The Walkable Neighborhoods for Seniors (WN4S) project was designed to develop and promote safe and accessible neighborhood walking routes for seniors. This article describes a case study of the efforts put forth by one local lead agency—United Seniors of Oakland and Alameda County (USOAC). To facilitate environmental and policy changes that would enable and encourage walking by older adults, USOAC implemented several strategies including organizing a local task force with broad professional representation, conducting environmental audits of selected walking routes, creating walking groups, organizing an annual healthy living festival, collaborating with public health marketing and community livability initiatives, and advocating for environmental and policy change. Evaluation processes yielded information indicating a variety of successes, challenges, and lessons learned that could be applied to similar WN4S efforts undertaken by community organizations to increase the physical activity and improve the health and independence of older adults.
Brownson, R.C., Baker, E.A., Housemann, R.A., Brennan, L.K., & Bacak, S.J. (2001). Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1995-2003.
2.
Bryant, L.L., Altpeter, M., & Whitelaw, N. (2006). Evaluation of health promotion programs in older adults: an introduction. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 197-213.
3.
Butterfoss, F.D., Goodman, R.M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research , 8, 315-330.
4.
Butterfoss, F.D., Goodman, R.M., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Community conditions for prevention and health promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Education Quarterly, 23, 65-79.
5.
California Center for Physical Activity. ( 2006). Walkable community workshops. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from www.caphysicalactivity.org/wcw.html
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2003). Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle activities among adults — United States, 2000-2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52, 764-769.
7.
Corbett, J., & Velasquez, J. (1994). The Ahwahnee Principles: Toward more livable communities . Western City Magazine, 70, 4—9.
8.
Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Active community environments and health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 19-31.
9.
Florin, P., Mitchell, R., Stevenson, J., & Klein, I. (2000). Predicting intermediate outcomes for prevention coalitions: A developmental perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 341-346.
10.
Frank, L.D., Engelke, P.O., & Schmid, T.L. (2003). Health and community design: The impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC : Island Press.
11.
Hooker, S.P. (2002). California active aging project. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 10, 354-359.
12.
Hooker, S.P., & Cirill, L.A. (2006). Evaluation of community coalitions ability to create safe and effective exercise classes for older adults. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 242-250.
13.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22, 188-199.
14.
Li, F., Fisher, J.K., Bauman, A., Ory, M.G., Chodzko-Zajko, W., Harmer, P., et al. (2005). Neighborhood influences on physical activity in middle-aged and older adults: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 13, 87-114.
15.
McLeroy, K.B., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.
16.
Nguyen, M.-N., Gauvin, L., Martineau, I., & Grignon, R. (2005). Sustainability of the impact of a public health intervention: Lessons learned from the Laval walking clubs experience. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 44-52.
17.
Prohaska, T., Belansky, E., Belza, B., Buchner, D., Marshall, V., McTigue, K., et al. (in press). Physical activity, public health and aging: Critical issues and research priorities. Journal of Gerontology Social Sciences, 61B, S267-S273.
18.
Reinert, B., Carver, V., & Range, L.M. (2005). Evaluating community tobacco use prevention coalitions . Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 201-208.
19.
Sallis, J.F., & Owen, N. (1999). Determinants of physical activity. Physical activity and behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Stokols, D., Allen, J., & Bellingham, R.L. (1996). The social ecology of health promotion: implications for research and practice. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 247-251.
21.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ( 1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
22.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2005). Introduction to program evaluation for public health programs: A self-study guide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
23.
Walkable Communities, Inc. (2006). How can I find and help build a walkable community? Retrieved February 7, 2006, from www.walkable.org/article1.htm
24.
Welk, G.J. (2002). Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics .
