Reading Reflection 3

HealthyCommunityDesign.pdf

Home >English homework help >Article writing homework help >Reading Reflection 3

“Physical Activity, Sprawl, and Health” from Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities (2004)

Howard Frumkin, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Jackson

In just a few generations, the built environment

has changed profoundly, and with it, the levels

of physical activity in daily life. With changes in

technology and migration from the countryside to

metropolitan areas, agricultural labor now accounts

for less than 5 percent of the workforce. Machines

have replaced muscle power, transforming manu-

facturing and construction work. In a “postindustrial”

economy, the typical job now involves sitting at a

desk or computer terminal.

Editors’ Introduction

Even as residents of communities in many developing countries struggle to get enough to eat, populations in industrialized nations are increasingly overweight, leading to a variety of public health problems including diabetes. Such problems are not just a question of diet. Rather, they stem also from the motor-vehicle- dependent nature of many cities and towns, the lack of safe and attractive places to walk or bike, the rise of new communications technologies such as television and the internet, and the patterns and pressures of daily life.

In this selection three leading public health and urban planning researchers consider the physical and mental costs of sedentary lifestyles, and identify some factors that might lead people to live more physically active lives. Their work is representative of that of many others during the 2000s who sought to zero in on the causes of physical inactivity and initiate programs to reverse this trend. Other writings on this topic include Richard Jackson’s Designing Healthy Communities (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012), Jason Corburn’s Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), and Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustain- ability (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2011), edited by Andrew L. Dannenberg, Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson.

A century ago, physical activity was woven into

the fabric of life. Most jobs required physical

exertion. Much of the population was agricultural,

and farm life consisted of long days of hard work.

Factory work, construction work, and even many

service jobs required strenuous exertion. People

walked to get from place to place, they used stairs

instead of elevators and escalators, and household

chores – cleaning, cooking, gardening, and repair

work – were acts of manual labor.

Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:24:58.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W A R D F R U M K I N , L A W R E N C E F R A N K , A N D R I C H A R D J A C K S O N352352

Conveyor belts move us through airports, esca-

lators move us up and down in stores, and elevators

take us from lobbies to upper floors. At home,

washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, blenders,

vacuum cleaners, leaf blowers, gasoline-powered

lawn mowers, and countless other appliances have

eased the physical burden of household work. And

changes in land use have radically changed the way

we travel. Different land uses are separated from

each other by large distances. The transportation

infrastructure is increasingly planned and built for

automobiles rather than for pedestrians. Travel by

foot or bicycle has given way to driving.

The result is a nation of sedentary people.

According to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS), an annual national survey, more

than half of American adults are not physically

active on a regular basis, and just over one in four

reports no leisure-time physical activity at all.1 In

2000, only 26.2 percent of adults were classified as

meeting recommended levels of physical activity

(defined as any physical activity for at least thirty

minutes per day at least five days per week, or

vigorous physical activity for at least twenty minutes

at least three days per week). Among children aged

nine to thirteen, the pattern is similar: 61.5 percent

participate in no organized physical activity when

not in school, and 22.6 percent engage in no free-

time physical activity.2

Sedentary lifestyles have emerged as a pressing

public health challenge, because some of the con-

sequences – overweight, type 2 diabetes, and other

conditions – have reached epidemic proportions.

Public health advocates have worked hard to

promote more physical activity, and researchers

have worked hard to identify what factors will

help in this effort. Clearly, there are many such

factors. In their 1999 book, Physical Activity and

Behavioral Medicine,3 Sallis and Owen proposed

an ecological model that included six categories:

demographic and biological factors (such as age,

gender, race, and socioeconomic status); psycho-

logical, cognitive, and emotional factors (such as

knowledge, attitudes, beliefs about exercise, and

stress levels); behavioral attributes and skills (such

as past history of physical activity); social and cul-

tural factors (such as family and social support);

physical environment factors (such as the presence

of sidewalks and attractive scenery); and physical

activity characteristics (such as intensity). The

ecological model predicts that these categories of

factors interact in complex ways.

THE VARIETIES OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

To consider the relationship between sprawl and

physical activity, we need to understand the categories

of physical activity. Three dimensions are especi-

ally relevant: recreational versus utilitarian activity,

moderate versus intense activity, and activity as it

varies among different groups of people.

Physical activity may be either recreational or

utilitarian.4 Recreational physical activity – a jog

in the park, a game of tennis – is carried out

with the intention of getting exercise. In contrast,

utilitarian physical activity is done for a purpose,

such as walking to the store, to the theater, or to

work. The primary purpose of such a trip is to

arrive at the destination, and the physical activity

it involves is incidental. Physical activity done at

work – lifting boxes, carrying tools, and so on – is

also utilitarian, and for some people, it accounts for

the majority of physical activity. (Some activities,

such as gardening, have both recreational and

utilitarian qualities.)

The distinction is important because the impetus

for recreational physical activity is very different

than the impetus for utilitarian physical activity.

Recreational physical activity, or exercise, requires

a high level of motivation, and even people who

begin exercise programs often do not sustain them.

Utilitarian physical activity, on the other hand, is

secondary to other goals. For this reason, it may

be easier to build into a daily routine and maintain

over time. A person who walks three blocks from

home to the subway each morning, rides to the

station near his office, walks the final two blocks

to his office, and reverses the commute at the end

of the day, walks at least ten blocks a day (and even

more if he walks to lunch or on errands at midday).

Even if he gets no “exercise” at all, his daily routine

includes a fair level of physical activity.

The built environment influences both recre-

ational and utilitarian physical activity. Environments

that provide facilities for active recreation, such

as nearby parks, multiuse trails, and even appealing

sidewalks or public spaces for evening strolls, may

promote recreational physical activity. On the util-

itarian side, environments that facilitate commuting

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

353“ P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y , S P R A W L , A N D H E A L T H ”

T W O

by foot, bicycle, or transit (most transit riders are

also walkers, since they have to travel to and from

the transit stops) help incorporate walking or bicyc-

ling as a daily routine. Environments that locate

stores, theaters, and other destinations within

walking distance of home and work have the same

potential, a strategic opportunity since nonwork

trips account for the majority of trips people make.

Another important distinction is between

moderate and vigorous physical activity. Moderate

physical activity is defined as activity that raises

the heart rate to 50 to 69 percent of its maximum

capacity, whereas vigorous physical activity raises

the heart rate to at least 70 percent of its maximum.

A person’s maximum heart rate is commonly

estimated by subtracting his or her age from 220.

For example, a fifty-year-old person’s estimated

maximum heart rate would be 220 – 50 = 170 beats per minute. The 50 percent and 70 percent levels

would be 85 and 119 beats per minute, respectively.

Brisk walking, bicycling, and even gardening

qualify as moderate physical activities.5 Current

recommendations are for a half hour of moderate

physical activity on at least five days per week,6

although some experts have suggested higher

levels.7 Moderate physical activity is as beneficial

as vigorous exercise in preventing cardiovascular

disease, assuming that equivalent levels of energy

are expended.8

Contrary to popular opinion, such activity does

not need to be accumulated in one activity session,

such as a gym workout. Multiple episodes during

that day, as short as eight or ten minutes, offer

the same benefit. This has implications for built

environment design; places designed so that people

walk on multiple occasions during the day may go

a long way toward helping them reach recommended

levels of physical activity.

A final distinction is not between different kinds

of physical activity, but among different groups of

people. Different people are active (or inactive) in

different ways. Much research in recent years has

characterized the physical activity patterns, and the

reasons for inactivity, among various populations.

Studies have examined physical activity patterns

according to gender, age, and race and ethnicity.9

Generally, these studies have suggested that inactivity

is higher among members of minority groups, poor

people, and women. Members of these groups cite

a wide range of constraints on physical activity.

Some pertain to life circumstances, such as being too

busy; juggling competing demands from job, family,

or friends; being physically tired or ill; and major

life changes or traumas. Poor people cite economic

constraints to physical activity. Other constraints

pertain more to the environment, including safety

concerns, weather and environment, and a lack of

facilities and opportunities to be physically active.

Those who want to promote physical activity

through community design, then, face several ques-

tions. What design features promote utilitarian

physical activity, which may be the most sustainable

strategy? What design features promote recre-

ational physical activity among those who might

otherwise not exercise? How much physical activity

results from various design interventions? And how

should strategies be tailored to meet the needs of

different groups of people?

THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

These questions matter because physical activity

is good for health, and being sedentary threatens

health both directly and indirectly. A sedentary

lifestyle increases the risk of cardiovascular disease,

stroke, and all-cause mortality,10 whereas physical

activity prolongs life.11 Men in the lowest quintile

of physical fitness have a two- to threefold

increased risk of dying overall, and a three- to

fivefold increased risk of dying of cardiovascular

disease, compared to men who are more fit.12

Among women, walking ten blocks per day or more

is associated with a 33 percent decrease in the risk

of cardiovascular disease.13 The risk of low physical

fitness is comparable to, and in some studies greater

than, the risk of hypertension, high cholesterol,

diabetes, and even smoking.14 Physical fitness

prevents cardiovascular disease and prolongs life

among people with diabetes, and the benefits are

greatest among those with the highest blood sugar

levels.15 Physical activity also appears to be protective

against cancer,16 cognitive decline in the elderly,17

depression,18 osteoporosis,19 and a range of other

common diseases.

Magazines, newspapers, radio talk shows, televi-

sion shows and ads, and billboards are full of weight

loss supplements and miraculous new diets, sug-

gesting that better eating will solve the problem of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W A R D F R U M K I N , L A W R E N C E F R A N K , A N D R I C H A R D J A C K S O N354

overweight. But physical activity is also a crucial

part of the equation. This was graphically demon-

strated in a British Medical Journal article on obesity

in Britain that asked the provocative question,

“gluttony or sloth?” (Figure 1). The article showed

that from 1950 to 1990, obesity steadily increased,

even as gluttony peaked and declined. Sloth, on

the other hand, increased in tandem with obesity,

suggesting an important causal role.21

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

In November 2003, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

profiled a sixty-seven-year-old retired couple, Caro-

lyn and Norman Daniels, who had recently moved

to a neighborhood on the Silver Comet Trail, a

popular multiuse trail near Atlanta.22 Both reported

routinely using the trail, Norman on his bicycle

and Carolyn on foot. For each of them, the regular

activity was new, and both gave credit to the nearby

trail. “I hadn’t used that bike in how many years?”

Norman wondered aloud to his wife and the reporter.

“Six or seven or eight?” Carolyn, who had exercised

only occasionally on a stationary bike in her bed-

room, was walking three times each week with

other women in the neighborhood. “I like to walk

with the girls,” she said. “We just enjoy running our

mouths. It’s more sociable.” As this story showed, a

convenient, attractive trail could motivate previously

sedentary people to become active. It also made

clear that other factors – such as the company of

friends – played an important role.

What features of community design encourage

physical activity? In particular, what environmental

factors get people out of cars for utilitarian trips,

and motivate inactive people to start exercising?

To what extent are these factors found in sprawling

areas? In recent years, more and more evidence has

become available to help answer these questions.23

Frank, Engelke, and Schmid24 identify three

dimensions of the built environment that help

organize answers to these questions: land use

patterns, design characteristics, and transportation

systems. Each of these has a distinct role in shap-

ing activity. Land use patterns operate at a large

spatial scale, and determine the arrangement of

physical activities across the metropolis. Design

characteristics operate on a smaller spatial scale.

Figure 1 Obesity trends compared to “gluttony” on the left (measured as energy intake and fat intake) and to “sloth” on the right (measured by car ownership and television viewing). This comparison shows the powerful role played by lifestyle (in this case television viewing and driving) as opposed to diet.

Source: A.M. Prentice and S.A. Jebb, “Obesity in Britain: Gluttony or Sloth?” British Medical Journal 1995: 311: 437–9.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

355“ P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y , S P R A W L , A N D H E A L T H ”

T W O

Examples include the architecture of buildings; the

width, tree canopy, and placement of sidewalks; and

the vistas in a park; which when taken collectively

create a sense or feeling of place. Transportation

systems connect different land uses, and define the

relative ease and convenience of walking, bicycling,

transit, and driving.

Pikora and colleagues in Australia25 proposed

a further framework, related primarily to design

characteristics, for classifying the determinants of

walking and cycling. They identified four categories:

functional factors, safety factors, aesthetic factors,

and destination factors. Functional factors relate

to the physical attributes of the street or path, such

as path continuity and design, street type and width,

and traffic volume. Safety factors include crossing

aids, lighting, and the level of passive surveillance

of the path or sidewalk. Aesthetic factors include

cleanliness, maintenance, the presence of trees,

and architecture. And destinations are such places

as parks, transit nodes, stores, and restaurants.

In interviews with experts, they asked which

of these factors seemed most important in deter-

mining people’s walking and bicycling behavior,

for both recreational and utilitarian purposes. The

experts identified several factors as being most

important. These included safety factors, attractive-

ness of the streetscape, the presence of destinations

(for walking), and the presence of a continuous route

and traffic safety (for bicycling).

THE MENTAL HEALTH COSTS OF SPRAWL

Sprawl may also carry mental health costs. For

example, who benefits by “getting away from it all”?

Escaping to a suburban home may offer more to

men than to women, since women still bear a dis-

proportionate share of household responsibilities –

amounting to between twenty-five and forty-five

hours per week, according to various studies.26 At

the same time the nation’s cities have sprawled,

working hours have increased, both individually and

on a household basis. For two-career households,

if the woman has a full-time job, the travel time

of a long commute, and the burden of household

duties, including transporting children to school and

after-school activities, the hours spent behind the

wheel each week are likely to contribute significantly

to stress.

And what of the nature contact available in

suburban locations? That nature may be a highly

constructed one – a carefully laid out grassy lawn

with a limited number of trees, and perhaps a

garden. While this is a restorative environment for

many people, it comes at a cost. When thousands

of acres are developed as suburban housing, with

no preservation of forest, field, and farm, then

large parks and natural areas become much less

accessible. We gain some opportunities for nature

contact even as we lose others.

In fact, the pleasant backyard is only one part

of suburban sprawl. The highways and broad feeder

roads, the vast parking lots, and the rows of big-box

stores are a prominent part of the landscape as

well. And for many people, these aspects of the

environment are anything but a mental health asset.

Country roads seem to be better for mental health

than thoroughfares cluttered with road signs and

billboards, strip malls and body shops, and large

parking lots. In one study, volunteers looked at films

of both country roads and commercial roads.27

They showed less stress and quicker stress recovery

when viewing the rural road scenes than when

viewing the commercial roadway scenes.

Psychologists, geographers, architects, and plan-

ners have much to say about the form, scale, and

speed of the environments we inhabit, and of how

they make us feel.28 The high speeds of suburban

boulevards, on which everything rushes by quickly;

the large scales of big-box stores and vast parking

lots; the absence of tranquil and attractive “places

of the heart” in daily travels: could these features

undermine mental health, or at least forfeit import-

ant opportunities to promote it?

Finally, we need to consider the archetypal experi-

ence of living in a sprawling area: driving. Aside from

the truncated access to large tracts of natural land,

aside from the time pressure, aside from the alienating

quality of some suburban landscapes, driving itself

is a cardinal feature of sprawl, and one of the best

understood in terms of its impact on mental health.

Researchers have known for years that driving

may have effects on physiology and mood, and

may even affect mental health. In the decades after

World War II, physiologists and physicians increas-

ingly came to view stress as a medical concern.

At the same time, automobiles became more

and more a central fixture in modern life, so it was

no surprise that stress researchers turned their

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W A R D F R U M K I N , L A W R E N C E F R A N K , A N D R I C H A R D J A C K S O N356

attention to driving. They studied drivers under

various conditions, both on roads and in simulators.

They found that driving caused “physiologic

arousal” – a combination of elevated heart rate,

electro cardiographic changes, increases in serum

cortisol and catecholamine levels, and self-reports

of anxiety, agitation, and similar feelings. In the

language of stress researchers, the “stress” of driving

resulted in “strain” among drivers.

REFERENCES

1 Macera CA, Jones DA, Yore MM, Ham SA, Kohl HW, Kimsey CD, Buchner D. Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle activities among adults – United States, 2000–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003; 52 (32): 764–69.

2 Duke J, Huhman M, Heitzler C. Physical activity levels among children aged 9–13 years – United States, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003; 52 (33): 785–88.

3 Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

4 Frank LD, Engelke PE, Schmid TL. Health and Community Design: The Impacts of the Built Environ- ment on Physical Activity. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.

5 Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Leon AS, et al. Compendium of physical activities: Classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1993; 25: 71–80; Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.

6 Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, Haskell WL, Macera CA, Bouchard C, et al. Physical activity and public health: A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 27 (3): 402–07; CDC, 1996, op. cit.

7 Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

8 Manson JE, Greenland P, LaCroix AZ, Stefanick ML, Mouton CP, Oberman A, et al. Walking compared with vigorous exercise for the pre- vention of cardiovascular events in women. New England Journal of Medicine 2002; 347 (10): 716–25.

9 Eyler AA, Baker E, Cromer L, King AC, Brownson RC, Donatelle RJ. Physical activity and minority women: A qualitative study. Health Education and Behavior 1998; 25: 640–52; King AC, Rejeski WJ, Buchner DM. Physical activity interventions targeting older adults: A critical review and re- commendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998; 15: 316 –33; Ransdell LB, Wells CL. Physical activity in urban White, African- American, and Mexican-American women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1998; 30: 1608 – 15; Taylor WC, Baranowski T, Young DR. Physical activity interventions in low-income, ethnic minority, and populations with disability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998; 15 (3): 34–43; King AC, Castro C, Wilcox S, Eyler AA, Sallis JF, Brownson RC. Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of US middle-aged and older aged adults. Health Psychology 2000; 19: 354–64; Booth MN, Owen A, Bauman A, Clavisi O, Leslie E. Social-cognitive and perceived environmental influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Preventive Medicine 2000; 31: 15–22; Richter DL, Wilcox S, Greaney ML, Henderson KA, Ainsworth BE. Environmental, policy, and cultural factors related to physical activity in African American women. Women & Health 2002; 36 (2): 91–109; Henderson KA, Ainsworth BE. A synthesis of perceptions about physical activity among older African American and American Indian women. American Journal of Public Health 2003; 93 (2): 313–17; Crespo CJ, Smith E, Andersen RE, Carter-Pokras O, Ainsworth BE. Race, ethnicity, social class and their relation to physical inactivity during leisure time: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2000; 18 (1): 46–53; Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Donatelle RJ, King AC, Brown D, Sallis JF. Physical activity social support and middle- and older-aged minority women: Results from a US survey. Social Science & Medicine 1999; 49 (6): 781–89.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

357“ P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y , S P R A W L , A N D H E A L T H ”

T W O

10 CDC, 1996, op. cit; National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel on Physical Activ- ity and Cardiovascular Health. NIH Consensus Conference: Physical activity and cardiovascular health. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 27 (6): 241–46; Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Ebrahim S. Lifestyle and 15-year survival free of heart attack, stroke, and diabetes in middle-aged British men. Archives of Internal Medicine 1998; 158 (22): 2433–40; Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG. Physical activity and the preven- tion of stroke. Journal of Cardiovascular Risk 1999; 6 (4): 213–16; Pate et al., 1995, op. cit.

11 Lee IM, Paffenbarger RS Jr. Associations of light, moderate, and vigorous intensity physical activity with longevity. The Harvard Alumni Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 151: 293–99; Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Walker M. Changes in physical activity, mortality and incidence of coronary heart disease in older men. Lancet 1998; 351: 1603–08.

12 Wei M, Kampert JB, Barlow CE, Nichaman MZ, Gibbons LW, Paffenbarger RS, Blair SN. Relationship between low cardiorespiratory fitness and mortal- ity in normal-weight, overweight, and obese men. Journal of the American Medical Association 1999; 282: 1547–53.

13 Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS, Ha T, Lee IM. Physical activity and cardiovascular disease risk in middle- aged and older women. American Journal of Epidemiolology 1999; 150 (4): 408–16.

14 Wei et al., 1999, op. cit; Blair SN, Kampert JB, Kohl HW III, et al. Influences of cardiorespiratory fitness and other precursors on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in men and women. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 276: 205–10.

15 Kohl HW III, Gordon NF, Villegas JA, Blair SN. Cardiorespiratory fitness, glycemic status, and mor- tality risk in men. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 184–92.

16 Kampert JB, Blair SN, Barlow CE, Kohl HW III. Physical activity, physical fitness, and all-cause and cancer mortality: A prospective study of men and women. Annals of Epidemiology 1996; 6: 452–57; Lee IM, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr. Physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Inter- national Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 28: 620–25; Slattery ML, Edwards SL, Boucher KM, Anderson K, Caan BJ. Lifestyle and colon cancer: An assessment of factors associated with risk. American

Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 150: 869–77; Thune I, Brenn T, Lund E, Gaard M. Physical activity and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336 (18): 1269–75; Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Lee IM. Physical activity and breast cancer risk in the College Alumni Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes & Control 1998; 9: 433–39; Oliveria SA, Christos PJ. The epidemiology of physical activity and cancer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1997; 83 (3): 79–90.

17 Yaffe K, Barnes D, Nevitt M, Lui L-Y, Covinsky K. A prospective study of physical activity and cognitive decline in elderly women: Women who walk. Archives of Internal Medicine 2001; 161 (14): 1703–08.

18 Brosse AL, Sheets ES, Lett HS, Blumenthal A. Exercise and the treatment of clinical depression in adults: Recent findings and future directions. Sports Medicine 2002; 32 (12): 741–60; Dunn AL, Trivedi MH, O’Neal HA. Physical activity dose- response effects on outcomes of depression and anxiety. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2001; 33 (6 Suppl): S587–97; Strawbridge WJ, Deleger S, Roberts RE, Kaplan GA. Physical activity reduces the risk of subsequent depression for older adults. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 156 (4): 328–34.

19 Bonaiuti D, Shea B, Iovine R, Negrini S, Robinson V, Kemper HC, Wells G, Tugwell P, Cranney A. Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (Cochrane Method- ology Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

20 Nestle M. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 2002; Schell ER. The Hungry Gene: The Science of Fat and the Future of Thin. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2002; Critser G. Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003; Brownell KD, Borgen KB. Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, the American Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

21 Prentice AM, Jebb SA. Obesity in Britain: Gluttony or Sloth? British Medical Journal 1995; 311: 437–39.

22 Frankston J. Health pros link sprawl with spread. Suburbs, obesity stir debate. Atlanta Journal- Constitution, 17 November 2003, p. F1.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W A R D F R U M K I N , L A W R E N C E F R A N K , A N D R I C H A R D J A C K S O N358

23 Saelens B, Sallis J, Frank L. Environmental cor- relates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning litera- tures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2003; 25 (2): 80–91; Rumpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002; 22 (3): 188–99; Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: Review and update. Med Sci Sports Med 2002; 34 (12): 1996–2001; Handy S, Boarnet M, Ewing R, Killingsworth R. How the built environ- ment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002; 23 (2S): 64–73; French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW. Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Ann Rev Public Health 2001; 22: 309–35; Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002; 22 (4S): 73–107; Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M. Physical activity inter- ventions: Environ mental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998; 15 (4): 3 79–97.

24 Frank et al., 2003, op. cit.

25 Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Social Science & Medicine 2003; 56: 1693–1703.

26 Cowan RS. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books, 1983; Schor JB. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books, 1992.

27 Parsons R, Tassinary L, Ulrich R, Hebl M, Grossman-Alexander M. The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998; 18: 113–40.

28 Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977; Tuan Y-F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press, 1977; Whyte WH. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1980; Walter EV. Placeways: A Theory of the Human Environment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988; Gallagher W. The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape Our Thoughts, Emotions, and Actions. New York: Poseidon Press, 1993; Kaplan et al., 1998, op. cit.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed