Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Greenspace will not always disproportionately benefit disadvantaged urban residents

Nature Cities volume 2, pages 489–495 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Numerous studies report health benefits of visiting or living near greenspaces. Some suggest greater benefits to disadvantaged communities—a hypothesis warranting critical examination. We consider evidence from studies on the interplay of disadvantage and greenspace–health associations, first noting the diversity in definitions of disadvantage. We then note study design and interpretation problems with some of the findings. Further, we argue that more evidence is needed on how (1) greenspace functions as a mediator or effect modifier in the socioeconomic status–health relationship, (2) race, ethnicity and income intersect with greenspace access and use, (3) expansion of greenspace is not always wanted or planned and sometimes accompanies the loss of other amenities in shrinking cities and (4) very disadvantaged communities may realize less benefit from greenspace. Our critical considerations from a public health perspective offer guidance for research that better addresses the realities and needs of disadvantaged communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Conceptualizations of the relationships between greenspace, SES and health.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., Vries, S. D. & Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Markevych, I. et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shanahan, D. F. et al. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci. Rep. 6, 28551 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Astell-Burt, T. & Feng, X. Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e198209 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kabisch, N. in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change (eds Marselle, M. R. et al.) 91–119 (Springer, 2019).

  6. Wexler, N., Fan, Y., Das, K. V. & French, S. Randomized informational intervention and adult park use and park-based physical activity in low-income, racially diverse urban neighborhoods. J. Phys. Act. Health 18, 920–928 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth, J. V. et al. Objective measurement of physical activity attributed to a park-based afterschool program. J. Phys. Act. Health 18, 329–336 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell, R. & Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655–1660 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rigolon, A., Browning, M. H. E. M., McAnirlin, O. & Yoon, H. Green space and health equity: a systematic review on the potential of green space to reduce health disparities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 2563 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J. & Newell, J. P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125, 234–244 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cole, H. V. S., Garcia Lamarca, M., Connolly, J. J. T. & Anguelovski, I. Are green cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentrification. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 71, 1118–1121 (2017).

  12. Harris, B., Schmalz, D., Larson, L., Fernandez, M. & Griffin, S. Contested spaces: intimate segregation and environmental gentrification on Chicago’s 606 Trail. City Community 19, 933–962 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sax, D. L., Nesbitt, L. & Quinton, J. Improvement, not displacement: a framework for urban green gentrification research and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 137, 373–383 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Browning, M. H. E. M. et al. Association between residential greenness during childhood and trait emotional intelligence during young adulthood: a retrospective life course analysis in the United States. Health Place 74, 102755 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee, S., Lee, R. J. & Scherr, S. How tree canopy cover can reduce urban suicide attempts: a geospatial analysis of the moderating role of area deprivation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 230, 104606 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei, D. et al. Greenspace exposure may increase life expectancy of elderly adults, especially for those with low socioeconomic status. Health Place 84, 103142 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lachowycz, K. & Jones, A. P. Does walking explain associations between access to greenspace and lower mortality? Soc. Sci. Med. 107, 9–17 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maas, J. et al. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63, 967–973 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell, R. J., Richardson, E. A., Shortt, N. K. & Pearce, J. R. Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being. Am. J. Prev. Med. 49, 80–84 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buxton, R. T. et al. Mental health is positively associated with biodiversity in Canadian cities. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 310 (2024).

  21. Amano, T., Butt, I. & Peh, K. S. The importance of green spaces to public health: a multi-continental analysis. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1473–1480 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kling, H. E. et al. The feasibility of collecting longitudinal cardiovascular and fitness outcomes from a neighborhood park-based fitness program in ethnically diverse older adults: a proof-of-concept study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 29, 496–504 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Donovan, G. H. et al. The relationship between trees and human health: evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44, 139–145 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fong, K. C. et al. Residential greenness and birthweight in the state of Massachusetts, USA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1248 (2018).

  25. Glazer, K. B. et al. Residential green space and birth outcomes in a coastal setting. Environ. Res. 163, 97–107 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pun, V. C., Manjourides, J. & Suh, H. H. Association of neighborhood greenness with self-perceived stress, depression and anxiety symptoms in older U.S adults. Environ. Health 17, 39 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Egorov, A. I. et al. Vegetated land cover near residence is associated with reduced allostatic load and improved biomarkers of neuroendocrine, metabolic and immune functions. Environ. Res. 158, 508–521 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reid, C. E., Clougherty, J. E., Shmool, J. L. C. & Kubzansky, L. D. Is all urban green space the same? A comparison of the health benefits of trees and grass in New York City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 1411 (2017).

  29. D’Agostino, E. M. et al. Longitudinal analysis of cardiovascular disease risk profile in neighbourhood poverty subgroups: 5-year results from an afterschool fitness programme in the USA. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 72, 193–201 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morgan Hughey, S. et al. Green and lean: is neighborhood park and playground availability associated with youth obesity? Variations by gender, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity. Prev. Med. 95, S101–S108 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krieger, N., Williams, D. R. & Moss, N. E. Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu. Rev. Public Health 18, 341–378 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., Lynch, J. W. & Davey Smith, G. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60, 7–12 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Messer, L. C. et al. The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index. J. Urban Health 83, 1041–1062 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Semega, J., Kollar, M., Creamer, J. & Mohanty, A. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 (US Census Bureau, 2020).

  35. Petterson, S. Deciphering the Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index: the consequences of not standardizing. Health Aff. Sch. 1, qxad063 (2023).

  36. Han, B. et al. Effectiveness of a free exercise program in a neighborhood park. Prev. Med. Rep. 2, 255–258 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Grier, K. et al. Feasibility of an experiential community garden and nutrition programme for youth living in public housing. Public Health Nutr. 18, 2759–2769 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Razani, N. et al. Effect of park prescriptions with and without group visits to parks on stress reduction in low-income parents: SHINE randomized trial. PLoS ONE 13, e0192921 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. South, E. C. et al. Nurtured in nature: a pilot randomized controlled trial to increase time in greenspace among urban-dwelling postpartum women. J. Urban Health 98, 822–831 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Norton, E. C., Dowd, B. E. & Maciejewski, M. L. Odds ratios—current best practice and use. JAMA 320, 84–85 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fernández, A., García, S. & Herrera, F. Addressing the classification with imbalanced data: open problems and new challenges on class distribution. In Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems. HAIS 2011 (eds. Corchado, E. et al.) 1–10 (Springer, 2011).

  42. Copeland, K. T., Checkoway, H., McMichael, A. J. & Holbrook, R. H. Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk. Am. J. Epidemiol. 105, 488–495 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Blakely, T., McKenzie, S. & Carter, K. Misclassification of the mediator matters when estimating indirect effects. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 67, 458–466 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang, Y. et al. Impacts of sociodemographic factors, identities and neighbourhood safety on the relationship between urban green space and adolescent mental well-being: findings from Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand. SSM Popul. Health 25, 101603 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Irvin, A., Dutton, D. J., Kirkland, S., Rainham, D. G. & Asada, Y. Greenness moderates the relationship between self-rated social standing and depression among older adults in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Front. Environ. Health 3, 1407646 (2024).

  46. Koh, C., Kondo, M. C., Rollins, H. & Bilal, U. Socioeconomic disparities in hypertension by levels of green space availability: a cross-sectional study in Philadelphia, PA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 2037 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nardone, A., Rudolph, K. E., Morello-Frosch, R. & Casey, J. A. Redlines and greenspace: the relationship between historical redlining and 2010 greenspace across the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 129, 17006 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bikomeye, J. C. et al. Resilience and equity in a time of crises: investing in public urban greenspace is now more essential than ever in the US and beyond. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 8420 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Patwary, M. M. et al. The economics of nature’s healing touch: a systematic review and conceptual framework of green space, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and healthcare expenditure associations. Sci. Total Environ. 914, 169635 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dzhambov, A. M., Browning, M., Markevych, I., Hartig, T. & Lercher, P. Analytical approaches to testing pathways linking greenspace to health: a scoping review of the empirical literature. Environ. Res. 186, 109613 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Astell-Burt, T. et al. Green space and loneliness: a systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. Sci. Total Environ. 847, 157521 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Harrison, H., Burns, M., Darko, N. & Jones, C. Exploring the benefits of nature-based interventions in socio-economically deprived communities: a narrative review of the evidence to date. Perspect. Public Health 143, 156–172 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Merlo, J. Multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) within an intersectional framework. Soc. Sci. Med. 203, 74–80 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Evans, C. R., Leckie, G., Subramanian, S. V., Bell, A. & Merlo, J. A tutorial for conducting intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA). SSM Popul. Health 26, 101664 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hartig, T. in Nature and Psychology: Biological, Cognitive, Developmental, and Social Pathways to Well-Being (eds Schutte, A. R. et al.) 89–151 (Springer Nature, 2021).

  56. Gallagher, J. Social media is arguing about how much vacant land is in Detroit — and the number matters. Detroit Free Press https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/john-gallagher/2019/10/26/detroit-vacant-land/4056467002/ (26 October 2019).

  57. Jeong, W. et al. Not all ‘greenness’ is equal: influence of perceived neighborhood environments on psychological well-being in Chicago. Urban For. Urban Green. 89, 128126 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sivak, C. J., Pearson, A. L. & Hurlburt, P. Effects of vacant lots on human health: a systematic review of the evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 208, 104020 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bentley, G. C., McCutcheon, P., Cromley, R. G. & Hanink, D. M. Race, class, unemployment, and housing vacancies in Detroit: an empirical analysis. Urban Geogr. 37, 785–800 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sadler, R. C. & Lafreniere, D. J. Racist housing practices as a precursor to uneven neighborhood change in a post-industrial city. Hous. Stud. 32, 186–208 (2017).

  61. Kephart, L. How racial residential segregation structures access and exposure to greenness and green space: a review. Environ. Justice 15, 204–213 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hughey, S. M. et al. Using an environmental justice approach to examine the relationships between park availability and quality indicators, neighborhood disadvantage, and racial/ethnic composition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148, 159–169 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Suminski, R. R. et al. Park quality in racial/ethnic minority neighborhoods. Environ. Justice 5, 271–278 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pearson, A. L. et al. The effects of contemporary redlining on the mental health of Black residents. SSM Popul. Health 23, 101462 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hong, A. et al. Linking green space to neighborhood social capital in older adults: the role of perceived safety. Soc. Sci. Med. 207, 38–45 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Masoudinejad, S. & Hartig, T. Window view to the sky as a restorative resource for residents in densely populated cities. Environ. Behav. 52, 401–436 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nutsford, D., Pearson, A. L., Kingham, S. & Reitsma, F. Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health Place 39, 70–78 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. WHO. Urban Green Space Interventions and Health: a Review of Impacts and Effectiveness (World Health Organization, 2017).

  69. Jennings, V., Larson, L. & Yun, J. Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 196 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Juntti, M. & Ozsezer-Kurnuc, S. Factors influencing the realisation of the social impact of urban nature in inner-city environments: a systematic review of complex evidence. Ecol. Econ. 211, 107872 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sykes, E. Environmental justice beyond physical access: rethinking Black American utilization of urban public green spaces. Environ. Sociol. 8, 388–399 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Roberts, J. D. Black bodies: it’s time to reclaim our green space freedom. J. Healthy Eat. Act. Living 2, 1–4 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pearson, A. L., Griffin, E., Davies, A. & Kingham, S. An ecological study of the relationship between socioeconomic isolation and mental health in the most deprived areas in Auckland, New Zealand. Health Place 19, 159–166 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lemke, M. (Un)doing spatially fixed inequality: critical reflections on urban school district–community partnerships. Urban Rev. 52, 623–649 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Knight, J., Weaver, R. & Jones, P. Walkable and resurgent for whom? The uneven geographies of walkability in Buffalo, NY. Appl. Geogr. 92, 1–11 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Erie County Health Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, 2019–2021. ny.gov https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/community/minority/county/erie.htm (accessed 25 May 2025).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles Stewart Mott Department of Public Health, Michigan State University, Flint, MI, USA

    Amber L. Pearson

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Aaron Reuben

  3. Department of Kinesiology, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD, USA

    Jennifer D. Roberts

  4. Division of Epidemiology and Social Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Kirsten M. M. Beyer

  5. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

    Matthew H. E. M. Browning

  6. Department of Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Zihan Lin

  7. Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Terry Hartig

Authors
  1. Amber L. Pearson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Reuben
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer D. Roberts
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kirsten M. M. Beyer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew H. E. M. Browning
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zihan Lin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Terry Hartig
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.L.P. conceived the Perspective, with added conceptualization from all authors. All authors contributed to drafting the original manuscript, and edits and approval of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amber L. Pearson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Cities thanks Alessio Russo and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearson, A.L., Reuben, A., Roberts, J.D. et al. Greenspace will not always disproportionately benefit disadvantaged urban residents. Nat Cities 2, 489–495 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00265-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00265-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing