Justice in Access To Urban Ecossystem Services A Critic Literature Reviewd

Ecosystem Services 67 (2024) 101617
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
Full Length Article
Justice in access to urban ecosystem services: A critical review of

the literature
Md. Nazmul Haque a, b, Ayyoob Sharifi c, d, *
a
Urban Environmental Science Lab (URBES), Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh
c
The IDEC Institute & Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability (NERPS), Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan
d
School of Architecture and Design, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Ecosystem services are crucial for urban resilience, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and sustainable
Ecosystem services development. Incorporating these services in urban environments involves various principles, partnerships,
Justice organizational strategies, and methodologies. A vast body of research exists on ecosystem services. However,
Inequity
there is a lack of studies that address equity concerns in access to urban ecosystem services. This paper critically
Urban sustainability
Cities
reviews the literature to investigate the state of access to ecosystem services in urban areas. We use deductive
Green infrastructure content analysis for this purpose. We explore traditional concepts of justice and update them by examining the
sources and types of ecosystem services in urban environments. We examine justice typology considering various
social, environmental, infrastructural, ecological, and mobility issues. We also explore different justice di
mensions, including distributional, procedural, recognitional, and restorative issues. Results showed a notable
prioritization of green infrastructures (73%) over blue infrastructures (5%). Furthermore, there has been an
apparent emphasis on cultural services (42%) and regulating services (25%) in offering recreational activities,
fostering social integration, improving place-making capabilities, showcasing adaptability, and demonstrating
resilience. An important finding is that most of the publications (87%) highlight that there is no justice in access
to ecosystem services. Regarding typologies, we found that there has been more attention to environmental
justice, and infrastructural, ecological, and mobility justice are underexplored. As for dimensions, more attention
has been paid to distributional and recognitional justice at the cost of restorative justice. A key shortcoming is
that cities in the Global South are not adequately represented in the literature, despite their significance for
achieving sustainable urban development in the coming decades.
1. Introduction et al., 2013). These services include but are not limited to, providing re
sources, regulating natural processes, offering recreational and cultural
Ecosystem services (ES) have gained significant momentum in urban opportunities, and improving our overall quality of life. There has been a
sustainability and resilience research in the last decade (Sharifi et al., growing trend to integrate UES into urban systems to enhance the quality
2023). The primary objective of ES is to guarantee the fulfillment of human of life in cities. This trend suggests the increasing recognition of the
needs and satisfy their diverse requirements. For instance, ensuring ES importance of UES and the need to protect them to promote healthy eco
contributes to human well-being and advances the principles of sustain systems and long-term sustainability (de Groot et al., 2002; Weber et al.,
able development (Costanza et al., 1997; IPBES, 2019). The significance of 2023; Yang et al., 2022).
ES in urban areas can be observed by the extensive reliance of human Recognizing the importance of the ES, the Millennium Ecosystem
populations on ecosystems for various purposes (Gourevitch et al., 2021). Assessment (MEA) has made significant contributions by categorizing ES
Indeed, urban ecosystem services (UES) perform multiple functions that into provisioning, cultural, regulating, and supporting based on their
benefit society (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; Gómez-Baggethun specific functions (MEA, 2005). These include providing shelter to
* Corresponding author at: Hiroshima University, The IDEC Institute and Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability (NERPS), 1-5-1
Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima, 739-8529 Japan.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Md. Nazmul Haque), [email protected] (A. Sharifi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101617
Received 15 August 2023; Received in revised form 15 March 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024
Available online 25 March 2024
2212-0416/© 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Md. Nazmul Haque and A. Sharifi Ecosystem Services 67 (2024) 101617
wildlife, promoting cultural activities, regulating climate impacts, and natural environment (Wilkerson et al., 2018). This is particularly sig
supporting essential requirements (de Groot et al., 2002; MEA, 2005). nificant in urban areas, where ensuring equal opportunities for all in
Notably, Mader et al. (2011); TEEB (2010) adopted the “habitat or dividuals, regardless of location or socioeconomic status, becomes vital.
supporting services” instead of only supporting services prescribed by By promoting justice and attempting a fair distribution of UES, under
MEA (2005). In addition, other categorizations also exist. For instance, privileged communities can also benefit from environmental advantages
Haines-Young and Potschin (2012) analyzed the ES types in a different such as clean air, open spaces, and other valuable UES (Law et al., 2022;
way, known as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Loos et al., 2023). However, limited access to these amenities can
Services (CICES). CICES mentions three main types of ES after excluding adversely affect public health and exacerbate social injustice in urban
supporting services. Also, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat areas (Axelsson et al., 2013). This concerning situation intensifies the
form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has further problem of environmental injustice, in which marginalized communities
developed the understanding of nature’s contributions to humans, bear an unfair burden of pollution and environmental deterioration
encompassing both positive and negative aspects (IPBES, 2019). Within while being denied their rightful access to UES. This problem is espe
the academic community, numerous studies have embraced the CICES cially worrying in economically disadvantaged areas lacking green
framework for classifying ES (Cortinovis et al., 2021; Haines-Young & spaces and other natural resources, as these communities are more
Potschin, 2012; La Notte et al., 2017). Conversely, a vast body of susceptible to severe consequences from climate change (Pelling &
research has preferred the ES categories proposed by the MEA and TEEB, Garschagen, 2019). Ensuring fair access to UES can promote social
demonstrating a divergence in the foundational frameworks utilized equality, reduce health disparities, advance environmental justice,
within the field (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; De Groot et al., 2010; de enhance community resilience, and respect cultural values. By
Groot et al., 2002; Eigenbrod et al., 2011; Ernstson, 2013; Evans et al., addressing these concerns, urban areas can develop more sustainable
2022; Haque et al., 2023; Mader et al., 2011; Morshed et al., 2022). This and inclusive communities for all citizens, improving their feelings of
preference underscores a scholarly divergence concerning the most belonging (Cheng et al., 2021; Loos et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2021).
effective conceptual and methodological foundations for classifying ES. ES have long been studied, but connecting justice to them is a newer
The choice to follow a particular framework often hinges on the specific concept (Assmuth et al., 2017; Costanza et al., 1997; Ernstson, 2013).
objectives and thematic focus of a study, illustrating how research Furthermore, the precise wording of “justice” is quite confusing in the ES
purposes shape the adoption and application of these classifications. literature (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Grabowski et al., 2023; Lan
The relevance of these classification frameworks extends beyond gemeyer & Connolly, 2020). Several researchers examined the term
academic discourse, playing a critical role in the management and sus differently and concluded that justice in access to ES encompasses socio-
tainability of urban environments. Urban areas, as highlighted by Wang environmental, economic, judgemental, and interventional aspects
et al. (2022) depend on a delicate balance between ample natural re (Hoover et al., 2021; Nesbitt et al., 2019; Wijsman & Berbés-Blázquez,
sources and strategic human interventions. The provision of essential 2022). The historical trajectory of justice concepts reveals that the term
natural resources, including clean air, water, and fertile land, helps meet social justice was introduced as early as 1840 by Sicilian priest Luigi
the fundamental needs of urban inhabitants. In addition, urban areas Taparelli d’Azeglio (Peters & Luke, 2021; Zajda et al., 2006). Social
can address unique challenges by utilizing UES, especially nature-based justice advocates for the fair and equitable distribution of benefits and
UES. Climate change introduces substantial risks to urban areas through costs generated by societal processes across all societal groups. Over
extreme weather events such as heat waves, cyclones, and floods (Wang time, the notion of justice evolved, giving rise to the environmental
et al., 2017). Natural ecosystems provide natural buffers against these justice movement in the USA during the 1970 s-80 s, which addressed
effects through shading, evaporative cooling, and lower surface tem environmental and social burdens experienced by communities
peratures (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; Gómez-Baggethun et al., (Schlosberg, 2003; Schlosberg, 2004; Schlosberg, 2007; Schlosberg &
2013; McPhearson et al., 2015; Tandarić et al., 2022). Green in Carruthers, 2010; Schlosberg et al., 2017). This shift underscored the
frastructures, such as parks, gardens, and urban forests, provide op complex interplay between environmental and social issues, illustrating
portunities for people to connect with nature, engage in recreational their intertwined nature. However, within the realm of ES research,
activities, and find relief from the urban environment. Green in there has been a marked preference for environmental justice (Calderón-
frastructures and natural environments also reduce social tension, Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). This preference
improve temperament, and enhance psychological well-being (Yang signifies a broader conceptual transition, acknowledging that environ
et al., 2022). Consequently, green infrastructures are widely acknowl mental concerns are intrinsically linked with social justice issues. In line
edged as vital sources of UES (Buckland & Pojani, 2022; Chen et al., with this, recent years have witnessed a growing emphasis among UES
2023). However, it is worth noting that the urban environment benefits researchers on incorporating environmental justice principles more
not only from green but also from blue infrastructures, such as water deeply (Dawson et al., 2018; Ernstson, 2013; Grabowski et al., 2022;
bodies, which contribute significantly to a diverse range of UES. These Hoover et al., 2021; Kato-Huerta & Geneletti, 2022; Kretsch & Kelemen,
services extend beyond aesthetic benefits like natural beauty and 2016; Nesbitt et al., 2018). This movement seeks to address inequalities
encompass tangible resources such as fresh fish and essential habitats for related to urban settings and well-being by broadening the concept of
various species (Assmuth et al., 2017; Thornhill et al., 2022). In addi justice to include social factors within UES evaluations and acknowl
tion, urban blue infrastructures play a key role in climate regulation edging the diverse socio-cultural values held by various communities
(Kronenberg et al., 2021). Overall, literature related to UES aims to (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer &
create resilient cities globally by leveraging the beneficial aspects of Connolly, 2020). The current scholarly discourse promotes evaluations
UES. Preserving and enhancing natural resources and UES is essential for that factor in intangible benefits and costs (Amorim Maia et al., 2020;
strengthening resilience against disasters (Law et al., 2022; Sharifi, Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Ernstson, 2013), negative impacts of
2023). This approach is beneficial because nature-based strategies are ecosystems (Escobedo et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2021), and the variety of
recognized for their ecological friendliness and long-term sustainability cultural perspectives (Bertram & Rehdanz, 2015). This approach en
(Afriyanie et al., 2020). However, the unequal distribution of UES riches the environmental justice framework by capturing the essence of
within urban areas may impede progress in managing UES. Improved social issues within UES research. Following environmental justice, the
access to UES is crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goals, notions of justice have been further enriched with other micro and case-
with Goal No. 10 focusing on reduced inequalities and Goal No. 11 specific issues. The discourse extends to include ecological justice,
focusing on sustainable cities and communities (UN, 2015). which transcends human concerns to address justice among various
Equitable access to ES is crucial for fostering community engage entities, including animals, plants, and non-human beings (Pineda-Pinto
ment, facilitating growth, and preserving cultural connections to the et al., 2022a; Wienhues, 2017). This concept emphasizes ethical
2
considerations and fair treatment of non-human stakeholders within Cheng et al., 2021; Costanza et al., 2014).
ecosystems, recognizing their inherent value and rights. In addition, In addition, the analysis of seminal review papers focused on UES
infrastructural justice tackles historical and ongoing injustices resulting justice issues reveals a predominant emphasis on environmental and
from mainstream infrastructure policies and design practices, particu distributional injustices (Althor & Witt, 2020; Calderón-Argelich et al.,
larly those intersecting with environmental justice concerns (Grabowski 2021; Cortinovis & Geneletti, 2018; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). The
et al., 2022). It underscores the need to address social and environ literature also links environmental justice with endeavors to mitigate
mental inequalities ingrained in new infrastructure networks such as social and accessibility disparities (Chen et al., 2022; Herreros-Cantis &
resource extraction, dam building, manufacturing, transportation, and McPhearson, 2021; Law et al., 2022). Some scholars have raised con
waste disposal (Carse, 2012; Grabowski et al., 2017). Within this land cerns about infrastructural (Heck, 2021; Lourdes et al., 2022; Wang
scape, mobility justice emerges to enhance societal standing and quality et al., 2017) and ecological justice (Chen et al., 2021; Hurley & Emery,
of life through participation in services provided by the system (Sultana 2018; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022a; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022b; Pineda-
et al., 2020; Zuniga-Teran et al., 2021). It’s noteworthy that all these Pinto et al., 2021a; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2021b). The UES justice litera
justice notions trace their roots back to environmental justice concepts ture also emphasized distributional, recognitional, and procedural jus
(Anguelovski et al., 2020; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & tice (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; de Sousa Silva et al., 2018;
Connolly, 2020). However, these justice emotions address specific Ghorbani et al., 2021; Kato-Huerta & Geneletti, 2022). Additionally, the
concurrent issues, marking the emergence of distinct justice paradigms researchers endorsed restorative justice in UES justice literature (Aragão
dedicated to particular challenges. et al., 2018; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Schlosberg, 2013). Despite a
The complexity of justice definitions is also evident across other handful of researchers delving into these notions of justice compre
justice notions within the literature, such as distributional, procedural, hensively (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly,
recognitional, and restorative justice (Althor & Witt, 2020; Branny et al., 2020; Suárez et al., 2020; Zuniga-Teran et al., 2021), the current body of
2022; Crump, 2023; Kato-Huerta & Geneletti, 2022; Loos et al., 2023; UES justice research still lacks systematic exploration to bring clarity in
Peters & Luke, 2021). These notions often concentrate on specific as distinguishing between various dimensions and types of justice. This gap
pects, whether it be the allocation of resources, the acknowledgment of impedes the development of a comprehensive classification structure for
stakeholders’ demands, or the direct involvement of stakeholders in justice notions in UES planning, potentially confusing stakeholders
decision-making processes. For instance, distributional justice entails involved in the process. Even the systematic exploration of inter
the equitable allocation of positive and negative outcomes associated connected relationships among different justice types and dimensions
with UES, ensuring that communities, regardless of their location or remains unaddressed, highlighting the need for further exploration
timeframe, have fair access to advantages and bear a just share of any (Mabon & Shih, 2018; Mears et al., 2019; Zaidi & Pitt, 2022).
associated costs (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Con Also, our approach represents a shift from the traditional focus on
nolly, 2020; Schlosberg, 2013). Procedural justice, also known as urban green infrastructure alone as the source of UES, which has been a
participatory justice, emphasizes the direct involvement of citizens in predominant emphasis in existing research. The majority of studies have
decision-making processes. This dimension underscores the significance centered around urban green infrastructures, delving into the nuances of
of inclusive and fair engagement of stakeholders in decision-making trees, parks, gardens, cemeteries, green streets, and green rooftops
(Anguelovski et al., 2020; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer (Chen et al., 2022; Martins, 2022; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2021a; Wu & Kim,
& Connolly, 2020). Moreover, Recognitional justice, or interactional 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Zhang
justice, involves acknowledging and valuing diverse social and cultural et al., 2022b). In contrast, there exists a noticeable gap in the attention
values, encompassing distinct notions of justice (He & Sikor, 2015), as given to other sources of UES, such as urban blue infrastructures like
well as understanding the unique needs and preferences of various social rivers, lakes, ponds, and canals, as well as urban green–blue in
groups (Dawson et al., 2018). The critical distinction between these two frastructures, including wetlands, riverbanks, and riparian zones (Ass
notions of justice lies in the active participation of stakeholders and muth et al., 2017; IPBES, 2019; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022b; Pineda-Pinto
fulfilling demands in the decision-making process. Researchers heavily et al., 2021b; Zaidi & Pitt, 2022). However, our study adopts a more
discussed these three concepts of justice under the environmental justice comprehensive perspective that encompasses a variety of UES sources
realm (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). beyond the conventional green ones. This broader view, including urban
In addition, restorative justice aims to rectify the adverse effects of social blue and urban green–blue infrastructures, is crucial for better sup
damage by revisiting past actions, rebuilding losses, and enhancing the porting urban inhabitants and promoting sustainable urban environ
productivity of any system. This concept focuses on stakeholders’ his ments (Thornhill et al., 2022). Importantly, this inclusive approach
torical deeds, emphasizing collaborative solutions to address and repair gains particular significance when examining different types and di
the harm caused (Aragão et al., 2018; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; mensions of justice related to UES.
Schlosberg, 2013). In light of this nuanced knowledge, it can be Despite the gaps mentioned above, the literature on UES and justice
concluded that updating and classifying (types and dimensions) of jus issues has significantly improved over the past few years. Further
tice in UES planning becomes imperative. This imperative arises as ty development of this field could entail comprehensive investigation into
pology (types), commonly employed to systematically categorize and UES sources, different types of UES, and various types and dimensions of
differentiate similar objects by applying specific criteria, facilitates justice related to UES. Such an effort is necessary to help us make sense
comparative analyses (Grabowski et al., 2022; Loos et al., 2023). In of the diverse underlying socio-environmental, ecological, and infra
contrast, dimension refers to a unique and specific aspect used for structural factors relevant to the just distribution of the UES. Further
describing any object. It represents a particular attribute that compares more, these efforts would provide a solid basis for presenting various
and analyzes objects (Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Zheng et al., alternatives to UES research, taking into account political, societal, and
2023). Within the realm of UES literature, the application of typology behavioral viewpoints. This systematic review will reveal broader ty
and dimensions to justice allows for a nuanced understanding and pology and dimensions related to justice in access to UES. This way, it
evaluation of this complex concept (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; can identify the knowledge deficit required to address policy implica
Pineda-Pinto et al., 2021a). By incorporating the conceptual knowledge tions and promote more sustainable, resilient, and healthful cities.
derived from previous justice research on UES, it is possible to ensure Hence, this study fills the research gap by answering the following
that principles such as fairness, inclusivity, and engagement with questions:
various stakeholders are considered in the design and implementation of
UES. The just distribution of UES could rely on social, economic, envi 1) To what extent has the concept of justice been explored in the UES
ronmental, managerial, and habitual preferences (Chen et al., 2022; literature?
3
2) Is there justice in access to UES? Table 1

Terms used for developing the search string.
The paper is organized into four sections. The following section de Justice Ecosystem Service* Urban
scribes the materials and methods, followed by a concise explanation of
Equit* AND Green Infrastructure* AND Cities
justice terminology. Following this, the third section offers an overview Disparit* Nature-based Town*
of the selected literature and presents the results of the content analysis, Equal* Cultural Metropolitan
leading into the fourth section which comprises critical discussion. Even Distribution Regulating City
Finally, the fourth section concludes the study and provides recom Spatial Distribution Supporting Neighbo*rhood
Fair* Provisioning
mendations for future research and practice.
2. Materials and methods and 3- be related to the cities. Of the 3306 articles screened, 110 met the
inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis. While analyzing
2.1. Literature search and selection strategy the contents of these articles, we added nine other relevant studies that
were not identified from the literature search but were cited in the
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews reviewed articles. Therefore, the total number of articles included in this
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart for the literature search and review is 119.
selection (Fig. 1). To search for relevant literature on our topic, we
developed a broad-based search string that includes different variants of
2.2. Defining the major terms
terms related to ES, justice, and urban areas. The initial search string was
developed based on existing review papers that were mentioned in the
Table 2 provides concise explanations for the key terms used
previous section. We then checked the initial results and added other
throughout the paper. Notably, we consider the concept of environ
potentially relevant terms. Terms included in the final search string are
mental justice as encompassing a broad and nuanced spectrum, inher
shown in Table 1 (see the Appendix (e-component) for the detailed
ently tied to the environmental dimension of UES. This stance allows us
search string).
to address the substantial overlap between environmental justice
The string was used to search for relevant literature in the Title,
research, social issues, and other related areas(Anguelovski et al., 2020;
Abstracts, and Keywords of papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS)
Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Schlos
and Scopus. These databases were selected for their broad coverage of
berg, 2013). For example, our approach to identifying issues of envi
quality peer-reviewed research related to our review topic. Our search at
ronmental justice is intimately attached to ensuring a fair and equitable
the end of 2022 returned 2026 and 1280 articles in WoS and Scopus,
allocation of the benefits and costs associated with UES among all so
respectively (totally 3306). It is worth noting that we only searched for
cietal groups. This endeavor extends beyond mere resource allocation,
articles written in English. After excluding duplicates, we had 3275 ar
encompassing broader initiatives aimed at fostering inclusive political
ticles in our review database. We screened the titles and abstracts of
processes and rectifying disparities in environmental risks and benefits
these papers and only retained articles that meet these inclusion criteria:
within communities (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Dawson et al.,
1- be focused on ES, 2- have a specific focus on issues related to justice,
2018; Kretsch & Kelemen, 2016; Nesbitt et al., 2019). Moreover, the
Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart outlining the article identification process (prisma-statement.org).
4
Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Definitions of different terms used in this study. Distributional Justice Fair allocation of and access to benefits and cost of
Urban Ecosystem (UE) - The term “urban ecosystem” describes the UES for all citizens spatially and temporally (
interconnected network of human settlements, Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer &
infrastructure, the built environment, and natural Connolly, 2020; Schlosberg, 2013). This principle
systems in and around urban areas (de Groot et al., emphasizes the equitable distribution of positive and
2002; MEA, 2005). negative outcomes associated with UES, ensuring
Urban Ecosystem Services UES refers to the advantages individuals derive from that communities, regardless of their location or
(UES) urban ecosystems. These benefits cover various timeframe.
aspects, including the supply of necessities like food Procedural Justice It underscores the importance of involving citizens
and water, the control of floods, droughts, and directly in decision-making processes and is also
diseases, habitat or support services like soil known as participatory justice. This justice
formation and nutrient cycling, and cultural benefits dimension underscores the significance of inclusive
such as recreation and spiritual well-being (Mader and fair engagement of stakeholders in decision-
et al., 2011; MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). making (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Calderón-Argelich
Urban Green Infrastructures Refers to a planned and designed greening network et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020;
of natural and semi-natural areas. It’s integrated Schlosberg, 2013).
with other environmental features and provides Recognitional Justice/ It acknowledges diverse social and cultural values,
various UES (Zuniga-Teran et al., 2021). It Interactional Justice encompassing distinct notions of justice, as well as
encompasses a variety of features such as green understanding the unique needs and preferences of
roofs, green walls, urban trees, parks, gardens, various social groups. This dimension places
cemeteries, green streets, canopy covers, and open emphasis on stakeholders’ emotions, desires, and
spaces (Branny et al., 2022; Buckland & Pojani, requirements, underlining the importance of
2022) integrating their input into UES planning. Also
Urban Blue Infrastructures Encompasses water bodies within urban settings, recognized as interactional justice (Calderón-
such as rivers, lakes, ponds, canals, and other Argelich et al., 2021; Dawson et al., 2018;
aquatic features (Assmuth et al., 2017; Thornhill Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Schlosberg, 2013).
et al., 2022). Restorative Justice/ To overcome the adverse effects of social damage,
Urban Green-Blue The compilation of blue and green infrastructures in Reparative Justice recall past actions in UES distribution and reclaim
Infrastructures urban settings that provide the UES. This includes their impact, also known as Reparative Justice (
wetlands, bioswales, riverbanks, riparian zones, and Aragão et al., 2018; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021;
similar structures (Li et al., 2021b). Schlosberg, 2013).
Access Refers to the capacity and/or ability of individuals
and/or communities to benefit from UES, based on
physical as well as intangible aspects such as shaping of policies and regulations related to UES is significantly
proximity, the presence or absence of barriers, influenced by political processes, underscoring their vital role in facili
distribution, design, values, preferences, safety, and
tating equal access to environmental resources (Schlosberg, 2013;
any elements influencing the fair supply of UES(
Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2023; Schlosberg et al., 2017). In addition, we distinguished ecological justice
Ramirez-Gomez et al., 2020; Salisu Barau & Stringer, concerns from environmental justice, which focuses on promoting eq
2015). uity for non-human beings instead of solely addressing environmental
Justice It encompasses the intensive effort to rectify issues (Grabowski et al., 2022). The remaining definitions related to
inequalities, foster inclusive societies, guarantee
access to amenities, and establish robust,
justice concerns and other key terms can be found in Table 2 below.
accountable institutions. These principles are
needed to pursue sustainable development and
aspire to create a global environment where 2.3. Approach to the literature analysis
everyone can lead a life of dignity and equal
opportunities (Cousins, 2021; Dawson et al., 2018; To analyze the contents of the selected papers, we developed a re
UN, 2015).
view protocol that covers different items ranging from general research
Generic The term is employed in this context to denote the
general state of affairs rather than a particular features to specific ecosystem and justice typologies (Table 3). We
instance. It means not spicified. employed deductive content analysis to extract relevant information
Environmental Justice It aims for equitable distribution of UES, ensuring from each reviewed paper. At first, we extracted the general overview of
fairness regardless of race, gender, income, or age. It each article (type of article, geographical focus, country, and specific
addresses inequalities in environmental risks and
benefits, promoting inclusivity and human well-
city). Then, we noted the UES types (i.e., provisioning, regulating, cul
being within environmental sustainability ( tural, habitat or supporting, and generic) and the sources of UES (i.e.,
Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Schlosberg, 2013). green infrastructures, blue infrastructures, green–blue infrastructures
Mobility Justice Used to boost societal standing and lead a better life etc.). In our study, we opted to adopt the categorizations of UES pro
by participating in UES sources (Sultana et al., 2020;
vided by both MEA and TEEB due to their well-established acceptance
Zuniga-Teran et al., 2021).
Ecological Justice Ecological justice extends beyond human concerns and pioneering roles in the global classification of ES (de Groot et al.,
and addresses justice among various entities, 2002; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012; MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). While
including animals, plants, and non-human beings ( acknowledging the contribution of CICES in recent literature, we pur
Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022a; Wienhues, 2017). It posefully refrain from emphasizing only standardized terminologies, as
emphasizes the ethical consideration and fair
treatment of non-human stakeholders in any
found in CICES. This choice aligns with the nature of our paper, where
ecological system. we seek to make our research inclusive and broad. The inclusiveness of
Infrastructural Justice It addresses historical and ongoing injustices these classifications aligns with the main goal of our study, which fo
resulting from mainstream infrastructure policies cuses on a comprehensive understanding of UES. Next, the justice status
and design practices, particularly those intersecting
(Yes = prevailed; Partial = somehow prevailed; No = not prevailed) was
with environmental justice concerns (Grabowski
et al., 2022). It emphasizes the need to tackle social noted by following the justice types and dimensions. In the status
and environmental inequalities ingrained in new categorization, ’Yes = prevailed’ is assigned to papers concluding that
infrastructure networks, recognizing the there are just and accessible UES. In such instances, city residents can
infrastructural work performed by nature. easily access and utilize the services. ’Partial = somehow prevailed’
describes situations where specific city members can access UES, but the
access is not regular or easily utilized. On the other hand, ’No = not
5
Table 3 2021). As part of this categorization, we included environmental,

Codification strategy to define the attributes of the papers. mobility, ecological, and infrastructural justices under the category of
Item Code type References “justice types,” while distributional, procedural, recognitional, and
restorative justices were grouped as “justice dimensions.” Notably,
Article type Case study, Research study, NA
Conceptual paper, Review another dimension of justice prevails in the literature, known as
paper epistemic justice (Mohtat & Khirfan, 2023). Epistemic justice centers
Geographical Global South, Global North, NA around the fair distribution of knowledge because acknowledging
focus Generic diverse perspectives is crucial in recognizing how power dynamics and
Case country Name of the country, Generic, NA
Not Specified
social structures shape our understanding. In this context, we aligned it
Case city Specific city name, Generic, NA with the principles of procedural justice, emphasizing the importance of
Not Specified inclusivity and transparency in decision-making processes. This
Typology of UES Provisioning, Regulating, Cruz-Sandoval et al. (2020); approach allowed us to comprehensively examine the various aspects of
Cultural, Habitat or MEA (2005); Mader et al.
justice in access to UES. The retention of a focus on environmental,
Supporting, Generic (2011); TEEB (2010) and
Herreros-Cantis and mobility, ecological, and infrastructural justice stems from recognizing
McPhearson (2021) the importance of a idealistic view of justice. As the field evolves,
Sources of Urban Urban Green Infrastructures, NA recognizing the complexities and varied justice perspectives related to
UES Urban Blue Infrastructures, distribution, procedure, restorative, and recognition also becomes
Urban Green-Blue
Infrastructures, Generic
crucial.
Classified UES Provisioning (Food Supply, Modified from de Groot et al. Finally, following the review protocol outlined in Table 3, we
Water Supply, Raw materials, (2002); (Mader et al., 2011; developed a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for data extraction. The first
Medicine, Timber, MEA, 2005) and (TEEB, author carefully read each paper to extract the relevant information and
Aquaculture, Foraging), 2010)
organized all the data and notes in spreadsheets. Subsequently, we
Regulating (Runoff/flood
mitigation, Cooling, Urban conducted simple descriptive statistics to analyze the collected data. In
heat mitigating Temperature/ addition, Sankey diagrams were created using the Chartexpo tool (htt
Climate Regulation, Waste ps://chartexpo.com/) to represent the findings visually.
treatment, Noise Reduction,
Air quality, Carbon Storage,
Erosion control, Pollination,
3. Results
gas regulation),
Cultural (Tourism, Social place, This section offers an overview of the literature on justice consider
Recreation, Beauty, Existence ations in accessing UES. This answers the first review question: To what
value, Environmental research,
extent has the concept of justice been explored in the UES literature? The
social interaction, Non-
material benefits, wildlife overview highlights the crucial role of UES in improving urban resi
viewing, bicycle parking dents’ overall quality of life. The subsequent subsections delve into a
through spiritual enrichment, more detailed description of the major aspects explored in this review.
cognitive development, social
Infrastructure, and aesthetic
experiences), and 3.1. Publication trends and geographical distribution of justice literature
Habitat services (Habitat for
species, biological diversity) As shown in Fig. 2, the number of publications addressing justice in
Supporting Services (soil access to UES has experienced a marked increase since 2011. Re
formation, energy saving,
searchers have notably increased publications, especially in the last four
public health, ecological
function, water storage) years, as reflected in the composition of our review database, which
Justice status Yes/No/Partial NA included 97 research papers and 21 review papers.The reviewed
Justice typology Environmental Justice, Based on Calderón-Argelich research papers mainly provided empirical contributions to UES justice
Mobility Justice, Ecological et al. (2021); Grabowski
studies, including modeling and simulation, case studies, and econo
Justice, Infrastructural Justice, et al. (2022); Nesbitt et al.
Generic (2018); and Schlosberg metric valuation. Conversely, the review papers in our database focused
(2013) on synthesizing existing knowledge and providing comprehensive in
Justice Distributional Justice, Based on Calderón-Argelich sights into UES justice studies through content analysis and systematic
dimensions Procedural Justice, et al. (2021); Zuniga-Teran review.
explored Recognitional/ Interactional et al. (2021); Langemeyer
In terms of publication sources, Landscape and Urban Planning,
Justice, Restorative/ and Connolly (2020);
Reparative justice, Generic Schlosberg (2013) and Urban Forestry & Urban Greening are the dominant journals, each
Aragão et al. (2018)
prevailed’ indicates no justice in access to UES, as indicated by the

literature. We acknowledge the potential overlap between the ’Partial’
and ’No’ statuses, both representing a lack of access to UES. However,
for our study, we determined that the ’Partial’ status implies a slightly
better situation than the ’No’ status, considering the nuances in the
literature.
While identifying the justice approaches or dimensions used by
relevant articles, we differentiated the wording of “justice typology” and
“justice dimension” in this review paper. The term “justice typology”
refers to classifying different types of justice to provide a framework to
comprehend and assess specific justice cases (Yang et al., 2021). In
contrast, the “justice dimension” concentrates on particular aspects of
Fig. 2. Trends of publications addressing justice in access to UES. (*) remarks
assessing and analyzing justice concerns (Calderón-Argelich et al., the number of review papers for that year.
6
featuring 13 articles. Other noteworthy journals are Environmental 2009; Sander et al., 2010). Consequently, research and policy attention
Science & Policy and Ecosystem Services, with 11 and 7 articles, shifts towards cultural and regulating UES, which have more immediate
respectively. According to our review database, which categorizes and visible impacts on urban residents’ well-being and require local
publications by geographic focus, 52 % of the studies concentrate on solutions. The result indicates that this shift significantly contributes to
cities in the Global North, whereas 33 % are directed towards cities in the underrepresentation of provisioning UES justices in scholarly liter
the Global South (Fig. 3). The remaining items are classified as generic in ature. It is worth noting that our database comprises nearly 29 articles
this study, not explicitly mentioning any geographical boundaries. where explicit information about the sources for UES types is not clearly
Among the Global North countries, the USA and Germany are dominant, stated. This deliberate inclusion is to ensure the comprehensiveness of
accounting for approximately half of the publication records. In our results. Notably, a significant portion of these articles are review
contrast, China stands at the forefront of UES research within the Global papers, wherein researchers purposefully refrain from specifying
South. As per the published paper counts from our review database, the particular UES types, contributing to the varied nature of our dataset
findings highlight a clear disparity in the distribution of research efforts (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2022; Pineda-Pinto et al.,
across different regions. There is a noticeable emphasis on urban areas in 2021b). Additionally, it should be noted that the categories are not
the Global North compared to the Global South. necessarily mutually exclusive, as a single article may have analyzed
multiple UES. This has been reflected in the numbers shown in Fig. 4 (a).
3.2. Types of ecosystem services explored in the justice literature The reviewed literature reveals several critical sources contributing
to the availability of UES. Among these sources, urban green in
The types of UES in justice studies show a clear preference for cul frastructures stand out by receiving significant attention in the literature
tural services, as evidenced by 50 out of 119 articles, with regulating (as shown in Fig. 4-b). On the contrary, urban blue infrastructures,
services following closely behind (as depicted in Fig. 4-a). Twenty-nine despite their significant environmental value, have largely been over
articles specifically addressed regulating services, while habitat or looked in the literature (Thornhill et al., 2022). Similarly, other sources
supporting and provisioning services were discussed in five and six ar of UES, such as urban green–blue infrastructures encompass riverbanks
ticles, respectively. For a more detailed description of the types of UES, and riparian zones, blue-green roofs, pocket parks with water features,
refer to (Appendix (e-component) Table A1). The dominance of cultural and sustainable drainage systems, as noted by Chen et al. (2021); (Li
UES in the reviewed literature is not surprising, given that ecosystems et al., 2021a).
often offer cultural benefits such as tourism, social gathering places, and In addition to the disparities found in UES sources, our results indi
recreational opportunities (MEA, 2005; Mears et al., 2019; Nawa, 2018). cate a shifting landscape in the diversity of UES types and sources,
It is important to note that each type of UES can also provide co-benefits. driven by an increasing number of papers addressing justice in access to
For example, cultural UES could also contribute to carbon-controlling UES. While cultural services still dominate the publications, there has
measures, which is the primary function of regulating services (Mabon been a recent surge in the importance of regulating services, attributed
et al., 2022). This interplay between different types of UES highlights the to their role in addressing climate change issues (Appendix (e-compo
interconnected nature of UES and underscores the importance of nent) Table A2). Furthermore, the importance of urban green–blue and
considering multiple dimensions when addressing justice in access to blue infrastructures is increasingly recognized, alongside urban green
UES. A nuanced insight has emerged from Fig. 4 (a), shedding light on infrastructures, as sources of UES. This changing trend in UES types and
the provisioning UES justice research and the underlying reasons for sources underscores the growing recognition of the interplay between
their limited representation in publications (6 %). Cities, especially in sustainability, equity, and climate resilience.
the Global North, often rely on global supply chains to import food,
water, and raw materials, reducing the perceived need to locally study 3.3. Typology and dimension: How justice is addressed in urban
and manage these services. This global outsourcing enables cities to ecosystem service literature
externalize environmental costs, leading to a decreased visibility and
relevance of provisioning UES within their urban settings (Fisher et al., In the realm of UES justice research, environmental justice addresses
Fig. 3. Geographical distribution of the reviewed articles (n = 103; the other 16 studies did not specify the country); the pie chart indicates the shared attention of
publications on justice issues in accessing UES.
7
Fig. 4. (a) The composition of UES typologies in ES literature (*paper counts for habitat = 2, supporting = 3); (b) Distribution of UES source types according to the
geographical focus.
social inequalities related to environmental impacts, considering a

broad array of socio-environmental factors (Anguelovski et al., 2020;
Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). It also
advocates for the fair and equitable distribution of benefits and costs
generated by UES across all groups in society.In addition, ecological
justice advocates for non-human entities (Hurley & Emery, 2018),
whereas infrastructural justice pertains to the equitable distribution of
built environment assets (Wang et al., 2017), and mobility justice
(Sultana et al., 2020) concerns the enhancement of societal status.
Conversely, UES justice dimensions directly emphasize issues related
to fair spatial allocation, citizen participation, user priority, and his
torical measurement. These dimensions correspond to distributional,
procedural, recognitional, and restorative justice, respectively, in UES
justice literature (Aragão et al., 2018; Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021).
The content analysis also revealed a noteworthy association between
the justice typology and the dimensions of justice related to UES. The
interlinked results (Figure A2 of Appendix(e-component)) show that
each type of UES justice category encompasses multiple justice di
mensions, incorporating various aspects. For instance, the environ
mental justice type mainly include distributional, procedural, and
recognitional justice dimensions. The distributional justice dimension
emerges as a priority since it directly addresses the fair allocation of
environmental burdens and benefits among different social groups and
regions. It also draws attention to the disparities in environmental
conditions and resource availability. Additionally, recognition justice
receives attention within the environmental justice type due to its focus
on citizen involvement. The ecological justice type involves distribu
tional and restorative justice dimensions, where historical evidence also
guides equitable access for non-human beings. In contrast, the infra
structural justice type highly emphasizes the distributional dimension,
aiming to ensure equitable access to UES through the equitable distri
bution of built environments and infrastructures. Last, the mobility
justice type solely prioritizes mass people participation, as citizens seek
Fig. 5. The classification of justice notions discussed in the UES literature.
to improve their way of living. Therefore, Fig. 5 presents a more precise
and contemporary perspective on the justice category. The figure de
diverse range of justice types being explored, with environmental justice
lineates typology and dimensions separately, providing a detailed
occupying the forefront of research attention.
illustration within the context of this study. The details of each type and
From the dimensional justice view, UES studies primarily concen
dimension will be discussed in the next section of this paper.
trate on distributional justice, with 55 out of 119 articles focusing on the
fair allocation of ES among urban residents (Fig. 7). Following that, the
3.4. Temporal shifts of justice notions in urban ecosystem service reviewed literature pays significant attention to recognitional justice (in
literature 21 articles), which prioritizes recognizing stakeholders’ needs and re
quirements in accessing UES. Another critical dimension discussed in
The trend of the reviewed literature (as shown in Fig. 6) indicates a the literature is procedural justice (in 11 articles), emphasizing stake
clear emphasis on environmental justice type, which is the primary focus holder participation in decision-making processes related to UES.
in 95 out of 119 studies. Among the reviewed studies, 9 investigated Furthermore, restorative justice is explored concerning climate change
infrastructural justice concerning the balanced distribution of built in risks and unusual historical activities in UES planning. Fig. 7 provides a
frastructures. Similarly, few studies delved into ecological justice, clear visual representation of a significant increase in the ’generic’
concentrating on the accessibility of non-human stakeholders within the dimension type, a trend that aligns with the observed rise in the number
city. However, only one study explores mobility justice concerning ac of review papers over recent years, as emphasized in Fig. 2. For the
cess to UES. Overall, the recent trend in UES justice studies indicates a review papers, there is a tendency not to specify particular dimension
8
Fig. 6. Temporal changes in focus on different types of justice in the reviewed papers.
Fig. 7. Temporal changes in focus on different dimensions of justice in the reviewed papers.
types within the articles (Calderón-Argelich et al., 2021; Kato-Huerta & geographic areas. In the Global North, injustices are predominantly
Geneletti, 2022; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). However, a critical driven by disparities in ethnicity, wealth, and skin color. On the other
issue is emerging as researchers increasingly seek to amalgamate more hand, in the Global South, factors such as ownership of UES and will
than one category to conduct a comprehensive examination of the jus ingness to pay for UES are significant drivers of injustices. In addition,
tice approach. For example, Wijsman and Berbés-Blázquez (2022) we found that 12 % of the reviewed studies reveal that partial justice
explored the combined dimensions of distributive, procedural, and (close to injustices) exists in access to UES. These studies underscore
recognitional in nature-based solutions, and Zuniga-Teran and Gerlak situations where certain communities enjoy more favorable access to
(2019) also focused on these three dimensions collectively for promot specific UES while others continue to experience injustice, perpetuating
ing just UES. social disparities. However, it is essential to recognize that amidst the
challenges of inequitable access, there are also examples of justice in
4. Discussion access to UES. One such study argues that residents of some commu
nities in Singapore can equitably access green gardens, providing them
This section answers the second review question: Is there justice in with improved access to UES (Law et al., 2022). This case serves as an
access to UES? Most of the publications (87 %) we reviewed highlight example of how justice in accessing UES can be improved. It highlights
that there is no justice in access to UES (Figure A1 of Appendix (e- the importance of exploring innovative approaches to ensure better
component)). These studies shed light on significant inequalities in the outcomes and more significant equity. In this section, we will explore
allocation and accessibility of UES among diverse social groups and how justice concepts relate to different types and sources of UES by
9
examining the relevant literature. these green infrastructures led to environmental injustices in both cases.
As a result, the environmental benefits and protections provided by
green streets and canopies were not equitably distributed among the
4.1. Exploring typological categories of justice status
residents, creating disparities in environmental quality and well-being
for specific communities. In Seikhupura, Pakistan, environmental in
4.1.1. Environmental justice
justices were exacerbated by the prevailing political instability and lack
As shown in Fig. 8, environmental justice has emerged as the most
of transparency in urban development practices (Arshad & Routray,
frequently discussed justice type in the literature. The overwhelming
2018). This situation resulted in limited access to UES for urban resi
consensus among almost all articles is the absence of environmental
dents unless they were favored by political leaders or had influential
justice in access to UES, except for a single case highlighting justice. This
connections. In both the USA and the UK, justice concerns related to
situation underscores a deep-seated concern within the research com
race, skin color, age, and ethnicity are recognized as primary issues in
munity about the widespread disparities in environmental justice. In
obtaining access to the cultural services of the existing UES (Mears et al.,
response, there’s a concerted effort to understand and address these
2019; Zaidi & Pitt, 2022). Where, in the USA, issues of racism and the
injustices, particularly those related to the distribution of UES. Envi
misuse of power create substantial barriers to community access to re
ronmental justice critically examines the interplay between environ
sources such as urban agriculture (Reynolds, 2015). As a result,
mental costs, the equitable distribution of natural resources, political
marginalized groups face social barriers, limiting their opportunities to
dynamics, and the benefits derived from UES. This examination extends
benefit from and contribute to sustainable urban agriculture initiatives.
to wide-ranging environmental and societal issues, focusing intently on
Additionally, the absence of justice prevailing in green school facilities
the dynamics that impact various social groups. Emphasis is placed on
in Spain heavily depends on societal ability and stratification among city
uncovering racial disparities, skin color inequalities, biased ownership
residents (Baró et al., 2021). This injustice in access to sustainable and
structures, and power imbalances. The nature of these challenges and
environmentally-friendly educational spaces has significant conse
the state of UES accessibility vary significantly, depending on the spe
quences, particularly for the well-being of school-age children in terms
cific type of UES and its availability, further complicating efforts toward
of their mental and physical health. Environmental injustice is also
achieving environmental justice. In terms of UES types, cultural UES, in
evident in China’s urban agglomeration zone due to the socioeconomic
particular, emerges as the most frequently explored type in the context
divide (Zhang et al., 2021). Higher-status individuals tend to live in the
of environmental justice concerns (Fig. 8). For instance, Kronenberg
city center, while those of lower status are confined to peripheral zones.
et al. (2021) conducted a study examining the accessibility of cultural
This divide significantly impacts access to UES. For instance, in the
UES through greening mechanisms in six developed countries,
urban agglomeration zone, the city center is notably connected to urban
approaching the topic from a justice-oriented standpoint. Their findings
parks. This leads higher status individuals to find it more convenient to
revealed the unequal distribution of green infrastructures, leading to
access cultural UES in these areas, compared to lower-status
environmental injustices within the community. This injustice not only
counterparts.
diminished the overall well-being and quality of life for residents but
Regarding the sources of cultural UES, urban green infrastructures
also perpetuated existing social and economic inequalities. This
are identified as the primary source, especially when addressing envi
perspective emphasizes that while the identified disparities are rooted in
ronmental justice issues in the reviewed literature (Fig. 8). Green roofs,
social factors, they are manifested through environmental channels.
green walls, urban trees, parks, gardens, cemeteries, green streets,
This demonstrates how environmental justice acts as a crucial bridge
canopy covers, and open spaces have emerged as the most frequently
linking environmental outcomes with the social fabric, thereby
explored sources of UES, playing a vital role in ensuring the availability
emphasizing the broad scope of social considerations essential in tack
and accessibility of cultural UES to diverse urban communities. There
ling environmental justice issues. Similarly, in Guanzhong Province,
are several reasons to prefer green infrastructures. They have a more
China, and Leipzig City, Germany, the implementation of green streets
positive effect on mental health and offer more opportunities for phys
and canopies demonstrated their potential to mitigate heat and storm
ical activity compared to other UES sources. They encourage people to
damage while providing shade, contributing positively to the environ
engage in activities such as cycling, walking, and running, leading to
mental well-being of the areas (Wang et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021).
better physical health and a reduced risk of chronic diseases (Sanchez &
However, despite these positive attributes, the unequal distribution of
Fig. 8. Understanding the typology of justice in access to UES. From left to right: UES sources, UES types, justice status, and justice types. Please find the detailed list
in (Appendix (e-component) Table A4).
10
Reames, 2019; Zhang et al., 2022b). Green infrastructures have a higher readily accessible green parks that provide regulating services facilitated
potential for biodiversity, which can contribute to the ecosystem’s by urban planning, sufficient funding provision, and active citizen
overall health. They encourage individuals to come together and engage involvement (Law et al., 2022). Hence, they enjoy a better quality of life,
in social events like picnics and sports, which can lead to improved including better health facilities, cooling facilities, and climate regula
social connections essential for mental and emotional well-being. A tion services. This justice scenario exemplifies the potential for ensuring
study conducted in the UK revealed that people who regularly visited equitable access to UES.
green spaces had lower levels of depression and anxiety than those who Regarding other UES types, including habitat or supporting and
did not (Zaidi & Pitt, 2022). Therefore, researchers prefer green in provisioning services, studies have analyzed accessible options for
frastructures due to their constructive influence on psychological health, people across various urban settings, such as urban streets, urban spaces,
physical activity, biodiversity, and social cohesion. However, the con green surfaces, and parks (Haase et al., 2017; Heck, 2021). However, the
tent analysis showed a significant deprivation of these facilities among unequal distribution and limited accessibility of these urban green in
urban populations, primarily due to social injustices (Fleischer et al., frastructures have posed significant challenges in achieving environ
2018; Nesbitt et al., 2019). mental justice in access to UES. In addition to urban green
Also, urban blue infrastructures play a significant role in providing infrastructures, researchers have also focused on urban green–blue in
several UES, although they have not been explored as extensively as frastructures as a potential source of UES, including wetlands, and
green infrastructures in addressing justice concerns. Blue infrastructures water-permeable surfaces. Surprisingly, there was a noticeable absence
offer a wide range of benefits, including water-based recreational ac of articles exploring urban blue infrastructures as the source of habitat
tivities, aesthetic enhancements, economic benefits through tourism, or supporting and regulating services. These studies also recognized that
waterfront development, dining and entertainment, and support for there is no justice in access to UES. Notably, a significant number of
diverse aquatic ecosystem options (Brill et al., 2022; Zaidi & Pitt, 2022). studies (26 out of 119) do not specify any particular UES type when
Among the blue infrastructures studied in the literature, rivers, canals, explaining the injustices in access to UES. Therefore, the literature has
waterfronts, and rainwater features emerge as the most common ele shed light on the injustices surrounding the availability of UES, sug
ments contributing to these valuable UES. Nevertheless, our results gesting that urban residents are significantly deprived of their social
suggest that there is no justice in access to cultural UES provided by activities in cultural UES. Overall, the evidence from the literature in
these blue infrastructures. This lack of justice is primarily attributed to dicates a lack of environmental justice in access to UES, with reliance
the limited access granted to particular communities, such as econom heavily placed on urban green infrastructures. The injustice in access to
ically disadvantaged and migrant populations (Kronenberg et al., 2021). UES has raised equity concerns and calls for comprehensive strategies to
Urban green–blue infrasructures serve as another significant source of ensure more inclusive access to vital environmental resources and
cultural UES, offering a wide array of urban services, such as preserving services.
aquatic ecosystems, providing cultural and aesthetic benefits, carbon
sequestration, air purification, stormwater management, biodiversity 4.1.2. Infrastructural justice
support, and recreational opportunities (Groulx et al., 2022). These Infrastructural justice in accessing UES has received limited atten
services could provide a shared space for community members to tion. However, it is crucial to recognize that this dimension plays a
improve their mental condition. Integrating both blue and green in pivotal role in ensuring the fair allocation of infrastructure networks,
frastructures into UES planning has been recognized as a strategic including green/gray hybrids or green infrastructures specifically
approach to optimize synergistic advantages and enhance the overall designed to deliver UES. Infrastructural justice involves the equitable
accessibility and habitability of urban areas (Gourevitch et al., 2021; design and allocation of such infrastructures, allowing all stakeholders
Welivita et al., 2021). However, as with other UES sources, there are still to benefit from heat control, water table balancing and others. As
justice concerns in accessing cultural UES provided by urban green–blue illustrated in Fig. 8, the research findings indicate a deficiency in
infrastructures. Specific communities, such as different age groups and infrastructural justice when accessing UES, particularly in the context of
lower status communities, are disproportionately deprived of these regulating UES.
benefits (Shah & Garg, 2017). Infrastructural justice is closely tied to the installation and allocation
The second most explored UES type is regulating UES, which in of various elements, including national parks, green or blue infrastruc
cludes cooling, urban heat mitigation, temperature/climate regulation, ture, and built/gray infrastructures. The literature sheds light on issues
waste treatment, and other facilities. However, social issues often hinder related to infrastructural distribution, justice agendas, and the impor
urban residents from thoroughly enjoying the benefits of regulating tance of addressing UES disparities (Swapan et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
services. For instance, in Colombia’s Medellin Green Belt project, 2017). In the case of St. Louis, USA, Heck (2021) emphasized the sig
rural–urban migrants sought communal living in substandard condi nificance of prioritizing justice in infrastructure allocation to protect
tions, classifying them as impoverished communities (Anguelovski et al., communities from flooding. However, the residents in St. Louis still face
2019). As a result, they faced challenges in leading safe lives due to severe disparities in accessing green and blue infrastructures, illus
inadequate access to regulating services. Also, Guadalajara’s community trating the existence of infrastructural injustices in the region. Similarly,
in Mexico faced similar environmental justice issues (Cruz-Sandoval an integrated framework addressing the spatiotemporal variability of
et al., 2020). The absence of successful governance and urban planning UES supply and distribution was explored in Xi’an City, China (Dang
in Guadalajara led to ineffective measures in providing shade through et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022). This framework revealed the current
ample roadside trees during hot summers. Consequently, the envisioned scenario of unjust infrastructural distribution and identified the most
environmental benefits failed to adequately address concerns related to suitable distribution solutions to ease access for the community. Simi
environmental justice, resulting in an unequal allocation and distribu larly, Iran has a wealth of infrastructure, such as waterfalls, bridges, and
tion of resources within urban areas. This situation enabled disparities green covers. However, the equal distribution of these facilities faces
among residents, highlighting the need for improved governance and numerous restrictions, mainly due to geographical barriers (Ghorbani
planning to ensure fair access to UES for all community members. In et al., 2021). The uneven terrain prevents smooth infrastructural setup,
addition, Yang et al. (2020) highlighted similar issues in urban areas of leading to potential injustices for people residing in such regions. These
Yunnan, China, finding that extreme weather events and heat waves circumstances directly affect urban dwellers’ ability to access basic
significantly impact marginalized communities due to the lack of access needs in a secure manner.
to green parks. Biased urban planning, improper implementation prac In terms of the sources of UES, urban green–blue infrastructures
tices, and inadequate knowledge contributed to environmental in emerged as the primary source of regulating services, effectively
justices in this case. In contrast, the city residents of Singapore enjoy addressing infrastructural justice issues in the literature. In the context
11
of Cuba, the literature specifically highlights the discussion surrounding communities faced barriers in accessing central parks due to political
the demand–supply relationship for various physical infrastructures, and societal stratification issues. Similarly, Baró et al. (2021) investi
focusing on the synergies between green and blue infrastructures (Ortiz gated environmental and social justice concerns on the campuses of
& Geneletti, 2018). However, this interplay has also revealed instances Barcelona’s primary schools. Economic stratification and school size
of infrastructural injustice, where the lack of proper alignment and emerged as the main driving forces behind the injustices. Children from
integration of these infrastructures may lead to disparities in access to lower-income neighborhoods had limited access to green spaces and
UES. nature-based learning opportunities within their school environments.
In addition, Egerer et al. (2020) emphasized the necessity of social and
4.1.3. Ecological justice ecological justice imperatives in three American cities. Their compre
While discussing the accessibility of UES, ecological justice concerns hensive study explored the interplay between social status and access to
have received relatively less attention (Fig. 8). This type of justice is UES. The findings revealed notable injustices, as individuals with higher
centered on the rights of non-human beings to access UES. Ecological status often had greater access to the UES than those with lower status.
justice emerges as a recent and crucial concern for Earth’s well-being,
given that any disruption in ecological balance can impede progress 4.2. Exploring dimensional categories of justice status
toward achieving just cities. This concern gains further significance due
to the heavy reliance of human existence on non-human beings. If the 4.2.1. Distributional justice
ecological balance is not confirmed, it can lead to irreversible destruc In the literature, access to UES has primarily been examined through
tion, profoundly affecting all facets of Earth’s development and poten the lens of the distributional justice dimension. This approach empha
tially undermining the pursuit of just cities (Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022b). sizes considering various social, environmental, and ecological factors to
Acknowledging and prioritizing ecological justice is essential for main design and comprehend the dynamics of distributional justice. Our
taining a harmonious coexistence with the natural environment and analysis highlights a notable lack of distributional justice in accessing
ensuring a sustainable future for the next generations. UES. In the context of the Global South, attention has been drawn to
Fig. 8 depicts the simultaneous focus of ecological justice on regu institutional barriers, where a lack of specialized institutions dedicated
lating, habitat or supporting, and cultural UES, while also emphasizing to addressing distributional justice hampers the effective planning and
the significance of urban green and blue infrastructures as essential allocation of UES. On the other hand, in the Global North, the focus has
sources of UES. However, this focus has resulted in limited accessibility primarily been on social barriers, such as income disparities, racial
to these services for many individuals. For example, studies conducted inequality, and skin color biases, which contribute to distributional in
by Pineda-Pinto et al., (2022b) and Shortly and Kepe (2020) examined justices in access to UES.
the state of forageable woody species in Australia, USA, and Canada. As depicted in Fig. 9, distributional justice issues have predomi
These studies revealed a concerning absence of preservation policies for nantly been addressed in the context of cultural and regulating UES,
these distinct species, leading to their disappearance and resulting in specifically emphasizing green infrastructures as the primary source. For
ecological injustice. The loss of these woody species affects biodiversity example, studies have examined the spatial availability of parks in
and has potential consequences for the broader ecosystem and the well- American cities, Cuba, and two European cities (Buckland & Pojani,
being of communities dependent on them. Similarly, the urbanization 2022; Ortiz & Geneletti, 2018). These studies reveal how park allocation
process in the Pearl River Delta region of China has profoundly impacted significantly influences the distribution of green spaces and can
the human-nature relationship, leading to a range of unprotected contribute to health disparities among diverse racial groups. The find
ecological issues due to a lack of provision for ecological justice (Chen ings demonstrate that the unequal distribution of parks disproportion
et al., 2021). The rapid expansion of urban areas, infrastructure devel ately affects certain racial groups, exacerbating existing health
opment, and industrialization have significantly pressured the region’s disparities and perpetuating social inequities. In the context of green
natural resources and ecosystems. The resulting loss of green spaces, schoolyards in Barcelona, Spain, there was an apparent injustice in ac
biodiversity, and UES has exacerbated environmental challenges, with cess between individuals of higher and lower status (Baró et al., 2021).
communities often bearing the brunt of these adverse effects. These This distributional injustice has significant implications for children
cases highlight the importance of addressing ecological justice concerns from lower-status communities, as it hampers their access to educational
and ensuring fair access to UES through urban green and blue in support and their ability to maintain mental well-being. The unjust
frastructures to maintain a balanced ecosystem. distribution of green schoolyards perpetuates long-term consequences
on the development and opportunities accessible to these underprivi
4.1.4. Mobility justice leged children.
Mobility justice has received the least attention, with only one article Also, a study in Bandung City, Indonesia, exposed the unjust distri
addressing the improvement of stakeholders’ social status by ensuring bution of street trees (Afriyanie et al., 2020). Street trees are crucial for
barrier-free access to UES. This study focused on urban green parks near local temperature regulation and for minimizing the urban heat island
urban informal settlements in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and aimed to examine effect. They offer substantial advantages to both the urban environment
the accessibility of UES by informal settlers (Sultana et al., 2020). Their and the well-being of its inhabitants. However, limited access to these
findings revealed that informal settlers were denied access to the nearest regulating UES had detrimental effects on the residents’ quality of life.
parks due to societal classification, resulting in marginalized individuals The unjust distribution of street trees impacts the urban environment
being deprived of advancements in life, including access to good mental and intensifies environmental disparities and social injustices among
health facilities and improved quality of life. In this context, the lack of residents. Moreover, European green regeneration projects have wit
mobility justice highlights the need for inclusive urban planning and nessed significant distributional injustices, with accessibility being
policies prioritizing equitable UES access for all communities, regardless controlled by factors such as skin color and racial segregation (Haase
of socio-economic status. et al., 2022). This unfortunate reality highlights how environmental
It is worth noting that several articles have emphasized addressing resources and benefits are unequally distributed among different com
more than one type of justice, and some cases did not clarify the specific munities, perpetuating social and environmental injustices. Studies
notion of justice regarding access to UES (Generic). These studies pro conducted in Xian City and Wuhan, China found a lack of distributional
vide diverse perspectives on justice-related concerns, encompassing justice in access to UES, indicating that the economic valuation and pay-
various categories on a single platform. For instance, Diep et al. (2022) per-use concept did not effectively facilitate the provision of UES (Cheng
delved into social and environmental issues in Sao Paulo, aiming to et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2017). For instance, in these cities, certain major
promote fair outcomes. The study highlighted how marginalized parks did not offer free access to the public. However, city residents
12
Fig. 9. Understanding the dimensional view of justice in access to UES. From left to right: UES sources, UES types, justice status, and justice dimensions.. Please find
the detailed list in (Appendix (e-component) Table A4).
resisted paying the required entry fee, resulting in a decline in park community parks in Bologna, Italy, and San Juan, USA (De Luca et al.,
visitation. The declining number of visitors affected revenue collection, 2021; Olivero-Lora et al., 2019). Consequently, community members
resulting in a lower budget for maintaining and repairing the park fa were deprived of access to adequate cultural UES, including running,
cilities. Consequently, the park’s amenities were not adequately main walking, and passive exercise, due to the unfamiliar layout and limited
tained, and residents were deprived of the opportunity to enjoy them. space provided within the park. The same situation was identified in
This situation highlights the barriers to accessing cultural UES. Global South countries like India and South Africa, where Nesbitt et al.
Conversely, there has been a limited focus on studies emphasizing (2019) observed that authorities made decisions concerning community
distributional injustices related to provisioning and habitat or support parks without addressing the demands of the local communities.
ing UES stemming from green and blue infrastructures. For example, Consequently, these parks failed to align with the recreation needs of the
Thornhill et al. (2022) conducted a study highlighting the unequal dis community. This lack of consideration for user preferences and needs in
tribution of community watersheds in Mexico City, Mexico, and Bristol, park design underlined the importance of community input. By priori
UK. The research revealed that social segregation, encompassing factors tizing residents’ demands, parks can become more user-friendly and
such as racial issues, skin color, and geographical considerations, culturally relevant, ultimately improving the well-being and enjoyment
significantly hinders equitable access to the habitat or supporting UES in of those areas. In Leipzig, Germany, green parks were used by people of
these regions. These findings shed light on the injustices specific com all age groups, but the older community was deprived of accessing their
munities face, as they are deprived of the benefits and services these UES desired facilities within the parks (Kabisch & Kraemer, 2020). In Denver,
provide. Such injustices in access to habitat or supporting UES can Colorado, an alarming issue has been observed where low-income young
exacerbate existing socio-economic inequalities and environmental people rarely utilize urban parks for physical exercise and mental health,
vulnerabilities. Similarly, in China’s Pearl River Delta region, an unlike their earlier generation (Rigolon, 2017). This situation highlights
imbalanced distribution of green–blue infrastructures hindered the local the presence of recognitional injustices, where there is a lack of facilities
community’s access to provisioning services such as fish hunting and that can attract young people. This situation highlights the injustices in
aquatic services (Chen et al., 2021). As a result, community members access to park amenities, underscoring the significance of considering
faced a significant lack of basic needs, imposing an extra burden on them different age groups’ diverse needs and preferences during the design
to obtain these essential facilities from the market. This inequitable and maintenance of urban green spaces.
distribution of green–blue infrastructures undermines environmental In contrast, very few articles depicted the recognition of other UES
justice and creates economic and social disparities within the commu types, including provisioning, regulating, and habitat or supporting
nity. The lack of a well-planned and equitable distribution of UES hin services (García-Nieto et al., 2015; Graça et al., 2018). When consid
ders the ability of urban communities to fully benefit from the services ering the sources of these UES, it is evident that most focus on recog
and benefits provided by their natural environment. nizing user preferences was centered around urban green
infrastructures, while urban blue infrastructures and urban green–blue
4.2.2. Recognitional justice infrastructures were rarely explored in this context. For instance, in the
The second most explored justice dimension is recognitional, which case of Rhode Island, USA, the design of watersheds faced significant
centers around individual needs and perceptions. This approach delves influence from authorities, resulting in the unfortunate oversight and
into understanding how people’s unique requirements and perspectives neglect of stakeholders’ demands (Martin et al., 2018). As a result, those
influence their access to UES and the recognition of their rights con watersheds were not fully functional as designed, and they failed to
cerning UES. Despite its importance, our analysis revealed that urban provide the necessary habitat or supporting facilities to meet the
residents are often deprived of the opportunity to share their preferences stakeholders’ requirements. A parallel scenario unfolded in Finland,
in UES planning, leading to recognitional injustices (Fig. 9). where stakeholders’ demands and desires were similarly overlooked in
Most of the reviewed articles underscore cultural UES as the pre the planning of urban green–blue infrastructures, particularly riverfront
dominantly studied type when examining the concept of recognitional green spaces (Assmuth et al., 2017). This neglect resulted in an insuf
justice in the context of UES access. For example, researchers discovered ficient supply of provisioning services, including habitats for certain
that users’ choices and attitudes had been overlooked when designing species. In summary, recognitional injustice impacts socially vulnerable
13
groups, leaving them overlooked and deprived of specific advantages errors and prioritizing the fair distribution of UES can contribute to
that could address their identities, needs, and practices. creating more equitable and inclusive urban environments.
4.2.3. Procedural justice 5. Conclusion

The procedural justice dimension has received less attention than
distributional justice. This dimension focuses explicitly on citizen To address justice in accessing UES, it is necessary to develop a
involvement and their role in the decision-making process to ensure comprehensive framework considering different types and dimensions
accessible provisions of UES. of justice. This framework will help to identify specific categories of
The literature discusses procedural justice issues concerning cultural justice that require more attention, leading to a more inclusive city life
UES and urban green infrastructures as the primary source of UES where everyone has equal access to UES. Additionally, it is important to
(Fig. 9). In addition to this type of UES, the procedural dimension also consider the functional classifications of different types of UES and
considers habitat or supporting and regulating services. Overall, the examine their distribution equitably based on available sources. This
literature shows limitations in terms of procedural justice in access to review paper emphasizes the need to avoid the traditional mismatching
UES. For example, in Guadalajara, Mexico, urban parks have diverse among different types and dimensions of justice found in the literature.
stakeholders, including people of different ages, races, and socioeco It advocates for practical implementation strategies that differentiate
nomic backgrounds (Cruz-Sandoval et al., 2020). However, the city’s these aspects related to UES. While there has been some progress toward
stakeholders had no opportunity to contribute to the decision-making studying UES justice, it should be acknowledged that this shift remains
process for the park’s layout. As a result, all classes of people were not relatively limited. Another important observation is that cities in the
receiving cultural benefits, such as leisure time expansion, social spaces, Global South are not adequately represented in the peer-reviewed
and recreational opportunities. Further, the involvement of citizens in literature on UES justice. This underrepresentation raises concerns, as
obtaining UES facilities is often judged by their social status. For these cities are expected to experience substantial urban growth in the
example, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, informal settlers in a slum had no space future and are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change
to be involved in green park planning priorities, resulting in them being (UNDESA, 2018). Therefore, further investigation into the justice status
excluded and ignored from accessing park facilities (Sultana et al., of UES accessibility options in Global South cities is crucial.
2020). Additionally, the initiative to rebuild High Line facilities in New Results showed that the distribution of UES literature primarily fo
York, USA, excluded disadvantaged populations from playing a role as cuses on urban green infrastructures in the environment when assessing
facilitators, further contributing to procedural injustice (Loughran, justice issues (Buckland & Pojani, 2022; Enssle & Kabisch, 2020).
2014). This exclusion highlights the limitations of relying solely on fair Notably, blue infrastructures are overlooked in this context. Also, the
and participatory procedures to achieve justice. contributions of urban green–blue infrastructures as primary sources of
However, an ongoing debate persists on whether fair and partici UES are underrepresented (Li et al., 2021b; Thornhill et al., 2022). The
patory procedures alone suffice for achieving justice or if they are literature revealed that we must leverage all available sources to pro
necessary but not entirely comprehensive (Cousins, 2021). This debate mote a sustainable and equitable urban environment. In terms of UES
is particularly relevant in the context of UES justice, where complex type, cultural UES has received more attention than other types of UES
factors come into play. While participation in decision-making processes in addressing justice concerns in the literature. This focus on cultural
is undoubtedly essential, it may not be sufficient due to the subjective UES is attributed to its pivotal role in providing venues for communal
nature of UES. This subjective nature includes individual preferences, gatherings leisure activities and fostering social unity. Moreover, cul
cultural beliefs, and societal contexts that influence people’s access to tural UES offers opportunities for meditation, aesthetic appreciation,
and perceptions of UES (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Reynolds, 2015). and an escape from the demands of city life. However, it is suggested
Therefore, developing a comprehensive framework for UES justice re that UES should be regarded as pioneers in providing regulating mea
quires addressing the interconnected issues of recognition, distribution, sures against potential calamities on Earth, enabling city residents to
space, and time separately. lead a risk-free urban life (Herreros-Cantis & McPhearson, 2021; Kro
nenberg et al., 2021). Additionally, the results of this review challenge
4.2.4. Restorative justice our understanding of justice by delving into a diverse array of justice
This dimensional category includes accountability, dialogue, inclu notions. The study offers a comprehensive typological and dimensional
sion, and voluntary participation attitudes of UES users. It seeks his categorization of justice at the urban scale. The findings highlight that
torical remedies for past harm to the UES and aims to restore their status more evidence has been reported on social and environmental types of
by ensuring equitable access for current users. However, the reviewed justice and distributional and recognitional dimensions of justice.
articles highlighted a lack of restorative justice in UES literature, indi The discussion Section also sheds light on the state of accessibility of
cating a gap in addressing historical measures (Fig. 9). UES. In fact, the critical analysis of each type and dimension of justice
In addressing the restorative dimension, urban green infrastructure reveals a lack of justice in access to UES, encompassing socio-economic
emerges as the most influential source in providing regulating and cul and environmental issues. For instance, it has been highlighted that the
tural UES. For instance, the historical exclusion of disadvantaged com scholarly discussion on justice issues often overlooks important factors
munities in building inclusive green parks is still being overlooked when such as race, skin color, gender, age group, education, economic status,
proposing future city plans in Guangzhou, China (Wang et al., 2022). and geographical location. Notably, there is a significant lack of schol
This prevailing attitude led to entry options remaining centered around arly focus on the interplay between gender, disabled persons, and UES,
higher-status people. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Manchester, UK, a similar as discussed by Rigolon et al. (2018). Additionally, immigrants with
situation was observed where planning agencies overlooked the nega racialized backgrounds face significant barriers to accessing UES due to
tive impact of park centralization and disregarded historical evidence marginalization, exclusion, and discriminatory practices (Łaszkiewicz
(Diep et al., 2022; Mears et al., 2019). Consequently, many community et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Considering this, it is argued that
members are still deprived of access to UES, including cooling services, incorporating infrastructural and mobility types of justice provides a
exercise, and fresh air facilities. Furthermore, in New York City, USA, broader typological perspective. Moreover, including the restorative,
the priority of distributing forageable woody species has been over dimension of justice expands the dimensional view of assessing the state
looked, resulting in an insufficient supply of this service (Hurley & of justice.
Emery, 2018). Even in recent times, authorities have continued to pay Considering the results of this study, several major policy implica
less attention to these species, disregarding their historical impact and tions could be highlighted to promote justice in access to UES. In
perpetuating restorative injustice in accessing UES. Addressing previous particular, giving more attention to integrated UES justice is needed as it
14
can effectively engage community groups in collaboratively shaping Declaration of competing interest
UES to foster sustainable and just urban environments. This endeavor
aligns with the pursuit of Goal No. 10 (reducing inequalities) and Goal The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
11 (establishing sustainable cities and communities) of the United Na interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
tions Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). In addition, promot the work reported in this paper.
ing the development and maintenance of wetlands and parks, among
other green and blue urban infrastructures, may increase access to UES Data availability
and boost general well-being. The preservation of biodiversity must also
be a top priority since it is essential for preserving ecological functioning Data will be made available on request.
and offering a wide range of benefits. Complementary to preservation
policies, educational initiatives and outreach activities are indispensable Appendix A. Supplementary data
for raising public awareness and understanding of justice concerns.
However, to ensure fair access to UES, researchers should not only focus Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
on distributional justice. Instead, there is a need for comprehensive org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101617.
research and urban planning agendas that integrate justice consider
ations. Financial incentives and assistance can be pivotal in motivating References
initiatives that ensure equal access to UES in impoverished regions.
Initiatives to strengthen local institutions’ and organizations’ capacity Afriyanie, D., Julian, M.M., Riqqi, A., Akbar, R., Suroso, D.S.A., Kustiwan, I., 2020. Re-
can enable them to collaborate on UES management and planning. The framing urban green spaces planning for flood protection through socio-ecological
resilience in Bandung City, Indonesia. Cities 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
last stage in establishing just access to UES for current and future gen cities.2020.102710.
erations is to create and enforce rules and regulations that protect UES Althor, G., Witt, B., 2020. A quantitative systematic review of distributive environmental
and incorporate justice concepts into policy frameworks. Finally, justice literature: a rich history and the need for an enterprising future. J. Environ.
Stud. Sci. 10 (1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-019-00582-9.
implementing these policy measures is critical to achieving a more
Amorim Maia, A.T., Calcagni, F., Connolly, J.J.T., Anguelovski, I., Langemeyer, J., 2020.
sustainable, just, climate-resilient, and thriving environment. Hidden drivers of social injustice: uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services
Overall, this study has made progress in enhancing our under behind green gentrification. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 254–263. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.021.
standing of the interactions between justice types, dimensions, and UES
Anguelovski, I., Irazábal-Zurita, C., Connolly, J.J.T., 2019. Grabbed urban landscapes:
types and sources. However, despite the progress made, there are still socio-spatial tensions in green infrastructure planning in medellín. Int. J. Urban Reg.
important gaps that require further investigation. One crucial area that Res. 43 (1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12725.
requires attention is the lack of representation from the Global South in Anguelovski, I., Brand, A.L., Connolly, J.J.T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia-
Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., del Pulgar, C.P.,
the peer-reviewed literature on UES justice. Moreover, understanding Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., Argüelles Ramos, L., 2020. Expanding the boundaries of
the co-benefits, trade-offs, and synergies associated with various types of justice in urban greening scholarship: toward an emancipatory, antisubordination,
UES is essential for making informed decisions in urban planning and intersectional, and relational approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110 (6), 1743–1769.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579.
policymaking. Expanding the scope of factors considered in managing Aragão, L.E.O.C., Anderson, L.O., Fonseca, M.G., Rosan, T.M., Vedovato, L.B., Wagner, F.
UES injustices is also crucial for future research. This could involve H., Silva, C.V.J., Silva Junior, C.H.L., Arai, E., Aguiar, A.P., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E.,
actively incorporating stakeholders with varying demands and points of Deeter, M.N., Domingues, L.G., Gatti, L., Gloor, M., Malhi, Y., Marengo, J.A.,
Miller, J.B., Saatchi, S., 2018. 21st Century drought-related fires counteract the
view to ensure that their voices and perspectives are considered. Addi decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 536.
tionally, exploring new qualitative methodologies can complement https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y.
existing approaches and provide deeper insights into the social com Arshad, H.S.H., Routray, J.K., 2018. From socioeconomic disparity to environmental
injustice: the relationship between housing unit density and community green space
plexities and nuances of UES justice.
in a medium city in Pakistan. Local Environ. 23 (5), 536–548. https://doi.org/
Furthermore, this study primarily focused on two distinct categories 10.1080/13549839.2018.1442424.
(types and dimensions) of justice notions. However, there is a need for Assmuth, T., Hellgren, D., Kopperoinen, L., Paloniemi, R., Peltonen, L., 2017. Fair blue
urbanism: demands, obstacles, opportunities and knowledge needs for just
more research on the synergistic combination of multiple justice cate
recreation beside Helsinki Metropolitan Area waters. Int. J. Urban Sustainable Dev. 9
gories to develop a comprehensive understanding. Specifically, this (3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2017.1370423.
entails investigating potential fluid boundaries between social and Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Degerman, E., Teitelbaum, S., Andersson, K., Elbakidze, M.,
environmental justice in the context of accessing UES. In addition, future Drotz, M.K., 2013. Social and cultural sustainability: criteria, indicators, verifier
variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning. Ambio 42
research should prioritize identifying marginalized communities by (2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
analyzing historically disadvantaged populations’ beliefs, actions, and Baró, F., Camacho, D.A., Del Pulgar, C.P., Triguero-Mas, M., Anguelovski, I., 2021.
identities regarding justice status. Such an in-depth analysis will shed School greening: Right or privilege? Examining urban nature within and around
primary schools through an equity lens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 208, 104019.
light on the specific challenges these communities face and provide Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., 2015. Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services:
valuable insights for developing case-specific solutions that serve their Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 187–199. https://doi.
unique needs and circumstances. In addition, it should be noted that this org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011.
Branny, A., Møller, M.S., Korpilo, S., McPhearson, T., Gulsrud, N., Olafsson, A.S.,
study solely addresses justice measures in urban areas mentioned in the Raymond, C.M., Andersson, E., 2022. Smarter greener cities through a social-
peer-reviewed literature. Hence, future research should encompass the ecological-technological systems approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 55 https://
examination of justice notions discussed in the gray literature as well. doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101168.
Brill, G.C., Anderson, P.M.L., O’Farrell, P., 2022. Relational values of cultural ecosystem
Finally, this paper has only focused on the state of justice in access to
services in an urban conservation area: the case of table mountain National Park,
UES; it does not extensively analyze the driving forces and key barriers South Africa. Land 11 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050603.
behind the injustice. Therefore, it becomes imperative to identify spe Buckland, M., Pojani, D., 2022. Green space accessibility in Europe: a comparative study
of five major cities. Eur. Plan. Stud. 31 (1), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/
cific barriers and driving forces that contribute to mapping out case-
09654313.2022.2088230.
specific injustices in future research. Calderón-Argelich, A., Benetti, S., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J., Langemeyer, J.,
Baró, F., 2021. Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the
urban ecosystem service literature: A systematic review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 214,
CRediT authorship contribution statement
104130.
Carse, A., 2012. Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal
Md. Nazmul Haque: Software, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data watershed. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42 (4), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/
curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ayyoob 0306312712440166.
Chen, Y., Ge, Y., Yang, G., Wu, Z., Du, Y., Mao, F., Liu, S., Xu, R., Qu, Z., Xu, B., 2022.
Sharifi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – orig Inequalities of urban green space area and ecosystem services along urban center-
inal draft, Writing – review & editing. edge gradients. Landsc. Urban Plan. 217, 104266.
15
Chen, J., Kinoshita, T., Li, H., Luo, S., Su, D., Yang, X., Hu, Y., 2023. Toward green García-Nieto, A.P., Quintas-Soriano, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C.,
equity: An extensive study on urban form and green space equity for shrinking cities. Martín-López, B., 2015. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of
Sustain. Cities Soc. 90, 104395 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104395. stakeholders‫ ׳‬profiles. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chen, X., Li, F., Li, X., Hu, Y., Hu, P., 2021. Quantifying the demographic distribution ecoser.2014.11.006.
characteristics of ecological space quality to achieve urban agglomeration Ghorbani, S., Salehi, E., Faryadi, S., Jafari, H.R., 2021. Analyzing urban environmental
sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (9) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ justice based on supply, demand, and access to cooling ecosystem services in Tehran,
ac109b. Iran. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 65 (2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Cheng, P., Min, M., Hu, W., Zhang, A., 2021. A framework for fairness evaluation and 09640568.2021.1882964.
improvement of urban green space: a case of wuhan metropolitan area in China. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
Forests 12 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070890. urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., 2018. Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and ecolecon.2012.08.019.
what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 70, 298–312. https://doi. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D.N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T.,
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017. O’Farrell, P., Andersson, E., Hamstead, Z., Kremer, P., 2013. Urban Ecosystem
Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., Hedlund, K., 2021. Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service Services. In: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J.,
assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations. McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 213, 104129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and
landurbplan.2021.104129. Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 175–251. https://
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11.
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. Gourevitch, J.D., Alonso-Rodriguez, A.M., Aristizabal, N., de Wit, L.A., Kinnebrew, E.,
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630), Littlefield, C.E., Moore, M., Nicholson, C.C., Schwartz, A.J., Ricketts, T.H., 2021.
253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0. Projected losses of ecosystem services in the US disproportionately affect non-white
Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., and lower-income populations. Nat. Commun. 12 (1), 3511. https://doi.org/
Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. 10.1038/s41467-021-23905-3.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 152–158. Grabowski, Z.J., Matsler, A.M., Thiel, C., McPhillips, L., Hum, R., Bradshaw, A.,
Cousins, J.J., 2021. Justice in nature-based solutions: Research and pathways. Ecol. Miller, T., Redman, C., 2017. Infrastructures as Socio-Eco-Technical Systems: Five
Econ. 180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106874. Considerations for Interdisciplinary Dialogue. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (4), 02517002.
Crump, B. (2023). What Is the Difference Between Environmental and Social Justice. Ben https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000383.
Crump Law. Retrieved November 19 from https://bencrump.com/environmental- Grabowski, Z.J., Wijsman, K., Tomateo, C., McPhearson, T., 2022. How deep does justice
justice-lawyer/what-is-the-difference-between-environmental-and-social-justice/#: go? Addressing ecological, indigenous, and infrastructural justice through nature-
~:text=Environmental%20justice%20is%20primarily%20concerned,treatment% based solutions in New York City. Environ. Sci. Policy 138, 171–181. https://doi.
20of%20individuals%20and%20groups. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.022.
Cruz-Sandoval, M., Ortego, M.I., Roca, E., 2020. Tree ecosystem services, for everyone? a Grabowski, Z.J., McPhearson, T., Pickett, S.T.A., 2023. Transforming US urban green
compositional analysis approach to assess the distribution of urban trees as an infrastructure planning to address equity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 229, 104591 https://
indicator of environmental justice. Sustainability 12 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104591.
su12031215. Graça, M., Queirós, C., Farinha-Marques, P., Cunha, M., 2018. Street trees as cultural
Dang, H., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., 2021. Evaluation of the equity and regional elements in the city: Understanding how perception affects ecosystem services
management of some urban green space ecosystem services: a case study of main management in Porto, Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 194–205. https://doi.
urban area of Xi’an City. Forests 12 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070813. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.001.
Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., & Martin, A. (2018). Justice and equity: Emerging research and Groulx, M., Freeman, S., Lemieux, C., 2022. Accessible nature beyond city limits – A
policy approaches to address ecosystem service trade-offs. In Ecosystem Services and scoping review. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Poverty Alleviation: Trade-Offs and Governance (pp. 22-38). 10.4324/ jort.2022.100490.
9780429507090. Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., Brenck, M.,
de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, Fischer, L.K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Krellenberg, K., Kremer, P.,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 Kronenberg, J., Larondelle, N., Mathey, J., Pauleit, S., Ring, I., Rink, D., Schwarz, N.,
(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7. Wolff, M., 2017. Greening cities – To be socially inclusive? About the alleged
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int. 64, 41–48. https://doi.org/
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005.
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 260–272. Haase, A., Koprowska, K., Borgström, S., 2022. Green regeneration for more justice? An
De Luca, C., Libetta, A., Conticelli, E., Tondelli, S., 2021. Accessibility to and availability analysis of the purpose, implementation, and impacts of greening policies from a
of urban green spaces (UGS) to support health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 justice perspective in Łódź Stare Polesie (Poland) and Leipzig’s inner east
pandemic—The case of Bologna. Sustainability 13 (19). https://doi.org/10.3390/ (Germany). Environ. Sci. Policy 136, 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
su131911054. envsci.2022.08.001.
de Sousa Silva, C., Viegas, I., Panagopoulos, Τ., Bell, S., 2018. Environmental justice in Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2012. CICES Version 4: Response to Consultation. E. E.
accessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities. Land 7 (4). https://doi. Agency.
org/10.3390/land7040134. Haque, M.N., Mahi, M.M., Sharif, M.S., Rudra, R.R., Sharifi, A., 2023. Changes in the
Diep, L., Parikh, P., Duarte, B.P.d.S., Bourget, A.F., Dodman, D., Martins, J.R.S., 2022. “It economic value of ecosystem services in rapidly growing urban areas: the case of
won’t work here”: Lessons for just nature-based stream restoration in the context of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. 30 (18), 52321–52339. https://doi.
urban informality. Environ. Sci. Policy 136, 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1007/s11356-023-26096-0.
envsci.2022.06.020. He, J., Sikor, T., 2015. Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: Insights
Egerer, M., Fouch, N., Anderson, E.C., Clarke, M., 2020. Socio-ecological connectivity from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy
differs in magnitude and direction across urban landscapes. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 4252. 43, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.011.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61230-9. Heck, S., 2021. Greening the color line: historicizing water infrastructure redevelopment
Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V.A., Davies, H.N., Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P.R., Gaston, K.J., and environmental justice in the St. Louis metropolitan region. J. Environ. Plann.
2011. The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proc. Policy Manage. 23 (5), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/
R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278 (1722), 3201–3208. https://doi.org/10.1098/ 1523908x.2021.1888702.
rspb.2010.2754. Herreros-Cantis, P., McPhearson, T., 2021. Mapping supply of and demand for ecosystem
Enssle, F., Kabisch, N., 2020. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and services to assess environmental justice in New York City. Ecol. Appl. 31 (6), e02390.
well-being of older people— An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and Hoover, F.-A., Meerow, S., Grabowski, Z.J., McPhearson, T., 2021. Environmental justice
socio-environmental justice. Environ. Sci. Policy 109, 36–44. https://doi.org/ implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning. J. Environ.
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008. Plann. Policy Manage. 23 (5), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for 1523908x.2021.1945916.
studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Hurley, P.T., Emery, M.R., 2018. Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban
Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (1), 7–17. forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170,
Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E., 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: 266–275.
Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159 (8), 2078–2087. Ipbes, 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Evans, D.L., Falagán, N., Hardman, C.A., Kourmpetli, S., Liu, L., Mead, B.R., Davies, J.A. (1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6417333.
C., 2022. Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure – Kabisch, N., Kraemer, R., 2020. Physical activity patterns in two differently characterised
a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 54, 101405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. urban parks under conditions of summer heat. Environ. Sci. Policy 107, 56–65.
ecoser.2022.101405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.008.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services Kato-Huerta, J., Geneletti, D., 2022. Environmental justice implications of nature-based
for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. solutions in urban areas: A systematic review of approaches, indicators, and
ecolecon.2008.09.014. outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 138, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fleischer, A., Felsenstein, D., Lichter, M., 2018. A Spatially Accurate Method for envsci.2022.07.034.
Evaluating Distributional Effects of Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Econ. 145, 451–460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.019.
16
Kim, Y., Corley, E.A., Won, Y., Kim, J., 2023. Green space access and visitation disparities Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M.J., Girling, C., Sheppard, S.R., Lu, Y., 2019. Who has access to
in the phoenix metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 237, 104805 https://doi.org/ urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities.
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104805. Landsc. Urban Plan. 181, 51–79.
Kretsch, C., & Kelemen, E. (2016). OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. www. Olivero-Lora, S., Meléndez-Ackerman, E., Santiago, L., Santiago-Bartolomei, R., García-
openness-project.eu/library/reference-book. Montiel, D., 2019. Attitudes toward Residential Trees and Awareness of Tree
Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Barton, D.N., Borgström, S.T., Langemeyer, J., Services and Disservices in a Tropical City. Sustainability 12 (1). https://doi.org/
Björklund, T., Haase, D., Kennedy, C., Koprowska, K., Łaszkiewicz, E., 10.3390/su12010117.
McPhearson, T., Stange, E.E., Wolff, M., 2021. The thorny path toward greening: Ortiz, M.S.O., Geneletti, D., 2018. Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban
unintended consequences, trade-offs, and constraints in green and blue Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and
infrastructure planning, implementation, and management. Ecol. Soc. 26 (2) https:// Food Supply in Havana. Cuba. Sustainability 10 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/
doi.org/10.5751/es-12445-260236. su10072165.
La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B., Pelling, M., Garschagen, M., 2019. Put equity first in climate adaptation. Nature 569.
Geneletti, D., Crossman, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem services classification: A systems https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01497-9.
ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Ind. 74, 392–402. https://doi. Peng, L., Zhang, L., Li, X., Wang, P., Zhao, W., Wang, Z., Jiao, L., Wang, H., 2022. Spatio-
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030. temporal patterns of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces and their
Langemeyer, J., Connolly, J.J.T., 2020. Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem equity along urban-rural gradients in the Xi’an Metropolitan Area, China. Remote
services research and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 109, 1–14. https://doi.org/ Sens. (Basel) 14 (17). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174299.
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021. Peters, H.C., Luke, M., 2021. Social justice in counseling: moving to a multiplistic
Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., Marcińczak, S., 2018. Attached to or bound to a place? approach. J. Counselor Leadership Advocacy 8 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
The impact of green space availability on residential duration: The environmental 2326716X.2020.1854133.
justice perspective. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Pineda-Pinto, M., Herreros-Cantis, P., McPhearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., Wang, J.,
ecoser.2017.10.002. Zhou, W., 2021a. Examining ecological justice within the social-ecological-
Law, A., Carrasco, L.R., Richards, D.R., Shaikh, S., Tan, C.L.Y., Nghiem, L.T.P., 2022. technological system of New York City, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 215 https://doi.
Leave no one behind: A case of ecosystem service supply equity in Singapore. Ambio org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104228.
51 (10), 2118–2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01735-x. Pineda-Pinto, M., Nygaard, C.A., Chandrabose, M., Frantzeskaki, N., 2021b. Mapping
Li, X., Chen, W.Y., Hu, F.Z.Y., Cho, F.H.T., 2021b. Homebuyers’ heterogeneous social-ecological injustice in Melbourne, Australia: An innovative systematic
preferences for urban green–blue spaces: A spatial multilevel autoregressive methodology for planning just cities. Land Use Policy 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/
analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 216, 104250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. j.landusepol.2021.105361.
landurbplan.2021.104250. Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Chandrabose, M., Herreros-Cantis, P.,
Li, L., Su, H., Du, Q., Wu, T., 2021a. A novel surface water index using local background McPhearson, T., Nygaard, C.A., Raymond, C., 2022a. Planning ecologically just
information for long term and large-scale Landsat images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. cities: a framework to assess ecological injustice hotspots for targeted urban design
Remote Sens. 172, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.12.003. and planning of nature-based solutions. Urban Policy Res. 40 (3), 206–222. https://
Loos, J., Benra, F., Berbes-Blazquez, M., Bremer, L.L., Chan, K.M.A., Egoh, B., Felipe- doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2093184.
Lucia, M., Geneletti, D., Keeler, B., Locatelli, B., Loft, L., Schroter, B., Schroter, M., Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Nygaard, C.A., 2022b. The potential of nature-based
Winkler, K.J., 2023. An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services. solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: Lessons for research and urban planning
Ambio 52 (3), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01812-1. from a systematic literature review. Ambio 51 (1), 167–182. https://doi.org/
Loughran, K., 2014. Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven 10.1007/s13280-021-01553-7.
Development of Urban Public Spaces. City Community 13 (1), 49–68. https://doi. Ramirez-Gomez, S.O.I., van Laerhoven, F., Boot, R., Biermann, F., Verweij, P.A., 2020.
org/10.1111/cico.12050. Assessing spatial equity in access to service-provisioning hotspots in data-scarce
Lourdes, K.T., Hamel, P., Gibbins, C.N., Sanusi, R., Azhar, B., Lechner, A.M., 2022. tropical forests regions under external pressure. Ecosyst. Serv. 45, 101151 https://
Planning for green infrastructure using multiple urban ecosystem service models and doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101151.
multicriteria analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 226, 104500. Reynolds, K., 2015. Disparity despite diversity: socialinjustice in New York City’s urban
Mabon, L., Barkved, L., de Bruin, K., Shih, W.-Y., 2022. Whose knowledge counts in agriculture system. Antipode 47 (1), 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12098.
nature-based solutions? Understanding epistemic justice for nature-based solutions Rigolon, A., 2017. Parks and young people: An environmental justice study of park
through a multi-city comparison across Europe and Asia. Environ. Sci. Policy 136, proximity, acreage, and quality in Denver, Colorado. Landsc. Urban Plan. 165,
652–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.025. 73–83.
Mabon, L., Shih, W.-Y., 2018. What might ‘just green enough’ urban development mean Rigolon, A., Browning, M., Lee, K., Shin, S., 2018. Access to urban green space in cities of
in the context of climate change adaptation? The case of urban greenspace planning the global south: a systematic literature review. Urban Science 2 (3). https://doi.
in Taipei Metropolis, Taiwan. World Development 107, 224–238. https://doi.org/ org/10.3390/urbansci2030067.
10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.035. Salisu Barau, A., Stringer, L.C., 2015. Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in
Mader, A., Patrickson, S., Calcaterra, E., & Smit, J. (2011). TEEB – The Economics of Malaysia’s Pulau Kukup Ramsar Site. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 167–173. https://doi.org/
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.021.
Management, Issue. www.teebweb.org. Sanchez, L., Reames, T.G., 2019. Cooling Detroit: A socio-spatial analysis of equity in
Martin, D.M., Mazzotta, M., Bousquin, J., 2018. Combining ecosystem services green roofs as an urban heat island mitigation strategy. Urban For. Urban Green. 44
assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.014.
planning. Environ. Manag. 62 (3), 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018- Sander, H., Polasky, S., Haight, R.G., 2010. The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic
1038-1. property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ.
Martins, B., 2022. Where to construct new urban green spaces to be at the recommended 69 (8), 1646–1656.
distance from users and to complement existing ones? A study in five cities of Schlosberg, D., 2003. The justice of environmental justice: reconciling equity,
northern Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. recognition, and participation in a political movement. Moral Political Reasoning
ufug.2022.127571. Environ. Practice 77, 106.
McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., Frantzeskaki, N., 2015. Resilience of and Schlosberg, D., 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and
through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 152–156. https://doi.org/ political theories. Environ. Politics 13 (3), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012. 0964401042000229025.
MEA, M. E. A. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. W. Island Press, DC. Schlosberg, D., 2007. Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature.
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. OUP Oxford.
Mears, M., Brindley, P., Maheswaran, R., Jorgensen, A., 2019. Understanding the Schlosberg, D., 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a
socioeconomic equity of publicly accessible greenspace distribution: The example of discourse. Environ. Politics 22 (1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Sheffield, UK. Geoforum 103, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 09644016.2013.755387.
geoforum.2019.04.016. Schlosberg, D., Carruthers, D., 2010. Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and
Mohtat, N., Khirfan, L., 2023. Epistemic justice in flood-adaptive green infrastructure community capabilities. Global Environ. Politics 10 (4), 12–35. https://doi.org/
planning: The recognition of local experiential knowledge in Thorncliffe Park, 10.1162/GLEP_a_00029.
Toronto. Landscape and Urban Planning 238, 104834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Schlosberg, D., Rickards, L., Byrne, J., 2017. Environmental justice and attachment to
landurbplan.2023.104834. place: Australian cases. Routledge Handbook Environ. Justice 591–602.
Morshed, S.R., Fattah, M.A., Haque, M.N., Morshed, S.Y., 2022. Future ecosystem service Shah, A., Garg, A., 2017. Urban commons service generation, delivery, and management:
value modeling with land cover dynamics by using machine learning based Artificial A conceptual framework. Ecol. Econ. 135, 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Neural Network model for Jashore city, Bangladesh. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts a/b/c ecolecon.2016.12.017.
126, 103021. Sharifi, A., 2023. Resilience of urban social-ecological-technological systems (SETS): A
Nawa, L.L., 2018. Uneven distribution of cultural facilities in the City of Tshwane, South review. Sustain. Cities Soc 99, 104910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104910.
Africa: a call for acultural turnin spatial planning. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 100 (3), 249–270. Sharifi, A., Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R., Allam, Z., Asadzadeh, A., 2023. Progress and
https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2018.1449008. prospects in planning: A bibliometric review of literature in urban studies and
Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M.J., Sheppard, S.R.J., Girling, C., 2018. The dimensions of urban regional and urban planning, 1956–2022. Prog. Plan 173, 100740. https://doi.org/
green equity: A framework for analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 34, 240–248. 10.1016/j.progress.2023.100740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.009. Shortly, A., Kepe, T., 2020. Consuming the city: challenges and possibilities for foraging
in Toronto’s parks. Forests, Trees Livelihoods 30 (2), 75–89. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14728028.2020.1863865.
17
Suárez, M., Barton, D.N., Cimburova, Z., Rusch, G.M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Wilkerson, M.L., Mitchell, M.G.E., Shanahan, D., Wilson, K.A., Ives, C.D., Lovelock, C.E.,
Onaindia, M., 2020. Environmental justice and outdoor recreation opportunities: A Rhodes, J.R., 2018. The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing
spatially explicit assessment in Oslo metropolitan area, Norway. Environ. Sci. Policy urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
108, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.014. ecoser.2018.02.017.
Sultana, R., Birtchnell, T., Gill, N., 2020. Urban greening and mobility justice in Dhaka’s Wu, L., Kim, S.K., 2021. Exploring the equality of accessing urban green spaces: A
informal settlements. Mobilities 15 (2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/ comparative study of 341 Chinese cities. Ecol. Ind. 121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
17450101.2020.1713567. ecolind.2020.107080.
Swapan, M.S.H., Iftekhar, M.S., Li, X., 2017. Contextual variations in perceived social Wu, S., Li, B.V., Li, S., 2021. Classifying ecosystem disservices and valuating their effects
values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and - a case study of Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators 129, 107977. https://doi.org/
Australia. Cities 61, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107977.
Tandarić, N., Ives, C.D., Watkins, C., 2022. From city in the park to “greenery in plant Yang, Y., Jun, Z., Sui, X., He, X., 2020. Study of the spatial connection between
pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for urbanization and the ecosystem-A case study of Central Yunnan (China). PLoS One
cultural ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 15 (9), e0238192.
landusepol.2022.106309. Yang, Q., Liu, G., Casazza, M., Dumontet, S., Yang, Z., 2022. Ecosystem restoration
TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics programs challenges under climate and land use change. Sci. Total Environ. 807 (Pt
of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. 2), 150527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150527.
Thornhill, I., Hill, M.J., Castro-Castellon, A., Gurung, H., Hobbs, S., Pineda-Vazquez, M., Yang, Y., Yang, H., Cheng, Y., 2021. Why is it crucial to evaluate the fairness of natural
Gómez-Osorio, M.T., Hernández-Avilés, J.S., Novo, P., Mesa-Jurado, A., Calderon- capital consumption in urban agglomerations in terms of ecosystem services and
Contreras, R., 2022. Blue-space availability, environmental quality and amenity use economic contribution? Sustain. Cities Soc. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
across contrasting socioeconomic contexts. Appl. Geogr. 144 https://doi.org/ scs.2020.102644.
10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102716. Yuan, Y., Xu, J., Wang, Z., 2017. Spatial Equity Measure on Urban Ecological Space
UN, U. N. (2015). Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Layout Based on Accessibility of Socially Vulnerable Groups—A Case Study of
(A/RES/70/1). U. G. Assembly. www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html. Changting, China. Sustainability 9 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091552.
UNDESA, P. (2018). World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. Retrieved August, Zaidi, N., Pitt, H., 2022. Invisible boundaries to access and participation in public spaces:
26, 2018. navigating community diversity in Leicester. UK. Local Environment 27 (9),
Wang, R., Feng, Z., Pearce, J., 2022. Neighbourhood greenspace quantity, quality and 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2090533.
socioeconomic inequalities in mental health. Cities 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., Rust, V., 2006. Education and social justice: Issues of liberty
cities.2022.103815. and equality in the global culture. Educ. Social Justice 1–12.
Wang, B., Tang, H., Xu, Y., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and human well-being Zhang, J., Cheng, Y., Zhao, B., 2021. Assessing the inequities in access to peri-urban
into management practices: Insights from a mountain-basin area, China. Ecosyst. parks at the regional level: A case study in China’s largest urban agglomeration.
Serv. 27, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.018. Urban For. Urban Green. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127334.
Wang, J., Xu, C., Pauleit, S., Kindler, A., Banzhaf, E., 2019. Spatial patterns of urban Zhang, Z., Martin, K.L., Stevenson, K.T., Yao, Y., 2022b. Equally green? Understanding
green infrastructure for equity: A novel exploration. J. Clean. Prod. 238 https://doi. the distribution of urban green infrastructure across student demographics in four
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117858. public school districts in North Carolina, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 67 https://
Weber, R., Haase, A., Albert, C., 2023. Access to urban green spaces in Hannover: An doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127434.
exploration considering age groups, recreational nature qualities and potential Zhang, Y., Tamminga, K., Wu, H., 2022a. Interweaving Computational and Tacit
demand. Ambio 52 (3), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01808-x. Knowledge to Design Nature-Based Play Networks in Underserved Communities.
Welivita, I., Willcock, S., Lewis, A., Bundhoo, D., Brewer, T., Cooper, S., Lynch, K., Land 11 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030350.
Mekala, S., Mishra, P.P., Venkatesh, K., Rey Vicario, D., Hutchings, P., 2021. Zheng, S., Yang, S., Ma, M., Dong, J., Han, B., Wang, J., 2023. Linking cultural ecosystem
Evidence of Similarities in Ecosystem Service Flow across the Rural-Urban Spectrum. service and urban ecological-space planning for a sustainable city: Case study of the
Land 10 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040430. core areas of Beijing under the context of urban relieving and renewal. Sustain. Cities
Wienhues, A., 2017. Sharing the Earth: A Biocentric Account of Ecological Justice. Soc. 89, 104292.
J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 30 (3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017- Zuniga-Teran, A., Gerlak, A., 2019. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions
9672-9. of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace. Sustainability 11 (11). https://doi.org/
Wijsman, K., Berbés-Blázquez, M., 2022. What do we mean by justice in sustainability 10.3390/su11113055.
pathways? Commitments, dilemmas, and translations from theory to practice in Zuniga-Teran, A.A., Gerlak, A.K., Elder, A.D., Tam, A., 2021. The unjust distribution of
nature-based solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 136, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/ urban green infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg: A systematic review of place-
j.envsci.2022.06.018. based studies. Environ. Sci. Policy 126, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2021.10.001.
18

Justice in Access To Urban Ecossystem Services A Critic Literature Reviewd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice in Access To Urban Ecossystem Services A Critic Literature Reviewd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice in Access To Urban Ecossystem Services A Critic Literature Reviewd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecosystem Services 67 (2024) 101617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Full Length Article

Justice in access to urban ecosystem services: A critical review of

2) Is there justice in access to UES? Table 1

Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart outlining the article identification process (prisma-statement.org).

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Table 3 2021). As part of this categorization, we included environmental,

prevailed’ indicates no justice in access to UES, as indicated by the

social inequalities related to environmental impacts, considering a

4.2.3. Procedural justice 5. Conclusion

You might also like