Are park availability and satisfaction with neighbourhood parks associated with physical activity and time spent outdoors?

Neighborhood parks can confer multiple health benefits through facilitating physical activity, contact with nature, and social interaction [1, 2], as well as being walkable destinations for residents to engage in recreational physical activity [3]. Despite abundant evidence on the health benefits of parks, they are generally underutilized and visitors often engage in low levels of physical activity during their park visits [4, 5]. A systematic review has reported few differences in park visitation by gender, however, males are more likely to be observed in moderate- to-vigorous intensity physical activity compared to females [6]. Thus, there is substantial scope for enhancing population health through increased visits and active use of parks. However, in order to do so it is necessary to better understand factors that are associated with park visitation (i.e. visiting a park) and physical activity.

Although park availability which includes proximity to home or other places and accessibility have been shown to be positively associated with physical activity among both youth [7‐10] and adults [1, 11‐13], there are some inconsistencies in the literature [14‐19]. A growing body of research indicates that factors other than park availability including factors such as crime and safety [20, 21], park features (e.g. playgrounds, picnic facilities, seating and paths) and quality of amenities and aesthetics (e.g. maintenance, gardens, landscaping) influence park visitation and physical activity [22‐24].

We know that people do not always visit their closest park and often travel significant distances from home to reach their preferred park [25, 26]. This may be due to (dis) satisfaction with the features or quality (i.e. unattractive qualities, size, lack of amenities) of the closest park. In an Australian study, the likelihood of adults using public open space increased with increasing levels of access, but the effect was greater after adjusting for distance, attractiveness, and park size. After matching public open space for size and location, 70% of users visited attractive public open spaces [27]. In another study of Australian adults, the presence of a large, high-quality park within walking distance of one’s home was shown to be more important than having other open space closer to home for promoting sufficient amounts of walking for health benefits [28]. Further, among adults aged 57–67 years who walked for recreation, higher park quality was related to greater weekly duration of recreational walking [29].

Despite the importance of park quality, few studies have examined associations between satisfaction with park quality and physical activity among children or youth and this is an existing research gap. A US study of adolescents found that greater perceived park quality (including amenities, maintenance, aesthetics, and safety) was associated with double the odds of park visitation, however, there was no association between park quality and overall objectively measured physical activity [30]. Another study of low-income neighbourhoods in the US found park quality was positively associated with park use and park-based physical activity among children (5–10 years) [31].

It is unclear how park satisfaction (operationalised in our study as self- and parent-reported satisfaction with park quality), park visitation and physical activity are related. Examining whether satisfaction with local parks is associated with park visitation and physical activity in both adults and children will improve our understanding of how parks may facilitate active living. In addition, to our knowledge no studies have considered the pathways through which park satisfaction and perceived availability of parks may operate to influence physical activity; however, park visitation is likely to be on the causal pathway between park satisfaction and physical activity, as well as between park availability and physical activity [24, 32].

The aims of this study were to examine: 1) satisfaction (with park quality) and perceived availability of parks, and their associations with self-reported physical activity (leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and transport-related physical activity (TPA)) among adults; 2) parent-reported satisfaction and availability of parks, and their associations with physical activity (time spent outdoors and meeting physical activity recommendations) among children; and 3) whether these associations were mediated by park visitation. It was hypothesised that adults who reported greater satisfaction with the quality of their local parks and greater perceived availability of these parks, and children whose parents reported the above would visit parks more frequently, thus increasing the likelihood of engaging in physical activity and spending time outdoors (see Fig. 1).

This study was nested within the Recording and EValuating Activity in a Modified Park (REVAMP) study [33]. Ethics approval was obtained from the University Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG-H 46–2012), the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and the Catholic Education Office Melbourne.

Briefly, the REVAMP study was designed to evaluate the impact of a park modification by using multiple measures to comprehensively assess park visitation and park-based physical activity in two metropolitan parks in Melbourne, Australia: an intervention park and a control park. The intervention park was located 28 km north-west of Melbourne’s central business district (CBD) in a low socio-economic status (SES) area. In 2016, the population for the local city council area where the intervention park was located was 209,523 with 17 persons per hectare, 58% spoke a language other than English at home and 20% had a low household income [34]. The control park was located 22 km east of Melbourne’s CBD in a high SES area. In 2016, the population for the local city council area was 127,573 with 11 persons per hectare, 42% spoke a language other than English at home and 16% had a low household income [35].

The current study utilised baseline data from self-reported cross-sectional resident surveys completed by adults in April–May 2013 living within 5 km or with children attending (pre) school within 3 km of these two parks. The REVAMP survey has been described in more detail elsewhere [33]. Respondents with at least one child aged 2–15 years living in the household, were also asked to complete proxy-report survey questions regarding their child’s use of parks and related behaviour.

In total, 9694 surveys were delivered, 37 were returned to sender, and 1487 surveys were returned completed (15.4% response rate; 15.1% intervention park, 15.7% control park), with 866 surveys including data on children. Response rates from schools and postal surveys were similar [33]. Survey items are presented in Additional file 1.

Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1 (adults) and Table 2 (children). The mean age of adults was 48.9 (SD 13.4) years and 70.9% were female. The mean age of the children was 8.8 (SD 3.7) years and 48.6% were female. More than 75% of adults lived within a 10 min walk of a park and 95% of children were within walking distance of a park from home. Participants viewed their neighbourhood parks favourably and visited often; 72% of adults reported being satisfied with the overall quality of parks in their neighbourhood and 64% reported visiting a park in the last 7 days. The results were slightly higher for children (76% satisfied and 66% visited in last 7 days).

This study addresses important research gaps as, to our knowledge, it is one of the first studies to examine whether relationships between reported park availability or park satisfaction and physical activity among adults and time spent outdoors among children were mediated by park visitation. Although there was no evidence of a relationship between perceptions of park availability or satisfaction and adults’ physical activity and children’s time spent outdoors, the results suggest that park visitation in the past 7 days was an important mediator for the relationship between park satisfaction and park availability and physical activity/time outdoors for both adults and children.

Consistent with previous research, adults who reported having parks closer to home and children who had a park within perceived walking distance from home were more likely to have visited a park in the past 7 days [10, 42]. However, associations between park satisfaction and park visitation were only significant among adults. Given that park satisfaction may be related to park quality in terms of amenities, maintenance and aesthetics [24] this finding is contrary to those from previous studies among adults and adolescents that suggest quality of parks is more important than quantity or availability for encouraging park use [27, 30, 43]. Inconsistencies amongst children’s park satisfaction may also be explained by subtle differences in park use and park feature requirement at different ages throughout childhood [26]. Future studies are required to better understand the qualities and features of parks that contribute to overall park satisfaction for different user groups.

Neither park availability nor park satisfaction had a significant impact on physical activity levels for adults or time spent outdoors/physical activity among children. Some previous studies have also concluded that there is little evidence to support a relationship between access to parks in the local area and overall physical activity [19, 44]. This suggests that availability of parks alone may not be sufficient to impact overall physical activity levels. It is essential that features that encourage active use for all demographic groups are understood and prioritised in the design of new parks and the refurbishment of existing parks [45, 46].

Although some natural experiment studies have shown increases in park-based physical activity after physical improvements to the park [47‐49], a review of interventions to encourage physical activity in urban green space found there was more promising evidence to support physical changes to the built environment combined with programs for increasing green space use and park-based physical activity than changes to the built environment alone [50]. Therefore, additional individual- and community-level incentives may also be needed to motivate people to be active in parks. For example, governments and health professionals should consider encouraging park-based physical activity through community programs and tailored marketing [51].

This study had a cross-sectional design therefore causality cannot be inferred. It is possible that there are bi-directional associations, for example, frequency of visiting a park may affect park satisfaction, or participation in LTPA may influence park visitation if people visit the park to be active. Our model included only a binary measure of park visitation in the week prior to the survey, and this may not be indicative of habitual behaviour. For adults, the measure of park availability was based on self-reported distance to the nearest park and it is possible that the nearest park is not the one visited most often. Similarly, for children, the measure of park availability was based on the reported presence of parks/playgrounds within walking distance from home and this may not be the park they usually visit. The measure of park satisfaction was based on self-reported satisfaction with the overall quality of the parks in their neighbourhood for themselves and their child. Objective audits of park features and amenities to determine park quality may be a valuable component of future park research. Physical activity for adults was self-reported, although a reliable and valid measure was used [36], and proxy-reported for children; future studies may benefit from objective measures of physical activity and park availability. Future studies may also benefit from measuring park-based physical activity which is more context-specific than overall physical activity. Future research could also explore whether child’s age and gender moderate the associations examined.

Given the potentially important role of parks in providing opportunities for physical activity, the findings suggest it may be important to improve park availability and user’s satisfaction with park quality in order to increase park visitation and consequently increase physical activity and time spent outdoors among adults and children. This is an important practical consideration for planners and managers particularly for parks that serve communities with high rates of families with children. Future studies with park users and non-park users of varying demographic characteristics living in urban and rural locations are required to better understand what features should be prioritised in park design to enhance park satisfaction.