HPEB 511 Research Brief #4 Name: Merideth Tallon

Due: Thursday, March 5, 2020

Critiquing Columbia’s Martin Luther King Jr Park

The social ecological model has become more involved in the recommendations for
improving health outcomes based on community interventions (Potwarka et al., 2008). This
model includes recommendations based on personal, community, and policy based interventions,
and these interventions can all be considered when evaluating parks and green spaces. Park
based physical activity is a major facet of thinking about community health and the built
environment (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005). The issue, at times, is a lack of information or audits of
current community access to green space, and this is being combated by the efforts of research
teams, city officials, and other organizations to perform audits and implement what needs to be
changed (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005). This research brief will follow an audit of Martin Luther
King Jr. Park performed by a group of Public Health students at the University of South Carolina
in the urban area of Columbia, SC.
The students were initially lectured about the public health implications based on parks
and green space as well as different audit tools that can be used. In this project, the students
utilized the CPAT audit tool, the Community Park Audit Tool. CPAT was defined as a
“user-friendly and reliable tool designed to evaluate parks for their potential to promote physical
activity,” (Kaczynski et al., 2012). The use of the tool was beneficial for paying attention to
specific details of the park which would promote physical activity.
When first arriving at the park, it was noted that the park was accessible via crosswalk
and was located in the midst of a residential area. There did seem to be a steady flow of traffic,
so having children running around in the park could be risky since there was no fencing even in
the playground. Overall, the neighborhood’s appearance of safety did not suggest that the park
was unsafe for a small group of people. Although the park was audited at the end of winter, the
overall condition of the park was well kept, peaceful, and clean.
As far as facilities and amenities, there was no access to a bathroom since the gym
building was locked and there were no water fountains. This would be a big deterrent for most
people when considering going to a park--especially for people with children. This also reduced
the practicality of the otherwise nice baseball field since practices would not have access to the
bathroom or water. The playground area seemed a little dated but overall usable. The drawbacks
to the playground area were the lack of fencing or shade and the close proximity to the road. The
trail was in excellent shape and would be very beneficial for promoting physical activity for
people who like to run or walk for exercise. The open green space would be even more practical
if there were soccer nets. Overall, the park definitely promotes physical activity. The addition of
an accessible bathroom and water fountain would tremendously increase the usefulness of the
park.
 References

Potwarka, L. R., Kaczynski, A. T., & Flack, A. L. (2008). Places to Play: Association of Park
Space and Facilities with Healthy Weight Status among Children. Journal of Community
Health, 33(5), 344–350. doi: 10.1007/s10900-008-9104-x

Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The Significance of Parks to
Physical Activity and Public Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2),
159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024

Kaczynski, A. T., Stanis, S. A. W., & Besenyi, G. M. (2012). Community Park Audit Tool.
PsycTESTS Dataset. doi: 10.1037/t31202-000