ArticlePloS one2020
Examining the distributional equity of urban tree canopy cover and ecosystem services across United States cities.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overlooked considerations in prescribing green and blue infrastructure solutions for urban environments.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
- Not your mean green: beyond averages in mapping socio-spatial inequities in urban greenery for smart cities.EPJ data science · 2026Article
- With Great Ecosystem Services Comes Great Responsibility: Benefits Provided by Urban Vegetation in Brazilian Cities.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Multi-scale analysis of urban forests and socioeconomic patterns in a desert city, Phoenix, Arizona.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Green infrastructure and community health: exploring the characteristics of campus users in three university towns in Texas.Cities & health · 2024Article
- Historical redlining is associated with disparities in wildlife biodiversity in four California cities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Exponential growth of private coastal infrastructure influenced by geography and race in South Carolina, USA.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Individual and Neighborhood Level Predictors of Children's Exposure to Residential Greenspace.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2024Article
- Environmental Injustice, Tree Canopy Cover, and Academic Proficiency at Utah Public Primary Schools.Environmental justice (Print) · 2024Article
- Association of Redlining and Natural Environment with Depressive Symptoms in Women in the Sister Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Policy and behavioral response to shock events: An agent-based model of the effectiveness and equity of policy design features.PloS one · 2022Article
- Wealth and Education Influences on Spatial Pattern of Tree Planting in a Tropical Metropolis in Brazil.Environmental management · 2022Article
- Impact of land cover change on urban tree cover and potential regulating ecosystem services: the case of Aydın/Turkey.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Article
- The tree cover and temperature disparity in US urbanized areas: Quantifying the association with income across 5,723 communities.PloS one · 2021Article
- Associations between ultraviolet radiation, tree cover and adolescent sunburns.International journal of health geographics · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Examining the distributional equity of urban tree canopy cover (UTCC) has increasingly become an important interdisciplinary focus of ecologists and social scientists working within the field of environmental justice. However, while UTCC may serve as a useful proxy for the benefits provided by the urban forest, it is ultimately not a direct measure. In this study, we quantified the monetary value of multiple ecosystem services (ESD) provisioned by urban forests across nine U.S. cities. Next, we examined the distributional equity of UTCC and ESD using a number of commonly investigated socioeconomic variables. Based on trends in the literature, we predicted that UTCC and ESD would be positively associated with the variables median income and percent with an undergraduate degree and negatively associated with the variables percent minority, percent poverty, percent without a high school degree, percent renters, median year home built, and population density. We also predicted that there would be differences in the relationships between each response variable (UTCC and ESD) and the suite of socioeconomic predictor variables examined because of differences in how each response variable is derived. We utilized methods promoted within the environmental justice literature, including a multi-city comparative analysis, the incorporation of high-resolution social and environmental datasets, and the use of spatially explicit models. Patterns between the socioeconomic variables and UTCC and ESD did not consistently support our predictions, highlighting that inequities are generally not universal but rather context dependent. Our results also illustrated that although the variables UTCC and ESD had largely similar relationships with the predictor variables, differences did occur between them. Future distributional equity research should move beyond the use of proxies for environmental amenities when possible while making sure to consider that the use of ecosystem service estimates may result in different patterns with socioeconomic variables of interest. Based on our findings, we conclude that understanding and remedying the challenges associated with inequities requires an understanding of the local social-ecological system if larger sustainability goals are to be achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.