1 / 44

Observing Park Environments in Nevada

Observing Park Environments in Nevada. Monica A.F. Lounsbery, Ph.D. Professor and Director Physical Activity Policy Research Program Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Acknowledgements. This project was made possible through -

allie
Download Presentation

Observing Park Environments in Nevada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Observing Park Environments in Nevada Monica A.F. Lounsbery, Ph.D. Professor and Director Physical Activity Policy Research Program Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences University of Nevada, Las Vegas

  2. Acknowledgements • This project was made possible through - • The vision and recommendation of the PA Policy Research Program’s Community Advisory Board • The leadership and commitment of Melissa Clary and Susie Quintana from the City of Las Vegas and especially, Justin Williams and Bruce Sillitoe from the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department • Funding from UNLV College of Education and The Lincy Institute

  3. Background • The relationship of physical activity to a variety of health conditions has been well-documented • Several cohort studies showed a 30-40% increase in risk for Diabetes due to physical inactivity • Approximately 30 studies showed an inverse association between physical activity and colon cancer • Inactivity is related to 200-300K preventable deaths each year in the United States • In 2004, the World Health Organization found that physical inactivity was responsible for an estimated 3.2 million deaths

  4. DeathsAttributed to 19 LeadingFactors,by Country IncomeLevel, 2004

  5. The Average Minutes Per Day of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) Declines Across the Lifespan Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for morbidity and mortality… Troiano R, Berrigan D, Dodd K, et al. “Physical Activity in the United States Measured by Accelerometer.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(1): 181–188, January 2008. This data was measured by accelerometers.

  6. Physical Activity Interventions • Guided by theories that emphasize psychological & social influences • Primary goals have been education and behavior change skills J. Sallis Active Living Research

  7. Ecological Model of Health Behavior Policy Context Physical Environment Social/Cultural Individual Biological Psychological Behavioral Skills

  8. How can we make physical activity the easy choice? • Communities and Transportation Facilities • School and Occupation Settings • Recreation Facilities

  9. Parks and Access to Them Matter! Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson M, Page P, et al. “Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies Key Health Disparities in Physical Activity and Obesity.” Pediatrics,117(2): 417– 424, February 2006.

  10. How Does Las Vegas Compare? Las Vegas ranked 43rd among the largest 50 metropolitan cities*** • 4.2% of city land is designated to parks compared to 10.6% nationally • 5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 citizens compared to 18.9/1,000 nationally • Other major park, physical activity, and health disparities in Las Vegas compared to other US cities include: • Lower percent bicycling or walking to work • Lower requirement for physical education • Per capita Las Vegas has • Fewer ball diamonds • Fewer park playgrounds • Fewer park units • Fewer tennis courts *** in preventive health behaviors, levels of chronic disease conditions, health care access, and community resources and policies that support physical activity.

  11. Research has Shown that Accessibility Disparities • Medium to high income neighborhoods have significantly greater relative odds of having 1 or more park facilities compared to low income and high-minority neighborhoods • Inequality in availability of PA facilities may contribute to ethnic and SES disparities in PA and overweight patterns

  12. PARKS • Important locations for population physical activity • especially for low-income families, children, and seniors • they are free and OPEN to everyone • Seldom viewed as health resources or assessed on the physical activity they provide

  13. Purpose • Physical activity studies have not been conducted in Nevada parks or trails • health impacts have not been translated into local government services • In lower income Las Vegas neighborhoods, how are parks/trails being used? • How are parks perceived by the residents? • How can we optimize the public’s investment in parks and trails for health related purposes?

  14. OPEN Parks/Trails • City of Las Vegas • Bunker • Leavitt • Lone Mountain Trail • Clark County • Desert Breeze • Doc Pearson • Paradise • West Flamingo • Wetlands Trail • I-215 Beltway South and West Trails

  15. Park Demographics

  16. Trail Demographics

  17. Data Sources Direct Observation - SOPARC (System For Observing Physical Activity and Recreation in Communities; McKenzie et al., 2006) Intercept interviews with randomly selected park users Questionnaires and focus groups with residents living within .5 miles of parks

  18. SOPARC Data collection • Data were collected on 12 clement days in each environment over one year • Each day, data were collected during 4 time periods (7:30am, 12:30pm, 3:30pm, and 6:00pm) • 480 area visits • IOA data were collected on 10% of the observations • Percent agreement ranged from 92%-100%

  19. Intercept Interviews and Residential Surveys Invitations to complete an on-line questionnaire were sent to randomly selected residences within .5 mi of study parks Interviews were conducted with park users in all 6 parks These efforts yielded 215 completed surveys/ interviews

  20. Focus Group Meetings • Park users and residents were invited to participate in focus group meetings • We conducted 10 focus group meetings (5 to 8 participants) • Trails • Parents • Hispanics • Senior Adults • Women • We audio and video recorded focus group meetings • Data were transcribed and were coded

  21. How are Parks/Trails Being Used?

  22. Overall Percent of Park Users by Age Group and Gender Total Number of People Observed = 33,362 28% 19% 16% 13% 10% 8% 4% 2%

  23. Overall Percent of Trail Users by Age Group and GenderTotal Number of People Observed = 817 36% 24% 11% 8% 8% 5% 4% 4%

  24. Park Activity LevelsTotal Number of People Observed = 33,362 30% 22% 19% 12% 12% 5%

  25. Trail Activity LevelsTotal Number of People Observed = 817 38% 27% 22% 8% 3% 2%

  26. Overall Percentage of Park Users by Age Group and Time of Day Total Number of People Observed = 33,362 43% 42% 35% 33% 31% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 21% 15% 13% 8% 6%

  27. Seasonal Park Use by Age Level 2% 1% 21% 15% 4% 10% 10% 7% 6% 11% 8% 5%

  28. Trail UseTime of Day and Season

  29. Top 10 Target Areas by Gender 87% 88% 65% 62% 58% 55% 55% 53% 51% 50% 47% 49% 45% 45% 42% 38% 35% 13% 12%

  30. Average Number of Park Users by Target Area and Activity Level

  31. Observed Facility Status 98% 97% 4% 3%

  32. Perceptions

  33. Safety Safety from the sun and hot temperatures was perceived as a barrier Most people felt parks were well maintained and clean but some felt there were disparities in low income neighborhoods Most people felt safe although increased roving security was frequently recommended Women and parents had safety concerns about park use in the evening.

  34. General Feelings of Safety

  35. Perceived Barriers to Park Use 47% 20% 19% 6% 4% 3% 1%

  36. Activity Preferences

  37. Do people know about the parks? • Most people learned about parks by driving around • Some learned about parks by word of mouth • Some parents learned about park programs through schools • Top recommended sources of communication • Apartment complex managers • Post cards or mailers • Schools

  38. Discussion and Conclusions

  39. Major Findings • Survey results showed that household income was found to be a significant characteristic distinguishing park users and non-users with park users more likely than non-users to have lower income (p =.024) • Critical venue for addressing health disparities • More males and adults use parks and trails • Most people were observed sedentary parks; high moderate to vigorous PA on trails • Males were more active than females • Parks are rarely organized or supervised • Opportunities for park programming

  40. In parks, females and seniors were relatively underserved • Women emphasized time challenges as primary barriers • Seniors felt unsafe being in the park with other age groups; Hispanics felt most comfortable around other Hispanics • It appears that strategies for increasing PA in parks for busy adults, especially women, should focus on creating time efficiencies • For those coming to parks to supervise (children or dogs) or to be spectators, some time inefficiencies could be addressed by the redesign of park facilities to include walking paths around the perimeters of park spaces • Strategic programming • offered programs for kids and parents in adjacent park spaces during the same frame • Increasing number of programs that appeal to females, seniors and Hispanics

  41. Trail use highly active but very low use observed • During focus group meetings, participants identified that use barriers were • trail connectivity • knowledge • We speculate that observed low use was also due to the newness of the all of the trails in this study, and their general lack of promotion to the general public. • Focus group participants identiycling enthusiasts are likely to be the most informed about trails in Las Vegas and in order for trails to engender mainstream use across age levels, more community events such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, or artisan booths should be planned on trails.

  42. Park and Trail Promotion is needed • Most people “found” parks/trails as opposed to being informed about them • Promotional efforts should bear in mind the need to appeal to sense of community activities people were interested in (e.g., walking) • Promotional Partners • Apartment complex managers • Schools • Mailers

  43. OPEN Community Forum • City and county policy makers and local stakeholders in planning, government, and health will be provided with an overview of the results from OPEN • OPEN results will be used to determine next steps which may include: • New strategic partnerships • Experimental research to examine the health impact of • Park redesign • Strategic programming • And/or promotion on increasing park/trails use and physical activity • Development of an active living task force Robust conversations around how we can retrofit Las Vegas communities and specific environemnts with physical activity and health in mind!

  44. I Believe in Happy Healthy Families Payne Lounsbery, Age 8 Tori Lounsbery, Age 20 And Their Right to Be Physically Active! We need sustainable and creative policy responses to make this possible! Thank You for Listening and being OPEN to Possibilities!

More Related