Environmental privilege or injustice? Access to high quality urban parks in Portland, Oregon Jeremy NĂŠmeth Geneva Faulkner Eric Ross University of Colorado Denver EDRA43 Seattle Conference 2012
Environmental Justice & Privilege
Environmental Justice
(Omi & Wiant 1987, Downey 2005,
Brulle & Pellow 2006, Strife & Downey 2008)
Environmental Privilege
Introduction
Unequal allocation of environmental burdens (Pulido 2000, Park & Pellow 2004)
Unequal allocation of environmental benefits
Benefits of Parks
Social
Environmental (Kuo 2001, Chiesura 2004, Wong & Chen 2004, Strife &
(Kuo et al. 1998, Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005, Kawachi et al. 2006, Williams 2006)
Downey 2008)
Introduction
Economic (Bolitzer & Netusil 2000, Netusil 2005, Jun 2006)
Text
Text
Text
Bronx, NY (http://phonezap.com/nicknick/pictures/1217829)
Preston’s HOPE Playground, Cleveland
Text
Text
Text
Introduction
Table of Cities with Highest Park Acreage per Person in the U.S.
persquaremile.com
Research Question
Are demographics, socioeconomic status and park dependency related to local park access and quality?
Introduction
Question 1: What kind of park access do “at-risk” block groups have and how good are the parks to which they do have access? Question 2: What kind of park access do “minority” block groups have and how good are the parks to which they do have access? Question 3: What kind of park access do “park dependent” tracts have and how good are the parks to which they do have access? Question 4: What kind of park access do the “most disadvantaged” geographies in cities have?
Portland, Oregon
Demographics
High social / environmental consciousness
Introduction
Predominantly White (76.1%) Near the top in park acreage per person
“Careful balance between environmentalism and urbanism is the central creative tension that has shaped the character of Portland over the past generation” (Abbott 2004) One of Portland’s goals is that “All of Portland’s residents have access to, feel safe and welcome in, and are equitably served by Portland’s parks, open spaces, natural areas, recreation facilities and programs” (Portland Parks 2020 Vision Report)
Methods
Introduction
Parks People Place
Parks
What is a park? What is a quality park?
Methods
List of amenities from Parks and Rec Cross-check each with Google StreetView One point for each amenity (no weighting) Scored all parks and grouped: Quartile 4 (25%) = Good Quartiles 2 and 3 (50%) = Average Quartile 1 (25%) = Poor
Methods
Parks
Good Parks
Forest Park, Score of 16
Methods
Parks
Average Parks
Berrydale Park, Score of 5
Methods
Parks
Poor Parks
Sumner-Albina Park, Score of 1
People
Methods
At-risk Minority population Park dependency
Construct Income / wealth
At-Risk indicators of socioeconomic status Variables Measure Median household income
Below city median
Percentage persons below Greater than city average poverty Median value of owneroccupied housing units
Education
Occupation / employment
Percentage of housing units that are owner occupied Percentage of adults 25 years and older with complete high school Percentage of adults 25 years and older with complete college Percentage of persons 16 and older in executive, managerial, or professional occupations Percentage employed
Census Product ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city median
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city average
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city average
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city average
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city average
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Below city average
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Minority
Our definition
Methods
People
Less than 50% non-Hispanic white only
Correlations with socioeconomic status 2010 Decennial Census
Block group level
Park Dependency
Methods
People
Children Elderly Carless Low-income
Park dependency assessment Variables
Measure
Census Product
Population under 18 years
Percentage of total population
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Population over 65 years
Percentage of total population
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Population in poverty
Percentage of total population
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Households with no vehicle
Percentage of total households
ACS 2005-2009 5-year estimates
Place
Methods
Data sources Map software Level of detail Distance measure
Results
All Parks (Unscored)
All Block Groups within ¼ Mile of Any Park
Results
299/422 or 68% of block groups are within ¼ mile of ANY park
General Park Access
Results
All block groups
# of Block Groups within ¼ mile of Any Park
Percentage of Block Groups within ¼ mile of any park
299/422
68
At-risk block groups 23/37
62
Minority block groups
14/23
61
Park Dependent tracts
15/28
54
We recognize that these are fairly small populations, so one or two additional parks within ¼ mile would change these percentages fairly significantly
Results
All Parks (Scored)
Park Quality Good Average Poor Total Parks
Number 54 101 99 254
Results
At-risk Block Groups
Results
At-risk Block Groups Not Within Âź Mile of Any Park
Results
Minority Block Groups
Results
All Minority Block Groups Not Within Âź Mile of Any Park
Results
Park-dependent Tracts
Results
All Park-dependent Tracts Not Within Âź Mile of Any Park
Results
At-risk, Minority, and Park Dependent Block Groups and Tracts
Results
At-risk, Minority, and Park-dependent Blocks Not Within Âź Mile of Any Park
Results
All Block Groups and Tracts that are At-risk, Minority, and Park Dependent at the Same Time
Results
All Block Groups and Tracts that are At-risk, Minority, and Park-dependent At the Same Time and are Not Within Âź Mile of Any Park
Results
Park Access by Group
Good
Average
Poor
At-Risk
48%
22%
35%
Minority
36%
29%
36%
Park Dependent
20%
27%
53%
Summary
Are demographics, socioeconomic status and park dependency related to local park access and quality?
Question 1: What kind of park access do “at-risk” block groups have and how good are the parks to which they do have access?
Question 2: What kind of park access do “minority” block groups have and how good are the parks to which they do have access?
Results
9 minority block groups have bad access; equally likely to be near good, average or poor parks
Question 3: What kind of park access do “park dependent” tracts have and how good are the parks to which they do have access?
14 block groups have bad access; more likely to be near good parks than average or poor parks
13 park dependent tracts have bad access; much more likely to be near poor parks than average or good parks
Question 4: What kind of park access do the “most disadvantaged” geographies in cities have?
8 of the most disadvantaged areas (at-risk, minority, park dependent) have bad access
Parks
Limitations
Using Google Earth to count amenities Unweighted index scores General difficulty of accurately assessing quality
People
Data limitations Decennial Census
American Community Survey
Limitations
5-year estimates have high error rates (~30%) Not all 2006-2010 estimates available and must rely on 2005-2009 estimates
High thresholds, few observations
Block group level is more accurate / representative Not all variables available for 2010 Must rely on tract-level aggregate data or ACS
Thresholds themselves are subjective
Ecological Fallacy
Place
Limitations
¼ mile Euclidean distance Access point to parks outside of ¼ mile Portland as a special case or anomaly? Skewed data due to the size of Forest Park Neighborhood scale
Further Research
Conclusion
Expand to other cities Better data On-the-ground data collection Correlate with other variables
Conclusion
Questions?