More than “Just Green Enough”: Helping Park Professionals Achieve Equitable Greening and Limit Environmental Gentrification

Rigolon, Alessandro; Keith, Samuel J.; Harris, Brandon; Mullenbach, Lauren E.; Larson, Lincoln R.; Rushing, Jaclyn

doi:10.18666/jpra-2019-9654

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Motivated by the need to address health disparities, public health practitioners and urban planners have advocated for greening interventions, such as the creation of new parks, in low-income minoritized communities [21,50]. But in many cases, such greening interventions have backfired and resulted in "green gentrification," describing the arrival of wealthier, and often White, newcomers to marginalized neighborhoods and increases in housing prices, which can contribute to displacing the lowest-income residents [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding which groups are experiencing better health and knowing why can have significant implications for urban planning and public health practice. Specifically, if this evidence showed that people who stay in place fare better than those who are displaced, more investments would need to be made to preserve or create affordable housing in areas undergoing green gentrification [50]. Also, such evidence can inform the provision of health care services, public transportation, parks, and recreational programs in suburban neighborhoods, where many displaced people tend to relocate as indicated by increases in the shares of low-income and minoritized residents in these areas [54].…”

Section: Literature Gaps On Green Gentrification and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, research has suggested that parks and greenways in gentrifying communities are most often designed to meet the needs and aesthetic preferences of affluent White newcomers, as opposed to longtime lowincome BIPOC residents [22]. To this extent, early, meaningful, and consistent engagement of residents of communities targeted for urban greening projects is critical to ensure that long-time residents have a voice in designing green spaces that they would like to use [50]. Along the same lines, recreation programs held in new or renovated green spaces located in gentrifying communities should be tailored to the cultural preferences, financial means, and everyday needs (e.g., child care) of diverse and low-income communities [50,67].…”

Section: Implications For Public Health and Urban Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this extent, early, meaningful, and consistent engagement of residents of communities targeted for urban greening projects is critical to ensure that long-time residents have a voice in designing green spaces that they would like to use [50]. Along the same lines, recreation programs held in new or renovated green spaces located in gentrifying communities should be tailored to the cultural preferences, financial means, and everyday needs (e.g., child care) of diverse and low-income communities [50,67]. And public health officials could implement initiatives to encourage green space use among marginalized groups in communities undergoing green gentrification, such as those conducted by promotores de salud in Latino/a neighborhoods [68].…”

Section: Implications For Public Health and Urban Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

Jelks

Jennings

Rigolon

2021

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban greening initiatives are often linked to enhanced human health and wellbeing, but they can also be a driver of gentrification. To date, few studies have focused on how green gentrification shapes health. In this scoping review, we analyzed existing peer-reviewed research on how greening initiatives in gentrifying neighborhoods impact health, well-being, and health pathways (e.g., physical activity, affordable housing). Using a multi-step approach to scoping the literature (including searches in PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar), we identified 15 empirical studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found studies focusing on green space use, physical activity, sense of community, safety, and self-reported health. Overall, longtime, marginalized residents are negatively impacted by green gentrification as they experience a lower sense of community, feel that they do not belong in green space, and, in many studies, use green space less often than newcomers. Overall, the research in this area is limited, and more studies on mental health and cardiovascular health markers could advance this literature. Based on the limited available evidence, we suggest that public health, urban planning, and parks professionals could collaborate to enhance the use of green space for marginalized residents and their feelings of inclusion in gentrifying areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Gaps On Green Gentrification and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Public Health and Urban Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Public Health and Urban Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

Jelks

Jennings

Rigolon

2021

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policy discussion about ways to ensure equitable greening has centered around “just green enough” strategies, which take into account community interests and desires, rather than real estate and economic interests [ 20 ]. These strategies may also limit the scale or type of greening projects in order to benefit long-term residents [ 56 , 57 ]. More generally, anti-gentrification policies, such as rent stabilization or programs such as shared equity projects that give existing residents a stake in improving their neighborhoods, may support equitable greening [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between Greenspace and Gentrification-Related Sociodemographic and Housing Cost Changes in Major Metropolitan Areas across the United States

Schinasi

Cole

Hirsch

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neighborhood greenspace may attract new residents and lead to sociodemographic or housing cost changes. We estimated relationships between greenspace and gentrification-related changes in the 43 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of the United States (US). We used the US National Land Cover and Brown University Longitudinal Tracts databases, as well as spatial lag models, to estimate census tract-level associations between percentage greenspace (years 1990, 2000) and subsequent changes (1990–2000, 2000–2010) in percentage college-educated, percentage working professional jobs, race/ethnic composition, household income, percentage living in poverty, household rent, and home value. We also investigated effect modification by racial/ethnic composition. We ran models for each MSA and time period and used random-effects meta-analyses to derive summary estimates for each period. Estimates were modest in magnitude and heterogeneous across MSAs. After adjusting for census-tract level population density in 1990, compared to tracts with low percentage greenspace in 1992 (defined as ≤50th percentile of the MSA-specific distribution in 1992), those with high percentage greenspace (defined as >75th percentile of the MSA-specific distribution) experienced higher 1990–2000 increases in percentage of the employed civilian aged 16+ population working professional jobs (β: 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11, 0.26) and in median household income (β: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.31). Adjusted estimates for the 2000–2010 period were near the null. We did not observe evidence of effect modification by race/ethnic composition. We observed evidence of modest associations between greenspace and gentrification trends. Further research is needed to explore reasons for heterogeneity and to quantify health implications.

show abstract

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Jurjonas,

May,

Cardinale

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, ecosystem restoration has focussed on standard ecological indicators like water or habitat quality, species population abundance or vegetation cover to determine success. However, there is growing interest in how restoration might impact people and communities. For example, researchers have documented positive socio‐ecological links between restoration and human well‐being indicators like property value, natural hazard mitigation, recreation opportunity and happiness. Furthermore, public health benefits from restoration have been linked to public support for programmes. Drawing from this research, the United Nations declared 2021–2030 the ‘Decade of Ecosystem Restoration’ and set a goal to promote more socio‐ecological goals in ecosystem restoration. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of information on the extent to which restoration practitioners consider well‐being because many granting programmes only require ecological goals and monitoring. To explore how restoration practitioners design, implement and measure the success of their projects, we used the federally funded Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as a case study. Since 2010, GLRI has awarded over $3.5 Billion to over 5300 projects across the midwestern United States, but it does not presently require human well‐being considerations. We performed an online survey targeting project managers with a sample of GLRI projects (N = 1574). We received 437 responses and found that almost half set a human well‐being goal, and more than 70% of those who did believe they reached it. In comparison, 90% of project managers believed they met their ecological goals. These documented perceptions of positive impacts for both people and nature suggest that restoration may already transcend traditional indicators and monitoring for socio‐ecological metrics could capture many ‘unseen’ benefits. Therefore, we recommend that ecosystem restoration programmes adopt a socio‐ecological lens to document the full extent of their restoration outcomes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

More than “Just Green Enough”: Helping Park Professionals Achieve Equitable Greening and Limit Environmental Gentrification

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

Associations between Greenspace and Gentrification-Related Sociodemographic and Housing Cost Changes in Major Metropolitan Areas across the United States

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About