Skip to main content

Table 3 Perceived feasibility of possible policy measures addressing environmental determinants of physical activity among children

From: Feasibility of multi-sector policy measures that create activity-friendly environments for children: results of a Delphi study

Policy measures developed in the first Delphi round

Type of policy measure

Perceived overall feasibility (weighted median score)a

Consensus (SD)

Range

Municipality A: social cohesion

1. Multi-use of school yards b

Juridical/environmental

5.08

0.75

4.00-6.37

2. Subsidy for citizens' initiatives to increase social cohesionb

Economic

5.05

0.80

3.10-6.30

3. Democratic decision process when implementing new neighborhood facilities

Juridical

4.65

0.65

4.00-6.30

4. Stimulate/oblige parents to choose primary school within own neighborhoodb

Communicative/juridical

4.30

1.26

1.00-5.47

5. Spatial planning that enhances daily encountersb

Environmental

4.10

0.95

2.90-6.20

Municipality A: accessibility of facilities

6. Attractive (walking) routes for children b

Environmental

5.19

0.83

3.60-7.00

7. Informal play facilities (fallow lands, sand hills)

Juridical/environmental

5.01

0.81

3.80-6.50

8. Multi-use of vacant parking placesb

Juridical/environmental

4.58

0.80

3.00-5.30

9. Outdoor exercise facilities for adults (role models)

Environmental

4.50

0.74

3.00-5.50

10. Increase economic accessibility of sport facilities

Economic

4.10

0.65

3.50-5.70

Municipality A: traffic safety

11. Local Safety Label for primary schools

Communicative

5.25

1.02

3.70-6.70

12. Fencing off streets for outdoor play

Juridical/environmental

5.25

1.41

2.00-6.04

13. Enhance responsibility of school boards and parents for traffic safety b

Communicative

5.20

0.73

3.60-6.00

14. Car-free/low-traffic school zones during peak hoursc

Juridical/environmental

4.43

0.70

3.20-5.15

Municipality B: social cohesion

15. Use major changes in neighborhoods to increase social cohesion

Communicative

5.43

0.90

3.00-6.20

16. Stimulate initiatives of citizens to increase social cohesionb

Economic/communicative

5.22

1.03

2.80-6.80

17. Multi-use of school yardsb

Juridical/environmental

5.05

1.51

1.30-7.00

18. Increase social cohesion by business licensing requirements

Juridical

4.61

0.70

3.80-6.10

Municipality B: accessibility of facilities

19. Attractive (walking) routes for childrenb

Environmental

5.51

1.09

2.80-7.00

20. Multi-use of vacant parking placesb

Juridical/environmental

4.48

0.64

3.90-5.63

21. Dispersal of play facilities over the neighborhood

Environmental

3.83

0.74

2.90-5.50

22. Car free neighborhoods

Environmental

3.35

1.11

2.30-5.80

Municipality B: traffic safety

23. Supervised active commuting to school

Communicative

5.68

0.99

3.90-6.85

24. Increase awareness for active commuting to school

Communicative

4.90

1.04

2.80-6.35

25. School zones that discourage carsc

Juridical/environmental

4.40

0.85

2.70-5.60

26. Infrastructural facilities that help children reach popular destinations

Environmental

4.20

0.81

2.70-4.95

Municipality C: social cohesion

27. Fencing off streets for outdoor play b

Juridical/environmental

5.05

0.83

4.05-6.53

28. Maintain play function of play facilities for children

Juridical

4.55

0.40

4.00-5.10

29. Stimulate/oblige parents to choose primary school within own neighborhood b

Communicative/juridical

3.70

0.54

3.15-4.50

30. Improve neighborhood's population composition

Juridical/economical

2.85

1.55

1.75-6.00

Municipality C: accessibility of facilities

31. Parking policies that stimulate active transportation

Environmental

4.90

0.64

4.00-5.80

32. Attract facilities in the neighborhood by adjusting the municipal zoning plan

Juridical

4.90

0.44

4.20-5.45

33. Physical education facilities in the direct surroundings of the school

Environmental

3.80

0.35

3.60-4.55

34. Dependences of well-known (professional) sport clubs in the neighborhood

Environmental

3.00

0.76

2.60-4.75

Municipality C: traffic safety

35. Communication around active commuting

Communicative

5.60

0.46

5.20-6.65

36. Traffic education for children at primary schools

Communicative

5.40

0.69

4.40-6.45

37. Attractive routes for recreation (bicycling, skating)

Environmental

4.30

0.57

3.80-5.20

38. Improve public transportation supply

Environmental

3.85

0.89

2.80-5.55

Municipality D: social cohesion

39. Assign a part of the neighborhood maintenance budget to citizens

Economic

5.50

0.76

4.00-6.06

40. Organizing agreements with local actors about neighborhood activities

Juridical/communicative

5.40

0.48

4.75-6.20

41. Assign part of the budget for neighborhood activities to local actors

Economic

5.30

0.59

4.10-5.70

42. Neighborhood agreements that increases the feeling of social safety

Juridical/communicative

5.15

0.68

4.80-6.50

43. Spatial planning that enhances daily encounters b

Environmental

5.10

0.53

4.40-5.90

Municipality D: accessibility of facilities

44. Safety Impact Assessment for all sport facilities

Juridical/communicative

5.80

0.91

4.30-6.80

45. Physical infrastructure to increase the accessibility of sport facilities

Environmental

5.40

1.15

2.57-5.75

46. Spatial planning that fits the needs of different target groups (youth, elderly)

Environmental

4.90

0.74

3.50-5.70

47. Location of sport facilities (easily accessible from the neighborhood)

Environmental/juridical

4.45

0.69

3.80-5.70

Municipality D: traffic safety

48. Provide users of facilities with information to enhance traffic safety b

Communicative

5.75

0.27

5.40-6.10

49. Couple maximum traffic speeds to standard street types

Juridical

5.45

0.51

4.40-5.90

50. Car-free/low-traffic school zonesc

Juridical/environmental

4.50

0.57

3.45-5.30

51. Deregulation of traffic situations

Juridical/environmental

4.30

0.52

3.90-5.37

  1. a Within each municipality and within each determinant, policy measures are sorted descending on weighted overall feasibility score during the third Delphi round. Consistently feasible policy measures are represented in bold font, consistently less feasible policy measures are represented in italic font.
  2. b Policy measures that were put forward in two municipalities.
  3. c Policy measures that were put forward in three municipalities.