Investigation on Urban Greenspace in Relation to Sociodemographic Factors and Health Inequity Based on Different Greenspace Metrics in 3 US Urban Communities
Overview
Public Health
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Study results are inconclusive regarding how access to greenspace differs by sociodemographic status potentially due to lack of consideration of varying dimensions of greenspace.
Objective: We investigated how provision of greenspace by sociodemographic status varies by greenspace metrics reflecting coverage and accessibility of greenspace.
Methods: We used vegetation levels measured by Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), percent of greenspace, percent tree cover, percent tree cover along walkable roads, and percent of people living ≤500 m of a park entrance (park accessibility). We considered data for 2008-2013 in Census block groups in 3 US regions: New Haven, Connecticut; Baltimore, Maryland; and Durham, North Carolina. We examined geographical distribution of greenspace metrics and their associations with indicators of income, education, linguistic isolation, race/ethnicity, and age. We used logistic regression to examine associations between these greenspace metrics and age-standardized mortality controlling for sociodemographic indicators.
Results: Which region had the highest greenspace depended on the greenspace metric used. An interquartile range (33.6%) increase in low-income persons was associated with a 6.2% (95% CI: 3.1, 9.3) increase in park accessibility, whereas it was associated with 0.03 (95% CI: -0.035, -0.025) to 7.3% (95% CI: -8.7, -5.9) decreases in other greenspace metrics. A 15.5% increase in the lower-education population was associated with a 2.1% increase (95% CI: -0.3%, 4.6%) in park accessibility but decreases with other greenspace metrics (0.02 to 5.0%). These results were consistent across the 3 study areas. The odds of mortality rate more than the 75th percentile rate were inversely associated with all greenspace metrics except for annual average EVI (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.43, 3.79) and park accessibility (OR 1.40, 95% CI: 0.52, 3.75).
Significance: Environmental justice concerns regarding greenspace differ by the form of natural resources, and pathways of health benefits can differ by form of greenspace and socioeconomic status within communities.
Impact Statement: Comparisons of exposure to greenspace between different greenspace metrics should be incorporated in decision-making within local contexts.
Dong R, Yuan H, Xu G, Li Y, Xu Y, Fu C J Urban Health. 2025; .
PMID: 40085333 DOI: 10.1007/s11524-025-00971-2.
Individual and Neighborhood Level Predictors of Children's Exposure to Residential Greenspace.
Hazlehurst M, Hajat A, Szpiro A, Tandon P, Kaufman J, Loftus C J Urban Health. 2024; 101(2):349-363.
PMID: 38485845 PMC: 11052952. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-024-00829-z.
Song J, Gasparrini A, Fischer T, Hu K, Lu Y Environ Health Perspect. 2023; 131(9):97007.
PMID: 37728899 PMC: 10510815. DOI: 10.1289/EHP12589.
Social media analysis reveals environmental injustices in Philadelphia urban parks.
Walter M, Bagozzi B, Ajibade I, Mondal P Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):12571.
PMID: 37537251 PMC: 10400556. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-39579-4.
VoPham T, Cravero A, Feld L, Green P, Feng Z, Berry K Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023; 32(8):1069-1078.
PMID: 37255388 PMC: 10390887. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1291.