Contrasting distributions of urban green infrastructure across social and ethno-racial groups

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 175, Issue , 2018, Pages 136-148

  Ferguson, M ^a   Roberts, H E ^a,c   McEachan, R R C ^b   Dallimer, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b BRADFORD INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Environmental equity; Ethnicity; Greenspace accessibility; Greenspace quality; Street trees; Urban greenspace

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; POPULATION STATISTICS; PUBLIC HEALTH;

ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY; ETHNICITY; GREENSPACE ACCESSIBILITY; STREET TREES; URBAN GREENSPACE;

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

ACCESSIBILITY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; EQUITY; ETHNICITY; GREENSPACE; HABITAT QUALITY; INFRASTRUCTURE; POPULATION DENSITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

BRADFORD [ENGLAND]; ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85055256928     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.020     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Anselin, L., Syabri, I., Kho, Y., GeoDa: An introduction to spatial data analysis. Geographical Analysis 38 (2006), 5–22.
2. Askins, K., Crossing divides: Ethnicity and rurality. Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009), 365–375.
3. Aspinall, P.J., Do the “Asian” categories in the British censuses adequately capture the Indian sub-continent diaspora population?. South Asian Diaspora 5:2 (2013), 179–195.
4. Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P., et al. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007), 187–195.
5. Bates, A., The development of a “Postcode Best Fit” methodology for producing Population Estimates for different geographies. Population Trends, 133, 2008.
6. Bogar, S., Beyer, K.M., Green space, violence, and crime. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 17 (2016), 160–171.
7. Boone, G.C., Buckley, G.L., Grove, M.J., Sister, C., Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Association of American Geographers 99 (2009), 767–787.
8. Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10, 2010, 456.
9. Bradford Observatory, The state of the district bradford district's intelligence & evidence base. 2010, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Bradford.
10. Bradford Observatory, Bradford joint strategic needs assessment. 2012, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Bradford.
11. Byrne, J., Wolch, J., Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography 33 (2009), 743–765.
12. Cariñanos, P., Casares-Porcel, M., Urban green zones and related pollen allergy: A review. Some guidelines for designing spaces with low allergy impact. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2011.
13. City of Bradford MDC, Bradford open space. 2006, Sport and Recreational Study, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Bradford.
14. Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., Green, E., Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning 86 (2008), 103–114.
15. Conway, D., Li, C.Q., Wolch, J., Kahle, C., Jerrett, M., A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 41 (2010), 150–169.
16. Crawford, D., Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Ball, K., Hume, C., Roberts, R., et al. Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status?. Health & Place 14 (2008), 889–893.
17. Cutter, S.L., Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography 19 (1995), 111–122.
18. Dadvand, P., Wright, J., Martinez, D., Basagana, X., McEachan, R.R.C., Cirach, M., et al. Inequality, green spaces, and pregnant women: Roles of ethnicity and individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Environment International 71 (2014), 101–108.
19. Dallimer, M., Davies, Z.G., Irvine, K.N., Maltby, L., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., et al. What personal and environmental factors determine frequency of urban greenspace use?. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health 11 (2014), 7977–7992.
20. Dallimer, M., Irvine, K.N., Skinner, A.M.J., Davies, Z.G., Rouquette, J.R., Maltby, L., et al. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 62 (2012), 47–55.
21. Dallimer, M., Tang, Z., Bibby, P.R., Brindley, P., Gaston, K.J., Davies, Z.G., Temporal changes in greenspace in a highly urbanized region. Biology Letters 7 (2011), 763–766.
22. del Saz Salazar, S., García Menéndez, L., Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 24 (2007), 296–305.
23. Downey, L., Hawkins, B., Race, income, and environmental inequality in the United States. Sociological Perspectives 51 (2008), 759–781.
24. Elmqvist, T., Setälä H., Handel, S.N., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J.N., et al. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14 (2015), 101–108.
25. Elvers, H.-D., Gross, M., Heinrichs, H., The diversity of environmental justice. European Societies 10 (2008), 835–856.
26. Flowerdew, R., How serious is the modifiable areal unit problem for analysis of English census data?. Population Trends 145:1 (2011), 106–118, 10.1057/pt.2011.20.
27. Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters 3 (2007), 390–394.
28. Galobardes, B., Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60 (2006), 7–12.
29. Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martinez, D., Dadvand, P., Rojas-Rueda, D., Plasencia, A., et al. Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. Environment International 86 (2016), 60–67.
30. Gidlow, C.J., Ellis, N.J., Bostock, S., Development of the neighbourhood green space tool (NGST). Landscape and Urban Planning 106 (2012), 347–358.
31. Gidlow, C.J., Van Kempen, E., Smith, G., Triguero-Mas, M., Kruize, H., Grazuleviciene, R., et al. Development of the natural environment scoring tool (NEST). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29 (2018), 322–333.
32. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86 (2013), 235–245.
33. Groenewegen, P.P., van den Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., de Vries, S., Is a green residential environment better for health? If so, why?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2012), 996–1003.
34. Haaland, C., van den Bosch, C.K., Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2015.
35. Hall, A., Towards a multi-ethnic city. 2013, The History Press, Gloucestershire, In The Story of Bradford. UK.
36. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H., Annual review of public health. Nature and Health 35 (2014), 1–497.
37. Heynen, N., Perkins, H.A., Roy, P., The Political ecology of uneven urban green space. The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review 42 (2006), 3–25.
38. Higgs, G., Fry, R., Langford, M., Investigating the implications of using alternative GIS-based techniques to measure accessibility to green space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39 (2012), 326–343.
39. Hughey, S.M., Walsemann, K.M., Child, S., Powers, A., Reed, J.A., Kaczynski, A.T., Using an environmental justice approach to examine the relationships between park availability and quality indicators, neighborhood disadvantage, and racial/ethnic composition. Landscape and Urban Planning 148 (2016), 159–169.
40. Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., Forrest, J., The geography of ethnic residential segregation: A comparative study of five countries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (2007), 713–738.
41. Jones, S.G., Ashby, A.J., Momin, S.R., Naidoo, A., Spatial implications associated with using euclidean distance measurements and geographic centroid imputation in health care research. Health Services Research 45 (2010), 316–327.
42. Jones, A., Brainard, J., Bateman, I., Lovett, A., Equity of access to public parks in Birmingham, England. Environmental Research 3 (2009), 237–256.
43. Jones, A., Hillsdon, M., Coombes, E., Greenspace access, use, and physical activity: Understanding the effects of area deprivation. Preventative Medicine 49 (2009), 500–505.
44. Kaźmierczak, A., The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (2013), 31–44.
45. Kelly, B., Ethnic mixing in Bradford: Local dynamics of diversity. Evidence from the 2011 census. 2015, University of Manchester, Manchester.
46. Kendal, D., Williams, N.S.G., Williams, K.J.H., Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012), 257–265.
47. Kessel, A., Green, J., Pinder, R., Wilkinson, P., Grundy, C., Lachowycz, K., Multidisciplinary research in public health: A case study of research on access to green space. Public health 123 (2009), 32–38.
48. Kuruneri-Chitepo, C., Shackleton, C.M., The distribution, abundance and composition of street trees in selected towns of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10 (2011), 247–254.
49. Landry, S.M., Chakraborty, J., Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 41 (2009), 2651–2670.
50. Lee, A.C.K., Maheswaran, R., The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health 33 (2011), 212–222.
51. Li, X., Zhang, C., Li, W., Kuzovkina, Y.A., Weiner, D., Who lives in greener neighborhoods? The distribution of street greenery and its association with residents’ socioeconomic conditions in Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14 (2015), 751–759.
52. Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F., Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS One, 9(1), 2014, e87422.
53. Lovasi, G.S., Quinn, J.W., Neckerman, K.M., Perzanowski, M.S., Rundle, A., Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62 (2008), 647–649.
54. Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä M., Hopping on one leg – The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8 (2009), 309–315.
55. Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R.A., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P.P., Is green space in the living environment associated with people's feelings of social safety?. Environment and Planning A 41 (2009), 1763–1777.
56. Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A., et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research. 158 (2017), 301–317.
57. Maroko, A.R., Maantay, J.A., Sohler, N.L., Grady, K.L., Arno, P.S., The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: A quantitative and qualitative approach. International Journal of Health Geographics, 8, 2009, 34.
58. McConnachie, M., Shackleton, C., Public green space inequality in small towns in South Africa. Habitat International 34 (2010), 244–248.
59. McEachan, R.R.C., Prady, S.L., Smith, G., Fairley, L., Cabieses, B., Gidlow, C., et al. The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: Moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 70 (2016), 253–259.
60. Mellander, C., Lobo, J., Stolarick, K., Matheson, Z., Night-time light data: A good proxy measure for economic activity?. PLoS ONE, 10, 2015, 0139779.
61. Mitchell, R., Popham, F., Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet 372 (2008), 1655–1660.
62. Mullaney, J., Lucke, T., Trueman, S.J., A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 134 (2015), 157–166.
63. Natural England, “Nature nearby” accessible natural greenspace guidance. 2010, Natural England, Peterborough.
64. Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., Rayment, M., Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Ecological Institute and GHK Consulting, 2011 070307.
65. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Khreis, H., Triguero-Mas, M., Gascon, M., Dadvand, P., Fifty shades of green. Epidemiology 28:1 (2017), 63–71.
66. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Kruize, H., Gidlow, C., Andrusaityte, S., Antó J.M., Basagaña, X., et al. Positive health effects of the natural outdoor environment in typical populations in different regions in Europe (PHENOTYPE): A study programme protocol. BMJ Open, 4(4), 2014, e004951.
67. Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science 22 (2011), 1101–1106.
68. Nolan, B., Whelan, C.T., Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29:2 (2010), 305–325, 10.1002/pam.20493.
69. Norton, B.A., Coutts, A.M., Livesley, S.J., Harris, R.J., Hunter, A.M., Williams, N.S.G., Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 134 (2015), 127–138.
70. ONS, Aggregate data (England and Wales). 2011, UK Data Service Census Support, Office for National Statistics.
71. ONS, Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales: 2011. 2012, Office for National Statistics.
72. ONS, 2011 Built-up areas – Methodology and guidance. 2013, Office for National Statistics.
73. ONS, 2011 Census lossary of terms. 2011 Census: User guide. 2014, Office for National Statistics.
74. ONS, Population estimates for UK, England and Wales. 2016, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Office for National Statistics.
75. OS Street View, Coverage: Great Britain, updated June 2013, ordnance survey, GB. 2013, EDINA Digimap. Ordnance Survey Service.
76. Pauleit, S., Ennos, R., Golding, Y., Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change – A study in Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:2 (2005), 295–310.
77. Pearce, D., Conceptual framework for analysing the distributive impacts of environmental policies. 2003, OECD Environmental Directorate, Paris.
78. Peckham, S.C., Duinker, P.N., Ordóñez, C., Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12 (2013), 154–162.
79. Peschardt, K.K., Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (2012), 235–244.
80. Pham, T.T.H., Apparicio, P., Landry, S., Lewnard, J., Disentangling the effects of urban form and socio-demographic context on street tree cover: A multi-level analysis from Montréal. Landscape and Urban Planning 157 (2017), 422–433.
81. Pham, T.T.H., Apparicio, P., Landry, S., Séguin, A.-M., Gagnon, M., Predictors of the distribution of street and backyard vegetation in Montreal, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013), 18–27.
82. Pham, T.T.H., Apparicio, P., Séguin, A.M., Landry, S., Gagnon, M., Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: An uneven distribution or environmental inequity?. Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012), 214–224.
83. Roberts, H., Kellar, I., Conner, M., Gidlow, C., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., McEachan, R. R. C. (in review). The influence of park features on park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area.
84. Rossi, S.D., Byrne, J.A., Pickering, C.M., The role of distance in peri-urban national park use: Who visits them and how far do they travel?. Applied Geography 63 (2015), 77–88.
85. Rutt, R.L., Gulsrud, N.M., Green justice in the city: A new agenda for urban green space research in Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19 (2016), 123–127.
86. Sandström, U.G., Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research 17 (2002), 373–385.
87. Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., Randrup, T.B., Troelsen, J., Influences on the use of urban green space – A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9:1 (2010), 25–32, 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002.
88. Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C.G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J.M., et al. Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One, 10(4), 2015, e0122051.
89. Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Bush, R., Fuller, R.A., Socio-economic inequalities in access to nature on public and private lands: A case study from Brisbane, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014), 14–23.
90. Simpson, L., Statistics of racial segregation: Measures, evidence and policy. Urban Studies 41 (2004), 661–681.
91. Tooke, T.R., Klinkenber, B., Coops, N.C., A geographical approach to identifying vegetation-related environmental equity in Canadian cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37 (2010), 1040–1056.
92. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007), 167–178.
93. Ulmer, J.M., Wolf, K.L., Backman, D.R., Tretheway, R.L., Blain, C.J., O'Neil-Dunne, J.P., et al. Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health and Place 42 (2016), 54–62.
94. United Nations, World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. 2014, Highlights, United Nations, New York.
95. van den Berg, M., van Poppel, M., van Kamp, I., Andrusaityte, S., Balseviciene, B., Cirach, M., et al. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health & Place 38 (2016), 8–15.
96. van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van Mechelen, W., Maas, J., Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14 (2015), 806–816.
97. van den Bosch, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., No time to lose – Green the cities now. Environment International, 2017, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.025.
98. Vaughan, K.B., Kaczynski, A.T., Wilhelm Stanis, S.A., Besenyi, G.M., Bergstrom, R., Heinrich, K.M., Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: An environmental justice investigation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 45:Suppl 1 (2013), S28–38.
99. Wen, M., Zhang, X., Harris, C.D., Holt, J.B., Croft, J.B., Spatial disparities in the distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(Suppl. 1), 2013.
100. White, M.P., Elliott, L.R., Taylor, T., Wheeler, B.W., Spencer, A., Bone, A., et al. Recreational physical activity in natural environments and implications for health: A population based cross-sectional study in England. Preventive Medicine 91 (2016), 383–388.
101. Wilkinson, P.F., The golden fleece: The search for standards. Leisure Studies 4 (1985), 189–203.
102. Wolch, J.R., Tatalovich, Z., Spruijt-Metz, D., Byrne, J., Jerrett, M., Chou, C.P., et al. Proximity and perceived safety as determinants of urban trail use: Findings from a three-city study. Environment and Planning A 42 (2010), 57–79.
103. Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P., Fehrenbach, J., Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography 26 (2013), 4–35.
104. Zhang, B., Xie, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, J., The economic benefits of rainwater-runoff reduction by urban green spaces: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management 100 (2012), 65–71.
105. Zhou, X., Kim, J., Social disparities in tree canopy and park accessibility: A case study of six cities in Illinois using GIS and remote sensing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013), 88–97.