Harnessing citizen science to assess and improve utilization of metropolitan parks: the Park Activity, Recreation, and Community, Study (PARCS) in St. Louis, MO

Abstract

Access to and use of parks is associated with physical activity participation. Our Voice is a systematic method blending community-based participatory research (CBPR) and citizen science. As part of a comprehensive, mixed-methods study in St. Louis, Missouri (PARCS), we tested the feasibility of the Our Voice method for gathering community input on the barriers to and facilitators of accessibility and use of large metropolitan parks, by describing the implementation of the Our Voice method among recreational and commuter users of a large metropolitan park in St. Louis, MO. Due to challenges posed by COVID-19, the Our Voice methodology was adapted for remote participation. Twenty-three citizen scientists (14 recreational park users and 9 commuters) collected and analyzed geolocated route, photo, and audio or text data on facilitators and barriers to park use and access. They identified 6 priority themes and 12 solution ideas, and presented them to stakeholders. In contrast to previous Our Voice studies, separate user groups (recreation and commuter users) independently prioritized many of the same themes. Adaptation of the Our Voice protocol to virtual practices during COVID-19 revealed positive implications for cost, reach, and scale of studies grounded in CBPR and citizen science. We provide a set of recommended practices for using Our Voice as a method to evaluate and promote equity of access and use of metropolitan parks.

The “Our Voice” Method: Participatory Action Citizen Science Research to Advance Behavioral Health and Health Equity Outcomes

“…A growing evidence base characterizes the OV method as an accessible, adaptable, and impactful approach to community-engaged participatory research [ 16 , 17 ], It has been applied to numerous health equity topics, including food environments [ 23 , 24 ], active living and physical activity [ 25 , 26 ], gender-based violence [ 27 ], and accessibility in public spaces [ 28 ].…”

“…Studies have taken place across a range of settings, including urban neighborhoods [ 29 ], parks [ 28 ], farmers’ markets [ 30 ], schools [ 31 ], college campuses [ 27 ], and rural communities [ 32 ]. Likewise, members of diverse population groups have participated as citizen scientists across dozens of OV global research projects spanning six continents, with emphasis on youth [ 17 ], older adults [ 16 ], low-income communities [ 33 ], and other groups historically underrepresented in decision-making processes.…”

“…Step 2 features facilitated data review and interpretation discussions among participants, which can enrich research findings with context and additional perspectives, advancing understanding of embodied experiences and needs. As participants together review photos, comments, and geotagged locations, group discussions add nuanced perspectives and elicit themes that represent individual and collective experiences [ 28 , 33 ], or elucidate points of tension or disagreement. This can produce research outcomes in which improved understanding of multiple perspectives of resident needs in their direct living environments, guiding researchers to link subsequent steps in the method directly to community needs and priorities [ 23 ].…”

“…The group process can foster community outcomes by creating new linkages and relationships across citizen scientist community members and building understanding between citizen scientists and stakeholders, as well as identifying trusted stakeholders within a community [ 23 ]. The group process can also strengthen community connectedness and cohesion through collective solution building and priority setting for action [ 27 , 28 ].…”

“…Step 3 research outcomes encompass a group process to thematically prioritize topics raised by citizen scientists, generating a consolidated set of relevant directions for additional research inquiry toward improved understanding or positive change [ 36 ]. Creating space for dialogue on priority issues among citizen scientists, stakeholders, and researchers can illuminate shared resources among all actors involved, while leading to further co-produced data and actionable outcomes [ 28 ]. Participant advocacy training at this stage can contribute new skills, cultivate empowerment, and disseminate new knowledge about local areas among community members [ 24 , 28 ].…”