Inequalities in geographical distribution of heritage in Scotland, investigating spatial exposure to heritage sites through area-based and individual-based (GPS) measurement

• Published in: Wellbeing, space and society Vol. 7; p. 100211
• Main Authors: Macdonald, Laura, Caryl, Fiona, Mitchell, Richard
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01-12-2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Children; Deprivation; Geographic information system; Global positioning system; Heritage; Inequalities; km2; Q; Deprivation; Geographic information system; CI; Inequalities; Global positioning system; LSOA; Children; GPS; SIMD; Heritage
• ISSN: 2666-5581; 2666-5581
• DOI: 10.1016/j.wss.2024.100211

•Lower heritage engagement in poorer areas may be due to unequal spatial access.•We use a novel application of GPS to quantify heritage contact for 688 children.•Poorer areas in Scotland had fewer opportunities to visit heritage sites locally.•Children living in poorer areas had lower contact with heritage day-to-day.•Place-based schemes are needed to address geographic inequity in heritage access.
Growing evidence suggests that visiting heritage, such as historic buildings, or landscapes, may enhance mental health. However, adults and children from deprived areas are less likely to visit heritage, perhaps partly due to unequal geographical availability. Few studies investigate socio-spatial inequity of heritage access nationally, and there is an absence of research exploring individual-based contact with heritage. We study both and ours is the first to use Global Positioning System (GPS) data to examine the latter. For Scotland we quantify area-level ‘opportunities’ for heritage contact (i.e., data zone-level counts of sites), and SPACES Study children's (n = 688) individual-level heritage ‘encounters’ (i.e., GPS buffer-level counts of sites), by income deprivation. Heritage exposure varied by deprivation at area- (ANOVA p < 0.001) and individual-level (p = 0.003); in poorer areas there were fewer ‘opportunities’ to visit heritage (mean numbers in most deprived: 2.8 (CI:2.2–3.5), and least deprived: 11.7 (CI:10.3–13.1)) and children had fewer ‘encounters’ with heritage (most deprived: 32.6 (CI:25.3–40.2), and least deprived: 58.0 (CI:47.9–69.3)). Inequalities at individual-level were smaller than at area-level; children in poorer areas appeared to compensate for fewer sites near home during their daily movements. Nonetheless, inequalities in exposure did persist, and opportunities to access heritage remained unequal to the detriment of those in poorer areas. Our evidence is policy relevant, highlighting a need for place-based schemes to address geographic inequalities in access. For example, targeted investment in heritage in/near deprived areas; free site entry for those on lower incomes; and educational outreach activities to improve awareness of local heritage.