Search

Background: Previous studies have linked living in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods to mental health problems. However, only a few studies have investigated the potential mechanisms explaining this association and most of the studies focus only on the association between deprived neighborhoods and negative indicators of mental health such as symptoms of depression or anxiety.Aims: This paper addresses this gap by investigating whether social characteristics of neighborhoods (social interaction, trust, safety, civic engagement, and attachment) mediates the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and mental health.Method: We combined Danish register data on individual and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics with survey data from the North Denmark Region Health Survey 2017 to measure neighborhood social characteristics and mental health. Mental health was measured with the instrument (SF-12) to cover both positive, negative, hedonic, and eudemonic aspects of mental health.The sample consisted of 14,969 individuals nested into 1,047 neighborhoods created using an automated redistricting algorithm. We fitted multilevel mediation models following a structural equation framework and used a Monte Carlo simulation method to estimate the indirect effects.Results: Neighborhood socioeconomic status was positively associated with higher mental health status. Trust between neighbors acted as a significant and independent mediator accounting for 34% of the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and mental health.Conclusion: These results indicate that higher mental health associated with living in more affluent neighborhoods can be partly explained by higher levels of neighborhood trust. Improvements in trust between residents in neighborhoods could mitigate socio-geographical inequalities in mental health. Background: Previous studies have linked living in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods to mental health problems. However, only a few studies have investigated the potential mechanisms explaining this association and most of the studies focus only on the association between deprived neighborhoods and negative indicators of mental health such as symptoms of depression or anxiety.Aims: This paper addresses this gap by investigating whether social characteristics of neighborhoods (social interaction, trust, safety, civic engagement, and attachment) mediates the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and mental health.Method: We combined Danish register data on individual and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics with survey data from the North Denmark Region Health Survey 2017 to measure neighborhood social characteristics and mental health. Mental health was measured with the instrument (SF-12) to cover both positive, negative, hedonic, and eudemonic aspects of mental health.The sample consisted of 14,969 individuals nested into 1,047 neighborhoods created using an automated redistricting algorithm. We fitted multilevel mediation models following a structural equation framework and used a Monte Carlo simulation method to estimate the indirect effects.Results: Neighborhood socioeconomic status was positively associated with higher mental health status. Trust between neighbors acted as a significant and independent mediator accounting for 34% of the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and mental health.Conclusion: These results indicate that higher mental health associated with living in more affluent neighborhoods can be partly explained by higher levels of neighborhood trust. Improvements in trust between residents in neighborhoods could mitigate socio-geographical inequalities in mental health.

The purpose of report D4.3 is to present the case study selection and the cases for Denmark. The case study selection was based on a two-step procedure. Initially, a region was chosen. In Denmark, main responsibility for governance is located at the national and municipal level while the regional level has more limited responsibility. By choosing a region and municipalities as cases, the cases will correspond to statistical and administrative units meaning that 1) in relation to statistics, the rich register data of Denmark can be utilised and 2) in relation of administrative units, the regional and municipal level of governance can be more aptly taken into account. The Central Denmark Region was chosen as case, the choice being between this region and the Capital Region as they are the only two regions with sufficiently large cities for subsequently selecting a metropolitan case. The final argument for selecting the Central Denmark Region was that it is more representative and less radical than the Capital Region, and that the Central Denmark Region demonstrates more innovative cases in terms of collaboration across civil society, business and municipality.Within the Central Denmark Region, a metropolitan, a suburban and a rural case was selected. The metropolitan case was a given as there is only one metropolitan municipality in the region, namely Aarhus. While the municipality is small for a metropolitan municipality, it is the second largest in Denmark and interesting precisely for the reason of not being the main, capital region. It is a city in growth and of growth but also a city of spatial segregation with three deprived areas on the so-called “ghetto”-list. For the suburban case, Horsens was selected. Horsens represents a case of spatial inequalities, of overall population growth but with a decline in some parishes as well, of active policies to secure financial growth and of challenges in specific social housing areas that has led to two areas being on the government’s list of vulnerable areas, one of them being amongst the 16 hardest ghettos of Denmark. Finally, Lemvig was chosen as the rural case. Lemvig is a peripheral municipality with challenges related to a shrinking population, changing demography and local economy. At the same time, it is a case of potentials in the sense of a high number of start-ups and of business potentials within the primary sector (fishery) and the wind-power market as well as a municipal vision of developing its west coast to a recreational area with a thematic focus on surfing, the geological history and the nature in general.Looking across the three cases based on the desk study of D4.3, several interesting themes stand out already. The three localities share the position of being part of the same intermediate region, in the sense that it is neither the main region of growth nor the one struggling the most. This defines the position of all three localities within the region. They all face challenges but at the same time offer potentials and identifiable routes for future development. The challenges and potential differ however. For the metropolitan and suburban case, main challenges relate to spatial segregation and specific social housing areas marked by concentrated deprivation. Both the suburban and the rural case are interesting with respect to growth policies; both trying to some extent to reinvent themselves. The purpose of report D4.3 is to present the case study selection and the cases for Denmark. The case study selection was based on a two-step procedure. Initially, a region was chosen. In Denmark, main responsibility for governance is located at the national and municipal level while the regional level has more limited responsibility. By choosing a region and municipalities as cases, the cases will correspond to statistical and administrative units meaning that 1) in relation to statistics, the rich register data of Denmark can be utilised and 2) in relation of administrative units, the regional and municipal level of governance can be more aptly taken into account. The Central Denmark Region was chosen as case, the choice being between this region and the Capital Region as they are the only two regions with sufficiently large cities for subsequently selecting a metropolitan case. The final argument for selecting the Central Denmark Region was that it is more representative and less radical than the Capital Region, and that the Central Denmark Region demonstrates more innovative cases in terms of collaboration across civil society, business and municipality.Within the Central Denmark Region, a metropolitan, a suburban and a rural case was selected. The metropolitan case was a given as there is only one metropolitan municipality in the region, namely Aarhus. While the municipality is small for a metropolitan municipality, it is the second largest in Denmark and interesting precisely for the reason of not being the main, capital region. It is a city in growth and of growth but also a city of spatial segregation with three deprived areas on the so-called “ghetto”-list. For the suburban case, Horsens was selected. Horsens represents a case of spatial inequalities, of overall population growth but with a decline in some parishes as well, of active policies to secure financial growth and of challenges in specific social housing areas that has led to two areas being on the government’s list of vulnerable areas, one of them being amongst the 16 hardest ghettos of Denmark. Finally, Lemvig was chosen as the rural case. Lemvig is a peripheral municipality with challenges related to a shrinking population, changing demography and local economy. At the same time, it is a case of potentials in the sense of a high number of start-ups and of business potentials within the primary sector (fishery) and the wind-power market as well as a municipal vision of developing its west coast to a recreational area with a thematic focus on surfing, the geological history and the nature in general.Looking across the three cases based on the desk study of D4.3, several interesting themes stand out already. The three localities share the position of being part of the same intermediate region, in the sense that it is neither the main region of growth nor the one struggling the most. This defines the position of all three localities within the region. They all face challenges but at the same time offer potentials and identifiable routes for future development. The challenges and potential differ however. For the metropolitan and suburban case, main challenges relate to spatial segregation and specific social housing areas marked by concentrated deprivation. Both the suburban and the rural case are interesting with respect to growth policies; both trying to some extent to reinvent themselves.

I artiklen tages udgangspunkt i den rurale case om Lemvig, der nægter at være udkant. Det diskuteres, hvordan casen udfordrer gængse sociologiskeforestillinger om relationen mellem center og periferi og mellem metropol og det lokale. Vi argumenterer for, at det netop er karakteren af, hvad vi til dennelejlighed betegner som »mikropol« – den internationale orientering og en lokal social kultur, som kobler sig til globale flows – der tilsammen skaber detlokales resiliens. Analysen af Lemvig begrebsliggør den modstandskræft, der er med til at sikre lokal udvikling på trods af de urbaniseringskræfter, somskaber en stærk affolkningstendens i lignende områder. Artiklen trækker på en del af det empiriske materiale fra et igangværende Horizon 2020-projekt,COHSMO – Inequality, urbanization and territorial cohesion: Developing the European social model of economic growth and democratic capacity. Projektethar omdrejningspunkt i en europæisk sammenligning af forholdet mellem urbanisering, ulighed og territoriel sammenhængskraft. Fortællingernefra Lemvig viser, at den lokale kultur ikke kun er et spørgsmål om nødvendighedens politik i et område, der er strukturelt udfordret, men derimod, atstedskulturen er produkt af det særlige samspil mellem erhvervsstrukturen, størrelsesforholdet, historiske kulturelle stiafhængigheder og et aktivt lokaltmiljø.