title: A tale of two trails: exploring different paths to success.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This comparative case study investigates 2 successful community trail initiatives, using the Active Living By Design (ALBD) Community Action Model as an analytical framework. The model includes 5 strategies: preparation, promotion, programs, policy, and physical projects.
  
  
  METHODS
  Key stakeholders at 2 sites participated in in-depth interviews (N=14). Data were analyzed for content using Atlas Ti and grouped according to the 5 strategies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  PREPARATION: Securing trail resources was challenging, but shared responsibilities facilitated trail development. PROMOTIONS: The initiatives demonstrated minimal physical activity encouragement strategies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Community stakeholders did not coordinate programmatic opportunities for routine physical activity. POLICY: Trails' inclusion in regional greenway master plans contributed to trail funding and development. Policies that were formally institutionalized and enforced led to more consistent trail construction and safer conditions for users. PHYSICAL PROJECTS: Consistent standards for wayfinding signage and design safety features enhanced trail usability and safety.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Communities with different levels of government support contributed unique lessons to inform best practices of trail initiatives. This study revealed a disparity between trail development and use-encouragement strategies, which may limit trails' impact on physical activity. The ALBD Community Action Model provided a viable framework to structure cross-disciplinary community trail initiatives.
authors: Active Living by Design, NC Institute for Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
authors: Jennifer G
authors: JG
authors: Walker
authors: Kelly R
authors: KR
authors: Evenson
authors: William J
authors: WJ
authors: Davis
authors: Philip
authors: P
authors: Bors
authors: Daniel A
authors: DA
authors: Rodríguez
references: J Phys Act Health. 2006 Feb;3(s1):S139-S157
references: 28834516
references: J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 May-Jun;14(3):280-8
references: 18408553
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Jul;59(7):535-6
references: 15965130
references: Prev Med. 2004 Nov;39(5):903-8
references: 15475022
references: Am J Health Promot. 2003 Sep-Oct;18(1):14-20
references: 13677959
references: Prev Med. 2003 Feb;36(2):235-42
references: 12590999
references: Am J Prev Med. 2002 May;22(4 Suppl):73-107
references: 11985936
references: Prev Med. 2010 Jan;50 Suppl 1:S106-25
references: 19765610
references: Am J Prev Med. 2000 Apr;18(3):235-41
references: 10722990
references: Am J Prev Med. 2002 May;22(4 Suppl):8-9
references: 11985931
references: J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008 Jun;33(3):595-615
references: 18469174
references: J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008 Jun;33(3):407-27
references: 18469168
references: J Interprof Care. 2007 Oct;21(5):515-28
references: 17891625
references: Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jul;27(1):28-34
references: 15212772
references: Health Promot Pract. 2008 Oct;9(4):387-94
references: 16816032
references: Health Educ Q. 1988 Winter;15(4):351-77
references: 3068205
references: J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 May-Jun;14(3):228-37
references: 18408547
references: Am J Prev Med. 2005 Feb;28(2 Suppl 2):177-85
references: 15694526
references: Prev Med. 2001 Feb;32(2):191-200
references: 11162346
references: Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:341-70
references: 16533121