Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Environmental and Public Health
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 161574, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/161574
Research Article

A Direct Assessment of “Obesogenic”Built Environments: Challenges and Recommendations

1Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, 2600-515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 5K3
2Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, General Site, McMaster Clinic, 237 Barton Street E., Hamilton, ON, Canada L8L 2X2
3Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, HSC-3U4, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5
4Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney and The George Institute for Global Health, Level 10 King George V Building, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney NSW 2050, Australia
5Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec and Université Laval, 2725 Chemin Sainte-Foy, Quebec City, QC, Canada G1V 4G5

Received 4 June 2011; Revised 1 August 2011; Accepted 30 August 2011

Academic Editor: David Strogatz

Copyright © 2011 Danijela Gasevic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary Material

A modified version of the Irvine-Minnesota Inventory (IMI) was used to assess the built environment of two urban communities differing by income level. From the original IMI (162 variables), we excluded variables that were not present in communities of interest, ones that were subjective in nature (such as segment attractiveness), as well as the variables that were hard to assess due to restricted views (high fences frequently prevented assessment of front porches, garage doors, or presence of bars on windows). On the other hand, some features were added to the tool, such as presence of supermarkets or curb cuts at alley intersections. Additionally, response options to certain questions were modified to quantify features (e.g. bus stops) instead of using subjective descriptors such as “some/a lot”, “a few”, or “none”. After all the modifications, the final audit tool consisted of 125 items.

  1. Supplementary Material