Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41350875›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2025

Evaluating the impact of park renovation on park-based physical activity: a natural experiment in Belgium with two years of follow-up.

Amber Van Puyvelde, Jelle Van Cauwenberg, Jenny Veitch, Anna Timperio, Delfien Van Dyck, Louise Poppe, Benedicte Deforche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amber Van PuyveldeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. amber.vanpuyvelde@ugent.be.
Jelle Van CauwenbergSchool of Public Health, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. jelle.van.cauwenberg@ulb.be.
Jenny VeitchInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jenny.veitch@deakin.edu.au.
Anna TimperioInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. Anna.timperio@deakin.edu.au.
Delfien Van DyckDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences (GE30), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Research Group Physical Activity and Health, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, Ghent, Belgium, 9000. Delfien.VanDyck@UGent.be.
Louise PoppeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. louise.poppe@ugent.be.
Benedicte DeforcheDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. bendicte.deforche@ugent.be.

Funding

Australian National Heart Foundation ID 101928Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 12ZF122NFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 3G068519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParks are valuable resources to promote physical activity (PA) among all ages. However, studies investigating the longer-term effect of park renewal on park-based PA are scarce and have not been conducted in Europe. This study builds upon prior research investigating the immediate effects of a total park renewal in Belgium on park-based PA. Specifically, it examines the overall and age-specific effects of the renewal one year and two years after its completion, providing insights into the longer-term impact on park-based PA.

methodsA natural experiment was conducted by observing the behaviour of the park visitors in two urban public parks (i.e., intervention and control park). The intervention involved extensive park renewal, including increased size, adding outdoor fitness equipment, a multi-use sports cage, six playgrounds targeting children of different ages, various benches, wheelchair-accessible picnic tables, wide concrete pathways, and removal of low vegetation. Observations were performed before, immediately after, and one and two years after the renewal using the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities. The number of visitors observed sedentary, walking or vigorously active were recorded according to age group and mean PA intensity levels were calculated. General(ized) linear models were fitted to assess the effect of the renewal on visitors’ PA in the park.

resultsOverall, an increase was observed in the total number of visitors engaged in sedentary and vigorous activities one and two years after the renewal. However, no evidence for effects were found for the total number of visitors observed walking or for the mean PA intensity levels of the visitors. There were some age-specific differences: the number of adults and older adults observed sedentary increased, whereas no such effect was found for children or adolescents. Positive effects were observed for the number of adolescents, adults and older adults observed walking. Additionally, the number of children, adolescents and older adults engaging in vigorous PA increased in the intervention park compared to the control park.

conclusionExtensive urban park renewal can increase both sedentary and active visitor numbers one and two years post-renewal, although effects vary across age groups.

Indexed as

Environment DesignExerciseHealth PromotionParks, RecreationalAdolescentBelgiumChildFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleRecreationSedentary BehaviorWalkingGreen spaceLong-term effectNatural environmentPark improvementPublic open space

Identifiers

PMID41350875
PMCPMC12681091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.