Addressing Pedestrian Safety: A Content Analysis of Pedestrian Master Plans in North Carolina

Abstract

Objective: To systematically examine the content of pedestrian master plans in North Carolina in order to assess whether and how these plans were designed to improve pedestrian safety.

Methods: All current pedestrian master plans in North Carolina through 2008 were gathered and examined using content analysis. A safety quality index was developed to assess the thoroughness with which a plan addressed safety issues in four categories: (1) goal statement, (2) analysis of current conditions, (3) policy proposals, and (4) program proposals. Plans were also compared according to the implementation guidelines included and on the recent pedestrian accident history of the municipalities in which they were developed.

Results: Forty-six plans were developed in North Carolina through 2008, either at the municipal or regional level. Almost all pedestrian master plans in North Carolina described improving safety as one of their goals. The majority attempted to do so by improving the built environment through engineering projects, including building new sidewalks, trails, or greenways and by upgrading existing facilities. Regional plans tended to propose fewer policies and programs, as well as less specific proposals, than did municipal plans. Although most plans contained multiple proposals to address pedestrian safety, few plans identified a group accountable for implementation, a timeline of implementation actions, or the resources necessary to make implementation possible. Municipalities with a recent history of pedestrian injuries were more likely to develop plans than those with fewer pedestrian injuries. Plans developed by municipalities with a recent history of pedestrian fatalities tended to more thoroughly addressed safety.

Conclusion: Safety was a major component of nearly every pedestrian master plan in North Carolina. Most plans contained multiple proposals to address pedestrian safety. These findings lay the foundation for future research evaluating both the implementation and the impact of these planning documents on the safety of pedestrians.

Keywords:

• Pedestrian safety
• Pedestrian master plans
• Built environment
• Planning
• Walking
• Policy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported through the North Carolina Physical Activity Policy Research Center, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cooperative agreement #U48-DP000059 and an educational grant from the Southern Transportation Center at the University of Tennessee. The UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention is a member of the Prevention Research Centers Program of the CDC. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC. We thank Ginny Lee, David Salvesen, Sara Satinsky, Suzanne Havala Hobbs, the staff of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Center at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, the North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, especially Helen Chaney and Mary Meletiou, and the anonymous reviewers.

This work does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the NCIOM.

At the time of the study, David K. Jones was a student in the Department of Health Policy and Management, UNC–Chapel Hill, and was a Jim Bernstein Health Policy Scholar at the North Carolina Institute of Medicine.

At the time of the study, Semra A. Aytur was a Postdoctoral Fellow at UNC–Chapel Hill in the Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health.

Notes

∗All percentages use a denominator of the row n.

∗Pedestrian injury and fatality rates were summarized for the 3 years prior to the year the plan was completed. Exceptions to this include (1) Boone, NC: plan was not included because data were not available before 1997, after its plan was adopted; (2) Asheville, NC: plan was adopted in 1999, so 1997–1999 were used instead of the 3 years prior. The state averages were based on 2005–2007 data.

∗∗Percentages based on row n.