Visiting urban parks regularly can provide significant physical and mental health benefits for children and teenagers, but these benefits are tempered by park quality, amenities, maintenance, and safety. Therefore, planning and public health scholars have developed instruments to measure park quality, but most of these tools require costly and time-consuming field surveys and only a handful focus specifically on youth. We rectify these issues by developing the QUality INdex of Parks for Youth (QUINPY) based on a robust literature review of studies on young people’s park visitation habits and an extensive validation process by academic and professional experts. Importantly, the QUINPY relies on publicly available geospatial data to measure park quality. We then successfully pilot test the QUINPY in Denver and New York City. We believe that park agencies, planning consultants, researchers, and nonprofits aiming to assess park quality will find this tool useful. The QUINPY is particularly promising given the increasing amount of publicly available geospatial data and other recent advancements in geospatial science.
AppletonJ (1975) The Experience of Landscape, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
2.
BaekSParkJEpsteinLHet al. (2015) Park design and children’s active play: A microscale spatial analysis of intensity of play in Olmsted’s Delaware Park. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design42(6): 1079–1097.
3.
Bedimo-RungALGustatJTompkinsBJet al. (2006) Development of a direct observation instrument to measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health3(Suppl. 1): 5–13.
4.
BirdMEDattaGDvan HulstAet al. (2015) A reliability assessment of a direct-observation park evaluation tool: the Parks, activity and recreation among kids (PARK) tool. BMC Public Health15: 906–916.
5.
BlanckHMAllenDBashirZet al. (2012) Let’s go to the park today: The role of parks in obesity prevention and improving the public’s health. Childhood Obesity8(5): 423–428.
6.
BooneCGBuckleyGLGroveJMet al. (2009) Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers99(4): 767–787.
7.
BratmanGNHamiltonJPDailyGC (2012) The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1249(1): 118–136.
8.
BroomhallMHGiles-CortiBLangeA (2004) Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST), Perth, Western Australia: The University of Western AustraliaAvailable at: http://www.see.uwa.edu.au/research/cbeh/projects/post (accessed 2 January 2016).
9.
ByrneJWolchJR (2009) Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography33(6): 743–765.
10.
ByrneJWolchJRSwiftJet al. (2005) SAGE (Systematic Audit of Green-Space Environments): Audit Form and Instructions, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Center for Sustainable Cities.
11.
CastonguayGJutrasS (2009) Children’s appreciation of outdoor places in a poor neighborhood. Journal of Environmental Psychology29(1): 101–109.
12.
CavnarMMKirtlandKAEvansMHet al. (2004) Evaluating the quality of recreation facilities: Development of an assessment tool. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration22(1): 96–114.
13.
ChawlaL (2015) Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature30(4): 433–452.
14.
ChiesuraA (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning (68): 129–138.
15.
ChristianHZubrickSRFosterSet al. (2015) The influence of the neighborhood physical environment on early child health and development: A review and call for research. Health & Place33: 25–36.
16.
City and County of Denver (2016) Denver Open Data Catalog. City and County of Denver. Available at: http://data.denvergov.org/ (accessed 10 January 2016).
CohenDAMarshTWilliamsonSet al. (2014) The potential for pocket parks to increase physical activity. American Journal of Health Promotion28(3 Suppl.): S19–S26.
19.
ColabianchiNMaslowALSwayampakalaK (2011) Features and amenities of school playgrounds: A direct observation study of utilization and physical activity levels outside of school time. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity8(1): 32–42.
20.
Czalczynska-PodolskaM (2014) The impact of playground spatial features on children’s play and activity forms: An evaluation of contemporary playgrounds' play and social value. Journal of Environmental Psychology38: 132–142.
21.
DymentJEBellACLucasAJ (2009) The relationship between school ground design and intensity of physical activity. Children’s Geographies7(3): 261–276.
22.
EdwardsNHooperPTrappGSAet al. (2013) Development of a Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT): A remote sensing approach. Applied Geography38: 22–30.
23.
FjørtoftI (2001) The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal29(2): 111–117.
24.
GearinEKahleC (2006) Teen and adult perceptions of urban green space in Los Angeles. Children Youth and Environments16(1): 25–48.
25.
GidlowCJEllisNJBostockS (2012) Development of the Neighbourhood Green Space Tool (NGST). Landscape and Urban Planning106(4): 347–358.
26.
Green Flag Award Scheme (2008) Park and Green Space Self-Assessment Guide, Wigan, England: Green Flag Award Scheme.
27.
Joassart-MarcelliP (2010) Leveling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for local parks and recreation in the Los Angeles region. Environment and Planning A42(5): 1174–1192.
28.
KaczynskiATStanisSABesenyiGM (2012) Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. American Journal of Preventive Medicine42(3): 242–249.
29.
KaczynskiATStanisSAWHastmannTJet al. (2011) Variations in observed park physical activity intensity level by gender, race, and age: Individual and joint effects. Journal of Physical Activity and Health8(Suppl. 2): 151–160.
30.
LeeREBoothKMReese-SmithJYet al. (2005) The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity2: 13–21.
31.
Loukaitou-SiderisA (2003) Children’s common grounds: A study of intergroup relations among children in public settings. Journal of the American Planning Association69(2): 130–143.
32.
Loukaitou-SiderisASiderisA (2009) What brings children to the park? Analysis and measurement of the variables affecting children’s use of parks. Journal of the American Planning Association76(1): 89–107.
33.
McCormackGRRockMTooheyAMet al. (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place16(4): 712–726.
34.
McCurdyLEWinterbottomKEMehtaSSet al. (2010) Using nature and outdoor activity to improve children’s health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care40(5): 102–117.
35.
MooreRCCoscoNG (2007) What makes a park inclusive and universally designed? A multi-method approach. In: Ward ThompsonCTravlouP (eds) Open Space, People Space, London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 85–110.
36.
National Recreation and Park Association (2016) 2016 NRPA Field Report: Park and Recreation Agency Performance Benchmarks, Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
37.
RiesA V.GittelsohnJVoorheesCCet al. (2008) The environment and urban adolescents’ use of recreational facilities for physical activity: A qualitative study. American Journal of Health Promotion23(1): 43–50.
38.
RigolonA (2016) A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169.
39.
SaelensBEFrankLDAuffreyCet al. (2006) Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health3(Suppl. 1): S190–S207.
40.
SlaterSFitzgibbonMFloydMF (2013) Urban adolescents’ perceptions of their neighborhood physical activity environments. Leisure Sciences35(2): 167–183.
41.
SmileyKTSharmaTSteinbergAet al. (2016) More inclusive parks planning: Park quality and preferences for park access and amenities. Environmental Justice9(1): 1–7.
42.
TaylorBTFernandoPBaumanAEet al. (2011) Measuring the quality of public open space using Google Earth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine40(2): 105–112.
43.
The Trust for Public Land (2016) ParkScore 2016. Available at: http://parkscore.tpl.org/ (accessed 22 September 2016).
44.
TimperioAGiles-CortiBCrawfordDet al. (2008) Features of public open spaces and physical activity among children: Findings from the CLAN study. Preventive Medicine47(5): 514–518.
WellsNM (2014) The role of nature in children’s resilience: Cognitive and social processes. In: TidballKGKrasnyME (eds) Greening in the Red Zone: Disaster, Resilience and Community Greening, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 95–109.
47.
WolchJRByrneJNewellJP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning125: 234–244.
48.
WolchJRJerrettMReynoldsKet al. (2011) Childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources: A longitudinal cohort study. Health & Place17(1): 207–214.
