Observing Park Environments in Nevada

Monica A.F. Lounsbery, Ph.D.Professor and Director

Physical Activity Policy Research ProgramDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Acknowledgements•This project was made possible through -

– The vision and recommendation of the PA Policy Research Program’s Community Advisory Board

– The leadership and commitment of Melissa Clary and Susie Quintana from the City of Las Vegas and especially, Justin Williams and Bruce Sillitoe from the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department

– Funding from UNLV College of Education and The Lincy Institute

BackgroundThe relationship of physical activity to a variety of health conditions has been well-documented

– Several cohort studies showed a 30-40% increase in risk for Diabetes due to physical inactivity

– Approximately 30 studies showed an inverse association between physical activity and colon cancer

– Inactivity is related to 200-300K preventable deaths each year in the United States

– In 2004, the World Health Organization found that physical inactivity was responsible for an estimated 3.2 million deaths

Deaths Attributed to 19 Leading Factors,by Country Income Level, 2004

This data was measured by accelerometers.

Troiano R, Berrigan D, Dodd K, et al. “Physical Activity in the United States Measured by Accelerometer.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(1): 181–188, January 2008.

Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for morbidity and mortality…

Physical Activity Interventions

Guided by theories that emphasize psychological & social influencesPrimary goals have been education and behavior change skills

J. SallisActive Living Research

IndividualBiologicalPsychologicalBehavioral Skills

Social/Cultural

Physical Environment

Policy Context

Ecological Model of Health Behavior

How can we make physical activity the easy choice?

Communities and Transportation Facilities

School and Occupation Settings

Recreation Facilities

8

Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson M, Page P, et al. “Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies Key Health Disparities in Physical Activity and Obesity.” Pediatrics,117(2): 417– 424, February 2006.

Parks and Access to Them Matter!

How Does Las Vegas Compare?

4.2% of city land is designated to parks compared to 10.6% nationally

5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 citizens compared to 18.9/1,000 nationally

Other major park, physical activity, and health disparities in Las Vegas compared to other US cities include:

Lower percent bicycling or walking to work Lower requirement for physical education

Per capita Las Vegas has Fewer ball diamonds Fewer park playgrounds Fewer park units Fewer tennis courts

Las Vegas ranked 43rd among the largest 50 metropolitan cities***

*** in preventive health behaviors, levels of chronic disease conditions, health care access, and community resources and policies that support physical activity.

Medium to high income neighborhoods have significantly greater relative odds of having 1 or more park facilities compared to low income and high-minority neighborhoods

Inequality in availability of PA facilities may contribute to ethnic and SES disparities in PA and overweight patterns

Research has Shown that Accessibility Disparities

PARKSImportant locations for population physical activity

especially for low-income families, children, and seniors they are free and OPEN to everyone

Seldom viewed as health resources or assessed on the physical activity they provide

PurposePhysical activity studies have not been conducted in Nevada parks or trails

health impacts have not been translated into local government services

In lower income Las Vegas neighborhoods, how are parks/trails being used?

How are parks perceived by the residents?

How can we optimize the public’s investment in parks and trails for health related purposes?

13

OPEN Parks/TrailsCity of Las Vegas

Bunker Leavitt Lone Mountain Trail

Clark County Desert Breeze Doc Pearson Paradise West Flamingo Wetlands Trail I-215 Beltway South and West Trails

Park DemographicsPark Acres Total population

In Zip CodeBunker 21 52,317Desert Breeze 119 55,456Doc Pearson 8 45,095Leavitt 18.4 33,533Paradise 21 23,334West Flamingo 15 47,080

ParkMedian Household

Income% Unemployed %

Minority

Bunker $76,700 6.3% 41.1%Desert Breeze $61,619 5.5% 41.0%Doc Pearson $65,933 6.7% 61.8%Leavitt $40,100 8.3% 68.5%Paradise $59,771 6.3% 41.1%West Flamingo $42,839 7.3% 58.4%

Trail DemographicsTrails Total population % Female % Over 65

years of age215 - South 60,009 50.1% 10.6%215 - West 50,132 50.6% 10.8%Lone Mountain 37,776 50.7% 10.5%Wetlands 48,678 49.9% 16.0%

Trails Median Household Income

Renter Occupied Percent Minority

215 - South $69,199 31.8% 44.2%

215 - West $67,809 37.6% 53.3%

Lone Mountain $62,270 42.9% 41.7%

Wetlands $49,697 40.6% 52.8%

Data Sources Direct Observation - SOPARC (System For Observing Physical Activity and Recreation in Communities; McKenzie et al., 2006)

Intercept interviews with randomly selected park users

Questionnaires and focus groups with residents living within .5 miles of parks

18

SOPARC Data collection

• Data were collected on 12 clement days in each environment over one year

• Each day, data were collected during 4 time periods (7:30am, 12:30pm, 3:30pm, and 6:00pm)

• 480 area visits

• IOA data were collected on 10% of the observations• Percent agreement ranged from 92%-100%

Intercept Interviews and Residential Surveys

Invitations to complete an on-line questionnaire were sent to randomly selected residences within .5 mi of study parks

Interviews were conducted with park users in all 6 parks

These efforts yielded 215 completed surveys/ interviews

Focus Group MeetingsPark users and residents were invited to participate in focus group meetingsWe conducted 10 focus group meetings (5 to 8 participants)

Trails Parents Hispanics Senior Adults Women

We audio and video recorded focus group meetingsData were transcribed and were coded

How are Parks/Trails Being

Used?

Overall Percent of Park Users by Age Group and Gender

Total Number of People Observed = 33,362

16%

10%13%

8%

28%

19%

4%2%

Overall Percent of Trail Users by Age Group and Gender

Total Number of People Observed = 817

8%5%

11%

4%

36%

24%

8%

4%

Park Activity Levels Total Number of People Observed = 33,362

30%

19%

12% 12%

5%

22%

Trail Activity Levels Total Number of People Observed = 817

3%

38%

27%

22%

8%

2%

Overall Percentage of Park Users by Age Group and Time of Day Total Number of

People Observed = 33,362

0

10

20

30

40

50

Children Teens Adults Seniors

% of

Par

k Us

ers Morning

Lunch

Afternoon

Evening

8%

24%

42%

6%

23%

28%

43%

15%

27%25%

33%31%

35%

21%

13%

26%

Seasonal Park Use by Age Level

05

101520253035404550

Oct - Feb March - May June - Sept

SeniorAdultTeenChild

8%

10%7%

21%1%

4%

10%

6% 5%

15%

11%

2%

Trail UseTime of Day and Season

Trail Trail Users(N=817)

Winter Spring Summer

215- South 126 27 41 58

215 – West 84 33 24 27

Lone Mountain 230 97 71 62

Wetlands 377 230 0 147

Total 817 387 136 294

Trail Trail Users (N=817)

7:30am 12:30pm 3:30pm 6:00pm

215 - South 126 51 18 26 31215 - West 84 28 11 31 14Lone Mountain

230 43 46 90 51

Wetlands 377 95 116 103 63Total 817 217 191 250 159

Top 10 Target Areas by Gender

62%

38%

65%

35%

58%

42%

47%45%

55%

87%

13%

55%

45%

51% 50%

12%

88%

53%49%

Average Number of Park Users by Target Area and Activity Level

Observed Facility Status

98% 97%

3% 4%

Perceptions

SafetySafety from the sun and hot temperatures was perceived as a barrier

Most people felt parks were well maintained and clean but some felt there were disparities in low income neighborhoods

Most people felt safe although increased roving security was frequently recommended

Women and parents had safety concerns about park use in the evening.

General Feelings of Safety

31%

62%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very Safe Safe Not Very Safe

% of

Par

k Us

ers &

Non

-Use

rs

Perceived Barriers to Park Use

47%

20% 19%

6% 4% 3% 1%

Activity Preferences

13%

1% 1%

6% 5% 5%1% 2% 1%

5%

16%

50%

19%21%

19%

1%

34%

10%12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% of

Par

k Us

ers

& N

on-U

sers

Do people know about the parks?Most people learned about parks by driving

aroundSome learned about parks by word of

mouthSome parents learned about park programs

through schoolsTop recommended sources of

communication Apartment complex managers Post cards or mailers Schools

Discussion and Conclusions

Major Findings Survey results showed that household income was found to

be a significant characteristic distinguishing park users and non-users with park users more likely than non-users to have lower income (p =.024)

Critical venue for addressing health disparities

More males and adults use parks and trails

Most people were observed sedentary parks; high moderate to vigorous PA on trails Males were more active than females

Parks are rarely organized or supervised Opportunities for park programming

In parks, females and seniors were relatively underserved

Women emphasized time challenges as primary barriers

Seniors felt unsafe being in the park with other age groups; Hispanics felt most comfortable around other Hispanics

It appears that strategies for increasing PA in parks for busy adults, especially women, should focus on creating time efficiencies

For those coming to parks to supervise (children or dogs) or to be spectators, some time inefficiencies could be addressed by the redesign of park facilities to include walking paths around the perimeters of park spaces

Strategic programming offered programs for kids and parents in adjacent

park spaces during the same frame Increasing number of programs that appeal to

females, seniors and Hispanics

Trail use highly active but very low use observed

During focus group meetings, participants identified that use barriers were trail connectivity knowledge

We speculate that observed low use was also due to the newness of the all of the trails in this study, and their general lack of promotion to the general public.

Focus group participants identiycling enthusiasts are likely to be the most informed about trails in Las Vegas and in order for trails to engender mainstream use across age levels, more community events such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, or artisan booths should be planned on trails.

Park and Trail Promotion is needed Most people “found” parks/trails as opposed to

being informed about them Promotional efforts should bear in mind the need to appeal to

sense of community activities people were interested in (e.g., walking)

Promotional Partners Apartment complex managers Schools Mailers

OPEN Community Forum

- City and county policy makers and local stakeholders in planning, government, and health will be provided with an overview of the results from OPEN

- OPEN results will be used to determine next steps which may include:

- New strategic partnerships- Experimental research to examine the health impact of

- Park redesign - Strategic programming- And/or promotion on increasing park/trails use and physical

activity- Development of an active living task force

Robust conversations around how we can retrofit Las Vegas communities and specific environemnts with physical activity and health in mind!

I Believe in Happy Healthy Families

And Their Right to Be Physically Active!

We need sustainable and creative policy responses to make this possible!

Thank You for Listening and being OPEN to Possibilities!

Payne Lounsbery, Age 8 Tori Lounsbery, Age 20