Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities

40
Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities Presentation by Marya Morris, AICP 2006 design for Health Speaker Series Sponsored by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota

description

Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities. Presentation by Marya Morris, AICP 2006 design for Health Speaker Series Sponsored by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota. A Convergence of Priorities. Public Health. Comp Planning, Plan Implementation. Healthy, Active - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities

Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities

Comprehensive Planning for Healthy Cities and Communities

Presentation by Marya Morris, AICP

2006 design for Health Speaker Series

Sponsored by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota

Public HealthPublic Health Comp Planning, Plan Implementation

Comp Planning, Plan Implementation

Healthy, Active Communities

Healthy, Active Communities

A Convergence of Priorities A Convergence of Priorities

APA’s Five Strategic Points of InterventionAPA’s Five Strategic Points of Intervention

1. Visioning and goal setting

2. Rethinking planning in all contexts

3. Local implementation tools

4. Site Design and Development

5. Siting Public Facilities and Capital Spending

Visioning and Goal SettingVisioning and Goal Setting

• Begins with a discussion of shared values

• Results in a shared image of a community imagines most desired future

• Provides a broad context within which goals are set and plans are developed

• Majority of planning efforts now launched with a visioning exercise (reflective of more citizen participation)

Where Health and Physical Activity Fit in the Visioning and Goal Setting Process

Where Health and Physical Activity Fit in the Visioning and Goal Setting Process

• Residents’ shared desire for healthy communities

• Enhancement and improvement of quality of life

• It is government’s responsibility to protect the public’s health, safety and general welfare

• Environmental justice (and the removal of health disparities) is a land-use issue

17%

24%

39%

20%

11%

27%

42%

20%

4%

4%

38%

54%

2%

1%

33%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

unsure

not an important issue

emerging policy issue

important policy issue

APA members

unsure

not an important issue

emerging policy issue

important policy issue

NACCHO members

self

officials

base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members)

Attitudes About the Planning / Public Health Connectionself vs. elected/appointed officials

Attitudes About the Planning / Public Health Connectionself vs. elected/appointed officials

12%

14%

35%

40%

15%

26%

19%

41%

54%

64%

20%

33%

29%

48%

13%

14%

21%

40%

76%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

other

regarded as barrier to local growth

public health regarded solely as medical issue

citizens not interested

SUBSTANTIVE BARRIERS

lack interdepartmental flexibility

operate in "crisis" mode

statutory restrictions

lack qualified staff

lack funding

lack staff resources

PRACTICAL BARRIERS*

NACCHO

APA

base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)*top mentions

Barriers to Planning/Public Health CollaborationBarriers to Planning/Public Health Collaboration

Plans Prepared/Updated (1999-2004) Plans Prepared/Updated (1999-2004)

11%

43%

41%

40%

40%

47%

47%

64%

61%

61%

70%

75%

27%

14%

20%

30%

30%

27%

39%

31%

42%

41%

42%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

human services

neighborhood

community facilities

redevelopment

growth management

housing

downtown

bicycle and pedestrian

parks and recreation

trail and/or greenway

transportation

comprehensive (or master)

NACCHO

APA

base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)

Plans Explicitly Addressing Public HealthPlans Explicitly Addressing Public Health

6%

10%

10%

12%

11%

12%

16%

7%

22%

22%

25%

23%

36%

5%

4%

5%

4%

8%

10%

9%

23%

11%

13%

11%

14%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

other

downtown

redevelopment

neighborhood

community facilities

growth management

housing

human services

transportation

trail and/or greenway

bicycle and pedestrian

parks and recreation

comprehensive (or master)

NACCHO

APA

base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)

Health and Environmental Data Provided(from public health to planning department)

Health and Environmental Data Provided(from public health to planning department)

4%

3%

6%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

2%

17%

22%

10%

14%

11%

11%

14%

16%

18%

20%

23%

41%

53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

other

asthma

industrial pollutants

housing conditions

pedestrian or bicyclist injuries/fatalities

routine physical activity

exercise

obesity

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

environmental quality

TYPES PROVIDED

incidence of providing

NACCHO

APA

base: jurisdiction employees (368 NACCHO members, 355 APA members) (multiple answers)

2. Rethinking State and Local Planning

2. Rethinking State and Local Planning

• Comprehensive plans

• Neighborhood plans• Redevelopment

plans

…2. Functional Plans…2. Functional Plans

• Functional Plans– Health services– Bicycle and pedestrian– Transit– Streets and circulation– Trails– Parks– Housing– Economic development– Schools and campuses

Local Implementation ToolsLocal Implementation Tools

• Zoning, subdivision, and land development regulations– Rethink development density – Mix land uses – Connect streets and routes– Require sidewalks– Open space

• Transit-oriented development• Traditional neighborhood development

Putting Health and Physical Activity into Comprehensive Planning

Putting Health and Physical Activity into Comprehensive Planning

• Walkable communities, increased transportation options: – Create opportunities for PA– Reduce VMT– Improve air quality– Provide open space, trails, bike/ped

• Managing the pace and direction of local and regional growth: – Supports contiguous, compact

development– Creates high-quality neighborhoods– Ties to public infrastructure spending

Good planning and smart growth is are inherently supportive of physical activity and health:

Putting Health in Plans:Specific Interventions

Putting Health in Plans:Specific Interventions

• Narrative description of rationale for including health in the plan

• Explain relationship of existing plans, e.g., smart growth to health

• Develop goals and objectives that connect heart health, safety, physical activity, and obesity to planning, community design, and land use

• Develop specific health goals for relevant plan elements• Create an implementation schedule for the health

objectives

Riverside County, CaliforniaRiverside County, California

• 7,100 square miles (size of New Hampshire)

• 1.8M population • 24 cities• 1/3 of residents live in

unincorporated areas• Auto-dependent development

patterns• Ranked 4th in US for

unhealthy air• High rate of CVD• Low public transit use

How Riverside Co. DPH Got Involved inLivable Communities Activities

How Riverside Co. DPH Got Involved inLivable Communities Activities

• County DPH invited to take part in City of Riverside’s Healthy Cities project in 2000

• “Get Movin’ Riverside” walking program: identified safe walking routes

• DPH staff attended conferences and meetings to learn the language of transportation, planning and development

• Riverside County completed its Integrated Plan for unincorporated areas– Emphasizes habitat protection – Focuses on creating pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and

smart growth in general

City of Riverside Project City of Riverside Project Mayor invited County DPH to sit on 38-member

Walkable Communities Task Force to prepare a Pedestrian Walkability Plan

County conducted 1 walkable community workshop and 5 Walk Audits to identify areas for change

Drafted a pedestrian plan

Reviewed policies that promote walkability, recommend design guidelines, capital improvements, prioritize recommendations, and provide action steps

Presented report/plan to City Council

Conducted Walkability Assessments

Riverside County DPH ParticipationRiverside County DPH Participation

Identified 38 Walking Routes

Riverside Co. DPH Conducted Walk Audits at Highest Pedestrian Crash Zones

Riverside Co. DPH Conducted Walk Audits at Highest Pedestrian Crash Zones

. . . Riverside Co. DPH Recent Interagency Activities

. . . Riverside Co. DPH Recent Interagency Activities

• Providing funding and content for a “Smart Growth Guide” for developers

• Jointly submitted w/ planners, transportation depts. 2 Caltrans grant apps. to conduct visioning plans in two unincorporated areas

• Collaborating w/ 9 county agencies and 6 developers on a Planning Community Facilities Strategy for a massive new development

• Awarded California State Association of Counties’ 2005 Challenge Award for its Livable Communities Project

• Hosting workshops for planning, transportation, fire departments on Context Sensitive Road and Street Standards for Riverside County.

• Riverside City Council adopted Walkable Communities Task Force Report and Pedestrian Master Plan in June 2005

• Will conduct safe routes to school trainings in spring 2006 for two Riverside school districts. 

More Riverside Co. DPH Recent Interagency Activities

More Riverside Co. DPH Recent Interagency Activities

Seattle/King County, Washington Seattle/King County, Washington

• 2,130 sq. mi. (size of Delaware)• 1.7M population • 39 cities• Pop doubled between 1960 –

2000 (1.5 to 3.3 M)• Air quality still better than

federal standards• Top 3 health issues

– Asthma– Overweight/Obesity– Physical inactivity (45% of adult

residents are inactive)

Seattle/King County InitiativeSeattle/King County Initiative

• Interagency/cross divisional team formed in 2001

• Raised awareness, provided recommendations on environmental health issues and how they relate to planning policies

• Built Environment and Health became a cross-cutting team priority

Environmental Health Community Assessment

Team (EHCAT)

Public Health – Seattle/King County InitiativePublic Health – Seattle/King County Initiative

• Seattle/King Co. Public Health Dept. Strategic Plan (2004): – Identified Land Use, Built Environment, and Health

was named 1 of 3 strategic priorities for the Department

• Capacity Building Actions: – Seattle Planner and King Co. Health Director

participated in NACCHO/APA collaborative training– Hosted presentations and forums for state and local

health officials – Formed stakeholder group for LUTAQH– December 2005 – Two new positions created to

implement interagency recommendations

Partnership and Input on Planning, Transportation & Land Use PoliciesPartnership and Input on Planning, Transportation & Land Use Policies

• Providing input on the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2020 Update– Participated in Scoping Sessions

– Convened Environmental Health directors in the region to gather input

– Drafted white paper: “What’s Health Got to Do With Growth Management, Economic Development, and Transportation?”

– Drafted policies and actions for inclusion in the final plan

Excerpts of Puget Sound Regional Council that Direct Health Issues in Multi-County Policies

Excerpts of Puget Sound Regional Council that Direct Health Issues in Multi-County Policies

• A-6 Address safety improvements for transportation with an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety

• A-7 Direct transit agencies/local govts to make ped/bike investments coincident with improved transit service

• A-8 Incorporate provisions addressing health and well being into local comprehensive plans in the 4-county region

• A-9 Improve access to health facilities for all community sectors

Regional Plan Excerpts:Health-Related Implementation Actions

Regional Plan Excerpts:Health-Related Implementation Actions

• B-1: Develop model health provisions for local comp plans

• B-2: Encourage local funding of pedestrian and non-motorized improvements

• B-3: Assess sidewalk connectivity through the urbanized areas of the region

• B-4: Establish performance criteria or other level of service for all modes of transportation

• B-7: Add a public health representative to the Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board

• B- 9: Advocate inclusion of health considerations in State Environmental Policy Act/EIS review

Regional Plan Excerpts: Measurable Objectives to Monitor Health Conditions

Regional Plan Excerpts: Measurable Objectives to Monitor Health Conditions

• C-1: Work with health agencies and the academic community and with local jurisdictions to identify measures for assessing environmental and public health related to:– Land use, including soil

contamination, noxious uses, etc.– Water quality– Air quality

• C- 2: Work with partner agencies to develop measures for assessing the walkability and bikability of urban environments

% meeting 30 min/day guideline

BMI and Walkability

Ingham County, Michigan Ingham County, Michigan

• 36 sq. mi. (size of Delaware)• 400K population• Pop declining, aging,

suburbanizing• Air quality still better than

federal standards• Top 3 health issues

– Overweight/Obesity– CVD– Physical inactivity (45% of adult

residents are inactive)

 

Ingham County (Mich.) Health DepartmentIngham County (Mich.) Health Department

• Formed the Land Use and Health Team (2001)• Made public health a priority in the Regional

Growth Strategy• Developed Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

matrix– Checklist format for reviews with developers– Matrix for greater level of detail or thoroughness– HIA: Mapping results w/ GIS

• Hired a Land Use/Health Liaison

Greenways & Walkability Goal

Pathways, sidewalks, trails and on-street bike facilities should be developed and enhanced to provide alternatives to motorized transportation, improve linkages to recreational opportunities for regional residents and provide public health benefits by offering opportunities for physical activity.

Jobs, Economic Development, and Work Force Goal

Jobs, economic expansion and workforce development should be emphasized consistent with the preferred Regional Vision to keep the region competitive in a global economy, but not at the expense of environmental health.

Regional Growth: Choices for Our FutureRegional Growth: Choices for Our Future

Ingham County, Michigan Factors in the Health Impact Assessment Matrix

Ingham County, Michigan Factors in the Health Impact Assessment Matrix

• Water

• Air Quality

• Noise

• Physical Activity

• Injury Prevention

• Health Equity

• Impacts on Traffic Volume

• Children walking to school

• Interaction between neighbors

• Diversity of housing types and affordability

• Resident involvement in planning

• Compatibility with adjacent uses

• Sidewalks and pathways and mobility options

• Nuisance Noises

• Groundwater Recharge

Delaware County, OhioDelaware County, Ohio

• Started w/PACE-EH, community-based environmental health assessment

• Public raised land use as the key issue

Lessons learned to date:• Role of public health official

should be clearly defined and abided by

• Get health to the table, continue make the connections

• Health assessments lay groundwork for collaboration that addresses local land use and planning policies

• Assessments highlight community values and concerns that help build community support and support of elected officials

Tri-County Colo. Health DepartmentTri-County Colo. Health Department

• Developed community-based environmental health assessment checklist

• Available at naccho.org

Sky Ranch Subdivision

Developer proposed a cookie cutter subdivision

Planning Dept. rejected proposal; sent 20-page letter of conditions

Health Dept. worked w/planners and the developer to improve the site design and the active living features

Used the County’s own development regulations to push the envelope

Existing Zoning, PUD Reg. Used to Create a Activity-Supportive Community at Sky Ranch

Existing Zoning, PUD Reg. Used to Create a Activity-Supportive Community at Sky Ranch

Zoning code Planned Unit Development criteria

Walkability – “…thoroughly examining…capability of … transportation system to serve present and future land uses.”

Trails along drainage – “Assure compatibility between the proposed development, surrounding land uses and the natural environment.”

Integrated mixed uses – “Enhance convenience for …residents…by ensuring that appropriate supporting activities … are in close proximity to one another.”

Zoning code Planned Unit Development criteria

Safe bike/ped paths, connectivity – “Provide for accessibility within the development, and between the development and… adjacent uses. (e.g., traffic circulation, transit, pedestrian avenues, parking and road connections).

Open spaces – “Minimize disruption to … physiographic features…” Two criteria specify creation of open space.

Preliminary Development Plan

Summary: Commonalities AmongPlanning/Public Health Collaborations

Summary: Commonalities AmongPlanning/Public Health Collaborations

• Advocate for local public health policy making in multiple contexts e.g., plans, transportation, zoning

• Participate in comprehensive plan updates and code revisions

• Brief planners on DPH activities relevant to planning• Provide health data to support planning policies and

actions• Assume responsibility for health related assessments• Become a regular stakeholder in land use &

transportation planning process • Attend planning meetings, engage in policy-making

process, be proactive rather than reactive

Summary: Commonalities AmongLocal Public Health Agency RolesSummary: Commonalities AmongLocal Public Health Agency Roles

• Make presentations to civic groups e.g., League of Women Voters, who can monitor process & provide input.

• Provide training for boards of health; encourage passage of resolutions

• Collaborate with & mobilize elder network• Expand role of LPHAs in commenting on development

plans with regard to health impacts.• Conduct a health impact assessment• Make planning/public health collaboration a matter of

standard procedure

Thank YouThank YouMarya Morris, AICPAmerican Planning [email protected]