Partnering to Create a More Livable City

Harris, Jenine K.; Roche, Jason T.; Estlund, Amy K.; Mense, Cindy; Baker, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e31829bfc3a

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…39 Future work might focus on developing and disseminating (1) strategies for increasing awareness of sectors to include in IVP networks and (2) strategies to understand and overcome barriers to improve engagement of important agencies that are not currently collaborators. For example, for-profit organizations are important partners in public health 46,47 that are not always well integrated into collaborative efforts. 29,47 In our study, for-profit organizations were included in fewer than half of the networks, but they were equally as likely as government organizations to form ties and were considered important or very important by an average of 25.8% of their partners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, for-profit organizations are important partners in public health 46,47 that are not always well integrated into collaborative efforts. 29,47 In our study, for-profit organizations were included in fewer than half of the networks, but they were equally as likely as government organizations to form ties and were considered important or very important by an average of 25.8% of their partners. Identifying strategies that engage for-profit organizations might help other jurisdictions improve their networks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Structure of Policy Networks for Injury and Violence Prevention in 15 US Cities

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Structure of Policy Networks for Injury and Violence Prevention in 15 US Cities

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants in multiple studies (n = 7) reported that collaboration with other stakeholders (e.g. intervention coordinators, local authorities, local health departments and transport departments) could provide opportunities to pool resources with these other groups or individuals (Cole et al, 2010;Grant et al, 2011) and may help gain funding to build the AT infrastructure (Adams et al, 2017;Cole et al, 2010;Grant et al, 2010Grant et al, , 2011Harris et al, 2014;Sreedhara et al, 2017;Witten et al, 2018). Adams et al (2017) and Sreedhara et al (2017) singled out involving communities in funding applications and reports to funders, with a US participant in Sreedhara et al (2017, p. 4) suggesting that demonstrating community support can be beneficial "as it 'lends credence', and funders look positively on applications that include local commitment, local matching grants, or in-kind investment".…”

Section: Political Willmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholders’ experiences of what works in planning and implementing environmental interventions to promote active travel: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure for active travel (AT) is receiving attention as a lowcost, sustainable transport option that promotes physical activity. However, the planning and implementation of new AT infrastructure often brings challenges. This review synthesises stakeholders' views and experiences of developing guidance for, designing, commissioning and implementing environmental interventions to promote AT. Eight databases were searched for studies containing qualitative data from stakeholders with direct experience. Results were synthesised thematically. The risk of bias was assessed using the CASP checklist for qualitative research, and evidence quality using the GRADE-CERQual tool. A total of 21,703 articles were identified from database searches, with 35 studies included. Eighteen studies focused on infrastructure promoting walking and cycling, fourteen on cycling and three on walking. Fifteen studies were judged to have no/very minor concerns, 12 had minor concerns, four had moderate concerns and four were of serious concern. A variety of stakeholders were influential, most commonly supportive elected leaders and individuals in public and voluntary sectors. Inter-disciplinary collaboration facilitated sharing of expertise and resources, and upskilling was beneficial. Effective communication methods varied between stakeholders and reason for communication. Persuasive strategies included aligning with stakeholders priorities and making the best use of evidence. Opportune moments to implement AT infrastructure were alongside non-AT ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…This concept advocates for improving the living environment of residents, establishing a new model of harmonious interpersonal relationships and managing healthy urban development [ 6 ]. Previous studies on liveable cities have mainly studied the evaluation indexes, spatial distribution characteristics, factors affecting liveability, residents’ knowledge of liveability and its influence on liveable cities on different scales [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Tourist cities are supposed to be pleasant places for tourists, but for local residents, how they feel gets little attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Tourism Development Make Cities More Livable? Investigating 40 Cities in China

Kang

Yang

Dang

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of rapid urbanization has recently paid more attention to the relationship between tourism development and liveable city construction. Previous studies have mainly focused on the experiences of tourists in tourist cities and seldom paid attention to the perceptions of local residents. Based on survey data of nearly 10,000 permanent residents in 40 key tourist cities in China, this study uses a multilevel model to quantitatively analyse the natural environment characteristics, sociocultural environment characteristics and comprehensive attraction of tourism in different tourist cities to explore their impact on urban liveability satisfaction. Results show that the developed tourist cities do not exactly correspond to the cities with a high liveability evaluation. The objective evaluation of both the natural environment and the sociocultural environment has an important influence on the liveability of cities, but the influence of the natural environment is stronger than that of the sociocultural environment. An intermediary effect exists in the subjective evaluation of the natural environment and environments for liveability perception. Simultaneously, residents’ liveability satisfaction varies according to their age, education level, annual household income and other social and economic conditions. These findings provide insights for developing countries to further improve residents’ living quality and urban construction under the condition of the rapid development of tourism.

show abstract

Partnering to Create a More Livable City

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

The Structure of Policy Networks for Injury and Violence Prevention in 15 US Cities

The Structure of Policy Networks for Injury and Violence Prevention in 15 US Cities

Stakeholders’ experiences of what works in planning and implementing environmental interventions to promote active travel: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Can Tourism Development Make Cities More Livable? Investigating 40 Cities in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About