Urban Ecology pp 567-582 | Cite as

Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity

  • Reid Ewing
  • Tom Schmid
  • Richard Killingsworth
  • Amy Zlot
  • Stephen Raudenbush


Purpose To determine the relationship between urban sprawl, health, and health-related behaviors. Design Cross-sectional analysis using hierarchical modeling to relate characteristics of individuals and places to levels of physical activity, obesity, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Setting U.S. counties (448) and metropolitan areas (83). Subjects Adults (n = 206,992) from pooled 1998, 1999, and 2000 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Measures Sprawl indices, derived with principal components analysis from census and other data, served as independent variables. Self-reported behavior and health status from BRFSS served as dependent variables. Results After controlling for demographic and behavioral covariates, the county sprawl index had small but significant associations with minutes walked (p = .004), obesity (p < .001), BMI (p = .005), and hypertension (p = .018). Residents of sprawling counties were likely to walk less during leisure time, weigh more, and have greater prevalence of hypertension than residents of compact counties. At the metropolitan level, sprawl was similarly associated with minutes walked (p = .04) but not with the other variables. Conclusion This ecologic study reveals that urban form could be significantly associated with some forms of physical activity and some health outcomes. More research is needed to refine measures of urban form, improve measures of physical activity, and control for other individual and environmental influences on physical activity, obesity, and related health outcomes.


Physical Activity Urban Design Sprawl Obesity Prevention Research 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    US Dept of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Physical activity levels for U. S. overall. Available at: http://apps. nccd. cdc. gov/dnpa/piRec. asp?piState=us& PiStateSubmit=Get+Stats. Accessed October 31, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pratt M, Macera CA, Blanton C. Levels of physical activity and inactivity in children and adults in the United States: current evidence and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999; 31(suppl 11):S526–S533.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, et al. The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991–1998. JAMA. 1999;282: 1519–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, et al. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA 2001;286:1195–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flegal K, Carroll M, Ogden C, Johnson C. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2000. JAMA. 2002;288:1723–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, et al. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA. 1999;282:1530–1538.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 1993;270: 2207–2212.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    King AC, Jeffery RW, Fridinger F, et al. Environmental and policy approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention through physical activity: issues and opportunities. Health Educ Q. 1995;22:499–511.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmid TL, Pratt M, Howze E. Policy as intervention: environmental and policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1207–1211.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sallis JF, Owen N.Ecological Models.In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1997:403–424.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauman A, Smith B, Stoker L, et al. Geographical influences upon physical activity participation: evidence of a ‘coastal effect. ’ Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23:322–324.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Craig CL, Brownson, RC, Craig SE, Dunn AL. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining walking to work. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2S):36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berrigan D, Troiano RP. The association between urban form and physical activity in U. S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2S):74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King AC, Castro C, Eyier AA, et al. Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of U. S. middle-aged and older-aged women. Health Psychol. 1999;19:354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brownson RC, Baker EA, Houseman RA, et al. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1995–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. Transp Res Rec. 2001;1780:87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenwald M, Boarnet MG. The built environment as a determinant of walking behavior analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. Transp Res Record. 2001;1780:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Handy SL. Urban form and pedestrian choices: a study of Austin neighborhoods. Transp Res Record. 1996;1552:135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moudon AV, Hess P, Snyder MC, Stanilov K. Effects of site design on pedestrian travel in mixed-use, medium-density environments. Transp Res Record. 1997;1578:48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frank LD, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp Res Rec. 1994;1466:44–52.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shriver K. Influence of environmental design on pedestrian travel behavior in four Austin neighborhoods. Transp Res Rec. 1997;1578:64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cervero R, Gorham R. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. J. Am Plann Assoc. 1995;61:210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hess PM, Moudon AV, Snyder MC, Stanilov K. Site design and pedestrian travel. Transp Res Rec. 1999;1674:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Handy SL. Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior. J. Plann Educ Res. 1996;15:183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increasing physical activity: a report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;rr-18:50.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ewing R. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J Am Planning Assoc. 1997;63:107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    BRFSS. Available at: http://www. cdc. gov/brfss/. Accessed November 5, 2002.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raudenbush SW. Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychol Methods. 1997;2:173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raudenbush SW, Liu, X. Statistical analysis and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychol Methods. 2000;5:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raudenbush SW. Many small groups. To appear in the Handbook of Multilevel Analysis. Deleeuw, J, Kreft, I (eds. ). Chapter 6: Kluwer. In press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nelson DE, Holtzman D, Bolen J, et al. Reliability and validity of measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Soc Prev Med. 2001;46(suppl 1):S34.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D. Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transp Res Rec. 2003;1831.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Census Bureau. U. S. Census of Population and Housing. Census 2000 Summary File 1. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    US Dept of Agriculture. 1997 National Resources Inventory. Machine-readable data [CD-ROM], revised data, alpha release. USDA; March 2001.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    US Census Bureau. UA Census 2000. TIGER/LineR files [machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: Dept of Commerce; 2002.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raudenbush SW, Bryk A, Cheong YF, Congdon R. HLMS: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Chicago, III: Scientific Software International; 2000.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Raudenbush SW, Byrk AS. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2002.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 1985;14:32–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reid Ewing
    • 1
  • Tom Schmid
  • Richard Killingsworth
  • Amy Zlot
  • Stephen Raudenbush
  1. 1.National Center for Smart Growth Preinkert Field HouseUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations