4.7 Article

Neighborhood walkable urban form and C-reactive protein

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 850-854

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.09.019

关键词

Inflammation; C-reactive protein; Walkability; Walkable urban form; Density; Land use mix

资金

  1. Michigan Center for Integrative Approaches to Health Disparities [P60MD002249]
  2. National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities
  3. Duke University Medical Center [T32 AG000029]
  4. US Department of Energy
  5. EPA
  6. NICHD Center [R24 HD041028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Walkable urban form predicts physical activity and lower body mass index, which lower C-reactive protein (CRP). However, urban form is also related to pollution, noise, social and health behavior, crowding, and other stressors, which may complement or contravene walkability effects. Purpose. This paper assesses within-neighborhood correlation of CRP, and whether three features of walkable urban form (residential density, street connectivity, and land use mix) are associated with CRP levels. Methods. CRP measures (n = 610) and sociodemographic data come from the 2001-3 Chicago Community Adult Health Study, linked with objective built environment data. Results. Within-neighborhood correlations of CRP are greater than those of related health measures. A one standard deviation increase in residential density predicts significantly higher log CRP (e.g. beta = 0.11, p < .01) in Chicago, while a one standard deviation increase in land use mix predicts significantly lower CRP (e.g. beta = -0.19, p < 0.01). Street connectivity is unrelated to CRP in this highly walkable city. Discussion. Results suggest that residential density may be a risk factor for inflammation, while greater walkability of mixed land use areas may be protective. It may be that negative aspects of density overcome the inflammatory benefits of walking. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据