Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03222010RECCity of Sebastian Recreation Advisory Committee March 22, 2010 Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes Called to order by the Chairman: Roll Call: The following members were present Mrs. White, Mr. Danise, Mr. Sims, Mr. Van Arsdall. Mr. Adams and Mr. Seaman were Absent excused and Mr. Pelletier was absent Staff members present were Linda Kinchen, Secretary Approval of minutes: 2/22/10 Motion to approve by Mr. Danise second Mr. Sims, Passed unanimously. Old Business: Website Info update Linda gives update still not on the website will continue to work with IT department Dog Park No residents attended about the dog park Sunny says created a website which he is working with the city to link from there site. Also says the dog park users will be meeting at the yacht club 2 Tuesday of the month Mr. Danise Questions if links for City would open up any liability and what is the cost. Mr. Minner will approve putting the link on our website. Mr. Danise questions the pros and cons of doing this. Motion to recommend the possibility of a link on city website by Mr. VanArsdall second Mr. Sims passed 3 -1 with Mr. Danise voting nay Riverview Park Pelican Island parking cars were parked on Kiosk slab. Hose leaks were broken at Pelican Festival At the north east corner of Easy Street park there is a sign down Fountain is off at Easy Street and the walking asphalt by the playground and on the north side needs patching Public Input: Andrea Coy wants 2 chess /checkers tables in Riverview Park and make some handicap accessible. Mr. Danise recommends 2 tables 1 handicapped and 1 not second by Mrs. White passed unanimously Sunny says he has asked Chris before for an Easter egg hunt for seniors Too late this year everything is scheduled already Next meeting date 4/26/10 agenda as follows Old Business Website, Dog Park and Riverview Park New Business: Dog Park Website update Adjourned at 7PM Approved April 26, 2010 Regular Meeting By C airman, Parks an. Recreation 5) Old Business: Website Info Update Dog Park Riverview Park 6) New Business None 7) Input from Public 8) Chairman's Matters 9) Member comments 10) Staff Comments 11) Set next meeting date and agenda 11) Adjourn CITY Of HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 228 -7052 FAX (772) 228 -7077 AGENDA CITY OF SEBASTIAN RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 22, 2010 5:30 PM 1) Call Meeting to Order 2) Pledge of Allegiance 3) Roll Call 4) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting February 22. 2010 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589 -5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. To: Sebastian City Manager From: Parks Recreation Advisory Committee Subject: Consideration of Rejoining National Parks Rec. Assoc. Good Day Mr. Minner; At our last meeting, Feb. 22, 2010 I made commit about future possible benefits being offered to communities of the United States Tennis Association and mention the benefits of belonging to this organization and the National Parks Recreational Association. During the discussion we learned that the City of Sebastian is no longer a member of the National Parks Association. While appreciating your efforts of balancing the City budget, it was felt that membership in this organization was one that the city could not afford to drop. I was asked to write to you and express our desire to P y P have you reconsider having our city being a member of the organization. Thank you for your consideration. We remain ready and willing to assist you with helping to evaluate the needs and expectations of the City recreation needs. Respectfully John L Danise Jr. Co Cc Chris McCarthy Linda Kinchen Linda Kinchen 2/23/2010 Page 1 of 2 From: GEORGE J GEIGER [georgejgeiger @bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:46 AM To: Sebastian Dog Park; Alfred Minner; Carmen and Richard; Carol and Jack; Chris McCarthy; Chris; Danielle; dhaller848 @bellsouth.net; Dolores; Eric and Colette; Franco; Ginny and Dick; Gwyn; Ilka; Jennifer; Joan; Joan; Joanna; Kathie; Kay and Bill; Kelly; Linda; Linda Kinchen; Lois; Lynda; Marcia S; Maria and Bob; mariacortesel @verizon.net; Marilyn; Mark Gallo; Maureen; mdres48 @bellsouth.net; me; mhale53 @gmail.com; Michael and Josephine; Nancy; petzoo502 @bellsouth.net; Randy; Rob; Ruth Hunter; scf147 @gmail.com; Sharon; stringerwilliam bellsouth.net; Sunny; Wayne and Jane; Wright Kunkle Subject: Re: Parks and Rec Meeting All, I attended the PR Committee meeting last evening along with 5 other dog park folks. I again complemented Chris McCarthy on the manner in which his personnel attend to the dog park and the offered facilities. I reiterated my function as the spokesperson delivering consensus agreement on suggestions for improvements to the park. Based on our last discussions we intended to request an additional dog waste bag dispenser and an additional waste receptacle can. As most of you are aware the bag dispenser appeared last week and the new trash receptacle was delivered this morning at 7:OOAM. I also advised the committee of our ongoing discussions concerning a park naming celebration and the development of an agenda contingent on approval of the name by the City Council. I advised we would keep them abreast as the event takes shape. A ensuing discussion occurred concerning children, especially unaccompanied children in the park and the potential problems. The Press Journal letter exchange was discussed briefly. Two members of the committee, had heard directly from neighbors the benefits of and how great the park is. There was also a brief discussion of our ongoing attempts to self police the park with brief descriptions of recent events. Sonny, the park designate for Riverside Park and I guess all parks, suggested that perhaps a letter designating responsible people, such as he has, was in order. That suggestion was basically panned by the committee. We were encouraged by the committee to self police. So as we move forward it behooves us to be assertive as a group, and in a group, when issues and situations arise at the park from picking up dog waste to aggressive and irresponsible owners. A member of the public addressed additional sod. The response was a budget issue and lets see what develops with warmer weather. Seeding was also suggested as an alternative with construction fencing around to keep the dogs out. A big ticket item is a continuation of the white PVC fence replacing the green skirting on the North fence. This is being done to appease a complaint which necessitated the green skirting. This will be a significant budget hit for the city PR dept. Please provide me with reports of any and all incidents which occur at the dog park, and I will keep a log of such reports. email eor 7e' eiger(a7bellsouth.net phone 388 3183. From: Sebastian Dog Park <dogparksebastian @gmail.com> To: Al Minner <aminner @cityofsebastian.org Carmen and Richard <perez602004 @yahoo.com Carol and Jack <cleewilson @yahoo.com Chris <cmccarthy @cityofsebastian.org Chris <datzun @gmail.com Danielle <danibug @bellsouth.net dhaller848 @bellsouth.net; Dolores <doloresfailla @att.net Eric and Colette <sponger77 @comcast.net Franco <francomeyers @comcast.net George G <georgejgeiger @bellsouth.net Ginny and Dick <fivecentsll @bellsouth.net Gwyn <gwynboyd @gmail.com Ilka <idaniel @hsvb.org Jennifer <evebrew @yahoo.com Joan <jdh5660 @bellsouth.net Joan <joanfaulkner @aol.com Joanna <jpg480 @bellsouth.net Kathie <zaena @aol.com Kay and Bill <moyd1710 @comcast.net Kelly Page 2 of 2 barkavenuepetspecialties @yahoo.com Linda <Iscottie @comcast.net Linda Kinchen <lkinchen@cityofsebastian.org>; Lois <elmfay @bellsouth.net Lynda <lyndaverdel @yahoo.com Marcia S <snedden @comcast.net Maria and Bob <mlboul @comcast.net mariacortesel @verizon.net; Marilyn <marilyn_r_may @yahoo.com Mark Gallo <mgallo52 @cs.com Maureen <kaehler_maureen @comcast.net mdres48 @bellsouth.net; me <kathy.stensland @health- first.org mhale53 @gmail.com; Michael and Josephine <mg3788 @bellsouth.net Nancy <missmissybyrum @yahoo.com petzoo502 @bellsouth.net; Randy <W5654 @aol.com Rob <roblachowski @yahoo.ca Ruth Hunter <ruthhunter5 @aol.com scfl47 @gmail.com; Sharon <jetsetterRN @yahoo.com stringerwilliam @bellsouth.net; Sunny sunny @sunnyswildlife.com Wayne and Jane <wayneandjane @comcast.net Wright Kunkle <basiclean @live.com> Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 3:17:52 PM Subject: Parks and Rec Meeting Good afternoon everyone! I was reminded this morning, so I will remind you all Monday Feb 22 is the next city Parks and Rec meeting, held at City Hall at 5:30 PM. Anyone interested in expressing an opinion or bringing up an issue about the dog park is welcomed to attend. Wasn't it beautiful at the park this morning' wit I Thanks 2/23/2010 Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2009, 6(Suppl 2), S236 —S244 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc. Park, Recreation, Fitness, and Sport Sector Recommendations for a More Physically Active America: A White Paper for the United States National Physical Activity Plan S236 Background: The United States' first National Physical Activity Plan is now under develop- ment. This plan follows the release of new physical activity guidelines and seeks to address the nation's ongoing physical inactivity and obesity crisis. For this plan to be success- ful, all facets of American culture need to unify behind its recommendations and action steps. Guidance for this plan involves active partici- pation from a variety of sectors. including the park, recreation, fitness, and sport (PRFS) sector. Purpose: In this white paper, we discuss the potential of the PRFS sector in addressing America's physical inactivity. Specifically, we provide a brief description, history, and scope of the PRFS sector; present evidence concern- ing linkages between this sector and physical activity; and discuss existing challenges and emerging opportunities for promoting physical activity. We conclude by suggesting PRFS rec- ommendations to promote physical activity based on anticipated effectiveness, reach, scope, and sustainability. Methods: Academic articles, professional reports, and physical activity plans were reviewed to summarize the evidence concerning PRFS sector strategies for increasing physical activity. Recommenda- tions: Based on our review, we propose several sector specific proximity. place, program, part- nership, promotion, people, policy, and perfor- mance indicator recommendations for improv- ing physical activity in the United States. Keywords: physical activity, parks, obesity, health promotion strategies Mowen is with the Dept of Recreation. Park, and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. PA. Baker is with the Dept of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Andrew J. Mowen and Birgitta L. Baker America the Sedentary America has become a largely sedentary nation. The conveniences of our modern infrastructure have resulted in physical activity declines across many aspects of our lives) While the amount of free time for leisure activity has increased,'- this extra time has come in smaller chunks and is often spent in a passive. sed- entary manner (eg, interacting with cell phones, videos, television, and the web).' While spending in all areas of the leisure sector has grown at a faster pace than the overall US economy, growth in areas likely to promote sedentary behavior (such as media and spectator sports) has outpaced growth in areas associated with physical activity (such as sports equipment and fitness facility memberships).'- The result is that 1 in 4 Ameri- cans participates in no leisure -time physical activity,' Despite increasing recognition of the negative health consequences of physical inactivity, growth in the fit- ness and health industry, and numerous efforts to pro- mote individual exercise and fitness habits, a majority of Americans (particularly youth, low income fami- lies, minority citizens, and females) still do not achieve recommended physical activity levels. Combined with changes in dietary habits, these circumstances have resulted in an overweight and obese population that is likely to have a shorter lifespan than the genera- tion that preceded it. Individuals are more likely to engage in physical activity when it is intrinsically motivating.s Therefore, providing access, education, and resources that allow people to incorporate enjoyable and meaningful recre- ation activity into their daily lives may prove a more effective strategy for increasing physical activity than interventions based on tear of the negative consequences of inactivity. The capacity of the park, recreation. fit- ness, and sport sector (PRFS) to encourage daily lei- sure -time physical activity across a broad population is considerable. Leveraging existing PRFS sector assets will, however, require active engagement and coopera- tion across a number of other sectors. To organize and assign joint accountability for these physical activity promotion efforts, a comprehen- sive national physical activity plan is warranted. In late 2008, efforts to develop the first US National Physical Activity Plan were launched. A Coordinating Commit- tee was charged with organizing a National Physical Activity Plan Conference to solicit stakeholder input and begin the process of drafting the National Plan. To inform and stimulate dialogue at this Conference, the Committee also solicited white papers that summarized evidence from scientific and professional literatures on physical activity generation in each of 8 specified sec- tors. All white paper authors were given guidelines on white paper structure, types of evidence to be cited, as well as the process for soliciting working group partici- pant feedback at the National Physical Activity Plan Conference. The authors of this particular white paper were asked to focus on the park, recreations, fitness, and sport sector (PRFS) and develop recommendations based upon existing literature and practice. This paper provides a brief description, history and scope of the PRFS sector; presents evidence concerning the linkages between this sector and physical activity; and discusses existing challenges and emerging opportunities for pro- moting physical activity. The paper concludes by offer- ing priority PRFS recommendations to promote daily physical activity based on anticipated effectiveness, reach, scope, and sustainability. The Capacity and Reach of America's Park, Recreation, Sport, and Fitness Infrastructure The origins of the American park. recreation, fitness, and sport sector can be traced to the industrialization era of the late 19th century. A perceived need to provide wholesome recreation activities and park experiences during free time was a major goal of the rational recre- ation movement and spawned the creation of a number of public and nonprofit agencies at the federal. state, and local levels. During the first part of the 20th century, many organizations fought to establish national, state. and local parks, trails, sport fields, and playgrounds in America. Today, this sector represents a broad range of public, nonprofit. and commercial sector facilities and services at federal, state, and local levels. Community- based PRFS services are widespread and provide oppor- tunities for many Americans to be active on a regular basis at low or no cost to participants. Municipal recre- ation and park departments are a common local govern- ment service in North America. These agencies are often members of the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and their state park and recreation associations. NRPA member organizations provide more than 108,000 outdoor public park and recreation facilities and 65,000 indoor facilities) Park and recre- ation capacity is particularly high in urban areas; across Park, Recreation, Fitness, and Sport Sector Recommendations S237 all major U.S. cities, there are approximately 20,00 individual parks and 10,000 playgrounds. The total area covered by urban parkland in the United States exceeds 1 million acres. Parks are a common setting in which people par- ticipate in outdoor recreation activities. A recent survey of a representative sample of US adults found that 30% engaged in physical activity at a park, 25% on a walking and jogging trail. 25 on a treadmill, and 24% at an indoor gym. "A majority of youth participate in sports.'' and many schools, parks and recreation agencies, non- profits (such as the YMCA), and commercial entities provide youth sports opportunities. Approximately 20% of adults participate in strength training at least 2 days per week." There is surprising little recent data regarding the US populations' use of local park and recreation ser- vices. An older nationwide survey of Americans' use of local park and recreation services found that 3 out of 4 adults reported visiting a local park or playground, with a majority reporting only occasional use and a minority reporting frequent park use" Other, more recent national surveys also support this notion of widespread park use. For example, a 2008 survey commissioned by NRPA noted that Americans made an average of 4.8 visits to local public parks." However, this survey only examined Americans' use of parks in the month of Janu- ary 2008 Contributions of the PRFS sector to increasing daily physical activity can be enhanced through strate- gies and initiatives focused on facilities, programs, part- nerships, and policies. A wide range of sector- specific recommendations to increase physical activity are now being actively considered as part of the National Physi- cal Activity Plan. The evidence concerning the contribu- tions of this sector in promoting physical activity pro- vides some basis for these recommendations. The following sections provide a summary of key findings and conclusions based upon the current evidence base. Methods for reviewing, synthesizing, and summarizing this knowledge are first discussed. Methods for Reviewing the Evidence Evidence and recommendations from key reports (eg. The Guide to Community Preventive Services), system- atic reviews, state -level physical activity plans (eg. Pennsylvania, Washington, Arizona, South Dakota. Georgia), other national plans (eg, United Kingdom. Sweden, Australia), and sector specific reports were examined to identify areas of focus. Based on this review, the authors decided to organize potential recom- mendations using a social marketing framework that encompassed place, people. program, partnership. policy strategies for increasing physical activity. The authors then searched 2 databases, PubMED (Medline) and Psychlnfo, to identify relevant research articles published in English between 1988 and 2008. Search terms included physical activity or exercise or energy S238 Mowen and Baker expenditure combined with parks or recreation or lei- sure or trails or play or sports. Fitness was not used as a search term as it generated extensive lists regarding evo- lutionary fitness and other topics unrelated to the cur- rent focus. The database search was delimited to 1988 to 2008 as this represented a 20 year time frame before the search. The reference lists of the reviewed reports were also used to locate sources. Selected evidence from this search (as well as the recommendations listed in other physical activity plans) provided the basis for the rec- ommended physical activity promotion strategies pro- posed in this PRFS white paper. Examining the Evidence: How Does the PRFS Sector Contribute to Physical Activity? The evidence specifically linking PRFS to physical activity levels is continually expanding, yet most studies have used cross- sectional measures and few include analyses of intervention effectiveness.' Our review of the scholarly and professional literature revealed only a handful of studies with experimental designs, and a Cochrane report came to a similar conclusion regarding the lack of intervention studies in the amateur sports field. This limited evidence base makes it difficult to determine the relative efficacy of specific sector recom- mendations. Nevertheless, existing cross sectional evi- dence, emerging sector specific intervention studies, recommendations from the Guide to Community Pre- ventive Services, and existing state nutrition and physi- cal activity plans provide some justification for several PRFS recommendations for improving physical activity in the United States. Proximity and Place Characteristics. People who live closer (and have easier access) to PRFS opportuni- ties use them more frequently and are more physically active. The majority of studies on this topic have found a positive relationship between facility proximity and physical activity levels. In a study of US adults, indi- viduals who perceived that they had access to parks and recreational facilities were almost twice as likely to meet physical activity recommendations as those who did not According to recent research, youth who lived in close proximity to 1 or more parks were 2 to 3 times more likely to engage in at least 1 walking trip over the course of 2 days." In another study, each park within a 1 -mile radius of an adolescent girl's home was associ- ated with an increase of 17 minutes per day of moder- ate-to- vigorous physical activity. Proximity also can be influenced by the degree of connectivity: convenient and safe routes to PRFS services promote more frequent use of and transportation to such atnenities. Finally, a systematic review of the relationship between park and recreation settings (PRS) and physical activity found that proximity to PRS was linked with positive or mixed associations with physical activity. The authors of this systematic review noted that the existing cross- sectional cvidencc was limited by a lack of intervention evaluations and translational research. Access to and use of public recreation facilities may be particularly important for low socioeconomic status (SES) urban youth. For example, one study reported that having access to a safe park was associated with higher levels of physical activity among low income and urban youth. Despite the potential of public recreation facilities to provide opportunities for physical activity for these populations, the availability of free PRFS facilities may he poorer in low income communities. For example, Estabrooks et a1 found no difference in the number of paid facilities across low. medium, and high socioeconomic status (SES) neigh- borhoods. However, low and medium SES neighbor- hoods had significantly fewer free PRFS facilities than high SES neighborhoods. It should be noted, however. that a number of other studies have not found PRFS dis- parities (in terms of the number of parks) across low income neighborhoods. In addition to disparities in park access, there are racial /ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in sport par- ticipation. A representative sample of US adolescents found gender and ethnic differences in sport participa- tion. More males (69.9%) than females (53.4 and more White students (65.4%) than African American (55.2'7) or Hispanic (52.5 students participated in sports. Rates of varsity school sport participation are about 33% for girls and 37% for boys across SES and racial /ethnic groups, with lower rates among racial/ ethnic minority and low SES students. Collectively, the evidence concerning the relationship between PRFS facility proximity and physical activity is sufficient to recommend close -to -home access to such opportunities and improved travel connections between residential areas and these PRFS settings, particularly where gaps are found to exist. A number of PRFS place characteristics also may influence active use of these facilities. The presence of activity supporting features (eg, trails, playgrounds. sport courts). the condition /aesthetics of these features. and perceived safety may influence use of PRFS facili- ties and services. Emerging evidence suggests that park and recreation characteristics, including the presence of trails /paths, sport facilities, and playgrounds, and user perceptions of adequate maintenance, aesthetics, and safety are associated with greater use and physical activity. For example, the presence of trails, sport fields/ courts, and playgrounds at these settings was associated with higher levels of moderate -to- vigorous physical activity in several studies2 Other studies also have suggested that parks are more likely to promote physical activity if they arc perceived as aesthetically pleasing.'` Evidence is mixed or nonexistent regarding the role of perceived safety and facility maintenance /condition in terms of physical activity outcomes. For example. Babey et a1 found that proximity to a safe park was significantly associated with physical activity among low income, urban youth. but Cohen et al i found that perceptions of safety were unrelated to observed levels of park visitation after a series of renovations. More- over, Lee et a1 found that the condition of physical activity resources (specifically the presence of incivili- ties such as graffiti, litter, vandalism) were pervasive in low income communities, but direct comparisons between these incivilities and physical activity levels were not made. Finally, a study by Colabianchi et a1 examined use and physical activity renovated vs. unren- ovated school playgrounds. They found that playground improvements resulted in increased use, but did not find differences in condition or cleanliness between reno- vated and unrenovated playgrounds. In summary, the evidence concerning the role of place characteristics on use and physical activity levels is mixed. Some limited evidence suggests that aesthet- ics, perceived safety, and facility maintenance /condition arc associated with the use of PRFS assets, but tittle evi- dence as yet connects these characteristics with onsite Levels of physical activity. Stronger evidence suggests that creating more activity- friendly features within PRFS settings (eg, trails, playgrounds, and sport fields) can promote physical activity. Prospective and interven- tion studies that examine the role of park infrastructure investments, particularly as they relate to improved per- ceptions of park safety and maintenance and the impact of these changes upon facility use and physical activity levels are warranted. Programs, Partnerships, and Promotions. A number of programs and services can encourage active use of PRFS opportunities. According to the Guide to Community Preventive Services, health programs are a recommended strategy to promote physical activity. PRFS offer a wide range of physical activity programs that appeal to different populations and communities. For example, a recent study of NRPA member agencies found that 8 out of 10 agencies offered fitness, sport, and family /youth programs. However, systematic evaluations concerning the impact of such programs on physical activity levels are few, and existing interven- tion studies have typically operated in educational or clinical settings rather than at park and recreation facilities. Youth, particularly those who do not participate in competitive sport programs, should have access to non- competitive leisure -time physical activity programs that do not require above- average athletic skills. School based and PRFS -based physical activity programs could teach children ways to identify leisure and physical activities that are interesting to them and establish a inundation for a lifetime of activity. Such programs could also serve as a catalyst to connect children with nature and the outdoors. A few intervention studies have demonstrated promising connections between physical activity educa- tion programs and health outcomes. For example. Bush et a1 evaluated a 6 -week obesity prevention pro- gram (Project KidFIT), which included physical activity Park, Recreation, Fitness, and Sport Sector Recommendations S239 and exposed children to local park and recreation ser- vices in their communities. The program resulted in sig- nificant increases in physical fitness and nutrition knowledge. Improvements in body weight and BMI also were observed, but the sample size was insufficient to yield significant results. Another intervention study, which focused on park and community facility renovations, found that increased programming was associated with an increase in users and that limited programming was associated with a reduction in the number of users. The research- ers concluded that programming and staffing repre- sented ongoing costs critical to the number of users and the types of physical activity that occur in PRFS set- tings. Despite the evidence from these promising inter- vention studies, comprehensive evaluations and system- atic reviews regarding leisure -time physical activity programs and their impact on active use of PRFS assets is very limited. Health behavior programs that focus on individuals within one sector as a means to improve population activity levels can be labor, time, and money intensive. However, partnerships that link PRFS programs with public health, education, and other sectors could create efficiencies, enhance use of community -based physical activity programs, and increase physical activity. Com- munity -wide social marketing campaigns and promo- tions (another recommended action from the Guide to Community Preventive Services are typically con- ducted as part of a broader community partnership that includes different sectors and organizations.° These collaborative campaigns often incorporate physical activity programs provided by PRFS services as part of their approach (eg, walk to school, after school park programs, and senior walking programs). A recent survey of health partnerships within the PRFS sector found that 9 out of 10 agencies had part- nered with an outside organization to promote health/ wellness. Here, programs and special events (eg, health fairs, screenings) were the primary partnership mecha- nism to promote physical activity. Despite these encouraging efforts, an older study of Americans' use of local park and recreation programs found only 30`.4: of the population participated in PRFS programs annu- ally." More updated data on Americans' use of public and nonprofit programs are needed to assess the extent that Americans participate in these programs (and how much physical activity occurs during these programs). Barriers to regular PRFS program participation include family/work time commitments, lack of interest in pro- gram content, program costs, and low awareness of close -to -home program offerings. These barriers are particularly problematic for low income families. 42 While community -wide campaigns and health partnerships can promote widespread use of PRFS services, few studies have evaluated the impact of spe- cific PRFS campaigns on physical activity levels across a broad population. One exception was an assessment of NRPA's Hearts N' Parks program which S240 Mowen and Baker found statistically significant improvements in public knowledge and awareness of heart healthy behaviors in program participants across 56 communities. This assessment suggests that focusing PRFS programs on regular physical activity and increasing the number of those programs is a recommended strategy, particu- larly when such programs are linked with ongoing community physical activity campaigns. Based on this emerging evidence, existing PRFS programs could be expanded to target a wider cross section of the U.S. population, and a wider range of PRFS programs could be designed specifically to incorporate physical activity into their content. Lack of awareness is often cited as a reason that people do not use PRFS services, and the complexity, cost, and pervasiveness of today's media make it diffi- cult for fiscally- constrained PRFS organizations to reach targeted audiences consistently. Similar to pro- gramming, PRFS promotional messages could be inte- grated more effectively into community -wide physical activity campaigns. Such promotions would serve to better position the message that the PRFS sector is a key element of the nation's preventive health system. PRFS messaging should target populations who are most at- risk for being physically inactive. In summary. PRFS collaboration with community campaigns should be pursued aggressively to promote PRFS programs /facili- ties for expanded reach and impact. Positioning and designing PRFS programs /facilities as interesting, enjoyable, and accessible —in terms of awareness, prox- imity, and cost should be a priority for physical activ- ity social marketing campaigns at the local, state, and national level. Moreover, performance indicators that can be used to assess the impact of these strategies should be developed and used nationwide. People: Providers and Participants. Service pro- viders and participants also can shape participation in leisure -time physical activity. PRFS professionals often develop and lead leisure -time physical activity experi- ences. These professionals (and volunteers) understand their organization's facilities, services, and resources and can connect target populations with physical activity opportunities provided by their organizations. However. PRFS staff may not have in -depth health knowledge or may not he aware of other physical activity alternatives in their community. Emerging evidence suggests that PRFS professionals could benefit from specialized train- ing to understand the role of their facilities and programs in shaping physical activity and health. In addition, recreation centers report that the primary barrier to pro- viding physical activity programs at their facilities is in- adequate staffing:" While increased staffing will involve additional resources, training programs for current staff may also facilitate the integration of physical activity into existing programs, promotions, and partnerships. While PRFS professionals are a key element in pro viding activity- friendly programs, places, and promo- tions, participants themselves can help to sustain and expand physical activity through social support networks, clubs, and services. For example, the Guide to Commu- nity Preventive Services reviewed a number of commu- nity-based interventions and found that social support strategies helped people become more physically active. For example, a recent study across 6 U.S. cities found that social support for exercise provided by family and friends was significantly related to meeting recom- mended levels of leisure -time physical activity among older adults. The evidence suggests that social support can help people initiate and sustain leisure -time physical activity. PRFS programs and community -based physical activity partnerships could be designed to promote appro- priate social support networks (eg, walking clubs with a buddy system, social gatherings within parks, etc.) In addition. PRFS environments could be designed to encourage socialization and group -based recreation activities (eg, positioning park corridor and activity areas within close proximity to promote socialization). How- ever, further evaluation is needed to document whether these socialization strategies would influence use and physical activity at PRFS programs and facilities. Policies. Finally, the role of policy in shaping physical activity within the PRFS sector must be considered. as PRFS physical activity policies help to ensure that phys- ical activity promotions, programs, and places are re- sourced and supported. Sallis and colleagues'` highlighted the importance of policy in facilitating op- portunities for physical activity. Funding support and mandates for creating and maintaining public facilities such as parks, recreation centers, trails, and sports fields are functions of public policy. A wide variety of policy alternatives can be applied to a) place location. design, and management, b) program design and implementa- tion, c) partnerships and people, and d) consistent and sustainable funding of PRFS efforts to enhance sector- specific use and physical activity. Unfortunately, the evidence concerning the efficacy of policy implementa- tion and uptake within the PRFS sector is limited. Emerging cross- sectional evidence from other sectors may. however, serve to direct policy change within the PRFS sector. Sufficient evidence demonstrates a connection between a range of community -scale design and land use regulations, policies and practices with increased levels of walking and bicycling 47 During the mid 20th century, Pennsylvania's State Park System pursued an agency guideline of developing a State Park within 25 miles of every Pennsylvanian. A national guideline of a PRFS facility within l mile of every American might be an ambitious target, but could encourage community design and build -out policies that promote population physical activity levels. Another policy guideline might be to ensure that PRFS facilities have safe pedestrian and bicy- cling routes that connect to nearby /adjacent neighbor- hoods. While these policy possibilities are promising. existing evidence documenting the impact of specific poli- cies upon PRFS use and physical activity is quite limited. Ensuring the uptake of environmental and pro- grammatic policies across many communities over time will require fiscal and personnel resources, an ongoing challenge for PRFS public and nonprofit ser- vice providers. Support and expansion of existing park and recreation funding through federal, state, or local programs would allow states and local communities to create and modernize their park and recreation infra- structure, promote physical activity messages, and pro- vide leisure education and programming alternatives across a broader population. Moreover, specific poli- cies to include physical activity within existing pro- grams could also be effective. For example, the Healthy Parks Initiative of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation requires 20 minutes of physi- cal activity in each program offered. Unfortunately, regardless of the policy foci, few studies have system- atically examined the efficacy of PRFS policy out- comes. Future research should address the impact of PRFS place, program, and partnership and funding policies on park use and physical activity across a wide range of target audiences. Revitalizing the PRFS Sector to Increase Physical Activity: Existing Challenges and Emerging Opportunities Wider implementation of physical activity interventions in the PRFS sector will pose significant opportunities and challenges. While this sector is widespread across the United States, decision making regarding facilities, services, partnerships, and policies is decentralized and on- the ground activities are conducted by local non- profit and government service providers with little or no connection to commercial providers. This can be an advantage for ensuring that investments are tailored to specific community characteristics and needs. However, acquiring the funds to build or renovate existing PRFS facilities is challenging. Existing federal mechanisms (eg, Community Development Block Grants, Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. the Land and Water Conservation Fund, etc.) are available to support local PRFS efforts, but funding support for these sources has lagged in recent years. Moreover, empirical evalua- tion of these federally- funded investments as they relate to population -level utilization and physical activity levels is extremely limited. Acquiring the fiscal resources needed to maintain the condition of park facil- ities and provide physical activity programs is an even greater challenge than construction projects, because such expenditures often come from an organization's limited operating budget. Fully realizing the potential of this sector to encourage Americans to be physically active will require developing partnerships that leverage assets of other key sectors (eg, public health, education, transportation) as well as dedicated infrastructure and program training. Finally, although numerous studies have documented the role of parks in leisure behaviors, few have assessed the role of the PRFS sector in shaping Park. Recreation, Fitness, and Sport Sector Recommendations S241 physical activity levels or the effectiveness of PRFS environmental, programmatic, and policy changes on population activity levels. Thus, a need exists for pro- spective and quasi experimental studies to evaluate the effects of PRFS policy, program, and environmental changes on use of PRFS services and physical activity levels. Such research would allow a range of sector resources to be allocated more effectively. PRFS Sector Recommendations for the National Physical Activity Plan Based upon emerging evidence and practice, a number of PRFS recommendations should be considered for potential inclusion into the National Physical Activity Plan. The following recommendations cover multiple levels of influence, including individuals, social envi- ronments, organizations, built environments, and poli- cies. They were selected based on strength of evidence, potential to affect a large cross- section of the United States population, and sustainability, cost- effectiveness. and ability to target inactive populations. Proximity and Place Priorities: Create better access and connections to existing PRFS settings, particularly for low- income popula- tions. These efforts should overlap with on -going community planning and transportation initiatives. Create, maintain, and /or modernize PRFS facilities to provide a wider range of physical activity alter- natives for a variety of populations (eg, indoor facilities, parks, playgrounds, sport courts, swim- ming pools. or trails). Provide activity and support amenities, such as paved trails, well -lit facilities, public restrooms. public drinking fountains, and hike racks, at PRFS settings. Provide the personnel and fiscal resources to ensure that PRFS settings are safe, well- maintained, inter- esting, and supervised. Program, Partnership, and Promotion Priorities: Ensure that PRFS program offerings include low/ no -cost and appropriate physical activity opportu- nities, particular for those who are more at -risk of being inactive (eg, children, youth, older adults, people with disabilities, minority citizens, low income families). Continue to integrate lifetime physical activity edu- cation as a component of current school -based PE curricula and ensure that students and families are aware of their nearby facilities and programs for leisure -time physical activity Develop, fund, and support national and local social marketing campaigns that promote parks, recre- ation and sport facilities /programs as venues in which to be physically active. S242 Mowen and Baker Ensure that such campaigns include a wide variety of community partners who bring different strengths and target audiences to these campaigns. Facilitate partnerships between the PRFS sector, public health. education, and the transportation sector to enable joint planning and the sharing of facility, programmatic, and personnel resources. People Priorities: Train PRFS staff in understanding, developing, evaluating, and promoting physical activity oppor- tunities in their communities for different populations. Ensure that PRFS physical activity programs include a social support system from participants and instructors/leaders. Policy Priorities: Develop land use and zoning policies that promote the protection and reclamation of green space (eg, parks, trails) for physical activity. such as zoning ordinances that require (or reward) public green space as part of new housing development and green redesign (or in -fill) projects. Develop community planning guidelines and ordi- nances that foster the development of PRFS facili- ties and programs within walking distance of (or close proximity to) targeted populations. Identity and increase funding support for maintain ing, rehabilitating, and developing parks and sport/ recreation facilities across all neighborhoods. Identify and increase funding support for commu- nity-wide PRFS campaigns that specifically pro- mote physical activity. Performance Indicator Priorities: Evaluate the reach, uptake, and impact of commu- nity -wide PRFS campaign activities in terms of physical activity outcomes. Evaluate the role of specific PRFS programs in pro- moting population levels of physical activity using consistent measurements and/or evaluation tools to create a national database. Evaluate PRFS facility construction, redesign, and upgrades in terms of their impact upon public use of these amenities and the physical activity levels that occur there. Conclusion The PRFS sector is an essential partner in the promotion of physical activity across broad segments of the popu- lation. Numerous public, nonprofit. and commercial PRFS facilities, programs, and services exist across rural, suburban, and urban communities. Existing evi- dence from systematic reviews and recent empirical research confirms that proximity to these settings increases their use and is associated with higher physi- cal activity levels across a number of different popula- tions. Nevertheless, the availability of and access to PRFS services is not consistent with lower income and minority populations having poorer access to these resources. Such disparities, in turn, result in decreased physical activity and health status. Having more close to -home PRFS services increases the likelihood of being physically active each and every day. Moreover, PRFS settings that include specific activity- supporting features such as trails, playgrounds, and sport facilities may stimulate higher levels of park -based physical activity. Emerging research and anecdotal evidence also suggests that PRFS programs, partnerships. promotions. people, and policies can promote increased utilization of PRFS services. However, the effectiveness of these PRFS strategies in increasing physical activity levels is still unclear. Few studies have documented the efficacy of PRFS interventions on community uptake and physi- cal activity levels across a wide range of PRFS facilities and programs. Evaluating these interventions using con- sistent performance indicators is needed to understand which strategies work and do not work to increase pop- ulation levels of physical activity. The recommenda- tions provided in this white paper are intended to stimu- late further discussion and debate concerning key PRFS action steps for the National Physical Activity Plan. The authors also hope that this white paper will encourage increased evidence -based research and collaborations to make the United States a more physically active nation. References 1. Ulijaszek SJ. Obesity: a disorder of convenience. Obe_s Rev. 2007:8(s1):183-187. 2. Sturm R. The economics of physical activity: societal trends and rationales for interventions. Am J Prey :iJed_ 2004?7(3S):126 -135. 3. Godbey GC. Outdoor Recreation and Health: Under standing and Enhancing the Relationship. Washington. DC: Resources for the Future; 2009. 4. Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Gaiuska DA, et al. Prevalence of self- reported physically active adults United States. 2007. Mr49WR Marb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57 :1297 1300. 5. Trojan() RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, et al. Physical activ- ity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):181 -188. 6. Nielsen SJ, Siega -Riz AM, Popkin BM. Trends in energy intake in US between 1977 and 1996: similar shifts seen across age groups. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2002 :10(5):370- -378. 7. Olshansky SJ, Passaro DJ, Hershow RC. et al. A poten- tial decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005;352:1138-1145. 8. Vierling KK, Standage M. Treasure DC. Predicting atti- tudes and physical activity in an `at -risk' minority youth sample: a test of self determination theory. Psycho' Sport Everc. 2007 ;8:795 -817. 9. Sessoms HDD, Henderson KA, Peterson K. Introduction to Leisure Services. State College. PA: Venture Publish- ing; 1994. 10. Trust for Public Land. City Park Facts. http /www.tpl. org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20531&folder_ id =3208. Accessed March 8. 20X19. 11. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2{X)1:91(12 ):1995 -2003. 12. Pate RR, Trost SG, Levin S. Dowda M. Sports participa- tion and health- related behaviors among US youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154( 9):904-911. 13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in strength training United States, 1998 2004. trfAIWR. 2006:55(281:769 -772. 14. Godbey G, Graefe AR, James SW. The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nation-Wide Studs of the Perceptions of the .American Public. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association: 1992. 1.5. Crosby J. Rose H. Parks and recreation: the value propo- sition. Parks Recreat. 2008 ;(October ):63 -67. 16. Mowen AJ, Kaczynski A'1', Cohen I)A. The potential of parks and recreation in addressing physical activity and fitness. The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest. 2008:9(1):1 -8. 17. Priest N, Armstrong R, Doyle J. Waters E. interventions implemented through sporting organisations for increas- ing participation in sport. (Review) Cochrane Database SVst Rey. 2008 :3(CD004812). 18. Frank L, Kerr J. Chapman J, Sailis J. Urban form rela- tionships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. Am J Health Prornnt. 2007;21(suppl 4):305 -311 19. Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006:118(51:e1381-e1389. 20. Evcnson K, Birnbaum A, Bedimo -Rung A, et al. Girls' per- ception of physical environmental factors and transportation: Reliability and association with physical activity and active transport to school. Int J Belrcn ?stfrr Phr s Act. 2006 :3(1):28. 21. Grow HM, Saelens BE, Kerr J. et al. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Med Sci Sports Everc. 2008:40(12 ):2071. 22. Kaczynski AT. Henderson KA. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis Sci. 207;29(4):315 -354. 23. Babev SH. Hastert TA. Yu H, Brown ER. Physical activ- ity among adolescents: when do parks matter? Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(41:345-348. 24. Gordon Larsen P, Nelson M, Page P. Popkin B. inequal- ity in the built environment underlies key health dis- parities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006;117:417-424. Park, Recreation, Fitness, and Sport Sector Recommendations S243 25. Scott D, Munson W. Perceived constraints to park usage among individuals with low incomes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 1994 :12:79 -96. 26. Estabrooks PA, Lee RE, Gyurcsik NC. Resources for physical activity participation: does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Ann Behar .bled. 2003:25(2):100-104. 27. Abercrombie LC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, et ai_ income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am J Prey Med. 2008;34(11:9 -15. 28. Johnston LD, Delva J, O'Malley PM. Sports participation and physical education in American secondary schools: current levels and racial /ethnic and socioeconomic dis- parities. Am .1 Prey Med. 200733(4S1:195 -208. 29. Floyd MF. Spengler JO. Maddock JE, Gohster PH, Suau LJ. Park -based physical activity in diverse communities of two US cities. Am J Prey Med. 2008 ;34(4):299 -305. 30. Kaczynski Ai. Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Associa- tion of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am .1 Public Health. 2008 :98(8 ):1451. 31. Shores KA, West ST. The relationship between built park environments and physical activity in four park locations. J Public Health Ma nag Pract. 2008 :14(3):e9. 32. Giles -Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M. et al. Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attrac- tiveness. and size of public open space? American Jour- nal of Preventive Medicine. 2(X)_5 ;28(252):169 -176. 33. Cohen DA, Sehgal A, Williamson S, et al. New recre- ational facilities for the young and the old in Los Ange- les: policy and programming implications. J Public Health Policy. 2009 ;30:5248 -5263. 34. Lee RE, Booth KM, Reese -Smith YJ, Regan G, Howard HIT The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PAR A) instrument: evaluating features. amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborho)ds. Intl Behar Nutr Phrs ,Act. 2005;2:13. 35. C'olabianchi N, Kinsella A, Coulton C. Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Prev Med. 2009:48:140 -143. 36. Kahn Ell, Heath GW, Powell KE, Stone EJ, Brownson RC. Increasing physical activity: a report on recom- mendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001.:50(RR- 181:114. 37. Mowen AJ, Payne LL, Orsega -Smith E, Godbey GC. Assessing the health partnership practices of park and recreation organizations: findings and implications from a national survey. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration. 2009;27(1):116 -131. 38. Bush CL, Pittman S, McKay 5. et al. Park -based obesity intervention program for inner -city minority children. J Pediatr. 2007 :151(5 :513 -517. 39. Russell K, Lewis TG. Petit M. Evaluation of an after school intentional youth development program to encour- age healthy eating and physical activity. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. In review. S244 Mowen and Baker 40. Rios M. Governance coalitions and the role of scale in multisector partnerships: lessons from obesity prevention in Pennsylvania. Journal of Park and Recreation Admin- istration. 2006;24(1):56 -83. 41. Jackson EL, ed. Constraints to Leisure. State College. PA: Venture Publishing, 2005. 42. Mowen A. Payne L, Scott D. Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited. Leis Sri. 2005;27(2):191 204. 43. Spangler KJ, Caldwell LL. The implications of public policy related to parks, recreation, and public health: a focus on physical activity. J Phvs Am Health. 2007 :4:S64. 44. Moody JS. Prochaska JJ. Sallis JF. et al. Viability of parks and recreation centers as sites for youth physical activity promotion. Health Promo' Prom. 2004:5(4):438 —I43. 45. Orsega -Smith EM, Payne LL. Mowen AJ. Ho C. Godbcy GC. The role of social support and self- efficacy in shap- ing the leisure time physical activity of older adults. J Leisure Res. 2007;39(4 ):705-727. 46. Sallis JF. Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Anr J Prei Med. 1998;15(4):379 -397. 47. Heath GW, Brownson RC, Kruger J, et at. The effective- ness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. ..1 Pfrvs Act Health. 2006;3:S55-S76.