Health & Built Environment Data: Furthering Ac8ve Design Goals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ac#ve Design Guidelines Overview Health & Built Environment Data: Furthering Ac8ve Design Goals CPPW Built Environment Partnership Call | August 11, 2011

Presenta#on Outline I. Why health & built environment data is important II. Using data III. Obtaining data IV. Health & BE indicators V. Using data to further ac8ve design in policy & programs

Why use health & built environment data? Why use data? ‐‐Frame and document problems ‐‐Make the case for ac#on to decision makers & the public ‐‐Help priori#ze limited resources ‐‐Aid in the determina#on of policy, program & other solu#ons Challenges: ‐‐Lack of good data ‐‐Funding & staffing for data collec#on & analysis ‐‐Reconciling different data formats & scales across agencies/sources ‐‐Convincing agencies to use data in decision making

Using health & built environment data I. Surveillance: tracking trends over 8me, iden8fying dispari8es  Examples: ‐‐Chicago & Philadelphia: Food access reports ‐‐Multnomah County: Health Atlas maps ‐‐San Diego: Health & built environment maps ‐‐ BRFSS (in every state), YRBS, NYC CHS II. Framing the problem in reports, plans, and other documents  Example: ‐‐NYC Ac$ve Design Guidelines III. SePng & measuring performance targets  Example: ‐‐NYC DOT Strategic plan IV. Assessing the poten8al impact of projects or policy decisions  Examples: ‐‐Nashville: Health Impact Assessments ‐‐Louisville: Healthy Development checklist

Using health & built environment data V. Evalua8ng the actual impacts of policies & programs  Example: ‐‐NYC PlayStreets & Stair Prompt evalua#ons VI. Determining decision making in policies and programs  Examples: ‐‐NYC FRESH Program ‐‐Philadelphia: Data‐driven process to select bike lane pilots ‐‐NYC ADG Con#nuing educa#on AIA trainings VII. Loca8ng possible sites for land uses  Examples: ‐‐Mapping city‐owned vacant property parcels for poten#al community garden sites ‐‐NYC FRESH Program

Obtaining Data: NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene Survey Work • Community Health Survey: Annual survey hYp://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/survey/ survey.shtml • Fitnessgram hYp://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/FitnessandHealth/ NycFitnessgram • Youth Risk Behavior Survey hYp://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/episrv/episrv‐ youthriskbehavior.shtml • Physical Ac8vity & Transit Survey: 2011 (CPPW)

Obtaining Local Obesity Data: New Methods • BMI tracking capabili8es for childhood obesity in immuniza8on tracking systems (Example: Michigan Care Improvement Registry) • Oversampling in State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) • Electronic medical records? • Others to consider??

Health & built environment indicators: Ini#al ideas Health Data Sources Obesity & overweight rates County or City Health Depts Physical ac#vity levels Asthma rates Ac#vity & nutri#on levels for schoolchildren City Educa#on Depts Exposure to traffic pollu#on State DOTs Air pollu#on hazard index EPA Natl Air Toxics Assessment Ac8ve Transporta8on Usage & Safety Percentage of trips by walking & biking American Community Survey, Percentage of trips by transit State DOTs, City Transporta#on Depts, MPOs Miles of bike & ped infrastructure City Transporta#on Depts, MPOs Number and rate of bike & pedestrian crashes Density of neighborhoods (housing/popula#on) City/County Planning Depts Popula#on within ¼ & ½ mile of transit sta#ons

Health & built environment indicators: Ini#al ideas Access to/Quality of Parks & Recrea8on Sources Percentage of pop within ¼ and ½ mile of park City/County Parks Depts Recrea#on/park facili#es or acreage per capita Percentage of recrea#on/parks scoring high on maintenance/cleanliness report cards Access to Healthy Food Percentage of popula#on within ½ mile of State Employment agencies, grocery store (farmers’ mkts, etc) US Census: Bureau Business PaYerns, Grocery stores per capita State agriculture Depts Fruit & vegetable consump#on Health Depts Health Equity Percentage of popula#on below poverty line US Census Median per‐capita income levels Percentage households with public assistance Percentage of subsidized housing County/City Housing Depts Transporta#on infrastructure that is ADA‐compliant MPOs, Transporta#on Depts Percentage of the popula#on without a vehicle US Census

V. Comprehensive Data Usage Health & built environment indicators San Francisco Healthy Development Measurement Tool • Community Health Indicator System ‐ Over 100 indicators of social, environmental and economic condi#ons that can be used to evaluate baseline condi#ons in a neighborhood, planning area or city, and to monitor those condi#ons prospec#vely. h"p://www.thehdmt.org/master_list.php • Healthy Development Checklist ‐ A downloadable checklist of development targets (associated with each indicator) that can be used to assess whether urban plans and projects help achieve community health objec#ves. • Indicator areas – Environmental Stewardship, Sustainable and Safe Transporta#on, Public Infrastructure, Social Cohesion, Adequate and Healthy Housing and Healthy Economy h"p://www.thehdmt.org

Health & built environment indicators: Sonoma, CA h"p:// www.healthysonoma.org/

Health & built environment indicators: Indexes See also Sea"le/King County’s walkability index work at: h"p://www.b‐sustainable.org/built‐environment/walkability‐index and HPE Walkability index (10 factors): h"p://www.hpe‐inc.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileNcket=40tH6vnOe%2Bk %3D&tabid=754

Using data to further ac#ve design in policy & programs I. Health & Equity Data Sea]le, WA’s DOT Pedestrian Project Priori8za8on Health & Equity data used: ‐‐Low income popula#on ‐‐Automobile ownership ‐‐Diabetes popula#on ‐‐Obesity rates ‐‐Physical ac#vity rates hYp://www.seaYle.gov/ transporta#on/ pedestrian_masterplan/

II. Transporta8on Planning & Projects: Opportuni#es for Using Health & Built Environment data Source: ICF presenta#on, AMPO annual conference 2010

II. Bike, Pedestrian, and other Transporta8on Data: Sefng & monitoring performance targets NYC DOT’s Strategic Plan: Performance measures in Safety | Mobility | World Class Streets | Infrastructure | Greening | Global Leadership | Customer Service

II. Bike, Pedestrian, and other Transporta8on Data: Sefng & monitoring performance targets NYC DOT’s Sustainable Streets Index  Evaluates progress made towards performance measures in Strategic Plan

II. Bike, Pedestrian, and other Transporta8on Data: : Evalua#ng growth/transport scenarios Charlo]esville, Virginia (MPO): Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Ini8a8ve  Evalua#ng the impact of regional transporta#on & land use scenarios on bike and ped rates

II. Bike & pedestrian data: Evalua#ng service Mul8modal Level of Service (A‐F) Data used: (*select list) • Traffic volume • Vehicle speeds • Percentage heavy vehicles • Width of lanes, shoulder, sidewalk & striping • Presence of bike lane/sidewalk • Pavement condi#ons • Crossing distances NOTE, does not include land use factors or factors that enhance the pedestrian experience, like presence of street trees, etc. h1p://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ nchrp_rpt_616.pdf See also the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual: Mul#modal LOS Methodology

II. Bike & pedestrian data: Priori#zing street redesigns NYC: Making streets safer for walking & biking  Used State DMV crash report and State Health Dept data to idenNfy locaNons of the highest number & most dangerous crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians  Data and mapping being used by NYC DOT to prioriNze intersecNons and corridors for bike & pedestrian safety intervenNons

II. Bike, Pedestrian, and other Transporta8on Data: Transporta#on project priori#za#on Aus8n Strategic Mobility Plan: See also NJTPA Project Priori8za8on Criteria: Project Priori8za8on h1p://www.njtpa.org/Plan/Need/ – Efficiency – 15 points maximum Priority/default.aspx – Regional Coordina#on – 15 points – Mobility Choices – 18 points – Sustainable Growth – 15 points [Includes density levels] – Investment and Economic Growth – 11 points [Supports sustainable development] – Safety – 8 points – Environmental Stewardship – 13 points [Includes access to parks/rec] – Neighborhood Connec#vity – 8 points h"p://www.ausNnstrategicmobility.com/resources/ asmp‐ppp

II. Bike, Pedestrian, and other Transporta8on Data: Transporta#on project priori#za#on Portland Metro 2010‐13 Transporta8on Plan: Regional Flexible Fund Alloca8ons Factors (*parNal list) • Addresses service gaps on a mobility corridor, including bike & pedestrian gaps • Implements the Livable Streets design guidelines • Provides access to transporta#on op#ons for underserved community • Improves transporta#on safety • Project is located in a priority 2040 land use area • Popula#on and employment densi#es surrounding the project • Reduces or minimizes energy consump#on and pollu#on • Project adds bike & pedestrian facili#es where none exist