Main Page/Research/Papers/fast food and arterials/IJBNPA/comments second round

Comments are normal, our responses in bold.

As highlighted in Larson et al. 2009 (Am J Prev Med) and other prior articles, geocoding is subject to error. Much greater detail is needed in articles using geocoding in order for readers to have more confidence in the rigor and accuracy of the geocoding. Please see their article and others and address.

The measure “freeway/arterial density” is confusing. The paper indicates that road type was determined based on US Federal Highway Administration standards and then “arterial streets and freeways were defined as those roads bearing the most traffic (freeway, collector, primary).” According to this statement, “freeways are part of arterials, as are collectors and primary roads. I assume local and minor roads are excluded. Please be more precise.

The classification of fast food restaurants is unclear. I am not clear what “automated methods” are for classifying national and local chain fast food restaurants. How would checking menus and/or customer reviews provide a reliable and valid means to discern whether “food was paid for at the time of ordering and prior to consumption” or that the outlet “did not provide table service?”

The results provided in the text do not match those provided in the tables.

I am not convinced by your claim “Previous studies of restaurant use and its impact on health bear revisiting to take into account theories of retail location found in urban planning and business geography and to include variables known to capture the economics of land use and accessibility.” I think this bold statement requires far more thoughtful discussion and support. Are you contending that the transportation networks is confounding the relationship between neighborhood SES and FFR density? Even in your study, SES remained statistically significant after accounting for road density. Might neighborhood SES indirectly affect FFR density through zoning and road development? Isn’t it still the case that FFR are more likely to be located in low SES neighborhoods even if this is partially or wholly explained by the transportation network?

I would suggest being more cautious in your critique of the LA moratorium regarding fast food restaurant location. You suggest we need more “cogent” proposals to improve diet. In fact, your study does not provide any evidence regarding who is frequenting fast food restaurants, only that the location is associated with the transportation network on neighborhood SES.

Minor

Page 4. What is the “novel metric of the built environment?”

Information in “census tracts” and “measures” is duplicated. I still would suggest that the data sources and measures sections be reorganized.

Why do you include a measure of distance to the closest FFR if it is not used in the statistical models? What is the point? Descriptive only?

I do not understand what you mean by “an offset of log….effectively transforming the dependent variable of count to density measures within the models.” I doubt that I will be the only reader who needs more information. Does this simply mean that you added area or population as covariates to the model to adjust for size (geographic or population)?

Page 21. Sentence that begins “fast food restaurant location was partially…” Please clarify “In that study, fast food restaurant location…”

References for the paper appeared in the middle of the manuscript – there are some strange formatting issues, presumable the result of automated formatting processes…

Please provide cites for your statements regarding New York City, Detroit, and New Orleans.