Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Urban greening: A new paradox of economic or social sustainability? T

a,c a,b,
Mengbing Du , Xiaoling Zhang *
a
Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
b
Shenzhen Research Institute, City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China
c
School of Low Carbon economics, Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan, 430200, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cities globally have incorporated sustainable development into their planning, and led the way in responding to
Urban green space the world’s ecological crisis by “going green”. Urban green space accessibility is considered as the key to urban
Variegated sustainability economic sustainability progress, not only environmentally, but also economically and socially. However, previous re-
Social equity search rarely considers the latter two dimensions together. This study therefore joins the sustainability discus-
Spatial patterns
sion from a new perspective, in particular the debate concerning the value of urban green spaces and whether
New York City
and how they contribute to the variegated sustainability agenda? Based on data for 76,595 residential housing
units in New York City, measuring the economic gains and equity losses from current urban green space ac-
cessibility reveals a paradox in sustainable development where the economic and social benefits of urban green
space accessibility are seldom compatible, tending to involve a trade-off of some kind. In response, it is proposed
that the spatial patterns of land use can represent a step towards multifaceted aspects of sustainability, with the
provision of numerous small green areas that are “affordable and accessible” throughout the city being a more
appropriate policy agenda than a few vast parks. Such a policy approach, it is argued, will provide a ‘win-win’
situation in terms of simultaneously contributing to both economic prosperity and the social justice of sus-
tainability. This research also provided evidence for the institutional-driven countries such as China on how to
learn from western experiences on planning land use patterns that are sustainable for individuals.

1. Introduction aesthetic enjoyment, recreational opportunities, and ecological services

From national to local levels, Governments around the world have
incorporated sustainable development into their planning. At its core,
sustainability is concerned with achieving a simultaneous “win-win” of
meeting the needs of humans now while at the same time protecting the
needs of future generations (Stokes and Seto, 2018). This involves an
aggregate of characteristics, including economic security and growth,
environmental quality and integrity, social cohesion, and quality of life
(Turcu, 2012). Urban green spaces have long been recognized to be
important for the environment by improving the surrounding en-
vironment; they contribute to environmental sustainability, as they are
well known for absorbing carbon, helping to moderate the climate, etc.
In this light, cities worldwide are leading the way in responding to the
global ecological crisis, especially in addressing such threats stemming
from rapid urbanization as climate change and energy by “going
green”.
However, the value of urban green space has long debated. At one
end of the debate spectrum, researchers argue that, as one type of
public resource, green spaces can offer a variety of benefits, including
(Cho et al., 2006; Gómez et al., 2010; Maimaitiyiming et al., 2014; Wu
et al., 2014). While, on the opposite of the spectrum, despite the ben-
efits of delivered by urban green spaces, their provision in a dense
urban environment is often costly (Panduro and Veie, 2013). Moreover,
social inequality is an emerging concern associated with urban green
spaces (You, 2016; Jennings et al., 2016; Kihal-Talantikite et al., 2013).
This occurs when the distribution of resources in a given society is
uneven, usually through the distribution of an allocation (Benabou,
2000), and is a social product that is differentiated by religion, race,
gender, age, etc. (Tilly, 1998). In this regard, social sustainability
usually entails a reduction in social inequality (Chiu, 2003). Although
the value of green space has become the subject of extensive studies in
the context of sustainability, their results are usually a mixture of po-
sitive, negative, and insignificant effects due to the different cases and
methods involved (Panduro and Veie, 2013).
Cities across the world are increasingly debating the best way to use
lands efficiently and fairly, since land is becoming progressively more
valuable and rare. Decades of decentralized U.S. cities, for instance,
have also left many lands vacant, which can lead to such negative

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail address: xiaoling.zhang@cityu.edu.hk (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104487
Received 4 April 2019; Received in revised form 21 December 2019; Accepted 19 January 2020
Available online 29 January 2020
0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Du and X. Zhang
external effects as a high crime rate and low property values that, in
turn, tends to push homeowners in these areas into leaving the neigh-
borhood. Thus, cities are interested in vacant land redevelopment and
management (Mennis, 2014). Many U.S. cities are changing their “in-
fill” lots into green spaces, while private and public owners in New York
City, for example, are turning their lots into real estate development,
often in the form of affordable housing, which has erupted in a hot
debate (Voicu and Been, 2006). Hence, there is a need to evaluate the
potential value of green spaces in surrounding areas in New York City in
order to provide empirical evidence for planners and government of-
ficials in their land use decision making. However, there is little study
that has done so. In order to fill this void and respond to this debate,
this article provided the local government reliable data about how
urban green space can contribute to variegated sustainability.
Seeking to address these issues, this article (1) measures the eco-
nomic gains from urban green space accessibility using a hedonic
model in terms of housing structure, neighborhood characteristics, and
location characteristics from a unique dataset comprising 76,595
housing units in New York City; (2) assesses the social equity loss
from urban green space accessibility by targeting four groups of
population, namely blacks, females, the elderly, and the poor; and (3)
draws conclusions concerning how urban green space can con-
tribute to variegated sustainability from a spatial-pattern-of-land-
use perspective regarding urban greening strategy, and identifies the
policy implications involved. That green spaces are a key to urban
sustainability is not a new notion, but this approach combined with a
large amount of individual housing unit data is novel in terms of as-
sessing the different facets of sustainability and linking them to the
spatial patterns of land use. Thus, this study helps determine how the
provision of urban green spaces can be accomplished in such a way as
to contribute to a more sustainable urban future.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. The next sec-
tion summarizes the relevant literature. Section 3 describes the data
and research methodology used. Section 4 provides the empirical re-
sults and estimates the value of urban green spaces in terms of both
economic and social sustainability. Section 5 provides a discussion
concerning how urban green spaces can contribute to sustainability.
The last section concludes the paper with a summary of the key findings
and some policy suggestions.
2. Theoretical lens from urban green spaces to ‘economic & social
sustainability’: a new paradox
2.1. Urban green space accessibility and property values: an economic
sustainability perspective
Real estate development is highly related to sustainability as a
concept, particularly in terms of economic sustainability (Kauškale and
Geipele, 2017). Economic sustainability is one of the measures of a
sustainable economy to represent sustainable development of an
economy (Anand and Sen, 2000). An economy is sustainable only if the
resulting stream of total welfare is non-declining over time (Stavins
et al., 2003). Urban green spaces, with their significant role in im-
proving the surrounding environment, are regarded as an important
unit of environmental amenity that could dramatically contribute to the
real estate market, thus contributing to total welfare and economic
sustainability.
As early as the late 1990s, researchers noticed the market value of
urban green spaces and began to study the impact of urban green spaces
on property values. Yet, as non-market entities, urban green spaces
cannot be directly traded on an open market (Noor et al., 2014; Kong
et al., 2006), which made their measurement difficult. Since then, in-
fluential work has been carried out to improve measurement accuracy.
The hedonic model, for instance, has been used for a long time in many
studies to measure the impact of different attributes on property values
statistically (e.g., King and Mieszkowski, 1973; Harrison and Rubinfeld,
2
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
1978; Freeman, 1981; Feng and Humphreys, 2018). This involves the
assumption that commodities consist of a set of attributes or features.
Thus, the price of a certain commodity comprises the sum of the price of
its attributes (Morancho, 2003).
In applying this model, there has been much research into the
narrower topic of the effect of urban green spaces on property values,
starting with Morales (1976) concluding that housing prices could be
increased by 6 %–9 % with accessibility to good tree cover (François
et al., 2002). Since then, influential work has been done in identifying
an appropriate approach for assessing the influence of urban green
spaces on property values, with related studies generally concentrating
on the methodology of accessibility distribution (de la Barrera et al.,
2016). Accessibility is also widely applied in studies of social inequality
among different groups of people, with the suggestion that a good way
is to quantify inequalities for such different societal groups, as racial,
disabled people, females, etc. (Zhou and Parves Rana, 2012). This is the
approach adopted in the present study, the methods used being fully
described in the methodology section later.
2.2. Inequality of urban green space accessibility: a social sustainability
perspective
Urban green spaces can facilitate activities, encourage commu-
nications, reduce noise, etc. Through these pathways, exposure to urban
green spaces, including outdoor surrounding greenness and proximity
to green spaces, could improve perceived well-being (Wu et al., 2018).
However, “projects that benefit one district may have negative impacts
next door” (Wachsmuth et al., 2016). Even though green urbanism has
been promoting conceptual models and practices toward urban design
in order to facilitate sustainability, social inequalities have been fre-
quently highlighted in urban green space provision, which are argued
to lead to a pattern of social unsustainability. Social sustainability is a
developing concept and thus hard to be conceptualized. However, the
basic criteria that will not change over time are the threefold aspects of
social capital, cohesion, and exclusion. This suggests the basic devel-
opment issues, including equitable access, should be considered as
“higher-order” needs (Khan, 2016; Dempsey et al., 2011; Vallance
et al., 2011).
There is often an uneven distribution pattern of urban green spaces,
making them disproportionately available to sociodemographic and
socioeconomic groups (Kabisch and Haase, 2014) and raising important
concerns over social justice (Davis et al., 2012; Gould and Lewis., 2012;
Kabisch and Haase, 2014; Miller, 2016). Moreover, the challenges of
development in large cities often result in patterns of spatially segre-
gated different population groups (Brelsford et al., 2017). Given these
concerns, urban green spaces are a crucial source of socio-economic
disparities in green space access, which could lead to a pattern of social
unsustainability. Therefore, urban green space accessibility is regarded
as an indicator of social sustainability in the present study.
Given this analysis of the inter-connections between urban green
spaces and the economic and social determinants of sustainability, we
can therefore hypothesize that urban green spaces involve a new
paradox of economic and social sustainability (Fig. 1), even though
urban green space conflicts are not new to studies examining uneven
development in the field of environmentalism and a great deal of work
has been carried out investigating the important functions of urban
green spaces. Existing urban sustainability projects and studies of urban
greening largely concentrate on the environmental and economic
components of sustainability, while there is a lack of theoretical and
empirical studies regarding social justice or measures of the social or
distributional impact of sustainability (Eizenberg and Jabareen, 2017).
In this regard, we joined the discussion on 1) How do we, particular
urban planners address such urban green space paradox; 2) How does
urban planning theory incorporated the variegated sustainability; 3)
How do the top-down planning countries such as China could learn
from western experiences on planning land use patterns that are
M. Du and X. Zhang
Fig. 1. A new paradox of economic and social sustainability in urban green space.
affordable for individuals.
3. Data and methodology
3.1. Study area
The study setting is New York City, located in New York State, on
the U.S. east coast. The 302.6 square mile study area comprises
Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. Having a po-
pulation of 8,398,748 at the 2018 census, it is regarded as the country’s
most densely populated major city (Maciag, 2013). It is also char-
acterized by severe income inequalities across neighborhoods
(Jargowsky, 1997), and has a long history of immigrants from different
socio-economic population groups (Fig. 2).
3.2. Data
3.2.1. Explanatory variables
Generally, the price of a housing unit is dependent on the avail-
ability and level of multiple attributes, which can be summarized in
three categories: structural, neighborhood, and location characteristics
(Liu and Hite, 2013). Structural characteristics are the direct char-
acteristics of property values; neighborhood characteristics relate to the
quality of the surroundings; while location characteristics can be used
to define the ease with which services can be reached from the housing
units (Kong et al., 2006; Luo and Wang, 2003). The variables used in
this study are summarized in Table 1.
3.2.2. Data source
A large and comprehensive dataset from different sources is utilized
in this study, containing 76,596 individual housing units and 2,068
census tracts to characterize the units of analysis. In aiming to explore
whether urban green space can contribute to different facets of sus-
tainability, and how, we focus on two dimensions of sustainability:
economically and socially. The data set for the former dimension con-
tains transaction information in terms of price, the structural char-
acteristics are from the web of Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/1); the
neighborhood characteristics are from American FactFinder/American
Community Surveys (5-year Estimates)/2010–2014; the variables re-
presenting location characteristics, comprising CountGre, CountGro,
CountSub, CountBus, and AreaGre, are obtained by network analysis in
1 access: accessibility, which considers the time and distance barriers
Example for collecting data: after enter the http://www.zillow.com, input
the area’s name: “NY” in the search box, and then zoom in http://www.zillow.
com/homes/for_sale/NY/43_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/40.69834,-
73.961163,40.484298,-74.260541_rect/11_zm/ website. On this page, click the
residential housing unit, the data will appear in this page. And all the data can
be collected from this website.
3
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
GIS. The GIS Vector Data shapefiles are from Open Street Map. Data for
the latter dimension comprise information from GIS data of the city and
census tract data of such vulnerable populations as the black, female,
elderly, and poor. Table 2 presents a description of the variables used
and provides the summary of the dataset including maximum,
minimum, and the average values for both the dependent variable and
independent variables. Fig. 3 shows the demographic descriptions of
the selected population groups in New York City.
3.3. Methodology
3.3.1. Measures of urban green space accessibility
Accessibility is arguably the urban land characteristic with the
strongest links to property values and equity. It involves two dimen-
sions. One is spatial access, which emphasizes the spatial separation
between supply (services) and demand (citizens) as a barrier or facil-
itator. The other is non-spatial access, which stresses nongeographic
barriers or facilitators (Tao et al., 2014; Wu and Tseng, 2018). This
study mainly focuses on the spatial dimension, to analyze accessibility
between supplier (provider perspective) and demander (consumer
perspective). Generally, accessibility measurements reflect the ease of
reaching a certain destination including a work station and shopping
malls, from a particular location within a particular time or cost
threshold (Geurs and van Wee, 2004). Access can be reached by several
methods: walking, bicycling, and driving, with accessibility methods
being mainly based on the types of urban facilities involved. Here, we
focus on local urban amenities that can be used daily by residents and can
be reached conveniently by walking. Therefore, access is measured by
walkable accessibility, which is a measure of how friendly an area is to
walking, which is being usually measured by travelling time or dis-
tance. Travel distance to the nearest urban service to assess accessibility
may relate to an individual’s walking ability. Thus, using travel distance
to evaluate accessibility is not always a determining factor.
However, considering access solely in terms of travel distance or
travel time provides an incomplete picture of potential importance in
the definition of access, and need to be embedded in the concepts of
“easiness” and “freedom” (Wang and Mu, 2018). Measuring accessi-
bility involves not only assessing the geographic variability of amenities
between and within communities, but also considering constraints in
the public service systems. In addition, measures of accessibility need to
consider the number of local facilities from which residents can choose
(Nobles et al., 2014). Therefore, this study focus on two dimensions of
between residents’ locations and the amenities; and availability, or the
number of amenities within walkable distances or time.
Although walking distance can vary based on such factors as to-
pology, walking pace, sense of safety and security, and presence of
interesting activities along the walking route, it is generally understood
M. Du and X. Zhang
Fig. 2. Study Area.
Table 1
Explanatory variable.
Variable
Housing constructor characteristics Bedroom
Bathroom
Size
Age
Neighborhood characteristics Racial composition
Population density
Income
Crime rate
Location characteristics Job accessibility
Environmental amenities
Grocery stores
Transportation
Education
that most people’s daily walk will be approximately 10 min to or from a
point of interest (Litman, 2015). Generally, access represented by a
circle drawn around the facility with a radius equivalent to the users’
maximum desired distance (Nicholls, 2001). However, this method ig-
nores the fact that people cannot travel in straight lines, as well as
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
Source
Du and Mulley (2006); Aroul and Hansz (2011); Dröes and Koster (2016); Hein et al. (2019)
Willis and Garrod (1993); Limsombunchai (2004); Hyland et al. (2013)
Haurin and Brasington (1996); Turnbull et al., (2006); Dröes and Koster (2016)
Goodman and Thibodeau (1995); Selim (2009); Baba and Asami (2017)
Harris (1999); Nguyen (2005)
Irwin (2002); Anderson and West (2006)
Baum et al. (2013)
Thaler (1978); Pope and Pope (2012)
Srour and Kockelman (2002)
Famuyiwa (2018);
Thibodeau (1990); Ten Siethoff and Kockelman (2002)
Ryay (1999)
Haurin and Brasington (1996); Clapp et al. (2008); Selim (2009)
traffic time and routes based on road conditions. Therefore, the “net-
work analysis method” in GIS is used to avoid the disadvantages of the
“radius method” by drawing distance between individual housing units
and an amenity based on the roads involved (Fig. 4). However, unlike
the other three local amenities, the value of green spaces not only
4
M. Du and X. Zhang Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487

reflects the recreational benefits they provide, but also the pleasantness

44,778.03
84,615.49
750,000
of the scenic view they bring to nearby residents. Thus, straight-line

1428

0.62
P50

measurement is used to measure the walkable buffer around urban

6.4

0.3
77

39

30
3
2

0
0
5

0
0
green spaces.
1,158,735

52501.27
101712.7
2022.48
66.02 3.3.2. Measures of economic and social dimensions of sustainability in

37.60

31.66
Mean

3.08
2.14

0.56

8.60

0.01
0.04
9.45

4.17
1.69
0.37
urban green space accessibility
Once measured, we devise a way to characterize how urban green
Thousand dollars

space accessibility affects the two key themes of economic and equity.
In aiming to evaluate the impact of green spaces on property values,
Square Miles
Square feet

urban green spaces in this study include parks, gardens, and golf
Percent
Percent

Percent

Percent
Minute
Dollars

courses. To do this, three variables of green spaces are controlled: the

Miles
Year
Unit

area of a certain green space (AreaGre); the ratio of the area of green
spaces within census tract to the area of the tract (PerGre); and the
The number of subway station entrances within walking distance to a certain residential housing unit.
number of green spaces within walking distance to a certain residential
housing unit (CountGre), of which, CountGre is the key variable, while
the other two are control variables.
The ratio of the area of green spaces within census tract to the area of a certain census tract

The number of grocery stores within walking distance to a certain residential housing unit.

The general hedonic model is:

The number of green spaces within walking distance to a certain residential housing unit.

The number of bus stops within walking distance to a certain residential housing unit.

P = f (x1, x2 , …, xn ) (1)

where P is the market price of an individual residential housing unit

and x1, x2 , …, xn are the set of characteristics it embodies. Since the
correlation between housing price and the estimated parameters is
likely to be nonlinear, a log model is used to reflect their inter-
The distance from a residential housing unit to the nearest school.
Average of household income of a certain residential housing unit

correlations more accurately. The basic specific hedonic model used

The percent of white population within a certain census tract

here is:

Lg (Price) =β0 + β1*C + β2*N + β3*L + ε (2)

The number of bathrooms of a residential housing unit
The number of bedroom of a residential housing unit

The Population density within a certain census tract

where Lg (Price) is the log of the housing price, C, N, and L denote the
Housing Price of all the residential housing units

constructor, neighborhood, and location characteristics of the housing,

and βi and ε are the hedonic regression coefficients and residuals re-
The age of the residential housing unit

spectively.
The size of a residential housing unit

Crime rate in a certain census tract

Here, we apply a walkable accessibility score to quantify the social

Average commute time to work

equity of urban green spaces, as this is now widely used to estimate

Areas of a certain green space

neighborhood walkability towards an amenity based on its location. We

define the walkable accessibility score of each census tract, WGsS, as:

WGsS=(∑ N(Gs)* β)/N(H) (3)

where N(Gs) is the number of urban green space within walkable areas
Definition

toward each individual housing unit, β represents the coefficient, and N

(H) is the number of housing units within a certain census tract.

4. Results
Number-bd
Number_ba

CountSub
CountGro
CountGre

CountBus
Variable

AreaGre
AverPD
PerWhi

PerGre

DisSch
AveHI

ACW
Price

4.1. Economic sustainability in urban green space accessibility

Size
Age

CR

The spatial distribution of housing unit prices show a distinctive

Housing constructor characteristics

agglomeration pattern, with housing units around urban green spaces

generally having high property values (Fig. 5). This suggest that urban
Neighborhood characteristics

green space, as a key landscape element, has a significant influence on

property values in both negative and positive terms (Table 3). In con-
Location characteristics

trast to the expectation that areas with more green spaces engender
higher housing prices, these results indicate a negative relationship
between the percentage of green spaces and property values. This ap-
parently aberrant result might be partially attributable to vacant urban
spaces with a high occupation of poor people and a high crime rate.
However, the number of green spaces has a huge positive impact on
property values with a coefficient of 0.212, which means an increase of
Variable descriptions.

1 unit in the log of the number of green spaces within walkable distance
Independent variable
Dependent variable

increases the log of housing price by an average of 21.20 %. This im-

plies that such green spaces have a significant average impact on
property values with a 95 % confidence interval of 15.60%–26.79%.
This finding supports the notion that a view of high-quality green
Table 2

spaces strongly affects property values in New York City, much higher
than the 5–6 % found in previous studies of U.S. cities (Tajima, 2003),

5
M. Du and X. Zhang
Fig. 3. Demographic descriptions of selected population groups.
suggesting that natural resources are much more valued by citizens in
New York City.
4.2. Social sustainability in urban green space accessibility
Given the above links between urban green spaces and property
values, an important emerging question is whether access to urban
green space – and the economic benefits involved - is distributed in
ways that disproportionately cross areas and advantage or disadvantage
people on the basis of socio-economic conditions. In short, do urban
green spaces contribute to equity loss?
Using the spatial explicit approach supported by GIS technology
combined with the hedonic pricing model could help to target specific
locations for the creation and restoration of urban green spaces during
the urban greening process by knowing the unequal and inaccessible
areas to such spaces (Kong et al., 2007a,b; MZainora et al., 2016). Even
though these spaces are distributed throughout New York City, there
are distinct patterns of inequality and inaccessibility, and obvious dif-
ferences between the city’s west and the east sides (Fig. 6). Manhattan
and west Brooklyn have high accessibility to urban green spaces with
scores much higher than the average (Table 4); while, in contrast, there
are few public green spaces in Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island.
These findings highlight the spatial inequality pattern of urban
green space between socioeconomic population groups. Although urban
green spaces are distributed citywide, there is still a spatial inequality
between their accessibility by different groups (Table. 5). According to
the statistical analysis, 70.51 percent of the black population have poor
accessibility to urban green spaces, along with 67.22, 69.72, and 65.00
percent of the female, elderly, and poor populations respectively, due to
a combination of low access and the greater travel distances involved.
5. Discussion
5.1. The paradox of urban green spaces in the prosperity of property values
and the struggle for social sustainability
The multivariate scope of the hedonic pricing model combined with
GIS spatial analysis techniques can provide rational and accurate in-
formation concerning the apportionment of property values to multiple
factors (Xu et al., 2016), and enable the role played by urban green
space in New York City to be isolated and quantified. The empirical
results provide composite evidence for the political decision-making
6
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
process regarding “urban greening”, in how to drive property values
while simultaneously alleviating social injustice. According to the re-
sults, the number of urban green spaces and percentage of urban green
spaces to a certain census tract are useful variables for describing
property values. The significant positive impact of the number of urban
green space patches indicates that they can raise the average property
price considerably; while the negative sign of the percentage of urban
green spaces within a certain census tract significantly depresses the
average price. Thus, as far as environmental variables are concerned,
the accessibility to green spaces is more important than their size. While
a greater richness of urban green space types tends to create more
leisure opportunities, it can also have a negative effect on residents
living nearby in terms of noise and even a high crime rate, leading to an
unsafe environment. Research into urban space dating back to the work
of Jacobs (1961) and Newman (1972) on citizens’ perceptions of safety
living in cities, has long advocated that high-quality urban green spaces
with a strong residential population helps provide a sense of safety and
security associated with environmental facilities (Rosemary et al.,
2005). Thus, compared to a vast park with fewer local residents, pro-
viding several small green areas is a more appropriate approach.
In addition, using the spatial explicit approach supported by GIS
technology combined with the hedonic pricing model could also help to
target specific locations for the creation and restoration of urban green
spaces during the urban greening process by knowing the unequal and
inaccessible areas to them (Kong et al., 2007a; MZainora et al., 2016).
Even though such spaces are distributed throughout New York City,
there is a distinctive difference between the city’s west and the east
sides, with Manhattan and west Brooklyn having high accessibility,
while Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island have significantly less. A range
of factors, including the segregation of socioeconomic groups and
spatial agglomeration, contribute to the regional unbalanced develop-
ment, indicating a need for new urban green spaces in the city’s east
side. Despite the important role urban green spaces play in recreational
enjoyment (Kong et al., 2006) and property values, just being green is
not enough since urban green spaces can lead to different spillover
effects.
5.2. Sustainability: planning for whom?
One basic question to be considered in the urban planning and
policy-making process is for whom sustainability is intended. This is a
basic ethical issue that has gained much attention from different fields,
M. Du and X. Zhang
Fig. 4. 10 min walkable buffer toward amenities.
but is difficult to define given we cannot always discuss the concept of
sustainability with those most affected (Scholtes, 2010) – there is a
common presumption that every citizen should be treated equally.
However, our findings suggest that, in addition to the unequal physical
access to urban green spaces, inequality also exists in terms of their
quality, such as in parks and community gardens, between different
regions and socioeconomic groups, while peri-urban areas and vulner-
able groups may only have access to unsafe and undesirable community
green spaces. In this case, the city’s “going green” program needs to be
focused on areas around low-income residents rather than such high-
level urban green spaces as High Line Park and Central Park which,
although they offer huge benefits, are prioritized more wealthy people.
Sustainable cities need to not only build up a physical framework
for urban facilities, but also promote economic and social aspects, and
be irreversibility involved in providing their equitable accessibility by
citizens. The findings suggested that, in contrast to vast gentrification
parks, small community gardens are more welcomed and valued by
neighborhood residents. When vacant lots need to be reclaimed, the
7
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
support for gardens in New York City is often opposed to other social
goals such as affordable housing or other public uses (Voicu and Been,
2008). Moreover, small community green spaces are often perceived as
a neighborhood liability (Troy and Grove, 2008) due to their char-
acteristics of “affordability” and “accessibility”. This finding highlights
the important fact that there are various ways of greening, and a di-
viding line is drawn according to who the green spaces serve and to
what end (Connolly, 2019).
In academic and policy discourse, sustainability is always a priority.
Urban planners, designers, policy-makers, and etc. have rightfully
identified the underlying importance of embedding sustainability into
development strategies. However, they often focus on city-level com-
ponents of sustainability, little has recognized from individual level.
Such component of sustainability calls question the intension of urban
planning. We filled this void by incorporating individual sustainability
into sustainable development framework.
M. Du and X. Zhang Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of urban green space and the price of the housing unit (The darker the color, the higher the price).

Table 3 common to conclude that spatial patterns of land use serve as a step
Economic gains from urban green space accessibility. toward sustainable development.
Independent R-squared = 0.4777
In this study, we provide a solution to enable urban green spaces to
Variable deliver both economic and social benefits. As shown in Fig. 7, while
Coefficient Robust (Standard t value P value vast and gentrified amenities such as Central Park may facilitate real
error) estate by competing for urban green space resources, they can also lead
Number_bd_log .0806855** .0347313 2.32 0.020
to social inequity by pricing out low-income populations. Yet, such land
Number_ba_log .6738012*** .0387991 17.37 0.000 supply is not unique in western countries, and this pattern is shaping
Size_log .2279117*** .0395605 5.76 0.000 urban areas in the institutional-driven countries such as China and
Age_sq −8.33e–06*** 1.43e-06 −5.81 0.000 other parts of Asia. On the other hand, small and unified community
PerWhi_log .2419445*** .0287543 8.41 0.000
green spaces can more often lead to equity gains, since they are small
AverPD_log −.0874905*** .0178846 −4.89 0.000
AverHI_log .2715813*** .0304787 8.91 0.000 and can be easily reached. However, the spatial pattern of this type of
ACW_log −.2602314*** .0726467 −3.58 0.000 green spaces is small thus generally fragmented, thus lacking diversity.
CR_log .0910699*** .0169049 5.39 0.000 These two types of land patterns now harness the language of sustain-
PerGre_log −.0153451*** .0036632 −4.19 0.000 ability. In contrast, mixed and diverse small green spaces serve for both
CountGre_log .211975*** .0285265 7.43 0.000
CountGro_log .1040767*** .0191031 5.45 0.000
economic and social sustainability, facilitating economic gains while
CountSub_log −.1132442*** .0212726 −5.32 0.000 simultaneously improving social equality. Such approach of diverse
CountBus_log .1104903*** .0154599 7.15 0.000 land use patterns is promising not only in western countries, but also
DisSch_log −.0809955*** .0155285 −5.22 0.000 across the top-down planning countries to incorporate variegated sus-
_cons 2.772694*** .5534194 5.01 0.000
tainability into urban planning from a micro perspective.
** Indicates statistical significance at the 10 % level.
*** Indicates statistical significance at the 5 % level.
6. Conclusion
5.3. Urban green space: how to contribute to variegated sustainability?
The focus of this article is not the study of urban green spaces per se,
Accessibility is a commodity and an input to the value of the land but the study of ow does urban green space contribute to different fa-
market, so it is difficult to promote both aspects of sustainability at the cets of sustainability. Its broad contribution lies in 1) discuss how urban
same time (Stokes and Seto, 2018). However, the spatial patterns of green spaces have paradox results in economic and social sustainability;
urban green spaces are determinants of the level of accessibility in that 2) suggest how urban planning theory incorporate the variegated sus-
high accessibility can be both an economic and equity boon. Thus, it is tainability; and 3) provide western experiences for institutional-driven
countries such as China on how to plan land use patterns that are

8
M. Du and X. Zhang Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of urban green space accessibility score at the census tract level.

Table 4 space to facilitate real estate can ultimately lead to gentrification and
Green Spaces’ Accessibility Score (Weighted Score). the displacement of various residents, thus alleviating social inequity by
Census Tract Number 2068
benefiting citizens unequally and pricing out vulnerable residents.
In response to the concerns over the economic gain-social equity
Mean Score of Walkable Accessibility to Green Space 1.93 loss paradox of urban green space, it is suggested here that policy
Min Score of Walkable Accessibility to Green Space 0 should be shifted from “vast and gentrification parks” to one of “mix-
Max Score of Walkable Accessibility to Green Space 23.77
sized urban green spaces” that are affordable and reachable. Projects
Census Tracts with Scores above Mean Score Number 570
Percent 28 % that benefit one district may have a negative impact on the next. The
Census Tracts with Scores below Mean Score Number 1498 prospects of a win-win should be enhanced by providing numerous
Percent 72 % small “affordable” and “accessible” urban green spaces throughout the
city, instead of a few vast “gentrificated” parks, to lead to economic-
environmental-social sustainable development. In addition, policy is
Table 5 needed to improve the connection between urban green spaces and
Urban green space accessibility among selected population groups.
different facets of sustainability, and measures of equity included in
Black Female Elderly Poverty sustainability plans. Moreover, the results of our research provide va-
population population population population luable insights into the values of surrounding local residents. Such in-
With access 476,813 1,130,486 250,691 465,750
formation needs can be included in the planning process to assess dif-
29.49 % 32.78 % 30.28 % 35.00 % ferent policy scenarios in “urban greening” projects and applied to land-
Without access 1,139,903 2,317,870 577,169 864,968 use zoning, especially in arranging local amenities and natural re-
70.51 % 67.22 % 69.72 % 65.00 % sources. Urban green spaces do have a significant effect on property
values, and such an approach will not only can help in the better use of
limited land resources in the city, but also can improve spatial equity
sustainable for individuals.
and reduce social conflicts. The disconnection between sustainability
The results show that green spaces have a significant impact on
and social justice is also reflected in the city’s current policy, and new
property values, with a negative impact of the ratio of the area and a
policy is needed to improve the connection between urban green and
positive impact of the number of green spaces. Thus, as far as en-
social justice, and measures of equity included in sustainability plans.
vironmental variables are concerned, accessibility to green spaces is
Moreover, the results of the hedonic pricing model provide valuable
more important than their size. In addition to highlighting the urban
insights into the values of surrounding local residents. Such information
effect of green spaces on property values, the results indicate that urban
needs be included in the planning process to assess different policy
green space strategies may be paradoxical, in that the creation of green
scenarios in “urban greening” projects and applied to land use zoning,

9
M. Du and X. Zhang
Fig. 7. Reframing variegated sustainability urban planning theory: a conceptual framework.
especially in arranging local amenities and nature resources.
Given the study focuses on New York City, special attention is
needed in generalizing the findings and their implications to other
settings, especially outside the U.S. Thus, future theoretical and em-
pirical research is needed to shed light on related studies in other cities
and countries. Although cultural and economic differences make it
difficult to compare western and eastern countries, longitudinal re-
search could contribute to the full picture of “urban greening” projects
from a global perspective. It should also be noted that, despite our at-
tempt to capture a full picture of the effects of urban green spaces on
New York City’s property values with detailed information, we are only
able to depict the most important aspects due to our main purpose
being to assess how urban green space can contribute to sustainability
and its different aspects. Nevertheless, the empirical study described in
this paper does provide effective information for the local government
as well as the real estate industry concerning whether, or where, to
invest in urban green spaces with regard to residential property values
in terms of not only urban green spaces but also other contributory
factors to economic and social sustainability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mengbing Du: Writing - original draft, Data curation, Methodology,
Software. Xiaoling Zhang: Supervision, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 71834005, 71673232];
the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong, China [grant number CityU
11271716] and Hong Kong CityU Internal Funds [grant numbers
9680195, 9610386].
10
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
References
Anand, S., Sen, A., 2000. Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev.
28 (12), 2029–2049.
Benabou, R., 2000. Unequal societies: income distribution and the social contract. Am.
Econ. Rev. 90 (1), 96–129.
Brelsford, C., Lobo, J., Hand, J., Bettencourt, L.M., 2017. Heterogeneity and scale of
sustainable development in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114 (34), 8963–8968.
Chiu, R.L., 2003. 12 social sustainability, sustainable development and housing devel-
opment. Housing and Social Change: East-West Perspectives Vol. 221 Routledge.
Cho, S.H., Bowker, J.M., Park, W.M., 2006. Measuring the contribution of water and
green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially
weighted hedonic models. J. Agric. Resource Econ. 485–507.
Connolly, J.J., 2019. From Jacobs to the just city: a foundation for challenging the green
planning orthodoxy. Cities 91, 64–70.
Davis, A.Y., J. Belaire, A., Farfan, M.A., Milz, D., Sweeney, E.R., Loss, S.R., Minor, E.S.,
2012. Green infrastructure and bird diversity across an urban socioeconomic gra-
dient. Ecosphere 3 (11), 1–18.
de la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Banzhaf, E., 2016. Indicators for green spaces in
contrasting urban settings. Ecol. Indic. 62, 212–219.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., Brown, C., 2011. The social dimension of sustain-
able development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 19 (5), 289–300.
Eizenberg, E., Jabareen, Y., 2017. Social sustainability: a new conceptual framework.
Sustainability 9 (1), 68.
Feng, X., Humphreys, B., 2018. Assessing the economic impact of sports facilities on re-
sidential property values: a spatial hedonic approach. J. Sports Econom. 19 (2),
188–210.
Freeman, A.M., 1981. Hedonic prices, property values and measuring environmental
benefits: a survey of the issues. Measurement in Public Choice. Palgrave Macmillan,
London, pp. 13–32.
Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport stra-
tegies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12 (2), 127–140.
Gómez, F., Jabaloyes, J., Montero, L., De Vicente, V., Valcuende, M., 2010. Green areas,
the most significant indicator of the sustainability of cities: research on their utility
for urban planning. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 137 (3), 311–328.
Harrison Jr, D., Rubinfeld, D.L., 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean
air. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 5 (1), 81–102.
Jargowsky, P.A., 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Jennings, V., Larson, L., Yun, J., 2016. Advancing sustainability through urban green
space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (2), 196.
Kauškale, L., Geipele, I., 2017. Integrated approach of real estate market analysis in
sustainable development context for decision making. Procedia Eng. 172, 505–512.
Khan, R., 2016. How frugal innovation promotes social sustainability. Sustainability 8
(10), 1034.
Kihal-Talantikite, W., Padilla, C.M., Lalloué, B., Gelormini, M., Zmirou-Navier, D.,
Deguen, S., 2013. Green space, social inequalities and neonatal mortality in France.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13 (1), 191.
M. Du and X. Zhang
King, A.T., Mieszkowski, P., 1973. Racial discrimination, segregation, and the price of
housing. J. Polit. Econ. 81 (3), 590–606.
Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., 2007a. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic
price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City,
China. Landsc. Urban Plann. 79 (3-4), 240–252.
Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., 2007b. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic
price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City,
China. Landsc. Urban Plann. 79 (3-4), 240–252.
Litman, T., 2015. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for
Transport Planning. No. 15-3326.
Liu, S., Hite, D., 2013. Measuring the Effect of Green Space on Property Value: an
Application of the Hedonic Spatial Quantile Regression. No. 1373-2016-109264.
Luo, W., Wang, F., 2003. Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS en-
vironment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environ. Plann. B Plann.
Des. 30 (6), 865–884.
Maciag, M., 2013. Mapping the nation’s most densely populated cities. Governing the
States and Localities. pp. 2.
Maimaitiyiming, M., Ghulam, A., Tiyip, T., Pla, F., Latorre-Carmona, P., Halik, Ü., Sawut,
M., Caetano, M., 2014. Effects of green space spatial pattern on land surface tem-
perature: implications for sustainable urban planning and climate change adaptation.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 89, 59–66.
Miller, J.T., 2016. Is urban greening for everyone? Social inclusion and exclusion along
the Gowanus Canal. Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 285–294.
Morancho, A.B., 2003. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66
(1), 35–41.
MZainora, A., Norzailawati, M.N., Tuminah, P., 2016. A Spatial Analysis on Gis-hedonic
Pricing Model on the Influence of Public Open Space and House Price in Klang Valley,
Malaysia. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial
Information Sciences, pp. 41.
Nicholls, S., 2001. Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study
using GIS. Manag. Leis. 6 (4), 201–219.
Nobles, M., Serban, N., Swann, J., 2014. Spatial accessibility of pediatric primary
healthcare: measurement and inference. Ann. Appl. Stat. 8 (4), 1922–1946.
Panduro, T.E., Veie, K.L., 2013. Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—a
hedonic house price valuation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 120, 119–128.
Scholtes, F., 2010. Whose sustainability? Environmental domination and Sen’s capability
approach. Oxford Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 289–307.
Stavins, R.N., Wagner, A.F., Wagner, G., 2003. Interpreting sustainability in economic
terms: dynamic efficiency plus intergenerational equity. Econ. Lett. 79 (3), 339–343.
11
Land Use Policy 92 (2020) 104487
Stokes, E.C., Seto, K.C., 2018. Tradeoffs in environmental and equity gains from job ac-
cessibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115 (42), E9773–E9781.
Tajima, K., 2003. New estimates of the demand for urban green space: implications for
valuing the environmental benefits of Boston’s big dig project. J. Urban Aff. 25 (5),
641–655.
Tao, Z., Cheng, Y., Dai, Y., Rosenberg, M.W., 2014. Spatial optimization of residential
care facility locations in Beijing, China: maximum equity in accessibility. Int. J.
Health Geogr. 13 (1), 33.
Tilly, C., 1998. Durable Inequality. Univ of California Press.
Troy, A., Grove, J.M., 2008. Property values, parks, and crime: a hedonic analysis in
Baltimore, MD. Landsc. Urban Plann. 87 (3), 233–245.
Turcu, C., 2012. Local experiences of urban sustainability: researching Housing Market
Renewal interventions in three english neighbourhoods. Prog. Plann. 78 (3),
101–150.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C., Dixon, J.E., 2011. What is social sustainability? A clarification
of concepts. Geoforum 42 (3), 342–348.
Voicu, I., Been, V., 2008. The effect of community gardens on neighboring property va-
lues. Real Estate Econ. 36 (2), 241–283.
Wachsmuth, D., Cohen, D.A., Angelo, H., 2016. Expand the frontiers of urban sustain-
ability. Nat. News 536 (7617), 391.
Wang, M., Mu, L., 2018. Spatial disparities of Uber accessibility: an exploratory analysis
in Atlanta, USA. Comp. Environ. Urban Syst. 67, 169–175.
Wu, H.-C., Tseng, M.-H., 2018. Evaluating disparities in elderly community care re-
sources: using a geographic accessibility and inequality index. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 15 (7), 1353.
Wu, J., Wang, M., Li, W., Peng, J., Huang, L., 2014. Impact of urban green space on
residential housing prices: case study in Shenzhen. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 141 (4),
05014023.
Wu, J., He, Q., Chen, Y., Lin, J., Wang, S., 2018. Dismantling the fence for social justice?
Evidence based on the inequity of urban green space accessibility in the central urban
area of Beijing. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci., 2399808318793139.
Xu, L., You, H., Li, D., Yu, K., 2016. Urban green spaces, their spatial pattern, and eco-
system service value: the case of Beijing. Habitat Int. 56, 84–95.
You, H., 2016. Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in
Shenzhen, China. Habitat Int. 56, 176–180.
Zhou, X., Parves Rana, M., 2012. Social benefits of urban green space: a conceptual fra-
mework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.
23 (2), 173–189.