Soc Indic Res (2012) 108:199213

DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0062-4

Playground Accessibility and Neighbourhood Social

Interaction Among Parents

Scott A. Bennet Nikolaos Yiannakoulias Allison M. Williams

Peter Kitchen

Accepted: 30 March 2012 / Published online: 8 May 2012

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract While the positive association between social interaction and access to green
space is well accepted, little research has sought to understand the role of childrens
playgrounds in facilitating social interaction within a community. Playgrounds are spaces
designed to facilitate play and the interaction of children, but may also be important places
of interaction between parents. In this paper we examine how access to playground spaces
is related to social interaction between parents. We use two measures of accessibility (1)
walking distance to the closest playground and (2) playground service area, a measure of
the number of potential users of a playground based on population density. We use gen-
eralized estimating equations, an extension of generalized linear models, to control for
the confounding effects of socio-economic status (income, education), neighbourhood
dynamics (neighbourhood location, years in neighbourhood) and free time (daily outdoor
activity, marital status, number of children) on the independent relationship between social
interaction and access to playground spaces. Our results suggest that while accessibility to
playgrounds is associated with social interaction among parents, the direction of the effect
is opposite to existing literature on green space and social interaction; parents with low
accessibility to playgrounds are more likely to interact socially with their neighbours than
parents with high accessibility. Our results suggest a pattern of spatial behaviour in which
the burden of poor access to some resources may actually encourage greater neighbour-
hood engagement. Future research studying the relationship between health and green
space may benefit from studying the specific role of playground spaces.

Keywords Spatial accessibility
Social interaction
Playground spaces

S. A. Bennet (&)
N. Yiannakoulias
A. M. Williams

School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
e-mail: bennetsa@mcmaster.ca

P. Kitchen
McMaster Institute of Environment and Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

123
200 S. A. Bennet et al.

1 Background

Local access to green space is positively associated with self-reported health (de Vries
et al. 2003; Maas et al. 2006) and other indicators of health, including birth outcomes, life
expectancy, and psychological welfare (Lee and Maheswaran 2011). Several theories may
explain the relationship. Access to green spaces may encourage more exercise, increase
feelings of safety (Maas et al. 2009), and offset some of the health consequences of socio-
economic inequality (Lee and Maheswaran 2011).
The health benefits of using green space persist independent of the direct health benefits
of outdoor activity and exercise associated with use (Barton et al. 2011). Green spaces
promote positive social interactions between residents, which contribute to social cohesion,
social integration and community building (Germann-Chiari and Seeland 2004; Maas et al.
2009), all of which have been shown to have direct and indirect health benefits. Specific
features of green spaces contribute to social interaction in different ways, and can either
encourage or dissuade social engagement depending on specific characteristics of these
spaces (Solecki and Welch 1995).
Understanding the features of green spaces that contribute to positive social interaction
is important for green space design, but also for understanding the ways in which social
interactions that take place in green spaces may contribute to individual and neighbour-
hood health. Parks with amenities located in visible areas along their perimeter may attract
more use, and facilitate interactions between different communities bordering the park
(Gobster 1998). Well-developed arboriculture can help to connect communities by elim-
inating undeveloped spaces that attract fear of crime (Kuo 2003). The quality of green
space may also explain why the association between health and green space may be less
evident in some populations, and in particular, in neighbourhoods with lower socio-eco-
nomic status (Mitchell and Popham 2007).
While the use of structured outdoor spacessuch as community gardenshave shown
evidence of facilitating positive social relationships (Shinew et al. 2004) and promoting
social cohesion (Wakefield et al. 2007) the specific mechanisms that explain how green
space may encourage social interaction is unclear. Experimental and observational research
in spatial ecology has demonstrated that positive social relationships are based partly on
frequency of face-to-face contact (Ebbesen et al. 1976). Access to parks may increase the
opportunity to spend time in these locations, which in turn increases the likelihood of
positive neighbour interaction (Kweon et al. 1998). Green spaces may also invite inter-
action by promoting habits of resource sharing and discouraging crime and other forms of
social disorder (Kuo 2003). Social interaction with neighbours may also be influenced by
the walkability and land use characteristics of a neighbourhood (Leyden 2003). Rela-
tionships between community members may benefit from the informal social contact
facilitated by visiting public green spaces (Kuo et al. 1998). Seeing ones neighbour at the
local park builds familiarity, a sense of commonality, and sets the groundwork for future
formal engagement. Seeing neighbours interacting in the neighbourhood environment may
also contribute to social interaction by creating norms of social behaviour that promote yet
more neighbourhood interaction.
Unlike green space generally, modern urban playgrounds are designed primarily with a
subset of the general population in mindspecifically, children and their parents. Play-
grounds have represented important foci of outdoor physical activity in North American
children for over 100 years. Playgrounds in the United States and Canada were originally
inspired by the social reform movements of the industrial revolution, and were directed at
providing children appropriate venues and modalities for play (Cranz 1982). At that time,

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 201

many playgrounds were supervised by adults, often teachers, with an aim to cultivate
appropriate civic behaviour, and even social control (Cranz 1982; Taylor 1999). Demand
for playgrounds increased following the post war suburbanization of the 1950s, and the
funding and administration of playgrounds shifted from volunteer organization to muni-
cipal governments. In recent decades, the design and planning of playgrounds has been
dominated by concerns about child safety, and has coincided with a reduction in inde-
pendent and unstructured play among children (Frost 2007).
Play is critical for the intellectual and physical development of children. The formal
study of play and child development shows a strong relationship between play and cog-
nitive, language and social skills, as well as physical health (Frost 1997). Play, and in
particular, nondirective independent play, can assist in the treatment of paediatric trauma
as well as behavioural and emotional problems in children (Bratton et al. 2005). Play is
also critical for the development of strong relationships between children and their parents
(Ginsburg 2007). While playgrounds are important environments for play and interaction
among children, little research has investigated how playgrounds influence the dynamics of
neighbourhood social interaction specifically. Playgrounds are spaces designed to facilitate
the play and interaction of children. However, certain features of playgrounds may also
contribute to interactions between parentsfor example, the availability of bench seating
and shady areas may encourage the spatial congregation and interaction of parents. The
absence of research on how playgrounds specifically facilitate positive social interactions
between parents limits our understanding of the ways in which different types of green
spaces can contribute positively to social interaction and community building generally.
It may also overlook the potential of playgrounds to promote greater playground use,
which would further benefit the social and physical development of children.
This paper attempts to understand the degree to which social interaction is associated
with accessibility to playground spaces. Playgrounds may enable informal social interac-
tion between parents in a comfortable environment, as well as the interaction between
children themselves, which could be a catalyst for social interactions between parents.
Based on the existing literature, we hypothesize that parents with better playground access
are more likely to engage in social activities with their neighbours than parents with worse
playground access. If true, this could suggest that public playground spaces are important
facilitators of social engagement independent of other structured outdoor activitiessuch
as outdoor sports and community gardeningand could aid in planning the location of
parks. In this study, we quantify accessibility two ways. First, we use a measure of
proximity to playgrounds, which assumes that the likelihood of using a playground is
inversely proportional to its distance from home. Second, we use playground service area,
which measures the number of people that the playground serves. Traditionally, this
measure assumes that the likelihood of using a playground is inversely proportional to the
number of users. However, in the context of this study, this measure may provide some
indication of the likelihood of social interactionunder the assumption that the more
people using a playground, the more likely they will interact.

2 Methods

2.1 Data

Our study area is Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Hamilton is located in Southern Ontario on
the western end of Lake Ontario and is midway between Toronto and Buffalo, New York,

123
202 S. A. Bennet et al.

USA. With a municipal population of 504,559, Hamilton is the 9th largest municipality in
Canada (Statistics Canada 2007a).
The Hamilton Household Quality of Life Survey was a telephone survey conducted by
McMaster University between November 2010 and March 2011. The survey took an
average of 18 min to complete. It was carried out in three neighbourhood clusters repre-
senting regions of different socio-economic status (SES) (low SES, mixed SES, and high
SES). The criteria for selecting the neighbourhood clusters were as follows: neighbourhood
population greater than 1,000, neighbourhoods in each cluster must be contiguous and
represent identifiable boundaries and each cluster represents socio-economic conditions
and important geographic locations within Hamilton. The six digit postal codes associated
with the neighbourhood clusters were identified using data provided by DMTI Spatial
(2010). The goal was to survey 300350 households in each neighbourhood cluster, where
the interviewee had to reside in the household and be 18 years or older. A random sample
of telephone numbers was drawn and used as the sampling frame. This resulted in a final
sample size of 1002 responses. We reduced the sample to only those respondents who had
children who were 18 years old or younger, and were living at home. This resulted in a
final sample size of 296 respondents.

2.2 Outcome Variable

Our objective is to understand the relationship between social interaction and playground
accessibility. We measure social interaction using a survey question that asks respondents
How often do you participate in social activities with your neighbours? The outcome
variable used in this analysis is a dichotomous classification of this 5-category response
variable. We chose to dichotomize this variable in our analysis because the small sample of
respondents makes modelling a 5-level outcome variable difficult. While some information
contained within the response variable is lost through dichotomization, a model based on a
dichotomous outcome variable has more power to detect independent model effects than
a model with more than two categories. We considered two different schemes for the
dichotomous classification, one in which respondents answering all the time or often
made up the yes category and those responding sometimes, hardly ever and never
made up the no category; the other scheme involved adding the sometimes responses
to the yes group. The former had a larger -2log-likelihood (a measure of model fit), so
our analysis is based on this classification.

2.3 Independent Variables

We used the following two measures of accessibility to playgrounds: (1) distance to the
closest playground and (2) playground service area. To calculate the distance to the closest
playground, a pedestrian-street network was created using a street network provided by the
City of Hamilton (2006). Off-street pedestrian infrastructure was added to the network
using a map produced in 2005 by the City of Hamilton. Roads classified as expressways
and major highways were removed from the street network because walking is pro-
hibited on these roadways. The centroid of the six-digit postal code areas that the
respondents reside in was used as the origin location for calculating the distance to the
nearest playground. One hundred and ninety-six playground locations in the City of
Hamilton were geo-coded and used as the destination locations. The shortest network
distance to the nearest playground was measured in kilometres and was calculated using
the Network Analyst tool in ESRIs ArcMap 10 (2010).

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 203

The playground service area is a measure of the number of people a playground is

thought to serve (Sister et al. 2009). Thiessen polygons were generated around the 196
playground locations used in the shortest distance calculations. The resulting tessellation
has each polygon representing the area of Hamilton closest to each of the playgrounds. The
population counts at the dissemination level from the 2006 census were used to estimate
the population of each PSA (Statistics Canada 2007b). The tessellation was used to sub-
divide the dissemination areas for Hamilton so that a ratio of the area of the dissemination
area contained in a Thiessen polygon to the total dissemination area could be calculated.
This ratio was then multiplied by the 2006 census population for each segment of the
dissemination areas to estimate the portion of the population living in each DA segment.
The population values for each dissemination area segment were summed for each
Thiessen polygon and gave us the playground service area value for each playground
location. A similar technique was first developed and applied by Sister et al. (2009) to look
at the service areas for parks. Sister et al. (2009) used the playground service area as a
measure of park congestion, where parks with more residents sharing less park area are
deemed disadvantaged in terms of access to park space. Here, we interpret a playground
with a higher playground service area value as having greater potential for facilitating
social interaction than a playground with a lower playground service area because the
former serves a greater number of people than the latter.
For the accessibility measures used in this paper, we assume that residents use the
nearest playground to their home. In the park accessibility literature, it is widely believed
that individuals do not necessarily visit parks closest to their residence, but rather, look for
specific features of parks in their destination decisions (Sister et al. 2009). Nevertheless,
proximity remains an important factor in determining park use (Giles-Corti et al. 2005;
Giles-Corti and Donovan 2002; Cohen et al. 2006; Jansson 2010). Here we are looking
specifically at playgrounds, which are typically highly localized, and serve a smaller
service area than parks generally (Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004). Given the relatively large
number of playgrounds in most cities, trips to playgrounds are likely to be shorter than
those to other types of green space and so the distance to the nearest playground is
important. To confirm this we created three additional accessibility measures: the distance
to the second closest playground, the average distance to the 25 closest playgrounds and
the average distance to the five closest playgrounds. These additional accessibility vari-
ables were found not to be significant or improve the robustness of the models and were not
included in the social interaction models discussed in this paper.

2.4 Analysis

We use a generalized estimating equation approach, which is an extension of generalized

linear models, to assess the degree of association between social interaction and access to
playground spaces. We chose to use generalized linear models because of their flexibility
in working with dichotomous dependent variables. We used the generalized estimating
equation approach to control for within-subject correlations in the data (Liang and Zeger
1986). The playground service area variable responses are not independent because they
were calculated for each playground in the study area and then assigned to the individual
respondents. Using generalized estimating equations we specify a working correlation
matrix to account for the within-subject correlations and estimate the model parameters
by iteratively solving a system of equations based on quasi-likelihood distribu-
tional assumptions (Smith and Smith 2006). We developed our models using a binomial
distribution and generated estimated odds ratio values for the variables in the models.

123
204 S. A. Bennet et al.

As described above, the dependent variable is a dichotomous classification of whether or

not a respondent have engaged in social interaction with their neighbour. Socio-demo-
graphic measures suspected of correlating with social interaction are used to control for
confounding of the relationship between social interaction and accessibility. These include:
daily activity (active everyday; less than everyday), education (completed college/uni-
versity degree or higher (CCUDH); some university or less), household income (reported
household income values), location of household (location 1 (Southwest Mountain);
location 2 (Central); location 3 (Lower City)), marital status (married/common law (MCL);
widowed/divorced/separated/single), number of children (1;2; 3 or more), and years in
neighbourhood (reported number of years).
All independent variables were systematically included in the models, and organized
according to how they are thought to influence social interaction. The first model includes
only geographic variables: distance to the closest playground, playground service area and
location of household. The location of household variable was coded as a dummy variable
with location 3 (Lower City) as the reference category. Next we added a household income
variable, then a variable for years in neighbourhood. The final model included the addition
of daily outdoor activity, marital status, number of children (3 or more as the reference)
and level of education. These variables are considered proxies for the amount of time
parents have to take their children to the playground. We tested interactions between the
accessibility variables and other independent variables as part of the analysis. No inter-
action terms were statistically significant, so none were included in the final models
presented. All statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.2 (2009).

3 Results

All the variables used in the analysis had a sample size of 296 respondents. Table 1 shows
the descriptive statistics for the accessibility measures. The mean distance to the nearest
playground was just over half a kilometre (0.5387 km) with a standard deviation of
0.2520 km, we also see variability in the playground service area values, with a mean
of 2,646.12 people and a standard deviation of 1,479.00 people. Table 1 also contains
descriptive statistics for the household income and years in neighbourhood confounding
variables. The household income variable has a large standard deviation of $62,889.00,
indicating there is a large range in household income for the respondents. There is also
variability between the mean ($84,895.30) and median ($65,000.00) for the household
income variable, and is most likely due to the large range of the data, and a skew in the
distribution of income at the higher end of the income scale. The years lived in neigh-
bourhood variable has a mean of 10.58 years and a standard deviation of 8.90. Table 2
shows the frequency characteristics for the variables made up of discrete categories. The
largest variability in the discrete variables is in the dependent variable, social interaction
with neighbours, where only 23 % of the 296 survey respondents with children are con-
sidered to socially interact with their neighbours. The other large variability is found in the
location of household variable where over 40 % of the respondents with children are
located in location 1 (Southwest Mountain). Figure 1 shows the level of social interaction
with neighbours by location. The result is a similar distribution of the social interaction
variable for all three locations. Location 1 (Southwest Mountain) has the largest frequency
values for all the social interaction categories because of its larger number of respondents
compared to the other two locations. For all three locations, the all the time category has
the lowest frequency of respondents, where as sometimes has the greatest frequency.

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 205

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the accessibility measures and the continuous independent variables
Mean Median SD

Measures of accessibility
Distance (km) 0.539 0.544 0.252
Park service area (# people) 2,646.122 2,067.187 1,479.000
Correlate
Household Income ($) 84,895.30 65,000.00 62,889.00
Years in neighbourhood (years) 10.58 8.00 8.90

Table 2 Frequency distribution of responses for categorical independent variables and the social interac-
tion with neighbour variable
Correlate (n = 296) Frequency Percent of responses (%)

Social interaction with neighbours

Yes, social interaction with neighbours 67 22.64
No social interaction with neighbours 229 77.36
Daily activity
Everyday 112 37.84
Less than everyday 184 62.16
Education
Completed college/university degree or higher (CCUDH) 189 63.85
Some university or less 107 36.15
Location of household
Location 1 (Southwest Mountain) 128 43.24
Location 2 (Central) 81 27.36
Location 3 (Lower City) 87 29.39
Marital status
Married/common law (MCL) 213 71.96
Widowed/divorced/separated/single 83 28.04
Number of children
1 126 42.57
2 122 41.22
3 or more 48 16.22

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the unconditional relationship between the social interaction
with neighbours and accessibility. There is a positive association between the average
distance to the closest playground and the social interaction with neighbours variable;
those who interact with their neighbours more frequently also have the farthest average
distance to travel to the nearest playground. Looking at the relationship between the
average playground service area and the social interaction with neighbours variable, we
see that those who interact with their neighbours more frequently live in the service area of
a playground with a lower playground service area value.
Table 3 shows the results of the modelling procedure. The first model included just the
geographic variables, where only distance to the nearest playground (km) and the play-
ground service area variables were significant (p = 0.05). The distance to the nearest

123
206 S. A. Bennet et al.

Fig. 1 Social interaction with neighbours by location of household

Fig. 2 Social interaction with neighbours by average distance to the nearest playground

playground variable has a positive relationship with the social interaction variable, similar
to what we see in Fig. 2, with an odds ratio of 3.257. This means the probability of social
interaction with neighbours is over three times as likely for every increase in 1 kilometre of
distance travelled to the nearest playground. The playground service area variable has a
negative relationship with the social interaction variable, similar to the trend shown in

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 207

Fig. 3 Social interaction with neighbours by the average playground service area (playground service area:
a measure of the number of potential users of a playground based on population density)

Fig. 3, and has an odds ratio of 0.745. The location of neighbourhood is not a significant
predictor of social interaction in the model. When we add the household income variable
into the model, it is significant (p = 0.01) with an odds ratio of 1.067. Both of the
accessibility measures remain significant in the second model. The variable added in our
third model, number of years living in the neighbourhood, is not statistically significant,
but the accessibility variables and household income variable remain significant with odd
ratios similar to previous models. When the variables related to time were added to the
model, only the daily activity variable is significant (p = 0.01), with an odds ratio of 2.553.
This suggests that people who engage in daily activity are more likely to interact socially
with their neighbours. In the final model, both of the accessibility measures and the
household income variable remain significant, with odds ratios similar to those in the first
and second models. The independent variables found to be significant in the final model
are: distance to nearest playground (km), playground service area, household income, and
daily activity.

4 Discussion

In this paper we model the relationship between accessibility to playgrounds and social
interaction of parents. The results of our models show that both distance to the nearest
playground and the playground service area are significantly related to social interaction
among parents. We hypothesized that parents with better playground access are more likely
to engage in social activities with their neighbours than parents with worse playground
access. This hypothesis is consistent with general literature on green space use, which
suggests that public spaces green spaces can be important settings for social interaction and
engagement. Our results suggest that while accessibility is associated with social inter-
action of adults with children, the effect is opposite to what we hypothesized. Distance to
the nearest playground is positively associated with neighbourhood interaction, suggesting

123
 Table 3 Results of the generalized linear model looking at the relationship between social interaction among parents and access to playground spaces
208

Geography Income

123
Variables Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI) Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI)

Intercept -1.360* 0.553 -1.774** 0.601

Distance (km) 1.181* 0.599 3.257 (1.00610.545) 1.249* 0.613 3.485 (1.04911.579)
Location 1 (Southwest Mountain) 0.144 0.377 1.155 (0.5512.420) -0.154 0.388 0.857 (0.401- 1.832)
Location 2 (Central) 0.421 0.409 1.524 (0.6843.394) 0.165 0.429 1.179 (0.5092.733)
Playground service area -0.294* 0.117 0.745 (0.5930.937) -0.296* 0.120 0.744 (0.5880.941)
Household income 0.0645** 0.0225 1.067 (1.0211.115)
Years in neighbourhood
Daily activity
CCUDH (education variable)
Number of children (=1)
Number of children (=2)
MCL (marital status variable)

Years in Neighbourhood Time

Variables Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI) Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI)

Intercept -1.754** 0.638 -2.427** 0.816

Distance (km) 1.251* 0.611 3.494 (1.05411.576) 1.175* 0.609 3.238 (0.98110.682)
Location 1 (Southwest Mountain) -0.160 0.395 0.852 (0.3931.846) -0.073 0.340 0.930 (0.4232.034)
Location 2 (Central) 0.164 0.429 1.178 (0.5082.731) 0.110 0.442 1.116 (0.4702.652)
Playground service area -0.296* 0.120 0.744 (0.5880.940) -0.319* 0.126 0.727 (0.5680.930)
Household income 0.0647** 0.0224 1.067 (1.0211.115) 0.0683** 0.0235 1.071 (1.0231.121)
Years in neighbourhood -0.00180 0.0148 0.998 (0.9701.028) -0.00120 0.0159 0.999 (0.9681.030)
Daily activity 0.937** 0.303 2.553 (1.4104.624)
CCUDH (education variable) 0.520 0.338 1.682 (0.8683.260)
S. A. Bennet et al.
 Table 3 continued

Years in Neighbourhood Time

Variables Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI) Estimate SE Odds ratio (CI)

Number of children (=1) -0.257 0.436 0.773 (0.3291.816)

Number of children (=2) 0.0778 0.431 1.081 (0.4652.514)
MCL (marital status variable) 0.00720 0.379 1.007 (0.4792.119)

* Significant at p = 0.05, ** significant at p = 0.01, CI = Confidence intervals at p = 0.05

Social Interaction Among Parents
209

123
210 S. A. Bennet et al.

that those respondents who have to travel further to their closest playground also interact
with their neighbours more frequently. In terms of accessibility, this suggests that the
farther parents have to travel to a playground, the more likely they will be socially engaged
with their neighbours.
One possible explanation for this unintuitive finding is that respondents who live further
from playgrounds do not have the same spatial behaviours as those who live close to
playgrounds. When trips to the playground require a large investment of time and energy,
parents may be more likely to spend more time there. Extended time spent at the play-
ground could result in more interaction simply because users are spending more time
together. In this way, the burden of travel time increases the duration of use, and in turn,
the probability of social engagement. Another explanation is that the further a parent has
to travel to a playground, the more likely they will come into contact with neighbours en
route. Longer walking trips that divert a parent through neighbourhood streets could
facilitate passive forms of social engagementsuch as seeing other neighbours outside and
identifying neighbours with their residences. These forms of engagement may be important
precursors to more formal social interactions in the future, and in building neighbourhood
familiarity generally.
The measure of playground service area used here approximates the level of playground
use. Playgrounds with a high playground service area values service a larger population
than playgrounds with low playground service area values. We hypothesized that play-
grounds with a larger playground service area would facilitate greater social interactions
between parents if we assumed the probability of social interaction is in some way a
function of the number of playground users. Our results suggest that a higher playground
service area is associated with lower levels of social interaction; parents who live near
playgrounds with higher playground service area values are less likely to interact with their
neighbours than parents who live near playgrounds with lower playground service area
values. This is consistent with Sister et al. (2009), who suggest that parks servicing a larger
population are less accessible because they are more congested with users during periods
of high demand. However, it is also possible that playgrounds with higher playground
service area levels encourage social interaction between neighbours in other public
spacessuch as on local streets or shops. Parents that perceive their local playground
as too busy may avoid these areas in favour of other public spaces that are better at
encouraging social interaction.
Household income and daily activity are important predictors of social interaction.
Previous studies looking at playground accessibility that have included income in their
analysis have found that playgrounds tend to be located closer to areas of lower income
(Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004; Cradock et al. 2005; Ellaway et al. 2007). We included the
household income variable because it is also thought to have an effect on social cohesion.
A large gap in income between the rich and poor may be associated with lower levels of
social cohesion (Kawachi and Kennedy 1997). We see a large variability in household
income in the three communities sampled for this study, and found that as household
income increases, there is a greater probability of social interaction between neighbours.
The relationship between the daily activity and social interaction suggests respondents who
were active outdoors every day had a greater probability of social interaction with their
neighbours than respondents who were less active outdoors. The daily activity variable was
included in the model to examine how free time is associated with social interaction
between neighbours. Level of education, marital status and the number of children, have
been found to be related to time use in previous literature (Lundberg et al. 1994; Zuzanek
2000), but were not important contributors to our models for predicting social interaction.

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 211

This is one of the first papers to look specifically at playground accessibility and social
interaction. Our results differ considerably from existing literature that has studied the rela-
tionship between green space and social interaction. Kweon et al. (1998) found that easy access
to parks may increase the opportunity to spend time in these locations, which increases the
chance of interaction between neighbours. More recently, green spaces have been suggested to
directly promote positive social interaction between residents (Leyden 2003; Germann-Chiari
and Seeland 2004; Maas et al. 2009). Playgrounds are an important form of public green space
but are typically highly localized compared to parks. Playgrounds are also designed with a
subset of the general population in mind. To date, most research on the relationship between
green space and social interaction fails to distinguish between the different classes of green
space, or how they may facilitate distinct social behaviours. The results of our analysis suggest
the need to distinguish between parks and playgrounds in future research on the effects of green
space on social interaction. Future research on the relationships between health and urban green
space may also benefit from classifying these spaces into explicit sub-types (e.g. playgrounds,
recreation sports fields, natural green parks).
There are several noteworthy limitations this study. First, we assume that people use the
nearest playground. While other research suggests that playgrounds are highly localized
facilities, we do not have any way of knowing if respondents actually use the closest
playground. We attempted to minimize this issue by working at the postal code level. The
postal code is a smaller spatial representation than standard administrative areas (such as
census tracts) and provides a more precise location for the origin of each respondent.
Secondly, we do not know the precise routes people use to walk to playgrounds. We
estimated the routes based on a shortest path algorithm, which makes a number of
assumptions about walking behaviour. The shortest path distance is likely an underestimate
of the distances people travel in practice. We attempted to minimize this problem by using
a detailed street network that includes walking trails, shortcuts and pathways that are
available to pedestrians, and excludes the roadways not designated to be safe for walking.
Finally, the sampling method used in this study somewhat limits our ability to make
generalized observations about the city as a whole, or to other urban areas. The data were
sampled randomly from within three non-randomly selected areas of Hamilton that rep-
resent a narrow range of social and physical attributes within the city. It is possible that a
true city-scale random sample of the same size would reveal completely different results
from those observed here. While the judicious choice of neighbourhoods selected for
sampling here cannot reveal the true breadth of the relationship between accessibility and
social interaction, it provides evidence of the complex relationship between social inter-
action and accessibility to playgrounds that requires further study.

5 Conclusion

While the relationship between social interaction and access to parks is well accepted, little
research has been done on the relationship between social interaction and playgrounds.
This paper focused on how access to playgrounds is thought to affect social interaction
between parents. The findings in this paper suggest the relationship between social
interaction and playground access is different compared to the existing literature studying
the relationship between social interaction and park access. Future research should look at
how the presence of certain featuresfor example bench seating or shadein a play-
ground could affect social interaction, as well as consider the role of other types of green
space on social interaction and community cohesion.

123
212 S. A. Bennet et al.

References

Barton, J., Griffin, M., & Pretty, J. (2011). Exercise, nature and socially interactive based initiatives improve
mood and self-esteem in the clinical population. Perspectives in Public Health. Retrieved online from
http://rsh.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/06/1757913910393862.abstract. July 29, 2011.
Bratton, S. C., Ray, D., Rhine, T., & Jones, L. (2005). The efficacy of play therapy with children: A meta-
analytic review of treatment outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4),
376390.
City of Hamilton. (2005). Bikeways, trails and parks of the city of Hamilton. Hamilton, Ontario: City of
Hamilton Public Works Department.
City of Hamilton. (2006). City of Hamilton vector GIS data street center line. Hamilton, Ontario: City of
Hamilton GIS Services.
Cohen, D. A., Ashwood, J. S., Scott, M. M., Overton, A., Evenson, K. R., Staten, L. K., et al. (2006). Public
parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1381e1389.
Cradock, A. L., Kawachi, I., Colditz, G. A., Hannon, C., Melly, S. J., Wiecha, J. L., et al. (2005). Playground
safety and access in Boston neighborhoods. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(4), 357363.
Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
de Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. P. (2003). Natural environments
healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health.
Environment and Planning A, 35(10), 17171731.
DMTI Spatial Inc. (2010). Postal Code Platinum 2010 version 3. Markham, Ontario: DMTI Spatial Inc.
Ebbesen, E., Kjos, G., & Konecni, V. (1976). Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and
enemies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(6), 505518.
Ellaway, A., Kirk, A., Macintyre, S., & Mutrie, N. (2007). Nowhere to play? The relationship between the
location of outdoor play areas and deprivation in Glasgow. Health & Place, 13(2), 557561.
Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc (ESRI). (2010). ArcMap version 10. Redlands, California,
CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.
Frost, J. L. (1997). Child development and playgrounds. Parks and Recreation, 32(4), 5462.
Frost, J. L. (2007). The changing culture of childhood: A perfect storm. Childhood Education, 83(4),
225230.
Germann-Chiari, C., & Seeland, K. (2004). Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for
social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry
research. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(1), 313.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., et al. (2005). Increasing
walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl 2), 169176.
Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social and physical envi-
ronment determinants of physical activity. Social Science and Medicine, 54(12), 17931812.
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining
strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182191.
Gobster, P. (1998). Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial relations in neighborhood
boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41(1), 4355.
Jansson, M. (2010). Attractive playgrounds: Some factors affecting user interest and visiting patterns.
Landscape Research, 35(1), 6381.
Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1997). Socio-economic determinants of health: Health and social cohesion:
Why care about income inequality? British Medical Journal, 314, 10371040.
Kuo, F. E. (2003). Social aspects of urban forestry: The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology.
Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 148155.
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W., Coley, R., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city
neighborhood common spaces. Journal of Community, 26(6), 823851.
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of
inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 832858.
Lee, A. C. K., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the
evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212222.
Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social Capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighbor-
hoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 15461551.
Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrica,
73(1), 1322.

123
Social Interaction Among Parents 213

Lundberg, U., Mardberg, B., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994). The total workload of male and female white
collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 35(4), 315327.
Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., & Groenewegen, P. P.
(2009). Is green space in the living environment associated with peoples feelings of social safety?
Environment and Planning A, 41(7), 17631777.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space,
urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
60(7), 587592.
Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2007). Greenspace, urbanity and health: Relationships in England. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 681683.
SAS Institute Inc. (2009). SAS 9.2 macro language: Reference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Shinew, K., Glover, T., & Parry, D. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction:
Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 336355.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision.
GeoJournal, 75(3), 229248.
Smith, T., & Smith, B. (2006). PROC GENMOD with GEE to analyze correlated outcomes data using SAS.
San Diego, CA: Department of Defense Center for Deployment Health Research, Naval Health
Research Center.
Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., Hewko, J. N., & Hodgson, M. J. (2004). Spatial accessibility and equity of play-
grounds in Edmonton, Canada. The Canadian Geographer, 48(3), 287302.
Solecki, W. D., & Welch, J. M. (1995). Urban parks: Green spaces or green walls? Landscape and Urban
Planning, 32(2), 93106.
Statistics Canada. (2007a). Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, census metropolitan areas, census
agglomerations and census subdivisions (municipalities), 2006 and 2001 censuses100% data (table).
Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.
97-550-XWE2006002. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007.
Statistics Canada. (2007b). Census of Canada, 2006: Profile of age and sex for Canada, Provinces, Terri-
tories, census divisions, census subdivisions, and dissemination areas. Profile tables, 2006 census.
Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 94-575-X2006002. Ottawa. Released August 14, 2007.
Taylor, D. (1999). Central Park as a model for social control: Urban parks, social class and leisure behavior
in ninetheenth-century America. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(4), 420477.
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Com-
munity gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92101.
Zuzanek, J. (2000). The effects of time use and time pressure on child-parent relationships: Research report
submitted to Health Canada. Waterloo, ON: Otium Publications.

123