Visitors to urban parks in the global South valued parks highly for the multiple benefits they provide but “stark gender and income inequalities” limit access for many city dwellers

Basu, S. ., & Nagendra, H. . (2021). Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 57. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126959

Ecosystems in and around cities provide a variety of services to urban dwellers. Such services are sometimes grouped into four categories: (1) Provisioning services (food, water, raw materials, etc.); (2) Regulating services (air and water purification, waste decomposition, etc.); (3) Cultural services (aesthetics, recreation, etc.); and (4) Supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycle, habitat provision, etc.). Public green spaces, including urban parks, play important roles in making such services available to people living in cities. Related research about who has access to urban parks has generally not included cities of the global South. This study addressed this concern by asking visitors to parks in Hyderabad, India to share their perceptions of and access to ecosystem services.

Individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in four different public green spaces (three large parks and a reserve forest) located in different zones in the city of Hyderabad. Two of these parks charge entry fees; two provide free entry or charge a minimal entry fee. Interviews lasting between 20-25 minutes were conducted with 208 visitors in these four parks. Additional interviews lasting more than an hour were conducted with 23 visitors who agreed to longer interviews. Visitor perceptions were also shared through focus group discussions, at least one of which included children. Three specific research questions guided the interview and focus group discussions: How do visitors perceive benefits that urban parks provide? How accessible are these services to all the sections of the city? How does the imposition of access fees in public parks change the accessibility of the park?

Most respondents valued parks highly for the multiple benefits they provide. Exercise was cited as one of the most common activities performed in the green space. Different forms of recreation (socializing with friends and family, observing nature, watching children play, enjoying solitude, etc.) were also noted. Such activities seemed to play an important role in relation to the visitors' mental health and wellbeing. Parks were visited more by men than by women. Many women cited lack of time and concerns about safety as challenges to visiting parks. Low-income groups cited entry fees as barriers. The two parks located in wealthy and gentrifying neighbourhoods had entry fees and were used almost exclusively by middle class and wealthy visitors. Surveys addressing willingness to pay showed that wealthy visitors approved of entry fees and did not seem to understand that such fees were exclusionary. Low-income visitors, on the other hand, expressed negative views about entry views and cited them as a barrier to using the parks. Restrictions against gathering food and fodder from the parks restricted many visitors from accessing the provisioning services provided by ecosystems. This restriction was more of a concern for low-income groups and served as another barrier to visiting the parks.

Overall results of this study indicate that parks in the global South are valued for the contributions they make to a sense of community and for the mental and physical health benefits they provide. Results also revealed “stark gender and income inequalities” in accessing these benefits.

Research Partner