James N Roemmich1, Joley E Beeler2, LuAnn Johnson2. 1. Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA. Electronic address: james.roemmich@ars.usda.gov. 2. Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test whether a micro-environment park intervention in Grand Forks, North Dakota, movement of seating away from a playground, would increase the physical activity and length of stay of park users. METHOD: Study 1, summer 2012: physical activity of children and adults was assessed during baseline (A1) with seating in usual, standardized locations; with seating removed from the playground (B); and with seating returned to original locations (A2). Study 2, summer 2013: the study was repeated with the inclusion of a daily 2-hour assessment during which activity of each family member was recorded every 15-min and length of stay was recorded. RESULTS: For both studies, the MET (metabolic equivalent) intensity was greater (p<0.02) during condition B than during A1 and A2. For adults, the odds of being in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity than sitting during condition B were 4.1 to 22.7 greater than those during conditions A1 and A2. During the 2-hour serial observations, MET intensities during condition B were greater (p<0.005) than those during A1 and A2. The duration families stayed at the park did not differ across conditions. CONCLUSION: Adults were more active when seating was not accessible. Removal of seating did not shorten the time that adults were willing to allow children to play. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Test whether a micro-environment park intervention in Grand Forks, North Dakota, movement of seating away from a playground, would increase the physical activity and length of stay of park users. METHOD: Study 1, summer 2012: physical activity of children and adults was assessed during baseline (A1) with seating in usual, standardized locations; with seating removed from the playground (B); and with seating returned to original locations (A2). Study 2, summer 2013: the study was repeated with the inclusion of a daily 2-hour assessment during which activity of each family member was recorded every 15-min and length of stay was recorded. RESULTS: For both studies, the MET (metabolic equivalent) intensity was greater (p<0.02) during condition B than during A1 and A2. For adults, the odds of being in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity than sitting during condition B were 4.1 to 22.7 greater than those during conditions A1 and A2. During the 2-hour serial observations, MET intensities during condition B were greater (p<0.005) than those during A1 and A2. The duration families stayed at the park did not differ across conditions. CONCLUSION: Adults were more active when seating was not accessible. Removal of seating did not shorten the time that adults were willing to allow children to play. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Built environment; Children; Micro-environment; Parks; Physical activity; Playgrounds; Social facilitation; Youth
Authors: Jason J Wilson; Deepti Adlakha; Conor Cunningham; Paul Best; Chris R Cardwell; Aoife Stephenson; Marie H Murphy; Mark A Tully Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Danielle F Shanahan; Thomas Astell-Burt; Elizabeth A Barber; Eric Brymer; Daniel T C Cox; Julie Dean; Michael Depledge; Richard A Fuller; Terry Hartig; Katherine N Irvine; Andy Jones; Heidy Kikillus; Rebecca Lovell; Richard Mitchell; Jari Niemelä; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Jules Pretty; Mardie Townsend; Yolanda van Heezik; Sara Warber; Kevin J Gaston Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2019-06-10
Authors: Christopher Lim; Andrew M Donovan; Nevin J Harper; Patti-Jean Naylor Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rosario Padial-Ruz; Mª Esther Puga-González; Álvaro Céspedes-Jiménez; David Cabello-Manrique Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390