The Impact of Environmental Change on African-American Youth Physical Activity in an Urban Community Park: A Pilot Study

Minority group youth are falling below the recommended physical activity levels

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

2007), and increasing physical activity requires a creative approach to developing effective

health promotion interventions to accomplish this goal. Ecological theory suggests that building

environmental support for health behaviors can be a powerful health communication intervention

strategy (Kreps, 2008; Sallis, Cervero, Ascher, Henderson, Kraft, & Kerr, 2006). For example,

there is a growing body of research indicating that the design of physical environments can

encourage or discourage physical activity in both adults and children (Davison & Lawson, 2006;

Duncan, Spence, & Mummery, 2005; Transportation Research Board, 2005; Humpel, Marshall,

Leslie, Bauman, & Owen, 2004; Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2003; Sallis, Bauman, & Pratt, 1998).

Studies have also shown that there are strong relationships between physical activity and

environmental design (Transportation Research Board, 2005; Sallis and Glanz, 2006),

particularly as applied to revitalized physical environments. In essence, we believe that

environmental design can serve as a key factor influencing physical activity.

However, there have been a limited number of studies conducted and results are mixed

concerning the influences of public built environmental change on minority youth physical

activity levels (Boarnet, Anderson, Day, McMillan, & Alfonzo, 2005; Evenson, Herring, &

Huston, 2005; Merom, Bauman, Vita, & Close, 2003). Some research suggests that children’s

physical activity levels at school can be improved by increasing the accessibility of quality play

spaces (Sallis, Cervero, Ascher, Henderson, Kraft, & Kerr, 2006; Wechsler, Devereaux, Davis,

& Collins, 2000; Stone, McKenzie, Welk, & Booth, 1998). A study by Colabianchi, Kinsella,

Coulton, and Moore concluded that renovated play environments in urban areas result in higher

1

utilization rates (2009).

This pilot study examines the physical activity levels of African American youth in an

undeveloped urban park environment versus a re-built urban park environment. The first section

of this paper reviews the literature on urban revitalization, park facilities and development, and

physical activity. The second section describes the research design to test the hypothesized

relationship between revitalized park facilities and physical activity levels of African-American

youth. It includes the setting of the study, the direct field observation instrument and procedures,

the sample population, and data analysis approach. The final section analyzes the results in light

of the pilot study’s limitations and proposes directions for future research.

Literature Review

According to a review of current physical activity studies, the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) established guidelines recommending that children and

adolescents should partake in one hour or more of physical activity each day (CDC, 2008).

People living in low-income areas and communities of color often have less access to recreation

facilities, and face unique environmental challenges that may make it difficult for them to engage

in the recommended amount of physical activity (Moore, Diez, Roux, Evenson, McGinn, &

Brines, 2008; Filner, 2006; Powell, Slater, & Chaloupka, 2006; Wilson, 1987; Deutsche, 1986).

This research is vital to designing, implementing, and sustaining public health policies and

environmental changes to urban community park spaces that could potentially increase the

physical activity of minority youth in communities and enhance health outcomes. Previous

literature has addressed the effects of urban revitalization, park facilities and development, and

physical activity.

2

Urban Revitalization

Current and past research has taken a vested interest in the revitalization of struggling

urban neighborhoods. After years of decline and disuse of many urban communities, a

confluence of local businesses, government agencies, and neighborhood groups have worked

together to help rebuild these areas (Filner, 2006; Wilson, 1987; Deutsche, 1986). Specifically,

Wilson (1987) found that while motivated by a diverse range of goals, collaborating institutions

were able to collectively reshape an urban park to help increase physical activity and investment

in the revitalized neighborhood. In this case, the socio-economic status of the neighborhood

changed within that decade due in part to the urban park revitalization project.

In the early 1990s, the Minneapolis Community Development agency launched a

National Revitalization Program (NRP) as an effort to improve parks, schools, and homes

(Filner, 2006). The NRP revealed the true benefits of establishing a participatory system when

revitalizing a community. For instance, community members were more prone to feel like they

are a part of the decision making process when they had a voice in revitalization efforts.

Therefore, the NRP composed volunteer boards that consisted of members from the

neighborhood (Filner, 2006). The board members were elected in a public forum and served a

two-year term. By creating local organizations to serve as participatory empowerment bodies,

NRP was able to develop neighborhood activists who created a sense of community and

government/community involvement (Filner, 2006). By developing these activists, NRP helped

to communicate a sense of community and a strong sense of collaboration between the

government and community members. Filner’s (2006) study, done as a part of the Minneapolis

Community Development Agency’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program, demonstrates the

3

importance of establishing participatory community involvement throughout any urban

revitalization process.

In the past, changes in violence have been addressed as a product of urban revitalization

(Ferré, 1987). Ferré’s (1987) article discussed the Ponce Playa Project which is based on the

principle that a community made aware of its own resources will revitalize, and create a more

humane and more satisfying lifestyles for community members, including its children. The

project focused on three strategies: awakening a sense of personal worth, creating a vision

expressed in community, and participating in a revitalization process (Ferré, 1987).

Implementing these changes created a community-centered focus to the project that helped

families and children feel safer in their neighborhood.

Park Facilities and Development

A significant benefit to urban park revitalization is the focus on community facilities,

specifically public parks and recreation areas. When a park or playground has been renovated,

children may be more likely to engage in physical activity there (Wilson, 1987). The CDC

suggests the use of park equipment to stimulate physical activity in children (CDC, 2008).

Younger children usually strengthen their muscles when they engage in gymnastics, play on a

jungle gym or climb trees (Physical Activity for Everyone, 2009). However, the ability for

children and adolescents to partake in these activities may be limited because of their access to

recreational facilities.

Studies have shown that commercial physical activity–related facilities, such as health

clubs or gyms, were less likely to be present in lower-income neighborhoods and in

neighborhoods with higher proportions of racial minorities (Powell, Slater, & Chaloupka, 2006).

However, many of the parks that do exist in urban areas have not been well-maintained,

4

equipped, or utilized (Wilson, 1987). Improving park facilities could be an important strategy to

increase the physical activity levels of urban minority youth (Moore, Diez, Roux, Evenson,

McGinn, & Brines, 2008). Thus, built environment such as a park with a playground and

equipment might encourage youth and adolescents to use these facilities.

Physical Activity

Research has suggested that with the implementation of park revitalization in urban areas,

physical activity may increase among neighborhood children (Powell et al., 2006). Studies have

also shown that there is an increasing prevalence of childhood obesity among preschoolers who

live farther away from playgrounds and in unsafe neighborhoods (Burdette & Whitaker, 2004).

Powell et al. (2006) found that ecological models suggest that environmental barriers to physical

activity may be an important factor that can be modified to facilitate more physical activity.

Recent studies have begun to examine the importance of a series of different types of

environmental factors, including aesthetics, safety, traffic, and the availability of physical

activity-related facilities and outdoor spaces, among others. Research has shown that public

parks are critical resources for physical activity in minority communities (Cohen, McKenzie,

Sehgal, Williamson, Golinelli, & Lurie, 2007). Residential proximity to the parks or recreation

areas also influences the amount of physical activity that takes place at that location (Sallis,

Hovell, Hofstetter, Elder, Hackley, Caspersen, & Powell, 1990). Therefore, the closer residents

or families are to a neighborhood park facility; the more children will utilize the park to play

(engage in physical activity).

Children and adolescents need three types of activities for health: aerobic activity, muscle

strengthening, and bone strengthening (Physical Activity for Everyone, 2009). Brownson,

Boehmer, and Luke (2007) found that childhood and adolescence are key times to form lifelong

5

eating and physical activity habits. Furthermore, there are large racial and ethnic differences in

the pervasiveness of overweight and obesity suggesting that culturally sensitive approaches to

promoting physical activity are needed (Brownson et al., 2007). Sensitivity to racial and ethnic

differences that may affect health behaviors and body weight status, such as differences in local

communities, perceptions of body weight, food preparation practices, eating practices, and

physical activity/inactivity patterns is needed by both policy makers and public health workers

(Brownson et al., 2007). Focusing attention on the demographics of the community will

contribute to proper implementation of urban park community revitalization projects.

Children in urban areas are at high risk of developing childhood obesity (Dietz, 1983).

Both energy intake and energy expenditure are involved in the development of obesity, as shown

by the effectiveness of behavior change in treating childhood obesity (Epstein, 1986; Saris,

1986). Addressing childhood obesity is complex and requires a multi-pronged approach.

Improving the urban community with revitalized built environments is a first step. Other steps

are needed such as longitudinal physical activity studies and self-efficacy improvements aimed at

the children and families within communities. First, more longitudinal physical activity studies

are needed to determine the contribution of eating and physical activity behaviors to the

development of obesity (Marcus, Dubbert, Forsyth, McKenzie, Stone, Dunn, & Blair, 2000;

McKenzie, Sallis, Nader, Patterson, Elder, Berry, Rupp, Atkins, Buono, & Nelson, 1991).

Second, interventions promoting physical activity for children (particularly obese children)

should attempt to bolster self-efficacy in regards to exercise and increased awareness of

community physical activity outlets (Trost, Kerr, Ward and Pate, 2001).

In the past, urban park revitalization has been associated with increasing youth physical

activity in urban areas. However, few recent studies have been conducted on this topic (Cohen et

6

al, 2007). Much of the empirical literature was published over 20 years ago (Ferré, 1987;

Wilson, 1987; Deutsche, 1986). Nevertheless, based on the current review of the literature on

urban revitalization, park facilities and development, and physical activity, this pilot study

advances the following hypothesis:

H1: Implementation of environmental changes to public park facilities in an urban

area will lead to increased physical activity by African-American youth.

Method

The pilot study tested the relationship between the independent variable, environmental

changes to park facilities, and the dependent variable, physical activity of African-American

youth. Regarding environmental changes, the research team chose two sites in Washington,

D.C: Marvin Gaye Park (MGP), a recently renovated park in a largely African-American

community, and a comparison park, Oxon Run Park (ORP), in a demographically similar

community. A specific area within Oxon Run Park was selected due to the comparable size and

location that roughly simulated the conditions of MGP prior to renovation. A comparison park

was used due to the lack of baseline data collected prior to the renovation of MGP.

Physical activity of African-American youth from 6 to 14 years was measured at the two

sites using direct field observation. The research team employed a predetermined coding

procedure, based on the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC)

(McKenzie & Cohen, 2006).

Parks

In 2008, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) in association with other

public and private funding sources initiated the revitalization of MGP. MGP is located in an area

7

which is 98% African-American and where 25% of the families live below the poverty line (U.S.

Bureau of the Census, 2000).

MGP, once referred to as "Needle Park," was a well-known drug haven littered with

thousands of pounds of broken beer bottles, empty beer cans, trash and used hypodermic needles

(Ricard, 2009; Sullivan, 2006). Prior to the park revitalization, MGP was an open parcel of

green-space with no recreational equipment. In August 2009, community residents celebrated

the opening of a new playground area within MGP which includes a brand new play area with

swing set and various modern playground activity stations including a cone-shaped activity

center complete with a swing and climbing nets, two spin apparatuses, and an octagon-shaped

piece of equipment with climbing nets. A special safety surface throughout the play area and

park benches around the perimeter completed the installation. There also was landscaping work

done to the park, as well as the introduction of an amphitheater that significantly changes the

physical environment of MGP. The renovation represents a significant environmental change for

the community served by the park, since the original condition of the park did not adequately

support youth physical activity to any extent and was not considered a safe location by the

community residents. The photographs in Figures 1 through 5 illustrate the differences between

MGP (that was renovated) and ORP (that was not renovated)..

The second site, ORP, was chosen as a comparison park because it simulates the

approximate size and type of playground area at MGP prior to renovation, although it does not

have all the debris that was part of the old MGP (Needle Park). The community where the park is

located is demographically similar to the MGP neighborhood, where almost all the residents are

African-American and the proportion of families living below the poverty line is 32% (U.S.

Bureau of the Census, 2000). The comparison park’s observation area has no equipment as was

8

the case with MGP pre-renovation. However, ORP is located in a safer area, which is to say it

had no community reputation as being unsafe or did not demonstrate being inhabited by drug

dealers or drug users. In many ways, ORP is a very conservative comparison area for this study,

since it is much cleaner and safer than the old MGP area.

Observation Instrument

The pilot study used an adapted version of the SOPARC observational guide, a validated

tool for observing activity in parks (McKenzie & Cohen, 2006), as a reference for a starting point

to for observing activity in the MGP park. The SOPARC tool has a strong validity, having been

tested by observing 16,244 individuals in 165 park areas (McKenzie, Cohen, Sehgal,

Williamson, and Golinelli, 2006) as well as being used in numerous other studies on observing

physical activity and park use (Shores, West, 2009; Tester & Baker, 2009; Shores & West,

2008). SOPARC was designed to obtain observational data on the number of participants and

their physical activity levels in community environments (McKenzie et al., 2006). In addition,

SOPARC provides contextual information on the setting in which the physical activity occurs.

SOPARC is based on momentary time sampling that involves observing groups and

individuals at specified time intervals (McKenzie et al., 2006). Like the SOPARC tool, this

study’s observation instrument includes two parts. The first coding sheet examines the overall

conditions and activity in the park and the second focuses on individual participants. (See the

Snapshot Observation Code Sheet in Appendix A). As demonstrated in the SOPARC coding

schema, the study’s overall observation sheet asks for information on the location of the park,

date and time of observations, weather-related and park conditions (including equipment), and

total number of people in the park. The coding sheet includes space for recording gender,

primary and secondary activities of the target audience, as well as their activity level.

9

The research team adapted the SOPARC tool to the objectives of the pilot study and to

the specific situation of the park and community in this study. The first and primary

modification was the focus on park visitors between the ages of 6 and 14. Second, all the park

participants were observed to be African-American so determination of race was not included in

the instrument. Third, like the SOPARC tool, “sedentary” was operationalized as sitting,

standing and lying down. However, only one category, “active,” was used for non-sedentary

activity, measured by observing walking, running, playing structured or unstructured games, and

using the equipment (spinning, swinging, and climbing). The limited nature of the activities that

could be performed in the renovated MGP space did not warrant distinguishing between

moderate and vigorous activity. In addition, a parallel section on the code sheet was included to

measure activity in MGP outside the renovated playground area in an adjacent grassy space that

was within observers’ eyesight.

As for individual participants, the SOPARC tool is designed to observe the general level

of activity (moderate or vigorous) of all participants in the park at 10-minute intervals. The

coders observed all participants at different time intervals, and recorded activity of individual

participants in-depth, one at a time, in the target age range (6 to 14 years) from the moment of

their entry into the park until their departure. (See the Individual Participant Code Sheet in

Appendix B.) The research team noted the duration of each activity for each participant

observed. In this way, the study could examine the use of the specific playground equipment and

of the spaces without equipment, as well as the level of activity in those areas. The code sheet

grid also enabled coders to note when sedentary activity was associated with a piece of

equipment or even a structured game, such as sitting on the swing set or sitting on the sidelines

watching children playing with a soccer ball.

10

Observation Procedures

Observation areas in both the control and intervention parks were visited, and the size,

location, and boundaries of each space were determined. Detailed maps, including where the

coders performing observations were to stand or sit, were developed. Coders at MGP observed

from inside the playground area so that they could visually see all activities taking place there

and in the grassy area outside the playground within eyesight. The coders at the MGP park wore

Washington Parks & People t-shirts to show that they were endorsed by a well-respected

community organization. Researchers at ORP positioned themselves adjacent to the park area so

that observation of the entire area was possible.

Six coders conducted the observations after participating in a two-part training program.

The first part consisted of a classroom lecture and discussion session on observation techniques

and use of procedures which are detailed in the instructions for completing the code sheets. (See

the Coder Instructions in Appendix C.) The second part of the training included practice

observations and completion of the code sheets at the intervention park. Overall activity was

recorded five times during a two-hour session: once at the beginning, three times during the

session, and once at the end. Observers started the individual participant coding process when a

participant entered the park’s observation area. Participant selection for coding was random,

except when two or more children entered the park at the same time. In that case, the coders

chose which child to observe and code. In order to reduce the possibility of bias in choosing

which child to observe and code, none of the coders were from the community, nor did they

know anyone from the community, other than representatives of the Washington Parks & People

organization who served only in the capacity of community liaisons. (Washington Parks &

People is a non-profit organization dedicated to restoring and enhancing public parks in the

11

National Capital Region). Observers recorded the selected participant’s total time in the park

and the amount of time spent on each piece of equipment, as well as non-equipment, activity

both inside and outside the playground area as well as the level of activity. They also noted if

the participants continued to be in the park after the two-hour recording session ended.

Following the training, the coders completed the code sheets independently for two

practice intervals in MGP to achieve satisfactory reliability according to reliability formula

suggested by Holsti (1969). The final calculated inter-rater reliability score was .94 across all

categories.

A total of 16 hours (eight two-hour coding sessions) were completed between October 3,

2009 and October 16, 2009. (See the coder schedule in Table 1.) Eight hours each were

recorded at MGP and at ORP. Coding was curtailed or canceled for another eight hours of

scheduled observation because of rain. Coding was later stopped after shooting incidents

occurred within the MGP community. The observer schedule was modified so that park visitors

and level of activity could be equally compared at the two parks at equivalent times of the day

and week.

Participants

Observers focused on African-American children in both parks who were between the

ages of 6 and 14, the target audience for the study. In some cases, the exact age of the

participants was confirmed by the Washington Parks & People volunteers who were assigned to

the observers. The coders recorded in detail activities for a total of 14 individual participants,

nine males and five females. Approximately 50% of the participants were from 6 to 10 years old

and 50% were from 11 to 14 years of age.

Data Analysis

12

As the sample size was small (N=14), data were analyzed using summary statistics. The

following outcomes were calculated: (1) the average number of people, regardless of age, at any

one-half hour time interval at the two parks; (2) the most frequent activities engaged in by youth

in the target age group by gender; (3) the proportion of youth observed in the snapshot intervals

who were active versus sedentary; (4) the average amount of time spent in MGP by the

individual participants in the sample; (5) the proportion of time individuals in the target age

range engaged in active vs. sedentary participation; and (6) the proportion of time individual

participants engaged in playground equipment vs. non-equipment activity. The data analysis for

outcomes is only computed on both parks on Outcome #1: the average number of people,

regardless of age, at any one-half hour time interval at the two parks, as there were no activities

occurred in ORP to be coded.

Results

Outcome 1: Average Number of Park Visitors

The number of visitors to MGP playground recorded at 30-minute intervals varied from 0

to 48. Between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., regardless of day of the week and amount of daylight

(all observations were done during the day), the number of visitors dropped dramatically. The

total participant count increased when a structured game, such as football, soccer or baseball,

was played in the grassy area adjacent to the MGP playground. The average number of visitors

at any one time on the weekends (when there was no active precipitation) was 21. Only one

observation was completed during the week and the average number of visitors over four

intervals was relatively low (4.5) with a range from 0 to 11, possibly because of conflicting after-

school activities, such as sports or other extracurricular activities

13

In contrast to the observations in MGP, the only activity among persons aged 6 to 14

observed in the comparison park, ORP, was two high school-aged children walking across the

park to reach another destination for a six-minute period of time over the entire observation time

period.

Outcome 2: Most Frequently Observed MGP Activities

The research team recorded 148 observations of youth in the 6 to 14-year-old range who

were participating in primary and secondary activities over the entire observation time period.

However, the snapshot observations were taken at half-hour intervals and individual

participants could be double-counted if they continued to play in the park past 30 minute

intervals. Approximately one-half were female (75) and one-half were male (73). The

proportion of use of the playground equipment in relation to participation in non-equipment

activities was 78% to 22%, or more than four times as much. The results showed that 85% of the

activities took place inside the playground; 15% of the activities were observed in the grassy area

within eyesight of the observers.

The percentage of males and females engaged in primary and secondary activities (based

on the SOPARK observational tool) for each piece of equipment and non-equipment activity is

shown in Figure 1. The most frequent primary activity for females was use of the playground

equipment, especially the swing set (53%) and to a much lesser extent, the cone activity (27%).

Similarly, the playground equipment, especially the spin apparatus (35%) and the cone activity

(30%), was used by the largest proportion of females engaged in secondary activities. As for

primary activities for males, they participated in structured and unstructured games, such as

baseball, football, and catch, inside and outside the playground, to a much greater extent than

females (44% compared to 6%). However, for both primary and secondary activities, male park

14

visitors also used the playground equipment. For example, 27% of those participating in primary

activities used the swing set and 29% used each of three pieces of equipment as a secondary

activity.

Outcome 3: Proportion of Active versus Sedentary Youth

The proportion of youth who were physically active while participating in the park in

primary and secondary activities was 76.7%, while 23.3% were sedentary. Females were more

active than males: 84% of the females were engaged actively in primary or secondary activities,

while 70% of the males were engaged in physical activities.

Outcome 4: Average Amount of Time in Park

In addition to snapshots of all visitors, data were collected on the individual participant

sample of 14 participants, nine males and five females. Due to the small sample size, the results

were not broken down by gender. The average amount of time spent in the park by all

individuals in the sample was 25.13 minutes.

Outcome 5: Proportion of Active versus Sedentary Individuals

The sample of observed individual participants spent an average of 77.3% of their time in

the park engaged in physical activity and 22.7% of the time in sedentary activities such as sitting,

standing, or lying down in the park.

Outcome 6: Proportion of Individual Time on Equipment versus Non-Equipment Activities

As seen in Figure 2, individual participants observed at MGP spent an average of 62.6%

of their time in the park on the playground equipment and 37.3% on non-equipment related

activities. The swing set and the spin apparatus represented 48% of the overall park use and

66.7% of the park equipment use.

15

Even though the sample of individual participants (N=14) was small, the results support

the findings of the snapshot observations. For example, as noted above (Outcome #5), individual

participants spent an average of 77.3% of their time in active physical participation and 22.7% of

the time in sedentary activities. These figures are virtually identical to the proportion of active

versus sedentary youth participating in primary and secondary activities: 76.7%, to 23.3%

(Outcome #3). However, the collective results in terms of playground equipment vs. non-

equipment activity, the collective measurement of 78% equipment vs. 22% non-equipment

activity (Outcome #2) does not match the individual result of 63% playground equipment vs.

37% non-equipment (Outcome #6).

Discussion

Overall, the results of this pilot study strongly supported the research hypothesis:

Implementation of environmental changes to park facilities at MGP has resulted in increased

youth physical activity. The data indicate significant differences between the renovated park and

the comparison park in terms of youth physical activity rates and intensity. In contrast to the

comparison park, where very few visitors and minimal physical activity were observed, a sizable

number of youth visited the renovated park, especially on weekends with good weather, an

average of 21. This number of visitors account for only the period of time when the park was

being observed, not the total number of visitors per day. Most of the youth visitors actively

engaged in physical activity (76.7%), and used the park equipment (62.6%) for a fair amount of

time, an average of 25 minutes.

According to the International Consensus Conference on Physical Activity Guidelines for

Adolescents of CDC (CDC, 2008), it is recommended that “youth engage in one hour of aerobic

physical activity per day, with three of those days including bone-strengthening activities such as

16

jumping rope or running and three of those days including muscle strengthening activities such

as gymnastics or push ups). Considering the fact that youth in this pilot study spent more than

75% of their time (approximately 18 minutes per a visit) participating in physical activity, the

renovated park may help youth achieve the recommended level of physical activity. In addition,

youth in the renovated park demonstrated a much higher level of physical activity in comparison

to a previous study that investigated physical activity in 165 park areas using the SOPARC tool

(McKenzie & Cohen, 2006). The observations by the MPG coders showed that park visitors

rarely engaged in moderate to vigorous activity (about 16% of total time spent in the park).

However, comparison of results is difficult because this pilot study did not replicate all of the

conditions of the McKenzie and Cohen (2006) research.

One interesting and unexpected result of this pilot study is that females were more active

than males: 84% of the females were engaged in either primary or secondary activities, while

70% of the males were physically active. This result contradicts previous studies showing that

males tend to visit parks in greater numbers than females, and males general demonstrate a

higher level of physical activity than females (e.g., Shores & West, 2009).

However, this study has limitations in terms of research design and measures. First, there

was no baseline comparison conducted at MGP prior to the renovation and it may be that ORP

does not exactly duplicate the conditions at the pre-renovated MGP. Second, the initial

observation schedule of 40 hours was curtailed because of rain (no coding was conducted) and a

gang-related drive by shooting in the neighborhood of the park. As a result, the sample size (N =

14) was inadequate for conducting statistical inferences. A longer period of observation is

needed to examine the relationship between seasonal variations and days of the week on the one

hand, and physical activity on the other. In this way, park designers and providers can develop

17

and provide different activity programs depending on weather and other environmental

conditions.

Third, the use of direct observation as the only research method has significant

limitations. The park visitors were aware of the researchers’ presence. Though the coders

strived to avoid interaction with the park visitors, at times it was unavoidable. Furthermore, the

activity in the park was very dynamic. It was initially challenging for coders to track the usage

of the park facilities as well as the activity level of participants. Moreover, although some of the

threats to internal validity due to researcher bias (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000) were controlled

by limiting observation sessions to two hours, the coders were aware of the purposes of the

research and could have been influenced by this knowledge. Thus direct field observation

should be supplemented with other quantitative measures, such as physical activity level

monitors and instruments on park users.

Fourth, an in-depth or qualitative approach to participants and the community could

uncover more perspectives on minority youth use of park facilities. The results of this pilot

study demonstrate that participants actively engage in physical activities, using the playground

equipment during most of their time spent in the park. However, this research project did not

address participants’ motivation. Follow-up interviews and focus groups with youth, parents and

caregivers, and community leaders could address additional questions, such as why youth in the

target audience use the park and the equipment, how they feel about the environmental changes

to the park, and what they experience differently in the space.

The fifth critical point to examine in future research is the collective or group activity of

participants. Participant observation focused on conditions of the park and activities of

individual participants. However, the research team noted that participants were more likely to

18

act together with their friends and families. They continuously talked to each other, played as

groups, and helped each other to use equipment (e.g., pushing younger siblings on the swings).

These collective activities were not addressed in the observation code sheets. Finally, in future

studies, the unit of analysis needs to be not only individuals but also groups, and more variables

should be included to understand group behaviors.

Conclusion

Although the pilot study’s scope was somewhat diminished by the effects of the weather

and the neighborhood violence, the results that were obtained were significant. Comparing the

physical activity level of the undeveloped park, ORP, to the activity level of the revitalized park,

MGP, demonstrates the positive effect that built environment can have on the activity level of its

young community members.

As a part of a larger effort, it is recommended that this study be expanded to examine the

continuing effects of this built environment over a longer period of time. For example, this

particular study took place in the fall and a more complete picture could be obtained by taking a

year-long look at the use of the park by the community children. A further development of this

study could include the actual measurement of physical activity levels of the community children

with the use of individual accelerometers that monitor and store the intensity of body movement.

As childhood obesity continues to be a challenge for the youth of today, studies like this

and others that demonstrate positive effects of a built environment in an urban community

revitalization project on its children’s activity levels, continue to make contributions to the body

of research surrounding this challenge. Healthcare professionals, landscape architects, park

designers, program providers, and community leaders should be encouraged to consider parks as

a catalyst for promoting a range of positive health behaviors among minority youth.

19

References

Boarnet, M. G., Anderson, C. L., Day, K., McMillan, T., & Alfonzo, M. (2005). Evaluation of the California safe routes to school legislation: Urban form changes and children's active transportation to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 2, Suppl 2, 134–140.

Brownson, R. C., Boehmer, T. K, & Luke, D. A. (2005). Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: What are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 421-443. DOI:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144437

Burdette, H. L., & Whitaker, R. C. (2004). Neighborhood playgrounds, fast food restaurants, and crime: Relationships to overweight in low-income preschool children. Preventive Medicine, 38, 1, 57-63.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Physical activity levels among children aged 9–13 years — United States, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 52, 785–788. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a5.htm.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53, 21–24. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a5.htm.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Physical activity for everyone. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/children.html.

Cohen, D., McKenzie, T., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 3, 509-514.

Colabianchi, N., Kinsella, A., Coulton, C., & Moore, S. (2009). Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Preventative Medicine, 48, 2, 140-143.

Davison, K. K., & Lawson, C. T. (2006). Do attributes in the physical environment influencechildren's physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition, and Physical Activity, 3, 19. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-3-19.

Diez Roux, A., Evenson, K., McGinn, A., Brown, D., Moore, L., Brines, S., & Jacobs, D. (2007). Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 3, 493-499.

Dietz, W. H. (1983). Childhood obesity: Susceptibility, cause, and management. The Journal of Pediatrics, 103, 5, 676-686.

Deutsche, R. (1986). Krzysztof Wodiczko’s “homeless projection” and the site of urban “revitalization.” The MIT Press, 38, 63-98.

Duncan, M. J., Spence, J. C., & Mummery, W. K. (2005). Perceived environment and physicalactivity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition, and Physical Activity 2, 11, DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-2-11

Epstein, L. H. (1986). Treatment of childhood obesity. In K. D. Brownell & J. P. Foreyt (Eds.), Handbook of eating disorders (pp. 159-179). New York: Basic Books.

Epstein, L. H., Kilanowski, C. K., Consalvi, A. R., & Paluch, R. A. (1999). Reinforcing value of physical activity as a determinant of child activity level. Health Psychology, 18, 6, 599–603.

20

Evenson, K. R., Herring, A. H., & Huston, S. L. (2005). Evaluating change in physical activity with the building of a multi-use trail. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 2, Suppl 2, 177–185.

Ferre’, M. I. (1987). Prevention and control of violence through community revitalization, individual dignity, and personal self-confidence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 494, 27-36.

Filner, M. (2006). The limits of participatory empowerment: Assessing the Minneapolis neighborhood revitalization program. State & Local Government Review, 38, 2, 67-77.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Heath, G. W., Brownson, R. C., Kruger, J., Miles, R., Powell, K. E., Ramsey, L. T., & Task Force for Community Preventative Services. (2006). The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, Suppl 1, S55-S76.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Humpel, N., Marshall, A. L., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Owen, N. (2004). Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 27, 1, 60–67.

Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children's perceptions of their home and neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantitative study. Health Education Research, 20, 1, 1-13. DOI:10.1093/her/cyg095

Kahn, E., Ramsey, L., Brownson, R., Heath, G., Howze, E., Powell, K., Stone, E., Rajab, M., & Corso, P. (2002). The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22, 4, 67-72.

Kreps, G.L. (2008). Strategic use of communication to market cancer prevention and control to vulnerable populations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 25(1/2), 204-216.

Marcus, B. H., Dubbert, P. M., Forsyth, L. H., McKenzie, T. L., Stone, E. J., Dunn, A. L., & Blair, S. N. (2000). Physical activity behavior change: Issues in adoption and maintenance. Health Psychology, 19, 1, Suppl, 32–41.

McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Nader, P. R., Patterson, T. L., Elder, J. P., Berry, C. C., Rupp, J. W., Atkins, C. J., Buono, M. J., & Nelson, J. A. (1991). BEACHES: An observational system for assessing children’s eating and physical activity behaviors and associated events. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 141–151.

McKenzie T. L. (2002). The use of direct observation to assess physical activity. In G. Welk (Ed.) Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Human Kinetics, 179-195.

McKenzie, T. L., & Cohen, D. (2006). SOPARC. Description and procedures manual. Retrieved from http:// http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/SOPARC_Protocols.pdf.

McKenzie, T. L., Cohen, D. A., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., & Golinelli, D. (2006). System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): Reliability and Feasibility Measures. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, Suppl 1, S208-S222.

Merchant, A., Dehghan, M., Behnke-Cook, D., & Anand, S. (2007). Diet, physical activity, and adiposity in children in poor and rich neighbourhoods: A cross-sectional comparison. Nutrition Journal, 6, 1,7.

21

Merom, D., Bauman, A., Vita, P., & Close, G. (2003). An environmental intervention to promote walking and cycling–the impact of a newly constructed Rail Trail in Western Sydney. Preventive Medicine, 36, 2, 235–242.

Moore, L., Diez Roux, A., Evenson, K., McGinn, A., & Brines, S. (2008). Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic status areas. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 1, 16-22.

Powell, L., Slater, S., Chaloupka, F., & Harper, D. (2006). Availability of physical activity-related facilities and neighborhood demographic and sociodemographic characteristics: A national study. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 9, 1676-1680. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.065573

Physical activity for everyone. Guide to Community Preventive Services Website. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/. Last updated: 06/14/2005.

Physical activity and the environment: Natural environment evidence review. NICE Public Health Collaborating Centre—Physical activity. November 10, 2006. http://www.nice.nhs.uk/nicemedia/pdf/word/Natural%20environment%20evidence%20review%20summary.doc.

Ricard, M. (2009, August 19). D.C. to celebrate improvements at Marvin Gaye Park. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.

Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., & Frank, L.D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 2, 80–91.

Sallis, J., Cervero, R., Ascher, W., Henderson, K., Kraft, M., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297-322. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100.

Sallis, J. F., Bauman, A., & Pratt, M. (1998). Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 4, 379–397.

Sallis, J. F., & Glanz, K. (2006). The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. Future Child, 16, 1, 89–108.

Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., Elder, J. P., Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J., & Powell, K. E. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Reports, 105, 2, 179–185.

Saris, W. H. M. (1986). Habitual physical activity in children: Methodology and findings in health and disease. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 18, 3, 253-263.

Shores, K. A., & West, S. T. (2009). The Relationship Between Built Park Environments and Physical Activity in Four Park Locations. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 14, 3, e9-e16

Shores, K. A., & West, S. T. (In Press). Rural and urban park visits and park-based physical activity. Preventive Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.023

Stone, E. J., McKenzie, T. L., Welk, G. J., & Booth, M. L. (1998). Effects of physical activity interventions in youth. Review and synthesis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 15, 4, 298–315.

Sullivan, P. (2006, April 2). Getting its groove back. The Washington Post. Retrieved http://www.washingtonpost.com.

Tester, J., & Baker, R. (2009). Making the playfields even: Evaluating the impact of an

22

environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 48, 4 316-320.

Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine. (2005). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence, TRB special report 282. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Trost, S. G., Kerr, L. M., Ward, D. S. ,& Pate, R. R. (2001). Physical activity and determinants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 25, 5, 822-829.

US Census Bureau. (2000). American Fact Finder. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

Wechsler, H., Devereaux, R.S., Davis, M., & Collins, J. (2000). Using the school environment to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Preventive Medicine, 31, 2, 121-137.

Wilson, D. (1987). Urban revitalization on the upper west side of Manhattan: An urban managerialist assessment. Economic Geography, 63, 1, 35-47.

23

Table 1.

Coder Observation Schedule

ObservationPeriod

Park Saturday Sunday Thursday

Oct. 3 – Oct. 9, 2009

Marvin Gaye 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Oxon Run 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Oct. 10 – Oct. 16, 2009

Marvin Gaye 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.(rain)

3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.(rain)

Oxon Run 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (rain)

3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.(rain)

24

Figure 1. Marvin Gaye Park under Renovation

25

Figure 2. Renovated Marvin Gaye Park: Swing set

26

Figure 3. Renovated Marvin Gaye Park: Cone Activity

27

Figure 4. Renovated Marvin Gaye Park: Spin Apparatus

28

Figure 5. Renovated Marvin Gaye Park: Octagon

29

Figure 6. Percentage Use of Marvin Gaye Park Facilities by Priority Activity and Gender (N=148)

30

Figure 7. Individual Participants’ Use of MGP Individual Playground Equipment and Non-equipment (N=14)

Playground Equipment Legend:

CA=Cone Activity Swing Set

SA=Spin Apparatus

SS=Traditional Swing Set

Octa=Octagon-shaped Play Apparatus

31

Appendix A: Snapshot Code Sheet

CODER NUMBER:______ PARK Marvin Gaye (MG) or Oxon Run (OR):_______________ DATE: ______month _______day ______year

WEATHER-RELATED CONDITIONS: Temp. at start:______; Temp. at end_______Rain? Y N (if “Yes,” duration): ________ minutesDark (i.e., not sufficient light)? Y NAny other weather conditions affecting usability (e.g., wet equipment)? Y N (Name________________)

PARK CONDITIONS:Equipment usable (e.g., equipment is accessible and in good repair)? Y NEmpty (i.e., scan area is empty)? Y N

INTERVAL: Coding occurred at (Circle one and enter hour): ____:00 _____ :30 _____:00 _____:30 ____:00 RECORD BELOW what is happening right now TOTAL NUMBER OF VISITORS TO PARK: ______________ TOTAL NUMBER 6-14: _____________

32

Inside Playground Area (MG)/Scan Area (OR) Grassy Area Outside Playground within Eyesight (MG only)

PEOPLE/ACTIVITY* AGE GROUP *INTENSITY(6-14 only)

Child6-10

Child 11-14

Total6-14

Ac-tive

Sed-entary

Primary Activity-Female:______________________ Secondary Activity-Female:______________________Totals-Female:Primary Activity-Male:______________________Secondary Activity-Male:______________________Totals-Male:Totals-Female + Male:

PEOPLE/ACTIVITY* AGE GROUP *INTENSITY(6-14 only)

Child6-10

Child11-14

Total6-14

Ac-tive

Sed-entary

Primary Activity-Female: _______________________Secondary Activity-Female:_______________________Totals-Female:Primary Activity-Male:_______________________Secondary Activity-Male:_______________________Totals-Male:Totals-Male + Female

*ACTIVITY: Equipment: SA-Spin Apparatus, CA-Cone/Activity Center, SS-Swing Set, OCTA-Octagon; Non-equipment: R-Running, J-Jumping, W-Walking, SIT-Sitting, STA- Standing, L-Lying Down, G-Organized Game (name), O-Other (name)*INTENSITY: Active = Running/Jumping/Walking/Climbing/Swinging/Spinning/Organized Game/Other; Sedentary: Sitting/Standing/Lying down/Other

Appendix B: Individual Participant Code Sheet

33

CODER_______ PARK (MG or OR):__________ DATE: ______month _______day ______yearParticipant number________ Gender (Circle): M F Approx. age (circle one): 6-10 11-14 unknown OR Enter age if known _________Arrival time in park (on clock)_________ Departure time (on clock)_______ Total time in park (in hours, minutes) ______

Activity(Active & Sedentary)

Equipment Non-equipment Total Timein minutes

Cone Spin Swing Set OctagonFrom To From To From To From To From To

SwingingClimbingSpinningRunningJumpingWalkingOrganized Game:_____________Other Active:_____________Total time (active)StandingSittingOther Sedentary:_____________Total time (sedentary)Total time(active + sedentary)

34

35

Appendix C: Coder Instructions

Coders are responsible for two tasks:

Record a snapshot of park activity at 30-minute intervals, beginning when you arrive, using a total of 5 general observation sheets per 2-hour period.

Record the activity of one participant at a time inside the playground area, using one individual participant data sheet for each of the participants you observe.

Snapshot of the park

You will complete a total of five sheets per 2-hour coding period:

one when you arrive on the hour one at 30 past the hour one on the hour one 30 minutes later one on the hour when you are about to leave.

Before you begin coding, make sure you have the following:

Temperature gauge or check temperature in your car Stopwatch Pencil Binder Observation forms (5 copies of snapshot code sheet; 10 copies of individual

participant code sheet)

36

Coder #

Park

Date

Enter your assigned code. George Mason coders will enter “G” followed by their assigned number. Washington Parks and People (buddy) coders will enter “W” followed by their assigned number.

Indicate the name of the park.

Enter month, day and year

Weather-related Conditions

Temperature: Using the gauge provided or the gauge in your car, enter the temperature when you arrive. Record the temperature when you have completed your 2-hour observation period.

Rain = If it’s raining when you arrive or during your observation period, circle “Y” and the duration; otherwise, circle “N.”

Dark = Indicate whether the park is dark at the time of your observation by circling “Y” or “N.”

Other environmental conditions = If the grassy area and playground equipment are not usable for weather-related reason other than rain and dark, circle “Y” and name the reason. Otherwise, circle “N.”

Park conditions Circle “Y” or “N” to describe specific non-weather-related conditions for the playground area and the area outside the playground within eyesight.

Equipment is usable = Code “Y” if area is usable for physical activity (e.g., is in good repair and accessible).

Empty = Code “Y” when there are no individuals present during your observation period.

Recording

Total number of visitors

Record what is happening right now. COMPLETE THE GRIDS FOR BOTH INSIDE THE PLAYGROUND AREA AND THE GRASSY AREA OUTSIDE THE PLAYGROUND AREA THAT IS WITHIN EYESIGHT. Fill in all spaces, using none or N/A (not applicable) for blank spaces.

Enter the total number of visitors in the park at the beginning of each 30-minute interval.

Enter the total number of visitors from 6 to 14 years in the park at the beginning of each 30-minute interval.

37

Total number of visitors-6-14 years

Observation Areas

At Marvin Gaye Park, conduct your observation from inside the fenced-off playground area. Code activity in the two grids: (1) inside the playground and (2) on the grassy area outside the playground that is within eyesight.

Inside the Playground (Marvin Gaye)/Scan Area (Oxon Run)

Outside the

1. Determine if there are females in the playground/scan area. If there are no females, write “none” and skip to step #6.

2. For females, determine the main physical activity and record it under primary activity. If there is only one female on the playground/scan area, record her activity as primary. Choose from names and abbreviations at the bottom of the code sheet. DO NOT MAKE UP your own.

NOTE: Do not record a non-equipment activity that is performed on the equipment. For example, if a participant is jumping on the Cone, enter “CA,” not “J” for Jumping.” If the participant is leaning on the swing set, enter “SS” for swing set, not “S” for “Standing.”

3. Scan the playground/scan area from left to right for females who are participants in the primary activity. Record the following:

Number of children 6 to 10 years Number of children 11 to 14 years Total number of children 6 to 14 years

4. Record the number of females aged 6 to 14 who are active (defined as running/jumping/climbing/swinging/spinning/other—name) and the number who are sedentary (defined as sitting/standing/lying down/other)

5. Decide if females are participating in a secondary activity. Even if only one female is not engaging in the primary activity, record her activity as secondary. Enter the same data as for the primary activity. If there are no females participating in a secondary activity, write “none” and go to step #6.

38

Playground Area(Marvin Gaye only) 6. Repeat steps #1 through #5 for males in the playground/scan area.

7. Repeat steps #1 through #6 for the grassy area outside the playground area within eyesight.

Totals You can record the totals for females, males and for both after you have completed your observation period.

After you have completed the park snapshot sheet, begin filling in the individual participant data sheet.

Individual Participant Data

Park/Date

Participant Selection

Enter the park and the date (same as for the snapshot).

Use one individual participant code sheet for each person you observe. Code ONE participant at a time.

Select a person whom you can observe from the moment s/he arrives in the grassy area of the park within eyesight. Do not record your observations of a participant who is in the middle of his/her visit.

The participant you select must be a person of African-American descent whom you perceive to be between 6 and 14 years of age (see if your buddy can verify the participant’s age). It is better to get valid data for one participant than to code several people at the same time and get incorrect measurements.

When the participant leaves the park area, begin coding a new participant when s/he arrives.

Participant CodeNumber

Start with your coder number, then count the first participant you code (1,2, etc). For example, if you are coder number G4, and you are observing your third participant, the participant number is G43.

Gender Circle whether the participant you have chosen is male or female.

39

Approximate Age If you have a rough idea of the individual’s age, circle “6-10” or “11-14.” If you have no idea, circle “Unknown.” Enter the exact age in the space provided you (or your buddy) is sure of the person’s age.

Arrival and Departure Times

Total Time inPark

ObservationGrid

Begin coding: (1) for Marvin Gaye when the participant you have chosen enters the grassy area of the park that is within your eyesight; (2) for Oxon Run when the participant enters the scan area. Enter his/her arrival time. When the participant leaves the park, enter his/her departure time and total time in hours and minutes in the park. If you complete your 2-hour observation period before the participant leaves the park, write “Not Recorded” in the box for the end time of his/her activity and in the blank space at the top of the page next to departure time.

Add the total time in hours and minutes that the participant was in the park area from arrival to departure. If you complete your 2-hour observation period before the participant leaves the park, enter “at least xx hours and xx minutes.”

The grid is divided into two parts: (1) Down the left-hand side: examples of “Active” and “Sedentary” levels of participation (2) Across the top: Equipment and non-equipment use.

1. For Marvin Gaye Park, decide whether the participant is using one of the pieces of equipment, or whether s/he is performing a non-equipment activity.

If the participant is in close vicinity of the equipment, s/he is considered to be using it, for example, if s/he is leaning on it, standing on it, or sitting beside it.

Non-equipment activities are performed inside the playground area or in the grassy area outside the playground within eyesight, but NOT on the playground equipment.

2. Decide which item (active or sedentary) in the left-hand column describes the participant’s use of a piece of equipment (cone, spin apparatus, swing set or octagon), or his/her non-equipment activity.

40

Note: If the participants are engaged in an active organized game, e.g., soccer, enter the name of the game in the space provided. Spaces are also provided for listing the name of “other” active and “other” sedentary activities. If applicable, specify those activities in the space provided.

3. Enter the participant’s starting and finishing times for that activity in the appropriate boxes. Then record his/her next equipment or non-equipment activity, and so on.

4. If the participant leaves one piece of equipment or non-equipment activity to perform another activity (equipment or non-equipment) and then returns to perform the same activity, enter the new start time, end time.

5. Calculate the total times in minutes for each equipment and non-equipment activities after you have completed your observation period.

Be sure to fill in all blank spaces with none or N/A for not applicable.

THANKS for contributing to the success of this project.