Examining the Features of Parks That Children Visit During Three Stages of Childhood
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Data Analysis
3. Results
Associations Between Park Features at Three Timepoints
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Active Healthy Kids Australia. Muscular Fitness: It’s Time for a Jump Start: The 2018 Acive Healthy Kids Australia Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Young People; Active Healthy Kids Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Active Healthy Kids: Global Alliance. The Global Matrix 3.0 on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Available online: https://www.activehealthykids.org/global-matrix/3-0/ (accessed on 30 November 2018).
- Australian Government: Department of Health. Australia’s Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines. Available online: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-phys-act-guidelines#apa512 (accessed on 21 November 2018).
- World Health Organisation. Urban Green Spaces. Available online: http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/cities/health-risks/urban-green-space/en/ (accessed on 29 August 2018).
- Adams, J.; Veitch, J.; Barnett, L. Physical Activity and Fundamental Motor Skill Performance of 5–10 Year Old Children in Three Different Playgrounds. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P.; Page, A.S.; Wheeler, B.W.; Cooper, A.R. What can global positioning systems tell us about the contribution of different types of urban greenspace to children’s physical activity? Health Place 2012, 18, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gladwell, V.F.; Brown, D.K.; Wood, C.; Sandercock, G.R.; Barton, J.L. The great outdoors: How a green exercise environment can benefit all. Extrem. Physiol. Med. 2013, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, C.; Gladwell, V.; Barton, J. A repeated measures experiment of school playing environment to increase physical activity and enhance self-esteem in UK school children. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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 (Suppl. 1), S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Edwards, N.; Hooper, P.; Knuiman, M.; Foster, S.; Giles-Corti, B. Associations between park features and adolescent park use for physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Gardsjord, H.S.; Tveit, M.S.; Nordh, H. Promoting Youth’s Physical Activity through Park Design: Linking Theory and Practice in a Public Health Perspective. Landscape Res. 2013, 39, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besenyi, G.M.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Bergstrom, R.; Oestman, K.B.; Colabianchi, N. Sex Differences in the Relationship between Park Proximity and Features and Child and Youth Physical Activity. Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 56–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Bagley, S.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play. Health Place 2006, 12, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s Perceptions of the Use of Public Open Spaces for Active Free-play. Children’s Geogr. 2007, 5, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Sideris, A. What Brings Children to the Park? Analysis and Measurement of the Variables Affecting Children’s Use of Parks. J. Amer. Plann. Assn. 2009, 76, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irvine, K.N.; Warber, S.L.; Devine-Wright, P.; Gaston, K.J. Understanding Urban Green Space as a Health Resource: A Qualitative Comparison of Visit Motivation and Derived Effects among Park Users in Sheffield, UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Crawford, D.; Abbott, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Carver, A.; Timperio, A. The REVAMP natural experiment study: The impact of a play-scape installation on park visitation and park-based physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunton, G.F.; Almanza, E.; Jerrett, M.; Wolch, J.; Pentz, M.A. Neighborhood park use by children: Use of accelerometry and global positioning systems. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s active free play in local neighborhoods: A behavioral mapping study. Health Educ. Res. 2008, 23, 870–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marzi, I.; Demetriou, Y.; Reimers, A.K. Social and physical environmental correlates of independent mobility in children: A systematic review taking sex/gender differences into account. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2018, 17, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timperio, A.; Crawford, D.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Typologies of neighbourhood environments and children’s physical activity, sedentary time and television viewing. Health Place 2017, 43, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Kerr, J.; Lee, S.; Rosenberg, D.E. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth a review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hinkley, T.; Salmon, J.; Okely, A.D.; Crawford, D.; Hesketh, K. The HAPPY study: Development and reliability of a parent survey to assess correlates of preschool children’s physical activity. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2012, 15, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, B.T.; Fernando, P.; Bauman, A.E.; Williamson, A.; Craig, J.C.; Redman, S. Measuring the quality of public open space using Google Earth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 40, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Victorian Planning Authority. Metropolitan Open Space Network. Available online: https://vpa.vic.gov.au/strategy-guidelines/metropolitan-open-space-network/ (accessed on 20 August 2018).
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K.; Crawford, D.; Timperio, A. Do features of public open spaces vary between urban and rural areas? Prev. Med. 2013, 56, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Schipperijn, J.; Hipp, J.A.; Besenyi, G.M.; Wilhelm Stanis, S.A.; Hughey, S.M.; Wilcox, S. ParkIndex: Development of a standardized metric of park access for research and planning. Prev. Med. 2016, 87, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fleiss, J.L.; Cohen, J. The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2016, 33, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol. Bull. 1968, 70, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Introducing the curriculum. Available online: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/foundation10/viccurriculum/hpe/intro.aspx (accessed on 10 October 2018).
Park Feature | Data Format | Park Visited at T1 Children: 3–5 Years (n = 353) | Park Visited at T2 Children: 6–8 Years (n = 375) | Park Visited at T3 Children: 9–11 Years (n = 310) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Access and surrounding neighbourhood | ||||
Walking distance from home (m) | M * | 705.7 | 805.3 | 685.6 |
Park size (ha) | M * | 3.9 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Closest to home | Yes (%) | 37.7 | 34.4 | 41.0 |
Public transport within sight | Yes (%) | 40.2 | 44.3 | 43.5 |
Road crossing | Yes (%) | 37.4 | 43.2 | 39.7 |
Parking | Yes (%) | 99.2 | 99.2 | 99.7 |
Bordering roads (>60 Kph) | Yes (%) | 7.1 | 6.7 | 6.1 |
Bordering footpaths | Yes (%) | 97.7 | 96.5 | 95.8 |
External trail | Yes (%) | 35.7 | 36.8 | 37.7 |
Activity areas within the park | ||||
Full courts (basketball, netball, tennis etc.) | M (SD) | 1.3 (2.9) | 1.7 (3.5) | 1.7 (3.5) |
Half courts (basketball, netball, tennis etc.) | M (SD) | 0.4 (0.9) | 0.5 (1.0) | 0.4 (0.8) |
Sports ovals | M (SD) | 1.6 (2.8) | 2.2 (3.1) | 2.2 (3.1) |
Other facilities (athletics track, fitness station, swimming pool etc.) | M (SD) | 2.4 (2.0) | 2.7 (2.0) | 2.7 (2.1) |
Number of playgrounds | M (SD) | 1.2 (0.6) | 1.2 (0.6) | 1.2 (0.7) |
Number of playground equipment | M (SD) | 12.9 (6.3) | 13.0 (6.5) | 12.5 (6.7) |
Playgrounds suitable for under 5 years | Yes (%) | 94.9 | 92.2 | 91.6 |
Playgrounds suitable for 6–10 years | Yes (%) | 92.6 | 92.3 | 90.0 |
Playgrounds suitable for 11–15 years | Yes (%) | 26.6 | 31.5 | 28.7 |
Open green space | Yes (%) | 99.2 | 99.7 | 98.1 |
Park quality and safety | ||||
Toilets | Yes (%) | 56.1 | 61.3 | 58.4 |
Drinking fountains | Yes (%) | 71.1 | 74.9 | 71.3 |
Benches | Yes (%) | 97.2 | 97.6 | 96.8 |
Picnic shelters | Yes (%) | 42.2 | 46.9 | 42.6 |
Picnic tables | Yes (%) | 85.0 | 85.1 | 81.8 |
Barbeque | Yes (%) | 52.4 | 56.5 | 51.8 |
Lights | Yes (%) | 65.4 | 70.7 | 66.8 |
Vandalism | Yes (%) | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
Excessive litter | Yes (%) | 7.1 | 6.9 | 5.2 |
Poor maintenance | Yes (%) | 1.7 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
Evidence of threatening persons or behaviours | Yes (%) | 0.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 |
Signs say dogs must be on a lead | Yes (%) | 42.5 | 37.6 | 40.3 |
Signs for dog off lead area | Yes (%) | 20.5 | 24.3 | 27.2 |
Signs say dogs must not enter playground | Yes (%) | 27.3 | 25.7 | 28.2 |
Evidence of landscaping (e.g., flower beds, formal gardens) | Yes (%) | 38.2 | 39.7 | 37.7 |
Artistic features (e.g., statue, fountain) | Yes (%) | 24.1 | 25.1 | 23.5 |
Trees | Yes (%) | 98.9 | 99.5 | 99.0 |
Water feature (lake, stream, pond etc.) | Yes (%) | 28.3 | 25.9 | 24.8 |
Bushland | Yes (%) | 21.5 | 22.7 | 23.2 |
Park Feature | Statistic | Park Visited at T2 (Ref T1; n = 375) | Park Visited at T3 (Ref T1; n = 310) | Park Visited at T3 (Ref T2; n = 310) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Access and surrounding neighbourhood | ||||
Walking distance from home (m) | exp(β) (95% CI) | 1.16 (1.03–1.30) * | 1.09 (0.96–1.23) | 0.94 (0.84–1.06) |
Park size (hectares) | exp(β) (95% CI) | 1.15 (1.02–1.31) * | 1.15 (1.01–1.31) * | 0.99 (0.88–1.14) |
Closest to home (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 0.66 (0.40–1.09) | 1.10 (0.65–1.85) | 1.66 (0.99–2.78) |
Public transport within sight (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.54 (0.96–2.48) | 1.38 (0.83–2.30) | 0.90 (0.55–1.49) |
Road crossing (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.89 (1.15–3.10) * | 1.31 (0.77–2.22) | 0.69 (0.42–1.15) |
Activity areas within park | ||||
Full courts | IRR (95% CI) | 1.42 (1.05–1.92) * | 1.32 (0.96–1.81) | 0.93 (0.69–1.25) |
Half courts | IRR (95% CI) | 1.20 (0.96–1.51) | 1.17 (0.91–1.50) | 0.98 (0.77–1.23) |
Sports ovals | IRR (95% CI) | 1.36 (1.15–1.60) ** | 1.33 (1.12–1.59) ** | 0.98 (0.83–1.16) |
Other facilities | IRR (95% CI) | 1.10 (1.01–1.21) * | 1.09 (0.99–1.20) | n/a |
Number of playgrounds | IRR (95% CI) | 1.01 (0.88–1.15) | 0.99 (0.86–1.14) | 0.98 (0.86–1.13) |
Number of playground equipment | IRR (95% CI) | 1.00 (0.96–1.05) | 0.96 (0.92–1.01) | 0.96 (0.92–1.01) |
Playgrounds suitable for 11–15 years (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.60 (0.98–2.62) | 1.20 (0.71–2.04) | 0.75 (0.45–1.24) |
Park quality and safety | ||||
Toilets (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.63 (1.01–2.63) * | 1.13 (0.68–1.88) | 0.69 (0.42–1.15) |
Barbeque (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.56 (0.95–2.55) | 0.84 (0.50–1.42) | 0.54 (0.32–0.91) * |
Lights (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.69 (1.03–2.79) * | 1.02 (0.61–1.72) | 0.60 (0.36–1.02) |
Excessive litter (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 0.82 (0.20–3.40) | 0.08 (0.01–0.53) | n/a |
Evidence of threatening persons or behaviours (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 31.24 (0.32–3089.16) | 1.24 (0.07–21.25) | 0.04 (0.01–4.33) |
Evidence of landscaping (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.17 (0.73–1.86) | 1.05 (0.64–1.74) | 0.90 (0.55–1.47) |
Artistic features (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.20 (0.70–2.07) | 1.12 (0.63–2.01) | 0.94 (0.53–1.65) |
Bushland (ref = no) | OR (95% CI) | 1.27 (0.72–2.33) | 1.36 (0.74–2.49) | 1.07 (0.60–1.92) |
© 2019 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
Flowers, E.P.; Timperio, A.; Hesketh, K.D.; Veitch, J. Examining the Features of Parks That Children Visit During Three Stages of Childhood. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1658. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091658
Flowers EP, Timperio A, Hesketh KD, Veitch J. Examining the Features of Parks That Children Visit During Three Stages of Childhood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(9):1658. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091658
Chicago/Turabian StyleFlowers, Elliott P., Anna Timperio, Kylie D. Hesketh, and Jenny Veitch. 2019. "Examining the Features of Parks That Children Visit During Three Stages of Childhood" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 9: 1658. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091658