Nt to and frequently-used by neighborhood residents, and that have theoretical relevance to health. I argue that conceiving of BMS-214662 biological activity certain places as vital integrates our understanding of the essential components of places that are beneficial to health, while also allowing policy-makers to be creative about the ways they intervene to improve the life chances of residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods. I synthesize the findings into the characteristics of three types of vital places. First, I find that a convenient, comprehensive, and affordable food source can facilitate a healthy diet. An attractive, accessible, and safe recreational facility can support greater physical and social activity. Finally, shared, casual, focused social spaces provide opportunities to create and sustain supportive social ties. This study adds depth and complexity to the ways we conceptualize health-relevant community assets and provides insight into revitalization strategies for distressed low-income housing.Keywords Madison; WI; United States; vital places; physical activity; healthy diet; social support At the center of this study is a concern with how individuals living in low-income housing ?among those with the highest risk for poor health and neighborhood structural disadvantage ?interact with their environments. In order to strengthen low-income housing residents’ capacity to live better, healthier lives, researchers and policy-makers must understand the behavioral and social mechanisms through which a neighborhood’s structural environment influences individual health (Corburn, 2005). A substantial literature in public health identifies the ways that neighborhoods are associated with health behaviors, such as walking for exercise (Berke et al., 2007) and accessing healthy food (K. Morland et al., 2002). Social science investigations, on the other hand, focus more on understanding the ways in which health is linked to aspects of social processes in neighborhoods, like social support (Carpiano, 2007) and willingness to intervene on the behalf of the public good (Sampson, 2012). I ground the current study at the nexus of these traditions, taking an integrativeWaltonPageapproach to understanding the BMS-214662MedChemExpress BMS-214662 multiple ways people experience places in and near their lowincome neighborhood. I introduce the concept of “vital places”: nearby places in the neighborhood that are both important to and frequently-used by residents, and that are theoretically related to health through behavioral and/or social mechanisms. While extensive previous research has done a good job establishing that certain neighborhood places, like greenspaces (Maas et al., 2009) and healthy food establishments (K. B. Morland Evenson, 2009), can be important for health, the qualitative nature of the current study allows us to delve into how and why places like these may matter for certain social and behavioral mechanisms that relate to health. The qualitative focus inherently means that this study cannot be conclusive of a causal link between neighborhood features and health. Rather, the main contribution of this study is its ability to unpack the complex and multi-faceted processes through which vital places may enable residents of a multiethnic, low-income neighborhood to enact health-related physical and social behaviors. I ground the analyses in the idea that places can facilitate both behavioral and social processes that are related to health, and generalize these findings to a set of abstract.Nt to and frequently-used by neighborhood residents, and that have theoretical relevance to health. I argue that conceiving of certain places as vital integrates our understanding of the essential components of places that are beneficial to health, while also allowing policy-makers to be creative about the ways they intervene to improve the life chances of residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods. I synthesize the findings into the characteristics of three types of vital places. First, I find that a convenient, comprehensive, and affordable food source can facilitate a healthy diet. An attractive, accessible, and safe recreational facility can support greater physical and social activity. Finally, shared, casual, focused social spaces provide opportunities to create and sustain supportive social ties. This study adds depth and complexity to the ways we conceptualize health-relevant community assets and provides insight into revitalization strategies for distressed low-income housing.Keywords Madison; WI; United States; vital places; physical activity; healthy diet; social support At the center of this study is a concern with how individuals living in low-income housing ?among those with the highest risk for poor health and neighborhood structural disadvantage ?interact with their environments. In order to strengthen low-income housing residents’ capacity to live better, healthier lives, researchers and policy-makers must understand the behavioral and social mechanisms through which a neighborhood’s structural environment influences individual health (Corburn, 2005). A substantial literature in public health identifies the ways that neighborhoods are associated with health behaviors, such as walking for exercise (Berke et al., 2007) and accessing healthy food (K. Morland et al., 2002). Social science investigations, on the other hand, focus more on understanding the ways in which health is linked to aspects of social processes in neighborhoods, like social support (Carpiano, 2007) and willingness to intervene on the behalf of the public good (Sampson, 2012). I ground the current study at the nexus of these traditions, taking an integrativeWaltonPageapproach to understanding the multiple ways people experience places in and near their lowincome neighborhood. I introduce the concept of “vital places”: nearby places in the neighborhood that are both important to and frequently-used by residents, and that are theoretically related to health through behavioral and/or social mechanisms. While extensive previous research has done a good job establishing that certain neighborhood places, like greenspaces (Maas et al., 2009) and healthy food establishments (K. B. Morland Evenson, 2009), can be important for health, the qualitative nature of the current study allows us to delve into how and why places like these may matter for certain social and behavioral mechanisms that relate to health. The qualitative focus inherently means that this study cannot be conclusive of a causal link between neighborhood features and health. Rather, the main contribution of this study is its ability to unpack the complex and multi-faceted processes through which vital places may enable residents of a multiethnic, low-income neighborhood to enact health-related physical and social behaviors. I ground the analyses in the idea that places can facilitate both behavioral and social processes that are related to health, and generalize these findings to a set of abstract.
