The Relationship of Physical Activity Level and Recreation Area

Abstract

This research examines the relationship between the criteria that individuals, who use recreation areas as physical activity spaces, care about their choice of areas and their level of physical activity. 389 individuals who do physical activity in 6 different parks and recreation areas in Ankara voluntarily participated in the study. The data of the study were collected by the International Physical Activity Level Questionnaire (Short Form) and the Recreation Area Preference Factors Scale. International physical activity questionnaire (Short Form) Craig et al. (2003) and its Turkish validity and reliability study was conducted by Öztürk (2005). Recreation Area Preference Factors were developed by Gümüş and Alay (2017). It consists of 5 sub-dimensions and a total of 24 items and is in the 5-point Likert type. Distribution normality was tested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In the analysis of the data, besides descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis H test and correlation analysis were used for data. The level of significance was accepted as p<0,01. 21.8% of individuals who use parks and recreation areas are underweight according to body mass index, 29.57 are within the healthy weight range, 34.24% are overweight and 15.13% are obese individuals. The lowest correlation value of the sub-dimensions of physical activity level and recreation area preference factors was found in the “activity” sub-dimension (r = 0.106); the highest correlation value was in the "Sportive diversity" sub-dimension (r = 0.401). There is a significant difference in the physical activity levels of the research group according to the frequency of participation in the recreation areas. The physical activity levels of the participants who visit the parks and recreation areas for 5 days or more per week are significantly higher than the individuals who visit the parks and recreation areas once a week or less.

Keywords

• Physical activity
• Recreation
• Body mass index

Fiziksel Aktivite Düzeyi ve Rekreasyon Alanı İlişkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırma rekreasyon alanlarını fiziksel aktivite mekânı olarak kullanan bireylerin alan seçimlerinde önemsedikleri kriterler ile fiziksel aktivite düzeyi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Araştırmaya Ankara’da 6 farklı park ve rekreasyon alanında fiziksel aktivite yapan 389 birey gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Uluslararası Fiziksel Aktivite Düzeyi Anketi (Kısa Form) ve Rekreasyon Alanı Tercih Etkenleri Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. Uluslararası fiziksel aktivite anketi (Kısa Form) Craig vd. (2003) tarafından geliştirilmiş ve Türkçe geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması Öztürk (2005) tarafından yapılmıştır. Rekreasyon Alanı Tercih Etkenleri ise Gümüş ve Alay (2017) tarafından geliştirilmiştir. 5 alt boyut ve toplam 24 maddeden oluşmaktadır ve 5’li likert türündedir. Dağılım normalliği Kolmogorov-Smirnov testiyle sınanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistiklerin yanısıra, Kruskal-Wallis H testi ve pearson korelasyon analizi uygulanmıştır. Önem seviyesi p<0.01 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Park ve rekreasyon alanlarını kullanan bireylerin %21.8’i beden kütle indeksine göre zayıf, 29.57’si normal, %34.24’ü fazla kilolu ve %15.13’ü şişman bireylerden oluşmaktadır. Fiziksel aktivite düzeyi ile rekreasyon alanı tercih etkenlerine ait alt boyutlarda en düşük korelasyon değerinin “aktivite” alt boyutunda (r=0.106); en yüksek korelasyon değerinin ise “Sportif çeşitlilik” alt boyutunda olduğu (r=0.401) görülmektedir. Araştırma grubunun rekreasyon alanlarına katılım sıklığına göre fiziksel aktivite düzeylerinde anlamlı farklılık bulunmaktadır. Katılımcıların park ve rekreasyon alanlarını haftada 5 gün ve daha fazla ziyaret eden bireylerin fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri haftada 1 gün ve daha az ziyaret eden bireylerden anlamlı derecede fazladır.

Keywords

• Fiziksel aktivite
• Rekreasyon
• Beden Kütle İndeksi

References

1. Craig, C.L., Marshall, A.L., Sjöström, M., Bauman, A.E., Booth, M.L., Ainsworth, B.E., Pratt, M., Ekelund, U., Yngve, A., Sallis, J.F., & Oja, P. (2003). International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med sci sports Exerc, 195(9131/03), 3508-1381.
2. Evenson, K. R., Jones, S. A., Holliday, K. M., Cohen, D. A., & McKenzie, T. L. (2016). Park characteristics, use, and physical activity: A review of studies using SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities). Preventive Medicine, 86, 153-166.
3. Gavand, K. A., Cain, K. L., Conway, T. L., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Kerr, J., & Sallis, J. F. (2019). Associations between neighborhood recreation environments and adolescent physical activity. Journal of physical activity and health, 16(10), 880-885.
4. Gümüş, H., & Özgül, S. A. (2017). Development of Scales for Barriers to Participation and Preference Factors in The Use of Recreation Area. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 865-882.
5. Gümüş, H. & Alay Özgül, S. (2017). Development of scales for barriers to participation and preference factors in the use of recreation area, Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 865-882. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4448.
6. Gümüş, H., Ayna, Ç., & Yıldırım, İ. (2018), Reviewing attitudes of women towards leisure activities in terms of different variables, Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise, Volume: 20 - Issue: 3- Pages: 224 -229, DOI: 10.15314/tsed.491629.
7. Gümüş, H. & Koç, M.C., (2019). Rekreasyon Alan Tercihi ve Psikolojik İyi Oluş, Spor Bilimleri Alanında Araştırma ve Derlemeler, p: 308-318, Gece Akademi Kitapevi, Ankara.
8. Han, B., Cohen, D., McKenize, L. Thomas, (2013). Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity, Preventive Medicine, 57(2013), 483-487.

9. Jongenelis, M. I., Scully, M., Morley, B., Pratt, I. S., & Slevin, T. (2018). Physical activity and screen-based recreation: Prevalences and trends over time among adolescents and barriers to recommended engagement. Preventive medicine, 106, 66-72.
10. Kaczynski, A. & Henderson, K. (2007). Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity: A Review of Evidence about Parks and Recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29(4): 315–354.
11. Kaufman, T. K., Rundle, A., Neckerman, K. M., Sheehan, D. M., Lovasi, G. S., & Hirsch, J. A. (2019). Neighborhood recreation facilities and facility membership are jointly associated with objectively measured physical activity. Journal of urban health, 96(4), 570-582.
12. Kaya, E., Sari, İ., Tolukan, E. & Gülle, M. (2014). Examination of trait anxiety levels of physical education and sports students (Ibrahim Cecen University case). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 399-402.
13. Koçak, Y., Tukul, U., Tolan, B., Gümüş, H., & Tolukan, E. (2017). Analysis of Expectations and Perceptions of the Customers in Sports and Healthy Life Centers for Service Quality (Sample of Afyonkarahisar Province). International Journal of Recreation and Sports Science, 1(1), 38-46. DOI: 10.46463/ijrss.368384.
14. Nagata, S., McCormick, B. P., & Austin, D. R. (2020). Physical Activity as Treatment for Depression in Recreation Therapy: Transitioning from Research to Practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 54(1).
15. Öztürk, M. (2005). A research on reliability and validity of international physical activity questionnaire and determination of physical activity level in university students. Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
16. Reis, A. C., Lokpo, K., Bojanic, M., & Sperandei, S. (2020). In search of a “vocabulary for recreation”: Leisure-time physical activity among humanitarian migrants in regional Australia. PloS one, 15(10), e0239747.
17. Saatci, M. (2019). The effect of number of meals, physical activity level and sleep levels on anthropometric measurements of adult individuals of 19-65 age group, Doctoral Dissertation, Bilgi University, İstanbul.
18. Smith, M., Hosking, J., Woodward, A., Witten, K., MacMillan, A., Field, A, Bass, P. & Mackie, H. (2017), Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14:158 DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0613-9.
19. Soyer, F., Tolukan, E. & Dugenci, A. (2019). Investigation of the Relationship between Leisure Satisfaction and Smartphone Addiction of University Students. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(1), 229-235.
20. Şarvan Cengiz, Ş. & Delen, B. (2019), Physical Activity Level in Young People, International Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies (IntJCES), December, 5(2): 110-122.
21. Şimşek, F.M. & Çağlayan A.Y. (2019). Kent Parklarının Fiziksel Aktivite Düzeyine Etkisi: İstanbul Sultanbeyli Gölet Parki Örneği, II. International Physical Education, Sport, Recreation and Dance Congress, April 20-21, syf:56-73, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Turkey
22. Tolukan, E. & Yilmaz, B. (2014). Determining the Factors Which Can Prevent Recreational Participaion Of University Students Who Attend To The Departments According To Special Skill Exams. International Journal of Sport Culture and Science, 2(Special Issue 1), 525-539.
23. Vural, Ö., Eler, S. & Atalay Güzel, N. (2010). The Relation of Physical Activity Level and Life Quality At Sedentary Profession, Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, VIII (2), 69-75.
24. World Health Organization (2018), More Activite People for A Healthıer World. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030.
25. Yılmaz, K.M. (2019), Comparison of Physical Activity Levels of High School Students in Gaziantep, Master Thesis, Coaching Education Department Department of Motion and Training Science, İstanbul Gelişim University.