Major U.S. cities have significantly less street greenery in racial/ethnic minority and low-income neighborhoods than other neighborhoodsGreen space provides numerous benefits to human health and well-being. The uneven distribution of green space thus represents an environmental injustice. While previous studies have addressed this concern in various ways, this study adds a new dimension to this line of inquiry by using a “just sustainabilities” framework. This framework is based on the understanding that “sustainable initiatives such as new green spaces should also be just.” A just distribution of green space would provide marginalized groups (e.g., low-SES or racial/ethnic minoritized people) better access to green space than more privileged groups, as marginalized groups experience worse physical and mental health outcomes than more privileged groups and tend to have less access to health-promoting resources.
Not all green spaces provide the same magnitude or type of environmental and health benefits. This study, therefore, considered green spaces of different sizes in its examination of sociodemographic differences in access to green spaces in 12 U.S. cities. The 12 cities were systematically selected to represent different parts of the country, various population sizes, and different average temperatures and precipitations. Three different sizes of green space were considered for each of the selected cities: extra-small (XS), small to large (S-L), and extra-large (XL). The XS green spaces consisted of street greenery (vegetation accessed or viewed on the street). Most of the S-L green spaces were neighborhood parks, less than 20 acres in size. The XL spaces were large parks, over 20 acres in size. Six different variables were used to examine whether access to those green spaces is environmentally just: Three focusing on travel modes (walking, bicycling, and driving); three on neighborhood demographics (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age characteristics).
Results showed “a complex picture of inequality.” While both just and unjust distributions of green space were identified, the injustices for XS green space tended to be consistent. A troubling aspect of this finding relates to the fact that street greenery (the XS green space) tends to be more important than other types of green space in sustainability and climate adaptation strategies because trees help lower urban heat and air pollution. Such strategies, however, are currently not addressing environmental injustices, based in structural racism, as they relate to XS green spaces. Findings showed fewer injustices for S–L and XL green space. The “injust distributions” for the S-L and XL spaces were based on socioeconomic status and age; the “just distributions” on race/ethnicity. The two age groups most impacted by green space distribution are children and the elderly, as they have limited mobility and fewer transportation choices than young adults. Overall results showed that neighborhoods with a higher share of older adults or children have more street greenery, indicating “just distributions” for these two groups.
This research was based on the understanding that “distributional justice should adopt an equity lens to consider the populations who need environmental amenities the most.” Findings show that this is not occurring in major U.S. cities, especially in relation to XS green space. “The main contribution [of this research] is an examination of the accessibility of different scales of green spaces, which . . . can both advance our understanding of environmental injustices and help green space organizations develop strategies to address them.” Specific recommendations are offered for developing more just and sustainable strategies.
The Bottom Line