Research article
Equitable Access to Exercise Facilities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.018Get rights and content

Background

Leisure-time physical activity patterns are low and socially patterned. Ecologic studies of the provision of exercise facilities indicate that in areas of deprivation, there is a trend toward reduced availability of exercise facilities compared with more affluent areas. Existing studies are restricted to single geographic areas or regions. In this study, national-level data were used to examine the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and the density of physical activity facilities in England.

Methods

A database of all indoor exercise facilities in England was obtained, and facilities were linked to administrative areas and assigned a deprivation score. Census data were used to calculate the density of physical activity facilities per 1000 people per quintile of deprivation. The exercise facilities data were collected in 2005, and the analysis was conducted in 2006.

Results

When all 5552 facilities were considered, there was a statistically significant negative relationship (p<0.001) between area deprivation score and the density of physical activity facilities. A similar relationship was observed when public and private facilities were examined separately. When only swimming pools were examined, a negative association was observed for public pools (p<0.0001) but not those that were private (p=0.50), which were more evenly distributed among quintiles of area deprivation.

Conclusions

The availability of physical activity facilities declines with level of deprivation. Areas in most need of facilities to assist people live physically active lifestyles have fewer resources.

Introduction

Aphysically active lifestyle is associated with a range of beneficial health outcomes,1 and reducing the number of people engaging in low levels of physical activity would lead to significant reductions in premature morbidity and mortality rates.2 In England, leisure-time physical activity levels are low and are lowest in adults from lower socioeconomic positions.3 It has been observed that in areas of deprivation, the availability of local exercise facilities that may assist people to live physically active lifestyles is poorer than more affluent areas.4 In the U.S., a population study reported that high–socioeconomic status (SES) areas were more likely to have at least one physical activity facility than low-SES areas. Furthermore, the number of physical activity facilities in an area was associated with levels of physical activity.5 Also, a study in a midwestern U.S. city found that low-SES areas had fewer free-for-use facilities compared to high-SES areas.6 However, there are exceptions. In a relatively wealthy Australian city, access to recreational facilities was higher in lower-SES areas compared with higher-SES areas.7 Apart from one U.S. study, existing ecologic studies of the availability of physical activity facilities according to area socioeconomic position or deprivation are restricted to single geographic areas or regions.8, 9 In this study, national-level data were used to examine the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and the density of physical activity facilities in England.

Section snippets

Methods

An educational research license was taken out with a commercial company (Leisure Database Company, London, UK) that supplied a database of physical activity facilities. The company carries out an annual telephone survey of all operational sports/recreational facilities in England that have public access. Cross-checks to ensure the robustness of the data are conducted with leisure management contractors and private health club operators as well as comparisons with published directories such as

Results

Table 1 shows the type of physical activity facility by sector. There were slightly more public than private facilities with a greater variety in type of provision in the public sector facilities, and private facilities comprised mainly gyms and swimming pools.

When all facilities were considered, there was a statistically significant negative relationship (p<0.001) between quintile of area deprivation and the density of physical activity facilities (Table 2). A graphic example of this

Discussion

This geographic study has revealed that the availability of physical activity facilities is associated with area deprivation. The absolute difference in the density of facilities between the least- and most-deprived areas is equivalent to four facilities per 100,000. In Kent (Figure 1), the most-deprived neighborhoods currently share just six facilities, whereas if the density of facilities were equivalent to the least-deprived quintile in the population, they would have 10. Perhaps more

Conclusion

The study has shown that the availability of physical activity facilities declines with the level of deprivation. Areas in most need of facilities to assist people to live physically active lifestyles have fewer resources. If the government is to meet its targets for improving levels of physical activity and reducing inequalities,17 it may need to consider the way in which market forces might be creating an inequitable distribution of facility provision in England.

References (17)

  • B. Giles-Corti et al.

    Socioeconomic differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment

    Prev Med

    (2002)
  • At least five a week: evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health

    (2004)
  • Health and Development Through Physical Activity and Sport

    (2004)
  • K. Sproston et al.

    Health Survey for England 2003

    (2004)
  • S. Macintyre

    The social patterning of exercise behaviours: the role of personal and local resources

    Br J Sports Med

    (2000)
  • P. Gordon-Larsen et al.

    Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity

    Pediatrics

    (2006)
  • P.A. Estabrooks et al.

    Resources for physical activity participation: does availablity and access differ by neighbourhood socioeconomic status?

    Ann Behav Med

    (2003)
  • A. Ellaway et al.

    Does where you live predict health related behaviour?A case study in Glasgow

    Health Bull (Edinb)

    (1996)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (70)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text