Do persons with low socioeconomic status have less access to greenspace? Application of accessibility index to urban parks in Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

Access to urban greenspace has many benefits such as improved health and social cohesion. If access differs by population, these benefits make access to greenspace an environmental justice issue, but little is known regarding accessibility of parks among different sub-groups in Seoul, South Korea. We explored potential socioeconomic inequities for access to parks in Seoul measuring two park provision metrics: total park area per capita (TPPC), and park accessibility index determined by size and proximity of parks. We assessed correlations between a deprivation index for the 25 Gus (administrative unit equivalent to the US borough) and each park provision metric. Regression analyses were applied for the associations between eight socioeconomic indicators of the 424 Dongs (equivalent to the US neighborhood) and each park provision metric. An interquartile range (IQR) increase in percent elderly (⩾65 years) (3.2%) was significantly associated with larger TPPC (1.6 m2/person, 95% CI: 0.8, 2.4). Park accessibility index was associated with more socioeconomic variables than was TPPC. An IQR increase in percent elderly and divorce rates (1.2/1000 population) was associated with increased park accessibility by 3571 km (95% CI: 1103, 6040) and decreased park accessibility by 1387 (95% CI: −2706, −67), respectively. An IQR increase in percentage of the population receiving social low-income support aid (2.2%) was associated with increased park accessibility (reflecting park size and proximity of parks) of residential parks near residential areas by 1568 (95% CI: 15, 3120). Results suggest higher park access for socioeconomically disadvantaged regions. Findings indicate that measures of detailed park access considering spatial proximity and park size may more accurately measure park inequity compared to more basic metrics (e.g. TPPC), which may bias estimation of park inequity by capturing only one characteristic of parks. Detailed park measures should be considered in urban planning and health studies of greenspace.

Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Urban Green Space Pattern Based on GIS Sensors and Remote Sensing Information: Taking Xi’an as an Example

“…With the acceleration of urbanization and urban expansion, the area of urban green space continues to shrink and gradually becomes a scarce resource. However, people's attention to green living standards continues to increase with the growth of economic development level [3]. Urban green space has become the focus of many disciplines [4].…”

The impact of disability-related deprivation on employment opportunity at the neighborhood level: does family socioeconomic status matter?

“…Thirdly, the socioeconomic status of a family determines the level of accessibility to various resources in their residential area ( 46 , 47 ). An accessible environment is one of the essential elements of rehabilitation.…”

Interplay between greenspace interactions and sense of place in Seoul City

“…Furthermore, GT provides distinct GI experiences and usage values (van Dinter et al, 2022), making it crucial to consider the unique characteristics of various greenspaces as influencing factors in the relationship between GI and GSP (Lachowycz and Jones, 2013). The study categorizes urban greenspaces into four types: small-sized greenspaces, neighborhood parks, multipurpose parks, and green corridors, which include residential and special purpose parks within urban parks category (Heo et al, 2021). Consequently, the study introduces GT as a moderating variable to analyze the GI-GSP relationship.…”