Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks

James N. Roemmich, LuAnn Johnson, Grace Oberg, Joley E. Beeler and Kelsey E. Ufholz
Additional contact information
James N. Roemmich: Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA
LuAnn Johnson: Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA
Grace Oberg: Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA
Joley E. Beeler: Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA
Kelsey E. Ufholz: Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND 58203-9034, USA

IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 8, 1-12

Abstract: Less physical activity among rural residents may contribute to rural-urban health disparities. Parks can be ideal community resources for promoting physical activity. This study compared park visitation and activity intensity at 15 urban and 15 rural parks matched for acreage and amenities. Parks were observed in the morning, afternoon, and evening on 4 days to determine number of visitors, activity intensity, and amenity use. A total of 5486 visitors were observed with no differences in percentages of males (55.5% vs. 53.9%) and females (44.5% vs. 46.1%) or percentages of weekday (82.4% vs. 81.9%) and weekend (17.6% vs. 18.1%) visitors. The probability of visitors sitting was greater and in moderate intensity activity lower at rural parks. A greater proportion of children (25.0% vs. 14.5%) in rural parks, and teens in urban parks (8.0% vs. 69.6%), were observed on sport fields. A greater proportion of adults in urban areas (12.5% vs. 46.0%) were observed spectating sports. Greater 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. Thus, when similar amenities are available, rural and urban parks are used differently, especially by youth. The urban park study results cannot be wholly applied to rural parks.

Keywords: built environment; exercise; children; adolescents; adults; physical activity; rural; urban (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1760/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1760/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1760-:d:164001

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().