Cited by 68Human Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisUrban Transport and AccessibilityUrban Green Space and Health

Quantifying the Causal Effect of Individual Mobility on Health Status in Urban Space

Zhang, Yunke, Xu, Fengli, Xia, Tong, Li, Yong·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Abstract

How does individual mobility in the urban environment impact their health status? Previous works have explored the correlation between human mobility behaviour and individual health, yet the study on the underlying causal effect is woefully inadequate. However, the correlation analysis can sometimes be bewildering because of the confounding effects. For example, older people visit park more often but have worse health status than younger people. The common associations with age will lead to a counter-intuitive negative correlation between park visits and health status. Obtaining causal effects from confounded observations remains a challenge. In this paper, we construct a causal framework based on propensity score matching on multi-level treatment to eliminate the bias brought by confounding effects and estimate the total treatment effects of mobility behaviours on health status. We demonstrate that the matching procedure approximates a de-confounded randomized experiment where confounding variables are balanced substantially. The analysis on the directions of estimated causal effects reveals that fewer neighbouring tobacco shops and frequent visits to sports facilities are related with higher risk in health status, which differs from their correlation directions. Physical mobility behaviours and environment features have more significant estimated effects on health status than contextual mobility behaviours. Moreover, we embed our causal analysis framework in health prediction models to filter out features with superficial correlation but insignificant effects that might lead to over-fitting. This strategy achieves better model robustness with more features filtered out than L1-regularization. Our findings shed light on individual healthy lifestyle and mobility-related health policymaking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3494990

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 68

Authors
Zhang, Y., Xu, F., Xia, T., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology (CN)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
Published
2021-12-27
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
1-30
ISSN
2474-9567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200186631
Cited by
68
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1936217, 61971267, 61972223, 61941117, 61861136003)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020AAA0106000)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
Keywords
individual mobility, health status, urban space, causal effect estimation, confounding, propensity score matching, tobacco shops, physical mobility, feature selection, healthy lifestyle, health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review