- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Omer Ali, Francesco Di Nardo, Annie Harrison, Arpana Verma, The link between perceived characteristics of neighbourhood green spaces and adults’ physical activity in UK cities: analysis of the EURO-URHIS 2 Study, European Journal of Public Health, Volume 27, Issue 4, August 2017, Pages 761–765, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx033
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
Urban dwellers represent half the world’s population and are increasing worldwide. Their health and behaviours are affected by the built environment and green areas may play a major role in promoting physical activity, thus decreasing the burden of chronic diseases, overweight and inactivity. However, the availability of green areas may not guarantee healthy levels of physical activity among the urban dwellers. It is therefore necessary to study how the perceived characteristics of green areas affect physical activity.
Data from the EURO-URHIS 2 survey of residents of 13 cities across the UK were analyzed and a multivariable model was created in order to assess the association between their perceptions of the green areas in their neighbourhood and their engagement in physical activity. Results were adjusted for age, gender and other potential confounders.
Those who felt unable to engage in active recreational activities in their local green spaces were significantly less likely to carry out moderate physical exercise for at least 60 min per week (adjusted OR: 0.50; 95% 0.37–0.68). Availability of green areas within walking distance did not affect engagement in physical activity. Other characteristics such as accessibility and safety may play an important role.
This study showed that the presence of green space may not itself encourage the necessary preventative health behaviours to tackle physical inactivity in urban populations. Development of more appropriate green spaces may be required. Further research is needed to shed light on the types green spaces that are most effective.
Introduction
In 2007, for the first time in history the numbers of urban dwellers exceeded the number of rural dwellers. According to the United Nations, by July 2014, 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas.1 This is expected to increase by more than 1.4% each year until 20302 adding an estimated 2.5 billion people to urban areas. Thus, cities will make up roughly 66% of the population.3 As well as creating wealth and prosperity, factors associated with urban dwelling can cause disease in their inhabitants, necessitating the study of the effects of urban habitation on population health.4
Health is affected by the built environment of cities, such as transport systems, land use, neighbourhood and building design and green spaces in particular.5 Parks were originally intended to act as ‘lungs’ for cities to allow people to escape from pollution and facilitate access to recreational facilities.6 As motor vehicle use has increased over the last century, the increased use of passive transport such as cars and buses now results in less energy expenditure during travel, with the functions of cities’ green spaces changing to focus on their potential for physical activity.7 In order to ensure efficient use of scarce land in cities, much research has been conducted in to the health benefits of green space. However, further high quality studies are needed to corroborate the findings in the literature.8–11
Concurrent to the rise of cities has been an exponential rise in obesity. Between 1980 and 2013, obesity levels rose from 28.8% to 36.9% in men and by a similar amount in women, with urban populations bearing the brunt of the epidemic.12 Obesity has been linked to an increase in chronic conditions such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease, with the cost of treatment resulting in an increasing burden on health services13 as well as indirect costs such as time off work and reduced productivity.
Alongside a rise in obesity is a decline in physical activity, with only 40% of the current general population meeting the recommended guidelines of 2.5 h of exercise a week when asked on self-reported surveys.8 Measured objectively using accelerometers, the percentage meeting the guideline amount is far lower.14 Physical inactivity is an independent risk factor of diseases such as diabetes, cancer and mental health disorders.8
A systematic review conducted as a precursor to this study15 found a lack of consensus regarding the effect on obesity (as measured by BMI) of the distance from a person’s house to green space. This indicates that an alternative method for measuring the effect of green spaces on physical health should be considered. Therefore, this study focuses on the perceived appropriateness of green spaces for engaging in active recreational activity rather than distance from green space, and on levels of physical activity as opposed to BMI.
An analysis of urban areas (UAs) across the UK was performed, using data from a cross-sectional survey carried out as part of the Europe-wide European Urban Health Indicator System Part 2 (EURO-URHIS 2) study. The aim was to study the association between attitudes to green spaces and engagement in physical activity.
Methods
The EURO-URHIS 2 project collected data on health and health determinants from 47 urban areas across Europe, via postal surveys of adults aged 19 and older, school-based health surveys of school students aged 15 years, and routinely available data. Details of the data collection methodology are described elsewhere.16–18 UK data were selected for this analysis for comparison between UK urban areas.
Respondents who reported engaging in moderate physical exercise for at least 30 min at least twice a week were put in the active category. All other respondents were put in the inactive category. Sixty minutes per week was chosen as the primary outcome measure.
Respondent’s opinions on the green spaces in their neighbourhood were elicited by asking them to agree or disagree with the following statements:
The green areas in my neighbourhood are accessible.
The green areas in my neighbourhood are well kept.
The green areas in my neighbourhood are safe.
I am able to relax in the green areas in my neighbourhood.
I can engage in active recreational activities in the green areas in my neighbourhood (walking, walking the dog, sports, games, etc.).
The green areas in my neighbourhood are within walking distance.
There are sufficient green areas in my neighbourhood.
Other variables that might influence physical activity levels were tested for association with physical activity. These were: age, gender, weight, education level, ethnicity, income and having a sedentary job.
Univariate analysis determined which variables were selected to be entered into the multivariable logistic regression model. The multivariable logistic regression model investigated the association between respondents opinion of green spaces in their neighbourhood and levels of physical activity above 60 min. Potential confounders were accounted for in the final model to calculate adjusted odds ratios if they were significantly associated with physical activity. Thirteen areas across the UK were analyzed in this study, five of the 10 urban areas (UAs) of Greater Manchester: Bury, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and Salford, the five Merseyside UAs: Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral, and Birmingham, Cardiff and Glasgow. UAs in Greater Manchester and Merseyside were reported together. Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 22.0 software for Windows. Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.
Results
In total, 20 765 subjects were surveyed in Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.
Overall response rate was 37.4% (n = 7768). After removing records with inconsistent, missing and corrupted data, 5034 valid records (24.2% of the surveyed population, 64.8% of the respondents) remained and were thus analyzed. The number of respondents and the proportions of valid data for each urban area and demographic group following data cleaning are shown in table 1.
Urban area . | Demographics . | Included in the analysis n (%)a . | University educated male and female n (%) . | BMI score of over 25 . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Birmingham | Male 19–65 | 64 (16) | 65 (43.3) | 82 (54.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 28 (7) | 9 (17.6) | 40 (78%) | |
Female 65+ | 23 (5.8) | |||
Cardiff | Male 19–65 | 66 (16.5) | 77 (49.4) | 95 (60.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 90 (22.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 97 (24.3) | 54 (32.1) | 114 (67.9%) | |
Female 65+ | 71 (17.8) | |||
Glasgow | Male 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | 78 (44.1) | 106 (59.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 91 (22.8) | |||
Male 65+ | 25 (6.3) | 5 (13.5) | 26 (70.3%) | |
Female 65+ | 12 (3) | |||
Greater Manchester | Male 19–65 | 617 (30.9) | 570 (38.9) | 891 (60.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 850 (42.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 814 (40.7) | 247 (18.1) | 892 (65.4%) | |
Female 65+ | 549 (27.5) | |||
Merseyside | Male 19–65 | 387 (19.4) | 277 (31.8) | 558 (64.1%) |
Female 19–65 | 484 (24.2) | |||
Male 65+ | 373 (18.7) | 98 (16.5) | 421 (70.1%) | |
Female 65+ | 221 (11.1) |
Urban area . | Demographics . | Included in the analysis n (%)a . | University educated male and female n (%) . | BMI score of over 25 . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Birmingham | Male 19–65 | 64 (16) | 65 (43.3) | 82 (54.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 28 (7) | 9 (17.6) | 40 (78%) | |
Female 65+ | 23 (5.8) | |||
Cardiff | Male 19–65 | 66 (16.5) | 77 (49.4) | 95 (60.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 90 (22.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 97 (24.3) | 54 (32.1) | 114 (67.9%) | |
Female 65+ | 71 (17.8) | |||
Glasgow | Male 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | 78 (44.1) | 106 (59.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 91 (22.8) | |||
Male 65+ | 25 (6.3) | 5 (13.5) | 26 (70.3%) | |
Female 65+ | 12 (3) | |||
Greater Manchester | Male 19–65 | 617 (30.9) | 570 (38.9) | 891 (60.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 850 (42.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 814 (40.7) | 247 (18.1) | 892 (65.4%) | |
Female 65+ | 549 (27.5) | |||
Merseyside | Male 19–65 | 387 (19.4) | 277 (31.8) | 558 (64.1%) |
Female 19–65 | 484 (24.2) | |||
Male 65+ | 373 (18.7) | 98 (16.5) | 421 (70.1%) | |
Female 65+ | 221 (11.1) |
Percentages refer to the proportion of valid records over the surveyed population within each demographic group
Urban area . | Demographics . | Included in the analysis n (%)a . | University educated male and female n (%) . | BMI score of over 25 . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Birmingham | Male 19–65 | 64 (16) | 65 (43.3) | 82 (54.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 28 (7) | 9 (17.6) | 40 (78%) | |
Female 65+ | 23 (5.8) | |||
Cardiff | Male 19–65 | 66 (16.5) | 77 (49.4) | 95 (60.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 90 (22.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 97 (24.3) | 54 (32.1) | 114 (67.9%) | |
Female 65+ | 71 (17.8) | |||
Glasgow | Male 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | 78 (44.1) | 106 (59.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 91 (22.8) | |||
Male 65+ | 25 (6.3) | 5 (13.5) | 26 (70.3%) | |
Female 65+ | 12 (3) | |||
Greater Manchester | Male 19–65 | 617 (30.9) | 570 (38.9) | 891 (60.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 850 (42.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 814 (40.7) | 247 (18.1) | 892 (65.4%) | |
Female 65+ | 549 (27.5) | |||
Merseyside | Male 19–65 | 387 (19.4) | 277 (31.8) | 558 (64.1%) |
Female 19–65 | 484 (24.2) | |||
Male 65+ | 373 (18.7) | 98 (16.5) | 421 (70.1%) | |
Female 65+ | 221 (11.1) |
Urban area . | Demographics . | Included in the analysis n (%)a . | University educated male and female n (%) . | BMI score of over 25 . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Birmingham | Male 19–65 | 64 (16) | 65 (43.3) | 82 (54.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 28 (7) | 9 (17.6) | 40 (78%) | |
Female 65+ | 23 (5.8) | |||
Cardiff | Male 19–65 | 66 (16.5) | 77 (49.4) | 95 (60.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 90 (22.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 97 (24.3) | 54 (32.1) | 114 (67.9%) | |
Female 65+ | 71 (17.8) | |||
Glasgow | Male 19–65 | 86 (21.5) | 78 (44.1) | 106 (59.9%) |
Female 19–65 | 91 (22.8) | |||
Male 65+ | 25 (6.3) | 5 (13.5) | 26 (70.3%) | |
Female 65+ | 12 (3) | |||
Greater Manchester | Male 19–65 | 617 (30.9) | 570 (38.9) | 891 (60.7%) |
Female 19–65 | 850 (42.5) | |||
Male 65+ | 814 (40.7) | 247 (18.1) | 892 (65.4%) | |
Female 65+ | 549 (27.5) | |||
Merseyside | Male 19–65 | 387 (19.4) | 277 (31.8) | 558 (64.1%) |
Female 19–65 | 484 (24.2) | |||
Male 65+ | 373 (18.7) | 98 (16.5) | 421 (70.1%) | |
Female 65+ | 221 (11.1) |
Percentages refer to the proportion of valid records over the surveyed population within each demographic group
Gender, age, BMI and sedentary lifestyle were significantly associated with physical activity levels at the univariate analysis and they all entered the multivariate model.
The multivariate model showed that gender did have an effect on the amount of exercise carried out. Overall, only 21.5% of women engaged in at least 60 min of moderate physical exercise compared with 24.8% among men (adjusted OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.76–0.98). Older adults were more likely to exercise for 60 or more min a week than younger adults (adjusted OR: 1.38, 95% CI 1.20–1.58). Only 21.9% of the adults below the age of 65 engaged in at least 60 min of moderate physical exercise, compared with 24.3% the over 65 s. People who had more active jobs had substantially higher odds of being involved in physical activity for 60 min or more (adjusted OR: 1.54, 95%CI 1.34–1.77). The perceptions of upkeep of green spaces, ability to relax in green spaces and sufficient green areas in neighbourhoods were not significantly associated to physical activity and were not entered into the multivariable model.
Respondents who did not have the ability to engage in recreational activities, perceived no accessible green space, perceived unsafe green space and perceived no green space within walking distance reported lower levels of physical activity at the univariate analysis. In the multivariate model, after adjusting for gender age, BMI and sedentary lifestyle, only lack of ability to engage in recreational activities in green spaces was associated with >60 min of exercise (adjusted OR: 0.50, 95%CI 0.37–0.68, see table 2). Overall, 26.1% of those who reported being able to engage in recreational activities in green spaces were actually engaging in at least 60 min of physical activity per week, compared with 14.2% among those who did not.
Variable . | Univariate . | Final model . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) . | P values . | Adj OR (95% CI) . | P values . | |
Gender | ||||
Male (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Female | 0.83 (0.73–0.95) | 0.005 | 0.87 (0.76–0.98) | 0.048 |
Age | ||||
<65 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>65 | 1.38 (1.22–1.57) | <0.001 | 1.38 (1.20–1.58) | <0.001 |
BMI | ||||
<25 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>25 | 0.77 (0.68–0.88) | 0.001 | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) | <0.001 |
Sedentary job | ||||
Light/very light work (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Medium to heavy work | 1.51 (1.32–1.73) | <0.001 | 1.54 (1.34–1.77) | <0.001 |
Able to engage in recreational activities in green space | ||||
Yes (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
No | 0.44 (0.34–0.57) | <0.001 | 0.50 (0.37–0.68) | <0.001 |
Accessible green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.62 (0.42–0.92) | 0.017 | 1.20 (0.77–1.88) | 0.427 |
Safe green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.69 (0.58–0.82) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.72–1.06) | 0.179 |
Green space within walking distance | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.63 (0.45–0.88) | 0.006 | 0.78 (0.55–1.10) | 0.154 |
Variable . | Univariate . | Final model . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) . | P values . | Adj OR (95% CI) . | P values . | |
Gender | ||||
Male (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Female | 0.83 (0.73–0.95) | 0.005 | 0.87 (0.76–0.98) | 0.048 |
Age | ||||
<65 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>65 | 1.38 (1.22–1.57) | <0.001 | 1.38 (1.20–1.58) | <0.001 |
BMI | ||||
<25 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>25 | 0.77 (0.68–0.88) | 0.001 | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) | <0.001 |
Sedentary job | ||||
Light/very light work (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Medium to heavy work | 1.51 (1.32–1.73) | <0.001 | 1.54 (1.34–1.77) | <0.001 |
Able to engage in recreational activities in green space | ||||
Yes (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
No | 0.44 (0.34–0.57) | <0.001 | 0.50 (0.37–0.68) | <0.001 |
Accessible green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.62 (0.42–0.92) | 0.017 | 1.20 (0.77–1.88) | 0.427 |
Safe green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.69 (0.58–0.82) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.72–1.06) | 0.179 |
Green space within walking distance | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.63 (0.45–0.88) | 0.006 | 0.78 (0.55–1.10) | 0.154 |
Variable . | Univariate . | Final model . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) . | P values . | Adj OR (95% CI) . | P values . | |
Gender | ||||
Male (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Female | 0.83 (0.73–0.95) | 0.005 | 0.87 (0.76–0.98) | 0.048 |
Age | ||||
<65 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>65 | 1.38 (1.22–1.57) | <0.001 | 1.38 (1.20–1.58) | <0.001 |
BMI | ||||
<25 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>25 | 0.77 (0.68–0.88) | 0.001 | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) | <0.001 |
Sedentary job | ||||
Light/very light work (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Medium to heavy work | 1.51 (1.32–1.73) | <0.001 | 1.54 (1.34–1.77) | <0.001 |
Able to engage in recreational activities in green space | ||||
Yes (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
No | 0.44 (0.34–0.57) | <0.001 | 0.50 (0.37–0.68) | <0.001 |
Accessible green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.62 (0.42–0.92) | 0.017 | 1.20 (0.77–1.88) | 0.427 |
Safe green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.69 (0.58–0.82) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.72–1.06) | 0.179 |
Green space within walking distance | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.63 (0.45–0.88) | 0.006 | 0.78 (0.55–1.10) | 0.154 |
Variable . | Univariate . | Final model . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) . | P values . | Adj OR (95% CI) . | P values . | |
Gender | ||||
Male (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Female | 0.83 (0.73–0.95) | 0.005 | 0.87 (0.76–0.98) | 0.048 |
Age | ||||
<65 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>65 | 1.38 (1.22–1.57) | <0.001 | 1.38 (1.20–1.58) | <0.001 |
BMI | ||||
<25 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
>25 | 0.77 (0.68–0.88) | 0.001 | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) | <0.001 |
Sedentary job | ||||
Light/very light work (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Medium to heavy work | 1.51 (1.32–1.73) | <0.001 | 1.54 (1.34–1.77) | <0.001 |
Able to engage in recreational activities in green space | ||||
Yes (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
No | 0.44 (0.34–0.57) | <0.001 | 0.50 (0.37–0.68) | <0.001 |
Accessible green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.62 (0.42–0.92) | 0.017 | 1.20 (0.77–1.88) | 0.427 |
Safe green space | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.69 (0.58–0.82) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.72–1.06) | 0.179 |
Green space within walking distance | ||||
Agree (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Disagree | 0.63 (0.45–0.88) | 0.006 | 0.78 (0.55–1.10) | 0.154 |
Discussion
This study adds to the evidence that the perception of being able to engage in active recreational activities in green areas has an effect on the levels of physical exercise.8–11 People who reported they were able to engage in activities in green spaces are more likely to carry out 60 min of activity.
Research suggests that people who live near green spaces are more likely to be overweight than those who live further away.19 It would be expected that living near a green space would encourage people to exercise more. However, there may be other factors that are more important in the use of green space than distance from it.19 Our study confirms this, as it shows no association between green areas being at walking distance and physical activity levels. There could be a number of reasons for this finding including the fact that green spaces in the UK may not all be suitable for exercise, for example, agricultural land20 may not be suitable for exercise, while other spaces may be too small, unattractive or there may be fears for safety, particularly during the winter when the days are short. The quality of the green space may have a stronger impact than the crude distance of homes to green spaces, therefore, crude distances should not, on their own, be taken as an indicator of green space availability. This finding is corroborated by other surveys and by qualitative studies that describe the importance of green spaces.21
The questionnaire analyzed in this study used a wide definition of green space, including public parks without sporting facilities, open countryside and footpaths along rivers or canals. A major limitation of this study is that it was not possible to investigate all the potential influences which make individuals undertake physical activity. This requires further in depth study. The result was in line with the hypothesis that if people feel able to engage in active recreational activities in their local green spaces, they will exercise more.
After adjusting for potential confounders, it appeared that there was no significant correlation between green spaces accessibility and safety and physical exercise. However, other studies suggest that these factors (together with walkability) encourage people to walk more and should be considered as components of the ability to engage in recreational physical activity.22 It is important to note that a significant degree of collinearity was detected between safety, accessibility and ability to engage in recreational physical activity. Older adults showed higher levels of physical activity. This may be related to the fact that they are able to make more use of green space during their retirement.23,24
Natural England recommends that every house should be within 300 m of a 2 ha green space, as public spaces smaller than this are not considered suitable for promoting exercise among adults.25 The reasons for this include the small size, lack of privacy and lack of potential to disconnect from the built environment.21 Wild green spaces are considered more beneficial to mental health highlighting differences between parks perceived to be artificial looking and those that appear more natural.26
The survey used did not consider or specify the time of year that use of green space took place. A systematic review by Tucker et al. showed that physical activity levels worldwide rose in the summer months and dipped during colder seasons. Other environmental factors such as winds and continuous rain were also found to be deterrents.27
There is a potential for non-response bias in postal surveys which can distort the results as the respondents may not reflect the initial sample population. According to Pope et al, non-respondents are more likely to have better subjective health, lower healthcare use and healthier lifestyle behaviours, resulting in overly positive findings and they have described the measures taken in this study to reduce bias from this source.17 However, for this analysis, it is not possible to assess and predict the direction of the non-responder bias. As the analyzed data were based on a survey, recall bias and reporting bias may have occurred, however we are unable to predict the effects.
The sample population may not be representative of the whole population as electoral registers were used in the enrolment phase of the survey. According to the electoral commission, people under the age of 35, some ethnic minorities and those who live in privately rented accommodation are less likely to be on the register. Some social classes such as D (working class) and E (unemployed) are also underrepresented on the register.28 This would result in a sample population that is older and more privileged than the general population.
This study has shown that when people perceive green spaces to be suitable for engaging in active recreational activities, they are also more likely to engage in moderate physical activity for an hour every week.
Town planners may wish to commission further research prior to developing more green spaces in urban areas and tailor the construction and design of parks and green spaces towards needs of the local population and build in suitable recreational activities.
A number of different study methodologies may need to be employed, including cohort/longitudinal studies. In addition to this, qualitative surveys may shed light on the attributes of green spaces that make them more attractive to visit and use for exercise.
Funding
This research project was co-funded by EU Commission, under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) as part of the EURO-URHIS 2 project (grant agreement no 223711) and the project beneficiaries.
We are grateful for the help provided by the EURO-URHIS and EURO-URHIS 2 project teams in each of the beneficiaries’ institutions. (Full details of all project partners can be found on: http://urhis.eu/euro-urhis1/ & http://urhis.eu/).
Conflicts of interest: None declared.
A perception that green spaces are appropriate for recreational activity results in an increase in physical activity.
Distance from green areas doesn’t seem to play a major role in making people engage in physical activities.
The development of appropriate green spaces can contribute to promoting active recreational activity.
References
Urban population growth.
The quality of the 2014 electoral registers in Great Britain the Electoral Commission;
Comments