Purpose: This study aimed to quantitatively examine perceptions of the importance of selected park features for encouraging park visitation and park-based physical activity among adolescents (13-18 years).

Methods: Between November 2018- April 2019, adolescents (n=222, 14.0 ±1.1 years, 45% female) were recruited from seven secondary schools in socio-economically diverse areas of Melbourne, Australia. Participants completed an online survey, which asked them to rate photographic images of 40 park features (using a 1-10 scale) to indicate the degree to which each feature encouraged them to 1) visit and 2) be active in the park (10 = “really makes me want to”). The 40 park features had been identified as important in a previous qualitative study. For the two outcomes (visit, active), mean (SD) rating scores were calculated for each feature among the overall sample, and separately for males and females; and frequent versus infrequent park visitors. For park-based physical activity, mean ratings were also calculated for those meeting/not meeting physical activity guidelines. For both outcomes, each feature was assigned a ranking from 1-40 (1 represented highest mean rating).

Results: The two highest-rated features for supporting visitation and physical activity were consistent: large climbing structures and adventure playgrounds. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth highest-rated features for visitation were large curly slides, large swings, interactive areas and a café; and for park-based physical activity were outdoor fitness equipment, large curly slides, netball/basketball courts and large swings. Ratings for the park features for each outcome varied between males and females; frequent versus infrequent park visitors; and those meeting versus not meeting physical activity guidelines.

Conclusions: Parks equipped with large climbing structures, adventure playgrounds with large slides and swings, outdoor fitness equipment, sports courts, interactive areas and a café are likely to positively influence adolescents’ visitation and physical activity in parks. It is paramount for stakeholders to consider what park features adolescents perceive important to ensure park planning attracts adolescents and supports physical activity during park visits. These findings offer a foundation for future studies to examine the relative importance of the identified features for encouraging (active) park use.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the relative importance of park features for encouraging park visitation and park-based physical activity among older adults (65+ years).

Methods: In January 2020, older adults living in Australia (n=243; 71.5+4.91 years, 51% male) completed an online survey. The survey included a series of Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint analysis tasks using Sawtooth software. Decision-making scenarios were presented, with participants choosing between parks that included different combinations of selected park features (i.e. birdlife, water feature, peaceful and relaxed setting, shady trees, gardens, BBQ areas, signage, walking paths, café, fountain, grassy open spaces, well maintained grass) and feature levels (i.e. present, not present). Individual part-worth utility and importance scores were estimated with Hierarchical Bayes (HB) analyses. Part-worth utilities represent the desirability of each level within a feature. Relative importance scores (percentages) reflect the maximum effect each feature has on choice, with greater importance scores reflecting greater contribution to choice.

Results:  Overall, the most important features for park visitation were shady trees (conjoint analysis relative importance score 19.6%; 95%CI=18.3, 20.9) and a peaceful and relaxed setting (19.6%, 95%CI=18.1, 21.1), followed by walking paths (12.4%; 95%CI=10.9, 13.9) and birdlife (10.9%; 95%CI=9.5, 12.3). The most important feature for park-based physical activity was walking paths (19.6%; 95%CI=17.1, 22.1), followed by shady trees (16.9%; 95%CI 15.3, 18.5), a peaceful and relaxed setting (11.9%, 95%CI=9.7, 14.2), and birdlife (11.3%; 95%CI=9.0, 13.6). Part-worth utility scores showed the presence of a feature was always preferred over the absence of a feature.

Conclusions: Policy-makers should prioritise shady trees, a peaceful and relaxed setting, walking paths, and birdlife to ensure that parks meet older adults’ needs and encourage physical activity during park visits.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of park renewal on park use and park-based physical activity (PA).

Methods: In 2014, the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) was used to audit park use and park-based PA in two similar parks in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Trained researchers performed the SOPARC audit in both parks on five weekdays and four weekend days. On each of these days the audits were performed in the morning (7:30 AM), during lunch (12:30 PM), in the afternoon (3:30 PM) and in the evening (6:30 PM). In 2020, one of these parks was extensively renovated taking into account the needs of different park users (e.g., paved walking paths suitable for wheelchairs were created, low vegetation was reduced, playscapes and outdoor exercise equipment were installed, and a football cage was added). Immediately after these renovations, the SOPARC audit was repeated in both parks. Based on the audits, the total number of park visitors as well as the mean PA intensity level were calculated for each observation moment for each of the observation days. For both outcomes (i.e., number of visitors and mean PA intensity scores), a (negative binomial) regression model was performed with park (i.e., intervention park vs. control park), time (i.e., baseline vs. follow-up) and the time by park interaction as independent variables. The time by park interaction was used to assess the effect of the park renewal on park use and park-based PA.

Results: The significant time by park interactions identified for both the number of visitors (beta(SE) = -1.34(0.29), p <.001) and the mean PA intensity scores (beta(SE)= -15.33(2.01), p <.001), indicate that the increase in visitors and park-based PA was significantly stronger in the intervention park than in the control park.

Conclusions: Park renewal taking into account the needs of different park users has the potential to increase park use and to facilitate PA among park visitors.