Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Vulnerable socioeconomic groups are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental burden in Berlin - implications– for planning

Vulnerable socioeconomic groups are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental burden... INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2021, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 334–350 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2021.1904246 ARTICLE Vulnerable socioeconomic groups are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental burden in Berlin - implications– for planning Sonja Edith Hölzl, Mihailo Veskov, Toni Scheibner, Ti Thuong Le and Birgit Kleinschmit Dept. Of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 March 2020 This paper takes an urban planning perspective on environmental justice by sepa- Accepted 8 March 2021 rately analysing vulnerable socioeconomic groups for multiple environmental burden (EB) at the neighbourhood level in Berlin. We selected five socioeconomic groups: i) KEYWORDS beneficiaries of social welfare, ii) inhabitants with migration background, iii) old-age Environmental justice; poverty, iv) child poverty, and v) single-parent households. Four ecological indicators, i) cumulative exposure; air pollution, ii) noise pollution, iii) bioclimate (heat stress), and iv) lack of urban green multiple environmental spaces were merged to assess multiple EB at the Planning Area Level. Combining burden; hotspots of environmental injustice; environmental and socioeconomic maps we identified hotspots of environmental urban planning; injustice (EIJ) and demonstrate that selected vulnerable socioeconomic groups are socioeconomic inequalities; disproportionately more affected by multiple EB than population not belonging to spatial analysis these groups. Some of the identified hotspots overlap, except for single-parent house- holds. Finally, multi-purpose planning measures that mitigate the EBs considering the needs of the socioeconomic groups are recommended. Introduction The concept of EJ in research The concept of environmental justice (EJ) has The environmental dimension. EJ movements spread internationally since its beginnings during focussed initially on environmental hazards resulting the environmental grassroot movements in the from industrial sites, while the environmental dimen- USA during the 1980s (Agyeman et al. 2010). In sion of EJ now comprises environmental ‘bads’ and general, EJ can be understood as an equitable goods alike. Injustice is understood broadly, ranging relation between environment and society, incor- from health impacts to community isolation (Holifield porating three dimensions: environmental, societal, 2013). Most studies analyse EJ in terms of one envir- and relational. There exist several ways of analysing onmental aspect such as heat exposure, air or noise EJ and therefore of operationalising these dimen- pollution, the presence of vegetation, urban green sions. This study’s EJ analysis in the city of Berlin, spaces (UGS) or blue infrastructure (Raymond et al. Germany, will look at the geospatial relation 2016). These environmental factors may be charac- between the most prominent environmental bur- terised by sub-components, e.g. different air particles dens and socioeconomic groups considered most or traffic data for air quality (Lakes et al. 2014; Fairburn vulnerable. The approach will be contextualised et al. 2019). To a lesser extent, environmental indices with existing literature in the following section combine two related environmental factors, such as before presenting the research aims, methods air pollution which aggravates heat stress, or vegeta- used and insights on EJ in Berlin. Finally, results tion for its multifaceted benefits on air quality, heat will be discussed, and planning recommendations reduction, noise alleviation and well-being (Kabisch given. and Haase 2014). Despite the variety of EJ research, CONTACT Sonja Edith Hölzl sonja_e.hoelzl@gmx.de Dept. Of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 335 perspectives on multiple or cumulative burdens opportunity as well as an important aspect of sustain- remain limited. One example is Fairburn et al. (2009) able development which should integrate social jus- and for different air pollutants Lanier et al. (2019). tice into its environmental concerns (Agyeman et al. Most of the studies presently available conduct their 2010). However, the implementation of EJ into prac- analyses of the factors separately and neglect their tice has been limited and is hampered by its complex- interconnected nature (Lakes et al. 2014). ity and variety of approaches as evidenced by the lack The societal dimension. The rationale behind the of guidelines (Strelau and Köckler 2015). At EU level, societal dimension is a presumed higher susceptibility Petrić (2019) identifies a lack of clarity regarding legal to impacts and a lower capability to withdraw or implications of findings on environmental injustice. mitigate the negativities due to inequality according Clarity is also hampered by structuring recommenda- to socioeconomic status (SES) (Raddatz and Mennis tions thematically rather than along planning process 2013; Mitchell and Chakraborty 2015). Socioeconomic steps (Böhme et al. 2019). Similarly, planning theories indicators such as household income, education, lack integration of the different justice-related aspects unemployment, minority status or age are often com- of EJ which might initiate its implementation into bined and applied at both individual and neighbour- practice (Ntiwane 2018). hood level (Neimanis et al. 2012), substituting the operationalisation via racial and ethnic minorities. In Applications of the EJ research in Germany a new reasoning, job accessibility was also used for the socioeconomic considerations (Zhao et al. 2018). EJ research in Germany, like in Europe, is primarily Considerable attention has been given to over 65’s analysed in terms of socioeconomic status (Laurent and children’s vulnerability although without consid- 2011). Research on EJ in Germany is growing, and ering their socioeconomic status. EJ is rarely investi- studies have been conducted for Berlin (Lakes and gated for single-parent families (Downey and Hawkins Klimeczek 2011; Franck et al. 2014; Kabisch and Haase 2008; Buck et al. 2019). 2014), Munich (Schüle et al. 2017), Hamburg (Raddatz The relational dimension. Considered the core of and Mennis 2013), and smaller cities such as Hannover, EJ, it addresses concerns regarding the unequal dis- Leipzig and Mannheim (Buck et al. 2019; Kabisch 2019; tribution of environmental hazards. Studies applying Wen et al. 2020) or at the national scale or by compar- a spatial analysis of EJ are the most common. ing cities (Kohlhuber et al. 2006; Wüstemann et al. 2017; However, part of the equitable relationship EJ aims Rüttenauer 2019). As in international studies, the pat- at is procedural justice, i.e. opportunities to partici- tern of EJ is analysed predominantly for one environ- pate in decision-making (Day 2010). It has been mental factor in relation to several socioeconomic argued that involvement per se can be beneficial for characteristics. EJ has also been recognised as a topic the perception of equality (Anguelovski 2013). in public administration. It is implicitly considered in Capture of individual perceptions within the hotspots German public health programmes. Inequality assess- has been conducted, among others, by Day (2010) ments are also demanded to implement air pollution and is regarded as a necessary follow-up to achieve action programmes (Riedel et al. 2021). EJ also was EJ in practice (Edwards et al. 2016). explicitly put on the agenda of the state of North- Each of the presented dimensions is of special Rhine-Westphalia (Hornberg and Pauli 2007). relevance to cities. In cities, populations and their Furthermore, it is integrated in the Environmental physical assets are most concentrated, resulting in Atlas (Umweltatlas) of Berlin (EAB) for monitoring pur- elevated pressure on the environment and in the poses (Klimeczek 2019), also analysing cumulative relationships between individuals and their surround- impacts on a socioeconomic core index ing environment across multiple scales (Fernández (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, and Wu 2016). Urbanisation, the growing number of editor. 2015b). people living in cities, and specific urban environmen- This paper will focus on geographical distribution tal conditions are therefore widely mentioned in EJ of EBs, allowing the identification of hotspots as a first literature (Mason et al. 2017). With its connection to step to prioritise areas for in-depth and on-site analy- urban research, EJ has also gained much attention in sis. Berlin was chosen as a case study, because it is public health research in Europe (Annerstedt Van Den currently experiencing EJ-relevant dynamics of popu- Bosch et al. 2016). Moreover, EJ was coined as an lation growth and housing price rises (Thomschke 336 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. 2015), potentially aggravating social inequalities with (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt regards to housing and environmental conditions. 2016b). About 33.9% of surface was sealed in 2016 Moreover, Berlin being subject to EJ monitoring and due to various inner-city land uses studies (Kleinschmit et al. 2011; Kabisch and Haase (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und 2014; Lakes et al. 2014) it offers the possibility to Wohnen, editor 2017c). Built-up areas are under dif- explore the difference of conclusions on EJ if distinct ferent uses (e.g. residential or commercial uses), with socioeconomic groups (SEGs) are analysed separately, a sealing rate of between 26.7% (weekend homes) and to a lesser extent, if cumulative effects of EBs are and 83.2% (inner city use characterised as essentially accounted for. Berlin’s 447 living environment areas important for services, commerce and cultural/scien- (Lebensweltlich orientierte Räume) allow for addres- tific institutions) (Senatsverwaltung für sing EJ at a suitable scale (Strelau and Köckler 2015; Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2016b). The spatial Mason et al. 2017), i.e., the neighbourhood-level. distribution of land uses according to sealing rate These have also been used as unit of analysis by the follows an urban-rural gradient with most forested existing EJ studies against which implications will be and green areas located in the south-eastern, south- compared. western (Grunewald forest) and north-western out- For the spatial approach of research, EJ will be skirts. The population has fluctuated over the past defined as dealing with the unequal spatial distribu- decades but increased in the year 2019 to approxi- tion of multiple environmental burden (EB) concerning mately 3.77 million inhabitants (Amt für Statistik selected socioeconomic groups (SEGs). Berlin-Brandenburg 2020), the highest value for Planning advice will be given regarding the impli- 80 years and the largest population of German cities cations that result from differences in EJ for our five (Statistisches Bundesamt, editor 2017). The popula- selected SEGs, which will be compared in a spatial tion density is about 3,948 inhabitants per km . analysis using an assessment of multiple environmen- Berlin is home to people from over 100 countries tal conditions. Recommendations will need to also (Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg 2020). The frac- consider the dilemma urban planners face in a dense tion of inhabitants with a migration background is urban environment (Anguelovski 2013). about 27.7% and is steadily growing Our research questions are therefore threefold: (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). Are specific vulnerable socioeconomic groups The administrative management, unified in 2006, disproportionally exposed to multiple environ- allows planning and forecasting of demographic and mental burden in Berlin? social development at several hierarchical levels Where are the hotspots of environmental injus- (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und tice (EIJ) in Berlin? Wohnen, editor 2017a). These are grouped as living What are the implications for urban planning? environment areas (Lebensweltlich orientierte Räume – LOR). Starting from the household address Material and Methods up to the district, this hierarchy comprises a structure Study area for planning that is suitable for a wide range of differ - Berlin, capital city, city state and one of the 16 ent questions. The most local level contains 447 plan- federal states of Germany is in the north-east of the ning areas (PLA – congruent with LORs), which were country (52° 31` 12`` N and 13° 24` 36`` E). The total chosen as level of analysis due to the possibility of area of Berlin is approximately 892 km2 carrying out a small-scale analysis. Statistics were pre- (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt sented and discussed on the level of the12 districts. 2016b). The Land Use Plan was updated in 2015 and provides a differentiated view of 52 land use types in Berlin, grouped into residential, industrial, public, traf- Socioeconomic and environmental indicators fic, green and other uses. Green and open spaces account for 47.4% of the total area (including, Hotspots of EIJ were identified by comparing the among others, water bodies, forested and unforested socioeconomic and environmental layers as per-PLA areas, allotment gardens). Transport and infrastruc- assessment in a spatial analysis (ArcGIS Version tural uses, make up around 20% of the total city area 10.4.1). The socioeconomic and environmental INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 337 most vulnerable to key EBs, we selected i) beneficiaries Table 1. Definition of the five selected socioeconomic groups (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). of social welfare, ii) inhabitants with migration back- Socioeconomic ground, iii) old-age poverty, iv) child poverty, and v) indicator Definition single-parent households. These groups represent Beneficiaries of social Inhabitants according to the Social a heterogenous picture of the socioeconomic back- welfare Security Code, Book II (SGB II), who ground considered in most literature on EJ. Moreover, receive unemployment benefit and social allowance new aspects so far rarely considered by literature (e.g., Inhabitants with Proportion of people with immigration single-parent households) are analysed. Definitions are migration background, including persons with given in Table 1. The 435 PLAs were evaluated using background a second nationality, a citizenship mark, persons under 18 years of age a four-class system adopted from the MSUD. The without own migration characteristics, MSUD provided information about the local distribu- but with a birth country outside tion of each group in Berlin. The percentages of each Germany or with a citizenship mark of at least one parent group in comparison of the total population in the Old-age poverty Percentage of the inhabitants aged individual PLAs were used to build the SES classes 65 years old and over, who receive based on mean values and standard deviations. The basic benefits according to SGB II Child poverty Percentage of children and adolescents classes thus inform about the percentage (1: ‘below under 15 years old, who live in average’ to 4: ‘strongly above average’) share of the a community of needs selected group’s population to all inhabitants in the (Bedarfsgemeinschaft) according to SGB II and receive benefits of social respective PLA (Table 2). Based on the SES classes welfare built, the spatial distribution of the groups at PLA Single-parent Single, married, divorced, and widowed level for Berlin was determined. Socioeconomic hot- households mothers or fathers, who live with at least one minor child (bodily, step, spots with an above average incidence of vulnerable nursing or adoptive child) without groups, defined as class 4 or class 3 PLAs, were a marriage or life partner identified. Each PLA also received an assessment regarding EB. Four ecological indicators that are considered evaluation was based on descriptive statistical meth- a significant EB for EJ by several studies, namely i) air ods (RStudio Version 3.5). Spatial joins were used to pollution, ii) noise pollution, iii) bioclimate (heat stress) geospatially link the PLAs with environmental and iv) lack of urban green spaces (UGS) were inte- indicator. grated into one indicator of multiple environmental Social indicators were taken from the Monitoring burden at PLA level. For this purpose, data from the Social Urban Development Berlin (MSUD) published in EAB and its online geoportal ‘FIS-Broker’ were used 2015 with survey data of the years 2013 and 2014. (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und They are provided at PLA level (Senatsverwaltung für Wohnen, editor 2017b). The data sources, survey and Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). Planning areas assessment methods can be traced in Table 3. Each with small population (<300 inhabitants) or high out- individual indicator was evaluated in a four-class sys- lier values were excluded from the MSUD. In 435 out tem (degree of EB ‘1 – low’ to ‘4 – very high’) and of a total of 447 PLAs, five out of a total of 21 social analysed statistically according to PLA and class. indicators identified by the MSUD were examined. Bioclimate (heat stress) and lack of UGS were re- Missing PLAs correspond to a low percentage (2.7%) evaluated (Table 3). For noise pollution no pollutant of Berlin’s area. Considering these population groups levels were recorded for 15 PLAs which remained unaffected and were removed from the examined dataset. Overall, 432 of 447 PLAs are considered in Table 2. Socioeconomic status class building based on standard deviation. the EJ analysis. Every PLA received a per-indicator SES class in relation to Value range of the SES class Assigned evaluation. For the combination of environmental total population (SD = Standard Deviation) SES class indicators, the four assessments of every PLA were Below average x < −1,0 SD 1 summed, and classified based on a four-step scale Average −1,0 SD ≤ x ≤ +1,0 SD 2 (Table 4). Totals ranging from 4 to 16 were deter- Above average +1,0 SD < x ≤ +1,5 SD 3 Strongly above x > +1,5 SD 4 mined for the overall environmental assessment. average Thresholds were based on equal steps of the chosen 338 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Table 4. Final assessment of multiple environmental burden. cumulative EB map of Berlin and visualised in a map Sum of 4 environmental displaying the EJ assessment for every SEG. EIJ was indicators 4–5 6–9 10–13 14–16 designated where high or very high EBs (environmen- Final class of multiple EB Low Middle High Very tal classes 3 or 4) coincide with an overrepresentation high of the low SES, i.e., PLAs with an above or strongly Class 1 2 3 4 above presence of the SEGs of interest (socioeco- nomic classes of 3 or 4). 12 PLAs were not considered, either due to low numbers of inhabitants or due to scale. In case of a balanced distribution of the ecolo- high outliers. Furthermore, 15 PLAs were omitted due gical classes, these PLAs were assigned to the lower to missing data on noise pollution. As most of these class, modifying the threshold for the category of high unassessed PLAs overlap, the EJ analysis considers cumulative burden. The data of the overall ecological a total of 432 out of 447 PLA (96.6%). assessment were spatially displayed at the PLA level and visualised as environmental impact map of Berlin. Results PLAs assessed with a high or very high EB (class 3 or 4) Figure 1 displays the number of PLAs assigned to the were defined as hotpots. four assessment levels. Bioclimate (heat stress) is pre- To evaluate EIJ for the five selected SEGs, the five sent with high or very high burden in over 50% of the social maps created were each combined with the PLAs and 60.4% of the population, followed by the lack Table 3. Description of data source and methods of used indicator set for multiple environmental burden assessment. Indicator of cumulative EBs Air pollution Noise pollution Bioclimate (Heat stress) Lack of UGS Source: EAB ( Air Quality Plan for Core Indicator 1: Noise Core Indicator 4: Bio-Climate Actual Use and Vegetation Senatsverwaltung für Berlin 2011–2017 Load of the /Thermal Load Environmental Cover (Edition 2015) Stadtentwicklung und Environmental Justice Justice Edition 2015 Umwelt, editor 2017; Edition 2015 Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017d, [SenStadtWo] Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017e Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017e) Method Decile-limits of air Mean extern noise- Physiological Equivalent Two-stage assessment pollution: Particulate costs based on full Temperature (PET) procedure, including 1) Matter (PM ) and traffic per population forest, graveyard, parks 2.5 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) (providing recreational and climate regulation services) and 2) other categories of urban spaces (providing one of the uses above) Senate Department Urban Development Urban Development and Environment Urban Development and and Housing Housing Data status 2009 2012 2009/2011 2015 Assessment 4 classes based on 4 classes used 4 classes were created from 4 classes based on decile- tabular data given the 3 in the original data by limits in orientation of from subdivision: combining ‘high’ bioclimate Accessible Natural geoinformation (J. burdens in PET with ‘very Greenspace Standard Welsch) high potential of heat stress (ANGSt) (Comber et al. over day’ into 4th class 2008) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 339 Figure 1. Categorised PLAs (432) (left bars) and corresponding number of inhabitants (right bars) according to their environmental burden for the four analysed factors. Figure 2. Multiple environmental burden (air and noise pollution, bioclimate/heat stress, lack of UGS) in 432 planning areas of Berlin. data source: EAB. of UGS which was found in 164 of the 432 planning and very high multiple EB are concentrated in the city areas, equivalent to 1,575,717 or 44.3% of inhabitants. centre and PLAs without high burdens are mainly in the The burden of air and noise pollution is high or very outside area near the city boundary. Hotspots are most high in 103 and 85 PLAs, respectively, corresponding to often found in the districts Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, the highest and lowest count of affected population. Mitte, Pankow-south, Tempelhof-Schöneberg and The spatial distribution of EB shows a clear concentra- Neukölln-north. Overall, there are 161 PLAs with high tion in the inner city of Berlin (Figure 2). The multiple EB EB. 14 PLAs received a very high rating, affecting map (Figure 2) shows that almost all the PLAs with high 1,586,728 and 91,764 inhabitants, respectively. This 340 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Figure 3. Categorised PLAs (435) according to socioeconomic group in relation of total population for the selected socioeconomic groups (left bars) and corresponding population (right bars) in the socioeconomic hotspots (population of selected groups in brackets where applicable). corresponds to 47.1% of the population of Berlin in the The indicator inhabitants with migration back- 175 worst rated PLAs. The PLAs with a very high rating ground shows a normal distribution, with group mem- are mostly in Mitte-south (8 PLAs) adjacent to bers making up 52.9% (weighted mean). The Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. geographic location of hotspots is displayed in Figure 3 reveals that between 12.8% and 21.8% of Figure 4, upper right. Nonetheless, in some PLAs the 435 analysed PLAs host above-average or strongly a share of up to 79.7% can be found. There is a clear above-average shares of the selected SEGs. The over- accumulation in the centre of Berlin, similarly to all population in socioeconomic hotspots ranges before in Mitte and Neukölln-north, but also in between 470,020 and 871,994 inhabitants. For bene- Kreuzberg. Germaniagarten (as indicated in Figure 2) ficiaries of social welfare, inhabitants with migration can be considered a hotspot as well, but in contrast to background, old-age poverty and child poverty, data the beneficiaries of social welfare applied above, there allowed the calculation of the absolute numbers of are a total of 5 PLAs with the worst environmental these groups living in the socioeconomic hotspots, assessment score and the highest concentration of amounting to 193,342, 384,087, 10,416, and 77,342 inhabitants with migration background. These can be group members. found in Donaustraße (see location in Figure 2, Figure 4 (upper left) shows a heterogenous spatial Neukölln-north), around Lützowstraße (Mitte, indi- distribution of PLAs with above-average and strongly cated) and Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. above-average percentage of beneficiaries of social wel- Old-age poverty (Figure 4, middle left) also has fare in Berlin (weighted average incidence of 27.5% a clearly centrally located distribution. Its average with a maximum of 45.3%). These are found in the population share of 16.9% in the hotspots and its districts of Spandau, Reinickendorf and Marzahn- maximum value of 30.3% is the lowest for all five Hellersdorf in the outskirts of the city. In the inner selected groups. PLAs with high or very high percen- city, the hotspots, especially Neukölln and Mitte, mainly tage are mostly in the city centre. Friedrichshain- overlap with the concentration of EB. Only one PLA Kreuzberg (9 PLAs), Mitte (14 PLAs) and Neukölln (12 belongs to the worst category in both environmental PLAs) host most PLAs with a very high share, their and socioeconomic terms: Germaniagarten distribution being rather clustered as they mostly lie (Tempelhof-Schöneberg, see location in Figure 2). adjacent to each other. Of those, the PLAs with most INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 341 Figure 4. Multiple environment burden with different social groups: i) beneficiaries of social welfare (upper left), ii) inhabitants with migration background (upper right), iii) old-age poverty (middle left), iv) child poverty (bottom left) and v) single-parent households (bottom right). EB and thus with the highest EIJ are again The distribution of child poverty (Figure 4, bot- Germaniagarten, Lützowstraße and Donaustraße (as tom left), exhibiting an average of 59.4% (hotspots) indicated in Figure 2). with a maximum of 76.8%, is very similar to the 342 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Table 5. Numbers and within-group share of overall population and vulnerable groups living in hotspots (high or very high environmental burdened planning areas). Overall Beneficiaries of social Inhabitants with migration Old age Child population welfare background poverty poverty Low or middle multiple EB (257 1,878,899 220,394 (46.7%) 408,748 (40.3%) 14,426 70,807 PLAs) (52.8%) (43.3%) (48.4%) High or very high multiple EB 1,678,492 251,541 (53.3%) 606,239 (59.7%) 18,858 75,482 (175 PLAs) (47.2%) (56.7%) (51.6%) Total 3,557,391 471,935 1,014,987 33,284 146,289 results of beneficiaries of social welfare. The PLAs Discussion with a high and very high share tend to be located Comparison to other studies centrally but many PLAs can also be found in the outskirts of the city, mostly Spandau and Marzahn- Overall, the results of our analysis provide evidence of Hellersdorf. Again, hotspots are Donaustraße and EIJ in Berlin. Our analysis of the spatial distribution of Germaniagarten. the SEGs and the multiple EB found hotspots of envir- The maximum percentage of single-parent onmental injustice, expressed as a cumulative con- households reaches 54.7% with a population- centration of high EB as well as a high percentage of weighted mean of around 43.4% in the hotspots. socioeconomic disadvantage, in the city centre. It can However, the PLAs with a high and very high share be assumed that the density of the disadvantages in single-parent households are located rather het- results from urban conditions in the city centre, erogeneously and tend to be towards the outskirts namely, high building density and sealing rate. The of the city, mostly contiguously (Figure 4, bottom result is an urban heat island effect and a lack of UGS right). There is no obvious concentration of this as well as a high rate of traffic causing air and noise SEG in the inner city, but in each district, there is pollution. Strong similarities in the distribution can be at least one PLA with a high or very high percen- found for the groups of beneficiaries of social welfare, tage of single parents. Marzahn-Hellersdorf, inhabitants with migration background, old-age pov- Lichtenberg, Treptow-Köpenick and Spandau are erty, and child poverty. Our findings correspond to EJ the districts that host most PLAs with a high literature in that we identified higher EB for neigh- share of single parents. It is noticeable that bourhood areas of lower SES. Raddatz and Mennis Germaniagarten in Tempelhof-Schöneberg stands (2013), who focus on industrial hazards, find EIJ in out here as well, making it the PLA of a very high Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany. EB being a hotspot for all the five SEGs. Wüstemann et al. (2017) confirm EIJ for all larger We found that vulnerable SEGs are disproportio- German cities and Depietri et al. (2013) find highest nately more exposed to EB when compared to the heat exposure among the elderly in Cologne. UGS overall population of which 47.2% are affected by distribution in neighbourhoods in Munich differed high or very high EB (Table 5) In comparison, of all with proportion of elderly and long-term unemployed beneficiaries of social welfare, 53.3% live in bur- residents compared to those with a higher share of dened PLAs. For affected people under old-age young residents (Xu et al. 2018). In Hannover, mixed poverty, inhabitants with migration background patterns, depending on neighbourhood, for UGS and child poverty the percentages are 56,7%, access by elderly were found, with no general disad- 59.7% and 51,6%, respectively. In short, the vulner- vantage (Wen et al. 2020). able socioeconomic population groups usually live The EJ monitoring carried out in 2015 as part of the where a high environmental impact exists. For the EAB analyses the socio-spatial distribution of EB in indicators single-parent households, no calculation Berlin. EJ was determined by correlating the multiple of percentages was possible as they are based on exposures of environmental factors and a different main reference unit (households) than a socioeconomic development index (Klimeczek the available PLA inhabitants. 2019). The results showed a spatial concentration of INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 343 planning areas with high burden in the inner city. Limitations Coinciding with our results, several further studies We used an aggregated indicator to determine the find that hotspots of EB are in the inner city of spatial distribution of EB, which can be beneficial in Berlin. This concerns environmental quality regarding serving as a benchmark for comparison, but does not vegetation (noise pollution was distributed along allow establishing links between certain SEGs and main roads and around the two city-airports through- specific environmental impacts or specific local pat- out the city) (Lakes et al. 2014), per capita UGS terns of EIJ (Lakes et al. 2014). Giang and Castellani (Kleinschmit et al. 2011; Kabisch and Haase 2014) (2020), for example, demonstrate that hotspots iden- and several air pollutants (Franck et al. 2014; Kindler tified may vary according to the air pollutant looked at et al. 2018). PLAs without multiple EB are predomi- in comparison to a cumulative analysis. Which SEG nantly in the outskirts of Berlin. According to the EAB, suffers in what intensity from what kind of EB, and multiple burden are found in the districts of what this means in terms of EJ when related to their Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Wedding (Mitte) and specific needs and demands, are matters that still Neukölln-north. need to be examined. The choice of an additive clas- The concentration of environmental pollution in sification of cumulative burdens while assigning the the city centre correlates with the respective socio- lower class in case of a balanced distribution (e.g., two economic indicators. The findings about the EB burdens assessed as high and very high respectively were as expected. In contrast, the comparisons of results in a very high cumulative burden) creates hotspots with socioeconomic data revealed unex- a tendency to overestimate EB. pected information through different patterns. We assume that the identification of environmen- Kabisch and Haase (2014) used a similar indicator tally burdened hotspots is relatively consistent for inhabitants with migration background and despite the time gap between the environmental found similar patterns. Although the old-age pov- data. The main reason is seen in a gradual urban erty distribution does not correspond to spatial development reinforcing existing patterns rather patterns of over 65s as analysed in the same than changing them. Air and noise pollution probably study, there is a clear overlap with the patterns of did increase with growing traffic, yet, with social development from Lakes et al. (2014) and a concentration on worsening conditions along the Franck et al. (2014). Only the spatial distribution main roads. Thus, one may expect additional hot- of the high and very high rated levels of single spots. Similarly, bioclimate (heat stress) may have wor- parent-households is not associated with environ- sened with increasing temperatures, but as other mental pollution. Thus, the social development factors such as urban structures, these hotspots iden- index that was elaborated for Berlin can identify tified are assumed to prevail. Also, the data used for environmental injustice for SEGs that were not lack of UGS is based on major revisions made in 2010, included in its calculation and only considered as while the actualisation 2015 focused mostly on doc- context indicators. This applies to inhabitants with umentation (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung migration background and old-age poverty, as our und Umwelt 2016b). The socioeconomic data (MSUD selected indicators of child poverty and beneficiaries from 2015) has been chosen to best match the envir- of social welfare are part of it as core indicators. onmental data. The closure of the Tegel airport in Again, the only exception are single-parent house- November 2020 will probably alter the evaluation of holds for which no strong conclusion about envir- two PLAs in near vicinity (Klixstraße, onmental injustice could be drawn. These findings Scharnweberstraße) in south-central Reinickendorf imply that the identification of hotspots is to some identified as hotspots for beneficiaries of social welfare, extent robust to using different socioeconomic inhabitants with migration background and child pov- data. This paper’s results suggest that groups not erty due to their very high air pollution. Further yet regarded in EJ studies are exposed in similar changes in PLAs along former flight routes may be ways to the ones analysed, albeit patterns may revealed when new data are available. vary, as is especially the case for single-parent households. Whether this applies for EJ studies in The socioeconomic data used refer to the place of contexts other than Berlin is subject to further residence, that is the registered address of the ana- research. lysed groups. We share the view that this is the 344 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. location where people – especially children and the ecological benefits on reduction of heat stress or elderly – spend most of their time in home (Day 2010) pollutants in the atmosphere (Kabisch 2015), direct and can therefore serve as a reference point for our benefits such as the satisfaction of recreational study. In contrast, single-parents tend to display needs are complemented indirectly by positive effects a necessary above-average mobility, manifested as on psychological wellbeing like stress reduction or leaving the home often, regardless of their working relaxation (Bertram and Rehdanz 2015). These may situation (Chlond and Ottmann 2007). Other impor- be especially important for people of lower SES, for tant locations frequented by residents should also be whom health effects were found to be higher considered as this can change the loads they are (Mitchell and Popham 2008). These benefits already exposed to. However, corresponding data on motion unfold through having green in sight (Bertram and profiles are basically unknown and unavailable at the Rehdanz 2015). Bearing in mind such green infrastruc- level of the city’s PLAs. Łaszkiewicz and Sikorska ture in urban planning when dealing with increasingly (2020) demonstrate a way of analysing the ‘availabil- dense cities may, to a certain extent, compensate for ity’ of UGS along children’s commute.The spatial data the lack of UGS. used in our analysis assume an equal geographical Another question that arises when detecting hot- distribution of SEGs and EB within a PLA. No informa- spots of EIJ is how affected SEGs evaluate their living tion about the distribution of these indicators within environment. It remains unclear whether inhabitants residential complexes or buildings is given. For of the identified hotspots consider themselves to be instance, bioclimatic stress may not only depend on exposed to the stated EB involuntarily. Inhabitants the residential area in the city, but on the floor that may be satisfied with the place they live in, even people live on. Temperatures are higher on top floors though there may be EB. Rüttenauer and Best (2020) than in the basement during the summer and there- state the importance of considering different fore cause higher heat-related stress. The correspond- dynamics by looking at movement of inhabitants ing ‘vertical’ distribution of socioeconomic as well as with migration background in relation to perceived environmental indicators neither are considered. air pollution and income changes. Therefore, examin- Similarly, noise and air pollution are highest near to ing personal impressions of environmental injustice their sources and may be reduced substantially with and living conditions in the identified neighbourhood growing distance from a main street, e.g., flats in the hotspots and whether there is a feeling of need for backyard part of the building as is typical for Berlin. improvements or not is necessary. This may be part of These implications call for a detailed analysis of local a follow-up qualitative study, e.g., using an interview patterns. research design within the hotspots, to identify the Concerning the lack of UGS, we only considered specific local social and environmental situation laid their distribution per capita. However, we acknowl- out in the previous section. edge the fact that distributional justice does not only depend on the availability of certain areas of green Implications of results for planning: multifaced space. Various studies exist that address the differ - measures and legal aspects ences in use of UGS by different people (La Barrera et al. 2016). Therefore, an examination of per capita We will use our conclusions to draw recommenda- values needs to be complemented by qualitative con- tions for different levels of planning and point out siderations when assessing the fairness of the distri- encountered obstacles of implementing EJ into prac- bution of UGS. Ways to cope with this problem are tice, mainly seen as time and budget constraints described as part of the planning recommendations. (Böhm et al. 2016). Successful planning needs multi- Due to the small scale of certain green infrastruc- faceted measures and approaches. Interdisciplinary ture – facade greening, hedges, or solitary trees for coordination ensures that the various roots of injus- instance – it was not possible to include them in our tice can be addressed such as a lack of power to analysis of UGS provision. Yet, urban tree canopy determine living place contributing to limited residen- coverage, for example, is affecting air quality and tial choice, possibly linked to discrimination in the public health and can be disaggregated in analyses housing market and unemployment. Nieuwenhuijsen up to effects of different tree species (Lai and (2016) exemplifies this complexity of the urban socio- Kontokosta 2019). Apart from the well-known ecological system for transport. The most integrated INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 345 approach is expanding urban green for its multiple Creating UGS to meet the needs of local inhabi- benefits and contribution to ecosystem services: UGS tants requires planners to consider who is using the mitigate the analysed EB of air and noise pollution as UGS, including who lives in walking distance, and well as heat risk, and lead to additional health benefits involving them in the planning process. Several stu- such as reduced stress (Yao et al. 2021) and psycholo- dies have already identified requirements for differ - gical well-being (Wolch et al. 2014), an indicator of ent user groups, including preferences of the which has already been applied to EJ (Yee et al. 2020). analysed SEGs, with a focus on children (Kaymaz This could be flanked by ensuring a network of UGS of et al. 2017) or older citizens (Arnberger et al. 2017). different formats and levels, including informal UGS Palliwoda et al. (2020) do so for different types and (Sikorska et al. 2020), urban gardening opportunities characteristics of parks and brownfields in Leipzig. (Certomà and Martellozzo 2019) or residential green- The large open spaces for active sport activities that ery (Säumel et al. 2021). Such a network is foreseen in are mostly offered by the current park design of the the Berlin Landscape Programme along 20 green main UGS Tempelhof (Kabisch and Haase 2014) do not roads (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und address older individuals’ and immigrant families’ Umwelt 2016a) or as a Green Belt Berlin along the needs. Instead, enough space for barbequing or pic- former border (Kowarik 2019). Such greening along nicking, which is equipped with shade, tables, seat- roads may promote bicycle use. Transport concepts ing and nearby playgrounds should be provided can further be enhanced by increasing accessibility to (Kabisch and Haase 2014). It can be assumed that UGS (Chen and Chang 2015) as well as promoting single parents have similar demands towards UGS. emission reductions through emission standards of Quality, in other words, attractiveness, and not vehicles and the use of filters in public transport merely the availability or access to UGS plays an (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt important role for questions on EJ. In the German 2014a). Noise levels can be reduced through similar city of Mannheim, playgrounds had lower quality measures that aim at enhancing technology of vehi- attributes (attractiveness, cleanliness, safety) in cles and road infrastructure such as railways, but as socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods (Buck well through insulation programmes et al. 2019). These factors can be directly related to (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und different barriers resulting from decisions taken dur- Umwelt, editor 2014b). E-mobility is a promising con- ing the planning process and be influenced by the cept that addresses both noise and air pollution. involved actors (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018). However, more attention is needed to implement Planning for EJ offers prospects to reach distribu- e-mobility in public rather than private transport tional and procedural justice when participation is (Glotz-Richter and Koch 2016). Measures well-known ensured, and participative procedures are designed to improve the bioclimate are planning buildings with to include all groups. EJ thus encourages a progress low albedo and streets that offer shadow and favour from community-placed to community-based plan- air circulation (Fernandez Milan and Creutzig 2015). At ning (Ziegler et al. 2019). Here, the Berlin the roof level, heat effects in main road neighbour- Neighbourhood Management Programme holds hood in Berlin have proven to be mitigated through great potential to enhance EJ through horizontal rooftop greenery (Knaus and Haase 2020). However, exchange argued for by Verheij and Corrêa Nunes some of the above-mentioned sustainability measures (2020). Local offices that communicate planning pro- need a justice perspective to avoid burdening on posals to residents at the same time as forwarding socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. citizens’ ideas and wishes to local authorities, serve Justice can also be enhanced by designing appro- as a mediator between citizens and local administra- priate and needs-tailored measures, which will be tion. Moreover, the programme comprises a wide exemplified for UGS, but also applicable for transport range of actors: it cooperates with local associations planning, for example. The participation of local peo- or day care centres and requires coordination ple is closely linked to the creation of UGS with between different departments (Böhme and Bunzel possibilities for different uses (Kabisch and Haase 2014). 2014). This is also argued by Anguelovski (2013) Participatory GIS can further increase interaction who highlights that EJ needs to go beyond its dis- between planners and residents and help to obtain tributional pillar. valuable local information (Raymond et al. 2016). 346 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. A less time-intensive approach is the use of smart- environmental impacts faces multiple conflicting phone applications with varying degree of interaction goals and burdens in German cities and municipa- as analysed by Ertiö (2015). This method may meet lities. Awareness of double inner development and preferences of time-bound single-parents and could effective identification of potential areas, in short, be designed in other languages to involve the inhabi- the putting into practice of research results, can tants with migration background that may feel uncom- contribute to reaching EJ aims. Recommending fortable with German. dedicating more public funds towards UGS seems For a recognition of issues involving EJ at higher difficult. Arguments from literature that suggest levels in the planning process, EJ may be integrated health benefits for the population, such as into communal landscape planning as own subject of increased well-being, higher levels of health in protection in environmental assessments or land- general or lower abundance of diseases should be scape planning itself, or as a context of justification highlighted (Böhme et al. 2019). Awareness and for goals (Rittel 2014). An integration of EJ as an willingness to invest among public administrations independent protected good of landscape planning might increase by linking future benefits and cur- would break completely new ground, and therefore rent public expenditures that are currently disen- might be quite unrealistic (Rittel 2014). Moreover, it is tangled by a temporal gap. To achieve this not legally binding. Böhme et al. (2019) argue for the awareness, key factors are interdisciplinary team- legal integration into the Federal Building Code as work and interdepartmental cooperation between well as through national programmes that foster social and healthcare planning, open space devel- recognition. As Strelau and Köckler (2015) show, EJ opment and environmental management (Böhme plays no role in daily planning practice in German et al. 2019). Accessible tools to assess EJ as does environmental agencies, because there is no necessity the EAB for Berlin or a tool at regional scale in to consider social aspects unless public demand or Belgium (Habran et al. 2020) or to assess EJ out- legal foundations exist. Moreover, planning docu- comes for greening projects (Liotta et al. 2020) can ments insufficiently consider factors promoting EJ support decisions. For Germany, Böhme et al. such as urban tree canopy or EJ implications of other (2019) developed a platform for municipalities on decisions (Kolosna and Spurlock 2019; Meenar et al. how to address EJ. Although desirable, increasing 2019) the relevance of EJ issues for environmental agen- Weighing the development of urban wasteland cies by law or increased public attention may only and brownfields with possibilities to their UGS use is be achieved in the long-term. A first step would be demanded. The concept of ‘Urban Green in dual inner to establish clear and transparent guidelines on development’ addresses this by supporting cities and how to deal with this issue for planners as recom- municipalities meet the challenges of using available mended by Strelau and Köckler (2015). space for settlement while developing urban open spaces. In addition to conflicts between the develop- Conclusion ment of residential area and green space, different objectives concerning urban greenery compete such This study identified hotspots of environmental injustice as protecting certain habitats versus spaces for recrea- of five selected SEGs in Berlin. We found that these SEGs tion. Recommendations included improved collabora- are differently and disproportionately more exposed to tion between the departments responsible for inner EB in Berlin. Some of the identified hotspots overlap, city development as well as involving citizens and except for single-parent households. Different indicators environmental organisations in planning processes for the social and environmental dimension of the EJ at an early stage. In a newer project for German concept may lead to similar conclusions, a result that municipalities, additional recommendations included can contribute to the development of guidelines on the identification municipality-specific EJ situation, incorporating EJ into policy. However, a differentiated defining responsibilities for EJ in administration look as has been provided is considered necessary to and prioritising needs according to multiple burdens address environmental injustice in urban planning, (Böhme et al. 2019). including regarding the differing needs of the SEGs. To conclude, the development of UGS as Despite the limitations of neglecting specific local con- a means of enhancing EJ by mitigating negative ditions of EB and exposure to them, the chosen spatial INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 347 analysis approach allows for identifying most impacted Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and Environmental Planning study programme. planning areas. In a second step, these need to be assessed locally and included into PLA-specific planning, Toni Scheibner is members of the student working group on environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. involving people’s perceptions of living conditions. Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and Implementation of EJ includes designing multifaceted Environmental Planning study programme. measures and can be best realised through multi-use Thi Thuong Le is members of the student working group on UGS addressing the needs of different groups. Green environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. elements distributed throughout the city on the one Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and side and increasing awareness and public participation Environmental Planning study programme. possibilities through local initiatives such as the Berlin Prof. Dr. Birgit Kleinschmit is head of chair of Geoinformation in Neighbourhood Management Programme on the other Environmental Planning at Technische Universität Berlin. side, are further recommendations. Additionally, a double inner development approach allows for rever- sing negative densification outcomes. Further measures References are needed that can deal with possible conflicts and raise Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. 2020 [inhabitants in the awareness at various levels of planning while consider- state berlin 31.12.2019]. Potsdam: AfS. German. https://www. ing the constraints: General obstacles encountered in statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/stat_berichte/ public administration when it comes to the realisation 2020/SB_A01-16-00_2019h02_BE.pdf . Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B. 2010. Exploring the nexus: of EJ have been presented. bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space and Polity. 6(1):77–90. doi:10.1080/ Acknowledgements Anguelovski I. 2013. New directions in Urban Environmental Justice. J Plan Educ Res. 33(2):160–175. doi:10.1177/ The authors would like to thank Scarlett Aßmann, Camilla 0739456X13478019. Benninghofen, Miriam Bui, Michelle Eckhardt, Rosa Gather, Annerstedt Van Den Bosch M, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Josephine Goutrié, Franziska Röpke, Susan Shafi, Julian Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Swart W, Kruize H, Zurlyte I, Egorov AI. Wendler and Elena Wernitz for their joint efforts and collabora- 2016. Development of an urban green space indicator and tion within the working group on environmental justice in Berlin the public health rationale. Scand J Public Health. 44 as well as for preparing essential data used in this study. (2):159–167. doi:10.1177/1403494815615444. Data availability statement: Arnberger A, Allex B, Eder R, Ebenberger M, Wanka A, Kolland F, The environmental data that support the findings of this Wallner P, Hutter H-P. 2017. Elderly resident’s uses of and study are openly available in the Environmental Atlas of Berlin preferences for urban green spaces during heat periods. at https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umwelta Urban For Urban Gree. 21:102–115. doi:10.1016/j. tlas/eiinhalt.htm, reference numbers 09.01 (Environmental ufug.2016.11.012. Justice), 06.01/02 (Land Use) and 03.11.3 (Clean Air Plan); the Bertram C, Rehdanz K. 2015. The role of urban green space for socioeconomic data in the Monitoring Social Urban human well-being. Ecol Econ. 120:139–152. doi:10.1016/j. Development at https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/pla ecolecon.2015.10.013. nen/basisdaten_stadtentwicklung/monitoring/de/2015/index. Biernacka M, Kronenberg J. 2018. Classification of institutional shtml#Bericht (German only). barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and attractive- ness of urban green spaces. Urban For Urban Gree. 36:22–33. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007. Disclosure statement Böhm J, Böhme C, Bunzel A, Kühnau C, Landua D, Reinke M 2016 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. [Urban green in double inner development]. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). 1270 p. (BfN- Skripten; vol. 444). ISBN: 978-3-89624-181-8. German. Böhme C, Bunzel A 2014 [urban environmental justice - instru- Notes on contributors ments for securing and establishing justice]. Berlin: Sonja Hölzl works at the science-practice interface in human- Umweltbundesamt. German. nature relations and nature conservation. Her study fields were Böhme C, Franke T, Preuß T 2019. [Implementation of an inte- Integrated Natural Resource Management, Environmental grated strategy to Environmental Justice - pilot project in Planning and Governance and Public Policy. She was part of German municipalities]. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. the student working group on environmental justice in Berlin 133 p. (Umwelt & Gesundheit; no. 2). German. under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Kleinschmit. Buck C, Bolbos A, Schneider S. 2019. Do poorer children have Mihailo Veskov is members of the student working group on poorer playgrounds? a geographically weighted analysis of environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. attractiveness, cleanliness, and safety of playgrounds in 348 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. affluent and deprived urban neighborhoods. J Phys Act Habran S, Crespin P, Veschkens M, Remy S. 2020. Development Health. 16(6):397–405. Epub 2019 Apr 15. eng. 10.1123/ of a spatial web tool to identify hotspots of environmental jpah.2018-0177. burdens in Wallonia (Belgium). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 27 (6):5681–5692. Epub 2019 Feb 6. eng. 10.1007/s11356-019- Certomà C, Martellozzo F. 2019. Cultivating urban justice? 04418-5. A spatial exploration of urban gardening crossing spatial Holifield R. 2013. Defining environmental justice and environ- and environmental injustice conditions. Appl Geogr. mental racism. Urban Geogr. 22(1):78–90. doi:10.2747/0272- 106:60–70. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.03.007. 3638.22.1.78. Chen J, Chang Z. 2015. Rethinking urban green space accessibility: Hornberg C, Pauli A. 2007. Child poverty and environmental evaluating and optimizing public transportation system through justice. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 210(5):571–580. social network analysis in megacities. Landscape Urban Plan. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.07.006. 143:150–159. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.07.007. Kabisch N. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and govern- Chlond B, Ottmann P. 2007. The mobility behaviour of single ance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of parents and their activities outside the home. German Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy. 42:557–567. doi:10.1016/j. Journal of Urban Studies. 46:49-61. https://difu.de/5943 landusepol.2014.09.005. Day R. 2010. Environmental justice and older age: consideration Kabisch N. 2019. Urban ecosystem service provision and social- of a qualitative neighbourhood-based study. Environ Plann A. environmental justice in the city of Leipzig, Germany. In: 42(11):2658–2673. doi:10.1068/a43109. Schröter M, Bonn A, Klotz S, Seppelt R, Baessler C, editors. Depietri Y, Welle T, Renaud FG. 2013. Social vulnerability assess- Atlas of ecosystem services. Cham: Springer International ment of the cologne urban area (germany) to heat waves: Publishing; p. 347–352. links to ecosystem services. Int J Disast Risk Re. 6:98–117. Kabisch N, Haase D. 2014. Green justice or just green?: provision Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. 2017. [Data from the communal of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape Urban register. German cities according to area and population Plan. 122:129–139. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016. based on the census 2011 and population density.]. Kaymaz I, Oguz D, Cengiz-Hergul OC. 2017. Factors influencing German: Wiesbaden: Destatis. children’s use of urban green spaces. Indor Built Environ, Downey L, Hawkins B. 2008. Single-mother families and air 5:520–532. doi: 10.1177/1420326X17705943. pollution: a national study. Soc Sci Q. 89(2):523–536. Kindler A, H-j K, Franck U. 2018. Socio-spatial distribution of doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00545.x. airborne outdoor exposures – an indicator for environmental Edwards GAS, Reid L, Hunter C. 2016. Environmental justice, quality, quality of life, and environmental justice: the case capabilities, and the theorization of well-being. Prog Hum study of berlin. In: Kabisch S, Koch F, Gawel E, Haase A, Geog. 40(6):754–769. doi:10.1177/0309132515620850. Knapp S, Krellenberg K, Nivala J, Zehnsdorf A, editors. Ertiö T-P. 2015. Participatory apps for urban planning—space for Urban transformations, Vol. 10, (Future City). Cham: improvement. Plann Pract Res. 30(3):303–321. doi:10.1080/ Springer International Publishing; p. 257–279. 02697459.2015.1052942. Kleinschmit B, Geißler G, Leutloff H 2011. Socio-spatial distribu- Fairburn J, Butler B, Smith G. 2009. Environmental justice in tion of green spaces in Berlin. In: Bunge C, Gebuhr K, editors: south yorkshire: locating social deprivation and poor envir- Environmental Justice. Berlin: Federal Office for Radiation onments using multiple indicators. Local Environ. 14 Protection, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Robert (2):139–154. doi:10.1080/13549830802522038. Koch Institute, Federal Environment Agency; p. 35–37 Fairburn J, Sa S, Dreger S, Lk H, Bolte G. 2019. Social inequalities (UMID: Environment and Human Health – Information in exposure to ambient air pollution: a systematic review in Service; Special Issue II). the WHO European region. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16. Klimeczek H-J 2019. [Environmental justice in Berlin - summary]. In: eng. (17): 10.3390/ijerph16173127. Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz, editor. Fernández IC, Wu J. 2016. Assessing environmental inequalities [Basic report environmental justice. Foundation for a socio- in the city of santiago (chile) with a hierarchical multiscale spatial environmental policy]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für approach. Appl Geogr. 74:160–169. doi:10.1016/j. Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz; p. 18–25. apgeog.2016.07.012. Knaus M, Haase D. 2020. Green roof effects on daytime heat in Fernandez Milan B, Creutzig F. 2015. Reducing urban heat wave a prefabricated residential neighbourhood in Berlin, risk in the 21st century. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Germany. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 53:126738. 14:221–231. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.002. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126738. Franck U, Klimeczek H-J, Kindler A. 2014. Social indicators are Kohlhuber M, Mielck A, Weiland SK, Bolte G. 2006. Social inequal- predictors of airborne outdoor exposures in berlin. Ecol Indic. ity in perceived environmental exposures in relation to hous- 36:582–593. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.023. ing conditions in Germany. Environ Res. 101(2):246–255. Giang A, Castellani K. 2020. Cumulative air pollution indicators doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.09.008. highlight unique patterns of injustice in urban Canada. Kolosna C, Spurlock D. 2019. Uniting geospatial assessment of Environ Res Lett. 15(12):124063. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ neighborhood urban tree canopy with plan and ordinance abcac5. evaluation for environmental justice. Urban For Urban Gree. Glotz-Richter M, Koch H. 2016. Electrification of public transport 40:215–223. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.010. in cities (horizon 2020 ELIPTIC project). Transp Res Proc. Kowarik I. 2019. The “Green Belt Berlin”: establishing a greenway 14:2614–2619. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.416. where the Berlin wall once stood by integrating ecological, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 349 social and cultural approaches. Landscape Urban Plan. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2016. Urban and transport planning, envir- 184:12–22. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.12.008. onmental exposures and health-new concepts, methods and La Barrera F, De, Reyes-paecke S, Harris J, Bascuñán D, Farías JM. tools to improve health in cities. Environ Health. 15(Suppl 2016. People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces S1):38. doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0108-1. in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban For Ntiwane B. 2018. Environmental justice in the context of Urban Gree. 20:254–264. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.007. planning. TRP. 72(1):84–98. Lai Y, Kontokosta CE. 2019. The impact of urban street tree Palliwoda J, Banzhaf E, Priess JA. 2020. How do the green compo- species on air quality and respiratory illness: a spatial analysis nents of urban green infrastructure influence the use of eco- of large-scale, high-resolution urban data. Health Place. system services? examples from Leipzig, Germany. Landscape 56:80–87. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.016. Ecol. 35(5):1127–1142. doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01004-w. Lakes T, Brückner M, Krämer A. 2014. Development of an envir- Petrić D. 2019. Environmental justice in the european union: onmental justice index to determine socio-economic dispa- a critical reassessment. CYELP. 15:215–267. rities of noise pollution and green space in residential areas in Raddatz L, Mennis J. 2013. Environmental justice in hamburg, Berlin. J Environ Plann Man. 57(4):538–556. doi:10.1080/ germany. Prof Geogr. 65(3):495–511. doi:10.1080/ 09640568.2012.755461. 00330124.2012.700500. Lakes T, Klimeczek H-J 2011. Environmental justice in the Federal Raymond CM, Gottwald S, Kuoppa J, Kyttä M. 2016. Integrating State of Berlin: an initial integrated analysis of the socio- multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue spatial distribution of environmental burdens and resources. space planning using public participation geographic infor- In: Bunge C, Gebuhr K, editors: Environmental Justice. Berlin: mation systems. Landscape Urban Plan. 153:198–208. Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Federal Institute for doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.005. Risk Assessment, Robert Koch Institute, Federal Environment Riedel N, Köckler H, Bolte G. 2021. Moving noise action planning Agency; p. 41–43 (UMID: Environment and Human Health – towards more environmental health equity. Five Propositions Information Service; Special Issue II). Cities & Health. 2021:1–9. Lanier C, Deram A, Cuny M-A, Cuny D, Occelli F. 2019. Spatial Rittel K. 2014. [Green, natural, healthy: the potential of analysis of environmental inequalities caused by multiple air multifunctional urban spaces. Research results]. Bonn- pollutants: a cumulative impact screening method, applied Bad godesberg, Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). to the north of France. Ecol Indic. 99:91–100. doi:10.1016/j. 61 pages. (BfN-Skripten; vol. 371). ISBN:978-3-89624-106- ecolind.2018.12.011. 1. German. Łaszkiewicz E, Sikorska D. 2020. Children’s green walk to school: Rüttenauer T. 2019. Bringing urban space back in: a multilevel an evaluation of welfare-related disparities in the visibility of analysis of environmental inequality in germany. Urban greenery among children. Environ Sci Policy. 110:1–13. Studies. 56(12):2549–2567. doi:10.1177/0042098018795786. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.009. Rüttenauer T, Best H. 2020. Perceived pollution and residential Laurent É. 2011. Issues in environmental justice within the eur- sorting in germany: income may not sort, but it helps to opean union. Ecol Econ. 70(11):1846–1853. doi:10.1016/j. escape. SocArXiv, 9 Nov. 2020. Web. ecolecon.2011.06.025. Säumel I, Hogrefe J, Battisti L, Wachtel T, Larcher F. 2021. The Liotta C, Kervinio Y, Levrel H, Tardieu L. 2020. Planning for healthy green living room at one’s doorstep? use and percep- environmental justice - reducing well-being inequalities tion of residential greenery in berlin, germany. Urban Forestry through urban greening. Environ Sci Policy. 112:47–60. & Urban Greening. 58:126949. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126949. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.017. Schüle SA, Gabriel KMA, Bolte G. 2017. Relationship between Mason LR, Ellis KN, Hathaway JM. 2017. Experiences of urban neighbourhood socioeconomic position and neighbourhood environmental conditions in socially and economically public green space availability: an environmental inequality diverse neighborhoods. J Community Pract. 25(1):48–67. analysis in a large German city applying generalized linear doi:10.1080/10705422.2016.1269250. models. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 220(4):711–718. Meenar M, Howell JP, Hachadorian J. 2019. Economic, ecological, doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.02.006. and equity dimensions of brownfield redevelopment plans Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2014a [Air for environmental justice communities in the USA. Local quality plan for Berlin 2011-2017]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. 227 p. Environ. 24(9):901–915. doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1652803. German. Mitchell BC, Chakraborty J. 2015. Landscapes of thermal [SenStadtUm] Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und inequity: disproportionate exposure to urban heat in the Umwelt. 2015a [Social urban development monitoring three largest US cities. Environ Res Lett. 10(11):115005. Berlin]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115005. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2016a Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural envir- [Landscape programme, species protection programme: onment on health inequalities: an observational population commentary 2016]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. study. Lancet. 372(9650):1655–1660. doi:10.1016/S0140- Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2016b [Real 6736(08)61689-X. land use and city structure. documentation of cartographic units Neimanis A, Castleden H, Rainham D. 2012. Examining the place of and data actualization of data]. berlin: SenStadtUm. German. ecological integrity in environmental justice: a systematic Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. review. Local Environ. 17(3):349–367. doi:10.1080/ 2014b [Noise action plan 2013-2018 for Berlin]. Berlin: 13549839.2012.665863. SenStadtUm. 101 p. German. 350 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. Verheij J, Corrêa Nunes M. 2020. Justice and power relations in 2017. Environmental atlas - 06.02.1 Actual use and vegetation urban greening: can lisbon’s urban greening strategies lead cover (edition 2015) [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. to more environmental justice? Local Environment. 1–18. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. 2015b doi:10.1080/13549839.2020.1801616. [Environmental justice in the state of Berlin - background infor- Wen C, Albert C, Haaren CV. 2020. Equality in access to urban mation and preliminary remarks]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. German. green spaces: a case study in Hannover, Germany, with Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, a focus on the elderly population. Urban Forestry & Urban editor. 2017a. [City knowledge and data - living environment Greening. 55:126820. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126820. areas]. Berlin: SenStadtWo; [accessed 2017 Aug 14]. German. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. 2014. Urban green space, public http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/basisdaten_ health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making stadtentwicklung/lor/ . cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape Urban Plan. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, 125:234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. editor. 2017b. Environmental atlas. Berlin: SenStadtWo; Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2017. Access to urban green space [updated 2017; accessed 2018 Apr 26]. http://www.stadtent and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landscape Urban wicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edua_index.shtml . Plan. 164:124–131. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.002. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Xu C, Haase D, Pribadi DO, Pauleit S. 2018. Spatial variation of editor. 2017c. Environmental atlas [sealing rate (edition green space equity and its relation with urban dynamics: 2017)]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. German. a case study in the region of Munich. Ecol Indic. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, 93:512–523. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.024. editor. 2017d. Environmental atlas - 03.11.3 clean air plan, Yao W, Zhang X, Gong Q. 2021. The effect of exposure to the 2011-2017 (edition 2012): scenario calculations for the assess- natural environment on stress reduction: a meta-analysis. ment of the effectiveness of selected measures for air quality Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 57:126932. doi:10.1016/j. along streets [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. ufug.2020.126932. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Yee SH, Paulukonis E, Buck KD. 2020. Downscaling a human editor. 2017e. Environmental atlas - environmental justice well-being index for environmental management and envir- (edition 2015): core indicators 1 and 4: noise load and bio- onmental justice applications in Puerto Rico. Appl Geogr. climate/thermal load [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. 123:102231. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102231. Sikorska D, Łaszkiewicz E, Krauze K, Sikorski P. 2020. The role of Zhao J, Gladson L, Cromar K. 2018. A Novel Environmental informal green spaces in reducing inequalities in urban green Justice Indicator for Managing Local Air Pollution. space availability to children and seniors. Environ Sci Policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 15: 1260. 108:144–154. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.007. Ziegler TB, Coombe CM, Rowe ZE, Clark SJ, Gronlund CJ, Strelau L, Köckler H. 2015. “It’s optional, not mandatory”: environ- Lee M, Palacios A, Larsen LS, Reames TG, Schott J, et al. mental justice in local environmental agencies in Germany. Local 2019. Shifting from “community-placed” to “community- Environ. 21(10):1215–1229. doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1084278. based” research to advance health equity: a case study of Thomschke L. 2015. Changes in the distribution of rental prices the heatwaves, housing, and health: increasing climate in Berlin. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 51:88–100. doi:10.1016/j. resiliency in Detroit (HHH) partnership. Int J Environ Res regsciurbeco.2015.01.001. Public Health. 16. (18): 10.3390/ijerph16183310. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis

Vulnerable socioeconomic groups are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental burden in Berlin - implications– for planning

Download PDF
17 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/vulnerable-socioeconomic-groups-are-disproportionately-exposed-to-SzkxQQwPwZ

References (88)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN
1946-3146
eISSN
1946-3138
DOI
10.1080/19463138.2021.1904246
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2021, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 334–350 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2021.1904246 ARTICLE Vulnerable socioeconomic groups are disproportionately exposed to multiple environmental burden in Berlin - implications– for planning Sonja Edith Hölzl, Mihailo Veskov, Toni Scheibner, Ti Thuong Le and Birgit Kleinschmit Dept. Of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 March 2020 This paper takes an urban planning perspective on environmental justice by sepa- Accepted 8 March 2021 rately analysing vulnerable socioeconomic groups for multiple environmental burden (EB) at the neighbourhood level in Berlin. We selected five socioeconomic groups: i) KEYWORDS beneficiaries of social welfare, ii) inhabitants with migration background, iii) old-age Environmental justice; poverty, iv) child poverty, and v) single-parent households. Four ecological indicators, i) cumulative exposure; air pollution, ii) noise pollution, iii) bioclimate (heat stress), and iv) lack of urban green multiple environmental spaces were merged to assess multiple EB at the Planning Area Level. Combining burden; hotspots of environmental injustice; environmental and socioeconomic maps we identified hotspots of environmental urban planning; injustice (EIJ) and demonstrate that selected vulnerable socioeconomic groups are socioeconomic inequalities; disproportionately more affected by multiple EB than population not belonging to spatial analysis these groups. Some of the identified hotspots overlap, except for single-parent house- holds. Finally, multi-purpose planning measures that mitigate the EBs considering the needs of the socioeconomic groups are recommended. Introduction The concept of EJ in research The concept of environmental justice (EJ) has The environmental dimension. EJ movements spread internationally since its beginnings during focussed initially on environmental hazards resulting the environmental grassroot movements in the from industrial sites, while the environmental dimen- USA during the 1980s (Agyeman et al. 2010). In sion of EJ now comprises environmental ‘bads’ and general, EJ can be understood as an equitable goods alike. Injustice is understood broadly, ranging relation between environment and society, incor- from health impacts to community isolation (Holifield porating three dimensions: environmental, societal, 2013). Most studies analyse EJ in terms of one envir- and relational. There exist several ways of analysing onmental aspect such as heat exposure, air or noise EJ and therefore of operationalising these dimen- pollution, the presence of vegetation, urban green sions. This study’s EJ analysis in the city of Berlin, spaces (UGS) or blue infrastructure (Raymond et al. Germany, will look at the geospatial relation 2016). These environmental factors may be charac- between the most prominent environmental bur- terised by sub-components, e.g. different air particles dens and socioeconomic groups considered most or traffic data for air quality (Lakes et al. 2014; Fairburn vulnerable. The approach will be contextualised et al. 2019). To a lesser extent, environmental indices with existing literature in the following section combine two related environmental factors, such as before presenting the research aims, methods air pollution which aggravates heat stress, or vegeta- used and insights on EJ in Berlin. Finally, results tion for its multifaceted benefits on air quality, heat will be discussed, and planning recommendations reduction, noise alleviation and well-being (Kabisch given. and Haase 2014). Despite the variety of EJ research, CONTACT Sonja Edith Hölzl sonja_e.hoelzl@gmx.de Dept. Of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 335 perspectives on multiple or cumulative burdens opportunity as well as an important aspect of sustain- remain limited. One example is Fairburn et al. (2009) able development which should integrate social jus- and for different air pollutants Lanier et al. (2019). tice into its environmental concerns (Agyeman et al. Most of the studies presently available conduct their 2010). However, the implementation of EJ into prac- analyses of the factors separately and neglect their tice has been limited and is hampered by its complex- interconnected nature (Lakes et al. 2014). ity and variety of approaches as evidenced by the lack The societal dimension. The rationale behind the of guidelines (Strelau and Köckler 2015). At EU level, societal dimension is a presumed higher susceptibility Petrić (2019) identifies a lack of clarity regarding legal to impacts and a lower capability to withdraw or implications of findings on environmental injustice. mitigate the negativities due to inequality according Clarity is also hampered by structuring recommenda- to socioeconomic status (SES) (Raddatz and Mennis tions thematically rather than along planning process 2013; Mitchell and Chakraborty 2015). Socioeconomic steps (Böhme et al. 2019). Similarly, planning theories indicators such as household income, education, lack integration of the different justice-related aspects unemployment, minority status or age are often com- of EJ which might initiate its implementation into bined and applied at both individual and neighbour- practice (Ntiwane 2018). hood level (Neimanis et al. 2012), substituting the operationalisation via racial and ethnic minorities. In Applications of the EJ research in Germany a new reasoning, job accessibility was also used for the socioeconomic considerations (Zhao et al. 2018). EJ research in Germany, like in Europe, is primarily Considerable attention has been given to over 65’s analysed in terms of socioeconomic status (Laurent and children’s vulnerability although without consid- 2011). Research on EJ in Germany is growing, and ering their socioeconomic status. EJ is rarely investi- studies have been conducted for Berlin (Lakes and gated for single-parent families (Downey and Hawkins Klimeczek 2011; Franck et al. 2014; Kabisch and Haase 2008; Buck et al. 2019). 2014), Munich (Schüle et al. 2017), Hamburg (Raddatz The relational dimension. Considered the core of and Mennis 2013), and smaller cities such as Hannover, EJ, it addresses concerns regarding the unequal dis- Leipzig and Mannheim (Buck et al. 2019; Kabisch 2019; tribution of environmental hazards. Studies applying Wen et al. 2020) or at the national scale or by compar- a spatial analysis of EJ are the most common. ing cities (Kohlhuber et al. 2006; Wüstemann et al. 2017; However, part of the equitable relationship EJ aims Rüttenauer 2019). As in international studies, the pat- at is procedural justice, i.e. opportunities to partici- tern of EJ is analysed predominantly for one environ- pate in decision-making (Day 2010). It has been mental factor in relation to several socioeconomic argued that involvement per se can be beneficial for characteristics. EJ has also been recognised as a topic the perception of equality (Anguelovski 2013). in public administration. It is implicitly considered in Capture of individual perceptions within the hotspots German public health programmes. Inequality assess- has been conducted, among others, by Day (2010) ments are also demanded to implement air pollution and is regarded as a necessary follow-up to achieve action programmes (Riedel et al. 2021). EJ also was EJ in practice (Edwards et al. 2016). explicitly put on the agenda of the state of North- Each of the presented dimensions is of special Rhine-Westphalia (Hornberg and Pauli 2007). relevance to cities. In cities, populations and their Furthermore, it is integrated in the Environmental physical assets are most concentrated, resulting in Atlas (Umweltatlas) of Berlin (EAB) for monitoring pur- elevated pressure on the environment and in the poses (Klimeczek 2019), also analysing cumulative relationships between individuals and their surround- impacts on a socioeconomic core index ing environment across multiple scales (Fernández (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, and Wu 2016). Urbanisation, the growing number of editor. 2015b). people living in cities, and specific urban environmen- This paper will focus on geographical distribution tal conditions are therefore widely mentioned in EJ of EBs, allowing the identification of hotspots as a first literature (Mason et al. 2017). With its connection to step to prioritise areas for in-depth and on-site analy- urban research, EJ has also gained much attention in sis. Berlin was chosen as a case study, because it is public health research in Europe (Annerstedt Van Den currently experiencing EJ-relevant dynamics of popu- Bosch et al. 2016). Moreover, EJ was coined as an lation growth and housing price rises (Thomschke 336 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. 2015), potentially aggravating social inequalities with (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt regards to housing and environmental conditions. 2016b). About 33.9% of surface was sealed in 2016 Moreover, Berlin being subject to EJ monitoring and due to various inner-city land uses studies (Kleinschmit et al. 2011; Kabisch and Haase (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und 2014; Lakes et al. 2014) it offers the possibility to Wohnen, editor 2017c). Built-up areas are under dif- explore the difference of conclusions on EJ if distinct ferent uses (e.g. residential or commercial uses), with socioeconomic groups (SEGs) are analysed separately, a sealing rate of between 26.7% (weekend homes) and to a lesser extent, if cumulative effects of EBs are and 83.2% (inner city use characterised as essentially accounted for. Berlin’s 447 living environment areas important for services, commerce and cultural/scien- (Lebensweltlich orientierte Räume) allow for addres- tific institutions) (Senatsverwaltung für sing EJ at a suitable scale (Strelau and Köckler 2015; Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2016b). The spatial Mason et al. 2017), i.e., the neighbourhood-level. distribution of land uses according to sealing rate These have also been used as unit of analysis by the follows an urban-rural gradient with most forested existing EJ studies against which implications will be and green areas located in the south-eastern, south- compared. western (Grunewald forest) and north-western out- For the spatial approach of research, EJ will be skirts. The population has fluctuated over the past defined as dealing with the unequal spatial distribu- decades but increased in the year 2019 to approxi- tion of multiple environmental burden (EB) concerning mately 3.77 million inhabitants (Amt für Statistik selected socioeconomic groups (SEGs). Berlin-Brandenburg 2020), the highest value for Planning advice will be given regarding the impli- 80 years and the largest population of German cities cations that result from differences in EJ for our five (Statistisches Bundesamt, editor 2017). The popula- selected SEGs, which will be compared in a spatial tion density is about 3,948 inhabitants per km . analysis using an assessment of multiple environmen- Berlin is home to people from over 100 countries tal conditions. Recommendations will need to also (Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg 2020). The frac- consider the dilemma urban planners face in a dense tion of inhabitants with a migration background is urban environment (Anguelovski 2013). about 27.7% and is steadily growing Our research questions are therefore threefold: (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). Are specific vulnerable socioeconomic groups The administrative management, unified in 2006, disproportionally exposed to multiple environ- allows planning and forecasting of demographic and mental burden in Berlin? social development at several hierarchical levels Where are the hotspots of environmental injus- (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und tice (EIJ) in Berlin? Wohnen, editor 2017a). These are grouped as living What are the implications for urban planning? environment areas (Lebensweltlich orientierte Räume – LOR). Starting from the household address Material and Methods up to the district, this hierarchy comprises a structure Study area for planning that is suitable for a wide range of differ - Berlin, capital city, city state and one of the 16 ent questions. The most local level contains 447 plan- federal states of Germany is in the north-east of the ning areas (PLA – congruent with LORs), which were country (52° 31` 12`` N and 13° 24` 36`` E). The total chosen as level of analysis due to the possibility of area of Berlin is approximately 892 km2 carrying out a small-scale analysis. Statistics were pre- (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt sented and discussed on the level of the12 districts. 2016b). The Land Use Plan was updated in 2015 and provides a differentiated view of 52 land use types in Berlin, grouped into residential, industrial, public, traf- Socioeconomic and environmental indicators fic, green and other uses. Green and open spaces account for 47.4% of the total area (including, Hotspots of EIJ were identified by comparing the among others, water bodies, forested and unforested socioeconomic and environmental layers as per-PLA areas, allotment gardens). Transport and infrastruc- assessment in a spatial analysis (ArcGIS Version tural uses, make up around 20% of the total city area 10.4.1). The socioeconomic and environmental INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 337 most vulnerable to key EBs, we selected i) beneficiaries Table 1. Definition of the five selected socioeconomic groups (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). of social welfare, ii) inhabitants with migration back- Socioeconomic ground, iii) old-age poverty, iv) child poverty, and v) indicator Definition single-parent households. These groups represent Beneficiaries of social Inhabitants according to the Social a heterogenous picture of the socioeconomic back- welfare Security Code, Book II (SGB II), who ground considered in most literature on EJ. Moreover, receive unemployment benefit and social allowance new aspects so far rarely considered by literature (e.g., Inhabitants with Proportion of people with immigration single-parent households) are analysed. Definitions are migration background, including persons with given in Table 1. The 435 PLAs were evaluated using background a second nationality, a citizenship mark, persons under 18 years of age a four-class system adopted from the MSUD. The without own migration characteristics, MSUD provided information about the local distribu- but with a birth country outside tion of each group in Berlin. The percentages of each Germany or with a citizenship mark of at least one parent group in comparison of the total population in the Old-age poverty Percentage of the inhabitants aged individual PLAs were used to build the SES classes 65 years old and over, who receive based on mean values and standard deviations. The basic benefits according to SGB II Child poverty Percentage of children and adolescents classes thus inform about the percentage (1: ‘below under 15 years old, who live in average’ to 4: ‘strongly above average’) share of the a community of needs selected group’s population to all inhabitants in the (Bedarfsgemeinschaft) according to SGB II and receive benefits of social respective PLA (Table 2). Based on the SES classes welfare built, the spatial distribution of the groups at PLA Single-parent Single, married, divorced, and widowed level for Berlin was determined. Socioeconomic hot- households mothers or fathers, who live with at least one minor child (bodily, step, spots with an above average incidence of vulnerable nursing or adoptive child) without groups, defined as class 4 or class 3 PLAs, were a marriage or life partner identified. Each PLA also received an assessment regarding EB. Four ecological indicators that are considered evaluation was based on descriptive statistical meth- a significant EB for EJ by several studies, namely i) air ods (RStudio Version 3.5). Spatial joins were used to pollution, ii) noise pollution, iii) bioclimate (heat stress) geospatially link the PLAs with environmental and iv) lack of urban green spaces (UGS) were inte- indicator. grated into one indicator of multiple environmental Social indicators were taken from the Monitoring burden at PLA level. For this purpose, data from the Social Urban Development Berlin (MSUD) published in EAB and its online geoportal ‘FIS-Broker’ were used 2015 with survey data of the years 2013 and 2014. (Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und They are provided at PLA level (Senatsverwaltung für Wohnen, editor 2017b). The data sources, survey and Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2015a). Planning areas assessment methods can be traced in Table 3. Each with small population (<300 inhabitants) or high out- individual indicator was evaluated in a four-class sys- lier values were excluded from the MSUD. In 435 out tem (degree of EB ‘1 – low’ to ‘4 – very high’) and of a total of 447 PLAs, five out of a total of 21 social analysed statistically according to PLA and class. indicators identified by the MSUD were examined. Bioclimate (heat stress) and lack of UGS were re- Missing PLAs correspond to a low percentage (2.7%) evaluated (Table 3). For noise pollution no pollutant of Berlin’s area. Considering these population groups levels were recorded for 15 PLAs which remained unaffected and were removed from the examined dataset. Overall, 432 of 447 PLAs are considered in Table 2. Socioeconomic status class building based on standard deviation. the EJ analysis. Every PLA received a per-indicator SES class in relation to Value range of the SES class Assigned evaluation. For the combination of environmental total population (SD = Standard Deviation) SES class indicators, the four assessments of every PLA were Below average x < −1,0 SD 1 summed, and classified based on a four-step scale Average −1,0 SD ≤ x ≤ +1,0 SD 2 (Table 4). Totals ranging from 4 to 16 were deter- Above average +1,0 SD < x ≤ +1,5 SD 3 Strongly above x > +1,5 SD 4 mined for the overall environmental assessment. average Thresholds were based on equal steps of the chosen 338 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Table 4. Final assessment of multiple environmental burden. cumulative EB map of Berlin and visualised in a map Sum of 4 environmental displaying the EJ assessment for every SEG. EIJ was indicators 4–5 6–9 10–13 14–16 designated where high or very high EBs (environmen- Final class of multiple EB Low Middle High Very tal classes 3 or 4) coincide with an overrepresentation high of the low SES, i.e., PLAs with an above or strongly Class 1 2 3 4 above presence of the SEGs of interest (socioeco- nomic classes of 3 or 4). 12 PLAs were not considered, either due to low numbers of inhabitants or due to scale. In case of a balanced distribution of the ecolo- high outliers. Furthermore, 15 PLAs were omitted due gical classes, these PLAs were assigned to the lower to missing data on noise pollution. As most of these class, modifying the threshold for the category of high unassessed PLAs overlap, the EJ analysis considers cumulative burden. The data of the overall ecological a total of 432 out of 447 PLA (96.6%). assessment were spatially displayed at the PLA level and visualised as environmental impact map of Berlin. Results PLAs assessed with a high or very high EB (class 3 or 4) Figure 1 displays the number of PLAs assigned to the were defined as hotpots. four assessment levels. Bioclimate (heat stress) is pre- To evaluate EIJ for the five selected SEGs, the five sent with high or very high burden in over 50% of the social maps created were each combined with the PLAs and 60.4% of the population, followed by the lack Table 3. Description of data source and methods of used indicator set for multiple environmental burden assessment. Indicator of cumulative EBs Air pollution Noise pollution Bioclimate (Heat stress) Lack of UGS Source: EAB ( Air Quality Plan for Core Indicator 1: Noise Core Indicator 4: Bio-Climate Actual Use and Vegetation Senatsverwaltung für Berlin 2011–2017 Load of the /Thermal Load Environmental Cover (Edition 2015) Stadtentwicklung und Environmental Justice Justice Edition 2015 Umwelt, editor 2017; Edition 2015 Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017d, [SenStadtWo] Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017e Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, editor 2017e) Method Decile-limits of air Mean extern noise- Physiological Equivalent Two-stage assessment pollution: Particulate costs based on full Temperature (PET) procedure, including 1) Matter (PM ) and traffic per population forest, graveyard, parks 2.5 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) (providing recreational and climate regulation services) and 2) other categories of urban spaces (providing one of the uses above) Senate Department Urban Development Urban Development and Environment Urban Development and and Housing Housing Data status 2009 2012 2009/2011 2015 Assessment 4 classes based on 4 classes used 4 classes were created from 4 classes based on decile- tabular data given the 3 in the original data by limits in orientation of from subdivision: combining ‘high’ bioclimate Accessible Natural geoinformation (J. burdens in PET with ‘very Greenspace Standard Welsch) high potential of heat stress (ANGSt) (Comber et al. over day’ into 4th class 2008) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 339 Figure 1. Categorised PLAs (432) (left bars) and corresponding number of inhabitants (right bars) according to their environmental burden for the four analysed factors. Figure 2. Multiple environmental burden (air and noise pollution, bioclimate/heat stress, lack of UGS) in 432 planning areas of Berlin. data source: EAB. of UGS which was found in 164 of the 432 planning and very high multiple EB are concentrated in the city areas, equivalent to 1,575,717 or 44.3% of inhabitants. centre and PLAs without high burdens are mainly in the The burden of air and noise pollution is high or very outside area near the city boundary. Hotspots are most high in 103 and 85 PLAs, respectively, corresponding to often found in the districts Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, the highest and lowest count of affected population. Mitte, Pankow-south, Tempelhof-Schöneberg and The spatial distribution of EB shows a clear concentra- Neukölln-north. Overall, there are 161 PLAs with high tion in the inner city of Berlin (Figure 2). The multiple EB EB. 14 PLAs received a very high rating, affecting map (Figure 2) shows that almost all the PLAs with high 1,586,728 and 91,764 inhabitants, respectively. This 340 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Figure 3. Categorised PLAs (435) according to socioeconomic group in relation of total population for the selected socioeconomic groups (left bars) and corresponding population (right bars) in the socioeconomic hotspots (population of selected groups in brackets where applicable). corresponds to 47.1% of the population of Berlin in the The indicator inhabitants with migration back- 175 worst rated PLAs. The PLAs with a very high rating ground shows a normal distribution, with group mem- are mostly in Mitte-south (8 PLAs) adjacent to bers making up 52.9% (weighted mean). The Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. geographic location of hotspots is displayed in Figure 3 reveals that between 12.8% and 21.8% of Figure 4, upper right. Nonetheless, in some PLAs the 435 analysed PLAs host above-average or strongly a share of up to 79.7% can be found. There is a clear above-average shares of the selected SEGs. The over- accumulation in the centre of Berlin, similarly to all population in socioeconomic hotspots ranges before in Mitte and Neukölln-north, but also in between 470,020 and 871,994 inhabitants. For bene- Kreuzberg. Germaniagarten (as indicated in Figure 2) ficiaries of social welfare, inhabitants with migration can be considered a hotspot as well, but in contrast to background, old-age poverty and child poverty, data the beneficiaries of social welfare applied above, there allowed the calculation of the absolute numbers of are a total of 5 PLAs with the worst environmental these groups living in the socioeconomic hotspots, assessment score and the highest concentration of amounting to 193,342, 384,087, 10,416, and 77,342 inhabitants with migration background. These can be group members. found in Donaustraße (see location in Figure 2, Figure 4 (upper left) shows a heterogenous spatial Neukölln-north), around Lützowstraße (Mitte, indi- distribution of PLAs with above-average and strongly cated) and Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. above-average percentage of beneficiaries of social wel- Old-age poverty (Figure 4, middle left) also has fare in Berlin (weighted average incidence of 27.5% a clearly centrally located distribution. Its average with a maximum of 45.3%). These are found in the population share of 16.9% in the hotspots and its districts of Spandau, Reinickendorf and Marzahn- maximum value of 30.3% is the lowest for all five Hellersdorf in the outskirts of the city. In the inner selected groups. PLAs with high or very high percen- city, the hotspots, especially Neukölln and Mitte, mainly tage are mostly in the city centre. Friedrichshain- overlap with the concentration of EB. Only one PLA Kreuzberg (9 PLAs), Mitte (14 PLAs) and Neukölln (12 belongs to the worst category in both environmental PLAs) host most PLAs with a very high share, their and socioeconomic terms: Germaniagarten distribution being rather clustered as they mostly lie (Tempelhof-Schöneberg, see location in Figure 2). adjacent to each other. Of those, the PLAs with most INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 341 Figure 4. Multiple environment burden with different social groups: i) beneficiaries of social welfare (upper left), ii) inhabitants with migration background (upper right), iii) old-age poverty (middle left), iv) child poverty (bottom left) and v) single-parent households (bottom right). EB and thus with the highest EIJ are again The distribution of child poverty (Figure 4, bot- Germaniagarten, Lützowstraße and Donaustraße (as tom left), exhibiting an average of 59.4% (hotspots) indicated in Figure 2). with a maximum of 76.8%, is very similar to the 342 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Table 5. Numbers and within-group share of overall population and vulnerable groups living in hotspots (high or very high environmental burdened planning areas). Overall Beneficiaries of social Inhabitants with migration Old age Child population welfare background poverty poverty Low or middle multiple EB (257 1,878,899 220,394 (46.7%) 408,748 (40.3%) 14,426 70,807 PLAs) (52.8%) (43.3%) (48.4%) High or very high multiple EB 1,678,492 251,541 (53.3%) 606,239 (59.7%) 18,858 75,482 (175 PLAs) (47.2%) (56.7%) (51.6%) Total 3,557,391 471,935 1,014,987 33,284 146,289 results of beneficiaries of social welfare. The PLAs Discussion with a high and very high share tend to be located Comparison to other studies centrally but many PLAs can also be found in the outskirts of the city, mostly Spandau and Marzahn- Overall, the results of our analysis provide evidence of Hellersdorf. Again, hotspots are Donaustraße and EIJ in Berlin. Our analysis of the spatial distribution of Germaniagarten. the SEGs and the multiple EB found hotspots of envir- The maximum percentage of single-parent onmental injustice, expressed as a cumulative con- households reaches 54.7% with a population- centration of high EB as well as a high percentage of weighted mean of around 43.4% in the hotspots. socioeconomic disadvantage, in the city centre. It can However, the PLAs with a high and very high share be assumed that the density of the disadvantages in single-parent households are located rather het- results from urban conditions in the city centre, erogeneously and tend to be towards the outskirts namely, high building density and sealing rate. The of the city, mostly contiguously (Figure 4, bottom result is an urban heat island effect and a lack of UGS right). There is no obvious concentration of this as well as a high rate of traffic causing air and noise SEG in the inner city, but in each district, there is pollution. Strong similarities in the distribution can be at least one PLA with a high or very high percen- found for the groups of beneficiaries of social welfare, tage of single parents. Marzahn-Hellersdorf, inhabitants with migration background, old-age pov- Lichtenberg, Treptow-Köpenick and Spandau are erty, and child poverty. Our findings correspond to EJ the districts that host most PLAs with a high literature in that we identified higher EB for neigh- share of single parents. It is noticeable that bourhood areas of lower SES. Raddatz and Mennis Germaniagarten in Tempelhof-Schöneberg stands (2013), who focus on industrial hazards, find EIJ in out here as well, making it the PLA of a very high Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany. EB being a hotspot for all the five SEGs. Wüstemann et al. (2017) confirm EIJ for all larger We found that vulnerable SEGs are disproportio- German cities and Depietri et al. (2013) find highest nately more exposed to EB when compared to the heat exposure among the elderly in Cologne. UGS overall population of which 47.2% are affected by distribution in neighbourhoods in Munich differed high or very high EB (Table 5) In comparison, of all with proportion of elderly and long-term unemployed beneficiaries of social welfare, 53.3% live in bur- residents compared to those with a higher share of dened PLAs. For affected people under old-age young residents (Xu et al. 2018). In Hannover, mixed poverty, inhabitants with migration background patterns, depending on neighbourhood, for UGS and child poverty the percentages are 56,7%, access by elderly were found, with no general disad- 59.7% and 51,6%, respectively. In short, the vulner- vantage (Wen et al. 2020). able socioeconomic population groups usually live The EJ monitoring carried out in 2015 as part of the where a high environmental impact exists. For the EAB analyses the socio-spatial distribution of EB in indicators single-parent households, no calculation Berlin. EJ was determined by correlating the multiple of percentages was possible as they are based on exposures of environmental factors and a different main reference unit (households) than a socioeconomic development index (Klimeczek the available PLA inhabitants. 2019). The results showed a spatial concentration of INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 343 planning areas with high burden in the inner city. Limitations Coinciding with our results, several further studies We used an aggregated indicator to determine the find that hotspots of EB are in the inner city of spatial distribution of EB, which can be beneficial in Berlin. This concerns environmental quality regarding serving as a benchmark for comparison, but does not vegetation (noise pollution was distributed along allow establishing links between certain SEGs and main roads and around the two city-airports through- specific environmental impacts or specific local pat- out the city) (Lakes et al. 2014), per capita UGS terns of EIJ (Lakes et al. 2014). Giang and Castellani (Kleinschmit et al. 2011; Kabisch and Haase 2014) (2020), for example, demonstrate that hotspots iden- and several air pollutants (Franck et al. 2014; Kindler tified may vary according to the air pollutant looked at et al. 2018). PLAs without multiple EB are predomi- in comparison to a cumulative analysis. Which SEG nantly in the outskirts of Berlin. According to the EAB, suffers in what intensity from what kind of EB, and multiple burden are found in the districts of what this means in terms of EJ when related to their Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Wedding (Mitte) and specific needs and demands, are matters that still Neukölln-north. need to be examined. The choice of an additive clas- The concentration of environmental pollution in sification of cumulative burdens while assigning the the city centre correlates with the respective socio- lower class in case of a balanced distribution (e.g., two economic indicators. The findings about the EB burdens assessed as high and very high respectively were as expected. In contrast, the comparisons of results in a very high cumulative burden) creates hotspots with socioeconomic data revealed unex- a tendency to overestimate EB. pected information through different patterns. We assume that the identification of environmen- Kabisch and Haase (2014) used a similar indicator tally burdened hotspots is relatively consistent for inhabitants with migration background and despite the time gap between the environmental found similar patterns. Although the old-age pov- data. The main reason is seen in a gradual urban erty distribution does not correspond to spatial development reinforcing existing patterns rather patterns of over 65s as analysed in the same than changing them. Air and noise pollution probably study, there is a clear overlap with the patterns of did increase with growing traffic, yet, with social development from Lakes et al. (2014) and a concentration on worsening conditions along the Franck et al. (2014). Only the spatial distribution main roads. Thus, one may expect additional hot- of the high and very high rated levels of single spots. Similarly, bioclimate (heat stress) may have wor- parent-households is not associated with environ- sened with increasing temperatures, but as other mental pollution. Thus, the social development factors such as urban structures, these hotspots iden- index that was elaborated for Berlin can identify tified are assumed to prevail. Also, the data used for environmental injustice for SEGs that were not lack of UGS is based on major revisions made in 2010, included in its calculation and only considered as while the actualisation 2015 focused mostly on doc- context indicators. This applies to inhabitants with umentation (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung migration background and old-age poverty, as our und Umwelt 2016b). The socioeconomic data (MSUD selected indicators of child poverty and beneficiaries from 2015) has been chosen to best match the envir- of social welfare are part of it as core indicators. onmental data. The closure of the Tegel airport in Again, the only exception are single-parent house- November 2020 will probably alter the evaluation of holds for which no strong conclusion about envir- two PLAs in near vicinity (Klixstraße, onmental injustice could be drawn. These findings Scharnweberstraße) in south-central Reinickendorf imply that the identification of hotspots is to some identified as hotspots for beneficiaries of social welfare, extent robust to using different socioeconomic inhabitants with migration background and child pov- data. This paper’s results suggest that groups not erty due to their very high air pollution. Further yet regarded in EJ studies are exposed in similar changes in PLAs along former flight routes may be ways to the ones analysed, albeit patterns may revealed when new data are available. vary, as is especially the case for single-parent households. Whether this applies for EJ studies in The socioeconomic data used refer to the place of contexts other than Berlin is subject to further residence, that is the registered address of the ana- research. lysed groups. We share the view that this is the 344 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. location where people – especially children and the ecological benefits on reduction of heat stress or elderly – spend most of their time in home (Day 2010) pollutants in the atmosphere (Kabisch 2015), direct and can therefore serve as a reference point for our benefits such as the satisfaction of recreational study. In contrast, single-parents tend to display needs are complemented indirectly by positive effects a necessary above-average mobility, manifested as on psychological wellbeing like stress reduction or leaving the home often, regardless of their working relaxation (Bertram and Rehdanz 2015). These may situation (Chlond and Ottmann 2007). Other impor- be especially important for people of lower SES, for tant locations frequented by residents should also be whom health effects were found to be higher considered as this can change the loads they are (Mitchell and Popham 2008). These benefits already exposed to. However, corresponding data on motion unfold through having green in sight (Bertram and profiles are basically unknown and unavailable at the Rehdanz 2015). Bearing in mind such green infrastruc- level of the city’s PLAs. Łaszkiewicz and Sikorska ture in urban planning when dealing with increasingly (2020) demonstrate a way of analysing the ‘availabil- dense cities may, to a certain extent, compensate for ity’ of UGS along children’s commute.The spatial data the lack of UGS. used in our analysis assume an equal geographical Another question that arises when detecting hot- distribution of SEGs and EB within a PLA. No informa- spots of EIJ is how affected SEGs evaluate their living tion about the distribution of these indicators within environment. It remains unclear whether inhabitants residential complexes or buildings is given. For of the identified hotspots consider themselves to be instance, bioclimatic stress may not only depend on exposed to the stated EB involuntarily. Inhabitants the residential area in the city, but on the floor that may be satisfied with the place they live in, even people live on. Temperatures are higher on top floors though there may be EB. Rüttenauer and Best (2020) than in the basement during the summer and there- state the importance of considering different fore cause higher heat-related stress. The correspond- dynamics by looking at movement of inhabitants ing ‘vertical’ distribution of socioeconomic as well as with migration background in relation to perceived environmental indicators neither are considered. air pollution and income changes. Therefore, examin- Similarly, noise and air pollution are highest near to ing personal impressions of environmental injustice their sources and may be reduced substantially with and living conditions in the identified neighbourhood growing distance from a main street, e.g., flats in the hotspots and whether there is a feeling of need for backyard part of the building as is typical for Berlin. improvements or not is necessary. This may be part of These implications call for a detailed analysis of local a follow-up qualitative study, e.g., using an interview patterns. research design within the hotspots, to identify the Concerning the lack of UGS, we only considered specific local social and environmental situation laid their distribution per capita. However, we acknowl- out in the previous section. edge the fact that distributional justice does not only depend on the availability of certain areas of green Implications of results for planning: multifaced space. Various studies exist that address the differ - measures and legal aspects ences in use of UGS by different people (La Barrera et al. 2016). Therefore, an examination of per capita We will use our conclusions to draw recommenda- values needs to be complemented by qualitative con- tions for different levels of planning and point out siderations when assessing the fairness of the distri- encountered obstacles of implementing EJ into prac- bution of UGS. Ways to cope with this problem are tice, mainly seen as time and budget constraints described as part of the planning recommendations. (Böhm et al. 2016). Successful planning needs multi- Due to the small scale of certain green infrastruc- faceted measures and approaches. Interdisciplinary ture – facade greening, hedges, or solitary trees for coordination ensures that the various roots of injus- instance – it was not possible to include them in our tice can be addressed such as a lack of power to analysis of UGS provision. Yet, urban tree canopy determine living place contributing to limited residen- coverage, for example, is affecting air quality and tial choice, possibly linked to discrimination in the public health and can be disaggregated in analyses housing market and unemployment. Nieuwenhuijsen up to effects of different tree species (Lai and (2016) exemplifies this complexity of the urban socio- Kontokosta 2019). Apart from the well-known ecological system for transport. The most integrated INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 345 approach is expanding urban green for its multiple Creating UGS to meet the needs of local inhabi- benefits and contribution to ecosystem services: UGS tants requires planners to consider who is using the mitigate the analysed EB of air and noise pollution as UGS, including who lives in walking distance, and well as heat risk, and lead to additional health benefits involving them in the planning process. Several stu- such as reduced stress (Yao et al. 2021) and psycholo- dies have already identified requirements for differ - gical well-being (Wolch et al. 2014), an indicator of ent user groups, including preferences of the which has already been applied to EJ (Yee et al. 2020). analysed SEGs, with a focus on children (Kaymaz This could be flanked by ensuring a network of UGS of et al. 2017) or older citizens (Arnberger et al. 2017). different formats and levels, including informal UGS Palliwoda et al. (2020) do so for different types and (Sikorska et al. 2020), urban gardening opportunities characteristics of parks and brownfields in Leipzig. (Certomà and Martellozzo 2019) or residential green- The large open spaces for active sport activities that ery (Säumel et al. 2021). Such a network is foreseen in are mostly offered by the current park design of the the Berlin Landscape Programme along 20 green main UGS Tempelhof (Kabisch and Haase 2014) do not roads (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und address older individuals’ and immigrant families’ Umwelt 2016a) or as a Green Belt Berlin along the needs. Instead, enough space for barbequing or pic- former border (Kowarik 2019). Such greening along nicking, which is equipped with shade, tables, seat- roads may promote bicycle use. Transport concepts ing and nearby playgrounds should be provided can further be enhanced by increasing accessibility to (Kabisch and Haase 2014). It can be assumed that UGS (Chen and Chang 2015) as well as promoting single parents have similar demands towards UGS. emission reductions through emission standards of Quality, in other words, attractiveness, and not vehicles and the use of filters in public transport merely the availability or access to UGS plays an (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt important role for questions on EJ. In the German 2014a). Noise levels can be reduced through similar city of Mannheim, playgrounds had lower quality measures that aim at enhancing technology of vehi- attributes (attractiveness, cleanliness, safety) in cles and road infrastructure such as railways, but as socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods (Buck well through insulation programmes et al. 2019). These factors can be directly related to (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und different barriers resulting from decisions taken dur- Umwelt, editor 2014b). E-mobility is a promising con- ing the planning process and be influenced by the cept that addresses both noise and air pollution. involved actors (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018). However, more attention is needed to implement Planning for EJ offers prospects to reach distribu- e-mobility in public rather than private transport tional and procedural justice when participation is (Glotz-Richter and Koch 2016). Measures well-known ensured, and participative procedures are designed to improve the bioclimate are planning buildings with to include all groups. EJ thus encourages a progress low albedo and streets that offer shadow and favour from community-placed to community-based plan- air circulation (Fernandez Milan and Creutzig 2015). At ning (Ziegler et al. 2019). Here, the Berlin the roof level, heat effects in main road neighbour- Neighbourhood Management Programme holds hood in Berlin have proven to be mitigated through great potential to enhance EJ through horizontal rooftop greenery (Knaus and Haase 2020). However, exchange argued for by Verheij and Corrêa Nunes some of the above-mentioned sustainability measures (2020). Local offices that communicate planning pro- need a justice perspective to avoid burdening on posals to residents at the same time as forwarding socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. citizens’ ideas and wishes to local authorities, serve Justice can also be enhanced by designing appro- as a mediator between citizens and local administra- priate and needs-tailored measures, which will be tion. Moreover, the programme comprises a wide exemplified for UGS, but also applicable for transport range of actors: it cooperates with local associations planning, for example. The participation of local peo- or day care centres and requires coordination ple is closely linked to the creation of UGS with between different departments (Böhme and Bunzel possibilities for different uses (Kabisch and Haase 2014). 2014). This is also argued by Anguelovski (2013) Participatory GIS can further increase interaction who highlights that EJ needs to go beyond its dis- between planners and residents and help to obtain tributional pillar. valuable local information (Raymond et al. 2016). 346 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. A less time-intensive approach is the use of smart- environmental impacts faces multiple conflicting phone applications with varying degree of interaction goals and burdens in German cities and municipa- as analysed by Ertiö (2015). This method may meet lities. Awareness of double inner development and preferences of time-bound single-parents and could effective identification of potential areas, in short, be designed in other languages to involve the inhabi- the putting into practice of research results, can tants with migration background that may feel uncom- contribute to reaching EJ aims. Recommending fortable with German. dedicating more public funds towards UGS seems For a recognition of issues involving EJ at higher difficult. Arguments from literature that suggest levels in the planning process, EJ may be integrated health benefits for the population, such as into communal landscape planning as own subject of increased well-being, higher levels of health in protection in environmental assessments or land- general or lower abundance of diseases should be scape planning itself, or as a context of justification highlighted (Böhme et al. 2019). Awareness and for goals (Rittel 2014). An integration of EJ as an willingness to invest among public administrations independent protected good of landscape planning might increase by linking future benefits and cur- would break completely new ground, and therefore rent public expenditures that are currently disen- might be quite unrealistic (Rittel 2014). Moreover, it is tangled by a temporal gap. To achieve this not legally binding. Böhme et al. (2019) argue for the awareness, key factors are interdisciplinary team- legal integration into the Federal Building Code as work and interdepartmental cooperation between well as through national programmes that foster social and healthcare planning, open space devel- recognition. As Strelau and Köckler (2015) show, EJ opment and environmental management (Böhme plays no role in daily planning practice in German et al. 2019). Accessible tools to assess EJ as does environmental agencies, because there is no necessity the EAB for Berlin or a tool at regional scale in to consider social aspects unless public demand or Belgium (Habran et al. 2020) or to assess EJ out- legal foundations exist. Moreover, planning docu- comes for greening projects (Liotta et al. 2020) can ments insufficiently consider factors promoting EJ support decisions. For Germany, Böhme et al. such as urban tree canopy or EJ implications of other (2019) developed a platform for municipalities on decisions (Kolosna and Spurlock 2019; Meenar et al. how to address EJ. Although desirable, increasing 2019) the relevance of EJ issues for environmental agen- Weighing the development of urban wasteland cies by law or increased public attention may only and brownfields with possibilities to their UGS use is be achieved in the long-term. A first step would be demanded. The concept of ‘Urban Green in dual inner to establish clear and transparent guidelines on development’ addresses this by supporting cities and how to deal with this issue for planners as recom- municipalities meet the challenges of using available mended by Strelau and Köckler (2015). space for settlement while developing urban open spaces. In addition to conflicts between the develop- Conclusion ment of residential area and green space, different objectives concerning urban greenery compete such This study identified hotspots of environmental injustice as protecting certain habitats versus spaces for recrea- of five selected SEGs in Berlin. We found that these SEGs tion. Recommendations included improved collabora- are differently and disproportionately more exposed to tion between the departments responsible for inner EB in Berlin. Some of the identified hotspots overlap, city development as well as involving citizens and except for single-parent households. Different indicators environmental organisations in planning processes for the social and environmental dimension of the EJ at an early stage. In a newer project for German concept may lead to similar conclusions, a result that municipalities, additional recommendations included can contribute to the development of guidelines on the identification municipality-specific EJ situation, incorporating EJ into policy. However, a differentiated defining responsibilities for EJ in administration look as has been provided is considered necessary to and prioritising needs according to multiple burdens address environmental injustice in urban planning, (Böhme et al. 2019). including regarding the differing needs of the SEGs. To conclude, the development of UGS as Despite the limitations of neglecting specific local con- a means of enhancing EJ by mitigating negative ditions of EB and exposure to them, the chosen spatial INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 347 analysis approach allows for identifying most impacted Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and Environmental Planning study programme. planning areas. In a second step, these need to be assessed locally and included into PLA-specific planning, Toni Scheibner is members of the student working group on environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. involving people’s perceptions of living conditions. Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and Implementation of EJ includes designing multifaceted Environmental Planning study programme. measures and can be best realised through multi-use Thi Thuong Le is members of the student working group on UGS addressing the needs of different groups. Green environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. elements distributed throughout the city on the one Kleinschmit. The project was part of the Ecology and side and increasing awareness and public participation Environmental Planning study programme. possibilities through local initiatives such as the Berlin Prof. Dr. Birgit Kleinschmit is head of chair of Geoinformation in Neighbourhood Management Programme on the other Environmental Planning at Technische Universität Berlin. side, are further recommendations. Additionally, a double inner development approach allows for rever- sing negative densification outcomes. Further measures References are needed that can deal with possible conflicts and raise Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. 2020 [inhabitants in the awareness at various levels of planning while consider- state berlin 31.12.2019]. Potsdam: AfS. German. https://www. ing the constraints: General obstacles encountered in statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/stat_berichte/ public administration when it comes to the realisation 2020/SB_A01-16-00_2019h02_BE.pdf . Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B. 2010. Exploring the nexus: of EJ have been presented. bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space and Polity. 6(1):77–90. doi:10.1080/ Acknowledgements Anguelovski I. 2013. New directions in Urban Environmental Justice. J Plan Educ Res. 33(2):160–175. doi:10.1177/ The authors would like to thank Scarlett Aßmann, Camilla 0739456X13478019. Benninghofen, Miriam Bui, Michelle Eckhardt, Rosa Gather, Annerstedt Van Den Bosch M, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Josephine Goutrié, Franziska Röpke, Susan Shafi, Julian Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Swart W, Kruize H, Zurlyte I, Egorov AI. Wendler and Elena Wernitz for their joint efforts and collabora- 2016. Development of an urban green space indicator and tion within the working group on environmental justice in Berlin the public health rationale. Scand J Public Health. 44 as well as for preparing essential data used in this study. (2):159–167. doi:10.1177/1403494815615444. Data availability statement: Arnberger A, Allex B, Eder R, Ebenberger M, Wanka A, Kolland F, The environmental data that support the findings of this Wallner P, Hutter H-P. 2017. Elderly resident’s uses of and study are openly available in the Environmental Atlas of Berlin preferences for urban green spaces during heat periods. at https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umwelta Urban For Urban Gree. 21:102–115. doi:10.1016/j. tlas/eiinhalt.htm, reference numbers 09.01 (Environmental ufug.2016.11.012. Justice), 06.01/02 (Land Use) and 03.11.3 (Clean Air Plan); the Bertram C, Rehdanz K. 2015. The role of urban green space for socioeconomic data in the Monitoring Social Urban human well-being. Ecol Econ. 120:139–152. doi:10.1016/j. Development at https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/pla ecolecon.2015.10.013. nen/basisdaten_stadtentwicklung/monitoring/de/2015/index. Biernacka M, Kronenberg J. 2018. Classification of institutional shtml#Bericht (German only). barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and attractive- ness of urban green spaces. Urban For Urban Gree. 36:22–33. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007. Disclosure statement Böhm J, Böhme C, Bunzel A, Kühnau C, Landua D, Reinke M 2016 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. [Urban green in double inner development]. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). 1270 p. (BfN- Skripten; vol. 444). ISBN: 978-3-89624-181-8. German. Böhme C, Bunzel A 2014 [urban environmental justice - instru- Notes on contributors ments for securing and establishing justice]. Berlin: Sonja Hölzl works at the science-practice interface in human- Umweltbundesamt. German. nature relations and nature conservation. Her study fields were Böhme C, Franke T, Preuß T 2019. [Implementation of an inte- Integrated Natural Resource Management, Environmental grated strategy to Environmental Justice - pilot project in Planning and Governance and Public Policy. She was part of German municipalities]. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. the student working group on environmental justice in Berlin 133 p. (Umwelt & Gesundheit; no. 2). German. under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Kleinschmit. Buck C, Bolbos A, Schneider S. 2019. Do poorer children have Mihailo Veskov is members of the student working group on poorer playgrounds? a geographically weighted analysis of environmental justice in Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. attractiveness, cleanliness, and safety of playgrounds in 348 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. affluent and deprived urban neighborhoods. J Phys Act Habran S, Crespin P, Veschkens M, Remy S. 2020. Development Health. 16(6):397–405. Epub 2019 Apr 15. eng. 10.1123/ of a spatial web tool to identify hotspots of environmental jpah.2018-0177. burdens in Wallonia (Belgium). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 27 (6):5681–5692. Epub 2019 Feb 6. eng. 10.1007/s11356-019- Certomà C, Martellozzo F. 2019. Cultivating urban justice? 04418-5. A spatial exploration of urban gardening crossing spatial Holifield R. 2013. Defining environmental justice and environ- and environmental injustice conditions. Appl Geogr. mental racism. Urban Geogr. 22(1):78–90. doi:10.2747/0272- 106:60–70. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.03.007. 3638.22.1.78. Chen J, Chang Z. 2015. Rethinking urban green space accessibility: Hornberg C, Pauli A. 2007. Child poverty and environmental evaluating and optimizing public transportation system through justice. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 210(5):571–580. social network analysis in megacities. Landscape Urban Plan. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.07.006. 143:150–159. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.07.007. Kabisch N. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and govern- Chlond B, Ottmann P. 2007. The mobility behaviour of single ance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of parents and their activities outside the home. German Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy. 42:557–567. doi:10.1016/j. Journal of Urban Studies. 46:49-61. https://difu.de/5943 landusepol.2014.09.005. Day R. 2010. Environmental justice and older age: consideration Kabisch N. 2019. Urban ecosystem service provision and social- of a qualitative neighbourhood-based study. Environ Plann A. environmental justice in the city of Leipzig, Germany. In: 42(11):2658–2673. doi:10.1068/a43109. Schröter M, Bonn A, Klotz S, Seppelt R, Baessler C, editors. Depietri Y, Welle T, Renaud FG. 2013. Social vulnerability assess- Atlas of ecosystem services. Cham: Springer International ment of the cologne urban area (germany) to heat waves: Publishing; p. 347–352. links to ecosystem services. Int J Disast Risk Re. 6:98–117. Kabisch N, Haase D. 2014. Green justice or just green?: provision Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. 2017. [Data from the communal of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape Urban register. German cities according to area and population Plan. 122:129–139. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016. based on the census 2011 and population density.]. Kaymaz I, Oguz D, Cengiz-Hergul OC. 2017. Factors influencing German: Wiesbaden: Destatis. children’s use of urban green spaces. Indor Built Environ, Downey L, Hawkins B. 2008. Single-mother families and air 5:520–532. doi: 10.1177/1420326X17705943. pollution: a national study. Soc Sci Q. 89(2):523–536. Kindler A, H-j K, Franck U. 2018. Socio-spatial distribution of doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00545.x. airborne outdoor exposures – an indicator for environmental Edwards GAS, Reid L, Hunter C. 2016. Environmental justice, quality, quality of life, and environmental justice: the case capabilities, and the theorization of well-being. Prog Hum study of berlin. In: Kabisch S, Koch F, Gawel E, Haase A, Geog. 40(6):754–769. doi:10.1177/0309132515620850. Knapp S, Krellenberg K, Nivala J, Zehnsdorf A, editors. Ertiö T-P. 2015. Participatory apps for urban planning—space for Urban transformations, Vol. 10, (Future City). Cham: improvement. Plann Pract Res. 30(3):303–321. doi:10.1080/ Springer International Publishing; p. 257–279. 02697459.2015.1052942. Kleinschmit B, Geißler G, Leutloff H 2011. Socio-spatial distribu- Fairburn J, Butler B, Smith G. 2009. Environmental justice in tion of green spaces in Berlin. In: Bunge C, Gebuhr K, editors: south yorkshire: locating social deprivation and poor envir- Environmental Justice. Berlin: Federal Office for Radiation onments using multiple indicators. Local Environ. 14 Protection, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Robert (2):139–154. doi:10.1080/13549830802522038. Koch Institute, Federal Environment Agency; p. 35–37 Fairburn J, Sa S, Dreger S, Lk H, Bolte G. 2019. Social inequalities (UMID: Environment and Human Health – Information in exposure to ambient air pollution: a systematic review in Service; Special Issue II). the WHO European region. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16. Klimeczek H-J 2019. [Environmental justice in Berlin - summary]. In: eng. (17): 10.3390/ijerph16173127. Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz, editor. Fernández IC, Wu J. 2016. Assessing environmental inequalities [Basic report environmental justice. Foundation for a socio- in the city of santiago (chile) with a hierarchical multiscale spatial environmental policy]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für approach. Appl Geogr. 74:160–169. doi:10.1016/j. Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz; p. 18–25. apgeog.2016.07.012. Knaus M, Haase D. 2020. Green roof effects on daytime heat in Fernandez Milan B, Creutzig F. 2015. Reducing urban heat wave a prefabricated residential neighbourhood in Berlin, risk in the 21st century. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Germany. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 53:126738. 14:221–231. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.002. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126738. Franck U, Klimeczek H-J, Kindler A. 2014. Social indicators are Kohlhuber M, Mielck A, Weiland SK, Bolte G. 2006. Social inequal- predictors of airborne outdoor exposures in berlin. Ecol Indic. ity in perceived environmental exposures in relation to hous- 36:582–593. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.023. ing conditions in Germany. Environ Res. 101(2):246–255. Giang A, Castellani K. 2020. Cumulative air pollution indicators doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.09.008. highlight unique patterns of injustice in urban Canada. Kolosna C, Spurlock D. 2019. Uniting geospatial assessment of Environ Res Lett. 15(12):124063. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ neighborhood urban tree canopy with plan and ordinance abcac5. evaluation for environmental justice. Urban For Urban Gree. Glotz-Richter M, Koch H. 2016. Electrification of public transport 40:215–223. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.010. in cities (horizon 2020 ELIPTIC project). Transp Res Proc. Kowarik I. 2019. The “Green Belt Berlin”: establishing a greenway 14:2614–2619. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.416. where the Berlin wall once stood by integrating ecological, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 349 social and cultural approaches. Landscape Urban Plan. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2016. Urban and transport planning, envir- 184:12–22. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.12.008. onmental exposures and health-new concepts, methods and La Barrera F, De, Reyes-paecke S, Harris J, Bascuñán D, Farías JM. tools to improve health in cities. Environ Health. 15(Suppl 2016. People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces S1):38. doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0108-1. in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban For Ntiwane B. 2018. Environmental justice in the context of Urban Gree. 20:254–264. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.007. planning. TRP. 72(1):84–98. Lai Y, Kontokosta CE. 2019. The impact of urban street tree Palliwoda J, Banzhaf E, Priess JA. 2020. How do the green compo- species on air quality and respiratory illness: a spatial analysis nents of urban green infrastructure influence the use of eco- of large-scale, high-resolution urban data. Health Place. system services? examples from Leipzig, Germany. Landscape 56:80–87. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.016. Ecol. 35(5):1127–1142. doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01004-w. Lakes T, Brückner M, Krämer A. 2014. Development of an envir- Petrić D. 2019. Environmental justice in the european union: onmental justice index to determine socio-economic dispa- a critical reassessment. CYELP. 15:215–267. rities of noise pollution and green space in residential areas in Raddatz L, Mennis J. 2013. Environmental justice in hamburg, Berlin. J Environ Plann Man. 57(4):538–556. doi:10.1080/ germany. Prof Geogr. 65(3):495–511. doi:10.1080/ 09640568.2012.755461. 00330124.2012.700500. Lakes T, Klimeczek H-J 2011. Environmental justice in the Federal Raymond CM, Gottwald S, Kuoppa J, Kyttä M. 2016. Integrating State of Berlin: an initial integrated analysis of the socio- multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue spatial distribution of environmental burdens and resources. space planning using public participation geographic infor- In: Bunge C, Gebuhr K, editors: Environmental Justice. Berlin: mation systems. Landscape Urban Plan. 153:198–208. Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Federal Institute for doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.005. Risk Assessment, Robert Koch Institute, Federal Environment Riedel N, Köckler H, Bolte G. 2021. Moving noise action planning Agency; p. 41–43 (UMID: Environment and Human Health – towards more environmental health equity. Five Propositions Information Service; Special Issue II). Cities & Health. 2021:1–9. Lanier C, Deram A, Cuny M-A, Cuny D, Occelli F. 2019. Spatial Rittel K. 2014. [Green, natural, healthy: the potential of analysis of environmental inequalities caused by multiple air multifunctional urban spaces. Research results]. Bonn- pollutants: a cumulative impact screening method, applied Bad godesberg, Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN). to the north of France. Ecol Indic. 99:91–100. doi:10.1016/j. 61 pages. (BfN-Skripten; vol. 371). ISBN:978-3-89624-106- ecolind.2018.12.011. 1. German. Łaszkiewicz E, Sikorska D. 2020. Children’s green walk to school: Rüttenauer T. 2019. Bringing urban space back in: a multilevel an evaluation of welfare-related disparities in the visibility of analysis of environmental inequality in germany. Urban greenery among children. Environ Sci Policy. 110:1–13. Studies. 56(12):2549–2567. doi:10.1177/0042098018795786. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.009. Rüttenauer T, Best H. 2020. Perceived pollution and residential Laurent É. 2011. Issues in environmental justice within the eur- sorting in germany: income may not sort, but it helps to opean union. Ecol Econ. 70(11):1846–1853. doi:10.1016/j. escape. SocArXiv, 9 Nov. 2020. Web. ecolecon.2011.06.025. Säumel I, Hogrefe J, Battisti L, Wachtel T, Larcher F. 2021. The Liotta C, Kervinio Y, Levrel H, Tardieu L. 2020. Planning for healthy green living room at one’s doorstep? use and percep- environmental justice - reducing well-being inequalities tion of residential greenery in berlin, germany. Urban Forestry through urban greening. Environ Sci Policy. 112:47–60. & Urban Greening. 58:126949. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126949. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.017. Schüle SA, Gabriel KMA, Bolte G. 2017. Relationship between Mason LR, Ellis KN, Hathaway JM. 2017. Experiences of urban neighbourhood socioeconomic position and neighbourhood environmental conditions in socially and economically public green space availability: an environmental inequality diverse neighborhoods. J Community Pract. 25(1):48–67. analysis in a large German city applying generalized linear doi:10.1080/10705422.2016.1269250. models. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 220(4):711–718. Meenar M, Howell JP, Hachadorian J. 2019. Economic, ecological, doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.02.006. and equity dimensions of brownfield redevelopment plans Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2014a [Air for environmental justice communities in the USA. Local quality plan for Berlin 2011-2017]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. 227 p. Environ. 24(9):901–915. doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1652803. German. Mitchell BC, Chakraborty J. 2015. Landscapes of thermal [SenStadtUm] Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und inequity: disproportionate exposure to urban heat in the Umwelt. 2015a [Social urban development monitoring three largest US cities. Environ Res Lett. 10(11):115005. Berlin]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115005. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2016a Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural envir- [Landscape programme, species protection programme: onment on health inequalities: an observational population commentary 2016]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. study. Lancet. 372(9650):1655–1660. doi:10.1016/S0140- Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2016b [Real 6736(08)61689-X. land use and city structure. documentation of cartographic units Neimanis A, Castleden H, Rainham D. 2012. Examining the place of and data actualization of data]. berlin: SenStadtUm. German. ecological integrity in environmental justice: a systematic Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. review. Local Environ. 17(3):349–367. doi:10.1080/ 2014b [Noise action plan 2013-2018 for Berlin]. Berlin: 13549839.2012.665863. SenStadtUm. 101 p. German. 350 S. E. HÖLZL ET AL. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. Verheij J, Corrêa Nunes M. 2020. Justice and power relations in 2017. Environmental atlas - 06.02.1 Actual use and vegetation urban greening: can lisbon’s urban greening strategies lead cover (edition 2015) [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. to more environmental justice? Local Environment. 1–18. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, editor. 2015b doi:10.1080/13549839.2020.1801616. [Environmental justice in the state of Berlin - background infor- Wen C, Albert C, Haaren CV. 2020. Equality in access to urban mation and preliminary remarks]. Berlin: SenStadtUm. German. green spaces: a case study in Hannover, Germany, with Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, a focus on the elderly population. Urban Forestry & Urban editor. 2017a. [City knowledge and data - living environment Greening. 55:126820. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126820. areas]. Berlin: SenStadtWo; [accessed 2017 Aug 14]. German. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. 2014. Urban green space, public http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/basisdaten_ health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making stadtentwicklung/lor/ . cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape Urban Plan. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, 125:234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. editor. 2017b. Environmental atlas. Berlin: SenStadtWo; Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2017. Access to urban green space [updated 2017; accessed 2018 Apr 26]. http://www.stadtent and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landscape Urban wicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edua_index.shtml . Plan. 164:124–131. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.002. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Xu C, Haase D, Pribadi DO, Pauleit S. 2018. Spatial variation of editor. 2017c. Environmental atlas [sealing rate (edition green space equity and its relation with urban dynamics: 2017)]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. German. a case study in the region of Munich. Ecol Indic. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, 93:512–523. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.024. editor. 2017d. Environmental atlas - 03.11.3 clean air plan, Yao W, Zhang X, Gong Q. 2021. The effect of exposure to the 2011-2017 (edition 2012): scenario calculations for the assess- natural environment on stress reduction: a meta-analysis. ment of the effectiveness of selected measures for air quality Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 57:126932. doi:10.1016/j. along streets [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. ufug.2020.126932. Senatsverwaltsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Yee SH, Paulukonis E, Buck KD. 2020. Downscaling a human editor. 2017e. Environmental atlas - environmental justice well-being index for environmental management and envir- (edition 2015): core indicators 1 and 4: noise load and bio- onmental justice applications in Puerto Rico. Appl Geogr. climate/thermal load [dl-de/by-2-0]. Berlin: SenStadtWo. 123:102231. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102231. Sikorska D, Łaszkiewicz E, Krauze K, Sikorski P. 2020. The role of Zhao J, Gladson L, Cromar K. 2018. A Novel Environmental informal green spaces in reducing inequalities in urban green Justice Indicator for Managing Local Air Pollution. space availability to children and seniors. Environ Sci Policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 15: 1260. 108:144–154. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.007. Ziegler TB, Coombe CM, Rowe ZE, Clark SJ, Gronlund CJ, Strelau L, Köckler H. 2015. “It’s optional, not mandatory”: environ- Lee M, Palacios A, Larsen LS, Reames TG, Schott J, et al. mental justice in local environmental agencies in Germany. Local 2019. Shifting from “community-placed” to “community- Environ. 21(10):1215–1229. doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1084278. based” research to advance health equity: a case study of Thomschke L. 2015. Changes in the distribution of rental prices the heatwaves, housing, and health: increasing climate in Berlin. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 51:88–100. doi:10.1016/j. resiliency in Detroit (HHH) partnership. Int J Environ Res regsciurbeco.2015.01.001. Public Health. 16. (18): 10.3390/ijerph16183310.

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: May 4, 2021

Keywords: Environmental justice; cumulative exposure; multiple environmental burden; hotspots of environmental injustice; urban planning; socioeconomic inequalities; spatial analysis

There are no references for this article.