Invited Perspective: Nature Is Unfairly Distributed in the United States-But That's Only Part of the Global Green Equity Story

Vol. 131, No. 1 Invited PerspectiveOpen AccessInvited Perspective: Nature Is Unfairly Distributed in the United States—But That’s Only Part of the Global Green Equity Storyis accompanied byRacial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Multiple Measures of Blue and Green Spaces in the United States Lorien Nesbitt and Jessica Quinton Lorien Nesbitt Address correspondence to Lorien Nesbitt, 2022–2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4018-1825 Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Search for more papers by this author and Jessica Quinton Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Search for more papers by this author Published:25 January 2023CID: 011301https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12536AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit As we experience increased impacts of climate change and urbanization, the many benefits to health and well-being provided by green and blue spaces are becoming more important,1,2 and research has shown these health benefits to be particularly strong for lower-income populations.3,4 Given these benefits, we have seen increased societal concern about the inequitable distribution of urban green and blue spaces. Researchers have responded with studies on this topic in multiple jurisdictions, analyzing whether low-income, less-educated, or racialized—that is, those who have been marginalized owing to the societal assignment of a specific racial identity—populations are less likely to have access to urban green5–7 and blue8 spaces. In general, we now know that populations with higher incomes and more education have better access to green and blue spaces, especially in cities,5,7,9 whereas associations between greenness and racialization are variable.10Klompmaker et al.11 contribute to this growing body of evidence with an analysis of the distributional equity of natural environments in all census tracts in the contiguous United States. The authors found that census tracts with higher socioeconomic status had greater access to nature, as measured by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), NatureScore, park cover, and presence of blue space. U.S. Census tracts with larger percentages of White residents and smaller percentages of Hispanic residents had lower NDVI and NatureScore values, whereas some urban tracts showed weak positive associations between racialization and natural elements. As one of the most extensive analyses of distributional green and blue equity in the United States to date, this research confirms that patterns observed in previous studies extend across the country.Much of the research on this topic has been produced in the United States, which also has had a large influence on environmental justice theory in the past decades.12,13 However, as distributional green equity analyses have emerged in other jurisdictions, the patterns seen in U.S. research are not as prevalent elsewhere.14 These findings may indicate that environmental inequities are not as stark outside of the United States. Alternatively, they may highlight an important gap in environmental justice theory that also has been raised by global South scholars15; namely, that theory derived from patterns of injustice observed in the United States may not be applicable outside of that country, and researchers attempting to apply U.S.-based theory to non-U.S. locations may not even be asking the right questions.For example, the census variables typically used as proxies for deprivation, such as income or categories of racialization, may not accurately reflect the social power dynamics and histories of urban development at play in diverse societies around the world. If researchers apply nonapplicable environmental justice theory to other areas, they may produce what is known as recognitional injustice rather than inform solutions. Recognition is defined in this context as respect for identities and cultural difference and the ways in which agents, ideas, and cultures are valued in discourse, practices, and policies.16,17 High-quality and ethical research enacts recognitional justice by attending to the nuances of place and the context-specific dynamics of injustice.The theme of recognitional justice must also inform policy responses to findings of distributional inequity. As cities around the world attempt to rectify green inequity, for example, through tree planting or park establishment, environmental justice research has expanded to examine the phenomenon of green gentrification—the physical or psychological displacement of underresourced populations as a result of urban greening.18 Although research on this topic is still emerging19 and findings are variable across jurisdictions,20 there is growing evidence that the installation of new green amenities under capitalist development paradigms—which prioritize profit and invite financial investment alongside urban greening—risks displacing those that the greening was intended to serve.21 Recent research has found that green gentrification processes often include breakdowns in recognitional and procedural justice, applying a top-down “green is always good” approach to greening that does not consider the needs and desires of local communities or their potential vulnerability within a capitalist system.22As cities engage in greening efforts to improve resilience to climate change and address environmental inequities, there is an urgent need for place-based research in understudied jurisdictions to inform these efforts. This should include research that examines processes—such as green gentrification—that may frustrate efforts to improve existing inequities. A business-as-usual approach is unlikely to bring urban nature to those who need it most. If we want to create equitable cities and healthy communities, we need to think outside of the systems that created harm in the first place.References1. Britton E, Kindermann G, Domegan C, Carlin C. 2020. Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing. Health Promot Int 35(1):50–69, PMID: 30561661, 10.1093/heapro/day103. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. van den Bosch M, Ode Sang Å. 2017. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health—a systematic review of reviews. Environ Res 158:373–384, PMID: 28686952, 10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372(9650):1655–1660, PMID: 18994663, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. White MP, Elliott LR, Gascon M, Roberts B, Fleming LE. 2020. Blue space, health and well-being: a narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. Environ Res 191:110169, PMID: 32971082, 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Nesbitt L, Meitner MJ, Girling C, Sheppard SRJ, Lu Y. 2019. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc Urban Plan 181:51–79, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007. Crossref, Google Scholar6. Rigolon A. 2016. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 153:160–169, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017. Crossref, Google Scholar7. Schwarz K, Fragkias M, Boone CG, Zhou W, McHale M, Grove JM, et al.2015. Trees grow on money: urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One 10(4):e0122051, PMID: 25830303, 10.1371/journal.pone.0122051. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Schüle SA, Hilz LK, Dreger S, Bolte G. 2019. Social inequalities in environmental resources of green and blue spaces: a review of evidence in the WHO European Region. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(7):1216, PMID: 30987381, 10.3390/ijerph16071216. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Landry SM, Chakraborty J. 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ Plan A 41(11):2651–2670, 10.1068/a41236. Crossref, Google Scholar10. Watkins SL, Gerrish E. 2018. The relationship between urban forests and race: a meta-analysis. J Environ Manage 209:152–168, PMID: 29289843, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.021. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11. Klompmaker JO, Hart JE, Bailey CR, Browning MHEM, Casey JA, Hanley JR, et al.2023. Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in multiple measures of blue and green spaces in the United States. Environ Health Perspect 131(1):017007, 10.1289/EHP11164. Link, Google Scholar12. Schlosberg D. 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Env Polit 22(1):37–55, 10.1080/09644016.2013.755387. Crossref, Google Scholar13. Taylor DE. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. Am Behav Sci 43:508–580, 10.1177/0002764200043004003. Crossref, Google Scholar14. Quinton J, Nesbitt L, Czekajlo A. 2022. Wealthy, educated, and… non-millennial? Variable patterns of distributional inequity in 31 Canadian cities. Landsc Urban Plan 227:104535, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104535. Crossref, Google Scholar15. López-Morales E. 2015. Gentrification in the global South. City 19(4):564–573, 10.1080/13604813.2015.1051746. Crossref, Google Scholar16. Martin A, Coolsaet B, Corbera E, Dawson NM, Fraser JA, Lehmann I, et al.2016. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biol Conserv 197:254–261, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021. Crossref, Google Scholar17. Young IM. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar18. Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Garcia-Lamarca M, Cole H, Pearsall H. 2019. New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: what does the urban ‘green turn’ mean and where is it going?Prog Hum Geogr 43(6):1064–1086, 10.1177/0309132518803799. Crossref, Google Scholar19. Quinton J, Nesbitt L, Sax D. 2022. How well do we know green gentrification? A systematic review of the methods. Prog Hum Geogr 46(4):960–987, PMID: 35971517, 10.1177/03091325221104478. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20. Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Cole H, Garcia-Lamarca M, Triguero-Mas M, Baró F, et al.2022. Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nat Commun 13(1):3816, PMID: 35780176, 10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21. Rigolon A, Németh J. 2020. Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not?Urban Stud 57(2):402–420, 10.1177/0042098019849380. Crossref, Google Scholar22. Sax DL, Nesbitt L, Quinton J. 2022. Improvement, not displacement: a framework for urban green gentrification research and practice. Environ Sci Policy 137:373–383, 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.013. Crossref, Google ScholarThe authors declare they have no actual or potential conflicts of interest to disclose.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesRacial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Multiple Measures of Blue and Green Spaces in the United States25 January 2023Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 131, No. 1 January 2023Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received5 December 2022Manuscript revised21 December 2022Manuscript accepted22 December 2022Originally published25 January 2023 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.