Elsevier

Health & Place

Volume 16, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 431-445
Health & Place

The active city? Disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.11.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Recreation is critical to active living yet few studies have focused on disparities in the provision of recreational programs. We investigate the spatial distribution of public recreational programs in southern California. Findings indicate that more than half of all recreation programs take place away from a formal park site. Multivariate modeling results suggest that cities characterized by low household incomes, low fiscal capacity, minority populations, and multi-family housing are disadvantaged with respect to recreation provisions. Such disparities may increase health risks among populations in such communities. Urban planners and public health advocates should enhance recreation programs in lower-income non-white communities.

Introduction

Health risks associated with physical inactivity and obesity have become a critical issue in contemporary public heath. In response, active living research (ALR) has recently emerged at the intersection of traditional academic disciplines to confront the growing epidemic effects of inactive lifestyles. This transdisciplinary engagement has led to a research focus on the multitude of linkages between the urban built environment, physical activity and health. ALR seeks to identify environmental, behavioral, and policy factors that reduce health risks associated with heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Urban parks, open space and trails have emerged as critical spaces of physical activity and have been linked to increased physical activity. Findings reveal that proximity and access to infrastructure for physical activities, such as parks or trails—as well as perceptions of the safety and attractiveness of such facilities—are key determinants of physical activity levels within urban populations. Also, in at least some cities, parks, trails, and other types of recreational open space are more plentiful, have more amenities, and are often in better condition in higher income, suburban areas dominated by White populations.

When residents of lower-income areas and non-white5 communities have worse access to such environmental amenities than White communities, serious social and environmental justice issues arise (Taylor et al., 2006; Spangler and Caldwell, 2007; Wolch et al., 2005; Sister et al., 2007). Although historically environmental injustice (or environmental racism) has been defined as disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards such as pollution or toxics, and unequal access to environmental decision-making processes, disproportionate lack of access to environmental resources and amenities has come to be seen as both a social and environmental injustice with consequences for health and well-being. Social inequities arise from lack of opportunities for play, social interaction, and community cohesion that facilities such as parks often provide. On the environmental side, health risks associated with lack of physical activity and obesity among poor people and non-white persons, already disproportionately high, are exacerbated by limited access to opportunities for physical activity. Also, some places that provide such opportunities, such as parks, also provide ecosystem services that contribute positively to human health, such as improved air and water quality, reduced heat island temperatures, and aesthetic values.

A critical factor that may influence physical activity, namely, the provision of urban recreation programs that involve varying degrees of physical exertion has received much less attention than physical proximity to parks or trails. This is despite the fact that a substantial number of programs offered through municipalities may provide opportunities for moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity (e.g., aerobic dance, basketball, or swimming). Numerous health benefits can be anticipated from enrolling in these courses, some deriving from the social support received by participating in a shared recreational activity and some from the physical health benefits of exercise itself. Moderate to vigorous physical activity and fitness have been linked to reductions in risk for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes some forms of cancer and all cause mortality (Blair et al., 1996; Wei et al., 2000; Paffenbarger et al., 1978; Helmrick et al., 1991; Farrell et al., 2007; Blair et al., 1995; Paffenbarger et al., 1986; Sui et al., 2007). Social support, which may be provided by participation in recreational programs also has demonstrated positive effects on mental health and on physical activity in adult and youth (Taylor, 2007; Taylor and Stanton, 2007; Carron et al., 1996; Fischer et al., 2008).

Some variations in local public recreational program offerings are to be expected given heterogeneous preferences, which vary by race, ethnicity, and class. Leisure researchers, for example, find that various ethno-racial groups exhibit distinct preferences for leisure settings, have diverse reasons for visiting recreational facilities such as parks, and favor different activities (Husbands and Idahosa, 1995; Floyd, 2001). But there are limited data contrasting interest in recreational program offerings per se versus more informal recreational activities among ethnic minorities (D’Alonzo and Cortese, 2007). Prior studies have shown a strong interest in walking as a type of physical activity among adult Hispanics (Ham et al., 2007; Mier et al., 2007; Wood, 2004), and differences in types of physical activity performed, and whether such activity is linked to an activity lesson, vary with race/ethnicity (Sallis et al., 1996) and variations in class status of urban residents may also shape preferences and programs offered (Sallis et al., 1996). In a study of Perth, Australia, Giles-Corti and Donovan (2002) found that residents of lower socio-economic status had better access to recreational facilities but used them less, suggesting either that preferences were at odds with offerings, or that other types of access barriers intervened to lower utilization rates. But all things being equal, in a jurisdictionally fragmented metropolis, wealthier areas may elect to offer programs that signify class standing and reinforce images of fitness and power (Laurian, 2006), while the programs offered and their variety may be restricted in lower-income communities with fewer fiscal resources.

Nevertheless, the emergence of local social movements around inequities in park and recreation facility access suggests that preferences are only partly at play, and that US urban residents may perceive such inequities less as a function of preferences than environmental and social injustice. In Los Angeles, for example, the Verde Coalition is an alliance of many nonprofit environmental, labor, and social justice organizations working for additional park and recreation facilities in low-income and minority communities.6 Such groups and coalitions have also sprung up in other cities, including Boston, Chicago, and New York among others, and national organizations such as the City Parks Alliance, the Trust for Public Land, and the National Park Foundation have highlighted access to parks as an environmental justice concern.

The present paper seeks to redress this gap in the existing analytical framework that links the urban environment and physical activity. Access to parks, open spaces, and trails have been privileged as sites of recreational activity over organized recreational programs that involve light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity. These formally organized programs take place within recreational facilities that do not necessarily require the green space of a park. Our research explores the question of organized recreational service provisioning as an integral part of studying active lifestyle opportunities. In this context, we examine the spatial distribution and differential provision of recreation programs to populations according to their demographic, economic, and race/ethnic characteristics.

It is important to note that recreation service provision, as measured by a spatial analysis of programs, does not necessarily translate into higher levels of physical activity. However, recent evidence suggests that recreational access has a direct effect on obesity in children. Wolch et al. (2009) studied a longitudinal cohort of children 10–18 years old in selected communities across southern California, finding that access to public recreational programs has a protective effect for both boys and girls over this critical developmental period. Thus it is critical to understand the extent and nature of disparities in access in order to design appropriate interventions.

We will proceed in three distinct but interrelated sections. First, we outline the emergence, primary impetus, and dominant modes of research for approaching the relationship between physical activity and the built environment. Second, drawing on several bodies of literature we propose a conceptual model to understand the factors that shape public recreational resources and access, taking into account the role of recreation facilities. Finally, we turn to the methodology and empirical findings of a systematic audit of recreational course offerings in the greater Los Angeles city region. Conducted during the summer of 2006, cross-sectional data were collected for publicly offered active recreation activities by municipality, showing that less than half of recreational programs are offered at a park location. Using these audit data, we assess the potential of programs to engage participants in moderate to vigorous physical activity, showing that they do offer important opportunities for physical activity and hence can promote health of participants. We then use regression analyses to test models designed to understand the factors associated with the distribution of recreation programs by city. These models demonstrate that all things being equal, household income, racial/ethnic composition, and housing density are significantly related to the provision of active recreation programs, disadvantaging poorer, denser, communities with higher proportion non-white population. These findings suggest that current conceptions of the built environment and its potential for physical activity need to be enlarged to include existing organized recreational provisions, and that inequitable provision of recreational programs—and the public facilities and parklands where they are provided—raises social and environmental justice issues that need to be further explored to understand links to physical activity and public health outcomes.

Section snippets

Urban geography and active living research

Concerns about physical inactivity arise in a world characterized by globalization, economic and demographic restructuring, and social polarization and exclusion (Amin, 1994; Rowe, 2006). One empirical reality of the contemporary US urban condition has been the rise in sedentary lifestyles, associated with the loss of manual labor and a rise in service sector employment. As a result of the transition from a largely industrial to informational society, physical inactivity characterizes the

The built environment and physical activity

While the relationship between health and physical activity is well established, the connections between physical activity and the built environment have only recently attracted sustained attention. A report commissioned by RWJF and CDC (National Research Council, 2005) utilizes a schematic framework for contextualizing the role of the built environment in physical activity (Fig. 1). This rubric emphasizes the fact that physical activity does not directly cause any specific health outcome,

Expanding the ALR framework

As we have argued, the current general ALR conceptualization of the built environment conflates parks and recreation and has not stimulated systematic assessment of organized recreation courses with respect to their potential for physical activity. We suggest an alternative expanded ALR framework that takes full account of recreation centers and programs (Fig. 2), and considers their distribution from a social and environmental justice perspective. This model clearly delineates the relationship

Study site

This study focuses on a sample of municipalities located in the Los Angeles region.8 Despite its reputation for sprawl, the second largest urban region has became more, rather than less, dense, largely because of high rates of residential

Patterns of recreational opportunity in the Los Angeles city-region

Results are presented in two sections. The descriptive statistics and maps are presented first, followed by the regression analysis results.

Conclusions

The distribution and provisioning of active recreation opportunities is an integral component of urban public health interventions that seek to redress the negative effects of sedentary lifestyles.21 Working within the emergent fields of active living research, this paper sought to

References (85)

  • D.N. Ammons

    Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in local government: the case of libraries and leisure services

    Public Administration Review

    (1995)
  • A. Bauman

    The physical environment and physical activity: moving from ecological associations to intervention evidence

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2005)
  • R.A. Beauregard

    When America became Suburban

    (2006)
  • D. Berrigan et al.

    The association between urban form and physical activity in US adults

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2003)
  • S.N. Blair et al.

    Influences of cardiorespiratory fitness and other precursors on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in men and women

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1996)
  • S.N. Blair et al.

    Changes in physical fitness and all-cause mortality: a prospective study of health and un-healthy men

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1995)
  • C. Brindis

    Findings from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey

    (2004)
  • B. Brown et al.

    Walkable route perceptions and physical features—converging evidence for en route walking experiences

    Environment and Behavior

    (2007)
  • R. Buliung et al.

    Urban form and household activity-travel behavior

    Growth and Change

    (2006)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research

    Progress in Human Geography

    (2009)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park

    Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

    (2009)
  • A. Carron et al.

    Social influence and exercise: a meta-analysis

    Journal of Sports Exercise Psychology

    (1996)
  • K.J. Coleman et al.

    Prevention of the epidemic increase in child risk of overweight in low-income schools: the El Paso coordinated approach to child health

    Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

    (2005)
  • Committee on Environmental Health

    The built environment: designing communities to promote physical activity in children

    Pediatrics

    (2009)
  • K.T. D'Alonzo et al.

    An investigation of habitual and incidental physical activity among Costa Rican and Costa Rican American teenage girls

    Journal of Transcultural Nursing

    (2007)
  • Demographia US Urbanized Areas by Density: 2000 (updated to 2002). Accessed 12 July 2008....
  • C. DeRenne et al.

    Afterschool physical activity program to reduce obesity-related cancer risk: a feasibility study

    Journal of Cancer Education

    (2008)
  • S. Doyle et al.

    Active community environments and health: the relationship of walkable and safe communities to individual health

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (2006)
  • R. Ewing et al.

    Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity

    American Journal of Health Promotion

    (2003)
  • S.W. Farrell et al.

    Cardiorespiratory fitness, different measures of adiposity and cancer mortality in men

    Obesity

    (2007)
  • A. Fischer et al.

    Physical activity as a potential mechanism through which social support may reduce cardiovascular disease risk

    Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

    (2008)
  • M.F. Floyd

    Managing parks in a multicultural society: searching for common ground

    Managing Recreation Use

    (2001)
  • W. Fulton et al.

    Who Sprawls the Most: How Growth Patterns differ across the US

    (2001)
  • K. Gebel et al.

    The physical environment and physical activity: a critical appraisal of review articles

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2007)
  • J. Gilliland et al.

    Environmental equity is child's play: mapping public provision of recreation opportunities in urban neighbourhoods

    Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies

    (2006)
  • C. Godbey et al.

    Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2005)
  • J. Guthman et al.

    Embodying neoliberalism: economy, culture, and the politics of fat

    Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

    (2006)
  • S. Ham et al.

    Physical activity patterns among Latinos in the United States: putting the pieces together

    Preventing Chronic Disease

    (2007)
  • S.P. Helmrick et al.

    Physical activity and reduced occurrence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (1991)
  • R.T. Hester et al.

    Whose wild?: resolving cultural and biological diversity conflicts in urban wilderness

    Landscape Journal

    (1999)
  • G. Hise et al.

    Eden by Design: The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angeles Region

    (2000)
  • W. Husbands et al.

    Ethnicity and recreation behavior: a review and critique of the literature

    Canadian Ethnic Studies

    (1995)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Tel.: +1 213 740 0050; fax: +1 213 740 0056.

    2

    Tel.: +1 619 594 0906.

    3

    Tel.: +1 909 607 8235.

    4

    Tel.: +1 510 642 3960.

    View full text