Content uploaded by Susan Zieff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Zieff on Oct 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
249
Official Journal of ISPAH
www.JPAH-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2014, 11, 249-255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2011-0290
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Zieff and Kim are with the Dept of Kinesiology, San Francisco
State University, San Francisco, CA. Wilson and Tierney are
with the Dept of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, San Francisco
State University, San Francisco, CA.
A “Ciclovia” in San Francisco: Characteristics and
Physical Activity Behavior of Sunday Streets Participants
Susan G. Zieff, Mi-Sook Kim, Jackson Wilson, and Patrick Tierney
Background: Temporary parks such as the monthly event, Sunday Streets SF, support public health goals by
using existing infrastructure and street closures to provide physical activity in neighborhoods underserved
for recreational resources. Sunday Streets creates routes to enhance community connection. Methods: Six
hundred and thirty-nine participants at 3 Sunday Streets events were surveyed using a 36-item instrument of
open- and closed-ended questions about overall physical activity behavior, physical activity while at Sunday
Streets, experience of the events, and demographic data. Results: Overall, Sunday Streets participants are
physically active (79% engage in activity 3–7 days/week) and approximately represent the ethnic minority
distribution of the city. There were signicant differences between rst-time attendees and multiple-event
attendees by duration of physical activity at the event (55.83 minutes vs. 75.13 minutes) and by frequency
of physical activity bouts per week (3.69 vs. 4.22). Both groups emphasized the positive experience and safe
environment as reasons to return to the event; for rst-time attendees, the social environment was another
reason to return. Conclusions: Temporary parks like Sunday Streets have the potential to provide healthful,
population-wide physical activity using existing streets. The trend toward increased activity by multiple-event
attendees suggests the importance of a regular schedule of events.
Keywords: open streets, temporary parks, community development, population health
Persistent upward trends in overweight and obesity
among children and adults have been observed by health
professionals, urban planners and policy-makers.1 Data
from national surveys indicate that ethnic minority popu-
lations and inner-city residents are more overweight, less
physically active and experience higher rates of diseases
such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease than the
general population.2
The barriers to physical activity among urban
residents are multifactorial (eg, involve the built and
social environments) and differ by unique inuences of
poverty, racial and ethnic segregation and urban density
by context.3 Among adults, common barriers to physical
activity engagement include lack of convenient access,
safety concerns, limited time, lack of nancial resources,
unavailable or limited access to transportation and an
absence of personal motivation.4 Built environment fea-
tures positively associated with neighborhood residents
meeting physical activity guidelines include sidewalks,
bicycling facilities, and access to low-cost recreational
facilities.5,6 Leisure-time physical activity in a develop-
ing country has been associated with park design and
types of use.7 There is growing evidence that safe urban
public parks, particularly in neighborhoods under-served
for recreation, support public health goals by providing
physical activity opportunities.8
Scholars suggest that parks more effectively promote
physical activity when they include built features (eg,
basketball, tennis courts, and playgrounds) and include
opportunities for a range of users.9,10 Parks are also used
more frequently when they are conveniently located in
proximity to targeted users11 and when negative features
of parks such as litter, vandalism, and derelict physical
amenities are minimized.12 In addition, there is substantial
evidence that social environment attributes inuence the
positive perception of parks among users.13
Regular park users are more likely to achieve rec-
ommended levels of physical activity than nonusers,11
suggesting that expanding available park space is an
important strategy for public health. However, increas-
ing physical activity through additional open space or
improvements to parks is enhanced when programming
is also provided.14 Attention should be given to cultural
values and behavior when developing programs or poli-
cies to enhance physical activity opportunities. Among
Hispanic adults, “supportive destinations” such as side-
walks, large group sites, and nearby public recreation
areas enhance physical activity rates.15
Expanding available parks and open space in densely
populated urban environments can be difcult, yet there
are strategies for increasing recreational space within the
available infrastructure of an environment. Street-closure
250 Zieff et al
events, such as the South American-style Ciclovias, and
the community-based events growing in number in North
America, provide supportive environments for large-scale
recreational and community-building activities by creat-
ing temporary, park-like space for recreation in urban
areas.16 Community-based events also provide poten-
tially effective locations for population-wide policies
and programming to increase health-beneting physical
activity18 and quality of life.17 The Brazilian community-
based intervention, Agita Sao Paulo, successfully uses
“mega-events” to reach involve large populations by
incorporating aspects of local culture to disseminate its
educational messages about engaging in and adhering to
physical activity behavior.18,19 Participants in Agita Sao
Paulo report an increase in physical activity behavior
through its programs, events, and messaging.20,21 The
Bogota, Colombia Ciclovia reduces open space dispari-
ties among low-income elderly residents who report some
association with meeting physical activity guidelines
through walking at the event.22
The creation of temporary parks may provide an
effective and efcient strategy for increasing physical
activity and supporting broad public health goals.23 The
Sunday Streets events in San Francisco, California are
an example of a temporary “park” with physical activity
programming. These free community-celebration events
combine street closures with planned and spontaneous
physical activity and entertainment components that
encourage walking, bicycling, and exploring new neigh-
borhoods. Sunday Streets routes make use of existing
infrastructure and typically align with city-wide bicycle
lanes. Limited data available suggest that the cost of
investment in bicycle infrastructure (eg, bike lanes) may
result in substantial savings on healthcare costs,24 an
outcome of importance for policy-makers. Combined
with the low cost per user and the high number of par-
ticipants, Ciclovias’ use of existing roadways also offers
a cost-effective public health intervention.25
To date there has been limited epidemiological
evaluation of any community-based Ciclovia event to
determine its effectiveness for increasing health-related
physical activity among large populations.16 Recent
reviews of community-based interventions suggest
their potential for increasing physical activity though
evaluation methodologies and outcomes have been
inconsistent.26
Statement of Purpose
The current study of a Ciclovia event, “Sunday Streets
SF,” examined 1) who were the participants (eg, demo-
graphics, knowledge of the event, participants’ point of
origin) and 2) how rst-timers and multiple attendees
differ in physical activity behavior and experience of
Sunday Streets (eg, PA behaviors and changes, types of
activities, emotional experience, reasons to attend/return
to the event, intended future involvement). The ndings
from this exploratory research would determine if Sunday
Streets SF supports public health outcomes by providing
recreational opportunities to residents of neighborhoods
underserved for physical activity resources; and creates
a physical and social environment that encourages par-
ticipation in the event. Implications for policy-makers
are also discussed in the context of public health efforts
to increase physical activity.
Background:
Creation of Sunday Streets
In 2008, the San Francisco Mayor’s ofce created the
initiative Sunday Streets SF, to be modeled on the Ciclo-
via (bicycling) event from Bogota, Colombia in which
more than 70 miles of city streets are transformed each
Sunday into open space for cycling, walking, and other
recreational activities.16 The goals of the event were to
create safe, car-free recreational activity using city streets
and to provide a new venue for community interaction.27
Two events were held in 2008, increasing to 6 events in
2009 and 9 events on 6 different routes in 2010. Unof-
cial estimates of the participants (provided by event
organizers and police statistics) vary by location and
range from 5000–25,000.
Four factors are considered by Sunday Streets orga-
nizers (http://livablecity.org) in the selection of neighbor-
hoods for routes: current status of neighborhood open
space, health markers of the resident populations (eg,
ischemic heart disease rates), level of community interest,
and local merchant interest. The 2010 routes intersect 4
neighborhoods (Bayview, Tenderloin, Mission, Western
Addition) most under-served for safe, accessible open
space and with a greater than 15% poverty rate among
the residents.28 A focus group study of residents of these
neighborhoods showed an association between physical
activity and convenient access to recreational resources.29
Methods
Participants and Procedures
A random sample of 639 Sunday Streets participants
was recruited to complete the survey. We collected data
at 3 different events in 2010 that represent the popula-
tions targeted by Sunday Streets. Approval to conduct
this research was received from the Institutional Review
Board at San Francisco State University. A diverse team
of undergraduate and graduate research assistants were
trained to collect data and were strategically placed at
different locations along the entire route to enhance
recruitment of individuals, groups, and families with
children, more and less vigorous activities, and near to
activities with specic cultural value.
Research assistants approached every fth partici-
pant and invited that individual to share their experiences
of Sunday Streets by completing the survey. If the fth
person was part of a group, the group was asked to par-
ticipate. To minimize repeat recruitment of a participant,
respondents were given a sticker to wear.
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2
Temporary Parks and PA 251
Instrumentation
The Sunday Streets instrument was developed specically
to survey Sunday Streets participants. The original items
were developed based on existing instruments and were
reviewed by experts at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. The initial instrument was pilot-tested
using cognitive interview procedures30 leading to minor
changes in the instrument. The nal survey was profes-
sionally translated into Spanish and Chinese to increase
participation by the city’s predominant ethnic minority
populations. The survey was pilot tested with bilingual
students for cultural appropriateness. Surveys took an
average of 20–30 minutes to complete and included the
following domains of interest: demographics, physical
activity behaviors, and experience of Sunday Streets
including reasons to attend and return to the event.
Demographics. Participants reported their age, gender,
ethnic background, education level, and their residential
zip code or street intersection point of origin from which
they traveled to Sunday Streets. This was used to calculate
their travel distance. The participants were asked to
provide an e-mail address for follow-up.
Physical Activity Behaviors. A series of questions
measured the participants’ regular physical activity
behaviors including types, level, frequency and
duration.31 Level of physical activity was measured by
asking participants if they do moderate physical activity
(dened as at least 10 minutes of physical activity at
a time, such as brisk walking, bicycling, vacuuming,
gardening, or anything else that causes some increase in
breathing).31 The participants also indicated how often
they engage in moderate physical activity per week and
specied which activities they performed in a typical
week and total time per day. Lastly, the participants
reported their physical activity behaviors during Sunday
Streets events by indicating in which physical activities
they participated, and for how long, that made them
breathe hard.
Reasons for Attending and Returning to Sunday
Streets.
Based on the pilot study of Sunday Streets
events,32 the researchers developed a 16-item section
asking about reasons that participants attend and expect
to return to Sunday Streets. The participants rated each
item on 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not important) to
7 (very important). Exploratory factor analysis using a
varimax rotation with Maximum Likelihood extraction
method successfully identied 5 factor solutions.I The
rst factor, Positive Experience and Safe Environment
(PESE, α = .69) contained the following 5 items: closed
streets, having fun, spending time with family/friends,
and safe environment. The second factor, Purposeful
Physical Activity Opportunities, (PA, α =.70) consisted
of 4 items including: being part of a community event,
the event gets me outside, supporting good causes, and
PA opportunities in general. The third factor, Social
and Environmental reasons (SE, α = .67) contained
4 items that addressed issues of: desire to see another
part of city, meet new people/socialize, accessible
by public transit, and free activities and programs at
the event. The fourth factor, Location (LO, α = .74)
reected proximity, attractiveness or access to the event
locations. The fth factor was a single item regarding
Children’s Activity Program (CAP) that was regarded
as an important reason to attend and/or return to Sunday
Streets events.
Subjective Vitality. The validated 7-item Subjective
Vitality Scale33 was used to measure participants’ feelings
of aliveness and energy (eg, ‘‘I feel alive and vital’’) on
7-point Likert-type scales (1 = not at all to 7 = very true)
while attending Sunday Streets events. Internal reliability
was .84 in the current study.
Intention to Return to Sunday Streets. A 2-item
measure of the extent to which participants intended to
return to SS events was developed for this study. The
items included: “I expect to attend future SS events”
and “I am looking forward to attending the next Sunday
Streets event.” A 5-point response scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used.
Results
Who Were the Participants?
A total of 639 Sunday Streets participants completed the
questionnaires. After removing 39 incomplete surveys,
the nal sample size was 600 participants (male n = 241;
female n = 295; declined to state n = 64) with mean age
of 39.52 years (SD = 11.93). The distribution of age
ranges indicates that Sunday Streets appeals to all age
groups with signicant numbers of older (aged 50– 80
years, 20%). Participants reported their educational
attainment: high school (4.8%), some college (12.8%),
Bachelor’s degrees (38%), and professional degrees or
graduate school (35%).
The race of participants from the 3 locations sampled
was 55% White (n = 331), 20% Asian (n = 122), 8%
Hispanic, (n = 53), and African American/Black 5%
(n = 20). Twenty-nine identied as multiracial and 45
participants did not indicate their ethnicity or race. Of
the 91.5% of respondents that gave the zip code from
which they originated their trip to Sunday Streets, 73%
reported living in a San Francisco zip code. Participants
reported traveling an average of 3.25 (SD = 2.46) miles
round-trip to attend the event. The majority of participants
learned about the event through word-of-mouth, from
friends, and family (39%) and through printed advertis-
ing (eg, San Francisco Examiner, 13.8%). Fewer than
5% of participants learned about Sunday Streets through
public advertising (eg, newspaper and Radio). Among
survey participants, 46% (n = 277) were attending for
the rst time and 54% (n = 323) reported attending 2 or
more times. Biking (24%) and walking (21%) were the
most commonly reported activities participants engaged
in while at Sunday Streets, in addition to multiple other
individual and group activities.
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2
252 Zieff et al
Overall, the majority of SS event participants were
found to be physically active, with 79% of participants
indicating engaging in regular, moderate physical activ-
ity (34% 6–7 days/week; 45% 3–4 days/week). Average
duration of physical activity was 54 minutes (SD = 47.54
minutes) per day. In general, 53.3% of rst-time attendees
and 61.5% of multievent attendees reported meeting the
CDC recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate PA
per week.
How Do First-Time Attendees
and Multiple-Event Attendees Differ
in Physical Activity Behaviors
and Experience of Sunday Streets?
Multiple 1-way (rst timers vs. multiple attendees)
MANOVA’s were conducted to examine differences in
attendees’ regular physical activity behaviors as well as
their experience in relation to attending Sunday Streets
events. There were signicant differences between the
2 groups in their regular physical activity behavior,
Wilk’s Λ = .974, F2, 532 = 6.98, P = .001 with multiple
attendees reporting signicantly greater physical activity
frequency per week compared with rst time attendees,
F1, 534 = 13.3, P = .024. However, physical activity dura-
tion was found to be insignicant between the 2 groups
(Table 1).
Physical activity behaviors while attending Sunday
Streets were also signicantly different between rst
and multiple attendees, Wilk’s Λ = .965, F3, 453 = 5.55
P = .001. Multiple attendees reported staying longer at
events and engaging in longer bouts of physical activ-
ity during Sunday Streets, F1, 457 = 13.42, and 8.47,
respectively at P = .01. On average, those attending
multiple Sunday Streets stayed about 20 minutes longer
in duration of physical activity than rst timers. Among
multiple attendees, 25% reported a positive change
in their physical activity behaviors since their first
involvement in Sunday Streets when compared with
rst timers. Although a marginal outcome, 29% of those
who reported a change in physical activity indicated
an increase in their bicycling behavior since attending
Sunday Streets.
When examining differences in reasons to attend
SS events between rst timers and multiple attendees
(Table 1), 1-way MANOVA demonstrated signicant
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Observed Variables
First-time
attendees
Multiple-event
attendees
ScaleMean S.E. Mean S.E.
Physical activity behaviors
PA frequency* 3.69 .101 4.22 .107 1–6 days
PA duration per day 51.66 2.82 57.52 3.01 Minutes
Physical activity while attending SS
Duration at SS* 70.33 3.56 89.85 3.79 Minutes
Intention to stay at SS 93.91 4.00 91.66 4.46 Minutes
Total duration of physical activity at SS* 55.83 4.43 75.13 4.94 Minutes
Reasons to attend SS
Positive Experience & Safe Environ. (PESE) * 5.99 .056 6.35 .062 1–7
Physical Activity/Gets me Out (PA) * 5.55 .072 5.83 .080 1–7
Social-Environmental (SE) 4.47 .096 4.27 .106 1–7
Location of Event (LO) 4.98 .116 4.69 .128 1–7
Children’s Activity Programs (CAP) 3.43 .151 3.65 .167 1–7
Reasons to return to SS
rPESE* 6.16 .061 6.33 .063 1–7
rPA 5.89 .071 6.05 .013 1–7
rSE* 4.91 .099 4.64 .103 1–7
rLO 4.87 .109 4.98 .113 1–7
rCAP 3.73 .061 3.74 .169 1–7
Subjective vitality* 5.34 .061 5.54 .067 1–7
Intention to return to SS* 4.32 .038 4.78 .043 1–5
* P < .05 in group difference analysis.
Abbreviations: SS, Sunday Streets.
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2
Temporary Parks and PA 253
group differences, Wilk’s Λ = .934, F5, 438 = 6.14, P =
.000. Univariate analysis indicated that multiple attend-
ees placed greater importance on PESE and PA than
rst timers, F1, 444 = 14.35 and 8.19, P < .01. Another
1-way MANOVA revealed signicant group differences
in reasons to return to SS events, Wilk’s Λ = .966, F5, 422
= 2.99, P = .012. While multiple attendees reported that
rPESE was a more important motive for returning (F1,
428 = 3.76, P < .05), the rst timers indicated that social
environmental factors (rSE) were of greater importance
in coming back to another Sunday Streets, F1, 428 = 3.61,
P = .05.
Intention to return to Sunday Streets and participants’
subjective vitality during the event were signicantly
different between rst timers and multiple attendees,
Wilk’s Λ = .890, F2, 521 = 32, P = .000. Compared with
rst timers, multiple attendees reported greater levels of
positive experience and vitality while attending SS events
(F1, 524 = 5.58, P = 019) and greater intention to return to
SS events, F1, 524 = 64.12, P < .001.
Discussion
The current study explored how temporary parks
such as Sunday Streets support the goal of increasing
health-beneting physical activity. This study examined
event participants and analyzed reported differences
between rst-time attendees and multiple attendees in
terms of their physical activity behaviors and experi-
ences while attending the events. The ndings from
this study highlight the potential for a population-wide
community-based intervention to offer participants a
convenient, free, weekly event to meet CDC physical
activity guidelines.
In the current, global context of declines in physical
activity across populations leading to increased rates of
chronic diseases and obesity, the temporary parks pro-
vided by Sunday Streets were found to offer a unique
strategy for increasing opportunities for physical activity
within existing urban infrastructures.
Participant Characteristics
Participants in Sunday Streets are approximately equal
male and female, highly educated (78% hold a bachelor’s
degree compared with 81% of San Francisco residents
and 77% of California residents34), cover a wide age
range, and represent ethnic minorities in similar propor-
tions to the overall city population. According to a 2008
San Francisco park user survey, whites are 2.1 times as
likely as any other ethnic group to use parks and respon-
dents with higher household incomes and higher levels
of education more frequently use parks.35 The greater
distribution of ethnic minority participants at Sunday
Streets indicates the event’s potential for attracting tradi-
tionally less physically active populations. Sunday Streets
routes traverse neighborhoods with limited open space
and physical activity resources, potentially equalizing the
distribution of recreational infrastructure.
Experience of First-time Attendees vs.
Multiple Attendees at SS
The majority of current Sunday Streets participants engage
in regular physical activity. When comparing rst-time
attendees to multiple attendees of Sunday Streets events,
rst timers reported an average of 3 days/week of health-
beneting physical activity while those who attended more
than 1 event reported participating in physical activity
4 times per week; both groups are relatively physically
active when compared with the general city population
(47% of San Francisco adults report engaging in regular
moderate or vigorous physical activity36).
All participants reported engaging in roughly 1 hour
of physical activity during the event, although multiple
event attendees tended to stay longer (75 minutes versus
55 minutes for rst-timers). In 1 bout per week, partici-
pants at Sunday Streets obtain approximately a third or
a half of the 150 minutes per week of moderate activ-
ity recommended by the CDC. When considering the
trend of participants toward increased physical activity
after attending Sunday Streets, regular participation and
regular scheduling of monthly events has the potential
to support participants’ attaining recommended levels of
health-beneting activity. However, given the relatively
high physical activity levels of the participants, Sunday
Streets would more signicantly serve public health goals
by attracting participants who are currently inactive or
minimally active. The relatively more active people may
provide a reference group for the rst-time attendees that
offers motivation for increasing PA levels.
Sunday Streets provides a safe environment for
residents to build community bonds through positive
experiences while providing a physical activity interven-
tion. While multiple event attendees reported having fun
spending time with family and friends on closed and safe
streets as important reasons to both attend and return to
the events, rst-time attendees emphasized social and
environmental reasons as important reasons to return to
Sunday Streets. When compared with rst-time attendees,
multiple-event attendees also emphasized the importance
of engaging in physical activity while at the events. These
ndings suggest that Sunday Streets should continue pro-
viding PESE and PA opportunities, but continue to provide
opportunities for new participants who are attracted for SE
reasons including: desire to see another part of city, meet
new people/socialize, access the event by public transit,
and enjoy free activities and programs at the events.
Those who had already attended at least 1 prior
Sunday Streets reported more positive emotions and vital-
ity while attending events and reported greater intention
to return when compared with rst timers. The feeling
of being alive and energized and intention have shown a
strong relationship with exercise behavior.33,37
Limitations
Sunday Streets was initiated by policy-makers to create
open space for recreation and community connection.
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2
254 Zieff et al
Therefore, it is a natural experiment not an intervention.
The participants in our study are self-selected by attend-
ing the event and do not meet any specic criteria except
for age. Our research dened multiple-event attendees as
individuals who participated in 2 or more Sunday Streets
events limiting our ability to discriminate between par-
ticipants who have attended different numbers of events.
Future research should focus on participants under age
18 and families to determine the potential for Sunday
Streets to increase physical activity behavior among less
active children and youth. Limitations include the use of
a recall instrument and participant refusal to complete the
survey while being physically active.38
Conclusions and Policy Implications
The study offers ways for communities to use built envi-
ronments in new and creative ways to expand existing
open space for physical recreation. Findings suggest that
event planners must rely on SE factors to attract less-
active, potential rst-time visitors who may be converted
to regular participation. Since traditional forms of public
media have been minimally effective, new strategies are
needed. For example, merchants along the routes could
post iers and event information that highlights their
involvement. Routes that incorporate school facilities
could also encourage participation by families, children
and youth.
Route selection should continue to prioritize neigh-
borhoods with lowest physical activity rates and least
physical activity resources. The average round-trip
travel distance of participants to each event (3.25 miles
in a 7-square mile city area) suggests that newcomers
would take part in the event at different locations. The
indication by participants that children’s activities were
the least important reason for attending the event may
be associated with lack of knowledge about available
children’s programming and routes that are less attractive
to parents with children.
Policy-makers considering similar events should
overlay potential objectives of the program with the needs
and interests of specic communities being served. The
value of Sunday Streets-type events can be evaluated by
assessing and analyzing participants’ physical activity
behavior and other characteristics to strengthen the pro-
gram further for long-term health outcomes.39
Notes
I Details of EFA analysis available upon request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Ofce of
Research and Sponsored Programs, San Francisco State Uni-
versity, San Francisco, California. The project was developed
by the Active Living Across the Lifespan Research Group, San
Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.
References
1. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Preva-
lence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008.
JAMA. 2010;303(3):235–241. PubMed doi:10.1001/
jama.2009.2014
2. Kruger J, Kohl HW, III. Trends in leisure-time physical
activity by age, sex and race/ethnicity—United States—
1994-2004. MMWR Weekly. 2005;54(39):991–994.
3. Lopez RP, Hynes HP. Obesity, physical activity,
and the urban environment: public health research
needs. Environ Health. 2006;5(1):25. PubMed
doi:10.1186/1476-069X-5-25
4. Cerin E, Leslie E, Sugiyama T, Owen N. Perceived barriers
to leisure-time physical activity in adults: an ecological per-
spective. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(4):451–459. PubMed
5. Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, et al. Neighborhood
environments and physical activity among adults in 11
countries. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(6):484–490. PubMed
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.031
6. Hino AA, Reis Rs, Sarmiento OL, Parra Dc, Brownson
RC. The built environment and recreational physi-
cal activity among adults in Curitiba, Brazil. Prev
Med. 2011;52(6):419–422. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
ypmed.2011.03.019
7. Gomez LF, Sarmiento OL, Parra DC, et al. Characteristics
of the built environment associated with leisure-time physi-
cal activity among adults in Bogota, Colombia: a multilevel
study. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(2, Suppl):196–203.
PubMed
8. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Goli-
nelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physi-
cal activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):509–514.
PubMed doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447
9. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR. SAelens BE. Association of
park size, distance, and features with physical activity in
neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1451–
1456. PubMed doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.129064
10. Shores KA, West ST. The relationships between built park
environments and physical activity in four park locations. J
Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(3):e9–e16. PubMed
doi:10.1097/01.PHH.0000316495.01153.b0
11. Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M, et al.
Increasing walking: how important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J
Prev Med. 2005;28:169–176. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
amepre.2004.10.018
12. Gobster PH. Managing urban parks for a racially and
ethnically diverse clientele. Leis Sci. 2002;24:143–159.
doi:10.1080/01490400252900121
13. McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D.
Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use
and physical activity: a review of qualitative research.
Health Place. 2010;16:712–726. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
healthplace.2010.03.003
14. Cohen DA, Golinelli D, Williamson S, Sehgal A, Marsh
T, McKenzie TL. Effects of park improvements on park
use and physical activity: policy and programming
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2
Temporary Parks and PA 255
implications. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(6):475–480.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.017
15. Bungum TJ, Thompson-Robinson M, Moonie S, Loun-
sbery MAF. Correlates of physical activity among Hispanic
adults. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:429–435. PubMed
16. Sarmiento O, Torres A, Jacoby E, Pratt M, Schmid TL,
Stierling G. The Ciclovía-Recreativa: a mass-recreational
program with public health potential. J Phys Act Health.
2010;7(Suppl 2):S163–S180. PubMed
17. Sarmiento OL, Schmid TL, Parra DC, et al. Quality of life,
physical activity, and built environment characteristics
among Colombian adults. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(Suppl
2):S181–S195. PubMed
18. Matsudo SM, Matsudo VR, Araujo TL, et al. The
Agita Sao Paulo program as a model for using physi-
cal activity to promote health. Rev Panam Salud
Publica. 2003;14(4):265–272. PubMed doi:10.1590/
S1020-49892003000900007
19. Matsudo V, Matsudo S, Andrade D, et al. Promotion of
physical activity in a developing country: the Agita Sao
Paulo experience. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(1A):253–
261. PubMed doi:10.1079/PHN2001301
20. Zieff SG, Guedes CM, Wiley J. Youth knowledge of
physical activity health benets: a Brazilian case study.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2006;6:1713–1721. PubMed
doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.283
21. Matsudo VKR, Matsudo SM, Araujo TL, Andrade DR,
Oliveira LC, Hallal PC. Time trends in physical activity in
the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil: 2002-2008. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2010; 42(12):2231–2236.
22. Gomez LF, Parra DC, Buchner D, et al. Built environment
attributes and walking patterns among the elderly popu-
lation in Bogota. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(6):592–599.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.02.005
23. Buchner D, Gobster P. Promoting active visits to parks:
models and strategies for transdisciplinary collaboration.
J Phys Act Health. 2007;4(Suppl 1):S36–S49. PubMed
24. Gotschi T. Costs and benets of bicycling investments
in Portland, Oregon. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(Suppl
1):S49–S58. PubMed
25. Montes F, Sarmiento OL, Zarama R, et al. Do health ben-
ets outweigh the costs of mass recreational programs?
An economic analysis of four Ciclovia programs. J Urban
Health. 2011;89(1):153–170. PubMed doi:10.1007/
s11524-011-9628-8
26. Baker PR, Francis DP, Soares J, Weightman AL,
Foster C. Community wide interventions for
increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2011;13(4):CD008366. PubMed
27. San Francisco Mayor’s Ofce. Press Release. “San Fran-
cisco Kicks Off Sunday Streets 2010 Season.” http://www.
sundaystreetssf.com/presscoverage/releases. Published
March 11, 2010. Accessed February 2010.
28. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/
main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed May, 2011.
29. Zieff SG, Guedes CM, Eyler A. Policy-makers’ responses
to neighborhood focus group outcomes on physical activ-
ity. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(8):1056–64. PubMed
30. Wilson J, Zieff S, Kim MS, et al. Are you asking the right
questions?: Cognitive interviewing for pretesting and
pedagogy. Paper presented at 2009 California Society of
Parks & Recreation Educators; April 2009; Grove, CA.
31. California Health Interview Survey. http://www.chis.ucla.
edu/main/ asp. Published 2007. Accessed June 2010.
32. Zieff SG, Tierney P, Kim MS, Wilson J, Guedes CM. Can a
community-based event change physical activity behavior?
Paper presented at: International Congress of Physical
Activity and Public Health; May 2010; Toronto, Canada.
33. Ryan RM, Frederick CM. On energy, personality
and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflec-
tion of well-being. J Pers. 1997;65:529–565. PubMed
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
34. U.S. Census Bureau. San Francisco (city), California.
State & county quickfacts http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
states/06/0667000.html. Accessed February 2nd, 2011.
35. City and County of San Francisco. Survey of San Francisco
Park Users Spring 2007. San Francisco, CA: Ofce of the
Controller-City Services Auditor; 2008.
36. California Health Interview Survey. Level of Physical
Activity: Adult. http://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/DQ3/
geographic.asp. Published 2007. Accessed June 2010.
37. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions
engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experi-
mental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(2):249–268.
PubMed doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
38. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff
NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. PubMed
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
39. Díaz del Castillo A, Sarmiento OL, Reis RS, Brownson
RC. Translating evidence to policy: urban interventions
and physical activity promotion in Bogotá, Colombia and
Curitiba, Brazil. TBM. 2011;1:350–360. PubMed
Downloaded by SFSU on 10/06/16, Volume 11, Article Number 2