This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 22 June 2015, At: 13:36 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of American College Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity a
b
a
James N. Roemmich PhD , Katherine N. Balantekin MS, RD & Joley E. Beeler BS a
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, North Dakota. b
Department of Pediatrics University at Buffalo Buffalo, New York Accepted author version posted online: 15 Sep 2014.Published online: 24 Nov 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: James N. Roemmich PhD, Katherine N. Balantekin MS, RD & Joley E. Beeler BS (2015) Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity, Journal of American College Health, 63:1, 68-72, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2014.960421 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.960421
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 63, NO. 1
Brief Report
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
James N. Roemmich, PhD; Katherine N. Balantekin, MS, RD; Joley E. Beeler, BS
Abstract. Objective: Similar to parks, college campuses may promote physical activity. The purpose of this study was to compare the physical activity of adults at urban campuses and parks. Participants: Participants were individuals observed on campuses and parks in April 2011. Methods: The System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities was used to assess physical activity at 3 campuses and parks, 3 times/day, for 4 days. Results: Greater proportions of individuals (parks, campuses) were observed in vigorous (28.7%, 11.9%) and sedentary (25%, 18.3%) activities at parks than campuses and a greater proportion observed in walking (69.8%, 46.3%) intensity on campuses than parks. More men than women were observed at both parks and campuses, and paths and sport courts were most frequently used for physical activity. Conclusions: Physical activity intensities differ across college campuses and parks that provided similar physical activity amenities. Efforts should focus on increasing awareness of outdoor campus amenities that promote physical activity and understanding the outdoor amenities that of promote physical activity of women.
determines how it is used. Urban parks are more likely to be used for exercise and active commuting while rural parks more for sedentary social interactions and lowerintensity, informal types of recreation.4 More men than women visit parks, and men are more likely to be physically active when visiting a park.9 Over 30 million people are enrolled in accredited colleges and universities.11 College life presents time demands and social and built environment challenges12 that impact the willingness to engage in physical activity. Less than 52% of male and 44% of female college students meet the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association physical activity recommendations.13 Understanding how to increase physical activity of college students, especially females, will help them realize the full health benefits of physical activity.14–16 College students, faculty, and staff spend a great deal of time on campus, so campus environments should be designed to encourage physical activity. Landscape architects such as Fredrick Law Olmstead laid the foundation for college campuses to be designed as park-like settings that promote the physical health of their users.17 Although the design of many college campuses promote active commuting,18,19 access to amenities that promote other types of active recreation are needed to encourage physical activity. This may be especially important for urban campuses with limited off-campus recreation space. Individuals on college campuses can be motivated to engage in physical activity by environmental changes,20 and college students’ living environment predicts their physical activity level.21 Olmsted also encouraged green space in the design of parks and campuses to encourage a time to pause and to promote mental restoration.17 It is not known whether the active and sedentary behaviors on college campuses resemble urban or rural parks, or whether they have a unique physical activity profile. The specific campus attributes that promote physical activity and sedentary behaviors also require study. The purpose of this study was to compare the visitation and physical activity intensity of individuals at urban
Keywords: college, observation, physical activity, university
B
uilt environment factors influence the physical activity of people who live and work in communities.1,2 Parks are an important built resource for promoting recreational3,4 and total physical activity,5 and the amenities available in parks determine their visitation and activity choices and intensities. Trail-based parks enjoy greater visitation than parks without trails,3,4,6 and trails are often the most utilized park feature.7,8 Other park features that encourage physical activity include sport courts and sport fields.3,9,10 Conversely, parks with large amounts of open green space reduce visitation and physical activity.8 The size of the community in which a park resides also
Dr Roemmich and Ms. Beeler are with the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center at the Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Ms Balantekin is with the Department of Pediatrics at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. Copyright Ó 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 68
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
campuses and parks. The main hypothesis was that the proportion of people observed in sedentary and walking intensity activities would be greater on urban college campuses and that the proportion of people observed in vigorous intensity activity would be greater at urban parks. It was also hypothesized that more males than females would be observed in walking or vigorous intensity physical activity at both campuses and parks. METHODS
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Settings During a 2-week period in mid-April 2011, visitation and physical activity outcomes were determined at 3 urban college campuses and parks in Buffalo, New York. The study was approved by the University at Buffalo Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board.
Procedures Areas common across 3 campuses and 3 parks that would enable physical-activity-level comparisons between different settings were identified. Standardized boundaries and assessment points were established around each area. Observers were trained in the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC).3,4,22–25 Observers completed the SOPARC Introduction, Practice, and Assessment Training DVD as a group. Field training then occurred within targeted areas. Interobserver agreement was 92% (R D .95).
Data Collection Parks and campuses were assessed on the same days. SOPARC scans were completed during the morning (8:00 AM), afternoon (2:30 PM), and evening (6:30 PM) for 4 days (2 weekdays, 2 weekend days). Target areas included courts (tennis, basketball), sport fields (baseball, soccer, football, multiuse), paths, and open green space. Playgrounds and
picnic shelters served as additional target areas at parks, whereas squares were assessed on campuses. The observer(s) performed rapid visual scans of the target area to determine the number of visitors present and their sex, age category, and activity intensity (sedentary, walking, or vigorous). To minimize observer bias, intensity was scored at the moment of observation and not of the general activity. An activity is classified as sedentary if the visitor is lying, sitting, or standing still. Walking or shifting weight from one foot to another is walking. Any activity at a greater intensity than ordinary walking (eg, increasing heart rate or causing the individual to sweat) is classified as vigorous. The visual scans for each target area of each park/campus took approximately 5 minutes. Observations were completed on days without precipitation.
Analytic Plan The analyses were focused on observations of adults to allow for the best comparisons between campuses and parks, as the vast majority of visitors observed on college campuses were adults. Chi-square analyses were used to determine whether physical activity intensity differed overall and at specific amenities at parks and campuses. Chisquare analyses were also utilized to test sex differences in number of visits and physical activity intensity. RESULTS As shown in Table 1, a greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 21.29, p < .0001, ’ D .07) proportion of individuals were observed in sedentary activities at parks (25.0%) than on campuses (18.3%). A greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 184.30, p < .0001, ’ D .22) proportion was observed in walking intensity activities on campuses (69.8%) than parks (46.3%), and a greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 130.5, p < .0001, ’ D .18) proportion was observed in vigorous intensity activities at parks (28.7%) than on campuses (11.9%). When analyzed by amenity (Table 1), beginning with paths, the proportion of adults observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous intensity activities differed (x2[1, N D
TABLE 1. Number of Adults Observed in Each Activity Intensity at Campuses and Parks by Sex and by Amenity Campuses Variable Males Females Courts Sport fields Campus squares Paths, tracks Playgrounds Green space Shelters
VOL 63, JANUARY 2015
Parks
Sedentary
Walk
Vigorous
Sedentary
Walk
Vigorous
133 88 18 82 56 16 — 3 —
529 314 99 117 253 351 — 23 —
114 30 35 63 11 34 — 1 —
458 204 133 336 — 43 90 39 17
632 592 151 119 — 793 91 64 3
516 243 139 48 — 526 44 0 2
69
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Roemmich, Balantekin, & Beeler
1,763] D 130.25, p < .0001, ’ D .27) across parks and campuses. The greatest proportions (parks D 58%, campuses D 88%) of adults observed on paths were engaged in walking intensity activity. At parks and campuses, 39% and 8% of adults were engaged in vigorous activity, respectively. The proportion of adults observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous intensities on courts was different (x2[1, N D 575] D 42.21, p < .0001, ’ D .27) at parks and campuses. On campuses, the greatest proportion (65%) of adults observed on courts was at walking intensity, with lower proportions observed at sedentary (12%) and vigorous (23%) intensities. In parks, similar proportions of individuals were observed in sedentary (31%), walking (36%), and vigorous (33%) activities. The proportion of adults observed in different intensities on sport fields differed (x2[1, N D 765] D 89.33, p < .0001, ’ D .34). On campus sport fields, the greatest proportion (45%) of adults was at walking intensity; at parks, the greatest proportion (67%) was sedentary. The proportions observed in activity intensities in green spaces also differed (x2[1, N D 130] D 10.25, p < .01, ’ D .28). The greatest proportion of individuals at parks (62%) and campuses (85%) were observed at walking intensity. Only 1 adult was observed in vigorous activity in campus green space, and none were vigorous at park green space. As hypothesized, more males than females were observed at campuses (776 males, 432 females; x2[1, N D 1,208] D 97.96, p < .0001, ’ D .28) and parks (1,606 males, 1,039 females; x2[1, N D 2,645] D 121.55, p < .0001, ’ D .21). The proportion of males observed in different intensity activities differed (x2[1, N D 2,382] D 176.61, p < .0001, ’ D .27) across campuses and parks. A greater proportion of males were observed in walking intensity activity on campuses (68%) than at parks (39%), but a lower proportion was observed in vigorous intensity on campuses (15%) than in parks (32%). The proportion of females observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous activities at campuses and parks also differed (x2[1, N D 1,471] D 56.76, p < .0001, ’ D .20). A greater proportion of females were observed at walking intensity on campuses (73%) than parks (57%), but a greater proportion in vigorous intensity at parks (23%) than campuses (7%). COMMENT College campuses are used much differently than parks. As such, physical activity intensities differ across urban college campuses and parks, even when they provide similar amenities for physical activity. College campuses are used primarily for active commuting by walking or bicycling. Somewhat surprisingly, college campuses tend to be used proportionally less than parks for sedentary behavior, suggesting that residents and visitors were not as likely to use campus grounds for sedentary social interactions, reading, and studying. This may have been due to the observations occurring during mid-April in a northern urban area. At both parks and campuses, the greatest numbers of visitors were observed on paths/sidewalks. Great proportions 70
(96% to 97%) of people observed on paths were engaged in walking or vigorous physical activity. Paths can be used by almost all ages and physical abilities, and promote walking or vigorous activity, either as part of recreation or active commuting.26,27 Paths are reported to be the most important resource for park-based physical activity,7,8,26 and this study extends that finding to campuses. Students’ perception of the presence of good condition campus paths/sidewalks promotes active commuting across college campuses.18,19 In addition to paths, sport courts also promote visitation and walking or vigorous physical activity physical activity at parks.3,9,10 Such sport courts were also widely used for walking or vigorous activity in the present study. Although campus courts and sport fields were frequented less often, a greater proportion were engaged in walking or vigorous physical activity. On campuses, there are likely to be fewer people sitting and watching others play a game on a court or field as often occurs at parks. Many students are not aware of the physical activity resources available to them on campuses.28 In the same way that signs promoting stair use can increase physical activity,20 efforts to increase awareness of physical activity resources could increase the activity of students. As shown in previous work,8 very little vigorous activity was observed in both campus and park green spaces. Olmsted’s principles of service, suitability, and style focus on utilizing nature to create quieter restorative areas,17 and they do reduce stress and stress reactivity.29,30 The observation that no vigorous activity took place in open green space validates the principle of separation, or intentionally dividing areas designed for inactive and active pursuits. Fewer women than men were observed at campuses and parks; this is consistent with previous research.1,9,31 We did not make observations in indoor facilities. Perhaps females are more comfortable exercising in indoor fitness facilities. Future studies could include measures of both outdoor and indoor physical activities and include intercept interviews to understand why fewer women engage in walking or vigorous physical activity in outdoor settings on college campuses. Studies could also test programs for increasing outdoor physical activity of women to help them establish a lifelong pattern of active living.
Limitations There are likely cultural and demographic differences in the people who visit campuses and parks that may necessitate caution when interpreting these results. Whereas the majority of individuals on campuses are students in their early 20s, those who visit parks are more diverse in age and socioeconomic status. The relatively short time frame of observation at each park and campus could have resulted in inconsistencies. However, 4 days of observations produce consistent and reliable data.32 The study was limited to 1 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
population center, but the similarity in results across geographic regions10 supports extension of these results to campuses that provide a wide variety of outdoor physically active pursuits.
Conclusion Well-designed urban college campuses are important resources that, like parks, can provide the space and amenities to support the physical activity, health, and restorative needs of communities. Just as urban parks serve as resources to increase neighborhood physical activity,4 the walking paths and recreational amenities of urban campuses also promote physical activity and provide health benefits to the students as well as their greater communities.2 This research informs which outdoor built amenities at colleges and universities increase physical activity, while suggesting additional promotion of the amenities available. Efforts should be made to better understand the outdoor built activity amenities and program offerings that promote physical activity of women. Olmsted’s park designs from the 1860s and 1870s remain effective at motivating visitation, physical activity, mental restoration, and separating active and sedentary recreation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors express their gratitude to the graduate students enrolled in the course ES526, Environments, Physical Activity and Eating, who were instrumental in the development and data collection for this study. The authors also thank the Buffalo Olmstead Conservancy for providing access to their parks for data collection.
FUNDING Parts of this research were supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service, USDA 5450-51000-049-00D. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA or the Agricultural Research Service, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the US government. No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this article. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the University at Buffalo Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board. VOL 63, JANUARY 2015
NOTE For comments and further information, address correspondence to James N. Roemmich, PhD, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). REFERENCES 1. Durand CP, Andalib M, Dunton GF, Wolch J, Pentz MA. A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning. Obesity Rev. 2011;12:e173–e182. 2. Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, et al. Evidencebased intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet. 2012;380:272–281. 3. Shores KA, West ST. The relationship between built park environments and physical activity in four park locations. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:e9–e16. 4. Shores KA, West ST. Rural and urban park visits and parkbased physical activity. Prev Med. 2010;50(suppl 1):S13–S17. 5. Veitch J, Ball K, Crawford D, Abbott G, Salmon J. Is park visitation associated with leisure-time and transportation physical activity? Prev Med. 2013;57:732–734. 6. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking. Am J. Prev Med. 2004;27:67–76. 7. Kaczynski AT, Stanis SA, Besenyi GM, Child S. Differences in youth and adult physical activity in park settings by sex and race/ethnicity. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E42. 8. Corti B, Donovan, RJ, Holman, CDJ. Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: results from qualitative research. Health Promotion J Aust. 1996;6:16–21. 9. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:509–514. 10. Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. An observational study. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:299–305. 11. US Department of Education, Institution of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2011, Table 196. Enrollment, staff, and degrees/ certificates conferred in postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV programs, by level and control of institution, sex of student, type of staff, and type of degree: Fall 2009 and 2009–10. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98. Accessed July 3, 2013. 12. Leslie E, Owen N, Salmon J, Bauman A, Sallis JF, Lo SK. Insufficiently active Australian college students: perceived personal, social, and environmental influences. Prev Med. 1999;28: 20–27. 13. American College Health Association. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment: Reference Group Executive Summary Fall 2012. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association; 2012. 14. Vanhees L, De Sutter J, Gelada SN, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in defining the benefits to cardiovascular health within the general population: recommendations from the EACPR: Part I. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19:670–686. 15. Vanhees L, Geladas N, Hansen D, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors: recommendations from the EACPR: Part II. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19:1005–1033. 16. Vanhees L, Rauch B, Piepoli M, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in 71
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Roemmich, Balantekin, & Beeler the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular disease: Part III. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012; 19:1333–1356. 17. Beveridge CE, Rocheleau P. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American Landscape. New York, NY: Universe Publishing; 1998. 18. Bopp M, Kaczynski A, Wittman P. Active commuting patterns at a large, midwestern college campus. J Am Coll Health. 2011;59:605–611. 19. Sisson SB, McClain JJ, Tudor-Locke C. Campus walkability, pedometer-determined steps, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity: a comparison of 2 university campuses. J Am Coll Health. 2008;56:585–592. 20. Ford MA, Torok D. Motivational signage increases physical activity on a college campus. J Am Coll Health. 2008;57: 242–244. 21. Kapinos KA, Yakusheva O. Environmental influences on young adult weight gain: evidence from a natural experiment. J Adolesc Health. 2011;48:52–58. 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:S208–S222. 23. McKenzie TL. 2009 C. H. McCloy Lecture. Seeing is believing: observing physical activity and its contexts. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81:113–122. 24. Cohen DA, Golinelli D, Williamson S, Sehgal A, Marsh T, McKenzie TL. Effects of park improvements on park use and physical activity policy and programming implications. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:475–480.
72
25. Tester J, Baker R. Making the playfields even: evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2009;48:316–320. 26. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1451–1456. 27. Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown DR, et al. Promoting physical activity in rural communities—walking trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:235–241. 28. Reed J. Perceptions of the availability of recreational physical activity facilities on a university campus. J Am Coll Health. 2007;55:189–194. 29. Orsega-Smith E, Mowen AJ, Payne LL, Godbey G. The interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. J Leisure Res. 2004;36:232–256. 30. Ulrich RS, Dimberg U, Driver BL. Psycho-physiological indicators of leisure benefits. In: Driver BL, Brown PJ, Peterson GL, eds. Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing; 1991:73–89. 31. Beville JM, Meyer MRU, Usdan SL, Turner LW, Jackson JC, Lian BE. Gender differences in college leisure time physical activity: application of the theory of planned behavior and integrated behavioral model. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62:173–184. 32. Cohen DA, Setodji C, Evenson KR, et al. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:1117–1123. Received: 8 November 2013 Revised: 30 June 2014 Accepted: 13 August 2014
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
Journal of American College Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity a
b
a
James N. Roemmich PhD , Katherine N. Balantekin MS, RD & Joley E. Beeler BS a
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, North Dakota. b
Department of Pediatrics University at Buffalo Buffalo, New York Accepted author version posted online: 15 Sep 2014.Published online: 24 Nov 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: James N. Roemmich PhD, Katherine N. Balantekin MS, RD & Joley E. Beeler BS (2015) Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity, Journal of American College Health, 63:1, 68-72, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2014.960421 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.960421
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 63, NO. 1
Brief Report
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
James N. Roemmich, PhD; Katherine N. Balantekin, MS, RD; Joley E. Beeler, BS
Abstract. Objective: Similar to parks, college campuses may promote physical activity. The purpose of this study was to compare the physical activity of adults at urban campuses and parks. Participants: Participants were individuals observed on campuses and parks in April 2011. Methods: The System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities was used to assess physical activity at 3 campuses and parks, 3 times/day, for 4 days. Results: Greater proportions of individuals (parks, campuses) were observed in vigorous (28.7%, 11.9%) and sedentary (25%, 18.3%) activities at parks than campuses and a greater proportion observed in walking (69.8%, 46.3%) intensity on campuses than parks. More men than women were observed at both parks and campuses, and paths and sport courts were most frequently used for physical activity. Conclusions: Physical activity intensities differ across college campuses and parks that provided similar physical activity amenities. Efforts should focus on increasing awareness of outdoor campus amenities that promote physical activity and understanding the outdoor amenities that of promote physical activity of women.
determines how it is used. Urban parks are more likely to be used for exercise and active commuting while rural parks more for sedentary social interactions and lowerintensity, informal types of recreation.4 More men than women visit parks, and men are more likely to be physically active when visiting a park.9 Over 30 million people are enrolled in accredited colleges and universities.11 College life presents time demands and social and built environment challenges12 that impact the willingness to engage in physical activity. Less than 52% of male and 44% of female college students meet the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association physical activity recommendations.13 Understanding how to increase physical activity of college students, especially females, will help them realize the full health benefits of physical activity.14–16 College students, faculty, and staff spend a great deal of time on campus, so campus environments should be designed to encourage physical activity. Landscape architects such as Fredrick Law Olmstead laid the foundation for college campuses to be designed as park-like settings that promote the physical health of their users.17 Although the design of many college campuses promote active commuting,18,19 access to amenities that promote other types of active recreation are needed to encourage physical activity. This may be especially important for urban campuses with limited off-campus recreation space. Individuals on college campuses can be motivated to engage in physical activity by environmental changes,20 and college students’ living environment predicts their physical activity level.21 Olmsted also encouraged green space in the design of parks and campuses to encourage a time to pause and to promote mental restoration.17 It is not known whether the active and sedentary behaviors on college campuses resemble urban or rural parks, or whether they have a unique physical activity profile. The specific campus attributes that promote physical activity and sedentary behaviors also require study. The purpose of this study was to compare the visitation and physical activity intensity of individuals at urban
Keywords: college, observation, physical activity, university
B
uilt environment factors influence the physical activity of people who live and work in communities.1,2 Parks are an important built resource for promoting recreational3,4 and total physical activity,5 and the amenities available in parks determine their visitation and activity choices and intensities. Trail-based parks enjoy greater visitation than parks without trails,3,4,6 and trails are often the most utilized park feature.7,8 Other park features that encourage physical activity include sport courts and sport fields.3,9,10 Conversely, parks with large amounts of open green space reduce visitation and physical activity.8 The size of the community in which a park resides also
Dr Roemmich and Ms. Beeler are with the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center at the Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Ms Balantekin is with the Department of Pediatrics at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. Copyright Ó 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 68
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
campuses and parks. The main hypothesis was that the proportion of people observed in sedentary and walking intensity activities would be greater on urban college campuses and that the proportion of people observed in vigorous intensity activity would be greater at urban parks. It was also hypothesized that more males than females would be observed in walking or vigorous intensity physical activity at both campuses and parks. METHODS
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Settings During a 2-week period in mid-April 2011, visitation and physical activity outcomes were determined at 3 urban college campuses and parks in Buffalo, New York. The study was approved by the University at Buffalo Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board.
Procedures Areas common across 3 campuses and 3 parks that would enable physical-activity-level comparisons between different settings were identified. Standardized boundaries and assessment points were established around each area. Observers were trained in the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC).3,4,22–25 Observers completed the SOPARC Introduction, Practice, and Assessment Training DVD as a group. Field training then occurred within targeted areas. Interobserver agreement was 92% (R D .95).
Data Collection Parks and campuses were assessed on the same days. SOPARC scans were completed during the morning (8:00 AM), afternoon (2:30 PM), and evening (6:30 PM) for 4 days (2 weekdays, 2 weekend days). Target areas included courts (tennis, basketball), sport fields (baseball, soccer, football, multiuse), paths, and open green space. Playgrounds and
picnic shelters served as additional target areas at parks, whereas squares were assessed on campuses. The observer(s) performed rapid visual scans of the target area to determine the number of visitors present and their sex, age category, and activity intensity (sedentary, walking, or vigorous). To minimize observer bias, intensity was scored at the moment of observation and not of the general activity. An activity is classified as sedentary if the visitor is lying, sitting, or standing still. Walking or shifting weight from one foot to another is walking. Any activity at a greater intensity than ordinary walking (eg, increasing heart rate or causing the individual to sweat) is classified as vigorous. The visual scans for each target area of each park/campus took approximately 5 minutes. Observations were completed on days without precipitation.
Analytic Plan The analyses were focused on observations of adults to allow for the best comparisons between campuses and parks, as the vast majority of visitors observed on college campuses were adults. Chi-square analyses were used to determine whether physical activity intensity differed overall and at specific amenities at parks and campuses. Chisquare analyses were also utilized to test sex differences in number of visits and physical activity intensity. RESULTS As shown in Table 1, a greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 21.29, p < .0001, ’ D .07) proportion of individuals were observed in sedentary activities at parks (25.0%) than on campuses (18.3%). A greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 184.30, p < .0001, ’ D .22) proportion was observed in walking intensity activities on campuses (69.8%) than parks (46.3%), and a greater (x2[1, N D 3,853] D 130.5, p < .0001, ’ D .18) proportion was observed in vigorous intensity activities at parks (28.7%) than on campuses (11.9%). When analyzed by amenity (Table 1), beginning with paths, the proportion of adults observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous intensity activities differed (x2[1, N D
TABLE 1. Number of Adults Observed in Each Activity Intensity at Campuses and Parks by Sex and by Amenity Campuses Variable Males Females Courts Sport fields Campus squares Paths, tracks Playgrounds Green space Shelters
VOL 63, JANUARY 2015
Parks
Sedentary
Walk
Vigorous
Sedentary
Walk
Vigorous
133 88 18 82 56 16 — 3 —
529 314 99 117 253 351 — 23 —
114 30 35 63 11 34 — 1 —
458 204 133 336 — 43 90 39 17
632 592 151 119 — 793 91 64 3
516 243 139 48 — 526 44 0 2
69
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Roemmich, Balantekin, & Beeler
1,763] D 130.25, p < .0001, ’ D .27) across parks and campuses. The greatest proportions (parks D 58%, campuses D 88%) of adults observed on paths were engaged in walking intensity activity. At parks and campuses, 39% and 8% of adults were engaged in vigorous activity, respectively. The proportion of adults observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous intensities on courts was different (x2[1, N D 575] D 42.21, p < .0001, ’ D .27) at parks and campuses. On campuses, the greatest proportion (65%) of adults observed on courts was at walking intensity, with lower proportions observed at sedentary (12%) and vigorous (23%) intensities. In parks, similar proportions of individuals were observed in sedentary (31%), walking (36%), and vigorous (33%) activities. The proportion of adults observed in different intensities on sport fields differed (x2[1, N D 765] D 89.33, p < .0001, ’ D .34). On campus sport fields, the greatest proportion (45%) of adults was at walking intensity; at parks, the greatest proportion (67%) was sedentary. The proportions observed in activity intensities in green spaces also differed (x2[1, N D 130] D 10.25, p < .01, ’ D .28). The greatest proportion of individuals at parks (62%) and campuses (85%) were observed at walking intensity. Only 1 adult was observed in vigorous activity in campus green space, and none were vigorous at park green space. As hypothesized, more males than females were observed at campuses (776 males, 432 females; x2[1, N D 1,208] D 97.96, p < .0001, ’ D .28) and parks (1,606 males, 1,039 females; x2[1, N D 2,645] D 121.55, p < .0001, ’ D .21). The proportion of males observed in different intensity activities differed (x2[1, N D 2,382] D 176.61, p < .0001, ’ D .27) across campuses and parks. A greater proportion of males were observed in walking intensity activity on campuses (68%) than at parks (39%), but a lower proportion was observed in vigorous intensity on campuses (15%) than in parks (32%). The proportion of females observed in sedentary, walking, and vigorous activities at campuses and parks also differed (x2[1, N D 1,471] D 56.76, p < .0001, ’ D .20). A greater proportion of females were observed at walking intensity on campuses (73%) than parks (57%), but a greater proportion in vigorous intensity at parks (23%) than campuses (7%). COMMENT College campuses are used much differently than parks. As such, physical activity intensities differ across urban college campuses and parks, even when they provide similar amenities for physical activity. College campuses are used primarily for active commuting by walking or bicycling. Somewhat surprisingly, college campuses tend to be used proportionally less than parks for sedentary behavior, suggesting that residents and visitors were not as likely to use campus grounds for sedentary social interactions, reading, and studying. This may have been due to the observations occurring during mid-April in a northern urban area. At both parks and campuses, the greatest numbers of visitors were observed on paths/sidewalks. Great proportions 70
(96% to 97%) of people observed on paths were engaged in walking or vigorous physical activity. Paths can be used by almost all ages and physical abilities, and promote walking or vigorous activity, either as part of recreation or active commuting.26,27 Paths are reported to be the most important resource for park-based physical activity,7,8,26 and this study extends that finding to campuses. Students’ perception of the presence of good condition campus paths/sidewalks promotes active commuting across college campuses.18,19 In addition to paths, sport courts also promote visitation and walking or vigorous physical activity physical activity at parks.3,9,10 Such sport courts were also widely used for walking or vigorous activity in the present study. Although campus courts and sport fields were frequented less often, a greater proportion were engaged in walking or vigorous physical activity. On campuses, there are likely to be fewer people sitting and watching others play a game on a court or field as often occurs at parks. Many students are not aware of the physical activity resources available to them on campuses.28 In the same way that signs promoting stair use can increase physical activity,20 efforts to increase awareness of physical activity resources could increase the activity of students. As shown in previous work,8 very little vigorous activity was observed in both campus and park green spaces. Olmsted’s principles of service, suitability, and style focus on utilizing nature to create quieter restorative areas,17 and they do reduce stress and stress reactivity.29,30 The observation that no vigorous activity took place in open green space validates the principle of separation, or intentionally dividing areas designed for inactive and active pursuits. Fewer women than men were observed at campuses and parks; this is consistent with previous research.1,9,31 We did not make observations in indoor facilities. Perhaps females are more comfortable exercising in indoor fitness facilities. Future studies could include measures of both outdoor and indoor physical activities and include intercept interviews to understand why fewer women engage in walking or vigorous physical activity in outdoor settings on college campuses. Studies could also test programs for increasing outdoor physical activity of women to help them establish a lifelong pattern of active living.
Limitations There are likely cultural and demographic differences in the people who visit campuses and parks that may necessitate caution when interpreting these results. Whereas the majority of individuals on campuses are students in their early 20s, those who visit parks are more diverse in age and socioeconomic status. The relatively short time frame of observation at each park and campus could have resulted in inconsistencies. However, 4 days of observations produce consistent and reliable data.32 The study was limited to 1 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
Park-Like Campus Settings and Physical Activity
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
population center, but the similarity in results across geographic regions10 supports extension of these results to campuses that provide a wide variety of outdoor physically active pursuits.
Conclusion Well-designed urban college campuses are important resources that, like parks, can provide the space and amenities to support the physical activity, health, and restorative needs of communities. Just as urban parks serve as resources to increase neighborhood physical activity,4 the walking paths and recreational amenities of urban campuses also promote physical activity and provide health benefits to the students as well as their greater communities.2 This research informs which outdoor built amenities at colleges and universities increase physical activity, while suggesting additional promotion of the amenities available. Efforts should be made to better understand the outdoor built activity amenities and program offerings that promote physical activity of women. Olmsted’s park designs from the 1860s and 1870s remain effective at motivating visitation, physical activity, mental restoration, and separating active and sedentary recreation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors express their gratitude to the graduate students enrolled in the course ES526, Environments, Physical Activity and Eating, who were instrumental in the development and data collection for this study. The authors also thank the Buffalo Olmstead Conservancy for providing access to their parks for data collection.
FUNDING Parts of this research were supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service, USDA 5450-51000-049-00D. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA or the Agricultural Research Service, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the US government. No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this article. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the University at Buffalo Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board. VOL 63, JANUARY 2015
NOTE For comments and further information, address correspondence to James N. Roemmich, PhD, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). REFERENCES 1. Durand CP, Andalib M, Dunton GF, Wolch J, Pentz MA. A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning. Obesity Rev. 2011;12:e173–e182. 2. Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, et al. Evidencebased intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet. 2012;380:272–281. 3. Shores KA, West ST. The relationship between built park environments and physical activity in four park locations. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:e9–e16. 4. Shores KA, West ST. Rural and urban park visits and parkbased physical activity. Prev Med. 2010;50(suppl 1):S13–S17. 5. Veitch J, Ball K, Crawford D, Abbott G, Salmon J. Is park visitation associated with leisure-time and transportation physical activity? Prev Med. 2013;57:732–734. 6. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking. Am J. Prev Med. 2004;27:67–76. 7. Kaczynski AT, Stanis SA, Besenyi GM, Child S. Differences in youth and adult physical activity in park settings by sex and race/ethnicity. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E42. 8. Corti B, Donovan, RJ, Holman, CDJ. Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: results from qualitative research. Health Promotion J Aust. 1996;6:16–21. 9. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:509–514. 10. Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. An observational study. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:299–305. 11. US Department of Education, Institution of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2011, Table 196. Enrollment, staff, and degrees/ certificates conferred in postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV programs, by level and control of institution, sex of student, type of staff, and type of degree: Fall 2009 and 2009–10. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98. Accessed July 3, 2013. 12. Leslie E, Owen N, Salmon J, Bauman A, Sallis JF, Lo SK. Insufficiently active Australian college students: perceived personal, social, and environmental influences. Prev Med. 1999;28: 20–27. 13. American College Health Association. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment: Reference Group Executive Summary Fall 2012. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association; 2012. 14. Vanhees L, De Sutter J, Gelada SN, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in defining the benefits to cardiovascular health within the general population: recommendations from the EACPR: Part I. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19:670–686. 15. Vanhees L, Geladas N, Hansen D, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors: recommendations from the EACPR: Part II. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19:1005–1033. 16. Vanhees L, Rauch B, Piepoli M, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in 71
Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:36 22 June 2015
Roemmich, Balantekin, & Beeler the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular disease: Part III. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012; 19:1333–1356. 17. Beveridge CE, Rocheleau P. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American Landscape. New York, NY: Universe Publishing; 1998. 18. Bopp M, Kaczynski A, Wittman P. Active commuting patterns at a large, midwestern college campus. J Am Coll Health. 2011;59:605–611. 19. Sisson SB, McClain JJ, Tudor-Locke C. Campus walkability, pedometer-determined steps, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity: a comparison of 2 university campuses. J Am Coll Health. 2008;56:585–592. 20. Ford MA, Torok D. Motivational signage increases physical activity on a college campus. J Am Coll Health. 2008;57: 242–244. 21. Kapinos KA, Yakusheva O. Environmental influences on young adult weight gain: evidence from a natural experiment. J Adolesc Health. 2011;48:52–58. 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:S208–S222. 23. McKenzie TL. 2009 C. H. McCloy Lecture. Seeing is believing: observing physical activity and its contexts. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81:113–122. 24. Cohen DA, Golinelli D, Williamson S, Sehgal A, Marsh T, McKenzie TL. Effects of park improvements on park use and physical activity policy and programming implications. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:475–480.
72
25. Tester J, Baker R. Making the playfields even: evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2009;48:316–320. 26. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1451–1456. 27. Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown DR, et al. Promoting physical activity in rural communities—walking trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:235–241. 28. Reed J. Perceptions of the availability of recreational physical activity facilities on a university campus. J Am Coll Health. 2007;55:189–194. 29. Orsega-Smith E, Mowen AJ, Payne LL, Godbey G. The interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. J Leisure Res. 2004;36:232–256. 30. Ulrich RS, Dimberg U, Driver BL. Psycho-physiological indicators of leisure benefits. In: Driver BL, Brown PJ, Peterson GL, eds. Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing; 1991:73–89. 31. Beville JM, Meyer MRU, Usdan SL, Turner LW, Jackson JC, Lian BE. Gender differences in college leisure time physical activity: application of the theory of planned behavior and integrated behavioral model. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62:173–184. 32. Cohen DA, Setodji C, Evenson KR, et al. How much observation is enough? Refining the administration of SOPARC. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:1117–1123. Received: 8 November 2013 Revised: 30 June 2014 Accepted: 13 August 2014
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
