Genevieve Fridlund Dunton1, Estela Almanza2, Michael Jerrett3, Jennifer Wolch4, Mary Ann Pentz3. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Electronic address: dunton@usc.edu. 2. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 4. College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although having a greater number of neighborhood parks may be associated with greater overall physical activity in children, information is lacking about the extent to which children actually use parks for physical activity. PURPOSE: This study combined accelerometer, GPS, GIS, and self-report methods to examine neighborhood park availability, perceived proximity, and use for physical activity in children. METHODS: Low- to middle-income children (aged 8-14 years) (n=135) from suburban communities in Southern California wore an Actigraph accelerometer and GlobalSat BT-335 GPS device across 7 days to measure physical activity and park use, respectively. ArcGIS identified parks within a 500-m residential buffer of children's homes. Parents reported perceptions of neighborhood park proximity through the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS). Data were collected from March 2009 to December 2010, and analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of families lived within 500 m of a park. Of these children, GPS data indicated that 16% used it more than 15 minutes and an additional 11% of children used it between 5 and 15 minutes during the 7-day study period. The odds of extended park use (>15 minutes) increased fourfold when the distance between home and the nearest neighborhood park decreased by 100 m. Additionally, the odds of any park use (>5 minutes) doubled when moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile for park greenness/vegetation density. CONCLUSIONS: Although children's use of neighborhood parks was generally low, it increased substantially when parks were closer to children's homes and had greater vegetation density.
BACKGROUND: Although having a greater number of neighborhood parks may be associated with greater overall physical activity in children, information is lacking about the extent to which children actually use parks for physical activity. PURPOSE: This study combined accelerometer, GPS, GIS, and self-report methods to examine neighborhood park availability, perceived proximity, and use for physical activity in children. METHODS: Low- to middle-income children (aged 8-14 years) (n=135) from suburban communities in Southern California wore an Actigraph accelerometer and GlobalSat BT-335 GPS device across 7 days to measure physical activity and park use, respectively. ArcGIS identified parks within a 500-m residential buffer of children's homes. Parents reported perceptions of neighborhood park proximity through the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS). Data were collected from March 2009 to December 2010, and analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of families lived within 500 m of a park. Of these children, GPS data indicated that 16% used it more than 15 minutes and an additional 11% of children used it between 5 and 15 minutes during the 7-day study period. The odds of extended park use (>15 minutes) increased fourfold when the distance between home and the nearest neighborhood park decreased by 100 m. Additionally, the odds of any park use (>5 minutes) doubled when moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile for park greenness/vegetation density. CONCLUSIONS: Although children's use of neighborhood parks was generally low, it increased substantially when parks were closer to children's homes and had greater vegetation density.
Authors: Jennifer Wolch; Michael Jerrett; Kim Reynolds; Rob McConnell; Roger Chang; Nicholas Dahmann; Kirby Brady; Frank Gilliland; Jason G Su; Kiros Berhane Journal: Health Place Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: William B Strong; Robert M Malina; Cameron J R Blimkie; Stephen R Daniels; Rodney K Dishman; Bernard Gutin; Albert C Hergenroeder; Aviva Must; Patricia A Nixon; James M Pivarnik; Thomas Rowland; Stewart Trost; François Trudeau Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Marc A Adams; Sherry Ryan; Jacqueline Kerr; James F Sallis; Kevin Patrick; Lawrence D Frank; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2009
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: 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: Natalicio Serrano; Lilian G Perez; Jordan Carlson; Kevin Patrick; Jacqueline Kerr; Christina Holub; Elva M Arredondo Journal: J Transp Health Date: 2018-01-20
Authors: Jenny Veitch; Elliott Flowers; Kylie Ball; Benedicte Deforche; Anna Timperio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Adam Loveday; Lauren B Sherar; James P Sanders; Paul W Sanderson; Dale W Esliger Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lizan D Bloemsma; Ulrike Gehring; Jochem O Klompmaker; Gerard Hoek; Nicole A H Janssen; Henriëtte A Smit; Judith M Vonk; Bert Brunekreef; Erik Lebret; Alet H Wijga Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 9.031