| Literature DB >> 35368510 |
Ming Ma1,2,3, Michael Adeney4, Wei Chen5, Darong Deng6, Shaohua Tan3.
Abstract
Green open space (GOS) is an important outdoor resource for the well-being of children by providing places for physical activity (PA), especially in the highly urbanized environment. The COVID-19 lockdowns have made children have more sedentary time than before due to less access to public places. This article aims to examine the associations of GOS characteristics (environmental and surrounding) and children's use (visitation and PA pattern) to provide evidence for promoting their PA during the pandemic. This study employed the method of GPS positioner, accelerometer, and survey to measure the children's actual use in GOS. A total of 179 children participated in the study and 10 GOSs were selected. The children were provided with the accelerometers and GPS positioners to track their walking steps, duration, and locations. The environmental characteristics and 1 km buffer of the selected GOSs were explored as extended study area. Results showed that 49.16% of children reported more visitations than before the pandemic, and 48.60% of them preferred to go on weekdays during the pandemic. Both environmental and surrounding characteristics could affect the visitation pattern. The size (p < 0.000), residential ratio (p < 0.000), and intersection density (p < 0.000) were found as the factors significantly associated with visitation pattern. The children's PA pattern was mainly associated with the environmental characteristics of size (p < 0.000), sports, and playground proportion (p < 0.000). The locations of children's PA were mainly around square, playground, sheltered place, and waterside areas. COVID-19 has transformed the children's use of GOS, as well as their relationship with GOS. The large GOS was more likely to promote PA and its use by the children. The environmental and surrounding characteristics of GOS could affect their use pattern, whereas their PA pattern was mainly associated with the environmental characteristics. The findings suggest that GOS characteristics could be an effective solution to respond the challenge from the pandemic, and promote their visitation and PA.Entities:
Keywords: children; design; environmental characteristics; green open space; landscape; physical activity; planning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35368510 PMCID: PMC8966046 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.813976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Site locations.
Description of children and visitation pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <6 | 2 | 1.12% |
| 7–9 | 75 | 41.90% | |
| 10–12 | 91 | 50.84% | |
| >12 | 11 | 6.15% | |
| Gender | Male | 96 | 53.63% |
| Female | 83 | 46.37% | |
| Presence of guardians | Yes | 112 | 62.57% |
| No | 67 | 37.43% | |
| The way come to the GOS | On foot | 75 | 41.90% |
| Public transit | 62 | 34.64% | |
| Private car | 42 | 23.46% | |
| Distance from home | ≤1 km | 123 | 68.72% |
| >1 km | 56 | 31.28% | |
| Visitation pattern | |||
| Visitation comparison (with prior Covid-19) | More visitations | 88 | 49.16% |
| Almost the same | 42 | 23.46% | |
| Less visitations | 49 | 27.37% | |
| Visitation time | Weekday | 87 | 48.60% |
| Weekend | 65 | 36.31% | |
| Both | 27 | 15.08% | |
| Visitation frequency | Less than once a week | 21 | 11.73% |
| Once to third time a week | 123 | 68.72% | |
| More than third time a week | 35 | 19.55% |
The description of visitation and PA pattern by different GOS.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Visitation frequency | 0.001 | |||||||
| Less than once a week | 6 | 3.35% | 8 | 4.47% | 7 | 3.91% | 21 | |
| Once to third time a week | 28 | 15.64% | 39 | 21.79% | 56 | 31.28% | 123 | |
| More than third time a week | 13 | 7.26% | 10 | 5.59% | 12 | 6.70% | 35 | |
| Visitation comparison with Prior to COVID-19 | 0.001 | |||||||
| More visitations | 21 | 11.73% | 26 | 14.53% | 41 | 22.91% | 88 | |
| Almost the same | 10 | 5.59% | 13 | 7.26% | 19 | 10.61% | 42 | |
| Less visitations | 15 | 8.38% | 16 | 8.94% | 18 | 10.06% | 49 | |
| Visitation time | 0.082 | |||||||
| Weekday | 29 | 16.20% | 36 | 20.11% | 22 | 12.29% | 87 | |
| Weekend | 9 | 5.03% | 11 | 6.15% | 45 | 25.14% | 65 | |
| Both | 14 | 7.82% | 7 | 3.91% | 6 | 3.35% | 27 | |
| PA pattern | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | |
| Duration (mins) | 42.12 | 46.31 | 51.22 | 0.001 | 46.70 | |||
| Walking steps | 2,786.52 | 2,982.74 | 3,010.81 | 0.011 | 2,901.13 |
One-way ANOVA is employed to examine the differences of visitation pattern between different GOS.
Chi square test is employed to examine the differences of PA pattern between different GOS.
,
p < 0.01.
.
Figure 2The locations of children's physical activities in the GOS.
Description of GOSs.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Community level | U1 | 10 | 3,611 | 61.95% | 1,707 | 29.28% | 511 | 8.77% | 5,829 |
| 1–5 ha | U2 | 13 | 3,715 | 60.46% | 1,863 | 30.32% | 567 | 9.23% | 6,145 |
| U3 | 12 | 3,901 | 58.04% | 2,039 | 30.34% | 781 | 11.62% | 6,721 | |
| U4 | 22 | 6,871 | 64.45% | 2,759 | 25.88% | 1,031 | 9.67% | 10,661 | |
| District level | U5 | 15 | 4,861 | 63.85% | 1,938 | 25.46% | 814 | 10.69% | 7,613 |
| 6-10 ha | U6 | 21 | 6,788 | 58.80% | 3,247 | 28.13% | 1,509 | 13.07% | 11,544 |
| U7 | 23 | 1,1414 | 66.24% | 3,367 | 19.54% | 2,451 | 14.22% | 17,232 | |
| City level | U8 | 16 | 4,851 | 53.95% | 2,799 | 31.13% | 1,341 | 14.91% | 8,991 |
| >10 ha | U9 | 22 | 6,919 | 57.89% | 3,190 | 26.69% | 1,844 | 15.43% | 11,953 |
| U10 | 25 | 6,797 | 56.08% | 3,415 | 28.18% | 1,908 | 15.74% | 12,120 | |
The GOS environmental and surrounding characteristics.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Size (ha) | 1.91 | 3.22 | 3.41 | 4.71 | 6.72 | 7.94 | 8.92 | 11.21 | 13.45 | 14.89 | 7.64 | 4.48 |
| Greenery proportion (%) | 61.15 | 65.14 | 67.21 | 69.24 | 61.34 | 62.89 | 67.51 | 62.31 | 67.34 | 66.84 | 65.10 | 2.94 |
| Sports and play ground proportion (%) | 12.51 | 14.11 | 13.64 | 12.89 | 13.75 | 14.12 | 13.99 | 14.24 | 15.34 | 14.21 | 13.88 | 0.78 |
| Facilities and amenities area proportion (%) | 17.87 | 15.32 | 15.44 | 14.23 | 18.15 | 17.24 | 15.21 | 17.54 | 15.42 | 16.24 | 16.27 | 1.34 |
| Surrounding characteristics | ||||||||||||
| Residential ratio (%) | 42.15 | 39.21 | 41.11 | 38.74 | 39.52 | 36.21 | 35.32 | 34.56 | 30.21 | 31.25 | 36.83 | 4.03 |
| Intersection density (n/km2) | 36.84 | 42.12 | 43.15 | 31.25 | 39.32 | 32.15 | 26.53 | 22.24 | 24.61 | 28.14 | 32.64 | 7.42 |
| Transit density (n/km2) | 20.01 | 24.52 | 25.02 | 25.32 | 24.21 | 19.62 | 19.21 | 17.21 | 12.54 | 14.33 | 20.20 | 4.57 |
| Mixture of land use | 0.45 | 0.69 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.67 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.25 |
Regression of GOS characteristics with PA.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Interior characteristics of UGOS | ||||
| Size | 1.215 | 0.000 | 1.233 | 0.000 |
| Greenery proportion | 0.022 | 0.652 | 0.042 | 0.182 |
| Sports and play GROUND proportion | 1.475 | 0.000 | 0.697 | 0.006 |
| Facilities and amenities area proportion | −0.028 | 0.404 | −0.022 | 0.642 |
| Surrounding characteristics of UGOS | ||||
| Residential ratio | −0.065 | 0.091 | −0.157 | 2.631 |
| Intersection density | −0.044 | 0.182 | 0.031 | 0.753 |
| Transit density | 0.028 | 0.718 | 0.107 | 0.089 |
| Mixture of land use | −0.037 | 0.324 | −0.427 | 0.954 |
| Constant | 0.877 | 0.000 | 0.813 | 0.000 |
| 0.321 | 0.284 | |||
| N | 179 | 179 | ||
,
p < 0.01.
.
Regression of GOS characteristics with visitation pattern.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Environmental characteristics | ||||||
| Size | 9.441 | 0.000 | 5.125 | 0.000 | 0.205 | 0.221 |
| Greenery proportion | 1.309 | 0.157 | 0.816 | 0.462 | 0.812 | 0.057 |
| Sports and play ground proportion | 0.779 | 0.431 | 0.698 | 0.783 | 0.003 | 0.701 |
| Facilities and amenities area proportion | 1.127 | 0.557 | 0.902 | 0.664 | 0.312 | 0.375 |
| Surrounding characteristics | ||||||
| Residential ratio | 0.874 | 0.750 | 3.481 | 0.000 | 7.221 | 0.000 |
| Intersection density | 4.175 | 0.000 | 0.789 | 0.574 | −0.126 | 0.082 |
| Transit density | 1.342 | 0.203 | 0.561 | 0.978 | −0.496 | 0.061 |
| Mixture of land use | 1.351 | 0.083 | 0.747 | 0.127 | 0.002 | 0.407 |
| Constant | −6.411 | 0.002 | −6.111 | 0.003 | −5.876 | 0.003 |
| Cox and snell R square | 0.214 | 0.257 | 0.311 | |||
,
p < 0.01.
.