Socioeconomic Inequalities in Green Space Quality and Accessibility—Evidence from a Southern European City

Abstract

Background: The provision of green spaces is an important health promotion strategy to encourage physical activity and to improve population health. Green space provision has to be based on the principle of equity. This study investigated the presence of socioeconomic inequalities in geographic accessibility and quality of green spaces across Porto neighbourhoods (Portugal). Methods: Accessibility was evaluated using a Geographic Information System and all the green spaces were audited using the Public Open Space Tool. Kendall’s tau-b correlation coefficients and ordinal regression were used to test whether socioeconomic differences in green space quality and accessibility were statistically significant. Results: Although the majority of the neighbourhoods had an accessible green space, mean distance to green space increased with neighbourhood deprivation. Additionally, green spaces in the more deprived neighbourhoods presented significantly more safety concerns, signs of damage, lack of equipment to engage in active leisure activities, and had significantly less amenities such as seating, toilets, cafés, etc. Conclusions: Residents from low socioeconomic positions seem to suffer from a double jeopardy; they lack both individual and community resources. Our results have important planning implications and might contribute to understanding why deprived communities have lower physical activity levels and poorer health.

Variation in the physical activity environment according to area‐level socio‐economic position—A systematic review

“…There were 29 included papers from the United States ; seven from Australia; six from England; five from Scotland; three from Germany; two from each New Zealand, Spain, and Canada; and one each from France, Portugal, and Denmark (Figure ).…”

“…Four additional studies not only took a similar approach but also included a buffer zone around the geographical area . Other studies employed a kernel density approach, or a buffer zone around either a population weighted centroid, a geographical centroid, a participant's home, or a random point within a geographical area . Three studies used a combination of approaches …”

“…Both New Zealand papers used the New Zealand Index of Deprivation, while papers published in Scotland used the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, or Carstairs Deprivation Score, and English papers used the Index of Multiple Deprivation . Other European studies used the European Deprivation Index, the proportion of population receiving social welfare, aggregate levels of education or income level, or aggregate indices created from multiple SEP variables . The greatest variation in the measure of SEP was among US papers; however, all used measures taken from census data or the American Community Survey, with median household income within an area, poverty rate, and education level being the most commonly used measures.…”

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

“…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). It is unclear from the literature whether the green cover recorded in these studies includes urban agriculture or food production; however, given the definition of nature and the methodologies used (usually aerial surveys) it can be assumed that it is.…”

Mapping the distributive environmental justice of urban waters

“…These differences are essential prerequisites for urban environmental justice, particularly to the accessibility and usability of blue environments in the area (cf. Kuhlicke et al 2012;Kabisch & Haase 2014;Hoffimann et al 2017). We list here our three key findings and conclusions related to these results and illuminate questions on how this continuum can be altered, specifically with regard improving spatial planning of blue spaces from the perspective of distributive justice and the opportunities and means to pay more attention to the socio-cultural and demographic aspects relevant in promoting well-being and welfare through interaction with nature in urban areas.…”