Faysal Kabir Shuvo1, Soumya Mazumdar2,3, S M Labib4. 1. Centre for Urban Transitions, Level 1 EW Building Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia. 2. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales Medicine, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. 3. Population Health Intelligence, Population Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. 4. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of Cambridge, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge CB2 0AH, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The existing environment literature separately emphasizes the importance of neighborhood walkability and greenness in enhancing health and wellbeing. Thus, a desirable neighborhood should ideally be green and walkable at the same time. Yet, limited research exists on the prevalence of such "sweet spot" neighborhoods. We sought to investigate this question in the context of a large metropolitan city (i.e., Sydney) in Australia. METHODS: Using suburb level normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI), percentage urban greenspace, Walk Score® (Walk Score, Seattle, WA, USA), and other data, we explored the global and local relationships of neighborhood-level greenness, urban green space (percent park area) with walkability applying both non-spatial and spatial modeling. RESULTS: We found an overall negative relationship between walkability and greenness (measured as NDVI). Most neighborhoods (represented by suburbs) in Sydney are either walkable or green, but not both. Sweet spot neighborhoods that did exist were green but only somewhat walkable. In addition, many neighborhoods were both less green and somewhat walkable. Moreover, we observed a significant positive relationship between percentage park area and walkability. These results indicate walkability and greenness have inverse and, at best, mixed associations in the Sydney metropolitan area. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates an overall negative relationship between greenness and walkability, with significant local variability. With ongoing efforts towards greening Sydney and improving walkability, more neighborhoods may eventually be transformed into becoming greener and more walkable.
BACKGROUND: The existing environment literature separately emphasizes the importance of neighborhood walkability and greenness in enhancing health and wellbeing. Thus, a desirable neighborhood should ideally be green and walkable at the same time. Yet, limited research exists on the prevalence of such "sweet spot" neighborhoods. We sought to investigate this question in the context of a large metropolitan city (i.e., Sydney) in Australia. METHODS: Using suburb level normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI), percentage urban greenspace, Walk Score® (Walk Score, Seattle, WA, USA), and other data, we explored the global and local relationships of neighborhood-level greenness, urban green space (percent park area) with walkability applying both non-spatial and spatial modeling. RESULTS: We found an overall negative relationship between walkability and greenness (measured as NDVI). Most neighborhoods (represented by suburbs) in Sydney are either walkable or green, but not both. Sweet spot neighborhoods that did exist were green but only somewhat walkable. In addition, many neighborhoods were both less green and somewhat walkable. Moreover, we observed a significant positive relationship between percentage park area and walkability. These results indicate walkability and greenness have inverse and, at best, mixed associations in the Sydney metropolitan area. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates an overall negative relationship between greenness and walkability, with significant local variability. With ongoing efforts towards greening Sydney and improving walkability, more neighborhoods may eventually be transformed into becoming greener and more walkable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Australia; NDVI; Walk Score®; geographical information systems; green space; greenness; spatial modeling; sweet spots; walkability
Authors: Ma Shwe Zin Nyunt; Faysal Kabir Shuvo; Jia Yen Eng; Keng Bee Yap; Samuel Scherer; Li Min Hee; Siew Pang Chan; Tze Pin Ng Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Christine T Cowie; Ding Ding; Margaret I Rolfe; Darren J Mayne; Bin Jalaludin; Adrian Bauman; Geoffrey G Morgan Journal: Environ Health Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Paula Hooper; Sarah Foster; Nicole Edwards; Gavin Turrell; Nicola Burton; Billie Giles-Corti; Wendy J Brown Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Noelle S Liao; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Stephen Sidney; Kamala Deosaransingh; Joel Schwartz; Stephen P Uong; Stacey E Alexeeff Journal: Environ Epidemiol Date: 2022-02-18
Authors: Michelle C Kondo; Erica Felker-Kantor; Kimberly Wu; Jeanette Gustat; Christopher N Morrison; Lisa Richardson; Charles C Branas; Katherine P Theall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 3.390