TY - JOUR
T1 - Priorities and indicators for economic evaluation of built environment interventions to promote physical activity
AU - Cradock, Angie L.
AU - Buchner, David
AU - Zaganjor, Hatidza
AU - Thomas, John V.
AU - Sallis, James F.
AU - Rose, Kenneth
AU - Meehan, Leslie
AU - Lawson, Megan
AU - Lavinghouze, René
AU - Fenton, Mark
AU - Devlin, Heather M.
AU - Carlson, Susan A.
AU - Bhattacharya, Torsha
AU - Fulton, Janet E.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to acknowledge the National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research Steering Committee members for conceptualizing this project and informing the formative research discussion groups which were used to further project activities. The authors thank the Workshop Planning Group for planning the virtual workshop and developing the online surveys. They acknowledge the contributions of the discussion group participants and virtual workshop participants who provided their input to identify and rate indicators. Finally, they thank Michelle LaPointe, who supported efforts to synthesize findings from the workshop that were incorporated into this manuscript. A.L.C. was supported in part by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U48-DP006376). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Environmental Protection Agency, or US Government position, determination, or policy.
Funding Information:
The authors wish to acknowledge the National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research Steering Committee members for conceptualizing this project and informing the formative research discussion groups which were used to further project activities. The authors thank the Workshop Planning Group for planning the virtual workshop and developing the on-line surveys. They acknowledge the contributions of the discussion group participants and virtual workshop participants who provided their input to identify and rate indicators. Finally, they thank Michelle LaPointe, who supported efforts to synthesize findings from the workshop that were incorporated into this manuscript. A.L.C. was supported in part by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U48-DP006376). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Environmental Protection Agency, or US Government position, determination, or policy.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Human Kinetics, Inc.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background: Built environment approaches to promoting physical activity can provide economic value to communities. How best to assess this value is uncertain. This study engaged experts to identify a set of key economic indicators useful for evaluation, research, and public health practice. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary group of experts participated in (1) one of 5 discussion groups (n = 21 experts), (2) a 2-day facilitated workshop (n = 19 experts), and/or (3) online surveys (n = 16 experts). Results: Experts identified 73 economic indicators, then used a 5-point scale to rate them on 3 properties: measurement quality, feasibility of use by a community, and influence on community decision making. Twenty-four indicators were highly rated (≥3.9 on all properties). The 10 highest-rated “key” indicators were walkability score, residential vacancy rate, housing affordability, property tax revenue, retail sales per square foot, number of small businesses, vehicle miles traveled per capita, employment, air quality, and life expectancy. Conclusion: This study identified key economic indicators that could characterize the economic value of built environment approaches to promoting physical activity. Additional work could demonstrate the validity, feasibility, and usefulness of these key indicators, in particular to inform decisions about community design.
AB - Background: Built environment approaches to promoting physical activity can provide economic value to communities. How best to assess this value is uncertain. This study engaged experts to identify a set of key economic indicators useful for evaluation, research, and public health practice. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary group of experts participated in (1) one of 5 discussion groups (n = 21 experts), (2) a 2-day facilitated workshop (n = 19 experts), and/or (3) online surveys (n = 16 experts). Results: Experts identified 73 economic indicators, then used a 5-point scale to rate them on 3 properties: measurement quality, feasibility of use by a community, and influence on community decision making. Twenty-four indicators were highly rated (≥3.9 on all properties). The 10 highest-rated “key” indicators were walkability score, residential vacancy rate, housing affordability, property tax revenue, retail sales per square foot, number of small businesses, vehicle miles traveled per capita, employment, air quality, and life expectancy. Conclusion: This study identified key economic indicators that could characterize the economic value of built environment approaches to promoting physical activity. Additional work could demonstrate the validity, feasibility, and usefulness of these key indicators, in particular to inform decisions about community design.
KW - City planning
KW - Exercise
KW - Policy
KW - Transportation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114430128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114430128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1123/jpah.2021-0191
DO - 10.1123/jpah.2021-0191
M3 - Article
C2 - 34243168
AN - SCOPUS:85114430128
SN - 1543-3080
VL - 18
SP - 1088
EP - 1096
JO - Journal of Physical Activity and Health
JF - Journal of Physical Activity and Health
IS - 9
ER -