Associations between park features and adolescent park use for physical activity

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Billie Giles-Corti¹  Sarah Foster²  Matthew Knuiman³  Paula Hooper²  Nicole Edwards³ 

[1] Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 5, 207 Bouverie Street, Victoria 3010, Australia;Centre for the Built Environment and Health, School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health and School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia, 55 Broadway, Nedlands 6009, WA, Australia;School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, 55 Broadway, Nedlands 6009, Perth, Western Australia

关键词: Physical activity;    Parks;    Park quality;    GIS;    Built environment;    Adolescents;   

Others  :  1133600
DOI  :  10.1186/s12966-015-0178-4

 received in 2014-05-28, accepted in 2015-01-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Eighty per cent of adolescents globally do insufficient physical activity. Parks are a popular place for adolescents to be active. However, little is known about which park features are associated with higher levels of park use by adolescents.

Objectives

This study aimed to examine which environmental park features, and combination of features, were correlated with higher levels of park use for physical activity among adolescents. By examining park features in parks used by adolescents for physical activity, this study also aimed to create a park ‘attractiveness’ score predictive of adolescent park use, and to identify factors that might predict use of their closest park.

Methods

Adolescents (n = 1304) living in Geraldton, a large rural centre of Western Australia, completed a survey that measured physical activity behaviour, perceptions of park availability and the main park used for physical activity. All parks in the study area (n = 58) were digitized using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and features audited using the Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT).

Results

Only 27% of participants reported using their closest park for physical activity. Park use was associated with seven features: presence of a skate park, walking paths, barbeques, picnic table, public access toilets, lighting around courts and equipment and number of trees >25. When combined to create an overall attractiveness score, every additional ‘attractive’ feature present, resulted in a park being nearly three times more likely to be in the high use category.

Conclusions

To increase park use for physical activity, urban planners and designers should incorporate park features attractive to adolescents.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Edwards et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U: Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012, 380:247-57.
• [2]Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, Yin L, Robinson J, Winiewicz D: Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Prev Med 2006, 43:437-41.
• [3]Jago R, Baranowski T, Harris M: Relationships between GIS environmental features and adolescent male physical activity: GIS coding differences. J Phys Act Health 2006, 3:230-42.
• [4]Dowda M, McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, Scott MM, Evenson KR, Bedimo-Rung AL, et al.: Commercial venues as supports for physical activity in adolescent girls. Prev Med 2007, 45:163-8.
• [5]Cohen D, Ashwood J, Scott M, Overton A, Evenson K, Staten L, et al.: Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics 2006, 118:E1381-9.
• [6]Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Lee S, Rosenberg DE: Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review. Am J Prev Med 2011, 41:442-55.
• [7]Babey SH, Hastert TA, Yu H, Brown ER: Physical activity among adolescents: when do parks matter? Am J Prev Med 2008, 34:345-8.
• [8]Edwards N, Giles-Corti B, Larson A, Beesley B: The effect of proximity on park and beach use and physical activity among rural adolescents. J Phys Act Health 2014, 11(5):977-84.
• [9]Spengler JO, Floyd MF, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ, Norman GJ: Correlates of park-based physical activity among children in diverse communities: results from an observational study in two cities. Am J Health Promot 2011, 25:e1-9.
• [10]Potwarka LR, Kaczynski AT, Flack AL: Places to play: association of park space and facilities with healthy weight status among children. J Community Health 2008, 33:344-50.
• [11]Wolch J, Jerrett M, Reynolds K, McConnell R, Chang R, Dahmann N, et al.: Childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources: a longitudinal cohort study. Health Place 2011, 17:207-14.
• [12]Babey S, Brown ER, Hastert T: Access to Safe parks helps increase physical activity among teenagers. In Book access to safe parks helps increase physical activity among teenagers. UCLA Centre for Health Policy Research, City; 2005.
• [13]Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N: Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health 2007, 97:509-14.
• [14]Epstein LH, Raja S, Gold S, Paluch RA, Pak Y, Roemmich JN: Reducing sedentary behavior: the relationship between park area and the physical activity of youth. Psychol Sci 2006, 17:654-9.
• [15]Baran PK, Smith WR, Moore RC, Floyd MF, Bocarro JN, Cosco NG, Danninger TM: Park use among youth and adults: examination of individual, social, and urban form factors. Environ Behav 2014, 46:768.
• [16]Ries AV, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Gittelsohn J, Yan AF, Astone NM: A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park Use and physical activity among urban youth. J Adolesc Health 2009, 45:S64-70.
• [17]Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, Crawford DA, Andrianopoulos N, Ball K, Salmon J, et al.: Features of public open spaces and physical activity among children: findings from the CLAN study. Prev Med 2008, 47:514-8.
• [18]Reed JA, Hooker SP: Where are youth physically active? A descriptive examination of 45 parks in a southeastern community. Childhood Obesity 2012, 8:124-31.
• [19]Floyd MF, Bocarro JN, Smith WR, Baran PK, Moore RC, Cosco NG, et al.: Park-based physical activity among children and adolescents. Am J Prev Med 2011, 41:258-65.
• [20]Bell J, Wilson J, Liu G: Neighborhood Greenness and 2-year changes in body mass index of children and youth. Am J Prev Med 2008, 35(6):547-53.
• [21]Almanza E, Jerrett M, Dunton G, Seto E, Ann Pentz M: A study of community design, greenness, and physical activity in children using satellite, GPS and accelerometer data. Health Place 2012, 18:46-54.
• [22]Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA: Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis Sci 2007, 29:315-54.
• [23]Giles-Corti B, Broomhall M, Knuiman M, Collins C, Douglas K, Ng K, et al.: Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med 2005, 28:169-76.
• [24]Sugiyama T, Francis J, Middleton NJ, Owen N, Giles-Corti B: Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:1752-7.
• [25]Saelens BE, Frank LD, Auffrey C, Whitaker RC, Burdette HL, Colabianchi N: Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health 2006, 2006:S190-207.
• [26]Broomhall M, Giles-Corti B, Lange A: Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST). In Book Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST). The University of Western Australia, Australia; 2004.
• [27]Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Besenyi GM: Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42:242-9.
• [28]Crawford D, Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, Ball K, Hume C, Andrianopoulos N, et al.: Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health Place 2008, 14:889-93.
• [29]Taylor BT, Fernando P, Bauman AE, Williamson A, Craig JC, Redman S: Measuring the quality of public open space using Google Earth. Am J Prev Med 2011, 40:105-12.
• [30]Edwards N, Hooper P, Trapp GSA, Bull F, Boruff B, Giles-Corti B: Development of a Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT): a remote sensing approach. Appl Geogr 2013, 38:22-30.
• [31]Rundle A, Quinn J, Lovasi G, Bader MDM, Yousefzadeh P, Weiss C, et al.: Associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities. Am J Health Promot 2013, 27:262-9.
• [32]Tucker P, Irwin JD, Gilliland J, He M, Larsen K, Hess P: Environmental influences on physical activity levels in youth. Health Place 2009, 15:357-63.
• [33]Barton H, Grant M: A health map for the local human habitat. J R Soc Promot Heal 2006, 126:252-3.
• [34]Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Smale BJA, Havitz ME: Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: variations by gender and Age. Leis Sci 2009, 31:174-91.
• [35]Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia. In Book Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia (Editor ed.^eds.). City; 2006.
• [36]Hooper P, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M: Evaluating the implementation and active living impacts of a state government planning policy designed to create walkable neighborhoods in Perth, Western Australia. Am J Health Promot 2013, 28:S5-18.
• [37]Frank LD, Saelens BE, Chapman J, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Glanz K, et al.: Objective assessment of obesogenic environments in youth: geographic information system methods and spatial findings from the neighborhood impact on kids study. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42:e47-55.
• [38]Boone-Heinonen J, Popkin BM, Song Y, Gordon-Larsen P: What neighborhood area captures built environment features related to adolescent physical activity? Health Place 2010, 16:1280-6.
• [39]Byrne J, Wolch J: Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Prog Hum Geogr 2009, 33(6):743-65.