Risk Assessment

Document Sample
Risk Assessment Powered By Docstoc
					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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:8/2/2011
language:English
pages:66