Cities, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 1–17, 2006

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd.

*Correspo1671; e-m

All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

0264-2751/$ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.007

The renewed interest in urban formand public health: Promotingincreased physical activity inMichiganIgor Vojnovic *

Department of Geography, Michigan State University, United States

Cynthia Jackson-ElmooreSchool of Social Work and Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, United States

Jodi HoltropDepartment of Family Practice, Michigan State University, United States

Sissi Bruch

Landscape Architecture, Michigan State University, United States

Available online 26 September 2005

In 1996, with the release of the first report by the U.S. Surgeon General on physical activityand health, moderate physical activity was placed firmly on the U.S. public health agenda.Physical Activity and Health recommended moderate exercise five or more days per weekor vigorous exercise three or more times per week, suggesting that Americans can be activesimply by incorporating moderate activities like walking, cycling or yard-work into their dailyroutines. Within this context, urban planners and policy makers have recognized their poten-tial role in shaping the urban built environment as one variable that might facilitate increasedmoderate physical activity among the American population. This article explores the explicitlinks that have been made between specific characteristics in the urban built environment andmoderate physical activity. It also reviews current policy and procedures in Michigan that caninfluence change in urban development patterns as well as recent initiatives that have beenintroduced to promote moderate physical activity. Michigan is the focus since it is amongthe leading U.S. States in decentralization (with 60% of the population living in suburbs)and also in overweight and obesity prevalence (with over 60% of the population being eitherobese or overweight).� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

This article begins by establishing explicit links be-tween characteristics in urban form that improveaccessibility and moderate physical activity. Increas-ing physical activity among the U.S. population was

nding author. Tel.: +1-517-355-7718; fax: +1-517-432-ail: vojnovic@msu.edu.

1

placed firmly on the U.S. public health agenda withthe release of Physical Activity and Health: A reportof the U.S. Surgeon General (USDHHS, 1996). Thisreport recognized the lack of physical activity amongthe population as one of the most pressing health is-sues in America. Health benefits of physical activityare significant and include lower mortality rates byreducing the risk of premature death from coronaryheart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabe-

Table 1 Ranking of U.S. states where over 60% of thepopulation is obese and overweight (2002)

States Obesity(%)

Overweight(%)

Obesity + Overweight(%)

West Virginia 27.5 36.1 63.6Mississippi 26.8 36.3 63.1Texas 25.5 37.3 62.8Alabama 25.7 37.0 62.7Kentucky 24.5 38.1 62.6Michigan 25.4 36.9 62.3North Dakota 23.4 38.2 61.6South Carolina 25.8 35.6 61.4Indiana 24.1 37.2 61.3Tennessee 24.6 36.7 61.3Louisiana 25.5 35.7 61.2Iowa 22.9 38.3 61.2Alaska 23.4 37.6 61.0Arkansas 23.7 37.2 60.9South Dakota 21.2 39.4 60.6Kansas 22.8 37.4 60.2Missouri 23.2 37.0 60.2Nebraska 23.2 37.0 60.2

Ranking based on % obese + % overweight.Source: CDC (2004).

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

tes mellitus (USDHHS, 1996, 2000a). Lack of phys-ical activity is implicated in the four major chronicdiseases: cardiovascular disease (CVD); cancer; dia-betes; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD).According to the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), approximately 37% of theU.S. adult population is now overweight, basedon a body mass index (BMI) of 25–29.9 kg/m2,and 22% of adults are obese, defined by a BMIof 30 kg/m2 or higher (CDC, 2004). Obesity andoverweight have resulted in considerable healthrisks for a large segment of the U.S. population.Research has shown that almost 80% of obeseadults in the U.S. have diabetes, high blood pres-sure, high blood cholesterol levels, coronary arterydisease, osteoarthritis, or gallbladder disease, and40% of obese adults have two or more of theseconditions (Koplan and Dietz, 1999). It is estimatedthat there are 400,000 adult deaths each year attrib-uted to obesity-related causes (Mokdad et al.,2004). In addition, the growing economic costs ofinactivity—associated with health-care costs andworker compensation—have contributed to the re-cent focus placed on physical activity and weightstability.Physical activity can prevent premature mortality,

it may delay the onset of partial or total disability,chronic disease and total dependence on medicalcare providers for those in the later decades of life(Shephard, 1994). This recognition of the impor-tance of moderate activity has provided a new inter-est among U.S. urban planners for structuring citiesto encourage walking and cycling.This article will first establish explicit links be-

tween characteristics in urban form and moderatephysical activity. The work will also review policiesand procedures currently in place in Michigan thatcan influence new developments and redevelop-ments to positively affect public health. Michiganis the focus of this paper since it is among theleading U.S. States in land conversion from naturalto urbanized uses and also in overweight preva-lence. Particular emphasis will be placed on theprocesses of municipal fragmentation and decen-tralization in facilitating automobile dependence.State and local policies that have encouraged frag-mentation and decentralization in Michigan arealso explored.

Physical inactivity and being overweight

Getting enough physical activity is difficult for mostAmericans; 24% of Michigan citizens report havingno leisure time physical activity, a variable thatresearchers consider important in contributing toMichigan�s ranking as a top State in the nationfor overweight and obesity, see Table 1 (CDC,2004; USDHHS, 1996). These rates have also beenincreasing (see Figure 1). With a lack of physical

2

activity, outcomes such as heart disease, diabetesand obesity soon follow. Heart disease is the num-ber one cause of death in Michigan, with over 1/3of the total deaths reported in 2001 (MDCH,2002); almost 8% of the total population of Michi-gan has diabetes, with 20.7% of them being resi-dents that are 65 years of age and older, Figure 2(CDC, 2004).International comparisons further reinforce the

need for increased physical activity in order to im-prove health and quality of life among Americans.Research has shown that rates of obesity and diabe-tes are considerably lower in European countriesthat have a higher level of walking and cycling, suchas Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden(Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003). It is also of interest that‘‘American diets are no fatter than those of theFrench and Italian, but cardiovascular diseasesamong the French and Italians are much morerare—so called French Paradox’’ (Sui, 2003, p. 78).Sui goes on to conclude that ‘‘public transit perhapsplays a more important role than drinking red wine’’(Sui, 2003, p. 78). He notes that while 54% of alltrips in Italy and 49% of trips in Sweden are bywalking and cycling, only 10% of all trips in theU.S. are by non-motorized travel.Americans can be active simply by incorporating

moderate activities like walking, bicycling or yardwork into their daily routines. Within this context,urban planners have recognized their potential rolein shaping the built environment as one variablethat might facilitate increased physical activity.Numerous studies conducted over the past decadehave provided substantial correlate evidence be-tween community design and moderate physical

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Per

cen

t of

Pop

ula

tion

Michigan Nationwide

Figure 1 Obesity and overweight: by body mass index (1990–2002). Source: CDC, BRFSS Trend Data [http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart_c.asp?state_c=MI&state=US&qkey=10010&SUBMIT1=Go].

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1994 1995

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Michigan

Nationwide

Figure 2 Prevalence of diabetes in Michigan and nationwide (1994–2002). Note: National data not yet reported for 2001and 2002. Source: CDC website [http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/table8.htm] and [http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/state/table16.htm].

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

activity. One study found that adults who live inhomes built before 1973 are significantly morelikely to walk frequently and over longer distancesthan those who live in homes built after 1973—theautomobile-oriented neighborhoods (Berrigan andTroiano, 2002). Craig and colleagues found thatpeople were much more likely to walk to work if

it was feasible, safe and visually appealing to doso (Craig et al., 2002). The public health literaturealso supports the development of integrated com-munities and pre-automobile design concepts, sincethese urban built environments have been found tobe positively associated with moderate physicalactivity (Handy et al., 2002; Saelens et al., 2003;

3

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

Brownson et al., 2001; King et al., 2003; Tropedet al., 2003).

The urban built environment and land use

About half of the U.S. population currently livesin suburbs, a result of a series of social, economic,and technological forces that shaped the 20th cen-tury urban landscape (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).In a more regional context, Michigan not onlyfollows national suburbanization trends, it leadsthem (Skole et al., 2002), as over 60% of theState�s population currently lives in the suburbs(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). As noted by Orfieldand Luce (2003, p. 4), ‘‘Despite slow populationgrowth in most areas, sprawling development inMichigan�s regions is consuming more and moreopen space. From 1970 to 2000, the amount ofdeveloped land increased as much as 10 times fas-ter than population’’.

Culture: values, habits, and attitudes towardsexercise

While we focus on the relationship between the ur-ban built environment and travel, it is important torecognize that most analysts agree that culture is avariable that is even more important than the phys-ical environment in encouraging non-motorized tra-vel (Rapoport, 1977; DOT, 1994; Vojnovic, 1999).The physical environment can facilitate certainbehaviors, but it will not shape them altogether.As argued by Amos Rapoport, ‘‘activity in any gi-ven setting is primarily culturally based in that it isthe result of unwritten rules, customs, traditions,habits, and prevailing lifestyle and definition ofactivities appropriate to that setting’’ (Rapoport,1987, p. 82). Designing pedestrian-inviting neigh-borhoods and streetscapes will have little impacton encouraging non-motorized travel and physicalactivity if walking and cycling is considered unde-sirable or inappropriate by the population. This isan important consideration within the U.S., wherethe preference for privacy in low-density,single-family detached housing and reliance onmotorized travel are a defining element of Americanculture.

Table 2 Trip length and percent of population willing to walk and cyc

Travel mode Trip length (miles)

<0.5 1 2–

Bicycle 21.95% 22.62% 40Walk 69.97% 17.66% 8

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1990. 1990 Nationwide PersonalTransportation.

4

Accessibility: considering density, land use mix,and connectivity

In order to encourage non-motorized travel, street-scapes must be safe, comfortable and attractive forpedestrians (Gehl, 1986; Jacobs, 1993). However, ifwalking and cycling are to become more prominent,cities must also be planned with accessibility as a keycriterion of the planning and design process. The le-vel of accessibility from a certain location is a reflec-tion of ‘‘the distribution of potential destinationsaround it’’ (Handy, 1992, p. 255); it can be definedby two variables, the cost of reaching particularactivities and the richness of activities in particularlocations. With regard to characteristics in the urbanbuilt environment that improve accessibility, threeare critical—urban density, land use mix, andconnectivity. Studies have shown that cities thatmaintain high levels of connectivity within neighbor-hoods, a balanced land use mix, and high urban den-sities, are characterized by greater accessibility andrely less on motorized travel. Within such cities, sig-nificant segments of the population walk and cycleto work, to shop, and for recreation. In contrast,low urban densities, single-use zoning, and discon-nected street networks increase average distancesbetween locations and encourage motorized travel.One of the key goals thus becomes the developmentof neighborhoods, districts, and cities with the pur-suit of minimizing vehicle miles of travel (VMT).In the U.S. context, maintaining necessary activi-

ties within a distance of two miles is an importantthreshold in encouraging non-motorized travel.Table 2, from the Department of Transportation,shows that beyond two miles, few people wouldconsider walking. A similar outcome is shown inTable 3, which compares mode of travel in the Chi-cago core versus two suburban municipalities. Thehigher residential and employment densities, themore balanced land use mix, and the greater connec-tivity in the Chicago core reduce distances andencourage a greater proportion of the populationthat lives in the core to walk. It should be recognizedthat residents will not always shop at the closeststore, eat at the closest restaurant, or go to the clos-est hairstylist, however, increasing accessibility willreduce distances between destinations, and maketrips shorter on average.

le in the U.S. (%)

3 4–5 6–7 8–10

.38% 9.11% 3.03% 2.83%

.27% 1.19% 1.19% 0.49%

Transportation Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Table 3 Comparing mode of travel in Chicago and its suburbs

Criteria ChicagoCBD

LakeCounty

McHenryCounty

Total trips less than 1 mile 51% 18% 21%Total trips less than 2 miles 75% 36% 40%Walking as percent of all trips 36.5% 3.9% 2.9%Driving as percent of all trips 24% 81% 80%Percent walk to work 10% 0.9% 0.7%Percent walkable trips walked 72% 22% 14%

Source: DOT (1994).

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

Urban density and land use mix

Cities in the U.S. maintain considerable variationin the intensification of people and employmentwithin their boundaries. The higher the concentra-tion of residents and employment in a given geo-graphic area, the shorter that one can expectaverage trips to be, all else being equal. In addi-tion, while single-use zoning—the separation ofresidential, retail and civic activities—is a dominantU.S. characteristic, studies show that reliance onthis land-use practice increases distances betweendestinations and trip lengths, and encourages auto-mobile use (Handy, 1996; Handy and Niemeier,1997; Saelens et al., 2003; Vojnovic, 2000a). Agreater balance in land use mix, the fine-grainedintegration of residential, retail, commercial and ci-vic activities in neighborhoods, reduces distancesbetween homes and other daily activities as wellas the distances between the various out of homesactivities, such as work, shopping, and recreation.The predominance of single-use zoning in U.S. cit-ies has developed unbalanced jobs-housing ratiosand a reliance on motorized travel, as evident withwork trips. These unbalances are particularlyapparent in U.S. central business districts (CBDs).While CBDs of major U.S. cities tend to have highjob concentrations, very few people live there.While there were approximately 137,000 jobs inthe Houston CBD in 1997, only some 2000 peoplelived in the core (Vojnovic, 2003). In the City ofDetroit, for approximately every 16 jobs that arelocated in the CBD there is only 1 person thatlives in the core (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999).By discouraging the fine-grained integration of res-idential and non-residential land uses throughout acity, trip distances are increased, greater reliance isplaced on motorized travel, and considerable con-gestion pressures exist on transportation routesthat facilitate the inner-city/suburb commute.However, despite these inner-city/suburb transpor-tation relations, the most significant commutingpressures in the U.S. continue to be suburb-to-sub-urb commutes.Handy�s (1996) research on shopping patterns in

San Francisco has shown that in older, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods developed prior to the pro-

liferation of the car, commercial and retail activitywas integrated into residential neighborhoods. Incontrast, in automobile-oriented neighborhoods,developed in the post-World War II era, commercialand retail activity is concentrated almost solelyalong the intersection of arterials outside of the res-idential neighborhoods. Handy�s research also showsthat in the pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, thereis a substantially higher number of restaurants,banks, barber shops/beauty salons and conveniencestores on a per capita basis within the neighborhood.Handy notes that the location of retail and commer-cial activities in pedestrian-oriented environmentsreduces the distance between home, shopping, andleisure activities. In turn, this reduction encourageswalking.

Connectivity

The degree to which different parts of a neighbor-hood are linked, and the extent to which differentneighborhoods are linked, will be an importantvariable in determining accessibility and travelbehavior. In order to encourage non-motorizedtravel, continuous pedestrian and bicycle rights-of-way must be provided within and betweenneighborhoods (Owens, 1993), but the emphasisplaced on privacy in North America, has replacedthe grid pattern of the traditional walkable citywith discontinuous and irregular road systems inautomobile-oriented developments. Conventional20th century U.S. planning practices have encour-aged the development of isolated residential,commercial, and civic pods. In addition, planningcodes in many cities require physical buffersbetween different land uses; enforcing the place-ment of drainage ditches, fences, or walls betweendifferent land-use activities. The poor connectivityand the discontinuous road networks of thesedevelopments—characterized by curvilinear streets,cul-de-sacs, and loop street patterns—increase triplengths within and between neighborhoods.The trade-off between increased trip-length and

increased privacy is considered acceptable in theU.S. context, since motorized travel at 35 or 40mph is the conventional mode of travel. Whileincreasing average distances by two miles whenone travels at 40 mph is not significant, an increasein this distance is substantial when one walks at 3mph. Older inner-city streets, shown in contrast withsuburban streets, illustrate the importance of con-nectivity (Figure 3). Even if the density and the res-idential/commercial land use mix is the same inthese neighborhoods, the lower connectivity in thesuburbs will increase distances and discourage walk-ing and cycling. In the discussion of accessibility,therefore, connectivity within and between neigh-borhoods emerges as a critical variable in influenc-ing travel behavior. Regardless of urban densitiesor the land use mix, if pedestrian barriers are

5

Figure 3 Actual street networks in Battle Creek andLansing, Michigan. Comparing pedestrian-oriented inner-cities with automobile-oriented suburbs. Source: Drawingsby Igor Vojnovic and Sissi Bruch.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

prominent within neighborhoods, and connectivity ispoor, non-motorized travel will be discouraged.

Building design, building configuration, andstreetscapes

At the micro scale of analysis, a number of principlesand practices facilitate urban environments charac-terized by connectivity, integrated land uses, andhigher neighborhood densities. These principlesand practices focus on building orientation, intensifi-cation, architectural detail, and street and sidewalkstandards that promote pedestrian safety andcomfort.

Buildings and lots

Two variables that affect both distance and den-sity—and consequently non-motorized travel—arelot and building width. Building widths haveincreased substantially during the 20th century. Re-search in Seattle, which compared pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods (developed in the early1900s) and automobile-oriented neighborhoods(developed in the mid-1900s), shows this transforma-tion. Average residential lot sizes doubled and com-mercial lot sizes increased by as much as eight-fold,as residents became more reliant on the automobile(Owens, 1993). Similarly, Relph observes that whileretail developments in pedestrian-oriented neigh-borhoods maintained lot and building widths that

6

varied between 20 and 30 feet, in automobile-oriented developments, they vary between 200 and300 feet (Relph, 1987).In encouraging urban built environments that

minimize lot-width, building configurations emergeas an important consideration. Taking a develop-ment of single-family detached dwellings on lot-widths of 60 feet and reconfiguring the averagelot-width to 30 feet, while maintaining house size,allows twice as many homes over any given lineardistance (see Figure 4). Such intensification prac-tices increase the number of units within a givenarea, improve distance accessibility betweendestinations, but continue to offer single-familydetached homes.Parking lots that front commercial uses accentu-

ate lot sizes. In automobile-oriented urban builtenvironments, large building setbacks are encour-aged partly to facilitate adequate parking directlyadjacent to major arterials and partly to keep shop-pers back from the high-speed and high-volumearterial streets. Suburban and exurban arterialsmaintain the highest pedestrian fatalities resultingfrom pedestrian-vehicle accidents, largely the resultof high vehicle speeds and volume (Ewing et al.,2003). Parking lots not only increase distances be-tween buildings, but act as a barrier, forcing pedes-trians to cross long stretches of uninteresting andpotentially unsafe automobile corridors. In con-trast, minimal building setbacks bring visually inter-esting features closer to the street and improvepedestrian access by reducing distances betweenbuildings; they also improve safety by increasingsurveillance from surrounding buildings, facilitatewindow shopping and increase street activity, mak-ing the streetscapes more pedestrian-friendly. Smal-ler setbacks can be achieved by placing parkingbehind buildings and on the street. While the ideaof compact communities with mixed land uses thatincorporate parking behind commercial strips mightraise nuisance concerns, the incorporation of differ-ent income and public amenity buffers can accom-modate a variety of land uses within a relativelycompact form (see Figures 5 and 6). More afford-able housing and apartments can be placed nextto parking lots, also enabling lot surveillance. Asone moves further away from the retail strip, subse-quent zones can offer more expensive housing. Asillustrated in East Lansing, the transition from re-tail strip, to student housing, to moderate and up-scale housing, occurs within five blocks. Whiledifferent income groups tend to segregate them-selves in isolated residential pods (Figure 3), theabove example provides an alternative land useand income composition that is more compact,integrated, and connected, with parking having aclearly defined place in this neighborhoodconfiguration.Another important building characteristic for

shortening distances is the building mix. By encour-

Figure 4 Intensifying developments by reducing lot width. (a) Intensification within a development has been achieved bymaintaining the exact same single-family detached buildings, but configuring them differently on the lot, reducing lot-widthby half. (b) Rowhouses illustrates an even further level of intensification achieved by sharing walls between units. Source:Drawing and photograph by Igor Vojnovic.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

aging residential uses on top of commercial and re-tail activities, particularly along major shoppingstreets, a more balanced commercial/residentialmix can be achieved within neighborhoods. Short-ening distances between activities, in turn, facili-tates walking and cycling. While the placement ofresidential units above retail uses is illegal in manyU.S. municipalities, the practice enhances streetsecurity at night and allows for after traditionalworking-hours clients that enable stores and restau-rants to remain open into later hours.

Streetscapes

Different modes of transportation have differenturban form requirements. For efficient high-speedautomobile travel, roads require many wide lanesto ensure high vehicle volume and velocity; longblocks with few intersections to minimize interrup-tions in speed; gradual curves allowing for longviews, necessary for high speeds; and large build-

ing setbacks to accommodate parking and to keeppedestrians back from the volume and speed ofvehicles. In contrast, for efficient pedestrian travel,districts require fine-grained street systems withshort blocks and many intersections to ensure con-nectivity; straight streets reducing distance; mini-mal pedestrian barriers such as expansive parkinglots and wide intersections; and small building set-backs from the street, bringing visually interestingfeatures closer to the street, reducing distances be-tween buildings, and increasing pedestrian surveil-lance. As the emphasis was placed on developingan automobile-oriented urban built environment,a reduced emphasis was placed on meeting theneeds of pedestrians and cyclists.Another important variable that should both

be defined by, and will also affect mode of travel,is streetscape texture, which addresses the struc-ture or composition of built surfaces. Fine grainedtextures, a mix of various different elementsalong streets—building types and colors, land uses,

7

Figure 5 Utilizing parking and developments geared to different income groups as buffers in compact neighborhoods.Block zones A–C are used to examine how different income groups and public amenities can be integrated within acompact neighborhood. This type of transition is effectively illustrated in downtown East Lansing, where the transitionfrom retail strip, to �student ghetto�, to �faculty ghetto�, all occurs within five blocks, moving north from Grand RiverAvenue (see Figure 6). Source: Drawing by Igor Vojnovic.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

architectural styles, street furniture and publicart—maintain a pedestrian�s attention (Lynch,1990). The slower speeds at which pedestrians tra-vel gives them greater ability to process detail, anda rich pedestrian environment that maintains theirvisual and sensory attention is desirable. This sug-gests that the speed at which people are expectedto travel through an urban built environment willaffect the way that they perceive that environmentand should determine its design. Streets must beinteresting and inviting to pedestrians, and bothof these qualities are maintained through street-scape complexity; expressed in terms of numberof noticeable differences per unit time (Rapoport,1987). Within this context, the lack of detail inlow-complexity built environments, combined withtheir size, makes the automobile-oriented builtform uninviting and uninteresting to pedestrians(Figure 7).For streetscapes to be inviting to pedestrians,

they must be safe and be perceived as safe. Inthe U.S., approximately 11% of all vehicle fatalitiesare pedestrians, and in cities exceeding 1 millionpeople this rises to about 35% (Retting et al.,2003). There are between 80,000 and 120,000 pe-destrian injuries and approximately 5000 pedestriandeaths annually from motor vehicle crashes(NHTSA, 2002). The highest pedestrian fatalitiesoccur in the suburbs and exurbs largely becauseof the high vehicle speeds and the high vehicle vol-

8

ume (Ewing et al., 2003). Slowing down traffic anddeveloping urban built environments that strike abalance between the needs of different modes oftravel (the automobile, transit, walking, and cy-cling) thus becomes an important element in plan-ning communities. As argued by Allan Jacobs,‘‘[g]reat urban streets are often great streets todrive along as well as great public spaces to walk’’(Jacobs, 1993, p. 272).

State and local experiences in land use andcommunity design

The increasing recognition in the U.S. of the impor-tance of accessibility in communities has led to anumber of municipal and State initiatives directedat increasing urban densities, connectivity, andmixed land-uses. Part of this movement involvessmart growth policies and related health-based pol-icy initiatives. Smart growth involves policies andprocedures that are directed at influencing the den-sity and pattern of development in an attempt to ad-dress the scale of natural and agricultural landconsumption and resource-intensive travel patternscaused by low-density decentralization. These initia-tives can involve a variety of stakeholders in adecision-making process that addresses land use,transportation, the built environment, and corre-sponding health implications (Geller, 2003; Pendall,1999).

Figure 6 The placement of parking and income group transition in compact neighborhoods (City of East Lansing). (a) and(b) show the retail strip along with parking and apartment units behind the buildings (zone A). (c) Taken from a parking lotin zone A, shows an apartment structure and single family rental housing along a block in zone B. More student rentalhousing along a block in zone B (d). (e) and (f) show the pictures of moderate and upper-middle income family housing inzone C, within five blocks of the retail strip. Source: Photographs by Igor Vojnovic.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

Much of the planning legislation in Michiganand across the U.S. is based on the 1928 StandardCity Planning and Zoning Enabling Act. This seg-regated land use largely for health reasons,attempting to keep residences away from industrialsites. This outdated model continues to dominatecommunity planning. Ordinances regulating lotsizes have, in Michigan, often forced low-densitydevelopments; this has the tendency of increasinghousing prices and excluding lower income popula-tions from certain municipalities. In someinstances, zoning disallows apartments and single-family housing in the same development, to pro-tect single-family dwelling prices (LDRS, 2003).Planned unit development (PUD) and plannedresidential development (PRD) ordinances attemptto add flexibility to local zoning regulations by

allowing for mixed development and encouragingthe preservation of open space. These ordinancescan help promote neighborhood walkability byincreasing the chances that there will be useful,functional and interesting destinations within rea-sonable walking distances. Sixty-three percent ofthe local governments in Michigan include plannedunit development in their zoning ordinances, 36%require cluster development allowing for at least50% open spaces, and 22% require traditionalneighborhood development (McGrain and Bau-mer, 2004).Without the companion piece of the comprehen-

sive master plan, zoning may fail to lead toimprovements in urban accessibility and environ-mental quality. Ordinances and zoning regulatethe details of a specific land use development, such

9

Figure 7 High and low complexity streetscapes. (a) High complexity built environments are interesting and inviting topedestrians because they are able to maintain their visual and sensory attention. (b) Automobile oriented, low complexitybuilt environments emphasize streetscape simplicity. Source: Photographs by Igor Vojnovic.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

as how many feet a building should be set back.The comprehensive plan orchestrates the variousland uses in a manner that is efficient and harmoni-ous. The master plan guides the big picture whilezoning laws guide the specifics—macro and microplanning (Kaiser and Godschalk, 1995; Kelly andBecker, 2000). According to a 2003 survey con-ducted by the Institute for Public Policy and SocialResearch, 75% of Michigan communities have zon-ing ordinances and 73% have a master plan, but80% of the communities without a master planhave populations of less than 2,000 people. Theseare communities located in areas that could behigh-growth regions in the future (McGrain andBaumer, 2004). Further, fewer than 10% of Michi-

10

gan local governments include growth managementordinances in their zoning regulations. Some citiesstruggle to get their comprehensive plans up todate—the City of Lansing has worked under a1978 comprehensive plan for over twenty-fiveyears, and while sections of the plan have been up-dated, an overall update scheduled for 2003 did notoccur due to budget cuts. (Dickinson, 1996; Maan-tay, 2001; Heath, 2003; Lavizzo-Mourey andMcGinnis, 2003).There is also a need to update local ordinances

with an emphasis on increasing pedestrian activity.Requirements currently force businesses to pro-vide abundant free parking. This encourages theuse of cars as the primary mode of transportation,

1In Michigan, the process of decentralization takes on specialmeaning because of the prevalence of townships and relativeweakness of the county government structure when it comes toplanning and land use. Michigan�s structure of local governmentwas established with the Northwest Ordinance and has beenreinforced by the State�s four constitutions (1835, 1850, 1908, and1963). Local governments in the United States are categorized asgeneral purpose governments and special purpose governments.Counties, incorporated cities, villages or boroughs, and towns ortownships make up the general purpose governments; while schooldistricts and water and sewer districts are examples of specialpurpose governments. In contrast to Southern and Western Statesthat have relatively few townships, Michigan and several otherNorthern states have many. In Michigan, the general purposegovernment distinction breaks down further into five different typesof cities and two different classifications of townships, leading toauthority fragmentation. This contributes to jurisdictional compe-tition and limits the use of regional approaches to developing anurban built environment that supports non-motorized transporta-tion and encourages physical activity (Peterson, 1981; Logan andMolotch, 1987; Kantor and David, 1988; McGinnis et al., 2002;Perdue et al., 2003). Authority and municipal fragmentation inMichigan also stems from a very strong home rule system ofgovernment that makes it hard to coordinate across governmentalunits. The U.S. Constitution gives States all powers not officiallydelegated to the federal government. In turn, municipalities arecreatures of the state. There are two main instruments that Statesuse to designate powers to localities, Dillon�s rule and home rule.Dillon�s rule severely limits local governments, by specifying thatthey have only those powers specifically conferred on them by thestate (Clark, 1985; Dillon, 1873; Michelman and Sandalow, 1970).Under home rule, a municipality can carry out any function as longas it is not in conflict with or specifically prohibited by the Stateconstitution. Broadly construed, home rule allows jurisdictions topass laws regarding the local government. Home rule embodieslocal responsibility, local experimentation and local action (Bro-mage, 1961; Platt, 1996). The powers granted under home rule varyconsiderably, with some states yielding broad power to their localgovernments and others maintaining more restrictions on localpower. While local governments have the option to operate underhome rule, not all choose to do so in any given State. In thoseinstances, non-home rule cities function under a form of Dillon�srule. In 1908, Michigan became one of eight municipal home ruleStates, authorizing cities and villages to function under charterswith a wide degree of power. Michigan townships with over 2000residents can also adopt a home rule charter. The State legislaturehad to pass acts authorizing home rule for cities and villages,making Michigan a non-self-executing constitutional home ruleState. Michigan strengthened its position on home rule with a 1963constitutional amendment that added the following language ‘‘theprovisions of this constitution and laws concerning counties,townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in theirfavor’’ (Constitution of Michigan of 1963, Article VII, Section 34).There are currently fewer than ten U.S. States that do not havemunicipal home rule (Hill, 1993; Mead, 1997).

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

making driving cheaper and more convenientwhen compared to walking. Minimum parkingrequirements also force the creation of acres ofparking lots and the dispersion of commercialsites. These development practices increase dis-tances between destinations and discourage walk-ing or cycling. Requirements for road widths aresimilar in nature. Wider roads with larger radiiare being constructed to accommodate large fireengines, making it harder for pedestrians to crossat intersections.Michigan has begun addressing the fragmentation

caused by its seven enabling acts. In 2001, majoramendments were made to help coordinate plan-ning between jurisdictions. Specifically, two sets ofchanges revolved around coordinated planningand zoning related to open space. These amend-ments now force increased communication betweencontiguous governments and jurisdictions within acounty by adding notification and opportunity forcomment on planning efforts, changing the currentprocedures for plan adoptions to reflect this in-creased communication and mandating clusterdevelopment provisions in local ordinances. Thislast requirement addresses the open space issueand tries to increase open space in developmentswithout changing land densities. These amend-ments have slowly been adopted and have beenin effect since January 2003.There are several additional policy solutions that

could aid growth control in Michigan and facilitatepolicies that would encourage physical activity. Forinstance, although the recent amendments do in-crease communication between contiguous jurisdic-tions, unifying the seven planning and zoningenabling acts might provide clearer authority andprocedures for land use in the State. This unifica-tion would also clear a path for comprehensiveplanning aimed at developing regional multi-modaltransportation options and designing communitiesthat promote pedestrian activity. Enforcing any fo-cused growth areas or urban growth boundariesdesignated on regional maps could limit growth orat least direct it to areas that are planned to accom-modate the necessary infrastructure. Maintainingconsistency between local decisions and State goalsand objectives would allow for better coordinationof activities, as would requiring that cities, town-ships, and villages work together to develop andcomply with regional master plans. Regional plan-ning could help improve the quality of life for localresidents by combating the social separation anddecentralization practices of current public policies.Similarly, metropolitan partnerships could providea mechanism for community involvement and thecoordination of efficient public service delivery(Orfield and Luce, 2003). These collaborative, re-gional approaches could increase the potential forstakeholders to think collectively about opportuni-ties to design and redesign the urban built environ-

ment in ways that would be supportive of active,healthy living.1

Like other highly fragmented States, Michigan hastoo many governmental bodies to control suburban-ization, and this is driven in part by considerablecompetition within and amongst neighboring citiesfor new developments (Peterson, 1981; Swanstrom,1985; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Kantor and David,1988; Schneider, 1989; Molotch, 1993). Municipalfragmentation encourages strategic location of newdevelopments just outside of urbanized boundaries,as developers and homeowners attempt to take

11

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

advantage of lower property tax rates, facilitatingpremature population spillover into rural areas andlow-density decentralization (Vojnovic, 2000b).Michigan has 83 counties, 514 school districts andover 1850 jurisdictions (including towns, townships,villages and cities), all with some influence on landuse issues. There is very little discussion betweenjurisdictions on focused area growth or new subur-ban development. Although the new amendmentsto the enabling acts will force changes in how juris-dictions coordinate with each other, it does not forcechanges in how specifically a jurisdiction decides toplan, leaving regional planning issues as a guide,rather than a mandate. This limited coordination im-pedes the planning, design, and development of builtenvironments that are accessible and supportive ofpedestrian activity. While physical activity is typi-cally conceived as an individual or community prob-lem, like most persistent community problems it willlikely take regional cooperation to address issuessuch as inefficient inter-municipal competition,decentralization and inner-city revival (Hayward,1998; Howe et al., 1998; Rusk, 1998; Gainsborough,2001; Carruthers and Ulfarsson, 2002).

A case of regional coordination

Michigan can draw on a number of U.S. examplesthat illustrate the importance of regional coopera-tion in facilitating compact and walkable built envi-ronments. Although Oregon�s local governmentshave been ranked higher than any other local gov-ernments in the nation in their degree of local dis-cretionary authority, it took a State bill to get localgovernments to participate in regional planning.Both Michigan and Oregon give their local andcounty governments much discretionary authorityalthough when comparing the governmental struc-ture, many differences exist. At the county level,Michigan has only limited structural home rule withWayne County having a charter, while Oregon has27 general-law counties and 9 home rule countieswith charters (Krane et al., 2001). Michigan�s at-tempt to increase coordination through its amend-ment of the enabling acts falls short of Portland�sefforts. The lack of regional authority in urbangrowth and open space management with no fiscalcontrol leaves Michigan�s metropolitan areas in avoluntary coordination effort without authority toimplement necessary changes.

Michigan’s efforts at promoting increasedpedestrian activity

Michigan communities are working on numerousfronts to address the pressures of development andredevelopment and encourage non-motorized travel.One example of a community initiative that has madea difference is the City of Flint�s Brownfield Redevel-opment Financing Act, which provides financial

12

incentives to develop brownfields instead of green-fields. The intent of the act is to reduce the construc-tion costs of redevelopment in the city, that tend to bemuch higher in urban settings than in surroundingsuburbs (GETF, 1999; Hula, 2001; De Sousa, 2002).Many urban environments require some cleanup, re-moval of unusable structures and utilities, or remod-eling of existing structures for reuse (GETF, 1999).Between 2000 and 2003, 39 Michigan cities and town-ships were recognized for their efforts to promote ac-tive communities as evidenced by: (1) policies andplanning for non-motorized transportation; (2) pe-destrian and bicycle facilities and safety; (3) commu-nity resources for physical activity; and (4) efforts toaddress physical activity in schools and worksites.Ten of these communities—Alpena, Clinton Town-ship, GrandRapids, Ishpeming, Jackson, Kalamazoo,Marquette, Meridian Township, Midland, and VanBuren Township—have been recognized on multipleoccasions for their efforts to implement and enforceprograms and public polices that help remove barri-ers to healthful physical activity. These are being her-alded as having made substantial ‘‘progress towardmaking it easy for people to be active’’ (MFF, 2003,p. 1). Many Michigan cities (Ann Arbor, Jackson,GrandRapids, and Lansing) either have or are updat-ing their master plans to increase physical activity.Elements of these master plans that promote physicalactivity include: modifying or changing zoning to pro-mote appropriate mixed land use, improving andexpanding the city pathway system for walking(including sidewalks and destinations like parks withall new developments), and improving walkabilityaesthetics by controlling the amount and location ofparking, signage and lighting (AACPC, 2002; GRPC,2002; JCPC, 2003).Citizen involvement has been an important

component of community design. On November 4,2003, residents in three Michigan communities dem-onstrated their support for a variety of regionallycoordinated growth strategies. Ann Arbor residentspassed Proposal B, a ballot initiative amending thecity charter to authorize a 30-year, half-mill propertytax for the preservation and protection of openspace and parkland. Commonly known as the‘‘Green Open Space Program’’, it is seen as a wayto prevent low-density decentralization. Similarly,residents of Ann Arbor Township voted to increasetheir property tax to provide funding for the preser-vation and protection of open space. Residents ofGrand Rapids and five other western Michigan com-munities (East Grand Rapids, Grandville, Kent-wood, Walker and Wyoming) voted to increaseproperty taxes to support upgrades to the region�spublic transportation system in an attempt to focusdevelopment in the existing urban area (BCWC,2003a,b; KCC, 2003).Collaboration in the State is seen as being essen-

tial to the success of public policy initiatives.Operating in the Grand Rapids metro area, the

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

Grand Valley Metro Council takes a collaborativeapproach to regional planning. In 1994, all 29 mem-ber governments signed a comprehensive regionalplanning document establishing goals for: (1) thepreservation of open lands and natural areas; (2)the establishment of compact business centersserved by mass transit; (3) the development of com-pact neighborhoods close to the business centers;and (4) the use of urban service boundaries to ex-tend water and sewer systems to limit sprawl(Schneider, 1999, p. 11).In Jackson, a key group has been the Walkable

Communities Task Force (WCTF), which includescity representatives and community members. It ap-proached the City Council early on to encourageconsideration of walkability in decision-making,and the City Council appointed the WCTF as anadvisory board to the Council on walkability mat-ters; many of their recommendations are included

Figure 8 The City of Jackson, Michigan, has been initiating dopromoting walking and cycling in the downtown parks and mHoltrop.

in the master plan (JCPC, 2003; Torres, 2004). Inno-vative projects have brought in multiple partnerssuch as local artists and the historic district commis-sion; the former display their sculptures along theriver walk, making the path aesthetically pleasing,culturally enhancing and supportive of the artisticcommunity. Jackson has been successful in securingexternal funding for projects to encourage walkingand biking within the city, to accomplish the dualgoals of downtown economic development andimproving health through increased physical activ-ity. This includes a 5-year, $200,000 grant from theRobert Wood Johnson Foundation Active LivingProgram, to encourage youth, businesses and thecommunity at large to find ways to make it morewalkable (Torres, 2004). A State of Michigan granthas been sought to supply funds to assist with water-front development and extend a walking trail withinthe downtown, used by employees and citizens to

wntown economic development projects that are linked toain commercial/retail strips. Source: Photographs by Jodi

13

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

improve physical activity and also spur use of down-town establishments such as shops and restaurants(see Figure 8). They have also received fundsthrough the Transportation Enhancement Act(TEA) 21 to promote downtown developmentthrough improvement of sidewalks, alleys, street de-sign (one way to two way) and other design aspectsthat encourage walking (Torres, 2004).

Conclusion

While recent concerns with the health and the mon-etary costs of obesity and overweight have raisedinterest in the relationship between physical activityand urban form, a number of issues still need to beaddressed. With regard to policy, home rule canmake cohesive regional planning difficult since thepower to plan and zone rests with cities, villages,and rarely with the counties, inhibiting regional scalecooperation. This can be mitigated to some extentby inter-municipal agreements, but a re-examinationof existing planning and zoning laws is necessary.However, it should be recognized that administra-tive reforms to accommodate regional coordinationare, at best, a precondition for facilitating urbancontainment. It will ultimately be the will of localresidents and leaders to promote and live in pedes-trian-oriented urban environments. Simply, if thereis no demand for connected, higher-density, andmixed land-use neighborhoods, having administra-tive structures that accommodate greater regionalcoordination will do little to develop built environ-ments that promote non-motorized travel.As cities work to help residents become physically

active, they have a variety of options at their dis-posal. Land-use planning limiting decentralization,encouraging brownfield redevelopment, and com-munity visioning processes are effective policy toolsfor addressing the relationships between physicalactivity and urban form. Some communities have re-vised their zoning ordinances and comprehensiveplans; others have undertaken approaches thatinclude policy considerations but do not put these is-sues front and center. There are communities work-ing alone, as well as in concert with other cities toreform policies. All have merit, as there are manypolicy options to encourage built environmentsfavorable to physical activity (Ewing, 1997; Pendall,1999; Rusk, 1998).While there is considerable evidence showing the

positive relationship between improved accessibilityand increased physical activity, the exact nature ofthe relationship between pedestrian-friendly envi-ronments and recommended levels of physical activ-ity is still unanswered. For instance, in a recent studyon urban form and travel behavior, Ewing concludesthat ‘‘those living in sprawling counties were likelyto walk less, weigh more, and have greater preva-lence of hypertension than those living in compactcounties’’ (Ewing et al., 2003, p. 54). The bulk of

14

existing research however has little to say onwhether the population that was walking more metrecommended levels of physical activity. An Austra-lian study has shown that while people living inneighborhoods characterized by greater accessibilitywalked more, few residents walked enough to actu-ally achieve recommended levels of physical activity,although some physical activity is better than none(Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2003). They concludethat pedestrian friendly urban environments, and in-creased walking, should be one part of a comprehen-sive strategy combined with other moderate andvigorous physical activities (such as dancing, jogging,gardening, and swimming) if recommended levels ofphysical activity are to be realized.Another variable that needs to be considered in

the context of travel behavior and the built environ-ment is neighborhood self-selection, an issue thatbrings the discussion back to the variables of culture,habits, and values. There is evidence that homebu-yers that maintain an interest in pedestrian activitywill place a higher value on housing in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, and will make the existenceof pedestrian friendly designs part of their decision-making process in homeownership. Research in Aus-tin has shown that while residents made more limiteduse of motorized travel in pedestrian-oriented neigh-borhoods, the residents also purchased housing inthese neighborhoods partly because these built envi-ronments were more conducive to walking. In Han-dy�s neighborhood surveys, respondents noted that‘‘having stores in walking distance was an importantfactor in their decision to locate there’’ (Handy, 1996,p. 144). Krizek (2000) comes to similar conclusionson the importance of values and habits in researchon individuals as they moved between pedestrian-and automobile-oriented urban built environments;he found few significant changes in travel behavioras people moved from suburban to traditional walk-ing neighborhoods and vice-versa. He concludes thatthe value placed on walking has a greater impact ontravel behavior than do the characteristics in theurban built environment. As noted earlier, whilethe removal of physical barriers to pedestrian activityand the creation of comfortable and safe pedestrianstreetscapes can facilitate non-motorized travel,ultimately it will be personal lifestyles, values, andhabits that will determine behavior. This does notmake the urban built environment insignificant inaffecting travel behavior, but rather, emphasizesthe importance of culture in decision-makingprocesses.Similarly, research suggests that market respon-

sive zoning and planning ordinances would supportthe development of walkable neighborhoods likelyto appeal to niche-markets. Cervero and Duncan(2003, p. 1483) argue that ‘‘pedestrian-friendly placessuited to the taste preferences of socio-demographicgroups might induce more physical activity overthe long run through the process of residential self-

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

selection than overt efforts to create compact,mixed-use, gridded-street neighborhoods through-out the cityscape’’ since there are consumer prefer-ences and market forces at play. This suggest, onceagain, that policy strategies should acknowledgethe inherent social, behavioral and cultural factorsthat influence choice of neighborhood as well as lev-els of physical activity.Another issue that needs to be considered is the

importance of class and racial tensions in shaping ur-ban form. There are two characteristics in the urbanbuilt environment that reflect social tensions, onebeing decentralization and the other being discontin-uous suburban road systems. Decentralization is, inpart, driven by population sub-groups attemptingto distance themselves from those that they viewas incompatible. Racial tensions, for instance, havebeen a critical driver in the decentralization in theDetroit region (Darden and Kamel, 2000; Mehretuet al., 2000), and this is why this suburbanizationprocess has been commonly referred to as whiteflight. The defensible design of discontinuous subur-ban road systems (Figure 3) is also partly the out-come of social and racial tensions; it enablessuburban neighborhoods to close themselves to un-wanted visitors, as motorists driving along suburbanarterials know better than to turn into unknown lo-cal roads because they have no way of knowingwhere the curvilinear and discontinuous street net-work in these neighborhoods leads. The defensivedesigns of the curvilinear and discontinuous roadsystems were first evident in the ‘‘suburbs built onthe outskirts of Italian cities in the eighteenth cen-tury’’ (Sewell, 1993, p. 86). Suburban villas in Italyeffectively utilized discontinuous roads to maintainexclusivity by closing themselves to uninvitedoutsiders.Improving accessibility in the planning and design

of Michigan municipalities will thus be closelydependent on addressing racial and class tensionsin the State. Michigan municipalities that will pursuecompactness and connectivity in the built environ-ment will be those cities where improved accesswithin the municipality will not be perceived as athreat to the residents. It is thus not surprising thatsome of the wealthiest municipalities in the State,characterized by a largely homogenous racial popu-lation, are those that have achieved high accessibilityin their municipalities—such as the Cities of AnnArbor, Birmingham, and East Lansing. A few vari-ables likely contribute to this outcome. Thesemunicipalities have the necessary funding to supportthe high-quality environments that are inviting topedestrians; the street art and street furniture, thelandscaping, street vegetation, central islands, andgeneral complexity in streetscape design. Themunicipalities are populated by residents that havehigh education levels and who generally place ahigher value on health and walkable communities.In addition, these municipalities are also character-

ized by a similar social and ethnic composition,ensuring that defensive built environment strate-gies—such as increasing distance between neighborsand neighborhoods, and limiting connectivity withinand between neighborhoods—are not actively pur-sued in these municipalities. The relative homogene-ity of these communities also suggest that there willbe fewer policy conflicts and much greater conver-gence on policy and design issues that ensure a higherquality of life and correspondingly greater opportu-nities to achieve and maintain active, healthylifestyles.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Institute for Public Policy and SocialResearch (IPPSR) at Michigan State University forfunding our projects on the urban built environment,pedestrian activity, and public health that resulted inthis article. We are particularly grateful to CarolWeissert, David Skole, AnnMarie Schneider, andSteven Pennington for their support. The authorsalso thank the reviewers, including Andrew Kirby,for the constructive feedback, which has consider-ably improved the quality of the article.

References

AACPC (Ann Arbor City Planning Commission) (2002) MasterPlan Elements. City of Ann Arbor.

BCWC (Board of Canvassers – Washtenaw County) (2003a)Canvass of votes cast at the Ann Arbor City General Electionheld on November 4, 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2004, fromhttp://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/clerk_register/elections/election_results/cto_annarbor. pdf.

BCWC (Board of Canvassers – Washtenaw County) (2003b)Canvass of votes cast at the Special Election held on November4, 2003 of the Township of Ann Arbor. Retrieved May 17,2004, from http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/clerk_reg-ister/elections/election_results/ot_annarbortwp.pdf.

Berrigan, D and Troiano, R (2002) The association between urbanform and physical activity in U.S. adults. American Journal ofPreventative Medicine 23(2S), 74–79.

Bromage, A W (1961) Constitutional aspects of state-localrelationships – I: Municipal and County Home Rule forMichigan (Memorandum No 203). Citizens Research Councilof Michigan, Livonia, MI.

Brownson, R C, Bake, A E and Housemann, R A (2001)Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity inthe United States. American Journal of Public Health 91, 1995–2003.

Carruthers, J I and Ulfarsson, G F (2002) Fragmentation andsprawl: evidence from interregional analysis. Growth andChange 33, 312–340.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) (2004)Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

Cervero, R and Duncan, M (2003) Walking, bicycling, and urbanlandscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area. Amer-ican Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1478–1483.

Clark, G L (1985) Judges and the Cities. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Craig, C L, Brownson, R C, Cragg, S E and Dunn, A L (2002)Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a

15

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

study examining walking to work. American Journal ofPreventative Medicine 23, 36–43.

Constitution of Michigan of 1963, Article VII, Section 34.Darden, J and Kamel, S (2000) Black residential segregation in the

city and suburbs of Detroit: Does socioeconomic status matter?Journal of Urban Affairs 22, 1–13.

De Sousa, C A (2002) Measuring the public costs and benefits ofbrownfield versus greenfield development in the GreaterToronto Area. Environment and Planning B: Planning andDesign 29(2), 251–280.

Dickinson, R (1996) Hoofing it in America. American Demo-graphics 18(9), 28–31.

Dillon, J F (1873) Second ed. Commentaries on the Law ofMunicipal Corporations, Vol. I. Little, Brown and Company,Boston.

DOT (U.S. Department Of Transportation) (1994) NationalBicycle and Walking Study. Case No. 1: Reasons Why Bicyclingand Walking Are and Are Not Being Used More Extensively AsTravel Modes. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing-ton, DC.

Ewing, R (1997) Is Los Angeles Style Sprawl Desirable? Journal ofthe American Planning Association 63, 107–126.

Ewing, R, Schieber, R and Zegeer, C (2003) Urban sprawl as arisk factor in motor vehicle occupant and pedestrian fatalities.American Journal of Public Health 93, 1541–1545.

Gainsborough, J F (2001) Bridging the city-suburb divide: statesand the politics of regional cooperation. Journal of UrbanAffairs 23(5), 497–512.

Gehl, J (1986) Life Between Buildings—Using Public Space. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York.

Geller, A L (2003) Smart Growth: A Prescription for LivableCities. American Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1410–1415.

Giles-Corti, B and Donovan, R J (2003) Relative influences ofindividual, social environmental, and physical environmentalcorrelates of walking. American Journal of Public Health93(9), 1583–1589.

GETF (Global Environment and Technology Foundation) (1999)Developing a Sustainable Future for a Single Industry-BasedCommunity Through Public and Private Partnerships.Retrieved November 7, 2003, from www.sustainableusa.org/proceedings/LS515.CFM.

GRPC (Grand Rapids Planning Commission) (2002) City ofGrand Rapids Master Plan 2002. City of Grand Rapids.

Handy, S (1992) Regional versus local accessibility. Built Envi-ronment 18, 253–267.

Handy, S (1996) Understanding the link between urban form andnon-work travel behavior. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 15, 183–198.

Handy, S and Niemeier, D (1997) Measuring accessibility: anexploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Plan-ning A 29, 1175–1194.

Handy, S, Boarnet, M G, Ewing, R and Killingsworth, R E (2002)How the built environment affects physical activity: views fromurban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine23(2S), 64–73.

Hayward, S (1998) Legends of the Sprawl. Policy Review 91, 26–32.Heath, D E (2003) Sprawling waistlines. Environmental and

Urban Issues 9, 4.Hill, M B Jr. (1993) State Laws Governing Local Government

Structure and Administration. Institute of Government, Uni-versity of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Howe, S, Allor, D, Bier, T, Finnerty, T and Green, P (1998)The shrinking central city amidst growing suburbs: casestudies of Ohio�s inelastic cities. Urban Geography 19(8),714–734.

Hula, R C (2001) Changing priorities and programs in toxic wastepolicy: the emergence of economic development as a policygoal. Economic Development Quarterly 15(2),181–199.

JCPC (Jackson City Planning Commission) (2003) City of JacksonComprehensive Plan. City of Jackson.

Jacobs, A (1993) Great Streets. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

16

Kaiser, E J and Godschalk, D R (1995) Twentieth century land useplanning. Journal of American Planning Association 61(3),365–386.

Kantor, P and David, S (1988) The Dependent City. Scott,Foresman, Glenview, IL.

KCC (Kent County Clerk) (2003) Interurban Transit PartnershipMillage. Kent County Election Returns. Retrieved May 17,2004, from http://www.electionmagic.com/archives/mi/2003/novspec/K41results/K4100101sum.htm.

Kelly, E D and Becker, B (2000) Community Planning: AnIntroduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Island Press, Washing-ton, DC.

King, W C, Brach, J S, Belle, S, Kllingsworth, R, Fenton, M andKriska, A M (2003) The relationship between convenience ofdestinations and walking levels in older women. AmericanJournal of Health Promotion 18, 74–82.

Koplan, J and Dietz, W (1999) Caloric Imbalance and PublicHealth Policy. The Journal of the American Medical Associ-ation 282, 1579–1581.

Krane, D, Rigos, P N and Hill, M B J (2001) Home Rule inAmerica: A Fifty-State Handbook. CQ Press, Washington, DC.

Krizek, K (2000) Pretest-posttest strategy for researching neigh-borhood-scale urban form and travel behavior. TransportationResearch Record 1722, 48–55.

LDRS (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee) (2003)Making Land Use Regulations Work for Smart Growth, 2003,Feb, from: www.smarthgrowth.org/powerpoint/LDR_final_files/v3_document.htm.

Lavizzo-Mourey, R and McGinnis, J M (2003)Making the case foractive living communities. American Journal of Public Health93(9), 1386–1388.

Logan, J and Molotch, H (1987) Urban Fortunes: The PoliticalEconomy of Place. The University of California Press, Berke-ley, CA.

Lynch, K (1990) Good City Form. The MIT Press, Cambridge.Maantay, J (2001) Zoning, Equity, and Public Health. American

Journal of Public Health 91(7), 1033–1041.McGrain, B, and Baumer, A (2004) To Plan or Not to Plan:

Current Activity within Michigan�s Local Governments (No. 8).The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, MichiganState University, East Lansing, MI.

McGinnis, J M, Williams-Russo, P and Knickman, J R (2002) Thecase for more active policy attention to health promotion.Health Affairs 21(2), 78–93.

MDCH (Michigan Department of Community Health) (2002)2001, Michigan Resident Death File. Vital Records and HealthData Development Section, Lansing.

Mead, T D (1997) Federalism and state law: legal factorsconstraining and facilitating local initiatives. In Handbook ofLocal Government Administration (Ch. 3), (ed.) JJGargan.Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

Mehretu, A, Pigozzi, B and Sommers, L (2000) Concepts in Socialand Spatial Marginality. Geografiska Annaler Series B 82, 89–101.

MFF (Michigan Fitness Foundation) (2003) Promoting ActiveCommunities. Retrieved November 13, 2003, fromwww.mihealthtools.org/communities.

Michelman, F and Sandalow, T (1970) Materials on Government inUrban Areas: Cases, Comments, Questions. West PublishingCo., St. Paul, MN.

Mokdad, A, Marks, J, Stroup, D and Gerberding, J (2004) Actualcauses of death in the United States, 2000. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 291, 1238–1245.

Molotch, H (1993) The political economy of growth machines.Journal of Urban Affairs 15(1), 29–53.

Newman, P and Kenworthy, J (1999) Sustainability and Cities:Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington,DC.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) (2002)Traffic Safety Facts 2001. National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, Washington, DC.

Orfield, M and Luce, T (2003) Michigan Metropatterns. Amergis,Minneapolis.

The renewed interest in urban form and public health: Promoting increased physical activity in Michigan: I Vojnovic et al.

Owens, P (1993) Neighborhood form and pedestrian life:taking a closer look. Landscape and Urban Planning 26,115–135.

Pendall, R (1999)Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environmentand Planning B: Planning and Design 26, 555–571.

Perdue, W C, Stone, L A and Gostin, L O (2003) The builtenvironment and its relationship to the public�s health: the legalframework. American Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1390–1394.

Peterson, P E (1981) City Limits. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Platt, R H (1996) Land Use and Society. Island Press, Washington,DC.

Pucher, J andDijkstra, L (2003)Promoting safe walking and cyclingto improve public health: lessons from The Netherlands andGermany. American Journal of Public Health 93, 1509–1516.

Rapoport, A (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form. PergamonPress, Oxford.

Rapoport, A (1987) Pedestrian Street Use: Culture andPerception. In Public Streets for Public Use, (ed.) AVMou-don. pp. 80–94. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NewYork.

Relph, E (1987) The Modern Urban Landscape. Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore.

Retting, R, Ferguson, S and McCart, A (2003) A review ofevidence-based traffic engineering measures designed to reducepedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. American Journal of PublicHealth 93, 1456–1463.

Rusk, D (1998) The exploding metropolis: Why growth manage-ment makes sense. The Brookings Review 16(4), 13–15.

Saelens, B, Sallis, J, Black, J and Chen, D (2003) Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scaleevaluation. American Journal of Public Health 93, 1552–1558.

Schneider, K (1999) Acting as a region to Tame Sprawl: grandrapids leads the way in Michigan. Great Lakes Bulletin 4, 8–13.

Schneider, M (1989) Competitive City. University of PittsburghPress, Pittsburgh.

Sewell, J (1993) The Shape of the City. University of TorontoPress, Toronto.

Shephard, R (1994) Physical activity and reduction of health risks:How far are the benefits independent of fat loss? Journal ofSports Medicine and Physical Fitness 34, 91–97.

Skole, D, Batzli, S, Gage, S, Pijanowski, B, Chomentowski, Wand Rustem, W (2002) Forecast Michigan: tracking changefor land use planning and policymaking. In Urban PolicyChoices for Michigan Leaders, (eds.) DThornton, CWeissert.pp. 83–111. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

Sui, D (2003) Musings on the fat city: are obesity and urban formlinked. Urban Geography 24, 75–84.

Swanstrom, T (1985) The crisis of growth politics. TempleUniversity Press, Philadelphia.

Torres, A (2004) Personal Communication.Troped, P J, Saunders, R P, Pate, R R, Reininger, B and Addy, C

(2003) Correlates of recreational and transportation physicalactivity among adults in a New England community. PreventiveMedicine 37(4), 304–310.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000) Population Estimates of MetropolitanAreas, Metropolitan Areas Inside Central Cities, MetropolitanAreas Outside Central Cities, and Nonmetropolitan Areas byState (MA-99-6). Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau,Washington, DC.

USDHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)(1996) Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeongeneral. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Centerfor Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,Atlanta.

USDHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)(2000a). Promoting Better Health for Young People ThroughPhysical Activity and Sports: A Report to the President Fromthe Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretaryof Education. U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,GA.

Vojnovic, I (1999) The environmental costs of modernism. Cities16, 301–313.

Vojnovic, I (2000a) Shaping metropolitan Toronto: a study oflinear infrastructure subsidies. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design 27, 197–230.

Vojnovic, I (2000b) The transitional impact of municipal consol-idations. Journal of Urban Affairs 22, 385–417.

Vojnovic, I (2003) Governance in Houston: Growth Theoriesand Urban Pressures. Journal of Urban Affairs 25, 589–624.

17