A comparison of Australian families’ expenditure on active and screen-based recreation using the ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2003/04

238 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2008 vol. 32 no. 3© 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2008 Public Health Association of Australia

A comparison of Australian families’ expenditure on

active and screen-based recreation using the

ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2003/04

Robert Aitken, Lesley King and Adrian BaumanNSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales

AbstractObjective: This study aimed to investigate

how much households with dependent

children spend on active recreation

(physical activity) compared with screen-

based (sedentary) recreation, according

to their household socioeconomic and

demographic characteristics.

Methods: The study analysed data

from the 2003-04 Australian Bureau of

Statistics Household Expenditure Survey,

which collected information on household

expenditure from a representational cross-

section of private dwellings across Australia.

Results: In 2003-04, Australian

households with dependent children spent

an average of 1.5% and 3.3% of their

weekly disposable income on active and

screen recreation respectively, and 24.9%

of their total active and screen recreation

expenditure on active recreation. There

was significant variation across household

characteristics, with higher income and

socioeconomic status households, and

families with more than one dependent

child more likely to spend a larger portion

of their recreation budget on active

recreation instead of screen recreation.

Conclusions: Overall, Australian families

spend more money on screen recreation

items than they do on active recreation,

although there are strong economic and

cultural gradients in their patterns of

expenditure on both active and screen

recreation. This suggests that while the

costs of active recreation may be a barrier

to participation for some families, there are

also social and cultural values influencing

recreational choices.

Implications: For the first time, specific

information on Australian families’

expenditure on active and screen

recreation is available. These results

contribute to identifying cultural and

economic barriers influencing families’

health-related behaviours and their

participation in organised physical activity.

Keywords: physical activity, household

consumption, cost analysis, leisure

activities, obesity prevention.

Aust N Z Public Health. 2008; 32:238-45

doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00222.x

Submitted: July 2007 Revision requested: December 2007 Accepted: March 2008Correspondence to:Ms Lesley King, NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity, Level 2, K25 – Medical Foundation Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006. Fax: (02) 9036 3184; e-mail: [email protected]

There are many health benef its

for children and young people

from leading an active lifestyle

and regularly participating in physical

activity. Australia’s Physical Activity

Recommendations for Children and Young

People recommend young people aged from

5 to 18 years spend at least 60 minutes per

day in moderate to vigorous physical activity

and less than two hours a day in small screen

recreation, which includes watching TV,

playing computer games and other electronic

media for entertainment.1,2 Data on New

South Wales (NSW) school students shows

that while 73% of boys and 64% of girls aged

12- 16 years meet the activity guidelines, the

majority exceed the recommended time for

small screen recreation, with 75% of boys

and 66% of girls engaging in more than two

hours per day of small screen recreation.3

No information is available on the levels of

physical activity and small screen recreation

of younger children in NSW or Australia.

While the majority of children aged 12-

15 years report being involved in organised

physical activity, there are many factors

which influence the extent and levels of

participation. Systematic differences are

most influenced by gender and age, although

family structure and socio-economic status

also appear to play a role, with children in

single parent families and low SES families

participating less.4 Other studies report

similar results, with having a family car

and the attitudes of parents found to be

relevant factors for participation in sport and

recreation, as well as other extra-curricular

activities.5,6 Children’s participation in

organised sport is influenced by family type

and parents’ employment status, as well as

socioeconomic status.7 The 2003 Survey

of Children’s Participation in Culture and

Leisure Activities shows that 52% of children

from families in the lowest Socioeconomic

Status (SES) quintile participated in some

form of sport or dancing, compared to 82%

for children from the highest quintile.7

Participation in sport by children in one-

parent families where the parent was not

employed was 39.7%, compared with 71.5%

for children in couple families with both

parents employed.

Other studies have identified costs as a

barrier to participation. A study of families

with children in specific junior sports in

Victoria and Queensland in 1997 concluded

that family income and structure were key

factors in determining the likelihood of a

child’s involvement in junior sport.8 Similar

findings have been reported from the UK.9

The cost of organised physical activity

has been frequently identified as a barrier in

qualitative research with parents.10 Similarly,

professionals and service providers, such

as GPs and teachers, perceive that cost

is a barrier for parents.11,12 Cost, as well

as transport and time, is perceived by

young people as a factor influencing their

participation in activity.4

While actual and perceived costs appear

to be barriers that limit participation in

active recreation for some young people and

Disparities Article

2008 vol. 32 no. 3 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 239© 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2008 Public Health Association of Australia

families in Australia, there is no comprehensive picture of what the

costs actually are, how they correspond to different income levels

or how they compare to expenditure on other forms of recreation,

such as screen recreation.

The Household Expenditure Survey (HES) conducted by the

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides a reliable source

of information on actual expenditure on a range of recreation

items that has not been fully examined in this way. Using the

2003/04 HES data for households with dependent children, this

study examined:

Expenditure on active and screen recreation relative to income

levels.

Expenditure on active recreation compared with screen-based

recreation.

How these measures varied according to household

socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.

MethodsData source

The HES is a cross-sectional survey conducted by the

ABS every five years, most recently in 2003-04. It used a

stratified, multistage cluster design to ensure a representative

sample of private dwellings from urban and rural areas of

Australia. Information was collected through personal interviews

with a usual resident, distributed randomly over a twelve month

period to capture yearly income and expenditure patterns.

Participating households were required to maintain a diary recording

their expenditure over a two week period and recall any major

purchases during the last three months. There were 6,957 households

included in the HES, representing a response rate of 71%.13 De-

identified HES responses were accessed through Confidentialised

Unit Record Files (CURFs) provided on CD-ROM, and via secure

online Remote Access Data Laboratory (RADL).

This study examined HES data for the sub-sample of couple

or sole parent households with at least one dependent child, and

a positive disposable income. Dependent children were defined

as all persons aged less than 15 years and full-time students aged

15-24 years with a parent and no partner or child of their own in

the household.13

Data description To represent the economic resources available to meet household

requirements we used disposable household income, defined

as gross household income less personal income tax and the

Medicare levy (which is a compulsory income-based contribution

made by residents to help fund Australia’s universal health care

system). Weekly expenditure information, available for 625

separate expenditure items in the HES, was used to estimate

aggregated average weekly expenditure by households on active

and screen recreation. Sampling weights were applied to ensure

that household estimates of income and expenditure accurately

reflect the distribution of the Australian population residing in

private dwellings.

In order to identify expenditure associated with active and

screen recreation, we distinguished five groups of household

expenditure items involving, or useable for physical activity or

sedentary screen-based recreation. Core active recreation included

expenditure on items such as equipment, specialised clothing, or

services associated with organised sport and activities or non-

organised activities, including swimming, games, or walking.

Sports footwear and pets were identified as two supplementary

expenditure groups that are potentially, but not necessarily,

associated with active recreation. Core screen recreation included

expenditure on equipment or services associated with activities

such as watching TV and films, and playing video games. Given

that computers can serve educational, as well as entertainment

purposes, expenditure relating to computer hardware, software or

services, and internet usage charges was grouped separately.

For the purposes of this study we focused on core active

recreation and total screen recreation (core plus computers), and

investigated separately the impact of including sports footwear

and pets in active recreation, and excluding computers from

screen recreation.

From the set of household socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics available as standard HES data items, we identified

several that were potentially associated with household active and

screen recreation expenditure:

family structure (couple; or sole parent),

number of dependents (one; two; three; or four or more),

SES (ABS Socio-economic indexes for Areas (SEIFA)

2001 index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage (IRSD)

quintile), 14

remoteness area (major city; inner regional; or outer regional

and remote Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia

(ARIA) score), 15

parents’ average hours worked per week (not employed; 5-19;

20-34; 35-49; or 50 or more),

dwelling structure (separate house; semi/row/terrace house; or

flat/unit/apartment),

parents’ highest education (tertiary; vocational; school; or

school not completed),

parents’ geographic region of birth (Australia and New Zealand;

Europe; Asia; Africa and the Middle East; or other, including

households where parents were born in disparate geographical

regions).

Household disposable income quintiles calculated from the

study sub-sample, were also derived.

Data analysis Weekly household expenditure was summarised by expenditure

item and aggregated for each defined variable related to active

and screen recreation. For each household we calculated

expenditure on both active and screen recreation as a proportion

of disposable income. In households with any expenditure on

recreation, we calculated expenditure on active recreation as

a proportion of combined expenditure on active and screen

recreation. Summary statistics were calculated for all households

Disparities Australian families’ expenditure


in the study sample, and used to define dichotomous outcomes

that indicate whether a household spent relatively more or less

than average on active and screen recreation given their financial

circumstances. Households were characterised into three (non-

exclusive) categories:

those that spent a greater than average proportion of their

weekly disposable income on active recreation were described

as ‘promoting active recreation’,


weekly disposable income on screen recreation were described

as ‘promoting screen recreation’, and


combined active and screen recreation expenditure on active

recreation were described as ‘promoting active over screen

recreation’.

Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate

associations between outcomes and household socioeconomic

and demographic characteristics with crude and adjusted

odds ratios (OR). Parsimonious adjusted models were obtained

for each outcome by using the likelihood-ratio test to exclude

characteristics that did not significantly improve model fit

(p>0.05). Overall, model fit was assessed by the Hosmer-

Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test16, with variance inflation factors

(VIF) calculated to inspect for strong correlation between

household characteristics in adjusted models, otherwise known

as multicollinearity.17

To examine the impact of different definitions on the associations

of outcome variables and household characteristics, models were

re-specified with sports footwear and pets included in active

recreation, and computers excluded from screen recreation. To

similarly investigate whether associations differ for households

with younger dependent children, we re-specified models to the

sub-sample of households with all dependent children aged less

than 15 years.

SAS version 9.1 was used for all statistical analyses.18

ResultsThere were 2,398 households with dependent children identified

from the 2003/04 HES. Households in the sample had median

weekly disposable income of $1,028.86, and an average of

1.9 dependent children (1.5 aged less than 15 years; 0.4 aged

15 to 24 years). See Table 1 for further sample descriptive

characteristics.

Table 2 shows that during 2003/04, Australian households with

dependent children spent an average of $14.58 per week on active

recreation and $31.69 per week on screen recreation. The majority

of active recreation expenditure was on sports fees and charges

(62.6%), primarily sports lessons, sporting club subscriptions,

and health and fitness studio charges. Most screen recreation

expenditure was on home computer equipment (25.6%), followed

by televisions (15.1%).

During 2003-04, households in the study sample spent an

average of 1.5% and 3.3% of their weekly disposable income

on active and screen recreation respectively, and 24.9% of their

combined active and screen recreation expenditure on active

recreation.

Modelling resultsThere was significant variation in the crude and adjusted odds

of promoting active recreation across all household characteristics.

Couple households, households with more dependents, higher

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the HES sample of households with dependent children, Australia, 2003-04.

Household characteristic N = 2,398 n (%)Family structure Couple 1,928 (80.4)

Sole parent 470 (19.6)

Number of dependents 1 911 (38.0)

2 971 (40.5)

3 382 (15.9)

4 or more 133 (5.6)

Disposable income per week <$635 479 (20.0)

$635-$912 479 (20.0)

$913-$1,164 482 (20.1)

$1,165-$1,513 479 (20.0)

>$1,513 478 (19.9)

SES quintile Lower 20% 405 (16.9)

2nd 480 (20.0)

3rd 531 (22.1)

4th 518 (21.6)

Upper 20% 464 (19.4)

Hours worked per week Not employed 336 (14.0)

1-19 265 (11.0)

20-34 932 (38.9)

35-49 732 (30.5)

50+ 134 (5.6)

Remoteness area Major City 1,587 (66.2)

Inner Regional 542 (22.6)

Outer regional and remote 269 (11.2)

Dwelling type Separate House 2,171 (90.6)

Semi, Row or Terrace House 107 (4.4)

Flat, Unit, or Apartment 120 (5.0)

Highest education Tertiary 723 (30.1)

Vocational 1,027 (42.8)

School 239 (10.0)

Did not complete school 410 (17.1)

Geographic region of birth Australia & New Zealand 1,226 (51.1)

Europe 96 (4.0)

Asia 161 (6.7)

Africa & Middle East 48 (2.0)

Other 867 (36.2)

Aitken et al. Article


disposable income and higher SES, and households with parents

working more hours, all had greater crude odds of spending a

greater than average proportion of disposable income on active

recreation. Families living in more remote areas, smaller dwellings,

with less formal education, or with parents not born in Australia,

New Zealand (NZ) or Europe, had lower odds of promoting active

recreation in this way. The adjusted model, which fits the data well

(Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 4.3, p= 0.8270), indicated that once we

accounted for other characteristics, households with two or three

dependents, in the 3rd to 4th disposable income quintile, and 4th

SES quintile continued to have greater odds of promoting active

recreation, and those with less educated parents or parents born

in Asia had lower odds of doing so (Table 3).

There was less variation amongst households in promoting

screen recreation. Sole parent households, and households with two

dependent children, had greater crude odds of spending a greater

than average proportion of their disposable income on screen

recreation; while households with higher disposable income, the

highest SES, parents working greater hours, and households living

in remote areas or in a flat, unit, or apartment, had lower crude

odds of promoting screen recreation. After adjusting for other

characteristics (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 7.6, p= 0.4763), similar

associations remained for number of dependents, disposable

income, remoteness area, and dwelling type (Table 4).

For the promotion of active over screen recreation, there

was significant variation for all household characteristics,

except remoteness. The crude odds of spending a greater than

average proportion of combined (active and screen) recreation

expenditure on active recreation increased for households with

more dependents, higher disposable income and SES, and parents

who work more hours. Sole parent households and those living in

smaller dwellings, with less educated parents, or parents not born

in Australia, NZ or Europe, had lower odds of promoting active

of screen recreation in this way. In the adjusted model (Hosmer-

Lemeshow χ2 = 6.2, p= 0.6237), households with more dependents,

higher disposable income, or in the 4th SES quintile continued to

have increased odds of promoting active over screen recreation;

and households with parents born in Asia, Africa and the Middle

East, and other geographic regions, had reduced odds of doing so,

after adjusting for other characteristics (Table 5).

Multicollinearity was not an issue in the adjusted models, as

VIF for all household characteristics were low (< 4).

The effect of including sports footwear and pets in active recreation

When sports footwear and pets were included in active

recreation, average weekly expenditure increased to $24.36,

and the average proportion of disposable income and combined

recreation expenditure spent on active recreation increased to

2.6% and 40.7% respectively. Logistic regression modelling of

active recreation outcomes revealed that associations with most

household characteristics were considerably weaker than for core

active recreation (family type, disposable income, SES, parents

hours worked, and parents education all p>0.05).

Effect of excluding computers from screen recreation

When computers were excluded, average weekly expenditure

on screen recreation fell to $19.06, and the average household

spent 2.0% of their disposable income and 34.3% of their

combined recreation expenditure on active recreation. Logistic

regression modelling of screen recreation outcomes indicated

that excluding computers had little effect on associations with

household characteristics, as similar ORs were observed across

most characteristics.

Effect of excluding households with dependents aged more than 15 years

There were 1,688 households included in the HES with all

dependents aged less than 15 years. There was little difference

in expenditure patterns by this subgroup, with an average of

$12.77 and $24.96 per week spent on active and screen recreation

respectively. The average proportion of disposable income

(1.6%), and combined recreation expenditure (25.8%) spent on

active recreation increased slightly, while the average proportion

of disposable income spent on screen recreation decreased

slightly to 3.2%. Consequently, logistic regression modeling of

associations between outcomes and household characteristics

produced similar results to the full sample of households with

dependent children.

Table 2: Average weekly expenditure by expenditure group and item, Australia, 2003/04.

Average weekly expenditureExpenditure groups and items $ % group % totala

Active recreation 24.36 100.0 100.0 Core 14.58 100.0 59.9 Sports equipment 4.16 28.5 17.1

Hire & repair of sports equipment 0.26 1.8 1.1

Sports fees & charges 9.13 62.6 37.5

Other recreational services 1.03 7.1 4.2

Sports footwear 1.38 100.0 5.7 Pets 8.40 100.0 34.5

Screen recreation 31.69 100.0 100.0 Core 19.06 100.0 60.1 Televisions 4.78 25.1 15.1

Video equipment 2.34 12.3 7.4

Pre-recorded media 3.91 20.5 12.3

Hire of televisions & video

media & equipment 1.75 9.2 5.5

Other recreational services 3.01 15.8 9.5

Pay tv fees 3.27 17.2 10.3

Computers 12.63 100.0 39.9 Home computer equipment 8.11 64.2 25.6

Pre-recorded media 0.57 4.5 1.8

Internet charges 3.95 31.3 12.5

Total 56.05 100.0 100.0Notes:(a) % total = % of total active or screen recreation expenditure



DiscussionIn the context of low to moderate levels of physical activity

and increased prevalence of childhood obesity, socio-economic

variations in patterns of expenditure on active and screen recreation

are of public health relevance. For the first time, comparative

information is available on patterns of expenditure on active and

screen recreation. In 2003-4 Australian households with dependent

children spent about $14.58 per week on active recreation, which

was about half of average expenditure on screen recreation.

Patterns of expenditure on active and screen recreation varied

substantially by socio-economic factors. Increased household

income was associated with increased odds of promoting active

recreation and active recreation over screen recreation, and

decreased odds of promoting screen recreation. This effect was

Table 3: Odds ratios for promoting active recreation by household characteristic, Australia, 2003-04.

Promote active recreationa

Unadjusted Adjustedc

Household characteristic n (%) OR (95% CI)b OR (95% CI)b

Family structure Couple 401 (20.8) 1.00 Sole parent 64 (13.5) 0.60 (0.45-0.80)Number of dependents 1 131 (14.4) 1.00 1.00

2 197 (20.3) 1.51 (1.19-1.51) 1.48 (1.16-1.90) 3 109 (28.5) 2.37 (1.78-2.37) 2.11 (1.57-2.85) 4 or more 28 (20.7) 1.55 (0.98-1.55) 1.49 (0.93-2.40)

Disposable income per week < $635 51 (10.6) 1.00 1.00

$635-$912 88 (18.4) 1.91 (1.31-1.91) 1.40 (0.91-2.16)

$913-$1,164 109 (22.6) 2.47 (1.72-2.47) 1.63 (1.04-2.54) $1,165-$1,513 114 (23.9) 2.65 (1.85-2.65) 1.72 (1.08-2.72) > $1,513 102 (21.4) 2.30 (1.60-2.30) 1.33 (0.82-2.15)

SES quintile Lower 20% 57 (14.0) 1.00 1.00

2nd 77 (16.0) 1.17 (0.81-1.17) 1.01 (0.69-1.48)

3rd 97 (18.3) 1.38 (0.97-1.38) 1.22 (0.84-1.77)

4th 126 (24.4) 1.98 (1.40-1.98) 1.58 (1.10-2.29) Upper 20% 107 (23.1) 1.85 (1.30-1.85) 1.41 (0.95-2.09)

Hours worked per week Not employed 35 (10.5) 1.00 1.00

1-19 38 (14.2) 1.41 (0.87-1.41) 0.94 (0.55-1.62)

20-34 233 (25.0) 2.85 (1.95-2.85) 1.42 (0.87-2.30)

35-49 131 (17.9) 1.87 (1.25-1.87) 0.95 (0.56-1.60)

50+ 27 (20.4) 2.18 (1.26-2.18) 1.13 (0.59-2.17)

Remoteness area Major City 320 (20.2) 1.00

Inner Regional 107 (19.7) 0.97 (0.76-0.97)

Outer regional and remote 37 (13.9) 0.64 (0.44-0.64)Dwelling type Separate House 431 (19.9) 1.00

Semi, Row or Terrace House 20 (19.0) 0.95 (0.58-0.95)

Flat, Unit or Apartment 13 (10.6) 0.48 (0.27-0.48)

Highest education Tertiary 174 (24.1) 1.00 1.00

Vocational 195 (19.0) 0.74 (0.59-0.74) 0.75 (0.58-0.97) School 47 (19.5) 0.76 (0.53-0.76) 0.90 (0.61-1.33)

Did not complete school 48 (11.7) 0.42 (0.30-0.42) 0.57 (0.39-0.84)Geographic region of birth Australia & New Zealand 278 (22.7) 1.00 1.00

Europe 24 (25.0) 1.14 (0.70-1.14) 1.24 (0.75-2.04)

Asia 21 (13.4) 0.53 (0.33-0.53) 0.50 (0.31-0.82) Africa & Middle East 9 (19.7) 0.84 (0.41-0.84) 0.89 (0.42-1.89)

Other 131 (15.1) 0.61 (0.48-0.61) 0.80 (0.62-1.02)

Notes:(a) Household expenditure on active recreation > 1.5% of disposable income(b) All 95% CI that exclude one indicate a statistically significant OR and are in bold(c) Adjusted for all variables included in the final model



Table 4: Odds ratios for promoting screen recreation by household characteristic, Australia, 2003-04.

Promote screen recreationa



Family structure Couple 444 (23.0) 1.00

Sole parent 133 (28.4) 1.32 (1.06-1.66)

Number of dependents 1 199 (21.8) 1.00 1.00

2 257 (26.5) 1.30 (1.05-1.60) 1.28 (1.03-1.59) 3 92 (24.0) 1.14 (0.86-1.51) 1.18 (0.88-1.57)

4 or more 30 (22.5) 1.04 (0.67-1.61) 1.08 (0.69-1.68)

Disposable income per week < $635 159 (33.2) 1.00 1.00

$635-$912 121 (25.3) 0.68 (0.52-0.90) 0.64 (0.48-0.85) $913-$1,164 101 (21.0) 0.53 (0.40-0.71) 0.50 (0.37-0.67) $1,165-$1,513 111 (23.1) 0.60 (0.45-0.80) 0.56 (0.42-0.75) > $1,513 85 (17.8) 0.44 (0.32-0.59) 0.40 (0.29-0.54)SES quintile Lower 20% 107 (26.3) 1.00

2nd 118 (24.5) 0.91 (0.67-1.23)

3rd 125 (23.5) 0.86 (0.64-1.16)

4th 134 (25.9) 0.98 (0.73-1.32)

Upper 20% 95 (20.5) 0.72 (0.53-0.99)

Hours worked per week Not employed 104 (31.1) 1.00

1-19 65 (24.5) 0.72 (0.50-1.03)

20-34 228 (24.5) 0.72 (0.55-0.95)

35-49 160 (21.9) 0.62 (0.46-0.83)

50+ 20 (15.2) 0.40 (0.24-0.67)

Remoteness area Major City 385 (24.3) 1.00 1.00

Inner Regional 143 (26.4) 1.12 (0.90-1.40) 1.02 (0.81-1.28)

Outer regional and remote 50 (18.5) 0.71 (0.51-0.98) 0.63 (0.45-0.88)Dwelling type Separate House 533 (24.6) 1.00 1.00

Semi, Row or Terrace House 26 (24.2.0) 0.98 (0.62-1.54) 0.85 (0.53-1.35)

Flat, Unit or Apartment 19 (15.5) 0.57 (0.34-0.93) 0.48 (0.29-0.81)Highest education Tertiary 161 (22.3) 1.00

Vocational 249 (24.2) 1.11 (0.89-1.39)

School 67 (28.3) 1.37 (0.98-1.91)

Did not complete school 100 (24.5) 1.13 (0.85-1.50)

Geographic region of birth Australia & New Zealand 276 (22.5) 1.00

Europe 27 (27.7) 1.32 (0.83-2.11)

Asia 40 (25.0) 1.15 (0.79-1.68)

Africa & Middle East 14 (28.1) 1.35 (0.71-2.56)

Other 222 (25.6) 1.19 (0.97-1.45)

Notes:(a) Household expenditure on screen recreation > 3.3% of disposable income(b) All 95% CI that exclude one indicate a statistically significant OR and are in bold(c) Adjusted for all variables included in the final model

independent of the effects of socio-economic status. Most simply,

this suggests that the cost of active recreation is a limiting factor

for some families in supporting active recreation. In terms of

other household characteristics, households with more dependent

children had significantly greater odds of promoting active

recreation over screen recreation. This finding reflects increased

expenditure on active recreation with fairly consistent expenditure

on screen recreation, as the number of children increases.

The independent effects of social and cultural factors indicate

that costs are not the only influences on active recreation, and that

expenditure is also influenced by activity preferences and social

norms. Education level influenced expenditure patterns, with

households with a tertiary educated adult having greater odds

of promoting active recreation, and active recreation over screen

recreation, in most cases. Cultural differences according to region

of birth were evident, with households with parents from Asia,



Africa and the Middle-East, or other geographical regions, having

significantly lower odds of promoting active recreation over screen

recreation, and in some cases active recreation, independent of

their income or SES. The characteristics associated with lower

expenditure on active recreation that have been identified in this

study can provide guidance in determining target groups for

community-based sport and recreation programs.

While the expenditure patterns observed are associated with

social, economic and cultural factors, there are also some inherent

differences in the nature of the expenditure items related to active

and screen recreation. Firstly, screen recreation expenditure

predominately involves the purchase of durable goods, which are

available for use continuously rather than in a single episode, and

are primarily home-based and available for use at a household,

as opposed to individual, level. By contrast, active recreation

expenditure items are often non-durable, or durable goods

Table 5: Odds ratios for promoting active over screen recreation by household characteristic, Australia, 2003-04.

Promote active over screen recreationa



Family structure Couple 640 (36.9) 1.00

Sole parent 95 (25.5) 0.59 (0.46-0.76) Number of dependents 1 212 (27.6) 1.00 1.00

2 316 (36.8) 1.53 (1.24-1.53) 1.53 (1.23-1.90) 3 153 (43.0) 1.98 (1.52-1.98) 1.83 (1.39-2.41) 4 or more 54 (43.5) 2.02 (1.37-2.02) 1.84 (1.22-2.77)Disposable income per week <$635 72 (20.3) 1.00 1.00

$635-$912 132 (31.9) 1.83 (1.31-1.83) 1.59 (1.08-2.35) $913-$1,164 178 (40.7) 2.68 (1.94-2.68) 2.15 (1.43-3.21) $1,165-$1,513 169 (38.0) 2.40 (1.74-2.40) 1.91 (1.26-2.89) >$1,513 185 (40.2) 2.63 (1.91-2.63) 2.17 (1.42-3.32)SES quintile Lower 20% 93 (28.1) 1.00 1.00

2nd 135 (33.0) 1.26 (0.92-1.26) 1.18 (0.85-1.64)

3rd 157 (33.4) 1.28 (0.94-1.28) 1.23 (0.89-1.70)

4th 187 (40.4) 1.74 (1.28-1.74) 1.52 (1.10-2.10) Upper 20% 163 (37.6) 1.54 (1.13-1.54) 1.32 (0.94-1.85)

Hours worked per week Not employed 60 (23.6) 1.00 1.00

1-19 55 (24.7) 1.06 (0.70-1.06) 0.70 (0.44-1.13)

20-34 348 (41.4) 2.29 (1.66-2.29) 1.14 (0.75-1.74)

35-49 230 (34.5) 1.71 (1.22-1.71) 0.83 (0.53-1.29)

50+ 43 (33.9) 1.66 (1.04-1.66) 0.81 (0.46-1.41)

Remoteness area Major City 494 (34.6) 1.00

Inner Regional 166 (34.8) 1.01 (0.81-1.01)

Outer regional and remote 75 (36.9) 1.11 (0.82-1.11)

Dwelling type Separate House 689 (35.7) 1.00

Semi, Row or Terrace House 26 (27.0) 0.67 (0.42-0.67)

Flat, Unit or Apartment 20 (24.3) 0.58 (0.35-0.58)

Highest education Tertiary 264 (39.3) 1.00

Vocational 312 (34.1) 0.80 (0.65-0.80)

School 60 (30.0) 0.66 (0.47-0.66)

Did not complete school 98 (30.8) 0.69 (0.52-0.69)

Geographic region of birth Australia & New Zealand 443 (40.0) 1.00 1.00

Europe 38 (44.0) 1.18 (0.76-1.18) 1.24 (0.78-1.96)

Asia 35 (24.5) 0.49 (0.33-0.49) 0.53 (0.35-0.80) Africa & Middle East 8 (18.2) 0.33 (0.16-0.33) 0.36 (0.16-0.77) Other 212 (29.1) 0.61 (0.50-0.61) 0.76 (0.61-0.95)Notes:(a) Household expenditure on active recreation > 24.9% of total household expenditure on active and screen recreation(b) All 95% CI that exclude one indicate a statistically significant OR and are in bold(c) Adjusted for all variables included in the final model



purchased for individual use. Compared to screen recreation, active

recreation is low-tech, making the items less expensive, less novel

and in many cases, less marketed. Active recreation is also more

likely to occur away from home, and this can involve associated

transport costs, which are not included here as they could not be

specifically identified from the HES. Despite the cost of new,

high-tech screen equipment, there is an apparent efficiency and

economy for screen recreation at a household level, in terms of

time spent and number of users.

In general, expenditure patterns reflect contemporary social and

leisure patterns, which are known to be characterized by the increasing

adoption of home communication products, driven in turn by new

technologies and major marketing campaigns.19 While expenditure

on screen recreation contributes to economic growth, it may not be

optimal for preventing childhood sedentarism and obesity. Given the

nature and patterns of expenditure, any increase in active recreation

and reduction in screen recreation may be accompanied, at least

initially, by slight negative economic growth. At the same time,

the health benefits of physical activity have medium and long-term

economic benefits, related to reduced morbidity.20

As home computer equipment was the largest single item contributing

to the screen recreation expenditure variable, and as computers can be

used for educational as well as recreational purposes, screen recreation

could be considered to be unduly weighted. However, excluding

computers from screen recreation did not substantially alter the patterns

of expenditure on active or screen recreation according to income,

education level or cultural background.

In interpreting the findings, we recognise that expenditure is not

a direct reflection of actual recreation behaviour. Expenditure on

active recreation items may primarily derive from participation in

organised activity, and is unlikely to reflect cost-free or incidental

physical activities. Similarly, screen recreation is usually, but not

necessarily, sedentary.

This study is also limited by the specific expenditure items

collected by the HES, which is designed as a generic survey and

not specifically to investigate patterns of recreation. The HES is a

comprehensive and rigorous dataset, however, and provides data

that gives a new, economic angle to the understanding of health-

related behaviours.

These results contribute to identifying cultural and economic

barriers influencing families’ health-related behaviours and their

participation in organised physical activity. This was designed as

an exploratory study, and does not provide sufficient information

to identify appropriate public health responses. It does provide

insights into factors influencing recreational choices and barriers

for physical activity. This study suggests that more specific

investigation of links between families’ expenditure, time use

and behaviour patterns, as well as studies on families’ values,

expectations and perceptions about the relative costs of different

types of recreation, would add to our understanding and potential

policy responses.

Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with descriptive

accounts of how contemporary society has increasingly adopted

sedentary, screen-based leisure activities.

AcknowledgementsRobert Aitken was funded through the NSW Biostatistical

Officer Training Program, NSW Department of Health.

References1. Department of Health and Ageing. Australia’s Physical Activity Recommendations

for 5-12 year olds. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia; 2004.2. Department of Health and Ageing. Australia’s Physical Activity Recommendations

for 12-18 year olds. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia; 2004.3. Booth M, Okely AD, Denney-Wilson E, Yang B, Hardy L, Dobbins T. NSW

Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2004. Sydney (AUST): New South Wales Department of Health; 2006.

4. Olds T, Dollman J, Ridley K, Boshoff K, Hartshorne S, Kennaugh S. Children and Sport. A Report Prepared for the Australian Sports Commission by the University of South Australia. Canberra (AUST): Australian Sports Commission; 2004.

5. Kay T. Sporting excellence: a family affair? European Physical Education Review. 2000;6(2):151-69.

6. Townsend M. Roll up and spend your last dime: the merry-go-round of children’s extracurricular activities in modern society. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal. 2001;48(3-4):10-13.

7. Stratton M, Conn L, Liaw C, Conolly L. Sport and Related Recreational Physical Activity – The Social Correlates of Participation and Non-participation by Adults. Canberra (AUST): ABS; 2005.

8. Kirk D, Carlson T, O’Connor A, Burke P, Davis K, Glover S. The economic impact on families of children’s participation in junior sport. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 1997;29(2):27-33.

9. Baxter-Jones ADG, Maffulli N. Parental influence on sport participation in elite young athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2003;43(2):250-5.

10. Pagnini DL, Wilkenfeld RL, King LA, Booth ML, Booth SL. Mothers of pre – school children talk about childhood overweight and obesity: The Weight of Opinion study. J Paediatr Child Health. 43(12):785-858.

11. King LA, Loss JHM, Wilkenfeld RL, Pagnini DL, Booth ML, Booth SL. Australian GPs’ perceptions about child and adolescent overweight and obesity. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:124-9.

12. Wilkenfeld RL, Pagnini DL, Booth ML, Booth SL, King LA. The Weight of Opinion Study: Perceptions of School Teachers and Secondary Students on Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity [research page on the Internet]. Sydney (AUST): NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity, University of Sydney; 2007 [cited 2008 March 3]. Available from: www.coo.health.usyd.edu.au/research/dresear.php#young

13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household Expenditure Survey and Survey of Income and Housing: User Guide, 2003-04. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia; 2005. Catalogue No.: 6503.0.

14. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-economic Indexes for Areas, Australia, 2001. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia; 2001. Catalogue No.: 2039.0.

15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Geography Volume 1 – Australian Standard Geographical Classif ication (ASGC). Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia; 2006. Catalogue No.: 1216.0.

16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 2000.

17. Allison P. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 1999.

18. SAS: statistical software [computer program]. Version 9.1. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 2002-2003.

19. Sturm R. The economics of physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(3S):126-35.20. Bauman AE. Updating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: an

epidemiological review 2000-2003. J Sci Med Sport. 2004;7 Suppl 1:6-19.


Documents

A comparison of Australian families’ expenditure on active and screen-based recreation using the ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2003/04