The Paradox of Urban Greening

Imagine living in an urban area surrounded by business, homes, traffic. For many of us, this is a reality we experience everyday. Now imagine being in walking distance or having a view of your favorite park or green area; the thought, at least for me, is immediately calming, even meditative. Amidst so much urban development and life, having a green space to escape to seems like such a beautiful idea, for some it might even seem foreign. For many of us, having access to green space in our neighborhood or on our campus seems like a natural given. However, access to green space in urban areas often falls along socioeconomic lines meaning that wealthy neighborhoods have historically had more access to green spaces. It is important to note what I'm talking about when I say green spaces because they come in many different forms and can be both private and public (leaving individuals room to increase their own green space in their private areas). Such space include, among other things: parks and reserves, sporting fields, riparian areas (stream and river banks or wetlands), trails, community gardens, trees along the street, nature conservation areas, green walls, green alleyways, cemeteries, backyards, communal grounds, and campuses. Now, you might be thinking... "These things are all just aesthetically pleasing; so, what's the big deal?" Studies have shown that green space not only benefits ecosystems but it also "promotes physical activity, psychological well-being, and the general public health of urban residents" (Wolch). Now this is starting to sound like an environmental justice issue! After all, shouldn't people of all socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds have access to green spaces so that they too can reap the benefits? Following this line of thought alone, the answer seems clear: add more parks, gardens, and green spaces to low-income urban areas. However, a parallel trend occurs as a result of the greening of urban spaces. This greening appeals to middle class norms and attracts residents of a higher socioeconomic class than the ones initially living in the greened area. Therefore, as rents go up and people with higher incomes move in, these urban spaces experience a process called green or environmental gentrification. Gentrification is the process by which as a result of restoring or refurbishing an area there is an increase of middle class or affluent residents which displaces the original population. Green or ecological or eco or environmental gentrification is the process by which this displacement happens as a result of the greening of an urban area (more parks, bike paths, gardens, etc.). This post seeks to explore this paradox and what, if anything, we can do to green an urban area without catalyzing gentrification.

Green space, on the one hand, is extremely beneficial for the environment and the health of the surrounding community. As I mentioned before, some of the health benefits include increasing the physical, psychological, and general well-being of the surrounding community. Therefore, access, or lack there of, to green spaces is clearly an environmental justice issue because middle and upper class communities should not be the only ones with whose health we are concerned. So, what exactly are the physical and psychological health benefits that come from having access to green spaces? The primary psychological benefit that comes from spending time in green spaces is an increase in the general well being of one's mental health. This comes as a result of decreased stress, access to plants and animals, tranquility, contemplation, solitude, increases in self-esteem, and increases in mood that are all inspired by these types of green spaces. Sure, a person can get these same benefits by seeking out specific resources such as yoga, meditation, a dog park, but it's clearly not fair or just to ask minority and low-income communities to seek these resources out on their own especially if they only have limited resources. However, for those privileged enough, these green spaces are a part of our daily lives: a view out of our window, part of our walk to work, the actual campus we work on. Essentially, they are integrated into the very fabric of our daily routine. For those of us that have this sort of access we don't need to work to find these resources, we get the benefits of them merely by existing and going about our day to day lives.

If the psychological benefits aren't enough to convince you of access to green space as an environmental justice issue, there are plenty of physical and ecological benefits that come about from these spaces as well. For one, parks encourage physical activity which enhances health and reduce risks of serious health problems and diseases -- this is clearly an issue of bodily autonomy. Lack of access to green spaces is also linked, through studies, to the obesity epidemic, specifically in children. This is primarily due to the fact that access to green spaces encourages activity which forms individual activity patterns which are linked to obesity. Essentially, if a person has access to a green space or a park, they are more likely to be active and form healthy active habits than a person who does not have access to green spaces and this effects their health and behavior throughout their life. This ties into the right to raise one's child, a tenant of reproductive justice discussed in previous posts. Access to green spaces, or lack there of, effects the health of children in a way that a parent has no direct control over thereby setting up minority and low-income children to have an overall poorer standard of health. However, the issues don't stop there. The ecological benefits that come as a result of green spaces include air filtration, the reduction of pollution and noise pollution, cooler temperatures, the filtration of storm water, the replenishment of groundwater, and their potential to provide food (think South Central Farms). If you weren't convinced before this, the ecological benefits should both convince you that access to green space is a serious environmental health issue and that something should be done to make sure that all communities, regardless of income, racial or ethnic background, should have access to the numerous benefits of green spaces.

Recall now the paradox that comes about from the construction of green spaces that I mentioned in the introduction. The construction of these spaces often push out the very people they are trying to benefit (environmental gentrification). As green spaces are added to a community, middle class and affluent people become more attracted to the area at the same time as the cost of housing and property values increase thereby harming and excluding the very people the project was started to help in the first place. This means that as these communities are pushed out, they move to other places where, once again, there is no or limited access to green spaces and the cycle repeats itself. Therefore, we must find a way to incorporate green spaces into low income and minority communities and at the same time ensure that gentrification does not occur as a result.

So, how do we make a city greener while still maintaining its economic, social, and cultural composition? These efforts have been referred to as "conscious anti-gentrification" or the "just-green-enough approach." The idea, again, is that a community should be greened just enough without actually changing the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood. Some ideas to do this include small-scale projects, as opposed to huge green projects such as the New York City Skyline, that are done incrementally and across various parts of an urban area simultaneously. While the the New York City Skyline is a major example that did result in the environmental gentrification of the area, the basic principle which underlies it is a good one: the re-use of industrial infrastructure such as railways as well as other abandoned transport and alleyways. In order to maintain the proportion of this green development to prevent gentrification, Los Angeles Times outlines three principles that are reiterated in other discussions of environmental gentrification: regulation, value capture, and collaborative development. Regulation aims to incentivize the construction of affordable housing near these green projects and spaces. This can be done through inclusionary zoning, rent control, density bonuses, and accessory dwelling units, among other things. The second principle, value capture, refers to the necessity that as the city accumulates tax revenue, they must put the money back into the community in ways that benefit it as a whole. Finally, collaborative development, which seems like the most basic principle, is often overlooked. Essentially, this means that the community where the construction of the green project is taking place must be included in discussions about what they want in their community. This is so important because it includes and makes important the voices of the communities affected which are primarily low-income and minority communities whose narratives and experiences are often ignored, especially when it comes to development. This is additionally necessary to ensure that in creating green spaces we are not increasing the exposure of the these communities to pollutants. This means that green spaces, such as parks, are not developed in congested areas and that if walking and biking paths are created that efforts are made to decrease the overall pollutant emission occurring in those areas. Residents and community members will have valuable insights on these issues that might be missed without their collaboration. For me, this is the most important arm of protecting against environmental gentrification.

Clearly, when it comes to creating green spaces to promote environmental justice it is essential to also ensure that we are not creating space for environmental gentrification. On that note, go outside and find your favorite green space near you, and if there isn't one, organize your community, advocate, and design your own green space.

---

Sources

Checker, Melissa. "Wiped Out by the "Greenwave": Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability." City & Society, December 2011, Vol.23(2), pp.210-229.

Christensen, Jon, and Alessandro Rigolon. “Can L.A. Build New Parks and Public Spaces without Gentrifying Away Low-Income Residents?” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Oct. 2018.

“Gentrification.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.

Haffner, Jeanne. “The Dangers of Eco-Gentrification: What's the Best Way to Make a City Greener?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 6 May 2015.

Wolch, Jennifer R., et. al. "Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities 'Just Green Enough.'" Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, Vol.124, pp. 234-244.