Children who live in walkable areas, with a child-friendly park nearby and access to healthy food have 59% lower odds of being obese. More on This Big City.
兒童若居住在適合步行的環境,住家附近又有兒童公園,亦有商家販售健康食品,肥胖機率會下降59%。更多內容請見《城事》。
via thisbigcity:

Children who live in walkable areas, with a child-friendly park nearby and access to healthy food have 59% lower odds of being obese. More on This Big City.

兒童若居住在適合步行的環境,住家附近又有兒童公園,亦有商家販售健康食品,肥胖機率會下降59%。更多內容請見《城事》。

via thisbigcity:

Can better urban planning make us healthier? - CSMonitor.com
Does urban sprawl cause obesity and unhealthy habits?
Matthew Turner and co-authors have written an under-appreciated paper  that was published in the Journal of Urban Economics.   Here is the  abstract of their paper titled “Fat City”:”

"We  study the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity. Using data that  tracks individuals over time, we find no evidence that urban sprawl  causes obesity. We show that previous findings of a positive  relationship most likely reflect a failure to properly control for the  fact the individuals who are more likely to be obese choose to live in  more sprawling neighborhoods. Our results indicate that current interest  in changing the built environment to counter the rise in obesity is  misguided."

Intuitively, Turner estimates a fixed  effects regression using panel data where he tracks the same person over  time for people who move from the center city to the suburbs or vice  versa. If sprawl makes us fat, then the average person who moves from  the center to the suburbs should be gaining more weight over time than  the people who never leave the center city or never leave the suburbs.  Turner rejects this hypothesis.
So, there is plenty of work to be  done here but it remains an open question of how urban form affects our  behavior. I’ve been especially interested in this question focused on  our carbon footprint as a function of urban form.

Can better urban planning make us healthier? - CSMonitor.com

Does urban sprawl cause obesity and unhealthy habits?

Matthew Turner and co-authors have written an under-appreciated paper that was published in the Journal of Urban Economics.   Here is the abstract of their paper titled “Fat City”:

"We study the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity. Using data that tracks individuals over time, we find no evidence that urban sprawl causes obesity. We show that previous findings of a positive relationship most likely reflect a failure to properly control for the fact the individuals who are more likely to be obese choose to live in more sprawling neighborhoods. Our results indicate that current interest in changing the built environment to counter the rise in obesity is misguided."

Intuitively, Turner estimates a fixed effects regression using panel data where he tracks the same person over time for people who move from the center city to the suburbs or vice versa. If sprawl makes us fat, then the average person who moves from the center to the suburbs should be gaining more weight over time than the people who never leave the center city or never leave the suburbs. Turner rejects this hypothesis.

So, there is plenty of work to be done here but it remains an open question of how urban form affects our behavior. I’ve been especially interested in this question focused on our carbon footprint as a function of urban form.

Earth Day is a good opportunity to remember the tremendous discrepancies in who has access to fresh fruits and vegetables — and thus, who has the luxury of eating a healthy, balanced diet — in this country. My fellow bloggers and I have written extensively about so-called “food deserts,” where the number of grocery stores are dramatically insufficient for the number of residents. Too often, people in these neighborhoods rely on corner stores, where a bag of Doritos is cheap and available and a container of strawberries may not fit either criteria. As a result, federal, state and local governments have pushed to make healthy food more accessible. It’s a major part of Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” anti-obesity initiative, and her husband’s proposed budget for next year would dedicate $400 million to bringing fresh food to corner stores. But such efforts don’t do much good if the produce that makes it to poor neighborhoods is close to spoiling or has the potential to make people sick. A new study from Drexel University researchers published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine shows that when stores in poor neighborhoods do get fresh produce, it poses both of those risks to buyers. After buying salad, strawberries, cucumbers and watermelon repeatedly over 15 months in the Philadelphia area, the scientists found that mold, microorganisms and bacteria were all more likely to be present on produce purchased from stores in poor neighborhoods than in wealthier ones. In other words, if you are a poor Philadelphian buying fruits and vegetables in your own neighborhood, chances are your produce will spoil faster and may give you food poisoning. How appetizing.

In Poor Neighborhoods, “Fresh” Produce Isn’t Always What it Seems | Poverty in America | Change.org

Yet another obstacle to getting fresh food into underserved neighborhoods.

-Julia Childhood

(via shutupfoodies)