Differences in park characteristic preferences for visitation and physical activity among adolescents: A latent class analysis.

Lieze Mertens,Benedicte Deforche,Delfien Van Dyck,Jenny Veitch,Jelle Van Cauwenberg,Meng-Cheng Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212920

Lieze Mertens, Benedicte Deforche + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212920

Copy DOI

Abstract

In order to optimize environmental interventions, the current study aimed to investigate whether there are subgroups with different preferences regarding park characteristics for park visitation and park-based PA among adolescents (12–16 years). Furthermore, we examined whether the identified subgroups differed in socio-demographics, PA behavior, and park use characteristics (e.g. accompaniment to park, usual activities during park visitation, usual transportation to parks). Adolescents (12–16 years) were recruited via randomly selected secondary schools, located in Flanders (Belgium). Class visits were conducted between September and November 2016 and adolescents were asked to complete an online questionnaire. Latent class analyses using Sawtooth Software were used to identify possible subgroups. A final sample of 972 adolescents (mean age 13.3 ± 1.3 years) remained for analyses. Three subgroups of adolescents with similar preferences for park characteristics could be distinguished for both park visitation and park-based PA. Overall, current results indicate that park upkeep was the most important park characteristic for park visitation as well as park-based PA among at risk subgroups (i.e. adolescents with lower overall PA levels, girls, older adolescents,…) followed by the presence of a playground or outdoor fitness equipment. Among the more active adolescents, especially boys visiting the parks together with friends, the presence of a sport field (soccer and basketball) seems to be the best strategy to increase park visitation as well as park-based PA. Current results provide a starting point to advise policy makers and urban planners when designing or renovating parks that investing in good upkeep and maintenance of parks, and the provision of a playground or outdoor fitness equipment might be the best strategy to increase both park visitation and park-based PA among at risk adolescent subgroups.

Highlights

Almost half of adolescents are insufficiently physically active and do not achieve the public health guideline of 60 minutes/day moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (PA) [1,2,3]
S1 Table (Relative importances of each park characteristic for park visitation, socio-demographics, PA behavior and park use characteristics for the three subgroups identified by latent class analysis). provides a detailed overview of all possible response categories
A complete table can be found in S1 Table (Relative importances of each park characteristic for park visitation, sociodemographics, PA behavior and park use characteristics for the three subgroups identified by latent class analysis)

Summary

Introduction

Almost half of adolescents are insufficiently physically active and do not achieve the public health guideline of 60 minutes/day moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (PA) [1,2,3]. Socio-ecological models emphasize the importance of physical environmental factors (e.g. accessibility of recreation facilities, quality of park facilities) in addition to individual or social factors (e.g. socio-demographics, social support) to explain PA levels among youth [12]. These models incorporate the four domains of active living; active recreation, active transport, household activities and occupational activities [13]. It is important to understand which physical and social park characteristics [19] may attract adolescents to visit and be physically active in parks

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion