Introduction

Urban greenspace provides a vivid illustration of the debate over how multiple factors can coincide to turn the distributional unevenness of environmental benefits into a case for claims of injustice. What underpins this debate is a pluralistic understanding of justice that goes beyond distribution to include recognition, participation, capability and responsibility. The focus is not only on who gets what, but also on who counts, who gets heard, what matters, and who does what. Based on this inclusive framework, Davoudi and Brooks (forthcoming) have suggested a set of guiding principles that can be used for judging justice claims about environmental burdens. These, adjusted for environmental benefits, are shown in Table 2.1.

The aim of this chapter is to show how these principles can be applied to the fairness of access to urban greenspace in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne (hereafter Newcastle). More specifically, we aim to explore whether the uneven distribution of greenspace in Newcastle can be interpreted as unfair for this particular case and time. The chapter is structured under four headings. After this introduction, we discuss the significance of urban greenspace as an environmental benefit for human health and wellbeing. We then draw on the justice dimensions and the guiding questions in Table 2.1 to discuss how the uneven distribution of greenspace may lead to claims of environmental injustice. The chapter's conclusions are drawn together in a final section.

Greenspace as an environmental ‘good’

There is a growing body of literature that underwrites the multiple benefits of urban greenspace. As part of ‘ecosystem services’, greenspaces function as carbon sinks, cooling the temperature, reducing surface water runoff and providing green corridors for wildlife (Heynen, 2006). Greenspace in urban areas reduces the effect of air pollution through biogenic regulation (Freer-Smith et al, 1997), with tree canopies being particularly effective in capturing particles due to their greater surface roughness (Manning and Feder, 1980).