Understanding children's preference for park features that encourage physical activity: an adaptive choice based conjoint analysis.
Active
Attributes
Children
Green spaces
Parks
Preferences
Urban
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 10 2021
09 10 2021
Historique:
received:
07
06
2021
accepted:
15
09
2021
entrez:
10
10
2021
pubmed:
11
10
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Parks are a key setting for physical activity for children. However, little is known about which park features children prefer and which features are most likely to encourage them to be active in parks. This study examined the relative importance of park features among children for influencing their choice of park for engaging in park-based physical activity. Children (n = 252; 8-12 years, 42% male) attending three primary schools in Melbourne, Australia completed a survey at school. They were required to complete a series of Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint analysis tasks, with responses used to identify the part-worth utilities and relative importance scores of selected park features using Hierarchical Bayes analyses within Sawtooth Software. For the overall sample and both boys and girls, the most important driver of choice for a park that would encourage them to be active was presence of a flying fox (overall conjoint analysis relative importance score: 15.8%; 95%CI = 14.5, 17.1), followed by a playground (13.5%; 95%CI = 11.9, 15.2). For the overall sample, trees for climbing had the third highest importance score (10.2%; 95%CI = 8.9, 11.6); however, swings had 3rd highest importance for girls (11.1, 95%CI = 9.3, 12.9) and an obstacle course/parkour area had the 3rd highest importance score for boys (10.7, 95%CI = 9.0, 12.4). For features with two levels, part-worth utility scores showed that the presence of a feature was always preferred over the absence of a feature. For features with multiple levels, long flying foxes, large adventure playgrounds, lots of trees for climbing, large round swings, large climbing equipment, and large grassy open space were the preferred levels. To ensure parks appeal as a setting that encourages children to engage in physical activity, park planners and local authorities and organisations involved in park design should prioritise the inclusion of a long flying fox, large adventure playgrounds, lots of trees for climbing, large round swings and obstacle courses/parkour areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Parks are a key setting for physical activity for children. However, little is known about which park features children prefer and which features are most likely to encourage them to be active in parks. This study examined the relative importance of park features among children for influencing their choice of park for engaging in park-based physical activity.
METHODS
Children (n = 252; 8-12 years, 42% male) attending three primary schools in Melbourne, Australia completed a survey at school. They were required to complete a series of Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint analysis tasks, with responses used to identify the part-worth utilities and relative importance scores of selected park features using Hierarchical Bayes analyses within Sawtooth Software.
RESULTS
For the overall sample and both boys and girls, the most important driver of choice for a park that would encourage them to be active was presence of a flying fox (overall conjoint analysis relative importance score: 15.8%; 95%CI = 14.5, 17.1), followed by a playground (13.5%; 95%CI = 11.9, 15.2). For the overall sample, trees for climbing had the third highest importance score (10.2%; 95%CI = 8.9, 11.6); however, swings had 3rd highest importance for girls (11.1, 95%CI = 9.3, 12.9) and an obstacle course/parkour area had the 3rd highest importance score for boys (10.7, 95%CI = 9.0, 12.4). For features with two levels, part-worth utility scores showed that the presence of a feature was always preferred over the absence of a feature. For features with multiple levels, long flying foxes, large adventure playgrounds, lots of trees for climbing, large round swings, large climbing equipment, and large grassy open space were the preferred levels.
CONCLUSION
To ensure parks appeal as a setting that encourages children to engage in physical activity, park planners and local authorities and organisations involved in park design should prioritise the inclusion of a long flying fox, large adventure playgrounds, lots of trees for climbing, large round swings and obstacle courses/parkour areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34627280
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01203-x
pii: 10.1186/s12966-021-01203-x
pmc: PMC8501594
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
133Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016 Jun;41(6 Suppl 3):S197-239
pubmed: 27306431
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jun 28;15(7):
pubmed: 29958386
Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):e1381-9
pubmed: 17079539
J Sci Med Sport. 2012 Mar;15(2):136-41
pubmed: 22051688
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Sep;41(3):258-65
pubmed: 21855739
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Mar 27;10:39
pubmed: 23531282
J Sport Health Sci. 2019 Sep;8(5):412-421
pubmed: 31534816
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001 May;155(5):554-9
pubmed: 11343497
Obes Facts. 2009;2(3):187-95
pubmed: 20054224
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2010 May;40(5):102-17
pubmed: 20381783
Prev Med. 2013 Feb;56(2):107-11
pubmed: 23201001
Am J Health Promot. 2011 May-Jun;25(5):e1-9
pubmed: 21534825
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 May 13;16(9):
pubmed: 31086047
Extrem Physiol Med. 2013 Jan 03;2(1):3
pubmed: 23849478
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 18;14(3):e0212920
pubmed: 30883562
Prev Med. 2019 Jun;123:117-122
pubmed: 30898586
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 31;15(9):
pubmed: 30200374
Health Place. 2021 Jul;70:102617
pubmed: 34246081
Prev Med. 2020 Feb;131:105945
pubmed: 31805315
Prev Med. 2008 Nov;47(5):514-8
pubmed: 18718847
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Jun;48(6):1197-222
pubmed: 27182986
J Phys Act Health. 2018 Nov 1;15(S2):S251-S273
pubmed: 30475137
J Urban Health. 2019 Oct;96(5):692-702
pubmed: 31493183
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Jan;40(1):181-8
pubmed: 18091006
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 04;15:610
pubmed: 26141112
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 27;17(13):
pubmed: 32605061
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Jun 08;12(6):6423-54
pubmed: 26062038
Prev Med. 2016 Aug;89:257-277
pubmed: 27311337
Health Place. 2012 May;18(3):586-94
pubmed: 22365385