More walking and biking to school
Example 1 of how we can solve addiction without solving for addiction.
What do I mean by: "we will solve addiction when we don't solve for addiction"?
Some inherently "get it" but most don't fully understand what I mean.
There are examples all around us. Sometimes they are hard to see because they don't fit a particular narrative, or -- and this is more likely the case -- they cannot be "proved" because how do you prove a negative?
As I see these examples in the wild, I am going to share then with you and explain how they are an upstream solution to the prevalence of addiction in our society. Most of these are one-offs and not part of a unified strategy in any one place to have the desired effect. My dream would be to pick a town and deploy the best of the best and watch as addiction fades away.
Example #1: Safer and more walking and biking to school.
In 1969, 48% of students in the U.S. walked and biked to school.
In 2021, 11% walked and biked to school.
As Uytae Lee points out in his About Here video (watch below), there are many, many reasons for this sharp decline. The biggest reason is that more and more parents are driving their kids to school. Why that is the case is complicated. In some places, bussing is reduced, parents choose schools further away, schools get moved further away, and parents have safety fears.
All legitimate reasons.
One might look at North American cities and immediately blame urban sprawl. But that's not really the culprit. Urban sprawl has made us a more car dependent society and that might be the bigger symptom.
On average, 20-40% of students live within 1 mile of their school. But studies tend to show that 35-47% of students that live within 5 minutes of their school are driven.
Many parents say they fear for their kids safety if they walk or bike. But as Lee notes, walking and biking are not of themselves dangerous. The increased presence of cars make walking and biking unsafe.
From About Here, "Why did Kids Stop Walking to School?"
If students walk or bike to school, they are more likely to be injured (4.5 and 22 times, respectively). While most these injuries are not serious, they can be traumatic. We know that trauma and multiples of adverse childhood experiences increases risk of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide. Although high income is not a protective factor, some ACEs and their effects can be more prevalent with lower income children.
Why does this matter?
Turns out that poorer students are 2-3 times more likely to walk and bike to school. These reasons are obvious. Both parents -- or the single parent -- must work and work in jobs without the level of flexibility to drive their children to school.
The downstream effect of this is that in Canada, low income neighborhoods had 50% more fatal or serious pedestrian collisions than more affluent areas.
Lee says it best:
This is the real tragedy behind this issue; more children being driven to school makes our roads less safe for others to walk and cycle and it's the students that don't have the luxury of choice who disproportionately suffer the consequences.
There are solutions that don't require massive structural overhauls. I really like the "Drive to Five" solution. Communities identify multiple drop-off points approximately a 5-minute walk from the school. Parent drop kids off there and students walk the rest of the way. This reduces congestion around the school and in the neighborhood. And it increases "active travel" for more students.
A personal observation. I live in a small rural northern New York village. The elementary school is a 5-10 minute walk from my home. When walking the dog every morning, I see almost all children that live between my house and the school getting picked up by a bus or being shuttled to school by their parents in a car. No children walk alone or with their parents to school in my neighborhood -- at least I don't see them.
Of course, there are enormous effects of walking for children: increased adolescent health, improved independence, greater happiness and self-esteem, and better academic outcomes.
This is where you have to extend your thinking for solving addiction without solving for addiction.
We don't know which kids will end up with addiction later in life. We don't know which kids are going home to parents struggling with addiction.
What we do know is that the make-up of our environment, our zip code, and our adolescent formation play a significant role in whether we are susceptible to dependence, misuse, and addiction to alcohol and drugs.
So why not make the environment optimized for current and future health and wellbeing?
The decrease in students walking and biking to school is an example of how the collective we in our communities have made certain design and living choices that become the breading ground for addiction, mental distress, low academic success, and depressed economic potential.
We don't need massive change or direct fixes to move the needle on addiction. But we do need to be creative and we need to understand what underlies the causes of addiction
We can solve addiction without solving for addiction. Example #1.