Living close to a safe, clean park increases the amount of time California teenagers spend exercising, a new policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research shows.
The findings, while not necessarily surprising, have implications for park-starved areas of California and for neighborhoods where parks are not considered safe, according to Susan H. Babey, a senior research scientist at the UCLA center and lead author of the study.
Across the state, only 25 percent of adolescents live near a park or open space, according to the policy brief. Of the teens who live near parks, low-income teenagers were more likely than teens from higher-income families to report that their neighborhood park was unsafe. Low-income teens also were less likely to be active for at least one hour daily.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity for teenagers. In California, only 15 percent of teens meet this recommendation, down from 19 percent in 2007.
Nearly 45 percent of California teens who live near a park — within a quarter-mile of a small park or a half-mile of a large one — reported that they bike, run, play sports or engage in other physical activities for at least one hour a day, at least five days a week. Only one-third of teens who don’t have access to a nearby park reported the same level of physical activity.
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
Comments (2)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Jane Meredith Adams 11 years ago11 years ago
Yes, yet again, the tie between income and health is strong. Improving aesthetics, removing graffiti, and adding strategically placed lighting at parks in low-income neighborhoods is a recommendation in the report, and would seem like a logical step toward getting kids to run around more.
navigio 11 years ago11 years ago
I am surprised that the policy brief's recommendations did not address the impact of increased density efforts. In my view, increasing density is often driven by developer interests (instead of community ones) and these apparently rarely include the changes to infrastructure that increased density should require, including, but not limited to, the existence of free space. It is interesting to see the recommendation surrounding joint use access to school grounds. I have seen examples where this … Read More
I am surprised that the policy brief’s recommendations did not address the impact of increased density efforts. In my view, increasing density is often driven by developer interests (instead of community ones) and these apparently rarely include the changes to infrastructure that increased density should require, including, but not limited to, the existence of free space.
It is interesting to see the recommendation surrounding joint use access to school grounds. I have seen examples where this was tried but there was such blowback from the surrounding community, who did not appreciate the increased foot and car traffic, or who were impacted by nighttime lighting. Safety issues were also mentioned, and in fact may be even more important when discussing joint use of school campuses.
Anyway, not surprising to see yet another way in which income level correlates with health..