Parks, Playgrounds and Physical Activity

TH: Are parks that are shaped for certain activities – trails, tennis courts, soccer fields – more likely to result in people getting exercise? Or are the more Olmsted-inspired open space just as likely to inspire activity?

MOWEN: If you look at raw levels of physical activity – that is, energy expenditures – yes, parks that have more features such as trails, trail connectors to get to the parks, playground features, sport courts, etc., those do tend to result in higher levels of energy expenditure in them. However, those other parks, what we would consider “passive parks” that are more about reflection and contemplation, are also resulting in healthy activities. The activity levels may be moderate, certainly studies have shown that just being outdoors, as opposed to being indoors, corresponds with activity levels. So the simple act of going to a park that’s passive, or may be more nature-focused, is still a net positive. Particularly if a larger percentage of the population uses those parks.

TH: You mentioned “trail connectors.” That’s something I feel like I don’t see all that often in urban settings, except in term of Rails to Trails parks, or some of the Olmsted plans.

MOWEN: Trail connectors are becoming a little more common, which is great, because studies show that transportation to parks is a real constraint on park usage, particularly with low-income and minority families. When people have to drive to get to a park, they’re less likely to use it. So pedestrian/bicycle connectors is one strategy to get people to parks, and the side benefit of that is that if you’re walking 10-15 minutes through your neighborhood to get to a park, that adds to your recommended level of physical activity. You don’t even have to be active in that park, it could be a place that you go to meet friends or contemplate. So there has been a lot of promotion of the idea of building more travel routes and trail connectors in these areas.

Advertisement