Do food and physical activity environments vary between disadvantaged urban and rural areas? Findings from the READI Study

Lukar Ezra Thornton · David Andrew Crawford · Verity J Cleland · Anna F Timperio · Gavin Abbott · Kylie Ball

26 citations0/0 files storedHealth Promotion Journal of Australia

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Transport and Accessibility Health disparities and outcomes Urban Green Space and Health

Abstract

ISSUES ADDRESSED: The presence or absence of amenities in local neighbourhood environments can either promote or restrict access to opportunities to engage in healthy and/or less healthy behaviours. Rurality is thought to constrain access to facilities and services. This study investigated whether the presence and density of environmental amenities related to physical activity and eating behaviours differs between socioeconomically disadvantaged urban and rural areas in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: We undertook cross-sectional analysis of environmental data collected in 2007-08 as part of the Resilience for Eating and Activity Despite Inequality (READI) study. These data were sourced and analysed for 40 urban and 40 rural socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The variables examined were the presence, raw count, count/km2, and count/'000 population of a range of environmental amenities (fast-food restaurants, all supermarkets (also separated by major chain and other supermarkets), greengrocers, playgrounds, gyms/leisure centres, public swimming pools and public open spaces). RESULTS: A greater proportion of urban areas had a fast-food restaurant and gym/leisure centre present while more rural areas contained a supermarket and public swimming pool. All amenities examined (with the exception of swimming pools) were more numerous per km2 in urban areas, however rural areas had a greater number of all supermarkets, other supermarkets, playgrounds, swimming pools and public open space per '000 population. CONCLUSION: Although opportunities to engage in healthy eating and physical activity exist in many rural areas, a lower density per km2 suggests a greater travel distance may be required to reach these.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Socioeconomic Status Differences in Recreational Physical Activity Levels and Real and Perceived Access to a Supportive Physical Environment 2006Neighbourhoods and health: a GIS approach to measuring community resource accessibility 2010Health behaviours, socioeconomic status and diabetes incidence: the Australian Diabetes Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab)

Cited by

2014Is neighbourhood obesogenicity associated with body mass index in women? Application of an obesogenicity index in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods 2017Development and testing of a community audit tool to assess rural built environments: Inventories for Community Health Assessment in Rural Towns 2021A Spatial Analysis of Access to Physical Activity Infrastructure and Healthy Food in Regional Tasmania

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.