Do the suburbs make you fat?

Suburbanites are fatter than inner city residents, but it might not be because the suburbs are more car-oriented; it might be because the two regions attract different types of people

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

Does living in the suburbs make you fat?

It’s timely to revisit my earlier discussion of obesity because there’ve been a few studies released recently, like this one, that find residents of low density neighbourhoods are fatter and generally less healthy than those who live in higher-density areas. This is often framed as attributable to car-oriented lifestyles vs walkable lifestyles, and as the suburbs vs the inner city.

There’s good evidence that suburbanites are on average fatter than inner city residents. But correlation is not causation, and households aren’t randomly distributed across cities. The favoured explanation that it’s all down to density, so that if the residents of inner city Fitzroy and outer suburban Mernda swapped houses the former would get fat and the latter would shed the kilos, doesn’t necessarily follow.

An alternative explanation is suburbanites aren’t fatter because they live in the suburbs, but because people who are more likely to be fat self-select into the suburbs. Conversely, people who are likely to be thin self-select into denser neighbourhoods like the inner city. Changes in urban form will accordingly have little if any impact on obesity.

Observers of Australian cities who argue that density and walkability affect obesity usually compare the inner city with the suburbs. But the two populations are not the same. For example, compared to suburban populations, inner city residents are more likely to be young, single, have no dependants, have a higher level of education and enjoy a higher income.

It’s easier to be thin when you’re young, haven’t had a baby, don’t have kids badgering you for fast food, are well informed about nutrition, can afford good food and have the time to cook. These sorts of factors are more likely to explain why on average inner city residents are thinner, not the fact they live at higher densities (I’ve expanded on this line of thinking before, herehere and here).

There are good reasons to pursue higher densities in Australia’s major cities, but addressing obesity isn’t one of them. It’s unlikely tightening the belt on sprawl will have much, if any, impact on the average BMI of Australians.

This fascinating study published in the leading Journal of Urban EconomicsFat city: questioning the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity, supports the alternative explanation. The research team, which included internationally prominent academics Henry OvermanDiego Puga and Mathew Turner, examined changes in the geographic location of 6,000 respondents in the US between 1978 and 1994.

They had access to a remarkable data base which, among other important variables, provided the precise street addresses, height and weight of respondents at intervals over a 16 year period. They tracked changes in the location of individuals and constructed measures of the neighbourhood density and walkability of each address.

As expected, the authors found residents of more sprawling neighbourhoods are indeed heavier on average than people who live in less sprawling neighbourhoods (although they found this applied to men but not women). However, their results strongly suggest urban sprawl does not cause weight gain:

Rather, people who are more likely to be obese (e.g., because they do not like to walk) are also more likely to move to sprawling neighborhoods (e.g., because they can more easily move around by car). Of course the built environment may still place constraints on the type of exercise that people are able to take or the nature of the diet that they consume. The key point is that individuals who have a lower propensity to being obese will choose to avoid those kinds of neighborhoods.

They say they found “no evidence that neighborhood characteristics have any causal effect on weight”.

The authors are aware their conclusions contradict the received wisdom. However, they point out their findings are consistent with other studies showing that sorting rather than causation is the primary mechanism that drives observed differences within cities on many socioeconomic variables. They conclude:

It follows immediately from our results that recent calls to redesign cities in order to combat the rise in obesity are misguided. Our results do not provide a basis for thinking that such redesigns will have the desired effect, and therefore suggest that resources devoted to this cause will be wasted. The public health battle against obesity is better fought on other fronts.

And equally, the battle for higher densities, improved public transport and shorter commutes is also better fought on other fronts. Of course this is a US study so the usual caution in extrapolating from another culture to Australia should be exercised – I’ve discussed the relationship between obesity and urban form and infrastructure in the Australian context on a number of occasions before (see links above and also hereherehere, and here).

(Visited 6 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 thoughts on “Do the suburbs make you fat?

  1. Xoanon

    But surely, redesigning cities would still have a measurable effect? If it was made less convenient for a suburbanite to drive and easier to walk, would he/she still prefer to drive? At least some people might switch to walking, if driving became less pleasant.

    1. Alan Davies


      Well, notwithstanding what you might think, this research finds there isn’t a significant relationship between urban form and weight. That’s the US where the suburbs are often more sprawling than ours so maybe there’d be more of an effect here (but then some of their inner cities are much denser than ours), but I can’t see it being a lot stronger.

      Densities are increasing in the outer suburbs, but residents are still keeping their cars. What they eat has a much, much bigger impact on weight than incidental exercise. Changes in urban form and structure aren’t really going to have much impact on food preferences.

      I’d like to know what a centre within walking distance of every outer suburban home would look like – are outer suburban residents really drawn to cafe society as much as their counterparts in the inner city are? Why wouldn’t they continue to drive to the mall where they get economies of scale and the benefits of comparison and complementary shopping?

      The key thing here is what people do when they have a choice about location and urban form, as they usually do. If that choice were removed – e.g. cars were made hard to use in the suburbs and active modes made better – then people would drive less, although whether they’d use active transport modes as a substitute, or simply make fewer trips and instead lounge around at home, is a moot point.

      There’s also an issue of the size of any health benefit from active transport. A recent widely reported British study found commuting by (vigorous) cycling conferred a health benefit on riders, but there were limited health benefits for those who walked to work and for those who commuted by public transport (see How big are the public health benefits of riding to work?)

      There are good arguments for promoting higher densities, but arguing obesity is over-egging the pudding. Obesity itself would be more efficiently addressed by non-design strategies.

  2. Edward Re

    I disagree.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details