In an earlier blog post (“Nature makes you healthier”), I wrote about the importance of having access to nature for our physical and mental health. But not everyone has an equal opportunity to experience nature, whether in their local park, in their backyards, or just by looking out the window at a tree-lined street. And that lack of access to nature correlates strongly with race and income.
According to the Trust for Public Land, in the 100 most populated cities in the US, neighborhoods where most residents identify as Black, Hispanic and Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native or Asian American and Pacific Islander, have access to an average of 44% less park acreage than predominantly White neighborhoods. The parks that serve these communities are, on average, only half as large as those in majority White communities, while serving nearly five times more people. The contrast is even greater when it comes to income level: parks that serve low-income households are, on average, four times smaller than those that serve mostly high-income households.
It should be noted, however, that the amount of parkland in a community does not always correlate to access to nature. Some parks in low-income areas are almost entirely hardscape (i.e., pavement and buildings) with very little greenery, whereas some wealthy communities have hardly any public parks at all because residents enjoy plenty of greenery via their extensive backyards, golf courses, and private country clubs.
So in many ways, a better measure of access to nature is the extent of the urban forest. But trends are similar here as for parks. The New York Times reported in 2021 that across the country, wealthier communities have 65% more tree canopy than communities where nine out of 10 people live below the poverty line. In our own region, all it takes is comparing a satellite image of Palo Alto to East Palo Alto to see the difference in the amount of green. And as noted, communities with more trees are healthier, have cleaner air, are cooler in summer, and enjoy many other benefits that tree-less communities lack.
So what can we do about it?
We as a society need to start investing in increased access to nature for everyone in all communities. This means prioritizing parks funding in city budgets for neighborhoods that lack access to parks and making sure that parks in low-income areas have nature in them, not just playgrounds and artificial-turf sports fields. It means planting more street trees in low-income communities and funding the maintenance of those trees once they’re planted. It requires developers to plant and maintain a certain number of trees in new developments. And to maximize the benefits of trees and nature for our communities, it also means prioritizing native species – which use less water, are more adapted to our environment, and provide substantially more habitat for local birds and insects than most non-natives.
Addressing inequity in access to nature will not be an easy fix, but we need to make it a priority if we care about the health and well-being of all our residents.
