Parks and physical activity: although a proven relationship exists between parks and recreation and physical activity, additional measurements are needed.

Park and recreation professionals are aware of the relationships between health and physical activity. This awareness was further heightened with the publishing of Healthy People 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). This report emphasized that the design of communities and the presence of parks, trails and other public recreational facilities affect people's abilities to reach the recommended 30 minutes a day of moderately intense physical activity. The research shows the value, role and potential of parks (i.e., primarily nature-based areas such as community parks, trails and greenways) in facilitating active living.

Unfortunately, describing the specific relationships between the natural and built environment in communities and physical activity has not been a dominant part of the leisure and recreation research literature. Leisure behavior literature published in the past 25 years has tended to focus on individual behavior, instead of the social and environmental determinants such as public parks and recreation programs that underlie this behavior. Further, Humpel, Owen and Leslie (2002) suggested that "while the measurement of physical activity behavior is now a well-established field, this is not the case for the measurement of physical activity environments (p. 189)."

An approach that examines both the micro and macro environments of behavior is called the social ecological approach (Henderson, 2000; Stokols, 1992). Public parks and recreation programs are a central part of the macro environment that exists in communities. An "activity friendly environment" is a place that makes it easy to choose to be physically active through planned exercise or routine daily activity (Active Living Research, 2005).

These places include the environment shaped by land use, the transportation system and design features that together provide opportunities for physical activity. Parks, trails and greenways are nature-based aspects of this built environment. A significant report by the Transportation Review Board (2005) focused on how the built environment (e.g., parks and recreation facilities) influences physical activity. Many linkages were found between parks and physical activity, but little causal research seemed to exist.

Sallis, Linton and Kraft (2005) described how research on physical activity and health has entered a new era, with parks and recreation having a crucial role to play. The first era (prior to 1970) dealt with physiological studies that examined the impact of physical activity on fitness. The second era (1970s-1990s) included studies that showed physical activity was viewed as a major health priority.

The third era, which occurred in a similar time period, focused on the appropriate interventions that could lead to promoting physical activity. The new or fourth era, which started early in this century, spotlights a broader range of policy and environmental factors including parks and recreation. In this era, active living is described as a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily leisure, as well as in other aspects of living. This broadened definition of active living invites new research and community collaborators in a variety of fields to work together to fully understand active living.

In a recent survey undertaken by city managers, 89 percent indicated that the primary governmental agency responsible for helping to address the obesity problem is parks and recreation (International City/County Management Association, 2005). Individuals in public health (e.g., Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005; Israel, Schulz, Parker & Becker, 1998; Sallis, Bauman & Pratt, 1998), urban and regional planning (e.g., Hoehner, Brennan, Brownson, Handy & Killingsworth, 2003; L. Jackson, 2003), and leisure (e.g., Godbey, Caldwell, Floyd & Payne, 2005; Henderson, Sharpe, Neff, Royce, Greaney & Ainsworth, 2001; Orsega-Smith, Mowen, Payne & Godbey, 2004) collectively have amassed some documentation relative to the importance and relationship of parks, trails and open spaces to physical activity, as well as how public recreation can address community needs. The benefits of physical activity are known, but whether people become healthier as a result of their visits to parks or involvement in public recreation programs requires more evidence-based research.

Research shows that many people visit parks. The most recent study indicated that nationally, four out of five citizens had used a park in the preceding year (Godbey, Graefe, & James, 1991). Because parks and recreation facilities are available in most communities in the U.S., and because they are either free or have low costs compared to what might be available in the private sector, they have the potential to draw a range of visitors.

Public recreation programs provide a venue for teaching various skills as well as providing connections for people through clubs, tournaments and other community special events. The challenges for the future are to show how public parks and recreation are a part of the health care system (Payne, 2002) and to maintain these programs as a major community resource for healthy living.

Physical Activity in Parks

A few studies have attempted to quantify the amount of physical activity in parks (Godbey et al., 2005). The assumption often made is that people who visit parks are just naturally active. Godbey et al. indicated that at least half of the activity occurring in parks is physical--including walking, biking, individual, sports and team sports. People, however, visit parks for many health-related reasons. For example, Orsega-Smith et al. (2004) reported that older adults used park-based leisure as a way to improve moods, reduce perceived stress and enhance their well-being.

Walking is the most common form of physical activity, is accessible across socioeconomic groups and can be promoted in both urban and rural areas. One study about walking was done by Brownson et al. (2004) using a pre- and post-test design to examine six walking trails located mostly in residential parks. The researchers provided information about the trails to local residents, used interpersonal activities to generate social support for using the trails, and conducted community-wide events associated with promoting the trails.

They measured the rates of walking, trail use, total number of minutes walked in a week and total minutes walked for exercise. They found that walking trail use increased as a result, but they could not show changes in community-wide walking rates. Active people appeared to become more active, but more people did not necessarily begin to walk as a result of the trail promotion.

Some efforts have focused on how walking and biking can be modes of work-related transportation as well as for recreation. According to Handy, Boarnet, Ewing and Killingsworth (2002), however, walking and bicycling are more often modes of exercise than modes of travel. These activities are relatively easy and offer little risk of injury. Shafer, Lee and Turner (2000) also found that three-fourths of the people said they used trails only for recreation and not for other purposes.

Many people use parks for less physically active endeavors. For example, the number of birders in parks may be increasing. Birders are unlikely to get the 30 minutes of recommended vigorous activity a day even though they may visit a park. Nevertheless, they are engaged in "active living" even though the activity may not necessarily enhance their cardiovascular endurance. The direct links between park visitation and health have many dimensions that require further empirical research.

Proximity

Availability and accessibility of facilities is an important environmental factor associated directly with physical activity. Humpel et al. (2002) reported that location and convenience as well as perceptions of safety have a great influence on whether people visit parks and use them for physical activity. Sallis et al. (1998) found that the convenient location of parks was associated with vigorous physical activity.

Hoehner et al. (2005) also concluded that recreational activity was positively associated with perceived access to recreational facilities and objective measures of attractive features. Strong evidence suggests that access to parks and activity programs is related to more activity for children and youth (Sallis, Prochaska & Taylor, 2000). Troped et al. (2001) also found that the closer people lived to a bikeway, the more likely they were to use it.

Research conducted in Australia (Giles-Corti et al., 2005) established that access to attractive, large public open space, such as in parks, was associated with higher levels of walking. Further, individuals who used public open spaces were nearly three times more likely than others to achieve recommended levels of activity. In the U.S., researchers King, Brach, Belle, Killingworth, Fenton and Kriska (2003) discovered that older women living within a 20-minute walk of a park, trail or store had higher walking rates as measured by pedometer readings than women who did not live as close. The greater the number of locations within walking distance, the greater the number of steps measured. Powell, Martin and Chowdhury (2003) also found that people who had safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home were more likely to do so.

Park Characteristics

People may live close to a park, but the park has to offer appropriate amenities to encourage and entice them to use the park. The research relative to park characteristics that are associated with physical activity is growing (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Frumkin, 2003). For example, Wilcox, Castro, King, Housemann and Brownson (2000) found that scenery was an important motivation for walking. Similarly, Gobster (1995) noted that people like to use trails more for their scenic beauty.

Brownson et al. (2004) concluded that the presence of sidewalks, busy streets, enjoyable scenery and hills promoted walking for exercise. A trade-off seemed to exist between walking near busy streets that provided a sense of safety and the presence of traffic that was not esthetically pleasing. Frumkin (2003) noted that proximity, accessibility, attractive scenery, good lighting, toilets, drinking water and well-designed and well-maintained paths seem to predict physical activity in parks. Huston, Evenson, Bors and Gizlice (2003), on the other hand, found that presence of sidewalks, trails and lights had minimal influence on physical activity.

Safety is a topic that is inherent in any public space. Safety has two dimensions. One is perceptual and the other is reality--these two aspects may or may not be related. Nevertheless, if people perceive that an area or an activity is unsafe, they are less likely to participate. Crime is one safety issue as well as concerns for physical safety relative to possible injuries (Henderson et al., 2001). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1996) found a significant association between perceived safety from crime and physical activity participation. In addition, Kirtland et al. (2003) found that people who were least active were more concerned about safety issues.

Physical Activity, Parks and Urban Planning 

Issues pertaining to physical activity are also reflected in the ways that parks and trails are part of the urban planning process. The healthiest urban designs are ones that provide basic services such as parks, accessibility and connectivity. Smart growth, which is related to the concept of new urbanism, is a reaction to the adverse impacts of urban sprawl of suburban development, on the environment. It focuses on how growth occurs and embodies principles associated with parks and recreation, such as creating walkable communities, fostering a sense of place in communities, preserving open space and natural space and encouraging collaboration (Smart Growth Network, 2005).

The challenge for community policy makers is to better understand the broad impact of parks and recreation as part of the built environment, and then create communities that promote physical and mental health (L. Jackson, 2003). For example, Wang et al. (2004) found that in Lincoln, Neb., it cost about $98 annually to attract a new active trail user. This price may be a small investment in smart growth in creating a healthier community for the future.

The Imperative Role of Parks and Recreation

The future of public parks and recreation may be tied directly to the role these natural and built environments play in enhancing health and well-being. The Task Force on Community Prevention Services (2002) provided a number of suggestions for interventions to help people in communities become more healthy and active. Unfortunately, parks and recreation was not identified directly as part of the health delivery system.

Payne (2002) has admonished that park and recreation agencies must reposition themselves as health care providers. This change requires a focus on articulating and documenting the health benefits of parks and recreation. Although some relationship seems to clearly exist between parks and physical activity, recreation professionals cannot continue to assume that people are physically healthier just because parks and recreation agencies exist in communities. The benefits must be explicated through evidence-based research. Recreation professionals cannot assume that positive benefits are occurring if we cannot measure them.

High-quality empirical evidence supporting environment-behavior relationships is imperative to shed more light on questions that Frumkin (2003) raised such as: If a trail is built will people use it? Will people come if a park is built or renovated? What park characteristics are best for promoting physical AND mental health? What is the best way to design public places to attract people to socialize and promote physical activity? Further, researchers need to find answers for programming assumptions such as whether young people who participate in youth sports really do become more physically fit.

Measurement is important but as can be seen from the citations presented, leisure and recreation researchers cannot do this research alone, any more than a community park and recreation department can function in isolation. Obesity is a growing problem and healthy living should be a central focus of public park and recreation professionals as well as leisure researchers. Many people are looking to our profession to provide programming as well as research leadership in this area.

References

Active Living Research. (2005). Introductory statement. Retrieved on April 24, 2005 from http.//www.activelivingresearch.org.

Andereck, K.L. Vogt, C.A., Larkin, K, & Freye, K. (2001). Differences between motorized and nonmetorized trail users. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 62-77.

Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., & Cohen, D.A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 159-168.

Brownson, R.C., Baker, E.A., Boyd, R.L. et al. (2004). A community-based approach to promoting walking in rural areas. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(1), 28-34.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1996). Neighborhood safety and the prevalence of physical activity-selected states. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47, 143-146.

Evenson, K.R., Herring, A.H., & Huston, S.I. (2005). Evaluating change in physical activity with the building of a multi-use trail. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 177-185.

Frumkin, H. (2003) Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1451-1456.

Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M.H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng K., Lange, A., & Donovan, R.J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 169-176.

Gobster, P.H. (1995). Perceptions of the use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 401-413.

Godbey, G.C., Caldwell, L.L., Floyd, M., & Payne, L. (2005). Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 150-158.

Godbey, G.C., Graefe, A., & James, S.W. (1991). The benefits of local recreation and park services: A nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. Ahsburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Handy, S.J, Boarnet, M.G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R.E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 64-73.

Henderson, K.A. (2000). New terms, broader approaches: Recreation and the social ecology of physical activity (Research Update). Parks & Recreation, 35(12), 28, 30-35.

Henderson, K.A., Sharpe, P.A., Neff, L.J., Royce, S.W., Greaney, M.L., & Ainsworth, B.E. (2001). "It takes a village" to promote physical activity: The potential for public parks and recreation departments. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(1), 23-41.

oehner, C.M., Brennan, L.K., Brownson, R.C., Handy, S.L., & Killingsworth, R. (2003). Opportunities for integrating public health and urban planning approaches to promote active community environments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 14-20.

Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22, 188-189.

Huston, S.L., Evenson, K.R., Bors, R, & Gizlice, Z. (2003). Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 58-69.

International City/County Management Association. (2005). Active Living Approaches by Local Governments, 2004. Retrieved on April 27, 2005 from http.// www2.icma.org/main/Id.asp?from=search&ldid=18012 &hsid=1

Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., & Becker, A.B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202.

Jackson, L. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and Urban Planning. 64, 193-200.

Jackson, R.J. (2003). The impact of the built environment on health: An emerging field. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1382-1383.

King, W.C., Brach, J.S., Belle, S., Killingworth, R., Fenton, M., & Kriska. A.M. (2005). The relationship between convenience of destination and walking levels of older women. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 74-82.

Kirtland, K.A., Porter, D.E., Addy, C.L. et al. (2003). Environmental measures of physical activity supports: Perception versus reality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24, 323-331.

Kuo, F.E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 5-34.

Moore, R.L., Scott, D., & Graefe, A.R. (1998). An assessment of activity and trail type as indicators of trail user diversity. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16, 80-96.

Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A., Payne, L., & Godbey, G. (2004). The interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 232-257.

Payne, L.L. (2002). Progress and challenges in repositioning leisure as a core component of health. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(4), 1-11.

Powell, K.E., Martin, L., & Chowdhury, P.P. (2003). Places to walk: Convenience and regular physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1519-1521.

Reed, J.A., Ainsworth, B.E., Wilson, D.K. et al. (2004). Awareness and use of community walking trails. Preventive Medicine, 39, 903-908.

Sallis, J. F. Hovell, C.R., Hofstetter J. et al. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise in San Diego. Public Health Report, 105, 179-185.

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.

Sallis, J.F., Linton, L., & Kraft, M. K. (2005). The first Active Living Research Conference: Growth of a transdisciplinary field. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (2S2), 93-95.

Sallis, J.F., Prochaska, J.J., & Taylor, W.C. (2000).A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 963-975.

Shafer, C.S., Lee, B.K., & Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: User perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 163-178.

Smart Growth Network. (2005). Getting to smart growth. Retrieved on April 27, 2005 from http.//www. smartgrowth.org/Default.asp?res=1280.

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

Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E., & DePooter, S.F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 678-700.

Task Force on Community Prevention Services (2002). Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4S), 67-72.

Transportation Review Board. (2005). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. TRB Special Report 282. Retrieved on April 24, 2005 from www.TRB.org.

Troped, P.J., Saunders, R.P., Pate, R.R., Reininger, B., Ureda, J.R., & Thompson, S.J. (2001). Associations between self-reported and objective physical environments and use of a community rail-trail. Preventive Medicine, 32, 191-200.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy People 2010. Understanding and improving health. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

Wang, G., Macera, C.A., & Scudder-Soucie, B et al. (2004). Cost effectiveness of a bicycle/pedestrian trail development in health promotion. Preventive Medicine, 38, 237-242.

Wilcox, S., Castro. C. King, A.C., Houseman, R.A., & Brownson, R.C. (2000). Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the United States. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 667-672.

RELATED ARTICLE: Research into action: proving a relationship.

The evidence suggests that a relationship exists between proximity, park characteristics, recreation opportunities and healthy living. Many groups and individuals are now promoting these clearly defined relationships, even though more evidence-based and collaborative research is needed. The documentation that now exists includes the following:

* People use parks, trails, greenways and open spaces for physical activity.

* The closer that adults and children live to parks and trails, the more likely they will use them and be active.

* Walking is the most common form of physical activity and can be promoted in many ways.

* People like to be active (e.g., walk) in places that are attractive and aesthetically pleasing.

* Safety is a major concern in visiting any type of public space such as parks or trails.

* Parks, trails, recreation facilities and greenways are important aspects of the built environment that are directly linked to physical activity.

* Many partnerships are needed with other disciplines, practitioners and citizens to supply evidence-based research showing the relationships between parks and healthy living.

Karla A. Henderson is a professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism at North Carolina State University. She is also on the National Advisory Committee for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Active Living Research.