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/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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
