ABSTRACT
The keen observation of Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee’s long-standing mayor, that “Good leadership cannot come out of bad housing,” is as true now as it was then (Gurda and Looze, 1999). The concept that where we live matters is now a central tenet in both public health and critical geographic scholarship. Researchers are examining and measuring how the structural, physical, and social features of urban environments impact population health (Frank and Engelke, 2001; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001; Baum and Palmer, 2002; Branas et al., 2011; Branas, 2013). At the same time, the spatial distribution of health inequities such as poverty, crime, unemployment, and chronic disease have deservedly received scrutiny (Morenoff et al., 2001; Brulle and Pellow, 2006; Marmot et al., 2008). Furthermore, research has suggested that the spatial patterns of disadvantage are the result of historical processes of racial segregation and economic disinvestment from inner cities (Margulis and Kenny, 2001; Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2003). Disparities in health and well-being observed between neighborhoods have focused attention on the spatial scale of the neighborhood, and researchers have identified neighborhood-level interventions as important assets for the improvement of community health (Sampson et al., 2002; Sampson et al., 2005; Moore and Diez Roux, 2006; Branas and Macdonald, 2014). Building on these suggestions, neighborhood interventions can be further enhanced and sustained when communities are actively engaged in planning and decision-making (Minkler, 2000).
