A Stroll to the Park: A Study of Greenspace Accessibility Using Active Modes of Transportation

A STROLL TO THE PARK: A study of greenspace accessibility using active modes of transportation

Option Paper Anne Welch Advisor: Brian Stone, Ph.D. May 5, 2017

CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW a. Why is equitable access to parks and greenspace important? b. What are current greenspace accessibility standards? c. How is greenspace accessibility measured?

III.

CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION a. Indianapolis, IN b. Atlanta, GA c. Seattle, WA

IV.

METHODOLOGY a. Data b. Network File Creation c. Accessibility Assessment

V.

RESULTS

VI.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

VII.

RECOMMENDATIONS a. Adopt walkability standards b. Create equitable greenspace networks c. Create quality spaces

VIII.

CONCLUSION

IX.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION Much research has been done on the health and environmental benefits of greenspaces, the most appropriate methods of measuring access to greenspaces, and the planning of bicycle networks. Most greenspace accessibility studies only focus on walking distances, and little has been done in the area of bicycle accessibility measurement. As cities expand their bicycle networks, and mode share rises, these bicycle networks could provide expanded access to greenspace. By analyzing both walk-sheds and bike-sheds of greenspace, cities can better prioritize projects and investment in areas that are in the most need, such as areas where greenspace is not accessible by either mode of active transportation.

In this paper, I will seek to expand upon current access research by investigating access to greenspaces via active modes of active transportation, specifically, bicycling. I will look at 3 case study cities, who have adopted varying standards for park and greenspace accessibility and spatial distribution, and run an origin destination cost analysis to analyze differences in access sheds between active modes and distances. From this analysis I will then make recommendations for planners seeking to expand their cities access to greenspace by creating better bicycle and greenspace networks.

LITERATURE REVIEW WHY IS EQUITABLE AC C ESS TO PARKS AND GREENSPAC E IMPO RTANT? PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS The inclusion of greenspace in our cities and urban areas has been historically recognized to have positive health outcomes and be associated with healthy lifestyles. Ancient Greeks and Romans recognized the physical and mental benefits of urban greenspace, even coining the term rus in urbe to describe having features of the countryside within an urban environment (Ward Thompson 2011). Renaissance thinkers linked the garden, most often found in hospitals and monasteries, to positive humours, which they believed governed both mental and physical

health, thus recognizing the mental and spiritual benefits of gardens. Later, idyllic English gardens provided the privileged and upper classes with opportunities for physical engagement with nature in picturesque settings that provided opportunities for ‘active curiosity’ of the mind.

During the industrialization era, population centers urbanized rapidly, and became filled with cramped working class housing and factories that polluted the air and water, while the upper and middle bourgeoisie classes lived outside of town in villas with gardens where they enjoyed the free, wholesome country air (Engels 1845). Friedrich Engels, after visiting London in 1844, describes a small courtyard in London, typical of the ones scattered throughout the maze of working class dwellings, as having “directly at the entrance, at the end of the covered passage, a privy without a door, so dirty that the inhabitants can pass into and out of the court only by passing through foul pools of stagnant urine and excrement” where the air smells of “with the stench of animal putrefaction” due to the tanneries located nearby on the river. Unsurprisingly, epidemics such as cholera, typhoid, and tuberculosis regularly devastated the population.

To combat the unsanitary conditions of industrialized cities, the Urban Parks Movement sought to use public parks and greenspaces as a tool to bring fresh air back into cities. The movement kicked off with the opening of the world’s first publically funded park, Birkenhead, in 1843.

During this period, new public parks were built, while royal parks were opened to the public.

The parks movement’s main goal was the prevention of disease, and thus supported the location of public parks so that all segments of the population had access them. They hoped that the parks could help alleviate the horrendous living conditions prevalent in cities of the time. Parks became known as the “lungs of city” because prior to germ theory these greenspaces were thought to help alleviate the bad and stagnant air of the cities, which, at the time, was thought to cause disease. The Parks Movement was brought to North America by landscape architects. Inspired by the public parks of London, they designed parks with pastoral scenery with the aim of providing an escape from the city mentally and physically.

Fredrick Law Olmstead’s Central Park was inspired by Paxton’s design of Birkenhead Park, and his ideas of the mental restorative benefits of the natural experience have been confirmed by recent research (Ward Thompson 2011).

Although our understanding of germs and the science of disease has evolved significantly since the founding of the Parks Movement, the reoccurring historic belief that nature and greenspace provide therapeutic and mental health benefits has been confirmed by more recent studies.

Historical correlations between access to natural environments in urban areas and positive mental health benefits have been show to be surprisingly accurate. Exposure to green and natural space has been shown to decrease anxiety, rumination (brooding) and negative emotional states, while preserving positive emotional states (Bratman et al. 2015). This study also showed that the same exposure to nature has positive cognitive benefits as well, such as increased working memory performance. (Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino 2015)’s study found an increase in employee well being to be associated with using or viewing greenspace, similar to the beliefs of Renaissance thinkers correlations of gardens to positive mental wellbeing.

Accessible greenspace also provides physical benefits as well as mental benefits. A more connected street network makes it easer to access greenspaces and its associated positive health benefits, while providing it’s own health benefits. (Marshall, Piatkowski, and Garrick 2014) found a positive correlation between more compact and connected street networks with fewer lanes on major roads and reduced rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. By creating networks that allow for all destinations to be more accessible, cities also make existing greenspace more accessible. This can potentially increase the proven physical health benefits of greenspaces even more, especially if they are accessed through active modes of transportation.

SOCIAL BENEFITS Beyond the individual, parks and greenspaces provide neighborhoods and communities important social benefits. They provide tangible reflections of quality of life, and are often citied as one of the most important factors of the livability of communities (“Why Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services” 2010). Greenspace can offer social benefits to

communities as public meeting places that provide a shared focus for diverse communities and neighborhoods (Barbosa et al. 2007). Parks and greenspaces also spaces also provide opportunities for citizens of all ages and abilities to have access to physical health and mental well-being benefits regardless of their economic status (“Why Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services” 2010).

Parks and public greenspace provide opportunities for spontaneous social activities, which Jan Gehl, in his book Life Between Buildings, defines as “all actives that depend on the presences of others in public spaces.” They can “include children at play, greetings and conversations, communal activities of various kinds, and finally – as the most widespread social activity – passive contacts, that is, simply seeing and hearing other people. ” Easily accessible places that provide opportunities for these social activities, particularly passive contacts, are essential for forming strong community bonds and quality cities and neighborhoods. Quality accessible public space, such as parks, can facilitate neighborhood cohesion as, “a person we have often met on the street becomes a person we “know” (Gehl and Koch 2011).

In addition to the positive societal benefits parks and greenspaces provide, they also prevent negative social impacts. “Research by the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods indicated that community involvement in neighborhood parks was associated with lower levels of crime and vandalism. Accessible parks and recreational opportunities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime and juvenile delinquency” (“Why Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services” 2010).

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS & GREENSPACE’S ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION Public greenspaces also provide numerous environmental benefits. (Wolch, Byrne, and Newell 2014) showed that greenspace can help filter air, remove pollution, reduce noise, cool temperatures, infiltrate storm water and thus replenish groundwater. Parks and public lands have also been proven to prevent flooding, and provide vegetative buffers to development, as well as provide habitats for wildlife and opportunities for children to connect with nature (“Why

Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services” 2010). The equitable distribution of greenspaces also helps to combat the effects of urban heat islands, which pose serious health risks for vulnerable populations.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS The environmental benefits of parks and greenspaces can often lead to economic benefits.

American Forests, estimated that urban trees can save cities approximately $400 billion in storm water retention facility costs. Parks and greenspace have been proven to increase the value of property values for privately owned land that lies within a close proximity to them, thereby increasing the local tax revenues. This economic draw of public spaces extents to businesses as well, with “quality parks and recreation being one of the top three reasons that business cite in relocation decisions (“Why Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services” 2010). This draw of businesses to areas with quality parks can help boost local economies, epically when the parks are equitably distributed.

While an obvious conclusion is that cities should invest and create more greenspace throughout their cities – particularly in typically disenfranchised areas, as studies have shown that these areas are most likely to experience inadequate access to greenspace – it is important to do so in ways that do not promote gentrification. The successful development or upgrade of greenspace could pose problems for the residents they were built for. Brownfield redevelopment as greenspace has been shown to raise property values, which then forces the poor residents previously living in these areas to move to more affordable locations with worse environmental quality (Wolch, Byrne, and Newell 2014). This is most obviously seen in major abandoned railway greenspace conversions. The New York City Economic Development Corporation recently showed that along the New York Highline nearby property values increased 103% between 2003 and 2011 despite the housing recession. Atlanta is currently wrestling with this issue as housing prices rise along the Eastside Trail (developed) and Westside Trial (undeveloped). Recently Ryan Gravel, the urban planner who originally designed the Beltline, and Nathaniel Smith recently resigned from the Atlanta Beltline

Partnership, an organization that fundraises for the project, citing concerns about a lack of attention to housing affordability and equity (Stafford 2016).

WHAT ARE C URRENT GREENSPAC E AC C ESSIBILITY STANDARDS? Paul Wilkinson’s review of the historical origin of park and recreational standards classified standards into four types: size (e.g. one acre), ratio (e.g. per 10,000 residents), distance (e.g. within a quarter mile of residents), and area (e.g. 10 percent of the gross subdividable area) (Byrne 2013). Ratio and distance are the most commonly used standards, as they offer the most insight into adequate provision of greenspace, distribution, and spatial equity. Ratio standards are those that require a set area of total greenspace per population. This standard seeks to measure the overall adequate provision of greenspace, but provides little insight into the spatial equity and access of greenspaces across all populations of the city. Distance standards require a set amount of greenspace within a specific distance of the residential population, and seek to ensure that greenspace is adequately accessible to all residents (Moseley et al. 2013).

When cities use a ratio method of measurement alone as a standard, there is great potential for cities to provide an adequate amount of total greenspace, however due to historical planning inequities, the provided parks and greenspace could be spatially inequitable, located predominately outside of historically disinvested neighborhoods. Another potential problem that could arise using ratio standards alone, would be in the case of the provision of a low number of large greenspaces, meeting the park acreage to population metrics, even though large parts of the cities have no access to these areas of consolidated greenspace. This type of metric provides a good measures to compare the adequate provision of greenspace per resident – an important metric to ensure no overcrowding and that supply meets potential demand. However, this standard does nothing to encourage cities to provide equitably distributed greenspace.

The second form of standards does address these spatial equity issues. By focusing on both distance and provided area, it not only ensures that the parks provided are large enough to support the use of their access sheds, but they also are more accessible to all residents. The adoption of these sets of standards force cities to provide more, smaller greenspaces to ensure all residents have equal access.

Greenspace accessibility recommendations can vary, however many are typically based on the distance a person is willing to walk. This is often measured by either time or distance, since “distance or walking time from the home has appeared to be the single most important precondition for use of greenspace.” While there is no set standard for determining the exact distance that greenspace no longer becomes accessible, (Higgs, Fry, and Langford 2012) determined that the greenspace usage declines as distance and travel time increase, with 300 to 400 meters (0.19 – 0.25 miles) being a significant threshold. A survey of the literature finds that most accessibility studies use the accepted walking distance of a quarter mile, or 300 meters in European studies, in both buffer and network analysis (Moseley et al. 2013), (Comber, Brunsdon, and Green 2008). This consensus has lead to the creation of several sets of standards for overall greenspace accessibility.

I was not able to find any literature showing the distance people to bicycle to parks and greenspaces, as most studies focus on the quarter mile walking distance. Studies have shown, however, that typical wiliness to commute distances are approximately 3 miles, which represents a distance easily traveled in 15 to 30 minutes by bicycle, even by a novice rider. For this study, I have chosen to analyze my case studies on both a 3 mile bicycle ride and a 1.5 mile bicycle ride, to account for the likelihood that people are more willing to bicycle further for economic gain (jobs) than recreation opportunities.

RECOMMENDED STANDARDS The private non-profit organizations National Recreation and Park Association, NRPA, and Urban Land Institute, ULI, have developed standards parks and greenspace standards used by

cities across the United States. NRPA’s standards are often cited in parks and open space plans, however a comprehensive study of plans reveled that cited standards ranged from 4-17 acres for every 1,000 people, possibly due to a misinterpretation of the original 1979 standards, which calls for a set amount of park acreage for certain types of parks. Other plans used the most current 1996 edition of NARPA’s Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, which calls for park standards based on level of service analysis, which uses resident demand collected from use and survey data to determine the amount of space needed for park facilities (Harnik and Simms 2004).

European greenspace organizations focus more on accessibility, tending to publish more distance and walkability standards. The European Environment Agency recommends that people should have access to greenspace within a 15 minute walking distance. While English Nature, a UK governmental agency, recommends that in towns and cities, greenspace should be accessible within 300 meters or less from resident’s homes (Barbosa et al. 2007).

Figure 1. A Summary of Travel Distance to Greenspace Standards from (Moseley et al. 2013).

While these distances are based on willingness to travel to a generic greenspace, it is important to note that the quality of the greenspace can have an effect on the distance people are willing to travel to utilize it (Moseley et al. 2013). It also should be noted that I was not able to find any studies or plans that included bike oriented distance standards in relation to parks and greenspace accessibility.

When researching greenspace standards, I did find literature offering alternative methods of creating greenspace without the use of standards, however most cities have adopted standards. This method of greenspace assessment does use valuable tools that should be used concurrently with standards. In Byrne’s, Greenspace Planning: Problems with Standards, Lessons from Research, and best Practices, he offers an alternative to greenspace standards.

Cities can also use a needs based assessment when planning for greenspace. This method takes into consideration socio-demographic and bio-physical characteristics of the city and assumes that the spatial distribution of people and greenspace is uneven, but residents will seek to minimize travel costs by using the closest greenspaces to their homes. Data from the census, detailed community surveys, participant observation, behavioral mapping, focus group research, ethnographic research, and systematic audits of park locations and facilities is collected and analyzed to determine demand and participation rates in various greenspace uses. Future needs are considered as well, and greenspace should be planned with flexible design and in a manner that not only sustains present needs, but also future trends. This requires for greenspace planning to shift from a ‘one size fits all’ prescriptions to methods that allow for more creative, ingenious, adaptable, and experimental designs and plans to emerge (Byrne 2013).

HO W IS GREENSPAC E AC C ESSIBILITY MEASURED? The assessment of greenspace accessibility has been widely studied, mostly in the context of environmental justice. However as cities update and adopt parks and greenspace comprehensive development plans, they are increasingly using accessibility and distribution

metrics along with public input to assess gaps in their systems and inform their expansion and new parkland acquisition decisions. While methods might vary, the most commonly used methods for measuring accessibility are described below.

BUFFER ANALYSIS The easiest method of determining the number of residents in proximity (therefore with “access”) to greenspaces is by using ‘as the crow flies’ distance. This procedure is very easy to do by simply creating a Euclidean buffer around greenspace polygons or centroids and then assuming the residents within these catchment areas have access to the greenspace. This method however does not take into account potential barriers to access such as parks with restricted access around their perimeters, and other physical barriers to travel such as busy roads. (Moseley et al. 2013).

To account for this, some studies have reduced the buffer

distance, however I was not able to find any studies connecting these reduction factors with specific urban forms that create these barriers. This simplistic method of measurement has been shown to constantly overestimate accessibility. Mosely et al. shows that Euclidian buffers are inadequate methods of assessing the provision and accessibility of greenspace, and that they substantially overestimate who is able to access greenspace thus leading to an underprovision of greenspace, particularly in “deprived” areas.

NETWORK ANALYSIS – SERVICE AREA MODELING The alternative to the buffer analysis is the network analysis, which analyzes distance traveled along a network of routes such as roads and paths - taking into account the physical barriers to travel and differences in urban form that can restrict access. This form of analysis allows for the creation of ‘catchment’ areas for greenspaces that start at resident’s doorstep, assuming data at this level is available, allowing for a more realistic model of active travel mode access such as walking or bicycling and more accurate counts of residents served. ArcMap’s Network Analysis extension allows you to determine a service area for an individual point, using distance along a given network to create a buffer.

Figure 2. ArcMap’s Service Area Solver uses distance along a network to create buffers. (http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.4/extensions/network-analyst/types-of-network-analyses.htm#GUID-4895A39A-4C7B4B32-A71D-501189667EEB))

This analysis, especially when paired with detailed population data, is a great way for planners to gain useful data about the number of residents a specific greenspace is accessible to, however, it is time consuming to run this analysis on a citywide or regional basis. This tool is more useful for planners in determining accessibility sheds for potential new parks on a neighborhood level.

A network analysis provides a great resource for assessing existing greenspace networks, it also provides a tool to assist with the planning of greenspaces in new developments, ensuring that they are “incorporated effectively at the planning stage rather than squeezed in at the end” (Moseley et al. 2013). Once the network and greenspace data is created, the analysis can be run iteratively to determine where potential parks and greenspace could be located in order to provide the most access. Network Analysis tools such as this also allow for the inclusion of greenspace quality data as factors that can expand catchment factors. Moseley et al.’s study included function, condition, and a combined quality score in their accessibility models – allowing for higher quality greenspaces to attract people from larger distances by weighting the catchment areas. If park quality data is included in the modeling process, planners could then compare differences in park quality upgrades versus the addition of new greenspaces as factors of catchment area increases.

NETWORK ANALYSIS – ORIGIN DESTINATION COST MATRIX When attempting to analyze accessibility for multiple origins and destinations, such as from population centers to all parks and greenspaces within a certain distance, OD Cost Matrix provides the most beneficial tool. This tool finds the shortest distance from every origin to every destination, and can be modified to find all destinations within a specified distance along the network. Once solved, the matrix produces a table ranking each destination that each origin connects to in ascending order based on the specified cost (distance, time) along the network (“Types of Network Analysis layers—Help | ArcGIS Desktop” 2017). This allows planners to gain a larger scale understanding of accessibility for a large network of parks on city or regional scales.

While it has been shown that network analysis significantly improves upon the accuracy of Euclidian buffer analysis in regards to potential accessibility measures, it is important to recognize that these measurements only approximate actual levels of exposure to greenspaces. Other non-physical barriers such as perceived crime and traffic safety can influence the perception of accessibility of greenspaces to people, and most significantly their accessibility to children (Higgs, Fry, and Langford 2012).

CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION For this analysis, I chose 3 case study cities to compare and contrast. While these cities vary in population and city area, they have a similar number of parks and all have a built bicycle infrastructure network. These cities, as described in further detail below, all have different levels of adopted greenspace standards, and vary in quality of their comprehensive plans, goal, and benchmarks. Indianapolis was rated the most car dependent and least bikeable city, with the lowest Park Score, however, it does have a gridded urban form and an extensive trail network. Despite this, the Indy Parks and Rec Comprehensive plan had the least stringent accessibility standards. Atlanta, scored slightly higher in walkability and bikeability, but still

had a low Parks Score. It had the least percentage of park and greenspace area to total city area, however it did have a better Greenspace Plan, with distance standards adopted to supplement population and area ratio standards. Seattle is the most walkable and bikeable, with the highest park score of all the case study cities. Like Indianapolis, it also has a gridded urban form, which aids in accessibility, and had the highest percentage of parkland to total area. Unsurprisingly, Seattle also had the most stringent parks and greenspace accessibility standards, and has recently adopted distance based walkablility standards for all parks and greenspace.

Population (2010 Census) Population density Total City Area Total Park Area Number of Parks Parks per 1,000 Person % Parkland to Total Area Walk Score

Bike Score Park Score (out of 100)

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 820,445 2273/sq mi 372 sq mi 238,720 acrs 13,380 acres 347 0.42294 5.60%

ATLANTA, GA 463,878 3360/sq mi 134 sq mi 86,643 acres 2,346 acres 345 0.74373 2.71%

SEATTLE, WA 608,660 8161/sq mi 142.5 sq mi 91,200 acres 6,414 acres 485 0.79683 7.03%

29

48

73

car dependent - most errands require a car

car dependent - most errands require a car

very walkable - most errands can be accomplished on foot

41

50

63

somewhat bikeable, minimal bike infrastructure

bikeable, some bike infrastructure

bikeable, some bike infrastructure

30

51

71

INDIANAPOLIS, IN In the Indy Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan, the section dedicated to accessibility focuses solely on accessibility for residents with disabilities. Spatial distribution of parks is analyzed later on in the plan, in the Service Area Analysis/Equity Mapping section. Here, planners use a service area analysis to assess where services are offered, determine equitable distribution of parks, and see gaps and overlaps of service specific to facilities or amenities provided. These maps seek to show the effectiveness of the service in regards to demographic densities with the lines extending to the distance of population served based on NRPA standards.

Figure 3. Service Area maps for Community Parks, Regional Parks, and Neighborhood Parks from the Indy Parks & Rec Comprehensive Plan.

These maps show the population being served by the park type based on standards outlined in their Level of Service Matrix, number of amenities at the specific location, and population density. While these maps provide a visual for planner to see where gaps in the parks and greenspace network might exist, the plan does not lay out any specific standards of ratio or distance that must be met in future parkland acquisition. Instead of analyzing the population needs, then providing goals for accessibility, this analysis seems to focus solely on current parks provided and their service areas.

Figure 4. Level of Service Matrix with NRPA standards, from the Indy Parks & Rec Comprehensive Plan.

Although the Level of Service Matrix that these maps were based on uses population based ratio standards based on the NRPA National Standards to assess whether their current parks provide adequate service to the Indianapolis population, no specific accessibility standards were laid out for adoption. The only accessibility standard I was able to find in this Comprehensive Plan was in the Key Recommendations section. In order to fulfill their vision to “ensure adequate parkland, facilities, and programs are available in all townships by meeting recommended levels of service standards” a goal to “seek to achieve a land acquisition goal of 12 acres per 1,000 residents in each township at a minimum” is recommended. While this goal does provide general standard for new park acquisition, it does not include any provisions for equitable distribution or accessibility, and no benchmarks or timeframes seemed to be set for these goals.

ATLANTA, GA Project Greenspace, the City of Atlanta’s most current greenspace plan, was adopted in 2009.

This plan includes a State of Atlanta Greenspace Report, A Technical Report, a Needs Assessment as well as a Summary Report.

The Needs Report recommends the adoption of park and greenspace standards and goals that use both proximity and accessibility to to determine the percent of population served by the current parks and greenspaces.

Figure 5. Recommended Standards from the Atlanta’s Project Greenspace Needs Assessment.

Project Greenspace assessed Atlanta’s current overall provision of parkland at 7.5 acres per 1,000 residents. This provision fails to meet both the UCI and NRPA standards, and falls below by the eight peer cities surveyed in the study. In 2000 as a requirement of the Georgia

Community Greenspace Program, the City established a goal of protecting 20% of total land area. Project Greenspace, however, went beyond this ratio standard and implemented more comprehensive standards for the provision of their parks and greenspaces.

PARK CLASSIFICATION Citywide Park

DESCRIPTION

MINIMUM AREA

SERVICE AREA

A major park that draws users from throughout the city Supports organized programing with staff Serve local informal recreational needs

100 acres

Entire city

35 acres

2 mile drive 0.5 mile

Block Park

Small park site containing limited amenities

2-5 acres

Dedicated Greenspace

Land that is permanently dedicated for greenspace purposes through ownership or deed restriction

Community Park Neighborhood Park

10 acres 5 acres in densely populated areas

Publically Accessible Dedicated Greenspace

RATIO STANDA RDS

WALKABLE

“Should be easily accessible by pedestrians via the street network”

0.25 mile

“Should be easily accessible by pedestrians via the street network” 20 acres per 1,000 residents

10 acres per 1,000 residents

All residents should be located within a 0.5 mile walk

Project Greenspace also found that parks and natural areas are distributed throughout the city, however it is evident that there is a concentration of parkland in the eastern side of the city.

Accessibility was looked at and it was found that there is a need for a citywide network of walking and bicycling trails. Currently, existing trails are piece-meal and scattered and do not link to form an interconnected network that connects the parks. Project Greenspace recommends one linear mile of trials per 2,000 residents.

In accordance with their goal to protect 20% of land area for greenspace, the Bureau of Watershed Protection currently runs a Greenway Acquisition Project and a Greenway Management Project. The aim of this $25 million program is to “acquire and protect properties adjacent to selected rivers and creeks within the Metro Atlanta area.” These properties will then be maintained by the City of Atlanta in a natural, undisturbed state in perpetuity. This project is designed to protect local water quality, animal and plant habitats and wetlands along the rivers, and was undertaken as part of the settlement with the US and Georgia Environmental Protections Agencies for violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as well as the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (“Greenspace Protection - City of Atlanta, Watershed Management” 2016). While this land acquisition is vital for watershed protection and adds to the total greenspace acreage, programs such as this can skew the spatial distribution of parks and greenspace away from urban centers and efforts should be made to ensure these greenspaces are accessible to the public by active modes of transportation.

SEATTLE, WA Seattle’s Moving the Needle report assembles a set of high level environmental goals and accomplishments into one report, which allows for long-term tracking of goals and improved accountability for the city. This report outlines the city’s 3 goals for improving Greenspace: 1. One acre of open space per 100 residents (Currently 0.75 acres of parkland per 100 residents (2012 data)).

2. All residents live within ¼ mile of a park (Currently 83% of residents live within ¼ mile of a park).

3. 100% level of service for care of Seattle’s green spaces (Currently 58% level of service for greenspaces in 2013).

The 2011 Development Plan’s parks and greenspace distribution guidelines are laid out in the 2006 Development Plan. These guidelines are based on both service areas and distances, however the plan makes clear that any evaluations based on these guidelines must take into consideration physical barriers to access such as major arterials, water, and topography.

PARK CLASSIFICATION

DESCRIPTION

Breathing Room (Total Open Space)

Total acerage of all dedicated open spaces excluding tidelands and shorelands Relatively level and open, easily accessible, primarly green open space available for drop in ue

Neighborhood Park (Primarily Single Family Residential Areas)

Neighborhood Park (Urban Village)

Publically owned or dedicated open space that is easily accessible and intended to serve the immediate urban village

Greenspaces

Areas designated for preservation because of their natural – counted as Breething Space, should be preserved regardless of relationship to distributional guidelines

MINIMIM AREA

SERVICE AREA

RATIO STANDARD (POPULATION)

WALKABLE

DESIRABLE: 1 acre per 100 residents ACCEPTABLE: 1/3 acre per 100 residents

10,000 square feet

DESIRABLE: 1 acre per 1,000 households AND 0.25 acre per 10,000 jobs in the Downtown Urban Core

DESIRABLE: 0.5 acre within 0.5 mile of households ACCEPTABLE: 0.5 acre per 1 mile of households DESIRABLE: 0.25 acre within 1/8 mile of all location in urban villages density areas ACCEPTABLE: 0.25 ACRE within 0.5 mile

The Seattle Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of updating their 2011 Development Plan and An Assessment of Gaps in Seattle’s Open Space Network: The 2011 Gap Report Update. This update will include an updated gap report and a new accessibility standard focused on walkability, and will transition their standards from focusing on population served ratios to distance based measurements.

As a part of Seattle’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050, the city has adopted as part of their 2035 Comprehensive Plan a goal of “considering access to parks by transit, bicycle, and on foot when acquiring, siting and designing new park facilities or improving existing ones.” This goal is being worked towards with the adoption of the new 2017 Development Plan, which will update the currently adopted 2011 Development Plan. As a part of this, Seattle is considering walkability as a measure of access and equity in their future parkland acquisitions. They have chosen to use the Trust for Public Land and the National Park Service definitions of walkability as the distance a person walks in 10 minutes, or approximately a halfmile. This adopted distance standard will supplement their current ratio standards. In the Gap Analysis, a network analysis, similar the analysis below, was used to measure the walkability of Seattle’s parks and highlight areas that lack parks within this new walkable standard, however unlike the following analysis, the entry points to all parks were mapped and used as origins and a specifically developed walking network was developed.

METHODOLOGY As the literature and standards show, almost all greenspace accessibility measures focus on walking distance to parks and greenspace. While focusing on walking accessibility is still considered best practice, measuring bicycle accessibility could potentially expand the access sheds of the network greatly. A bicycle accessibility analysis paired with walking accessibility analysis could give planners ideas about where communities have absolutely no access to greenspace via any method of active transportation – signaling areas where efforts should be focused first. This method of analysis could also show potential gaps in the bicycle network that, if closed could provide communities with much greater greenspace access.

In the section below, I conduct several network accessibility analysis to determine whether it is beneficial to include bicycle networks in greenspace accessibility plans. For each census block group, I measure approximately how many parks are accessible with a 3 and 1.5 mile bicycle ride and a 0.25 mile walk. I then compare the results to determine how many more block

groups, and by proxy, people have access to parks and greenspaces via bicycle network compared to walking networks, and compare the case study cities to one another to determine what traits and policies work to provide the most overall accessible active transportation networks.

Below, I describe how I conducted a greenspace accessibility analysis using the network analysis method to assess first walking accessibility to parks and greenspaces, using a modified street network. I then compared this to a network accessibility analysis done on the modified network to assess park and greenspace accessibility for short bicycle trips. From there, I compared the results for walking and bicycling to highlight areas that have adequate and inadequate access to greenspace, measured how many more people have access via bicycle networks comparatively to walking networks, and compared case study cities’ accessibility sheds.

DATA PARKS AND GREENSPACE POLYGONS The term urban greenspace can refer to a variety of spaces, both public and private. Broadly defined, the term can include all of the following: “all types of parks (from pocket parks to national parks), sporting fields, riparian areas (i.e., river banks), private backyards and gardens, community gardens, street trees, spontaneous vegetation (i.e., not planters), infrastructure easements, communal space around apartment buildings, cemeteries, school grounds, green roofs, stormwater drainage channels, walking and cycling trails, vacant lots, and other spaces that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, nature conservation, relaxation, socializing, and interacting with plants and animals” or on a more abstract manner, places that “are the interstices, the in-between spaces in our cities, spaces where living things flourish and where people can relax, recuperate, and be revitalized” (Byrne 2013). Although some studies, such as (Barbosa et al. 2007), measure and contrast public versus private greenspace accessibility, most studies I reviewed focused entirely on public greenspace access and

provision. In this study of greenspace accessibility, however, I chose to focus solely on publicly accessible and maintained parks and greenspaces.

“The ‘gold standard’ when measuring potential accessibility to the nearest green space using proxy measures would involve measuring access from individual household locations to public entrances (or other access points) to green spaces using network distance (using as detailed a path or road network as is available)” (Higgs, Fry, and Langford 2012). However parks and greenspace data with this level of detail was not available for this study, so for this study, I used the centroids of parks as my origins. To create this input, I plotted the X and Y coordinates of the geometric centroid of each park polygon.

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PARCELS Although several studies I reviewed used individual household data to determine exact numbers for populations with access to greenspace, this type of analysis requires highly detailed datasets that were not available for use in this analysis. As a proxy, for individual residential data, I used block groups to measure the number of residents within access sheds.

While a smaller, more community centric, population boundaries, such as Neighborhood Planning Units, would be ideal, block groups allow have stable boundaries over time, and can be linked to reliable census demographic data. To determine the number of residents who have access to parks and greenspace in this study, I used total population data from 2010 census block groups.

NETWO RK FILE C REATIO N Most greenspace accessibility studies measure walking accessibility and use the traditional road networks, which include all possible routes regardless of designated speed limit. Using this network can be beneficial when determining walking accessibility, because it is assumed that when walking people will take the shortest, most direct routes. This behavior, however, is not the same for bicyclists, who are more likely to take a slightly longer route if it provides more safety. In particular, women were found to place higher importance on routes that

minimize distance, avoid streets with high traffic volumes, and avoid hills. They were also more likely to go out of their way to ride on low traffic streets and bicycle boulevards. Infrequent riders were also found to place a higher importance on factors that make trips easier such as routes with less traffic and those that required less physical effort, they also were more likely to go out of their way to use multi-use paths (Dill and Gliebe 2008).

When creating the bicycle infrastructure network, I assumed that potential riders would take routes that provide high levels of bicycle infrastructure or lower traffic speeds. I chose to use lower traffic speeds as a proxy for lower traffic volumes, as these are more likely to be residential and local roads that often do have lower traffic volumes than arterials and collectors.

However, in future research, traffic volume data could be included to create more accurate networks.

To create the street network, I used ESRI’s North American Detailed Streets dataset, clipped to the city limits of each case study city, and extracted all streets with speed limits less than or equal to 35 miles per hour for the case study region. This network was expanded with the addition of existing bicycle infrastructure, which accounts for roads with existing: bicycle lanes (buffered and conventional), cycle tracks (protected and raised), shared travel lanes, shared use paths or greenways, side path, and paved shoulders. These modified North American Detailed Streets network and bicycle infrastructure shapefiles were then combined using the merge tool, which simply adds the two shapefiles together. To eliminate any redundancy in this combined street network due to the overlap of bicycle lanes and streets with speeds less than 35mph, I used the integrate tool with a 10 foot tolerance to merge any overlapping line segments that may exist. From this combined shapefile I created a Network Dataset file, which was then used for the Origin-Destination Cost Analysis. When creating the network dataset, I opted to model turns but not elevation, due to the lack of elevation data available for the bicycle infrastructure shapefiles. For future assessments, elevation modeling should be included, due to it’s large impact on wiliness to bicycle.

ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT Using the Network Analyst extension, I determined accessibility by creating an OriginDestination Cost Matrix based on the network dataset previously created. This tool is used to calculate the distance along the network from each origin point to each destination point. I used an impedance of length (miles), and used the default cut-off value (varied at 3, 1.5, and 0.25 miles) to ensure results were returned only within my range of study. For the 3 and 1.5 mile bicycle analysis, I used one-way street restrictions, but did not include this restriction for the 0.25 mile walking analysis.

Once the Origin Destination Cost Matrix was set up, I added the Origin and Destination data points. Because I am seeking to determine how many parks residents can access from their neighborhoods, I used 2010 Census Block Groups as my origin data. After joining 2010 population data to the shapefiles, I calculated the X and Y centroids of the block groups and used this shapefile as my Origin Points. For the destination points, I similarly calculated the centroids for the parks and greenspace shapefiles. Because these centroids did not fall onto the actual street network, they were snapped to the closest road during the analysis.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Park Centroids

!

Block Groups Centroids

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

N

Figure 6. Origin, Destination, and modified Network for Indianapolis, IN.

ATLANTA, GA

! ! ! !!! ! ! !

Park Centroids

!

Block Group Centroids

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!!! !

! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

!

!

!

!! !

N Figure 7. Origin, Destination, and modified Network for Atlanta, GA.

SEATTLE, WA

!! ! ! !! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

!

!

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

Park Centroids

!

Block Group Centroids

!

!

N Figure 8. Origin, Destination, and modified Network for Seattle, WA. Several block Group centroids appear over the water, due to their geometries, but were snapped to the closest street during analysis.

Once the OD Cost Matrix was set up with the correct data, I solved it for a given distance, outputting a file that contained every park centroid accessible to every block group centroid within the set distance parameter. I then joined this file to the origins data file to connect the GeoIDs of the block groups to the lines data from which they originate. From this, I was able to use the summarize tool to create a table that showed a count of how many destinations each origin was linked to within the distance specified. I then joined this count data to the original block group shapefile in order to visualize the area where parks were and were not accessible.

This process was repeated for the 1.5 and 0.25 mile distances.

RESULTS The results of the accessibility analysis are shown on the maps below. Here I have mapped the number of parks that are accessible to each block group based on distance alone. The second set of maps shows the number of parks accessible for each iteration of analysis, but are normalized based on the population of each block group. This gives better insight into the equitable provision of and distribution of parks based on both level of service and distance metrics.

It should be noted that edge effects can be observed when the results of this analysis are mapped. This caused by the street network being clipped to the city boundaries, which causes the analysis to show less connectivity, thus less accessibility, at the edges of the cities. This should be taken into account when interpreting the data. To get a more complete picture of network accessibility and to combat these effects in future studies, analysis should be done on a regional basis, and then looked at on a city level.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 0.25 MILE WALK

Accessible Parks 0 1 2

N

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR GREATER

N

ATLANTA, GA 0.25 MILE WALK

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR MORE

N

SEATTLE, WA 0.25 MILE WALK

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 1.5 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR GREATER

N

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR GREATER

N

ATLANTA, GA 1.5 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks 2 3 4 5 OR MORE

N

SEATTLE, WA 1.5 MILE BICYCLE RIDE

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 3 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR GREATER

N

Accessible Parks 0 1 2 3 4 5 OR GREATER

N

ATLANTA, GA 3 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks 5 OR MORE

N

SEATTLE, WA 3 MILE BICYCLE RIDE

ACCESSIBLE PARK NORMALIZED BY BLOCK GROUP POPULATION

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 0.25 MILE WALK

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 0.000001 - 0.000765 0.000766 - 0.001091 0.001092 - 0.001453 0.001454 - 0.002037 0.002038 - 0.003591

N

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 0.000001 - 0.802568 0.802569 - 1.351351 1.351352 - 2.152853 2.152854 - 3.395586 3.395587 - 9.650181

N

ATLANTA, GA 0.25 MILE WALK

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 - 0.000379 0.000380 - 0.001820 0.001821 - 0.003984 0.003985 - 0.007599 0.007600 - 0.014608 0.014609 - 0.038770

N

SEATTLE, WA 0.25 MILE WALK

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 1.5 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 - 0.002427 0.002428 - 0.006770 0.006771 - 0.012357 0.012358 - 0.020073 0.020074 - 0.032609 0.032610 - 0.063291

N

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 - 0.004541 0.004542 - 0.010043 0.010044 - 0.017588 0.017589 - 0.029630 0.029631 - 0.047393 0.047394 - 0.169935

N

ATLANTA, GA 1.5 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.001741 - 0.036256 0.036257 - 0.068536 0.068537 - 0.106830 0.106831 - 0.156475 0.156476 - 0.230554 0.230555 - 0.337676

N

SEATTLE, WA 1.5 MILE BICYCLE RIDE

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 3 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 - 0.011628 0.011629 - 0.031111 0.031112 - 0.054701 0.054702 - 0.082278 0.082279 - 0.125191 0.125192 - 0.275316

N

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.000000 0.000001 - 0.029851 0.029852 - 0.054898 0.054899 - 0.092729 0.092730 - 0.176471 0.176472 - 0.320261

N

ATLANTA, GA 3 MILE BICYCLE TRIP

Accessible Parks per Resident 0.016016 - 0.149402 0.149403 - 0.248074 0.248075 - 0.356563 0.356564 - 0.481426 0.481427 - 0.643885 0.643886 - 1.311054

N

SEATTLE, WA 3 MILE BICYCLE RIDE

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 0.25 1.5 3 Total Population Total Block Groups Block Groups with Zero Access % of Block Groups with Zero Access Population with Zero Access % Population with Zero Access

ATLANTA, GA 0.25 1.5 3

SEATTLE, WA 0.25 1.5 3

903,393

425,018

609,028

632

315

478

572

163

36

246

16

3

211

0

0

91%

26%

6%

78%

5%

1%

44%

0%

0%

842,284

292,508

71,900

343,746

24,530

3,479

265,508

0

0

93%

32%

8%

81%

6%

1%

44%

0%

0%

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS As can be expected, the longer the distance used in the OD cost study, the more parks residents have access to. In terms of walkability standards, Seattle’s system served the most population, with only 44% of the total population and 44% of total block groups lacking access to parks and greenspace within a quarter mile walk. Atlanta and Indianapolis both have a long way to go to meet current walkability standards, with 81% of the population and 78% of total block groups in Atlanta, lacking a park or greenspace within a quarter mile walk, and in Indianapolis, 93% of population and 91% of block groups without access.

When you compare the 1.5 and 3 mile bikeable access sheds to the walkability analysis, we see, as to be expected, a significant jump in the population gaining access to parks and greenspaces. For both the 1.5 and 3 mile analysis, a park could be accessed from every block group in Seattle. Atlanta sees only 6% and 1% of their population without access to a park or greenspace, when analyzing accessibility via the 1.5 and 3 mile distance, respectively. In Indianapolis percentage of residents with accessible parks did rise significantly, however when compared to the other two case study cities, it shows the lowest gains, with 32% and 8% of residents still lacking access when the 1.5 and 3 mile distance was assessed.

Looking solely at these results of total population without access to parks and greenspace alone can be misleading. When this number of accessible parks for every block group is normalized for the populations for each block group, we gain further insights into the equitable distribution of the parks network of each city. As can been seen when comparing the greenspace accessibility maps to the accessibility maps normalized by block group populations, the quantity of accessible parks shows a different spatial distribution. This allows us to look at the quantity of parks per resident, a metric that can show potential inequities in park distribution. As laid out in ratio standards, areas with higher populations have need for more parks and publically accessible greenspaces. Planners can use this analysis of park accessibility to highlight any areas that are potentially being underserved in quantity of accessible greenspace.

Using the OD Cost analysis alone, it is easy to underestimate the need for parks and greenspace. Although it at first appears that the cities are providing lots of access to greenspace and parks, especially in the bike network analysis, when compared to the normalized maps, we see that areas where although parks are accessible, they are still underserved in terms of park quantity, which could lead to over crowding of the parks and greenspace currently provided. Further analysis of park quality along with population densities would provide even more insight into the overall equity of a city’s greenspace network.

RECOMMENDATIONS ADO PT WALKABILITY STANDARDS Cities wishing to create livable, healthier communities should adopt greenspace and parks distribution standards based on walkability, such as Seattle has done. Since parks are perceived as strong amenities, people are more willing to use them if they are in walking distance. However, “studies show that Americans today are rarely willing to walk more than a block or two. Some are physically incapable of going farther; others may be afraid to cross neighborhood boundaries; many more simply do not have the time” (Harnik and Simms 2004).

In order to ensure all residents of cities have access to the health and social benefits parks offer, a walkable distance standard that is included in all development plans a city produces should be adopted.

After looking at these results, I would not recommend cities adopt larger distance standards to accommodate the distance most people are willing to bicycle. “A distance of over half a mile to a park almost guarantees that most people will either skip the trip or they will drive.” By lengthening the distance of accessibility standards, it is essentially based on driving, which defeats the community benefits of walkable parks; they become a “formal destination, not a place to drop in” (Harnik and Simms 2004). Cities who build walkable parks and greenspace networks, will also in turn build bikeable greenspace networks. Cities that prioritize the expansion of both their bicycle and pedestrian networks could adopt bikeable access standards in concert with walkability standards. In this case, I would suggest the 1.5 mile distance as a bikeability access standard, as it is short enough to keep with the idea of parks being places to drop into, rather than a destination as could be perceived with the 3 mile distance, corresponding with willingness to commute. Policies and projects already developed for last mile transit connectivity programs, such as bike share networks, could be used similarly in the creation of bicycle access sheds around parks and greenspaces.

Greenspace accessibility goals and standards should also be included or referenced to in transportation plans, comprehensive plans, on both city and regional levels. Inclusion in comprehensive plans ensures that land is adequately zoned for parkland acquisition and that greenspace remains accessible or is included in development projects. Walkability is something most plans already include in their development goals; however, the inclusion of walkable greenspace standards in these plans just helps reinforce this as an important goal of the city. Of the case study cities, Seattle did the best job of integrating their walkability greenspace standards into their overall development goals. The inclusion of greenspace standards, particularly walkability standards, in transportation plans could help prioritize bicycling and pedestrian projects in areas surrounding greenspace, and identify network gaps.

The inclusion of walkable greenspace standards in plans and project selection is important, however ensuring that these plans are followed is equally important. Cities should integrate their parks plans to larger plans, regularly assess these goals, and ensure that projects are being funded in order to ensure their parks and greenspace networks meet best practice and are more connected and accessible for everyone. GIS techniques such as the network connectivity model might be too complex to run for each proposed project in a TIP or project selection matrixes – however there are other measures that could be used as proxies, such as a prioritizing projects that close gaps in the pedestrian or bicycle network, or provide pedestrian or bicycle improvements to infrastructure within park access sheds.

Although Seattle’s Comprehensive Parks Plans provide guidance for cities seeking to create their own Greenspace Plans, cities should also look to the design principals for greenspace and multi-modal infrastructure of cities that are currently meeting the greenspace accessibility standards. In this regard, it is important to look beyond “peer cities” and look at plans and design of cities following best practice in greenspace standards and planning. “A Europe-wide assessment of access to greens pace reported that all citizens in Brussels, Copenhagen, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Madrid, Milan and Paris live within a 15 minute walk of an urban greenspace” meeting the European Environment Agency’s more stringent recommendations (Barbosa et al. 2007). While the policies and governance structure of European cities differs from American cities, a lot can still be learned about elements of their urban form and infrastructure design that can be useful in creating safe pedestrian sheds around US parks and greenspaces.

C REATE EQUITABLE GREENSPAC E NETWO RKS Although accessibility standards might provide planners with insight into areas where more parks or greenspace is needed, it is important to also recognize and mitigate potential equity and gentrification issues that can arise from the building of new parks. One method used to mitigate the effects of gentrification is to use greenspace designs and interventions that are

“just green enough”. This method explicitly avoids the typical “parks, cafes, and a riverwalk” model of a sustainable city, conventional urban design formulas, and traditional ecological restoration approaches, and conversely embraces smaller scale designs and projects that are located at more spatially scattered sites and are explicitly shaped by local community concerns, needs, and desires (Wolch, Byrne, and Newell 2014). Examples of “just green enough” greenspace design are creating smaller nodes for urban agriculture and community garden spaces instead of using larger re-wilding restoration approaches; and targeted clean up of toxic creeks and greenspace development in existing working-class and areas. By focusing on small scale interventions, planners can create projects which benefit local communities by providing access to greenspace without creating large focal points that are often targeted by property development strategies. This strategy of creating more, smaller greenspaces also forces a more even distribution of greenspace though out cities, improving overall access (Wolch, Byrne, and Newell 2014).

One example of a project that works to create these small “just green enough” spaces is the work done by Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, a nonprofit that partners with Indianapolis Power & Light Co. and the City of Indianapolis to provide the IPL Project Greenspace program. This program partners with neighborhood based organizations to eliminate blight and to revitalize public spaces by transforming vacant lots and under-utilized spaces into pocket parks and greenspaces in communities. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful helps develop a plan for design, implementation, and long-term maintenance for selected projects as well as assistance with project funding (“IPL Project GreenSpace” 2016). Because this method of greenspace creation is community led and the projects are of a very small scale, it is a great method of creating new greenspace without the potential pitfalls of spurring gentrification that larger greenspace projects have the potential to create. Ashlee Wilson Fujawa, the director of public relations at Keep Indianapolis Beautiful described their community oriented planning methods, “For us, all of our work is grass-roots driven. We listen to what the neighbors want, then we find ways to make that happen” (“Tiny Parks Changing Indy’s Landscape” 2016).

C REATE QUALITY SPAC ES Quality and level of service of parks can be used as a factor when analyzing accessibility sheds.

Quality is an important factor is willingness to walk or bike to a park or greenspace, along with accessibility. When researching greenspace accessibility standards, I did come across literature warning planners of the pitfalls of using standards in parks and greenspace planning, to the determent of park and public space quality. While standards provide good indicators of greenspace provision and access, it is important to recognize potential weaknesses they contain. Wilkinson identified eight weaknesses of the standards approach to greenspace planning, that planners should be aware of (Byrne 2013).

1. The adoption of standards as rigid minimum requirements instead of the guidelines they were originally indented to be.

2. Standards are arbitrary, and do not take into account: demographic, ecological, topographic, and economic distributions within a city. They cannot account for citizen behavior that is often non-rational, people’s preferences, and perceptions of place.

3. Standards assume a uniform rate of use for social and recreational activities, and do not take into account “peak demand” leading to spaces that are underutilized during off peak times.

4. They tend to produce monotonous and uninteresting spaces, which are unattractive to users.

5. Standards that only specify a ‘gross amount’ of greenspace, do not prescribe how the greenspace should be distributed – leading to ‘park poor’ areas and other environmental justice problems.

6. They are unresponsive to changes in populations, residential densities, and recreational trends over time, and are unresponsive to the variations of needs between street level and metro scales.

7. They are often silent on the quality of greenspace, their management, and the types of facilities they should contain. If this is addressed, it is easy to fall into a “recipe book” approach – where certain facilities and features are prescribed with no thought to community needs.

8. Standards overlook the experience of using the greenspace, which includes noise, lighting, security, and crowding.

In light of these potential pitfalls, when adopting goals and standards, planners should include guidelines the quality and design for greenspace, conduct needs assessments of both greenspaces and communities, and work to ensure greenspace is spatially equitable and easily

accessible. Standards should still be used and adopted, but planners should recognize that standards alone will not produce cities with accessible greenspace networks.

CONCLUSION It is easy to agree that access to the health and social benefits that greenspaces provide should be available to every community member regardless of their race or economic status, however studies show that, “public green spaces are chronically underprovided relative to recommended targets” and we know that “the philosophy of park design, history of land development, evolving ideas about leisure and recreation, and histories of class and ethnoracial inequity and state oppression” are all interrelated and are mutually reinforcing, which has led to inequitable distributions of greenspace within urban areas. In efforts to combat and correct these inequitable distributions, new greenspace policies commitments should take into account how access to public greenspace varies across society, and should be evaluated on whether or not those with the most access include those who have the most need. (Barbosa et al. 2007). Network origin destination cost analysis work well to measure what areas of a city and how many residents lack accessible parks and greenspace. In order to provide more spatially equitable and accessible greenspace and parks networks, cities should adopt quarter mile walkability standards along with quality standards.

Bicycle network analyses could provide valuable insight into areas that have no accessible parks via walking or bicycling and should be prioritized in plans for park and greenspace expansion. Bike network accessibility analyses provide planners with another metric to assess the connectedness of a city’s greenspace network. Bicycle accessibility metrics, with sufficiently built out infrastructure, could help provide accessible connections to parks and greenspaces in urban centers where land acquisition is pricey and difficult.

BIBLOGRAPHY Barbosa, Olga, Jamie A. Tratalos, Paul R. Armsworth, Richard G. Davies, Richard A. Fuller, Pat Johnson, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2007. “Who Benefits from Access to Green Space? A Case Study from Sheffield, UK.” Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2–3): 187–95. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.004.

Bratman, Gregory N., Gretchen C. Daily, Benjamin J. Levy, and James J. Gross. 2015. “The Benefits of Nature Experience: Improved Affect and Cognition.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138 (June): 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005.

Byrne, Jason Antony. 2013. “Greenspace Planning: Problems with Standards, Lessons from Research, and Examples of Best Practice.” City Green, no. 6: 50–55.

Comber, Alexis, Chris Brunsdon, and Edmund Green. 2008. “Using a GIS-Based Network Analysis to Determine Urban Greenspace Accessibility for Different Ethnic and Religious Groups.” Landscape and Urban Planning 86 (1): 103–114.

Dill, Jennifer, and John P. Gliebe. 2008. “Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice,” December. /view.aspx?id=884287.

Engels, Frederick. 1845. “The Great Towns.” In The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844, 46–55. The City Reader.

Gehl, Jan, and Jo Koch. 2011. Life between buildings: using public space. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gilchrist, Kathryn, Caroline Brown, and Alicia Montarzino. 2015. “Workplace Settings and Wellbeing: Greenspace Use and Views Contribute to Employee Wellbeing at Peri-Urban Business Sites.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138 (June): 32–40. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.004.

“Greenspace Protection - City of Atlanta, Watershed Management.” 2016. Accessed December 6. http://www.atlantawatershed.org/inside-dwm/offices/watershedprotection/greenway-acquisition/greenspace-protection/.

Harnik, Peter, and Jeff Simms. 2004. “Parks: How Far Is Too Far.” Planning 70 (11): 8–11.

Higgs, Gary, Richard Fry, and Mitchel Langford. 2012. “Investigating the Implications of Using Alternative GIS-Based Techniques to Measure Accessibility to Green Space.”

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39 (2): 326–43. doi:10.1068/b37130.

“IPL Project GreenSpace.” 2016. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful. Accessed December 6. http://www.kibi.org/programs/beautification/project-greenspace/.

Marshall, Wesley E., Daniel P. Piatkowski, and Norman W. Garrick. 2014. “Community Design, Street Networks, and Public Health.” Journal of Transport & Health, Walking & Cycling: The contributions of health and transport geography, 1 (4): 326–40. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.06.002.

Moseley, Darren, Mariella Marzano, Jordan Chetcuti, and Kevin Watts. 2013. “Green Networks for People: Application of a Functional Approach to Support the Planning and Management of Greenspace.” Landscape and Urban Planning 116 (August): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.004.

Stafford, Leon. 2016. “Atlanta Beltline Founder Ryan Gravel Quits over Housing Costs.” Ajc. Accessed December 4. http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/beltline-creatorgravel-resigns-from-partnership/xw6pzH118XduyzFlYwJNvN/.

“Tiny Parks Changing Indy’s Landscape.” 2016. Indianapolis Star. Accessed December 6. http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/12/14/tiny-parks-changing-indyslandscape/76714540/.

“Types of Network Analysis layers—Help | ArcGIS Desktop.” 2017. Accessed April 25. http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.4/extensions/network-analyst/types-ofnetwork-analyses.htm#GUID-4895A39A-4C7B-4B32-A71D-501189667EEB. Ward Thompson, Catharine. 2011. “Linking Landscape and Health: The Recurring Theme.”

Landscape and Urban Planning 99 (3–4): 187–95. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.006.

“Why Parks and Recreation Are Essential Public Services.” 2010. National Recreation and Park Association. http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Advocacy/Resources/ParksRecreation-Essential-Public-Services-January-2010.pdf.

Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. 2014. “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘just Green Enough.’” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (May): 234–44. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.