Advertisement

Journal of Community Health

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 507–512 | Cite as

Demographic Characteristics and Physical Activity Behaviors in Sixteen Michigan Parks

  • Julian A. Reed
  • Anna E. Price
  • Lisa Grost
  • Karah Mantinan
Original Paper

Abstract

The Building Healthy Communities (BHC) initiative addresses inadequate physical activity in Michigan using a population-based approach to prevent chronic disease. Eighteen local health departments through 2010 received $1,505,179 to plan and implement community-based interventions to increase physical activity among low-income and minority populations. This paper examines park user demographics, compares park user demographics to the demographic characteristics and examines physical activity behaviors of park users in these parks. BHC Park usage was examined from 2008 to 2010 using the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC). One sample binomial tests were used to examine if the proportion of male and female park users was different than the proportion of males and females in Michigan and to examine if the proportion of white and other park users was different than the proportion of whites and others in Michigan. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to examine whether the observed proportions for age groups observed using the park differed from the actual proportions for age groups in Michigan. The majority of BHC park users were white. More children were observed than other age groups. Park users were most often observed engaging in walking or vigorous activity rather than sedentary activities. When comparing the proportion of whites (54.7%) and others (42.8%) observed using the parks to the proportion of whites (79%) and others (21%) residing in Michigan, there was a significant difference (P < 0.001) with a greater proportion of whites and smaller proportion of persons of other ethnicities expected to be observed using the parks. This chi square goodness of fit test showed a significant difference in the observed and expected number of persons observed using the trail in each age group (χ2 = 4,897.707, df = 3, P < 0.001) with a greater number of children (n = 1,939) and teens (n = 1,116) observed than the number of children (n = 828) and teens (n = 305) expected based on 2010 Michigan census data. A greater proportion of non-whites (compared to whites) were observed using the park than would be expected. In Michigan, 60% of blacks, 37% of Hispanics, and 53% of other minority groups do not meet national physical activity recommendations. Perhaps developing additional parks in Michigan can increase physical activity behaviors among minorities.

Keywords

Parks Physical activity Michigan Exercise Recreation SOPARC 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project was funded by Michigan’s Building Healthy Communities Initiative in collaboration with the Michigan Department of Community Health. Building Healthy Communities provides funding to local health departments in Michigan to develop, implement and evaluate interventions promoting physical activity, healthy eating and tobacco free environments.

References

  1. 1.
    Spence, J., & Lee, R. (2003). Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    King, A., Jefrey, R., & Fridinger, F. (1995). Environmental and policy approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention through physical activity: Issues and opportunities. Health Education Quarterly, 22, 499–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sallis, J., & Owen, N. (1997). Ecological models. In K. Glanz, F. Lewis, & B. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education (pp. 403–424). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saelens, B., Sallis, J., & Frank, L. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 80–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brownson, R., Houseman, R., & Brown, D. (2000). Promoting physical activity in rural communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 235–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baranowski, T. (1990). Reciprocal determinism at stages of behavior change: An integration of community, personal, and behavior perspectives. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 10, 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merom, D., Mauman, A., & Vita, P. (2003). An environmental intervention to promote walking and cycling—The pact o a newly constructed Rail Trail in Western Sydney. Preventive Medicine, 36, 235–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sallis, J., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity and behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humple, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22, 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). The task force on community preventive services. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/default.htm#environmental. Accessed January 22, 2011.
  11. 11.
    Reed, J., McKenzie, T., Hagen, S., & Harring, H. (2007). Using direct observation methodology to measure trail use. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research, 2(2), 33–39.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bedimo-Rung, A., Mowen, A., Cohen, C. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 suppl 2), 159–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renalds, A., Smith, T., & Hale, P. (2010). A systematic review of built environment and health. Family Community Health, 33(1), 68–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frank, L., & Kavage, S. (2009). A national plan for physical activity: The enabling role of the built environment. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(S2), s186–s195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCreedy, M., & Leslie, J. (2009). Get active Orlando: Changing the built environment to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(S2), s395–s402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Overweight and obesity: State based programs. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/state_programs/se_model.htm. Accessed March 3, 2011.
  17. 17.
    McKenzie, T., Cohen, D., Sehgal, A., Williamson, E., & Golinelli, D. (2006). System for observing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 1, S203–S217.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKenzie, T. (1991). Observational measures of children’s physical activity. Journal of School Health, 61, 224–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKenzie, T., & Cohen, D. (2004). System for observing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC). San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2002). Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4S), 67–72.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Michigan: Recommended physical activity by: Race, 2007. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/PASurveillance/DemoCompareResultV.asp?Year=2007&State=25&Cat=4&CI=#result. Accessed July 27, 2011.
  22. 22.
    Reed, J., Hooker, S., Mutukrishan, S., & Hutto, B. (2011). User demographics and physical activity behaviors on a newly constructed urban rail/trail conversion. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8, 534–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shores, K., & West, S. (2008). The relationship between built park environments and physical activity in four park locations. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(3), e9–e16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maller, C., Townsend, M., St Leger, L., et al. (2002). Healthy parks, healthy people: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context. Melbourne: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansmann, R., Hug, S., & Seeland, K. (2007). Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eyler, A., Brownson, R., Bacak, S., & Housemann, R. (2003). The epidemiology of walking for physical activity in the United States. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35, 1529–1536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Price, A., Corwin, S., Laditika, S., Friedman, D., Colabianchi, N., & Montgomery, K. (2011). Older adults’ perceptions of physical activity and cognitive health: Implications for health communication. Health Education & Behavior, 38(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mathews, A., Laditka, S., Laditka, J., et al. (2010). Older adults’ perceived physical activity enablers and barriers: A multicultural perspective. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 18(2), 119–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilcox, S., Sharkey, J., Mathews, A., et al. (2009). Perceptions and beliefs about the role of physical activity and nutrition on brain health in older adults. The Gerontologist, 49(S1), S61–S71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lockett, D., Willis, A., & Edwards, N. (2005). Through seniors’ eyes: An exploratory qualitative study to identify environmental barriers to and facilitators of walking Canadian. Journal of Nursing Research, 37(3), 48–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian A. Reed
    • 1
  • Anna E. Price
    • 2
  • Lisa Grost
    • 3
  • Karah Mantinan
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesFurman UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Science, College of Health ProfessionsSacred Heart UniversityFairfieldUSA
  3. 3.Building Healthy Communities and Physical Activity, Public Health ConsultantLansingUSA
  4. 4.Altarum InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations