| Literature DB >> 29361922 |
Dylan C Avery1, Charlotte D Smith2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In January 2015, Berkeley, California became the first city in the Unites States to impose a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The tax is intended to discourage purchase of sugary beverages and promote consumption of healthier alternatives such as tap water. The goal of the study was to assess the condition of public drinking water fountains and determine if there is a difference in access to clean, functioning fountains based on race or socio-economic status.Entities:
Keywords: Beverage tax; Demographics; Fountains; GIS; Spatial analysis; Water
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29361922 PMCID: PMC5781327 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5087-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Assigned Routes and Fountain Locations
Fig. 2Buffer Area Calculation
Buffer ring sizes
| Buffer Radius (m) | Buffer Area (m2) | Relative Size |
|---|---|---|
| 80 | 20,100 | 1 |
| 150 | 70,650 | 0.284 |
| 220 | 152,000 | 0.132 |
Fig. 7Income and Race Correlogram
Fig. 3Population Normalized by Block Group
Summary of fountain survey categorical variables
| Functioning | Clean | Clogged | Leaking | Littered | Rusted | Splashing | Odor | Refilla | Handicapb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | 5 | 18 | 48 | 56 | 51 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 31 | 25 |
| Yes | 55 | 42 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 29 | 35 |
aRefill = Ability to fill a standard water bottle
bHandicap Accessibility
Fig. 4Surveyed Fountain Characteristics
Fig. 5Fountains and Handicap Accessibility
Fountain stream height and water bottle accessibility
| Height | Accessible | Not Accessible | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| > 4 in. | 18 | 3 | 21 |
| < 4 in. | 10 | 12 | 22 |
| <Spout | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| Dribble | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| Total | 29 | 31 | 60 |
Summary of clean vs clogged fountains
| Not Clean | Clean | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clogged | 8 | 4 | 12 |
| Not Clogged | 10 | 38 | 48 |
| Total | 18 | 42 | 60 |
Fig. 6Picture of Surveyed Fountain
Bivariate logistic regression summary | 80 meter features
| Estimate | Standard Error | Z Value | P(>|Z|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | − 0.75 | 0.45 |
| Clean and White | −0.95 | 1.52 | −0.63 | 0.53 |
| Clogged and Income | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.40 |
| Clogged and White | 0.64 | 1.70 | 0.38 | 0.70 |
| Bottle and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −0.89 | 0.37 |
| Bottle and White | −0.31 | 1.47 | −0.21 | 0.83 |
| Handicap and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −2.09 | 0.04 |
| Handicap and White | 1.42 | 1.65 | 0.86 | 0.39 |
Bivariate logistic regression summary | 150 meter features
| Estimate | Standard Error | Z Value | P(>|Z|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −1.05 | 0.30 |
| Clean and White | −1.56 | 3.61 | −0.43 | 0.67 |
| Clogged and Income | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.34 |
| Clogged and White | 2.82 | 3.86 | 0.73 | 0.46 |
| Bottle and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −0.82 | 0.41 |
| Bottle and White | 1.36 | 3.48 | −0.39 | 0.70 |
| Handicap and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −1.79 | 0.07 |
| Handicap and White | −4.23 | 3.72 | −1.14 | 0.26 |
Bivariate logistic regression summary | 220 meter features
| Estimate | Standard Error | Z Value | P(>|Z|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −1.02 | 0.31 |
| Clean and White | −5.33 | 9.35 | −0.57 | 0.57 |
| Clogged and Income | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.08 | 0.28 |
| Clogged and White | 11.51 | 10.22 | 1.13 | 0.26 |
| Bottle and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −1.23 | 0.22 |
| Bottle and White | −1.96 | 8.84 | −0.22 | 0.82 |
| Handicap and Income | −0.00 | 0.00 | −1.66 | 0.10 |
| Handicap and White | 13.47 | 9.28 | −1.45 | 0.15 |