The Associations Between Park Environments and Park Use in Southern US Communities

Banda, Jorge A.; Wilcox, Sara; Colabianchi, Natalie; Hooker, Steven P.; Kaczynski, Andrew T.; Hussey, James R.

doi:10.1111/jrh.12071

Cited by 25 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A wide range of criteria were used for selecting parks, including prior or current participation in a research or grant initiative (Banda et al, 2014; Reed et al, 2012), availability of programming activities (Hino et al, 2010; Shores and West, 2008a), having dog-related park policies (McCormack et al, 2014; Temple et al, 2011), or whether the park offered a variety of amenities (Kaczynski et al, 2011; Muftuler et al, 2011), had a recreation center (Cohen et al, 2012), had at least one full-time staff (Cohen et al, 2012), or was designated for improvements (McKenzie et al, 2006). 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).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies observed parks once during one season, with other studies observing multiple times across two (Banda et al, 2014; Cohen et al, 2011; Reed et al, 2012; Temple et al, 2011), three (Cohen et al, 2013), or all four seasons (Roemmich and Johnson, 2014). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of days parks were observed ranged from 1 (Pleson et al, 2014) to 16 (Floyd et al, 2011), with 16 studies observing ≥5 days (Banda et al, 2014; Child et al, 2014; Chung-Do et al, 2011; Cohen et al, 2011, 2012, 2013; Floyd et al, 2011; Hino et al, 2010; McKenzie et al, 2006; Muftuler et al, 2011; Reed et al, 2008; Roemmich and Johnson, 2014; Reed and Hooker, 2012; Shores and West, 2008a, 2010). All studies included at least one weekday and all but two studies included ≥1 weekend day (exceptions were Rung et al (2011) and Pleson et al (2014) for 6/7 parks).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the studies with sufficient data to complete the calculation, the mean number of people per park per day ranged from 4.0 (May only) (Banda et al, 2014) to 737.9 (Kaczynski et al, 2011). When accounting for the number of observation periods per day, the range of users per park per observation period ranged from 1.0 (May only) (Banda et al, 2014) to 152.6 (Cohen et al, 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 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

191

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%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

191

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Distance from origin (e.g., home) to public open space is still commonly measured using the straight line (Euclidean) distance (e.g., Banda et al, 2014). However, street network distance better represents the true relevant spatial distance (Apparicio et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2011).…”

Section: Distance To Public Open Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda

Koohsari¹,

Mavoa²,

Villanueva³

et al. 2015

Health & Place

Self Cite

336

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public open spaces such as parks and green spaces are key built environment elements within neighbourhoods for encouraging a variety of physical activity behaviours. Over the past decade, there has been a burgeoning number of active living research studies examining the influence of public open space on physical activity. However, the evidence shows mixed associations between different aspects of public open space (e.g., proximity, size, quality) and physical activity. These inconsistencies hinder the development of specific evidence-based guidelines for urban designers and policy-makers for (re)designing public open space to encourage physical activity. This paper aims to move this research agenda forward, by identifying key conceptual and methodological issues that may contribute to inconsistencies in research examining relations between public open space and physical activity.

show abstract

Impacts of a Temporary Urban Pop-Up Park on Physical Activity and Other Individual- and Community-Level Outcomes

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical inactivity is a known risk factor for obesity and a number of chronic diseases. Modifying the physical features of neighborhoods to provide residents with equitable and convenient access to spaces for physical activity (PA) is a promising strategy for promoting PA. Public urban recreation spaces (e.g., parks) play an important role in promoting PA and are potentially an important neighborhood element for optimizing social capital and liveability in cities. Most studies examining the effects of park availability and use on PA have focused on traditional, permanent parks. The aims of this study were to (1) document patterns of park use and park-based PA at a temporary urban pop-up park implemented in the downtown business district of Los Altos, California during July-August 2013 and May-June 2014, (2) identify factors associated with park-based PA in 2014, and (3) examine the effects of the 2014 pop-up park on additional outcomes of potential benefit for park users and the Los Altos community at large. Park use remained high during most hours of the day in 2013 and 2014. Although the park attracted a multigenerational group of users, children and adolescents were most likely to engage in walking or more vigorous PA at the park. Park presence was significantly associated with potentially beneficial changes in time-allocation patterns among users, including a reduction in screen-time and an increase in overall park-time and time spent outdoors. Park implementation resulted in notable use among people who would otherwise not be spending time at a park (85% of surveyed users would not be spending time at any other park if the pop-up park was not there-2014 data analysis). Our results (significantly higher odds of spending time in downtown Los Altos due to park presence) suggest that urban pop-up parks may also have broader community benefits, such as attracting people to visit downtown business districts. Pending larger, confirmatory studies, our results suggest that temporary urban pop-up parks may contribute to solving the limited access to public physical activity recreation spaces many urban residents face.

show abstract

The Associations Between Park Environments and Park Use in Southern US Communities

Cited by 25 publications

References 50 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)

Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda

Impacts of a Temporary Urban Pop-Up Park on Physical Activity and Other Individual- and Community-Level Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About