Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of intentions and rationales identified in the literature for adopting a zoning bylaw banning fast food drive-through services, compared to bylaw intentions identified in this study

From: Adoption and diffusion of zoning bylaws banning fast food drive-through services across Canadian municipalities

Bylaw intentions identified in literature Bylaw intentions identified in this study
Obesity and chronic disease [4, 5, 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] Not identified
Protect community aesthetics and character [4, 5, 10,11,12, 17,18,19] Protect community aesthetics and character (n = 10)
Traffic concerns [17,18,19,22] Traffic concerns and reduce dependency on automobiles (n = 10)
Safety [5, 10, 19, 20, 22] Community comfort and safety (n = 4)
Reduce physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour [5, 8, 14, 28] Reduce physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour (n = 1)
Protect local economy [4, 5, 23] Protect local economy (n = 1)
Improving community nutrition [5, 9, 13] Not identified
Air pollution, idling, and environmental concerns [5, 18] Air pollution, idling, and environmental concerns (n = 9)
Reduce inequalities by decreasing the density of fast food drive-through in low-income neighborhoods [5, 29] Not identified
Noise concerns from intercoms [19, 30] Noise concerns from intercoms, especially near residential areas (n = 7)
Improve community walkability [5] Promote community walkability, active transportation, and public transportation (n = 15)
Not identified Urban design, promote downtown core (n = 10)
Not identified Sustainability and sustainable development (n = 2)
Not identified Reduce odour and litter (n = 1)
Not identified Reduce visual impact of drive-through and lighting/illumination encroachment, especially near residential areas (n = 4)