PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) AND HEALTH
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Determine Health
US Public Health Service Surgeon Generali recommends a daily regimen of at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity, such as brisk walking,
bicycling, or even working around the house or yard. This physical activity guideline helps reduce the risks of developing coronary heart disease, hypertension,
colon cancer and diabetes.
Parks and recreation programs play a significant role in helping everyone to achieve this physical activity recommendation. There are multiple health benefits in
having fair, convenient and affordable access to parks, open space and recreation opportunities.
Locating parks and walking trails within walking distance from homes offers easy access to parks for exercise and social connection; and to nature for
experiencing solitude. Parks, open space and recreation services directly contribute to our physical, social, emotional and mental health, and social capital and
community building.
The Logic Model
Input/ Impact Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
Access to Parks,
Open Space and
Trails
• Adopt a fair level of service (LOS) for various types of parks,
ranging from large regional open space to local urban parks,
such as a per capita LOS, a service radius LOS or both, to
ensure transparency and equity across the jurisdiction.
• Invest in gap areas that are traditionally underserved.
• Apply Universal Design principles in parks/plazasii,
playgroundsiii and gardensiv.
• Explore funding mechanisms, such as parks impact fee, to
help achieve the adopted LOS.
• Explore public-private partnership to satisfy the adopted
LOS.
• Increased access to and safety
for parks and open space for all
ages and abilities.
• Increased physical activity for
all.
• Increased social interaction of
all ages.
• Improved equity culture in
organizational planning.
• Increased social and physical
capitals.
• Reduced health disparities.
• Improved quality of life for all.
• Improved physical and mental
health.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Input/ Impact Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
Access to Diverse
Recreation
Opportunities
• Provide scholarships to offset cost recovery of programs and
encourage underserved population participation.
• Offer free drop-in programming for all ages.
• Provide learning and fun opportunities through arts, culture,
and active lifestyle programs.
• Increased program affordability
for low-income populations.
• Increased program participation
among underserved
populations.
• Reduced health disparities.
• Improved health and well-being
outcomes of the underserved.
• Increased social capital.
• Increased community diversity
and inclusiveness.
Park Design and
Maintenance
• Design parks as community gathering space.
• Provide green space, natural playscapes and open space for
recreation.
• Incorporate public arts in park design.
• Adopt an equitable maintenance level of service.
• Apply Universal Design and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
• Increased usage of parks for
social and recreational
purposes for all.
• Increased park safety.
• Improved physical health of
residents in close proximity.
• Improved mental and
emotional health by providing
access to green space.
• Increased social and physical
capitals.
• Increased community diversity
and inclusiveness.
• Improved property values of
nearby homes.
• Improved economy.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
Playground Design
and Maintenance.
• Design playground as outdoor community space for children
to learn, explore, play, get physical activity and social
interaction.
• Ensure well-maintained and safe facilities to prevent injuries.
• Increased physical activity and
social connection among
children.
• Improved social and cognitive
behaviors for children by
creating opportunities for
learning and socializing.
• Reduced injuries caused by
• Improved physical health of
children living in close
proximity.
• Improved quality of life.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Input/ Impact Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
unsafe equipment.
Recreation
Facilities Design
and Maintenance
• Develop recreation programs and services to meet the
needs of all population segments.
• Design community centers as inter-generational gathering
space and opportunities for programming.
• Provide safe gym and workout equipment for all ages.
• Incorporate public arts in facility design.
• Apply universal design and CPTED principles.
• Increased recreation and social
interaction opportunities for all.
• Increased inter-generational
interactions.
• Increased continuous learning
for all ages.
• Increased facility safety.
• Improved physical and mental
health.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
• Increased social and physical
capitals.
• Increased community diversity
and inclusiveness.
Trails and
Greenspace Design
and Maintenance
• Connect on-street with off-street trails.
• Provide green elements to attract physical activity.
• Provide safe and well-maintained routes to parks and
greenspace.
• Provide equitable access to nature.
• Apply CPTED best practices in trail and open space design.
• Provide outdoor recreation programs for nature exploration.
• Work with the county and other jurisdictions to identify safe
access to salt and freshwater shorelines for low-impact
recreation.
• Increased physical activity, both
locally and regionally.
• Increased nature appreciation.
• Reduced “nature-deficit
disorderv vi”.
• Increased trail and open space
safety.
• Increased life expectancy.
• Improved physical and mental
health, particularly targeting
Attention Deficit and
Hyperactivity Disorder and
Nature Deficit Disorder.
• Improved physical, social,
emotional and mental health.
• Reduced crime.
• Reduced injuries.
• Improved property value.
• Improved economy.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
• Increased social and
environmental capitals.
Recreation
Programming
• Work with local communities to design culturally appropriate
programs that meet local needs.
• Provide both indoor and outdoor recreation.
• Increased physical activity and
social interaction.
• Increased opportunities for
• Improved health and well-
being.
• Improved quality of life.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Input/ Impact Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
• Develop healthy lifestyle programs, such as healthy eating,
cooking and community gardening, etc.
• Offer creative arts program for healing and mental health.
developing healthy behaviors
and lifestyles.
• Increased social capital.
Park Prescription
(Rx) Program
• Partner with insurers, hospitals, and doctors to create a park
prescription programvii by prescribing recreation programs to
patients to improve health and wellbeing.
• Reduced reliance on
medication to prevent multiple
health conditions, such as
obesity and diabetes.
• Improved physical and mental
health of patients.
• Improved patient ownership
and focus on self-care.
• Increased human capital.
Other
Administrative
Policies
• Adopt a Healthy Food Policy: Provide healthy food options in
all concessions, vending machines, programs, and other
opportunities where Parks agencies distribute food.
• Adopt a Food Waste Policy: Reduce food waste at all stages
of the food service process.
• Adopt a Smoke-Free Parks Policy: Prohibit the use of
smoked or vaporized tobacco products on all parks and
recreation facilities.
• Reduced prevalence of obesity
and diabetes among children.
• Reduced second-hand smoke
exposure on park properties.
• Improved physical health,
particularly among children.
• Improved overall population
health.
Health-in-All
Policies and
Meaningful Public
Engagement
• Consider health impacts and outcomes in parks design and
recreation programming decision-making.
• Meaningfully engage local communities in needs
assessment, and planning and design of facilities and
programs to address the genuine needs of local populations
and the underserved, avoid cookie-cutter approach, and
encourage usage.
• Increased program participation
and park usage.
• Increased local leadership
training opportunities.
• Improved organizational culture
by focusing on health
disparities and policy impacts
on health.
• Improved physical and mental
health of population.
• Reduced health disparities.
• Increased social, human and
political capitals.
• Improved community diversity
and inclusiveness.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Research Evidence
Parks and Recreation in General
Burns, Jo. 2017. “Focus Toward the Future: Parks and Recreation in Public Health.” Recreation, Parks, and Tourism in Public Health 1: 115-126.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/rptph.1.1.09#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Colman, Allison. 2019. “Commit to Health: Fulfilling Park and Recreation’s Role as a Health and Wellness Leader.” Parks and Recreation Magazine.
https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2019/march/commit-to-health-fulfilling-park-and-recreations-role-as-a-health-and-wellness-leader/.
Crompton, John L. 2001. Parks and Economic Development. PAS Report No. 502. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026840/.
Dannenburg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, ed. 2011. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261215792_Making_Healthy_Places_Designing_and_Building_for_Health_Well-
Being_and_Sustainability_by_Andrew_L_Dannenberg_Howard_Frumkin_and_Richard_J_Jackson.
Frumkin, Howard, and Mary Eysenbach. 2004. “How Cities Use Parks to Improve Public Health”. APA City Parks Forum Briefing Papers 7.
https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9148676/.
Garcia, Robert, Erica Flores, and Sophia Mei-Ling. 2003. “Healthy Children, Healthy Communities: Schools, Parks, Recreation, and Sustainable Regional
Planning.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 31, no. 5.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2194&context=ulj.
Kruger, Judy. 2008. “Parks, Recreation, and Public Health Collaborative.” Environ Health Insights 2: 123-125.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091337/.
Lau, Clement. 2018. “Parks and Public Health: Working Together to Advance Health and Wellness.”
National Recreation and Parks Association Open Space (Blog). April 2, 2018. Accessed April 7, 2020.
https://www.nrpa.org/blog/parks-and-public-health-working-together-to-advance-health-and-wellness/.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Mowen, Andrew. 2003. “Community Efforts, Community Health”. Parks and Recreation 38, 5:36-39.
https://www.andrewmowen.com/uploads/4/9/1/5/49152953/community_efforts_community_health.pdf.
Mozur, Teresa. 2016. “Six Reasons Why Parks Matter for Health”. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of Health (Blog). August 22, 2016. Accessed April 7,
2020. https://www.rwjf.org/en/blog/2016/08/6_reasons_why_parks.html.
Policy Link. 2007. “Why Place Matters: Building the Movement for Healthy Communities”. https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/why-place-matters-building-
the-movement-for-healthy-communities.
Schroeder, Timothy D. 1982. “The Relationship of Local Park and Recreation Services to Residential Property Values”. Journal of Leisure Research 14, no. 3:
223-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1982.11969519.
Schwartz, Anne. 2009. “Good Parks Are Good for the Economy.” Gotham Gazette. Accessed April 8, 2020.
https://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/environment/250-good-parks-are-good-for-the-economy.
Access to Parks and Recreation
Frank, Lawrence, Peter O. Engelke, and Thomas L. Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37717305_Health_and_Community_Design_The_Impact_Of_The_Built_Environment_On_Physical_Activity.
Humpel, N., Neville Owen, and Eva Leslie. 2002. “Environmental Factors Associated with Adults’ Participation in Physical Activity: A Review.” American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 22, no. 3:188-199. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=sspapers.
Payne, Laura, Elizabeth Orsega-Smith, Mark Roy and Geoffrey Godbey. 2005. “Local Parks and the Health of Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Study”.
Journal of Parks and Recreation 33, 10:64–71. https://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/article/view/1433.
Peters, Karin, Birgit Elands, and Arjen Buijs. 2009. “Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion?" Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9, no. 2:
93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003.
Quinn, C.M., S.J. Slater, D.C. Barker, and F.J. Chaloupka. 2015. Availability of Local Public Recreational Facilities and Programs for Physical Activity. A BTG
Research Brief. Chicago, IL: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago.
http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/5s1hhf/BTG_parkandrecprogrambrief_final_April2015.pdf.
PROS AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 -CMOS)
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2010. Parks, Playgrounds and Active Living.
https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Mowen_Feb2010_0.pdf.
Takano, T, K Nakamura, and M Watanabe. 2002. “Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens’ Longevity in Megacity Areas: The Importance of Walkable
Green Spaces”. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, no.12: 913-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756988/.
Witten K., Hiscock R., Pearce J., and Blakely T. 2008. “Neighbourhood Access to Open Space and Physical Activity of Residents: A National Study”. Preventive
Medicine. 2008;47:299–303. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18533242.
Wolch, J., Jerrett, M., Reynolds, K., McConnell, R., Chang, R., Dahmann, N., et al. 2011. “Childhood Obesity and Proximity to Urban Parks and Recreational
Resources: A Longitudinal Cohort Study”. Health & Place 17, no. 1: 207-214. https://activelivingresearch.org/childhood-obesity-and-proximity-urban-parks-and-
recreational-resources-longitudinal-cohort-study-0.
Access to Trails and Greenspace
American Public Health Association Policy Statement. 2013. “Improving Health and Wellness through Access to Nature”. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-
advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/08/09/18/improving-health-and-wellness-through-access-to-nature.
Branas, Charles C., Rose A. Cheney, John M. MacDonald, Vicky W. Tam, Tara D. Jackson, and Thomas R. Ten Have. 2011. “A Difference-in-Differences
Analysis of Health, Safety, and…