Evidence suggests that residential nature, e.g., greenness around the home, and nature-based recreation, e.g.,
visits to specific natural locations, are beneficial for health and well-being. However, several studies report that
residential access is lower among socio-economically disadvantaged communities, potentially exacerbating
health ...
Evidence suggests that residential nature, e.g., greenness around the home, and nature-based recreation, e.g.,
visits to specific natural locations, are beneficial for health and well-being. However, several studies report that
residential access is lower among socio-economically disadvantaged communities, potentially exacerbating
health inequalities. We explored this issue in Austria, a relatively rural and mountainous country that also
contains several cities, including the capital Vienna with around 2 million citizens. Data were drawn from a
representative survey of the adult population across all nine Austrian regions (N = 2258) and explored sociodemographic predictors of residential green and blue space (using satellite data on surrounding greenness and
distance to rivers and lakes), and visit frequencies to 12 different urban and rural green/blue environments. In
contrast to most findings elsewhere, which usually focus on relatively specific locations (e.g., cities), we found
little evidence of socio-economic inequalities in residential green/blue space at the whole country level. Further,
although frequent visits to specific environments were less likely among, e.g., people with lower vs. higher
education, other typically disadvantaged groups, e.g., those self-identifying as belonging vs. not belonging to an
ethnic minority, reported more visits to e.g., urban parks and rivers. Findings suggest that inequalities in nature
exposure may not be universal when considered at a country level.
