Background and Purpose
Parks are key environmental features for promoting physical activity and health [1,2] and several studies highlight that park availability, features, and quality are often not be equally-distributed across socioeconomically-deprived and racially/ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the U.S.[3-7]  However, to date, little, if any, such research has been conducted in minority-heavy areas along the U.S.-Mexico border where poverty, justice, and health disparities are prominent concerns.[8]

Objectives
The purpose of this study was to examine disparities in park availability, park features, and park characteristics according to median household income and the percentage of foreign-born population in a predominately Hispanic border community.

Methods
All census tracts (CTs) within the City of El Paso, TX were included in the study (n=112). Data on median household income and the percentage of foreign-born population for each CT were extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005-2009 American Community Survey. All CTs were categorized into even tertiles (low/medium/high) for both variables. To measure park availability, a GIS shape file provided by the City of El Paso was used to identify all parks within the study area. Using ArcGIS 9.3, the edited park layer was cross-referenced with the CTs layer to determine the number of parks that intersected each CT. Data on park features and characteristics were obtained by a trained auditor visiting each park (n=144) using the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT), which has demonstrated excellent reliability.[9]  The total number of each of i) park facilities (e.g., playgrounds, basketball courts, trails), ii) park amenities (e.g., benches, drinking fountains, picnic tables), iii) aesthetic features (e.g., landscaping, artistic features, historical/educational monuments), iv) park quality/safety concerns (e.g., evidence of threatening behavior, dangerous spots, vandalism), and iv) quality/safety concerns in the neighborhood visible around the park (e.g., inadequate lighting, graffiti) were summed for each CT. Univariate analyses were conducted on all park variables to provide descriptive statistics and to assess normality (skewness between -1 and 1 and symmetrical histograms). ANOVA F-tests (for normally-distributed park variables) and Kruskal-Wallis X2 tests (for non-normal variables) with post-hoc analyses were used to determine significant (p<.05) differences in the total number of parks, park features (facilities and amenities), and park characteristics (aesthetic features, park quality/safety concerns, neighborhood quality/safety concerns) across CT income and percent foreign-born tertiles (low/medium/high).

Results
The results of all analyses are shown in Table 1. Park availability differed significantly by median household income (X2=6.71,p=0.03), with the medium tertile having more parks than the high tertile (p=0.01). There was no significant difference for park availability across percent foreign-born tertiles (X2=1.51,p=0.47). The number of park facilities (F=10.21,p<0.01) significantly differed across income tertiles, with the medium income tertile having significantly more facilities than the low (p<0.01) or high (p=0.02) income tertiles. The overall ANOVA test examining the number of amenities across income tertiles was significant (F=3.77,p=0.03), but further post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed no significant differences between the three groups. Neither the number of park facilities (F=2.10,p=0.13) nor amenities (F=1.64,p=0.20) differed significantly across percent foreign-born tertiles. Finally, the number of park aesthetic features did not differ significantly across either income (F=0.29,p=0.75) or percent foreign-born (F=0.09,p=0.91) tertiles. However, there were several differences in park quality/safety concerns and neighborhood quality/safety concerns across income and percent foreign-born tertiles (X2=26.21,30.40,39.95,42.69,p<0.01 for all tests). Specifically, the low and medium income tertiles had significantly more park quality/safety concerns than the high income tertile (both p<0.01). The low income tertile also had more neighborhood quality/safety concerns than the medium or high income tertiles (both p<0.01). Both the high and medium foreign-born tertiles had significantly more park quality/safety concerns than the low foreign-born tertile (both p<0.01) and the high foreign-born tertile had significantly more neighborhood quality/safety concerns than the low or medium foreign-born tertiles (both p<0.01).

Conclusions
This study adds to the current literature on park disparities by income and race/ethnicity and provides evidence of the complexity of examining such issues within a U.S.-Mexico border community. Our findings further demonstrate how publically-available recreational facilities, and their features and characteristics, are often not equally-distributed across neighborhoods by income or foreign-born composition.

Implications for Practice and Policy
The present study was unique in that it highlighted these issues within a predominately Hispanic community. Planners and policymakers must be careful not to negate the reported “barrio advantage” – a paradoxical situation in which certain sociocultural benefits of living in high-density Mexican American neighborhoods (e.g., intact family structures, shelter from negative aspects of American culture) outweigh the disadvantages of high rates of poverty in those neighborhoods [10] – through the provision of less than optimal environmental resources (e.g., parks) as well. Moreover, especially in traditionally under-empowered and under-resourced communities, citizens, health researchers, and policy makers should be encouraged to collectively engage in evaluating community environments to facilitate partnerships and collaborative efforts to make parks and other recreational facilities more accessible, attractive and safe for physical activity for all.[11,12]

References

1. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:159-168.
2. Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences 2007;29(4):315-354.
3. Estabrooks PA, Lee RE, Gyurcsik NC. Resources for physical activity participation: Does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Ann Behav Med 2003;25:100-104.
4. Wolch J, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geogr 2005;26:4-35.
5. Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, et al. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics 2006;117:417-424.
6. Moore LV, Diez-Roux AV, Evenson KR, et al. Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic status areas. Am J Prev Med 2008;34:16-22.
7. Vaughan KB, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, et al. Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: An environmental justice investigation. Ann Behav Med 2013; 45 Suppl 1:S28-38.
8. United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. Health disparities and the U.S.-México Border: challenges and opportunities. United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. 2010. http://www.borderhealth.org/files/res_1719.pdf.
9. Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Besenyi GM. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med 2012;42(3):242-249.
10. Eschbach K, Ostir GV, Patel KV, et al. Neighborhood context and mortality among older Mexican Americans: Is there a barrio advantage? Am J Public Health 2004;94(10):1807-1812.
11. Hoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LB, et al. How reliably do community members audit the neighborhood environment for its support of physical activity? Implications for participatory research. J Public Health Manag Pract 2006;12(3):270-277.
12. DeBate RD, Koby EJ, Looney TE, et al. Utility of the physical activity resource assessment for child-centric physical activity intervention planning in two urban neighborhoods. J Community Health 2011;36(1):132–40.

Support / Funding Source
This study was partially supported by funding from Hispanic Health Disparities Research Center (NIH 1P20MD002287-03) and the Pan American Health Organization.