TY - JOUR
T1 - Residential location, commute distance, and body size
T2 - Cross-sectional observational study of state and territory capital cities in Australia
AU - Carroll, Suzanne J
AU - Turrell, Gavin
AU - Dale, Michael J
AU - Daniel, Mark
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their assistance with access to the data analysis environment. We particularly acknowledge Cassandra Elliott, Assistant Director Health National Statistics Centre at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Analyses presented in this paper used Australian Bureau of Statistics National Health Survey Data. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The authors also acknowledge Associate Professor Neil Coffee for his contributions to developing this research project.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Introduction: Body size, a key risk factor for chronic diseases, is associated with longer commutes. This study assessed associations between residential proximity to capital city central business district (CBD), area-level commute distance, and individual-level body size (body mass index [BMI] and waist circumference [WC]), and whether commute distance partially explains associations between residential proximity and body size. Methods: This study used 2017-18 National Health Survey (NHS) data for working adults (aged ≥15 years, n = 6394) residing in Australian capital cities. Measures included individual-level sociodemographic information and measured body size (BMI, WC), area-level (SA1) disadvantage, average commute distance, and population density. SA1-centroid distances to CBDs were calculated and grouped into tertiles. Multilevel linear regression models estimated city-specific associations between commute distance and body size, and residential proximity and body size, accounting for area clustering and sequentially adjusting for covariates. Results: Commute distance was positively associated with BMI except in Adelaide and Darwin, and with WC in all cities except Darwin. Associations were largely unaffected by covariate adjustment in Sydney (β = 0.039, 95%CI: 0.004, 0.074) and Melbourne (β = 0.083, 95%CI: 0.045, 0.121) for BMI; and in Melbourne (β = 0.169, 95%CI: 0.074, 0.265) and Perth (β = 0.082, 95%CI: <0.001, 0.166) for WC. For other cities, associations were nullified. Distance to CBD was positively associated with BMI and WC in most cities, but robust to covariate adjustment (including commute distance) only in Darwin (BMI: middle tertile β = 1.60, 95%CI: 0.39, 2.81; WC: middle tertile β = 4.10, 95% CI: 0.45, 7.75) and Adelaide (WC: outer tertile β = 7.67, 95%CI: 2.65, 121.69). Conclusion: Living in middle and outer areas of Australia's capital cities is associated with greater body size. Longer commute distance partially accounts for this association in some cities. Integrated multisector planning may help to reduce the association between residential distance to CBD and commute distance on body size and thus health.
AB - Introduction: Body size, a key risk factor for chronic diseases, is associated with longer commutes. This study assessed associations between residential proximity to capital city central business district (CBD), area-level commute distance, and individual-level body size (body mass index [BMI] and waist circumference [WC]), and whether commute distance partially explains associations between residential proximity and body size. Methods: This study used 2017-18 National Health Survey (NHS) data for working adults (aged ≥15 years, n = 6394) residing in Australian capital cities. Measures included individual-level sociodemographic information and measured body size (BMI, WC), area-level (SA1) disadvantage, average commute distance, and population density. SA1-centroid distances to CBDs were calculated and grouped into tertiles. Multilevel linear regression models estimated city-specific associations between commute distance and body size, and residential proximity and body size, accounting for area clustering and sequentially adjusting for covariates. Results: Commute distance was positively associated with BMI except in Adelaide and Darwin, and with WC in all cities except Darwin. Associations were largely unaffected by covariate adjustment in Sydney (β = 0.039, 95%CI: 0.004, 0.074) and Melbourne (β = 0.083, 95%CI: 0.045, 0.121) for BMI; and in Melbourne (β = 0.169, 95%CI: 0.074, 0.265) and Perth (β = 0.082, 95%CI: <0.001, 0.166) for WC. For other cities, associations were nullified. Distance to CBD was positively associated with BMI and WC in most cities, but robust to covariate adjustment (including commute distance) only in Darwin (BMI: middle tertile β = 1.60, 95%CI: 0.39, 2.81; WC: middle tertile β = 4.10, 95% CI: 0.45, 7.75) and Adelaide (WC: outer tertile β = 7.67, 95%CI: 2.65, 121.69). Conclusion: Living in middle and outer areas of Australia's capital cities is associated with greater body size. Longer commute distance partially accounts for this association in some cities. Integrated multisector planning may help to reduce the association between residential distance to CBD and commute distance on body size and thus health.
KW - commute distance
KW - BMI
KW - Waist Circumference
KW - capital cities
KW - Australa
KW - Obesity
KW - Body size
KW - Commuting distance
KW - Urban sprawl
KW - Urban design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129910707&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101122
DO - 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101122
M3 - Article
SN - 2214-1405
VL - 22
SP - 1
EP - 12
JO - Journal of Transport and Health
JF - Journal of Transport and Health
M1 - 101122
ER -