Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Apr 15;17(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00952-5.
The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decision-making regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice.
One-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12.
Research evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies.
This research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policy-relevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.
公园的设计至关重要，以确保其具有吸引力，满足社区的需求，并优化体育活动、放松、接触自然和社会互动的机会。目前，人们对研究证据如何为公园设计提供信息以及如何减少与研究-实践-政策转化相关的诸多挑战了解甚少。了解组织如何利用证据来做出有关公园设计的决策，对于缩小研究-实践-政策差距以及确保基于证据的策略为公园设计提供信息以支持健康积极的生活方式至关重要。本研究探讨了利益相关者对影响公园规划和设计中使用研究证据的因素的看法，以及增强有效转化研究证据以优化公园设计以支持政策和实践的潜在策略。
对公园设计、规划和管理领域的 23 名利益相关者进行了一对一的深入访谈。参与者分享了有关以下方面的经验：影响公园发展和设计的因素；当前的公园发展政策；促进证据使用的方法；以及未来研究的重点。采访进行了录音并逐字记录，并使用 NVivo 12 进行了内容分析。
研究证据用于公园规划，被认为很重要；但是，突出强调了几个障碍：时间和成本限制；难以获取研究；以及与特定需求相关的研究有限。研究人员和公园开发商之间建立合作伙伴关系，并以更易于访问的格式提供证据，例如简短的摘要/报告、信息图表、演示文稿、研究更新和专门的研究数据库，这些方法被认为是关键的推动因素。确定的主要研究差距包括研究鼓励游客访问的公园特色以及成本效益分析研究。
这项研究是更好地了解促进更有效利用证据为公园规划提供信息的策略的第一步。研究人员必须发展多部门合作，并以易于获取、及时和用户友好的格式生成与政策相关的研究，以确保证据得到利用，从而增强公园设计并最终改善公共健康。
