Cargando…

Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks

Less physical activity among rural residents may contribute to rural-urban health disparities. Parks can be ideal community resources for promoting physical activity. This study compared park visitation and activity intensity at 15 urban and 15 rural parks matched for acreage and amenities. Parks we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roemmich, James N., Johnson, LuAnn, Oberg, Grace, Beeler, Joley E., Ufholz, Kelsey E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30115825
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081760
_version_ 1783352482400829440
author Roemmich, James N.
Johnson, LuAnn
Oberg, Grace
Beeler, Joley E.
Ufholz, Kelsey E.
author_facet Roemmich, James N.
Johnson, LuAnn
Oberg, Grace
Beeler, Joley E.
Ufholz, Kelsey E.
author_sort Roemmich, James N.
collection PubMed
description Less physical activity among rural residents may contribute to rural-urban health disparities. Parks can be ideal community resources for promoting physical activity. This study compared park visitation and activity intensity at 15 urban and 15 rural parks matched for acreage and amenities. Parks were observed in the morning, afternoon, and evening on 4 days to determine number of visitors, activity intensity, and amenity use. A total of 5486 visitors were observed with no differences in percentages of males (55.5% vs. 53.9%) and females (44.5% vs. 46.1%) or percentages of weekday (82.4% vs. 81.9%) and weekend (17.6% vs. 18.1%) visitors. The probability of visitors sitting was greater and in moderate intensity activity lower at rural parks. A greater proportion of children (25.0% vs. 14.5%) in rural parks, and teens in urban parks (8.0% vs. 69.6%), were observed on sport fields. A greater proportion of adults in urban areas (12.5% vs. 46.0%) were observed spectating sports. Greater proportions of rural children (10.9% vs. 3.5%), teens (34.1% vs. 12.4%), and adults (38.9% vs. 10.1%) were observed using shelters. Thus, when similar amenities are available, rural and urban parks are used differently, especially by youth. The urban park study results cannot be wholly applied to rural parks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6121499
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61214992018-09-07 Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks Roemmich, James N. Johnson, LuAnn Oberg, Grace Beeler, Joley E. Ufholz, Kelsey E. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Less physical activity among rural residents may contribute to rural-urban health disparities. Parks can be ideal community resources for promoting physical activity. This study compared park visitation and activity intensity at 15 urban and 15 rural parks matched for acreage and amenities. Parks were observed in the morning, afternoon, and evening on 4 days to determine number of visitors, activity intensity, and amenity use. A total of 5486 visitors were observed with no differences in percentages of males (55.5% vs. 53.9%) and females (44.5% vs. 46.1%) or percentages of weekday (82.4% vs. 81.9%) and weekend (17.6% vs. 18.1%) visitors. The probability of visitors sitting was greater and in moderate intensity activity lower at rural parks. A greater proportion of children (25.0% vs. 14.5%) in rural parks, and teens in urban parks (8.0% vs. 69.6%), were observed on sport fields. A greater proportion of adults in urban areas (12.5% vs. 46.0%) were observed spectating sports. Greater proportions of rural children (10.9% vs. 3.5%), teens (34.1% vs. 12.4%), and adults (38.9% vs. 10.1%) were observed using shelters. Thus, when similar amenities are available, rural and urban parks are used differently, especially by youth. The urban park study results cannot be wholly applied to rural parks. MDPI 2018-08-16 2018-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6121499/ /pubmed/30115825 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081760 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Roemmich, James N.
Johnson, LuAnn
Oberg, Grace
Beeler, Joley E.
Ufholz, Kelsey E.
Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title_full Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title_fullStr Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title_full_unstemmed Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title_short Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
title_sort youth and adult visitation and physical activity intensity at rural and urban parks
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30115825
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081760
work_keys_str_mv AT roemmichjamesn youthandadultvisitationandphysicalactivityintensityatruralandurbanparks
AT johnsonluann youthandadultvisitationandphysicalactivityintensityatruralandurbanparks
AT oberggrace youthandadultvisitationandphysicalactivityintensityatruralandurbanparks
AT beelerjoleye youthandadultvisitationandphysicalactivityintensityatruralandurbanparks
AT ufholzkelseye youthandadultvisitationandphysicalactivityintensityatruralandurbanparks