This is great blanket advice and interesting in regards to the socio-geographic relationship between walking and life expectancy. But I think it's a shallow conclusion. Health would be a pretty boring measure if we only cared about who's living longest on average. On another hand, It feels trite to reduce the reasons for a region being healthy to natural movement. You could just as easily argue, instead, that natural movement is a symptom of health in these zones, rather than vice versa. I think It'd be more compelling to cross-examine other symptoms of health along with, say education or GDP, (or the lack of any of these) by zone and see if/how they relate to movement.
Interesting, nonetheless! Thank you for sharing.