through self-reported levels of activity but took into consideration the effects of the built environment.
The results showed that most citizens partook in physical activity within only a few blocks of their home.
Any aspect of the physical environment (i.e. walkability and presence of amenities) that are farther than
that distance did not register as statistically significant in affecting levels of activity. When physical
activity is embedded in older residents daily routines, they are more likely to meet the recommended
amount of exercise on a more regular basis. It is clear that the physical form of neighborhoods influences

Fig.1 - Images are the same scale, but the left shows a travel distance of 1.3 miles while the right is only 0.5 mi
the physical activity of residents, whether they are aware or not. Thus, it is important to provide these
amenities so that they may be utilized.
Environmental Factors on Health
This section will examine how the environment of neighborhoods affect the health of residents.
This includes things like pollution, green spaces, and available facilities. Air pollution is a serious concern
in areas of high development. Increased automobile usage has been linked to an increasing number of
cases of asthma because of the pollutants that are released. In fact, there were 41.6% less asthma related
hospital admission in Atlanta, GA in 1996 when driving decreased by 22.5% due to the Olympic Games
(Jackson, 2003). Frank & Engelke (2005) support this and contribute that, of the 6 criteria pollutants
established by the EPA, the two most critical in regards to human health are particulate matter and ground

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

level ozone. It has also been determined that in cities with high sprawl indices have a higher number of
reported cases of lung disease, trouble breathing, and chronic migraines (Sturm & Cohen, 2004). All of
these symptoms could be linked to increased air pollution from high automobile usage due to sprawl.
Discouraging the use of automobiles and encouraging the use of public transit, biking, or walking as main
forms of transportation will improve air quality and subsequently the health of the population.
Water quality is an important consideration for public health. Advocates argue that smart growth
would reduce impermeable surface coverage and therefore reduce runoff and watershed pollution.
However, there is little evidence to support their claims (Pelley, 2004). More research is needed in order
to determine if decreased amounts of impermeable surfaces in smart growth areas affect the quality of the
local watershed. In addition, green spaces are thought to improve the health of individuals where they
exist either by providing fresh air, or a location for physical activity. Although those who have access to
green spaces report better health, there is no statistical proof that these open areas provide a significant
improvement on physical health (Triguero-Mas, et al., 2015).
Finally, it is interesting to consider how the physical environment correlates to chronic medical
conditions like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. Jackson (2003) says that the epidemic of cases in
the United States is heavily consequential of poor urban design. Sturm & Cohen (2004) found that, in
cities with more characteristics of sprawl, a higher number of self-reported chronic maladies were
observed. Though they did not examine any specific smart growth developments, their results do establish
a trend to support the idea that such development would harbor less chronic physical health conditions.
Social Contributors
An individuals social interactions play a major role in their physical activity. According to
Chaudhury et al. (2016), a person relationship with friends, family, and neighbors were found to be very
important in influencing the older citizens activity. Certain aspects of smart growth such as street grid
patterns, mixed land usage, and high density housing maximize social interaction (Jackson, 2003). These
results shed a new light on the impact that social capital can have on residents. Botchwey et al. (2014)
emphasize the opportunities and importance of utilizing community centers, such as schools, to hold
community events and programs. Therefore, special attention must be paid to promoting social programs
because a stronger sense of community may also promote physical activity.
Case Study The Preserve Chino, CA
Jerrett et al. (2013) studied the activity trends of children ages 8-14 in California. Specifically,
they compared how active the children in conventional sprawl neighborhoods were to those living in the
smart growth community known as The Preserve in Chino, CA. As opposed to most similar studies, the
participants wore accelerometers and GPS devices to track real time activity levels. The results were
adjusted to consider day length and exclude times that the children were in school. They discovered that
the children living in The Preserve were 46% more likely to reach the recommended 60 minutes of
moderate-to-vigorous physical activity every day, though that does not necessarily mean that those

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

recommended levels were met. Though these results are positive, there are still some limitations to the
study. First, the inclusion criteria were extremely strict. Also, at the time of the study, The Preserve was
not yet finished growing and developing (Jerrett, et al., 2013). Still, the increased amount of activity in
The Preserve is encouraging. If more smart growth neighborhoods are developed, the number of cases of
childhood obesity may decrease as a result. In addition, physical activity in local neighborhoods could
encourage social interaction with other children. Thus, not only will children be active, they will develop
important social skills that will improve overall health. Though The Preserve is still a young and
developing neighborhood, the future for the area, and similar areas, is bright.
Mental Health Effects
Effects of Green Space
Green spaces can have a distinctive impact on mental health. The values of wilderness and nature
have been espoused by environmentalists throughout history. Green spaces may be even more important
now that most people live in urbanized areas. The ability to view nature and vegetation has been shown to
increase productivity and overall happiness & mental well-being (Jackson, 2003). Now, it is crucial to
understand how and why green space improves mental health. There are examples proving that people
need easily accessible nature areas, not necessarily to immerse themselves in it, but to feel connected to it.
Simply being able to see nature reduces stress (Tiguero-Mas et al., 2015). This suggests that a larger
number of smaller green spaces could be most effective because they are more readily available to a
higher number of residents. In order to understand how people use green spaces and determine what those
users deem valuable characteristics, Grahn & Stigsdotter (2010) established 8 factors of green spaces that
they ranked in order of importance based on responses from users. In order, these factors are: serenity,
space, nature, species richness, refuge, culture, prospect, and social. This information is slightly
contradictory to Tiguero-Mas et al. (2015), suggesting that immersion in parks and nature is critical.
However, it still indicates the significance of green spaces in reducing stress and depression. With this,
planners could maximize the most valuable characteristics of parks to make them as effective as possible
in improving mental health.
Fear of Crime
It is important that residents of any area are safe and can travel comfortably through their town
without the fear of crime. Advocates for smart growth believe that social interaction can make residents
feel safer knowing that they are familiar with the community. However, Hedayati et al. (2015) came to the
opposite conclusion. They found that even though people desire familiarity with their community, those
who live in gridded street patterns showed a significantly higher fear of crime than those living in
neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs. These results suggest that smart growth, in fact, does not promote social
interaction based on urban form. Instead, neighborhoods with sprawl characteristics like cul-de-sacs
provide a better social cohesion with a smaller group of neighbors. When considered in this way, it is not

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

the actual design of the neighborhood that influences a feeling of safety. Instead, it is the social
interactions that the neighborhood design promotes that increases the sense of safety.
Happiness and Satisfaction
Neighborhood satisfaction and overall happiness are dependent on everything about the area, but

Fig. 2 Satisfaction responses of participants in traditional vs. suburban/sprawl neighborhoods (Lovejoy et al., 2
Leyden et al. (2011) attempted to determine what exactly made people happy when it came to urban
design. They discovered that people were consistently happier when they had easy access to things like
parks, libraries, cultural and leisure amenities, and shops. This shows that the built environment can, in
fact, affect a persons mental state. When amenities such as the ones stated above are easily accessible and
widespread, it is more likely that those neighborhoods will have smart growth design aspects. Also, in
their comparative study of 8 California neighborhoods (4 suburban and 4 traditional), Lovejoy et al.
(2010) found that residents were statistically more pleased in traditional neighborhoods when it came to
characteristics of the neighborhood, location of the neighborhood, and location of the region.
Characteristics of residence were not statistically distinguishable (See figure 2). These results are
consistent with the study done by Leyden et al. in that neighborhoods with smart growth characteristics
have more satisfied residents. This can be credited to the urban form and amenities provided by such
neighborhoods. Thus, smart growth neighborhoods potentially promotes happiness.
Social Aspects
Furthermore, social interaction can be very beneficial to mental health as well. Aside from green
spaces, it would seem that mental health is most impacted by the way the neighborhood design allows
residents to interact rather than the design itself. Therefore, the importance of social capital for mental
health increases. When residents of an area are familiar with each other and are capable of forming a

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

community bond with high social cohesion, mental health issues like depression, stress and fear are
consistently lower, regardless of neighborhood design. Thus, promoting social interaction through
community programs, community centers, and group activities should boost social capital even higher,
making smart growth neighborhoods more effective in supporting mental health.
Case Study Miami, FL and Depression
Miles et al. (2011) studied the effects of Miamis urban form on residents and possible depressive
symptoms. They examined three aspects of urban
form, specifically housing density, land use
diversity, and acres of green space. To measure
depressive symptoms, the authors utilized a scale
developed by the National Institute of Mental Health
that has been proven valid and reliable. Areas with
high housing density were not statistically associated
with higher levels of mixed land use, but they were
associated with high levels of automobile traffic. On
the other hand, areas with greater land use diversity
were associated with less automobile traffic. The
authors results showed the following relationships.
First, a high density of dwelling units is associated
with fewer symptoms of depression. Second, mixed
land use has neither a positive or negative impact.
And finally, green spaces were not statistically
significant but were consistent with other studies

Fig. 3 Poorly distributed green space in study area is not

declaring their importance for mental health. However, in areas with heavy automobile traffic, the
resulting noise was found to cause more depressive symptoms (Miles et al., 2011). These results are fairly
encouraging to smart growth advocates. While they are not entirely definitive, they show that high density
dwelling units are not bad for mental health as some adversaries of smart growth would argue. The results
on green space provide further proof of their benefits for mental health, considering green space is not
evenly distributed in the Miami area. In addition, Miami is not known for its smart growth design (see
figure 3), therefore the study would be more useful had it been done on an actual smart growth
neighborhood. Nonetheless, areas with less sprawl showed some results consistent with the goals of smart
growth.
Results and Suggestions
Overall, smart growth neighborhoods have shown that they can play a substantial role in the
physical, mental and social well-being of people who reside within them. The physical form of a

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

neighborhood can be conducive to healthier behaviors and lifestyles such as physical exercise, healthier
environments, stress reduction and increased happiness. However, the social opportunities that develop
from these types of neighborhoods are also extremely important. Whether a neighborhood has mixed land
usage, high density dwelling units, green spaces, ample public transit, or any other key aspect of smart
growth, they all seem to promote social interactions that, in turn, result in an improvement of physical and
mental health.
Although there are many studies to provide evidence to this end, there are also studies that
contradict this. It is important that research continues in order to gain a firmer understanding of how
exactly neighborhood design can affect public health. Specifically, more research should be done to
discover how the built environment can play a role in chronic mental health. In addition, objective
research will be much more informative of physical activity levels in smart growth neighborhoods.
Finally, a comprehensive study on how different principles of smart growth affect social capital would be
immensely informative.
Smart growth neighborhoods still have a lot of room for improvement. The following suggestions
might be able to help maximize the effectiveness of smart growth neighborhoods in promoting physical,
mental and social health. First, diversity of all kinds is important. This includes species richness in nature
areas, different facilities for recreation & social gatherings, and a variety of commercial sites (Ahern,
2011). The greater economic, social, and natural vibrancy will make the community more resilient and
adaptable to changes. Second, promotion of community-wide social programs to encourage familiarity
with fellow citizens. The importance of social capital is obvious and by giving more opportunities for
citizens to interact with one another, its positive effects will be maximized. Third, the community needs to
be educated on the facilities and resources available to them. Too often are resources under-utilized
simply because people are unaware. Fourth, incentives for public transit or active transportation will be
beneficial. In the same respect, disincentives for automobile use will further encourage active
transportation or public transit. Fifth, community involvement in decision making is always important.
Public forums allows citizens to voice their opinions and will help in making the best decision for the
community. Finally, the encouragement of local farms and markets. This was not found in any of the
research done, but can promote healthy eating habits and boost the local economy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the design of smart growth neighborhoods has the potential to truly promote
physical, mental and social health of residents. The study done in Chino, CA showed that even in new and
underdeveloped smart growth communities, physical activity is higher than sprawl neighborhoods. With
even more efficiently planned and well established neighborhoods, sedentary lifestyles and resulting
chronic medical conditions could decrease. Also, the study done by Miles et al. in Miami, FL showed that
there is possibility in better mental health conditions in neighborhoods with less sprawl characteristics. In

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

10

addition, the promotion of social capital can lead to happier and more satisfied residents. Despite these
results, the research of smart growth neighborhoods is still a relatively new area, especially when it comes
to public health. It takes time to observe how communities utilize and conform to certain smart growth
characteristics. These communities can maximize their potential to influence healthy lifestyles by
planning for diversity, social encouragement, and community education. In addition, incentivizing local
produce and farmers markets as well as discouraging the use of personal vehicles will produce a healthy
environment that encourages physical activity and social interaction. No community will be exactly the
same, because finding a balance between the triple bottom line of economy, environment, and community
is unique for every region. Smart growth development could possibly be the sustainable route to generally
healthier societies in a world increasingly plagued by sedentary lifestyles.

Works Cited
Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the
new urban world.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341-343.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
Botchwey, N. D., Trowbridge, M., & Fisher, T. (2014). Green health: urban planning and the
development of healthy and sustainable neighborhoods and schools. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 34(2), 113-122. doi:10.1177/0739456X14531830

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

11

Chaudhury, H., Campo, M., Michael, Y., & Mahmood, A. (2016). Neighbourhood environment and
physical activity in older adults. Social Science & Medicine, 149, 104-113.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.011
Frank, L. D., & Engelke, P. (2005). Multiple impacts of the built environment on
public health: walkable
places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional Science
Review, 28(2), 193-216. doi:10.1177/0160017604273853
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory
dimensions of urban green
space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3), 264-275.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012
Hedayati Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., & Maghsoodi Tilaki, M. J. (2016). The effectiveness of
interventions in the built environment for improving health by addressing fear of crime.
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2015.12.002
Jackson, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and
condition. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 64(4), 191-200. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00230-X
Jerrett, M., Almanza, E., Davies, M., Wolch, J., Dunton, G., Spruitj-Metz, D., & Pentz, M. (2013). Smart
growth community design and physical activity in children. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 45(4), 386-392. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.05.010
Knaap, G., & Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and smart growth: a few words from
the academy.
International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 107-118.
doi:10.1177/0160017604273621
Leyden, K. M., Goldberg, A., & Michelbach, P. (2011). Understanding the pursuit of
happiness in ten
major cities. Urban Affairs Review, 47(6), 861-888.
doi:10.1177/1078087411403120
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in
suburban versus
traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in
eight california neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37-48.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.010
Miles, R., Coutts, C., & Mohamadi, A. (2012). Neighborhood urban form, social environment, and
depression. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine , 89(1), 118. doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9621-2
Pelley, J. (2004,). Is smart growth better for water quality? Environmental Science &
Technology.
Song, Y. (2005). Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative
study. International
Regional Science Review, 28(2), 239-265. doi:10.1177/0160017604273854
Sturm, R., & Cohen, D. A. (2004). Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health. Public Health,
118(7), 488-496. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2004.02.007
Triguero-Mas, M., Dadvand, P., Cirach, M., Martinez, D., Medina, A., Mompart, A., . Nieuwenhuijsen,
M. J. (2015). Natural outdoor environments and mental and physical health: Relationships and
mechanisms. Environment International, 77, 35-41. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.01.012

SMART GROWTH AND PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIAL HEALTH

12