Table 2 Summary of the key characteristics of included studies
Author (date) | Study location | Research design | Type of intervention (total cost) | Physical activity outcomesa (level of data) | Sample size | Number/type of control sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Branas et al. [37] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | Greening of 4,436 abandoned vacant lots over 725,000 m2(cost not reported) | Self-report survey (individual-level) | No exact count provided | 13,308 matched control lots at a ratio of 3:1 per treated lot |
Cohen et al. [38] | US | Mixed | 5 parks, ranging from 3.4 to 16 acres, underwent major improvements (Over $1 million budget per park) | 1) Systematic observation using SOPARC (population-level) 2) Self-report household interviews (indivudal-level) 3) Self-report intercept interviews (individual-level) | 1) 3,500 park users 2) 1,480 park users 3) 1,387 household residents | 5 matched control parks |
Cohen et al. [39] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | A skate park ($3.5 million) and a senior citizen’s centre ($3.3 million) had major renovations | Systematic observation using SOPARC (population-level) | Senior centre: 2,188 users; Skate park: no exact count provided | 1 control site per intervention; one skate park and one senior centre |
Cohen et al. [40] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | 12 parks, ranging from 0.5 to 46 acres, had “Family Fitness” Zones (outdoor gyms) installed (average of $45,000 per park) | 1) Systematic observation using SOPARC (population-level) 2) Self-report intercept interviews (individual-level) | 1) 9,476 park users 2) 2,636 interviews | 10 matched control parks |
Fitzhugh et al. [41] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | A 2.9-mile, 8-foot wide urban greenway/trail was retrofıtted in a neighbourhood ($2.1 million) | Systematic observation (population-level) | No exact count provided | 2 matched control neighbourhoods |
Gustat et al. [42] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | A 6-block walking path and a school playground were installed (cost not reported) | 1) Self-report survey (individual-level) 2) Systematic observation using SOPARC/SOPLAY (population-level) | 1) 1,191 interviews 2) No exact count provided | 2 matched control neighbourhoods |
Krizek et al. [43] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | Installation of bicycle lanes and off-street bicycle paths (cost not reported) | Self-report census data (indivudal-level) | No exact count provided | 1 buffer zone based on distance from intervention facilities |
Merom et al. [44] | Australia | Mixed | Construction of a Rail Trail and a local promotional campaign to raise awareness of the facility (cost not reported) | 1) Self-report survey (individual-level) 2) Systematic observation (population-level) | 1) 450 households at follow-up 2) No exact count provided | 1 outer area located 1.5 to 5 km from the Rail Trail |
Parker et al. [45] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | A 1-mile, 5-foot wide bike lane was constructed (cost not reported) | Systematic observation (population-level) | No exact count provided | 2 adjacent streets |
Tester and Baker [46] | US | Repeated cross-sectional | 2 public parks underwent playfield renovations and staff development programs ($5.5 million) | Systematic observation using SOPARC (population-level) | 4,889 park visitors | 1 matched control park |
Veitch et al. [47] | Australia | Repeated cross-sectional | A park (size: 25,200 m2) was refurbished (cost not reported) | Systematic observation using SOPARC (population-level) | 2,050 park users | 1 matched control park (size: 10,000 m2) |
West and Shores [48] | US | Within-person longitudinal | 5 miles of greenway added to an existing greenway (cost not reported) | Self-report survey (individual-level) | 166 residents | 1 buffer zone based on distance from greenway |