Health
Impact
Assessment
an analysis of potential sites for a regional recreation center to
serve North Aurora, Colorado
Background
This is a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) created to
inform a policy decision about the specific location of a
regional recreation center in North Aurora. This center
is one of three, with two others planned for Central
and South Aurora at Vassar Park and Aurora Reservoir.
After a series of public meetings facilitated by the Aurora
Residents for Recreation Task Force, four city-owned
properties were eliminated as potential sites for the North
26th Ave.
NW Aurora
Montview Blvd.
Colfax Ave.
3
2
1
Aurora recreation center due to limited acreage and/
or conflicting uses. Currently, one city-owned property,
Bicentennial Park, and three privately-owned properties,
Mt. Nebo, Fitzsimons Centerpiece, and Monterey Point
are still under consideration.
The impetus for these facilities arose from the City of
Aurora’s Community Needs Assessment that identified a
need for 400,000 square feet of new indoor recreation
facilities to accommodate Aurora’s current population
(Aurora Residents for Recreation Task Force 2009). The
new facilities are meant to address the square footage per
capita deficit in Aurora as compared to other cities along
the Front Range. These facilities increase opportunities
for physical activity which is known to help reduce
obesity, heart disease, diabetes and related conditions,
as well as improve mental health. Good access to parks
and recreation facilities provides additional benefit as it
increases the amount of physical activity by both children
and adults.
6th Ave.
4
225
-I
North
Aurora
Alameda Ave.
N. Chambers Rd.
Sable Blvd.
Peoria St.
Havana St.
Mississippi
Approximate boundaries for North Aurora (dashed red
line), NW Aurora (yellow) and the four potential recreation center sites (green): 1) Mt. Nebo, 2) Fitzsimons
Centerpiece, 3) Monterey Point, 4) Bicentennial Park.
This HIA identifies impacts to health and provides
recommendations for the Aurora Residents for Recreation
Task Force (ARRTF), City Planners, and City Council
based on credible community-level data and supporting
research regarding health status, risks, and disparities,
as well as access and affordability. This information can
assist with thoughtful, equitable, and informed decisionmaking that provides the most benefit to the health and
well-being of North Aurora residents, particularly those
with the greatest need, in the Northwest (NW) Aurora
neighborhood. NW Aurora is roughly bounded by E. 26th
Ave. to the north, Peoria St. to the east, E. Colfax Ave. to
the south, and Yosemite St. to the west.
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative , July 2010
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
The HIA addresses three primary questions:
1. What is the current health status of populations
within North Aurora and how is it affected by the
sites under consideration?
2. In addition to health, what other factors should be
considered in the site decision for the North Aurora
recreation facility?
3. What are the recommendations and expected
outcomes to support overall health in relation to
health status, access, and affordability for all North
Aurora residents, particularly those most in need?
What is the current health status
of populations within North Aurora
and how is it affected by the sites
under consideration?
Health Status
According to Tri-County Health Department (TCHD) as
well as national experts, “several demographic groups
face special barriers to getting enough physical activity
or are more likely to be injured while being physically
active”, including seniors, children, people of low
income, people of color, and people with disabilities.” For
example, “being poor is associated with a higher risk of
chronic disease and obesity, as well as with lower levels
of physical activity (TCHD 2007) (Frank 2003).”
When NW Aurora is compared with other areas including
North Aurora, City of Aurora, Denver, Adams County,
Arapahoe County, and Colorado, data consistently
illustrates that NW Aurora has higher percentages of
demographic groups at risk for disease and for getting
too little physical activity. Overall its residents are less
healthy than many of their more economically stable
counterparts.
The 2006-2008 Taking Neighborhood Health to Heart
(TNHTH) community based participatory research study
funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institute and conducted by a partnership between
the TNHTH resident coalition, the University of Colorado
Denver, Stapleton Foundation and 2040 Partners for
Health, asked respondents from five neighborhoods in
Denver and Aurora, including NW Aurora, about their
2
health. Survey results are reported below. Other surveys
that collected similar data in other cities, neighborhoods
and statewide are also included for comparison. These
include North Aurora, Commerce City (high minority,
2006-07 data, reported in TCHD 2007) and South Lincoln
Park, Denver (low income, 2007 data, reported in Roof
2009). Results revealed the following statistics and
trends:
NW Aurora has a higher and growing percentage of
minority populations. NW Aurora is about 13% the
size of North Aurora and houses 21,159 people, 24% of
North Aurora’s population. Between 1990 and 2000, the
Hispanic population in NW Aurora grew from 796 persons
to 11,938 persons, a 1400% increase, while the White
Only population grew 56%. In North Aurora, the Hispanic
population increased 496%, and its White Only population
grew 1%. In 2000, 42% of NW Aurora’s population was
foreign born, a 1134% increase from 1990, compared to
a 27% foreign born population in North Aurora in 2000, a
506% increase from 1990. The language spoken at home
in NW Aurora and North Aurora was 90% English in 1990,
with 5% Spanish in NW Aurora, and 4% Spanish in North
Aurora. In 2000, NW Aurora had 53% English speaking
and 42% Spanish speaking, while North Aurora had 69%
English speaking and 24% Spanish speaking. Overall, NW
Aurora’s population, as well as its minority population,
grew more rapidly than North Aurora’s between 1990 and
2000 (US Census Bureau 1999) (US Census Bureau 2000).
As of 2007, 54% of NW Aurora adults were Hispanic, 25%
White and 16% Black (TNHTH 2007).
NW Aurora has less access to health care and lower
incomes. Only 59% of NW Aurora residents have some
type of health insurance (TNHTH 2007). This compares
with 83% of adults statewide and 62% within South
Lincoln (CDC 2007) (Roof 2009). Forty-six percent of NW
Aurora residents said they needed to see a doctor within
the past year but delayed because of cost compared
to 12.9% statewide (TNHTH 2007) (CDC 2005), 10.3%
in Commerce City, CO (TCHD 2007) and 20% in South
Lincoln (Roof 2009).
Between 1989 and 1999, poverty rates were up for
Aurora, North Aurora and NW Aurora. During that time,
the percent of persons below the poverty line increased
from 7% to 9% in Aurora, and from 13% to 16% in North
Aurora. NW Aurora experienced the highest rates
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
3
How is your general health? /
45.0
BRFSS
TNHTH
NW Aurora
39.2
40.0
36.0 36.0
Percentage / Porcentaje
35.0
30.0
28.3
26.8 26.9
25.0
20.0
24.0
19.8
19.6
14.0
15.0
10.3
10.0
6.3
6.3
5.0
3.0 3.4
0.0
Excellent /
Excelente
Very good /
Muy bien
Good / Bien
Fair / Normal
Poor / Mal
2007 Colorado BRFSS data compared to 2007 Taking
Neighborhood Health to Heart data. TNHTH includes
Stapleton, East Montclair, Park Hill, NE Park Hill, and NW
Aurora neighborhoods.
and the most growth of poverty stricken individuals,
increasing from 23% to 27%. “Consistent with national
trends, the City of Aurora community has increasing
numbers of residents and households at the extreme
end of the income spectrum (City of Aurora 2006).” In
1999, the median household income for NW Aurora
was $30,827, over $6,500 (18%) less than that of North
Aurora and over $15,500 (33%) less than that of Aurora.
Households with incomes above $50,000 increased from
25% in 1989 to 46% in 1999 for Aurora, from 15% to
31% in North Aurora, and from 9% to 21% in NW Aurora.
However, despite these increases, in 1999 2 out of 5
(39%) NW Aurora households had a household income
less than $25,000, compared to 30% in North Aurora
and 20% in Aurora (US Census Bureau 1990) (US Census
Bureau 2000). In 2007, 24% of NW Aurora residents who
responded to the Taking Neighborhood Health to Heart
survey had incomes less than $15,000 and 50% made
less than $25,000 while only 11% made over $50,000.
Statewide, 20% made less than $25,000 while 54% made
more than $50,000 (TNHTH 2007) (CDC 2007).
Public health data indicate that the burden of illness is
higher among minorities and low income communities.
Those
withapproximate
lower incomesboundary
and educati
levels
are known
Map:
ofon
North
Aurora
and
to have
lower
quality
housing,
and
lack
opportuniti
es
for
four potential recreation center sites
outdoor activities or healthy food options (Scinivasan
2003). “People with disabilities may have fewer options
for physical activity such as access to recreational
facilities because of barriers in the built environment.
They are also more at risk of a collision in difficult traffic
situations (DRCOG 2007).” “Lower income children
suffer more traffic injuries and fatalities than those from
higher income families. Nationwide, pedestrian injuries
and fatality rates for Hispanic and Black people are
several times higher than those among White people.
Researchers believe these rates may stem from a higher
probability of being a pedestrian, road design in areas
where minority persons walk, and cultural factors like
not being accustomed to high-speed traffic (Frank 2003)
(TCHD 2007).”
NW Aurora residents give worse self-reports on health
status. A third (34%) of NW Aurora residents described
their overall health as poor or fair in comparison to good
or excellent. Statewide, the percentage of those who
reported fair or poor health status was 11.6% (TNHTH
2007) (CDC 2007). In Commerce City, 19.7% reported fair
or poor health status, and in South Lincoln, 39.7% (TCHD
2007) (Roof 2009). This question elicits a very powerful
self-assessment and research has shown that responses
to this question are valid in predicting a person’s quality
of health.
NW Aurora has higher incidences of chronic health
problems. One of every four people (24%) in NW Aurora
who completed the TNHTH survey had been told they
have high blood pressure. Of those people, 58% currently
take medicine for their high blood pressure (TNHTH
2007). According to the American Heart Association,
high blood pressure is particularly prevalent in African
Americans, middle-aged and elderly people, and obese
people (AHA 2009). Also, only one out of every three
respondents in NW Aurora (33%) in 2007-2008 met the
national physical activity recommendations of moderate
intensity exercise of at least 30 minutes (e.g., walking,
vacuuming) five or more days per week, or 20 minutes
or more of vigorous physical activity on three or more
days per week, compared to 28% in South Lincoln and
55% statewide. Obesity rates show similar disparities in
Colorado - 19% of adults were obese and 45% were either
overweight or obese. NW Aurora rates were higher, with
33% of adults being obese, and 66% overweight or obese
(TNHTH 2007) (CDC 2007) (Roof 2009).
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
Access
Programming for the North Aurora recreation center is
largely independent of the site selection, making access
to the facility the primary difference between the four
potential sites. Access is a significant contributor to
health outcomes since being able to quickly and safely
access a recreation facility is a key determinant of usage.
According to the Aurora Community Needs Assessment,
access was a significant barrier for many residents. The
top reason adults gave for rarely or never using City of
Aurora recreational facilities is that they are “too far from
my home.” For youth it was the third highest response
after “not being aware of programs offered” and “no
transportation (ARRTF 2009)”. These results indicate
two challenges related to access: 1) the physical distance
between residences and facilities is too great, and 2) the
existing routes and supporting transit modes are not
accommodating everyone, particularly children.
While it is true that all of Aurora needs more recreation
facilities in order to decrease the distance between
residences and facilities, NW Aurora is disproportionately
deficient both in existing recreation facilities and open
spaces compared to North Aurora. Moorhead is the only
existing recreation center in NW Aurora and it is very
small (4,000 sq. ft.), housing only a half gym, a cramped
fitness area, and a multi-purpose room for indoor games.
The facility currently operates over capacity with limited
expansion opportunities. Park acreage in NW Aurora
Average Travel Times (in minutes) by Mode from North
Aurora Schools to Potential Recreation Center Sites
70
Mt. Nebo
60
Fitzsimons Centerpiece
50
65
55
Bicentennial Park
Monterey Point
37
40
30
20
10
30 31
30 min
15 min
7 8
4 5
17
20
30
21
8 10
Bike
totals 26.6 acres, which is only 5% of the total park
acreage in North Aurora. The large majority, 78%, of park
acreage in North Aurora lies south of 6th Avenue (City
of Aurora). According to the National Recreation and
Parks Association Guidelines, 10 acres of open space (i.e.,
parks) per 1,000 persons is the benchmark for adequate
open space (San Francisco Dept. of Public Health 2006)).
NW Aurora falls the furthest below at 1.26 acres/1,000,
while the area north of 6th (excluding NW Aurora) has
7.53 acres/1,000, and the area south of 6th Avenue to
Mississippi has 8.78 acres/1,000 (City of Aurora).
Ideally, this goal of planning citywide recreational facilities
is to ensure equal access for all persons regardless of
income or ability. This necessitates consideration of travel
distances and times by a variety of modes. Nationwide,
“persons in households without access to vehicles made
37 percent of their trips on foot and another 20 percent
by transit. This compares with 8 percent and 1 percent
by foot and transit, respectively, by households with at
least one vehicle (USDOT 2003).” Data on current travel
behaviors reveals that 19% of NW Aurora residents do not
have motor vehicles, compared to 12% of North Aurora
residents, and 7% for all of Aurora. The percentage of
NW Aurora residents sixteen and over who use public
transportation for their commute is 12%, compared to
8% of North Aurora residents and only 4% of all Aurora
residents (Census 2000). This suggests that NW Aurora
residents have a disproportionate need to use alternative
modes of travel to access recreational facilities.
Bicycling is largely inhibited throughout North Aurora as
there are limited bike lanes, bike paths and bike routes.
Those that exist do not offer continuous or connected
routes to the potential recreation sites (Planning and
Development Services Dept). In 2000, only two percent
of residents in NW Aurora, North Aurora, and City of
Aurora reported commuting by walking or bicycling
(Census 2000).
16
0
Drive
4
Bus
Walk
Mt. Nebo and Fitzsimons Centerpiece offer shorter travel
times and more convenient mode choices than Monterey
Point and Bicentennial Park from North Aurora schools.
An established benchmark to increase physical activity
levels and social engagement states that recreational
facilities should be within a ¼ to ½ mile of the surrounding
community (SFDPH 2006). This is equivalent to about a 2
minute drive or a 10 minute walk. The needs of Aurora
residents are comparable, with the majority, 60%,
stating they are willing to travel a maximum of up to 15
minutes to use a new recreation center, and another
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
5
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
33% willing to travel up to 30 minutes (ARRTF 2009).
Based on calculations of average travel times from North
Aurora schools to the potential sites, the Mt. Nebo and
Fitzsimons Centerpiece sites offer the most equitable
access for all travel modes and minimize travel times,
while Bicentennial Park and Monterey Point are the least
equitable and require longer travel times (Google Maps
2010).
In addition to health, what other
factors should be considered in the
site decisions for the North Aurora
recreation center?
Recreation centers are known to have positive safety,
social, and economic impacts in their surrounding
communities in addition to improvements in overall
health. Recreation centers can significantly improve
community safety because they are a large provider of
after school programs (National Recreation and Parks
Association). They can also create jobs. Studies have
shown that for every $1 million invested in parks and
recreation infrastructure, 20 jobs are created. Using the
projected cost of $20,000,000 per regional recreation
center, that would translate into 400 new jobs in North
Aurora (Finkleman 2010). Parks and recreation services
also motivate business relocation (Tahoe City PUD 2009)
and can increase property values for homes in close
proximity (Finkleman 2009). Further, they can help
“reduce the high costs associated with police services
such as responding to vandalism and other criminal
activity (Tahoe City PUD 2009)” as they provide positive
alternative outlets for youth engagement. A look at
current conditions on these topics in North Aurora
indicates:
NW Aurora perceives more crime and unsafe streets.
Fifty-eight percent of TNHTH respondents from NW Aurora
believe that there is high crime in their neighborhood,
compared to only 37% in the four other neighborhoods
surveyed (East Montclair, Stapleton, Park Hill, and NE
Park Hill). Not surprisingly, 62% in NW Aurora feel that
crime makes it unsafe to go on walks at night versus 40%
for the other four neighborhoods mentioned above.
Forty-one percent do not feel that their neighborhood
streets are well lit at night compared to 25% in the other
four neighborhoods. When asked if they felt it unsafe to
walk in their neighborhood during the day, the responses
were 30% versus 14%, respectively (TNHTH 2007).
NW Aurora has less social cohesion. Two out of five NW
Aurorans surveyed (41%) believe that people in their
neighborhood can be trusted, while 67% from the other
four neighborhoods surveyed (East Montclair, Stapleton,
Park Hill, and NE Park Hill) believe the same. Additionally,
41% of NW Aurorans feel their neighborhood is closeknit compared to 62% for the other four neighborhoods
mentioned above (TNHTH 2007).
What are the recommendations and
expected outcomes to support overall
health in relation to health status,
access and affordability for all
North Aurora residents, particularly
those in most need?
General Recommendations
To maximize the health benefits of a regional North
Aurora recreation center, we recommend that the
following criteria be incorporated regardless of which
site is selected:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce levels of overweight/obesity and disease
by increasing physical activity
Increase the amount and types of exercise that
are available (i.e., swimming, etc.)
Provide safe and convenient access to the facility
within 30 minutes, preferably 15 minutes, for all
transportation modes including car, bus, walking
and biking. This may necessitate discussions
with RTD if new stops or routes need to be
created.
Increase the number of people getting to
recreation centers by walking and biking on
connected, direct routes
Implement the NW Aurora Bike and Pedestrian
Plan
Ensure adequate pedestrian amentities
(seating, shade, etc.) and aesthetics (public art,
landscaping, etc.)
Address economic and service inequities
Improve neighborhood social connections and
cohesion
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
•
•
Reduce crime and fear of crime
Create job opportunities
Site-Specific Recommendations
Mt. Nebo (E. 13th Ave. and Peoria St.) is a privatelyowned property that would offer the best access for all
North Aurorans, making it an ideal site for the recreation
facility. Unfortunately, through this HIA process, it has
been determined that the owners of the property are
not willing to sell and are not interested in subleasing the
property to the City of Aurora.
Fitzsimons Centerpiece (E. Colfax Ave. and Ursula St.) is a
16 acre privately-owned property that offers ample space
for the recreation facility and parking, as well as good
access for all North Aurorans. Average travel times from
schools to the site are within 30 minutes by all modes
except walking and are shortest for NW Aurora residents,
with travel times of less than 15 minutes for all modes
except walking. This is a prime development area with
high density, convenient transit access and connections,
and close proximity to the Fitzsimons medical campus
with potential workforce growth of up to 45,000 people
who would also have access to this nearby facility.
The Urban Land Conservancy (ULC) has determined that
the owners of the property are willing to sell and it is
a good option for leasing to the City. To foster success,
a public private partnership could be formed between
the City of Aurora and entities such as the Urban Land
Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, and the Colorado
Health Foundation to offset the cost of the land acquisition
and development. There may also be federal funding
available through the Community Putting Prevention
to Work grant for which Tri-County Health Department
has been awarded 10.5 million dollars to support policy
and environmental change in the Aurora area. Initial
contact has already been made with the organizations
listed above, all of which have expressed interest in the
project.
[Note: After numerous calls and meetings with those
leading the Fitzsimons Health and Wellness Center effort,
it has been determined that this center, scheduled to open
in 2011, is not a viable alternative recreation facility for
NW Aurora residents and others. The Center will function
primarily as a research/clinical facility with a fitness center
component accessible only to those who participate
6
in health and nutrition studies. Based on the project’s
scope and projected capacity, the facility will be able to
accommodate about 3,500 total memberships, of which
1,000 will be available to community members. Stapleton
Foundation will continue to enhance the collaborative
partnership with the Center when it opens by providing
referrals for health clinics, and assisting with messaging
to reach the residents in NW Aurora about opportunities
to participate at the Center.]
Bicentennial Park (E. Alameda Ave. and S. Potomac St.)
is a 36 acre city-owned property that can accommodate
the regional recreation center without additional
investment for land acquisition. Access, however, is
relatively poor for North Aurora residents, especially for
NW Aurora residents who are outside a 2 mile radius.
The average travel times from Northwest Aurora schools
to Bicentennial Park is 8 minutes by car, 39 minutes
by bus, 23 minutes by bike and 74 minutes walking
(Google Maps 2010). Given the large percentage of NW
Aurorans that do not have access to a vehicle, and that
there are no safe routes for bicycling from NW Aurora
to Bicentennial Park, the most convenient mode choice
is bus, which takes longer than 90% of what Aurora
residents are willing to travel (ARRTF 2009). As such,
if this site were to be selected, it is recommended that
significant access improvements be made that decrease
the average travel time by bus from North Aurora to 30
minutes or less (preferably 15 minutes), and create safe
and continuous bicycle routes throughout North Aurora
to the facility. Access improvements between NW Aurora
and Bicentennial Park should be prioritized.
These access improvements are generally costly and can
take many forms, but may include the following:
•
•
Connectivity Improvements - Improving connectivity
can be accomplished by filling gaps in existing
street, transit route, and biking/walking paths, or
by creating additional routes from parts of North
Aurora, particularly NW Aurora, to Bicentennial Park.
Bicycle route improvements should be prioritized
and implemented in NW Aurora as specified in the
NW Aurora Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Traffic Safety Enhancements - Traffic safety can be
enhanced by engineering new streets for lower
speeds or by altering existing streets with traffic
calming measures such as center pedestrian refuge
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
7
•
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
islands or improved street crossings for pedestrians.
It may also be necessary to increase the visibility of
pedestrians by installing exclusive pedestrian signal
phasing.
Personal Safety Improvements - Instituting measures
that increase the intensity of roadway lighting for
both vehicles and pedestrians can improve levels of
personal safety. Increasing the number of eyes on
the street also helps, and can be accomplished by
increasing the volume of pedestrian traffic and police
surveillance along pedestrian routes. Other Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
strategies should also be considered.
recreation facility.
Final Recommendations
Based on the extensive data presented in this HIA
about current health trends in North Aurora, be well
Northwest Aurora Partners, a partnership of the
Stapleton Foundation’s be well Health and Wellness
initiative funded primarily by the Stapleton Foundation,
Gary Williams Energy Company and LiveWell Colorado,
concludes that a new regional recreation facility in
North Aurora will have a positive health impact on the
community. As such, be well Northwest Aurora Partners
supports the facility regardless of which site is selected.
However, in light of the unique health disparities that NW
Aurorans face, along with the potential cost to the City
to provide equitable access to all North Aurora residents,
be well Northwest Aurora Partners recommends the
Fitzsimons Centerpiece site for the regional recreation
facility because it best supports the health, safety, and
well being of North Aurora, specifically NW Aurora,
by improving access and equity for all residents, while
offering more affordability for the City of Aurora.
Acknowledgements
This walking school bus helps children engage in regular
physical activity. It is part of be well Northwest Aurora’s
work to improve healthy eating and active living in the
community.
Monterey Point (E. Colfax Ave. and N. Chambers Rd.)
is a 26 acre, privately-owned property that the ULC has
investigated as a potential option to purchase and then
lease to the City of Aurora. Access to this site prioritizes
NW Aurora, but travel times by bike average 20 minutes,
and times by bus range from 27 to 36 minutes, capturing
only the third of North Aurorans that are willing to travel
upwards of 15 minutes to a recreation facility (Google
Maps 2010). In sum, although this property is for sale
and is an option, like Bicentennial Park, it still has many
access issues that would need to be addressed. Because
there is not only a cost to the City to provide access for
all residents but also for the cost of the property, it is
not recommended as the preferred option for a regional
The Stapleton Foundation expresses appreciation to the
numerous organizations below that support a recreation
center location that is highly accessible to NW Aurora
because its population faces disproportionate risks for a
variety of health problems:
2040 Partners for Health
Councilwoman Melissa Miller
Gary Williams Foundation
LiveWell Colorado
Metro Organizations for People
Northwest Aurora Neighborhood Organization
Past Councilwoman Deborah Wallace
Past Councilwoman Nadine Caldwell
Piton Foundation
Stapleton Foundation
Stapleton Transportation Management Association
Tri-County Health Department
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010
HIA: a study of potential sites for a regional recreation center in North Aurora
References
American Heart Association. “Understand Your Risk for High
Blood Pressure.” 23 June 2010. Web. July 2010. < http://
www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HighBloodPressure/
UnderstandYourRiskforHighBloodPressure/Understand-YourRisk-for-High-Blood-Pressure_UCM_002052_Article.jsp>.
Aurora Residents for Recreation Task Force. “Community Needs
Assessment: Recreation Services and Facilities.” City of Aurora,
Colorado. 2009. Web. April 2010. < http://www.arrtf.com/f/
ARRTF_Needs_Assessment_Report.pdf>.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2005). “Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data.” Atlanta, Georgia:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2007).
“Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data.”
Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
City of Aurora. “City of Aurora Parks.” Aurora, Colorado.
n.d. Web. April 2010. <http://www.auroragov.org/
AuroraGov/Departments/ParksRecreationAndOpenSpace/
AuroraParks/029176>.
City of Aurora. “Community Partnership Plan.” Aurora, Colorado.
June 2006. Web. July 2010. <http://www.auroragov.
org/AuroraGov/Departments/Human_Resources/
CityofAuroraCommunityPartnershipPlan/index.htm>.
Denver Regional Council of Governments. “Creating Seniorhealthy communities: removing regulatory barriers. Summary
of findings.” Denver, CO: National Research Center, Inc..
2007. Web. April 2010. <http://www.drcog.org/index.
cfm?page=EPAGrant>.
Finkelman, Lois G. and Adams, Jodie. “Written Testimony of Lois
G. Finkelman, Chair and Jodie Adams (CPRP), President on
behalf of The National Recreation and Park Association Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee Regarding Interior and Nation
Park Service Fiscal year 2010 Appropriations.” Nation Recreation
and Park Association. 15 May 2009. Web. April 2010.
Finkleman, Lois G. and Kessler, Elizabeth S. “Written Testimony of
Lois G. Finkelman, Chair and Elizabeth S. Kessler, President
on behalf of The National Recreation and Park Association
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Regarding
Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations. National Recreation and Park
Association. March 23, 2010. Web. April 2010. <http://www.
nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/Get_Involved/Issue_Resource_Center/
NRPA%20Senate%20FY2011%20Interior%20Appropriations%20
Testimony%20final%203-23-10.pdf>.
Frank, L. D., Engelke, P.O., and Schmid, T.L. (2003). “Health and
Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on
Physical Activity.” Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Google Maps. “Directions from North Aurora Schools to Potetial
Recreation Center Sites.” 2010. Web. April 2010. <http://maps.
google.com>.
National Recreation and Park Association. “Why Parks and
Recreation are Essential Public Services.” n.d. Web. April 2010.
<http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourcei
d=navclient&gfns=1&q=Why+Parks+and+Recreation+are+Essent
ial+Public+Services+%E2%80%93+NRPA>.
Planning and Development Services Department. “Northwest
8
Aurora Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Aurora,
Colorado. n.d. Web. April 2010. < http://www.auroragov.org/
AuroraGov/Departments/PlanningAndDevelopmentServices/
ComprehensivePlanningDivision/PlansAndStudies/
NWAuroraBicycle-Ped.Plan/index.htm>.
EnviroHealth Consulting. (2009) “Health Impact Assessment: South
Lincoln Homes, Denver CO.”
San Francisco Department of Public Health. “Healthy Development
Measurement Tool.” 2006. Web. July 2010. < http://www.
thehdmt.org/>.
Srinivasan, S., Fallon, L.R., Dearry, A. (2003) “Creating Healthy
Communities, Healthy Homes, Healthy People: Initiating a
Research Agenda on the Built Environment and Public Health.”
American Journal of Public Health. Vol 93, No.9. p. 1447.
Tahoe City Public Utility District. “Parks and Recreation Provides
Economic Benefit to Our Community.” Parks and Recreation.
2009. Web. April 2010. <http://www.tahoecitypud.com/
parksrec.shtml#4>.
Taking Neighborhood Health to Heart (2007-2008) “Household
Survey Results.”
Tri-County Health Department. “Health Impact Assessment: Derby
Redevelopment, Historic Commerce City, Colorado.” Sept 2007.
Web. Dec 2009. <http://www.tchd.org/pdfs/hia_final.pdf>.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics and Federal Highway Administration. “2001 National
Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1
(day trip data only).” Jan 2003. Web. July 2010. <http://nhts.
ornl.gov>.
U. S. Census Bureau. (1990). American FactFinder Summary File
3 Detailed Tables. Selected Census Tracts in Arapahoe County
and Adams County, & City of Aurora, CO. n.d. Web. April 2010.
<http://factfinder.census.gov/home>.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). American FactFinder Summary File
3 Detailed Tables. Selected Census Tracts in Arapahoe County
and Adams County, & City of Aurora, CO. n.d. Web. April 2010.
<http://factfinder.census.gov/home>.
prepared by Karen Roof with EnviroHealth & Alisha Brown, Felicia Hilton, & Lisa Schott with the Stapleton
Foundation’s be well initiative, July 2010