In recent years, urban greenspaces have been increasingly championed as a vital component of public health strategies, promising numerous physical and mental health benefits for city residents. Access to parks, community gardens, tree-lined streets, and other natural environments within urban settings have been correlated with reductions in stress, improved cardiovascular health, and even enhanced social cohesion. However, a growing body of research complexities this narrative, particularly when examining how these benefits distribute across different socioeconomic strata and racial or ethnic groups. An illuminating new analysis challenges the assumption that disadvantaged urban populations will uniformly reap the greatest advantages from greenspaces, provoking critical reassessment of current environmental justice perspectives.
Public health literature has often heralded greenspace as a “great equalizer,” positing that its health-promoting effects could serve as a potent intervention tool for marginalized communities bearing disproportionate disease burdens. Yet, this optimistic framing may overlook key mediating factors that shape how socioeconomic status, racial identity, and urban planning dynamics influence both access to and utilization of greenspaces. The latest synthesis of empirical studies highlights the heterogeneity in defining "disadvantage," spanning income, education, racial minority status, and intersectional vulnerabilities. This definitional pluralism complicates direct comparisons and underscores the necessity for nuanced, context-sensitive research designs to capture the lived realities of underserved neighborhoods.
Methodological challenges permeate much of the existing greenspace-health research. Many studies rely on cross-sectional designs and aggregated data that conflate disparate urban contexts. This can foster misinterpretations about causality and the directionality of associations. For instance, wealthier communities may both demand and successfully maintain higher-quality greenspaces, simultaneously benefiting from other social determinants of health. Conversely, greener neighborhoods might attract gentrification, displacing long-term disadvantaged residents and undermining equitable access. The interaction between socioeconomic status and greenspace is thus neither straightforward nor uniformly positive, demanding more robust longitudinal and mixed-method approaches to unravel causal mechanisms with greater granularity.
Another key insight pertains to how greenspace functions within the broader socioeconomic status–health paradigm. Emerging evidence indicates that greenspaces may sometimes act less as universal mediators of health outcomes and more as effect modifiers. In other words, the health benefits conferred by proximity or access to greenspace might be contingent upon one’s social and economic circumstances, rather than equally shared across populations. For example, chronic stress due to financial insecurity or systemic discrimination might blunt the restorative potential of greenspaces for some individuals. These interactions reveal that greenspace interventions should be conceptually embedded within wider initiatives that address structural inequities rather than viewed as standalone solutions.
The role of race and ethnicity further complicates the narrative surrounding urban greenspaces. Disparities in greenspace quantity and quality frequently mirror historic patterns of residential segregation and discriminatory urban planning practices. However, it is not merely a matter of physical access but also perceived safety, cultural relevance, and inclusivity in greenspace design that influence use patterns among racial and ethnic minorities. Studies have found that barriers such as policing, social exclusion, and lack of culturally appropriate amenities can deter disadvantaged populations from utilizing nearby natural environments, thereby attenuating potential health gains. This intersectionality calls for culturally informed planning that actively involves community voices in greenspace development.
Moreover, the relationship between greenspace expansion and urban dynamics is far from unambiguous, especially in cities experiencing population decline or economic contraction. In so-called shrinking cities, efforts to increase greenspace can be accompanied by the loss of other critical amenities, such as affordable housing, commercial services, or public transportation. These trade-offs may disproportionately disadvantage already vulnerable communities, unintentionally contributing to spatial injustices under the guise of environmental improvement. It is imperative that urban planners and policymakers critically assess the local sociopolitical context before implementing greenspace projects to avoid exacerbating disparities or unintentionally marginalizing residents.
Notably, the most socioeconomically disadvantaged communities may paradoxically realize less benefit from greenspace due to barriers in access, quality, and usability. Physical proximity alone does not guarantee health improvements if greenspaces are poorly maintained, unsafe, or inaccessible due to lack of transportation. Further, social determinants such as lower leisure time, higher caregiving burdens, or differential health literacy can restrict engagement with greenspaces. The conventional assumption that “more greenspace equals better health” oversimplifies complex lived realities that intersect with broader systemic inequities.
This critical perspective urges a recalibration of public health and urban environmental research agendas. Studies must prioritize longitudinal data collection capturing temporal changes in greenspace availability, quality, and community demographics. They should also deploy mixed methods, integrating quantitative health outcome measures with qualitative narratives that elucidate residents’ experiences and perceptions. Such multidimensional evidence will better inform interventions that are not only ecologically sound but also socially equitable.
Furthermore, policy approaches should integrate greenspace planning with comprehensive urban renewal frameworks that address affordable housing, transportation, public safety, and community-led economic development simultaneously. This integrated vision recognizes that greenspace alone is insufficient to mitigate entrenched health inequities without supportive social infrastructure. Tailoring greenspace initiatives to local community needs and aspirations through participatory governance models is crucial to cultivating environments that foster both ecological sustainability and social justice.
Another important avenue for future research involves disentangling how different types of greenspaces—ranging from small urban parks to large natural reserves—differentially influence health outcomes in various populations. The scale, design, and management of greenspaces may interact with socioeconomic and cultural factors to produce heterogeneous effects. For example, community gardens may engender social cohesion and food security in disenfranchised neighborhoods, whereas large parks might remain underutilized if perceived as unsafe or culturally alienating.
The intersectional implications of greenspace benefits also extend to mental health, where stress reduction and social connection are primary mechanisms. Disadvantaged groups often face heightened psycho-social stressors, theoretically increasing the potential value of restorative natural environments. However, the lived experience of these groups may include barriers that inhibit the stress-buffering effects of greenspaces. Tailored interventions—such as programming that encourages community engagement, culturally relevant activities, and crime prevention strategies—may enhance the psychosocial benefits for marginalized populations.
Urban greenspace research must also account for emergent challenges posed by climate change, which threatens urban environments through heat islands, air pollution, and extreme weather. Greenspaces offer mitigation benefits but may be unevenly distributed, amplifying environmental justice concerns. Disadvantaged communities commonly suffer disproportionate exposure to climate hazards, and ensuring equitable greenspace access could form part of climate resilience strategies. Yet, without careful design, such measures risk green gentrification, displacing vulnerable residents and undermining climate justice objectives.
In summary, while greenspaces hold undeniable promise as a public health asset, the assumption that their benefits are disproportionately accrued by disadvantaged urban residents requires rigorous scrutiny. The distribution of access, barriers to use, and broader contextual factors such as urban dynamics and intersecting social identities shape the realized health outcomes. Recognizing this complexity challenges simplistic environmental justice narratives and guides more sensitive, evidence-based interventions that bridge ecological and social realms.
Ultimately, advancing health equity through urban greenspace necessitates a deeply interdisciplinary approach, integrating urban planning, sociology, public health, and environmental science. Researchers, policymakers, and community stakeholders must collaborate to co-create greenspaces that are not only ecologically vibrant but also socially inclusive and responsive to community-defined needs. Only through such holistic efforts can the full potential of greenspaces be harnessed to support healthier, more just, and resilient cities.
Subject of Research: The complex interactions between greenspace availability, socioeconomic disadvantage, race and ethnicity, and health outcomes in urban residents.
Article Title: Greenspace will not always disproportionately benefit disadvantaged urban residents.
Article References:
Pearson, A.L., Reuben, A., Roberts, J.D. et al. Greenspace will not always disproportionately benefit disadvantaged urban residents.
Nat Cities (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00265-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
