Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: An 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. METHODS: The availability of green space within 1 kilometre of a Statistical Area 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Astell-Burt, Thomas, Feng, Xiaoqi, Mavoa, Suzanne, Badland, Hannah M, Giles-Corti, Billie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24678610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-292
_version_ 1782314129226203136
author Astell-Burt, Thomas
Feng, Xiaoqi
Mavoa, Suzanne
Badland, Hannah M
Giles-Corti, Billie
author_facet Astell-Burt, Thomas
Feng, Xiaoqi
Mavoa, Suzanne
Badland, Hannah M
Giles-Corti, Billie
author_sort Astell-Burt, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Green 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. CONCLUSION: Affirmative action on green space planning is required to redress the socioeconomic inequity of access to this important public health resource.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4005631
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40056312014-05-01 Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities Astell-Burt, Thomas Feng, Xiaoqi Mavoa, Suzanne Badland, Hannah M Giles-Corti, Billie BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: An 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Green 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. CONCLUSION: Affirmative action on green space planning is required to redress the socioeconomic inequity of access to this important public health resource. BioMed Central 2014-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4005631/ /pubmed/24678610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-292 Text en Copyright © 2014 Astell-Burt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Astell-Burt, Thomas
Feng, Xiaoqi
Mavoa, Suzanne
Badland, Hannah M
Giles-Corti, Billie
Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title_full Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title_fullStr Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title_full_unstemmed Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title_short Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities
title_sort do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? a cross-sectional study of australia’s most populous cities
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24678610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-292
work_keys_str_mv AT astellburtthomas dolowincomeneighbourhoodshavetheleastgreenspaceacrosssectionalstudyofaustraliasmostpopulouscities
AT fengxiaoqi dolowincomeneighbourhoodshavetheleastgreenspaceacrosssectionalstudyofaustraliasmostpopulouscities
AT mavoasuzanne dolowincomeneighbourhoodshavetheleastgreenspaceacrosssectionalstudyofaustraliasmostpopulouscities
AT badlandhannahm dolowincomeneighbourhoodshavetheleastgreenspaceacrosssectionalstudyofaustraliasmostpopulouscities
AT gilescortibillie dolowincomeneighbourhoodshavetheleastgreenspaceacrosssectionalstudyofaustraliasmostpopulouscities