Advocacy & Safety - Urban green space linked to walking, cycling levels

Urban green space linked to walking, cycling levels
28 Feb 2005

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20455



The degree to which city people walk or ride bicycles for their daily transportation needs depends largely on how much green space there is, says a new study that examines the role of urban design in physical fitness.

"Because engaging in moderate physical activity such as walking or bicycling can improve health outcomes, understanding strategies that increase these behaviors has become a public health priority," says Amy Zlot, an epidemiologist with the Oregon Department of Human Services, writing in the current American Journal of Health Promotion.

Using government databases with results from surveys of more than half a million respondents, the researchers compared levels of fitness with parkland acreage in 34 metropolitan areas.

They found that San Francisco had the highest percentage of people who walked or bicycled for recreation and the highest percentage of parkland. New York City had the highest percentage that walked or bicycled for basic transportation, such as commuting to work or running errands, and the third highest amount of parkland.

Atlanta had the lowest percentage for recreational walking or bicycling and the second lowest percentage of parkland, and Memphis had the lowest proportion of people who walked or rode for transportation purposes and the sixth lowest percentage of open space. San Jose had the lowest percentage of parkland.

The parkland acreage was measured as a percentage of total city size, and the figures for walking or bicycling were derived from those who listed those as their two most frequent forms of physical activity.

"In this set of observations, walking and bicycling for transportation was positively associated with parkland acreage," say Zlot and co-author Tom Schmid, who did the research while employed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data did not show a significant relationship between the level of walking or cycling for pleasure and the percentage of urban parks.

The significance of the study, say the authors, is that "the number of route choices a community provides - and mix - the relative percentage of housing, retail, work and recreational opportunities in a community - appear to be important, independent predictors of walking and bicycling."

Zlot and Schmid suggest that studies like theirs might help in the planning of "livable communities" by multidisciplinary teams of urban planners, architects, transportation experts, developers, policy makers, park administrators and environmentalists.

A study of Atlanta area residents published in early February found that city dwellers were more physically active than suburbanites because they walk more often for shopping, dining or doing errands.

Government data suggest that only 45 percent of Americans meet recommendations for physical activity and of the remaining 55 percent, about half are sedentary.

The top 10 cities for recreational walking and bicycling: San Francisco, Milwaukee, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Los Angeles/Tampa (tied) and Denver.

The bottom 10 cities for recreational walking and bicycling: Atlanta, Cincinnati, New York, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix-Mesa, Cleveland, Miami, Las Vegas and Virginia Beach.

The top 10 cities for "utilitarian" walking and bicycling: New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, Cincinnati and Oakland.

The bottom 10 cities for "utilitarian" walking and bicycling: Memphis, Columbus, Cleveland, Virginia Beach, Milwaukee, St. Louis/Atlanta (tied), San Jose, San Diego and Sacramento.

The top 10 cities for parkland as a percentage of city acreage: San Francisco, Washington, New York, San Diego, Boston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Phoenix-Mesa.

The bottom 10 cities for parkland as a percentage of city acreage: San Jose, Atlanta, New Orleans, Tampa, Miami, Houston, Cleveland, Memphis/Sacramento (tie) and Columbus.

By Ira R. Allen
Health Behavior News Service

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Health Behavior News Service: (202) 387-2829 or http://www.hbns.org.

Interviews: Contact Amy Zlot at 503-731-4021 ext. 561 or amy_zlot@yahoo.com

American Journal of Health Promotion: Call (248) 682-0707 or visit www.healthpromotionjournal.com.

Contact: Amy Zlot
amy_zlot@yahoo.com
Center for the Advancement of Health

Don't let Serge hear about this.

We can't help but have green space here. Most of it is swamp, err, wetlands. :p

Don't let Serge hear about this.
Why not? I'm a supporter of green space! And "liveable" communities. In fact, I oppose zoning that encourages "urban sprawl" (only allows one single family home plus a yard per lot). The great "green space" communities could never have come into existence had they been subjected to such zoning laws. To have people close to the places they need to go, which is required for high pedestrian, cyclist and mass transport usage, you need to have high density communities.

I'd like to see population density figures for all of the cities and communities compared. I'll bet there is a correlation between density and ped/cycle use as well (high density implying high usage).

Did you think my opposition to bike lanes would be somehow correlated with an opposition to green space? Why on Earth?

I have to agree. High density should be correlated with high usage.

Anyhow, this study is a surprise?

Oh and GO NYC!!! #1 in transpo, wo0t!

There was a thread started about this exact same article (perhaps in Feb/Mar timeframe). I remember responding to it and am afraid to respond again in case I contradict myself. ;)

But note that Phx-Metro is a contradiction here. Its rated as top 10 for green space and bottom 10 for recreational cycle/walk. Factors against phx include hot summers, very far distances between location (even recreational walkers like to go places). Park areas are also huge (worlds largest city park, large enought to get lost in and die of dehydration), but also has lots of small, but too small to walk/cycle in, parks spread around, basically a little grass with a playground. So recreational walking is basically a joke, unless you include hiking outside of city which is popular and recreational cycling is on roads.

Al

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs." - Lance Armstrong

Oh yeah? From last week's interview on Larry King:


BOB COSTAS: You used EPO as part of your chemotherapy treatment in 1997.

LANCE ARMSTRONG: Right. Well, late '96.


Lance admits that he used EPO in late 1996.
EPO is a performance enhancing drug.
Therefore, Lance has taken performance enhancing drugs, and his assertion that he has never taken performance enhancing drugs is false.

There was a thread started about this exact same article (perhaps in Feb/Mar timeframe). I remember responding to it and am afraid to respond again in case I contradict myself. ;)

But note that Phx-Metro is a contradiction here. Its rated as top 10 for green space and bottom 10 for recreational cycle/walk. Factors against phx include hot summers, very far distances between location (even recreational walkers like to go places). Park areas are also huge (worlds largest city park, large enought to get lost in and die of dehydration), but also has lots of small, but too small to walk/cycle in, parks spread around, basically a little grass with a playground. So recreational walking is basically a joke, unless you include hiking outside of city which is popular and recreational cycling is on roads.

Al

Your account supports my hypothesis.

There may be a direct correlation between green space and high density, as well as between high density and high cycle/walk that I hypothesize. The reason that there is a correlation between green space and high cycle/walk may be because of the common correlation with high density, and the "correlation" between green space and high cycle/walk is only indirect.

Phoenix may be the exception because it has green space and low density. My hypothesis would explain this.

"ance admits that he used EPO in late 1996.
EPO is a performance enhancing drug.
This is clearly a side thread, but it really depends what you mean by 'performance enhancing'. EPO was not taken for any athletic performance enhancing reasons in late 1996, but for improving chances of living, as a counter to the chemo, etc. Effects were well worn off before competetive athetics started. I think it is fairly clear that this is the understanding of what is meant by 'performance enhancing' - taking to enhance athletic performance, not ones 'performance' in fighting cancer.

Al

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs." - Lance Armstrong

Oh yeah? From last week's interview on Larry King:


BOB COSTAS: You used EPO as part of your chemotherapy treatment in 1997.

LANCE ARMSTRONG: Right. Well, late '96.


Lance admits that he used EPO in late 1996.
EPO is a performance enhancing drug.
Therefore, Lance has taken performance enhancing drugs, and his assertion that he has never taken performance enhancing drugs is false.


Don't know how that comment fits into a "greenspace thread."

But just to counter argue, so what anyone getting steroids for any medical treatment in the past should be banned from any future engagement of professional or amateur sports?

Don't know how that comment fits into a "greenspace thread."

But just to counter argue, so what anyone getting steroids for any medical treatment in the past should be banned from any future engagement of professional or amateur sports?

Wouldn't Gatorade and other sports drinks be illegal also? They're performance enhancing.

Don't know how that comment fits into a "greenspace thread."

But just to counter argue, so what anyone getting steroids for any medical treatment in the past should be banned from any future engagement of professional or amateur sports?
Its in this thread because HH was responding to someones signature line/quote.

Bottom line is context of use to define what is 'performance enhancing' Getting blood from a donor after losing it during operation/accident is not peformance enhancing, it is standard medical treatment. Getting blood from a donor (or you own banked, etc.) during a competetive racing season is. Context is everything here.

Al

There is a difference between "I have never taken performance enhancing drugs", and "I have never taken performance enhancing drugs in order to improve my cycling performance". I understand he probably meant the latter when he said the former, but as the person who has taken EPO, allegedly only to improve his performance in fighting cancer, you'd think he would know to be careful about the distinction, and know better than to make a blanket never denial... unless he knows the blanket denial is false in either case, and so the distinction is moot...

I agree this is a side thread, but here we are. It's not like it's highjacked - it was dead for two weeks after only three posts.

There is a difference between "I have never taken performance enhancing drugs", and "I have never taken performance enhancing drugs in order to improve my cycling performance". I understand he probably meant the latter when he said the former, but as the person who has taken EPO, allegedly only to improve his performance in fighting cancer, you'd think he would know to be careful about the distinction, and know better than to make a blanket never denial... unless he knows the blanket denial is false in either case, and so the distinction is moot...

I agree this is a side thread, but here we are. It's not like it's highjacked - it was dead for two weeks after only three posts.
But taking EPO during cancer treatment is not by anyone ever considered taking a performance enhancing drug. EPO can be used/abused as a performance enhancing drug. Only if you are improving your athletic performance are you taking a performance enhancing drug.

Al

By the way, asserting that one has never taken "performance enhancing drugs" does not preclude blood doping, since blood is arguably not a drug.



But just to counter argue, so what anyone getting steroids for any medical treatment in the past should be banned from any future engagement of professional or amateur sports?
Gene, you crack me up. How did you leap to this? All I did was point out that the statement Lance made was technically false, that he should have known better than to make a technically false statement, and I'm speculating as to why he might not have known better (because he's lying, and that no one doctored his six urine samples like he is alleging).

Only if you are improving your athletic performance are you taking a performance enhancing drug.
False.
When you take a steroid under doctor's orders to fight a rash, you are taking a performance enhancing drug (the steroid), regardless of whether you are using it to improve your athletic performance, because the steroid is a performance enhancing drug.

By the way, asserting that one has never taken "performance enhancing drugs" does not preclude blood doping, since blood is arguably not a drug.



Gene, you crack me up. How did you leap to this? All I did was point out that the statement Lance made was technically false, that he should have known better than to make a technically false statement, and I'm speculating as to why he might not have known better (because he's lying, and that no one doctored his six urine samples like he is alleging).

Having taken (by your definition) performance enhancing drugs in the past (steroids to aid healing after surgery) I can tell you that no performance was expected except the proper healing of the patient.

I suppose that "chemo" by your terms can also be considered "performace enhancing?"

Sorry, I am with Al on this... drugs administered for purly medical reasons are not meant for athletic performance enhancing.

Drugs abused to gain an edge over the competition is "performance enhancing."

BTW this side thread should be moved... there are plenty of discussions going on right now regarding EPO on other threads.

'Nuff said.

False.
When you take a steroid under doctor's orders to fight a rash, you are taking a performance enhancing drug (the steroid), regardless of whether you are using it to improve your athletic performance, because the steroid is a performance enhancing drug.

Come on all of you, do I have to separate you! Talk about a serious thread hijack.

Back on topic, another factor that no one has mentioned, along with density is the quality of public transport. This works more for walking, but it is also nice to be able to throw your bike on a bus or train
and turn what could be an epic commute into two short bike rides with a bus/train ride in between. I'm just making a leap, but I would bet that in low density communities the mass transit sucks.

EPO is a performance enhancing drug. Period. The context in which EPO is used does not change its nature. Either EPO is a performance enhancing drug, or it is not. The answer is: EPO is a performance enhancing drug.

Lance admits that he used EPO in late 1996.

Therefore, Lance admits to having used a performance enhancing drug (EPO), though perhaps not to enhance his performance.

Regardless, he has used it, and a blanket never denial, like the one he posted on his website (and quoted by oboeguy above), is technically false. I think if he was really innocent of using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance he would have known better, and would have not made such a misleading statement. I think guilt is a probable explanation for why he could have slipped like that.

If he said it in conversation, or in an interview, that's one thing. But as his official statement in a press release? If he were truly innocent, I would expect him to be more careful than that.



'Nuff said.
Again, I don't think it's a problem to go off topic in a thread that was otherwise dead.

Back on topic, another factor that no one has mentioned, along with density is the quality of public transport. This works more for walking, but it is also nice to be able to throw your bike on a bus or train
and turn what could be an epic commute into two short bike rides with a bus/train ride in between. I'm just making a leap, but I would bet that in low density communities the mass transit sucks.
Of course mass transit sucks in low density communities (like southern CA). For mass transport to work, you need lots of people going to and coming from the same points. You can't have that by definition with low density.

Everyone whines about the lack of mass transportation, walking and cycling while at the same bemoaning the "evil" developers who are lobbying for looser zoning that would allow for the high density community development required by mass transportation, walking and cycling. :rolleyes:

Again, I don't think it's a problem to go off topic in a thread that was otherwise dead.

Why is it dead Serge, because you've already had your say on the topic and becuase you're the one who jacked it? This thread has only been up a couple of hours.

Why is it dead, Serge?

Treespeed... check the posts. This thread started on 8-16, and died shortly thereafter with a total of 3 posts, until I resurrected it more than 2 weeks later (today). That's why I say it was dead.

Of course mass transit sucks in low density communities (like southern CA). For mass transport to work, you need lots of people going to and coming from the same points. You can't have that by definition with low density.

Everyone whines about the lack of mass transportation, walking and cycling while at the same bemoaning the "evil" developers who are lobbying for looser zoning that would allow for the high density community development required by mass transportation, walking and cycling. :rolleyes:

Well I'll tell you the train system in LA rocks, if only they could get it heading out West to the Beach. Not that it's that bad of a ride. Though one would think when you have 8 lanes of freeway packed bumper to bumper that you must have quite a few people heading in the same direction.

It is strange though that the areas that are most crying out for higher density development are also the areas where folks have the money to fight the rezoning. We just spent $800k for a two bedroom house in the city and everyone's telling me that I could have gotten twice as much house where they live, then they add that they have an hour commute both ways. But would I support the building of an 8 story condo building across the street? It's all well and good to support density when it's not in my backyard.

Treespeed... check the posts. This thread started on 8-16, and died shortly thereafter with a total of 3 posts, until I resurrected it more than 2 weeks later (today). That's why I say it was dead.

Okay, with all sincerity I apologize. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

EPO is a performance enhancing drug. Period. The context in which EPO is used does not change its nature. Either EPO is a performance enhancing drug, or it is not. The answer is: EPO is a performance enhancing drug.

Lance admits that he used EPO in late 1996.

Therefore, Lance admits to having used a performance enhancing drug (EPO), though perhaps not to enhance his performance.

Regardless, he has used it, and a blanket never denial, like the one he posted on his website (and quoted by oboeguy above), is technically false. I think if he was really innocent of using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance he would have known better, and would have not made such a misleading statement. I think guilt is a probable explanation for why he could have slipped like that.

If he said it in conversation, or in an interview, that's one thing. But as his official statement in a press release? If he were truly innocent, I would expect him to be more careful than that.



The black and white difference is as plain as using codine to reduce pain in a perscription and with medical supervision, verses abusing codine to get high.

In the form he took the EPO it was for a medical healing reason... not to gain anything but normal functions that had been robbed from him due to desease.

Using the drug to gain an advantage over competition is akin to drug abuse and beyond the medically recognized standard use.

That is the difference between "abuse" for "performance enhancing" and "use" for medical reasons.

Gene, I understand the difference between "abuse" for "performance enhancing" and "use" for medical reasons. Unfortunately, Lance's statement did not differentiate among them, and was (technically) a blanket denial of both.

Well I'll tell you the train system in LA rocks, if only they could get it heading out West to the Beach. Not that it's that bad of a ride. Though one would think when you have 8 lanes of freeway packed bumper to bumper that you must have quite a few people heading in the same direction.
Cars/freeways work reasonably well in low density because they funnel many people sprawled out along the same corridor to various points where they sprawl out again. Mass transport works okay when you can use individual transport to get sprawled out fokls to one point (a train station) when their destination/s are high density points near other train stations.



It is strange though that the areas that are most crying out for higher density development are also the areas where folks have the money to fight the rezoning. We just spent $800k for a two bedroom house in the city and everyone's telling me that I could have gotten twice as much house where they live, then they add that they have an hour commute both ways. But would I support the building of an 8 story condo building across the street? It's all well and good to support density when it's not in my backyard.
Right. NIMBY thinking is what gets us low density zoning and urban sprawl.

Gene, I understand the difference between "abuse" for "performance enhancing" and "use" for medical reasons. Unfortunately, Lance's statement did not differentiate among them, and was (technically) a blanket denial of both.

To be honest, I heard more of a "I did not have sex with that woman..." kind of statement when he spoke to Larry King.

"At that time, there was no EPO in my system..." Or something along those lines...

I did not see the interview. I was going by the transcripts, available at thepaceline.com.

But the main statement I'm referring to is the blanket denial he posted on his website, "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."

Since EPO is a performance enhancing drug, and he has admitted to taking it (albeit for cancer treatment), the statement above is technically false.

If he had never taken EPO for performance enhancement, I would expect that he would be more careful about this distinction, and would have chosen to say something like "Except for my cancer treatments, I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". If he was guilty of taking EPO for performance enhancement, I would think he would be more likely to overlook this distinction, and would make the statement that he did.

The black and white difference is as plain as using codine to reduce pain in a perscription and with medical supervision, verses abusing codine to get high.

Say someone used codeine to get high.
Would the statement, "I have never used pain relievers" be true or false?

Say someone used codeine per doctor's orders for pain relief.
Would the statement, "I have never used a high-inducing drug" be true or false?

If Lance had posted, "I have never used performance enhancing drugs in order to enhance my racing performance", that would not be falsified by his taking EPO for cancer treatments. But that's not what he said. What he did say was a blanket denial that is falsified by his taking EPO for cancer treatments.

Serge - EPO is not marketed or described by the medical community as a peformance enhancing drug. For example see this: http://www.medicinenet.com/erythropoietin/article.htm
I'm sure when given to cancer, kidney, AIDS patients the Dr. doesn't say "Hey we are going to give you a performace enchancing drug.' Also, surely you don't think the pharmaceutical company is pushing the use of 'performance enhancing drugs' for dads, moms and grandparents thru their TV ads for Erythropoietin?

Another way to look at is is that everyone is on peformance enhancing drugs as we all have EPO in our bodies. Sick people may take EPO to boost those levels, perhaps just to normal levels that everyone naturally has, which is my way of thinking is not performance enhancing in the context of athletic competetion.

Al

The open space study finds that quantity of parkland correlates with utilitarian bicycle and pedestrian transportation.

But, it doesn't claim that people are using that parkland for their travel. We don't even know what portion of this parkland has any utilitarian transportation value. Parks that feature paths tend to attract far more recreational use than utilitarian, yet the study finds no substantial correlated increase in recreational bike/ped travel in these cities. So it seems doubtful that the increased utilitarian bike/ped traffic is happening in parks themselves.

An alternate explanation is that more parkland is provided in cities where automobile use is less convenient. This may be because fewer people in denser, more urban cities have access to private greenspace (e.g. suburban yards), and thus generate more demand for public parks, especially those within convenient walking or cycling distance, since automobile use is inconvenient. And, since automobile use is inconvenient, bicycling and walking levels in those cities are bound to be higher.