Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 170, February 2018, Pages 293-308
Landscape and Urban Planning

Review
The relationship between urban forests and income: A meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Meta-analysis reveals significant income-based urban forest inequity.

  • Inequity persists regardless of measurement and methods choices of original studies.

  • Inequity appears smaller when models control for spatial autocorrelation.

  • Urban forestry programs should consider program impact on urban forest equity.

Abstract

Urban trees provide substantial public health and public environmental benefits. However, scholarly works suggest that urban trees may be disproportionately low in poor and minority urban communities, meaning that these communities are potentially being deprived of public environmental benefits, a form of environmental injustice. The evidence of this problem is not uniform however, and evidence of inequity varies in size and significance across studies. This variation in results suggests the need for a research synthesis and meta-analysis.

We employed a systematic literature search to identify original studies which examined the relationship between urban forest cover and income (n = 61) and coded each effect size (n = 332). We used meta-analytic techniques to estimate the average (unconditional) relationship between urban forest cover and income and to estimate the impact that methodological choices, measurement, publication characteristics, and study site characteristics had on the magnitude of that relationship. We leveraged variation in study methodology to evaluate the extent to which results were sensitive to methodological choices often debated in the geographic and environmental justice literature but not yet evaluated in environmental amenities research.

We found evidence of income-based inequity in urban forest cover (unconditional mean effect size = 0.098; s.e. = 0.017) that was robust across most measurement and methodological strategies in original studies and results did not differ systematically with study site characteristics. Studies that controlled for spatial autocorrelation, a violation of independent errors, found evidence of substantially less urban forest inequity; future research in this area should test and correct for spatial autocorrelation.

Introduction

Traditionally, quantitative environmental justice research has been concerned with the extent to which low-income and minority communities are exposed to environmental hazards and lack access to environmental amenities. As research increasingly considers the causes of and potential remedies for environmental inequity, important questions remain about the size and scope of the problem itself. While several reviews have been conducted of the environmental hazards literature (Ringquist, 2005; Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, 2009), little synthesis has been conducted on the distribution of environmental amenities. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of an important environmental amenity, urban forest cover, and its relationship to income.

Urban forests—the land in and around areas of intensive human influence which is occupied by trees and associated natural resources (definition modified from Strom, 2007)—provide many environmental and health benefits to urban residents (Rosenzweig et al., 2006, Kuo, 2001, Donovan and Butry, 2010). Over the last several decades, studies have considered the empirical distribution of the urban forest with respect to an array of socioeconomic characteristics. Findings across studies have been mixed with respect to income; most studies find a positive relationship between urban forest cover and income (Danford et al., 2014; Heynen, Perkins, & Roy, 2006; Landry & Chakraborty, 2009; Locke & Grove,2014; Pham, Apparicio, Séguin, Landry, & Gagnon, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2015) but there are some exceptions (Pham, Apparicio, Landry, Séguin, & Gagnon, 2013; Grove, Locke, & O’Neil-Dunne, 2014).

While some evidence suggests income-based urban forest inequity exists, the magnitude of estimates varies across studies and the average magnitude is unknown. Moreover, the city-specific nature of previous research and variation in methodological choices across studies raise questions about the source of differences—does variation in results reflect real differences between study sites, or is it a product of methodological choices? Answering these questions will inform current research on the drivers of urban forest cover inequity, methodological choices in environmental justice research, and ongoing efforts to increase forest cover in cities around the world (McPherson & Young, 2010). This project aggregated information from many city-specific studies to estimate the average effect size (average relationship) between urban forest cover and income. A companion paper examined the relationship between urban forest cover and race (Watkins & Gerrish, 2017). Our analysis also examined potential explanations for variation across studies by controlling for characteristics of the original studies such as their empirical strategies and study location. By quantifying the findings from the relevant literature, meta-analysis yields a more complete summary of the state of our collective knowledge as compared to a systematic review.

Meta-analysis is particularly useful in the case of urban forest equity because it synthesizes several literatures that might not normally interact. In addition to studies that are explicitly concerned with environmental justice and inequity, there are many studies that estimate the same relationship to achieve other research objectives, including to evaluate competing theories about drivers of urban land use (Boone, Cadenasso, Grove, Schwarz, & Buckley, 2010; Grove, Cadenasso, Burch, Pickett, Schwarz, O'Neil-Dunne, et al., 2006), draw insights about the choices of private citizens (Pham et al., 2013; Grove, Locke, & O’Neil-Dunne, 2014) or public servants (Landry & Chakraborty, 2009), and improve urban forest cover measurement (Szantsoi, Escobedo, Dobbs, & Smith, 2008). This study diversity gave us a unique ability to evaluate the sensitivity of study results to methodological choices, a concern articulated by environmental justice scholars but not yet evaluated with respect to environmental amenities.

A note on terminology: scholars define and measure both urban forest cover and income in numerous ways. For example, some scholars include herbaceous cover (grass and shrubs) in their measure of urban forest cover, while others limit their measure strictly to trees or tree cover. For simplicity, we use urban forest cover as a catch-all term for our outcome of interest. We use income to describe measures of financial resources, including poverty rates or “high poverty” dichotomous indicators.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next section discusses our data collection process, including the literature search process and the inclusion criteria. We then discuss reasons that urban forest cover inequity may vary across studies according to the literature. We then discuss our coding of effect sizes and relevant covariates and the meta-analytic methods used in this analysis (forest plots and meta-regression). We report results, discuss their implications for research and urban forest policy, and conclude.

Section snippets

Literature search

We implemented this meta-analysis as outlined by Ringquist (2013) and Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein (2009). First, in the scoping stage we refined and operationalized our research question and identified the focal predictors (see inclusion criteria below). Second, we populated a complete list of acceptable measures of the dependent variable (i.e. urban forest cover) and generated coding instruments.

We then conducted a systematic and exhaustive search of the existing literature to

Explaining variation in urban forest cover

The relationship between urban forests and income is likely to vary based on an array of factors. After our review of the existing literature (see detailed search methods, above), we grouped hypothesized drivers of urban forest cover into three primary categories: methodological choices, measurement of the outcome and independent variables, and characteristics of the study site. We also examined other factors important to meta-analysis, such as publication status, publication outlet, and study

Data coding and methods

Meta-analysis combines the results of numerous quantitative studies (original studies) that have previously examined a relationship of interest between a dependent variable (Y) and a focal predictor (X), otherwise known as the independent variable of interest. The unit of analysis in meta-analysis is the effect size, which is the standardized measure of each tested relationship between X and Y (often, the beta coefficient on the X variable in a regression, or a Pearson’s/Spearman’s correlation

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the control variables are reported in Table 1. We report descriptive statistics for all studies and for studies just in the United States, which contained about 80 percent of all effect sizes. We isolated U.S. studies because of the United States’ unique history of the environmental justice movement and because some covariates (e.g. racial dissimilarity and income inequality) were only available for U.S. study sites. The mean study-site population in our sample is 2.2

Discussion

The tools of meta-analysis allowed for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of previous studies that have examined the distribution of the urban forest. When applied, we found positive but inconsistent evidence for income-based inequity in the distribution of the urban forest cover.

The unconditional mean effect size revealed significant income-based inequity in urban forest cover. Meta-regressions examining the impact of methodological characteristics, measurement characteristics, and

Conclusion

This meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between urban trees and vegetation (the outcome variable) and income (the focal predictor). Our literature search found 61 studies with 332 total effect sizes which quantitatively evaluated this relationship. We used the tools of meta-analysis to quantitatively accumulate original studies into standardized effects. In particular, we reported a forest plot and meta-regressions. Using meta-regression, we conditioned the observed mean effect size on a

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the authors of original studies for their contributions to the literature and for providing supplemental information about their studies. This research was supported in part by the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University; SF BUILD (Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity) and the NIH Common Fund TL4 GM118986; and the National Cancer Institute Grant CA-113710.

References1 (112)

  • C.P. *Lo et al.

    Integration of Landsat Thematic Mapper and census data for quality of life assessment

    Remote Sensing of Environment

    (1997)
  • C.A. *Martin et al.

    Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2004)
  • J.R. *Mills et al.

    Urban forests and social inequality in the Pacific Northwest

    Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

    (2016)
  • D.J. Nowak et al.

    Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (1996)
  • D.J. Nowak

    Contrasting natural regeneration and tree planting in fourteen North American cities

    Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

    (2012)
  • H. *Pearsall et al.

    Tree-lined lanes or vacant lots? Evaluating non-stationarity between urban greenness and socio-economic conditions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA at multiple scales

    Applied Geography

    (2012)
  • T. *Pham et al.

    Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: An uneven distribution or environmental inequity?

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2012)
  • T. *Pham et al.

    Predictors of the distribution of street and backyard vegetation in Montreal, Canada

    Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

    (2013)
  • T. *Pham et al.

    Disentangling the effects of urban form and socio-demographic context on street tree cover: A multi-level analysis from Montréal

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2017)
  • M. *Romolini et al.

    Assessing and comparing relationships between urban environmental stewardship networks and land cover in Baltimore and Seattle

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2013)
  • T. *Shakeel et al.

    Individual households and their trees: Fine-scale characteristics shaping urban forests

    Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

    (2014)
  • M.R. Anderson et al.

    Evaluating the effectiveness of educational vouchers

  • I. Anguelovski

    From toxic sites to parks as (green) LULUs? New challenges of inequity, privilege, gentrification, and exclusion for urban environmental justice

    Journal of Planning Literature

    (2015)
  • M.L. *Avolio et al.

    Understanding preferences for tree attributes: The relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors

    Urban Ecosystems

    (2015)
  • B.M. Baden et al.

    Scales of justice: Is there a geographic bias in environmental equity analysis?

    Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

    (2007)
  • M. Battaglia et al.

    It’s not easy going green: Obstacles to tree-planting programs in east Baltimore

    Cities and the Environment (CATE)

    (2014)
  • J.A. *Belaire et al.

    Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes

    Landscape Ecology

    (2016)
  • K.M. Bigsby et al.

    Urban morphology drives the homogenization of tree cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC

    Ecosystems

    (2014)
  • J. Bolinger et al.

    The effects of federal assisted deconcentration efforts on economic self-sufficiency and problematic behaviors

  • C.G. *Boone et al.

    Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: Why the 60 s matter

    Urban Ecosystems

    (2010)
  • M. Borenstein et al.

    Introduction to meta-analysis

    (2009)
  • K. *Bourne

    The biogeography of Peel's urban forest: Patterns and correlates of species diversity

    (2011)
  • W.M. Bowen et al.

    The politics and reality of environmental justice: A history and considerations for public administrators and policy makers

    Public Administration Review

    (2002)
  • K.R. *Brooks et al.

    Social equity of street trees in the pedestrian realm

    Papers in Applied Geography

    (2016)
  • C.M. *Bruton et al.

    Disparities in built and natural features of urban parks: Comparisons by neighborhood level race/ethnicity and income

    Journal of Urban Health

    (2014)
  • J. Chakraborty

    Revisiting Tobler’s first law of geography: Spatial regression models for assessing environmental justice and health risk disparities

    Geospatial analysis of environmental health

    (2011)
  • T. *Conway et al.

    Urban pattern and land cover variation in the greater Toronto area

    The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien

    (2007)
  • R.S. *Danford et al.

    What does it take to achieve equitable urban tree canopy distribution? A Boston case study

    Cities and the Environment (CATE)

    (2014)
  • A.Y. *Davis et al.

    Green infrastructure and bird diversity across an urban socioeconomic gradient

    Ecosphere

    (2012)
  • G.H. Donovan et al.

    Environmental justice and factors that influence participation in tree planting programs in Portland Oregon, U.S

    Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

    (2014)
  • S. Dooling

    Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city

    International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

    (2009)
  • D.T. *Duncan et al.

    A spatially explicit approach to the study of socio-demographic inequality in the spatial distribution of trees across Boston neighborhoods

    Spatial Demography

    (2014)
  • R. Emmanuel

    Urban vegetational change as an indicator of demographic trends in cities: The case of Detroit

    Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design

    (1997)
  • Farley, R. (n.d.) Racial Residential Segregation: Census 2000 Findings. Population Studies Center, University of...
  • E. Gerrish

    The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta‐Analysis

    Public Administration Review

    (2016)
  • K. Gerstner et al.

    Will your paper be used in a meta-analysis? Make the reach of your research broader and longer lasting

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution

    (2017)
  • J.M. Grove et al.

    Data and methods comparing social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland

    Society and Natural Resources

    (2006)
  • J.M. *Grove et al.

    An ecology of prestige in New York City: Examining the relationships among population density, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover

    Environmental Management

    (2014)
  • C.D. *Harvey et al.

    Double Diversion and the environmental good: Framing a disproportionate solution to an ecological threat as a problem for the commons

  • L.V. Hedges et al.

    Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates

    Research Synthesis Methods

    (2010)
  • Cited by (142)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    *Indicates the study was coded and included in the meta-analysis.

    View full text