A Descriptive Examination of the Most Frequently Used Activity Settings in 25 Community Parks Using Direct Observation

Reed, Julian A.; Arant, Cheryl-Anne; Wells, Princess; Stevens, Katherine; Hagen, S. P.; Harring, Holly

doi:10.1123/jpah.5.s1.s183

Cited by 57 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this review, we included 34 articles representing 24 distinct studies (Table 1). However, in one case we presented an earlier study that reported only on adults (Reed et al, 2008) as well as the extension of the study that reported only on youth (Reed and Hooker, 2012). The earliest study initiated observations in 2003 (McKenzie et al, 2006), when the SOPARC method was created, and the latest study started observations in 2013 (Roemmich and Johnson, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of park users, one study reported observing adults only (Reed et al, 2008) and two reported observing youths only (Coughenour et al, 2014; Floyd et al, 2011; Reed and Hooker, 2012). 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).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies allowed the city park and recreation staff to choose the parks (Reed et al, 2008, 2012), while one study chose parks based on popular use by adult users (Pleson et al, 2014). Two studies used random park selection (Floyd et al, 2011; Pleson et al, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Evenson

Jones

Holliday

et al. 2016

Preventive Medicine

192

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) can obtain information on park users and their physical activity using momentary time sampling. We conducted a literature review of studies using the SOPARC tool to describe the observational methods of each study, and to extract public park use overall and by demographics and physical activity levels. We searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus for full-length observational studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals through 2014. Twenty-four studies from 34 articles were included. The number of parks observed per study ranged from 3 to 50. Most studies observed parks during one season. The number of days parks were observed ranged from 1 to 16, with 16 studies observing 5 or more days. All studies included at least one weekday and all but two included at least one weekend day. Parks were observed from 1 to 14 times/day, with most studies observing at least 4 times/day. All studies included both morning and afternoon observations, with one exception. There was a wide range of park users (mean 1.0 to 152.6 people/park/observation period), with typically more males than females visiting parks and older adults less than other age groups. Park user physical activity levels varied greatly across studies, with youths generally more active than adults and younger children more active than adolescents. SOPARC was adapted to numerous settings and these review results can be used to improve future studies using the tool, demonstrate ways to compare park data, and inform park promotions and programming.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Evenson

Jones

Holliday

et al. 2016

Preventive Medicine

192

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The choice to engage in physical activity at a park rather than to be sedentary is likely associated with several factors including sex, age, access to the park, and the amenities available at the park (10). The presence of certain park amenities such as playgrounds, sport courts, and paths seem to promote physical activity among park users (11–13). However, evidence regarding the most and least used amenities is inconsistent (12–14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, park-based physical activity is studied through observation during summer (13,15,16) and, occasionally, spring in warm climates (12). However, weather conditions probably influence park visitation and amenity use, even during the warm-weather seasons of spring and summer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal Alterations in Park Visitation, Amenity Use, and Physical Activity — Grand Forks, North Dakota, 2012–2013

Roemmich¹,

Johnson²

2014

Prev. Chronic Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPark amenities promote visitation and physical activity during summer. Physical activity declines during winter. Identifying park amenities that promote visitation during winter would increase year-round activity. The purpose of this study was to determine how park visitation, amenity choice, and physical activity intensity change across seasons.MethodsPhysical activity intensity of children and adults was assessed at 16 parks in Grand Forks, North Dakota, during summer and fall of 2012, and winter and spring of 2013.ResultsPark visitation was highest in spring and lowest in winter. Amenity use varied by season. Parks with water splash pads were visited more during summer, and playgrounds and open spaces were visited more during spring. Ice rinks were visited most in winter. Physical activity intensity was lowest in summer and highest in winter for each age group. The activity intensity observed for all young age groups ranged from 2.7 to 2.9 metabolic equivalents in summer and greater than 3 metabolic equivalents in all other seasons. Adults’ mean activity intensity was greater than 3 metabolic equivalents in winter.ConclusionInformation on park visitation, amenity use, and activity intensity across seasons is valuable; it can be used when designing or redesigning parks in order to promote year-round physical activity. Redesigning parks in cold climates to include ice rinks, sledding hills, cross-country skiing, and indoor areas for physical activity would increase winter visitation and allow the park to serve as a year-round resource for physical activity.

show abstract

Urban green and blue spaces for influencing physical activity in the United Kingdom: A narrative review of the policy and evidence

Leese,

Al‐Zubaidi

2023

Lifestyle Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWith the rapid growth of urbanization globally and in the UK, increasing attention is now being directed towards urban green spaces (UGS). The appeal of UGS to policymakers lies in their capacity to address multiple policy objectives, including improving physical and mental wellbeing, mitigating noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), combating climate change through carbon sequestration, providing climate adaptation measures, and enhancing biodiversity.MethodThis narrative review gives an overview of the current literature and UK policy relating to urban green and blue spaces, with a particular focus on the use of UGS to increase physical activity levels.ResultsUGS have a profound impact on public health, with evidence indicating their positive effect on both physical and psychological health. Thirty‐eight percent of adults in the UK do not live within 15 minutes of UGS, so policy makers at national and international level are aiming to address this gap. One reason for the health benefits of UGS is associated increased physical activity, a vital component needed to address the burden of non‐communicable disease. To effectively harness UGS to promote physical activity various factors must be considered; proximity and diversity of urban green spaces, and the presence of suitable infrastructure features. Tailoring UGS to meet the needs and preferences of different population demographics is essential, as is ensuring safety, and addressing barriers to access particularly for lower socio‐economic groups. The careful planning of UGS must avoid potential gentrification effects and displacement of vulnerable communities, whilst utilising the equigenic nature of UGS.ConclusionsTo create a brighter future and capitalize on the potential of UGS, a collaborative approach is needed, involving communities, local governments, and national authorities. Primary‐care professionals, represented by organizations like the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), can play a crucial role in advocating for UGS and physical activity, promoting their use, and providing guidance and support.

show abstract

A Descriptive Examination of the Most Frequently Used Activity Settings in 25 Community Parks Using Direct Observation

Abstract: Paved trails were only in 5 of the 25 parks but were the most frequently used activity setting.

Cited by 57 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Seasonal Alterations in Park Visitation, Amenity Use, and Physical Activity — Grand Forks, North Dakota, 2012–2013

Urban green and blue spaces for influencing physical activity in the United Kingdom: A narrative review of the policy and evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About