Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Identifying Low- and High-Deprivation Areas
2.2. Participant Recruitment
2.3. Outdoor Walking Levels
2.4. Individual Characteristics
2.5. Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics
2.6. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics and Participants’ Outdoor Walking Levels
3.2. Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics
3.3. Relationships between Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics and Outdoor Walking Levels
3.4. Combination of Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Neighbourhood Green Spaces’ Size
4.2. Neighbourhood Green Spaces’ Proximity, Attractiveness, and Number
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ageUK. Walking Tips and Advice for Older Adults. Available online: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/health-wellbeing/exercise/walking-tips-advice/ (accessed on 19 August 2019).
- Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W. Outdoor environments, activity and the well-being of older people: Conceptualising environmental support. Environ. Plan. A 2007, 39, 1943–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.-M.; Buchner, D.M. The importance of walking to public health. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, S512–S518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kerr, J.; Rosenberg, D.; Frank, L. The role of the built environment in healthy aging: Community design, physical activity, and health among older adults. J. Plan. Lit. 2012, 27, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Health. Start Active, Stay Active: A Report on Physical Activity from the Four Home Countries’ Chief Medical Officers. 2011. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216370/dh_128210.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2016).
- ageUK. Staying Steady: Keep Active and Reduce your Risk of Falling. 2016. Available online: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Information-guides/AgeUKIG14_staying_steady_inf.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB?dtrk=true (accessed on 8 March 2017).
- WHO. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health-Physical Activity and Older Adults. 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_olderadults/en/ (accessed on 19 August 2019).
- Zandieh, R.; Martinez, J.; Flacke, J.; van Maarseveen, M. The associations between area deprivation and objectively measured older adults’ outdoor walking levels. SAGE Open 2017, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, K.R.; Hillsdon, M.; Sharp, D.; Cooper, A.R.; Coulson, J.C.; Davis, M.; Harris, R.; McKenna, J.; Narici, M.; Stathi, A.; et al. Neighborhood deprivation and physical activity in UK older adults. Health Place 2011, 17, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F. Influences of social and built environments on physical activity in middle-aged and older adults. In Physical Activity Across the Lifespan: Prevention and Treatment for Health and Well-Being; Meyer, A.L., Gullotta, T.P., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 65–80. [Google Scholar]
- Moran, M.; van Cauwenberg, J.; Hercky-Linnewiel, R.; Cerin, E.; Deforche, B.; Plaut, P. Understanding the relationships between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-Habitat. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zandieh, R.; Martinez, J.; Flacke, J.; Jones, P.; van Maarseveen, M. Older adults’ outdoor walking: Inequalities in neighbourhood safety, pedestrian infrastructure and aesthetics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zandieh, R.; Flacke, J.; Martinez, J.; Jones, P.; van Maarseveen, M. Do inequalities in neighbourhood walkability drive disparities in older adults’ outdoor walking? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamphuis, C.B.M.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Giskes, K.; Huisman, M.; Brug, J.; Mackenbach, J.P. Socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults: The role of neighbourhood and individual factors. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, T.L.; Edwards, N.; Sveistrup, H.; Andrew, C.; Egan, M. Inequitable walking conditions among older people: Examining the interrelationship of neighbourhood socio-economic status and urban form using a comparative case study. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Sugiyama, T.; Badland, H.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health Place 2015, 33, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Henderson, K.A. Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis. Sci. 2007, 29, 315–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Besenyi, G.M.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Koohsari, M.J.; Oestman, K.B.; Bergstrom, R.; Potwarka, L.R.; Reis, R.S. Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schipperijn, J.; Bentsen, P.; Troelsen, J.; Toftager, M.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedimo-Rung, A.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Cohen, D.A. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Green space is associated with walking and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in middle-to-older-aged adults: Findings from 203 883 Australians in the 45 and Up Study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48, 404–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Donovan, R.J. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54, 1793–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zandieh, R.; Martinez, J.; Flacke, J.; van Maarseveen, M. Inequality in access to local facilities and older adults’ walking behaviour: An environmental justice perspective. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Making Cities Livable Conference on Achieving Green, Healthy Cities, Bristol, UK, 29 June–3 July 2015; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Cerin, E.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J.; Deforche, B.; Veitch, J. Park proximity, quality and recreational physical activity among mid-older aged adults: Moderating effects of individual factors and area of residence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P. Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, e183–e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sugiyama, T.; Francis, J.; Middleton, N.J.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1752–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rigolon, A. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 153, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aspinall, P.A.; Thompson, C.W.; Alves, S.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2010, 37, 1022–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, Y.; Gallacher, J.; Palmer, S.; Fone, D. Neighbourhood green space, physical function and participation in physical activities among elderly men: The Caerphilly Prospective study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Badland, H.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Francis, J.; Hooper, P.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Are public open space attributes associated with walking and depression? Cities 2018, 74, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Cerin, E.; Owen, N.; Oyeyemi, A.L.; Conway, T.L.; van Dyck, D.; Schipperijn, J.; Macfarlane, D.J.; Salvo, D.; Reis, R.S. Perceived neighbourhood environmental attributes associated with adults recreational walking: IPEN Adult study in 12 countries. Health Place 2014, 28, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mowen, A.; Orsega-Smith, E.; Payne, L.; Ainsworth, B.; Godbey, G. The role of park proximity and social support in shaping park visitation, physical activity, and perceived health among older adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2007, 4, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witten, K.; Hiscock, R.; Pearce, J.; Blakely, T. Neighbourhood access to open spaces and the physical activity of residents: A national study. Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grow, H.M.; Saelens, B.E.; Kerr, J.; Durant, N.; Norman, G.J.; Sallis, J.F. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 2071–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michael, Y.L.; Perdue, L.A.; Orwoll, E.S.; Stefanick, M.L.; Marshall, L.M. Physical activity resources and changes in walking in a cohort of older men. American J. Public Health 2010, 100, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toftager, M.; Ekholm, O.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.; Bentsen, P.; Grønbæk, M.; Randrup, T.B.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F. Distance to green space and physical activity: A Danish national representative survey. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Karakiewicz, J.A. Effects of access to public open spaces on walking: Is proximity enough? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 117, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, D.; Timperio, 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 2008, 14, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lotfi, S.; Koohsari, M.J. Proximity to neighborhood public open space across different socio-economic status areas in metropolitan Tehran. Environ. Justice 2011, 4, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; Han, B.; Derose, K.P.; Williamson, S.; Marsh, T.; Rudick, J.; McKenzie, T.L. Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75, 2317–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, D.A.; Lapham, S.; Evenson, K.R.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Ward, P.; Hillier, A.; McKenzie, T.L. Use of neighbourhood parks: Does socio-economic status matter? A four-city study. Public Health 2013, 127, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Paquet, C.; Howard, N.J.; Coffee, N.T.; Taylor, A.W.; Adams, R.J.; Daniel, M. Public open spaces and walking for recreation: Moderation by attributes of pedestrian environments. Prev. Med. 2014, 62, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, H.; Tsourou, C. Healthy Urban Planning: A WHO Guid to Planning for People; Spon: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Chad, K.E.; Reeder, B.A.; Harrison, E.L.; Ashworth, N.L.; Sheppard, S.M.; Schultz, S.L.; Bruner, B.G.; Fisher, K.L.; Lawson, A.J. Profile of physical activity levels in community-dwelling older adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 1774–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, Y.; Oguma, Y.; Inoue, S.; Tanaka, A.; Kobori, Y. Environmental and individual correlates of various types of physical activity among community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly Japanese. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 2028–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birmingham City Council. Census 2011: What does This Mean for Birmingham? 2013. Available online: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/4562/census_2011_corporate_briefingpdf (accessed on 15 April 2017).
- Hillsdon, M.; Lawlor, D.A.; Ebrahim, S.; Morris, J.N. Physical activity in older women: Associations with area deprivation and with socioeconomic position over the life course: Observations in the British Women’s Heart and Health Study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McLennan, D.; Barnes, H.; Noble, M.; Davies, J.; Garratt, E.; Dibben, C. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6320/1870718.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2016).
- The London School of Economics and Political Science. UK regions map Showing Y + H. 2019. Available online: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/investing-in-a-just-transition-in-the-uk/uk-regions-map-showing-yh/ (accessed on 8 November 2019).
- Newsom, J.T.; Kaplan, M.S.; Huguet, N.; McFarland, B.H. Health behaviors in a representative sample of older Canadians: Prevalences, reported change, motivation to change, and perceived barriers. Gerontologist 2004, 44, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.A.; Thompson, C.W. Understanding relationships between health, ethnicity, place and the role of urban green space in deprived urban communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birmingham City Council. Open Spaces. 2012. Available online: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/wardopenspace?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=live (accessed on 25 June 2016).
- Panter, J.R.; Jones, A.P. Associations between physical activity, perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and access to facilities in an English city. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 67, 1917–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Transport. Rules for Pedestrians (1 to 35). 2016. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 (accessed on 26 February 2017).
- Birmingham City Council. Your Local Park. 2017. Available online: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/localpark (accessed on 25 June 2016).
- Birmingham City Council. Parks and Nature Conservation. 2017. Available online: http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/parks (accessed on 1 June 2016).
- Birmingam City Council. Parks, playgrounds and Open Spaces in Birmingham. 2016. Available online: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/directory/9/parks_playgrounds_and_open_spaces_in_birmingham (accessed on 1 June 2016).
- Ordnance Survey. OS MasterMap Topography Layer: User Guide and Technical Specification; Ordnance Survey: Southampton, UK, 2009.
- Apparicio, P.; Abdelmajid, M.; Riva, M.; Shearmur, R. Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2008, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witten, K.; Exeter, D.; Field, A. The quality of urban environments: Mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban Stud. 2003, 40, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Saelens, B.E. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, S.; Aspinall, P.A.; Ward Thompson, C.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Preferences of older people for environmental attributes of local parks: The use of choice-based conjoint analysis. Facilities 2008, 26, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, A.; Anthopoulou, A. Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands–Does age make a difference? Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, B.; Kong, P. Walking with Older Adults, in Ageing and the Built Environment in Singapore; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 127–148. [Google Scholar]
- Hillsdon, M.; Panter, J.; Foster, C.; Jones, A. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health 2006, 120, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Derose, K.P.; Martinez, H.; Setodji, C.; McKenzie, T.L. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sugiyama, T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Summers, J.; du Toit, L.; Leslie, E.; Owen, N. Initiating and maintaining recreational walking: A longitudinal study on the influence of neighborhood green space. Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mavoa, S.; Koohsari, M.J.; Badland, H.M.; Davern, M.; Feng, X.; Astell-Burt, T.; Giles-Corti, B. Area-level disparities of public open space: A geographic information systems analysis in metropolitan Melbourne. Urban Policy Res. 2015, 33, 306–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haaland, C.; van den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, O.; Lennon, M.; Scott, M. Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities 2017, 66, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, M.; Lennon, M.; Haase, D.; Kazmierczak, A.; Clabby, G.; Beatley, T. Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/Re-naturing the city/Reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature-based solutions in cities/Multifunctional green infrastructure and climate change adaptation: Brownfield greening as an adaptation strategy for vulnerable communities?/Delivering green infrastructure through planning: Insights from practice in Fingal, Ireland/Planning for biophilic cities: From theory to practice. Plan. Theory Pract. 2016, 17, 267–300. [Google Scholar]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Karakiewicz, J.A.; Kaczynski, A.T. Public open space and walking: The role of proximity, perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environment, and street configuration. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45, 706–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Randrup, T.B.; Troelsen, J. Influences on the use of urban green space—A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael, Y.L.; Green, M.K.; Farquhar, S.A. Neighborhood design and active aging. Health Place 2006, 12, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, L.; Moudon, A.V. Objective versus subjective measures of the built environment, which are most effective in capturing associations with walking? Health Place 2010, 16, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacobs, J. Chapter 5: The use of neighborhood parks. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Vintage Books: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Talen, E. The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geogr. 1997, 18, 521–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, K.B.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Wilhelm Stanis, S.A.; Bergstrom, R.; Besenyi, G.M.; Heinrich, K.M. Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: An environmental justice investigation. Ann. Behav. Med. 2013, 45, S28–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoffimann, E.; Barros, H.; Ribeiro, A. Socioeconomic inequalities in green space quality and accessibility—Evidence from a Southern European city. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Characteristic | Definition |
---|---|
Proximity | The closest geographic distance between people’s homes and a neighbourhood green space, regardless of the green space’s size or attractiveness [31]. |
Attractiveness | The internal characteristic of the green space that includes various features related to environmental quality (e.g., presence of a water feature and biodiversity), amenity (e.g., presence of toilet [32] and presence of walking paths), and safety (e.g., lighting and quietness) [17,24]. This characteristic is also known as quality of green space [31]. |
Size | The area (e.g., hectare) of a neighbourhood green space [31]. |
Number | The total number of available green spaces within a neighbourhood [31]. |
ND Green Spaces Characteristic | Data | Data Definition | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Proximity | Pedestrian route network a | A U.K. route network that includes drivable roads and urban paths suitable for non-vehicular users (i.e., all man-made footpaths, subways, steps, foot bridges, and cycle paths) [14]. It does not include forbidden routes for pedestrians (motorways and slip roads) in the United Kingdom [58]. | A previous study on the United Kingdom [14] |
Attractiveness | Parks and nature conservation | A list of green spaces of Birmingham and information on amenities and facilities provided in these green spaces. | Birmingham City Council [59,60,61] |
Size and number | Open spaces a | Map of private and public green spaces of each ward of Birmingham (in pdf format). | Birmingham City Council [56] |
Topography layer of OSMM 2016a: The land theme a | The man-made and natural features that delineate and describe the surface cover (except routes of communication and buildings). It includes parks; playing fields; football pitches; golf courses; slopes and cliffs; car parks; gardens; woodlands; and other areas of vegetation, including scrub, heath, rough grass, and marshland [62]. | Digimap/EDINA |
Participants’ Characteristics | Low-Deprivation Areas | High-Deprivation Areas | Total Sample |
---|---|---|---|
Number of participants | 93 | 80 | 173 |
Average age of participants (M (SD)) | 74.8 (5.82) | 73.5 (5.95) | 74.2 (5.90) |
Age (%) | |||
75 years old and over | 53 | 43 | 48 |
65–74 years old | 47 | 57 | 52 |
Gender (%) | |||
Men | 30 | 59 | 43 |
Women | 70 | 41 | 57 |
Marital status (%): | |||
In relationship | 53 | 53 | 53 |
Single | 47 | 47 | 47 |
Ethnicity (%): | |||
White British | 97 | 41 | 71 |
BME groups | 3 | 59 | 29 |
Educational attainment (%): | |||
GCSE and higher | 80 | 24 | 54 |
Sub-GCSE | 10 | 64 | 35 |
Health status (%): | |||
Good | 93 | 92 | 92 |
Poor | 6 | 8 | 7 |
M | SD | t | Cohen’s d | Effect Size r | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low-deprivation areas | 17.05 | 14.51 | t(171) = 1.98 * | 0.30 | 0.15 |
High-deprivation areas | 12.60 | 14.97 |
Type of Neighbourhood Green Space | Low-dep. | High-dep. | Total |
---|---|---|---|
The closest (N) a | 21 | 17 | 38 |
The most attractive (N) a | 2 | 7 | 9 |
The largest (N) a | 2 | 8 | 10 |
Number of neighbourhood green spaces (N) | 38 | 85 | 123 |
Type of Neighborhood Green Space/Characteristic | M | SD | t | Cohen’s d | Effect Size r | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low. | High. | Low. | High. | ||||
Closest/ | |||||||
Proximity (m) | 602.77 | 375.84 | 345.04 | 263.99 | t (171) = 4.80 *** | 0.74 | 0.35 |
Attractiveness | 2.85 | 0.91 | 2.48 | 1.18 | t (136) = 6.71 *** | 1.00 | 0.45 |
Size (ha) | 307.43 | 12.86 | 406.31 | 9.49 | t (92) = 6.99 *** | 1.03 | 0.46 |
M. attractive/ | |||||||
Proximity (m) | 1117.38 | 1366.47 | 673.22 | 851.15 | t (150) = −2.11 * | −0.33 | −0.16 |
Attractiveness | 5.16 | 1.95 | 1.35 | 0.84 | t (156) = 19.01 *** | 2.86 | 0.82 |
Size (ha) | 658.46 | 21.21 | 353.40 | 10.57 | t (92) = 17.38 *** | 2.55 | 0.77 |
Largest/ | |||||||
Proximity (m) | 1117.38 | 1704.66 | 673.23 | 747.32 | t (171) = −5.44 *** | −0.83 | −0.38 |
Attractiveness | 5.16 | 1.14 | 1.35 | 1.05 | t (169) = 21.97 *** | 3.32 | 0.86 |
Size (ha) | 658.46 | 31.54 | 353.40 | 9.42 | t (92) = 17.10 *** | 2.51 | 0.78 |
Type of Neighborhood Green Space/Characteristic | Outdoor Walking a | Interaction | Low-dep. Areas b | High-dep. Areas c |
---|---|---|---|---|
B (SE) | B (SE) | B (SE) | B (SE) | |
Closest/ | ||||
Proximity (m) | 0.06 (0.10) | −0.70 (0.04) | - | - |
Attractiveness | 0.17 (0.12) | −0.36 (0.22) | - | - |
Size (ha) | 0.09 (0.04) * | −0.09 (0.08) | - | - |
M. attractive/ | ||||
Proximity (m) | −0.11 (0.11) | −0.06 (0.03) | - | - |
Attractiveness | 0.29 (0.22) | −0.44 (0.21) * | 0.72 (0.43) | −0.71 (0.47) |
Size (ha) | 0.11 (0.05) * | −0.09 (0.08) | - | - |
Largest/ | ||||
Proximity (m) | −0.13 (0.12) | −0.05 (0.03) | - | - |
Attractiveness | 0.15 (0.14) | −0.50 (0.21) * | 0.72 (0.43) | −0.40 (0.27) |
Size (ha) | 0.17 (0.07) ** | 0.04 (0.10) | - | - |
Number of neighbourhood green spaces | −0.13 (0.21) | −0.22 (0.11) * | 0.12 (0.32) | 0.42 (0.55) |
Type of Neighborhood Green Space/Characteristic | Spatial Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Space Characteristics | Relationship with Outdoor Walking Levels |
---|---|---|
Closest/ | ||
Proximity (m) | Low-dep. > High-dep. | No |
Attractiveness | Low-dep. > High-dep. | No |
Size (ha) | Low-dep. > High-dep. | Yes |
M. attractive/ | ||
Proximity (m) | Low-dep. < High-dep. | No |
Attractiveness | Low-dep. > High-dep. | No |
Size (ha) | Low-dep. > High-dep. | Yes |
Largest/ | ||
Proximity (m) | Low-dep. < High-dep. | No |
Attractiveness | Low-dep. > High-dep. | No |
Size (ha) | Low-dep. > High-dep. | Yes |
Number of neighbourhood green spaces | Low-dep. < High-dep. | No |
© 2019 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/).
Share and Cite
Zandieh, R.; Martinez, J.; Flacke, J. Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224379
Zandieh R, Martinez J, Flacke J. Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(22):4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224379
Chicago/Turabian StyleZandieh, Razieh, Javier Martinez, and Johannes Flacke. 2019. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 22: 4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224379