Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could probably find a lot of stuff in the American Journal of Public Health. This whole "built environment" stuff was very big a few years back.
ETA: Here is one about how dog walking impacts obesity.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v34/n8/full/ijo201036a.html (broken link)
***This study also calls into question the relationship between walkability and changes in BMI and emphasizes the necessity of longitudinal data rather than relying on cross-sectional research.
City structure, obesity, and environmental justi... [Soc Sci Med. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
***We find that, counter to predictions, subpopulations generally considered vulnerable to obesity (and environmental injustices more generally) are more likely to live in walkable neighborhoods and have better walking access to neighborhood parks than other groups in Phoenix. However, crime is highest in walkable neighborhoods with large Latino/a and African-American populations and parks are smaller in areas populated by Latino/as. Given the higher prevalence of obesity and related diseases in lower income and minority populations in Phoenix, the results suggest that benefits of built environments may be offset by social characteristics. Our most consistent finding indicates a strong negative relationship between the percentage of the population under 18 years of age living in an area and the likelihood that the structure of the built environment supports physical activity.
from that first link
"Age, neighborhood SES and perceived traffic were significantly related to increased BMI over the 6 years. Younger participants and those in lower SES neighborhoods were more likely to have increased BMI. Agreement with the statement that traffic made it difficult to walk also predicted increased BMI."
that suggests to me that walkability does matter. If it the objective walkability criteria dont show significant results one might examine the validity of the objective criteria, instead of just assuming that the perceptions were innaccurate.
The last study does not seem to indicate that holding constant for ethnicity or income that walkability does not matter - but that many groups with socio economic inclination toward obesity often live in walkable areas "the results suggest that benefits of built environments may be offset by social characteristics."
Once again, no one disputes the benefits of walking. It's the idea that no one outside of cities is active, including walking, that's ludicrous. I quoted someone who actually believes it.
I can't account for every poster on the internet. To say NO ONE outsides cities is active is obviously silly.
However it is certainly about more than just that walking is good. Its that A. walking is good B. walking is more common in more walkable built environments C. Other forms of activity are as likely be done equally, holding constant for Socio economic factors and personal preferences, in an urban area It would seem to follow from A, B, and C that cities must be healthier - at least in terms of things impacted by exercise.
Now Im glad we all agree on A. For commute walking, I think the abundant data shod that B is true. We do not have good data on walking other than commuting. My personal experience in many areas, anecdotal experience, and studies I recall seeing indicate that B is true. I know there are some people here who will deny B, talk around it, imply its not true, but I do not buy any of that. As for C, there are also people who claim that, for example, gyms are scarcer in urban areas. Adjusted for socia economic factors, that doesnt seem true to me either.
The fact is socio economic factors MATTER. Most city jurisdictions, and even walkable areas in many metros, still have more poor, nonwhite, and less educated people than the suburban areas do (this is even more true for familie with children, since the upper middle class folks who move downtown are more likely to be childless) Those folks are less likely to belong to gyms, less likely to take walk recreationally, etc, than affluent people. So naturally "inner city kids" will be less active. Will different kids of the same socio economic status be less active in an urban area? I see nothing suggesting that.
Since the questions we face as a polity are whether to encourage the development of more or fewer walkable TOD type areas, the relevant question is whether doing so will result in net benefits to public health. Since such developments will NOT mean more people will be poor, studies that suggest areas with more people are less healthy are NOT relevant to the policy in question.
Why should every road be designed with a pedestrain in mind. There are areas in the suburbs and city where it makes it harder to drive and was designed for the pedestrian. There are bike lanes created on roads that make it harder to drive on. There are places to walk everywhere, it seems like yall think most cities that have been designed were made for cars. There are areas in the city that are designed for either automobiles or for pedestrains.
If you ever lose the ability to drive, you might see it differently.
If you ever lose the ability to drive, you might see it differently.
If i ever lose the ability to drive, i'll move to an area where its walkable. Just because I lose my ability to drive doesn't change the fact there are other people who drive also.
I can't account for every poster on the internet. To say NO ONE outsides cities is active is obviously silly.
However it is certainly about more than just that walking is good. Its that A. walking is good B. walking is more common in more walkable built environments C. Other forms of activity are as likely be done equally, holding constant for Socio economic factors and personal preferences, in an urban area It would seem to follow from A, B, and C that cities must be healthier - at least in terms of things impacted by exercise.
Now Im glad we all agree on A. For commute walking, I think the abundant data shod that B is true. We do not have good data on walking other than commuting. My personal experience in many areas, anecdotal experience, and studies I recall seeing indicate that B is true. I know there are some people here who will deny B, talk around it, imply its not true, but I do not buy any of that. As for C, there are also people who claim that, for example, gyms are scarcer in urban areas. Adjusted for socia economic factors, that doesnt seem true to me either.
The fact is socio economic factors MATTER. Most city jurisdictions, and even walkable areas in many metros, still have more poor, nonwhite, and less educated people than the suburban areas do (this is even more true for familie with children, since the upper middle class folks who move downtown are more likely to be childless) Those folks are less likely to belong to gyms, less likely to take walk recreationally, etc, than affluent people. So naturally "inner city kids" will be less active. Will different kids of the same socio economic status be less active in an urban area? I see nothing suggesting that.
Since the questions we face as a polity are whether to encourage the development of more or fewer walkable TOD type areas, the relevant question is whether doing so will result in net benefits to public health. Since such developments will NOT mean more people will be poor, studies that suggest areas with more people are less healthy are NOT relevant to the policy in question.
Ironically, I was just reading a research article about the association between walking and obesity in Baltimore in the American Jornal of Public Health 2011 supplement last night. Here are the results of the reasearch:
"Among individuals living in predominantly White and high socio-economic status (SES) neighborhoods, residing in highly walkable neighborhoods was associated wth a lower prevalence of obesity when compared with individuals living in poorly walkable neighborhoods, after adjusting for individual-level demographic variables. Prevalence ratios were similar after controlling for the perception of crime, physical activity and main mode of transportation. The association between walkability and obesity for individuals living in low-SES neighborhoods was not significant after accounting for main mode of transportation.
Conclusion: Further research is necessary to determine how differences in associations by neighborhood characteristics may contribute to racial disparities in obesity. "
I'm puzzled why they controlled for mode of transportation. That might be the biggest aeffect of walkability
This is a very dry research article, believe me. However, as I understand it, te reason the controlled for mode of transportation what that there was a big difference in BMI in the lower SES neighborhoods, but not the higher ones, depending on whether the participants had cars.
I'm puzzled why they controlled for mode of transportation. That might be the biggest aeffect of walkability
I think it's because it confuses easy correlations. Socio-economic status (SES) factors in, which I've acknowledged in all my posts on this subject. High walkability doesn't necessarily correspond to more walking when you account for the reality on the street. The study indicates that those of high SES tend to live in low walkability neighborhoods with more car use. Low SES neighborhoods can come with cautions about walking, and where one favors one's own car, someone else's car, or public transportation (within short walking distance, not utter utilitarian walking).
The study indicates those with high SES living in high walkability neighborhoods have lower obesity levels. However, it discusses how high SES confers leisure time to pursue walking routines rather than strictly utilitarian walking.
This study comes to different conclusions than a previous study on walkability and SES, which is why I say studies are inconclusive. But is walking good in the final analysis? Well, yeah. Duh.
Anecdotally, I lived in West Oakland for a couple of years. I know how to live in a city, but you would NOT catch me walking to the corner store after 7PM.
I'm puzzled why they controlled for mode of transportation. That might be the biggest aeffect of walkability
I think they are taking for granted (what some posters here seem to dispute) that people (esp I suppose low SES folks) will make a modal choice based on walkability (to own or not own a car) and that will drive utilitarian walking and lower BMI. The researchers wanted to find ADDITIONAL impact of walkability - choice walkability as it were - either recreational walking, or increased utilitarian walking independent of the choice to own a car or not. That they found positive results, DESPITE the initial holding constant, seems strong evidence for the impact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
