See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340363537

THE INFLUENCE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

Presentation · May 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 363

5 authors, including:

Azza El Bakry Mohammed Ouda

Cairo University Giza Engineering Insitiute
10 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Ouda on 10 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE, VOL. 67, NO. 6, DEC. 2020, PP. 1415-1433
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

THE EFFECT OF URBAN DENSITY ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

M. OUDA1, M. STINO2, AND N. ABD EL AZIZ3

ABSTRACT

Existing research on the health effects on the built environment have

concentrated predominantly on human physical health. The potential role of urban
density in supporting individuals’ mental well-being is understudied. The objective of
this study is to contribute to filling this research gap. The study is based on a cross-
sectional survey of 400 residents in four urban areas in Cairo, Egypt, with different
socioeconomic characters. Multivariate statistical analyses were used to analyze the
associations between observed and perceived urban density and the inhabitants’ mental
well-being. A Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale is used to score well-
being. The study found a strong correlation between well-being and high-density in
medium socioeconomic residential areas. Moreover, well-being highly correlated with
low-density in high socioeconomic residential areas. Several aspects of the residential
and neighborhood environment were strongly associated with mental well-being after
controlling demographic factors such as aesthetic aspects, sense of safety, and overall
satisfaction of individuals' home and neighborhood.

KEYWORDS: Mental Well-being, Urban density, Environmental Psychology, Urban

Design, Built Environment.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, promoting mental well-being in societies is one of the most

significant social topics, whether in the developed, developing, or underdeveloped
cities. The studies in environmental psychology explored well-being as a core
principle in the broad conceptual framework of human-built environment planning,
which encompasses current debates concerning climate change, urban sustainability,
and city resilience [1-7].

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, Cairo University,
Giza, Egypt, m.ouda.lsa@hotmail.com.
2
Professor, Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, Cairo University, Giza,
Egypt.
3
Associate Professor, Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, Cairo University,
Giza, Egypt.
 M. OUDA ET AL

Mental well-being is a global concern; it is agreed that one among four to six
persons, in most cities all over the world, suffer from mental illness such as
depression, anxiety, and stress [8]. It is known that mental ill health forms a huge
burden on countries' economies as it costs billions per year. For example, in the U.K,
mental healthcare costs have been estimated to exceed 77 billion English pounds per
year. The statement for sick leaves and presenteeism (in which individuals perform
their jobs in illness state, or they do not proceed with their tasks due to job distress) in
the place of work costs 26 billion pounds. Additionally, the expenses on dementia is
expected to increase from 20 billion pounds to an estimate of 50 billion pounds during
the coming 25 years [9]. In many European cities, the expenses of production lose
value as a result of low rates of mental well-being is a significant ratio of the overall
domestic production [10]. Furthermore, depression estimated cost alone in European
countries is 41 billion euros and 77 billion euros due to lost productivity [11]. In
Egypt, a study on the national prevailing mental illness covered 14,680 adults between
the ages of 18-64 in five different regions, and found that 16.93% suffered from
mental disorders [12].
While many researchers tackled the relationship between the built environment
and mental health and verified the simultaneous impact between both [13-15] at
different levels of the cities [16-19], still less is known about the specific elements of
the built environment that affect mental well-being [13]. Moreover, the physical built
environment is not just determined by physical features, but can also be viewed as a
psychosocial environment; it is similar to the approaches that were addressed in the
topics of health inequality and the place of work [20]. The built environment can be a
place that supports the individual’s positive or unpleasant experience or the view of
oneself in relation to others, for instance a sense of trust, self-control, and self-esteem.
These psychosocial pathways make rational hypothesized attributions between the
perceived physical environment and positive mental well-being.
Various aspects of the built environment affect mental well-being; these aspects
are explained by a recent study by Burton, which established relationships between
these aspects and mental well-being. These aspects are density, mix of uses and

1416
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

proximity to facilities, integrity of green spaces, street configuration, housing form,

views of soft edges, sense of safety, daylighting, sound insulation, and attractiveness
[21].
There are pivotal questions relating to the future of the development of human
settlements as they invade the environment and social well-being. Density as an
element of the built environment raises two questions on how it affects well-being, and
how this impact is shaped. This study seeks to explore the impact of population
density on people’s mental well-being. Examining this influence can consequently
reveal the conflicts between the environment and social sustainability in relation to
human well-being. Furthermore, there is a shortage of studies in this area of research
as a result of the complexity of the nature of well-being. This study also aims to reveal
the criteria needed for establishing relationships between the impact of urban densities
on the built environment; and how this impact can aid in supporting people's mental
well-being within different social classes in Cairo neighborhoods.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definitions

Some definitions are given in the following sections to understand the different
pathways between density, well-being, people’s stress level, depression, etc.

2.1.1 Well-being

The term well-being is associated with many definitions, and these definitions
are relevant, such as rational well-being that focuses on different aspects of well-being
[22]. Many terms also addressed well-being, and these terms differ among
psychologists, philosophers, and social scientists [23], but in this study, we focus on
mental well-being.

2.1.2 Mental well-being

Many definitions addressed mental well-being, and there is no global accord on

how best to define it. The common thing between these definitions is focusing on the
social aspect. But the most convenient one for this study defined mental well-being as

1417
 M. OUDA ET AL

“A dynamic state in which the individual is able to develop their potential, work
productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and
contribute to their community” [8].

2.1.3 Density

Density may be described, in spatial context, as the total number of units in a

specific area. There are various terms according to the type of density that is being
addressed such as physical density [24]. In this study, density is encompassed in
relation to the built environment; therefore, buildings density, individuals living in a
specific area, and other elements of the built environment that can be counted are
important [8]. In the urban environment, density is used to define, forecast, and
regulate the use of land [25]. The importance of density comes from how it shapes the
look of cities, and how the city is experienced in subtle explicit ways. The studies
showed that densities affect the quality of life and mental well-being. Density also is
perceived differently by individuals’ culture, habits, attitudes, and perceptions [26]. It
is also a major concept in planning, architecture, and urban design aspects [27].

2.2 Taxonomy of Density

In urban settings, it is believed that the housing units’ density is the total
number of dwellings per square meter, while the population density is the number of
persons per square meter [27]. While important, other sorts of density may affect how
the city looks, to state all here would take too long. Besides that, urban density is
found to be one of the main dimensions of urban coherence, which reflects the ratio
between the total built-up area and the development site [28]. A better way to address
the types of density is found in a recent study that explored and dissected the
dimension of density or, in other words, the taxonomy of density. The taxonomy was
established based on different academic research in the field of density and the built
environment [27]. It can be concluded that units and area are the two significant
terms. Area can be subdivided into scale and space, whilst units can be subdivided into
people, natural form, static form, built form, and mobile material form.

1418
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

2.3 Mental Well-being and Population Density

The relation between mental well-being and population density is mixed and
maybe paradoxical. Studies suggested positive and negative impacts on mental well-
being and social sustainability. There is an abundance of studies indicating that dense
forms are mainly positive to mental well-being compared to low-density
configurations [16, 29]. Although some studies indicated that inhabitants of large
compacted urban areas reported low rates of well-being in comparison to inhabitants
of small dispersed urban areas. There is a shortage of evidence on the pathway of
influence of a given density for an urban area on people's subjective well-being [16].
Even more significantly, there is a lack of analyzing the associations on how different
densities affect mental well-being. The statistical attributions between density and
rates of well-being showed beneficial thoughts; however, these insights do not deepen
in the links on how the level of compactness affects inhabitants’ lives [16]. High
density forms are attributed with a high degree of neighbor ties [30], stronger social
relations, more chances to create new acquaintances, a high degree of social support,
and higher rates of satisfaction level [5, 16]. Inhabitants of compacted neighborhoods
have been found to walk more than their peers of low-density forms, which in turn
have more health benefits for residents based on the quality of the pedestrian network
and the quality of the walking environment [31]. However, in another context, a study
by Cooper, succeeded in establishing significant attributes between high densities and
high-stress living, psychological problems and low rates of well-being. High-density
forms are also linked with children’s level of social withdrawal, psychological distress,
children's interaction, and irritation [8]. Crowded places with poor urban
characteristics have been found to increase people’s aggressive behavior and affect
their satisfaction level [32].

3. METHODS

This study draws on data from a cross-sectional survey carried out from
September 2019 up to January 2020 by the researcher and his team, in four selected
urban areas in the cities of Cairo and Giza. The study targeted 400 participants using a

1419
 M. OUDA ET AL

lengthy questionnaire. The questionnaire form was revised by experts at the Psychiatry
Department at the Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University. The survey team was
selected among students from the Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, Cairo
University. A session with the survey team was held to explain the study aim and the
different questions in the questionnaire form. The study occurred at a different time of
the day to observe the various changes in the selected area during the day. The
questionnaire form covered three parts; demographic factors, neighborhood
environment, and mental well-being score.

3.1 Sampling and Recruitment

The four urban areas were selected according to the urban pattern, population
density classification, and socioeconomic factors in Greater Cairo city. These
classifications were obtained from a study by the General Authority of Physical
Planning [33]. The study classified population density in greater Cairo and divided
greater Cairo into 14 planning zones. Each planning zone is described by its
socioeconomic status (SES), land use patterns, and characteristics of the urban area.
These planning zones were scrutinized to identify the change of population density in
the same planning zone. New urban developments were excluded from the study due
to the lack of a variety of population density. The case study selection criteria
comprised; a) areas with a definite change in density and the same demographic status
and urban characteristics, b) a well-defined area with clear edges like main streets, not
a gated community, c) independent housing area with its main services, d) an area with
no accessibility barriers whether these barriers are physical or psychological. The
selected cases are Mohandessen and city core, which were divided into two groups.
Each group is characterized by the same urban characteristics and varies in population
density. Group one, Medium SES, includes Lazoughly (500-1000 per ha) with a total
area of 5.2 ha and Elmonera (300-500 per ha) with a total area of 9.6 ha. Group two,
High SES, includes Aswan square (100-300 per ha) with a total area of 20.2 ha and
Jeddah square (300-500 per ha) with a total area of 9.4 ha. The number of inhabitants
in each selected area was estimated according to the collected data about the density of

1420
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

each area, and the number of participants was 400 in order to ensure that the sample
represents 10 % of the total community of the selected area. Study information leaflets
are prepared in Arabic. Fieldworkers held face to face questionnaire. Each
questionnaire form lasted around 30 minutes, managed by the survey team at the
respondents’ homes. The completed sample was 389 application forms after excluding
11observations with missing variables.

3.2 Measures

The study tests the correlation between mental well-being and variations of
density, including all variables affecting the outcomes. In the statistical equation, the
dependent variable is well-being, while the other independent variables are categorized
into groups in relation to socioeconomic status, psychosocial elements, and inhabitants
‘perception of their neighborhood.

3.2.1 Mental well-being

Mental well-being is multidimensional and subjective in nature; the study

assessed mental well-being depending on the Mental Well-being Scale for Warwick-
Edinburgh [34]. The scale provides good psychometric indicators [13, 35]. The scale
has been validated by studies examining the relationships between other measurements
of positive mental health like PANAS, WHO-5 measures for mental health, and also
with the measurements of mental ill-health such as GHQ-12 [34]. High attributes were
found with these measures and weak correlations with GHQ measurement tool of
mental ill-health [13]. The Warwick-Edinburgh scale addresses 14 points, including
positive emotions (e.g. optimism feelings, happiness, relax feeling), positive activity
(e.g. energetic, thinking clearly, self- acceptance, personality development), and
interactions with others. People were asked about their feeling over the past two weeks
as recommended by the mental well-being scale. Answers are recorded, and scores are
divided into three categories, according to the highest and the lowest score recorded
from the study, the recorded scores were between 33 and 70. The categories defined

1421
 M. OUDA ET AL

scores between 59- 70 as high rates of well-being, scores between 46 and 58 are
average rates of well-being, and scores between 33 and 45 are low rates of well-being.

3.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics

The study addresses the following: socio-economic elements, gender,

educational state, and the economic status, which was indicated through three
variables: employment situation, income level, and car ownership.

3.2.3 Housing features and psychological benefits

The questionnaire recorded how long the respondent had lived in his
house/district. Additionally, it identified the residents’ satisfaction with their
houses/district and the impact of their environment on them. Moreover, residents were
asked to express their opinions about their neighborhood history, to examine if their
neighborhood had been transformed positively/negatively in the past two years. Place
attachment expresses psychological benefits for inhabitants by adding meaning or
values for life, the importance for one's deeds, and taking part in the personal identity
and self-esteem. [13, 36].

3.2.4 Perception of neighborhood quality

Respondents were asked if there is environmental incivility in their

neighborhoods, such as vandalism activities, presence of graffiti, and other
occurrences of derelict buildings or damaged cars, garbage lying around, and poorly
maintained gardens. The quality of local facilities was assessed upon their satisfaction.
Inhabitants also were requested to evaluate the attractiveness and safety of their
buildings and urban environment in their neighborhoods.

3.3 Data Analysis

The statistical study used Multinomial Logistic Regression to assess the

correlations between neighborhood characteristics in high-populated density and high
rates of well-being compared with medium and low rates of well-being. The socio-

1422
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

economic status was controlled with other variables. SPSS and STATA softwares were
used to assess the main effects, and the statistical significance is set at 0.05, which is
considered acceptable in the field of social science [37]. Confidence level is estimated
at 95%, and margin of errors at 5%. The statistical studies were prepared in the Faculty
of Graduate Studies for Statistical Research, Cairo University.

4. RESULTS

From the starting sample of 400 respondents, only 389 respondents were used
in this study. In group one, characterized with medium socioeconomic status (SES),
high rates of well-being were found in Lazoughly (high-density area) for about 59 %
against 8.2 % in Elmonera (medium density). While, in group two, characterized with
high SES, high rates of well-being were found in Aswan square area (low-density
form) for about 37 % against 14.3% in Jeddah square area (high-density form).
Table 1 shows the socioeconomic status data for the sample for those with low,
medium, and high well-being. Multivariate analyses of the socio-economic factors are
presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows the significant correlation and Odds Ratio with
confidence intervals and compares respondents with medium and high mental well-
being with those recording low well-being. All independent variables except for
occupational status, family members, and car ownership were not markedly associated
with mental well-being. Families with less than four members had the strongest
associations with mental well-being, followed by occupational status, especially those
who had their own business, was significantly associated with high rates of well-being.
The last effect on well-being was car ownership. All subsequent statistical analyses
were settled for all independent socio-economic variables.

1423
 M. OUDA ET AL

Table 1. Mental well-being by sociodemographic factors.

Sample demographics Mental well being

Marginal
Numbe Low Medium, High,
Percentage,
r ,% % %
%
Male 307 78.9 14.7 56.4 29.0
Gender
Female 82 21.1 0.0 65.9 34.1
Less Than 20 15 3.9 13.3 66.7 20.0
20-30 79 20.3 12.7 62.0 25.3
30-39 90 23.1 5.6 67.8 26.7
Age
40-49 102 26.2 17.6 58.8 23.5
50-59 73 18.8 9.6 47.9 42.5
More Than 60 30 7.7 10.0 40.0 50.0
Illiterate 28 7.2 14.3 46.4 39.3
Primary School 10 2.6 10.0 40.0 50.0
Educationa Prep School 24 6.2 8.3 45.8 45.8
l
Secondary School 76 19.5 10.5 64.5 25.0
attainment
University/Degree 217 55.8 12.0 62.2 25.8
Postgraduate 34 8.7 11.8 44.1 44.1
Single 82 21.1 14.6 63.4 22.0
Marital Married 286 73.5 11.2 57.3 31.5
status Divorced/Separated 8 2.1 12.5 62.5 25.0
Widowed 13 3.3 0.0 46.2 53.8
Self Employed 113 29.0 19.5 55.8 24.8
Employed 98 25.2 10.2 66.3 23.5
Occupation Own Business 54 13.9 5.6 51.9 42.6
Unemployed 38 9.8 7.9 60.5 31.6
Other 86 22.1 8.1 55.8 36.0
Less 5000 LE 190 48.8 12.1 55.8 32.1
Family 5000-10000 126 32.4 11.1 66.7 22.2
Income
More than 10000 73 18.8 11.0 50.7 38.4
1-2 65 16.7 4.6 47.7 47.7
Family
3-4 214 55.0 9.3 60.7 29.9
members
5+ 110 28.3 20.0 60.0 20.0
Vehicle No 207 53.2 13.5 58.0 28.5
ownership Yes 182 46.8 9.3 58.8 31.9

1424
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

Table 2. Odds ratio, p-value and high mental well-being by SES.

M_1 Odds ratio P>[z] [95% Conf.Interval]
Occupation
Employed 1.550996 0.179 0.8181869 2.940147
Own Business 2.238547 0.02 1.137274 4.406232
Unemployed 1.73009 0.231 0.7051864 4.244567
Other 2.138264 0.03 1.075679 4.250499
Family Members
3-4 1.907155 0.011 1.162475 3.128879
5+ 3.324349 0.001 1.674911 6.598139
Vehicle Ownership
Yes 2.23548 0.02 1.147375 4.507212

4.1 Residential Circumstances and Well-being

After adjusting socio-economic measures, poor correlations were found between

lengths of dwelling in the home, house improvement, owning privacy in the house,
feeling safe inside home, intention to move to a new home, and views about the home
with mental well-being. When all of these independent variables were inserted
concurrently in the model, the significantly associated variables were feeling control in
one’s home and perceptions of personal development and esteem (my home makes me
perceive that I am doing well in my life). In all cases, the strongest association was the
overall satisfaction with the home, which strongly correlated with those who reported
high mental well-being.

4.2 Neighborhood Circumstances and Well-being

The attributions between respondents’ perception of their neighborhood

features and mental well-being are indicated in Table 3. After adjusting SES variables
and other variables in the model, in all cases, environmental incivilities, noisy
neighbors, vacant buildings, dogs roaming, and a sense of belonging indicated a weak
significant correlation with mental well-being. The presence of rubbish was the most
robust relation with low rates of well-being. The sense of safety, access to open
spaces, and attractive buildings were markedly associated with high rates of well-
being.

1425
 M. OUDA ET AL

Table 3. Odds ratio, p-value, and high mental well-being by perceived neighborhood
quality

M_1 Odds ratio P>[z] [95% Conf.interval]

Rubbish or litter lying around

Yes 0.1443186 0.001 0.0635782 0.3275943
Attractive buildings
Moderate 3.63212 0.051 0.9072155 14.54152
Good 2.828712 0.179 0.6197494 12.91105
Quiet and peaceful environment
Moderate 0.7627595 0.036 0.1579913 3.682495
Good 1.122169 0.891 0.215664 5.839009
Park / open spaces 1.632907 0.378 0.5494014 4.853258
Moderate 2.692155 0.037 1.0623 6.822649
Good 8.901928 0 2.661684 29.77225
Feeling safe during walking after dark
A bit unsafe 10.54802 0.084 0.7283148 152.7647
Neither safe nor unsafe 8.454762 0.043 1.068148 66.92236
Fairly safe 3.661263 0.271 0.3624826 36.98066
Very safe 11.62296 0.021 1.440654 93.7721

4.3 Perceived Neighborhood Facilities and Well-being

After adjusting SES, multivariate analysis of neighborhood services indicated

that all of the independent variables were not significantly associated with mental
well-being. Only the variables related to respondents’ priorities to the existence of
parks or play area, small and local grocer, general shopping, and libraries, were
strongly correlated with high rates of mental well-being.

4.4 Perceived Social Ties and Well-being

After controlling all variables in the model, strong associations between the
respondents' social activities and well-being are found, as people often meeting up
with their relatives and speaking with their neighbors scored high rates of well-being,
while all the rest of the variables were not significant.

1426
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

5. DISCUSSION

This study investigates the relationship between population density/urban

environment and rates of mental well-being in Greater Cairo. Results indicate people
preferences towards a high density living are noted in medium SES class, 59% of
respondents reported high rates of well-being in the density of 500 to 1000 person per
ha, against 8% of respondents reported high rates of well-being in the density of 300 to
500 person per ha. On the contrary, people's preferences towards low-density living
are noted in high SES class, 37% of respondents reported high rates of well-being in
the density of 100 to 300 person per ha, against 14% of respondents reported high rates
of well-being in the density of 500-1000 person per ha.
The study is in agreement with the studies that explored positive impacts of
high density on mental well-being [8, 21, 27]. However, this current study revealed
that the suggested sociodemographic factors and the cultural dimension have an
obvious impact on the positivity of high density on mental well-being. Additionally,
the study found a significant correlation between housing, neighborhood
characteristics and mental well-being, after controlling individual characteristics and
socioeconomic factors. For residential features, perceiving the sense of control in the
individual’s house are strongly associated with well-being. Being satisfied with the
house and one’s house makes him doing well were all correlated with higher rates of
mental well-being. In the context of the built environment, in all SES classes, high
rates of well-being were correlated with living in an area free of rubbish, perceived as
offering attractive buildings, provide access to open spaces, assuring the sense of
safety, and characterized as a quiet and peaceful urban environment. The study
explored the impact of high density on shaping the built environment, high density, in
high SES, is mainly attributed with an inappropriate mix of uses or a dramatic
transformation of uses, which affect people privacy and level of noise as found with
high SES respondents. High density, in medium SES, increased notably the number of
local facilities needed for daily basis, and the respondents indicated their satisfaction
with these uses.

1427
 M. OUDA ET AL

In terms of social ties, high rates of mental well-being were strongly associated
with people in a state of periodic interaction visits with their relatives, neighbors and
friends.
The study outcomes also agreed with the studies suggesting higher chances for
social interaction in a high-density environment [21, 38]. Results confirm the
disadvantages of high density in restricting access to nature and compromising privacy
[8]. Our conclusion would be that high-density forms cannot be generalized in all
urban developments. Each urban context has different social and cultural
characteristics, and people inclinations for a high-density living vary across people's
sociodemographic factors and cultural background.
In general, the study suggests that there is an advantage in focusing on how the
human perceives the environment throughout what he sees and hears and how this
perception reflects on personal emotions towards oneself and towards the community.
Moreover, factors of the residential aspects for mental well-being are a set of
psychosocial elements affecting the feel of personal progression. The aesthetics
features of the home and the built environment were also found to be strongly
associated with mental well-being like external frontages of the house, and access to
open spaces. These aspects may also be viewed as a potential correlation to people’s
feeling, in a positive state, about themselves and their role in society. The
environmental aspects have significant attributions with mental well-being more than
the SES variables. The study reveals a critical issue regarding understanding the
neighborhood perceptions, which might contribute to general mental well-being.
Significantly, the study explored that not only the state of residential and
neighborhood aesthetics correlated with mental well-being but also a sense of respect,
personal control stemming from how places are shaped. The residential aspect is a
significant source and descriptor of an individual’s position in the society, therefore,
reflects individuals’ self-esteem and self-efficacy. The limitations of this study
embedded in the attribution of cause, which is precluded in the study methods due to
the nature of well-being, however, the associations between housing and neighborhood
characteristics are strong. Most of the indicators are self-reported in which

1428
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

independent and independent variables are collected from the same respondent and
thus found to subject to a sort of common method variance. Although a larger sample
size was envisaged, to represent the community, more challenges were faced when
completing the face-to-face questionnaire form at the respondent’s house after long
explanations for the purpose of the study. In addition, the questionnaire form was too
long in order to collect all possible variables affecting mental well-being.

6. CONCLUSION

This study sheds the lights on the significance of the relationships between
density and people's mental well-being in an urban environment. Key definitions in the
relationship are defined. Many aspects are addressed in relation to density, and
taxonomy of density, which explains different types of density. The study also
discusses density dimensions and their relationships with other variables in the built
environment. The way in which people perceive density is based mainly on the
individual expectation of the activities in the place. The study suggests that the
person's social and cultural background has an integral part in the inclination to a high
or a low-density living. The study established correlations between general features of
the built environment such as sense of safety, the attractiveness of the environment,
accessibility to open spaces, and high levels of well-being. According to
environmental psychologists and sociologists, the growing significance of social
aspect has contributed to a situation whereas the value of places of inhabitants
impinges partly or widely the factors affirming human’s sense of identity and social
capital. Having a house and a neighborhood that individual would seek to reflects the
individual self-esteem with a high significance correlation to people mental well-
being.
From a practical view, the obtained information may be useful for urban
designers and planners to plan cities that support mental well-being. The study
suggests high-density places should be constructed with high-quality materials that
reduce levels of noise. Spaces between houses should be flexible to accommodate
people's activities. The design should also be constructed in terms of durability, smart

1429
 M. OUDA ET AL

cost and assure low maintenance. Perceiving density differs from one place to another
and among people, thus this perception cannot be generalized. Understating the
relationship between density and well-being will affect the planning decisions that
affect the shape of the built environment. This understanding also aids in creating
healthier communities. Perhaps the field of neuroscience will aid in tackling the study
limitations and more devices could be used in measuring human’s body responses
towards different places within different settings in the built environment. A large
cross-sectional study supported by different sectors in our government can be used in
estimating general mental well-being in different neighborhoods.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have declared no conflict of interests.

REFERENCES

1. Shekhar, H., Schmidt, A. J., and Wehling, H., “Exploring Well-being in Human
Settlements - A Spatial Planning Perspective”, Habitat International, Vol. 87, pp.
66-74, 2019.
2. Hiscock, R., Mudu, P., Braubach, M., Maztuzzi, M., Perez, L., and Sabel, C.,
“Well-being Impacts of City Policies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 11, pp.
12312-12345, 2014.
3. Gehl, J., “Cities for People”, Island Press, London, 2010.
4. Astell-Burt, T., and Feng, X., “The Effect of Urban Form on Wellbeing: An
Evidence Check Rapid Review Brokered by the Sax Institute for the NSW Centre
for Population Health”, University of Wollongong, Austalia, 2015.
5. Mouratidis, K., “Built Environment and Social Well-Being: How Does Urban
Form Affect Social Life and Personal Relationships?”, Cities, Vol. 74, pp. 7-20,
2018.
6. Kent, J., and Thompson, S., “The Three Domains of Urban Planning for Health
and Well-being”, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 29, pp. 239-256, 2014.
7. Ala-Mantila, S., Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., and Saarsalmi, P., “Spatial Nature of
Urban Well-Being”, Regional Studies, Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 959-973, 2018.
8. Cooper, C., “Introduction to Well-being: A Complete Reference Guide”,
Lancaster University, U.K., 2014.
9. Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Jenkins, R., and Sahakian, B., “Mental
Capital and Well-being”, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2009.
10. McDaid, D., Knapp, M., Medeiros, H., and MHEEN Group, “Employment and
Mental Health”, Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

1430
 THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING

11. Sobocki, P., Jonsson, B., Angst, J., and Rehnberg, C., “Cost of Depression in
Europe”, Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 87-98,
2006.
12. Ghanem, M., Gadallah, M., Meky, F., Mourad, S., and El-kholy, G., “National
Survey of Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Egypt: Preliminary Survey”, Eastern
Mediterranean Health Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 65-75, 2009.
13. Bond, L., Kearns, A., Mason, P., Tannahill, C., Egan, M., and Whitely, E.,
“Exploring the Relationships between Housing, Neighbourhoods and Mental
Well-being for Residents of Deprived Areas”, BMC Public Health, 2012.
14. Stafford, M., and Marmot, M., “Neighbourhood Deprivation and Health: Does It
Affect Us All Equally?”, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 32, pp.
357-366,2003.
15. Macintyre, S., and Ellaway, A., “Ecological Approaches: Rediscovering the Role
of the Physical and Social Environment”, New York: Oxford University Press,
pp. 332-348, 2000.
16. Mouratidis, K., “Compact City, Urban Sprawl, and Subjective Well-Being”,
Cities, Vol. 92, pp. 261-272, 2019.
17. Ballas, D., and Tranmer, M., “Happy People or Happy Places? A Multilevel
Modeling Approach to the Analysis of Happiness and Well-Being”, International
Regional Science Review, Vol. 35, pp. 70-102, 2012.
18. Morrison, P. S., and Weckroth, M., “Human Values, Subjective Well-Being and
the Metropolitan Region”, Regional Studies, Vol. 52, pp. 325-337, 2017.
19. Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., and Mazelis, J. M., “Urbanism and Happiness: A Test of
Wirth's Theory of Urban Life”, Urban Studies, Vol. 55, pp. 349-364, 2018.
20. Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., and Seidel, D., “Low Status Control,
High Effort at Work and Ischemic Heart Disease: Prospective Evidence from
Blue-Collar Men”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 3l, pp. 1127-1134, 1990.
21. Burton, L., “Mental Well-Being and the Influence of Place”, in: Barton, H.,
Thompson, S., Burgess, S., Grant, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Planning for Health and Well-Being: Shaping a Sustainable and Healthy Future,
Routledge, pp. 150-161, 2015.
22. Pulgar, C., Anguelovski, I., and Connolly, J., “Toward a Green and Playful City:
Understanding the Social and Political Production of Children's Relational Well-
being in Barcelona”, Cities, Vol. 96, 2020.
23. Stewart-Brown, S., “Measuring Well-being: What does the Warwick-Edinburgh
Mental Well-Being Scale Have to Offer Integrated Care?”, European Journal of
Integrative Medicine, Vol. 7, pp. 384-388, 2015.
24. Yasser, D., Khalil, M., and Wanas, A., “Tracing the Change in Physical Density
with Reference to Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt”, Journal of Engineering and Applied
Science, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 189-211, 2017.
25. Berghauser Pont, M. Y., and Haupt, P. A., “The Relation between Urban Form
and Density”, Urban Morphology, Vol.11, pp. 142-146, 2007.
26. Smith, W., “Mass Transport for High-Rise High-Density Living”, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 110, pp. 521-535, 1984.

1431
 M. OUDA ET AL

27. Cooper, R., and Boyko, C., “The Little Book of Density”, Imagination Lancaster,
2012.
28. Çalışkan, O., and Mashhoodi, B., “Urban Coherence: A Morphological
Definition”, Urban Morphology, Vol. 21, pp. 123-141, 2017.
29. Meyer, W. B., “The Environmental Advantages of Cities: Countering
Commonsense Antiurbanism”, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2013.
30. Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., and Watkins, D., “Social
Sustainability and Urban Form: Evidence from Five British Cities”, Environment
and Planning A, Vol. 41, pp. 2125-2142, 2009.
31. Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R.,
and Woodcock, J., “Land Use, Transport, and Population Health: Estimating the
Health Benefits of Compact Cities”, The Lancet, Vol. 388, pp.2925-2935, 2016.
32. Abusaada, H., and Elshater, A., “Effects of Urban Atmospheres on Changing
Attitudes of Crowded Public Places: An Action Plan”, International Journal of
Community Well-Being, Vol. 3, pp. 109-159, 2020.
33. Nippon Koel Co. and Katahira Engineers International, “The Strategic Urban
Development Master Plan Study for Sustainable Development of The Greater
Cairo Region in the Arab Republic of Egypt”, General Organization for Physical
Planning, and Japan International Cooperation Agency, Vol. 1, 2008.
34. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson,
J., Secker, J., and Stewart-Brown, S., “The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-
being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK Validation”, Health and Quality
of Life Outcomes, Vol. 5, No. 63, 2007.
35. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., and Weich,
S., “Internal Construct Validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being
Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch Analysis Using data from the Scottish Health
Education Population Survey”, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol. 7, No.
15, 2009.
36. Guiliani, M., “Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment”, in: Bonnes, M.,
Lee, T., and Bonaiuto, M. (Eds), Psychological Theories for Environmental
Issues, Aldershot, pp. 137-170, 2003.
37. Cowles, M., and Davis, C., “On the Origins of the .05 Level of Statistical
Significance”, The American Psychological Association, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 553-
558, 1982.
38. Dong, H., and Qin, B., “Exploring the Link between Neighborhood Environment
and Mental Well-being: A Case Study In Beijing, China”, Landscape and Urban
Planning, Vol. 164, pp. 71-80, 2017.

1432
 ‫‪THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL WELL-BEING‬‬

‫تأثير االبعاد التصميمة للكثافة على الصحة النفسية لإلنسان‬

‫الدراسات الحاليه حول اآلثار الصحية للبيئة الماديه غالبا ما تسلط الضوء على الصحه الجسدية‬
‫لالنسان‪ .‬إن الدور المحتمل للكثافة السكانيه فى دعم الصحه النفسيه للسكان هو أمر مازال تحت‬
‫الدراسة‪ .‬تهدف الدراسة الى المساهمه فى سد هذه الفجوة البحثية‪ .‬استندت الدراسة على مسح مقطعي‬
‫مستعرض لعدد ‪ 400‬شخص فى أربعة مناطق عمرانية في القاهرة‪ ،‬مصر‪ .‬تم استخدام التحليالت‬
‫اإلحصائية متعددة المتغيرات لتحليل االرتباطات بين الكثافة السكانية الملحوظة والمدركة ومعدالت‬
‫الصحة النفسية‪ .‬واكتشفت الدراسة أن معدالت الرفاهية العالية تركزت في المناطق عالية الكثافة والتى‬
‫تتسم بالوضع االجتماعي واالقتصادي المتوسط‪ .‬وتشير المناطق منخفضة الكثافة ذات الوضع االجتماعي‬
‫واالقتصادي المرتفع إلى معدالت عالية من الصحة النفسية‪ .‬اظهرت التحليالت االحصائية ارتباط العديد‬
‫طا وثيًقا بمعدالت الصحة النفسية وذلك بعد التحكم في المتغيرات‬
‫من جوانب البيئة السكنية والحى ارتبا ً‬
‫المستقلة لل عوامل الديموغرافية مثل الجوانب الجمالية والشعور باألمان والرضا العام عن منزل األفراد‬
‫والمجاورة السكنية‪.‬‬

‫‪1433‬‬

‫‪View publication stats‬‬