Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Did Playground Renovations Equitably Benefit Neighborhoods in Chicago?

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Between 2013 and 2016, the Chicago Park District renovated 327 playgrounds in need of repair across Chicago through a $44 million investment. This study evaluated whether short-term and longer-term impacts of renovations on park use and park-based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) differed by neighborhood income level and neighborhood concentration of Black residents. A total of 39 parks with renovated playgrounds and 39 matched comparison parks with playgrounds that needed repair but not selected for renovation in year 1 were studied. Three waves of observational data were collected at each park: baseline, 12 months post-renovation, and 24 months post-renovation. Difference-in-differences mixed-effects Poisson regression models estimated renovation effects. The effects of renovations differed by the income level and concentration of Black residents in the neighborhoods where parks were located. In low-income neighborhoods, renovations were associated with reductions in park use and park-based MVPA over the longer term. In contrast, renovations were associated with short- and longer-term increases in park use and park-based MVPA in medium-income neighborhoods and with longer-term increases in MVPA in high-income neighborhoods. Renovations were generally not associated with any changes in park use or park-based MVPA in high-percent Black neighborhoods, but they were associated with increased park use and park-based MVPA in low-percent Black neighborhoods. This study suggests playground renovations in Chicago may have had unintended consequences, increasing neighborhood income and racial disparities in park use and park-based MVPA. Future playground renovation efforts may need to allocate more resources for renovating the broader park where in disrepair, more intensely involve neighborhood residents, and employ complementary strategies such as additional park programming to ensure renovations benefit all neighborhoods.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 physical activity guidelines advisory committee scientific report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer: a global perspective. World Cancer Research Fund International: London; 2018. https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer. Accessed 26 Aug 2020.

  3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Incorporating weight management and physical activity throughout the cancer care continuum: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):509–14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Han B, Cohen D, McKenzie TL. Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity. Prev Med. 2013;57(5):483–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.06.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Han B, Cohen DA, Derose KP, Marsh T, Williamson S, Raaen L. How much neighborhood parks contribute to local residents’ physical activity in the city of Los Angeles: a meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2014;69:S106–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abercrombie LC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Chapman JE. Income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wolch J, Wilson J, Fehrenback J. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity mapping analysis. Urban Geogr. 2005;26(1):4–35. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.1.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rigolon A. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: a literature review. Landscape Urban Plann. 2016;153:160–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bruton CM, Floyd MF. Disparities in built and natural features of urban parks: comparisons by neighborhood level race/ethnicity and income. J Urban Health. 2014;91(5):894–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-014-9893-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaughan KB, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Besenyi GM, Bergstrom R, Heinrich KM. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9425-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buck C, Bolbos A, Schneider S. Do poorer children have poorer playgrounds? A geographically weighted analysis of attractiveness, cleanliness, and safety of playgrounds in affluent and deprived urban neighborhoods. J Phys Act Health. 2019;16(6):397–405. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schneider S, Bolbos A, Fessler J, Buck C. Deprivation amplification due to structural disadvantage? Playgrounds as important physical activity resources for children and adolescents. Public Health. 2019;168:117–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.11.016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weiss CC, Purciel M, Bader M, Quinn JW, Lovasi G, Neckerman KM, et al. Reconsidering access: Park facilities and neighborhood disamenities in New York city. J Urban Health. 2011;88(2):297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9551-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Suminski RR, Connolly EK, May LE, Wasserman J, Olvera N, Lee RE. Park quality in racial/ethnic minority neighborhoods. Environ Justice. 2012;5(6):271–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2012.0013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen DA, Han B, Derose KP, Williamson S, Marsh T, Rudick J, et al. Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2317–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.036.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang J, Hipp JA, Marquet O, et al. Neighborhood characteristics associated with park use and park-based physical activity among children in low-income diverse neighborhoods in New York City. Prev Med. 2020;131:105948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105948.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Dyck D, Sallis JF, Cardon G, et al. Associations of neighborhood characteristics with active park use: an observational study in two cities in the USA and Belgium. Int J Health Geogr. 2013;12(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072x-12-26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Park S, Han B, Cohen DA, Derose KP. Contributions of neighborhood parks to physical activity in high-poverty urban neighborhoods. J Urban Health. 2018;95(6):881–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0320-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen DA, Han B, Nagel CJ, Harnik P, McKenzie TL, Evenson KR, et al. The first national study of neighborhood parks: implications for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):419–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamer M, Aggio D, Knock G, Kipps C, Shankar A, Smith L. Effect of major school playground reconstruction on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: Camden active spaces. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):552–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4483-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bohn-Goldbaum EE, Phongsavan P, Merom D, Rogers K, Kamalesh V, Bauman AE. Does playground improvement increase physical activity among children? A quasi-experimental study of a natural experiment. J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/109841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Frost MC, Kuo ES, Harner LT, Landau KR, Baldassar K. Increase in physical activity sustained 1 year after playground intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(5):S124–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen DA, Han B, Isacoff J, Shulaker B, Williamson S, Marsh T, et al. Impact of park renovations on park use and park-based physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(2):289–95. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mowen AJ, Hickerson BD, Kaczynski AT. Beyond the ribbon cutting: the impact of a neighborhood park renovation on visitor experiences, behaviors, and evaluations. J Park Rec Admin. 2013;31(1):57–77.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, Golinelli D, McKenzie TL. Impact and cost-effectiveness of family fitness zones: a natural experiment in urban public parks. Health Place. 2012;18(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Colabianchi N, Kinsella AE, Coulton CJ, Moore SM. Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Prev Med. 2009;48(2):140–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Slater S, Pugach O, Lin W, Bontu A. If you build it will they come? Does involving community groups in playground renovations affect park utilization and physical activity? Environ Behav. 2016;48(1):246–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515614368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Veitch J, Salmon J, Crawford D, Abbott G, Giles-Corti B, Carver A, et al. The REVAMP natural experiment study: the impact of a play-scape installation on park visitation and park-based physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):10–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0625-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dolash K, He M, Yin Z, Sosa ET. Factors that influence park use and physical activity in predominantly Hispanic and low-income neighborhoods. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(4):462–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Veitch J, Ball K, Crawford D, Abbott GR, Salmon J. Park improvements and park activity: a natural experiment. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(6):616–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.01.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen DA, Han B, Isacoff J, Shulaker B, Williamson S. Renovations of neighbourhood parks: long-term outcomes on physical activity. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(3):214–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-210791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Link BG, Phelan J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Extra Issue:80–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cohen DA, Setodji C, Evenson KR, Ward P, Lapham S, Hillier A, et al. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(8):1117–23. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.8.1117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Saelens BE, Frank LD, Auffrey C, Whitaker RC, Burdette HL, Colabianchi N. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(Suppl 1):S190–207. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gibbons RD, Hedeker D, DuToit S. Advances in analysis of longitudinal data. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6:79–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Love RE, Adams J, van Sluijs EMF. Equity effects of children’s physical activity interventions: a systematic scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0586-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Barrett JL, Hannon C, Keefe L, Gortmaker SL, Cradock AL. Playground renovations and quality at public parks in Boston, Massachusetts, 1996-2007. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(4):A72. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/jul/10_0118.htm. Accessed 26 Aug 2020.

  41. Mölenberg FJ, Noordzij JM, Burdorf A, van Lenthe FJ. New physical activity spaces in deprived neighborhoods: does it change outdoor play and sedentary behavior? A natural experiment. Health Place. 2019;58:102151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A, Renzaho AMN. Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2015;8(1):29842. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.29842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gibson S, Loukaitou-Sideris A, Mukhija V. Ensuring park equity: a California case study. J Urban Des. 2019;24(3):385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1497927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Austin G, Duncan MJ, Bell T. Codesigning parks for increasing park visits and physical activity in a low-socioeconomic community: the active by community design experience. Health Promot Pract. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839919900768.

  45. Cahuas MC, Wakefield S, Peng Y. Social change or business as usual at city hall? Examining an urban municipal government’s response to neighbourhood-level health inequities. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:366–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pothier M, Zewge-Abubaker N, Cahuas M, Borstad Klassen C, Wakefield S. Is “including them” enough? How narratives of race and class shape participation in a resident-led neighbourhood revitalization initiative. Geoforum. 2019;98:161–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ballard PJ, Syme SL. Engaging youth in communities: a framework for promoting adolescent and community health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(2):202–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Semuels A. Chicago’s awful divide. The Atlantic. 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/chicago-segregation-poverty/556649/. Accessed 9 July 2020.

  49. Loury A. Metro Chicago and Cook County losing increasing numbers of people to other places. 2018. https://www.metroplanning.org/news/8555/Metro-Chicago-and-Cook-County-losing-increasing-numbers-of-people-to-other-places. Accessed 9 July 2020.

  50. Scarborough W, Arenas I, Lewis AE. Between the great migration and growing exodus: the future oflack Chicago? Chicago: Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ou JY, Levy JI, Peters JL, Bongiovanni R, Garcia-Soto J, Medina R, et al. A walk in the park: the influence of urban parks and community violence on physical activity in Chelsea, MA. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(1):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010097.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health Place. 2010;16(4):712–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Esteban-Cornejo I, Carlson JA, Conway TL, Cain KL, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Parental and adolescent perceptions of neighborhood safety related to adolescents’ physical activity in their neighborhood. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2016;87(2):191–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1153779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Cohen DA, Lapham S, Evenson KR, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Ward P, et al. Use of neighbourhood parks: does socio-economic status matter? A four-city study. Public Health. 2013;127(4):325–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, Derose KP, Martinez H, Setodji C, et al. Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med. 2010;50:S9–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted by the Illinois Prevention Research Center and was supported by grants from University of Illinois Chicago’s Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement and the cooperative agreement No. U48-DP005010 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and administered by the Institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois Chicago. Dr. Slater's effort on this project occurred when she was Research Fellow at the Institute of Health Research and Policy and Associate Professor in the Division of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Population Health Nursing Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Shannon N. Zenk

  2. Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Shannon N. Zenk, Oksana Pugach, Lisa M. Powell & Sandy J. Slater

  3. Erikson Institute Herr Research Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Marina Ragonese-Barnes

  4. Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Angela Odoms-Young

  5. Health Policy and Administration Division, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Lisa M. Powell

  6. School of Pharmacy, Concordia University Wisconsin, Mequon, WI, USA

    Sandy J. Slater

Authors
  1. Shannon N. Zenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oksana Pugach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Ragonese-Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela Odoms-Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lisa M. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandy J. Slater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandy J. Slater.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zenk, S.N., Pugach, O., Ragonese-Barnes, M. et al. Did Playground Renovations Equitably Benefit Neighborhoods in Chicago?. J Urban Health 98, 248–258 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00472-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00472-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation