| Autor: |
Bartels CA; Research Centre for Health through Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport (HPALS), Division of Physiological Sciences, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa., Lambert EV; Research Centre for Health through Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport (HPALS), Division of Physiological Sciences, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa., Young MEM; Department of Sport, Recreation and Exercise Science, Faculty of Community and Health Science, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town 7535, South Africa., Kolbe-Alexander T; Research Centre for Health through Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport (HPALS), Division of Physiological Sciences, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa.; School of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, QLD 4305, Australia.; Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, QLD 4305, Australia. |
| Abstrakt: |
The development and upgrade of recreational public spaces are key government strategies to increase opportunities for physical activity (PA) and enhance social interaction and community cohesion. This study aimed to evaluate differences in park use and park-based PA in recently upgraded/developed parks (intervention, n = 4) against established parks (control, n = 4) and in regional parks in high- and low-income settings ( n = 2). Additionally, associations between target area features, park use and PA were identified. Direct observation of park use and attributes was conducted using the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) over four months. Despite more park users in intervention parks (2519 vs. 1432), control park visitors were 48% more likely to be engaged in PA ( p < 0.001). Similarly, while high-income park users attracted more visitors (2135 vs. 1111), they were 79% less likely to be engaged in any PA compared with low-income park visitors. The likelihood of both use of and PA by gender and age differed by features. Active recreation features in intervention parks attracted more users than the same features in control parks. In this study, upgraded or newly developed parks attracted more visitors but not necessarily overall greater levels of physical activity. |
