Active Use of Parks in Flanders (Belgium): An Exploratory Observational Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Setting
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. The Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
2.2.2. The System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC)
2.2.3. Training of the Researchers
2.3. Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Associations of the Park Areas and Temporal Characteristics with the Odds of Observing at Least One Park User
3.3. Association of the Park Areas and Temporal Characteristics with the Number of Park Users
3.4. Association of the Park Areas and Temporal Characteristics with Park Users’ Activity Levels
4. Discussion
4.1. Strengths
4.2. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Alwan, A. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2010; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mendis, S. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Boyce, W.F.; Vereecken, C.; Mulvihill, C.; Roberts, C.; Currie, C.; Pickett, W. Comparison of overweight and obesity prevalence in school-aged youth from 34 countries and their relationships with physical activity and dietary patterns. Obes. Rev. 2005, 6, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kesaniemi, Y.A.; Danforth, E.; Jensen, M.D.; Kopelman, P.G.; Lefebvre, P.; Reeder, B.A. Dose-response issues concerning physical activity and health: An evidence-based symposium. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 2001, 33, S351–S358. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bauman, A.E. Updating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: An epidemiological review 2000–2003. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2004, 7, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, A.; Sarmento, H.; Martins, J.; Saboga Nunes, L. Prevalence of physical activity in European adults—Compliance with the World Health Organization’s physical activity guidelines. Prev. Med. 2015, 81, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sisson, S.B.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. International prevalence of physical activity in youth and adults. Obes. Rev. 2008, 9, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warburton, D.E.; Nicol, C.W.; Bredin, S.S. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ 2006, 174, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bedimo-Rung, A.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Cohen, D.A. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A. Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis. Sci. 2007, 29, 315–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Carver, A.; Hume, C.; Crawford, D.; Timperio, A.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Are independent mobility and territorial range associated with park visitation among youth? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menai, M.; Charreire, H.; Feuillet, T.; Salze, P.; Weber, C.; Enaux, C.; Andreeva, V.A.; Hercberg, S.; Nazare, J.A.; Perchoux, C.; et al. Walking and cycling for commuting, leisure and errands: Relations with individual characteristics and leisure-time physical activity in a cross-sectional survey (the ACTI-Cites project). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Babey, S.H.; Brown, E.R.; Hastert, T.A. Access to safe parks helps increase physical activity among teenagers. Policy Brief UCLA Cent. Health Policy Res. 2005, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Kaczynski, A.; Potwarka, L.R.; Smale, B.J.A.; Havitz, M.E. Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: Variations by gender and age. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 174–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Francis, J.; Middleton, N.J.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1752–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Cerin, E.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J.; Deforche, B.; Veitch, J. Park proximity, quality and recreational physical activity among mid-older aged adults: Moderating effects of individual factors and area of residence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baker, E.A.; Schootman, M.; Kelly, C.; Barnidge, E. Do recreational resources contribute to physical activity? J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Ball, K.; Crawford, D.; Abbott, G.; Salmon, J. Is park visitation associated with leisure-time and transportation physical activity? Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 732–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flowers, E.P.; Freeman, P.; Gladwell, V.F. A cross-sectional study examining predictors of visit frequency to local green space and the impact this has on physical activity levels. BMC Public Health 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Besenyi, G.M.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Wilhelm, S.S.A.; Vaughan, K.B. Demographic variations in observed energy expenditure across park activity areas. Prev. Med. 2013, 56, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Floyd, M.F.; Spengler, J.O.; Maddock, J.E.; Gobster, P.H.; Suau, L.J. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reed, J.; Arant, C.A.; Wells, P.; Stevens, C.; Hagen, S.; Harring, H. A descriptive exmnination of the most frequently used activty settings in 25 community parks using direct observation. J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, S183–S195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shores, K.A.; West, S.T. The relationship between built park environments and physical activity in four park locations. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2008, 14, e9–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.A.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joseph, R.P.; Maddock, J.E. Observational park-based physical activity studies: A systematic review of the literature. Prev. Med. 2016, 89, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evenson, K.R.; Jones, S.A.; Holliday, K.M.; Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L. Park characteristics, use, and physical activity: A review of studies using SOPARC (system for observing play and recreation in communities). Prev. Med. 2016, 86, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Carver, A.; Abbott, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J. How active are people in metropolitan parks? An observational study of park visitation in Australia. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Ball, K.; Crawford, D.; Abbott, G.R.; Salmon, J. Park improvements and park activity: A natural experiment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 42, 616–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parra, D.C.; McKenzie, T.L.; Ribeiro, I.C.; Ferreira Hino, A.A.; Dreisinger, M.; Coniglio, K.; Munk, M.; Brownson, R.C.; Pratt, M.; Hoehner, C.M.; et al. Assessing physical activity in public parks in Brazil using systematic observation. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1420–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hino, A.A.F.; Reis, R.S.; Ribeiro, I.C.; Parra, D.C.; Brownson, R.C.; Fermino, R.C. Using observational methods to evaluate public open spaces and physical activity in Brazil. J. Phys. Act. Health 2010, 7, S146–S154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pleson, E.; Nieuwendyk, L.M.; Lee, K.K.; Chaddah, A.; Nykiforuk, C.I.; Schopflocher, D. Understanding older adults’ usage of community green spaces in Taipei, Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 1444–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tu, H.; Liao, X.; Schuller, K.; Cook, A.; Fan, S.; Lan, G.; Lu, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Moore, J.B.; Maddock, J.E. Insights from an observational assessment of park-based physical activity in Nanchang, China. Prev. Med. Rep. 2015, 2, 930–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Dyck, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Cardon, G.; Deforche, B.; Adams, M.A.; Geremia, C.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I. Associations of neighborhood characteristics with active park use: An observational study in two cities in the USA and Belgium. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2013, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Peschardt, K.K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U. Use of small urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindberg, M.; Schipperijn, J. Active use of urban park facilities—Expectations versus reality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics Belgium 2015. Available online: http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/publications/statistiques/bevolking/Bevolking_nat_geslacht_opp_bevolkingsdichtheid.jsp (accessed on 25 May 2016).
- Gent in CIJFERS. Available online: http://gent.buurtmonitor.be/ (accessed on25 May 2016).
- Statistics Belgium 2016. Available online: http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/binaries/1801_nl%20gent_en_gentgebruikers_digitaal_tcm325-244558.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2016).
- Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Auffrey, C.; Whitaker, R.C.; Burdette, H.L.; Colabianchi, N. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S190–S207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; Setodji, C.; Evenson, K.R.; Ward, P.; Lapham, S.; Hillier, A.; McKenzie, T.L. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- ALR. Protocol SOPARC. Available online: http://activelivingresearch.org/soparc-system-observing-play-and-recreation-communities (accessed on 17 March 2014).
- Hallgren, K.A. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant. Methods Psychol. 2012, 8, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bates, D.M.M.; Bolker, B.; Walket, S. R Package LME4. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (accessed on 25 May 2016).
- Carver, A.; Timperio, A.F.; Crawford, D.A. Young and free? A study of independent mobility among urban and rural dwelling Australian children. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2012, 15, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duzenli, T.; Bayramoglu, E.; Ozbilen, A. Needs and preferences of adolescents in open urban spaces. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 201–216. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Derose, K.P.; Martinez, H.; Setodji, C.; McKenzie, T.L. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Hastmann, T.J.; Besenyi, G.M. Variations in observed park physical activity intensity level by gender, race, and age: Individual and joint effects. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, S151–S160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Clarys, P.; Nasar, J.; Salmon, J.; Goubert, L.; Deforche, B. Street characteristics preferred for transportation walking among older adults: A choice-based conjoint analysis with manipulated photographs. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hecke, L.; Deforche, B.; Van Dyck, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Veitch, J.; Van Cauwenberg, J. Social and physical environmental factors influencing adolescents’ physical activity in urban public open spaces: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Floyd, M.F.; Bocarro, J.N.; Smith, W.R.; Baran, P.K.; Moore, R.C.; Cosco, N.G.; Edwards, M.B.; Suau, L.J.; Fang, K. Park-based physical activity among children and adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Saelens, B.E. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schipperijn, J.; Bentsen, P.; Troelsen, J.; Toftager, M.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Parker, K.; Bangay, S.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. Adolescents’ ratings of features of parks that encourage park visitation and physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beyer, K.M.; Kaltenbach, A.; Szabo, A.; Bogar, S.; Nieto, F.J.; Malecki, K.M. Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: Evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 3453–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ries, A.V.; Gittelsohn, J.; Voorhees, C.C.; Roche, K.M.; Clifton, K.J.; Astone, N.M. The environment and urban adolescents’ use of recreational facilities for physical activity: A qualitative study. Am. J. Health Promot. 2008, 23, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Park User Characteristics | Total | Children | Adolescents | Adults | Seniors | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Park users | 837 | 173 | 20.7 | 216 | 25.8 | 367 | 43.9 | 81 | 9.7 | |
Male | 491 | 58.7 | 117 | 67.6 | 140 | 64.8 | 187 | 51.0 | 47 | 58.0 |
Female | 346 | 41.3 | 56 | 32.4 | 76 | 35.2 | 180 | 49.1 | 34 | 42.0 |
Caucasian | 693 | 82.8 | 145 | 83.8 | 173 | 80.1 | 303 | 82.6 | 72 | 88.9 |
Non Caucasian | 144 | 17.2 | 28 | 16.2 | 43 | 19.9 | 64 | 17.4 | 9 | 11.1 |
Sedentary | 227 | 27.1 | 35 | 20.2 | 71 | 32.9 | 101 | 27.5 | 20 | 24.7 |
Moderately active | 207 | 24.7 | 55 | 31.8 | 49 | 22.7 | 75 | 20.4 | 28 | 34.6 |
Vigorously active | 403 | 48.2 | 83 | 48.0 | 96 | 44.4 | 191 | 52.0 | 33 | 40.7 |
Descriptive Characteristics | Park 1 | Park 2 |
---|---|---|
Access | ||
Access to the park is free | Yes | Yes |
Neighbourhood immediately surrounding park | Residential | Residential |
Entrances | 3 | 3 |
Bike racks | No | Yes |
Parking lots | Yes | No |
Sidewalks adjacent to park | Yes | Yes |
Roadways trough park | No | No |
Trails & paths | ||
Paved trails present | No | Yes |
Unpaved trails | No | Yes |
Paths | Yes | Yes |
General areas | ||
Open space | Yes | Yes |
Meadows | No | No |
Wooded area | Yes | Yes |
Pond | Yes | Yes |
Water Areas | ||
Stream/creek | No | No |
Swimming pool | No | No |
Fountain | No | No |
Beach area | No | No |
Eating/drinking features | ||
Water fountain | No | No |
Grill/fire pit | No | No |
Picnic area | No | No |
Vending food/drinks | No | No |
Facilities | ||
Restrooms | No | No |
Shelter | No | No |
Entertainment venues | No | No |
Historical features | No | No |
Sitting and resting features (non-trail) | ||
Benches | Yes | No |
Tables | No | Yes |
Seat walls | No | No |
Bleachers | No | No |
Landscaping & General Aesthetics | ||
Flowers | No | No |
Shrubs/bushes | No | No |
Landscaping beds | No | No |
Views of outside park | No | No |
Sculpture of other art | No | No |
Trash cans | Yes | Yes |
Wildlife area | No | No |
Information related features | ||
Rules/regulation signs | No | No |
Maps | Yes | No |
Event postings | Yes | Yes |
Safety related features | ||
Telephone | No | No |
Play structure & other play components | ||
Play structure present | Yes (1) | Yes (2) |
Seating around play structure | Yes | Yes |
Separate play sets for different age groups | No | No |
Surface material | Sand | Sand |
Things to hang from | Yes | No |
Things to slide down | Yes (1) | Yes (1) |
Things to climb on, up, or through | Yes (2) | Yes (1) |
Things to stand or walk on | No | No |
Things to spin | Yes (1) | No |
Swings | Yes (1 baby, 1 chair) | Yes (2 chair) |
Spring toys | Yes (3 animals) | Yes (2 animals) |
Imaginary play structure | No | No |
Independent Variables | Total Number of Park Users | Male Park Users | Female Park Users | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Logistic Regression a | Poisson Model b | Logistic Regression a | Poisson Model b | Logistic Regression a | Poisson Model b | |||||||
OR | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | |
Time of day (ref = morning) | ||||||||||||
lunch | 4.40 *** | 1.94–9.99 | 0.98 | 0.76–1.29 | 7.29 *** | 3.01–17.68 | 0.71 | 0.49–1.02 | 1.38 | 0.63–3.03 | 1.57 * | 1.06–2.33 |
afternoon | 6.82 *** | 2.96–15.62 | 2.09 *** | 1.65–2.66 | 15.46 *** | 6.21–38.48 | 1.53 * | 1.10–2.12 | 3.76 *** | 1.72–8.23 | 2.01 *** | 1.40–2.88 |
evening | 4.46 *** | 1.97–10.09 | 1.40 ** | 1.09–1.81 | 6.01 *** | 2.50–14.42 | 1.14 | 0.81–1.61 | 3.26 ** | 1.49–7.10 | 1.36 | 0.92–1.99 |
Type of park area (ref = grassy area with a playground) | ||||||||||||
trail | 13.09 *** | 4.24–40.41 | 1.79 | 0.90–3.59 | 15.79 *** | 4.38–56.96 | 2.09 * | 1.12–3.92 | 4.53 * | 1.37–14.96 | 1.43 | 0.96–2.11 |
wood | 0.05 *** | 0.02–0.14 | 0.45 *** | 0.31–0.67 | 0.06 *** | 0.02–0.15 | 0.65 * | 0.43–0.97 | 0.02 *** | 0.00–0.12 | 0.55 | 0.18–1.69 |
Day type (ref = week) | ||||||||||||
weekend | 0.38 * | 0.15–0.98 | 0.96 | 0.63–1.45 | 0.72 | 0.26–1.92 | 1.09 | 0.72–1.66 | 0.46 | 0.20–1.06 | 0.75 | 0.53–1.07 |
Independent Variables | Child/Adolescent Park Users | Adult/Senior Park Users | ||||||||||
Logistic Regression a | Poisson Model b | Logistic Regression a | Poisson Model b | |||||||||
OR | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | |||||
Time of day (ref = morning) | ||||||||||||
lunch | 4.86 ** | 1.71–13.79 | 2.05 | 0.96–4.34 | 3.05 ** | 1.35–6.88 | 0.89 | 0.66–1.21 | ||||
afternoon | 17.81 *** | 6.35–49.98 | 4.91 *** | 2.38–10.11 | 4.54 *** | 2.00–10.29 | 1.17 | 0.88–1.54 | ||||
evening | 10.78 *** | 3.86–30.06 | 3.28 ** | 1.56–6.89 | 2.45 * | 1.09–5.50 | 1.09 | 0.82–1.46 | ||||
Type of park area (ref = grassy area with a playground) | ||||||||||||
trail | 4.26 *** | 1.81–10.05 | 1.66 | 0.82–3.34 | 8.15 *** | 2.65–25.00 | 1.51 * | 1.08–2.11 | ||||
wood | 0.09 *** | 0.03–0.23 | 0.67 | 0.43–1.05 | 0.04 *** | 0.01–0.12 | 0.53 * | 0.31–0.92 | ||||
Day type (ref = week) | ||||||||||||
weekend | 1.37 | 0.49–3.83 | 0.82 | 0.48–1.40 | 0.29 ** | 0.13–0.68 | 0.96 | 0.77–1.20 |
Independent Variables | Average PA Level for All Park Users | Average PA Level for Male Park Users | Average PA Level for Female Park Users | Average PA Level for Child/Adolescent Park Users | Average PA Level for Adult/Senior Park Users | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exp. B | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | Exp. B | 95% CI | |
Time of day (ref = morning) | ||||||||||
lunch | 0.85 | 0.69–1.04 | 1.02 | 0.79–1.30 | 0.76 * | 0.59–0.98 | 0.83 | 0.52–1.33 | 0.80 | 0.64–1.00 |
afternoon | 0.76 ** | 0.62–0.93 | 0.87 | 0.69–1.11 | 0.78 * | 0.61–0.98 | 0.69 | 0.45–1.07 | 0.76 * | 0.62–0.95 |
evening | 0.87 | 0.71–1.07 | 0.86 | 0.67–1.11 | 0.91 | 0.73–1.17 | 0.78 | 0.50–1.21 | 0.83 | 0.66–1.04 |
Type of park area (ref = grassy area with a playground) | ||||||||||
trail | 1.73 *** | 1.45–2.06 | 1.96 *** | 1.67–2.30 | 1.69 *** | 1.37–2.08 | 1.54 ** | 1.19–2.00 | 1.92 *** | 1.58–2.34 |
wood | 1.01 | 0.78–1.32 | 1.01 | 0.80–1.28 | 1.29 | 0.85–1.94 | 0.99 | 0.69–1.43 | 1.05 | 0.79–1.41 |
Day type (ref = week) | ||||||||||
weekend | 1.11 | 0.93–1.33 | 1.21 * | 1.03–1.42 | 0.99 | 0.78–1.25 | 1.20 | 0.98–1.48 | 1.02 | 0.78–1.32 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Van Hecke, L.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Clarys, P.; Van Dyck, D.; Veitch, J.; Deforche, B. Active Use of Parks in Flanders (Belgium): An Exploratory Observational Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010035
Van Hecke L, Van Cauwenberg J, Clarys P, Van Dyck D, Veitch J, Deforche B. Active Use of Parks in Flanders (Belgium): An Exploratory Observational Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(1):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010035
Chicago/Turabian StyleVan Hecke, Linde, Jelle Van Cauwenberg, Peter Clarys, Delfien Van Dyck, Jenny Veitch, and Benedicte Deforche. 2017. "Active Use of Parks in Flanders (Belgium): An Exploratory Observational Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 1: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010035