IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i22p12190-d683807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do State Comprehensive Planning Statutes Address Physical Activity?: Implications for Rural Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa M. Charron

    (Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Chloe Milstein

    (School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA)

  • Samantha I. Moyers

    (Department of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, School of Public Health, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

  • Christiaan G. Abildso

    (Department of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, School of Public Health, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

  • Jamie F. Chriqui

    (School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA
    Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA)

Abstract

Less than one-quarter of U.S. adults meet physical activity (PA) recommendations, with rural residents less likely to be active than urban residents. The built environment has been identified as a potential facilitator of PA and local comprehensive plans are a foundational tool for guiding the development of the built environment. The purpose of this study was therefore to understand the current landscape of comprehensive planning state statutes related to PA and rural communities. We used primary legal research methods to identify, compile, and evaluate all 50 state comprehensive planning statutes for items related to PA and conditional mandates based on population size of local jurisdictions. The presence of population-conditional planning mandates and the inclusion of PA-related items was analyzed by state-level rurality using Fisher’s exact tests. Our analyses demonstrated that (1) broader PA-related items were addressed in state statutes more often than more specific PA-related items; (2) when PA-related items were addressed, they were most likely to be mandated, subsumed elements; (3) several PA-related items were less likely to be addressed in the most rural states and/or conditionally mandated for jurisdictions meeting minimum population requirements; and (4) only two states addressed PA directly and explicitly in their comprehensive planning statutes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa M. Charron & Chloe Milstein & Samantha I. Moyers & Christiaan G. Abildso & Jamie F. Chriqui, 2021. "Do State Comprehensive Planning Statutes Address Physical Activity?: Implications for Rural Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-25, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12190-:d:683807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amy S. Ha & Wai Chan & Johan Y. Y. Ng, 2020. "Relation between Perceived Barrier Profiles, Physical Literacy, Motivation and Physical Activity Behaviors among Parents with a Young Child," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Chia‐Huei Lin & Shang‐Lin Chiang & Patsy Yates & Meei‐Shyuan Lee & Yi‐Jen Hung & Wen‐Chii Tzeng & Li‐Chi Chiang, 2015. "Moderate physical activity level as a protective factor against metabolic syndrome in middle‐aged and older women," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(9-10), pages 1234-1245, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ayazullah Safi & Matthew Cole & Adam L. Kelly & Mohammed Gulrez Zariwala & Natalie C. Walker, 2022. "Workplace Physical Activity Barriers and Facilitators: A Qualitative Study Based on Employees Physical Activity Levels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12190-:d:683807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.