Industry Information on park users perceptions and attitudes towards public exercise settings - Research Paper Example

Industry Information on park users’ perceptions and attitudes towards public exercise settings Introduction This paper will review literature on park users’ perceptions and attitudes towards public exercise settings, and the contribution of public exercise facilities to the users’ physical activity behaviour change. A specific focus will be on the role of parks in promoting physical activity and the overall health of communities, as well as on specific park features that are associated with physical activity. This review will restrict itself to peer reviewed journals published after 2005 from various discipline areas including health, behavioural nutrition, preventive medicine, social science as well as physical fitness and sports. Historical background According to Mowen, Kaczynski and Cohen (2008), parks preserve the physical environment to be utilized for the enjoyment of people; park users experience the beauty in nature as well as the preserved ecological health of their communities. The contribution of parks in the promotion of physical activity has been acknowledged for many decades; Fredrick Law Olmsted, the ‘father’ of parks in North America, noted in mid 1800s that parks promote healthy and active lifestyles. Since the mid-1800s to date, parks have been perceived as environments that preserve and promote appreciation of nature and as settings that provide opportunities for people to engage in positive recreational activities or leisure time physical exercises. Parks are a common feature in most communities all over the world but park access, condition as well as utilization of these physical environments vary significantly across communities or population segments. Parks are also perceived as places where individuals can simply visit to relax both their minds and their bodies, and to escape the nuances of their busy daily routines at the workplaces. Contemporary insights According to Bedimo-Rung, Mowen and Cohen (2005), park activity has the capacity to meet physical activity requirements but certain environmental and policy features do enhance the level of physical activity. Physical activity has been taunted as an effective remedy to curbing morbidity and mortality rates since it decreases the risk of heart diseases, diabetes, and high blood pressure, among other lifestyle ailments while enhancing healthy bones, muscles and joints. Leisure time physical activity in parks is important since the facilities and services found in these community environments could potentially yield numerous individual, socioeconomic as well as environmental benefits. Park users benefit from park-based leisure activities in terms of physical and psychological health; access to, and utilization of park services has been associated with rigorous physical activity as well as positive psychological, emotional or mental health. Park users also benefit from social interactions, which are crucial in maintaining a sense of unity, pride as well as social capital within the community. Nonetheless, economic and environmental benefits accrue from proximity to parks in terms of high property value and purification or preservation of the natural environment respectively. Kruger (2008) establishes that parks contribute to the prevention of diseases by promoting physical activity of people and are a crucial community resource that can greatly enhance overall health outcomes for community members. Parks also provide safe environments where people can walk, socialize with their friends while engaging in other team sports or activities; surveillance strategies have revealed that participation in park activities has improved greatly in recent times. This is attributable to the increased awareness of the risks of sedentary lifestyles and the widespread global campaign to promote physical activity as a health strategy in communities through the establishment of supportive physical environments such as parks. Promotion of physical activity is not only an individual, but also a public health goal, since it inevitably promotes the overall health of the community; strategies to achieve population-level physical activity should focus mostly on expanding access to supportive physical environments such as parks. Van Holle et al (2012) concur that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity has positive health effects, but point out that a significant proportion of the global adult population (31%) do not meet the recommended physical activity levels to achieve these health benefits. Previous studies have paid close attention to the contribution of individual factors to the level of physical activity behaviour, with an aim of promoting physical activity among the adult population. More recent research has broadened its focus significantly with bias towards the socio ecological models, particularly in the last decade; the socio ecological models explain that numerous factors including the physical environment interact to influence domain-specific physical activity. According to this body of work, access to recreational facilities is generally correlated with overall physical activity, but the presence and overall quality of walking or cycling tracks are highly correlated with transportation activity and cycling. Conversely, the environmental attribute of hilliness is negatively correlated with cycling for transportation; that means that parks that are hilly are less likely to be utilized for transportation cycling. Current research concerns Cohen, McKenzie & Lurie (2007) argue that proximity to parks influence both utilization of the park facilities and the specific exercise levels of individuals; of critical importance is their observation that minority communities mostly rely on public parks for physical activity. Their findings highlight a key point that increasing the number as well as coverage of parks in local communities is the single most effective way of curbing sedentary lifestyles; even distribution of sufficient public parks does enhance the opportunities for individuals to engage in physical activity. Studies from Australian neighbourhoods indicate that access to attractive large and open spaces like parks is highly correlated with walking and general physical activity of individuals; furthermore, people are more likely to utilize park facilities in the vicinity of their homes than those located far away. Other specific park features that promote park usage apart from size include accessibility, availability and quality of amenities found in the park, as well as utility of the surrounding land and presence of organized events that attract people to the park. Giles-Corti and Donovan (2002) propose that whereas access to a supportive physical environment is crucial, it may not necessarily promote achievement of the recommended physical activity levels. The implication of this finding is that numerous complementary strategies must be put in place to influence other factors that determine the physical activity of individuals in community. For instance, due to the popularity of walking in communities, the creation of streetscapes should be prioritized, to promote walking in communities both for recreational and transport purposes. The individual, social and environmental factors interact to influence the levels of physical activity of individuals in the community; the environment provides special cues and opportunities for individuals to engage in physical activity. The influence of physical environments on physical activity is mostly passive; for instance, the design of urban spaces, domestic appliances, as well as buildings could either encourage or discourage physical activity. Access to parks and other recreational facilities is necessary but supportive physical environments alone cannot promote physical activity of individuals in the community. In that respect, efforts to promote physical activity through modification of the environment need to be accompanied by efforts to influence individual, social and environmental factors that determine physical activity. McCormack et al (2010) also content that parks do influence both park use and physical activity of individuals in the community; park features such as condition, accessibility, aesthetics, as well as safety overlap and reinforce one another in promoting both park use and physical activity. Safety concerns rank high among deterrents to park use for women and children, who may be at risk of both physical and sexual assault while condition factors such as uneven playing surfaces or cracked courts do deter general park use. Park users often perceive safety in parks that are sufficiently lit with sight lines that allow a wide field of view; presence of security officers in parks prone for antisocial behaviour could also help boost the sense of park safety. Parks with a wide variety of features, amenities and services attract a broad range of users; for instance, availability of washrooms, picnic areas, seating areas, signage as well as shade could potentially boost park use. Kaczynski, Potwarka and Saelens (2008) concur that indeed parks with more features are more likely to be used frequently by a greater number of people; however, they did not find sufficient relationship between park use with park size or distance from people’s homes. Precisely, availability of paved trails, unpaved trails, or wooded areas were greater predictors of park-based activity with paved trails standing out as the most crucial determinant of park use. Paved trails attract a wide variety of users since they can be utilized for a wide variety of physical activities including brisk walking, running, as well as cycling, which people of different ages and levels of skill often engage in, either for recreational or for transport purposes. Park planning has also been highlighted as one of the crucial factors that could potentially influence park usage; previous studies have highlighted the influence of the amount of parkland as well as distribution of parks to the levels of physical activity in communities. Handy, Cao and Mokhtarian (2008) agree that the built environment has the capacity to influence levels of physical activity and the overall health of individuals; however, they argue that a causal relationship with physical activity affects the allied outcomes. For instance, they propose that individuals who like physical activity are more likely to settle in supportive environments, which implies that it is the preference rather than the supportive physical environment that should be regarded as the causal factor. The implication of this argument thus becomes that strategies to modify the physical environment will not achieve the desired effect of influencing physical activity of individuals unless the said changes are also aligned to individual preferences. Leslie and Cerin (2008) argue that neighbourhood environments play a significant role in affecting health outcomes, particularly mental health; numerous studies have also focused on the perceived association between the neighbourhood environment and mental physical health. Green areas like parks as well as other recreational facilities have been associated with the psychological wellbeing of individuals since they promote neighbourhood satisfaction. Neighbourhood attributes such as green space and exposure to nature provided by park settings enhances individuals’ satisfaction with living in their neighbourhoods thereby impacting on their mental health by relieving stress, depression and anxiety. Granner et al. (2007) explore the relationship between individual, social as well as environmental factors with physical activity and walking behaviour; their study concurs with other studies that an interaction between numerous factors at the individual, social and environmental level influence physical activity levels of individuals in the community. Their findings conclude that self-efficacy and perceived environmental variables such as knowledge of parks, trails and recreational facilities, are highly associated with both physical activity and regular walking. They also establish that safety of parks from crimes and other antisocial activities greatly influences both physical activity and regular walking since insecurity is a greater deterrent to park users. Ability to find social support or exercise partner is also identified to be one of the social determinants of physical activity and exploitation of park facilities for recreational purposes. Conclusion A rich volume of research has been conducted on the relationship between parks and physical activity; a vast proportion of this literature documents studies carried out to examine the potential contribution of parks to physical activity and the overall health of communities. A significant portion of these studies have also focused on the specific park features that are associated with physical activity including accessibility, proximity of the park to individuals’ homes, park conditions as well as the availability and quality of amenities and services in the park. Overall, a vast majority of the articles reviewed concur that access to parks is necessary but supportive physical environments alone cannot promote physical activity of individuals in the community. Numerous factors at the individual, social and environmental level interact to influence the level of physical activity, thus, complementary strategies must be put in place to influence other factors that determine the physical activity of individuals in community. In that respect, efforts to promote physical activity through modification of the environment need to be accompanied by efforts to influence individual, social and environmental factors that determine physical activity. References Cohen, D.A., McKenzie T.L., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity. American Journal of Public Health 97(3): 509-514. Kruger, J. (2008). Parks, Recreation, and Public Health Collaborative. Environmental Health Insights 2008:2 123–125 123. Mowen, A., Kaczynski A., & Cohen, D. (2008). The Potential of Parks and Recreation in Addressing Physical Activity and Fitness. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Series 9(1): 1-8. Bedimo-Rung A.L., Mowen, A.J., & Cohen, D.A. (2005). The Significance of Parks to Physical Activity and Public Health: A Conceptual Model. Am J Prev Med 2005;28(2S2). McCormack, G.A. et al. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place 16 (2010) 712–726. Kaczynski, A.T., Potwarka, L.R. & Saelens, B.E. (2008). Association of Park Size, Distance, and Features With Physical Activity in Neighbourhood Parks. Am J Public Health 98(8): 1451–1456. Van Holle, V., et al (2012). Relationship between the physical environment and different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 12:807. Handy S.L., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2008). The Causal Influence of Neighbourhood Design on Physical Activity Within the Neighbourhood: Evidence from Northern California. American Journal of Health Promotion 22(5): 350-358. Giles-Corti, B. & Donovan R.J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812. Leslie, E., & Cerin, E. (2008). Are perceptions of the local environment related to neighbourhood satisfaction and mental health in adults? Preventive Medicine xx (2008) xxx–xxx. Granner, M.L. Sharpe, P.A., Hutto, B., Wilcox, S. & Addy, C.L. (2007). Perceived Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors for Physical Activity and Walking. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2007, 4, 278-293. Read More