Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Where does walkability matter the most? An environmental justice interpretation of New Jersey data

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Physical inactivity contributes to a growing proportion of premature mortality and morbidity in the United States, and the last decade has been the focus of calls for action. Analysis of 340 residents of New Jersey found that 15%–20% reported multiple problems with using their immediate neighborhoods for physical activity. These respondents were disproportionately African Americans living in neighborhoods that they regard as only of fair or poor quality. Neighborhood walkability is a second-wave environmental justice issue meriting carefully designed research and ameliorative actions in concert with other neighborhood-level redevelopment activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Activity and Health: Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of physical activity, including life-style activities among adults—United States, 2000–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:764–769.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Compliance with physical activity recommendations by walking for exercise—Michigan, 1996 and 1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:560–565.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increasing physical activity, a report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:560–565.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific prevalence of selected chronic disease-related characteristics—behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:560–565.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of no leisure time physical activity—35 states and the District of Columbia, 1988–2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity trends—United States, 1990–1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of physical activity, including life-style activities among adults—United States, 2000–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:764–769.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Powell KE, Martin LM, Chowdhury PP. Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1519–1521.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:188–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social, and physical environmental determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–1812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup D, Gererding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291:1238–1245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health. Vol 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Byrd WM, Clayton LA. An American Health Dilemma, Race, Medicine and Health Care in the United States: 1900–2000. Vol 2. New York, NY: Routledge; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscape: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1478–1483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Staunton CE, Hubsmith D, Kallins W. Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the Marin County success story. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1431–1434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang G, Macerca C, Scudder-Soucie B, et al. Cost analysis of the built environment: the case of bike and pedestrian trails in Lincoln, Neb. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94:549–553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tester JM, Rutherford G, Wald Z, Rutherford MW. A matched case-control study evaluating the effectiveness of speed bumps in reducing child pedestrian injuries. AJPH. 2004; 94:646–650.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Evans L. A new traffic safety vision for the United States. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1384–1386.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Librett JJ, Yore MM, and Schmid T. Local ordinances that promote physical activity: a survey of municipal policies. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1399–1403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McAvoy PV, Driscoll MB, Gramling BJ. Integrating the environment, the economy, and community health: a community health center’s initiative to link health benefits to smart growth. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:525–527.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fullilove MT. Promoting social cohesion to improve health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1998;53:72–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leyden KM. Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1546–1551.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fishhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometirc study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;22:2093–2106.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefit on the acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20:195–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goszczynska M, Tyszka T, Slovic P. Risk perception in Poland: a comparison with three other countries. J Behav Decis Making. 1991;4:179–193.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greenberg M, Schneider D. Environmentally Devastated Neighborhoods, Perceptions, Policies and Realities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Clinton WJ. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Washington, DC; 1994 Executive Order, No. 12898. Available at: http://inel.gov/program/exec/eo-12898.html.

  30. Coburn J. Confronting the challenges in reconnecting urban planning and public health. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:541–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Greenberg PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenberg, M.R., Renne, J. Where does walkability matter the most? An environmental justice interpretation of New Jersey data. J Urban Health 82, 90–100 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti011

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti011

Keywords

Navigation