Do features of public open spaces vary between urban and rural areas?

ObjectiveParks are an important setting for physical activity and specific park features have been shown to be associated with park visitation and physical activity. Most park-based research has been conducted in urban settings with few studies examining rural parks. This study examined differences in features of parks in urban compared with rural areas.MethodsIn 2009/10 a tool was developed to audit 433 urban and 195 rural parks located in disadvantaged areas of Victoria, Australia. Features assessed included: access; lighting/safety; aesthetics; amenities; paths; outdoor courts/ovals; informal play spaces; and playgrounds (number, diversity, age appropriateness and safety of play equipment).ResultsRural parks scored higher for aesthetics compared with urban parks (5.08 vs 4.44). Urban parks scored higher for access (4.64 vs 3.89), lighting/safety (2.01 vs 1.76), and diversity of play equipment (7.37 vs 6.24), and were more likely to have paths suitable for walking/cycling (58.8% vs 40.9%) and play equipment for older children (68.2% vs 17.1%).ConclusionAlthough the findings cannot be generalized to all urban and rural parks, the results may be used to inform advocacy for park development in rural areas to create parks that are more supportive of physical activity for children and adults.

► We examined differences in features of parks in urban compared with rural areas.
► We assessed 433 urban and 195 rural parks in disadvantaged areas.
► Rural parks scored higher for aesthetics.
► Urban parks scored higher for access, lighting/safety, and play equipment.
► More urban parks had paths and play equipment for older children.