Evaluating the Implementation and Active Living Impacts of a State Government Planning Policy Designed to Create Walkable Neighborhoods in Perth,Western Australia

Abstract

Purpose.

Evaluate the implementation of a government planning policy (Liveable Neighbourhoods Guidelines) and its impacts on residents' walking behaviors.

Design.

Cross-sectional study of participants from the RESIDential Environments project (RESIDE).

Setting.

Nineteen “liveable” and 17 “conventionally designed” housing developments across Perth, Western Australia.

Subjects.

Five hundred ninety-four participants from RESIDE who resided in 36 housing developments.

Measures.

Developed in geographic information systems to assess the on-ground implementation of 43 policy requirements. Policy compliance was defined as the degree to which construction of the developments adhered to the standards outlined. Walking behaviors were measured using the Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire. K-means cluster analyses identified groups of homogeneous developments with respect to policy implementation.

Analysis.

Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the likelihood of undertaking any and ≥ 60 minutes of transport and recreational walking associated with (1) policy compliance and (2) different clusters of developments.

Results.

There were few significant differences in on-ground outcomes between the two development types. Despite incomplete implementation, the odds of walking for transport increased with overall levels of policy compliance (OR= 1.53, 95% CI 1.13–2.08) and compliance with the community design (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.13–1.42), movement network (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.38–4.50), and lot layout elements (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.50).

Conclusion.

Consistent with the aims of the policy, residents in walkable (i.e., liveable) neighborhoods may be more physically active.

Keywords

Built Environment Liveable Neighborhoods New Urbanism Perth Walking Planning Policy Prevention Research Manuscript format: research Research purpose: intervention testing/program evaluation Study design: quasi-experimental Outcome measure: behavioral Setting: local community,state/national Health focus: Fitness/physical activity Strategy: policy,built environment Target population: adults Target population circumstances: geographic location

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schilling

Linton

. The public health roots of zoning: In search of active living's legal genealogy. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2, suppl 2):96–104.

Story

Giles-Corti

Yaroch

. Work group IV: Future directions for measures of the food and physical activity environments. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(suppl 4):S182–S188.

Ogilvie

Charles

Helen

. Interventions to promote walking: Systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334:1204.

Sallis

Bauman

Pratt

. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:379–397.

Western Australian Planning Commission . Liveable Neighbourhoods: A Western Australian Government Sustainable Cities Initiative. Edition 2. Perth, Western Australia: Western Australian Planning Commission; 2000.

Giles-Corti

Knuiman

Timperio

. Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: Design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia. Prev Med. 2008;46:54.

Basch

Sliepcevich

Gold

. Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluations: A case study. Health Educ Behav. 1985;12:315–331.

Dehar

Casswell

Duignan

. Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Eval Rev. 1993;17:204–220.

Talen

. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. J Plann Lit. 1996;10:248–259.

10.

Steiner

Bond

Miller

Shad

. Future Directions for Multimodal Area Wide Level of Service Handbook Research and Development. Tallahassee, Fla: Florida Dept of Transportation, Office of Planning Systems; 2004.

11.

Criterion Planners/Engineers Inc . Smart Growth Index: A Sketch Tool for Community Planning. Indicator Dictionary. Version 2.0. Portland, Ore: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2002.

12.

Giles-Corti

Timperio

Cutt

. Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the local neighborhood: RESIDE's Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire. Prev Med. 2006;42:455–459.

13.

Christian

Knuiman

Bull

. Evaluation of a natural experiment of the impact of a new urban planning code on walking: Longitudinal results from RESIDE. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:1219–1228.

14.

Giles-Corti

Bull

Knuiman

. The influence of urban design on neighborhood walking following residential relocation: Longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Soc Sci Med. 2013;77:20–30.

15.

Dill

. Evaluating a New Urbanist neighborhood. Berkeley Plann J. 2006;19:59–78.

16.

Khattak

Rodriguez

. Travel behaviour in neo-traditional neighborhood development: A case study in USA. Transportation Res A. 2005;39:481–500.

17.

Rodriguez

Khattak

Evenson

. Can New Urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a New Urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. J Am Plann Assoc. 2006;72:43–54.

18.

McCormack

Giles-Corti

Bulsara

. The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors. Prev Med. 2008;46:33–40.

19.

Moudon

Lee

Cheadle

. Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and empirical insights. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(suppl 1):S99–S117.

20.

Sugiyama

Francis

Middleton

. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:1752–1757.

21.

Giles-Corti

Broomhall

Knuiman . Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2, suppl 2):169–176.

22.

Pikora

Giles-Corti

Knuiman

. Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with walking near home: Using SPACES. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:708–714.

23.

Owen

Humpel

Leslie

. Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:67–76.

24.

Saelens

Handy

. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7S):S550–S566.

25.

Saelens

Sallis

Frank

. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:80–91.

26.

Jones

. Liveable Neighborhoods Review: Discussion Paper for the Urban Development Institute of Australia. Perth, Western Australia: Urban Development Institute of Australia; 2012.

27.

Sallis

Saelens

. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: Status, limitations and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71:409.

28.

Allender

Cavill

Parker

Foster

. “Tell us something we don't already know or do!” The response of planning and transport professionals to public health guidance on the built environment and physical activity. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30:102–116.