| Literature DB >> 30301237 |
Xiaojiang Li1, Debarchana Ghosh2.
Abstract
Public health researchers are increasingly interested in assessing the impact of neighborhood environment on physical activities and chronic health issues among humans. Walkable streets and proximity to green space have long been believed to promote active lifestyles in cities, which contribute to positive health outcomes among residents. Traditionally, urban environmental metrics were calculated at the area level to describe the physical environment of neighborhoods. However, considering the fact that streets are the basic unit for human activities in cities, it is important to understand how the streetscape environment can influence human health conditions. In this study, we investigated the influence of street greenery and walkability on body mass index in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Different from the area level and overhead view greenery metrics, we used the green view index calculated from the Google Street View to represent the amount of street greenery. The Walk Score was used to indicate the walkability of neighborhoods also at the street level. Statistical analysis results show that the Walk Score has a more significant association with decreased BMI for males than females and the street greenery has a more significant association with decreased BMI for females than males in Cleveland, Ohio. The results of this study would provide a reference for designing gender-specific healthy cities.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index (BMI); Google Street View; street greenery; walkability
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30301237 PMCID: PMC6210302 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The spatial distribution of BMI samples at the site level and census tract level in Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Figure 2Google Street View (GSV) image collection and classification.
Figure 3The spatial distributions of GVI and Walk Score in the study area, (a) spatial distribution of GVI at site level, (b) spatial distribution of GVI at census tract level, (c) spatial distribution of Walk Score at site level, (d) spatial distribution of Walk Score at census tract level.
The correlation analysis between the BMI and independent variables.
| Independent variables | Coefficients | Sig. (2-Tailed) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Walk Score | −0.263 ** | 0.000 | 175 |
| Green view index | 0.056 | 0.463 | |
| Percentage of African Americans | 0.718 ** | 0.000 | |
| Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites | −0.746 ** | 0.000 | |
| Percentage of Asians | −0.504 ** | 0.000 | |
| Percentage of Hispanics | −0.166 | 0.028 | |
| Per Capita income | −0.718 ** | 0.000 | |
| Percentage of people with a Bachelor‘s or higher degree | −0.800 ** | 0.000 | |
| Percentage people without a high-school diploma | 0.432 ** | 0.000 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The statistical regression analysis results for females and males of the young-aged group (age 18–29).
| Independent Variables | Coefficients |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female ( | Male ( | ||
| Walk Score | 8.28×10−3 (1.48) | −4.52×10−3 (−1.27) | 175 |
| Green view index (GVI) | −1.56×10−2 (−1.25) | 0.51×10−2 (0.64) | |
| Interaction of GVI and Walk Score | −3.87 ×10−4 (−0.49) | 2.61×10−4 (0.05) | |
| Percentage of African Americans | 2.25 (7.25 ***) | 0.32 (1.63) | |
| Percentage of Asians | −5.60 (−4.00 ***) | −3.25 (−3.71 ***) | |
| Percentage of Hispanics | 0.70 (0.84) | 0.88 (1.64) | |
| Per-capita income | −2.48×10−5 (−1.41) | 3.08×10−5 (2.74 **) | |
| Percentage of people with a Bachelor’s or higher degree | −4.40 (−4.02 ***) | −3.24 (−4.63 ***) | |
| Percentage of people without a high-school diploma | 2.41 (2.50 *) | 0.80 (1.29) | |
| Moran’s | 0.05 (0.12) | −0.01 (0.83) | |
| F-statistic | 64.3 | 14.7 | |
| Adjusted R-squared | 0.77 | 0.41 | |
* Association is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** association is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *** association is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
The statistical regression analysis result for females and males of the middle-aged group (age 30–50).
| Independent Variables | Coefficients |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female ( | Male ( | ||
| Walk Score | 8.73×10−3 (1.72) | −8.94×10−3 (−2.52 *) | 175 |
| Green view index (GVI) | −3.06×10−2 (−2.68 **) | 2.48×10−2 (3.12 **) | |
| Interaction of GVI and Walk Score | −9.15×10−4 (−1.28) | −4.65×10−4 (−0.94) | |
| Percentage of African Americans | 3.38 (11.95 ***) | 1.10 (5.58 ***) | |
| Percentage of Asians | −8.81 (−6.92 ***) | −2.99 (−3.36 ***) | |
| Percentage of Hispanics | 2.16 (2.83 **) | 1.21 (2.27 *) | |
| Per-capita income | −3.63×10−5 (−2.27 *) | 1.07×10−5 (0.96) | |
| Percentage of people with a Bachelor’s or higher degree | −3.21 (−3.22 **) | −3.05 (−4.39 ***) | |
| Percentage of people without a high-school diploma | 3.11 (3.55 ***) | −0.28 (−0.46) | |
| Moran’s | 0.04 (0.16) | −0.03 (0.80) | |
| F-statistic | 117.7 | 35.7 | |
| Adjusted R-squared | 0.86 | 0.64 | |
* Association is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** association is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *** association is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
The statistical regression analysis result for females and males of the old-aged group (age 51–65).
| Independent Variables | Coefficients |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female ( | Male ( | ||
| Walk Score | 1.43×10−3 (0.23) | −9.48×10−3 (−1.97 *) | 175 |
| Green view index (GVI) | −2.45×10−2 (−1.65) | 1.18×10−2 (1.10) | |
| Interaction of GVI and Walk Score | −8.57×10−4 (−1.01) | −3.55×10−4 (−0.53) | |
| Percentage of African Americans | 2.41 (7.12 ***) | −0.26 (−0.99) | |
| Percentage of Asians | −6.18 (−4.06 ***) | −3.90 (−3.30 **) | |
| Percentage of Hispanics | 2.24 (2.45 *) | 0.92 (1.27) | |
| Per-capita income | −6.04×10−5 (−3.16 **) | −1.33×10−5 (−0.88) | |
| Percentage of people with a Bachelor’s or higher degree | 1.22 (1.03) | 0.02 (0.02) | |
| Percentage of people without a high-school diploma | 1.72 (1.64) | −1.87 (−2.26 *) | |
| Moran’s | −0.01 (0.75) | 0.05 (0.13) | |
| F-statistic: | 31.9 | 4.5 | |
| Adjusted R-squared: | 0.62 | 0.15 | |
* Association is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** association is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *** association is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
The statistical regression analysis result for females and males of the retiree group (age 66–84).
| Independent Variables | Coefficients |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female ( | Male ( | ||
| Walk Score | 5.14×10−3 (0.78) | −2.83×10−3 (−0.53) | 175 |
| Green view index (GVI) | −4.51×10−2 (−3.04 **) | 2.17×10−2 (1.81) | |
| Interaction of GVI and Walk Score | −1.39×10−3 (−1.50) | −1.10×10−3 (−1.47) | |
| Percentage of African Americans | 1.38 (3.75 ***) | −0.77 (−2.57 *) | |
| Percentage of Asians | −10.03 (−6.20 ***) | −3.91 (−2.92 **) | |
| Percentage of Hispanics | 0.08 (0.09) | −0.32 (−0.39) | |
| Per-capita income | −9.21×10−5 (−4.23 ***) | −3.43×10−5 (−2.04 *) | |
| Percentage of people with a Bachelor’s or higher degree | 2.98 (2.30 *) | −1.49 (−1.42) | |
| Percentage of people without a high-school diploma | 2.16 (1.89) | −2.59 (−2.81 **) | |
| Moran’s | 0.05 (0.09) | −0.03 (0.92) | |
| F-statistic: | 23.76 | 5.38 | |
| Adjusted R-squared: | 0.54 | 0.18 | |
* Association is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** association is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *** association is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).