Active Living by Design as a political project challenges at three levels.

As the Active Living by Design (ALbD) program envisioned them, changes in the built environment (physical projects) that encouraged physical activity as part of routine daily life came about because of innovations in preparation, partnership, programming, promotions, and policy. 1 The articles, which represent case studies in this supplement 2–16 to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine depict in enlightening detail how 15 communities moved along this strategic continuum, but say little about another “P,” politics. This inattention is not surprising: Politics was not an explicit part of their formal mission. Nonetheless, the refinement and deployment of political skill is integral to attaining the goals toward which the five ALbD “P’s” aim. The quest for health promoting changes in the built environment proceeds in a cultural and institutional context that can sometimes raise steep hurdles for reformers. Business as usual in many American communities supports zoning rules that can discourage mixed uses and density; provide powerful incentives to develop sprawling “communities”; give little priority to biking and walking; encourage school siting that presupposes students arriving by bus or car; and sustain many other patterns that blend public power and private prerogatives so that built environments are at odds with active living. The cultural underpinnings of these policy patterns—for example, the quest for big houses on large lots, and the equation of automobiles with mobility and of free-wheeling development with local prosperity—run deep. Such potent forces usually change incrementally, and achieving those changes is an inescapably political project. In the case studies presented in this supplement, we find that the accomplishments of the ALbD partnerships reveal political struggles and gains at three distinct levels. The Politics of Local Coalitions Active Living by Design leaders sought to bring into coalitions such disparate but partly overlapping ingredients as the cycling community; committed walkers; public health professionals who understand the importance of the built environment as a determinant of health; New Urbanists; Smart Growth advocates; environmentalists pressing to reduce pollution and preserve green space; activists who see mixed-land use as a vehicle to integrate citizens of various races, ethnicities, and classes; and voluntary associations, often small and financially shaky, that seek to protect parks, trails, and waterways. Although each pursues mainly its own agenda detached from (and sometimes in conflict with) the others, these local organizations, movements, and enthusiasts have considerable untapped power that manifests itself politically in the ALbD communities that identified collective interests and constructed coherent agenda. Creating these ALbD partnerships did not happen without considerable focused attention. For organizations that lack the time, funds, and staff to concert action among their peers, the ALbD grant was a collective good of considerable value. The award supplied time, funds, and staff dedicated to canvassing the local interest groups and guiding their members toward a practical plan of action. ALbD staff helped to move beyond coalition building toward coordination by bringing forward for discussion overlapping elements of group agendas that helped cultivate a united political front. Finally, these staff complemented coalition and coordination with communication, that is, working with public relations experts and local media to develop the ALbD agenda into messages that drew the attention of audiences in larger communities and hence the attention of their appointed and elected officials.