Perceived relevance of neighborhood features for encouraging preschoolers’ active play, parents’ active recreation, and parent–child coactivity.

Abstract

To identify features parents perceived as being relevant for their child's active play, their own active recreation, and their coactivity. Parents (n = 145, M age = 36.2 years) with preschoolers (M age = 3.9 years) living in Edmonton, Canada were recruited from each of Edmonton's council wards. Parents reported demographic information and the importance of several neighborhood features (destinations, design, social, safety, esthetics) for their child's active play, their own active recreation, and their coactivity via six-item Likert scales. After dichotomizing response options, a series of proportional tests accounting for the clustered data (council ward) were performed to identify features considered relevant (important/most important) or not relevant (not at all important/unimportant/neutral/not applicable) by the majority of parents (>50%). The majority of parents reported that 23 of the 32 neighborhood features were perceived as being relevant for all activity domains. These included destinations (parks, playgrounds, arenas, schools, sport fields, arenas/ice rinks, river valley/ravine), design features (quiet streets, trails, sidewalks), social features (friends/family, child's friends, other children playing outside, knowing neighbors, trusting neighbors), safety features (street lighting, crime, traffic, daylight, sidewalk maintenance, crosswalks), and esthetic features (cleanliness, natural features). Parents reported several neighborhood features as being relevant for promoting their child's active play, their own active recreation, and coactivity. These findings may be helpful in guiding future research examining neighborhood correlates of physical activity among preschoolers and their parents. Further, relevant government officials may find this information useful for creating neighborhoods for active living in young families. Public Significance StatementSeveral neighborhood features were identified by parents as being relevant for their child's active play, their own active recreation, and coactivity. Nearly all social and safety aspects appeared to be particularly relevant for all three domains. These findings should be considered by relevant government officials who are trying to create active communities.

Influence of Neighborhood Built Environments on the Outdoor Free Play of Young Children: a Systematic, Mixed-Studies Review and Thematic Synthesis

“…Across contexts, parents and children emphasized that opportunity for neighborhood social interactions supported OFP [ 44 , 45 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 63 , 66 , 67 , 90 ]. Built environment features such as quiet streets [ 45 ], enclosed street designs (no through traffic) [ 67 ], home zones (traffic-calmed, residential street shared by pedestrians and vehicles) [ 72 ], temporary play spaces [ 63 ], and interesting routes [ 62 , 67 ] created safe, inviting space for meeting neighbors, and the presence of children in these spaces could increase perceptions of social safety [ 47 ].…”

“…n = 23 Qualitative: to examine parents’ perceptions of the influences on their preschool-aged children’s physical activity Parent perceptions of influences on preschool-aged children’s physical activity ***** Hnatiuk et al [ 45 ] Australia Parents of 2–4-year-old children living in the Western Sydney region. n = 15 Qualitative: to explore parents’ perceptions about barriers and facilitators to physical activity and family-based co-participation in physical activity Parent perceptions of physical activity co-participation for themselves and their child ***** Hunter et al [ 53 ] Canada Parent with a child, 3–4 years who resided in Edmonton, Canada. n = 145 Quantitative, cross-sectional: to identify neighborhood features perceived as relevant to preschoolers’ active play, parents’ active recreation, and their coactivity; to determine whether features considered relevant differed between activity domains and to determine whether relevant features differed by household income Parental perception of relevance of destinations (parks, dog parks, playgrounds, schools, sports fields, courts, arenas/ice rinks, community hall, river valley/ravine), design (main roads, cul-de-sacs, quiet streets, block length, trails, sidewalks), social factors (friends/family, child’s friends, other people walking/exercising, other children playing outside, knowing neighbors, trusting people in neighborhood), safety (street lighting, low crime, low vehicle traffic, daylight, sidewalk maintenance, pedestrian crosswalks), aesthetics (cleanliness, no graffiti, attractive houses, natural features, landscaped features) and child’s active play, parent/child coactivity ** Kabisch and Kraemer [ 36 ] Germany Visitors to two closely situated parks with different characteristics in Leipzig, during the 1-week study period, Children 0–6 years, n = 253 groups Quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional: to examine which park characteristics attract children and older people and whether users adapt their behaviors under conditions of summer heat?…”

“…New UK immigrants considered greenspace within a 20-min walk to be useable [ 34 ]. Canadian parents perceived parks and playgrounds to be neighborhood destinations most relevant to 3–4-year-olds’ active play [ 53 ]. OFP mediated the relationship between nearby recreation facilities and preschoolers’ PA in Tianjin, China [ 54 ], and parks visited by 3–5-year-olds were closer to home than those visited at older ages, despite being smaller and lacking the same amenities [ 24 ].…”

“…Parent perception of unsafe walking or cycling due to high traffic was associated with less OFP [ 49 ], and bike tracks next to busy roads were cited as barriers [ 44 ]. Parents considered sidewalks, trails, and quiet streets as neighborhood factors with most relevance to OFP in 3–4-year-olds (over main roads, cul-de-sacs, and block length) [ 53 ]. Having to cross a street to access parks resulted in lower park visitation [ 48 , 70 ], and preschool-age children visited parks with fewer adjacent road-crossing signals compared to older children [ 24 ].…”

“…In Ireland, higher neighborhood deprivation was associated with lower participation in structured activities but not active play [ 49 ]. In Vancouver, Canada, dangerous litter (e.g., needles), but not graffiti, was perceived negatively; however, parents in Edmonton, Canada, considered neighborhood cleanliness and no graffiti to support OFP [ 47 , 53 ]. In a US city, presence of trash, graffiti and vandalism enforced perceptions of social danger, prompting parents to limit OFP [ 64 ].…”