4.7 Article

Physical activity areas in urban parks and their use by the elderly from two cities in China and Germany

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 178, 期 -, 页码 261-269

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.009

关键词

Urban parks; Physical activity areas; Elderly; Park-based physical activity; Health enhancing physical activity

资金

  1. Germany/Hong Kong 2015/16 under Hong Kong SAR Governments' RGC Grant [G-HKBU202/15]
  2. Faculty Research Grant, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong [FRG2/13-14/065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban parks have been recognized as important physical activity (PA) places for senior city residents. This research aimed to investigate PA areas in parks and their use by the elderly in a Chinese (Hong Kong) and a German city (Leipzig). PA areas and the PA executed by the elderly were observed in six parks in each city. Additionally, observers also surveyed overall PA, park-based PA and park accessibility of the active elderly in Hong Kong (HK) (n = 317, Mean age = 69.96, SD = 6.81), and in Leipzig (L) (n = 311, Mean age = 72.06, SD = 6.78) respectively. Results demonstrated that trails were the most often used PA areas by the elderly, where the elderly walk (in both cities) or cycle (only in L). Fitness stations and secure areas were more often found in HK parks, however, more lawn areas were found in L parks, making structured exercise possible. Sports fields were often used by HK elderly for sports and fitness exercising, but were rarely used by L elderly. Playgrounds were more often used by the HK elderly. In both cities, more males than female elderly were active and more often with low intensity. The elderly preferred accessing PA areas in parks by walking or cycling. Compared with L, the urban parks in HK were the primary locations for the elderly to engage in PA. Park planners should consider optimizing the functioning of PA areas to facilitate elderly physical activity in parks thus enhancing the health status of the elderly.

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

4.7
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