Skip to main content

Outdoor public recreation spaces and social connectedness among adolescents

Abstract

Background

Outdoor public recreation spaces are important settings for leisure and physical activity. Adolescents’ use of these spaces may contribute to social connectedness via social interaction with peers and the community in these settings. However, research on this topic is limited. This exploratory study examined associations of frequency of visitation and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces with social connectedness among adolescents in Melbourne, Australia.

Methods

Adolescents self-reported their frequency of visitation to parks, trails, beach/lake, and sports facilities; frequency of physical activity in a park, local street or path, and their street; and social connectedness. Separate analyses were conducted for visitation (n = 349, 15.4 ± 1.6 years, 58% female) and physical activity (n = 441, 15.4 ± 1.6 years, 59% female) using multilevel linear regression models.

Results

No significant associations were observed for frequency of visitation to a park (B = 0.86, 95% CI = − 0.26, 1.99), trails (B = 0.41, 95% CI = − 0.61, 1.44), beach/lake (B = − 0.44, 95% CI = − 1.46, 0.57), or sports facilities (B = 0.64, 95% CI = − 0.43, 1.70), nor for frequency of physical activity in their street (B = − 0.07, 95% CI = − 0.46, 0.31), local street/path (B = − 0.05, 95% CI = − 0.43, 0.33) or in a park (B = 0.23, 95% CI = − 0.14, 0.60) with adolescents’ social connectedness.

Conclusions

The findings did not support the hypothesis that visiting and being active in outdoor public recreation spaces are associated with adolescents’ social connectedness. Future research should consider the duration and context of outdoor public recreation space use (e.g., sports, socialising, relaxing alone) and whether different types and/or a combination of public spaces are more/less conducive to social connectedness.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Adolescence is a critical life stage characterised by profound changes in physiological, mental, and social development [1, 2]. In contrast to childhood, adolescents often have more social experiences [1] and spend more time engaging with people outside of the family sphere, such as friends [2, 3]; consequently, peer influence and the need for social connection increase [1, 4,5,6]. Social connectedness is defined as “the sense of belonging and subjective psychological bond that people feel in relation to individuals and groups of others” [7 , p. 1]. According to the self-psychology theory, social connectedness encompasses aspects of affiliation, companionship, and connectedness, and it is cultivated early in life and across the life course [8, 9]. During adolescence, social connectedness develops from the wide-ranging social interactions that adolescents have with people and their social environments [10,11,12]. Additionally, during adolescence, peer affiliations enable individuals to identify with others who have similar interests and appearances [9, 13], and this life stage involves complex social interactions as adolescents begin modelling behaviours on those of peers [14, 15].

Social connectedness is important for adolescent health as it can foster healthy development [16], reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression [17], and improve well-being [5, 18]. Social connectedness can also protect against the negative health impacts of social isolation [19] and loneliness [20]. Loneliness has been recognised as the lack of social connectedness and the perception of social isolation [18, 21], and it is a risk factor for high blood pressure [22], increased inflammation [23], depressive symptoms [24], reduced physical activity [25], and addiction [26]. It is therefore critical to promote social connectedness among adolescents.

According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, social connectedness does not exist exclusively in a single setting (e.g., schools) but rather across multiple environments and contexts [27], such as peer, family, and neighbourhood or community [5, 28]. Within the neighbourhood context, outdoor public recreation spaces (e.g., parks, sports facilities) are places where people can gather and socialise with others, which may foster social connectedness. Evidence has indicated that adolescents value natural environments and outdoor public recreation spaces [29] for engaging in active and passive structured and unstructured leisure activities, such as socialising, running, free play, and sports [30, 31], which may support their social connectedness. Additionally, outdoor public recreation spaces, such as parks, paths, sports courts, streets, beaches, and skate parks located close to home have been shown to be especially important for adolescents [29, 30, 32, 33], as their ability to travel far from home may be limited. Further, these outdoor public recreation spaces are often freely accessible [34,35,36], and are located in many neighbourhoods in developed countries [35]. Outdoor public recreation spaces can provide meeting places for adolescents, and research has shown that adolescents who report having more opportunities for recreation and meeting people in their neighbourhood feel more connected with their neighbours [37]. However, little is known about the relationship between the use of outdoor public recreation spaces and adolescents’ social connectedness [38, 39]. Among adolescents, previous studies have largely focused on the influence of their experiences of neighbourhood destinations on their well-being [40] and physical activity [41], largely overlooking links with social connectedness [33, 42].

According to the conceptual model of the role of parks for public health by Bedimo-Rung and colleagues [34], parks and outdoor public recreation spaces can support social capital, which is interrelated with social connectedness [7], by providing a venue for people to socially interact and develop social ties. The model proposes that these social health benefits can be obtained in two ways: park visitation and active use of these settings (e.g., physical activity participation alone or with others upon arrival) [34, 39].

Firstly, qualitative evidence suggests that adolescents perceive parks, rivers, streets, and recreational facilities (e.g., sports fields/courts, skate parks) as appealing places to visit to “hang out” and socialise with friends [32, 33, 43]. Adolescents have reported being more likely to visit parks and open spaces that are used by their friends [44] and that are “popular” amongst peers [43, 45]. They also usually visit these settings in groups [46] and accompanied by others rather than visiting alone [47]. Additionally, adolescents have reported urban green spaces (e.g., parks) as being key places to meet new people and make friends [45, 48]. This suggests that adolescents’ visitation to outdoor public recreation spaces is largely driven by social factors, which may contribute to their social connectedness. However, additional research is warranted as one qualitative study has explored adolescents’ perceptions of how visiting parks can promote their social connectedness, with results showing that female adolescents viewed urban parks as supportive places for social interaction with peers and for forming social groups [43]. To our knowledge, no quantitative studies have examined associations between frequency of visiting outdoor public recreation spaces and adolescents’ perceived social connectedness.

Secondly, outdoor public recreation spaces may provide opportunities for adolescents to be active. A quantitative study found that, in comparison to other settings (e.g., home, school), adolescents spent significantly more time in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) in green spaces (including parks) and in active transportation [49], which is typically performed on paths and streets. Adolescents have also reported “loose fit spaces” (e.g., paths, streets) as appealing for various (un)structured physical activities [32]. Qualitative and quantitative evidence has indicated that the most common physical activities that adolescents reported performing whilst visiting green spaces may involve social interaction and included playing sport, playing games, using equipment [48, 50], going for a walk/run, walking the dog, and riding a bike/scooter/skateboard [50].

Further, adolescents have previously reported being drawn to parks and recreational facilities where they could meet with other people and play sports due to the sense of camaraderie [51, 52], which may have important implications for their social connectedness. Group-based physical activity opportunities have also been reported by adolescents as being important avenues for making friends and cultivating a sense of belonging [53]. To our knowledge, no studies have examined whether the frequency of adolescents performing physical activity in their streets, local paths, and parks are associated with their social connectedness. Thus, this exploratory study sought to address the aforementioned research gaps by examining associations between frequencies of 1) visitation and 2) physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces with social connectedness among adolescents. In alignment with the aforementioned conceptual model [34], we hypothesised that there would be positive associations between the frequencies of visiting and being active in outdoor public recreation spaces and adolescents’ social connectedness.

Methods

Study sample

Cross-sectional data from the NEighbourhood Activity in Youth (NEArbY) study were used. The NEArbY project is nested within a global study, the International Physical Activity and the Environment (IPEN) Adolescent project, which examined associations between the neighbourhood environment and physical activity among adolescents from 15 countries [54, 55]. Data were collected between August 2014–December 2015 from adolescents residing in Melbourne, Australia [56]. Ethical approvals were granted from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Committee – Health (HEAG-H 152_2013). Approval for data collection in schools was granted by the Department of Education and Training (2013_002182) and the Catholic Education Office (Project #1950).

School and participant recruitment

Adolescents were recruited from secondary schools selected from Statistical Area Level 1’s (SA1) across Melbourne [57], the smallest administrative unit used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to release census data [58]. Each SA1 in Melbourne was ranked by a walkability score [59] and by area-level income (derived from 2011 census data) [58]. SA1s were classified into four strata: high walkability/high income; high walkability/low income; low walkability/high income; low walkability/low income [57], and schools across these strata were approached.

Principals of each school were approached via a letter of invitation, followed by a phone call, to determine their interest in partaking in NEArbY. Those who expressed interest were sent a Plain Language Statement and written informed consent form. A total of 137 schools were approached, of which 18 consented and took part (response rate 13%): ten schools in high walkability/high income areas, three in high walkability/low income areas, five in low walkability/high income areas, and no schools in low walkability/low income areas.

Presentations were made to students in classes selected by the school, and recruitment packs (study information, informed consent forms, parent survey) were sent home with interested students. Written informed parental consent and student assent were required; 528 provided consent, 468 provided survey data, and of these, residential addresses were successfully geocoded for 465 [60]. Based on residential addresses, there was a relatively even spread of participants across the four SA1 strata: 23% in high walkability/high income areas, 28% in high walkability/low income areas, 25% in low walkability/high income areas, and 24% in low walkability/low income areas [57].

Procedures and measures

Adolescents completed the survey on an iPad at school. The NEArbY survey was adapted from the IPEN adolescent survey [54] and was both constructed and administered using the online survey platform, Qualtrics.

Social connectedness

The Social Connectedness Scale was used to measure social connectedness as it has been shown to have an established internal reliability of 0.91 [8] and has been used in previous studies among adolescents [61, 62]. The Social Connectedness Scale includes items pertaining to belongingness (connectedness, affiliation, companionship), consistent with the self-psychology theory [8]. Adolescents were asked to indicate “how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your social connectedness?”: a) I feel disconnected from the world around me, b) Even around people I know, I don’t feel that I really belong, c) I feel so distant from people, d) I have no sense of togetherness with my peers, e) I don’t feel related to anyone, f) I catch myself losing all sense of connectedness with society, g) Even among my friends, there is no sense of brother/sisterhood, and h) I don’t feel that I participate with anyone or any group [8]. A four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) was used to indicate the level of agreement with the items. Responses were reverse-coded and summed to determine an overall social connectedness score (possible range: 8–32) with a higher score indicating a higher degree of social connectedness [8]. In the current sample, the internal consistency of the scale was high (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.93), which is similar to previous research [8].

Frequency of visitation to local outdoor public recreation spaces

Participants were asked to report (open response field) how frequently they visited (number of times/usual week) their nearest: a) small public park; b) large public park; c) bike/hiking/walking trails, paths; d) beach, lake, river or creek; e) basketball court (e.g., full court, ½ court); and f) other public playing fields/courts (e.g., soccer field, skate park). Survey items were adapted from the Neighbourhood Environment and Walkability Scale for Youth [63], and similar items have been shown to have acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC range 0.39–0.66) [64, 65]. A composite score for visitation to a public park was created by summing responses for a small and a large public park. Similarly, a composite score was created for public sports features/facilities by adding responses for a basketball court and for other playing fields/courts (e.g., soccer field, skate park). Due to the high number of participants who reported not visiting the different outdoor public recreation places in a usual week, responses were dichotomised as (coding in parentheses): visit less than once in a usual week (0) and visit at least once in a usual week (1). The open response field in the survey did not prevent written responses, which were provided by many participants. Where applicable, relevant written responses were also coded as 0 or 1. Examples of responses coded as ‘visit less than once in a usual week’ were ‘not often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘not much’, ‘never’ and as ‘visit at least once in a usual week’ were ‘yes’, ‘often’, ‘usually’ and ‘always’.

Frequency of physical activity in local outdoor public recreation spaces

Participants reported how frequently they engaged in physical activity in: a) their street; b) on a local street or footpath/bike path; and c) in a nearby park/reserve. These items were adapted from previous research [66], and similar items have been shown to have acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC range 0.31–0.82) [64]. The original categorical responses in the survey were: never; once a month or less; once every other week; once/week; 2–3 times/week; and 4 or more times/week. These were recoded as continuous to reflect the frequencies of the response options (coding in parentheses): never (0); once a month or less (0.25); twice per month (0.5); once/week (1); 2–3 times/week (2.5); and 4 or more times/week (4).

Demographics

Adolescents reported their birth date and sex (male, female). Missing information regarding age was obtained from a parent survey (n = 7).

Data analysis

Complete case analyses were performed separately for the two predictors, frequency of visitation and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces. Thus, two samples were analysed according to the outcome, social connectedness. For analyses using frequency of visitation, we excluded 119 participants with missing data for the following variables: social connectedness (n = 17); frequency of visitation to a public park (n = 59), trails/paths (n = 78), beach/lake (n = 92) and sports features (n = 96); age (n = 9); sex (n = 11); and SA1 of participants (n = 3). This reduced the sample from 468 to 349 participants. For analyses using frequency of physical activity, we excluded 27 participants with missing data for the following variables: social connectedness (n = 17); frequency of physical activity in participants’ street (n = 6), local street or path (n = 7), and park/reserve (n = 7); age (n = 9); sex (n = 11); and SA1 of participants (n = 3). This reduced the sample from 468 to 441 participants. Complete case analyses and descriptive analyses on the predictor and outcome variables were performed using Stata/SE 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA).

We used different types of regression models to test for curvilinearity and selected the model with best fit to the data for analyses. Multilevel linear regression models were used to examine associations of frequency of visitation and frequency of physical activity in each of the locations with social connectedness. All models specified school and SA1 as random effects to account for cross-clustering and adjusted for age and sex. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Due to the high proportion of missing responses for frequency of visitation, sensitivity analyses were performed to determine whether there were differences for those with missing data versus without missing data for the predictor variables according to age, sex, and social connectedness. These analyses (not presented here) revealed that social connectedness was negatively associated with having missing data [OR = 0.95, (95%CI = 0.95, 1.28]), p = 0.024].

Results

Results from the descriptive analyses and complete case analyses on the predictor and outcome variables are presented below.

Frequency of visitation to local outdoor public recreation spaces

As shown in Table 1, on average, participants were 15 years of age (range 12 to 18 years); 58% were female; and at least 50% visited the nearest public park, trail/path, beach/lake, or sports features at least once in a usual week. The average social connectedness score of participants was 28. No statistically significant associations between frequency of visitation to any of the examined locations and adolescents’ social connectedness scores were observed (Table 2).

Table 1 Frequency of visitation to and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces
Table 2 Associations between visitation to and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces with social connectedness score

Frequency of physical activity in local outdoor public recreation spaces

On average, participants were 15 years of age (range 12 to 18 years); 59% were female; the average social connectedness score was 28; and less than 50% of the sample were active on their street, on a local street/path, or in a nearby park at least once in a usual week (Table 1). No statistically significant associations were observed between frequency of physical activity in their street, on a street or bike/foot path, or at a nearby park/reserve and adolescents’ social connectedness score (Table 2).

Discussion

This exploratory study examined associations between the frequencies of visiting and being active in certain outdoor public recreation spaces with social connectedness among adolescents. The findings indicated no associations for frequency of visitation to the nearest public park, trails/path, beach/lake/river/creek, or sports features (e.g., basketball court, soccer field). Additionally, no associations were observed for frequency of physical activity in participants’ street, on a local street or bike/foot path, or at a nearby park/reserve with social connectedness.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we found limited evidence for associations between visiting outdoor public recreation spaces in a usual week and social connectedness among adolescents. Participants reported frequency of visitation to the nearest outdoor public recreation spaces to their homes. While at least half of the sample reported visiting the locations at least once in a usual week, it could be that adolescents also visited outdoor public recreation spaces located further away from home that attracted their peers to “hang out” and socialise. Previous qualitative evidence among adolescents has indicated that parks in a convenient location near school, friends’ houses, shops, and public transport would encourage visitation [47], and adolescents have reported that they would be prepared to visit high-quality parks located further away from home [47, 67]. Future studies should therefore consider examining adolescents’ visitation to the closest and the most frequently visited outdoor public recreation spaces in their neighbourhood. It is also unknown what activities adolescents were engaging in whilst in the settings, and it is possible that these activities may not have involved social interaction. A further reason for the limited evidence of associations between visiting outdoor public recreation spaces and social connectedness may be that we did not assess other public settings that are also important for adolescents’ social connectedness, such as plazas, civic squares and shopping strips [31, 32, 68]. In addition, we did not measure duration of visits to outdoor public recreation spaces, so it could be that adolescents in our sample were not spending sufficient time at the locations for there to be significant associations with social connectedness.

Previous qualitative research has found that while the presence of other people attracts adolescents to visit urban parks, minimal interaction between different user groups was often reported, and most adolescents kept to their social groups [69]. This suggests that co-presence with other user groups may not translate into meaningful contact, which may have been the case in the present study. Thus, although outdoor public recreation spaces provide opportunities for incidental interactions [70, 71], it could be that adolescents who visited their nearest public parks, beach/lake, trails, and sports features at least once in a usual week were not experiencing the types of social interactions necessary for fostering social connectedness. Moreover, Gibson’s Affordance Theory postulates that environments afford various behaviours and actions [72], and the perceived opportunities for use are relational to the needs and interests of users in the environment [73, 74]. Our findings may also be explained by the likely variation in adolescents’ needs and interests. Given that outdoor public recreation spaces support many different activities (not limited to social interaction and physical activity), future research may benefit from examining how affordances and context of use of these settings influence adolescents’ social connectedness.

Our findings also showed that there was limited evidence of associations between the frequency of performing physical activity in the examined outdoor public recreation spaces and social connectedness, and there are several possible explanations for this. Firstly, at least half of the sample did not visit a nearby park, their street, or a local street or path at least once per week, so it may be that they were not active frequently enough at these places for there to be significant associations with social connectedness. Additionally, regarding streets and paths, it could be that these areas may be used more often for active transportation [75, 76] – walking, running, and/or cycling for travel [76] – than for active recreation. It is possible that active travel on streets/paths (even if accompanied) may be less conducive to the social interactions needed to foster adolescents’ social connectedness. Further, evidence has indicated that adolescents engage in a range of physical activities in parks, such as organised sports, playing games and/or on play equipment, walking, and running [48, 50]. Given that adolescents value opportunities for being active while socialising with peers [77, 78], it could be that the specific types of physical activities undertaken, as well as whether they involve accompaniment and interaction with others (e.g., organised sports versus walking alone), matter for supporting social connectedness. Future research should consider exploring associations between types of physical activity undertaken in outdoor public recreation spaces with social connectedness among adolescents.

The Social Connectedness Scale was used in this exploratory study, and the scores of adolescents in our sample were comparable to scores in other studies, which have used modified versions of the same scale with adolescents [61] and young adults [8, 79]. However, there is currently no universal instrument for assessing social connectedness and other measures are available [7, 13, 18, 80, 81]. It has also been recognised that adolescents develop social relationships across multiple environments [27, 82], and social connectedness can be both experienced in and cultivated across different social domains/contexts (e.g., school, family, community/neighbourhood, peer) [5, 18, 28]. For instance, it is possible that adolescents may feel socially connected in the peer context, but not in the neighbourhood setting. Additionally, social connectedness has an autonomy aspect, where individuals feel they are valued within groups and relationships, and a relational aspect where there is a connection to others [80]. Therefore, even if adolescents interact socially with people, if they do not feel valued and validated by these bonds, then this may impact how socially connected they feel [80]. This poses challenges when trying to accurately assess social connectedness. The limited evidence of associations observed may have been due to these challenges. In addition, the scale employed in this study was a general measure of social connectedness rather than of social connectedness specifically in the community. However, to our knowledge, there is no context-specific measure for social connectedness, so this is an area for further investigation. Moreover, when seeking to understand people-place relationships, place-related constructs (e.g., sense of community, sense of place, place attachment) have commonly been used [83,84,85]. Future research may also benefit from examining place constructs in relation to adolescents’ use of outdoor public recreation spaces.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine associations of frequencies of visitation to and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces with adolescents’ social connectedness. Additional strengths include the examination of multiple outdoor public recreation spaces and the roughly equal split of males and females in the analytical sample. However, as a cross-sectional study that relied on self-report, causal inferences between variables cannot be drawn, and the data may be subject to recall or social desirability bias [86, 87]. Future studies may consider using ecological momentary assessment to sample and examine participants’ social experiences and behaviours in real time [88] or including measures of social interaction within outdoor public recreation spaces, whether physical activity in these settings was performed with others, and mode of travel to these settings to more explicitly address the research question. Further, responses were dichotomised as visiting less than once versus at least once in a usual week. It is also possible that participants considered both indoor and outdoor sports features when completing the items regarding the nearest basketball court and other fields/courts. Future research may also benefit from using objective measures, such as accelerometers or direct observation [89], for assessing visitation and physical activity in outdoor public recreation spaces in addition to assessing the duration and context of use. Additionally, the present study performed secondary analyses of data collected from 2014 to 2015, so the findings and conclusions may not be applicable to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, the limited evidence of associations between the predictor and outcome variables may have been due to statistical reasons. There was a high proportion of missing responses for the predictor variables (particularly visitation to different outdoor public recreation spaces). While complete case analyses are commonly used to address missing data in epidemiological research [90], this approach can bias findings and lead to losses in statistical power and precision [90, 91]. The analyses of patterns of missingness performed showed that data were at least ‘Missing at Random’ (MAR) [90]. Specifically, adolescents with a higher social connectedness score were less likely to have missing data compared to those with lower social connectedness. Consequently, our findings may have been biased due to the lack of power to detect associations resulting from the reduced analytical sample [90, 91]. Additionally, when data are not ‘Missing Completely At Random’ (MCAR), complete case analyses can bias regression coefficients. This bias increases with the difference between means of the observed and missing cases and with the proportion of missing cases [92].

Conclusion

The findings of this exploratory study provide limited evidence of associations between visiting and being active in outdoor public recreation spaces and social connectedness among this particular sample of adolescents. Future research should consider the time that adolescents spend in outdoor public recreation spaces, the context of use, and adolescents’ social connectedness specifically in the neighbourhood or community domain. Future studies may also benefit from exploring the influence of different types of activities undertaken in outdoor public recreation spaces and whether accompaniment in these settings is important for supporting social connectedness among adolescents.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions related to the consent given by participants at the time of study commencement. An ethically compliant dataset is however available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with approval of the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Abbreviations

ABS:

Australian Bureau of Statistics

MVPA:

Moderate- to Vigorous- Physical Activity

NEArbY:

NEighbourhood Activity in Youth project

IPEN:

International Physical Activity and the Environment

SA1:

Statistical Area Level

References

  1. Orben A, Tomova L, Blakemore S-J. The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(8):634–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Casey BJ, Jones RM, Hare TA. The adolescent brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:111–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lam CB, McHale SM, Crouter AC. Time with peers from middle childhood to late adolescence: developmental course and adjustment correlates. Child Dev. 2014;85(4):1677–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. De Goede IH, Branje SJ, Delsing MJ, Meeus WH. Linkages over time between adolescents' relationships with parents and friends. J Youth Adolesc. 2009;38(10):1304–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jose PE, Ryan N, Pryor J. Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well-being in adolescence over time? J Res Adolesc. 2012;22(2):235–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pfeifer JH, Berkman ET. The development of self and identity in adolescence: neural evidence and implications for a value-based choice perspective on motivated behavior. Child Dev Perspect. 2018;12(3):158–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Haslam C, Cruwys T, Haslam SA, Jetten J. Social connectedness and health. In: Pachana NA, editor. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2015. p. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lee RM, Robbins SB. Measuring belongingness: the social connectedness and the social assurance scales. J Couns Psychol. 1995;42(2):232–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker HS, Baker MN. Heinz Kohut’s self-psychology: an overview. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;144:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karcher M, Holcomb MR, Zambrano E. Measuring adolescent connectedness: a guide for school-based assessment and program evaluation. In: Coleman HLK, Yeh C, editors. Handbook of school counseling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lee RM, Robbins SB. The relationship between social connectedness and anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. J Couns Psychol. 1998;3:338–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams KL, Galliher RV. Predicting depression and self-esteem from social connnectedness, support, and competence. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2006;25(8):855–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee RM, Draper M, Lee S. Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: testing a mediator model. J Couns Psychol. 2001;48(3):310–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burnett S, Blakemore SJ. The development of adolescent social cognition. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1167(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamblin M, Murawski C, Whittle S, Fornito A. Social connectedness, mental health and the adolescent brain. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;80:57–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chapman RL, Buckley L, Sheehan MC, Shochet IM, Romaniuk M. The impact of school connectedness on violent behavior, transport risk-taking behavior, and associated injuries in adolescence. J Sch Psychol. 2011;49(4):399–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McGraw K, Moore S, Fuller A, Bates G. Family, peer and school connectedness in final year secondary school students. Aust Psychol. 2008;43(1):27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carroll A, Bower JM, Muspratt S. The conceptualization and construction of the self in a social context—social connectedness scale: a multidimensional scale for high school students. Int J Educ Res. 2017;81:97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Townsend KC, McWhirter BT. Connectedness: a review of the literature with implications for counseling, assessment, and research. J Couns Dev. 2005;83(2):191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jose PE, Lim BTL. Social connectedness predicts lower loneliness and depressive symptoms over time in adolescents. Open J Depression. 2014;3(4):154–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hare-Duke L, Dening T, de Oliveira D, Milner K, Slade M. Conceptual framework for social connectedness in mental disorders: systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:188–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hawkley LC, Masi CM, Berry JD, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness is a unique predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure. Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):152–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eisenberger NI, Moieni M, Inagaki TK, Muscatell KA, Irwin MR. In sickness and in health: the co-regulation of inflammation and social behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2017;42(1):242–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Twisted R. Perceived social isolation makes me sad: five year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago health, aging and social relations study. Psychol Aging. 2010;25(2):453–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hawkley LC, Thisted RA, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness predicts reduced physical activity: cross-sectional & longitudinal analyses. Health Psychol. 2009;28(3):354–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang YC, Boen C, Gerken K, Li T, Schorpp K, Harris KM. Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(3):578–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Brofenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Dev Psychol. 1986;22(6):723–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rose T, McDonald A, Von Mach T, Witherspoon DP, Lambert S. Patterns of social connectedness and psychosocial wellbeing among African American and Caribbean black adolescents. J Youth & Adolesc. 2019;48(11):2271–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Brunelle S, Brussoni M, Herrington S, Matsuba K, Pratt M. Teens in public spaces and natural landscapes: issues of access and design. In: Lansford JE, Banati P, editors. Handbook of adolescent development research and its impact on global policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 361–79.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Passon C, Levi D, del Rio V. Implications of adolescents’ perceptions and values for planning and design. J Plan Educ Res. 2008;28(1):73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McCray TM, Mora S. Analyzing the activity spaces of low-income teenagers: how do they perceive the spaces where activities are carried out? J Urban Aff. 2016;33(5):511–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Travlou P, Owens PE, Thompson CW, Maxwell L. Place mapping with teenagers: locating their territories and documenting their experience of the public realm. Child Geogr. 2008;6(3):309–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Osborne C, Baldwin C, Thomsen D, Woolcock G. The unheard voices of youth in urban planning: using social capital as a theoretical lens in sunshine coast. Austr Child Geogr. 2016;15(3):349–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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(2 Suppl 2):159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, Payne LL. Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):150–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Joseph RP, Maddock JE. Observational park-based physical activity studies: a systematic review of the literature. Prev Med. 2016;89:257–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lenzi M, Vieno A, Santinello M, Perkins DD. How neighborhood structural and institutional features can shape neighborhood social connectedness: a multilevel study of adolescent perceptions. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(3–4):451–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Freeman C. Children's neighbourhoods, social centres to ‘terra incognita’. Child Geogr. 2010;8(2):157–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wray A, Martin G, Ostermeier E, Medeiros A, Little M, Reilly K, et al. Physical activity and social connectedness interventions in outdoor spaces among children and youth: a rapid review. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2020;40(4):104–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson JT, McDonald C. “They have good intentions”. Young people's experiences of living in Melbourne's peri-urban areas. Urban Policy Res. 2005;23(4):477–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van Loon J, Frank LD, Nettlefold L, Naylor P-J. Youth physical activity and the neighbourhood environment: examining correlates and the role of neighbourhood definition. Soc Sci Med. 2014;104:107–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Woolcock G, Gleeson B, Randolph B. Urban research and child-friendly cities: a new Australian outline. Child Geogr. 2010;8(2):177–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Llyod K, Burden J, Kiewa J. Young girls and urban parks: planning for transition through adolescence. J Park Recreation Adm. 2008;26(3):21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ries AV, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Gittelsohn J, Yan AF, Astone NM. A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3 Suppl):S64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Van Hecke L, Deforche B, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Veitch J, Van Cauwenberg J. Social and physical environmental factors influencing adolescents’ physical activity in urban public open spaces: a qualitative study using walk-along interviews. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ferré MB, Guitart AO, Ferret MP. Children and playgrounds in Mediterranean cities. Child Geogr. 2006;4(2):173–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rivera E, Timperio A, Loh VHY, Deforche B, Veitch J. Critical factors influencing adolescents’ active and social park use: a qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Urban For Urban Green. 2021;58(126948):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Seeland K, Dübendorfer S, Hansmann R. Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: the role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy Econ. 2009;11(1):10–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Klinker CD, Schipperijn J, Christian H, Kerr J, Ersbøll AK, Troelsen J. Using accelerometers and global positioning system devices to assess gender and age differences in children's school, transport, leisure and home based physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Physical Act. 2014;11(8):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Veitch J, Salmon J, Parker K, Bangay S, Deforche B, Timperio A. Adolescents' ratings of features of parks that encourage park visitation and physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(73):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Eime RM, Payne WR, Casey MM, Harvey JT. Transition in participation in sport and unstructured physical activity for rural living adolescent girls. Health Educ Res. 2010;25(2):282–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ries AV, Gittelsohn J, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Clifton KJ, Astone NM. The environment and urban adolescents' use of recreational facilities for physical activity: a qualitative study. Am J Health Promot. 2008;23(1):43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stevens G, Jahoda A, Matthews L, Hankey C, Melville C, Murray H, et al. A theory-informed qualitative exploration of social and environmental determinants of physical activity and dietary choices in adolescents with intellectual disabilities in their final year of school. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(Suppl 1(S1)):52–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cain KL, Salmon J, Conway TL, Cerin E, Hinckson E, Mitas J, et al. International physical activity and built environment study of adolescents: IPEN adolescent design, protocol and measures. BMJ Open 2021;11(1):1–25.

  55. Cerin E, Conway TL, Barnett A, Smith M, Veitch J, Cain KL, et al. Development and validation of the neighborhood environment walkability scale for youth across six continents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(122):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Parker KE, Salmon J, Brown HL, Villanueva K, Timperio A. Typologies of adolescent activity related health behaviours. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(3):319–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Loh VHY, Veitch J, Salmon J, Cerin E, Thornton L, Mavoa S, et al. Built environment and physical activity among adolescents: the moderating effects of neighborhood safety and social support. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(132):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Basic community profile release 1: SA1. Canberra: Data Pack; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Loh VHY, Veitch J, Salmon J, Cerin E, Mavoa S, Villanueva K, et al. Environmental mismatch: do associations between the built environment and physical activity among youth depend on concordance with perceptions? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Arslan G. Psychological maltreatment, social acceptance, social connectedness, and subjective well-being in adolescents. J Happiness Stud. 2017;19(4):983–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Malaquias S, Crespo C, Francisco R. How do adolescents benefit from family rituals? Links to social connectedness, depression and anxiety. J Child Fam Stud. 2014;24(10):3009–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rosenberg D, Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Norman GJ, Durant N, et al. Neighborhood environment walkability scale for youth (NEWS-Y): reliability and relationship with physical activity. Prev Med 2009;49(2–3):213–8.

  64. Joe L, Carlson JA, Sallis JF. Active where? Individual item reliability statisitcs adolescent survey (n=120) 2012 [cited 8 March 2021]. Available from: https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/AW_item_reliability_Adolescent.pdf.

  65. University of California San Diego. The ActiveWhere? questionnaire [cited 8 June 2021]. Available from: https://drjimsallis.org/Documents/Measures_documents/ActiveWhere_adolescent_survey.pdf.

  66. Sallis JF, Nader PR, Broyles SL, Berry CC, Elder JP, McKenzie T, et al. Correlates of physical activity at home in Mexican-American and Anglo-American preschool children. Health Psychol. 1993;12(5):390–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith AL, Troped PJ, McDonough MH, DeFreese JD. Youth perceptions of how neighborhood physical environment and peers affect physical activity: a focus group study. Int J Behav Nutr Physical Act. 2015;12(80):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Slater S, Fitzgibbon M, Floyd MF. Urban adolescents’ perceptions of their neighborhood physical activity environments. Leis Sci. 2013;35(2):167–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. van Aalst I, Brands J. Young people: being apart, together in an urban park. J Urbanism. 2021;14(1):1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hindley D. “More than just a run in the park”: an exploration of parkrun as a shared leisure space. Leis Sci. 2020;41(1):85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mowen AJ, Rung AL. Park-based social capital: are there variations across visitors with different socio-demographic characteristics and behaviours? Leisure/Loisir. 2016;40(3):297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual percpetion. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lennon M, Douglas O, Scott M. Urban green spaces for health and well-being: developing an ‘afforadances’ framework for planning and design. J Urban Des. 2017;22(6):778–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Heft H. Affordance of children’s environments: a functional approach to environmental description. Child Environ Q. 1988;5(3):29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Simons D, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, de Geus B, Vandelanotte C, Deforche B. Factors influencing mode of transport in older adolescents: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(323):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Environmental determinants of active travel in youth: a review and framework for future research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5(34):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Salvy SJ, Roemmich JN, Bowker JC, Romero ND, Stadler PJ, Epstein LH. Effect of peers and friends on youth physical activity and motivation to be physically active. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(2):217–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lindberg M, Schipperijn J. Active use of urban park facilities – expectations versus reality. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14(4):909–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Grieve R, Indian M, Witteveen K, Anne Tolan G, Marrington J. Face-to-face or Facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(3):604–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Barber BK, Schluterman JM. Connectedness in the lives of children and adolescents: a call for greater conceptual clarity. J Adolesc Health. 2008;43(3):209–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Berscheid E, Snyder M, Omoto AM. The relationship closeness inventory: assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(5):792–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Bower JM, van Kraayenoord C, Carroll A. Building social connectedness in schools: Australian teachers’ perspectives. Int J Educ Res. 2015;70:101–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Francis J, Giles-Corti B, Wood L, Knuiman M. Creating sense of community: the role of public space. J Environ Psychol. 2012;32(4):401–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Giuliani MV. Theory of attachment and place attachment. In: In: Pyschological theories for environmental issues [internet]. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2003. [137-70].

    Google Scholar 

  85. Jack G. Place matters: the significance of place attachments for children's well-being. Br J Soc Work. 2008;40(3):755–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kohl HW, Fulton JE, Caspersen CJ. Assessment of physical activity among children and adolescents: a review and synthesis. Prev Med. 2000;31(2):S54–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Klesges LM, Baranowski T, Beech B, Cullen K, Murray DM, Rochon J, et al. Social desirability bias in self-reported dietary, physical activity and weight concerns measures in 8- to 10-year-old African-American girls: results from the girls health enrichment multisite studies (GEMS). Prev Med. 2004;38:78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford M. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Dollman J, Okely AD, Hardy L, Timperio A, Salmon J, Hills AP. A hitchhiker's guide to assessing young people's physical activity: deciding what method to use. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12(5):518–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338(b2393):1-19.

  91. Stephens S, Beyene J, Tremblay MS, Faulkner G, Pullnayegum E, Feldman BM. Strategies for dealing with missing accelerometer data. Rheum Dis Clin N Am. 2018;44(2):317–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all research staff involved in the NEArbY study as well as the students who participated in this research.

Funding

NEArbY was partly funded by the National Institutes for Health (NIH) R01 HL 111378. AT was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship (Award 100046) during the project. JV is supported by an Australian National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (ID 101928). VL is supported by an Executive Dean’s Postdoctoral Fellowship. JS is supported by a Leadership Level 2 Fellowship, National Health and Medical Research Council (APP 1176885). EC was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT14010085). SM was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (#1121035) and a University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences Research Fellowship. The manuscript contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of the funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JS, AT, JV, and EC planned NEArbY. JS, AT, and EC received funding for the project. ER, AT, JV, and VL conceptualised the research question. ER, AT, JV, VL, and EC conceptualised the analytical approach. ER analysed the data with the assistance of VL. ER, AT, JV, VL, and EC interpreted the results. ER drafted and edited the original manuscript. All authors provided critical intellectual feedback on drafts. All authors read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Rivera.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research was performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approvals were granted from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Committee – Health (HEAG-H 152_2013). Approval for data collection in schools was granted by the Department of Education and Training (2013_002182) and the Catholic Education Office (Project #1950). Written informed parental consent and student assent for participation were obtained from participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rivera, E., Veitch, J., Loh, V.H.Y. et al. Outdoor public recreation spaces and social connectedness among adolescents. BMC Public Health 22, 165 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12558-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12558-6

Keywords

  • Youth
  • Neighbourhood
  • Parks
  • Sports facilities
  • Beaches
  • Streets
  • Paths
  • Social interaction
  • Physical activity
  • Social connectedness