Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities

Abstract

BackgroundAn inequitable distribution of parks and other ‘green spaces’ could exacerbate health inequalities if people on lower incomes, who are already at greater risk of preventable diseases, have poorer access.MethodsThe availability of green space within 1 kilometre of a Statistical Area 1 (SA1) was linked to data from the 2011 Australian census for Sydney (n = 4.6 M residents); Melbourne (n = 4.2 M); Brisbane (n = 2.2 M); Perth (n = 1.8 M); and Adelaide (n = 1.3 M). Socioeconomic circumstances were measured via the percentage population of each SA1 living on < $21,000 per annum. Negative binomial and logit regression models were used to investigate association between the availability of green space in relation to neighbourhood socioeconomic circumstances, adjusting for city and population density.ResultsGreen space availability was substantively lower in SA1s with a higher percentage of low income residents (e.g. an incidence rate ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.75, 0.89) was observed for SA1s containing ≥20% versus 0-1% low income residents). This association varied between cities (p < 0.001). Adelaide reported the least equitable distribution of green space, with approximately 20% greenery in the most affluent areas versus 12% availability in the least affluent. Although Melbourne had a smaller proportion of SA1s in the top quintile of green space availability (13.8%), the distribution of greenery was the most equitable of all the cities, with only a 0.5% difference in the availability of green space between SA1s containing 0-1% low income households versus those with ≥20%. Inequity of access, however, was reported across all cities when using logit regression to examine the availability of at least 20% (odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.59, 0.93) or 40% (0.45, 0.29, 0.69) green space availability in the more disadvantaged versus affluent neighbourhoods.ConclusionAffirmative action on green space planning is required to redress the socioeconomic inequity of access to this important public health resource.

Who Cares? The Importance of Emotional Connections with Nature to Ensure Food Security and Wellbeing in Cities

“…Increasingly, research is finding that biophilic tendencies are significant contributors to reaching emotional and psychological wellbeing [6,18,29,50]. Interacting with nature can result in a range of human benefits including physical health, mental health, psychological health, psychological wellbeing, life meaning, cognitive ability and social cohesion, and provide spaces for physical and social activities to take place [3,14,18,19,25,28,[50][51][52][53][54].…”

“…Suburbs of higher socio-economic advantage have significantly more overall vegetation cover, more private green cover (but slightly less public green cover), more street trees, higher plant species richness and vegetation abundance than areas of greater disadvantage [6,17,[27][28][29]. Hoffimann et al [30] found that green spaces in lower socio-economic areas raise more safety concerns, have more signs of damage, less equipment and fewer amenities (such as seating, toilets, cafes).…”

Greener neighbourhoods, slimmer children? Evidence from 4423 participants aged 6 to 13 years in the Longitudinal Study of Australian children

“…As it is known that green space access varies by socio-economic status, 28 and that socio-economic status is an important predictor of children's BMI, 20 it is important to properly control for any confounding effects of socio-economic status. This has been a limitation of previous research.…”

How Green are Romania’s Cities? A Quarter - Century of Green Area Policy

“…In between the two directions stands Astell-Burt et al's (2014) study on how lack of green space is linked to social inequalities in Australia's major urban areas. The study argues that inequitable distribution of parks and other 'green spaces' could exacerbate health inequalities if people on lower incomes, who are already at greater risk of preventable diseases, have poorer access [13]. In 2017, Anguluri and fellow researcher Narayanan studied the concepts of per capita urban green cover, green index for smart city planning and urban green infrastructure (UGI) and verified said concepts by using the City of Gulbarga, India, as a case study.…”