Smart Growth Principles and the Connection to Public Health
Daniel Parker, MSP Division Operations and Management Consultant
This is a full transcript of the online presentation. For the
presentation itself, go
here .
Begin Transcript:
This is Daniel Parker with the Division of Environmental Health in the Florida Department of Health. Florida has become the fastest growing state in the nation, now at 18,000,000 residents. This is putting pressure on both public health and urban planning to respond quicker and better to a larger population of residents and visitors. One way of doing this is to find a language common enough for both fields to use. Smart Growth Principles can fulfill this need.
In this presentation, I hope to show you the connection between health and the built environment, and how following Smart Growth principles can benefit the Florida we know and want to protect in a sustainable manner.
There are two definitions to consider in this presentation. The first is the definition of “health”. The World Health Organization defines health as the state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The key point here is that health is more than physical. It is also mental and social.
The second definition is that of “environmental health”. The definition offered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in their Healthy People 2010 initiative, also includes social. The definition includes effects that are probably more familiar to urban planners than to environmental health officials.
What becomes apparent in defining health and environmental health is the need to think from a larger perspective on what impacts health. Public health and urban planning, by their definition and trade, are dealing with the whole, with more than just the one, so we must understand how the parts work together and see the bigger picture.
This led us in Environmental Health to ask ourselves how do we see the big picture? How do we assess whether we are protecting a community’s Environmental Health? The Division of Environmental Health decided to support a community assessment approach developed by the National Association of City County Health Officials (NACCHO) called the Protocol for Assessing Community Excellence in Environmental Health, or PACE EH. This community assessment model has been instrumental in recognizing built environment problems as public health problems. Florida leads the nation in this endeavor and has piloted 26 community assessments across the state with its partner county health departments.
The results of Florida’s PACE EH project justify the need for planners and public health officials to work together. We asked communities, What are your Environmental Health issues?
What we found is that if you let a community identify their issues, they will identify what is usually in the realm of urban planning, the built environment, as a public health issue.
For example, no sidewalks, no bike paths, no street lights, cut off from other neighborhoods, dilapidated housing, no fire hydrants, heavy traffic, sewage, flooding, and noise.
These are critical findings. Private health care primarily focuses on the individual. Public health and urban planning focus on the community, the public, and thereby the social aspects of health. We spend a lot of time as public health officials discussing obesity, getting fit, and using alternative transportation such as a bike or your feet. We don’t spend a lot of time discussing whether one’s community has sidewalks to walk to school, or whether residents are too fearful of sending their children out into their neighborhood. It is as if we offer a prescription and only fill half the bottle. For urban planning, this begs the question: What has happened in these communities? What has comprehensive planning and growth management missed?
Howard Frumkin, the current director of the National Center for Environmental Health, has been a pioneer in presenting the link between public health and urban planning. He was one of three authors in 2004 who wrote a book on the subject, suggesting that the rise in asthma, obesity, antidepressant prescriptions, and medical expenditures can be connected to land use and community design.
Consider the overweight and obesity statistics across the United States. It is predicted that by 2008, 73% of US adults will be classified as overweight or obese. A relevant question to ask is how many urban planners know the public health statistics of their communities. How much of this can be attributed to a poorly planned environment? In order to assess all contributing factors, there must first be a willingness amongst planners and public health officials to acknowledge that land use decisions can influence health results.
If we acknowledge the connection, how much can we prevent? The 2005 Trust for America’s Health report stated that 1 out of 5 Floridians are obese. Consider what this means in health care costs. Also consider Benjamin Franklin’s famous saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” What would a percent difference in the obesity rate mean in cost savings for health care and insurance? One can conclude that it might be much more effective, and much cheaper, to ensure smart growth principles such as promoting mixed uses, and strengthening existing communities, are supported. A 1999 report estimated the cost of obesity to be $100 billion.
Reference: 29 Colditz, GA. Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1999; S664-5;US Dept of Health and Human Services.
My belief is that health disparities and poorly planned communities have a connection and can be positively influenced by supporting the ten Smart Growth Principles. Here in Florida, the complexities of the planning process and the associated outcomes have led to public frustration, resulting in such movements as the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment to drastically change the land use decision process.
A better answer is to follow the Smart Growth Principles. Instead of confusing and complex plans and ordinances, focusing on these principles may help to simplify the planning process for the public, reverse neighborhood decline, increase social capital, and improve public health. Let’s take a look at them.
One, Mix Land Uses.
Two, Take Advantage of Compact Building Design.
Three, Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices.
Four, Create Walkable Neighborhoods.
Five, Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place.
Six, Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective.
Seven, Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty, and Critical Environmental Areas.
Eight, Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices.
Nine, Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities.
Ten, Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration.
Let’s look closer at the public health connection to each Smart Growth Principle.
First, Mix Land Uses. Why is this important to public health? Research conducted between 2004 and 2006 show that disadvantaged areas have a lower availability of healthy food choices. Think about neighborhoods in your city. Are there such places that have more fast food outlets than supermarkets? Research also shows that work location and cost of housing are a factor in sprawl. And we know that time spent driving is being associated with harmful health effects. These findings relate to needing to do a better job at mixing land uses. With the surge in population in Florida, and the decrease in developable land, one could argue that there should be no more single use development (residential here, commercial there, and workplace over there) in Florida.
References:
Howell Wechsler and others, “The Availability of Low-Fat Milk in an Inner-City Latino Community: Implications for Nutrition Education,” American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995): 1690-92;David C. Sloane and others, “Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living through Community-Based Participatory Research,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (2003): 568-75;Carol R. Horowitz and others, “Barriers to Buying Healthy Foods for People with Diabetes: Evidence of Environmental Disparities,” American Journal of Public Health 94 (2004): 1549-54.
Belden Russonello & Stewart (2004). “American Community Survey National Survey on Communities.” For Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors. Levine, Jonathan and Frank, LD (under review). “Transportation and Land-Use Preferences and Residents’ Neighborhood Choices: The Sufficiency of “Smart Growth” in the Atlanta Region.” Growth and Change.
Frank, Lawrence, Stone Brian Jr and Bachman, William (2000). “Linking Land Use with Household Vehicle Emissions in the Central Puget Sound: Methodological Framework and Findings.” Transportation Research Part D 5,3: 173-96.
Frank, Lawrence and Engelke, Peter (2005). “Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment On Public Health: Walkable Places and the Exposure to Air Pollution.” International Regional Science Review.
Sallis, James F, Frank LD, Saelens BE and Kraft MK (2004). “Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research.” Transportation Research A Vol. 38, Issue 4, pp.249-268.
As reported in Promoting public health through Smart Growth. Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage and Todd Litman, SmartGrowthBC, 2006.
Nasar, Julian (1995). “The Psychological Sense of Community I the Neighborhood,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 61, No. 2, pp 178-184.
The presence of mixed uses also means that routine tasks are within a convenient distance. This affects the social network of a neighborhood as well. A survey in Ohio found that a mixed-use neighborhood had a higher sense of community than the single-use. Does this mean a mixed-used neighborhood would be more healthy as well?
References:
Howell Wechsler and others, “The Availability of Low-Fat Milk in an Inner-City Latino Community: Implications for Nutrition Education,” American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995): 1690-92;David C. Sloane and others, “Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living through Community-Based Participatory Research,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (2003): 568-75;Carol R. Horowitz and others, “Barriers to Buying Healthy Foods for People with Diabetes: Evidence of Environmental Disparities,” American Journal of Public Health 94 (2004): 1549-54.
Belden Russonello & Stewart (2004). “American Community Survey National Survey on Communities.” For Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors. Levine, Jonathan and Frank, LD (under review). “Transportation and Land-Use Preferences and Residents’ Neighborhood Choices: The Sufficiency of “Smart Growth” in the Atlanta Region.” Growth and Change.
Frank, Lawrence, Stone Brian Jr and Bachman, William (2000). “Linking Land Use with Household Vehicle Emissions in the Central Puget Sound: Methodological Framework and Findings.” Transportation Research Part D 5,3: 173-96.
Frank, Lawrence and Engelke, Peter (2005). “Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment On Public Health: Walkable Places and the Exposure to Air Pollution.” International Regional Science Review.
Sallis, James F, Frank LD, Saelens BE and Kraft MK (2004). “Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research.” Transportation Research A Vol. 38, Issue 4, pp.249-268.
As reported in Promoting public health through Smart Growth. Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage and Todd Litman, SmartGrowthBC, 2006.
Nasar, Julian (1995). “The Psychological Sense of Community I the Neighborhood,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 61, No. 2, pp 178-184.
Think back to when you yourself were a child. What places did you explore? Was there an open space, or a woods, or a pasture, or a corner grocery store? Are those places still there? Do your own children have places to explore in your neighborhood? In today’s America, we cannot imagine our children doing as Einstein did at the age of four, but what is it that we can imagine, and then put into action? Without appropriate mixed use, we create islands where children are marooned to the edge of their yards.
Some have theorized that this loss of room to roam is related to the increase in medications prescribed for children. The New York Times reported that prescriptions increased five fold from 1993 to 2002. Could this be connected to the loss of open space and the overdevelopment of single use communities?
Let’s consider the benefits of the second smart growth principle, Take Advantage of Compact Building Design. Research has shown that denser development, done properly, reduces costs, provides for more independence (something especially important to Florida’s senior populations), and provides for higher property value.
The third principle is to create a range of housing opportunities and choices. This principle is especially important in Florida, which is facing difficulties related to hurricanes, insurance, and demand from the surge in population. As an example, mobile home parks in Florida coastal area are under pressure for redevelopment. These parks, in many cases, serve as "affordable housing". On the other hand, if the mobile home parks stay, they are prone to destruction from hurricanes. Even projects highlighted by the Congress for New Urbanism have a difficult time maintaining a range of housing opportunities.
Some communities are trying to support this principle through the use of an Inclusionary Housing Program. Tallahassee, the state capitol, has such a program, which requires new development of a certain size to include affordable housing. Only time will tell whether this effort to create a range of housing opportunities within new development supports this smart growth principle, and is embraced by communities.
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
Consider the smart growth principle of Creating Walkable Neighborhoods. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine previewed a study in February 2005 that related how the built environment, in this case, how walkable a neighborhood was, to public health recommendations of physical fitness. The three walkability factors in the study were the mix of shops, homes, and schools, the residential density, and the number of connecting streets. These are common features of interest to the urban planning trade, and the results of this study should be closely considered by land use planners and public health officials.
The American Journal of Public Health in 2003 and 2004, and the Institute of Medicine in 2005, also looked closer at the connection between health and the built environment. These articles addressed issues related to safety, crime, and areas being far from each other. The perception of safety influences physical activity. The Institute of Medicine research is especially interesting as they advocated the need for more professionals who can understand the links between public health, physical activity, transportation, and urban planning.
Frank et al, 2000. Frank, Lawrence, Stone Brian Jr and Bachman, William (2000). “Linking Land Use with Household Vehicle Emissions in the Central Puget sound: Methodological Framework and Findings.” Transportation Research Part D 5, 3: 173-96.
A study in September, 2005 from Seattle continued to link planning and public health. Looking at three measures of “walkability”: better connected streets, retail services nearby, and transit choices nearby, resulted in more physically active and less overweight residents. This study sounds like a public health prescription for obesity.
Once one starts to review the research and literature on the interaction between heath and the built environment, several themes become apparent. For a variety of reasons, pedestrian traffic is often an issue of last consideration. The research also shows that crime and safety are critical factors in whether people get out and walk or bike somewhere, yet crime and safety are rarely described as an urban planning and public health issue.
The issue of fear came up in three studies completed between 1995 and 2000. All of these studies came from health journals and reports. Relevant to planners will be the findings related to neighborhood safety, the presence of enjoyable scenery, and the lack of structures or facilities. A concerted effort between public health and planning to support walkable neighborhoods will combat both real and perceived fear and should see public health benefits.
Foster Distinctive Attractive Communities With A Strong Sense of Place is the fifth Smart Growth Principle. An Australian study showed that perception of one’s community strongly affects how active children are in that community. Perceptions were influenced by heavy traffic, a lack of public transit, a lack of street-crossing aids, the need to cross several roads, and a lack of nearby recreational facilities. Consider if you were to send a child from your home to a school, or a park, or a library, or grocery store. What are the impediments to doing that? What are the fears?
Reference: Promoting Public Health through Smart Growth. Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage, Todd Litman, SmartGrowthBC, 2006.
If we don’t think about this principle of fostering distinctive, attractive communities, we will not recognize the linkage between the built environment and healthy living. And that is to our own peril. Public service is constantly under attack for what this speaker believes is the times that we miss acting upon the bigger picture.
Missing the linkages means that some neighborhoods start falling through the cracks, and lose their sense of place.
An attractive community with a strong sense of place is also a healthy place. Tom Farley, a Professor at Tulane University, and Author of Prescription for a Healthy Nation (2005), believes the principles of building a healthy neighborhood are: Making physical activity easier and driving less necessary, limiting access to unhealthy products, increasing access to healthy products, and increasing lighting and visibility. How does your neighborhood stack up?
A study in the American Sociological Review has found Americans more isolated than twenty years ago. People are not spending as much time with friends and neighbors as they once were. How much of this is being caused by not supporting this Smart Growth principle, and what is the effect on public health from more isolated individuals?
With the rise of franchises and big box stores, more and more people are looking for ways to protect what is distinct and attractive about their community. Research from the Institute of Self Reliance shows that bigger is not necessarily better. Planners and public health officials should consider whether communities have a certain carrying capacity for different types of development, before a community loses its distinctiveness. A strong sense of place must not become just any place.
Reference: From the Institute for Self Reliance, 2003, By Stacy Mitchell
Preserving the outdoor environment is also critical to healthy growth and development and is the sixth Smart Growth Principle. The Governor of Connecticut recently launched an initiative to get more children out of their homes and into local parks. This effort was also viewed as a way to fight childhood obesity. Supporting this principle ensures that there is an outdoor environment for children to use for a more healthy lifestyle. Even just the visibility of scenery is important to health. In Richard Louv’s new book, Last Child in the Woods, Gordon Orians, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington, believes the current research on human health and structured and unstructured environments suggests “that our visual environment profoundly affects our physical and mental well-being.”
The State of Florida has been remarkable in its foresight to support a Preservation 2000 Program that has preserved millions of acres for public use. Research continues to show that preservation of land and natural features has environmental and psychological benefits. Now, in this age of transportation costs and planning for terrorist events, it is not extraordinary that preservation should also consider how far populations are from local produce.
Reference: Bhadure B, Grove M, Lowry C, and Harbor J (1997). Assessing the long-term hydrologic impact of land use change. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 89;94-106.
Harbor, Jon; Muthukrishnan S; Pandey S; Engel B; Jones D and Lim KJ (2000). “A Comparison of the Long-Term Hydrological Impacts of Urban Renewal versus Urban Sprawl.” National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resources Management and Protection. Proceedings, February 7-10, 2000 Chicago, IL.
Moore EO (1981-82). “A prison environment’s effect on health care service demans.” J. Environ Systems 11:17-34.
Ulrich, RS (1984). “View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.” Science 224:420-21.
Diette GB, Lechtzin N, Haponik E, Devrotes A, Rubin HR (2003). “Distraction therapy with nature sights and sounds reduces pain during flexible bronchoscopy: a complementary approach to routine analgesia.” Chest 123(3):941-8.
Public health officials may be very interested in a survey to be published by the Nature Conservancy. The results show that visitation to national parks has declined and can be linked to sedentary activities involving electronic media. Preserving open space then becomes a public health principle by virtue of needing places to attract children outdoors.
This Smart Growth principle is also good for economics. Studies show that greenspace and land conservation increases home property values.
Reference:
Nelson, Nanette. 2004. Evaluating the Economic Impact of Community Open Space and Urban Forests: A Literature Review. Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia. River Basin Center.
McMahon, Edward T. and Michael Pawlukiewicz. 2002. The Practice of Conservation Development: Lessons in Success. Urban Land Institute/The Conservation Fund Joint Forum. Chicago, Illinois.
Fowler, Laurie and Seth Wenger. 2001. Conservation Subdivision Ordinances. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Office of Public Service and Outreach for the Atlanta Regional Commission.
The Trust for Public Land. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. Prepared by The Trust for Public Land.
Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.
Lacy, Jeff. 1990. An Examination of the Market Appreciation for Clustered Housing with Permanent Open Space. Center for Rural Massachusetts. Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts/Amherst.
Fleckenstein, Neil, 206. Conservation Subdivisions Coming to the Florida Panhandle. Florida Planning, May 2006.
The Seventh Smart Growth Principle, is to Strengthen and Direct Development Toward Existing Communities. Public health can support this principle by advocating for schools in close proximity to students so they can walk or ride bikes, and ensuring equity in the location of parks and trails throughout a community. Studies also show that reaching certain densities is an important factor in increasing the likelihood of walking.
Reference:
Paul A. Estabrooks, Rebecca E. Lee, and Nancy C. Gyurcsik, “Resources for Physical Activity Participation: Does Availability and Accessibility Differ by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status?” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25 (2004):100-04; Linda M. Powell, S. Slater, and Frank J. Chaloupka, “The Relationship between Community Physical Activity Settings and Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status,” Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine 1 (2004): 135-44.
King County Office of Regional Transportation Planning (2005). A study of Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality and Health in King County, WA. Prepared by Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc, Dr. James Sallis, Dr. Brian Saelens, McCann Consulting, GeoStats LLC, and Kevin Washbrook.
Residential levels must reach 13 persons per gross acre, and employee levels greater than 75 employees per gross acre, before more pedestrian activity takes place. Density is therefore important to public health.
Reference:
Frank, Lawrence and Pivo, Gary (1995). “Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: SOV, Transit and Walking,” Transportation Research Record 1466, pp. 44-55.
Not directing development toward existing communities usually means more sprawl and more distance between where people live, work, shop, and play. Several sources of study have shown that the amount of time spent driving is correlated with gaining weight and eating out more. More commuting has also meant less time supporting one’s community. Harry Balzer, a market trend expert with the NPD Group, says the fasting growing appliance in America, is the power window.
Reference:
Howell Wechsler and others, “The Availability of Low-Fat Milk in an Inner-City Latino Community: Implications for Nutrition Education,” American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995): 1690-92;David C. Sloane and others, “Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living through Community-Based Participatory Research,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (2003): 568-75;Carol R. Horowitz and others, “Barriers to Buying Healthy Foods for People with Diabetes: Evidence of Environmental Disparities,” American Journal of Public Health 94 (2004): 1549-54.
Belden Russonello & Stewart (2004). “American Community Survey National Survey on Communities.” For Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors. Levine, Jonathan and Frank, LD (under review). “Transportation and Land-Use Preferences and Residents’ Neighborhood Choices: The Sufficiency of “Smart Growth” in the Atlanta Region.” Growth and Change.
Frank, Lawrence, Stone Brian Jr and Bachman, William (2000). “Linking Land Use with Household Vehicle Emissions in the Central Puget Sound: Methodological Framework and Findings.” Transportation Research Part D 5,3: 173-96.
Frank, Lawrence and Engelke, Peter (2005). “Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment On Public Health: Walkable Places and the Exposure to Air Pollution.” International Regional Science Review.
Sallis, James F, Frank LD, Saelens BE and Kraft MK (2004). “Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research.” Transportation Research A Vol. 38, Issue 4, pp.249-268.
As reported in Promoting public health through Smart Growth. Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage and Todd Litman, SmartGrowthBC, 2006.
Nasar, Julian (1995). “The Psychological Sense of Community In the Neighborhood,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 61, No. 2, pp 178-184.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
In their work on What Makes a Place Great, the Project for Public Spaces has hit on a number of measures or indicators, that work to support existing communities. Look at the examples here and pick out which ones are related to public health.
Courtesy of Project for Public Spaces:
http://www.pps.org/
The Eight Smart Growth Principle is to Provide A Variety of Transportation Choices. The research by Allen Dearry with the National Institute of Environmental Health found that the US average time for driving is 73 minutes a day. This correlates with other research that looks at urban sprawl, which shows Americans are living and working further and further apart. The most interesting statistic here is the one that shows that Americans make only 6% of their trips by walking or biking, while countries like Italy and Sweden make almost half their trips by walking or biking.
In other studies of commuters and traffic issues, many public health connections are linked, including high blood pressure, more sick days, and decreased job performance. Public Health can improve health outcomes and make a variety of transportation choices more of a reality by supporting this principle.
Reference:
Stokols D, Novaco R, Stokols J, Campbell J (1978). “Traffic congestion, type A behavior, and stress.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63:467-80.
Novaco R, Stokols D, Campbell J and Stokols J(1979). “Transportation, stress, and community psychology.” American Journal of Community Psychology 7:361-80.
Novaco R, Stokols D and Milanesi L (1990). “Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress.” American Journal of Community Psychology 18:231-57.
Stokols, D and Novaco, RW (1981). “Transportation and well-being.” In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF, Everett PB, Eds. Transportation and Behavior. New York: Plenum Press, pp 85-130.
Schaeffer M, Street S, Singer JE, Baum A (1988). “Effects of control on the stress reactions of commuters.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11:944-57.
The Ninth Smart Growth Principle is to Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective. Zoning laws are a cornerstone of most local planning efforts, and give developers and the public a predictabilty of what can and cannot be done with property. Public Health can ensure that zoning laws are used to benefit the community by promoting mixed uses, promoting local identity vs. franchise overload, and to encourage local, more healthy food alternatives.
Reference:
The Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Eating, and Obesity in Childhood, James F. Sallis and Karen Glanz, The Future of Children., Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 2006.
As we see from these studies, mixed use, compact design, walkability, and other smart growth principles also means being more cost effective with public and private funds.
Reference:
Mohamed, Rayman. 2006. The Economics of Conservation Subdivisions: Price Premiums, Improvement Costs, and Absorption Rates. Urban Affairs Review. 41(3): 376-399.
Fowler, Laurie and Seth Wenger. 2001. Conservation Subdivision Ordinances. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Office of Public Service and Outreach for the Atlanta Regional Commission.
Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.
As reference in Fleckenstein, Neil, 2006. Conservation Subdivisions Coming to the Florida Panhandle. Florida Planning, May 2006.
The Tenth and final Smart Growth Principle is to Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration. What should be inherent to planning and to public health is to engage and listen to the public. In a study of the Phoenix area, residents were asked their opinions on urban sprawl, development, and open space. The results of the study show how far planning and public health have to go to reach out to communities. A majority of those surveyed viewed sprawl as a problem, but a majority of residents also opposed density increases. 81% felt local planners had no plan to effectively handle growth, and 67% felt they couldn’t influence it anyway.
My perception is that the public believes more density means more traffic and the associated noise, pollution, and safety issues. And they may be right. Planners have done planning by the book well, but how planning actually forms into results and affects the way people live and interact, not so well. Educating the public on the connections between smart growth and public health and using these principles as a professional guide for future growth can only help residents gain more understanding and more trust in local decisionmaking. What if there was a simple goal of parents being at ease with their children playing outside, unsupervised in their neighborhood? Or a focus on what’s good for children with all planning decisions? How would that stakeholder collaboration impact local planning and public health?
Will McDonough, a world renowned architect and designer and winner of three Presidential awards, spoke in 2003 at the Sixth National Environmental Public Health Conference. He talked about nature and urban design and challenged public health professionals to think and act boldly. He reminded those present of what was in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This editorial that appeared in the New York times in 2005 was a reminder of McDonough’s message.
Planners ask yourselves what kind of communities are you trying to attain? Public health officials, what is the goal of public health? The more we don’t involve the public, the more we fracture our future.
Dr. Catherine O’Brien, with York University in Toronto, has written extensively on urban planning, public health, and happiness. In this graph, Dr. O’Brien demonstrates how the rise in the U.S. gross national product has not equated to perceived happiness. She states in a 2005 paper on Planning for Sustainable Happiness, that links between health and happiness have yet to influence transportation and urban planning policy and practice.
If we are going to encourage community and stakeholder collaboration, we have to pull people from their homes and we have to give them communities that inspire. In 1996, Robert Putnam, author of the critically acclaimed, Bowling Alone, wrote an article to assess why Americans were dropping out, and becoming more and more civically disengaged. He reviewed data on all the factors common thought has portrayed as being the problem:
Being too busy, economic hard times, suburbanization, the movement of women into the paid labor force, the stresses of two-career families, divorce, changes in the economy such as the rise of chain stores, branch firms, and the service sector, disillusion with public life, cultural revolt against authority, civil rights, television, the electronic revolution, and other technological changes.
Only one of these factors was consistent with the evidence, and that is the amount of time spent watching television. The average American in 1995 watched television roughly four hours per day, absorbing 40 percent of their free time. The author relates television’s arrival with reduction in participation in social, recreational, and community activities among people of all ages. Controlling for education, income, age, race, place of residence, work status, and gender, TV viewing is strongly and negatively related to social trust and group membership.
A study from the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2005 indicates that the amount of TV watching has remained steady. Among young people, TV watching is steady, but now being “multi-tasked” with other media.
The current issue of the American Journal of Public Health is also reporting that each hour of television means 144 fewer steps walked. Crime, poor upkeep of parks and playground equipment also associated with people staying inside and watching television.
So, why is this important to public health and urban planning?
The data we have reviewed suggests that obesity, physical fitness, fear, crime, and the loss of social capital can all be related to an inadequate built environment. Public health and urban planning should therefore focus on Smart Growth Principles to get residents outside and re-involved. One of their greatest competitors to doing this looks to be television.
The next series of slides will assist you in recalling the Smart Growth Principles. You will see pictures and quotes from around the nation. Think about what you see and decide what Smart Growth principles are most relevant. Which may have been supported, or broken?
Ready? Let’s start with an example.
This is a street sign from the Hobe Sound community in Martin County. The patriarchal family of this community was called Londell. The local government got the name wrong and put up London. What message does this send to the community? Which principle is broken by this? If you said, “Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration”, you are correct. This sign has since been changed due to the work of the PACE EH Community Assessment process.
In reflecting on these quotes here, what Smart Growth principles may apply?
From a public health and smart growth principle perspective, what do you think when you see this development? It is mixed used, is it walkable, or attractive? The drinking water and public sewer are probably hooked up, installed and working properly. But is that where public health stops? What Smart Growth principles may apply?
Courtesy of Richard Killingsworth, Program Director of the Ruth Mott Foundation.
What Smart Growth principle may apply here?
What public health and smart growth principles are applicable here? Is it mixed use, attractive, compact?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
How about this one?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
This is Denver, Colorado. What Smart Growth principle comes to mind?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
Is this a distinctive, attractive community? Is it mixed used? Does it offer a range of housing opportunities? Is it walkable?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
Is it distinctive? Attractive?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
This is a picture from the West Ocala neighborhood in Marion County. What Smart Growth principle comes to mind?
Which Smart Growth principle would apply here?
On one side of the street there is a shopping center. On the other side is residential housing. What Smart Growth Principles come to mind?
Courtesy of Howard Frumkin, M.D.
When looking at this old world city, what Smart Growth Principles come to mind?
Courtesy of Howard Frumkin, M.D.
Which Smart Growth principle would apply?
Courtesy of:
Richard E. Killingsworth
Program Director
Ruth Mott Foundation
This is the Hobe Sound community in Martin County, Florida. Which Smart Growth principle may apply?
This is a view from the West Ocala neighborhood in Marion County, Florida. Which principles apply?
This is the SkyView Community in Polk County, Florida. Which Smart Growth Principle is at work here?
What Smart Growth Principles may apply to this issue?
Enrique Penalosa is the former Mayor of Bogota, Columbia, and became well known for his efforts to prioritize children and public spaces in city planning. What Smart Growth Principles are at work here?
Courtesy of Catherine O’Brien, Ph.D., Breton University, http://www.gpiatlantic.org/conference/papers/obrien.pdf#search=%22sustainable%20happiness%20and%20o'brien%22
This is a picture of new sidewalks in the Wabasso Community in Indian River County, Florida. What Smart Growth principle applies?
What Smart Growth Principles apply here?
Courtesy of Howard Frumkin, M.D.
What Smart Growth Principle applies?
What Smart Growth Principle applies?
Change begins with you. Start getting involved with Smart Growth by contacting your local planning staff, or by starting a public health smart growth initiative.
For more information about the Florida PACE EH Pilot Project, please visit our website.
For more information on Smart Growth, please visit Smart Growth America or the Smart Growth Network at their websites.
Take the Smart Growth Quiz coming up at the end of this presentation.
Much of the research presented in this presentation can be found in: Promoting Public Health through Smart Growth. Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage, Todd Litman, SmartGrowthBC, 2006.
End Transcript
| 
