Physical activity patterns in urban neighbourhood parks: insights from a multiple case study

Abstract

BackgroundMany characteristics of urban parks and neighbourhoods have been linked to patterns of physical activity, yet untangling these relationships to promote increased levels of physical activity presents methodological challenges. Based on qualitative and quantitative data, this article describes patterns of activity within urban parks and the socio-demographic characteristics of park visitors. It also accounts for these patterns in relation to the attributes of parks and their surrounding neighbourhoods.MethodsA multiple case study was undertaken that incorporated quantitative and qualitative data derived from first-hand observation in a purposive sample of four urban parks. Quantitative data, based on direct observation of visitors’ patterns of use and socio-demographic characteristics, were collected using a structured instrument. Differences in frequencies of observed activities and socio-demographic characteristics of visitors were compared between the four parks. Qualitative data, based on direct observation of park characteristics and patterns of use, were generated through digital photography and analyzed through captioning. Quantitative data on patterns in activity and socio-demographic characteristics were synthesized with the qualitative data on park and usage characteristics.ResultsA comprehensive portrait of each park in the study was generated. Activity types (sedentary, walking, dog-related, cycling, and play), patterns of park use (time of day, day of week), and socio-demographic characteristics (age group, social group) differed between the four parks. Patterns in park use and activity appeared to be associated with socio-demographic characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhoods as well as the physical and social environmental characteristics specific to each park.ConclusionsBoth park and neighbourhood characteristics influence patterns of use and physical activity within parks. The study findings suggest that socio-demographic characteristics of neighbourhoods surrounding parks need be considered in planning, development and management. Engaging local communities could help planners to develop and update urban parks in ways that reflect the needs and characteristics of community residents and, in turn, encourage visits and more physical activity amongst visitors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-962) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Park characteristics, use, and physical activity: A review of studies using SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities)

“…One study separated standing from other sedentary behaviors during the scan (Roemmich and Johnson, 2014). One identified whether or not a person was accompanied by a dog (Temple et al, 2011) and another modified the tool to observe users up to 2 min in order to capture dog-related questions (i.e., number of dogs, dog size) (McCormack et al, 2014). One study described cultural adaptations of the tool for use in Taiwan (Pleson et al, 2014) and another study did not use target areas, but rather documented park user information and activities for the entire park at one time for 3 of 4 parks (McCormack et al, 2014).…”

“…Several other studies modified the age categories by combining teenagers with adults (< = 12 years and > = 13 years) (Chung-Do et al, 2011; Floyd et al, 2008a) and two studies combined all youths, not distinguishing younger and older youths (Child et al, 2014; McCormack et al, 2014). Unique to the one study (Kaczynski et al, 2011), researchers set a lower age limit at 2 years for observation.…”

“…Other countries included Brazil (Hino et al, 2010), Canada (McCormack et al, 2014; Temple et al, 2011), Taiwan (Pleson et al, 2014), and Turkey (Muftuler et al, 2011). Park types ranged from small town squares (Hino et al, 2010) to large district parks (Chung-Do et al, 2011).…”

Economic Value of Parks via Human Mental Health: An Analytical Framework

“…Park use varies with attractions, notably biodiversity (Stevens et al, 2014;Siikamäki et al, 2015; proximity and access (Bancroft et al, 2015;Rossi et al, 2015), and wealth (Poudyal et al, 2013). Use of greenspace varies with many local factors (Jones et al, 2009;Lin et al, 2014;McCormack et al, 2014;Veitch et al, 2015). In some cities, these are incorporated in urban planning (Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström, 2007;Villeneuve et al, 2012;Alcock et al, 2014;Francis et al, 2015;Giles-Corti et al, 2015;Ulmer et al, 2016).…”

Neighbourhood built environment characteristics associated with different types of physical activity in Canadian adults

“…For many adults, parks may not be an important destination in and of themselves for vigorous-intensity physical activity, but rather may be destinations traversed along cycling and jogging/running routes. 47 Although we attempted to adjust for residential self-selection, it is possible that individuals who were inclined to participate in vigorous-intensity physical activity also chose to reside in neighbourhoods that had less green space.…”