Using Systematic Observations to Understand Conditions that Promote Interracial Experiences in Neighbourhood Parks

Abstract

We analysed observations from 31 neighbourhood parks, with each park mapped into smaller target areas for study, across five US cities generated using the System for Observing Play and Recreation in the Community (SOPARC). In areas where at least two people were observed, less than one-third (31.6%) were populated with at least one white and one non-white person. Park areas that were supervised, had one or more people engaged in vigorous activity, had at least one male and one female present, and had one or more teens present were significantly more likely to involve interracial groups (p<0.01 for each association). Observations in parks located in interracial neighbourhoods were also more likely to involve interracial groups (p<0.05). Neighbourhood poverty rate had a significant and negative relationship with the presence of interracial groups, particularly in neighbourhoods that are predominantly non-white. Additional research is needed to confirm the impact of these interactions. Urban planning and public health practitioners should consider the health benefits of interracial contact in the design and programming of neighbourhood parks.

Developing and testing a protocol to systematically assess social interaction with urban outdoor environment

“…This allows SOSIP to be used as a reliable protocol for assessing social interaction of specific groups, such as children, elderly citizens, and minority groups. Social interaction between races is an important research topic but previous efforts to measure social interaction in parks used SOPARC, which was not designed for that purpose ( Hillier et al, 2016 ). The development of SOSIP addressed the issue and allowed for assessing social interaction of disadvantaged groups for studies where environmental and social justice is a particular consideration.…”

“… Literature Employed a Social interaction protocol/tool? Methods Measures related to social interaction/ Skjœveland (2001) No Questionnaire-based survey and field observation Survey measures: supportive act in neighbors, social ties, neighborhood attachment, neighbor annoyance; Observation measures: number of individuals presented in the parks Maas et al (2009) No Survey Loneliness; social support; contacts with neighbors and friends in the community Seeland et al (2009) No Questionnaire-based survey Residents' peer groups; ways of making friends Peters et al (2010) No Observation Presented social groups (whether they interact, and if so, their peer groups); gender, age, origin; number of their social activities; the sub-areas where the social activities happened Yamada and Knapp (2010) No Questionnaire-based survey Preferred types of social interaction in parks Rasidi et al (2012) No Observation (representative of weekday, weekend, and public holiday) Social division: individual/group; social preference: activity/program; microclimate; personal info: gender, age group, race/ethnic Kemperman and Timmermans (2014) No Survey Social contacts with neighbors: six statements about the respondents' relation with neighbors in the direct living environment Campbell et al (2016) No Combines observation with structured interviews of park users Human activities and signs of prior human use: functionally grouped human activities (sitting, socializing, bicycling, exercise, nature recreation); observed age (youth, adults, senior), race Hillier et al (2016) No SO...…”

“…Other observational studies noted the importance of following a protocol but did not identify one designed specifically for assessing social interaction. Consequently, they used SOPARC, which was not designed for measuring social interaction but rather for PA ( Hillier et al, 2016 ; Schmidt et al, 2019 ). Although Schmidt et al (2019) modified SOPARC to fit their research goal of measuring social interaction, SOPARC is still tailored for PA; the validity and reliability of using the protocol for measuring social interaction have not been established.…”

Developing a Health-Spatial Indicator System for a Healthy City in Small and Midsized Cities

“…At the neighborhood level, accumulating social capital and creating both the sense of and an actual robust community, is vital for local health [ 53 , 103 ]. Spaces increase unplanned social encounters and interaction opportunities contribute to mental health rather than social isolation [ 104 , 105 ]. For historic areas in the city, the conservation of heritage and local culture also needs attention [ 4 ].…”

“…For historic areas in the city, the conservation of heritage and local culture also needs attention [ 4 ]. The role of social interaction in maintaining a healthy lifestyle has been well documented [ 105 ]. However, public participation in the decision-making processes related to life and well-being, as well as participation at the community level, tend to be lacking in practice [ 106 , 107 , 108 ].…”