Is walkability healthy for all? Using the National Environmental Database to examine equity in the environmental health characteristics of pedestrian-supportive neighborhoods in the U.S.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lindsay M. Braun , Eric H. Fox , Lawrence D. Frank
{"title":"Is walkability healthy for all? Using the National Environmental Database to examine equity in the environmental health characteristics of pedestrian-supportive neighborhoods in the U.S.","authors":"Lindsay M. Braun ,&nbsp;Eric H. Fox ,&nbsp;Lawrence D. Frank","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Marginalized populations in the U.S. often live in dense urban areas, which could promote active travel and health. However, while compactness can support walkability, it can also create exposure to pollution, noise, injury risk, and urban heat islands. These exposures may be higher for marginalized groups, creating systematic “walkability-related” risks.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We evaluated relationships between walkability, health-related environmental exposures, and social vulnerability, asking: (1) How are sociodemographic groups sorted across space with respect to walkability? (2) Do the environmental health correlates of walkability vary by social vulnerability?</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We compiled block group-level data for the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. We measured <em>walkability</em> using the National Walkability Index; <em>social vulnerability</em> using indicators of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; and <em>environmental exposures</em> using PM<sub>2.5</sub>, pedestrian fatalities, noise, and tree coverage. We used multilevel mixed-effects regressions to predict (1) walkability as a function of vulnerability and (2) each environmental exposure as a function of the cross-tabulation between walkability and vulnerability.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Higher walkability was associated with higher vulnerability. Compared to highly walkable block groups with low vulnerability, those with high vulnerability had higher PM<sub>2.5</sub> and noise levels and lower tree coverage. These differences were even more pronounced among block groups with low walkability, suggesting pervasive inequities.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>While marginalized groups often live in more walkable places, the “high” walkability to which they are exposed carries greater environmental risks than for privileged populations. Our findings illustrate the importance of mitigating environmental burdens that could dampen the health benefits of walkability in marginalized communities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"374 ","pages":"Article 118024"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625003545","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Marginalized populations in the U.S. often live in dense urban areas, which could promote active travel and health. However, while compactness can support walkability, it can also create exposure to pollution, noise, injury risk, and urban heat islands. These exposures may be higher for marginalized groups, creating systematic “walkability-related” risks.

Objectives

We evaluated relationships between walkability, health-related environmental exposures, and social vulnerability, asking: (1) How are sociodemographic groups sorted across space with respect to walkability? (2) Do the environmental health correlates of walkability vary by social vulnerability?

Methods

We compiled block group-level data for the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. We measured walkability using the National Walkability Index; social vulnerability using indicators of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; and environmental exposures using PM2.5, pedestrian fatalities, noise, and tree coverage. We used multilevel mixed-effects regressions to predict (1) walkability as a function of vulnerability and (2) each environmental exposure as a function of the cross-tabulation between walkability and vulnerability.

Results

Higher walkability was associated with higher vulnerability. Compared to highly walkable block groups with low vulnerability, those with high vulnerability had higher PM2.5 and noise levels and lower tree coverage. These differences were even more pronounced among block groups with low walkability, suggesting pervasive inequities.

Discussion

While marginalized groups often live in more walkable places, the “high” walkability to which they are exposed carries greater environmental risks than for privileged populations. Our findings illustrate the importance of mitigating environmental burdens that could dampen the health benefits of walkability in marginalized communities.
适宜步行的环境对所有人都健康吗?利用国家环境数据库研究美国步行者支持社区的环境健康特征的公平性。
美国的边缘人群通常生活在人口密集的城市地区,这可以促进积极的旅行和健康。然而,尽管紧凑性可以支持步行,但它也可能造成污染、噪音、伤害风险和城市热岛。这些暴露对边缘群体可能更高,造成系统性的“步行性相关”风险。我们评估了步行性、健康相关环境暴露和社会脆弱性之间的关系,并提出了以下问题:(1)关于步行性,社会人口统计学群体如何在空间上进行分类?(2)可步行性的环境健康相关因素是否因社会脆弱性而异?方法:我们收集了美国30个最大都市地区的分组数据。我们使用国家步行指数来衡量步行性;使用种族/族裔和社会经济地位指标的社会脆弱性;以及PM2.5、行人死亡人数、噪音和树木覆盖率的环境暴露。我们使用多层次混合效应回归来预测(1)步行性作为脆弱性的函数,(2)每种环境暴露作为步行性和脆弱性之间交叉表的函数。结果适宜步行性越高,易损性越高。与低易损性的高度可步行街区组相比,高易损性街区组的PM2.5和噪音水平较高,树木覆盖率较低。这些差异在可步行性较低的街区群体中更为明显,表明普遍存在的不平等。虽然边缘化群体通常生活在更适合步行的地方,但他们所处的“高”可步行性比特权群体带来更大的环境风险。我们的研究结果说明了减轻环境负担的重要性,这可能会削弱边缘化社区步行对健康的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信