Quantification of green and walkable neighbourhoods across the distribution of social and material deprivation in Metro Vancouver, Canada

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIM: Along with other environmental exposures, both neighbourhood walkability, and greenspace exposure and access have been linked to many diverse health benefits. Previous work has examined the spatial relationship of built and natural environments according to levels of neighbourhood deprivation; however, less is known about how these relationships may vary when different greenspace metrics are used. This work examines how normalized differences vegetation index (NDVI), tree canopy cover, green land cover, and park count metrics relate to walkability, and how these neighbourhood characteristics associate with both social and material deprivation. METHODS: Greenspace exposure was measured using NDVI, tree canopy cover, and green land cover, while park access was quantified by the number of designated public parks within 1000m and 400m network buffers for each six-digit postal-code centroid in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Local area deprivation was measured using the 2016 Material and Social Deprivation Index (MSDI). Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to compare these neighbourhood characteristics. RESULTS: Walkability was positively associated with social deprivation (1000m r = 0.48; 400m r = 0.48, p < .01), while walkability has a weak inverse relationship with material deprivation (1000m r = -0.21, p < .01). Tree canopy was negatively related to both social (1000m r = -0.23, 400m r = -0.23, p < .01) and material deprivation (1000m r = -0.24, 400m r = -0.23, p < .01). In contrast, the relationship between park count and both deprivation measures was weak. CONCLUSION: In this study, areas with greater social and material deprivation tend to have less greenspace, but not necessarily less park access. The identification of neighbourhoods with higher material deprivation, low walkability, and low greenspace, may be prioritized by urban planners and decision makers as possible locations for additional greenspace allocation. KEYWORDS: greenspace, walkability, social deprivation, material deprivation