4.6 Article

Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122051

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Project [12575]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences [0844778] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  4. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1229429] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [0844778] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1027188] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the distributional equity of urban tree canopy (UTC) cover for Baltimore, MD, Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Raleigh, NC, Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. using high spatial resolution land cover data and census data. Data are analyzed at the Census Block Group levels using Spearman's correlation, ordinary least squares regression (OLS), and a spatial autoregressive model (SAR). Across all cities there is a strong positive correlation between UTC cover and median household income. Negative correlations between race and UTC cover exist in bivariate models for some cities, but they are generally not observed using multivariate regressions that include additional variables on income, education, and housing age. SAR models result in higher r-square values compared to the OLS models across all cities, suggesting that spatial autocorrelation is an important feature of our data. Similarities among cities can be found based on shared characteristics of climate, race/ethnicity, and size. Our findings suggest that a suite of variables, including income, contribute to the distribution of UTC cover. These findings can help target simultaneous strategies for UTC goals and environmental justice concerns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据