A systematic review of the relationship between urban forest quality and socioeconomic status or race |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Healthy Landscapes Research Group, School of Geography, Planning and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia;2. School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia;1. Department of Geomatics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan;2. Department of Leisure Industry and Health Promotion, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei 112, Taiwan;3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Health Research Institutes, Miaoli 35053, Taiwan;4. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, United States;1. Integrative Research Institute Transformation of Human-Environment-Systems (IRITHESys), Research Group Multifunctional Landscapes, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin 10099, Germany;2. Institut für Geographische Wissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Malteserstrasse 74-100, Berlin 12249, Germany;1. Department of Forest Engineering, Agrarian and Environmental Sector, Midwestern State University, Irati, Brazil;2. Forest Science Post-Graduation Program, Agrarian and Environmental Sector, Midwestern State University, Irati, Brazil;3. Department of Forest Engineering, Veterinary Science Center, Santa Catarina State University, Lages, Brazil;1. Beijing Urban Ecosystem Research Station, State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China;2. Department of Geography, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany;3. School of Architecture, Birmingham City University, United Kingdom;4. Department of Chemistry, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan;5. Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA;6. Department of Biological Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 0C8, Canada;7. Department of Geography, University of Salzburg, Austria;8. University of Bayreuth, Institute of Sport Science (Sports Ecology), Universitaetsstrasse 30, Bayreuth 95440, Germany;1. University of California, San Francisco, USA;2. University of South Dakota, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The quantity of urban forests in cities is critical for biodiversity conservation and human health, and is known to be distributed unequally. Increasingly, the quality of urban forests are also being recognised as shaping the benefits they provide. Previous studies and reviews have demonstrated that the quality of urban green spaces is associated with patterns of inequality as measured by socio-economic status and race (in the U.S). This study extends this body of knowledge to urban forests by systematically reviewing the urban forest literature (that explicitly study the urban forest) exploring the relationship between urban forest quality and both socio-economic status and race. Two academic databases (SCOPUS and Web of Science) were systematically searched. A total of 2012 papers were screened and 21 articles were included in this study. Almost all studies (20/21) found evidence of inequality, with at least one significant association between measures of urban forest quality and socio-economic status or race. However, 6 studies found contrasting patterns, with lower socioeconomic status areas having higher urban forest quality. There was variation in the type of ‘urban forest’ studied, and variation in the ways both urban forest quality and socio-economic status were measured, making inter-study comparisons difficult. Interestingly, the literature was geographically diverse, and future research could continue to focus on countries in Africa, South America and Asia with diverse needs for and uses of urban forests. In conclusion, this review finds evidence for inequity in the distribution of urban forest quality. Future research that more clearly describes the urban forests being studied and that explores sociocultural variation in perceived quality would allow better generalisation and understanding of forest quality patterns. |
| |
| Keywords: | Environmental justice Urban woodlands Socio-economic status Income Race |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
