2. What led us here:
Little Change & Lots of Effort
3. What led us here:
Equity and Social Determinants
4. A New Approach
• Research showing how place impacts health
• Synergy between planning and health
– We work towards many of the same things!
5. Partnerships
• Department of Health:
– Increased physical activity
– Increased consumption of healthy foods
– Decreased barriers to healthy choices
– A way to communicate with planners
• Statewide Planning
– Better integration of public health and land use in
the State Guide Plan and local Community
Comprehensive Plans
6. Assess the situation…
New approach is needed
Strong research for environmental design
Synergy & Partnerships
Receptive planners
Funding
7. Healthy Places by Design
Community Partners Municipalities
Dept of Health
Training
Technical assistance
Guidance
Links
Evaluation
Bottom Up/Top Down Change
Healthy Communities Plan
Partnerships
Engaged & empowered residents
Assets and gaps ID’d
Shared decision making
Healthy Community
8. Research to Action: Part 1
Healthy Communities Plan to define recommendations
1. Literature Review
2. Recommendations by DOH Community
Planner
3. Review by healthy Places Advisory
Committee
4. Feedback Sessions with Municipal
Planners
9. The Healthy Communities Plan
Content
3 Goals
(Objectives, Policies & Strategies developed for each)
1) The built environment of every city and town in Rhode
Island is supportive of and encourages walking and
bicycling for transportation.
2) Rhode Island will have a statewide network of
greenspaces and greenways that will embrace every
Rhode Island community, with no Rhode Islander living
more than 15 minutes from a greenspace or greenway.
3) The built environment of every city and town in Rhode
Island provides convenient access to nutritious
foods for all residents.
10. Research to Action: Part 2
Fund 3 municipalities and their CBO partners to:
1. Complete assessments of the built environment and
their comp plans
2. Receive trainings on related health and planning
topics
3. Undergo a “charrette” public participation process
4. Consider changes to their Comprehensive Plans
5. Consider changes to other local policies
Selected one urban, one suburban and one
rural municipality to serve as examples
Pilot the HCP and Change Process
11. Questions for the Pilot
Communities
1. How well did the process work? What were the successes
and challenges?
2. How did partnerships support policy changes? How did
they affect public participation?
3. What have been the successes and challenges of adopting
policies and strategies in local Comprehensive Plans?
Interventions are costly, time consuming, reach a small number of people and DO NOT CHANGE POPULATION LEVELS We were learning that: Walkability People who live in neighborhoods with sidewalks are 47% more likely to be active 30 min a day (Sallis J, Bowles H, Bauman A, et al. “Neighborhood Environments and Physical Activity among Adults in 11 Countries.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 36(6): 484–490, June 2009.) Walking for transportation is most strongly related to living in areas with high residential density, mixed land use, and short distances to destinations (Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Medicine and Schience in Sports and Exercise, 40(7:S1):s550-s566, 2008. Walking and biking to school is related to higher physical activity levels (Davison K, Werder J and Lawson, C. “Children’s Active Commuting to School: Current Knowledge and Future Directions.” Preventing Chronic Disease , 5(3): A100, July 2008.) New multi-use trails can lead to increases in walking and cycling. (Wendel–Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, et al. “Potential Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity in Adults: A Systematic Review.” Obesity Reviews , 8(5): 425–440, September 2007.) Public Open Space People with good access to parks were 50% more likely to reach 180 min per week of activity (Giles Corti 2005) People who use public open space were 3 times more likely to reach PA recommendations of 150 min/wk (Giles-Corti, 2005) Food Access Access to stores that sell healthy foods is linked to higher consumption of fruits and vegetables and lower obesity Presence of healthy food in stores is linked to increased fruit and vegetable consumption Residents living in areas with higher densities of fresh food markets, compared to convenience stores and fast food restaurants, have lower rates of obesity For each additional meter of shelf space devoted to fresh vegetables, residents eat an additional 0.35 servings per day For every additional supermarket in a census tract, produce consumption increases 32 percent for African Americans and 11 percent for whites Researchers estimate that adding a new grocery store to a high poverty neighborhood would lead to a three pound weight decrease among residents, while eliminating a fast food restaurant in a neighborhood with a high density of fast food would lead to a one pound weight decrease.
1 Urban, 1 Rural, 1 Suburban Top down, bottom up
Assessments: Community Healthy Living Index (CHLI) Community-wide Survey Bikeability & Walkability Audits Trainings: NCI Charrette training Grow Smart RI built environment trainings M + R Strategic Services Power Prism Grow Smart Trainings Intro to Community Planning (for CBO) Social Determinants of Health The Role of Comp Plans in Physical Activity and Healthy Eating Compact, mixed-use development patterns that promote walking, biking & transit use Zoning and incentives to achieve compact, mixed-use development Circulation in walkable, bikeable communities Complete Streets design Planning & design for greenspace & greenway networks Planning & design for active recreation Improving access to healthy foods Planning for agriculture