A Walk in the Park: Exploring the Impact of Parks and Recreation Amenities As Activity-Promoting Features of the Built Environment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Walk in the Park: Exploring the Impact of Parks and Recreation Amenities as Activity-Promoting Features of the Built Environment by Andrew T. Kaczynski A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Recreation and Leisure Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 © Andrew Kaczynski 2007 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Social ecological models of physical activity (PA) promotion embrace a wide range of factors and disciplines that may contribute to active living. Parks, trails, and recreation facilities have been acknowledged as important components of the built environment for promoting PA and overall health, but little research has investigated these community resources in detail. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the association between the presence and characteristics of parks and recreation amenities and PA levels of community members. The study involved four integrated components: i) a written questionnaire with 585 adult residents from four Waterloo planning districts that addressed a variety of personal, psychosocial, and environmental correlates of PA, ii) a detailed seven-day log booklet of recreational, transportation, household and job- related PA episodes, iii) objective assessment of PA via accelerometers, and iv) observation and rating of parks for their features that may be related to PA. Ratings of psychosocial characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, social support) and perceptions of neighbourhood walkability attributes (e.g., land use diversity, street connectivity) were significantly different between those who engaged in some PA versus those who engaged in no PA, but neighbourhood perceptions did not moderate the relationship between psychosocial variables and PA, nor did psychosocial variables mediate the relationship between neighbourhood perceptions and PA. Parks and trails were used in approximately 8% and 3% of total PA episodes, respectively, with an average duration per episode of 49 minutes and 38 minutes, respectively. Parks with more facilities for PA and supporting amenities were more likely to be used for PA than parks with fewer facilities and amenities, and trails were the park feature most strongly related to park-based PA. The number of municipal parks within 1 km from participants’ homes the and total parkland area within 1 km were associated with higher odds of neighbourhood PA and iii neighbourhood park PA, while distance to the closest park from home was not related to either outcome. Although subject to several limitations, these results provide guidance for municipal and park planners in designing communities and the resources within them to promote increased levels of PA and active living. Suggestions for future research include studying environmental correlates of PA among youth and older adults, direct observation of PA in parks, and development of a comprehensive surveillance system to track both changes in the built environment and associated changes in residents’ PA participation. iv Acknowledgements This project, of which I am very proud, would not have been possible without the support of numerous individuals. In particular, my career will be indebted indefinitely to my advisor, Mark Havitz, for watching over me throughout my undergraduate and graduate education. I’ve learned more from Mark than he will ever know, and have come to realize that his capacity for scholarship is outdone only by his integrity and his love of humanity. I am also thankful to have benefited from such a diverse and talented committee made up of Dr. Roy Cameron, Dr. Roger Mannell, Dr. Bryan Smale, and Dr. Myron Floyd. Each of these remarkable professors brought their skills and passion for their respective interest areas to the project and made the study that much more enjoyable as a result. The Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies has provided a second home to me for nine years (five undergraduate and four graduate) – almost a third of my life. People like Dr. Ron McCarville and Dr. Susan Shaw (and many others previously mentioned and not mentioned) have been instrumental in making me into the academic I am today, and I thank them for their patience and wisdom. I also greatly enjoyed my interactions in recent years with Dr. Steve Manske of CBRPE, both related to this thesis and other projects, and thank him for expanding my skills and horizons. Suzy Wong (UW Health Studies) and Jennifer Robertson-Wilson (Wilfrid Laurier University) also provided valuable technical guidance during parts of this study. I am also very grateful for the significant financial support provided by the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network through the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation. The funding they provided both validated the importance of this study and allowed me to do the project of my dreams. The v American Park and Recreation Society and the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies also provided modest financial support for which I am also grateful. The data collection for this project would not have been possible without an incredibly dedicated and talented group of 16 graduate and undergraduate students who formed “The Physical Activity in the Community Study Dream Team”: Emily Bingeman, Rebecca Bullock, Monica Cooper, Ian Cromwell, Melissa Decloe, Cara Dowhaniuk, Darla Fortune, Sheena Joy Hillier, Lynda Fox, Erin Mereu, Luke Potwarka, Zara Rafferty, Kim Saunders, Marcy Smith, Mike Snyder, and Gavin Taylor-Black. For six-plus weeks in August and September 2006, this group of outstanding individuals came together to pull off the remarkable and relatively unprecedented task of visiting over 1000 homes across Waterloo while representing UW with aplomb throughout the community. Throughout the tribulations of the study, I was constantly impressed and buoyed by their dedication and enthusiasm for the project. Thanks to all of you. I hope enjoyed your involvement as much as I enjoyed working with you. I know you will all go on to achieve great things and I look forward to hearing about your accomplishments. I also wish to thank my parents and sister for their support throughout my 30 years. I know you’re proud of my accomplishments and that makes me glad. Finally, and most importantly, I owe all my success and happiness to the three ladies in my life who have kept me grounded and focused on the most important things in life. My wife Jen is an incredible mother and person and a continual source of inspiration and ideas. The two most beautiful girls in the world, Abby and Kate, provide a never-ending supply of challenges and rewards, and their energy and capacity for learning astounds and motivates me. Thanks to all three of you for sticking with me over the past four years. I promise to always look after us all. vi Table of Contents Author’s Declaration ……………………………………………………………………….....…. ii Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….………… iii Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………….………... v Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..…….. vii List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………….…….……. x List of Tables …………………………………………….……………………………………... xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 Physical Activity and the Built Environment ..............................................................................3 The importance of parks, recreation and leisure to physical activity ......................................4 Study Purpose ..............................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 8 Social Ecological Models ............................................................................................................8 Theories and Models Related to the Social Ecological Perspective......................................10 Social Ecological Models and Health Promotion ..................................................................12 Limitations of the Social Ecological Approach.....................................................................17 Summary................................................................................................................................18 Physical Activity........................................................................................................................21 Health Benefits of Physical Activity......................................................................................22 Cardiovascular diseases ....................................................................................................23 Cancer................................................................................................................................24 Osteoporosis ......................................................................................................................25 Diabetes .............................................................................................................................26 Other Health Risk Factors.................................................................................................27