No abstract

No abstract

Viewshed analysis remains one of the most popular GIS tools for assessing visibility, despite the recognition of several limitations when quantifying visibility from a human perspective. The visual significance of terrain is heavily influenced by the vertical dimension (i.e. slope, aspect and elevation) and distance from the observer, neither of which are adjusted for in standard viewshed Highlights Standard viewshed analysis is a poor measure of visibility from a human perspective.  A novel method (VVI) was developed to represent visibility from a human perspective.  The VVI demonstrated predictive validity for known environment visibility (r = 0.863, p = 0.001).  The VVI is a valid novel methodology for improving viewshed analyses when visibility from a human perspective is the focus.

BackgroundThe influence of visual exposure to health-related behaviours, such as smoking, is increasingly acknowledged in the public health literature. Social contagion or normalisation is thought to operate through the visibility of those behaviours. There has been a lack of systematic and comprehensive approaches to quantifying visual exposure to these behaviours over a relatively large geographic area. We describe the novel application of a geographic tool, viewshed analysis, to estimate visual exposure to smoking outside bars/cafés across a downtown area.MethodsSmoking was observed for different times and days of the week at 14 outdoor areas of bars/cafés throughout downtown Wellington, New Zealand. We used these data to extrapolate to other bars/cafés with outdoor seating. We then conducted viewshed analyses to estimate visual exposure to smoking at bars/cafés for all public outdoor spaces.ResultsWe observed a smoking point prevalence of 16%. Visibility analyses indicated that estimated visible smoking was highest in the evenings (7-8 pm), where the average values across Wednesday and Friday ranged from zero up to 92 visible smokers (mean = 1.44). Estimated visible smoking at midday ranged from zero to 13 (mean = 0.27). Values were also higher at the end of the week compared with midweek in the evening. Maps indicate that streets with high levels of retail shops and hospitality areas had high values of estimated visible smokers, particularly in the evening where numbers were consistently above 50.ConclusionsThis paper highlights a useful method for measuring the extent of visual exposure to smoking behaviours across relatively large areas using a geospatial approach. Applying this method in other locations would require consideration of place-specific characteristics which impact on visibility and could be improved through more sophisticated extrapolation of observational data across the study area. The findings of this and similar research could ultimately support the expansion of smokefree public spaces.

AimsInadequate fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is an important dietary risk factor for disease internationally. High F&V prices can be a barrier to dietary intake and so to improve understanding of this topic we surveyed prices and potential competition between F&V outlet types.MethodsOver a three week early autumn period in 2013, prices were collected bi-weekly for 18 commonly purchased F&Vs from farmers' markets (FM) selling local produce (n = 3), other F&V markets (OFVM) (n = 5), supermarkets that neighbored markets (n = 8), and more distant supermarkets (n = 8), (in urban Wellington and Christchurch areas of New Zealand). Prices from an online supermarket were also collected.ResultsA total of 3120 prices were collected. Most F&Vs (13/18) were significantly cheaper at OFVMs than supermarkets. Over half of the F&Vs (10/18) were significantly cheaper at nearby compared to distant supermarkets, providing evidence of a moderate ‘halo effect’ in price reductions in supermarkets that neighbored markets. Weekend (vs midweek) prices were also significantly cheaper at nearby (vs distant) supermarkets, supporting evidence for a ‘halo effect’.Ideal weekly ‘food basket’ prices for a two adult, two child family were: OFVMs (NZ$76), online supermarket ($113), nearby supermarkets ($124), distant supermarkets ($127), and FMs ($138). This represents a savings of $49 per week (US$26) by using OFVMs relative to (non-online) supermarkets. Similarly, a shift from non-online supermarkets to the online supermarket would generate a $13 saving.ConclusionsIn these locations general markets appear to be providing some substantially lower prices for fruit and vegetables than supermarkets. They also appear to be depressing prices in neighboring supermarkets. These results, when supplemented by other needed research, may help inform the case for interventions to improve access to fruit and vegetables, particularly for low-income populations.