School Siting and Healthy Communities: Why Where We Invest in School Facilities Matters
250
School Siting and Healthy Communities: Why Where We Invest in School Facilities Matters
250Paperback
-
SHIP THIS ITEMIn stock. Ships in 6-10 days.PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781611860139 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Michigan State University Press |
| Publication date: | 12/01/2011 |
| Pages: | 250 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.90(w) x 9.90(h) x 0.80(d) |
About the Author
Rebecca Miles is a Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Florida State University.
Adesoji Adelaja is the John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in Land Policy and former Director of the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University.
Mark Wyckoff is a Professor at Michigan State University, where he serves as Senior Associate Director of the Land Policy Institute and Director of the Planning and Zoning Center.
Read an Excerpt
SCHOOL SITING AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
Why Where We Invest in School Facilities MattersMichigan State University Press
Copyright © 2011 Michigan State UniversityAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-61186-013-9
Chapter One
Introduction and Problem Context School Siting and Healthy CommunitiesREBECCA MILES
One of the dominant population trends in recent decades in the united States is the movement of people from urban areas to suburban and rural areas. Important changes in where we invest in schools have accompanied this population shift: existing schools, mainly in urban areas, have been closed and new schools have been built in suburban locations. School construction and closures have followed population shifts but may also have contributed to population growth and distribution. New schools have been getting larger and farther from the residences where students live. These trends have left many school facilities in cities to deteriorate, and many are now in need of upgrading or modernization (ASCE 2009).
A growing chorus of critical voices suggests that current school siting decision making is inconsistent with efforts to reduce sprawl, encourage compact growth, and increase the sustainability of our built and natural environments (Agron 2009; Ewing and Greene 2003; Kouri 1999; Salvesen and Hervey 2003). The built environment includes all buildings (e.g., schools, workplaces), homes, roads, and other components of transportation systems, utilities (i.e., electrical transmission lines, water, and waste disposal systems), parks and recreation areas, fixtures, and other spaces created or significantly modified by humans.
Furthermore, current school siting practices may be contributing to a vicious cycle of families moving to the suburbs to avoid bad schools and neighborhoods with bad schools deteriorating into bad neighborhoods, which then increase the suburbanization trend. The desire for "better schools" is often cited as a motive for moving farther out to the suburbs, and the race and socioeconomic dimensions of this migration have contributed to the resegregation of urban schools and some inner ring suburbs (Orfield et al. 1997; Frankenberg and lee 2002; de Souza Briggs 2005). The important role of schools in the residential location decisions of families suggests that schools represent a significant factor in shaping the landscape of communities.
There is also a compelling economic rationale for a new approach to school siting. Proponents argue it would save school districts money (Ad Hoc Coalition for Healthy School Siting 2008). Schools located adjacent to or within neighborhoods cut down on the funds needed for infrastructure such as roads, water, sewers, and utilities. Schools sited to maximize walking and cycling to school or riding mass transit can reduce the need for school buses and therefore cut down on school transportation expenses. They also reduce the acreage needed for parking lots and therefore decrease land costs.
A lack of coordination between school capital investments and land use planning processes may represent an important part of the problem, but by no means is it the only part. In his systematic investigation of school board decision making in Michigan, R. K. Norton (2007) finds that state and local governments rarely work with school districts on decisions related to siting, building, and renovating schools and that school board decision making is largely driven by competition with neighboring districts and demographic shifts. In fact, state law puts local schools outside the jurisdiction of local land use planning.
The responses that are taking shape as part of movements focusing on smart growth, sustainability, livability, or healthy communities, all call for both a shift in the way we think about school siting and a change in the strategies we use. Their overarching goal is to balance objectives related to producing the most up-to-date educational programs and facilities as possible, with strategies designed to produce communities that are more environmentally sound (e.g., policies that support alternatives to automobile transport and preserve historic buildings); are "communities of opportunity" (that provide access to good schools, public services, and economic prospects; de Souza Briggs 2005, 8); and are socially equitable (i.e., where access is not determined by race, religion, or class).
The strategies recommended by these various movements typically encourage citizen and stakeholder participation and call for issues to be addressed in a way that recognizes their interconnectedness. For example, it is now accepted that land use decisions have important consequences for transportation systems and vice versa. When local governments allow low-density developments in open, green areas at a distance from existing settlements, they consider the implications for road construction in collaboration with transportation departments. if the planning is done well, it includes stakeholders from groups affected by both land use and transportation decisions including environment advocacy groups.
Strategies to create "healthy communities" have drawn attention to the consequences of decisions such as these on the health of those who live in the communities. For example, land use and transportation patterns that contribute to an increase in the use of motor vehicles and in distances traveled cause an increase in air pollution and countless cases of respiratory illnesses in children. The definition of health used here refers to "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (WHO 1948).
The movement promoting healthy communities has been active around the world for several decades. It began with a focus on healthy cities and has evolved to address healthy and sustainable communities more broadly. Trevor Hancock, one of the pioneers of the healthy communities movement, defines healthy and sustainable communities as "communities where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives." (2000, 152) The movement encompasses a number of major national and international initiatives including the international Healthy Cities Foundation, which supports the International Healthy Cities Movement, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Healthy Communities Transformation Initiative and the Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition in Canada. It also includes hundreds of local initiatives whose work falls under the "healthy communities" umbrella. Among other goals, these movements seek to introduce objectives related to the protection of human health into public decision making with the ultimate goal of creating environments for health.
In the absence of a healthy communities approach, the health consequences of particular school locations or investments are not likely to be taken into consideration when deciding where to build new schools and whether to renovate existing facilities. For example, when schools are located far from residences, they make it impossible for children and other members of school communities to walk or bike to school and thereby deprive them of an opportunity for physical activity as part of daily routines. And when schools are sited near a freeway or high-traffic roadway, an industrial facility, an underground gasoline pipeline, a former landfill, a waste disposal facility, or other environmental hazards, they threaten the health and safety of children as well as teachers, administrators, and others who work at schools through their impact on air and water quality. The costs of these problems are shifted to the health sector and therefore are seldom considered by either school districts or local governments.
TRENDS IN SCHOOL SIZE AND LOCATION
Whether by design or not, current school siting practices often produce schools only accessible by car. Public schools have also been increasing in size and drawing students from larger areas. In the second half of the twentieth century, the total number of elementary and secondary public schools fell by 69 percent, and their average enrollment increased more than four times (Walberg 1992, 3). large new schools typically are placed in outlying areas because sites are available and land prices are low.
Concern about the increasing size of schools and their location in places far from residences arises out of two additional perspectives: concern about preventing loss of rural open space and concern about revitalizing deteriorating urban places (Norton 2007, 478). Schools contribute to urban sprawl and the loss of rural open space even if they do not cause it.
A number of people have written about the extreme inequality in spending on schools (Kozol 1991; Lewis 2008). unequal allocation of funds to schools influences the quality of neighborhoods around the schools, which in turn influences the quality of schools—a downward spiral exacerbated by the draw of new schools being built in suburbs and exurbs (Baum 2004; Clapper 2006). Schools become part of the infrastructure that gives value to new developments. they help attract professionals with children to the district. A new school also may induce families with children to move out of neighborhoods with older schools in the same district and relocate near the new school.
FACTORS INFLUENCING SCHOOL LOCATION DECISION MAKING
Few studies exist that systematically investigate the factors influencing school district decisions about whether to upgrade or expand existing schools and where to locate new schools. These may include federal and state mandates and standards, concerns about traffic safety at the site or possible land use conflicts, and whether or not there is any coordination between school districts and local governments. Much of the evidence for the effect of these on school siting is anecdotal, with the exception of Norton (2007); N. C. McDonald (this volume); and Emily Lees and others (2008).
There are a number of federal and state mandates that address issues of health, safety, and rights of access that may influence school siting. Some affect the design of school buildings and others affect the methods or processes required during construction or renovation of schools. School construction standards may also influence school siting decisions in that they tend to make it less costly to construct new buildings than to renovate older ones (Beaumont 2003; Beaumont and Pianca 2000; Gurwitt 2004). Furthermore, minimum acreage standards for elementary, middle, and high schools may favor certain locations as they often can only be met in open areas at the outskirts of urbanized zones.
In addition, in most cases, little or no coordination exists between local governments and school districts regarding schools or infrastructure planning (see discussion in Norton 2007, 480). Only a few states such as Maryland and Florida have "adequate public facilities ordinances." In general, sites actually chosen may be the best of a set of far-from-ideal options. They could have been donated, required as a condition of development approval, obtained from another governmental unit, or any number of circumstances that did not consider health factors or other socioeconomic considerations.
POTENTIAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF CURRENT SCHOOL SITING PRACTICES
Physical Activity
Schools not located near residences make it impossible for most children to walk or bike to school, thereby missing an opportunity for physical activity as part of daily routines. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of a number of chronic diseases, helps control weight, and improves mental health, all of which results in less use of health services (U.S. DHHS 1996). National data indicate that only one-third of all American youth met current recommended levels of physical activity (Eaton et al. 2008). Body weight in children and adolescents continues to increase, with the prevalence of overweight reaching 17.1 percent in 2004 (Ogden et al. 2006).
Public health researchers and practitioners look to walking for transportation as a new opportunity to increase levels of physical activity and help control weight. Over the past twenty-five years, national trends in cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and high blood cholesterol have been positive whereas levels of obesity and physical inactivity have not improved (DHHS 1996). a recent analysis of trends over time showed a 70 percent decrease in walking or biking to school across all grade levels between 1969 and 2001 (McDonald 2007).
Studies have shown that people in general are more likely to adopt and sustain moderate physical activity routines such as those involving walking than vigorous exercise regimes. therefore, public health recommendations have moved from emphasizing fitness and exercise programs of vigorous intensity to emphasizing physical activity of moderate intensity such as walking for transportation. The most recent centers for disease control and Prevention and American college of Sports medicine (CDC-ACSM) guidelines recommend that all adults perform thirty or more minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity five days a week—if not every day of the week (Haskell et al. 2007). The fact that the guidelines now include the option of accumulating the minimum of thirty minutes per day in multiple sessions lasting at least eight to ten minutes also makes them more applicable to community settings and walking for transportation (U.S. DHHS 1996). The guidelines for children and adolescents ages six to seventeen recommend one hour or more of physical activity daily; in addition, youth should include vigorous-intensity activity in this one hour at least three days a week (Haskell et al. 2007).
Traffic Safety
When schools are located within a road network with multilane roadways, no sidewalks, higher speed limits, and complex intersections, parents are unlikely to allow their children to walk or bike to school unless they have no other option. As more parents drive their children to school there is an increase in automobile congestion around the school and a less safe environment for the children who are walking and bicycling (Dumbaugh and Frank 2007). Another result of the growing distance between schools and homes is that many high school students now drive themselves to school, increasing the frequency of crashes and further contributing to traffic congestion.
Respiratory Health
As congestion increases, so does the amount of idling fumes around the school, which in turn leads to an increase in respiratory symptoms and diseases such as asthma (Bae et al. 2007; Samet et al. 2000). Furthermore, over 30 percent of public schools in the United States fall within a quarter mile of a major roadway, thereby resulting in a potentially increased risk for asthma and other chronic respiratory problems (Appatova et al. 2008). There are also concerns about the health risks of locating schools near other potential sources of air, soil, and water contamination (U.S. EPA 2009).
PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
the main goal of the book is to help planning and public health professionals, public decision makers, and citizens understand why it is important for government and school districts to work together on school siting and capital expenditures and how this will contribute to better health and quality-of-life outcomes for localities and regions. By addressing the likely consequences of current practices for human health and the health of community environments, it draws attention to compelling issues that are seldom considered when making decisions such as where to locate new schools, whether to upgrade existing facilities, or whether to create magnet programs in underenrolled schools.
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
School Siting and Healthy Communities brings together in one volume recent work by researchers investigating a broad set of links between school siting and capital planning and the health, livability, and sustainability of communities and looking at the policy and governance issues involved. Most of the work featured here was originally presented at a Critical Issues Symposium on School Siting and Healthy Communities, convened by Drs. Rebecca miles and Ruth Steiner and funded by the Florida State University (FSU) DeVoe L. Moore Center. The symposium was held in April 2008 at FSU in Tallahassee, Florida.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from SCHOOL SITING AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Copyright © 2011 by Michigan State University. Excerpted by permission of Michigan State University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Part 1 Why Where we Invest in Schools Matters
Introduction and Problem Context: School Siting and Healthy Communities Rebecca Miles 3
Health Impacts of School Siting: An Analytical Framework Rebecca Miles 3
School Siting in Suburban Areas: A Case Study of Maryland and Northern Virginia Noreen C. McDonald 27
Part 2 School Sprawl in High- and Low-Growth States
School Construction Investments and Smart Growth in Two High-Growth States: Implications for Social Equity Jeffrey M. Vincent Mary W. Filardo 41
The Implications of School Location Change for Healthy Communities in a Slow-Growth State: A Case Study of Michigan Mark A. Wyckoff Adesoji Adelaja Melissa A. Gibson 65
Population Effects on School District Structure and Size in Michigan Adesoji Adelaja Melissa A. Gibson Yohannes Hailu 109
Part 3 Consequences of Location Decisions
School Trips: Analysis of Factors Affecting Mode Choice in Three Metropolitan Areas Reid Ewing Ming Zhang Michael J. Greenwald 125
Policy Impacts on Mode Choice in School Transportation: An Analysis of Four Florida School Districts Ruth L. Steiner Ilir Bejleri Allison Fischman Russell E. Provost Abdulnaser A. Arafat Martin Guttenplan Linda B. Crider 147
Where to Live and How to Get to School: Connecting Residential Location Choice and School Travel Mode Choice Yizhao Yang Bethany Steiner Bob Parker Marc Schlossberg Sayaka Fukahori 165
Part 4 School Siting and Healthy Communities in Practice
Safe Schools: Identifying Potential Threats to the Health and Safety of Schoolchildren in North Carolina David Salvesen Peter Zambito 187
Engaging the Public in Comprehensive Planning and Design for Healthy Schools Ellen Shoshkes 221
Conclusion Rebecca Miles Adesoji Adelaja Mark A. Wyckoff 237
Index 241