WSA_Youth and Family Master Plan Phase I - September 2009

Home Browse Search

Safe places & activities Safe Places ~ Joint Use • Sports Programming Research on crime, open space and physical activity suggest open spaces contributes to pro-social behaviors and community capacity. The link between the built environment, social cohesion and positive health behaviors has been developed and accepted in the literature on public health (Northridge, 2004). Allowing for multiple and joint uses of spaces increases "eyes on the street" thus creating safe public spaces and neighborhoods for youth and families to be active (Jacobs, 1961). Safe places In addition to open space to be active in, youth need access to safe spaces in order to engage in physical activity. If space is perceived to be safe, adults are significantly more likely to encourage children to be active and participate in sports (Miles, 2008} and teens are more likely to engage in physical activity, particularly in urban areas (Babey et al., 2008; Babey et al., 2005}. Research continues to show that low- income communities of color have reduced access to community-level physical activity opportunities (Powell et al., 2004; Gordon-Larsen et al., 2006}, and that moreover, living close to a park is a critical determinant of physical activity in low-income minority communities (Cohen et al., 2007). Furthermore, when actual and perceived dangers are not taken into account, physical activity programs often fail at achieving health objectives (Roman and Chalfin, 2008}. Access to open safe space is vitally important for children and youth to be able to maintain healthy levels of physical activity. Exercise levels are known to increase significantly when people have access to parks or safe places to walk or bike (Sherer, 2005}. How "activity-friendly" a neighborhood is may be one of the most important predictors of how physically active children are (DeVries, 2006). Higher rates of inactivity have been often found in communities with high crime rates or even higher perceived crime threats. Although actual risk and perceived risk of violence are not always equivalent, research shows that fear of crime may be enough to produce hard-to-break sedentary habits, a pattern important to prevent in youth (Loukatiou-Sideris & Eck, 2007). This may be particularly true for girls who are often more prone to physical inactivity (Gomez et al., 2004). A cycle between crime, actual or perceived, and physical inactivity underscores the need for safe spaces and youth programming. From atwo-day summit attended by park and urban experts, the Trust for Public Land (TPL} recently published seven factors of excellence to guide the development of city parks (Harnik, 2006): 1. A clear expression of purpose 2. An ongoing planning and community involvement process 3. Sufficient assets in land, staffing, and equipment to meet the system's goals 4. Equitable access 5. User satisfaction 6. Safety from crime and physical hazards 7. Benefits for the city beyond the boundaries of the parks Cities can work toward the goal of creating safe, open spaces but that alone cannot solve the situation of limited recreation space in a city that is built-out such as Santa Ana. For this, it is important to take a look at other open space opportunities within the city boundaries. Joint use with school districts is one way to expand the scope of a system of safe places for youth and families to recreate.