Addressing Inequity: Evaluation of an Intervention to Improve Accessibility and Quality of a Green Space

Abstract

Green space areas offer several benefits that support our physical, psychological, and social health. However, the level of engagement with green space areas may not be the same across population groups. Using a mixed-method research design, we investigated the use of a green space area and whether and how the area was beneficial for health, social inclusion, and physical activity for all socioeconomic groups in a suburban area in Norway. The study showed significantly increased use of the area from 2015–2018 and that users belonged to different socioeconomic groups. The motivation for using the area was the opportunity to experience nature and to interact socially. While no significant changes in self-rated health, life satisfaction, or levels of physical activity were found, the study indicates that factors such as location, availability, and designated places for social interaction are important motivating factors for use. Users from the lower socioeconomic groups were among the frequent users but were also the least satisfied with the quality and availability of the path. Our findings call for closer consideration of the location and availability of green spaces and that including places for social interaction and relaxation can contribute to increased use of green spaces.

Envisioning Happy Places for All: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Transformations in the Urban Environment on the Wellbeing of Vulnerable Groups

“…The role of quality of design for disadvantaged communities was also observed by Anthun et al [41], who evaluated the enhancement of a green cycling and walking path along the coast in a suburban area in Norway, with the aim to improve the accessibility to the city and the quality of green spaces. By using questionnaire surveys, structured interviews, and digital counts), they found that the area residents were overall satisfied with the intervention and used the path, but residents with lower socioeconomic status were the least satisfied with the availability and quality of the new infrastructure, despite reporting high frequency of use.…”

“…No studies were excluded based on study design. A total of 10 papers were included in the final review [36,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48].…”

“…In terms of country distribution, four out of 10 studies were conducted in the UK, of which two were in England [42,44], and two in Scotland [43,48]); two studies were in the USA [36,47]; and the remaining four studies were carried out respectively in Spain [46], Norway [41], Turkey [40], and New Zealand [45]. Study methodologies ranged from mixed methods [41,45,48], to qualitative [42,44,46], or quantitative surveys carried out either longitudinally [43,47] or cross-sectionally after the intervention [40]. One paper [36] presented a qualitative review of existing case studies.…”

“…The remaining studies measured sense of belonging (for instance, through relational wellbeing or social capital) and/or agency (residential satisfaction, perceived safety, or quality), mostly with ad-hoc measures. In terms of populations, six of the studies involved people with low income or living in socioeconomically deprived areas [36,41,43,45,47,48], although some studies looked at more than one category of vulnerable group. Three studies presented findings related to children or families with children [40,45,46], Three involved women [42,44,48], and one study considered older people [40].…”

“…In line with a previous systematic review on the mental health impact of urban design interventions [22], we categorised interventions based on their scope (see Table 1), as (a) having a comprehensive approach centred around urban regeneration or renewal [36,40,44,47]; or (b) employing a focused approach [41][42][43]45,46,48]. The latter group was further categorised based on the GAPS framework [23], in terms of changes to urban green space, transport infrastructure, or safety and security.…”