An essay in Building Design discusses the recent release of the Fat Map, a graphic of England, Scotland and Wales comprised of data from the patient loads of the country's doctors, linking geography to rates of obesity nationwide. The author of the piece, Carolyn Steel, wonders if the design of Britain itself is to blame:
The idea that there is a link between our bodies and physical environment is hardly new, but as last year’s government Foresight report on obesity noted, the relationship between the two is no longer in sync. Thanks to “technological revolution… outstripping human evolution”, it argued, Britain has evolved into an “obesogenic environment” in which, for an increasing number of people, “weight gain is the inevitable — and largely involuntary — consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle”. Obesity, in other words, is now passive, an inescapable consequence of merely existing. But if our environment is to blame, could we design ourselves out of the mess?
Below, the UK Fat Map (via, click to enlarge).
Approaching the linkage between geography and consumption from an economic angle, Steel proposes that the map is ultimately about class and poverty:
Of course, what the fat map really shows is those parts of the country
where one is most likely to be born into relative deprivation, where
the deadly hand of “passive obesity” is most likely to strike....
Obesity is the bodily manifestation of society — or rather of our place in it. Those who are well educated, who can afford healthy food, who have the leisure to play sports, to shop and cook for fun, suffer from it far less. The trick would be to extend those rights to everyone. Job opportunities, good schools, safe places to play, easy access to fresh food, sports facilities, and well designed and maintained neighbourhoods are what is needed.
That is why obesity lies within the remit of government — and of architects and planners too. It is linked to opportunity, inclusiveness, aspiration. Obesity is not a matter of individual choice.
Steel's argument finds its echo in a San Francisco Chronicle article from last year, by Carol Lloyd, about Bay Area residents reflecting on how relocation within the metropolitan area has affected their health:
Of course, ever since Jane Jacobs declared her love for Greenwich Village in "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and made it an icon of the new urbanism, planners have been touting the pleasures and practicalities of walkable communities....[but] with a generation raised in sprawl, eating fast food and driving long hours, is it realistic to assume that people's behavior will change if the environment changes? Some studies suggest no -- that less-active people will naturally choose communities that allow them to be less active. However, another study showed 30 percent of the respondents reporting that they wanted to live in walkable neighborhoods but were unable to afford them.
The definition of "quality of life" as embodied by the suburb thus morphs to acknowledge economics and health in a new way. Lloyd points out the irony here:
Ironically, the suburbs were created as protection from the vicissitudes of our older urban environs. In the dense urban areas of the 19th and early 20th centuries, homes sat next to slaughterhouses and tanneries next to cafes.
"Everyone knew someone who had had tuberculosis, and water- and food-borne illnesses were commonplace, so people understood how our environment affected our health," says explains Richard Jackson, a public health expert who teaches in the Department of Environmental Science at UC Berkeley and ran the Department of Public Health under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger until 2005. Jackson says the attempt to create safety and convenience has spawned its own set of problems: "Now we have obesity, diabetes, cancer and joint problems, instead of dysentery. We're richer than before, but things don't feel right. We work harder, we drive farther, we're fatter, we're more depressed. Our lifestyle is making us more unhealthy, and a lot of that is based on our built environment."
But what about the "social engineering" vis-a-vis walkable urbanism, as Steel mentions? Could it be simply that the thinking that drove urban development for the last 50-75 years needs updating, for the overarching health and economic well-being of all? Furthermore: in a market economy, how can the affordability of a premium product be ensured?
Even to ask the question raises the spectre of social engineering, yet there is no doubt design plays a key role in the way we lead our lives. The Foresight report noted how the “walkability” of cities can be improved by mixed-use planning and greater connectivity, and how the “safety, greenery, aesthetics and upkeep of neighbourhoods” can promote activity. Yet such moves barely scratch the surface, while to go further — to effectively design cities like human hamster wheels — would surely stray the wrong side of an invisible line.
Related (thanks, Debby); earlier: Our Cities, Ourselves; You are Where You Eat.
I never realized how little access some people have to healthy food until I lived in a low-income neighborhood. The availability of simple fruits and vegetables is something that many people just take for granted, but there are many "food deserts" throughout our inner-cities. Especially for those who cannot drive, this is a real problem.
Although design can take us a long way, I'm a little wary of some of this rhetotic:
"Obesity is not a matter of individual choice."
Sure it is, at least to a degree. Design is part of the solution, but no amount of government intervention can get someone up off the sofa and into the health food store.
Posted by: Daniel Nairn | 09/12/2008 at 08:09
This is certainly a complex issue, but a study in Canada found that obese people move to the 'burbs because they prefer to drive everywhere instead of having to walk:
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e3932c7a-0a97-4b94-8fcd-1516ea86cfe1&k=17723
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0240565120080402
Posted by: Dan Wood | 09/12/2008 at 16:08
Dan and Daniel, points taken. Personal choice is always going to play a role, I totally agree.
Steel points out that there's this fine line between designing a place to encourage a certain set of choices, and creating what effectively becomes a "human hamster wheel:"
"...the 'walkability' of cities can be improved by mixed-use planning and greater connectivity, and how the 'safety, greenery, aesthetics and upkeep of neighbourhoods' can promote activity. Yet such moves barely scratch the surface, while to go further — to effectively design cities like human hamster wheels — would surely stray the wrong side of an invisible line."
Posted by: Chris | 09/22/2008 at 16:58