PURPOSE: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. DESIGN: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. SETTING: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. PATIENTS: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. MEASURES: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. ANALYSIS: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. RESULTS: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p < .001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = -6.89; p < .001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M = 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p < .001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p = .025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p < .001) than pay for use PARs. CONCLUSION: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.
PURPOSE: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. DESIGN: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. SETTING: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. PATIENTS: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. MEASURES: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. ANALYSIS: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. RESULTS: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p < .001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = -6.89; p < .001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M = 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p < .001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p = .025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p < .001) than pay for use PARs. CONCLUSION: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.
Authors: Fabiana R de Sousa-Mast; Arianne C Reis; Marcelo C Vieira; Sandro Sperandei; Luilma A Gurgel; Uwe Pühse Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Jorge A Banda; Sara Wilcox; Natalie Colabianchi; Steven P Hooker; Andrew T Kaczynski; James Hussey Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Tanya M Horacek; Elif Dede Yildirim; Dean Seidman; Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; Sarah Colby; Adrienne A White; Karla P Shelnutt; Melissa D Olfert; Anne E Mathews; Kristin Riggsbee; Lisa Franzen-Castle; Jesse Stabile Morrell; Kendra Kattelmann Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2019-05-19
Authors: Gerardo Vasquez; Jennifer Salinas; Jennifer Molokwu; Gurjeet Shokar; Silvia Flores-Luevano; Adam Alomari; Navkiran K Shokar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.390