Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 18, 2026
Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Evaluating the quality and accessibility of physical activity resources in two southern cities
Heather J Adamus1, Scherezade K Mama, Iman Sahnoune
1Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-6015, USA.
Purpose:
Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities.
Design:
Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor.
Setting:
PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas.
Patients:
The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas.
Measures:
The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR.
Analysis:
Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility.
Results:
Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p < .001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = -6.89; p < .001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M = 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p < .001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p = .025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p < .001) than pay for use PARs.
Conclusion:
Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.
