4.7 Article

Green and Blue Areas as Predictors of Overweight and Obesity in an 8-Year Follow-Up Study

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 1910-1917

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.20772

Keywords

blue area; body mass index; green area; longitudinal; neighborhood disadvantage; obesity

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [264944, 273850]
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. Finnish Work Environment Fund
  4. Economic and Social Research Council
  5. ESRC [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [MR/K013351/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/K013351/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo longitudinally examine associations between proximity of urban green or blue areas and BMI. MethodsThe study population consisted of the Finnish Public Sector study participants who responded to surveys in 2000 and 2008 and lived in an urban area; 15,621 of them did not move residence (nonmovers) during the follow-up, and 9696 did (movers). The associations for objectively measured distance and change in distance to blue area and usable green area with self-reported BMI were assessed (normal weight/overweight/obese). ResultsAmong the nonmovers, living >750 versus <250 m from usable green area increased the odds of overweight (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-2.11), and living 500-750 versus <250 m from the nearest blue area increased the odds of overweight (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.01-1.52). No significant associations were observed for obesity. Moving away from the proximity of green, but not blue, area (from <250 to >250m) increased the odds of obesity (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.08-2.06). ConclusionsThese longitudinal population level findings suggest that living far from usable green areas or waterfront in urban areas increases the risk of overweight.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available