Racial Disparities in Access to Public Green Space

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages around the globe and ravages communities, racial disparities in many aspects of public life in the US have been highlighted. Access to public green spaces, including parks, nature preserves, forests, and community gardens (Wolch et al., 2014) varies across racial and economic lines. Income and higher education are positively correlated to green space access. These findings suggest that certain sectors of the population are not able to obtain the health-related benefits that proximity to green spaces offers. Outdoor spaces are the least risky setting for social gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of adequate communal spaces in disadvantaged communities takes away the opportunity to safely meet and recreate, something that is considered crucial to one’s well-being.

Urban tree cover and vegetation provide crucial environmental benefits such as decreasing air pollution and maintaining urban micro-ecosystems. Of special note is their role in mitigating the urban heat island effect. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, surfaces in shade can be up to 45 degrees cooler than those in direct sun. Furthermore, data scientists at The Trust for Public Land discovered that neighborhoods with a park nearby are up to six degrees cooler than those that don’t have a park within a half mile. With rising urban temperatures due to climate change, the availability of green spaces may be a lifesaver for individuals in need of heat relief.

Benefits of outdoor recreation on physical and mental health and overall well-being are broadly established. Spending as little as two hours in nature every week is associated with better health and well-being outcomes. A meta-analysis by Twohig-Bennett & Jones (2018) shows that greenspace exposure is associated with wide ranging health benefits, including decreases in diastolic blood pressure, salivary cortisol, heart rate and incidences of diabetes. Thompson et. al. (2012) show that proximity to green space has a significant negative correlation to self-reported stress, while Beyer et. al. (2014) find that higher levels of neighborhood green space are associated with significantly reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Also, populations with higher availability of green spaces have lower levels of income-related health inequality (Mitchell & Popham, 2008) and better self-reported physical health (Cole et. al, 2019).

Several analyses find that urban green spaces are larger and more accessible in wealthier and predominantly white neighborhoods. According to an analysis by the Trust for Public Land, at the height of the pandemic more than 1.1 million New Yorkers did not have access to a park within a 10-minute walk of where they lived. Also, the average park size is 6.4 acres in poor neighborhoods compared to 14 acres in wealthy neighborhoods. Similarly, the wealthiest areas in London have around 10% more public space compared to the most deprived areas and approximately half of the residents in the most deprived areas of London are from minority backgrounds. Using spatial analytics, Nesbitt et. al. (2019) found that access to urban green space is most strongly associated with higher education and income and is limited in areas with higher proportions of Black or Latinx individuals.

Racial differences in urban greenspace availability and access are evidence-backed and analyzed in a number of studies and policy reports. A study on factors affecting access to green space conducted by Nesbitt et. al. (2019) provides some relevant findings. Areas with higher Latinx and African-American populations are less likely to have access to green space. Meanwhile, the share of white residents is positively associated with access to green space. Dai (2011) has similar results. In New York City, the average park size is 7.9 acres in predominantly Black neighborhoods compared to 29.8 acres in predominantly white neighborhoods, and the former are five times more crowded than the latter.

There is substantial evidence that suggests the disparity in outdoor space stems from systemic racism. For instance, by studying cities with a history of majority Black populations, it was found that in Memphis, Tennessee, just five percent of land area consists of parks, while in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, only three percent of the city is dedicated to parkland, as compared to the national median of 15 percent (Trust for Public Lands, 2019). Currently, due to the inequitable nature of park availability, there is an observance of disproportionate heat exposure as well. Hoffman, Shandas & Pendleton (2020) found that red-lined communities were the hottest neighborhoods in 94 percent of cities, indicating a trickle-down effect of historically racist urban planning policies. Also, analysis by Jesdale et.al. (2013) showed that Black individuals were 52% more likely to live in areas with higher heat risk and the risk increased with increasing degrees of segregation.

There are also racial disparities in the way Black people access the outdoors, best illustrated by the incident when a white woman called the police on Christian Cooper, a Black birdwatcher, when he simply asked her to leash her dog. This incident is singular neither in context nor in outrage. In a survey of racial minorities using a city park, Black, Latinx, and Asian users reported feeling discriminated against by other users, police, and park staff at higher rates than white users (Gobster, 2002). According to Carolyn Finney, scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, including non-white communities as stakeholders in the process of creating and programming parks can work towards addressing universally accessible park design.

Increased green space access can aid in narrowing the health inequalities between high and low-income groups as well as among racial groups, by offering similar health-enhancing behaviors. In urban settings, future city planning must endeavor to correct inequity in green space access, while current urban policies must address it at the earliest opportunity. This is of special importance in the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, when outdoor spaces are the safest place for distanced social gatherings and recreation, which themselves offer stress-relieving opportunities. However, park budgets may face shortfalls due to the economic crisis, as reflected in a survey by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) in mid-April of some 300 park commissioners. The survey found that about half have already been asked to cut their budgets for the current fiscal year by up to 20%. This is of grave concern and must be addressed. Parks and green spaces are essential public infrastructures for a variety of reasons; ensuring equal and sustained access to them is a major facet of environmental justice in urban settings.

---

Beyer, Kirsten MM, Andrea Kaltenbach, Aniko Szabo, Sandra Bogar, F. Javier Nieto, and Kristen M. Malecki. 2014. “Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11, no. 3 (March): 3453-3472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110303453.

Cole, Helen V.S, Margarita Triguero-Mas, James J.T. Connolly, and Isabelle Anguelovski. 2019. “Determining the health benefits of green space: Does gentrification matter?.” Health & Place 57 (May): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.02.001.

Dai, Dajun. (2011). “Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?” Landscape and Urban Planning 102, iss. 4 (2011): 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002.

Gobster, Paul H. (2002). “Managing Urban Parks for a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Clientele.” Leisure Sciences 24, iss. 2: 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900121.

Hoffman, Jeremy S., Vivek Shandas, and Nicholas Pendleton. (2020). “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas.” Climate 8, no. 1 (January): 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012.

Jesdale, Bill M, Rachel Morello-Frosch, and Lara Cushing. (2013). “The Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Heat Risk–Related Land Cover in Relation to Residential Segregation.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 7: 811-817. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205919.

Mitchell, Richard, and Frank Popham. (2008). “Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study.” The Lancet 372, iss. 9650: 1655-1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X.

Nesbitt, Lorien, Michael J. Meitner, Cynthia Girling, Stephen RJ Sheppard, and Yuhao Lu. (2019). “Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities.” Landscape and Urban Planning 181 (January): 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007.

Twohig-Bennett, Caoimhe, and Andy Jones. (2018). “The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes.” Environmental Research 166 (October): 628-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030.

White, Mathew P., Ian Alcock, James Grellier, Benedict W. Wheeler, Terry Hartig, Sara L. Warber, Angie Bone, Michael H. Depledge, and Lora E. Fleming. (2019). “Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing.” Scientific Reports 9, no. 1 (June): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3.