As cities grow, careful management is needed to balance access to both backyards and public green spaces and to ensure a more equitable distribution of reductions in access to natureAccess to nature is often related to socioeconomic status for people living in cities, with the disadvantaged having the least access. As experiences of nature contribute to human health and well-being, this inequality of access becomes a social justice issue. This study addressed the concern by investigating how two different models of urban growth – the compact model and the sprawling model -- might impact access to nature for disadvantaged city residents. With the compact model, housing density and city growth are increased through the subdivision of existing residential areas, meaning that new houses are built between existing buildings. With the sprawling model, new single dwelling properties are added to developable green spaces, resulting in the city being spread out over more territory versus becoming more compact.
This research, which used the city of Brisbane, Australia as a case study, quantified how people’s opportunities to experience nature might change with future urban growth. The researchers simulated the addition of 84,642 houses under both compact and sprawling growth scenarios and investigated how each scenario would change people’s opportunities to experience nature in Brisbane. This investigation involved estimating nature-related changes in three different areas: backyard size, public green space provision, and bird species richness close to households. This investigation also involved determining which socioeconomic groups would be most affected by changes in access to nature close to home.
Simulation results indicated that, at the city level, people’s opportunities to experience nature decreased under both development scenarios. There were considerable differences between the scenarios, however, in the magnitude as well as the spatial and socioeconomic distribution of the changes. The compact model predicted greater reductions in backyard size, but smaller declines in access to public green space and species richness. The sprawling model predicted negligible decline in backyard size but severe declines in access to public green space and species richness around people’s homes. With the sprawling model, people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods would be impacted more than other city dwellers.
The overall results suggest that the compact versus the sprawling model of development would be better in maintaining people’s experiences of nature as the city grows. The compact model would also help ensure a more equitable distribution of reductions in access to nature.
The Bottom Line