| Literature DB >> 27214385 |
Linde Van Hecke1,2, Benedicte Deforche1,2, Delfien Van Dyck3,4, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij4, Jenny Veitch5, Jelle Van Cauwenberg1,3.
Abstract
Most previous studies examining physical activity in Public Open Spaces (POS) focused solely on the physical environment. However, according to socio-ecological models the social environment is important as well. The aim of this study was to determine which social and physical environmental factors affect adolescents' visitation and physical activity in POS in low-income neighbourhoods. Since current knowledge on this topic is limited, especially in Europe, qualitative walk-along interviews were used to obtain detailed and context-specific information. Participants (n = 30, aged 12-16 years, 64% boys) were recruited in POS in low-income neighbourhoods in Brussels, Ghent and Antwerp (Belgium). Participants were interviewed while walking in the POS with the interviewer. Using this method, the interviewer could observe and ask questions while the participant was actually experiencing the environment. All audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed using Nvivo 10 software and thematic analysis was used to derive categories and subcategories using a grounded theory approach. The most important subcategories that were supportive of visiting POS and performing physical activity in POS were; accessibility by foot/bicycle/public transport, located close to home/school, presence of (active) friends and family, cleanliness of the POS and features, availability of sport and play facilities, large open spaces and beautiful sceneries. The most important subcategories that were unsupportive of visiting POS and physical activity in POS were; presence of undesirable users (drug users, gangs and homeless people), the behaviour of other users and the cleanliness of the POS and features. Social factors appeared often more influential than physical factors, however, it was the combination of social and physical factors that affected adolescents' behaviour in POS. Easily accessible POS with high quality features in the proximity of adolescents' home or school may stimulate physical activity, if adolescents also experience a safe and familiar social environment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27214385 PMCID: PMC4877089 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Questions used to assess the social context.
| Topic | Questions |
|---|---|
| Social context | With whom do you come here?, Are there gangs hanging around?, Is there a lot of drug use? |
| Modelling [ | Are your friends and family active?, Do your friends often ask to hang out?, Are there lots of other people active here? |
| Social network [ | Do you know lots of people in the neighbourhood?, Are there lots of other adolescents to do things with? |
| Social trust and cohesion [ | Are people around here willing to help their neighbours?, Is it a close-knit neighbourhood?, Can people in this neighbourhood be trusted?, Do people in your neighbourhood generally get along well? |
Overview of the physical and social environmental factors affecting visitation and physical activity in POS.
| PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT | Mentioned by few/some/many/almost all participants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Categories | Subcategories | few | some | many | almost all |
| Accessibility and location | Close to home | X | |||
| Close to other locations | X | ||||
| Presence of pubs and restaurants | X | ||||
| Well-known location | X | ||||
| Accessibility by foot, bike and public transport | X | ||||
| Features | Natural features | X | |||
| Man-made facilities | X | ||||
| Diverse facilities for all ages | X | ||||
| Aesthetics | Beautiful scenery (nature and green) | X | |||
| Colour and graffiti | X | ||||
| Historical Elements | X | ||||
| Noise | X | ||||
| Upkeep | Cleanliness | X | |||
| Upkeep of facilities and playing surfaces | X | ||||
| Physical aspects of safety | Lighting | X | |||
| Safety from being hurt (maintenance of facilities) | X | ||||
| Safety from traffic | X | ||||
| Secluded areas | X | ||||
| Safety of accommodation for young children | X | ||||
| Policy | Organized activities | X | |||
| Secluded area for dogs | X | ||||
| Categories | Subcategories | few | some | many | almost all |
| Social network | Friends and family | X | |||
| Nice atmosphere | X | ||||
| Knowing lots of people in the neighbourhood | X | ||||
| Other adolescents to play with/Social contact | X | ||||
| Other Users | Behaviour of other users | X | |||
| Ethnicity of other users | X | ||||
| Number of other users | X | ||||
| Social aspects of safety | Undesirable users | X | |||
| Presence of other people | X | ||||
| Safety at night | X | ||||
| Parents | Habit (taught by parents) | X | |||
| Rules from parents | X | ||||
| Privacy | Privacy | X | |||
| Modelling | Active use by others | X | |||
| Family active | X | ||||
| Friends active | X | ||||
A few = topic mentioned by < 25% of participants, Some = topic mentioned by 25%-50% of participants, Many = topic mentioned by 50%-75% of participants, Almost all = topic mentioned by >75% of participants.
All subcategories mentioned in the table were mentioned by the participants to encourage POS visitation and/or physical activity unless stated otherwise.
a Categories that were mostly mentioned to discourage POS visitation and/or physical activity.
Descriptive statistics of the sample (n = 30).
| Age (years) (M ± SD) | 13.3 ± 1.1 |
| Girls (%) | 36.7 |
| Born in Belgium (%) | 86.7 |
| Occupation Father (%) | |
| Blue collar worker | 45.8 |
| White collar worker | 29.2 |
| No Principal occupation | 25.0 |
| Occupation Mother (%) | |
| Blue collar worker | 38.5 |
| White collar worker | 11.5 |
| No Principal occupation | 50.0 |
| POS visitation at least once a week (%) | 86.7 |
| Average duration of stay on a usual visit at the POS (M ± SD) | 146.8 ± 90.2 |
| Satisfied with the number of POS in neighbourhood (%) | 66.7 |
| Mode of transport to travel to a POS (%) | |
| Walking | 82.8 |
| Bike/skateboard/roller-skates | 31.0 |
| Public transport | 24.1 |
| Car | 10.3 |
| Active member of a sport club (%) | 46.7 |
| Frequency attending sports club (times/week) (M ± SD) | 3.6 ± 3.2 |
| Accompaniment to POS (multiple answers possible) (%) | |
| Alone | 14.3 |
| Friends | 71.4 |
| Family | 46.4 |
| Organization | 3.6 |
| Participants indicating drug use in the POS (%) | 63.3 |
| Participants indicating gangs hanging around in POS (%) | 60.0 |
Activities performed in POS by the participants.
| Girls (n = 11) | %(n) | Boys (n = 19) | %(n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dancing | 9.1 (1) | Baseball | 5.3 (1) |
| Frisbee | 9.1 (1) | Climbing trees | 5.3 (1) |
| Playground | 9.1 (1) | Fantasy games | 5.3 (1) |
| Roller-skating | 9.1 (1) | Tennis | 5.3 (1) |
| Sledging (winter) | 9.1 (1) | Badminton | 10.5 (2) |
| Sitting | 9.1 (1) | Playground | 10.5 (2) |
| Tag | 9.1 (1) | Hide and seek | 15.8 (3) |
| Talking with family | 9.1 (1) | Skateboarding | 15.8 (3) |
| Ball games | 18.2 (2) | Tag | 15.8 (3) |
| Basketball | 18.2 (2) | Jogging | 21.1 (4) |
| Fantasy games | 18.2 (2) | Table tennis | 21.1 (4) |
| Go for a walk | 18.2 (2) | Basketball | 31.6 (6) |
| Jogging | 18.2 (2) | Soccer | 78.9 (15) |
| Soccer | 27.3 (3) |
Participants were asked what kind of activities they engaged in when they went to the POS where the interview took place. They could provide as many answers as they preferred.
a Tennis court was not available, therefore, they played tennis on the grass field.
Fig 1Large open spaces with grass and some trees encourage adolescents to be active.
Park van Vorst, Brussels.
Fig 2Paths with slopes are encouraging to be active for joggers and cyclists.
This was mentioned by the participants because it increases the training intensity. Park van Vorst, Brussels.
Fig 3Playgrounds are important for younger adolescents (12–13 year olds) for POS visitation and physical activity.
Sleepstraat Ghent.
Fig 4Sport fields were mostly pointed out as important by boys to visit and be active.
Kielpark Antwerp.
Fig 5Ground paintings were perceived as attractive, unwanted graffiti as not attractive for visiting a POS.
Bethlehemplein, Brussels and Rabotpark Ghent.
Fig 6Historical elements and statues were perceived by some participants as attractive to visit a POS.
Prinsenhofplein, Ghent.
Fig 7Garbage lying around was perceived to be unsupportive to visit a POS.
Rabotpark, Ghent.