The Potential for Pocket Parks to Increase Physical Activity
Abstract
Purpose.
To assess the use of new pocket parks in low-income neighborhoods.
Design.
The design of the study was a quasi-experimental post-test only comparison.
Setting.
Los Angeles, California, was the setting for the study.
Subjects.
Subjects were park users and residents living within .5 mile of three pocket parks and 15 neighborhood parks.
Intervention.
The creation of pocket parks.
Measures.
We used the System of Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) tool to measure park use and park-based physical activity, and then surveyed park users and residents about their park use.
Analysis.
We surveyed 392 and 432 household members within .5 mile of the three pocket parks before and after park construction, respectively, as well as 71 pocket park users, and compared them to 992 neighborhood park users and 342 residents living within .5 mile of other neighborhood parks. We compared pocket park use to playground area use in the larger neighborhood parks. We used descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations for the analysis.
Results.
Overall, pocket park use compared favorably in promoting moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with that of existing playground space in nearby parks, and they were cost-effective at $0.73/MET hour (metabolic equivalent hour) gained. Pocket park visitors walked an average of .25 miles to get to a park.
Conclusions.
Pocket parks, when perceived as attractive and safe destinations, may increase physical activity by encouraging families with children to walk there. Additional strategies and programs may be needed to encourage more residents to use these parks.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major noncommunicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380:219–229.
2. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, et al. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–188.
3. USDHHS. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington DC: USDHHS; 2008.
4. McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Nader PR, et al. BEACHES: An observational system for assessing children's eating and physical activity behaviors and associated events. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1991;24:141–151.
5. Babey SH, Brown ER, Hastert TA. Access to safe parks helps increase physical activity among teenagers. Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res. 2005; PB2005–10:1–6.
6. Babey SH, Hastert TA, Brown ER. Teens living in disadvantaged neighborhoods lack access to parks and get less physical activity. Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res. 2007; PB2007–4:1–6.
7. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(suppl 2):159–168.
8. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, et al. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med. 2010;50(suppl 1):S9–S12.
9. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, et al. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:509–514.
10. Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, et al. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. An observational study. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:299–305.
11. Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Parks and recreation settings and active living: A review of associations with physical activity function and intensity. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:619–632.
12. Tester J, Baker R. Making the playfields even: Evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2009;48:316–320.
13. McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, Sehgal A, et al. System for Observing Parks and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(suppl 1):S208–S222.
14. Cohen DA, Setodji C, Evenson KR, et al. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:1117–1123.
15. Wu S, Cohen D, Shi Y, et al. Economic analysis of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:149–158.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Neighborhood safety and the prevalence of physical inactivity inactivity-selected states, 1996. MMWR. 1999;48:143–146.
17. Gómez J, Johnson B, Selva M, Sallis J. Violent crime and outdoor physical activity among inner-city youth. Prev Med. 2004;39:876–881.
18. Molnar BE, Gortmaker SL, Bull FC, Buka SL. Unsafe to play? Neighborhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physical activity among urban children and adolescents. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18(5):378–386.
19. Newman O. Defensible Space. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1972.
Biographies
Deborah A. Cohen, MD, MPH; Terry Marsh, MPH; Stephanie Williamson; Bing Han, PhD; Kathryn Pitkin Derose, PhD, MPH; and Daniella Golinelli, PhD, are with the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. Thomas L. McKenzie, PhD, is with San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2014
Issue published: January 2014
Keywords
- Physical Activity
- Parks
- Pocket Parks
- Accessibility
- Prevention Research
- Manuscript format: research
- Research purpose: intervention testing/program evaluation
- Study design: quasi-experimental
- Outcome measure: behavioral, financial/economic
- Setting: local community
- Health focus: physical activity
- Strategy: built environment
- Target population age: youth, adults, seniors
- Target population circumstances: income level, geographic location
PubMed: 24380461
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in American Journal of Health Promotion.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 1011
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 84 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 93
- Vitality Decline in Residential Landscapes: A Natural Experiment Insight from Hefei, China
- The vitality of pocket parks in high-density urban areas. An evaluation system from the users' perspective in Southwest China
- The impact of high-density urban environments on children’s play, a systematic review of current insights
- Kentsel Yeşil Alanların Yeterlilik Seviyelerinin Ve İnsanların Kentsel Yeşil Alanları Kullanımlarını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Aydın-Efeler Örneğinde İncelenmesi
- Examining the nonlinear relationships between park attributes and satisfaction with pocket parks in Chengdu
- The value of pocket parks in preserving urban butterfly diversity
- Results from the ENJOY MAP for HEALTH: a quasi experiment evaluating the impact of age-friendly outdoor exercise equipment to increase older people’s park visitations and physical activity
- Does small mean unimportant? A review of pocket park values and associated factors
- Physical Activity in Natural Settings: An Opportunity for Lifestyle Medicine
- Park proximity and older adults’ physical activity and sedentary behaviors in dense urban areas
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
