4.2 Article

ParkIndex: Validation and application of a pragmatic measure of park access and use

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE REPORTS
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101218

关键词

Park; Neighborhood; Park use; Measurement

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R21CA202693]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Composite metrics integrating park availability, features, and quality for a given address or neighborhood are lacking. The purposes of this study were to describe the validation, application, and demonstration of ParkIndex in four diverse communities. This study occurred in Fall 2018 in 128 census block groups within Seattle(WA), Brooklyn(NY), Raleigh(NC), and Greenville County(SC). All parks within a half-mile buffer were audited to calculate a composite park quality score, and select households provided data about use of proximal parks via an online, map-based survey. For each household, the number of parks, total park acreage, and average park quality score within one half-mile were calculated using GIS. Logistic regression was used to identify a parsimonious model predicting park use. ParkIndex values (representing the probability of park use) were mapped for all study areas and after scenarios involving the addition and renovation/improvement of parks. Out of 360 participants, 23.3% reported visiting a park within the past 30 days. The number of parks (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.15-1.62), total park acreage (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.07-1.19), and average park quality score (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.06) within one half-mile were all associated with park use. Composite ParkIndex values across the study areas ranged from 0 to 100. Hypothetical additions of or renovations to study area parks resulted in ParkIndex increases of 22.7% and 19.2%, respectively. ParkIndex has substantial value for park and urban planners, citizens, and researchers as a common metric to facilitate awareness, decision-making, and intervention planning related to park access, environmental justice, and community health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据