Is availability of public open space equitable across areas?
Introduction
Physically inactive lifestyles are a major contributor to the burden of disease in industrialised nations, with inactivity associated with increased risk of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). Globally, it is estimated that 58% of people aged 15 years or over are insufficiently active for health (World Health Organisation, 2002). However, some groups are at greater risk of inactivity than others. Disparities in physical activity according to socio-economic status (SES) have been well documented, with individuals of low SES generally less likely to be physically active, regardless of how SES is defined (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). Disparities in physical activity have also been documented according to neighbourhood or area-level SES or deprivation, even after adjusting for individual-level SES (Kavanagh et al., 2005; Sundquist et al., 1999).
The reasons for disparities in physical activity according to neighbourhood-level SES are largely unknown. However, reviews of the determinants of physical activity indicate that the physical environment may be an important influence (McCormack et al., 2004; Saelens et al., 2003; Trost et al., 2002), and it is suggested that features of the environment relevant to physical activity may vary according to neighbourhood SES (Macintyre and Ellaway, 1998). For example, although pay-for-use physical activity resources were shown to be equitably distributed according to neighbourhood SES, Estabrooks et al. (2003) found that more free-for-use physical activity resources were available in high compared to low and medium SES neighbourhoods. Few other studies have explored how the environment relevant to physical activity may differ according to neighbourhood SES.
Public open spaces and formal parks are important environmental features that may facilitate physical activity among children and adults (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005), both as a facility where physical activity can take place and as a potential destination to which to walk or cycle. Public open spaces are popular facilities for recreational physical activity (Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002; Sallis et al., 1990) and a high proportion of people are observed engaging in ‘active’ activities while at parks (Godbey et al., 2005). Compared to non-users, users of public open space are more likely to participate in sufficient physical activity for health and in regular walking (Giles-Corti et al., 2005), and a greater proportion of adults who are regularly vigorously active report using parks as an exercise site compared to those who do no vigorous physical activity (Sallis et al., 1990). Furthermore, proximity to public open spaces has been shown to influence use (Tinsley et al., 2002; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002; Giles-Corti et al., 2005), area of green spaces and sports grounds close to home have been associated with cycling (Wendel-Vos et al., 2004) and a lack of nearby parks has been negatively associated with children's local walking and cycling (Timperio et al., 2004). However, the distribution of public open spaces across urban neighbourhoods of varying SES is largely unknown (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005).
Inequities in the availability of public open spaces may be a potential explanation for disparities in physical activity according to neighbourhood SES. This study examined the hypothesis that low SES neighbourhoods have fewer public open spaces and less area of public open space than high SES neighbourhoods.
Section snippets
Methods
Density and area of public open spaces across neighbourhoods of varying SES in Melbourne, the second largest city in Australia, were examined using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Neighbourhoods were defined as postal districts. The study area covered 2700 km2 and included 177 neighbourhoods within 30 km from the Central Business District (CBD) of Melbourne, excluding the CBD and any postcodes that applied to a single point (e.g., mail centres), high volume postal location (e.g., newspaper
Results
In general, neighbourhoods classified as low SES were larger than those classified as higher SES (Table 1). Overall, there were 5415 unique freely accessible open spaces across the study area covering a total area of 213 km2, 195 reserved access open spaces covering a total of 72 km2, and 780 open spaces classified as ‘sport and recreation’ covering a total of 90 km2. As shown in Table 1, there were a greater number of freely available open spaces in neighbourhoods with the lowest SES compared to
Discussion
Our results did not support the hypothesis that low SES neighbourhoods have less public open space than high SES neighbourhoods. Overall, availability of open space appears to be distributed equitably across neighbourhoods when the population and total geographic area being serviced are considered, regardless of whether access to the spaces was free or restricted. This is in contrast to previous research in the US where more free-for-use physical activity resources were available in high
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology for supplying the Open Space 2002 dataset. Anna Timperio and Jo Salmon are supported by Public Health Fellowships from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). Kylie Ball and David Crawford are supported by National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation Career Development Awards.
References (25)
- et al.
The significance of parks to physical activity and public health
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland
Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive environment
Preventive Medicine
(2002) - et al.
Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Social and local variations in the use of urban neighbourhoods: a case study in Glasgow
Health and Place
(1998) - et al.
An update of recent evidence of the relationship between objective and self-report measures of the physical environment and physical activity behaviours
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
(2004) - et al.
Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children
Preventive Medicine
(2004) - et al.
Correlates of recreational and transportation physical activity among adults in a New England community
Preventive Medicine
(2003) - Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003. Socio-economic Indexes for Areas, 2001. Australian Bureau of Statistics,...
Resources for physical activity participation: does availability and accessibility differ by neighbourhood socioeconomic status
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Cited by (82)
Social heterogeneity, local capacity, and urban parks: Evidence from US cities
2020, CitiesCitation Excerpt :Income inequality is a hypothesis for the impact of social context on the local provision of public goods. Due to different preferences, socioeconomically unequal communities could disagree on the provision of parks and recreational spaces (Boustan, Ferreira, Winkler, & Zolt, 2013; Timperio, Ball, Salmon, Roberts, & Crawford, 2007). One point of disagreement can be the varying perceptions of the distribution of benefits and costs of parks and recreation programs.
Spatial justice in public open space planning: Accessibility and inclusivity
2020, Habitat InternationalAssociations between park features, park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area
2019, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningReliability and validity of environmental audits using GigaPan® technology in parks
2019, Preventive Medicine ReportsCitation Excerpt :A number of studies have looked at the relationship between park availability and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES). Most of these studies look only at park availability (e.g., distance to nearest or number of parks) with fewer studies examining the relationship between the quality of parks and SES (Estabrooks et al., 2003; Powell et al., 2006; Timperio et al., 2007). Studies assessing for park quality have generally found lower park quality in lower SES neighborhoods (Estabrooks et al., 2003; Powell et al., 2006; Rigolon, 2016; Timperio et al., 2007).