Health is of essential importance for the individual development and a fundamental prerequisite for economic and social progress (Drobny, 1977). Health research has a long tradition, and the understanding of health was historically shaped by modern medicine, which it defines it as state free of illness or pain (Adriaens, 2007). Since awareness of psychosocial influences on health has increased, the concept has expanded to maintain and improve physical and mental well -being (Rutz, 2012). The Precise Britannica Encyclopedia Defines health as the ability of an individual to adapt to their surroundings in physical, emotional, emotional, mental and social dimensions (Britannica, 2008). Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a “holistic health” in 1946, which emphasizes a state of well -being, which includes physical, mental and social adaptation (Ikhwanuliman, 2017). On the establishment of these perspectives, the concept of “healthy cities” was first proposed in Healthy Toronto 2000. This idea underlines the critical role that cities play with the support of the physical and mental health of the residents and enable them to fully enjoy life and to exploit their potential (Gunn, 2020). With the acceleration of the urbanization and the creation of global health crises, especially in view of the Covid 19 pandemic in 2020, cities have increasingly played a decisive role in securing individual health, the health of health crises (Lancet, 2008), the improvement of public health infrastructure (Caminer, Longato) and the improvement of the quality of life of public health (Camern et al., 2010).
The construction of healthy cities is based not only on progress in medical technology, but also on the support of the public guidelines and the rational assignment of resources (Ye et al., 2022). Health facilities in urban communities serve as critical spatial units for the provision of health services and play a key role in the general development of healthy cities. However, there is no uniform definition in these facilities and are often mainly regarded as part of public health resources, whereby medical interventions and treatment are concentrated. Since the concept of health extends, the functional limits of these facilities also develop. Firstly, health institutions contribute to the “electricity upstream” by offering community training programs and organizing activities, promoting social interaction and thus supporting the intellectual well-being of the residents (Enamela et al., 2023). Second, health institutions play a “downstream intervention role” within the security network for public health. They offer basic medical services to help residents recover from diseases and to react quickly during emergencies in the area of public health, which improves the resistance of the residents to environmental shocks (Li et al., 2020). This study is based on the initiatives for the health promotion of WHO and introduces the concept of “health promotion resources” and shows its double role in the preservation of health and the prevention of diseases. On this basis, health facilities are divided into two types: sports facilities that promote individual physical and mental health as well as medical facilities that support the treatment of diseases and emergencies.
Health institutions were always an integral part of public services before the dynamic balance between justice and efficiency of resource assignment, which develops with the transformation of primary social contradictions (Babalola & Moodley, 2020; Liuyuanli, Hsiao & Eggleston, 1999; Vågerö, 1994). This shift partly comes to the dynamic connotation of fairness and efficiency. Efficiency generally relates to the achievement of the largest outcome or goal with the lowest resource consumption, with both productive efficiency that focuses on input output relationships, as well as on allocative efficiency that emphasizes the requested resources for demand (Arifkhodzhaieva et al., 2022). On the other hand, fairness is a subjective perception that can be formed by social comparisons among individuals (Zhen & Yu, 2016) and two basic paradigms: absolute fairness that accepts the result fairness and the relative fairness that is based on the differences in the contribution, needs, needs or skills (Zhou & Sethu, 2002). China's development practices clearly illustrate the dynamic development of the focus of fairness and efficiency. In the first few years, the government prioritized absolute fairness by providing public services to eliminate exploitation and reduce the wealth gap. However, this approach led to inefficiencies in care. After the reform and opening, the efforts to improve the supply capacity changed to ensure the lack of the fundamental coverage of the demand, and still aimed at maintaining the relative fairness (Wei, 2011). In the new era, the primary contradiction shifted to the growing needs for a better life and the imbalance in development. This led to a renewed focus on precisely the demand through cooperation between the government, market and society (Wei-Xing, 2006), whereby state intervention and social security systems were faired. These phenomena indicate that the primary contradictions and development goals in different stages have influenced the balance between justice and efficiency and shape the connotation of the individual figures.
Currently, both the quantity and the quality of the public service resources have made considerable progress. With the diversification of supply companies and a lack of cross-border coordination, the resource assignment has become fragmented, which leads to spatial polarization of social resources and a new imbalance between fairness and efficiency (Jin-Hong, 2010). First, the government -based development model of the government has led to functional homogenization in the communities, which leads to redundant provision of the public service (Fielding, 1979), which reduces resource efficiency and even influences the vitality of communities (Klakla et al., 2021). Second, market-oriented resource assignment usually prefers high-ranking regions and strengthens the Matthew effect (Fisher, 1997), intensify problems such as segregation of residential areas and spatial differentiation (MIAO, 2023). Since spatial misconduct between supply and demand are increasingly pronounced, it is essential to restore the balance between fairness and efficiency from a spatial point of view. Existing examinations have recognized the importance of the spatial dimension and proposed various methods for the optimization of additions, which are based on the spatial accessibility (LU & KE, 2018; Toregas et al., 1971). With the spatial heterogeneity of the resource allocation of the public service, similar spatial units can have different offer and demand. This increases the need for a more sophisticated spatial government. Traditional analysis methods have difficulties to record such imbalances in the micro scale and to lack the changes in terms of fairness and efficiency as a reaction to this shift in the contradictions of the care stop.
If the core problem of supply and demand changes from a lot of non -agreement too spatially, it disturbs the balance between fairness and efficiency. In order to promote your realignment, this study uses health facilities as an example and determines the following goals: ⅰ) Analyze the interrelation between fairness and efficiency when assigning resources for health promotion and show the dynamic connotations of you; Ⅱ) Determine the evaluation system for the allocation of health facilities at quantitative and spatial level and identify questions of injustice and inefficiency; Ⅲ) Suggest a “Fairness-Efficiency” synergy approach to optimize the allocation of resources for health promotion and the spatial arrangement of health facilities. The aim is to make a contribution to an integrative, efficient and sustainable healthy city.