Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 94, Issue 4, pp 470–481 | Cite as

Impacts of a Temporary Urban Pop-Up Park on Physical Activity and Other Individual- and Community-Level Outcomes

  • Deborah SalvoEmail author
  • Jorge A. Banda
  • Jylana L. Sheats
  • Sandra J. Winter
  • Daniela Lopes dos Santos
  • Abby C. King
Article

Abstract

Physical inactivity is a known risk factor for obesity and a number of chronic diseases. Modifying the physical features of neighborhoods to provide residents with equitable and convenient access to spaces for physical activity (PA) is a promising strategy for promoting PA. Public urban recreation spaces (e.g., parks) play an important role in promoting PA and are potentially an important neighborhood element for optimizing social capital and liveability in cities. Most studies examining the effects of park availability and use on PA have focused on traditional, permanent parks. The aims of this study were to (1) document patterns of park use and park-based PA at a temporary urban pop-up park implemented in the downtown business district of Los Altos, California during July–August 2013 and May–June 2014, (2) identify factors associated with park-based PA in 2014, and (3) examine the effects of the 2014 pop-up park on additional outcomes of potential benefit for park users and the Los Altos community at large. Park use remained high during most hours of the day in 2013 and 2014. Although the park attracted a multigenerational group of users, children and adolescents were most likely to engage in walking or more vigorous PA at the park. Park presence was significantly associated with potentially beneficial changes in time-allocation patterns among users, including a reduction in screen-time and an increase in overall park-time and time spent outdoors. Park implementation resulted in notable use among people who would otherwise not be spending time at a park (85% of surveyed users would not be spending time at any other park if the pop-up park was not there—2014 data analysis). Our results (significantly higher odds of spending time in downtown Los Altos due to park presence) suggest that urban pop-up parks may also have broader community benefits, such as attracting people to visit downtown business districts. Pending larger, confirmatory studies, our results suggest that temporary urban pop-up parks may contribute to solving the limited access to public physical activity recreation spaces many urban residents face.

Keywords

Physical activity Parks and public spaces Built environment Pop-up parks SOPARC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Martell Hesketh and Nkeiruka Umeh for their work as data collectors for this study. We also thank the City of Los Altos, Passarelle Investments, and pop-up park users who responded to our survey.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study had no financial funding source. At the time the study took place, D.S. and A.C.K. received partial support from US Public Health Service Grant 1R01HL109222 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J.A.B., J.L.S., and S.J.W. received support from US Public Health Service Grant 5T32HL007034 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. D.L.d.S. was supported by the Brazil Scientific Mobility Scholarship Program of Brazil’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. At time of manuscript preparation, D.S. was supported by US Public Health Service Grant Diversity Supplement training grant 3R01DK101593-03S1 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

References

  1. 1.
    Kohl HW 3rd, Craig CL, Lambert EV, et al. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):294–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sallis JF, Bull F, Guthold R, et al. Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1325–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1311–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore SC, Patel AV, Matthews CE, et al. Leisure time physical activity of moderate to vigorous intensity and mortality: a large pooled cohort analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pettee Gabriel KK, Morrow JR Jr, Woolsey AL. Framework for physical activity as a complex and multidimensional behavior. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(Suppl 1):S11–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sallis JF, Glanz K. Physical activity and food environments: solutions to the obesity epidemic. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):123–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaczynski AT, Besenyi GM, Stanis SA, et al. Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sallis JF, Cerin E, Conway TL, et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2207–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Blasio B. Healthier neighbourhoods through healthier parks. Lancet. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ergler CR, Kearns RA, Witten K. Seasonal and locational variations in children’s play: implications for wellbeing. Soc Sci Med. 2013;91:178–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCurdy LE, Winterbottom KE, Mehta SS, Roberts JR. Using nature and outdoor activity to improve children’s health. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2010;40(5):102–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Traynor V, Fernandez R, Caldwell K. The effects of spending time outdoors in daylight on the psychosocial wellbeing of older people and family carers: a comprehensive systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2013;11(9):36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrington S, Brussoni M. Beyond physical activity: the importance of play and nature-based play spaces for children’s health and development. Curr Obes Rep. 2015;4(4):477–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaźmierczak A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;109(1):31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Southworth M. Learning to make liveable cities. J Urban Des. 2016;21(5):570–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    COLLABOARATIVE SP. Tactical urbanism, short-term action II long-term change. Miami/New York: Street Plans Collaborative; 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bison. A Guide to Pop-Up Parks. 2013; http://www.bisonip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PopUpParksGuide-2013.pdf. Accessed Dec 10, 2016, 2016.
  19. 19.
    US Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), July 1, 2015 (V2015). 2015; http://www.census.gov/popest/. Accessed Dec 10, 2016, 2016.
  20. 20.
    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), 5-Year Estimates. 2015; https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.
  21. 21.
    Evenson KR, Jones SA, Holliday KM, Cohen DA, McKenzie TL. Park characteristics, use, and physical activity: a review of studies using SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities). Prev Med. 2016;86:153–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D. System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(Suppl 1):S208–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen DA, Setodji C, Evenson KR, et al. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(8):1117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murcia M, Rivera MJ, Akhavan-Tabatabaei R, Sarmiento OL. A discrete-event simulation model to estimate the number of participants in the ciclovia program of Bogota. Paper presented at: Simulation Conference (WSC), 2014 Winter2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bocarro JN, Floyd M, Moore R, et al. Adaptation of the System for Observing Physical Activity and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) to assess age groupings of children. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):699–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen DA, Han B, Nagel CJ, et al. The first national study of neighborhood parks: implications for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):419–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, et al. The potential for pocket parks to increase physical activity. Am J Health Promot: AJHP. 2014;28(3 Suppl):S19–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Broyles ST, Gustat J. The role of park conditions and features on park visitation and physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(2):S178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ries AV, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Gittelsohn J, Yan AF, Astone NM. A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3):S64–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McGlone N. Pop-up kids: exploring children’s experience of temporary public space. Australian Planner. 2016;53(2):117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pittard A. Rockingham Arts Centre: from ambulance depot to community arts centre-transformed. Australasian Parks and Leisure. 2013;16(4):13.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Layard A. Property paradigms and place-making: a right to the city; a right to the street? J Hum Rights Environ. 2012;2:254–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sarmiento OL, Díaz del Castillo A, Triana CA, Acevedo MJ, Gonzalez SA, Pratt M. Reclaiming the streets for people: insights from Ciclovías Recreativas in Latin America. Preventive Medicine.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sarmiento O, Torres A, Jacoby E, Pratt M, Schmid TL, Stierling G. The Ciclovía-Recreativa: a mass-recreational program with public health potential. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(2):S163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Torres A, Díaz MP, Hayat MJ, et al. Assessing the effect of physical activity classes in public spaces on leisure-time physical activity: “Al Ritmo de las Comunidades” A natural experiment in Bogota, Colombia. Prev Med. 2016;Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tester J, Baker R. Making the playfields even: evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2009;48(4):316–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lachowycz K, Jones AP, Page AS, Wheeler BW, Cooper AR. What can global positioning systems tell us about the contribution of different types of urban greenspace to children’s physical activity? Health Place. 2012;18(3):586–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peters K, Elands B, Buijs A. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban For Urban Green. 2010;9(2):93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baur JW, Tynon JF. Small-scale urban nature parks: why should we care? Leis Sci. 2010;32(2):195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lloyd K, Auld C. Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy Res. 2003;21(4):339–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McKenzie TL, Van Der Mars H. Top 10 research questions related to assessing physical activity and its contexts using systematic observation. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2015;86(1):13–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McKenzie TL. Context matters: systematic observation of place-based physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2016;87(4):334–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weather Underground. Weather Underground—Weather History & Data. 2013–2014; https://www.wunderground.com/history/. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  45. 45.
    Troped PJ, Whitcomb HA, Hutto B, Reed JA, Hooker SP. Reliability of a brief intercept survey for trail use behaviors. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):775–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Banda JA, Wilcox S, Colabianchi N, Hooker SP, Kaczynski AT, Hussey J. The associations between park environments and park use in southern US communities. J Rural Health. 2014;30(4):369–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reis RS, Salvo D, Ogilvie D, et al. Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1337–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sallis JF, Bull F, Burdett R, et al. Use of science to guide city planning policy and practice: how to achieve healthy and sustainable future cities. Lancet. 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Salvo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jorge A. Banda
    • 3
  • Jylana L. Sheats
    • 4
  • Sandra J. Winter
    • 3
  • Daniela Lopes dos Santos
    • 5
  • Abby C. King
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental SciencesThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), School of Public Health, Austin CampusAustinUSA
  2. 2.Center for Nutrition and Health ResearchNational Institute of Public Health of MexicoCuernavacaMexico
  3. 3.Stanford Prevention Research CenterStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Global Community Health & Behavioral SciencesTulane University School of Public Health & Tropical MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  5. 5.Department of Methods and Sports TechniquesUniversidade Federal de Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  6. 6.Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and PolicyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations