Vacant land is a serious problem in many cities, and cities have recently begun to explore greening as a management strategy to reduce the negative influence of vacancy. The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania pioneered the use of a simple greening treatment—removal of debris coupled with planting grass and trees—as a means of improving blighted communities. Though they are becoming more popular, the actual economic impact of these programs is not well understood. This paper details the use of a spatial difference-in-differences approach for measuring the impact of Philadelphia's innovative vacant land greening program on nearby residential property values. This approach compares observed changes in property values surrounding treated vacant lots with observed changes around control lots—lots which might have been treated but were not. While property values throughout the city increased during the study period, properties surrounding greened vacant lots had a greater increase in value than properties surrounding nongreened vacant lots. By developing both global and local versions of the model, we also explore spatial variation in the impacts of the program—offering insight into which kinds of neighborhoods might derive the greatest economic benefit from vacant land greening programs.

The concept of biophilic urban planning has inspired neighborhood greening projects in many older urban communities in the USA and beyond. The strengths (e.g., environmental management, biodiversity, heat island mitigation) and challenges (e.g., greenwashing, green gentrification) of such projects are well-documented. Additional research on the relationship between these projects and various social factors (e.g., public perceptions, feelings, and mental health and well-being) is necessary to better understand how people adapt to said projects while struggling to navigate other more pressing socioeconomic issues, especially in communities facing environmental injustice and health inequity. In this article, we focus on one aspect of biophilic urban planning—green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) (e.g., rain gardens, bio-swales, pervious pavements, and wildflower meadows)—in Waterfront South, a post-industrial neighborhood in Camden, NJ, USA, where residents have faced environmental injustices for decades. Our qualitative analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews of sixteen residents offered a thorough insight into their perceptions and emotions regarding different types of urban GSI projects. Residents acknowledge the many benefits that GSI offers to combat the neighborhood’s social and environmental injustices, but they are cautious about the possibility of some projects prompting new issues and concerns within the community. Our findings reveal potential implications in GSI planning, research, and practice in this neighborhood and similar urban places elsewhere that have yet to undergo gentrification.

Repurposing vacant land for food production is expanding as a response to urban blight, food insecurity, and food deserts. As municipalities integrate urban agriculture in their sustainability plans and zoning regulations, scholars are beginning to take a broader look at the benefits from this and other types of greening strategies. This article investigates current state of research and practice of urban agriculture as an emerging strategy for regenerating shrinking cities. It highlights key findings while offering observations on how public officials and practitioners can leverage this research to enhance urban agriculture as a treatment for vacant land.

Green infrastructure (GI) has long been known to impact human health, and many academics have used past research to argue for the potential importance of GI as a mechanism for maintaining or improving health within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review addresses the question: What evidence, if any, have researchers found of a relationship between green infrastructure use and health during the COVID-19 pandemic? Specifically, evaluating the (a) association of GI use with COVID-19 disease outcomes and (b) association of GI use with other health outcomes as impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-two studies were identified that measured GI use and studied it in relation to health outcomes during the pandemic. The studies were reviewed for the specific measures and types of GI use, level of analysis, specific types of health outcomes, and the conclusions reached with regard to GI use and health. Studies exploring COVID-19-specific health outcomes showed mixed results, while non-COVID health outcomes were more consistently improved through GI use, particularly with regard to improved mental health. While the evidence strongly suggests that GI use has played a protective role in non-COVID-19 physical and mental health during the pandemic, questions remain with regard to possible impacts on COVID transmission and mortality.