Connor Klassen August 10, 2017

Urban Park Disparities:

An Analysis of Parks and Greenways through an Environmental Justice Framework

The topic of urban political ecology frequently references the idea of environmental
(in)justices (Heynen, 2016). This framework often looks at race and socioeconomic conditions in
relation to urban forests, parks, air quality and food politics, among other factors (Heynen,
2016). In North America, urban political ecology (UPE) is viewed through a white supremacy
lens in that minority races tend to carry the burden of the environmental bads (Heynen, 2016).
UPE habitually views environmental justice through the bads but rarely through the goods
(Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). This paper will seek to explore if racial minorities
and poor communities are disproportionately underexposed to parks and environmental goods at
the national level through a series of local case studies and national reviews. I will also
investigate some of the health benefits of urban parks and green spaces and seek to identify park
quality disparities between races and socioeconomic areas. Additionally, I will attempt to prove
that there is still environmental injustice concerning environmental goods among poor and
minority communities compared to their counterparts in urban area, but to a less degree that what
is typically hypothesized in urban political ecology.

Literature Review

The environmental justice framework is composed of two subsections of study:

traditional and modern. In the former, the framework focuses on causal relations between
environmental justice and health and a disproportionate exposure of environmental bads
(Anguelovski, 2013). This subsection explores the disproportionate effects of environmental
degradation involving race, women, children, and the poor (Cutter, 1995). In the latter
subsection, relations between health and place, activism, community involvement, and demands
and processes are examined (Anguelovski, 2013). Both areas of environmental justice focus on
four basic categories: environmental threat or inequity of interest, geographic scale or areal unit
for measurement, subpopulation for analysis, and temporal frames (Cutter, 1995).

Urban political ecology is quite similar to environmental justice. In fact, according to Nik
Heynen, UPE owes much to the literature explicitly dealing with environmental injustice.
Race, class, and gender are well established elements of both UPE and environmental justice. In
addition to these common elements, UPE recently added white supremacy and urban nature to its
variables of interest (Pulido, 2000). UPE views these elements to interconnecting issues such as
infrastructure, property investment, property destruction, white supremacy, and biological,
chemical, and ecological reactions (Heynen, 2016).

In order to properly examine the relationship between parks and green spaces to common
UPE and EJ frameworks, it is imperative to understand the differences between the variables
under study. A park is an area of land set aside by a local, state, or federal government for public
use, usually having facilities for recreation (Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). A
greenspace, by contrast, is an area of vegetated land, usually for recreational or aesthetic
purposes (Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). The differences between the two are often
minimal; however, parks are more commonly used and thought of regarding urban green spaces.
Green spaces, as defined, are often in the form of green belts/ways, trails, or undeveloped areas
used as a buffer between geographic, political, or zoned differences. Recent development of
green spaces in urban areas are turning them into green transportation corridors i.e. biking,
walking, running, etc. For example, the Indianapolis Greenway System covers 4,700 acres of
trail and conservation corridors, link 125 destinations and 57 parks and total a length of 175
miles (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001).

Despite the rather straightforward notions implied by EJ and UPE frameworks, there has
been a significant amount of conflicting research. Commonly, there is a lack of agreement
among researchers about the methodology and definitions used. By using different terminology
or varying methods, these researchers often come up with varying conclusions. A highly
referenced 1998 study by Talen and Anselin attempts to understand the methodological issues
common in UPE and EJ and offers suggestions for standardization.

Talen and Anselin first attempt to standardize the terminology of equity and accessibility.
This common difference between authors results in widely varying conclusions. As defined, the
notion of equity is paramount in research that focuses on determining what factors account for,
or are correlated with, territorial variation in service delivery. Accessibility, in turn, is a tool used
to discover whether or not equity, variously defined, has been achieved (Talen & Anselin,
1998). The notion of what equity is numerously defined as directly effects the outcome of the
study and the measures of accessibility (Talen & Anselin, 1998). The inability for researchers to
come to a definitive definition of equity, and subsequently accessibility, is a dominant
methodological issue across studies which causes outcome disparities (Talen & Anselin, 1998).

In addition to terminology differences, researchers often differ on the models used and
confront modifiable areal unit problems. The methodological use of a certain process regarding
equity and accessibility can vary an authors conclusion even while holding equity and
accessibility definitions constant (Talen & Anselin, 1998). When analyzing environmental equity
and accessibility, researchers often default to one of four methods: container, minimum distance,
gravity potential, or travel cost. The container is the most common method in which a set
container, such as a census tract, is used to identify whether an object is present in that defined
area (Talen & Anselin, 1998). The most notable issue with this method is the MAUP, in which a
simple change in shape can distort the outcome. In addition to this obvious issue, spill-over
effects are not accounted for, transportation time and distance are often ignored, and unpatterned
phenomena are often erroneously discovered (Talen & Anselin, 1998). The minimum distance
method, commonly referred to the equity model in location analysis, uses the distance from a
point of interest to the nearest facility of interest (Talen & Anselin, 1998). The gravity potential
model uses a facility weighted by size and is adjusted for distance friction. Issues common with
this model is the choice of the friction parameter, , directly effects the facilitys score and often
ignores self-potential considerations (Talen & Anselin, 1998). Finally, the travel cost model
measures the total or average distance between each origin and all destinations, expressed in total
or averaged distance units in which a low school equates to higher access (Talen & Anselin,
1998). As shown, terminology and methodology differences can produce varying conclusions
that may cause a significant portion of conflicting conclusions regarding access and equity to
these environmental goods.

Health Benefits of Parks and Green Spaces

Aside from aesthetic and economic benefits that parks and green spaces bring, there are
numerous health benefits of enjoying these recreational and natural areas. By actively using these
facilities, one can improve their physical and mental well-being in addition to aiding and
improving chronic illnesses.
 Having access to green spaces in general is a key principle to enhancing health and well-
being (Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). Those who reported to use local parks
frequently were more likely to report to be in good health than those who did not (Chiesura,
2004). General physical activity increases strength, flexibility, and endurance; relieves
symptoms of depression and anxiety; improves mood; and enhances psychological well-being
(Gies, 2006). In addition to parks, greenways support dedicated exercise programs, incidental
exercise, and healthy, human powered transportation (Gies, 2006).

While the benefits of general physical activity do not differentiate based on race or
economic class, the risks of poor health and physical activity vary. Those belonging to a low
socioeconomic class or of a minority race have the greatest risk of inactivity and obesity (Bruton
& Floyd, 2014). Members of these communities are less likely to participate in outdoor
recreation, despite the obvious health benefits (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001). Increases of
physical activity resources, quality equipment, and maintained amenities negatively correlate to
obesity and inactivity rates in public housing, low SES and often minority, areas (Bruton &
Floyd, 2014). In contrast to these communities, those belonging to the middle to upper class and
of white decent prefer active, trail-related recreational spaces in regards to green spaces
(Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001). This type of recreational area helps to promote physical
activity, lower the rate of obesity, and helps to manage chronic illnesses (Carter, 2006). Those
with the lowest socioeconomic status were significantly less likely to use greenway trail systems
in an Indianapolis case study, however race showed no correlation (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan,
2001). This brings up the question if race or economic status play a larger role in the use of
public recreational areas.

Encompassing the issues surrounding physical health is the matter of chronic illnesses in
the population. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, has called for more parks and
playgrounds to be built as studies have shown that when accessibility increases, the local
population exercises more (Gies, 2006). The American Journal of Preventative Medicine has
shown that creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity, combined with
informational outreach, produced a 48.4% increase in the frequency of physical activity (Gies,
2006). The odds of being overweight declined as the number of exercise facilities increased
(Gies, 2006). A 2004 study in Atlanta, Georgia found that per kilometer walked, the risk of
obesity decreased 4.8% (Gies, 2006). Increased physical activity can help reduce the frequency
of obesity in a localized area, thus reducing other chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure,
stroke, cancers, poor female reproductive health, and psychological disorders. These green
spaces in general additionally provide passive benefits. The prevalence of trees in green spaces
helps to reduce levels of pollution, serving as a health benefit for those with respiratory illnesses
(Gies, 2006).

Along with physical benefits, the active use of parks and green spaces promotes ones
mental wellbeing. Parks have been associated as places to reduce stress, provide a sense of peace
and tranquility, enhance contemplativeness, and rejuvenation (Chiesura, 2004). The greenery
found in these areas has been found to help residents relax and relieve aggression (Chiesura,
2004). Parks inspire reflection, meditation, and a feeling of general harmony whilst being used
(Chiesura, 2004). The increased activity brought by parks can lower risks associated with
psychological disorders including depression, eating disorders, distorted body image, and low
self-esteem (Chiesura, 2004).

Social Benefits of Parks and Green Spaces

The benefits of these public facilities can be identified in two main categories: active
facility use and facility planning and building. In the former, social ties are formed through the
use of existing structures and norms of the recreational area. Communities are brought together
from the use of the green space and is used as a space for social bonding. The latter method
brings communities, often of low SES or minority race, together by engaging members to locate,
build, and promote public recreation from a grassroots process.

Parks aid in building healthy communities through the creation of stable neighborhoods
and strengthening community development (Gies, 2006). Parks aid in increasing social capital
among the residents in which it serves (Gies, 2006). Park amenities, such as picnic and rest areas,
promote formal social ties within the local area by allowing members to congregate (Bruton &
Floyd, 2014). The use of the public space can be a medium of which citizenship and membership
in the local society can be expressed (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001). Playgrounds increase the
sense of proximity for families and recreate a dynamic outdoor street life (Anguelovski, 2013).
Natural spaces encourage the use of outdoor areas, which may increase social integration and
interaction among neighbors (Chiesura, 2004). In addition, Chiesura notes that, residents living
in greener surroundings report lower levels of fear, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and
violent behaviors.

The process of cleaning up or building a park or community garden space creates strong
communal bonds for the neighborhood which surrounds the park (Anguelovski, 2013). Newly
renovated green spaces can serve multiple social purposes, such as a space for gathering,
physical activity, recreation, and learning for the community (Anguelovski, 2013). Grassroot
environmental initiatives, such as cleaning vacant lots for community gardens or play spaces,
improve the local environment and strengthen social ties from cooperation and provide a
renewed sense of community pride (Anguelovski, 2013). These bottom-up initiatives allow
residents to work together and achieve a common goal while pulling a disjointed community
together.

Spatial Disparities

The discovery of special disparities within the UPE framework has been fraught with
varying conclusions. Studies at both a national and local level may be prone to inaccuracies due
to their methodology and lack of standardization. However, these studies draw similar
conclusions, albeit the possible causations differ due to non-standardized practices. A national
study conducted by Wen et. al. demonstrates the higher rate of accessibility to parks than
traditionally thought of in the EJ framework. Lindsey et. al. show how income plays a role in
urban park use through an Indianapolis case study. Finally, Talen et. al. and Nicholls provide
cautionary announcements of possible erroneous correlations and forgotten variables than may
prove the conclusion false.

A national study conducted by Wen et. al. found that within urban areas, the median
distance to a park was approximately one-half mile and a median percentage of green space
totally 2.8% of land area. The authors found that within urban areas, a 10% increase in Hispanic
residents corresponded to a 0.03-mile shorter distance to a park within those census tracts (Wen,
Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). Likewise, a 10% increase in poverty led to a 0.02-mile
shorter distance. The opposite was found to be true with green spaces. They found that a 10%
increase in the black population led to a 0.3 percentage point reduction in green space (Wen,
Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). A 10-percent increase in poverty led to a dramatic 1.72%
reduction in green space coverage (Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013). The study
concluded that neighborhoods with a greater proportion of poverty and minority populations are
not less exposed to parks, however they were underexposed to green spaces. This supports the
common EJ hypothesis that disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to lack health-promoting and
activity-inviting environmental resources (Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt, & Croft, 2013).

A case study in Indianapolis by Lindsey et. al. found that the citys trail system benefits
low SES and racial minority populations at a disproportionately higher rate than their peers.
They found that the trail and green corridor system services higher percentages of African
Americans, persons in poverty, and persons without a vehicle (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001).
Those with lower median household incomes and housing values often increased access to this
system than their wealthier neighbors. The access to greenways in Indianapolis may be
considered equitable based on a needs-based perspective (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001).
However, these populations tend to use the trail system less than their wealthier and more white
community neighbors (Lindsey, Maraj, & Kuan, 2001). This suggests that there may be distinct
social norms attached to the use of the public green space.

Talen and Anselins 1998 report found that the characterization of access in which
blocks with high access and low access are differentiated can vary significantly depending on
how access is defined. They stated that the choice of access measure has to be considered very
carefully when trying to analyze the spatial equity of a given resource distribution (Talen &
Anselin, 1998). This was their central claim to inaccuracies found across urban ecology
literature, that there was a lack of a concise definition, and often chosen terminology was too
broad for the study. Talen and Anselin also stated that global spatial association can often hide
local patterns, thus LISA statistics should be used to provide an alternative perspective by
focusing on patterns surrounding individual observations (Talen & Anselin, 1998). This method
allows for the detection of patterns of local autocorrelation and a test for global statistic stability.

Nicholls 2001 study confirmed Talen and Anselins hypothesis by finding the measures
of accessibility vary greatly depending on the method used. She found the container and radius
method, an area in which residents live within a predefined area from a park, showed a fairly
normalized service area (Nicholls, 2001). However, when a network analysis comparison was
performed, she found a distorted view of the service area when physical infrastructure was
considered. Oftentimes, the service area did not meet the containers extent or greater surpassed
it along road corridors (Nicholls, 2001). This method nearly always shows less accessibility in
terms of absolute numbers than the container method (Nicholls, 2001). She recommends network
analysis become the new standard method to account for flows and barriers in addition to the
added ability to create more meaningful accessibility maps.

Amenity Disparities

Unlike spatial disparity, in which the traditional EJ framework fails due to higher equity,
amenity disparity is quite high. Variables such as cleanliness and facilities offered effect the use
of the recreational area. Funding often is limited and biased against the poor, thus causing
inferior quality leisure spaces. Average park sizes for minorities tend to be smaller than
nonminority communities at 11.71 acres and 16 acres, respectively (Bruton & Floyd, 2014).
Similarly, low income communities enjoyed a mean park size of 7.57 acres compared to 15.93
acres for medium to high income neighborhoods (Bruton & Floyd, 2014). Additionally, wooded
areas are significantly more likely to be present in non-minority area parks, which promote
greater park use and walking on nature trails, than minority area parks (Bruton & Floyd, 2014).

The type and frequency of structures and facilities within parks greatly differed in regards
to the minority variable. Minority areas have more picnic and rest areas as compared to lower
minority areas (Bruton & Floyd, 2014). While good for forming social ties, these facilities
promote a more sedentary park use, hindering the stimulus a park may bring to promote physical
exercise in the community (Bruton & Floyd, 2014). Additionally, racialized amenities,
predominately basketball courts, were frequently found in neighborhoods with higher
proportions of blacks (Engelberg, et al., 2016). White areas, conversely, were positively
associated with playgrounds, splash pads, fitness stations, and skate parks (Engelberg, et al.,
2016). Teens who reside in high-minority, lower-educated communities were found to be half as
likely as those in the opposite strata to have access to a facility in which to exercise (Gies, 2006).

The income variable appears to have a larger role in effecting the number and quality of
facilities than does the race variable alone (Engelberg, et al., 2016). Lower SES and higher
minority parks were more likely to have a greater amount of open, usable space than their
counterparts for recreation. However, medium-income neighborhoods benefited from the most
facilities per park on average than did their lower and upper-income neighboring communities
(Kamel, Ford, & Kaczynski, 2014).

Overall cleanliness of a park area directly effects the usage rate by the community. The
presence of litter in a park can produce a perception of safety concerns, lowering the parks
overall uses (Bruton & Floyd, 2014). Dirty or unkept areas are associated with negative social
behaviors. Moderate-high minority population and low-moderate income neighborhoods had
issues with park quality/safety perception than their lower minority and wealthier neighbors
(Kamel, Ford, & Kaczynski, 2014). Quality disparities may not be linked only to the park level,
but at the neighborhood level as more physical disorder was present in predominately black and
lower-income areas (Bruton & Floyd, 2014).

A major factor into park cleanliness, upkeep, and revitalization is funding. According to a
Southern California study, nearly 75% of park incomes comes from municipal funds, followed
by nonprofits at 10%, the state at 8%, and the county at just 1% (Joassart-Marcelli, 2010).
Fiscally healthier neighborhoods are more likely to allocate more resources to upkeeping and
improving parks than those with less funding (Joassart-Marcelli, 2010). State and non-profit
funds tend to favor middle-income communities and fail to equalize spending that they initially
set out to accomplish (Joassart-Marcelli, 2010). Due to requirements of funds matching, poorer
cities often cannot qualify. However, those receiving state funding generally decrease local
government spending (Joassart-Marcelli, 2010). This income is used as a partial substitutional
income rather than a complete complement as designed. Non-profit funding, on the other hand, is
mainly used as complementary funding for maintenance and capital improvement (Joassart-
Marcelli, 2010). Joassart-Marcelli found that proportions of Latinos and blacks in a city are
negatively associated with per-capita expenditure on parks and recreation from all sources and
in cities with greater needs for funding public spaces.

Conclusion

From a geographic context, the typical urban political ecology hypothesis that minorities
and the poor are underexposed to parks fails, however holds true for green spaces as a whole. At
both the national and local level, these communities have average or above average access to
parks and green spaces, however the amount and quality of these areas holds true to the
traditional EJ framework. When looking at parks themselves, those in minority and economically
challenged areas tend to be smaller, less wooded, hold more physical social structures, and tend
to be underfunded and less clean than their counterparts. Parks bring about public locations for
the community to gather for social aspects and provide places to exercise and play for adults and
children alike. Studies have shown that parks and green spaces promote physical, psychological,
and social wellbeing. Additionally, researchers using the UPE framework must standardize their
methodology and terminology in order to produce meaningful and consistent reports as shown by
Talen and Anselin and Nicholls. In sum, there is still environmental injustice concerning the
environmental goods among poor and minority communities compared to their counterparts in
urban areas, however more so in social accessibility and facility equity.
References
Anguelovski, I. (2013, March 18). New Directions in Urban Environmental Justice: Rebuilding
Community, Addressing Trauma, and Remaking Place. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 33(2), pp. 160-175. doi:10.1177/0739456X13478019

Bruton, C. M., & Floyd, M. F. (2014, October). Disparities in Built and Natural Features of Urban Parks:
Comparisons by Neighborhood Level Race/Ethnicity and Income. Journal of Urban Health, 91(5),
894-907. doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9893-4

Carter, M. (2006, February). Greening the Ghetto. Monterey, California, United States of America.
Retrieved July 4, 2017, from
https://www.ted.com/talks/majora_carter_s_tale_of_urban_renewal

Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning,
68(1), pp. 129-138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003

Cutter, S. L. (1995, March 1). Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography,
19(1), pp. 111-122. doi:10.1177/030913259501900111

Engelberg, J. K., Conway, T. L., Geremia, C., Cain, K. L., Saelens, B. E., Glanz, K., . . . Sallis, J. F. (2016).
Socioeconomic and race/ethnic disparities in observed park quality. BMC Public Health, 16, pp.
395-406. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3055-4

Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks. San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land. Retrieved March
25, 2017, from http://www.lchc.org/wp-content/uploads/01_LCHC_ParksRec.pdf

Heynen, N. (2016). Urban political ecology II: The abolitionist century. Progress in Human Geography,
40(6), 839-845. doi:10.1177/0309132515617394

Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2010, May 1). Leveling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for local parks
and recreation in the Los Angeles region. Environment and Planning, 42(5), pp. 1174-1192.
doi:10.1068/a42198

Kamel, A. A., Ford, P. B., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2014, December). Disparities in park availability, features,
and characteristics by social determinants of health within a U.S.-Mexico border urban area.
Preventive Medicine, 69(Supplement 1), pp. S111-S113. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.001

Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. (2001, August). Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory
Investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3), pp. 332-346. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00288

Nicholls, S. (2001, October). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study using
GIS. Managing Leisure, 6(4), pp. 201-219. doi:10.1080/13606710126543

Pulido, L. (2000, March). Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in
Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), pp. 12-40.
Retrieved July 4, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515377

Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998, April). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility
to public playgrounds. Environment and planning, 30(4), pp. 595-613. doi:10.1068/a300595
Wen, M., Zhang, X., Harris, C. D., Holt, J. B., & Croft, J. B. (2013, February). Spatial Disparities in the
Distribution of Parks and Green Spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), 18-27.
doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9426-x