Influence of Schoolyard Renovations on Children s Physical Activity: The Learning Landscape Program. (In press accepted for publication)

Transcription

1 Influence of Schoolyard Renovations on Children s Physical Activity: The Learning Landscape Program (In press accepted for publication)

2 ABSTRACT Objectives In the United States, few public elementary schools provide daily PE or its equivalent for all students throughout the entire school year. Given this deficiency, non-curriculum approaches to increase physical activity are important in helping children achieve needed physical activity. The specific aims of this research are to examine whether schoolyard improvements lead to increased children s physical activity levels and what aspects of schoolyard design impact physical activity. Research about the effect of schoolyards on physical activity is sparse and neglects to assess how specific schoolyard components affect children s physical activity. Methods Using a quasi-experimental design, 6 schools with renovated schoolyards and 3 control schools were divided into activity areas. Measures of children s physical activity by area were obtained during school and after-school hours using SOPLAY. Results Renovated schoolyards had significantly higher volume of schoolyard use as well as significantly more active students than control schools. Also, certain areas had a significant increase in children who were active without a gender bias. Conclusion Renovated schoolyards increase the number of children who are active, reduce sedentary behavior and increase physical activity for all students.

3 The percentage of children who are overweight or obese has increased rapidly over the past decades,,. The change in norms within US culture has led to higher consumption of fatty and calorie rich foods and an increase in sedentary behavior. In order to combat this change new norms must be established which include an increase in physical activity. In order to ensure that future generations are spared the cost of obesity, this normative change must start during development, in childhood. Most recent recommendations state that children should participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity every day. Considering the sedentary lifestyles many children lead, the majority of children do not meet these recommendations. With the average child spending 1,300 hours at school each year, schools have the potential to provide numerous opportunities for the promotion of physical activity.,,, These opportunities may include physical education, recess, intramural programs, interscholastic sports, and access to school physical activity facilities during and outside of school hours.,,,, Though school time allocated for physical activity has been reduced, schools are still healthy spaces for students, and the opportune location to increase physical activity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only two percent of elementary schools provide daily physical education or its equivalent for the entire school year for students in all grades. While it is important to increase the amount of school time devoted to physical activity, non-curriculum approaches may also help increase physical activity. For example, providing access to recreational facilities during breaks in the school day (e.g., lunch time and recess) and outside of school hours offers potential encouragement for children to engage in physical activity.,,,,,,, Several studies have shown that concentrating on individual behavior change to combat obesity can be effective but these results are not sustained and have little true effect on the individual s behavior. 3,, Thus the social ecology and built environment have been focal points for obesity prevention. Social ecological theory in environment-behavior research explains human activity as a function of interactions between people and their environments., Environments contain a range of behavior settings that are seen to provide, in different degrees, opportunities or affordances for desired behaviors. Environments exert, therefore, probabilistic influences, making behavior more or less likely. For children, changing the environment within the school can change their activity levels and exposure to physical activity. One change in environment within schools that has been shown to increase physical activity is to upgrade and change the schoolyard space. The available quantitative and qualitative research supports the hypothesis that differences in schoolyard design, including schoolyard markings and schoolyard renovations, are accompanied by differences in physical activity.,,, However, research on the effect of schoolyards on children s physical activity is sparse and most are limited both in the number of children observed and the number of sites evaluated. Additionally, there is little current research that breaks down schoolyards into individual components to understand which components encourage and discourage physical activity. In the current study, renovated schoolyards are compared to non-renovated schoolyards at

4 elementary schools to investigate if specific schoolyard improvements do increase physical activity. In addition, to understand gender specific effects of schoolyard equipment components, the components are compared to best understand which provide more opportunities for physical activity and which hinder physical activity for boys and girls. METHODS Using a quasi-experimental design 3 schools with built schoolyards (at least two years prior) called Learning Landscapes (LL) were matched with 3 schools whose LL was recently built (within the last year) and 3 control schools. The control schools are typical schoolyards within a public school district in metropolitan Denver area, are on average 50 years old with minimal improvements over the years. In 2000, 75 of the elementary schools in this school district were identified as requiring moderate to extensive renovation or upgrades to adequately meet current schoolyard standards. Those most in disrepair were in inner-city, low income areas. They consisted mostly of hard play surfaces such as gravel or concrete, were devoid of plant life, and had limited play equipment. Parents have described the schoolyards as asphalt jungles, unprotected from the hot sun and unusable during otherwise desirable play periods. The matched intervention-based schools were renovated as part of the LL Program. Since 1998, through a successful collaboration between the school district and multiple stakeholders, the LL Program has transformed 48 neglected elementary schoolyards in this school district into attractive and safe multi-use schoolyards that are tailored to the needs and desires of the local community. This program has been sponsored by a broad-based, public-private partnership and directed by expert faculty and masters-level students from the College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado Denver. The LL Program transforms these schoolyards by creating fun, participatory play areas that encourage outdoor play and learning, improve opportunities for physical activity for children of all ages, and green the grounds. Although each schoolyard has unique attributes there are common elements. Each schoolyard receives three areas of age appropriate play equipment, improved asphalt areas for structured games such as basketball, four square and tetherball, and a grassed multi-purpose play field typically with a track. Each schoolyard has a central gathering space with a shade structure. Additional gathering spaces vary from site to site and can include outdoor classrooms, informal seating areas, stage or amphitheater. Trees are provided in hard surface and grassed areas to increase shade. Landscaped areas also vary from site to site and can include vegetable gardens, habitat areas, native ecosystems and cultural plantings. Each school has children s art either in the form of tiles, banners or murals. Some schools have community are projects as well and all schools have a community gateway. Parents, children, community members, and school staff provide input into the design of the schoolyard, fund-raise to support the schoolyard, and assist in the schoolyard builds. Nine schools, grouped into three sets of matching schools (A, B, C), were selected to participate in this study (See Table 1). Because the schools that recently received LL schoolyards were selected by the school district, randomization of the treatment schools was not possible. The LL s vary according to schoolyard size and the amount and types of play opportunities. For

5 example, all six schools have three levels of age appropriate play equipment but from different vendors. However, they also have varying unprogrammed components such as sitting areas and differing types of gardens. While all nine sites are located in low-income neighborhoods, they represent a broad range of ethnic and minority groups (see Table 1). The LL built were matched with the recently built LL and control sites according to the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch, students race and ethnicity, and school size. The study was approved by University of Colorado IRB and the principals from all nine schools agreed to participate in this study. Table 1. Population Description of LL School and Matched Controls Group School Free & Racial/Ethnic Breakdown Total # Total # Type Pop. Reduced Boys Girls Lunch AA Latino Anglo Asian Observed Observed A - 1 Built % 56% 41% 2% 1% A - 2 Recent % 76% 28% 1% 1% Built A -3 Control/ % 66% 30% 2% 2% Recent Built Total % 66% 33% 2% 1% B -4 Built % 94% 3% 3% B -5 Recent % 7% 86% 3% 2% Built B - 6 Control % 94% 4% Total % 2% 91% 3% 2% C - 7 Built % 2% 88% 8% 2% C - 8 Recent % 5% 75% 9% 7% Built C - 9 Control % 4% 91 4% 1% Total % 4% 85% 7% 3% Group A: These elementary schools are located in northeast Denver approximately 3 miles from the central business district. While this area has been home to many middle class African- Americans, the northern reaches have an average annual family income of $21,000 and have suffered economically over the years. Gang activity is prevalent and the elementary schools face the challenge of low parental involvement. Group B: These elementary schools are located in Southwest Denver approximately 5 miles from the central business district. This area has been home to mostly Caucasian populations but has, within the last ten years, become a highly Hispanic population. They are among the largest elementary schools in the school district, serve rapidly expanding, diverse student populations in grades pre-kindergarten to fifth grade (ages 4-11) and face difficult social and economic problems. Group C: These elementary schools are located in West Denver, approximately 3 miles from the central business district, and are in an area that is beginning to gentrify. This area is made

6 up of mostly Hispanic demographics. The Hispanic population in these areas has among the highest school drop-out rate in the nation and the schools have a high non-english proficient population that has nearly doubled between 1995 and During the process of the study, one of the control schools had funding approved to build a Leaning Landscape. Rather than drop the school from the design, the survey data from before was included into the control group, while the post-construction survey data was added to the recent built group. The number of observations recorded by school type is given in Table 1. Measures of children s physical activity were obtained before, during, and after school hours by gender through direct observation using SOPLAY (System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth). To identify the schoolyard variables with the greatest impact on children s physical activity, design experts divided the schoolyards into activity areas based on area type, size, and existence of permanent improvements. Four days of observation are necessary to obtain a reliable measurement (intraclass correlation of.8 for both genders). Therefore, this study observed each school for four days during each wave of data collection. To test the reliability of the data, two observers simultaneously observed activity areas for 20% of the total data collection days. To ensure objectivity of the data collection, observers were not part of the research team. Children s physical activity (PA) levels were broken down into three different levels as follows: Sedentary, Moderately Active or Walking, and Very Active. These three activity codes have been validated by heart rate monitors, and accelerometers. From these activity levels, SOPLAY defines the calculation of energy expenditure rates (EER) as follows: EER = kcal/kg/min x Sedentary kcal/kg/min x Moderate kcal/kg/min x Very Active A design analysis conducted at each schoolyard delineated activity areas. On average, schools had approximately mapped areas. In order to accommodate the range of elements/ areas occurring between the control and LL schoolyards surface condition was used as a basis for comparison. Four major categories were created: 1) Hard Surface Structured Basketball and tetherball asphalt areas 2) Hard Surface Unstructured Unprogrammed creative play/educational marking areas; sitting/social gathering areas; and overhead structure/shade areas 3) Soft Surface Structured Play equipment requiring fall zones and play fields with (LL) or without grass(control), 4) Soft Surface Unstructured Planted areas with or without sitting and trails; cultivated or habitats garden areas; and grassed or planted unprogrammed areas. It should be noted that only nonliving soft surface areas occurred at control schools. RESULTS To investigate the impact of schoolyard environment on children s physical activity multiple Bonferroni t-tests between each school type were used to compare means for both the number of

7 children and total energy expenditure per observational scan. Additionally, proportional data for activity levels were tested between groups by calculating z-scores for binomially distributed variables where p is the probability of being Sedentary: z =(p 1 p 2 ) / ((p 1 (1- p 1 )/ n 1 ) + ((p 2 (1 - p 2 ) /n 2 )) All analysis was conducted using SPSS version 16.0 Number of Active Children. In order to best understand the number of children who were active, the walking and very active activity levels were collapsed into an Active categorization, therefore utilizing two activity levels: Active and Sedentary. Table 2 is a summary of student observations by activity level. Table 2 Number of students observed by activity status, gender, and school type. School Type # Sedendtary Boys # Active Boys # Sedentary Girls 602 (37.1%) 1074 (37.8%) 1305 (40.1%) 2981 Control 657 (34.1%) 1272 (65.9%) Built (30.2%) (69.8%) Recent Built (30.0%) (70.0%) Total (30.9%) (69.1%) (38.6%) denotes Sig. greater for Built vs. Control at p<.005 denotes Sig. greater for Recent vs. Control at p<.002 # Active Girls 1020 (62.9%) 1771 (62.3%) 1951 (59.9%) 4742 (61.4%) Total Sedentary Students 1259 (35.5%) 1984 (33.9%) 2453 (34.6%) 5696 (34.5%) Total Active Students 2292 (64.5%) 3874 (66.1%) 4642 (65.4%) (65.5%) Total Students 3551 (21.5%) 5856 (35.5%) 7098 (43%) (100%) LL schoolyards had a higher volume of student traffic than the control schools which is demonstrated in Table 2. Additionally, the percentage of Active boys was significantly higher at LL schools compared to Control schools, while Control schools had a higher percentage of Active girls than Recent Built LL schools. The higher volume of student traffic translated into a significantly higher average number of student sightings per observational scan. Table 3 displays significant differences in the mean number of student sightings. A p-value less than ) was found between control schools and both groups of LL in most cases, while no significant differences were found between the two types of LL schools in any circumstance at the p=0.05 level. Table 3 Average number of sightings per observation and Energy Expenditure by gender School Type Sedentary Active Observations Total Observations Total EER Observations Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Both Control # # # # # # Built

8 Recent Built # # 1.57 # 3.42 # 1.29 # # Overall Control vs. Built 1 <.002 (B) <.0001 (B) <.0001 (B) Control vs. Recent Built 1 Built vs. Recent Built 1 <.002 (R) <.017 (R) n.s. <.036 (B) <.002 (R) Note or # denotes significant difference in means at α = 0.05 between control and either recent built or built LL n.s. Energy Expended. Average EER follow a similar pattern to the average number of student sightings. The amount of energy burned per scan is significantly higher at LL built and recent built schools (p< and p<.002 respectively) compared to control schools. This is an indicator that the volume of children at the LL schools was significantly greater than the volume of children at non-ll schools (Table 4). Table 4- Percentage of Active Observations according to surface type, school, gender and their comparative p-values. Surface Type School Type % Active Boys % Active Girls % Active Combined Boys vs. Girls p-values Hard Surface Structured non-ll <.02 LL <.0001 p-value n.s. n.s. n.s. Hard Surface Unstructured non-ll n.s. LL <.0001 p-value <.0001 n.s. <.003 Soft Surface Structured non-ll <.006 LL <.0001 p-value <.05 <.058 <.003 Soft Surface Unstructured Area non-ll n/a n/a n/a n/a LL n.s. p-value n/a n/a n/a Impact of Surface Area. Analysis by surface type, Hard Surface Structured (HSS), Hard Surface Unstructured (HSU), Soft Surface Structured (SSS), and Soft Surface Unstructured (SSU) revealed that both boys and girls active rates are significantly greater at the LL SSS areas than in the control environments (see Table 4). Yet on HSS areas, no significant differences are evident between school types. The proportion of active boys increased dramatically on Learning Landscapes HSU areas (49.6% at non-ll and 63.3% at LL), while girl s rates decrease slightly but not significantly (56.2% at non-ll and 54%

9 at LL). Though there were significantly more active boys on the Soft Surface Structured play areas, there was still an increase in the proportion of both boys and girls on the SSS areas. The SSU areas were not compared to control school as these area types did not exist on the control school schoolyards. Though when genders are compared there is no significant difference between active boys and girls on these play areas. DISCUSSION With obesity at the front line of health issues facing America s children, there is a need to attack this problem within the communities that are the most affected. The redevelopment of schoolyards is an obvious lead into changing physical activity (PA) habits of children in their existent daily routine. This research supports the concept that improvement of the built environment, specifically the outdoor environment can improve behavioral patterns of children, specifically PA. By merely increasing the volume of children using the play space and decreasing the sedentary behaviors, Learning Landscapes have developed schoolyard designs that foster the childhood inclination to play. In addition to increasing the number of children using the play spaces and decreasing the number of sedentary children, the spaces themselves increased physical activity and energy expenditure. The number of children who were classified as active increased significantly when comparing control schools to both built and recently built Learning Landscapes. Renovations to schoolyardss, including markings, have been shown to increase physical activity on schoolyards during and after school hours. 33,34,35,36 Most of these studies showed short term effects in comparing renovated to non-renovated schoolyards. This study shows that though the affect is greater at the onset of implementing the Learning Landscapes, the affect continues over time in those schools whose schoolyards were built more than two years prior to the study. Why did this occur? Our research suggests that the actual design of the schoolyard, not its relative newness, is triggering increased and sustained use. LL schoolyards provide a wider variety of affordances for play. Such an environment is more supportive of children s erratic play behavior and therefore results in an increase volume or traffic of activity. Additionally, the LL increased opportunities for socialization moments to pause between spurts of physical activity may be attributable to the increase levels of volume and activity. The overall energy expenditure increase signifies that more students are using the LL schoolyards then the control schools. In addition to this the EER demonstrates that there is a significantly higher volume of children using the LL schoolyards than the control schools. This increase in volume demonstrates that schools with LL schoolyards are not only more active than the control schools but also expending more energy each day. Stratton et al 34 found that schoolyard markings in British schools increases physical activity, though they did not mention energy expended when comparing schools. This indication of energy expenditure is more demonstrable of the affects of the LL schoolyards then children s activity level because it combines increased volume of use with physical activity levels. The higher volume of observations suggest that the increase affordances for play triggers a reduction in time spent in one area and increases back and forth movement between areas and suggest the importance of the spatial arrangement of

10 activity areas both in type, variety and size. Although the higher volume could also be explained simply by the increase use of the schoolyards by several classes or ages at one time, our observations deem this not to be the case. Though the numbers of active boys did not differ between control and LL schools, what was significant was the decrease in the number of boys who were sedentary on LL schoolyards. Having significant numbers of children move away from sedentary activity and be more active gives them ample opportunity to expel more calories and decrease their likelihood of becoming obese in adulthood. As has been shown several times before, 4,12,13, boys are more likely to be active then girls. Though, this is not universally true, as was found within this study. The Soft Surface Structured play areas of LL s, which include swings, monkey bars, play equipment and play fields, increased physical activity significantly with both boys and girls. Though there is a gender bias within this structure, this bias is similar to that present in the control schools. This displays that encouraging PA for girls is possible, so long as appropriate equipment is available where they feel comfortable playing. In order to show that these schoolyard designs truly affect play and physical activity a prepost study would be preferable with a randomized selection. However the timing and funding of new LLs in Denver precluded this option. Though this was a limitation it did allow for comparison of schoolyards that were recently built to those that were built at least two years prior, allowing for observation of changes that may occur due to excitement of new equipment. Control schools selected did mirror the demographic makeup of the LL schools and were within the same geographic area of the city. However a more detailed analysis is needed regarding site specific schoolyard policies. The sole use of SOPLAY does create limitations. It was not possible to track individual movement only a total volume of activity. Understanding individual movement patterns within the schoolyard could reveal a greater understanding of the relationship of activity areas. It could also be helpful in evaluating cumulative levels of energy expenditure per person. SOPLAY in combination with pedometers, accelerometers and spatial tracking systems would allow for a greater understanding of the potential correlations between spatial relationships and physical activity in children. Given that differences between recently built and built Learning Landscapes had negligible differences infers that the effects of the designs does not lessen over time, when the novelty of the new schoolyard has diminished. This effect should be studied on a longitudinal scale to understand the changes of the schoolyard and the student population over time. The LL schools introduce an entirely new spatial environment category Soft Surface Unstructured Areas. By designing a greater variety of activity areas whose intended use is both passive and active the level of physical activity and energy expenditure increases. If the design of a schoolyard triggers greater physical activity in children then the potential exists for such an environment to facilitate greater physical activity for physical education (PE). Though preliminary studies have been done to demonstrate the affective use of the schoolyard within the formal curriculum for structured physical activity, more rigorous studies must be done to ensure the usefulness of the spaces outside of unstructured play.

11