Abstract
An important consideration in studies of the relationship between greenspace exposure and health is the use of mapped data to assign geographic exposures to participants. Previous studies have used validated data from municipal park departments to describe the boundaries of public greenspaces. However, this approach assumes that these data accurately describe park boundaries, that formal parks fully capture the park and greenspace exposure of residents, and (for studies that use personal GPS traces to assign participant exposures) that time spent within these boundaries represents time spent in greenspace. These assumptions are tested using a comparison and ground-truthing of four sources of mapped park and greenspace data in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: PAD-US-AR, Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and Open Street Maps. We find several important differences and tradeoffs in these data: the incorporation of highways and building lots within park boundaries, the inclusion or exclusion of formal park spaces (federal, state, and nonprofit), the exclusion of informal parks and greenspaces, and inconsistent boundaries for a linear park. Health researchers may wish to consider these issues when conducting studies using boundary data to assign park exposure.