Table 2.
Studies that investigated associations between physical environment and park-based PA.
| Physical environmental factorsa | The relationships to park-based PA, record counts |
+% | Summary codesb | Reference number | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly positive | Not statistically significant | Significantly negative | ||||
| Park environment | ||||||
| (1) Park features | ||||||
| Unspecified active facilities | 4 | 5 | 0 | 44 | ? | 5, 9, 27, 29, 30, 41, 42, |
| Sport courts and fields | 10 | 30 | 0 | 25 | 00 | 9, 10, 25, 27, 29, 41 |
| Paths/trails | 5 | 2 | 0 | 71 | + | 9, 10, 27 |
| Playgrounds and skating areas | 6 | 7 | 0 | 46 | ? | 9, 10, 25, 27 |
| Fitness stations | 2 | 3 | 0 | 40 | ? | 9, 10 |
| Swimming pools | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10, 27 |
| Unspecified supporting amenities | 2 | 5 | 0 | 29 | 00 | 27, 29, 30, 41, 43 |
| Lighting | 3 | 2 | 0 | 60 | + | 9, 20, 46 |
| Picnic areas | 5 | 5 | 2 | 42 | ? | 9, 25, 29, 41 |
| Water features | 1 | 5 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 9, 10, 27 |
| Restrooms | 1 | 2 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 9, 25 |
| (2) Park condition | ||||||
| Feature maintenance | 1 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 5, 25 |
| Incivilities | 3 | 2 | 0 | 60 | ++ | 5, 22, 24, 43 |
| (3) Park aesthetics | ||||||
| Attractiveness | 1 | 2 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 5, 30 |
| Greenness | 6 | 5 | 0 | 55 | ? | 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 |
| Park size | 8 | 8 | 0 | 50 | ? | 9, 10, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,46 |
| Amount of shade | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9, 24 |
| (4) Crime-related safety | 1 | 3 | 1 | 20 | 00 | 5, 6, 11, 30 |
| Neighborhood environment | ||||||
| (1) Walkability | ||||||
| Park density | 5 | 6 | 0 | 45 | ? | 10, 23, 26, 28, 31 |
| Street connectivity | 2 | 2 | 2 | 33 | 0 | 9, 31, 32, 45 |
| (2) Park proximity | 6 | 11 | 0 | 35 | ? | 10,11,20,23,26,27,28,33,44 |
| (3) Neighborhood safety | ||||||
| Traffic-related safety | 1 | 4 | 1 | 17 | 00 | 20, 22, 32, 34, 43 |
| Crime-related safety | 0 | 6 | 1 | 14 | 00 | 22, 23, 30, 34 |
Notes:
Abbreviation: PA= physical activity.
Factors are not be shown in the summarized tables unless ≥3 records were available;
The criteria for summary coding of the evidence was adopted from Sallis et al.13;
+% indicates the number of records supporting the expected positive association divided by total number of records; + indicates positive association (60%–100% of records supporting the positive association); 0 indicates nonsignificant association (0%–33% of records supporting the positive association); ? indicates inconsistent association (34%–59% of records supporting the positive association); when associations were examined in at least 4 studies, double signed summary codes (00 or ++) were applied.