Running Head: Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice of Public Park Amenities

and Accessibility in Madison, WI

Rebecca Bailey, Alexis Clausen, Eunji Kang, Caroline Shea

University of Wisconsin ­ Madison

Environmental Justice 1

Environmental Justice of Public Park Amenities and Accessibility in Madison, WI

Abstract

This case study examines the relationship between demographics, park accessibility, and the quality of park amenities in Madison, Wisconsin. We use both quantitative and qualitative data seeking to answer the research question: is there a correlation between the socioeconomic status and racial demographics of a neighborhood and its inhabitants’ access to quality parks in the city of Madison. Unlike the classic geographic environmental justice issues that generally concern the imposition of harms, this case study evaluates the distribution of benefits. To answer this research question, it is vital to develop a series of Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers and subsequent analyses to reflect accurate racial and class distributions in the city. Using this GIS model, we chose seven community parks to study that are located in areas of various demographics to best represent Madison’s diversity. These parks include: Reindahl Park, Olbrich Park, North East Park, James Madison Park, Brittingham Park, Olin Park, and Elver Park. Surveying the parks to gather observational data consists of using a checklist to assess the amenities and their quality, as well as photographing the park and its amenities. Lastly, a Madison Park Department employee gives insight into the planning and maintenance of the city parks. The primary data from parks is quantified to conduct a statistical analysis and overlapped with GIS demographic data layers to answer the research question. We conclude the disparities between park amenities, park quality, and accessibility are not significant enough to prove there is discrepancy between socioeconomic status and access to quality parks.

Keywords: accessibility, amenities, environmental justice, green space, quality

Environmental Justice 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 4

2. Literature Review...... 6 2.1 Importance of Studying Environmental Justice...... 7 2.2 Benefits of Green Spaces: Quality of Life...... 8 2.3 Accessibility of Parks...... 9 2.4 Methods of Testing Accessibility in Literature...... 9 2.5 Literature Results...... 13

3. Research Methods...... 15 3.1 GIS for Park Selection...... 16 3.2 Field Observations...... 23 3.3 Evaluation: Number of Amenities...... 23 3.4 Evaluation: Quality of Amenities...... 24 3.5 Interview: Contextualizing Our Data...... 25

4. Results...... 25 4.1 Number of Amenities...... 25 4.2 Quality of Amenities...... 26 4.3 Photographic Comparisons...... 27 4.4 Interview Implications...... 38 4.5 Service Areas...... 41

5. Discussion...... 43 5.1 The Relevance of Service Areas...... 43 5.2 What the Results Mean...... 45

6. Limitations...... 46

7. Future Research...... 48

8. Conclusion...... 50

Appendix A: Number of Amenities Spreadsheet...... 51 Appendix B: Quality of Amenities Spreadsheet...... 54 Appendix C: Privacy Policy...... 57 Appendix D: Interview Questions...... 58 References...... 59

Environmental Justice 3

1. Introduction

Residential access to parks is increasingly important for burgeoning urban populations because parks improve the quality of life, provide many physical and health benefits, enhance aesthetics, and create spaces for social integration (Wolch et al. 2014, 234­235). However, access to quality parks and their benefits may not always be equal for all people. These inequalities can be seen where people of color and lower income populations reside within a city (Cutts 2009,

1315). The geographic distribution of people by socioeconomic class does not always give colored and lower income populations the same access to high quality parks that wealthier

Americans are able to enjoy (Abercrombie et al. 2008). Not all parks throughout a city are going to be of equal quality, which is the nature of the issue. This study aims to reveal if there is an unfair correlation between quality park accessibility and neighborhood demographics in the city of Madison, Wisconsin.

Figure 1: Location and park distribution map

Environmental Justice 4

There are 206 parks located in Madison (Parks Division 2012). Figure 1 is a locator map showing the geographic configuration of the city’s parks. Our task is to collect information on a diverse selection of these parks in order to answer the question: is there a correlation between the socioeconomic status and racial demographics of a neighborhood and its inhabitants’ access to quality parks in the city of Madison?

To answer this question, we conduct a case study of seven parks in Madison, WI:

Reindahl Amund, Olbrich, North East, James Madison, Brittingham, Olin, and Elver. These seven parks represent geographically and demographically diverse areas of the city. Analyzing the number and quality of amenities at each park will help determine if there is a discrepancy between socioeconomic status and access to quality parks.

The City of Madison Parks Department breaks the 206 parks down into three main categories: mini, neighborhood, and community. The seven parks in this study are all community parks. Choosing parks from only one category is necessary for maintaining consistency because there are differences in the number of potential park amenities across all three categories. Since community parks are the broadest category and serve the largest number of inhabitants, they have approval for the most amenities (Parks Division 2012). Community parks are defined as parks that focus on “meeting community­based recreation needs as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces” and have staff that maintain, fund, and assist in running the space

(Parks Division 2012).

The literature that we chose in our research process will be used to understand the relationship between environmental justice and parks. Additionally, some of our literature is

Environmental Justice 5

useful in exploring the various GIS techniques applicable to our project. The literature also shows how and why parks are important to a community, having an overarching theme of environmental justice and parks.

2. Literature Review

Environmental Justice, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Environmental Protection Agency 2014). The concept of environmental justice, or how environmental inequalities cause burdens for low­income and/or non­white people, seems like a prevalent topic, but the issue of unequal distribution of environmental benefits has not received as much attention. The literature in this field progresses through three key points we will use to benefit our research: why studying environmental justice in regards to parks and accessibility is important, the methods of research, and the conclusions of each study. We will analyze and compare each of these points in order to gain more insight and ultimately help us effectively implement our research question.

Research on environmental justice relating to benefits and park usage is important because many studies prove that low and middle­income neighborhoods have fewer opportunities for physical activity than higher income areas (Estaerooks et al. 2003). This is significant because the lowest levels of park resources have been shown to be in areas with higher concentrations of low­income residents and racial diversity had lower rates of park access as compared with predominantly white areas (Wolch et al. 2005). Along with discovering

Environmental Justice 6

socioeconomic status issues with park access, much studies on environmental justice and city parks aim to determine the quality of a park or accessibility of certain community feature. The gap in this field is there not being a study conducted yet that concerns a correlation between both the demographics of an area coupled with its accessibility to quality public amenities like green spaces. Hopefully, through our research, we will discover if there is or is not a correlation between the socioeconomic status and racial demographics of a neighborhood, and its inhabitants’ access to quality parks in Madison.

2.1 Importance of Studying Environmental Justice

First, we must understand of important aspects of our project in relation to environmental justice: the benefits that a green space can provide to the city of Madison and communities, how environmental injustice is or is not a concern, and why there is a need to continue research on quality park access in cities as emphasized by various literature. The benefits associated with green space in a city are important to the well being of city inhabitants. Many articles look at the overarching problem of inequality and how it relates to the distribution of parks over space.

Park environmental justice issues focus on benefits, not just the detriments of environmental injustices (Boone et al. 2009). Boone, Buckley, Grove, and Sister reveal how racial segregation in Baltimore accounted for inequitable park distribution, although the racially segregated urban environment may not have been apparent when planning the park locations

(2009). This study focuses mainly on the number of parks that were located in Baltimore relative to the neighborhood they were located in, not focusing on the quality of these parks. Byrne and

Wolch uncover a historical method mentioned in regards to looking at parks from a nature

Environmental Justice 7

society­interface, which happens to privilege socio­demographic variables over urban factors such as historical, political­economical, and location (Byrne and Wolch 2009).

2.2 Benefits of Green Spaces: Quality of Life

Many studies have focused on these socioeconomic benefits of park access due to the importance green space plays in urban communities. Although these green spaces are found all throughout the city, not all are beneficial to people in the town. Only specific green spaces, like a park, serve recreational purposes. Generally, studies link environment with sociology because of the benefits that come along with the recreational green spaces, specifically with parks.

There are many benefits from urban green spaces, such as improved health, social interaction, a sense of safety, and a higher quality of life (Wolch et al. 2014, 234­235). Physical activity has positive health benefits and access to public green space, parks, and recreational amenities would promote physical activity, leading to better health (Abercrombie et al. 2008, 10;

Dahmann et al. 2009, 431). Not only do green spaces, parks, and public recreational areas promote physical activity, something desired in an urban area, they also increase social interaction between both children and adults (Bennet et al. 2012, 200). These areas can build a sense of community among those who often interact with others at the parks. Urban parks are a place where residents from different groups strengthen and come together as a community (Low et al. 2005). Children are especially likely to benefit from social interaction with others, and public recreational areas are great locations to do so. Overall, city parks have a necessary role in the life of residents as an area of escape and a contributor to the join and wellbeing of the urban

Environmental Justice 8

population (Nolan 1910). Access to these local parks improves the quality of life for constituents in the area, benefiting public health (Mass et al. 2006, 587; Lofti and Koohsari 2009).

2.3 Accessibility of Parks

Connections between access to parks and health is a running theme and is explored by many different researchers. Socioeconomic status and race often determine where people live and can make it more difficult for marginalized people to access quality parks (Holifield 2001,

79). Along with benefiting human health, access to parks improves the sense of safety and other qualities of life in communities (Loukaitou­Sideris and Stieglitz 2002). Visiting parks is an effort put forth by the constituents to make use of the open space, and parks are used by different groups depending on the amenities provided (Byrne and Wolch 2009).

It is vital that access and amenities are equal to all inhabitants of the city. Open green spaces are highly valued by most people, but not everyone has the same level of access to recreational areas (Burgess et al. 1988, 458). Social variables might prevent the accessibility of locally available resources for physical activity (Cutts et al. 2009). If parks do not allow for diversity and a sense of community by rejecting the preferences of certain groups of people, it can further separate the gap between people of different races and/or class (Low et al. 2005).

2.4 Methods of Testing Accessibility in Literature

Interviews and surveys, observational data, case studies, and GIS techniques are methods of studying topics related to accessibility of parks. This variety of methodologies evaluates

Environmental Justice 9

benefit inequality, quality perceptions, and utilization of parks. Case studies sometimes use observation methods to collect data on quality, use, and benefit dispersal of parks. One observational case study performed a recreational audit around the area to find public environments for physical activity (Dahmann et al. 2009, 435). The study quantified the qualitative data, from which they could then do a statistical analysis (Dahmann et al. 2009,

436­437).

Interviews and surveys act as a key component in collecting data to test hypotheses concerning park accessibility. This was a key component of the Greenwich Open­Space Project, where groups from different socioeconomic and racial communities were evaluated with the result of knowledge that a majority of people value parks, but non­white and lower class residents have less access to quality parks (Burgess et al. 1988, 457­458). All studies using interviews and surveys had some unstable components that could make the information they gathered bias, but input from the public is always helpful, especially when trying to study how people interact with and feel about their local parks and public amenities. Unfortunately, for this project, we were not able to test accessibility and walkability the most popular way, given time constraints. This is why GIS played a larger role in collecting data for accessibility and walkability in regards to parks in Madison.

GIS is a popular method of literature on park accessibility. A needs based assessment, rather than just historical data that creates a holistic view, made GIS comparisons of racial makeup and park access vital to this study (Boone et al. 2009). Another method was exemplified by an article that provided an overview of general GIS and remote sensing techniques (Jensen et al. 2004). This study used the Leaf Area Index to check the sizes and locations of green spaces to

Environmental Justice 10

see if they correlated with the socioeconomic condition of a given area in terms of median income or property values (Jensen et al. 2004). A Phoenix case study collected data in order to map out communities and use GIS to analyze the accessibility to recreational spaces in relation to communities of different socioeconomic class and race via roads, bus routes, and other interferences into consideration (Cutts et al. 2009, 1316­1320). Another case study performed the same GIS analysis of 8 areas in Los Angeles to analyze the accessibility and walkability of parks in neighborhoods of various socioeconomic statuses (Loukaitou­Sideris and Stieglitz 2002,

473­475).

All of these GIS analyses are helpful is figuring out the distance and accessibility between green spaces and various communities, but it is too simplified. Various factors beside from just distance and available streets can influence the accessibility to green spaces, including individual constraints. These individual space­time constraints on accessibility to parks and parks’ relationship with access and special distribution of ethnic minorities was studied using a different GIS analysis by incorporating the available spatial data to study how accessibility can vary per person (Kwan et al. 2003). This model is more realistic because it applies more than just the geographic data but also the various individual factors such as race and socioeconomic status to study the accessibility of parks.

Two studies discussed the measured accessibility with park service areas using Thiessen polygons. Sister, Wolch, and Wilson’s method to define a park’s service areas (2010, 235) exposes potential park congestion, or a “park pressure” area with more people and less park space (Sister et al. 2010, 232). Empirical measurement of spatial arrangement of park resources assumes that use is distributed equally for all residents and that each resident uses the nearest

Environmental Justice 11

park (Sister et al. 2010, 232). Indications of park need are determined in this study by number of children, proportion of households below poverty line, and median household income (Sister et al. 2010, 238). In the second study, a pedestrian­street network was first created with ArcMap’s

Network Analyst tool to calculate distance to the closest playground (Bennet et al. 2012, 202).

Similarly to the previous study’s public service area approach, accessibility was also measured with Thiessen polygons, which interpreted playground service area to facilitate social interaction when it served more people (Bennet et al. 2012, 203). “Arguments against the PSA [public service area] approach are that: (1) residents do not necessarily go to the nearest park; larger parks (e.g., regional parks) attract users from a more extensive geographic area, while users may favor some parks over others not because of proximity but because of various other reasons such as its amenities or perceived safety; and (2) the relationship between PSA estimates and survey­based need estimates is not clear” (Sister et al. 2010, 232­233).

Case studies can offset the limitations of certain methods by using multiple methods to cover all of their bases with data collection. Heynen, Perkins, and Roy used many previously mentioned methods to support their argument, including tree­cover data from aerial photography, census data, and interviews (2006, 7­8) .

Certain studies even combined surveys or interviews with GIS methodology when looking at the spread of benefits of greenspace. The Montreal case study included a survey of satisfaction felt by individuals versus the conditions of their urban environment to study if a built environment is affected by the different types of housing it is surrounded by (Apparicio et al.

2008). Subjective and objective responses give information concerning urban quality of life metrics are combined with GIS analysis of neighborhood amenities and NDVI (normalized

Environmental Justice 12

difference vegetation index) analysis of green spaces (Apparicio et al. 2008). In­depth interviews provided qualitative evidence of the inequitable distribution of urban canopy cover within Milwaukee, which also combined with GIS methodology (Heynen et al. 2006, 16).

GIS is another useful method for finding how park quality is related to the spatial location of parks. GIS mapping uses census data and primary data collection of urban green space and recreational areas as well as cross sectional analyses to expose the neighborhood's quality of life and the relation between greenspace and physical activity (Abercrombie et al.

2008, 10­11). GIS analysis was done to compare poor versus not poor areas in a study that also created a walkability index and measured aesthetics (Neckerman et al. 2009, 266­270). After performing these analyses, the majority of the literature concludes that park accessibility injustices exist in various ways.

2.5 Literature Results

The literature states the demographics of people and their geographic location correlates to their accessibility to public green spaces. This accessibility is generally deemed to be unequal and creates unfavorable circumstances to those who are of lower class and/or of non­white racial groups (Erkip 1997; Burgess et al. 1988; Loukaitou­Sideris and Stieglitz 2002; Licari et al. 2005;

Byrne and Wolch 2009; Dahmann et al. 2009; Jones et al. 2009; Neckerman et al. 2009; Sister et al. 2010; Bennet et al. 2012). Byrne and Wolch (2009) concludes there is an unbalanced relationship between park accessibility and socioeconomic status, as well as race. Other literature agree with Byrne and Wolch (2009) and accept that there are inequalities between

Environmental Justice 13

neighborhoods of different demographics in their accessibility to green space (Erkip 1997, 360;

Jones et al. 2009, 500). Researching the differences in quality by location is important.

Analyzing the access to quality green spaces and recreational amenities is another key factor to study in order to determine if there are also environmental injustices hindering lower class and people of color. The lack of quality parks and amenities diminishes the desire for people in less privileged areas to use the public green spaces around them. Many of the literatures expressed that non­whites and lower class residents had less access to quality parks

(Burgess et al. 1988, 458; Licari et al. 2005; Sister et al. 2010, 243). Some of the issues included user congestion and less access to recreational amenities, which reduces the potential opportunities for physical activities (Dahmann et al. 2009, 471; Bennet et al. 2012, 210).

Loukaitou­Sideris and Stieglitz performed a case study on Los Angeles Parks and concluded the anxieties around safety caused many children to not spend time in parks (2002, 486). These are all very important issues to consider in determining if inequalities in park services exist. The observational data gathered for our research question will take note of the quality of parks and the amenities provided. Surveys used by some of the literature expressed the clear concern underprivileged people had for the quality of their parks, but also gave the study more purpose because people from a variety of socioeconomic and racial groups agreed parks were highly valuable (Burgess et al. 1988, 458). Surveying park users is a great way to gain insight on parks and their quality for our research. The general consensus from all of these different studies and researchers gives weight to the argument that environmental injustices regarding access to parks exists, but there are also studies that do not entirely agree with these results.

Environmental Justice 14

There is also literature contesting the inequalities related to park accessibility and socioeconomic status. None of these state a relationship does not exist between access to green space and socioeconomic status, but there are a few that conclude the results are inconclusive and the results of their research are the opposite of what they expected. A couple of studies show green spaces to be more accessible in communities with more low­income whites and ethnically mixed residents, while non­white high­income residents had the least access (Abercrombie et al.

2008; Cutts et al. 2009; Jones et al. 2009). “Greenspace Access, Use, and Physical Activity” by

Jones et al. concluded groups of lower economic status had negative views toward physical activity and green spaces, and are thus less likely to use them (2009, 504). “Income and Racial

Disparities in Access to Public Parks and Private Recreation Facilities” by Abercrombie et al.

(2008) and “City Structure, Obesity, and Environmental Justice” by Cutts et al. (2009), although having the same results, had differences in their final statements. While Abercrombie did not mention the quality of the parks studied, Cutts mentioned in his article that considering the quality and safety concerns surrounding the parks in more deprived areas was a key factor he did not consider (Abercrombie et al. 2008, 1320). These results and the missing details mentioned by

Abercrombie are both important facts to consider while studying our research question. We want to make sure we are studying if people have access to quality parks, rather than just any park.

3. Research Methods

We used three main methods for our research. First, we used GIS analyses to determine and characterize the areas we study. Next, after choosing parks to study, we visited each one to obtain observational data in the form of photographs and notes. Finally, we interviewed Tom

Environmental Justice 15

Maglio, a landscape architect in Madison Park Department, to contextualize our observational data.

3.1 GIS for Park Selection

We used ESRI’s ArcMap program to visualize the racial composition, median household income, and property value data for each of the 192 block groups that comprise the city of

Madison. We then identified seven parks out of geographically and demographically diverse areas. The following paragraphs lay out the process behind our park selection.

The first step in our geographical analysis was to gather all the necessary and relevant data layers. First, we contacted Jaime Stoltenberg in the Robinson Map Library to obtain GIS layers for the city of Madison. Jaime provided us with three geodatabases; Dane county municipalities, transportation, and parks. Census data provided by ESRI was gathered from the shared student K drive on the science hall server. See Figure 2 below for primary data layers.

Environmental Justice 16

Figure 2: Screenshot of ArcMap data layers

Unfortunately, we could not find a data package that included median household income and median property value data for Madison at the block group level. As these were crucial data layers, we resorted to manually inputting these values into the attribute table of the census data.

We manually entered three new categories for each of the 192 block groups. These categories were median household income, median house price, and housing units per block group. See

Figure 3 below.

Environmental Justice 17

Figure 3: Screenshot of ArcMap attribute table manual data entry

After gathering and creating all the necessary data layers, we were almost ready to begin our analysis. Just before the analysis, we chose to clip our data layers to the Madison city limits.

Our ESRI census data was for the entire United States and the data we received from Jaime was for the entirety of Dane County. Clipping is an essential data management practice that focuses and streamlines the GIS process by removing extraneous data and areas that are not relevant to the study. After we clipped the data to within the Madison city limits, we had to organize the layers for optimal visualization. Finally, we were ready to choose the parks to study.

The City of Madison Parks Department categorizes each type of park as a community, neighborhood, or mini park. For this study, we chose to focus on community parks because these

Environmental Justice 18

parks are the largest and have the most amenities. Therefore, we opened the parks attribute table and selected parks by their type and community, then created a new data layer of only community parks. In order to choose demographically diverse parks, we looked at the census block groups immediately surrounding each of the parks. This process involved a comparison of each block groups’ racial composition, median house price, and median household income to their respective medians for the entire city of Madison. Comparing the block groups in this manner allowed us to determine if each block group fell above or below the medians. The five maps showing these demographics, seen in Figures 4, 5, and 6, show the racial demographics of

Madison’s block groups. Figures 4 through 8, below, show the median incomes and property values categorized as either above or below the Madison median.

Figure 4: Median black percent of population of block groups above or below Madison median

Environmental Justice 19

Figure 5: Median Hispanic percent of population of block groups above or below Madison median

Figure 6: Median white percent of population of block groups above or below Madison median

Environmental Justice 20

Figure 7: Median house prices of block groups above or below Madison median

Figure 8: Median household income of block groups above or below Madison median

Environmental Justice 21

Keeping in mind that we wanted our selection of parks to be geographically diverse in addition to demographically diverse, we chose seven that were scattered throughout the city. The seven community parks that are located in the most and least racially and economically diverse areas are Brittingham, Elver, James Madison, Olbrich, Olin, North East, and Reindahl parks. Of these seven, three (Brittingham, James Madison, and North East) are in whiter, more affluent areas of the city, three (Olin, Olbrich, Reindahl) are in racially diverse, lower income areas of the city, and one (Elver) falls in the middle. Elver Park is the park used as a constant variable in our research project. It functions to balance the project representing an area that serves both a diverse demographic of citizens yet is located in a high­income area. Figure 9, below, shows these parks and groupings. With our research parks in mind, our next step was to go out and visit each one.

Figure 9: Selected Research Parks

Environmental Justice 22

3.2 Field Observations

While visiting the seven selected research parks, we collected observational data in the form of photographs and notes. For each park, we filled out an amenity checklist and took notes and pictures documenting the condition of each amenity. From this information, we created two spreadsheets (Appendices A and B) which were inspired by the Recreation Facility Evaluation

Tool, used by Canvar et al. (2003). The first spreadsheet is used to organize the data we gathered on the presence or absence of each amenity at each park (see Appendix A). The second spreadsheet classifies each amenity in terms of the quality of its condition (see Appendix B). The purpose of these evaluations is to prevent the comparison of one park’s amenities based on our knowledge of other park’s amenities. Essentially, the evaluation key sets serve as a way to omit any bias (based on our previous knowledge of other park amenities) from the observations. This is important to the nature of our project, and the impartiality depicted in later photograph comparison examples.

3.3 Evaluation: Number of Amenities

The first evaluation set is broken down into a “yes/no” scoring system. If a park has an amenity (“yes”), it receives one point; if the park does not have the amenities (“no”) it does not receive a point (see Figure 10). We apply this process to all evaluated amenities. However, this scoring system only allows us to see which amenities are located at which park. Therefore, we have an additional scoring system for quantifying the amenity quality information that we gathered.

Environmental Justice 23

Figure 10: Scoring key for number of amenities

Amenity Score

Absent 0

Present 1

3.4 Evaluation: Quality of Amenities

We quantify our qualitative data in order to properly evaluate overall park quality. The quality assessment is based on a point system ranging from one to three. This scale assesses quality through these three numbers representing “poor” (one point), “good” (two points), and

“excellent” (three points). A park feature receives a one if it does not have the amenity, deeming it “poor” quality for that specific amenity. In order for a park amenity to receive a “poor” evaluation, the park must not have the amenity at all. The park feature receives a two if the park has the amenity, and is in “good” condition. The park’s amenity could only be scored as a three if it exists and is evaluated as “excellent” (see Figure 11). This scoring system reflects the quality of amenities.

Figure 11: Scoring key for quality of amenities

Condition Score

Poor 1

Good 2

Excellent 3

Environmental Justice 24

3.5 Interview: Contextualizing Our Data

In addition to developing and utilizing GIS data and collecting observational data on parks, it is also imperative to get in contact with those who are directly involved in working, facilitating, and maintaining the parks in Madison on a daily basis. The interview with Tom

Maglio gave us context and enabled us to understand operations that take place in the City of

Madison’s Parks Department in relation to the allocation of amenity maintenance, deferred maintenance, and replacement of parks around the city. The questions we asked Mr. Maglio are listed in Appendix C, at the end of the paper.

4. Results

After gathering, creating, observing, and analyzing our data, we were able to address our initial research question. In order to do this, it is essential to synthesize a multifaceted explanation. This included totaling the number of amenities, the amenity quality scores, statistical calculations, photographic comparisons, and interview contextualization. The details of each of these are laid out in the following paragraphs and figures.

4.1 Number of Amenities

First, we used the simple scoring system described in the methods section to figure out the number of amenities at each park. As previously stated, parks received one point for each amenity. The data set below is a sum of the total amenities that exist at each park (see Figure 12).

According to our data calculations, Brittingham Park has the most amenities available out of all seven parks evaluated.

Environmental Justice 25

Figure 12: Number of amenities at each park

Park Reindahl Olbrich Olin Elver Brittingham JamesMadison North East

Number of 27 34 23 31 36 32 14 Amenities

4.2 Quality of Amenities

Next, based on the “poor, good, and excellent” point amenity quality scoring system, described in the methods section, we found the overall quality score for each park. This information can be seen in Figure 13, below. It is important to note that North East Park, the lowest scoring park, is somewhat exceptional. While it is the largest park, it has the fewest amenities. Most of North East Park is undeveloped land. In the words of Tom Maglio, “We still have farmers that rent the cornfields at North East Open Space”. At one point there was a proposal for a 36 hole golf course there but it never gained traction. Because the park is relatively considered a work­in­progress and lacks amenities, North East brings down the average score of the white, affluent group (red) (as seen in Figure 14) and brings up the issue of differential evaluation of park amenities, which will be further explored in the discussion section.

Figure 13: Amenity quality score at each park

Park Reindahl Olbrich Olin Elver Brittingham James Madison North East

Quality 98 110 93 110 111 99 71 Score

Environmental Justice 26

We then broke down the quality scores for the park groupings into averages in order to compare the number of amenities and amenity quality scores. This can be seen in Figure 14, below.

Figure 14: Number and quality score averages for each group

Park Reindahl, Olin, Olbrich Elver Brittingham, James Madison, North East

Average Number 28 31 27.3 of Amenities

Average Amenity 106.3 110 93.6 Quality Score

The calculated averages show that there is not much difference (0.7) between the average number of amenities between group A and group B. That being said, we did find that group A had an average score 12.7 points higher than group B. The implications of these scores will be discussed later in this paper.

4.3 Photographic Comparisons

Next, we created a series of photographic comparisons. These provide documentation of the variation that exists between the quality of the individual park amenities that we observed.

Environmental Justice 27

Figure 15: Basketball court comparison

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: November 6, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen

Figure 15, pictured above, compares photographs of basketball courts at Elver Park (a) and North East Park (b). The Elver Park basketball court is rated “excellent”, while the North

East Park basketball court is rated “good” in our evaluation.

The picture on the left, Figure 15(a), is an example of an “excellent” basketball court located in Elver Park. This is deemed an “excellent” amenity due to a lack of cracks on the court, missing, fading or chipping paint on the court lines, bumps or air bubbles observed on surface of the courts, in addition to minimal rust on the goal posts and minimal fraying on the nets of the goals. These are the types of aspects to an amenity that need to be taken under consideration for the evaluation process and serves as a good example of an “excellent” quality of an amenity.

The picture on the right, Figure 15(b), is an example of a “good” basketball court located in North East Park. This amenity is deemed “good” because the basketball court is not in the best condition since it has many cracks, grass, and inaccurately spray painted lines according to

Environmental Justice 28

proper basketball regulations. The basketball court at North East Park is not in the best condition but is playable, so it receives a “good” quality evaluation.

Of the parks evaluated in this study, Elver is the park that extends furthest west in the city of Madison. Elver Park represents a diverse demographic in an areas with average median­income households. North East Park is located in a predominately white neighborhood that consists of higher­income households. Relative to this study, North East Park represents the furthest park studied to the North portion of the city. As its name implies, North East Park is located in the North East corner of the city. These two parks are important to compare because of their vast geographic differences within the city. The results of the comparison show that the better basketball court is located at Elver Park, which is located in a more diverse area than

North East Park.

Figure 16: Splash park comparisons

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen Date Taken: November 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey

Environmental Justice 29

Figure 16, pictured above, includes photographs of splash parks at Elver Park (a) and

Reindahl Park (b). In our evaluation, the Elver Park splash park is rated “excellent”, while the

Reindahl Park splash is rated “good.” This evaluation of the splash parks are based purely on physical observations, rather operational function, because they were closed for the season when surveyed.

The splash park located at Elver Park, depicted above in Figure 16(a), is rated as an

“excellent” splash park. This amenity receives an “excellent” rating because its total area is large, which allows for more splash park amenities to be present. Also, the condition of the present amenities are in good shape, the gated area around the splash park goes beyond the cemented splash grounds (further allowing for a large grassy play space), and it is conveniently located next to the Elver Community Park building, where users would have quick access to the amenities in the building, like the bathroom.

The Reindahl splash park, depicted above in Figure 16(b), is rated as a “good” splash park. This particular splash park does not receive an excellent rating because the area is small, amenities are run down, and some comprising structures are not fully intact. As one can see in

Figure 16(b) above, there is a large pole structure with a blue half circle figure on top of it, located on the right side of the frame. A similar structure is located just to the right of this one, but it appears to be dismantled. This splash area was closed when we visited the park in early

September. If access to the splash park were possible during closed montsh, more in­depth observations of the amenity would have been made.

Both Elver Park and Reindahl Park are located in areas of diverse black, white, and hispanic groups. Despite this, the differences between these two parks and their splash park

Environmental Justice 30

amenity is median household income. Elver Park is located in an area of average income households, in contrast with Reindahl park, which is located in an area of lower income neighborhoods. This specific evaluation of splash parks demonstrates that there is a better splash park located in an area of average income.

Figure 17: Boat dock comparison

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen Date Taken: November 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey

Figure 17, shown above, depicts photographs of recreational boat loading docks and fishing docks at Olin Park (a) and James Madison Park (b). The Olin Park dock is rated

“excellent”, while the James Madison dock is rated “good”.

The Olin Park dock receives an excellent rating because the dock is elevated above the water, the boards that compile the dock are level, and there is no missing element to the dock.

This dock is sturdy overall, and serves its purpose to the Olin park users who fish or need to dock their boats.

The James Madison dock is “good” because the dock appears unsuited for use. Figure

17(b) shows part a part of the dock is submerged in water. This makes the dock undesirable for

Environmental Justice 31

fishing spot and as a docking station. Many people would not trust a dock that seems to be sinking. Overall, James Madison’s dock seems unstable and mostly serves as a landing strip for birds.

These parks lie in two different racial demographic areas of the city. James Madison Park serves a white, affluent neighborhood and Olin Park is located in a diverse, low­income area, as shown in our GIS analysis. The recreational boating and fishing dock amenity comparison shows the amenity is in worse shape at James Madison Park than at Olin Park, so the better of the two docks is located in the diverse, low­income neighborhood.

Figure 18: Tree shade comparisons

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey Date Taken: October 20, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen

Figure 18 includes photographs of area space configuration and shade covering at

Reindahl Park (a) and North East Park (b). In our evaluation, Reindahl Park’s shade and tree availability is rated “excellent”, while the North East Park shade and tree availability is rated

“good”.

As seen in Figure 18(a), Reindahl Park has plenty of trees that provide shade to the park users. This abundance of tree and shade availability is the reason that Reindahl received an

Environmental Justice 32

“excellent” evaluation for this category. Trees have benefits to a park environment that include: saving water, shading children from harmful UV rays, and providing a natural climbing amenity.

Many times when parents take their children to parks, they like to sit and watch their children or read a book. This process would be much more desirable if there were trees that could provide these park users with shade.

North East Park had very few trees (see Figure 18(b)). This amenity is deemed “good” and not “excellent” at this select park because of the lack of tree and shade availability found at

North East Park. The trees that were present were little and did not provide shade, mostly shadows with sun shining through.

North East Park is located in a predominately white neighborhood of higher income households. Reindahl Park is located in an area that represents a diverse demographic of white, black, and hispanic populations, and lower income households. The evaluation of these two parks based on socioeconomic data and tree shade area shows that Reindahl Park’s tree shade is of higher quality, once again proving that on an individual amenity basis, the park located in a less affluent, diverse neighborhood has a higher quality amenity.

Environmental Justice 33

Figure 19: Tennis court comparisons

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey Date Taken: November 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey

Figure 19, above, pictures photographs of tennis courts at Reindahl Park (a) and Elver

Park (b). In our evaluation, Reindahl Park’s tennis courts were rated “excellent”, while the Elver tennis courts were rated “good”.

The picture in Figure 19(a), is a picture of four of the eight tennis courts at Reindahl

Park. These courts seem to be very new, with no observed cracks or air bubbles on the court surface. The lines are not faded, the nets all appear to be at the appropriate height, there is plenty of distance from the baseline (the line at the back of the court parallel to the view of the picture in Figure 19(a)) and the fence behind it, there are benches for players to rest between playing time, and the courts have a backboard (a board that a single player can practice shots against).

These contributing factors deem Reindahl’s tennis courts to be of “excellent” quality.

The three tennis courts present at Elver Park, depicted by Figure 19(b), were in decent shape and therefore deemed “good” and not excellent. As one can see in this picture, these tennis courts have lines that are not as visible as they could be, parts of the surface are uneven and have

Environmental Justice 34

tiny divots allowing for water to create puddles after a rain shower. For these reasons, Elver park tennis courts seemed to be a little run down but not in terrible condition.

There is an obvious difference in the racial makeup of the two encompassing neighborhoods of Reindahl Park and Elver Park (see Figures 4, 5, and 6). Both parks occupy areas that are diverse amongst the black, white, and hispanic populations. According to this amenity evaluation, Reindahl has higher quality tennis courts. Again, there are nicer facilities at the Madison park located in a lower reported­income household neighborhood. d

Figure 20: Bike rack comparisons

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey Date Taken: October 20, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen

Figure 20 depicts photographs of bike racks at Olbrich Park (a) and Olin Park (b). In our evaluation, the bike racks at Olbrich Park are rated “good”, while the Olin bike racks are rated

“excellent”.

The bike racks located on the premises of Olbrich Park are rated “good” rather than

“excellent”. All bike racks observed at Olbrich Park are all similar to the one pictured in Figure

Environmental Justice 35

20(a). This rating is given based on structure security, age, and problematic location within the confines of the park. A common characteristic of public bike racks is to have the structure nailed or secured into the ground to avoid instances of theft or to make the rack user feel more comfortable about parking their bike on that particular rack. The Olbrich Park bike racks are not nailed into the ground. Another main issue with these bike racks, seen in Figure 19(a), is that they are not located near the bike path or even the parking lot, which is where most bikers will be coming from. These reasons justify the “good” quality score of the bike racks at Olbrich park.

The bike racks at Olin Park all looked like the ones depicted in Figure 20(b). This park receives an “excellent” rating for bike racks because of the secure structure, the new appearance, and location. These bike racks represent a new model of bike racks that is appearing throughout the city. These racks at Olin Park are safe to use because the structure is bolted into the sidewalk, making it extremely difficult for theft to occur. These racks are easy to use because of the features that emerge out of the rack, which allow for bikers to simply position their bike next to the rack and lock it when parking it. In addition, as one can see in Figure 20(b), the bike racks are located on the edge of the parking lot and on the sidewalk, both convenient locations for bikers.

Locating Olin and Olbrich Park on a map of Madison, one can see there is not a difference in the racial demographics or income between the two neighborhoods that these parks surround (refer to Figures 4­6). Both parks are in diverse, low­income neighborhoods. This amenity evaluation shows a considerable difference between the two bike racks (see Figure 20), exemplifying an amenity quality disparity between parks that are located in demographically similar regions.

Environmental Justice 36

Figure 21: Field comparisons

(a.) (b.)

Date Taken: September 19, 2014; Photographer: Rebecca Bailey Date Taken: October 20, 2014; Photographer: Alexis Clausen

Figure 21, above, pictures the fields at North East Park (a) and Reindahl Park (b). In our evaluation, the field at North East Park is rated “excellent”, but the Reindahl field is rated

“good”.

The field located at North East Park is evaluated as “excellent”. This field received this high rating mostly because of its size. North East Park has the least amount of amenities, as discussed in section 4.2 Quality of Amenities. This is important to take into consideration when evaluating North East Park’s field because it is by far the most extensive feature of the park. The field size is enormous; it could have contained multiple football fields. This is an impressive feature of North East Park.

The fields located at Reindahl Park had a “good” rating because while they were closed, they seemed nice. A picture of this field can be seen in Figure 21(b), in which there is a

Environmental Justice 37

permanent sign stuck in the ground that reads “Field Closed, City of Madison Parks Division.”

This sign placement is situated on each field present at Reindahl. Interestingly, the fields seemed to be in good condition and there were no apparent reasons for any field closing.

North East Park is in a predominantly white, high­income area, but Reindahl Park is located in a racially diverse, low­income part of Madison. The differences between these parks are in terms of racial and socioeconomic data. North East Park, located in a more racially homogeneous and affluent area than Reindahl Park, has a better quality field. This specific relationship is the only out of the evaluated amenity comparisons that depicts a more affluent and less diverse neighborhood with a higher quality amenity.

The overarching theme of the amenity photo comparisons featured in Figures 15­21 shows amenity qualities range from park to park. There is a correlation between park quality and socioeconomic status, revealing the highest quality amenities are found in parks located in either a neighborhood with high median income values or in a neighborhood with a diverse range of white, black, and hispanic people. Further knowledge about how parks are maintained, gleaned from our interview with the Parks Department, provides a closer look into this relationship.

4.4 Interview Implications

We scheduled an interview with Tom Maglio, one of the landscape architects of the

Madison Parks Department, who provided further information about how the Parks Department evaluates the condition of parks. We will quote Mr. Maglio and refer to this interview throughout this section. We learned in our interview how the Parks Department first knows of quality deficiencies within parks. Raising awareness of quality deficiency is necessary for determining

Environmental Justice 38

schedules for maintenance, deferred maintenance, and replacement of amenities. These findings from this interview enable us to understand whether neighborhood demographics are taken into consideration when deciding a new location for a park. Evaluating why certain parks are awarded more amenities than others are and how budgets have affected park maintenance is vital to understanding if there is an environmental justice issue present within local Madison parks. In addition, understanding the important factors for identifying potential locations of parks and how park expansion is determined will help further unpack our research question. The amenity photo comparisons (featured in Figures 15­21) determine that not only does the range of amenity quality differ from park to park, but there are higher quality parks in diverse, low­income areas.

Tom Maglio’s responses to our research question and interview questions can explain the Parks

Department’s point of view on this correlation.

If something needs to be taken care of, the City of Madison Parks Department can be informed by the observations of four actors: maintenance staff, citizen calls, a database, and the landscape architects. It is primarily the maintenance staff that keeps the Parks Department aware of quality issues, because maintenance is out in the parks every day. This becomes an issue because the Parks Department does not have enough staff to maintain the parks. This is why the

Parks Department relies on park users to discover some of the maintenance that needs to be done. If a citizen calls the city Parks Department and tells them something needs to be addressed, the maintenance staff goes right out to do it. “Small repairs and improvements are done on an as needed basis, immediately, if time allows.” For large projects, like if a shelter needs to be majorly renovated or replaced, the park department maintenance staff brings the issue to the landscape architects, noting if it does not make sense to keep investing money into the building

Environmental Justice 39

and might be better to remove or replace it. If the large project cannot be fit into the annual budget, it will be postponed, and the maintenance staff will have to continue repairing the building as needed until it can be fully renovated. Of significance, “the upkeep schedule is almost by facility (or by item) more than by park”.

There are public input meetings for every new park before the amenities put in place are determined. The Parks Department does not change their park design standards for a low­income versus high­income neighborhoods because standardization keeps costs of maintenance down.

For example, the City of Madison only uses five types of playground equipment because they need to keep the parts on hand for their maintenance staff to have access to.

The amenities that are added to a park are mostly determined by a park’s size. There is a list of approved amenities for each of the three park size categories but typically, no parks should have more amenities than others have. The Parks Department tries to make the distribution of amenities fair, but donations by citizens for certain amenities is one exception to this standardization process. The Parks Department has to handle donations on a park­by­park basis to ensure that there is equality between Madison’s parks.

The Parks Department’s ideal service ratio, according to Tom Maglio, is to ensure “there is a park within a certain distance of every home and subdivision”. This is why the parks are sprinkled through the city (as seen in Figure 1). The overall service area goal of parks’ locations within the city of Madison is to have a community park that serves a two­mile radius, a neighborhood park that serves half­mile radius and a mini park that serves a quarter­mile radius.

In the Open Space Plan, the Madison Parks Department has plots picked out for parks for the future. Some of the Madison Park Department’s important criteria for park placement are:

Environmental Justice 40

proximity to the school (considering the possibility to combine open space), retention ponds, topography because there needs to be “buildable land”, and street frontage. These are approved, long­range plans for park building and development. The park locations are planned for far enough out into the future that the demographics for an area are unknown when the planning takes place. Therefore, neighborhood demographics cannot be a determining factor when deciding a location for a new park. Tom Maglio points out that although the plans are very stable, they can be changed because the Parks Department does not want to be closed minded to newer, better ideas. However, the act of actually changing these plans are extremely rare.

4.5 Service Areas

Our interview with the Parks Department led us to return to our initial assumptions about the areas that our parks served. Having the new park service area information we decided reanalyze our park selection. In ArcMap, we created centroids and then buffer zones around each park with size depending on the corresponding park type. We first looked at all of Madison to see whether the distribution of the parks and their service areas covered the entire city. We found that according to the Parks Department defined service areas, every bit of the city has access to a park. This can be seen in Figure 22 below.

Environmental Justice 41

Figure 22: All parks and their corresponding service areas

Next, we focused on the service areas surrounding our seven research parks. This step determined whether the demographics that we assigned to each park actually correspond with the demographics within the service areas that the Parks Department defined. The map depicting the seven parks and their service areas can be found in Figure 23, below. From this map, we discovered that of the seven parks we chose, five had significantly overlapping service areas. The two that scored lowest and highest on our scale, North East and Elver respectively, had the least overlap. We will delve into the in­depth reasoning behind this in our discussion section.

Environmental Justice 42

Figure 23: Seven research community parks with 2 mile service radius areas

5. Discussion

In this section we take an in depth look at two important aspects of our project. First, we explore the implications of the service area information that we learned from our interview with the Parks Department. Second, we will expand upon our results and discuss their relevance to our initial research question.

5.1 The Relevance of Service Areas

As stated in results section 4.5, each type of park has a specific service area defined by the Parks Department. When we returned to ArcMap to create buffer zones visualizing these service areas (Figure 22), we had some important realizations. First, the service area for a

Environmental Justice 43

community park is enormous, and many of our park’s service areas overlapped. This led us to wonder if the sizes and overlap of the service areas complicated our research methods. Upon further analysis, we were able to recognize that the demographic patterns that we initially assigned to each park grouping did not stay the same once extended to the entire service areas.

Our first reaction to this issue was that our research was inherently flawed because our initial park groupings were no longer consistent with the Parks Department definitions. After some further consideration and outside input, we began to wonder if the service area definitions should be taken quite so seriously. We began to see that the sizes of the service areas are somewhat arbitrary and do not have as much bearing on our research as we initially thought.

That being said, our second important realization inferred the service areas have a relevence to our study. We noticed that the parks with the least overlap, North East and Elver, were also the parks with the lowest and highest amenity and quality scores, respectively.

Additionally, the parks with the most mixed scores were located closer to one another and therefore had the most overlapping service areas. For our study, this means that the variation in quality can be attributed to differences in park maintenance requests.

Community parks have a large service radius (2 miles), while mini and neighborhood parks have relatively small ones (½ and ¼ mile) (see Figure 21). With this in mind, we could see that the choice of smaller parks for analysis would have consistently defined the park demographics and the Parks Department’s service areas, thus eliminating the inconsistency we saw with our community parks.

Environmental Justice 44

5.2 What the Results Mean

The results of our study point to a correlation between parks with relatively lower quality amenities and white, higher income areas. This specific correlation is different than our initial assumptions about the relationship between the quality of a public resource and the demographics of those who use it. Nonetheless, we have some educated guesses of possible factors contributing to this correlation. First, it is possible that parks in wealthier areas get less use, because residents of those areas have private, personal access to some of the same amenities that parks provide. For example, a wealthy white family may have a large backyard with a pool and a swingset. That family is likely to use their own amenities before going to the public park, resulting in less wear and tear on the public park’s amenities. At the same time, a hispanic family in a low­income area lives in an apartment complex that has little greenspace. This family will go to the local public park to use the swingset, thus wearing on that resource more. Now, imagine this happens on a large scale, across the entire city of Madison. When park maintenance crews visit the parks in the white family’s neighborhood, they will see that the amenities are of acceptable condition. Then, when they visit the parks in the hispanic family’s neighborhood, they will see that the amenities are of lower quality and will choose to have them replaced or repaired.

In this example, the parks in lower income neighborhoods will have higher quality amenities because they are replaced or repaired more frequently.

A second interpretation of our results concerns the demographics of the city. Overall,

Madison is comprised of an overwhelmingly white population. This lack of diversity became evident to us when we looked at the block group racial breakdown of the city. While some block groups certainly had higher instances of minority groups, all block groups were predominantly

Environmental Justice 45

white (>50%). This implies there may be no correlation between race and park quality due to such low concentration of minorities. Additionally, we were unable to find an inextricable relationship between race and household income or race and house values in Madison. Overall, it is possible that Madison does not have enough diversity to have the statistically significant correlation we expected among race, class, and park quality. Perhaps in a more racially and socioeconomically diverse and segregated city, such as Milwaukee, a different correlation would exist.

6. Limitations

The advantages of this study include its interactive use of qualitative and quantitative data. However, there are several limitations to the present study. First, not all 206 parks located in Madison were visited. Not surprisingly, it would have been impossible to conduct this same research project on all 206 parks in Madison in one semester. However, the inclusion of all 206 parks into this study would allow for more representation of all the park categories: mini, neighborhood, and community. A better representation of the different park sizes would enable a comprehensive look at the city which could more accurately address our research question.

Walkability is an important part of accessibility to any public feature (Neckerman et al.

2009). Most people choose to walk to community parks and enjoy walking in green spaces. If parks are in poor condition, less people will want to go to them, making how they get there unimportant. Walkability is related to both aesthetics and green space, and it decreases with median income (Neckerman et al. 2009). Walkability relates to our study because socioeconomic status might affect accessibility, since some people cannot walk and/or do not have access to

Environmental Justice 46

green space (Neckerman et al. 2009). However, given the time constraints of this research project, we were not able to assess the walkability of all seven parks included in this study.

Gathering the data on the walkability of each of the chosen seven parks is an aspect that may have helped to better answer our research question.

One of the major shortcomings of our project is that our park observations are from one season, autumn. This is a result of Wisconsin’s seasonality and our project’s duration, which was constrained by UW’s fall semester. Our quality assessment from September to early November is not the ideal representation of Madison’s parks, and it left us with little opportunity to evaluate the amenities at certain parks (such as swimming pools). Confined to observations taking place only in the months in the fall and early winter also limits the number of people present at the parks to possibly receive informal feedback, which was an influential factor in our decision to not conduct surveys at the parks. Ideally, we would have liked to spend more time assessing these parks across all the seasons of the calendar year, not just fall and winter. For one, a yearlong project would have allowed more time to develop the project allowing for more detail observations across time and distribution of a survey that would effectively address the communities’ park opinions. For conducting surveys, summer would be the most critical season to be at these parks and approaching the public, because it is most likely peak season for occupation. If we were able to go to these parks all year round, it would have changed our decision to not include a survey in our analysis. Overall, the small sample size our surveys would reach would not be representative enough of the average park user, and the results of the survey would be irrelevant.

Environmental Justice 47

Another limitation of our research involves the scoring system we used for park amenities, the things that draw people to parks. Our scoring system is simple; it treats all types of amenities the same. However, it is important to recognize that all park amenities are not equal.

For example, a drinking fountain simply does not attract as many people as a beach does. For this reason, it may have been better to create a scoring system that took into account the desirability of different types of amenities and scored them accordingly.

In standardizing our quality scoring, we made the assumption that all park amenities had equivalent values. While there are generalizations that can be made about the desirability of different amenities, one must also consider the different values that individual people assign to different amenities. For example, Geoff might love to play basketball and highly value the court at the park across the street from his house. Allison, though, might like to spend her free summer days swimming and so she places a lot of value on the lake she has access to through the park down the street. This illustrates peoples’ individual preferences about park amenities that became a limitation because we could not capture the personal variation in our amenity scoring system.

We were also limited by a few smaller factors. Our ability to employ GIS analysis is limited because of our access to the ideal data sets. Additionally, of our four group members, only one has significant experience using GIS to solve geographically based problems. We acknowledge these cumulative limitations and their impact on our research project.

7. Future Research

After completing our small study, we can consider possible extensions of this research model and related research projects. We believe that the simple amenity quality scoring system is

Environmental Justice 48

comprehensive and works well. For this reason, we would like to apply it to observations of the amenities of all 206 parks across the city of Madison. Additionally, in future research, it would be advantageous to assess another city’s parks and compare those results to the results of a comprehensive assessment of Madison’s parks.

Another iteration of our research project might include a temporal aspect. For example, we might create an assessment of all 206 parks this year and then reassess the parks in the same way a year later. This would allow a revelation of changes that occur at all of the parks in the space of a year. A reiteration would reveal not only the natural wear and tear that each amenity is susceptible to, but also the maintenance that the Parks Department does.

Furthermore, we could gather historical data about neighborhood demographics, and couple that data with property value and park establishment information. This would enable us to examine if displacement has occurred in Madison in response to rising property values. For example, a racially diverse neighborhood might see property values rise due to the addition of a park or other valuable public resource. We learned from our literature review that the creation of parks or improvement of current parks causes property values in the surrounding areas to increase, which often leads to the displacement of low­income people that were living near the park (Wolch et al. 2014, 239). This would be an interesting expansion to our original research concept.

Along with studying the quality degradation of park amenities, the demographics of the surrounding park areas can also be analyzed in the future. This study presumed that high quality parks and amenities are located in areas of higher income and less racially diverse populations.

This idea does not consider possible displacement of people from the creation of parks or

Environmental Justice 49

installation of amenities in low­income and racially diverse areas. A study should be developed to see if the property values and neighborhood demographics near parks change with the creation of new parks or installation of new park amenities to determine if parks cause the displacement of people.

8. Conclusion

Our research topic, questioning the existence of a correlation between the quality of a park and the demographics of the neighborhoods surrounding that park, has been answered by our methodology and analysis. The scoring system shows a correlation between park quality and the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood. Parks in low­income, racially diverse neighborhoods scored slightly higher on the quality scale than parks in high­income and predominantly white areas. Unfortunately, our small sample size and limited research does not allow us to say conclusively that this is the case across the city of Madison.

Environmental Justice 50

Appendix A: Number of Amenities

Reindahl Olbrich North East James Madison Brittingham Olin Elver

GENERAL AMENITIES

Parking Lot 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Trash Bins 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Recycling Bins 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Picnic Area 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

Tables 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Benches 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Indoor Restroom 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Portable Toilet 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Shelter 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

Warming Building 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Air Conditioning 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Drinking Fountain 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Showers 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Refreshment Stand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vending Machines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bike Racks 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Lighting 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

Grills 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

NATURE

Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Pond/Lake/Stream 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

Landscaping (Planted Flowers) 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Wildflowers/Prairie Reservation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Environmental Justice 51

Trails/Pathways/Walkways 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Beach 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

SPORT/RECREATION

Basketball 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Baseball 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Volleyball 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Tennis 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

Disk golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ice rink 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Soccer 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Football 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boating launch 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Fishing dock 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

Walking/hiking trails 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bike trails 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Pool/splash area 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Swing set 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Slide 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Tire swing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Play set 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Jungle gym 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

SURROUNDINGS

In a Neighborhood 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

Crosswalks 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

OTHER

Rentals 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

On­site employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Justice 52

Community Billboards 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

Educational features 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

Handicap accessible 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

TOTALS: 27 34 14 32 36 23 31

Environmental Justice 53

Appendix B: Quality of Amenities

Reindahl Olbrich North East James Madison Brittingham Olin Elver

CLEANLINESS

Graffiti 2 3 3 3 2 3 3

Litter 2 2 1 2 2 3 3

GENERAL AMENITIES

Parking Lot 3 3 1 2 3 2 3

Trash Bins 3 2 1 2 1 3 2

Recycling Bins 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Picnic Area 3 3 1 2 3 2 2

Tables 3 3 1 2 3 2 1

Benches 3 3 1 2 3 2 2

Indoor Restroom 2 3 1 2 3 3 2

Portable Toilet 3 1 1 1 2 1 1

Shelter 3 2 1 1 3 1 2

Warming Building 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Air Conditioning 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Drinking Fountain 2 3 1 2 2 2 2

Showers 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Refreshment Stand 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Vending Machines 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bike Racks 3 2 1 2 2 1 3

Lighting 2 3 1 3 3 1 3

Fireplaces/Grills 1 1 1 2 3 1 1

NATURE

Fields 2 3 2 3 2 3 3

Trees 3 3 2 3 2 2 3

Water bodies 1 3 1 3 3 3 3

Environmental Justice 54

Gardens 1 3 1 1 3 1 1

Landscaping 2 2 1 3 1 1 1

Wildflowers 1 2 1 3 3 1 3

Beach 1 3 1 2 2 2 1

Lifeguard Stand 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

SPORT/RECREATION

Basketball 2 3 2 2 2 1 3

Baseball 1 3 1 1 1 1 3

Volleyball 1 1 1 2 3 1 1

Tennis 3 2 1 1 1 1 3

Disk golf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Golf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ice rink 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Soccer 2 3 1 1 2 1 1

Football 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Boating launch 1 2 1 1 3 3 1

Fishing dock 1 2 1 2 2 3 1

Trails/Paths 3 2 2 2 2 3 3

Bike Trails 3 2 1 2 3 3 2

Pool/Splash Area 2 1 1 1 1 1 3

Swing set 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Slide 3 2 3 2 3 3 3

Tire Swing 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

Play set 2 2 3 2 2 2 3

Jungle Gym 2 1 1 2 3 1 3

SURROUNDINGS

near busy streets 2 2 3 1 1 1 2

proximity to homes 1 2 3 3 2 3 2

crosswalks 1 3 1 3 3 3 3

accessibility

Environmental Justice 55

OTHER

Rentals 1 1 1 3 3 1 1

On­site employee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Size of park

Community Billboards 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Educational features 1 3 2 1 3 1 1

Handicap accessible 3 2 1 2 2 3 2

PARK TOTALS 98 110 71 99 111 93 110

Environmental Justice 56

Appendix C: Privacy Policy Privacy Policy

We are geography majors at the UW­Madison who are working on our senior capstone project entitled “Environmental Justice of Public Park Amenities and Accessibility in Madison, WI.” Your privacy is important to us. Any information provided will be used only for our research project. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to answer a question or to cease participation at any time. We are happy to assign you an alias in our paper, if you so desire. You are welcome to look at our notes. We invite you to attend a free public symposium where we will present our research. The symposium is on Friday, 12 December 2014, beginning at 3:30 pm in 180 Science Hall on the UW­Madison campus. Finally, we are happy to provide you with a digital copy of our final paper. We appreciate your cooperation in helping us gather this information.

Environmental Justice 57

Appendix D: Interview Questions

1. How does the Parks Department evaluate (or prioritize) the condition of a facility or other park amenity for maintenance? Follow up questions: a. for deferred maintenance? b. for replacement?

2. Do upkeep (maintenance, deferred maintenance, replacement) schedules vary by park?

3. Are neighborhood demographics taken into consideration when deciding a new location for a park?

4. What are the most important factors for identifying potential locations for future parks in Madison, WI?

5. Has the City of Madison identified areas for park expansion?

6. Why do some parks have more amenities (for example, both an adult swing set and kiddie swing set, the number of tennis courts or basketball courts or indoor restrooms) than others?

7. How has the current budgetary climate affected park maintenance?

Environmental Justice 58

References Abercrombie, L. C., J. F. Sallis, T. L. Conway, L. D. Frank, B. E. Saelens, and J. E. Chapman.

2008. Income and Racial Disparities in Access to Public Parks and Private Recreation

Facilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34 (1): 9­15.

Apparicio, P., A. Séguin, and D. Naud. 2008. The Quality of the Urban Environment Around

Public Housing Buildings in Montréal: An Objective Approach Based on GIS and

Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Social Indicators Research 86 (3): 355­380.

Bennet, S. A., N. Yiannakoulias, A. M. Williams, and P. Kitchen. Playground Accessibility and

Neighbourhood Social Interaction Among Parents. 2012. Social Indications Research

108 (2): 199­213.

Boone, C. G., G. L. Buckley, M. J. Grove, and C. Sister. Parks and people: An Environmental

Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. 2009. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 99 (4): 767­787.

Burgess, J., and C. M. Harrison, M. Limb. 1988. People, Parks and the Urban Green: A Study of

Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City. Urban Studies 25 (6): 455­73.

Byrne, J., and J. Wolch. 2009. Nature, Race, and Parks: Past Research and Future Directions for

Geographic Research. Progress in Human Geography.

Cavnar M. M., K. A. Kirtland, M. H. Evans, D. K. Wilson, J. E. Williams, G. M. Mixon, K. A.

Henderson. 2003. Recreation Facility Evaluation Instrument. Columbia, South Carolina:

Arnold School of Public Health, Prevention Research Center. Available at

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/recfacilitytool.htm (last accessed 02 November 2014).

Cutts, B. B., K. J. Darby, C. G. Boone, and A. Brewis. 2009. City Structure, Obesity, and

Environmental Justice 59

Environmental Justice: An Integrated Analysis of Physical and Social Barriers to

Walkable Streets and Park Access. Social Science & Medicine 69 (9): 1314­1322.

Dahmann, N., J. Wolch, P. Joassart­Marcelli, K. Reynolds, and M. Jerrett. 2009. The Active

City? Disparities in Provision of Urban Public Recreation Resources. Health & Place 16

(3): 431­45.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. What is Environmental Justice?. Washington, DC:

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ (last accessed 09 October 2014).

Estearooks P. A., R. E. Lee, and N. C. Gyurcsik. 2003. Resources for Physical Activity

Participation: Does Availability and Accessibility Differ By Neighborhood

Socioeconomic Status? Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25 (2): 100­104.

Erkip, Feyzan. 1997. The Distribution of Urban Public Services: The Case of Parks and

Recreational Services in Ankara. Cities 14 (6): 353­361.

Heynen, N., H. A. Perkins, and P. Roy. 2006. The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green

Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing

Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affaires Review 42: 3­25.

Holifield, Ryan. 2001. Defining Environmental Justice And Environmental Racism. Urban

Geography 22 (1): 78­90.

Jensen, R., J. Gatrell, J. Boulton, and B. Harper. 2004. Using Remote Sensing and Geographic

Information Systems to Study Urban Quality of Life and Urban Forest Amenities.

Ecology and Society 9 (5): 5.

Jones, A., M. Hillsdon, and E. Coombes. 2009. Greenspace Access, Use, and Physical Activity:

Environmental Justice 60

Understanding the Effects of Area Deprivation. Preventive Medicine 49 (6): 500­505.

Kwan, M., A. T. Murray, M. E. O’Kelly, and M. Tiefelsdorf. 2003. Recent Advances in

Accessibility Research: Representation, Methodology and Applications. Journal

Geographic Systems 5: 129­138.

Licari, M. J., W. McLean, and T. W. Rice. 2005. The Condition of Community Streets and

Parks: A Comparison of Residential and Non­Residential Evaluations. Public

Administration Review 65 (3): 360­368.

Lofti, S., and M. J. Koohsari. 2009. Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of

Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality between Subjective and Objective Reading of

Place. Social Indicators Research 94 (3): 417­435.

Loukaitou­Sideris, A., and O. Stieglitz. 2002. Children in Los Angeles Parks: A Study of Equity,

Quality and Children’s Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Parks. The Town Planning

Review 73 (4): 467­488.

Low, S., S. Scheld, and D. Taplin. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural

Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Mass, J., R. A. Verheij, P. P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries, and P. Speeuwenberg. 2006. Green

space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health 6

(7): 587­592.

Neckerman, K. M., G. S. Lovasi, S. Davies, M. Purciel, J. Quinn, E. Feder, N. Raghunath, B.

Wasserman, and A. Rundle. 2009. Disparities in Urban Neighborhood Conditions:

Evidence from GIS Measures and Field Observation in New York City. Journal of Public

Health Policy 30: S264­S285.

Environmental Justice 61

Nolen, J. 1910. The Parks and Recreation Facilities in the United States. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 35(2): 1­12.

Parks Division. 2012. City of Madison 2012­2017 Park and Open Space Plan. Online Document.

Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Public Works. Available at

http://www.cityofmadison.com/parks/about/documents/2012­2017AdoptedPOSPSmallFil

eSize.pdf

Pearsall, H., and J. Pierce. 2010. Urban Sustainability and Environmental Justice: Evaluating the

Linkages in Public Planning/policy Discourse. Local Environment 15 (6): 569­580.

Schneider, P. 2014. Study Finds Madison Has High Segregation of Poor For a City Its Size.

Madison, Wisconsin: The Cap Times. Available at

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/pat_schneider/study­finds­madison­has­high­

segregation­of­poor­for­a/article_ba7fe8a4­b386­11e3­8bdf­0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz3Jw

dbzbVh (last accessed 17 November 2014).

Sister, C., J. Wolch, and J. Wilson. 2010. Got Green? Addressing Environmental Justice in Park

Provision. GeoJournal 75: 229­248.

Wolch, J., J. Byrne, and J. Newell. 2014. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental

Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities 'Just Green Enough'. Elsevier 125: 234­44.

Wolch, J., J. P. Wilson, and J. Fehrenbach. 2005. Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An

Equity Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography 26 (1): 4­35.

Environmental Justice 62