Five urban health research traditions: A meta-narrative review.

Kim, J; de Leeuw, E; Harris-Roxas, B; Sainsbury, P

Five urban health research traditions: A meta-narrative review.

Kim, J de Leeuw, E Harris-Roxas, B

Sainsbury, P

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Soc Sci Med, 2023, 336, pp. 116265
Issue Date:: 2023-11

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.95 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Kim, J
dc.contributor.author	de Leeuw, E
dc.contributor.author	Harris-Roxas, B https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1716-2009
dc.contributor.author	Sainsbury, P
dc.date.accessioned	2024-05-28T20:59:48Z
dc.date.available	2023-09-22
dc.date.available	2024-05-28T20:59:48Z
dc.date.issued	2023-11
dc.identifier.citation	Soc Sci Med, 2023, 336, pp. 116265
dc.identifier.issn	0277-9536
dc.identifier.issn	1873-5347
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179287
dc.description.abstract	Urban health scholars explore the connection between the urban space and health through ontological perspectives that are shaped by their disciplinary traditions. Without explicit recognition of the different approaches, there are barriers to collaboration. This paper maps the terrain of the urban health scholarship to identify key urban health research traditions; and to articulate the main features distinguishing these different traditions. We apply a meta-narrative review guided by a bibliometric co-citation network analysis to the body of research on urban health retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Five urban health research traditions were identified: (1) sustainable urban development, (2) urban ecosystem services, (3) urban resilience, (4) healthy urban planning, and (5) urban green spaces. Each research tradition has a different conceptual and thematic perspective to addressing urban health. These include perspectives on the scale of the urban health issue of interest, and on the conceptualisation of the urban context and health. Additionally, we developed a framework to allow for better differentiation between the differing research traditions based on (1) perspectives of the urban system as complicated or complex, (2) the preferred locus of change as a function of structure and agency and (3) the geographic scale of the urban health issue that is addressed. These dimensions have even deeper implications for transdisciplinary collaboration as they are underpinned by paradigmatic differences, rather than disciplinary differences. We conclude that it is essential for urban health researchers to reflect on the different urban health approaches and seek coherence by understanding their similarities and differences. Such endeavours are required to produce and interpret transdisciplinary knowledge for the goal of improving health by transforming urban systems.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	Soc Sci Med
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116265
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 14 Economics, 16 Studies in Human Society
dc.subject.classification	Public Health
dc.subject.classification	38 Economics
dc.subject.classification	42 Health sciences
dc.subject.classification	44 Human society
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Urban Health
dc.subject.mesh	Ecosystem
dc.subject.mesh	Sustainable Development
dc.subject.mesh	Bibliometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Ecosystem
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status
dc.subject.mesh	Bibliometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Urban Health
dc.subject.mesh	Sustainable Development
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Urban Health
dc.subject.mesh	Ecosystem
dc.subject.mesh	Sustainable Development
dc.subject.mesh	Bibliometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status
dc.title	Five urban health research traditions: A meta-narrative review.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	336
utslib.location.activity	England
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	14 Economics
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-05-28T20:59:46Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	336

Abstract:

Urban health scholars explore the connection between the urban space and health through ontological perspectives that are shaped by their disciplinary traditions. Without explicit recognition of the different approaches, there are barriers to collaboration. This paper maps the terrain of the urban health scholarship to identify key urban health research traditions; and to articulate the main features distinguishing these different traditions. We apply a meta-narrative review guided by a bibliometric co-citation network analysis to the body of research on urban health retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Five urban health research traditions were identified: (1) sustainable urban development, (2) urban ecosystem services, (3) urban resilience, (4) healthy urban planning, and (5) urban green spaces. Each research tradition has a different conceptual and thematic perspective to addressing urban health. These include perspectives on the scale of the urban health issue of interest, and on the conceptualisation of the urban context and health. Additionally, we developed a framework to allow for better differentiation between the differing research traditions based on (1) perspectives of the urban system as complicated or complex, (2) the preferred locus of change as a function of structure and agency and (3) the geographic scale of the urban health issue that is addressed. These dimensions have even deeper implications for transdisciplinary collaboration as they are underpinned by paradigmatic differences, rather than disciplinary differences. We conclude that it is essential for urban health researchers to reflect on the different urban health approaches and seek coherence by understanding their similarities and differences. Such endeavours are required to produce and interpret transdisciplinary knowledge for the goal of improving health by transforming urban systems.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179287