Youth and adult visitation and physical activity intensity at rural and urban parks

Authors: Roemmich, James; JOHNSON, LUANN - University Of North Dakota; OBERG, GRACE - University Of North Dakota; BEELER, JOLEY - University Of North Dakota; Ufholz, Kelsey

Submitted to: Journal of Adolescent Health
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/15/2018
Publication Date: 8/16/2018
Citation: Roemmich, J.N., Johnson, L., Oberg, G., Beeler, J., Ufholz, K.E. 2018. Youth and adult visitation and physical activity intensity at rural and urban parks. Journal of Adolescent Health. 15(8):1760-1772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081760.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081760

Interpretive Summary: Less physical activity among rural residents may promote rural–urban health disparities. This study compared the physical activity of visitors at 15 urban and 15 rural parks. Park visitors were observed in the morning, afternoon, and evening on 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day to determine the number of child, teen and adult visitors, their activity intensity, and what park amenities they used to be active. We observed 5486 visitors. There were no differences in the percentages of males (55.5% vs 53.9%) and females (44.5% vs 46.1%) observed in rural and urban parks. Similar percentages of total weekly visitors were observed on weekdays (82.4% vs 81.9%) at rural and urban parks. The same was true for weekends, in that there was no difference (17.6% vs 18.1%) in the percentage of visitors who visited rural and urban parks. However, there were differences in the intensity of activity at rural and urban parks. Visitors at rural parks were more likely to be observed sitting, while those at urban parks were more likely to be observed in moderate intensity activity. A greater percentage (8.0% vs 69.6%) of teens at urban parks were observed on sport fields. This is probably why a greater percentage of adults in urban areas (12.5% vs 46.0%) were observed spectating sports. Rural visitors of all ages are more likely to use a park for relaxation and use the shelters. We concluded that even when there are similar numbers and types of amenities available at a park, rural and urban parks are used differently.

Technical Abstract: Purpose: Less physical activity among rural residents may contribute to rural–urban health disparities. This study compared park visitation and activity intensity at 15 urban and 15 rural parks matched for acreage and amenities. Methods: Each park was observed (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities) in the morning, afternoon, and evening on 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day to determine the number of child, teen and adult visitors, their activity intensity, and amenity use. Results: 5486 visitors were observed with no differences (p>0.77) in the percentages of males (55.5% vs 53.9%) and females (44.5% vs 46.1%) observed in rural and urban parks. Neither the percentages of weekday (82.4% vs 81.9%) nor weekend (17.6% vs 18.1%) visitors differed (p>0.96) between rural and urban parks. The probability of visitors being observed sitting was greater (p<0.02) and in moderate intensity activity was lower (p<0.003) at rural parks than at urban parks. A greater (p<0.001) proportion of children (25.0% vs 14.5%) in rural parks, but of teens in urban parks (8.0% vs 69.6%) were observed on sport fields. A greater (p<0.001) proportion of adults in urban areas (12.5% vs 46.0%) were observed spectating sports. Greater (p<0.001) proportions of rural children (10.9% vs 3.5%), teens (34.1% vs 12.4%), and adults (38.9% vs 10.1%) were observed using shelters. Conclusions: Even when there are similar numbers and types of amenities available, rural and urban parks are used differently, especially by youth. Results from studies of urban parks cannot be wholly applied to the needs of parks in rural communities.