4.7 Article

Environmental inequities in terms of different types of urban greenery in Hartford, Connecticut

Journal

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 163-172

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.002

Keywords

Environmental inequity; Private yard vegetation; Street greenery; Urban parks

Funding

  1. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  2. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1414108] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban greenery has long been recognized as an important component of urban ecosystem and provides many benefits to urban residents. However, different types of urban greenery provide different kinds of natural experiences to people. In this study, green metrics calculated based on multisource spatial datasets were used to quantify the spatial distribution of different types of urban greenery in Hartford, Connecticut. Geo-tagged Google Street View images, which capture the profile view of cityscape, were used to quantify street greenery by considering the time information. Land cover map and urban parks map were used to measure residential yard greenery and proximity to urban parks, respectively. We analyzed the associations of the calculated green metrics with socio-economic variables derived from census data. Statistical results show that: (1) people with higher income tend to live in neighborhoods with more street greenery; (2) census block groups with a higher proportion of owner-occupied units tend to have more yard vegetation and yard tree/shrub coverage; (3) Hispanics tend to live in block groups that have less yard vegetation but African Americans mostly live in block groups with more yard greenery; and (4) there are no significant environmental disparities among racial/ethnic groups in terms of proximity to urban parks. In general, this study provides an insight into the environments of urban residents in terms of urban greenery, and a valuable reference data for urban planning. (C) 2016 Elsevier GmbH. 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