environment correlates of pa_ a review of evidence about parks and recreation.pdf

8/12/2019 Environment correlates of PA_ a review of evidence about parks and recreation.pdf

1/41

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [B-on Consortium - 2007]On: 24 September 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 778384760]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773100

Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity A Review of Evidence aboutParks and RecreationAndrew T. Kaczynski a; Karla A. Henderson baUniversity of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada bNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina,USA

Online Publication Date: 01 July 2007

To cite this ArticleKaczynski, Andrew T. and Henderson, Karla A.(2007)'Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity: A Review ofEvidence about Parks and Recreation',Leisure Sciences,29:4,315 354

To link to this Article DOI 10.1080/01490400701394865URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773100http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773100


2/41

Leisure Sciences, 29: 315354, 2007

Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online

DOI: 10.1080/01490400701394865

Research Articles

Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity:A Review of Evidence about Parks and Recreation

ANDREW T. KACZYNSKI

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

KARLA A. HENDERSON

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Research on physical activity (PA) has expanded in recent years to examine environ-mental influences that enhance or limit the opportunities people have to be active. The

purpose of this study was to review and critically examine evidence related to parks andrecreation as features of the built environment and the relationship of these settings toPA. Fifty studies were retrieved from four major databases that reported an empirical re-lationship between parks or recreation variables and PA variables. Mixed associations

with PA were observed for different types of parks or recreation settings, while proximityto parks or recreation was generally associated with increased PA. Shortcomings existin this literature and many opportunities for researching parks, recreation, and active

living are evident for the future.

Keywords active living, literature review, physical activity, social ecological models

The connection between health and physical activity (PA) is well-documented (Hardman

& Stensel, 2003; Sallis & Owen, 1999). This relationship is emphasized almost daily in

relation to issues such as childhood obesity and the physical inactivity of North American

populations. Only one-quarter of the U.S. population engages in the recommended amount

of PA, and another one-quarter are inactive (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,2001). Estimates from the 200001 Canadian Community Health Survey indicated that

56% of Canadians were classified as insufficiently active (Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle

Research Institute, 2002). Low levels of PA have been linked to a greater prevalence of

obesity and related diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (Ball

& McCargar, 2003; Bassuk & Manson, 2005; Stein & Colditz, 2004; U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, 1996; Westerlind, 2004). Along with poor nutrition and

smoking, lack of exercise is among the top three modifiable risk factors for chronic disease

Received 24 March 2006; accepted 12 September 2006.

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and Deb Bialeschki for

overseeing the editorial process on this manuscript. This paper was presented at the 2006 Cooper Institute on

Parks, Recreation, and Public Health: Collaborative Frameworks for Promoting Physical Activity.

Address correspondence to Andrew T. Kaczynski, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University

of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1. E-mail: [email protected]

315


3/41

316 A. T. Kaczynski and K. A. Henderson

and premature death (World Health Organization, 2005). Therefore, improving PA levels

has been consistently identified as a top public health priority (U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, 2000; The Integrated Pan-Canadian Healthy Living Strategy, 2005).

The role that leisure services and parks and recreation settings play in helping people

become physically active, and thus healthier, is beginning to be addressed. For example,

Healthy People 2010(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) emphasized

that the design of communities and the presence of parks, trails, and other public recreational

facilities affect peoples abilities to reach the recommended 30 minutes per day of moderate-

intensity PA. Similar recommendations about access to places for PA, and specifically trails

and facilities, were made by a collaboration of government agencies and private partners in

theGuide to Community Preventive Services (Task Force on Community Preventive Ser-

vices, 2002). Yet, the examination and documentation of parks and recreation settings as en-

vironmental correlates of PA is in its infancy. Theinvolvement of leisure scientists in address-

ing many of these health related issues has been lacking (Henderson & Bialeschki, 2005).

The purpose of this study was to review reported empirical evidence about the asso-

ciation between parks and recreation settings (PRSs) as features of the built environmentand PA. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following questions: a) what types of PRSs

are most related to increased PA levels, and b) how is proximity to PRSs related to PA?

We defined PRSs as indoor and outdoor spaces and facilities in the physical and built envi-

ronments designed for leisure and recreation activities. We anticipate that this review will

provide a foundation and catalyst for new research by researchers with expertise in parks

and recreation through transdisciplinary studies with other professionals.

Review of Literature

Sallis, Linton, and Kraft (2005) described how research on PA and health has entered a fourth

major era. The first era (prior to 1970) dealt with physiological studies that examined theimpact of patterns of PA on fitness. The second era (1970s1990s) included epidemiological

studies leading to PA being viewed as a major health priority. The third era that occurred in

a similar time period focused on appropriate interventions for promoting PA. Most of this

research primarily addressed psychosocial factors such as self-efficacy, social support, and

stages of change models (Dishman, 1994; King et al., 2002; Sallis, Kraft, & Linton, 2002).

The fourth era, which started early in this century, focused on a broader range of policy and

environmental factors that promote health such as urban planning, transportation, housing,

and parks and recreation.

At the same time, parks, recreation, and leisure research has gone through research

stages that addressed inputs, outputs, benefits, and explanations and meanings of recreationand leisure. Leisure researchers have moved beyond descriptions of inputs, outputs, and

benefits to analyze how behavior occurs as a result of social and environmental factors (El-

lis, 1993). The activities leisure researchers analyze often are broader than PA. However, to

address health issues, these researchers are joining with other scholars (i.e., primarily in pub-

lic health but also exercise scientists and urban planners) to examine more comprehensively

the built environment associated with environmental correlates and ecological models.

Ecological Models

Ecology generally refers to the interrelations between organisms and their environments

(Hawley, 1950). Social ecological concepts refer to peoples transactions with their physicaland sociocultural environments (Henderson et al., 2001; Sallis & Owen, 2002; Stokols,

1992). Social ecology is derived from systems theory with people-environment transactions

characterized by cultures of mutual influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Green, Richard, &


4/41

Parks, Recreation, and Physical Activity 317

Potvin, 1996). The general thesis of ecological models of behavior is that environments

restrict the range of behaviors by promoting and sometimes demanding certain actions and

by discouraging or prohibiting other behaviors. When environmental constraints operate

in significant ways, they emerge as the overriding determinants of behavior (Bandura,

1986). ODonnell (2005) argued, An abundance of opportunity may cancel the need for

education and motivation. An absence of opportunity will probably prevent even the most

knowledgeable and motivated person from practicing a healthy lifestyle (p. iv).

The overemphasis on psychosocial and educational approaches to PA promotion that

dominated the literature until recently is subject to increasing criticism. Marcus and Forsyth

(1999) divided PA promotion efforts into downstream (e.g., programs to increase exercise

self-efficacy), midstream (e.g., mass media campaigns), and upstream (e.g., altering build-

ing codes) interventions. Although they acknowledged at the time that evidence of the effi-

cacy of upstream interventions was limited, they concluded that downstream interventions

produced only 1025% increases in PA and improvements were short-lived. In contrast,

upstream interventions such as adding sidewalks or bike paths are more permanent strate-

gies and can affect greater numbers of people than just those individuals who are the targetsof downstream or midstream interventions such as mailings or physician counseling. Re-

searchers also have shown that psychological and social factors explain less variance in

moderate-intensity PA than vigorous activity (Sallis & Owen, 1999). This finding is signif-

icant because recent PA recommendations focus on promoting moderate-intensity PA (e.g.,

gardening, walking) that is more appealing and practical for a majority of the population

while still providing significant health benefits (Pate et al., 1995). Thus, ecological efforts

add explanatory value beyond the intrapersonal factors that influence peoples involvement

and participation in physically active leisure.

Stokols (1992) suggested that the core assumption of social ecology related to health

promotion is that the healthfulness of the environment and the well-being of people are

influenced by multiple facets of both the physical environment and the social environment.

According to McLeroy et al. (1988), five classes of factors affect how or why a person might

participate or fail to participate in a healthy behavior such as PA: intrapersonal, interpersonal,

institutional, community, and public policy. Intrapersonal is the only factor focused on the

individual and has limited value compared to the other four that acknowledge the context of

peoples lives relative to supportive others as well as enabling and constraining opportunities

and healthy environments. Richard et al. (1996) and Stokols, Allen and Bellingham (1996)

suggested that health problems result from social structure and conditions. Consequently,

constraints and motivations for PA can best be understood by examining the environments

in which people live.

The Built Environment and Physical Activity

The specific relationships between the natural and built environment in communities and

PA have not been prevalent in the leisure and recreation research literature (Henderson &

Bialeschki, 2005). A social psychological approach (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997) has domi-

nated in leisure research with the primary focus on individual behavior within that persons

environment. The leisure field has been concerned more often with the psychological pro-

cesses of activity involvement (e.g., enjoyment, perceived freedom, or social interaction)

than with the physiological product (e.g., lowered blood pressure). From a broader social

and political context the value of parks and recreation has also been related to other goals

such as environmental preservation as well as economic and community development, ratherthan focused on public health.

Public health researchers, however, are examining the significant role that the built

environment plays in fostering PA. Reviews similar to this study examined a wide array of


5/41


environmental variables and found substantial support for the ecological hypothesis. Early

reviews by Sallis, Bauman, and Pratt (1998) and King et al. (1995) lamented a lack of

empirical studies and conceptual models and were the impetus for research that examined

environmental and policy interventions. Since then, researchers have developed increas-

ingly sophisticated systems for classifying PA in community settings (Ainsworth et al.,

2000; Bassett et al., 2000; McKenzie, Cohen, & Sehgal, 2005; McKenzie et al., 2000) as

well as tools for measuring environmental correlates of PA (Brownson et al., 2004; Pikora

et al., 2002; Pikora et al., 2003; Saelens, Sallis, Black, & Chen, 2003). More recent reviews

of the literature (Humpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002; McCormack et al., 2004; Owen et al.,

2004; Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2003) found fairly consistent positive associations between

PA and factors in the built environment such as access to facilities, safety, and aesthet-

ics. These reviews also reported that transportation and zoning variables (e.g., mixed land

use, population density, connectivity of streets, and presence of sidewalks) exhibited strong

relationships with residents PA levels.

The role that PRSs may play in fostering increased PA has received growing attention.

For example, Sallis et al.s (1998) review concluded that children were more active outdoorsand that being outdoors was the most powerful correlate of PA. Corti, Donovan, and Holman

(1997) indicated that parks were more likely to stimulate activity if they were aesthetically

pleasing with tree-lined paths rather than empty open space. Troped et al. (2001) determined

that decreased distance between a persons home and a trail was associated with greater trail

use. Arguments have also been forwarded recently in theAmerican Journal of Preventive

Medicine that PRSs can make significant contributions to facilitating PA (Bedimo-Rung,

Mowen, & Cohen, 2005; Godbey et al., 2005). Additional recognition of the growing role

that parks and recreation has to play in addressing health and PA was also found in a recent

special issue ofLeisure Sciences(Henderson & Bialeschki, 2005), the advocacy promoted

by Payne (2002) and her colleagues (Payne et al., 2005), in National Recreation and Park

Associations (2005) Step up to Health program, and through the focus that the Robert

Wood Johnson Foundations Active Living Research Program has placed on research about

parks and recreation (Sallis & Linton, 2005).

Although research has been undertaken addressing the built environment and PA, no

analysis has systematically considered the role of PRSs. Several previous literature reviews

have included a small number of variables related to parks and recreation (Humpel et al.,

2002; Owen et al., 2004), but little detail is available about the complex associations between

these settings and community-based PA. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review

and critically examine evidence related to PRSs as features of the built environment and the

relationship they have to PA.

Methods

To address our purpose, we identified peer-reviewed journal articles in which an association

between PRSs and PA was reported as part of the investigation. Although most articles did

not provide an explicit definition of PA, PA is commonly defined as any bodily movement

produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure (Caspersen, Powell, &

Christenson, 1985, p. 126). In December 2005, searches were conducted within four ma-

jor databasesPsycInfo, PubMed, LeisureTourism Abstracts, and Web of Scienceusing

search terms tailored to each database.1

1PsycInfo: AB = (physical activity OR exercise OR inactivity OR walking) AND AB =(environment OR neighborhood OR urban design OR park OR trail OR greenway). PubMed:Search (Motor Activity[MeSH] OR Exercise[MeSH]) AND Environment Design[MeSH]


6/41

Parks, Recreation, and Physical Activity 319

Only articles printed in English were requested, and the date range for articles was

delimited to the period 19982005. Although one review of environmental correlates pre-

dated our selected timeframe (King et al., 1995), as did particular studies mentioned in Sallis

et al.s (1998) review, the year 1998 was considered a reasonable starting point for identi-

fying research related to the built environment and PA for several reasons. For example, as

noted earlier, Sallis et al. (2005) described the fourth phase of PA research that occurred

since the early 2000s as being primarily concerned with understanding and altering policy

and environmental factors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a mul-

tidisciplinary conference of health professionals in 1997 and that meeting was the dawn

of what we are now calling the active living movement (Killingsworth, Earp, & Moore,

2003, p. 1). In addition, the 1997 Cooper Institutes annual conference focused on PA in-

terventions including some environmental studies, and papers presented at that conference

were published in a special issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicineearly the

following year (Blair & Morrow, 1998). Therefore, 1998 was an appropriate starting point

for our analysis.

The searches of the four databases returned a total of 1120 distinct articles after mergingthe results and removing all duplicate records. The primary author then scanned article

abstracts to determine each papers relevance to our current studys purpose. Articles were

initially excluded from further analysis if they failed to meet any of several criteria. First,

we were only interested in studies that included PA as a dependent variable and not research

that measured relationships between the built environment and other health measures (e.g.,

body mass index, mental health, cardiovascular disease). Second, articles that examined

other psychological or interpersonal correlates of PA (e.g., self-efficacy, social support)

without including environmental variables were omitted. Third, articles that analyzed the

built environment or PA concurrently, but only as these two behaviors related to a third

variable or condition (e.g., maximal oxygen uptake) were excluded. Fourth, studies that

simply controlled for environmental influences and/or PA while examining the relationship

between two other variables were also excluded.

Some studies existed that examined worksite and school environments in relation to

PA. The former were excluded because they appeared minimally related, if at all, to PRSs.

Schools, on the other hand, often constitute an important source of indoor and outdoor

recreational opportunities for communities. However, of the few articles uncovered in our

searches that examined school environments related to PA, none were deemed relevant to our

studys purpose. For example, some addressed only physical education class participation as

opposed to the broader concept of PA. In other cases, factors not part of the built environment

were the main focus of the study (e.g., length of breaks during the day, available sports

equipment). However, many if not most studies of the built environment measured thelocation of PA resources (e.g., a playground) in a manner that was so general that school-

based PRSs, especially accessible outdoor ones, would likely be included in the tally of

available resources.

Finally, only original empirical studies were examined. Conceptual papers, review

articles, and studies that were purely methodological in purpose (e.g., validating self-report

measures of the built environment or PA) were not considered. In summary, similar to

Humpel et al.s (2002) work, Only those studies that measured environmental variables

that could be related individually and directly to measured physical activity variables were

Field: MeSH Terms.LeisureTourism Abstracts: ( (environment) in ABSTRACT OR (neighborhood)in ABSTRACT OR (park) in ABSTRACT OR (trail) in ABSTRACT)) AND ((physical activity) inABSTRACT OR (exercise) in ABSTRACT OR (walking) in ABSTRACT)). Web of Science: TS =(physical activity OR exercise OR walking) AND TS = (environment OR neighborhood OR urbandesign OR park OR trail OR greenway); Database = SSCI.


7/41


retained (p. 189). Application of these criteria temporarily reduced the original set of

articles to a list of 105 studies that described empirical relationships between some aspect

of the built environment and PA levels.

Within these 105 articles, four journals were represented by more than five papers:

American Journal of Health Promotion, American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

American Journal of Public Health, and Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, a total of

263 issues for these four journals from 2000 to 2005 were hand-searched to identify any

relevant articles that were missed by the previously described database searches. This pro-

cess revealed only two additional studies that satisfied the aforementioned criteria. One

of the 107 articles identified could not be acquired despite extensive search efforts. Four of

the remaining 106 articles were qualitative studies, and within three of these, the utility of

the contextual findings to our studys purpose was difficult to summarize. Consequently,

all qualitative studies were removed, and we analyzed only quantitative articles. However,

some of this qualitative literature is described in the discussion section of the paper.

Within the remaining set of 102 articles, we sought to identify only those studies that

reported an association between PA and some aspect of parks or recreation settings (e.g.,presence of, distance to) as features of the built environment. Consequently, although rare,

studies with parks and recreation programming (e.g., skills training) as the focus were

excluded from our review. Similarly, associations between PA levels and questionnaire

items that related solely to the presence of recreational equipment (e.g., treadmills) in

respondents homes also were not included in our study.

Some studies that examined environmental influences on PA frequently inquired about

generalized variables such as access to facilities or places to exercise. Such broadly defined

measures were not considered to be clearly related to parks and recreation because they

could easily be interpreted as referring to other PA amenities (e.g., streets). Composite

measures (e.g., aggregations of individual access ratings for multiple types of facilities or

a single summary score covering all aspects of the built environment) were often described

but only included when a large majority of the items in the measure were related to PRSs. In

the end, a total of 50 articles were reviewed that reported empirical quantitative relationships

between PRSs as features of the built environment and PA levels of the study participants.

The following section describes the nature of these relationships.

Results

Table 1 provides brief summaries of the empirical associations that were reported in the 50

primary articles in which a relationship between parks or recreation and PA was directly

analyzed. The first three columns of the table describe the age, location, and size of thestudy sample and whether it was representative of the larger population. Brief descriptions

of the parks or recreation and PA variables are provided along with the associations among

them reported by the original authors.

In 20 of the 50 studies (40%), all or most of the associations examined between parks or

recreation and PA variables were positive (Ball et al., 2001; Bauman et al., 1999; Blanchard

et al., 2005; Booth et al., 2000; Brownson et al., 2001; Chad et al., 2005; Deshpande et al.,

2005; Fisher et al., 2004; Giles-Corti et al., 2005; Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2003, 2002a;

Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, & Popkin, 2000; Humpel et al., 2004; Humpel et al., 2004;

Li, Fisher, & Brownson, 2005; Mota et al., 2005; Reed et al., 2004; Troped et al., 2001;

van Lenthe, Brug, & Mackenbach, 2005; Vernez-Moudon et al., 2005). Nine of the articles

(18%) reported that the associations examined were not significant (Atkinson et al., 2005;

Carver et al., 2005; Duncan & Mummery, 2005; Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002b; Lund,

2003; Norman et al., 2005; Plaut, 2005; Romero, 2005; Wilcox et al., 2000), while one

study reported a negative relationship (Duncan et al., 2004).


8/41

TABLE1

ArticlesReportingEmpiricalA

ssociationsbetweenParksand

RecreationAmenitiesandPhys

icalActivity

Parksorrecr

eation

Physicalactivity

Authorsa

nddate

Population1

N2

variable(s)3

variable(s)3

Association(s)4

1.Addy

etal.

(2004)

18+

yearoldsin

southeasternU.S.

county

1194

Neighborhood(w

ithin0.5

milesor10-minutewalk

ofhome)and

community(10milesor

20-minutedriv

e)

recreationfacilities,

walking/biking

trails,

swimmingpoo

ls,parks,

playgrounds,sports

fields

Sufficientlyactive(

5+

dayswith30+minutes

ofmoderatePAo

r3+

dayswith20+minutes

ofvigorousPAin

past

week)

Insufficientlyactive

(less

PA)

Inactive(nomoderateor

vigorousPA)

Usersofneighborhoodrecreation

facilitiessignificantlymorelikely

tobesufficientlyactive(OR=

4.36)orinsufficientlyactive

(OR=

7.26)thanin

active

Usersofcommunityp

arks

significantlymorelikelytobe

sufficientlyactive(O

R=

1.96)or

insufficientlyactive

(OR=

2.20)

thaninactive

2.Atkinsonet

al.(2005)

Adultsintwo

neighborhoodsin

SanDiego,CA

102

Tallyofconvenience

(5-minutedrive,

10-minutewalk,oron

frequentlytraveled

route)for18re

creational

orexercisefacilities

(yes/noforeac

h)

Numberofself-reported

episodesinpast7

days

ofmoderate,vigo

rous

andtotalPA

Minutesofmoderate,

vigorousandtotalPA

measuredby

accelerometer

Convenientrecreationalfacilities

notsignificantlyrelatedto

moderate,vigorous,

ortotal(r=

.17)self-reportedPA

Convenientrecreationalfacilities

notsignificantlyrelatedto

moderate,vigorous,

ortotal

minutesofobjective

ly-measured

PA

3.Balletal.

(2001)

AdultsinNewSouth

Wales,Australia

3392

Conveniencesum

mary

scoreofagreem

enton

5-ptscalesthat3items

arewithinwalking

distance:shops,parkor

beach,cyclepath

Walkingforexercis

ein

past2weeks(any

vs.

none)

Respondentsreporting

low(OR=

.64)andmoderate(OR=

.84)

convenienceoffacil

ities

significantlylesslikelytowalk

forexercisethantho

sereporting

highconvenienceof

facilities.

Similarresultsfoundwhen

sampledividedinto

thoseinpoor

andgoodhealth.

(Continued

onnextpage)

321


9/41

TABLE1


ssociationsbetweenParksandRecreationAmenitiesandPhysicalActivity(Continued)

ParksorRecreation

PhysicalActiv

ity

Authorsa

ndDate

Population1

N2

Variable(s)3

Variable(s)3

Association(s)4

4.Bauman

etal

.

(199

9)

18+

yearoldsin

NewSouthWales,

Australia

16,178

Liveinpostalcodethat

touchescoastline

Vigorouslyactive(>1600

kcal/wk)Adequately

active(>800kcal/wk)

Sedentary(30)respondents

6.Booth

etal.

(200

0)

60+

yearoldsacross

Australia

449

Accesstolocale

xercise

hall,recreation

center,

cyclepath,golfcourse,

gym,park,swimming

pool,tennisco

urt,

bowlinggreen

(yes/no;

askedindividu

ally)

Sufficientlyactive(>800

kcalskg1energy

expenditureperw

eek)

Inactive(0.25

miles)significantlym

orelikelyto

reportanincreasein

walking

sinceusingtrail

Distancetotrailnotsignificantly

relatedtoanincrease

inwalking

sinceusingthetrail

9.Carver

eta

l.

(20

05)

1214yearoldsin

westernSydney,

Australia

347

Parentsagreementthat

ourneighborhoodhas

goodsportsfacilities(1

or2onascaleranging

from-2to2)

Adolescentsreportsof

theirfrequencyand

durationofwalkin

gand

cyclingforexercis

e,

recreation,transpo

rt,and

to/fromschool

Ofallwalkingorcyclingand

purposecombination

s,sports

facilitiesasignificantpredictorof

onlyfrequency(notduration)of

cyclingfortransport

andonlyin

boys

(Continuedonnextpage)

323


11/41

TABLE

1

ArticlesReportingEmpiricalAssociationsbetweenParksand

RecreationAmenitiesandPhysicalActivity(Continued)

ParksorRecreation

PhysicalActivity

AuthorsandDate

Population1

N2

Variable(s)3

Variable(s)3

Association(s)4

10.Chad

etal.

(20

05)

50+

yearoldsina

midsized

Canadiancity

764

Presenceoffacilities

withinneighbo

rhood

(within5-minu

tewalkor

drive):bikingtrails,

walking/hiking

trails,

golfcourse,pu

blicpark,

skatingrink,sw

imming

pool,tenniscourts,

dancestudio,p

ublic

recreationcent

er

Summaryscorefor

participationin12

activitiesofvarying

intensitiesmorespecific

toolderadult

populations(e.g.yard

care,volunteering

,etc.)

SignificantlyhigherPA

scoresfor

respondentsreportingthe

presenceofbikingtrails,

walking/hikingtrails,golfcourse,

publicpark,skatingrink,

swimmingpool,and

tennis

courts.Someminordifferencesin

significanceoffacilitieswhen

samplesplitinto5064,6579,

and80+

agegroups.

11.De Bourdeau

dhuijetal.

(20

03)

1865yearoldsin

Ghent,Belgium

521

Tallyofconvenience

(5-minutedrivefrom

workorhomeoron

frequentlytraveled

route)for18re

creational

orexercisefacilities

(yes/noforeac

h)

Minutesofsitting,

walking,

moderate-intensity,and

vigorous-intensity

activitiesduringp

ast

week(measured

separately)

Forbothmalesandfem

ales,

convenienceoffacilitiesscore

significantlyrelatedtoamountof

vigorousactivityonly

12.Desh

pandeet

al.(2005)

20+

yearoldsin

Missouri,

Tennesseeand

Arkansas

278

Useofcommunity

facilitiesinpast30days

(used/didnotu

se):park,

recreationcent

er,

biking/walking

trail,

publicswimmingpool,

healthclub

Numberofminu

testo

walkfromhom

etoeach

ofabovefacilities

EngageinregularPA

(30+minutesatleast5

daysperweek)

Significantlyincreased

oddsof

engaginginregularP

Afor

respondentswhohad

usedapark

(OR=

4.21),recreationcenter

(OR=

12.20),trail(OR=

3.81),

orhealthclub(OR=

7.48).Odds

increaseddramaticallywithuse

of3+facilities.

Shorterwalkingtimes

topark,

recreationcenter,trail,andhealth

clubassociatedwithmoreregular

PA

324


12/41

13.Dunc

anand

Mu

mm-

ery(20

05)

18+

yearoldsin

Rockhampton,

Australia

1281

Streetnetworkdis

tanceto

nearestparkland

Achievesrecommen

ded

PAlevel(150minutesin

pastweek)

Anyrecreationalwalking

inpastweek

Participantswithparklandbeyond

600msignificantlym

orelikelyto

achieverecommende

dPAlevel

(OR=

1.41)thantho

selessthan

600mfromparkland

Parklandproximitynotrelatedto

recreationalwalking

14.Dunc

an

eta

l.

(20

04)

1014yearold

siblingsin58

neighborhoodsin

PacificNorthwest

U.S.

930

Thereareplaygro

unds,

parks,orgymscloseto

myhomeortha

tIcan

gettoeasily(1

5,

disagree-agree)

Numberofparks

and

exerciseand

recreationalfac

ilitiesin

neighborhood

Numberofdaysinp

ast

weekthateachsib

ling

tookpartin:vigorous

exercisefor20+

minutes;stretching

exercises;strength

ening

exercises

Numberofdaysof

vigorousPAinatypical

weekforeachsibl

ing

Perceptionsofneighbo

rhood

recreationalfacilities

andcountof

numberofneighborh

oodPA

facilitieswerebothn

egatively

andsignificantlyrela

tedtofamily

levelsofPA

15.Eyleretal.

(20

03)

18+

yearoldsacross

U.S.

1818

Nowalking/joggingtrails

Regularwalker(5x/week

for30min)

Occasionalwalker(walk

10+

minatleasto

nce

duringpastweek)

Neverwalker(didn

ot

walk10+

minatleast

onceinpastweek)

Neverwalkerssignificantlymore

likelytoreportalack

of

walking/joggingtrailsthan

regularwalkers(OR

=

1.59)

Occasionalwalkersno

t

significantlymorelik

elytoreport

alackofwalking/jog

gingtrails

thanregularwalkers(OR=

1.18)


325


13/41

TABLE1



ParksorRecreation

PhysicalActiv

ity

Authorsa

ndDate

Population1

N2

Variable(s)3

Variable(s)3

Association(s)4

16.Fisher

etal.

(200

4)

6494yearolds

from56

neighborhoodsin

Portland

582

Totalparks,path

s,trails

perneighborhoodacre

Neighborhoodwalking

activity(scorede

rived

fromindividuals

responsesto3be

havior

questionsratedon5-pt

scale)

Walkingfacilitiesper

neighborhood

acresignificantlyrelatedto

neighborhoodwalkingactivity

17.Foster

etal.

(200

4)

1674yearolds

acrossEngland

4157

Apark/openspaceis

withinwalking

distance

(agree/disagree)

Aleisurecenter

iswithin

walkingdistan

cefrom

myhome(yes/no)

Walking>150min

utesper

weekinpastfour

weeks

Walkingatleast15

minutesperweek

inpast

fourweeks

Inbivariateanalyses,neitherthe

parknorleisurecentervariable

weresignificantlyrelatedtoeither

walkingmeasurein

eithermenor

women

Inmultivariateanalys

es,formen,

havingaparkwithinwalking

distancewasonlyenvironmental

variableassociatedwithhigher

oddsofwalking>1

50minutes

perweek(OR=2.2

2)

18.Giles-Corti

etal

.

(200

5)

1859yearoldsin

Perth,Australia

1803

Threemodelsofaccessto

publicopenspace(each

dividedintoqu

artiles:

verypoor,poor,good,

verygood):

1)Distanceonlymodel

2)Distanceand

attractivenessmodel

3)Distance,

attractiveness,

andsize

model

Achievessufficient

PA

(30+minutesof

moderatePAonmost

daysofweek)

Highlevelsofwalking

(6+

walkingsess

ions

perweektotaling

180+

minutes)

Fordistance-only(OR

=

0.69)and

distanceplusattractiveness

(OR=

0.71)models,pooraccess

topublicopenspacesignificantly

decreasedoddsofachieving

sufficientPAcompa

redtothose

withverypooraccess

Fordistance,attractiv

eness,and

sizemodel,havingverygood

accesstopublicope

nspace

significantly

326


14/41

increasedoddsofengagingin

highlevelsofwalkingcompared

tothosewithverypo

oraccess

(OR=

1.50)

19.Giles

-Corti

andDonovan

(20

03)

1859yearoldsin

Perth,Australia

1803

Accesstoattractivepublic

openspace,river,beach,

golfcourse(dividedinto

quartiles)

Walkingatrecommended

levels(12+sessionsin

previous2weeks

totaling360minutesor

more)

Participantsintopquartileofaccess

exhibitedsignificantlyhigher

oddsofsufficientwalkingthan

thoseinbottomquartileofaccess

(OR=

1.47)

20.Giles

-Corti

andDonovan

(20

02a)

1859yearoldsin

Perth,Australia

1803

Accesstoopenspace(top

quartilevs.othe

rthree

quartilescombined)

Accesstobeach(

top

quartilevs.othe

rthree

quartilescombined)

Inpasttwoweeks:a

ny

walkingfortransp

ort;

anywalkingfor

recreation;anyvig

orous

exercise

Walkingasrecomm

ended

(6+

timesperwee

kfor

30+

minutes)

Exercisingvigorous

lyat

recommendedlevel(3+

timesperweekfor20+

minutes)

Beingintopquartileofaccessto

openspacesignifican

tlyincreased

oddsofwalkingfortransport(OR

=

1.35)andwalking

as

recommended(OR=

1.43)

Beingintopquartileofaccessto

beachsignificantlydecreased

oddsofwalkingfortransport(OR

=

0.62),butsignifica

ntly

increasedoddsofwa

lkingfor

recreation(OR=1.4

9),

exercisingvigorouslyatallin

pasttwoweeks(OR=

1.38),and

exercisingvigorouslyat

recommendedlevel(

OR=

1.58)

21.Giles

-Corti

andDonovan

(20

02b)

1859yearoldsin

Perth,Australia

1803

Accesstobuiltfacilities:

e.g.golfcourse,health

club(dividedinto

quartiles)

Accesstonatural

facilities:e.g.beach,

river(dividedin

to

quartiles)

Exercisingas

recommended(30+

minutesofmoderatePA

onmostdaysofw

eek)

Neitheraccesstobuiltfacilitiesnor

accesstonaturalfacilities

significantlyrelatedtoexercising

asrecommended


327


15/41

TABLE1



ParksorRecreation

PhysicalActiv

ity

Authorsa

ndDate

Population1

N2

Variable(s)3

Variable(s)3

Association(s)4

22.Gomez

etal

.

(200

4)

Grade7studentsat5

schoolsinSan

Antonio,TX

177

Straightlinedistancefrom

participantsh

ometo

nearestopenplayarea

(playground,p

ool,

athleticfield)

Boutsperweekofoutdoor,

non-schoolrelate

dPA

(basedonrecallo

f

numberofdaysp

er

monthandnumberof

monthsperyear)

Distancetonearestop

enplayarea

inverselyandsignifi

cantlyrelated

toboutsperweekofoutdoorPA

inboys,butnoting

irlsortotal

sample

23.Gordo

n-

Lars

en

etal

.

(200

0)

Grade712students

acrossU.S.

17,766

Useofneighborhood

recreationcenter(use/do

notuse)

Numberofepisode

sof

moderatetovigorousPA

perweek(basedon

7-dayactivityrec

all

questions)

Hoursperweekof

physicalinactivity

(TV/videowatchingand

videogameplaying)

Usingrecreationcenter

significantlyincreas

edoddsof

fallingintohighest(5+

episodes/wk)PAcategory(OR=

1.75),butwasnotassociatedwith

beinginthehighest

(25+hrs/wk)

inactivitycategory(OR=

1.01)

24.Hoehn

er

etal

.

(200

5)

1896yearoldsin

areasofSt.Louis,

MOand

Savannah,GA

1073

Therearemanyplacesto

beactiveinmy

community,no

t

includingstree

ts

Park,walkingtrail,private

fitnessfacility

within

5-minutewalk

ofhome

(yes/noindividually)

Numberofrecre

ation

facilitieswithin

5-minutewalk

ofhome

RecreationalPA(not

includingtranspo

rt)

duringleisure-tim

e:

MeetsPA

recommendation

(5+

dayswith30+m

inutes

ofmoderatePAo

r3+

dayswith20+m

inutes

ofvigorousPAin

past

week)

Doesnotmeet

recommendation

Respondentswhoagreedthatthere

aremanyplacestobeactive

(OR=

2.0)andthatreported23

recreationfacilities

within

5-minutewalk(OR

=

1.6)

significantlymorelikelytomeet

PArecommendation

(buttrends

notclear)

Havinganyofpark,w

alkingtrail,

orprivatefitnessfac

ilitywithin

5-minutewalknota

ssociated

withmeetingPA

328


16/41

(7total)Within400mof

respondentsho

me:

Countofparkswith

facilities;Anyp

ark,trail

orfitnessfacility;Count

ofrecreationalfacilities

recommendation

Noneoftheobjectivemeasuresof

parksorrecreationfa

cilities

significantlyrelatedtomeeting

PArecommendation

25.Humpel,

Ma

rshall

eta

l.

(20

04)

Facultyandstaffat

anAustralian

university

800and

512at

10-wk

followup

Summaryconvenience

scoreof(eachitemrated

110forunfavo

rableto

favorable):

Walkingdistance

to

park/beachAcc

essibility

ofpath/cycleway

Overallconvenienceof

neighborhoodfor

walking

Numberofminutesper

weekofneighborh

ood

walking

Inbothmenandwome

n,increased

perceptionsofconvenience

relatedtosignificantlyincreased

oddsofanyincrease

inwalking

(OR=

1.95and2.58

,

respectively),increas

eof30or

moreminutesofwalking(OR=

2.02and2.31,respec

tively),and

increaseof60ormoreminutesof

walking(OR=

1.98

and2.01,

respectively)

26.Humpel,

Ow

en,

Ive

rson

eta

l.

(20

04)

40+

yearoldsfrom

acoastal

Australiancity

399

Liveinpostalcod

ethat

touchescoastlin

e

Lakeorbeachwithineasy

walkingdistanc

e

Numberofminutesper

weekofneighborh

ood

walking,walkingfor

exercise,forpleasure,

andtogettoandfrom

places(separately)

Inbivariateanalyses,participants

livingincoastalpostalcode

reportedsignificantly

more

minuteswalkinginn

eighborhood

(189vs.149)andfor

exercise

(139vs.109)thanthosein

non-coastalpostalco

de

Inbivariateanalyses,p

articipants

withalakeorbeachwithin

walkingdistancereported


329


17/41

TABLE1



ParksorRecreation

PhysicalActiv

ity

Authorsa

ndDate

Population1

N2

Variable(s)3

Variable(s)3

Association(s)4

significantlymorem

inutes

walkinginneighborhood(224vs.

139),forexercise(1

63vs.100),

andforpleasure(33

vs.21)

Inmultivariateanalys

es,livingin

coastalpostalcodenot

significantlyassocia

tedwith

increasedoddsofanytypeof

walkingformen,bu

tgreaterodds

ofneighborhoodwa

lkingfor

women(OR=

3.32

)

27.Hump

el,

Owen,

Leslie

etal

.

(200

4)

Facultyandstaffat

anAustralian

university

800

Summaryconvenience

scoresplitinto

low,

moderate,high

tertiles

basedon(each

item

rated110for

unfavorableto

favorable):

Walkingdistanc

eto

park/beach

Accessibilityofpath/cycle

way

Overallconvenienceof

neighborhood

for

walking

Numberofminutes

per

weekofneighborhood

walking(splitintohigh

andlowgroupsat

median)

Numberofminutesper

weekoftotalwalking

(splitatmedian)

Numberofminutesper

weekoftotalPA

(splitat

median)

Inmen,participantsinhigh

conveniencetertileexhibited

significantlyhigher

oddsof

neighborhoodwalking(OR=

2.20)andtotalPA(OR=

1.82)

thanthoseinlowco

nvenience

tertile

Inwomen,thoseinhigh(OR=

3.78)andmoderate

(OR=

3.19)

conveniencetertiles

exhibited

significantlyhigher

oddsof

neighborhoodwalkingthanthose

inlowconvenience

tertile

28.Huston

etal

.

(200

3)

18+

yearoldsin6

countiesinNorth

Carolina

1796

Trailsinneighbo

rhood

(yes/no)

Anyleisure-timePAin

pastmonth

MeetsPA

recommendation

(5+

Inbivariateanalyses,respondents

reportingpresenceoftrails

significantlymorelikely

330


18/41

dayswith30+

minutes

ofmoderatePAor

3+

dayswith20+minutes

ofvigorousPAinpast

week)

toengageinanyPA(77.8%vs.

70.3%)andrecommendedPA

(31.3%vs.23.8%)th

anthose

reportingnotrails

Inmultivariateanalyse

s,reported

presenceoftrailsnot

associated

withhigheroddsofa

nyPA,but

marginallyassociatedwith

recommendedPA(O

R=

1.46,p

environment correlates of pa_ a review of evidence about parks and recreation.pdf

Documents