Association of Park Renovation With Park Use in New York City.

Importance: Equity-driven citywide park redesign and renovation, such as the Community Parks Initiative (CPI), has the potential to increase park use and opportunities for physical activity in underserved communities. Objective: To evaluate changes in patterns of park use following park redesign and renovation in low-income New York City (NYC) neighborhoods. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Physical Activity and Redesigned Community Spaces study was a prospective quality improvement preintervention-postintervention study design with matched control parks. Thirty-three intervention and 21 control neighborhood parks were selected based on specific criteria related to poverty rates, population growth, and population density in park neighborhoods and not having received more than $250 000 in investment in the past 2 decades. Data were collected at baseline (prerenovation) and 2 follow-up points (3 months and 1 year post renovation) between June 5 and December 4 from 2016 to 2022. Participants were individuals observed as users of study parks. Intervention: The CPI, which involved the redesign and renovation of neighborhood parks by the municipal government of New York City. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes encompassed park use and physical activity levels assessed using the well-validated System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities. Park use was quantified by total number of park users, categorized by age group (≤20 years vs ≥21 years), sex, and physical activity level (sitting or standing vs walking or vigorous activity). Changes in outcomes between groups were compared via the generalized estimation equation. Results: A total of 28 322 park users were observed across 1458 scans. At baseline, 6343 of 10 633 users (59.7%) were 20 years or younger, 4927 of 10 632 (46.3%) were female and 5705 (53.7%) were male, and 4641 of 10 605 (43.8%) were sitting or standing. Intervention parks showed more net park users compared with control parks from baseline to the final follow-up (difference-in-difference relative rate ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.22-2.35] users/scan; P = .002). The association was driven by a significant increase in adult users at intervention parks and overall decrease in all users at control parks. Park users engaging in sitting or standing at intervention parks increased (difference, 4.68 [95% CI, 1.71-7.62] users/scan; P = .002) and park users engaging in walking or vigorous physical activity at control parks decreased (difference, -7.30 [95% CI, -10.80 to -4.26] users/scan; P < .001) over time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, park redesign and renovation were positively associated with park use in low-income neighborhoods. However, park renovations may need to be accompanied by other programmatic strategies to increase physical activity.

Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking.

Despite isolated areas of improvement, no country to date has reversed its obesity epidemic. Governments, together with a broad range of stakeholders, need to act urgently to decrease the prevalence of obesity. In this Series paper, we review several regulatory and non-regulatory actions taken around the world to address obesity and discuss some of the reasons for the scarce and fitful progress. Additionally, we preview the papers in this Lancet Series, which each identify high-priority actions on key obesity issues and challenge some of the entrenched dichotomies that dominate the thinking about obesity and its solutions. Although obesity is acknowledged as a complex issue, many debates about its causes and solutions are centred around overly simple dichotomies that present seemingly competing perspectives. Examples of such dichotomies explored in this Series include personal versus collective responsibilities for actions, supply versus demand-type explanations for consumption of unhealthy food, government regulation versus industry self-regulation, top-down versus bottom-up drivers for change, treatment versus prevention priorities, and a focus on undernutrition versus overnutrition. We also explore the dichotomy of individual versus environmental drivers of obesity and conclude that people bear some personal responsibility for their health, but environmental factors can readily support or undermine the ability of people to act in their own self-interest. We propose a reframing of obesity that emphasises the reciprocal nature of the interaction between the environment and the individual. Today's food environments exploit people's biological, psychological, social, and economic vulnerabilities, making it easier for them to eat unhealthy foods. This reinforces preferences and demands for foods of poor nutritional quality, furthering the unhealthy food environments. Regulatory actions from governments and increased efforts from industry and civil society will be necessary to break these vicious cycles.

Mobilisation of public support for policy actions to prevent obesity.

Public mobilisation is needed to enact obesity-prevention policies and to mitigate reaction against their implementation. However, approaches in public health focus mainly on dialogue between public health professionals and political leaders. Strategies to increase popular demand for obesity-prevention policies include refinement and streamlining of public information, identification of effective obesity frames for each population, strengthening of media advocacy, building of citizen protest and engagement, and development of a receptive political environment with change agents embedded across organisations and sectors. Long-term support and investment in collaboration between diverse stakeholders to create shared value is also important. Each actor in an expanded coalition for obesity prevention can make specific contributions to engaging, mobilising, and coalescing the public. The shift from a top-down to a combined and integrated bottom-up and top-down approach would need an overhaul of current strategies and reprioritisation of resources.