4.7 Article

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

期刊

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 163-172

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.002

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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