The Inequities of Access to Nature

Katie Surrey
19 min readJan 31, 2021

By Katie Surrey and Zackary Graham

“I go to nature to be soothed, healed and have my senses put in order.” For many like John Burroughs, nature is a place of refuge and comfort, where a person can be rejuvenated and drive away their stress and isolation (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; Frerichs, 2004). Now more than ever, people are finding relief in outside experiences, whether it be through brief walks around the neighborhood or camping trips to the remote mountains; these are all opportunities to escape the bleak reality of the pandemic, which has left so many contained within the walls of their homes. Despite the fact that a high percentage of human species have opted to dwell in heavily urbanized environments, we still experience a fundamental pull towards more natural-based ambience. It is possible that the feeling of solace that we derive from nature is due to a fundamental characteristic of who we are. As a species, humans are predisposed to be attracted to natural things: the survival of our ancient ancestors was predicated on feeling comfortable to approach non-threatening objects and situations that might potentially yield necessary resources (e.g. food, shelter, etc). It is believed that modern humans possess this same innate preference for features that are commonly found in natural environments, compared with those that are manufactured or are more typically represented in urban locations (Orians and Heerwagen, 1992). Sadly, as the world continues to become more urbanized, the ability to “go to nature,” like Burroughs advocated, is becoming more limited. As of 2013, approximately 80% of the population in North America resides in urban environments, and this number is projected to grow over the next few decades (McPhearson, Auch and Alberti, 2013; UN, 2015). Within this urban population, individuals from ethnic and racial minorities are the majority, and by 2050 will likely comprise 9 out of every 10 urban-dwelling citizens (Stanfield et al., 2005). There is a growing concern that this population of city residents will be more challenged to experience and enjoy nature in meaningful, beneficial ways. In this article, we summarize some of the scientific literature that describes the benefits derived from the interactions between humans and nature. Then we connect human-nature interactions to the recent emphases on the growing lack of accessibility to natural environments for some groups in our society, (specifically within the United States). We end by highlighting some suggested approaches and considerations for further research on the connection between these two fields of thought.

The benefits that humans derive from nature are not just psychological. Many studies document the physical health benefits that stem from experiences in nature, including lowered blood pressure, stress, and depression and fewer overall health problems (De Vries, Verheij, Groenewegen, & Spreeuwenberg, 2003; Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, De Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006; Van den Berg, Hartig and Staats, 2007; Groenewegen, van den Berg, Maas, Verheij, & de Vries, 2012). In these studies, the connections to improved health were most pronounced among the elderly, housewives, and people from lower socio-economic backgrounds — groups that traditionally spend the most time in residential, indoor environments. It is possible that many of the observed improvements were a result of the increased levels of physical activity and exercise that can be achieved in outdoor spaces. However, natural environments also provide people, especially city residents, with an immersive experience that takes them away from the predictability of their regular routines. These environments also possess aesthetically pleasing stimuli that effortlessly hold our attention, thereby subconsciously encouraging exploration and a shift in our direct focus (Van den Berg, Hartig and Staats, 2007), ultimately enhancing concentration. Even the perceived viewing of nature through a window can be physically “restorative” (Kaplan, 2001; Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; Frerichs, 2004) and interrupts arousal caused by stress thereby increasing attentional capacity (Van den Berg, Hartig and Staats, 2007). Additionally, research has linked decreased access to green space with higher rates of obesity, self-perceived health problems, and higher mortality risk (Ellaway, Macintyre, & Bonnefoy, 2005; Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006; Mitchell & Popham, 2007; 2008). Irrespective of demographic characteristics, individuals in poorer neighborhoods with less environmental amenities (i.e. public parks, green spaces) are even more likely to develop poor physical and mental health (Steptoe & Feldman, 2001), and neighborhoods with less green space tend to have higher rates of pollution, which can lead to inhabitants having higher risks of developing immunocompromising illnesses, such as asthma, (Lambert, 2017), which today could put them at higher risk for COVID-19.

In children, research shows that regular contact with nature is crucial and promotes increases in interpersonal skills, decision-making, focus, motor coordination, school achievement as well as decreases stress and depression (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Korpela 1992; Wells 2000; Faber Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan 2001; 2002; Kahn and Kellert 2002; Wells and Evans 2003; Fjørtoft 2004; Faber Taylor and Kuo 2006; 2009; Matsuoka 2010). It is likely that, as with adults, many of these benefits emerge as a result of the activities that are typically conducted outdoors, like increased exercise, game-playing, and social activities with peers. Despite these potential benefits, playing outdoors in nature can often be viewed as “risky” by some parents, with the result that there has been a notable decrease over the years in the access that children have to nature (Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2006). This predilection for “aversion” rather than “affinity” is not novel and has theoretically been developing since the start of post-industrial society (Russell, 1999; Kahn and Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2005). Two studies in 1994 and 1997 (Bixler and Carlise) found that urban minority students tended to express fear during field trips into wilderness areas, using words such as “scary,” “disgusting” and “uncomfortable,” to describe their experiences. In their 1982 book, Kaplan and Kaplan theorized that these fears are due to something called “cognitive chaos,” or the feeling of being overwhelmed by the sheer number of unfamiliar sights, smells and sounds.

In response to the decrease in children’s access to natural spaces, researchers have countered that learning to deal with risk is an important component of a child’s development, both cognitively and physically (Frost, 2006). The term “Nature Deficit Disorder” (NDD) was coined in 2005 by Richard Louv and is defined as the “human costs of alienation from nature,” and includes: diminished use of the senses; attention difficulties; reduced creativity; impacts on problem-solving ability and ingenuity; and increased rates of physical, mental, social and emotional problems.” (Louv, 2005). The publication of Louv’s subsequent book in 2007 sparked a national movement called “No Child Left Inside,” by the American Public Health Association and the National Recreation and Parks Association, along with the Trust for Public Land and Congress for New Urbanism, to advocate for the establishment of parks within 400 m for all residents of urban areas. A similar trend has also been implemented overseas: in the UK, it is recommended that no person live beyond 300m from the nearest area of natural green space of at least 2 ha in size and in New Zealand, the radius a person can live from parks of at least 0.2 ha in size is 1300m (walking or biking distance), (Richardson, et al., 2010). The growing popularity of yards in American rural and suburban society since World War II has provided a convenient means of accessing the outdoors for many citizens. However, this is not a luxury enjoyed by most urban residents, who are confined to dwelling in apartments with no or limited green space. Additionally, the majority of residential yards are typically small in size. Typically, the larger a natural space is, the more functions it can provide, such as sustained exercise.

It is worth also considering whether beneficial access to nature is more a determination of quality than quantity. A study in 2011 concluded that, although prior experience with the outdoors was a predictor of a deeper understanding of nature by youth(Aaron and Witt, 2011), children can still attach some level of meaning to the concept, based on descriptions they have read or seen in media. In some situations, they can even derive a level of psychological comfort from that meaning (Wals, 1994). Researchers in that same study also found that students experience and interpret nature in a range of ways. Almost all of the urban minority students in the study that expressed higher levels of awareness and appreciation for nature had had only one or two direct, yet clearly impactful interactions with nature. The study proposed that future research should be aimed at determining what constitutes a “direct” nature experience for a child within an urban environment, how they are able to attach meaning to the term “nature,” and whether even just a single direct experience is still lasting enough to make an impact. This is important to consider as retrospective studies have found that exposure to nature-based experiences early in life can significantly influence the prolongment of positive perceptions and values towards nature and the environment (Chawla 1998; 1999; 2009; Lindemann-Matthies, 2006; Wells 2000; Wells and Lekies 2006). Furthermore, these values can potentially be passed on to the next generation, perpetuating these positive attitudes and proclivities to desire contact with nature (Hyun, 2005).

If we accept the results of these many studies, which reveal that access to nature provides important benefits to humans, then the next question that emerges is whether this access (and therefore the benefits) are universally experienced. This question has been asked for a long time, spanning all the way back to the mid-90s: do all socioeconomic groups have similar opportunities to experience nature in the city? (Cutter, 1996). While public spaces may technically be accessible to everyone, studies have shown that the actual rates of visitation vary depending on age, gender, cultural background, preferences, socioeconomic advantage (or disadvantage) and park characteristics (Elmendorf, Willits, Sasidharan, & Godbey, 2005; Jones, Hillsdon, & Coombes, 2009; McCormack, Rock, Toohey, & Hignell, 2010; Reis, Lopez- Iborra, & Pinheiro, 2012; Lin, Fuller, Bush, Gaston, & Shanahan, 2014). One study in 2009 in Bristol UK revealed that 40% of people from the most advantaged socio-economic group visited their local parks, compared with only 27% of those in the least-advantaged group, despite the greater provision in their area. Thus, a delineation must be drawn between green space that is physically in place, and that which is actually used; just because developers create a public green space, it does not automatically mean that it will be equitably used. In this past year alone, we have witnessed incidents where green space has become delineated by conflicts about who feels they have the right to be there (e.g. Ahmaud Arbery, Christian Cooper). Clearly there is a need to re-evaluate the commonly held misconception that nature and the outdoors is a resource for everyone — investigations must continue to explore these societal factors behind how nature is being utilized and by whom.

As emerging research is showing that urban-dwelling residents are less likely to experience positive, meaningful experiences with nature due to lack of early exposures and access, we must ask what this means for current and future generations growing up in these environments. In urban cities across the country, racial, socioeconomic, and geographic segregation has had substantial impacts on the way individuals experience and view nature (Schell et al. 2020). The types of animals, the diversity of species, and how they interact with one another are all shaped by the environment in which they inhabit and the stimuli they experience, whether that is in a forest or city setting. (Pickett et al. 1997; Alberti, 2015; Grimm et al. 2008). The behavior of species that share a common space or resources, can drastically feedback and affect one another (Wilson, et al., 2020). Thus, as the behaviors of humans and urban wildlife are deeply intertwined in urban environments, the decisions that humans make not only impact our ability to experience and enjoy nature but also impact the animals and their behaviors in substantial ways.

These human decisions in turn, are affected by unequal distribution of wealth, power, and access to amenities throughout urban landscapes. The practice of redlining, which is an infamous example of structural racism in which urban neighborhoods were purposefully segregated by race and used to suppress black American communities, has substantially altered urban environments (Mills, 2018). Redlining caused neighborhoods to be rated on their racial composition, amenities, environmental quality, and several other factors. These ratings were then used to allocate funding and ultimately suppress specific racial populations. Although redlining is no longer actively practiced, the impact of historical redlining on today’s urban ecosystems is evident (Grove et al. 2018; Locke et al. 2020). Because redlined neighborhoods were suppressed and generally poorer, natural ecosystems in these neighborhoods are ecologically different, having less vegetation and tree cover via something known as the “luxury effect” (Leong et al 2018), which increases ambient temperatures in these locations (i.e. urban heat islands). The reduction in plant life influences the biodiversity and numbers of animals that also inhabit these areas. The species that do tend to persist in historically redlined areas are traditionally those that are viewed as “harmful” or “pest” species (e.g. raccoons, coyotes, mice, cockroaches), which can cause potentially significant health risks and structural damage to buildings (Leong et al. 2016; Katz et al. 2020). As a result, the residents of these neighborhoods likely develop completely different (often negative) views of nature compared to individuals in wealthier neighborhoods, which have greater access to biodiversity and natural landscapes. Thus, redlining is one of the many ways in which inequities across urban landscapes can influence if and how humans interact with animals, and which animals are present within their environment in the first place.

Historical map of Brooklyn, New York showing redlined districts and neighborhoods (image from New York Times)

Overall, the repercussions of the inequities of nature are just now being fully understood, and although it is well documented that there are social and racial inequities regarding early life access and appreciation of nature, there is little work documenting how these inequities impact long-term decision making. There are certain questions that should be broached as this research field advances, such as the explorations about not only how, but who is interacting with nature. For example: if people who are subjected to nature inequities have correspondingly different views and experiences with nature, will this make them less like to want to consider careers that involve protection or research of the environment or in the sciences in general? It is likely that there is some link between early appreciation of and access to nature and the likelihood of partaking in careers involving science policy, biological research, and natural resource advocacy (Chawla, 2006; Wells & Lekies, 2006), and it is possible that this unequal access to nature is a primary driver of the current lack of underrepresented minorities in biology fields. However, the current existing literature does not yet address all of these issues, so we advocate for the further exploration of these questions, and outline the considerations that must be included.

Primarily, researchers must maintain awareness of the complex intersectionality of these research questions on urbanization, racism, wealth, and nature. As has been established, there are many potential feedbacks and interconnections between human and wildlife behavior. Therefore, it is necessary for research to be all-inclusive: scientists must consider a problem, not just from one but many angles and perspectives. Just like nothing in nature exists in a vacuum, neither should any questions or inquiries about them. The interactions between humans and nature are just as much a result of the physical characteristics of nature as they are from the social, psychological, and emotional drivers underlying access to and interest in nature. Thus, when testing hypotheses about differential access to and use of nature, we should not just be relying on data from behavioral studies, but also include perspectives from sociology, psychology, ecology, economics and even evolution and anthropology. We must also seek out voices from less traditionally represented groups and backgrounds, to ensure that all perspectives are being given a seat at the table. All of these parties mentioned (among others not listed) are stakeholders in these decision-making processes, as they are reflective of how these issues play out in the real world. For example, it would be impossible to thoroughly assess the interactions between humans and wildlife/nature based solely on observations; that will not reveal anything about the motivations behind these interactions and what nature means to people (Hill, Webber & Priston, 2017). It is also impossible to propose technical solutions to adverse human-wildlife conflicts without first addressing the social conflicts that exist within human society, as these issues often lie between groups and often prevent the successful long-term adoption or implementation of these intervention strategies. Research must not only encompass a wider scope of perspectives but also consider the scale and heterogeneity of these issues.

Additionally, we have to be conscientious of who is asking the questions. Research often runs into the challenge of being perceived as “savior-ism,” with external parties showing interest in solving a “problem” identified within a system that they are not directly part of. Although this can have some merits and occasionally offers an alternative perspective, it often results in insightful questions and theories being forgotten or ignored. The more voices and experiences that can be utilized to form driving research questions, the more effective and widely utilizable the results will likely be. Thus research should and must include the voices of the groups and communities who do inhabit the system in question, for their opinion can be truly invaluable in shaping the hypotheses being proposed.

However, as mentioned earlier, with the potentially increasing gap between groups that can access nature, we may find diversity in the potential questioners limited. An urban planner who grew up in strictly urban environments with little to no access to natural spaces may not find parks and green space something worth prioritizing when proposing a new layout for a district or city, as he or she does not find the benefits of nature meaningful. The experiences that create meaningful and beneficial relationships with nature warrant further investigation, as it may provide the answer for overcoming some of the barriers limiting the representation of black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) within the STEM and ecological fields, as well as the obstacles for the successful implementation of any sustainable and meaningful conservation efforts.

References:

Aaron, R.F., & Witt, P.A. (2010). Urban Students’ Definitions and Perceptions of Nature. Children, Youth and Environments 21(2), 145–167. DOI: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.21.2.0145

Alberti, M. (2015). Eco-evolutionary dynamics in an urbanizing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(2), 114–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.007

Bixler, R.D. & Carlisle, C.L., (1994). Observed Fears and Discomforts among Urban Students. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(1), 24–33. DOI: 10.1080/00958964.1994.9941430

Bixler, R.D. and Floyd, M.F., (1997). Nature Is Scary, Disgusting, and Uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 443–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900401

Chawla, L. (1998). Significant Life Experiences Revisited: A Review of Research on Sources of Environmental Sensitivity. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 369- 382. DOI: 10.1080/1350462980040402

Chawla, L. (1999). Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 15–26. DOI: 10.1080/00958969909598628

Chawla L. (2006). Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: Review and recommendations. Environmental Education Research. 4:4, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040403

Chawla, L., (2009). Growing Up Green: Becoming an Agent of Care for the Natural World. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1): 6–23.

Cutter, S.L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4): 529–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000407

De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen,P.P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003) Natural Environments — Healthy Environments? An Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship between Greenspace and Health. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(10), 1717–1731. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35111

Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S. and Bonnefoy, X. (2005). Graffiti, greenery and obesity in adults: secondary analysis of European cross sectional survey. BMJ, 331(7517), 611–612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38575.664549.F7

Elmendorft, W.F., Willits, F.K., & Sasidharan, V. (2005). Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: a comparison between blacks and whites in Philadelphia and Atlanta, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture; 31(6), 318–326.

Faber Taylor A., Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Coping with add: The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings. Env. and Behav. 33(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972864.

Faber Taylor A., Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2): 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0241

Faber Taylor, A., and Kuo, F. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. In C. Spencer & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their Environments: Learning, Using and Designing Spaces (pp. 124–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faber Taylor, A. and Kuo, F., (2009). “Children with Attention Deficits Concentrate Better after Walk in the Park.” Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(4), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000

Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2). Retrieved from: (2), 21–44. Retrieved January 30, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.14.2.0021

Frerichs, R. (2004). Gezondheid en natuur; Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen gezondheid en natuur [Health and nature; a research into the relation between health and nature]. Graveland (NL): Vereniging Natuurmonumenten.

Frost, J.L., (2006). The Dissolution of Children’s Outdoor Play: Causes and Consequences. Retrieved from: http://www.imaginationplayground.com/images/content/3/0/3000/the-dissolution-of-children-s-outdoor-play-causes-conseque.pdf

Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019

Grimm, N.B., et al. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. science, 319(5864), 756–760. DOI: DOI: 10.1126/science.1150195

Groenewegen, P.P., Berg, A.E. van den, Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Vries, S. de. Is a green residential environment better for health? If so, why? Annals of the Association of American Geographers: 2012, 102(5), 996–1003. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2012.674899

Grove, M., et. al. (2018). The legacy effect: understanding how segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in Baltimore. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(2), 524–537. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585

Hanski, I., von Hertzen, L., Fyhrquist, N., Koskinenm K., Torppa, K., Laatikainen, T., Karisola, P., Auvinen, P., Paulin, L., Mäkelä, M.J., Vartiainen, E., Kosunen, T.U., Alenius, H., Haahtela, T. (2012). Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. PNAS, 109(21), 8334–8339. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1205624109

Harnik, P. (2004). Parks: How far is too far. Planning. December, 9–11. Retrieved from: http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2004dec/parks.htm?project=Print (8 of 8)12/08/2005

Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative environments. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 273–279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00821-7

Hill, C.M., Webber, A.D., Priston, N.E.C. (eds) (2017) Understanding Conflicts about Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach. Berghahn Books, New York.

Hyun, E. (2005). How Is Young Children’s Intellectual Culture of Perceiving Nature Different from Adults? Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462042000338360

Jones, A., Hillsdon, M., and Coombes, E. (2009). Greenspace access, use, and physical activity: understanding the effects of area deprivation. Preventive Medicine, 49, 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.10.012

Kahn, P.H. Jr. & Kellert, S.R. (2002) Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 507–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973115

Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Katz, G., Leisnham, P. T., & LaDeau, S. L. (2020). Aedes albopictus Body Size Differs Across Neighborhoods With Varying Infrastructural Abandonment. Journal of Medical Entomology, 57(2), 615–619. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz170

Korpela, K. (1992). Adolescents’ Favorite Places and Environmental Self- Regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80139-2

Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., (2001). “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior, 3(33), 343–367. DOI: 10.1177/00139160121973025

Lambert, K. A., Bowatte, G., Tham, R., Lodge, C., Prendergast, L., Heinrich, J., Abramson, M.J., Dharmage, S.C., & Erbas, B. (2017). Residential greenness and allergic respiratory diseases in children and adolescents — A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Research, 159, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.002

Leong, M., Dunn, R. R., & Trautwein, M. D. (2018). Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biology Letters, 14(5), 20180082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0082

Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F. (2014). Opportunity or orientation?: Who uses parks and why. Plos One, 9: p. e87422. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0087422

Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2006). “Investigating Nature on the Way to School: Responses to an Educational Programme by Teachers and Their Pupils.” International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 895–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560500438396

Locke, D.H., Hall, B., Morgan Grove, J., Picketts, S.T.A., Ogden, L.A., Aoki, C., Boone, C.G., & O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M. (2020). Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities. Baltimore School of Urban Ecology. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/97zcs

Louv, R. (2005) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587–592. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.043125.

Matsuoka, R.H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011

McCormack, G.R., Rock, M., Toohey, A.M., and Hignell D. (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16, 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003

McPhearson, T., Auch, R., & Alberti, M. (2013). Regional assessment of North America: Urbanization trends, biodiversity patterns, and ecosystem services. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 279–286). New York: Springer, Netherlands.

Mills, A. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Berkeley Planning Journal, 29(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/BP329138440 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7v76m4nd.

Mitchell R. and Popham, F. (2007) Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England. J Epidemiology and Comm. Health, 61(8), 681–3. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.053553

Mitchell R. and Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X

Moura, J.M.B., Júnior, W.S.F., da Silva, T.C., Alberquerque, U.P. (2017). Landscape preferences in the human species: insights for ethnobiology from evolutionary psychology. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 6:10. doi:10.15451/ec2017­07­6.10­1­7

Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (p. 555–579). Oxford University Press.

Pickett, S. T.A., Burch, W.R., Dalton, S.E., Foresman, T.W., & Rowntree, R. (1997). A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosystems, 1(4), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018531712889

Reis, E., López-Iborra, G., and Torres Pinheiro, T. (2012). Changes in bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: Implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in Central Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.009

Richardson, E., Pearce, J., Mitchell, R., Day, P., & Kingham, S. (2010). The association between green space and cause-specific mortality in urban New Zealand: an ecological analysis of green space utility. BMC Public Health, 10, 240. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/240

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing.

Russell, C.L. (1999). “Problematizing Nature Experience in Environmental Education: The Interrelationship of Experience and Story.” The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(3): 123–128. DOI: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.21.2.0145

Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T.L., Des Roches, S., Harris, N.C., Miller, D.S., Woelfle-Erskine, C.A., & Lambert, M.R. (2020a). The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science, 369(6510). DOI: 10.1126/science.aay4497

Stanfield, R., Manning, R., Budruk, M., and Floyd, M. (2005). “Racial Discrimination in Parks and Outdoor Recreation: An Empirical Study.” In Peden, J.G. and R.M. Shuster, eds. Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Northeastern Research Station: USDA Forest Service, 247–253.

Steptoe, A., & Feldman, P. J. (2001). Neighborhood problems as sources of chronic stress: development of a measure of neighborhood problems, and associations with socioeconomic status and health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2303_5

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 6, pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In S.R. Kellert, & E.O. Wilson (Eds.). The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Van den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., and Staats, H. (2007) Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x

Wals, A.E.J. (1994). Pollution Stinks: Young Adolescents’ Perceptions of Nature and Environmental Issues with Implications for Education in Urban Settings. De Lier, The Netherlands: Academic Book Center.

Wells, N. (2000). At Home with Nature: Effects of “Greenness” on Children’s Cognitive Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6):775–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972793

Wells, N. & Evans, G. (2003). Nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, 35(3):311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003001

Wells, N., and Lekies K. (2006). “Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism.” Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1): 1–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001

Wilson, M.W., Ridlon, A.D., Gaynor, K.M., Gaines, S.D., Stier, A.C., & Halpern, B.S. (2020). Ecological impacts of human-induced animal behavior change. Ecology Letters, 23, 1522–1536. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13571

Images courtesy of Katie Surrey (author) and New York Times

--

--