4.3 Article

Measuring Blue Space Visibility and 'Blue Recreation' in the Everyday Lives of Children in a Capital City

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14060563

Keywords

blue space; children's environments; neighborhoods; mental health; cities

Funding

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand Programme [13/724]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [12/RC/2289]
  3. European Commission FP7 International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) [2011-IRSES-295157-PANAMA]
  4. Michigan State University's Provost Undergraduate Research Initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blue spaces (water bodies) may promote positive mental and physical health through opportunities for relaxation, recreation, and social connections. However, we know little about the nature and extent of everyday exposure to blue spaces, particularly in settings outside the home or among children, nor whether exposure varies by individual or household characteristics. Wearable cameras offer a novel, reliable method for blue space exposure measurement. In this study, we used images from cameras worn over two days by 166 children in Wellington, New Zealand, and conducted content and blue space quantification analysis on each image (n = 749,389). Blue space was identified in 24,721 images (3.6%), with a total of 23 blue recreation events. Visual exposure and participation in blue recreation did not differ by ethnicity, weight status, household deprivation, or residential proximity to the coastline. Significant differences in both visual exposure to blue space and participation in blue recreation were observed, whereby children from the most deprived schools had significantly higher rates of blue space exposure than children from low deprivation schools. Schools may be important settings to promote equitable blue space exposures. Childhood exposures to blue space may not follow the expected income inequality trends observed among adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available