Neighborhood Income Matters: Disparities in Community Recreation Facilities, Amenities, and Programs
Abstract
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Physical activity is important for children’s development and their current and future health; national recommendations are for them to engage in at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily. Most of children’s physical activity occurs outside of school hours; thus, access to and the quality of community recreation facilities and programming are particularly relevant. Researchers have identified strong links among socioeconomic disparities, physical inactivity, and poor health, but a limited number of studies have examined how access to community recreation facilities and physical activity programming are affected by local socioeconomic conditions. In many low-income communities, park and recreation facilities may be the only place for children to be physically active outside of school; thus, it is important to understand the connection between community environmental characteristics and child use of facilities. We were interested in determining whether the characteristics of community recreation center environments would be associated with neighborhood income and children’s use of the centers. To do this we designed a study to identify whether neighborhood income disparities were associated with recreation center environmental characteristics and whether those characteristics were associated with young children’s use of the center. We believed that findings to these questions could inform policy decisions within recreation centers and recreation departments to improve equity, facility use, and levels of physical activity. Thirty community recreation centers and 541 nearby families with children aged 5–8 years in five cities in Southern California participated in the study. To generate data we used multiple research instrumentation including (a) a structured physical activity survey of program offerings and barriers to children’s participation in physical activity at the center [completed by recreation center supervisors], (b) direct observation of the presence and condition of recreation center facilities and amenities by trained assessors, and (c) a parent questionnaire on child use of the center. Results indicated that the condition of the community center facilities and amenities, but not their number, was positively related to neighborhood income (p < .05). As well, the number of cost-free, but not total, youth physical activity programs was inversely associated with neighborhood income (p < .05). Parent’s report of their children using centers was positively associated with the number of amenities observed there (p < .05). The results suggest that policy makers and community recreation center staff should consider both neighborhood economic issues and environmental characteristics in their efforts to promote children’s physical activity at recreation centers.
Physical activity is important for current and future health, and the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, the first-ever national guidelines for the U.S. population, recommend that children and adolescents engage in 60 minutes or more of physical activity daily, mostly at the moderate- or vigorous-intensity levels (USDHHS, 2009). Only 42% of 6- to 11-year-olds and 8% of 12- to 19-year-olds are meeting these guidelines, and children of color and those from poor families are less likely than others to meet the standards (Troiano, Berrigan, Dodd, Masse, Tilert, & McDowell, 2008). School programs, especially with recent cutbacks to physical education and recess, are unable to provide sufficient opportunities for children to be physically active (IOM, 2013). Thus, the out-of-school hours (Jago, Anderson, Baranowski, & Watson, 2005) and access to local quality community recreation facilities and programming are of particular importance to their activity accrual (Corder, Sallis, Crespo, & Elder, 2011; Grow, Saelens, Kerr, Durant, Norman, & Sallis, 2008). In lower SES communities, having convenient and safe access to inexpensive programs in nearby parks and recreation centers may be the only opportunity outside of schools that many children have for physical activity.
Studies have shown that participation in physical activity in parks can be influenced by numerous factors, including their proximity to where people live, the number and condition of facilities and amenities, park safety and aesthetics, and program offerings, fees, and levels of supervision (Cohen, Han, Derose, Williamson, Marsh, Rudick, & McKenzie, 2012; Cohen, McKenzie, Sehgal, Lurie, Golinelli, & Williamson, 2007; Cohen et al., 2013; McCormack, Rock, Toohey, & Hignell, 2010). Additionally, how facilities in parks are used depends upon how their attributes are perceived. For example, adults perceiving signs of neighborhood incivilities, such as graffiti, litter and overgrown vegetation were less likely to encourage their children to use local playgrounds (Miles, 2008) and perceptions of park availability, quality, and use by friends have been found to be associated with increased physical activity and park use by adolescents (Ries, Voorhees, Roche, Gittelsohn, Yan, &Astone, 2009.)
Ecological models of behavior change posit that children’s levels of physical activity are influenced by the dynamic interplay among psychological, interpersonal, environmental, and policy factors (Sallis, Owen, & Fisher, 2008). Meanwhile, strong links have been found among socioeconomic disparities, physical inactivity, and poor health (Whitt-Glover, Taylor, Floyd, Yancey, & Matthews, 2009), with neighborhood environmental characteristics such as access to recreation facilities and physical activity programming being shown to be positively associated with physical activity among youths (Hume, Salmon, & Ball, 2005; Sallis, Conway, Prochaska, McKenzie, Marshall, Brown, & Zive, 2001; Sallis et al., 2003). Meanwhile, support for physical activity within an environment is often associated with its socioeconomic status (SES), and studies exploring access to parks and recreation opportunities have found that lower-income groups often have less access to physical activity programming and well-maintained and safe park and recreational facilities (Babey, Haster, Yu, & Brown, 2008; Bouffard, Wimer, Caronongan, Little, Dearing, & Simpkins, 2006; Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006; Loukaitou-Sideris & Stieglitz, 2002; Moore, Diez Roux, Evenson, McGinn, & Brines, 2008; Powell, Slater, & Chaloupka, 2004).
Most investigations of disparities in recreational opportunities studied parks, not community recreation centers, and very few studies have examined actual participant use of these facilities. A few large-scale studies have begun to assess environmental characteristics within parks, including their quality and supportiveness of physical activity by SES. While the data are inconclusive (Cohen et al., 2013), some studies suggest that parks in lower-income neighborhoods may have a greater population density, be less well maintained, have poorer facilities, and offer fewer services than those in higher-income neighborhoods (e.g., Lee, Booth, Reese-Smith, Regan, & Howard, 2005; Sister, Wolch, & Wilson, 2010). Among these, Lee et al. (2005) reported finding physical activity resources in parks in high- and low-income neighborhoods to be similar in their number, features, and amenities, but that the ratings for incivilities were worse at parks in the low-income neighborhoods. Meanwhile, Cohen and colleagues (2013) found that neighborhood poverty level, perception of safety, and the presence of incivilities were not associated with the number of users observed in parks. Programmed activities and the number of activity facilities were the factors most highly correlated with park use.
While existing disparity research indicates that parks located in lower SES neighborhoods tend to have more incivilities, be more poorly maintained, and offer fewer services, not many studies have examined how disparities actually affected park use. Meanwhile, there are few studies of disparities related to the characteristics of community recreation centers, especially their use by children. Young children are not able to drive and inexpensive and safe public transportation to recreation facilities in low-income areas is not always available to them. Given the need for further understanding of disparities related local community facilities, the present study aimed to identify whether economic disparities were associated with recreation center environmental characteristics, including the availability and quality of facilities and amenities, and whether these characteristics were associated with young children’s use of the center. Findings to these questions could help inform policy decisions within local community centers and as well as recreation departments to improve equity, facility use, and levels of physical activity.
Method
The present study was part of a larger investigation involving the examination of the effectiveness of an obesity prevention program for young children in Southern California (Elder, Crespo, Corder, Ayala, Slymen, Lopez, Moody, & McKenzie, 2013). Data for the study were collected at baseline, before the recreation centers were randomly assigned to treatment conditions.
Recreation Centers and Families
Thirty public recreation centers from five cities in San Diego County, California signed an agreement to participate in a four-year intervention study that focused on controlling and preventing childhood obesity. Criteria for centers to participate in the overall investigation included (a) having an indoor physical activity facility, (b) having outdoor space for physical activity, (c) providing youth physical activity programs, and (d) being open during after-school hours. Each center was offered $500 annually to participate in ongoing regular assessments.
Approximately 18 families with a child 5–8 years of age living within 1.5 miles from each of the 30 centers participated in the larger study (total n = 541 families). Families were recruited through targeted phone calls, dissemination of flyers, presentations, and staffed information booths in communities and elementary schools near the recreation centers. Children were excluded from participating in the study if they lived in a foster or group home, had a medical and/or psychological condition that affected their diet, physical activity, growth, or weight, or were unable to speak, read, and understand either English or Spanish. Parents provided informed written consent and children gave verbal assent to participate. The sponsoring university’s Institutional Review Board approved all procedures, and data for the current analyses were collected between April 2007 and May 2008.
Measures
Recreation center environmental characteristics
We created the Recreation Facility Audit Tool (REFAT) specifically to measure the environmental conditions of indoor and outdoor recreation center areas that were conducive to children aged 6–10 being physically active. REFAT was adapted from an instrument (Physical activity Resource Assessment-PARA) developed by Lee and colleagues that had showed differences in a variety of physical activity resources in low- and high-income neighborhoods (Lee, Booth, Reese-Smith, Regan, & Howard, 2005). An adaptation of PARA has also been used to assess 71 child-centric venues (e.g., parks, playgrounds, fitness centers) in two urban locations (DeBate, Koby, Looney, Trainor, Zwalt, Bryant, & McDermott, 2011).
In the current study, trained evaluators used REFAT as they systematically walked through the community center facilities while scoring the availability and condition of amenities and the presence of incivilities. Amenities included bathrooms, benches, bike racks, decorative foundations, picnic tables, trash containers, grass, landscaping, and lighting, and their condition was rated as poor, mediocre, or good. Incivilities that were scored included auditory annoyances, broken glass, dog refuse, dogs unattended, and evidence of alcohol use, substance use, or sex paraphernalia, graffiti or tagging, litter and vandalism. Four evaluators underwent extensive training to use REFAT, and the first six centers were observed by more than one assessor to ensure agreement among them. Interrater reliability was high (r > .9) among assessors, and subsequently, the final 24 centers were observed by a single evaluator.
Recreation center programming
The recreation supervisor at each of the 30 centers completed a modified version of the Structured Physical Activity Survey (SPAS) to document opportunities for children 6–10 years old to participate in structured physical activity programs at the center during a specified two-week period. The SPAS was originally designed to assess physical activity opportunities in public schools, including the frequency and duration of all structured physical activity programs (e.g., intramural, interscholastic, dance, and club programs), how many boys and girls participated in each, when programs were offered, who sponsored them, and whether or not there was a fee for participating (Powers, Conway, McKenzie, Sallis, & Marshall, 2002). The instrument has also recently been used to assess after school programs within the context of shared use of middle school facilities by community organizations (Kanters et al., 2013)
In the current study, all 30 recreation supervisors completed the SPAS on site via a structured interview led by the same trained assessor. The interviewer asked the supervisor to describe each physical activity program offered for children in the center during the past two weeks and to indicate whether it was competitive or noncompetitive, led by center staff or non-center staff, fee-based or cost-free, and for boys only, girls only, or co-ed. Supervisors also identified the number of sessions offered per program, the average number of minutes per session, and the average number of girls and boys participating in them. The reliability and validity of using SPAS in the centers was not assessed, but the period covered was of short duration, respondents were encouraged to consult written records, and program and room schedules were typically posted within the buildings.
Child use of recreation center
As part of the study baseline questionnaire, the primary caregiver of each child responded to a survey item asking how often the child engaged in physical activity at the recreation center near his/her home. Response options were never, less than once a week, 1–2 times a week, 3–4 times a week, and 5–7 times a week. A binary variable was created to represent whether the child used the recreation center at least once a week. Another variable was used to represent whether the child was recruited into the study through the recreation center itself; this was identified by recruitment staff upon enrolling each participant.
Neighborhood income around recreation centers
We sought to define the SES of the recreation center by identifying the SES of the neighborhood surrounding the center. To do this we obtained the median annual income of households around the recreation center from the year 2000 census data for the block group in which the center resided. A binary variable representing low ($14,000–$37,999) vs. moderate/high ($38,000–$105,000) income was created using a median split. A continuous income variable was calculated by dividing income by 10,000 to ease interpretation of model coefficients.
Data Analyses
The availability and condition for each recreation center environmental characteristic was investigated for differences by neighborhood income (low vs. moderate/high) using Chi-square tests. Next, a series of linear regression models was tested to investigate whether the recreation center characteristic summary variables (i.e., environment and physical activity program characteristics) were associated with neighborhood income. Each recreation center characteristic summary variable was entered as a dependent variable in a separate model and neighborhood income around the center/10,000 (continuous) was entered as the independent variable, controlling for their later assignment to intervention condition (i.e., treatment vs. control) as a conservative precaution.
Unstandardized coefficients are reported, in addition to standardized coefficients, to represent the change in the number of environment characteristics for every $10,000 increase in neighborhood income. Finally, a multilevel logistic regression model was tested to investigate the association between the recreation center characteristics and parent report of the child using the recreation center (i.e., using it at least once per week vs. using it less than that), controlling for child gender, and whether or not the child was recruited directly from the center. Since recreation center use was measured at the child level, a multilevel model was chosen to account for clustering of participants within centers. SPSS version 19 was used for all analyses.
Results
Table 1, which identifies the facility and amenity characteristics and negative aesthetics/incivilities that were assessed in the recreation centers using REFAT, shows there were no significant differences in the availability of facilities or amenities between the two income groups. More facilities and amenities, however, were rated as being in good condition at centers in moderate/high-income neighborhoods as compared to those in low-income neighborhoods; four of these differences were statistically significant. More centers in moderate/high-income neighborhoods had a gymnasium in good condition (100% vs. 60%; p < .01) and more had an activity room/space in good condition (93% vs. 60%; p < .05). As well, more centers in low-income neighborhoods had benches in good condition (87% vs. 40%; p < .01) and trash containers in good condition (100% vs. 60%; p < .05). More centers in low-income neighborhoods had negative aesthetics/incivilities compared to those in moderate/high-income neighborhoods. Only one of these differences was statistically significant, however, with 87% of centers in low-income neighborhoods displaying graffiti/tagging compared to 40% of centers in moderate/high-income neighborhoods (p < .01).
Table 1
Environmental Characteristics of Recreation Centers (n = 30) by Neighborhood Income
| Low income | Moderate/high income | Low income | Moderate/high income | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilities | % of centers with the facility | % of centers with the facility in good condition | ||
| Gymnasium | 80 | 100 | 60 | 100** |
| Activity room/space | 87 | 100 | 60 | 93* |
| Baseball/softball field | 80 | 80 | 53 | 60 |
| Basketball courts (outdoor) | 93 | 93 | 53 | 73 |
| Multipurpose field | 73 | 67 | 27 | 40 |
| Playground | 47 | 33 | 53 | 60 |
| Tennis courts | 40 | 33 | 33 | 33 |
| Walk/jog/bike path | 87 | 93 | 13 | 33 |
|
| ||||
| Amenities | % of centers with the amenity | % of centers with the amenity in good condition | ||
| Outdoor bathrooms | 40 | 40 | 7 | 0 |
| Indoor bathrooms | 100 | 100 | 27 | 53 |
| Benches (without tables) | 93 | 100 | 40 | 87** |
| Bike racks | 100 | 100 | 73 | 87 |
| Drinking fountains | 100 | 100 | 67 | 73 |
| Picnic tables | 87 | 87 | 20 | 40 |
| Picnic tables (with shade) | 60 | 40 | 20 | 13 |
| Trash containers | 100 | 100 | 60 | 100** |
|
| ||||
| Negative aesthetics/incivilities | % of centers with incivility | |||
| Grass unkempt | 47 | 40 | - | - |
| Landscaping unkempt | 80 | 100 | - | - |
| Auditory annoyance | 7 | 13 | - | - |
| Broken glass | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| Dog refuse | 7 | 7 | - | - |
| Dogs unattended | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| Evidence: alcohol use | 27 | 7 | - | - |
| Evidence: substance use | 53 | 27 | - | - |
| Evidence: sex paraphernalia | 7 | 0 | - | - |
| Graffiti/tagging | 87 | 40** | - | - |
| Litter | 60 | 53 | - | - |
| Vandalism | 0 | 0 | - | - |
Low income = $14k – $37.9k (n = 15); Moderate/high income = $38k – $105k (n = 15)
M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PA = physical activity
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the recreation center summary variables and shows substantial variability across the centers for many characteristics. The number and quality of facilities, quality of amenities, and number of negative aesthetics/incivilities varied the most, while the number of amenities varied the least. During the 2-week period that was assessed for programming, centers offered from 8 to 68 physical activity program sessions (M = 23; SD = 12) and from 3 to 26 different types of physical activity programs (M = 8.5; SD = 4.9), with only from 0 to 6 programs (M = 0.9; SD = 1.5) being provided cost-free.
Table 2
Summary of Recreation Center Characteristics (n = 30 centers)
| M | SD | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recreation center environment characteristics | |||
| Number of facilities available | 5.9 | 1.3 | 2–7 |
| Number of facilities in good condition | 4.2 | 1.8 | 2–7 |
| Number of amenities available | 6.7 | 0.8 | 5–8 |
| Number of amenities in good condition | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1–6 |
| Number of negative aesthetics/incivilities | 2.8 | 1.4 | 0–6 |
| Recreation center programming | |||
| Number of PA program types/2 weeks | 8.5 | 4.9 | 3–26 |
| Number of PA program sessions/2 weeks | 23 | 12 | 8–68 |
| Number of free PA programs/2 weeks | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0–6 |
| Number of youths attending programs/2 weeks | 120 | 121 | 0–552 |
| Recreation center use and neighborhood income | |||
| Number of participants recruited from center | 2.3 | 2.0 | 0–7 |
| Number of participants using center ≥ once/week | 5.8 | 2.9 | 2–13 |
| Median annual household income around center | 41.5k | 18.6k | 14.5–105k |
M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PA = physical activity; k = thousand dollars
Associations between neighborhood income and specific environmental characteristics at the centers are presented in Table 3. For each $10,000 increase in neighborhood income, there were increases in both the number of facilities in good condition (B = 0.36) as well as the number of amenities in good condition (B = 0.35) in the community center, but there was a reduction in the number of cost-free physical activity programs offered (B = −0.33; all p < .05).
Table 3
Association between Recreation Center Characteristics and Neighborhood Income (n = 30 centers)a
| B | 95% CI | β | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of facilities available | 0.06 | −0.20, 0.32 | .10 | .617 |
| Number of facilities in good condition | 0.36* | 0.01, 0.72 | .38 | .045 |
| Number of amenities available | 0.04 | −0.15, 0.22 | .08 | .691 |
| Number of amenities in good condition | 0.35* | 0.04, 0.66 | .43 | .027 |
| Number of negative aesthetics/incivilities | −0.20 | −0.49, 0.10 | −.27 | .191 |
| Number of PA program sessions/2 weeks | 0.25 | −2.49, 2.99 | .04 | .852 |
| Number of PA program types/2 weeks | 0.50 | −0.51, 1.51 | .19 | .318 |
| Number of free PA programs/2 weeks | −0.33* | −0.65, −0.02 | −.40 | .041 |
| Number of youth/2 weeks attending programs | −5.9 | −33.2, 21.4 | −.09 | .660 |
B = unstandardized coefficient; CI = confidence interval; β = standardized coefficient; PA = physical activity
Table 4 presents associations between recreation center characteristics and caregiver reports of their child using the affiliated recreation center. The odds of using the center at least once per week (relative to using the recreation center less than that) were generally higher when the recreation center characteristics were more positive. Two characteristics were significantly associated with recreation center use; the odds of using the recreation center at least once per week increased by a factor of 1.23 for every $10,000 increase in neighborhood income and by a factor of 1.65 for every additional amenity available (p < .05).
Table 4
Association between Recreation Center Characteristics and Reported Child Use of Center at Least Once per Week (n = 541 children)a
| ORb | 95% CI | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neighborhood income around centerc | 1.23* | 1.01, 1.50 | .044 |
| Number of facilities available | 1.03 | 0.72, 1.47 | .888 |
| Number of facilities in good condition | 0.83 | 0.67, 1.03 | .094 |
| Number of amenities available | 1.65* | 1.08, 2.52 | .021 |
| Percent of amenities in good condition | 0.96 | 0.76, 1.19 | .685 |
| Number of negative aesthetics/incivilities | 1.10 | 0.87, 1.38 | .451 |
| Number of PA program sessions/2 weeks | 1.00 | 0.96, 1.04 | .827 |
| Number of PA program types/2 weeks | 1.08 | 0.97, 1.20 | .154 |
| Number of free PA programs/2 weeks | 1.15 | 0.93, 1.42 | .197 |
| Number of youth/2 weeks attending programs | 1.00 | 0.99, 1.01 | .856 |
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; PA = physical activity
Discussion
Previous studies examining economic disparities related to out-of-school opportunities for health-enhancing physical activity focused mainly on parks, especially their access and proximity to residences. Rarely have studies of economic disparities examined the quality of community recreation centers and the programs provided there, and essentially none have examined how these relate to actual use of the facilities. The current study is unique in that it focused specifically on a particular type of recreational facility (i.e., community centers) while examining how economic disparities were related to young children’s use of the center, the quality of facilities, and the programming provided for them at the center.
The number of recreation facilities and amenities did not differ substantially by neighborhood income, but their quality did. Overall, centers in more affluent neighborhoods seemed to be better off with regard to facilities, amenities, and aesthetics/incivilities— results consistent with research documenting inequities of facilities in disadvantaged compared to nondisadvantaged neighborhoods (Gordon-Larse et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2004). The centers in poorer neighborhoods tended to have fewer options of physical activity programs for children to choose, but these findings were not statistically significant. Meanwhile the centers in poorer neighborhoods provided more cost-free programs. Overall, however, the number of cost-free programs being offered was very low, a condition also reported in other studies (Dahmann, Wolch, Joassart-Marcelli, Reynolds, & Jerrett, 2010).
Although the conditions of facilities and amenities were related to neighborhood income, they were not related to parent reports of their children using the center. The strongest predictor of children using the recreation centers was the number of amenities available. Thus, in addition to strategic programming, recreation center staff and decision makers should pay particular attention to maximizing the number and types of amenities such as bike racks, water fountains, and bathrooms.
Parents in higher income neighborhoods were more likely to report that their children used the recreation centers regularly, but the number of children participating in structured physical activity programs, identified by the center directors, did not differ by neighborhood income. In addition to structured physical activity programs, the centers provided opportunities for children to both simply ‘drop in’ as well as to enroll in programs of a sedentary nature (e.g., arts and crafts). Children participating in these events were not included in the SPAS counts, and thus it is possible for relatively more children in moderate/high income areas to use the centers while not actually participating in the physical activity programs that were organized there.
The impact of neighborhood aesthetics and incivilities on physical activity engagement by children is not well known, however, some studies do suggest that a neighborhood perceived as unsafe and poor aesthetics may impede park use by children (Dahmann et al., 2010; Grow et al., 2008; Miles, 2008; Mowen, Payne, & Scott, 2005). More specifically, dog refuse, graffiti, broken playground equipment, litter, and inadequate maintenance have been reported to reduce playground use and physical activity (Colabianchi, Kinsella, Coulton, & Moore, 2009; Miles, 2008). In contrast, the findings of the current study suggest that while negative aesthetics/incivilities may differ slightly by neighborhood income, they do not necessarily affect recreation center use by neighborhood children.
A strength of this study is that the recreation centers came from five diverse cities in a large county with a population of 3.2 million people. None of the centers eligible to participate declined, thereby reducing potential participation bias. As the individual center was the unit of analysis for most models tested, however, having only 30 centers comprised a statistical limitation. Other limitations include a substantial amount of the data being dependent upon the accuracy of the self-reports of recreation center directors (i.e., SPAS reports of child participation in center programs) and parents (i.e., frequency of their child using the centers).
It is important to note that physical activity was not directly measured in this study, so it is not possible to know how the measured environmental characteristics actually impacted physical activity minutes. Additionally, the economic disparity data analyzed in the study were those associated with the geographical area in which the recreation centers were located, not with the incomes of the 541 families reporting their child use of the facilities. Individual family income and child use of the facilities was not assessed and might present a different picture. Nonetheless, this study included a large sample of diverse communities and is the first to incorporate data from three sources: Ratings of community center facilities and amenities, characteristics of program offerings for children, and child use of the centers.
In conclusion, environmental characteristics typically hypothesized to be related to children’s opportunities for physical activity at local recreation centers were more favorably represented in more affluent neighborhoods. In particular, greater neighborhood affluence and more amenities appeared to increase recreation center use. While it is a strength that mixed effects modeling was used to investigate the recreation center characteristics on facility use at the participant level, more data are needed to form strong conclusions. As mentioned in the methods section, the data collected for the current analysis were obtained as part of baseline measures of a larger investigation that examined the effectiveness of a multi-component obesity prevention program for young children (Elder et al., 2013). These initial data helped in our efforts to work with the recreation personnel in the 30 community centers to help improve children’s opportunities for physical activity. This work, coupled with our efforts to study neighborhood poverty and physical activity in 50 parks in Los Angeles (Cohen et al., 2012) and 36 parks in four other cities across the USA (Cohen et al., 2013), substantiates the importance of considering economic disparities in the design and operation of recreation facilities. With schools unable to provide children with recommended levels of physical activity for health (IOM, 2013) and other purposes, it is particularly important that young people living in low-SES communities have convenient and safe access to a variety of inexpensive opportunities for physical activity in nearby parks and recreation centers.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by Grant R01-DK72994, Obesity Prevention & Control in Community Recreation Centers. Dr. Carlson received funding from NIH HL79891. The authors extend appreciation to the staff of the 30 recreation centers and to the 541 families that participated in this study.
Contributor Information
Thomas L. McKenzie, School of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, San Diego State University and Institute for Behavioral and Community Health (IBACH)
Jamie S. Moody, Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Behavioral and Community Health (IBACH), San Diego State University.
Jordan A. Carlson, Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Behavioral and Community Health (IBACH), San Diego State University.
Nanette V. Lopez, Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Behavioral and Community Health (IBACH), San Diego State University.
John P. Elder, Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Behavioral and Community Health (IBACH), San Diego State University.
References
- Babey SH, Hastert TA, Yu H, Brown ER. Physical activity among adolescents. When do parks matter? American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;34:345–348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bouffard SM, Wimer C, Caronongan P, Little P, Dearing E, Simpkins SD. Demographic differences in patterns of youth out-of-school time activity participation. Journal of Youth Development. 2006;1(1):24–39. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen DA, Han B, Derose KP, Williamson S, Marsh T, Rudick J, McKenzie TL. Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Social Science & Medicine. 2012;75:2317–2325. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cohen DA, Lapham S, Evenson KR, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Ward P, Hillier &, McKenzie TL. Use of neighborhood parks: Does socioeconomic status matter? A four city study. Public Health. 2013;127(4):325–332. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Lurie N, Golinelli D, Williamson S. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97:509–514. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Colabianchi N, Kinsella AE, Coulton CJ, Moore SM. Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Preventive Medicine. 2009;48:140–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Corder K, Sallis JF, Crespo N, Elder JP. Active children use more locations for physical activity. Health & Place. 2011;17:911–919. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dahmann N, Wolch J, Joassart-Marcelli P, Reynolds K, Jerrett M. The active city? Disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health & Place. 2010;16:431–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DeBate RD, Koby EJ, Looney TE, Trainor JK, Zwalt ML, Bryant CA, McDermott RJ. Utility of the physical activity resource assessment for child-centric physical activity planning in two urban neighborhoods. Journal of Community Health. 2011;26(1):132–140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elder JP, Crespo N, Corder K, Ayala G, Slymen D, Lopez N, Moody J, McKenzie TL. Childhood obesity prevention and control in city recreation centers and family homes: The MOVE/me Muevo Project. Pediatric Obesity. 2013 Jun 11; doi: 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2013.00164.x. Epub ahead of print. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson M, Page P, Popkin B. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006;117:417–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grow HM, Saelens BE, Kerr J, Durant NH, Norman GJ, Sallis JF. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise. 2008;40:2071–2079. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hume C, Salmon J, Ball K. Children’s perceptions of their home and neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantitative study. Health Education Research. 2005;20:1–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- IOM (Institute of Medicine) Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jago R, Anderson CB, Baranowski T, Watson K. Adolescent patterns of physical activity: Differences in gender, day and time of day. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28:447–452. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kanters MA, Bocarro JN, Filardo M, Edwards M, McKenzie TL, Floyd M. Shared use of school facilities with community organizations and afterschool physical activity program participation: A cost-benefit assessment. Journal of School Health 2013 in press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee RE, Booth KM, Reese-Smith JY, Regan G, Howard HH. The physical activity resource assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities, and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. International. Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2005;13(2) doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-2-13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Loukaitou-Sideris A, Stieglitz O. Children in Los Angeles parks: A study of equity, quality and children’s satisfaction with neighborhood parks. Town Planning Review. 2012;73:467–488. [Google Scholar]
- McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place. 2010;16:712–726. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Miles R. Neighborhood disorder, perceived safety, and readiness to encourage use of local playgrounds. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;34:275–281. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Evenson KR, McGinn AP, Brines SJ. Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic status areas. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;34:16–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mowen AJ, Payne LL, Scott D. Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited. Leisure Sciences. 2005;27:191–204. [Google Scholar]
- Powell LM, Slater S, Chaloupka FJ. The relationship between community physical activity settings and race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine. 2004;1(2):135–144. [Google Scholar]
- Powers HS, Conway TL, McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Marshall SJ. Participation in extracurricular physical activity programs in middle schools. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2002;73:187–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ries AV, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Gittelsohn J, Yan AF, Astone NM. A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. The Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45(3 Suppl):S64–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sallis JF, Conway TL, Prochaska JJ, McKenzie TL, Marshall SJ, Brown M, Zive The association of school environments with youth physical activity. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:618–620. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Conway TL, Elder JP, Prochaska JJ, Brown M, Alcaraz JE. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003;24:209–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer B, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice. 4. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass; 2008. pp. 465–486. [Google Scholar]
- Sister C, Wolch J, Wilson J. Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal. 2010;75(3):229–248. [Google Scholar]
- Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd K, Masse L, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise. 2008;40:181–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whitt-Glover MC, Taylor WC, Floyd MF, Yancey AK, Matthews CE. Disparities in physical activity and sedentary behaviors among US children and adolescents: Prevalence, correlates, and intervention implications. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009;30:S309–S334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]