Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Public Health Reports logoLink to Public Health Reports
. 2013 Nov-Dec;128(Suppl 3):87–103. doi: 10.1177/00333549131286s313

Achieving a Healthy Zoning Policy in Baltimore: Results of a Health Impact Assessment of the TransForm Baltimore Zoning Code Rewrite

Rachel L Johnson Thornton a,✉, Amelia Greiner a,b,c, Caroline M Fichtenberg d, Beth J Feingold e,f, Jonathan M Ellen a, Jacky M Jennings a
PMCID: PMC3945454  PMID: 24179284

Abstract

Objectives

The social determinants of health (SDH) include factors apart from genes and biology that affect population health. Zoning is an urban planning tool that influences neighborhood built environments. We describe the methods and results of a health impact assessment (HIA) of a rezoning effort in Baltimore, Maryland, called TransForm Baltimore. We highlight findings specific to physical activity, violent crime, and obesity.

Methods

We conducted a multistage HIA of TransForm Baltimore using HIA practice guidelines. Key informant interviews identified focus areas for the quantitative assessment. A literature review and a zoning code analysis evaluated potential impacts on neighborhood factors including physical activity, violent crime, and obesity. We estimated potential impacts in high- and low-poverty neighborhoods. The findings resulted in recommendations to improve the health-promoting potential of TransForm Baltimore.

Results

Mixed-use and transit-oriented development were key goals of TransForm Baltimore. Health impacts identified by stakeholders included walkability and healthy communities. For Baltimore residents, we estimated that (1) the percentage of people living in districts allowing mixed-use and off-premise alcohol outlets would nearly triple, (2) 18% would live in transit-oriented development zones, and (3) all residents would live in districts with new lighting and landscaping guidelines. Limiting the concentration of off-premise alcohol outlets represented an opportunity to address health promotion.

Conclusions

Changes to Baltimore's zoning code could improve population health including decreasing violent crime. HIAs are an important platform for applying SDH to public health practice. This HIA specifically linked municipal zoning policy with promoting healthier neighborhoods.

There is a national conversation in the United States regarding how the environments in which we live impact health and the determinants of health.1 The social determinants of health (SDH) are those factors outside of genes and biology that affect population health and well-being.2,3 We focus on the built environment—where we live, learn, work, play, worship, and age—which represents one important dimension of SDH.3 The built environment is the human-made part of the physical environment, including buildings, transportation systems, and open spaces.4 It is partly shaped by urban planning practices. Interest in using urban planning and community design to create sustainable, healthy communities has increased during the past decade as evidence linking the built environment to health has grown.5,6 This growing interest in the built environment and the way in which urban planning practices can be used to improve health is reflected, for example, in the “Healthy and Safe Community Environments” chapter of the National Prevention Strategy, which recommends integrating health criteria into decision-making across multiple sectors.7

Zoning is an urban planning tool that influences neighborhood environments.8,9 Historically, zoning was developed to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of citizens; provide certainty about future land use; and designate compatible vs. incompatible land uses in a district.10 Today, most U.S. cities use zoning to control land redevelopment. Zoning codes influence the built environment by regulating private land through the restriction of land uses and by governing building placement, size, and design.11 Although zoning provides regulation, local market forces, politics, financing, cultural views of “appropriateness,” and enforcement greatly influence what is permitted, desired, and, ultimately, constructed. Additionally, while zoning determines which uses are allowed in a given district, it does not guarantee that the full spectrum of allowable uses will necessarily exist in a given district (i.e., a permitted use does not guarantee the existence of that use). As such, there may be great variability from one zoning district to another. For example, there can be significant differences between commercial zoning districts where the same uses are allowed. As such, one commercially zoned district may have a glut of health food stores while another has a preponderance of fast-food restaurants.

Zoning may affect the health of local residents in a number of ways and may create competing impacts on health (Figure 1).12–16 Zoning codes may stipulate, for example, that a particular zoning district include a combination of residential and commercial uses, or mixed use. Mixed-use districts may positively impact health by increasing the likelihood that residents walk to daily services (e.g., restaurants, banks, and other retail). Pedestrian-friendly design elements incorporated in the zoning code, such as transparent ground-floor windows, may also positively impact health by creating an environment that is more inviting and safe; as a result, residents may be more likely to be physically active in these areas. Yet, mixed-use areas may also contribute to unanticipated negative health impacts. For example, a mixed-use district may enable the overconcentration of crime-generating uses in one neighborhood (e.g., alcohol outlets), thereby increasing exposure to crime. Research suggests that alcohol outlets are associated with increased violent crime locally, in part because potential criminal offenders are attracted to patronize them.17–21

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Pathway diagram relating zoning and health within a social determinants of health framework

Neighborhood crime and safety are potentially important determinants of physical activity among children22–25 and racial/ethnic minority and low-income adult populations.26 For example, work by LaVeist and colleagues demonstrates that low-income neighborhoods have a significant overconcentration of alcohol outlets and that racially segregated, predominantly African American neighborhoods suffer the most disproportionate overconcentration of such outlets compared with predominantly white neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland.27

Periodic revision of zoning codes is essential to maintain a modern and useful land-use pattern.28 Baltimore City began a zoning code rewrite,29 entitled TransForm Baltimore, with several major goals in mind: simplification and standardization; preservation of neighborhood character;30 addressing changing land needs; and incorporating transit-oriented development (TOD), sustainability, and walkability. Realizing the rewrite as a potential mechanism to address SDH, a team of public health, epidemiology, urban planning, zoning law, and criminology researchers conducted a health impact assessment (HIA) of the first comprehensive draft of TransForm Baltimore, which was publicly released in April 2010.

HIA is a process for systematically examining health impacts of a proposed non-health policy, program, or project to inform decision makers and improve their ability to ensure that the policy, program, or project promotes public health.31,32 HIA was an ideal methodology for informing decision makers of the ways in which TransForm Baltimore might impact key health outcomes in Baltimore and, in particular, how it might impact health inequities. Addressing socially patterned health inequities was a particularly salient goal at the inception of the HIA project (in spring 2009) in light of a report released by the Baltimore City Health Department in fall 2008, which demonstrated a 20-year difference in life expectancy among Baltimore City neighborhoods.33 As such, the TransForm Baltimore HIA highlighted important aspects of SDH to the decision makers involved in drafting and implementing the TransForm Baltimore comprehensive zoning code revision. Baltimore's comprehensive revised zoning code ordinance was introduced to the Baltimore City Council on October 22, 2012, for consideration and ratification.

We describe the methods and results of the HIA, with particular emphasis on physical activity-, violent crime-, and obesity-related impacts. The HIA focused on three proposed changes: increasing mixed-use development, expanding TOD, and enhancing pedestrian-oriented design. Each change is a leverage point in the pathway linking zoning to changes in the built environment that can impact physical activity, violent crime, and obesity (Figure 1). We used a mixed-methods approach including quantitative and qualitative analyses and produced recommendations aimed at maximizing the health-promoting potential of TransForm Baltimore while mitigating unanticipated negative health consequences. There are proscriptive guidelines and toolkits for writing health-promoting aspects of zoning codes.34 For example, zoning codes allow multiple designations for uses based on their perceived appropriateness in a given location. As such, a use is permitted “by right” when it is included in the list of permitted uses for a particular zoning district; pursuing such a use does not require a public hearing for approval. “Conditional” uses require a public hearing and, if approval is granted, are usually subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions by the developer. An “accessory” use is an activity or structure that is incidental to the main use of a site (e.g., a small convenience shop in a large apartment complex). And an overlay zone is a set of zoning requirements that is superimposed upon a base zone; in these particular geographic areas, overlays can allow uses in addition to what the base zoning allows.

There are also case studies addressing the impacts of zoning on particular outcomes over time; however, this is the first study of which we are aware that has assessed health impacts prospectively across a range of health outcomes.14 Although not the focus of this article, the HIA did consider additional potential health impacts of the proposed zoning code rewrite, including its potential impacts on cardiovascular disease risk, pedestrian injury, and access to fresh and healthy foods for city residents.35

METHODS

The TransForm Baltimore HIA evaluated the potential of Baltimore's comprehensive zoning code rewrite to affect multiple health outcomes, including physical activity, violent crime, and obesity. The HIA was conducted based on best practice guidelines36 and included the typical five phases of an HIA: screening, scoping, assessment, dissemination, and monitoring.31,37

In the screening phase, the zoning code rewrite was identified as a policy proposal with significant potential to impact population health and health inequities in Baltimore. In addition, the research team determined that estimating potential health impacts would contribute new information that decision makers were not already considering as part of the zoning code rewrite process. We also determined that the multiyear timeline of TransForm Baltimore would allow enough time for the results of a comprehensive HIA to be timely.

This article focuses on findings from the scoping and assessment phases and from early in the monitoring phase. The scoping phase focused on understanding the history of the rewrite, the major contributors, the change the city was likely to experience, the perceived connections between zoning and health from the perspective of key zoning rewrite stakeholders and decision makers, and whether population health might be impacted by zoning. Findings from the scoping phase in-depth interviews are described in the qualitative analysis section.

The assessment phase focused on three key areas: (1) identifying relationships between zoning-related built environment features and health outcomes described in the public health research through a literature review; (2) identifying differences between the city's current zoning code and TransForm Baltimore (April 2010 draft), with particular attention to health-related zoning features through a zoning code analysis; and (3) quantifying the potential effect of the proposed zoning code changes on population health through a quantitative impact assessment.

The dissemination phase focused on informing decision makers and stakeholders of the findings from the assessment phase through a report and presentations. The monitoring phase is ongoing and focuses on assessing the extent to which the HIA findings have influenced the zoning code rewrite decision-making process. Early findings from monitoring, including the analysis of public meeting observations, are described with the qualitative findings from the scoping phase.

Setting

Baltimore was founded in 1729 and became a city with a mixed-use character (i.e., shops and commercial establishments co-located near housing). In 1910, Baltimore earned the dubious distinction of being the first city to enact a residential segregation ordinance that kept black families from moving to predominantly white blocks (and vice versa).38 While not zoning, this ordinance sets an important social context for the city. Baltimore's first zoning ordinance or code was approved in 1923. Similar to many cities, the code emphasized the separation of uses (e.g., commercial, residential, or industrial) for future development. While there were adaptations during subsequent years, the first zoning code rewrite began in 1950 and was adopted in 1971. In 2006, a Comprehensive Master Plan for Baltimore City called for a zoning code rewrite to modernize an outdated code.29

TransForm Baltimore was undertaken in a city that suffers from poor health outcomes overall and vast within-city health inequities among neighborhoods. Significant health disparities exist between Baltimore residents and other populations in Maryland. Compared with Maryland residents overall, Baltimore City residents suffer worse health outcomes. For example, based on data from 2006–2008, city residents were 34% more likely to die in a given year than other Marylanders.39 In that time period, cardiovascular disease and violent crime (specifically homicide) contributed 23% and 10%, respectively, toward excess deaths in Baltimore compared with Maryland. One-third of Baltimore's adult population and 20% of high school students reported weight and height that classified them as obese.40 Within Baltimore, there are significant health inequities among neighborhoods. In 2008, life expectancy varied by 20 years (Figure 2), death from homicide varied by a factor of 36 (Figure 3), and heart disease mortality varied by a factor of two (Figure 4) when comparing the lowest and highest rates for neighborhoods.33 These variations in health were strongly related to neighborhood poverty (Figure 5) as well as racial composition of neighborhoods.35

Figure 2.

Estimated life expectancy in years by community statistical area:a Baltimore City, Maryland, 2002–2006 average

Figure 2

aCommunity statistical areas (CSAs) are clusters of neighborhoods organized around U.S. Census tract boundaries. In some cases, CSA boundaries may cross neighborhood boundaries. There are 55 CSAs in Baltimore City. Image courtesy of Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.

Open in a new tab

Figure 3.

Number of violent crimes per community statistical area:a Baltimore City, Maryland, 2004–2005 average

Figure 3

aCommunity statistical areas (CSAs) are clusters of neighborhoods organized around U.S. Census tract boundaries. In some cases, CSA boundaries may cross neighborhood boundaries. There are 55 CSAs in Baltimore City. Image courtesy of Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.

Open in a new tab

Figure 4.

Heart disease mortality rate per 10,000 population by community statistical area:a Baltimore City, Maryland, 2004–2006 average

Figure 4

aCommunity statistical areas (CSAs) are clusters of neighborhoods organized around U.S. Census tract boundaries. In some cases, CSA boundaries may cross neighborhood boundaries. There are 55 CSAs in Baltimore City. Image courtesy of Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.

Open in a new tab

Figure 5.

Average number of violent crimes (2004–2005)a and average heart disease mortality rate (2004–2006)b per CSAc by CSA poverty: Baltimore City, Maryland

Figure 5

aSource: Baltimore City Police Department and U.S. Census

bSource: Baltimore City 2008 neighborhood health profiles and U.S. Census

cCSAs are clusters of neighborhoods organized around U.S. Census tract boundaries. In some cases, CSA boundaries may cross neighborhood boundaries. There are 55 CSAs in Baltimore City.

CSA = community statistical area

Open in a new tab

Qualitative analysis

In-depth stakeholder interviews with Department of Planning representatives, city officials (elected and appointed), and other stakeholders formed the basis of scoping. In this phase, we gathered information about health-relevant aspects of the zoning code text that might change, evaluated perceptions of the potential implications of TransForm Baltimore for the built environment and for health, and assessed the extent to which health served as a rationale for the comprehensive zoning code rewrite. Interview participants were identified based on their role in drafting, informing, voting on, or implementing the TransForm Baltimore zoning ordinance. Although the first draft of TransForm Baltimore was released in spring 2010, interviews began in fall 2009 to establish baseline perceptions. As part of monitoring, we attended and transcribed public meetings following the release of the April 2010 draft to assess discussions of health.

Literature review

A literature review identified relationships between zoning-related built environment features and health outcomes of interest. While we did review grey literature and Baltimore-specific documents to better -understand the policy context for the proposed zoning code rewrite, we relied solely on peer-reviewed literature to establish the connections between zoning-related built environment features and health. This literature review was a key component of the HIA assessment. The findings described herein focus on the literature linking specific mixed-use-related features (i.e., off- and on-premise alcohol outlets, TOD, and pedestrian-oriented design) that could be influenced by zoning and might be associated with physical activity, violent crime, or obesity. Searches were conducted in Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and PsychInfo. Research on the relationship of off-premise alcohol outlets and crime was further explored with a criminologist (Ralph B. Taylor) who served as a consultant to the HIA team. Studies were included if they provided quantitative estimates, studied an urban U.S. population, were in English, and included a relationship between built environment features regulated by zoning and one or more of the health outcomes of interest. A quality review of included papers based on adequacy of analytic methods, controlling for confounding by socioeconomic status, and use of externally measured variables (vs. self-reported variables) was used to categorize papers as “good” (i.e. articles meeting all three criteria), “fair” (i.e., articles meeting two out of the three criteria), or “poor” (i.e., articles meeting one criterion or none).

Zoning code analysis

The zoning code analysis identified differences between the current code and TransForm Baltimore (April 2010 draft) with respect to health-related zoning features that were identified through the literature review as being related to physical activity, violent crime, and obesity. Features included mixed-use (including off- and on-premise alcohol outlets and TOD) and pedestrian-oriented design. We reviewed each chapter of the current code to assess the presence of these features. We then created a matrix identifying in which districts the features were allowed and under what circumstances (i.e., by right, temporary, conditional, accessory, or as part of an overlay zone)34 in the current code and the TransForm Baltimore draft. We used this matrix in the quantitative impact assessment to estimate the impacts of the changes between the current code and the April 2010 draft of the proposed new zoning code. In some cases, the codes had clearly defined use categories matching the built environment features of interest; in others, we found the best match.

Quantitative impact assessment

To quantify the potential effect of proposed zoning code changes on health, we assumed that (1) the current zoning code was an accurate representation of the built environment in Baltimore, (2) any changes proposed in TransForm Baltimore would eventually result in changes to the built environment, and (3) populations were homogenously distributed within census block groups (CBGs). To estimate impacts, we calculated the percentage of the population living in zoning districts with the identified health-related zoning features under the current zoning code and under TransForm Baltimore (April 2010 draft). Estimates were derived using geographic information systems software (ArcGIS®)41 to calculate what proportions of CBGs fell within each zoning district. We attributed that fraction of the CBG's population to the zoning district using 2000 U.S. Census data.42

Given the significant association between worse health outcomes and living in high-poverty neighborhoods, and given the evidence that the built environment differs in high- vs. low-poverty neighborhoods,27,43 we assessed whether potential impacts of TransForm Baltimore differed based on neighborhood poverty rate. Similarly to other research studies,42,44 we defined high-poverty neighborhoods as CBGs with ≥20% of their population living below the federal poverty level (FPL) and low-poverty neighborhoods as CBGs with <20% of their population living below the FPL. CBGs were split into sub-parcels along zoning district boundaries. Sub-parcels were assigned the CBG-level poverty rate from the CBG within which they fell and were then treated as the unit of analysis. CBG population estimates and poverty data were based on the 2000 U.S. Census data, which were the most recent CBG-level data available at the time of analysis.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis

Many city officials and the expert consultants most involved with TransForm Baltimore did not consider health promotion a main goal, although some emphasized their interest in increasing access to healthy food and walkable, safe, and healthy communities. Still, several health-relevant zoning changes were priorities, including expanding mixed-use developments, enhancing pedestrian-friendly environments, and enabling TOD. Some interview participants were quickly able to link zoning and health because of zoning's role in creating walkable neighborhoods with better access to daily services. For many, however, these links were difficult to establish. The possibility that zoning might influence crime did not emerge.

Many participants were accustomed to discussing zoning in terms of its impacts on the physical arrangement of buildings, not its human or social impacts. For these participants, linking zoning to health was unfamiliar and, at times, uncomfortable. The rewrite was initially guided by the city's Comprehensive Master Plan, and improved health was not an established goal for TransForm Baltimore at the outset. The overwhelming scope and complexity of the rewrite likely also focused efforts on more concrete challenges.

Based on the interviews, a variety of economic and other non-health goals provided explicit motivation for TransForm Baltimore. Health was not an active consideration for those who were most intimately involved in the zoning code rewrite process. Inattention to health impacts among key informants was not necessarily a deliberate omission; rather, it was a consequence of competing priorities and lack of expertise. Furthermore, doubt about the extent to which the zoning rewrite could influence health was a consistent theme. Respondents noted that many contributors other than zoning impacted the built environment, particularly in distressed neighborhoods, and that a change in zoning may not lead to a change “on the ground.”

The public meetings were held in various locations around Baltimore City to elicit concerns from residents living in different types of neighborhoods with distinct demographic characteristics and land-use concerns. Public participation in this phase of the process had limitations, and it was evident that meeting participants did not fully reflect the diversity of Baltimore residents likely to be affected by TransForm Baltimore. Residents used additional methods (including online comments, letters, and e-mails) to provide feedback to the Department of Planning; however, these comments are not included in the monitoring phase findings described herein.

The public meetings demonstrated some increased attention to health on the part of city officials, in part due to press coverage45 of how the zoning rewrite might influence walkability and urban agriculture. Much of the city's and residents' attention was focused on how new zoning regulations might impact the location of residential treatment centers. Interest groups (e.g., the Public Health Working Group) highlighted health, equity, alcohol outlets, housing, and sustainability.46 The HIA's focus on violent crime addressed a serious health issue for Baltimore that was not being raised in the interviews or public meetings about the rewrite. Figure 6 provides exemplary quotes illustrating these findings. While it was outside the scope of this HIA to assess participation in the rewrite process, forthcoming scholarly work will address this aspect and concerns about barriers to meaningful participation in such complex land-use processes.

Figure 6.

Results from scoping interviews with key zoning rewrite participants prior to releasing the first draft of the proposed TransForm Baltimore comprehensive zoning code: Baltimore City, Maryland, 2009–2010a

Figure 6

aInterviews and observations were conducted as part of a health impact assessment of the TransForm Baltimore comprehensive zoning code rewrite to understand the perceptions and role of health considerations in the rewrite process.

Open in a new tab

Literature review

The literature search sought to identify relationships between zoning-related built environment features and health outcomes of interest. The studies supported an association between mixed-use developments and increased physical activity,47–51 as well as decreased obesity and obesity-related illnesses.26,47,48,50,52,53 While these associations were consistent across studies, additional evidence from this literature suggests that these associations may be stronger for socioeconomically advantaged vs. disadvantaged populations.26 This literature also suggests that increased mixed-use developments can be associated with increased crime.54 In particular, two of the studies provide evidence that closer proximity to and higher density of alcohol sales outlets is associated with an increased risk of violent crime.55,56 These results are consistent with a recent review of the literature published in 2009, as well as other previous reviews.57–59 This evidence was most consistent for off-premise alcohol sales outlets.

Zoning code analysis

The zoning rewrite represents a full-scale reshaping of the existing zoning code in a several-hundred-page document. This summary discusses only a few of the key health-related changes of interest for the HIA. We found that mixed-use developments would increase across zoning districts. For alcohol outlets specifically, TransForm Baltimore (April 2010 draft) would increase the number of zoning districts where alcohol-serving establishments (i.e., restaurants serving alcohol, bars, taverns, and liquor stores) would be allowed (Figure 7). Off-premise liquor outlets would be allowed by right or conditionally in new “special-purpose” districts, such as TODs, that included or were near residential uses. Special-purpose districts are those that combine a variety of uses that do not fit into traditional residential, industrial, or commercial designations. Pedestrian-oriented design standards were added to several zoning districts, and new TOD zones would allow varying types of mixed-use developments (Figure 7). Other uses and features of interest—pedestrian-oriented design, bike parking, TOD, community gardens, and urban agriculture—would also be permitted more widely throughout the city, as would food outlets (e.g., supermarkets, corner stores, and restaurants).

Figure 7.

Excerpt of zoning code analysis comparing mixed use, focusing on alcohol outlets, pedestrian-oriented design, and location of residential uses in the current zoning code with the April 2010 draft of TransForm Baltimorea

Figure 7

Figure 7

aZoning districts appear in columns and uses appear in rows. For the residential districts, increasing numbers align with increasing permitted density (R1 has the lowest density, R10 has the greatest density). For the business districts, the larger the number, the more intense the allowable uses. From the existing version to current version, new district types are added, the use categories change, and certain uses are allowed in districts where they were previously prohibited. New TOD and new industrial districts are highlighted in gray.

R = residential (ordered from lowest density [i.e., detached homes, larger lots] to highest density [i.e., attached homes or smaller detached homes on smaller lots])

B = business (ordered from more pedestrian oriented to more auto oriented)

OR = office residential (mix of offices and residential uses; maintains more of a residential character)

M = manufacturing (used only in previous versions of code; ordered from lower-intensity uses to higher-intensity uses)

N = not permitted (use is not permitted in district)

C = conditional use (use is permitted after approval by zoning board and certain conditions are met)

P = permitted by right (underlying zoning allows particular use without additional permissions)

A = accessory use (use is allowed but is not the primary use of the property)

TOD = transit-oriented development

BI = business industrial (light industrial uses; no outside impact that is compatible with certain commercial uses)

OIP = office industrial park (office structures, research and development, and/or light industrial)

BIOS = bioscience (integrated manufacturing, office, residential, research and development, or retail)

I-MU = industrial mixed use (light industrial surrounded by non-industrial uses such as live/work dwellings, higher-density residential, commercial, and limited institutional uses)

L-I = light industrial (light manufacturing, fabricating, processing, wholesale distributing, and warehousing uses)

O = overlay zone (set of special land-use permissions that are applied over a geographic area but do not change the base zoning; such zones may permit uses that would not usually be part of the base zoning)

X = topic mentioned

Open in a new tab

Quantitative impact assessment

Approximately half of city residents live in high-poverty neighborhoods and half live in low-poverty neighborhoods. Based on the zoning code analysis, we estimated that the percentage of the population living in districts that allowed both residential and commercial uses would increase from 32% to 80%, the percentage of the population living in districts that allowed mixed-use developments would increase from 46% to 91% in low-poverty neighborhoods, and the percentage of the population living in districts that allowed mixed-use developments would increase from 18% to 70% in high-poverty neighborhoods. As a component of mixed-use development, we estimated that the percentage of Baltimore residents living in neighborhoods allowing off-premise alcohol sales outlets (e.g., liquor stores), by right or conditionally, would triple from 9% to 27%, and that residents of high-poverty communities would be 50% more likely than residents of low-poverty communities to live in such neighborhoods (33% vs. 20%).

Furthermore, the percentage of residents living in neighborhoods allowing on-premise alcohol sales outlets, including bars, taverns, or alcohol-serving restaurants, by right or conditionally, would increase dramatically from 34% to 81%. Residents of high-poverty communities would be somewhat more likely than residents of low-poverty communities to live in neighborhoods that allow on-premise alcohol sales outlets (94% vs. 70%, respectively). Finally, adoption of the draft new code was estimated to increase the percentage of city residents living in neighborhoods with zoning regulations mentioning pedestrian-oriented design from 1% to 24%, with residents of high-poverty communities being almost twice as likely as residents in low-poverty communities to live in such neighborhoods (31% vs. 17%).

DISCUSSION

The TransForm Baltimore HIA identified mixed-use development as an important mechanism for impacting health through zoning via potential impacts on physical activity, violent crime, and obesity. Mixed-use developments can have competing impacts on these outcomes. Mixed-use developments and TOD may create incentives for physical activity by providing amenities within walking distance and increasing access to daily services near transit stops. Many mixed-use and TOD districts proposed in TransForm Baltimore (April 2010 draft) also allowed alcohol outlets. Although alcohol outlets can be a part of vibrant neighborhoods, they can also play a role in destabilizing neighborhoods by generating crime.54,55,60 The increased exposure to violent crime that can be associated with alcohol outlets may also inhibit physical activity among area residents who are afraid to walk in their neighborhood because of these crime-generating alcohol outlets.

Our analyses helped translate proposed zoning changes into estimates of city residents' exposure to positive and negative potential health impacts of mixed-use developments. Based on our analysis, zoning districts encompassing high-poverty neighborhoods with expanded mixed-use developments would be 50% more likely than low-poverty neighborhoods to allow alcohol outlets.

Our HIA report commended the Department of Planning for its commitment to expanding mixed-use developments, TOD, and pedestrian-oriented design given their potential for producing positive impacts on physical activity. But it also argued for careful attention to the composition of allowable uses in mixed-use districts. Given evidence that alcohol outlets are concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods in Baltimore,27 we recommended that the draft new code be revised to ensure that crime-generating uses such as off-premise alcohol outlets not be permitted to further concentrate in these areas. Figure 8 summarizes mixed-use, TOD, and pedestrian-oriented-design-related recommendations based on the HIA. The final version of the proposed new zoning code that was introduced to the Baltimore City Council on October 22, 2012, included a dispersal zoning provision recommended in the TransForm Baltimore HIA. The HIA recommended including this provision, which would prohibit the location of new alcohol outlets within 300 feet of existing outlets.

Figure 8.

HIA recommendations pertaining to mixed use, TOD, alcohol sales outlets, and pedestrian-oriented design submitted during the TransForm Baltimore public comment period: April 2010 draft

Figure 8

aIn addition to recommending changes, the HIA included endorsement of health-promoting elements already included in the TransForm Baltimore April 2010 draft.

bThese recommendations are for changes that are thought to be necessary to facilitate related evidence-based recommendations.

HIA = health impact assessment

TOD = transit-oriented development

Open in a new tab

Strengths and limitations

The TransForm Baltimore HIA represents an innovative approach to applying SDH in public health practice. By identifying potential health implications of TransForm Baltimore, public health researchers and city health officials provided evidence-based recommendations intended to modify a non-health policy. These recommendations may increase the health-promoting potential of TransForm Baltimore and mitigate unintended negative health consequences. Not long after the TransForm Baltimore HIA report was published, Philadelphia released Phila2035, its comprehensive plan that addresses public health issues explicitly, and a companion report, “Philadelphia2035: Planning and Zoning for a Healthier City.”61 This plan speaks directly to integrating zoning and public health as the new zoning code is implemented and the need arises for HIAs in this process.62 Despite their significance, most of the TransForm Baltimore HIA recommendations are limited in their potential to achieve health promotion goals because they focus primarily on new rather than existing alcohol outlets. Existing uses are generally grandfathered into a new zoning code.63

Our quantitative impact assessment was also limited because of its potential to result in overestimates of new exposure to alcohol outlets. The current code does not accurately reflect existing land uses and likely underestimates the population currently living in close proximity to alcohol outlets. Also, the allowance of a particular land use in a district does not mean that use will exist. There may be locations where alcohol outlets are allowed but do not exist.

Many steps exist between changing a zoning code and changing the built environment. TransForm Baltimore will only result in built environment changes when sites are (re)developed or owners elect to change the use of a property. Much time could elapse between passage of the code, development, and health impacts; and factors apart from zoning could also impact health in the same place where a zoning change was made. One of the issues addressed during the interviews and meeting observation was that of enforcement and the extent to which zoning regulations, whether health-related or not, are able to be effectively enforced. For a zoning code to have its intended effect, its implementation must include effective enforcement. At the time of interviews and observation, the model of enforcement was complaint-based, although interest exists in making the enforcement system more proactive. We did not have any information available that established an association between zoning enforcement and health outcomes of interest in Baltimore. One enforcement issue relevant to alcohol outlets outside of the jurisdiction of zoning is the enforcement activities of the liquor licensing board. Concern, including health concerns, exists in Baltimore about the extent to which the liquor board enforces its regulations.64

Finally, there have been significant modifications to the draft code since the HIA report was published. As of this writing, after its third revision, the TransForm Baltimore zoning code ordinance was introduced to the Baltimore City Council on October 22, 2012. While the dispersal zoning ordinance recommended in the HIA is among the alcohol-related elements included in the proposed new zoning code, the zoning code ordinance is still subject to further changes during the City Council deliberations and ratification process, and health-promoting elements may not necessarily survive into the ratified version.

CONCLUSIONS

TransForm Baltimore provided a unique opportunity to highlight health-relevant aspects of zoning that are unlikely to have been considered otherwise. To our knowledge, this is the first HIA of a zoning code in the U.S. and has generated transferable knowledge that could inform similar efforts in other jurisdictions. By identifying how zoning can influence where alcohol outlets locate, such work may be a particularly important platform for evidence-based policy advocacy aimed at improving access to safe neighborhoods and responding to the many drivers influencing physical activity and obesity risk. Our HIA influenced the broader conversation regarding the role of zoning in addressing health, particularly regarding the link between alcohol outlets and violent crime. The HIA specifically opened up communication among health, planning, and other city officials regarding the links between urban policy decisions and health. The Department of Planning cited the HIA as a contributor to policy decisions regarding the alcohol-related elements of the proposed new zoning code.65

While we believe that the TransForm Baltimore HIA has resulted in increased awareness of the potential for urban policies in Baltimore to impact health, uncertainty remains regarding whether Baltimore's proposed new zoning code will ultimately include provisions that are likely to improve the health-promoting potential of Baltimore City neighborhoods. The proposed new code must be ratified by the City Council and is likely to face political challenges to ratification. Furthermore, although the HIA uses the best available public health research to project what the potential health benefits of the proposed new code are likely to be, there is a critical need for long-term evaluation of the final ratified code to prospectively assess how changes to Baltimore's zoning code regulations ultimately impact neighborhoods and population health.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Drs. David Bishai, Joseph Schilling, Madeleine Shea, and Ralph B. Taylor for serving as engaged members of the health impact assessment (HIA) and for contributing their knowledge and expertise to the HIA process and final report. The authors appreciate the assistance of city officials and stakeholders who made themselves available for interviews; Laurie Feinberg and Seema Iyer with the Department of Planning (when the HIA report was published) for their help in understanding the process and interpreting the code; Alisa Ames and Ryan Petteway with the Baltimore City Health Department for their assistance with data; Hal Sommers with the Vital Statistics Administration at the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (when the HIA report was published); Prabhu Ponkshe for his assistance with communications; and Danielle German and others from the Public Health Working Group for laying the foundation that led to the TransForm Baltimore HIA.

Footnotes

This work was funded by a Rapid Response Grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Active Living Research program (grant #66853). Dr. Jennings' work was also supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (grant #K01 DA022298-04A1).

This research was reviewed by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board (IRB) and determined to be exempt from from IRB approval as it does not constitute human subjects research.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Vulnerable populations portfolio: a new way to talk about the social determinants of health. Princeton (NJ): RWJF; 2010. Also available from: URL: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2010/rwjf63023 [cited 2013 Jan 24] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization, Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO; 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.HealthyPeople.gov. Social determinants of health [cited 2013 Jan 24] Available from: URL: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39.
  • 4.Northridge ME, Sclar ED, Biswas P. Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: a conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities. J Urban Health. 2003;80:556–68. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jtg064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sallis JF, Glanz K. The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. Future Child. 2006;16:89–108. doi: 10.1353/foc.2006.0009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rutt C, Dannenberg AL, Kochtitzky C. Using policy and built environment interventions to improve public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:221–3. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000316479.19394.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Department of Health and Human Services (US), National Prevention Council. National Prevention Strategy [cited 2013 Jan 17] Available from: URL: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/prevention/strategy/report.pdf.
  • 8.Perrin C. Everything in its place: social order and land use in America. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Haar CM, Kayden JS. Zoning and the American dream: promises still to keep. Washington: American Planning Association (Planners Press); 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schilling J, Linton LS. The public health roots of zoning: in search of active living's legal genealogy. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Skosey P, Persky D, Chung P, Ponce de Leon M. Revise, recreate, rezone: a neighborhood guide to zoning. Chicago: Metropolitan Planning Council; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Elliott DL. A better way to zone: ten principles to create more livable cities. Washington: Island Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Duerksen C. Saving the world through zoning. Planning. 2008;74:28–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Maantay J. Zoning, equity, and public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1033–41. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.7.1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ransom MM, Greiner A, Kochtitzky C, Major KS. Pursuing health equity: zoning codes and public health. J Law Med Ethics. 2011;39(Suppl 1):94–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00576.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schilling J. Creating a regulatory blueprint for healthy community design: a local government guide to reforming zoning and land development codes. Washington: International City/County Management Association; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ. Notes on the geometry of crime. In: Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL, editors. Environmental criminology. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1981. pp. 27–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.McCord ES, Ratcliffe JH, Garcia RM, Taylor RB. Nonresidential crime attractors and generators elevate perceived neighborhood crime and incivilities. J Res Crime Delinq. 2007;44:295–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Taylor RB. Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. New York: Westview Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Scribner RA, MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. Alcohol outlet density and motor vehicle crashes in Los Angeles County cities. J Stud Alcohol. 1994;55:447–53. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1994.55.447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gruenewald PJ, Remer L. Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30:1184–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00141.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hume C, Timperio A, Salmon J, Carver A, Giles-Corti B, Crawford D. Walking and cycling to school: predictors of increases among children and adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:195–200. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Timperio A, Salmon J, Telford A, Crawford D. Perceptions of local neighbourhood environments and their relationship to childhood overweight and obesity. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005;29:170–5. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Forman H, Kerr J, Norman GJ, Saelens BE, Durant NH, Harris SK, et al. Reliability and validity of destination-specific barriers to walking and cycling for youth. Prev Med. 2008;46:311–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Addy CL, Wilson DK, Kirtland KA, Ainsworth BE, Sharpe P, Kimsey D. Associations of perceived social and physical environmental supports with physical activity and walking behavior. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:440–3. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lovasi GS, Neckerman KM, Quinn JW, Weiss CC, Rundle A. Effect of individual or neighborhood disadvantage on the association between neighborhood walkability and body mass index. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:279–84. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.138230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.LaVeist TA, Wallace JM., Jr Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhoods. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:613–7. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00004-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.American Society of Planning Officials. Planning advisory service [cited 2012 Oct 31] Available from: URL: http://www.planning.org/pas/at60/report115.htm.
  • 29.Baltimore City Department of Planning. Comprehensive master plan overview [cited 2013 Jan 25] Available from: URL: http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Planning/ComprehensiveMasterPlan/Overview.aspx.
  • 30.City of Baltimore. Directions for drafting the revised zoning code. 2009 [cited 2013 Jan 25] Available from: URL: http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/agencies/planning/public%20downloads/042109_DraftingDirections.pdf.
  • 31.World Health Organization. Gothenburg consensus paper. Brussels: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999. Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group. Practice standards for health impact assessment (HIA), version 1. Oakland (CA): North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Richards S, Johns B, Gibbons L, Ham C, Geoghegan E, Ames A, et al. Baltimore City neighborhood health profiles: briefing to the Baltimore City Council. Baltimore: Baltimore City Health Department; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Feldstein LM. General plans and zoning: a toolkit for building healthy, vibrant communities. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Health Care Services; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thornton R, Fichtenberg C, Greiner A, Feingold B, Ellen J, Jennings J, et al. Zoning for a healthy Baltimore: a health impact assessment of the TransForm Baltimore comprehensive zoning code rewrite. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Child and Community Health Research; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group. Minimum elements and practice standards for health impact assessment, version 2. Oakland (CA): North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mindell J, Hansell A, Morrison D, Douglas M, Joffe M. What do we need for robust, quantitative health impact assessment? J Public Health. 2001;23:173–8. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/23.3.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Power G. Apartheid Baltimore style: the residential segregation ordinances of 1910–1913. Maryland Law Rev. 1983;42:289–330. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Vital Statistics Administration. Maryland vital statistics annual report 2008. Baltimore: Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baltimore City Health Department. Fact sheet: overweight and obesity in Baltimore City, 1997–2007. Baltimore: Baltimore City Health Department; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.ESRI, Inc. ArcGIS®: Version 9.3. Redlands (CA): ESRI, Inc.; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.GeoLytics. Census 2000, summary file 3 [cited 2010 Feb 12] Available from: URL: http://www.geolytics.com/Default.asp.
  • 43.Franco M, Diez Roux AV, Glass TA, Caballero B, Brancati FL. Neighborhood characteristics and availability of healthy foods in Baltimore. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:561–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jargowsky PA. Poverty and place: ghettos, barrios, and the American city. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Scharper J. City farms could flourish under new zoning code: planners want to make Baltimore healthier, more walkable. The Baltimore Sun. 2010 Jun 14; [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Greiner A, German D, Feingold B, Petteway R, Garoon J. How does zoning impact public health? Baltimore: Rewrite Baltimore; 2010. Also available from: URL: http://www.rewritebaltimore.org/pdf/PUBLIC_HEALTH.pdf [cited 2013 Jan 17] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form—findings from SmarTraq. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):117–25. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kerr J, Frank L, Sallis JF, Chapman J. Urban form correlates of pedestrian travel in youth: differences by gender, race-ethnicity, and household attributes. Transport Res—Part D. 2007;12:177–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li F, Harmer PA, Cardinal BJ, Bosworth M, Acock A, Johnson-Shelton D, et al. Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged 50–75. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Rodriguez DA, Evenson KR, Roux AV, Brines SJ. Land use, residential density, and walking: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mobley LR, Root ED, Finkelstein EA, Khaxjou O, Farris RP, Will JC. Environment, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk in low-income women. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:327–32. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brown BB, Yamada I, Smith KR, Zick CD, Kowaleski-Jones L, Fan JX. Mixed land use and walkability: variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health Place. 2009;15:1130–41. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Stucky TD, Ottensmann JR. Land use and violent crime. Criminology. 2009;47:1223–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gruenewald PJ, Remer L. Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30:1184–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00141.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Branas CC, Elliott MR, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Wiebe DJ. Alcohol consumption, alcohol outlets, and the risk of being assaulted with a gun. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2009;33:906–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00912.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Campbell CA, Hahn RA, Elder R, Brewer R, Chattopadhyay S, Fielding J, et al. The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:556–69. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Parker RN. Alcohol and violence: connections, evidence and possibilities for prevention. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2004;(Suppl 2):157–63. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2004.10400051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Livingston M, Chikritzhs T, Room R. Changing the density of alcohol outlets to reduce alcohol-related problems. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26:557–66. doi: 10.1080/09595230701499191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Branas CC, Elliott MR, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Wiebe DJ. Alcohol consumption, alcohol outlets, and the risk of being assaulted with a gun. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2009;33:906–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00912.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Philadelphia2035: planning and zoning for a healthier city. The city's new comprehensive plan and its role in improving public health. 2010 [cited 2013 Jan 24] Available from: URL: http://phila2035.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Phila2035_Healthier_City_Report.pdf.
  • 62.Philadelphia City Planning Commission. About Philadelphia2035 [cited 2012 Oct 31] Available from: URL: http://phila2035.org/home-page/about.
  • 63.City of Baltimore. Liquor Board/Moratorium [cited 2012 Apr 30] Available from: URL: http://baltimorecity.gov/Government/BoardsandCommissions/LiquorBoard/Moratorium.aspx.
  • 64.City of Baltimore, Office of the City Council President. City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake calls for public hearing to address liquor license enforcement in Baltimore [press release] 2008 Mar 17 [cited 2013 Jan 17] Available from: URL: http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/PDF_Files/2008/031708LiquorLicense Enforcement.pdf.
  • 65.Baltimore City Department of Planning. Public health, crime and liquor stores [cited 2012 Oct 31] Available from: URL: http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/MDBALT-492514.

Articles from Public Health Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES