TABLE 3.
Scores on RE-AIM Dimensions for Farmers' Market and Complete Streets Built Environment Strategies
| RE-AIM Dimension | Farmers' Market | Complete Streets |
| Reach | ||
| Numerator | Observed average no. of daily shoppers (100) | Observed average no. of daily visitors (2000) |
| Denominator | Residents within a 1-mi buffer of the market (1000) | Residents within a 3-mi buffer of the district (7000) |
| Scorea | 0.10 (100/1000) | 0.28 (2000/7000) |
| Effectiveness | ||
| Description | Average no. of customers per day who purchase fruits and vegetables (60) | Average no. of visitors per day who walk, bike, or take public transportation to commute to the retail district (100) |
| Scorea | 0.60 (60/100) | 0.05 (100/2000) |
| Adoption (inclusion/approval) | ||
| Numerator | No. of agencies and organizations accepting the invitation and participating (9) | No. of agencies and organizations accepting the invitation and participating (20) |
| Denominator | Total no. of agencies and organizations invited to participate in establishing the farmers' market (10) | Total no. of agencies and organizations invited to participate in establishing the revitalized district (25) |
| Scorea | 0.90 (9/10) | 0.80 (20/25) |
| Implementation | ||
| Description | The community identified a location for the market on a side street that can be closed off to traffic and is adjacent to retail and restaurants, which will increase visibility and be mutually beneficial to the market and the adjacent businesses | The project addressed public transportation, sidewalks, and bike lanes between low-income neighborhoods and the redeveloped space; the community was unsuccessful in attracting a grocery store to address a major need; and barriers to implementing traffic calming measures are being addressed |
| Scoreb | 0.75 | 0.50 |
| Maintenance (projected) | ||
| Description | No plans have been discussed for sustaining the farmers' market as a permanent structure | Commitment to continuously improve the district by adding green areas and expanding the pedestrian and biking infrastructure has been written into the city's 10-year budget and master plan |
| Scorec | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| RE-AIM summary score (average across dimensions) | 0.47 | 0.53 |
a
Scores range from 0.0 to 1.0 (or 0% to 100%), reflecting an estimated proportion (or percentage) of the criteria met.
b
Score is a subjective rating ranging from 0.0 (no criteria met) to 1.0 (all criteria met), of how closely the actual implementation matched the planned criteria.
c
Score is a subjective rating ranging from 0.0 (unlikely) to 1.0 (very likely), of the likelihood that built environment changes (and resulting reach and effectiveness) will be sustained.