How History and Social Identity Shape Unequal Environmental Access
Environmental inequality in the United States did not emerge randomly. The “green divide”. in which affluent, less diverse neighbourhoods enjoy parks, cleaner air, and sustained environmental investment while marginalised communities face pollution and neglect, is rooted in long-standing social, political, and historical patterns. Understanding this divide requires looking at how identity, policy choices, and cultural assumptions shape the environments different communities inherit.
Across the country, wealthier communities consistently receive more green infrastructure: parks, trees, nature trails, cooling corridors, and environmental protections (Taylor, 2021). Meanwhile, lower-income neighbourhoods and communities with higher global majority demographics are more likely to be located near highways, industrial facilities, and areas vulnerable to flooding or extreme heat (Lopez & Hardy, 2019). While economic factors matter, they do not fully explain these patterns. Historical zoning, land-use decisions, segregation, and unequal political influence have shaped which communities receive environmental benefits and which bear environmental burdens (Pulido, 2016).
Social identity plays a subtle but powerful role in these disparities. Communities historically viewed as more influential or socially “desirable” have long had greater political access and leverage, allowing their advocacy for clean air and green space to translate more effectively into public investment (Johnson, 2018). Their neighbourhoods come to symbolise stability, safety, and health, qualities that policymakers often prioritise. In contrast, marginalised communities frequently face assumptions that they are more accustomed to, and can therefore tolerate, greater environmental stressors, or that other priorities should come first. These assumptions influence how governments and institutions decide where to allocate green resources.
Cultural narratives about nature help determine which communities are seen as deserving of green investment. In affluent areas, green space is widely viewed as essential to well-being and quality of life (Miller, 2017), and these communities have the political leverage to secure it. By contrast, neighbourhoods shaped by long-term underinvestment often struggle to access planning processes or overcome institutional barriers to improvement. This can create the false impression that limited green space is simply inevitable or “how things are,” when in reality it reflects earlier decisions that privileged some communities over others.
Insights on Health and Community Well-Being
A key insight from research on environmental inequality is that access to green space influences far more than aesthetics or neighbourhood appearance, it affects physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive performance, and even community cohesion (Hartig et al., 2020). Studies show that trees reduce air pollution and heat, parks encourage physical activity, and natural environments lower stress and improve concentration. When these resources cluster in affluent communities, the benefits accumulate across generations. Meanwhile, communities with limited green access often experience higher rates of asthma, heat-related illness, and chronic stress. These disparities illustrate that the green divide is not simply about uneven amenities; it shapes life chances and long-term wellness. Recognising this connection reframes environmental access as a public health priority and a core component of community resilience.
When policymakers or planners hold unconscious biases about certain communities, assumptions about resilience, priorities, or “deservingness”, those biases influence decision-making. These psychological processes reveal that environmental and health inequality is not just structural; it is also shaped by perception, attention, and the mental frameworks through which we assign value to different people and places.
Green Investment and Unintended Consequences
Modern “green” initiatives can also have unintended consequences when they are not paired with policies that protect longtime residents. Projects such as park redesigns, tree-planting efforts, or new bike paths are essential improvements that every community deserves. However, without safeguards like affordable housing measures or community-led planning, these amenities can increase property values and living costs faster than residents can keep up. This dynamic, often called green gentrification (Anguelovski, 2020), reflects gaps in planning rather than any issue with the improvements themselves. The goal is not to avoid investing in underserved neighbourhoods, but to ensure that the people who have endured years of environmental neglect are able to benefit from the upgrades rather than be displaced by them.
Bridging the green divide requires intentional effort. Equitable investment in parks, trees, clean air protections, and climate resilience must be combined with inclusive planning processes that centre the voices of the communities most affected. Instead of simply increasing green space overall, cities need to prioritise areas that have been historically overlooked. Environmental well-being should not depend on income, political influence, or racial identity.
As climate impacts intensify, bringing hotter summers, stronger storms, and more health risks, the consequences of unequal environmental access will become even more pronounced. The challenge ahead is not only to build greener cities but to ensure that every community has the opportunity to thrive. Closing the green divide demands a commitment to fairness, shared responsibility, and the recognition that environmental quality is a foundational part of public health and human dignity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- The Green Divide – by Olya K-Mehri - November 16, 2025
- The Psychology of Displacement and Projection – by Olya K-Mehri - November 1, 2025