Brandon Diaz | Diversity and Technology | Final Paper
On the topic of childhood obesity, it may be found that many people point their fingers solely at a child’s diet, personal physical activity level, and foodscape to blame. Whether it be that the child may live in a low-income neighborhood (where fast food is more of their diet than children in other neighborhoods), a home where it is not routine for the parents to cook (the child is forced to cook unhealthy canned or boxed meals for themself), or simply deeming a child lazy and not spending at least an hour being active on their own time, people may disregard any notion that perhaps there are more under-examined factors leading to childhood obesity. Some of these under-examined factors include how a child performs their normal daily activities (specifically: walking to school vs. mobile transportation), their environmental classification (urban vs. rural), and their proximity to things like local parks and recreation centers.
Before diving into the research and data on its causes, let us be reminded of the immediate and long term consequences of childhood obesity. Consequences include: orthopedic (softer, cartilagenous bones contributing to orthopedic abnormalities in obese children), neurological (increased intracranial hypertension causing headaches, vomiting, and blurred vision), gastroenteroligcal (cholesterol is increased, resulting in increased likelihood of gallstone formation) (Must and Straus, 2) and endocrine (insulin resistance, leading to diabetes) (Must and Straus, 3). Prevention of these consequences in children is crucial, and must go beyond acknowledging the nutritional (or lack thereof) factors that lead to obesity. We must take a look at be and be reminded of the hidden factors that contribute to the decline in a child’s wellbeing.
Lander Bosch, a PhD student at the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge, UK, was a guest speaker during Session 21 of our Diversity and Technology class. He spoke about his area of study in which he studies the spread of disease, ill health, and wellbeing across a place. His studies are a mix between social science (or human geography and spatial planning) and epidemiology, which relies on a combination of biomedical science by statistics and physical geography. In his talk, Lander dives into a more specific area of his research: how geography and environment (in overlooked ways) affect the wellbeing of children. It is brought to our attention that 33.3% of the global population (2bn+ people) are under the age of 19 years old, and by 2025 60% of children will inhabit an urban environment while 40% will inhabit rural environments (Lander, 00:52:22 – 00:52:50). These metrics and predictions can help shape the way we anticipate urban design and plan it.
We are unfortunately reminded that global space is, in practice, a space designed for the able-bodied, motorized male adult. Because of this, the child is stuck within the developmental perspective where they are seen as adults-to-be, in constant need of protection, and are not consulted in pivotal decision making processes. The book Diversity and Design supports this fact and reminds us, too, that “children are among the most underrepresented groups in design… Most of the world is designed by and for adults. Children have little say in what gets designed, almost no voice in the design process, and no active recourse for products, buildings, and cities that fail to meet their needs or preferences” (Davis, Charles, et al 22). Children are actively ruled out of public space and their voices are underrepresented in urban policy, planning and practice. These two circumstances result in limited activity radii, limited opportunity for outdoor physical activity, and adverse health outcomes like childhood obesity. Data shows that 80% of teenagers around the globe are insufficiently active. This means only 20% of children meet the WHO guidelines of simply being active for one hour a day (Lander, 00:54:32 – 00:55:31). This very small percentage warrants deeper questions to be asked about how we can raise that number.
Lander’s research points out that active travel is a “particularly interesting pathway to explore” (regarding childhood obesity). Through collected data, Lander found that active travel to school is linked to a significant reduction in any positive in children’s body weight and fat components. From a sample of over 2000 kids, it was found that city-wide objective associations, such as traffic risk and proximity, with a child’s body weight stages and activity outcomes is possible. Further, if destinations are close and can be reached in a safe traffic environment, children are likely to walk to school hence have reduced obesity levels.
This goes in hand with other studies which suggest that infrastructure designed to encourage walking can help reduce childhood obesity. Wider sidewalks and pedestrian crossing lights are thought to have a huge impact in heavily populated neighborhoods. These pedestrian friendly amenities can also encourage children to play outside, ride their bikes, along with any other activity that helps them burn off energy (Bolduc). In general, “walkability is important. Access is effectively reduced by heavy traffic and dense arterial networks cutting through residential areas.” Sometimes fixing this is just a matter of utilizing “traffic calming measures, crossing guard programs, and safe routes to park/recreation facilities in urban design and planning” (Wolch, Jennifer, et al 210). Also, personal risk, air pollution, and foodscape are to varying degrees and varying levels associated with childrens’ commuting decisions (Lander, 00:58:14 – 00:58:42). Identifying causes of childhood obesity beyond unhealthy foodscapes and lack of intentional physical activity is huge because it helps us change the future of child wellbeing without having to change much about the child, just their environment.
Lander is not alone in the argument of overlooked environmental/geographical factors affecting children’s wellbeing, primarily their liklihood of being obese. Further research from articles helps us understand that identifying “obesogenic environments” and influencing them to further enable children to make healthier choices, with ease of access, and widely promote this to a large proportion of the community is a real challenge. It should be acknowledged that “the neighborhood is a key setting that can be used for intervention” which encompasses walking networks (footpaths and trails), cycling networks (roads and cycle paths), public open space (parks), and recreation facilities (Dehghan, Mahshid, et al 4). Another article linking “childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources” states, through research and acknowledging the effects on body mass index in association with park space and recreation programs, we see that “that access to both parkland and recreation programs reduce risk of overweight and obesity as measured by BMI attained at age 18” (Wolch, Jennifer, et al 212). Unfortunately, a lot of cities don’t have the wherewithal or room to build new facilities or fitness paths for the community. But, sometimes the best we can do is protect what we already have when there is no room for growth at the moment. However, if cities can identify their “obesogenic environments” and come together to build facilities or open spaces to promote activity for children we will start to see a decline in childhood obesity, beyond what encouraging kids to eat more vegetables does.
In an article on comparing the risk factors for childhood obesity in urban and rural environments, we find that studies suggest that “obesity is also more prevalent in rural children and adolescents than their urban counterparts” (Liu, Ji-Hong, et al 440). This article recognizes that rural environments may be “obesogenic” in ways that are more obscure than one may think. “Lack of sidewalks, long distances to recreational facilities, fewer destinations within walking distance, and low population density have been linked to higher obesity in rural communities” (Liu, Ji-Hong, et al 446). Even a study presented in a new report from 2013, which interviewed nearly one million public school students in Pennsylvania, shows that rural areas in the state had the highest obesity percentage (Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, 0:15 – 0:28).
This resonates with me because I was overweight for most of my short life (so far). I was considered morbidly obese at ten years old (well over 220 pounds) and at fourteen years old my doctor told me that I was surely at risk for diabetes, heart disease, and heart failure in the not-so-distant future. I had to make a big life change at an early age; and I can’t help but think how different things would’ve been if I lived in a town that forced me to be more active and walk more, like the city. Living in the suburbs (Long Island), having a car is crucial. Before sixteen, I couldn’t drive; so, if I couldn’t get a ride somewhere, I would stay home all day. The gym was far, there was barely anything within walking distance, and all my friends’ houses were far from mine. I guess I can indirectly blame the structure and geography of my environment for the lack of inspiration to be active and lack of indirect influence to do so.
To tie everything up, childhood obesity is not just a product of poor diet and foodscape. There are fingers to be pointed at community leaders and geography for limiting the number of ways a child can be active outside of home. Obesogenic environments are very real and sometimes it simply comes down to how comfortable and safe the child is walking around their neighborhood and being outside. Children must always be a part of the discussion of urban/community planning; their health and ways they can remain safely active should be a prime concern of leaders of our communities.
Works Cited
Four articles:
Must, A, and Rs Strauss. “Risks and Consequences of Childhood and Adolescent Obesity.” International Journal of Obesity, vol. 23, no. S2, 26 Apr. 1999, pp. 2–3., doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0800852.
Dehghan, Mahshid, et al. “Childhood Obesity, Prevalence and Prevention.” Nutrition Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, 2 Sept. 2005, p. 4., doi:10.1186/1475-2891-4-24.
Wolch, Jennifer, et al. “Childhood Obesity and Proximity to Urban Parks and Recreational Resources: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Health & Place, vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2011, pp. 207–214., doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.10.001.
Liu, Ji-Hong, et al. “Diet, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behaviors as Risk Factors for Childhood Obesity: An Urban and Rural Comparison.” Childhood Obesity, vol. 8, no. 5, Oct. 2012, pp. 440–448., doi:10.1089/chi.2011.0090.
Book:
Davis, Charles, et al. Diversity and Design: Understanding Hidden Consequences. Routledge, 2016.
Two sources of choice:
“Childhood obesity found highest in ultra rural areas.” YouTube, uploaded by Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, 29 May 2013,
Bolduc, Gisèle. “The Link between Urban Design and Childhood Obesity.” Medical Xpress – Medical Research Advances and Health News, Medical Xpress, 29 Mar. 2018, medicalxpress.com/news/2018-03-link-urban-childhood-obesity.html.
D&T Session 21 w/ Lander Bosch:
Bosch, Lander. “Technology, Diversity, and Geographies of Wellbeing.” Diversity & Technology Module, uploaded by Arlene Ducao, 14 April 2020, https://nyu.zoom.us/rec/play/vcZ-Jez7rDo3GtCTsQSDUaV9W9XufKqs0ncd-fMEmk-zW3ZWMFSgNLQWYOekZ3aXz7LeDeilARj8R1Xl
Diversity+Tech 