Increasing translation of research evidence for optimal park design: a qualitative study with stakeholders

Benedicte Deforche,Kylie Ball,Jenny Veitch,Harriet Koorts,Emily Denniss,Anna Timperio

doi:10.1186/s12966-020-00952-5

Abstract

BackgroundThe design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decision-making regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice.MethodsOne-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12.ResultsResearch evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies.ConclusionsThis research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policy-relevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.

Highlights

The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction
Research evidence to inform optimal park design has been increasing in recent years [4] and natural experiments have shown park refurbishment to have a positive effect on park visitation and park-based physical activity [5,6,7,8]
There is a lack of understanding on how this evidence is informing park policy and planning, and how to reduce the many challenges associated with researchpractice-policy translation

Summary

Introduction

The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decisionmaking regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. Parks are important settings within cities that provide opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction [1, 2] They are not fully utilised, leaving scope for enhancing population health through increased park visitation. In a survey of 152 UK policy-makers, 95% used local data to inform decision-making (80% perceived this as most useful) and the main sources of information were sourced from government websites and personal contacts; researchers were less likely to be consulted and research evidence was rarely seen as directly relevant to policy decisions [10]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion