Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Physical Activity in Outdoor Community Recreational Environments: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

  • Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy (W Rosamond, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) are major contributors to escalating health care costs in the USA. Physical activity is an important protective factor against CVD, and the National Prevention Strategy recognizes active living (defined as a way of life that integrates physical activity into everyday routines) as a priority for improving the nation’s health. This paper focuses on developing more inclusive measures of physical activity in outdoor community recreational environments, specifically parks and trails, to enhance their usability for at-risk populations such as persons with mobility limitations. We develop an integrated conceptual framework for measuring physical activity in outdoor community recreational environments, describe examples of evidence-based tools for measuring physical activity in these settings, and discuss strategies to improve measurement of physical activity for persons with mobility limitations. Addressing these measurement issues is critically important to making progress towards national CVD goals pertaining to active community environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bipartisan Policy Center. A bipartisan Rx for patient-centered care and system-wide cost containment. 2013 7/25/14; Available from: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Cost%20Containment%20Report.pdf.

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: preventable deaths from heart disease and stroke. 2014 March 13, 2014 [cited 2014 July 27]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/vital_signs.htm

  3. National Prevention Council. National Prevention Strategy. 2011 [cited 2014 July 27]; Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/prevention/strategy/index.html#The%20Strategic%20Directions

  4. Frank L et al. Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Huston SL et al. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):58–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. King WC et al. The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):74–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giles-Corti B et al. Environmental and lifestyle factors associated with overweight and obesity in Perth. Australia Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tilt J, Unfried T, Roca B. Using objective and subjective measures of neighborhood greenness and accessible destinations for understanding walking trips and BMI in Seattle. Washington Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):371–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coombes E, Jones A, Hillsdon M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(6):816–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Vries SI et al. Determinants of activity-friendly neighborhoods for children: results from the SPACE study. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):312–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Evenson K. Associations of adult physical activity with perceived safety and police recorded crime measures: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Intl J Behavior Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:46. Available at http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/9/1/146 . This cross-sectional study found that walking was independently associated with both perceived neighborhood safety (questionnaire reported) and police-reported crime (including total and outdoor incivilities, criminal offenses, homicides) among participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis living in Chicago. Lower police-reported outdoor crime and higher perceived safety were associated with walking for transportation, and lower perceived violence was associated with leisure walking. The findings suggest that both perceived and objective measures of safety should be considered when assessing the effect of neighborhood safety on physical activity. This is one of the most comprehensive objective measures of neighborhood safety in the physical activity literature to date, allowing evaluation specifically of crimes occurring outdoors.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heath GW et al. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:S55.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aytur SA et al. Urban containment policies and physical activity: a time-series analysis of metropolitan areas, 1990–2002. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(4):320–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. National Recreation and Park Association. Parks and recreation in underserved areas: a public health perspective. 2013 [cited 2014 July 27]; Available from: http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/Parks-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf.

  15. Babey SH, et al. Physical activity, park access and park use among California Adolescents. 2013. UCLA Health Policy Brief. Available from: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/publications/Documents/PDF/parkaccesspb-mar2013.pdf.

  16. Evenson KR. Assessing the contribution of parks to physical activity using global positioning system and accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). State Indicator Report on Physical Activity, 2014. 2014 [cited 2014 7/25/2014]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/pa_state_indicator_report_2014.pdf.

  18. Maller C, et al. Healthy parks healthy people: the health benefits of contact with nature in a park context. 2008. 41.

  19. Thompson C et al. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012;105(3):221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barton J, Griffin M, Pretty J. Exercise-, nature- and socially interactive-based initiatives improve mood and self-esteem in the clinical population. Perspect Public Health. 2012;32(2):89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Riley BB et al. A conceptual framework for improving the accessibility of fitness and recreation facilities for people with disabilities. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(1):158–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Go AS et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–e292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Autenrieth CS. Association between physical activity and risk of stroke subtypes: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Neuroepidemiology. 2013;40(2):109–16. This prospective longitudinal study found a reduced risk of stroke associated with higher physical activity at baseline (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.78 for total stroke). This relationship was relatively consistent across stroke subtypes (ischemic, lacunar, cardioembolic, and nonlacunar strokes) after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, and smoking. The association was strongest among males and African-Americans.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Behavior changes after stroke. 2005 3/18/2013 [cited 2014 July 27]; Available from: http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/LifeAfterStroke/RegainingIndependence/EmotionalBehavioralChallenges/Behavior-Changes-After-Stroke_UCM_309752_Article.jsp.

  25. Kurian AK, Cardarelli KM. Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):143–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mensah GA et al. State of disparities in cardiovascular health in the United States. Circulation. 2005;111(10):1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cooper R et al. Trends and disparities in coronary heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in the United States findings of the national conference on cardiovascular disease prevention. Circulation. 2000;102(25):3137–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirchner CE, Gerber E, Smith B. Designed to deter. Community barriers to physical activity for people with visual or motor impairments. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(4):349–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Peurto Rico Community Survey 2012 Subject Definitions. 2012

  30. US Census Bureau, American FactFinder. Disability Characteristics 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 2010

  31. Moore LV et al. Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic status areas. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(1):16–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Weiss CC et al. Reconsidering access: park facilities and neighborhood disamenities in New York City. J Urban Health. 2011;88(2):297–310.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vaughan KB et al. Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: an environmental justice investigation. Ann Behav Med. 2013;45 Suppl 1:S28–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rimmer JH. Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(5):419–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sallis JF. Measuring physical activity environments: a brief history. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(4):S86–92. This historical overview of methods for assessing the environments in which people engage in physical activity summarizes the contribution of three fields (health, planning, and leisure studies) to the development of contemporary measures. The emphasis of tools from each field, and corresponding strengths and weaknesses are described, creating a framework within which to understand current methods for studying physical activity environments.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gray JA, Zimmerman J, Rimmer J. Built environment instruments for walkability, bikeability, and recreation: disability and universal design relevant. Disabil Health J. 2012;5(2):87–101. This comprehensive review evaluated 95 instruments measuring walkability, bikeability, and recreation from a disability perspective. Only one-third of the tools included disability-specific items and only some universal design principles were present in even 20–33% of instruments. Findings highlight the need for inclusion of specific disability populations, universal design principles, and rigorous psychometric evaluation in development and revision of measures of the built environment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rimmer JH, Riley B, Rubin S. A new measure for assessing the physical activity behaviors of persons with disabilities and chronic health conditions: the physical activity and disability survey. Am J Health Promot. 2001;16(1):34–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reichard A, Stolzle H, Fox M. Health disparities among adults with physical disabilities or cognitive limitations compared to individuals with no disabilities in the United States. Disabil Health J. 2011;4(2):59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Iwarsson S, Stahl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(2):57–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981;19(2):127–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Butler EB, Ambs A, Reedy J, Bowles HI, Measures GIS. Identifying GIS measures of the physical activity built environment through a review of the literature. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(S1):S91–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rimmer JH, Gray JA, Zimmerman JL. Universal Design & Health Promotion (UDHP) Webinar. 2009, CDC Disability Branch.

  43. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Increasing physical activity, in Solving the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. 2010. p. 65–85.

  44. Rimmer JH, Wang W. Barriers associated with exercise and community access for individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(2):315–22. This cross-sectional survey of stroke survivors identified major barriers to exercise among members of this population subgroup with high rates of disability. Four of the five most common barriers (cost of the program, lack of awareness of a fitness center in the area, no means of transportation to a fitness center, and no knowledge of where to exercise) were reported by 44% to 60% of respondents and were directly related to the availability and accessibility of community resources for physical activity.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cohen DA. Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2317–25. This cross sectional study examined whether parks located in low, medium and high poverty areas were used equally. Using a notably comprehensive design that included direct observation of park users (SOPARC), interviews with park users and a random sample of nearby residents, and documentation of park management and programing in neighborhood parks, the authors found that parks in high-poverty areas were used least. Controlling for size, staffing, and programming differences did not alter the pattern of results. However, higher park use was associated with having a larger park staff, and more organized and supervised programs suggesting that these might be effective strategies to increase park use in high-poverty areas.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cohen DA et al. Use of neighbourhood parks: does socio-economic status matter? A four-city study. Public Health. 2013;127(4):325–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Besenyi GM et al. Demographic variations in observed energy expenditure across park activity areas. Prev Med. 2013;56(1):79–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1451–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosenberg DE. Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. Gerontologist. 2013;53(2):268–79. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 35 adults over age 50 who used an assistive mobility devices (e.g., canes, walkers, and wheelchairs) and lived in King County,WA. Additionally, participants wore Global Positioning Systems(GPS) devices for 3 days prior to the interview. The GPS maps were used as prompts during the interview process. Key themes pertaining to barriers and facilitators were identified, such as ramp availability and quality, sidewalk availability and quality, hills, aesthetics, lighting, availability of resting places and shelters, paved or smooth paths, and safety.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Froehlich A, Nary D, White G. Identifying barriers to participation in physical activity for women with disabilities. SCI Psychosoc Process. 2002;15(1):21–9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mowen A. Parks, playgrounds and active living. Active Living Research, in Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton NJ. 2010

  52. Coen SE, Ross NA. Exploring the material basis for health: characteristics of parks in Montreal neighborhoods with contrasting health outcomes. Health Place. 2006;12(4):361–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Floyd MF et al. Environmental and social correlates of physical activity in neighborhood parks: an observational study in Tampa and Chicago. Leis Sci. 2008;30(4):360–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Christensen KM, Holt JM, Wilson JF. Effects of perceived neighborhood characteristics and use of community facilities on physical activity of adults with and without disabilities. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(5):A105.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. McGinn AP et al. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007;84(2):162–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Dyck D et al. Environmental perceptions as mediators of the relationship between the objective built environment and walking among socio-economically disadvantaged women. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:108.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cohen DA et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1381–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cohen DA et al. New recreational facilities for the young and the old in Los Angeles: policy and programming implications. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30:S248–63.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Loukaitou-Sideris A, Sideris A. What brings children to the park? Analysis and measurement of the variables affecting Children’s use of parks. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76(1):89–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health—a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Aytur S, et al. Creating safe neighborhoods for obesity prevention: perceptions of urban youth, in Obesity interventions in underserved US populations: evidence and directions, V. Brennan, S. Kumanyika, and R. Zamrana, Editors. 2014, Johns Hopkins University: In Press.

  62. Soori H. Children’s risk perception and parents’ views on levels of risk that children attach to outdoor activities. Saudi Med J. 2000;21(5):455–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Spivock M, Gauvin L, Brodeur JM. Neighborhood-level active living buoys for individuals with physical disabilities. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(3):224–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kremers SP et al. Environmental influences on energy balance-related behaviors: a dual-process view. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Calder AM, Mulligan HF. Measurement properties of instruments that assess inclusive access to fitness and recreational sports centers: a systematic review. Disabil Health J. 2014;7(1):26–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Brownson R. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(S):S99–S123. In this study, three categories of built environment measures for physical activity were reviewed: (1) perceived measures collected through the use of interviews, surveys, or self-administered questionnaires; (2) observational measures collected through systematic methods such as audits and checklists; and (3) Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based measures (archival data sets that are often layered and analyzed with spatial software.) The authors underscore the need for further research to improve the quality of various measures.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang C, Burris MA. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24(3):369–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Brown G, Schebella MF, Weber D. Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;121:34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Dennis SF et al. Participatory photo mapping (PPM): exploring an integrated method for health and place research with young people. Health Place. 2009;15(2):466–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Smith G, Davey R. Socioecological mapping of physical activity behaviors and health outcomes in deprived inner city communities. 2008 [cited 2014 8/4/14]; GIS Technical Report. Available from: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/MRCTechReportV2_tcm44-21964.pdf.

  71. Blossom J, Oreskovic N. Using GIS to analyze where children get physical activity in the city, in ESRI Health GIS Conference. 2013: Cambridge, MA.

  72. Dunton GF et al. Locations of joint physical activity in parent–child pairs based on accelerometer and GPS monitoring. Ann Behav Med. 2013;45 Suppl 1:S162–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Israel B et al. Critical issues in developing and following community-based participatory research principles. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003. p. 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Echeverria S, Diez Roux A, Link B. Reliability of self-reported neighborhood characteristics. J Urban Health. 2004;81(4):682–701.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Evenson K, McGinn A. Test-retest reliability of a questionnaire to assess physical environmental factors pertaining to physical activity. Intl J Behav Nutr Physical Activity, 2005. 2(7): p. Accessed at http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/2/1/7.

  76. Cerin E et al. Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1682–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Evenson K, et al. Girls’ perception of physical environmental factors and transportation access: reliability and association with physical activity and active transport to school. Intl J Behavioral Nutr Physical Activity, 2006. 3(28): p. Accessed at www.ijbnpa.org/content/3/1/28.

  78. Rimmer J, et al. Q-PAT, the health empowerment zone environmental assessment tool, in The health disparities and social justic conference 2009: a focus on families. 2009, Depaul University: Chicago, IL.

  79. Bedimo-Rung A et al. Development of a direct observation instrument to measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2006;2 Suppl 1:S176–89.

    Google Scholar 

  80. McKenzie T et al. System for observing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3 Suppl 1:S208–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Abercrombie LC et al. Income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Zhang X, Lu H, Holt JB. Modeling spatial accessibility to parks: a national study. Int J Health Geogr, 2011. 10: p. 31.

  83. Wolch J, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography. 2005;26(1):4–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rigolon A, Flohr TL. Access to parks for youth as an environmental justice issue: access inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings. 2014;4:64–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Miyake KK et al. Not just a walk in the park: methodological improvements for determining environmental justice implications of park access in New York city for the promotion of physical activity. Cities Environ. 2010;3(1):1–17.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Evenson K, Herring A, Huston S. Evaluating change in physical activity with the building of a multi-use trail. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S2):177–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Rundle A et al. Associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(4):262–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Macintyre S, Macdonald A, Ellaway A. Lack of agreement between measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008. 5(26).

  89. Diez Roux A et al. Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in a sample of adults. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):493–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Gray DB et al. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(6):434–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Troped P et al. Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the path environment audit tool (PEAT). J Phys Act Health. 2006;3 Suppl 1:S158–75.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Coutts C et al. County-level effects of green space access on physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(2):232–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Kansas University Center for Independent Living (KUCIL).The Community Health Environment Checklist (CHEC) and Community Accessibility Maps. KUCIL, Editor. 2014, Kansas University.

  94. Evenson K et al. Measurement properties of a park use questionnaire. Env Behavior. 2013;45(4):526–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Payne L et al. Local park use and personal health among older adults: an exploratory study. J Park Recreat Adm. 2005;23(2):1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Walker JT et al. Physical activity in the park setting (PA-PS) questionnaire: reliability in a California statewide sample. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6 Suppl 1:S97–S104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Holmes A, Lindsey G, Qiu C. Ambient air conditions and variation in urban trail use. J Urban Health. 2009;86(6):839–49.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Whiteneck GG et al. Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(8):1324–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kaczynski AT, Stanis SA, Besenyi GM. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(3):242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Rimmer J et al. Development and validation of AIMFREE: accessibility instruments measuring fitness and recreation environments. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(18):1087–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Kealey M. Engaging older adults to be more active where they live: audit tool development, in Conference for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control. 2005: Atlanta, GA.

  102. Design for Active Communities Task Force and the King County Planning Directors. [cited 2014 8/1/14]; Available from: http://www.kingcounty.gov.

  103. Lee R, et al. The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities, and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. Intl J Behavior Nutr Physical Activity, 2005. 2: p. 13 pages; access at http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/2/1/13.

  104. Saelens B et al. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(S1):S190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Hillsdon M et al. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health. 2006;120(12):1127–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Troped PJ et al. Reliability of a brief intercept survey for trail use behaviors. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):775–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Allen EM et al. Playground safety and quality in Chicago. Pediatrics. 2013;131(2):233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Starnes HA et al. Trails and physical activity: a review. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(8):1160–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Adaptive Environments Centre, Inc. The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal. ADA Title III Compliance Materials, Version 2.1 [cited 2014 8/1/14]; Available from: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/assesstoolsphp?r5productive.

  110. Garber C, Blissmer B, Deschenes M. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Ridley K. Ainsworth, BE, and olds TS development of a compendium of energy expenditures for youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Ainsworth BE et al. 2011 compendium of physical activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1575–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Lee M et al. Determining metabolic equivalent values of physical activities for persons with paraplegia. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(4):336–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Collins E, Gater D, Kiratli J, et al. Energy cost of physical activities in persons with spinal cord injury. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise. 2010:691–97. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise., 2010: p. 691–97.

  115. Ginis KA, Latimer AE, Hicks AL, Craven B. Development and evaluation of an activity measure for people with spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(7):1099–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Latimer AE, Martin Ginis KA, Hicks AL, Craven BC. Validation of the physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury (PARA-SCI). Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:208–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. van den Berg-Emons RJ, L’Ortye AA, Buffart LM, Nieuwenhuijsen C, et al. Validation of the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:923–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Washburn RA, Zhu W, McAuley E, Frogley M, Figoni SF. The physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities: development and evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:193–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Kayes NM et al. The physical activity and disability survey—revised (PADS-R): an evaluation of a measure of physical activity in people with chronic neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(6):534–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Sasidharan V, McKenzie T, Chavez D. System for observing play and recreation in natural areas (SOPARNA). Editor: Active Living Research; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Lee M et al. Estimating MET values using the ratio of HR for persons with paraplegia. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(5):985–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Connell B, et al. The Principles of Universal Design. 1997 [cited 2014 July 27]; Available from: http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm.

  123. National Park Service, Universal Design: applying the principles in park settings N.P. Service, Editor. 2008.

  124. Maroko AR, Maantay J, Sohler N, et al. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Mair J. Milligan. Stanford Social Innovation Review: K. Q&A Roundtable on Impact Investing; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Fleming D. Achieving individual health through community investment: a perspective from king county. Washington: R.C.t.B.a.H. America, Editor; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Shinew KJ, Stodolska M, Roman CG, Yahner J. Crime, physical activity and outdoor recreation among Latino adolescents in Chicago. Prev Med. 2013;57(5):541–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Ries AV, Gittelsohn J, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Clifton KJ, Astone NM. The environment and urban adolescents’ use of recreational facilities for physical activity: a qualitative study. Am J Health Promot. 2008;23(1):43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Evenson KR, Wen F. Using geographic information systems to compare municipal, county, and commercial parks data. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E93. doi:10.5888/pcd10.120265.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Maas J et al. Green space, urbanity, and health. J Epid Comm Health. 2006;60:587–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Giles-Corti B, Broomhall M, Knuiman M, et al. Increasing walking. How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2S2):169–76.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Amanda Reichard at the University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability for her assistance with research relevant to persons with mobility limitations.

Sydney Jones was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute grant no. T32-HL007055-38 and the University of North Carolina Royster Society of Fellows.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Semra Aytur, Sydney Jones, and Michelle Stransky have no conflicts of interest. Semra Aytur has received research grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Active Living Research program. Kelly Evenson has received research grants from NIH, RWJF, AHA and CDC.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New Hampshire, 4 Library Way Hewitt Hall 335, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    Semra A. Aytur

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of NC—Chapel Hill, 137 East Franklin Street, Suite 306, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Sydney A. Jones & Kelly R. Evenson

  3. UNH Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire, 10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    Michelle Stransky

Authors
  1. Semra A. Aytur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sydney A. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle Stransky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kelly R. Evenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Semra A. Aytur.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aytur, S.A., Jones, S.A., Stransky, M. et al. Measuring Physical Activity in Outdoor Community Recreational Environments: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 9, 423 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-014-0423-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-014-0423-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation