4.7 Article

Crime, greenspace and life satisfaction: An evaluation of the New Zealand experience

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 149, Issue -, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.014

Keywords

Socioecological model; Greenspace; Happiness; Crime; Life satisfaction; New Zealand General Social Survey (NZGSS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study we explore the relationship between the benefits of greenspace and fear of crime in New Zealand neighbourhoods. To ensure that the full benefits of investment in greenspace are realised, it is important to understand the complex interactions that occur within natural environments and the effect of these interactions on individual wellbeing within different populations (in this case New Zealand). Employing an ordered logit model, this study uses data on self-reported life satisfaction, fear of crime and access to greenspace from the New Zealand General Social Survey. In line with existing evidence, results suggest that greater access to greenspace is associated with higher levels of life satisfaction. The strength of this association, however, is strongly dependent on fear of crime. That is, when residents report that they feel 'unsafe' or 'very unsafe' in their neighbourhood, the psychological benefits of access to greenspace disappear almost entirely. This relationship is conditioned further by age and gender, with residents between 50 and 59 years of age and males being less likely to report being very satisfied with their lives. Given the considerable level of public investment in providing and maintaining greenspace, there is a clear need to address fear of crime in the neighbourhood in order to ensure that the full benefits of policies directed at promoting the use of neighbourhood greenspace for health and well-being can be realised. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available