Access to Urban Green Space in Cities of the Global South: A Systematic Literature Review

TLDR

Urban green space provides health and ecosystem benefits, yet rapid urbanization in Global South cities creates planning barriers, and prior Global North studies have shown that high‑SES and White residents enjoy more and higher‑quality green space than low‑SES and racial‑ethnic minorities. This systematic review investigates socioeconomic and racial‑ethnic disparities in urban green space access in Global South cities, compares them to Global North inequities, and examines whether such disparities differ across continents. Using a PRISMA‑guided systematic search and five inclusion criteria, the authors identified 46 peer‑reviewed studies that measured SES or racial‑ethnic disparities in urban green space access in Global South cities. The review revealed that high‑SES groups have greater access to green space quantity (85 % of cases) and proximity (74 %), with quality disparities in 65 % of cases, and that these inequities are consistent across African, Asian, and Latin American cities, indicating that Global South cities experience similar inequities to the Global North but also face proximity inequities.

Abstract

This review examines disparities in access to urban green space (UGS) based on socioeconomic status (SES) and race-ethnicity in Global South cities. It was motivated by documented human health and ecosystem services benefits of UGS in Global South countries and UGS planning barriers in rapidly urbanizing cities. Additionally, another review of Global North UGS studies uncovered that high-SES and White people have access to a higher quantity of higher quality UGSs than low-SES and racial-ethnic minority people but that no clear differences exist regarding who lives closer to UGS. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to uncover (1) whether UGS inequities in Global North cities are evident in Global South cities and (2) whether inequities in the Global South vary between continents. Through the PRISMA approach and five inclusion criteria, we identified 46 peer-reviewed articles that measured SES or racial-ethnic disparities in access to UGS in Global South cities. We found inequities for UGS quantity (high-SES people are advantaged in 85% of cases) and UGS proximity (74% of cases). Inequities were less consistent for UGS quality (65% of cases). We also found that UGS inequities were consistent across African, Asian, and Latin American cities. These findings suggest that Global South cities experience similar inequities in UGS quantity and quality as Global North cities, but that the former also face inequities in UGS proximity.