Jackson R J
National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
J Urban Health. 1998 Jun;75(2):258-62. doi: 10.1007/BF02345094.
The findings of Dr. Fullilove, as well as the success of Zap Asthma and the campaign against lead poisoning, are strong arguments against all three of the mind-sets mentioned above. They show that urban deterioration is largely a product of economic forces, not of some moral failure of urban residents, and that money spent on improving an urban environment has the collateral effect of giving residents the sense of hope and optimism and the feeling that they area contributing to their health, which will make them better stewards of that environment. They show the importance of tapping into the energy and interests of the community, while at the same time addressing political resistance to helping disadvantaged communities. They show that progress takes time, and that successful programs try to improve an existing community rather than making it over at once. They show that urban problems are manageable. And, they show that community groups and outside agencies can accomplish a great deal by working together and putting aside the parochial differences and mutual mistrust that grow out of the Alamo syndrome.
富利洛夫博士的研究结果，以及“快速解决哮喘”运动和反对铅中毒运动的成功，有力地反驳了上述三种思维定式。它们表明，城市衰败在很大程度上是经济力量的产物，而非城市居民某些道德缺失的结果；而且，花在改善城市环境上的资金会附带产生一种效果，即让居民产生希望和乐观的感觉，以及觉得自己在为自身健康做贡献的感觉，这会使他们更好地管理那个环境。它们表明了挖掘社区活力和兴趣的重要性，同时应对在帮助弱势社区方面的政治阻力。它们表明进步需要时间，成功的项目会努力改善现有社区，而非立即将其彻底改造。它们表明城市问题是可控的。而且，它们表明社区团体和外部机构通过携手合作、抛开源自阿拉莫综合征的狭隘分歧和相互猜疑，能够取得很大成就。
