Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 297–310 | Cite as

Reconsidering Access: Park Facilities and Neighborhood Disamenities in New York City

  • Christopher C. WeissEmail author
  • Marnie Purciel
  • Michael Bader
  • James W. Quinn
  • Gina Lovasi
  • Kathryn M. Neckerman
  • Andrew G. Rundle


With increasing concern about rising rates of obesity, public health researchers have begun to examine the availability of parks and other spaces for physical activity, particularly in cities, to assess whether access to parks reduces the risk of obesity. Much of the research in this field has shown that proximity to parks may support increased physical activity in urban environments; however, as yet, there has been limited consideration of environmental impediments or disamenities that might influence individuals’ perceptions or usage of public recreation opportunities. Prior research suggests that neighborhood disamenities, for instance crime, pedestrian safety, and noxious land uses, might dissuade people from using parks or recreational facilities and vary by neighborhood composition. Motivated by such research, this study estimates the relationship between neighborhood compositional characteristics and measures of park facilities, controlling for variation in neighborhood disamenities, using geographic information systems (GIS) data for New York City parks and employing both kernel density estimation and distance measures. The central finding is that attention to neighborhood disamenities can appreciably alter the relationship between neighborhood composition and spatial access to parks. Policy efforts to enhance the recreational opportunities in urban areas should expand beyond a focus on availability to consider also the hazards and disincentives that may influence park usage.


Built environment Parks Spatial accessibility GIS 



Support for this research was provided by a Partnerships for Environmental Public Health administrative supplement to NIEHS grant R01ES014229. “Obesity, Physical Activity and Built Space in New York City” (PI: Andrew Rundle). The authors additionally would like to thank the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (Grant # HL068236), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Grant # P30 ES009089), and the Robert Wood Johnson Health and Society Scholars program for their financial support.


  1. 1.
    Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001; 33(5): 434–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(5): e1381–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(3): 509–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diez Roux AV, Evenson KR, McGinn AP, et al. Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(3): 493–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duncan M, Mummery K. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland. Prev Med. 2005; 40(4): 363–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maantay J. Mapping environmental injustices: pitfalls and potential of geographic information systems in assessing environmental health and equity. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110(Suppl 2): 161–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor WC, Floyd MF, Whitt-Glover MC, Brooks J. Environmental justice: a framework for collaboration between the public health and parks and recreation fields to study disparities in physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2007; 4(Suppl 1): S50–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Evenson KR, McGinn AP, Brines SJ. Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic status areas. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 34(1): 16–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolch J, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geogr. 2005; 26(1): 4–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estabrooks PA, Lee RE, Gyurcsik NC. Resources for physical activity participation: does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Ann Behav Med. 2003; 25(2): 100–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maroko AR, Maantay JA, Sohler NL, Grady KL, Arno PS. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr. 2009; 8: 34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M, et al. Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2S2): 169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wendel-Vos GCW, Schuit AJ, De Niet R, Boshuizen HC, Saris WHM, Kromhout D. Factors of the physical environment associated with walking and bicycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(4): 725–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bell JF, Wilson JS, Liu GC. Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in body mass index of children and youth. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(6): 547–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, Popkin BM. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(2): 417–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rundle A, Field S, Park Y, Freeman L, Weiss CC, Neckerman K. Personal and neighborhood socioeconomic status and indices of neighborhood walk-ability predict body mass index in New York City. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67(12): 1951–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Talen E, Anselin L. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility of public playgrounds. Environ Plann A. 1998; 30: 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lovasi GS, Hutson MA, Guerra M, Neckerman KM. Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations. Epidemiol Rev. 2009; 31(1): 7–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cutts BB, Darby KJ, Boone CG, Brewis A. City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: an integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 69(9): 1314–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boone CG, Buckley GL, Grove JM, Sister C. Parks and people: an environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2009; 99(4): 767–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guagliardo MF, Ronzio CR, Cheung I, Chacko E, Joseph JG. Physician accessibility: an urban case study of pediatric providers. Health Place. 2004; 10(3): 273–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Nettleton JA, Jacobs DR Jr. Associations of the local food environment with diet quality—a comparison of assessments based on surveys and geographic information systems: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167(8): 917–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rundle A, Neckerman KM, Freeman L, et al. Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117(3): 442–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Albrecht SL. Equity and justice in environmental decision making—a proposed research agenda. Soc Nat Resour. 1995; 8(1): 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008; 47(3): 241–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harrison RA, Gemmell I, Heller RF. The population effect of crime and neighbourhood on physical activity: an analysis of 15 461 adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61(1): 34–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brownlow A. An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia. Geoforum. 2006; 37: 227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Troy A, Grove JM. Property values, parks, and crime: a hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landsc Urban Plan. 2008; 87: 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House; 1961.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey TC, Gatrell AC. Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bloch M, Carter S, Evans T, et al. Murder: New York City. New York Times. June 18, 2009. Accessed 3 May 2010.
  32. 32.
    Maroko AR, Maantay JA, Sohler NL, Grady KL, Arno PS. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr. 2009 Jun 22; 8: 34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher C. Weiss
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marnie Purciel
    • 2
  • Michael Bader
    • 3
  • James W. Quinn
    • 1
  • Gina Lovasi
    • 4
  • Kathryn M. Neckerman
    • 5
  • Andrew G. Rundle
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Social and Economic Research and PolicyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Human Impact PartnersOaklandUSA
  3. 3.Health and Society Scholars Program and Leonard Davis Institute for Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Mailman School at Public Health, Department of EpidemiologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Center for Health and the Social SiencesUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations