1 / 41

Public Health, Transportation, and the Built Environment: Benefits and Costs

Public Health, Transportation, and the Built Environment: Benefits and Costs. Marlon G. Boarnet Professor and Chair, Department of Planning, Policy, and Design UC Irvine. Benefits and Costs of Health, Travel, and Built Environment. An Odd Question:

nitar
Download Presentation

Public Health, Transportation, and the Built Environment: Benefits and Costs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Health, Transportation, and the Built Environment: Benefits and Costs Marlon G. Boarnet Professor and Chair, Department of Planning, Policy, and Design UC Irvine

  2. Benefits and Costs of Health, Travel, and Built Environment An Odd Question: • Are there specific well understood policy choices with quantified costs and benefits to analyze? • Is this a common question in earlier land use – transportation literature or practice? • Are there data that allow quantifying health benefits?

  3. Background: Health, Land Use, and Travel Behavior • Motivation: Obesity and Sedentary Activity • 400,000 deaths per year in U.S. due to diseases linked to physical inactivity or diet • 435,000 deaths per year in U.S. due to smoking

  4. No Data <10% 10%–14% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1988 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  5. No Data <10% 10%–14% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1989 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  6. No Data <10% 10%–14% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1990 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  7. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1991 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  8. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1992 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  9. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1993 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  10. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1994 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  11. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1995 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  12. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1996 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  13. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1997 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  14. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1998 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  15. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1999 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  16. No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2000 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)

  17. Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2001 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%

  18. Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2002 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) (*BMI 30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%

  19. Obesity* Trends Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 2003 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%

  20. Do the Suburbs Make you Fat? • Obesity epidemic occurred in the last generation Percent of U.S. Adult Population Obese: • Late 1970’s: 15% • 1999, 27% Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services • Peak Suburban Growth from late 1940’s through 1970’s

  21. Source: U.S. Census

  22. Source: U.S. Census

  23. Source: U.S. Census

  24. Source: U.S. Census

  25. Land Use, Travel, and Health • Is land use planning part of the problem? Food processing, food availability, diet, lifestyle • Can land use planning be part of the solution? Among 8,042 persons, 1,949 (24%) had at least one walking trip during two-day period. Median distance of a walk trip = 0.54 miles 25% of walking trips < 0.31 miles 25% of walking trips > 0.97 miles

  26. Costs and Benefits of Land Use, Travel, and Health • Large benefits for a few people Mobility: small benefits for large numbers of persons Move 100 persons from 16 to 48 minutes of PA per year discounted benefits = $5.2 to $15.86 million • Projects can be inexpensive

  27. California Safe Routes to School • Authorized by California AB 1475, 1999 • Renewed by SB10, 2001 • As of Fall, 2003, 3 cycles of projects funded • Over 270 projects funded • $66 million in federal funds allocated • State match capped at $250,000 per project

  28. Safe Routes to School Evaluation • 10 elementary school sites studied • Before/After evaluation • Traffic characteristics • Vehicle counts, vehicle speed, yield to non-motorized traffic, walk/bicycling counts and on sidewalk/street • Urban Design • Survey of parents of 3rd-5th grade children • Did child walk more after SR2S construction?

  29. Star indicates location of elementary school; Circle represents portion of neighborhood included in the study (approx. ¼ mile radius from the elementary school) Sort by Whether SR2S Project Along Route to School • Survey asked if project was along child’s usual route to school • 52% of parents said “yes”; 48% said “no”

  30. After Construction Data • 1244 returned “after construction” surveys from 10 schools • School response rates varied from 23% to 54% • Full Sample Response Rate: 40%

  31. Results, by School

  32. SR2S on Planning’s Terms • Small (approx. $250,000) projects can increase the likelihood of children walking to school • Physical activity may increase • But these projects were sound planning anyways – the health link can allow us to better understand planning

  33. Sidewalk Gap Closure Results

  34. Sheldon Elementary: Average Vehicle Speeds on San Pablo Dam Road

  35. Sheldon: Safety Advantage from Shift of Walking to Sidewalk San Pablo Dam Road after sidewalk improvement San Pablo Dam Road before sidewalk improvement

  36. Other Results • Frank, et al. study of walking in Seattle neighborhoods • 8.8 additional minutes of walking associated with: • Increase from 52.28 to 62.74 intersections per square kilometer • Increase residential density from 3.63 to 4.36 du per acre • Increase in the mixed use index from 0.31 to 0.37 • Increase in retail floor area ratio from 0.25 to 0.30

  37. Montara Elementary School, South Gate, approximately 66 intersections per sq. km.

  38. Back Bay, Newport Beach/Costa Mesa, approximately 47 intersections per sq. km.

  39. West Los Angeles, approximately 70 intersections per sq. km.

  40. Conclusion • Changes associated with increased walking are within range of development experience • Low-cost projects can have impacts • Basic infrastructure – sidewalks, street crossings, public spaces • Elements of neighborhood design

More Related