4.7 Article

The green divide: A spatial analysis of segregation-based environmental inequality in Vienna

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 213, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107949

关键词

Environmental justice; Spatial segregation; Urban vegetation; GIS; Vienna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the human habitat of the 21st century, cities will increasingly face climate change-related risks, such as extreme weather events and rising air pollution, which have widespread impacts on people's health and well-being. Urban vegetation is proposed as a nature-based solution to address these challenges, but the equitable distribution of urban vegetation is not always ensured.
Cities, as the human habitat of the 21st century, will increasingly face climate change-related risks. Extreme weather events, hot spells, and rising air pollution already have widespread impacts on people, affecting their health and well-being. Urban vegetation is a proposed nature-based solution to address these challenges. However, the equitable distribution of urban vegetation is not always ensured. The study applies two innovative segregation-based inequality indices, recently developed by Schaeffer and Tivadar (2019), which reference to the residential segregation literature as a source of insight for the measurement of environmental inequalities within urban areas. Using high-resolution satellite data and demographic data on a 250 m2 grid level, this study is able to deliver robust evidence on the existence of environmental inequalities with respect to ethnic minorities and urban vegetation. It is observed that minorities consistently experience higher levels of segregation from urban vegetation compared to non-minorities, even when accounting for interactions with wider neighbourhoods. Additionally, the application of a Jackknife simulation provides insights for local policy interventions, mapping hotspots of urban inequalities and provides a solid starting point to tackle these issues on the ground.

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

4.7
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