Aggregate neighborhood characteristics are described in Table . Housing development neighborhoods had a median household income range of $11,930–$34,303, (M = $22,871, SD = $7,004), a population density range of 881–2,761, (M = 1,541, SD = 534), a non-white population range of 50.7%–98.1% (M = 71.4%, SD = 14.3%), and a street intersections range of 50–138 (M = 89.2, SD = 24.2). Comparison neighborhoods had a median household income range of $38,099–$48,383, (M = $42,364, SD = $4,493), a population density range of 1,079–1,824, (M = 1,508, SD = 328), an ethnic minority population range of 9.1%–18.2% (M = 13.2%, SD = 4.1%), and a street intersections range of 93–107 (M = 101, SD = 6.3).
Housing development neighborhoods had a range of 0 to 8 physical activity resources (M = 4.85, SD = 2.82), including fitness clubs, parks, sport facilities, community centers, churches, and schools, with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. As shown in Figure , one in three PA resources in HD neighborhoods were parks (n = 22, 35%), possibly reflecting preferences of early city developers. One fourth of PA resources were public school yards (n = 16, 25%) illustrating an important, and underrecognized, role that public schools play in communities. Most (n = 8, 62%) communities also had access to a community center. Comparison neighborhoods had a range of 2 to 9 PA resources (M = 6, SD = 3.56), including fitness clubs, parks, sport facilities, trails, community centers, churches, and schools. As shown in Figure , 38% (n = 9) of the resources in comparison neighborhoods were churches, but only one neighborhood (25%) had access to a community center. Most resources were freely accessible at no cost (82%), and appeared evenly distributed throughout neighborhoods.
Physical Activity Resources by Neighborhood
Table presents the physical activity features and resource amenities and their quality by neighborhood. Thirteen possible physical activity features within each resource were assessed for availability and quality. HD neighborhoods had slightly more physical activity features within each resource (M = 2.71, SD = 1.65) than did resources in comparison neighborhoods (M = 2.17, SD = 1.63). Although not shown in the tables, it is interesting to note that in HD neighborhoods, fitness clubs and community centers had the most physical activity features available, on average, (M = 4, SD = 1.91); however, in comparison neighborhoods, parks had the most physical activity features available (M = 4.67, SD = 1.53). Sport facilities had the lowest average number of physical activity features within each resource available for both the HD neighborhoods (M = 1.25, SD = .50), and the comparison neighborhoods (which had none of the features on the assessment form). In HD neighborhoods, quality ratings for physical activity features within resources ranged from 1 to 3 (M = 2.45, SD = .81), and from 1 to 3 (M= 2.41, SD = .96) at comparison neighborhoods.
Mean count and quality ratings for amenities and physical activity features by neighborhood type.
Twelve possible amenities were assessed for availability and quality at each resource. HD neighborhoods had more amenities per resource, on average (M = 3.79, SD = 2.16) than did comparison neighborhoods (M = 2.96. SD = 2.42). Although not presented in the table, on average, community centers had the most amenities available for both the HD neighborhoods (M = 5.5, SD = 1.98) and the comparison neighborhoods (N = 8, SD = 0). In HD neighborhoods, churches had the fewest amenities available (M = 1.50, SD = 1.31), although in comparison neighborhoods, fitness clubs had the fewest amenities available (M = 1.67, SD = 1.53). For amenities, quality ratings ranged from 1 to 3 (M = 2.40, SD = .68) in HD neighborhoods, and from 2 to 3 (M = 2.32, SD = .97) in comparison neighborhoods. However, quality ratings within each neighborhood varied widely.
Eighty percent of resources in all HD neighborhoods had incivilities (M = 1.81 per resource, SD = 1.72). In contrast, incivilities were found at only 11% of the PA resources in only half of the comparison neighborhoods (M = .29, SD = .75). This relationship was significant (t = 12.60, p < .001) as illustrated in Figure . Litter was the most frequently reported incivility for HD resources (65%, N = 41), with 20 resources having litter ratings of a medium amount to a lot. Broken glass was found at 25% of the resources (N = 16), with 14 ratings of a medium amount to a lot. Twelve resources (19%) had evidence of alcohol use, with 7 ratings of a medium amount to a lot. An auditory annoyance was reported at 16% (N = 10) of HD resources, with 8 of the resources having auditory annoyance ratings of a medium amount to a lot, mostly for traffic noise. Graffiti or tagging was found at 14% (N = 9) of the resources, with 6 having a medium amount to a lot. Nine of the resources (14%) lacked grass, while 10 (16%) of the resources had overgrown grass. Dog refuse (N = 1), unattended dogs (N = 2), evidence of substance use (N = 1), and vandalism (N = 1) were seen at less than two percent of the resources, and sex paraphernalia was not present at any. Comparison neighborhoods had few incivilities. Litter was present at 17% (N = 4) of the resources, with 2 having a medium amount to a lot. Graffiti, overgrown grass, and vandalism were all found at one (4%) of the resources, with ratings of a little bit to a medium amount.
Percent of PA Resources with Incivilities by Neighborhood