Factors influencing implementation of local policies to promote physical activity: A case study of Montgomery County, Maryland

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 280-288

  Salvesen, David ^a   Evenson, Kelly R ^b,c   Rodriguez, Daniel A ^a,d   Brown, Austin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

^c American College of Sports Medicine

^d Department of City and Regional Planning ^*

Author keywords

Montgomery County; Physical activity; Policies promoting physical activity; Policy champions; Policy implementation

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CASE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCHOOL; UNITED STATES;

EXERCISE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; MARYLAND; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 42149108459     PISSN: 10784659     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000316487.57512.f6     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Pate R, Pratt M, Blair S, et al. Physical activity and public health: a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA. 1995;273:402-407.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity and good nutrition: essential elements to prevent chronic diseases and obesity. http/www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/dnpa.htm. Published 2005. Accessed January 30, 2006.
3. Robbins LT, Morandi L. Promoting Biking and Walking: The Legislative Role. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures; 2002.
4. Mazmanian D, Sabatier P. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1981.
5. Mazmanian D, Sabatier P. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1983.
6. Dillon R, Quinn R. Interorganizational systems. Public Product Rev. 1980;4:63-83.
7. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins; 1995.
8. Berke P. Reducing natural hazard risks through state growth management. J Am Plann Assoc. 1998;64(1):76-87.
9. May P, Burby R, Ericksen N, et al. Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability. New York: Routledge; 1996.
10. Linden R. Working Across Boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
11. Librett J, Yore M, Schmid T. Although important, there is a paucity of literature examining the correlates of effective policy interventions addressing physical activity behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1399-1403.
12. Godschalk D. Montgomery County: a pioneer in land supply monitoring. In: Moudon A, Hubner M, eds. Monitoring Land Supply With Geographic Information Systems: Theory, Practice, and Parcel-Based Approaches, New York: Wiley; 2000:97-117.
13. Levinson D. The limits to growth management: development regulation in Montgomery County, Maryland. Environ Plann B Plan Des. 1997;5:689-707.
14. Yin R. Case Study Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
15. Schmid T, Pratt M, Howze E. Policy as intervention: environmental and policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health. 1995;85(9):1207-1211.
16. Schmid T, Pratt M, Witmer L. A framework for physical activity policy research. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(suppl 1):S20-S29.
17. Rodriguez D, Godschalk D, Norton R. The Connection Between Land Use and Transportation in Land Use Plans. Final Report. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Department of Transportation; 2004. Project No. 2003-16.
18. Miles M, Huberman A. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage; 1994.
19. Berke P, French S. The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. J Plann Educ Res. 1994;13:237-250.
20. Schachter K, Cohen S. From research to practice: challenges to implementing national diabetes guidelines with five community health centers on the U.S. Mexico border. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005;2(1):A17.
21. Lantz P, Orians C, Liebow E, Joe J, Burhansstipanov L, Kenyon K. Implementing women's cancer screening programs in American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Health Care Women Int. 2003;24(8):674-696.
22. Goodson P, Murphy M, Evans A, Meyer B, Gottlieb N. Maintaining prevention in practice: survival of PPIP in primary care settings. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3):184-189.
23. Wolsink M. Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting core beliefs concerning space-making for waste infrastructure. Urban Stud. 2004;41(13):2669-2690.
24. Davies A. Incineration politics and the geographies of waste governance: a burning issue for Ireland? Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 2005;23(3):375-397.
25. Minchart D, Neeman Z. Effective siting of waste treatment facilities. J Environ Econ Manage. 2002;43(2):303-324.
26. Takahashi LM, Garber SL. Controversial facility siting in the urban environment. Environ Behav. 1998;30(2):184-215.
27. Aarset B. Pitfalls to policy implementation: controversies in the management of a marine salmon-farming industry. Ocean Coastal Manag. 2002;45(1):19-40.
28. Avant D. Conserving nature in the state of nature: the politics of INGO policy implementation. Rev Int Stud. 2004;30(3):361-382.
29. Swanson, KE, Kuhn, RG, Xu W. Environmental policy implementation in rural China: a case study of Yuhang, Zhejiang. Environ Manag. 2001;27(4):481-491.