Built environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the built environment: suburban tract housing in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

In urban planning, architecture and civil engineering, the term built environment, or built world, refers to the human-made environment that provides the setting for human activity, including homes, buildings, zoning, streets, sidewalks, open spaces, transportation options, and more.[1] It is defined as "the human-made space in which people live, work and recreate on a day-to-day basis."[2]

The built environment is relevant in the fields of architecture, urban planning, public health, sociology, and anthropology, among others.[3][4][5][6][7] It impacts how society physically maneuvers and functions, as well as less tangible aspects of society such as racial inequity. The topic of built environment also includes the ways in which communities have approached environmental issues that have arisen as a result of such altering of the environment for human activities amongst those of plants and animals.[8]

The built environment is made up of physical features. However, when studied, the built environment often highlights the connection between physical space and social consequences.[6] Various aspects of the built environment contribute to scholarship on housing and segregation, physical activity, food access, climate change, and environmental racism.[9][10][11]

History[]

Early concepts of built environment date to Classical Antiquity: Hippodamus of Miletos, known as the "father of urban planning"[by whom?], developed Greek cities from 498 BC to 408 BC that created order by using grid plans that mapped the city.[12] These early city plans eventually gave way to the City Beautiful movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s, inspired by Daniel Hudson Burnham, a reformist for the Progressivism movement who actively promoted "a reform of the landscape in tandem with political change."[13] The effort was in partnership with others who believed that beautifying American cities would improve the moral compass of the cities and encourage the upper class to spend their money in cities. This beautification process included parks and architectural design.[14] By mid-century modernist "indifferent" design influenced the character of work and public spaces, followed by what Alexander describes as a late twentieth century "revival of interest relating to the concept of place (including the built environment), and its relevance to mental health and other fields of study."[15]

The built environment has significant social implications as well as physical ones. Concern with the built environment can be found in anthropological literature as early as the early 19th century in studies of social and cultural history.[7] Early theories recognized that shelter and city organization was not only utilitarian, but reflected the culture of the societies that erected it. Durkheim, a foundational sociological theorist, similarly recognized that spatial organization is both a product of social factors but also plays a role in reproducing social forms.[16]

Modern built environment[]

Currently, built environments are typically used to describe the interdisciplinary field that addresses the design, construction, management, and use of these man-made surroundings as an interrelated whole as well as their relationship to human activities over time (rather than a particular element in isolation or at a single moment in time). The field is generally not regarded as a traditional profession or academic discipline in its own right, instead drawing upon areas such as economics, law, public policy, sociology, anthropology, public health, management, geography, design, engineering, technology, and environmental sustainability. Within the field of public health, built environments are referred to as building or renovating areas in an effort to improve the community's well-being through construction of “aesthetically, health improved, and environmentally improved landscapes and living structures”.[17] For example: community forest user group in Nepal is a multidimensional institution, which serves goods and services to the communities through natural resource management (see Climate change adaptation in Nepal).

Technology is playing a pivotal role in shaping the industries of today by augmenting processes, streamlining activities, and integrating innovations to propel the functioning of companies and organizations across a multitude of industries and help them achieve new heights. Building information modeling (BIM) is prominent practice. It involves illustration & pre-execution overview of physical and functional characteristics of places. BIM tools help the planner in making a future ready informed decision regarding a building or other built asset. Smart Building Management, Drone-based Surveying, 3D Printing, Intelligent Transportation System are recent implementation of technology in modern built environment.

Prominent features of the built environment[]

Highway 610 in Houston, Texas

Transportation options[]

Transportation options within a community play a large role in communities, both socially and physically. These options can include roads, sidewalks, public transportation infrastructure.

Roads and highways[]

Roads, while primarily intended to promote transit, can also serve as physical barriers in the built environment. One study out of Cornell University used Census data to compare the difference between linear distance and distance-by-road in American cities. The results found that road distance was disproportionately high between clusters of different racial groups, while it is much closer to linear distance within neighborhood clusters.[18] Major roadways can also divide social space by reducing walkability and separating business from residential areas.[19]

Sidewalks[]

New York City subway map

Sidewalks are an important feature of the built environment that enable pedestrian mobility and increase walkability. The quality and service of sidewalks can be impacted by factors like police patrolling, cleanliness, obstructions, and damage to the surface such as cracks.[20]

Public transport[]

Public transport raises property values by improving access to surrounding resources, lowers the cost of living by reducing the need for a car, and improves an area's environmental footprint by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[9] Studies show that land use and transit infrastructure has a great impact on the use of public transit in cities globally.[21] Individuals' decisions to either drive, walk, bike, or use public transit are shown to be influenced by spatial factors such as density.[22]

Research shows that the availability and nature of bike lanes and trails impacts cyclist numbers and behavior.[23] Additionally, the construction of bike lanes in America has sometimes been recognized as a symbol of gentrification, as it attracts younger white residents and impacts a location's demographics.[24]

Buildings[]

The location, design, and layout of buildings all have an impact on the function and effectiveness of a building's service. A building's location can influence how a building will be used, and how frequently.[25] Additionally, the design of indoor space, as determined by architects and designers, has a great impact on how the space functions and the behavior it promotes.[26]

Parks and green space[]

Parks provide a number of neighborhood benefits including promotion of physical activity and environmental wellbeing.[27] The location and accessibility of parks also has a great influence on the surrounding communities, even impacting environmental factors like temperature.[28]

Impact of the built environment[]

Housing and segregation[]

Features in the built environment present physical barriers which constitute the boundaries between neighborhoods.[29] Roads and railways, for instance, play a large role in how people can feasibly navigate their environment.[18] This can result in the isolation of certain communities from various resources and from each other.[18] The placement of roads, highways, and sidewalks also determines what access people have to jobs and childcare close to home, especially in areas where most people do not own vehicles. Walkability directly influences community, so the way a neighborhood is built affects the outcomes and opportunities of the community that lives there.[19] Even less physically imposing features, such as architectural design, can distinguish the boundaries between communities and decrease movement across neighborhood lines.[30]

The segregation of communities is significant because the qualities of any given space directly impact the wellbeing of the people who live and work there.[6] George Galster and Patrick Sharkey refer to this variation in geographic context as "spatial opportunity structure," and claim that the built environment influences socioeconomic outcomes and general welfare.[6] For instance, the history of redlining and housing segregation means that there is less green space in many Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Access to parks and green space has been proven to be good for mental health which puts these communities at a disadvantage.[9] The historical segregation has contributed to environmental injustice, as these neighborhoods suffer from hotter summers since urban asphalt absorbs more heat than trees and grass.[28]

Public health[]

Public health research has expanded the list of concerns associated with the built environment to include healthy food access, community gardens, mental health,[31][32] physical health,[33][10][34] walkability, and cycling mobility.[35]

Physical activity[]

Further information: Active design and Healthy city

Since, the built environment determines how people move throughout a given space, it influences public health by promoting or discouraging health and wellness. Research has indicated that the way neighborhoods are created can affect both the physical activity and mental health of the communities’ residents.[36] Built environments purposefully designed to improve physical activity are also linked to higher rates of physical activity, which in turn, positively affects health.[37][38] People are generally more active in densely populated areas, areas good street connectivity, and mixed-use communities which incorporate both retail and residential space.[39] As a result, those who prefer to walk and live in walkable environments often have lower obesity rates and drive less compared to those who preferred living in auto-dependent environments.[40]

Further information: Obesity and walking
A separated bike lane in New York City.

Neighborhoods with more walkability have lower rates of obesity, as well as increased physical activity among its residents. They also have lower rates of depression, higher social capital, and less alcohol abuse. Walkability features in these neighborhoods include safety, sidewalk construction, as well as destinations in which to walk.[36] In addition, the perception of a walkable neighborhood, one that is perceived to have good sidewalks and connectivity, is correlated with higher rates of physical activity.[37]

Assessments of walkability have been completed through the use of GIS programs, such as the Street Smart Walk Score. This example of a walkability assessment tool determines distances to grocery stores and other amenities, as well as connectivity and intersection frequency using specific addresses.[41] Assessments such as the Street Smart Walk Score can be utilized by city and country planning departments to improve existing walkability of communities.

To implement walkable neighborhoods, community members and local leaders should focus on policy development. An effective framework that has been utilized in an abundance of communities is the Complete Streets concept of community planning that has been developed by the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC).[42] NCSC states that the most successful policies are those that reflect input from a broad group of stakeholders, including transportation planners and engineers, elected officials, transit agencies, public health departments, and members of the community.[42] According to Riggs, 2016, policies may focus on a “Complete Streets” investment, which includes sidewalk bulb-outs and refuges to reduce crossing distances or street widths for pedestrians. Other investments should include installing crosswalks, road markings, benches, shelters and sidewalk art installations.[43] Every community will have a unique method of policy development depending on whether it is an urban, suburban, or rural community and how the policy will combine the variety of transportation modalities. Communities may choose to focus on walkability, but will also need to consider biking, wheeling/rolling, driving, and emergency vehicles. The NCSC policy workbook gives descriptive guidance on how to proceed with policy development whether they be council-driven, council-approved, directives, or citizen vote.[42] When deciding how to proceed with walkability policy development, considerations should be made regarding current and past transportation policies, local community and government support, and how transportation policies have been implemented in the past.

A community garden located in Montreal, Canada.

Public health also addresses additional components of built environments including “cycling mobility”, which refers to the access that an area has granted to safe biking through multiple bike paths and bike lanes.[44] Both walkability and bikeability have been cited as determinants of physical activity.[45]

Built environments containing recreational facilities have been associated with greater physical activity among children.[5] For example, one study found that walking paths, parks with playgrounds, swimming areas, basketball courts and other various recreational facilities increased physical activity among adolescent girls.[46] Urban planning and its utilization of mixed use development are key factors affecting childhood obesity. Mixed use spaces are composed of residential, commercial, cultural, and institutional components.[47] This type of development helps to reduce the distance residents have to travel to access a grocery store or school. It also creates a more walkable and bike friendly environment for residents.

It has been proven that high-density environments, meaning mixed use spaces and neighborhoods with higher walkability and bikeability, will increase physical activity.[48] A multivariable cross-sectional study done by the Harvard School of Public Health examined the association of walkable built environment characteristics with body mass index (BMI) scores among a large sample of children and adolescents.[48] A series of geographic information system variables were used to characterize a walkable built environment.

  1. A distance less than 15 km to a private or public recreational open space has been linked to an increase in physical activity among children.[48] This may be due to the influence children have on one another when they see others playing.[48]
  2. Also, a higher number of open spaces increases the likelihood of physical activity among children.[48]
  3. A more densely populated residential area can increase children's proximity to their peers creating a more walkable environment.[48]
  4. Less traffic density can also increase physical activity among children because their parents feel safe when they are walking in the neighborhood.[48]
  5. Lower neighborhood speed limits with more sidewalks and intersections also create a safer environment for children increasing their likelihood to walk in the neighborhood.[48]
  6. Finally, a greater variety of land use mix, or mixed use spaces, result in more children walking.[48]

These built environment characteristics that can increase walkability were found to be generally associated with a lower BMI scores among the children sampled.[48] Another study looking at active commuting, those reporting walking, biking, or skateboarding to school more than three times a week, among elementary aged children had significantly lower BMI than non-active commuters.[49] For these reason, mixed use lands within the built environment are imperative to helping address childhood obesity. Urban sprawl, which has been positively associated with increased obesity, and an overall decline in active transportation in recent decades presents a real need for improving health within the built environment.[49][50] High-density environments bring schools, parks, and grocery stores closer to residents making it convenient to potentially eat healthier foods and exercise on a regular basis. Comprehensive urban planning, such as mixed use development, promotes healthier lifestyles in general.

The strength of the evidence for reducing obesity through environment has been highlighted by the Centers for Disease Control in its Common Community Measures for Obesity Prevention Project, which includes measures of healthy food access and physical activity environments.[51]

Food access[]

Access to healthy food is also an important component of the built environment. A higher density of convenience stores has been associated with obesity in children.[52] In contrast, improved access to community supermarkets and farmer's markets is correlated with lower overweight status.[11] Specifically in low income neighborhoods, the presence of a local grocery store is correlated with lower BMI/overweight risk.[53] Community gardens are also considered a part of the built environment, and have been shown to increase fruit and vegetable intake among gardeners.[54] Scholars say that community gardens have also been shown to have positive social and psychological impacts that lead to lower levels of stress, hypertension, and an improved sense of wellness, affecting the overall health of the individual and the community.

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ "The Built Environment Assessment Tool Manual | DNPAO | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2021-03-29.
  2. ^ Roof, K; Oleru N. (2008). "Public Health: Seattle and King County's Push for the Built Environment". J Environ Health. 75: 24–27.
  3. ^ Sussman, Ann (2014). Cognitive architecture : designing for how we respond to the built environment. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-367-46860-6. OCLC 1224041975.
  4. ^ Handy, Susan L.; Boarnet, Marlon G.; Ewing, Reid; Killingsworth, Richard E. (2002-08-01). "How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 23 (2): 64–73. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0. ISSN 0749-3797. PMID 12133739.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b Sallis, James F.; Floyd, Myron F.; Rodriguez, Daniel A.; Saelens, Brian E. (February 2012). "The Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and CVD". Circulation. 125 (5): 729–37. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.969022. PMC 3315587. PMID 22311885.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Galster, George; Sharkey (2017). "Spatial Foundations of Inequality: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Overview". RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 3 (2): 1. doi:10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.01. ISSN 2377-8253. S2CID 131768289.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b Lawrence, Denise L.; Low, Setha M. (1990). "The Built Environment and Spatial Form". Annual Review of Anthropology. 19: 453–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002321. ISSN 0084-6570. JSTOR 2155973.
  8. ^ Omer, Abdeen Mustafa (2015). Built Environment : Identifying, Developing, and Moving Sustainable Communities Through Renewable Energy. e-book: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. pp. xxix. ISBN 978-1-63463-339-0.
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b c Carmona, Matthew (2019-01-02). "Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes". Journal of Urban Design. 24 (1): 1–48. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1472523. ISSN 1357-4809. S2CID 115751848.
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b Ghimire, Ramesh; Ferreira, Susana; Green, Gary T.; Poudyal, Neelam C.; Cordell, H. Ken; Thapa, Janani R. (June 2017). "Green Space and Adult Obesity in the United States". Ecological Economics. 136: 201–212. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.002. ISSN 0921-8009.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b Rahman, T; Cushing RA; Jackson RJ (2011). "Contributions of built environment to childhood obesity". Mt Sinai J Med. 78 (1): 49–57. doi:10.1002/msj.20235. PMID 21259262.
  12. ^ Burns, Alfred (1976). "Hippodamus and the Planned City". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 25 (4): 414–428. ISSN 0018-2311. JSTOR 4435519.
  13. ^ "The City Beautiful Movement". Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  14. ^ "Architecture: The City Beautiful Movement". Retrieved 22 April 2012.
  15. ^ Alexander, Donald (2008). "Physical determinism, modernism and mental health". Environments. 35 (3). hdl:10613/2722.
  16. ^ Durkheim, Émile (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. ISBN 978-1-4209-6330-4. OCLC 1117643220.
  17. ^ "The Built Environment and Health: 11 Profiles of Neighborhood Transformation". Retrieved 12 April 2012.
  18. ^ Jump up to: a b c Roberto, Elizabeth and Jackelyn Hwang. 2017. “Barriers to Integration: Physical Boundaries and the Spatial Structure of Residential Segregation.” Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
  19. ^ Jump up to: a b Pando, Patricia (2011). "In the Nickel, Houston's Fifth Ward" (PDF). Houston History Magazine.
  20. ^ Bivina, Geetha Rajendran; Parida, Manoranjan (2019-05-10). "Modelling perceived pedestrian level of service of sidewalks: a structural equation approach". Transport. 34 (3): 339–350. doi:10.3846/transport.2019.9819. ISSN 1648-3480.
  21. ^ Pucher, J.; Lefevre, C. (1996). The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-99972-9. OCLC 1004382761.
  22. ^ Handy, Susan; Cao, Xinyu; Mokhtarian, Patricia (2005-11-01). "Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 10 (6): 427–444. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002. ISSN 1361-9209.
  23. ^ Tilahun, Nebiyou Y.; Levinson, David M.; Krizek, Kevin J. (2007-05-01). "Trails, lanes, or traffic: Valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 41 (4): 287–301. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.007. hdl:11299/179949. ISSN 0965-8564.
  24. ^ L., HOFFMANN, MELODY (2020). BIKE LANES ARE WHITE LANES : bicycle advocacy and urban planning. UNIV OF NEBRASKA PRESS. ISBN 978-1-4962-2231-2. OCLC 1151199831.
  25. ^ Walker, Elizabeth; Brown, Alan (2004). "What Success Factors are Important to Small Business Owners?". International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship. 22 (6): 577–594. doi:10.1177/0266242604047411. ISSN 0266-2426. S2CID 154540091.
  26. ^ Sebastian., Macmillan (2004). Designing better buildings : quality and value in the built environment. Spon. ISBN 0-415-31525-5. OCLC 688469023.
  27. ^ Jackson, Richard J. (2003-09-01). "The Impact of the Built Environment on Health: An Emerging Field". American Journal of Public Health. 93 (9): 1382–1384. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1382. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 1447976. PMID 12948946.
  28. ^ Jump up to: a b Plumer, Brad; Popovich, Nadja; Palmer, Brian (2020-08-24). "How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-03-29.
  29. ^ Kramer, Rory (2017). "Defensible Spaces in Philadelphia: Exploring Neighborhood Boundaries Through Spatial Analysis". RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 3 (2): 81–101. doi:10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.04. ISSN 2377-8253. JSTOR 10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.04. S2CID 149167954.
  30. ^ Small, Mario Luis (2004). Villa Victoria. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226762937.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-76292-0.
  31. ^ [1][dead link]
  32. ^ Assari, A Birashk, B Nik, M Mousavi Naghdbishi, R (2016). "IMPACT OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT ON MENTAL HEALTH: REVIEW OF TEHRAN CITY IN IRAN". International Journal on Technical and Physical Problems of Engineering. 8 (26): 81–87.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ^ Boncinelli, Fabio; Riccioli, Francesco; Marone, Enrico (May 2015). "Do forests help to keep my body mass index low?". Forest Policy and Economics. 54: 11–17. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.02.003. ISSN 1389-9341.
  34. ^ Sander, Heather A.; Ghosh, Debarchana; Hodson, Cody B. (August 2017). "Varying age-gender associations between body mass index and urban greenspace". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 26: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.016. ISSN 1618-8667. PMC 5716478. PMID 29225562.
  35. ^ Lee, V; Mikkelsen, L; Srikantharajah, J; Cohen, L. "Strategies for Enhancing the Built Environment to Support Healthy Eating and Active Living". Prevention Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2012.[permanent dead link]
  36. ^ Jump up to: a b Renalds, A; Smith, T; Hale, P (2010). "A Systematic Review of Built Environment and Health". Family and Community Health. 33 (1): 68–78. doi:10.1097/fch.0b013e3181c4e2e5. PMID 20010006. S2CID 21556333.
  37. ^ Jump up to: a b Carlson, C; Aytur, S; Gardner, K; Rogers, S (2012). "Complexity in Built Environment, Health, and Destination Walking: A Neighborhood-Scale Analysis". J Urban Health. 89 (2): 270–84. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9652-8. PMC 3324613. PMID 22350512.
  38. ^ Sallis, James F.; Cerin, Ester; Kerr, Jacqueline; Adams, Marc A.; Sugiyama, Takemi; Christiansen, Lars B.; Schipperijn, Jasper; Davey, Rachel; Salvo, Deborah; Frank, Lawrence D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, Ilse (2020-04-02). "Built Environment, Physical Activity, and Obesity: Findings from the International Physical Activity and Environment Network (IPEN) Adult Study". Annual Review of Public Health. 41 (1): 119–139. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043657. ISSN 0163-7525. PMID 32237990.
  39. ^ Heath, G; Brownson, R; Kruger, J; et al. (2006). "The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review". Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 3 (s1): S55–S76. doi:10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s55. PMID 28834525. S2CID 5971070.
  40. ^ Frank, L; Saelens, B; Powell, K; Chapmen, J (2007). "Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?". Social Science & Medicine. 65 (9): 1898–1914. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.053. PMID 17644231.
  41. ^ "Walk Score Methodology" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 May 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  42. ^ Jump up to: a b c "Complete Streets local policy workbook, Smart Growth America".
  43. ^ Riggs, William (2016). "Inclusively walkable: exploring the equity of walkable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area". Local Environment. 21 (5): 527–554. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.982080.
  44. ^ Horacek, TM; White AA; Greene GW; et al. (2012). "Sneakers and spokes: an assessment of the walkability and bikeability of U.S. postsecondary institutions". J Environ Health. 74 (2): 8–15. PMID 21949979.
  45. ^ Cochrane, T; Davey, R (2008). "Increasing uptake of physical activity: A social ecological approach". J R Soc Promot Health. 128 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1177/1466424007085223. PMID 18274328. S2CID 34749255.
  46. ^ Cohen, Deborah A.; Ashwood, Scott; Scott, Molly M.; Overton, Adrian; Evenson, Kelly R.; Staten, Lisa K.; Porter, Dwayne; McKenzie, Thomas L.; Catellier, Diane (November 2006). "Public Parks and Physical Activity Among Adolescent Girls". Pediatrics. 118 (5): e1381–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1226. PMC 2239262. PMID 17079539.
  47. ^ "Planning and Community Health Research Center: Mixed Use Development". American Planning Association. 2013-02-07. Archived from the original on 2013-02-07. Retrieved October 29, 2018.
  48. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Duncan, Dustin T.; Sharifi, Mona; Melly, Steven J.; Marshall, Richard; Sequist, Thomas D.; Rifas-Shiman, Sheryl L.; Taveras, Elsie M. (December 2014). "Characteristics of walkable built environments and BMI z-scores in children: evidence from a large electronic health record database". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (12): 1359–65. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307704. PMC 4256697. PMID 25248212.
  49. ^ Jump up to: a b Rosenberg, Dori E.; Sallis, James F.; Conway, Terry L.; Cain, Kelli L.; McKenzie, Thomas L. (September 2012). "Active Transportation to School Over 2 Years in Relation to Weight Status and Physical Activity". Obesity. 14 (10): 1771–6. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.204. PMID 17062807. S2CID 21770180.
  50. ^ Lopez, Russ (September 2004). "Urban Sprawl and Risk for Being Overweight or Obese". Am J Public Health. 94 (9): 1574–9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.9.1574. PMC 1448496. PMID 15333317.
  51. ^ Kahn, LK; Sobush K; Keener D; et al. (2009). "Recommended community strategies and measurements to prevention obesity in the United States". MMWR Recomm Rep. 58 (RR-7): 1–26. PMID 19629029.
  52. ^ Grafova, I (2008). "Overweight Children: Assessing The Contribution Of The Built Environment". Prev Med. 47 (3): 304–308. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.04.012. PMID 18539318.
  53. ^ Zick, C; Smith, K; Fan, J; Brown, B; Yamada, I; Kowaleski-Jones, L (2009). "Running to the store? The relationship between neighborhood environments and the risk of obesity". Soc Sci Med. 69 (10): 1493–500. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.032. PMC 2791711. PMID 19766372.
  54. ^ Litt, J; Soobader, M; Turbin, M; Hale, J; Buchenau, M; Marshall, J (2011). "The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption". Am J Public Health. 101 (8): 1466–73. doi:10.2105/ajph.2010.300111. PMC 3134498. PMID 21680931.

Further reading[]

External links[]


Retrieved from ""