Household mobility, along with the history of park development, can contribute to inequalities in access to green spacePrevious studies have considered the possibility of improved access to green space in low-income urban communities offsetting some of the health-related manifestations of inequality, such as higher levels of obesity, diabetes, mental illnesses, and cardiovascular problems. This study adds to that literature by seeking a better understanding of the extents and causes of green space inequalities.
Melbourne, Australia, was chosen as the area of study. Two research questions framed the investigation: How does access to different types of green space vary for low-income households in Melbourne, Australia? How does low-income household relocation within metropolitan Melbourne affect access to green space over time? Two types of green space were considered: natural and human modified. Natural green spaces – generally developed by nature – include natural and semi-natural areas. Human-modified green spaces – mainly managed and/or developed by local governments – include parks, gardens, and civic squares.
Measures used in addressing the first question considered quantity and potential congestion (population density) dimensions of both natural and human-modified green space. While this measure rated closer green space as having stronger impact than more distant greenspace, it did not ignore the potential impact of all green space in the metropolitan Melbourne area. Areas coded as having less green space service were smaller, more distant, and more congested than other green space areas. The socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods were then linked to the accessibility to different types of green space. Results showed significant differences in green space access for people living in low-income and more affluent neighborhoods, with the distribution of green space favoring the more affluent communities.
The second research question focused on how population mobility or residential relocation might change access to green space over time. Information gathered from 2011 and 2016 census data showed that (1) mobility was greater in areas with poor access to green space than areas with good access to green space, (2) most relocations took place within areas of similar (poor or good) access to green space, and (3) the number of low-income people moving from areas with good access to green space to areas with poorer access to green space was approximately three times higher than the number moving in the other direction. This latter effect is likely due to housing affordability and availability issues. These results indicate that mobility or relocation led to an increase in the number of low-income people living in areas with poor access to green space.
While relocation added to the imbalance of access to green space in Melbourne, “an additional contributing factor may be the history of park development.” Where human-modified green spaces are planned and located can add to or help to rectify inequities related to green space accessibility. Data about green space distribution in Melbourne indicates that human-modified green spaces are often located near natural green space areas which tend to be in or near more affluent communities. This pattern of distribution exacerbates green space inequality.
This study contributes to the literature by extending our understanding of the extent and potential causes of inequity in access to green space in urban environments. The study also calls attention to ways in which policy-making can intervene in this process.
The Bottom Line