Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city

Abstract

A rich literature indicates that individuals of lower socio-economic status engage in less leisure time physical activity than individuals of higher socio-economic status. However, the source of the difference is believed to be, in part, due to differential access to resources that support physical activity. However, it has not been shown as to whether equal access to parks can mitigate differences in leisure time physical activity. Using systematic direct observation, we quantified physical activity in neighborhood parks in a large Southern California city located in areas with high, medium, and a low percentage of households in poverty. We documented how neighborhood parks are managed and programmed and also interviewed both a sample of park users and a random sample of households within a mile radius of the parks. We found that parks are used less in high-poverty areas compared to medium- and low-poverty area parks, even after accounting for differences in size, staffing, and programming. The strongest correlates of park use were the number of part time staff, the number of supervised and organized programs, and knowing the park staff. Perceptions of safety were not relevant to park use among those interviewed in the park, however it had a small relationship with reported frequency of park use among local residents. Among park users, time spent watching electronic media was negatively correlated with the frequency of visiting the park. Future research should test whether increasing park staffing and programming will lead to increased park use in high-poverty neighborhoods.

How Can Neighborhood Parks Be Used to Increase Physical Activity?

“…The Los Angeles park study produced similar findings, with parks found to be used less by residents in low-income areas than in medium-and high-income areas, even after accounting for differences in park size, staffing, and programming (Cohen, Han, Derose, Williamson, Marsh, Rudick, et al, 2012).…”

Are Food Deserts Also Play Deserts?

“…However, these parks do have fewer facilities and lack programming, which is known to attract park users. 8,16 Because it appears that a considerable percentage of the population in these neighborhoods suffer from disabilities, it would be important to consider installing special facilities like universally accessible inter-generational playgrounds. Programming should be provided and tailored for local needs, such as low-impact aerobic exercises and other classes for the elderly.…”

“…6 Similarly, although most urban residents live within one half mile of a public park 7 , parks are often underutilized. [8][9][10] Inner cities often have multiple parks and plazas in close proximity to people's homes, yet the presence of facilities alone may be insufficient to encourage people to spend time outdoors.…”

“…Neighborhood poverty levels are correlated with lower park use, as well as with crime rates. 8 A study of parks in New York City documented that parks in lowincome areas had more incivilities than parks in higher income areas, suggesting that the park's quality, rather than accessibility, may be a factor in park use.…”

The Application of Salutogenesis in Cities and Towns

“…If and how resources are used may partly depend on sense of coherence: while a stronger sense of coherence might allow for health-promoting use of resources even in a resource-poor environment, easily identifiable and useable resources might be crucial for engagement in health-promoting behaviour for people with a weaker sense of coherence. Merely placing resources into a context might primarily benefit people with a strong sense of coherence, and thereby could even widen the gap in health (Cohen et al, 2012).…”