Active lifestyles: New study reveals healthiest and unhealthiest areas in England

RunningRunning
Running
These rankings provide insights into the most and least equipped regions for fostering physical activity and community engagement.

A new study by BoyleSports sheds light on which areas in England are best equipped for an active lifestyle, based on the availability of sports facilities.

This data, detailing sports facilities per 10,000 residents, offers a fresh perspective on how access to recreational spaces varies across regions, potentially influencing overall community health and well-being.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Based on these rankings, the following five areas are the healthiest areas in England:

  1. Eden - 33.4
  2. Rutland - 33.1
  3. Waverley - 32.8
  4. South Oxfordshire - 31.5
  5. Ryedale - 31.4

The data reveals that the healthiest areas in England are Eden, Rutland, Waverley, South Oxfordshire, and Ryedale, which are largely rural regions with strong access to natural landscapes and outdoor facilities.

Eden, located in Cumbria near the Lake District and Ryedale in North Yorkshire close to the North York Moors offer residents significant opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Waverley situated near the scenic Surrey Hills and South Oxfordshire with access to the Chiltern Hills both benefit from being close to designated areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

These areas, although spread across northern midland and southern England share a key characteristic in their proximity to parks and scenic rural surroundings. This pattern suggests a link between access to natural environments and a higher availability of sports facilities per person reflecting a culture that values outdoor and physical activities.

The rural setting appears to be an advantage allowing these communities the space and infrastructure to encourage active lifestyles, a key factor that has placed these regions at the top of the health rankings.

In comparison, these areas ranked as the worst overall on the scale:

  1. Tower Hamlets - 6.4
  2. Newham - 6.4
  3. Lewisham - 7.4
  4. Lambeth - 7.5
  5. Brent - 8

Located in densely populated parts of London, these urban boroughs face significant challenges in terms of available space for recreational facilities.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Tower Hamlets and Newham, both in East London, rank lowest with a score of 6.4, highlighting limited access to sports facilities per capita. Lewisham, Lambeth, and Brent, situated in South and West London, also reflect a similar scarcity, each scoring below 8 on the scale.

These boroughs, characterised by high population density and urban development, lack the open spaces and natural surroundings more commonly found in rural areas, which limits opportunities for outdoor recreation and sports facilities.

The rankings suggest that urban infrastructure and limited green spaces play a key role in restricting access to facilities that promote active and healthy lifestyles, placing these London boroughs at the bottom of the scale.

Telling news your way
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice