ness of walking and biking to school. Evaluations of Safe Routes to School initiatives have found that they have been effective at changing behavior and reducing injuries.
- However, there has been little attention to the impacts of these programs on pupil transportation costs.
- This analysis assesses the potential economic benefits of Safe Routes to School programs in the US context by estimating the annual costs of using motorized transport for short trips to schools, examining real-world examples of the costs savings of SRTS programs, and evaluating land use impacts on school transportation costs using a simulation analysis of school bus routes.
- We find that there is potential for school districts and families to reduce transport expenditures through public sector investments in walking and biking infrastructure near schools. We also find that land use context matters and the most cost-effective investments would benefit schools where large numbers of children live within walking distance.
McDonald NC, Steiner RL, Palmer WM, Bullock AN, Sisiopiku VP, and Lytle BF. Costs of school transportation: quantifying the fiscal impacts of encouraging walking and bicycling for school travel. Transportation 2014, November.
- Objective. Joint use policies (JUP) encourage shared facility use, usually between schools and a city or private organization, for both physical activity-related and non-physical activity-related programs. Little is known about JUP's impact on physical activity (PA). This study examined whether more specific JUPs were associated with increased PA and decreased sedentary behavior (SB) in adolescents.
- Methods. Data on PA, sports participation, and SB were taken from annual cross-sectional nationally representative samples of 51,269 8th, 10th and 12th grade public school students nested in 461 school districts in the US from 2009–2011. JUP measures were constructed using information obtained from corresponding school district JU policies. Multivariable analyses were conducted, controlling for individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and clustering at the district level.
- Results. Results showed small associations between more specific JUPs and increased PA (IRR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.02). Closer examination of specific JUP provisions indicates that specifying what times facilities are available for use was associated with vigorous exercise and prioritizing school or affiliated organizations' use and which spaces were available for use were associated with vigorous exercise and more frequent PA participation, which includes participation in sports or athletics. No associations were found between more specific JUPs and SB.
- Conclusions. JUPS may have small influences on adolescent physical activity behavior. Future longitudinal studies should be conducted to examine the impact of JUPs in conjunction with other physical activity-related policies and environmental changes to determine what impact they have on overall adolescent physical activity and sedentary behavior.
Slater S, Chriqui J, Chaloupka FJ, Johnston L. Joint use policies: Are they related to adolescent behavior? Prev. Med 2014 Dec; 69S:S37-S43.
- Defining healthy schools remains largely discipline specific. Design disciplines ground discussions in a “green building” framework. Public health approaches healthy schools through programmatic interventions for physical activity and nutrition.
- This article presents a more systemic approach to healthy schools via health impact assessment (HIA). It reviews literature on health determinants in school environments, focusing on physical design. Existing school HIAs are reviewed with other decision support tools that provide guidance on the operation and design of healthy schools.
- The paper examines current use of HIAs in schools and develops a screening matrix for using HIA in creating healthy schools.
Arthi Rao, Catherine L. Ross. Health Impact Assessments and Healthy Schools. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2014;34(2):141-152.
- Despite the growing interest in expanding the j