Get documents about "Risk Assessment
Document Sample
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Auditing Physical Activity-Related
Elements of Public Parks
Andrew T. Kaczynski, PhD
Physical Activity and Public Health Laboratory
Department of Kinesiology, Kansas State University
University of Texas El-Paso
1
September 20, 2010
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Just a bit about Andy …
• PhD in parks and recreation management
(Faculty of Applied Health Sciences) at the
University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada
• BA from Waterloo; MS from Texas A&M
• Moved to Manhattan, KS in August 2008
• Husband and father
(Wife Jen; Abby-6.5 and Kate-3.5)
• Love to play volleyball, golf, poker, squash
• Research focuses on parks and recreation
administration and the impact of the built
environment and parks on physical activity
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Agenda
• Built environment and physical activity
• Why study the built environment?
• Overview of parks and physical activity
research
• Auditing physical activity environments
• Community Stakeholder Park Audit Tool
(CPAT)
• Lunch
• Park visits
• Debriefing and wrap up
3
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Health Benefits of Physical Activity
• Increased physical activity is related to reduced risks of:
• cardiovascular disease, including heart disease & stroke
• several types of cancer
(colon, breast, etc.)
• osteoporosis
• diabetes (both type I and type II)
• hypertension/high blood pressure
• obesity/overweight
• Increased physical activity is also related to improved mental health
• both acute and chronic depression lessened with increased exercise
Dishman, R.K., Washburn, R.A., & Heath, G.W. (2004). Physical activity epidemiology. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
4
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Stages of Physical Activity Research and Promotion
1970-1990s
• Epidemiological research about
physical and behavioural
influences on exercise
• Interventions targeted mainly at
changing individual activity
behaviour. Targeted domains
included:
• Knowledge (e.g., mass
Late 1990s, early
Pre-1970 media campaigns) 2000s
• Physiological studies of • Environmental influences
physical activity • Self-efficacy
and interventions to
(exercise) and fitness • Social support promote active living
1970 1980 1990 2000
Sallis, J.F., Linton, L., & Kraft, M. K. (2005). The first Active Living Research Conference: Growth of a
transdisciplinary field. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 93-95.
5
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Social Ecological Models of Health Behavior
• Intrapersonal
• knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors of potential participants
• Interpersonal
• relationships with family members, friends,
co-workers, etc.
• Organizational/Institutional
• schools, workplaces, etc.
• Community Self
• community agencies
(e.g., churches, recreation providers)
• environmental factors
(e.g., sidewalks, urban design, parks, etc.)
• Policy
• laws/regulations that promote positive or discourage negative actions
McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion
6 programs. Heath Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Why Target the Built Environment?
• Large numbers of people affected
• Relatively permanent effects
• Impacts active living behaviors, not just exercise-related physical activity
• More strongly related to moderate than vigorous physical activity
• Endorsements from IOM, CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics
7
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Environmental Influences on Active Living
• Housing mix (Population Density)
• Land use mix (Diversity)
• Street connectivity (Design)
• Sidewalks
• Public transportation
• Neighbourhood connectedness
• Aesthetics
• Safety (from crime, traffic)
• Parks, trails, recreation facilities
8
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Some Broad-based Benefits of Parks
• Enhancing quality of life
• Attracting and retaining businesses
• Enhancing real estate values
• Protecting the environment
• Preventing youth crime/promoting
youth development
• Facilitating community pride, connectedness, social capital
• Individual and community health – stress relief, spiritual restoration, reduced
pollution, flood control, community connectedness, physical activity
Crompton, J.L. (2007). Community benefits and repositioning: The keys to park and recreation's
future viability. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Parks as Important Community Physical Activity Resources
• Most local and provincial governments have some form of agency that
oversees public open space
• Increasing interest among researchers and practitioners in the field(s) of
leisure studies and recreation management in how parks contribute to
community health
• Some have argued that much of the gains in physical activity are likely to
occur in people‟s leisure time
• Parks provide important „behavior settings‟ in communities for both social and
physical activity among residents of all ages
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Proximity and Physical Activity
• Do people living closer to parks seem to be more active?
• If so, is this true for all ages?
11
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Parks and Recreation and Physical Activity: A Review of the Literature
• Primarily positive associations 21/50 (42%)
• Mixed (some positive) associations 19/50 (38%)
• Mostly non-significant associations 10/50 (20%)
Type of Setting Total Positive Mixed No
N Association Association Association
Trails 17 10 7
Parks 13 5 4 4
Open space 7 3 3 1
Rec centers 7 3 1 3
Exercise facilities 4 1 2 1
Sports facilities 3 2 1
Swimming pools 3 1 2
Golf courses 3 2 1
Lake/beach/coast 3 3
Kaczynski, A.T., & Henderson, K.A. (2007). Leisure Sciences, 29(4).
Kaczynski, A.T., & Henderson, K.A. (2008). Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 5(4).
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Neighborhood Green Space and Neighbourhood Walking Among Seniors
• Older adults (65-94 years) from 56 districts in Portland, Oregon
• Total acres of green space for recreation per neighbourhood and
within 0.5 miles of each study participant, and total number of parks,
paths, trails per neighbourhood acre
• Self-report measure of neighbourhood
walking
• At both neighbourhood and individual
resident levels of analysis, area of green
and open space and the number of parks,
paths, and trails was significantly related to
increased neighbourhood walking
Fisher, K. J., Li, F. Z., Michael, Y., & Cleveland, M. (2004). Neighborhood-level influences on physical activity among older
adults: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 12(1), 45-63.
Li, F. Z., Fisher, K. J., Brownson, R. C., & Bosworth, M. (2005). Multilevel modeling of built environment characteristics
related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(7), 558-564.
13
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Proximity and Neighborhood-Based and Park-Based Physical Activity
• What‟s most strongly related to neighborhood and park-based physical activity
among adults?
• Distance to the closest park?
• Number of total parks within 1 km (0.6 miles)?
• Total area of park land within 1 km?
• Distance to closest park not related to neighborhood or park-based PA
• Number and total area of parks within 1 km related to greater park-based PA
• Especially true among women and older and younger adults
Total Neighborhood Park-Based
Moderate to Strenuous PA Moderate to Strenuous PA Moderate to Strenuous PA
(none vs. 150+ mins.) (none vs. 150+ mins.) (none vs. some)
Park Variable B 95% CI B 95% CI B 95% CI
# of parks within 1 km 1.06 (.84,1.42) 1.17* (1.01,1.34) 1.15* (1.01,1.28)
Park area within 1 km 1.02* (1.01,1.03) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.03* (1.02,1.04)
Distance to closest park 0.96 (.71,1.32) 1.05 (.86,1.32) 1.07 (.86,1.33)
Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., Smale, B., & Havitz, M. E. (2009). Association of parkland proximity with
14 neighborhood and park-based physical activity: Variations by gender and age. Leisure Sciences, 31(2), 174-191.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Area and Reducing Sedentary Behavior Among Youth
• Intervention study with fifty-eight sedentary
(15-25 hrs/wk of TV/video) 8-15 year olds in
Buffalo/Niagara Falls
• Paid children‟s families to maintain, increase
then decrease sedentary behaviors over the
course of a 3-week period
• Wore accelerometers for 3 days to track physical
activity during each stage (baseline, increased
sedentary, decreased sedentary)
• Calculated park area with half-mile radius
of child‟s home
Epstein, L.H., Raja, S., Gold, S.S., Paluch, R.A., Pak, Y., & Roemmich, J.N.
(2006). Reducing sedentary behavior: The relationship between park area
and the physical activity of youth. Psychological Science, 17(8), 654-659.
15
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Area and Reducing Sedentary Behavior Among Youth (continued)
• During the decreased sedentary phase, having a greater amount of nearby park
area „increased the increase‟ in physical activity
45
40
35
Level of MVPA
30
25
20
15
10
Increased Sedentary Behavior
5
Decreased Sedentary Behavior
0
Park Area Within 0.5 Miles
Epstein, L.H., Raja, S., Gold, S.S., Paluch, R.A., Pak, Y., & Roemmich, J.N. (2006). Reducing sedentary
behavior: The relationship between park area and the physical activity of youth. Psychological Science,
16 17(8), 654-659.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Parks and Physical Activity among Adolescent Girls
• 360 sixth grade girls from six schools in Baltimore/Washington, Columbia (SC),
Minneapolis, New Orleans, Tucson, and San Diego
• Wore accelerometers for 6 days to measure out-of-school time moderate-to-
vigorous PA (MVPA) and mapped all parks within 1 mile of girls‟ homes
• For the average girl with 3.5 parks within 1 mile of home, the presence of
parks accounted for 68 extra minutes of MVPA per six days
• Higher MVPA associated with living near parks with playgrounds, basketball
courts, multi-purpose rooms (usually gymnasia), walking paths, swimming
areas, and tracks, and near parks with streetlights, floodlights, shaded areas,
and drinking fountains
• Lower MVPA associated with living near parks with skateboard areas and areas
for lawn games
Cohen, D. A., Ashwood, J. S., Scott, M. M., Overton, A., Evenson, K. R., & Staten, L. K., et al. (2006).
17 Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1381-e1389.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Characteristics and Physical Activity
• Are park features just as (or more?) important than park proximity?
• What features of parks or park areas are associated with greater physical
activity?
18
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Size, Distance, Features and Physical Activity
Park Characteristic Unadjusted Odds Ratios for Adjusted Odds Ratios for
Predicting Any Physical Predicting Any Physical
Activity in the Park Activity in the Park
B 95% CI B 95% CI
Size 1.82 (0.90, 3.66)
Number of features 1.43 (1.13, 1.76) 1.45 (1.09, 1.82)
Average distance to park 1.02 (0.83, 1.29)
• Number of features the only
significant characteristic for
predicting use of park for PA
• Facilities more important than
amenities
• Trails the most important facility
(OR=26.43)
Kaczynski, A.T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with
19 physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1451-1456.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Space and Facilities and Childhood Obesity
• Is proximity to park space and/or particular facilities related to healthy weight status
(vs. overweight) among children?
• Three park space variables: number of parks within 1 km, total park area within
1 km, distance to closest park
• Availability of 13 park facilities in a park within 1 km from home
• None of three park space variables related to being a healthy weight status
• Children living within 1 km of parks with a playground five times more likely
to be a healthy weight than those not living near a park with a playground
• Parents will travel over 4 km to find a
park with particular features
(Tucker et al., 2007)
• Alterations/renovations to playgrounds
can promote more PA (Stratton, 2005;
Colabianchi et al., 2008)
Potwarka, L. R., Kaczynski, A. T., & Flack, A. (2008). Places to play: Association of park space and facilities
20 with healthy weight status among children. Journal of Community Health, 33, 344-350.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Features of Public Open Spaces and Children’s Physical Activity
• 497 children and adolescents aged 8-15 years old from
Melbourne, Australia
• Wore accelerometers to measure after-school and
weekend moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)
• Audited all public open spaces within ½ mile of homes
• Presence of a playground in closest open space related
to greater weekend MVPA among younger boys
• Number of recreational facilities inversely related to
younger girls‟ MVPA after-school and on weekends
• Presence of shade trees shade and signage regarding
dogs positively related to adolescent girls‟ MVPA
• Need to also consider quality of the features and ease
of accessing the park from surrounding neighborhood
Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Crawford, D. (2008). Features of public open spaces and physical activity among children:
21 Findings from the CLAN study. Preventive Medicine, 47 (5), 514-518.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Playground Renovations and Physical Activity
• Are renovated playgrounds used more and for more physical activity?
• Matched 10 renovated and 10 unrenovated school playgrounds in Cleveland, OH
• Observed activity levels of users at each location during non-school hours
• More total users and more vigorously active kids and boys at renovated areas
User Median # of Users Per Median % Median %
Group Observation Moderately Active Vigorously Active
Reno Non-Reno Reno Non-Reno Reno Non-Reno
Total 1.00* 0.33* 29% 33% 27% 14%
Adults 0.11* 0.00* 30% 27% 0% 0%
Children 0.67* 0.33* 26% 33% 33%* 17%*
Males 0.44* 0.22* 29% 34% 33%* 20%*
Females 0.22* 0.11* 16% 24% 26% 17%
* significant difference between renovated vs. unrenovated groups (p<.08)
Colabianchi, N., Kinsella, A., Coulton, C.J., & Moore, S.M. (2008). Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and
22 unrenovated school playgrounds. Preventive Medicine, 48, 140-143.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Playing Field Renovations and Physical Activity
• How does a park playing field renovation impact use and physical activity?
• 3 parks in low income neighborhoods in San Francisco – A) playing field
renovation; B) playing field renovation and programming improvements; C)
control park with no changes
• Conducted weeklong observations
in May 2006 and May 2007
• Significantly increased usage
and physical activity on playfields
after renovations
Tester, J., & Baker, R. (2009). Making the playfields even: Evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park
23 use and physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 48, 316-320.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Surrounding Land Use Diversity and Physical Activity in Parks
• Do the characteristics of lands surrounding
parks affect their use for physical activity?
• Calculated a measure of land use diversity
(LUD) for the area within 500m of 32 parks
• Greater LUD within a park‟s buffer was
related to a lesser likelihood of the park
being used for physical activity
• Parks may be destinations for physical
activity in more natural or less commercial
settings
• Some elements contributing to higher LUD
around parks may deter PA therein (e.g.,
commercial areas with busy streets)
Kaczynski, A.T., Johnson, A.J., & Saelens, B.E. (2010). Neighborhood land use diversity and physical
24 activity in adjacent parks. Health and Place, 16(2), 413-415.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Awareness and Physical Activity
• How aware are people of their neighborhood parks?
• What factors increase awareness of neighborhood parks?
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
How aware are people of their neighborhood parks?
• Asked people how far they perceived they lived from their nearest park?
• Measured distance to nearest park objectively
• How many people achieved a „match‟? What increased the likelihood of a match?
Objective Proximity
Closest park Closest park
within 750m > 750m
8% 3%
Closest park within 750m (n=46) (n=16)
Perceived Proximity
Closest park > 750m 79% 10%
(n=455) (n=57)
Lackey, K.J., & Kaczynski, A.T. (2009). Correspondence of perceived versus objective proximity to parks and their
26 relationship to park-based physical activity. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 53-61.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park-Related Correlates of Perceived vs. Objective Correspondence
• Finally, several park-related variables were related to reduced or increased odds
of achieving a match between perceived and objective proximity to parks
3.5
3
Odds of achieving a match
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
27 *odds ratio significant at p<.05
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Parks and Environmental Justice
• Are parks equitably distributed by income/race?
• Are park features/characteristics equitably distributed?
28
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
SES, Minority Population, PA Resources and PA Among Adolescents
• Used data on education and % minority for 42,857 census block groups in U.S.
• census block groups selected if within 5 miles of one of the 20,000+ grade
7-12 respondents in the national 1994-95 Add Health study
• Locations of physical activity facilities within tracts coded using GIS
• Determined from data if adolescent did 5+ bouts/per week
of moderate-to-vigorous activity (MVPA)
• Used self-reported height and weight to calculate
BMI/overweight status
• Areas with high-minority, low education half as likely to have
at least one PA facility as low-minority, high education areas
• Having just one PA facility associated with a 3% increase in achieving 5+ bouts
of MVPA and 5% decrease in odds of being overweight compared to areas with
zero PA facilities
Gordon-Larsen, P., et al. (2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in
29 physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117(2), 417-424.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Features and Neighborhood Income
• Do features of parks vary by neighborhood socioeconomic status (Melbourne, AU)?
• Audited 1497 public open spaces (POS) for # of recreation facilities, # of amenities,
# of playgrounds, and presence of several individual facilities and amenities
• Divided neighborhoods into (5) quintiles of SES based on income and employment
• Compared with POS in lower SES neighborhoods, POS in highest SES
neighborhoods had more amenities and were
more likely to have shade trees, a water
feature, walking and cycling paths, lighting,
and various forms of signage
• No difference in total # of recreation
facilities or # of playgrounds across
neighborhoods of different SES levels
Crawford, D., Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Ball, K., Hume, C., Roberts, R., et al. (2008). Do features of public open spaces
30 vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health & Place, 14, 889-893.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Quality and Incivilities at Physical Activity Resource Locations
• Does the quality of physical activity resources and/or
the number of „incivilities‟ vary across neighborhood
types?
• Studied the area within 800m of 17 housing complexes,
13 of which were in lower income, high minority areas
• For each physical activity resource, 25 features (e.g.,
playground) or amenities (e.g., bench) were counted
and their quality (good, mediocre, poor) was rated;
number of incivilities (e.g., litter, graffiti) associated
with each resource also counted
• Number of resources similar in low income/high minority vs. higher income/low
minority neighborhoods, although the former had somewhat lower quality
ratings and substantially more incivilities
Lee, R.E., Booth, K.M., Reese-Smith, J.Y., Regan, G., & Howard, H.H. (2005). The Physical Activity Resource
Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities, and incivilities of physical activity resources in
31 urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2, 13-21.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Measuring the Built Environment
The primary methods used to measure characteristics of the built environment
that may be related to physical activity include:
• Perceptions of residents
• Geographic databases
• Direct observation (audits)
• Best for capturing micro-scale features
not included in geographic databases
(e.g., specific features, quality ratings, etc.)
• More time-intensive
• Useful for engaging others in
the research process
• Can be tested for reliability and
validity
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Introduction to Audit Tools – Diversity of Audit Tool Applications
• Neighborhood Environment
• Nutritional Environment
• Parks & Playgrounds
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Introduction to Audit Tools – Diversity of Audit Tool Applications
• Neighborhood Environment
• Measure environmental features
related to walking and active
transportation
Pedestrian Environment Data
Scan (PEDS) Tool
Active Neighborhood Checklist
Systematic Pedestrian and
Cycling Environmental Scan
(SPACES)
• Nutritional Environment
• Parks & Trails
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Introduction to Audit Tools – Diversity of Audit Tool Applications
• Neighborhood Environment
• Nutritional Environment
• Assess food environments in
schools, neighborhoods,
restaurants, grocery stores, etc.
Nutrition Environment
Measures Survey (NEMS)
Nutrition Environment
Assessment Tool (NEAT)
• Parks & Trails
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Introduction to Audit Tools – Diversity of Audit Tool Applications
• Neighborhood Environment
• Nutritional Environment
• Parks & Trails
• Rate the characteristics of parks
and trails (e.g., facilities, amenities,
quality, etc)
BRAT-Direct Observation
(BRAT-DO)
Environmental Assessment of
Public Recreation Spaces
(EAPRS)
Path Environment Assessment
Tool (PEAT)
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools
To date, at least four park audit tools have been developed by various groups:
• Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool – Direct Observation (BRAT-DO)
• Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
• Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA)
• Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST)
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools
• Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool –
Direct Observation (BRAT-DO)
• 16 pages, 181 items
• Strengths: Fairly comprehensive;
Assesses park quality; Developed with
some stakeholders
• Weaknesses: Not youth-oriented;
Not tested with stakeholders
• Environmental Assessment of Public
Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
• Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA)
• Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST)
Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Gustat, J., Tompkins, B.J., Rice, J., & Thomson, J. (2006). Development of a direct observation instrument to
measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(S1), 176-189.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools
• Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool – Direct
Observation (BRAT-DO)
• Environmental Assessment of Public
Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
• 47 pages, 646 items
• Strengths: Very comprehensive; Assesses
youth-oriented features and park quality;
Developed with some stakeholders
• Weaknesses: Time-consuming; Not tested
with stakeholders
• Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA)
• Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST)
Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Auffrey, C., Whitaker, R.C., Burdette, H.L., & Colabianchi, N. (2006). Measuring physical environments of parks
and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3(S1), 190-207.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools
• Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool – Direct
Observation (BRAT-DO)
• Environmental Assessment of Public
Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
• Physical Activity Resource Assessment
(PARA)
• 1 page, 49 items
• Strengths: Quick; Can be used in a
variety of settings
• Weaknesses: Not park-specific; Not
detailed enough; Not developed or
tested with stakeholders
• Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST)
Lee, R.E., et al. (2005). The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities, and incivilities of
physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2, 13-21.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools
• Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool – Direct
Observation (BRAT-DO)
• Environmental Assessment of Public
Recreation Spaces (EAPRS)
• Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA)
• Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST)
• 2.5 pages, 88 items
• Strengths: Fairly quick; Covers a range
of features
• Weaknesses: Not youth-oriented; Not
developed or tested with stakeholders;
Only holistic park quality ratings
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., & Ng, K. et al. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is
distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 169-176.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Examples of Park Audit Tools – Summary
• Several park audit tools previously developed – each has its own strengths and
weaknesses
• Varying lengths and coverage of important dimensions
• Most glaring limitation is the lack of development and testing of existing tools
with diverse community stakeholders
Audit Use Length Park Youth- Developed Tested
Tool Setting Quality Oriented with with
stakeholders stakeholders
BRAT-DO Parks 16 pages, Yes No Some No
181 items
EAPRS Parks 47 pages, Yes Somewhat Some No
646 items
PARA Varied 1 page, Limited No No No
resources 49 items
POST Parks, 2.5 pages, Limited No Some No
ovals 88 items
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Need for a Community Stakeholder Park Audit Tool
• Developing activity-friendly neighborhoods, including better parks, requires i) an
accurate understanding of the current state of resources, and ii) the involvement
of and support from multiple constituencies
• “Simplified observational measures of parks … can be created from existing
measures. Creating practical measures for community groups should be a goal
for researchers” (p. 120)
• “The incorporation of reliable observational measures into health advocacy
efforts should be encouraged to provide an evidence base for advocacy” (p. 120)
• Environmental justice: fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in
decisions and actions about their health
• Understanding and improving parks has significant potential for population-level
physical activity and health promotion, especially among children
Quotes from: Brownson, R.C., Hoehner, C.M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., & Sallis, J.F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for
physical activity: State of the science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4S), S99-S123
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Park Audit Tool Development Study – Purpose, Stages, Setting, Participants
• Study purpose: To develop a user-friendly park audit tool that has been
developed, tested, and disseminated with diverse community stakeholders
• Study stages (Feb 2010 to March 2011):
1. Review of existing instruments
2. Planning workshop with
community stakeholders
3. Development of park audit tool
4. Training workshop with
community stakeholders
5. Testing of park audit tool
6. Evaluation workshop with
community stakeholders
7. Dissemination of park audit tool
• Study setting and participants:
• 60+ parks in KCMO
• 30+ representatives from public health, planning, youth agencies, legislators,
parks and recreation, community members, etc.
44
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Community Park Audit Tool
Instructions
Before you begin, review the brief training guide and audit tool and try to locate a map of the
park. Then, go to the park and proceed with filling out this audit tool. The tool (5 pages) is
divided into five sections that focus on different aspects of the park environment. Additional
instructions are provided within each section.
Section 1: Park Information
Park Name: ______________________________ Observer Name or ID: _____________________
Park Address/Location: _________________________________________________________________
Were you able to locate a map? No Yes Was the park easy to find? No Somewhat Yes
Date (m/d/yr): ___ /___ /_______ Start Time: _____ am or pm Length of visit: ____ min
Approximate Temperature: ___ F Weather: Clear Partly Cloudy Rain/Snow
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 2: Access and Surrounding Neighborhood
This section asks about factors related to accessing the park and about features of the
neighborhood surrounding the park. Several questions include follow-up responses if you
answered yes. After completing all questions, provide any additional comments in the space at
the end of the section. When thinking about the surrounding neighborhood, consider
all areas that are visible from all sides of the park.
Please use the following definition of “useable”: everything necessary for use is present and
nothing prevents use.
1. Can the park be accessed for use? (e.g., not locked/fenced, available for activity, etc.)
No Yes
2. Are there signs that state the following (could be same sign)? (check all that are present)
Park name Park hours Park contact information Park/facility rental information
Park rules Park map Rental equipment information Event/program information
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 2: Access and Surrounding Neighborhood (continued)
3. How many points of entry does the park have?
More than 5 (or park boundary is open) 2-5 Only 1
4. Is there a public transit stop within sight of the park? No Yes
5. What types of parking are available for the park? (check all that are present)
None Parking Lot On street parking Bike rack(s)
6. Is there an external trail or path connected to the park? No Yes
If yes … Is it useable? No Yes
7. Are there sidewalks on any roads adjacent to the park? No Yes
If yes … Are they useable? All or most are useable About half None or few useable
Are there curb cuts and/or ramps on any sidewalks bordering or entering the park?
No Yes
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 2: Access and Surrounding Neighborhood (continued)
8. Are there marked bike lanes on any roads adjacent to the park? No Yes
9. Are there nearby traffic signals on any roads adjacent to the park? (e.g., crosswalk, stop
light/sign) No Yes
If yes … Are they on heavy traffic roads? No Yes No heavy traffic roads
10. What are the main land use(s) around the park? (check all that apply as long as each
type comprises a substantial portion of the area around the park)
Residential Commercial Industrial Natural
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 2: Access and Surrounding Neighborhood (continued)
11. Which of the following safety or appearance concerns are present in the
neighborhood surrounding the park? (check all that are present)
Inadequate lighting (e.g., absent or poor lighting)
Graffiti (e.g., markings or paintings that reduce the visual quality of the area; do not include
allowed murals)
Vandalism (e.g., damaged signs, vehicles, etc.)
Excessive litter (e.g., noticeable amounts of trash, broken glass, etc.)
Heavy traffic (e.g., constant flow of vehicles as opposed to just a few cars per minute)
Excessive noise (e.g., noticeable sounds that are unpleasant or annoying)
Vacant or unfavorable buildings (e.g., abandoned houses, liquor store)
Poorly maintained properties (e.g., overgrown grass, broken windows)
Lack of eyes on the street (e.g., absence of people, no houses or store fronts)
Threatening persons or behaviors (e.g., gangs, alcohol/drug use)
Other ___________________________________________________________________
Comments on Access or Surrounding Neighborhood Issues:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas
This section asks about the activity areas in the park. For each activity area type, first
indicate the number (#) that are present in the park (if none, write “0”). Then,
respond to several subsequent questions about up to three of those particular areas. If there
are more than three areas for a specific activity area type, rate the first three you
encounter during the audit. If there were no activity areas of that type present in the park,
move on to the next type. Also, use the space provided to note any additional comments
about each type of activity area.
When rating the activity areas, please use the following definitions:
Useable: everything necessary for use is present and nothing prevents use (e.g., are there
nets up for tennis courts, goals for sport fields, are trails passable, etc.)
Good condition: looks clean and maintained (e.g., minimal rust, graffiti, broken parts; even
surface; etc.)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
b. Sport Field (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
c. Baseball Field (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
a. Playground (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Areas for different age groups No Yes No Yes No Yes
Colorful equipment (i.e., 3+ colors) No Yes No Yes No Yes
Shade cover for some (25%+)
of the area No Yes No Yes No Yes
Benches in/surrounding area No Yes No Yes No Yes
Fence surrounding area No Yes No Yes No Yes
Separation/distance from road No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
b. Sport Field (# :_____)
(football/soccer)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
c. Baseball Field (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
d. Trail (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Trail is paved No Yes No Yes No Yes
Connected to activity areas No Yes No Yes No Yes
Distance markers/sign No Yes No Yes No Yes
Benches along trail No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
e. Swimming Pool(# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
f. Splash Pad (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
g. Basketball Court (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
h. Tennis Court (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
i. Volleyball Court (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
j. Fitness (# :_____)
Equipment/Stations
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
k. Skate Park (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
l. Dog Park (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 3: Park Activity Areas (continued)
12. Activity Areas # of Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
m. Open/Green Space (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
n. Lake (# :_____)
Useable No Yes No Yes No Yes
Good condition No Yes No Yes No Yes
Is there a designated swimming area? No Yes No Yes No Yes
Comments:
Comments on Park Activity Areas:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 4: Comfort and Safety
This section asks about factors related to comfort and safety when using the park. Several
questions include follow-up responses if you answered yes. After completing all questions,
provide any additional comments in the space at the end.
Please use the following definitions of “useable”: everything necessary for use is present and
nothing prevents use, and “good condition”: looks clean and maintained (e.g., minimal rust,
graffiti, broken parts; even surface; etc.).
13. Is there a public restroom at the park? No Yes
If yes … Is it useable? No Yes
Is it in good condition? No Yes
Is there a family restroom? No Yes
Is there a baby change station in any restroom? No Yes
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 4: Comfort and Safety (continued)
14. Are there drinking fountain(s) at the park? No Yes
If yes … How many? _____
Are the fountains useable? All or most are useable About half
None or few useable
Are they in good condition? All or most in good condition About half
None or few in good condition
15. Are there bench(es) to sit on in the park? No Yes
If yes … Are the benches useable? All or most are useable About half
None or few useable
Are they in good condition? All or most in good condition About half
None or few in good condition
16. Are there picnic shelter(s) in the park? No Yes
If yes … Are the shelters useable? All or most are useable About half
None or few useable
Are they in good condition? All or most in good condition About half
None or few in good condition
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 4: Comfort and Safety (continued)
17. Is there food/vending machines available in the park? No Yes
18. If the sun was directly overhead, how much of the park would be shaded?
<25% 25-75% >75%
19. Are there rules posted about animals in the park? (e.g., dogs must be leashed)?
No Yes
20. Are there any emergency devices in the park? (e.g., phone, button, emergency
directions) No Yes
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 4: Comfort and Safety (continued)
21. Is the park monitored? (e.g., volunteer or paid staff, patrolled by police, cameras, etc.)
No Yes Unsure
22. Are there lights in the park? No Yes
If yes … How much of the park could be lit? <25% 25-75% >75%
23. Is there evidence of threatening behavior or persons in the park? (e.g., gangs,
alcohol/drug use) No Yes
24. From the center of the park, how visible is the surrounding neighborhood?
Fully Partially Not at all
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 4: Comfort and Safety (continued)
25. Are there road(s) through the park? No Yes
If yes … Are there traffic control mechanisms on the roads within the park? (e.g.,
crosswalk, stop light or sign, brick road, speed bumps, roundabouts) No Yes
26. Are there any dangerous spots in the park? (e.g., ravine, abandoned building, pit/hole)
No Yes
Comments on Comfort and Safety Issues:
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 5: Overall Park Quality
This section asks about some final issues related to park quality. Several questions include
follow-up responses if you answered yes. After completing all questions, provide any additional
comments in the space at the end.
27. Are there trash cans in the park? No Yes
If yes … Are they overflowing with trash? All or most overflowing About half
None or few overflowing
Are recycling containers provided? No Yes
28. Is there a place to get dog refuse pick up bags in the park? No Yes
If yes … Are bags available? No Yes
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 5: Overall Park Quality (continued)
29. Which of the following park quality concerns are present in the park? (check all that
are present)
Graffiti (e.g., markings or paintings that reduce the visual quality of the area; do not include
allowed murals)
Vandalism (e.g., damaged signs, buildings, equipment, etc.)
Excessive litter (e.g., noticeable amounts of trash, broken glass, etc.)
Excessive animal refuse (e.g., noticeable amounts of dog waste)
Excessive noise (e.g., noticeable sounds that are unpleasant or annoying)
Poor maintenance (e.g., overgrown grass/weeds/bushes or lack of grass in green areas)
Other ______________________________________________________________
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Section 5: Overall Park Quality (continued)
30. What aesthetic features are present in the park? (check all that are present)
Evidence of landscaping (e.g., flower beds, pruned bushes)
Artistic feature (e.g., statue, sculpture, gazebo, fountain)
Historical or educational feature (e.g., monument, nature display, etc.)
Wooded area
Trees throughout the park
Water feature (e.g., lake, stream, pond)
Meadow (e.g., natural, tall grassy area)
Other ______________________________________________________________
Comments on Park Quality Issues:
Before finishing, please ensure you have answered all questions in the tool.
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
After lunch …
• We will be walking to …
• Bring clipboard and pen/pencil. Grab hat, shoes if desired.
• We will meet briefly at the NW corner of the park (Holmes/69th St)
• Explore the park for 30 minutes to try out different sections of the tool
• At 1:45, we will convene to discuss any issues that came up
• We will leave the park at 2:15 (at the latest) and return back to the community
center to resume the workshop at 2:30
UTEP
PAHO
Exploring Neighborhood and Park Influences on Physical Activity
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Sonja Wilhelm Stanis, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism,
University of Missouri
• Gina Besenyi, MPH Student, Department of Kinesiology, Kansas State University
• Dr. Paula Ford and Mr. Amir Kamel, Department of Public Health Sciences,
University of Texas-El Paso
• UTEP College of Health Sciences
• WHO/Pan American Health Organization
• Hispanic Health Disparities Research Center
66
