Oluwagbemiga Paul Agboola
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Türkiye
In line with Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11), the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of urban environments, emphasizing the critical need for robust strategic planning. Effective strategies are essential for mitigating the impacts of pandemics, enhancing the city’s resilience, and safeguarding the wellbeing of city inhabitants. Thus, more strategic measures are needed to ensure the health and safety of urban populations for future occurrences. This empirical study explores how environmental planning practices can mitigate health risks, especially in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era in Turkey. The study objectives include i) investigating factors influencing the built environment and the reduction of public health risks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ii) exploring adaptable methods to improve the built environment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the responses were assessed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis of the SmartPLS four program. Results indicated positive path significant values of <0.005 to build community resilience after the post-COVID-19 pandemic. Other significant factors include sustainable built environment practices; Public Health risks, Sustainable City Planning; and Public Health improvement strategies. The positive relationships suggest that these factors are critical in promoting a sustainable COVID-19 pandemic-free built environment in the future. Findings emphasize the importance of incorporating these significant variables into environmental planning and design as a strategy to achieve improved public health and an adaptable built environment.
1 Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical need for integrating sustainable health and safety measures into disaster risk management frameworks (Jayasinghe, et al., 2024; DeWit, et al., 2020; Afrin et al., 2021). City environments, with their dense populations and complex infrastructures, are particularly vulnerable to public health crises, necessitating innovative strategies that prioritize resilience and sustainability (Capolongo, et al., 2020). Sustainable approaches to health and safety in post-pandemic recovery involve mitigating immediate risks and addressing systemic vulnerabilities in city planning, healthcare systems, and social structures (Brundtland, 1987). Cities are susceptible to a variety of pressures, including disasters that are both natural and man-made, because of the great number of inhabitants and activity there. Socioeconomic factors significantly shaped the COVID-19 pandemic’s development and its global spatial differentiation. Disparities in wealth, healthcare access, and living conditions influenced infection rates, mortality, and recovery outcomes, resulting in varied impacts across regions. These disparities underscore the need for equitable public health strategies and resource allocation in managing global health crises (Bański, et al., 2021; Damián, et al., 2022).
The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic posed an unparalleled obstacle to city environments globally, intensifying the need for strategic planning to ensure public health, safety, and resilience (DeWit, et al., 2020; Mitrică, et al., 2022). The spread of the virus in city spaces, especially in high-density regions has had a great impact, and it demonstrated how unprepared built environments have been for pandemics and gave an indication that there is a need for the overhaul of city planning (Güner et al., 2020; Afrin et al., 2021). Global organizations like UN-Habitat and the WHO have echoed the COVID-19 pandemic’s call to action, which emphasizes the urgent need for better planning and healthcare integration, as well as the connections between the structure of city growth and the wellness of populations (UN-Habitat, 2021b). This renewed interest in environmental design is a major public health facilitator to enhance global support for the Healthy Cities movement. This is to support the claim that environmental planning can reduce health inequities (WHO, 2020).
While responding to the COVID-19 issue; Mitrică, et al. (2021); succinctly contributed that a focused methodological approach can improve pandemic response by steering decision-makers toward customized, region-specific solutions. This strategy helps reduce economic impacts by engaging local and regional stakeholders in pinpointing effective interventions. Furthermore, the methodological approach fosters social cohesion by tackling population vulnerabilities and enhancing health infrastructure, especially in underprivileged areas (Bucos, 2024).
Before the normalization phase, Turkey recorded over 20,000 COVID-19 tests, 4,540 fatalities, 127,973 recoveries, and 163,942 confirmed infections (The Ministry of Health, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities within city areas, particularly in high-density settings such as Istanbul (15.84 million); Ankara (5.7 million); İzmir (4.3 million); Konya (2.3 million), where environmental challenges heightened transmission risks (Conway, et al., 2023; WHO, 2022). Studies reveal that cities worldwide faced a host of challenges, which exacerbated the spread of COVID-19 (Corbera, et al., 2020; Torun, 2020). Thus, the pandemic has underscored the importance of addressing critical vulnerabilities in city spaces, such as access to a healthy environment, which plays a pivotal role in promoting public health and wellbeing.
Public health objectives play a vital role in community disaster risk management by emphasizing the prevention, mitigation, and response to health threats arising from natural and man-made disasters (Agboola, 2011; DeWit, et al., 2020). It includes reducing vulnerabilities, enhancing healthcare accessibility, and promoting community resilience through preparedness initiatives (Afrin et al., 2021; Mitrică, et al., 2022). Integrating these goals into disaster risk management frameworks ensures a proactive approach to addressing the social determinants of health, which are critical in shaping community outcomes during crises. Moreover, sustainable city planning and green infrastructure have emerged as essential tools for mitigating the health impacts of disasters, particularly in densely populated city areas (Barton and Grant, 2006; Jayasinghe, et al., 2024). By prioritizing public health in disaster response strategies, communities can build resilience, reduce health disparities, and enhance recovery outcomes. This alignment between public health and disaster management fosters safer, healthier environments that are better equipped to handle future challenges (Brundtland, 1987).
The literature indicates that there may be a positive relationship between sustainable built environment practices and reduced public health risks as well as the benefits of integrating public health objectives into urban planning (DeWit, et al., 2020); there remains a significant research gap in quantifying these relationships, especially within specific contexts during crises like COVID-19 in Istanbul, Turkey. This study aims to address the research gap by experimentally exploring the factors and strategies that can enhance the resilience of Turkey’s urban environments. By linking pandemic preparedness with sustainable practices, the research provides a practical framework for improving city health resilience. The study’s objectives are two-fold.
(i) Identify factors influencing the sustainability of the built environment and public health risks in the wake of COVID-19, and
(ii) Explore adaptable methods to improve the built environment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study emphasizes the importance of leveraging green infrastructure, sustainable city design, and robust public health systems to enhance disaster preparedness and response. By aligning with global objectives such as SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), the research provides actionable insights for creating resilient city spaces. Addressing these challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating principles of sustainability and health to reduce risks and ensure long-term community wellbeing. The novelty of the study lies in its focus on the synergistic relationship between city design and pandemic preparedness, offering innovative strategies that go beyond conventional approaches. The study provides actionable insights for designing healthier, more resilient city environments in the face of future health crises.
2 Study area and its characteristics
Straddling two continents Europe and Asia Istanbul’s geographical location alone establishes it as a dynamic hub of activity, connecting diverse cultures and economies (Burdett, 2009). Istanbul (Figure 1) exemplifies the challenges and opportunities encountered by rapidly urbanizing cities around the globe. Its distinctive geographical location, rich historical background, diverse population, and vibrant economic landscape make it an excellent case study for exploring sustainable urban development. Additionally, Istanbul’s climate is categorized as a transitional Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters (Turkes, 2020). This climatic variability brings both opportunities and challenges for urban sustainability. On the other hand, climate change is exacerbating weather extremes, leading to problems such as urban heat islands, flooding, and air pollution. The city’s strategic location along the Bosporus Strait, connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, has historically positioned it as a vital gateway for trade and cultural exchange between East and West. Geographically, Istanbul is split by the Bosporus into its European and Asian sides, each displaying unique characteristics. The European side is typically more densely populated and is home to many of the city’s administrative, commercial, and historical centres, while the Asian side features a mix of residential areas, emerging business districts, and more suburban developments. This division not only shapes the city’s physical layout but also impacts its transportation networks, urban planning strategies, and socio-economic dynamics.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of Istanbul. Source: Google map.
Istanbul boasts a large and diverse population, with estimates suggesting it exceeds 15 million residents, making it one of the largest cities globally (Bayraktar, et al., 2024). This extensive population is a blend of various ethnicities, religions, and cultural traditions. This cultural richness enhances social life and presents unique challenges and opportunities for urban governance, public policy, and community development. Istanbul’s urban landscape is intricate and multifaceted. Several efforts have focused on Istanbul’s sustainable urban development and the need to consider preserving historical heritage while addressing the demands of rapid growth and modernization. Furthermore, Istanbul’s infrastructure plays a vital role in shaping its urban character and functionality. The city features a well-developed transportation network, which includes a wide-ranging bus system, metro lines, trams, and ferries that link its two sides. Nevertheless, traffic congestion continues to be a significant issue, especially on the densely populated European side. The demand for sustainable infrastructure solutions is becoming increasingly clear, as urban planners work to find a balance between growth, environmental sustainability, and social equity.
3 Conceptual framework
The theoretical framework underpinning this research is built on the integration of sustainable development theory and public health theory, providing a multidimensional lens for addressing city and environmental challenges (Baker et al., 2017; Hariram, et al., 2023). Public health theory emphasizes the significant influence of environmental factors on health outcomes (DiClemente, et al., 2013); particularly in city areas where living conditions directly impact community wellbeing. It underscores the importance of addressing these environmental determinants to promote healthier populations. On the other hand, sustainable development theory, as articulated in the Brundtland Report (1987), advocates the creation of systems that satisfy current demands without endangering the capacity of future generations to satisfy their own.
By merging these theories, the framework suggests that integrating public health goals into city planning and architectural practices can foster healthier communities while advancing sustainability. This holistic approach is supported by concepts like the Social Determinants of Health, which link socioeconomic conditions and the built environment to health outcomes (Marmot, 2014; Afrin et al., 2021). Furthermore, Barton and Grant’s health map model (2006) reinforces the interconnectedness of health and environmental variables, emphasizing the necessity of embedding health considerations into planning and design processes. The novelty of this framework lies in its application to current public health crises, such as COVID-19, by demonstrating how sustainable architecture and city planning can mitigate health risks. By aligning health and sustainability objectives, this research provides actionable insights for creating resilient city environments capable of addressing both immediate and long-term health challenges.
The research framework serves as a comprehensive visual guide, offering a holistic overview of the research process from conceptualization to conclusion while emphasizing methodological rigour and ethical integrity. Figure 2 provides a detailed representation of this framework, outlining the key components that structured the investigation. It begins with the study’s objectives, focusing on the exploration of sustainable built environment practices and their impact on public health and city resilience (Capolongo, et al., 2020; Afrin et al., 2021). The framework also integrates hypotheses grounded in the relationships between critical variables such as green spaces, city infrastructure, and health outcomes. The methodological design is clearly illustrated, showcasing the robust approach employed for data collection and analysis, ensuring alignment with the study’s aims and contextual relevance. Furthermore, the framework underscores the adherence to standard ethical protocols, including securing participant consent and ensuring data privacy, which bolsters the research’s credibility and validity. This structured approach highlights the thoroughness of the research process, ensuring a clear pathway from initial objectives to conclusions while maintaining ethical and methodological rigour throughout.
Figure 2
Figure 2. The study’s framework.
4 Hypothesis development and variable measurements
4.1 Sustainable built environment practices and public health
The built environment significantly influences public health outcomes, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Frumkin, 2021; Alidadi and Sharifi, 2022). Existing literature emphasizes the relationship between city design, building ventilation, and disease transmission. Poorly ventilated spaces have been linked to higher infection rates, as evidenced by studies showing that adequate air circulation can mitigate airborne pathogen spread (Krause et al., 2021). Moreover, city layouts that prioritize density without adequate public health considerations may exacerbate disease transmission, as crowded spaces facilitate close contact among individuals (do Amaral, et al., 2024). The pandemic has prompted researchers to advocate for the integration of health-focused strategies in architectural design, emphasizing the importance of outdoor spaces and green infrastructure to enhance mental wellbeing and reduce stress (Marques, et al., 2021).
Addressing these public health concerns within the built environment is critical to improving community resilience against current and future health crises (Capolongo, et al., 2020). Issues such as land degradation (McPherson, 2005), biodiversity loss (Ejike-Alieji and Ekpoh, 2021), and pollution (Agboola et al., 2024) significantly impact community health. The interplay between the COVID-19 pandemic and public health is evident, as extreme weather events exacerbate health issues, threatening food security, water availability, and socioeconomic development (Torun, 2020; WHO, 2022). To promote resilience in vulnerable populations, there is an urgent need for integrated strategies that address climate-related health threats within the built environment. This includes ensuring that city design incorporates sustainable practices that prioritize public health outcomes, especially in the wake of COVID-19.
Implementing sustainable architectural practices, such as green building materials and energy-efficient designs, can lead to healthier city environments. These practices may mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby enhancing public health. Evidence from various studies suggests that sustainable architecture contributes to better health outcomes by promoting physical activity, lowering heat island effects in cities and enhancing the quality of the air through well-designed public spaces (Geng, et al., 2020; Baker, et al., 2017; Agboola, 2019). When it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, resilient built environments are essential. To prevent the spread of viruses and protect human health, indoor air quality must be addressed by lowering biological pollutants and household pollution (Elsaid, et al., 2021). Air quality is improved and public health is supported by controlling ambient air pollution by reducing emissions from operations and construction materials (Nnaji, et al., 2023). Maintaining water quality through routine testing, cleansing, and efficient water management lowers the risk of infection and encourages cleanliness. Psychological resilience over extended periods of isolation is supported by improving mental and social health through biophilic design, communal areas, and natural access (Agboola et al., 2015). Using UV disinfection, cleaning high-touch surfaces, installing building sensors, and maintaining HVAC systems are all crucial ways to prevent the spread of disease (Kalbasi and Hassani, 2022). These actions improve pandemic response and readiness. COVID-19 Disaster Management Strategies for Healthy and Sustainable Environments as presented in Figure 3.
• Thus, H0 (Null Hypothesis): In urban environments, sustainable built environment practices do not have a significant positive impact on reducing public health risks.
• H1 (Alternative Hypothesis): In urban environments, sustainable built environment practices have a significant positive impact on reducing public health risks.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Guidelines for a sustainable and healthful built environment. Source: Magsino (2023).
This hypothesis guides the empirical investigation and contributes to the understanding of how public health and sustainability can be effectively intertwined within the built environment. While previous literature suggests a positive link between sustainable built environment practices and reduced public health risks as well as benefits from integrating public health objectives into urban planning; a significant gap remains in quantifying these relationships, especially in crisis contexts like COVID-19. The null and alternative hypotheses are designed to statistically test these associations, thereby confirming or challenging existing preliminary findings and uncovering context-specific variables that have yet to be fully explored. This empirical approach rigorously validates these relationships, offering new insights into sustainable urban development and community resilience. The variables in Table 1 present measurement variables of sustainable built environment practices and public health.
Table 1
Table 1. Measurement variables of sustainable built environment practices and public health risks.
4.2 Community disaster risk management and public health
Sustainable architectural practices and smart city planning are critical to effective community disaster risk management, as they enhance resilience through efficient resource use, waste reduction, and improved quality of life (Jayasinghe et al., 2024; DeWit et al., 2020). For example, incorporating green roofs and urban green spaces supports biodiversity and improves air quality (Joshi and Teller, 2021); while also reducing reliance on vehicles, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting physical activity (Ewing et, al., 2011). Additionally, strategies such as natural ventilation and daylighting improve indoor air quality and occupant wellbeing. Integrating public health objectives into urban planning is particularly crucial in light of challenges like COVID-19. Meanwhile, energy-efficient building designs reduce emissions, energy consumption, and the inclusion of green spaces. This not only enhances biodiversity but also supports mental wellbeing by providing recreational areas (Kaplan and Kaplan, 2011). Urban design features that facilitate social distancing, such as wider sidewalks, pedestrian-only zones, and open-air markets, help mitigate the spread of infectious diseases while fostering social cohesion (Witten and Ivory, 2018). Moreover, natural lighting, environmentally friendly materials, and better ventilation systems all help to improve the quality of indoor air, reducing respiratory illnesses and enhancing overall health (Roberts, et al., 2022). Integration of sustainable design and public health measures creates resilient urban environments capable of withstanding both immediate and long-term challenges. Research shows that cities with strong public health frameworks and ample green spaces tend to achieve better health outcomes and adaptability during crises (Jiang et al., 2021; Barton and Grant, 2006). This holistic approach is essential for developing sustainable communities in an increasingly uncertain world.
• Thus, H0 (Null Hypothesis): In the context of crises such as COVID-19, integrating public health objectives into urban planning does not lead to significant improvements in environmental sustainability and community resilience.
• H2 (Alternative Hypothesis): In the context of crises such as COVID-19, integrating public health objectives into urban planning could lead to significant improvements in environmental sustainability and community resilience.
This null and alternative hypothesis was formulated after a literature review revealed persistent gaps in the understanding of how sustainable built environment practices and the integration of public health objectives impact urban resilience and community wellbeing, especially during crises such as COVID-19. While past studies have indicated positive associations (Lee, et al., 2022; Sallis, et al., 2021), few have quantitatively validated these relationships within specific, resource-constrained urban settings. By statistically testing the proposed hypotheses, the study bridges the divide between qualitative insights from previous research and the need for quantitative validation. This approach not only confirms or challenges established theories but also contributes novel insights regarding the key drivers of sustainable urban development and public health outcomes. The variables in Table 2, showcase the measurements of city planning, public health strategies, and community resilience efforts post-COVID-19.
Table 2
Table 2. Measurement variables of city planning, public health objectives, and community resilience.
4.3 Global efforts towards post-pandemic urban planning and resilient cities
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on urban planning, prompting a necessary shift towards resilience and sustainability in our cities. In the wake of the pandemic, urban planning now focuses on adaptability, public health, and sustainability, ensuring that cities are better equipped to handle future crises (Pacheco, et al., 2024; Chen and Li, 2024). Key principles guiding post-pandemic urban policies include the integration of digital infrastructure, green spaces, and mixed-use developments (Honey-Rosés et al., 2021; Moghaddam, 2024). Furthermore, cities are placing a greater emphasis on walkability, decentralizing services, and implementing flexible zoning regulations to better accommodate evolving work and mobility patterns (Naimi et al., 2024).
A crucial element of resilient city planning is the improvement of public health infrastructure. The pandemic highlighted the need for urban designs that support social distancing while also ensuring accessibility and equity (Pacheco, et al., 2024). Smart city solutions, such as AI-driven monitoring systems and data-informed decision-making, have been increasingly adopted to enable swift responses to future public health challenges (Martinez-Mireles, et al., 2025). In addition, economic resilience has increasingly become a key focus in urban planning strategies. By diversifying local economies, providing greater support for small businesses, and investing in green infrastructure, cities can achieve both economic stability and environmental sustainability (Umoh, et al., 2024). Thus, incorporating nature-based solutions like urban forests and rainwater management systems strengthens cities’ ability to withstand climate-related disruptions.
4.4 Comparative analysis of global post-pandemic urban resilience strategies
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered profound transformations in urban life, altering mobility patterns, reshaping urban governance, and redefining pandemic response strategies. These shifts have raised critical questions about contemporary planning approaches for resilient urban structures, extending beyond cities to include hinterlands, regional hubs, and rural centres (Alam and Nel, 2023; Swapan et al., 2023). Thus, Cities around the globe have adopted a variety of strategies to address the challenges of urban resilience in the post-pandemic era. For instance, New York City has concentrated on bolstering its healthcare system, increasing bike lanes, and encouraging outdoor dining to aid in economic recovery and enhance public health (Mesa, 2021).
In a similar vein, Singapore has utilized its smart city initiatives to improve contact tracing technologies and streamline urban logistics, ensuring essential services remain operational (Carpentiere, et al., 2024). In Europe, cities like Paris and Milan have embraced a significant new model in the global conversation about post-pandemic urban resilience the “15-min city concept”, which aims to minimize reliance on long commutes while boosting local economies and promoting sustainability (Moreno, et al., 2021; Allam, et al., 2023). This model highlights the benefits of compact urban design, encouraging closer access to essential services while focusing on pedestrian accessibility rather than car dominance. These cities have reconfigured their urban layouts to make essential services, workplaces, and recreational areas easily accessible within a short walk or bike ride. These insights from Europe offer valuable lessons for shaping national and regional development strategies. Ultimately, this approach equips stakeholders to strengthen governance at all levels, ensuring more adaptable, efficient, and responsive urban planning in the face of future pandemics.
As the idea of smart cities becomes more popular, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed urban life, prompting a re-evaluation of urban models and infrastructure priorities, including the core principles and key indicators of smart city frameworks. For instance, in Asia, Tokyo has responded by enhancing public health measures and reconsidering how urban density is managed (Srinivasan, et al., 2024). The city’s post-pandemic planning has involved redesigning office spaces and encouraging hybrid work models, which helps to alleviate congestion and build resilience against future disruptions. Similarly, Seoul has expanded its green spaces and pedestrian-friendly zones to promote both mental and physical wellbeing (Kim and Gong, 2024). In a similar vein, African cities have encountered distinct challenges, such as inadequate healthcare infrastructure and economic vulnerabilities. For example, in Lagos one of the major cities in Nigeria, the focus has been on digital transformation and urban mobility, with efforts to expand telehealth services and invest in flexible transportation systems to enhance accessibility (Olaniyi and Ajayi, 2024). Also, Cape Town has prioritised social housing reforms and community-driven resilience initiatives to tackle inequalities in urban planning (Foggitt, 2021; Chekero, (2025). Global response to these challenges without the exception of Turkey as a developed nation calls for urban resilience in the post-pandemic by adopting flexible strategies. Cities that effectively combine digital technology, green infrastructure, and inclusive urban policies have demonstrated enhanced resilience against current and future challenges (UN-Habitat, 2021a). The diverse approaches reveal the core principles of sustainability and adaptability that are fundamental to urban resilience planning in recent times.
5 Methods
This study uses a quantitative methodology, which entails gathering and analyzing numerical data to systematically investigate phenomena. (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). The research method is designed to systematically investigate the integration of public health objectives and sustainable practices in the built environment during and beyond COVID-19, employing rigorous quantitative techniques to support the study’s objectives. The quantitative approach allows for the testing of hypotheses and the establishment of statistical relationships among variables (Mohajan, 2020). This method is particularly effective in assessing the impact of integrating public health objectives with sustainable built environment practices, as it provides a framework for measuring outcomes and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. Data collection is done based on responses to structured questionnaires that contain closed questions and scaled questions, from which stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences are noted. These instruments were developed based on literature reviews and expert inputs to ensure reliability and validity (Lamm, et al., 2020). In addition to primary data collected from surveys, secondary data is sourced from Turkish government online platforms, including agencies, divisions, and other appropriate authorities in charge of issues about health, and the built environment in cities. (Mengu, et al., 2021). This offers a thorough comprehension of the background and current frameworks about the study issue.
Secondary sources include reports, articles from national and public organizations, and relevant national newspapers, which will enrich the data set and provide diverse perspectives on the integration of public health and sustainability (OECD, 2021). The targeted population consists of architects, city planners, university lecturers, and public health officers actively involved in city development in Istanbul, Turkey as previously adopted by Baker et al. (2017). To ensure a representative sample, random sampling was utilized, allowing for the selection of participants from various regions and backgrounds (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). This method minimizes bias and enhances the generalizability of the findings. By obtaining a diverse sample of professionals, the research aims to capture a wide range of insights regarding the integration of health and sustainability in city planning and architectural practices.
A random sampling strategy ensures diversity, reducing bias and increasing the generalizability of findings. Structured questionnaires systematically collect data relevant to the subject matter under investigation and may offer valuable insights into health-sustainability dynamics in city and architectural practices. A validation survey of 15 experts tested the practical applicability of the structural model, enriching the study with professional perspectives. A total of 206 responses were collected for analysis through an online survey using convenience sampling between February and May 2023. The convenience sampling method was utilized because comprehensive professional lists were not available; this methodology has also been suggested by Creswell, & Creswell, (2018); and other researchers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and SPSS version 22.0 were used to examine the responses; utilizing the current version of SEM for a more advanced and accurate analysis. SEM was employed to examine the relationships among variables, ensuring robust and reliable results.
The study’s sample size combined with a random sampling strategy and a validation survey of experts, provides a robust foundation for the study’s analysis. This size is generally considered adequate for conducting Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and ensures sufficient statistical power to detect relationships among variables. Although the use of convenience sampling could introduce some bias, the random elements incorporated in the sampling process help mitigate this risk, thereby enhancing the diversity and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the expert validation adds an extra layer of credibility, reinforcing the practical applicability of the structural model. Overall, the sample size and methodology employed increase confidence in the reliability and validity of the study’s results, supporting the statistical conclusions drawn from the data (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
The reliability and validity of the data collection instruments were checked through EFA and reliability tests as presented in Table 3. The KMO measure of 0.812 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (significance level 0.001) ensured that the questionnaire was appropriate for factor analysis. All 25 variables had acceptable scores, above 0.6, by using Cronbach’s alpha to check internal consistency. Composite Reliability further ensured that the data were strong (Hair et al., 2020). The results illustrate how there is possible strategic intervention to enhance ecological integrity and community wellbeing by incorporating public health and sustainability within the built environment. In the case of this research, all twenty-five variables returned high scores of reliability with a minimum threshold of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient α of 0.6, hence presenting credible and consistent results. Cronbach & Shavelson, (2004); George and Mallery, (2003); state that scores of reliability falling within the ranges of 0.6–0.7 are considered acceptable. First, Cronbach’s alpha helped ascertain the clarity and precision of the questionnaire tool. Further, by this testing procedure, the robustness of the obtained data is emphasized. This allowed the carrying out of a more valid and reliable survey instrument such that findings and conclusions from this study are credible.
Table 3
Table 3. Reliability statistics of the questionnaire and the extracted factors.
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.812, which is acceptable according to the criteria of Cudeck, (2000), indicating that the questionnaire was appropriate for factor analysis. The latent constructs being analyzed were reliable since the Bartlett test of sphericity reached significance levels of 0.001. The threshold employed to assess the adequacy of factor analysis was 0.7. Besides testing the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, all demographic data from the 206 respondents were subjected to descriptive analysis. Participants’ responses were rated on a scale based on five points, with the responses significant enough to reveal information about the study’s goals.
6 Results
6.1 Demographic characteristics
In the case of gender, 53.9% are male with a total number of 111 out of the 206 respondents. On the other hand, 46.1% are female with a total of 95 out of the 206 respondents. This shows a fairly balanced set of genders in the case of this research study. The next largest groups were 36–45 years, at 25.2%, followed by 18–25 years with 17.9%, 46–55 years with 16.0%, and 56 years and above with 8.30%. Regarding educational background, the respondents had finished their undergraduate degree as the largest group, at 39.3%. The foregoing demographic profile gives a full description of the population of the respondents in terms of gender, age, education, occupation, income level, and experience in the profession (Figure 4). This diversified background ensures a wide array of perspectives on various research questions, including the rating of public health knowledge and sustainability awareness by the respondent; what the respondent thinks COVID-19 has influenced in terms of approaches to city planning and sustainability; how respondents perceive the relationship between public health and sustainable practices in the built environment; residents’ perception of whether integrating considerations of public health into city planning can mitigate the impacts of future COVID-19 pandemics.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Respondents’ background information.
Figure 5 revealed a self-assessed knowledge about Public Health and Sustainability Awareness from 206 respondents, 50.97% described themselves as “Very familiar” with the topic and 41.75% of the respondents feel they are “Somewhat familiar.” Only 7.28% said they were “Not familiar at all.” This is a huge distribution in the sense that most of the respondents had awareness in the area of public health and sustainability falling within the range of a little to average. These findings show that most respondents have at least a moderate understanding of public health and sustainability issues. In fact, over half (50.97%) consider themselves “Very familiar,” while an additional 41.75% describe themselves as “Somewhat familiar.” Only a small percentage (7.28%) report being completely unaware. This distribution points to a generally high level of engagement and foundational knowledge among participants, which could help in adopting sustainability-focused policies and public health measures. As a result, policymakers and urban planners may find a conducive environment for implementing initiatives, given that many stakeholders already appreciate the significance of these concepts. However, the presence of respondents who are “Not familiar at all” highlights the need for ongoing education and outreach efforts to ensure that all community members can effectively engage with or benefit from health- and sustainability-related strategies.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Respondents’ rating of their knowledge of the Public Health and Sustainability Awareness.
Figure 6 presents the ratings from the respondents on the extent to which those variables influence public health and sustainability. The diagram shows that a large number of respondents believe COVID-19 has had a significant impact on urban planning and sustainability strategies, as indicated by the high numbers in the “High extent” and “Very high extent” categories. This implies that many professionals and stakeholders see the pandemic as a trigger for rethinking urban design, focusing on health, resilience, and adaptability. On the other hand, the relatively lower numbers for “No extent” and “Low extent” suggest that only a small portion perceives little or no impact. Thus, this highlights an increasing awareness that public health crises can influence changes in resource allocation, building design, and policy frameworks, potentially fostering more sustainable and resilient urban environments. As a result, policymakers and urban planners may need to integrate lessons learned from COVID-19 into their long-term strategies, ensuring that future developments prioritize community wellbeing and ecological balance.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Respondents’ opinion on the extent COVID-19 has influenced approaches to city planning and sustainability.
Figure 7 summarizes respondents’ perceptions of the strength of certain factors influencing public health and sustainability. It indicates that a significant number of respondents see a strong or very strong connection between public health and sustainable practices in the built environment, as shown by the high frequencies in these categories. This suggests a widespread agreement that sustainable design, resource efficiency, and eco-friendly construction methods are crucial for protecting community health. Conversely, a smaller number of respondents express weak or very weak opinions on this relationship, indicating that only a few remain unconvinced of the link. This suggests that professionals and stakeholders largely acknowledge the need to integrate public health considerations into sustainable building strategies. As a result, policymakers and urban planners may be encouraged to include health-oriented measures such as better ventilation, green spaces, and reduced pollution in future construction and planning guidelines, ultimately improving both environmental quality and wellbeing in urban areas.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Respondent’s perception of the relationship between public health and sustainable practices in the built environment.
Figure 8 shows the extent to which the respondents rate selected factors as impacting public health and sustainability. It illustrates that a significant portion of respondents believe that incorporating public health considerations into urban planning can significantly reduce the effects of future COVID-19 pandemics, as shown by the high numbers in the “High extent” and “Very high extent” categories. In contrast, only a small number of respondents selected “No extent” or “Low extent,” indicating that there is minimal scepticism regarding the impact of health-focused urban planning. Findings suggest a strong agreement that initiatives like improved ventilation, accessible healthcare facilities, and flexible public spaces are essential for boosting resilience against pandemics. As a result, policymakers and city planners may be motivated to implement and institutionalize health-oriented strategies within their urban development plans to better protect communities from future health emergencies.
Figure 8
Figure 8. Residents’ perception of the integration of public health considerations into city planning can mitigate the impacts of future COVID-19 pandemics.
6.2 Measurement model results
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.852, indicating excellent sampling adequacy for Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (p < 0.05, value = 0.000), confirming that the dataset was suitable for PCA. This confirms that the data was suitable for PCA, with 85% of the data being deemed appropriate for factor analysis. The application of EFA was adopted to assess the strategic city planning model for sustainable health and safety in the post-pandemic era. The results of PCA, as shown in Table 4, identified and classified variables into major components. The assessment of 25 variables after five cycles resulted in five primary components of the highest convergence. The iterations, with variance percentages of 17.90%, 17.79%, 16.46%, 16.40%, and 15.59% respectively, account for 84.14% of the total variation. These percentages thus indicate that these five factors combined accounted for 77.14% of the total variation in the original data. The varimax rotation as recommended by Pallant (2020) resulted in the rotated element structure shown here, while five of the factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.
Table 4
Table 4. Construct of a rotated matrix in EFA.
6.3 Model of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
To see whether the framework has determined that various factors in an assessment are reasonable and correct, we have performed CFA. This is proposed to improve the quality of CFA, which excludes observed variables from the model with a lower threshold than 0.6 (Baharum, et al., 2023). Figure 9 represents the measurement model of the factors relating to the built environment sustainability in tandem with post-COVID-19. Reliability and validity of the Structural model in Table 5 present all the CR values to be greater than 0.8, which shows acceptable levels of validity (Cheah, et al., 2018). GOF indices for the structural model in Table 6 are all within acceptable ranges, indicating that the CFA model fits well (Sahoo, 2019). Based on the results from CFA, a framework of the structural model was built as illustrated in Figure 10. The framework contains five sub-groups and nineteen factors that form the main results of this study.
Figure 9
Figure 9. Measurement model of the constructs.
Table 5
Table 5. Reliability and validity of the Structural model.
Table 6
Table 6. Goodness of Fit indices for the Structural model.
Figure 10
Figure 10. Final structural model of the construct.
6.4 Results of the tested hypotheses
Figure 10 shows the path analysis outcomes for the four path analysis constructs derived from the structural model revealing how Community Resilience post-COVID-19 pandemic (CRP) indices are indirectly influenced by constructs such as Sustainable Built Environment Practices (SBEP), Public Health Risk (PHR), Sustainable Urban Planning (SUP), and Public Health Improvement Strategies (PHIS). Table 7, presents the results altogether showing the importance of sustainable urban planning to community resilience in the post-pandemic era. These findings are also in tandem with the current debate on the need for embedding sustainability into urban planning as part of the effort toward health and safety. The following summarizes the key findings of each hypothesis.
(i) Hypothesis H1: Sustainable Urban Planning Practices and Community Resilience
Table 7
Table 7. Results of the structural path model.
The results obtained show a positive relationship between sustainable urban planning practices and increased community resilience post-COVID-19. With a path coefficient of 0.659 and a p-value of 0.004, the results strongly indicate that the adoption of sustainable planning practices significantly positively influences community resilience. This finding underlines the need to incorporate responses of sustainable architecture and design within the built environment to reduce the long-term effects of the pandemic. Integration of green infrastructure, efficient land-use policies, and resilient urban designs become a cornerstone in fostering post-pandemic recovery. These findings are in line with previous studies on the identification of the psychological and physiological benefits linked with green spaces, including reduced stress and increased physical activity. Research work has revealed that integrating health objectives into urban planning strategies contributes to the reduction of pollution and enables active lifestyles promoting sustainable and resilient urban environments.
(ii) Hypothesis H2: Community Resilience could be achieved through Reduced Public Health Risk
Public health risk reduction significantly contributes to increasing community life resilience in urban areas during the post-pandemic period, based on the path coefficient of 0.830 and p-value of 0.002. This strong positive relationship would mean that the integration of green technologies, such as air quality improvement systems, green materials, and renewable energy solutions, would positively contribute to health improvement. This approach also complies with the objectives of sustainable urban development at an international level and illustrates how the mitigation of health risks would increase the resilience of an urban community to multiple challenges in the future. Findings signify that the fight against COVID-19 also requires investments in urban infrastructure to ensure public health.
(iii) Hypothesis H3: Sustainable Urban Design Practices and Community Resilience
This hypothesis is further asserted by a path coefficient of 0.750 and a significant p-value of 0.003, which further implies that sustainable urban design practices are critical in ameliorating the impacts of the post-COVID-19 era. The findings thus indicate that not only does good urban design bring out the aesthetic and functional value of cities but also that it significantly contributes to community resilience. It is policies of walkable space, and resource access equity that drive this impact.
(iv) Hypothesis H4: Improvement in Public Health Strategies and Challenges of Throwing COVID-19
Public Health Improvement Strategies were found to have a large influence on the challenges mentioned above due to post-COVID-19. This hypothesis is very strongly verified because the path coefficient is 0.640, and the significant level is 0.001. These findings further underline the need for focused health interventions through community health programs, strong healthcare infrastructure, and public awareness campaigns toward improved health outcomes and resilience-building to future shocks. Table 8 further elucidates the total effect coefficients and shows that SBEP directly influences 0.065 on post-COVID-19 pandemic indices, 0.044 on PHR, 0.159 on SUP, and 0.042 on PHIS. Notably, the highest overall effect on post-COVID-19 indices is contributed by Sustainable Urban Planning, as reflected in the effect size of 0.159. These confirm the prime importance of sustainable planning practices in the making of resilient urban environments.
Table 8
Table 8. Results of the total effect coefficients.
7 Discussion
7.1 Sustainable cities’ planning and its contribution to improving public health outcomes
This study highlights the pivotal role of sustainable city planning in enhancing public health, especially post-COVID-19. The implications of these results are multifaceted and significant for sustainable urban development. First, the positive relationship between sustainable built environment practices and reduced public health risks confirms that integrating health objectives into urban planning can lead to tangible improvements in community resilience and environmental quality (Lee, et al., 2022; Sallis, et al., 2021; Capolongo, et al., 2020). This suggests that policymakers should prioritize green building practices, efficient waste and water management, and renewable energy adoption as core elements of urban design to mitigate health risks, especially in the post-COVID-19 era.
Sustainable practices like green building, efficient waste and water management, and renewable energy adoption mitigate health risks and boost environmental resilience. Research supports that such strategies reduce the adverse effects of pollution and waterborne diseases while improving public health. Key findings emphasize city green spaces and community engagement as vital for fostering resilience and mitigating health risks. These insights are supported by the studies of Anderson et al. (2021) and Chmitorz, et al. (2018); who highlighted green infrastructure’s role in promoting physical and mental wellbeing and regulating city temperature and air quality. These findings underscore the importance of integrating sustainable design into city environments for healthier, more resilient communities.
This study emphasises water and waste management systems reduce waterborne diseases and pollution-related health issues, reinforcing the importance of environmental sustainability. Holistic city planning strategies must prioritize public health alongside sustainability, addressing vulnerabilities from pandemics. Green spaces, vital for reducing pollution, and improving public health, are key to city design to manage the post-COVID-19 disaster in the future. This is in tandem with the previous research by Al-Ansari, & Al-Khafaji, (2023). In addition, by providing shade, and supporting health-promoting activities, city development could prioritize human needs by enhancing walkability, cycling, and green infrastructure. The findings observed in this study align with those of the previous studies that have examined city design with the principles foster a sustainable and human-centred environment. Future planning must integrate these approaches to ensure environmental sustainability and public wellness remain paramount concerns.
City surroundings significantly influence health, wellbeing, and disparities, with urban areas particularly vulnerable to shocks like pandemics and environmental degradation. This is corroborated by Elmqvist et al. (2013) by highlighting that cities generate waste and greenhouse gas emissions which call for prioritizing residents’ health in the city crucial. This study revealed that urban strategies integrating infrastructure have been shown to improve health, as supported by Van der Waal, & Thijssens, (2020) and Güler, & Aykaç, (2020). Efficient systems are vital in preventing diseases in densely populated areas. The intersection of architecture, city planning, and public health is essential for building disaster-resilient communities. This research underscores the urgent need for integrated urban policies that balance public health and sustainability to combat threats from infectious diseases and associated environmental challenges.
7.2 Adaptive strategies for improving the built environment to address the post-era COVID-19 epidemic
This study highlights strategies for improving the built environment in reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic, with important ramifications for the design and planning of cities. The empirical evidence supporting the integration of public health goals into city planning further underscores the need for a holistic approach. The statistically significant improvements observed in environmental sustainability and community resilience indicate that when aligned with public health strategies, adaptive urban service models can effectively reduce vulnerabilities and enhance overall urban wellbeing (Capolongo, et al., 2020). These results are consistent with those of Conway, et al. (2023) by suggesting that reducing the post-COVID-19 pandemic and its vulnerabilities could improve public health systems and community resilience. Adaptive strategies are essential for creating sustainable, health-focused, and resilient environments. This includes flexible designs for public spaces, and transportation systems and improved air circulation while ensuring long-term sustainability. The integration of green infrastructure, renewable energy, and efficient waste management systems is critical to reducing environmental health risks; as these findings further support the idea of Wang, et al. (2020); and Afolabi, & Adedire, (2023). These strategies align with the broader movement toward sustainable city development, emphasizing the need to embed public health priorities into planning processes. Such efforts address public health challenges while combating disease risks as corroborated by the studies of Bageis, et al. (2023); and Bakir, (2020).
Strategic urban planning in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era helps integrate emerging priorities into city plans, programs, or governance arrangements, but must also consider political and economic interests for equitable development. These strategies include fostering strategic citizen involvement; environmental consciousness, and maximizing operational green spaces as the finding confirms the previous studies by Agboola, et al. (2024); Ergin, & Türkmen, (2021); and Wamsler, et al. (2013). These measures are deemed essential for addressing the impacts of the post-COVID-19 pandemic. This approach recognizes the interconnectedness of human actions and their impacts on the environment, emphasizing the importance of individual and collective responsibility in addressing post-COVID-19 challenges. These results match those observed in earlier studies by Watson, et al. (2020) and Kadykalo, et al. (2022); that fostering environmental consciousness is a vital strategy for combating post-COVID-19; as it empowers individuals, communities, businesses, and institutions to take proactive steps toward building a more sustainable and resilient future. By raising awareness, promoting behavioural change, advocating for policy action, engaging stakeholders, and enhancing community resilience, and environmental consciousness.
Global organizations like UN-Habitat and the WHO stress the need to strengthen connections between city design and public health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; highlighted by the WHO (2022) that city planning’s potential could improve health outcomes and address inequities by reshaping spatial functions. Similarly, advocate for a people-centred approach that integrates public health into city planning, fostering resilient, equitable, and sustainable environments. These emphasize that sustainable city design, prioritizing green spaces and community engagement, enhances social cohesion and wellbeing during crises. This aligns with findings by the studies of Öztürk, (2021) and Barton, & Grant, (2006), on city strategies that improve mental health outcomes by incorporating accessible green spaces.
8 Conclusion
This study significantly contributes to adaptive strategies aimed at enhancing the built environment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. By aligning with global frameworks like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) especially SDG 11, which focuses on Sustainable Cities and Communities it underscores the importance of developing urban spaces that are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. SDG 11 highlights the need for improved city planning and management to promote sustainable development while tackling urgent challenges, including public health risks. In this context, the study provides practical insights by identifying strategies to incorporate sustainability principles into urban design and disaster risk management. These approaches not only address immediate health concerns but also prepare urban areas to face future crises, thereby fostering adaptive and resilient urban systems. By prioritizing inclusive and resilient planning, local authorities and stakeholders can better inform, support, and protect citizens, ultimately aligning with broader global sustainability goals.
A key theme of the research is the shift towards a regenerative paradigm in transforming the built environment, which is crucial for alleviating the ongoing effects of COVID-19 in urban settings. The study’s originality lies in its empirical analysis of the factors affecting both sustainable built environments and public health risks in the post-COVID-19 landscape. The findings highlight the effectiveness of various interventions spanning technological innovations, city planning strategies, and public awareness campaigns in enhancing environmental sustainability and urban resilience in Turkey. By promoting the integration of green infrastructure and sustainable building practices, the study presents a comprehensive framework that connects climate adaptation with urban planning.
This synthesis is especially crucial for communities dealing with complex challenges, as it ensures that environmental goals and public health priorities support one another. Additionally, the study underscores the essential role of technology in global efforts toward environmental sustainability. Investing in and adopting new technologies can improve resilience and reduce the effects of pandemics on at-risk urban populations. As technological advancements in efficiency and sustainability progress, they become more integrated into global initiatives aimed at protecting cities from future health and environmental risks. This research highlights the importance of combined adaptation strategies that incorporate health and post-COVID-19 considerations into urban development, aligning with the UN’s post-2015 agenda to foster social, economic, and sustainable growth. Ultimately, by addressing the unique vulnerabilities of urban areas in the aftermath of health crises, the study offers a blueprint for creating cities that not only address immediate public health needs but also promote long-term resilience and sustainability for future generations.
Sustainable city planning is essential for enhancing public health outcomes, a reality that has become increasingly clear in the aftermath of COVID-19. The study emphasizes that incorporating sustainability into urban design can help reduce health risks and strengthen environmental resilience. For instance, green building practices not only lower energy use but also enhance indoor air quality, which directly leads to healthier living environments. Effective waste and water management systems help decrease pollution and limit the spread of waterborne illnesses, while the use of renewable energy sources reduces carbon emissions and promotes cleaner air. In addition, sustainable city planning promotes the development of green spaces and recreational areas, which encourage physical activity, alleviate stress, and strengthen community ties. These factors together lead to better mental and physical health for urban dwellers. By aligning urban development with sustainable practices, policymakers and urban planners can create spaces that are not only resilient to future pandemics but also supportive of long-term public health. Ultimately, sustainable city planning addresses current environmental issues while laying the groundwork for healthier, more adaptable communities.
Strategies for enhancing the built environment in the post-COVID-19 era are crucial for developing resilient and healthy urban spaces. The findings of the study highlight that the integration of smart technologies, sustainable design practices, and public health goals can revolutionize urban planning. For example, the research showed that adaptive measures like the inclusion of green infrastructure, improved natural ventilation, and the creation of flexible public spaces can greatly reduce health risks linked to pandemics. These strategies not only boost energy efficiency and environmental sustainability but also strengthen community resilience by encouraging social cohesion and better public health outcomes. As cities rethink their design frameworks, these adaptive strategies offer a guide for harmonizing modern technological solutions with traditional urban planning principles. The implications are significant as city planners and policymakers can leverage these insights to redesign urban areas that are not only responsive to immediate health challenges but also sustainable in the long run, ultimately fostering environments that promote both ecological integrity and human wellbeing.
8.1 Policy implications
The study highlights practical implications for policy and urban planning, addressing the existing research gap while providing evidence-based recommendations for enhancing public health through sustainable design practices. Also, the role of policymakers, educators, employers, and researchers in raising COVID-19 awareness through public campaigns could not be underrated. The campaigns enhance understanding of the relationship between health and the built environment, focusing on preventive measures, sustainable behaviours, and the adoption of renewable energy and green infrastructure. They foster community responsibility, encouraging resilience and policy changes for healthier city centres. These initiatives address immediate COVID-19 impacts and prepare communities for future health crises, promoting sustainability and resilience. The findings provide critical insights for city planners and policymakers striving to create safer, healthier, and more sustainable cities, ensuring long-term ecological and social benefits for city environments.
These findings advocate for a comprehensive policy framework that not only addresses immediate public health concerns but also builds long-term adaptive capacity in urban environments. This integrated approach can guide urban planners and local governments in designing cities that are both resilient to future crises and conducive to sustainable development for all residents. Effective adaptation strategies in cities should be multi-layered, from structure-oriented approaches such as using sustainable infrastructure to socio-oriented approaches like public health campaigns and community involvement. This pandemic underlines even further the imperative for resilient city design, considering both immediate and long-term threats. Given the response of Turkey during this pandemic and the general approach to city planning, the current study offers very important lessons for policymakers and city planners from around the world. It promotes the integration of health, safety, and environmental sustainability into city planning frameworks to construct healthier, safer, and more resilient cities that can prevail over pandemics. Public awareness creates healthy, safe, and sustainable built environments through education and community participation. As such, nexus relationships between environmental change and city landscape warrant adequate attention from experts, governments, and non-government agencies.
Summarily, In Istanbul, the application of these policy recommendation strategies requires collaboration between the government, private developers, and communities. Policymakers must integrate sustainable urban planning by prioritizing green infrastructure, mixed-use developments, and resilient public spaces that support both health and environmental sustainability. Private developers should adopt eco-friendly construction methods, invest in renewable energy, and incorporate walkable urban designs, aligning projects with long-term sustainability goals. Community involvement is crucial, with public awareness campaigns fostering responsible urban behaviours, promoting green lifestyles, and enhancing pandemic preparedness. A multi-layered policy framework will ensure Istanbul remains adaptable, balancing ecological integrity with public wellbeing for a more resilient future.
8.2 Research limitation and future perspective
In connection with the study’s limitation; the study focuses on city environments, potentially neglecting the interplay between city and rural areas in built environment adaptations. While the study identifies and examines several key factors influencing sustainable built environment and public health rısks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may not cover all possible predictors. Other relevant variables that could influence the built environment’s response to environmental issues might be considered in the future study. This study’s sampling strategy, which includes both random and convenience sampling, has some potential drawbacks. For example, random sampling can be time-consuming, labour-intensive, and costly, particularly when dealing with large populations. Additionally, convenience sampling might lead to systematic bias since participants are selected based on their availability. To mitigate the limitations of random sampling, the study improves response rates by implementing follow-ups, offering incentives, and utilizing various contact methods. Furthermore, the researcher promotes accessibility and inclusivity by employing multiple channels for participant recruitment. By integrating these two sampling methods and applying strategies to reduce bias, the study seeks to enhance the reliability and relevance of its findings.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the (patients/ participants OR patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin) was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
OA: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Data curation, Methodology, Software, Formal Analysis, Validation, Visualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Acar, S. (2021). The role of urban planning in pandemic resilience. J. Urban Stud. 15 (2), 45–58. doi:10.1002/jocb.485
Afolabi, S., and Adedire, M. (2023). Adaptive strategies used in urban houses to overheating: a systematic review. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 7. doi:10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n2-7
Afrin, S., Chowdhury, F. J., and Rahman, M. M. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic: rethinking strategies for resilient urban design, perceptions, and planning. Sustain. Cities 3, 668263. doi:10.3389/frsc.2021.668263
Agboola, O. P. (2011). Landscaping as a catalyst to a sustainable healthy environment. Glob. J. Res. Eng. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2 (5), 1–8.
Agboola, O. P. (2019). Exploring the impact of climate change on public space: consolidating environmental sustainability in Nigeria. Environ. Epidemiol. 3, 4–5. doi:10.1097/01.ee9.0000605640.12341.b0
Agboola, O. P., Nia, H. A., Findikgil, M. M., and Yildirim, S. G. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of the biophilic design approach in contribution to sustainable architectural goals. New Des. Ideas, 8(SI). ICCAUA2024, 144–169. doi:10.62476/ndisi144
Agboola, O. P., Zango, M. S., and Zakka, S. D. (2015). Towards sustainability of open space’s planning and management in Nigeria: roles of science and technology. J. Teknol. 27 (14), 51–56. doi:10.11113/jt.v77.6446
Alam, A., and Nel, E. (2023). Migration, emerging multiculturalism and planning in rural and small town Aotearoa New Zealand. Australian planner. London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/07293682.2023.2169724
Al-Ansari, H. A., and Al-Khafaji, A. S. (2023). Enhancing public health through sustainable urban design: an examination of transportation and green space integration. J. Urban Dev. Manag. 2 (2), 104–114. doi:10.56578/judm020205
Alidadi, M., and Sharifi, A. (2022). Effects of the built environment and human factors on the spread of COVID-19: a systematic literature review. Sci. total Environ. 850, 158056. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158056
Allam, Z., Moreno, C., Chabaud, D., and Pratlong, F. (2023). “Proximity-based planning and the “15-minute city”: a sustainable model for the city of the future,” in The palgrave handbook of global sustainability. Editor R. Brinkmann (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01949-4_178
Almusaed, A., Yitmen, I., Myhren, J. A., and Almssad, A. (2024). Assessing the impact of recycled building materials on environmental sustainability and energy efficiency: a comprehensive framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings 14 (6), 1566. doi:10.3390/buildings14061566
Anderson, V., Gough, W. A., and Agic, B. (2021). Nature-based equity: an assessment of the public health impacts of green infrastructure in Ontario Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (11), 5763. doi:10.3390/ijerph18115763
Bageis, A. S., Waqar, A., Hamah Sor, N., Almujibah, H., Qureshi, A. H., Jagadesh, P., et al. (2023). Evaluation of factors affecting the competitive advantage of organizations in establishing sustainable project management post covid-19. J. Eng. 2023 (1), 1–24. doi:10.1155/2023/3529313
Baharum, H., Ismail, A., Awang, Z., McKenna, L., Ibrahim, R., Mohamed, Z., et al. (2023). Validating an instrument for measuring newly graduated nurses' adaptation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20 (4), 2860. doi:10.3390/ijerph20042860
Bahukhandi, S., and Saraswat, A. (2023). “Pursuing resilience and inclusive approach in planning: the urban aspect of COVID-19,” in Fifth world congress on disaster management: volume V (London, United Kingdom: Routledge), 193–203.
Baker, M., Harker, M., and Ellison, A. (2017). The role of public health professionals in shaping the built environment. J. Urban Health 94 (1), 1–12.
Bakir, C. (2020). The Turkish state's responses to existential COVID-19 crisis. Policy Soc. 39, 424–441. doi:10.1080/14494035.2020.1783786
Bański, J., Mazur, M., and Kamińska, W. (2021). Socioeconomic conditioning of the development of the COVID-19 pandemic and its global spatial differentiation. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 18 (9), 4802. doi:10.3390/ijerph18094802
Barton, H., and Grant, M. (2006). A health map for the local human habitat. J. R. Soc. Promot. Health 126 (6), 252–253. doi:10.1177/1466424006070466
Bayraktar, S., Cegielska, K., Sökmen, E. D., Noszczyk, T., Yener, Ş. D., and Kukulska-Kozieł, A. (2024). Directions of land degradation in the greater Istanbul metropolitan area: a view from four decades. Land Degrad. and Dev. 35 (5), 1656–1672. doi:10.1002/ldr.5012
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future. United Nations: of the World Commission on Environment and Development.Report. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Bucos, T. (2024). Social and solidarity economy: principles and contributions to sustainable development and social inclusion. European Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business. Romania: Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence 114–127. Available online at: https://ibn.idsi.md/vizualizare_articol/222004.
Burdett, R. (2009). Istanbul: city of intersections. Available online at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33333/1/Istanbul_City_intersections_2009.pdf.
Capolongo, S., Rebecchi, A., Buffoli, M., Appolloni, L., Signorelli, C., Fara, G. M., et al. (2020). COVID-19 and cities: from urban health strategies to the pandemic challenge. A decalogue of public health opportunities. Acta Bio Medica Atenei Parm. 91 (2), 13–22. doi:10.23750/abm.v91i2.9615
Carpentiere, C. D., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., and Ardito, L. (2024). Success factors in smart mobility: a new framework and implications for the EuroMed context from the case study of New York, Copenhagen, Singapore, Bari and Barcelona. EuroMed Journal of Business. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cheah, J. H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., and Ting, H. (2018). Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: on using single-item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30 (11), 3192–3210. doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2017-0649
Chekero, T. (2025). Resilient social networks and mobility strategies among migrants in Cape town. Oxford, United Kingdom: African Books Collective Publishers.
Chen, T. L., and Li, Y. E. (2024). Building urban resilience: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for future-proofing city infrastructure. J. Urban Manag. doi:10.1016/j.jum.2024.11.016
Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., et al. (2018). Intervention studies to foster resilience–A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 59, 78–100. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002
Conway, E., Walker, C. R., Baker, C., Lydeamore, M. J., Ryan, G. E., Campbell, T., et al. (2023). COVID-19 vaccine coverage targets to inform reopening plans in a low-incidence setting. Proc. R. Soc. B 290 (2005), 20231437. doi:10.1098/rspb.2023.1437
Cooper, R. (2020). Water security beyond covid-19. K4D helpdesk report 803. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Available online at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/articles/report/Water_Security_Beyond_Covid-19/26432800?file=48082570.
Corbera, E., Anguelovski, I., Honey-Rosés, J., and Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2020). Academia in the time of COVID-19: towards an ethics of care. Plan. Theory and Pract. 21 (2), 191–199. doi:10.1080/14649357.2020.1757891
Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J., and Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 64 (3), 391–418. doi:10.1177/0013164404266386
Cudeck, R. (2000). “Exploratory factor analysis,” in Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modelling (Academic Press), 265–296.
Damián, M. R., Cortes-Perez, N. G., Quintana, E. T., Ortiz-Moreno, A., Garfias Noguez, C., Cruceño-Casarrubias, C. E., et al. (2022). Functional foods, nutraceuticals and probiotics: a focus on human health. Microorganisms 10 (5), 1065. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10051065
Demir, M., and Aktaş, A. (2021). Urban infrastructure challenges in the era of climate change. Turk. J. Environ. Sustain. 12 (3), 75–89.
DeWit, A., Shaw, R., and Djalante, R. (2020). An integrated approach to sustainable development, National Resilience, and COVID-19 responses: the case of Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51, 101808. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101808
DiClemente, R. J., Salazar, L. F., and Crosby, R. A. (2013). Health behaviour theory for public health: principles, foundations, and applications. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
do Amaral, C. G., André, E. P., Cilli, E. M., da Costa, V. G., and Sanches, P. R. S. (2024). Viral diseases and the environment relationship. Environ. Pollut. 362, 124845. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124845
Ejike-Alieji, A. U., and Ekpoh, I. J. (2021). “Climate variability and rice yield: climatology approach to food security,” in Handbook of climate change management: research, leadership, transformation (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–27.
Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I., et al. (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer Nature, 755.
Elsaid, A. M., and Ahmed, M. S. (2021). Indoor air quality strategies for air-conditioning and ventilation systems with the spread of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic: improvements and recommendations. Environ. Res. 199, 111314. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111314
EPA (2020). Our nation's air 2019 United States environmental protection agency. Available online at: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2019/#toxics
Ergin, D., and Türkmen, N. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on urban planning and health. Int. J. Built Environ. Stud. 8 (1), 22–34.
Ewing, R., Meakins, G., Bjarnson, G., and Hilton, H. (2011). “Transportation and land use. Making healthy places: designing and building for health,” in well-being, and sustainability, 149–169.
Foggitt, A. (2021). Understanding multiple health risks for low-income communities in Cape Town: water stress, COVID-19, and climate change. Available online at: https://open.uct.ac.za/items/4140293a-4389-4228-91a8-9c21d8fffe19.
Frumkin, H. (2021). COVID-19, the built environment, and health. Environ. health Perspect. 129 (7), 075001. doi:10.1289/ehp8888
Geng, Y., et al. (2020). Impacts of climate change on urban health: a systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (8), 083006.
George, D., and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gössling, S. (2020). Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 79, 102230. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230
Güler, A., and Aykaç, T. (2020). Sustainable urban planning in response to COVID-19: Turkish perspectives. J. Environ. Plan. Des. 9 (1), 14–29.
Güner, H. P., Işık, M., and Coşkun, R. (2020). COVID-19 and its implications for urban sustainability. Urban Dev. J. 10 (2), 33–49.
Habitat, U. N. (2021b). City resilience profiling programme. Pozyskano z. Available online at: https://unhabitat.org/programme/city-resilience-profiling-programme.
Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., and Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 109, 101–110. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
Hariram, N. P., Mekha, K. B., Suganthan, V., and Sudhakar, K. (2023). Sustainablyism: an integrated socio-economic-environmental model to address sustainable development and sustainability. Sustainability 15 (13), 10682. doi:10.3390/su151310682
He, J., and Zhang, Y. (2023). Urban epidemic governance: an event system analysis of the outbreak and control of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Urban Stud. 60 (9), 1707–1729. doi:10.1177/00420980211064136
Honey-Rosés, J., Anguelovski, I., Chireh, V. K., Daher, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Litt, J. S., et al. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on public space: an early review of the emerging questions–design, perceptions and inequities. Cities and health 5 (Suppl. 1), S263–S279. doi:10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074
Jayasinghe, G. Y., Perera, T. A. N. T., Perera, H. A. T. N., Karunarathne, H. D., Manawadu, L., Weerasinghe, V. P. A., et al. (2024). A systematic literature review on integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) in sustainable tourism (SusT): conceptual framework for enhancing resilience and minimizing environmental impacts. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 111, 104742. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104742
Jiang, X., et al. (2021). The integration of health and urban planning in the era of COVID-19: a systematic review. Environ. Int. 147, 105380.
Joshi, M. Y., and Teller, J. (2021). Urban integration of green roofs: current challenges and perspectives. Sustainability 13 (22), 12378. doi:10.3390/su132212378
Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., and Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: linkages between science, policy and practice. Springer Nat., 1–11. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_1
Kadykalo, A. N., Beaudoin, C., Hackenburg, D. M., Young, N., and Cooke, S. J. (2022). Social-ecological systems approaches are essential for understanding and responding to the complex impacts of COVID-19 on people and the environment. PLOS Sustain. Transformation 1 (4), e0000006. doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000006
Kalbasi, R., and Hassani, P. (2022). Buildings with less HVAC power demand by incorporating PCM into envelopes taking into account ASHRAE climate classification. J. Build. Eng. 51, 104303. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104303
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (2011). Well-being, reasonableness, and the natural environment. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 3 (3), 304–321. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01055.x
Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley and Sons.
Kim, E. J., and Gong, Y. (2024). Perceived built environments correlated to route choice for healthy leisure walking. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., 1–12. doi:10.1080/13467581.2024.2358208
Krause, D., Marcham, C., Mele, B., Springston, J., Strode, R., Weekes, D., et al. (2021). Engineering controls for bioaerosols in non-industrial/non-healthcare settings. ACGIH® White Pap. Ser. 1.
Lak, A., Asl, S. S., and Maher, A. (2020). Resilient urban form to pandemics: lessons from COVID-19. Med. J. Islamic Repub. Iran 34, 71. doi:10.34171/mjiri.34.71
Lamm, K. W., Lamm, A. J., and Edgar, D. (2020). Scale development and validation: methodology and recommendations. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 27 (2), 24–35. doi:10.5191/jiaee.2020.27224
Lee, S. W., Lee, J., Moon, S. Y., Jin, H. Y., Yang, J. M., Ogino, S., et al. (2022). Physical activity and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related mortality in South Korea: a nationwide cohort study. Br. J. sports Med. 56 (16), 901–912. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104203
Magsino, M. (2023). Six steps to sustainability: transform your space with WorldGBC's health and wellbeing framework. Available online at: https://www.fohlio.com/blog/six-steps-to-sustainability-transform-your-space-with-worldgbcs-health-wellbeing-framework.
Mannan, M., and Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2021). Indoor air quality in buildings: a comprehensive review on the factors influencing air pollution in residential and commercial structure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (6), 3276. doi:10.3390/ijerph18063276
Marmot, M. (2014). Review of social determinants and the health divide in the WHO European Region. Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization.
Marques, P., Silva, A. S., Quaresma, Y., Manna, L. R., de Magalhães Neto, N., and Mazzoni, R. (2021). Home gardens can be more important than other urban green infrastructure for mental well-being during COVID-19 pandemics. Urban For. and Urban Green. 64, 127268. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127268
Martinez-Mireles, J. R., Rodriguez-Flores, J., Figueroa-Diaz, R. A., Garcia-Escorza, B. B., Garcia-Marquez, M. A., and Austria-Cornejo, A. (2025). “Integrating AI in green and blue infrastructure for sustainable smart cities,” in Smart water technology for sustainable management in modern cities (IGI Global Scientific Publishing), 337–364.
McPherson, G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Maco, S. E., and Xiao, Q. (2005). Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J. For. 103 (8), 411–416. doi:10.1093/jof/103.8.411
Mengu, S., Mengu, M., and Gunay, K. (2021). Value-based communication during COVID-19 pandemic: a study on the Twitter messages of Turkish. Ministry of Health. Essays on COVID-19 Research. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishing, 147.
Mesa, N. (2021). “Cities and climate resilience (NYC office of sustainability),” in Collaborating for climate resilience (London, United Kingdom: Routledge), 10–24.
Mitrică, B., Damian, N., Grigorescu, I., Mocanu, I., Dumitraşcu, M., and Persu, M. (2022). Out-migration and social and technological marginalization in Romania. Regional disparities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 175, 121370. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121370
Mitrică, B., Mocanu, I., Grigorescu, I., Dumitraşcu, M., Pistol, A., Damian, N., et al. (2021). Population vulnerability to the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. A county-level geographical-methodological approach in Romania. GeoHealth 5 (11), e2021GH000461. doi:10.1029/2021GH000461
Moghaddam, S. N. M. (2024). “Introduction—navigating pandemics in urban spaces: challenges, strategies, and the future of urban planning,” in Making sense of planning and development for the post-pandemic cities (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 1–26.
Mohajan, H. K. (2020). Quantitative research: a successful investigation in natural and social sciences. J. Econ. Dev. Environ. people 9 (4), 50–79. doi:10.26458/jedep.v9i4.679
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., and Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the “15-minute city”: sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities 4 (1), 93–111. doi:10.3390/smartcities4010006
Naimi Ait Aoudia (2024). Meriem and khettab, samira and boukratem, oumelkheir, urban uses put to the test by the covid-19 pandemic: a literature review and evidence from Algeria. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4929191
Nnaji, C. C., Chibueze, C., and Afangideh, C. B. (2023). The menace and mitigation of air pollution in the built environment: a review. Niger. J. Technol. 42 (1), 12–29. doi:10.4314/njt.v42i1.3
OECD, (2021). Organization for economic cooperation and development. Available online at: https://data.oecd.org/.
Olaniyi, T. K., and Ajayi, A. J. (2024). Building a sustainable city in Lagos: insight from the transport initiatives from freiburg and london. Int. J. Innovative Bus. Strategies, https://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/Building-a-Sustainable-City-in-Lagos.pdf.10, 712–722. doi:10.20533/ijibs.2046.3626.2024.0087
Öztürk, D. (2021). Governance and urban planning in times of crisis: the Turkish experience during COVID-19. J. Urban Policy 11 (2), 67–80.
Pacheco, M., Madureira, H., and Monteiro, A. (2024). Examining post-pandemic urban transformations: a literature review on COVID-19’s influence on urban design. Sustainability 16 (23), 10381. doi:10.3390/su162310381
Pallant, J. (2020). Sps survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using ibm spss. London, United Kingdom: Routledge Publishers.
Roberts, R., Johnson, C., Hopwood, M., Firth, J., Jackson, K., Sara, G., et al. (2022). The potential impact of a public health approach to improving the physical health of people living with mental illness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 (18), 11746. doi:10.3390/ijerph191811746
Roy, S., Rautela, R., and Kumar, S. (2023). Towards a sustainable future: nexus between the sustainable development goals and waste management in the built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 415, 137865. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137865
Şahin, E., Tekin, G., and Yılmaz, S. (2020). Public health and urban design: navigating the challenges of COVID-19. Built Environ. Res. 15 (3), 93–108.
Sahoo, M. (2019). “Structural equation modelling: threshold criteria for assessing model fit,” in Methodological issues in management research: advances, challenges, and the way ahead (Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited), 269–276.
Sallis, R., Young, D. R., Tartof, S. Y., Sallis, J. F., Sall, J., Li, Q., et al. (2021). Physical inactivity is associated with a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a study in 48 440 adult patients. Br. J. sports Med. 55 (19), 1099–1105. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104080
Sharpe, R. A., Taylor, T., Fleming, L. E., Morrissey, K., Morris, G., and Wigglesworth, R. (2018). Making the case for “whole system” approaches: integrating public health and housing. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 15 (11), 2345. doi:10.3390/ijerph15112345
Srinivasan, M. K., Jayaseelan, N., Premnath, B. J., Krishnan, H., Venkatesan, K. B., Alamelu, S., et al. (2024). Waste management in COVID-19 pandemic: impacts, challenges, and perspectives. Environ. Eng. Waste Manag. Recent Trends Perspect., 247–268. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-58441-1_8
Sugiyama, T., Carver, A., Koohsari, M. J., and Veitch, J. (2018). Advantages of public green spaces in enhancing population health. Landsc. urban Plan. 178, 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.019
Swapan, M. S. H., Alam, A., Rogers, D., Houston, D., Lobo, M., and Nasreen, Z. (2023). Cities in COVID-19: reconsidering urban form, mobility, housing and planning in Australasia. Urban policy Res. 41 (1), 1–5. doi:10.1080/08111146.2023.2193590
The Ministry of Health (2020). Coronavirus günlük tablosu (Coronavirus daily table). The Ministry of Health, Turkey. Available online at: https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr/.
Torun, T. (2020). Legal consequences of coronavirus in Turkey. Available online at: https://www.duvarenglish.com/columns/2020/03/18/legal-consequences-of-coronavirus-in-turkey/.
Turkes, M. (2020). Climate and drought in Turkey. Water Resour. Turk., 85–125. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11729-0_4
Umoh, A. A., Nwasike, C. N., Tula, O. A., Ezeigweneme, C. A., and Gidiagba, J. O. (2024). Green infrastructure development: strategies for urban resilience and sustainability. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 21 (1), 020–029. doi:10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.2683
UN-Habitat, World Health Organization (2020). Integrating health in urban and territorial planning: a sourcebook. Geneva: UN-HABITAT and WHO.
Van der Waal, J. W. H., and Thijssens, T. (2020). Corporate involvement in sustainable development goals: exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119625. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625
Vargas-Hernández, J. G., and Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. (2021). Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23 (2), 1335–1354. doi:10.1007/s10668-020-00623-2
Wamsler, C., Wickenberg, B., Hanson, H., Olsson, J., Stålhammar, S., Bjorn, H., et al. (2020). Environmental and climate policy integration: targeted strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119154–154. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154
Watson, M. F., Bacigalupe, G., Daneshpour, M., Han, W. J., and Parra-Cardona, R. (2020). COVID-19 interconnectedness: health inequity, the climate crisis, and collective trauma. Fam. Process 59 (3), 832–846. doi:10.1111/famp.12572
Witten, K., and Ivory, V. (2018). “Urban public spaces, social inclusion and health,” in Routledge handbook of health geography (London, United Kingdom: Routledge publishers), 259–266.
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2022). Setting global research priorities for urban health. Geneva: WHO. Available online at: www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240041820.
Keywords: disaster risk management, post-COVID-19 pandemic, public health risk, sustainable practices, healthy environment, sustainable city, built environment
Citation: Agboola OP (2025) Promoting sustainable health and safety in post-pandemic disaster risk management in Istanbul, Turkey. Front. Built Environ. 11:1565709. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2025.1565709
Received: 23 January 2025; Accepted: 11 March 2025;
Published: 07 April 2025.
Edited by:
Bianca Mitrica, Romanian Academy, RomaniaReviewed by:
Mahendra Gooroochurn, University of Mauritius, MauritiusNicoleta Damian, Romanian Academy, Romania
Copyright © 2025 Agboola. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Oluwagbemiga Paul Agboola, b3BhZ2Jvb2xhQGdlbGlzaW0uZWR1LnRy