I looked around my immediate neighborhood and took an inventory of the built environment which supports physical activity based on Mark Fenton's four principles:
1) Safety/Access – for all users of all ages/disabilities
2) Systems – network – bike, ped, transit
3) Destinations/ Land use – mixed use in close proximity
4) Site design – inviting, functional design for ped, cyclists, transit
I live on a small dirt road almost four miles outside of and over 1000 vertical feet above the 8,000 resident capital city of Vermont, Montpelier. It’s hard to apply any of the four principles to promote physical activity—mixed land use, comprehensive network for bike, pedestrian, and transit facilities, inviting functional site design for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, and safety and access to users of all ages and incomes, abilities, and disabilities—to rural living (Fenton, 2012). From late October to March, the narrow road is ice and snow covered and in the spring it’s deep in mud. My house does back up to an unmarked but locally known network of mountain biking trails which interlink with ski mobile trails and those to the Nordic ski trails at our local Nordic Center. They also can be walked, cycled, or run all the way into town, ending at the recreational center. For those people who are most likely to physically active in the outdoors, and who know from local discussion that this trail system exists, these are very accessible from downtown Montpelier. Yet, not many use them.
However, the aesthetic value is very high and compelling (Sallis, 2012) as my road has one of the best views over a huge farm and beyond a staggering view of the mountains. Since this view is a three miles from the Montpelier’s town center, it is one of the most walked rural roads in the area. The fact that aesthetics draw people to walk the road fascinates and encourages me, as aesthetics are not often discussed as an important factor in either lifestyle medicine or sustainability. There are a few, undefined parking pullovers (made from use, not intentionally designed) where people park their cars and then walk the mile of road that has the best view.
An interesting factor hurting my town is the enormous, and sharply increasing property tax bill we pay to support our local schools, particularly the new elementary school; the property tax to homestead value ratio is one of the highest in the state. In his lecture, Mark Fenton discussed “inclusionary” zoning: the creation of zoning policies which incentivize or require lower cost housing and rental units (Fenton, Feb 23, 2016. Personal communication). High property taxes are driving lower- and middle-income families out. Because we have strict zoning codes which limit the number of bedrooms per homestead and require expensive septic plans if increased, it is very difficult to build an “in-law apartment” or rental unit to offset property taxes. The result may be an increasingly affluent neighborhood with decreasing mixed incomes, and fewer farm properties. It will be interesting to see how this ultimately affects the built environment and physical activity; I can speculate that my town becomes more suburban, with fewer people moving their bodies and working on farms, and fewer people using the roads due to less density.
Fenton, M., 2012. Community Design and Policiesfor Free-Range Children: Creating Environments That Support Routine Physical Activity. Childhood Obesity. 8(1), 44-51.
Sallis, J. F., Floyd, M. F., Rodriguez, D. A., & Saelens, B. E. (2012). Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation, 125(5), 729-737.