Associations of neighborhood characteristics with active park use: an observational study in two cities in the USA and Belgium

International Journal of Health Geographics

Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij¹  Carrie Geremia⁴  Marc A Adams³  Benedicte Deforche²  Greet Cardon¹  James F Sallis⁴  Delfien Van Dyck¹ 

[1] Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium;Department of Human Biometrics and Biomechanics, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Pleinstraat 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium;School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, 500 N Third Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA;Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, 3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92103, USA

关键词: Green space;    Physical activity;    EAPRS;    SOPARC;    Income;    Walkability;   

Others  :  810136
DOI  :  10.1186/1476-072X-12-26

 received in 2013-02-20, accepted in 2013-04-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Public parks can be an important setting for physical activity promotion, but to increase park use and the activity levels of park users, the crucial attributes related to active park use need to be defined. Not only user characteristics and structural park attributes, but also characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood are important to examine. Furthermore, internationally comparable studies are needed, to find out if similar intervention strategies might be effective worldwide. The main aim of this study was to examine whether the overall number of park visitors and their activity levels depend on study site, neighborhood walkability and neighborhood income.

Methods

Data were collected in 20 parks in Ghent, Belgium and San Diego, USA. Two trained observers systematically coded park characteristics using the Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) tool, and park user characteristics using the System for Observing Play and recreation in Communities (SOPARC) tool. Multilevel multiple regression models were conducted in MLwiN 2.25.

Results

In San Diego parks, activity levels of park visitors and number of vigorously active visitors were higher than in Ghent, while the number of visitors walking and the overall number of park visitors were lower. Neighborhood walkability was positively associated with the overall number of visitors, the number of visitors walking, number of sedentary visitors and mean activity levels of visitors. Neighborhood income was positively associated with the overall number of visitors, but negatively with the number of visitors being vigorously active.

Conclusions

Neighborhood characteristics are important to explain park use. Neighborhood walkability-related attributes should be taken into account when promoting the use of existing parks or creating new parks. Because no strong differences were found between parks in high- and low-income neighborhoods, it seems that promoting park use might be a promising strategy to increase physical activity in low-income populations, known to be at higher risk for overweight and obesity.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Van Dyck et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee IM, for the American College of Sports Medicine: Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:1334-1359.
• [2]Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U: Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012, 380:247-257.
• [3]Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB: Ecological models of health behavior. In Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:465-486.
• [4]Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ: The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:1793-1812.
• [5]Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, Payne L: Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. Am J Prev Med 2005, 28:150-158.
• [6]Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA: The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med 2005, 28:159-168.
• [7]Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ: Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. Am J Prev Med 2008, 34:299-305.
• [8]McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D: System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health 2006, 3:S208-S222.
• [9]Payne LL, Mowen AJ, Orsega-Smith E: An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race, and age. Leisure Sci 2002, 24:181-198.
• [10]Mowen A, Payne LL, Scott D: Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited. Leisure Sci 2005, 27:191-204.
• [11]Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, Overton A, Evenson KR, Staten LK, Porter D, McKenzie TL, Catellier D: Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics 2006, 118:1381-1389.
• [12]Mowen A, Orsega-Smith E, Payne L, Ainsworth B, Godbey G: The role of park proximity and social support in shaping park visitation, physical activity, and perceived health among older adults. J Phys Act Health 2007, 4:167-179.
• [13]Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, Crawford D, Andrianopoulos N, Ball K, Salmon J, Hume C: Features of public open spaces and physical activity among children: findings from the CLAN study. Prev Med 2008, 47:514-518.
• [14]Saelens BE, Frank L, Auffrey C, Whitaker R, Burdette H, Colabianchi N: Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health 2006, 3:S109-S207.
• [15]Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ: Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2001, 91:1995-2003.
• [16]Gordon-Larsen P, McMurray RG, Popkin BM: Determinants of adolescent physical activity and inactivity patterns. Pediatrics 2000, 105:1327-1328.
• [17]Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, Reininger B, Ureda JR, Thompson SJ: Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use a community rail-trail. Prev Med 2001, 32:191-200.
• [18]Owen N, Cerin E, Leslie E, du Toit L, Coffee N, Frank LD, Bauman AE, Hugo G, Saelens BE, Sallis JF: Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32:387-395.
• [19]Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Conway TL, Slymen DJ, Cain K, Chapman JE, Kerr J: Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:1285-1293.
• [20]Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I: Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med 2010, 50:S74-S79.
• [21]Lovasi GS, Hutson MA, Guerra M, Neckerman KM: Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations. Epidemiol Rev 2009, 31:7-20.
• [22]Sallis JF, Slymen DJ, Conway TL, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Cain K, Chapman JE: Income disparities in perceived neighborhood built and social environment attributes. Health Place 2011, 17:1274-1283.
• [23]Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, Couch SC, Zhou C, Colburn T, Cain KL, Chapman J, Glanz K: Obesogenic neighborhood environments, child and parent obesity: the Neighborhood Impact on Kids Study. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42:e57-e64.
• [24]Frank LD, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Leary L, Cain KL, Conway TL, Hess PM: The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br J Sports Med 2010, 44:924-933.
• [25]Frank LD, Saelens BE, Chapman J, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Glanz K, Couch SC, Learnihan V, Zhou C, Colburn T, Cain KL: Objective assessment of obesogenic environments in youth: geographic information methods and spatial findings from the neighborhood impact on kids study. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42:e47-e55.
• [26]Keene ON: The log transformation is special. Stat Med 1995, 14:811-819.
• [27]Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman AE, Ainsworth BE, Bull FC, Craig CL: Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults in 11 countries. Am J Prev Med 2009, 36:484-490.
• [28]Leslie E, Saelens B, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Coffee N, Hugo G: Residents perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighborhoods: a pilot study. Health Place 2005, 11:227-236.
• [29]Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D: Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: and environmental scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:1552-1558.
• [30]Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Owen N, Sallis JF, De Bourdeaudhuij I: Neighborhood walkability and sedentary time in Belgian adults. Am J Prev Med 2010, 39:25-32.
• [31]Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W: Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002, 34:1996-2001.
• [32]Cohen DA, Setodje C, Evenson KR, Ward P, Lapham S, Hillier A, McKenzie TL: How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health 2011, 8:1117-1123.