Izenstark et al. (2016) created a study that examines how families with low-incomes in rural communities use family-based nature activities to promote a healthy lifestyle for their children. Izenstark’s (2016) study related rural communities’ access to nature as the key component to why and how rural families have used nature-based family activities to encourage their children to live physically active lifestyles. Her research has found that family-based nature activities help to promote a healthy lifestyle and develops bonds between family members, which in turn increases the child’s likelihood to live a physically active lifestyle (Izenstark et al. 2016). However, Izenstark (2016) does not consider the importance of structured play when determining if low-income rural families have children that will stay physically active.
Another theory that focuses on rural community’s physical activity argues with Izenstark’s study. This theory provides evidence that suggests that children who do not have the opportunity to be apart of structured play might become physically inactive when they become adults. This theory has been examined by Sawka et al. (2014), who has researched the effects of structed play on children. The structed play examined was activities that were outside of the school setting. Sawka’s (2014) research shows how structed play helps to develops a child’s fundamental movement skills along with their physical literacy. This structured play also builds bonds between different children which creates relationships within a physically active setting. Sawka (2014) states that by building relationships in physically active setting provides children with friends that enjoy being physically active which helps the children to stay physically active in the future.
Both studies recognize that families in rural communities have less opportunities for their children to experience structed play outside of a school setting due to their lack of facilities in the community to support this type of play. Izenstark (2016) stated that rural families often drive their children to other communities that have facilities to support structed play. He also noted that low-income families do not have the money or time to put their children in these activities. Izenstark (2016) suggested that this situation does not influence how physically active low-income rural families are. Instead Izenstark (2016) claimed that the children in these low-income families still live a physically active lifestyle due to their families use of nature-based family activities. In contrast to Izenstark’s finding, Sawka (2014) argues that children who do not experience structured play with other children will not adapt a physically active lifestyle regardless of their families view of physical activity.
In conclusion, both studies suggest that children will stay physically active if they have the right influence by either family members or peers. Although Izenstark (2016) suggests that family nature-based activities have the most influence on children’s physical activity, she does not consider peer influence. Sawka (2014) provides reasoning’s to why structured activities are important, she discuses the importance of physically active peer relationships, and the impacts structed play has on child development. Sawka reasonings help prove that a physically active lifestyle is fostered through structured play.

Works Cited

Izenstark, D., Oswald, R., Holman, E.G., Mendez, S.N., & Greder, K.A. (2016). Rural, low-income mothers’ use of family-based nature activities to promote family health. Journal of Leisure research, 48(2), 134-155
Sawka, K., Mccormack, G., Nettel-Aguirre, A., Blackstaffe, A., Perry, R., & Hawe, P. (2014). Associations between aspects of friendship networks, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour among adolescents. Journal of Obesity, doi: 10.1155/2014/632689