GeoJournal

, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp 229–248

Got green? addressing environmental justice in park provision

Article

Abstract

We present a pragmatic approach to assist planners in addressing racial inequities in park access. Utilizing the Los Angeles metropolitan region as an example, we used Thiessen polygons to delineate a service area for each park, and described potential park congestion or ‘pressure’ in each park service area. Results show that Latinos, African-Americans, and low-income groups in general were likely to live close to parks with higher potential park congestion. On the other hand, predominantly White, high-income areas were typically located close to parks with lower potential park congestion levels. The park service area analysis presented here facilitates the identification of areas with greater park need and provides a pragmatic way to redress existing disparities in park access. Built into a set of web-based decision support tools, the approach fosters greater community participation and empowers local stakeholders in the process of park provision.

Keywords

Parks Los Angeles Environmental justice Greenspace 

References

  1. Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainable communities and the challenge of environmental justice. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, M. T. (2000). Leisure, diversity, and social justice. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 2–6.Google Scholar
  3. Ammons, D. N. (1995). Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in local government: The case of libraries and leisure services. Public Administration Review, 55, 37–47. doi:10.2307/976826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, H. (2001). The Chinatown cornfields: Including environmental benefits in environmental justice struggles. Critical Planning, Summer, 5, 61.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, H. S. (1997). Social science, social work, and surgery, teaching what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 179–188. doi:10.1080/01944369708975913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health, A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 15–168.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaduri, B., Bright, E., Coleman, P., & Dobson, J. (2002). LandScan: Locating people is what matters. GeoInformatics, 5(2), 34–37.Google Scholar
  8. Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 1–21. doi:AN-2007-0075.R.1.
  9. Brownlow, A. (2006). An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia. Geoforum, 37(2), 227–245. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1993). Confronting environmental racism (voices from the grassroots). Monroe, ME: South End Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007). Toxic wastes and race at twenty, 1987–2007. New York, NY: United Church of Christ.Google Scholar
  12. Burby, R. J., & Strong, D. E. (1997). Coping with chemicals: Blacks, Whites, planners and industrial pollution. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(4), 469–480. doi:10.1080/01944369708975940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1998). Principles of geographical information systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, J., Kendrick, M., & Sroaf, D. (2007). The park made of oil: Towards a historical Political ecology of the Kenneth Hahn state recreation area. Local Environment, 12(2), 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne, J., Wolch, J., Swift, J., & Ryan, C. (2005). SAGE (systematic audit of green-space environments): Audit form and instructions. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities and GIS Research Laboratory. doi:10.1080/13549830601161830.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carr, D. S., & Williams, D. R. (1993). Understanding the role of ethnicity in outdoor recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(1), 22–38.Google Scholar
  18. Church, R. L., & ReVelle, C. (1976). Theoretical and computational links between the p-median, location set-covering, and the maximal covering location problem. Geographical Analysis, 8(4), 406–415.Google Scholar
  19. Clavel, P. (1994). The evolution of advocacy planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 146–150. doi:10.1080/01944369408975564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509–514. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corburn, J. (2005). Street science, community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design, a history of urban parks in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dahmann, N., Wolch, R., Joassart-Marcelli, P., Reynolds, K., & Jerrett, M. (2008). The active city: recreation programs, public health and environmental justice. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for Sustainable Cities.Google Scholar
  25. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. doi:10.1177/0739456X8300300109.Google Scholar
  26. Davidoff, P., & Boyd, L. (1983). Peace and justice in planning education. Journal of Planning Education & Research, 3, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Day, K. (2006). Active living and social justice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 88–99. doi:10.1080/01944360608976726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dear, M. (1974). A Paradigm for public facility location theory. Antipode, 6, 46–50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1974.tb00583.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeVerteuil, G. (2000). Reconsidering the legacy of urban public facility location theory in Human Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 24(1), 47–69. doi:10.1191/030913200668094045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dresner, Z., & Hamache, H. W. (2002). Facility location, applications and theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Floyd, M. F. (1998). Getting beyond marginality and ethnicity: The challenge for race and ethnic studies in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  32. Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., Shinew, K. J., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, class, and leisure activity preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(2), 158–173.Google Scholar
  33. Frieden, B. J. (1965). Toward equality of urban opportunity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 320–330.Google Scholar
  34. Frumkin, H. (2006). Health, equity and the built environment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), A290–A291.Google Scholar
  35. Garcia, R., Flores, E. S., & Pine, E. (2002). Dreams of fields: soccer, community, and equal justice. Report on sports in urban parks to the California department of parks and recreation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Law in the Public Interest.Google Scholar
  36. Garcia, R. & White, A. (2006). Healthy parks, schools, and communities: Mapping green access and equity for the Los Angeles region. http://www.cityprojectca.org/publications/index.html. Accessed 11 March 2007.
  37. Ghaemi, P., Swift, J., Sister, C., Wilson, J. P., & Wolch, J. (2009). Design and implementation of a web-based platform to support interactive environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.20.0905.002.
  38. Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science Medicine, 54, 1793–1812. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00150-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harnik, P. & Simms, J. (2004). Parks: How far is too far? American Planning Association. http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/cityparks_Planning_mag_article12.2004.pdf. Accessed 03 February 2007.
  40. Hewko, J., Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., & Hodgson, M. J. (2002). Measuring neighbourhood spatial accessibility to urban amenities: Does aggregation error mater? Environment and Planning A, 34, 1185–1206. doi:10.1068/a34171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoch, C. (1993). Racism and planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(4), 451–460. doi:10.1080/01944369308975899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Joassart-Marcelli, P. M., Musso, J. A., & Wolch, J. R. (2005). Fiscal consequences of concentrated poverty in a metropolitan region. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 336–356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00463.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krumholz, N., & Clavel, P. (1994). Reinventing cities: Equity planners tell their stories. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990). Making equity planning work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lancaster, R. A. (Ed.). (1983). Recreation, park, and open space standards and guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.Google Scholar
  46. Lancaster, R. A. (Ed.). (1990). Recreation, park, and open space standards and guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.Google Scholar
  47. Lancaster, R. A. (Ed.). (1995). Recreation, park, and open space standards and guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.Google Scholar
  48. Levine, A. G. (1982). Love canal: Science, politics, and people. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  49. Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. C. (2001). Access, equity, and urban greenways: An exploratory investigation. Professional Geographer., 55(3), 332–346. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lineberry, R. L., & Welch, R. E., Jr. (1974). Who gets what: Measuring the distribution of urban public services. Social Science Quarterly, 54, 700–712.Google Scholar
  51. Lucy, W. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47, 447–457. doi:10.1080/01944368108976526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lucy, W. H. (1994). If planning includes too much, maybe it should include more. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(3), 305–318. doi:10.1080/01944369408975589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maantay, J. A. (2002). Mapping environmental injustices: Pitfalls and potential of geographic information systems (GIS) in assessing environmental health and equity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(S2), 161–171.Google Scholar
  54. Manning, R., & More, T. (2002). Recreational values of public parks. The George Wright Forum, 19(2), 21–29.Google Scholar
  55. Marcuse, P. (1978). Equal access to public services. Proceedings of the General Education Seminar, Columbia University, 7, 23–31.Google Scholar
  56. Marianov, V., & Serra, D. (2002). Location problems in the public sector. In Z. Drzner & H. W. Hamacher (Eds.), Facility location, application and theory (pp. 119–143). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  57. Matsuoka, M. (2001). The emergence of the environmental justice movement and its challenges to planning. Critical Planning, 8, 4–14.Google Scholar
  58. McLafferty, S. (1982). Urban structure and geographical access to public services. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72(3), 347–354. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1982.tb01830.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mennis, J. (2002). Using geographic information systems to create and analyze statistical surfaces of population and risk for environmental justice analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 281–297. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Merget, A. (1979). Equity in the distribution of municipal services. In H. J. Bryce (Ed.), Revitalizing cities (pp. 161–191). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  61. Mertes, J. D., & Hall, J. R. (1995). Park, recreation, open space and greenway guidelines. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.Google Scholar
  62. Metzger, J. T. (1996). The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature, 11, 112–126. doi:10.1177/088541229601100106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Morrill, R. L. (1974). Efficiency and equity of optimum location models. Antipode, 6, 41–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1974.tb00582.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6, 201–219. doi:10.1080/13606710110084651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nicholls, S., & Crompton, J. L. (2005). The impact of greenways on property values: Evidence from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 321–341.Google Scholar
  66. Pincetl, S. (2003). Nonprofits and park provision in Los Angeles: An exploration of the rise of governance approaches to the provision of local services. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 979–1001. doi:10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404019.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pincetl, S., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., & Longcore, T. (2003). Toward a sustainable Los Angeles: A nature’s services approach. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities.Google Scholar
  68. Rosenberger, R. S., Sneh, Y., Phipps, T. T., & Gurvitch, R. (2005). A spatial analysis of linkages between health care expenditures, physical inactivity, obesity and recreation supply. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 216–235.Google Scholar
  69. Roth, A. L. (2006). Media standing of urban parkland movements: The case of Los Angeles’ Taylor Yard, 1985–2001. City and Community, 5(2), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanchez, T. W. (1998). Equity analysis of capital improvement plans using GIS: The case of the Des Moines urbanized area. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 124, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanchez, T. W. (2001). Are planners prepared to address social justice and distributional equity? Critical Planning, Summer, 9, 100.Google Scholar
  72. Scott, D. (2000). Tic, Toc, the game is locked and nobody else can play. Journal of Leisure Research., 32(1), 133–137.Google Scholar
  73. Sister, C., Wilson, J., Wolch, J., Swift, J., & Ghaemi, P. (2007). Green visions plan for 21st century Southern California: A Guide for habitat conservation, watershed health, and recreational open space. 15. Park congestion and strategies to increase park equity. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities and GIS Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  74. Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., Hewko, J. N., & Hodgson, M. J. (2004). Spatial accessibility and equity of playgrounds in Edmonton, Canada. The Canadian Geographer, 48(3), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stodolska, M. (2000). Looking beyond the invisible: Can research on leisure of ethnic and racial minorities contribute to leisure theory? Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 156–160.Google Scholar
  76. Stodolska, M., & Yi, J. (2003). Impacts of immigration on ethnic identity and leisure behavior of adolescent immigrants from Korea, Mexico, and Poland. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(1), 49–79.Google Scholar
  77. Symons, J. G. (1971). Some comments on equity and efficiency in public facility location models. Antipode, 3(1), 54–67.Google Scholar
  78. Talen, E. (1997). The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18(6), 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Talen, E. (1998). Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30, 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (1999). Environmental justice and the spatial distribution of outdoor recreation sites: An application of geographic information systems. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(1), 18–34.Google Scholar
  83. Teitz, M. B. (1968). Toward a theory of public facility location. Papers in Regional Science Association, 21, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Troy, A., & Morgan, J. (2008). Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ulrich, R. S., & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
  87. United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice (UCCCRJ). (1987). Toxic wastes and race in the United States, a national study of the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of communities with hazardous waste sites. New York, NY: United Church of Christ.Google Scholar
  88. Washington, R. O., & Strong, D. (1997). A model for teaching environmental justice in a planning curriculum. Journal of Planning and Education Research, 16, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wolch, J., Pincelt, S., & Pulido, L. (2001). Urban nature and the nature of urbanism. In M. Dear (Ed.), From Chicago to LA: Making sense of urban theory (pp. 367–402). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  90. Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), 4–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.University of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations