4.7 Article

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 234-244

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002

Keywords

Green space; Spatial access; Geographic Information Systems; Network analysis; Gaussian based 2-step floating catchment area method; Atlanta

Funding

  1. Georgia State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Access to green spaces is important to physical activities and public health, yet one concern remains as to whether the disparities in green space access exist. This study aimed to (1) introduce an approach to quantify potential spatial accessibility to green spaces in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment: and (2) evaluate the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in green space access. Urban green spaces (n = 890) in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia were collected from the Atlanta Regional Commission. A Gaussian-based two-step floating catchment area method was adapted to assess the spatial accessibility to green spaces at the census tract level. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) model and the spatial lag model were used to evaluate the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities. Results suggest that the spatial accessibility to green spaces in Atlanta was not evenly distributed. Both models show that neighborhoods with a higher concentration of African Americans had significantly poorer access to green spaces (P < 0.05). Asian population had significantly poor access in the OLS model but not in the spatial lag model. Poor access was present in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas as well. Findings can be used for the city and regional planners to target the specific areas for green space development in order to elucidate the disparities. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available