A systems framework depicting how complex neighborhood dynamics and contextual factors could impact the effectiveness of an alcohol outlet zoning policy

Abstract

An updated zoning policy eliminating all alcohol outlets (liquor stores) in residential districts was implemented to reduce high rates of violent crime in Baltimore City. Diverse stakeholders were engaged in group model building (GMB) activities to develop causal loop diagrams (CLDs) that elucidate the impact of the new zoning policy on crime, and more broadly, the potentially unintended social and environmental consequences of the policy. Three distinct groups, community advocates, city officials/academics, and community residents, participated in three separate GMB sessions. Three CLDs, one from each stakeholder group, were created to depict the possible outcomes of the zoning policy. Our findings offer insight into potential unintended consequences of removing liquor stores from residential areas that may undermine the policy. Community members described the need for additional supports related to mental health and substance use, opportunities for investment in the community, access to other goods and services, and community‐police relations to ensure the policy achieved its intended goal of reducing violent crime. Our findings highlight the importance of timely engagement of local stakeholders to understand how complex neighborhood dynamics and contextual factors could impact the effectiveness of a zoning policy change.

Grounding alcohol simulation models in empirical and theoretical alcohol research: a model for a Northern Plains population in the United States

“…Effective strategies require considering the unique contexts of individual stages and the system of underlying mechanisms and external contexts facilitating long‐term behavioral stability or change (Hussong et al ., 2018; Witkiewitz et al ., 2019). As AU‐SD models are often used to identify and evaluate high‐efficacy strategies (Matson et al ., 2021; Tawileh et al ., 2008), findings can be further enhanced by accounting for “sensitive periods” within the AU continuum (e.g. leverage points for an optimal change).…”

“…Detail on data/information used for model structure rationale varied from thorough discussions of prior literature (Clapp et al ., 2018; Mubayi et al ., 2010) to minimal references (Tawileh et al ., 2008). Studies that utilized participatory model building often discussed professional and personal expertise; however, few studies mentioned participants' specific academic, professional, or personal expertise/experience with AU (Belue et al ., 2012; Deutsch et al ., 2021; Matson et al ., 2021). Studies that used alcohol research for structure rationale focused on AU influences (e.g.…”

“…Alcohol use system dynamics (AU‐SD) models have a variety of applications, from examining biological and psychological processes (Clapp et al ., 2018; Holder et al ., 2005) to laws and policies (Matson et al ., 2021). However, there is little focus on aligning AU‐SD model structures with AU models in theoretical and empirical alcohol research (Chassin et al ., 2013; Zucker, 2015).…”

Applications of Participatory System Dynamics Methods to Public Health

“…The process of engaging in PSD methods increases communication, collaboration, and idea sharing among diverse stakeholders from multiple sectors. 31,38,46,52,58,[60][61][62][63] Engaging in PSD allows for stakeholders to collaborate on issues with shared interest, rather than work in silos and compete for resources, and allows for organizations to work together on aligned objectives through coordinated initiatives, strengthening potential for intervention impact. 31,64 PSD methods bring together diverse stakeholders, each with their own "mental database" from which they perceive and navigate the central issue.…”

Practical Approaches for Promoting Health Equity in Communities

“…System maps and models can help here too. It may be more productive to have hard conversations and disagree with a model than with each other (Black, 2013 ; Black & Andersen, 2012 ; Luna-Reyes et al, 2019 ; Matson et al, 2021 ). Make sure your solutions align with community strengths, needs, priorities, and constraints.…”