Physical activity, Environment and Policy: The link between physical inactivity, land use patterns, and transportation

1. Physical activity, Environment and Policy: The link between physical inactivity, land use patterns, and transportation Kathryn H. Schmitz, PhD, MPH Assistant Professor Division of Epidemiology University of Minnesota

2. Costs of Inactivity, per year • $500 million (Minnesota) • $3.17 billion (New York) • $300 million (North Carolina) • $76.6 billion (United States)

3. 1991 1995 2000 No Data <10% 10%-14% 15-19% 20% Obesity* Trends Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1991, 1995 and 2000 (*BMI 30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’4” person) Source: Mokdad A H, et al. JAMA1999;282:16, 2001;286:10.

4. Leisure time physical activity trends, BRFSS

5. Change in transportation?

6. Change in density?

7. Factors that influence the choice to walk for exercise or transportation Behavioral setting (environment) Psychosocial variables Culture Policy Other Density Diversity Design Land Use Diversity and Density Quality of Connectivity Destination Attractiveness Density Connectivity

8. Density variables Population Density Housing Unit Density Employment Density Building Coverage Surrounding Population Density— (e.g. density within one mile radius)

9. Land Use Diversity and Density % of area as Core Business/Commercial/Public use vs. residential Building massing % of total land area that is commercial Use of upper stories over retail for office/residence % of parcels with multiple uses Spacing of public spaces in total area Park acreage - % of total area as park Average park area Number of attractive pedestrian destinations Size of businesses (# of employees in the area) Numbers of particular types of businesses Distance to destinations (euclidean vs. walking distance)

10. Destination Attractiveness Ability to combine trips Building design (entries, balconies, porches, interesting architectural features) Building orientation from pedestrian standpoint Building Setbacks Attractiveness of individual destinations Attractiveness of destination ‘cluster’ Is parking between pedestrian and destination?

11. Connectivity Street patterns Pedestrian ‘cut throughs’ Sidewalk continuity Ability to travel to destinations without crossing an arterial Bikeway pattern, density, and bike parking Block size

12. Quality of Connectivity Width of vehicular space on roads (# of lanes, width of lanes) Street trees – size, existence, and distance between them Frequency of building entries Parallel parking on streets – preferably 7’ to 8’ wide Speed limit Sidewalk width greater than or less than 5’ Are pedestrian paths on streets or separate? Bikeway pattern, density, and bike parking Ease of street crossings Distance between pedestrian crossings on arterials

13. Differing reasons, similar goals • Urban planners • Transportation planners • Public Health professionals Decrease dependence on automobiles, increase use of public transportation, walking/biking