Urban Park System

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/268513560
Sustainable urban park systems
Article · November 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1943.0082
CITATIONS READS
4 460
1 author:
Dorothy C Ibes
College of William and Mary
14 PUBLICATIONS 107 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ecotherapy interventions: A study of mental health outcomes View project
Facilitating nature engagement by youth of color View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dorothy C Ibes on 20 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cities and the Environment (CATE)
Manuscript 1154
Sustainable Urban Park Systems

Dorothy C. Ibes
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Cities and the Environment (CATE) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount
University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu.
Sustainable Urban Park Systems
Lack of multi-dimensional, substantive research on city park systems has undermined the potential role of
these public amenities in advancing urban sustainability goals. This study informs holistic policy, planning,
and management of parks to balance the multiple goals of sustainability region-wide. A vision for a sustainable
urban park system is introduced, informed by multidisciplinary thought and theory. This vision is then
operationalized in the development of a quantitative method that examines four key dimensions of
sustainability—physical, environmental, socio-economic, and built—across a citywide urban park system.
The approach can be customized for use in other cities, but is here applied to Phoenix, Arizona as a proof of
concept. Findings demonstrate how a multi-dimensional analysis of an urban park system can provide a more
nuanced understanding of these complex human-environment systems, and provide a point of departure for
sustainable urban park management and policy as well as future research concerned with balancing multiple
sustainability goals in park planning and design.
Keywords
Urban parks, public space, green space, sustainability, sustainable urbanism, policy
Ibes: Sustainable Urban Park Systems
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability is fundamentally concerned with the long-term maximization, balance, and

maintenance of social, financial, and natural capital (Goodland 1995). Likewise, sustainable
urbanism and sustainable development seek to enhance the health of social, economic, and
environmental systems in cities and other developed regions (Campbell 1996; Roseland 2000;
IUCN 2006; Adhya et al. 2010). Copious research demonstrates that healthy urban parks provide
a host of ecosystem services in cities, contributing to the multiple dimensions of sustainability.
These benefits include opportunities for recreation and social integration (Bedimo-Rung et al.
2005; Low et al. 2005), microclimate cooling (McPherson 1994; Bolund and Hunhammar 1999;
Jenerette et al. 2011), economic stimulation (Lutzenhiser and Netusil 2001; Irwin 2002), and
biodiversity protection (Andersson et al. 2007; Faeth et al. 2011), among others. However,
degraded, inequitable, and undesirable urban parks can contradict sustainability efforts (Massey
1994; Madanipour 1999; Marne 2001; Boone et al. 2009). Evaluating the sustainability of urban
parks and their ability to contribute to sustainable urbanism more broadly, requires an
understanding of their geographic, built, social, and historic context (Jacobs 1961; Low et al.
2005; Parés et al. 2006; Byrne and Wolch 2009; Harnik and Welle 2009), as well as how these
diverse and complex human-environment systems function cooperatively across an urbanized
region (Duany and Talen 2002). However, the bulk of urban park studies disregard their context
and hone in on individual or a small subset of sites, rather than assessing the entire city park
system, as a whole. Not all urban parks in all geographic contexts can, or should, be designed
and managed to provide all possible ecosystem services and benefits (Campbell 1996; Lindsey
2003; Parés and Saurí 2007). More appropriately, the distribution of parks and their associated
benefits and services should be sensitive to their geographic context and logically distributed
across an urbanized region (Duany 2002; Talen 2010).
This study proposes a vision for a sustainable urban park system to guide holistic
management, planning, and evaluation. This definition is operationalized by quantitatively
examining four key dimensions of sustainability across a citywide urban park system. The paper
has five main sections. The first section reviews scholarly literature on the physical,
environmental, socioeconomic, and built characteristics of sustainable urban parks, then
examines approaches to balancing tradeoffs and enhancing beneficial synergies between the
multiple goals of sustainability across a network of parks. As urban park research evokes diverse
disciplinary perspectives, this article integrates thought and theory from urban planning and
design, geography, architecture, landscape architecture, urban ecology, natural resource
management, and leisure science. Informed by this review, the second section introduces a vision
of a sustainable urban park system. This segment imagines a park system that balances and
maximizes multiple social and environmental goals while contributing to the overall
sustainability of an urbanized region over time. This vision guides the development of a method
for evaluating citywide park systems that balances the multiple dimensions of sustainability and
informs holistic planning, design, and management. The third section describes the study area,
data used, and evaluation steps, as applied to the case study site. The steps include: 1) identifying
a suite of indicator variables for each of the four dimensions of sustainability, 2) calculating
these variables for the case study site using spatial and archival data collection methods, and 3)
running descriptive and inferential statistics on the dataset. The final two sections detail the study
results and discuss the implications for sustainable urban park planning, design, management,
and evaluation.
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 1
Submission to Cities and the Environment (CATE)
BACKGROUND
Sustainable Urban Parks
The social and environmental health and sustainability of urban parks, as well as the specific
ecosystem services they provide, is heavily dependent on their physical, environmental,
socioeconomic, and built conditions and context.
Physical Characteristics
Parks of various sizes maintain distinct, but complementary ecosystem services that contribute to
sustainable urbanism. Generally, larger parks support more plant and animal life than smaller,
isolated parks (Faeth et al. 2011). Larger parks are also correlated with increased rates of
visitation and physical activity (Giles-Corti et al. 2005; NRPA 2012), particularly if they are
scenic (Giles-Corti et al. 2005). In hot arid regions, larger parks are cooler than surrounding
areas, facilitating use on hot days (Barradas 1991; Jauregui 1991; Nowak and Heisler 2011). Yet,
park use is heavily mitigated by distance, wherein more distal parks—even large, scenic parks—
are used less by local residents than more proximate, smaller parks (Cohen et al. 2006). Small
neighborhood parks also serve critical social and civic functions by providing spaces close to
home in which people can commune with nature, relax, socialize, form social ties, play with
children, and participate in civic life (Jacobs 1961; Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998; Forsyth
and Musacchio 2005; Low et al. 2005). An ideal urban park system therefore includes a variety
of smaller, proximate neighborhood parks as well as larger destination parks, to deliver a range
of social and ecological benefits and services across an urbanized region.
Available amenities and facilities influence a park’s social and environmental

sustainability (Low et al. 2005; Byrne and Wolch 2009). More recreational facilities and
amenities generally lead to more physical activity in parks (Li et al. 2005; Rosenberger et al.
2005), as long as the sites are well maintained (NRPA 2012). Certain features are particularly
effective at supporting more frequent and vigorous physical activity and longer park visits, such
as trails, playgrounds, sport complexes, ball courts and fields, water features, drinking fountains,
and restrooms (Whyte 1980; Floyd et al. 2008; Kaczynski et al. 2008; NRPA 2012). Parks with a
diversity of amenities support social and cultural sustainability by supporting a variety of uses
for a variety of users and preferences (Low et al. 2005). In hot arid regions, the presence of
drinking fountains, swimming pools, water features (e.g., ponds, splash pads, pools, fountains),
and shade structures in parks is particularly essential for extending and increasing park use,
particularly during the hot summer months (Nowak and Heisler 2011). These same features
buffer seasonal variations in food and water supply, serving to support and boost both native and
non-native species biodiversity (Faeth et al. 2005; Shochat et al. 2006).
Landuse and Land Cover
Landuse and land cover influence the use, enjoyment, ecological functioning, and biodiversity
potential of park spaces (Byrne and Wolch 2009). The presence of trees (Whyte 1980) and
forested areas (Kaczynski et al. 2008) encourage park use. Of particular importance in hot, arid
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate 2
cities, open grassy areas and green vegetation increase human health and comfort, and therefore
promote park use and enjoyment via microclimate cooling and protection from the sun’s heat and
ultraviolet rays (Spronken-Smith and Oke 1998; Yu and Hien 2006; Jenerette et al. 2007, 2011).
By extension, the lack of these features—i.e., sparsely vegetated parks with extensive impervious
cover—may reduce park use, particularly in the summer. Larger, undisturbed native park
landscapes are best suited to support native biodiversity in cities (Faeth et al. 2011). The
alteration of native desert patches (e.g., into irrigated green spaces) radically disrupts their
species composition and ecosystem function (McKinney 2008; Shochat et al. 2010). However,
especially in arid regions, non-native landscapes often maintain more biodiversity and higher
productivity than surrounding native landscapes (Imhoff et al. 2000; Kaye et al. 2005; Marris
2009). As such, the type of landscape that is appropriate in a particularly park setting is
dependent on the specific benefits desired (e.g., civic use, microclimate cooling, non-native
biodiversity, native biodiversity).
Green, gray, and brown infrastructure in parks promote different, but complementary
sustainability goals. Green vegetation in parks provides relief from stress and depression (Davis
2004; Mind 2007), induces intellectual development in children (Heerwagen and Orians 2002;
Isenberg and Quisenberry 2002), and promotes physical activity (Pretty et al. 2006). Gray
hardscapes (e.g., paths, plazas, and benches) facilitate the use of parks for walking, particularly
among low-mobility visitors (Carstens 1993), children’s games, relaxation, people watching, and
other social activities (Jacobs 1961; Low et al. 2005). Brown, native desert landscapes are
largely ignored in the urban park literature, but there is evidence that these areas are highly
valued by urban dwellers. For example, South Mountain Park, a 6600-hectare native desert park
in Phoenix, attracts over three million visitors a year (City of Phoenix 2012).
Socioeconomic Context
Given the importance of quality, proximate parks to the health and well-being of vulnerable
populations, the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods is another crucial consideration when
assessing the sustainability of an urban park system (Byrne and Wolch 2009; Cutts et al. 2009).
Densely populated neighborhoods are in greatest need of public outdoor spaces not only because
these areas contain more people than low-density neighborhoods, but also because these areas
tend to be home to more lower-income populations with higher rates of obesity, less access to
private outdoor spaces, and lower rates of automobile ownership (Mokdad et al. 2003; Papas et
al. 2007). Proximity to parks by these high need populations is another equity concern as living
within walking distance of a park has been shown to increase levels of physical activity three-
fold (Giles-Corti et al. 2005). While several studies note higher access to urban parks by
minority, low-income, and vulnerable populations (Nicholls 2001; Wolch et al. 2005; Timperio
et al. 2007), these sites have been found to be smaller (Wolch et al. 2005; Boone et al. 2009),
more congested (Sister et al. 2010), of lower quality, and with fewer recreational facilities
(Gordon-Larsen et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2008). Revealing the historic, social, and institutional
forces that shape cities and the distribution of parks and other urban amenities, Boone et al.
(2009) found that high access to parks by minorities in Baltimore, Maryland was a ‘hand-me-
down’ from the white residents that once inhabited those neighborhoods.
Built Environment
The built environment around parks greatly influences their social health (Byrne and Wolch
2009). Jane Jacobs (1961:101) argues that “the main problem of neighborhood park planning
boils down to the problem of nurturing diversified neighborhoods capable of using and
supporting parks.” Parks surrounded by single use, low-density, residential neighborhoods are
frequently underutilized, whereas dense, mixed-use neighborhoods with active land uses (e.g.,
hotels, restaurants, and shops) support lively, vibrant public space (Jacobs 1961; Talen 2010).
These well-used parks promote safety by attracting more “eyes on the street” (Jacobs 1961:35).
Further, safety, both actual and perceived, supports cultural diversity in parks (Low et al. 2005)
and spurs increased park use (Crompton 2001; Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005). Busy street corners
with street-level activity and food options, such as restaurants and shops, automatically enliven
nearby park spaces (Jacobs 1961; Whyte 1980; Flint 2012).
Balancing Multiple Sustainability Goals in Urban Parks
The quest for sustainability in cities activates a key tension in the urban sustainability and urban
park discourse—namely how (or if) to go about balancing the multiple goals of sustainability in
park planning, design, and management. Some scholars argue that park planning must strive to
balance all the dimensions of sustainability, while others claim that this aim is not only
unattainable, but undesirable and unnecessary. Campbell (1996) asserts there are always
tradeoffs between the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability in
planning, therefore it is impossible to give equal balance to all dimensions in every situation.
Lindsey (2003) note that the enhancement of one dimension often degrades another, while Parés
and Saurí (2007) argue that parks with negative environmental impacts are still valuable if they
fulfill social or political sustainability goals, as long as other parks emphasize more ecological
objectives. Working within these constraints, the notion that not all parks can nor should provide
all possible benefits is the most reasonable and robust viewpoint.
With the goal of balancing the social and ecological benefits of urban parks, Forsyth and
Musacchio (2005) develop detailed park design guidelines. Their guidelines emphasize the
importance of connectivity, diversity, and access for both human and non-human life. Balancing
social and ecological goals in this way necessitates trade-offs, but Forsyth and Musacchio
(2005:6) acknowledged that not all parks can be all things to all species (humans or wildlife); in
the end, the values that are emphasized “will depend on the park’s context and in many cases
will be highly contested, not only between social and ecological values, but within them.”
Nonetheless, synergistic relationships between social and ecological benefits can be fostered by
way of simple additions such as a bench in a nature preserve, or a birdhouse in a city square
(Rosenzweig 2003). Such synergies are also the foundation of Cranz and Boland’s (2004) new
urban park model, the “Sustainable Park,” which the authors claim emerged in American cities in
the 1990s. The Sustainable Park is different from previous park models (which focused
predominantly on the social benefits of parks), in that it integrates both social and ecological
values, merging the ideals of sustainable development with human health and well-being. These
spaces emphasize landscape restoration and support human well-being by providing access to
nature, opportunities for social integration, environmental education, and a sense-of-place, while
facilitating community stewardship, public-private partnerships, and the development of
community and regional pride (ibid).
Urban revitalization efforts implemented in the City of Curitiba, Brazil provide an

example of such integrated sustainability in urban park planning and design. In the 1960s, an
urban renovation project was initiated to improve the quality of life in Curitiba (Rabinovitch
1992). The plan expanded city parks and green areas from 0.5 to 52 square meters per resident,
one of the highest averages in the world. Given the city’s location on a large natural floodplain
prone to frequent flooding (Tucci 2004), the new parkland also provided flood protection,
negating the need for costly flood infrastructure and ultimately saving the city millions of
dollars. A “green guard,” composed of trained municipal employees, was deployed to maintain
the parks and provide environmental education to visitors, and interpretive centers were located
throughout the park system to teach visitors about local ecology. Programs were initiated to
encourage the formation of citizen groups—such as Friends of the Park and the Boy Scout
Bicycle Watch—to foster community responsibility and participation in park maintenance and
safety. On the weekends, green buses transport people to the various parks and the 17-hectare
botanical garden, free of charge (Rabinovitch 1992).
To balance and coordinate multiple planning goals and advance coherent, functional, and
sustainable urban form, a new generation of urban planners has resurrected a geographically-
contextualized planning model—Transect Planning—grounded in Transect Theory (Duany 2002,
Duany and Talen 2002; Low 2008; CATS 2009; Sorlien and Talen 2012). Transect Theory,
derived from ecological and geographic principles, was first adopted into city planning by
Patrick Geddes’s (1915, Valley Section), Ian McHarg (1965, Design with Nature), and
Christopher Alexander (1977, A Pattern Language). Advocating the notion that “certain forms
and elements belong in certain environments” (Low 2008: I30), Transect Theory strategically
organizes the elements of the built and natural environment (e.g., different types of parks) along
a gradient of varying urban intensity, and provides a means of discerning which elements are
most appropriate, where. Each ‘zone’ maintains a distinct habitat type (e.g., dense urban core,
suburban, natural preserves), thereby supporting and satisfying diverse human preferences and
ecological requirements across an urbanized region (Duany and Talen 2002; CATS 2009; Sorlien
and Talen 2012). As applied to an urban park system, Transect Theory would situate large,
naturally landscaped parks outside the city center, emphasizing biodiversity protection in these
sites, while locating smaller plazas and community gardens in bustling, mixed-use urban
neighborhoods, to maximize access and thereby social and civic benefits (Jacobs 1961; CATS
2009).
Defining a Sustainable Urban Park System
This article introduces a vision of an urban park system, which is evolving towards a more
sustainable state while contributing to the overall sustainability of an urbanized region over time.
Synthesizing the attributes of sustainable urban parks outlined in the literature and integrating the
principles of Transect Theory, we introduce an ideal of a sustainable urban park system to guide
the planning, design, management, and assessment of city parks. Recognizing that the move to
sustainability is a dynamic, ongoing process of improvement as opposed to a static, measureable
end goal or state (Bagheri and Hjorth 2007; Adhya et al. 2010), the vision reflects the notion that
not all parks in a system can, or should, support all possible social, ecological, and economic
goals and activities across all temporal and spatial scales (Campbell 1996; Lindsey 2003; Forsyth
and Musacchio 2005; Parés and Saurí 2007). Instead, a sustainable urban park system provides a
variety of ecosystem services across an urbanized region, emphasizing particular benefits in the
most appropriate park sites and locations (Low 2008) and satisfying the various and shifting
needs and preferences of diverse human and non-human life (Gobster 2001, 2002; Gobster and
Westphal 2004; Forsyth and Musacchio 2005). Despite the dynamic, flexible nature of a
sustainable urban park system, there are some universal standards. All parks are clean, safe,
aesthetically pleasing, well-maintained, and culturally sensitive (Gobster and Westphal 2004;
Low et al. 2005; Harnik 2010). Each park is welcoming and accessible to a diversity of ages,
genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic/cultural groups (Mitchell 1995; Talen 1998; Talen and
Anselin 1998; Wolch et al. 2005; Talen 2006), via various modes of transportation, including
walking, biking, and public transportation (Talen 2002; Harnik 2010). Taken as a whole, a
sustainable park system fosters social interaction, cohesion, and the generation of social capital
(Jacobs 1961; Mitchell 1995; Chiesura and De Groot 2003; Chiesura 2004; Low et al. 2005),
while supporting biological diversity and ecological functioning where possible and
geographically appropriate (Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Tzoulas et al. 2007; Schilling 2010;
Talen 2010). Parks prioritizing social use (e.g., over native biodiversity)— in arid urban regions,
in particular —provide drinking water, restrooms, and shade structures, while balancing water
use with microclimate cooling benefits (via urban greening); these features provide relief from
the local climate and urban heat island effect, improving human health and comfort and
extending the usability of these areas year-round (Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Jenerette et al.
2011). Native biodiversity is supported where feasible and appropriate by protecting, creating,
and supporting native habitat (Forsyth and Musacchio 2005). The urban form around parks is
appropriate to their location along the urban-to-natural transect. More dense settlements and
active uses (i.e., land uses that generate foot traffic on the street, e.g., hotels, restaurants, and
retail shops) surround smaller parks in the most populated urban areas to enliven the spaces and
expand park uses and benefits (Jacobs 1961), whiles more diffuse developments encircle larger,
less disturbed park landscapes in suburban and rural areas to help promote biodiversity and
ecological health (Duany 2002; Duany and Talen 2002; Duany and Brain 2005; Talen 2010;
Faeth et al. 2011). Ultimately, a sustainable park system supports both human and biological
health in cities, contributing to broader sustainability goals beyond the park boundaries by aiding
in the advancement of cities and their neighborhoods towards an increasingly sustainable state
(Cranz and Boland 2004).
Guided by this vision, this study evaluates the diverse and extensive urban park system of
Phoenix, AZ, modeling a holistic approach to urban park assessment that can be customized to
other cities. The results of the analysis demonstrate what can be gained by a multi-dimensional
analysis of a park system and provide a point of departure for policy development and further
research concerned with balancing multiple sustainability goals in park planning and design.
DATA AND METHODS
Study Area
Phoenix is located in the Northern Sonoran Desert of Central Arizona, a hot, arid desert
ecosystem with low ecological resilience (Walker et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2007). The urban
landscape is comprised primarily of non-native plant taxa (Martin et al. 2003) that are heavily
irrigated, resulting in a landscape that is more lush and biologically diverse than the surrounding
native desert (Hope et al. 2003; Walker et al. 2009). The region receives some 280 days of
sunshine and eight inches of precipitation annually (NOAA 2004; 2010). Daytime temperatures
are some of the hottest in the United States, with daytime high temperatures exceeding 31
degrees Celsius nearly half the year (Schmidli 1996; Climatezone.com 2003). The first known
inhabitants of this region arrived over 2000 years ago, attracted to the region for its abundance of
flat, arable land and ample surface water resources. The Hohokam abandoned the area around
A.D. 1450 for yet unknown reasons, but Euro-American colonists resettled the valley in the
1860s. Despite the extreme, dry climate, both groups of settlers enjoyed ample water resources
via the local Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers (fed by mountains to the north), which they used to
maintain a lush green oasis in the Arizona desert. The water demands of such water-intensive
non-native landscaping has not been a major concern until recent decades due to rapidly rising
populations, increased agricultural production, and a continued legacy of the ‘oasis’ mentality
(Larson et al. 2009). Now, extending over 800 kilometers, with a population of over 1.4 million
(U.S. Census Bureau 2010), the City of Phoenix faces numerous environmental and social
challenges, including high water use paired with a strained water supply, economic inequality,
social injustice, and sprawling urban development (Bolin et al. 2005; Gober 2006; Ross 2011).
The low-income, minority neighborhood of South Phoenix has been described as “a stigmatized
zone of racial exclusion and economic marginality” located in a “contaminated zone of mixed
land uses which currently hosts an assemblage of industrial and waste sites, crisscrossed by
freeways and railroads” (Bolin et al. 2005: 156-7).
Despite the substantial obstacles to sustainability in the City, Phoenix does boast an
invaluable asset in the quest for a more sustainable urbanism—an extensive and diverse urban
park system including nearly 200 sites (TPL 2011). However, optimization of this formidable
park network is limited by the absence of an integrated, multi-dimensional, large-scale appraisal.
This study operationalizes our vision of a sustainable park system to evaluate the extent to which
Phoenix’s park system is contributing to the multiple goals of sustainability, and to provide a
point of departure for future park planning and design decision-making in the region.
Data
The social, environmental, physical, built, and spatial data for this study were obtained through a
number of public and private sources, including the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation and
Planning Departments, Arizona State University (ASU) GIS data repository, Central Arizona-
Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research project (CAP-LTER), United States Census Bureau,
and Phoenix Urban Research Lab (PURL). Additional details on the datasets, sources, and
temporal scales are outlined in Table 1. The specific parks included in the study were selected by
referencing a GIS shapefile of park boundaries provided by the City of Phoenix Parks
Department. The shapefile included 205 parks, 29 of which were not yet developed, and so were
removed from the analysis. Fourteen additional sites with incomplete information were also
removed from the final analysis. The final sample included 162 parks, representing 92 percent of
all the developed parks in Phoenix.
Table 1. Datasets used in the analysis, source, and temporal scale.

Dataset Source and Temporal Scale
Park Boundaries Phoenix Parks & Rec. (2012)
Phoenix Parks & Rec. website parks
Parks database
database (2010)
Quickbird, classified (2.4 meter
CAP-LTER (2005)
spatial res.); SAVI index.
Census blocks and block groups U.S. Census Bureau (2010)

Parcels PURL (2010)
City center shapefile and
ASU GIS data repository (2010)
Phoenix boundary
Methods
Informed by the multidisciplinary review of literature, the first step in the analysis involved
selecting and computing a suite of quantitative variables that reflect the physical, environmental,
socioeconomic, and built characteristics of sustainable parks. The selected variables are not a
comprehensive representation of all the nearly limitless components of a sustainable park
system, yet facilitate a substantial improvement to routine, oversimplified assessments.
One benefit of this approach is that similar data can be quickly and easily collected and analyzed
for other large cities, providing a rapid, cost-effective, and revealing evaluation of a citywide
park system.
The key variables are size (Jacobs 1961; Barradas 1991; Jauregui 1991; Coley et al.
1997; Kuo et al. 1998; Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Giles-Corti et al. 2005; Low et al. 2005;
Cohen et al. 2006; Faeth et al. 2011; Nowak and Heisler 2011; NRPA 2012), the presence of
particular facilities and amenities (Whyte 1980; Faeth et al. 2005; Li et al. 2005; Low et al. 2005;
Rosenberger et al. 2005; Shochat et al. 2006; Floyd et al. 2008; Kaczynski et al. 2008; Nowak
and Heisler 2011; NRPA 2012), microclimate cooling (Spronken-Smith and Oke 1998; Yu and
Hien 2006; Jenerette et al. 2007; Jenerette et al. 2011), and land cover (Whyte 1980; Imhoff et al.
2000; Heerwagen and Orians 2002; Isenberg and Quisenberry 2002; Davis 2004; Kaye et al.
2005; Pretty et al. 2006; Mind 2007; Kaczynski et al. 2008; McKinney 2008; Marris 2009;
Shochat et al. 2010; Faeth et al. 2011). Also critical is the mix of land uses surrounding parks
(Jacobs 1961; Whyte 1980; Talen 2010; Flint 2012) as well as neighborhood population density
(Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998; Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Low et al. 2005), income, and
ethnic mix (Mokdad et al. 2003; Papas et al. 2007) (Table 2).
Table 2. Park measures used in the analysis

Socioeconomics of park Surrounding built
Physical characteristics Landuse and land cover
neighborhoods environment
Percent grass, trees, soil, Mean median household Percent single-family and
Size (area)
buildings, impervious income multi-family parcels
Presence of facility/ amenity:
Community center, path/trail,
Percent retail or
ball court/field, playground, Percent green vegetation
Mean population density commercial/industrial
pool, water feature, shade area, (grass + trees)
parcels
drinking fountain, restroom,
picnic area
Average SAVI (soil-
Percent of all Percent Hispanic, black,
adjusted vegetation Distance from city center
amenities/facilities (n=10) white, other ethnicity
index)
Landuse mix (mix of
Percent developed
single, multi, mixed
(impervious + buildings)
parcels)
Physical measures include the area of each park and the presence or absence (not count)
of ten different facilities and amenities— community center, path/trail, ball court/field,
playground, pool, water feature, shade area, drinking fountain, restroom, picnic area. Park area
was calculated in ArcGIS using boundary shapefiles. A database of amenities and facilities at
each site was compiled by referencing detailed park descriptions from the City of Phoenix Parks
and Recreation website (City of Phoenix 2010).
Land cover measures reflect the amount of grass, trees, buildings, impervious cover, soil,
and average greenness of each park landscape. The ratio of different land covers in each park
was computed in ArcGIS by applying zonal statistics to the classified Quickbird LULC raster,
specifying park boundaries as the zones to be calculated. The Quickbird Classified raster (CAP-
LTER 2005) included the following categories: grass, trees, buildings, impervious cover, water,
and soil. Average greenness of parks, which also relates to microclimate cooling potential
(Hedquist and Brazel 2006; Jenerette et al. 2007), was calculated by running zonal statistics on a
SAVI (Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index) raster dataset in ArcGIS. Although it is more
commonplace to use NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) to measure a landscape’s
greenness, SAVI is best suited to desert regions where there is substantial soil exposure coupled
with sparse vegetative cover, as the reflectivity of the soil can alter NDVI values (Huete 1998).
SAVI is also used in arid cities as a proxy for temperature and to model the cooling effects of
parks in mitigating the Urban Heat Island effect. In Phoenix, climatologists correlate higher
SAVI values with lower air temperatures (Hedquist and Brazel 2006) and cooler surface
temperatures (Jenerette et al. 2007).
The socioeconomic measures in this analysis classify the mean income, population
density, and ethnic mix of each park’s neighborhood. Park neighborhoods are defined as areas
within a five-minute walk (or 400 meters) of each site, as this is considered a threshold for
regular park visitation (Boone et al. 2009). Using the finest scale census data available for each
measure, median household income and population density around parks was computed by
intersecting 400-meter park buffers with census block groups and census blocks, respectively.
The mix of ethnic groups in each park neighborhood was calculated by intersecting park buffers
with block group data, summarizing values for black, white, Hispanic, and other ethnicities.
Built measures reflect the urban morphology of park neighborhoods, including the
percent of various landuse types and the mix of land uses, as well as the distance of each park
from the city center. The distance of each park (using nearest park edges) from the downtown
area was calculated in ArcGIS using city center and park boundary shapefiles. Using parcel data
for the City of Phoenix, the percent of the following land uses within 400 meters of each site was
calculated: single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, commercial and industrial uses, and
retail parcels (i.e., convenience stores, strip malls, restaurants, bars, car dealers, banks, motels,
hotels, and store/office combos). Five levels of landuse mix were then developed along a
gradient of urban intensity following Talen (2010), wherein areas are classified as ‘more urban’
if they contain more retail, commercial/industrial, and high density residential land uses, and
‘less urban’ if there are more low-density residential land uses (i.e., single-family homes) and
fewer retail and commercial/industrial parcels. Criteria for each level are outlined in Table 3.1
Table 3. Landuse mix levels and criteria

Level Criteria
Level 1 >50 percent single-family homes
>50 percent single-family homes & >30
Level 2
percent commercial/industrial mix
Level 3 >50 percent multi-family homes
>50 percent multi-family homes & >30
Level 4
percent commercial/industrial mix
Level 5 >50 percent commercial/industrial mix
After computing each measure, values for the 162 parks were entered into a SPSS
database. Descriptive statistics and correlations were then computed and analyzed. Results reveal
a multi-faceted picture of individual parks and the park system as a whole, as well as the
relationships between the different measures and park sites.
RESULTS
The following section describes the statistical results displayed in Table 4 and Appendix I. All
correlations discussed in the following section are statistically significant at either the 0.01 or
0.05 level based on a two-tailed Pearson’s Correlation test.
Descriptives
1
The eight park neighborhoods that did not fit these levels were classified as follows: Level 1: 40-50 percent single-
family homes; Level 3: 40-50 percent multi-family or >30 percent single-family + >40 percent
commercial/industrial; Level 4: >40 percent commercial/industrial & >30 percent multi-family.
The 162 parks in this study (Figure 1) range in size from 0.07 to 6592.04 hectares, with a mean
size of 72.71, and a standard deviation of 534.39 hectares. The total area of the study parks is
11,779.38 hectares, and nine sites exceed 100 hectares. The majority of the parks (53.70 percent)
are ten or more kilometers from the city center, while a fifth of the sites (21.60 percent, n=35)
are located within a five-km radius.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for variables

Variable Mean Median Std. Dev. Min Max
Area (ha) 72.71 4.13 534.39 0.07 6592.04
Distance to center (km) 12.23 10.83 8.27 0.87 39.97
Community Centers 0.12 0 0.33 0 1
Paths Trails 0.14 0 0.35 0 1
Ball Court 0.8 1 0.4 0 1
Playground 0.83 1 0.37 0 1
Pool 0.27 0 0.44 0 1
Water 0.1 0 0.3 0 1
Shade 0.66 1 0.48 0 1
Drinking Fount 0.11 0 0.32 0 1
Restroom 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1
Picnic 0.76 1 0.43 0 1
% 10 Amenities 0.43 0.45 0.19 0 0.8
Grass 0.36 0.36 0.24 0 0.93
Trees 0.16 0.12 0.13 0 0.62
Trees & Grass 0.52 0.55 0.26 0 0.97
Soil 0.33 0.28 0.24 0 0.97
Impervious 0.07 0.05 0.08 0 0.58
Buildings 0.07 0.04 0.1 0 0.61
Developed 0.14 0.12 0.14 0 0.79
SAVI 0.48 0.47 0.19 0.07 0.95
Nbhd Income 52037 41988 27821 9277 154548
Nbhd Pop Den 7.17 7.06 4.09 0.24 23.2
% Hispanic 0.44 0.41 0.29 0.04 0.93
% White 0.43 0.41 0.3 0.03 0.92
% Black 0.07 0.04 0.08 0 0.47
% Other Ethnicity 0.04 0.04 0.03 0 0.14
% Single family 0.79 0.86 0.24 0.04 1
% Multi family 0.1 0.03 0.16 0 0.84
% Retail 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.13
% CI 0.09 0.03 0.14 0 0.7
CI and Retail 0.11 0.04 0.16 0 0.73
Landuse Mix 1.37 1 1 1 5
With respect to facilities and amenities, 76 percent or more of the parks are equipped
with playgrounds (n=135), ball courts or fields (n=130), and picnic areas/grilling facilities
(n=123) (Figure 2). About two-thirds of the sites have some type of shaded structure and half the
parks contain restrooms. More than a quarter of the spaces include pools (n=43). Relatively few
sites contain paths or trails (14 percent, n=23), community centers (12 percent, n=20), drinking
fountains (11 percent, n=18), or water features such as a lake or lagoon (10 percent, n=16). Of
the ten amenities documented, there is an average of 4.3 present in each park; some sites have
none and others contain as many as eight of the ten different amenity/facility types.
The land cover evaluation revealed highly variable ratios of soil, grass, and trees across
the study sites, but a predominance of ‘brown’ (i.e., unvegetated, soil) space (Table 4). In total,
the study parks contain just under 10,000 ha of brown land cover (84.62 percent of total park
area), 1500.52 ha of grass and trees (12.74 percent), and 281.16 ha of impervious cover and
buildings (2.39 percent). The nine largest parks (each over 100 hectares) are principally brown
and un-vegetated, comprised of 81 percent soil and 14 percent green vegetation (i.e., combined
grass and tree coverage). The high ratio of soil versus green cover may indicate an abundance of
native, xeric landscaping, though field research is necessary to verify this assumption. Some
parks contain no grass while other landscapes contain up to 93 percent grass. Total tree land
cover in a site ranges from zero to 62 percent. Combining grass and tree percentages (total
vegetated area), values range from zero to 97 percent, with an average of just over 50 percent.
Average soil land cover in the parks is 33 percent, ranging from 0-97 percent. With respect to
building area and other impervious cover, parks are on average 14 percent developed, with a
range of 0-79 percent. Mean SAVI (based on a scale of 0-1) for the parks range from 0.07 to
0.95, with a mean of 0.48 and standard deviation of 0.19.
Analysis of the social and built characteristics of neighborhoods around parks revealed
the following results. The median annual household income of neighborhoods surrounding the
sites range from $9277-$154,548, with a mean of $52,036. In comparison, the median household
income for the entire city is $56,186, or $4150 greater than in park neighborhoods. The average
population density of neighborhoods surrounding parks is 2.91 people per hectare, with a
maximum density of 9.39 and minimum of 0.10 people per ha. By comparison, the mean
population density for all census blocks in the city (n=10,684) is 3.72 people per ha. The largest
proportional ethnic group is white (47 percent), followed by Hispanic (41 percent). All other
ethnicities combined represent the remaining 12 percent of the population. Some 43 percent of
study parks are located in Hispanic-dominated neighborhoods, while 44 percent are situated in
predominantly white neighborhoods. The dwelling-type in park neighborhoods is
overwhelmingly single-family. Of the 120,128 parcels within 400 meters of the parks,
approximately 81 percent are zoned single-family, 12 percent are multi-family, six percent are
commercial/industrial, and two percent are retail.
Figure 1. Map of parks in the study area (n=162), including their distance from Phoenix’s city center (5, 10, 20, 30
km buffers). Inset map in the upper right corner indicates the location of Phoenix within the state of Arizona.
Figure 2. Percent of parks (n=162) with various amenities. The most common features are playgrounds, ball
courts/fields, and shaded areas. Few parks contain water features or drinking fountains.
Correlations
Physical Characteristics
Larger parks are statistically more likely to have ball courts/fields, playgrounds, pools, water
features, restrooms, picnic areas, and an overall larger percentage and diversity of total amenities
(Appendix I).. Larger parks are less developed, greener (i.e., higher average SAVI values), and
surrounded by fewer retail, commer
commercial,
cial, and industrial land uses. The neighborhoods around
larger parks are significantly higher income, less Hispanic, and more white and other ethnicity.
Larger parks are located farther from the city center. Parks with a large diversity of amenities
have higher SAVI values, and are generally larger and less developed.
Landuse and Land Cover
As expected, parks with more grass and trees have significantly higher SAVI values.
values More
highly vegetated parks also have relatively fewer paths/trails, more ball courts/fields, and more
picnic facilities. These parks are generally in higher density neighborhoods with less commercial
and industrial parcels. Parks with more soil land cover have more paths/trails, less
ess impervious
cover, and tend to be located in low
low-density, higher income neighborhoods on the urban fringes.
fringes
Parks with higher average SAVI values tend to be larger and are more likely to have restrooms,
picnic areas, and a higher diversity of amenities overall. Higher SAVI values are correlated with
less impervious and building
uilding cover and more vegetation (i.e., grass and trees). Parks
Par with high
average SAVI values tend to be farther from the city center and surrounded by fewer
commercial/industrial and retail parcels. More developed parks (i.e., those with more impervious
cover and larger building footprints) are less likely to have restrooms or picnic areas and have
fewer amenities overall. Predictably, they have lower SAVI values and less vegetation. These
parks are located closer to the urban center, mostly in lower-income neighborhoods with higher
Hispanic and black and fewer white residents, as well as more commercial/industrial and retail
parcels.
Socioeconomic Context
Parks in high-income neighborhoods are significantly larger, farther from the city center, and in
less “urban” (i.e., high density, mixed-use) neighborhoods. These parks are dominated by soil
coverage and are less developed overall. High-income neighborhoods with parks have
significantly higher proportions of whites than Hispanics and contain more single-family and
fewer commercial/industrial and retail parcels. Parks in high-density neighborhoods are more
vegetated, particularly containing more grass. These neighborhoods are lower income, more
Hispanic, less white, and contain fewer commercial/industrial and retail parcels. Parks in
neighborhoods with larger Hispanic populations are smaller and more developed, with fewer
paths/trails, drinking fountains, and trees. These parks are located closer to the urban core and
are generally surrounded by fewer single- and multi-family parcels, and more
commercial/industrial and retail parcels.
Built Environment
Parks in neighborhoods comprised of predominantly single-family parcels tend to be far from the
urban center, with higher SAVI values and higher income, white residents. Parks in
neighborhoods with more multi-family homes have fewer playgrounds and more retail and
commercial/industrial land uses. Parks surrounded by more commercial/industrial land uses are
closer to the urban center, less developed, and display lower SAVI values. These neighborhoods
have fewer single-family parcels, are of higher urban intensity, and support higher Hispanic and
black populations, as compared to white. Parks surrounded by retail development are often in
lower-income neighborhoods with more Hispanic and fewer white residents, as well as fewer
single-family and more multi-family parcels.
Parks located in areas of high urban intensity are negatively correlated with SAVI,
income, population density, percentage of white residents, and distance to the city center. These
neighborhoods tend to have more commercial/industrial, multi-family, and retail parcels. Parks
closer to the city center are generally smaller and in lower income neighborhoods with fewer
paths/trails and less soil land cover. Smaller parks are commonly more developed and located in
neighborhoods with proportionately higher Hispanic populations and comprised of more
commercial/industrial and retail land uses.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This research has moved beyond the singular focus of many park assessments to generate a
nuanced, multi-dimensional understanding of the physical, environmental, social, built, and
spatial characteristics of a park system. This assessment provides a point of departure for the
development, realization, and evaluation of public policy aimed at advancing a region’s
sustainability through civic space planning and design. First, a vision of a sustainable urban park
system, guided by multidisciplinary thought and theory, is proposed. The paper then identifies
relevant measures and a place-specific method for quantitatively assessing a complex suite of
parks and park characteristics that can be adapted for use in other cities based on local social,
economic, environmental, and climatic conditions, urban form, and public policy goals. By
modeling the application of the quantitative assessment in the case study area, this paper also
provides a proof of concept that demonstrates the feasibility, value, and operationalization of the
method, while enhancing understanding of the multiple physical, ecological, social, and built
characteristics of Phoenix’s park system. The results offer a rich assessment of the individual
sites and the system as a whole, identifying numerous points of departure for advancing the
social and ecological sustainability of the city’s park system, and by extension, the city itself.
The policy implications of the key findings and recommendations for improvements are
discussed below.
First of all, we must begin with an understanding that the results of this assessment do not
point to simplistic black and white conclusions, but instead highlight the complexities of a
sizeable and diverse urban park system, while sorting out a more nuanced and multi-dimensional
understanding of these intricate human-environment structures. Referring back to our definition
of a sustainable urban park system—and the elements of that system that can be assessed with
this quantitative, citywide assessment—several important themes emerge that highlight the
strengths and weaknesses of the Phoenix parks system with regards to sustainability measures.
First, several findings hint that Phoenix’s park system is providing several key social and
ecological benefits, contributing to the sustainability of the city and in some cases synergistically
amplifying both social and ecological health. The presence of several very large, brown,
undeveloped parks with paths and trails, may suggest that these expansive landscapes harbor
native biodiversity and ecological functioning (Esbah et al. 2009), while providing recreational
benefits for urban residents. The presence of playgrounds, ball courts/fields, and picnic areas in
over three-quarters of the city parks indicates that existing parks may be successfully providing
important recreational services shown to reduce rates of obesity and incite social interaction in
public space (Bauman et al. 1999; Giles-Corti and Donovan 2002; Low et al. 2005; Gordon-
Larsen et al. 2006). Other key findings suggest a potentially equitable distribution of parks and
green space in Phoenix. First, the fact that neighborhoods around parks are, on average, lower-
income than the city as a whole implies that parks are not disproportionately located in affluent
neighborhoods. Second, the number of parks in Hispanic and white-dominated neighborhoods
are nearly equal, indicating that proportionally Hispanics have higher access (based on
proximity) to parks overall, given the Hispanic population of the city is slightly smaller than the
white population. Finally, parks in higher density, low-income, Hispanic neighborhoods are
more vegetated (i.e., contain more grass and trees coverage), which is an attribute linked to
increased human health and well-being in the parks literature (Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Chiesura
2004; Wolch et al. 2005; Walljasper 2012). However, the reason for this equitable pattern of
distribution may not be intentional, but rather a reflection of historical patterns of racism and
‘white flight.’ High access to parks and other favorable urban amenities may be a legacy of
‘white privilege’ (Pulido 2000: 15) from a time when urban core neighborhoods were dominated
by white residents, who later fled to suburbs to escape low-income minorities (Pulido 2000;
Boone et al. 2009). Such patterns highlight the importance of considering the often
inconspicuous social, political, and historical drivers of urban park location, design, quality, and
equity (Gandy 2002; Bolin et al. 2005; Byrne and Wolch 2009).
Further, our promising findings are offset by a number of equity concerns that pose
substantial social sustainability challenges with respect to Phoenix’s park system. For example,
compared to wealthy, white residents, low-income and minority populations have less access (via
proximity) to large parks, particularly native desert landscapes that may foster proportionally
more native flora and fauna than smaller sites. Conversely, parks in Hispanic neighborhoods
were found to be statistically smaller, more vegetated, and contain fewer paths/trails, drinking,
fountains, and trees. A similar result was found in a Baltimore, Maryland study, wherein black
residents had higher access to parks within walking distance, but white residents had access to
more park acreage (Boone et al. 2009). This finding also echoes Kinzig et al. (2005) who
discover that neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status in Phoenix contain less diverse plant
and bird communities. These findings have environmental justice implications with respect to
access to parks and other natural features given that affluent populations are overall more mobile
(via higher car ownership) and more likely than poorer residents to maintain large private yards.
Larger parks also provide higher rates of microclimate cooling, contain more of certain amenities
(e.g., ball courts/fields, playgrounds, pools, water features, restrooms, picnic areas), and
represent unique biological and cultural features of high scenic and recreational value in Phoenix
(City of Phoenix 2012; 2014).
Limited access to large, amenity rich parks with cooling benefits and playgrounds by
high-density and minority neighborhoods is another finding of paramount concern given the
mental and physical health benefits of access to open space with diverse amenities (Li et al.
2005; Low et al. 2005; Rosenberger et al. 2005; Byrne and Wolch 2009) and microclimate
cooling effects (Spronken-Smith and Oke 1998; Yu and Hien 2006; Jenerette et al. 2007;
Jenerette et al. 2011). Efforts aimed at achieving more equitable access to large, native desert
parks in Phoenix are recommended, yet care should be taken to avoid habitat disruption to
achieve this goal. Enhanced public transportation to these sites from low-income regions is one
possible solution. However, evaluations of proximity and access do not necessarily constitute
comprehensive measures of park equity and access. A particular park may be close but
undesirable if it is neglected, unwelcoming, or simply not preferred (Jacobs 1961; Gobster 1998;
Brownlow 2006). This lack of quantitative and observational field data is a limitation of this
research. A valuable and logical complement and extension of this work would therefore
integrate additional methods of data collection and field evaluation. For example, Gobster (1998)
proposes that studies of parks in diverse neighborhoods should evaluate (via surveys and other
qualitative means) resident perceptions of safety, belonging, and comfort to reveal the more
intricate and often hidden reasons for particular patterns of use or disuse.
A final concern with respect to environmental justice in this study is that parks in
neighborhoods with more multi-family parcels are correlated with fewer playgrounds. These
areas are more likely to be lower-income and less likely to have private outdoor space, and
therefore have a higher need for playgrounds and public space in general (Loukaitou-Sideris
1995; Wolch et al. 2005; Walljasper 2012). In response to these findings, increased access for
children may be increased—not necessarily by creating new parks—but by incorporating
playgrounds into existing parks and encouraging higher density housing and mixed use
development around smaller park spaces (Jacobs 1961; Talen 2010).
This analysis also revealed potential barriers to park use and human health and comfort in
Phoenix parks. Only half the parks have restrooms, which are critical for encouraging park use
(Molotch and Noren 2010), particularly among the elderly (Carstens 1993). Most, but not all
parks, include some form of shade structure, but very few have drinking fountains. These
amenities are particularly essential in hot arid cities where dehydration and heat exhaustion deter
park visitation and threaten human health—a hazard to which low-income residents in Phoenix
are already disproportionately exposed (Jenerette et al. 2011). Very few parks have paths or
trails, though these constitute important recreational amenities for encouraging exercise and
reducing rates of neighborhood obesity (Kaczynski et al. 2008). Overall, the city parks contain
an average of four of the ten amenities measured, but this varies greatly across parks, wherein
some sites have no amenities and some include up to 80 percent. Depending on their purpose and
the needs and preferences of proximate populations, some of these low-amenity sites should be
prioritized for park improvement. Evidence that population density around parks is lower than
for the city overall, and that park neighborhoods are dominated by single-family residential land
uses and few active uses (i.e., retail), suggests that accessibility to parks by the broader
population, and therefore the realization of the mental and physical benefits of spending time in
parks, is limited. Increasing the density of developments around parks and integrating more
active uses is recommended to expand the use and vitality of these spaces (Talen 2010). This
study also found an abundance of soil land cover in area parks. Increasing grass cover in certain
areas may promote human health and well-being by mitigating the urban heat island effect,
reducing related energy use, and providing aesthetic benefits, but such decisions must also
consider the water use tradeoffs of such efforts in a water-scarce region (Jenerette et al. 2011).
Study results also expose numerous characteristics of the biological health and
sustainability of Phoenix parks. First, there are a number of very large, minimally developed
parks dominated by soil land cover (presumably native). Given that extensive grass and tree
cover is not native to Phoenix (Martin et al. 2003) and agreement that large parks generally
support more biodiversity (Faeth et al. 2011), this finding suggests that Phoenix parks are
protecting extensive native landscapes (and ostensibly native biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning). Gober (2006) states that these large native parks exist because mountainous
topography historically limited development on these landscapes. Phoenix parks also appear to
be supporting substantial non-native biodiversity. Some 59 percent of study parks (n=96) contain
more than 50 percent grass and tree land cover, suggesting the dominance of non-native,
irrigated habitat for both native and non-native flora and fauna (Hope et al. 2003; Faeth et al.
2005, 2011; Shochat et al. 2006; Walker et al. 2009). A unique insight from this study is
evidence that native desert landscapes are highly valued by residents, as they are correlated with
high-income populations. This finding warns against a common assumption that people prefer
urban ‘green’ spaces to ‘brown’ spaces, and that only green parks provide social, cultural, and
public health benefits. This apparent preference for and value of native desert parks offers a
means of synergistically balancing and enhancing the benefits of park spaces in arid cities—
wherein native landscapes are left undisturbed and low-impact trails are created to protect native
biodiversity, avoid maintenance and high water inputs needed for green landscapes, and deliver
valued aesthetic (e.g., scenic) and recreational ecosystem services.
To maximize success, the development of specific policies related to park development,

management, and design in Phoenix should be preceded by in-depth field assessments at
individual sites to assess their social and ecological functionality, coupled with qualitative
interviews with residents about their use of and satisfaction with local parks. Throughout the
process, planners and decision-makers should strive to engage the community. Over time,
targeted improvements—sensitive to the social, ecological, built, and geographic context of the
city—will serve to continually enhance the contribution of urban parks to the sustainability of
this unique desert city, potentially making it a model for other large arid urban regions. If
repeated, the vision and analysis presented herein may reveal similar opportunities to maximize,
balance, and maintain social and natural capital in other cities, thereby expanding the role and
potential of urban park systems to advance sustainable urbanism worldwide.
Appendix I
Pearson's Correlations
Com. Paths/ Ball Play-
Variable Area Pool Water Shade
Center Trails Court ground
Area 1 0.125 0.117 0.291** 0.176* 0.299** 0.360** 0.157
Community
0.125 1 -0.045 0.092 0.067 0.199* 0.064 0.071
Centers
-
Paths Trails 0.117 -0.045 1 -0.198* 0.116 0.043 0.03
0.245**
Ball Court 0.291** 0.092 -0.198* 1 0.319** 0.088 0.06 0.234**
-
Playground 0.176* 0.067 0.319** 1 0.119 -0.019 0.379**
0.245**
Pool 0.299** 0.199* 0.116 0.088 0.119 1 0.129 0.077
Water 0.360** 0.064 0.043 0.06 -0.019 0.129 1 0.106
Shade 0.157 0.071 0.03 0.234** 0.379** 0.077 0.106 1
Drinking
0.087 0.046 0.138 -0.022 0 0.099 -0.051 0.005
Fount
Restroom 0.419** 0.263** -0.053 0.372** 0.315** 0.210** 0.207** 0.352**
Picnic 0.220** 0.036 -0.185* 0.228** 0.484** 0.175* 0.138 0.511**
% Amenities 0.475** 0.360** 0.096 0.491** 0.547** 0.486** 0.322** 0.640**
-
Grass 0.05 -0.004 0.219** 0.161* 0.008 -0.133 0.155*
0.302**
Trees 0.064 -0.148 -0.079 -0.03 -0.115 0.002 0.111 -0.044
-
Trees Grass 0.081 -0.08 0.183* 0.085 0.009 -0.063 0.117
0.313**
Soil 0.06 -0.009 0.391** -0.113 -0.029 -0.031 -0.007 -0.002
% Impervious -0.017 0.167* 0.062 -0.14 -0.063 0.116 0.204** -0.108
-
Buildings -0.332** 0.108 -0.143 -0.115 -0.124 -0.075 -0.134
0.229**
-
Developed -0.258** 0.177* -0.07 -0.167* -0.129 0.012 0.019
0.232**
SAVI 0.277** -0.013 0.046 0.137 0.071 0.077 -0.004 0.153
Nbhd Income 0.250** -0.164* 0.193* -0.007 -0.041 -0.03 0.041 0.068
-
Nbhd PopDen -0.152 0.085 0.017 0.029 0.073 -0.14 0.061
0.202**
-
% Hispanic -0.282** 0.121 0.131 0.108 -0.055 -0.089 0.049
0.279**
% White 0.257** -0.103 0.282** -0.132 -0.074 0.07 0.075 -0.05
% Black -0.096 -0.061 -0.141 0.014 -0.068 -0.097 -0.02 -0.048
% Other
0.290** 0.051 0.190* 0.043 -0.097 0.065 0.121 0.168*
Ethnicity
% Single
0.124 -0.073 -0.009 0.053 0.178* 0.121 -0.071 0.082
family
% Multi -
0.006 -0.009 0.081 -0.128 -0.006 0.038 -0.031
family 0.213**
% Retail -0.183* 0.183* -0.026 -0.001 -0.023 -0.061 0.101 -0.087
% CI -0.189* 0.098 -0.071 0.055 -0.06 -0.188* 0.058 -0.087
CI and Retail -0.199* 0.118 -0.067 0.048 -0.057 -0.176* 0.068 -0.091
Landuse Mix -0.096 0.049 0.062 0.045 -0.067 -0.182* 0.043 -0.074
Distance to
0.266** 0.01 0.296** 0.059 0.063 0.126 -0.074 0.063
center
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed).
Appendix I: Person's Correlations (continued)

Drink Rest- Amen- Trees
Variable Picnic Grass Trees Soil Imperv.
Fount room ities Grass
Area 0.087 0.419** 0.220** 0.475** 0.05 0.064 0.081 0.06 -0.017
Community
0.046 0.263** 0.036 0.360** -0.004 -0.148 -0.08 -0.009 0.167*
Centers
- -
Paths Trails 0.138 -0.053 -0.185* 0.096 -0.079 0.391** 0.062
0.302** 0.313**
Ball Court -0.022 0.372** 0.228** 0.491** 0.219** -0.03 0.183* -0.113 -0.14
Playground 0 0.315** 0.484** 0.547** 0.161* -0.115 0.085 -0.029 -0.063
Pool 0.099 0.210** 0.175* 0.486** 0.008 0.002 0.009 -0.031 0.116
Water -0.051 0.207** 0.138 0.322** -0.133 0.111 -0.063 -0.007 0.204**
Shade 0.005 0.352** 0.511** 0.640** 0.155* -0.044 0.117 -0.002 -0.108
Drinking
1 0 0.015 0.216** -0.005 0.024 0.007 0.008 0.023
Fount
Restroom 0 1 0.476** 0.723** 0.104 -0.071 0.058 0.033 -0.055
Picnic 0.015 0.476** 1 0.665** 0.268** 0.071 0.278** -0.151 -0.03
% Amenities 0.216** 0.723** 0.665** 1 0.129 -0.061 0.085 0.008 0.014
- -
Grass -0.005 0.104 0.268** 0.129 1 -0.087 0.858**
0.714** 0.267**
-
Trees 0.024 -0.071 0.071 -0.061 -0.087 1 0.437** 0.064
0.394**
- -
Trees Grass 0.007 0.058 0.278** 0.085 0.858** 0.437** 1
0.848** 0.209**
- - -
Soil 0.008 0.033 -0.151 0.008 1 -0.180*
0.714** 0.394** 0.848**
- -
% Impervious 0.023 -0.055 -0.03 0.014 0.064 -0.180* 1
0.267** 0.209**
- - - - - -
Buildings -0.039 0.005 0.129
0.215** 0.372** 0.302** 0.317** 0.265** 0.422**
- - - -
Developed -0.015 -0.191* -0.159* -0.101 0.678**
0.293** 0.216** 0.390** 0.435**
-
SAVI -0.056 0.167* 0.183* 0.183* 0.219** 0.133 0.266** -0.108
0.251**
Nbhd Income 0.094 0.002 0.056 0.043 -0.043 0.116 0.021 0.159* -0.139
-
Nbhd PopDen -0.081 -0.141 0.077 -0.037 0.313** 0.047 0.307** 0.106
0.371**
- -
% Hispanic 0.11 0.047 0.008 -0.008 -0.114 -0.052 0.11
0.216** 0.207**
% White 0.207** -0.129 0.011 0.01 0.023 0.243** 0.146 0.036 -0.086
-
% Black -0.072 0.03 -0.142 -0.109 -0.191* -0.197* 0.054 -0.074
0.231**
% Other
0.15 0.185* 0.046 0.196* 0.102 0.019 0.102 0.003 0.019
Ethn.
% Single fam -0.007 0.063 0.12 0.113 0.077 0.058 0.099 -0.044 -0.053
% Multi fam 0.061 -0.11 -0.096 -0.1 0.013 0.051 0.038 -0.017 -0.032
- -
% Retail -0.022 -0.058 -0.13 -0.046 -0.046 0.117 0.220**
0.268** 0.266**
% CI -0.052 0.029 -0.07 -0.07 -0.092 -0.147 -0.159* 0.071 0.082
CI and Retail -0.049 0.015 -0.085 -0.07 -0.128 -0.137 -0.186* 0.083 0.111
Landuse Mix -0.013 0.012 -0.095 -0.059 -0.056 -0.033 -0.068 0.071 -0.041
Distance to
0.165* -0.131 -0.003 0.107 0.035 -0.022 0.021 0.176* -0.183*
center
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
LITERATURE CITED
Adhya, A, P Plowright, and J Stevens. 2010. Defining Sustainable Urbanism: towards a

responsive urban design. Proceedings of the Conference on Sustainability and the Built
Environment. King Saud University, Saudi Arabria. January 3-6, 2010.
Alexander, C. 1977. A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Andersson, E, S Barthel, and K Ahrné. 2007. Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the
generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications 17(5): 1267-1278.
Bagheri A, and P Hjorth. 2007. Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a
process-based approach. Sustainable Development 15(2): 83–96, March/April 2007.
Barradas, V. 1991. Air temperature and humidity and human comfort index of some city parks of
Mexico City. Int J Biometeoro 35: 24–28.
Bauman A, B Smith, L Stoker, L, B Bellew, and M Booth. 1999. Geographical influences upon
physical activity participation: evidence of a coastal effect. Aust N Z J Public Health 23:
322–4.
Bedimo-Rung, A, A Mowen, and D Cohen. 2005. The significance of parks to physical activity
and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 282S2.
Bolin, B, S Grineski, and T Collins. 2005. The Geography of Despair; Environmental Racism
and the Making of South Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Human Ecology Review 12 (2): 156.
Bolund, P, and S Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecological Economics
29 (2): 293–301.
Boone, C, G Buckley, M Grove, and C Sister. 2009. Parks and People: An Environmental Justice
Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
99(4): 767-787.
Brownlow, A. 2006: An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia.

Geoforum 37, 227–45.
Byrne, J and J Wolch. 2009. Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for
geographic research. Progress in Human Geography 33(6): 743-765.
CAP-LTER. 2005. Quickbird Image August 11, 2005, Multiband. http://sbc.lternet.edu/cgi-

bin/LTER_vocab_showDataset.cgi?docid=knb-lter-cap.373.2 (last accessed Oct 2014).
CATS (Center for Applied Transect Studies). 2009. Smart Code 9.2. The Town Paper Publisher,
1–72.
Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association
62(3): 296.
Carstens, Diane Y. 1993. Site Planning and Design for the Elderly: Issues, Guidelines, and
Alternatives. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning 68: 129-138.
Chiesura, A, and R De Groot. 2003. Critical Natural Capital: a Socio-Cultural Perspective.

Ecological Economics 44 (2-3): 219–31.
City of Phoenix. 2010. Alphabetical listing of city parks. http://phoenix.gov/parks/alphapks.html.

(last accessed Oct 2014).
________. 2012. South Mountain. http://archive.today/6gnM (last accessed Oct 2014).
________. 2014. City of Phoenix > Public Information Office > Points of Pride.
https://www.phoenix.gov/pio/points-of-pride. Map at:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPHX_Points_of_Pride.pdf#search=sou
th%20mountain%20point%20of%20pride (last accessed Oct 2014).
Climate-zone.com. 2003. Phoenix, temperatures. http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-

states/arizona/phoenix/# (last accessed Oct 2014).
Cohen, D., J. Ashwood, M. Scott, A. Overton, K. Evenson, L. Staten. D. Porter, T. McKenzie,

and S. Catellier. 2006. Public Parks and Physical Activity Among Adolescent Girls.
Pediatrics. 118(5).
Coley, R., W. Sullivan, and F. Kuo. 1997. Where Does Community Grow?: The Social Context
Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environment and Behavior 29: 468.
Cranz, G and M Boland. 2004. Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.
Landscape Journal 23(2): 102-20.
Crompton, J. 2001. The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence.
Journal of Leisure Research 33(1): 1-31. •
Cutts, B, K Darby, C Boone, and A Brewis. 2009. City Structure, Obesity, and Environmental
Justice: an Integrated Analysis of Physical and Social Barriers to Walkable Streets and
Park Access. Social Science & Medicine, September, 1–9.
Davis, J. 2004. Psychological Benefits of Nature Experiences: An Outline of Research and

Theory. Naropa University.
Duany, A. 2002. Introduction to the Special Issue: The Transect. Journal of Urban Design 7(3):
251–260.
Duany, A, and E Talen. 2002. Transect Planning. Planning 68 (3).
Duany, A and D Brain. 2005. Regulating As If Humans Matter. The Transect and Post-Suburban
Planning. In Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America. E. Ben
Joseph and T. S. Szold (eds.). Routledge, New York, 293–332.
Esbah, H, E Cook, and J Ewan. 2009. Effects of increasing urbanization on the ecological
integrity of open space preserves. Environmental Management 43:846–862.
Faeth, S., C. Bang, and S. Saari. 2011. Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Ann. N.Y.
Acad. Sci. 1223 (2011) 69–81.
Faeth, S, P Warren, E Shochat, and W. Marussich. 2005. Trophic dynamics in urban

communities. BioSci. 55: 399–407.
Flint, A. 2012. Restaurants Really Can Determine the Fate of Cities and Neighborhoods.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/07/how-food-drives-cities-resurgences/374806/
Floyd, M., J. Spengler, J. Maddock. P. Gobster, and L. Suau. 2008. Environmental and Social
Correlates of Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks: An Observational Study in
Tampa and Chicago. Leisure Sciences. 30(4): 360–375.
Forsyth, A and L Musacchio. 2005. Designing Small Parks. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Gandy, M. 2002: Concrete and clay: reworking nature in New York City. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.Burns, R, R Burns. 2008. Business research methods and statistics using
SPSS. UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Geddes, P. 1915. Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to
the Study of Civics. London: Williams & Norgate.
Giles-Corti, B and R Donovan. 2002. The relative influence of individual, social and physical
environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science and Medicine 54: 1793-
1812.
Giles-Corti, B., M. Broomhall, M. Knuiman, C. Collins, K. Douglas, K. Ng, A. Lange, and R.

Donovan. 2005. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and
size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2): 169.
Gober, P. 2006. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gobster, P. 1998. Urban Parks as Green Walls or Green Magnets? Interracial Relations in
Neighborhood Boundary Parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 41 (1998) 43-55.
________. 2001. Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration.
Landscape and Urban Planning 56 (1-2): 35–51.
________. 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure
Sciences 24: 143-159.
Gobster, P and Westphal, L. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for
recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(2-3): 147.
Goodland, R. 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 1-24.
Gordon-Larsen, P, M Nelson, P Page, and B Popkin. 2006. Inequality in the built environment
underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics 117: 417-424.
Harnik, P. 2010. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Harnik, P and B Welle. 2009. Measuring Economic Value City Park System. Chicago: Graham
Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts.
Hedquist, B and A Brazel. 2006. Urban, residential, and rural climate comparisons from mobile
transects and fixed stations: Phoenix, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy
of Science 38(2): 77-87.
Heerwagen, J and G Orians. 2002. The ecological world of children. In: Kahn, P.H.J, and S.R.
Kellert (eds.), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary
Investigations. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 29-64.
Hope, D., C. Gries, W. Zhu, W. Fagan, C. Redman, N. Grimm, A. Nelson, C. Martin, and A.
Kinzig. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. PNAS 100 (15).
Huete, A. 1998. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sensing of Environment

25(3). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003442578890106X.
Imhoff, M., C. Tucker, W. Lawrence, and D. Stutzer. 2000. The use of multisource satellite and
geospatial data to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United
States. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 38: 2549–2556.
Irwin, E. 2002. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78
(4): 465.
Isenberg, J, N Quisenberry. 2002. Play: Essential for All Children; A Position Paper. Association
for Childhood Education International, 9 pp.
IUCN. 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the
Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January
2006. (last accessed Oct 2014).
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jauregui, E. 1991. Influence of a large urban park on temperature and convective precipitation in
a tropical city. Energ. Buildings 15: 467–473
Jenerette, G, S Harlan, A Brazel, N Jones, L Larsen, and W Stefanov. 2007. Regional

relationships between surface temperature, vegetation, and human settlement in a rapidly
urbanizing ecosystem. Landscape Ecol 22: 353–365.
Jenerette, D, S Harlan, W Stefanov, and C Martin. 2011. Ecosystem Services and Urban Heat
Riskscape Moderation: Water, Green Spaces, and Social Inequality in Phoenix, USA.
Ecological Applications 21 (7): 2637.
Kaczynski, A., L. Potwarka, and B. Saelens. 2008. Association of Park Size, Distance, and
Features With Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks. American Journal of Public
Health 98(8): 1451-1456.
Kaye, J., R. McCulley, and I. Burke. 2005. Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial
communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol.
11: 575–587.
Kinzig, A., Warren, P., Martin, C., Hope, D., and Katti, M. 2005. The effects of human
socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity.
Ecology and Society, 10(1), 23.
Kuo, F., W. Sullivan, R. Coley, and L. Brunson. 1998. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city
neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology 26: 823-
851.
Larson, K., Gustafson, A., and Hirt, P. 2009. Insatiable Thirst and a Finite Supply: An
Assessment of Municipal Water-Conservation Policy in Greater Phoenix, Arizona, 1980–
2007. Journal of Policy History, 21(02), 107–137.Lindsey, G. 2003. Sustainability and
urban greenways. Journal of the American Planning Association 69(2): 165.
Li, F, K Fisher, R Brownson, and M Bosworth. 2005. Multilevel Modeling of Built Environment
Characteristics Related to Neighborhood Walking Activity in Older Adults. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 558–564.
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. Pell, R. Deadman, T. Kratz, J.
Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, A. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. Redman, S. Schneider, W. Taylor.
2007. Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 317(1513).
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1995. Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the Uses
of Urban Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14:89–102.
Low, S, D Taplin, and S Scheld. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural
Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Low, T. 2008, Light imprint handbook. Miami: New Urban Press.
Lutzenhiser, M and N Netusil. 2001. The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price.
Contemporary Ecomic Policy 19: 291.
Madanipour, A. 1999. Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for
cities? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26: 879-891.
Marne, P. 2001. Whose public space was it anyways?: Class, gender and ethnicity in the creation
of Sefton and Stanley parks, Liverpool, 1858-1872. Social and Cultural Geography 2(4):
421-443.
Marris, E. 2009. Ragamuffin Earth. Nature 460: 450-453.
Martin C, P Warren, and A Kinzig. 2003. Landscape vegetation in small urban parks and
surrounding neighborhoods: Are socioeconomic characteristics a useful predictor of
vegetation taxa richness and abundance?. Hortscience 38:733.
Massey, D. 1994. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McHarg, I. 1965. Design with nature. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
McKinney, M. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals.
Urban Ecosyst. 11: 161–176.
McPherson, E. 1994. Cooling Urban Heat Islands with Sustainable Landscapes. In: Platt,
Rutherford H.; Rowntree, Rowan A.; Muick, Pamela C.; eds. The ecological city:
preserving and restoring urban biodiversity. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts
Press: 151-171.
Mind. 2007. Ecotherapy: The Green Agenda for Mental Health. Mind: For better mental health,
London, pp, 36.
Mitchell, D. 1995. The end of public space? People's Park, definitions of the public, and
democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85, 108-133.
Mokdad, A. E. Ford, B. Bowman, W. Dietz, F. Vinicor, and V. Bales,. 2003. Prevalence of

obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health factors. The Journal of the American Medical
Association 289(1): 76–79.
Molotch, H, and L Norén, eds. 2010. Toilet: Public restrooms and the politics of sharing. NYU
Press.
Moore, L, A Diez Roux, K Evenson, A McGinn, and S Brines. 2008. Availability of

Recreational Re- sources in Minority and Low Socioeconomic Status Areas. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine. 34(1): 16-22
Nicholls, S. 2001. Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study using GIS.
Managing Leisure 6, 201–219.
NOAA. 2004. Ranking of cities based on % annual possible sunshine in descending order from
most to least average possible sunshine.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctposrank.txt. (last accessed Oct 2014).
________. 2010. National weather service forecast office: Phoenix, Arizona.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=psr. (last accessed Oct 2014).
Nowak, D. and G. Heisler 2011. Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks. National Parks
and Recreation Association. Available online at:
http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers
/Nowak-Heisler-Summary.pdf
NPRA (National Parks and Recreation Association). 2012. Parks and Recreation in Underserved
Areas: A Public Health Perspective.
http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers
/Parks-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf
Papas, M., A. Alberg, R. Ewing, K. Helzlsouer, T. Gary, and A. Klassen. 2007. The built
environment and obesity. Epidemiologic Reviews 29(1), 129–143.
Parés, M and D Sauri. 2007. Integrating Sustainabilities in a Context of Economic, Social, and
Urban Change: The case for public spaces in the metropolitan region of Barcelona. In
The sustainable development paradox: Urban political economy in the United States and
Europe, edited by R. Krueger adn D. Gibbs, 160-191. New York: Guilford Press.
Parés, M, D Sauri, and E Domene. 2006. Evaluating the environmental performance of urban
parks in Mediterranean cities: An example from the Barcelona Metropolitan Region.
Environmental Management 39(5): 750-759.
Pretty, J, R Hine, and J Peacock. 2006. Green Exercise: The Benefits of Activities in Green
Places. Biologist 53, 3: 143-48.
Pulido, L. 2000. Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in
Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographer 90,1,12-40.
Rabinovitch, J. 1992. Curitiba: Towards sustainable urban development. Environment and

Urbanization 4(2): 62.
Roseland, M. 2000. Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic,

and social objectives. Progress in Planning 54(2): 73.
Rosenberger, R, Y Sneh, T Phipps, and R Gurvitch, 2005. A Spatial Analysis of Linkages

between Health Care Expenditures, Physical Inactivity, Obesity and Recreation Supply.
Journal of Leisure Research 37(2).
Rosenzweig, M. 2003. Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37(2):
194-205.
Ross, A. 2011. Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World’s Least Sustainable City. London: Oxford
University Press.
Schilling, J. 2010. Towards a Greener Green Space Planning. Thesis, Lund University,
International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science.
Schmidli, P. 1996. Climate of Phoenix.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~atrsc//phxwx.htm?q=cerveny/phxwx.htm. (last accessed Oct
2014).
Shochat, E, P Warren, S Faeth, N McIntyre, and D Hope. 2006. From patterns to emerging
processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(4): 186.
Shochat, E., S. Lerman, J. Anderies, P. Warren, S. Faeth, and C. Nilon. 2010. Invasion,
competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioSci. 60: 199–208.
Sister, C, J Wolch, and J Wilson. 2010. Got Green? Addressing Environmental Justice in Park
Provision. GeoJournal 75 (3): 229–48. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9303-8.
Sorlien S and E Talen. 2012. Out of place: Context-based codes and the transect. In, Sustainable
Urbanism and Beyond: Rethinking Cities for the Future, edited by Tigran Haas.
Spronken-Smith R. and T. Oke. 1998. The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with
different summer climates. Int J Remote Sens 19: 2085–2104.
Talen, E. 1998. Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. Journal of the American
Planning Association. Winter.
________. 2002. Pedestrian Access as a Measure of Urban Quality. Planning Practice and
Research 17 (3). Taylor & Francis: 257–78.
________. 2006. Design That Enables Diversity: the Complications of a Planning Ideal. Journal
of Planning Literature 20 (3): 233.
________. 2010. The Spatial Logic of Parks. Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 473–91.
Talen, E., and L. Anselin. 1998. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of
accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A 30:595-613.
Timperio, A, K Ball, J Salmon, R Roberts, and D Crawford. (2007). Is availability of public open
space equitable across areas? Health & Place 13, 335–340.
TPL (Trust for Public Land). 2011. City Park Facts. Center for City Park Excellence The Trust
for Public Land. Available online at: http://www.tpl.org/publications/books-reports/ccpe-
publications/city-park-facts-report-(2011).html
Tucci, C. 2004. Integrated Flood Management – Case Study Brazil: Flood Management in
Curitiba Metropolitan Area. World Meteorological Organization and Global Water
Partnership’s Associated Programme on Flood Management. January 2004.
http://www.apfm.info/pdf/case_studies/cs_brazil.pdf
Tzoulas, K, K Korpela, S Venn, V Yli-Pelkonen, A Kazmierczak, J Niemela, and P James. 2007.

Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: a
Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (3): 167–78.
U.S. Census. 2010. American Factfinder.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. (last accessed Oct 2014).
Walker, B., L. Gunderson, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A Handful of
Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological
Systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 13.
Walker, J., N. Grimm, J. Briggs, C. Gries, and L. Dugan. 2009. Effects of urbanization on plant
species diversity in central Arizona. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 465-
470.
Walljasper, J. 2012. Low income people need public spaces the most. Commons Magazine 12
August. http://onthecommons.org/magazine/low-income-people-need-public-spaces-most
Whyte, William. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Ann Harbor, Michigan: Edward
Brothers Inc.
Wolch, J, J Wilson, and J Fehrenbach. 2005. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-
mapping analysis. Urban Geography 26, no. 1: 4-35.
Yu, C. and W. Hien. 2006. Thermal benefits of city parks. Energy and Buildings 38(2): 105.
View publication stats

Urban Park System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Park System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Sustainable urban park systems

Article · November 2014

Ecotherapy interventions: A study of mental health outcomes View project

Facilitating nature engagement by youth of color View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sustainable Urban Park Systems

Sustainability is fundamentally concerned with the long-term maximization, balance, and

Sustainable Urban Parks

Available amenities and facilities influence a park’s social and environmental

Landuse and Land Cover

Balancing Multiple Sustainability Goals in Urban Parks

Urban revitalization efforts implemented in the City of Curitiba, Brazil provide an

Defining a Sustainable Urban Park System

DATA AND METHODS

Table 1. Datasets used in the analysis, source, and temporal scale.

Census blocks and block groups U.S. Census Bureau (2010)

Table 2. Park measures used in the analysis

Table 3. Landuse mix levels and criteria

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for variables

Landuse and Land Cover

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

To maximize success, the development of specific policies related to park development,

Appendix I: Person's Correlations (continued)

Adhya, A, P Plowright, and J Stevens. 2010. Defining Sustainable Urbanism: towards a

Alexander, C. 1977. A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brownlow, A. 2006: An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia.

CAP-LTER. 2005. Quickbird Image August 11, 2005, Multiband. http://sbc.lternet.edu/cgi-

Chiesura, A, and R De Groot. 2003. Critical Natural Capital: a Socio-Cultural Perspective.

City of Phoenix. 2010. Alphabetical listing of city parks. http://phoenix.gov/parks/alphapks.html.

________. 2012. South Mountain. http://archive.today/6gnM (last accessed Oct 2014).

Climate-zone.com. 2003. Phoenix, temperatures. http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-

Cohen, D., J. Ashwood, M. Scott, A. Overton, K. Evenson, L. Staten. D. Porter, T. McKenzie,

Davis, J. 2004. Psychological Benefits of Nature Experiences: An Outline of Research and

Duany, A, and E Talen. 2002. Transect Planning. Planning 68 (3).

Faeth, S, P Warren, E Shochat, and W. Marussich. 2005. Trophic dynamics in urban

Giles-Corti, B., M. Broomhall, M. Knuiman, C. Collins, K. Douglas, K. Ng, A. Lange, and R.

Huete, A. 1998. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sensing of Environment

Jenerette, G, S Harlan, A Brazel, N Jones, L Larsen, and W Stefanov. 2007. Regional

Low, T. 2008, Light imprint handbook. Miami: New Urban Press.

Marris, E. 2009. Ragamuffin Earth. Nature 460: 450-453.

Mokdad, A. E. Ford, B. Bowman, W. Dietz, F. Vinicor, and V. Bales,. 2003. Prevalence of

Moore, L, A Diez Roux, K Evenson, A McGinn, and S Brines. 2008. Availability of

________. 2010. National weather service forecast office: Phoenix, Arizona.

Rabinovitch, J. 1992. Curitiba: Towards sustainable urban development. Environment and

Roseland, M. 2000. Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic,

Rosenberger, R, Y Sneh, T Phipps, and R Gurvitch, 2005. A Spatial Analysis of Linkages

Schmidli, P. 1996. Climate of Phoenix.

Tzoulas, K, K Korpela, S Venn, V Yli-Pelkonen, A Kazmierczak, J Niemela, and P James. 2007.

U.S. Census. 2010. American Factfinder.

You might also like