A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace

Abstract

Greenspace can alleviate many of the negative effects of urbanization and help enhance human well-being yet, in most cities in the world, greenspace is inequitably distributed. In western societies, wealthy white neighborhoods typically have more access to greenspace, constituting an environmental and social justice issue. Although scholars from multiple disciplines and academic domains study questions of justice in greenspace, the scholarship remains fragmented. The purpose of this qualitative review is to explore the diverse disciplinary approaches to justice in urban greenspace to identify patterns and trends in how justice is conceptualized and realized. We analyze a set of case studies across multiple disciplines using a sample of 21 peer-reviewed articles following the framework set out by Bulkeley and colleagues that conceptualizes justice according to recognition, distribution, procedures, rights, and responsibilities. Our results suggest that the various solutions proposed in the diverse streams of scholarship often call for solutions that transcend individual disciplinary boundaries. This finding supports the need for collaborative and cross-disciplinary work to effectively address injustice in urban greenspace. In an effort to integrate findings, we identify five main objectives that need to be addressed by scholars, built environment practitioners, and policymakers, which include: (1) appropriate funding mechanisms for long-term maintenance; (2) recognition of safety concerns; (3) connectivity of greenspace; (4) multifunctionality in greenspace design; and (5) community engagement.

Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Additionally, there was an emerging need of using natural components and their multiple functions, to increase sustainable development into the cities, dealing with recognized issues. Key challenges for sustainable cities are to significantly increase their resources Some authors have presented literature reviews on the topic of GI [9,[15][16][17] or NBS [10]; however, those works deviated from the focus provided in the current review. Parker and Simpson [15] present a systematic quantitative review on how public green infrastructure contributes to city livability, informing urban planners, policymakers, and researchers about the psychological, physiological, general well-being, and wider societal benefits that humans receive as a result of experiencing GI.…”

Can Allotment Gardens (AGs) Be Considered an Example of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) Based on the Use of Historical Green Infrastructure?

“…Previous research on the social issues connected to the topic of NBSs in urban regeneration were related to three main aspects: (1) social benefits and costs [12,13] including environmental justice [16]; (2) public participation in NBS projects including challenges and opportunities of the participants; and (3) social perception and preferences for green solutions [3]. A range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, both monetary and non-monetary, were used to assess the impact on NBSs on social dimensions.…”

Spatial Equity in Urban Public Space (UPS) Based on Analysis of Municipal Public Policy Omissions: A Case Study of Atizapán de Zaragoza, State of México

“…For this purpose, we find the five objectives of Zuniga-Teran A. A et al [29] regarding equitable planning of urban greenspace especially useful as reference: "(1) appropriate funding mechanisms for long-term maintenance;…”

“…Equality guarantees that everyone is provided with equal opportunities to fulfill their necessities. On the other hand, equity deals with understanding and providing people with what they require to fulfill their necessities [27][28][29]. The crucial difference lies in understanding the needs of vulnerable groups to receive disproportionately more benefits [30], thus equity differs from equality in taking in account the socio-economic profile of different groups of citizens [31].…”