Indicator PI.5.b Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a recreation facility
Data Source
List of recreation facilities from San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks, 2008.
Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. Spring 2007 Update: Current Year Estimates. Methodology available at: http://www.appliedgeographic.com/library.html.
Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.
Map data is presented at the level of the census tract, which was calculated by assigning census block data to census tracts based on spatial location. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.
Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. While planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas than census tracts, census tracts do not always lie completely within a planning neighborhood. SFDPH used ArcGIS software and a 'centroids within' methodology to convert census blocks to geographic mean center points. We then assigned census blocks to planning neighborhoods based on the spatial location of those geographic mean center points and calculated the planning neighborhood totals for the table.
Detailed information regarding geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:
http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.September_2009.pdf
http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php
Explanation and Limitations
The percentage of population within 1/4 mile of a community recreational facility is calculated by dividing the total population within 1/4 mile of a community recreational facility in a specific neighborhood and dividing it by the total population in that neighborhood.
The terms open space and parks and recreational facilities are used interchangeably by different agencies and organizations. There are many different types of open space including Flagship Parks, Regional Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Undeveloped Open Spaces, Civic Squares and Plazas, Greenscapes, Mini Parks, Greenbelts, Rec Center or Clubhouse Grounds/Athletic Fields and Sports Courts, Lakes, Future Parks, Stairways, Specialty Parks, Golf Courses, Breathing Room, and Usable Parks. For more detailed definitions, please visit: http://www.sfneighborhoodparks.org/pdf/publications/Table10.pdf.
Recreation facilities in San Francisco are generally broken down into five different types of facilities, described below:
| Facility Magnitude | Definition |
| Level 1 | Always a school facility - however, due to recent budget cuts, they no longer staff such facilities. |
| Level 2 | A facility with latchkey and/or afterschool programming operating 20-40 hours. |
| Level 3 | Typically a clubhouse with a field or some outdoor area with latchkey and/or afterschool programming operating 54-74 hours. |
| Level 4 | A clubhouse with multiple fields and perhaps lights operating 74-79 hours. |
| Level 5 | A large recreation center with a gymnasium or auditorium, lights, multiple fields operating 74-79 hours. |
| Source: San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. | |
In August 2004, the San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department released a Recreation Assessment Report. The report provided summary recommendations based on community and staff focus groups, citizen mail and phone surveys, program and facility assessments, service area mapping, and development of vision, mission, goals, strategies, tactics, and performance measures. The five key goal recommendations from the report included:
- Develop consistent core programs and facility standards across the city so all participants and users receive a quality recreation experience.
- Recreation services will meet community needs through effective use of demographic data and increased marketing and promotional efforts to inform users of services.
- Recreation facilities will be valued as community assets by upgrading and maintaining all indoor and outdoor facilities in need of major repair over a ten year period to create a quality user experience and positive image for the city.
- Update existing and create new partnership agreements to extinguish balance and equity of each partner's investment, creating trust and eliminating entitlement.
- Reposition Recreation services as a viable city service by developing an outcome based management culture that focuses on accountability and exceeding the needs of users while building an efficient and productive organization that operates in a proactive manner.
The full report is available at: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=27310
Proximity is not the same as access. Many factors affect access to recreational facilities including cost, hours of operation, the presence of major roads, highways, buildings and gates, perceived and actual safety, quality of facilities, transportation, cultural preferences, etc. This indicator, 1/4 mile proximity to a recreational facility, is just one element of many in assessing access to recreational facilities.
Why is this a Community Health Indicator?
Both the number of neighborhood parks in proximity to one's residence and the types of amenities at the park (i.e., lighting, sports fields) predict the duration of physical activity in children.a One review of studies showed that access to places for physical activity combined with outreach and education can produce a 48 percent increase in the frequency of physical activity.b Access to community recreational facilities also provides a space for social engagement, which may promote the development of social networks and social cohesion in a place. Children who live in close proximity to parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities tend to be more active compared to children who do not live near those facilities.c Adolescents who engage in moderate physical activity five or more times a week are more likely to achieve an ‘A’ in math and science than their peers.d Finally, an analysis of data from 2,134 women in five states found that the density of fitness facilities in an individual’s zipcode predicted their body mass index. The study estimates that an additional fitness facility per 1000 residents in ones zipcode is associated with a reduction in BMI of 1.39 kg/m2.e
- Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, Overton A, Evenson KR, Staten LK, Porter D, McKenzie TL, Catellier D. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1381-1389.
- Kahn EB. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2002;22:87-88.
Bauman A, Bull F. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and Children: A Review of Reviews. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
Nelson MC, Gordon-Larsen P. Physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns are associated with selected adolescent health risk behaviors. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1281-1290.
Mobley LR, Root ED, Finkelstein EA, et al. Environment, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk in low-income women. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(4):327-332.