Associations between park features and adolescent park use for physical activity

Abstract

BackgroundEighty per cent of adolescents globally do insufficient physical activity. Parks are a popular place for adolescents to be active. However, little is known about which park features are associated with higher levels of park use by adolescents.ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine which environmental park features, and combination of features, were correlated with higher levels of park use for physical activity among adolescents. By examining park features in parks used by adolescents for physical activity, this study also aimed to create a park ‘attractiveness’ score predictive of adolescent park use, and to identify factors that might predict use of their closest park.MethodsAdolescents (n = 1304) living in Geraldton, a large rural centre of Western Australia, completed a survey that measured physical activity behaviour, perceptions of park availability and the main park used for physical activity. All parks in the study area (n = 58) were digitized using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and features audited using the Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT).ResultsOnly 27% of participants reported using their closest park for physical activity. Park use was associated with seven features: presence of a skate park, walking paths, barbeques, picnic table, public access toilets, lighting around courts and equipment and number of trees >25. When combined to create an overall attractiveness score, every additional ‘attractive’ feature present, resulted in a park being nearly three times more likely to be in the high use category.ConclusionsTo increase park use for physical activity, urban planners and designers should incorporate park features attractive to adolescents.

Espaços públicos de lazer e estruturas para atividade física: estudo de observação sistemática do ambiente

“…It could be observed that parks/woods were OPSs that obtained more than four physical activity facilities (44.4%). Possibly these spaces may be the greatest potentiates of engagement in physical activities, due to their larger area in square meters, and to the greater amount of sport-recreational events by the greater number of physical activity facilities present in these spaces [19][20][21] , as observed in other studies 24,25 . Evidence shows that the frequency of use of a OPS can be justified by the types of physical activities offered 20,21 .…”

“…The presence of trash cans (45.8%), benches (55.1%) and picnic tables (29.0%) with good quality in the spaces evaluated also serve to support moments of rest, socialization and contemplation 18 . Evidence shows that each new comfort attribute perceived in parks increases by three times the probability of being highly used 19 . Thus, the maintenance, aesthetics and good quality of OPS may explain, in part, why some places are more frequented than others 11,19 .…”

“…Evidence shows that each new comfort attribute perceived in parks increases by three times the probability of being highly used 19 . Thus, the maintenance, aesthetics and good quality of OPS may explain, in part, why some places are more frequented than others 11,19 .…”

“…Evidence shows that the frequency of use of a OPS can be justified by the types of physical activities offered 20,21 . Therefore, garden beds, community institutions, free areas and squares/gardens can enhance the use of spaces if they are attractive to a greater diversity of interests of the population 19 . This not only contributes to the adoption and maintenance of the recommended levels of physical activities, but also in the health co-benefits 3 .…”

A comparison of park access with park need for children: A case study in Cache County, Utah

“…There have been several ways to explain park quality while most previous studies defined it as the presence of single or limited park features or characters. Some research considered park quality to the cleanliness of the park (Kaczynski, Stanis, & Besenyi, 2012) while some research considered it to the active aesthetic features in the parks (Vaughan et al, 2013) or the greenness (tree number and tree canopy area) (Edwards, Hooper, Knuiman, Foster, & Giles-Corti, 2015 (Aytur et al, 2015) was often difficult to be consistent with park quality, because higher park quality came to higher use of the park (Aytur et al, 2015;Coen & Ross, 2006;Mowen, 2010; National Recreation and Park Association, 2013), which would lead to a higher rate of crime or danger in the park.…”