13 The Health Benefits of Forests Between Race & Socioeconomic Status

Abstract

Forest accessibility is essential for ensuring that all people can experience the same advantages that come from nature. Green spaces are disproportionally dispersed among people of various socioeconomic statuses and races, according to studies. All people should have equitable access to trees given the evidence that they are beneficial for people’s physical, mental, and social well-being.^[1] This study focuses on the advantages of forests and how socioeconomic level and race relate to how these advantages can be accessible. This study will highlight the discrepancy in the distribution of forest quality and call for further research to focus on solutions using research that especially targets the United States.

Keywords

Environmental justice; socioeconomic status; income; race; environmental equity; environmental racism; racial composition; ethnicity; urban forests; green space; nature

Introduction

Urban forests provide benefits to the physical, mental, and social health of residents and improve environmental conditions.^[2] Green space builds communities, reduces stress and anxiety levels, and enhances cognitive function. Due to the unequal distribution of green space, public parks, and tree canopy cover, poor and minority communities are unable to access the benefits that arise from it.^[3] With the rise of tree planting in urban cities, there has been evidence that urban forestry programs could create and exacerbate inequity by planting trees in areas that favor privileged communities, including higher socioeconomic status and non-minority communities.^[4] Not only does urban forest quality inequality exist, but patterns of inequality in urban forest quantity also occur as well.^[5] In this article, data from peer-reviewed sources are used to examine the unequal distribution of trees and the health benefits that emerge from green space.

Research Motivation

The Benefits of Nature

Green space has been associated with lowering stress levels, moderating stressful life events on health, and higher social activity. Research has found that nature positively affects an individual’s emotional state, shorter surgery recovery time, lower stress and anxiety, and higher cognitive functioning.^[6] Living in a greener neighborhood has been linked with a stronger green space-health association. A natural environment sets for an activity or exercise program, increasing physical activity within individuals.^[7] Physical activity leads to better physical health and mental health, including reduced negative emotions and fatigue, increased energy, improved attention, greater satisfaction, enjoyment, and greater intent to repeat the activity.^[8] High-quality urban forests encourage social interactions^[9] and improve local environmental conditions.^[10] Exposure to nature has been proven through two experiments that nature acts as a restorative role in improved cognitive functioning.^[11] Walking in natural environments has proved to decrease anxiety and rumination, and increased working memory performance.^[12] The association between public green space and social interaction contributes to the well-being of individuals.^[13] Analysis has shown that residential green space reduces cardiovascular and all-cause mortality^[14], and increased birth weight.^[15] There has been a study done to prove that exposure to sunlight counteracts seasonal affective disorder that positively impacts the residents surrounding the green space.^[16] Research has proven that income-related health inequalities are shown to be lower in greener neighborhoods.^[17] All of the health benefits prove that green space does positively impact the health of the surrounding communities.

Race

As nature provides multiple benefits to human health, the inequity in distribution denies the racial minorities in communities access to health benefits derived from trees. Research had been conducted in the past that has shown the inequitable relationship between urban forest distribution among race and income.^[18] Urban forest quality was found to be lower in areas containing a higher rate of racial and language minorities.^[19] Racial minorities and low-income neighborhoods tend to have less green space and associated ecosystem services. Planting was less likely to occur as the minority rate in a neighborhood increased.^[20] There has been a correlation between neighborhoods with a high percentage of people who identify as South Asian, and a low percent canopy cover.^[21] With the green space these neighborhoods do have, these areas tend to be underprivileged and more vulnerable.^[22] Race-based segregation is also an issue that ties into the inequitable distribution of trees in cities.^[23] In another study, it is proven that canopy is negatively and significantly related to the Hispanic percentage of residents in a neighborhood. In the neighborhoods that are the most in need of canopy cover, African American communities are even more unlikely to be the location of tree planting. Differences by race in planting occur within neighborhoods with socioeconomic status.^[24] Due to environmental and structural inequality, these communities are in desperate need of green space as they are more likely to live in areas with high exposure to air pollution, toxic waste sites, the urban island effect, and other environmental hazards.^[25] Although most of the research on race and inequality exists, the data ties together that low-socioeconomic status individuals and minority communities are the same.

Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status determines the number of resources an individual obtains. Low-income and minority communities live within lower-quality natural environments which are exposed to environmental burdens and lack of access to environmental amenities.^[26] A study was conducted, proving the disproportionate distribution of trees on public ROWs with respect to economic status, housing tenure, and race and ethnicity.^[27] Power and income among neighborhoods influence the levels of public investment in green infrastructure. Due to this phenomenon, higher socioeconomic status groups can attract public investment in greening initiatives. Wealthier neighborhoods are attentive to the appearance of their property and are able to spend more money as lower socioeconomic status groups do not have the income to plant trees.^[28] As the rise of gentrification occurs within urban spaces, disadvantaged socioeconomic neighborhoods will have minimal coverage of trees. Those with more income are willing to pay for properties with greener areas which will drive the demand for urban forests up. The ecosystem services from trees are disproportionately distributed with respect to per capita and median income, poverty percent, population density, minority percent, and total educational attainment.^[29] Evidence has suggested that neighborhoods with low-income households, renters, and African-American individuals lack the same access to the benefits provided by ROW trees as neighborhoods with richer, white, and homeowning residents.^[30] With the lack of access to green spaces, these communities often have inadequate access to health care and would benefit the most from natural resources and ecosystem resources.^[31] As environmental amenities are inequitably low in disadvantaged communities, these residents experience fewer urban environmental benefits.^[32]

Conclusion

This study provides insight into the environmental injustice that surrounds the United States. With the information provided from all peer-reviewed research, the inequality among race and socioeconomic status with the distribution of trees is evident. As urban forests benefit the physical, mental, and social health of individuals, it is unfair that accessibility to forests deprives millions of disadvantaged Americans of these resources. As discussed in a previous chapter, “Climate Justice and Health Impacts”, environmental racism and climate justice affect the health of communities and need to be addressed to protect the individuals of the country. Although tree planting is increasing in urban cities, gentrification is increasing, allowing communities with income to take advantage of these benefits. Disadvantaged communities would benefit the most from green space and yet lack access to it. Due to the inequitable distribution of green space, disadvantaged communities are unable to access the benefits that derive from nature.