Urban forest inequity, also known as shade inequity or tree canopy inequity, is the inequitable distribution of trees, with their associated benefits, across metropolitan areas. Urban forest inequity is often seen as a form of environmental injustice because lower-income communities and marginalized groups commonly receive less of the social, environmental, and health benefits urban forests provide.
Urban forest inequity has a number of follow-on effects, including impacts on faunal biodiversity and the urban heat island effect. Urban heat inequity occurs when intra-urban heat islands, with their associated negative physical and emotional health consequences, are more common and more intense in lower-income communities. Researchers have found relation between urban forest inequity to historical and institutional factors, such as redlining and uneven public investment in green infrastructure. Some impacts of the higher exposure to urban heat island include illness related to high heat, poorer air quality, and reduced access to the mental and physical health benefits associated with green space.
Research on urban forest inequity started from late 20th century environmental justice and expanded to the 2000s with the use of GIS, remote sensing, and census-linked analysis. With these tools researchers have found demographic measures and data sources. Studies on spatial research influenced by urban forest inequity is global, as it includes case studies in North American, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Proposed responses to this phenomenon include community engagement in large and big locations, initiatives to plant trees and how to maintain them, and planning strategies such as green belts. There is also debate among scholars about potential unintended consequences of greening intervention, such as green gentrification.
Definitions
Urban forests
Urban forests are areas of land covered by trees or other vegetation located in and around places of intensive human influence, particularly metropolitan, urban areas such as cities. Urban forests, though present on both public and private land, typically are found on public spaces due to the predominance of street trees noted by researcher Steven Strom. Urban forests are recognized for their significant role in mitigating the impacts of climate change, exemplified by their role in mitigating heat and flood risks and their contribution to green infrastructure is seen as a nature-based solution for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Trees and vegetation absorb and store rainwater during heavy rainfall events, reducing flood risk, and capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as part of climate change mitigation efforts. Additionally, urban forests are also important in maintaining the biodiversity of an urban area, particularly the avifauna (birds) of the area. These characteristics of urban forests help contribute to the creation of healthy, resilient, and sustainable cities in a cost-effective manner.
Urban forest inequity Urban forest inequity is a phenomenon in which the distribution and access to urban trees and green spaces. Municipalities across the United States believe that urban forest inequity is an example of environmental injustice, as it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. Numerous studies, including a 2017 meta-analysis done by researchers Ed Gerrish and Shannon Lea Watkins, have found a positive relationship between income and urban forest coverage. This introduces the concept of the luxury effects, which explains how the disparities in urban forest cover coincide with socio-economic and historical factors. The luxury effect illustrates how wealthier areas tend to exhibit higher biodiversity, reflecting the influence of socioeconomic factors and education levels in shaping the quantity and quality of green spaces in a given area. Moreover, inequitable distribution of greenery in urban areas may restrict an equal distribution of the benefits of urban forests, which include some benefits like reducing stress and anxiety, cultivating a safe community, emotional fulfillment, mitigating the effects of global warming. For instance, canopy cover quantity in an area can diminish the urban heat island effect and increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Various historical, cultural, and institutional factors contribute to the perceived inequities in urban forestry management and inequitable distribution of urban greenery. A 2022 paper published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that vulnerable residents of an urban area, particularly lower-income residents and those who live further from urban forests and green space, are particularly susceptible to the urban heat island effect. There are examples of urban forest inequity in cities globally, some of which are listed below.
History
History of study The study of urban forest inequity started from a broader body of environmental justice research in the late 20th century. Early environmental justice work focused on the disproportionate geography of environmental amenities and disamenities, including parks and places with pollution, and how these distributions were related to race, class, and other factors of socioeconomic status. Then worries of environmental injustice grew and so did the research interest in the spatial distribution of desirable urban resources like street trees.
Firsthand research into urban green space equity gained popularity in the 2000s, with scholars practicing research using statistical and spatial analysis tools, including remote sensing, census data place, and GIS, to examine how urban vegetation was distributed and how it related to demographic variables. This research found that in many North American cities, minority neighborhoods had less tree canopy cover and fewer green spaces than those neighborhoods with wealthier and higher status.
Research into the relationship of green spaces and demographic factors have produced mixed results. Several studies confirm a positive relationship between income and tree cover, but the association with race and ethnicity has been more mixed. Some examples are in the U.S cities, where studies in cities found that African-American or Hispanic neighborhoods had lower tree cover while others observed higher tree cover in some minority neighborhoods.
Recently, the field has expanded to include global perspectives distributed throughout the global South, in countries such as South Africa and China. Researchers have recorded some inconsistencies in urban green spaces among racial and income groups, sometimes shaped by a past of segregation or inequity.
Despite the growing number of studies, some scholars argue correlations do not always show reason of the cause, and that preferences, local policies, and even climatic factors were contributing factors to urban forest distribution patterns of sustainability. Some critics also say that future research should focus more on cooperative research directed at the processes that make inequity less over time.
History of impacts The impacts of inequity in urban forests have been examined mainly on the basis of environmental, social, and health effects. Research has stated that areas with less canopy cover tend to have warmer temperatures, which would end up creating an urban heat island, poorer air quality, and even less access to mental and physical health opportunities of green spaces. These imbalances have been linked to higher exposure to heatwaves and higher rates of heat-related illness across vulnerable populations.
The urban forest distribution and well-being relationship is more varied. Previous research has concluded that the expansion of green space in poor areas can improve public health, social cohesion, and property values. On the other side, there is the potential that large sized urban greening may help to unintentionally facilitate ecological or "green" gentrification, drive up housing costs, and displace low-income individuals, thus replacing one form of inequality with another.
The removal or absence of trees in public spaces has been tied to hostile-public space design, impacting marginalized populations disproportionately. In 2022, in Lakewood, New Jersey, all the trees in public square were removed after unhoused individuals started using the shade, and further removals happened when those people relocated to nearby parking lots. Supporters of tree removal argue that altering the physical environment can help address and improve public safety, business concerns, or urban management problems. Raymond Coles, mayor of Lakewood, said that despite residents were avoiding the square and women felt insecure. Coles mentioned that reports of harassment and the misuse of public spaces, such ash as public defecation despite the availability of portable toilets. Opponents to this view say that such measures can be extreme and contribute to environmental injustice and worsen conditions for vulnerable populations in times of extreme weather changes. Reverend Steve Brigham criticizes the tree removals as an extreme measure and argued that there could be other measures, such as providing toilets and offering more services to address underlying needs.
There are debates about the most appropriate ways of handling inequity in urban forests. Some researchers promote "just green enough" interventions that can maximize equitable access to green space and minimize the threat of displacement that minorities face. Others argue that policy measures must address environmental and social justice concerns at the same time, warning that actions such as the additional planting of trees will do nothing to confront the imminent inequities if they are not accompanied by the solutions for broader trends in urbanization, land use, and government.
People that criticize the concentration on inequity have long responded by suggesting that forests cover in cities could simply reveal local tastes, market forces, or natural conditions, and warned against adopting the same solutions to different cities or areas. They also point out that inequity should be addressed with regard to potential unintended consequences, for example, greater employment costs to sustain or conflict for land use.
Causes and patterns Scholars in a variety of contexts have identified several causes of urban forest inequity. Practices that started years ago like redlining, discriminatory zoning, and "White Flight" have produced spatial divisions in cities where parks and green infrastructure can act as boundaries between racially and economically different status neighborhoods. In some cases, these "boundary parks" risk making spaces dysfunctional by physically separating communities but failing to provide equal value due to low use, poor maintenance, or perceived safety issues, like "green walls."
Associated problems
Environmental and Spatial Justice