Research articleNeighborhood Design for Walking and Biking: Physical Activity and Body Mass Index
Introduction
A growing body of work relates activity-friendly neighborhood environmental designs to measured physical activity, or separately, to healthier adult BMIs.1, 2 The underlying conceptualization is that environmental supports for walking or biking will enable residents to be more active and thereby sustain healthy BMIs. Yet few neighborhood studies actually include both physical activity and BMI in the same model. The present research relates activity-friendly neighborhood environmental indicators, including novel evidence of bikeability, to objective measures of physical activity and BMI.
Many studies have assessed how “walkability”—neighborhood design features that support walking—relates to walking. These measures typically include aspects of the “3Ds” of walkability: population density, land-use diversity, and pedestrian-friendly street design.3 The present study employs four census indicators of activity-friendly environments that are available for all U.S. communities, have received substantial empirical support,4, 5 and could guide community interventions. These include older neighborhoods, greater density, and greater proportions of workers who walk or bike to work.
Older neighborhoods have many modifiable 3D design features6 that might encourage active transportation7 and healthier weight8, 9: high population densities; diverse destinations; and pleasant, tree-shaded sidewalks.6, 10 Higher population density creates the critical mass needed to provide neighborhood destinations such as transit stops and restaurants and has been related to more physical activity11, 12 and lower BMI.8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Land-use diversity, such as homes near workplaces,8, 9 brings desired destinations within walking distance. Diversity is defined in various ways19 and is often related to healthier weight.8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Few studies of neighborhood design and weight include “bikeability” (i.e., cyclist-friendly design), although bikeable environments may support physical activities for many, not just for cyclists. Biking is more likely in environments that offer density,12, 23 diversity,23 activity-friendly design features (e.g., lower speeds on roads23); or a combination of the 3Ds.24 These studies generally, but not universally,25 suggest that bikeability is similar to walkability. Bikeable environments may also include additional features, such as bike signage and traffic lights,23 bike lanes,26 or road-separated bike paths,27 bike lane connectivity,28 and nearby sports and park spaces29, 30 or natural amenities.12 Further, bicycling involves longer trips than walking. Thus, bikeable and walkable environments may be sufficiently distinct to have unique relationships with residents' physical activity and BMI.
Walkability/bikeability often relates to physical activity and/or BMI, but not to both outcomes in the same model. For example, in Baltimore and Seattle, 3D walkability related to more adult MVPA and, separately, to less overweight/obesity risk.31 In Atlanta, the 3Ds related to more walking and, separately, to less risk of overweight and obesity, for white men only.32 For National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) 1988–1994 data, county walkability related to self-reported walking and, separately, to measured weight.33
One study in Ghent, Belgium, tested whether activity mediated the relationship between walkability and self-reported BMI in low- and high-walkability neighborhoods.34 Surprisingly, walkability was not related to BMI but higher accelerometer-measured MVPA was related to lower BMI. The authors argued that MVPA mediated the relationship between walkability and weight. The present study tests for mediation in the U.S., where walkability/bikeability and active transportation are lower.35, 36 Specifically, the current paper examines (1) whether walkability/bikeability relates to BMI and obesity risk; and (2) whether this relationship diminishes when MVPA is included in the analysis, suggesting a causal role for MVPA.
Section snippets
Methods
Data from NHANES 2003–2004 and 2005–200637 included 20,470 individuals from 60 different geographic areas,38 with cold areas visited during warm months.39 Participants were interviewed, measured for BMI, and those who could walk were invited to wear accelerometers (Actigraph Model 7164) for 7 days.40 The Research Data Center (National Center for Health Statistics, CDC) merged 2000 Census walkability/bikeability data to NHANES data.
Validation Tests
The validation study (full results available from authors on request), based on census tract measures, demonstrated that walkability/bikeability measures were related to traditional walkability measures. Walk to work was a function of street intersection connectivity (b=0.045, SE=0.003); population density (b=0.097, SE=0.002); and building age (b=0.072, SE=0.002), with an R2 of 0.11. Bike to work was a function of street connectivity (b=0.020, SE=0.001), population density (b=0.003, SE=0.000),
Discussion
Walkability and bikeability features were predictors of lower BMI and higher obesity risk (Tables 1 and 2). Recall that these findings are unlikely to be driven by healthier weights of those who walk or bike to work, given that they account for less than 3% of employed individuals in the neighborhood. In past research, the walk-to-work variable has been understood as an indicator of mixed land use, given that homes and employment sites are present within a walkable distance.8 Bikeability may
References (60)
- et al.
Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design
Transport Res
(1997) - et al.
The association between urban form and physical activity in U.S. adults
Am J Prev Med
(2002) - et al.
Walkability and body mass index: density, design, and new diversity measures
Am J Prev Med
(2008) - et al.
Running to the store?The relationship between neighborhood environments and the risk of obesity
Soc Sci Med
(2009) - et al.
Cycling and walking: explaining the spatial distribution of healthy modes of transportation in the U.S.
Transport Res
(2008) - et al.
The link between obesity and the built environmentEvidence from an ecological analysis of obesity and vehicle miles of travel in California
Health Place
(2006) - et al.
Obesity rates, income, and suburban sprawl: an analysis of U.S. states
Health Place
(2004) - et al.
Pathways to obesity: identifying local, modifiable determinants of physical activity and diet
Soc Sci Med
(2007) - et al.
Mixed land use and walkability: variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity
Health Place
(2009) - et al.
Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars
Am J Prev Med
(2004)
Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure
Prev Med
Association of built-environment, social-environment and personal factors with bicycling as a mode of transportation among Austrian city dwellers
Prev Med
Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes
Soc Sci Med
A hierarchy of sociodemographic and environmental correlates of walking and obesity
Prev Med
Physical activity as a mediator of the associations between neighborhood walkability and adiposity in Belgian adults
Health Place
The weight of place: a multilevel analysis of gender, neighborhood material deprivation, and body mass index among Canadian adults
Soc Sci Med
Accelerometer-determined steps/day and metabolic syndrome
Am J Prev Med
Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of 6 small U.S. cities
Transport Res
Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review
Prev Med
The built environment and obesity
Epidemiol Rev
Built environment correlates of walking: a review
Med Sci Sports Exerc
Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis
J Am Plann Assoc
Neighborhoods and obesity
Nutr Rev
Development of a pedestrian walkability database of Northern Kentucky using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
J Phys Act Health
The built environment and traffic safety: a review of empirical evidence
J Plann Literature
Do adults like living in high-walkable neighborhoods?Associations of walkability parameters with neighborhood satisfaction and possible mediators
Health Place
Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese
Am J Public Health
Body mass index in urban Canada: neighborhood and metropolitan area effects
Am J Public Health
The urban built environment and obesity in New York City: a multilevel analysis
Am J Health Promot
Environment, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk in low-income women
Am J Prev Med
Cited by (62)
The changing food environment and neighborhood prevalence of type 2 diabetes
2023, SSM - Population HealthChronic environmental diseases: burdens, causes, and response
2023, Biological and Environmental Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, Second EditionDeveloping an index to evaluate the quality of pedestrian environment: Case study application in an Indian metro
2021, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesDeveloping an urban bikeability index for different types of cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments
2020, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and PracticeCitation Excerpt :Benefits of cycling to public health, the environment, and the economy have been well documented in the literature. Cycling improves physical and mental health of travellers, reduces vehicular emissions and travel times, and generates cost-savings (e.g., Brown et al., 2013; Frank & Engelke, 2001; Hatfield & Boufous, 2016; Khan et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2011; Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Osama et al., 2017; Rietveld, 2001). Due to the wide range of benefits it offers to individuals and the community, many governments around the world are promoting initiatives and policies to encourage cycling (Buehler & Dill, 2016; Hatfield & Boufous, 2016; Osama et al., 2017).