Background and Purpose
Achieving increased physical activity and improved health at the population-level requires innovative solutions, including changes that make active transportation choices the easy and obvious choices for people of all ages. While many factors in the built environment help to shape physical activity behaviors, trails are certainly acknowledged as an important component of the green infrastructure of a healthy community. Access to and use of trails is strongly associated with increased physical activity and improved health. However, data are lacking about the process of trail construction, which by nature, requires collaboration between groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the development, construction, and promotion of trail projects funded by a local foundation in the state of Kansas, between 2005-2012. There were two primary objectives of this study: 1). To identify key factors associated with the success of developing, constructing, and promoting the trail projects; and 2). To understand the trails’ perceived impacts on the community, including physical activity behaviors of community members.
Description
Since 2005, the Sunflower Foundation’s Sunflower Trails program provided funding to community entities to construct short trails that served as venues for physical activity and/or active connections between destinations. By 2012, over $900,000 was awarded for 72 trails across Kansas. Trails varied in surface material (e.g., crushed rock, asphalt, concrete) and length (e.g., 1/5 to 8.8 miles). In 2011, the foundation contracted with university researchers to conduct a formal evaluation of the trails’ impacts. Qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews (n=20) selected using a stratified random sample of primary contacts for the trail projects. Stratification was based on the type of primary organization for each project (i.e., school, community organization, or municipality). The structured interviews consisted of 12 over-arching questions in the following areas: collaborative process of building the trail, integration of the trail within the community, and impact of the trail. Participants provided verbal informed consent. Interviews lasted 20-30 minutes and were conducted by phone. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two separate research assistants independently reviewed interview transcriptions and developed a list of themes. Together the research assistants refined the themes until consensus was reached. Interview transcripts were then double-coded using the themes.
Lessons Learned
Ten themes and 55 sub-themes were identified for 568 comments. The most comments (n = 259) were for “collaboration,” which were broken down further into 18 sub-themes that included collaborations with businesses, city administration, non-profit/community organization, school district, public works, local health and wellness organization, parks and recreation, the county, community members, convention and tourism group, university, developers, home-owners association, grass-roots organization, hospital, health department, safe routes to school, and the state. Eighty-three comments were made regarding the “impact of the trails on physical activity levels.” Six sub-themes included physical activity for the general population, children, walkers/joggers, the elderly, families, and through increased safety. The third theme, “future trail-related projects,” had 42 comments divided into 6 sub-themes: extension of the trail, no further work, other trails, addition of amenities, health and wellness activities, and creation of a bike/pedestrian task force. Thirty-seven comments were made about “events” associated with the trails; five sub-themes included walking clubs/programs, bike events, educational programs, other programming, and no events. “Promotional efforts” was mentioned in 36 comments and four sub-themes: advertised by news/websites, ceremony, local events, and other (e.g., brochures). “Additional costs” were the topic of 28 comments and four sub-themes: paid by the sponsoring organization, absorbed by local business, no additional costs, and other (e.g., fundraisers). Twenty-three comments mentioned a “champion” for the trail, with 5 sub-themes that included a city staff member/department, a local community member/organization, a school district employee, an elected official, and other (e.g., a county extension office). Twenty comments each were made for “assessment,” “maintenance,” and “level of difficulty” for constructing the trail. Only three trail project reported any type of assessment (e.g., trail counters), six trail projects were considered to be more difficult to complete than expected, and responsibility for trail maintenance belonged to city departments, the sponsoring organization, and the county.
Conclusions and Implications
Trail projects utilized collaborative efforts across disciplines. Completed trails positively impacted physical activity behaviors for users, including children. Most trails were successfully promoted through events and promotional efforts, and having a champion increased this success. Despite incurring additional costs, many participants indicated that they were planning more trail projects for the current or additional trails.
Next Steps
Future trail projects should incorporate formal assessment in order to objectively determine actual use and impact on community members. However, this lack of assessment provided us with the opportunity to conduct this evaluation project as a university-foundation-community partnership.
Support / Funding Source
This project was funded by the Sunflower Foundation of Kansas.
