New Terms, Broader Approaches: Recreation and the Social Ecology of Physical Activity.

Promoting the physical and emotional health of individuals in our communities has always been a goal of parks and recreation programs. Recent reports from the Surgeon General (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996) have emphasized the need for efforts to promote physical health in a variety of dimensions. With the continuing focus on the benefits movement for programming and management, the outcomes of recreation for physical and emotional health has a great emphasis.

Although much has been done to promote healthy living by staff in parks and recreation departments, more can be done using new concepts regarding a focus on the social ecology of health promotion and quality of life issues. The physical activities advocated and facilitated by park and recreation departments require consideration within a new context, not only by sports and fitness programmers, but also by all individuals committed to the benefits and values associated with parks and recreation.

The purpose of this research update is to examine the concept of social ecology as it might be applied to health and physical activity issues, facilities, and programs in parks and recreation departments. Two aspects are important to consider including how social ecology might be used in a community to address health issues such as inactive citizens, and what partnerships parks and recreation departments can have in institutional, community, environmental, and policy interventions within a social ecological model. The theoretical concepts of social ecology will be discussed along with the specific programmatic and management strategies for practice that might be noted, limitations of the approach, and a brief discussion of how leisure researchers might broaden their research to examine concepts of social ecology.

New Terms 

Ecology generally refers to the interrelations between organisms and their environments. Ecological concepts refer to people's transactions with their physical and sociocultural environments. Social ecology is derived from systems theory with people-environment transactions characterized by cultures of mutual influence. The general thesis of ecological models of behavior is that environments restrict the range of behaviors by promoting and sometimes demanding certain actions and by discouraging or prohibiting other behaviors. For example, if an individual does not feel sale walking in a park because of overgrown bushes all along a pathway, he or she will not go to that park. These ecological approaches can add explanatory value above that provided by interpersonal and interpersonal factors that influence people's involvement and participation.

Stokols (1992) suggested that the core assumption of social ecology related to health promotion is that the healthfulness of a situation and well-being of participants are influenced by multiple facets of both the physical environment and the social environment. In addition, the social ecological model incorporates multiple levels of analysis and diverse methodologies for assessing the healthfulness of communities. Social ecology is interdisciplinary in its approach and focuses on the active role played by individuals within communities, the development and testing of models describing the people-environment interactions, and the importance of evaluative studies.

Proponents of ecological approaches have criticized the explanatory models of health and health-related behaviors centered on intrapersonal determinants such as knowledge, attitudes, and skills and suggested they are of limited Value for the understanding of how people live their lives. Programmers and researchers must examine the context of people's lives to understand the barriers and motivations that exist. The context relates to social networks, organizations, communities, and public policies. Richard, Potvin, Kishchuk. Prlic, and Green (1996) suggested that health problems, and we might expand that to also mean inactivity in a variety of leisure pursuits, result from social structure and conditions. This idea moves away from traditional individual approaches often associated with "victim blaming."

Most health programs have been focused on individuals rather than providing environmental resources and interventions that promote enhanced well being among occupants of a community. Earlier research on health promotion generally emphasized behavior change strategies rather than environmentally focused interventions (Stokols, 1992). Recreation and park professionals have tended to focus on both individuals and their social environment, although this relationship has not always been made clear. The concept of health promotion, a benefit that parks and recreation staff generally associate with their programs, places an emphasis on the role of individuals, groups, and organizations as active agents in shaping health practices and policies to optimize both individual wellness and collective well being.

Stokols, Allen, and Bellingham (1996) noted that programs that are narrow in scope and rely solely on interventions aimed at individuals and small groups are not likely to effect change in complex social problems such as youth living in high-risk environments. Thus, major community issues such as physically inactive children and adults might be better addressed by multiple thrusts and the establishment of partnerships among diverse community members to focus on promoting active behavior. The bottom line is the focus is on the interaction of behavior and the environment.

Environmental considerations related to physical activity are a matter of access for individuals regardless of their ability. Sallis, Bauman, and Pratt (1998) noted that numerous cross-sectional studies support the ecological hypothesis that environmental variables and physical activity are correlated and that access to recreational facilities appears to increase leisure time physical activity. For example, Sallis et al. cited several studies that showed that children were more active outdoors; being outdoors was the most powerful correlate of physical activity (Baranowski, Thompson, DuRant, 1993; Klesges, Eck, Hanson, 1990; Sallis et al., 1990). Physical activity was also associated with the number of play spaces near their home and the amount of rime children used those place spaces. In addition, research by Corti, Donovan, and Holman (1997) indicated that parks are more likely to stimulate activity if they are aesthetically pleasing with tree-lined paths rather than empty open space.

Broader Perspectives

Stokols (1992) described how "a basic assumption underlying the ecological perspective is that healthfulness is a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing physical health, emotional well-being, and social cohesion." According to McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, and Glanz (1988), five classes of factors affect how or why one might participate, or rail to participate, in a healthy behavior such as physical activity: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy. Intrapersonal is the only one focused on the individual per se. The other four relate to the context of one's life relative to supportive others as well as enabling and constraining opportunities within the context of an individual's life. Park and recreation directors must also be concerned with how we conceptualize healthy environments related to all of these factors.

The idea of multiple approaches to involvement is not new to park and recreation professionals. Our field has prided itself in contributing to environmental aspects such as providing safe environments, environmental novelty and challenge, aesthetic qualities, symbolic and spiritual elements, social support networks, a variety of classes, and a growing emphasis on family models. Park and recreation departments have major contributions to make relative to being a source of safety and an enabler of healthy behavior. These abilities will need to be considered within the broader dimensions of interactive models that address what other community groups are also doing.

Sallis et al. (1998) adapted a diagram to explain how agencies might work together to address an issue such as physical activity. A modified version of this idea is presented in Figure 1. The most relevant sectors or groups for policy and environmental interventions to promote physical activity seem to be public health, medicine, education, recreation, sports organizations, fitness industry, and relevant researchers. Sallis et al. discussed "behavior settings" as the physical and social contexts in which behavior occurs and suggested that the best approach may be multiple levels of influence on behavior. In addition, interventions should be tailored to each behavior. Sallis et al. also defined a supportive environment conceptualized as settings, facilities, and programs. Settings might be neighborhoods, worksites, and schools. Facilities are physical places designed for physical activity; programs are structured recreation and fitness opportunities. Once these supportive environments have been defined, policies can be identified.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Local policy is an area where park and recreation professionals may want to focus further efforts. Policy refers to legislative or regulatory actions that have the potential to affect recreation and physical activity. Examples of policy options that might affect physical activity would be land use planning, location of facilities, partnerships that are established, and programs offered. The forming of formal and informal communications through coalitions may be essential to promote policies that will influence physical activity promotion. For example, pushing for zoning restrictions to protect open space and helping organize activity-based clubs might be ways to facilitate physical involvement. A focus on getting sidewalks installed, linking parks with trails, and getting public transportation available to recreation areas might also be ways to address some of these issues. King et al. (1995) suggested, for example, that the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act might encourage more active communities because of the focus on getting sidewalks and improving public transportation. Parks and recreation staff cannot change individual behavior alone without considering these types of environmental and policy issues.

The limitations of the social ecological approaches might be the complexity and cumbersome nature of applying the concepts. Sallis et al. (1998) suggested the lack of conceptual models and the inherent difficulties of evaluation have hampered research on environmental and policy interventions.

Limitations and Future Research

The terminology of social ecology is new in the field of recreation, but many of the concepts are not. If this approach is to work, however, partnerships and coalitions must be formed with a concern for the overall objectives of healthy people and healthy communities. The infrastructure exists for this approach in any community, but a philosophy and operating procedures must exist to encourage behavior changes to occur.

Researchers also have a role to play. The emergence of the social ecology focus on health has a number of directions that might be considered for future leisure and recreation research. The five areas that McLeroy et al. (1988) suggested can be the basis for expanding the questions asked in research. Unfortunately, researchers have primarily focused on intrapersonal rather than environmental dimensions due largely to the social psychological theory used. The biggest issue for the future relates to how to measure outcomes. Objective measures of environments and policies will need to be developed. Researchers will also need to examine more multidisciplinary and collaborative models to address behavior settings necessary to enable physical activity. Partnerships in doing research will also be necessary. Environmental and policy interventions will likely be difficult to measure but we cannot abdicate our responsibility to address and evaluate them.

The value of the social ecological approach is in addressing a long-term focus for promoting the infrastructure of settings, facilities, and programs within communities. The value also lies in how park and recreation departments become involved in coalitions with others to address environmental and policy issues. These ideas are not new, but the research on health promotion is suggesting that the time is right for many community groups to consider adopting this model. Park and recreation professionals can take a lead in developing healthy communities.

Research Into Action: Using the Principles of Social Ecology to Bring About Meaningful Change in Physical Activity Levels

Summary

The social ecology approach to behavior change, whether related to physical activity because it relies on physical settings, or whether it relates to some other area of leisure, may be a promising approach to encourage in the future. The general thesis of ecological models of behavior is that environments restrict the range of behaviors by promoting and sometimes demanding certain actions and by discouraging or prohibiting other behaviors. The actual implementation is not new to park and recreation departments, but the concepts linked to health promotion may aid in developing further partnerships and examining the impact of recreation on a community in a broader way.

Impact of this Information

* Social ecology matters because it is a focus on the interaction of behavior and the environment. It represents a multifaceted approach to getting people to be active AND also provides a framework for partnerships to come into being.

* Social ecology presents a basis for formal and informal communication to form coalitions to promote physical activity.

* Programmers and researchers must examine the context of people's lives to understand the barriers and motivations that exist

* Park and recreation directors need to be concerned about how healthy environments are conceptualized using a variety of approaches

How to Use this Information

* Social ecology suggests that although individual intrapersonal approaches are useful, they alone will not provide all that is needed to persuade people to be physically active. Although aimed at individuals ultimately, community and policy issues must be addressed. Examples include:

-- advocating zoning restrictions to protect open spaces for recreation use

-- initiating active adopt a park groups

-- organizing clubs to provide support for people who want to be active

-- installing and maintaining exercise equipment

-- conducting safety inspections systematically

-- providing places in parks and outside recreation centers to secure bikes, and the list goes on.

Other Ideas Include:

* Working in partnership with other groups to obtain funding and support to target physical activity promotion might be another avenue to encourage social ecology

* Establishing an incentive or awards program to recognize recreation departments that are most effective in promoting physical activity (Sallis et al., 1998).

References

Baranowski, T., Thompson, W.O., DuRant, R.H. et al. (1993). Observations on physical activity in physical locations: Age, gender, ethnicity, and month effects. Research Quarterly for Exorcise and Sport, 64, 127-133.

Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., & Holman, C.D.J. (1997). Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: Results from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 7, 16-21.

King, AC, Jeffery, RW, Fridinger, F. Dusenbury, L, Provence, S, Hedlund, SA, Spangler, K. (1995). Environmental and policy approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention through physical activity: Issues and opportunities. Health Education Quarterly, 22(4), 499-511.

Klesges, R.C., Eck, L.H., Hanson, C.L. et al. (1990). Effects of obesity, social interactions, and physical environment on physical activity in preschoolers. Health Psychology, 9, 435-439.

McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Heath Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.

Richard, L., Potvin, L., Kishchuk. N., Prlic, H., & Green, LW. (1996). Assessment of the integration of the ecological approach in health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 318-328.

Sallis, JF Howell, MF, Hofstetter, CT, Elder, JP, Hackley, M, Caspersen, CJ, Powell, KE (1990). Distance between homes and exorcise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Report 105, 170-185.

Sallis, J.F., Bauman, A., & Pratt, M. (1998). Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15(4), 379-397.

Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. American Psychologist, 47(6), 6-22.

Stokols, D., Allen, J. & Bellingham, RL. (1996). The social ecology of health promotion: Implications for research and practice. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 247-251.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Karla A. Henderson is professor and chair in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of North Carolina. Her recent research interests include gender, diversity, and physical activity.

Research Update is edited by Cheryl A. Estes, Ph.D., assistant professor in recreation and leisure studies at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.