From XS to XL Urban Nature: Examining Access to Different Types of Green Space Using a ‘Just Sustainabilities’ Framework

Abstract

Different types of urban green spaces provide diverse benefits for human health and environmental sustainability, but most studies on access to green space focus on neighborhood parks, with less work on smaller or larger green spaces. In this study, we examined sociodemographic differences in access to green spaces of different sizes for 14,385 census block groups in 12 U.S. cities using a ‘just sustainabilities’ framework. We classified green spaces into street-level greenery (XS), neighborhood parks (S–L; walking and cycling access), and large parks (XL; walking, cycling, and driving access). We ran spatial filtering models at the census block group level using different thresholds based on transportation modes. We uncovered a complex picture of inequality, with consistent injustices for XS green space, and fewer injustices for S–L and XL green space based on socioeconomic status and age, and some instances of just distributions for S–L and XL green space based on race/ethnicity. Our findings present a concerning picture for ‘just sustainabilities’: the green space type that is most often part of sustainability and climate adaptation strategies—street greenery—is unjustly distributed, likely as a result of structural racism in U.S. institutions. By examining multimodal access to green spaces of different sizes, this study helps urban greening professionals develop more just and sustainable strategies.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Multiple Measures of Blue and Green Spaces in the United States

“…observed negative associations between %Latino with street greenery, but they observed positive associations with green space accessibility in 12 U.S. cities. 38 The review by Watkins and Gerrish also reported urban forest inequities for Hispanic populations. 13 However, when studies that did not control for income were removed, no inequities were found.…”

Environmental justice: An evolving concept in a dynamic era

“…These additions extend the definition to include other populations that may experience additional harm or difficulties when encountering environmental burdens or resources because of their identity. The concept goes beyond the equitable distribution of burden to include access to environmental benefits such as greenspaces (Choi et al, 2020; Kolosna & Spurlock, 2019; Scott, 2021). Additionally, both access to benefits and protection from harm are often acknowledged in modern studies as dependent on culture, geography, and time (Alvarez & Evans, 2021; Banerjee & Steinberg, 2015; Gurney et al, 2021; Xie & Zhang, 2021).…”

“…To this end, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is the first interface that can be employed to display, manage, and manipulate spatial data for exploration and analysis in environmental justice settings (Figliozzi & Unnikrishnan, 2021; Kshetri et al, 2020; Liu, Shen, et al, 2021; Montgomery et al, 2015; Pineda‐Pinto et al, 2021; Scott, 2021; Walker et al, 2021; Zhang, Li, & Khanna, 2021). Environmental justice researchers have incorporated this spatial component into studies on access by measuring the distance to services generally (Certomà & Martellozzo, 2019; Pallathadka et al, 2021), by walking (Scott, 2021; Suárez et al, 2020), by driving (Fang et al, 2021; Montgomery et al, 2015), or by some combination of the three (Choi et al, 2020). Similarly, environmental burden measures can be improved through the inclusion of spatial data.…”

“…Furthermore, the continued advancement of both geographical techniques and technologies continue to add to the list of analyses that can be conducted. At this time, remote sensing and spatial modeling methods have already been used in environmental justice studies of green space (Choi et al, 2020; Geary et al, 2021; Kolosna & Spurlock, 2019; Liu, Kwan, & Kan, 2021; Pallathadka et al, 2021), air pollution (deSouza et al, 2021; Zhang, Li, & Khanna, 2021), noise (McNair, 2020; Walker et al, 2021), and intra‐urban structure (Weigand et al, 2019). The list is constantly growing and will be so in the foreseeable future.…”

Social-Environmental Conflicts in Chile: Is There Any Potential for an Ecological Constitution?

“…This area is dominated by agricultural and urban development at the expense of nature [128,129]. For instance, it is the macroregion with the smallest surface of public protected areas (0.6%, including national reserves) whilst, in 2000-2017, vineyards increased their area by 40% and human demography reached 56% of the national population [29,[130][131][132]. Conversely, the largest surface of public protected areas is in the Magallanes Region in the Austral macroregion, which is 2200 km south of Santiago with which it does not have a continuous connecting road.…”