I don't disagree that people aren't getting all the steps they need, but it seems like there's a pattern where hotter areas have less 'activity' (step count).<p>Central America, Northern South America, Northern Africa, and the Middle East seem particularly bad.<p>Looking at the "walkability" graph, you see that a lot of the cities listed as the worst (Arlington, Forth Worth, San Antonio) are in Texas, where it's pretty hot.<p>Living in Las Vegas, I totally get this. You just don't go outside in the day time, which can put a crimp on activity.<p>On the flip side, in the winter it's very nice, and is the perfect time to go outside and get some exercise.
1. Demographics are not controlled for<p>2. Temperature variations are not accounted for.<p>3. "The cost to exercise" (e.g. cost to live in walkable areas, average cost of gyms, etc.) is not accounted for.<p>Furthermore, the website (haven't read the paper yet) implies walkability is always good. Walking around during the summer time in a hot climate like Texas will get you killed [1]<p>The analysis is obviously good, however it basically says what's already obvious, rich people exercise more (in the case of United States). Is there something inherent in the areas that make people more or less likely to exercise or is it the demographics? Most of the evidence points to the latter. This raises the question: since you inherently can't change your demographic, what difference does it make?<p>[1] This happened just a couple weeks ago:<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/06/23/texas-boy-scout-dies-heatstroke-during-backpacking-trip.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/06/23/texas-boy-scout-die...</a>