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.
This and other studies find obesity levels in existing urban environments. Causes are another issue, which their methods have not been sensitive enough to meaningfully capture. Even so, if a neighborhood has a high walkability score but that walkability score includes, for example, alleys, then alleys are gonna effect whether people actually walk.
thats why walk score as current configured is an imperfect independent variable. I would expect that with a better defined independent variable the results would be MORE conclusive, not less.
Remember it's not just about car ownership but using public transportation or means other than walking. After all, if the bus stop is only 3 blocks from your doorstep, is it really that significant an aerobic workout?
This and other studies find obesity levels in existing urban environments. Causes are another issue, which their methods have not been sensitive enough to meaningfully capture. Even so, if a neighborhood has a high walkability score but that walkability score includes, for example, alleys, then alleys are gonna effect whether people actually walk.
How as a policy do we correct that built environment beyond what the police and code enforcement are supposed to do anyway? I think many general suggestions presume a high SES environment in the first place, and it's like giving EBT cards to people who buy imported cheeses.
NOT IN THIS ARTICLE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
they identified at a variable in order to remove any impact. Thats what controlling for a variable means. even AFTER controlling for that variable, they STILL found a significant relationship for high SES, but not for low SES. The IMPLICATION is that had they not controlled for that variable, they WOULD have found a relationship for low SES.
There is no such "implication". These trained researachers concluded more research is needed. Yet a bunch of laypeople on CD are reading all sorts of stuff into the article.
There is no such "implication". These trained researachers concluded more research is needed. Yet a bunch of laypeople on CD are reading all sorts of stuff into the article.
"The association between walkability and obesity for individuals living in low-SES neighborhoods was not significant after accounting for main mode of transportation."
so were they significant BEFORE accounting for mode? Presumably the researchers know this. They didnt put it in the conclusion, but it must be in the article. Which there is no link to and is probably behind a firewall. I think its reasonable to make a judgement for the purposes of this discussion.
And yet the urban poor show high obesity levels, is all I'm saying.
yeah, so do the rural poor and the suburban poor. Whatever benefits there are from walkable neighborhoods (and one more time, not all urban neighborhoods are walkable, even by walk score standards) aren't as big as the impact of other factors.
"The association between walkability and obesity for individuals living in low-SES neighborhoods was not significant after accounting for main mode of transportation."
so were they significant BEFORE accounting for mode? Presumably the researchers know this. They didnt put it in the conclusion, but it must be in the article. Which there is no link to and is probably behind a firewall. I think its reasonable to make a judgement for the purposes of this discussion.
Yes, but that was not the focus of this article. To do "real" research, you have to do it properly, and not go off on unwarranted conclusions. That's the problem when laypeople get hold of such articles. (Not singling out you, bbd.)
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-28-2011 at 10:00 AM..
Yes, but that was not the focus of this article. To do "real" research, you have to do it properly, and not go off on unwarranted conclusions. That's the problem when laypeople get hold of such articles. (Not singling out you, bbd; I'm thinking more of reporters.)
But a different focus might have been interesting. If the main effect (and I'm not saying it is) of walkability -> less car ownership / use -> less obesity; they're missing the effect of walkability by controlling for that variable.
But a different focus might have been interesting. If the main effect (and I'm not saying it is) of walkability -> less car ownership / use -> less obesity; they're missing the effect of walkability by controlling for that variable.
That does not seem to be the case. In the high SES neighborhoods, 64% of individuals (in the study), used a car as their main mode of transportation, while only 36% of people in low SES neighborhoods did the same. Yet, there was less obesity in the high SES group. I will quote directly from the article, "Indeed, there was no significant association between walkability and obestiy after controlling for mode of transportation". That's why you have to do research instead of saying "it makes sense that. . . ".
Yes, but that was not the focus of this article. To do "real" research, you have to do it properly, and not go off on unwarranted conclusions. That's the problem when laypeople get hold of such articles. (Not singling out you, bbd; I'm thinking more of reporters.)
But Im not doing real research on this in this forum - Im doing a casual look at the existing research to see if it confirms my strong intuitive sense of the causal relationships. Some have said the research is simply "inconclusive" AFAICT it mostly leans toward supporting the hypothesized walkability-BMI link. I don't see suggestions of a need for more research (standard in academic articles - when is the last time you saw one that said "the issue is decided and no more research is needed"?) as proving the research is inconclusive.
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.
