You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Community and multisector partner engagement in US Vision Zero plan development

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Community and multisector partner engagement in US Vision Zero plan development
  1. Sylvia Greer1,2,
  2. Tabitha Combs,1,
  3. Rebecca B Naumann2,3,
  4. Elyse Keefe2,
  5. Seth LaJeunesse4,
  6. Kelly R Evenson3
  1. 1Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  4. 4Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kelly R Evenson, Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; kelly_evenson{at}unc.edu

Abstract

Background Vision Zero aims to eliminate serious and fatal road injuries using a Safe System approach. Safe System principles establish that safety is a shared responsibility; this involves both multisector partners and community engagement. This descriptive study explored multisector partners and community engagement in the development of municipal Vision Zero plans.

Methods We reviewed all first edition Vision Zero plans published by US municipalities from 2014 to 2022. Using a structured coding tool, we abstracted partner involvement and community engagement strategies used in the development of Vision Zero plans.

Results We identified, reviewed and abstracted 64 plans. The average number of partner groups per plan was 11.5 (12.0 for municipalities with a population ≥150 000; 10.1 for municipalities <150 000) and was higher for later plans (11.9 for plans published 2019–2022; 10.0 for plans published 2014–2018). Common partner groups engaged in the plan were law enforcement (85.9% of plans), local transportation planning (78.3%), mayor/city council/city manager (78.1%), engineering/public works (78.1%) and schools (73.4%). Community engagement strategies were reported in 71.9% of the plans and were more frequent among municipalities with a population ≥150 000 (76.1%) compared with a population <150 000 (61.1%), and in those with more recent plans (82.1%) versus earlier ones (56.0%). The most common community engagement strategies were public meetings, online surveys and map mark-ups.

Conclusions These findings highlight the extent to which Vision Zero plans were aligned with core Safe System tenets regarding diverse partner involvement and community engagement. Plan developers should consider the translation of Safe System principles in Vision Zero plan development.

  • Community
  • Pedestrian
  • Motor vehicle - Non traffic
  • Motor vehicle - Occupant
  • Policy analysis

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data request should be made to Kelly Evenson within one year of publication date and with completion of appropriate permissions.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-045148

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Data request should be made to Kelly Evenson within one year of publication date and with completion of appropriate permissions.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @SethLaJ307

    • Contributors The study was planned by SG, TC, RBN, SL and KRE. The abstractions were conducted by SG, RBN, SL and KRE. The analysis of the data was conducted by SG, the guarantor for the work and conduct of the study. The paper was written by SG and KRE, while TC, RBN, EK and SL reviewed several drafts. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

    • Funding This project was supported by the Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety (www.roadsafety.unc.edu), a US Department of Transportation National University Transportation Center (Award No. 69A3551747113). Support was also provided by the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, which is supported by an award (5R49/CE003092) from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    • Disclaimer The funding sources played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.