It has commonly been suggested that in modern cities individual or household deprivation (for example, low income or education) is amplified by area level deprivation (for example, lack of jobs or good schools), in ways which damage the health of the poorest and increase health inequalities. The aim of this study was to determine the location of a range of resources and exposures by deprivation in a UK city. We examined the location of 42 resources in Glasgow City, Scotland, in 2005–2006, by quintile of small area deprivation. Measures included number per 1000 population, network distance to nearest resource, and percentage of data zones containing at least one of each type of resource. Twelve resources had higher density in, and/or were closer to or more common in, more deprived neighbourhoods: public nurseries, public primary schools, police stations, pharmacies, credit unions, post offices, bus stops, bingo halls, public swimming pools, public sports centres, outdoor play areas, and vacant and derelict land/buildings. Sixteen had higher density in, and/or were closer to, or more common in, more affluent neighbourhoods: public secondary schools, private schools, banks, building societies, museums/art galleries, railway stations, subway stations, tennis courts, bowling greens, private health clubs, private swimming pools, colleges, A & E hospitals, parks, waste disposal sites, and tourist attractions. Private nurseries, Universities, fire stations, general, dental and ophthalmic practices, pawn brokers, ATMs, supermarkets, fast food chains, cafes, public libraries, golf courses, and cinemas showed no clear pattern by deprivation. Thus it appears that in the early 21st century access to resources does not always disadvantage poorer neighbourhoods in the UK. We conclude that we need to ensure that theories and policies are based on up-to-date and context-specific empirical evidence on the distribution of neighbourhood resources, and to engage in further research on interactions between individual and environmental factors in shaping health and health inequalities.

No abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies have provided mixed evidence with regards to associations between food store access and dietary outcomes. This study examines the most commonly applied measures of locational access to assess whether associations between supermarket access and fruit and vegetable consumption are affected by the choice of access measure and scale.MethodSupermarket location data from Glasgow, UK (n = 119), and fruit and vegetable intake data from the ‘Health and Well-Being’ Survey (n = 1041) were used to compare various measures of locational access. These exposure variables included proximity estimates (with different points-of-origin used to vary levels of aggregation) and density measures using three approaches (Euclidean and road network buffers and Kernel density estimation) at distances ranging from 0.4 km to 5 km. Further analysis was conducted to assess the impact of using smaller buffer sizes for individuals who did not own a car. Associations between these multiple access measures and fruit and vegetable consumption were estimated using linear regression models.ResultsLevels of spatial aggregation did not impact on the proximity estimates. Counts of supermarkets within Euclidean buffers were associated with fruit and vegetable consumption at 1 km, 2 km and 3 km, and for our road network buffers at 2 km, 3 km, and 4 km. Kernel density estimates provided the strongest associations and were significant at a distance of 2 km, 3 km, 4 km and 5 km. Presence of a supermarket within 0.4 km of road network distance from where people lived was positively associated with fruit consumption amongst those without a car (coef. 0.657; s.e. 0.247; p0.008).ConclusionsThe associations between locational access to supermarkets and individual-level dietary behaviour are sensitive to the method by which the food environment variable is captured. Care needs to be taken to ensure robust and conceptually appropriate measures of access are used and these should be grounded in a clear a priori reasoning.

Background: Reviews have reported mixed findings for associations between physical activity and proximity to a range of environmental resources. Initially most studies used self reported proximity, but more are now using GIS techniques to measure proximity objectively. We know little about the extent of agreement between self reported and directly measured proximity of the same resource.

No abstract