James H Stark1, Kathryn Neckerman2, Gina S Lovasi3, James Quinn3, Christopher C Weiss4, Michael D M Bader5, Kevin Konty1, Tiffany G Harris1, Andrew Rundle6. 1. Division of Epidemiology, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, USA. 2. Columbia Population Research Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Sociology, Risk and Society, American University, Washington, DC, USA; Center on Health, Risk and Society, American University, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: agr3@columbia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between adult individuals' body mass index (BMI) and characteristics of parks (size and cleanliness) in an urban environment taking into account the physical and social environments of the neighborhood. METHODS: Cross-sectional, hierarchical linear models were used to determine whether park effects were associated with BMI using self-reported height and weight data obtained from the Community Health Survey in New York City (2002-2006). RESULTS: Both the proportion of the residential zip code that was large park space and the proportion that was small park space had significant inverse associations with BMI after controlling for individual socio-demographic and zip code built environment characteristics (-0.20 BMI units across the inter-quartile range (IQR) for large parks, 95% CI -0.32, -0.08; -0.21 BMI units across the IQR for small parks, 95% CI -0.31, -0.10, respectively). Poorer scores on the park cleanliness index were associated with higher BMI, 0.18 BMI units across the IQR of the park cleanliness index (95% CI 0.05, 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that proportion of neighborhoods that was large or small park space and park cleanliness were associated with lower BMI among NYC adults after adjusting for other neighborhood features such as homicides and walkability, characteristics that could influence park usage.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between adult individuals' body mass index (BMI) and characteristics of parks (size and cleanliness) in an urban environment taking into account the physical and social environments of the neighborhood. METHODS: Cross-sectional, hierarchical linear models were used to determine whether park effects were associated with BMI using self-reported height and weight data obtained from the Community Health Survey in New York City (2002-2006). RESULTS: Both the proportion of the residential zip code that was large park space and the proportion that was small park space had significant inverse associations with BMI after controlling for individual socio-demographic and zip code built environment characteristics (-0.20 BMI units across the inter-quartile range (IQR) for large parks, 95% CI -0.32, -0.08; -0.21 BMI units across the IQR for small parks, 95% CI -0.31, -0.10, respectively). Poorer scores on the park cleanliness index were associated with higher BMI, 0.18 BMI units across the IQR of the park cleanliness index (95% CI 0.05, 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that proportion of neighborhoods that was large or small park space and park cleanliness were associated with lower BMI among NYC adults after adjusting for other neighborhood features such as homicides and walkability, characteristics that could influence park usage.
Authors: Jennifer Wolch; Michael Jerrett; Kim Reynolds; Rob McConnell; Roger Chang; Nicholas Dahmann; Kirby Brady; Frank Gilliland; Jason G Su; Kiros Berhane Journal: Health Place Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Lee R Mobley; Elisabeth D Root; Eric A Finkelstein; Olga Khavjou; Rosanne P Farris; Julie C Will Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Stephanie T Broyles; Andrew J Mowen; Katherine P Theall; Jeanette Gustat; Ariane L Rung Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christopher C Weiss; Marnie Purciel; Michael Bader; James W Quinn; Gina Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman; Andrew G Rundle Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Lance Freeman; Kathryn Neckerman; Ofira Schwartz-Soicher; James Quinn; Catherine Richards; Michael D M Bader; Gina Lovasi; Darby Jack; Christopher Weiss; Kevin Konty; Peter Arno; Deborah Viola; Bonnie Kerker; Andrew G Rundle Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Melissa L Potestio; Alka B Patel; Christopher D Powell; Deborah A McNeil; R Daniel Jacobson; Lindsay McLaren Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Anna M Adachi-Mejia; Chanam Lee; Chunkuen Lee; Heather A Carlos; Brian E Saelens; Ethan M Berke; Mark P Doescher Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Shannon M Conroy; Salma Shariff-Marco; Juan Yang; Andrew Hertz; Myles Cockburn; Yurii B Shvetsov; Christina A Clarke; Cheryl L Abright; Christopher A Haiman; Loïc Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel; Kristine R Monroe; Lynne R Wilkens; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Iona Cheng Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Bing Han; Kathryn P Derose; Stephanie Williamson; Terry Marsh; Laura Raaen; Thomas L McKenzie Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Eliza W Kinsey; Elizabeth M Widen; James W Quinn; Mary Huynh; Gretchen Van Wye; Gina S Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Spruha Joshi; Magdalena Cerdá; Gary J Kennedy; John R Beard; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 4.254