Assessing equality in neighbourhood availability of quality greenspace in Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Figures & data

Table 1. Coding guide for greenspace characteristics.

Characteristic	5 (Excellent)	4 (Good)	3 (Average)	2 (Poor)	1 (Very poor)
Accessibility	Open at all times and wheelchair access	Gates or lack of wheelchair access	Gates and lack of wheelchair access; or other obstructions	Gates and lack of wheelchair access; and other obstructions	No access
Security	Lively and safe surrounding area, i.e. well-lit with good visibility and close to visibly inhabited buildings.	Dark/badly-lit area or close to empty shops/buildings	Both dark/badly-lit and close to empty shops/buildings	Visibly abandoned and derelict buildings	Combination of darkness/poor lighting and visible dereliction
Cleanness	Excellent state	Noticeable litter on the ground	Large amounts of litter	Dumping/fly-tipping	Combination of litter and dumping
Greenness	Forest/large park with lots of vegetation	Park with vegetation	Park with scarce vegetation	Greenspace with grass and scarce trees	Greenspace with little grass and few trees
Well-kept	Grass cut and clean with no brown patches, flower pots filled, trees trimmed, equipment in good shape, surroundings neat and tidy	Good condition but not excellent, e.g. empty flower beds	Not well looked-after but functional	Limited evidence of maintenance	Derelict or abandoned
Aesthetics	Exceptional beauty, for instance lakes, flowerbeds etc.	Some visually pleasing features in landscape	Average	Functional green landscape	Visibly degraded environment
Biodiversity	Greenspace labelled as nature reserve, wildlife reserve etc.	Visibly high biodiversity	Fewer than 10 visually identifiable species	Fewer than 5 visually identifiable species	1–2 species of trees/bushes
Tranquillity	Secluded area away from major roads or large buildings, or greenspace large enough that centre is secluded	Secluded area close to train tracks, or with other occasional noise	Close to busy road, but big enough to have a calm centre; next to small neighbourhood road	Next to busy road	Next to construction or motorway
Facilities	At least 3 activities and space for events	3 activities	2 activities (usually playing field and playground)	1 activity (usually playground)	None
Nearest metro	<1 min walk	<5 min walk	<15 min walk	<30 min walk	30 min + walk
Nearest bus	<1 min walk	<5 min walk	<15 min walk	<30 min walk	30 min + walk
Nearest train	<1 min walk	<5 min walk	<15 min walk	<30 min walk	30 min + walk

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for each of the greenspace categories.

Characteristic	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard deviation
Accessibility	4.14	4	5	1.007
Security	4.50	5	5	0.939
Cleanness	4.18	5	5	1.129
Greenness	2.94	3	2	1.334
Well-kept	3.03	3	3	1.248
Aesthetics	2.38	2	1	1.267
Biodiversity	2.18	2	1	1.360
Tranquillity	2.75	2	2	1.384
Facilities	1.70	1	1	1.008
Nearest metro	1.45	1	1	1.088
Nearest bus	4.73	5	5	0.578
Nearest train	2.58	2	1	1.470

Table 3. Frequency of scores for each greenspace characteristic.

Characteristic	5 (Excellent)	4 (Good)	3 (Average)	2 (Poor)	1 (Very poor)
Accessibility	117 (44.3%)	97 (36.7%)	30 (11.4%)	11 (4.2%)	9 (3.4%)
Security	188 (71.2%)	40 (15.2%)	20 (7.6%)	11 (4.2%)	5 (1.9%)
Cleanness	139 (52.7%)	75 (28.4%)	25 (9.5%)	9 (3.4%)	16 (6.1%)
Greenness	52 (19.7%)	32 (12.1%)	65 (24.6%)	77 (29.2%)	38 (14.4%)
Well-kept	39 (14.8%)	57 (21.6%)	76 (28.8%)	57 (21.6%)	35 (13.3%)
Aesthetics	24 (9.1%)	25 (9.5%)	62 (23.5%)	70 (26.5%)	83 (31.4%)
Biodiversity	29 (11%)	19 (7.2%)	40 (15.2%)	58 (22%)	118 (44.7%)
Tranquillity	44 (16.7%)	38 (14.4%)	47 (17.8%)	78 (29.5%)	57 (21.6%)
Facilities	5 (1.9%)	12 (4.5%)	40 (15.2%)	49 (18.6%)	158 (59.8%)
Nearest metro	14 (5.3%)	10 (3.8%)	9 (3.4%)	14 (5.3%)	217 (82.2%)
Nearest bus	208 (78.8%)	44 (16.7%)	9 (3.4%)	3 (1.1%)	0 (0%)
Nearest train	40 (15.2%)	41 (15.5%)	43 (16.3%)	49 (18.6%)	91 (34.5%)