U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2014, 08:43 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Here's some stuff from the other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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/v3...jo201036a.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.

Association of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older Persons
***Conclusions. Findings suggest that neighborhood characteristics are associated with the frequency of walking for physical activity in older people. Whether frequency of walking reduces obesity prevalence is less clear.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
There is no such "implication". These trained researchers concluded more research is needed. Yet a bunch of laypeople on CD are reading all sorts of stuff into the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
When public policy is made, it needs to be research based. We don't need to have (someone). coming along in 50 years, telling us how short-sighted we were in the 2010s b/c we thought if we just improved walkability, everyone would be walking.
(Some changes made for this thread)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,660,252 times
Reputation: 26651
I am in the street design camp, because incidental activity adds up. There are other benefits to people traversing their neighborhood on foot, although adding 10 more minutes of walking isn't going to make someone magically lose 10 pounds. But i think those 10 minutes may add a few years.

We've engineered activity out of our daily lives on so many levels. And telling everyone to join the gym isn't really going to cut it. But sidewalks and safer streets have a tone of benefits in terms of stress levels and connecting with people. And happier people live longer!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 01:23 AM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,878,709 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I am in the street design camp, because incidental activity adds up. There are other benefits to people traversing their neighborhood on foot, although adding 10 more minutes of walking isn't going to make someone magically lose 10 pounds. But i think those 10 minutes may add a few years.

We've engineered activity out of our daily lives on so many levels. And telling everyone to join the gym isn't really going to cut it. But sidewalks and safer streets have a tone of benefits in terms of stress levels and connecting with people. And happier people live longer!
There are other good reasons to support "smart" street design; there's no reason to push theories that sound appealing but are simply false.

If the suburbs were truly to blame, the obesity epidemic would have taken off in the '60s, not the '90s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 05:25 AM
 
56,581 posts, read 80,870,855 times
Reputation: 12499
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
There are other good reasons to support "smart" street design; there's no reason to push theories that sound appealing but are simply false.

If the suburbs were truly to blame, the obesity epidemic would have taken off in the '60s, not the '90s.
Could we say that the design of suburbs have also changed during that time period as well? With that said, I don't think the reason for the increase in obesity is simply due to suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 07:05 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Could we say that the design of suburbs have also changed during that time period as well? With that said, I don't think the reason for the increase in obesity is simply due to suburbs.
If anything, the burbs are more pedestrian-friendly now than in the 50s. People in the burbs do have the best health overall. I've posted many links about this from credible health sources, which "The Atlantic" is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 07:30 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If anything, the burbs are more pedestrian-friendly now than in the 50s. People in the burbs do have the best health overall. I've posted many links about this from credible health sources, which "The Atlantic" is not.
That's not true here. 50s burbs were often relatively compact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 07:47 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's not true here. 50s burbs were often relatively compact.
Maybe more like the 60s. At least in the Pgh area, the 60s burbs had large lots, and no public transport. There also was little commercial. Now, commercial is usually integrated into the plans, although attracting the businesses is sometimes harder than the developers thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 08:01 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Maybe more like the 60s. At least in the Pgh area, the 60s burbs had large lots, and no public transport. There also was little commercial. Now, commercial is usually integrated into the plans, although attracting the businesses is sometimes harder than the developers thought.
In most of the Northeast, there hasn't been that many really large-scale suburban developments after the 70s, so it's hard for me to find current suburbs to compare. I've seen some newer suburbs (post-1980) in New Jersey, most seem worse from a walkability perspective than downstate NY ones. Lots aren't always huge, but they're often a pod or cluster off a big arterial road that's usually pedestrian hostile. A very unappealing neighborhood IMO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2202194,-74.2745378,15z

60s suburbs in Long Island weren't always great, either. The more walkable ones usually had a small older section nearby. Mostly 50s (not sure exactly) downstate NY:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6945021,-73.4570234,14z

still auto-oriented and I wouldn't really call a lot of it walkable, but it's more pedestrian friendly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 08:06 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,152,919 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's not true here. 50s burbs were often relatively compact.
yes I would think the 70-90s may have been the worst in this regard - but there are good and bad examples from all periods regardless

I don't think obesity can be directly attributed to street layout. It would seem there are more socio economic factors, ood options etc.

North Philly is very walkable and on a grid yet has high obesity rates as one of many examples that could be put out there. Central Bucks county is highly unwalkable yet has very low obesity rates etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,878,709 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
yes I would think the 70-90s may have been the worst in this regard - but there are good and bad examples from all periods regardless

I don't think obesity can be directly attributed to street layout. It would seem there are more socio economic factors, ood options etc.

North Philly is very walkable and on a grid yet has high obesity rates as one of many examples that could be put out there. Central Bucks county is highly unwalkable yet has very low obesity rates etc.
IIRC, education, ethnicity, and income are the biggest determinants in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top