Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status?

Exploring the Distribution of Park Availability, Features, and Quality Across Kansas City, Missouri by Income and Race/Ethnicity: an Environmental Justice Investigation

“…Indeed, in our study, high income tracts had more playgrounds per park than low or medium income tracts. Another study in Australia found similar results in that there were fewer playgrounds and other facilities and amenities (i.e., bike paths, picnic tables) conducive to children's PA in lower SES areas (27). These findings are problematic because playgrounds have been shown to promote increased PA intensity and healthier weight status among children (40)(41)(42).…”

“…For race/ethnicity, we identified the percentage of minority residents, defined as non-White and Hispanic White persons, and tracts were again categorized into even tertiles (low, medium, and high percent minority). For both income and percent minority, tracts were grouped into categories in order to ease interpretation between high versus medium versus low income or percent minority areas and to maintain consistency with most past studies exploring similar issues (17,19,20,(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27).…”

“…Like other studies, we then examined disparities in each facility or amenity individually (26,27). Specifically, we calculated the proportion of parks in each tract that contained each type of facility or amenity (e.g., 2 of 5 parks=0.40)…”

“…Related to this, Coen and Ross (49) reported there were more quality concerns in parks in areas of poor health status. With respect to aesthetic features, researchers in Melbourne found that there were more aesthetic features (i.e., picnic tables, water features, lighting) in higher SES areas (27), and that the quality of neighborhood resources is a predictor of engaging in more outdoor activities (50). Thus, more quality concerns and fewer aesthetic features within parks can lead to both poorer perceptions and actual problems related to park attractiveness and safety, which can deter park visitation and use.…”

“…One exception in Australia found that within higher SES neighborhoods, public open spaces were more abundant and possessed more total amenities (e.g., picnic tables, drinking fountains, toilets) and were more likely to have shade trees, water features, walking and cycling paths, lighting, and various types of signage (27). Finally, few studies (28,29) have evaluated the actual quality of parks and recreation resources by neighborhood composition.…”