Tipping the Scales Toward Pedestrian Designs

The field of urban planning has recently latched on to research that has linked a geographical area’s growth pattern to its inhabitant’s body-mass index. In other words, a city with 200,000 residents that has a very low population and housing density and full of standard suburban features (cul-de-sacs, arterial streets, buildings set far back in the middle of their properties with large parking lots, etc.) will have larger people than a city of the same size that is more dense and urban in nature. Research has shown this to be true both at a regional level (counties, metropolitan areas, large cities) and the local level (small cities, towns, neighborhoods). The concepts behind these findings have to do with how accessible goods and services are to pedestrians. If people are not able to walk (the American Medical Association recommends walking as a healthy activity that almost everyone can do) to accomplish any of their daily activities, they are less likely to walk at all and, thus, are more likely to gain weight. There are, obviously, other factors that contribute to our 66% overweight and obesity rate (overeating, excessive availability of calorie-dense foods, perceived safety, etc), but this is a very important and often overlooked factor.

American culture views losing weight in a very peculiar way. We know that it involves both what we consume and how much energy we expend, but we are constantly searching for ways to do it by only changing one of those factors: I’m mostly talking about food. Have you seen the commercials promoting the “miracle” diet pills that require no exercise to lose a ridiculous amount of weight in an even more ridiculous amount of time? Of course, if it sounds too good to be true… But we love the idea that we could possibly do no work but reap all of the benefits as if we did. The diet pills might succeed in sapping bodies of excess water weight and other fluids (and thus necessary nutrients), but this is extremely unhealthy. Others will try to lose weight by simply trying to cut their calorie intake in half, but their bodies – those things they are trying to exert their mastery over – will ultimately betray them by holding on to as many of those drastically reduced calories as it possibly can, as a body does during famine. You cannot lose weight in a healthy way by simply changing your food behaviors. You must couple a healthy change in eating with an increase in physical activity.

Many people have finally relented to this truth and are beginning to listen to public health officials (who have been saying this all along) when they give new ideas for becoming more active. The biggest problem with this, however, is that most of these appeals for increased physical activity fail because of one fundamental problem: the majority of our built environments are not designed for sustained physical activity. Sure, many suburban neighborhoods are quiet (thus exceedingly safe for pedestrian activities) and have access to parks or greenways, but there is little incentive and no good practical reason for anyone living in these areas to actually get out and walk. If I find that I need a couple of eggs and a grocery store is within a ten minute walk, and I don’t have to wade through a sea of cars in the parking lot to get to the store, I have a practical reason and significant incentive (no need to use expensive gas, and even get some moderate exercise out of it) to huff it by foot. If, however, the store and other destinations are only reasonably accessible by car, then a large set of walking incentives are not available to me.

I am especially attuned to this concept right now because I have no choice but to walk. While Bethlehem is mostly a great place for someone without a car (my barber and bank are right down the street in areas where I don’t have to compete with drivers), there are some frustrations. The only grocery store near me is a 15 to 20 minute walk away, and once I get there, I have to walk across a 5 acre parking lot. In fact, I should be going to get groceries right now, but I’m procrastinating because of its massive inconvenience. I have absolutely no access to a post office. If things are this difficult for an uber-pedestrian such as myself, imagine what it would be like for someone who is more normal who has lost access to a car.

My point being: if local, state, and federal governments are really serious about addressing obesity, they will have to begin by providing physical incentives for people to get outside in the form of making amenities and necessities convenient to get to without motorized vehicles. This can occur through smart land-use policies that provide more of a balance in home, work places, and marketplaces. No more of this separation between homes and destinations. Another strategy that must occur is the redesign of our building positions on their lots. This is as simple as switching the positions of buildings with their parking lots so that the building fronts the street and the parking is accessed from the back. This is a good way to encourage both drivers and pedestrians to frequent the store. These solutions (there are many others) are currently illegal in most areas of the country, but I can’t think of a conceivably good reason for that.

If you are concerned about how the growth patterns of your community, city, or region are contributing to obesity and its resulting serious health problems (heart disease, hypertension, type II diabetes and other such diseases that are driving the largest portion of our skyrocketing medical costs), go to your elected council meetings and make your views known. If they dismiss you as a radical, find other “radicals” in your area, organize a group, find a sympathetic community leader, and make it difficult for them not to listen.