Parents׳ experiences of raising pre-school aged children in an outer-Melbourne growth corridor

Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health & Place journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Parents' experiences of raising pre-school aged children in an outer-Melbourne growth corridor$ Fiona Jane Andrews n, Stephanie Rich, Rebecca Stockdale, Julia Shelley School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 13 August 2013 Received in revised form 20 February 2014 Accepted 20 February 2014 Available online 28 March 2014

There is growing concern about the outer-suburbs in Australia as healthy places to raise children. This paper aimed to explore this from the perspectives of parents raising preschool-age children in an outerMelbourne municipality. Findings showed that parents were positive about the natural environment as well as the provision of recreation areas and generally felt their neighbourhoods were a safe place for raising children. However, car-dependency, housing estate design and limited local job opportunities all appeared to contribute to social isolation amongst families. Using the Environments for Health Framework, this paper makes suggestions to improve liveability for families in this municipality. & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preschool child Residential location Neighbourhood Suburb Qualitative

1. Introduction The early childhood years (often defined as the period from ages 0 to 6 years) are a crucial period for children's development that set the scene for future adult life. Along with the child's family, Stanley et al. (2005) argue that neighbourhood and community play a key role in children's development during this period. Australia, like the majority of Westernised countries of North America and Europe is an urban society, with most children being raised in suburban neighbourhoods (Gleeson, 2006). Sipe et al. (2006) trace three periods of research into children in the Australian urban environment; the period prior to 1970 which focussed on children's physical and mental health, the 1970s– 1990s that concentrated on themes of children's independence and mobility and the 1990s that placed an emphasis on obesity and physical activity. Subsequently in the 21st century, there has been a strong interest in neighbourhood influences on a range of children's mental health, development and behavioural outcomes, specifically in deprived low-income areas of cities (Burton and Jarrett, 2000; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Curtis et al., 2004; Edwards, 2005; Xue et al., 2005; Sellstrom and Bremberg, 2006; Edwards and Bromfield, 2009, 2010). Despite this plethora of research, much has concentrated on school-aged children;

☆ This study was funded by a grant from the School of Health & Social Development, Deakin University along with funds from the Council in which this research took place. Neither party had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis or the writing of this report. n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61 3 92517053; fax: þ 61 3 92446261. E-mail address: fi[email protected] (F.J. Andrews).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.02.013 1353-8292 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

research on preschool-aged children and their relationships with the urban environment is somewhat limited and is hence the focus of this paper. Australia's population is growing at one of the fastest rates for developed countries with many of the municipalities experiencing the strongest growth being located in outer-urban areas on the fringes of capital cities (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). These areas are very popular residential locations for young families, with the percentage of preschool-aged children (4 years and under) in these municipalities being up to twice that of the Australian average (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The four municipalities with the largest growth in Australia 2011–2012 were all on the outskirts of Greater Melbourne, the state capital city of Victoria (ABS, 2013). There are however, increasing concerns about how healthy these environments are for raising children. A recent Victorian Government report described Melbourne as two cities with a successful and choice-rich innercore and a fringe with fewer choices, less access to employment, social and community services (Victorian Government, 2012a). Furthermore, an inquiry into environmental design and public health, argued that sprawling, low-density housing developments typical of outer-suburban Melbourne create built environments with limited provision for physical activity, contribute to poorer air quality due to high car emissions and fewer green spaces and have reduced opportunities for social interaction and building community (Victorian Government, 2012b). While research into children in the urban environment outlined above is extensive, less is known about children living in the ‘distinctly different environment of the outer-suburbs’in Australia (Woolcock et al., 2010, p 188). Early work produced mixed findings

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

with some raising concerns about social isolation and access to services (Richards, 1990; Gilley, 1994), while others found that neighbourliness was higher in the outer than inner suburbs of Melbourne (Brownlee, 1993). Research on work/life balance in different urban locations in Australia includes some findings specific to families with young children in outer-suburban areas; particularly relating to parents' employment opportunities and the impact of long commuting times on families (Williams et al., 2009). What little research is available on children's health in the outer-suburbs in Australia and internationally, mainly relates to physical activity and obesity (Ewing et al., 2006; Veitch et al., 2008; Dunton et al., 2009). However, as with research on children in the general suburban environment cited above, this work involved primary school-aged children or older. In focusing on preschool-aged children, it is important to understand parental perspectives on place, as parents of this age group of children must act as negotiators for their children's receipt of, and engagement with, community resources (Leventhal and BrooksGunn, 2000). In addition, Prior (2005) argues that for very young children, neighbourhood effects are likely to be mediated predominantly through the parenting they receive, with parents' perceptions of neighbourhoods ‘serving as a filter through which supervisory and parenting strategies are decided’ (p210). Previous work revealed the complexity of interactions between parental perceptions, place and potential child health outcomes (Andrews, 2010; Andrews et al., 2012). In order to capture these complexities, the current study rather than taking a disease or single issue focus, explores parental perceptions of raising preschool-aged children in an outer-suburban growth corridor utilising an ecological approach. Ecological approaches recognise that an array of interconnecting influences including individual parental factors, social networks, employment and neighbourhood factors all affect parents' experiences of raising their children (Luster and Okagaki, 2008). Using this approach, this paper firstly aims to add to current academic discourse regarding preschool-aged children's health and place in outer-suburban settings. Secondly, recognising that local government is often described as a ‘place shaper’ (Dorling, 2010) and in Australia is the closest level of government to the community best able to respond to community needs (Victorian Government, 2001), this paper aims to provide practical applications for local government to improve liveability for families raising children in outer-suburban communities.

2. Methods As the focus of this research was on parents' perceptions and experiences, qualitative methodological methods were utilised. Witten et al. (2009) argue that qualitative methodologies ‘are valuable in exploring the complexity of the processes that link people to places’ (pp. 2895). A qualitative descriptive method was specifically selected as it is ‘especially amenable to obtaining straight and largely unadorned answers to questions of special relevance to practitioners or policy makers’ (Sandelowski, 2000, pp. 337), which was particularly relevant in this study where an aim was for findings to be used by local government. 2.1. Study location The research was located in a municipality at the edge of the Melbourne growth boundary which has experienced significant population growth in the last five years. This municipality has a culturally and financially diverse population predominantly of first-time home-owners in new housing estates and was selected as it has a high percentage of children aged 0–4 years living in the municipality (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The authors

221

have decided not to name the municipality or provide any identifying feature so as to avoid any stigma being attached to the community.

2.2. Recruitment The study took a stratified, purposive approach to recruitment. To be eligible, participants were required to be a parent with at least one preschool-aged child and to have lived in the municipality for at least 12 months in one of two relatively established, or one of two very new suburbs. Parents were recruited from a mixture of relatively established and newer suburbs to obtain a range of experiences of living in the municipality. Details of some of the contextual features of the suburbs relevant to this study are outlined in Table 1. Parents were recruited via key community services for families with young children including; maternal and child health services, mothers' groups, playgroups, child care centres, community centres and preschools. The project was advertised via fliers displayed in these community facilities or distributed to users of the service. Where requested, a researcher was invited to visit a group and explain the project. Potential participants who contacted the researchers were provided with consent forms and a plain language statement. Participants then returned the consent form in a prepaid envelope or handed it to the researcher at their interview.1

2.3. Participants Demographic information on each participant was collected prior to the commencement of the interview. Twenty-two parents participated in this study. Details of participants are outlined in Table 2.

2.4. Interview data collection In-depth interviews were selected as the preferred technique for data collection as past research has found that for parents of preschool-aged children, interviews were preferable to focus groups as they allowed parents to work around their children's needs while contributing to the study (Andrews and Swerissen, 2006). Parents were offered a face-to-face interview in a convenient location, or by telephone. An interview guide was used that consisted of four open-ended questions as follows: Why did you choose to live where you do? What do you consider as ideals for a healthy place to raise a family? What are your experiences of raising preschool-aged children in your current residential location and do you consider it a healthy place to raise a family? Is there anything that might make you consider moving from your current residential location? These questions were used as a guide for the researcher conducting the interview but in keeping with qualitative research practice, each question and its sequence were kept flexible to allow new lines of information to be explored as they arose (Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005). Interviews were audio taped and took approximately 1 h. 1 This study was approved by the Deakin University Human Ethics Committee prior to commencement of the research (approval number: HEAG-H 97_2011).

222

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

Table 1 Contextual features of the four suburbs. Feature

Established suburb A

Established suburb B

New suburb A

New suburb B

Total population at 2011 census Population 0–4 years at 2011 census Distance from CBD Bus services (number of bus routes serving suburb) a Trains service (distance to closest station) b Number of preschools (including standalone and those run from childcare centres) Number of playgrounds/recreation reserves (not including, nature reserves & trails) Shopping centresc

32,413 4097 27 km 3 8 km 16

17,304 1816 35 km 3 5 km 5

3223 400 23 km 4 6 km 5

21,690 2462 30 km 3 7 km 7

23

6

4

5

One containing 145 shops/services & another containing 62 shops/services

One containing 21 shops/services

Under construction

One containing 51 shops/services

a b c

All bus services ran every 15 min during peak hours and every 40 min during off peak hours. All train services ran every 10 min during peak hours and every 20 min during off peak hours. Defined as containing at least one large supermarket chain store.

Table 2 Participant details. Variable

Details

Residential location

12 from newer suburbs 10 from relatively more established suburbs 26–42 years 1 male 21 female 11 born in Australia 11 born overseas (9 from non-English speaking countries) 19 completed certificate/diploma or higher 3 completed 12 years or less of schooling 11 home full time 11 in paid work (3 working full time) 10 spent ¼–⅓ household income on rent or mortgage 7 spent ⅓ to ½ 4 spent less than ¼ 1 did not know 1–3 9 months–5 years

Age range of participants Sex Place of birth Education Working arrangements Housing costs

Number of preschool-aged children per household Ages of preschool aged children

2.5. Data analysis Interviews were transcribed verbatim, read thoroughly to check the accuracy of the transcription as well as to remove all identifying material and assign pseudonyms to participants. Data analysis followed a typical qualitative approach, characterised by simultaneous collection and analysis whereby each mutually shaped each other (Sandelowski, 2000). Initially a deductive approach was taken involving data coding and grouping of codes into themes (Creswell, 2009). After analysing approximately half the interviews, the researcher revisited the literature and identified the Environments for Health framework (Victorian Government, 2001) as a useful tool to provide structure to the analysis. The Environments for Health framework was introduced as an approach to municipal public health planning in Victoria in 2001 and is still in use today. This framework underpinned by the social model of health and informed by the Healthy Cities and Healthy Localities projects, takes a systems approach to municipal public health planning and describes health and wellbeing as affected by factors originating across any or all of four environmental dimensions; built/physical, economic, social or natural (Victorian Government, 2001). The Environments for Health framework was chosen to guide the analysis of interviews for a number of reasons. Firstly, because all the interview material could be explained by reference to the four dimensions of the framework. Secondly, this framework

aligns with an ecological approach to parenting experiences as described previously (Luster and Okagaki, 2008). Finally, this framework was chosen as it is currently utilised by all local governments in Victoria to develop municipal public health plans and fulfilled our aim of providing possible practical applications for local government. The remainder of the interview analysis thus employed a more inductive approach with transcript coding being informed specifically by the four dimensions in the Environments for Health framework; built/physical, economic, social or natural. These dimensions then became the key themes for our findings.

3. Findings and discussion The findings of this study provide an in-depth snapshot of the experiences of a diverse group of parents raising preschool-aged children in an outer Melbourne growth corridor. The ecological approach employed in this research highlights neighbourhood factors that parents considered were both positive and negative for raising healthy children in the outer Melbourne suburbs in this study, as well as revealing the interaction between these factors. These are discussed below using the Environments for Health framework, along with possible practical applications for local government to improve liveability in the municipality.

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

3.1. Experiences of the natural environment Access to a high quality natural environment was one of the priorities parents cited for a healthy place to raise a family in this study. For example, one parent when asked about their ideals for a healthy place to raise a family said: “A healthy neighbourhood… parks for children to play in… with clean surroundings and well maintained plants.” (P17) Generally parents' ideals had been met with most describing their positive experiences of the natural environment in their neighbourhood and how this provided a healthy setting in which to raise their children. One parent explained this saying: “It's great. There's lots of big trees… Yeah we love it because it's just lots of fresh air and big open space and they've put lots of trees in our nature strip so we are happy.” (P14) Another parent who had previously lived in the inner-city of Melbourne contrasted their family's current opportunities for contact with the natural environment with their previous living arrangements:

223

around with their children during the week. One parent highlighted this in a description of a typical day: “Well for instance today I dropped the older children off at school and drove home and got myself ready. Then we drove to the town centre which is probably about a 10 min drive. There's a playground there that he plays in which is indoors and then I do a bit of shopping and then we come home. Then I'll pick up the kids and then I take them to whatever it is… whether gymnastics or swimming you know.” (P12) While a few parents commented on the limited public transport in their local area in keeping with previous studies of families in the outer-suburbs (Williams et al., 2009; Andrews, 2010), exploration of the reasons for car dependency also revealed other contributing factors. For example, most parents did not cite provision of public transport as one of their ideals for a healthy place to raise a family and where bus services were available, few families used them. One parent observed: “Buses – I've seen a lot of them go around with only one person on them.” (P3)

“In the city like we lived in an apartment and we can't go anywhere. We just stayed in a box.” (P20)

This parent went on to explain that using the car was preferable because of the convenience when getting around with young children:

A couple of the parents from newer suburbs mentioned dust from nearby construction or occasional litter; however, these were in the minority. Several parents remarked on the lack of industry in the area being a positive for their children's health:

“The other week with playgroup we were going to the beach and the actual thought of trying to park at the station and catch the train, only 4 stops and you know I said… I'll drive. I guess we're not prepared to get on a bus or a train at this stage in our kid's lives.” (P3)

“There's not any dirty lakes or any industrial bits around where we are… We're at the end of the estate so then you've got paddocks and we don't get any sort of chemicals or anything in the air, so it's obviously healthy in that aspect.” (P10) Despite the development in the area, others commented on there still being a ‘country-feel’ which they believed was beneficial to raising children. For example one parent said: “On a really cold, still, quiet night we can actually hear the frogs from our place and the fact we can hear them is pretty good.” (P19) These findings reveal that parents recognised the importance of the natural environment for their children's health and despite the ongoing development of their municipality were mainly satisfied that their expectations were being met. There is a growing literature that describes the importance of contact with the natural environment for the healthy development of children (Kellert, 2002; FaberTaylor and Kuo, 2006; Maller and Townsend, 2006; Maller, 2009). Together with the findings of the current study, this supports the need for local government to continue to preserve the natural environment within future developments in this municipality. At the same time it raises the need for more recognition of the general health benefits of contact with the natural environment in local government planning. Planning guides such as the Healthy Spaces & Places Guide (Planning Institute of Australia, 2009) and Healthy by Design (National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2004), which currently focus on improving the quality of natural outdoor spaces to promote physical activity, could be expanded to address this. 3.2. Experiences of the physical/built environment Car dependency is common in outer-suburban areas of Australia (Luk, 2003; Williams et al., 2009; Delbosc and Currie, 2011; Sugiyama et al., 2012) and was the case for parents in the current study. This was reflected in parents' daily experiences of getting

Another said: “Well I've got a car so I've not ever had to rely on public transport and I feel safe and comfortable in my car” (P8), These findings are in line with the work of Tranter (2006) who argues that many suburban parents are caught in ‘social traps’. While Tranter's work refers specifically to parents trapped into driving their children to and from school, the principle of entrapment could be applied to the current study whereby parents appear to have felt it was a social norm to drive their children around their community, rather than use public transport. Similarly, very few parents in the current study reported walking or cycling to get around with their children. There were some instances where incomplete footpaths were a hindrance to walkability, particularly in the newer suburbs, as has been reported previously (Andrews, 2010). One parent explained: “One of my issues is walking to the kindergarten… there's two routes you can take, there's crossing the busy road not at a set of lights in order to stay on the footpath, or there's pedestrian lights on four sides of the intersection but there's no footpaths on those corners… So I just hope that the traffic is backed up ‘cos then people would be stopped and then they let me walk across. But other than that I'd just grip my kids' hands (thinking if one of these kids trips over)… But if I go the other way it's just trudging through mud and gravel to be able to cross at the lights… [It's frustrating] You know everybody's going on about the obesity epidemic and being able to walk!” (P2) However, for most they acknowledged that they preferred to drive than walk: “Everything I need is within walking distance but I don't walk as much as I should.” (P19). There are several ways in which car dependency can influence children's wellbeing. Frumkin (2002) argues that urban sprawl and

224

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

its relationship with car dependency is a health hazard citing examples of associations between car dependency and air pollution, motor vehicle crashes, pedestrian injuries and fatalities as well as indirect impacts through reduced physical activity. Furthermore, Baslington (2009) describes how parents' attitudes are an important predictor of children's future transport use. Thus children in the current study are not only at risk of the immediate effects of car dependency on their wellbeing but also the possibility of a future car dependent lifestyle. The Victorian State government has identified car dependency as an area of concern in outer-suburban areas emphasising the need to provide better public transport and improve walk-ability (Victorian Government, 2012a). Baslington (2008) however, argues that car dependency is a social issue that needs to be tackled from a social policy rather than transport demands management perspective. The finding that parents in the current study preferred using a car even when public transport was available and services were within walking distance, is in line with Baslington's work. Together with Trantor's work on social traps, this suggests government should consider taking a broader approach to dealing with car dependency in its policy development. Although most parents drove around their municipality with their children during the week, many talked about the importance of physical activity both for themselves and their children and reported enjoying walking or cycling for recreation with their children on the weekend. This separation of weekday from weekend activities was also seen with regard to children's use of outdoor space and maybe an example of parents' desire for ‘routinised and supervised lives’ for their children as described in studies of older Australian suburban children (Gleeson, 2006, p44). Provision of high quality playgrounds and recreation areas was a high priority for a healthy place to raise a family amongst those interviewed in this study and a reason some parents had chosen to live in their neighbourhood: “Well that's half of why we chose the place where we are, because of the park across the road. Moving to a block with the park opposite, having kids was the major factor in that.” (P19) Unlike in a previous study in an outer Melbourne municipality (Andrews, 2010), parents in the current study, even those in the less established suburbs, were positive about access to and the quality of recreation areas and playgrounds in their suburb. One parent highlighted this saying: “We've got a park around the corner, a decent amount of grass area you know you could get the family out there and play a game of cricket or something… There's another playground close to us, probably about a five minute drive… that's a big one. It's like half a basketball court there… It has a decent playground like big tunnel slides and stuff like that.” (P9) These differences may reflect the recent emphasis in local government planning placed on public outdoor space to improve physical activity (Planning Institute of Australia, 2009, National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2004). However, many parents, including those home full time, did not report using these public outdoor spaces much during the week, with children playing indoors or in their own back gardens. Most parents described having a big housing block and back garden, and in keeping with previous studies, the size of housing blocks was a major factor in choice of residential location in the current study (Richards, 1990; Gilley, 1994; Andrews, 2010). Consequently one parent explained that they tended to only use public outdoor space when they had exhausted their own private outdoor space:

“Like our backyard we can play cricket and we've got the swing set, but if you just want that little bit of extra space we only have to walk across the road to a massive footy ground.” (P7) In terms of health, while children in the current study may benefit from being physically active in their own back gardens, limitations on access to public outdoor space may reduce opportunities for socialising with other children as playgrounds provide an important setting for developing social skills (Mitchell et al., 2006; De Visscher and Bouverne-de Bie, 2008). As mentioned previously, local government planning guides place an emphasis on the use of public outdoor space to promote physical activity; the findings of the current study suggest a need for local government to also consider promoting these spaces as a means of increasing children's socialisation. The final area where the built/physical environment impacted on raising children related to housing estate design. Many parents commented on entering their homes directly from their garages which meant they had little face to face contact with their neighbours. For example one parent said: “I suppose we go into the garage and we're never really out in the front so we rarely ever see them [our neighbours], only when you we're driving up and down the street.” (P18) Another barrier to incidental contact with neighbours was the design of front gardens in a number of the estates. Parents complained about developers' covenants preventing them from having a front fence and/or requiring them to have a rockery instead of a front lawn. One parent explained: “In Queensland I knew my neighbours and we used to yak across at each other when we hung out our washing… it was a lot closer living than this but it was also kind of different… we used to yak to people out the front of our house… yeah I think it's the way Council's actually planned it… it's not the closeness of the living it's just the fact I don't think you've got space out the front for people to interact.” (P21) The absence of fencing was also a barrier to children playing in front gardens: “It's very difficult to control the cars you know… we don't want something to happen so usually my kids play in the backyard with fencing.” (P6) The design of garages and the hard interface between homes and streets have been described as a barrier to social connectedness previously (Tranter, 2006; Williams et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2012), while a study from California has also highlighted the importance of front gardens in encouraging children's free outdoor play (Handy et al., 2008). Together with the findings of the current study, there is evidence for local government to reconsider housing design to encourage social connectedness amongst families in the municipality. 3.3. Experiences of the economic environment Given an expenditure of greater than 30% of household income on a mortgage or rent is classed as housing stress in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012), and most parents in this study expended this or just below this amount, it is unsurprising that many were concerned about employment. Several parents spoke of the limited employment opportunities in the municipality and how this was a barrier to obtaining a second income, in line with previous studies in outer-suburban Australia (Williams et al., 2009). One parent who worked full-time also commented:

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

“I would like more work locally… I do work locally but having said that I am getting maybe $20,000 - $30,000 less than what I would be getting in the city.” (P11) However, the main issue discussed relating to the economic environment and raising children was parents' commuting time. Parents in the current study did not identify proximity to their work location as a factor in choosing to live in the municipality in line with previous studies (Richards, 1990; Kim et al., 2005; Andrews, 2010) or an ideal for a healthy place in which to raise a family. However, unlike in previous studies, concerns about the long commute to work were such that some families considered moving from the municipality. For example one parent said: “The location… it's too far out. When we bought this house we actually moved backwards from the city. Some days it can add 20 min to my partner's travel time. Even though it's 2 km down the road [from where we used to live]. So that is something we did consider but didn't think that it'd be much of a problem. But now that this area has built up because it's affordable… it's become too much of a problem.” (P12) Commuting time also appeared to be exacerbated by the design of many of the housing estates which led to traffic congestion at peak commuting times. Again, this was sufficient for parents to consider moving from the area: “The biggest issue for us and why we wouldn't stay [living here] is the actual access in and out and the actual time it takes my partner to get to work. These suburbs… there are only a few routes out and it's very congested to get onto the freeway… He actually works on this side of town he doesn't go into the city but the whole commuting is quite painful and that takes into your family time.” (P22) Parents' reasons for concerns about commuting time related to work/family balance with fathers in particular, being absent from the lives of their children during the week. This was felt more keenly by parents who were home full time. One mother explained: “He doesn't have much time with them and look it's hard because you know he does want to be more involved but he doesn't have the time… There's some days where I just want to scream really loud.” (P12) Several parents supported this mother's frustrations speaking of the stress of raising their children with little support from their partners during the week. One woman described how she felt when her husband finally arrived home: “I just want to say ‘can you just get them to bed’ ‘cos I got nothing left to read a story. I'm just over it all.” (P2). These observations are similar to those reported in previous studies of parents in outer-suburban areas (Gilley, 1994; Williams et al., 2009; Andrews, 2010) and are of concern. A recent report highlights parents' reduced opportunities to play with their children because of long commuting times in outer-suburban areas (Flood and Barbato, 2005), while several studies point to the association between poor work/life balance and parents' and children's health outcomes (Pocock, 2006; Baxter, 2007; Fursman, 2009; Champion et al., 2012). Strazdins and Loughrey (2008) argue that urban design solutions should be considered to reduce time demands, particular on families. This is pertinent given the issues of estate design adding to commuting time in the current study. In addition, findings of the current study add support for more local job creation in Victoria's outer-suburbs recognised in a recent government report (Victorian Government, 2012a).

225

3.4. Experiences of the social environment Parents generally felt their communities were a safe place for bringing up their children in line with previous studies of parents in outer-suburbs (Richards, 1990; Brownlee and McDonald, 1992; Williams et al., 2009). For many this related to ‘keeping the wrong people out’. For example one parent explained: “Safety is a big thing. For me safety and freedom to be able to walk where you need to go without fear of you know something happening, or something going wrong or running into the wrong group of people.” (P5) Another parent who lived in a gated area of their suburb commented: “I mean with children it just becomes that much more important… There is sort of added security in our estate. There is 24 h patrols. So that makes it a little bit easier knowing that there is someone constantly patrolling the area 24 h… It was one of the reasons we bought here as well, because of that added security.” (P1) Others related this to their neighbourhood containing the same kind of people with the same aspirations as themselves. For example one parent said: “So the area is young and we can all relate to that…we all know what everyone wants. Like we are not at the stage where we've got teenagers with loud parties. We're all wanting you know a quiet safe place for kids to be.” (P7) However, unlike in previous studies of Australian suburbs, feelings of safety were not related to neighbourhood upkeep (Wood et al., 2008) or to strong connections with, or trust in neighbours (Ziersch et al., 2007). Although not all living in masterplanned estates, parents' feelings of safety in the current study were more in line with the concept of ‘insulation’ encountered amongst residents in master-planned estates in outer suburban Sydney (Gwyther, 2005) and Brisbane (Walters and Rosenblatt, 2009; Cheshire and Wickes, 2012). Indeed, although parents described having similar aspirations to their neighbours, most had fairly superficial relationships. This was the case amongst parents at home full time and those in the paid workforce alike. One parent highlighted this saying: “We don't really interact with our neighbours that much. It's just a hello if you see them out the front or something.” (P10) This again aligns with previous work on master-planned communities where high numbers of residents reported sharing the same values as their neighbours but actual social interaction was limited (Rosenblatt et al., 2009). Of the small number of parents who did know their neighbours, these fell into one of three categories. A couple of parents reported getting to know neighbours serendipitously through an activity. One parent explained: “I went to rhyme time and realised that the mother across the road is going to the same place I'm going to. So you know it opens up that door where you can say we were once neighbours but now there is a chance to become friends.” (P14) This aligns with the work of Witten et al. (2009) who describe the importance of community-based resources and services to parents of preschool-age children. However, in the current study it appeared that community-based activities and groups were for some parents, their only form of support, given their limited relationships with neighbours:

226

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

“We don't have a lot of friends here… most of our friends live on the other side of the city. So in terms of support during the day there's really no one. The only people that I could sort of turn to would maybe be the girls from mother's group.” (P1) A second category of parents who knew their neighbours was a small number who reported being part of the same religious or ethnic community. This was particularly apparent amongst parents from culturally diverse backgrounds. For example one parent said: “Your relationships with your neighbours… how friendly they are… it really makes a difference if they are of your own community, like religious… same religion.” (P4) This parent went on to explain: “We did go and introduce ourselves and they did the same as well and we had some function organised or we invited them. Like they all came to my bub's first birthday and they invited us to various things. We've been going out on outings together as well so that has actually bonded our relationship a lot… Because we belong to the same community it's been nice and easy.” (P4) This observation was supported by several Australian-born parents who commented on the strong connections between their culturally diverse neighbours. “They've kind of got their own little community they bring with them… you know their family and their friends.” (P21) And the observation that Australian-born parents in particular, voiced a need for support in forming social connections: “If you're new into the area it's not easy to break into anything unless you're thrown in with a whole group of people… We're not classed as a minority group so they don't worry about us as much. And yeah I mean we're not a minority group but, you still get that isolation effect.” (P19) These findings are similar to those of Witten et al. (2009) who described ethnic differences amongst the peer support networks experienced by Maori, Pakeha and Samoan parents. The final example of a parent who knew their neighbours was the only parent who had no access to a car during the day and who highlighted the interaction between active transport and social connectedness: “It's quite a friendly neighbourhood. So whenever we're out riding our bikes, we stop and talk to neighbours, which is good… Yesterday my neighbour across the road came and gave us one of those big Wiggles cars which is really nice… her daughter had finished with it, she's like seven or something, so they brought it over for us… I think because we walk around so much they know who we are and where we are from.” (P13) This observation aligns with the work of Wood et al. (2010) who describe the positive association between sense of community and leisurely walking. With regard to health and wellbeing implications of social connectedness, there is growing evidence for the link between parents' social support, parenting and child health outcomes. For example low levels of social support have been linked with child neglect (Connell-Carrick, 2003) and child abuse (Korbin, 2003). There are also associations between neighbourhood belonging and children's levels of hyperactivity, emotional symptoms and peer problems (Edwards and Bromfield, 2009, 2010). Given this literature, and the current findings, there is a need for local government to consider ways to improve social connectedness amongst parents in this municipality. Adequate provision of support services is

clearly important however, consideration also needs to be made of providing opportunities for parents from different cultural backgrounds to connect. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, most parents in the current study were aware of the physical benefits of walking and cycling with their children but not the incidental opportunities these offer for social connectedness. Addressing the social causes of car dependency also help in developing strategies to increase walking and through this social connectedness.

4. Conclusion Fulfilling the first aim of the study, this paper has provided new insights into children's health and place in two under-researched areas; namely amongst preschool-aged children in the outersuburban context. Unlike school-aged children who have been the focus of the majority of research in the Australian urban context and who can develop independent experiences of, at the very least, the social dimension of their environment, findings suggest that preschool-aged children were likely to have been influenced by parents' experiences across all four (natural, built, economic and social) dimensions of their environments. These experiences have the potential to affect children's physical and emotional health directly; for example the direct impact of being raised in an unpolluted environment or the impact of parents' limited time with children due to work commitments. Additionally, impacts may be indirect through setting patterns for future behaviours such as car dependency or socialisation. With regard to the outer-suburban context, this study revealed both parents' positive and negative experiences of their neighbourhoods as places to raise their preschool-aged children. On the positive side, parents felt their neighbourhoods were a safe place to raise children, with good access to quality public open space and a healthy natural environment. These findings are significant and need to be reported given the overall negative portrayal of the outer-suburbs prevalent in recent government reports outlined in the introduction to this paper (Victorian Government, 2012a, 2012b) and the consequent media coverage (Herald Sun, 2012; Sydney Morning Herald, 2012; The Age, 2012a, 2012b), all of which can stigmatise families raising children in these communities. Additionally, parents' high prioritisation of access to open space and the natural environment in their choice of their residential location also need to be reported, as this is somewhat at odds with the Victorian Government's future plans for Melbourne which focus on increasing urban density (Victorian Government, 2014). Less positive however, were the poor levels of social connectedness and social support apparent amongst many of the parents interviewed in this study. While concerns about this have been raised in previous studies, the current study is unique in that its ecological approach exposed the multiple interacting influences that contributed to this. These included parents' use of active transport and outdoor public play areas only as organised recreation pursuits. This, along with poor housing estate design, all reduced the chance of incidental socialisation with other families. Consequently, reduced opportunities for socialisation, together with limited local employment and poor work/family balance are also likely to have contributed to the social isolation described by a number of the parents in this study. With regard to the second aim of the study; to provide practical applications for local government, the use of the Environments for Health Framework in the data analysis provides a familiar structure for local government to identify interventions for improving liveability for young families, through the municipal public health planning process. For example, expanding current guides (Healthy Spaces & Places Guide and Healthy by Design) to provide more emphasis on the broader health benefits of the environment and

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

public open space. In addition, the need to recognise the social aspects of car dependency, improve housing estate design as well as supporting current plans to increase local jobs, and finally the provision of more support activities for young families to encourage social connectedness. It is important to note the limitations of the current study. These include the fact that the study was carried out at one point in time and experiences are likely to change over time, also that findings are not necessarily generalisable to other outer-suburban communities. In addition, while this study did achieve diversity in its study sample, recruitment relied on parents who were already connected with some sort of community organisation. These limitations raise opportunities for further research including, sampling from different municipalities, following parents' experiences over a period of time and attempting to reach parents who are not connected with community services.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to all the parents who participated in this research and to Council staff who assisted in identifying service from which to recruit participants. We also wish to acknowledge Professor Louise Johnson, School of Humanities & Social Sciences at Deakin University for her valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References Andrews, F.J., Swerissen, H., 2006. Managing the family's health: preferences and experiences of women with different working arrangements. Aust. J. Prim. Health 12, 109–116. Andrews, F.J., 2010. Parental perceptions of residential location: impacts on children's health. Health Place 16, 252–258. Andrews, F.J., Henderson-Wilson, C. and Townsend, M. (2012) Parenting and place: pilot study exploring the experiences of women from inner and outer Melbourne suburbs. In: Fifth Healthy Cities Conference Proceedings: Working Together to Achieve Liveable Cities, Nerang, QLD: AST Management Pty Ltd, pp. 1–11. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011. Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013. Regional Population Growth, Australia 201112. Cat. No. 3218.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. Housing assistance in Australia 2012. Cat. No. HOU266. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. Baslington, H., 2008. Travel socialization: a social theory of travel mode behaviour. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2, 91–114. Baslington, H., 2009. Children's perceptions of and attitudes towards, transport modes: why a vehicle for change is long overdue. Child Geogr. 7, 305–322. Brownlee, H., 1993. Who needs neighbours? Views form the outer and inner suburbs?. Family Matters 35, 34–36. Brownlee, H., McDonald, P., 1992. A safe place for children: views from the outer suburbs. Family Matters 33, 22–26. Burton, L.M., Jarrett, R.L., 2000. In the mix, yet on the margins: the place of families in urban neighbourhood and child development research. J. Marriage. Fam. 62, 1114–1135. Baxter, J., 2007. When Dad works long hours. How work hours are associated with fathering 4-5 year-old children. Family Matters 77, 60–69. Champion, S.L., Rumbold, A.R., Giles, L.C., Moore, V.M., 2012, Parental work schedules and child overweight and obesity. Int. J. Obes. 36, 573–580. Cheshire, L., Wickes, R., 2012. Crime talk in the suburbs: symbolic representations of status and security on a master-planned estate. Hous. Stud. 27, 1162–1181. Connell-Carrick, K., 2003. A critical review of the empirical literature: identifying correlates of child neglect. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work J. 20, 398–425. Creswell, J., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, London Curtis, L.J., Dooley, M.D., Phipps, S.A., 2004. Child well-being and neighbourhood quality. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 1917–1927. Delbosc, A., Currie, G., 2011. The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and wellbeing. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 1130–1137. De Visscher, S., Bouverne-de Bie, M., 2008. Recognising urban public space as a coeducator: children's socialization in Ghent. Int. J. Urban Region. Res. 32.3, 604–616. Dorling, D., 2010. Using the concept of place to understand and reduce health inequalities. In: The Social Determinants of Health and the role of Local Government. Improvement and Development Agency. 〈http://www.local.gov. uk/health/-/journal_content/56/10180/3510830/ARTICLE〉.

227

Dunton, G.F., Kaplan, J., Wolch, J., Jerrett, M., Reynolds, K.D., 2009. Physical environmental correlates of childhood obesity: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 10, 393–402. Edwards, B., 2005. Does it take a village? Family Matters 72, 36–43. Edwards, B., Bromfield, L.M., 2009. Neighbourhood influences on young children's conduct problems and pro-social behaviour: evidence from an Australian national sample. Child. Youth. Serv. Rev. 31, 317–324. Edwards, B., Bromfield, L.M., 2010. Neighbourhood influences on young children's emotional and behavioural problems. Family Matters 84, 7–20. Ewing, R., Brownson, R.C., Berrigan, D., 2006. Relationship between urban sprawl and weight of United States youth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 31, 464–474. Faber-Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., 2006. Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. In: Spencer, C., Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and their Environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Flood, M., Barbato, C., 2005. Off to Work. Commuting in Australia. The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 78. Frumkin, H., 2002. Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep. 117 (201117). Fursman, L., 2009. Parents' long work hours and the impact on family life. Soc. Policy J. N. Z. 35, 55–67. Gilley, T., 1994. Beyond the City: Access to Services for Mother and Babies. Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne Gleeson, B., 2006. Australia's toxic cities. In: Gleeson, B., Sipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City. Routledge, Oxford, UK. Gwyther, G., 2005. Paradise planned: community formation and the master planned estate. Urban Policy Res. 23, 57–72. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., 2008. Neighborhood design and children's outdoor play: evidence from Northern California. Child. Youth Environ. 18, 160–179. Herald Sun, 2012. Big cost of urban sprawl in Melbourne. 〈http://www. heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/big-cost-of-urban-sprawli-n-melbourne/storye6frf7kx-1226534939987〉. Kellert, S.R., 2002. Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive and evaluative development in children. In: Kahn, P.H.J., Kellert, S.R. (Eds.), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kelly, J-F., Breadon, P., Davis, C., Hunter, A., Mullerworth, D., Weidmann, B., 2012. Social Cities, Grattan Institute, Melbourne. Kim, T-K., Horner, M.W., Marans, R.W., 2005. Life cycle and environmental factors in selecting residential and job locations. Hous. Stud. 20, 457–473. Korbin, J.E., 2003. Neighbourhood and community connectedness in child maltreatment research. Child. Abuse. Negl. 27, 137–140. Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., 2000. The neighbourhoods they live in: the effects of neighbourhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol. Bull. 126, 309–337. Liamputtong, P., Ezzy, D., 2005. Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Luk, J.Y.K., 2003. Reducing car travel in Australian cities: review report. J. Urban Plan. Dev.June, 84–96. Luster, T., Okagaki, L., 2008. Parenting: An Ecological Perspective, Second edition Lawrence Erlbuam & Associates, NJ. Maller, C.J., 2009. Promoting children's mental, emotional and social health through contact with nature: a model. Health Educ. 109, 522–543. Maller, C.J., Townsend, M., 2006. Children's mental health and wellbeing and hands-on contact with nature: perceptions of principals and teachers. Int. J. Learn. 12, 357–373. Mitchell, R., Cavanagh, M., Eager, D., 2006. Not all risk is bad, Playgrounds as a learning environment for children. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 13, 122–124. National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2004. Healthy by Design: a planners’ guide to environments for active living. National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division). Planning Institute of Australia, 2009. Healthy Spaces and Places: A National Guide for Designing Places for Healthy Living. Planning Institute of Australia, ACT. Pocock, B., 2006. The Labour Market Ate my Babies. Work, Children and a Sustainable Future. The Federation Press, NSW. Prior, M., 2005. Neighbourhood influences on children. In: Richardson S., Prior M. (Eds). No Time to Lose, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. Richards, L., 1990. Nobody's Home. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Rosenblatt, T., Cheshire, L., Lawrence, G., 2009. Social interaction and sense of community in a master planned community. Hous. Theory Soc. 26, 122–142. Sandelowski, M., 2000. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res.Nurs. Health 23, 334–340. Sellstrom, E., Bremberg, S., 2006. The significance of neighbourhood context to child and adolescent health and wellbeing: a systematic review of multilevel studies. Scand. J. Public. Health. 34, 544–554. Sipe, N., Buchanan, N., Dodson, J., 2006. Children in the urban environment. In: Gleeson, B., Sipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City. Routledge, Oxford, UK. Stanley, F., Richardson, S., Prior, M., 2005. Children of the Lucky Country. Pan Macmillan, Sydney, Australia. Strazdins, L., Loughrey, B., 2008. Too busy: why time is a health and environmental problem. NSW Public Health Bull. 18, 219–221. Sugiyama, T., Merom, D., van der Ploeg, H.P., Corpuz, G, Bauman, A., Owen, N., 2012. Prolonged sitting in cars: prevalence, socio-demographic variations and trends. Prev. Med. 55, 315–318.

228

F.J. Andrews et al. / Health & Place 27 (2014) 220–228

Sydney Morning Herald, 2012. Tale of two cities a happy story for the inner suburbs. 〈http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/tale-of-two-cities-a-hap py-story-for-inner-suburbs-20121026-28b7t.html〉. The Age, 2012a. Sick suburbs. 〈http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sick-su burbs-20120314-1v3a9.html〉. The Age, 2012b. Health fear on estates. 〈http://theage.domain.com.au/health-fearon-estates-20120314-1v3lw.html〉. Tranter, P., 2006. Overcoming social traps. In: Gleeson, B., Sipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City. Routledge, Oxford, UK. Veitch, J., Salmon, J., Ball, K., 2008. Children's active free play in local neighbourhoods: a behavioural mapping study. Health Educ. Res. 23, 870–879. Victorian Government, 2001, Environments for Health. Promoting Health and Wellbeing through Built, Social, Economic and Natural Environments. Municipal Public Health Planning Framework, September 2001. Victorian Government, 2012a. Melbourne, let's talk about the future. Discussion paper prepared by the Ministerial Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Planning Committee for Melbourne. October 2012. Victorian Government, 2012b. Inquiry into environmental design and public health in Victoria. Final Report prepared by the Environment and Planning References Committee, May 2012. Victorian Government, 2014. Plan Melbourne. Metropolitan Planning Strategy. 〈http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/Plan-Melbourne〉.

Walters, P., Rosenblatt, T., 2008. Co-operation or co-presence? The comforting ideal of community in a master planned estate. Urban Policy Res. 26, 397–413. Williams, P., Pocock, B., Bridge, K, 2009. Linked up Lives: Putting Together Work, Home and Community in ten Australian Suburbs. Overview Report. Centre for Work & Life, University of South Australia. Witten, K., Kearns, R., Penney, T., Faalau, F., 2009. Connecting place and the everyday practices of parenting: insights from New Zealand. Environ. Plan. 41, 2893–2910. Woolcock, G., Gleeson, G., Randolph, B., 2010. Urban research and child-friendly cities: a new Australian outline. Child. Geogr. 8, 177–192. Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., Giles-Corti, B., 2008. The anatomy of the sage and social suburb: an exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents' perceptions of safety. Health Place 14, 15–31. Wood, L., Frank, L.D., Giles-Corti, B., 2010. Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighbourhood design. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 1381–1390. Xue, Y., Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., Felton, J., 2005. Neighbourhood residence and mental health problems of 5-11 year olds. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 62, 554–563. Ziersch, A., Putland, C., Palmer, C., MacDougall, C., Baum, F., 2007. Neighbourhood life, social capital and perceptions of safety in the Western suburbs of Adelaide. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 42, 549–562.