A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Survey Items
2.2. Importance of Park Features for Encouraging Park-Based Physical Activity
2.3. Reliability of Survey Items
2.4. Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Importance of Park Features for Encouraging Park-Based Physical Activity
3.2. Additional Features
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Greer, A.E.; Marcello, R.; Graveline, R. Community members’ assessment of the physical activity environments in their neighborhood parks: Utility of the community stakeholder park audit tool. Health Promot. Pract. 2015, 16, 202–209. [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]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Henderson, K.A. Parks and recreation settings and active living: A review of associations with physical activity function and intensity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 619–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Havitz, M.E. Examining the Relationship between Proximal Park Features and Residents’ Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2009, 27, 42–58. [Google Scholar]
- Veitch, J.; Abbott, G.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Wilhelm Stanis, S.A.; Besenyi, G.M.; Lamb, K.E. Park availability and physical activity, TV time, and overweight and obesity among women: Findings from Australia and the United States. Health Place 2016, 38, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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.; 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]
- Evenson, K.R.; Wen, F.; Hillier, A.; Cohen, D.A. Assessing the contribution of parks to physical activity using GPS and accelerometry. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013, 45, 1981. [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]
- 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]
- Hunter, R.F.; Christian, H.; Veitch, J.; Astell-Burt, T.; Hipp, J.A.; Schipperijn, J. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 124, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Besenyi, G.M.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Koohsari, M.J.; Oestman, K.B.; Bergstrom, R.; Potwarka, L.R.; Reis, R.S. Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 146. [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]
- 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]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Carver, A.; Timperio, A.; Crawford, D.; Fletcher, E.; Giles-Corti, B. A natural experiment to examine the impact of park renewal on park-use and park-based physical activity in a disadvantaged neighbourhood: The REVAMP study methods. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Craig, C.L.; Marshall, A.L.; Sjöström, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Booth, M.L.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Pratt, M.; Ekelund, U.; Yngve, A.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003, 35, 1381–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Department of Health. Australia’s Physical Activity and Sedenatry Behaviour Guidelines for Young People (13–17 Years); Department of Health: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
- Stanis, S.A.W.; Schneider, I.E.; Sinew, K.J.; Chavez, D.J.; Vogel, M.C. Physical Activity and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Differences in Important Site Attributes and Perceived Constraints. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 2009, 27, 73–91. [Google Scholar]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Besenyi, G.M. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 42, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Study of Environmental and Individual Determinants (SEID). Available online: http://www.see.uwa.edu.au/research/cbeh/projects/seid (accessed on 2 November 2017).
- Sim, J.; Wright, C. Research in Health Care: Concepts, Designs and Methods; Nelson Thornes: Cheltenham, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Veitch, J.; Wang, W.C.; Salmon, J.; Carver, A.; Giles-Corti, B.; Timperio, A. Who Goes to Metropolitan Parks? A Latent Class Analysis Approach to Understanding Park Visitation. Leis. Sci. 2017, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temple, V.; Rhodes, R.; Higgins, J.W. Unleashing physical activity: An observational study of park use, dog walking, and physical activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Finlay, J.; Franke, T.; McKay, H.; Sims-Gould, J. Therapeutic landscapes and wellbeing in later life: Impacts of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health Place 2015, 34, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dalton, A.M.; Wareham, N.; Griffin, S.; Jones, A.P. Neighbourhood greenspace is associated with a slower decline in physical activity in older adults: A prospective cohort study. SSM Popul. Health 2016, 2, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Owen, N.; Humpel, N.; Leslie, E.; Bauman, A.; Sallis, J.F. Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 27, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- Jansen, F.; Ettema, D.F.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Pierik, F.H.; Dijst, M.J. How do type and size of natural environments relate to physical activity behavior? Health Place 2017, 46, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cranney, L.; Phongsavan, P.; Kariuki, M.; Stride, V.; Scott, A.; Hua, M.; Bauman, A. Impact of an outdoor gym on park users’ physical activity: A natural experiment. Health Place 2016, 37, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferdinand, A.; Sen, B.; Rahurkar, S.; Engler, S.; Menachemi, N. The relationship between built environments and physical activity: A systematic review. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, e7–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Demographic Characteristic | Mean (SD) or % |
---|---|
Age in Years (Mean (sd)) | 51.13 (14.68) |
Sex (%) | |
Male | 32.6% |
Female | 67.4% |
Country of birth (%) | |
Born in Australia | 59.0% |
Born elsewhere | 41.0% |
Marital status (%) | |
Married/defacto | 79.5% |
Separated/widowed/divorced | 14.0% |
Never married | 6.4% |
Employment status (%) | |
Working full-time | 33.2% |
Working part-time | 23.9% |
Unemployed/keeping house/raising children/studying | 22.1% |
Retired | 20.9% |
Education level (%) | |
No formal qualifications | 13.0% |
Year 12/apprentice/diploma or certificate | 30.3% |
University degree or higher degree | 56.7% |
Children ≤ 15 years (%) | 60.9% |
Child age (mean (sd)) | 8.37 (3.6) |
Dog ownership (%) | 32.9% |
Years lived in neighbourhood (mean (sd)) | 18.0 (15.022) |
Do you have access to a motor vehicle for private use? (%) | |
Yes | 95.3% |
No | 4.7% |
Park Location (%) | |
Intervention | 46.2% |
Control | 53.8% |
Park Visitation (%) | |
Visited a park in the past 7 days | |
Yes | 58.5% |
No | 41.5% |
Frequency of visitation in the past 3 months (%) | |
Less than once per week | 46.3% |
At least once per week | 53.7% |
Leisure time physical activity | |
Participate in more than 150 min/week | 59.3% |
Minutes/week of leisure time physical activity; mean (SD) | 212.42 (305.59) |
Park Feature | Total | Sex | Age | Parental Status | Physical Activity Levels | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n = 2775 % (Ranking) | Male n = 897 % (Ranking) | Female n = 1856 % (Ranking) | <60 Years n = 1964 % (Ranking) | ≥60 Years n = 745 % (Ranking) | No Children < 15 Years n = 1392 % (Ranking) | Child(ren) <15 Years n = 1397 % (Ranking) | <150 min/week n = 744 % (Ranking) | ≥150 min/week n = 550 % (Ranking) | |
Well maintained | 96.2 (1) | 94.9 (1) * | 96.9 (1) | 97.3 (1) ** | 93.7 (1) | 95.1 (1) * | 97.3 (1) | 96.1 (1) | 97.2 (1) |
Feel safe going there | 95.4 (2) | 92.5 (2) ** | 96.8 (2) | 97.0 (2) ** | 91.1 (3) | 93.4 (2) ** | 97.3 (1) | 95.1 (2) | 96.1 (2) |
Relaxing | 91.2 (3) | 90.3 (3) | 91.5 (4) | 91.3 (4) | 91.1 (4) | 91.8 (3) | 90.6 (5) | 90.5 (3) | 91.2 (5) |
Easy to get to | 90.7 (4) | 85.8 (5) ** | 93.1 (3) | 94.0 (3) ** | 82.0 (10) | 87.0 (5) ** | 94.3 (2) | 91.8 (4) | 93.5 (3) |
Shade trees | 90.3 (5) | 88.9 (4) | 91.0 (5) | 89.9 (5) | 91.2 (2) | 89.1 (4) | 91.4 (4) | 90.1 (5) | 91.8 (4) |
Friendly people | 86.6 (6) | 83.0 (7) ** | 88.4 (6) | 88.0 (6) ** | 82.6 (8) | 85.4 (6) | 87.8 (6) | 85.8 (6) | 87.9 (7) |
Interesting walks/cycles/jogs | 86.0 (7) | 83.6 (6) * | 87.3 (7) | 87.2 (7) ** | 82.9 (7) | 84.7 (8) * | 87.3 (7) | 82.6 (7) ** | 91.2 (6) |
Toilets | 83.3 (8) | 80.4 (9) ** | 84.8 (8) | 83.9 (8) | 81.8 (11) | 81.8 (11) * | 84.8 (8) | 81.4 (8) | 84.3 (10) |
Trees and birdlife | 83.2 (9) | 82.5 (8) | 83.5 (10) | 82.2 (10) * | 86.2 (5) | 85.1 (7) ** | 81.3 (9) | 82.7 (9) | 84.9 (9) |
Play equipment | 81.5 (10) | 77.0 (12) ** | 83.7 (9) | 83.8 (9) ** | 75.8 (13) | 71.2 (16) ** | 91.5 (3) | 83.5 (10) * | 78.5 (14) |
Benches | 81.0 (11) | 78.1 (11) * | 82.4 (11) | 79.4 (13) ** | 84.6 (6) | 83.8 (9) ** | 78.4 (11) | 82.0 (11) | 80.6 (12) |
Variety of paths | 80.4 (12) | 79.1 (10) | 81.1 (14) | 79.9 (12) | 82.2 (9) | 83.1 (10) ** | 77.8 (13) | 77.1 (12) ** | 87.2 (8) |
Walking distance from home or work | 79.2 (13) | 74.2 (13) ** | 81.8 (12) | 82.0 (11) ** | 71.8 (14) | 77.6 (13) * | 80.8 (10) | 81.0 (13) | 82.0 (11) |
Other people using it | 78.3 (14) | 71.8 (14) ** | 81.4 (13) | 78.2 (14) | 78.3 (12) | 78.6 (12) | 78.1 (12) | 77.3 (14) | 80.0 (13) |
Drinking fountains | 73.1 (15) | 69.0 (15) ** | 75.1 (15) | 73.7 (15) | 70.8 (16) | 72.2 (14) | 74.0 (14) | 70.8 (15) * | 76.9 (15) |
Car parking | 72.6 (16) | 67.4 (16) ** | 75.0 (16) | 73.4 (16) | 71.5 (15) | 71.5 (15) | 73.6 (15) | 74.9 (16) | 71.8 (16) |
Attractive features | 60.6 (17) | 62.8 (17) | 59.6 (17) | 59.2 (17) * | 64.6 (17) | 66.6 (17) ** | 54.8 (16) | 56.8 (17) * | 63.9 (17) |
Bike racks | 49.9 (18) | 42.1 (18) ** | 53.7 (18) | 52.4 (18) ** | 44.2 (19) | 46.0 (19) ** | 53.7 (17) | 50.3 (18) | 52.4 (18) |
Off-leash area | 42.5 (19) | 37.8 (19) ** | 44.7 (19) | 41.7 (19) | 44.3 (18) | 46.7 (18) ** | 38.5 (18) | 40.6 (19) | 43.9 (19) |
Close to public transport | 28.3 (20) | 31.4 (20) * | 26.7 (20) | 24.5 (20) ** | 38.0 (20) | 36.4 (20) ** | 20.6 (19) | 28.2 (20) * | 22.8 (20) |
© 2017 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
Costigan, S.A.; Veitch, J.; Crawford, D.; Carver, A.; Timperio, A. A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111335
Costigan SA, Veitch J, Crawford D, Carver A, Timperio A. A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(11):1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111335
Chicago/Turabian StyleCostigan, Sarah A., Jenny Veitch, David Crawford, Alison Carver, and Anna Timperio. 2017. "A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 11: 1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111335