Open Access Open Badges Research

The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods

Rebecca E Lee1*, Katie M Booth2, Jacqueline Y Reese-Smith3, Gail Regan4 and Hugh H Howard5

Author Affiliations

1 Health and Human Performance, University of Houston, Garrison Gymnasium 104E, 4800 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX 77204, USA

2 Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4825 Troost, Suite 123, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA

3 Psychology, University of Kansas, 315 Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-7556, USA

4 Department of Psychology, Castleton State College,62 Alumni Dr., Castleton, VT 05735, USA

5 Department of Geography, American River College, 4700 College Oak Dr., Sacramento, CA 95841, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2005, 2:13  doi:10.1186/1479-5868-2-13

Published: 14 September 2005



Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources.


The one-page Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument was developed to assess all publicly available PA resources in thirteen urban lower income, high ethnic minority concentration neighborhoods that surrounded public housing developments (HDs) and four higher income, low ethnic minority concentration comparison neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had similar population density and connectivity. Trained field coders rated 97 PA resources (including parks, churches, schools, sports facilities, fitness centers, community centers, and trails) on location, type, cost, features, amenities, quality and incivilities. Assessments typically took about 10 minutes to complete.


HD neighborhoods had a mean of 4.9 PA resources (n = 73) with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. Comparison neighborhoods had a mean of 6 resources (n = 24). Most resources were accessible at no cost (82%). Resources in both types of neighborhoods typically had about 2 to 3 PA features and amenities, and the quality was usually mediocre to good in both types of neighborhoods. Incivilities at PA resources in HD neighborhoods were significantly more common than in comparison neighborhoods.


Although PA resources were similar in number, features and amenities, the overall appearance of the resources in HD neighborhoods was much worse as indicated by substantially worse incivilities ratings in HD neighborhoods. The more comprehensive assessment, including features, amenities and incivilities, provided by the PARA may be important to distinguish between PA resources in lower and higher deprivation areas.