| | A Quantitative Examination of Park Characteristics Related to Park Use and Physical Activity Among Urban YouthReceived 13 November 2008; accepted 7 May 2009. published online 08 July 2009. Abstract PurposeAlthough several studies have identified a positive association between recreational facility availability and physical activity, few have examined facility attributes beyond availability and involved minority adolescents. This study examines how both objective and perceived measures of the facility environment are associated with urban adolescents' use of parks and physical activity. MethodsStudy participants included 329 adolescents from two high schools in Baltimore, Maryland, the majority (69%) of whom was African American. A Web-based survey assessed park use, neighborhood crime, and park availability, quality, and use by friends and family. Geographical Information Systems data were used to develop objective measures of park availability and crime. Physical activity data were obtained from 316 participants using accelerometers. Hypotheses regarding environmental correlates of park use and physical activity were tested using logistic regression models (for park use) and linear regression models (for physical activity). ResultsPerceptions of greater park availability, quality, and use by friends were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of an adolescents' park use. Perceptions of more park availability was associated with higher levels of physical activity, although this association was marginally significant. Objective measures of park availability and objective and subjective measures of crime were not associated with either park use or physical activity. ConclusionsEfforts to promote park use for physical activity among urban youth should increase awareness of park availability, improve perceptions of park quality, and utilize social networks. Several researchers have investigated associations between recreational facility availability and youth physical activity levels. Evidence from studies using measures of perceived facility availability is mixed, with some finding positive associations [1], [2], [3] and others finding no associations [4], [5]. The majority of work in this area, however, utilizes objective measures of facility availability and provides strong evidence indicating that a greater availability of recreational facilities is positively associated with adolescents' physical activity levels [3], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. There are several limitations of the research investigating recreational facilities and adolescent physical activity levels. First, racial/ethnic minority youth, who have disproportionately low levels of physical activity [14], are underrepresented in this literature [15], [16]. It is important to examine environmental characteristics influencing minority youth because they may experience the environment differently because of cultural differences [15]. Indeed, studies on perceived facility availability in Latino youth had different results than those in predominately white populations [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. None of the existing studies involve a predominately African American population. Second, few studies investigate facility use. The assumption is that the observed associations between facility availability and physical activity are because of facility use. It is possible, however, that neighborhoods with a greater availability of facilities differ in other ways that are responsible for the association between facility availability and physical activity. Third, there is minimal research examining facility characteristics beyond availability. Facility characteristics found to correlate with youth physical activity include number of staff [17], presence of certain amenities [6], and perceived facility quality [5]. Two qualitative studies identified several factors impacting facility use, including a lack of adolescent-oriented activities, poor maintenance, cost, the presence of physically active peers, and safety [18], [19]. Few quantitative studies examine facility characteristics beyond availability. In this study, we aim to address gaps in the literature through the examination of associations between objective and perceived measures of environmental characteristics and urban adolescents' use of parks for physical activity and their total weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Our study participants are predominately African Americans. We address the following research question: Are park availability, neighborhood crime, park quality, and park use by friends and family associated with use of parks and levels of physical activity among urban youth? It is anticipated that adolescents will report greater park use and be more physically active when there is a greater availability of parks (as measured by both objective and subjective measures), less neighborhood crime (as measured by both objective and subjective measures), perceptions of higher park quality, and perceptions of more park use by friends and family. Methods  Data come from the Baltimore Active Living Teens Study (BALTS), a cross-sectional study examining multilevel risk and protective factors impacting physical activity in a sample of predominately African American youth. BALTS participants include 9th through 12th graders from two magnet high schools located in Baltimore City, Maryland. A magnet school is a public school that draws students who are interested in specific subjects from surrounding regions. The student body at one study school is 70% African American, 26% Caucasian, 3% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and 0.4% American Indian. Thirty-five percent of students receive free or reduced school lunch [20]. At the other study school, the student body is 84% African American, 13% Caucasian, 2% Asian, 0.5% Hispanic, and 0.4% American Indian. Forty-three percent of students receive free or reduced school lunch [21]. Students in 29 classes were asked to participate in BALTS. Classes were selected based on school administrators' interest in conducting the study in noncore classes and the research team's interest in obtaining participants from all grades. Participation was solicited from 589 students through in-class presentations. To achieve an adequate number of participants from several different neighborhood types, which were defined by features of the built environment, an additional 60 students living in one neighborhood type were recruited through further in-class presentations. Those who returned signed parental consent and child assent forms were enrolled. Of the 649 students that were asked to participate, 350 enrolled in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Maryland. Objectively measured physical activity data were obtained through students wearing ActiGraph accelerometers. Following a standardized protocol, participants were instructed to wear the monitor from waking up in the morning to going to bed a night for 7 days. Actigraph counts were summarized by quantifying the time spent at different intensity levels. Thresholds for the activity intensities were less than 50.99 counts per 30 seconds for sedentary activity, 51 to 578.99 counts per 30 seconds for light activity, and 579 or more counts per 30 seconds for MVPA. The thresholds were adapted from a previous randomized trial [22]. Three-MET was used as the cut point to define MVPA. The total weekly minutes of MVPA was defined as the combined moderate and vigorous physical activity minutes accumulated before and after school over the 7-day data collection period. Surveys were conducted in a school computer room over a 6-month period from January to June of 2006. The majority of participants completed surveys within 2 to 3 months of wearing the ActiGraph. Use of parks for physical activity was measured with the question, “Do you ever use parks for physical activity?” Perceived park availability was measured with the question “Are there parks within a 5-minute drive or 10-minute walk from your home?” which was adapted from previous studies on facility access [23], [24]. Perceived neighborhood crime was measured with a five-point response (definitely disagree to definitely agree) to the statement “There is a lot of crime in my neighborhood.” The Perceived Park Quality Scale included nine items assessing park quality issues, including amenities available, maintenance, aesthetics, and safety, which were developed based on qualitative research with the study population [18]. All items used a five-point response and the scale score was the average of the responses. The test–retest reliability for the scale was 0.76. Scale scores for friends and family use of facilities were similarly created based on four questions assessing park use by friends, parents, siblings, and other family members. Participants addresses were geocoded using ArcGIS 9.1 software [25]. Buffers were drawn around each participant's home and used to calculate the number of parks within a 1 mile radius and the number of crimes per square mile within a one-half mile radius. Buffer sizes were selected based on previous studies examining the effects of park availability and crime on physical activity [6], [9], [26], [27]. Park data came from a database of parks and greenspace from the Baltimore City Department of Planning. Crime data were obtained from a Baltimore City Police Department record of crimes reported in 2005 and included Uniform Crime Reports type I violent (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery) and property (burglary, larceny, and arson) crimes. The crimes were geocoded using ESRI Street Map 2000 1.1 as the reference data with an address-geocoding match rate of 95%. Demographic data were self-reported by respondents and included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and maternal education. Race/ethnicity was categorized as African American and other because of a small number of participants from other racial/ethnic groups. Preliminary analysis indicated that combining the latter group with whites was acceptable because they were not different with respect to the dependent variables. Maternal education was categorized into three groups: some high school education, high school or trade school graduate with either none or some college education, and college graduate and beyond. For this analysis, we excluded participants that were missing spatial data needed to create measures of park availability and crime (n =21). Data were not available for these participants who reported home addresses outside of Baltimore City. Furthermore, they were not consistent with our desired study population of urban adolescents. For the analysis of physical activity data, we excluded an additional 13 participants who were missing accelerometer data. There were no significant differences by sociodemographic variables between participants with and without accelerometer data. We used Stata statistical software, version 9 [28]. We first computed univariate statistics to provide a description of the 329 study participants. We then performed bivariate analyses to examine associations that park use (any vs. none) and MVPA had with environmental and sociodemographic predictors. For park use (a dichotomous variable), we used χ2 tests when the predictor was categoric variables and t-tests when the predictor was continuous. For MVPA (a continuous variable), we used t-tests when the predictor was categorical and Pearson's R when the predictor was continuous. We fit logistic regression models where park use was regressed on all independent variables. We computed unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals from these models. For MVPA, we fit linear regression models and computed unadjusted and adjusted estimates from these models. We used mixed effects models to account for clustering by census tract and school. Results Park use In bivariate and multivariate analyses, perceived, but not objective, park availability was positively associated with park use (Table 2). In the adjusted model, there was a 2.97 times greater odds of using parks for physical activity for participants reporting parks within a 5-minute drive to 10-minute walk from their home compared to those not reporting this (p ≤ .01). Neither objective nor perceived measures of neighborhood crime were associated with park use. The measures of perceived park quality, park use by friends, and park use by family were strongly associated with park use in unadjusted models. In the full model, there was a 2.29 times greater odds of using parks with every one-unit increase in the Perceived Park Quality Scale (p ≤ .01). There was a 1.95 times greater odds of park use with a one-unit increase in the measure of park use by friends (p ≤ .001). Park use by family was not associated with park use. Odds ratios for associations between park use and sociodemographic variables are also presented in Table 2. Adolescent females were 39% less likely to use parks than adolescent males in the unadjusted model: this association is marginally significant in the full model. African American adolescents were 68% less likely to use parks for physical activity compared to adolescents of other racial/ethnic backgrounds (p ≤ .01). Physical activity Bivariate and multivariate associations between the predictor variables and total weekly minutes of MVPA are displayed in Table 3. Park use was strongly associated with physical activity in the unadjusted model with 49 more minutes of weekly MVPA for those reporting park use compared to those reporting no park use (p ≤ .01). This association was marginally significant in the full model. This may be because of collinearity given that additional analyses showed a significant association (p ≤ .01) when perceived environmental predictors were excluded from the full model. For the objective environmental predictors, a one-park increase in availability was associated with 1.99 more minutes of weekly MVPA but this association was marginally significant (p ≤ .10). Objectively measured crime was not associated with physical activity. Among the perceived environmental predictors, park availability was associated with physical activity with 39 more minutes of weekly MVPA for participants reporting available parks compared to those reporting no available parks (p ≤ .10). Collinearity may have attenuated these associations, as additional analyses revealed statistically significant associations between these variables and MVPA (p ≤ .05) when park use was excluded from the model. This could also suggest that park use partially accounts for these associations. We did not observe associations between physical activity and perceived crime, park quality, and park use by family. Analysis of sociodemographic predictors showed that adolescent females were less physically active than adolescent males with 77 fewer minutes of weekly MVPA (p ≤ .001). African American adolescents were more active than adolescents from other racial/ethnic groups with 57 more minutes of weekly MVPA (p ≤ .01). Discussion We found that, among urban adolescents, perceptions of greater park availability, quality, and use by friends were associated with increased park use for physical activity. Perceptions of more park availability was associated with increased physical activity, but this association was marginally significant. Objective measures of park availability and objective and perceived measures of crime were not associated with either park use or physical activity. Compared to adolescent males, females used parks less and were less physically active. African American adolescents reported less park use, but were more physically active than adolescents from other racial/ethnic groups. Based on previous research, we anticipated that perceived and objective measures of park availability would be positively associated with both park use and physical activity. Our results confirmed our hypothesis regarding perceived park availability and are consistent with previous studies in adults [23], [29], [30]. Studies in adolescent populations, however, are inconsistent. In addition to our study, three studies found that perceived facility availability was associated with physical activity [1], [2], [3]. Two studies in Latino youth, however, did not find an association [4], [5]. These inconsistencies could result from the use of different measures of perceived availability. Social and cultural factors impacting physical activity could also explain differences seen across racial/ethnic groups. Our finding that objectively measured park availability was not associated with either park use or physical activity is inconsistent with several studies demonstrating positive associations between availability and adolescent physical activity [6], [7], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. There are, however, studies that did not find an association [3], [8] or found differences by gender [9], [11], [13]. We did not observe associations between objective availability and park use or physical activity for either gender. It is possible that, for urban youth, there are other environmental attributes that preclude the use of parks for physical activity such as access to after school programs or neighborhood safety. The results regarding neighborhood crime, however, do not support the notion that safety prevents park use and physical activity. We found that neither objective nor perceived measures of crime were associated with park use and physical activity. It is possible there is a lack of variation in crime in this geographic area as crime rates are some of the highest in the nation. Furthermore, our measures may have failed to capture relevant safety issues. Our qualitative research found that neighborhood safety impacts adolescents' willingness to engage in physical activity at facilities and in their neighborhood [18]. Participants identified specific safety concerns, such as intimidation by drug dealers, which impact both facility use and physical activity. The measures of crime used in this study did not capture the nuances of safety that are likely to impact physical activity. Furthermore, as suggested by other researchers [24], it is possible that people living in unsafe neighborhoods are active in neighborhoods that are more conducive to physical activity. This is supported by our qualitative research, which found that adolescents from unsafe neighborhoods often spend time in neighborhoods where they are not limited by safety concerns. There was strong support for the hypothesis that perceived park quality is associated with park use, but quality was not associated with physical activity. This finding contradicts research conducted with low-income predominately Mexican American youth showing a positive association between quality and physical activity [5]. It appears that perceived quality may attract urban African American adolescents to facilities, but does not impact their activity level. Nonetheless, quality appears to be important for encouraging facility use. Future studies should examine quality using objective measures. The hypothesis that friends' park use is associated with park use was supported by our study. We did not find associations with use by family, which may result from the strong influence of peers during adolescence. Nonetheless, our results add to the extensive body of research demonstrating the importance of social influences to youth physical activity [4], [31], [32], [33], [34], and, consistent with our qualitative research [18], suggest that facilities with a lively social environment will attract adolescents. Our examination of sociodemographic variables showed that adolescent females were less likely to use parks and were less physically active than adolescent males. This is consistent with data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance documenting lower levels of physical activity among young women compared to young men [14], and suggests that increasing use of parks and other facilities may be one way to increase physical activity among adolescent females. We found racial/ethnic differences in this study, with African American adolescents being less likely to use parks for physical activity than other adolescents, but having higher levels of physical activity. This contradiction may be explained by additional analyses, which found that, although African American adolescents use parks less than other adolescents, those who use them do so with greater frequency. It is also possible that African American adolescents may use other settings for physical activity. This study is limited by its use of cross-sectional data and simplistic measures. The objective measure of park availability is limited by the use of one data source. The outcome measure of ever using parks for physical activity lacks specificity, however, we also assessed frequency of park use and analyses using this outcome had comparable results. Furthermore, seasonality could affect the results, as there are significant weather variations from January to June that could impact adolescents' behavior, but examination of variation in physical activity over the data collection period revealed no significant differences by month. Finally, the generalizability of the findings is limited because of the selection of participants from magnet high schools, which draw students with higher socioeconomic status than the larger Baltimore City school population. There are several strengths of this study. For one, the simultaneous examination of perceived and objective measures of the environment allows for the identification of appropriate points of intervention. For example, we found that perceived park availability was associated with park use and physical activity, whereas objectively measured park availability was not. This suggests that promoting the use of parks should involve increasing awareness of existing parks. Second, to our knowledge, this is the first study in adolescents to specifically examine park use as an outcome. The results contribute to our understanding of park characteristics that impact facility use for physical activity. An additional strength of this study is the focus on an urban predominately African American population. It is one of few studies to examine environmental influences on physical activity in this population which has disproportionately low levels of physical activity [14]. In conclusion, this study found that perceived park availability, quality, and use by friends were associated with park use in a population of predominately African American adolescents. Furthermore, perceived park availability was associated with physical activity. Objective measures of the environment, however, were not associated with either park use or physical activity, suggesting that it is adolescents' perceptions of their environment that impact park use and physical activity patterns. This conclusion is premature, given that there were limitations of the measures used in the study and characteristics of the environment that were not accounted for. This study suggests that knowledge of neighborhood facilities and perceptions of facility quality are important. Furthermore, social influences from peers impact facility use. Efforts to increase adolescent physical activity through the promotion of park use should increase awareness of park availability, improve perceptions of park quality, utilize social networks, and consider racial/ethnic differences in park use. Acknowledgments Funding for this study was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Active Living Research Program and the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. We would like to thank the administration and staff at the participating high schools for their assistance with this project, Robert Brown for his assistance with analyzing the crime data, and Sharon Morris for her assistance acquiring the crime data. We are grateful to the student participants who made this research possible. References [1]. [1]Garcia AW, Broda MA, Frenn M, et al. Gender and developmental differences in exercise beliefs among youth and prediction of their exercise behavior. J Sch Health. 1995;65(6):213–219. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[2]. [2]Mota J, Almeida M, Santos P, Ribeiro JC. Perceived neighborhood environments and physical activity in adolescents. Prev Med. 2005;41(5–6):834–836. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[3]. [3]Scott MM, Evenson KR, Cohen DA, Cox CE. Comparing perceived and objectively measured access to recreational facilities as predictors of physical activity in adolescent girls. J Urban Health. 2007;84(3):346–359. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[4]. [4]Zakarian JM, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, et al. Correlates of vigorous exercise in a predominantly low SES and minority high school population. Prev Med. 1994;23(3):314–321. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[5]. [5]Romero AJ. Low-income neighborhood barriers and resources for adolescents' physical activity. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(3):253–259. |
CrossRef
[6]. [6]Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1381–e1389. [7]. [7]Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, Popkin BM. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):417–424. [8]. [8]Jago R, Baranowski T, Baranowski JC. Observed, GIS. self-reported environmental features and adolescent physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2006;20(6):422–428. MEDLINE [9]. [9]Gomez JE, Johnson BA, Selva M, Sallis JF. Violent crime and outdoor physical activity among inner-city youth. Prev Med. 2004;39(5):876–881. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[10]. [10]Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, et al. Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Prev Med. 2006;43(6):437–441. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[11]. [11]Norman JG, Nutter SK, Ryan S, et al. Community design and access to recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent physical activity and body-mass index. J Phys Activity Health. 2006;3(Suppl 1):S118–S128. [12]. [12]Dowda M, McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, et al. Commercial venues as supports for physical activity in adolescent girls. Prev Med. 2007;45(2–3):163–168.
CrossRef
[13]. [13]Powell LM, Chaloupka FJ, Slater SJ, et al. The availability of local-area commercial physical activity-related facilities and physical activity among adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(4 Suppl):S292–S300. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (107 KB)
|
CrossRef
[14]. [14]Eaton DK, Kann L, Kinchen S, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2008;57(4):1–131. [15]. [15]Kumanyika S, Grier S. Targeting interventions for ethnic minority and low-income populations. Future Child. 2006;16(1):187–207. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[16]. [16]Sallis JF, Glanz K. The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. Future Child. 2006;16(1):89–108. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[17]. [17]Moody JS, Prochaska JJ, Sallis JF, et al. Viability of parks and recreation centers as sites for youth physical activity promotion. Health Promot Practice. 2004;5(4):438–443. [18]. [18]Ries AV, Gittelsohn J, Voorhees CC, et al. The environment and urban adolescents' use of recreational facilities for physical activity: a qualitative study. Am J Health Promot. 2008;23(1):43–50. [19]. [19]Ashley J, Samaniego D, Cheun L. How Oakland turns its back on teens: a youth perspective. Soc Justice. 1997;24(3):170–176. [20]. [20]Baltimore City Public School System Comprehensive School Profile Report: Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, 2005 [Online]. Available at: http://www.jhu.edu/cmdbminds/BCHS/school403.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2006. [21]. [21]Baltimore City Public School System Comprehensive School Profile Report: Western School, 2005 [Online]. Available at: http://www.jhu.edu/cmdbminds/BCHS/school407.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2006. [22]. [22]Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, et al. Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(7):1259–1266. MEDLINE [23]. [23]De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):83–92. MEDLINE [24]. [24]Sallis JF, Johnson MF, Calfas KJ, et al. Assessing perceived physical environmental variables that may influence physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68(4):345–351. MEDLINE [25]. [25]ESRI. (2005). ArcGIS 9.1 [computer software]. California. [26]. [26]Wilson DK, Kirtland KA, Ainsworth BE, et al. Socioeconomic status and perceptions of access and safety for physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2004;28(1):20–28. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[27]. [27]Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(4):323–331. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (241 KB)
|
CrossRef
[28]. [28]Stata Corp. (2005). Stata Statistical Software: Release 9 [computer software]. Texas. [29]. [29]Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–199. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (95 KB)
|
CrossRef
[30]. [30]Huston SL, Evenson KR, Bors P, et al. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):58–69. MEDLINE [31]. [31]Strauss RS, Rodzilsky D, Burack G, et al. Psychosocial correlates of physical activity in healthy children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(8):897–902. MEDLINE [32]. [32]Reynolds KD, Killen JD, Bryson SW, et al. Psychosocial predictors of physical activity in adolescents. Prev Med. 1990;19(5):541–551. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
[33]. [33]Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–975. MEDLINE [34]. [34]Voorhees CC, Murray D, Welk G, et al. The role of peer social network factors and physical activity in adolescent girls. Am J Health Behav. 2005;29(2):183–190. MEDLINE a Department of Nutrition, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina b Department of Public and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland c Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland d Center for Human Nutrition, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland  Address correspondence to: Amy V. Ries, M.H.S., Ph.D., Department of Nutrition, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1700 Airport Road, Campus Box 7294, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7294.
PII: S1054-139X(09)00186-4 doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.020 © 2009 Society for Adolescent Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
FULL TEXT