PURPOSE: To assess the use of new pocket parks in low-income neighborhoods. DESIGN: The design of the study was a quasi-experimental post-test only comparison. SETTING: Los Angeles, California, was the setting for the study. SUBJECTS: Subjects were park users and residents living within .5 mile of three pocket parks and 15 neighborhood parks. INTERVENTION: The creation of pocket parks. MEASURES: We used the System of Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) tool to measure park use and park-based physical activity, and then surveyed park users and residents about their park use. ANALYSIS: We surveyed 392 and 432 household members within .5 mile of the three pocket parks before and after park construction, respectively, as well as 71 pocket park users, and compared them to 992 neighborhood park users and 342 residents living within .5 mile of other neighborhood parks. We compared pocket park use to playground area use in the larger neighborhood parks. We used descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations for the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, pocket park use compared favorably in promoting moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with that of existing playground space in nearby parks, and they were cost-effective at $0.73/MET hour (metabolic equivalent hour) gained. Pocket park visitors walked an average of .25 miles to get to a park. CONCLUSIONS: Pocket parks, when perceived as attractive and safe destinations, may increase physical activity by encouraging families with children to walk there. Additional strategies and programs may be needed to encourage more residents to use these parks.
PURPOSE: To assess the use of new pocket parks in low-income neighborhoods. DESIGN: The design of the study was a quasi-experimental post-test only comparison. SETTING: Los Angeles, California, was the setting for the study. SUBJECTS: Subjects were park users and residents living within .5 mile of three pocket parks and 15 neighborhood parks. INTERVENTION: The creation of pocket parks. MEASURES: We used the System of Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) tool to measure park use and park-based physical activity, and then surveyed park users and residents about their park use. ANALYSIS: We surveyed 392 and 432 household members within .5 mile of the three pocket parks before and after park construction, respectively, as well as 71 pocket park users, and compared them to 992 neighborhood park users and 342 residents living within .5 mile of other neighborhood parks. We compared pocket park use to playground area use in the larger neighborhood parks. We used descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations for the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, pocket park use compared favorably in promoting moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with that of existing playground space in nearby parks, and they were cost-effective at $0.73/MET hour (metabolic equivalent hour) gained. Pocket park visitors walked an average of .25 miles to get to a park. CONCLUSIONS: Pocket parks, when perceived as attractive and safe destinations, may increase physical activity by encouraging families with children to walk there. Additional strategies and programs may be needed to encourage more residents to use these parks.
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Thomas L McKenzie; Amber Sehgal; Stephanie Williamson; Daniela Golinelli; Nicole Lurie Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: T L McKenzie; J F Sallis; P R Nader; T L Patterson; J P Elder; C C Berry; J W Rupp; C J Atkins; M J Buono; J A Nelson Journal: J Appl Behav Anal Date: 1991
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Terry Marsh; Stephanie Williamson; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Homero Martinez; Claude Setodji; Thomas L McKenzie Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-10-19 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Billie Giles-Corti; James F Sallis; Takemi Sugiyama; Lawrence D Frank; Melanie Lowe; Neville Owen Journal: J Public Health Policy Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 2.222
Authors: Gregory Knell; Henry S Brown; Kelley P Gabriel; Casey P Durand; Kerem Shuval; Deborah Salvo; Harold W Kohl Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2019-04-13
Authors: Deborah Salvo; Jorge A Banda; Jylana L Sheats; Sandra J Winter; Daniela Lopes Dos Santos; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Bing Han; Catherine J Nagel; Peter Harnik; Thomas L McKenzie; Kelly R Evenson; Terry Marsh; Stephanie Williamson; Christine Vaughan; Sweatha Katta Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sandra J Winter; Jylana L Sheats; Deborah Salvo; Jorge A Banda; Jennifer Quinn; Brooke Ray Rivera; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Vincenza Gianfredi; Maddalena Buffoli; Andrea Rebecchi; Roberto Croci; Aurea Oradini-Alacreu; Giuseppe Stirparo; Alessio Marino; Anna Odone; Stefano Capolongo; Carlo Signorelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pazit Levinger; Jeremy Dunn; Maya Panisset; Briony Dow; Frances Batchelor; Stuart J H Biddle; Gustavo Duque; Keith D Hill Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.295