Health benefits of green spaces not shared equally, study shows

Street greening, public parks and urban nature are scientifically proven ways to improve citizen health and wellbeing, but the positive impact of green space is not shared equally, a review of 46 international papers has found.

The research, undertaken by Meri Juntti and Sevda Ozsezer-Kurnuc and published in Ecological Economics, recommends inclusive research and planning is needed to “ensure that the prevalent urban greening agenda actually benefits all city dwellers and does not unintentionally contribute to further inequality.”

The paper underlines the proven benefits of urban nature to improve health and wellbeing as evidenced by multiple studies, but points out that “benefits do not simply flow from nature to residents in a linear and equitable manner.”

While a positive impact is felt by individuals who live in proximity to a green space, proximity is not enough – people must visit and experience urban nature. Research shows that residents who already lead active lifestyles and have good physical and mental health are more likely to reap a positive social impact from urban greening.

In other words, if you already walk or jog – and have the time and a safe neighbourhood in which to do so – you are more likely to benefit from a local park. As a result, a higher socio-economic class and level of education increases the likelihood of a positive impact associated with urban green space.

Confounding factors include average time spent at home per day, state of health, BMI, dog ownership and energy expenditure at work. Those with a higher BMI or suffering from obesity appear to benefit more from access to nature rather than sports facilities, including children.

The elderly with mobility challenges may benefit more from street trees and pocket parks nearer to home. As a result of demographic differences, the authors call for a mix of urban green spaces to meet different needs and ensure that the benefits of nature are shared more equitably.

“Both household income and the socio-economic status of the locality seem to matter,” the paper reads. “The role that the socio-economic context plays in how urban nature is experienced is significant, but complex.” The paper notes regional differences, too – while individuals with a lower socio-economic status benefitted from local green spaces in research undertaken in China, a different study in the US saw only affluent white residents report a positive health impact.

Subjective experience adds to the complexity. The perceived quality of the green space, perceptions of social cohesion and crime rates can mediate the beneficial impacts of urban nature. For example, a woman’s perception of safety affects their willingness to visit a park after dark, which can be mitigated by enhanced lighting. Social cohesion is seen to encourage access to urban nature. Racism from park users and authorities discourages use. Neighbourhood diversity is associated with more variety in the use of green spaces, which increases the likelihood of conflict when uses are not compatible.

“Socio-economic status of the area, perceptions of crime, cultural diversity and experienced racism or other forms of discrimination matter to how urban nature is perceived and this in turn influences its experienced impact on health and whether it is accessed at all in the first place.” 

“The material functions of urban nature take on meanings and can have trade-offs and underpin conflicts and marginalisation depending on the social context... The ‘human factor’ plays a role in whether and how the social impact of urban nature is realised.”

Pro-social green spaces with facilities and services that foster social activities encourage greater use, with bins, benches, road signs, kiosks, bars, and cafes increasing the appreciation of urban nature. 

“Spatial form, diversity of natural features, infrastructure and maintenance, distance to and extent of greenery and the presence of features that enable engaging with nature make a difference to the type and extent of recreation activities, the extent to which nature yields health and community benefits, and to its impact on property value.”

In contrast, a lack of road connection, poor access to water or a lack of suitable facilities is seen to discourage the use of green spaces. Different age demographics were found to value different types of green space. Young parents appreciate playgrounds and sports facilities, while elderly residents value street greenery and fountains. 

The inclusion of community gardens was shown to increase the integration of marginalised people. “While community gardens can be exclusive, their integration into existing green spaces, visual openness and good functional infrastructure (access to water, shade, benches, coffee area) promoted inclusiveness and therefore extend the benefits to social capital within the broader community.”

The presence of trees is noted as having multiple beneficial effects, correlating with lower rates of crime, feelings of safety and greater wellbeing. Parks with tree cover also offer shade, which insulates visitors from heat and encourages more physical activity in warm weather and at higher temperatures.

The authors note that “motivation to visit and length of stay in green spaces correlated positively with near-natural (i.e., less intensively maintained) green space, safe, clean, and accessible pathways, species richness, serenity, and features that carried cultural connotations (some connection to local history/the arts/architecture and design) in studies from Germany, Czechia and China. Urban forests, public parks and water bodies were the most popular green space types.” 

In contrast, spaces with less vegetation are favoured for socialising, according to a paper cited by Kabisch et al. (2021), which found BBQs and picnics take place in open spaces, while parks with more vegetation and cover are preferred for exercise.

The paper focuses on research undertaken in an inner-city metropolitan context between 2019 and 2021. The social benefits of urban nature under consideration include amenity/recreation, environmental, community health and wellbeing, and land and property value. Urban nature is defined as all green spaces including parks, public gardens, small patches and pocket parks, urban woodland, street trees, hedges and similar greenery, while waterscapes included ponds, rivers, canals, streams and reservoirs. The research forms a part of the BlueGreen Impact project undertaken in collaboration with Middlesex University and the London Development Trust and received support from the Higher Education Innovation Fund from Middlesex University.

In conclusion, the authors call for more research into urban greening to inform inclusive planning. “This understanding needs to inform both policy on green space targets and its actual delivery through planning and design practices to ensure that the much-lauded benefits of urban nature are actually realised for all in an equitable manner and that ‘urban greening’ does not lead to further inequality.”

The authors write: “In areas classified as deprived, research mostly reports less wellbeing benefits and some dis-benefits from nature, but green spaces are nevertheless found to be highly valued and are seen to yield a lot of added value in terms of increased opportunities for affordable active recreation. It is therefore important that green space provision in poorer neighbourhoods is not overlooked. More research is required on how exactly nature’s benefits are realised in deprived urban contexts and how everyone’s access to these benefits can be ensured.”