4.3 Article

Relationships between Vacant Homes and Food Swamps: A Longitudinal Study of an Urban Food Environment

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14111426

关键词

food swamp; food environment; neighborhood; food store; vacant home; African American; low-SES

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1R21HL102812-01A1]
  2. Global Obesity Prevention Center (GOPC) at Johns Hopkins University
  3. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [U01HD086861]
  4. Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (OD) [U54HD070725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of boarded-up vacant homes is associated with premature mortality due to cancer and diabetes, but the mechanism for this relationship is unclear. Boarded-up housing may indirectly impact residents' health by affecting their food environment. We evaluated the association between changes in vacancy rates and changes in the density of unhealthy food outlets as a proportion of all food outlets, termed the food swamp index, in Baltimore, MD (USA) from 2001 to 2012, using neighborhood fixed-effects linear regression models. Over the study period, the average food swamp index increased from 93.5 to 95.3 percentage points across all neighborhoods. Among non-African American neighborhoods, increases in the vacancy rate were associated with statistically significant decreases in the food swamp index (b = -0.38; 90% CI, -0.64 to -0.12; p-value: 0.015), after accounting for changes in neighborhood SES, racial diversity, and population size. A positive association was found among low-SES neighborhoods (b = 0.15; 90% CI, 0.037 to 0.27; p-value: 0.031). Vacant homes may influence the composition of food outlets in urban neighborhoods. Future research should further elucidate the mechanisms by which more distal, contextual factors, such as boarded-up vacant homes, may affect food choices and diet-related health outcomes.

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

4.3
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