2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Green infrastructure inequality in the context of COVID-19: Taking parks and trails as examples

      , , ,
      Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inequality in access to urban green infrastructures has been a major concern among scholars and governments, especially since the COVID-19 outbreak. There is a lack of knowledge on how people respond to the pandemic regarding the usage of green infrastructure in cities. This paper explores the shifts in visitation to parks and trails, two popular green infrastructures in Salt Lake County, Utah, by analyzing the results of a survey conducted during the pandemic. Our conceptualization considers personal and neighborhood-level factors, including personal socioeconomic status, existing inequalities of green infrastructures, urban form, and neighborhood conditions. People who reside close to the city center tend to go to parks more often, while those living in urban edges use trails more. Visiting green infrastructures less often is more likely in areas with higher COVID-19 infection rates. The regression results confirm the importance of neighborhood-level factors and illustrate the intricate elements influencing people's decisions to visit different green infrastructures during the pandemic, which shows non-linear relationships. Richer, white, and younger people seem to enjoy green infrastructures more often, leading to the concern of amplified inequality. Higher COVID-19 cases result in higher demands for green infrastructures, which are not fulfilled during the pandemic, especially for vulnerable communities, leading to spatial exclusion. The results highlight the importance of smart growth, including compact development, public transit, and pocket parks, in promoting the urban resilience of park and trail visits, as they may provide more access opportunities and alternatives to green infrastructures even in the context of the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Governmental Public Health Powers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stay-at-home Orders, Business Closures, and Travel Restrictions

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: an international exploratory study

              Highlights • We investigated the change in visitation of urban green spaces (UGS) during COVID-19 pandemic. • Social isolation reduced extent, type and distance of visited UGS on the basis of legal restrictions. • Reasons for visiting UGS changed from non-essential before the pandemic to essential during it. • Respondents missed visiting UGS regardless of the view of UGS from their window. • Respondents expressed the need for UGS integrated within the urban fabric.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
                Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
                Elsevier BV
                16188667
                August 2023
                August 2023
                : 86
                : 128027
                Article
                10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128027
                10443926
                37614701
                093494ee-797c-4b9d-b025-5cec41a2a20a
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article