4.8 Article

Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-32258-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Hong Kong HKU-100 Scholars Fund
  2. Seed Fund for Strategic Interdisciplinary Research Scheme Fund
  3. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong EarlyCareer Scheme [HKU27600222]
  4. Major Programof the National Natural Science Foundation of China [42090015, 72091514]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42071400]
  6. Tsinghua-Toyota Joint Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through an analysis of global differences in human exposure to greenspace, a new study identifies a contrasting pattern of greenspace exposure between Global South and North cities and finds seasonal variations in greenspace exposure inequality. The United Nations specified the need for providing universal access to greenspace for urban residents in the 11th Sustainable Development Goal. Yet, how far we are from this goal remains unclear. Here, we develop a methodology incorporating fine-resolution population and greenspace mappings and use the results for 2020 to elucidate global differences in human exposure to greenspace. We identify a contrasting difference of greenspace exposure between Global South and North cities. Global South cities experience only one third of the greenspace exposure level of Global North cities. Greenspace exposure inequality (Gini: 0.47) in Global South cities is nearly twice that of Global North cities (Gini: 0.27). We quantify that 22% of the spatial disparity is associated with greenspace provision, and 53% is associated with joint effects of greenspace provision and spatial configuration. These findings highlight the need for prioritizing greening policies to mitigate environmental disparity and achieve sustainable development goals.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available