- freely available
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(7), 681; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13070681
1.1. Differences in Use and Perceptions of Green Space
1.2. Ethnicity Trends in the UK
1.3. Background to the Study
1.4. Research Questions
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Choice of Sample Locations
- Wards classed among the most deprived 20% in England (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) of 1 or 2) .
- Wards with a minimum of 9% of the population from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups (according to the 2001 Census) .
- Wards with not less than 20% and not more than 45% land use classified as areas of green space (derived from 2005 Generalised Land Use Database (GLUD) .
- Wards with varying quality indicators for green space (e.g., Local Authority (LA) performance in relation to green space) (2005 GLUD) .
2.2. Sampling Strategy
2.3.1. Individual Measures
- Demographic measures: In addition to age, gender, ethnicity, and religion, self-report data were collected on socio-economic indicators that included indicators of income coping, type of housing tenure, educational attainment, current work status, number of children, car access and disability.
- Self-Reported Health Measures:
- General Health: the primary outcome measure in our study, was a single-item scale asking participants to rate their general health, ranked on a 5-category Likert scale from 1 (very good health) to 5 (very poor health). This is a valid and reliable measure of subjective health .
- Physical activity level: measured using one item asking for the number of days on which physical activity (of sufficient exertion to raise breathing rate) reached or exceeded 30 min, recalled over the past 4 weeks, based on 2008 recommendations from the British Heart Foundation National Centre .
2.3.2. Social Environment
- Perceptions of Loneliness: a 3-item loneliness scale  comprising measures of companionship, feeling left out, and isolation, each rated on a 3-category scale from 1 (low level of loneliness etc.) to 3 (high level of loneliness etc.);
- Perceptions of Place belonging: one item scale  rated using a 5-category scale (i.e., from 1 ”strongly disagree” to 5 ”strongly agree” on belonging);
- Perceptions of Neighbourhood Trust: two items on trust , one item measuring general levels of trust in the wider neighbourhood, the other levels of trust in leaving a key with a neighbour, each ranked on a 3-category scale (1 = high levels of trust to 3 = low levels of trust).
2.3.3. Neighbourhood Environment
- Perceptions of the overall neighbourhood: measured using two items, one item on general Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live (ranked on a 5-item scale from high satisfaction (1) to poor (5)); the other item on the likelihood of recommending the area to a friend as a place to live (ranked from ”yes definitely” (1) to ”no, definitely not” (5)), which we have labelled Liveability of the neighbourhood.
2.3.4. Local Green Space
- Perceptions of local green space quality: measured using three items (i.e., safety, attractiveness, satisfaction with urban green space), with quality on all questions ranked on a 5-item Likert scale from high (1) to poor (5).
- Self-reported use of local green space: current usage of nearest neighbourhood green space was measured using self-reported frequency of visits over summer and winter. We also asked about the social dimension of these visits, i.e., ”with whom” visits were made (alone or with friends/family). In addition we asked about how the nearest neighbourhood green space was accessed (i.e., walking, car, public transport) and the availability of a 2nd local urban green space.
2.4. Approach to Statistical Analysis
4.1. Individual Characteristics
4.2. Place Characteristics: Social
4.3. Place Characteristics: Environment
Conflicts of Interest
|AUC||Area under the curve|
|CCR||Correlated component regression|
|BME||Black and minority ethnic group|
Appendix A. Sampling Structure
|Location||Indian||Pakistani||Bangladeshi||African-Caribbean||White British||Other BME||Total|
|North West: Oldham||43||45||88|
|North West: Rochdale||43||44||87|
Appendix B. CCR Regressions Predicting General Health for Each Health Segment
|Model Fit||Cross Validation||Standard Error|
|Predictor Variables in Rank Order||Standard Co-Efficient||Contribution to Model (Pratt %)|
|Access to GS||0.29||1|
|Satisfaction with area||5.18||18|
|Model Fit||Cross Validation||Standard Error|
|Predictor Variables in Rank Order||Standard Co-Efficient||Contribution to Model (Pratt %)|
|Liveability of Area||0.44||10|
|Feeling left out||0.40||9|
|Means to GS||0.34||6|
|Presence of another GS||0.34||6|
|Model Fit||Cross Validation||Standard Error|
|Predictor Variables in Rank Order||Standard Co-Efficient CC1||Contribution to Model (Pratt %)|
|Satisfaction with area||1.12||7|
|Visit GS with someone||−1.24||2|
|GS frequency visits (Winter)||−0.86||7|
- Kuo, F. How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway. Available online: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093 (accessed on 25 August 2015).
- Africa, J.; Logan, A.; Mitchell, R.; Korpela, K.; Allen, D.; Tyrväinen, L.; Nisbet, E.; Li, Q.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Miyazaki, Y.; et al. The Natural Environments Initiative: Illustrative Review and Workshop Statement, Center for Health and the Global Environment. Available online: http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/resources/Paper-NaturalEnvironmentsInitiative_0.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2016).
- Abercrombie, L.C.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saele, B.E.; Chapman, J.E. Income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heynen, N.; Perkins, H.A.; Roy, P. The political ecology of urban green space. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 42, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobster, P.; Westphal, L.M. People and the River: A Look at How Constituent Groups Perceive and Use Chicago Rivers and What Improvements They Would Like to See Made for Recreation and Other Values; Chicago Rivers Technical Report No. 2; USDI National Park Service and Friends of the Chicago River: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998.
- Gordon-Larsen, P.; Nelson, M.C.; Page, P.; Popkin, B.M. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics 2006, 117, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Estabrooks, P.A.; Lee, R.E.; Gyurcsik, N.C. Resources for physical activity participation: Does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Ann. Behav. Med. 2003, 25, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crawford, D.; Temperio, A.; Giles-Corti, B.; Ball, K.; Hume, C.; Roberts, R.; Andrianopoulos, N.; Salmon, J. Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health Place 2007, 14, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McConnachie, M.M.; Shackleton, C.M. Public green space inequality in small towns in South Africa. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Institute of Race Relations. Available online: http://www.www.irr.org.uk (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- Dai, D. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 102, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobster, P.H. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leis. Sci. 2002, 24, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stodolska, M.; Shinew, K.J.; Acevedo, J.C.; Izenstark, D. Perceptions of urban parks as havens and contested terrains by Mexican-Americans in Chicago neighborhoods. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horowitz, D. Europe and America: A comparative analysis of ethnicity. Rev. Eur. Migr. Int. Année 1989, 5, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R.; Hartig, T.; de Vries, S.; Astell-Burt, T.; Frumkin, H. Green cities and health: A question of scale? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2012, 66, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burt, J.; Stewart, D.; Preston, S.; Costley, T. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (2009–2012): Difference in Access to the Natural Environment between Social Groups within the Adult English Population. Available online: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4646400 (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- Comber, A.J.; Brunsdon, C.; Green, E. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CABE. Urban Green Nation: Building the Evidence Base; Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- CABE. Community Green: Using Local Spaces to Tackle Inequality and Improve Health; Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Madge, C. Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 1997, 88, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kloek, M.E.; Buijs, A.E.; Boersema, J.J.; Schouten, M.G.C. Crossing borders: Review of concepts and approaches in research on greenspace, immigration and society in Northwest European Countries. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, N. Black and Minority Ethnic Groups and Public Open Space. Available online: http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/pdf/blackminoritylitrev.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2015).
- Rishbeth, C.; Finney, N. Novelty and nostalgia in urban greenspace: Refugee perspectives. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2006, 97, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rishbeth, C. Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape. J. Urban Des. 2004, 9, 311–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jay, M.; Schraml, U. Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants—Uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jokovi, M. Recreation Turks, Moroccans and Surinamese in Rotterdam and Amsterdam, an exploration of leisure behavior and the effects of the ethnic culture of leisure. Wagening. Alterra Res. Inst. Green Space 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census Data. Available online: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2001-census-data/index.html (accessed on 17 December 2015).
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2013) Which Ethnic Groups Have the Poorest Health? Ethnic Health Inequalities 1991 to 2011, Dynamics of Diversity, Evidence from Census 2011. Available online: http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/which-ethnic-groups-have-the-poorest-health.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2015).
- Bahls, C. Health Policy Brief: Achieving Equity in Health. Available online: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=53 (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- Allen, J.; Balfour, R. Natural Solutions for Tackling Health Inequalities, UCL Institute of Health Equity, October 2014. Available online: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/natural-solutions-to-tackling-health-inequalities (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- NHS (2005) Health Survey for England 2004 The Health of Minority Ethnic Groups, NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, Public Health Statistics. Available online: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB01209/heal-surv-hea-eth-min-hea-tab-eng-2004-rep.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2015).
- Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- English Indices of Deprivation. Available online: http://www.gov.uk (accessed on 17 December 2015).
- Generalised Land Use Database Statistics for England. Available online: http://www.andywightman.com/docs/GLUD_2005.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2015).
- Bombak, A.E. Self-rated health and public health: A critical perspective. Front. Public Health 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milton, K.; Bull, F.C.; Bauman, A. Reliability and validity testing of a single-item physical activity measure. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russell, D.; Peplau Letitia, A.; Cutrona Carolyn, E. The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2009: Sustainable Places and Greenspace. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/07/02134238/0 (accessed on 17 December 2015).
- Ding, C.S. Using regression mixture analysis in educational research practical assessment. Res. Eval. 2006, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Magidson, J.; Vermunt, J.K. An Extension of the CHAID Tree-Based Segmentation Algorithm to Multiple Dependent Variables; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Green, S.B.; Salkind, N.J. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Magidson, J. Correlated component regression: Re-thinking regression in the presence of near collinearity. In New Perspectives in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods; Abdi, H., Ed.; Springer Verl: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Nathans, L.L.; Oswald, F.L.; Nimon, K. Interpreting multiple linear regression: A guidebook of variable importance. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2012, 17, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Koshoedo, S.A.; Paul-Ebhohimhen, V.A.; Jepson, R.J.; Watson, M.C. Understanding the complex interplay of barriers to physical activity amongst black and minority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom: A qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography. BMC Public Health 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gentin, S. Outdoor recreation and ethnicity in Europe—A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, E.; Bentley, R.; Mason, K. The mental health effects of housing tenure: Causal or compositional? Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 426–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawder, R.; Walsh, D.; Kearns, A.; Livingston, M. Healthymixing? Investigating the associations between neighbourhood housing tenure mix and health outcomes for urban residents. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 264–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker-Seeley, R.D.; Harley, A.; Stoddard, A.; Sorensen, G. Financial hardship and self-rated health among low-income housing residents. Health Educ. Behav. 2013, 40, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woodhead, C.; Aschan, L.; Lynskey, M.T.; Polling, C.; Goodwin, L.; Hatch, S.L. Exploring evidence for a prospective relationship between common mental disorder and meeting residential mobility preferences. Health Place 2015, 32, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goodwin, R.; Cramer, D. Marriage and social support in a British Asian Community. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 10, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward Thompson, C.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.A. Woodland improvements in deprived urban communities: What impact do they have on people’s activities and quality of life? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 118, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlsen, S.; Nazroo, J.Y.; Stephenson, R. Ethnicity, environment and health: Putting ethnic inequalities in health in their place. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 55, 1647–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available online: http://www.rwjf.org (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- Napier, A.D.; Ancarno, C.; Butler, B.; Calabrese, J.; Chater, A.; Chatterjee, H.; Guesnet, F.; Horne, R.; Jacyna, S.; Jadhav, S.; et al. Culture and health. Lancet 2014, 384, 1607–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hordyk, S.R.; Hanley, J.; Richard, E. “Nature is there; its’ free”: Urban greenspace and the social determinants of health of immigrant families. Health Place 2015, 34, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
|Characteristics||Total n = 523||White British n = 114||Indian n = 57||African-Caribbean n = 63||Bangladeshi n = 89||Pakistani n = 115||Other BME n = 85||Between Group Statistical Difference|
|Demographics measures||Age (years) n%||≤44||70%||66%||64%||75%||70%||70%||83%||ns|
|Gender (m = male, f = female) n%||M = 40% |
F = 60%
|M = 53% |
F = 47%
|M = 31% |
F = 69%
|M = 44% |
F = 56%
|M = 30% |
F = 70%
|M = 38% |
F = 62%
|M = 38% |
F = 62%
|Income coping a M (SD)||2.66 (1.24)||2.44 (1.19)||2.36 (1.20)||2.68 (1.35)||2.76 (1.25)||3.01 (1.15)||2.60 (1.25)||**|
|Current work status: n% not in work for any reason||51%||50%||34%||40%||68%||51%||40%||**|
|Health measures||General Health b M (SD)||2.10 (0.92)||2.08 (0.93)||1.63 (0.69)||2.22 (0.99)||2.27 (0.86)||2.26 (0.98)||2.23 (0.84)||***|
|Physical Activity M (SD) (days/month)||7.4 (7.4)||8.2 (6.8)||9.0 (7.83)||3.6 (3.9)||7.0 (7.32)||7.8 (8.5)||7.7 (8.08)||***|
|Environmental Indicators||Total n = 523 M (SD)||White British n = 114 M (SD)||Indian n = 57 M (SD)||African-Caribbean n = 63 M (SD)||Bangladeshi n = 89 M (SD)||Pakistani n = 115 M (SD)||Other BME n = 85 M (SD)||Between Group Statistical Difference|
|Social Environment||Loneliness a M (SD)||1.37 (0.49)||1.35 (0.46)||1.26 (0.42)||1.51 (0.53)||1.45 (0.51)||1.32 (0.47)||1.40 (0.53)||***|
|Place belonging a M (SD)||2.04 (0.94)||1.77 (0.82)||1.58 (0.75)||2.18 (1.04)||2.46 (0.87)||2.09 (0.91)||2.25 (1.06)||***|
|Neighbourhood Trust a M (SD)||2.30 (0.88)||2.22 (0.73)||1.86 (0.68)||2.41 (1.19)||2.49 (0.66)||2.40 (0.75)||2.30 (1.08)||***|
|Neighbourhood Environment||Satisfaction with the area a M (SD)||2.02 (0.92)||1.77 (0.07)||1.76 (0.12)||2.38 (0.13)||2.18 (0.09)||1.98 (0.81)||2.26 (0.13)||***|
|Liveability a M (SD)||2.00 (0.99)||1.69 (0.7)||1.75 (0.15)||2.11 (0.13)||2.24 (0.09)||2.21 (0.09)||2.10 (0.13)||***|
|Local Green Space (GS)||GS Satisfaction a M (SD)||2.10 (0.88)||1.82 (0.06)||1.83 (0.09)||2.11 (0.10)||2.61 (0.11)||2.24 (0.96)||1.99 (0.09)||***|
|GS attractiveness a M (SD)||2.06 (0.85)||1.74 (0.64)||1.81 (1.60)||2.11 (0.68)||2.49 (0.99)||2.2 (1.02)||1.99 (0.72)||***|
|GS Safety a M (SD)||2.25 (0.88)||2.13 (0.07)||2.14 (0.09)||2.03 (0.10)||2.55 (0.10)||2.39 (0.87)||2.13 (0.12)||**|
|GS Access: n% walking||72.3%||75.1%||81.5%||75.1%||70.8%||80.5%||85.9%||ns|
|GS Social use: n% visiting with someone||74.8%||81.4%||89.9%||73.02%||71.91%||83.2%||84.1%||*|
|GS availability: n% with access to a 2nd local GS||43.2%||55.58%||55.9%||28.6%||31.5%||39.1%||43.4%||***|
|GS frequency visits (winter) b M (SD)||5.27 (1.63)||4.71 (0.14)||5.12 (0.19)||5.35 (0.20)||6.19 (0.15)||5.42 (0.15)||4.97 (0.20)||***|
|GS frequency visits (summer) b M (SD)||3.83 (1.74)||3.07 (0.12)||3.29 (0.19)||3.62 (0.20)||5.18 (0.19)||4.15 (0.18)||3.68 (0.20)||***|
|Predictors||Group 1 Indian Very Good Health (n = 57) 7 Predictors||Group 2 White British Good Health (n = 114) 11 Predictors||Group 3 Mixed BME Worst Health (n = 352) 9 Predictors (African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Other BME)||Direction of Relationship between Variables Better Health is Associated with:|
|Individual Characteristics||Physical Activity (1)||Physical Activity (1)||Physical activity (1)||Higher physical activity levels per week|
|Age (2)||Age (7)||Age (2)||Younger in age|
|-||Disability (6)||Disability (3)||Not having a disability|
|-||Gender (8)||Being female|
|Work Status (6)||Work Status (11)||Being in work|
|Social Environment||Trust (4)||Trust (8)||-||Greater levels of trust|
|-||Companionship (2)||Greater companionship|
|-||Feeling left out (4)||-||Not feeling left out|
|-||Isolated (5)||-||Being less isolated|
|-||Place Belonging (9)||Place Belonging (10)||Belonging to the neighbourhood|
|Neighbourhood Environment||Liveability (3)||Liveability (3)||-||Higher liveability of neighbourhood|
|Satisfaction with area (7)||-||Satisfaction with area (4)||Higher satisfaction with neighbourhood|
|Local Green Space (GS)||-||-||GS Satisfaction (6)||Higher GS satisfaction|
|-||-||GS Safety (7)||Higher GS safety|
|Access to GS (5)||Access to GS (10)||-||Walking to GS|
|-||-||Visit GS with someone (5)||Visiting GS with someone|
|-||-||GS frequency visits (Winter) (9)||Visiting GS more frequently in winter|
|-||Presence of another GS (11)||-||The presence of another local GS in neighbourhood|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).