The mobilizing effects and health benefits of proximity sport facilities: urban and environmental analysis of the Bleu, Blanc, Bouge project and Montreal North's outdoor rink

Abstract

Obesity has become a world-recognized problem, largely attributed to a lack of everyday physical activity. Many recent studies show that the built environment can positively influence people to take on healthier lifestyles. In this article, we analyse the impact the implementation of a free outdoor skating rink has on the local population's social identity and physical activity in the Montreal North district. This research, based on a mixed design, demonstrates that the implementation of a proximity sport facility can inspire the population to engage in physical activity and can stimulate territorial appropriation. It also reveals that building a sport facility is not sufficient in itself to attract a mildly active or non-active clientele. In fact, it seems necessary to complement the facility with onsite-organized activities.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the members of the GREF (Research Group on Festive Spaces, www.gref.ca) for their significant help in this research. They also thank Québec en Forme, Montreal Canadiens Children's Foundation and this study's advisory committee for their financial and scientific support. Special thanks are due to Taïka Baillargeon and Tanya Austini for their linguistic help. Finally, they thank two anonymous reviewers for their judicious and constructive suggestions and recommendations.

Notes

^1. Canada Actif 20/20, Stratégie et un plan.

^2. The most recent studies and Canadian guidelines regarding physical activity, such as Canada Actif 20/20, stipulate that children (5–11 years old) and the teenagers (12–17 years old) should do an average of 60 min of moderate-to-intense physical activity every day. While adults (18–64 years old) and elders (65+ years old) should do an average of 150 min of moderate-to-intense physical activity every week.

^3.Merrifield, Enfants en santé.

^4.INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement; Brownson et al., ‘Measuring the Built Environment’ and Sallis, ‘Measuring Physical Activity Environments’.

^5. In the context of this analysis, we decided to use the term ‘rink’ because it is the common term public stakeholders from the field of leisure use in Quebec. For example, the City of Montreal and the ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport use this term. The stakeholders of the project Bleu, Blanc, Bouge also use this term. Moreover, the terminological dictionary of Quebec uses this terminology when referring to this type of exterior sport facility.

^6.Molnar et al., ‘Unsafe to Play?’.

^7. The name of this project, Bleu, Blanc, Bouge (Blue White Move), is not insignificant. It refers to the popular nickname of the professional hockey club the Montreal Canadiens ‘le Bleu Blanc Rouge’ (Blue White Red). The word ‘Rouge’ (Red) was changed to ‘Bouge’ (Move) for their phonetic similitude in French, thereby allowing a pun and making a connection with the objectives of the Montreal Canadiens Children's Foundation.

^8.Fondation des Canadiens pour l'enfance, ‘Fondations des Canadiens’.

^9.Giles-Corti et al., ‘Increasing Walking’; Popkin, Duffey, and Gordon-Larsen, ‘Environmental Influences on Food Choice’ and Sallis et al., ‘Environmental and Policy Interventions’.

^10. In the context of this analysis, we decided to use the term ‘built environment’, because it is the term usually used and recognized in the fields of physical activities, urban studies and public health when referring to the elements built or designed by man.

^11.Giles-Corti and Donovan, ‘Relative Influence of Individual’.

^12.Handy et al., ‘How the Built Environment Affects’.

^13. INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement.

^14.Tucker et al., ‘Environmental Influences on Physical Activity’; Atkinson et al., ‘Association of Neighbourhood Design’ and Frank et al., ‘Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity’.

^15.Day et al., ‘Irvine-Minnesota Inventory’.

^16. INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement' and Sallis et al., ‘Ecological Approach to Creating Active’.

^17.Frank et al., ‘Urban Form Relationships’ and Sallis et al., ‘Assessing Perceived Physical Environmental’.

^18.Pineault and Daveluy, Planification de la santé.

^19.Motl et al., ‘Perceived Physical Environment’; Day et al., ‘Irvine-Minnesota Inventory’; Kino-Québec, Aménageons nos milieux; Frank, Engelke, and Schmid, Health and Community Design and Spence and Lee, ‘Toward a Comprehensive Model’.

^20. Popkin, Duffey, and Gordon-Larsen, ‘Environmental Influences on Food Choice’.

^21.Tucker, Gilliland, and Irwin, ‘Splashpads, Swings, and Shade’ and Tucker et al., ‘Environmental Influences on Physical Activity’, 358.

^22.Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^23. Ibid., 48.

^24. Ibid.; Gordon-Larsen et al., ‘Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies’.

^25.Kipke et al., ‘Food and Park Environments’.

^26. INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement.

^27. Sallis, ‘Measuring Physical Activity Environments’; Day et al., ‘Irvine-Minnesota Inventory’ and Sallis et al., ‘Environmental and Policy Interventions’.

^28. Handy et al., ‘How the Built Environment Affects’.

^29. Molnar et al., ‘Unsafe to Play?’.

^30.Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, and Popkin, ‘Determinants of Adolescent Physical Activity’, 7.

^31. Vieille-Marchiset, ‘La construction sociale des espaces sportifs ouverts dans la ville’ and Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, and Popkin, ‘Determinants of Adolescent Physical Activity’.

^32.MELS and Kino-Québec, Activité physique, le sport et les jeunes.

^33. Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^34. INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement; Committee on Environmental Health, ‘Built Environment’; Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’ and Vieille-Marchiset, ‘Construction sociale des espaces sportifs’.

^35.Raibaud, Nouveaux modèles de virilité.

^36. Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^37. Ibid., 47.

^38. INSPQ, Impact de l'environnement.

^39. Day et al., ‘Irvine-Minnesota Inventory’; Kino-Québec, Aménageons nos milieux; Molnar et al., ‘Unsafe to Play?’ and Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, ‘Neighborhoods They Live In’.

^40. Molnar et al. ‘Unsafe to Play?’ 379.

^41. Giles-Corti and Donovan, ‘Relative Influence of Individual’.

^42. Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^43. Ibid. and Committee on Environmental Health, ‘Built Environment’.

^44.Ville de Montréal, ‘Profil sociodémographique Montréal-Nord’.

^45. Brownson et al., ‘Measuring the Built Environment’ and McKenzie, SOPLAY, System for Observing.

^46. Nvivo and the methodological strategy of grounded theory were used for the qualitative part of our research and especially for the analysis of our interviews.

^47.Reis et al., ‘Association Between Physical Activity in Parks’ and Roemmich et al., ‘Association of Access to Parks’.

^48.De Visscher, Bouverne-De Bie, and Verschelden, ‘Urban Public Space’.

^49.Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, ‘What Brings Children to the Park?’.

^50.Arrondissement de Montréal-Nord, Mise en candidature, 10.

^51. Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’; Kipke et al., ‘Food and Park Environments’ and Gordon-Larsen et al., ‘Inequality in the Built Environment Underlies’.

^52.Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, and Cohen, ‘Significance of Parks to Physical Activity’.

^53.Pluhar et al., ‘Representations of the Relationship Among Physical Activity'and Reis et al., ‘Association Between Physical Activity in Parks’.

^54. Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, ‘What Brings Children to the Park?’.

^55. Arrondissement de Montréal-Nord, Mise en candidature.

^56. Reis et al., ‘Association Between Physical Activity in Parks’.

^57. Pluhar et al., ‘Representations of the Relationship Among Physical Activity’.

^58. Raibaud, Nouveaux modèles de virilité and Ries et al., ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^59. Vieille-Marchiset, ‘Construction sociale des espaces sportifs’.

^60. Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, ‘What Brings Children to the Park?’.

^61.Lemieux and Thibault, ‘Activité physique, sport et les jeunes’.

^62. Ibid., 3.

^63.Savoie, Bédard, and Collins, Neighbourhood Characteristics.

^64.Cohen et al., ‘Parks and Physical Activity’.

^65. Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, and Cohen, ‘Significance of Parks to Physical Activity’.

^66.Debenedetti, ‘Concept de l'attachement au lieu’ and Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower, ‘Attachment to Place’.

^67.Soubrier, Planification, aménagement et loisir.

^68. Ries, ‘Environment and Urban Adolescents’.

^69.Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American.

^70. Ibid., 30.

^71. Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, ‘What Brings Children to the Park?’.

^72. Ibid. and Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, and Cohen, ‘Significance of Parks to Physical Activity’.

^73. Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, ‘What Brings Children to the Park?’.

^74.Williams and Patterson, ‘Snapshots of What, Exactly?’and Williams and Vaske, ‘Measurement of Place Attachment’.