Sydney A Jones1, Latetia V Moore2, Kari Moore3, Melissa Zagorski4, Shannon J Brines5, Ana V Diez Roux3, Kelly R Evenson6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: SydneyJones@unc.edu. 2. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University, School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Epidemiology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted an ecological study to determine physical activity resource availability overall and by sociodemographic groups in parts of six states (CA, IL, MD, MN, NC, NY). METHODS: Data on parks and recreational facilities were collected from 3 sources in 2009-2012. Three measures characterized park and recreational facility availability at the census tract level: presence of ≥1 resource, number of resources, and resource kernel density. Associations between resource availability and census tract characteristics (predominant racial/ethnic group, median income, and proportion of children and older adults) were estimated using linear, binomial, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression in 2014. Pooled and stratified analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The study included 7139 census tracts, comprising 9.5% of the 2010 US population. Overall the availability of parks and recreational facilities was lower in predominantly minority relative to non-Hispanic white census tracts. Low-income census tracts and those with a higher proportion of children had an equal or greater availability of park resources but fewer recreational facilities. Stratification revealed substantial variation in resource availability by site. CONCLUSION: The availability of physical activity resources varied by sociodemographic characteristics and across regions. Improved knowledge of resource distribution can inform strategies to provide equitable access to parks and recreational facilities.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted an ecological study to determine physical activity resource availability overall and by sociodemographic groups in parts of six states (CA, IL, MD, MN, NC, NY). METHODS: Data on parks and recreational facilities were collected from 3 sources in 2009-2012. Three measures characterized park and recreational facility availability at the census tract level: presence of ≥1 resource, number of resources, and resource kernel density. Associations between resource availability and census tract characteristics (predominant racial/ethnic group, median income, and proportion of children and older adults) were estimated using linear, binomial, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression in 2014. Pooled and stratified analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The study included 7139 census tracts, comprising 9.5% of the 2010 US population. Overall the availability of parks and recreational facilities was lower in predominantly minority relative to non-Hispanic white census tracts. Low-income census tracts and those with a higher proportion of children had an equal or greater availability of park resources but fewer recreational facilities. Stratification revealed substantial variation in resource availability by site. CONCLUSION: The availability of physical activity resources varied by sociodemographic characteristics and across regions. Improved knowledge of resource distribution can inform strategies to provide equitable access to parks and recreational facilities.
Authors: Daniel K White; Alan M Jette; David T Felson; Michael P Lavalley; Cora E Lewis; James C Torner; Michael C Nevitt; Julie J Keysor Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Ginger J Winston; R Graham Barr; Olveen Carrasquillo; Alain G Bertoni; Steven Shea Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Andrew R Maroko; Juliana A Maantay; Nancy L Sohler; Kristen L Grady; Peter S Arno Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Jana Hirsch; James E Galvin; John Renne; Juyoung Park; Kelly R Evenson; Joel D Kaufman; Annette L Fitzpatrick Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Sandy J Slater; Elizabeth Tarlov; Kelly Jones; Stephen A Matthews; Coady Wing; Shannon N Zenk Journal: Health Place Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: John D Omura; Susan A Carlson; Prabasaj Paul; Sarah Sliwa; Stephen J Onufrak; Janet E Fulton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Barbara J Turner; Natalia Rodriguez; Melissa A Valerio; Yuanyuan Liang; Paula Winkler; Lisa Jackson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Lun-Ching Chang; Kelly R Evenson; Jana A Hirsch; Yvonne L Michael; James E Galvin; Stephen R Rapp; Annette L Fitzpatrick; Susan R Heckbert; Joel D Kaufman; Timothy M Hughes Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: John A Bernhart; Marilyn E Wende; Andrew T Kaczynski; Sara Wilcox; Caroline G Dunn; Brent Hutto Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2022 Jan-Feb 01