Leisure for whom? Socioeconomic disparities in the well-being benefits of third places

• Living near certain third places was linked to different benefits based on income. • More third places do not bring uniform benefits across the socioeconomic spectrum. • Well-being disparities in third places may partly be due to third place type. With increasing divestments from physical community spaces and the rise of online social networks, there is renewed interest in how third places—places that are not home or work—may support a happier life. However, a key consideration often overlooked is that experiencing the benefits of third places may heavily depend on the resources people have like time and money. Whereas past work in this area has largely focused on health outcomes, life satisfaction offers a measure of one’s summative assessment of their lives overall, thus allowing us to evaluate how third places may be linked to overall quality of life. This preregistered study examined whether the association between the number of third places (e.g., parks, retail stores) and life satisfaction varies by income level in a representative U.S. sample totaling 1.6 million participants. Using points of interest data from the Gallup U.S. Daily Poll and National Neighborhood Data Archive, our analyses revealed that residing in areas with more Eating and Drinking Places, Personal Care Services, Social Services, and Retail Establishments was associated with larger gains in life satisfaction for lower-income individuals than middle- and higher-income individuals. However, lower-income individuals experienced fewer gains in life satisfaction with a larger quantity of Arts, Entertainment, and Leisure than middle- and higher-income individuals. Altogether, the mere presence of more third places may not lead to benefits for all—rather, their association to life satisfaction differs significantly for individuals in different income groups.