Creating built environments that support both active and sustainable lifestyles is a growing global priority given the cobenefits for human, ecosystem, and planetary health.1 It is also important for managing urbanization challenges, including traffic congestion, air quality, and urban sprawl.2 Public policy, which constitutes the standing decisions of governments at all levels, is a central component of these efforts.3,4 Policies may stipulate goals and objectives of governments concerning physical activity (PA) and/or its determinants, provide mandates for strategies to achieve these, allocate resources to enable action, and put in place enablers and controls that directly influence individuals, organizations and environments. Laws, which can comprise legislation, regulation, standards, and other instruments, are a powerful policy lever by virtue of their government imprimatur, durability, and enforceability. The World Health Organization has highlighted the significant role that law can play in addressing inactivity, identifying “coherent policy, laws, regulatory frameworks, and standards” as one of the 3 key actions required to build strong systems and built environments that enable more active people.5
Public health law research can provide contextual insights to inform the effective use of laws that may impact PA, directly or indirectly.6,7 The growing body of PA policy research, which has largely excluded an investigation of law, has encompassed audits of the coverage and characteristics of PA policies, analysis of factors (political, social, and evidence related) affecting their adoption, and assessment of the degree to which policies are successfully implemented.8–10 The limited attention given to law in these studies may arise from lack of knowledge about the legal system, including types of legal instruments and where these reside across jurisdictions and levels of government as well as insufficient technical expertise to conduct legal analysis.
Studies that have investigated laws related to PA have examined factors associated with the inclusion of goals or provisions related to PA across multiple types of state legislation.11 There has been research focused on selected areas of lawmaking, such as planning statutes affecting the built environment and PA as well as transportation laws governing the planning of infrastructure that enables safe mobility (including walking and cycling) by road users.12,13 Other PA-specific examples of research include studies of the impact of state laws governing physical education in high schools on levels of attendance in these classes14 and the uptake of laws mandating policies in child care services regarding PA, outdoor play, and screen time by children.15
Although limited in number, these studies illustrate the diversity in the types and levels of laws that are relevant to PA as well as the potential forms of public health law research that can inform the more effective use of these instruments. Recently, the Regulatory Approaches to Movement, Physical Activity, Recreation, Transport, and Sport (RAMPARTS) framework was developed to facilitate an understanding of the wide scope for legal interventions that promote PA.16 This is aligned with the World Health Organization Global Action Plan for Physical Activity17 and shows that laws can be harnessed to support 4 domains: active societies (ie, norms and attitudes), build active environments (ie, places and spaces), enable active people (ie, programs and opportunities), and establish active systems (ie, governance and policy enablers). The framework identifies 7 types of legal strategies that can be used within these 4 domains, namely: educating and informing, providing funding, creating incentives, setting standards or requiring something, authorizing or mandating, prohibiting or discouraging, and exempting or deregulating.
RAMPARTS provides a foundational framework for legal mapping studies, which can be undertaken to determine the extent and characteristics of laws that can influence PA and its determinants as well as the legal infrastructure in place for coordinated action. For policy makers, this evidence can identify gaps, inconsistencies, and opportunities that need to be addressed to strengthen the prevailing legal framework, whereas for advocates and researchers seeking to influence this process from the outside, it can be used in awareness raising and monitoring of progress over time. The Australian Systems Approach to Physical Activity (ASAPa) project has undertaken one of the few PA legal mapping studies, focusing on laws that influence walking at the population level across state and territory jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to describe the systematic steps followed in this mapping study. This provides a guide for researchers and policy makers who recognize the need for a thorough evidence base to underpin efforts to strengthen laws that influence PA at the population level.
Stages in Legal Mapping
We describe the key stages of legal mapping (Figure 1), drawing on the processes described by Tremper et al18 and Anderson et al19 and as applied in our examination of state and territory laws that influence walking and (to a limited extent) cycling in Australia.
—Ten key steps in legal mapping.
Citation: Journal of Physical Activity and Health 20, 2; 10.1123/jpah.2022-0279
Clarify the Legal Research Objectives
Aim of the Step
A common objective for legal mapping is to analyze the characteristics of the law or the legal terrain and application of laws in a particular policy area (eg, the prevalence and distribution of specific laws, variations in characteristics of laws across jurisdictions and over time).20 This can provide insight into law making trends, prevalence of laws that may reduce or amplify inequities or benefit priority population groups, and potential gaps and areas in policy making requiring attention. The critical first step in legal mapping is to, therefore, clarify the study objectives and research questions as this will inform the study design, the jurisdictions, and the types of laws to be examined and help ensure that the legal measures generate data that will address the research objectives and questions.19
Factors to Consider
Discussions with policy makers as well as subject matter experts and practitioners, along with a review of any relevant published and/or gray literature, can help identify whether similar studies have been conducted, potential areas of investigation, and how legal mapping may be beneficial. Reviewing the literature and conducting a preliminary audit of relevant laws may confirm the need for legal mapping and, if so, sharpen the proposed objectives of the research.
If the purpose of the research is to investigate the prevalence or distribution of laws that may reduce inequity in PA outcomes or benefit priority populations, it may be useful to focus the mapping on characteristics of the built environment that are connected with these outcomes or compare the characteristics addressed in laws that apply to planning and development in selected zones (eg, inclusionary zoning that ensures the provision of social and affordable housing in high-amenity areas that are well served by public transport).21,22
Application to ASAPa
In the ASAPa legal mapping study, discussions with a cross-jurisdictional, cross-agency network of policy makers involved in PA promotion identified the need for greater understanding about how laws inhibit or promote walking, which is a widely adopted policy priority. A subsequent exploration of the key legislative and statutory instruments in each jurisdiction that addressed built environment design considerations for walking23 revealed considerable variability in the coverage, level of detail, and approaches used by jurisdictions. This substantiated the need for a systematic examination of the scope and strength of legal support for creating walkable environments. We considered that legal mapping would be appropriate to undertake as a next step as this offers a set of techniques for assessing and capturing important features and variations across laws and policies.24
In follow-up discussions with a subject matter expert in planning healthy livable cities (B.G.-C.), several elements of the legal framework affecting the built environment’s influence upon walking were highlighted as important focus areas in a legal mapping study. These were (1) the extent of legislative support for an integrated approach to delivering PA-promoting outcomes, (2) the extent to which state and territory laws contained defined and measurable standards for promoting active communities, (3) the alignment of standards with evidence-based recommendations (as set out by the Healthy Liveable Cities Lab’s Urban Liveability Checklist25 and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Pedestrians First Guide26), and (4) how planning legislation addressed implementation and monitoring.
These were considered important areas to investigate for 4 main reasons:
- •PA is a cross-sectoral issue requiring a systems-based response. A lack of legislative support for an integrated approach may signal poor policy prioritization of PA across different sectors.1,27
- •The need for clarity of guidance. Previous research has identified a need for urban planning policies to be more specific and prescriptive about actions to achieve progress on health-promoting outcomes.1,28–30
- •The need for evidence-based standards. Evidence-based standards are now available for numerous built environment characteristics.25,26 However, previous policy research (not limited to laws) found that standards vary across different jurisdictions in Australia, and many are not evidence based.1,31
- •Importance of enforcement and monitoring. Adequate enforcement and monitoring are both necessary for the optimal implementation of written laws.1,18 Setting out how laws will be enforced, monitored, and by whom can clarify the obligations of government entities, empower officials to perform their duties, and show that funding is needed and should be allocated for these functions.27,32
Define the Legal Scope and Framework
Aim of the Step
The RAMPARTS framework highlights the multiple policy areas wherein legal interventions may support and strengthen a whole-system approach for increasing population PA, aligning with the 4 Global Action Plan for Physical Activity policy domains. Carefully defining the legal scope of a mapping study is necessary to make optimal use of resources given the breadth and complexity of potentially relevant laws while ensuring that the collected data address the research objectives and questions.18
Factors to Consider
As part of this process, the following factors should be considered:
- •the sectors or fields of lawmaking that are of most relevance to the issue (eg, environmental, planning, transport);
- •the levels or sources of lawmaking that will be included: Lawmaking may involve parliaments, the executive, ministers, government departments, and/or statutory authorities at multiple jurisdictional levels (eg, national, state, local).23 It may also involve the judicial system (through the making of case law). Understanding the primary level or source of lawmaking for a particular issue is important as this may vary across jurisdictions. The mapping will need to take account of any major variations that may affect interpretation of the data (eg, state laws could reveal a different picture in jurisdictions where local authorities play a more significant role in lawmaking for the built environment);
- •the types of documents that will be considered “laws” for the purposes of the legal mapping (eg, legislation comprising acts and regulations, other implementing instruments with legal effect): When deciding what documents will be considered as “laws” for the purposes of the mapping study, regulations and nonlegislative instruments with legal effect should generally be included within scope (in addition to the overarching act) as these underlying instruments will often significantly affect how that act is implemented. This is important to produce accurate measurements of the law18; and
- •the types of legal strategies that will be the focus of measurement for the coding framework.
The legal strategies that may be used to influence PA may be thought of broadly in terms of interventional, infrastructural, and incidental.20 Interventional strategies are those intended to directly influence the outcomes or mediators of PA (eg, a law requiring a minimum rate of bicycle parking to be provided in office buildings, which would be classified as a “standard setting” strategy in the RAMPARTS framework). Infrastructural strategies are those that establish powers, duties, and institutions (eg, laws that integrate objectives to promote health as part of the planning and transport system, an example of an “authorize or establish a mandate” strategy in the RAMPARTS framework). Incidental strategies are not overtly aimed at addressing PA but have the effect of supporting it (eg, zoning regulations that promote mixed-use developments to increase the availability of destinations that residents can walk or cycle to, another example of “setting standards”). When examining the laws that shape “active environments,” planning laws will generally be the main focus, but there may also be relevant laws in public health, transport, and environmental sustainability/climate change. Figure 2 is an adapted subview of the RAMPARTS framework, focusing on the main considerations described earlier, for defining the legal scope and framework of laws to be mapped in relation to the built environment for PA. The considerations relating to the “lawmaking” component of the original RAMPARTS framework are defined further in the four outer circles appearing on the left side of the figure.
—A subview of the RAMPARTS framework16 identifying key considerations for defining legal scope and framework of laws to be mapped in relation to the built environment for physical activity. RAMPARTS indicates Regulatory Approaches to Movement, Physical Activity, Recreation, Transport, and Sport.
Citation: Journal of Physical Activity and Health 20, 2; 10.1123/jpah.2022-0279
The timing of the legal mapping study also needs to be considered; if significant changes to relevant law/s are forthcoming, it may be preferable to delay the project to the date these proposed laws become effective to capture them. Alternatively, it may be beneficial to proceed as the research findings may provide an impetus for proposed changes to progress to the next stage or identify opportunities where the draft laws could be improved before they are enacted. If the objective of the research is to evaluate associations with built environment or PA outcomes, it will be important to consider the timing of the study as there is often a time lag between the date the laws come into effect and when they are implemented at a scale sufficient to detect changes in the built environment or behaviors.33–36
Application to ASAPa
Background research from the preliminary audit23 enabled clarification of the scope and types of laws relevant to the ASAPa legal mapping study. This found that each state’s and territory’s planning act provided the overarching framework for the respective jurisdiction’s planning systems and that detailed planning and design considerations were primarily addressed by state/territory-level statutory instruments (developed by government departments and/or statutory authorities). Planning “laws” were defined as written policies that had legal effect, created by parliament, ministers, government departments, and/or statutory authorities (eg, acts, regulations, and other instruments attaining legal enforceability under an enabling act, regulation, or other legally binding instrument). They had to be laws with state- or territory-wide application or region-level instruments covering the capital city and greater metropolitan area. Nonstatutory policies (eg, guidelines and operational policies) were excluded unless they were given legal weight under legislation or other legally binding instrument. Also excluded were local-level laws or laws applying to specific named geographical areas. In addition to planning laws, we considered, to a limited extent, public health, transport, and climate change legislation.
We included laws in effect as of November 29, 2021, thus excluding any draft instruments or instruments that may have been enacted after this date. This date was chosen to ensure the inclusion of significant legal developments that we were aware (through publicly available information and insight from B.G.-C. and her industry contacts) were close to becoming approved and effective in one of the jurisdictions. Although we were also aware of proposed amendments in other jurisdictions, these were still undergoing consultation and would not be finalized until a much later date.
Select the Research Design
Aim of the Step
There are multiple ways in which legal mapping can be conducted, but 2 forms follow a scientific and rigorous process that can generate robust data for use in “legal epidemiology,” the scientific study and deployment of law as a factor in the cause, distribution, and prevention of disease and injury in a population.24 These are the cross-sectional form known as “legal assessment” (which tracks laws at a specific point in time) and the longitudinal form known as “policy surveillance” (which tracks laws over time).24
If updated over time, legal mapping can enable other types of research to be conducted, such as intervention studies (which may examine laws’ effects on health outcomes or mediating factors) and mechanism studies (which may examine the specific ways in which law affects environments, behaviors, or health outcomes and compare the effectiveness of different approaches).20
Factors to Consider
The objectives and questions will inform the research design and focus of the legal coding framework. Legal mapping will typically involve the generation of descriptive statistics capturing the distribution of the law and variation in the law across the jurisdictions studied.37 However, this can be complemented by other methods with the potential to bring additional insights. This might include, for example, key informant interviews to understand the factors that lead to differences in policy responses; content analysis to explore political deliberations and debates about certain legislation; surveys of regulators, regulated entities, and the public to understand how the written law is understood and implemented in practice; and case studies to examine in detail how a particular authority performs a given mission or how it uses its powers under a law.20
Application to ASAPa
As our aim was to develop understanding of the legal environment for PA across Australian states and territories, our research design was a cross-sectional legal assessment that could be updated in future to develop a longitudinal data set for monitoring the update and development of laws over time.
Conduct Background Research and Develop Preliminary Coding Questions
Aim of the Step
Coding for legal mapping is the process of transforming collected legal text into a set of meaningful and cohesive categories.38 The aim of coding is to capture objectively measurable characteristics of the legal text rather than to interpret the legal text or analyze how the law might apply in a particular circumstance.39 Background research into the legal landscape will be essential for understanding key variations in relevant dimensions of laws and how coding questions can be used to elicit these variations.19
Factors to Consider
When drafting potential coding questions, consider how the data might eventually be analyzed and reported.39 It can be helpful to review the literature for examples of similar studies (eg, policy content analyses) in the relevant subject area or for the relevant jurisdiction/s as these may have suitable coding questions that can be adopted or adapted and enable comparison with the findings of other studies. Secondary sources (eg, any existing compilations or commentaries about relevant laws) can also be helpful for providing insight into similarities and differences in approaches used by various jurisdictions to address an issue.
The coding scheme should aim to distinguish important differences in the features of laws across the jurisdictions. Preliminary legal research can help to identify what these differences are and, depending on the number of jurisdictions being investigated, could be conducted across all jurisdictions or a subset (randomly or purposively selected).18 The required sample size will depend on the complexity of the laws being studied and the existing knowledge the research team has about legal variation in the area.18 The legal research can then be used to refine the coding questions and formulate preliminary response options for each question.
Application to ASAPa
Our approach was to compose preliminary coding questions that could investigate each of the conceptual areas identified earlier (see “Clarify the Legal Research Objectives” section) in more detail. In relation to investigating the extent of legislative support for an integrated approach to PA-promoting outcomes (conceptual area 1), we included some of the questions used in a content analysis of Victorian state legislation.27 Such criteria had been developed to reflect best-practice principles for integrated planning for health and policy that had been derived from the literature.27 In relation to investigating the extent to which state and territory laws contained standards for promoting active communities and the alignment of these to evidence-based recommendations (conceptual areas 2 and 3), we used the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Pedestrians First Guide26 as a framework for constructing broad questions according to characteristics at the city and neighborhood levels and for transport.
At this preliminary stage, the purpose of our coding questions was to provide a structure for our background research; therefore, our questions were mainly open ended and aimed to determine whether there were defined and measurable standards in the laws of each jurisdiction for a variety of characteristics: (1) at the city level, characteristics such as dwelling density and destination accessibility (activity center, public open space, schools); (2) at the neighborhood level, street block size, footpaths, provision of bicycle infrastructure, and active frontage; and (3) for transport, distance to public transport and demand management (eg, restrictions on car parking availability). In relation to implementation and monitoring (conceptual area 4), our scoping questions aimed to understand how quality design outcomes were promoted under the planning legislation (eg, whether and how they addressed design review panels and processes, whether and how they specified who was responsible for enforcement, and whether monitoring obligations were set out and the nature of these obligations).
Resource and time constraints precluded having more than one person dedicated to background research; T.N. conducted the research for the 8 jurisdictions, extracting the relevant legal provisions pertaining to each preliminary coding question to enable comparisons of the relevant dimensions and complexity of laws across the jurisdictions.
Undertake Systematic Search of Laws
Aim of the Step
Relevant laws meeting the legal scope and addressing the research objectives/study questions can be found by conducting original legal research, by consulting any available secondary sources (eg, compilations, audits, or summaries of the relevant law), and/or with the aid of key informant interviews or surveys of policy makers or practitioners familiar with the relevant legal or policy regime. The aim is to ensure that all relevant laws within the agreed scope of the study are identified and considered for analysis.
Factors to Consider
Original legal research (conducted by those with legal training and experience) has been found to produce the most accurate results,18 but a combination of approaches may be needed. As a quality control measure, it is recommended that 2 people (with legal training) conduct the research independently of each other and then compare results.40 If that is not possible, one person (with legal training) could conduct the research, and additional measures could be employed to increase the likelihood that all relevant laws have been identified (eg, the list of laws could be reviewed and verified as complete by a subject matter expert or urban planning specialists from the different jurisdictions).
The approach used to identify relevant laws will be informed by the researchers’ familiarity with the legal framework for the given area, the availability and currency of secondary sources, and access to any legal databases and their coverage (eg, some may only cover principal legislation, whereas others may also include subordinate instruments). One of the main advantages of legal databases is that a number of jurisdictions can be searched at one time using a single set of keywords; however, they will not usually contain nonlegislative instruments that have legal effect, so these would need to be located separately. It is important to document the search strategy in a protocol so that it can be replicated in future to update the data set and monitor changes over time. It can be helpful to include an appendix in the protocol listing the laws that were considered and citing the source of their legal effect (ie, identifying the relevant provision and legal instrument that gives that law its legal effect) as well as any documents that were excluded because they were not considered “laws” or were draft documents at the time. Doing so can help resolve any confusion when revisiting these decisions at a later stage and help to locate new relevant documents in the update process (eg, draft documents may have been become effective by the time the data set is updated).
Application to ASAPa
In the ASAPa legal mapping study, we first consulted the National Heart Foundation’s Healthy Active by Design website,41 which collates statutory policies and legislation/regulations for each state and territory according to different design features for active living (eg, public open space, destinations, movement networks). We also consulted another secondary resource, the National Liveability Report (2017),31 to check the list of legislative and statutory policies that researchers from the Healthy Liveable Cities Lab at RMIT’s Centre for Urban Research included in their assessment of how 4 Australian cities addressed built environment characteristics for livability, including for walkability, public transport, and public open space.
Based on our review of the instruments mentioned, and information available on the government planning websites, we developed an understanding of the relevant legal framework that broadly comprised the planning act (which sets out overarching objectives for the planning system) and the statutory instruments enabled by the act (the instruments containing more detailed provisions to implement the objectives of the act). To identify additional statutory instruments that might be relevant, we examined the planning act in each state and territory to determine the names or types of statutory instruments enabled by that act and conducted internet searches to retrieve and screen for relevant documents from the government planning websites. We identified other relevant policies given legal effect by those statutory instruments when we reviewed relevant provisions from those instruments more closely.
All of the retrieved documents were reviewed for relevance to the preliminary coding questions. Our proposed list of laws was reviewed and verified by B.G.-C., who identified no further documents. Due to resource constraints, one person carried out the legal research (T.N., legally trained) rather than 2, as is recommended. However, as a quality control measure, we engaged a second person with legal training (and planning experience), Sean Perry (S.P.), to review the list of laws prepared by T.N. and verified by B.G.-C. to confirm and agree on whether they met the agreed inclusion criteria. Any documents that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from scope but retained for noting. During coding, any additional laws of relevance identified by T.N. or S.P. were included through discussion and agreement. An alternative approach could have involved running keyword searches in legal databases. In Australia, relevant legislative databases include proprietary options such as LawOne42 and free ones such as Lawlex.43
Develop Coding Specifications
Aim of the Step
Once the background research has been completed, a more specific coding scheme can be developed to elicit key variations across relevant dimensions in the laws. This means refining the coding questions and developing response options (or preliminary open-text fields that can later be developed into response options) to capture the variation in the laws.18 The most common way to reflect variance is by classifying features of laws into categorical variables. Some features of the law can be classified using ordinal (eg, low, medium, high density) and interval variables or extracted as continuous variables (eg, an open-text field to record the exact density target specified in the law).19
Factors to Consider
It is helpful to include an “Other” category as another response option, which can be used for noting uncertainties, suggesting new response options to accommodate different variations in the law, or proposing refinements to a coding question. This “Other” category should be periodically reviewed so that new response options or refinements to the coding question can be developed and jurisdictions can be recoded accordingly. It should be a redundant category by the time coding is completed and, so, should be deleted when finalizing the data set.
It may also be useful to indicate which of the criteria are evidence-based factors for PA and which have been shown to benefit particular populations (eg, crosswalks/pedestrian crossings have been shown to facilitate children’s active travel to school and older adult PA).35 This may make it easier to identify relevant outcome measures in any future evaluation of the laws.
Application to ASAPa
An example of a question generating categorical variables in our coding scheme was, “How does the planning law address the establishment of design review panels,” with the following mutually exclusive response options: “requires the establishment of design review panels”; “allows for the establishment of design review panels”; “allows for the establishment of committees (but not design review panels specifically)”; and “not addressed.” An example of a question generating a continuous variable was, “What is the exact percentage target specified for dwellings located within the specified distance from public transport” (with an open-text response).
Our coding scheme was reviewed by B.G.-C., who suggested further refinements, including adding new questions for urban greening and separating out questions to minimize ambiguities and anticipated difficulties in coding (eg, by repeating the same question for different types of public open space as the laws may have different standards for different types of open space). Overall, we had 291 variables within 31 discrete categories (Table 1).
Variables Coded in the Data Set by Category
| Category and applicable question numbers in coding scheme | Scope | Number of related variables |
|---|---|---|
| A. High-level legislative support for PA-promoting environments | ||
| Consideration of health in transport and planning(questions 1–6) | • Health as an objective of the planning act • Livability as an objective of the planning act • Public transport promotion in transport act • Active transport (walking and cycling) promotion in transport act • Reduction of private motor vehicle use in transport act • Health impact of planning under public health act | 8 |
| Promotion of integrated land use and transport planning(questions 7–8) | • Integrated land use and transport planning under planning act • Integrated land use and transport planning under transport act | 2 |
| Consideration of climate in planning and transport(questions 9–11) | • Existence of a climate change act • Obligations to consider climate impact of planning proposals under climate change act • Climate impact under planning law • Reduction of environmental impacts of transport under transport act | 4 |
| B. Standards | ||
| Density(questions 12–14) | • Existence of dwelling density standard/s • Dwelling density target for residential areas • Dwelling density target near activity centers • Dwelling density target near public transit | 35 |
| Destination accessibility Activity centers (questions 15–16) | • Existence of a distance standard for proximity of dwellings to an activity center • Distance specified and percentage target for dwellings located within this distance • Walkable catchment area for activity centers | 18 |
| Public open space (question 17) | • Existence of distance standard/s for proximity of dwellings to public open space • Types of public open space covered by standard/s • Distance specified and percentage targets for dwellings located within this distance • Size dimension and other design criteria for public open space covered by the standard/s | 134 |
| Primary schools(question 18) | • Existence of distance standard/s for proximity of dwellings from primary schools • Distance specified and percentage target for dwellings located within this distance | 6 |
| Distance to public transport(question 19) | • Existence of distance standard/s for proximity of dwellings from public transport • Distance specified and percentage target for dwellings located within this distance Frequency of public transport specified | 14 |
| Demand management(questions 20–21) | • Types of car parking targets • Existence of bicycle infrastructure standards • Types of bicycle infrastructure covered by standard • Types of settings addressed by the standards (eg, residential, education, retail, offices, public transport) | 23 |
| Design Street block(question 22) | • Standard/s for street block size • Elements addressed (block length, block width, and block perimeter) | 9 |
| Footpaths(question 23) | • Standard/s for footpath provision • Elements addressed (footpath width, sides of street, and increased provision near schools, shops, or transit) | 4 |
| Active frontage in activity centers(question 24) | • Express encouragement of active frontage in activity centers • Elements addressed to promote active frontage in activity centers | 13 |
| Urban greening(questions 25–27) | • Standard/s for provision of trees and elements addressed (spacing, size of tree, canopy cover, number, and placement of trees) • Standard/s for allocation of private open space for soft landscaping and approach used (minimum dimensions for gardens, minimum %site for gardens, maximum %site coverage for buildings) • Percentage target for increasing tree canopy cover | 11 |
| C. Implementation and monitoring | ||
| Comprehensive jurisdiction-wide provisions(question 28) | • Existence of a comprehensive set of default provisions for planning and design with jurisdiction-wide application | 1 |
| Responsibility for enforcement of planning law(question 29) | • Responsibility for enforcement specified in planning acts or regulations | 1 |
| Design review(question 30) | • How the planning law addresses the establishment of design review panels • Circumstances wherein design review panel advice is required | 2 |
| Performance monitoring(question 31) | • How performance monitoring is addressed under the planning act | 6 |
Abbreviation: PA, physical activity.
Set up the Data Collection System
Aim of the Step
It is helpful to use a well-designed data collection system for collecting and coding the legal text as this can improve the efficiency of coding and reduce errors. An adequate system for coding the law needs to store a reasonably large amount of legal text for supporting the coding fields.19 As the coding of a single variable may depend on several sources of law, the system should enable multiple legal provisions to be cited against a particular coding decision.19 It is helpful if the system can store coders’ notes, comments, and questions against specific coding questions so these can be referred to later when resolving discrepancies and avoiding any confusion that may arise when reviewing coding decisions. MonQcle44 is a web-based platform (freely available for academic use) that is designed for legal epidemiology and has numerous features to enable coding, use, and analysis of legal data. The coding scheme can be set up in MonQcle, which allows multiple researchers to code independently of each other, as well as the storage of legal text and the recording of citations and caution notes to support and clarify the coded responses. The data sets can be exported into spreadsheet software to compare coders’ responses and conduct statistical analyses.
Factors to Consider
When conducting a legal assessment, the goal is usually to create a snapshot of the laws at a particular point in time. Therefore, current versions of the laws will need to be retrieved on a particular date (known as the “through” date). We recommend downloading and saving a copy of these laws and extracting the text of the relevant provisions into word processing software for each jurisdiction as this will make it easier to transfer into MonQcle. In MonQcle, the “effective date” for each relevant provision of the law should be recorded as this is usually the most appropriate indicator of the law’s onset (ie, when it legally takes effect).19 The effective date is the date that the most recent amendment to the provision took effect (or if it has not been amended, then the date that it first came into effect); it is not necessarily the same as the enactment or commencement date of the overall document.
Application to ASAPa
For Australian legislation (acts and regulations), the effective date was usually found in the “table of amendments” (located at the end of the document). For nonlegislative documents, the effective date was generally either the date of that document, which applied to all provisions in that document, or there were different dates recorded against particular provisions throughout the document.
Complete Coding and Quality Control Procedures
Aim of the Step
The aim of quality control procedures is to reduce the likelihood of errors in coding and to test how well legal researchers have applied the protocol and coding scheme.19 Creating a well-defined coding protocol will also support subsequent attempts to repeat the legal mapping over time or extend the methods to other policies.18
Factors to Consider
A coding protocol should be created that includes essential definitions and rules for coding the variables. For example, our protocol specified that to be considered a “standard,” provisions needed to contain sufficient specificity to be objectively measurable (eg, by incorporating numerical measures, such as specifying the desirable distance of dwellings from an activity center or the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided in buildings).
The 2 coders should work independently. If that is not possible, one researcher could initially code the data, and another can check this, which will still identify errors but not those arising from laws that the first researcher has missed.18 As an additional quality control measure, it is recommended that a third legal researcher who is naïve to the project independently codes a randomly selected portion of the records (known as a “statistical quality control procedure”).18 This is because independent coders embedded in a project may share similarities that influence how they code the law, thereby affecting the reliability of the data.18
Rates of divergence can be calculated and should be reported for transparency as a crude rate or as a more conservative estimate using Cohen kappa (adjusting for the probability of random correct entries).19 There are no clear thresholds for assessing divergence rates; more complex projects can have a higher rate of divergence.19,45 However, it has been argued that anything more than occasional inconsistencies may indicate ambiguity with the coding framework or imprecision in the coding rules and require more jurisdictions to be redundantly coded until the rate of divergence is reduced.19,45 Generally, a divergence rate under 5% is regarded as low, indicating that fewer jurisdictions need to be redundantly coded.45
Application to ASAPa
In our study, T.N. and S.P. coded the jurisdictional data in batches, exporting them into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet each time to calculate the divergence rate. Divergences were reviewed and resolved by discussion between T.N. and S.P. after completion of each batch of data, with any necessary refinements made to the coding protocol or scheme (and previously completed jurisdictions recoded if necessary). After coding a batch of data for one jurisdiction, the rate of divergence was 5.5%. Following clarifications to the coding scheme and conventions and coding a further 2 jurisdictions, the divergence rate was 2.3%. The remaining 5 jurisdictions were then coded, with a divergence rate of 11.2%.
To conduct the statistical quality control procedure, we randomly chose 10% of the data set’s 31 parent-level questions for each jurisdiction. This amounted to coding 25 questions (ie, 3–4 parent-level questions for each jurisdiction). We briefed a naïve coder (Steve Wong [S.W.], also legally trained) and provided them with a copy of the protocol and coding conventions. S.W. coded these 25 questions, blinded to S.P.’s and T.N.’s entries, and the divergence rate was nil.
Conduct Data Analysis
Aim of the Step
Data can be analyzed as single and composite variables as appropriate to address the objectives of the study and to answer the relevant research questions.
Factors to Consider
Especially for data sets with large numbers of variables, composite measures that collapse multiple variables into summary measures can increase the value of legal measurements and generate more meaning than would be possible from the individual variables.19 It is acknowledged that developing scales for legal measures requires careful consideration, and optimally, these should have a firm theoretical foundation, have input from both legal and subject matter experts, and be derived from clear coding criteria.18 Regardless of the process used, it is important to be transparent about the formation of scales because they are, by their nature, constructs that embed assumptions along with observations.19
Application to ASAPa
One objective of the ASAPa legal mapping study was to assess the extent to which standards are addressed in planning law and their degree of alignment with evidence-based recommendations. For jurisdictions that set distance standards regarding the location of dwellings from activity centers, we developed single variables to capture that distance (ie, within 800 m; 800 m or more) and the percentage target (if any) of dwellings located within that distance (ie, less than 80%; equal to or greater than 80%). We developed a composite summary variable that integrated these 2 variables to assess whether the standard met the evidence-based recommendation of at least 80% of dwellings within 800 m of a neighborhood activity center (with binary yes/no response options).25
In addition, scales were developed to capture the strength of legal support for built environment characteristics that did not have evidence-based standards. For example, we constructed a scale for bicycle infrastructure that considered the responses to the questions for setting standards for the provision of bicycle parking, end-of-trip facilities (showers and/or lockers), and bicycle paths. Jurisdictions were rated as providing “strong” legal support if they set standards for bicycle parking, end-of-trip facilities, and bicycle paths; “partial” if they only set standards for either or both bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities (but not bicycle paths); and “weak” if they did not provide standards for any of these.
Disseminate Findings
Aim of the Step
Effective dissemination of the research findings will help increase the likelihood of improving understanding of relevant laws and opportunities for improvement among target end users and increase potential impacts on policy and practice.
Factors to Consider
A variety of dissemination methods may be considered, depending on the target end users of the research. A common way to share results with others is to develop a mapping paper that can be published in a peer-reviewed journal, following the guidance provided by Burris.37 The data set can also be published (along with the statistical data file, protocol, and codebook) on websites such as LawAtlas.com to enable more interactive exploration of the results and facilitate further research. For policy makers and senior elected officials, succinct briefs highlighting notable findings can be developed; these may usefully incorporate map visualizations generated through MonQcle and other graphical or tabulated summaries.
Application to ASAPa
In addition to a peer-reviewed paper, we plan to develop a policy brief highlighting notable findings and generate (through MonQcle) a web-based visualization of the data that will be published on LawAtlas.org. A data file containing the statistical data from the project will be made available on LawAtlas.org along with the protocol, codebook, and coding specifications to enable other researchers to utilize and/or extend the data (eg, to overlay with outcome data or update the data set to support longitudinal analysis). We have also presented our findings before policy makers and researchers at an international webinar organized by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre as part of the Global Week for Action on Non-communicable Diseases46 and will continue to investigate suitable opportunities to present the data to relevant stakeholders through conferences and other webinars.
Discussion and Conclusion
Global policy guidance documents recommend the use of law as an important tool for mandating improvements to built environments for PA.5,17 However, there is a lack of accessible information about how laws currently address built environments for PA, where they apply, what they require, and whether they include evidence-based thresholds for standards that will work to promote PA. One of the critical functions of public health is to collect and analyze data to drive the design, investment, and implementation of interventions, and it has been argued that this should be no different for law as for any other mode of public health action.47 The availability of accessible legal surveillance data contributes to monitoring and accountability because laws can be used as progress measures or defined as goals in themselves.47 Legal mapping, which tracks the prevalence and key elements of laws, addresses this need to generate readily accessible information about the status of the law (and legal trends if undertaken longitudinally).47 Detailed coding of attributes in laws makes it easier to identify differences (across jurisdictions or over time) and facilitate further research to investigate how these may be connected to PA12 and other outcomes, such as economic disparities in active travel.12,34 Legal mapping is, therefore, an important first step toward not only determining how laws can improve PA in populations48 but also identifying any unintended adverse effects (eg, displacement due to gentrification; poorer sense of community or neighborhood satisfaction).49,50 Currently, it is more feasible and common to use legal mapping to support evaluation and comparisons within countries rather than across countries due to the significant challenges and complexities associated with variations in the structure and operation of different countries’ legal systems, availability of legal texts, language differences, difficulties in collecting laws, and differences in legal culture, although the case for global legal surveillance has been argued.51
Best practice for the scientific collection and coding of laws has been set out by Tremper et al18 and Anderson et al.19 This work provides a foundation for legal mapping and is complemented by the resources and technical assistance offered by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded Policy Surveillance Program at Temple University.47 The systematic process of legal mapping followed in the ASAPa project, which is described here, builds on this and provides a guide for how this can be applied in an investigation of built environment laws for PA.
The development of public domain legal data sets and transparent sharing of methods and protocols can help lower the cost and potential speed of conducting public health law research, as exemplified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation System.47,52 Researchers should consider using purpose-built software coding platforms for legal mapping, such as MonQcle, and platforms such as LawAtlas for the open access publication of data sets to improve the efficiency of coding, ease of publication, and accessibility of legal data.47 Multidisciplinary collaborations, involving public health, legal, and subject matter expertise, will help to ensure that strategically important questions are examined and the relevant body of law is accurately captured. Research–practice partnerships can also facilitate the rapid diffusion and translation of knowledge gained from legal mapping to policy makers.47
It should be noted that legal mapping is just one form of public health law research that can be conducted for PA.20 Legal mapping admits quantitative legal variables into the scope of “usable data” that can be used in evaluation, but these will only represent “law on the books”; other methods (eg, qualitative research) will be needed to understand how laws are understood, implemented, and enforced in practice.6,53 Such research could be conducted after legal mapping to support more nuanced interpretations of the quantitative findings and relevant implications for policy and practice. It is also important for research to investigate the specific factors that can make certain legal provisions easier or more difficult to implement or vary in impact.12 This could involve analysis of case law or administrative tribunal decisions that may provide insight into how and on what basis PA-promoting legal provisions are being challenged, the arguments that are ultimately upheld, and how such laws may need to be strengthened to promote their implementation and achievement of health-promoting outcomes. Although law has been a neglected element of PA policy research,16 it is hoped that this paper adds a practical contribution toward building capacity to understand and use laws within whole-of-systems action to increase PA.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Sean Perry and Steve Wong for their contributions toward carrying out the methods described in this study.
References
- 1.↑
Giles-Corti B, Moudon AV, Lowe M, et al. What next? Expanding our view of city planning and global health, and implementing and monitoring evidence-informed policy. Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10(6):e919–e926. PubMed ID: 35561726 doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00066-3
- 2.↑
UN Habitat, World Health Organization. Integrating Health in Urban and Territorial Planning: A Sourcebook. World Health Organization; 2020. Accessed September 21, 2022.
- 3.↑
Heath G, Parra D, Sarmiento O, et al. Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):272–281. PubMed ID: 22818939 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60816-2
- 4.↑
Gelius P, Messing S, Goodwin L, Schow D, Abu-Omar K. What are effective policies for promoting physical activity? A systematic review of reviews. Prev Med Rep. 2020;18:101095. PubMed ID: 32346500 doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101095
- 5.↑
World Health Organization. Fair play: Building a strong physical activity system for more active people [Internet]. Published 2021. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HEP-HPR-RUN-2021.1
- 6.↑
Burris S, Ashe M, Blanke D, et al. Better health faster: the 5 essential public health law services. Public Health Rep. 2016;131(6):747–753. PubMed ID: 28123219 doi:10.1177/0033354916667496
- 7.↑
Burris S, Ashe M, Levin D, Penn M, Larkin M. A transdisciplinary approach to public health law: the emerging practice of legal epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37(1):135–148. PubMed ID: 26667606 doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021841
- 8.↑
Klepac Pogrmilovic B, Ramirez Varela A, Pratt M, et al. National physical activity and sedentary behaviour policies in 76 countries: availability, comprehensiveness, implementation, and effectiveness. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):116. PubMed ID: 32948193 doi:10.1186/s12966-020-01022-6
- 9.
Zwald ML, Eyler AA, Haire-Joshu D, et al. Network influences on the development and implementation of active transportation policies in six U.S. cities. Prev Med. 2019;118:176–183. PubMed ID: 30385154 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.026
- 10.↑
Milton K, Bauman A. A critical analysis of the cycles of physical activity policy in England. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):8. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0169-5
- 11.↑
Eyler AA, Budd E, Camberos GJ, Yan Y, Brownson RC. State legislation related to increasing physical activity: 2006–2012. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):207–213. PubMed ID: 26104603 doi:10.1123/jpah.2015-0010
- 12.↑
Porter J, Bryan S, Lee J, Corso P, Davis M, Rathbun S. Complete streets state laws & provisions: an analysis of legislative content and the state policy landscape, 1972–2018. J Transp Land Use. 2019;12(1):619–635. doi:10.5198/jtlu.2019.1512
- 13.↑
Lowe M, Adlakha D, Sallis JF, et al. City planning policies to support health and sustainability: an international comparison of policy indicators for 25 cities. Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10(6):e882–e894. PubMed ID: 35561723 doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00069-9
- 14.↑
An R, Ji M, Clarke C, Guan C. Impact of state laws governing physical education on attendance among US high school students, 2003 to 2017. Am J Health Promot. 2019;33(8):1144–1151. PubMed ID: 31272188 doi:10.1177/0890117119858016
- 15.↑
Vanderloo LM, Tucker P. Physical activity and sedentary behavior legislation in Canadian childcare facilities: an update. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):475. PubMed ID: 29642891 doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5292-1
- 16.↑
Nau T, Smith BJ, Bauman A, Bellew B. Legal strategies to improve physical activity in populations. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(8):593–602. PubMed ID: 34354314 doi:10.2471/BLT.20.273987
- 17.↑
World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: More active people for a healthier world [Internet]. World Health Organization. Published 2018. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/initiatives/gappa
- 18.↑
Tremper C, Thomas S, Wagenaar A. Measuring law for evaluation research. Eval Rev. 2010;34(3):242–266. PubMed ID: 20479214 doi:10.1177/0193841X10370018
- 19.↑
Anderson ED, Tremper C, Thomas S, Wagenaar AC. Measuring statutory law and regulations for empirical research public health law research methods monograph series [Internet]. Published 2012. Accessed May 12, 2022. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021191
- 20.↑
Burris S, Wagenaar AC, Swanson J, Ibrahim JK, Wood J, Mello MM. Making the case for laws that improve health: a framework for public health law research. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):169–210. PubMed ID: 20579282 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00595.x
- 21.↑
Gunn LD, Saghapour T, Giles-Corti B, Turrell G. Exploring inequities in housing affordability through an analysis of walkability and house prices by neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage. Cities Health. 2022;6(3):616–634. doi:10.1080/23748834.2022.2072058
- 22.↑
McGreevy M, Harris P, Delaney-Crowe T, et al. How well do Australian government urban planning policies respond to the social determinants of health and health equity? Land Use Policy. 2020;99:105053. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105053
- 23.↑
Nau T, Bauman A, Bellew W, Giles-Corti B, Smith B. An analysis of the legal framework influencing walking in Australia. Public Health Res Pract. Published online March 29, 2022. doi:10.17061/phrp32122205
- 24.↑
Temple University Centre for Public Health Law Research. Module 1: Introduction to the policy surveillance program, policy surveillance and legal mapping techniques 2016 [Internet]. Accessed April 4, 2022. http://lawatlas.org/page/lawatlas-module1
- 25.↑
Badland H, Higgs C, Giles-Corti B. The healthy liveable communities urban liveability checklist [Internet]. RMIT University (Healthy Liveable Cities Lab). Published 2019. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://cur.org.au/project/the-healthy-liveable-communities-urban-liveability-checklist/
- 26.↑
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP). Pedestrians first: Tools for a walkable city. All recommendations [Internet]. ITDP. Published 2020. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://pedestriansfirst.itdp.org/all-recommendations
- 27.↑
Lowe M, Whitzman CC, Giles-Corti B. Integrated planning for healthy communities: Does Victorian state legislation promote it? Paper presented at: Australia State of Australian Cities (SOAC) National Conference [Internet]; November 26–29, 2013. Sydney. Australia: Griffith University. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://apo.org.au/node/59782
- 28.↑
Lowe M, Whitzman C, Giles-Corti B. Improving integrated planning in Melbourne: Exploring barriers and enablers of health-promoting policy integration [Internet]. Paper presented at: State of Australian Cities Conference 2015; 2015. Gold Coast, Australia: Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Accessed May 12, 2022. https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8v3zq/improving-integrated-planning-in-melbourne-exploring-barriers-and-enablers-of-health-promoting-policy-integration
- 29.
Morrison N, Barns S, Dunshea A, et al. Making healthy places: NSW built environment practitioners’ perspectives on place-making opportunities that help deliver health and wellbeing outcomes [Internet]. Sydney: Marudulu Budyari Gumal; 2021.
- 30.↑
UK Design Council and Social Change UK. Healthy placemaking [Internet]. UK Design Council and Social Change UK; Published 2018. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/healthy-placemaking-report
- 31.↑
Arundel J, Lowe M, Hooper P, et al. Creating liveable cities in Australia. Mapping urban policy implementation and evidence-based national liveability indicators [Internet]. Centre for Urban Research (CUR) RMIT University; Published 2017. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://cur.org.au/project/national-liveability-report/
- 32.↑
World Health Organization. Strengthening road safety legislation. A practice and resource manual for countries [Internet]. World Health Organization; Published 2013. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/strengthening-road-safety-legislation
- 33.↑
Chriqui JF, Leider J, Thrun E, Nicholson LM, Slater S. Communities on the move: pedestrian-oriented zoning as a facilitator of adult active travel to work in the United States. Front Public Health. 2016;4:71. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00071
- 34.↑
Chriqui JF, Leider J, Thrun E, Nicholson LM, Slater SJ. Pedestrian-oriented zoning is associated with reduced income and poverty disparities in adult active travel to work, United States. Prev Med. 2017;95(suppl 1):S126–S133. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.003
- 35.↑
Leider J, Chriqui JF, Thrun E. Associations between active living-oriented zoning and no adult leisure-time physical activity in the U.S. Prev Med. 2017;95(suppl 1):S120–S125. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.029
- 36.↑
Christian H, Knuiman M, Bull F, et al. A new urban planning code’s impact on walking: the residential environments project. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(7):1219. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301230
- 37.↑
Burris SC. How to write a legal mapping paper. Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No 2018–10 [Internet]. 2018. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3133065
- 38.↑
Allen M, ed. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods [Internet]. 2018. Accessed May 12, 2022. doi:10.4135/9781483381411
- 39.↑
Temple University Centre for Public Health Law Research. Module 3: question development [Internet]. Published 2016. Accessed April 4, 2022. http://lawatlas.org/page/lawatlas-module3
- 40.↑
Temple University Centre for Public Health Law Research. Module 2: defining the scope of the project and conducting background research. Published 2016. Accessed April 4, 2022. http://lawatlas.org/page/lawatlas-module2
- 41.↑
National Heart Foundation of Australia. Healthy active by design—design features [Internet]. Accessed February 18, 2021. https://www.healthyactivebydesign.com.au/design-features/
- 42.↑
TimeBase LawOne: FiscalNote, Inc. TimeBase: Australian legislation [Internet]. Accessed May 12, 2022. https://www.timebase.com.au/home.html
- 43.↑
Lawlex SAI Global Pty Limited. Lawlex: legislation alerts and research [Internet]. Accessed May 12, 2022. https://lawlex.com.au/
- 44.↑
Temple University, Center for Public Health Law Research. MonQcle [Internet]. Temple University. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://monqcle.com
- 45.↑
Temple University Centre for Public Health Law Research. Module 6 quality control, resources: how to calculate the rate of divergence. Published 2016. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://lawatlas.org/page/lawatlas-module6
- 46.↑
Bauman A, Bellew B, Nau T, Smith BJ. Supporting systems approaches to accelerate progress on physical inactivity in Australia webinar. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Published 2022. Accessed September 21, 2022. https://preventioncentre.org.au/resources/supporting-systems-approaches-to-accelerate-progress-on-physical-inactivity-in-australia-webinar/
- 47.↑
Burris S, Hitchcock L, Ibrahim J, Penn M, Ramanathan T. Policy surveillance: a vital public health practice comes of age. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016;41(6):1151–1173. PubMed ID: 27531941 doi:10.1215/03616878-3665931
- 48.↑
Moran-McCabe K, Waimberg J, Ghorashi A. Mapping housing laws in the United States: a resource for evaluating housing policies’ impacts on health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020;26(suppl 1):S29–S36. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000001111
- 49.↑
Grasser G, Titze S, Stronegger WJ. Can creating walkable neighbourhoods have adverse effects? Eur J Public Health. 2016;26(suppl 1):ckw171.003. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckw171.003
- 50.↑
Jun H-J, Hur M. The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: the importance of physical and perceived walkability. Appl Geogr. 2015;62:115–124. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.014
- 51.↑
Kavanagh MM, Meier BM, Pillinger M, Huffstetler H, Burris S. Global policy surveillance: creating and using comparative national data on health law and policy. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(12):1805–1810. PubMed ID: 33058711 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305892
- 52.↑
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). State tobacco activities tracking and evaluation (STATE) system [Internet]. Published 2015. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statesystem. Accessed April 4, 2022.
- 53.↑
Burris S. Law in a social determinants strategy: a public health law research perspective. Public Health Rep. 2011;126(suppl 3):22–27.
