Researchers have established in recent years that there is a correlation between obesity and sprawl — people in low-density suburbs, who have to drive most destinations, tend to be heavier than people who live in high-density cities where they can walk and cycle to destinations. Although it’s often been assumed that, in effect, living in the suburbs makes you put on weight, so far the cause of this correlation has not been established.
Now a new study suggests that the causation goes the other way — that, in effect, people who don’t like being active tend to move to the suburbs, while more active people migrate to downtowns.
“Someone who does not like to walk is more likely to be obese and is more likely to live where one can easily get around by car,” says U of T economics professor Matthew Turner, one of the study’s authors.
The researchers followed 6,000 people over six years, and watched to see if they gained or lost weight when they moved to a more or less-densely populated area (80% moved during the study period). They found that, in fact, there was little weight gain or loss after moving, and no consistent pattern. They argue, as a result, that urban form does not affect obesity (instead, it’s people’s habits).
The study has been criticized for various reasons, such as that the sample size is too small and the measurments of density are too crude. I think that the biggest weakness, however, is that people do not tend to gain or lose weight at a very rapid pace. Also, people do not change their habits rapidly. Someone who is used to driving most places may continue to do so even if they move to a place where they could walk, while someone who is used to being fit may make special efforts to keep exercising even if their new location is not as condusive to it. Over time, though, they might both start to adjust their habits to their environment. I expect that patterns of weight gain and loss would take much longer than six years to assert themselves.
It’s an interesting study, but I think it points towards the need for further research and refinement of the issues in question. The study’s authors should not yet be arguing (as they do) that urban form doesn’t affect whether people are fit. Although it’s good to be reminded that there are alternative explanations, the question of whether or not sprawl encourages obesity is still open.
6 comments
I do not believe that. I live in Brampton(not by choice), and I see quite a few people jogging, walking, or niking.
People move to the suburbs because of the perception that the cost of living is cheaper, and it is safer, and easier to raise children.
As I said before, I live in the ‘burbs. Yet I do not own a car. I walk, and bike almost everywhere I go.
The study needs to be improved.
My father has lived downtown (well, Leslieville) during all his time in Toronto and he is bonded to his car. I don’t believe it’s because he’s particularly lazy — he’s a very hard-working man –but because it’s so much, much more convenient.
I do think it IS easier downtown to get to places by foot, but couldn’t you also conclude that people in the suburbs are SO active, hiking, playing sports, working out all the time, that they need a car to fit all of these activities into their lives?
The reasons one sees a lot of people jogging in the suburbs are many, but still point to the sloth of the bulk of the population: humans notice what stands apart, such as one bluejay among crows, or a jogger on empty suburban sidewalks; suburbanites jog, because that is the only exercise they get. An urbanite commuting by muscle power gets more exercise than a suburbanite jogging several times a week, even if the urbanite’s workouts are less intense.
There is also the issue of class. Few suburbanites would own up to it, as would few urbanites who drive, but a large reason people move to detatched single-family dwellings on cul-de-sacs is to not have to live among classes percieved as lower than their own.
As for “the perception that the cost of living is cheaper, and it is safer, and easier to raise children”, you are quite right that it is merely a perception: own no car, or as a family one-fewer, and you have given yourself a $13K raise before tax. Live in the city and your place will be smaller, but live in the suburbs and you will go stir crazy in the largest home, because there is no where else to be that doesn’t require a drive. As for safety: statistically Toronto is much safer than much of the 905 and beyond. Anecdotally, when I went to high school in Guelph, it seems to me the main reason that there was violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy, was that there was nothing else to do but speed, drink and fuck.
There is certainly an arguement to be made that people who prefer to drive will choose to live in the suburbs (and thus it is their deliberate lifestyle choice rather that the environment that causes their weight gain). However, if we look at how expensive it is to live in the higher-density, mixed-use neighbourhoods it becomes clear that
1) There is a high demand for such “walkable” neighbourhoods (which is driving up prices) and
2) That there are a lot of people who would prefer to live in “walkable” neighbourhoods who can’t afford to do so. By default they end up living in the ‘burbs and most (although not all) wind up using their cars more and walking/cycling less than they would otherwise like to do.
If we built more mixed-use neighbourhoods then the prices would drop, more of this unfilled demand could be met, and people who want to would be able to walk more for utilitarian purposes, be more fit, and burn less fossil fuels.
Finally, there is also evidence that people who prefer suburban environments but are living in high-density/mixed use ones still walk more than their counterparts who live in suburban areas. See the research of Lawrence Frank (University of British Columbia) and other authors.
I wonder how interesting this study would be if they factored in economics. Because in a place like Oakville, for example, you might see people running or cycling, but in that case it’s more like the pastime of the rich than the necessity it might be in a lower-income area downtown.
Personally, I could not afford to buy a car, so I live downtown so that I don’t need one. I would want to live there anyway, but the fact remains that I could not afford to live somewhere that wasn’t easily traversable on foot or bike.
So, these things are more complicated than a simple matter of agency.
Interesting article. I think sprawl and obesity are connected and each fuels the other. People tend to get fat because they live in the burbs AND lazy prefer living places where they could easily drive. There are also some lazy people who prefer downtown, of course, and some active people who live in the burbs for one reason or the other (my father lives way out in the burbs and walks to work) but there is a definite trend.
As to the cost… apparently, according to a recent study, for every dollar a North American saves on housing (due to living further away from city core) he spends extra 77 cents on transportation (to go somewhere from the middle of nowhere) and *at least* a couple of extra hours of aggravating, mind-numbing driving (traffic jams galore!) that eats up their precious free time. Living in walkable neighbourhoods doesn’t need to be expensive if you ditch the car. It could easily be cheaper, in fact – and more pleasant. People find it expensive because they want the walkable community AND the ability to drive anywhere they want any time, which means having a car.