Comparative analysis of greenery inequalities in New York and London: Social-economic and spatial dimensions

IF 6.7 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Yequan HU , Mingze CHEN , Yuxuan CAI
{"title":"Comparative analysis of greenery inequalities in New York and London: Social-economic and spatial dimensions","authors":"Yequan HU ,&nbsp;Mingze CHEN ,&nbsp;Yuxuan CAI","doi":"10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the rapid development of urbanization, the reduction of urban green spaces (UGS) has negatively impacted residents' quality of life and environmental quality. Recognizing that factors influencing environmental justice vary across different national and city contexts, this study aims to explore these differential impacts. However, most existing studies focus on single cities or specific regions, with limited comparative research between different countries. To explore the factors that differentially affect UGS in various cities, this study compares the distribution of UGS in New York City, U.S., and London, UK, investigating socio-economic variables (percentage of population in poverty, housing-cost burden, education level), demographic factors (proportion of minorities, elderly, individuals with disabilities), and built-environment indicators (residential density, road density, land-use types). These variables are measured using official census data and spatial datasets from each city, ensuring robust coverage of community vulnerability and development intensity. The research employs Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR), and Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) methods to analyze the relationship between UGS. The OLS results indicate that in both New York and London, minority and elderly populations have a positive correlation with UGS usage, while low-income groups face greater inequalities. GWR and MGWR reveal that UGS inequalities are mainly concentrated in urban peripheries or economically weaker areas. Notably, New York is more affected by economic factors, showing significant spatial heterogeneity in economically underdeveloped areas. These findings are significant for developing more equitable and effective UGS policies. Such methods enable systematic evaluations across different countries based on case studies from major cities, breaking down regional isolation and fostering more equitable and effective UGS policies globally. Understanding these differences can lead to more targeted interventions, improve the quality of life for vulnerable groups, and promote sustainable urban development worldwide.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49394,"journal":{"name":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 128939"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866725002730","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the rapid development of urbanization, the reduction of urban green spaces (UGS) has negatively impacted residents' quality of life and environmental quality. Recognizing that factors influencing environmental justice vary across different national and city contexts, this study aims to explore these differential impacts. However, most existing studies focus on single cities or specific regions, with limited comparative research between different countries. To explore the factors that differentially affect UGS in various cities, this study compares the distribution of UGS in New York City, U.S., and London, UK, investigating socio-economic variables (percentage of population in poverty, housing-cost burden, education level), demographic factors (proportion of minorities, elderly, individuals with disabilities), and built-environment indicators (residential density, road density, land-use types). These variables are measured using official census data and spatial datasets from each city, ensuring robust coverage of community vulnerability and development intensity. The research employs Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR), and Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) methods to analyze the relationship between UGS. The OLS results indicate that in both New York and London, minority and elderly populations have a positive correlation with UGS usage, while low-income groups face greater inequalities. GWR and MGWR reveal that UGS inequalities are mainly concentrated in urban peripheries or economically weaker areas. Notably, New York is more affected by economic factors, showing significant spatial heterogeneity in economically underdeveloped areas. These findings are significant for developing more equitable and effective UGS policies. Such methods enable systematic evaluations across different countries based on case studies from major cities, breaking down regional isolation and fostering more equitable and effective UGS policies globally. Understanding these differences can lead to more targeted interventions, improve the quality of life for vulnerable groups, and promote sustainable urban development worldwide.
纽约和伦敦绿化不平等的比较分析:社会经济和空间维度
随着城市化的快速发展,城市绿地面积的减少对居民的生活质量和环境质量产生了负面影响。鉴于影响环境正义的因素在不同国家和城市背景下存在差异,本研究旨在探讨这些差异影响。然而,现有的研究大多集中在单个城市或特定地区,不同国家之间的比较研究有限。为了探讨不同城市UGS的差异影响因素,本研究比较了美国纽约市和英国伦敦的UGS分布,调查了社会经济变量(贫困人口比例、住房成本负担、教育水平)、人口因素(少数民族、老年人、残疾人比例)和建筑环境指标(居住密度、道路密度、土地利用类型)。这些变量使用官方人口普查数据和每个城市的空间数据集进行测量,确保对社区脆弱性和发展强度进行全面覆盖。研究采用普通最小二乘法(OLS)、地理加权回归(GWR)和多尺度地理加权回归(MGWR)方法分析了UGS之间的关系。OLS结果表明,在纽约和伦敦,少数民族和老年人口与UGS的使用呈正相关,而低收入群体面临更大的不平等。GWR和MGWR表明,UGS不平等主要集中在城市边缘或经济较弱的地区。值得注意的是,纽约受经济因素的影响更大,在经济不发达地区表现出明显的空间异质性。这些发现对于制定更公平和有效的UGS政策具有重要意义。这些方法能够根据来自主要城市的案例研究对不同国家进行系统评价,打破区域孤立,促进全球更公平和有效的UGS政策。了解这些差异有助于采取更有针对性的干预措施,改善弱势群体的生活质量,并促进全球城市的可持续发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
289
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening is a refereed, international journal aimed at presenting high-quality research with urban and peri-urban woody and non-woody vegetation and its use, planning, design, establishment and management as its main topics. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening concentrates on all tree-dominated (as joint together in the urban forest) as well as other green resources in and around urban areas, such as woodlands, public and private urban parks and gardens, urban nature areas, street tree and square plantations, botanical gardens and cemeteries. The journal welcomes basic and applied research papers, as well as review papers and short communications. Contributions should focus on one or more of the following aspects: -Form and functions of urban forests and other vegetation, including aspects of urban ecology. -Policy-making, planning and design related to urban forests and other vegetation. -Selection and establishment of tree resources and other vegetation for urban environments. -Management of urban forests and other vegetation. Original contributions of a high academic standard are invited from a wide range of disciplines and fields, including forestry, biology, horticulture, arboriculture, landscape ecology, pathology, soil science, hydrology, landscape architecture, landscape planning, urban planning and design, economics, sociology, environmental psychology, public health, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信