The Potential for Pocket Parks to Increase Physical Activity

Published in: American Journal of Health Promotion, v. 28, no. sp 3, Jan.-Feb. 2014, p. S19-S26

by Deborah A. Cohen, Terry Marsh, Stephanie Williamson, Bing Han, Kathryn Pitkin Derose, Daniela Golinelli, Thomas L. McKenzie

Read More

Access further information on this document at American Journal of Health Promotion

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Research Question

  1. Can pocket parks promote physical activity in low-income neighborhoods?

PURPOSE: To assess the use of new pocket parks in low-income neighborhoods. DESIGN: The design of the study was a quasi-experimental post-test only comparison. SETTING: Los Angeles, California, was the setting for the study. SUBJECTS: Subjects were park users and residents living within .5 mile of three pocket parks and 15 neighborhood parks. INTERVENTION: The creation of pocket parks. MEASURES: We used the System of Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) tool to measure park use and park-based physical activity, and then surveyed park users and residents about their park use. ANALYSIS: We surveyed 392 and 432 household members within .5 mile of the three pocket parks before and after park construction, respectively, as well as 71 pocket park users, and compared them to 992 neighborhood park users and 342 residents living within .5 mile of other neighborhood parks. We compared pocket park use to playground area use in the larger neighborhood parks. We used descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations for the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, pocket park use compared favorably in promoting moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with that of existing playground space in nearby parks, and they were cost-effective at $0.73/MET hour (metabolic equivalent hour) gained. Pocket park visitors walked an average of .25 miles to get to a park. CONCLUSION: Pocket parks, when perceived as attractive and safe destinations, may increase physical activity by encouraging families with children to walk there. Additional strategies and programs may be needed to encourage more residents to use these parks.

Key Findings

  • Pocket parks are used as frequently or more often than neighborhood parks serving similar urban populations.
  • Residents see pocket parks as safe.
  • Pocket parks appear to be a cost-effective way to promote physical activity among inner-city populations.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.