Active Living by Design

Active Living by Design
Name	Active Living by Design
Formation	2003
Founder	Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Type	Grant-funded initiative
Location	Durham, North Carolina
Key people	Changemaker Collective, C. Everett Koop
Focus	Physical activity, community design, public health

Active Living by Design

Active Living by Design was a community-focused initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that promoted physical activity through built-environment change, transportation planning, and community engagement. The program sought to integrate public health, urban planning, and community development by working with local coalitions, municipal agencies, and academic partners to increase opportunities for walking, cycling, and active recreation. It linked practice and research across fields represented by institutions such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Planning Association, American Public Health Association, Harvard University, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Overview

Active Living by Design operated at the intersection of public health, urban planning, and transportation by supporting community-level interventions, policy change, and practice-based research. Its model connected grantmaking from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to local coalitions in cities and rural areas that collaborated with entities like the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, National Park Service, Department of Transportation (United States), Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and academic centers such as Johns Hopkins University and Emory University. The initiative emphasized environmental strategies drawn from successful projects in places such as Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis, Seattle, New York City, and Charlotte, North Carolina.

History and Development

Launched in 2003 by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the program built on precedents in community health promotion led by organizations including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and foundations like the Kaiser Family Foundation. Early funding and technical assistance involved partnerships with national groups such as Partners for Livable Communities, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and academic collaborators including University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley. Over time, the initiative adapted methods employed in landmark efforts linked to urbanists and policymakers from Jane Jacobs-influenced movements, to planning innovations seen in projects like High Line (New York City), Atlanta BeltLine, and Copenhagenize Design Co.-inspired bike networks. The timeline of the program intersected with federal policy shifts including the enactment of transportation provisions similar to those in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act era and Healthy People initiatives promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Program Components and Strategies

The initiative promoted five core strategies: policy change, environmental redesign, programmatic interventions, social marketing, and evaluation. Local sites worked through coalitions that included stakeholders such as American Institute of Architects, National Association of City Transportation Officials, League of American Bicyclists, Trust for Public Land, and local health departments affiliated with Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Typical tactics drew on precedents from the Complete Streets movement, Transit-Oriented Development projects, and community engagement methods used in Community-Based Participatory Research at institutions like University of Washington and University of California, Los Angeles. Components included school-linked initiatives echoing Safe Routes to School efforts, trail development akin to projects by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, and policy campaigns informed by analyses from groups such as Trust for America’s Health.

Partnerships and Funding

Primary funding came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, supplemented by collaborations with federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and municipal funding sources including metropolitan planning organizations like Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area). Partnerships extended to advocacy and technical assistance organizations including the American Planning Association, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, National Recreation and Park Association, Local Government Commission, and academic partners like Duke University and Yale University. The model fostered linkages with philanthropic actors such as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and municipal programs in jurisdictions like Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco. Funding structures combined grants, in-kind support, and leveraged local investments from entities such as transit agencies modeled on Metropolitan Transit Authority (New York) and redevelopment authorities.

Evaluation and Impact

Evaluations of the initiative used mixed methods, combining quantitative measures of walking and bicycling with qualitative case studies produced by academic partners like University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Minnesota, and University of California, Berkeley. Reports documented built-environment changes—sidewalk installations, bike lanes, trail creation—similar to interventions in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and Portland, Oregon, and measured shifts in population activity consistent with surveillance work by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and behavioral research from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Outcomes included policy adoptions resembling Complete Streets ordinances, increased use of parks comparable to projects by the Trust for Public Land, and strengthened coalition capacity reflected in studies published in journals associated with American Public Health Association and Society for Public Health Education.

Criticisms and Challenges

Critics noted limitations common to place-based public health interventions, including uneven distribution of impacts across socioeconomic groups and difficulties sustaining funding beyond foundation support. Observers cited challenges similar to those reported in debates over gentrification linked to amenity improvements in neighborhoods such as Brooklyn and Atlanta, and tensions between development interests and preservationists seen in conflicts like the High Line discourse. Implementation barriers involved coordination across agencies including Department of Transportation (United States), municipal planning departments, and transit authorities, and the need for long-term evaluation comparable to critiques leveled at other foundation-led initiatives such as programs by the Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Category:Public health initiatives